Foundations Module 1 Supplemental Reader

Eternity Bible College

Foundations Module 1 Supplemental Reader

2

Table of Contents

1. Walter B. Russell: “Getting Fitted with Mediterranean Glasses”…………………………3

2. Tommy Gives: “The Role of the Church in Salvation”…………………………….......…14

3. Paul G. Hiebert: “Clean & Dirty: Cross-Cultural Misunderstandings in India”…..…...23

4. Hammurabi’s Code…………………………………………………………………………..26

5. Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics, Book I………………………………………………………..33

6. Walter B. Russell: “The Political Landscape & Jewish Messianism”……………………42

7. Walter B. Russell: “The Effect of Hellenistic Culture on Jewish Life”……………..........56

8. Flavius Josephus: “Jewish Sects”…………………………………………………………....65

9. N.T. Wright: “Building for the Kingdom: Our Work Is Not in Vain”………………..…74

10. Lesslie Newbigin: “The Kingdom of God in the Life of the World”…………………….77

11. Tim Keller: “Cities & Salt: Counter-Cultures for the Common Good”………………....80

12. Christopher J.H. Wright: “Mission & God’s Earth”…………………..…………………..86

“Getting Fitted with Mediterranean Glasses”

Walter B. Russell

Taken from the INSIGHT Reader: Classical World, 8th edition, ed. Ralph D. Winter and

Rebecca W. Lewis (Pasadena: Institute of International Studies, 2008).

- Page 3 -

“The Role of the Church in Salvation”

Tommy Givens

- Page 14 -

The Role of the Church in Salvation

I. Fundamental Question:

What is the main problem that Christianity claims to solve? We might answer, “Sin,” or “separation from God.” This answer is not wrong, but it’s framed according to an abstract theological construct usually designed to describe the individual human being’s predicament. Within this construct, the doctrine of justification is usually deemed the answer to man’s predicament and often equated with the Gospel. But, we should be quick to notice that nothing about justification was structurally new with the coming of Jesus (as Paul makes so clear in Galatians and Romans) – Abraham, for example, was justified by faith. Because Jesus is obviously central to salvation and the Gospel, we should ask what was new about Jesus. The same criticism would apply to the oft-used language about the offer of an individual relationship with God. It is hard to believe that people like Abraham and David did not have a relationship with God, and yet they did not have the benefits of redemption through Jesus (which is not to deny any retroactive effects of the atonement). If one assumes the above theological construct, he often finds himself arguing that what's new about salvation in Jesus is that the Christian’s relationship with God is simply better than that of Abraham or David. That too seems difficult to substantiate biblically. To the question, what is the main problem that Christianity claims to solve? I think it’s better to answer something like, “A creation corrupted by powers rival to God, including a hostile human race unable to glorify its Creator.” Below, I want to contrast the sort of plan of salvation summed up in this answer (Salvation Plan B below) with the plan of salvation summed up in what we might call our traditional answer (Salvation Plan A below), i.e. "sin" or "separation from God" Due to the categories we bring to a discussion like this, it will be easy to interpret the following as a critique of individualism and a promotion of “community.” “Individual” and “community” have long been considered simply two competing emphases in Christian discipleship. We usually feel the former has been overemphasized in our tradition/culture and the latter needs more emphasis. I want to avoid using “community” to militate against “the individual.” The individual is as important to the community as the eye is to the human body. Moreover, there is an important, individualizing trend in the New Covenant (e.g. in which every member of God’s people will know YHWH and have His law written on her heart). It is not that the individual needs less emphasis and the community more in our evangelical tradition. It is that the individual needs the context of Christian community which gives it meaning and purpose. The body is inconceivable apart from its individual members, but the individual members have no purpose apart from the body.

II. God’s Plan of Salvation The two versions of God’s plan of salvation I want to contrast are two that I have lived with and taught as a Christian and as a missionary. One (A) was what I grew up with as part of several churches and came to Spain as a church planter with. The other (B) I began to discover and experience consciously about three years ago. Before describing each plan, I want to make clear that I don’t mean to say that the first one (A) is wrong and the second one (B) is right. Rather, I want to say that the first one is inadequate,

and the second one is better – better specifically in its ability to emerge gracefully from all of Scripture (especially the great narrative that holds the Scriptures together) and give more meaning and mission to the church. For our present purposes, I will not offer a complete biblical substantiation of Salvation Plan B. I can do that if anyone wishes to pursue the discussion down that route. For now, I'm content to make some cursory remarks about the biblical basis of Salvation Plan B and hope that the practical distinctions between Salvation Plans A & B will prove stimulating and compelling.

A. Salvation Plan A and Corresponding Ecclesiology All individual human beings are enslaved to sin and separated from God. (This is deemed the primary problem Christianity can solve.) God sent Jesus to die for the sins of the world’s human beings. By paying the price of human sin, Jesus enabled all those who believe in him to receive forgiveness of their sins, begin to experience the fruit of knowing Jesus in their earthly lives, and ultimately go to heaven upon their death or Jesus’ return for them. In the way much of our evangelical tradition functions according to this plan of salvation, the church’s purpose is to enable individual Christians to grow in their relationship with Christ so that they will glorify God more fully in their lives and more effectively extend this salvation to lost individuals who have yet to submit their lives to Jesus. We plant churches because this is the only way for individual Christians to thrive as children of God and fulfill their callings to service in the world. Practically, it also seems like the best way to get salvation to more lost individuals. Thus, the church is the servant of individual Christians in their missions and individual non-Christians in their need of salvation (the church is equivalent to the sum of its parts). Notice that there’s been no need to mention Israel in this plan of salvation. The framework is not the history of God, his world, and his people (e.g. the grand narrative set up by Gen. 1-12), but an abstract theological assertion: because of sin, all human beings are separated from God. There is much truth to this plan, and practically all of its elements have a place in Salvation Plan B (though they're configured differently). But Salvation Plan A has great difficulty incorporating meaningfully much of the Scriptures and gives rise to a number of problems, especially for church-planting missionaries.

B. Salvation Plan B and Corresponding Ecclesiology The second plan of salvation goes something like this: God created a world whose governing species forsook its commission as the overseers of a God-glorifying creation. It gave way to the power of sin and produced a race enslaved to sin, together with the rest of creation united to it. This is the problem that Christianity claims to be able to solve (or at least narrate the solution). The goal of God’s salvation plan is a renewed creation filled with a human race that reflects his glory. Sin is a sort of powerful disease (something all humanity outside Christ is "under" per Rom. 3:9), which manifests itself in social phenomena and holds sway because of the rupture between God and the human race. For example, one brother kills another, and the environment becomes hostile to mankind (e.g. the creation resists man and forces him to work for his sustenance, death). Indeed, sin is an individual’s act, attitude, or condition, which separates the individual from God. But the forensic (i.e. legal) aspect of sin is only one dimension of the phenomenon of sin, and the individual's condition before God is

derivative of the larger phenomenon of sin as a power that enslaves and corrupts all creation and humanity. God called Abraham to father a people who would restore His glory to the creation. The nation of Israel is Abraham’s family according to the flesh. Its history shows that only the God of Abraham can save humanity and the rest of creation from its corruption but that that work depends on a body of people that genuinely obeys YHWH, dies to itself rather than seeks itself, and incarnates collectively God’s glory. Written words and laws are insufficient to form such a body, even if such words and laws are inscribed by God himself; sin and Satan are too strong for a fleshly body of people to overcome sin’s hold on it and the rest of the world. Rather such a body reveals that hold all the more (Rom. 5-7). Somehow God must intervene directly in His creation and introduce a power superior to sin’s into His world. And that’s what He does in the fullness of time – He comes to the world in Jesus, absorbs the full strength of sin, and overcomes it. Consequently, Jesus becomes the new authority over the world and inaugurates a new body to incarnate and expand His dominion (e.g. Eph. 1:18-23), led again by 12 heads like Israel of old, but formed according to the Spirit rather than the flesh (Mk. 3 and par.). This Spirit-inspired body manifests God’s defeat of sin and Satan (i.e. cross and resurrection) in its own bodily organism (e.g. Eph. 2). How? Primarily by its internal social dynamics (“It’s all about relationships as was frequently repeated during our time together in Lisbon.”). This people can genuinely love one another despite its internal differences, unlike Adam’s sons and fleshly Israel. This body is of course the church, and its purpose is to grow from Jesus through His Spirit to a body that penetrates and ultimately eclipses (not in size but power) all the nations of the world. Such a body shows the world that in fact the Gospel is true – because of the cross and resurrection, Jesus is Lord of the world. This body enacts sin’s defeat among the nations (e.g. Col. 1:18-24). It represents a new human race (Eph. 1:15-16), which unlike Adam’s (which includes Israel according to the flesh – e.g. Rom. 7), genuinely fills the earth with God’s glory. It proclaims and foreshadows the return of Christ to the earth, not to take bodiless souls to heaven, but to consummate the earth’s judgment and to resurrect His new human race from the dead so that it can bodily fill God’s new earth with His image and glory. In this plan of salvation, the church’s primary purpose is not to be one of the ways individual Christians grow in their relationship with Christ so that they will fulfill their individual callings. The church’s primary purpose is to be the body of people that by the Spirit overcomes what ails all the other nations of the earth, and in fact, ails creation itself. The church must be more than the sum of its parts, and the Spirit is what unites the parts of the body to be more than their sum. I find a comparison with ancient Israel helpful here. What was to be a light to the nations was not "Israelites" but "Israel." That does not mean that "Israel" was less than "Israelites." But it does mean that "Israel" was more than "Israelites." Similarly, the church’s witness to the Gospel is not primarily in its individuals’ piety at work and Gospel-preaching, though these are obviously important. The Gospel can only be witnessed to by a plurality of persons, because the witness to the Gospel is something that happens between and among persons, not simply within them. One Christian can talk about the Gospel, but only two or more Christians can enact its truth and power, namely in the way they treat one another. Individual righteousness is inconceivable in the New Testament apart from its expression in relation to others within the body of Christ. We plant churches not because it’s the only way for individuals to grow in Christ but because only the church – as the church and as a body – can say and live with meaning that Jesus is Lord. Only the church is the realm where Jesus is taking over the powers hostile to God and His world. Individual Christians cannot have any calling somehow independent from the

church. Individual Christians do not have biblical meaning unless part of the church’s corporate witness to the Gospel that Jesus is Lord. The church is not the servant of individual Christians in their missions; individual Christians are servants of the church, members of Christ’s body in its corporate mission.

III. The Impact of God’s Plan of Salvation on Mission.

What I want to suggest here is that our conception of God’s plan of salvation shapes the way we conceive of and engage in mission. If we conceive of salvation as the deliverance of the individual from a state of separation from God and ultimate installment in heaven, mission will look one way. If we conceive of salvation as the deliverance of creation and its human race from the power of sin and the church as the growing humanity where this has palpably already begun to occur, mission will look quite another way.

A. The Impact of Salvation Plan A on Mission. On Salvation Plan A above, mission is primarily about saving individuals from sin and hell and giving them the assurance of an eternity in heaven. The Gospel is often an explanation of the doctrine of justification by faith in terms of what Jesus did on the cross, as opposed to alternative paths to God (e.g. works, Buddha). (Notice that the resurrection does not actually play an integral role in salvation on this plan.) The Gospel, however, is not justification by faith alone in the NT. Nor is justification by faith, as so conceived, able to nourish the church as such (since it seems to imply that the church is not necessary to the individual’s justification). Consequently, the church becomes inadvertently secondary in Gospel mission, even if we speak of it as primary in our preaching/teaching. It is simply an important environment for individual discipleship, not the vehicle of the Gospel. Mission is something the church equips its members to do "away from church" (e.g. at work, kids' soccer games, with neighbors), not what the church does by means of its life together. The primary vehicle of the Gospel remains individual Christians in their various spheres of testimony. Perhaps we could add to this the mission that takes place at special evangelistic events designed to commend the biblical theory of salvation to unbelievers (i.e. how God can deliver listeners from individual separation from God/sin and give them the assurance of heaven). Churches planted under Salvation Plan A in anything but extremely adverse circumstances tend to lack cohesion, as they lack a corporate reason for existence. Their discourse is reducible to how to understand and improve the individual’s relationship with God or service of Jesus Christ, and other dimensions of church life so central in the NT (e.g. fellowship/accountability, outreach to the needy, Gospel proclamation) are functions of individual discipleship, not of the church. “Church” ends up being a series of services/meetings designed to serve the individual Christian in her quest for holiness and faithfulness. The context of church body life is the few formal gatherings of the church each week, and church members who do not preach, teach Sunday School/youth group, lead music, or clean the church building often find they have little if any role to play in the church. Accordingly, they have minimal ownership of and commitment to the life of the church, and little sense of the church's corporate mission. Such churches have great difficulty multiplying (which is not to say

they don't grow in number). In fact, they tend to foster church as something one is free "to shop for." Church planting missionaries operating under Salvation Plan A often provide new churches with a DNA that does little to ensure local church unity or stimulate robust relationship with other local churches in the same city (I see this in the fruit of some of my own church planting ministry). Unity is typically pursued in the arena of individual discipleship, and its lack is alarming primarily because of the unfaithfulness of the members who are compromising it, not because of the antithesis of disunity and the church’s mission. In other words, church members can be justified and supposedly be growing in their relationship with Christ while the church is characterized by superficial interpersonal relationships or even enmity. The mission of extending salvation to lost individuals can seemingly continue despite church disunity. Yet, the world cannot know that Jesus was sent by God if Christians are not united (Jn. 17:23). Walking in a manner worthy of the Christian calling/vocation is to preserver the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:1f). In the NT, individual faithfulness is derivative of a united church, not vice versa. Individuals grow in their relationship with Christ as they grow in relationship with His body. Individual faithfulness apart from the body of Christ is inconceivable.

B. The Impact of Salvation Plan B on Mission. On Salvation Plan B, mission is primarily about forming a worldwide body of people that overcomes by means of the Spirit the powers that divide humanity outside Christ (according to e.g. blood/race, territory/nationality, mammon; see e.g. Col 3:8-17). The body of Christ does this by living/embodying the death and resurrection of Jesus, whereby the members spurn all claims to status and experience with one another Jesus' victory over sin and death (e.g. Php. 2:5-11), culminating in their own resurrection to inhabit the new creation. In short, they love one another with Christ's love. This church proclaims the Gospel that only Jesus is the true Lord of the world and invites others to serve Him as part of His people (e.g. why baptism signified conversion in the NT). It is not an invitation to merely "believe" something theoretical that has eternal consequences for human individuals and then attempt to "live" it practically the best one can with the help of the church. To serve Jesus as Lord is to abandon all loyalties which fragment humanity and creation (Acts 17:22-31) and become an integral part of His body with its place/role in God's plan to save the world. Jesus has subdued the powers which corrupt God's world; He is Lord over them (e.g. Mt. 28:18; Col 2:15). The body of Christ then is the Spirit-endowed realm where Jesus' reign is uniquely manifest. Serving Jesus in and through His body is how people experience the Kingdom of God and come to share in the Lord Jesus' mission to bring His reign to bear upon the nations still living under sin and Satan (e.g. Mt. 18:18:19; 28:19-20). Therefore, the church is not secondary in Gospel mission. It is the instrument and locus of salvation (i.e. salvation in Jesus Christ). Therefore, the cause of Christ grows only as the church grows, not merely in number but in power, specifically the power to incarnate collectively a humanity stronger than sin. We can achieve beautiful church services attended by lots of people that are justified by faith (in the forensic sense) and blessed with a personal relationship with Christ and yet fail in Christian mission if the churches we plant and water do not grow in power over sin and Satan in their body life. While Salvation Plan A may be able to sustain limited impetus (in some believers) to preach justification by faith alone out of obedience to Christ's command and compassion for

those destined to hell, Salvation Plan B generates mission for the church. In fact, the church's mission is intrinsic to Salvation Plan B. Churches planted under Salvation Plan B understand that their life together is the focus of their discipleship. They don't have to be reminded of the importance of unity (though they will have to be exhorted to unite), because unity across fleshly borders in the name of the Lord Jesus is the work of the Gospel, not simply one of many virtues disciples of Christ aspire to. Church is not meetings. It's family; it's security; and it's salvation (cf. 1 Cor. 5:5). Church is the community which gives Christian individuals their sense of meaning and purpose 24/7. The church's mission takes place in and through the life of the church, not once the church "breaks from the huddle" (which does not exclude individual evangelistic roles away from church gatherings but does dictate what they're bearing witness to). Church is the society in which Christ's reign takes visible form through love forged by sharing with one another: sharing time, sharing homes, sharing God's word, sharing bread, sharing sins, sharing prayer, sharing money. One cannot love as Christ loves without sharing with the beloved what is most sacred and precious. "By this the world will know that you are my disciples – if you love one another." A church following Salvation Plan B lives as if the progress of the Gospel depends upon its love-based unity as a local church, a city-wide church, and a world-wide church, because the Gospel does depend on the church's unity. Fundamental to the task of missionaries is the preaching of the Gospel in such a way that it generates the church and teaching the church body how to love one another as Christ loves (or, as our "Crowded House" friends might say, to create the culture of the church).

IV. The profile of the church in the world I didn't know if there was time to discuss this point. I've discussed this topic with several of you already and written something (kinda long unfortunately) about it if you're interested. Suffice it to say that it seems to me the NT church was something more on the order of a commonwealth than a religious group. When we think of the church as less than that today, we are unconscious of the way other forms of human community (e.g. national, economic, professional, ethnic) inevitably compete with loyalties owed exclusively to Christ by Christians. Human communities which define their solidarity by territory, blood, or written legislation engender the deeds of the flesh (e.g. Gal. 5:19-21), which are opposed to the Spirit. Early Christians realized the futility of pursuing a peaceful, God-glorifying human community so defined, weak as the flesh is in the face of sin and Satan. Salvation is in Christ alone, among people united only according to the Spirit.

Points of Clarification

1. In case I've somehow communicated through the above that individuals are not important to God, only communities and nations…

That would be like saying that hands, feet, kidneys, and lungs are not important, only the whole body. The body is as inconceivable apart from its members as are the members apart from the body. The body needs its members, and the members need the body. The key is the context which gives individuals their meaning and purpose. My concern is that most of our ecclesiology and missiology are in practice like thinking that the body exists to serve the hands, feet, kidneys, and lungs in their respective missions. It would be better to see that only as the hands, feet, kidneys, and lungs fulfill their purpose within the body do they have meaning in the aims and enjoyment of human existence. The members are subservient to the body. Hands, feet, kidneys, and lungs do not communicate life to the world around in isolation from the body. It is the body as a harmonious whole, animated by the Spirit, that mediates the power of God's salvation to its own members and to the world. 2. In case I've somehow communicated through the above that a single righteous

man is really of no value, that if one does not have a great community around him, it's all for naught…

I guess I'm trying to say something close to this. Of course, it's not as though God does not value righteous individuals. He obviously does. But we need to be clear about what we mean by "righteous." While we might be able to say that a righteous individual is of inherent value generally, I don't think we can say that if we understand righteousness in terms of soteriology and ecclesiology. The reason for this is that God's plan has never been to merely save individuals but rather to redeem His entire creation. Nor did He commission righteous individuals to bring His salvation to His world. He commissioned Christ and His body to inaugurate and extend (respectively) His kingdom to all the nations. (It dawns on me as I'm writing this that the one exception to this is Jesus. He, of course, is "the righteous one" par excellence whose faithfulness reconciled and is reconciling the world to God.) Perhaps that is part of the reason there is such a close identification of Christ and the church in the NT, e.g. 1 Cor. 12:12, esp. the last four words; cf. Col. 1:24; 2 Cor. 5:11-6:13). Christ does not have individual "bodies" working for Him in the world; He has only one body – the church. So it seems difficult to conceive of any righteousness that is not predicated of a person only as she is embedded in the body of Christ. 3. If you've interpreted from the above that God’s plan for mankind might be

thwarted because of the lousy way we live as kingdom communities… …I think you've actually understood me quite well. We must feel the full weight of God's calling upon us. But before sounding the alarm, recall one extremely important difference between Israel according to the flesh and the new covenant people of God: the Spirit. God will not fail at what He Himself is doing. Mosaic Israel did not enjoy the pervasive life-giving work of the Spirit the way the church does, and God has promised us through His word and Jesus' resurrection that the Lord Jesus will prevail through the church.

4. In case you imagine that the church in Pamplona is a community accomplishing the above while few other Christian communities in the world are.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The various Christian groups meeting in Pamplona, including the mother church with whom we have worked so closely, continue to manifest a host of sinful problems. The only thing I can say is that Salvation Plan B and the role of the church in it have increasingly become the focus of the groups we're working with in Pamplona, and that has yielded some of the fruit we should expect given what we find in the NT. An important corollary to the shortcomings of mission that is configured according to Salvation Plan B is the genuine Gospel fruit in churches/missionaries working under Salvation Plan A. You don't have to understand Salvation Plan B or its contrast with Salvation Plan A to be a part of it. That's because the Spirit is the protagonist of Christian mission, not theologians, and the Word of God works in spite of and beyond the medium of human reason. Even if the above makes one feel like all he has seen and heard in church regarding salvation and community is wrong (which it most likely is not), he can take heart in God's providential and gracious use of us even when we don't understand what He's doing. We should not, however, take God's providence and grace as an excuse for not growing in our understanding of His word and His plan. Even if we can serve Christ while misunderstanding His plan, I suspect that we can serve Him better if we understand our role as His people according to the Scriptures.

“Clean & Dirty: Cross-Cultural Misunderstandings in

India”

Paul G. Hiebert

Copyright © 2008 Evangelism and Missions Information Service (EMIS)

- Page 23 -

January 2008 Clean and Dirty: Cross-cultural Misunderstandings in India

Paul G. Hiebert

(Editor’s Note: Missionaries and mission leaders around the world were deeply saddened to learn of Dr. Paul Hiebert’s death in March 2007. This article was submitted by Dr. Hiebert in 2006 and we are pleased to present it as one of his final publications.) Few experiences in our first cross-cultural encounters impress us more than our sense of dirtiness and cleanliness. This is certainly true when we go to India. When we walk out of our guest house, we are overwhelmed by a sensory overload: people everywhere, vivid colors, temples and movies, music blaring from loudspeakers and Muslim calls to prayer. Smells—perfumes, incense, foods, cow and human excrement—overwhelm and confuse us. But it is the filth that first attracts our attention. For many Americans, first impressions of India have to do with dirt: rotting garbage on the roadside, plastic bags draped on shrubs, open festering sewers, excrement on the road and dirt and dust everywhere. The chaos extends to driving in which trucks, buses, steam rollers, tractors, cars, motor rickshaws, cycles, ox carts, people, cows, water buffalo, sheep and stray dogs negotiate their way with little apparent concern for the “rules of the road.” The result is chaos shock—the sense that life has no order to it, that it is out of control and dirty. Indians have their first impressions of America and Americans as well. They are awed by the public cleanliness. Lawns are manicured, buildings are freshly painted, streets are clean and sewers are hidden underground. People drive in polished, dent-free cars. They observe well-marked lanes, stop at stop lights and wait for oncoming traffic to pass before turning. Indians are shocked, however, at Americans’ personal filthiness. In public schools, stores, movie theaters and buses they wear old, dirty, torn jeans; very short shorts that cover nothing; t-shirts covered with ads; and unpolished, gaudy tennis shoes. These appear to be beggars’ clothes. Women wear the same drab dress as men. They keep their shoes on when they enter their houses, and even in churches when they enter the presence of God. It is clear they can afford more respectful dress, so why do they take better care of their streets, yards and cars than they do themselves? Americans eat with forks and spoons that have been in other people’s mouths. They do not wash their hands before eating with their fingers. They use their right hands in toilets and use paper to clean themselves. Indians eat with their fingers which have not been in other people’s mouths, and use only the right hand because the left hand is kept for dirty activities. Americans eat meat, even beef, which both defiles them and gives them a strong body odor which vegetarians can smell. They touch each other in greeting and hence are polluted by those more ritually impure than they. After their initial shock of visiting India, Americans must stop and take a deeper look at what they are experiencing. They encounter a paradox. More than any other culture, Indian culture is based on deep beliefs in purity and pollution, which touch every area of life. India may have a reputation for its public filth, but Indians are obsessive about personal cleanliness. Men come out of small huts wearing their best shirts, ties and trousers, washed and pressed, and freshly polished shoes. Women dress in brightly colored, clean feminine clothes. When they drive motorcycles or ride sidesaddle behind their husbands, their silk scarves and saris blow in the wind. Restaurants have public sinks for people to wash their hands before eating. Houses are swept clean daily, and outside entryways are coated with a fresh layer of earth and cow manure, which keeps them clean. Yards are decorated with flowers and designs are traced with white powder. People brush their teeth and comb their hair almost obsessively. They do so in public and want people to see their concern for cleanliness and public dignity. India’s concern for purity and its disgust of pollution goes much deeper than surface dirt that can be washed off. The people are concerned about deep, inner pollution, the defilement of the self. Manual work, such as scavenging, tanning, burying the dead and cutting hair involves touching dead objects, and is most defiling. Washing clothes, cleaning the house and sweeping the yard and street are polluting because those involved must handle refuse. This caste-based defilement is permanent and hereditary, handed down from

parents to children. The only release from this pollution is the hope that in the next life one is born a pure Brahmin or other high-caste person. One can also acquire personal pollution by touching things that are polluted. If high-caste individuals touch low-caste persons, they will be defiled. To cleanse themselves from such pollution, these high-caste people must go through an extensive cleansing ritual that cleans their inner beings. Consequently, they have ritual greetings, like our handshakes, which do not involve touching one another. Sexual relationships and marriages between people of different castes are very defiling, particularly for children born from the union. When Americans go to India, we need to learn to understand how Indians see purity and pollution, and to reexamine our own beliefs of “clean” and “dirty.” Keep in mind that India is known for its personal cleanliness and its public filth, and America for its public cleanliness and its personal filth. We need, also, to avoid judging Indian beliefs; instead, we must examine both our beliefs and Indian beliefs in light of the gospel. For starters, we need to avoid being culturally insensitive. Here are a few preliminary recommendations. 1. Dress. Men, leave your jeans, old t-shirts and gaudy tennis shoes at home. Women, leave your shorts and short skirts. To wear these in public insults your hosts and shames them among peers. Remember, when you dress for yourself, you dress down for comfort. When you dress to honor others, you dress up. Show respect for your hosts by dressing up when you go out in public. In particular, dress up when you go to church. This is a sign that you are honoring to God. 2. Public acts. Make public displays of your cleanliness. Wash your hands in the sink at the restaurant before you eat, brush your teeth in public after eating and above all, do not touch your food with your left hand—it is considered filthy. 3. Hair. Keep your hair neat and trimmed. Unkempt hair is a sign of unclean personal habits. 4. Food. Avoid eating meat, especially beef, as much as possible in public. Above all, learn from your hosts. At first they may be hesitant to criticize you, but as you build trust, they can help you to be seen as clean and respectable in the villages and cities of India. ----- Paul G. Hiebert was professor of mission and anthropology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School from 1990 until near his death on March 11, 2007. Before this, he served with the Mennonite Brethren Board of Missions and Services in India and taught anthropology at Kansas State University and at the University of Washington. He also taught anthropology and missions at Fuller Theological Seminary. His areas of expertise included anthropology, missions, South Asia, folk religions, urban ministries, anthropological research methods and Hinduism. Copyright © 2008 Evangelism and Missions Information Service (EMIS). All rights reserved. Not to be reproduced or copied in any form without written permission from EMIS. All rights reserved. Not to be reproduced or copied in any form without written permission from EMIS.

Hammurabi’s Code

Translated by L.W. King (1910)

Edited by Richard Hooker

Taken from Michael A. Grisanti’s syllabus for OT796, Old Testament Introduction, The

Master’s Seminary, Spring 2009.

- Page 26 -

1

Hammurabi’s Code Translated by L.W. King (1910)

Edited by Richard Hooker About Hammurabi and His Law Code

Under Hammurabi (1792–1750 B.C.), the city of Babylon was raised from the position of an insignificant town along the Euphrates to that of the capital of an empire. Hammurabi was the great empire builder and lawgiver. The Code of Hammurabi was one of the earliest and most complete law codes in the Near Eastern world. His goal in giving the code was to bring consistent justice into the land and to destroy evil. There are 282 of Hammurabi’s laws yet extant. Some of the laws bear close resemblance to certain regulations in the Mosaic legislation.1

The picture on the right is Hammurabi’s code inscribed into stone. The figures at the top of the stone show Hammurabi (on the left) receiving the law from the god Marduk (on the right). The following text is inscribed around the stone below the figures of Hammurabi and Marduk. Prologue

When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind.

Hammurabi, the prince, called of Bel am I, making riches and increase, enriching Nippur and Dur-ilu beyond compare, sublime patron of E-kur; who reestablished Eridu and purified the worship of E-apsu; who conquered the four quarters of the world, made great the name of Babylon, rejoiced the heart of Marduk, his lord who daily pays his devotions in Saggil; the royal scion whom Sin made; who enriched Ur; the humble, the reverent, who brings wealth to Gish-shir-gal; the white king, heard of Shamash, the mighty, who again laid the foundations of Sippara; who clothed the gravestones of Malkat with green; who made E-babbar great, which is like the heavens, the warrior who guarded Larsa and renewed E-babbar, with Shamash as his helper; the lord who granted new life to Uruk, who brought plenteous water to its inhabitants, raised the head of E-anna, and perfected the beauty of Anu and Nana; shield of the land, who reunited the scattered inhabitants of Isin; who richly endowed E-gal-mach; the protecting king of the city, brother of the god Zamama; who firmly founded the farms of Kish, crowned E-me-te-ursag with glory, redoubled the great holy treasures of Nana, managed the temple of Harsag-kalama; the grave of the enemy, whose help brought about the victory; who increased the power of Cuthah; made all glorious in E-shidlam, the black steer, who gored the enemy; beloved of the god Nebo, who rejoiced the inhabitants of Borsippa, the Sublime; who is indefatigable for E-zida;

1 Taken from Michael A. Grisanti’s syllabus for OT796, Old Testament Introduction, The Master’s Seminary, Spring 2009.

2

the divine king of the city; the White, Wise; who broadened the fields of Dilbat, who heaped up the harvests for Urash; the Mighty, the lord to whom come scepter and crown, with which he clothes himself; the Elect of Ma-ma; who fixed the temple bounds of Kesh, who made rich the holy feasts of Nin-tu; the provident, solicitous, who provided food and drink for Lagash and Girsu, who provided large sacrificial offerings for the temple of Ningirsu; who captured the enemy, the Elect of the oracle who fulfilled the prediction of Hallab, who rejoiced the heart of Anunit; the pure prince, whose prayer is accepted by Adad; who satisfied the heart of Adad, the warrior, in Karkar, who restored the vessels for worship in E-ud-gal-gal; the king who granted life to the city of Adab; the guide of E-mach; the princely king of the city, the irresistible warrior, who granted life to the inhabitants of Mashkanshabri, and brought abundance to the temple of Shidlam; the White, Potent, who penetrated the secret cave of the bandits, saved the inhabitants of Malka from misfortune, and fixed their home fast in wealth; who established pure sacrificial gifts for Ea and Dam-gal-nun-na, who made his kingdom everlastingly great; the princely king of the city, who subjected the districts on the Ud-kib-nun-na Canal to the sway of Dagon, his Creator; who spared the inhabitants of Mera and Tutul; the sublime prince, who makes the face of Ninni shine; who presents holy meals to the divinity of Nin-a-zu, who cared for its inhabitants in their need, provided a portion for them in Babylon in peace; the shepherd of the oppressed and of the slaves; whose deeds find favor before Anunit, who provided for Anunit in the temple of Dumash in the suburb of Agade; who recognizes the right, who rules by law; who gave back to the city of Ashur its protecting god; who let the name of Ishtar of Nineveh remain in E-mish-mish; the Sublime, who humbles himself before the great gods; successor of Sumula-il; the mighty son of Sin-muballit; the royal scion of Eternity; the mighty monarch, the sun of Babylon, whose rays shed light over the land of Sumer and Akkad; the king, obeyed by the four quarters of the world; Beloved of Ninni, am I.

When Marduk sent me to rule over men, to give the protection of right to the land, I did right and righteousness in . . . , and brought about the well-being of the oppressed.

The Code of Laws

1. If any one ensnare another, putting a ban upon him, but he cannot prove it, then he that ensnared him shall be put to death. 2. If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser. 3. If any one bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital offense charged, be put to death. 6. If any one steal the property of a temple or of the court, he shall be put to death, and also the one who receives the stolen thing from him shall be put to death. 8. If any one steal cattle or sheep, or an ass, or a pig or a goat, if it belong to a god or to the court, the thief shall pay thirtyfold; if they belonged to a freed man of the king he shall pay tenfold; if the thief has nothing with which to pay he shall be put to death. 25. If fire break out in a house, and some one who comes to put it out cast his eye upon the property of the owner of the house, and take the property of the master of the house, he shall be thrown into that self-same fire.

3

48. If any one owe a debt for a loan, and a storm prostrates the grain, or the harvest fail, or the grain does not grow for lack of water; in that year he need not give his creditor any grain, he washes his debt-tablet in water and pays no rent for this year. 53. If any one be too lazy to keep his dam in proper condition, and does not so keep it; if then the dam break and all the fields be flooded, then shall he in whose dam the break occurred be sold for money, and the money shall replace the corn which he has caused to be ruined. 102. If a merchant entrust money to an agent (broker) for some investment, and the broker suffer a loss in the place to which he goes, he shall make good the capital to the merchant. 103. If, while on the journey, an enemy take away from him anything that he had, the broker shall swear by God and be free of obligation. 108. If a tavern-keeper (feminine) does not accept corn according to gross weight in payment of drink, but takes money, and the price of the drink is less than that of the corn, she shall be convicted and thrown into the water. 109. If conspirators meet in the house of a tavern-keeper, and these conspirators are not captured and delivered to the court, the tavern-keeper shall be put to death. 121. If any one store corn in another man's house he shall pay him storage at the rate of one gur for every five ka of corn per year. 122. If any one give another silver, gold, or anything else to keep, he shall show everything to some witness, draw up a contract, and then hand it over for safe keeping. 127. If any one "point the finger" (slander) at a sister of a god or the wife of any one, and can not prove it, this man shall be taken before the judges and his brow shall be marked. (by cutting the skin, or perhaps hair.) 128. If a man take a woman to wife, but have no intercourse with her, this woman is no wife to him. 129. If a man's wife be surprised (in flagrante delicto) with another man, both shall be tied and thrown into the water, but the husband may pardon his wife and the king his slaves. 133. If a man is taken prisoner in war, and there is a sustenance in his house, but his wife leave house and court, and go to another house: because this wife did not keep her court, and went to another house, she shall be judicially condemned and thrown into the water. 134. If any one be captured in war and there is not sustenance in his house, if then his wife go to another house this woman shall be held blameless. 135. If a man be taken prisoner in war and there be no sustenance in his house and his wife go to another house and bear children; and if later her husband return and come to his home: then this wife shall return to her husband, but the children follow their father. 137. If a man wish to separate from a woman who has borne him children, or from his wife who has borne him children: then he shall give that wife her dowry, and a part of the usufruct of field, garden, and property, so that she can rear her children. When she has brought up her children, a portion of all that is given to the children, equal as that of one son, shall be given to her. She may then marry the man of her heart.

4

138. If a man wishes to separate from his wife who has borne him no children, he shall give her the amount of her purchase money and the dowry which she brought from her father's house, and let her go. 178. If a "devoted woman" or a prostitute to whom her father has given a dowry and a deed therefor, but if in this deed it is not stated that she may bequeath it as she pleases, and has not explicitly stated that she has the right of disposal; if then her father die, then her brothers shall hold her field and garden, and give her corn, oil, and milk according to her portion, and satisfy her. If her brothers do not give her corn, oil, and milk according to her share, then her field and garden shall support her. She shall have the usufruct of field and garden and all that her father gave her so long as she lives, but she can not sell or assign it to others. Her position of inheritance belongs to her brothers. 179. If a "sister of a god," or a prostitute, receive a gift from her father, and a deed in which it has been explicitly stated that she may dispose of it as she pleases, and give her complete disposition thereof: if then her father die, then she may leave her property to whomsoever she pleases. Her brothers can raise no claim thereto. 180. If a father give a present to his daughter—either marriageable or a prostitute (unmarriageable)—and then die, then she is to receive a portion as a child from the paternal estate, and enjoy its usufruct so long as she lives. Her estate belongs to her brothers. 181. If a father devote a temple-maid or temple-virgin to God and give her no present: if then the father die, she shall receive the third of a child's portion from the inheritance of her father's house, and enjoy its usufruct so long as she lives. Her estate belongs to her brothers. 192. If a son of a paramour or a prostitute say to his adoptive father or mother: "You are not my father, or my mother," his tongue shall be cut off. 194. If a man give his child to a nurse and the child die in her hands, but the nurse unbeknown to the father and mother nurse another child, then they shall convict her of having nursed another child without the knowledge of the father and mother and her breasts shall be cut off. 195. If a son strike his father, his hands shall be hewn off. 196. If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out. 197. If he break another man's bone, his bone shall be broken. 218. If a physician make a large incision with the operating knife, and kill him, or open a tumor with the operating knife, and cut out the eye, his hands shall be cut off. 226. If a barber, without the knowledge of his master, cut the sign of a slave on a slave not to be sold, the hands of this barber shall be cut off. 235. If a shipbuilder build a boat for some one, and do not make it tight, if during that same year that boat is sent away and suffers injury, the shipbuilder shall take the boat apart and put it together tight at his own expense. The tight boat he shall give to the boat owner.

5

Epilogue

Laws of justice which Hammurabi, the wise king, established. A righteous law, and pious statute did he teach the land.

Hammurabi, the protecting king am I. I have not withdrawn myself from the men, whom Bel gave to me, the rule over whom

Marduk gave to me, I was not negligent, but I made them a peaceful abiding-place. I expounded all great difficulties, I made the light shine upon them. With the mighty weapons which Zamama and Ishtar entrusted to me, with the keen vision with which Ea endowed me, with the wisdom that Marduk gave me, I have uprooted the enemy above and below (in north and south), subdued the earth, brought prosperity to the land, guaranteed security to the inhabitants in their homes; a disturber was not permitted.

The great gods have called me, I am the salvation-bearing shepherd, whose staff is straight, the good shadow that is spread over my city; on my breast I cherish the inhabitants of the land of Sumer and Akkad; in my shelter I have let them repose in peace; in my deep wisdom have I enclosed them. That the strong might not injure the weak, in order to protect the widows and orphans, I have in Babylon the city where Anu and Bel raise high their head, in E-Sagil, the Temple, whose foundations stand firm as heaven and earth, in order to declare justice in the land, to settle all disputes, and heal all injuries, set up these my precious words, written upon my memorial stone, before the image of me, as king of righteousness.

The king who rules among the kings of the cities am I. My words are well considered; there is no wisdom like mine. By the command of Shamash, the great judge of heaven and earth, let righteousness go forth in the land: by the order of Marduk, my lord, let no destruction befall my monument. In E-Sagil, which I love, let my name be ever repeated; let the oppressed, who have a case at law, come and stand before this my image as king of righteousness; let him read the inscription, and understand my precious words: the inscription will explain his case to him; he will find out what is just, and his heart will be glad, so that he will say:

"Hammurabi is a ruler, who is as a father to his subjects, who holds the words of Marduk in reverence, who has achieved conquest for Marduk over the north and south, who rejoices the heart of Marduk, his lord, who has bestowed benefits for ever and ever on his subjects, and has established order in the land."

When he reads the record, let him pray with full heart to Marduk, my lord, and Zarpanit, my lady; the lord, who fixes destiny, whose command can not be altered, who has made my kingdom great, order a rebellion which his hand can not control; may he let the wind of the overthrow of his habitation blow, may he ordain the years of his rule in groaning, years of scarcity, years of famine, darkness without light, death with seeing eyes be fated to him; may he (Bel) order with his potent mouth the destruction of his city, the dispersion of his subjects, the cutting off of his rule, the removal of his name and memory from the land.

May Belit, the great Mother, whose command is potent in E-Kur, the Mistress, who harkens graciously to my petitions, in the seat of judgment and decision, turn his affairs evil before Bel, and put the devastation of his land, the destruction of his subjects, the pouring out of his life like water into the mouth of King Bel.

May Ea, the great ruler, whose fated decrees come to pass, the thinker of the gods, the omniscient, who makes long the days of my life, withdraw understanding and wisdom from him, lead him to forgetfulness, shut up his rivers at their sources, and not allow corn or sustenance for man to grow in his land.

May Shamash, the great Judge of heaven and earth, who supports all means of livelihood, Lord of life-courage, shatter his dominion, annul his law, destroy his way, make vain the march of his troops, send him in his visions forecasts of the uprooting of the foundations of his throne and of the destruction of his land. May the condemnation of Shamash overtake him; may he be deprived of water above among the living, and his spirit below in the earth.

May Sin, the Lord of Heaven, the divine father, whose crescent gives light among the gods, take away the crown and regal throne from him; may he put upon him heavy guilt, great

6

decay, that nothing may be lower than he. May he destine him as fated, days, months and years of dominion filled with sighing and tears, increase of the burden of dominion, a life that is like unto death.

May Adad, the lord of fruitfulness, ruler of heaven and earth, my helper, withhold from him rain from heaven, and the flood of water from the springs, destroying his land by famine and want; may he rage mightily over his city, and make his land into flood-hills (heaps of ruined cities).

May Zamama, the great warrior, the first-born son of E-Kur, who goes at my right hand, shatter his weapons on the field of battle, turn day into night for him, and let his foe triumph over him.

May Ishtar, the goddess of fighting and war, who unfetters my weapons, my gracious protecting spirit, who loves my dominion, curse his kingdom in her angry heart; in her great wrath, change his grace into evil, and shatter his weapons on the place of fighting and war. May she create disorder and sedition for him, strike down his warriors, that the earth may drink their blood, and throw down the piles of corpses of his warriors on the field; may she not grant him a life of mercy, deliver him into the hands of his enemies, and imprison him in the land of his enemies.

May Nergal, the might among the gods, whose contest is irresistible, who grants me victory, in his great might burn up his subjects like a slender reedstalk, cut off his limbs with his mighty weapons, and shatter him like an earthen image.

May Nin-tu, the sublime mistress of the lands, the fruitful mother, deny him a son, vouchsafe him no name, give him no successor among men.

May Nin-karak, the daughter of Anu, who adjudges grace to me, cause to come upon his members in E-kur high fever, severe wounds, that can not be healed, whose nature the physician does not understand, which he can not treat with dressing, which, like the bite of death, can not be removed, until they have sapped away his life.

May he lament the loss of his life-power, and may the great gods of heaven and earth, the Anunaki, altogether inflict a curse and evil upon the confines of the temple, the walls of this E-barra (the Sun temple of Sippara), upon his dominion, his land, his warriors, his subjects, and his troops. May Bel curse him with the potent curses of his mouth that can not be altered, and may they come upon him forthwith.

Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Book I 33

Nicomachean Ethics, Book I

By Aristotle

Translated by W. D. Ross1

1

Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some

good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim.

But a certain difference is found among ends; some are activities, others are products apart from

the activities that produce them. Where there are ends apart from the actions, it is the nature of

the products to be better than the activities. Now, as there are many actions, arts, and sciences,

their ends also are many; the end of the medical art is health, that of shipbuilding a vessel, that of

strategy victory, that of economics wealth. But where such arts fall under a single capacity—as

bridle-making and the other arts concerned with the equipment of horses fall under the art of

riding, and this and every military action under strategy, in the same way other arts fall under

yet others—in all of these the ends of the master arts are to be preferred to all the subordinate

ends; for it is for the sake of the former that the latter are pursued. It makes no difference whether

the activities themselves are the ends of the actions, or something else apart from the activities, as

in the case of the sciences just mentioned.

2

If, then, there is some end of the things we do, which we desire for its own sake (everything else

being desired for the sake of this), and if we do not choose everything for the sake of something

else (for at that rate the process would go on to infinity, so that our desire would be empty and

vain), clearly this must be the good and the chief good. Will not the knowledge of it, then, have a

great influence on life? Shall we not, like archers who have a mark to aim at, be more likely to hit

upon what is right? If so, we must try, in outline at least, to determine what it is, and of which of

the sciences or capacities it is the object. It would seem to belong to the most authoritative art and

that which is most truly the master art. And politics appears to be of this nature; for it is this that

ordains which of the sciences should be studied in a state, and which each class of citizens should

learn and up to what point they should learn them; and we see even the most highly esteemed of

capacities to fall under this, e.g. strategy, economics, rhetoric; now, since politics uses the rest of

the sciences, and since, again, it legislates as to what we are to do and what we are to abstain

1 Text taken from The Internet Classics Archive. See bottom for copyright. Available online at http://classics.mit.edu//Aristotle/nicomachaen.html


from, the end of this science must include those of the others, so that this end must be the good

for man. For even if the end is the same for a single man and for a state, that of the state seems at

all events something greater and more complete whether to attain or to preserve; though it is

worth while to attain the end merely for one man, it is finer and more godlike to attain it for a

nation or for city-states. These, then, are the ends at which our inquiry aims, since it is political

science, in one sense of that term.

[Sections 3 and 4 omitted.]

5

Let us, however, resume our discussion from the point at which we digressed. To judge from the

lives that men lead, most men, and men of the most vulgar type, seem (not without some

ground) to identify the good, or happiness, with pleasure; which is the reason why they love the

life of enjoyment. For there are, we may say, three prominent types of life—that just mentioned,

the political, and thirdly the contemplative life. Now the mass of mankind are evidently quite

slavish in their tastes, preferring a life suitable to beasts, but they get some ground for their view

from the fact that many of those in high places share the tastes of Sardanapallus. A consideration

of the prominent types of life shows that people of superior refinement and of active disposition

identify happiness with honour; for this is, roughly speaking, the end of the political life. But it

seems too superficial to be what we are looking for, since it is thought to depend on those who

bestow honour rather than on him who receives it, but the good we divine to be something

proper to a man and not easily taken from him. Further, men seem to pursue honour in order

that they may be assured of their goodness; at least it is by men of practical wisdom that they

seek to be honoured, and among those who know them, and on the ground of their virtue;

clearly, then, according to them, at any rate, virtue is better. And perhaps one might even

suppose this to be, rather than honour, the end of the political life. But even this appears

somewhat incomplete; for possession of virtue seems actually compatible with being asleep, or

with lifelong inactivity, and, further, with the greatest sufferings and misfortunes; but a man who

was living so no one would call happy, unless he were maintaining a thesis at all costs. But

enough of this; for the subject has been sufficiently treated even in the current discussions. Third

comes the contemplative life, which we shall consider later.

The life of money-making is one undertaken under compulsion, and wealth is evidently

not the good we are seeking; for it is merely useful and for the sake of something else. And so one

might rather take the aforenamed objects to be ends; for they are loved for themselves. But it is

evident that not even these are ends; yet many arguments have been thrown away in support of

them. Let us leave this subject, then.


[Section 6 omitted.]

7

Let us again return to the good we are seeking, and ask what it can be. It seems different in

different actions and arts; it is different in medicine, in strategy, and in the other arts likewise.

What then is the good of each? Surely that for whose sake everything else is done. In medicine

this is health, in strategy victory, in architecture a house, in any other sphere something else, and

in every action and pursuit the end; for it is for the sake of this that all men do whatever else they

do. Therefore, if there is an end for all that we do, this will be the good achievable by action, and

if there are more than one, these will be the goods achievable by action.

So the argument has by a different course reached the same point; but we must try to

state this even more clearly. Since there are evidently more than one end, and we choose some of

these (e.g. wealth, flutes, and in general instruments) for the sake of something else, clearly not

all ends are final ends; but the chief good is evidently something final. Therefore, if there is only

one final end, this will be what we are seeking, and if there are more than one, the most final of

these will be what we are seeking. Now we call that which is in itself worthy of pursuit more

final than that which is worthy of pursuit for the sake of something else, and that which is never

desirable for the sake of something else more final than the things that are desirable both in

themselves and for the sake of that other thing, and therefore we call final without qualification

that which is always desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else.

Now such a thing happiness, above all else, is held to be; for this we choose always for

self and never for the sake of something else, but honour, pleasure, reason, and every virtue we

choose indeed for themselves (for if nothing resulted from them we should still choose each of

them), but we choose them also for the sake of happiness, judging that by means of them we shall

be happy. Happiness, on the other hand, no one chooses for the sake of these, nor, in general, for

anything other than itself.

From the point of view of self-sufficiency the same result seems to follow; for the final

good is thought to be self-sufficient. Now by self-sufficient we do not mean that which is

sufficient for a man by himself, for one who lives a solitary life, but also for parents, children,

wife, and in general for his friends and fellow citizens, since man is born for citizenship. But

some limit must be set to this; for if we extend our requirement to ancestors and descendants and

friends' friends we are in for an infinite series. Let us examine this question, however, on another

occasion; the self-sufficient we now define as that which when isolated makes life desirable and

lacking in nothing; and such we think happiness to be; and further we think it most desirable of

all things, without being counted as one good thing among others—if it were so counted it would


clearly be made more desirable by the addition of even the least of goods; for that which is added

becomes an excess of goods, and of goods the greater is always more desirable. Happiness, then,

is something final and self-sufficient, and is the end of action.

Presumably, however, to say that happiness is the chief good seems a platitude, and a

clearer account of what it is still desired. This might perhaps be given, if we could first ascertain

the function of man. For just as for a flute-player, a sculptor, or an artist, and, in general, for all

things that have a function or activity, the good and the 'well' is thought to reside in the function,

so would it seem to be for man, if he has a function. Have the carpenter, then, and the tanner

certain functions or activities, and has man none? Is he born without a function? Or as eye, hand,

foot, and in general each of the parts evidently has a function, may one lay it down that man

similarly has a function apart from all these? What then can this be? Life seems to be common

even to plants, but we are seeking what is peculiar to man. Let us exclude, therefore, the life of

nutrition and growth. Next there would be a life of perception, but it also seems to be common

even to the horse, the ox, and every animal. There remains, then, an active life of the element that

has a rational principle; of this, one part has such a principle in the sense of being obedient to

one, the other in the sense of possessing one and exercising thought. And, as 'life of the rational

element' also has two meanings, we must state that life in the sense of activity is what we mean;

for this seems to be the more proper sense of the term. Now if the function of man is an activity of

soul which follows or implies a rational principle, and if we say 'so-and-so’ and 'a good so-and-

so' have a function which is the same in kind, e.g. a lyre, and a good lyre-player, and so without

qualification in all cases, eminence in respect of goodness being added to the name of the

function (for the function of a lyre-player is to play the lyre, and that of a good lyre-player is to

do so well): if this is the case, and we state the function of man to be a certain kind of life, and this

to be an activity or actions of the soul implying a rational principle, and the function of a good

man to be the good and noble performance of these, and if any action is well performed when it

is performed in accordance with the appropriate excellence: if this is the case, human good turns

out to be activity of soul in accordance with virtue, and if there are more than one virtue, in

accordance with the best and most complete.

But we must add 'in a complete life.' For one swallow does not make a summer, nor does

one day; and so too one day, or a short time, does not make a man blessed and happy.

Let this serve as an outline of the good; for we must presumably first sketch it roughly,

and then later fill in the details. But it would seem that any one is capable of carrying on and

articulating what has once been well outlined, and that time is a good discoverer or partner in

such a work; to which facts the advances of the arts are due; for any one can add what is lacking.

And we must also remember what has been said before, and not look for precision in all things

alike, but in each class of things such precision as accords with the subject-matter, and so much as


is appropriate to the inquiry. For a carpenter and a geometer investigate the right angle in

different ways; the former does so in so far as the right angle is useful for his work, while the

latter inquires what it is or what sort of thing it is; for he is a spectator of the truth. We must act in

the same way, then, in all other matters as well, that our main task may not be subordinated to

minor questions. Nor must we demand the cause in all matters alike; it is enough in some cases

that the fact be well established, as in the case of the first principles; the fact is the primary thing

or first principle. Now of first principles we see some by induction, some by perception, some by

a certain habituation, and others too in other ways. But each set of principles we must try to

investigate in the natural way, and we must take pains to state them definitely, since they have a

great influence on what follows. For the beginning is thought to be more than half of the whole,

and many of the questions we ask are cleared up by it.

8

We must consider it, however, in the light not only of our conclusion and our premises, but also

of what is commonly said about it; for with a true view all the data harmonize, but with a false

one the facts soon clash. Now goods have been divided into three classes, and some are described

as external, others as relating to soul or to body; we call those that relate to soul most properly

and truly goods, and psychical actions and activities we class as relating to soul. Therefore our

account must be sound, at least according to this view, which is an old one and agreed on by

philosophers. It is correct also in that we identify the end with certain actions and activities; for

thus it falls among goods of the soul and not among external goods. Another belief which

harmonizes with our account is that the happy man lives well and does well; for we have

practically defined happiness as a sort of good life and good action. The characteristics that are

looked for in happiness seem also, all of them, to belong to what we have defined happiness as

being. For some identify happiness with virtue, some with practical wisdom, others with a kind

of philosophic wisdom, others with these, or one of these, accompanied by pleasure or not

without pleasure; while others include also external prosperity. Now some of these views have

been held by many men and men of old, others by a few eminent persons; and it is not probable

that either of these should be entirely mistaken, but rather that they should be right in at least

some one respect or even in most respects.

With those who identify happiness with virtue or some one virtue our account is in

harmony; for to virtue belongs virtuous activity. But it makes, perhaps, no small difference

whether we place the chief good in possession or in use, in state of mind or in activity. For the

state of mind may exist without producing any good result, as in a man who is asleep or in some

other way quite inactive, but the activity cannot; for one who has the activity will of necessity be

acting, and acting well. And as in the Olympic Games it is not the most beautiful and the


strongest that are crowned but those who compete (for it is some of these that are victorious), so

those who act win, and rightly win, the noble and good things in life.

Their life is also in itself pleasant. For pleasure is a state of soul, and to each man that

which he is said to be a lover of is pleasant; e.g. not only is a horse pleasant to the lover of horses,

and a spectacle to the lover of sights, but also in the same way just acts are pleasant to the lover of

justice and in general virtuous acts to the lover of virtue. Now for most men their pleasures are in

conflict with one another because these are not by nature pleasant, but the lovers of what is noble

find pleasant the things that are by nature pleasant; and virtuous actions are such, so that these

are pleasant for such men as well as in their own nature. Their life, therefore, has no further need

of pleasure as a sort of adventitious charm, but has its pleasure in itself. For, besides what we

have said, the man who does not rejoice in noble actions is not even good; since no one would

call a man just who did not enjoy acting justly, nor any man liberal who did not enjoy liberal

actions; and similarly in all other cases. If this is so, virtuous actions must be in themselves

pleasant. But they are also good and noble, and have each of these attributes in the highest

degree, since the good man judges well about these attributes; his judgment is such as we have

described. Happiness then is the best, noblest, and most pleasant thing in the world, and these

attributes are not severed as in the inscription at Delos-

Most noble is that which is justest, and best is health;

But pleasantest is it to win what we love.

For all these properties belong to the best activities;

and these, or one—the best—of these, we identify with happiness.

Yet evidently, as we said, it needs the external goods as well; for it is impossible, or not

easy, to do noble acts without the proper equipment. In many actions we use friends and riches

and political power as instruments; and there are some things the lack of which takes the lustre

from happiness, as good birth, goodly children, beauty; for the man who is very ugly in

appearance or ill-born or solitary and childless is not very likely to be happy, and perhaps a man

would be still less likely if he had thoroughly bad children or friends or had lost good children or

friends by death. As we said, then, happiness seems to need this sort of prosperity in addition; for

which reason some identify happiness with good fortune, though others identify it with virtue.

9

For this reason also the question is asked, whether happiness is to be acquired by learning or by

habituation or some other sort of training, or comes in virtue of some divine providence or again

by chance. Now if there is any gift of the gods to men, it is reasonable that happiness should be

god-given, and most surely god-given of all human things inasmuch as it is the best. But this


question would perhaps be more appropriate to another inquiry; happiness seems, however,

even if it is not god-sent but comes as a result of virtue and some process of learning or training,

to be among the most godlike things; for that which is the prize and end of virtue seems to be the

best thing in the world, and something godlike and blessed.

It will also on this view be very generally shared; for all who are not maimed as regards

their potentiality for virtue may win it by a certain kind of study and care. But if it is better to be

happy thus than by chance, it is reasonable that the facts should be so, since everything that

depends on the action of nature is by nature as good as it can be, and similarly everything that

depends on art or any rational cause, and especially if it depends on the best of all causes. To

entrust to chance what is greatest and most noble would be a very defective arrangement.

The answer to the question we are asking is plain also from the definition of happiness;

for it has been said to be a virtuous activity of soul, of a certain kind. Of the remaining goods,

some must necessarily pre-exist as conditions of happiness, and others are naturally co-operative

and useful as instruments. And this will be found to agree with what we said at the outset; for we

stated the end of political science to be the best end, and political science spends most of its pains

on making the citizens to be of a certain character, viz. good and capable of noble acts.

It is natural, then, that we call neither ox nor horse nor any other of the animals happy;

for none of them is capable of sharing in such activity. For this reason also a boy is not happy; for

he is not yet capable of such acts, owing to his age; and boys who are called happy are being

congratulated by reason of the hopes we have for them. For there is required, as we said, not only

complete virtue but also a complete life, since many changes occur in life, and all manner of

chances, and the most prosperous may fall into great misfortunes in old age, as is told of Priam in

the Trojan Cycle; and one who has experienced such chances and has ended wretchedly no one

calls happy.

10

Must no one at all, then, be called happy while he lives; must we, as Solon says, see the end?

Even if we are to lay down this doctrine, is it also the case that a man is happy when he is dead?

Or is not this quite absurd, especially for us who say that happiness is an activity? But if we do

not call the dead man happy, and if Solon does not mean this, but that one can then safely call a

man blessed as being at last beyond evils and misfortunes, this also affords matter for discussion;

for both evil and good are thought to exist for a dead man, as much as for one who is alive but

not aware of them; e.g. honours and dishonours and the good or bad fortunes of children and in

general of descendants. And this also presents a problem; for though a man has lived happily up

to old age and has had a death worthy of his life, many reverses may befall his descendants—

some of them may be good and attain the life they deserve, while with others the opposite may


be the case; and clearly too the degrees of relationship between them and their ancestors may

vary indefinitely. It would be odd, then, if the dead man were to share in these changes and

become at one time happy, at another wretched; while it would also be odd if the fortunes of the

descendants did not for some time have some effect on the happiness of their ancestors.

But we must return to our first difficulty; for perhaps by a consideration of it our present

problem might be solved. Now if we must see the end and only then call a man happy, not as

being happy but as having been so before, surely this is a paradox, that when he is happy the

attribute that belongs to him is not to be truly predicated of him because we do not wish to call

living men happy, on account of the changes that may befall them, and because we have assumed

happiness to be something permanent and by no means easily changed, while a single man may

suffer many turns of fortune's wheel. For clearly if we were to keep pace with his fortunes, we

should often call the same man happy and again wretched, making the happy man out to be

chameleon and insecurely based. Or is this keeping pace with his fortunes quite wrong? Success

or failure in life does not depend on these, but human life, as we said, needs these as mere

additions, while virtuous activities or their opposites are what constitute happiness or the

reverse.

The question we have now discussed confirms our definition. For no function of man has

so much permanence as virtuous activities (these are thought to be more durable even than

knowledge of the sciences), and of these themselves the most valuable are more durable because

those who are happy spend their life most readily and most continuously in these; for this seems

to be the reason why we do not forget them. The attribute in question, then, will belong to the

happy man, and he will be happy throughout his life; for always, or by preference to everything

else, he will be engaged in virtuous action and contemplation, and he will bear the chances of life

most nobly and altogether decorously, if he is 'truly good' and 'foursquare beyond reproach'.

Now many events happen by chance, and events differing in importance; small pieces of

good fortune or of its opposite clearly do not weigh down the scales of life one way or the other,

but a multitude of great events if they turn out well will make life happier (for not only are they

themselves such as to add beauty to life, but the way a man deals with them may be noble and

good), while if they turn out ill they crush and maim happiness; for they both bring pain with

them and hinder many activities. Yet even in these nobility shines through, when a man bears

with resignation many great misfortunes, not through insensibility to pain but through nobility

and greatness of soul.

If activities are, as we said, what gives life its character, no happy man can become

miserable; for he will never do the acts that are hateful and mean. For the man who is truly good

and wise, we think, bears all the chances of life becomingly and always makes the best of

circumstances, as a good general makes the best military use of the army at his command and a


good shoemaker makes the best shoes out of the hides that are given him; and so with all other

craftsmen. And if this is the case, the happy man can never become miserable; though he will not

reach blessedness, if he meet with fortunes like those of Priam.

Nor, again, is he many-coloured and changeable; for neither will he be moved from his

happy state easily or by any ordinary misadventures, but only by many great ones, nor, if he has

had many great misadventures, will he recover his happiness in a short time, but if at all, only in

a long and complete one in which he has attained many splendid successes.

When then should we not say that he is happy who is active in accordance with complete

virtue and is sufficiently equipped with external goods, not for some chance period but

throughout a complete life? Or must we add 'and who is destined to live thus and die as befits his

life'? Certainly the future is obscure to us, while happiness, we claim, is an end and something in

every way final. If so, we shall call happy those among living men in whom these conditions are,

and are to be, fulfilled—but happy men. So much for these questions.

[Sections 11-13 omitted.]

Copyright statement: The Internet Classics Archive by Daniel C. Stevenson, Web Atomics. World Wide Web presentation is copyright (C) 1994-2000, Daniel C. Stevenson, Web Atomics. All rights reserved under international and pan-American copyright conventions, including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form. Direct permission requests to [email protected]. Translation of "The Deeds of the Divine Augustus" by Augustus is copyright (C) Thomas Bushnell, BSG.

“The Political Landscape & Jewish Messianism”

Walter B. Russell



- Page 42 -

“The Effect of Hellenization on Jewish Life”

Walter B. Russell



- Page 56 -

“Jewish Sects”

Flavius Josephus



- Page 65 -

“Building for the Kingdom: Our Labor Is Not in Vain”

N. T. Wright

Taken from Perspectives on the World Christian Movement: A Reader, 4th edition, ed. Ralph

D. Winter and Steven C. Hawthorne (Pasadena: William Carey, 2009) 96-97.

- Page 74 -

“The Kingdom of God in the Life of the World”

Lesslie Newbigin



- Page 77 -

“Cities & Salt: Counter-Cultures for the Common Good”

Tim Keller



- Page 80 -

“Mission & God’s Earth”

Christopher J.H. Wright



- Page 86 -

Foundations Module 1 Supplemental Reader

Documents