1 Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. 4 Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. 5 For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, 6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.
7 Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.
The Knot: Frayed (Part 1)
1 Peter 3:1-7
Sermon
by James Merritt
Most every couple that gets married discovers there is good news and there is bad news about getting married. The good news is after the wedding there is the honeymoon. The bad news is after the honeymoon there is the marriage. If your marriage is anything like mine, then you cannot only remember the first fight you ever had with your spouse, but you probably remember it happened a lot quicker than you thought it would. It was like cold water being thrown in your face, because you realize that hardly anybody gets married and lives completely, totally, continuously, happily ever after.
The vast majority of marriages have at least some conflict. Only 16% of couples who are married report little conflict. 22% of married couples say they have a lot of conflict. 60% say they have a moderate amount of conflict. In other words, over 8-out-of-10 marriages report some level of conflict.
That really shouldn’t surprise anybody for one simple reason - no two people are exactly alike. Everybody is different in some way and the greatest differences of all are between men and women. As you know ships and boats are always characterized as being female. Recently, a group of computer scientists, who were all male, announced that computers should also be referred to as “female.” They gave the following reasons:
- No one but the creator understands their internal logic
- The native language they use to communicate with other computers is incomprehensible to everyone else.
- Even your smallest mistakes are stored in long-term memory for later retrievable.
- As soon as you make a commitment to one, you find yourself spending half your paycheck on accessories for it.
However, another group of computer scientists who were all female have given reasons why computers should be referred to as “male.” These were their reasons:
- They have a lot of data, but are still clueless
- They are supposed to help you solve problems, but half the time they are the problem.
- As soon as you commit to one, you realize that if you waited a little longer, you could have obtained a better model.
- In order to get their attention you have to turn them on.
The truth is men and women are different. Differences create conflict. Conflict creates friction. That conflict and friction must be both monitored and managed if a marriage is going to hold.
We are in a series on marriage that we are calling “The Knot”, because when people get married, they “tie the knot.” We said last week that the most important part of a marriage in its beginning stages is that God is the One who ties the knot. God is the One who should bring the man and the woman together and both of them should have God as the number one priority in their life.
Even the most secure knot in the world cannot hold together a rope that is frayed. When a rope becomes frayed, the strands become worn and untangled. When that happens the rope eventually will break. The number one cause of fraying in a rope is friction.
I’ll tell you what I’ve learned about friction in my own marriage. Many times it is not caused by what you do. It is just caused by what you are.
If you are a husband in this room today, perhaps you’ve had a talk with your wife about something like your shopping habits, or how you clean the house or wash the clothes. I don’t mean to say that these are always the domain of the wife, but typically the wife will want these things done in a certain way. Or wives, does your husband cringe when you talk about doing something to your car, or changing landscaping in the yard, or the time you spend watching your favorite sport? Again, not meaning to stereotype, but you can see how your somewhat natural interests as a man or woman, your life experience, the things you gravitate toward, may influence your relationship in marriage.
I can relate to the guy whose wife told him she wanted to bake a cake and he begged her to let him go to the grocery store and get the ingredients. He came home with one carton of eggs, two bags of flour, three boxes of cake mix, four sacks of sugar and five cans of cake frosting. His wife looked up to the ceiling and said, “I never should have numbered the list.”
The truth of the matter is most all of us have conflict in our marriage—just over different things. For many couples it is money. For other couples it is sex. For still other couples it is sports. For a lot of couples it is communication—either too much of it or not enough of it.
The issue is not whether or not your marriage is going to have conflict. The issue is how are you going to respond to it and how are you going to resolve it?
Let me tell you something I’ve learned in decades of being a pastor. Every couple wants their marriage to work out before the wedding, but a lot of couples don’t want to work on the marriage after the wedding. Today, more and more couples choose not to work out their problems, but to walk out of the marriage. I see a lot of men today that want to treat their marriage like a car. They want to drive it until it breaks down and then trade it in for another model.
The One who created marriage and the One who should be tying the knot realized that the rope of marriage does get frayed and that there would be conflict and friction that could cause the rope of matrimony to snap. He also knows there are only two people who ultimately can keep that rope from fraying and snapping and that is the husband and the wife. Just as it takes two to have a marriage, it takes two to hold a marriage together. A disciple that we know was married, because Jesus healed his mother in-law of a fever, named Peter, gives to both a wife and a husband divine advice on how to deal with a frayed relationship [Turn to 1 Peter 3]. As we look at this passage of scripture for the next two weeks you will notice immediately ladies that he talks to the wife first. Not only that, but he talks to the wife most. We are going to spend six verses looking at the wife and only one verse looking at the husband.
Before your blood pressure goes up, Peter is actually paying the wives a compliment. I have learned first hand if you want something done and done right give it to a woman. In every family I’ve ever known, the glue that holds that family together is not the dad, but the mom. It is not the husband, but the wife.
There is another reason as you will see shortly why Peter deals with the wife first and the simple piece of advice he gives to the wives is this Key Take Away: The way to his heart is through your heart. It is all a matter of focus. Ladies you are going to learn that if you will focus on the inside of you in your marriage, God will take care of the outside of you in your marriage. So wives…
I. Focus On How You Respect Your Husband
“Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives.” (1 Peter 3:1, ESV)
There are two things we have to address immediately. First of all is the situation. Paul is referring to a wife who is a believer, but her husband is not. A little known fact about Christianity and the church is that for the most part it has been a movement more of women than of men. Of the Evangelical Christians in America, 53% are women. Some things never change. Back in the day, it was very common for a woman to come to faith in Christ before her husband did or in many cases a woman would become a believer while she was single and then marry an unbeliever. You have the situation where the wife is by default the spiritual leader in the relationship.
The same thing is true today. Think about this. If one parent brings the children to church today and one parent stays home, which parent is more likely to come with the children? The mother. Though it happens occasionally, it is very rare that the man brings the children to church and the wife refuses to come. It is usually the other way around. Paul is dealing with this extreme situation where the wife loves Jesus, trusts God, wants to be a part of the church and the husband is spiritually clueless, if not down right hostile. When you’ve got one partner in love with Jesus and another partner that couldn’t care less you are going to have serious major-league conflict.
You may be thinking, “We are both believers. How does this relate to us?” If a believing wife can live with an unbelieving husband and do so in a way that brings honor to God and hold her marriage together then surely a wife in a relationship with a believing husband can take the same advice and do the same thing. What is his advice?
“Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands.” (1 Peter 3:1, ESV)
Some of you ladies, before you start gathering your belongings and storming out of the building, listen for the next two minutes. The key word there is “likewise.” It literally means “in the same manner.” Peter is obviously referring back to something he had just said.
If you go back to the last few verses of Chapter 2, Peter is talking about how we can be forgiven of all of our sins and receive eternal life, because Jesus subjected Himself to the will of His Father and came to this planet to die on the cross. For those of you out there who think that being in submission to someone is demeaning or out of date or destructive, just remember that if God the Son had not submitted to God the Father, we would all be up the creek without a paddle.
Peter is simply saying to the wife, “If you want to influence your husband for good and if you want to do your part in keeping the knot tied you do it by submitting to his leadership out of respect, following the example of Christ, so that he might see Jesus in your heart. Listen to the verses again.
“Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives,when they see your respectful and pure conduct.” (1 Peter 3:1-2, ESV)
Do you know what Peter is saying here? Actions speak louder than words. They not only speak louder, but they speak longer and they speak later.
Wives, let me tell you something you are going to learn the easy way or the hard way. First, you are not going to change your husband. In fact, that is not even your job. Your job is to let God change you and let God change Him. Secondly, you are not going to nag your husband into anything whether it is becoming a believer, if he is not, or becoming better if he is.
Peter does give us a clue on how God can use us to change our husband.
“When they see your respectful and pure conduct.” (1 Peter 3:2, ESV)
The word “see” literally means to “look into something very keenly.” It would be like today watching an instant replay of a close call in a ball game. In order words, a husband is not influenced by what his wife says, but by what his wife shows. You know this. Men are visual. Women are more emotional. Women are moved by what they hear and men are moved by what they see.
Go back to the honeymoon. Let’s face it. Didn’t most of us have the same experience? What did you wives do? You took your time in the bathroom. You got ready. You were preparing yourself and wanted to make sure you looked your best. What is your husband doing? He is standing outside the bathroom door, tapping his foot, saying, “Come on out. I want to see what I got.”
Peter said that if you will show your husband that you respect him for who he is and that you are willing to submit to his leadership and by your pure behavior show there is no need for him to worry about you ever getting involved with someone else, you can win that husband over to your side without even saying a word. So, first of all focus on how you respect your husband.
II. Focus On How You Relate To Your Husband
Now Peter gives us one of the more interesting and somewhat misunderstood verses in the Bible.
“Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear.” (1 Peter 3:3, ESV)
I personally know people who take this verse and use it to defend the fact that they don’t wear makeup and except for a wedding ring they don’t wear any jewelry. They never get their hair styled and they just look as plain as they possibly can, because they equate plainness with piety. So, some women let themselves go. They love to use this little mantra, “Don’t love me for what I look like. Love me for who I am.” That obviously is true, but on the other hand there is nothing spiritual about walking around looking like an unmade bed all day. One wife was getting ready to get to church, she dolled herself up, and said to her husband, “Do you like my makeup?” He said, “I not only like it, but I appreciate it.”
Indeed, the people who interpret the verse like this are not really consistent, because if you are not supposed to braid your hair or wear gold or jewelry then if you read the rest of the verse women shouldn’t wear clothes either (I better not hear one man say, “Amen!” either.)
No, Peter’s point is simply real beauty is not what is on the outside, but what is on the inside.
There are two kinds of beauty. There is the physical beauty of the body and the spiritual beauty of the heart. I don’t care how much plastic surgery you have. I don’t care how much you exercise. I don’t care how well you take care of yourself. Ultimately for all of us, the physical beauty of the woman and the physical handsomeness of the man fade away.
Somebody put it this way…
Beauty is only skin deep
But ugly goes to the bone.
Beauty simply fades away
But ugly holds its own.
There is an old Arab Proverb that says, “Marriage begins with a prince kissing an angel and ends with a baldheaded man sitting across the table from a fat lady.” The point is the physical does wear off. The sexual sparks don’t fly as often, but that is not where real beauty is anyway.
“But let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious.” (1 Peter 3:4, ESV)
There is a beauty that never fades. There is a beauty that never grows old and is never tarnished by gray hair, false teeth, or a wrinkled face. Weather doesn’t decay it and time doesn’t age it. This is a beauty that gets lovelier and lovelier and is a beauty that looks better, smells nicer, and tastes sweeter with every passing day. It is the beauty of a quiet and gentle spirit that trusts God, walks with God, and radiates the very love of God.
Ladies, the heat that is generated by a quiet and gentile spirit that shows a husband respect and love, tender affection and a submissive spirit can melt the coldest heart.
III. Focus On How You Respond To Your Husband
For those Doubting Debbie’s out there, Peter reaches back into time and gives an example of the kind of woman he was talking about. He shares an ancient beauty secret that goes back thousands and thousands of years, but it is guaranteed to keep every woman beautiful until the day that she dies.
“For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands,as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.” (1 Peter 3:5-6, ESV)
Go back to the Book of Genesis and look up this lady named Sarah. We are told that she was a knockout at 90 years of age! In fact, she was so beautiful that a king, not knowing that she was already married to Abraham tried to take her for his own wife. What made her so beautiful on the outside was the beauty that she had on the inside.
She used makeup. She used things like the cream of commitment and the lipstick of love. She dabbed herself with the perfume of purity.
What got everybody’s attention was again the way she responded to her husband’s leadership with a quiet and gentle spirit with an attitude of submission. Peter goes on to say, “Not fearing anything that is frightening” that is not being afraid of how the husband might respond and not worrying about what the husband might do in return, Sarah was determined to focus on herself knowing that if she would take care of what was on the inside of her marriage, God would take care of what was on the outside of her marriage.
I want to ask both husbands and wives to write down this question and I want you to think about it over the next couple of weeks. I promise you it is one that will get your attention in a hurry. Here is the question, “If I were my spouse, would I want to be married to me?”
Every wedding I have ever done has always been a two-ring ceremony, but that has not always been the case. There are some men, who just out of personal choice, don’t want to wear a wedding ring. Traditionally, a wife has always worn a wedding ring. Interestingly before the fifth century, the ring finger was actually the index finger.
In the fifth century, doctors speculated that it was the third finger known as the “ring finger” that was believed to contain a “vein of love” that led directly to the heart. So, when you look at that ring ladies, just remember the way to a man’s heart is not through his stomach. The way to a man’s heart is through your heart. When you take care of what is on the inside of you in your marriage, God will take care of what is on the outside.
ChristianGlobe Networks, Inc., Collected Sermons, by James Merritt
Overview: In contrast to Paul’s rules for a Christian household (Eph. 5:22–33; Col. 3:18–19), Peter focuses on a situation involving a believing wife and an unbelieving husband. He encourages the wives to consider how their exemplary lives and respectful behavior can play an evangelistic role within their marriage (3:1–2). If they follow the example of other godly women such as Sarah, and prioritize inner beauty rather than outward adornment, they will certainly please the Lord (3:3–6). For those husbands who were believers, Peter advises them to be considerate and understanding toward their wives, so that their own relationship with God would not be hindered (3:7).
Insight: Household Codes · Three passages in the New Testament are commonly referred to as household codes: Ephesians 5:21–6:9…
The Baker Bible Handbook by , Baker Publishing Group, 2016
1 Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. 4 Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. 5 For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, 6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.
7 Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.
The zoom lens now focuses in on another, still more intimate relationship from which Christians were tempted to withdraw because of their new, otherworldly faith: marriage (3:1–7). Should Christian husbands or wives leave their partners if they do not share their faith? Again, some Christians answered yes. But Peter insists that they should not. He devotes more space to wives (3:1–6) because they could more easily be made to suffer from their husbands than vice versa. He eloquently teaches that the greatest beauty is that of character and that the loveliness of Christian character speaks far more powerfully than a hundred sermons. The word “see” in verse 2 is the same as that in 2:12, implying extended observation. The incident in mind in verse 6 is probably that of Genesis 12:11–20, where Sarah submits to some very unkind treatment from her husband, and in that context her beauty is emphasized. Abraham tried the same trick again later (Genesis 20), insisting that Sarah must show her love for him in this improper way, and she again submits. (She calls him “lord” in Gen. 18:12.) The Christian calling is patient submission to suffering within the structures of this world.
What about the Christian husband with the unbelieving wife? Verse 7 summarizes it beautifully. No separation! Even if they cannot share on the deepest spiritual level, they are still together “heirs ... of the gracious gift of life” (i.e., ordinary human existence). The husband must show all the respect and care due to a weaker partner; and in so doing his own bond with the Lord will not be weakened. It is vital to bear in mind the first-century cultural setting of 3:1–7. The normal expectation was that, if the male head of a household changed his religion, the whole household would follow (see Acts 16:31–34). It was strongly against this culture for a wife to change her religion apart from her husband. This helps us to see that Peter is not telling wives to be all-accepting doormats here. They have already stepped out and become different by believing in Christ for themselves. Now they must show that their “rebellion” deepens their love. Similarly, a man becoming a Christian would have a culturally endorsed right to expect his wife to believe too. But in verse 7 Peter remarkably tells Christian husbands not to insist on this. Their wives must have the freedom not to believe! That’s what honoring them demands.
The Baker Illustrated Bible Commentary by Gary M. Burge, Baker Publishing Group, 2016
To Wives
3:1 Peter’s linking phrase in the same way occurs again in verse 7, as he turns to speak to husbands. So the expression is not to be taken as being too significant in itself: in verse 7 there is no question of husbands being admonished to be submissive to their wives. Neither is Peter implying that wives are to be submissive in the way expected of the slaves he has just been addressing (2:18), for the husband/wife relationship is on a different plane. Each wife is instructed to be submissive to her own husband (as the Greek indicates)—that is to say, this is not a general directive to all women to be subject to men, but to each wife to be faithful in conjugal relations solely to her husband. The reference to Sarah in verse 6 has the same sexual implication. The occasion when she is recorded in Scripture as addressing Abraham as “her master” is when she learns that despite their advanced ages, she is to bear him a son. Her submissive response is a laughing “My lord is rather old!” (Gen. 18:12 LXX). Thus both in verse 1 and in verse 5 the meaning of the wife’s submission to her husband concerns the sexual relationship and should not be taken in a more general and oppressive sense.
It is noticeable that much more advice is addressed to wives (six verses) than to husbands (just v. 7), for the former were in far more need of support and guidance in what could be a tricky situation. The position of women in the ancient world was never an easy one. In Roman, Greek, and Jewish cultures women were subject to the authority of their husbands. If a husband were converted to Christ, it automatically followed that he brought his wife into the church as well. But the other way around posed a very different situation. For a wife to become a Christian, while an unsympathetic husband remained a pagan, threatened the stability of the marriage relationship as understood in the ancient world, permeated as it was with pagan religious practices in which a Christian could not engage.
Acute problems, therefore, face Christian wives whose husbands do not believe the word of the gospel message, and Peter seeks to offer such women wise advice. He does not tell them to leave their husbands, any more than Paul does when dealing with the same difficulty (1 Cor. 7:13–16). Peter encourages them to persevere in seeking to win their husbands to Christ. Wives are not to try to achieve this end by preaching at them or by nagging. The situation requires not pressing words but testifying conduct.
3:2 Lives lived in purity and reverence will prove to be an effective missionary instrument (2:12). The purity of which Peter speaks is not the cultic cleanness looked for from OT ritual, but the moral purity and sincerity that result from a wholehearted inward dedication to Jesus Christ and are the consequence of a spiritual life (1 John 3:3).
3:3 The attractive beauty of the Christian wife is not to depend on outward adornment. It is certainly right for every Christian to be neatly dressed: a dowdy, unkempt appearance is no advertisem*nt for a gospel of grace. But Peter has in mind unnecessary extravagances in his reference to braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes.
The apostle is not forbidding Christian women from having hairdos or from wearing ornaments. His language is to be taken as more figurative than literal, since grammatically (by a hendiadys: see Additional Note on 2:25) he means “gold-braided hair,” after the fashionable and extravagant hairstyling of the day among the wealthy, and which amounted to virtually submerging the hair in lavish gold spangles. Surface show aside, elaborate hairdos consumed much time, and Christians had more important matters of the Spirit to which to devote themselves (1:18).
3:4 On the contrary, instead of ostentatious outward show, what really matters is the attractiveness of the inner self: that inward lovely light which shines through the window of the human frame. Even unbelievers are able to recognize this beauty, even if they cannot appreciate its source. It is a beauty which is unfading: there is nothing superficial about it, since it is the fruit of a spiritual life that is ageless, “a beauty that the years cannot wither” (Barclay). Neither is it transient, like all that belongs to the world and its fleeting fashions and fads. This is the inner loveliness that is born of a gentle and quiet spirit, and it is that which counts in God’s eyes as being of real value in setting forward his work—in this instance, of winning unbelieving husbands to faith in Christ.
3:5–6 The advice to wives on how to be truly beautiful is not just some man’s well-meaning opinion. Scripture itself reveals that this is the way it was achieved by the holy women of the past, that is, by those who demonstrated by their lives that they truly belonged to the holy people of God. Such women put their hope in God, and women believing in Christ through their new birth have similarly embraced a living hope (1:3, 21).
The way in which godly OT wives showed that they were submissive to their own husbands is illustrated by the example of Sarah. The occasion on which we are told that Sarah called Abraham her master is when she reveals her incredulity that, despite their advanced years, she was to bear her husband a son (Gen. 18:12 LXX). But her “submission” to Abraham when she called him her master is not to be understood in any slavish fashion—as is made clear by Sarah’s later refusal to allow Hagar and Ishmael to remain in the home, despite her husband’s protests (Gen. 21:10, 12). The term translated master (kyrios, lord) was simply a deferential mode of address, along the lines of our “sir” today. Sarah’s response to Abraham on that occasion was an amused “My lord is rather old!”
Christian women whose obedience matches Sarah’s can claim to be her daughters. By their trust in God they do what is right and so exhibit a spiritual family likeness to one who is included among the outstanding examples of faith (Heb. 11:11; cf. Isa. 51:2; Rom. 4:19; 9:9). Believing women have no reason to give way to fear, when they are threatened, from whatever unbelieving quarter, for in truth they belong to a kingdom not of this world.
Additional Notes
3:1 The NT writers regularly include instruction on Christian family life; on wives specifically, see also Eph. 5:22; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:4.
Submissive: As explained in the commentary, the application here (and also in v. 6) refers to the conjugal relationship. See Horsley, New Documents, vol. 1, p. 36.
Although women generally lacked official status, their influence was well recognized. As Edersheim notes, the rabbis commented on the creation of woman from a rib of Adam: “It is as if Adam had exchanged a pot of earth for a precious jewel.” More caustically, the Jewish wit had it: “God has cursed woman, yet all the world runs after her. He has cursed the ground, yet all the world lives off it.” See Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish Social Life, p. 140.
They may be won over: The Greek verb kerdainein, whenever used in the NT with this meaning, always represents humility as an instrument of conversion. See Daube, New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, pp. 352–54.
Without words: When Augustine’s mother Monica “came to marriageable age, she was given to a husband and served him as her lord, and did all she could to win him to you, speaking of you to him by her deportment, through which you made her beautiful and reverently lovable to her husband … Finally, when her husband was coming to the very end of his earthly life, she won him to you” (Augustine, Confessions 9.9, 22).
3:2 Purity (hagnos, consecrated): The word expresses separation from the world and has sacrificial overtones. See Turner, pp. 82–83.
3:3 Braided hair … gold jewelry: An example of the extravagance that Peter is warning against is the safa of the time, a coiffure with countless gold spangles almost entirely hiding the hair, and glittering and tinkling with every movement of the head. See James Neil, Everyday Life in the Holy Land (London: Church Missions to Jews, 1930), pp. 200–201. Paul has the same thing in mind in 1 Tim. 2:9. Contemporary Roman sculptures show such elaborate coiffures rising several inches above the head. Extravagant female finery was no new source of outraged protest: see Isa. 3:18–24.
Wearing of … fine clothes is lit. “putting on … garments,” but in this context the simple Greek words are obviously intended to suggest elaborate dresses and even perhaps hint at a staff of servants waiting on a fine lady.
3:4 Your inner self is lit. “the hidden person of the heart” (Rom. 7:22; 2 Cor. 4:16; Eph. 3:16).
Unfading here translates aphthartos, imperishable. The same term is used in 1:23 in speaking of the new birth. The inner beauty Peter is commending is a fruit of the new life in Christ.
Gentle (praüs): mild, benevolent, not pushing or insisting on one’s own rights; elsewhere in the NT the term depicts the Christ-character (Matt. 5:5; 11:29; 21:5).
Quiet: the Greek word hēsychios (tranquil, calm) is found only here and in 1 Tim. 2:2.
Of great worth: The same Greek word is used of the very expensive perfume of Mark 14:3, and of the expensive clothes of 1 Tim. 2:9.
In God’s sight: Cf. 1 Sam. 16:7, concerning the divine choice of David, to the surprise of onlookers.
3:5 Holy women: The association of married life and holiness, here made by Peter quite incidentally, is genuinely Jewish. “As a divine institution, marriage is viewed in a twofold light. First, as the means intended for the propagation of the human race. Secondly, as an ideal state for the promotion of sanctity and purity of life.” I. Epstein, Judaism (London: Epworth Press, 1945), p. 54.
Of the past: The unspoken assumption is that the Christian church is a continuation of and heir to the divine revelation in the OT.
Who put their hope in God, that is, by trusting that his promises would be fulfilled.
They were submissive to their own husbands. “A certain wise woman said to her daughter: ‘My child, stand before your husband and minister to him. If you will act as his maiden, he will be your slave, and honor you as his mistress. But if you exalt yourself against him, he will be your master, and you will become vile in his eyes, like one of the maidservants.’” (Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish Social Life, p. 140)
3:6 Sarah, together with Rebekah, Leah, and Rachel, was deemed in Judaism to be one of the four mothers of the chosen people.
Called him her master: A different slant from that usually taken by commentators on the incident in Gen. 18:12 is given in Apostolic Constitutions (6.29): “She honored him inasmuch as she would not call him by his name, but styled him lord, when saying, ‘My lord is old.’” There is another example in 1 Sam. 1:8 LXX, when Hannah answers her husband Elkanah. See E. Nestle, ExpT 10 (1898–99), pp. 282–83.
You are her daughters, says Peter, even if the women he addresses had previously been pagan and not Jewish (Rom. 4:11; Gal. 3:7). In the case of women converted from Judaism, Peter is in effect saying that they truly reveal a spiritual family likeness to Sarah only when they reproduce her character (Rom. 4:12).
Do what is right and do not give way to fear alludes to Prov. 3:25 LXX, where both Proverbs and Peter use the rare Greek verb ptoein, to agitate with alarm (not found elsewhere in the NT).
To Husbands
3:7 Marriage has reciprocal obligations that form the foundation of a loving relationship. Having addressed Christian wives on their responsibilities, Peter now turns to the husbands. For marriage to be described in terms of a mutual partnership may appear unremarkable to modern Western minds, but this Christian teaching broke upon the ancient world as a novelty. Women had few legal rights. We might have assumed that Jewish husbands would have a more enlightened attitude toward marriage in view of centuries of living as the people of God with all their opportunities of revealed truth. Yet in Jewish law a woman was deemed to be a thing. A man owned sheep and cattle—and his wife. She could not leave him, but he could despatch her at a moment’s notice, if he felt so inclined—although a rejected wife did have to be given a divorce certificate, enabling her to remarry.
The teaching of the NT brought about a revolutionary concept of marriage between believers. Now the union involved a new and liberating attitude. While Christian wives were still bidden to be faithful to their spouses, Christian husbands also must now take on obligations toward their wives.
Believing husbands are to be considerate, understanding, and sensitive to their wives’ feelings. They must be courteous in their behavior and treat their wives with respect as the weaker partner. This again sounds unremarkable to Western ears, but it was a revolutionary doctrine in NT times. Even today in the East, as in Bible times, it is nothing unusual to see a man riding on a donkey while his wife trudges along by his side on foot.
Christian husbands and wives share spiritual rights and privileges as equals, for they are alike living stones being built into a spiritual house for God’s service (2:5). They are together heirs … of the gracious gift of life, which in this context is probably not limited to a reference to the eternal life they both have as Christian believers (3:9), but alludes to the more intimate concerns of their own family life.
The reason for this whole new attitude toward the marriage contract between Christian believers is so that nothing will hinder your prayers. Herein lies a spiritual principle which extends beyond the husband/wife relationship. For prayer to reach the throne of God means that those who pray must be right with others (Matt. 5:24; 18:15). In the present verse the specific subject of prayer by husbands and wives may well allude in particular to the procreation of children. But the need for harmony when a couple prays together applies across the board of topics, if such prayers are to achieve their objectives.
Additional Notes
3:7 In the same way is not to be taken as referring to another example of submission (2:13, 18; 3:1), which would be inappropriate in relation to husbands. The phrase is virtually a colorless connective expression for “next on the list.”
As you live with your wives (the Greek verb occurs in the NT only here) is a clause covering a couple’s day-to-day relationship generally, but it has particular reference to sexual intercourse, and this colors the sense of the remainder of the verse.
The revolutionary nature of the NT’s teaching on Christian marriage is highlighted by the Jewish attitude toward divorce. The OT grounds for divorce (Deut. 24:1–4) were couched in terms so general as to require interpretation. In NT days the conservative Jewish school of Shammai restricted legitimate cause for divorce to a wife’s unfaithfulness, but the more liberal school of Hillel extended it to include anything the husband deemed displeasing. See IBD, vol. 2, pp. 957–58.
Considerate is lit. “according to knowledge,” i.e., getting to know her needs and feelings, and acting in a courteous and understanding way as a result; cf. Eph. 5:25; 1 Thess. 4:4.
Treat … with respect (aponemontes timēn, apportioning honor): The verb occurs in the NT only here; cf. Prov. 31:29.
Weaker refers to physical strength, not to intellectual powers, moral courage, or spiritual standards.
Partner is skeuos, vessel, instrument; but the word is to be taken as simply meaning a person (as in Acts 9:15; 2 Tim. 2:21), or a woman in particular (1 Thess. 4:4). The term is not intended to suggest that women are simply tools for men to use! That would be contrary to the spirit of the whole verse.
Hinder: The verb enkoptein, to block, is used of making a road impassable by means of barricades or potholes. The rabbis were keenly aware of the possibility of prayer being hindered. “Whenever you find a dwelling mentioned, Satan becomes active [by the Hebrew word for dwelling the rabbis understood to live in tranquillity]. Wherever you find contentment, Satan brings accusations [so as to disturb it]” (Midrash Rabbah 38.7 on Gen. 11:2).
Your prayers, that is, of both partners praying separately or together (1 Cor. 7:5). “There is a time for intercourse with one’s wife, and a time for abstinence so that one can pray” (T. Naphtali 8.8). A rabbinic saying in our Lord’s day declared: “Prolix prayer prolongs life.” See Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish Social Life, p. 273.
Understanding the Bible Commentary Series by Norman Hillyer, Baker Publishing Group, 2016
Direct Matches
Abram is a well-known biblical character whose life is detailed in Gen. 11:25 25:11. Abram’s name (which means “exalted father”) is changed in Gen. 17:5 to “Abraham,” meaning “father of many nations.”
The narrative account in Genesis details one hundred years of Abraham’s life and moves quickly through the first seventy-five years of events. In just a few verses (11:26–31) we learn that Abram was the son of Terah, the brother of Haran and Nahor, the husband of the barren Sarai (later Sarah), and the uncle of Lot, the son of Haran, who died in Ur of the Chaldees. The plot line marks significant events in Abraham’s life chronologically. He left Harran at the age of 75 (12:4), was 86 when Hagar gave birth to Ishmael (16:16), 99 when the Lord appeared to him (17:17) and when he was circumcised (17:24), 100 when Sarah gave birth to Isaac (21:5), and 175 when he died (25:7). In summary, the biblical narrator paces the reader quickly through the story in such a way as to highlight a twenty-five-year period of Abraham’s life between the ages of 75 and 100.
The NT features Abraham in several significant ways. The intimate connection between God and Abraham is noted in the identification of God as “the God of Abraham” in Acts 7:32 (cf. Exod. 3:6). The NT also celebrates the character of Abraham as a man of faith who received the promise (Gal. 3:9; Heb. 6:15). Abraham is most importantly an example of how one is justified by faith (Rom. 4:1, 12) and an illustration of what it means to walk by faith (James 2:21, 23).
Those who exercise faith in the living God, as did Abraham, are referred to as “children of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7). Regarding the covenant promises made to Abraham in the OT, the NT writers highlight the promises of seed and blessing. According to Paul, the seed of Abraham is ultimately fulfilled in Christ, and those who believe in Christ are the seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:16, 29). In a similar way, those who have Abraham-like faith are blessed (3:9). The blessing imparted to Abraham comes to the Gentiles through the redemption of Christ and is associated with the impartation of the Spirit (3:14).
Both Paul and Peter exhort Christian women to adorn themselves not with “braided hair,” expensive clothes, and fine jewels, but with an inner beauty expressed in good works and spiritual grace (1Tim. 2:910; 1Pet. 3:3–4 NASB, RSV). The terms used here refer not to simple hair weaves, but to the elaborate bejeweled coiffures of upper-class Greco-Roman women. The NIV uses the phrase “elaborate hairstyles,” since the point is not the braids themselves but rather the ostentatious behavior and emphasis on outward beauty.
The Bible contains many references to minerals and metals. Minerals can encompass a wide array of topics, thus the focus here is on valuable minerals such as ornamental stones as well as precious and useful metals.
Copper. References to copper within the Bible are few. Several passages discuss the basic origins of copper, such as the gathering of ore or the smelting process (Deut. 8:9; Job 28:2; Ezek. 22:18, 20; 24:11). Several NT passages acknowledge the presence of minted copper coins as currency (Matt. 10:9; Mark 12:42; Luke 21:2). Pure copper, however, was hard to use, although it could be combined with tin to make the alloy bronze.
Bronze. The first biblical reference to bronze is found in Gen. 4:22, in which we are told that Tubal-Cain forged tools out of bronze and iron. Next, bronze is mentioned in its use in the tabernacle built in the desert. Among the bronze items included were the many bronze clasps and bases for the tent construction (Exod. 26:11, 37; 27:1011, 17–19). The altar and all its utensils were made of, or overlaid with, bronze (27:1–8). God also instructed Moses to make a bronze basin for washing (30:18). Moses also made a snake out of bronze and placed it on top of his staff when the Israelites were struck with an abundance of venomous snakes (Num. 21:9). Samson was bound with shackles of bronze (Judg. 16:21), and Goliath wore armor and carried weapons of bronze (1Sam. 17:5–6). Solomon used an extensive amount of bronze in his building of the temple (2Kings 25:16), and there was bronze in the statue that Daniel dreamed of (Dan. 2:32, 35). Many of the prophets used bronze as a way to discuss something that was to be strong or strengthened by God (Isa. 45:2; Jer. 1:18; Ezek. 40:3).
Iron and steel. One of the earliest references to iron in Scripture is its use by the Canaanites to make chariots (Josh. 17:16, 18). This would have been an early use of the metal in the Iron AgeI period (1200–1000 BC). Also, Goliath’s spear, which was as big as a weaver’s rod, is said to have had a head made of iron (1Sam. 17:7). Elisha’s miracle of making a borrowed ax head float (2Kings 6:6) shows the continued value of the metal. In his latter days, David amassed iron among the goods to give Solomon to use in building the temple (1Chron. 22:14; 29:2); Solomon later used these materials with the help of Huram-Abi (2Chron. 2:13–14). Ezekiel discusses the economic value of iron in the context of trading (Ezek. 27:12, 19), and Daniel uses it as a metaphor for discussing strength (Dan. 2:40–41). The NT recognizes the strength of iron when discussing Christ’s iron scepter (Rev. 2:27; 19:15).
Tin. Tin was initially used mainly to produce the copper alloy bronze. Tin was not used in its pure form until well into the Roman period, and even then seldom by itself. The sources of tin in the ancient world are currently debated. The tin from large deposits in Tarshish in southern Spain (Ezek. 27:12) was available through Phoenician traders. Tin is also found in large deposits in Anatolia, but it is currently unknown whether these deposits had been discovered and used during biblical times. A third option is modern-day Afghanistan. Archaeologists have discovered in modern Turkey the remains of a wrecked ship, dated to around 1350 BC, that was carrying ten tons of copper ingots and about one ton of tin ingots. These ingots possibly originated in the area of modern-day Afghanistan and were bound for the Mediterranean trade routes. Tin is mentioned only four times in Scripture, always within a list of other metals (Num. 31:22; Ezek. 22:18, 20; 27:12).
Lead. Lead was used early in human history, but its applications were few. It would have been mined with copper and silver ore and then extracted as a by-product. The Romans used it for various implements, most notably wine vessels. It is referenced nine times within Scripture, either in a list or in reference to its weight. The only two times it is referenced as an object is when Job mentions a lead writing implement (Job 19:24), and when Zechariah has the vision of a woman sitting in the basket with a lead cover (Zech. 5:7, 8).
Gold and silver. Sought after for much of human history, gold and silver have been worked by humans for their ornamental value. The practical uses of these metals within the biblical setting were constrained mainly to their economic and ornamental value. Gold and silver jewelry were used as a form of payment and were minted into coins during the Greco-Roman era. Gold objects are relatively scarce in archaeological finds, mainly because most gold items would have been part of a large treasury carried off as tribute or plunder. Silver appears in the archaeological record more frequently; a remarkable hoard of silver in lump form was found at Eshtemoa (see 1Sam. 30:26–28). This silver has been dated to the time of the kingdom of Judah, after the northern kingdom of Israel had fallen. The silver in raw lump form was most likely used as a monetary payment, even though it had not yet been minted into coins.
Gold in the ancient world came largely from Egypt and northern Africa. The Bible mentions Havilah as a land of gold (Gen. 2:11), as well as Ophir (1Kings 9:28), but the exact location of both places is unknown. Silver was mined in southern Spain, along with other metals, and brought to the area through sea trading. The Athenians of the Classical period were also known for their vast silver-mining operations.
Silver and gold are mentioned repeatedly in the OT in reference to their uses in trading and their economic value. Most notably, the Israelites asked their Egyptian neighbors to give them gold and silver items just before they left Egypt (Exod. 3:22). The tabernacle was highly ornamented with these two metals, as was the temple built by Solomon. It is said that Solomon made the nation so wealthy that silver was considered as plentiful as stone (1Kings 10:27). Perhaps the most notorious articles of silver within Scripture are those paid to Judas for his betrayal of Jesus (Matt. 26:15).
Precious stones. Stones of various origins were used in and around Palestine. The Bible makes few references to their use. Like gold and silver, they were used mainly for their ornamental value. Their scarcity made them highly prized. One notable exception is turquoise. The Egyptian pharaohs were fascinated with turquoise, and they mined extensively for it on the Sinai Peninsula. The remains of several turquoise mines have been found with Canaanite markings, indicating the presence of Canaanite slaves working the Egyptian mines. There was also a line of forts along the northern edge of the Egyptian Empire, used presumably to protect the pharaohs’ turquoise interests. Precious stones were also found in Syria, where Phoenician traders would have been able to bring them from other parts of the known world.
Exodus 28:17–21 describes twelve stones set in the breastpiece worn by the Israelite high priest. Twelve stones likewise appear in the foundations of the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:19–20). Ezekiel uses nine of these same twelve stones to discuss the adornment of the king of Tyre (Ezek. 28:13).
The Bible uses the blanket term “precious stones” to denote a hoard of riches, such as that owned by Solomon (1Kings 10:10).
Grace is the nucleus, the critical core element, of the redemptive and sanctifying work of the triune God detailed throughout the entire canon of Scripture. The variegated expressions of grace are rooted in the person and work of God, so that his graciousness and favor effectively demonstrated in every aspect of the created realm glorify him as they are shared and enjoyed with one another.
The biblical terminology informing an understanding of grace defines it as a gift or a favorable reaction or disposition toward someone. Grace is generosity, thanks, and good will between humans and from God to humans. Divine expressions of grace are loving, merciful, and effective. The biblical texts provide a context for a more robust understanding of divine gift. The overall redemptive-historical context of grace is the desire of the eternal God to bring glory to himself through a grace-based relationship with his creation. The Creator-Redeemer gives grace, and the recipients of grace give him glory.
Physiologically, the heart is an organ in the body, and in the Bible it is also used in a number of metaphors.
Metaphorically, the heart refers to the mind, the will, the seat of emotions, or even the whole person. It also refers to the center of something or its inner part. These metaphors come from the heart’s importance and location.
Mind. The heart refers to the mind, but not the brain, and in these cases does not involve human physiology. It is a metaphor, and while the neurophysiology of the heart may be interesting in its own right, it has no bearing on this use of language. Deuteronomy 6:5 issues the command to love God with all one’s heart, soul, and strength. When the command is repeated in the Gospels, it occurs in three variations (Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27). Common to all three is the addition of the word “mind.” The Gospel writers want to be sure that the audience hears Jesus adding “mind,” but this addition is based on the fact that the meaning of the Hebrew word for “heart” includes the mind.
The mental activities of the metaphorical heart are abundant. The heart is where a person thinks (Gen. 6:5; Deut. 7:17; 1Chron. 29:18; Rev. 18:7), where a person comprehends and has understanding (1Kings 3:9; Job 17:4; Ps. 49:3; Prov. 14:13; Matt. 13:15). The heart makes plans and has intentions (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Prov. 20:5; 1Chron. 29:18; Jer. 23:20). One believes with the heart (Luke 24:25; Acts 8:37; Rom. 10:9). The heart is the site of wisdom, discernment, and skill (Exod. 35:34; 36:2; 1Kings 3:9; 10:24). The heart is the place of memory (Deut. 4:9; Ps. 119:11). The heart plays the role of conscience (2Sam. 24:10; 1John 3:2021).
It is often worth the effort to substitute “mind” for “heart” when reading the Bible in order to grasp the mental dimension. For example, after telling the Israelites to love God with all their heart, Moses says, “These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts” (Deut. 6:6). Reading it instead as “be on your mind” changes our perspective, and in this case the idiom “on your mind” is clearer and more accurate. The following verses instruct parents to talk to their children throughout the day about God’s words. In order for parents to do this, God’s requirements and deeds need to be constantly on their minds, out of their love for him. Similarly, love for God and loyalty are expressed by meditation on and determination to obey his law (Ps. 119:11, 112). The law is not merely a list of rules; it is also a repository of a worldview in which the Lord is the only God. To live consistently with this truth requires careful, reflective thought.
Emotions and attitude. The heart, as the seat of emotion, is associated with a number of feelings and sentiments, such as gladness (Exod. 4:14; Acts 2:26), hatred (Lev. 19:17), pride (Deut. 8:14), resentment (Deut. 15:10), dread (Deut. 28:67), sympathy (Judg. 5:9), love (Judg. 16:15), sadness (1Sam. 1:8; John 16:6), and jealousy and ambition (James 3:14). The heart is also the frame of reference for attitudes such as willingness, courage, and desire.
Holiness is an attribute of God and of all that is fit for association with him. God alone is intrinsically holy (Rev. 15:4). God the Father is holy (John 17:11), as is the Son (Acts 3:14), while “Holy” is the characteristic designation of God’s Spirit (Ps. 51:11; Matt. 1:18). God’s name is holy (Luke 1:49), as are his arm (Ps. 98:1), ways (Ps. 77:13), and words (Ps. 105:42).
With reference to God himself, holiness may indicate something like his uniqueness, and it is associated with attributes such as his glory (Isa. 6:3), righteousness (Isa. 5:16), and jealousy—that is, his proper concern for his reputation (Josh. 24:19).
God’s dwelling place is in heaven (Ps. 20:6), and “holy” functions in some contexts as a virtual equivalent for heavenly (11:4). God’s throne is holy (47:8), and the angels who surround it are “holy ones” (89:5; cf. Mark 8:38).
A corollary of God’s holiness is that he must be treated as holy (Lev. 22:32)—that is, honored (Lev. 10:3), worshiped (Ps. 96:9), and feared (Isa. 8:13).
While “holy” is sometimes said to mean “set apart,” this does not appear to be its core meaning, though it is an associated notion (Lev. 20:26; Heb. 7:26). Holiness, as applied to people and things, is a relational concept. They are (explicitly or implicitly) holy “to the Lord” (Exod. 28:36), never “from” something.
The symbolic representation of God’s heavenly palace, the tabernacle (Exod. 40:9), and later the temple (1Chron. 29:3), and everything associated with them, are holy and the means whereby God’s people in the OT may symbolically be brought near to God. For God to share his presence with anything or anyone else, these too must be holy (Lev. 11:4445; Heb. 12:14).
The OT system of worship involved the distinction between unclean and clean, and between common and holy, and the means of effecting a transition to a state of cleanness or holiness (Lev. 10:10). People, places, and items may be made holy by a process of consecration or sanctification, whether simply by God’s purifying presence (Exod. 3:5) or by ritual acts (Exod. 19:10; 29:36).
God’s faithful people are described as holy (Exod. 19:6; 1Pet. 2:9). In the OT, this is true of the whole people of God at one level, and of particular individuals at another. Thus, kings (Ps. 16:10), prophets (2Kings 4:9), and in particular priests (Lev. 21:7) are declared to be holy. While the OT witnesses to some tension between the collective holiness of Israel and the particular holiness of its designated leaders (Num. 16:3), the latter were intended to act as models and facilitators of Israel’s holiness.
At times simply indicating a wish (2Cor. 11:1), in the Bible the word “hope” most often designates a disposition of soul, the grounds for one’s hope, or the outcome for which one hopes. At its core, biblical hope is hope in God, rooted in God’s covenant faithfulness (Ps. 62:58; Jer. 14:8; 17:13; Rom. 4:18; 5:1–5). Hope trusts God in the present and lives even now on the strength of God’s future accomplishments (Gal. 5:5; Heb. 11:1).
In the NT, hope is closely associated with Christ and his saving work. Christians now live by hope in Christ (Eph. 1:12; 1Pet. 1:3; 3:15); indeed, he is “Christ Jesus our hope” (1Tim. 1:1), and his future appearing is “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). Thus, hope refers to eschatological glory (2Cor. 3:11–12; Eph. 1:18). It is “the hope of the resurrection” (Acts 23:6; cf. 24:15; 26:6–9), our transformation into Christ’s likeness (1John 3:1–3). That expectation stimulates various hopes for God’s plans to be realized in one’s own or others’ lives (1Cor. 9:10, 13; Phil. 2:19, 23; 2Tim. 2:25; 2John 12). So hope is named repeatedly as an essential Christian attribute (Rom. 12:12; 15:4, 13; 1Cor. 13:13).
The property or state of not being subject to decay or deterioration, and thus heavenly. “Imperishability” (Gk. aphtharsia) and immortality are closely linked; note that the Greek adjective for “imperishable,” aphthartos, can be translated “immortal” (e.g., Rom. 1:23). Often the Bible contrasts the imperishable with the perishable. Thus, Paul contrasts the perishable earthly body with the imperishable resurrection body (1Cor. 15:42, 5055) and an imperishable reward with a perishable reward (1Cor. 9:25 NRSV, NET). Peter explains that the believer’s new birth is “not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God” (1Pet. 1:23).
The concepts of purity and purification are largely unfamiliar to modern Western readers of the Bible. These terms often appear in cultic contexts and are used to refer to physical, ritual, and ethical purity. They are most frequently applied to the process needed to restore someone to a state of purity so that he or she could participate in ritual activities once again (Lev. 22:47). These terms are cultural and theological, serving to constrain actions and behaviors through definite boundaries; thus, in their ancient use they have little to do with modern notions of hygiene (e.g., diseases that may be caught from a pig [Lev. 13]; the medical advantages of washing [Lev. 15]; quarantining a leper [Lev. 13]). Although some have attempted to relate the rules of purity to simple physical events, such modern medical rationale cannot account for the range of prohibitions or find explicit support in the text.
In the NT, the idea of ceremonial purity as an important element in Jewish life appears in John 11:55; Acts 21:23; 24:18. But just as in the prophets, the notion of purity is applied to a life lived in wholehearted devotion to God. An individual is purified when obeying the truth (1Pet. 1:22). James describes repentance in terms of purity: “Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded” (James 4:8); and he describes helping those in distress as the kind of genuine piety that “God our Father accepts as pure and faultless” (James 1:27).
Closely related to honor and respect and often translating the Hebrew and Greek words for “fear,” reverence is directed primarily toward the sacred or divine, such as God’s sanctuary (Lev. 19:30; 26:2), the temple (Ps. 5:7), God’s name (Rev. 11:18), God himself (Dan. 6:26; Mal. 2:5), and his messengers, the angel of the Lord (Josh. 5:14), and Peter (Acts 10:25). Reverence for God motivates behavior that honors him, such as just governance (Neh. 5:15), mutual submission (Eph. 5:21), purity (2Cor. 7:1), and obedience (Col. 3:22). It is an attitude of acceptable worship (Heb. 12:28), connected with humility (Jer. 44:10), which may win over unbelievers (1Pet. 3:2).
The wife of Abraham, the father of Israel and God’s chosen people. Thus, Sarah is a matriarch (mother) of Israel along with Rebekah and Rachel.
According to Gen. 11:2930, Sarai was married to Abram before they entered the promised land. The passage also announces that she was barren. Since an essential part of the divine promises to Abram is that he will be father to a great nation, the lack of offspring is a considerable problem and propels much of the plot of the narrative (esp. Gen. 12–26).
In brief, Sarai’s inability to conceive is an obstacle to the fulfillment of the promise and is a threat to Abram’s faith. Thus, when a famine forces them to go to Egypt to survive, he tells his wife to lie about her status by saying that she is his sister. Although it is true that she is his half sister, the statement is a lie because he hides the most relevant part of his relationship with her and puts the matriarch in danger (Gen. 12:10–20; 20:12). Abraham’s faith (the narrative does not reveal Sarah’s thinking except perhaps in Gen. 18:10–15, when she laughs at the thought of giving birth in her old age) in God’s ability to fulfill the promise fluctuates, and he certainly has not come to a consistent position of trust even just before the birth of Isaac (Gen. 20). As a matter of fact, acting on fear and trying to produce an heir, Abraham takes a concubine, Hagar, who gives birth to Ishmael. Sarah’s relationship with Hagar is troubled (Gen. 16), and Sarah treats her harshly and eventually has Hagar and Ishmael expelled from their camp (21:8–21).
Eventually, in advanced old age, Sarah gives birth to Isaac, the child of the promise (Gen. 21:1–7). Sarah is not mentioned in the story of the “binding of Isaac,” the focus again being on Abraham’s faith.
Later OT literature often looks back on Abraham as patriarch, but only Isa. 51:2 explicitly mentions Sarah in the role of cofounder of the people of God. She is mentioned also in the NT, along with Abraham, as the one through whom God brings the promise of a son to fulfillment (Rom. 4:19; 9:9; Heb. 11:11). In 1Pet. 3:6 Sarah is put forward as a model of wifely submission because she obeys Abraham and refers to him as her lord (likely a reference to the Greek version of Gen. 18:12).
When God creates humans, he pronounces them “very good/beautiful” (Gen. 1:31). They are designed to be magnificent visual displays of God’s character (1:2627). Human sexuality originally is set in a context of overwhelming beauty. God’s first command is to reproduce and extend this paradise throughout the earth (1:28). Human sexuality is not simply a mechanism for reproduction. From the outset it has been about completion, without which there is loneliness (2:18).
Although the Bible does not define the distinctives of masculinity and femininity in any detail, it does defend that there are distinctions between the genders. Behaviors that confuse the genders are explicitly condemned (Deut. 22:5; 1Cor. 6:9; 11:4–16).
hom*osexual intercourse (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:24–27; 1Cor. 6:9; 1Tim. 1:10) and intercourse with an animal (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 18:23; 20:15–16; Deut. 27:21) are violations of God’s created order.
Although damaged by sin, marriage continues to be the ultimate human relationship involving intimacy, privacy, and liberty. Marriage is defined by a covenant—a contract witnessed and enforceable, not just a promise made in private. The couple separate from their parents to become “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24).
Once the marriage contract is agreed upon, the couple are married. They cannot consummate the marriage until the economic commitments of the contract have been delivered (Matt. 1:18; 25:1–13). This is celebrated with a feast. Jesus uses this custom as an analogy for his departure and return (John 14:1–3).
Paul commands husbands to love their wives (Eph. 5:25–33; cf. Gen. 24:67; 29:20; 1Sam. 1:5; Eccles. 9:9; Song 8:6–7). Nowhere in the Bible is a wife commanded to love her husband, though older women should teach younger women to do so (Titus 2:3–4). Love is the husband’s responsibility. Love is a command that can be obeyed, not just a pleasurable feeling over which one has no control. The model of husbandly love is Jesus laying down his life for his people.
The ecstasy of making love is celebrated in the erotic Song of Songs, which holds out the hope of such marital delight even now. The axiom of marriage is a righteous jealousy (cf. Exod. 20:5; 34:14; Num. 5:14, 30; Prov. 6:34).
The first year of marriage is especially important and is protected by exemption from military service (Deut. 20:7; 24:5).
When a man dies without a male heir, his widow’s possession of that part of the family estate can result in her marrying a man from another family and so alienating that land. This can be resolved either by the injustice of eviction or by the device of levirate marriage. The nearest male relative of the deceased husband marries the widow, and their son then inherits the deceased husband’s name and title to the land (Deut. 25:5–10; cf. Gen. 38; Ruth).
Concubines are wives from poor families, slaves, or captives, and their marriages are protected (Exod. 21:7–9; Deut. 21:11–14).
Rape of a married woman constitutes adultery by the rapist, not the victim. Consensual sex with a married woman is adultery by both parties. Rape of a single woman is treated as fornication, with no blame attached to the woman. Her father has the option of letting her marry the man or receiving significant financial compensation (Exod. 22:16–17; Deut. 22:23–27). Her father has the right to take the money and refuse the marriage. To falsely accuse a woman of adultery is a crime (Deut. 22:13–21).
Prostitution is an extreme form of adultery or fornication and totally forbidden (Lev. 19:29; Deut. 23:17). Under the new covenant, this warning is heightened by the reality of the gift of the Holy Spirit transforming each believer into the temple of the Lord (1Cor. 6:15–20).
Originally, marriage between siblings is implied (Gen. 4:17, 26; 5:4). Abram married his half sister, Sarai (Gen. 20:12; cf. Gen. 11:29; Num. 26:59). The Mosaic covenant at Sinai bans marriage to blood relationships closer than first cousins and to in-laws (Lev. 18:6–30; cf. 2Sam. 13; 1Cor. 5:1).
Polygamy occurs soon after the fall (Gen. 4:19–24). It is never explicitly forbidden in the Bible, but it is managed by OT law so as to restrain further injustice and damage. It is always seen as less than satisfactory (cf. Gen. 29–30; 1Sam. 1:6; 2Sam. 13; 1Kings 1–2; 11). In the NT, monogamy is mandatory for those who would lead the church (1Tim. 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6).
In the world of the Bible, a person was viewed as a unity of being with the pervading breath and thus imprint of the loving and holy God. The divine-human relationship consequently is portrayed in the Bible as predominantly spiritual in nature. God is spirit, and humankind may communicate with him in the spiritual realm. The ancients believed in an invisible world of spirits that held most, if not all, reasons for natural events and human actions in the visible world.
The OT writers used the common Hebrew word ruakh (“wind” or “breath”) to describe force and even life from the God of the universe. In its most revealing first instance, God’s ruakh hovered above the waters of the uncreated world (Gen. 1:2). In the next chapter of Genesis a companion word, neshamah (“breath”), is used as God breathed into Adam’s nostrils “the breath of life” (2:7). God thus breathed his own image into the first human being. Humankind’s moral obligations in the remainder of the Bible rest on this breathing act of God.
The OT authors often employ ruakh simply to denote air in motion or breath from a person’s mouth. However, special instances of the use of ruakh include references to the very life of a person (Gen. 7:22; Ps. 104:29), an attitude or emotion (Gen. 41:8; Num. 14:24; Ps. 77:3), the negative traits of pride or temper (Ps. 76:12), a generally good disposition (Prov. 11:13; 18:14), the seat of conversion (Ezek. 18:31; 36:26), and determination given by God (2Chron. 36:22; Hag. 1:14).
The NT authors used the Greek term pneuma to convey the concept of spirit. In the world of the NT, the human spirit was understood as the divine part of human reality as distinct from the material realm. The spirit appears conscious and capable of rejoicing (Luke 1:47). Jesus was described by Luke as growing and becoming “strong in spirit” (1:80). In “spirit” Jesus “knew” what certain teachers of the law were thinking in their hearts (Mark 2:8). Likewise, Jesus “was deeply moved in spirit and troubled” at the sickness of a loved one (John 11:33). At the end of his life, Jesus gave up his spirit (John 19:30).
According to Jesus, the spirit is the place of God’s new covenant work of conversion and worship (John 3:5; 4:24). He declared the human spirit’s dependence on God and ascribed great virtue to those people who were “poor in spirit” (Matt. 5:3).
Human beings who were possessed by an evil spirit were devalued in Mediterranean society. In various places in the Synoptic Gospels and the book of Acts, either Jesus or the disciples were involved in exorcisms of such spirits (Matt. 8:2833; Mark 1:21–28; 7:24–30; 9:14–29; 5:1–20; 9:17–29; Luke 8:26–33; 9:37–42; Acts 5:16).
The apostle Paul pointed to the spirit as the seat of conversion (Rom. 7:6; 1Cor. 5:5). He described believers as facing a struggle between flesh and spirit in regard to living a sanctified life (Rom. 8:2–17; Gal. 5:16–17). A contradiction seems apparent in Pauline thinking as he appears to embrace Greek dualistic understanding of body (flesh) and spirit while likewise commanding that “spirit, soul and body be kept blameless” (1Thess. 5:23). However, the Christian struggle between flesh and Spirit (the Holy Spirit) centers around the believer’s body being dead because of sin but the spirit being alive because of the crucified and resurrected Christ (Rom. 8:10). Believers therefore are encouraged to lead a holistic life, lived in the Spirit.
In the Bible, woman is first encountered along with man in Gen. 1:2628. God created “man” in the plural, male and female, and commanded them to reproduce and to fill the earth and subdue it. Being created male and female is set in parallel to being created in the image of God. In the ancient Near East, perhaps the king would be thought of as the image of God. But in Genesis, not only is the first man the image of God, but the first woman participates in the image as well. This is all but unthinkable in the ancient world, and it suggests an unparalleled dignity and worth in womankind.
Genesis records that the human race fell through the instrumentality of a man, a woman, and the serpent. The serpent approached the woman, not the man. The woman was convinced by the serpent and ate the forbidden fruit. She gave some to her husband, who also ate it without saying a word. Thus, the woman can be blamed in part for the fall of the race. Adam was condemned because he “listened to [his] wife” (Gen. 3:17). Her judgment, for heeding the serpent, was pain in childbirth and a desire for her husband, who would rule over her (Gen. 3:16). The exact parameters of this judgment are unclear, but it appears that her desire will be for his position of leadership and will be perpetually frustrated.
Often in the Bible, women are motivated by their desire to have children. Rachel demanded of Jacob, “Give me children, or I’ll die!” (Gen. 30:1). She saw herself in competition with her sister, Leah, in this respect (30:8). The “fruit of the womb” is a reward, and like arrows, the blessed man’s quiver is full of them (Ps. 127:1–5). Note also the beatitude of Ps. 128:3: “Your wife will be like a fruitful vine within your house; your children will be like olive shoots around your table.”
In Genesis, the reproductive capability of slave girls is at the disposal of their owners. Thus, Rachel and Leah’s maidservants became surrogate mothers for a number of their sons (Gen. 30:3–10). Sarah also became frustrated at her inability to conceive, so she gave Hagar to Abraham. The result was great familial turmoil, finally resulting in the banishment of both Hagar and Ishmael, whom she bore to Abraham.
In the beginning, God joined one man and one woman together as husband and wife. But soon this idea was corrupted, and Lamech, a man from Cain’s lineage, is credited with the first polygamous marriage (Gen. 4:19). Although the patriarchs (such as Jacob) did have more than one wife, the household discontent and strife are what is highlighted in those stories, such as with Hagar. In the NT, an elder is to be, literally, a “one-woman man” (1Tim. 3:2; ESV, KJV: “the husband of one wife”), meaning monogamous.
The Torah contains significant legislation regarding women. The daughters of Zelophehad argued that their father died without sons, so in Canaan they were disinherited. God agreed and decreed that in Israel daughters would inherit land in the absence of sons. Only if there were no children at all would the land pass to other kin (Num. 27:1–11).
When a man made a vow, he must fulfill it, but a young woman’s vow was subject to her father. If he remained silent, the vow stood, but if he expressed disapproval, then she was freed from it. If she was married, her husband governed her vows, but if she was divorced, then there was no responsible male over her, and her vow was treated as a man’s (Num. 30:1–16).
Sexual intercourse was also regulated in the law of Moses, insofar as the act rendered both parties ritually impure (Lev. 15:18). Both must bathe and were unclean until evening. A woman’s menstrual discharge also made her unclean for a week. Everything she sat or lay upon was unclean, as was anyone who touched these things. She must wash and offer sacrifice to become clean again (15:18–31).
If a man discovered on his wedding night that his bride was not a virgin, he could accuse her publicly. If her parents provided evidence that she had in fact been a virgin, then the man was severely punished for lying and not allowed to divorce her (otherwise, it was simply a matter of writing a letter to divorce her [Deut. 24:1]). If her virginity could not be proved, she was to be put to death by stoning (Deut. 22:13–21).
In the case of a rape of a betrothed virgin, if it occurred in the city, both the rapist and the victim were stoned, since apparently she had failed to cry out for help and thus, the law assumed, consented to sexual intercourse. If she was raped in the countryside, only the man was killed. But if he raped a woman who was not spoken for, his punishment was that he must marry her without possibility of divorce (Deut. 22:23–29).
Numbers 5:11–31 treats cases where a husband was suspicious that his wife had been unfaithful—that is, a matter of covenantal jealousy. The unprovable was left to God to punish.
In the Bible, women sometimes are afforded dignity beyond what is expected in an ancient Near Eastern provenance. Hagar is the only woman in all ancient Near Eastern literature who gave a name to a deity (Gen. 16:13). In Judg. 4:4, Deborah “judged” Israel (despite the NIV’s “leading,” the underlying Hebrew verb indicates “judging,” as in the NRSV). Even as judge, however, she did not lead the army against the enemy general Sisera; Barak did so. But Barak was unwilling to undertake this mission unless Deborah went with him (4:8). Thus, God ensured that the prestige of killing Sisera went to a woman, Jael (4:9, 21). Another prominent woman was Huldah, to whom the priests turned for guidance when the law was rediscovered (2Kings 22:14).
Many biblical stories feature heroines. Mighty Pharaoh was undermined by two midwives in his attempt to destroy Israel (Exod. 1:15–21). Ruth the Moabite woman gave her name to the book that recounts her trek from Moab to Israel, including her famous oath of loyalty (Ruth 1:16–17). Esther too was a courageous woman whose book bears her name. Heroines are especially prominent in the Gospels, and the women there have the distinction of being the first to witness the risen Lord. Luke’s birth narrative is largely organized around Mary. Priscilla (with her husband) taught and helped to shape the early church (Acts 18:26). Paul lists many women in Rom. 16, calling them “deaconess,” “fellow worker,” and possibly even “apostle.”
Scripture also at times portrays various women as being temptations to men. Eve handed the fruit to Adam (Gen. 3:6). In the wilderness Israel worshiped Moabite gods in conjunction with sexual activity (Num. 25:1–9). Later, Israelites intermarried with Canaanite women, directly leading to worship of their idols (Judg. 3:6). Bathsheba was a temptation to David, and this began a series of events that marred his career as a man after God’s own heart. Solomon loved many foreign women, who turned him to worship their gods. After the exile, the Israelites were admonished by Nehemiah to put away their foreign wives lest history repeat itself (Neh. 13:26).
Women and marriage are used in the Bible as images for spiritual things. Paul writes that marital love mirrors the church’s relationship with Christ (Eph. 5:32–33). A man should love his wife as Christ loved the church. Revelation portrays the climax to human history in the figure of two women: the bride of Christ, adorned with righteous deeds for her husband (19:7–8), and the whor* Babylon, drunk on the blood of the saints (17:5–6). The consummation of the age is when one is judged and the other enters her eternal marital bliss.
The book of Proverbs also separates humankind into two groups, symbolized by two women. Along the path of life, the youth hears the voices of Woman Folly (9:13–18) and of Woman Wisdom (1:20–33) calling out to him. Folly is incarnated in the flesh-and-blood temptation of the immoral woman (7:6–27), whereas Woman Wisdom has her counterpart at the end of the book in the detailed description of the woman of virtue (31:10–31). There, the woman who fears God is set as a prize far above earthly wealth—the highest blessing of the wise.
Paul uses two women from sacred history to help explain his gospel of law versus grace. Hagar the slave woman represents the Mosaic covenant given at Sinai, and the earthly Jerusalem—that is, a mind-set of slavery that futilely attempts to earn God’s favor by works of the law. Sarah was the free woman, and her son was the promised son, who represents the heavenly Jerusalem, the new covenant, and freedom from the requirements of the law (Gal. 4:21–31). Again, two women symbolize two paths and two peoples—one being slaves, the other being God’s free people.
“Word” is used in the Bible to refer to the speech of God in oral, written, or incarnate form. In each of these uses, God desires to make himself known to his people. The communication of God is always personal and relational, whether he speaks to call things into existence (Gen. 1) or to address an individual directly (Gen. 2:1617; Exod. 3:14). The prophets and the apostles received the word of God (Deut. 18:14–22; John 16:13), some of which was proclaimed but not recorded. The greatest revelation in this regard is the person of Jesus Christ, who is called the “Word” of God (John 1:1, 14).
The psalmist declared God’s word to be an eternal object of hope and trust that gives light and direction (Ps. 119), and Jesus declared the word to be truth (John 17:17). The word is particularized and intimately connected with God himself by means of the key phrases “your word,” “the word of God,” “the word of the Lord,” “word about Christ,” and “the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17; Col. 3:16). Our understanding of the word is informed by a variety of terms and contexts in the canon of Scripture, a collection of which is found in Ps. 119.
The theme of the word in Ps. 119 is continued and clarified in the NT, accentuating the intimate connection between the word of God and God himself. The “Word” of God is the eternal Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1; 1John 1:1–4), who took on flesh and blood so that we might see the glory of the eternal God. The sovereign glory of Christ as the Word of God is depicted in the vision of John in Rev. 19:13. As the Word of God, Jesus Christ ultimately gives us our lives (John 1:4; 6:33; 10:10), sustains our lives (John 5:24; 6:51, 54; 8:51), and ultimately renders a just judgment regarding our lives (John 5:30; 8:16, 26; 9:39; cf. Matt. 25:31–33; Heb. 4:12).
Direct Matches
Both Paul and Peter exhort Christian women to adornthemselves not with “braided hair,” expensive clothes,and fine jewels, but with an inner beauty expressed in good works andspiritual grace (1 Tim. 2:9–10; 1 Pet. 3:3–4NASB, RSV). The terms used here refer not to simple hair weaves, butto the elaborate bejeweled coiffures of upper-class Greco-Romanwomen. The NIV uses the phrase “elaborate hairstyles,”since the point is not the braids themselves but rather theostentatious behavior and emphasis on outward beauty.
The state of being pure or undefiled. The KJV uses “chaste”three times to translate the Greek word hagnos (2 Cor. 11:2;Titus 2:5; 1 Pet. 3:2), rendered in the NIV as “pure”or “purity.” It has special reference to sexual purity.Young women are expected to be pure in worship, in general moralbehavior, and in sexual matters (Titus 2:5). Likewise, church leadersmust be “pure” (hagnos [1 Tim. 5:22]). Paul laboredover the churches to present them before God pure as virgins: “Iam jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to onehusband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin tohim” (2 Cor. 11:2). Peter encouraged wives to besubmissive to their husbands so that they may be won through thewives’ chaste character (1 Pet. 3:1–2). God commandspurity, and it is an essential element of Christian life (Phil. 4:8;James 3:17). Every Christian is to be pure just as Christ is pure(1 John 3:3).
The giving of gifts in the Bible has several nuances. It can refer to a goodwill gift or a peace offering given to a friend or relative (Prov. 18:16; 21:14). Thus, when Jacob seeks to make peace with his brother Esau, he sends gifts to him before they meet (Gen. 32:13; 33:10). Similarly, when Abigail intercedes with David on behalf of Nabal, she gives David a gift (1Sam. 25:27).
Ezekiel 46:17 illustrates that some gifts are regulated if they came from an inheritance. There are several references in the NT to the gifts of one local church to another (Acts 11:30; 1Cor. 16:3; 2Cor. 8:12, 20; 9:5; Phil. 4:17). The giving of these gifts has a positive effect for both those in need and those who give the gift.
Gifts are a traditional part of bridal arrangements in the Bible. Thus, Shechem requests to know the bride-price and gift when he asks for Dinah as his wife (Gen. 34:11–12). Likewise, Pharaoh gives a captured city as a dowry for his daughter’s marriage to Solomon (1Kings 9:16).
Gifts are integral in honoring another in hospitality and in approaching someone about a service. Israel instructs his sons to take gifts to Pharaoh when they go to purchase food (Gen. 43:11). It is customary to bring a gift to a man of God or prophet when asking for advice or prophetic insight (1Sam. 9:7; 1Kings 13:7; 2Kings 5:15; 8:8–9). People bring Solomon gifts when they seek an audience with him (1Kings 10:25). Additionally, gifts are part of the process of establishing a treaty (1Kings 15:19; 2Kings 16:8; 20:12).
Of course, gifts can be used for ignoble purposes as well. David sends a gift to Uriah in an effort to cover up his own sin (2Sam. 11:8).
Sacrifices of every type are conceived of as a gift to the deity with the intent of seeking favor or making restitution for sin (Lev. 22:18; Num. 31:52). Even mandatory offerings and dedicated land are considered gifts under the notion that God, as the Creator, owns all (Ezek. 45:16; 48:12, 20). This idea of giving a gift to God demonstrates the cost involved in approaching the deity. Interestingly, the priests and Levites who are associated with the sacrifices are described as a gift from God to the rest of the people (Num. 18:6–7).
The intentions behind the gift are important to God. Jesus states that one cannot be giving gifts to God and simultaneously holding on to contention with another in the community of faith (Matt. 5:23–24). Jesus commands that thankfulness to God be followed with the prescribed sacrifice (Matt. 8:4). Yet, an unwillingness to help others should not be hidden behind an ostentatious dedication to giving to God (Matt. 15:5; Mark 7:11). Likewise, Jesus warns against being overly legalistic about gifts and their benefit (Matt. 23:18–19).
On a fundamental level, gift giving has its origin in the gracious nature of God. God is the giver of all good gifts (James 1:17). He gives children to mothers (Gen. 30:20). A good life and reward for work are also gifts from God (Eccles. 3:13; 5:19). Jesus describes himself as a gift of God (John 4:10). Likewise, the Holy Spirit is God’s gift (Acts 1:4; 2:38; 11:17) and cannot be purchased with money (Acts 8:20). This gift of the Holy Spirit is given to Jew and Gentile alike (Acts 10:45).
Both grace and salvation are gifts from God (Rom. 5:15–17; 6:23; Eph. 2:8; 3:7; Heb. 6:4; 1Pet. 3:7). Finally, spiritual gifts are part of God’s good gifts (Rom. 1:11). These gifts are meant to help the church so that nothing needed for ministry is lacking in the body of Christ (Rom. 12:6; 1Cor. 1:7; 7:7; 1Tim. 4:14; 2Tim. 1:6; 1Pet. 4:10). Spiritual gifts are all governed by the greatest gift, that of love (1Cor. 13:2; 14:1).
The giving of gifts in the Bible has several nuances. It can refer to a goodwill gift or a peace offering given to a friend or relative (Prov. 18:16; 21:14). Thus, when Jacob seeks to make peace with his brother Esau, he sends gifts to him before they meet (Gen. 32:13; 33:10). Similarly, when Abigail intercedes with David on behalf of Nabal, she gives David a gift (1Sam. 25:27).
Ezekiel 46:17 illustrates that some gifts are regulated if they came from an inheritance. There are several references in the NT to the gifts of one local church to another (Acts 11:30; 1Cor. 16:3; 2Cor. 8:12, 20; 9:5; Phil. 4:17). The giving of these gifts has a positive effect for both those in need and those who give the gift.
Gifts are a traditional part of bridal arrangements in the Bible. Thus, Shechem requests to know the bride-price and gift when he asks for Dinah as his wife (Gen. 34:11–12). Likewise, Pharaoh gives a captured city as a dowry for his daughter’s marriage to Solomon (1Kings 9:16).
Gifts are integral in honoring another in hospitality and in approaching someone about a service. Israel instructs his sons to take gifts to Pharaoh when they go to purchase food (Gen. 43:11). It is customary to bring a gift to a man of God or prophet when asking for advice or prophetic insight (1Sam. 9:7; 1Kings 13:7; 2Kings 5:15; 8:8–9). People bring Solomon gifts when they seek an audience with him (1Kings 10:25). Additionally, gifts are part of the process of establishing a treaty (1Kings 15:19; 2Kings 16:8; 20:12).
Of course, gifts can be used for ignoble purposes as well. David sends a gift to Uriah in an effort to cover up his own sin (2Sam. 11:8).
Sacrifices of every type are conceived of as a gift to the deity with the intent of seeking favor or making restitution for sin (Lev. 22:18; Num. 31:52). Even mandatory offerings and dedicated land are considered gifts under the notion that God, as the Creator, owns all (Ezek. 45:16; 48:12, 20). This idea of giving a gift to God demonstrates the cost involved in approaching the deity. Interestingly, the priests and Levites who are associated with the sacrifices are described as a gift from God to the rest of the people (Num. 18:6–7).
The intentions behind the gift are important to God. Jesus states that one cannot be giving gifts to God and simultaneously holding on to contention with another in the community of faith (Matt. 5:23–24). Jesus commands that thankfulness to God be followed with the prescribed sacrifice (Matt. 8:4). Yet, an unwillingness to help others should not be hidden behind an ostentatious dedication to giving to God (Matt. 15:5; Mark 7:11). Likewise, Jesus warns against being overly legalistic about gifts and their benefit (Matt. 23:18–19).
On a fundamental level, gift giving has its origin in the gracious nature of God. God is the giver of all good gifts (James 1:17). He gives children to mothers (Gen. 30:20). A good life and reward for work are also gifts from God (Eccles. 3:13; 5:19). Jesus describes himself as a gift of God (John 4:10). Likewise, the Holy Spirit is God’s gift (Acts 1:4; 2:38; 11:17) and cannot be purchased with money (Acts 8:20). This gift of the Holy Spirit is given to Jew and Gentile alike (Acts 10:45).
Both grace and salvation are gifts from God (Rom. 5:15–17; 6:23; Eph. 2:8; 3:7; Heb. 6:4; 1Pet. 3:7). Finally, spiritual gifts are part of God’s good gifts (Rom. 1:11). These gifts are meant to help the church so that nothing needed for ministry is lacking in the body of Christ (Rom. 12:6; 1Cor. 1:7; 7:7; 1Tim. 4:14; 2Tim. 1:6; 1Pet. 4:10). Spiritual gifts are all governed by the greatest gift, that of love (1Cor. 13:2; 14:1).
A number of Hebrew and Greek words are used in the Bible torefer to hair and hairstyles. Most of the references are to humanhair (e.g., Lev. 19:27), but occasionally animal hair is intended(Matt. 3:4; Rev. 6:12). God numbers the hairs of our head (Matt.10:30); not one hair will perish if God is the protector (Isa. 46:4;Luke 21:18).
Hairstylesvaried throughout the ancient Near East according to place andperiod. For example, the Egyptians shaved their heads, but Semiticmen and women generally wore their hair long and admired black hair(2Sam. 14:26; see also Song 5:11, where hair is described aswavy). Ancient Near Eastern tomb paintings and reliefs depict Semiticmen with thick black hair and pointed beards and women with theirlong, black hair tied and hanging down the back. As a sign of age,white hair was regarded with great respect (Lev. 19:32; Prov. 16:31).Much later, at the time of the apostle Paul, long hair on men wasconsidered shameful (1Cor. 11:14), while for women long hairwas the ideal (11:15).
Beardsand hair were dressed, adorned, anointed with oil, perfumed, andcurled (2Kings 9:30; Eccles. 9:8; Isa. 3:18–24; Matt.26:7). The NT, however, advises moderation in hairstyles (1Tim.2:9; 1Pet. 3:3–6). Barbers used razors to cut hair andbeards (Ezek. 5:1; cf. Isa. 7:20). To shave or pluck out anotherperson’s hair was a grave insult (2Sam. 10:4–5;Isa. 50:6). It was also uncommon to untie a woman’s hair inpublic (Num. 5:18; cf. Luke 7:38).
Cuttingor shaving hair often had social or religious significance. Duringtimes of mourning and affliction, hair on the head and beard wasshaved or plucked out (Ezra 9:3; Isa. 15:2; Jer. 16:6). Sometimes thebeard was left untrimmed (2Sam. 19:24). A Nazirite was not tocut his hair during the days of his vow (Num. 6:5). At the conclusionof the vow, his hair was offered with a sacrifice (Num. 6:18).Offering hair for the dead and cutting the corners of the beard wasprohibited in the law (Deut. 14:1; Lev. 19:27). Priests were not toshave their heads or allow their hair to grow long (Lev. 21:5; Ezek.44:20). Prophets may have marked themselves by a partial shaving ofthe head (1Kings 20:35–43; 2Kings 2:23).
Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engagedin raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustriallifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority offamilies resided in rural areas and villages.
Peoplein the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin.Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family wasthe source of people’s status in the community and provided theprimary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.
Marriagewas not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather,marriage was between two families. Family members and kin thereforetook precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments,authority within families and communities was determined by rankamong kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because itoverthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Romantradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family andcommunity relationships.
PatriarchalStructures
Apatrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and everyhousehold belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan inwhich kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, thefathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clangroups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman worldmaintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.
Familydiscipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honorof the father depended on his ability to keep every family memberunder his authority (1Tim. 3:4). Other male members of thefamily assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen.34).
AristotelianHousehold Codes
Notonly was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but alsothe later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted thebiblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosmof society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding householdmanagement, seeking to influence society for the greater good. Thisadvice was presented in oral and written discourses known as“household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes,written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Suchcodes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the malehead of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves.The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’shousehold codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has therule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in awoman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the caseof slaves, it is completely absent.”
TheAristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT textsthat, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph.5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 3:1–7). Allthese texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given tothe congregations seems to have been of contextual missional valuefor the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family livingfor all times in all contexts.
Marriageand Divorce
Marriagein the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between twofamilies, arranged by the bride’s father or a malerepresentative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’sprice.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction butalso an expression of family honor. Only the rich could affordmultiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself wascelebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.
Theprimary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to producea male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. Theconcept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs,especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.
Marriageamong Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jewssought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev.18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew.Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainlyoutside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness.Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romansdid practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinshipgroup (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategicalliances between families.
InJewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. Thisstate of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of theman’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary(Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yettheir union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved onlythrough death or divorce.
Greekand Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. InJewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorceproceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release herand repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (inparticular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Siracomments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to thefather (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery(Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictiveuse of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).
Children,Parenting, and Education
Childbearingwas considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman andher entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to thisblessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, andspecifically their husbands.
Abortioncommonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had tobe encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1Tim. 2:15).
Childrenwere of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. Anestimated 60percent of the children in the first-centuryMediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.
AncientNear Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting stylebased on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and eviltendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent eviltendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The mainconcern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty.Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stagechildren were taught to accept the total authority of the father. Therearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girlswere taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so thatthey could help with household tasks.
Earlyeducation took place in the home. Jewish education was centeredaround the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’sresponsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7),especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence ofHellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls,however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys wereeducated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and orallaw. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Romaneducation was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primaryschools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in somecases girls were allowed to attend school as well.
Familyas an Analogy
Therelationship between Israel and God.Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak offidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT,the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In theiroverall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to infamilial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod.4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16;64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).
Theprophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspringof a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayedas a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife asrebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophetJeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by theinfidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). Thefamilial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle forproclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law andcultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similarpicture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. Oneinterpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves aneschatological tradition of family disruption with a futurerestoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.
Thechurch as the family of God.Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him.This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26;Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship,the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt.16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into thecommunity was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom,belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39;16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63;John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30;Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community waseventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the communityof his followers, God’s family—the church. See alsoAdoption.
The Petrine phrase “inner self” (lit., “hiddenperson of the heart” [1Pet. 3:4]) is nearly identicalwith the Pauline phrase “inner being.” There are threereferences to this inner person in Paul’s writings. Two ofthese clearly refer to a Christian as opposed to a non-Christian(2Cor. 4:16; Eph. 3:16); one is unclear (Rom. 7:22). Ratherthan import the meaning from the first two into Romans 7:22, weshould seek the broader semantic meaning of the phrase. It is theimmaterial aspects of humanity—mind, spirit—indistinction from the outward person, which wastes away (2Cor.4:16). In this inner sphere the Holy Spirit does his renewing andsaving work (Eph. 3:16). Thus, we must distinguish between “innerperson” and “new person” (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10),which does seem to have a soteriological sense, because the formermay still be corrupt, vain, and alienated from the life of God (Eph.4:18).
The Petrine phrase “inner self” (lit., “hiddenperson of the heart” [1Pet. 3:4]) is nearly identicalwith the Pauline phrase “inner being.” There are threereferences to this inner person in Paul’s writings. Two ofthese clearly refer to a Christian as opposed to a non-Christian(2Cor. 4:16; Eph. 3:16); one is unclear (Rom. 7:22). Ratherthan import the meaning from the first two into Romans 7:22, weshould seek the broader semantic meaning of the phrase. It is theimmaterial aspects of humanity—mind, spirit—indistinction from the outward person, which wastes away (2Cor.4:16). In this inner sphere the Holy Spirit does his renewing andsaving work (Eph. 3:16). Thus, we must distinguish between “innerperson” and “new person” (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10),which does seem to have a soteriological sense, because the formermay still be corrupt, vain, and alienated from the life of God (Eph.4:18).
Precious stones appear in visions and theophanies in theBible. Examples include Ezek. 1:16; 10:1; Rev. 4:3. These preciousstones, also used in jewelry, were well known to people in theancient Near East and in the first-century Mediterranean basin.
Jewelryknown in antiquity is broadly divided into two groups: everydayjewelry and fine jewelry. Everyday jewelry, found commonly among thepeople, was made of materials such as bronze, iron, and bone. Finejewelry, on the other hand, consisted of objects crafted from gold orsilver and included costly and precious stones. Jewelry was worn bothby men and women as part of clothing. The ancients also conservedwealth with investments in jewels or used jewels as indicators ofsocioeconomic placing in society.
Mostgold jewelry had sheet metal as its foundation. This sheet metal wasshaped and/or decorated. One form of decoration, filigree, involvedsoldering wiring in a pattern on a background. A later form ofdecoration known as granulation used tiny grains of gold as asubstitute for wires. An additional method of decorating jewelry wasinlaying with colored stones, glass, or other precious items.Engraving was likewise used for decoration.
Jewelryin Antiquity
Jewelryhas been discovered in Babylon dating back as far as 2700 BC.Examples of jewelry from this era were found in cemeteries in thecity of Ur. Examples of ancient jewelry were likewise found incemeteries on the island of Crete, dating back to 2400 BC. Otherspecimens of jewelry come from the Mycenaean world around 1100 BC.Jewelry dating after 800 BC was of high quality. During this periodplaces such as Knossos on Crete and cities such as Corinth and Athensproduced beautiful gold work.
Bythe seventh century BC, the finest jewelry was found on the Greekislands and in Asia Minor. Jewelry in Ephesus was offered to thegoddess Diana, yet was also made for personal adornment. By 600 BC,jewelry became very scarce in Greece. This scarcity lasted for thenext 150 years. Archaeologists postulate that supplies of gold werecut off by the Persians. After the Persians were defeated during theClassical period, some of the finest gold work was produced. CapturedPersian treasures and exploitation of Macedonian mines made gold andprecious stones and metals highly accessible to the Greeks.Consequently, jewelry was readily available during the Hellenisticperiod. The Greeks incorporated a variety of stones in their jewelry:carnelian, chalcedony, amethyst, and garnet, as well as small pearls.Materials and inspiration for the Greeks for certain types of jewelrycame from newly conquered territories. In the early Roman Empirejewelry resembled that seen during the Hellenistic period. Ingeneral, during the Greek and the Roman periods, jewelry wasgold-plated and decorated with costly stones.
Certainwriters in antiquity documented well-known or costly jewelry andprecious stones. One Roman historian described the value of pearls asthe “topmost rank among all things of price.”Correspondingly, he wrote about two pearls owned by Cleopatra, queenof Egypt, known as the largest in history. The Egyptian Book of theDead, dating to around 1500 BC, makes mention of amulets in the shapeof hearts, considered jewelry by some experts. These amulets weremade of carnelian, lapis lazuli, and green feldspar.
Jewelryin the biblical world was known by different terms. An ornamentalcirclet worn singly or as multiples on one’s arms or legs wasknown as a “bangle.” This term, however, does not occurin the Bible. The abundant presence of bangles as artifacts inarchaeological digs is an indicator of their significance in everydaylife in the biblical world. Bangles were stiff ornaments ofrelatively heavy weight. Materials varied: bronze, iron, silver,gold, and so forth. Bangles were of three types: bracelets, anklets,and armlets. They were either solid, complete circles or circletswith two distinct ends. These ends had specific designs, oftenartistically crafted in the shape of animal heads, such as those ofserpents.
Ringslikewise were prevalent in the biblical world. Rings were worn in theears, nose, and around fingers and toes. Nose rings were popularduring the Iron Age (1200–586 BC). In addition, rings were wornon neck cords. Rings not only were worn as articles of adornment butalso were used as signets. Brooches or pins mostly were worn onclothing and were made of wood, bronze, iron, silver, or gold.
Amuletswere common as religious jewelry. Worn as divine protection fromharm, amulets varied from simple to ornate. Egyptian amulets oftenincorporated snake imagery or representations of Egyptian gods.Ancient Near Eastern amulets often were smaller than an inch wide.Greek amulets were colorful and crafted from stones. Christianamulets in the shape of the crucified Christ have also been found.
Althoughnot often worn individually, beads were the most prevalent jewelryitem in the ancient Near East. Beads were strung in bracelets, rings,circlets, and so forth.
Jewelryin the Bible
Manydifferent items of jewelry are found in the Bible, including earrings(Gen. 35:4; Exod. 35:22; Judg. 8:24–26; Job 42:11), bracelets(Gen. 24:22, 30, 47; Num. 31:50), necklaces (Gen. 41:42; Ezek. 16:11;Dan. 5:29), nose rings (Gen. 24:22, 30, 47; Isa. 3:21; Ezek. 16:12),rings (Gen. 38:18, 25; 41:42; Exod. 28:11, 21, 36; 35:22; 39:14, 30;Num. 31:50; 1Kings 21:8; Esther 3:10, 12; 8:2, 8, 10; Job38:14; Isa. 3:21; Jer. 22:24; Hos. 2:13; Luke 15:22; James 2:2),headbands (Exod. 13:16; Deut. 6:8; 11:18), armlets (Num. 31:50;2Sam. 1:10; Isa. 3:20), pendants (Judg. 8:21, 26; Isa. 3:18),and anklets (Isa. 3:20).
Variousarticles of jewelry in the Bible carried significance beyond mereaesthetics. Early in Genesis, bracelets were used to signify thedesire for covenantal marriage. When Abraham’s servantdiscovered Rebekah, a potential bride for Isaac, he gave her a nosering and placed bracelets on her arms to signify that God had chosenher (Gen. 24:22, 47). The bracelets and nose ring weighed over tenshekels. By placing the jewelry on Rebekah’s arm, the servantindicated that a marriage contract was sought. The high value of thejewelry signifies the high bridal price paid for Rebekah.
Earlyin the OT, jewelry was used in temple worship. The law designatedthat the high priest’s breastpiece and ephod contain preciousstones along with setting stones. The stones signified the majestyand holiness of God as his people worshiped in his holy temple (Exod.25:7; 35:9).
Loversflattered one another by comparing physical features to articles offine jewelry (Song 5:14) and admiring their fine jewelry (4:9). God’speople appear as a jeweled necklace when God gathers them (Isa.49:18) and are as highly esteemed as a bride adorned with jewels(61:10).
Biblicalauthors also challenged people’s desire for jewelry withadmonitions to seek godly attributes and gifts of God above jewelsand jewelry. Wisdom was to be desired above jewels (Prov. 3:15;8:11), knowledgeable speech above gold and jewels (20:15), and agodly spouse far above jewels (31:10).
Similarto the habits of most ancient cultures, Israelite kings and othernotable leaders wore jewelry of special significance. Like otherkings of antiquity, Saul wore armlets and a crown (2Sam. 1:10),which were intended to signify royalty and competence in militaryaffairs. Such jewelry typically carried insignias that denotedfeatures of national and royal identity. The victorious warrior inRev. 19 wears many diadems (crowns) in order to signify his unmatchedpower (19:12). He has more than one crown, and even more than sevendiadems, which is the number of diadems that the dragon has (12:3).
Attimes, jewelry carried negative connotations, especially whenacquired within polytheistic trends of society or else designed as anobject of worship. Even Jacob was found burying his jewelry thataccompanied his foreign idols (Gen. 35:4). Such instances lendcredence to theories that even early Hebrew faith wrangled withpolytheism and was infused with its many golden artifacts. Gideonmade an ephod from the sparkling plunder (rings and pendants) of theMidianites (Judg. 8:21). This ephod became an object of worship forthe Israelites and greatly offended God.
Kingshad signet rings that contained their own personalized engravings.The engravings were made by stonecutters who carefully worked thesmall semiprecious stones atop the rings. Throughout the OT, ringswere used to make impressions on official documents (Exod. 28:11;1Kings 21:8; Esther 8:8). Prophets used signet rings to sealprophecies that were of grave importance for the nation (Isa. 8:16;Jer. 32:10). Unique rings were designed by notable families in orderto signify the honor of the patriarch. Of special interest is theusage of the ring in Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son. Thering was placed on the returning son’s finger to show theradical grace of the father, who was willing to join his honor to hisson’s shame (Luke 15:22) as the son was brought back into thehousehold.
Incertain NT writings, women are admonished not to adorn themselveswith external jewelry (1Tim. 2:9; 1Pet. 3:3), as this wasa sign of materialism and immodesty. In Rev. 21, jewels appear inJohn’s depiction of the new Jerusalem: it is a city of majesticbeauty adorned with precious jewels, gates of pearls, and streets ofgold (21:18–21).
Precious stones appear in visions and theophanies in theBible. Examples include Ezek. 1:16; 10:1; Rev. 4:3. These preciousstones, also used in jewelry, were well known to people in theancient Near East and in the first-century Mediterranean basin.
Jewelryknown in antiquity is broadly divided into two groups: everydayjewelry and fine jewelry. Everyday jewelry, found commonly among thepeople, was made of materials such as bronze, iron, and bone. Finejewelry, on the other hand, consisted of objects crafted from gold orsilver and included costly and precious stones. Jewelry was worn bothby men and women as part of clothing. The ancients also conservedwealth with investments in jewels or used jewels as indicators ofsocioeconomic placing in society.
Mostgold jewelry had sheet metal as its foundation. This sheet metal wasshaped and/or decorated. One form of decoration, filigree, involvedsoldering wiring in a pattern on a background. A later form ofdecoration known as granulation used tiny grains of gold as asubstitute for wires. An additional method of decorating jewelry wasinlaying with colored stones, glass, or other precious items.Engraving was likewise used for decoration.
Jewelryin Antiquity
Jewelryhas been discovered in Babylon dating back as far as 2700 BC.Examples of jewelry from this era were found in cemeteries in thecity of Ur. Examples of ancient jewelry were likewise found incemeteries on the island of Crete, dating back to 2400 BC. Otherspecimens of jewelry come from the Mycenaean world around 1100 BC.Jewelry dating after 800 BC was of high quality. During this periodplaces such as Knossos on Crete and cities such as Corinth and Athensproduced beautiful gold work.
Bythe seventh century BC, the finest jewelry was found on the Greekislands and in Asia Minor. Jewelry in Ephesus was offered to thegoddess Diana, yet was also made for personal adornment. By 600 BC,jewelry became very scarce in Greece. This scarcity lasted for thenext 150 years. Archaeologists postulate that supplies of gold werecut off by the Persians. After the Persians were defeated during theClassical period, some of the finest gold work was produced. CapturedPersian treasures and exploitation of Macedonian mines made gold andprecious stones and metals highly accessible to the Greeks.Consequently, jewelry was readily available during the Hellenisticperiod. The Greeks incorporated a variety of stones in their jewelry:carnelian, chalcedony, amethyst, and garnet, as well as small pearls.Materials and inspiration for the Greeks for certain types of jewelrycame from newly conquered territories. In the early Roman Empirejewelry resembled that seen during the Hellenistic period. Ingeneral, during the Greek and the Roman periods, jewelry wasgold-plated and decorated with costly stones.
Certainwriters in antiquity documented well-known or costly jewelry andprecious stones. One Roman historian described the value of pearls asthe “topmost rank among all things of price.”Correspondingly, he wrote about two pearls owned by Cleopatra, queenof Egypt, known as the largest in history. The Egyptian Book of theDead, dating to around 1500 BC, makes mention of amulets in the shapeof hearts, considered jewelry by some experts. These amulets weremade of carnelian, lapis lazuli, and green feldspar.
Jewelryin the biblical world was known by different terms. An ornamentalcirclet worn singly or as multiples on one’s arms or legs wasknown as a “bangle.” This term, however, does not occurin the Bible. The abundant presence of bangles as artifacts inarchaeological digs is an indicator of their significance in everydaylife in the biblical world. Bangles were stiff ornaments ofrelatively heavy weight. Materials varied: bronze, iron, silver,gold, and so forth. Bangles were of three types: bracelets, anklets,and armlets. They were either solid, complete circles or circletswith two distinct ends. These ends had specific designs, oftenartistically crafted in the shape of animal heads, such as those ofserpents.
Ringslikewise were prevalent in the biblical world. Rings were worn in theears, nose, and around fingers and toes. Nose rings were popularduring the Iron Age (1200–586 BC). In addition, rings were wornon neck cords. Rings not only were worn as articles of adornment butalso were used as signets. Brooches or pins mostly were worn onclothing and were made of wood, bronze, iron, silver, or gold.
Amuletswere common as religious jewelry. Worn as divine protection fromharm, amulets varied from simple to ornate. Egyptian amulets oftenincorporated snake imagery or representations of Egyptian gods.Ancient Near Eastern amulets often were smaller than an inch wide.Greek amulets were colorful and crafted from stones. Christianamulets in the shape of the crucified Christ have also been found.
Althoughnot often worn individually, beads were the most prevalent jewelryitem in the ancient Near East. Beads were strung in bracelets, rings,circlets, and so forth.
Jewelryin the Bible
Manydifferent items of jewelry are found in the Bible, including earrings(Gen. 35:4; Exod. 35:22; Judg. 8:24–26; Job 42:11), bracelets(Gen. 24:22, 30, 47; Num. 31:50), necklaces (Gen. 41:42; Ezek. 16:11;Dan. 5:29), nose rings (Gen. 24:22, 30, 47; Isa. 3:21; Ezek. 16:12),rings (Gen. 38:18, 25; 41:42; Exod. 28:11, 21, 36; 35:22; 39:14, 30;Num. 31:50; 1Kings 21:8; Esther 3:10, 12; 8:2, 8, 10; Job38:14; Isa. 3:21; Jer. 22:24; Hos. 2:13; Luke 15:22; James 2:2),headbands (Exod. 13:16; Deut. 6:8; 11:18), armlets (Num. 31:50;2Sam. 1:10; Isa. 3:20), pendants (Judg. 8:21, 26; Isa. 3:18),and anklets (Isa. 3:20).
Variousarticles of jewelry in the Bible carried significance beyond mereaesthetics. Early in Genesis, bracelets were used to signify thedesire for covenantal marriage. When Abraham’s servantdiscovered Rebekah, a potential bride for Isaac, he gave her a nosering and placed bracelets on her arms to signify that God had chosenher (Gen. 24:22, 47). The bracelets and nose ring weighed over tenshekels. By placing the jewelry on Rebekah’s arm, the servantindicated that a marriage contract was sought. The high value of thejewelry signifies the high bridal price paid for Rebekah.
Earlyin the OT, jewelry was used in temple worship. The law designatedthat the high priest’s breastpiece and ephod contain preciousstones along with setting stones. The stones signified the majestyand holiness of God as his people worshiped in his holy temple (Exod.25:7; 35:9).
Loversflattered one another by comparing physical features to articles offine jewelry (Song 5:14) and admiring their fine jewelry (4:9). God’speople appear as a jeweled necklace when God gathers them (Isa.49:18) and are as highly esteemed as a bride adorned with jewels(61:10).
Biblicalauthors also challenged people’s desire for jewelry withadmonitions to seek godly attributes and gifts of God above jewelsand jewelry. Wisdom was to be desired above jewels (Prov. 3:15;8:11), knowledgeable speech above gold and jewels (20:15), and agodly spouse far above jewels (31:10).
Similarto the habits of most ancient cultures, Israelite kings and othernotable leaders wore jewelry of special significance. Like otherkings of antiquity, Saul wore armlets and a crown (2Sam. 1:10),which were intended to signify royalty and competence in militaryaffairs. Such jewelry typically carried insignias that denotedfeatures of national and royal identity. The victorious warrior inRev. 19 wears many diadems (crowns) in order to signify his unmatchedpower (19:12). He has more than one crown, and even more than sevendiadems, which is the number of diadems that the dragon has (12:3).
Attimes, jewelry carried negative connotations, especially whenacquired within polytheistic trends of society or else designed as anobject of worship. Even Jacob was found burying his jewelry thataccompanied his foreign idols (Gen. 35:4). Such instances lendcredence to theories that even early Hebrew faith wrangled withpolytheism and was infused with its many golden artifacts. Gideonmade an ephod from the sparkling plunder (rings and pendants) of theMidianites (Judg. 8:21). This ephod became an object of worship forthe Israelites and greatly offended God.
Kingshad signet rings that contained their own personalized engravings.The engravings were made by stonecutters who carefully worked thesmall semiprecious stones atop the rings. Throughout the OT, ringswere used to make impressions on official documents (Exod. 28:11;1Kings 21:8; Esther 8:8). Prophets used signet rings to sealprophecies that were of grave importance for the nation (Isa. 8:16;Jer. 32:10). Unique rings were designed by notable families in orderto signify the honor of the patriarch. Of special interest is theusage of the ring in Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son. Thering was placed on the returning son’s finger to show theradical grace of the father, who was willing to join his honor to hisson’s shame (Luke 15:22) as the son was brought back into thehousehold.
Incertain NT writings, women are admonished not to adorn themselveswith external jewelry (1Tim. 2:9; 1Pet. 3:3), as this wasa sign of materialism and immodesty. In Rev. 21, jewels appear inJohn’s depiction of the new Jerusalem: it is a city of majesticbeauty adorned with precious jewels, gates of pearls, and streets ofgold (21:18–21).
Closely related to honor and respect and often translatingthe Hebrew and Greek words for “fear,” reverence isdirected primarily toward the sacred or divine, such as God’ssanctuary (Lev. 19:30; 26:2), the temple (Ps. 5:7), God’s name(Rev. 11:18), God himself (Dan. 6:26; Mal. 2:5), and his messengers,the angel of the Lord (Josh. 5:14), and Peter (Acts 10:25). Reverencefor God motivates behavior that honors him, such as just governance(Neh. 5:15), mutual submission (Eph. 5:21), purity (2Cor. 7:1),and obedience (Col. 3:22). It is an attitude of acceptable worship(Heb. 12:28), connected with humility (Jer. 44:10), which may winover unbelievers (1Pet. 3:2).
The wife of Abraham, the father of Israel and God’schosen people. Thus, Sarah is a matriarch (mother) of Israel alongwith Rebekah and Rachel. When first introduced, her name is given as“Sarai,” but God changes it to “Sarah” (atthe same time Abram’s name is changed to “Abraham”[Gen. 17:15–16]). Both names mean “princess.” Thesignificance of the change may be subtle, since “Sarai”is an East Semitic version of West Semitic “Sarah,”indicating her transition from Mesopotamia to the promised land.
Accordingto Gen. 11:29–30, Sarai was married to Abram before theyentered the promised land. The passage also announces that she wasbarren. Since an essential part of the divine promises to Abram isthat he will be father to a great nation, the lack of offspring is aconsiderable problem and propels much of the plot of the narrative(esp. Gen. 12–26).
Inbrief, Sarai’s inability to conceive is an obstacle to thefulfillment of the promise and is a threat to Abram’s faith.Thus, when a famine forces them to go to Egypt to survive, he tellshis wife to lie about her status by saying that she is his sister.Although it is true that she is his half sister, the statement is alie because he hides the most relevant part of his relationship withher and puts the matriarch in danger (Gen. 12:10–20; 20:12).Abraham’s faith (the narrative does not reveal Sarah’sthinking except perhaps in Gen. 18:10–15, when she laughs atthe thought of giving birth in her old age) in God’s ability tofulfill the promise fluctuates, and he certainly has not come to aconsistent position of trust even just before the birth of Isaac(Gen. 20). As a matter of fact, acting on fear and trying to producean heir, Abraham takes a concubine, Hagar, who gives birth toIshmael. Sarah’s relationship with Hagar is troubled (Gen. 16),and Sarah treats her harshly and eventually has Hagar and Ishmaelexpelled from their camp (21:8–21).
Eventually,in advanced old age, Sarah gives birth to Isaac, the child of thepromise (Gen. 21:1–7). Sarah is not mentioned in the story ofthe “binding of Isaac,” the focus again being onAbraham’s faith.
Sarahpredeceases Abraham, and he buys a field from Ephron the Hittite inorder to bury her (Gen. 23), the first part of the promised landowned by the people of promise. This location near Hebron became theburial spot of Abraham and other patriarchs.
LaterOT literature often looks back on Abraham as patriarch, but only Isa.51:2 explicitly mentions Sarah in the role of cofounder of the peopleof God. She is mentioned also in the NT, along with Abraham, as theone through whom God brings the promise of a son to fulfillment (Rom.4:19; 9:9; Heb. 11:11). In 1Pet. 3:6 Sarah is put forward as amodel of wifely submission because she obeys Abraham and refers tohim as her lord (likely a reference to the Greek version of Gen.18:12).
The act of yielding or consenting to the authority ofanother, voluntarily or involuntarily; personal deference,compliance, or humility toward another; to become subject to.Submission incorporates obedience, and in certain usages the termsare synonymous. However, “obedience” indicates compliancewith directions or guidance, while “submission” describesone’s subservient posture toward another. Submission within aformalized hierarchy is subordination—for example, Jesus’relationship to the Father.
Scripturepresents submission in two ways: as the translation of a number ofspecific Hebrew and Greek terms that convey an aspect of the concept,and as a general portrait of relationships—for example,patriarchs and prophets before the Lord, or demons toward Jesus.Sometimes, the presentation is negative, as in a refusal to submit.
Inthe OT, the use of the word “submission” (or itsderivatives) in the major English versions is primarily a function oftranslator preference. In fact, Gen. 16:9, the angel’sinstructions to Hagar, is the sole instance where “submit”is broadly agreed to be the best translation of the underlyingHebrew. Elsewhere, the NIV and at least one other version use formsof “submission” to interpretively translate Hebrewexpressions meaning the following: “become a slave to”(Gen. 49:15); “serve” (2Chron. 30:8); “have arelationship with” (Job 22:21); “quickly stretch outhands” (Ps. 68:31); “give over to” (Ps. 81:11); and“give the hand to” (Lam. 5:6).
Inthe NT, “submission” (along with its derivatives and,often, “to be subject to”) appears only in Luke and theepistles, and it translates forms of four different Greek roots.
1.Dogmatizōappears once: “Why ... do you submit to rules?”(Col. 2:20). It includes the aspect of obligation to something thathas been decreed.
2.Hypeikōappears once: “Obey your leaders and submit to them”(Heb. 13:17 NASB, NRSV). Here, obedience isspecifically distinguished from submission.
3.Hypotagēappears four times as “submission.” In Gal. 2:5; 1Tim.2:11; 3:4 it indicates the main understanding: subordinate posturingtoward superiors; in 2Cor. 9:13, however, it refers toobedience to a decree,in this case confession of the gospel.
4.Hypotassōis by far the most significant root. It appears almost forty times inthe NT; about half of these occurrences can be translated using aform of “submission” (or “to be subject to”).It is used to conveythe subordination of children to parents (Luke 2:51); demons to theseventy-two missionaries (Luke 10:17, 20); sinners to God’s lawor righteousness (Rom. 8:7; 10:3); people to governing authorities(Rom. 13:1, 5; Titus 3:1; 1Pet. 2:13); believers to one another(1Cor. 16:16; Eph. 5:21); wives to husbands (1Cor. 14:34;Eph. 5:22, 24; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1Pet. 3:1, 5); slaves tomasters (Titus 2:9; 1Pet. 2:18); angels, authorities, andpowers to Jesus (1Pet. 3:22); believers to God (Heb. 12:9;James 4:7); younger men to elders (1Pet. 5:5).
Afew additional uses of “submission” in some translationshave other primary meanings: “turn in for inspection”(Gal. 2:2 NASB); “reverence” (Heb. 5:7 NIV, NRSV); and“open-mindedness” (James 3:17 NIV).
Vividportraits of submission conveying the concept without invoking thespecific vocabulary include Abraham’s submission to God (Gen.12:1–4; 17:1–27; 21:4; 22:1–19); Moses at theburning bush (Exod. 3:1–4:17); Joshua toward God (Josh. 24:29);prophets toward God (1Sam. 3:10; Isa. 6:8; Hos. 1:1–3);Jesus’ submission to the Father (Matt. 26:39, 42, 44; Mark14:35–36, 39; Luke 2:49; 22:42); Paul’s submission toJesus (Rom. 1:1; Titus 1:1); believers doing the will of the Father(Matt. 12:50; 21:28–32); the prodigal son toward his father(Luke 15:18, 21); believers toward Jesus (John 12:26; 14:21, 23–24;15:10); husbands and wives toward each other (1Cor. 7:3–5;11:11); believers humble before one another (Rom. 12:10; Phil.2:3–4); and the bowing of every knee to Jesus (Phil. 2:10–13).
The act of yielding or consenting to the authority ofanother, voluntarily or involuntarily; personal deference,compliance, or humility toward another; to become subject to.Submission incorporates obedience, and in certain usages the termsare synonymous. However, “obedience” indicates compliancewith directions or guidance, while “submission” describesone’s subservient posture toward another. Submission within aformalized hierarchy is subordination—for example, Jesus’relationship to the Father.
Scripturepresents submission in two ways: as the translation of a number ofspecific Hebrew and Greek terms that convey an aspect of the concept,and as a general portrait of relationships—for example,patriarchs and prophets before the Lord, or demons toward Jesus.Sometimes, the presentation is negative, as in a refusal to submit.
Inthe OT, the use of the word “submission” (or itsderivatives) in the major English versions is primarily a function oftranslator preference. In fact, Gen. 16:9, the angel’sinstructions to Hagar, is the sole instance where “submit”is broadly agreed to be the best translation of the underlyingHebrew. Elsewhere, the NIV and at least one other version use formsof “submission” to interpretively translate Hebrewexpressions meaning the following: “become a slave to”(Gen. 49:15); “serve” (2Chron. 30:8); “have arelationship with” (Job 22:21); “quickly stretch outhands” (Ps. 68:31); “give over to” (Ps. 81:11); and“give the hand to” (Lam. 5:6).
Inthe NT, “submission” (along with its derivatives and,often, “to be subject to”) appears only in Luke and theepistles, and it translates forms of four different Greek roots.
1.Dogmatizōappears once: “Why ... do you submit to rules?”(Col. 2:20). It includes the aspect of obligation to something thathas been decreed.
2.Hypeikōappears once: “Obey your leaders and submit to them”(Heb. 13:17 NASB, NRSV). Here, obedience isspecifically distinguished from submission.
3.Hypotagēappears four times as “submission.” In Gal. 2:5; 1Tim.2:11; 3:4 it indicates the main understanding: subordinate posturingtoward superiors; in 2Cor. 9:13, however, it refers toobedience to a decree,in this case confession of the gospel.
4.Hypotassōis by far the most significant root. It appears almost forty times inthe NT; about half of these occurrences can be translated using aform of “submission” (or “to be subject to”).It is used to conveythe subordination of children to parents (Luke 2:51); demons to theseventy-two missionaries (Luke 10:17, 20); sinners to God’s lawor righteousness (Rom. 8:7; 10:3); people to governing authorities(Rom. 13:1, 5; Titus 3:1; 1Pet. 2:13); believers to one another(1Cor. 16:16; Eph. 5:21); wives to husbands (1Cor. 14:34;Eph. 5:22, 24; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1Pet. 3:1, 5); slaves tomasters (Titus 2:9; 1Pet. 2:18); angels, authorities, andpowers to Jesus (1Pet. 3:22); believers to God (Heb. 12:9;James 4:7); younger men to elders (1Pet. 5:5).
Afew additional uses of “submission” in some translationshave other primary meanings: “turn in for inspection”(Gal. 2:2 NASB); “reverence” (Heb. 5:7 NIV, NRSV); and“open-mindedness” (James 3:17 NIV).
Vividportraits of submission conveying the concept without invoking thespecific vocabulary include Abraham’s submission to God (Gen.12:1–4; 17:1–27; 21:4; 22:1–19); Moses at theburning bush (Exod. 3:1–4:17); Joshua toward God (Josh. 24:29);prophets toward God (1Sam. 3:10; Isa. 6:8; Hos. 1:1–3);Jesus’ submission to the Father (Matt. 26:39, 42, 44; Mark14:35–36, 39; Luke 2:49; 22:42); Paul’s submission toJesus (Rom. 1:1; Titus 1:1); believers doing the will of the Father(Matt. 12:50; 21:28–32); the prodigal son toward his father(Luke 15:18, 21); believers toward Jesus (John 12:26; 14:21, 23–24;15:10); husbands and wives toward each other (1Cor. 7:3–5;11:11); believers humble before one another (Rom. 12:10; Phil.2:3–4); and the bowing of every knee to Jesus (Phil. 2:10–13).
Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engagedin raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustriallifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority offamilies resided in rural areas and villages.
Peoplein the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin.Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family wasthe source of people’s status in the community and provided theprimary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.
Marriagewas not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather,marriage was between two families. Family members and kin thereforetook precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments,authority within families and communities was determined by rankamong kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because itoverthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Romantradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family andcommunity relationships.
PatriarchalStructures
Apatrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and everyhousehold belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan inwhich kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, thefathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clangroups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman worldmaintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.
Familydiscipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honorof the father depended on his ability to keep every family memberunder his authority (1Tim. 3:4). Other male members of thefamily assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen.34).
AristotelianHousehold Codes
Notonly was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but alsothe later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted thebiblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosmof society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding householdmanagement, seeking to influence society for the greater good. Thisadvice was presented in oral and written discourses known as“household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes,written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Suchcodes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the malehead of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves.The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’shousehold codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has therule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in awoman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the caseof slaves, it is completely absent.”
TheAristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT textsthat, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph.5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 3:1–7). Allthese texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given tothe congregations seems to have been of contextual missional valuefor the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family livingfor all times in all contexts.
Marriageand Divorce
Marriagein the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between twofamilies, arranged by the bride’s father or a malerepresentative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’sprice.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction butalso an expression of family honor. Only the rich could affordmultiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself wascelebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.
Theprimary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to producea male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. Theconcept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs,especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.
Marriageamong Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jewssought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev.18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew.Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainlyoutside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness.Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romansdid practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinshipgroup (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategicalliances between families.
InJewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. Thisstate of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of theman’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary(Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yettheir union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved onlythrough death or divorce.
Greekand Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. InJewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorceproceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release herand repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (inparticular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Siracomments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to thefather (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery(Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictiveuse of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).
Children,Parenting, and Education
Childbearingwas considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman andher entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to thisblessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, andspecifically their husbands.
Abortioncommonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had tobe encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1Tim. 2:15).
Childrenwere of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. Anestimated 60percent of the children in the first-centuryMediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.
AncientNear Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting stylebased on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and eviltendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent eviltendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The mainconcern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty.Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stagechildren were taught to accept the total authority of the father. Therearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girlswere taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so thatthey could help with household tasks.
Earlyeducation took place in the home. Jewish education was centeredaround the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’sresponsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7),especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence ofHellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls,however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys wereeducated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and orallaw. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Romaneducation was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primaryschools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in somecases girls were allowed to attend school as well.
Familyas an Analogy
Therelationship between Israel and God.Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak offidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT,the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In theiroverall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to infamilial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod.4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16;64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).
Theprophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspringof a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayedas a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife asrebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophetJeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by theinfidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). Thefamilial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle forproclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law andcultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similarpicture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. Oneinterpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves aneschatological tradition of family disruption with a futurerestoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.
Thechurch as the family of God.Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him.This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26;Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship,the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt.16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into thecommunity was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom,belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39;16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63;John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30;Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community waseventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the communityof his followers, God’s family—the church. See alsoAdoption.
AncientNear East
Theancient Near East was a male-dominated culture in which, therefore,women were marginalized and treated more or less as property. Note,for example, Boaz’s question “Who does that young womanbelong to?” (Ruth 2:5). Women, of course, produce children, andthis power was prized. Women were also fit to engage in variousmundane tasks, but they were not trained for war or educated forservice in the royal court. Their role in society was subordinate andsecondary.
Inthe Epic of Gilgamesh, the wild and powerful Enkidu met a “wisewoman” who seduced him. Thereafter, Enkidu was tamed andweakened. She made a civilized man of him. In the Ugaritic legend ofDanil, Danil was unhappy because he had no sons. With the blessing ofthe gods, he married Hurriya, and had sons and daughters. Thus, sonsfulfilled Danil as much as they fulfilled the woman.
Butthe power to reproduce, which resides in the woman’s womb, alsowas mysterious and seemed to belong in the same category as otherforces of nature, such as the rebirth of life in the spring followingsterile winter. Thus, the ancient world was filled with goddesses ofgreat power. These goddesses at times also took on masculinecharacteristics, such as displaying great prowess in war; this isespecially true of Anat of Canaanite mythology.
ThroughoutIsrael’s sojourn in the Promised Land, there was anundercurrent of Canaanite-style goddess worship. In the period of thejudges, the Israelites worshiped the goddess Asherah (Judg. 6:25).Led astray by his wives, Solomon also worshiped the goddess (1Kings11:1–8). The “fertility cult” included ritual sexin places of worship. This eventually took place in the temple ofYahweh. Much of this seems to have been hom*osexual sex (2Kings23:7).
Creationof Woman
Inthe Bible, woman is first encountered along with man in Gen. 1:26–28.God created “man” in the plural, male and female, andcommanded them to reproduce and to fill the earth and subdue it.Being created male and female is set in parallel to being created inthe image of God. In the ancient Near East, perhaps the king would bethought of as the image of God. But in Genesis, not only is the firstman the image of God, but the first woman participates in the imageas well. This is all but unthinkable in the ancient world, and itsuggests an unparalleled dignity and worth in womankind.
Genesisrecords that the human race fell through the instrumentality of aman, a woman, and the serpent. The serpent approached the woman, notthe man. The woman was convinced by the serpent and ate the forbiddenfruit. She gave some to her husband, who also ate it without saying aword. Thus, the woman can be blamed in part for the fall of the race.Adam was condemned because he “listened to [his] wife”(Gen. 3:17). Her judgment, for heeding the serpent, was pain inchildbirth and a desire for her husband, who would rule over her(Gen. 3:16). The exact parameters of this judgment are unclear, butit appears that her desire will be for his position of leadership andwill be perpetually frustrated.
Throughoutthe remainder of Genesis, this judgment does not seem to unfold asexpected. Instead, men are shown to desire women. Jacob was willingto work seven years to get the beautiful Rachel as his wife, and whenhe was fooled into marrying her sister, Leah, he was willing to workanother seven years for her (Gen. 29:16–30). And women exploitmen and their desire in order to get what they want, in effectmastering them. Lot’s daughters contrived to get what theywanted from him (19:30–38), and Tamar manipulated Judah’sdesire (38:13–26).
Reproduction
Oftenin the Bible, women are motivated by their desire to have children.Rachel demanded of Jacob, “Give me children, or I’lldie!” (Gen. 30:1). She saw herself in competition with hersister, Leah, in this respect (30:8). The “fruit of the womb”is a reward, and like arrows, the blessed man’s quiver is fullof them (Ps. 127:1–5). Note also the beatitude of Ps. 128:3:“Your wife will be like a fruitful vine within your house; yourchildren will be like olive shoots around your table.”
InGenesis, the reproductive capability of slave girls is at thedisposal of their owners. Thus, Rachel and Leah’s maidservantsbecame surrogate mothers for a number of their sons (Gen. 30:3–10).Sarah also became frustrated at her inability to conceive, so shegave Hagar to Abraham. The result was great familial turmoil, finallyresulting in the banishment of both Hagar and Ishmael, whom she boreto Abraham.
Inthe beginning, God joined one man and one woman together as husbandand wife. But soon this idea was corrupted, and Lamech, a man fromCain’s lineage, is credited with the first polygamous marriage(Gen. 4:19). Although the patriarchs (such as Jacob) did have morethan one wife, the household discontent and strife are what ishighlighted in those stories, such as with Hagar. In the NT, an elderis to be, literally, a “one-woman man” (1Tim. 3:2;ESV, KJV: “the husband of onewife”),meaningmonogamous.
Inthe Bible, women are described as having a number of different sexualrelationships with men. There were wives, who enjoyed the closestrelationship and had the greatest privileges. There were concubines,who were not wives but were bound to a single man. The greatestdeviation from the norm of creation was the institution of the harem,whereby a king took to himself any number of consorts. The law ofMoses restricted this practice (Deut. 17:17).
Legislation
TheTorah contains significant legislation regarding women. The daughtersof Zelophehad argued that their father died without sons, so inCanaan they were disinherited. God agreed and decreed that in Israeldaughters would inherit land in the absence of sons. Only if therewere no children at all would the land pass to other kin (Num.27:1–11).
Whena man made a vow, he must fulfill it, but a young woman’s vowwas subject to her father. If he remained silent, the vow stood, butif he expressed disapproval, then she was freed from it. If she wasmarried, her husband governed her vows, but if she was divorced, thenthere was no responsible male over her, and her vow was treated as aman’s (Num. 30:1–16).
Sexualintercourse was also regulated in the law of Moses, insofar as theact rendered both parties ritually impure (Lev. 15:18). Both mustbathe and were unclean until evening. A woman’s menstrualdischarge also made her unclean for a week. Everything she sat or layupon was unclean, as was anyone who touched these things. She mustwash and offer sacrifice to become clean again (15:18–31).
Ifa man discovered on his wedding night that his bride was not avirgin, he could accuse her publicly. If her parents providedevidence that she had in fact been a virgin, then the man wasseverely punished for lying and not allowed to divorce her(otherwise, it was simply a matter of writing a letter to divorce her[Deut. 24:1]). If her virginity could not be proved, she was to beput to death by stoning (Deut. 22:13–21).
Inthe case of a rape of a betrothed virgin, if it occurred in the city,both the rapist and the victim were stoned, since apparently she hadfailed to cry out for help and thus, the law assumed, consented tosexual intercourse. If she was raped in the countryside, only the manwas killed. But if he raped a woman who was not spoken for, hispunishment was that he must marry her without possibility of divorce(Deut. 22:23–29).
Numbers5:11–31 treats cases where a husband was suspicious that hiswife had been unfaithful—that is, a matter of covenantaljealousy. The unprovable was left to God to punish.
TheStatus of Women
Inthe Bible, women sometimes are afforded dignity beyond what isexpected in an ancient Near Eastern provenance. Hagar is the onlywoman in all ancient Near Eastern literature who gave a name to adeity (Gen. 16:13). In Judg. 4:4, Deborah “judged” Israel(despite the NIV’s “leading,” the underlying Hebrewverb indicates “judging,” as in the NRSV). Even as judge,however, she did not lead the army against the enemy general Sisera;Barak did so. But Barak was unwilling to undertake this missionunless Deborah went with him (4:8). Thus, God ensured that theprestige of killing Sisera went to a woman, Jael (4:9, 21). Anotherprominent woman was Huldah, to whom the priests turned for guidancewhen the law was rediscovered (2Kings 22:14).
Manybiblical stories feature heroines. Mighty Pharaoh was undermined bytwo midwives in his attempt to destroy Israel (Exod. 1:15–21).Ruth the Moabite woman gave her name to the book that recounts hertrek from Moab to Israel, including her famous oath of loyalty (Ruth1:16–17). Esther too was a courageous woman whose book bearsher name. Heroines are especially prominent in the Gospels, and thewomen there have the distinction of being the first to witness therisen Lord. Luke’s birth narrative is largely organized aroundMary. Priscilla (with her husband) taught and helped to shape theearly church (Acts 18:26). Paul lists many women in Rom. 16, callingthem “deaconess,” “fellow worker,” andpossibly even “apostle.”
Scripturealso at times portrays various women as being temptations to men. Evehanded the fruit to Adam (Gen. 3:6). In the wilderness Israelworshiped Moabite gods in conjunction with sexual activity (Num.25:1–9). Later, Israelites intermarried with Canaanite women,directly leading to worship of their idols (Judg. 3:6). Bathsheba wasa temptation to David, and this began a series of events that marredhis career as a man after God’s own heart. Solomon loved manyforeign women, who turned him to worship their gods. After the exile,the Israelites were admonished by Nehemiah to put away their foreignwives lest history repeat itself (Neh. 13:26).
Songof Songs
Songof Songs, while acknowledging the great power of sexuality to movepeople to act against their own best interests, nevertheless portrayslove in a very positive light. The love between a man and a woman isshown in Song of Songs to be not primarily about generating children.Offspring are not at issue in the Bible’s great love song.Rather, relations between man and wife rest on a deeper foundation,that of sexual enjoyment and desire. In the words of Hannah’shusband, Elkanah, “Don’t I mean more to you than tensons?” (1Sam. 1:8).
InGen. 3:16, God pronounces judgment on the woman that her “desire”will be for her husband, but that he will master her. The Hebrew wordfor “desire” occurs only once outside Genesis, in Song7:10, where the woman says that her lover’s “desire”is for her. This seems to be a direct reference to Gen. 3:16. Thus,in Song of Songs the judgment on the woman is rolled back andreversed in love. In Song of Songs it is the king who is enthralledin love and thus subdued (7:5). He would not have it any other way!
Thus,sexuality is celebrated in Song of Songs. What proves to be such agrave temptation to men elsewhere is shown to be an essential part ofGod’s good creation, albeit a potent and dangerous facet oflife. Women do not exist simply to produce children; they partner andrevel with their lovers, together enjoying that particular part ofGod’s creation that requires two sexes to explore.
Imagery
Womenand marriage are used in the Bible as images for spiritual things.Paul writes that marital love mirrors the church’s relationshipwith Christ (Eph. 5:32–33). A man should love his wife asChrist loved the church. Revelation portrays the climax to humanhistory in the figure of two women: the bride of Christ, adorned withrighteous deeds for her husband (19:7–8), and the whor*Babylon, drunk on the blood of the saints (17:5–6). Theconsummation of the age is when one is judged and the other entersher eternal marital bliss.
Thebook of Proverbs also separates humankind into two groups, symbolizedby two women. Along the path of life, the youth hears the voices ofWoman Folly (9:13–18) and of Woman Wisdom (1:20–33)calling out to him. Folly is incarnated in the flesh-and-bloodtemptation of the immoral woman (7:6–27), whereas Woman Wisdomhas her counterpart at the end of the book in the detaileddescription of the woman of virtue (31:10–31). There, the womanwho fears God is set as a prize far above earthly wealth—thehighest blessing of the wise.
Pauluses two women from sacred history to help explain his gospel of lawversus grace. Hagar the slave woman represents the Mosaic covenantgiven at Sinai, and the earthly Jerusalem—that is, a mind-setof slavery that futilely attempts to earn God’s favor by worksof the law. Sarah was the free woman, and her son was the promisedson, who represents the heavenly Jerusalem, the new covenant, andfreedom from the requirements of the law (Gal. 4:21–31). Again,two women symbolize two paths and two peoples—one being slaves,the other being God’s free people.
ChurchGovernment
Throughoutmost of Christian history, women’s roles in the church havebeen comparable to their role in the general culture. Womenparticipated little in the institutional life of society, and thechurch was no different. A number of Bible texts can be used insupport of women’s marginalization as leaders. For example, inthe OT, the cult was managed by the priestly caste, and no woman wasever a priest of Yahweh. In the NT, the local churches were overseenby a company of elders. Elders are described by Paul as men, thehusband of one wife, who were apt to teach and who managed their ownfamilies well (1Tim. 3:1–7). Immediately before thisdescription, Paul notes that women were not to teach or haveauthority over men (1Tim. 2:9–15). Women were the “weakerpartner” (1Pet. 3:7). Thus, women’s subordinaterole throughout most of church history has some biblicaljustification.
However,as women participate more and more in the institutional life ofsociety, the normative value of the aforementioned texts has beenquestioned, and other texts have been put forward to provide analternative biblical conception of women’s roles in the church.Perhaps 1Tim. 2:12 is only against teaching a specific heresy,and the Greek verb translated “to assume authority over”(authenteō)may refer to a specific kind of authoritarian or domineeringbehavior. As noted above, in Rom. 16 Paul considers women to beleaders in the church. Since it is true that in Christ there is nomale or female (Gal. 3:28), how far does this extend? Today’schallenge for churches is to decide these matters in light of thewhole of Scripture rather than a few proof texts.
Secondary Matches
The following suggestions occured because
1 Peter 3:1-7
is mentioned in the definition.
Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engagedin raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustriallifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority offamilies resided in rural areas and villages.
Peoplein the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin.Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family wasthe source of people’s status in the community and provided theprimary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.
Marriagewas not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather,marriage was between two families. Family members and kin thereforetook precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments,authority within families and communities was determined by rankamong kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because itoverthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Romantradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family andcommunity relationships.
PatriarchalStructures
Apatrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and everyhousehold belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan inwhich kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, thefathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clangroups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman worldmaintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.
Familydiscipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honorof the father depended on his ability to keep every family memberunder his authority (1Tim. 3:4). Other male members of thefamily assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen.34).
AristotelianHousehold Codes
Notonly was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but alsothe later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted thebiblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosmof society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding householdmanagement, seeking to influence society for the greater good. Thisadvice was presented in oral and written discourses known as“household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes,written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Suchcodes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the malehead of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves.The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’shousehold codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has therule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in awoman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the caseof slaves, it is completely absent.”
TheAristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT textsthat, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph.5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 3:1–7). Allthese texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given tothe congregations seems to have been of contextual missional valuefor the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family livingfor all times in all contexts.
Marriageand Divorce
Marriagein the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between twofamilies, arranged by the bride’s father or a malerepresentative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’sprice.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction butalso an expression of family honor. Only the rich could affordmultiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself wascelebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.
Theprimary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to producea male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. Theconcept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs,especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.
Marriageamong Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jewssought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev.18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew.Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainlyoutside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness.Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romansdid practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinshipgroup (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategicalliances between families.
InJewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. Thisstate of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of theman’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary(Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yettheir union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved onlythrough death or divorce.
Greekand Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. InJewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorceproceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release herand repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (inparticular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Siracomments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to thefather (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery(Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictiveuse of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).
Children,Parenting, and Education
Childbearingwas considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman andher entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to thisblessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, andspecifically their husbands.
Abortioncommonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had tobe encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1Tim. 2:15).
Childrenwere of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. Anestimated 60percent of the children in the first-centuryMediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.
AncientNear Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting stylebased on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and eviltendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent eviltendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The mainconcern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty.Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stagechildren were taught to accept the total authority of the father. Therearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girlswere taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so thatthey could help with household tasks.
Earlyeducation took place in the home. Jewish education was centeredaround the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’sresponsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7),especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence ofHellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls,however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys wereeducated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and orallaw. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Romaneducation was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primaryschools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in somecases girls were allowed to attend school as well.
Familyas an Analogy
Therelationship between Israel and God.Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak offidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT,the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In theiroverall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to infamilial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod.4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16;64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).
Theprophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspringof a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayedas a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife asrebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophetJeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by theinfidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). Thefamilial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle forproclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law andcultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similarpicture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. Oneinterpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves aneschatological tradition of family disruption with a futurerestoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.
Thechurch as the family of God.Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him.This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26;Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship,the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt.16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into thecommunity was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom,belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39;16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63;John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30;Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community waseventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the communityof his followers, God’s family—the church. See alsoAdoption.
Precious stones appear in visions and theophanies in theBible. Examples include Ezek. 1:16; 10:1; Rev. 4:3. These preciousstones, also used in jewelry, were well known to people in theancient Near East and in the first-century Mediterranean basin.
Jewelryknown in antiquity is broadly divided into two groups: everydayjewelry and fine jewelry. Everyday jewelry, found commonly among thepeople, was made of materials such as bronze, iron, and bone. Finejewelry, on the other hand, consisted of objects crafted from gold orsilver and included costly and precious stones. Jewelry was worn bothby men and women as part of clothing. The ancients also conservedwealth with investments in jewels or used jewels as indicators ofsocioeconomic placing in society.
Mostgold jewelry had sheet metal as its foundation. This sheet metal wasshaped and/or decorated. One form of decoration, filigree, involvedsoldering wiring in a pattern on a background. A later form ofdecoration known as granulation used tiny grains of gold as asubstitute for wires. An additional method of decorating jewelry wasinlaying with colored stones, glass, or other precious items.Engraving was likewise used for decoration.
Jewelryin Antiquity
Jewelryhas been discovered in Babylon dating back as far as 2700 BC.Examples of jewelry from this era were found in cemeteries in thecity of Ur. Examples of ancient jewelry were likewise found incemeteries on the island of Crete, dating back to 2400 BC. Otherspecimens of jewelry come from the Mycenaean world around 1100 BC.Jewelry dating after 800 BC was of high quality. During this periodplaces such as Knossos on Crete and cities such as Corinth and Athensproduced beautiful gold work.
Bythe seventh century BC, the finest jewelry was found on the Greekislands and in Asia Minor. Jewelry in Ephesus was offered to thegoddess Diana, yet was also made for personal adornment. By 600 BC,jewelry became very scarce in Greece. This scarcity lasted for thenext 150 years. Archaeologists postulate that supplies of gold werecut off by the Persians. After the Persians were defeated during theClassical period, some of the finest gold work was produced. CapturedPersian treasures and exploitation of Macedonian mines made gold andprecious stones and metals highly accessible to the Greeks.Consequently, jewelry was readily available during the Hellenisticperiod. The Greeks incorporated a variety of stones in their jewelry:carnelian, chalcedony, amethyst, and garnet, as well as small pearls.Materials and inspiration for the Greeks for certain types of jewelrycame from newly conquered territories. In the early Roman Empirejewelry resembled that seen during the Hellenistic period. Ingeneral, during the Greek and the Roman periods, jewelry wasgold-plated and decorated with costly stones.
Certainwriters in antiquity documented well-known or costly jewelry andprecious stones. One Roman historian described the value of pearls asthe “topmost rank among all things of price.”Correspondingly, he wrote about two pearls owned by Cleopatra, queenof Egypt, known as the largest in history. The Egyptian Book of theDead, dating to around 1500 BC, makes mention of amulets in the shapeof hearts, considered jewelry by some experts. These amulets weremade of carnelian, lapis lazuli, and green feldspar.
Jewelryin the biblical world was known by different terms. An ornamentalcirclet worn singly or as multiples on one’s arms or legs wasknown as a “bangle.” This term, however, does not occurin the Bible. The abundant presence of bangles as artifacts inarchaeological digs is an indicator of their significance in everydaylife in the biblical world. Bangles were stiff ornaments ofrelatively heavy weight. Materials varied: bronze, iron, silver,gold, and so forth. Bangles were of three types: bracelets, anklets,and armlets. They were either solid, complete circles or circletswith two distinct ends. These ends had specific designs, oftenartistically crafted in the shape of animal heads, such as those ofserpents.
Ringslikewise were prevalent in the biblical world. Rings were worn in theears, nose, and around fingers and toes. Nose rings were popularduring the Iron Age (1200–586 BC). In addition, rings were wornon neck cords. Rings not only were worn as articles of adornment butalso were used as signets. Brooches or pins mostly were worn onclothing and were made of wood, bronze, iron, silver, or gold.
Amuletswere common as religious jewelry. Worn as divine protection fromharm, amulets varied from simple to ornate. Egyptian amulets oftenincorporated snake imagery or representations of Egyptian gods.Ancient Near Eastern amulets often were smaller than an inch wide.Greek amulets were colorful and crafted from stones. Christianamulets in the shape of the crucified Christ have also been found.
Althoughnot often worn individually, beads were the most prevalent jewelryitem in the ancient Near East. Beads were strung in bracelets, rings,circlets, and so forth.
Jewelryin the Bible
Manydifferent items of jewelry are found in the Bible, including earrings(Gen. 35:4; Exod. 35:22; Judg. 8:24–26; Job 42:11), bracelets(Gen. 24:22, 30, 47; Num. 31:50), necklaces (Gen. 41:42; Ezek. 16:11;Dan. 5:29), nose rings (Gen. 24:22, 30, 47; Isa. 3:21; Ezek. 16:12),rings (Gen. 38:18, 25; 41:42; Exod. 28:11, 21, 36; 35:22; 39:14, 30;Num. 31:50; 1Kings 21:8; Esther 3:10, 12; 8:2, 8, 10; Job38:14; Isa. 3:21; Jer. 22:24; Hos. 2:13; Luke 15:22; James 2:2),headbands (Exod. 13:16; Deut. 6:8; 11:18), armlets (Num. 31:50;2Sam. 1:10; Isa. 3:20), pendants (Judg. 8:21, 26; Isa. 3:18),and anklets (Isa. 3:20).
Variousarticles of jewelry in the Bible carried significance beyond mereaesthetics. Early in Genesis, bracelets were used to signify thedesire for covenantal marriage. When Abraham’s servantdiscovered Rebekah, a potential bride for Isaac, he gave her a nosering and placed bracelets on her arms to signify that God had chosenher (Gen. 24:22, 47). The bracelets and nose ring weighed over tenshekels. By placing the jewelry on Rebekah’s arm, the servantindicated that a marriage contract was sought. The high value of thejewelry signifies the high bridal price paid for Rebekah.
Earlyin the OT, jewelry was used in temple worship. The law designatedthat the high priest’s breastpiece and ephod contain preciousstones along with setting stones. The stones signified the majestyand holiness of God as his people worshiped in his holy temple (Exod.25:7; 35:9).
Loversflattered one another by comparing physical features to articles offine jewelry (Song 5:14) and admiring their fine jewelry (4:9). God’speople appear as a jeweled necklace when God gathers them (Isa.49:18) and are as highly esteemed as a bride adorned with jewels(61:10).
Biblicalauthors also challenged people’s desire for jewelry withadmonitions to seek godly attributes and gifts of God above jewelsand jewelry. Wisdom was to be desired above jewels (Prov. 3:15;8:11), knowledgeable speech above gold and jewels (20:15), and agodly spouse far above jewels (31:10).
Similarto the habits of most ancient cultures, Israelite kings and othernotable leaders wore jewelry of special significance. Like otherkings of antiquity, Saul wore armlets and a crown (2Sam. 1:10),which were intended to signify royalty and competence in militaryaffairs. Such jewelry typically carried insignias that denotedfeatures of national and royal identity. The victorious warrior inRev. 19 wears many diadems (crowns) in order to signify his unmatchedpower (19:12). He has more than one crown, and even more than sevendiadems, which is the number of diadems that the dragon has (12:3).
Attimes, jewelry carried negative connotations, especially whenacquired within polytheistic trends of society or else designed as anobject of worship. Even Jacob was found burying his jewelry thataccompanied his foreign idols (Gen. 35:4). Such instances lendcredence to theories that even early Hebrew faith wrangled withpolytheism and was infused with its many golden artifacts. Gideonmade an ephod from the sparkling plunder (rings and pendants) of theMidianites (Judg. 8:21). This ephod became an object of worship forthe Israelites and greatly offended God.
Kingshad signet rings that contained their own personalized engravings.The engravings were made by stonecutters who carefully worked thesmall semiprecious stones atop the rings. Throughout the OT, ringswere used to make impressions on official documents (Exod. 28:11;1Kings 21:8; Esther 8:8). Prophets used signet rings to sealprophecies that were of grave importance for the nation (Isa. 8:16;Jer. 32:10). Unique rings were designed by notable families in orderto signify the honor of the patriarch. Of special interest is theusage of the ring in Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son. Thering was placed on the returning son’s finger to show theradical grace of the father, who was willing to join his honor to hisson’s shame (Luke 15:22) as the son was brought back into thehousehold.
Incertain NT writings, women are admonished not to adorn themselveswith external jewelry (1Tim. 2:9; 1Pet. 3:3), as this wasa sign of materialism and immodesty. In Rev. 21, jewels appear inJohn’s depiction of the new Jerusalem: it is a city of majesticbeauty adorned with precious jewels, gates of pearls, and streets ofgold (21:18–21).
Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engagedin raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustriallifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority offamilies resided in rural areas and villages.
Peoplein the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin.Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family wasthe source of people’s status in the community and provided theprimary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.
Marriagewas not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather,marriage was between two families. Family members and kin thereforetook precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments,authority within families and communities was determined by rankamong kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because itoverthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Romantradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family andcommunity relationships.
PatriarchalStructures
Apatrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and everyhousehold belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan inwhich kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, thefathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clangroups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman worldmaintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.
Familydiscipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honorof the father depended on his ability to keep every family memberunder his authority (1Tim. 3:4). Other male members of thefamily assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen.34).
AristotelianHousehold Codes
Notonly was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but alsothe later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted thebiblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosmof society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding householdmanagement, seeking to influence society for the greater good. Thisadvice was presented in oral and written discourses known as“household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes,written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Suchcodes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the malehead of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves.The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’shousehold codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has therule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in awoman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the caseof slaves, it is completely absent.”
TheAristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT textsthat, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph.5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 3:1–7). Allthese texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given tothe congregations seems to have been of contextual missional valuefor the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family livingfor all times in all contexts.
Marriageand Divorce
Marriagein the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between twofamilies, arranged by the bride’s father or a malerepresentative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’sprice.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction butalso an expression of family honor. Only the rich could affordmultiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself wascelebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.
Theprimary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to producea male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. Theconcept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs,especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.
Marriageamong Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jewssought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev.18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew.Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainlyoutside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness.Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romansdid practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinshipgroup (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategicalliances between families.
InJewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. Thisstate of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of theman’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary(Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yettheir union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved onlythrough death or divorce.
Greekand Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. InJewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorceproceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release herand repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (inparticular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Siracomments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to thefather (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery(Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictiveuse of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).
Children,Parenting, and Education
Childbearingwas considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman andher entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to thisblessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, andspecifically their husbands.
Abortioncommonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had tobe encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1Tim. 2:15).
Childrenwere of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. Anestimated 60percent of the children in the first-centuryMediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.
AncientNear Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting stylebased on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and eviltendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent eviltendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The mainconcern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty.Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stagechildren were taught to accept the total authority of the father. Therearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girlswere taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so thatthey could help with household tasks.
Earlyeducation took place in the home. Jewish education was centeredaround the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’sresponsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7),especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence ofHellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls,however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys wereeducated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and orallaw. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Romaneducation was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primaryschools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in somecases girls were allowed to attend school as well.
Familyas an Analogy
Therelationship between Israel and God.Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak offidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT,the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In theiroverall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to infamilial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod.4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16;64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).
Theprophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspringof a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayedas a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife asrebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophetJeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by theinfidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). Thefamilial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle forproclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law andcultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similarpicture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. Oneinterpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves aneschatological tradition of family disruption with a futurerestoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.
Thechurch as the family of God.Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him.This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26;Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship,the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt.16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into thecommunity was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom,belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39;16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63;John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30;Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community waseventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the communityof his followers, God’s family—the church. See alsoAdoption.
Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engagedin raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustriallifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority offamilies resided in rural areas and villages.
Peoplein the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin.Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family wasthe source of people’s status in the community and provided theprimary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.
Marriagewas not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather,marriage was between two families. Family members and kin thereforetook precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments,authority within families and communities was determined by rankamong kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because itoverthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Romantradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family andcommunity relationships.
PatriarchalStructures
Apatrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and everyhousehold belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan inwhich kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, thefathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clangroups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman worldmaintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.
Familydiscipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honorof the father depended on his ability to keep every family memberunder his authority (1Tim. 3:4). Other male members of thefamily assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen.34).
AristotelianHousehold Codes
Notonly was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but alsothe later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted thebiblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosmof society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding householdmanagement, seeking to influence society for the greater good. Thisadvice was presented in oral and written discourses known as“household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes,written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Suchcodes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the malehead of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves.The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’shousehold codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has therule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in awoman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the caseof slaves, it is completely absent.”
TheAristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT textsthat, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph.5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 3:1–7). Allthese texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given tothe congregations seems to have been of contextual missional valuefor the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family livingfor all times in all contexts.
Marriageand Divorce
Marriagein the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between twofamilies, arranged by the bride’s father or a malerepresentative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’sprice.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction butalso an expression of family honor. Only the rich could affordmultiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself wascelebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.
Theprimary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to producea male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. Theconcept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs,especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.
Marriageamong Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jewssought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev.18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew.Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainlyoutside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness.Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romansdid practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinshipgroup (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategicalliances between families.
InJewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. Thisstate of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of theman’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary(Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yettheir union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved onlythrough death or divorce.
Greekand Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. InJewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorceproceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release herand repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (inparticular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Siracomments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to thefather (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery(Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictiveuse of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).
Children,Parenting, and Education
Childbearingwas considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman andher entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to thisblessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, andspecifically their husbands.
Abortioncommonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had tobe encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1Tim. 2:15).
Childrenwere of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. Anestimated 60percent of the children in the first-centuryMediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.
AncientNear Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting stylebased on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and eviltendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent eviltendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The mainconcern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty.Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stagechildren were taught to accept the total authority of the father. Therearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girlswere taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so thatthey could help with household tasks.
Earlyeducation took place in the home. Jewish education was centeredaround the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’sresponsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7),especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence ofHellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls,however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys wereeducated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and orallaw. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Romaneducation was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primaryschools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in somecases girls were allowed to attend school as well.
Familyas an Analogy
Therelationship between Israel and God.Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak offidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT,the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In theiroverall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to infamilial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod.4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16;64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).
Theprophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspringof a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayedas a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife asrebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophetJeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by theinfidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). Thefamilial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle forproclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law andcultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similarpicture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. Oneinterpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves aneschatological tradition of family disruption with a futurerestoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.
Thechurch as the family of God.Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him.This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26;Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship,the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt.16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into thecommunity was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom,belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39;16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63;John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30;Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community waseventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the communityof his followers, God’s family—the church. See alsoAdoption.
Precious stones appear in visions and theophanies in theBible. Examples include Ezek. 1:16; 10:1; Rev. 4:3. These preciousstones, also used in jewelry, were well known to people in theancient Near East and in the first-century Mediterranean basin.
Jewelryknown in antiquity is broadly divided into two groups: everydayjewelry and fine jewelry. Everyday jewelry, found commonly among thepeople, was made of materials such as bronze, iron, and bone. Finejewelry, on the other hand, consisted of objects crafted from gold orsilver and included costly and precious stones. Jewelry was worn bothby men and women as part of clothing. The ancients also conservedwealth with investments in jewels or used jewels as indicators ofsocioeconomic placing in society.
Mostgold jewelry had sheet metal as its foundation. This sheet metal wasshaped and/or decorated. One form of decoration, filigree, involvedsoldering wiring in a pattern on a background. A later form ofdecoration known as granulation used tiny grains of gold as asubstitute for wires. An additional method of decorating jewelry wasinlaying with colored stones, glass, or other precious items.Engraving was likewise used for decoration.
Jewelryin Antiquity
Jewelryhas been discovered in Babylon dating back as far as 2700 BC.Examples of jewelry from this era were found in cemeteries in thecity of Ur. Examples of ancient jewelry were likewise found incemeteries on the island of Crete, dating back to 2400 BC. Otherspecimens of jewelry come from the Mycenaean world around 1100 BC.Jewelry dating after 800 BC was of high quality. During this periodplaces such as Knossos on Crete and cities such as Corinth and Athensproduced beautiful gold work.
Bythe seventh century BC, the finest jewelry was found on the Greekislands and in Asia Minor. Jewelry in Ephesus was offered to thegoddess Diana, yet was also made for personal adornment. By 600 BC,jewelry became very scarce in Greece. This scarcity lasted for thenext 150 years. Archaeologists postulate that supplies of gold werecut off by the Persians. After the Persians were defeated during theClassical period, some of the finest gold work was produced. CapturedPersian treasures and exploitation of Macedonian mines made gold andprecious stones and metals highly accessible to the Greeks.Consequently, jewelry was readily available during the Hellenisticperiod. The Greeks incorporated a variety of stones in their jewelry:carnelian, chalcedony, amethyst, and garnet, as well as small pearls.Materials and inspiration for the Greeks for certain types of jewelrycame from newly conquered territories. In the early Roman Empirejewelry resembled that seen during the Hellenistic period. Ingeneral, during the Greek and the Roman periods, jewelry wasgold-plated and decorated with costly stones.
Certainwriters in antiquity documented well-known or costly jewelry andprecious stones. One Roman historian described the value of pearls asthe “topmost rank among all things of price.”Correspondingly, he wrote about two pearls owned by Cleopatra, queenof Egypt, known as the largest in history. The Egyptian Book of theDead, dating to around 1500 BC, makes mention of amulets in the shapeof hearts, considered jewelry by some experts. These amulets weremade of carnelian, lapis lazuli, and green feldspar.
Jewelryin the biblical world was known by different terms. An ornamentalcirclet worn singly or as multiples on one’s arms or legs wasknown as a “bangle.” This term, however, does not occurin the Bible. The abundant presence of bangles as artifacts inarchaeological digs is an indicator of their significance in everydaylife in the biblical world. Bangles were stiff ornaments ofrelatively heavy weight. Materials varied: bronze, iron, silver,gold, and so forth. Bangles were of three types: bracelets, anklets,and armlets. They were either solid, complete circles or circletswith two distinct ends. These ends had specific designs, oftenartistically crafted in the shape of animal heads, such as those ofserpents.
Ringslikewise were prevalent in the biblical world. Rings were worn in theears, nose, and around fingers and toes. Nose rings were popularduring the Iron Age (1200–586 BC). In addition, rings were wornon neck cords. Rings not only were worn as articles of adornment butalso were used as signets. Brooches or pins mostly were worn onclothing and were made of wood, bronze, iron, silver, or gold.
Amuletswere common as religious jewelry. Worn as divine protection fromharm, amulets varied from simple to ornate. Egyptian amulets oftenincorporated snake imagery or representations of Egyptian gods.Ancient Near Eastern amulets often were smaller than an inch wide.Greek amulets were colorful and crafted from stones. Christianamulets in the shape of the crucified Christ have also been found.
Althoughnot often worn individually, beads were the most prevalent jewelryitem in the ancient Near East. Beads were strung in bracelets, rings,circlets, and so forth.
Jewelryin the Bible
Manydifferent items of jewelry are found in the Bible, including earrings(Gen. 35:4; Exod. 35:22; Judg. 8:24–26; Job 42:11), bracelets(Gen. 24:22, 30, 47; Num. 31:50), necklaces (Gen. 41:42; Ezek. 16:11;Dan. 5:29), nose rings (Gen. 24:22, 30, 47; Isa. 3:21; Ezek. 16:12),rings (Gen. 38:18, 25; 41:42; Exod. 28:11, 21, 36; 35:22; 39:14, 30;Num. 31:50; 1Kings 21:8; Esther 3:10, 12; 8:2, 8, 10; Job38:14; Isa. 3:21; Jer. 22:24; Hos. 2:13; Luke 15:22; James 2:2),headbands (Exod. 13:16; Deut. 6:8; 11:18), armlets (Num. 31:50;2Sam. 1:10; Isa. 3:20), pendants (Judg. 8:21, 26; Isa. 3:18),and anklets (Isa. 3:20).
Variousarticles of jewelry in the Bible carried significance beyond mereaesthetics. Early in Genesis, bracelets were used to signify thedesire for covenantal marriage. When Abraham’s servantdiscovered Rebekah, a potential bride for Isaac, he gave her a nosering and placed bracelets on her arms to signify that God had chosenher (Gen. 24:22, 47). The bracelets and nose ring weighed over tenshekels. By placing the jewelry on Rebekah’s arm, the servantindicated that a marriage contract was sought. The high value of thejewelry signifies the high bridal price paid for Rebekah.
Earlyin the OT, jewelry was used in temple worship. The law designatedthat the high priest’s breastpiece and ephod contain preciousstones along with setting stones. The stones signified the majestyand holiness of God as his people worshiped in his holy temple (Exod.25:7; 35:9).
Loversflattered one another by comparing physical features to articles offine jewelry (Song 5:14) and admiring their fine jewelry (4:9). God’speople appear as a jeweled necklace when God gathers them (Isa.49:18) and are as highly esteemed as a bride adorned with jewels(61:10).
Biblicalauthors also challenged people’s desire for jewelry withadmonitions to seek godly attributes and gifts of God above jewelsand jewelry. Wisdom was to be desired above jewels (Prov. 3:15;8:11), knowledgeable speech above gold and jewels (20:15), and agodly spouse far above jewels (31:10).
Similarto the habits of most ancient cultures, Israelite kings and othernotable leaders wore jewelry of special significance. Like otherkings of antiquity, Saul wore armlets and a crown (2Sam. 1:10),which were intended to signify royalty and competence in militaryaffairs. Such jewelry typically carried insignias that denotedfeatures of national and royal identity. The victorious warrior inRev. 19 wears many diadems (crowns) in order to signify his unmatchedpower (19:12). He has more than one crown, and even more than sevendiadems, which is the number of diadems that the dragon has (12:3).
Attimes, jewelry carried negative connotations, especially whenacquired within polytheistic trends of society or else designed as anobject of worship. Even Jacob was found burying his jewelry thataccompanied his foreign idols (Gen. 35:4). Such instances lendcredence to theories that even early Hebrew faith wrangled withpolytheism and was infused with its many golden artifacts. Gideonmade an ephod from the sparkling plunder (rings and pendants) of theMidianites (Judg. 8:21). This ephod became an object of worship forthe Israelites and greatly offended God.
Kingshad signet rings that contained their own personalized engravings.The engravings were made by stonecutters who carefully worked thesmall semiprecious stones atop the rings. Throughout the OT, ringswere used to make impressions on official documents (Exod. 28:11;1Kings 21:8; Esther 8:8). Prophets used signet rings to sealprophecies that were of grave importance for the nation (Isa. 8:16;Jer. 32:10). Unique rings were designed by notable families in orderto signify the honor of the patriarch. Of special interest is theusage of the ring in Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son. Thering was placed on the returning son’s finger to show theradical grace of the father, who was willing to join his honor to hisson’s shame (Luke 15:22) as the son was brought back into thehousehold.
Incertain NT writings, women are admonished not to adorn themselveswith external jewelry (1Tim. 2:9; 1Pet. 3:3), as this wasa sign of materialism and immodesty. In Rev. 21, jewels appear inJohn’s depiction of the new Jerusalem: it is a city of majesticbeauty adorned with precious jewels, gates of pearls, and streets ofgold (21:18–21).
Although the Bible is dominated by a patriarchal perspective,as one would expect from the ancient Near East, there is also avaluing of women that comes to the surface. Although this falls shortof what we would call “gender equality” today, the Bibledoes make overtures in that direction. Already in the Genesiscreation story, men and women are described as the two halves ofhumanity, who together participate in the mandate to fill and subduethe earth (Gen. 1:26–28). Eve is created from the side of Adam,indicating equality in their very beings (2:21–23).
Inhis own ministry, Jesus includes women in ways that were unusual forhis context. In first-century Palestine, learning from spiritualteachers was a privilege reserved exclusively for men. However, inthe story of Mary and Martha (Luke 10:38–42), Jesus commendsMary for breaking her expected role as a woman in order to follow himand learn at his feet. Martha, however, receives a sharp rebuke forallowing domestic duties to hinder her discipleship. Jesus’first resurrection appearance is to women in all of the Gospels, eventhough the testimony of a woman was generally not considered valid inlegal matters in first-century Palestine (although rabbinicl*terature suggests it was considered valid testimony for a woman toconfirm a man’s death). Jesus takes particular efforts toelevate the position of women, despite a possible tarnishing of hispublic image.
Theconcern for greater gender equality extends into the rest of the NT.Paul says that in Christ all are one regardless of ethnicity, status,or gender (Gal. 3:28). Paul also refers to women as coworkers in thegospel (Rom. 16:3) and as deacons (16:1). Although frequently citedin order to support a hierarchal family structure, the householdcodes (Eph. 5:21–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; Titus 2:1–10;1Pet. 2:18–3:7) are a step toward gender equality in theGreco-Roman culture, since secular household codes usually placedresponsibilities on wives, not husbands. That Paul givesresponsibilities to husbands is a significant shift toward amutuality of devotion and obligation.
Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engagedin raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustriallifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority offamilies resided in rural areas and villages.
Peoplein the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin.Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family wasthe source of people’s status in the community and provided theprimary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.
Marriagewas not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather,marriage was between two families. Family members and kin thereforetook precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments,authority within families and communities was determined by rankamong kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because itoverthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Romantradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family andcommunity relationships.
PatriarchalStructures
Apatrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and everyhousehold belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan inwhich kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, thefathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clangroups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman worldmaintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.
Familydiscipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honorof the father depended on his ability to keep every family memberunder his authority (1Tim. 3:4). Other male members of thefamily assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen.34).
AristotelianHousehold Codes
Notonly was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but alsothe later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted thebiblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosmof society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding householdmanagement, seeking to influence society for the greater good. Thisadvice was presented in oral and written discourses known as“household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes,written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Suchcodes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the malehead of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves.The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’shousehold codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has therule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in awoman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the caseof slaves, it is completely absent.”
TheAristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT textsthat, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph.5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 3:1–7). Allthese texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given tothe congregations seems to have been of contextual missional valuefor the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family livingfor all times in all contexts.
Marriageand Divorce
Marriagein the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between twofamilies, arranged by the bride’s father or a malerepresentative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’sprice.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction butalso an expression of family honor. Only the rich could affordmultiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself wascelebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.
Theprimary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to producea male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. Theconcept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs,especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.
Marriageamong Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jewssought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev.18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew.Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainlyoutside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness.Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romansdid practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinshipgroup (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategicalliances between families.
InJewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. Thisstate of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of theman’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary(Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yettheir union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved onlythrough death or divorce.
Greekand Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. InJewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorceproceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release herand repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (inparticular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Siracomments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to thefather (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery(Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictiveuse of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).
Children,Parenting, and Education
Childbearingwas considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman andher entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to thisblessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, andspecifically their husbands.
Abortioncommonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had tobe encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1Tim. 2:15).
Childrenwere of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. Anestimated 60percent of the children in the first-centuryMediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.
AncientNear Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting stylebased on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and eviltendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent eviltendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The mainconcern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty.Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stagechildren were taught to accept the total authority of the father. Therearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girlswere taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so thatthey could help with household tasks.
Earlyeducation took place in the home. Jewish education was centeredaround the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’sresponsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7),especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence ofHellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls,however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys wereeducated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and orallaw. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Romaneducation was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primaryschools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in somecases girls were allowed to attend school as well.
Familyas an Analogy
Therelationship between Israel and God.Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak offidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT,the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In theiroverall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to infamilial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod.4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16;64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).
Theprophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspringof a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayedas a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife asrebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophetJeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by theinfidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). Thefamilial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle forproclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law andcultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similarpicture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. Oneinterpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves aneschatological tradition of family disruption with a futurerestoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.
Thechurch as the family of God.Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him.This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26;Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship,the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt.16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into thecommunity was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom,belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39;16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63;John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30;Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community waseventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the communityof his followers, God’s family—the church. See alsoAdoption.
Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engagedin raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustriallifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority offamilies resided in rural areas and villages.
Peoplein the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin.Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family wasthe source of people’s status in the community and provided theprimary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.
Marriagewas not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather,marriage was between two families. Family members and kin thereforetook precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments,authority within families and communities was determined by rankamong kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because itoverthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Romantradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family andcommunity relationships.
PatriarchalStructures
Apatrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and everyhousehold belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan inwhich kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, thefathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clangroups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman worldmaintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.
Familydiscipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honorof the father depended on his ability to keep every family memberunder his authority (1Tim. 3:4). Other male members of thefamily assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen.34).
AristotelianHousehold Codes
Notonly was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but alsothe later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted thebiblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosmof society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding householdmanagement, seeking to influence society for the greater good. Thisadvice was presented in oral and written discourses known as“household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes,written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Suchcodes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the malehead of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves.The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’shousehold codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has therule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in awoman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the caseof slaves, it is completely absent.”
TheAristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT textsthat, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph.5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 3:1–7). Allthese texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given tothe congregations seems to have been of contextual missional valuefor the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family livingfor all times in all contexts.
Marriageand Divorce
Marriagein the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between twofamilies, arranged by the bride’s father or a malerepresentative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’sprice.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction butalso an expression of family honor. Only the rich could affordmultiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself wascelebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.
Theprimary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to producea male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. Theconcept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs,especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.
Marriageamong Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jewssought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev.18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew.Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainlyoutside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness.Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romansdid practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinshipgroup (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategicalliances between families.
InJewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. Thisstate of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of theman’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary(Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yettheir union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved onlythrough death or divorce.
Greekand Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. InJewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorceproceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release herand repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (inparticular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Siracomments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to thefather (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery(Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictiveuse of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).
Children,Parenting, and Education
Childbearingwas considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman andher entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to thisblessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, andspecifically their husbands.
Abortioncommonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had tobe encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1Tim. 2:15).
Childrenwere of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. Anestimated 60percent of the children in the first-centuryMediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.
AncientNear Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting stylebased on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and eviltendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent eviltendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The mainconcern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty.Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stagechildren were taught to accept the total authority of the father. Therearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girlswere taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so thatthey could help with household tasks.
Earlyeducation took place in the home. Jewish education was centeredaround the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’sresponsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7),especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence ofHellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls,however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys wereeducated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and orallaw. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Romaneducation was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primaryschools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in somecases girls were allowed to attend school as well.
Familyas an Analogy
Therelationship between Israel and God.Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak offidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT,the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In theiroverall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to infamilial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod.4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16;64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).
Theprophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspringof a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayedas a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife asrebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophetJeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by theinfidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). Thefamilial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle forproclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law andcultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similarpicture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. Oneinterpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves aneschatological tradition of family disruption with a futurerestoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.
Thechurch as the family of God.Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him.This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26;Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship,the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt.16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into thecommunity was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom,belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39;16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63;John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30;Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community waseventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the communityof his followers, God’s family—the church. See alsoAdoption.
Most families in the ancient world were agrarian or engagedin raising livestock. Families that lived in cities led preindustriallifestyles, often dwelling in cramped quarters. The majority offamilies resided in rural areas and villages.
Peoplein the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin.Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family wasthe source of people’s status in the community and provided theprimary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.
Marriagewas not an arrangement merely between two individuals; rather,marriage was between two families. Family members and kin thereforetook precedence over individuals. In the worlds of both Testaments,authority within families and communities was determined by rankamong kin. Christianity was looked upon with hostility because itoverthrew foundational values of Jewish and even Greco-Romantradition. Service rather than rank became normative in family andcommunity relationships.
PatriarchalStructures
Apatrilineal system ruled in ancient Israel. Every family and everyhousehold belonged to a lineage. These lineages made up a clan inwhich kinship and inheritance were based on the patriarchs, thefathers of the families. These clans in turn made up larger clangroups and then tribal groups. The later Hellenistic and Roman worldmaintained patriarchal and patrilineal social structures as well.
Familydiscipline was in the hands of the father, the patriarch. The honorof the father depended on his ability to keep every family memberunder his authority (1Tim. 3:4). Other male members of thefamily assisted the father in defending the honor of the family (Gen.34).
AristotelianHousehold Codes
Notonly was the biblical world patriarchal (male dominated), but alsothe later societal influence by Greek philosophers impacted thebiblical text. The ancient Greeks viewed the household as a microcosmof society. Greek philosophers offered advice regarding householdmanagement, seeking to influence society for the greater good. Thisadvice was presented in oral and written discourses known as“household codes.” Aristotle’s household codes,written in the fourth century BC, were among the most famous. Suchcodes consisted of instructions on how the paterfamilias (the malehead of the household) should manage his wife, children, and slaves.The Stoic philosopher Arius Didymus summarized Aristotle’shousehold codes for Caesar Augustus. He argued, “A man has therule of this household by nature, for the deliberative faculty in awoman is inferior, in children it does not yet exist, and in the caseof slaves, it is completely absent.”
TheAristotelian household codes appear to be the background to NT textsthat, at face value, appear to treat women as inferior to men (Eph.5:22–6:9; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 3:1–7). Allthese texts are set in a Greco-Roman matrix, and the advice given tothe congregations seems to have been of contextual missional valuefor the sake of the gospel rather than as a guide for family livingfor all times in all contexts.
Marriageand Divorce
Marriagein the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between twofamilies, arranged by the bride’s father or a malerepresentative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’sprice.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction butalso an expression of family honor. Only the rich could affordmultiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself wascelebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.
Theprimary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to producea male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. Theconcept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs,especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.
Marriageamong Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jewssought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev.18:6–17). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew.Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainlyoutside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness.Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romansdid practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinshipgroup (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategicalliances between families.
InJewish customs, marriage was preceded by a period of betrothal. Thisstate of betrothal was legally binding and left the survivor of theman’s death a widow. A betrothed couple, like Joseph and Mary(Matt. 1:18), did not live together or have sexual intercourse. Yettheir union was as binding as marriage and could be dissolved onlythrough death or divorce.
Greekand Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. InJewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorceproceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release herand repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (inparticular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Siracomments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to thefather (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery(Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictiveuse of divorce than the Old Testament (Mark 10:1–12).
Children,Parenting, and Education
Childbearingwas considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman andher entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to thisblessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, andspecifically their husbands.
Abortioncommonly took place in the Greco-Roman world. Women therefore had tobe encouraged to continue in their pregnancies (1Tim. 2:15).
Childrenwere of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. Anestimated 60percent of the children in the first-centuryMediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.
AncientNear Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting stylebased on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and eviltendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent eviltendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The mainconcern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty.Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stagechildren were taught to accept the total authority of the father. Therearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girlswere taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so thatthey could help with household tasks.
Earlyeducation took place in the home. Jewish education was centeredaround the teaching of Torah. At home it was the father’sresponsibility to teach the Torah to his children (Deut. 6:6–7),especially his sons. By the first century, under the influence ofHellenism, Judaism had developed its own school system. Girls,however, did not regularly attend school. Many of the boys wereeducated in primary and secondary schools, learning written and orallaw. Sometimes schools were an extension of the synagogues. Romaneducation was patterned after Greek education. Teachers of primaryschools often were slaves. Mostly boys attended schools, but in somecases girls were allowed to attend school as well.
Familyas an Analogy
Therelationship between Israel and God.Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak offidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT,the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In theiroverall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to infamilial terms—sons and daughters, spouse, and firstborn (Exod.4:22). God is addressed as the father of the people (Isa. 63:16;64:8) and referred to as their mother (Isa. 49:14–17).
Theprophet Hosea depicts Israel as sons and daughters who are offspringof a harlot. The harlot represents faithless Israel. God is portrayedas a wronged father and husband, and both children and wife asrebellious and adulterous (Hos. 1–3). Likewise, the prophetJeremiah presents the Mosaic covenant as a marriage soured by theinfidelity of Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer. 2:2–13). Thefamilial-marriage metaphor used by the prophets is a vehicle forproclaiming God’s resolve to go beyond customary law andcultural expectations to reclaim that which is lost. A similarpicture of reclaiming and restoring is seen in Malachi. Oneinterpretation of Mal. 4:6 holds that it implicitly preserves aneschatological tradition of family disruption with a futurerestoration in view. The restored family in view is restored Israel.
Thechurch as the family of God.Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him.This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26;Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to fictive kinship,the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt.16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Entrance into thecommunity was granted through adopting the values of the kingdom,belief, and the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39;16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–63;John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30;Rom. 10:9). Jesus’ presence as the head of the community waseventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the communityof his followers, God’s family—the church. See alsoAdoption.
Precious stones appear in visions and theophanies in theBible. Examples include Ezek. 1:16; 10:1; Rev. 4:3. These preciousstones, also used in jewelry, were well known to people in theancient Near East and in the first-century Mediterranean basin.
Jewelryknown in antiquity is broadly divided into two groups: everydayjewelry and fine jewelry. Everyday jewelry, found commonly among thepeople, was made of materials such as bronze, iron, and bone. Finejewelry, on the other hand, consisted of objects crafted from gold orsilver and included costly and precious stones. Jewelry was worn bothby men and women as part of clothing. The ancients also conservedwealth with investments in jewels or used jewels as indicators ofsocioeconomic placing in society.
Mostgold jewelry had sheet metal as its foundation. This sheet metal wasshaped and/or decorated. One form of decoration, filigree, involvedsoldering wiring in a pattern on a background. A later form ofdecoration known as granulation used tiny grains of gold as asubstitute for wires. An additional method of decorating jewelry wasinlaying with colored stones, glass, or other precious items.Engraving was likewise used for decoration.
Jewelryin Antiquity
Jewelryhas been discovered in Babylon dating back as far as 2700 BC.Examples of jewelry from this era were found in cemeteries in thecity of Ur. Examples of ancient jewelry were likewise found incemeteries on the island of Crete, dating back to 2400 BC. Otherspecimens of jewelry come from the Mycenaean world around 1100 BC.Jewelry dating after 800 BC was of high quality. During this periodplaces such as Knossos on Crete and cities such as Corinth and Athensproduced beautiful gold work.
Bythe seventh century BC, the finest jewelry was found on the Greekislands and in Asia Minor. Jewelry in Ephesus was offered to thegoddess Diana, yet was also made for personal adornment. By 600 BC,jewelry became very scarce in Greece. This scarcity lasted for thenext 150 years. Archaeologists postulate that supplies of gold werecut off by the Persians. After the Persians were defeated during theClassical period, some of the finest gold work was produced. CapturedPersian treasures and exploitation of Macedonian mines made gold andprecious stones and metals highly accessible to the Greeks.Consequently, jewelry was readily available during the Hellenisticperiod. The Greeks incorporated a variety of stones in their jewelry:carnelian, chalcedony, amethyst, and garnet, as well as small pearls.Materials and inspiration for the Greeks for certain types of jewelrycame from newly conquered territories. In the early Roman Empirejewelry resembled that seen during the Hellenistic period. Ingeneral, during the Greek and the Roman periods, jewelry wasgold-plated and decorated with costly stones.
Certainwriters in antiquity documented well-known or costly jewelry andprecious stones. One Roman historian described the value of pearls asthe “topmost rank among all things of price.”Correspondingly, he wrote about two pearls owned by Cleopatra, queenof Egypt, known as the largest in history. The Egyptian Book of theDead, dating to around 1500 BC, makes mention of amulets in the shapeof hearts, considered jewelry by some experts. These amulets weremade of carnelian, lapis lazuli, and green feldspar.
Jewelryin the biblical world was known by different terms. An ornamentalcirclet worn singly or as multiples on one’s arms or legs wasknown as a “bangle.” This term, however, does not occurin the Bible. The abundant presence of bangles as artifacts inarchaeological digs is an indicator of their significance in everydaylife in the biblical world. Bangles were stiff ornaments ofrelatively heavy weight. Materials varied: bronze, iron, silver,gold, and so forth. Bangles were of three types: bracelets, anklets,and armlets. They were either solid, complete circles or circletswith two distinct ends. These ends had specific designs, oftenartistically crafted in the shape of animal heads, such as those ofserpents.
Ringslikewise were prevalent in the biblical world. Rings were worn in theears, nose, and around fingers and toes. Nose rings were popularduring the Iron Age (1200–586 BC). In addition, rings were wornon neck cords. Rings not only were worn as articles of adornment butalso were used as signets. Brooches or pins mostly were worn onclothing and were made of wood, bronze, iron, silver, or gold.
Amuletswere common as religious jewelry. Worn as divine protection fromharm, amulets varied from simple to ornate. Egyptian amulets oftenincorporated snake imagery or representations of Egyptian gods.Ancient Near Eastern amulets often were smaller than an inch wide.Greek amulets were colorful and crafted from stones. Christianamulets in the shape of the crucified Christ have also been found.
Althoughnot often worn individually, beads were the most prevalent jewelryitem in the ancient Near East. Beads were strung in bracelets, rings,circlets, and so forth.
Jewelryin the Bible
Manydifferent items of jewelry are found in the Bible, including earrings(Gen. 35:4; Exod. 35:22; Judg. 8:24–26; Job 42:11), bracelets(Gen. 24:22, 30, 47; Num. 31:50), necklaces (Gen. 41:42; Ezek. 16:11;Dan. 5:29), nose rings (Gen. 24:22, 30, 47; Isa. 3:21; Ezek. 16:12),rings (Gen. 38:18, 25; 41:42; Exod. 28:11, 21, 36; 35:22; 39:14, 30;Num. 31:50; 1Kings 21:8; Esther 3:10, 12; 8:2, 8, 10; Job38:14; Isa. 3:21; Jer. 22:24; Hos. 2:13; Luke 15:22; James 2:2),headbands (Exod. 13:16; Deut. 6:8; 11:18), armlets (Num. 31:50;2Sam. 1:10; Isa. 3:20), pendants (Judg. 8:21, 26; Isa. 3:18),and anklets (Isa. 3:20).
Variousarticles of jewelry in the Bible carried significance beyond mereaesthetics. Early in Genesis, bracelets were used to signify thedesire for covenantal marriage. When Abraham’s servantdiscovered Rebekah, a potential bride for Isaac, he gave her a nosering and placed bracelets on her arms to signify that God had chosenher (Gen. 24:22, 47). The bracelets and nose ring weighed over tenshekels. By placing the jewelry on Rebekah’s arm, the servantindicated that a marriage contract was sought. The high value of thejewelry signifies the high bridal price paid for Rebekah.
Earlyin the OT, jewelry was used in temple worship. The law designatedthat the high priest’s breastpiece and ephod contain preciousstones along with setting stones. The stones signified the majestyand holiness of God as his people worshiped in his holy temple (Exod.25:7; 35:9).
Loversflattered one another by comparing physical features to articles offine jewelry (Song 5:14) and admiring their fine jewelry (4:9). God’speople appear as a jeweled necklace when God gathers them (Isa.49:18) and are as highly esteemed as a bride adorned with jewels(61:10).
Biblicalauthors also challenged people’s desire for jewelry withadmonitions to seek godly attributes and gifts of God above jewelsand jewelry. Wisdom was to be desired above jewels (Prov. 3:15;8:11), knowledgeable speech above gold and jewels (20:15), and agodly spouse far above jewels (31:10).
Similarto the habits of most ancient cultures, Israelite kings and othernotable leaders wore jewelry of special significance. Like otherkings of antiquity, Saul wore armlets and a crown (2Sam. 1:10),which were intended to signify royalty and competence in militaryaffairs. Such jewelry typically carried insignias that denotedfeatures of national and royal identity. The victorious warrior inRev. 19 wears many diadems (crowns) in order to signify his unmatchedpower (19:12). He has more than one crown, and even more than sevendiadems, which is the number of diadems that the dragon has (12:3).
Attimes, jewelry carried negative connotations, especially whenacquired within polytheistic trends of society or else designed as anobject of worship. Even Jacob was found burying his jewelry thataccompanied his foreign idols (Gen. 35:4). Such instances lendcredence to theories that even early Hebrew faith wrangled withpolytheism and was infused with its many golden artifacts. Gideonmade an ephod from the sparkling plunder (rings and pendants) of theMidianites (Judg. 8:21). This ephod became an object of worship forthe Israelites and greatly offended God.
Kingshad signet rings that contained their own personalized engravings.The engravings were made by stonecutters who carefully worked thesmall semiprecious stones atop the rings. Throughout the OT, ringswere used to make impressions on official documents (Exod. 28:11;1Kings 21:8; Esther 8:8). Prophets used signet rings to sealprophecies that were of grave importance for the nation (Isa. 8:16;Jer. 32:10). Unique rings were designed by notable families in orderto signify the honor of the patriarch. Of special interest is theusage of the ring in Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son. Thering was placed on the returning son’s finger to show theradical grace of the father, who was willing to join his honor to hisson’s shame (Luke 15:22) as the son was brought back into thehousehold.
Incertain NT writings, women are admonished not to adorn themselveswith external jewelry (1Tim. 2:9; 1Pet. 3:3), as this wasa sign of materialism and immodesty. In Rev. 21, jewels appear inJohn’s depiction of the new Jerusalem: it is a city of majesticbeauty adorned with precious jewels, gates of pearls, and streets ofgold (21:18–21).
To understand the persons and events of the NT, it isimportant to have at least a cursory understanding of Roman law. Romeheld absolute power over its people and vassals from the time of itsfoundation (c. 750 BC) until the collapse of its empire (c. AD 500);thus, its understanding of law had influence on both philosophicaland pragmatic levels. Roman law was remarkable for the detailed yetsuccinct way cases were treated. Roman law was primarily private lawin character; that is, it was law focused on relationships betweenpeople. Fathers of families were significant figures in Roman law andcustom. They held great power over their wives, children, and slaves.Precedent also played an important role in Roman law, with ritualizedlegal formulas and style being the key components. Generallyspeaking, parties determined the outcome between themselves with thehelp of an arbitrator. Only when such arbitration was unsuccessful,or at the end of arbitration when contractual steps had to be taken,was a jurist/judge brought in. Public trials were more a case oforatory and debate than legal wrangling and procedure.
Romancitizenship.Much of Roman law and activity was dependent on the status of theparticipants. Roman citizenship itself carried with it a privilegedstatus in terms of law, property, and governance. Citizenship and therights related to it also varied, depending on the class of theperson. The native peoples who lived in territories conquered byRome, citizens of Roman client states, and Roman allies could begiven a limited form of Roman citizenship such as the Latin Right,which permitted land ownership, marriage rights, and certain rightsin matters of punishment and detainment. Women’s rights variedover time; however, women were never accorded all the rights ofcitizens, since they could not vote or hold office. They could,however, own property. Slaves were considered property and had onlycertain very limited rights as granted by statute. They couldessentially be treated in any fashion considered appropriate by theirowners. Despite this, a freed slave was granted a form of Romancitizenship. All slaves freed by Roman owners automatically receiveda limited Roman citizenship. The law of the magistrates as applied toforeigners focused on three areas of interest: trade law, finding away to apply Roman law to foreign societies, and the procurator’sown sense of fair play and justice.
Paulwas a Roman citizen from birth (Acts 22:28), though given hislineage, this citizenship would have been similar to that of theLatin Right. He took advantage of his citizenship at numerous pointsduring his missionary travels by limiting punishment and by an appealto Caesar (Acts 22:24–29; 25:10–12). There is littleinformation about how people were able to document their citizenship,though undoubtedly some sort of official document would have servedsuch a purpose.
Householdand family.As noted above, the father of a household had almost absolute powerin that sphere. In relation to this, Paul and Peter’sinstructions to the various churches about household relationshipsstand in stark contrast to the culture within which they wereexpressed (see Eph. 5:21; Col. 3:18–4:1; 1Pet. 2:18–3:7).Like Jews, Romans viewed the family as the core element of theirsociety. What occurred in the family was an expression of the corevalues of the society. For the church to have granted the freedom itdid to women and others (Gal. 3:28) would have been difficult formany in the culture to accept. Furthermore, Paul in several placesseems to call for restraint in Christian expression of freedom so asnot to cause ill repute for the Christian community.
Historyand hierarchy.Concerning Roman jurisprudence, the system went through many phasesof development over the periods of the republic and the empire.During the period of the republic (753–31 BC), the civil lawwas the primary focus of development. Roman law, like other ancientsystems, originally adopted the principle of personality: laws of thestate applied only to its citizens. Foreigners had no rights in theircourts unless protected by a treaty. Gradually, a more generalizedlegal code developed in Rome that was applied to everyone, and by thetime of the empire, such perspectives of law were well established.This may explain the different treatment received by Paul (andothers) in relationship to whether they were known to be citizens.
Procuratorsand prefects were governors appointed by Rome over Judea after theremoval of Archelaus in AD 6 and over all of Palestine at the deathof Herod Agrippa. Governors such as Pontius Pilate were the highestpower in their province, but they answered to the legate, who couldreplace them, and ultimately to Caesar, who could overrule them. Theyhad to give their assent to lower local courts before a sentenceinvolving death could be carried out. Because of the lower standingthat noncitizens held, the governor often was quick to sacrifice themin order to maintain peace and avoid disturbances. Pilate’streatment of Jesus seems to fall into such a category.
Ingeneral, disputes between members of the same subject state weresettled by that state’s own courts according to its own law,whereas disputes between provincials of different states or betweenprovincials and Romans were resolved by the governor’s courtapplying these principles.
Religion.Since Rome had no centralized cult, the Romans would not executesomeone simply on religious grounds. Instead, there needed to be aperception of political revolt, and the charges had to be specific(Matt. 27:12; John 18:29). Because Roman law and trial were more amatter of oratory and reason than legal maneuvering and loopholes, itis not surprising that both Pilate and Felix allowed such leeway inthe questioning of Jesus and Paul (John 18; Acts 24).
The wife of Abraham, the father of Israel and God’schosen people. Thus, Sarah is a matriarch (mother) of Israel alongwith Rebekah and Rachel. When first introduced, her name is given as“Sarai,” but God changes it to “Sarah” (atthe same time Abram’s name is changed to “Abraham”[Gen. 17:15–16]). Both names mean “princess.” Thesignificance of the change may be subtle, since “Sarai”is an East Semitic version of West Semitic “Sarah,”indicating her transition from Mesopotamia to the promised land.
Accordingto Gen. 11:29–30, Sarai was married to Abram before theyentered the promised land. The passage also announces that she wasbarren. Since an essential part of the divine promises to Abram isthat he will be father to a great nation, the lack of offspring is aconsiderable problem and propels much of the plot of the narrative(esp. Gen. 12–26).
Inbrief, Sarai’s inability to conceive is an obstacle to thefulfillment of the promise and is a threat to Abram’s faith.Thus, when a famine forces them to go to Egypt to survive, he tellshis wife to lie about her status by saying that she is his sister.Although it is true that she is his half sister, the statement is alie because he hides the most relevant part of his relationship withher and puts the matriarch in danger (Gen. 12:10–20; 20:12).Abraham’s faith (the narrative does not reveal Sarah’sthinking except perhaps in Gen. 18:10–15, when she laughs atthe thought of giving birth in her old age) in God’s ability tofulfill the promise fluctuates, and he certainly has not come to aconsistent position of trust even just before the birth of Isaac(Gen. 20). As a matter of fact, acting on fear and trying to producean heir, Abraham takes a concubine, Hagar, who gives birth toIshmael. Sarah’s relationship with Hagar is troubled (Gen. 16),and Sarah treats her harshly and eventually has Hagar and Ishmaelexpelled from their camp (21:8–21).
Eventually,in advanced old age, Sarah gives birth to Isaac, the child of thepromise (Gen. 21:1–7). Sarah is not mentioned in the story ofthe “binding of Isaac,” the focus again being onAbraham’s faith.
Sarahpredeceases Abraham, and he buys a field from Ephron the Hittite inorder to bury her (Gen. 23), the first part of the promised landowned by the people of promise. This location near Hebron became theburial spot of Abraham and other patriarchs.
LaterOT literature often looks back on Abraham as patriarch, but only Isa.51:2 explicitly mentions Sarah in the role of cofounder of the peopleof God. She is mentioned also in the NT, along with Abraham, as theone through whom God brings the promise of a son to fulfillment (Rom.4:19; 9:9; Heb. 11:11). In 1Pet. 3:6 Sarah is put forward as amodel of wifely submission because she obeys Abraham and refers tohim as her lord (likely a reference to the Greek version of Gen.18:12).
Spousal abuse is most succinctly defined as mistreatment ofone’s marriage partner through physical or emotional means. Thesource of abuse can be traced to the fall, as both partners strugglefor control of the relationship (Gen. 3:16b). As such, abuse is anexpression of a relational problem with God as well as with one’sspouse.
Becauseabuse is rooted in the desire to exploit another, it can never beunderstood as consistent with the biblical understanding of marriage.Marriage is expressed in Scripture as a covenant between twoindividuals who were intended to work together as persons who“correspond” to each other and are “one flesh”(Gen. 2:18 NET; 2:24). The exploitation inherent in abuse is alsocounter to the ideas of mutual submission and of each person in amarriage belonging to the other. Neither person is to be driven byselfish motivations (1Cor. 7:3–5; Eph. 5:21). Ultimately,abuse is counter to the Christian message because it cannot be anexpression of the nature of love (1Cor. 13) or the fruits ofthe Spirit (Gal. 5:22–23). Although abuse can be perpetratedupon either the husband or the wife, Scripture takes special care toinstruct the husband to be gentle in relation to his wife, calling onhim to treat her as Christ does the church and to be mindful of hissignificant role for the wife’s well-being (Eph. 5:28–31;1Pet. 3:7).
Showing
1
to
50
of66
results
1. You Can Be My Husband
Illustration
Communication. It's difficult. Of course, the perennial complaint of women is that men don't communicate their feelings. A little girl and a little boy were at day care one day. The girl approached the boy and said, "Hey Billy, want to play house?" He said, "Sure! What do you want me to do?" Sally replied, "I want you to communicate your feelings."
"Communicate my feelings?" said a bewildered Billy. "I have no idea what that means." The little girl nods and says, "Perfect. You can be the husband."
2. God Wants All of Us
Illustration
Billy D. Strayhorn
There's an old story about a family with four children, who was celebrating Mom's birthday. Dad and the kids decided to create their own birthday presents for Mom that year. Mom sat in her favorite chair expectantly.
The oldest girl wrote Mom a poem. "Roses are red, violets are blue;Youare the best Mom, It really is true." She had written it on a piece of paper and decorated the edges like a certificate. After Reading it, she placed it on a silver tray and presented it to Mom.
The oldest boy took the tray and placed a carefully drawn and painted scene of their house and family. For a seven year old it wasn't bad.
The youngest boy took the tray and set a paper dessert plate which he had colored and decorated on the tray. The plate contained 3 Oreo cookies from his school lunch. They were his favorites, so this was quite a sacrifice. (There were four but temptation got the better of him when he was setting everything up. Mom could see cookie crumbs in the corner of his mouth.)
The youngest daughter was a little distraught. She hadn't thought of anything or made anything and in their excitement Dad and the other children forgot her. But she took the silver tray, set it on the floor in front of mom, stepped onto the tray and said, "I give you me."
I love that story, partly because it's just cute,but mostly because I think it teaches us about what God expects in our everyday Christian walk. You see, I think what God expects can be summed up in the old song, "All of me." "All of me, why not take all of me, can't you see I'm no good without you. You took the part that once was my heart, so why not take all of me."
And that's thetruth,we are no good without God. God wants all of us. Not just our heart, not just our mind, not just our soul, not just our strength but every bit of us. And God wants us to bring it to Him like that little girl, and place all we are and have and ever will be at God's Altar.
3. Do's and Don'ts
Illustration
A husband and wife didn't really love each other. The man was very demanding, so much so that he prepared a list of rules and regulations for his wife to follow. He insisted that she read them over every day and obey them to the letter. Among other things, his "do's and don'ts" indicated such details as what time she had to get up in the morning, when his breakfast should be served, and how the housework should be done. After several long years, the husband died.
As time passed, the woman fell in love with another man, one who dearly loved her. Soon they were married. This husband did everything he could to make his new wife happy, continually showering her with tokens of his appreciation. One day as he was cleaning house, she found tucked away in a drawer the list of commands her first husband had drawn up for her. As she looked it over, it dawned on her that even though her present husband hadn't given her any kind of list, she was doing everything her first husband's list required anyway. She realized she was so devoted to this man that her deepest desire was to please him out of love, not obligation.
4. "As If" You Love
Illustration
J. Allan Petersen
Newspaper columnist and minister George Crane tells of a wife who came into his office full of hatred toward her husband. "I do not only want to get rid of him, I want to get even. Before I divorce him, I want to hurt him as much as he has me."
Dr. Crane suggested an ingenious plan "Go home and act as if you really love your husband. Tell him how much he means to you. Praise him for every decent trait. Go out of your way to be as kind, considerate, and generous as possible. Spare no efforts to please him, to enjoy him. Make him believe you love him. After you've convinced him of your undying love and that you cannot live without him, then drop the bomb. Tell him that you're getting a divorce. That will really hurt him."
With revenge in her eyes, she smiled and exclaimed, "Beautiful, beautiful. Will he ever be surprised!" And she did it with enthusiasm. Acting "as if." For two months she showed love, kindness, listening, giving, reinforcing, sharing. When she didn't return, Crane called. "Are you ready now to go through with the divorce?"
"Divorce?" she exclaimed. "Never! I discovered I really do love him." Her actions had changed her feelings. Motion resulted in emotion. The ability to love is established not so much by fervent promise as often repeated deeds.
5. TAILOR
Illustration
Stephen Stewart
1 Chronicles 4:21 - "The sons of Shelah the son of Judah: Er the father of Lecah, Laadah the father of Marashah, and the families of the house of linen workers at Beth-ashbea;"
Tailors are never mentioned in the Old Testament, although they do appear in the Talmud. But, really, this isn’t so surprising, since we must remember that in early times clothing was usually homemade. The excellent wife of the Proverbs "busied herself with wool and thread," doing the family’s sewing. She herself made the "coverlet on her bed and the clothes of lawn and purple that she wore."
However, as the people settled into a new land, as villages arose, and as commerce was begun with other nations, craftsmen appeared who designed and made clothing for royalty, the priests, and the wealthy. Actually, these were the only people who could afford such luxury - these tailors were adept at making silken garments that only royalty and the wealthy people could afford. Oh, of course, they made some less expensive woolen garments, too, but the less expensive still wasn’t within the range of the common people.
No, the tailor was an exclusive employee of the wealthy, just as today the exclusive couturiers have an exclusive clientele. And, too, just as it is a sign that a woman has "really arrived" when she can afford clothing from one of these exclusive salons, so it was in biblical times.
There were other similarities: for one thing, these ancient tailors had a very high standard of living themselves. Of course, for the prices they charged, they could afford to live well! And that certainly follows through today. The world’s high priced designers are often known for the luxury in which they live.
Further: these tailors worked from their own homes, or went to the homes of their clients. No cheap shops for them! And that’s rather typical of couturiers too. Can you see the Queen of England going to a shop? Of course not! The designer comes to her. And this is true in many more cases. And for those who do visit the designer’s establishment, there is certainly no way that they can feel that they are entering a shop. These are salons in the most exclusive sense of the word.
And, another similarity: tailors worked for both private clients and and for clothes dealers. I’m sure there wasn’t a Seventh Avenue in Jerusalem, strung with clothes racks, but you get the idea. Today, there are many more designers working for mass production wholesalers than there are those who work for single clients.
Of course, in one way the ancient tailors had it all over their modern counterparts: men and women wore essentially the same clothing, except that women’s were somewhat longer, were made of better material, were more colorful, and more elaborate.
Come to think of it - where is the difference today?
6. More Than Feelings (Weddings)
Illustration
James McCormick
Most people think of love simply as a feeling you have for someone. For them, it’s a good, warm, romantic, sentimental feeling. I’m in favor of good feelings, but there is a problem: feelings are undependable and uncontrollable. You can’t decide how you’re going to feel – you just feel. Consequently, many of the people who think of love in such terms fall out of love as quickly as they fall into it. Their love is undependable. Marriage is too important to be built upon a foundation so shaky.
The Apostle Paul doesn’t think of love in such terms at all. He writes about a tough, durable kind of love, a love that keeps on loving no matter what. That understanding of love is so important to marriage, because only those able to love one another unconditionally will be able to live together happily as husband and wife. That’s why, in just a few moments, I will ask the two of you to pledge your unconditional love for one another.
But first, I want to remind you that love is more than a feeling. I know that what you are feeling for one another at this moment is beautiful. And, all of us here, your family and your friends, consider it to be a special privilege to share in the beauty of this moment with you. But I hope you will understand when I say that there will be times in your marriage when you will not feel about one another exactly as you do just now. There will be times in your marriage when you will not like each other very much - and that’s normal. There is no-one in the whole world you can feel good about all the time!
So, when those times come in your marriage, as they will, I hope you will stop and remember that love is more than feelings. Love that has grown up to maturity is first of all a commitment, a commitment to be together as husband and wife from now on, no matter what. It’s a commitment that is unconditional. Mature love is also a decision – a decision to act lovingly even when you don’t feel loving – maybe especially when you don’t feel loving!
Of course, the source of such love is God. God loves us with a love that never wavers, a love that is unconditional, and then He asks us to pass that love along to one another. I’m quite sure that, of all God’s gifts to us, the greatest gift of all is the gift of love. Amen.
7. A Life of Despair
Illustration
Brett Blair
Two of his daughters and a son-in-law committed suicide. Three of his children died of malnutrition. Marx felt no obligation to earn a living, but instead lived by begging from Engels. He fathered an illegitimate child by his maidservant. He drank heavily. He was a paid informer of the Austrian police, spying on revolutionaries. Though Marx and his wife were poor, he kept investing in the stock market where he constantly lost. His wife left him twice, but returned. When she died, he didn't attend her funeral. His correspondence with Engels was full of obscenities. His favorite daughter, Eleanor, with her father's approval, married Edward Eveling, a man who advocated blasphemy and worshiped Satan. Daughter Eleanor committed suicide, poisoning herself with cyanide. Karl Marx died in despair.
Laura Marx, Karl's other daughter committed suicide together with her husband on25 November 1911. The coupledecided they had nothing left to give to the movement to which they had devoted their lives. Laura was 66 and her husband Paul Lafargue was 69. In their suicide letter, which Paul wrote,they explained why they committed suicide.It reads:
"Healthy in body and mind, I end my life before pitiless old age which has taken from me my pleasures and joys one after another; and which has been stripping me of my physical and mental powers, can paralyse my energy and break my will, making me a burden to myself and to others. For some years I had promised myself not to live beyond 70; and I fixed the exact year for my departure from life. I prepared the method for the execution of our resolution, it was a hypodermic of cyanide acid. I die with the supreme joy of knowing that at some future time, the cause to which I have been devoted for forty-five years will triumph. Long live Communism! Long Live the international socialism!"
Vladimir Lenin was one of the speakers at the funeral. He would later write the following to his wife: "If one cannot work for the Party any longer, one must be able to look truth in the face and die like the Lafargues."
Is it any wonder things ended this way for the Marx family?When you look at the tenets of Marxism, where else would you end up but in despair? Listen to these 10 basic principles:
- Abolition of private property
- A heavy progressiveincome tax.
- Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
- Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
- State control of banks.
- State controlof communication and the press.
- State owned businesses.
- Equal liability of all to work, establishingindustrial armies
- Equal distribution of the populace over the country.
- Combination of education with industrial production.
What is there left to live for? This world would lead to the despair that caused the Marx family to take their lives. They stand in contrast to the Greatest Commandment to love God and love your neighbor and to the admonitionof the Beatitudes. Christianity frees and affirms; Marxism controls and demands. It's life or death isn't it? It's God's offer to the Israelites: I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live
8. Love for God Is a Commitment
Illustration
King Duncan
An old Russian woman lay on a sofa. Multiple sclerosis had twisted her body almost beyond recognition. The simplest tasks had become almost impossible for her. Corrie Ten Boom visited her at night, using the cover of darkness to escape detection by the Lithuanian authorities. Corrie kissed the woman's wrinkled cheek. The old woman could respond only by rolling her eyes and smiling because the atrophied muscles in her neck would no longer allow her to move her head. The only part of her body she could still control was her right hand. With her gnarled knuckles she stroked Corrie's face. Corrie reached up to take her hand, and kissed her index finger for a special reason.
The routine was the same every morning as the old lady's husband propped her into a sitting position on the sofa. A battered old typewriter was placed on a little table in front of her. Every day the old woman would begin to type. She could only use that one index finger to peck out the letters. This woman served God by translating Christian books into Russian. It was slow going sometimes only typing a page or two a day but this was her way of loving God. She typed portions of the Bible as well as some of the books of Billy Graham and other Christian witnesses.
The woman's attitude was extraordinary. She saw her sickness as a prerequisite, not a detriment, for the work she did. Every other Christian in the city was watched by the secret police. But because she had been sick for so long the police took no interest in her, and she could work undetected spreading the good news of Jesus to a people who were starving for good news.
"Not only does she translate these books," her husband told Corrie, "but she prays while she types. Sometimes it takes a long time for her finger to hit the key, or for her to get the paper in the machine, but all the time she is praying for those whose books she is working on."
That's loving God. People make the same mistake with loving God that they make with loving a spouse. They confuse love with a feeling. Feelings are important, of course, but love for God is, first of all, a commitment.
9. Testing
Illustration
Editor James S. Hewett
A man and a woman who had been corresponding solely by mail fell in love with one another. They agreed to meet at the airport. Since they had never seen each other, they devised a plan that would help them recognize each other. She was to wear a green scarf and a green hat and have a green carnation pinned to her coat.
When the man got off his plane, he immediately began looking for her. Suddenly he saw a woman with a green scarf, green hat, and green carnation. His heart fell. She was one of the most homely women he had ever seen in his life. He was tempted to get back on the plane without approaching her. Nevertheless, he walked over to the woman, smiled, and introduced himself.
Immediately the woman said, "What is this all about, anyway? I don't know who you are. That woman over there gave me five dollars to wear these things." When the man looked over at the woman mentioned, he realized that she was one of the most beautiful women he had ever seen. The man approached the woman, who later explained, "All my life men have wanted to be with me, to be my friend, because of my beauty. They consider me beautiful. I want someone to love me, not just for my outward appearances, but for what I am inside.
10. Miss Donna
Illustration
James W. Moore
Her name is Donna. Donna is a member of our church. She is a mentor in our Kids Hope USA program. Every week she goes to a nearby elementary school to be a friend, encourager, and mentor to a little boy named John. John looks to be 6 or 7 years old. Donna and John have bonded in a beautiful way. Though there is quite a difference in their ages, Miss Donna – as John calls her – has become John's best friend. Once each week, she visits him at school, helps him with his school work… and then "going the second mile" every Saturday, Donna takes John to do exciting things that without Donna, John would likely never get to do – things like the zoo, the museum, the Galleria.
A few months ago, Donna's husband died in his sleep. Little John came to the funeral to support his friend Miss Donna in her grief. At the reception in the Hines Baker Room after the memorial service, John stood beside Donna and held her hand. She had been there for him and now he was there for her. He would not leave her side. It was a beautiful moment and people in the room had tears in their eyes, so touched by John's intense commitment to lovingly stand by Miss Donna, his friend and mentor.
Some of us saw John eyeing the goodies on the reception table – punch and chocolate chip cookies in abundance… and some of us said to him, "John, would you like to walk over here and have some refreshments?" But no, he would not leave Donna's side. "I want to stay here with Miss Donna.," he would say. The love between the two of them was so radiant and powerful in that room.
Also in the room that day was a man from Chicago. He had flown all the way from Chicago to Houston to be with Donna. Do you know why? Because 38 years ago when he was in first grade, Donna had been his mentor at an elementary school in the Chicago area. He flies from Chicago to Houston every summer to see Donna and to thank her for what she did for him 38 years ago – and then he made this special trip to be with Donna when her husband suddenly died. That man from Chicago says to Donna every time he comes, "I am what I am today because of the love and support you gave me 38 years ago." He says, "Ms. Donna, you were the first person in my life who believed in me." And today little John says to her in words and actions: "Miss Donna, I love you. I know you love me. You are my best friend." Now, where did Donna learn to love like that, to reach out to people in need like that, to make a difference in people's lives like that? You know, don't you? The same place the disciple Andrew learned it – from Jesus.
11. A Wise Husband
Illustration
Some helpful hints for a husband who wants to see his spouse experience God's best were posted in Daddy's Home, by Greg Johnson and Mike Yorkey.
A husband can:
- Back off (give her some space).
- Be patient (don't rush things).
- Love her as you love your own body (that's going to take some work).
- Affirm her role in the family (whether she stays home or works outside the home, she's got the most important job in the world).
- Pray for her as you've never prayed before (because God hears our prayers).
- Lower your expectations (you're not going to see fireworks every night).
- Do the little things (without expecting anything in return).
- Show her she's the most cherished woman on earth (she'll probably faint the first time you do this).
- Above all, persevere (you're in this for the long haul).
A wise husband builds his mate's self-esteem, realizing that the subtle words and actions of a sinful world constantly assault her sense of self-worth. He remains sensitive to her needs and is always ready to offer his support.
Encourage your wife verbally and demonstratively. Words of cheer and praise are high octane fuel that boost your wife's emotional fuel tanks.
12. Where You Do Not Wish To Go
Illustration
John E. Sumwalt
Wilma Petersen chaired the social concerns committee in her church. She also headed an action group that lobbied the state legislature on senior citizen issues; she served on the regional Commission on Aging and was secretary of a city task force that was seeking a government grant to build low income housing. When the doctor told her she needed gallbladder surgery, the first thing she said was, "How long will I be laid up?" When she was assured it would only be four to six weeks, she said, "Oh, that won't be so bad, I can write letters and make phone calls while I'm recovering." The doctor frowned, but he didn't say anything; he didn't think it would do any good. Wilma was a determined woman. It would take a lot more than a doctor's warning and a little thing like gallbladder surgery to slow her down.
Ten weeks later, Wilma was feeling worse than she had before the operation. She couldn't understand why she wasn't getting better. The doctor suggested that she come in for tests. When the results came back, he came immediately into her room and broke the news to her as gently as he could.
"Wilma, I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but the blood tests show that you have AIDS."
Wilma couldn't believe her ears. How could a 70-year-old woman get AIDS? "It was in the blood transfusion you received during your surgery," he said. Wilma just couldn't believe it. What was she going to do?
It wasn't that she was afraid of dying. Wilma was prepared for death, even a slow, painful death, if that's the way it came. That was the way of the world. She had seen enough of death to know that no one was spared. Her husband had died of lung cancer and she had lost a son to polio. It was the thought of telling her family and friends. What would they think . . . that she had been indiscreet?
She didn't tell anyone at first, but as the disease progressed she decided that people had a right to know. It was an incident with a needle that convinced her to tell. A nurse in the doctor's office had been about to give her an injection one day when the needle slipped and she pricked her own finger. The fact that it occurred before the injection spared the nurse any danger of infection, but Wilma could see that it had been very upsetting to her. The nurse knew she had AIDS. Wilma decided that everyone else who came into contact with her had a right to know, too.
The word spread fast. There were many expressions of caring; phone calls, cards, letters and quiet conversations with neighbors and friends. People were horrified for her and sympathetic at the same time -- or so it seemed. She felt no sense of rejection until the following Sunday morning when she went to church. She sat in her usual pew but the people who always sat beside her, or in the pews around her, sat elsewhere. She was beginning to think no one was going to sit near her at all, when Kevin Holmstead, that nice young man from the bank who usually sat near the back, came in and sat beside her on the end of the pew next to the aisle in the same spot her husband Frank had always sat when he was alive. Kevin greeted her pleasantly as if nothing had changed. "Maybe he hasn't heard yet," she thought to herself, but something about his manner told her that he sat beside her because he had heard. That was the beginning of their special friendship. From then on Kevin sat beside her every Sunday that she was able to go to church.
Wilma lived just three years from the time her AIDS was diagnosed -- and much of the last few months of her life she was in bed at home or in the hospital, too weak to move around on her own. During that time her family members and several volunteers, organized by Kevin, took care of all of her bodily needs. They bathed and fed her and helped her with her toilet, changing her diapers when there was need. They took turns pushing her around in her wheelchair and carrying her from the bed to the couch and back again. But during the first two-and-a-half years of her illness, before she was bedridden, Wilma was very much the crusader that she had been all of her life. She organized a support group for persons like herself who were living with AIDS. She visited AIDS patients in their homes, in hospitals and hospices. Many of them told how they had been forsaken by family and friends, how they had lost their homes and their jobs, how difficult it was to get the medical treatment they needed, and how insurance companies and the government denied them financial assistance. She wrote to congresspersons and state legislators about the needs of persons with AIDS. She lobbied the city council to pass an ordinance which would prevent landlords and employers from discriminating against persons with AIDS. She spoke to church and civic groups, pleading with them to support the human rights of all persons.
On the day that she died, Wilma asked Kevin if he would help to carry on her work. He promised her that he would, and he thanked her for all that she had done. He said, "It will be easier for me because of you."
On the Sunday following Wilma's funeral, Kevin stood up in church during the time for expressing prayer concerns and said, "You all know how important Wilma's work has been in this community. Will you help me to continue what she has started? There are many persons with AIDS among us who need our love and support. A great many of them are members of the gay and lesbian community, as I am. Will you stand with us in our time of need?"
13. Pulling Weeds - Sermon Starter
Illustration
King Duncan
Last week we talked about planting seeds. This week we're talking about pulling weeds. The two go together. Every gardener knows that planting seeds is the easy part of having a successful garden. It is much more time consuming to weed that same garden. And it's hard work. As someone has said: "When weeding, the best way to make sure you are removing a weed and not a valuable plant is to pull on it. If it comes out of the ground easily, it is a valuable plant."
There is a corollary to that truth: "To distinguish flowers from weeds, simply pull up everything. What grows back is weeds."
Some of you can relate to one unknown homemaker who wrote: I don't do windows because . . . I love birds and don't want one to run into a clean window and get hurt. I don't wax floors because . . . I am terrified a guest will slip and get hurt then I'll feel terrible (plus they may sue me.)I don't disturb cobwebs because . . . I want every creature to have a home of their own. I don't Spring Clean because . . . I love all the seasons and don't want the others to get jealous. I don't put things away because . . . my husband will never be able to find them again. I don't do gourmet meals when I entertain because . . . I don't want my guests to stress out over what to make when they invite me over for dinner. I don't iron because . . . I choose to believe them when they say "Permanent Press." And finally: I don't pull weeds in the garden because . . . I don't want to get in God's way, He is an excellent designer!
I doubt than anyone likes pulling weeds, including God. In today's lesson Jesus tells a parable. "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
"The owner's servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?'
"‘An enemy did this,' he replied.
"The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?'
"‘No,' he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.'"
Then Jesus left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, "Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field."
Jesus answered, "The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.
"As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear."
On its surface, there is not much to be said about this parable except make sure you're not a weed…
1. Pulling Weeds Is an Important Part of a Successful Life.
2. God Is Our Savior.
3. God Wants to Save Us from Sin.
14. It’s Ok to Be Extravagant – Sermon Opener
Illustration
James W. Moore
A few years ago there was a true story about a man in New York City who was kidnapped. His kidnappers called his wife and asked for $100,000 ransom. She talked them down to $30,000.
The story had a happy ending: the man returned home unharmed, the money was recovered, and the kidnappers were caught and sent to jail. But, don't you wonder what happened when the man got home and found that his wife got him back for a discount? Calvin Trillin was the writer of this story. He imagined out loud what the negotiations must have been like: "$100,000 for that old guy? You have got to be crazy. Just look at him! Look at that gut! You want $100,000 for that? You've got to be kidding. Give me a break here. $30,000 is my top offer."
Mark Trotter concluded his rendition of the story with this thoughtful comment: "I suppose there are some here this morning who can identify with the wife in that story, but for some reason I find myself identifying with the husband. I'd like to think if I were in a similar situation, there would be people who would spare no expense to get me back. They wouldn't haggle over the price. They wouldn't say, 'Well, let me think about it.' I like to think that they would say, 'We'll do anything for you.'"
The point of that story is this: sometimes it's O.K. to be extravagant! Now, that is precisely what this story in the Gospel of Mark is all about. Remember the story with me. Jesus is on His way to the cross. It is just a few days before Passover. The chief priests and scribes are plotting against Him. Judas is about ready to betray Him. The crucifixion is less than a week away and Jesus knows it. Jesus and His disciples stop at Bethany. just a few days before, Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead there in Bethany. Now, as they are having dinner, a woman comes to Jesus and does a beautiful but extravagant thing for our Lord. The Gospel of John tells us that the woman was Mary, (the sister of Martha and Lazarus). Mary brings an alabaster jar of very expensive ointment. She breaks open the jar and pours the costly perfumed oil on Jesus' head. She anoints His head with oil.
Why did she do that? Some say it was an act of gratitude in which she was thanking Jesus for raising her brother Lazarus from the dead. Some say it was an act of consecration in which she was baptizing Jesus to encourage Him to go into the HolyCity and do what had to be done. Others say it was a foreshadowing, an act of preparation, in which she was anointing His body for the death which was to come in Jerusalem a few days later. All say it was an act of love and kindness.
But Judas said it was a waste. If you lived strictly by the Judas mind-set, you would have no Spire on the church, no flowers on the altar, no art on the wall, no robes for the choir, no fine organ, no beautiful weddings. Your daughter would come to you and say, "I'm in love and I'm so happy. I want to get married." And you would say, "Well, why don't you just elope? It's much cheaper. It would be wasteful to have a wedding." But the Mary mind-set says, "Sometimes in the name of love and kindness and gratefulness; it's O.K. Indeed, it's beautiful to be extravagant." Let me show you what I mean.
1. First Of All, It's OK To Be Extravagant In Our Generosity.
2. Second, It's OK To Be Extravagant In Our Gratitude.
3. Third And Finally, It's OK To Be Extravagant In Our Graciousness.
15. Adopted Love
Illustration
Michael P. Green
A new mother stayed with her parents for several days after the birth of her first child. One afternoon she remarked to her mother that it was surprising the baby had dark hair, since both her husband and she were fair. The grandmother said, “Well, your daddy has black hair.” To which the daughter replied, “But, Mama, that doesn’t matter, because I’m adopted.” With an embarrassed smile, that mother said the most wonderful words her daughter had ever heard: “I always forget.”
All Christians are adopted children of God who are accepted by God with the same unconditional love that this mother had for her daughter.
In 1952 a probation officer in New York City tried to find an organization that would assist in the adoption of a twelve-year-old boy. Although the child had a religious background, none of the major denominations would assist in his adoption. Said the officer later, “His case had been reported to me because he had been truant. I tried for a year to find an agency that would care for this needy youngster. Neither Catholic, Protestant, nor Jewish institutions would take him because he came from a denomination they did not recognize. I could do nothing constructive for him.”
If the principles of Christian love had prevailed in the Bronx in 1952, perhaps a good home could have been found for that young, mixed-up lad. In fact, providing a better environment in which to grow up might have changed history. For, you see, the boy was Lee Harvey Oswald.
16. GOD MADE ME, AND GOD DOESN’T MAKE ANY JUNK
Illustration
John H. Krahn
There are times in every person’s life when they suffer from feelings of inadequacy. Sometimes we even move from inadequacy to feelings of worthlessness. We feel we are not attractive enough or intelligent enough or as lucky as others. Success, as we dreamed of attaining it, has not happened to us. As we get older, childhood dreams of being someone important begin to vanish. Entering our middle forties, we begin to realize that our current position in life will not increase substantially.
The trappings of success are also elusive. We work so hard to have the good things in life and often find ourselves with little time or energy to enjoy them. There is no way to extend the 168 hours which comprise each week. The husband works fifty or more hours a week, and the wife works so the kids can go to college. In the process of trying to enhance the collective life of the family, less and less time is left to spend together sharing one another’s love and happiness. There is little wonder that we so often feel uptight and junky.
But God’s good word is that he made us, and he doesn’t make junk. In the Bible we read that we were created in the image of God. We were molded in the image of our Maker. Like God we can reason, we have a mind, a memory and a will. God even put us in charge of everything he created. God was pleased with his workmanship of man and said, "It is good." He made nothing more special or more beautiful than us. Made in the image of God, we even have the ability to control much of our destiny.
We should not think of ourselves as less than God thought of us. Look at your hands. They’re hands very much like the hands of Jesus. And Jesus was no junk. There should no more be a junky John or junky Mary or junky Kathy than a junky Jesus. Jesus was a man, and like us in every way with the exception of sin. And that is the difference. For you see, sin is the chief purveyor of junk in our lives. It was Adam and Eve’s sin of trying to be as God that tarnished the fullness of their image of God. It made them less than what God wanted for them. Sin brought with it pain and death. It pushed them away from God.
Yes, God made each of us, and he doesn’t make junk. We produce the junk in our lives when we let temptation get the best of us, when we try to attain unattainable goals and then labor under feelings of failure, when we get our priorities all mixed up, and when we walk life’s way apart from God.
Let’s not live one more day of our precious lives in a manner less than God desires. We confess our sins before the Almighty. We welcome Jesus’ entrance into our lives with all the power of the Holy Spirit. We pray, "Lord, lead me onto beautiful paths of meaningful life." And we boldly proclaim to ourselves and before the world, "God made me, and God doesn’t make any junk."
17. A Mended Relationship
Illustration
King Duncan
There is something beautiful about the mending of a relationship once broken. It happens from time to time. Brothers who had vowed eternal enmity. Sisters who had long ago ceased to converse. Then something happens and that which was broken is restored. Perhaps it is beautiful because it reminds us of our relationship with God. Once that was broken, but because of God's great love for us, He took the initiative and reached across the great divide to bring us back to Himself. And that is what He wishes for each of us to do.
On their first day of college back in 1968, Marsha Lockwood and Michael Cramer met. They were both freshmen at the University of Massachusetts. They liked each other immediately. They learned that they came from neighboring towns, and they were only weeks apart in age. They had much in common, both played instruments in their high school marching bands. Their families had friends in common.
As they began to date they discovered that they both had grandfathers who worked in the same office building. One was an accountant; the other was an insurance man. The two grandfathers were both in their seventies.
When the two grandfathers were young boys they had gone to school together. They had been good friends all during their childhoods. In the 1920s, though, they had a feud. It was over a business matter. Hyman Brodsky and Louis Cramer were furious with each other. They stopped speaking to each other entirely.
They did not speak a word for over fifty years. When they would be in the elevator with other business persons, they would talk to the others, but never to each other. They would not even look at each other. If they happened to find themselves with just the two of them in the elevator, the two boyhood friends would ride upstairs in total silence. Fifty years of this.
Meanwhile, the romance of Marsha and Michael was growing more and more serious. In 1974 they became engaged.
As Hyman Brodsky and Louis Cramer were riding upstairs in the elevator, one of them remarked casually, "Well, it looks like the kids are going to get married." The other one said, "Yes, it looks that way." The silence of fifty years had been broken.
A month before the wedding the two grandfathers were invited to an engagement party. It was the first time they had been at a social occasion together in over fifty years.
"They were sitting next to each other all through the party," Marsha recalls. "They were talking about their days in school back when they were boys. It was as if no time had passed at all." Their friendship seemed to grow immediately. Both had forgotten what that original argument had been about. It was a business argument, but neither one of them remembered the details. Marsha and Michael were married; Hy and Louie were restored to being the best of friends.
Marsha kept thinking that she and her new husband had changed history in a way " not prominent, worldwide history " but by meeting and falling in love, they had changed the personal histories of their two grandfathers " Hy and Louie " and somehow that seemed very important to her.
18. Communication In Marriage
Illustration
Editor James S. Hewett
A happy couple had always raised cucumbers and made sweet pickles together. The husband just loved to watch things grow. Thus he spent his winters studying the seed catalogues to get the best possible cucumbers. The whole family enjoyed preparing the soil, planting and caring for the plants. He would often go out and just enjoy the way they grew. His wife loved to make sweet pickles. She studied the best recipes and the best methods of preparing and preserving them. They were such a happy family, and all their visitors went home with a jar of their famous pickles. The church always had a good supply of their pickles as well. People marveled at this family that had found a project to do together.
Finally, the man died. The next spring all the children returned home.
They said to their mother, "We know how much you love making pickles, so we are going to prepare the garden and plant them for you." The mother smiled and said, "Thanks a lot children, but you don't have to do any planting for I really don't enjoy pickle making. I only did that because your father loved to grow the cucumbers so much." The children were all amazed, but the youngest son was upset, because the father had pulled him aside not too long before and shared with him that he really didn't like growing cucumbers, but only did it to please the mother!
Is this a happy or a sad story? I'm not sure. In many ways it is happy.
They were happy doing for each other. People enjoyed being with them. But why is it also sad? Primarily, because they were not able to share their changing needs and joys with each other. Instead of growing, they stagnated in the performance of what they thought were their duties to each other.
19. Shrewdness in Business
Illustration
King Duncan
There was once a young businessman in Germany named Neckerman who had a burning ambition to build his small retail store into a large chain of department stores. His problem was that no one knew his name. He couldn't attract customers. He had only limited capital.
This was shortly after World War II. As you might imagine there were shortages in Germany of almost everything. Thus, the existing big department stores saw no reason to cut prices. They sold whatever they could get at healthy margins. Neckerman saw this as an opportunity. If only he could position his store as the low-cost, high-value leader, he could build the enterprise of his dreams.
As it happened, Neckerman managed to acquire a large shipment of spools of thread. Thread was in great demand in those days. Clothes also were in short supply. Women were constantly repairing their families' old garments. The obvious step for Neckerman would have been to sell these spools of thread in his own store. It would undoubtedly attract more business.
Instead he offered the whole shipment of thread to the buyer for the largest department store chain in Germany at only a slight profit. The buyer for this chain jumped at the opportunity and in only a few weeks had sold all the thread at a much more substantial profit.
It usually takes several months to use up a whole spool of thread. Thus, the whole transaction was forgotten by the time the executives of this large chain started to notice crowds of people shopping at Neckerman's. Soon the reason became apparent. It was the spools of thread the large chain had purchased so eagerly from this young upstart. As German housewives finished their spools of thread, a piece of paper that had been wrapped about the spool under the thread fluttered out. It read like this: IF YOU HAD BOUGHT THIS THREAD AT NECKERMAN'S, IT WOULD HAVE LASTED TWICE AS LONG. Overnight, everyone knew the name Neckerman. From then on, the firm had no trouble attracting customers.
Shrewd. Even a little sneaky. Sometimes in business the line between ethical and unethical, shrewd and outright dishonest, is a little blurred. And nice guys, or gals, don't always finish first.
20. Is It Well With Your Family? - Sermon Starter
Illustration
Brett Blair
(After reading 2 Kings 4:8-26) I am going to read a quote to you first and then tell you who said it: A small child waits with impatience the arrival home of a parent. She wishes to relate some sandbox experience. She is excited to share the thrill that she has known that day. The time comes; the parent arrives. Beaten down by the stresses of the workplace the parent often replies: “Not now, honey, I’m busy, go watch television.” The most often spoken words in the American household today are the words: go watch television. If not now, when? Later. But later never comes for many and the parent fails to communicate at the very earliest of ages. We give her designer clothes and computer toys, but we do not give her what she wants the most, which is our time. Now, she is fifteen and has a glassy look in her eyes. Honey, do we need to sit down and talk? Too late. Love has passed by.
The person who wrote these words was Robert Keeshan, better known to America as Captain Kangaroo.
I think Keeshan was on to something. There are many things in life that cause stress. But there are few that can break the heart like the loss of a child. To be sure there are many ways to lose children. We can lose them by a tragic death. We can lose them due to broken relationships. And, we can lose them by failing to develop the strength of character in them that they will need to resist evil. Elisha did not know what had happened but he guessed something was not right; otherwise, she would not be traveling to find him. Elisha sent his servant out to greet this well-to-do-woman with three questions: Is it well with you? Is it well with your husband? Is it well with your child?
On this Mother's Day 2001 I would suggest to you that these three questions are as relevant today as they were when they were first spoken almost 3000 years ago. Let us take a look at this story and the three questions it raises.
1. Is it well with you?
2. Is it well with your husband?
3. Is it well with your child?
21. Do What You Need to Do
Illustration
King Duncan
Ron Del Bene was searching for answers in his life. Someone told him about a man in Los Angeles who has a reputation for being a very wise spiritual guide. On a business trip to the west coast Ron made an appointment to see this wise man whom he was sure could help him in his spiritual quest.
The day Ron was to meet the wise man he had a hard time concentrating on his business. All he could think about was the upcoming meeting with the one who surely had The Answer. He drove up the coast only to discover when he arrived that the man was not there. The longer he waited the angrier he became. Finally the man arrived. "I don't know which was greater, my anger or my disappointment," Ron remembers. "This short slightly built person didn't look at all like the wise man I had pictured. He didn't even have a beard!"
The wise man asked Ron why he had come to see him. For the next sixty minutes Ron poured out his hopes, fears, anxieties, and dreams. "Now," directed the wise man, "pay attention!" Ron thought perhaps the teacher would place his hands on his head or heart and he would explode in ecstasy. But he didn't. The wise teacher simply rattled off three things Ron should do. Before Ron had a chance to respond or ask any questions the Wise One left the room. Ron felt disappointed and disillusioned. He had traveled all that way and for what?
After Ron returned home his wife, Eleanor, asked him about his meeting with the Wise One. She listened intensely to her husband's every word. "He told me that there are three things I must do," Ron said. "One, pray unceasingly. Two, go home and love my wife and children. Three, do what needs to be done."
Eleanor looked straight at Ron said, "Thank God, someone finally told you that!" What the teacher told Ron was true. "In retrospect," Ron writes, the teacher "was a far wiser man than I appreciated at the time."
When he least expected it, Ron made a great discovery. That discovery brought great joy. Such joy is a continuing possibility for those who open themselves to the kingdom of God.
22. The Tradition of the Put Down
Illustration
Mark Trotter
Someone gave me a book once entitled, The Second Book of Insults. Evidently the first book was so successful the publisher thought it deserved a sequel. I will confess that I enjoyed reading the book. It is in the grand tradition of a certain kind of comedy called the "put-down." We love to see the pretentious slip on a banana peel. It is that kind of humor.
There is a similar tradition in sports. We love to see the underdog beat the top dog. Which is why we look forward to the Padres meeting the Yankees in the World Series.
There is even a tradition of put-down in the Bible, probably because the Bible was written by Jews, who spent most of their history being shoved around by great empires. There are songs in the Bible, like the Magnificat, which Mary sings at the time of the annunciation to her by the angel, "My soul doth magnify the Lord, for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. He has knocked the mighty from their thrones and exalted those of low degree." That's a put-down.
The English are the masters of the put-down. Many of the entries into that anthology of insults came from England. Like the story of George Bernard Shaw, who was invited to a woman's house for tea. She was one of those people who liked to "collect" celebrities so that she, herself, might be considered a celebrity. She sent Shaw her card, which read, "Lady So-and-So will be at home Thursday from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m." Shaw wrote a note on the card and sent it back, and said, "Mr. George Bernard Shaw likewise."
Winston Churchill was equally adept at the put-down. There is a famous exchange between Winston Churchill and Lady Astor. Lady Astor did not like Winston Churchill, so one day she said to him, "If I were your wife, I'd put poison in your tea." Churchill said, "If I were your husband, I'd drink it."
They are masters of the put-down, George Bernard Shaw and Winston Churchill. So when you have an anecdote in which they battle each other, it is a collector's item. Here it is. Bernard Shaw sent two tickets to his latest play opening in London to Churchill with this note, "Here are two tickets for the opening night of my new play, one for you and one for a friend, if you have one." Churchill sent them back with this note, "I cannot attend opening night. Send me two tickets for the next night, if there is one."
I suppose wherever you go, wherever there are hierarchical institutions, or any institutions for that matter, you will have concern about status, some people in upper echelons of power and others below them. The people below are probably telling these put-downs, stories about the people they hope to replace someday. Every group arranges itself according to status. People ask, "Where do I fit in in this group?" Or, "Can I make a contribution?" "Will it not be received?" "Can I be myself, or will I be put down?"
23. The Prince's Devotion
Illustration
Michael P. Green
There is an oldstory of a prince and his family who were captured by an enemy king. When brought before the enemy king, the prisoner was asked, “What will you give me if I release you?” “Half of my wealth,” was the prince’s reply.
“And if I release your children?”
“Everything I possess.”
“And if I release your wife?”
“Your Majesty, for her I would give myself,” said the prince.
The king was so moved by the prince’s devotion to his family that he freed them all. As they returned home, the prince said to his wife, “Wasn’t the king a handsome man!” With a look of deep love for her husband, she said to him, “I didn’t notice. I could keep my eyes only on the one who was willing to give himself for my sake.”
24. What Does A Father Do?
Illustration
Erma Bombeck
I received a letter from a single mother who had raised a son who was about to become a dad. Since he had no recollection of his own father, her question to me was "What do I tell him a father does?"
When my dad died in my ninth year, I, too, was raised by my mother, giving rise to the same question, "What do fathers do?" As far as I could observe, they brought around the car when it rained so everyone else could stay dry.
They always took the family pictures, which is why they were never in them. They carved turkeys on Thanksgiving, kept the car gassed up, weren't afraid to go into the basem*nt, mowed the lawn, and tightened the clothesline to keep it from sagging.
It wasn't until my husband and I had children that I was able to observe firsthand what a father contributed to a child's life. What did he do to deserve his children's respect? He rarely fed them, did anything about their sagging diapers, wiped their noses or fannies, played ball, or bonded with them under the hoods of their cars.
What did he do?
He threw them higher than his head until they were weak from laughter. He cast the deciding vote on the puppy debate. He listened more than he talked. He let them make mistakes. He allowed them to fall from their first two-wheeler without having a heart attack. He read a newspaper while they were trying to parallel park a car for the first time in preparation for their driving test.
If I had to tell someone's son what a father really does that is important, it would be that he shows up for the job in good times and bad times. He's a man who is constantly being observed by his children. They learn from him how to handle adversity, anger, disappointment and success.
He won't laugh at their dreams no matter how impossible they might seem. He will dig out at 1 a.m. when one of his children runs out of gas. He will make unpopular decisions and stand by them. When he is wrong and makes a mistake, he will admit it. He sets the tone for how family members treat one another, members of the opposite sex and people who are different than they are. By example, he can instill a desire to give something back to the community when its needs are greater than theirs.
But mostly, a good father involves himself in his kids' lives. The more responsibility he has for a child, the harder it is to walk out of his life.
A father has the potential to be a powerful force in the life of a child. Grab it! Maybe you'll get a greeting card for your efforts. Maybe not. But it's steady work.
25. CHEEK-TURNING POWER
Illustration
John H. Krahn
How many of us are in the process of developing ulcers? How many of us are carrying resentments? How much damage is being done internally because we will not forgive someone who hurt us deeply? How much of our daily life is being colored grey by an angry mind quarreling in fantasy bouts with an adversary, an ex-husband, an ex-wife, a relative, a neighbor, a fellow worker, or even a fellow parishioner? Who are suffering from high blood pressure or even heart problems because they have not forgiven completely?
In the face of all of this, we consider the love chapter in the Bible, 1 Corinthians 13, for some very good advice. Saint Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, writes, "Love is not irritable or resentful ..."
Snow is hardly news in many parts of our nation. After a blizzard, it takes a snowplow to tackle the snowdrifts and help us become mobile again. Resentments are like snowdrifts, and forgiveness is the snowplow. In the Christian life forgiveness is a snowplow that opens roads again, removing barriers so that we can communicate and listen to those with whom we had been at odds.
When a person offends us, we feel like punching him out. Many a child has done just that on the way home from school at a predetermined spot. Those of us who are mature are more sophisticated but no less harmful as we unleash a lethal tongue, or verbally stab people behind their backs. God reminds us in the epistle that love is not resentful.
Our Lord Jesus Christ gave us some pretty tough advice while he was alive. On the subject we are considering, he says, "But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Jesus states that the mere fact that we have been wronged does not give us the license to do wrong. Followers of Jesus are not to retaliate but must even be willing to suffer the same injury again. Cheek-turning power is no easy matter. It is perhaps as powerful a weapon as there is toward maintaining and even improving most human relationships. When I have been wise enough to use it, I can tell you firsthand that it works.
Love is the language of forgiveness. Love does not resent, it forgives. Cheek-turning love is Christian love in action. On our own, we seldom have the power to turn the other cheek. Such power is only possible when Jesus Christ lives within us. It comes when we practice the presence of God, inviting Jesus’ indwelling through prayer. Then as we partake of his body and blood, we not only receive forgiveness for ourselves, but we also receive the powerful presence of Jesus Christ: a presence that can cause a cheek to turn and a life of loving forgiveness to plow through snowdrifts of resentment.
26. A Servant in Saigon
Illustration
Keith Wagner
To be servants requires courage, sacrifice and lots of love. Jack Canfield and Mark Hansen tell the story of Betty Tisdale. (Chicken Soup for the Soul) She was the wife of a Naval Doctor in Vietnam. She had compassion on the hundreds of orphans in Saigon. She made 14 trips to Saigon by using her life savings. With great determination she managed to airlift orphans from Vietnam during the time it was falling into the hands of the North Vietnamese. It was not a simple task. First, she needed birth certificates. She went to the hospital and created them herself. She managed to make 219 eligible certificates that satisfied the government. Next she had to find a place for the children to stay when they arrived at Ft. Benning, Georgia here in the states. Again she met resistance and the Secretary of the Army wouldn't answer her calls. Determined to carry out her mission, Betty called his mother and pleaded her case. Virtually overnight, her son, the Secretary of the Army, responded.
Now she was challenged as to how to get the children safely out of Vietnam. She was unable to charter a plane. She went to Ambassador Graham Martin and pleaded for some form of transportation. He agreed to help as long as the Vietnamese government cleared their release. Two Air Force transport planes flew the children to the Philippines. Because her husband was dedicated to helping his wife he used $21,000 of his own money to charter a United Airlines plane to take the children to the states. Within a month all 219 children were adopted and placed in homes in the US.
When Jesus advocates a life of self denial, he is not talking about being a martyr, nor is he wanting us all to be Mother Teresa or a Betty Tisdale. He is talking about denying ourselves the demand for power, honor and status and being servants.
Faith is a paradox. Life in the kingdom is not acquired with honors, prizes, achievements, awards and success. It is realized with sacrificial love, unwavering faith and belief that God has a seat reserved just for us. It's better than the 50 yard line. It is not just good for a single game or a single season. It is good for eternity.
27. Something by Tolstoy
Illustration
Staff
It's very human to begin looking for something and then forget what you're looking for. Tennessee Williams tells a story of someone who forgot. It's the story of Jacob Brodzky, a shy Russian Jew whose father owned a bookstore. The older Brodzky wanted his son to go to college. The boy, on the other hand, desired nothing but to marry Lila, his childhood sweetheart a French girl as effusive, vital, and ambitious as he was contemplative and retiring. A couple of months after young Brodzky went to college, his father fell ill and died. The son returned home, buried his father, and married his love. Then the couple moved into the apartment above the bookstore, and Brodzky took over its management. The life of books fit him perfectly, but it cramped her. She wanted more adventure and she found it, she thought, when she met an agent who praised her beautiful singing voice and enticed her to tour Europe with a vaudeville company. Brodzky was devastated. At their parting, he reached into his pocket and handed her the key to the front door of the bookstore.
"You had better keep this," he told her, "because you will want it someday. Your love is not so much less than mine that you can get away from it. You will come back sometime, and I will be waiting."
She kissed him and left. To escape the pain he felt, Brodzky withdrew deep into his bookstore and took to reading as someone else might have taken to drink. He spoke little, did little, and could most times be found at the large desk near the rear of the shop, immersed in his books while he waited for his love to return.
Nearly 15 years after they parted, at Christmastime, she did return. But when Brodzky rose from the reading desk that had been his place of escape for all that time, he did not take the love of his life for more than an ordinary customer. "Do you want a book?" he asked. That he didn't recognize her startled her. But she gained possession of herself and replied, "I want a book, but I've forgotten the name of it."
Then she told him a story of childhood sweethearts. A story of a newly married couple who lived in an apartment above a bookstore. A story of a young, ambitious wife who left to seek a career, who enjoyed great success but could never relinquish the key her husband gave her when they parted. She told him the story she thought would bring him to himself. But his face showed no recognition. Gradually she realized that he had lost touch with his heart's desire, that he no longer knew the purpose of his waiting and grieving, that now all he remembered was the waiting and grieving itself. "You remember it; you must remember it the story of Lila and Jacob?"
After a long, bewildered pause, he said, "There is something familiar about the story, I think I have read it somewhere. It comes to me that it is something by Tolstoy." Dropping the key, she fled the shop. And Brodzky returned to his desk, to his reading, unaware that the love he waited for had come and gone.
This Tennessee Williams's 1931 story "Something by Tolstoy" reminds me how easy it is to miss love when it comes. Either something so distracts us or we have so completely lost who we are and what we care about that we cannot recognize our heart's desire.
28. The Honorable Prince
Illustration
Unknown
It is said that Cyrus, the founder of the Persian Empire, once had captured a prince and his family. When they came before him, the monarch asked the prisoner, "What will you give me if I release you?"
"The half of my wealth," was his reply.
"And if I release your children?"
"Everything I possess."
"And if I release your wife?"
"Your Majesty, I will give myself."
Cyrus was so moved by his devotion that he freed them all. As they returned home, the prince said to his wife, "Wasn't Cyrus a handsome man!"
With a look of deep love for her husband, she said to him, "I didn't notice. I could only keep my eyes on you--the one who was willing to give himself for me."
29. God’s Chosen
Illustration
Gary Nicolosi
Mike Barnicle, an award-winning print and broadcast journalist, told about a baby born to Mary Teresa Hickey and her husband in 1945. The parents came from Cork, Ireland. The baby was a Down's Syndrome boy. Mary Teresa held the baby tightly, saying, "He's ours and we love him. He is God's chosen one."
The family lived in the Dorchester section of Boston. Their other boy was Jimmy. The dad died young of a heart attack, and Mary was left to raise the two boys, nine-year-old Jimmy and seven-year-old Danny. To pay the rent she scrubbed floors at a chronic care hospital.
Jimmy took good care of Danny. Dan felt at home with all the kids because no one told him he was different. Then one day, as they were boarding a trackless trolley, some strange kids shouted, "No morons on the bus!" That was the day Jimmy Hickey learned to fight. It was also the day Jimmy decided to be a priest. Little Danny attended the Kennedy school in Brighton and eventually obtained a job.
In 1991, Mary Teresa Hickey died at age ninety-one after showering her sons with unyielding love all their lives. Father Jim Hickey had been a priest for thirty years. In every parish to which he was assigned, Danny went along with him. The people were favored with both men.
In October 1997, Danny was in the hospital. His fifty-two year old body was failing. One night when ordinary people were eating supper, watching a ballgame or going to a movie, a simple story of brotherly love played itself out at the bedside of a man who never felt sorry for himself or thought he was different.
Father Jim held his brother and asked, "Do you trust me, Danny?"
"I trust you."
"You're going to be OK."
"I be OK."
Eight hundred people stood in line at his wake. Parishioners packed the church for his funeral. They sang and cried and prayed. Later that day, Daniel Jeremiah Hickey was gently laid beside his parents at New Calvary cemetery. The granite headstone bore his name and the inscription: "God's Chosen."
30. As a Parent I Would...
Illustration
John Drescher
We often regret the things we should have done, or done more of, with out children. So, if you want to improve the overall health of your children makes these "I would" admonitions part of your life:
I would love my wife/husband more. In the closeness of family life it is easy to take each other for granted and let a dullness creep in that can dampen even the deepest love. So, I would love the mother/father of my children more and be freer in letting them see that love.
I would develop feelings of belonging. If children do not feel that they belong in the family, they will soon find their primary group elsewhere. I would use meal times more to share happenings of the day instead of hurrying through them. I'd find more time for games or projects which all could join.
I would laugh more with my children. The best way to make children good is to make them happy. I see now that I was, many times, far too serious. I must always be careful that I do not communicate that being a parent is a constant problem.
I would be a better listener. I believe that there is a vital link between listening to children's concerns when they are young and the extent to which they will share their concerns with their parents when they are older.
I would do more encouraging. There is probably nothing that stimulates children to love life and seek accomplishment more than sincere praise when they have done well.
I would try to share God more intimately. We are not whole persons when we stress only the physical, social and intellectual aspects of life. We are spiritual beings, and if the world is to know God and his will, parents must be the primary conveyors. For my part, I would strive to share my faith with my children, using informal settings and unplanned happenings as occasions to speak of my relationship with God.
31. Specifications for a Husband
Illustration
Ruth Bell Graham
When Ruth Bell was a teenage girl going off to Korea for schooling from her childhood home in China she fully intended to be a confirmed old maid missionary to Tibet. But she did give the thought of a husband some serious consideration. She wrote the following list of particulars:
"If I marry: He must be so tall that when he is on his knees, as one has said, he reaches all the way to heaven. His shoulders must be broad enough to bear the burden of a family. His lips must be strong enough to smile, firm enough to say no, and tender enough to kiss. Love must be so deep that it takes its stand in Christ and so wide that it takes the whole lost world in. He must be active enough to save souls. He must be big enough to be gentle and great enough to be thoughtful. His arms must be strong enough to carry a little child."
32. Water Walkers
Illustration
Leonard Sweet
I'll bet every one of us this morning can think of some remarkable water-walkers we have known. We all have watched simple, straight-forward, hard-working men and women, little toddlers and tormented teens, the shut-in elders and the shut-out homeless, perform acts in their lives that defy the limitations of the world in which they live.
The chemotherapy patient who gets out of bed, puts on clean clothes, picks up the house, before going for treatment . . . What are they doing but walking on water?
The homeless woman who sleeps in a box, gleans food from dumpsters, but still smiles a greeting and laughs at a joke . . . What is she doing but walking on water?
The single parent, overworked, overwhelmed, over-extended in time, money, and energy, but makes it to soccer games and school plays and checks to see that homework is done . . . What is that harried parent doing but walking on water?
The octogenarian who lives alone, whose family has forgotten him, who counts the postal carrier and the water-meter reader as "company," but still is up and dressed by 8am and sits at the table for all his meals . . . What is he doing but walking on water?
33. Counting the Cost in Marriage
Illustration
Donald Dotterer
In order to live life fully and happily, we must be people who are able to count the cost in almost every area of living.
Marriage is one of those institutions which demands a high personal cost. The church's wedding ritual begins with these sobering words, words that are so often taken too lightly. It says, marriage is "not to be entered into unadvisedly, but reverently, discreetly, and in the fear of God." Each person makes a covenant to love, comfort, honor and take care of the other in sickness and in health. That can be a difficult commitment to keep if a spouse becomes critically ill or severely disabled. The husband and wife agree to stay with each other "for better, for worse, for richer for poorer ... till death do us part." A man and woman must count the cost of what they are getting into in marriage.
So it is also with having children. Did you see a recent letter to Ann Landers in the paper? It struck a chord with this expectant father heading toward his 40th birthday. The writer was talking about the mixed blessings of raising children in your 40s and 50s. It is true, I think, that an older father is more patient, and in a way, more appreciative of children.
However, as this letter-writer rightly suggests, raising children at a later age is also more difficult in many ways. Men or women in their 40s and 50s generally have a lower energy level, so taking the kids to Little League, attending PTA meetings and so forth tires parents much more.
Indeed, there are tremendous physical, emotional, and financial costs to raising children. Before having them, a couple should count the cost. There are just too many lonely and neglected and deprived children out there with parents who have not done so.
34. I Am the King’s Servant, But God’s First
Illustration
Michael Manning
If you get a chance, rent the movie A Man for All Seasons. It is based on the life of St. Thomas Moore and is one of the best dramatic movies I have ever seen. It has been a couple of years since I have seen it, but one scene remains vivid in my mind when I think about the importance of persecution as a way of life for followers of Jesus.
More was the Chancellor of England. By profession he was a lawyer. He loved his king. He loved his country and he loved its laws. Then a terrible dilemma developed for him when the king decided to end his allegiance to the Pope in Rome. Moore was conflicted. While he loved his country and his king, he also loved the church. He was faced with two deeply personal loves, and yet he realized he could no longer have both. As he weighed his options, he considered the fact that both the king and the church had its problems. The king he loved could be ruthless and he wasn't faithful in marriage. The church he loved, on the other hand, was full of all kinds of sinful men. What was he to do?
In a powerful scene from A Man for All Seasons that takes place in the sweating walls of the Tower of London, his wife visits her prisoner husband and asks why he won't just sign the statement of allegiance to the king so they could get back to their life of comfort and prestige. With anguish, Moore cries in a gut-wrenching scene that he is not made of the stuff of martyrs. He doesn't know for sure if he is doing the right thing.
In the end, Moore is convicted of treason for his refusal to acknowledge that the king was the supreme head of the Church of England, Moore defended his actions by saying, "I am the king's servant, but God's first." He weighed all decisions relative to his commitment and love for God. Even if it results in his personal loss of freedom.
35. Finding Financial Freedom
Illustration
Brett Blair
Some of you may have read a remarkable short story sometime during your school years by D. H. Lawrence titled, “The Rocking‑Horse Winner." I wonder if you remember how the story begins?
It is a haunting tale about a family living above its means. The mother is considered by friends and neighbors to be the perfect mother, in spite of the fact that deep down she knows she has difficulty loving her three children. It's important to the husband to keep up the pretense of success the large house, staffed with servants but they are living on the edge, just like many families today. Listen as D. H. Lawrence describes this family's life situation:
“And so the house came to be haunted by the unspoken phrase: ‘There must be more money! There must be more money!' The children could hear it all the time though nobody said it aloud. They heard it at Christmas, when the expensive and splendid toys filled the nursery. Behind the shining modern rocking-horse, behind the smart doll's house, a voice would start whispering: ‘There must be more money! There must be more money!' And the children would stop playing, to listen for a moment. They would look into each other's eyes, to see if they had all heard. And each one saw in the eyes of the other two that they too had heard. ‘There must be more money! There must be more money!'
“It came whispering from the springs of the still-swaying rocking-horse, and even the horse, bending his wooden, champing head, heard it. The big doll, sitting so pink and smirking in her new pram, could hear it quite plainly, and seemed to be smirking all the more self-consciously because of it. The foolish puppy, too, that took the place of the teddy-bear, he was looking so extraordinarily foolish for no other reason but that he heard the secret whisper all over the house: ‘There must be more money!'"
That's the family backdrop to the story of “The Rocking‑Horse Winner." Quite an extraordinary picture: “There must be more money! There must be more money!"
I wonder if there are any homes in our community today that are haunted in that same way: “There must be more money!"
Let's talk about financial freedom. Jesus said on one occasion: “No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."
Here is the challenge for today: We want to break the grip money has on our lives. We want to affirm that Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is our god, and our only god. We want to affirm that the God who manifested Himself in Jesus of Nazareth is our god. This is who we are. That is why we are here in this room at this time. “Thou shalt have no other gods before me." We want God to be our god, not material possessions.
36. Building a Bridge
Illustration
Staff
They say a wife and husband, bit by bit,
Can rear between themselves a mighty wall,
So thick they cannot speak with ease through it,
Nor can they see across it, it stands so tall.
Its nearness frightens them, but each alone
Is powerless to tear its bulk away; and each
Dejected wishes he had known
For such a wall, some magic thing to say.
So let us build with master art, my dear,
A bridge of love between your life and mine,
A bridge of tenderness, and very near,
A bridge of understanding, strong and fine,
Till we have formed so many lovely ties,
There never will be room for walls to rise.
37. The Most Important Occupation
Illustration
Michael P. Green
Here is a paragraph by Ashley Montague from “The Triumph and Tragedy of the American Woman,” which appeared in the Saturday Review:
Women have great gifts to bring to the world of men, the qualities of love, compassion and humanity (that is, beauty of spirit). It is the function of woman to humanize, since women are the natural mothers of humanity. Women are by nature endowed with the most important of all adaptive traits, the capacity to love, and this is their principal function to teach men. There can be no more important function. It could be wished that both men and women understood this. Once women know this, they will realize that no man can ever play as important a role in the life of humanity as a mentally healthy woman. And by mental health, I mean the ability to love and the ability to work.
Being a good wife, a good mother, in short, a good homemaker is the most important of all occupations in the world. It surely cannot be too often pointed out that the making of human beings is a far more important vocation than the making of anything else, and that in the formative years of a child’s life, the mother is best equipped to provide those firm foundations upon which one can subsequently build.”
Note: Thisis a very old illustration but we have decided to include it. It is worth revisiting what were foundational ideas from the past to measure where we are today. Also, there are many who still believe these to be foundational for their lives today.
38. The Strong, Saving Love
Illustration
Cathy A. Ammlung
I think it was Charlie Brown who said, "I love humanity! It is people I can't stand!" Yet the costly love that Jesus embodies involves an intimate encounter with God's fierce and holy love. It involves pouring out self for real people, sinners all, with all their real-life quirks, faults, smells, and flesh-and-blood sins.
That harried young mother in the doctor's waiting room (or maybe the next pew): perhaps loving her as yourself means offering to watch the toddler while she feeds the baby. That person in line at the bank who's stumbling over the English language and struggling to understand deposits and withdrawals: could loving him mean stepping out of line and helping him get it straight? That next-door neighbor struggling to keep his marriage together, that daughter who pushes your buttons every ten minutes, that husband scared of being laid off these are the ones who desperately need the strong saving love, the compassion and mercy, the challenge and holiness and presence of Jesus. In those moments, dare to risk being rebuffed or inconvenienced. Dare to look foolish and make mistakes. Dare to love God and that person, even if it wrings your heart with pain to do so. It's what we've been created, redeemed, and commanded to do. Hang your whole life on love, for the truth is, it's God's love, active in you. And his love will never fail.
39. Love of Enemies
Illustration
Joyce Hollyday
Sarah Corson, a founder of Servant in faith and Technology (SIFAT) in Alabama, was on a mission in theSouth American jungles to set up an agricultural project in a village where she and her husband had earlier started a church and built a fish hatchery. She was with seventeen young people, including two of her sons. One Thursday night, around midnight, thirty soldiers rushed toward the house where they were all staying. Sarah was paralyzed with shock as the soldiers stormed over the clearing leading to the house. She remembered with fear that earlier that day, a neighbor had overheard a conversation near the military camp in which soldiers had blamed Americans for recent resistance to a military takeover of the country. The soldiers had vowed to exterminate all Americans in the region.
Sarah Corson prepared to die. But as the soldiers approached, she found herself offering them warm words of welcome. The commander shoved his rifle against her stomach and pushed her into the house. The soldiers began pulling everything off the shelves and out of drawers. Sarah calmly explained that she and the others were there only to set up projects and teach the Bible. The commander, stating that he had never read the Bible, said, 'Maybe it is a communist book, for all I know.' Sarah asked him to let her talk about it.
While he kept his gun pointed at her and the other soldiers continued ransacking the house, Sarah opened a Spanish Bible the Sermon on the Mount. She read about Jesus' command to love one's enemies.
'That's humanly impossible!' the commander shouted.
'That's true, sir,' she answered. 'It isn't humanly possible, but with God's help it is possible.' She challenged him to let her prove it by killing her slowly: 'Cut me to pieces little by little, and you will see you cannot make me hate you. I will die praying for you because God loves you.'
The commander lowered his gun and stepped back. Then he ordered everyone in the house to march to a truck. But before they reached the truck, he turned around and led the women back to the house. He told Sarah that the women would be raped repeatedly in the jungle camp, so he could not take them there. He also told her that this was the first time he had disobeyed an order from a superior officer-and that he would pay with his life if he were found out. He said as he left, 'I could have fought any mount of guns you might have had, but there is something here I cannot understand. I cannot fight it.'
The village waited in agony for word of the men who had been taken. The local people insisted that the church service not be held on Sunday, because soldiers considered any gathering a source of political agitation. But on Saturday night, a messenger arrived with word from the commander of the attack that he would be in church on Sunday. He wanted Sarah to come and get him; if she did not, he would walk the ten miles. It sounded to Sarah like a threat. She sent a message throughout the town that night. 'We will have the service after all,' she said, 'but you are not obligated to come. In fact you may lose your life by coming. No one knows what this solider will do. Do not come when the church bell rings unless you are sure God wants you to come.'
Sarah picked up the commander and his bodyguard at the military camp. Holding their rifles they marched coldly into the church and sat down. The church was packed before the first hymn was over. The people came in fear and trembling, but they came.
It was the church custom to welcome visitors by inviting them to the platform, singing a welcome song, and waving to them. Then the congregation would line up to shake the visitors' hands, embrace them, and offer a personal greeting. Sarah decided only to offer the commander and his bodyguard the song. Stunned to be invited up front, the two soldiers stood with their guns across their backs. The people sang weakly and waved timidly. But then, the first man on the front seat came forward and put out his hand. As he bent over to hug the soldiers, Sarah overheard him saying, 'Brother, we don't like what you did to our village, but this is the house of God, and God loves you, so you are welcome here.' Every person in the church followed his example, even the women whose eyes were red from weeping for their loved ones whom the commander had taken prisoner.
The commander was incredulous. He marched to the pulpit and said, 'Never have I dreamed that I could raid a town, come back, and have that town welcome me as a brother.' Pointing to Sarah, he said, 'That sister told me Thursday night that Christians love their enemies, but I did not believe her then. You have proven it to me this morning. . . I never believed there was a God before, but what I have just felt is so strong that I will never doubt the existence of God as long as I live.'
The commander stayed for lunch with the congregation and offered money from his own pocket to parishioners who had loved ones taken away. Two weeks later, all of the men who had been taken were released from the basem*nt cell where they had been imprisoned and some had been tortured.
Sarah Corson was overcome with gratitude to God for putting divine love in her heart for a person she could not love on her own. She remembers the last words the commander said to her: 'I have fought many battles and killed many people. It was nothing to me. It was just my job to exterminate them. But I never knew them personally. This is the first time I ever knew my enemy face to face. And I believe that if we knew each other, our guns would not be necessary.'"
Note: the full story can be found here -https://sifat.org/pdfs/Welcoming_the_Enemy.pdf
40. Wash Your Hands
Illustration
Boyce Mouton
In 1818 people lived in a worldof dying women, the vast majority of which were completely healthy.The finest hospitals lost one out of six young mothers to the scourge of "childbed fever." That diagnosis was actually bacterial infections of the female reproductive tract following childbirth or miscarriage.A doctor's daily routine in the early 1800s began in the dissecting room where he performed autopsies. From there he made his way to the hospital to examine expectant mothers without ever pausing to wash his hands.
Enter Dr. Ignaz Phillip Semmelweishe began to connect the dots and drew an associate with autopsyexaminations with the resultant infection and death in these mothers. He began washingwith a chlorine solution, and after eleven years and the delivery of 8,537 babies, he lost only 184 mothers about one in fifty.
Succes!Right? No.
For years helecturedand debated with his colleagues. He argued, "Puerperal fever is caused by decomposed material, conveyed to a wound. I have shown how it can be prevented. I have proved all that I have said. But while we talk, talk, talk, gentlemen, women are dying. I am not asking anything world shaking. I am asking you only to wash...For God's sake, wash your hands." But no one believed him. Doctors and midwives had been delivering babies for thousands of years without washing, and no outspoken Hungarian was going to change them now!
in 1865 Semmelweis' health began to deteriorate and he died in an asylum at the age of 47, his wash basins discarded, his colleagues laughing in his face, and the death rattle of a thousand women ringing in his ears.
"Wash me!" was the anguished prayer of King David. "Wash!" was the message of John the Baptist. "Unless I wash you, you have no part with me," said the towel-draped Jesus to Peter. Without our being washed clean, we all die from the contamination of sin. For God's sake, wash.
HERE IS A SHORTER VERSION OF THIS STORY
In 1844 a medical doctor named IgnazPhillipSemmelweis, who was assistant director at the Vienna Maternity Hospital, suggested to the doctors that the high rate of death of patients and new babies was due to the fact that the doctors attending them were carrying infections from the diseased and dead people whom they had previously touched.Semmelweisordered doctors to wash their hands with soap and water and rinse them in a strong chemical before examining their patients. He tried to get doctors to wear clean clothes and he battled for clean wards. However, the majority of doctors disagreed withSemmelweisand they deliberately disobeyed his orders. In the late nineteenth century, on the basis of the work bySemmelweis, Joseph Lister began soaking surgery instruments, the operating table, his hands, and the patients with carbolic acid. The results were astonishing. What was previously risky surgery now became routine. However, the majority of doctors criticized his work also. Today we know that Lister andSemmelweiswere right; the majority of doctors in their day were wrong. Just because the majority believes one thing does not necessarily mean it is true.
41. An Angel Came to Joseph
Illustration
Samuel G. Candler
We too often forget about poor Joseph. Every year, we tend to focus on the story of Mary. But this year, it's Joseph.
Now, if the angel can appear to Mary, and then also appear to Joseph, there's a lesson in that. That means that the angel can appear to you and me, too. In the Bible, the annunciation does not occur only once, but twice-not just to a woman, but also to a man.
The Bible, then, carries an implicit message that God does appear over and over again, to various sorts of folks. Matthew and Luke both have it right, but they are different stories. God continues to come into the world, but we have to trust other sources!
What are you giving for Christmas this year? I do not mean what are you getting. We all want something wonderful, I am sure. But what are you giving for Christmas?
The greatest gift you can give this year is to believe in someone's dreams. The greatest gift you can give is to have faith in someone else; believe in their dreams. Believe in the dreams of the person you love. Believe in the dream of your husband. Believe in the dream of your wife. Believe in the dreams of your children. Believe in the dream of your hero, your leader, your friend. Believe in their dreams!
42. The Fault Box
Illustration
Source Unknown
A couple married for 15 years began having more than usual disagreements. They wanted to make their marriage work and agreed on an idea the wife had. For one month they planned to drop a slip in a "Fault" box. The boxes would provide a place to let the other know about daily irritations. The wife was diligent in her efforts and approach: "leaving the jelly top off the jar," "wet towels on the shower floor," "dirty socks not in hamper," on and on until the end of the month. After dinner, at the end of the month, they exchanged boxes. The husband reflected on what he had done wrong. Then the wife opened her box and began reading. They were all the same, the message on each slip was, "I love you!"
43. Behavior Change
Illustration
Tony Campolo
A pastorcounseled a man who was falling out of love with his wife. He advised the man tothink of all the ways he could make life happier for his wife and then do them. A few days later my friend received a phone call in which the husband related the following:
"Every day I leave for work, put in a hard day, come home dirty and sweaty, stumble in the back door, go to the refrigerator, get something to drink, and then go into the rec room and watch television until supper time. After talking to you, I decided I would do better than that in the future. So yesterday, before I left work, I showered and shaved and put on a clean shirt. On the way home I stopped at the florist and bought a bouquet of roses.
Instead of going in the back door as I usually do, I went to the front door and rang the doorbell. My wife opened the door, took one look at me, and started to cry. When I asked her what was wrong she said, 'It's been a horrible day. First Billy broke his leg and had to have it put in a cast. I no sooner returned home from the hospital when your mother called and told me that she is coming to stay for three weeks. I tried to do the wash and the washing machine broke and there is water all over the basem*nt. And now you have to come home drunk!"'
44. Creeds and Deeds - Sermon Starter
Illustration
Brett Blair
Rev. David Chadwell posed a rather interesting question: Which would you prefer for a next-door neighbor: a person of excellent habits or a person with a good heart? Which would you prefer for a good friend: a person of excellent habits, or a person with a good heart? Which would you prefer for a husband or a wife: a person of excellent habits, or a person with a good heart? Which would you prefer for a child: a child with excellent habits, or a child with a good heart?
It is wonderful to have a neighbor who conscientiously cares for his property while respecting your property. It is wonderful to have a friend who always treats you with consideration. It is wonderful to be married to a husband who always is thoughtful and courteous, or to a wife who always is gracious in her comments and deeds. It is wonderful to have a son or daughter who shows respect and uses good manners.
As wonderful as those situations are, none of them compare to having a neighbor, a friend, a husband, a wife, a son, or a daughter with a good heart.
When you discuss good behavior, you are discussing the quality of a person's self-control. When you discuss a good heart, you are discussing the quality of the person.
This is the focus of today's Scripture. Pharisees and teachers have come down from Jerusalem and, interestingly, they are gathered around Jesus watching the disciples. The disciples, it seems, are eating lunch. They have come in from the day's work. Too tired and too hungry to care that their hands and faces were dirty, they immediately sat down to eat without washing.
The Pharisees cease upon this ceremonial oversight and question Jesus: Why don't your disciples live according to the traditions of the elders and clean their hands before they eat? This is all that Jesus needs to hear. He sticks up for his disciples, turns on these teachers and says in essence, "Why do you not live according to the traditions of God and clean your hearts?"
What mistake did these Pharisees make? What is Jesus trying to convey, not only to them, but to us as well. For you see, it is just as easy for us to fall into a good habit and leave behind a good heart. What is Jesus' warning to us?
1.We prefer creeds rather than deeds.
2.We look at the outside not the inside.
3.But God requires good Creeds, Deeds, and Hearts.
45. My Childhood Promise
Illustration
Charles Swindoll
I recall, as a little barefoot boy with a cowlick of snow-white hair on my forehead, standing erect in my classroom and repeating the "Pledge of Allegiance" one Thanksgiving season. Our nation was at war and times were hard. My teacher had lost her husband on the blood washed shores of Normandy. As we later bowed our heads for prayer she wept aloud. I did too. All the class joined in. She stumbled through one of the most moving expressions of gratitude and praise that ever emerged from a soul plunged in pain. At that time in my young life, I fell strangely in love with Thanksgiving. Lost in sympathy and a boy's pity for his teacher, I walked home very slowly that afternoon. Although only a child, I had profound feelings of gratitude for my country . . . my friends . . . my school . . . my church . . . my family. I swore before God that I would fight to the end to keep this land free from foes who would want to take away America's distinctives and the joys of living in this good land. I have never forgotten my childhood promise. I never shall.
46. It's In Your Hands
Illustration
Max Lucado
Jungle Aviation and Radio Service (JAARS), the flying department of Wycliffe Bible Translators had flown thousands of hours over a 25 year span without one fatal accident before April 7, 1972. On that day, a Piper Aztec lost its right engine and crashed in Papua New Guinea, killing all seven persons aboard. The Aztec had just rolled out of the Wycliffe maintenance hangar the day before following a 100 hour inspection. The chief mechanic was stunned when he heard the news of the crash. Reviewing in his mind each step he had performed in inspecting that right engine, he suddenly recoiled in horror. He remembered that he had been interrupted while tightening a fuel line and had never returned to finish the job! That faulty connection had allowed raw fuel to spray out and catch fire while the Aztec was in flight.
The mechanic's guilt at being responsible for the deaths of his companions crushed him. For days he did not know what to do. The other mechanics tried to help him, as did his own family. But when the family of Doug Hunt, the pilot who was killed in the accident, was preparing to return to their home in New Zealand, the mechanic knew he had to see them, talk with them and beg their forgiveness. He could barely get out the words as he sobbed in their presence. "That hand there," he said, looking at his own right hand, "took Doug's life." Glennis Hunt, Doug's widow, embraced him. "Glennis sat by me and held the hand that took her husband's life," he later wrote, "and another JAARS pilot sat on my other side with a demonstration of love, comfort, and forgiveness. That was the most significant first step in the healing process."
47. A Change in Control
Illustration
Richard J. Fairchild
Last night a friend of mine was talking about his father: he spoke of how, for many years, his father binged out, how hisfather was a drunkard - a man who when sober was kind and gentle - and when drunk - well he was something else again. He had no control over himself. And this kind and gentle man brought pain and suffering upon others, or at least the forcewithin him did so - the family had to move - to change homes and communities - almost every year - landlords werecheated, employers disappointed, children neglected, friends abandoned - or embarrassed or betrayed.
And this continued on until one day, after taking his children to Sunday School for a period of time, after witnessing the faith of others and what it did for them, he accepted Jesus into his life. He asked God to take control, to guide his actions and save him from his sins and from the power of sin. And then things changed; debts still had to be paid, amends still had to be made, mistakes still occurred. But the inner man -the man that God made - was set free to grow and mature. No more booze, a lot more prayer. And the love and kindness of the man that could be glimpsed before - in the moments of sobriety - became apparent to all - for days, weeks, and finally years on end. The children who were still living at home stopped fearing what would happen next - they began to look forward to being with their father - they began to develop their own faith in God - a faith that still guides them to this day. This man, this father, this husband, experience a change in control - he went from being in the control of the devil to being in the control of God, and the result was the renewal of his inner nature, and in the end, when his earthly tent was destroyed, the result was a building from God - a house not made with hands - eternal in the heavens.
48. Confident in God
Illustration
Maxie Dunnam
In 1984, Louise Degraffinreid of Mason, Tennessee, astounded the nation when she persuaded an escaped convict to surrender. The prisoner, brandishing a gun, surprised Louise’s husband outside their modest home and forced him inside. Louise was not afraid of the gun. Amazingly, this grandmotherly woman, with a confidence that had to be from God, convinced the prisoner that he should put his gun down while she fixed him some breakfast. Surprisingly, the prisoner responded. She spoke to him about her faith in Jesus and how a young man like him would have a better life if he accepted Jesus also.
When the breakfast was ready, they had grace together and Louise prayed for the young man. They ate together, and, by a miraculous working of the Spirit, the young man telephoned authorities and before long he was on his way back to a Tennessee prison.
We never know what our witness of love -- in word and deed -- will do for another person.
49. POTTER
Illustration
Stephen Stewart
Jeremiah 18:4 - "And the vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter’s hand, and he reworked it into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to do."
Romans 9:21 - "Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lamp one vessel for beauty and another for menial use?"
The exact origin of pottery is not known, although its use is traced to Neolithic times, and probably discovered accidentally that clay could be shaped by hand and then that it could be hardened by the sun. Later, crude vessels were conceived and formed, and ceramics, one of the oldest of the arts, had its start. The study of pottery has yielded more knowledge of the history of the human race than has that of any other of the arts.
The story of pottery touches on all ages and all lands. The potter’s wheel, one of man’s earliest mechanical inventions, was highly regarded by ancient peoples. Its invention was claimed by both the Chinese and the Egyptians.
The potter’s work involved making clay utensils for the average family as well as elegant ware for the wealthy. His was a necessary occupation, because the fragile clay pots were easily broken and had to be replaced frequently.
Potter’s clay, which contained fine sand, animal and vegetable matter, and gravel, was washed and purified in a series of vats on descending levels. After the lowest vat’s contents were strained through cloth, it was spread out on a hill for "weathering." Next, it was made plastic by treading on it with the feet and mixing it with water. The clay was next tossed up into the air to drive out air bubbles. The potter would then knead the clay for many hours. Finally, the clay was "thrown" onto the potter’s wheel to be shaped.
The potter shaped his clay into its desired form while the wheel revolved counter-clockwise. By jabbing his forearm into the wet clay, the potter could hollow out his object. Upon finishing, the article was then returned to the wheel for removal of excess clay, for smoothing, or for strengthening its bottom so that it would not leak. The piece was then kiln-dried.
Decorations, including zig-zag patterns, half-moons, keys, scrolls, pictures of men and women, animal scenes, and circles were added to even inexpensive cooking vessels. Unlike the Egyptians, Palestinian potters did not coat their work with liquid glass (glaze). Instead, they burnished the piece with shells, pebbles, or a tool.
The pottery making centers were at the edge of town, near an open field, where vessels could be dried. And, in many cities, the potter’s field became the burial ground.
The objects which they made included jars, cooking pots, buttons, bottles, toys, writing material, statuettes, and ceramic tile, many of which the pottery maker or ceramics maker of today also manufactures, in much the same way.
50. The Messiah Is Among You
Illustration
William White
There was a famous monastery which had fallen on very hard times. Formerly its many buildings were filled with young monks, and its huge chapel resounded with the singing of the choir. But now it was deserted. People no longer came there to be nourished by prayer. A handful of old monks shuffled through the cloisters and praised God with heavy hearts.
On the edge of the monastery woods, an old rabbi had built a tiny hut. He would come there from time to time to fast and pray. No one ever spoke with him, but whenever he appeared, the word would be passed from monk to monk: "The rabbi walks in the woods." And, for as long as he was there, the monks would feel sustained by his prayerful presence.
One day the abbot decided to visit the rabbi and open his heart to him. So, after the morning Eucharist, he set out through the woods. As he approached the hut, the abbot saw the rabbi standing in the doorway, his arms outstretched in welcome. It was as though he had been waiting there for some time. The two embraced like long-lost brothers. Then they stepped back and just stood there, smiling at one another with smiles their faces could hardly contain.
After a while, the rabbi motioned the abbot to enter. In the middle of the room was a wooden table with the Scriptures open on it. They sat there for a moment, in the presence of the Book. Then the rabbi began to cry. The abbot could not contain himself. He covered his face with his hands and began to cry, too. For the first time in his life, he cried his heart out. The two men sat there like lost children, filling the hut with their sobs and moistening the wood of the table with their tears.
After the tears had ceased to flow and all was quiet again, the rabbi lifted his head. "You and your brothers are serving God with heavy hearts," he said. "You have come to ask a teaching of me. I will give you a teaching, but you can only repeat it once. After that, no one must ever say it aloud again."
The rabbi looked straight at the abbot and said, "The Messiah is among you." For a while, all was silent. Then the rabbi said, "Now you must go." The abbot left without ever looking back.
The next morning, the abbot called his monks together in the chapter room. He told them that he had received a teaching from the rabbi who walks in the woods, and that this teaching was never again to be spoken aloud. Then he looked at each of his brothers and said, "The rabbi said that one of us is the Messiah."
The monks were startled by this saying. "What could it mean?" they asked themselves. "Is brother John the Messiah? No, he's too old and crotchety. Is brother Thomas? No, he's too stubborn and set in his ways. Am I the Messiah? What could this possibly mean?" They were all deeply puzzled by the rabbi's teaching. But no one ever mentioned it again.
As time went by, though, something unusual began to happen at the monastery. The monks began to treat one another with a very special reverence. There was a gentle, wholehearted, human quality about them now which was hard to describe, but easy to notice. They lived with one another as brothers who had finally found something. And yet, they prayed over the Scriptures together as those who were still looking for something. Visitors found themselves deeply moved by the genuine caring and sharing that went on among the brothers. Before long, people were again coming from far and wide to be nourished by the prayer life of these monks. And young men were asking, once again, to become part of the community.
In those days, the rabbi no longer walked in the woods. His hut had fallen into ruins. But somehow or other, the older monks who had taken his teaching to heart still felt sustained by his prayerful presence.
Showing
1
to
50
of
66
results
- Archaeologists discover 2,700-year-old seal in Jerusalem helping affirm city's biblical heritage
- Feds sue pro-life activist who barricaded himself in abortion clinic bathroom
- Robert Morris’ son, James Morris, preparing to plant his own church after Gateway Church exit
- Trump tells Moms for Liberty he's ‘for parental rights,’ likens school boards to ‘dictatorships’
- 'An effort to suffocate': Experts warn of emerging threats in America's religious freedom battle
- Pastor who obtained $3.5M in COVID relief funds, bought Tesla sentenced to prison
- Nicaragua churches, Evangelical alliance among 169 civil society groups closed in latest regime crackdown
- Travel: Postcard from Plymouth, England
- This week in Christian history: Third Crusade ends, first Anglican service in Canada, first US Senate chaplain dies
- Aurora mayor blames ‘bad’ Biden border policies for Venezuelan gang problem
- Christian Formation for the ‘Toolbelt Generation’
- German Pastor to Pay for Anti-LGBTQ Statements
- Should Christians Across Denominations Be Singing the Same Songs?
- Rwanda Explains Why It Closed Thousands of Churches. Again.
- Activist Lila Rose Under Fire for Suggesting Trump Hasn’t Earned the Pro-Life Vote
- More Christian Colleges Will Close. Can They Finish Well?
- Choose This (Labor) Day Whom You Will Serve
- What to Watch for in ‘Rings of Power’ Season 2
- When to Respond to Slander (and When to Ignore It)
- It Is Not Best for Man to Eat Alone
- SO, WHY ARE YOU VOTING FOR TRUMP?
- Russian Foreign Minister Has a Longtime Female Companion With Over $13 Million in Unexplained Assets
- The enemy is Sinwar, not Netanyahu. Put emotions aside!
- Italian priest’s exit for wife, unborn child renews celibacy debate
- Carmelites find St. Teresa of Ávila's body still incorrupt after opening coffin for study of relics
- Eye-opening reply to 'what's the fastest a coworker's been fired' is a winner on X
- Afghanistan slides into 'ever more hellish conditions' after new morality law enacted
- Kangana Ranaut's Emergency Postponed As CBFC Revokes Certificate Due To Death Threats: 'Disappointed Hu Apne Desh Se'
- Bremen High School QB recovering after spinal surgery, teammates hold prayer circle
- Rabbi Yitzchak Herzog’s arrival in ‘Palestine’
- A Shroud of Evidence
- There Never Was a Pro-Life Case for Trump
- Donald Trump and the Sovereign Rights of God
- How a Church Fought Back Against a Liberal Takeover — And Won
- St. Teresa of Ávila's Body Remains Incorrupt After Almost 5 Centuries
- Faith of My Fathers
- Chinese Christians are the Canary in the Coal Mine
- Mohamad Jebara, 'Reclaimer' of the Quran
- Algerian Man Charged Over Synagogue Arson Attack in France
- Religion is America's Mighty Engine of Charitable Goodness
