Sermon and Worship Resources (2024)

People in the Bible were family-centered and staunchly loyal to their kin. Families formed the foundation of society. The extended family was the source of people’s status in the community and provided the primary economic, educational, religious, and social interactions.

Marriage and divorce. Marriage in the ancient Near East was a contractual arrangement between two families, arranged by the bride’s father or a male representative. The bride’s family was paid a dowry, a “bride’s price.” Paying a dowry was not only an economic transaction but also an expression of family honor. Only the rich could afford multiple dowries. Thus, polygamy was minimal. The wedding itself was celebrated with a feast provided by the father of the groom.

The primary purpose for marriage in the ancient Near East was to produce a male heir to ensure care for the couple in their old age. The concept of inheritance was a key part of the marriage customs, especially with regard to passing along possessions and property.

Marriage among Jews in the NT era still tended to be endogamous; that is, Jews sought to marry close kin without committing incest violations (Lev. 18:617). A Jewish male certainly was expected to marry a Jew. Exogamy, marrying outside the remote kinship group, and certainly outside the ethnos, was understood as shaming God’s holiness. Thus, a Jew marrying a Gentile woman was not an option. The Romans did practice exogamy. For them, marrying outside one’s kinship group (not ethnos) was based predominantly on creating strategic alliances between families.

Greek and Roman law allowed both men and women to initiate divorce. In Jewish marriages, only the husband could initiate divorce proceedings. If a husband divorced his wife, he had to release her and repay the dowry. Divorce was common in cases of infertility (in particular if the woman had not provided male offspring). Ben Sira comments that barrenness in a woman is a cause of anxiety to the father (Sir. 42:9–10). Another reason for divorce was adultery (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). Jesus, though, taught a more restrictive use of divorce than the OT (Mark 10:1–12).

Children and parenting. Childbearing was considered representative of God’s blessing on a woman and her entire family, in particular her husband. In contrast to this blessing, barrenness brought shame on women, their families, and specifically their husbands.

Children were of low social status in society. Infant mortality was high. An estimated 60percent of the children in the first-century Mediterranean society were dead by the age of sixteen.

Ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean societies exhibited a parenting style based on their view of human nature as a mixture of good and evil tendencies. Parents relied on physical punishment to prevent evil tendencies from developing into evil deeds (Prov. 29:15). The main concern of parents was to socialize the children into family loyalty. Lack of such loyalty was punished (Lev. 20:9). At a very early stage children were taught to accept the total authority of the father. The rearing of girls was entirely the responsibility of the women. Girls were taught domestic roles and duties as soon as possible so that they could help with household tasks.

Family identity was used as a metaphor in ancient Israel to speak of fidelity, responsibility, judgment, and reconciliation. In the OT, the people of Israel often are described as children of God. In their overall relationship to God, the people of Israel are referred to in familial 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).

The church 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 the community 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 was eventually replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18). Through the Spirit, Jesus’ ministry continues in the community of his followers, God’s family—the church. See also Adoption.

Of several Hebrew words for “judgment,” two are important here.

The word shepet is used of God, who brings the judgments upon the Egyptians in the plagues (Exod. 6:6; 7:4; 12:12). Ezekiel prophesies God’s judgment on Israel and other nations (e.g., Ezek. 5:10; 16:41; 25:11). The word is also applied to human beings, as the Syrians execute judgment on Israel (2Chron. 24:24).

The most frequent noun is mishpat. Abraham is noted for mishpat, “judgment/justice” (Gen. 18:19). God by attribute is just (Gen. 18:25); he shows justice toward the orphan and the widow (Deut. 10:18) and brings judgment on behalf of the oppressed (Ps. 25:9). At the waters of Marah, God makes a judgment, an ordinance for the people (Exod. 15:25). Similarly, the mishpatim, “judgments/ordinances,” become law for life in Israel (Exod. 21:1). In making judicial judgments, the Israelites are to be impartial (Lev. 19:15), and they are to use good judgment and justice in trade (Lev. 19:35; Prov. 16:11). Israel will be judged for rejecting God’s judgments (Ezek. 5:78) and worshiping false gods (Jer. 1:16). Those accused of crime will come to judgment/trial (Num. 35:12). The children of Israel come to their judges for judgment (Judg. 4:5). God will bring each person to a time of judgment regarding how his or her life is spent (Eccles. 11:9).

One key word in the NT is krisis. It has a range of meaning similar to mishpat. In the NT, judgment is rendered for thoughts and words as well as deeds (Matt. 5:21–22; 12:36). Future, eschatological judgment is a key theme for Jesus (Matt. 10:15; 11:22, 24; 12:42), Paul (2Thess. 1:5), and other NT writers (Heb. 9:27; 10:27; 2Pet. 2:9; 3:7; 1John 4:17; Jude 15; Rev. 14:7). Jesus himself will be the judge (John 5:22). The only way to avoid condemnation is by having eternal life in the Messiah (John 5:24).

Another key word in the NT is krima. It may refer to condemnation (Matt. 7:2; Rom. 3:8) or to judgment, again including the eschatological judgment (Acts 24:25). Krima is the word most frequently used by Paul. He also often presents judgment as already realized (e.g., Rom. 2:2–3; 5:16). In the later epistles judgment may be realized as well (2Pet. 2:3; Jude 4). James points out that not many should presume to be teachers, because they will be judged more strictly (James 3:1).

The Bible uses the metaphor of marriage to describe God’s covenant relationship with his people (Isa. 54:58). This metaphor captures the intimate character of the relationship that God desires to have with his people. Marriage is the most intimate human relationship in two ways. First, marriage is a relationship in which knowledge is the most intimate. A spouse can see many of the flaws that are hidden from others. Thus, each spouse must accept and love the other for who that person is, in spite of his or her imperfections. Second, the depth and passion of the expressions of love are most intimate in marriage. Consequently, there is no greater pain than that caused by unfaithfulness to this covenant.

Sadly, as the story of the OT unfolds, God’s “wife” betrays him. How so? His people worship idols in their hearts (Ezek. 14:1–5). Because God is jealous for the exclusive love of his people, idolatry is spiritual unfaithfulness. God wants both the allegiance and the affection of their hearts to be reserved exclusively for him. The people continue the formalities of worship, but their hearts have turned away from God. The book of Hosea illustrates the sense of betrayal that God feels when his people are spiritually unfaithful. God tells Hosea to marry a woman who will be unfaithful to him. Subsequently, she leaves Hosea for one lover after another. This story is intended to give God’s people a vivid picture of how painful their spiritual betrayal of him is. His heart is crushed by the rebellious and idolatrous condition of his people. Hosea’s wife ends up on the market as a prostitute, and God tells him to buy her back and love her again.

The story of God’s love for his people is expanded by what the Father did centuries later when he sent Jesus to pay the ransom for the sins of his people so that they might be healed of their rebellion and receive eternal life (John 3:16; 17:24). The death and resurrection of Christ were necessary because sin had to be atoned for. This love is a free gift that comes to the one who trusts in Christ for forgiveness of sin and a new heart. The new heart inclines one to please God. The gift of the Spirit enables one to bear the “fruit” of love (Gal. 5:22–23). As Abraham’s engrafted children (Gal. 3:7), believers are called by God to live as pilgrims on their way to a heavenly promised land (Heb. 11:9–10; 1Pet. 2:11).

Christ modeled genuine love by serving us (Mark 10:42–45). His love should motivate us and enable us to practice sacrificial service toward others (Matt. 22:39; 1John 3:16). It should also cause us to practice forbearance, long-suffering, and forgiveness toward those who wrong us (Matt. 18:21–35). It should cause us to repay evil with good (Rom. 12:14). Our love for truth should motivate us to act in the best interests of others (1Cor. 13:4–8) in the hope that they may become reconciled to God (2Tim. 2:24–26).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

The English term “witness” occurs in both Testaments numerous times, with a wide range of meanings. One common meaning relates to someone who gives legal testimony and to the legitimacy of that testimony (Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; 19:1516, 18; Prov. 12:17; Isa. 8:16, 20). Throughout the NT the term occurs primarily in the context of someone bearing witness—especially God—or testifying to something (Rom. 1:9; 2Cor. 1:23; Phil. 1:8; 1Thess. 2:5, 10), though it also has a forensic dimension in regard to one who establishes legal testimony (e.g., Acts 6:13; 7:58; 2Cor. 13:1; 1Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28).

Central to the concept of witness is the truthfulness of the witness. This was a vital component of the OT concept of witness. Thus, in legal proceedings a lone witness was insufficient to establish testimony against anyone (Deut. 17:6). This principle carries over into the NT (cf. Matt. 18:16; 2Cor. 13:1). Such truthfulness was so significant that the ninth commandment expressly forbids bearing false witness (Exod. 20:16; Deut. 5:20; cf. Prov. 19:5, 9).

Truth-telling was not something that the people of Israel were called to merely among themselves. They were to be God’s witnesses to the nations (Isa. 43:10; 44:8). As witnesses of God’s existence and holiness, they were called to be separate from the nations (Exod. 19:6) and to be a light to them (Isa. 49:6). Tragically, Israel failed in this responsibility and was deemed “blind” (Isa. 42:19).

The NT continues the concept that the people of God are to be God’s witnesses. John the Baptist is commissioned “to testify concerning that light” (John 1:7). It is in this context that Jesus later declares himself to be “the light of the world” (John 8:12; 9:5). Jesus himself is the exemplar of a “faithful witness” (Rev. 1:5). And his followers, whom he has designated as “the light of the world” (Matt. 5:14), are then called to bear witness to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8).

“Witness” is also employed in terms of a legal testimony regarding what one has seen. That the disciples were intent on establishing such legal testimony is evident in their stipulation that the person to replace Judas Iscariot be someone from among those who had been with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry to his ascension, so that “one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection” (Acts 1:22). This forensic aspect of witness appears in the close of the Gospel of John: “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true” (21:24). Paul demonstrates this forensic concern for witnesses when he references Peter, the Twelve, some five hundred others, and himself as among those who have witnessed the resurrection (1Cor. 15:3–8).

Throughout Revelation there resides a direct link between Christians bearing witness and suffering, and perhaps dying, as a consequence of this witness. This is evident in the mention of Antipas, who was martyred, and is then designated as “my faithful witness” (Rev. 2:13). Also, the two unnamed witnesses in 11:1–12, who explicitly function as witnesses, are the subject of attack and are eventually murdered. Their murder occurs only after they have finished “their testimony” (11:7).

It is this association of persecution and martyrdom that likely leads to the second-century employment of “martyr” as a designation for those who bear witness to Christ to the point of death.

The English word “atonement” comes from anAnglo-Saxon word, “onement,” with the preposition “at”;thus “at-onement,” or “at unity.” In someways this word has more in common with the idea of reconciliationthan our modern concept of atonement, which, while having “oneness”as its result, emphasizes rather the idea of how that unity isachieved, by someone “atone-ing” for a wrong or wrongsdone. Atonement, in Christian theology, concerns how Christ achievedthis “onement” between God and sinful humanity.

Theneed for atonement comes from the separation that has come aboutbetween God and humanity because of sin. In both Testaments there isthe understanding that God has distanced himself from his creatureson account of their rebellion. Isaiah tells the people of Judah,“Your iniquities have separated you from your God”(59:2). And Paul talks about how we were “God’s enemies”(Rom. 5:10). So atonement is the means provided by God to effectreconciliation. The atonement is required on account of God’sholiness and justice.

OldTestament

Inthe OT, the sacrificial system was the means by which sins wereatoned for, ritual purity was restored, iniquities were forgiven, andan amicable relationship between God and the offerer of the sacrificewas reestablished. Moses tells the Israelites that God has given themthe blood of the sacrificial animals “to make atonement foryourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement forone’s life” (Lev. 17:11). In essence, this is the basicoperating principle for atonement in the OT—the offering of theblood of a slaughtered animal in place of the life of the offerer.However, there have been significant scholarly debates regardingwhether this accurately portrays the ancient Israelite understandingof atonement.

Themeaning of “to atone.”First, there is disagreement over the precise meaning of the Hebrewword kapar (“to atone”). Among the more popularsuggestions are these: to cover, to remove, to wipe out, to appease,to make amends, to redeem or ransom, to forgive, and to avert/divert.Of late, one very influential theory is that atonement has little ornothing to do with the individual offerer, but serves only to purifythe tabernacle or temple and the furniture within from the impuritiesthat attach to them on account of the community’s sin. Thistheory, though most probably correct in what it affirms,unnecessarily restricts the effects of atonement to the tabernacleand furniture. There are, to be sure, texts that specifically mentionatonement being made for the altar (e.g., Exod. 29:36–37; Lev.8:15). But the repeated affirmation for most of the texts inLeviticus and Numbers is that the atonement is made for the offerer(e.g., Lev. 1:4; 4:20, 26); atonement results in forgiveness of sinfor the one bringing the offering. As far as the precise meaning ofkapar is concerned, it may be that some of the suggested meaningsoverlap and that a particular concept is more prevalent in somepassages, and another one in others.

Therehas also been debate over the significance of the offerer laying ahand on the head of the sacrificial animal (e.g., Lev. 1:4; 3:2).This has traditionally been understood as an identification of theofferer with the sacrifice and a transference of the offerer’ssins to the sacrifice. Recently this has been disputed and theargument made instead that it only signifies that the animal doesindeed belong to the offerer, who therefore has the right to offerit. But again, this is unduly restrictive; it should rather be seenas complementary to what has traditionally been understood by thisgesture. Indeed, in the rite for the Day of Atonement, when thepriest lays his hands on the one goat, confesses Israel’s sinand wickedness, and in doing so is said to be putting them on thegoat’s head (Lev. 16:21), this would seem to affirm thecorrectness of the traditional understanding. The sacrifice is thusbest seen as substitutionary: it takes the place of the offerer; itdies in his stead.

Therelationship between God and the offerer. Second,granted that the word kapar has to do with the forgiveness of sins,the question arises as to the exact effect that it has on therelationship between God and the offerer. The question here iswhether the effect is expiation or propitiation. Does the offeringexpiate the sin—wipe it out, erase it, remove it? Or does itpropitiate the one to whom the sacrifice is offered? That is, does itappease and placate God, so that the threat of God’s wrath isremoved? In one respect, the distinction seems artificial; it seemslogical that expiation naturally results in propitiation. On theother hand, the modern-day tendency to deny that God could possiblybe a God of wrath makes the question relevant. In any case, there arecertainly, in both religious and nonreligious contexts, passageswhere something like “appease” or “pacify”appears to be a proper rendering of kapar (Gen. 32:20; Exod. 32:30;Num. 16:46–47; 25:1–13; 1 Sam. 3:14). The effect ofatonement is that sins are removed and forgiven, and God is appeased.

Inconjunction with this last point, it is also important to note thatthere are a number of places where it is said that God does thekapar, that God is the one who makes atonement. Deuteronomy 21:8calls upon God, literally, to “atone [NIV: “accept thisatonement”] for your people, Israel.” In Deut. 32:43 Godwill “make atonement for his land and people.” Psalm 65:3(ESV) states that God “atone[s] for our transgressions”(ESV). Hezekiah prays in 2 Chron. 30:18, “May the Lord,who is good, pardon [atone for] everyone.” In Ps. 78:38 (ESV),God is said to have “atoned” for Israel’s iniquity.Psalm 79:9 (ESV) asks God to “atone for our sins for yourname’s sake.” In Isa. 43:3 kapar is translated as“ransom,” and God says to Israel that he gave “Egyptfor your ransom.” In Ezek. 16:63 God declares that he will“make atonement” for all the sins that Israel hascommitted. It may be that in most of these passages “atone”is to be understood as a synonym of “forgive.” However,as many commentators have noted, in at least some of these passages,the thought is that God is either being called upon to take or istaking upon himself the role of high priest, atoning for the sins ofthe people. It is important to remember God’s declaration inLev. 17:11 that he has given to the Israelites the blood of thesacrificial animals to make atonement for their sins. Atonement, nomatter how it is conceived of or carried out, is a gift that Godgraciously grants to his covenant people.

Thatleads to a consideration of one particularly relevant passage, Isa.52:13–53:12. In this text a figure referred to as “my[the Lord’s] servant” (52:13) is described as one who“took up our pain and bore our suffering” (53:4). He was“pierced for our transgressions” and “crushed forour iniquities” (53:5). “The Lord has laid on him theiniquity of us all” (53:6). And then we are told, “Yet itwas the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,”and that “the Lord makes his life an offering for sin [NASB:“guilt offering”]” (53:10). There are many issueswith regard to the proper interpretation of this “Servant Song”(as it is often called), one of them being whether the termtranslated “guilt offering” should really be thought ofalong the lines of the guilt offering described in the book ofLeviticus (5:14–6:7; 7:1–10). But if the traditionalChristian understanding of this passage is correct, we have here apicture of God himself assuming the role of priest and atoning forthe sins of his people by placing their iniquities and sins on hisservant, a figure regarded by Jesus and the apostles in the NT to beGod’s very own son, Christ Jesus.

NewTestament

Therelationship between the Testaments.When we come to the NT, four very important initial points should bemade.

First,God’s wrath against sin and sinners is just as much a NTconsideration as an OT one. God still considers those who are sinfuland unrighteous to be his “enemies” (Rom. 5:10; Col.1:21). Wrath and punishment await those who do not confess JesusChrist as Lord (John 3:36; Rom. 2:5; Eph. 2:3). Atonement is themeans of averting this wrath.

Second,salvation is promised to those who come to God by faith in ChristJesus, but there is still the problem of how God can, at the sametime, be “just” himself and yet also be the one who“justifies” sinners and declares them righteous (Rom.3:26). God will not simply declare sinners to be justified unless hisown justness is also upheld. Atonement is the way by which God isboth just and justifier.

Third,as we saw in the OT that, ultimately, God is the one who atones, soalso in the NT God is the one who provides the means for atonement.It is by his gracious initiative that atonement becomes possible. IfJesus’ death is the means by which atonement is achieved, it isGod himself who “presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement”(Rom. 3:25). It was God himself who “so loved the world that hegave his one and only Son” (John 3:16). God himself “senthis Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins” (1 John4:10). God “did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for usall” (Rom. 8:32). Additionally, Christ himself was not anunwilling victim; he was actively involved in the accomplishing ofatonement by his death (Luke 9:31; John 10:15–18; Heb. 9:14).

Fourth,the atoning sacrifice of the Son was necessary because, ultimately,the OT sacrifices could not really have provided the necessaryatonement: “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goatsto take away sins” (Heb. 10:4).

Portrayalsof Christ’s work of atonement.It has become common of late to refer to the different “images”or “metaphors” of atonement that appear in the NT. Thisis understandable on one level, but on another level there issomething misleading about it. So, for example, when the NT authorsspeak of Christ as a sacrifice for sin, it is not at all clear thatthey intend for the reader to take this as imagery. Rather, Christreally is a sacrifice, offered by God the Father, to take away sins,and to bear in his own body the penalty that should have been placedon the sinner. Christ’s sacrifice has an organic connection tothe OT sacrificial system, as the “full, final sacrifice.”The author of Hebrews would not have considered this to be imagery.In fact, a better case could be made that, from his perspective,Christ was the real sacrifice, and all the instances of sacrifice inthe OT were the imagery (Heb. 10:1). So as we look at the differentportrayals of Christ in his work of atonement in the NT, some ofthese may best be categorized as imagery or metaphor, while othersperhaps are better described as a “facet” of, or a“window” on, the atonement. It should also be noted thatthe individual portrayals do not exclude the others, and in somecases they overlap.

• Ransom.Some passages in the NT speak of Christ’s death as a ransompaid to set us free (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; 1 Tim. 2:6; Heb.9:15). The same Greek word translated “ransom” in thesepassages is rendered as “redeem” or “redemption”in other passages (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14). Other forms of the same wordare also translated “redeem” or “redemption”in Gal. 3:13–14; 4:5; Titus 2:14; Heb. 9:12; 1 Pet.1:18–19; Rev. 14:3. A near synonym of these words is used inRev. 5:9; 14:4, referring to how Christ “purchased”people by his blood. In most of these cases the picture is that ofslaves who have been ransomed, redeemed, or purchased from the slavemarket. Sometimes this is referred to as an “economic”view of atonement, though this label seems a bit crass, for thepurchase is not of a commodity but of human lives at the expense ofChrist’s own life and blood. To ask the question as to whom theransom was paid is probably taking the picture too far. But those whoare ransomed are redeemed from a life of slavery to sin and to thelaw.

• Cursebearer. In Gal. 3:13–14, noted above, there is also the pictureof Christ as one who bore the curse of the law in our place. Thelanguage is especially striking because rather than saying thatChrist bore the curse, Paul says that Christ became “a curse.”This is an especially forceful way of saying that Christ fully tookinto his own person the curse that was meant for us.

• Penaltybearer. Closely related to “curse bearer,” this portrayaldepicts Christ as one who has borne the legal consequences of oursins, consequences that we should have suffered; rather, becauseChrist has borne the penalty, we are now declared to be righteous andno longer subject to condemnation. This idea stands behind much ofthe argumentation that Paul uses in Romans and Galatians, and it alsointersects with the other portrayals. Passages representative of thispicture are Rom. 3:24–26; 4:25; 5:8–21; 8:32–34;Gal. 3:13–14; Eph. 2:15. It is also what should be understoodby Peter’s description of Christ’s death as “thejust for the unjust” in 1 Pet. 3:18 (NASB, NET), as wellas in 2 Cor. 5:21, where Paul states that Christ has become “sinfor us” so that we might become the “righteousness ofGod.”

• Propitiation.There are four passages where the NIV uses “atonement” or“atoning” in the translation to reflect either the Greekverb hilaskomai or related nouns hilastērion or hilasmos. Thisis the word group that the LXX regularly uses to translate the Hebrewverb kapar and related nouns. There has been much debate about theprecise meaning of the word in these four NT texts, in particular, asto whether it means to “expiate” (“remove guilt”)or to “propitiate” (“appease” or “avertwrath”). The better arguments have been advanced in favor of“propitiate”; at the very least, propitiation is impliedin expiation. The wrath that we should have suffered on account ofour sins has been suffered by Jesus Christ instead. Although thespecific word is not used, this is the understanding as well in thosepassages where it is said either that Christ died “for oursins” (1 Cor. 15:3), “gave himself for our sins”(Gal. 1:4), “bore our sins” (1 Pet. 2:24), or thathis blood was poured out “for the forgiveness of sins”(Matt. 26:28; cf. Eph. 1:7).

• Passover.In 1 Cor. 5:7 Paul states that “Christ, our Passover lamb,has been sacrificed.” Although the Passover has nottraditionally been thought of as a sacrifice for sin (though manyscholars would argue that it was), at the very least we shouldrecognize a substitutionary concept at play in Paul’s use ofthe Passover idea. A lamb died so that the firstborn would not. TheGospel of John seems to have the same understanding. Early in theGospel, Jesus is proclaimed as the “Lamb of God, who takes awaythe sin of the world” (John 1:29). And then in his account ofJesus’ passion, John narrates that his crucifixion wasprecisely at the same time as the slaying of the Passover lambs (John19:14).

• Sacrifice.This theme has already been touched on in the other portraits above,but it is important to recognize the significance of this concept inthe NT and especially in the book of Hebrews. There, Christ isportrayed as both sacrifice and the high priest who offers thesacrifice (2:17; 7:27; 9:11–28; 10:10–21; 12:24). Hecame, not as some have argued, to show the uselessness of thesacrificial system, but rather to be the “full, finalsacrifice” within that system, “that he might makeatonement for the sins of the people” (2:17).

Ofcourse, it is not just the death of Christ that secures ourredemption. His entire earthly life, as well as his resurrection andheavenly intercessory work, must also be recognized. But with regardto the work of atonement per se, Christ’s earthly life,his sinless “active obedience,” is what qualifies him tobe the perfect sacrifice. His resurrection is the demonstration ofGod’s acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice (he “wasraised to life for our justification” [Rom. 4:25]). But it wasparticularly his death that provided atonement for our sins.

“Expiation” refers to the atonement of sin andthe removal of guilt, while “propitiation” refers to theappeasem*nt or satisfaction of wrath. Both ideas are present in theone Greek word hilasmos (and its cognates) used in the LXX and theNT. It is difficult to translate hilasmos into English using onecorresponding word, so two words, “expiation” and“propitiation,” are often used. This is problematicbecause neither term precisely captures the nuances of the Greekword. The problem persists because, as noted above, “expiation”and “propitiation” have different meanings in English.Because no single English word conveys the full sense of hilasmos,“expiation” and “propitiation” areconveniently combined in the NIV’s “sacrifice ofatonement” or “atoning sacrifice” (Rom. 3:25;1John 2:2; 4:10).

GreekBackground

Inclassical Greek, hilasmos referred to a sacrifice that would somehowavert a god’s wrath. When a worshiper sinned against a god andviolated the god’s holiness, the worshiper paid the properamount, through some kind of sacrifice, so that the god’s wrathwas then averted. It was a means of turning the god from anger to afavorable attitude, and it functioned by giving the god something(via sacrifice) that compensated for the offense. This sacrifice wasintended not as atonement for the worshiper’s sin but rather toappease the wrath of the god. The worshiper was the subject whooffered the sacrifice to the god as the object in an effort toappease the god’s wrath.

OldTestament

TheOT shares this Greek usage to a degree but also expands it to includethe more familiar biblical notion of expiation or atonement. The LXXuses hilasmos to convey the ideas of expiation as well aspropitiation. The word group associated with hilasmos is used indifferent contexts throughout the Bible, so context must determinethe meaning in each case. A prominent use occurs in Lev. 25:9, whereit refers to the Day of Atonement. Here hilasmos involves the removalof guilt effected by a sacrifice. A similar use is found in Num. 5:8,where hilasmos is used in connection with the ram with which peoplemake atonement for their sins. Ezekiel 44:27 uses the same term whenreferring to the sin offering that a priest must make for his ownsins upon entrance into the holy place. Each of these examples useshilasmos to translate the biblical concept of expiation: theatonement of sin and the removal of guilt. The unholy worshiper whosins against God is made holy once again by offering a sacrifice toatone for his or her sin.

Hilasmosalso conveys forgiveness. Forgiveness is closely connected withatonement. The LXX uses a related term hilastērion twenty-eighttimes to refer to the mercy seat, the cover of the ark of thecovenant over which God appeared on the Day of Atonement and on whichsacrificial blood was poured. The mercy seat was where both atonementand forgiveness were found. The term is used in Heb. 9:5 to refer tothe same mercy seat or “atonement cover” (NIV). Hereagain, mercy and forgiveness are linked to the idea of atonement.Psalm 130:4 (129:4 LXX) also uses hilasmos to convey the connectionbetween atonement and forgiveness: “But with you there isforgiveness/atonement [hilasmos].”

Insome cases, hilasmos bears the sense of propitiation—turningaside wrath. An interesting use occurs in the story of Jacob and Esauin Gen. 32. Jacob goes out to meet his brother Esau but is afraidbecause he had deceived their father, Isaac, into giving him theblessing that belonged to Esau (Gen. 27). Esau holds a grudge againstJacob and intends to kill him after mourning the death of theirfather (27:41). After years of separation, the brother reunite;Jacob, fearing the wrath of his brother, plans to avert his brother’sanger with gifts: “I will pacify him with these gifts I amsending on ahead; later, when I see him, perhaps he will receive me”(32:20 [32:21 LXX]). Here exilaskomai, a verb related to hilasmos, isused when Jacob says that he hopes to “pacify” Esau. Thiscontext suggests not expiation or atonement but appeasem*nt (cf.NRSV, NET). Jacob fears the wrath of his brother. To avert thatwrath, he sends gifts.

Theidea of propitiating God’s wrath occurs throughout the OT.Granted, it does not amount to bribery, as was potentially the casein pagan usage, where a god was “paid off” by asacrifice, with no sense of atonement for sin, but the notion ofaverting God’s wrath is common. For example, Moses is directedby God to take a census of the people to count them, and each one isto pay God a ransom so that no plague will come upon them (Exod.30:12). This sum of money is then said to “make atonement”for their lives (30:16). Through the offering of ransom money to God,his wrath is turned away from the people, so that no plague will comeupon them. The idea of propitiating God’s wrath is found inother places in the OT: Exod. 32:30; Num. 8:19; 16:46; 35:31; Prov.16:6; Isa. 47:11. All of this suggests that the notion of atonementin the OT is best understood comprehensively to include both thecleansing and the forgiveness of the sinner (expiation) and theturning away of God’s wrath (propitiation).

NewTestament

Expiationand propitiation are combined in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. He isboth the expiation for sin and the sacrifice that averts God’swrath. The Bible combines both expiation and propitiation into theone word hilasmos, and Jesus himself is the hilasmos for sin (Heb.2:17; 1John 2:2; 4:10; cf. Rom. 3:25 [hilastērion]). Theone action of Christ’s sacrifice has the double effect ofexpiating sin and thereby propitiating God. In the Bible, God’swrath results when his holiness is offended by sin. So there is needfor both expiation and propitiation. His wrath must be appeased sothat forgiveness for the sinner may result. Whereas expiation dealswith sin—satisfying the penalty incurred because ofsin—propitiation deals with wrath. Jesus accomplished both bybecoming the “atoning sacrifice” for our sins. He is theultimate mercy seat, the ultimate place of atonement and expiation(Heb. 9:5). He is also the ultimate sacrifice (Rom. 3:25).

TheNT is very nuanced regarding the sacrifice of Christ. Although itincludes both expiation and propitiation, these differ significantlyfrom Greek paganism and the OT. On one hand, God is too holy andrighteous for fallen humanity to expiate sin and satisfy his demandfor holiness by offering a sacrifice. On the other hand, God is notcapricious in that he simply needs to be pacified through a gift inorder to avert his wrath. The Bible teaches that no human being canoffer a sacrifice worthy enough to expiate his or her own sin or toavert God’s holy wrath. The pagan idea of propitiation isimpossible for fallen humanity. God’s holiness is so great thathe is rightfully wrathful at our sin, and our sin demands expiation.But we are unable to offer a sacrifice pure enough for our ownatonement. So God himself offers the sacrifice that both expiates oursin and averts his own wrath. Biblical propitiation is distinct frompagan propitiation. In the latter, human beings are the subjects ofthe action, the ones who are offering the propitiating sacrifice,while the gods receive the action and are thus propitiated. But Godis the subject of the action in the Bible. God has the right to bewrathful because of sin, to be righteously indignant. But he sendshis own Son to handle that wrath. God himself sends the sacrifice; heis the sacrifice; he is the place where that sacrifice is offered(Rom. 3:25).

Thereare three elements that help to summarize expiation/propitiation inthe Bible: (1)God was rightfully wrathful because of our sin,(2)God offered the sacrifice that averted his own wrath, and(3)God was the sacrifice that atoned for our sin. “Thisis love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Sonas an atoning sacrifice for our sins” (1John 4:10).

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

Imageryof God

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

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

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

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

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

Namesand Attributes of God

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Godof the Trinity

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

OldTestament.Of several Hebrew words for “judgment,” two are importanthere.

Theword shepet is used of God, who brings the judgments upon theEgyptians in the plagues (Exod. 6:6; 7:4; 12:12). Ezekiel prophesiesGod’s judgment on Israel and other nations (e.g., Ezek. 5:10;16:41; 25:11). The word is also applied to human beings, as theSyrians execute judgment on Israel (2Chron. 24:24).

Themost frequent noun is mishpat. Abraham is noted for mishpat,“judgment/justice” (Gen. 18:19). God by attribute is just(Gen. 18:25); he shows justice toward the orphan and the widow (Deut.10:18) and brings judgment on behalf of the oppressed (Ps. 25:9). Atthe waters of Marah, God makes a judgment, an ordinance for thepeople (Exod. 15:25). Similarly, the mishpatim,“judgments/ordinances,” become law for life in Israel(Exod. 21:1). In making judicial judgments, the Israelites are to beimpartial (Lev. 19:15), and they are to use good judgment and justicein trade (Lev. 19:35; Prov. 16:11). Israel will be judged forrejecting God’s judgments (Ezek. 5:7–8) and worshipingfalse gods (Jer. 1:16). Those accused of crime will come tojudgment/trial (Num. 35:12). The children of Israel come to theirjudges for judgment (Judg. 4:5). God will bring each person to a timeof judgment regarding how his or her life is spent (Eccles. 11:9).

NewTestament. Onekey word in the NT is krisis. It has a range of meaning similar tomishpat. In the NT, judgment is rendered for thoughts and words aswell as deeds (Matt. 5:21–22; 12:36). Future, eschatologicaljudgment is a key theme for Jesus (Matt. 10:15; 11:22, 24; 12:42),Paul (2Thess. 1:5), and other NT writers (Heb. 9:27; 10:27;2Pet. 2:9; 3:7; 1John 4:17; Jude 15; Rev. 14:7). Jesushimself will be the judge (John 5:22). The only way to avoidcondemnation is by having eternal life in the Messiah (John 5:24).

Anotherkey word in the NT is krima. It may refer to condemnation (Matt. 7:2;Rom. 3:8) or to judgment, again including the eschatological judgment(Acts 24:25). Krima is the word most frequently used by Paul. He alsooften presents judgment as already realized (e.g., Rom. 2:2–3;5:16). In the later epistles judgment may be realized as well (2Pet.2:3; Jude 4). James points out that not many should presume to beteachers, because they will be judged more strictly (James 3:1).

John and the author of Hebrews call Jesus Christ the “onlybegotten,” as traditionally translated (John 1:14, 18; 3:16,18; 1John 4:9; Heb. 11:17 KJV). The epithet, which is a singleword in Greek (monogenēs),signifies being the only one of its kind within a specificrelationship, and therefore, as we find in more recent translations,it may also be translated “one and only Son” (NIV) or“only son” (NRSV). Although the Bible claims that God hasmany humansons and daughters, in various senses he has but one “onlybegotten” Son, who must also be distinguished from the angels,who arealso identified as sons of God (Heb. 1:1–14; seealso Gen. 6:2,4).

Theauthor of Hebrews and Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian,present Isaac as Abraham’s “only begotten son”(Heb. 11:17 KJV; Josephus, Ant. 1.222). But Abraham has two sons, theother one being Ishmael, as the biblical narrative and Paul makeclear (Gen. 16:11–16; Gal. 4:22). The difference is that Isaacwas the only begotten between Abraham and his wife, Sarah, and theone for whom God decided to perpetuate the covenant that heoriginally made with Abraham (Gen. 12:1–3; 15:1–6;17:19). Isaac is presented by early Christians as a type of Christ,and for Paul, he is a type of all the children of the new covenant(Gal. 4:21–31). Nevertheless, through Jesus’ fulfillmentof God’s covenant obligations, many, including the descendantsof Ishmael, will be called “sons of God” (Gen. 17:20;Hos. 1:10, cited in Rom. 9:26; Matt. 5:9; Rom. 8:14, 19; Gal. 3:26;4:6).

Withoutcompromising the uniqueness of his position, the “one and only”Son is happy to share his status before God the Father through faith,by grace, which brings the believer into union with his body, thechurch (Gal. 2:19–20; Eph. 2:1–10; Heb. 2:10). Theconviction that Christ cannot be compared to human children orangels, parts of God’s creation, contributed to the belief ofcomparing Christ only with God, the uncreated.

“Expiation” refers to the atonement of sin andthe removal of guilt, while “propitiation” refers to theappeasem*nt or satisfaction of wrath. Both ideas are present in theone Greek word hilasmos (and its cognates) used in the LXX and theNT. It is difficult to translate hilasmos into English using onecorresponding word, so two words, “expiation” and“propitiation,” are often used. This is problematicbecause neither term precisely captures the nuances of the Greekword. The problem persists because, as noted above, “expiation”and “propitiation” have different meanings in English.Because no single English word conveys the full sense of hilasmos,“expiation” and “propitiation” areconveniently combined in the NIV’s “sacrifice ofatonement” or “atoning sacrifice” (Rom. 3:25;1John 2:2; 4:10).

GreekBackground

Inclassical Greek, hilasmos referred to a sacrifice that would somehowavert a god’s wrath. When a worshiper sinned against a god andviolated the god’s holiness, the worshiper paid the properamount, through some kind of sacrifice, so that the god’s wrathwas then averted. It was a means of turning the god from anger to afavorable attitude, and it functioned by giving the god something(via sacrifice) that compensated for the offense. This sacrifice wasintended not as atonement for the worshiper’s sin but rather toappease the wrath of the god. The worshiper was the subject whooffered the sacrifice to the god as the object in an effort toappease the god’s wrath.

OldTestament

TheOT shares this Greek usage to a degree but also expands it to includethe more familiar biblical notion of expiation or atonement. The LXXuses hilasmos to convey the ideas of expiation as well aspropitiation. The word group associated with hilasmos is used indifferent contexts throughout the Bible, so context must determinethe meaning in each case. A prominent use occurs in Lev. 25:9, whereit refers to the Day of Atonement. Here hilasmos involves the removalof guilt effected by a sacrifice. A similar use is found in Num. 5:8,where hilasmos is used in connection with the ram with which peoplemake atonement for their sins. Ezekiel 44:27 uses the same term whenreferring to the sin offering that a priest must make for his ownsins upon entrance into the holy place. Each of these examples useshilasmos to translate the biblical concept of expiation: theatonement of sin and the removal of guilt. The unholy worshiper whosins against God is made holy once again by offering a sacrifice toatone for his or her sin.

Hilasmosalso conveys forgiveness. Forgiveness is closely connected withatonement. The LXX uses a related term hilastērion twenty-eighttimes to refer to the mercy seat, the cover of the ark of thecovenant over which God appeared on the Day of Atonement and on whichsacrificial blood was poured. The mercy seat was where both atonementand forgiveness were found. The term is used in Heb. 9:5 to refer tothe same mercy seat or “atonement cover” (NIV). Hereagain, mercy and forgiveness are linked to the idea of atonement.Psalm 130:4 (129:4 LXX) also uses hilasmos to convey the connectionbetween atonement and forgiveness: “But with you there isforgiveness/atonement [hilasmos].”

Insome cases, hilasmos bears the sense of propitiation—turningaside wrath. An interesting use occurs in the story of Jacob and Esauin Gen. 32. Jacob goes out to meet his brother Esau but is afraidbecause he had deceived their father, Isaac, into giving him theblessing that belonged to Esau (Gen. 27). Esau holds a grudge againstJacob and intends to kill him after mourning the death of theirfather (27:41). After years of separation, the brother reunite;Jacob, fearing the wrath of his brother, plans to avert his brother’sanger with gifts: “I will pacify him with these gifts I amsending on ahead; later, when I see him, perhaps he will receive me”(32:20 [32:21 LXX]). Here exilaskomai, a verb related to hilasmos, isused when Jacob says that he hopes to “pacify” Esau. Thiscontext suggests not expiation or atonement but appeasem*nt (cf.NRSV, NET). Jacob fears the wrath of his brother. To avert thatwrath, he sends gifts.

Theidea of propitiating God’s wrath occurs throughout the OT.Granted, it does not amount to bribery, as was potentially the casein pagan usage, where a god was “paid off” by asacrifice, with no sense of atonement for sin, but the notion ofaverting God’s wrath is common. For example, Moses is directedby God to take a census of the people to count them, and each one isto pay God a ransom so that no plague will come upon them (Exod.30:12). This sum of money is then said to “make atonement”for their lives (30:16). Through the offering of ransom money to God,his wrath is turned away from the people, so that no plague will comeupon them. The idea of propitiating God’s wrath is found inother places in the OT: Exod. 32:30; Num. 8:19; 16:46; 35:31; Prov.16:6; Isa. 47:11. All of this suggests that the notion of atonementin the OT is best understood comprehensively to include both thecleansing and the forgiveness of the sinner (expiation) and theturning away of God’s wrath (propitiation).

NewTestament

Expiationand propitiation are combined in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. He isboth the expiation for sin and the sacrifice that averts God’swrath. The Bible combines both expiation and propitiation into theone word hilasmos, and Jesus himself is the hilasmos for sin (Heb.2:17; 1John 2:2; 4:10; cf. Rom. 3:25 [hilastērion]). Theone action of Christ’s sacrifice has the double effect ofexpiating sin and thereby propitiating God. In the Bible, God’swrath results when his holiness is offended by sin. So there is needfor both expiation and propitiation. His wrath must be appeased sothat forgiveness for the sinner may result. Whereas expiation dealswith sin—satisfying the penalty incurred because ofsin—propitiation deals with wrath. Jesus accomplished both bybecoming the “atoning sacrifice” for our sins. He is theultimate mercy seat, the ultimate place of atonement and expiation(Heb. 9:5). He is also the ultimate sacrifice (Rom. 3:25).

TheNT is very nuanced regarding the sacrifice of Christ. Although itincludes both expiation and propitiation, these differ significantlyfrom Greek paganism and the OT. On one hand, God is too holy andrighteous for fallen humanity to expiate sin and satisfy his demandfor holiness by offering a sacrifice. On the other hand, God is notcapricious in that he simply needs to be pacified through a gift inorder to avert his wrath. The Bible teaches that no human being canoffer a sacrifice worthy enough to expiate his or her own sin or toavert God’s holy wrath. The pagan idea of propitiation isimpossible for fallen humanity. God’s holiness is so great thathe is rightfully wrathful at our sin, and our sin demands expiation.But we are unable to offer a sacrifice pure enough for our ownatonement. So God himself offers the sacrifice that both expiates oursin and averts his own wrath. Biblical propitiation is distinct frompagan propitiation. In the latter, human beings are the subjects ofthe action, the ones who are offering the propitiating sacrifice,while the gods receive the action and are thus propitiated. But Godis the subject of the action in the Bible. God has the right to bewrathful because of sin, to be righteously indignant. But he sendshis own Son to handle that wrath. God himself sends the sacrifice; heis the sacrifice; he is the place where that sacrifice is offered(Rom. 3:25).

Thereare three elements that help to summarize expiation/propitiation inthe Bible: (1)God was rightfully wrathful because of our sin,(2)God offered the sacrifice that averted his own wrath, and(3)God was the sacrifice that atoned for our sin. “Thisis love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Sonas an atoning sacrifice for our sins” (1John 4:10).

Inthe Greco-Roman world the title “savior” (sōtēr)often was ascribed to deities. It carried with it the sense of rescueand preservation for subjects of a particulargod. The LXX also uses the term, sometimes with reference to God asSavior (especially in the Prophets), and sometimes referring todeliverers such as the judges.

Inthe NT, God is also called “Savior” (Luke 1:47). He willrescue his people from sin. At the birth of Jesus, the angelannounced that the one born will be a “Savior, who is theMessiah [Christ], the Lord” (Luke 2:11 NRSV). The Samaritansbelieved in Jesus as the Savior (John 4:42). Peter connected theexaltation and the majesty of Christ to his salvific work (Acts5:31). In Paul’s thinking, Christ is Savior of the body and isalso the model for the husband-wife relationship (Eph. 5:23). Alsofor Paul, the believer is to anticipate the return of thisnow-exalted Savior (Phil. 3:20). Of special note are the frequentreferences to “God our Savior” (e.g., 1Tim. 1:1),“Christ Jesus our Savior” (e.g., Titus 1:4), or someother such formula. John notes the Father has sent the Son to beSavior of the world (1John 4:14).

Typesof Crosses

Across is an upright wooden beam or post on which persons were eithertied or nailed as a means of torture and execution. A cross couldhave several different shapes. The earliest was not a cross at allbut rather a simple stake or pole on which persons were impaled. Thissimple stake evolved over time into more elaborate shapes with theaddition of a crossbeam that was secured to the upright stake. TheLatin cross was shaped like a t and was the type most commonly usedby the Romans. Jesus was crucified probably on a Latin cross, whichallowed for a convenient place for a sign (called a titlos in John19:19) to be placed above his head (Matt. 27:37 pars.). Another formof cross, now referred to as a St. Anthony’s cross, wasshaped like a T, with the crossbeam affixed at the top of the uprightbeam. A cross shaped like an X, having a crisscross pattern, is alsoknown as a St. Andrew’s cross. Tradition holds that theapostle Peter was crucified upside down on this type of cross. Across shaped like a +, the Greek cross, has the crossbeam in thecenter.

Crucifixionin Ancient Times

Inancient times, crucifixion was a method of execution used by manypeoples, including the Assyrians, the Phoenicians, the Babylonians,the Persians, the Medes, and the Greeks. Historically, crucifixion’sbarbaric predecessor was impalement. Victims often were beheadedfirst, and then their lifeless bodies were forced onto a large stakeor spike (Gen. 40:19; 1 Sam. 31:9–10). Impalementoriginally was more about triumph and exposure than execution (Deut.21:22–23; Josh. 8:29; 10:26; 2 Sam. 4:12; 21:9–10).But the Assyrians impaled their enemies by sticking them, stillalive, onto pointed stakes, thus utilizing impalement as a method ofexecution. The book of Esther probably reflects the practice ofimpalement in the Persian period by describing how the king’sofficials were executed (2:23; 5:14; KJV: “hanged”). Inthese verses, the Hebrew word that some English versions translate as“gallows” (’ets) actually means “tree,”and a noose for hanging was not used in Persia during this period.Impalement became a common form of execution.

Impalementas a means of execution eventually gave way to crucifixion.Crucifixion was especially prized by the Phoenicians, whose normalmethods of execution—drowning, immersion in boiling oil,impalement, stoning, and burning—were seen as too quick andeasy. Wanting their victims to suffer longer, they used crucifixion,a more severe form of execution. The Greeks also crucified victims ona stake or a cross. Alexander the Great crucified two thousandinhabitants of Tyre along the shoreline when he captured the city in332 BC.

Thereis no evidence that ancient Israel fastened people to a stake or across as a method of execution. Instead, stoning was the preferredmethod of execution in Israel and was commanded by the law (Lev.20:2; Deut. 22:24). The law did, however, permit the public displayof an offender’s body “on a tree” or a “pole”after being executed (Deut. 21:22). The same expression is used inthe book of Acts to describe Jesus’ crucifixion (5:30; 10:39;13:29). In contrast to pagan nations that would leave a corpsehanging on a cross until the flesh either rotted away or was devouredby vultures, Israel was commanded to take the body down, not lettingit remain on the tree overnight (Deut. 21:23). This explains why theJews were so adamant that Jesus’ body be taken down before theSabbath commenced at sunset (John 19:31). Being hung on a tree wasespecially abhorrent to Israel because it reflected God’s curseupon the offender (Deut. 21:23). Jesus was accursed by God as he hungon the cross, bearing the sins of the world (Gal. 3:13).

Crucifixionin New Testament Times

Notlong before the Romans took over Palestine, the Jewish rulerAlexander Jannaeus crucified about eight hundred Pharisees whoopposed him in 86 BC. This gruesome event was out of character forthe Jewish nation and was frowned upon by the Jews of the day as wellas by the later Jewish historian Josephus. But it was the Romans whoperfected crucifixion as a means of torture and execution. The Romanscalled crucifixion “slaves’ punishment” because itwas intended for the lowest members of society. It became thepreferred method of execution for political crimes such as desertion,spying, rebellion, and insurrection. Roman crucifixion was common inNT times and extended well into the fourth century AD. The emperorConstantine converted to Christianity in AD 312 and abolishedcrucifixion altogether. The cross became a symbol of Christiansacrifice instead of a barbarous method of torture and execution.

RomanCrucifixion

Crucifixionwas a barbaric method of torture and execution whereby a victim waseither nailed or tied to a wooden cross and left to die a long,agonizing death. It often was reserved for the most offensivecriminals, such as thieves (Matt. 27:38), murderers, insurrectionists(Mark 15:7), and other political rebels. Disobedient slaves commonlywere crucified. Crucifixion was so demeaning that Roman citizens wereexempt and could be crucified only by direct decree of the emperor.Crucifixion also was used as a triumphant sign in times of war asvictors demonstrated their conquests by hoisting their enemies uponcrosses for all to see. It was viewed as a public symbol of strengthand intimidation. Adding insult to injury, executioners strippedtheir victims and crucified them alongside busy roads and in publicplaces where onlookers could gaze in horror.

Criminalsoften were flogged severely before crucifixion in apseudo-compassionate effort to speed up the death process experiencedon the cross (John 19:1). The victim was stripped, tied to a post,and then brutally beaten by several Roman torturers using whips withsharp pieces of bone or metal at the ends of the lashes. Suchfloggings were said to leave the victim’s bones and entrailsexposed. The torturers did not stop until they either exhaustedthemselves or were called off by their commanding officers.

Afterthe flogging, the offender was forced to carry the crossbeam, oftenweighing seventy-five to one hundred pounds, on his or her shouldersto the crucifixion site (John 19:17). The main upright beam, standingseven to nine feet tall, remained at the site of crucifixion and wasused repeatedly. The victim was then laid down with arms stretchedout across the beam and usually tied into position. Once the victim’sarms were secured by ropes, a soldier searched for the “hollowspot” in the wrist located just above the flexion area near thecarpal bones. The metacarpal bones of the palms were too weak tosupport the weight of the body on the cross, so the wrist was astronger alternative. However, the use of ropes to support the armsmade the choice of little consequence. Either location wasacceptable. A hammer was used to drive five-inch nails through bothwrists, affixing the victim to the crossbeam. It was customary tooffer the victim a narcotic co*cktail to help ease the pain ofcrucifixion. Jesus refused this drink (Matt. 27:34; Mark 15:23).

Afterthe victim’s arms were nailed to the crossbeam, it was hoistedup and secured to the upright post. This alone was very hard on thefatigued body of the victim, who already had lost a considerableamount of blood. This quick, upward motion caused orthostatichypotension—very low blood pressure caused by a rapid verticalshift in body position. The victim’s blood pressure would dropto half of normal, while the pulse rate doubled. Victims frequentlyfainted due to the rush of blood away from the head during thisupward motion. This motion probably is the imagery behind Jesus’“lifted up” sayings (John 3:14; 8:28; 12:32). Jesus wasquite literally lifted up onto the cross.

Nextcame the nailing of the feet. The Romans had several different waysof nailing the feet to the cross. Roman soldiers were notorious fortwisting and contorting victims into odd positions while nailing themto the cross. Sometimes a victim’s legs were stretcheddownward, feet crossed, and one nail driven through both. A supportblock typically was placed behind the victim to support the weight ofthe body on the cross. A heel bone of a crucified man named“Yehohanan” (John) was discovered in an ossuary north ofJerusalem in 1968. A single nail had been driven through the side ofthe heel. Either the body was twisted so that the nail was driventhrough both heels, the right above the left, or each heel was nailedto opposite sides of the upright beam causing the victim to straddlethe cross. A piece of wood was held against the heel before the nailwas driven in, to act as a washer, preventing the foot from tearingfree. The ossuary’s inscription describes Yehohanan as “theone hanged with knees apart.” Once nailed to the cross, thevictim often suffered for several hours, even days, exposed to thehot sun as well as the insults of those passing by on the busy road(cf. Matt. 27:39; Mark 15:29; Luke 23:35; John 19:20). Extreme thirstwas brought on by massive blood loss and exposure to the elements(John 19:28).

Becausedeath could take several hours, it sometimes was hastened by acrushing blow to the legs with a club. Victims were unable to pushtheir bodies upward to gasp for air or to keep their bloodcirculating. This final blow to the legs also caused intense pain andusually was enough to throw the body into shock, with death followingsoon afterward. Jesus was already dead when the soldiers approachedto break his legs (John 19:32–33). This fulfilled what waswritten in the Scriptures: “Not one of his bones will bebroken” (John 19:36; cf. Exod. 12:46; Num. 9:12; Ps. 34:20).Instead of breaking Jesus’ legs, a soldier thrust a spear intohis side, which brought forth a sudden flow of blood and water,indicating that he was truly dead (John 19:34). This too was tofulfill Scripture: “They will look on the one they havepierced” (John 19:37; cf. Zech. 12:10). Bodies often were lefton the crosses to be eaten by scavenging birds such as vultures. TheJews demanded that the bodies of Jesus and the two thieves crucifiedwith him be taken down before the Sabbath that began that evening(John 19:31).

PhysicalDeath by Crucifixion

Deathby crucifixion resulted from a combination of factors. The mostobvious was massive blood loss. With the nails being driven throughthe extensive artery systems of the wrists and feet, the victim losta lot of blood. The severe flogging before being crucified alsoplayed a role and took its toll on the body. Blood loss also led to adepletion of oxygen supply to the vital tissues. Major organs faileddue to lack of oxygenation. Another factor leading to death wassuffocation or asphyxiation. The weight of the body hanging on thecross was too great for the tendons and muscles in the arms, so thevictims were unable to hold themselves up in order to take in deepbreaths. The victim’s upper body continued to sink lower untilthe lungs became too compressed and unable to take in large volumesof air. Victims could force themselves upward to gasp air by usingtheir legs, but this was extremely painful. Preventing the victimfrom pushing upward in order to breathe was another reason forbreaking the legs. The victim slowly suffocated for hours.

Theultimate cause of death was an eventual heart rupture due to massiveblood loss and lack of oxygenation. As the pulse raced and bloodpressure increased, the heart eventually burst due to the stress.This helps explain the reference to the “sudden flow of bloodand water” in John 19:34. In the case of heart rupture, theright side of the heart still has some blood left in it while the sacthat surrounds the heart, the pericardium, fills with water. Thesoldier’s spear pierced this sac and the heart, causing bothblood and water to flow out.

TheMeaning of Jesus’ Crucifixion

TheOT teaches that it is blood that makes atonement for sin (Lev.17:11). Just as sacrificial lambs shed their blood on the altar forthe sins of Israel, Jesus shed his blood on the cross for the sins ofthe world (John 1:29). The crucifixion of Jesus was the greatestatoning event in history. His blood, which provided the means for anew covenant, was poured out for many on the cross (Matt. 26:28). Thecross, as gruesome as it was, was the means through which Christ died“for our sins” (Gal. 1:4). Jesus freely scorned the shameof the cross so that we might be reconciled to God by his shed blood(Col. 1:20; Heb. 12:2).

Jesusalso bore the curse of God in our place when he died on the cross.The one who hangs on a tree is divinely cursed (Deut. 21:23). God’scurse is a curse upon sin, death, and fallenness. Jesus took God’scurse upon himself in order to redeem us from that curse (Gal. 3:13).

Jesusdemonstrated the humble nature of his mission and ministry by hisobedience to death, even death on the cross (Phil. 2:8). For Jesusthe cross was not simply his martyrdom, as if he simply died for aworthy cause; it was the pinnacle example of obedience and love inthe Bible. Jesus called his followers to take up a cross and followhis example of selfless sacrifice (Matt. 16:24). Jesus’ crossis a symbol of his love, obedience, and selflessness.

Mostof all, the cross reveals the unconditional love of God, who offeredhis Son as the atoning sacrifice for sin (John 3:16; 1 John4:10). The brutal cross reveals the beautiful love of Jesus, whowillingly laid down his life (1 John 3:16).

Typesof Crosses

Across is an upright wooden beam or post on which persons were eithertied or nailed as a means of torture and execution. A cross couldhave several different shapes. The earliest was not a cross at allbut rather a simple stake or pole on which persons were impaled. Thissimple stake evolved over time into more elaborate shapes with theaddition of a crossbeam that was secured to the upright stake. TheLatin cross was shaped like a t and was the type most commonly usedby the Romans. Jesus was crucified probably on a Latin cross, whichallowed for a convenient place for a sign (called a titlos in John19:19) to be placed above his head (Matt. 27:37 pars.). Another formof cross, now referred to as a St. Anthony’s cross, wasshaped like a T, with the crossbeam affixed at the top of the uprightbeam. A cross shaped like an X, having a crisscross pattern, is alsoknown as a St. Andrew’s cross. Tradition holds that theapostle Peter was crucified upside down on this type of cross. Across shaped like a +, the Greek cross, has the crossbeam in thecenter.

Crucifixionin Ancient Times

Inancient times, crucifixion was a method of execution used by manypeoples, including the Assyrians, the Phoenicians, the Babylonians,the Persians, the Medes, and the Greeks. Historically, crucifixion’sbarbaric predecessor was impalement. Victims often were beheadedfirst, and then their lifeless bodies were forced onto a large stakeor spike (Gen. 40:19; 1 Sam. 31:9–10). Impalementoriginally was more about triumph and exposure than execution (Deut.21:22–23; Josh. 8:29; 10:26; 2 Sam. 4:12; 21:9–10).But the Assyrians impaled their enemies by sticking them, stillalive, onto pointed stakes, thus utilizing impalement as a method ofexecution. The book of Esther probably reflects the practice ofimpalement in the Persian period by describing how the king’sofficials were executed (2:23; 5:14; KJV: “hanged”). Inthese verses, the Hebrew word that some English versions translate as“gallows” (’ets) actually means “tree,”and a noose for hanging was not used in Persia during this period.Impalement became a common form of execution.

Impalementas a means of execution eventually gave way to crucifixion.Crucifixion was especially prized by the Phoenicians, whose normalmethods of execution—drowning, immersion in boiling oil,impalement, stoning, and burning—were seen as too quick andeasy. Wanting their victims to suffer longer, they used crucifixion,a more severe form of execution. The Greeks also crucified victims ona stake or a cross. Alexander the Great crucified two thousandinhabitants of Tyre along the shoreline when he captured the city in332 BC.

Thereis no evidence that ancient Israel fastened people to a stake or across as a method of execution. Instead, stoning was the preferredmethod of execution in Israel and was commanded by the law (Lev.20:2; Deut. 22:24). The law did, however, permit the public displayof an offender’s body “on a tree” or a “pole”after being executed (Deut. 21:22). The same expression is used inthe book of Acts to describe Jesus’ crucifixion (5:30; 10:39;13:29). In contrast to pagan nations that would leave a corpsehanging on a cross until the flesh either rotted away or was devouredby vultures, Israel was commanded to take the body down, not lettingit remain on the tree overnight (Deut. 21:23). This explains why theJews were so adamant that Jesus’ body be taken down before theSabbath commenced at sunset (John 19:31). Being hung on a tree wasespecially abhorrent to Israel because it reflected God’s curseupon the offender (Deut. 21:23). Jesus was accursed by God as he hungon the cross, bearing the sins of the world (Gal. 3:13).

Crucifixionin New Testament Times

Notlong before the Romans took over Palestine, the Jewish rulerAlexander Jannaeus crucified about eight hundred Pharisees whoopposed him in 86 BC. This gruesome event was out of character forthe Jewish nation and was frowned upon by the Jews of the day as wellas by the later Jewish historian Josephus. But it was the Romans whoperfected crucifixion as a means of torture and execution. The Romanscalled crucifixion “slaves’ punishment” because itwas intended for the lowest members of society. It became thepreferred method of execution for political crimes such as desertion,spying, rebellion, and insurrection. Roman crucifixion was common inNT times and extended well into the fourth century AD. The emperorConstantine converted to Christianity in AD 312 and abolishedcrucifixion altogether. The cross became a symbol of Christiansacrifice instead of a barbarous method of torture and execution.

RomanCrucifixion

Crucifixionwas a barbaric method of torture and execution whereby a victim waseither nailed or tied to a wooden cross and left to die a long,agonizing death. It often was reserved for the most offensivecriminals, such as thieves (Matt. 27:38), murderers, insurrectionists(Mark 15:7), and other political rebels. Disobedient slaves commonlywere crucified. Crucifixion was so demeaning that Roman citizens wereexempt and could be crucified only by direct decree of the emperor.Crucifixion also was used as a triumphant sign in times of war asvictors demonstrated their conquests by hoisting their enemies uponcrosses for all to see. It was viewed as a public symbol of strengthand intimidation. Adding insult to injury, executioners strippedtheir victims and crucified them alongside busy roads and in publicplaces where onlookers could gaze in horror.

Criminalsoften were flogged severely before crucifixion in apseudo-compassionate effort to speed up the death process experiencedon the cross (John 19:1). The victim was stripped, tied to a post,and then brutally beaten by several Roman torturers using whips withsharp pieces of bone or metal at the ends of the lashes. Suchfloggings were said to leave the victim’s bones and entrailsexposed. The torturers did not stop until they either exhaustedthemselves or were called off by their commanding officers.

Afterthe flogging, the offender was forced to carry the crossbeam, oftenweighing seventy-five to one hundred pounds, on his or her shouldersto the crucifixion site (John 19:17). The main upright beam, standingseven to nine feet tall, remained at the site of crucifixion and wasused repeatedly. The victim was then laid down with arms stretchedout across the beam and usually tied into position. Once the victim’sarms were secured by ropes, a soldier searched for the “hollowspot” in the wrist located just above the flexion area near thecarpal bones. The metacarpal bones of the palms were too weak tosupport the weight of the body on the cross, so the wrist was astronger alternative. However, the use of ropes to support the armsmade the choice of little consequence. Either location wasacceptable. A hammer was used to drive five-inch nails through bothwrists, affixing the victim to the crossbeam. It was customary tooffer the victim a narcotic co*cktail to help ease the pain ofcrucifixion. Jesus refused this drink (Matt. 27:34; Mark 15:23).

Afterthe victim’s arms were nailed to the crossbeam, it was hoistedup and secured to the upright post. This alone was very hard on thefatigued body of the victim, who already had lost a considerableamount of blood. This quick, upward motion caused orthostatichypotension—very low blood pressure caused by a rapid verticalshift in body position. The victim’s blood pressure would dropto half of normal, while the pulse rate doubled. Victims frequentlyfainted due to the rush of blood away from the head during thisupward motion. This motion probably is the imagery behind Jesus’“lifted up” sayings (John 3:14; 8:28; 12:32). Jesus wasquite literally lifted up onto the cross.

Nextcame the nailing of the feet. The Romans had several different waysof nailing the feet to the cross. Roman soldiers were notorious fortwisting and contorting victims into odd positions while nailing themto the cross. Sometimes a victim’s legs were stretcheddownward, feet crossed, and one nail driven through both. A supportblock typically was placed behind the victim to support the weight ofthe body on the cross. A heel bone of a crucified man named“Yehohanan” (John) was discovered in an ossuary north ofJerusalem in 1968. A single nail had been driven through the side ofthe heel. Either the body was twisted so that the nail was driventhrough both heels, the right above the left, or each heel was nailedto opposite sides of the upright beam causing the victim to straddlethe cross. A piece of wood was held against the heel before the nailwas driven in, to act as a washer, preventing the foot from tearingfree. The ossuary’s inscription describes Yehohanan as “theone hanged with knees apart.” Once nailed to the cross, thevictim often suffered for several hours, even days, exposed to thehot sun as well as the insults of those passing by on the busy road(cf. Matt. 27:39; Mark 15:29; Luke 23:35; John 19:20). Extreme thirstwas brought on by massive blood loss and exposure to the elements(John 19:28).

Becausedeath could take several hours, it sometimes was hastened by acrushing blow to the legs with a club. Victims were unable to pushtheir bodies upward to gasp for air or to keep their bloodcirculating. This final blow to the legs also caused intense pain andusually was enough to throw the body into shock, with death followingsoon afterward. Jesus was already dead when the soldiers approachedto break his legs (John 19:32–33). This fulfilled what waswritten in the Scriptures: “Not one of his bones will bebroken” (John 19:36; cf. Exod. 12:46; Num. 9:12; Ps. 34:20).Instead of breaking Jesus’ legs, a soldier thrust a spear intohis side, which brought forth a sudden flow of blood and water,indicating that he was truly dead (John 19:34). This too was tofulfill Scripture: “They will look on the one they havepierced” (John 19:37; cf. Zech. 12:10). Bodies often were lefton the crosses to be eaten by scavenging birds such as vultures. TheJews demanded that the bodies of Jesus and the two thieves crucifiedwith him be taken down before the Sabbath that began that evening(John 19:31).

PhysicalDeath by Crucifixion

Deathby crucifixion resulted from a combination of factors. The mostobvious was massive blood loss. With the nails being driven throughthe extensive artery systems of the wrists and feet, the victim losta lot of blood. The severe flogging before being crucified alsoplayed a role and took its toll on the body. Blood loss also led to adepletion of oxygen supply to the vital tissues. Major organs faileddue to lack of oxygenation. Another factor leading to death wassuffocation or asphyxiation. The weight of the body hanging on thecross was too great for the tendons and muscles in the arms, so thevictims were unable to hold themselves up in order to take in deepbreaths. The victim’s upper body continued to sink lower untilthe lungs became too compressed and unable to take in large volumesof air. Victims could force themselves upward to gasp air by usingtheir legs, but this was extremely painful. Preventing the victimfrom pushing upward in order to breathe was another reason forbreaking the legs. The victim slowly suffocated for hours.

Theultimate cause of death was an eventual heart rupture due to massiveblood loss and lack of oxygenation. As the pulse raced and bloodpressure increased, the heart eventually burst due to the stress.This helps explain the reference to the “sudden flow of bloodand water” in John 19:34. In the case of heart rupture, theright side of the heart still has some blood left in it while the sacthat surrounds the heart, the pericardium, fills with water. Thesoldier’s spear pierced this sac and the heart, causing bothblood and water to flow out.

TheMeaning of Jesus’ Crucifixion

TheOT teaches that it is blood that makes atonement for sin (Lev.17:11). Just as sacrificial lambs shed their blood on the altar forthe sins of Israel, Jesus shed his blood on the cross for the sins ofthe world (John 1:29). The crucifixion of Jesus was the greatestatoning event in history. His blood, which provided the means for anew covenant, was poured out for many on the cross (Matt. 26:28). Thecross, as gruesome as it was, was the means through which Christ died“for our sins” (Gal. 1:4). Jesus freely scorned the shameof the cross so that we might be reconciled to God by his shed blood(Col. 1:20; Heb. 12:2).

Jesusalso bore the curse of God in our place when he died on the cross.The one who hangs on a tree is divinely cursed (Deut. 21:23). God’scurse is a curse upon sin, death, and fallenness. Jesus took God’scurse upon himself in order to redeem us from that curse (Gal. 3:13).

Jesusdemonstrated the humble nature of his mission and ministry by hisobedience to death, even death on the cross (Phil. 2:8). For Jesusthe cross was not simply his martyrdom, as if he simply died for aworthy cause; it was the pinnacle example of obedience and love inthe Bible. Jesus called his followers to take up a cross and followhis example of selfless sacrifice (Matt. 16:24). Jesus’ crossis a symbol of his love, obedience, and selflessness.

Mostof all, the cross reveals the unconditional love of God, who offeredhis Son as the atoning sacrifice for sin (John 3:16; 1 John4:10). The brutal cross reveals the beautiful love of Jesus, whowillingly laid down his life (1 John 3:16).

Typesof Crosses

Across is an upright wooden beam or post on which persons were eithertied or nailed as a means of torture and execution. A cross couldhave several different shapes. The earliest was not a cross at allbut rather a simple stake or pole on which persons were impaled. Thissimple stake evolved over time into more elaborate shapes with theaddition of a crossbeam that was secured to the upright stake. TheLatin cross was shaped like a t and was the type most commonly usedby the Romans. Jesus was crucified probably on a Latin cross, whichallowed for a convenient place for a sign (called a titlos in John19:19) to be placed above his head (Matt. 27:37 pars.). Another formof cross, now referred to as a St. Anthony’s cross, wasshaped like a T, with the crossbeam affixed at the top of the uprightbeam. A cross shaped like an X, having a crisscross pattern, is alsoknown as a St. Andrew’s cross. Tradition holds that theapostle Peter was crucified upside down on this type of cross. Across shaped like a +, the Greek cross, has the crossbeam in thecenter.

Crucifixionin Ancient Times

Inancient times, crucifixion was a method of execution used by manypeoples, including the Assyrians, the Phoenicians, the Babylonians,the Persians, the Medes, and the Greeks. Historically, crucifixion’sbarbaric predecessor was impalement. Victims often were beheadedfirst, and then their lifeless bodies were forced onto a large stakeor spike (Gen. 40:19; 1 Sam. 31:9–10). Impalementoriginally was more about triumph and exposure than execution (Deut.21:22–23; Josh. 8:29; 10:26; 2 Sam. 4:12; 21:9–10).But the Assyrians impaled their enemies by sticking them, stillalive, onto pointed stakes, thus utilizing impalement as a method ofexecution. The book of Esther probably reflects the practice ofimpalement in the Persian period by describing how the king’sofficials were executed (2:23; 5:14; KJV: “hanged”). Inthese verses, the Hebrew word that some English versions translate as“gallows” (’ets) actually means “tree,”and a noose for hanging was not used in Persia during this period.Impalement became a common form of execution.

Impalementas a means of execution eventually gave way to crucifixion.Crucifixion was especially prized by the Phoenicians, whose normalmethods of execution—drowning, immersion in boiling oil,impalement, stoning, and burning—were seen as too quick andeasy. Wanting their victims to suffer longer, they used crucifixion,a more severe form of execution. The Greeks also crucified victims ona stake or a cross. Alexander the Great crucified two thousandinhabitants of Tyre along the shoreline when he captured the city in332 BC.

Thereis no evidence that ancient Israel fastened people to a stake or across as a method of execution. Instead, stoning was the preferredmethod of execution in Israel and was commanded by the law (Lev.20:2; Deut. 22:24). The law did, however, permit the public displayof an offender’s body “on a tree” or a “pole”after being executed (Deut. 21:22). The same expression is used inthe book of Acts to describe Jesus’ crucifixion (5:30; 10:39;13:29). In contrast to pagan nations that would leave a corpsehanging on a cross until the flesh either rotted away or was devouredby vultures, Israel was commanded to take the body down, not lettingit remain on the tree overnight (Deut. 21:23). This explains why theJews were so adamant that Jesus’ body be taken down before theSabbath commenced at sunset (John 19:31). Being hung on a tree wasespecially abhorrent to Israel because it reflected God’s curseupon the offender (Deut. 21:23). Jesus was accursed by God as he hungon the cross, bearing the sins of the world (Gal. 3:13).

Crucifixionin New Testament Times

Notlong before the Romans took over Palestine, the Jewish rulerAlexander Jannaeus crucified about eight hundred Pharisees whoopposed him in 86 BC. This gruesome event was out of character forthe Jewish nation and was frowned upon by the Jews of the day as wellas by the later Jewish historian Josephus. But it was the Romans whoperfected crucifixion as a means of torture and execution. The Romanscalled crucifixion “slaves’ punishment” because itwas intended for the lowest members of society. It became thepreferred method of execution for political crimes such as desertion,spying, rebellion, and insurrection. Roman crucifixion was common inNT times and extended well into the fourth century AD. The emperorConstantine converted to Christianity in AD 312 and abolishedcrucifixion altogether. The cross became a symbol of Christiansacrifice instead of a barbarous method of torture and execution.

RomanCrucifixion

Crucifixionwas a barbaric method of torture and execution whereby a victim waseither nailed or tied to a wooden cross and left to die a long,agonizing death. It often was reserved for the most offensivecriminals, such as thieves (Matt. 27:38), murderers, insurrectionists(Mark 15:7), and other political rebels. Disobedient slaves commonlywere crucified. Crucifixion was so demeaning that Roman citizens wereexempt and could be crucified only by direct decree of the emperor.Crucifixion also was used as a triumphant sign in times of war asvictors demonstrated their conquests by hoisting their enemies uponcrosses for all to see. It was viewed as a public symbol of strengthand intimidation. Adding insult to injury, executioners strippedtheir victims and crucified them alongside busy roads and in publicplaces where onlookers could gaze in horror.

Criminalsoften were flogged severely before crucifixion in apseudo-compassionate effort to speed up the death process experiencedon the cross (John 19:1). The victim was stripped, tied to a post,and then brutally beaten by several Roman torturers using whips withsharp pieces of bone or metal at the ends of the lashes. Suchfloggings were said to leave the victim’s bones and entrailsexposed. The torturers did not stop until they either exhaustedthemselves or were called off by their commanding officers.

Afterthe flogging, the offender was forced to carry the crossbeam, oftenweighing seventy-five to one hundred pounds, on his or her shouldersto the crucifixion site (John 19:17). The main upright beam, standingseven to nine feet tall, remained at the site of crucifixion and wasused repeatedly. The victim was then laid down with arms stretchedout across the beam and usually tied into position. Once the victim’sarms were secured by ropes, a soldier searched for the “hollowspot” in the wrist located just above the flexion area near thecarpal bones. The metacarpal bones of the palms were too weak tosupport the weight of the body on the cross, so the wrist was astronger alternative. However, the use of ropes to support the armsmade the choice of little consequence. Either location wasacceptable. A hammer was used to drive five-inch nails through bothwrists, affixing the victim to the crossbeam. It was customary tooffer the victim a narcotic co*cktail to help ease the pain ofcrucifixion. Jesus refused this drink (Matt. 27:34; Mark 15:23).

Afterthe victim’s arms were nailed to the crossbeam, it was hoistedup and secured to the upright post. This alone was very hard on thefatigued body of the victim, who already had lost a considerableamount of blood. This quick, upward motion caused orthostatichypotension—very low blood pressure caused by a rapid verticalshift in body position. The victim’s blood pressure would dropto half of normal, while the pulse rate doubled. Victims frequentlyfainted due to the rush of blood away from the head during thisupward motion. This motion probably is the imagery behind Jesus’“lifted up” sayings (John 3:14; 8:28; 12:32). Jesus wasquite literally lifted up onto the cross.

Nextcame the nailing of the feet. The Romans had several different waysof nailing the feet to the cross. Roman soldiers were notorious fortwisting and contorting victims into odd positions while nailing themto the cross. Sometimes a victim’s legs were stretcheddownward, feet crossed, and one nail driven through both. A supportblock typically was placed behind the victim to support the weight ofthe body on the cross. A heel bone of a crucified man named“Yehohanan” (John) was discovered in an ossuary north ofJerusalem in 1968. A single nail had been driven through the side ofthe heel. Either the body was twisted so that the nail was driventhrough both heels, the right above the left, or each heel was nailedto opposite sides of the upright beam causing the victim to straddlethe cross. A piece of wood was held against the heel before the nailwas driven in, to act as a washer, preventing the foot from tearingfree. The ossuary’s inscription describes Yehohanan as “theone hanged with knees apart.” Once nailed to the cross, thevictim often suffered for several hours, even days, exposed to thehot sun as well as the insults of those passing by on the busy road(cf. Matt. 27:39; Mark 15:29; Luke 23:35; John 19:20). Extreme thirstwas brought on by massive blood loss and exposure to the elements(John 19:28).

Becausedeath could take several hours, it sometimes was hastened by acrushing blow to the legs with a club. Victims were unable to pushtheir bodies upward to gasp for air or to keep their bloodcirculating. This final blow to the legs also caused intense pain andusually was enough to throw the body into shock, with death followingsoon afterward. Jesus was already dead when the soldiers approachedto break his legs (John 19:32–33). This fulfilled what waswritten in the Scriptures: “Not one of his bones will bebroken” (John 19:36; cf. Exod. 12:46; Num. 9:12; Ps. 34:20).Instead of breaking Jesus’ legs, a soldier thrust a spear intohis side, which brought forth a sudden flow of blood and water,indicating that he was truly dead (John 19:34). This too was tofulfill Scripture: “They will look on the one they havepierced” (John 19:37; cf. Zech. 12:10). Bodies often were lefton the crosses to be eaten by scavenging birds such as vultures. TheJews demanded that the bodies of Jesus and the two thieves crucifiedwith him be taken down before the Sabbath that began that evening(John 19:31).

PhysicalDeath by Crucifixion

Deathby crucifixion resulted from a combination of factors. The mostobvious was massive blood loss. With the nails being driven throughthe extensive artery systems of the wrists and feet, the victim losta lot of blood. The severe flogging before being crucified alsoplayed a role and took its toll on the body. Blood loss also led to adepletion of oxygen supply to the vital tissues. Major organs faileddue to lack of oxygenation. Another factor leading to death wassuffocation or asphyxiation. The weight of the body hanging on thecross was too great for the tendons and muscles in the arms, so thevictims were unable to hold themselves up in order to take in deepbreaths. The victim’s upper body continued to sink lower untilthe lungs became too compressed and unable to take in large volumesof air. Victims could force themselves upward to gasp air by usingtheir legs, but this was extremely painful. Preventing the victimfrom pushing upward in order to breathe was another reason forbreaking the legs. The victim slowly suffocated for hours.

Theultimate cause of death was an eventual heart rupture due to massiveblood loss and lack of oxygenation. As the pulse raced and bloodpressure increased, the heart eventually burst due to the stress.This helps explain the reference to the “sudden flow of bloodand water” in John 19:34. In the case of heart rupture, theright side of the heart still has some blood left in it while the sacthat surrounds the heart, the pericardium, fills with water. Thesoldier’s spear pierced this sac and the heart, causing bothblood and water to flow out.

TheMeaning of Jesus’ Crucifixion

TheOT teaches that it is blood that makes atonement for sin (Lev.17:11). Just as sacrificial lambs shed their blood on the altar forthe sins of Israel, Jesus shed his blood on the cross for the sins ofthe world (John 1:29). The crucifixion of Jesus was the greatestatoning event in history. His blood, which provided the means for anew covenant, was poured out for many on the cross (Matt. 26:28). Thecross, as gruesome as it was, was the means through which Christ died“for our sins” (Gal. 1:4). Jesus freely scorned the shameof the cross so that we might be reconciled to God by his shed blood(Col. 1:20; Heb. 12:2).

Jesusalso bore the curse of God in our place when he died on the cross.The one who hangs on a tree is divinely cursed (Deut. 21:23). God’scurse is a curse upon sin, death, and fallenness. Jesus took God’scurse upon himself in order to redeem us from that curse (Gal. 3:13).

Jesusdemonstrated the humble nature of his mission and ministry by hisobedience to death, even death on the cross (Phil. 2:8). For Jesusthe cross was not simply his martyrdom, as if he simply died for aworthy cause; it was the pinnacle example of obedience and love inthe Bible. Jesus called his followers to take up a cross and followhis example of selfless sacrifice (Matt. 16:24). Jesus’ crossis a symbol of his love, obedience, and selflessness.

Mostof all, the cross reveals the unconditional love of God, who offeredhis Son as the atoning sacrifice for sin (John 3:16; 1 John4:10). The brutal cross reveals the beautiful love of Jesus, whowillingly laid down his life (1 John 3:16).

Typesof Crosses

Across is an upright wooden beam or post on which persons were eithertied or nailed as a means of torture and execution. A cross couldhave several different shapes. The earliest was not a cross at allbut rather a simple stake or pole on which persons were impaled. Thissimple stake evolved over time into more elaborate shapes with theaddition of a crossbeam that was secured to the upright stake. TheLatin cross was shaped like a t and was the type most commonly usedby the Romans. Jesus was crucified probably on a Latin cross, whichallowed for a convenient place for a sign (called a titlos in John19:19) to be placed above his head (Matt. 27:37 pars.). Another formof cross, now referred to as a St. Anthony’s cross, wasshaped like a T, with the crossbeam affixed at the top of the uprightbeam. A cross shaped like an X, having a crisscross pattern, is alsoknown as a St. Andrew’s cross. Tradition holds that theapostle Peter was crucified upside down on this type of cross. Across shaped like a +, the Greek cross, has the crossbeam in thecenter.

Crucifixionin Ancient Times

Inancient times, crucifixion was a method of execution used by manypeoples, including the Assyrians, the Phoenicians, the Babylonians,the Persians, the Medes, and the Greeks. Historically, crucifixion’sbarbaric predecessor was impalement. Victims often were beheadedfirst, and then their lifeless bodies were forced onto a large stakeor spike (Gen. 40:19; 1 Sam. 31:9–10). Impalementoriginally was more about triumph and exposure than execution (Deut.21:22–23; Josh. 8:29; 10:26; 2 Sam. 4:12; 21:9–10).But the Assyrians impaled their enemies by sticking them, stillalive, onto pointed stakes, thus utilizing impalement as a method ofexecution. The book of Esther probably reflects the practice ofimpalement in the Persian period by describing how the king’sofficials were executed (2:23; 5:14; KJV: “hanged”). Inthese verses, the Hebrew word that some English versions translate as“gallows” (’ets) actually means “tree,”and a noose for hanging was not used in Persia during this period.Impalement became a common form of execution.

Impalementas a means of execution eventually gave way to crucifixion.Crucifixion was especially prized by the Phoenicians, whose normalmethods of execution—drowning, immersion in boiling oil,impalement, stoning, and burning—were seen as too quick andeasy. Wanting their victims to suffer longer, they used crucifixion,a more severe form of execution. The Greeks also crucified victims ona stake or a cross. Alexander the Great crucified two thousandinhabitants of Tyre along the shoreline when he captured the city in332 BC.

Thereis no evidence that ancient Israel fastened people to a stake or across as a method of execution. Instead, stoning was the preferredmethod of execution in Israel and was commanded by the law (Lev.20:2; Deut. 22:24). The law did, however, permit the public displayof an offender’s body “on a tree” or a “pole”after being executed (Deut. 21:22). The same expression is used inthe book of Acts to describe Jesus’ crucifixion (5:30; 10:39;13:29). In contrast to pagan nations that would leave a corpsehanging on a cross until the flesh either rotted away or was devouredby vultures, Israel was commanded to take the body down, not lettingit remain on the tree overnight (Deut. 21:23). This explains why theJews were so adamant that Jesus’ body be taken down before theSabbath commenced at sunset (John 19:31). Being hung on a tree wasespecially abhorrent to Israel because it reflected God’s curseupon the offender (Deut. 21:23). Jesus was accursed by God as he hungon the cross, bearing the sins of the world (Gal. 3:13).

Crucifixionin New Testament Times

Notlong before the Romans took over Palestine, the Jewish rulerAlexander Jannaeus crucified about eight hundred Pharisees whoopposed him in 86 BC. This gruesome event was out of character forthe Jewish nation and was frowned upon by the Jews of the day as wellas by the later Jewish historian Josephus. But it was the Romans whoperfected crucifixion as a means of torture and execution. The Romanscalled crucifixion “slaves’ punishment” because itwas intended for the lowest members of society. It became thepreferred method of execution for political crimes such as desertion,spying, rebellion, and insurrection. Roman crucifixion was common inNT times and extended well into the fourth century AD. The emperorConstantine converted to Christianity in AD 312 and abolishedcrucifixion altogether. The cross became a symbol of Christiansacrifice instead of a barbarous method of torture and execution.

RomanCrucifixion

Crucifixionwas a barbaric method of torture and execution whereby a victim waseither nailed or tied to a wooden cross and left to die a long,agonizing death. It often was reserved for the most offensivecriminals, such as thieves (Matt. 27:38), murderers, insurrectionists(Mark 15:7), and other political rebels. Disobedient slaves commonlywere crucified. Crucifixion was so demeaning that Roman citizens wereexempt and could be crucified only by direct decree of the emperor.Crucifixion also was used as a triumphant sign in times of war asvictors demonstrated their conquests by hoisting their enemies uponcrosses for all to see. It was viewed as a public symbol of strengthand intimidation. Adding insult to injury, executioners strippedtheir victims and crucified them alongside busy roads and in publicplaces where onlookers could gaze in horror.

Criminalsoften were flogged severely before crucifixion in apseudo-compassionate effort to speed up the death process experiencedon the cross (John 19:1). The victim was stripped, tied to a post,and then brutally beaten by several Roman torturers using whips withsharp pieces of bone or metal at the ends of the lashes. Suchfloggings were said to leave the victim’s bones and entrailsexposed. The torturers did not stop until they either exhaustedthemselves or were called off by their commanding officers.

Afterthe flogging, the offender was forced to carry the crossbeam, oftenweighing seventy-five to one hundred pounds, on his or her shouldersto the crucifixion site (John 19:17). The main upright beam, standingseven to nine feet tall, remained at the site of crucifixion and wasused repeatedly. The victim was then laid down with arms stretchedout across the beam and usually tied into position. Once the victim’sarms were secured by ropes, a soldier searched for the “hollowspot” in the wrist located just above the flexion area near thecarpal bones. The metacarpal bones of the palms were too weak tosupport the weight of the body on the cross, so the wrist was astronger alternative. However, the use of ropes to support the armsmade the choice of little consequence. Either location wasacceptable. A hammer was used to drive five-inch nails through bothwrists, affixing the victim to the crossbeam. It was customary tooffer the victim a narcotic co*cktail to help ease the pain ofcrucifixion. Jesus refused this drink (Matt. 27:34; Mark 15:23).

Afterthe victim’s arms were nailed to the crossbeam, it was hoistedup and secured to the upright post. This alone was very hard on thefatigued body of the victim, who already had lost a considerableamount of blood. This quick, upward motion caused orthostatichypotension—very low blood pressure caused by a rapid verticalshift in body position. The victim’s blood pressure would dropto half of normal, while the pulse rate doubled. Victims frequentlyfainted due to the rush of blood away from the head during thisupward motion. This motion probably is the imagery behind Jesus’“lifted up” sayings (John 3:14; 8:28; 12:32). Jesus wasquite literally lifted up onto the cross.

Nextcame the nailing of the feet. The Romans had several different waysof nailing the feet to the cross. Roman soldiers were notorious fortwisting and contorting victims into odd positions while nailing themto the cross. Sometimes a victim’s legs were stretcheddownward, feet crossed, and one nail driven through both. A supportblock typically was placed behind the victim to support the weight ofthe body on the cross. A heel bone of a crucified man named“Yehohanan” (John) was discovered in an ossuary north ofJerusalem in 1968. A single nail had been driven through the side ofthe heel. Either the body was twisted so that the nail was driventhrough both heels, the right above the left, or each heel was nailedto opposite sides of the upright beam causing the victim to straddlethe cross. A piece of wood was held against the heel before the nailwas driven in, to act as a washer, preventing the foot from tearingfree. The ossuary’s inscription describes Yehohanan as “theone hanged with knees apart.” Once nailed to the cross, thevictim often suffered for several hours, even days, exposed to thehot sun as well as the insults of those passing by on the busy road(cf. Matt. 27:39; Mark 15:29; Luke 23:35; John 19:20). Extreme thirstwas brought on by massive blood loss and exposure to the elements(John 19:28).

Becausedeath could take several hours, it sometimes was hastened by acrushing blow to the legs with a club. Victims were unable to pushtheir bodies upward to gasp for air or to keep their bloodcirculating. This final blow to the legs also caused intense pain andusually was enough to throw the body into shock, with death followingsoon afterward. Jesus was already dead when the soldiers approachedto break his legs (John 19:32–33). This fulfilled what waswritten in the Scriptures: “Not one of his bones will bebroken” (John 19:36; cf. Exod. 12:46; Num. 9:12; Ps. 34:20).Instead of breaking Jesus’ legs, a soldier thrust a spear intohis side, which brought forth a sudden flow of blood and water,indicating that he was truly dead (John 19:34). This too was tofulfill Scripture: “They will look on the one they havepierced” (John 19:37; cf. Zech. 12:10). Bodies often were lefton the crosses to be eaten by scavenging birds such as vultures. TheJews demanded that the bodies of Jesus and the two thieves crucifiedwith him be taken down before the Sabbath that began that evening(John 19:31).

PhysicalDeath by Crucifixion

Deathby crucifixion resulted from a combination of factors. The mostobvious was massive blood loss. With the nails being driven throughthe extensive artery systems of the wrists and feet, the victim losta lot of blood. The severe flogging before being crucified alsoplayed a role and took its toll on the body. Blood loss also led to adepletion of oxygen supply to the vital tissues. Major organs faileddue to lack of oxygenation. Another factor leading to death wassuffocation or asphyxiation. The weight of the body hanging on thecross was too great for the tendons and muscles in the arms, so thevictims were unable to hold themselves up in order to take in deepbreaths. The victim’s upper body continued to sink lower untilthe lungs became too compressed and unable to take in large volumesof air. Victims could force themselves upward to gasp air by usingtheir legs, but this was extremely painful. Preventing the victimfrom pushing upward in order to breathe was another reason forbreaking the legs. The victim slowly suffocated for hours.

Theultimate cause of death was an eventual heart rupture due to massiveblood loss and lack of oxygenation. As the pulse raced and bloodpressure increased, the heart eventually burst due to the stress.This helps explain the reference to the “sudden flow of bloodand water” in John 19:34. In the case of heart rupture, theright side of the heart still has some blood left in it while the sacthat surrounds the heart, the pericardium, fills with water. Thesoldier’s spear pierced this sac and the heart, causing bothblood and water to flow out.

TheMeaning of Jesus’ Crucifixion

TheOT teaches that it is blood that makes atonement for sin (Lev.17:11). Just as sacrificial lambs shed their blood on the altar forthe sins of Israel, Jesus shed his blood on the cross for the sins ofthe world (John 1:29). The crucifixion of Jesus was the greatestatoning event in history. His blood, which provided the means for anew covenant, was poured out for many on the cross (Matt. 26:28). Thecross, as gruesome as it was, was the means through which Christ died“for our sins” (Gal. 1:4). Jesus freely scorned the shameof the cross so that we might be reconciled to God by his shed blood(Col. 1:20; Heb. 12:2).

Jesusalso bore the curse of God in our place when he died on the cross.The one who hangs on a tree is divinely cursed (Deut. 21:23). God’scurse is a curse upon sin, death, and fallenness. Jesus took God’scurse upon himself in order to redeem us from that curse (Gal. 3:13).

Jesusdemonstrated the humble nature of his mission and ministry by hisobedience to death, even death on the cross (Phil. 2:8). For Jesusthe cross was not simply his martyrdom, as if he simply died for aworthy cause; it was the pinnacle example of obedience and love inthe Bible. Jesus called his followers to take up a cross and followhis example of selfless sacrifice (Matt. 16:24). Jesus’ crossis a symbol of his love, obedience, and selflessness.

Mostof all, the cross reveals the unconditional love of God, who offeredhis Son as the atoning sacrifice for sin (John 3:16; 1 John4:10). The brutal cross reveals the beautiful love of Jesus, whowillingly laid down his life (1 John 3:16).