17 Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy. 18 They arrested the apostles and put them in the public jail. 19 But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the jail and brought them out. 20 "Go, stand in the temple courts," he said, "and tell the people the full message of this new life."
21 At daybreak they entered the temple courts, as they had been told, and began to teach the people. 22 When the high priest and his associates arrived, they called together the Sanhedrin--the full assembly of the elders of Israel--and sent to the jail for the apostles. But on arriving at the jail, the officers did not find them there. So they went back and reported, 23 "We found the jail securely locked, with the guards standing at the doors; but when we opened them, we found no one inside." 24 On hearing this report, the captain of the temple guard and the chief priests were puzzled, wondering what would come of this.
25 Then someone came and said, "Look! The men you put in jail are standing in the temple courts teaching the people." 26 At that, the captain went with his officers and brought the apostles. They did not use force, because they feared that the people would stone them.
27 Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 28 "We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name," he said. "Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood."
29 Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men! 30 The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead--whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. 31 God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. 32 We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him."
33 When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. 34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. 35 Then he addressed them: "Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36 Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."
40 His speech persuaded them. They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.
41 The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name. 42 Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ.
The Devil's I
Acts 5:27-32
Sermon
by Leonard Sweet
In a world of Good Friday nightmares, it is time for Easter Dreams.
Martin Luther claimed that whenever and wherever God builds a church, the devil builds a chapel. As we've worked to build a world where human rights and dignity are respected, the devil has been working overtime constructing his perpendicular chapel. It's a chapel that has grown so large and tall that it has been able to take its choir on the road, a choir that happily sings the devil's siren song. This is the tune the devil loves to hear the discordant sound of a million voices all singing their own song no harmony, no melody, no chorus only a din of solos.
This "devil's song" has only one rule of composition: The first person singular is all there is. This is what we are calling "The Devil's I." There is no first person plural ("we") in the devil's chorus, no third person singular (she or he) to be concerned with, no third person plural (they) to consider. Everything and everyone is intently focused on "I," to the exclusion of all else.
Ulysses S. Grant once admitted, "I only know two tunes one is Yankee Doodle, and the other isn't." Increasingly in the USA, we know only two tunes one is "The Devil's I," and the other isn't.
It goes without saying that for all those busily belting out this self-love, love song of "The Devil's I," there is no God. Perhaps it is not so much that there is no God as there is nothing higher than oneself, nothing but oneself. The Earl of Gurney, in Peter Barnes' The Ruling Class, when asked how he knew he was God, replied, "Simple. When I pray to him, I find I'm talking to myself" (Barnes, Plays: One [London: Methuen Drama, 1989]: 26). The existence of some higher authority outside the self is seen to be meaningless because the world of the self is wholly "self-contained." No one else enters it, no one else leaves it. "Others" are perceived as bothersome, burdensome or in-the-way baggage.
Peter's words to the Sanhedrin make us both pleased and nervous. We like hearing that the religious authorities aren't capable of quieting down the apostles' will-to-witness. Thumbing a nose at authority is everyone's favorite pastime. But the reason Peter gives for disobeying the Sanhedrin's "strict orders" gives all us "I"s pause: "We must obey God rather than any human authority" (v.29). Peter claimed no self-motivation, no personal agenda. He and the apostles were not working outside the bounds of authority. They were working for the sake of the one absolute authority God.
The whole of the biblical witness is this: We are not our own. God is God, and we are not. God is the Absolute of all absolutes, the Absolute that relativizes all other absolutes.
A three-fold mandate to those who recognize God's authority over human life, who refuse to worship at this shrine of the first-person perpendicular, is repeated throughout the Scriptures.
1. Please God Above All. While they were slaves in Egypt, the Hebrew midwives disobeyed Pharaoh's order to destroy all newborn male children, in order to please God. David danced his way into Jerusalem to please God. Solomon built an incredible monument in order to please God.
To please God means to seize the moment and to put one's present at risk.
2. Serve God Above All. Serving God takes more than faith it takes sweat and patience and strength and spirit. Moses served God and had to spend his final years wandering the wilderness with arguably the most unruly, headstrong people the world has ever known. Jeremiah served God and found himself hated, ridiculed and feared by his fellow countrymen. Mary served God and faced an uncertain future with her husband and family because of her unlikely pregnancy.
To serve God means to sacrifice the moment and to put one's future at risk.
3. Obey God Above All. It was in obedience to God that Abraham picked up and went in search of a land of his own when he was already an old man. It was in obedience to God that Hosea married Gomer, a woman no man would have willingly chosen as his wife. It was in obedience to God that such ordinary men as the apostles stood before the powerful Sanhedrin and defied their authority. To obey God rather than to adhere to human rules and regulations empowers the faith. All our weaknesses are transformed into strengths when they are used for God's sake.
To obey God means to surrender the moment and to put one's past at risk.
When we are pleasing God, serving God and obeying God, we suddenly discover a tremendous freedom. The accompaniment the devil plays along with his siren song of "I," but tries to keep so soft in the background that we don't really notice it, is one of fear. With no one other than yourself as a reference point, there is also no one other than yourself to rely upon. Fear that somehow "I" won't be able to "do it all," "have it all" or "be it all," makes the me-only solo a frighteningly lonely tune.
When we surrender the authority over our lives to God, when we finally admit that God is God, and we are not, we open ourselves up to a tidal wave of divine compassion and love. Recognizing that God is the Absolute of all absolutes relativizes all other absolutes. Pleasing God, serving God and obeying God become an expression of God's strength, Christ's love and the witness of the Holy Spirit in our lives.
ChristianGlobe Networks, Inc., Collected Works, by Leonard Sweet
Although God is at work and the community is thriving, serious threats to the church are beginning to emerge. In contrast to Barnabas’s integrity and generosity (4:36–37) stands the greedy, hypocritical, deceptive actions of Ananias and Sapphira (5:1–11). This married couple didn’t have to give to the church, but they sold property and appeared to give all the money while secretly keeping part of the proceeds for themselves. For lying to the Spirit and deceiving the community, they are put to death. Luke doesn’t say they were eternally condemned, only that they experienced God’s judgment of immediate physical death. (God’s immediate judgment in this case is not repeated throughout the New Testament as a pattern, but these are critical days for the infant church, and God takes dramatic acti…
The Baker Bible Handbook by , Baker Publishing Group, 2016
17 Then the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees, were filled with jealousy. 18 They arrested the apostles and put them in the public jail. 19 But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the jail and brought them out. 20 "Go, stand in the temple courts," he said, "and tell the people the full message of this new life."
21 At daybreak they entered the temple courts, as they had been told, and began to teach the people. 22 When the high priest and his associates arrived, they called together the Sanhedrin--the full assembly of the elders of Israel--and sent to the jail for the apostles. But on arriving at the jail, the officers did not find them there. So they went back and reported, 23 "We found the jail securely locked, with the guards standing at the doors; but when we opened them, we found no one inside." 24 On hearing this report, the captain of the temple guard and the chief priests were puzzled, wondering what would come of this.
25 Then someone came and said, "Look! The men you put in jail are standing in the temple courts teaching the people." 26 At that, the captain went with his officers and brought the apostles. They did not use force, because they feared that the people would stone them.
27 Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 28 "We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name," he said. "Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood."
29 Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men! 30 The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead--whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. 31 God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. 32 We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him."
33 When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. 34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. 35 Then he addressed them: "Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36 Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."
40 His speech persuaded them. They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.
41 The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name. 42 Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ.
In light of the success of these apostles, the Jewish leaders decide to take action against them (5:17–42). This section repeats Peter’s earlier statement that one “must obey God rather than human beings” (5:29; cf. 4:19), and the narrative itself also makes clear that the Jews are not standing on the side of God. After the Jews first arrest the apostles, “an angel of the Lord” comes to deliver them (5:19). This becomes an emphatic statement indicating that the Jews are opposing the work of God himself.
When the high priest and the Sadducees are considering ways to further punish these apostles, a Pharisee provides a more reasonable proposal. In Luke’s first volume, the Pharisees are the primary opponents of the early Jesus (Luke 5:17–39; 6:1–11; 7:29–50; 11:37–54; 14:1–24; 16:14–31; 18:9–14). In Acts, however, the high priest and the Sadducees become the primary opponents of the word. When the Pharisees do appear on the scene, they are relatively benign characters, among them Paul (23:1–10; 26:1–8), who provides the model response of a Pharisee confronted by the risen Jesus. In this episode Gamaliel the Pharisee (5:34) is Rabban GamalielI, the student of the well-known Hillel. Paul later acknowledges him to be his former teacher (22:3).
Gamaliel suggests that Jesus may be no more than someone like Theudas (5:36) and Judas the Galilean (5:37), the leaders of two unsuccessful revolutionary movements. These two names do appear in the work of Josephus (Jewish Antiquities 20.97–98, 102; 18.1–10; Jewish War 2.117–18), although they may be common names, as Josephus dates Theudas to a later period of time (AD 44–46). Gamaliel’s advice is that if the work of these Christians “is of human origin, it will fail” (5:38). In light of the narrative that follows, Luke has already proven that their work is not “of human origin.” More importantly, Gamaliel further suggests that if they are from God, then the Jews who fight against them are “fighting against God” (5:39). The continued persecution of the Christians by the temple leadership also shows that they are indeed “fighting against God” (cf. 6:12–15; 7:59–8:3; 12:1–19; 13:45, 50; 14:2; 16:3; 18:12; 20:3).
The Baker Illustrated Bible Commentary by Gary M. Burge, Baker Publishing Group, 2016
Such was the impact of the Christians on the city (they were not necessarily numerous, but they were in the public eye; see note on 4:4), that the city fathers, chiefly the Sadducees, decided again on overt action against them, or at least against their leaders. The broad similarity between the arrest and trial of the apostles described here and the earlier arraignment of Peter and John has already been noted, as has the parallel between their escape and Peter’s escape in 12:6–19 (see disc. on 3:1–11). Other critical questions relating to this passage will be discussed in the exposition and notes to follow. Mention need be made here only of the further parallel that has sometimes been found between the passion of Christ and the treatment meted out to the Christians in this and the following chapters (see also the disc. on 19:21–41). Thus Gamaliel’s speech and its outcome (5:35–40) have been likened to Pilate’s verdict in Luke 23:15f., and the stoning of Stephen and the subsequent persecution of the church to the intransigence of the Jewish people displayed in the trial and death of Jesus. With regard to the latter, a convincing case can be made that Luke has modeled the narrative of Acts on the Gospel story (see disc. on 7:54–8:1a). Whether the same can be said of the larger section beginning here and running through to the story of Stephen is another question, though it certainly shows in more general terms how Christ continued to suffer—as well as to act and to teach—in his body, the church (see disc. on 1:1; cf. 9:4f.; Col. 1:24).
5:17–18 Though the people in general continued to regard the believers with favor (cf. 2:47; 5:13, 26), the animosity of the high priest and all his associates, who were members of the party of the Sadducees, continued to grow. This reference will include those mentioned in 4:6, but may indicate further that the high priest now had the general support of all the Sadducees, who, of all Jews, most resented the Christian emphasis on the resurrection. Their jealousy (Gk. zēlos) was an outbreak of partisanship (a common meaning of the word) against those of a contrary view. Undoubtedly, the spread of teaching related to the resurrection of Jesus was the underlying cause of their hatred, mingled still with their dread of any movement that was likely to disturb the delicate balance of society and therefore their own position of power within it. The context, however, implies that the apostles were arrested because of the miracles. If this was so, it was probably only the pretext. In any case, the apostles found themselves in the public jail awaiting trial before the Sanhedrin the next day (v. 18; see note on 4:3).
5:19–20 But before the day came, they were set free by an angel, with the command that they should go, stand in the temple courts, … and tell the people the full message of this new life (v. 20). “To stand” is expressive of the boldness with which they were to preach (cf. 2:14), and the temple was the most public place in which to do it. It was also the most appropriate place, as the “house of God.” Their theme was to be the life to which the whole apostolic preaching referred (hence, “this life”), the life that is given by him who is himself the resurrection and the life (cf. 3:15; 4:12; John 11:25). Ehrhardt connects this instruction with Jesus’ lament over Jerusalem (Luke 13:34) and suggests that here, for the last time, Jesus is heard (through the apostles) making his appeal to its people (p. 26).
The story of the apostles’ release has received a variety of explanations. Some say that it was due to a natural phenomenon, such as an earthquake or lightning, others, that someone well-disposed toward the believers let them out—the jailer perhaps, or someone else with the jailer’s connivance. The Greek word translated angel can mean simply “a messenger” (cf. Luke 7:24; 9:52; James 2:25) and so could mean here a human agent, though in biblical Greek the word is used more often of a divine agent—an “angel” in the generally accepted sense of the word. But even supposing that this is the sense in which Luke used the word, it is still argued that the “angel” was in fact human, either mistaken for an angel by the apostles in the excitement of the night or transformed into one in the telling or retelling of the story in subsequent years. Dunn is among those who allow “the hand of legend a role in shaping the miracles of liberation” (5:19–24; 12:6–11; 16:26; 28:3–6). “The stories,” he says, “were probably in a developed state when they reached Luke, having gained somewhat in the telling” (Jesus, p. 166). Along similar lines, Bruce points out that “in classical literature we can trace a special ‘form’ in which it had become customary to describe unaccountable escapes from prison, and elements of this ‘form’ have been detected here,” though he hastens to add that “‘form criticism’ of this kind tells us little about the real facts of the matter which is being narrated” (Book, pp. 119f.; see also J. Jeremias, “thyra,” TDNT, vol. 3, pp. 175f.). Certainly, for Luke, an “angel” meant more than simply a synonym for the unknown. Angels are often linked in his writing with prayer, but even apart from that, they represent the presence of God, often the response of God to the needs of his people (see disc. on 1:10f.; 12:6ff.). Thus, although Luke may not have known exactly how their escape was achieved, he was at least certain that God’s sovereign power lay behind it and that “the course of the gospel cannot be hindered by prisons or bonds, since God’s arm is strong enough to burst the locks of prison doors” (J. Jeremias, TDNT, vol. 3, p. 176). More than this we cannot say, except to add that the objection to any theory of divine intervention on the grounds that nothing was achieved by it is entirely unwarranted. To the apostles it must have brought great encouragement at a time when they needed it most. And had the Sadducees eyes to see it, it might also have shown them how useless it was to try to stem the tide of the new movement. Strange to say, when later they had the opportunity, they appear never to have questioned the apostles’ means of escape. One wonders whether they feared to have further evidence of the supernatural made public (cf. Matt. 28:11–15). But of course Luke does not give all the details, and questions may have been asked.
5:21 Obedient to the angelic command, the apostles were in the temple at dawn, preaching to those who had come for the morning sacrifice (see disc. on 3:1). Meanwhile, ignorant of their escape, the council had assembled. This was now the full Sanhedrin; it seems to have been a smaller group that interrogated Peter and John earlier (4:5ff.). On that occasion it seems to have been largely a Sadducean attempt to silence the preachers, but now the Pharisees could bring their minds to the matter.
5:22–26 Officials were sent—apparently some of the temple police—to bring the prisoners into the council (for the location of the council chamber, see disc. on 4:5), but to the astonishment of all, the police reported that the prisoners could not be found. No sign of their escape had been uncovered (doors locked, etc.), and the prison guards were seemingly unaware of what had happened. Those council members most nearly affected by the news are mentioned specifically: the captain of the temple guard (v. 24), whose responsibility it was to keep the prisoners safely in custody (see disc. on 4:1), and the chief priests (4:24), that is, the Sadducees, at whose instigation the apostles had been arrested (v. 17). They were at a loss either to account for their disappearance or to know what to do next (see disc. on 2:12). In this state of utter bewilderment, they received the news that their erstwhile prisoners were back in the temple courts teaching the people (v. 25). The chief officer now went with his men; the apostles were again taken into custody and brought at last to the council, but without harassment, for the guards were afraid of the crowd. For their part, the apostles offered no resistance. The lesson of Matthew 5:38ff. had been learned (cf. Luke 22:50f.). That the people were quite capable of becoming violent and hurling stones at anyone who met with their displeasure is well attested, and the guards were wise to tread cautiously (cf. 21:27ff.; John 8:59; 10:31; see also disc. on Acts 7:58).
5:27–28 The setting in the Sanhedrin was as before, only now there were twelve where before two prisoners had stood (see disc. on 4:7). The high priest, as president of the council (see disc. on 4:5), opened the proceedings by going straight to the heart of the matter. Contrary to their instructions, he said, the apostles had taught in this name (lit., “upon his name,” see disc. on 4:18). As Luke reports it, it would seem that the high priest could not bring himself to speak the name of Jesus but instead referred to him indirectly and contemptuously as this man. The instructions to which he alluded had, of course, been given only to Peter and John, but were clearly intended for all and were assumed to have been made known to all. The result of their disobedience, he said, was that the city was full of their teaching and that the blame for Jesus’ death was likely to be laid at the Sanhedrin’s door. Indeed, the high priest accused the apostles of having this as their objective. Now it was true that the apostles were quite prepared to lay blame where blame was due, but this was always merely incidental to their preaching. Far from being concerned with apportioning blame for this one sin, their great objective was to preach the forgiveness of all sins. But obviously the council was very sensitive on this point, as they had good reason to be (see Matt. 27:25).
5:29 All the apostles spoke in defense of their action, but beyond noting that Luke makes no attempt, even if he could, to reproduce what they said. Instead, Peter is again the focus of attention (see note on 3:1). Even then, we probably only have an outline of his defense. The speech as we have it has exactly the same import as the statement of 4:19 but, if anything, is more decisive in tone, as was only to be expected in view of recent events (vv. 19, 20). There was no denying that they had disobeyed the Sanhedrin’s instructions, but they had had no alternative but to obey God—a priority that all Christians are bound to accept (cf. Luke 12:8ff.; 14:25–33).
5:30 In speaking of the God of our fathers, Peter was using a phrase that immediately pointed to the great acts of God in the past. To these, God had now added this, that he had “raised up Jesus.” There is nothing in the Greek text that corresponds to NIV’s from the dead, so that it is at least possible, perhaps probable, that this is not a reference to the resurrection but to the raising up of Jesus as the Messiah, as God had raised up other deliverers throughout the history of Israel (cf. Judg. 2:18; 3:9, 15; etc.). This sense certainly gives a better sequence to this verse and the next. First, God gave them a messiah, then they killed him, then God raised him (a different word) from the dead to the place of dignity and power that was now his (v. 31). These verses express the familiar contrast between the human rejection of Jesus and his divine vindication (cf. 2:23f.; 3:14f.; 4:10), here rendered the more striking by the reference to Jesus’ being hanged on a tree. The expression is characteristically (though not exclusively) Petrine (cf. 10:39; 1 Pet. 2:24; but see Acts 13:29) and is perhaps deliberately aimed at associating the crucifixion with the curse of Deuteronomy 21:22f. (which, however, spoke of the hanging of an already dead body on a tree; cf. Josh. 10:26; see note on 9:4 for Paul’s use of Deut. 21:22f.). The effect of this would have been to highlight the guilt of those who had subjected Jesus to such a death and at the same time to set the act in sharper contrast with the action of God in glorifying his Servant. To this contrast Luke has made his own contribution by choosing a verb that pictures the leaders’ part as though they had done him to death with their own hands. On the construction “whom you had killed,” see note on 4:10.
5:31 But God had raised the crucified Jesus to his own right side, or better, “by means of his right hand” (see disc. on 2:33), as Prince (translated “Author” in 3:15; see note on 11:20) and Savior of humanity. The verb can mean both “to raise,” in the literal sense, and “to exalt.” In that latter sense, it is used in the LXX of the exaltation of the Servant of God in Isaiah 52:13, and almost certainly Luke (whose language this is), but perhaps Peter also, intended to make this allusion. The title Savior occurs here for the first time in Acts and again only at 13:23. It is little used in the Gospels (Luke 2:11; John 4:42) and, for the most part, belongs to the later books of the New Testament. But this is perhaps more accidental than significant. Jesus himself was fully aware of his saving mission (Luke 19:10), as were the apostles (cf. 2:21; 4:9, 12), so that though the title itself may not have been widely used, what it signified lay at the very heart of the faith from the outset. Its use here may owe something to the Moses/Christ typology of the early church, this reference being virtually equivalent to the manner in which Moses is described in 7:35.
As Savior, Jesus had come to give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. Peter’s statement does not necessarily exclude other peoples, but again, it would appear that he had not yet grasped the universal implications of the gospel (see disc. on 2:39 and 3:26). But even without that wider vision these were bold words to address to the Sanhedrin. The Jews had a saying that God keeps salvation in his own power (b. Sanhedrin 113a), and here was Peter ascribing salvation to Jesus. How precisely Jesus was able to save or the people to receive his salvation is not explained. Peter may have said more than Luke tells us, or he may have left such questions unanswered, contenting himself simply with this bald statement of his belief (cf. 4:12).
5:32 He ended by adding that the apostles were witnesses of these things, that is, to the facts on which this faith rested—the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus (cf. 1:3, 9). But there was another witness also, the Holy Spirit. This reference can be understood in two senses. First, the very fact that the Holy Spirit had been given at Pentecost was evidence that the day of salvation had come (see notes on 2:17ff.). But now the Holy Spirit himself bore witness with the apostles that this was indeed the day of salvation. With this, we may compare the words of Jesus in John 15:26f., where the same twofold witness is mentioned, with the further thought that the Spirit brings this witness home to the people’s hearts, convincing them that the apostolic testimony is true (cf. 15:28; Rom. 8:16). Notice, too, the connection in the verse before us between obedience and the gift of the Spirit, which would “seem to be in substantial conceptual agreement with John 14:15–16, which teaches that if a man keeps Christ’s commandments, the Father will give him ‘another Counselor’ who will remain with him forever” (F. L. Cribbs, Perspectives, p. 50; cf. v. 29, and see notes on 2:4).
5:33 Peter’s rejoinder did nothing to appease the council. Already sensitive to blame for their part in Jesus’ death and suspecting that the apostles were deliberately attempting to bring them into public disrepute, they heard this blunt accusation (v. 30) only as confirmation of their suspicions, and it inflamed them all the more against the apostles. Luke graphically describes them as “being sawn asunder (in heart).” Their immediate reaction was to pass sentence of death upon the apostles, perhaps on the pretext of blasphemy, but really on no better grounds than that they had dared to defy the Sanhedrin by teaching a doctrine to which it (or some of its members at least) took great exception.
5:34–35 However, wiser counsel prevailed. The Sanhedrin was restrained by one of its number, a Pharisee named Gamaliel (cf. 22:3). Asking that the apostles be removed from the chamber, he urged his colleagues to be careful in what they did with these men, for God might be with them (cf. v. 39). It may seem strange that a Pharisee, a member of the sect that had many times been at loggerheads with Jesus (e.g., Luke 5:21, 30; 7:30; 11:53; 15:2; 16:14; see also Luke 11:39–52; 12:1; 16:15; 18:9–14), should now come to the defense of Jesus’ followers. There is ample evidence, however, that it had not been all antipathy between Jesus and the Pharisees (cf. Luke 7:36; 11:37; 14:1; John 3:1ff.; 7:50; 19:39), and in any case, the issue was now very different from the one that had divided them. Then, it had been a question of due regard for the law. The Pharisees had a clear understanding of how the law should be kept, and when they saw that Jesus did not conform to their view, some went so far as to speak of contriving his death (Mark 3:6, though in the end it was the Sadducees rather than the Pharisees who were chiefly responsible; see disc. on 4:1f.). In this regard, nothing had changed. The Pharisees were as quick to condemn Stephen as they had been to condemn Jesus when the law was at stake (see disc. on 6:12–14; 8:1). But for all that, Christians and Pharisees had much in common, not least their belief in the general resurrection of the dead, though few Pharisees accepted the grounds on which the Christian belief rested (see disc. on 4:2; cf. 15:5; 23:6ff.; 26:4ff.). And it was this issue that now brought Gamaliel to their defense. The Sadducees repudiated the doctrine, and the Pharisees were glad of any excuse to take cause against them (cf. 23:6–9). Because they were a political force to be reckoned with, when a Pharisee spoke in the council, the Sadducees were bound to take notice.
5:36–39 Gamaliel argued, on the one hand, that if it were no more than a human movement, it would soon disappear (v. 38, Gk. “be overthrown,” as of a rebellion) with the loss of its leader, as other movements had. In the recent past, he reminded them, there had been Theudas (v. 36) and Judas the Galilean (v. 37), each of whom had been killed and their followers scattered. On the other hand, if the Christian movement had its origin in God, how could they hope to withstand it? Such advice was typically Pharisaic in both temper and content. It picked up the leading point in their theology, namely, that God rules the world by a wise providence that is over all. Everything, they said, was in God’s hand except the fear of God, by which they meant that God is sovereign and the human part is simply to obey and to leave the issue with him. The Sadducees, in contrast with this, held a doctrine of human self-determination. Nevertheless, for the reason mentioned earlier (see on vv. 34–35), the council followed Gamaliel’s advice (v. 38f.).
5:40 The apostles were recalled and sentenced to be whipped. The charge of blasphemy (if indeed that had been the charge) was apparently dropped, leaving only the lesser charge of disobedience. It was within the competence of the Sanhedrin, and also of the lower synagogal courts, both to sentence and to carry out punishment without deference to the Roman authorities in any case other than a capital offense (cf. 22:19; Mark 13:9; 2 Cor. 11:24). The maximum penalty prescribed by the law for a minor offense was forty blows (Deut. 25:2f.), though in practice this was reduced to thirty-nine for fear of exceeding the number. The punishment was generally carried out with a three-thonged scourge, and in some cases in which the maximum penalty was applied the victims are known to have died from its effects (b. Makkoth 3.14; cf. also b. Sanhedrin 9.5). Thus, though a “minor” penalty, it was a severe one and in this case we may suppose that the apostles felt the full severity of the law. They were then ordered (with as much effect as before, cf. v. 42) not to speak in the name of Jesus (“upon the name …”; see disc. on 4:18) and so were released.
5:41 If one prophecy of their Lord had been fulfilled in all this (John 16:2), another was fulfilled in its sequel (Matt. 5:11f.). Despite the scourging, the apostles left the council rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name (cf. 21:13). Luke’s description provides us with a striking oxymoron—“worthy to suffer disgrace”—though the event itself was to become a commonplace in the church (cf. 16:23ff.; Rom. 5:3f.; 2 Cor. 6:8–10; Phil. 1:29; 1 Pet. 1:6; 4:12–16). What they endured brings to mind Paul’s remark in 2 Corinthians 4:17: “For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all.”
5:42 The narrative is brought to a close with another sketch of church life (see disc. on 2:42–47). They—chiefly the apostles, but possibly others also—never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news, both in public (in the temple) and in private, in their believers’ meetings in the house churches (see note on 14:27). Their message was essentially this: “The Messiah has come in the person of Jesus.” This must have rankled with the Sadducees especially, since this claim for Jesus was always based on the fact of his resurrection, but there was little they could do about it while the Christians remained popular and the Pharisees unwilling to take the Sadducees’ side against them (see disc. on 6:12ff.).
Additional Notes
5:21 They called together the Sanhedrin—the full assembly of the elders of Israel: lit., they called together “the council and all the senate of the children of Israel.” But was the senate, as some have suggested, a body other than the Sanhedrin—perhaps men of age and experience, who were asked to join the council as assessors or who constituted some other assembly, larger perhaps than the Sanhedrin and only summoned on special occasions? The term is found nowhere else in the New Testament, but in the LXX is used in several places of the Sanhedrin itself (1 Macc. 12:6; 2 Macc. 1:10; 4:44; 11:27), and for that reason and because in vv. 27 and 34 “Sanhedrin” is used alone, it is probably best to regard the “and” in the literal translation of this verse simply as explanatory of the whole phrase and intended to emphasize that this was a full meeting of the council.
5:31 Savior: It is sometimes suggested that this title came into use only after the church entered a Hellenistic environment. Here there were many “saviors” already, not least the Roman emperor himself. But no Christian could affirm “Caesar is Savior.” What would have been more natural, then, than for them to transfer his title to Jesus, who was, after all, “another king” to believers (17:7)? The idea, however, is not peculiarly Hellenistic, and the soil from which the Christian use sprang is much more likely to have been the Old Testament, though the prevailing atmosphere of Caesar worship may well have hastened its growth. In the Old Testament, God is Savior, and when the salvation of which he is the author was found to be in Christ, the title Savior was easily given to him.
5:34 A Pharisee named Gamaliel: the son of Simon and perhaps the grandson of Hillel (according to a late and doubtful tradition) and certainly the father of the first Jewish patriarch after the fall of Jerusalem, whom we call Gamaliel II. He represented the liberal wing of his party, the school of Hillel, as opposed to that of Shammai. The influence Gamaliel was able to exert on the Sanhedrin is readily explainable. We have already observed that the Pharisees, though a minority in the council, had the political power to impose their will on the majority (see disc. on 4:5). Besides this, Gamaliel was himself highly respected. He was the first to whom the title Rabban (“our teacher”) was given, a title higher than Rab (“teacher”) or Rabbi (“my teacher”). Later, it was said of him, “Since Rabban Gamaliel died there has been no more reverence for the Law, and purity and abstinence died out at the same time” (m. Sota 9.15).
5:36–37 Theudas appeared … After him, Judas the Galilean appeared: Gamaliel is represented as citing two cases in which revolutionary movements came to nothing. The first was under a certain Theudas. Josephus also mentions a Theudas who gave himself out to be a prophet and gathered around him “a great part of the people.” This uprising was put down by the procurator Crispius Fadus. Some of Theudas’ followers were killed, others were captured. He himself was beheaded (Antiquities 20.97–99). But a serious chronological discrepancy must be faced if the Theudas of Josephus is the Theudas of Luke. The latter is said to have arisen before the time of the census, i.e., before about A.D. 6–7, whereas Josephus places him in the reign of Claudius, about A.D. 44–45. But are they the same? Because Josephus goes on to speak of Judas, there are many who say that they are and that Luke has drawn his information from Josephus, making an error in so doing by failing to notice that the Jewish historian’s reference to Judas is parenthetical and that Judas had, in fact, preceded Theudas. But comparing the two accounts there is little to suggest that Luke made use of Josephus and much that points to an earlier date for Luke than would be possible if he had borrowed from the other (the Antiquities appeared about A.D. 94). However, Josephus may provide us with a solution. In describing the events that preceded the rebellion of Judas he remarks: “At this time [i.e., in the days when Varus was governor of Syria] there were ten thousand other disorders in Judea, which were like tumults” (Antiquities 17.269–270). Of these innumerable disturbances, he gives an account of no more than four, though in the same chapter he adds: “Judea was full of robberies, and whenever the several companies of the rebels could light upon anyone to head them, he was created a king immediately.” Now amid so many outbreaks, spoken of but not described, it is not difficult to suppose that one may have been led by another Theudas. The name, contracted from Theodorus or Theodotus (“God’s gift”), was not uncommon and was one that would appeal to Jews as the Greek equivalent of a number of Hebrew names. On this basis, Luke’s Theudas has been identified with Matthias (“a gift”), son of Margalothus, an insurgent at the time of Herod the Great who features prominently in Josephus’ narrative (Antiquities 18.147–150). This identification, of course, cannot be proved.
If Luke’s accuracy has been called into question over Theudas, it is remarkably confirmed by his reference to Judas. For Gamaliel speaks of his insurrection as coming to nothing—as he could only have done at this time (say about A.D. 34–35), but not some ten years later, when the followers of Judas again gathered to form what Josephus calls the “fourth philosophy of the Jews” (War 2.117–118; Antiquities 18.1–10). They were later known as the Zealots (see BC, vol. 1, pp. 421ff.). Luke alone (reporting Gamaliel) mentions that Judas was put to death. The census to which Luke refers in connection with Judas was taken in A.D. 6–7 after Archelaus had been deposed and Judea brought under direct Roman rule. The census was related to the introduction of a tax, and it was against this tax that Judas had rebelled (Antiquities 18.1–10).
5:38–39 If their purpose or activity is of human origin … But if it is from God …: Their purpose may refer specifically to the apostles’ intention to defy the Sanhedrin by preaching (v. 19; cf. 4:20) and their … activity to their preaching generally. The change in the Greek from the subjunctive in the first of the two conditional clauses to the indicative in the second may indicate that the second is more likely. But, of course, the language was Luke’s, not Gamaliel’s.
Understanding the Bible Commentary Series by David J. Williams, Baker Publishing Group, 2016
Direct Matches
The English word “angel” refers to nonhuman spirits, usually good. The biblical words usually translated “angel” mean “messenger” and can refer to one sent by God or by human beings. A messenger must be utterly loyal, reliable, and able to act confidentially (Prov. 13:17). The messenger speaks and acts in the name of the sender (Gen. 24).
Messengers sent by God are not always angels. Yahweh’s prophets were his messengers (Hag. 1:13), as were priests (Mal. 2:7).
The word for “blood” in the Bible is used both literally and metaphorically. “Blood” is a significant biblical term for understanding purity boundaries and theological concepts. Blood is a dominant ritual symbol in biblical literature. Blood was used in sacrifices and purification rites, and it was inherently connected to menstruation, animal slaughter, and legal culpability. Among the physical properties of blood are the ability to coagulate, the liquid state of the substance (Rev. 16:34), and the ability to stain (Rev. 19:13). Blood can symbolize moral order in terms of cult, law, and power.
The usage of blood in the OT is predominantly negative. The first direct mention of blood in the biblical text involves a homicide (Gen. 4:10). Henceforward, the shedding of human blood is a main concern (Gen. 9:6). Other concerns pertaining to blood include dietary prohibitions of blood (Lev. 17:10–12), purity issues such as the flow of blood as in menstrual blood (Lev. 15:19–24), and blood as a part of religious rites such as circumcision (Gen. 17:10–11; Exod. 4:24–26).
Leviticus 17:11 contains a central statement in the OT concerning the significant role of blood in the sacrificial system: “The life of a creature is in the blood.” Blood was collected from all animal sacrifices, and blood was poured onto the altar (Lev. 1:5).
The covenant with Abraham was sealed with a covenantal ritual (Gen. 15:10–21). Moses sealed the covenant between the Israelites and God with a blood ritual during which young Israelite men offered young bulls among other sacrifices as fellowship offerings (Exod. 24:5). Moses read the words of the Book of the Covenant and sprinkled the blood of the bulls on the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words” (Exod. 24:7–8).
During the Passover observance at the time of the exodus, blood was placed on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the Hebrews (Exod. 12:7). Not only altars were sprinkled and thus consecrated with blood, but priests were as well. Aaron and his sons were consecrated by the application of blood to their right earlobe, thumb, and big toe, and the sprinkling of blood and oil on their garments (Exod. 29:20). On the Day of Atonement, the high priest entered the holy of holies and sprinkled blood on the mercy seat to seek atonement for the sins of the people (Lev. 16:15).
Many events in the passion of Christ include references to blood. During the Last Supper, Jesus redefined the last Passover cup: “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28). Judas betrayed “innocent blood” (Matt. 27:4), and the money he received for his betrayal was referred to as “blood money” (Matt. 27:6). At Jesus’ trial, Pilate washed his hands and declared, “I am innocent of this man’s blood” (Matt. 27:24).
The apostle Paul wrote that believers are justified by the blood of Christ (Rom. 5:9). This justification or righteous standing with God was effected through Christ’s blood sacrifice (Rom. 3:25–26; 5:8). The writer of Hebrews stressed the instrumental role of blood in bringing about forgiveness (Heb. 9:22). In the picture of the ideal community of Christ, the martyrs in the book of Revelation are situated closest to the throne of God because “they triumphed over him [Satan] by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death” (Rev. 12:11). The blood of the Lamb, Christ, is the effective agent here and throughout the NT, bringing about the indirect contact between sinner and God.
There are several censuses in Scripture, and their concern is not simply to account for the number of people or the number of men available for military service; they also have a literary and theological function.
In the book of Numbers there are two census accounts (actually, military registrations). These are important to the structure and theme of the book. The theme of Numbers has to do with the judgment on the first generation (the object of the census in Num. 1) and the hope for the second generation, which will enter the promised land (the object of the second census).
David conducted a census to measure his military power, but this is condemned by God and regarded as satanic (2Sam. 24:117; 1Chron. 21:1–30). For the Chronicler, any attempt to account for the total number of Israelite men twenty years and older, similar to the census in the book of Numbers, is regarded as challenging God’s promise to make Israel as numerous as the stars (1Chron. 29:23–26).
Ezra and Nehemiah contain census lists of the returnees from exile: under Zerubbabel, 42,360 men returned (Ezra 2:1–66; Neh. 7:4–73), and under Ezra, 1,496 men (Ezra 8:1–14).
In the NT, Jesus participates in the universal census that encompasses not only Israel but other nations as well—a census of the entire Roman world (Luke 2:1–7). The census motif reaches its fulfillment when a great multitude from every nation, tribe, people, and language will stand before the throne and in front of the Lamb, symbolized by the 144,000 from the twelve tribes of Israel, 12,000 from each tribe (Rev. 7:4–10).
The founder of what became known as the movement of Jesus followers or Christianity. For Christian believers, Jesus Christ embodies the personal and supernatural intervention of God in human history.
Birth and childhood. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke record Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem during the reign of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1; Luke 2:4, 11). Jesus was probably born between 6 and 4 BC, shortly before Herod’s death (Matt. 2:19). Both Matthew and Luke record the miracle of a virginal conception made possible by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:35). Luke mentions a census under the Syrian governor Quirinius that was responsible for Jesus’ birth taking place in Bethlehem (2:15). Both the census and the governorship at the time of the birth of Jesus have been questioned by scholars. Unfortunately, there is not enough extrabiblical evidence to either confirm or disprove these events, so their veracity must be determined on the basis of one’s view regarding the general reliability of the Gospel tradition.
On the eighth day after his birth, Jesus was circumcised, in keeping with the Jewish law, at which time he officially was named “Jesus” (Luke 2:21). He spent his growing years in Nazareth, in the home of his parents, Joseph and Mary (2:40). Of the NT Gospels, the Gospel of Luke contains the only brief portrayal of Jesus’ growth in strength, wisdom, and favor with God and people (2:40, 52). Luke also contains the only account of Jesus as a young boy (2:41–49).
Baptism, temptation, and start of ministry. After Jesus was baptized by the prophet John the Baptist (Luke 3:21–22), God affirmed his pleasure with him by referring to him as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Jesus’ baptism did not launch him into fame and instant ministry success; instead, Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, where he was tempted for forty days (Matt. 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13). Mark stresses that the temptations immediately followed the baptism. Matthew and Luke identify three specific temptations by the devil, though their order for the last two is reversed. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was tempted to turn stones into bread, expect divine intervention after jumping off the temple portico, and receive all the world’s kingdoms for worshiping the devil. Jesus resisted all temptation, quoting Scripture in response.
Matthew and Mark record that Jesus began his ministry in Capernaum in Galilee, after the arrest of John the Baptist (Matt. 4:12–13; Mark 1:14). Luke says that Jesus started his ministry at about thirty years of age (3:23). This may be meant to indicate full maturity or perhaps correlate this age with the onset of the service of the Levites in the temple (cf. Num. 4:3). John narrates the beginning of Jesus’ ministry by focusing on the calling of the disciples and the sign performed at a wedding at Cana (1:35–2:11).
Galilean ministry. The early stages of Jesus’ ministry centered in and around Galilee. Jesus presented the good news and proclaimed that the kingdom of God was near. Matthew focuses on the fulfillment of prophecy (Matt. 4:13–17). Luke records Jesus’ first teaching in his hometown, Nazareth, as paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–30); the text that Jesus quoted, Isa. 61:1–2, set the stage for his calling to serve and revealed a trajectory of rejection and suffering.
All the Gospels record Jesus’ gathering of disciples early in his Galilean ministry (Matt. 4:18–22; Mark 1:16–20; Luke 5:1–11; John 1:35–51). The formal call and commissioning of the Twelve who would become Jesus’ closest followers is recorded in different parts of the Gospels (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16). A key event in the early ministry is the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Matt. 5:1–7:29; Luke 6:20–49). John focuses on Jesus’ signs and miracles, in particular in the early parts of his ministry, whereas the Synoptics focus on healings and exorcisms.
During Jesus’ Galilean ministry, onlookers struggled with his identity. However, evil spirits knew him to be of supreme authority (Mark 3:11). Jesus was criticized by outsiders and by his own family (3:21). The scribes from Jerusalem identified him as a partner of Beelzebul (3:22). Amid these situations of social conflict, Jesus told parables that couched his ministry in the context of a growing kingdom of God. This kingdom would miraculously spring from humble beginnings (4:1–32).
The Synoptics present Jesus’ early Galilean ministry as successful. No challenge or ministry need superseded Jesus’ authority or ability: he calmed a storm (Mark 4:35–39), exorcized many demons (5:1–13), raised the dead (5:35–42), fed five thousand (6:30–44), and walked on water (6:48–49).
In the later part of his ministry in Galilee, Jesus often withdrew and traveled to the north and the east. The Gospel narratives are not written with a focus on chronology. However, only brief returns to Galilee appear to have taken place prior to Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. As people followed Jesus, faith was praised and fear resolved. Jerusalem’s religious leaders traveled to Galilee, where they leveled accusations and charged Jesus’ disciples with lacking ritual purity (Mark 7:1–5). Jesus shamed the Pharisees by pointing out their dishonorable treatment of parents (7:11–13). The Pharisees challenged his legitimacy by demanding a sign (8:11). Jesus refused them signs but agreed with Peter, who confessed, “You are the Messiah” (8:29). Jesus did provide the disciples a sign: his transfiguration (9:2–8).
Jesus withdrew from Galilee to Tyre and Sidon, where a Syrophoenician woman requested healing for her daughter. Jesus replied, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). Galileans had long resented the Syrian provincial leadership partiality that allotted governmental funds in ways that made the Jews receive mere “crumbs.” Consequently, when the woman replied, “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table,” Jesus applauded her faith (Matt. 15:27–28). Healing a deaf-mute man in the Decapolis provided another example of Jesus’ ministry in Gentile territory (Mark 7:31–37). Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ took place during Jesus’ travel to Caesarea Philippi, a well-known Gentile territory. The city was the ancient center of worship of the Hellenistic god Pan.
Judean ministry. Luke records a geographic turning point in Jesus’ ministry as he resolutely set out for Jerusalem, a direction that eventually led to his death (Luke 9:51). Luke divides the journey to Jerusalem into three phases (9:51–13:21; 13:22–17:10; 17:11–19:27). The opening verses of phase one emphasize a prophetic element of the journey. Jesus viewed his ministry in Jerusalem as his mission, and the demands on discipleship intensified as Jesus approached Jerusalem (Matt. 20:17–19, 26–28; Mark 10:38–39, 43–45; Luke 14:25–35). Luke presents the second phase of the journey toward Jerusalem with a focus on conversations regarding salvation and judgment (Luke 13:22–30). In the third and final phase of the journey, the advent of the kingdom and the final judgment are the main themes (17:20–37; 19:11–27).
Social conflicts with religious leaders increased throughout Jesus’ ministry. These conflicts led to lively challenge-riposte interactions concerning the Pharisaic schools of Shammai and Hillel (Matt. 19:1–12; Mark 10:1–12). Likewise, socioeconomic feathers were ruffled as Jesus welcomed young children, who had little value in society (Matt. 19:13–15; Mark 10:13–16; Luke 18:15–17).
Passion week, death, and resurrection. Each of the Gospels records Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem with the crowds extending him a royal welcome (Matt. 21:4–9; Mark 11:7–10; Luke 19:35–38; John 12:12–15). Luke describes Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem as a time during which Jesus taught in the temple as Israel’s Messiah (19:45–21:38).
In Jerusalem, Jesus cleansed the temple of profiteering (Mark 11:15–17). Mark describes the religious leaders as fearing Jesus because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching, and so they “began looking for a way to kill him” (11:18). Dismayed, each segment of Jerusalem’s temple leadership inquired about Jesus’ authority (11:27–33). Jesus replied with cunning questions (12:16, 35–36), stories (12:1–12), denunciation (12:38–44), and a prediction of Jerusalem’s own destruction (13:1–31). One of Jesus’ own disciples, Judas Iscariot, provided the temple leaders the opportunity for Jesus’ arrest (14:10–11).
At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted a new Passover, defining a new covenant grounded in his sufferings (Matt. 26:17–18, 26–29; Mark 14:16–25; Luke 22:14–20). He again warned the disciples of his betrayal and arrest (Matt. 26:21–25, 31; Mark 14:27–31; Luke 22:21–23; John 13:21–30), and later he prayed for the disciples (John 17:1–26) and prayed in agony and submissiveness in the garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:36–42; Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–42). His arrest, trial, crucifixion, death, and resurrection followed (Matt. 26:46–28:15; Mark 14:43–16:8; Luke 22:47–24:9; John 18:1–20:18). Jesus finally commissioned his disciples to continue his mission by making disciples of all the nations (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 1:8) and ascended to heaven with the promise that he will one day return (Luke 24:50–53; Acts 1:9–11).
Biblically speaking, to forgive is less about changing feelings (emotions) and more about an actual restoration of a relationship. It is about making a wrong right, a process that usually is both costly and painful. To capture the biblical sense, the English word “pardon” may prove more helpful.
Forgiveness expresses the character of the merciful God, who eagerly pardons sinners who confess their sins, repent of their transgressions, and express this through proper actions. Forgiveness is never a matter of a human right; it is exclusively a gracious expression of God’s loving care. Human need for forgiveness stems from actions arising from their fallen nature. These actions (or nonactions), whether done deliberately or coincidentally, destroy people’s relationship with God and can be restored only by God’s forgiving mercy (Eph. 2:1).
Under the Mosaic covenant, sin placed offenders under God’s wrath among the ungodly. Rescue from this fate could be obtained by God’s forgiveness alone, which was attained through repentance and sacrifice. Although sacrifice was necessary to express true repentance, it is a mistake to consider it a payment that could purchase God’s forgiveness (1Sam. 15:22; Prov. 21:3; Eccles. 5:1; Hos. 6:6). The forgiveness of God remains his free, undeserved gift.
Although the sacrificial system is done away with, or rather completed, through Christ (Heb. 10:12), NT teaching continues to recognize conditions for forgiveness. Since forgiveness restores relationship, the offender remains involved and must desire the restoration (Luke 13:3; 24:47; Acts 2:38). God does not grant his forgiveness without consideration of the offending party.
Jesus expresses this most clearly in the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:1124). The son rebels against his father, squanders his wealth, and violates their relationship. The gracious and loving father remains willing to restore the relationship, but the reunion does not occur until the prodigal replaces rebellion with repentance; then, before he can even utter his sorrow, the eager father welcomes him back to a restored relationship. God remains free to forgive or not forgive, but, because of God’s nature and mercy, sinners can rest assured of God’s relationship-restoring forgiveness when they seek it in repentance. The forgiveness that God grants is full and restores things to an “as before” situation (cf. Ps. 103:12; Jer. 31:34), a point that the older son in the parable (Luke 15:25–32), who exemplifies religious self-righteousness, did not comprehend.
The northern region of Israel. Determining the region’s precise boundaries is difficult, but in Jesus’ time it appears to have encompassed an area of about forty-five miles north to south and twenty-five miles east to west, with the Jordan River and the Sea of Galilee forming the eastern border. Josephus divides the region into Upper and Lower Galilee. Upper Galilee contains elevations of up to about four thousand feet and is composed mostly of rugged mountains, while Lower Galilee reaches a maximum height of about two thousand feet and is characterized by numerous fertile valleys. Lower Galilee was the site of most of Jesus’ ministry.
Galilee appears several times in the OT (e.g., Josh. 20:7; 1Kings 9:11; 1Chron. 6:76). It was part of the land given to the twelve tribes (Josh. 19). Since Galilee was distant from Jerusalem, which played the most prominent part in Jewish history, much of its history is not mentioned in the OT. Many of the references that do occur are military references, such as Joshua’s defeat of the kings at the waters of Merom (Josh. 11:19) and the Assyrian removal of the northern kingdom of Israel (Isa. 9:1). However, its great beauty, particularly of mountains such as Carmel, Hermon, and Lebanon, was the source of numerous images and metaphors in the poetic and prophetic literature (e.g., Ps. 133:3; Isa. 33:9; 35:2; Jer. 46:18).
Galilee figures more prominently in the NT. Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and conducted much of his early ministry there. Luke specifically identifies Galilee as the place where Jesus’ ministry began before spreading to Judea (Luke 23:5; Acts 10:37). Galilee is also portrayed as the place where Jesus will reunite with his disciples following the resurrection (Mark 16:7) and where he gives them the Great Commission (Matt. 28:16–20).
Gamaliel, who is mentioned in Acts 5:34; 22:3, was a member of the Sanhedrin, a Pharisee, and a teacher of the law. He is reputed to have been the grandson of the famous sage and scholar Hillel (according to later tradition). He was a member of the Hillel party of the Pharisees, who were renowned for their more liberal interpretation of Scripture when compared with the more conservative Shammai party. In Acts 5:3440 Gamaliel intervenes at the trial of the apostles before the Sanhedrin with a reasoned speech. Paul acknowledges him as his teacher in Acts 22:3.
The English word “gospel” translates the Greek word euangelion, which is very important in the NT, being used seventy-six times. The word euangelion (eu= “good,” angelion= “announcement”), in its contemporary use in the Hellenistic world, was not the title of a book but rather a declaration of good news. Euangelion was used in the Roman Empire with reference to significant events in the life of the emperor, who was thought of as a savior with divine status. These events included declarations at the time of his birth, his coming of age, and his accession to the throne. The NT usage of the term can also be traced to the OT (e.g., Isa. 40:9; 52:7; 61:1), which looked forward to the coming of the Messiah, who would bring a time of salvation. This good news, which is declared in the NT, is that Jesus has fulfilled God’s promises to Israel, and now the way of salvation is open to all.
Physiologically, the heart is an organ in the body, and in the Bible it is also used in a number of metaphors.
Metaphorically, the heart refers to the mind, the will, the seat of emotions, or even the whole person. It also refers to the center of something or its inner part. These metaphors come from the heart’s importance and location.
Mind. The heart refers to the mind, but not the brain, and in these cases does not involve human physiology. It is a metaphor, and while the neurophysiology of the heart may be interesting in its own right, it has no bearing on this use of language. Deuteronomy 6:5 issues the command to love God with all one’s heart, soul, and strength. When the command is repeated in the Gospels, it occurs in three variations (Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27). Common to all three is the addition of the word “mind.” The Gospel writers want to be sure that the audience hears Jesus adding “mind,” but this addition is based on the fact that the meaning of the Hebrew word for “heart” includes the mind.
The mental activities of the metaphorical heart are abundant. The heart is where a person thinks (Gen. 6:5; Deut. 7:17; 1Chron. 29:18; Rev. 18:7), where a person comprehends and has understanding (1Kings 3:9; Job 17:4; Ps. 49:3; Prov. 14:13; Matt. 13:15). The heart makes plans and has intentions (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Prov. 20:5; 1Chron. 29:18; Jer. 23:20). One believes with the heart (Luke 24:25; Acts 8:37; Rom. 10:9). The heart is the site of wisdom, discernment, and skill (Exod. 35:34; 36:2; 1Kings 3:9; 10:24). The heart is the place of memory (Deut. 4:9; Ps. 119:11). The heart plays the role of conscience (2Sam. 24:10; 1John 3:2021).
It is often worth the effort to substitute “mind” for “heart” when reading the Bible in order to grasp the mental dimension. For example, after telling the Israelites to love God with all their heart, Moses says, “These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts” (Deut. 6:6). Reading it instead as “be on your mind” changes our perspective, and in this case the idiom “on your mind” is clearer and more accurate. The following verses instruct parents to talk to their children throughout the day about God’s words. In order for parents to do this, God’s requirements and deeds need to be constantly on their minds, out of their love for him. Similarly, love for God and loyalty are expressed by meditation on and determination to obey his law (Ps. 119:11, 112). The law is not merely a list of rules; it is also a repository of a worldview in which the Lord is the only God. To live consistently with this truth requires careful, reflective thought.
Emotions and attitude. The heart, as the seat of emotion, is associated with a number of feelings and sentiments, such as gladness (Exod. 4:14; Acts 2:26), hatred (Lev. 19:17), pride (Deut. 8:14), resentment (Deut. 15:10), dread (Deut. 28:67), sympathy (Judg. 5:9), love (Judg. 16:15), sadness (1Sam. 1:8; John 16:6), and jealousy and ambition (James 3:14). The heart is also the frame of reference for attitudes such as willingness, courage, and desire.
A priest is a minister of sacred things who represents God to the people and the people to God. The OT identifies priests of Yahweh and priests of other gods and idols. The only pagan priest that the NT mentions is the priest of Zeus from Lystra who wanted to offer sacrifices to Paul and Barnabas, whom the crowd mistook for deities (Acts 14:13). All other NT references build upon OT teaching about priests of Yahweh.
Early biblical history records clan heads offering sacrifices for their families (Gen. 12:78; 13:18; 22; 31:54; 46:1). Although the patriarchs performed these duties, they are never called “priests”; the only priests mentioned from this time are foreigners such as Melchizedek, the Egyptian priest of On, and Moses’ father-in-law Jethro (Gen. 14:18; 41:45, 50; 46:20; Exod. 3:1; 18:1). Whereas all Israelites could be called “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod. 19:6), a distinctive priesthood came to light when God instructed Moses to prepare special priestly clothes for Aaron and his sons (Exod. 28). The high priest was distinguished from the others by more magnificent clothes. By failing to wear their special clothes while serving at the tabernacle, the priests would incur guilt and die (Exod. 28:43).
In NT times many priests exerted religious and civil power as leaders of the Sadducees and the Essenes. Some priests, such as Zechariah, were portrayed as righteous men (Luke 1:5–6). Others were said to have come to faith in Jesus (Acts 6:7). Supporting the role assigned by Moses, Jesus regularly required those whom he healed to show themselves to the priest. Even so, most Gospel references to priests underscore their opposition to Jesus’ ministry and the role they played in his trial and crucifixion. This opposition continued after the resurrection, as priests challenged the witness of the apostles. When Peter and John proclaimed that a crippled beggar had been healed by Jesus’ power, the priests and others jailed, interrogated, and forbade them from speaking in Jesus’ name (Acts 4:1–20). The Sanhedrin questioned Stephen about charges of blasphemy and speaking against the temple and the Mosaic law (6:11–7:1). Saul (Paul) received a letter of authority from the high priest to arrest Christians (9:1–2). Later, as a follower of Jesus, he stood trial before Ananias, who charged him before Felix (24:1), and a wider group of chief priests who charged him before Festus (25:1–3).
Hebrews uniquely highlights how the priesthood of Jesus surpassed the OT priesthood. The OT priests presented sin offerings, but their sacrifices needed to be repeated regularly, whereas Jesus, the faithful and merciful high priest, offered a sacrifice that never needed repeating and was available to everyone at all times. Jesus also surpassed the Aaronic priests because they first needed to offer sacrifices for their own sins, but he never sinned. Furthermore, since he offered the perfect sacrifice of himself, all people, not just priests, could draw near to God.
The NT develops the idea of a priesthood of all believers by taking the concept that Israel would be a kingdom of priests and transferring it to the church (1Pet. 2:4–9; cf. Exod. 19:6). Reflecting the general biblical view of priesthood, believers offer spiritual sacrifices to God, represent God to the world by revealing his works of salvation, and represent the world to God through prayer. In the NT, the priesthood of believers is corporate; a priestly office in the church is never expressly mentioned.
Holiness is an attribute of God and of all that is fit for association with him. God alone is intrinsically holy (Rev. 15:4). God the Father is holy (John 17:11), as is the Son (Acts 3:14), while “Holy” is the characteristic designation of God’s Spirit (Ps. 51:11; Matt. 1:18). God’s name is holy (Luke 1:49), as are his arm (Ps. 98:1), ways (Ps. 77:13), and words (Ps. 105:42).
With reference to God himself, holiness may indicate something like his uniqueness, and it is associated with attributes such as his glory (Isa. 6:3), righteousness (Isa. 5:16), and jealousy—that is, his proper concern for his reputation (Josh. 24:19).
God’s dwelling place is in heaven (Ps. 20:6), and “holy” functions in some contexts as a virtual equivalent for heavenly (11:4). God’s throne is holy (47:8), and the angels who surround it are “holy ones” (89:5; cf. Mark 8:38).
A corollary of God’s holiness is that he must be treated as holy (Lev. 22:32)—that is, honored (Lev. 10:3), worshiped (Ps. 96:9), and feared (Isa. 8:13).
While “holy” is sometimes said to mean “set apart,” this does not appear to be its core meaning, though it is an associated notion (Lev. 20:26; Heb. 7:26). Holiness, as applied to people and things, is a relational concept. They are (explicitly or implicitly) holy “to the Lord” (Exod. 28:36), never “from” something.
The symbolic representation of God’s heavenly palace, the tabernacle (Exod. 40:9), and later the temple (1Chron. 29:3), and everything associated with them, are holy and the means whereby God’s people in the OT may symbolically be brought near to God. For God to share his presence with anything or anyone else, these too must be holy (Lev. 11:4445; Heb. 12:14).
The OT system of worship involved the distinction between unclean and clean, and between common and holy, and the means of effecting a transition to a state of cleanness or holiness (Lev. 10:10). People, places, and items may be made holy by a process of consecration or sanctification, whether simply by God’s purifying presence (Exod. 3:5) or by ritual acts (Exod. 19:10; 29:36).
God’s faithful people are described as holy (Exod. 19:6; 1Pet. 2:9). In the OT, this is true of the whole people of God at one level, and of particular individuals at another. Thus, kings (Ps. 16:10), prophets (2Kings 4:9), and in particular priests (Lev. 21:7) are declared to be holy. While the OT witnesses to some tension between the collective holiness of Israel and the particular holiness of its designated leaders (Num. 16:3), the latter were intended to act as models and facilitators of Israel’s holiness.
For Christians, God is the creator of the cosmos and the redeemer of humanity. He has revealed himself in historical acts—namely, in creation, in the history of Israel, and especially in the person and work of Jesus Christ. There is only one God (Deut. 6:4); “there is no other” (Isa. 45:5). Because “God is spirit” (John 4:24), he must reveal himself through various images and metaphors.
The OT refers to God by many names. One of the general terms used for God, ’el (which probably means “ultimate supremacy”), often appears in a compound form with a qualifying word, as in ’el ’elyon (“God Most High”), ’el shadday (“God Almighty”), and ’el ro’i (“the God who sees me” or “God of my seeing”). These descriptive names reveal important attributes of God and usually were derived from the personal experiences of the people of God in real-life settings; thus, they do not describe an abstract concept of God.
The most prominent personal name of God is yahweh (YHWH), which is translated as “the Lord” in most English Bibles. At the burning bush in the wilderness of Horeb, God first revealed to Moses his personal name in sentence form: “I am who I am” (Exod. 3:1315). Though debated, the divine name “YHWH” seems to originate from an abbreviated form of this sentence. Yahweh, who was with Moses and his people at the time of exodus, is the God who was with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. According to Jesus’ testimony, “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” is identified as the God “of the living” (Matt. 22:32). Hence, the name “Yahweh” is closely tied to God’s self-revelation as the God of presence and life.
Many of God’s attributes are summarized in Exod. 34:6–7: “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.”
The Christian God of the Bible is the triune God. God is one but exists in three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). The Son is one with the Father (John 10:30); the Holy Spirit is one with God (2Sam. 23:2–3). All three share the same divine nature; they are all-knowing, holy, glorious, and called “Lord” and “God” (Matt. 11:25; John 1:1; 20:28; Acts 3:22; 5:3–4; 10:36; 1Cor. 8:6; 2Cor. 3:17–18; 2Pet. 1:1). All three share in the same work of creation (Gen. 1:1–3), salvation (1Pet. 1:2), indwelling (John 14:23), and directing the church’s mission (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 16:6–10; 14:27; 13:2–4).
The designation “Israelites” signifies the nation of Israel, which can be traced back to the children of Jacob (Gen. 46:8; cf. Exod. 1:9; Num. 1:45). To distinguish themselves from foreigners, Israelites called themselves ’ibrim, “Hebrews” (Gen. 43:32; Exod. 10:3). During the period of the divided kingdom, the name “Israelites” was used to refer to the Ephraimites (2Kings 17:6; 18:11); during the Second Temple period, it took on a religious orientation (Sir. 46:10; 47:2; Jdt. 4:11; 2Macc. 1:2526). In the NT, true Israelites are not necessarily those descended from Israel or Abraham but rather those who trust in Jesus Christ, who is the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham (Rom. 9:4–8; Gal. 4:21–31; cf. Rev. 21:12).
The central city and capital of ancient Israel. Throughout its history, the city has also been referred to variously as Zion, Jebus, Mount Moriah, and the City of David.
The name “Jerusalem” occurs more than 650 times in the OT, particularly in the history of Israel, and in the NT more than 140 times. The OT prophets used the city as a symbol of God’s dealing with his people and his plan. Jerusalem is viewed collectively as God’s abode, his chosen place, and his sovereignty, while its destruction is also representative of God’s judgment on apostasy among his people (e.g., Jer. 7:115; 26:18–19; Mic. 3:12). The rebuilding of the city represents the hope and grace of God (e.g., Isa. 40:1–2; 52:1, 7–8; 60–62; Jer. 30:18–19; 31:38–39; Ezek. 5:5; Hag. 2:6–8; Zech. 8:3–8). Like the writers of the OT, the NT authors spoke of Jerusalem in metaphorical and eschatological terms. Paul used Jerusalem to contrast the old and the new covenants (Gal. 4:24–26), and the writer of Hebrews used it as the place of the new covenant, sealed through the blood of Jesus (Heb. 12:22–24). In Revelation the concept of a new Jerusalem is related to the future kingdom of God (Rev. 3:12; 21:1–22:5).
Jerusalem is located in the Judean hill country, about 2,700 feet above sea level. It borders the Judean desert to the east. The city expanded and contracted in size over various hills and valleys. There are two major ridges (Eastern and Western Hills) separated by the Tyropoeon Valley. The Eastern Hill contains a saddle, the Ophel Hill, and north of this is the traditional site of Mount Moriah, where later the temple was constructed. The Eastern Hill was always occupied, since the only water source is the Gihon spring, located in the Kidron Valley. Two other ridges were important for the city, as they were used for extramural suburbs, cemeteries, and quarries. To the east is the Mount of Olives, which is separated from the Eastern Hill by the Kidron Valley. To the west of the Western Hill is the Central Ridge Route, separated by the Hinnom Valley.
(1)One of the apostles identified as “Judas son of James” (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13) and “Judas (not Judas Iscariot)” (John 14:22), probably the same person as Thaddaeus (Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18). (2)A leading Jerusalem believer and prophet, “Judas called Barsabbas” (i.e., “son of the Sabbath” or “son of Sabbas”; possibly a relative of “Joseph called Barsabbas” in Acts 1:23). Along with Silas, he was sent with Paul and Bar-nabas to add verbal testimony to the letter to the Gentile Christians from the apostles and elders after the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:22, 27, 32). (3)One of the twelve disciples chosen by Jesus, he betrayed Jesus. See Judas Iscariot.
In general, Torah (Law) may be subdivided into three categories: judicial, ceremonial, and moral, though each of these may influence or overlap with the others. The OT associates the “giving of the Torah” with Moses’ first divine encounter at Mount Sinai (Exod. 1923) following the Israelites’ deliverance from the land of Egypt, though some body of customary legislation existed before this time (Exod. 18). These instructions find expansion and elucidation in other pentateuchal texts, such as Leviticus and Deut. 12–24, indicating that God’s teachings were intended as the code of conduct and worship for Israel not only during its wilderness wanderings but also when it settled in the land of Canaan following the conquest.
More specifically, the word “law” often denotes the Ten Commandments (or “the Decalogue,” lit., the “ten words”) (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4) that were delivered to Moses (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21). These commandments reflect a summary statement of the covenant and may be divided into two parts, consistent with the two tablets of stone on which they were first recorded: the first four address the individual’s relationship to God, and the last six focus on instructions concerning human relationships. Despite the apparent simplistic expression of the Decalogue, the complexity of these guidelines extends beyond individual acts and attitudes, encompassing any and all incentives, enticements, and pressures leading up to a thing forbidden. Not only should the individual refrain from doing the prohibited thing, but also he or she is obligated to practice its opposite good in order to be in compliance.
The English word “messiah” derives from the Hebrew verb mashakh, which means “to anoint.” The Greek counterpart of the Hebrew word for “messiah” (mashiakh) is christos, which in English is “Christ.”
In English translations of the Bible, the word “messiah” (“anointed one”) occurs rarely in the OT. In the OT, kings, prophets, and priests were “anointed” with oil as a means of consecrating or setting them apart for their respective offices. Prophets and priests anointed Israel’s kings (1Sam. 16:1 13; 2Sam. 2:4, 7).
The expectation for a “messiah,” or “anointed one,” arose from the promise given to David in the Davidic covenant (2Sam. 7). David was promised that from his seed God would raise up a king who would reign forever on his throne. Hopes for such an ideal king began with Solomon and developed further during the decline (cf. Isa. 9:1–7) and especially after the collapse of the Davidic kingdom.
The harsh reality of exile prompted Israel to hope that God would rule in such a manner. A number of psalms reflect the desire that an ideal son of David would come and rule, delivering Israel from its current plight of oppression. Hence, in Ps. 2 God declares that his son (v.7), who is the Lord’s anointed one (v.2), will receive “the nations [as] your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession” (v.8). God promises that “you will rule them with an iron scepter; you will dash them to pieces like pottery” (v.9; see NIV footnote). Jesus demonstrates great reticence in using the title “Messiah.” In the Synoptic Gospels he almost never explicitly claims it. The two key Synoptic passages where Jesus accepts the title are themselves enigmatic. In Mark’s version of Peter’s confession (8:29), Jesus does not explicitly affirm Peter’s claim, “You are the Messiah,” but instead goes on to speak of the suffering of the Son of Man. Later, Jesus is asked by the high priest Caiaphas at his trial, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” (Mark 14:60). In Mark 14:62, Jesus answers explicitly with “I am,” while in Matt. 26:64, he uses the more enigmatic “You have said so.” Jesus then goes on to describe himself as the exalted Son of Man who will sit at Yahweh’s right hand.
Jesus no doubt avoided the title because it risked communicating an inadequate understanding of the kingdom and his messianic role. Although the Messiah was never a purely political figure in Judaism, he was widely expected to destroy Israel’s enemies and secure its physical borders. Psalms of Solomon portrays the coming “son of David” as one who will “destroy the unrighteous rulers” and “purge Jerusalem from Gentiles who trample her to destruction” (Pss. Sol. 17.21–23). To distance himself from such thinking, Jesus never refers to himself as “son of David” and “king of Israel/the Jews” as other characters do in the Gospels (Matt. 12:23; 21:9, 15; Mark 10:47; 15:2; John 1:49; 12:13; 18:33). When Jesus was confronted by a group of Jews who wanted to make him into such a king, he resisted them (John 6:15).
In Mark 12:35–37, Jesus also redefines traditional understandings of the son of David in his short discussion on Ps. 110:1: he is something more than a mere human son of David. Combining Jesus’ implicit affirmation that he is the Messiah in Mark 8:30 with his teaching about the Son of Man in 8:31, we see that Jesus is a Messiah who will “suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the teachers of the law” (8:31) and through whom redemption will come (10:45). Jesus came not to defeat the Roman legions, but to bring victory over Satan, sin, and death.
Simon Peter is the best-known and the most colorful of Jesus’ twelve disciples. The name “Peter” means “rock” in Greek. In some biblical texts, he is also called “Cephas,” which is the Aramaic word for “rock” (see esp. John 1:42). Despite the ups and downs of Peter’s spiritual life, God was able to use him as the foundational apostle for the establishment of the NT church.
In comparing modern society to that of biblical times, it is important to acknowledge what is distinctive about prisons in many modern societies. Prisons serve multiple functions, including imposing incarceration as punishment for crimes committed, segregating dangerous criminals from the larger population, deterring crime by imposing a negative incentive, and rehabilitating offenders so that they can eventually return to society. In many cases where modern law imposes incarceration as the penalty for crime, ancient and biblical law imposed economic penalties (such as fines), corporal punishment (beatings), and capital punishment (death). In addition, many of the biblical references to prisons and prisoners involve what in modern society would be considered political rather than criminal incarceration.
The story of Joseph prominently features an Egyptian prison. Joseph was falsely put in prison for the crime of molesting his master’s wife (Gen. 39:1920), while his companions were imprisoned for the otherwise unspecified crime of causing offense to the king (40:1). As this story illustrates, the sentences were not of a predetermined duration, and release depended on the goodwill of the king (Gen. 40:13), a situation in which Paul also found himself hundreds of years later during Roman times (Acts 24:27). When Joseph imprisoned his brothers, it was on a presumption of guilt for the crime of espionage (Gen. 42:16). In Roman times, in contrast, certain prisoners had a right to be put on trial eventually, if not quickly (Acts 25:27; see also 16:37). Imprisonment could also be imposed for failure to pay a debt (Matt. 18:30). Joseph kept Simeon in prison as a guarantee that his brothers would fulfill a prior agreement (Gen. 42:19, 24). In addition to specialized dungeons, prisoners could also be confined in houses (Jer. 37:15; Acts 28:16) and pits (Zech. 9:11).
In both Testaments, release from prison is a symbol of God’s salvation. The theme is prominent in the psalms, as in Ps. 146:7: “The Lord sets prisoners free” (see also Pss. 68:6; 107:10; 142:7). In Acts 12:7 Peter is freed from prison by a divinely sent messenger. Paul wrote a number of letters from prison and identified himself as a prisoner of Christ (Eph. 3:1; Col. 4:10; 2Tim. 1:8; Philem. 1). Some texts refer in mythological terms to a prison that confines spirits or Satan (1Pet. 3:19; Rev. 20:7).
A word used in the KJV to describe the removal of the guilt or penalty of sin acquired through belief in Christ (Acts 10:43) and effected through his shed blood (Matt. 26:28; Heb. 9:22), bringing about salvation (Luke 1:77).
The act of repudiating sin and returning to God. Implicit in this is sorrow over the evil that one has committed and a complete turnabout in one’s spiritual direction: turning from idols—anything that wrests away the affection that we owe God—to God (1Sam. 7:3; 2Chron. 7:14; Isa. 55:6; 1Thess. 1:9; James 4:810).
Five of the important parties in ancient Judaism were the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes, the Zealots, and the Herodians. The first three seem to have first emerged in reaction to the rise of the Hasmonean priest-kings in the mid-second and first centuries BC, and the other two in response to the occupation of Palestine by the Romans and their establishment of the Herods as the rulers of Israel.
Pharisees. In the Synoptic Gospels, the Pharisees were one of the groups that opposed Jesus. It seems that the Pharisees most strongly opposed Jesus on issues related to their received tradition, which they considered to be as binding as the OT law. Two such legal issues were ceremonial washings before meals and working on the Sabbath. All three Synoptic Gospels narrate the Pharisees questioning Jesus concerning his and his disciples’ failure to follow the tradition of the elders by eating with “unclean”—that is, “unwashed”—hands (Matt. 15:1 2; Mark 7:1–5; Luke 11:39–41). Concerning breaking the Sabbath, the Pharisees confronted Jesus on various occasions, such as when Jesus healed on the Sabbath (Matt. 12:9–14; Mark 3:1–5; Luke 6:6–11) and when his disciples picked grain while walking through a field (Matt. 12:1–8; Mark 2:23–28; Luke 6:1–5).
In response to accusations concerning breaking the traditions of the elders, Jesus affirmed the priority of mercy in the face of human need that supersedes laws concerning the Sabbath by saying that the Sabbath was made for humans, not humans for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27), or that the Son of Man (Jesus) was Lord of the Sabbath (Matt. 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5). He also said that God desires mercy, not sacrifice (Matt. 12:7).
Jesus’ critique of the Pharisees concentrated on their neglecting mercy toward fellow humans for the sake of their tradition. This is especially clear in Matthew, where Jesus’ critique of the Pharisees includes indictments against them for concentrating on the fine points of the law but neglecting justice and mercy (12:7; 23:23).
In the Gospel of John, the Pharisees are again usually depicted as adversaries of Jesus and also in league with other Jewish authorities in plotting to arrest and kill Jesus (7:32; 11:47–57). One passage suggests that they were divided concerning Jesus (9:16). One Pharisee, Nicodemus, came to Jesus by night (John 3), defended Jesus before his peers (7:50), and brought spices to prepare Jesus’ body for burial after his death (19:39).
The Pharisees were not always antagonistic toward Jesus. From time to time, they were on the same side of an issue, such as Jesus’ confrontation with the Sadducees over the resurrection (Luke 20:27–40). Nicodemus, mentioned above, was quite sympathetic toward Jesus. The apostle Paul identifies himself as a Pharisee in regard to keeping the law in Phil. 3:5; Acts 26:5, and in a confrontation with Jerusalem authorities in Acts 23:6. Also, some early Christians were said to be Pharisees (Acts 15:5).
Sadducees. The Sadducees were an elite group of Jews connected with the priesthood. “Sadducee” probably means “Son of Zadok,” a descendant of the high priest Zadok from the time of David. Some members of the Qumran community used the term “Son of Zadok” as a self-designation as well, suggesting some common ancestry, if not direct identification, of the Sadducees and some members of the Qumran community.
The Sadducees are mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels, but not in John, although the “chief priests” who plotted against Jesus with the Pharisees (e.g., John 11:46) probably were Sadducees. All three Synoptic Gospels relate the narrative in which the Sadducees posed the hypothetical question concerning whose wife a woman would be in the resurrection if she outlived seven husbands. Jesus answered that they understood neither the Scriptures nor the power of God, and that God was the God of the living and not the dead (Matt. 22:23–33; Mark 12:18–27; Luke 20:27–40).
The book of Acts confirms that the Sadducees were closely connected to the priesthood 4:1; 5:17), and that they disputed with the Pharisees over the resurrection (23:6–8).
Essenes. Josephus delineates the beliefs of the Essenes as follows: (1)They ascribed every happening to God. (2)They believed in the immortality of the soul.
Zealots. Scholars tend to use “Zealots” as a general term to refer to three different groups mentioned by Josephus: brigands, Sicarii (Assassins), and Zealots. The three groups have different political ideologies and emerged at different times in the first century. They can all be described as revolutionaries.
Herodians. The Herodians are mentioned three times in the Gospels. They are reported to have plotted, along with the Pharisees, to kill Jesus after he healed a man with a withered hand (Mark 3:6). They are also described, along with the Pharisees, as trying to trap Jesus concerning the lawfulness of paying taxes to Caesar (Matt. 22:16; Mark 12:13).
The Herodians were aristocrats who supported the Herodian dynasty and the Romans, whose support made that dynasty possible. There seems to be some overlap between the Herodians and the Sadducees; Mark 8:15 has Jesus warning his disciples concerning the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod (some ancient witnesses read “Herodians”), whereas the parallel in Matt. 16:6, 11 has Jesus warning his disciples concerning the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Their religious beliefs may have been similar to those of the Sadducees. Too little information about them exists to permit drawing strong conclusions. One can safely say, however, that the Herodians were pro-Roman aristocrats who joined forces with the anti-Roman Pharisees in opposing Jesus.
The Jewish ruling body in Jerusalem that played a part in Jesus’ execution and the persecution of the early church. In the NT the word refers to the council in Jerusalem headed by the high priest that was charged by the Roman authorities with maintaining order among the Jewish people.
In the first century AD, the Sanhedrin functioned as the highest judicial authority of the nation of Israel (which sheds light on Matt. 5:22). The Sanhedrin contained members from the Sadducees and the Pharisees, along with other prominent members of the Jewish establishment. As the highest authority representing the religious establishment of Israel, the Sanhedrin under the high priest Caiaphas played a prominent role in the final conflict that led to Jesus’ crucifixion.
After Jesus was taken from the garden of Gethsemane, the Sanhedrin tried him on a charge of blasphemy using false testimony, and some of the Gospels also have the accusers claim that Jesus promised to destroy the temple and raise it in three days, taking his words as a literal threat against the temple (Matt. 26:5868; Mark 14:53–65; Luke 22:63–71; see also John 18:13–27). The Sanhedrin was unable to carry out a sentence of death that the charge of blasphemy called for, however, and so they were forced to bring Jesus to the Roman authorities to achieve their desired result.
Following the death and resurrection of Jesus, the Sanhedrin attempted to suppress the budding Christian movement by arresting Peter and John and having them beaten for preaching about Jesus (Acts 4:1–21). The Sanhedrin also ordered the apostles “not to speak in the name of Jesus” (5:40). Paul, after being arrested, was brought before the Sanhedrin so that they might determine his crime, and he cleverly used the disagreement between the Sadducees and the Pharisees regarding the resurrection of the dead to disrupt the assembly (23:1–9). They then plotted to kill him (23:12–22).
In the world of the Bible, a person was viewed as a unity of being with the pervading breath and thus imprint of the loving and holy God. The divine-human relationship consequently is portrayed in the Bible as predominantly spiritual in nature. God is spirit, and humankind may communicate with him in the spiritual realm. The ancients believed in an invisible world of spirits that held most, if not all, reasons for natural events and human actions in the visible world.
The OT writers used the common Hebrew word ruakh (“wind” or “breath”) to describe force and even life from the God of the universe. In its most revealing first instance, God’s ruakh hovered above the waters of the uncreated world (Gen. 1:2). In the next chapter of Genesis a companion word, neshamah (“breath”), is used as God breathed into Adam’s nostrils “the breath of life” (2:7). God thus breathed his own image into the first human being. Humankind’s moral obligations in the remainder of the Bible rest on this breathing act of God.
The OT authors often employ ruakh simply to denote air in motion or breath from a person’s mouth. However, special instances of the use of ruakh include references to the very life of a person (Gen. 7:22; Ps. 104:29), an attitude or emotion (Gen. 41:8; Num. 14:24; Ps. 77:3), the negative traits of pride or temper (Ps. 76:12), a generally good disposition (Prov. 11:13; 18:14), the seat of conversion (Ezek. 18:31; 36:26), and determination given by God (2Chron. 36:22; Hag. 1:14).
The NT authors used the Greek term pneuma to convey the concept of spirit. In the world of the NT, the human spirit was understood as the divine part of human reality as distinct from the material realm. The spirit appears conscious and capable of rejoicing (Luke 1:47). Jesus was described by Luke as growing and becoming “strong in spirit” (1:80). In “spirit” Jesus “knew” what certain teachers of the law were thinking in their hearts (Mark 2:8). Likewise, Jesus “was deeply moved in spirit and troubled” at the sickness of a loved one (John 11:33). At the end of his life, Jesus gave up his spirit (John 19:30).
According to Jesus, the spirit is the place of God’s new covenant work of conversion and worship (John 3:5; 4:24). He declared the human spirit’s dependence on God and ascribed great virtue to those people who were “poor in spirit” (Matt. 5:3).
Human beings who were possessed by an evil spirit were devalued in Mediterranean society. In various places in the Synoptic Gospels and the book of Acts, either Jesus or the disciples were involved in exorcisms of such spirits (Matt. 8:2833; Mark 1:21–28; 7:24–30; 9:14–29; 5:1–20; 9:17–29; Luke 8:26–33; 9:37–42; Acts 5:16).
The apostle Paul pointed to the spirit as the seat of conversion (Rom. 7:6; 1Cor. 5:5). He described believers as facing a struggle between flesh and spirit in regard to living a sanctified life (Rom. 8:2–17; Gal. 5:16–17). A contradiction seems apparent in Pauline thinking as he appears to embrace Greek dualistic understanding of body (flesh) and spirit while likewise commanding that “spirit, soul and body be kept blameless” (1Thess. 5:23). However, the Christian struggle between flesh and Spirit (the Holy Spirit) centers around the believer’s body being dead because of sin but the spirit being alive because of the crucified and resurrected Christ (Rom. 8:10). Believers therefore are encouraged to lead a holistic life, lived in the Spirit.
Rocks and stones were found naturally on the ground (Job 8:17; Ps. 91:12; Isa. 5:2; Mark 5:5; Luke 3:8). They could be heaped or piled up as a sign of disgrace (Josh. 7:26; 8:29; 2Sam. 18:17), as a marker or memorial (Gen. 31:4650), or as an altar (Exod. 20:25). A single rock or stone could also be used as a place marker (Gen. 28:22; 35:14, 20; 1Sam. 7:12), especially standing stones (Deut. 27:2–8; Josh. 4:3–9). Large stones could also be used to cover a well (Gen. 29:2–3) or to seal a cave or tomb, such as at the tombs of Lazarus (John 11:38–39) and of Jesus (Matt. 27:60; Mark 16:3–4).
Stone was used as a construction material, particularly for the temple (1Kings 5:15–18; 1Chron. 2:22; Ezra 5:8; Hag. 2:15; Mark 13:1–2). Stone was used in a building’s foundation and for the cornerstone or capstone (1Kings 5:17; Jer. 51:26; Isa. 28:16), as well as for the walls (Hab. 2:11). Psalm 118:22 refers metaphorically to the stone rejected by the builders becoming the cornerstone. In the NT, this is interpreted as referring to Jesus (Matt. 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11; 1Pet. 2:7; cf. Eph. 2:20). Stone could also function as a writing material (Josh. 8:32), such as the tablets on which the Ten Commandments were inscribed (Exod. 24:12; Deut. 9:9–11; 1Kings 8:9; cf. 2Cor. 3:3, 7). Stone was also carved, although at Sinai the Israelites are instructed not to use cut or “dressed” stones when constructing an altar (Exod. 20:25; cf. Josh. 8:31). The phrase “carved stone” refers specifically to idols, since stone was one material used for crafting false gods (Lev. 26:1; cf. Deut. 4:28; 29:17; 2Kings 19:18; Isa. 37:19; Rev. 9:20); the term “stone” itself can therefore be used to refer to an idol, especially in the phrase “wood and stone” (Jer. 3:9; Ezek. 20:32).
Stones were used as a weapon or instrument of destruction, whether thrown by hand (Num. 35:17, 23) or flung with a sling (Judg. 20:16; 1Sam. 17:40, 49–50; Prov. 26:8). The verb “to stone” refers to the throwing of stones at an individual, which typically functioned as an official manner of execution (Exod. 19:13; 21:28–29; Deut. 21:20–21; 1Kings 21:13–15; John 8:5; Acts 7:58–59), although it was at times the action of an angry crowd (Exod. 17:4; 1Kings 12:18; cf. John 8:59).
The phrases “precious stones” and “costly stones” refer to gems (2Sam. 12:30; Esther 1:6; Isa. 54:12; 1Cor. 3:12). Gems were used as a display of wealth or honor (1Kings 10:2, 10–11; 2Chron. 32:27; Ezek. 27:22) and for decoration (1Chron. 3:6; Rev. 17:4; 18:16). The two stones on the high priest’s ephod and the twelve precious stones on his breastpiece represented the twelve tribes (Exod. 25:7; 28:9–12, 17–21), a symbolism echoed in the twelve types of precious stones adorning the foundations of the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:19–20).
Rocks and stones are used often in metaphors or similes (e.g., hard as a rock, still as a stone). They can represent something that is common (1Kings 10:27; Job 5:23; Matt. 3:9; 4:3), strong (Job 6:12), hard (Job 38:30; 41:24), heavy (Exod. 15:5; Prov. 27:3), motionless (Exod. 15:16), or immovable (Zech. 12:3). A “heart of stone” describes coldheartedness (Ezek. 11:19; 36:26). A “stumbling stone,” which is literally a stone that causes one to stumble (Isa. 8:14), is used in the NT as a metaphor for an obstacle to faith in Jesus (Rom. 9:32–33; 1Pet. 2:8).
While in the OT suffering is regularly an indication of divine displeasure (Lev. 26:1636; Deut. 28:20–68; Ps. 44:10–12; Isa. 1:25; cf. Heb. 10:26–31), in the NT it becomes the means by which blessing comes to humanity.
The Bible often shows that sinfulness results in suffering (Gen. 2:17; 6:5–7; Exod. 32:33; 2Sam. 12:13–18; Rom. 1:18; 1Cor. 11:27–30). Job’s friends mistakenly assume that he has suffered because of disobedience (Job 4:7–9; 8:3–4, 20; 11:6). Job passionately defends himself (12:4; 23:10), and in the final chapter of the book God commends Job and condemns his friends for their accusations (42:7–8; cf. 1:1, 22; 2:10). The writer makes clear that suffering is not necessarily evidence of sinfulness. Like Job’s friends, Jesus’ disciples assume that blindness is an indication of sinfulness (John 9:1–2). Jesus rejects this simplistic notion of retributive suffering (John 9:3, 6–7; cf. Luke 13:1–5).
The NT writers reveal that Jesus’ suffering was prophesied in the OT (Mark 9:12; 14:21; Luke 18:31–32; 24:46; Acts 3:18; 17:3; 26:22–23; 1Pet. 1:11; referring to OT texts such as Ps. 22; Isa. 52:13–53:12; Zech. 13:7). The Lord Jesus is presented as the answer to human suffering: (1)Through the incarnation, God’s Son personally experienced human suffering (Phil. 2:6–8; Heb. 2:9; 5:8). (2)Through his suffering, Christ paid the price for sin (Rom. 4:25; 3:25–26), so that believers are set free from sin (Rom. 6:6, 18, 22) and helped in temptation (Heb. 2:18). (3)Christ Jesus intercedes for his suffering followers (Rom. 8:34–35). (4)Christ is the example in suffering (1Pet. 2:21; 4:1; cf. Phil. 3:10; 2Cor. 1:5; 4:10; 1Pet. 4:13), and though he died once for sins (Heb. 10:12), he continues to suffer as his church suffers (Acts 9:4–5). (5)Christ provides hope of resurrection (Rom. 6:5; 1Cor. 15:20–26; Phil. 3:10–11) and a future life without suffering or death (Rev. 21:4).
The NT writers repeatedly mention the benefits of suffering, for it has become part of God’s work of redemption. The suffering of believers accompanies the proclamation and advancement of the gospel (Acts 5:41–42; 9:15–16; 2Cor. 4:10–11; 6:2–10; Phil. 1:12, 27–29; 1Thess. 2:14–16; 2Tim. 1:8; 4:5) and results in salvation (Matt. 10:22; 2Cor. 1:6; 1Thess. 2:16; 2Tim. 2:10; Heb. 10:39), faith (Heb. 10:32–34, 38–39; 1Pet. 1:7), the kingdom of God (Acts 14:22), resurrection from the dead (Phil. 3:10–11), and the crown of life (Rev. 2:10). It is an essential part of the development toward Christian maturity (Rom. 5:3–4; 2Cor. 4:11; Heb. 12:4; James 1:3–4; 1Pet. 1:7; 4:1).
Suffering is associated with knowing Christ (Phil. 3:10); daily inward renewal (2Cor. 4:16); purity, understanding, patience, kindness, sincere love, truthful speech, the power of God (2Cor. 4:4–10); comfort and endurance (2Cor. 1:6); obedience (Heb. 5:8); blessing (1Pet. 3:14; 4:14); glory (Rom. 8:17; 2Cor. 4:17); and joy (Matt. 5:12; Acts 5:41; 2Cor. 6:10; 12:10; James 1:2; 1Pet. 1:6; 4:13). Other positive results of Christian suffering include perseverance (Rom. 5:3; James 1:3), character and hope (Rom. 5:4), strength (2Cor. 12:10), and maturity and completeness (James 1:4). Present suffering is light and momentary when compared to future glory (Matt. 5:10–12; Acts 14:22; Rom. 8:18; 2Cor. 4:17; Heb. 10:34–36; 1Pet. 1:5–7; 4:12–13).
Throughout the Bible, believers are instructed to help those who suffer. The OT law provides principles for assisting the poor, the disadvantaged, and the oppressed (Exod. 20:10; 21:2; 23:11; Lev. 19:13, 34; 25:10, 35; Deut. 14:28–29; 15:1–2; 24:19–21). Jesus regularly taught his followers to help the poor (Matt. 5:42; 6:3; 19:21; 25:34–36; Luke 4:18; 12:33; 14:13, 21). It is believers’ responsibility to show mercy (Matt. 5:7; 9:13), be generous (Rom. 12:8; 2Cor. 8:7; 1Tim. 6:18), mourn with mourners (Rom. 12:15), carry other’s burdens (Gal. 6:1–2), and visit prisoners (Matt. 25:36, 43). See also Servant of the Lord.
A political agitator, quite likely a messianic pretender, mentioned by the Pharisee Gamaliel in Acts 5:36. At some time prior to AD 6 Theudas gathered a group of four hundred men, but soon he was killed and his followers were dispersed. This may have occurred in the aftermath of Herod the Great’s death in 4 BC. The Jewish historian Josephus also mentions a magician named “Theudas,” who led a band of followers to the Jordan River sometime in AD 4446 (Ant. 20.97–99). He and many of his supporters were killed by the Romans.
Direct Matches
A title designating members of the group of twelve disciples(Matt. 10:2–4; Mark 3:16–19; Luke 6:13–16) whor*ceived Jesus’ teaching (Luke 17:5) and to whom he grantedauthority (Mark 6:7, 30; Luke 9:1, 10). Matthias later replaced JudasIscariot (Acts 1:24). These apostles provided leadership to the earlychurch in Jerusalem (Acts 15:6), performed miracles (Acts 2:43;2 Cor. 12:12), and faced persecution (Acts 5:18) as theytestified to Jesus’ resurrection (Acts 4:33; 5:32). Broaderusage of the term includes witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection(1 Cor. 15:7), James the brother of Jesus (Gal. 1:19), Barnabasand Paul (Acts 14:14), and possibly Silas (1 Thess. 2:6) andAndronicus and Junias/Junia (Rom. 16:7). Paul regularly speaks of hiscalling in apostolic terms (Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor.1:1; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:1;Titus 1:1), while Peter similarly self-identifies (1 Pet. 1:1;2 Pet. 1:1). The word is once used of Jesus himself (Heb. 3:1).
“Author of life” is a title applied to Jesus byPeter in Acts 3:15 (KJV: “Prince of life”), where he usesit ironically to highlight that people had killed the one who was thesource of life. Elsewhere, the Greek word behind “author”(archēgos) is translated as “prince,” “leader,”“captain,” or “pioneer” (Acts 5:31; Heb.2:10; 12:2).
“Author of life” is a title applied to Jesus byPeter in Acts 3:15 (KJV: “Prince of life”), where he usesit ironically to highlight that people had killed the one who was thesource of life. Elsewhere, the Greek word behind “author”(archēgos) is translated as “prince,” “leader,”“captain,” or “pioneer” (Acts 5:31; Heb.2:10; 12:2).
The concept of authority in Scripture includes two distinctelements. First, a person has authority in various settings if he orshe has the right to tell others what to do and decide how mattersshould be arranged. Second, a person has authority if he or she hasnot only the right to rule, as in the first case, but also the powerto control, so that what this person decrees actually happens. Whenthe angel of the Lord tells Hagar, “Go back to your mistressand submit to her,” he employs the first aspect of authority(Gen. 16:9). Hagar must do what Sarah tells her to do. The same senseof authority operates in Deut. 1:15, where Moses recalls, “So Itook the leading men of your tribes, wise and respected men, andappointed them to have authority over you” (cf. Exod.18:13–27). On the other hand, when Yahweh says of his word, “Itwill not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire andachieve the purpose for which I sent it,” the second sense ofauthority also plays a role (Isa. 55:11; cf. Heb. 4:12). Likewiseregarding the one who “overcomes” in the book ofRevelation: the Son gives the church authority, and its people rulethe nations “with an iron scepter” (2:26–27). Bothideas—forensic right and power to effect—arise in thatcontext.
Theauthority of Christ is a prominent theme of the Gospels, beingevidence of his deity and messianic status. In Matthew’sGospel, for instance, the Sermon on the Mount concludes with thecrowd’s wonder that Jesus teaches “as one who hadauthority,” unlike the teachers of the law (7:28–29).Jesus then displays his authority over diseases (8:1–10),natural forces (8:26–27), and demonic entities (8:28–32),culminating in his authority to forgive sins (9:6) and resuscitatethe dead (9:18–26). Mark and Luke also include parallelpassages that emphasize the authority of Christ over similar domains.John’s Gospel highlights the authority of Jesus to judge(5:27), to lay down his life and take it up again (10:18), and togrant eternal life to those who abide in him (17:2). The authority ofChrist over all events, even the worst of them, is the grand theme ofthe book of Revelation. Jesus has the right and power to rule for thesake of his church, overcoming all powers that usurp authority inopposition to him (Rev. 4–5; 13; 20). Finally, even the GreatCommission proclaims the supreme authority of Christ (Matt. 28:18;cf. Eph. 1:21; Col. 2:10). With God, we expect authority as right andas power always to coincide in the end.
Onthis same trajectory, the church must submit to authority, first toGod and then to human rulers, in the latter case when it can be donein good conscience. Paul’s references to Jesus as “Lord”throughout the Corinthian letters highlight his authority over thosewhom he has “bought at a price” (1 Cor. 6:9–20).For his own part, Paul can implicitly “pull rank” on theCorinthians, citing his own God-given authority over them (2 Cor.10:8; 13:10; cf. 1 Tim. 4:2). No one should “lord it over”others (Luke 22:25–26), but even when they do, the servant mustrespect the master’s authority (1 Pet. 2:17–19).Wives must submit to the servant leadership of their husbands (Eph.5:22), children must obey their parents (Eph. 6:1–3), slavesmust yield to their masters (Eph. 6:5–8), andlaypersons must obey the church’s elders (Heb. 13:17).
Respectfor authority also extends to secular governments, whatever thecharacter of their leaders. Even though Saul had intended to killDavid (1 Sam. 20:33), David is outraged that anyone would killSaul (2 Sam. 1:14). The apostle Paul has many reasons todistrust secular governments and defy their authority; yet when he issubjected to official abuse, he respects Rome’s laws (Acts16:16–40; 21–28). In Rom. 13:1–6 Paul commands thechurch to be subject to governing authorities, assuming that God hasestablished them, so that “whoever rebels against the authorityis rebelling against what God has instituted” (v. 2). In1 Tim. 2:1–3 the church is called to prayer for secularrulers. These passages do not require obedience to human authorityeven when it conflicts with the will of God (Acts 5:29), but they doprevent the church from hindering the gospel with outbreaks ofrevolutionary enthusiasm.
A Jewish priestly officer whose duties included maintainingthe purity of the Jerusalem temple. Such officers were agents of theJewish high priest authorized to engage in basic police anddisciplinary functions. In the Gospels, officers of the temple guardwere part of the conspiracy to kill Jesus (see Luke 22:4, 52). InActs, a captain of the temple is mentioned twice in connection withattempts to suppress the popular preaching of the apostles inJerusalem, usually near the temple (see Acts 4:1; 5:24).
In Christian theology, doctrine is the synthesis of Christianteaching, especially as set forth in its various related themes. Theearly disciples frequently referred to the teachings of Christ and tothe teachings of the apostles and the church. These were memorized,compiled, and passed through the generations in the church (2Tim.2). As early as Acts 2 reference is made to the teaching of theapostles and the devotion of the church to it. By the second century,a body of teaching had crystallized into a doctrinal treatise calledthe Didache. Doctrinal teaching as a set structure is especiallyemphasized in the Pastoral Epistles, such that it has caused some toconjecture a later date and early catholic outlook for those letters.Regardless of the validity of this postulation, these lettersevidence an early doctrinal and confessional outlook within thechurch.
Thiswas, of course, nothing new, since the Israelites had a body ofteaching that they had passed on through the generations: the law,both written and oral. For the Israelites, the law, both written andoral, was memorized, taught, interpreted, and heeded through all ofsociety. The church simply followed suit in forming its teachings.
Inthe NT two words, didachē and didaskalia, are commonlytranslated “teaching” and in some cases are rendered bysome translations as “doctrine.” The term didachēappears more widely throughout the NT, whereas didaskalia is usedlargely in the Pastoral Epistles (referring to both the content andthe act of teaching). The term didaskalia is sometimes used with theterm logos when the latter indicates sound speech (Titus 2:7–8)and words of the faith (1Tim. 4:6). In fact, in one verse inthe Pastoral Epistles all three terms are used together as “thefaithful word,” “in accordance with the teaching,”and “in sound doctrine” (Titus 1:9 NASB).
Thefirst body of teaching for the church is the teaching of Jesus (Matt.7:28), such as that found in the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesusnotes the ethic of his messiahship and his followers. The teaching ofJesus, which is authoritative (Mark 1:22, 27), and confrontational(Mark 12:38), is an astonishing answer to the religious leaders(Matt. 22:33; cf. Luke 4:32). Jesus notes the vanity of teaching thehuman commandments as if they were the doctrine from God (Mark 7:7).When questioned, Jesus sets forth his teaching as from the Father(John 7:16–17). The chief priests seek to destroy both Jesusand his followers because of the teaching (Mark 11:18; John 18:19;Acts 5:28). On Cyprus the proconsul is astonished at the doctrine ofChrist taught by Paul (Acts 13:12), and in Athens Paul’steaching about Christ is new and unusual to those of the Areopagus(Acts 17:18–20).
ForPaul, doctrine is fundamental for believers. He notes the commitmentto the teaching of Christ after conversion as normative for the Romanbelievers (Rom. 6:17), and he instructs further that they keep an eyeout for those who cause division and hinder adherence to sounddoctrine (Rom. 16:17). In fact, God has given gifted people to thebody for building up the saints to avoid such doctrinal problems(Eph. 4:12–14). Further, a straightforward expression ofteaching has priority over gifts such as tongues (1Cor. 14:6,26). Paul also points out that the Colossian heresy is the doctrineof human beings rather than that of God (Col. 2:22).
Inthe Pastoral Epistles the injunction from Paul to Timothy is that hebe nourished on and persevere in sound doctrine (1Tim. 4:6, 16)and set forth doctrine in preaching (1Tim. 4:13 [along withpublic reading of Scripture]; 2Tim. 4:2). All this is certainlyfitting for Timothy, as he has followed the teaching of Paul (2Tim.3:10). The injunction to Titus is to hold to the word and to thesound doctrine and teaching as he corrects the church (Titus 1:9).Those who are servants are encouraged to show honesty and good faith,so that the teaching of the Savior will be respected (Titus 2:10). Itis clear for Paul that Scripture is the basis of doctrine (2Tim.3:16). This doctrine (teaching) will be tolerated by few; as a whole,sound doctrine will be rejected in favor of a message more palatableto human interest (2Tim. 4:3). The task of the servant of Godis to stand against heterodox teaching (1Tim. 1:3; 6:3).Heterodoxy leads to heteropraxy (1Tim. 1:10). Paul notes thedoctrine of demons, false teaching that is ultimately based insatanic teaching (1Tim. 4:1).
Theinjunction of the writer to the Hebrews is that they are not tosubmit to strange teachings, which deny grace (13:9). This accordswith the book’s argument as a whole. For John, staying in thedoctrine of Christ is salvific, but going outside it is not (2John9). John’s readers are not to receive those who pervert thedoctrine of Christ (2John 10).
Inthe book of Revelation, Jesus warns the church at Pergamum about thefalse teaching of Balaam (2:14) and that of the Nicolaitans (2:15).The church at Thyatira is likewise warned to shun the teachings ofthe false prophetess known as “Jezebel” (2:20,24).
A method of punishment whereby the offender is whipped or beaten with rods. Although flogging is not assigned to punish specific crimes in pentateuchal law, Deut. 25:1–3 does refer to judges having guilty parties flogged and limits the number of lashes to forty. Romans used flogging as a precursor to crucifixion, but their method often involved the use of whips with shards of metal or bone incorporated into the strands. Thus, it could do a great deal of damage to the victim and is sometimes called “scourging.” Jesus was subjected to flogging prior to his crucifixion (Matt. 27:26; Mark 15:15; John 19:1), and he warned that his followers would be flogged (Matt. 10:17; Mark 13:9). The lives of the apostles fulfilled these predictions, as flogging became a routine price for their outspoken faith (Acts 5:40; 16:23; 22:24–25; 2Cor. 11:23; Heb. 11:36).
A method of punishment whereby the offender is whipped or beaten with rods. Although flogging is not assigned to punish specific crimes in pentateuchal law, Deut. 25:1–3 does refer to judges having guilty parties flogged and limits the number of lashes to forty. Romans used flogging as a precursor to crucifixion, but their method often involved the use of whips with shards of metal or bone incorporated into the strands. Thus, it could do a great deal of damage to the victim and is sometimes called “scourging.” Jesus was subjected to flogging prior to his crucifixion (Matt. 27:26; Mark 15:15; John 19:1), and he warned that his followers would be flogged (Matt. 10:17; Mark 13:9). The lives of the apostles fulfilled these predictions, as flogging became a routine price for their outspoken faith (Acts 5:40; 16:23; 22:24–25; 2Cor. 11:23; Heb. 11:36).
A method of punishment whereby the offender is whipped or beaten with rods. Although flogging is not assigned to punish specific crimes in pentateuchal law, Deut. 25:1–3 does refer to judges having guilty parties flogged and limits the number of lashes to forty. Romans used flogging as a precursor to crucifixion, but their method often involved the use of whips with shards of metal or bone incorporated into the strands. Thus, it could do a great deal of damage to the victim and is sometimes called “scourging.” Jesus was subjected to flogging prior to his crucifixion (Matt. 27:26; Mark 15:15; John 19:1), and he warned that his followers would be flogged (Matt. 10:17; Mark 13:9). The lives of the apostles fulfilled these predictions, as flogging became a routine price for their outspoken faith (Acts 5:40; 16:23; 22:24–25; 2Cor. 11:23; Heb. 11:36).
Someone who lives in or originates from Galilee. Jesus grewup in the extremely southern part of Galilee, at Nazareth, and hisfirst followers were drawn from throughout the region. Galilee had apopulation of about three hundred thousand people in two hundred ormore villages, as well as several large cities (Josephus, Life 235).Galileans shared a unique dialect (Matt. 26:73; cf. Acts 2:7). Theregion had a reputation for fomenting rebellion (Luke 13:1; 23:5–6).The Pharisee Gamaliel mentions Judas the Galilean (Acts 5:37), whosparked a revolt against the census under Quirinius around AD 6(Josephus, J.W. 2.118, 433; Ant. 18.23). Galilee was also associatedwith non-Jews (Gentiles) primarily because of the Decapolis, a leagueof approximately ten cities (Matt. 4:12–17, citing Isa. 9:1–2;Mark 7:31). However, archaeological evidence and the NT suggest thatGalilean Jews, many of whom colonized the area during the rule of theMaccabees, retained close cultural and religious ties with Judea andthe temple (Luke 1:26–27; 2:1–7, 39–40; John 4:45).
(1)Gamalielthe son of Pedahzur is mentioned in Num. 1:10; 2:20; 7:54, 59; 10:23.He is described as the chief of the tribe of Manasseh (Num. 2:20),and he is chosen to help Moses take the census in the wilderness.(2)Gamaliel(also known as Gamaliel the Elder or GamalielI), who ismentioned in Acts 5:34; 22:3, was a member of the Sanhedrin, aPharisee, and a teacher of the law. He is reputed to have been thegrandson of the famous sage and scholar Hillel (according to latertradition). He was a member of the Hillel party of the Pharisees, whowere renowned for their more liberal interpretation of Scripture whencompared with the more conservative Shammai party. In Acts 5:34–40Gamaliel intervenes at the trial of the apostles before the Sanhedrinwith a reasoned speech. Paul acknowledges him as his teacher in Acts22:3. He is also mentioned in the Mishnah, which says, “WhenRabban Gamaliel the Elder died, the glory of the Law ceased andpurity and abstinence died” (m.Sotah9:15).
This expression refers to a particular scholarly theoryconcerning the patriarchs in Genesis and their worship of God.According to this theory, which is in harmony with the DocumentaryHypothesis, in the patriarchal age the name “Yahweh” wasnot known. The patriarchs referred to God by various other names, ofwhich the most general and theologically significant is “God ofthe fathers.” This technical phrase may be couched in theformula “God of [someone’s] father(s)” (Gen. 31:5,29, 53; 46:3; Exod. 3:13; 4:5) or “God of [name ofpatriarch(s)]” (Gen. 24:12; 28:13; 32:9; 46:1; Exod. 3:6). Godhimself used both of these formulas when he revealed himself to Mosesin the burning bush (Exod. 3:6). The relationship between “Godof the fathers” and various names compounded with “El”(El Elyon, El Roi, El Olam, El Elohe Yisrael, El Bethel, and ElShaddai) is a matter of debate.
AncientNear Eastern evidence shows that the formula “God of thefathers” referred to one’s personal god. In the OldAssyrian tablets from Abraham’s time, “A god of yourfather” (il abika) is invoked as a witness. These personal godsserved as protective deities. Most scholars agree that the formula inthe Bible originally referred to the personal protector god andfamily god of the patriarchs.
Thephrase “God of the fathers” plays a theologicallysignificant role throughout the Bible. This solemn formula emphasizesthe intimate connection of the present with ancient history, namely,the faith of forefathers. In the story of the burning bush (Exod. 3),for example, the formula connects Moses’ generation to thepromise and blessing that God gave to the patriarchs. In Deuteronomy(1:11, 21; 4:1; 6:3; 12:1; 26:7; 27:3), it emphasizes the continuitybetween the author’s generation and the earlier generation inIsrael. For the exilic and postexilic generations, the phraseemphasizes the heinousness of their apostasy (see the pledge not toforsake “the God of their fathers” in 2Chron.34:32–33 NASB). Also, in the NT, the phrase reminds theChristians that the God of their experience is the same as the Godrevealed to the ancient patriarchs (Mark 12:26; Matt. 22:32; Acts3:13; 5:30).
The English word “gospel” translates the Greekword euangelion, which is very important in the NT, being usedseventy-six times. The word euangelion (eu= “good,”angelion= “announcement”), in its contemporary usein the Hellenistic world, was not the title of a book but rather adeclaration of good news. Euangelion was used in the Roman Empirewith reference to significant events in the life of the emperor, whowas thought of as a savior with divine status. These events includeddeclarations at the time of his birth, his coming of age, and hisaccession to the throne. The NT usage of the term can also be tracedto the OT (e.g., Isa. 40:9; 52:7; 61:1), which looked forward to thecoming of the Messiah, who would bring a time of salvation. This goodnews, which is declared in the NT, is that Jesus has fulfilled God’spromises to Israel, and now the way of salvation is open to all.
TheGospel Message
Theapostle Paul recognizes that the gospel is centered on the death,burial, and resurrection of Jesus (1Cor. 15:1–5). Hestates that this gospel is the power of God for the salvation ofeveryone who believes (Rom. 1:16), a sacred trust (1Tim. 1:11),the word of truth (Eph. 1:13), and an authoritative pronouncementthat requires a response (Rom. 10:16; 2Cor. 11:4; 2Thess.1:8). The declaration of this good news is found on the lips of Jesusin the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 11:5; Luke 4:18), who calls people torespond in repentance and belief (Mark 1:15). The good news is alsoin the early apostolic preaching, where it is associated with theproclamation of Christ (Acts 5:42; 8:35; 11:20).
Therecords of apostolic preaching in Acts are records of the earliestpublic declaration of this gospel. The apostle Peter gives three suchspeeches (Acts 2:14–41; 3:11–4:4; 10:34–43), whosecontent can be summarized as follows. The age of fulfillment hasdawned through the birth, life, ministry, and resurrection of JesusChrist (2:22–31), which has ushered in the “latter days”foretold by the prophets (3:18–26). Jesus, by his resurrection,has been exalted to the right hand of God as the head of the newIsrael (2:32–36), and the Holy Spirit has been given to thechurch as the sign of Christ’s present power and exaltation(10:44–48). This age will reach its consummation at the returnof Christ (3:20–21), and in response to this gospel an appealis made for repentance, with the offer of forgiveness, the HolySpirit, and salvation (2:37–41).
Thisdeclaration of the gospel is concerned primarily with what waspreached rather than what was written. Itinerant preachers of thisgospel were known as “evangelists,” which in Greek isclosely related to the term euangelion (Acts 21:8; Eph. 4:11; 2Tim.4:5). Some scholars believe that during the stage of oraltransmission, the gospel accounts developed a certain form throughrepetition, which helps explain some similarities between laterwritten accounts of the gospel.
FromOral to Written Gospel
Later,this “oral” gospel was written down, for several reasons.With the rapid spread of Christianity, as recorded in the book ofActs, a need arose for a more efficient dissemination of the messageof Jesus than was available by oral means. Furthermore, there was aneed to keep the message alive because some of the apostles had died(e.g., James in Acts 12:2) and many churches were facing oppositionand persecution. The written Gospels would facilitate catecheticaland liturgical needs and encourage persecuted Christians to continuefollowing Jesus by telling the story of his faithfulness throughgreat suffering. These written Gospels would also contain examples ofthose who persevered in following Jesus and of those who denied himand betrayed him. These accounts about Jesus and those who followedhim became foundational documents for the early church.
Itshould be noted that the gospel was not written down in order to giveit greater authority. The first-century context was largely an oralculture, in which storytelling and the rehearsal of facts wasintegral. Papias, a leader of the church in Hierapolis in Asia Minorwho died around AD 130, states his preference for oral traditionrather than written information about Jesus: “For I did notthink that information from books would help me as much as the wordof a living and surviving voice” (Eusebius, Hist. eccl.3.39.4). There is, however, a traceable trajectory from the gospelpreached by the apostles to the written accounts that bear the namesof Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It is generally held that theauthors/editors of the four canonical Gospels were using oral and/orwritten sources (Luke 1:1–4), and that their respective Gospelswere written in the second half of the first century.
Themajority of biblical scholars hold that Mark was the first Gospel tobe written (c. AD 66). According to tradition, its editor/author wasJohn Mark, a close friend of the apostle Peter (1Pet. 5:13) anda part-time companion of the apostle Paul (Acts 12:12; Col. 4:10;2Tim. 4:11). This tradition is not without basis. Papias says,“Mark, who had indeed been Peter’s interpreter,accurately wrote as much as he remembered, yet not in order, aboutthat which was either said or done by the Lord” (Eusebius,Hist. eccl. 3.39.15). This tradition is also outlined by Clement ofAlexandria, who, around AD 200, wrote, “When Peter had publiclypreached the word at Rome, and by the Spirit had proclaimed thegospel, then those present, who were many, exhorted Mark, as one whohad followed him for a long time and remembered what had been spoken,to make a record of what he said; and that he did this, anddistributed the Gospel among those that asked him” (Eusebius,Hist. eccl. 6.14.5–7; cf. 2.15.1–2).
Itis widely held that Matthew and Luke used Mark as one of theirsources: of the material in Mark, over 97percent is repeated inMatthew and over 88percent in Luke. Matthew and Luke alsocontain material that appears to come from a common written sourcethat is not found in Mark. Scholars have named this source as “Q”(from the German Quelle= “source”), although thismay be a collection of sources rather than a single document.
Furthermore,the association of the Fourth Gospel with the apostle John goes backto Irenaeus (c. AD 180), who states, “John, the disciple of theLord, who leaned on his breast, also published the gospel whileliving at Ephesus in Asia” (Haer. 3.1.1, as cited in Eusebius,Hist. eccl. 5.8.4). By the second century, the term “gospel”is used for the written accounts of the life, death, and resurrectionof Jesus (e.g., Did. 11.3; 15.4). Justin Martyr (c. AD 140) refers tothe “memoirs of the apostles” (1Apol. 67) andIrenaeus (c. AD 180) mentions the four canonical Gospels by name(Haer. 3.11.7).
ThePurpose and Genre of the Gospels
Purpose.The Gospels were written to convey theology and to create and confirmfaith. They do not give an objectively neutral account of the life ofJesus; they enthusiastically endorse their protagonist and condemnthose who oppose him. They differ from traditional biographies inthat they give little information about the chronology of Jesus’life. Only two of the Gospels, Matthew and Luke, tell of the eventssurrounding Jesus’ birth. Luke alone tells of an event inJesus’ childhood (Luke 2:41–52). It is virtuallyincidental that Jesus worked as a carpenter and had brothers andsisters (Mark 6:3). A large percentage of each of the four canonicalGospels is devoted to the last week of Jesus’ life; of thesixteen chapters of Mark’s Gospel, six are devoted to the oneweek from Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem until his resurrection.
Theprimary intentions of the authors/editors of the written Gospels werenot to give biographical details but rather to lead the reader to anacknowledgment of the identity of Jesus and a belief in the purposeof his mission (Luke 1:4; John 20:31). Their theological purposes,however, do not necessarily compromise their commitment to historicalaccuracy. Jesus is presented as a real, historical figure who livedwithin a specific historical time frame. Luke appears to be moreconcerned than the other evangelists with historical details, givinga rough date for Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:1–2) and a morespecific time for Jesus’ baptism (3:1–2).
Genre.The discerning reader of the Gospels is forced to ask questionsconcerning the literary genre(s) of these texts. Such a discussion isimperative, as the interpretation of a section of any piece ofliterature will largely be determined by the function of the textwithin a certain literary genre. Prior to the 1970s, most NT scholarsbelieved that the Gospels formed a unique literary genre and weretherefore distinct from other first-century literary forms. Thisconclusion was based on the belief that the written Gospels werecollections of smaller sections sewn together by the evangelists, andthat the documents as a whole lacked coherence. Since then, thispresupposition has been challenged, largely because scholars haveseen that the Gospel writers were real editors and authors who werenot just collecting primitive source material but were using thatmaterial to write a larger story about Jesus. The written Gospelstherefore have overall coherence and purpose; they were written insuch a way as to bring about a desired response in the reader. Suchan overall intention may have stronger similarities with differentgenres in the Greco-Roman world of theNT.
TheGospels have been associated with several genres. They bear someresemblance to aretalogies, which were narratives about divinepersons in antiquity from which flowed moral instructions. Thesestories often involved miraculous events at the subject’s birthor death or during life, and they included the presence of bothdisciples and opponents. Within these aretalogies, the narrative wassecondary to the morality. An association with aretalogies,therefore, would encourage the reader to give greater attention tomoral teaching than to events in which this teaching is embedded.Similarly, others have seen the Gospels as essentially a collectionof wisdom sayings set in a historicized narrative; this view againgives priority to sayings and is doubtful of the historicity of thenarrative. Such views that downplay the narrative, and particularlythe miracles in Jesus’ life, have led others to argue theopposite extreme, which sees the Gospels, and Luke-Acts inparticular, as examples of ancient novels, with their focus onmiracle stories. Many scholars have rejected the emphasis on eithersayings or narrative, arguing that the literary genre that theGospels most closely resemble is ancient biographies (bioi). Thesecontained praise for the protagonist, rhetoric, moral philosophy, anda concern for character.
Althoughthe Gospels use different literary motifs that are reflective ofdifferent genres of the Greco-Roman world, they do not exactlyreplicate a known genre. They contain material not found in otherHellenistic literature of the time—for example, the fulfillmentof OT expectations and their desire to address particular issuesfaced by the early church, such as opposition; the Gentile mission;the need to redefine Israel in the light of Jesus’ life, death,and resurrection; and the nature of Christian discipleship. Unlikeother literature of the time, they do not name their authors, andwith the exception of Luke, they lack traditional literary devicessuch as prefaces. They are therefore to be seen as unique, or atleast as a distinct subgenre of ancient biographies.
Canonicaland Noncanonical Gospels
Theprogression from the events of Jesus’ life to the oralpreaching of this gospel to the first-century writing of the storyled to the acceptance of the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark,Luke, and John into the NT canon. There is also a significant body ofliterature that is normally referred to as the noncanonical gospels.These later documents were neither widely accepted nor viewed asauthoritative, but they provide useful insights into the nature ofearly Christianity. A significant noncanonical gospel is the Gospelof Thomas, which is part of a large collection of works discovered atNag Hammadi (Egypt) in 1945. The Gospel of Thomas does not contain aresurrection account and is primarily a collection of sayings.
Thecanonical Gospels are not more authoritative than other sections ofScripture, but because they focus on Jesus’ ministry, withparticular attention to his death and resurrection, they draw theattention of the reader to the fulfillment of God’s purpose inthe life and work of Jesus, the Messiah. They are therefore of greatimportance within Scripture.
The English word “gospel” translates the Greekword euangelion, which is very important in the NT, being usedseventy-six times. The word euangelion (eu= “good,”angelion= “announcement”), in its contemporary usein the Hellenistic world, was not the title of a book but rather adeclaration of good news. Euangelion was used in the Roman Empirewith reference to significant events in the life of the emperor, whowas thought of as a savior with divine status. These events includeddeclarations at the time of his birth, his coming of age, and hisaccession to the throne. The NT usage of the term can also be tracedto the OT (e.g., Isa. 40:9; 52:7; 61:1), which looked forward to thecoming of the Messiah, who would bring a time of salvation. This goodnews, which is declared in the NT, is that Jesus has fulfilled God’spromises to Israel, and now the way of salvation is open to all.
TheGospel Message
Theapostle Paul recognizes that the gospel is centered on the death,burial, and resurrection of Jesus (1Cor. 15:1–5). Hestates that this gospel is the power of God for the salvation ofeveryone who believes (Rom. 1:16), a sacred trust (1Tim. 1:11),the word of truth (Eph. 1:13), and an authoritative pronouncementthat requires a response (Rom. 10:16; 2Cor. 11:4; 2Thess.1:8). The declaration of this good news is found on the lips of Jesusin the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 11:5; Luke 4:18), who calls people torespond in repentance and belief (Mark 1:15). The good news is alsoin the early apostolic preaching, where it is associated with theproclamation of Christ (Acts 5:42; 8:35; 11:20).
Therecords of apostolic preaching in Acts are records of the earliestpublic declaration of this gospel. The apostle Peter gives three suchspeeches (Acts 2:14–41; 3:11–4:4; 10:34–43), whosecontent can be summarized as follows. The age of fulfillment hasdawned through the birth, life, ministry, and resurrection of JesusChrist (2:22–31), which has ushered in the “latter days”foretold by the prophets (3:18–26). Jesus, by his resurrection,has been exalted to the right hand of God as the head of the newIsrael (2:32–36), and the Holy Spirit has been given to thechurch as the sign of Christ’s present power and exaltation(10:44–48). This age will reach its consummation at the returnof Christ (3:20–21), and in response to this gospel an appealis made for repentance, with the offer of forgiveness, the HolySpirit, and salvation (2:37–41).
Thisdeclaration of the gospel is concerned primarily with what waspreached rather than what was written. Itinerant preachers of thisgospel were known as “evangelists,” which in Greek isclosely related to the term euangelion (Acts 21:8; Eph. 4:11; 2Tim.4:5). Some scholars believe that during the stage of oraltransmission, the gospel accounts developed a certain form throughrepetition, which helps explain some similarities between laterwritten accounts of the gospel.
FromOral to Written Gospel
Later,this “oral” gospel was written down, for several reasons.With the rapid spread of Christianity, as recorded in the book ofActs, a need arose for a more efficient dissemination of the messageof Jesus than was available by oral means. Furthermore, there was aneed to keep the message alive because some of the apostles had died(e.g., James in Acts 12:2) and many churches were facing oppositionand persecution. The written Gospels would facilitate catecheticaland liturgical needs and encourage persecuted Christians to continuefollowing Jesus by telling the story of his faithfulness throughgreat suffering. These written Gospels would also contain examples ofthose who persevered in following Jesus and of those who denied himand betrayed him. These accounts about Jesus and those who followedhim became foundational documents for the early church.
Itshould be noted that the gospel was not written down in order to giveit greater authority. The first-century context was largely an oralculture, in which storytelling and the rehearsal of facts wasintegral. Papias, a leader of the church in Hierapolis in Asia Minorwho died around AD 130, states his preference for oral traditionrather than written information about Jesus: “For I did notthink that information from books would help me as much as the wordof a living and surviving voice” (Eusebius, Hist. eccl.3.39.4). There is, however, a traceable trajectory from the gospelpreached by the apostles to the written accounts that bear the namesof Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It is generally held that theauthors/editors of the four canonical Gospels were using oral and/orwritten sources (Luke 1:1–4), and that their respective Gospelswere written in the second half of the first century.
Themajority of biblical scholars hold that Mark was the first Gospel tobe written (c. AD 66). According to tradition, its editor/author wasJohn Mark, a close friend of the apostle Peter (1Pet. 5:13) anda part-time companion of the apostle Paul (Acts 12:12; Col. 4:10;2Tim. 4:11). This tradition is not without basis. Papias says,“Mark, who had indeed been Peter’s interpreter,accurately wrote as much as he remembered, yet not in order, aboutthat which was either said or done by the Lord” (Eusebius,Hist. eccl. 3.39.15). This tradition is also outlined by Clement ofAlexandria, who, around AD 200, wrote, “When Peter had publiclypreached the word at Rome, and by the Spirit had proclaimed thegospel, then those present, who were many, exhorted Mark, as one whohad followed him for a long time and remembered what had been spoken,to make a record of what he said; and that he did this, anddistributed the Gospel among those that asked him” (Eusebius,Hist. eccl. 6.14.5–7; cf. 2.15.1–2).
Itis widely held that Matthew and Luke used Mark as one of theirsources: of the material in Mark, over 97percent is repeated inMatthew and over 88percent in Luke. Matthew and Luke alsocontain material that appears to come from a common written sourcethat is not found in Mark. Scholars have named this source as “Q”(from the German Quelle= “source”), although thismay be a collection of sources rather than a single document.
Furthermore,the association of the Fourth Gospel with the apostle John goes backto Irenaeus (c. AD 180), who states, “John, the disciple of theLord, who leaned on his breast, also published the gospel whileliving at Ephesus in Asia” (Haer. 3.1.1, as cited in Eusebius,Hist. eccl. 5.8.4). By the second century, the term “gospel”is used for the written accounts of the life, death, and resurrectionof Jesus (e.g., Did. 11.3; 15.4). Justin Martyr (c. AD 140) refers tothe “memoirs of the apostles” (1Apol. 67) andIrenaeus (c. AD 180) mentions the four canonical Gospels by name(Haer. 3.11.7).
ThePurpose and Genre of the Gospels
Purpose.The Gospels were written to convey theology and to create and confirmfaith. They do not give an objectively neutral account of the life ofJesus; they enthusiastically endorse their protagonist and condemnthose who oppose him. They differ from traditional biographies inthat they give little information about the chronology of Jesus’life. Only two of the Gospels, Matthew and Luke, tell of the eventssurrounding Jesus’ birth. Luke alone tells of an event inJesus’ childhood (Luke 2:41–52). It is virtuallyincidental that Jesus worked as a carpenter and had brothers andsisters (Mark 6:3). A large percentage of each of the four canonicalGospels is devoted to the last week of Jesus’ life; of thesixteen chapters of Mark’s Gospel, six are devoted to the oneweek from Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem until his resurrection.
Theprimary intentions of the authors/editors of the written Gospels werenot to give biographical details but rather to lead the reader to anacknowledgment of the identity of Jesus and a belief in the purposeof his mission (Luke 1:4; John 20:31). Their theological purposes,however, do not necessarily compromise their commitment to historicalaccuracy. Jesus is presented as a real, historical figure who livedwithin a specific historical time frame. Luke appears to be moreconcerned than the other evangelists with historical details, givinga rough date for Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:1–2) and a morespecific time for Jesus’ baptism (3:1–2).
Genre.The discerning reader of the Gospels is forced to ask questionsconcerning the literary genre(s) of these texts. Such a discussion isimperative, as the interpretation of a section of any piece ofliterature will largely be determined by the function of the textwithin a certain literary genre. Prior to the 1970s, most NT scholarsbelieved that the Gospels formed a unique literary genre and weretherefore distinct from other first-century literary forms. Thisconclusion was based on the belief that the written Gospels werecollections of smaller sections sewn together by the evangelists, andthat the documents as a whole lacked coherence. Since then, thispresupposition has been challenged, largely because scholars haveseen that the Gospel writers were real editors and authors who werenot just collecting primitive source material but were using thatmaterial to write a larger story about Jesus. The written Gospelstherefore have overall coherence and purpose; they were written insuch a way as to bring about a desired response in the reader. Suchan overall intention may have stronger similarities with differentgenres in the Greco-Roman world of theNT.
TheGospels have been associated with several genres. They bear someresemblance to aretalogies, which were narratives about divinepersons in antiquity from which flowed moral instructions. Thesestories often involved miraculous events at the subject’s birthor death or during life, and they included the presence of bothdisciples and opponents. Within these aretalogies, the narrative wassecondary to the morality. An association with aretalogies,therefore, would encourage the reader to give greater attention tomoral teaching than to events in which this teaching is embedded.Similarly, others have seen the Gospels as essentially a collectionof wisdom sayings set in a historicized narrative; this view againgives priority to sayings and is doubtful of the historicity of thenarrative. Such views that downplay the narrative, and particularlythe miracles in Jesus’ life, have led others to argue theopposite extreme, which sees the Gospels, and Luke-Acts inparticular, as examples of ancient novels, with their focus onmiracle stories. Many scholars have rejected the emphasis on eithersayings or narrative, arguing that the literary genre that theGospels most closely resemble is ancient biographies (bioi). Thesecontained praise for the protagonist, rhetoric, moral philosophy, anda concern for character.
Althoughthe Gospels use different literary motifs that are reflective ofdifferent genres of the Greco-Roman world, they do not exactlyreplicate a known genre. They contain material not found in otherHellenistic literature of the time—for example, the fulfillmentof OT expectations and their desire to address particular issuesfaced by the early church, such as opposition; the Gentile mission;the need to redefine Israel in the light of Jesus’ life, death,and resurrection; and the nature of Christian discipleship. Unlikeother literature of the time, they do not name their authors, andwith the exception of Luke, they lack traditional literary devicessuch as prefaces. They are therefore to be seen as unique, or atleast as a distinct subgenre of ancient biographies.
Canonicaland Noncanonical Gospels
Theprogression from the events of Jesus’ life to the oralpreaching of this gospel to the first-century writing of the storyled to the acceptance of the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark,Luke, and John into the NT canon. There is also a significant body ofliterature that is normally referred to as the noncanonical gospels.These later documents were neither widely accepted nor viewed asauthoritative, but they provide useful insights into the nature ofearly Christianity. A significant noncanonical gospel is the Gospelof Thomas, which is part of a large collection of works discovered atNag Hammadi (Egypt) in 1945. The Gospel of Thomas does not contain aresurrection account and is primarily a collection of sayings.
Thecanonical Gospels are not more authoritative than other sections ofScripture, but because they focus on Jesus’ ministry, withparticular attention to his death and resurrection, they draw theattention of the reader to the fulfillment of God’s purpose inthe life and work of Jesus, the Messiah. They are therefore of greatimportance within Scripture.
(1)Thestatus of an object that is suspended from a point situated above it(e.g., Ezek. 15:3). Objects that are described as hanging in theBible include curtains (Exod. 40:21), harps (Ps. 137:2), pieces ofarmor (Ezek. 27:10–11; cf. Song 4:4), a millstone (Matt. 18:6),a snake (Acts 28:4), and Absalom (2Sam. 18:9–10).
(2)Aform of capital punishment that involves suspending the condemnedsubject from a tree or gallows. In the OT, death by hanging can bethe fate of a captured enemy king, such as the king of Ai (Josh.8:29). Hanging also may be the fate of those who conspire against oroffend a king, such as possibly happened with Pharaoh’s chiefbaker (Gen. 40:19, 22). Traditionally, hanging was understood to bethe fate of the two officials who conspired against King Xerxes(Esther 2:23) and of Haman, who conspired against the Jews of Xerxes’kingdom (Esther 7:9–10; some recent interpreters understandtheir fate to be impalement). In the NT, the crucifixion of Jesus isdescribed as a hanging (Acts 5:30; 10:39; cf. Luke 23:39).
Thesignificance of hanging an offender transcends the act of killing.Hanging often involves humiliation and a public declaration. Forinstance, Joshua hangs five rival kings from trees after they havebeen executed (Josh. 10:22–27). When the Philistines find thedead bodies of Saul and his sons, they dismember them and hang thebodies on the wall of Beth Shan (1Sam. 31:8–13; 2Sam.21:12) and Saul’s head in the temple of Dagon (1Chron.10:10). After David orders the death of Recab and Baanah, he hastheir bodies hung by the pool in Hebron without hands and feet(2Sam. 4:12). After the ten sons of Haman are killed, Xerxesapproves Esther’s request that their corpses be hung in publicdisplay (Esther 9:12–14). Lamentations speaks of the disgracethat has befallen Jerusalem, including how princes are hung by theirhands (Lam. 5:12).
Hangingalso holds theological significance. In a case of capital offenseresulting in a hanging, Israel is instructed that the corpse must notbe left hanging overnight, but rather must be buried that same day toavoid desecrating the land, “because anyone who is hung on atree [NIV: “pole”] is under God’s curse”(Deut. 21:23; cf. Gal. 3:13).
(3)Aform of suicide performed by two individuals in the Bible. Ahithophelhangs himself after he sees that his advice to Absalom regarding therevolt against David has not been followed (2Sam. 17:23). JudasIscariot hangs himself after he realizes that he has betrayedinnocent blood by offering Jesus to the authorities (Matt. 27:5; cf.Acts 1:18–19).
The founder of what became known as the movement of Jesusfollowers or Christianity. For Christian believers, Jesus Christembodies the personal and supernatural intervention of God in humanhistory.
Introduction
Name.Early Christians combined the name “Jesus” with the title“Christ” (Acts 5:42; NIV: “Messiah”). Thename “Jesus,” from the Hebrew Yehoshua or Yeshua, was acommon male name in first-century Judaism. The title “Christ”is from the Greek christos, a translation of the Hebrew mashiakh(“anointed one, messiah”). Christians eventually werenamed after Jesus’ title (Acts 11:26). During the ministry ofJesus, Peter was the first disciple to recognize Jesus as the Messiah(Matt. 16:16; Mark 9:29; Luke 9:20).
Sources.From the viewpoint of Christianity, the life and ministry of Jesusconstitute the turning point in human history. From a historicalperspective, ample early source materials would be expected. Indeed,both Christian and non-Christian first-century and earlysecond-century literary sources are extant, but they are few innumber. In part, this low incidence is due to society’s initialresistance to the Jesus followers’ movement. The ancient Romanhistorian Tacitus called Christianity “a superstition,”since its beliefs did not fit with the culture’s prevailingworldview and thus were considered antisocial. Early literary sourcestherefore are either in-group documents or allusions in non-Christiansources.
TheNT Gospels are the principal sources for the life and ministry ofJesus. They consist of Matthew, Mark, Luke (the Synoptic Gospels),and John. Most scholars adhere to the so-called Four SourceHypothesis. In this theory, Mark was written first and was used as asource by Matthew and Luke, who also used the sayings source Q (fromGerman Quelle, meaning “source”) as well as their ownindividual sources M (Matthew) and L (Luke). John used additionalsources.
Theearly church tried to put together singular accounts, so-calledGospel harmonies, of the life of Jesus. The Gospel of the Ebionitesrepresents one such attempt based on the Synoptic Gospels. Anotherharmony, the Diatessaron, based on all four Gospels, was producedaround AD 170 by Tatian. Additional source materials concerning thelife of Christ are provided in the NT in texts such as Acts, thePauline Epistles, the General Epistles, and the Revelation of John.Paul wrote to the Galatians, “But when the time had fully come,God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law” (Gal. 4:4).The first narrative about Jesus by the Christian community was apassion narrative, the account of his death and resurrection. Thefirst extant references to this tradition are found in Paul’sletters (1Cor. 2:2; Gal. 3:1). The resurrection was recognizedfrom the beginning as the cornerstone of the Christian faith (1Cor.15:13–14).
Amongnon-Christian sources, the earliest reference to Jesus is found in aletter written circa AD 112 by Pliny the Younger, the Roman governorof Bithynia-Pontus (Ep. 10.96). The Roman historian Tacitus mentionsChristians and Jesus around AD 115 in his famous work about thehistory of Rome (Ann. 15.44). Another Roman historian, Suetonius,wrote around the same time concerning unrest among the Jews in Romebecause of a certain “Chrestos” (Claud. 25.4). Somescholars conclude that “Chrestos” is a misspelling of“Christos,” a reference to Jesus.
TheJewish author Josephus (first century AD) mentions Jesus in a storyabout the Jewish high priest Ananus and James the brother of Jesus(Ant. 20.200). A controversial reference to Jesus appears in adifferent part of the same work, where Josephus affirms that Jesus isthe Messiah and that he rose from the dead (Ant. 18.63–64). Themajority of scholars consider this passage to be authentic butheavily edited by later Christian copyists. Another Jewish source,the Talmud, also mentions Jesus in several places, but thesereferences are very late and of little historical value.
NoncanonicalGospels that mention Jesus include, for example, the Infancy Gospelof Thomas, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel ofJames, the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, the Gospel of the Hebrews, theEgerton Gospel, and the Gospel of Judas. Although some of these maycontain an occasional authentic saying or event, for the most partthey are late and unreliable.
Jesus’Life
Birthand childhood. TheGospels of Matthew and Luke record Jesus’ birth in Bethlehemduring the reign of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1; Luke 2:4, 11). Jesuswas probably born between 6 and 4 BC, shortly before Herod’sdeath (Matt. 2:19). Both Matthew and Luke record the miracle of avirginal conception made possible by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18;Luke 1:35). Luke mentions a census under the Syrian governorQuirinius that was responsible for Jesus’ birth taking place inBethlehem (2:1–5). Both the census and the governorship at thetime of the birth of Jesus have been questioned by scholars.Unfortunately, there is not enough extrabiblical evidence to eitherconfirm or disprove these events, so their veracity must bedetermined on the basis of one’s view regarding the generalreliability of the Gospel tradition.
Onthe eighth day after his birth, Jesus was circumcised, in keepingwith the Jewish law, at which time he officially was named “Jesus”(Luke 2:21). He spent his growing years in Nazareth, in the home ofhis parents, Joseph and Mary (2:40). Of the NT Gospels, the Gospel ofLuke contains the only brief portrayal of Jesus’ growth instrength, wisdom, and favor with God and people (2:40, 52). Luke alsocontains the only account of Jesus as a young boy (2:41–49).
Jesuswas born in a lower socioeconomic setting. His parents offered atemple sacrifice appropriate for those who could not afford tosacrifice a sheep (Luke 2:22–24; cf. Lev. 12:8). Joseph, Jesus’earthly father, was a carpenter or an artisan in wood, stone, ormetal (Matt. 13:55). From a geographical perspective, Nazareth wasnot a prominent place for settling, since it lacked fertile ground.Jesus’ disciple Nathanael expressed an apparently commonfirst-century sentiment concerning Nazareth: “Nazareth! Cananything good come from there?” (John 1:46).
Jesuswas also born in a context of scandal. Questions of illegitimacy weresurely raised, since his mother Mary was discovered to be pregnantbefore her marriage to Joseph. According to Matthew, only theintervention of an angel convinced Joseph not to break his betrothal(Matt. 1:18–24). Jesus’ birth took place in Bethlehem,far from his parents’ home in Nazareth. According to kinshiphospitality customs, Joseph and Mary would have expected to stay withdistant relatives in Bethlehem. It is likely that they were unwelcomebecause of Jesus’ status as an illegitimate child; thus Maryhad to give birth elsewhere and place the infant Jesus in a feedingtrough (Luke 2:7). A similar response was seen years later inNazareth when Jesus was identified as “Mary’s son”(Mark 6:3) rather than through his paternal line, thereby shaming himas one who was born an illegitimate child. Jesus was likewiserejected at the end of his life as the crowds cried, “Crucifyhim!” (Matt. 27:22–23; Mark 15:13–14; Luke 23:21;John 19:6, 15). When Jesus was arrested, most of his followers fled(Matt. 26:56; Mark 14:50–52), and a core disciple, Peter,vehemently denied knowing him (Matt. 26:69–74; Mark 14:66–71;Luke 22:55–60; John 18:15–17, 25–27). His ownsiblings did not believe in him (John 7:5) and were evidently ashamedof his fate, since from the cross Jesus placed the care of his motherinto the hands of “the disciple whom he loved” (19:26–27)rather than the next brother in line, as was customary.
Baptism,temptation, and start of ministry.After Jesus was baptized by the prophet John the Baptist (Luke3:21–22), God affirmed his pleasure with him by referring tohim as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22).Jesus’ baptism did not launch him into fame and instantministry success; instead, Jesus was led by the Spirit into thewilderness, where he was tempted for forty days (Matt. 4:1–11;Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13). Mark stresses that thetemptations immediately followed the baptism. Matthew and Lukeidentify three specific temptations by the devil, though their orderfor the last two is reversed. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesuswas tempted to turn stones into bread, expect divine interventionafter jumping off the temple portico, and receive all the world’skingdoms for worshiping the devil. Jesus resisted all temptation,quoting Scripture in response.
Matthewand Mark record that Jesus began his ministry in Capernaum inGalilee, after the arrest of John the Baptist (Matt. 4:12–13;Mark 1:14). Luke says that Jesus started his ministry at about thirtyyears of age (3:23). This may be meant to indicate full maturity orperhaps correlate this age with the onset of the service of theLevites in the temple (cf. Num. 4:3). John narrates the beginning ofJesus’ ministry by focusing on the calling of the disciples andthe sign performed at a wedding at Cana (1:35–2:11).
Jesus’public ministry: chronology.Jesus’ ministry started in Galilee, probably around AD 27/28,and ended with his death around AD 30 in Jerusalem. The temple hadbeen forty-six years in construction (generally interpreted as thetemple itself and the wider temple complex) when Jesus drove out themoney changers (John 2:20). According to Josephus, the rebuilding andexpansion of the second temple had started in 20/19 BC, during theeighteenth year of Herod’s reign (Ant. 15.380). The ministry ofJohn the Baptist had commenced in the fifteenth year of Tiberius(Luke 3:1–2), who had become a coregent in AD 11/12. From thesedates of the start of the temple building and the correlation of thereign of Tiberius to John the Baptist’s ministry, the onset ofJesus’ ministry can probably be dated to AD 27/28.
TheGospel of John mentions three Passovers and another unnamed feast inJohn 5:1. The length of Jesus’ ministry thus extended overthree or four Passovers, equaling about three or three and a halfyears. Passover, which took place on the fifteenth of Nisan, came ona Friday in AD 30 and 33. The year of Jesus’ death wastherefore probably AD 30.
Jesus’ministry years may be divided broadly into his Galilean and hisJudean ministries. The Synoptic Gospels describe the ministry inGalilee from various angles but converge again as Jesus enters Judea.
Galileanministry.The early stages of Jesus’ ministry centered in and aroundGalilee. Jesus presented the good news and proclaimed that thekingdom of God was near. Matthew focuses on the fulfillment ofprophecy (Matt. 4:13–17). Luke records Jesus’ firstteaching in his hometown, Nazareth, as paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–30);the text that Jesus quoted, Isa. 61:1–2, set the stage for hiscalling to serve and revealed a trajectory of rejection andsuffering.
AllGospels record Jesus’ gathering of disciples early in hisGalilean ministry (Matt. 4:18–22; Mark 1:16–20; Luke5:1–11; John 1:35–51). The formal call and commissioningof the Twelve who would become Jesus’ closest followers isrecorded in different parts of the Gospels (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16). A key event in the early ministryis the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Matt. 5:1–7:29; Luke6:20–49). John focuses on Jesus’ signs and miracles, inparticular in the early parts of his ministry, whereas the Synopticsfocus on healings and exorcisms.
DuringJesus’ Galilean ministry, onlookers struggled with hisidentity. However, evil spirits knew him to be of supreme authority(Mark 3:11). Jesus was criticized by outsiders and by his own family(3:21). The scribes from Jerusalem identified him as a partner ofBeelzebul (3:22). Amid these situations of social conflict, Jesustold parables that couched his ministry in the context of a growingkingdom of God. This kingdom would miraculously spring from humblebeginnings (4:1–32).
TheSynoptics present Jesus’ early Galilean ministry as successful.No challenge or ministry need superseded Jesus’ authority orability: he calmed a storm (Mark 4:35–39), exorcized manydemons (Mark 5:1–13), raised the dead (Mark 5:35–42), fedfive thousand (Mark 6:30–44), and walked on water (Mark6:48–49).
Inthe later part of his ministry in Galilee, Jesus often withdrew andtraveled to the north and the east. The Gospel narratives are notwritten with a focus on chronology. However, only brief returns toGalilee appear to have taken place prior to Jesus’ journey toJerusalem. As people followed Jesus, faith was praised and fearresolved. Jerusalem’s religious leaders traveled to Galilee,where they leveled accusations and charged Jesus’ discipleswith lacking ritual purity (Mark 7:1–5). Jesus shamed thePharisees by pointing out their dishonorable treatment of parents(7:11–13). The Pharisees challenged his legitimacy by demandinga sign (8:11). Jesus refused them signs but agreed with Peter, whoconfessed, “You are the Messiah” (8:29). Jesus didprovide the disciples a sign: his transfiguration (9:2–8).
Jesuswithdrew from Galilee to Tyre and Sidon, where a Syrophoenician womanrequested healing for her daughter. Jesus replied, “I was sentonly to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). Galileans hadlong resented the Syrian provincial leadership partiality thatallotted governmental funds in ways that made the Jews receive mere“crumbs.” Consequently, when the woman replied, “Eventhe dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table,”Jesus applauded her faith (Matt. 15:27–28). Healing a deaf-muteman in the Decapolis provided another example of Jesus’ministry in Gentile territory (Mark 7:31–37). Peter’sconfession of Jesus as the Christ took place during Jesus’travel to Caesarea Philippi, a well-known Gentile territory. The citywas the ancient center of worship of the Hellenistic god Pan.
Judeanministry.Luke records a geographic turning point in Jesus’ ministry ashe resolutely set out for Jerusalem, a direction that eventually ledto his death (Luke 9:51). Luke divides the journey to Jerusalem intothree phases (9:51–13:21; 13:22–17:10; 17:11–19:27).The opening verses of phase one emphasize a prophetic element of thejourney. Jesus viewed his ministry in Jerusalem as his mission, andthe demands on discipleship intensified as Jesus approached Jerusalem(Matt. 20:17–19, 26–28; Mark 10:38–39, 43–45;Luke 14:25–35). Luke presents the second phase of the journeytoward Jerusalem with a focus on conversations regarding salvationand judgment (Luke 13:22–30). In the third and final phase ofthe journey, the advent of the kingdom and the final judgment are themain themes (17:20–37; 19:11–27).
Socialconflicts with religious leaders increased throughout Jesus’ministry. These conflicts led to lively challenge-riposteinteractions concerning the Pharisaic schools of Shammai and Hillel(Matt. 19:1–12; Mark 10:1–12). Likewise, socioeconomicfeathers were ruffled as Jesus welcomed young children, who hadlittle value in society (Matt. 19:13–15; Mark 10:13–16;Luke 18:15–17).
PassionWeek, death, and resurrection. Eachof the Gospels records Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem with thecrowds extending him a royal welcome (Matt. 21:4–9; Mark11:7–10; Luke 19:35–38; John 12:12–15). Lukedescribes Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem as a time during whichJesus taught in the temple as Israel’s Messiah (19:45–21:38).
InJerusalem, Jesus cleansed the temple of profiteering (Mark 11:15–17).Mark describes the religious leaders as fearing Jesus because thewhole crowd was amazed at his teaching, and so they “beganlooking for a way to kill him” (11:18). Dismayed, each segmentof Jerusalem’s temple leadership inquired about Jesus’authority (11:27–33). Jesus replied with cunning questions(12:16, 35–36), stories (12:1–12), denunciation(12:38–44), and a prediction of Jerusalem’s owndestruction (13:1–31). One of Jesus’ own disciples, JudasIscariot, provided the temple leaders the opportunity for Jesus’arrest (14:10–11).
Atthe Last Supper, Jesus instituted a new Passover, defining a newcovenant grounded in his sufferings (Matt. 26:17–18, 26–29;Mark 14:16–25; Luke 22:14–20). He again warned thedisciples of his betrayal and arrest (Matt. 26:21–25, 31; Mark14:27–31; Luke 22:21–23; John 13:21–30), and laterhe prayed for the disciples (John 17:1–26) and prayed in agonyand submissiveness in the garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:36–42;Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–42). His arrest, trial,crucifixion, death, and resurrection followed (Matt. 26:46–28:15;Mark 14:43–16:8; Luke 22:47–24:9; John 18:1–20:18).Jesus finally commissioned his disciples to continue his mission bymaking disciples of all the nations (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 1:8)and ascended to heaven with the promise that he will one day return(Luke 24:50–53; Acts 1:9–11).
TheIdentity of Jesus Christ
Variousaspects of Jesus’ identity are stressed in the four NT Gospels,depending on their target audiences. In the Gospels the witnesses toJesus’ ministry are portrayed as constantly questioning andexamining his identity (Matt. 11:2–5; 12:24; 26:63; 27:11; Mark3:22; 8:11; 11:28; 14:61; Luke 7:18–20; 11:15; 22:67, 70;23:39; John 7:20, 25–27; 18:37). Only beings of the spiritualrealm are certain of his divinity (Mark 1:34; 3:11; Luke 4:41). AtJesus’ baptism, God referred to him as his Son, whom he loved(Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Likewise, when Jesus wastransfigured in the presence of Peter, James, and John, a voiceaffirmed, “This is my Son, whom I love” (Matt. 17:5; Mark9:7). At the moment of his death, the questioning of Jesus’identity culminated in a confession by a Roman centurion and otherguards: “Surely he was the Son of God!” (Matt. 27:54; cf.Mark 15:39).
Miracleworker.In the first-century setting, folk healers and miracle workers werepart of the fabric of society. Jesus, however, performed signs andmiracles in order to demonstrate the authority of the kingdom of Godover various realms: disease, illness, the spiritual world, nature,and even future events. Especially in the Gospel of John, Jesus’signs and miracles are used to show his authority and thus hisidentity.
Nochallenge superseded Jesus’ authority. Among his ample miraclesand signs, he changed water into wine (John 2:7–9), calmed astorm in the sea (Matt. 8:23–27; Mark 4:35–39; Luke8:22–25), exorcized demons (Matt. 9:32–34; Mark 5:1–13;Luke 9:42–43), healed the sick (Mark 1:40–44), raised thedead (Matt. 9:23–25; Mark 5:35–42; Luke 7:1–16;8:49–54; John 11:17, 38–44), performed miraculousfeedings (Matt. 14:17–21; 15:34–38; Mark 6:30–44;8:5–9; Luke 9:10–17; John 6:8–13), and walked onwater (Matt. 14:25–26; Mark 6:48–49; John 6:19).
ThePharisees requested miracles as evidence of his authority (Mark8:11–12). Jesus refused, claiming that a wicked and adulterousgeneration asks for a miraculous sign (Matt. 12:38–39; 16:1–4).The only sign that he would give was the sign of Jonah—hisdeath and resurrection three days later—a personal sacrifice,taking upon himself the judgment of the world (Matt. 12:39–41).
Rabbi/teacher.Jesus’ teaching style was similar to other first-century rabbisor Pharisees (Mark 9:5; 10:51; John 1:38; 3:2). What distinguishedhim was that he spoke with great personal authority (Matt. 5:22, 28,32, 39, 44; Mark 1:22). Like other rabbis of his day, Jesus gathereddisciples. He called these men to observe his lifestyle and to joinhim in his ministry of teaching, healing, and exorcism (Matt. 10:1–4;Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16).
Jesusused a variety of teaching methods. He frequently spoke in parables(Matt. 6:24; 13:24–52; 18:10–14, 23–35;21:28–22:14; 24:32–36, 45–51; 25:14–30; Mark4:1–34; 12:1–12; 13:28–34; Luke 8:4–18;12:41–46; 13:18–21; 14:15–24; 15:1–16:15,19–31; 18:1–14; 19:11–27; 20:9–19; 21:29–33),used figures of speech (John 10:9), hyperbole (Matt. 19:24; Mark10:25; Luke 18:25), argumentation (Matt. 26:11), object lessons(Matt. 24:32), frequent repetition (Matt. 13:44–47; Luke13:18–21), practical examples, and personal guidance.
Majorthemes in Jesus’ teaching include the kingdom of God, the costof discipleship, internal righteousness, the end of the age, hisidentity, his mission, and his approaching death. In his teachings,observance of Torah was given new context and meaning because God’skingdom had “come near” (Matt. 3:2). Jesus had come tofulfill the law (Matt. 5:17).
Jesus’teaching ministry often took place amid social conflict. Theseconflicts were couched in so-called challenge-riposte interactions inwhich the honor status of those involved was at stake. Jesus usedthese interactions as teachable moments. When questioned, Jesus gavereplies that reveal omniscience or intimate knowledge of God’swill, especially in the Gospel of John. In the Synoptic Gospels,Jesus’ answers are both ethical and practical in nature. TheSynoptics portray Jesus as challenged repeatedly with accusations ofviolating customs specified in the Jewish law. Jesus’ answersto such accusations often echoed the essence of 1Sam. 15:22,“To obey is better than sacrifice,” phrased by Jesus as“I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Matt. 9:13; 12:7). Anoverall “better than” ethic was common in Jesus’public teaching.
TheSermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7) contains a “better than”ethic in which internal obedience is better than mere outwardobedience. For example, Jesus said that anger without cause is equalto murder (Matt. 5:21–22), that looking at a woman lustfullyamounts to adultery (Matt. 5:28), and that instead of revengingwrongs one must reciprocate with love (Matt. 5:38–48). Jesusvalued compassion above traditions and customs, even those containedwithin the OT law. He desired internal obedience above the letter ofthe law.
Jesus’teachings found their authority in the reality of God’simminent kingdom (Matt. 3:2; 10:7; Mark 1:15; Luke 10:9),necessitating repentance (Matt. 3:2), belief (Mark 1:15), dependence(Matt. 18:3–5; Mark 10:15), and loyalty to a new community—thefamily of Jesus followers (Mark 3:34; 10:29–30). Jesus urged,“Seek first [God’s] kingdom and his righteousness”(Matt. 6:33). Preaching with such urgency was common among propheticteachers of the intertestamental period. Jesus, however, had his owngrounds for urgency. He held that God deeply valued all humans (Matt.10:31) and would bring judgment swiftly (Matt. 25:31–46).
Examplesof a “greater good” ethic in the Synoptics include theoccasions when Jesus ate with sinners (Mark 2:16–17). Jesusused an aphorism in response to accusations about his associationswith sinners, saying, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor,but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners”(Mark 2:17). He advocated harvesting and healing on the Sabbath (Mark2:23–28; 3:1–6), and when he was accused of breaking thelaw, he pointed to an OT exception (1Sam. 21:1–6) todeclare compassion appropriate for the Sabbath. Jesus also appliedthe “greater good” ethic in the case of divorce, sincewomen suffered the societal stigma of adultery and commonly becameoutcasts following divorce (Matt. 19:8–9; Mark 10:5–9).
Jesus’kingdom teachings were simultaneously spiritual, ethical, andeschatological in application. The teachings were aimed at internaltransformation (Matt. 5:3–9; 18:3; Mark 10:15) and spurring onlove (Matt. 5:44; 7:21). The Spirit of the Lord had called Jesus tobless the hurting ones as they aspired to a godly character. Jesustaught, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father isperfect” (Matt. 5:48), and “Be merciful, just as yourFather is merciful” (Luke 6:36). The “blessed” onesin Jesus’ teachings are poor of spirit, peace driven, mournful,and hungry for righteousness, consumed with emulating godlycharacter.
Somescholars believe that Jesus promoted an “interim ethic”for the kingdom, intended only for a short period prior to the end oftime. However, he was explicit regarding the longevity of histeachings: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words willnever pass away” (Matt. 24:35; Luke 16:17).
Messiah.The concept of an anointed one, a messiah, who would restore theglories of David’s kingdom and bring political stability wascommon in Jewish expectation. Both before and after the Babyloniancaptivity, many Jews longed for one who would bring peace andprotection. Israel’s prophets had spoken of a coming deliverer,one who would restore David’s kingdom and reign in justice andrighteousness (2Sam. 7:11–16; Isa. 9:1–7; 11:1–16;Jer. 23:5–6; 33:15–16; Ezek. 37:25; Dan. 2:44; Mic. 5:2;Zech. 9:9). Isaiah’s description of the servant (Isa. 53) whosesuffering healed the nation provided a slightly different angle ofexpectation in terms of a deliverer.
Jesus’authority and popularity as a miracle worker called up messianicimages in first-century Jewish minds. On several occasions hearerscalled him “Son of David,” hoping for the Messiah (Matt.12:23; 21:9). Simon Peter was the first follower who confessed Jesusas the Christ, the “Messiah” (Matt. 16:16; Mark 8:29). Inline with Isaiah’s model of the Suffering Servant, Jesusfocused not on political ends but rather on spiritual regenerationthrough his own sacrificial death (Mark 10:45).
Eschatologicalprophet.Many scholars claim that Jesus is best understood as a Jewishapocalypticist, an eschatological prophet who expected God tointervene in history, destroy the wicked, and bring in the kingdom ofGod. Central in this understanding are Jesus’ propheciesconcerning the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (Matt. 24:1–2,15–22; Mark 13:1; Luke 21:5–24; John 2:19; Acts 6:14). Inaddition, it is noted that Jesus had twelve disciples, representativeof the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:2–28; Luke 22:23–30).Certain of Jesus’ parables, those with apocalyptic images ofcoming judgment, present Jesus as an eschatological prophet (Matt.24:45–25:30; Luke 12:41–46; 19:11–27).
SufferingSon of God.Jesus’ first recorded teaching in a synagogue in Nazareth wasparadigmatic (Luke 4:16–21). He attributed the reading, Isa.61:1–2, to his personal calling to serve, and in doing so herevealed a trajectory of suffering. The Gospel of Mark likewise aptlyportrays Jesus as the suffering Son of God. Jesus’ ownteachings incorporated his upcoming suffering (Mark 8:31; 9:12–13,31; 10:33–34). He summarized his mission by declaring, “TheSon of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give hislife as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). His earthly careerended with a trial in Jerusalem consisting of both Roman and Jewishcomponents (Matt. 26:57–68; 27:1–31; Mark 14:53–65;15:1–20; Luke 22:54–23:25; John 18:19–24;18:28–19:16). He was insulted, scourged, mocked, and crucified.
Jesus’suffering culminated in his humiliating death by crucifixion (Matt.27:33–50; Mark 15:22–37; Luke 23:33–46; John19:16–30). Crucifixion was a death of unimaginable horror,bringing shame and humiliation to the victim and his family. Anyonehanging on a tree was considered cursed (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13).Thus, especially in a Jewish society, anyone associated with acrucified person bore the shame of following one who was executed asa lowly slave and left as a cursed corpse. The apostle Paul referredto this shame of the cross when he stated, “I am not ashamed ofthe gospel” (Rom. 1:16).
ExaltedLord.Jesus had prophesied that he would rise again (Matt. 16:21; 17:9, 23;20:19; 27:63; Mark 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:34; Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:7, 46).The testimony of the Synoptics is that the resurrection of JesusChrist indeed occurred on the third day, Christ having died on Friday(Mark 15:42–45; Luke 23:52–54; John 19:30–33) andrisen again on Sunday (Matt. 28:1–7; Mark 16:2–7; Luke24:1–7; John 20:1–16). The resurrected Jesus waswitnessed by the women (Matt. 28:8–9), the eleven disciples(Matt. 28:16–17; Luke 24:36–43), and travelers on theroad to Emmaus (Luke 24:31–32). According to Paul, he appearedto as many as five hundred others (1Cor. 15:6). He appeared inbodily form, spoke, showed his scars, and ate (Luke 24:39–43;John 20:27; Acts 1:4). After forty postresurrection days, Jesusascended into the heavenly realm (Acts 1:9).
Asmuch as Jesus’ death was the epitome of shame, his victory overdeath was his ultimate exaltation (Phil. 2:5–11). At Pentecost,Peter proclaimed that in the resurrection God fulfilled OT promises(Ps. 16:10) by raising his Son from the grave (Acts 2:30–31).Furthermore, Christ provided freedom from the law through hisresurrection (Rom. 5:13–14), God’s approval of his lifeand work (Phil. 2:8–9), and God’s designation of him asLord over all the earth, the living and the dead (Acts 17:30–31;Phil. 2:10; Heb. 1:3), and over all his enemies (Eph. 1:20–23).
Jesus’exaltation commenced the beginning of forgiveness and justification(Luke 24:46–47; Acts 13:30–39; Rom. 4:25) and hisintercession for the people of God (Rom. 8:34). His ascensionsignaled the coming of the Holy Spirit as comforter and teacher (John14:26; Acts 2:33) and was accompanied by the promise of his return inglory (Luke 24:51), at which time he will render judgment (Matt.19:28; 24:31; Rev. 20:11–15) and establish his eternal kingdom(1Cor. 15:24; 2Tim. 4:1; Rev. 11:15; 22:5).
Jesus’Purpose and Community
Inthe Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah, whopreaches the good news of the kingdom, urging people to repent(4:17–23). Repentance and belief allow one to enter thekingdom. The call into the kingdom is a call into a new covenant, onemade in Jesus’ blood (26:28).
Inthe prologue to the Gospel of Mark, the narrator reveals the identityof Jesus (1:1). Jesus is presented as the one who brings good tidingsof salvation (cf. Isa. 40:9; 52:7; 61:1). The centrality of thegospel, the good news (Mark 1:14–15), is evident.
Lukelikewise presents the preaching of the good news as a main purpose ofJesus’ ministry (4:43). The content of this good news is thekingdom of God (4:43; 8:1; 16:16). When the disciples of John theBaptist asked Jesus if he was the one who was to come (7:20), Jesusanswered, “Go back and report to John what you have seen andheard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosyare cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good newsis proclaimed to the poor” (7:22). The kingdom of God, aspresented in Luke, brings freedom for the prisoners, recovery ofsight for the blind, and release for the oppressed (4:18). Jesus’healings and exorcisms announce the coming kingdom of God alreadypresent in the ministry of Jesus (4:40–44; 6:18–20;8:1–2; 9:2; 10:8–9).
Inthe Gospel of John, Jesus testifies to the good news by way of signsthroughout his ministry. These signs point to Jesus’ glory, hisidentity, and the significance of his ministry. Jesus is the Messiah,the Son of God, who offers eternal and abundant life. This abundantlife is lived out in community.
Inthe Gospel of John, the disciples of Jesus represent the community ofGod (17:21). The disciples did not belong to the world, but theycontinued to live in the world (17:14–16). Throughout hisministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a callto loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38;Luke 9:23–26), a call to the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50;Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock Iwill build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call tocommunity. Jesus’ presence as the head of the community wasreplaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).
Jesus’ministry continued in the community of Jesus’ followers, God’sfamily—the church. Entrance into the community was obtained byadopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and through theinitiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26;Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–62; John 1:12; 3:16;10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9).
TheQuests for the Historical Jesus
Thequest for the historical Jesus, or seeking who Jesus was from ahistorical perspective, is a modern phenomenon deemed necessary byscholars who claim that the NT Gospels were written long after Jesus’death and were heavily influenced by the post-Easter understanding ofthe church.
Thebeginning of this quest is often dated to 1770, when the lecturenotes of Hermann Samuel Reimarus were published posthumously.Reimarus had launched an inquiry into the identity of Jesus thatrejected as inauthentic all supernatural elements in the Gospels. Heconcluded that the disciples invented Jesus’ miracles,prophecies, ritualistic religion, and resurrection. Reimarus’sconclusions were not widely accepted, but they set off a flurry ofrationalistic research into the historical Jesus that continuedthroughout the nineteenth century. This became known as the “firstquest” for the historical Jesus.
In1906 German theologian Albert Schweit-zer published The Quest of theHistorical Jesus (German title: Von Reimarus zu Wrede: EineGeschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung), a scathing indictment of thefirst quest. Schweitzer’s work showed that nineteenth-centuryresearchers re-created Jesus in their own image, transforming thehistorical Jesus into a modern philanthropist preaching aninoffensive message of love and brotherhood. Schweitzer’sconclusions marked the beginning of the end for this first quest.Schweitzer himself concluded that the historical Jesus was aneschatological prophet whose purposes failed during his last days inJerusalem.
Withthe demise of the first quest, some NT scholars, such as RudolfBultmann, rejected any claim to being able to discover the historicalJesus. This trend continued until 1953, when some of Bultmann’sformer students launched what has come to be known as the “newquest” for the historical Jesus (1953–c. 1970). Thisquest created new interest in the historical Jesus but was stilldominated by the view that the portrait of Jesus in the Gospels islargely a creation of the church in a post-Easter setting.
Asthe rebuilding years of the post–World WarII era wanedand scholars started to reap academic fruit from major archaeologicalfinds such as the DSS, research on the historical Jesus moved on towhat has been called the “third quest.” This quest seeksespecially to research and understand Jesus in his social andcultural setting.
The name “Judas” (Gk. Ioudas) is the Greekequivalent for the Hebrew name “Judah” (Yehudah). (1)Oneof Jesus’ brothers (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3), also known as Jude,author of the letter that bears his name (Jude 1). (2)Oneof the apostles identified as “Judas son of James” (Luke6:16; Acts 1:13) and “Judas (not Judas Iscariot)” (John14:22), probably the same person as Thaddaeus (Matt. 10:3; Mark3:18). (3)Adefunct revolutionary identified as “Judas the Galilean”(Acts 5:37), probably the same person as Judas the Galilean fromGamala in Gaulanitis, who led a revolt against Roman taxes in AD 6(Josephus, Ant. 18.4; 20.102; J.W. 2.118, 433–34; 7.253). (4)Aresident of Damascus, known simply as “Judas,” who had ahouse on Straight Street where the blinded Saul stayed (Acts 9:11).(5)Aleading Jerusalem believer and prophet, “Judas calledBarsabbas” (i.e., “son of the Sabbath” or “sonof Sabbas”; possibly a relative of “Joseph calledBarsabbas” in Acts 1:23). Along with Silas, he was sent withPaul and Barnabas to add verbal testimony to the letter to theGentile Christians from the apostles and elders after the Jerusalemcouncil (Acts 15:22, 27, 32). (6)Oneof the twelve disciples chosen by Jesus, he betrayed Jesus. See JudasIscariot.
God created and named the darkness “night” (Gen.1:5). OT writers associated night with aberrant behavior, fear,suffering, sorrow, and terror (Pss. 6:6; 30:5; 42:3; 77:2; 91:5), butthey also knew that God worked throughout the night to deliver hispeople (Exod. 12:29–32; Deut. 16:1). Night is also associatedwith secrecy and danger, as seen in the Israelite exodus (Exod.12:31) and the holy family’s flight to Egypt (Matt. 2:14). InOT times night was divided into three watches, but four in the NTRoman world. Night often was chosen to highlight divine activity(Matt. 2:12, 22; Acts 5:19; 12:6–7), but it also served todepict Judas’s betrayal of Jesus as a deed of spiritualdarkness (John 13:30). Figuratively, night is used to refer to thispresent age (Rom. 13:12), and people of the world “belong tothe night” (1Thess. 5:5). There will be “no night”in the new heaven and earth (Rev. 21:25; 22:5).
Simon Peter is the best-known and the most colorful of Jesus’twelve disciples. The name “Peter” means “rock”in Greek. In some biblical texts, he is also called “Cephas,”which is the Aramaic word for “rock” (see esp. John1:42). Despite the ups and downs of Peter’s spiritual life, Godwas able to use him as the foundational apostle for the establishmentof the NT church. Peter first met Jesus immediately after Jesus’baptism, when Peter’s brother, Andrew, heard John the Baptist’sidentification of Jesus as the Lamb of God (John 1:35). In classicmissionary style, “the first thing Andrew did was to find hisbrother Simon and tell him, ‘We have found the Messiah’ ”(John 1:41). Peter’s official call to ministry took placelater, when he was fishing on the Sea of Galilee and Jesus issued thewell-known invitation “Come, follow me, ... and Iwill send you out to fish for people” (Matt. 4:19).
Peterwas the chief spokesman for the disciples at Caesarea Philippi whenJesus asked them, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”(Matt. 16:13). Peter responded, “You are the Messiah, the Sonof the living God,” an insight given him by God the Father(16:16–17). Jesus promised him, “I tell you that you arePeter [petros], and on this rock [petra] I will build my church, andthe gates of Hades will not overcome it” (16:18). Yet Peteralmost immediately became a “stumbling block” to Jesuswhen he chided Jesus for saying that he must go to Jerusalem andsuffer many things and be killed (16:21–22). Another majorfailure by Peter came with his threefold denial of Jesus after Jesushad warned him, “This very night, before the rooster crows, youwill disown me three times” (Matt. 26:34). Fortunately, therewere tears of repentance, and Peter was forgiven and restored afterJesus’ threefold question (“Do you love me?” [John21:15–19]).
Jesus’death and resurrection, as well as the giving of the Holy Spirit onthe day of Pentecost, had stabilizing effects on Peter. After Jesus’ascension, Peter exercised primary leadership among the otherdisciples during the upper room prayer meetings and the choosing ofthe replacement for Judas (Acts 1). Peter clearly was the publicspokesman for the apostles on the day of Pentecost and a key playerin the establishment of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 2–5), inreceiving the first Samaritan converts (Acts 8:14–25), and inreceiving Cornelius as the first Gentile convert (Acts 10–11).Following Peter’s miraculous deliverance from prison in Acts12, he essentially disappears from recorded history. By the time ofthe Jerusalem council (Acts 15), Peter reappeared briefly, but bythis time he had been replaced by James as the leader of theJerusalem church. Peter apparently continued to live as a missionary(1Cor. 9:5), specifically “to the circumcised”(Gal. 2:7–8), for the rest of his life. Yet Peter was stillhuman, and on one occasion Paul gave him a stinging rebuke (Gal.2:11–21).
Duringhis travels, Peter undoubtedly visited the recipients of his laterletter 1Peter (and possibly 2Peter) in north central AsiaMinor (the regions of “Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia andBithynia” [1Pet. 1:1]), possibly Corinth (1Cor.1:12; 3:22), and, at least by the end of his life, Rome itself.According to tradition, he was put to death by Nero between AD 64 and68, apparently by being crucified upside down (cf. John 21:18–19).Peter’s life is a vivid illustration of the Christian’sfight for faith, God’s gracious provision, and Jesus’intercession on his behalf (“I have prayed for you, Simon, thatyour faith may not fail” [Luke 22:32]).
In the OT, many Hebrew words are translated as “prince,”all of which can also be rendered as, for example, “chieftain,”“captain,” “leader,” “ruler.”These words generally carry connotations of dominion, leadership, andnobility and do not necessarily indicate the direct male descendantsof a sitting king or queen. Thus, Zeph. 1:8 distinguishes betweenprinces and king’s sons. In the NT, the Greek word archōncorresponds to “prince” but is also translated as“ruler.” The same word and concept used with humanauthorities extend to the supernaturalrealm. Thus, Michael, the angelic protector of Israel in Daniel’svision, is a “prince” (Dan. 12:1). In the Gospels, Satanis called the “prince of this world” (John 12:31; 14:30;16:11) and also the “prince of demons” (Matt. 9:34;12:24; see also Eph. 2:2). Isaiah calls the messiah “Prince ofPeace” (Isa. 9:6), and Jesus is called a “Prince andSavior” (Acts 5:31). God is called the “Prince ofprinces” in Dan. 8:25.
“Author of life” is a title applied to Jesus byPeter in Acts 3:15 (KJV: “Prince of life”), where he usesit ironically to highlight that people had killed the one who was thesource of life. Elsewhere, the Greek word behind “author”(archēgos) is translated as “prince,” “leader,”“captain,” or “pioneer” (Acts 5:31; Heb.2:10; 12:2).
The act of repudiating sin and returning to God. Implicit inthis is sorrow over the evil that one has committed and a completeturnabout in one’s spiritual direction: turning fromidols—anything that wrests away the affection that we oweGod—to God (1Sam. 7:3; 2Chron. 7:14; Isa. 55:6;1Thess. 1:9; James 4:8–10).
Terminology.TwoHebrew word groups are associated with the concept of repentance:nakham and shub. Nakham means “to pant, sigh, groan, howl.”When used with respect to the circ*mstances of others and the feelingof sympathy that they engender, it refers to compassion. When used inreference to feelings generated by one’s own actions, it means“grief” or “remorse.” In this regard, nakhampredominantly has God as the subject. The KJV translates it aboutforty times as “repent.” While one of the senses ofnakham is that of grief over one’s actions, those actions areethically neutral: it does not presuppose that they are inherentlyevil. The NIV is correct, therefore, in never translating nakham as“repent” where God is the subject. In most cases whereGod is its subject, the term highlights God’s compassion andcomfort for the afflicted (Isa. 40:1–2; 49:13), or his griefover the dire consequences brought upon or intended for thedisobedient and his subsequent commutation of their punishment (Exod.32:12–14; Judg. 2:18; 2Sam. 24:16; Jon. 3:10), or hisgrief over human self-ruinous obstinacy (Gen. 6:6–7; 1Sam.15:11). Even in the few cases where nakham has human subjects, itneed not always be rendered “repent,” their concern forchange of heart notwithstanding (cf. Exod. 13:17; Judg. 21:6).
Theconcept of repentance is better conveyed by the Hebrew verb shub(“to turn, return back, restore, reverse, bring back”) orits noun form in rabbinic Judaism, teshubah (“repentance”).While shub has many nonreligious uses, its theological significancederives from the sense of either “turning away from God”(apostasy [cf. Hos. 11:7; Jer. 11:10]) or “turning to God”(repentance [cf. 1Sam. 7:3–4; Hos. 14:1]). Our concern iswith the latter sense, which normally would be followed by God’sreturn to his people (Zech. 1:3; Mal. 3:7).
Inthe OT, shub is central to the concept of repentance. It is the keyterm employed in the entreaty to God’s people to return to him(2Chron. 30:6; Isa. 44:22; Ezek. 14:6). The outward signs ofrepentance in the OT include fasting, mourning (sometimes whilesitting in dust or pouring ashes or dust upon one’s head),rending garments, wearing sackcloth, and offering sacrifices (Lev.5:5–12; 2Kings 22:11, 19; Neh. 9:1; Joel 2:12–17).The Israelites became so preoccupied with these outward forms thatGod told them repeatedly that he no longer had interest in them, butrather sought contrition of the heart (Ps. 34:18; Isa. 1:10–16;58; 66:2; Joel 2:13).
Inthe NT, the dominant terms used for repentance are the verb metanoeōand the cognate noun metanoia; the overwhelming majority of theseoccur in Luke-Acts. These terms are used to expressthe complete turnaround in one’s way of life, includingconversion,faith, and regeneration (Acts 2:28; 3:19; 5:31; 20:21). Occasionallythese two terms are complemented by epistrephō to stress thepositive side of repentance, that of turning from sin oridols to God (Acts 9:35; 11:21; 26:20).
Elementsof repentance.The constituent elements of biblical repentance include thefollowing: (1)A recognition of one’s sin, its damagingeffects on life and nature, its affront to God’s word andauthority, and its dire consequences (Ezek. 18:4; Rom. 3:23; 8:19–22;Rev. 21:8). (2)Personal outrage and remorse over one’ssin, grief at one’s helplessness, and a deep longing forforgiveness, reconciliation, and restoration. (3)A personalresponse to God’s grace in choosing a new spiritual directionby breaking with the past and returning to God. This includesconfession and renunciation of sin, and prayer for God’sforgiveness (Lev. 5:5; Prov. 28:13; 1John 1:9). (4)Insome circ*mstances, repentance may require restitution (Exod.22:1–15; 1Sam. 12:3; 2Sam. 12:6; Luke 19:8). (5)Atit* core, repentance is a rejection of the autonomous life and thesurrender of oneself to the lordship of Christ (Jer. 3:22; Mark8:34–38). (6)The proof of true repentance is the worthyfruit of a changed life (Luke 3:7–14; Eph. 4:17–32; Col.1:10).
One of three Jewish factions, they did not believe in theresurrection of the dead or in angels or spirits (Acts 23:8). Knownas the aristocracy of the priesthood, Sadducees dominated theSanhedrin, including the high priesthood (Acts 5:17). They werecommitted to the Torah, but not to the Pharisaic oral tradition. Seealso Jewish Parties.
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).
A group or faction with distinctive beliefs and practices.The author of Acts uses “sect” (Gk. hairesis) inreference to the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and Christians, withoutpejorative connotations (Acts 5:17; 15:5; 24:5, 14; NIV: “party”at 5:17; 15:5). Paul’s use of the term is more critical (e.g.,Gal. 5:20).
The Bible has much to say about suffering. While in the OTsuffering is regularly an indication of divine displeasure (Lev.26:16–36; Deut. 28:20–68; Ps. 44:10–12; Isa. 1:25;cf. Heb. 10:26–31), in the NT it becomes the means by whichblessing comes to humanity.
TheBible often shows that sinfulness results in suffering (Gen. 2:17;6:5–7; Exod. 32:33; 2Sam. 12:13–18; Rom. 1:18;1Cor. 11:27–30). Job’s friends mistakenly assumethat he has suffered because of disobedience (Job 4:7–9; 8:3–4,20; 11:6). Job passionately defends himself (12:4; 23:10), and in thefinal chapter of the book God commends Job and condemns his friendsfor their accusations (42:7–8; cf. 1:1, 22; 2:10). The writermakes clear that suffering is not necessarily evidence of sinfulness.Like Job’s friends, Jesus’ disciples assume thatblindness is an indication of sinfulness (John 9:1–2). Jesusrejects this simplistic notion of retributive suffering (John 9:3,6–7; cf. Luke 13:1–5).
Theprayers of suffering people are expressed in the sixteen communal andthirty-seven individual laments in the book of Psalms. Within thelaments the writers describe their problems, express feelings, makerequests, ask questions (“How long, Lord?” [13:1]; “Whyhave you forsaken me?” [22:1]), and lodge complaints againstGod (“My eyes fail, looking for my God [69:3]), enemies (“Youhave made us an object of derision to our neighbors, and our enemiesmock us” [80:6]), and even themselves (“I am a worm andnot a man” [22:6]).
TheNT writers reveal that Jesus’ suffering was prophesied in theOT (Mark 9:12; 14:21; Luke 18:31–32; 24:46; Acts 3:18; 17:3;26:22–23; 1Pet. 1:11; referring to OT texts such as Ps.22; Isa. 52:13–53:12; Zech. 13:7). The Lord Jesus is presentedas the answer to human suffering: (1)Through the incarnation,God’s Son personally experienced human suffering (Phil. 2:6–8;Heb. 2:9; 5:8). (2)Through his suffering, Christ paid the pricefor sin (Rom. 4:25; 3:25–26), so that believers are set freefrom sin (Rom. 6:6, 18, 22) and helped in temptation (Heb. 2:18).(3)Christ Jesus intercedes for his suffering followers (Rom.8:34–35). (4)Christ is the example in suffering (1Pet.2:21; 4:1; cf. Phil. 3:10; 2Cor. 1:5; 4:10; 1Pet. 4:13),and though he died once for sins (Heb. 10:12), he continues to sufferas his church suffers (Acts 9:4–5). (5)Christ provideshope of resurrection (Rom. 6:5; 1Cor. 15:20–26; Phil.3:10–11) and a future life without suffering or death (Rev.21:4).
Thereare many NT examples of suffering believers (John 15:20–21;Acts 4:3; 5:18; 7:57–60; 8:1–3; 12:1–5; 14:19;16:22–24; 18:17; 2Cor. 6:4–5, 8–10; Heb.10:32; 1Pet. 5:9; Rev. 2:10). Suffering is part of God’splan for his people (Acts 9:16; 1Thess. 3:2–4) and ispart of what it means to be a follower of Christ Jesus (Acts 14:22;Rom. 8:17; Phil. 1:29; 1Pet. 2:21; 4:12).
TheNT writers repeatedly mention the benefits of suffering, for it hasbecome part of God’s work of redemption. The suffering ofbelievers accompanies the proclamation and advancement of the gospel(Acts 5:41–42; 9:15–16; 2Cor. 4:10–11;6:2–10; Phil. 1:12, 27–29; 1Thess. 2:14–16;2Tim. 1:8; 4:5) and results in salvation (Matt. 10:22; 2Cor.1:6; 1Thess. 2:16; 2Tim. 2:10; Heb. 10:39), faith (Heb.10:32–34, 38–39; 1Pet. 1:7), the kingdom of God(Acts 14:22), resurrection from the dead (Phil. 3:10–11), andthe crown of life (Rev. 2:10). It is an essential part of thedevelopment toward Christian maturity (Rom. 5:3–4; 2Cor.4:11; Heb. 12:4; James 1:3–4; 1Pet. 1:7; 4:1).
Sufferingis associated with knowing Christ (Phil. 3:10); daily inward renewal(2Cor. 4:16); purity, understanding, patience, kindness,sincere love, truthful speech, the power of God (2Cor. 4:4–10);comfort and endurance (2Cor. 1:6); obedience (Heb. 5:8);blessing (1Pet. 3:14; 4:14); glory (Rom. 8:17; 2Cor.4:17); and joy (Matt. 5:12; Acts 5:41; 2Cor. 6:10; 12:10; James1:2; 1Pet. 1:6; 4:13). Other positive results of Christiansuffering include perseverance (Rom. 5:3; James 1:3), character andhope (Rom. 5:4), strength (2Cor. 12:10), and maturity andcompleteness (James 1:4). Present suffering is light and momentarywhen compared to future glory (Matt. 5:10–12; Acts 14:22; Rom.8:18; 2Cor. 4:17; Heb. 10:34–36; 1Pet. 1:5–7;4:12–13).
Throughoutthe Bible, believers are instructed to help those who suffer. The OTlaw provides principles for assisting the poor, the disadvantaged,and the oppressed (Exod. 20:10; 21:2; 23:11; Lev. 19:13, 34; 25:10,35; Deut. 14:28–29; 15:1–2; 24:19–21). Jesusregularly taught his followers to help the poor (Matt. 5:42; 6:3;19:21; 25:34–36; Luke 4:18; 12:33; 14:13, 21). It is believers’responsibility to show mercy (Matt. 5:7; 9:13), be generous (Rom.12:8; 2Cor. 8:7; 1Tim. 6:18), mourn with mourners (Rom.12:15), carry other’s burdens (Gal. 6:1–2), and visitprisoners (Matt. 25:36, 43). See also Servant of the Lord.
A political agitator, quite likely a messianic pretender,mentioned by the Pharisee Gamaliel in Acts 5:36. At some time priorto AD 6 Theudas gathered a group of four hundred men, but soon he waskilled and his followers were dispersed. This may have occurred inthe aftermath of Herod the Great’s death in 4 BC. The Jewishhistorian Josephus also mentions a magician named “Theudas,”who led a band of followers to the Jordan River sometime in AD 44–46(Ant. 20.97–99). He and many of his supporters were killed bythe Romans.
Secondary Matches
The following suggestions occured because
Acts 5:17-42
is mentioned in the definition.
This book, commonly referred to simply as Acts, is the sequelto the Gospel of Luke and records the exciting history of the firstthree decades of the early church. The book begins with the ascensionof Jesus, followed by his sending of the Holy Spirit, and ends withthe gospel message being proclaimed by Paul as a prisoner in thecapital city of the Roman Empire. In the pages in between, the readeris introduced to the key people, places, and events of this strategicand crucial time of Christian history. The book of Acts providesinsightful and inspiring reading. It forms the backdrop forunderstanding much of the NT (especially Paul’s letters), andit provides important models for the contemporary church.
HistoricalBackground
Inorder to understand the book of Acts, one must become familiar withits historical background. This includes understanding the book’sauthorship, recipients, and setting. In terms of authorship, the booktechnically is anonymous; however, there are good reasons for holdingto church history’s traditional view that its author is Luke.This tradition dates back to the early second century and issupported by internal evidence. This evidence further reveals thatLuke was a physician and close companion of the apostle Paul (infact, Luke was actually with Paul for some of the events that herecords in Acts; see the “we” passages, found in16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:8–18; 27:1–28:16). Lukewas well educated, well traveled, and familiar with both the Jewishand the Greco-Roman worlds. He was a Hellenistic God-fearerand a Christian. He was also familiar with the Jewish Scriptures,Greco-Roman rhetoric, and ancient histories, thus making him theperfect candidate to write an accurate history of early Christianity.
Thespecific recipient of Acts is Theophilus (1:1). Theophilus could becharacterized as a relatively new believer of high social status, aperson educated in Greco-Roman rhetoric and history, and one whopossessed the financial means to promote and publish Luke’swork (both the Gospel of Luke and Acts). It is probable that in someway Theophilus served as a bridge to a wider readership. It seemslikely that Theophilus was Luke’s ideal reader (i.e., aninfluential Greco-Roman of high social standing).
Thespecific setting of Acts is difficult to determine; however, it seemsclear that the book was written during a time of crisis for thechurch. This crisis involved persecution and slander of Christians byboth Jews and Gentiles. Both groups were trying to persuade publicopinion against Christianity, including the opinion of Greco-Romanauthorities. The persecution and slander were taking their toll onthe church, and many Christians were demoralized and struggling toremain faithful as witnesses of Jesus. Christianity needed someone towrite a response to this crisis. This response had to do threethings: (1) accurately relate the history of the church toinfluential Greco-Romans of high social status; (2) show thatChristianity was an ancient religion (ancient religions wereconsidered to be legitimate by Roman authorities) and an asset to theRoman Empire, not a threat; (3) legitimize Christianity overagainst Judaism. The author of this reponse had to be someone who wasrespected both inside and outside of the Christian faith community,who knew the church’s history well, and who was educated inGreco-Roman rhetoric. What better authorial candidate than Luke?Finally, the church also needed a person of high social status andfinancial means to help publish and promote the work; thus,Theophilus was chosen.
Purpose
Thebook of Acts was written for a variety of purposes. These includeapologetics, legitimization, discipleship, and witness to salvation.The apologetic purpose of Acts focuses on how Christianity could berecognized as an ancient, honorable, and officially protectedreligion in the Roman Empire. Although Judaism had the status ofreligio licita (legal religion) with Roman authorities for most ofthe first century, Christianity encountered serious problems in thisrespect. Acts itself reveals a substantial amount of such evidence inthis regard. For example, 16:20–21 shows that at Philippi, Pauland Silas were charged with disturbing the peace by advocatingunlawful customs. In Thessalonica, the missionaries were accused ofdefying Caesar by promoting another king named “Jesus”(17:7). At Corinth, the charge was that of persuading the peopletoward unlawful worship (18:13). Later in Acts, Paul was charged bythe Jewish priestly leaders with being part of an unacceptable sectthat was stirring up riots in Jewish communities (24:5–9). In28:22, when Paul addressed the Roman Jews, they responded by sayingthat “people everywhere are talking against this sect[Christianity].” Such accusations, accompanied by the fact thatChristianity’s founder had been crucified by Roman authorities,made it difficult for the Christians to gain credibility.Christianity’s precarious position with Rome was furtherexacerbated by a strong Jewish campaign to separate from Christiansand to label them as sectarian. This strategy certainly intended forChristianity to be viewed by Rome as religio illicita (illegal orforbidden religion). Thus, Luke writes Acts to defend Christianity byshowing that it is not a replacement of Judaism, but rather itslegitimate continuation. Therefore, it should be accepted by theRoman authorities as a legal religion just as Judaism was accepted.
Luke’sapologetic message also appears to be directed inwardly, to astruggling church. This inward focus leads to Luke’s next mainpurpose: legitimization of the Christian faith for its adherents. Aspart of his defense, Luke intends to equip the church in the midst ofan identity crisis due to the constant threats of illegitimacy. Thisexplains Luke’s strategy of retelling the story of the church’sorigins so that followers of Christ would understand their trueposition from God’s perspective. Thus, Luke verifies fourthings: (1) the Jewish Scriptures prophesied a coming messiah,and Jesus matched these prophecies; (2) the resurrection wasforetold in Scripture and verified by eyewitnesses; (3) it wasGod’s plan all along for Gentiles to be included in God’sredemptive work; (4) Jews who rejected Jesus were acting in thesame way their ancestors did; therefore, believers should not besurprised by their negative reaction to Jesus. Luke uses stories suchas the one in Acts 2:41–47 to verify that salvation wasgenuinely being accomplished in the church and that Christians wereexperiencing the fulfillment of God’s ancient promises toIsrael. Luke’s writing is intended to encourage hiscontemporary church members to remain faithful in their service andwitness for the Lord. He reminds them that they are the true(legitimate) “people of God” and that God’s Spiritwill help them prevail and will give them abundant life even in themidst of hardship and persecution.
Anotherkey purpose of the book of Acts is to foster discipleship. Theprologues of both Luke’s Gospel and Acts verify that Luke iswriting to provide instruction and teaching for Theophilus (see Luke1:1–4; Acts 1:1–2). Part of this instruction reveals thatthe ascension of Jesus was not the end of his relationship with theworld, but rather a new beginning. Jesus’ departure did notmean abandonment; in fact, it meant just the opposite. Jesus verifieshis continuing presence and work in the world after his departurejust as he had lived and worked before. In other words, the sameSpirit who directed the ministry of Jesus is now going to direct theministry of Jesus’ followers. The rest of the book of Actsprovides instruction (with many personal examples) on how Christ canfulfill the ministry of believers through the power and direction ofthe Holy Spirit. Luke’s discipleship teaching includes helpingbelievers learn how to experience and follow God’s Spirit(chap. 2), to boldly witness for Christ in the midst of persecution(chaps. 3–4, 8, 14, 16–17, 19–28), to sacrificiallyshare resources with other Christians in need (chaps. 2, 4, 11), toresolve disputes within the church (chaps. 6, 15), and to take thegospel message of salvation to all people (chaps. 2, 11, 13–28).
Thebook of Acts places great emphasis on the message of salvation andthe responsibility given to believers to share this salvific messagewith all people. This salvation-witness concept is clearly one ofLuke’s key purposes for the book of Acts. The Pentecost eventof Acts 2 initiates the theme of salvation for all people and thussets the agenda for the rest of the book. In this passage, variousJews from many nations hear the good news in their own tongue, whichsuggests that this news is for peoples of all tongues and nations yetfor Jews first. The rest of Acts continues this theme of theuniversal scope of salvation. Luke makes it clear that this salvationcrosses all geographical, ethnic, and social boundaries. In Acts,Luke is bridging the gap between Jesus’ earthly ministry and alater generation of Christ followers who are to take the gospel to amuch wider geographical area with even greater ethnic diversity. Themessage of salvation should be joined with Luke’s emphasis onwitness. The centrality of the theme of witness in Acts is verifiedby Jesus’ words right before the ascension: “And you willbe my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and tothe ends of the earth” (1:8). The book of Acts tells the storyof how the early church received and obeyed the command of Jesus tobear witness of him to the ends of the earth.
LiteraryFeatures
Thesekey purposes of Acts are expounded through some distinctive literaryfeatures found in the book. One such literary feature is that thebook of Acts was written in a literary genre called “apologetichistoriography.” This genre can be defined as the story of asubgroup of people told by a member of the group who explains thegroup’s traditions and history while using Greco-Roman literaryfeatures. A good example of this literary genre is Josephus’sJewish Antiquities. Josephus tells the story of the Jews toGreco-Roman readers in hopes that they will better understand Jewishhistory and traditions and will accept the Jews in the largerGreco-Roman world. This appears to be exactly what Luke is doing inthe book of Acts for Christians. However, Luke is not giving adefense of a particular ethnic group; rather, he is defending amulticultural people who transcend ethnic and geographicalboundaries. In fact, this is a key part of Luke’s message.Throughout Acts, Luke is trying to explain why his religion is onethat crosses ethnic boundaries and is a universal religion inclusiveof all ethnicities. As Luke tells the story of Christianity, he iscareful to utilize Hellenistic literary features in order to connectwith his primary audience. Evidence of these Hellenistic literaryfeatures in the book of Acts includes a narrative style illustratingthe history through the personal experiences of key characters (Actstells the history of the early church through characters such asPeter and Paul), the frequent use of speeches, personal observationof at least part of the narrative while maintaining anonymity ofauthorship (the “we” passages of Acts), and the frequentuse of summaries to guide the narrative (Acts contains three majorsummaries [2:42–47; 4:32–37; 5:12–16] and a numberof minor summaries [6:7; 9:31; 12:24; 16:5; 19:20; 28:31]).
Outlineand Survey
Actscan be outlined according to Jesus’ final words, recorded in1:8: “You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you;and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea andSamaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
I.Witnesses in Jerusalem (1:1–8:3)II. Witnesses in Judeaand Samaria (8:4–12:25)III. Witnesses to the Ends of theEarth (13:1–28:31)
I.Witnesses in Jerusalem (Acts 1:1–8:3).Immediately following his ascension, Jesus tells his followers toreturn to Jerusalem and wait for the coming of the Holy Spirit. Theypromptly obey, and after ten days of waiting, the disciples aredramatically filled with the Holy Spirit and begin to share thegospel with those around them. This event occurs at the JewishPentecost festival, which was attended by Jews and Jewish proselytesfrom throughout the Roman Empire. After the Spirit comes atPentecost, Peter boldly preaches to the crowds, and over threethousand people respond with saving faith (2:41).
Lukenext provides an exciting summary of the Spirit-led life within theearly church. This life is characterized by the early believers’participation together in the sharing of worship activities, materialpossessions, and spiritual blessings (2:42–47). This summary isfollowed by several dramatic healing miracles accomplished throughPeter and the subsequent arrest of Christian leaders by Jewishreligious authorities. Instead of squelching the Christian movement,however, these arrests only enhance the spiritual revival and itsaccompanying miracles. This revival is characterized by extremegenerosity and unity within the early church (4:32–37).
Therevival joy, however, is marred by the deceitful actions of Ananiasand Sapphira, who lie to the church and to the Holy Spirit and arejudged by God with immediate death (5:1–11). This story provesthat God will go to extreme lengths to protect the unity of hischurch. Following more persecution and miracles, the disciples chooseseven men to oversee distribution of food to Hellenistic widows whohave been neglected in daily food distributions (6:1–7). One ofthese leaders, Stephen, is arrested and brought before the Sanhedrin.Stephen testifies boldly before the Jewish leaders and is promptlyexecuted by stoning (chap. 7). This execution is endorsed by Saul, azealous Pharisee who begins to lead fierce persecution against thechurch in Jerusalem (8:1–3).
II.Witnesses in Judea and Samaria (Acts 8:4–12:25).Saul’s persecution forces many of the early church believers toleave Jerusalem. These believers scatter throughout the surroundingareas of Judea and Samaria. As they scatter, however, they continueto preach the gospel (8:4). Philip preaches in Samaria and performsmany miraculous signs, producing a spiritual revival in the region.Hearing about this, the apostles send Peter and John to Samaria tominister to the Samaritans (8:18–25), thus confirming thecross-cultural nature of the gospel (Samaritans traditionally werehated by the Jews). Next Luke tells of Philip’s evangelizing ofan Ethiopian eunuch (8:26–40).
Followingthe Ethiopian’s belief in Jesus, the narrative tells of Saul’sdramatic conversion while traveling to Damascus to persecuteChristians there (9:1–19). Saul’s dramatic turnaround ismet with suspicion by the other disciples, but eventually he isaccepted by the believers with the help of Barnabas (9:27–30).Next Peter travels to the Judean countryside and heals the paralyticAeneas and raises Dorcas from the dead (9:32–42). Thesemiracles produce an exciting spiritual revival in the region.Following this, God gives Peter a vision to go to the coastal city ofCaesarea in order to minister to Cornelius, a Roman army officer.Cornelius is a God-fearer, and through Peter’s witness heresponds to the gospel message and receives the Holy Spirit (chap.10). Peter explains his actions with Cornelius to his concernedJewish companions and verifies that God has indeed included theGentiles in his plan of salvation (11:1–18).
Thisverification is followed by the report of what is happening in thechurch at Antioch, where Jews begin to share the gospel with largergroups of Gentiles (11:19–21). This cross-cultural evangelismproduces a spiritual revival in Antioch, causing the Jerusalem churchto send Barnabas to the large Syrian city to investigate (11:22–30).Barnabas confirms that God is indeed at work in Antioch and invitesSaul to come and help him disciple the new Gentile believers(11:25–26). Next Luke reports more persecution breaking outagainst Christians in Jerusalem, resulting in the arrest of James andPeter by King Herod. James is executed, but Peter miraculouslyescapes from prison with the help of an angel (12:1–19), andthe church continues to increase, spreading throughout the RomanEmpire.
III.Witnesses to the ends of the earth (Acts 13:1–28:31).Starting with chapter 13, the narrative shifts its focus from theministry of Peter to that of Paul (formerly Saul). The church atAntioch begins to take center stage over the church at Jerusalem.This church commissions Paul and Barnabas and sends them off on theirfirst missionary journey, accompanied by Barnabas’scousin John Mark. The missionaries first sail to Cyprus, where theypreach in synagogues and encounter a Jewish sorcerer, Bar-Jesus. Nextthey sail to Pamphylia, thus crossing into Asia Minor, and preach thegospel in Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe (this area wasknown as part of the region of Galatia). In these cities, Godprovides numerous miracles, and the missionaries experience a greatresponse to the gospel as well as much persecution because of thegospel. On one occasion, Paul is actually stoned and left for dead(14:19–20).
Unfazed,Paul and his team boldly continue their mission. Eventually, theyretrace their steps, strengthen the churches that they have started,and sail back to Syrian Antioch, where they give an exciting reportto the church (14:26–28). Following this report, Luke tells ofan important meeting of church leaders in Jerusalem. The subject ofthe meeting involves whether or not the new Gentile Christians shouldbe required to follow the Jewish laws and customs. After debating theissue, the leaders side with Paul, determining that the Gentilesshould not be burdened with Jewish laws and traditions, but simplymust live moral lives and not eat food that has been sacrificed toidols (chap. 15).
Followingthis meeting, Paul and Barnabas decide to make a second missionaryjourney. Unfortunately, the two missionaries get into a dispute overwhether to take John Mark with them again. The argument is such thatthe missionaries decide to separate, and Paul chooses a new partner,Silas. They travel by land back to Galatia. Barnabas takes John Markand sails to Cyprus. Paul and Silas return to Derbe and Lystra andthen make their way to Macedonia and Greece. They spend significanttime in Philippi, Thessalonica, and Corinth before returning toCaesarea and Antioch (chaps. 16–18). Following his return, Paulmakes a third missionary journey, revisiting churches in Galatia andPhrygia and staying in Ephesus for three years before visitingMacedonia and Greece for a second time.
Paulconcludes his third missionary journey with a trip to Jerusalem,where he is falsely accused of bringing a Gentile into the temple.This accusation creates a riot, and Paul is rescued by Romansoldiers, who arrest him and transfer him to a prison in Caesarea,where he spends two years awaiting trial under the rule of Felix andFestus (23:34–25:22). Paul eventually exercises his right as aRoman citizen to have his case heard by the emperor. He is sent toRome by boat and is shipwrecked on the island of Malta. Eventually hemakes his way to the capital city, where he is placed under housearrest. While in Rome, Paul maintains a rented house and is free toreceive visitors and write letters. In fact, it is thought that Paulpenned his “prison letters” during this time of housearrest (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon). The narrativeof Acts ends with Paul ministering boldly in Rome while awaiting histrial.
Actsand the Contemporary Church
Thebook of Acts provides a model for today’s church on numeroustopics. These include understanding the role of the Holy Spirit,practicing community life within the church, dealing with hardshipand persecution, overcoming social injustices, and carrying outmissions.
Actsreveals that the key issue for Christians is learning to experienceand follow God’s Holy Spirit, who enables believers to be boldin their witness for Christ, generous in their physical and spiritualsupport of each other, and effective in their ministries. Actsconsistently reveals that one’s joy, power, and purpose comefrom the Holy Spirit. According to Acts, learning to follow anddepend upon God’s Holy Spirit is the key to having a healthychurch.
Actsalso shows that the Holy Spirit produces a unique community lifecharacterized by worship, generosity, blessing, and unity. Luke callsthis Spirit-led common life koinōnia, which is explained andillustrated in the first five chapters of Acts (see esp. 2:42–47).It should be the desire and goal of every church to re-create thiskoinōnia community first experienced by the primitive church inActs.
Inaddition to its koinōnia, the book of Acts serves as a model forthe church in overcoming persecution and hardship. The narrative ofActs consistently reveals the sovereign power of God in overcomingopposition. The early church found great joy and growth in the midstof hardship and persecution, and today’s church can do thesame.
Anotherimportant example for the church provided by Acts is in the area ofsocial justice. Luke’s primitive church consistently removedethnic prejudices, eliminated social hierarchy and status within thechurch, and elevated the role of women. Acts provides inspiration andguidance for today’s church in facing these same social issues.
Inaddition to overcoming social injustices, the church in Acts providesan excellent example of mission ministry. These believersconsistently revealed God’s heart for the nations and made it apriority to share the gospel with all people everywhere. Acts’emphasis on the universal nature of the gospel, the responsibility ofindividual Christians to witness for Christ, and the importance ofplanting new churches and discipling new believers sets a pattern fortoday’s church in the area of missions.
Theseexamples should serve to inspire and guide the contemporary church asit seeks to follow and experience the Holy Spirit, who is sopowerfully revealed in the book of Acts.
Ancient court systems reflected the needs, values, andstructures of the broader society. Not surprisingly, the courtsystems in nomadic and urban societies are quite different. Nomadiccourts were more informal, based more on custom than law. The contextof nomadic justice was located primarily within the family and clan.Those with disputes sought out elders and wise leaders to settlethem. Urban court systems used more-fixed institutions of judgesunder the supervision of priests and kings. Even in an urban systemthe court functioned on a case-by-case basis and drew little or nodistinction between criminal and civil offenses. Cases dealtprimarily with an injury and the compensation for the injury. Thebasic process involved stating a case before a judge, each sidecalling witnesses, and the judge giving a judgment.
OldTestament
Courtsin ancient Israel reflected features of both nomadic and urban courtsystems as well as the broader judicial practices of the ancient NearEast. In ancient Israel a case could be tried by the elders, a judge,a priest, or the king. The elders were heads of families and leadingcitizens. They sat at the city gate (Prov. 31:23), where they heardcases (Ruth 4:1–12), oversaw property transactions (Gen.23:10–20), settled disputes, and imposed penalties (Deut.22:18–19). As Israelite society developed, judges wereappointed from each tribe and town to administer justice (Deut.16:18). If a case was too difficult, the judge could transfer thecase to a higher court and judge (Exod. 18:21–22). Once ahigher court gave a verdict, the participants and lower courts werebound by the decision (Deut. 17:8–13). Priests distinguishedbetween the holy and the common, between clean and unclean (Lev.10:10). However, they could judge all types of cases, not justreligious ones (Deut. 21:5; Ezek. 44:23–24).
Withthe establishment of the monarchy, the king became the highest judge,and the elders and priests became minor judges. David appointedjudges from the Levites over all Israel to administer justice(1 Chron. 26:29), but he also heard cases himself. Solomonprovided the quintessential example of a wise judge as he settled thecase of the two women and the one remaining child (1 Kings3:16–28). Solomon moved the court from the city gate to the“Hall of Justice” in his palace (1 Kings 7:7).Jehoshaphat reformed Judah’s court system and established twocourts, one over cases concerning God, the other over casesconcerning the king (2 Chron. 19:5–11).
TheOT does not provide a detailed description of the Israelite courtprocedures; however, glimpses into the procedures can be piecedtogether from several passages. Whether at the city gate, sanctuary,or palace, a private person who appeared as a plaintiff initiated thejudicial action (Deut. 25:7–8). The parties stood before thejudge, while the judge was seated (Deut. 19:17). However, the judgestood to pronounce judgment (Isa. 3:13). The plaintiff was the satan,“accuser” or “adversary” (Ps. 109:6). Theaccusation could be given orally (Isa. 41:21) or in writing (Job31:35–36). There was no public prosecutor or defender. Eachparty brought its own case and witnesses. A conviction required atleast two witnesses (Num. 35:30; Deut. 19:15). Witnesses acceptedresponsibility for the sentence, which is why they had to throw thefirst stones when such a penalty was in order (Deut. 17:7; John 8:7).If they provided false testimony, they faced the punishment for thecrime about which they testified. Each side could produce physicalevidence to make its case (Deut. 22:13–17). If a case lackedsufficient evidence or witnesses, an oath or an ordeal could beundertaken to support one’s case (Exod. 22:6–10). Attimes, lots were cast to select a guilty individual (Josh. 7:14–15)or to end a quarrel (Prov. 18:18). After everything had beenexamined, the judge acquitted the innocent and condemned the guilty(Deut. 25:1). Depending upon the crime, the penalty could be a fine,compensation, bodily punishment, or even death. Jail was primarilyused for those awaiting trial and not as a punishment. If evidenceand witnesses were lacking and a murder went unsolved, then asacrifice was made to declare the community’s innocence and toatone for the community (Deut. 21:1–8).
Ideally,judges were just, righteous, fair, and defenders of the weak (Deut.16:18–20). Unfortunately, multiple examples exist of falsewitnesses (Deut. 19:18) and corrupt judges who accepted bribes,perverted justice, and showed favoritism (Exod. 23:3, 8; Mic. 3:11).Ultimately, God was the supreme judge of all, protector of the weak,just, and no respecter of persons.
NewTestament
Duringthe NT period numerous lesser Sanhedrins, or councils, administeredjustice in Jewish communities. The lesser Sanhedrins consisted oftwenty-three members, but the one in Jerusalem, the Great Sanhedrin,consisted of the high priest and seventy members comprised ofpriests, scribes, elders, and laity from among the Sadducees and thePharisees. The Great Sanhedrin was the supreme legislative andjudicial body, and it wielded its own police force (Acts 5:24–26).The Romans allowed the Great Sanhedrin broad authority over internaland religious matters, but they limited its ability to exercisecapital punishment (John 18:31). The deaths of Stephen and James wereprobably lynchings rather than formal executions. Clearly, the GreatSanhedrin had the authority to administer corporal punishment (2 Cor.11:24).
TheMishnah provides insight into the Great Sanhedrin’s judicialprocedure. However, several of the procedures stand in tension withthe procedures described in the Gospels concerning Jesus’trial. Cases were to be heard only during the day, but at least ahearing into the charges facing Jesus occurred at night. Theproceedings against Jesus were held at the high priest’s palaceinstead of properly at the court (John 18:13). Capital cases couldnot be heard the day before the Sabbath or a festival, but Jesus wascondemned on Friday during Passover.
Thetrials of Jesus and Paul fit well with what is known about Roman law.Roman regional rulers heard cases involving public order but usuallyleft smaller issues in the hands of local courts. For example,Pilate, a prefect, initially wanted to release Jesus, and Gallio, theproconsul of Achaia, refused to hear the charges against Paul. Suchofficials could also delay a decision for extended periods of time.Hoping to receive a bribe, the procurator Felix held Paul for twoyears without a judgment (Acts 24:26). Roman officials also had thediscretion to send defendants to their home province. Pilate sentJesus to Herod because Jesus was from Galilee, and Felix inquiredabout Paul’s home in Cilicia. When hearing a case, the Romanofficial gave the defendant and the accuser opportunities to maketheir respective cases and to call witnesses. Pilate gave Jesus anopportunity to defend himself, and Festus explained that it is “notthe Roman custom” to condemn someone who has not yet faced theaccusers and put on a defense against their charges (Acts 25:16). Asa Roman citizen, Paul was afforded rights in the court system. WhenPaul was imprisoned and beaten without trial, he demanded an apologyfrom the Philippian officials (16:37). Paul’s Roman citizenshipalso gave him the right to appeal to Caesar (25:11).
Paulexpected Christians to abide by the decisions of the courts (Rom.13:1–3), but he also encouraged Christians to avoid takingother Christians to court (1 Cor. 6:1–11) because theyshould be able to settle disputes within the church.
Hermeneutics is the science and practice of interpretation. It can refer more generally to the philosophy of human understanding, or more specifically to the tools and methods used for interpreting communicative acts.
Human communication takes place in a variety of ways: through the use of nonverbal signs, through speech, and through writing. Effective communication requires some degree of shared belief, knowledge, and background between the participants. If the communicators have a significant amount of common ground, they will be able to successfully understand one another with little extra effort. Conversely, individuals with vastly different backgrounds will need to take extra steps to communicate effectively, such as defining special terms, avoiding jargon and colloquialisms, appreciating details about the other’s cultural assumptions, or learning a foreign language.
The Bible is not exempt from this process of communication. The Scriptures are meant to be read, understood, and put into practice (Luke 8:4–15; James 1:18), a task that requires effort and study on the part of its readers (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15). Everyone who reads the Bible is involved in this interpretative process, though readers will vary in their hermeneutical self-consciousness and skill. Thus, although readers are able to understand and appropriate much of the Bible without any special training in hermeneutical principles, such training is appropriate and helpful, both in attaining self-consciousness in interpretation and in acquiring new skills and insights in the effort to become a better reader.
The Development of Hermeneutics
The church has benefited from a long history of thinking about the nature and purpose of interpreting its Scriptures, and that reflection has resulted in a wide variety of hermeneutical theories and practices. How does one determine the meaning of a text? Is meaning the truth embedded within the passage? Or is it the original author’s intention in writing? Or does the text act independently of its author and history, either because it stands on its own terms or because it only “means” anything in interaction with readers? The answers to these questions will determine how readers approach a text, the questions they expect that text to answer, and the tools they use in interpretation.
From the early church to the Enlightenment. The early church emphasized the ability of the biblical text to convey heavenly truth, whether that truth was conceived as doctrinal teaching or absolute ethical rules. While the “literal meaning” of many texts could often supply simple truths and maxims, such a reading was at other times inadequate and could appear incompatible with what were considered basic and fundamental beliefs. Various allegorical techniques were therefore employed to explain such problematic texts. Interpreters often viewed the literal and historical features of the text as a starting point in the search for fuller meaning, as symbolic pointers to moral principles, absolute truths, or eternal realities. These practices were systematized throughout the Middle Ages and resulted in an extensive development of tradition. Church tradition, in turn, provided a degree of protection from the potential for arbitrariness in allegorical techniques, insisting that interpretation must be guided by the “rule of faith,” the traditional teaching and faith of the church.
Beginning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, scholarship moved to distance itself from such tradition. The Protestant Reformers, dissatisfied with the rule of church tradition, sought to displace its authority with the direct rule of Scripture. They therefore returned to the original biblical text, engaging in critical study of the text itself and translating the Bible into the vernacular to make it more widely accessible. In the centuries that followed, Enlightenment scholars went a step further in their rejection of the church as the sole repository of knowledge. Instead, they asserted, knowledge was acquired through scientific inquiry and critical study. Such inquiry could be applied to any field: the forces of nature, human anatomy, or the interpretation of texts. The meaning of a text was not some abstract truth or heavenly principle; rather, meaning was determined by the human author’s original intention in writing and was therefore a historical matter. The intention of an author could be better exposed and understood through a more complete study of both the language in which a text was written and the historical circ*mstances that surrounded it. Many of these same emphases had been championed by the Protestant Reformers; yet the Enlightenment thinkers differed on one key point: the Reformers never questioned that the text was the word of God.
From the Enlightenment to the present. This favorable attitude toward historical research dwindled over the centuries. In its place authors emphasized the primacy of the text as text, apart from any connection to its origin and history. Literature, it is argued, ultimately operates independently from its author’s intention. All that matters is the text, and it is the reader’s job to understand the text on its own terms, apart from the contingencies surrounding its creation. To that end, interpreters should pay careful attention to the text’s literary features, including its plot structure, characterization, themes, and use of imagery. An interesting example of this hermeneutical dynamic is found in John 19:22, where Pilate asserts, “What I have written, I have written.” Pilate’s words quickly take on significance far beyond their author’s intention, primarily because they are juxtaposed with other themes in John, such as testimony and the kingship of Christ.
More recent approaches have emphasized the role of the reader in the construction of meaning. Interpretation, it is argued, is determined by the interaction between reader and text; readers bring their own presuppositions to the task of interpretation, and such assumptions determine meaning. The author and the historical context of the text will exert some influence, but the primary determinant of meaning is the present reader in his or her present environment. This is not to say that the text “means” whatever a reader wants it to mean; rather, it makes meaning contingent upon the contemporary environment and not subject to anything external to individual readers. On the one hand, readers must“actualize” the text by applying and appropriating it within an environment alien to the original. On the other, readers have the right, and in some cases the responsibility, of undermining the text, particularly if that text assists in the oppression of others.
Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic
An effective hermeneutic requires keeping each of these elements in constant balance with one another. God’s word is truthful and fully trustworthy, yet it is given to his people through individual human authors, authors who wrote in a particular context to a particular audience at a particular time. Understanding the Bible therefore requires knowledge of the purposes of these authors in their specific historical contexts. Nevertheless, our primary access to authorial intention is through the biblical text itself. Finally, understanding always requires personal interaction with, and application of, the text of Scripture to each person’s own life and circ*mstances. Thus, hermeneutics involves the simultaneous interaction of a variety of perspectives—truth, author, text, and reader—each of which cannot function properly without the others. What follows here is an outline of the most important hermeneutical tools required for such a weighty endeavor.
Linguistics
An appreciation of the nature, structure, and function of language is fundamental to any interpretative endeavor. Obviously, this applies first of all to the specific languages in which the books of the Bible were originally composed. Each language has its own unique vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, and structures available to a writer in one language often are absent in another. Thus, while it is often necessary and acceptable to rely on translations (Neh. 7:73–8:12), readers should be aware that translation itself involves a degree of unavoidable interpretation.
A more general analysis of language is also useful. Understanding the typical patterns by which authors will string sentences together is necessary for following a writing’s train of thought. This tool, called “discourse analysis,” operates above the sentence level, attempting to understand and explain how sentences function in conjunction with one another in order to produce meaningful paragraphs, and how those paragraphs in turn operate within the overarching purpose of the discourse. These patterns of discourse can vary on the basis of book, author, language, culture, and literary genre, but there are also features of effective discourse common to all communication. Thus, while the principles and rules of communication are often intuitively grasped, understanding language, both generally and specifically, is foundational to the task of interpretation.
Literature and Literary Theory
The biblical writers are concerned not only with the informational content of their writing, but also with the manner in which that content is communicated. The words, patterns of speech, style, and imagery of any text provide significant insight into its purpose and message, apart from that text’s specific propositional content. The diversity of language used in the Gospels provides an example of this. Each of the four Gospel authors has a slightly different concern in his writing. John’s purpose, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31), explains his frequent use of courtroom language, such as “testimony” and “witness” (e.g., John 21:24). Mark, by contrast, sweeps the reader along a fast-paced and intensely personal exposition of Jesus’ life and death through the terseness and immediacy of his narration. Attention to these literary details allows the reader to more fully participate in the world of the text.
Such decisions will often depend upon a thorough analysis of genre. A reader naturally interprets historical narrative differently from poetry and didactic material. Furthermore, the conventions of different genres change over time. The book of Acts, for example, despite its essentially historical character, does not appear concerned with recording an exact dictation of the many speeches it reports, despite modern expectations that historical writing should be as precise as possible. The classification of ancient genres and the description of their respective conventions therefore require a good deal of analysis and sensitivity, but often such insights are provided by a careful and open reading of the text.
History
As the product of a particular author at a particular time, each book of the Bible is situated within its own unique historical context. Paul, for example, while perhaps conscious of the importance of his letters for posterity, wrote to specific churches or individuals with a singular purpose. This particularity of author, audience, and circ*mstance can often cause interpretative problems. Thus, while background studies are not always necessary to get the general idea of the author’s message, they can be invaluable in protecting readers from anachronism and enabling them to better appreciate the author’s purpose and perspective.
Historical study is assisted by specialized disciplines. Archaeology, for example, focuses on the beliefs, habits, practices, and history of ancient cultures, harnessing a wealth of evidence to that end. Similarly, anthropology and other social sciences are able to explore facets of modern cultures in order to better assess cross-cultural presuppositions and behaviors, many of which provide insight into ancient civilizations that shared similar attitudes. These methods provide the reader with the information necessary to understand a text in terms consistent with its cultural backdrop, highlighting both the similarities and the differences between the Bible and its environment. Recent discoveries of ancient Hittite treaties, for example, shed light on the “cutting ceremony” recorded in Gen. 15. These treaties detail similar ceremonies in which the vassal of a king would walk between hewed animal carcasses as a symbol of allegiance; if disobedience occurred, the vassal would share the fate of the animals. A similar ceremony occurs in Genesis, but with an interesting twist at the end: God, not Abram, passes through the pieces (15:17).
Humility and the Attitude of the Reader
Careful attention in interpretation requires a great deal of humility. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the attitude of the reader for an effective hermeneutic. Being a good reader requires willingness to share and participate in the world of the author and the text, a willingness that postpones judgment and expects personal change. This, in turn, requires a spirit of self-criticism, a commitment to defer one’s own presuppositions in favor of those of the text. Although readers are never able to fully distance themselves from their cultural situation and assumptions, the study of hermeneutics, among other things, can provide tools and skills for self-criticism and self-awareness, skills that enable the reader to better understand, appreciate, and appropriate the meaning of a text. Even a peripheral understanding of the complexities of interpretation can help readers develop an attitude of humility, imagination, and expectation as they approach the Scriptures.
Such humility is a prerequisite for application. The depth of meaning embedded in any text, and especially within the Bible, provides the humble reader with a rich and powerful tool for personal growth. Having better understood the world of the text on its own terms, readers are able to “project” that world onto themselves and their environment, to appropriate its meaning in a new and possibly foreign context. Thus, Jesus promises that those who hear, understand, and put his word into practice will yield a crop “some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown” (Mark 4:20).
Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation
Certain unique features of the biblical text can create special opportunities and challenges for the Christian interpreter. These challenges are at work in the Bible’s own interpretation of itself. The Bible was written by many different authors over the course of a long period of history; it is therefore not surprising to find later authors reflecting on earlier periods. This innerbiblical interpretation offers the Christian insights into the unique nature of biblical hermeneutics and therefore provides a foundational model in approaching the Bible as the word of God.
The common and preeminent assumption that grounds innerbiblical interpretation is the commitment to ultimate divine authorship. Thus, the writer of Hebrews, though affirming the diversity of human authorship in the Bible (1:1), regularly introduces OT quotations with statements such as “God says” (1:5), “he spoke through David” (4:7), and “the Holy Spirit says” (3:7). Other writers tend to prefer the formula “it is written,” but each of these reflects a common presupposition that the Scriptures are ultimately delivered by God (2 Pet. 1:21).
Divine authorship means, at the very least, that there is a depth of meaning and purpose to the text, a depth often hidden even from the human author (1 Pet. 1:10–12). Psalm 2, for example, probably originally served as a coronation hymn used to celebrate the appointment of a new king in Israel. Yet the NT understands this psalm as a prophecy fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5). The intention of the original speaker can even be at odds with God’s intention, such as when Caiaphas claims, “It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50; cf. Acts 5:35–39). In this case, the irony of Caiaphas’s statement creates a powerful testimony, contrary to his intent, and is used by John to promote confidence in Jesus.
Furthermore, because the Scriptures are from God, they have a consistent and central focus. The NT unhesitatingly views all of Scripture, in all its diversity, as focused, by virtue of divine inspiration, on the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is seen in, for example, Luke 24:13–35, where the resurrected Jesus, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” explains to his disciples “what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (cf. John 5:39; 12:41). This central focus on Christ requires the Christian interpreter to understand any individual verse in light of its context within the canon, to operate with the same assumption as the NT apostles, that all the Scriptures are concerned with testifying to Jesus the Christ.
Additionally, Paul views both Testaments as the special possession and once-for-all foundation of God’s church (Eph. 2:19–20; cf. Acts 2:42). The church, from a NT perspective, is the primary audience of the entirety of Scripture (1 Pet. 1:12) and is therefore uniquely entrusted with understanding and proclaiming its message (Matt. 28:18–20). While the Scriptures themselves are the only infallible guide for interpretation, believers should not forsake the teaching and tradition of the church (2 Thess. 2:15).
Finally, full understanding of the Bible requires the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the faith of the reader. Belief and understanding go together (John 10:38), and both are the result of the unique work of the Holy Spirit (16:13). The proof that such understanding has taken place is the godly life of the believer (Rom. 2:13; James 1:22–25). The reverse is also true: disobedience works against understanding the riches of God’s Word (James 1:21). Such considerations underline the importance of the hermeneutical task. The tools and principles of hermeneutics are valuable only insofar as they enable the reader to better understand and appropriate the biblical message, to hear the word of God and respond appropriately.
The guilt that results from the shedding of innocent blood,the taking of an innocent life. The person who incurred bloodguiltwas considered not only morally but also ritually impure; thisimpurity attached not just to the person, for the land was maderitually impure as well. The only way this impurity could be removedwas by the execution of the guilty individual (Num. 35:29–34).The person responsible for carrying out the sentence was referred toas the “avenger of blood” (Num. 35:19–27; Deut.19:6–13 [see also Avenger]). This responsibility fell to theslain person’s nearest kin. For those whose taking of innocentlife was accidental (manslaughter), there were cities of refugeestablished to which the accused could flee from the avenger, and ajudicial process was set up to determine innocence or guilt (see alsoCities of Refuge).
Inaddition to the legal sections of the OT, bloodguilt comes underrepeated condemnation in narrative, poetry, and prophecy. Already inGen. 4 the murder of Abel is narrated, with God declaring that Abel’sblood “cries out to me from the ground” (4:10). Numerousaccounts in Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles narrate both the sheddingof innocent blood and the ensuing vengeance that was carried out(e.g., 2 Sam. 16:8).
Proverbswarns the young not to join with those who lie in wait to shedinnocent blood (1:11–18). The psalms, as well as condemningthose who shed innocent blood, also pay special attention to the factthat God himself plays the role of the avenger of blood (Pss. 5:6;9:12; 79:10). Lamentations attributes the exile directly to theincurrence of bloodguilt (Lam. 4:13–14).
Theprophets were especially concerned with bloodguilt. God would notaccept sacrifices from those whose hands were “full of blood”(Isa. 1:15; cf. 59:1–7). Their sacrifices were unacceptable fortwo reasons: (1) since they had incurred bloodguilt, they wereritually impure and therefore not in a position to be able to offersacrifices; (2) the sacrifices that they were offering had comeinto their possession as a result of their oppression and murder ofthe poor; that is, they were not the legitimate owners of that whichthey were sacrificing (see also Jer. 7:6; 19:4; 22:3, 17; 26:15;Ezek. 22–24).
Inthe Gospels, the chilling words “His blood is on us and on ourchildren” (Matt. 27:25) are pronounced with regard to perhapsthe most heinous instance of bloodguilt in the Bible (see also Matt.23:30, 35; 27:4–8; Luke 11:50–51; Acts 5:28).
Simon Peter is the best-known and the most colorful of Jesus’twelve disciples. The name “Peter” means “rock”in Greek. In some biblical texts, he is also called “Cephas,”which is the Aramaic word for “rock” (see esp. John1:42). Despite the ups and downs of Peter’s spiritual life, Godwas able to use him as the foundational apostle for the establishmentof the NT church. Peter first met Jesus immediately after Jesus’baptism, when Peter’s brother, Andrew, heard John the Baptist’sidentification of Jesus as the Lamb of God (John 1:35). In classicmissionary style, “the first thing Andrew did was to find hisbrother Simon and tell him, ‘We have found the Messiah’ ”(John 1:41). Peter’s official call to ministry took placelater, when he was fishing on the Sea of Galilee and Jesus issued thewell-known invitation “Come, follow me, ... and Iwill send you out to fish for people” (Matt. 4:19).
Peterwas the chief spokesman for the disciples at Caesarea Philippi whenJesus asked them, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”(Matt. 16:13). Peter responded, “You are the Messiah, the Sonof the living God,” an insight given him by God the Father(16:16–17). Jesus promised him, “I tell you that you arePeter [petros], and on this rock [petra] I will build my church, andthe gates of Hades will not overcome it” (16:18). Yet Peteralmost immediately became a “stumbling block” to Jesuswhen he chided Jesus for saying that he must go to Jerusalem andsuffer many things and be killed (16:21–22). Another majorfailure by Peter came with his threefold denial of Jesus after Jesushad warned him, “This very night, before the rooster crows, youwill disown me three times” (Matt. 26:34). Fortunately, therewere tears of repentance, and Peter was forgiven and restored afterJesus’ threefold question (“Do you love me?” [John21:15–19]).
Jesus’death and resurrection, as well as the giving of the Holy Spirit onthe day of Pentecost, had stabilizing effects on Peter. After Jesus’ascension, Peter exercised primary leadership among the otherdisciples during the upper room prayer meetings and the choosing ofthe replacement for Judas (Acts 1). Peter clearly was the publicspokesman for the apostles on the day of Pentecost and a key playerin the establishment of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 2–5), inreceiving the first Samaritan converts (Acts 8:14–25), and inreceiving Cornelius as the first Gentile convert (Acts 10–11).Following Peter’s miraculous deliverance from prison in Acts12, he essentially disappears from recorded history. By the time ofthe Jerusalem council (Acts 15), Peter reappeared briefly, but bythis time he had been replaced by James as the leader of theJerusalem church. Peter apparently continued to live as a missionary(1Cor. 9:5), specifically “to the circumcised”(Gal. 2:7–8), for the rest of his life. Yet Peter was stillhuman, and on one occasion Paul gave him a stinging rebuke (Gal.2:11–21).
Duringhis travels, Peter undoubtedly visited the recipients of his laterletter 1Peter (and possibly 2Peter) in north central AsiaMinor (the regions of “Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia andBithynia” [1Pet. 1:1]), possibly Corinth (1Cor.1:12; 3:22), and, at least by the end of his life, Rome itself.According to tradition, he was put to death by Nero between AD 64 and68, apparently by being crucified upside down (cf. John 21:18–19).Peter’s life is a vivid illustration of the Christian’sfight for faith, God’s gracious provision, and Jesus’intercession on his behalf (“I have prayed for you, Simon, thatyour faith may not fail” [Luke 22:32]).
Terminology
TheNT word for “church” is ekklēsia, which means“gathering, assembly, congregation.” In classical Greekthe term was used almost exclusively for political gatherings. Inparticular, in Athens the word signified the assembling of thecitizens for the purpose of conducting the affairs of the city.Moreover, ekklēsia referred only to the actual meeting, not tothe citizens themselves. When the people were not assembled, theywere not considered to be the ekklēsia. The NT records threeinstances of this secular usage of the term (Acts 19:32, 39, 41).
Themost important background for the Christian use of the term is theLXX (Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, dated c. 250BC), which uses the word in a religious sense about one hundredtimes, almost always as a translation of the Hebrew word qahal. Whileqahal does not indicate a secular gathering (in contrast to ’edah,the typical Hebrew word for Israel’s religious gathering,translated by Greek synagōgē), it does denote Israel’ssacred meetings. This is especially the case in Deuteronomy, whereqahal is linked with the covenant.
Inthe NT, ekklēsia is used to refer to the community of God’speople 109 times (out of 114 occurrences of the term). Although theword occurs in only two Gospel passages (Matt. 16:18; 18:17), it isof special importance in Acts (23 times) and the Pauline writings (46times). It is found 20 times in Revelation and in isolated instancesin James and Hebrews. Three general conclusions can be drawn fromthis usage. First, ekklēsia (in both the singular and theplural) applies predominantly to a local assembly of those whoprofess faith in and allegiance to Christ. Second, ekklēsiadesignates the universal church (Acts 8:3; 9:31; 1 Cor. 12:28;15:9; especially in the later Pauline letters: Eph. 1:22–23;Col. 1:18). Third, the ekklēsia is God’s congregation(1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1).
TheNature of the Church
Thenature of the church is too broad to be exhausted in the meaning ofone word. To capture its significance, the NT authors utilize a richarray of metaphorical descriptions. Nevertheless, there are thosemetaphors that seem to dominate the biblical pictures of the church,five of which call for comment: the people of God, the kingdom ofGod, the eschatological temple of God, the bride of Christ, and thebody of Christ.
Thepeople of God.Essentially, the concept of the people of God can be summed up in thecovenantal phrase: “I will be their God, and they will be mypeople” (see Exod. 6:6–7; 19:5; Lev. 26:9–14; Jer.7:23; 30:22; 32:37–40; Ezek. 11:19–20; 36:22–28;Acts 15:14; 2 Cor. 6:16; Heb. 8:10–12; Rev. 21:3). Thus,the people of God are those in both the OT and the NT eras whor*sponded to God by faith and whose spiritual origin restsexclusively in God’s grace.
Tospeak of the one people of God transcending the eras of the OT andthe NT necessarily raises the question of the relationship betweenthe church and Israel. Modern interpreters prefer not to polarize thematter into an either/or issue. Rather, they talk about the churchand Israel in terms of there being both continuity and discontinuitybetween them.
Continuitybetween the church and Israel. Two ideas establish the fact that thechurch and Israel are portrayed in the Bible as being in a continuousrelationship. First, in the OT the church was present in Israel insome sense. Acts 7:38 suggests this connection when, alluding toDeut. 9:10, it speaks of the church (ekklēsia) in thewilderness. The same idea is probably to be inferred from theintimate association noted earlier existing between the wordsekklēsia and qahal, especially when the latter is qualified bythe phrase “of God.” Furthermore, if the church is viewedin some NT passages as preexistent, then one finds therein theprototype of the creation of Israel (see Exod. 25:40; Acts 7:44; Gal.4:26; Heb. 12:22; Rev. 21:11; cf. Eph. 1:3–14).
Second,Israel in some sense is present in the church in the NT. The many OTnames for Israel applied to the church in the NT establish that fact.Some of those are “Israel” (Gal. 6:15–16; Eph.2:12; Heb. 8:8–10; Rev. 2:14), “a chosen people”(1 Pet. 2:9), “the circumcision” (Rom. 2:28–29;Phil. 3:3; Col. 2:11), “Abraham’s seed” (Rom. 4:16;Gal. 3:29), “the remnant” (Rom. 9:27; 11:5–7), “theelect” (Rom. 11:28; Eph. 1:4), “the flock” (Acts20:28; Heb. 13:20; 1 Pet. 5:2), and “priesthood”(1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 1:6; 5:10).
Discontinuitybetween the church and Israel. The church, however, is not totallyidentical with Israel; discontinuity also characterizes therelationship. The church, according to the NT, is the eschatological(end-time) Israel incorporated in Jesus Christ and, as such, is aprogression beyond historical Israel (1 Cor. 10:11; 2 Cor.5:14–21). Indeed, significant discontinuity is introduced bythe fact that the church includes Gentiles as members of Israel,without requiring them to convert to Judaism first. Gentiles enter asGentiles. However, a caveat must be issued at this point. Althoughthe church is a progression beyond Israel, it does not seem to be thepermanent replacement of Israel (see Rom. 9–11, esp. 11:25–27).
Thekingdom of God.Many scholars have maintained that the life, death, and resurrectionof Jesus inaugurated the kingdom of God, producing the overlapping ofthe two ages. The kingdom has already dawned but is not yet complete.The first aspect pertains to Jesus’ first coming, and thesecond aspect relates to his second coming. In other words, the ageto come has broken into this age, and now the two existsimultaneously. This background is crucial in ascertaining therelationship between the church and the kingdom of God, because thechurch also exists in the tension that results from the overlappingof the two ages. Accordingly, one may define the church as theforeshadowing of the kingdom. Two ideas flow from this definition:first, the church is related to the kingdom of God; second, thechurch is not equal to the kingdom of God.
Thechurch and the kingdom of God are related. Not until after theresurrection of Jesus does the NT speak with regularity about thechurch. However, there are early signs of the church in the teachingand ministry of Jesus, in both general and specific ways. In general,Jesus anticipated the later official formation of the church in thathe gathered to himself the twelve disciples, who constituted thebeginnings of eschatological Israel—in effect, the remnant.More specifically, Jesus explicitly referred to the church in twopassages: Matt. 16:18–19; 18:17. In the first passage Jesuspromised that he would build his church despite satanic opposition,thus assuring the ultimate success of his mission. The notion of thechurch overcoming the forces of evil coincides with the idea that thekingdom of God will prevail over its enemies and bespeaks theintimate association between the church and the kingdom. The secondpassage relates to the future organization of the church, not unlikethe Jewish synagogue practices of Jesus’ day.
Thechurch and the kingdom of God are not identical. As intimatelyrelated as the church and the kingdom of God are, the NT does notequate the two, as is evident in the fact that the early Christianspreached the kingdom, not the church (Acts 8:12; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23,31). The NT identifies the church as the people of the kingdom (e.g.,Rev. 5:10), not the kingdom itself. Moreover, the church is theinstrument of the kingdom. This is especially clear from Matt.16:18–19, where the preaching of Peter and the church becomethe keys to opening up the kingdom of God to all who would enter.
Theeschatological temple of God.Both the OT and Judaism anticipated the rebuilding of the temple inthe future kingdom of God (e.g., Ezek. 40–48; Hag. 2:1–9;1 En. 90:29; 91:3; Jub. 1:17, 29). Jesus hinted that he wasgoing to build such a structure (Matt. 16:18; Mark 14:58; John2:19–22). Pentecost witnessed to the beginning of thefulfillment of that dream in that when the Spirit inhabited thechurch, the eschatological temple was formed (Acts 2:16–36).Other NT writers also perceived that the presence of the Spirit inthe Christian community constituted the new temple of God (1 Cor.3:16–17; 2 Cor. 6:14–7:1; Eph. 2:19–22; seealso Gal. 4:21–31; 1 Pet. 2:4–10). However,that the eschatological temple is not yet complete is evident in thepreceding passages, especially in their emphasis on the need for thechurch to grow toward maturity in Christ, which will be fullyaccomplished only at the parousia (second coming of Christ). In themeantime, Christians, as priests of God, are to perform theirsacrificial service to the glory of God (Rom. 12:1–2; Heb.13:15; 1 Pet. 2:4–10).
Thebride of Christ.The image of marriage is applied to God and Israel in the OT (seeIsa. 54:5–6; 62:5; Hos. 2:7). Similar imagery is applied toChrist and the church in the NT. Christ, the bridegroom, hassacrificially and lovingly chosen the church to be his bride (Eph.5:25–27). Her responsibility during the betrothal period is tobe faithful to him (2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:24). At the parousia theofficial wedding ceremony will take place, and with it the eternalunion of Christ and his wife will be actualized (Rev. 19:7–9;21:1–2).
Thebody of Christ.The body of Christ as a metaphor for the church is unique to thePauline literature and constitutes one of the most significantconcepts therein (Rom. 12:4–5; 1 Cor. 12:12–27; Eph.4:7–16; Col. 1:18). The primary purpose of the metaphor is todemonstrate the interrelatedness of diversity and unity within thechurch, especially with reference to spiritual gifts. The body ofChrist is the last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45), the new humanity of theend time that has appeared in history. However, Paul’s usage ofthe image, like the metaphor of the new temple, indicates that thechurch, as the body of Christ, still has a long way to gospiritually. It is not yet complete.
Sacraments
Atthe heart of the expression of the church’s faith are thesacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The formersymbolizes entrance into the church, while the latter providesspiritual sustenance for the church.
Baptism.Baptism symbolizes the sinner’s entrance into the church. Threeobservations emerge from the biblical treatment of this sacrament.First, the OT intimated baptism, especially in its association ofrepentance of sin with ablutions (Num.19:18–22; Ps. 51:7; Ezek.36:25; cf. John 3:5). Second, the baptism of John anticipatedChristian baptism. John administered a baptism of repentance inexpectation of the baptism of the Spirit and fire that the Messiahwould exercise (Matt. 3:11 // Luke 3:16). Those who accept Jesusas Messiah experience the baptism of fire and judgment (which may bean allusion to undergoing the great tribulation/messianic woes thatlead into the messianic kingdom). Third, the early church practicedbaptism in imitation of the Lord Jesus (Matt. 3:13–17 //Mark 1:9–11 // Luke 3:21–22; see also John 1:32–34;cf. Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38; 8:16; Rom. 6:3–6; 1 Cor.1:13–15; Gal. 3:27; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:21). Thesepassages demonstrate some further truths about baptism: baptism isintimately related to faith in God; baptism identifies the personwith the death and resurrection of Jesus; baptism incorporates theperson into the community of believers.
Lord’sSupper.The other biblical sacrament is the Lord’s Supper. This ritesymbolizes Christ’s spiritual nourishment of his church as itcelebrates the sacred meal. Two basic points emerge from the biblicaldata concerning the Lord’s Supper. First, it was instituted byChrist (Matt. 26:26–29; Mark 14:22–25; Luke 22:15–20;1 Cor. 11:23–25), probably as an adaptation of thePassover meal. If that is the case, then, Jesus will have introducedtwo changes into the Passover seder: he replaced the unleavened breadwith a reference to his body being given for us on the cross; hereplaced the cup of redemption with a reference to his shed blood onthe cross, the basis of the new covenant. Second, the early churchpracticed the Lord’s Supper probably weekly, in conjunctionwith the love feast (see 1 Cor. 11:18–22; cf. Jude 12). Atwofold meaning is attached to the Lord’s Supper by the NTauthors. First, it involves participation in Christ’s salvation(Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24–25), and in two ways:participating in the Lord’s Supper looks back to the death ofJesus, in which the believer now shares; participating in the Lord’sSupper looks forward to Christ’s return, the culmination pointof the believer’s salvation. Second, the Lord’s Supperinvolves identification with the body of Christ, the community offaith (1 Cor. 10:16–17; 11:27–33).
Worship
Theultimate purpose of the church is to worship God through Christ andin the power of the Holy Spirit (see, e.g., Rev. 4–5). Theearly church first worshiped in the Jerusalem temple (Acts 2:46; 3:1;5:42) as well as in the synagogue (Acts 22:19; cf. John 9:22; James2:2). At the same time, and into the near future, believers met inhomes for worship (Acts 1:13; 2:46; 5:42; cf. Rom. 16:15; Col. 4:15;Philem. 2; 2 John 10; 3 John 1, 6). Although many JewishChristians no doubt continued to worship God on the Sabbath, theestablished time for the church’s worship came to be Sunday,the day of Jesus’ resurrection (Acts 20:7; Rev. 1:10). Theearly church most probably patterned its order of worship after thesynagogue service: praise in prayer (Acts 2:42, 47; 3:1; 1 Thess.1:2; 5:17) and in song (1 Cor. 14:26; Phil. 2:6–11; Col.1:15–20), the expounding of Scripture (Acts 2:42; 6:4; Col.4:16; 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Tim. 4:13), and almsgiving to theneedy (Acts 2:44–45; 1 Cor. 16:1–2; 2 Cor. 8–9;James 2:15–17).
Serviceand Organization
Fiveobservations emerge from the NT regarding the service andorganization of the early church. First, the ministry of the churchcenters on its usage of spiritual gifts, which are given to believersby God’s grace and for his glory as well as for the good ofothers (Rom. 12:3; Eph. 4:7–16). Second, every believerpossesses a gift of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:7; Eph. 4:7). Third,it is through the diversity of the gifts that the body of Christmatures and is unified (Rom. 12:4; 1 Cor. 12:12–31; Eph.4:17–18). Fourth, although there was organized leadership inthe NT church, including elders (1 Tim. 3:1–7 [also called“pastors” and “bishops”; see Acts 20:17, 28;1 Pet. 5:1–4]) and deacons (1 Tim. 3:8–13),there does not seem to have been a gap between the “clergy”and the “laity” in the church of the first century;rather, those with the gift of leadership are called to equip all thesaints for the work of the ministry (Eph. 4:7–16). Fifth,spiritual gifts are to be exercised in love (1 Cor. 13).
The protection of individual freedoms against government restriction, such as the freedom of expression, press, religion, and assembly (cf. the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution). Those who champion these rights often ground them in liberal ideology, enshrining individual autonomy over against collectivism. However, a Christian worldview better establishes these freedoms and avoids idolizing the self. While God ordains civil authorities as his earthly representatives to restrain evil and administer justice (Rom. 13:1–7; Titus 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13), only Jesus Christ reigns as Lord and as judge of the living and the dead (2 Cor. 5:10). Civil liberties are therefore those matters of conscience that a government should leave between individuals and God (Acts 4:19; 5:29). These include how, or whether, they worship him (religious freedom) and reflect the divine image in which they were created (expressive freedom; cf. Gen. 1:26). Thus, by violating civil liberties a government commits a greater sin than restraining personal autonomy: it assumes Christ’s office for itself.
A person exempted from military training and service on thebasis of deeply held religious convictions against participating inwarfare.
Jesus’call to “not resist an evil person” and to “turn tothem the other cheek” (Matt. 5:39; Luke 6:29–36) makesthe clearest case for Christian conscientious objection. Jesus alsoblessed peacemakers (Matt. 5:9), commanded love of enemy and neighbor(Matt. 5:44; 22:39; Mark 12:31), and refused to build his kingdom byforce (John 6:15; 18:36). Beyond violence, war may violate theChristian’s conscience because it often necessitates deceptionand breeds fear, hatred, greed, and pride, be it individual,national, ethnic, or otherwise.
Conversely,Christians are obligated to obey civil authorities (Rom. 13:1–6;Titus 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13–14), for whom Scripture reservesthe right to wield the sword (Rom. 13:4). Some argue that theseverses allow or oblige believers to fight when called to duty.Furthermore, this sinful world may require loving one’sneighbors by using violence to protect them. If Christians enjoy thefreedoms and well-being defended by a military, should they notcontribute to it in combat, provided the war is just?
IfJesus condemns violence, however, the conscientious objector mayinvoke Peter’s claim, “We must obey God rather than humanbeings!” (Acts 5:29; cf. 4:19). Many nonviolent forms ofresistance exist, so conscientious objectors may still help defendtheir country by serving in the military or elsewhere in noncombatantroles.
Ancient court systems reflected the needs, values, andstructures of the broader society. Not surprisingly, the courtsystems in nomadic and urban societies are quite different. Nomadiccourts were more informal, based more on custom than law. The contextof nomadic justice was located primarily within the family and clan.Those with disputes sought out elders and wise leaders to settlethem. Urban court systems used more-fixed institutions of judgesunder the supervision of priests and kings. Even in an urban systemthe court functioned on a case-by-case basis and drew little or nodistinction between criminal and civil offenses. Cases dealtprimarily with an injury and the compensation for the injury. Thebasic process involved stating a case before a judge, each sidecalling witnesses, and the judge giving a judgment.
OldTestament
Courtsin ancient Israel reflected features of both nomadic and urban courtsystems as well as the broader judicial practices of the ancient NearEast. In ancient Israel a case could be tried by the elders, a judge,a priest, or the king. The elders were heads of families and leadingcitizens. They sat at the city gate (Prov. 31:23), where they heardcases (Ruth 4:1–12), oversaw property transactions (Gen.23:10–20), settled disputes, and imposed penalties (Deut.22:18–19). As Israelite society developed, judges wereappointed from each tribe and town to administer justice (Deut.16:18). If a case was too difficult, the judge could transfer thecase to a higher court and judge (Exod. 18:21–22). Once ahigher court gave a verdict, the participants and lower courts werebound by the decision (Deut. 17:8–13). Priests distinguishedbetween the holy and the common, between clean and unclean (Lev.10:10). However, they could judge all types of cases, not justreligious ones (Deut. 21:5; Ezek. 44:23–24).
Withthe establishment of the monarchy, the king became the highest judge,and the elders and priests became minor judges. David appointedjudges from the Levites over all Israel to administer justice(1 Chron. 26:29), but he also heard cases himself. Solomonprovided the quintessential example of a wise judge as he settled thecase of the two women and the one remaining child (1 Kings3:16–28). Solomon moved the court from the city gate to the“Hall of Justice” in his palace (1 Kings 7:7).Jehoshaphat reformed Judah’s court system and established twocourts, one over cases concerning God, the other over casesconcerning the king (2 Chron. 19:5–11).
TheOT does not provide a detailed description of the Israelite courtprocedures; however, glimpses into the procedures can be piecedtogether from several passages. Whether at the city gate, sanctuary,or palace, a private person who appeared as a plaintiff initiated thejudicial action (Deut. 25:7–8). The parties stood before thejudge, while the judge was seated (Deut. 19:17). However, the judgestood to pronounce judgment (Isa. 3:13). The plaintiff was the satan,“accuser” or “adversary” (Ps. 109:6). Theaccusation could be given orally (Isa. 41:21) or in writing (Job31:35–36). There was no public prosecutor or defender. Eachparty brought its own case and witnesses. A conviction required atleast two witnesses (Num. 35:30; Deut. 19:15). Witnesses acceptedresponsibility for the sentence, which is why they had to throw thefirst stones when such a penalty was in order (Deut. 17:7; John 8:7).If they provided false testimony, they faced the punishment for thecrime about which they testified. Each side could produce physicalevidence to make its case (Deut. 22:13–17). If a case lackedsufficient evidence or witnesses, an oath or an ordeal could beundertaken to support one’s case (Exod. 22:6–10). Attimes, lots were cast to select a guilty individual (Josh. 7:14–15)or to end a quarrel (Prov. 18:18). After everything had beenexamined, the judge acquitted the innocent and condemned the guilty(Deut. 25:1). Depending upon the crime, the penalty could be a fine,compensation, bodily punishment, or even death. Jail was primarilyused for those awaiting trial and not as a punishment. If evidenceand witnesses were lacking and a murder went unsolved, then asacrifice was made to declare the community’s innocence and toatone for the community (Deut. 21:1–8).
Ideally,judges were just, righteous, fair, and defenders of the weak (Deut.16:18–20). Unfortunately, multiple examples exist of falsewitnesses (Deut. 19:18) and corrupt judges who accepted bribes,perverted justice, and showed favoritism (Exod. 23:3, 8; Mic. 3:11).Ultimately, God was the supreme judge of all, protector of the weak,just, and no respecter of persons.
NewTestament
Duringthe NT period numerous lesser Sanhedrins, or councils, administeredjustice in Jewish communities. The lesser Sanhedrins consisted oftwenty-three members, but the one in Jerusalem, the Great Sanhedrin,consisted of the high priest and seventy members comprised ofpriests, scribes, elders, and laity from among the Sadducees and thePharisees. The Great Sanhedrin was the supreme legislative andjudicial body, and it wielded its own police force (Acts 5:24–26).The Romans allowed the Great Sanhedrin broad authority over internaland religious matters, but they limited its ability to exercisecapital punishment (John 18:31). The deaths of Stephen and James wereprobably lynchings rather than formal executions. Clearly, the GreatSanhedrin had the authority to administer corporal punishment (2 Cor.11:24).
TheMishnah provides insight into the Great Sanhedrin’s judicialprocedure. However, several of the procedures stand in tension withthe procedures described in the Gospels concerning Jesus’trial. Cases were to be heard only during the day, but at least ahearing into the charges facing Jesus occurred at night. Theproceedings against Jesus were held at the high priest’s palaceinstead of properly at the court (John 18:13). Capital cases couldnot be heard the day before the Sabbath or a festival, but Jesus wascondemned on Friday during Passover.
Thetrials of Jesus and Paul fit well with what is known about Roman law.Roman regional rulers heard cases involving public order but usuallyleft smaller issues in the hands of local courts. For example,Pilate, a prefect, initially wanted to release Jesus, and Gallio, theproconsul of Achaia, refused to hear the charges against Paul. Suchofficials could also delay a decision for extended periods of time.Hoping to receive a bribe, the procurator Felix held Paul for twoyears without a judgment (Acts 24:26). Roman officials also had thediscretion to send defendants to their home province. Pilate sentJesus to Herod because Jesus was from Galilee, and Felix inquiredabout Paul’s home in Cilicia. When hearing a case, the Romanofficial gave the defendant and the accuser opportunities to maketheir respective cases and to call witnesses. Pilate gave Jesus anopportunity to defend himself, and Festus explained that it is “notthe Roman custom” to condemn someone who has not yet faced theaccusers and put on a defense against their charges (Acts 25:16). Asa Roman citizen, Paul was afforded rights in the court system. WhenPaul was imprisoned and beaten without trial, he demanded an apologyfrom the Philippian officials (16:37). Paul’s Roman citizenshipalso gave him the right to appeal to Caesar (25:11).
Paulexpected Christians to abide by the decisions of the courts (Rom.13:1–3), but he also encouraged Christians to avoid takingother Christians to court (1 Cor. 6:1–11) because theyshould be able to settle disputes within the church.
Evangelism is the proclamation of the “evangel”(Gk. euangelion), the good news, of Jesus Christ. The content of theevangel includes Jesus’ birth, which was announced as good newsto Zechariah by the angel Gabriel (Luke 1:19) and by the angels tothe shepherds (Luke 2:10). The good news speaks of the reality ofJesus’ resurrection (Acts 17:18), is described as a message ofgrace (Acts 20:24) and reconciliation to God through the sacrificedbody of Christ (Col. 1:22–23), and includes the expectation ofa day of divine judgment (Rom. 2:16). Paul preached the gospel (fromOld English gōdspel, “good news”) message, which heclaimed had its origin with God, not humans (Gal. 1:11–12). Hesummarizes this message in 1Cor. 15:3b–5: “thatChrist died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he wasburied, that he was raised on the third day according to theScriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.”The introduction to the Gospel of Mark (1:1) may indicate that thiswritten gospel could serve evangelistic purposes.
Evangelisticefforts in the New Testament.Numerous figures throughout the NT participated in evangelisticendeavors. John the Baptist’s preaching about the comingMessiah is described as evangelism (Luke 3:18). Evangelism was acharacteristic activity of Jesus’ own ministry (Matt. 4:23;9:35; Mark 1:14; Luke 20:1), which focused on proclaiming the adventof the kingdom of God (Luke 4:43; 8:1) and at times was targetedtoward the poor (Matt. 11:5; Luke 4:18; 7:22). Jesus commanded thosewho follow him to engage in evangelism. He sent out the twelveapostles for evangelistic purposes (Luke 9:2), and he issued theGreat Commission to this end (Matt. 28:18–20).
Themissionary enterprise recorded in Acts demonstrates the efforts ofthe earliest Christians to spread the gospel. The apostles inJerusalem (Acts 5:42) proclaimed the gospel in spite of greatopposition and persecution, and believers who were scattered outsideJerusalem because of persecution spread the gospel in new locales(8:4). Philip evangelized Samaritans and an Ethiopian (8:12, 35). Theministry of Paul and Barnabas is characterized as preaching the goodnews (14:7, 15, 21; 15:35; 16:10; 17:18). Philip, one of the sevenchosen to distribute food (6:5), was given the name “theEvangelist” (21:8). Timothy, additionally, is said to be Paul’sfellow worker in evangelism (1Thess. 3:2; cf. 2Tim. 4:5).
Evangelismwas a central part of Paul’s ministry (Rom. 1:9; 1Cor.1:17; 15:1–2; Eph. 6:19; 1Thess. 2:2, 9). He indicated anexplicit interest in sharing the gospel with Gentiles (Rom. 15:16;Gal. 1:16; 2:7; Eph. 3:8) and with those who had never heard it (Rom.15:20; 2 Cor. 10:16), and he expressed a desire to preach the gospelat Rome (Rom. 1:15). Paul wrote of the necessity of evangelism inorder for people to be saved (Rom. 10:15), and he preached the gospelmessage free of charge (1Cor. 9:16, 18; 2Cor. 11:7). Helisted the role of the evangelist in the church along with apostles,prophets, pastors, and teachers (Eph. 4:11).
Goaland methods of evangelism.Evangelism’s goal is to spread the gospel across ethnic andreligious boundaries until it reaches all nations (Mark 13:10; Col.1:23). To this end, Acts details an intentional effort by theearliest Christians to share the gospel with those who came from bothJewish and non-Jewish backgrounds. Acts 8:25 records Peter and John’sevangelistic efforts in Samaritan villages, and Acts 15:7 identifiesPeter as an evangelist to Gentiles. An outreach specifically toGentiles is chronicled in Acts 11:20, and Paul’s intentionalprogram of traveling from city to city further contributes to thisgoal (Rom. 15:19).
Theevangelists recorded in the NT demonstrate a range of methods andapproaches to sharing the good news. They often began with a point ofcontact from the religious worldview of their audience. For instance,Philip used Scripture as a starting point in speaking with anindividual who was familiar with some portion of it (Acts 8:35).Similarly, when addressing Jews, Paul preached Jesus as thefulfillment of various OT Scriptures (Acts 13:32–41), but whenpreaching the gospel to the Greeks in Athens, he acknowledged theirreligiosity and their previous worship of one called “anunknown God” (17:22–23). Evangelists sought opportunitiesto gain an audience, and Paul even took advantage of an illness tostay with the Galatians and share the gospel with them (Gal. 4:13).Finally, much of the evangelistic work in the early church wascoupled with miraculous signs and wonders, which served toauthenticate the message being proclaimed (Rom. 15:19; 1Thess.1:5).
Hermeneutics is the science and practice of interpretation. It can refer more generally to the philosophy of human understanding, or more specifically to the tools and methods used for interpreting communicative acts.
Human communication takes place in a variety of ways: through the use of nonverbal signs, through speech, and through writing. Effective communication requires some degree of shared belief, knowledge, and background between the participants. If the communicators have a significant amount of common ground, they will be able to successfully understand one another with little extra effort. Conversely, individuals with vastly different backgrounds will need to take extra steps to communicate effectively, such as defining special terms, avoiding jargon and colloquialisms, appreciating details about the other’s cultural assumptions, or learning a foreign language.
The Bible is not exempt from this process of communication. The Scriptures are meant to be read, understood, and put into practice (Luke 8:4–15; James 1:18), a task that requires effort and study on the part of its readers (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15). Everyone who reads the Bible is involved in this interpretative process, though readers will vary in their hermeneutical self-consciousness and skill. Thus, although readers are able to understand and appropriate much of the Bible without any special training in hermeneutical principles, such training is appropriate and helpful, both in attaining self-consciousness in interpretation and in acquiring new skills and insights in the effort to become a better reader.
The Development of Hermeneutics
The church has benefited from a long history of thinking about the nature and purpose of interpreting its Scriptures, and that reflection has resulted in a wide variety of hermeneutical theories and practices. How does one determine the meaning of a text? Is meaning the truth embedded within the passage? Or is it the original author’s intention in writing? Or does the text act independently of its author and history, either because it stands on its own terms or because it only “means” anything in interaction with readers? The answers to these questions will determine how readers approach a text, the questions they expect that text to answer, and the tools they use in interpretation.
From the early church to the Enlightenment. The early church emphasized the ability of the biblical text to convey heavenly truth, whether that truth was conceived as doctrinal teaching or absolute ethical rules. While the “literal meaning” of many texts could often supply simple truths and maxims, such a reading was at other times inadequate and could appear incompatible with what were considered basic and fundamental beliefs. Various allegorical techniques were therefore employed to explain such problematic texts. Interpreters often viewed the literal and historical features of the text as a starting point in the search for fuller meaning, as symbolic pointers to moral principles, absolute truths, or eternal realities. These practices were systematized throughout the Middle Ages and resulted in an extensive development of tradition. Church tradition, in turn, provided a degree of protection from the potential for arbitrariness in allegorical techniques, insisting that interpretation must be guided by the “rule of faith,” the traditional teaching and faith of the church.
Beginning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, scholarship moved to distance itself from such tradition. The Protestant Reformers, dissatisfied with the rule of church tradition, sought to displace its authority with the direct rule of Scripture. They therefore returned to the original biblical text, engaging in critical study of the text itself and translating the Bible into the vernacular to make it more widely accessible. In the centuries that followed, Enlightenment scholars went a step further in their rejection of the church as the sole repository of knowledge. Instead, they asserted, knowledge was acquired through scientific inquiry and critical study. Such inquiry could be applied to any field: the forces of nature, human anatomy, or the interpretation of texts. The meaning of a text was not some abstract truth or heavenly principle; rather, meaning was determined by the human author’s original intention in writing and was therefore a historical matter. The intention of an author could be better exposed and understood through a more complete study of both the language in which a text was written and the historical circ*mstances that surrounded it. Many of these same emphases had been championed by the Protestant Reformers; yet the Enlightenment thinkers differed on one key point: the Reformers never questioned that the text was the word of God.
From the Enlightenment to the present. This favorable attitude toward historical research dwindled over the centuries. In its place authors emphasized the primacy of the text as text, apart from any connection to its origin and history. Literature, it is argued, ultimately operates independently from its author’s intention. All that matters is the text, and it is the reader’s job to understand the text on its own terms, apart from the contingencies surrounding its creation. To that end, interpreters should pay careful attention to the text’s literary features, including its plot structure, characterization, themes, and use of imagery. An interesting example of this hermeneutical dynamic is found in John 19:22, where Pilate asserts, “What I have written, I have written.” Pilate’s words quickly take on significance far beyond their author’s intention, primarily because they are juxtaposed with other themes in John, such as testimony and the kingship of Christ.
More recent approaches have emphasized the role of the reader in the construction of meaning. Interpretation, it is argued, is determined by the interaction between reader and text; readers bring their own presuppositions to the task of interpretation, and such assumptions determine meaning. The author and the historical context of the text will exert some influence, but the primary determinant of meaning is the present reader in his or her present environment. This is not to say that the text “means” whatever a reader wants it to mean; rather, it makes meaning contingent upon the contemporary environment and not subject to anything external to individual readers. On the one hand, readers must“actualize” the text by applying and appropriating it within an environment alien to the original. On the other, readers have the right, and in some cases the responsibility, of undermining the text, particularly if that text assists in the oppression of others.
Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic
An effective hermeneutic requires keeping each of these elements in constant balance with one another. God’s word is truthful and fully trustworthy, yet it is given to his people through individual human authors, authors who wrote in a particular context to a particular audience at a particular time. Understanding the Bible therefore requires knowledge of the purposes of these authors in their specific historical contexts. Nevertheless, our primary access to authorial intention is through the biblical text itself. Finally, understanding always requires personal interaction with, and application of, the text of Scripture to each person’s own life and circ*mstances. Thus, hermeneutics involves the simultaneous interaction of a variety of perspectives—truth, author, text, and reader—each of which cannot function properly without the others. What follows here is an outline of the most important hermeneutical tools required for such a weighty endeavor.
Linguistics
An appreciation of the nature, structure, and function of language is fundamental to any interpretative endeavor. Obviously, this applies first of all to the specific languages in which the books of the Bible were originally composed. Each language has its own unique vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, and structures available to a writer in one language often are absent in another. Thus, while it is often necessary and acceptable to rely on translations (Neh. 7:73–8:12), readers should be aware that translation itself involves a degree of unavoidable interpretation.
A more general analysis of language is also useful. Understanding the typical patterns by which authors will string sentences together is necessary for following a writing’s train of thought. This tool, called “discourse analysis,” operates above the sentence level, attempting to understand and explain how sentences function in conjunction with one another in order to produce meaningful paragraphs, and how those paragraphs in turn operate within the overarching purpose of the discourse. These patterns of discourse can vary on the basis of book, author, language, culture, and literary genre, but there are also features of effective discourse common to all communication. Thus, while the principles and rules of communication are often intuitively grasped, understanding language, both generally and specifically, is foundational to the task of interpretation.
Literature and Literary Theory
The biblical writers are concerned not only with the informational content of their writing, but also with the manner in which that content is communicated. The words, patterns of speech, style, and imagery of any text provide significant insight into its purpose and message, apart from that text’s specific propositional content. The diversity of language used in the Gospels provides an example of this. Each of the four Gospel authors has a slightly different concern in his writing. John’s purpose, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31), explains his frequent use of courtroom language, such as “testimony” and “witness” (e.g., John 21:24). Mark, by contrast, sweeps the reader along a fast-paced and intensely personal exposition of Jesus’ life and death through the terseness and immediacy of his narration. Attention to these literary details allows the reader to more fully participate in the world of the text.
Such decisions will often depend upon a thorough analysis of genre. A reader naturally interprets historical narrative differently from poetry and didactic material. Furthermore, the conventions of different genres change over time. The book of Acts, for example, despite its essentially historical character, does not appear concerned with recording an exact dictation of the many speeches it reports, despite modern expectations that historical writing should be as precise as possible. The classification of ancient genres and the description of their respective conventions therefore require a good deal of analysis and sensitivity, but often such insights are provided by a careful and open reading of the text.
History
As the product of a particular author at a particular time, each book of the Bible is situated within its own unique historical context. Paul, for example, while perhaps conscious of the importance of his letters for posterity, wrote to specific churches or individuals with a singular purpose. This particularity of author, audience, and circ*mstance can often cause interpretative problems. Thus, while background studies are not always necessary to get the general idea of the author’s message, they can be invaluable in protecting readers from anachronism and enabling them to better appreciate the author’s purpose and perspective.
Historical study is assisted by specialized disciplines. Archaeology, for example, focuses on the beliefs, habits, practices, and history of ancient cultures, harnessing a wealth of evidence to that end. Similarly, anthropology and other social sciences are able to explore facets of modern cultures in order to better assess cross-cultural presuppositions and behaviors, many of which provide insight into ancient civilizations that shared similar attitudes. These methods provide the reader with the information necessary to understand a text in terms consistent with its cultural backdrop, highlighting both the similarities and the differences between the Bible and its environment. Recent discoveries of ancient Hittite treaties, for example, shed light on the “cutting ceremony” recorded in Gen. 15. These treaties detail similar ceremonies in which the vassal of a king would walk between hewed animal carcasses as a symbol of allegiance; if disobedience occurred, the vassal would share the fate of the animals. A similar ceremony occurs in Genesis, but with an interesting twist at the end: God, not Abram, passes through the pieces (15:17).
Humility and the Attitude of the Reader
Careful attention in interpretation requires a great deal of humility. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the attitude of the reader for an effective hermeneutic. Being a good reader requires willingness to share and participate in the world of the author and the text, a willingness that postpones judgment and expects personal change. This, in turn, requires a spirit of self-criticism, a commitment to defer one’s own presuppositions in favor of those of the text. Although readers are never able to fully distance themselves from their cultural situation and assumptions, the study of hermeneutics, among other things, can provide tools and skills for self-criticism and self-awareness, skills that enable the reader to better understand, appreciate, and appropriate the meaning of a text. Even a peripheral understanding of the complexities of interpretation can help readers develop an attitude of humility, imagination, and expectation as they approach the Scriptures.
Such humility is a prerequisite for application. The depth of meaning embedded in any text, and especially within the Bible, provides the humble reader with a rich and powerful tool for personal growth. Having better understood the world of the text on its own terms, readers are able to “project” that world onto themselves and their environment, to appropriate its meaning in a new and possibly foreign context. Thus, Jesus promises that those who hear, understand, and put his word into practice will yield a crop “some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown” (Mark 4:20).
Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation
Certain unique features of the biblical text can create special opportunities and challenges for the Christian interpreter. These challenges are at work in the Bible’s own interpretation of itself. The Bible was written by many different authors over the course of a long period of history; it is therefore not surprising to find later authors reflecting on earlier periods. This innerbiblical interpretation offers the Christian insights into the unique nature of biblical hermeneutics and therefore provides a foundational model in approaching the Bible as the word of God.
The common and preeminent assumption that grounds innerbiblical interpretation is the commitment to ultimate divine authorship. Thus, the writer of Hebrews, though affirming the diversity of human authorship in the Bible (1:1), regularly introduces OT quotations with statements such as “God says” (1:5), “he spoke through David” (4:7), and “the Holy Spirit says” (3:7). Other writers tend to prefer the formula “it is written,” but each of these reflects a common presupposition that the Scriptures are ultimately delivered by God (2 Pet. 1:21).
Divine authorship means, at the very least, that there is a depth of meaning and purpose to the text, a depth often hidden even from the human author (1 Pet. 1:10–12). Psalm 2, for example, probably originally served as a coronation hymn used to celebrate the appointment of a new king in Israel. Yet the NT understands this psalm as a prophecy fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5). The intention of the original speaker can even be at odds with God’s intention, such as when Caiaphas claims, “It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50; cf. Acts 5:35–39). In this case, the irony of Caiaphas’s statement creates a powerful testimony, contrary to his intent, and is used by John to promote confidence in Jesus.
Furthermore, because the Scriptures are from God, they have a consistent and central focus. The NT unhesitatingly views all of Scripture, in all its diversity, as focused, by virtue of divine inspiration, on the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is seen in, for example, Luke 24:13–35, where the resurrected Jesus, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” explains to his disciples “what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (cf. John 5:39; 12:41). This central focus on Christ requires the Christian interpreter to understand any individual verse in light of its context within the canon, to operate with the same assumption as the NT apostles, that all the Scriptures are concerned with testifying to Jesus the Christ.
Additionally, Paul views both Testaments as the special possession and once-for-all foundation of God’s church (Eph. 2:19–20; cf. Acts 2:42). The church, from a NT perspective, is the primary audience of the entirety of Scripture (1 Pet. 1:12) and is therefore uniquely entrusted with understanding and proclaiming its message (Matt. 28:18–20). While the Scriptures themselves are the only infallible guide for interpretation, believers should not forsake the teaching and tradition of the church (2 Thess. 2:15).
Finally, full understanding of the Bible requires the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the faith of the reader. Belief and understanding go together (John 10:38), and both are the result of the unique work of the Holy Spirit (16:13). The proof that such understanding has taken place is the godly life of the believer (Rom. 2:13; James 1:22–25). The reverse is also true: disobedience works against understanding the riches of God’s Word (James 1:21). Such considerations underline the importance of the hermeneutical task. The tools and principles of hermeneutics are valuable only insofar as they enable the reader to better understand and appropriate the biblical message, to hear the word of God and respond appropriately.
Messianic pretenders in the NT who through dramatic “signsand wonders” posed a great temptation to the earliestChristians. False Christs or messiahs are specifically mentionedtwice in the NT, both in sections of the Gospels describing the timeof the return of Jesus Christ. First, Matt. 24:24 speaks of “falsemessiahs and false prophets” who will deceive many throughspectacular miracles. Such figures are so convincing that they areeven a threat to the faith of “the elect,” althoughMatthew has a strong hope that the elect ultimately will not fallvictim to the deceptions of these pretenders. Mark 13:22 is aparallel passage to Matt. 24:24 and uses the same language todescribe false Christs. Both passages are warnings to Christians tobe vigilant in assessing the claims of any person who claims to bethe Messiah returned to judge the world. The false Christs will beknown as such because the actual second coming of Christ will beunmistakable and in the open, whereas the messianic pretenders plotin secret and will come to nothing (Matt. 24:26–28; Mark13:23–29).
Otherfalse messiahs in the earliest days of the church were those claimingto be Israel’s military and political saviors. Amisunderstanding of the nature of the Messiah prompted by anexclusive focus on OT texts promising victory over Israel’snational foes (see Ps. 2; Hag. 2:20–23; Zech. 9:9–10;12:7–13:1) paved the way for militaristic messianic pretendersto draw followers into armed conflict with the Roman authorities(such as Theudas and Judas the Galilean in Acts 5:36–37 and“the Egyptian” in Acts 21:38). Such false messiahs didnot claim divine status, but they were a constant source oftemptation for Jews and Christians in the first century because oftheir promise of victory over imperial Roman oppression.
Messianic pretenders in the NT who through dramatic “signsand wonders” posed a great temptation to the earliestChristians. False Christs or messiahs are specifically mentionedtwice in the NT, both in sections of the Gospels describing the timeof the return of Jesus Christ. First, Matt. 24:24 speaks of “falsemessiahs and false prophets” who will deceive many throughspectacular miracles. Such figures are so convincing that they areeven a threat to the faith of “the elect,” althoughMatthew has a strong hope that the elect ultimately will not fallvictim to the deceptions of these pretenders. Mark 13:22 is aparallel passage to Matt. 24:24 and uses the same language todescribe false Christs. Both passages are warnings to Christians tobe vigilant in assessing the claims of any person who claims to bethe Messiah returned to judge the world. The false Christs will beknown as such because the actual second coming of Christ will beunmistakable and in the open, whereas the messianic pretenders plotin secret and will come to nothing (Matt. 24:26–28; Mark13:23–29).
Otherfalse messiahs in the earliest days of the church were those claimingto be Israel’s military and political saviors. Amisunderstanding of the nature of the Messiah prompted by anexclusive focus on OT texts promising victory over Israel’snational foes (see Ps. 2; Hag. 2:20–23; Zech. 9:9–10;12:7–13:1) paved the way for militaristic messianic pretendersto draw followers into armed conflict with the Roman authorities(such as Theudas and Judas the Galilean in Acts 5:36–37 and“the Egyptian” in Acts 21:38). Such false messiahs didnot claim divine status, but they were a constant source oftemptation for Jews and Christians in the first century because oftheir promise of victory over imperial Roman oppression.
Words that are difficult to interpret (Dan. 5:12 [KJV: “hardsentences”; NIV: “riddles”]) or to accept (Jesus’teaching about eating his flesh and drinking his blood [John 6:60;cf. 14:24; 18:19). See also Acts 4:2, 18; 5:28; 17:16–21.
Words that are difficult to interpret (Dan. 5:12 [KJV: “hardsentences”; NIV: “riddles”]) or to accept (Jesus’teaching about eating his flesh and drinking his blood [John 6:60;cf. 14:24; 18:19). See also Acts 4:2, 18; 5:28; 17:16–21.
Words that are difficult to interpret (Dan. 5:12 [KJV: “hardsentences”; NIV: “riddles”]) or to accept (Jesus’teaching about eating his flesh and drinking his blood [John 6:60;cf. 14:24; 18:19). See also Acts 4:2, 18; 5:28; 17:16–21.
The English word “heresy” comes from the Greekhairesis, which is used in the NT to refer to a sect, party, orschool. It is used to describe the Pharisees and the Sadducees (Acts5:17; 15:5; 26:5), and Christians are referred to in this way,although only by outsiders (24:5, 14; 28:22). Paul strongly condemnsthe tendency for Christian communities to separate into factions, andhe even lists factions as an obvious act of the sinful nature (1Cor.11:19; Gal. 5:20; cf. Titus 3:10). When using this word, he seemsprimarily concerned with the fractious attitudes of people in thechurch who violate Christian unity rather than incorrect doctrine.
Itis in the later NT writings that we see the word “heresy”used in connection with incorrect belief that is “destructive,”bringing “condemnation” to those that teach it (2Pet.2:1–3). The connotations from this passage—heresy as afalse teaching—became the dominant meaning for the word.Perhaps the use of the word “heresy” in this fashion camefrom the common condemnations by the early church of both falseteachings and schismatics who separated themselves from the widerChristian community.
Asgenerally used today, the word “heresy” indicates adeviation from accepted Christian teaching and belief extensiveenough to be considered an invalid and incompatible interpretation ofthe faith. Heretics (those who believe or expound heresies) claim anallegiance to the Christian faith, but they hold convictions that areperceived by the church universal to fundamentally alter the faith asreceived from the apostles.
Mostheresies involve a misunderstanding of the person of Christ or therelations of the persons within the Trinity. For example, a group ofearly believers who followed the teacher Arius taught that Jesus wasthe “first creation” of God the Father, and that he wasreally only quasi-divine. This may seem like a subtle and irrelevantdistinction to some, but it has the effect of making God ultimatelyunknown to the world, since the incarnation was not really God in theflesh, and Jesus is only another pale intermediary rather than trueLord. Councils of church leaders (bishops) declared Arianismincorrect at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, and thus it isconsidered a heresy.
Thereis general agreement among the branches of Christianity (RomanCatholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant) about the falsehood of manyheresies that have appeared in the history of Christianity, but thereis still disagreement regarding some issues, as the Roman CatholicChurch proclaimed Martin Luther a heretic in his lifetime. While thechurch certainly must remain eternally vigilant against the spreadand acceptance of false and erroneous teachings, all too often theword “heresy” is used carelessly to reinforce the verydivisions that Paul would have condemned.
A revolt against governmental authority. David leads aninsurrection against Saul (1Sam. 19–31; see 2Sam.18). Barabbas, the prisoner whom Pilate releases in response to thecrowd seeking Jesus’ crucifixion, probably is a terroristcaptured during another insurrection (Mark 15:7; Luke 23:19, 25). InActs, the Pharisee Gamaliel mentions an insurrection led by Judas theGalilean against Rome (Acts 5:37), and a Roman army officer asksPaul, “Aren’t you the Egyptian who started a revolt andled four thousand terrorists out into the desert some time ago?”(21:38). Josephus describes several rebellions, which culminated inthe first Jewish War (AD 66–70).
Hermeneutics is the science and practice of interpretation. It can refer more generally to the philosophy of human understanding, or more specifically to the tools and methods used for interpreting communicative acts.
Human communication takes place in a variety of ways: through the use of nonverbal signs, through speech, and through writing. Effective communication requires some degree of shared belief, knowledge, and background between the participants. If the communicators have a significant amount of common ground, they will be able to successfully understand one another with little extra effort. Conversely, individuals with vastly different backgrounds will need to take extra steps to communicate effectively, such as defining special terms, avoiding jargon and colloquialisms, appreciating details about the other’s cultural assumptions, or learning a foreign language.
The Bible is not exempt from this process of communication. The Scriptures are meant to be read, understood, and put into practice (Luke 8:4–15; James 1:18), a task that requires effort and study on the part of its readers (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15). Everyone who reads the Bible is involved in this interpretative process, though readers will vary in their hermeneutical self-consciousness and skill. Thus, although readers are able to understand and appropriate much of the Bible without any special training in hermeneutical principles, such training is appropriate and helpful, both in attaining self-consciousness in interpretation and in acquiring new skills and insights in the effort to become a better reader.
The Development of Hermeneutics
The church has benefited from a long history of thinking about the nature and purpose of interpreting its Scriptures, and that reflection has resulted in a wide variety of hermeneutical theories and practices. How does one determine the meaning of a text? Is meaning the truth embedded within the passage? Or is it the original author’s intention in writing? Or does the text act independently of its author and history, either because it stands on its own terms or because it only “means” anything in interaction with readers? The answers to these questions will determine how readers approach a text, the questions they expect that text to answer, and the tools they use in interpretation.
From the early church to the Enlightenment. The early church emphasized the ability of the biblical text to convey heavenly truth, whether that truth was conceived as doctrinal teaching or absolute ethical rules. While the “literal meaning” of many texts could often supply simple truths and maxims, such a reading was at other times inadequate and could appear incompatible with what were considered basic and fundamental beliefs. Various allegorical techniques were therefore employed to explain such problematic texts. Interpreters often viewed the literal and historical features of the text as a starting point in the search for fuller meaning, as symbolic pointers to moral principles, absolute truths, or eternal realities. These practices were systematized throughout the Middle Ages and resulted in an extensive development of tradition. Church tradition, in turn, provided a degree of protection from the potential for arbitrariness in allegorical techniques, insisting that interpretation must be guided by the “rule of faith,” the traditional teaching and faith of the church.
Beginning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, scholarship moved to distance itself from such tradition. The Protestant Reformers, dissatisfied with the rule of church tradition, sought to displace its authority with the direct rule of Scripture. They therefore returned to the original biblical text, engaging in critical study of the text itself and translating the Bible into the vernacular to make it more widely accessible. In the centuries that followed, Enlightenment scholars went a step further in their rejection of the church as the sole repository of knowledge. Instead, they asserted, knowledge was acquired through scientific inquiry and critical study. Such inquiry could be applied to any field: the forces of nature, human anatomy, or the interpretation of texts. The meaning of a text was not some abstract truth or heavenly principle; rather, meaning was determined by the human author’s original intention in writing and was therefore a historical matter. The intention of an author could be better exposed and understood through a more complete study of both the language in which a text was written and the historical circ*mstances that surrounded it. Many of these same emphases had been championed by the Protestant Reformers; yet the Enlightenment thinkers differed on one key point: the Reformers never questioned that the text was the word of God.
From the Enlightenment to the present. This favorable attitude toward historical research dwindled over the centuries. In its place authors emphasized the primacy of the text as text, apart from any connection to its origin and history. Literature, it is argued, ultimately operates independently from its author’s intention. All that matters is the text, and it is the reader’s job to understand the text on its own terms, apart from the contingencies surrounding its creation. To that end, interpreters should pay careful attention to the text’s literary features, including its plot structure, characterization, themes, and use of imagery. An interesting example of this hermeneutical dynamic is found in John 19:22, where Pilate asserts, “What I have written, I have written.” Pilate’s words quickly take on significance far beyond their author’s intention, primarily because they are juxtaposed with other themes in John, such as testimony and the kingship of Christ.
More recent approaches have emphasized the role of the reader in the construction of meaning. Interpretation, it is argued, is determined by the interaction between reader and text; readers bring their own presuppositions to the task of interpretation, and such assumptions determine meaning. The author and the historical context of the text will exert some influence, but the primary determinant of meaning is the present reader in his or her present environment. This is not to say that the text “means” whatever a reader wants it to mean; rather, it makes meaning contingent upon the contemporary environment and not subject to anything external to individual readers. On the one hand, readers must“actualize” the text by applying and appropriating it within an environment alien to the original. On the other, readers have the right, and in some cases the responsibility, of undermining the text, particularly if that text assists in the oppression of others.
Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic
An effective hermeneutic requires keeping each of these elements in constant balance with one another. God’s word is truthful and fully trustworthy, yet it is given to his people through individual human authors, authors who wrote in a particular context to a particular audience at a particular time. Understanding the Bible therefore requires knowledge of the purposes of these authors in their specific historical contexts. Nevertheless, our primary access to authorial intention is through the biblical text itself. Finally, understanding always requires personal interaction with, and application of, the text of Scripture to each person’s own life and circ*mstances. Thus, hermeneutics involves the simultaneous interaction of a variety of perspectives—truth, author, text, and reader—each of which cannot function properly without the others. What follows here is an outline of the most important hermeneutical tools required for such a weighty endeavor.
Linguistics
An appreciation of the nature, structure, and function of language is fundamental to any interpretative endeavor. Obviously, this applies first of all to the specific languages in which the books of the Bible were originally composed. Each language has its own unique vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, and structures available to a writer in one language often are absent in another. Thus, while it is often necessary and acceptable to rely on translations (Neh. 7:73–8:12), readers should be aware that translation itself involves a degree of unavoidable interpretation.
A more general analysis of language is also useful. Understanding the typical patterns by which authors will string sentences together is necessary for following a writing’s train of thought. This tool, called “discourse analysis,” operates above the sentence level, attempting to understand and explain how sentences function in conjunction with one another in order to produce meaningful paragraphs, and how those paragraphs in turn operate within the overarching purpose of the discourse. These patterns of discourse can vary on the basis of book, author, language, culture, and literary genre, but there are also features of effective discourse common to all communication. Thus, while the principles and rules of communication are often intuitively grasped, understanding language, both generally and specifically, is foundational to the task of interpretation.
Literature and Literary Theory
The biblical writers are concerned not only with the informational content of their writing, but also with the manner in which that content is communicated. The words, patterns of speech, style, and imagery of any text provide significant insight into its purpose and message, apart from that text’s specific propositional content. The diversity of language used in the Gospels provides an example of this. Each of the four Gospel authors has a slightly different concern in his writing. John’s purpose, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31), explains his frequent use of courtroom language, such as “testimony” and “witness” (e.g., John 21:24). Mark, by contrast, sweeps the reader along a fast-paced and intensely personal exposition of Jesus’ life and death through the terseness and immediacy of his narration. Attention to these literary details allows the reader to more fully participate in the world of the text.
Such decisions will often depend upon a thorough analysis of genre. A reader naturally interprets historical narrative differently from poetry and didactic material. Furthermore, the conventions of different genres change over time. The book of Acts, for example, despite its essentially historical character, does not appear concerned with recording an exact dictation of the many speeches it reports, despite modern expectations that historical writing should be as precise as possible. The classification of ancient genres and the description of their respective conventions therefore require a good deal of analysis and sensitivity, but often such insights are provided by a careful and open reading of the text.
History
As the product of a particular author at a particular time, each book of the Bible is situated within its own unique historical context. Paul, for example, while perhaps conscious of the importance of his letters for posterity, wrote to specific churches or individuals with a singular purpose. This particularity of author, audience, and circ*mstance can often cause interpretative problems. Thus, while background studies are not always necessary to get the general idea of the author’s message, they can be invaluable in protecting readers from anachronism and enabling them to better appreciate the author’s purpose and perspective.
Historical study is assisted by specialized disciplines. Archaeology, for example, focuses on the beliefs, habits, practices, and history of ancient cultures, harnessing a wealth of evidence to that end. Similarly, anthropology and other social sciences are able to explore facets of modern cultures in order to better assess cross-cultural presuppositions and behaviors, many of which provide insight into ancient civilizations that shared similar attitudes. These methods provide the reader with the information necessary to understand a text in terms consistent with its cultural backdrop, highlighting both the similarities and the differences between the Bible and its environment. Recent discoveries of ancient Hittite treaties, for example, shed light on the “cutting ceremony” recorded in Gen. 15. These treaties detail similar ceremonies in which the vassal of a king would walk between hewed animal carcasses as a symbol of allegiance; if disobedience occurred, the vassal would share the fate of the animals. A similar ceremony occurs in Genesis, but with an interesting twist at the end: God, not Abram, passes through the pieces (15:17).
Humility and the Attitude of the Reader
Careful attention in interpretation requires a great deal of humility. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the attitude of the reader for an effective hermeneutic. Being a good reader requires willingness to share and participate in the world of the author and the text, a willingness that postpones judgment and expects personal change. This, in turn, requires a spirit of self-criticism, a commitment to defer one’s own presuppositions in favor of those of the text. Although readers are never able to fully distance themselves from their cultural situation and assumptions, the study of hermeneutics, among other things, can provide tools and skills for self-criticism and self-awareness, skills that enable the reader to better understand, appreciate, and appropriate the meaning of a text. Even a peripheral understanding of the complexities of interpretation can help readers develop an attitude of humility, imagination, and expectation as they approach the Scriptures.
Such humility is a prerequisite for application. The depth of meaning embedded in any text, and especially within the Bible, provides the humble reader with a rich and powerful tool for personal growth. Having better understood the world of the text on its own terms, readers are able to “project” that world onto themselves and their environment, to appropriate its meaning in a new and possibly foreign context. Thus, Jesus promises that those who hear, understand, and put his word into practice will yield a crop “some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown” (Mark 4:20).
Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation
Certain unique features of the biblical text can create special opportunities and challenges for the Christian interpreter. These challenges are at work in the Bible’s own interpretation of itself. The Bible was written by many different authors over the course of a long period of history; it is therefore not surprising to find later authors reflecting on earlier periods. This innerbiblical interpretation offers the Christian insights into the unique nature of biblical hermeneutics and therefore provides a foundational model in approaching the Bible as the word of God.
The common and preeminent assumption that grounds innerbiblical interpretation is the commitment to ultimate divine authorship. Thus, the writer of Hebrews, though affirming the diversity of human authorship in the Bible (1:1), regularly introduces OT quotations with statements such as “God says” (1:5), “he spoke through David” (4:7), and “the Holy Spirit says” (3:7). Other writers tend to prefer the formula “it is written,” but each of these reflects a common presupposition that the Scriptures are ultimately delivered by God (2 Pet. 1:21).
Divine authorship means, at the very least, that there is a depth of meaning and purpose to the text, a depth often hidden even from the human author (1 Pet. 1:10–12). Psalm 2, for example, probably originally served as a coronation hymn used to celebrate the appointment of a new king in Israel. Yet the NT understands this psalm as a prophecy fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5). The intention of the original speaker can even be at odds with God’s intention, such as when Caiaphas claims, “It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50; cf. Acts 5:35–39). In this case, the irony of Caiaphas’s statement creates a powerful testimony, contrary to his intent, and is used by John to promote confidence in Jesus.
Furthermore, because the Scriptures are from God, they have a consistent and central focus. The NT unhesitatingly views all of Scripture, in all its diversity, as focused, by virtue of divine inspiration, on the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is seen in, for example, Luke 24:13–35, where the resurrected Jesus, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” explains to his disciples “what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (cf. John 5:39; 12:41). This central focus on Christ requires the Christian interpreter to understand any individual verse in light of its context within the canon, to operate with the same assumption as the NT apostles, that all the Scriptures are concerned with testifying to Jesus the Christ.
Additionally, Paul views both Testaments as the special possession and once-for-all foundation of God’s church (Eph. 2:19–20; cf. Acts 2:42). The church, from a NT perspective, is the primary audience of the entirety of Scripture (1 Pet. 1:12) and is therefore uniquely entrusted with understanding and proclaiming its message (Matt. 28:18–20). While the Scriptures themselves are the only infallible guide for interpretation, believers should not forsake the teaching and tradition of the church (2 Thess. 2:15).
Finally, full understanding of the Bible requires the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the faith of the reader. Belief and understanding go together (John 10:38), and both are the result of the unique work of the Holy Spirit (16:13). The proof that such understanding has taken place is the godly life of the believer (Rom. 2:13; James 1:22–25). The reverse is also true: disobedience works against understanding the riches of God’s Word (James 1:21). Such considerations underline the importance of the hermeneutical task. The tools and principles of hermeneutics are valuable only insofar as they enable the reader to better understand and appropriate the biblical message, to hear the word of God and respond appropriately.
Hermeneutics is the science and practice of interpretation. It can refer more generally to the philosophy of human understanding, or more specifically to the tools and methods used for interpreting communicative acts.
Human communication takes place in a variety of ways: through the use of nonverbal signs, through speech, and through writing. Effective communication requires some degree of shared belief, knowledge, and background between the participants. If the communicators have a significant amount of common ground, they will be able to successfully understand one another with little extra effort. Conversely, individuals with vastly different backgrounds will need to take extra steps to communicate effectively, such as defining special terms, avoiding jargon and colloquialisms, appreciating details about the other’s cultural assumptions, or learning a foreign language.
The Bible is not exempt from this process of communication. The Scriptures are meant to be read, understood, and put into practice (Luke 8:4–15; James 1:18), a task that requires effort and study on the part of its readers (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15). Everyone who reads the Bible is involved in this interpretative process, though readers will vary in their hermeneutical self-consciousness and skill. Thus, although readers are able to understand and appropriate much of the Bible without any special training in hermeneutical principles, such training is appropriate and helpful, both in attaining self-consciousness in interpretation and in acquiring new skills and insights in the effort to become a better reader.
The Development of Hermeneutics
The church has benefited from a long history of thinking about the nature and purpose of interpreting its Scriptures, and that reflection has resulted in a wide variety of hermeneutical theories and practices. How does one determine the meaning of a text? Is meaning the truth embedded within the passage? Or is it the original author’s intention in writing? Or does the text act independently of its author and history, either because it stands on its own terms or because it only “means” anything in interaction with readers? The answers to these questions will determine how readers approach a text, the questions they expect that text to answer, and the tools they use in interpretation.
From the early church to the Enlightenment. The early church emphasized the ability of the biblical text to convey heavenly truth, whether that truth was conceived as doctrinal teaching or absolute ethical rules. While the “literal meaning” of many texts could often supply simple truths and maxims, such a reading was at other times inadequate and could appear incompatible with what were considered basic and fundamental beliefs. Various allegorical techniques were therefore employed to explain such problematic texts. Interpreters often viewed the literal and historical features of the text as a starting point in the search for fuller meaning, as symbolic pointers to moral principles, absolute truths, or eternal realities. These practices were systematized throughout the Middle Ages and resulted in an extensive development of tradition. Church tradition, in turn, provided a degree of protection from the potential for arbitrariness in allegorical techniques, insisting that interpretation must be guided by the “rule of faith,” the traditional teaching and faith of the church.
Beginning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, scholarship moved to distance itself from such tradition. The Protestant Reformers, dissatisfied with the rule of church tradition, sought to displace its authority with the direct rule of Scripture. They therefore returned to the original biblical text, engaging in critical study of the text itself and translating the Bible into the vernacular to make it more widely accessible. In the centuries that followed, Enlightenment scholars went a step further in their rejection of the church as the sole repository of knowledge. Instead, they asserted, knowledge was acquired through scientific inquiry and critical study. Such inquiry could be applied to any field: the forces of nature, human anatomy, or the interpretation of texts. The meaning of a text was not some abstract truth or heavenly principle; rather, meaning was determined by the human author’s original intention in writing and was therefore a historical matter. The intention of an author could be better exposed and understood through a more complete study of both the language in which a text was written and the historical circ*mstances that surrounded it. Many of these same emphases had been championed by the Protestant Reformers; yet the Enlightenment thinkers differed on one key point: the Reformers never questioned that the text was the word of God.
From the Enlightenment to the present. This favorable attitude toward historical research dwindled over the centuries. In its place authors emphasized the primacy of the text as text, apart from any connection to its origin and history. Literature, it is argued, ultimately operates independently from its author’s intention. All that matters is the text, and it is the reader’s job to understand the text on its own terms, apart from the contingencies surrounding its creation. To that end, interpreters should pay careful attention to the text’s literary features, including its plot structure, characterization, themes, and use of imagery. An interesting example of this hermeneutical dynamic is found in John 19:22, where Pilate asserts, “What I have written, I have written.” Pilate’s words quickly take on significance far beyond their author’s intention, primarily because they are juxtaposed with other themes in John, such as testimony and the kingship of Christ.
More recent approaches have emphasized the role of the reader in the construction of meaning. Interpretation, it is argued, is determined by the interaction between reader and text; readers bring their own presuppositions to the task of interpretation, and such assumptions determine meaning. The author and the historical context of the text will exert some influence, but the primary determinant of meaning is the present reader in his or her present environment. This is not to say that the text “means” whatever a reader wants it to mean; rather, it makes meaning contingent upon the contemporary environment and not subject to anything external to individual readers. On the one hand, readers must“actualize” the text by applying and appropriating it within an environment alien to the original. On the other, readers have the right, and in some cases the responsibility, of undermining the text, particularly if that text assists in the oppression of others.
Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic
An effective hermeneutic requires keeping each of these elements in constant balance with one another. God’s word is truthful and fully trustworthy, yet it is given to his people through individual human authors, authors who wrote in a particular context to a particular audience at a particular time. Understanding the Bible therefore requires knowledge of the purposes of these authors in their specific historical contexts. Nevertheless, our primary access to authorial intention is through the biblical text itself. Finally, understanding always requires personal interaction with, and application of, the text of Scripture to each person’s own life and circ*mstances. Thus, hermeneutics involves the simultaneous interaction of a variety of perspectives—truth, author, text, and reader—each of which cannot function properly without the others. What follows here is an outline of the most important hermeneutical tools required for such a weighty endeavor.
Linguistics
An appreciation of the nature, structure, and function of language is fundamental to any interpretative endeavor. Obviously, this applies first of all to the specific languages in which the books of the Bible were originally composed. Each language has its own unique vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, and structures available to a writer in one language often are absent in another. Thus, while it is often necessary and acceptable to rely on translations (Neh. 7:73–8:12), readers should be aware that translation itself involves a degree of unavoidable interpretation.
A more general analysis of language is also useful. Understanding the typical patterns by which authors will string sentences together is necessary for following a writing’s train of thought. This tool, called “discourse analysis,” operates above the sentence level, attempting to understand and explain how sentences function in conjunction with one another in order to produce meaningful paragraphs, and how those paragraphs in turn operate within the overarching purpose of the discourse. These patterns of discourse can vary on the basis of book, author, language, culture, and literary genre, but there are also features of effective discourse common to all communication. Thus, while the principles and rules of communication are often intuitively grasped, understanding language, both generally and specifically, is foundational to the task of interpretation.
Literature and Literary Theory
The biblical writers are concerned not only with the informational content of their writing, but also with the manner in which that content is communicated. The words, patterns of speech, style, and imagery of any text provide significant insight into its purpose and message, apart from that text’s specific propositional content. The diversity of language used in the Gospels provides an example of this. Each of the four Gospel authors has a slightly different concern in his writing. John’s purpose, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31), explains his frequent use of courtroom language, such as “testimony” and “witness” (e.g., John 21:24). Mark, by contrast, sweeps the reader along a fast-paced and intensely personal exposition of Jesus’ life and death through the terseness and immediacy of his narration. Attention to these literary details allows the reader to more fully participate in the world of the text.
Such decisions will often depend upon a thorough analysis of genre. A reader naturally interprets historical narrative differently from poetry and didactic material. Furthermore, the conventions of different genres change over time. The book of Acts, for example, despite its essentially historical character, does not appear concerned with recording an exact dictation of the many speeches it reports, despite modern expectations that historical writing should be as precise as possible. The classification of ancient genres and the description of their respective conventions therefore require a good deal of analysis and sensitivity, but often such insights are provided by a careful and open reading of the text.
History
As the product of a particular author at a particular time, each book of the Bible is situated within its own unique historical context. Paul, for example, while perhaps conscious of the importance of his letters for posterity, wrote to specific churches or individuals with a singular purpose. This particularity of author, audience, and circ*mstance can often cause interpretative problems. Thus, while background studies are not always necessary to get the general idea of the author’s message, they can be invaluable in protecting readers from anachronism and enabling them to better appreciate the author’s purpose and perspective.
Historical study is assisted by specialized disciplines. Archaeology, for example, focuses on the beliefs, habits, practices, and history of ancient cultures, harnessing a wealth of evidence to that end. Similarly, anthropology and other social sciences are able to explore facets of modern cultures in order to better assess cross-cultural presuppositions and behaviors, many of which provide insight into ancient civilizations that shared similar attitudes. These methods provide the reader with the information necessary to understand a text in terms consistent with its cultural backdrop, highlighting both the similarities and the differences between the Bible and its environment. Recent discoveries of ancient Hittite treaties, for example, shed light on the “cutting ceremony” recorded in Gen. 15. These treaties detail similar ceremonies in which the vassal of a king would walk between hewed animal carcasses as a symbol of allegiance; if disobedience occurred, the vassal would share the fate of the animals. A similar ceremony occurs in Genesis, but with an interesting twist at the end: God, not Abram, passes through the pieces (15:17).
Humility and the Attitude of the Reader
Careful attention in interpretation requires a great deal of humility. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the attitude of the reader for an effective hermeneutic. Being a good reader requires willingness to share and participate in the world of the author and the text, a willingness that postpones judgment and expects personal change. This, in turn, requires a spirit of self-criticism, a commitment to defer one’s own presuppositions in favor of those of the text. Although readers are never able to fully distance themselves from their cultural situation and assumptions, the study of hermeneutics, among other things, can provide tools and skills for self-criticism and self-awareness, skills that enable the reader to better understand, appreciate, and appropriate the meaning of a text. Even a peripheral understanding of the complexities of interpretation can help readers develop an attitude of humility, imagination, and expectation as they approach the Scriptures.
Such humility is a prerequisite for application. The depth of meaning embedded in any text, and especially within the Bible, provides the humble reader with a rich and powerful tool for personal growth. Having better understood the world of the text on its own terms, readers are able to “project” that world onto themselves and their environment, to appropriate its meaning in a new and possibly foreign context. Thus, Jesus promises that those who hear, understand, and put his word into practice will yield a crop “some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown” (Mark 4:20).
Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation
Certain unique features of the biblical text can create special opportunities and challenges for the Christian interpreter. These challenges are at work in the Bible’s own interpretation of itself. The Bible was written by many different authors over the course of a long period of history; it is therefore not surprising to find later authors reflecting on earlier periods. This innerbiblical interpretation offers the Christian insights into the unique nature of biblical hermeneutics and therefore provides a foundational model in approaching the Bible as the word of God.
The common and preeminent assumption that grounds innerbiblical interpretation is the commitment to ultimate divine authorship. Thus, the writer of Hebrews, though affirming the diversity of human authorship in the Bible (1:1), regularly introduces OT quotations with statements such as “God says” (1:5), “he spoke through David” (4:7), and “the Holy Spirit says” (3:7). Other writers tend to prefer the formula “it is written,” but each of these reflects a common presupposition that the Scriptures are ultimately delivered by God (2 Pet. 1:21).
Divine authorship means, at the very least, that there is a depth of meaning and purpose to the text, a depth often hidden even from the human author (1 Pet. 1:10–12). Psalm 2, for example, probably originally served as a coronation hymn used to celebrate the appointment of a new king in Israel. Yet the NT understands this psalm as a prophecy fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5). The intention of the original speaker can even be at odds with God’s intention, such as when Caiaphas claims, “It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50; cf. Acts 5:35–39). In this case, the irony of Caiaphas’s statement creates a powerful testimony, contrary to his intent, and is used by John to promote confidence in Jesus.
Furthermore, because the Scriptures are from God, they have a consistent and central focus. The NT unhesitatingly views all of Scripture, in all its diversity, as focused, by virtue of divine inspiration, on the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is seen in, for example, Luke 24:13–35, where the resurrected Jesus, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” explains to his disciples “what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (cf. John 5:39; 12:41). This central focus on Christ requires the Christian interpreter to understand any individual verse in light of its context within the canon, to operate with the same assumption as the NT apostles, that all the Scriptures are concerned with testifying to Jesus the Christ.
Additionally, Paul views both Testaments as the special possession and once-for-all foundation of God’s church (Eph. 2:19–20; cf. Acts 2:42). The church, from a NT perspective, is the primary audience of the entirety of Scripture (1 Pet. 1:12) and is therefore uniquely entrusted with understanding and proclaiming its message (Matt. 28:18–20). While the Scriptures themselves are the only infallible guide for interpretation, believers should not forsake the teaching and tradition of the church (2 Thess. 2:15).
Finally, full understanding of the Bible requires the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the faith of the reader. Belief and understanding go together (John 10:38), and both are the result of the unique work of the Holy Spirit (16:13). The proof that such understanding has taken place is the godly life of the believer (Rom. 2:13; James 1:22–25). The reverse is also true: disobedience works against understanding the riches of God’s Word (James 1:21). Such considerations underline the importance of the hermeneutical task. The tools and principles of hermeneutics are valuable only insofar as they enable the reader to better understand and appropriate the biblical message, to hear the word of God and respond appropriately.
During the time of Jesus and in the couple of centuriesprior, Judaism was not a monolithic entity but was comprised ofdifferent groups with varying religious concerns and politicalinterests. This multifaceted nature of Judaism has caused scholars toquestion whether it would be better to speak of Judaisms rather thanJudaism. Was Judaism cut from a whole cloth, or was it a box offabric scraps? Perhaps it is best to speak of Judaism as a singleentity, but one comprised of various factions with diverse beliefsand interests. This conclusion is justified because the diversesentiments and interests were responses to the same religious andpolitical issues, such as Torah, the temple, and foreign occupiers.
Fiveof the important parties in ancient Judaism were the Pharisees, theSadducees, the Essenes, the Zealots, and the Herodians. The firstthree seem to have first emerged in reaction to the rise of theHasmonean priest-kings in the mid-second and first centuries BC, andthe other two in response to the occupation of Palestine by theRomans and their establishment of the Herods as the rulers of Israel.
Pharisees
Accordingto Josephus.The best source of information on the Pharisees, apart from theGospels themselves, is the Jewish historian Josephus, who discussesthe beliefs of various Jewish factions. In consideration of his Romanaudience, he depicts these groups as Jewish philosophical schools. Inhis Antiquities, Josephus indicates a rough outline of the beliefs ofthe Pharisees and their political position in relation to theSadducees and the general populace.
Josephusgives the following points in summation of the Pharisees’beliefs. (1)The Pharisees believed some things are the resultof fate, whereas other things are the result of human choice. (2)ThePharisees believed that the soul survives death in a place of eitherreward or punishment, and in the resurrection of the body.(3)Besides believing in the authority of Scripture, thePharisees also had an authoritative body of oral tradition.
ThePharisees and the Sadducees had a difficult relationship, due notonly to different religious beliefs but also to conflicting politicalaspirations. Josephus suggests that Jewish leaders gave patronage toone group or the other, or suppressed one group or the other,sometimes violently. In regard to the general populace, the Phariseeshad a much better relationship with them than did the Sadducees, tothe point that when Sadducees were magistrates, they had to ruleaccording to the beliefs of the Pharisees or else the people wouldnot listen to them.
Inthe New Testament.In the Synoptic Gospels, the Pharisees were one of the groups thatopposed Jesus. It seems that the Pharisees most strongly opposedJesus on issues related to their received tradition, which theyconsidered to be as binding as the OT law. Two such legal issues wereceremonial washings before meals and working on the Sabbath. Allthree Synoptic Gospels narrate the Pharisees questioning Jesusconcerning his and his disciples’ failure to follow thetradition of the elders by eating with “unclean,” thatis, “unwashed,” hands (Matt. 15:1–2; Mark 7:1–5;Luke 11:39–41). Concerning breaking the Sabbath, the Phariseesconfronted Jesus on various occasions, such as when Jesus healed onthe Sabbath (Matt. 12:9–14; Mark 3:1–5; Luke 6:6–11)and when his disciples picked grain while walking through a field(Matt. 12:1–8; Mark 2:23–28; Luke 6:1–5).
Inresponse to accusations concerning breaking the traditions of theelders, Jesus affirmed the priority of mercy in the face of humanneed that supersedes laws concerning the Sabbath by saying that theSabbath was made for humans, not humans for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27),or that the Son of Man (Jesus) was Lord of the Sabbath (Matt. 12:8;Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5). He also said that God desires mercy, notsacrifice (Matt. 12:7).
Jesus’critique of the Pharisees concentrated on their neglecting mercytoward fellow humans for the sake of their tradition. This isespecially clear in Matthew, where Jesus’ critique of thePharisees includes indictments against them for concentrating on thefine points of the law but neglecting justice and mercy (12:7;23:23).
Inthe Gospel of John, the Pharisees are again usually depicted asadversaries of Jesus and also in league with other Jewish authoritiesin plotting to arrest and kill Jesus (7:32; 11:47–57). Onepassage suggests that they were divided concerning Jesus (9:16). OnePharisee, Nicodemus, came to Jesus by night (John 3), defended Jesusbefore his peers (7:50), and brought spices to prepare Jesus’body for burial after his death (19:39).
ThePharisees were not always antagonistic toward Jesus. From time totime, they were on the same side of an issue, such as Jesus’confrontation with the Sadducees over the resurrection (Luke20:27–40). Nicodemus, mentioned above, was quite sympathetictoward Jesus. The apostle Paul identifies himself as a Pharisee inregard to keeping the law in Phil. 3:5; Acts 26:5, and in aconfrontation with Jerusalem authorities in Acts 23:6. Also, someearly Christians were said to be Pharisees (Acts 15:5).
Relationshipwith rabbinic Judaism.An issue concerning the Pharisees is their relationship with laterrabbinic Judaism. There are basically two viewpoints on this matter,and both involve the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70.One position maintains that when the dust settled from thedestruction of the temple, only the Pharisees remained standing, andrabbinic Judaism is their heir. Another view holds that after AD 70sectarian Judaism disappeared, and rabbinic Judaism emerged from acoalescence of various Jewish groups. Although one cannot be certain,it seems that the former view may be closer to the truth, since inthe Mishnah, Sadducean legal opinion is contrasted with Pharisaic,and the Pharisaic is invariably considered correct.
Sadducees
TheSadducees were an elite group of Jews connected with the priesthood.“Sadducee” probably means “Son of Zadok,” adescendant of the high priest Zadok from the time of David. Somemembers of the Qumran community used the term “Son of Zadok”as a self-designation as well, suggesting some common ancestry, ifnot direct identification, of the Sadducees and some members of theQumran community.
Alongwith the Pharisees, the Sadducees were a religious-political groupthat sought the support of the ruling powers. It is in the context ofthe patron-retainer relationship that we first hear of the Sadducees.Josephus relates how the Hasmonean ruler John Hyrcanus switched frombeing the patron of the Pharisees to that of the Sadducees. When thePharisee Eliezer suggested that Hyrcanus step down from the highpriesthood due to his uncertain lineage, Hyrcanus became very angryand wanted Eliezer to be executed. The rest of the Phariseessuggested that he merely be bound and whipped, since they had atradition of passing light sentences. A Sadducee suggested that theypassed such a light sentence because they agreed with Eliezer thatHyrcanus was unsuitable to be high priest. Hyrcanus then cast hissupport behind the Sadducees and abolished the laws that thePharisees had given to the populace.
Josephusgives the following general description of the Sadducees’beliefs and relationship with the general populace. (1)TheSadducees rejected fate; things are the result of human action alone.Along with this, God stands aloof from humans concerning good andevil actions. Good and evil are the result of human action. (2)TheSadducees believed that the soul dies along with the body. (3)Theyaccepted only the written law and had no oral tradition. Some takethis last point to mean that they accepted only the Pentateuch asScripture, but this goes beyond what Josephus says about them.
Josephusgoes on to write that Sadducees were as contentious in their disputeswith fellow Sadducees as with people outside the group, and they didnot hold their elders in esteem. They had influence over the elite,but no say with the populace at large.
TheSadducees are mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels, but not in John,although the “chief priests” who plotted against Jesuswith the Pharisees (e.g., John 11:46) probably were Sadducees. Allthree Synoptic Gospels relate the narrative in which the Sadduceesposed the hypothetical question concerning whose wife a woman wouldbe in the resurrection if she outlived seven husbands. Jesus answeredthat they understood neither the Scriptures nor the power of God, andthat God was the God of the living and not the dead (Matt. 22:23–33;Mark 12:18–27; Luke 20:27–40).
Thebook of Acts confirms that the Sadducees were closely connected tothe priesthood (Acts 4:1; 5:17), and that they disputed with thePharisees over the resurrection (Acts 23:6–8).
Essenes
TheEssenes are the third “philosophical school” mentioned byJosephus. Most scholars consider the Qumran sectarians who producedthe DSS to be Essenes. This has created a number of circulararguments, since the DSS are then used to confirm the nature ofEssene beliefs. That being said, there is good evidence that theQumran sectarians were at least in part Essene. The Essenes are notmentioned in the NT or in rabbinic literature, but they do appear inthe writings of Josephus, Philo of Alexandria, and Pliny the Elder.
Josephusdelineates the beliefs of the Essenes as follows. (1)Theyascribed every happening to God. (2)They believed in theimmortality of the soul.
Josephuswrites at great length concerning the Essenes’ way of life.They lived an ascetic lifestyle, avoided pleasure, and devotedthemselves to prayer. They shared all things in common and lived inharmony with one another. Some Essenes avoided marriage, whereasothers regarded marriage and procreation as too central to human lifeto avoid. Certain Essenes could predict the future and interpretdreams. Concerning sacrifices, Josephus mentions that although theysent offerings to the temple, they had their own, superiorsacrifices.
Philowrites that the Essenes were much admired due to their holy lives,living peaceably with one another and holding to the truth. Contraryto Josephus, Philo says that the Essenes did not sacrifice, butthrough study they kept their minds pure and holy.
TheEssenes, as Josephus and Philo describe them, seem similar to theQumran sectarians. The Qumran sectarians believed that God determinesthe fate of people (1QS 3:13–4:26). Although the sectariansbelieved in the immortality of the soul as well as divine reward andpunishment, this does not seem to be emphasized in their writings.
Zealots
Scholarstend to use “Zealots” as a general term to refer to threedifferent groups mentioned by Josephus: brigands, Sicarii, andZealots. The three groups have different political ideologies andemerged at different times in the first century. They can all bedescribed as revolutionaries.
Thebrigands were motivated not by religious or political ideology but bysurvival. Displaced from the traditional economic structure ofPalestine—the agricultural village—by the Romans, thebrigands stole from Jew and Roman alike. They hated the Romansbecause the Romans had driven them into poverty through taxation andtransformation of the economy from subsistence-based agriculture tocash crops that could be sold more readily. (Money could be shippedto Rome more easily than crops.)
Theother two groups, the Sicarii and the Zealots, fought the Romans andJewish collaborators for political and religious reasons. Theyemerged at different times during the first century, and they shouldnot be lumped together, for their methodologies and goals weresomewhat different.
Josephuswrites about what he calls the “fourth philosophy,” whichhe considers an alien element introduced into the religion andpolitics of Israel, begun in AD 6 by Judas the Galilean and Zadok thePharisee. Their slogan was “No king but God,” and theyengaged in a short-lived rebellion. It seems unclear whether thefourth philosophy should be a category that includes the brigands,the Sicarii, and the Zealots, or whether it is a group unto itself.Whatever the case, Josephus makes clear that this fourth philosophyis an anomaly in the history of Israel.
TheSicarii were a group of assassins who emerged in the AD 40s–50s.They specialized in mixing into Jerusalem crowds and murdering Jewswho were friendly with the Romans, mainly the wealthy. The highpriest Jonathan was one of their victims. At the start of the firstRoman war, they commanded Jewish troops but were driven out by fellowJews. They spent the rest of the war at Masada, conductinginconsequential exploits. They killed themselves in AD 73–74rather than be captured by the Romans. Josephus writes that theleader of the Sicarii at the beginning of the first Roman war wasMenahem, the son or grandson of Judas of Galilee. It has beenspeculated that Judas Iscariot’s surname may be derived fromSicarii, but the etymology is uncertain.
TheZealots emerged at the start of the first Roman war (AD 66–70).Josephus mentions them mainly in connection with the Roman war andseldom in other sections of his writings. They consisted mainly ofpeople displaced by Roman activity in Galilee. They targeted thearistocracy that collaborated with Rome, the Romans themselves, andother revolutionary groups. One of Jesus’ disciples was called“Simon the Zealot” (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13), but this islikely a reference to his zealous faith.
Thefirst Roman war erupted when the Roman procurator Florus looted thetemple. When nothing was done concerning this, the lower priests, thecaptain of the temple guard, Eleazar, and other revolutionary leadersdecided to terminate the temple sacrifice made on the emperor’sbehalf. This essentially started the Roman war and gave rise to theZealots.
Herodians
TheHerodians are mentioned three times in the Gospels. They are reportedto have plotted, along with the Pharisees, to kill Jesus after hehealed a man with a withered hand (Mark 3:6). They are alsodescribed, along with the Pharisees, as trying to trap Jesusconcerning the lawfulness of paying taxes to Caesar (Matt. 22:16;Mark 12:13).
TheHerodians were aristocrats who supported the Herodian dynasty and theRomans, whose support made that dynasty possible. There seems to besome overlap between the Herodians and the Sadducees; Mark 8:15 hasJesus warning his disciples concerning the leaven of the Phariseesand the leaven of Herod (some ancient witnesses read “Herodians”),whereas the parallel in Matt. 16:6, 11 has Jesus warning hisdisciples concerning the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Their religiousbeliefs may have been similar to those of the Sadducees. Too littleinformation about them exists to permit drawing strong conclusions.One can safely say, however, that the Herodians were pro-Romanaristocrats who joined forces with the anti-Roman Pharisees inopposing Jesus.
The English transliteration of the Greek word meaning“preaching, proclamation, message,” “kerygma”was coined as a scholarly term by C.H. Dodd, a professor of NTat Cambridge University, in 1964. In a lecture series titled “TheApostolic Preaching and Its Developments,” Dodd observed thatfour of Peter’s proclamations of the gospel message (Acts2:14–36, 38–39; 3:12–26; 4:8–15) follow anidentifiable pattern. They present basic facts as interpreted throughthe eternal perspective of the first-century church: (1)The ageof prophetic fulfillment has dawned. (2)This has occurredthrough the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus. (3)Jesusis exalted at the right hand of God as the messianic head of Israel.(4)The Holy Spirit in the church is the sign of Christ’spresent power and glory. (5)The messianic age will soon beconsummated in the return of Christ. (6)Therefore, hearers areto repent to receive forgiveness, the Holy Spirit, and salvation.
Doddfurther developed his ideas by examining the Gospels and finding thatthey conform to the essential kerygma pattern as well (Markparticularly clearly so), as do the gospel summaries appearing in thewritings of Paul and John. Each contains an essential core ofinformation: the prophetic announcement of Jesus, especially throughthe ministry of John the Baptist, the trial and crucifixion of Jesus,his burial, his resurrection from the dead, and the affirmation ofthese events through the testimony of eyewitnesses. Examples ofkerygma are found in Acts 5:30–32; 10:34–43; 13:16–41;17:1–4; 26:12–29; 1Cor. 15:1–11.
Noticeablyabsent from all these passages, however, is any mention of theethical teaching of the NT. Dodd was emphatic that kerygma bedistinguished from teaching, by which he meant the doctrinal,ethical, and apologetic aspects of Christianity. These he understoodas appropriate to the life and thought of those already establishedin the faith but different from the evangelistic proclamation ofkerygma, the purpose of which is to call unbelievers to salvation inChrist. Put another way, kerygma is primary, while teaching issecondary; the latter is effective only when presented to those whohave already repented and believed.
SinceDodd, “kerygma” has been applied to the OT as well, whereit refers to the specific saving acts of God, structured similarly tothe NT speech of Stephen (Acts 7:2–53). Examples include Pss.78; 105; 106; 135; 136.
The keys of the kingdom picture the power and authorityentrusted to Simon Peter by Jesus immediately after Peter’sconfession of faith (Matt. 16:16). Jesus responded, “I tell youthat you are Peter [petros], and on this rock [petra] I will build mychurch, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it” (Matt.16:18). It is at this point that Jesus tells Peter, “I willgive you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind onearth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth willbe loosed in heaven” (16:19). Roman Catholics have understoodthese keys, along with this symbolism of loosing and binding, torefer to a special authority in the forgiveness of sins and in thepractices of penance and absolution given to the apostle Peter, andby extension to the institution of the papacy as his spiritual heir.Protestants have often understood this power as involving theapostles in general, or perhaps even the entire church (see 18:18).
Thesymbolism of keys is normally used in the Bible to refer to a meansof entry. Jesus is addressing Peter in particular in Matt. 16:19, notthe apostles as a whole, since the “you” is singular inthe Greek text. Perhaps the best way to understand this phrase is tointerpret it in its original context of something that Peter was todo in the initial establishment of the NT church. Significantly,Peter is given an unparalleled initiatory role in the spread of thegospel. Peter is the one who takes on leadership in the upper roomprayer meeting in Acts 1 and also in the process of finding anotherapostle to replace Judas Iscariot. Peter is the spokesman for theapostles on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) as well as in thesubsequent events involving the Jerusalem church (Acts 3–5).Peter (along with John) goes down to Samaria to examine the newbelievers in Samaria and to be the human channel through which theywould receive the Spirit (Acts 8:14–17). Peter is the one whois entrusted by God with reaching out to Cornelius, the first Gentileconvert (Acts 10–11). At every step along the way, Peter is theone whom God used to open the door to new groups of people in thespread of the gospel.
Laying hands on someone/something has two literal uses andtwo with symbolic significance. (1)Literally, to take something(e.g., Exod. 22:8–11; Esther 9:10–16; Matt. 26:51; Luke9:62) or someone—that is, to make an arrest (e.g., Neh. 13:21;Matt. 26:50; Mark 14:46; Luke 20:19; 21:12; 22:53; John 7:30, 44;Acts 4:3; 5:18; 12:1; 21:27). (2)Literally, to lay hands onpersons (or things) so as to hurt or destroy them (e.g., Gen. 22:12;37:22; 1Sam. 22:17; 24:5–13; 26:9–23; Job 1:12;9:33; Isa. 11:14; Jer. 15:6; Ezek. 39:21). (3)Laying a handover one’s mouth as a symbolic gesture of amazement (Mic. 7:16)or humility (Job 40:4). (4)A gesture to symbolize the transferof something from one person to another. Transfer symbolismapplications include the transfer of representative identity insacrificing (e.g., Exod. 29:10–19; Lev. 1:4; 16:21; Num.8:10–12; 2Chron. 29:23–24), of authority incommissioning (ordination) (e.g., Num. 27:18–23; Deut. 34:9;Acts 6:6; 13:3), of blessing (e.g., Gen. 48:13–20; Matt.19:13–15), of life and health (e.g., Matt. 8:3, 15; 9:18, 25,29; 20:34; Mark 6:5; 7:32–33; 8:22–26; 16:18; Luke 4:40;7:14; 13:13; 22:51; Acts 8:17; 9:12, 17; 28:8), and of the HolySpirit and spiritual gifting (Acts 8:17–19; 9:17; 19:6; 1Tim.4:14; 2Tim. 1:6).
Threeadditional things should be noted about this transfer symbolism.First, the laying on of hands is symbolic rather than purelycausative. This is evidenced when Jesus and the apostles creditfaith, and not mere touch, for healings (e.g., Matt. 9:22, 29–30;Luke 17:19; Acts 3:12–16; 14:9; cf. Matt. 13:58), when healingsoccur from a distance (e.g., Matt. 8:5–13; 15:21–28; John4:46–54) and/or with no apparent touch involved (e.g., Matt.8:28–34; 9:1–8, 32–33; 12:22; 17:14–21; Mark1:23–28; Luke 17:11–19; John 5:1–9; 11:1–44;Acts 5:15; 9:32–35, 40–41; 14:8–10; 16:18), whenthe Holy Spirit comes upon people without touch (e.g., Acts10:44–45), and when Peter strongly rebukes Simon Magus forassuming that the Holy Spirit is dispensed by mere touch (Acts8:17–24).
Second,the early church used the laying on of hands for commissioning churchworkers (Acts 6:6), missionaries (Acts 13:3),and elders (Acts 14:23 [the Greek word used for “appointing,”cheirotoneō, is derivedfrom the words for “extend,” teinō, and “hand,”cheir; cf. 2Cor. 8:19). Since the act was conducted by apostles(Acts 6:6), by prophets and teachers (Acts 13:1–3), byPaul and Barnabas (Acts 14:23; 2Tim. 1:6), and by church elders(1Tim. 4:14), we may conclude that the early church had noestablished hierarchy for ordination.
Third,the NT has some guidelines for commissioning Christian workers (cf.Heb. 6:2). Church leaders have weighty responsibilities (Acts 20:28;1Tim. 3:1–13; 5:17; Titus 1:5–9; 1Pet.5:1–4), so it is not surprising that a church elder/overseermust not be a recent convert (1Tim. 3:6) or hastily ordained(1Tim. 5:22), and that a deacon must first be tested (1Tim.3:10).
The Letter of James has been hailed as possibly the earliest,most Jewish, and most practical of all NT letters. James 3:13 aptlycommunicates the book’s theme: “Who is wise andunderstanding among you? Let them show it by their good life, bydeeds done in humility that comes from wisdom.” The terms“wise” and “wisdom” occur five times in thebook (1:5; 3:13 [2×], 15, 17). Hence, the author instructed hisreaders on leading a life of faith that was characterized by a wisdomexpressed through speech and actions (2:12).
LiteraryFeatures
Theauthor’s employment of picturesque, concrete language has closeaffinities to OT wisdom literature and reflects Jesus’ teachingin the Sermon on the Mount.
James1:2 – Matthew 5:10-12
James1:4 – Matthew 5:48
James1:5; 5:15 – Matthew 7:7-12
James1:9 – Matthew 5:3
James1:20 – Matthew 5:22
James1:22 – Matthew 7:21
James2:5 – Matthew 5:3
James2:13 – Matthew 5:7; 6:14-15
James2:14-16 – Matthew 7:21-23
James3:12 – Matthew 7:16
James3:17-18 – Matthew 5:9
James4:4 – Matthew 6:24
James4:10 – Matthew 5:3-4
James4:11 – Matthew 7:1-2
James5:2 – Matthew 6:19
James5:10 – Matthew 5:12
James5:12 – Matthew 5:33-37
Likethe OT wisdom literature, the teaching in James has a stronglypractical orientation. Although the book contains some lengthierparagraphs, much of it consists of sequential admonishments andethical maxims that in some cases are only loosely related to oneanother. The sentences generally are short and direct. There arefifty-four verbs in the imperative. Connection between sentences issometimes created through repeated words. Yet the overall topic ofpractical faith and wisdom links these exhortations together.
Backgroundand Occasion
Afterthe death of Stephen, many disciples were scattered into the regionsof Judea and Samaria (Acts 7:54–8:3). In Acts 11:19 thenarrator notes, “Now those who had been scattered by thepersecution that broke out when Stephen was killed traveled as far asPhoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, spreading the word only among Jews.”James may have written this letter to instruct and comfort thosescattered believers, as he addressed his letter to “the twelvetribes dispersed abroad” (1:1 NET). These Jewish Christians nolonger had direct contact with the apostles in Jerusalem and neededto be instructed and admonished in their tribulations. Apparently,the rich were taking advantage of them (2:6; 5:1–6), and theirtrials had led to worldliness, rash words, and strained relationships(2:1; 4:1, 11; 5:9). In view of persecution, some may have beentempted to hide their faith (5:10–11). James exhorted them todemonstrate a lifestyle that would reflect their faith.
James’sView on Works and Salvation
Somereaders of this letter have observed a seeming contradiction betweenJames’s call for good works and Paul’s insistence onsalvation by grace through faith apart from works (cf. James 2:14–26with Eph. 2:8–10). The discussion is complicated by James’sargument that a faith without works cannot “save” and byhis observation that Abraham was justified by what he did, not byfaith alone (James 2:14, 20–24). Paul, by contrast, maintainsthat Abraham was justified exclusively by faith (Rom. 4:1–3).
Referringrhetorically to people who claim to have faith but have no deeds,James asks, “Can such faith save them?” (2:14). That is,can the kind of faith that results in no works be genuine? Theexpected answer is no. The kind of faith that produces no workscannot be genuine faith; rather, it is “dead” (2:17, 26)and “useless” (2:20). This kind of faith is “byitself,” meaning that it produces no lasting fruit (2:17).James’s point is that genuine faith will produce good works inthe believer’s life. By way of contrast, a mere profession isnot necessarily an indication of genuine faith. Even demons believein God, but they are not saved; the kind of belief that they exhibitis merely an acknowledgment of God’s existence (2:19).
Accordingto James, Abraham was justified not in the sense of first beingdeclared righteous, but rather in the sense that his faith wasdemonstrated as genuine when he offered up Isaac (2:21). Paul, on theother hand, argues that salvation is obtained not through works butrather by faith alone. He quotes Gen. 15:6 to show that Abrahamtrusted God and was declared righteous several years before heoffered up Isaac (Rom. 4:3).
Accordingto Paul, Abraham was justified (declared righteous) before God whenhe believed God’s promise (Gen. 15:6), but for James, he wasjustified in the sense of giving observable proof of salvationthrough his obedience to God. Whereas Paul refers to the point andmeans of positional salvation, James refers to a subsequent eventthat confirmed that Abraham was justified.
I.Faith
A.Paul (Romans 4:1-3):
1.Is personal trust in God
2.Justifies one before God
3.Is not proof of Salvation
B.James (2:14-26)
1.Is a mere claim if there is no resulting fruit
II.Works
A.Paul (Romans 4:1-3):
1.Precede salvation
2.Attempt to merit salvation
3.Cannot justify before God
B.James (2:14-26)
1.Follow conversion
2.Are evidence of salvation
3.Confirm one’s salvation
Itis important to keep in mind that each author wrote with a differentpurpose. Paul wrote against Judaizers, who taught that a man had tobe circumcised and keep the OT law to be saved. James was warningagainst a mere profession of faith that leads to self-deception(1:22). John Calvin correctly expressed the biblical teaching thatfaith alone saves, but that kind of faith does not remain alone; itproduces good works (cf. Rom. 3:21–6:14; Eph. 2:8–10;Titus 2:11–14; 3:4–7).
Authorship
Theauthor identifies himself as “James, a servant of God and ofthe Lord Jesus Christ” (1:1). The NT mentions five personshaving the name “James”: (1)James the son ofZebedee and the brother of John (Matt. 4:21); (2)James the sonof Alphaeus (Matt. 10:3); (3)James “the younger”(Mark 15:40); (4)James the father of the apostle Judas (notJudas Iscariot; Luke 6:16); and (5)James the brother of Jesus(Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3; Gal. 1:19).
Jamesthe brother of John was executed by Herod AgrippaI, who died inAD 44 (Acts 12:2). Since the Letter of James probably was writtenafter this date, the brother of John could not have written it.Neither James the son of Alphaeus, James the younger, nor James thefather of Judas was as prominent in the early church as the writer ofthis letter, who simply identified himself and assumed that hisreaders would know him (1:1). James the son of Alphaeus is mentionedfor the last time in Acts 1:13, and nothing is known of James thefather of Judas apart from the listing of his name in Luke 6:15; Acts1:13. (It is uncertain whether James the younger should be identifiedwith one of the other four or is a separate figure.) Thus, it isunlikely that any of them wrote the book. James the brother of Jesusis most likely the author of this letter.
Jamesthe Brother of the Lord
Atthe beginning of Jesus’ ministry, James, as well as hisbrothers Joses (Joseph), Judas, and Simon, did not believe that Jesuswas the Messiah (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3; John 7:5). However, they cameto believe in him after the resurrection (Acts 1:14; 1Cor.15:7). Paul called James, along with Peter and John, the “pillars”of the church (Gal. 2:9). James does not claim to be an apostle inthis letter; however, he is identified as one in Gal. 1:19. But therethe term “apostle” probably refers to a group of leadingdisciples outside the Twelve (cf. Acts 14:4, 14; 1Cor. 15:7;Gal. 2:9). Since the author of this letter employed many imperatives,his readers clearly accepted his authority. James, the brother ofJesus, who also became a key leader of the church in Jerusalem,possessed such authority (Acts 12:17; 15:13, 19; 21:18; Gal. 1:18–19;2:9).
Date
Somescholars hold that the Letter of James was written around AD 62,while others argue that James wrote this letter sometime in AD 45–50.Those who favor the earlier dates point out that the Jewish characterof this letter fits with this period when the church was mainlyJewish, based on the following criteria: (1)There is no mentionof Gentile Christians in the letter. (2)The author does notrefer to the teachings of the Judaizers. If the letter had beenwritten at a later date, we would expect the author to address theissue of circumcision among Christians. (3)The mention of“teachers” (3:1) and “elders” (5:14) as theleaders in the church reflects the structure of the primitive church.(4)The word “meeting” in 2:2 is the same Greek wordas for “synagogue.” It describes the gathering place ofthe early church. This implies a time when the congregation was stillprimarily Jewish (Acts 1–7).
Outline
I.Introduction (1:1)
II.The Wise Christian Is Patient in Trials (1:2–18)
A.How the Christian should face trials (1:2–12)
B.The source of temptations (1:13–18)
III.The Wise Christian Is a Practical Doer of the Word (1:19–2:26)
A.Hearers and doers of the word (1:19–25)
B.True religion (1:26–27)
C.Prejudice in the church (2:1–13)
D.Faith that works (2:14–26)
IV.The Wise Christian Masters the Tongue (3:1–18)
A.The power of the tongue (3:1–12)
B.The wisdom from above (3:13–18)
V.The Wise Christian Seeks Peace in Relationships (4:1–17)
A.The cause of quarrels (4:1–3)
B.Warning against worldliness (4:4–10)
C.Warning against slander (4:11–12)
D.Warning against boasting and self-sufficiency (4:13–17)
VI.The Wise Christian Is Patient and Prays When Facing Difficulties(5:1–20)
A.Warning to the rich (5:1–6)
B.Exhortation to patience (5:7–12)
C.The power of prayer (5:13–18)
D.The benefit of correcting those in error (5:19–20)
The founder of what became known as the movement of Jesusfollowers or Christianity. For Christian believers, Jesus Christembodies the personal and supernatural intervention of God in humanhistory.
Introduction
Name.Early Christians combined the name “Jesus” with the title“Christ” (Acts 5:42; NIV: “Messiah”). Thename “Jesus,” from the Hebrew Yehoshua or Yeshua, was acommon male name in first-century Judaism. The title “Christ”is from the Greek christos, a translation of the Hebrew mashiakh(“anointed one, messiah”). Christians eventually werenamed after Jesus’ title (Acts 11:26). During the ministry ofJesus, Peter was the first disciple to recognize Jesus as the Messiah(Matt. 16:16; Mark 9:29; Luke 9:20).
Sources.From the viewpoint of Christianity, the life and ministry of Jesusconstitute the turning point in human history. From a historicalperspective, ample early source materials would be expected. Indeed,both Christian and non-Christian first-century and earlysecond-century literary sources are extant, but they are few innumber. In part, this low incidence is due to society’s initialresistance to the Jesus followers’ movement. The ancient Romanhistorian Tacitus called Christianity “a superstition,”since its beliefs did not fit with the culture’s prevailingworldview and thus were considered antisocial. Early literary sourcestherefore are either in-group documents or allusions in non-Christiansources.
TheNT Gospels are the principal sources for the life and ministry ofJesus. They consist of Matthew, Mark, Luke (the Synoptic Gospels),and John. Most scholars adhere to the so-called Four SourceHypothesis. In this theory, Mark was written first and was used as asource by Matthew and Luke, who also used the sayings source Q (fromGerman Quelle, meaning “source”) as well as their ownindividual sources M (Matthew) and L (Luke). John used additionalsources.
Theearly church tried to put together singular accounts, so-calledGospel harmonies, of the life of Jesus. The Gospel of the Ebionitesrepresents one such attempt based on the Synoptic Gospels. Anotherharmony, the Diatessaron, based on all four Gospels, was producedaround AD 170 by Tatian. Additional source materials concerning thelife of Christ are provided in the NT in texts such as Acts, thePauline Epistles, the General Epistles, and the Revelation of John.Paul wrote to the Galatians, “But when the time had fully come,God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law” (Gal. 4:4).The first narrative about Jesus by the Christian community was apassion narrative, the account of his death and resurrection. Thefirst extant references to this tradition are found in Paul’sletters (1Cor. 2:2; Gal. 3:1). The resurrection was recognizedfrom the beginning as the cornerstone of the Christian faith (1Cor.15:13–14).
Amongnon-Christian sources, the earliest reference to Jesus is found in aletter written circa AD 112 by Pliny the Younger, the Roman governorof Bithynia-Pontus (Ep. 10.96). The Roman historian Tacitus mentionsChristians and Jesus around AD 115 in his famous work about thehistory of Rome (Ann. 15.44). Another Roman historian, Suetonius,wrote around the same time concerning unrest among the Jews in Romebecause of a certain “Chrestos” (Claud. 25.4). Somescholars conclude that “Chrestos” is a misspelling of“Christos,” a reference to Jesus.
TheJewish author Josephus (first century AD) mentions Jesus in a storyabout the Jewish high priest Ananus and James the brother of Jesus(Ant. 20.200). A controversial reference to Jesus appears in adifferent part of the same work, where Josephus affirms that Jesus isthe Messiah and that he rose from the dead (Ant. 18.63–64). Themajority of scholars consider this passage to be authentic butheavily edited by later Christian copyists. Another Jewish source,the Talmud, also mentions Jesus in several places, but thesereferences are very late and of little historical value.
NoncanonicalGospels that mention Jesus include, for example, the Infancy Gospelof Thomas, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel ofJames, the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, the Gospel of the Hebrews, theEgerton Gospel, and the Gospel of Judas. Although some of these maycontain an occasional authentic saying or event, for the most partthey are late and unreliable.
Jesus’Life
Birthand childhood. TheGospels of Matthew and Luke record Jesus’ birth in Bethlehemduring the reign of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1; Luke 2:4, 11). Jesuswas probably born between 6 and 4 BC, shortly before Herod’sdeath (Matt. 2:19). Both Matthew and Luke record the miracle of avirginal conception made possible by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18;Luke 1:35). Luke mentions a census under the Syrian governorQuirinius that was responsible for Jesus’ birth taking place inBethlehem (2:1–5). Both the census and the governorship at thetime of the birth of Jesus have been questioned by scholars.Unfortunately, there is not enough extrabiblical evidence to eitherconfirm or disprove these events, so their veracity must bedetermined on the basis of one’s view regarding the generalreliability of the Gospel tradition.
Onthe eighth day after his birth, Jesus was circumcised, in keepingwith the Jewish law, at which time he officially was named “Jesus”(Luke 2:21). He spent his growing years in Nazareth, in the home ofhis parents, Joseph and Mary (2:40). Of the NT Gospels, the Gospel ofLuke contains the only brief portrayal of Jesus’ growth instrength, wisdom, and favor with God and people (2:40, 52). Luke alsocontains the only account of Jesus as a young boy (2:41–49).
Jesuswas born in a lower socioeconomic setting. His parents offered atemple sacrifice appropriate for those who could not afford tosacrifice a sheep (Luke 2:22–24; cf. Lev. 12:8). Joseph, Jesus’earthly father, was a carpenter or an artisan in wood, stone, ormetal (Matt. 13:55). From a geographical perspective, Nazareth wasnot a prominent place for settling, since it lacked fertile ground.Jesus’ disciple Nathanael expressed an apparently commonfirst-century sentiment concerning Nazareth: “Nazareth! Cananything good come from there?” (John 1:46).
Jesuswas also born in a context of scandal. Questions of illegitimacy weresurely raised, since his mother Mary was discovered to be pregnantbefore her marriage to Joseph. According to Matthew, only theintervention of an angel convinced Joseph not to break his betrothal(Matt. 1:18–24). Jesus’ birth took place in Bethlehem,far from his parents’ home in Nazareth. According to kinshiphospitality customs, Joseph and Mary would have expected to stay withdistant relatives in Bethlehem. It is likely that they were unwelcomebecause of Jesus’ status as an illegitimate child; thus Maryhad to give birth elsewhere and place the infant Jesus in a feedingtrough (Luke 2:7). A similar response was seen years later inNazareth when Jesus was identified as “Mary’s son”(Mark 6:3) rather than through his paternal line, thereby shaming himas one who was born an illegitimate child. Jesus was likewiserejected at the end of his life as the crowds cried, “Crucifyhim!” (Matt. 27:22–23; Mark 15:13–14; Luke 23:21;John 19:6, 15). When Jesus was arrested, most of his followers fled(Matt. 26:56; Mark 14:50–52), and a core disciple, Peter,vehemently denied knowing him (Matt. 26:69–74; Mark 14:66–71;Luke 22:55–60; John 18:15–17, 25–27). His ownsiblings did not believe in him (John 7:5) and were evidently ashamedof his fate, since from the cross Jesus placed the care of his motherinto the hands of “the disciple whom he loved” (19:26–27)rather than the next brother in line, as was customary.
Baptism,temptation, and start of ministry.After Jesus was baptized by the prophet John the Baptist (Luke3:21–22), God affirmed his pleasure with him by referring tohim as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22).Jesus’ baptism did not launch him into fame and instantministry success; instead, Jesus was led by the Spirit into thewilderness, where he was tempted for forty days (Matt. 4:1–11;Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13). Mark stresses that thetemptations immediately followed the baptism. Matthew and Lukeidentify three specific temptations by the devil, though their orderfor the last two is reversed. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesuswas tempted to turn stones into bread, expect divine interventionafter jumping off the temple portico, and receive all the world’skingdoms for worshiping the devil. Jesus resisted all temptation,quoting Scripture in response.
Matthewand Mark record that Jesus began his ministry in Capernaum inGalilee, after the arrest of John the Baptist (Matt. 4:12–13;Mark 1:14). Luke says that Jesus started his ministry at about thirtyyears of age (3:23). This may be meant to indicate full maturity orperhaps correlate this age with the onset of the service of theLevites in the temple (cf. Num. 4:3). John narrates the beginning ofJesus’ ministry by focusing on the calling of the disciples andthe sign performed at a wedding at Cana (1:35–2:11).
Jesus’public ministry: chronology.Jesus’ ministry started in Galilee, probably around AD 27/28,and ended with his death around AD 30 in Jerusalem. The temple hadbeen forty-six years in construction (generally interpreted as thetemple itself and the wider temple complex) when Jesus drove out themoney changers (John 2:20). According to Josephus, the rebuilding andexpansion of the second temple had started in 20/19 BC, during theeighteenth year of Herod’s reign (Ant. 15.380). The ministry ofJohn the Baptist had commenced in the fifteenth year of Tiberius(Luke 3:1–2), who had become a coregent in AD 11/12. From thesedates of the start of the temple building and the correlation of thereign of Tiberius to John the Baptist’s ministry, the onset ofJesus’ ministry can probably be dated to AD 27/28.
TheGospel of John mentions three Passovers and another unnamed feast inJohn 5:1. The length of Jesus’ ministry thus extended overthree or four Passovers, equaling about three or three and a halfyears. Passover, which took place on the fifteenth of Nisan, came ona Friday in AD 30 and 33. The year of Jesus’ death wastherefore probably AD 30.
Jesus’ministry years may be divided broadly into his Galilean and hisJudean ministries. The Synoptic Gospels describe the ministry inGalilee from various angles but converge again as Jesus enters Judea.
Galileanministry.The early stages of Jesus’ ministry centered in and aroundGalilee. Jesus presented the good news and proclaimed that thekingdom of God was near. Matthew focuses on the fulfillment ofprophecy (Matt. 4:13–17). Luke records Jesus’ firstteaching in his hometown, Nazareth, as paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–30);the text that Jesus quoted, Isa. 61:1–2, set the stage for hiscalling to serve and revealed a trajectory of rejection andsuffering.
AllGospels record Jesus’ gathering of disciples early in hisGalilean ministry (Matt. 4:18–22; Mark 1:16–20; Luke5:1–11; John 1:35–51). The formal call and commissioningof the Twelve who would become Jesus’ closest followers isrecorded in different parts of the Gospels (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16). A key event in the early ministryis the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Matt. 5:1–7:29; Luke6:20–49). John focuses on Jesus’ signs and miracles, inparticular in the early parts of his ministry, whereas the Synopticsfocus on healings and exorcisms.
DuringJesus’ Galilean ministry, onlookers struggled with hisidentity. However, evil spirits knew him to be of supreme authority(Mark 3:11). Jesus was criticized by outsiders and by his own family(3:21). The scribes from Jerusalem identified him as a partner ofBeelzebul (3:22). Amid these situations of social conflict, Jesustold parables that couched his ministry in the context of a growingkingdom of God. This kingdom would miraculously spring from humblebeginnings (4:1–32).
TheSynoptics present Jesus’ early Galilean ministry as successful.No challenge or ministry need superseded Jesus’ authority orability: he calmed a storm (Mark 4:35–39), exorcized manydemons (Mark 5:1–13), raised the dead (Mark 5:35–42), fedfive thousand (Mark 6:30–44), and walked on water (Mark6:48–49).
Inthe later part of his ministry in Galilee, Jesus often withdrew andtraveled to the north and the east. The Gospel narratives are notwritten with a focus on chronology. However, only brief returns toGalilee appear to have taken place prior to Jesus’ journey toJerusalem. As people followed Jesus, faith was praised and fearresolved. Jerusalem’s religious leaders traveled to Galilee,where they leveled accusations and charged Jesus’ discipleswith lacking ritual purity (Mark 7:1–5). Jesus shamed thePharisees by pointing out their dishonorable treatment of parents(7:11–13). The Pharisees challenged his legitimacy by demandinga sign (8:11). Jesus refused them signs but agreed with Peter, whoconfessed, “You are the Messiah” (8:29). Jesus didprovide the disciples a sign: his transfiguration (9:2–8).
Jesuswithdrew from Galilee to Tyre and Sidon, where a Syrophoenician womanrequested healing for her daughter. Jesus replied, “I was sentonly to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). Galileans hadlong resented the Syrian provincial leadership partiality thatallotted governmental funds in ways that made the Jews receive mere“crumbs.” Consequently, when the woman replied, “Eventhe dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table,”Jesus applauded her faith (Matt. 15:27–28). Healing a deaf-muteman in the Decapolis provided another example of Jesus’ministry in Gentile territory (Mark 7:31–37). Peter’sconfession of Jesus as the Christ took place during Jesus’travel to Caesarea Philippi, a well-known Gentile territory. The citywas the ancient center of worship of the Hellenistic god Pan.
Judeanministry.Luke records a geographic turning point in Jesus’ ministry ashe resolutely set out for Jerusalem, a direction that eventually ledto his death (Luke 9:51). Luke divides the journey to Jerusalem intothree phases (9:51–13:21; 13:22–17:10; 17:11–19:27).The opening verses of phase one emphasize a prophetic element of thejourney. Jesus viewed his ministry in Jerusalem as his mission, andthe demands on discipleship intensified as Jesus approached Jerusalem(Matt. 20:17–19, 26–28; Mark 10:38–39, 43–45;Luke 14:25–35). Luke presents the second phase of the journeytoward Jerusalem with a focus on conversations regarding salvationand judgment (Luke 13:22–30). In the third and final phase ofthe journey, the advent of the kingdom and the final judgment are themain themes (17:20–37; 19:11–27).
Socialconflicts with religious leaders increased throughout Jesus’ministry. These conflicts led to lively challenge-riposteinteractions concerning the Pharisaic schools of Shammai and Hillel(Matt. 19:1–12; Mark 10:1–12). Likewise, socioeconomicfeathers were ruffled as Jesus welcomed young children, who hadlittle value in society (Matt. 19:13–15; Mark 10:13–16;Luke 18:15–17).
PassionWeek, death, and resurrection. Eachof the Gospels records Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem with thecrowds extending him a royal welcome (Matt. 21:4–9; Mark11:7–10; Luke 19:35–38; John 12:12–15). Lukedescribes Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem as a time during whichJesus taught in the temple as Israel’s Messiah (19:45–21:38).
InJerusalem, Jesus cleansed the temple of profiteering (Mark 11:15–17).Mark describes the religious leaders as fearing Jesus because thewhole crowd was amazed at his teaching, and so they “beganlooking for a way to kill him” (11:18). Dismayed, each segmentof Jerusalem’s temple leadership inquired about Jesus’authority (11:27–33). Jesus replied with cunning questions(12:16, 35–36), stories (12:1–12), denunciation(12:38–44), and a prediction of Jerusalem’s owndestruction (13:1–31). One of Jesus’ own disciples, JudasIscariot, provided the temple leaders the opportunity for Jesus’arrest (14:10–11).
Atthe Last Supper, Jesus instituted a new Passover, defining a newcovenant grounded in his sufferings (Matt. 26:17–18, 26–29;Mark 14:16–25; Luke 22:14–20). He again warned thedisciples of his betrayal and arrest (Matt. 26:21–25, 31; Mark14:27–31; Luke 22:21–23; John 13:21–30), and laterhe prayed for the disciples (John 17:1–26) and prayed in agonyand submissiveness in the garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:36–42;Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–42). His arrest, trial,crucifixion, death, and resurrection followed (Matt. 26:46–28:15;Mark 14:43–16:8; Luke 22:47–24:9; John 18:1–20:18).Jesus finally commissioned his disciples to continue his mission bymaking disciples of all the nations (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 1:8)and ascended to heaven with the promise that he will one day return(Luke 24:50–53; Acts 1:9–11).
TheIdentity of Jesus Christ
Variousaspects of Jesus’ identity are stressed in the four NT Gospels,depending on their target audiences. In the Gospels the witnesses toJesus’ ministry are portrayed as constantly questioning andexamining his identity (Matt. 11:2–5; 12:24; 26:63; 27:11; Mark3:22; 8:11; 11:28; 14:61; Luke 7:18–20; 11:15; 22:67, 70;23:39; John 7:20, 25–27; 18:37). Only beings of the spiritualrealm are certain of his divinity (Mark 1:34; 3:11; Luke 4:41). AtJesus’ baptism, God referred to him as his Son, whom he loved(Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Likewise, when Jesus wastransfigured in the presence of Peter, James, and John, a voiceaffirmed, “This is my Son, whom I love” (Matt. 17:5; Mark9:7). At the moment of his death, the questioning of Jesus’identity culminated in a confession by a Roman centurion and otherguards: “Surely he was the Son of God!” (Matt. 27:54; cf.Mark 15:39).
Miracleworker.In the first-century setting, folk healers and miracle workers werepart of the fabric of society. Jesus, however, performed signs andmiracles in order to demonstrate the authority of the kingdom of Godover various realms: disease, illness, the spiritual world, nature,and even future events. Especially in the Gospel of John, Jesus’signs and miracles are used to show his authority and thus hisidentity.
Nochallenge superseded Jesus’ authority. Among his ample miraclesand signs, he changed water into wine (John 2:7–9), calmed astorm in the sea (Matt. 8:23–27; Mark 4:35–39; Luke8:22–25), exorcized demons (Matt. 9:32–34; Mark 5:1–13;Luke 9:42–43), healed the sick (Mark 1:40–44), raised thedead (Matt. 9:23–25; Mark 5:35–42; Luke 7:1–16;8:49–54; John 11:17, 38–44), performed miraculousfeedings (Matt. 14:17–21; 15:34–38; Mark 6:30–44;8:5–9; Luke 9:10–17; John 6:8–13), and walked onwater (Matt. 14:25–26; Mark 6:48–49; John 6:19).
ThePharisees requested miracles as evidence of his authority (Mark8:11–12). Jesus refused, claiming that a wicked and adulterousgeneration asks for a miraculous sign (Matt. 12:38–39; 16:1–4).The only sign that he would give was the sign of Jonah—hisdeath and resurrection three days later—a personal sacrifice,taking upon himself the judgment of the world (Matt. 12:39–41).
Rabbi/teacher.Jesus’ teaching style was similar to other first-century rabbisor Pharisees (Mark 9:5; 10:51; John 1:38; 3:2). What distinguishedhim was that he spoke with great personal authority (Matt. 5:22, 28,32, 39, 44; Mark 1:22). Like other rabbis of his day, Jesus gathereddisciples. He called these men to observe his lifestyle and to joinhim in his ministry of teaching, healing, and exorcism (Matt. 10:1–4;Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16).
Jesusused a variety of teaching methods. He frequently spoke in parables(Matt. 6:24; 13:24–52; 18:10–14, 23–35;21:28–22:14; 24:32–36, 45–51; 25:14–30; Mark4:1–34; 12:1–12; 13:28–34; Luke 8:4–18;12:41–46; 13:18–21; 14:15–24; 15:1–16:15,19–31; 18:1–14; 19:11–27; 20:9–19; 21:29–33),used figures of speech (John 10:9), hyperbole (Matt. 19:24; Mark10:25; Luke 18:25), argumentation (Matt. 26:11), object lessons(Matt. 24:32), frequent repetition (Matt. 13:44–47; Luke13:18–21), practical examples, and personal guidance.
Majorthemes in Jesus’ teaching include the kingdom of God, the costof discipleship, internal righteousness, the end of the age, hisidentity, his mission, and his approaching death. In his teachings,observance of Torah was given new context and meaning because God’skingdom had “come near” (Matt. 3:2). Jesus had come tofulfill the law (Matt. 5:17).
Jesus’teaching ministry often took place amid social conflict. Theseconflicts were couched in so-called challenge-riposte interactions inwhich the honor status of those involved was at stake. Jesus usedthese interactions as teachable moments. When questioned, Jesus gavereplies that reveal omniscience or intimate knowledge of God’swill, especially in the Gospel of John. In the Synoptic Gospels,Jesus’ answers are both ethical and practical in nature. TheSynoptics portray Jesus as challenged repeatedly with accusations ofviolating customs specified in the Jewish law. Jesus’ answersto such accusations often echoed the essence of 1Sam. 15:22,“To obey is better than sacrifice,” phrased by Jesus as“I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Matt. 9:13; 12:7). Anoverall “better than” ethic was common in Jesus’public teaching.
TheSermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7) contains a “better than”ethic in which internal obedience is better than mere outwardobedience. For example, Jesus said that anger without cause is equalto murder (Matt. 5:21–22), that looking at a woman lustfullyamounts to adultery (Matt. 5:28), and that instead of revengingwrongs one must reciprocate with love (Matt. 5:38–48). Jesusvalued compassion above traditions and customs, even those containedwithin the OT law. He desired internal obedience above the letter ofthe law.
Jesus’teachings found their authority in the reality of God’simminent kingdom (Matt. 3:2; 10:7; Mark 1:15; Luke 10:9),necessitating repentance (Matt. 3:2), belief (Mark 1:15), dependence(Matt. 18:3–5; Mark 10:15), and loyalty to a new community—thefamily of Jesus followers (Mark 3:34; 10:29–30). Jesus urged,“Seek first [God’s] kingdom and his righteousness”(Matt. 6:33). Preaching with such urgency was common among propheticteachers of the intertestamental period. Jesus, however, had his owngrounds for urgency. He held that God deeply valued all humans (Matt.10:31) and would bring judgment swiftly (Matt. 25:31–46).
Examplesof a “greater good” ethic in the Synoptics include theoccasions when Jesus ate with sinners (Mark 2:16–17). Jesusused an aphorism in response to accusations about his associationswith sinners, saying, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor,but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners”(Mark 2:17). He advocated harvesting and healing on the Sabbath (Mark2:23–28; 3:1–6), and when he was accused of breaking thelaw, he pointed to an OT exception (1Sam. 21:1–6) todeclare compassion appropriate for the Sabbath. Jesus also appliedthe “greater good” ethic in the case of divorce, sincewomen suffered the societal stigma of adultery and commonly becameoutcasts following divorce (Matt. 19:8–9; Mark 10:5–9).
Jesus’kingdom teachings were simultaneously spiritual, ethical, andeschatological in application. The teachings were aimed at internaltransformation (Matt. 5:3–9; 18:3; Mark 10:15) and spurring onlove (Matt. 5:44; 7:21). The Spirit of the Lord had called Jesus tobless the hurting ones as they aspired to a godly character. Jesustaught, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father isperfect” (Matt. 5:48), and “Be merciful, just as yourFather is merciful” (Luke 6:36). The “blessed” onesin Jesus’ teachings are poor of spirit, peace driven, mournful,and hungry for righteousness, consumed with emulating godlycharacter.
Somescholars believe that Jesus promoted an “interim ethic”for the kingdom, intended only for a short period prior to the end oftime. However, he was explicit regarding the longevity of histeachings: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words willnever pass away” (Matt. 24:35; Luke 16:17).
Messiah.The concept of an anointed one, a messiah, who would restore theglories of David’s kingdom and bring political stability wascommon in Jewish expectation. Both before and after the Babyloniancaptivity, many Jews longed for one who would bring peace andprotection. Israel’s prophets had spoken of a coming deliverer,one who would restore David’s kingdom and reign in justice andrighteousness (2Sam. 7:11–16; Isa. 9:1–7; 11:1–16;Jer. 23:5–6; 33:15–16; Ezek. 37:25; Dan. 2:44; Mic. 5:2;Zech. 9:9). Isaiah’s description of the servant (Isa. 53) whosesuffering healed the nation provided a slightly different angle ofexpectation in terms of a deliverer.
Jesus’authority and popularity as a miracle worker called up messianicimages in first-century Jewish minds. On several occasions hearerscalled him “Son of David,” hoping for the Messiah (Matt.12:23; 21:9). Simon Peter was the first follower who confessed Jesusas the Christ, the “Messiah” (Matt. 16:16; Mark 8:29). Inline with Isaiah’s model of the Suffering Servant, Jesusfocused not on political ends but rather on spiritual regenerationthrough his own sacrificial death (Mark 10:45).
Eschatologicalprophet.Many scholars claim that Jesus is best understood as a Jewishapocalypticist, an eschatological prophet who expected God tointervene in history, destroy the wicked, and bring in the kingdom ofGod. Central in this understanding are Jesus’ propheciesconcerning the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (Matt. 24:1–2,15–22; Mark 13:1; Luke 21:5–24; John 2:19; Acts 6:14). Inaddition, it is noted that Jesus had twelve disciples, representativeof the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:2–28; Luke 22:23–30).Certain of Jesus’ parables, those with apocalyptic images ofcoming judgment, present Jesus as an eschatological prophet (Matt.24:45–25:30; Luke 12:41–46; 19:11–27).
SufferingSon of God.Jesus’ first recorded teaching in a synagogue in Nazareth wasparadigmatic (Luke 4:16–21). He attributed the reading, Isa.61:1–2, to his personal calling to serve, and in doing so herevealed a trajectory of suffering. The Gospel of Mark likewise aptlyportrays Jesus as the suffering Son of God. Jesus’ ownteachings incorporated his upcoming suffering (Mark 8:31; 9:12–13,31; 10:33–34). He summarized his mission by declaring, “TheSon of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give hislife as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). His earthly careerended with a trial in Jerusalem consisting of both Roman and Jewishcomponents (Matt. 26:57–68; 27:1–31; Mark 14:53–65;15:1–20; Luke 22:54–23:25; John 18:19–24;18:28–19:16). He was insulted, scourged, mocked, and crucified.
Jesus’suffering culminated in his humiliating death by crucifixion (Matt.27:33–50; Mark 15:22–37; Luke 23:33–46; John19:16–30). Crucifixion was a death of unimaginable horror,bringing shame and humiliation to the victim and his family. Anyonehanging on a tree was considered cursed (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13).Thus, especially in a Jewish society, anyone associated with acrucified person bore the shame of following one who was executed asa lowly slave and left as a cursed corpse. The apostle Paul referredto this shame of the cross when he stated, “I am not ashamed ofthe gospel” (Rom. 1:16).
ExaltedLord.Jesus had prophesied that he would rise again (Matt. 16:21; 17:9, 23;20:19; 27:63; Mark 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:34; Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:7, 46).The testimony of the Synoptics is that the resurrection of JesusChrist indeed occurred on the third day, Christ having died on Friday(Mark 15:42–45; Luke 23:52–54; John 19:30–33) andrisen again on Sunday (Matt. 28:1–7; Mark 16:2–7; Luke24:1–7; John 20:1–16). The resurrected Jesus waswitnessed by the women (Matt. 28:8–9), the eleven disciples(Matt. 28:16–17; Luke 24:36–43), and travelers on theroad to Emmaus (Luke 24:31–32). According to Paul, he appearedto as many as five hundred others (1Cor. 15:6). He appeared inbodily form, spoke, showed his scars, and ate (Luke 24:39–43;John 20:27; Acts 1:4). After forty postresurrection days, Jesusascended into the heavenly realm (Acts 1:9).
Asmuch as Jesus’ death was the epitome of shame, his victory overdeath was his ultimate exaltation (Phil. 2:5–11). At Pentecost,Peter proclaimed that in the resurrection God fulfilled OT promises(Ps. 16:10) by raising his Son from the grave (Acts 2:30–31).Furthermore, Christ provided freedom from the law through hisresurrection (Rom. 5:13–14), God’s approval of his lifeand work (Phil. 2:8–9), and God’s designation of him asLord over all the earth, the living and the dead (Acts 17:30–31;Phil. 2:10; Heb. 1:3), and over all his enemies (Eph. 1:20–23).
Jesus’exaltation commenced the beginning of forgiveness and justification(Luke 24:46–47; Acts 13:30–39; Rom. 4:25) and hisintercession for the people of God (Rom. 8:34). His ascensionsignaled the coming of the Holy Spirit as comforter and teacher (John14:26; Acts 2:33) and was accompanied by the promise of his return inglory (Luke 24:51), at which time he will render judgment (Matt.19:28; 24:31; Rev. 20:11–15) and establish his eternal kingdom(1Cor. 15:24; 2Tim. 4:1; Rev. 11:15; 22:5).
Jesus’Purpose and Community
Inthe Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah, whopreaches the good news of the kingdom, urging people to repent(4:17–23). Repentance and belief allow one to enter thekingdom. The call into the kingdom is a call into a new covenant, onemade in Jesus’ blood (26:28).
Inthe prologue to the Gospel of Mark, the narrator reveals the identityof Jesus (1:1). Jesus is presented as the one who brings good tidingsof salvation (cf. Isa. 40:9; 52:7; 61:1). The centrality of thegospel, the good news (Mark 1:14–15), is evident.
Lukelikewise presents the preaching of the good news as a main purpose ofJesus’ ministry (4:43). The content of this good news is thekingdom of God (4:43; 8:1; 16:16). When the disciples of John theBaptist asked Jesus if he was the one who was to come (7:20), Jesusanswered, “Go back and report to John what you have seen andheard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosyare cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good newsis proclaimed to the poor” (7:22). The kingdom of God, aspresented in Luke, brings freedom for the prisoners, recovery ofsight for the blind, and release for the oppressed (4:18). Jesus’healings and exorcisms announce the coming kingdom of God alreadypresent in the ministry of Jesus (4:40–44; 6:18–20;8:1–2; 9:2; 10:8–9).
Inthe Gospel of John, Jesus testifies to the good news by way of signsthroughout his ministry. These signs point to Jesus’ glory, hisidentity, and the significance of his ministry. Jesus is the Messiah,the Son of God, who offers eternal and abundant life. This abundantlife is lived out in community.
Inthe Gospel of John, the disciples of Jesus represent the community ofGod (17:21). The disciples did not belong to the world, but theycontinued to live in the world (17:14–16). Throughout hisministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a callto loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38;Luke 9:23–26), a call to the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50;Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock Iwill build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call tocommunity. Jesus’ presence as the head of the community wasreplaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).
Jesus’ministry continued in the community of Jesus’ followers, God’sfamily—the church. Entrance into the community was obtained byadopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and through theinitiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26;Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–62; John 1:12; 3:16;10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9).
TheQuests for the Historical Jesus
Thequest for the historical Jesus, or seeking who Jesus was from ahistorical perspective, is a modern phenomenon deemed necessary byscholars who claim that the NT Gospels were written long after Jesus’death and were heavily influenced by the post-Easter understanding ofthe church.
Thebeginning of this quest is often dated to 1770, when the lecturenotes of Hermann Samuel Reimarus were published posthumously.Reimarus had launched an inquiry into the identity of Jesus thatrejected as inauthentic all supernatural elements in the Gospels. Heconcluded that the disciples invented Jesus’ miracles,prophecies, ritualistic religion, and resurrection. Reimarus’sconclusions were not widely accepted, but they set off a flurry ofrationalistic research into the historical Jesus that continuedthroughout the nineteenth century. This became known as the “firstquest” for the historical Jesus.
In1906 German theologian Albert Schweit-zer published The Quest of theHistorical Jesus (German title: Von Reimarus zu Wrede: EineGeschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung), a scathing indictment of thefirst quest. Schweitzer’s work showed that nineteenth-centuryresearchers re-created Jesus in their own image, transforming thehistorical Jesus into a modern philanthropist preaching aninoffensive message of love and brotherhood. Schweitzer’sconclusions marked the beginning of the end for this first quest.Schweitzer himself concluded that the historical Jesus was aneschatological prophet whose purposes failed during his last days inJerusalem.
Withthe demise of the first quest, some NT scholars, such as RudolfBultmann, rejected any claim to being able to discover the historicalJesus. This trend continued until 1953, when some of Bultmann’sformer students launched what has come to be known as the “newquest” for the historical Jesus (1953–c. 1970). Thisquest created new interest in the historical Jesus but was stilldominated by the view that the portrait of Jesus in the Gospels islargely a creation of the church in a post-Easter setting.
Asthe rebuilding years of the post–World WarII era wanedand scholars started to reap academic fruit from major archaeologicalfinds such as the DSS, research on the historical Jesus moved on towhat has been called the “third quest.” This quest seeksespecially to research and understand Jesus in his social andcultural setting.
A Pharisee commissioned by Jesus Christ to preach the gospelto Gentiles. His Jewish name was “Saul” (Acts 9:4; 13:9),but he preferred using his Roman name, especially when he signed hisletters. Actually, “Paul” was his last name. Romancitizens had three names; the last name was the family name, calledthe “cognomen.” We do not know Paul’s first andmiddle Roman name, but his last name is derived from the Latin Paulus(Sergius Paulus, the proconsul of Cyprus, had the same family name[13:7]). Most people were known and called by their last name becausegroup identity was more important in the first-century Mediterraneanworld than individual recognition. For example, when speakingpublicly, Paul did not use his favorite self-designations, “apostleto the Gentiles” or “slave of Christ Jesus”;instead, he identified himself as a Jew, a citizen of Tarsus, astudent of Gamaliel (21:39; 22:3). His social identity was embeddedin his ethnicity, his nativity, his religion. However, even thosecategories cannot adequately describe Paul. He was a Jew but also aRoman citizen. Tarsus was his home (11:25–26), but he claimedthat he was brought up in Jerusalem. He spoke Aramaic but wrote Greekletters. He was once a Pharisee but then preached a circumcision-freegospel to Gentiles. In many respects, Paul is an enigma. Who was he?What did he believe? Why did he think he had to leave his previouslife in Judaism to become the apostle to the Gentiles? Why is he oneof the major contributors to the NT even though he was not a followerof the historical Jesus?
Paul’sLife
Paulas a converted Pharisee.Paul spent the first half of his life as a Pharisee. The Phariseeswere a Jewish sect that emphasized obedience to the law of God as themeans of maintaining holiness. Practically all Jews believed thatthey should obey the law, but what made the Pharisees unique wastheir emphasis on applying all commandments, even those intended onlyfor Levites and priests, to all Jews. For example, priests wererequired to keep certain rituals of hand washing before they ate(Lev. 22:1–9; cf. Exod 30:19–21; 40:31–32). So thePharisees extended these requirements to all Israel in order to showGod how serious they were about obeying the law (Mark 7:3–4).Obedience was crucial to God’s blessing; disobedience broughtGod’s curse. Therefore, the Pharisees established manytraditions, going beyond the letter of the law, to ensure compliance.To what extent the Jewish people followed the example of thePharisees is debated, but certainly it appeared to the people that noone was more zealous for God and his law than the Pharisees—azeal that would compel them to join in the stoning of obviousoffenders (Lev. 24:14; Acts 7:58). As a Pharisee, Paul’s zealfor the law led him to persecute Jewish Christians, not only inJerusalem but also outside Israel, in places such as Damascus (Acts8:3; 9:1–3; 22:4–5; Gal. 1:13–14; Phil. 3:6).Neither Paul nor Luke explains what the Pharisees found objectionableabout this Jewish movement known as “the Way.” In fact,Paul’s teacher, Gamaliel, advised the Sanhedrin to ignoremembers of the Way and not make trouble for them (Acts5:34–39)—advice obviously not taken by Paul. Perhaps itwas Jesus’ reputation as a lawbreaker or the fact that he haddied a cursed death according to the law that convinced Paul toimprison Jesus’ disciples (Deut. 21:23). Whatever the reason,Paul saw his role as persecutor of the church as the ultimate proofof his blamelessness under the law (Phil. 3:6).
AfterChrist appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus, everything changed:his life, his mission, his worldview (Acts 9:3–30). Paul leftPharisaism and immediately began preaching the gospel (Gal. 1:11–17).Those whom he persecuted were now friends. His zeal for the law wasreplaced by his zeal for Christ. It was a radical reversal. The rumorspread quickly: “The man who formerly persecuted us is nowpreaching the faith he once tried to destroy” (Gal. 1:23). Whythe sudden change? Some think that it is what Paul saw—theglorified Messiah—that changed his perspective. Theresurrection of Christ turned the curse of the cross into a blessing,death into life, shame into honor. The appearance of Christ(Christophany) was a revelation, an apocalypse, an end-of-the-worldevent for Paul. Old things passed away; everything became new (2Cor.5:17). What was divided under the old age of the law—Jews andGentiles, male and female, slave and free—was united in Christ.Other scholars emphasize it is what Paul heard during theChristophany that changed the course of his life. Paul interpretedChrist’s charge, “Go, preach to the Gentiles,” as aprophetic calling, perhaps even fulfilling Isaiah’s end-timevision of salvation of the whole world (Isa. 49:1–7; Gal.1:15–16). Thus, Paul’s westward push to take the gospelto the coastlands (Spain) was by divine design (Rom. 15:15–24).God commissioned Saul the Pharisee of the Jews to become Paul theapostle to the Gentiles because “the culmination of the ageshas come” (1Cor. 10:11).
Paul’sministry.By our best estimates, Paul spent about thirty years preaching thegospel of Jesus Christ (AD 34–67)—a ministry that can bedivided roughly into three decades. The first decade of his ministry(AD 34–46) has been called the “silent years,” aswe have few details from Acts or the Pauline Epistles about hisactivities. For example, we know that he preached in Damascus for awhile and spent some time in Arabia (a total of three years [Gal.1:17–18]). He made a quick trip to Jerusalem to meet Peter andJames the brother of Jesus. Then he returned home to Tarsus,evidently preaching there for several years, until Barnabas broughthim to Antioch in Syria to help with the ministry of this mixedcongregation of Jews and Gentiles (Acts 9:26–30; 11:25–26).In the second decade of his ministry (AD 46–59), Paul spentmost of his life on the road, an itinerant ministry of preaching thegospel and planting churches from Cyprus to Corinth. For most of thethird decade (AD 59–67), Paul ministered the gospel fromprison, spending over two years imprisoned in Caesarea, another twoto three years in a Roman prison (Acts ends here), released for abrief time (two years?) before his final arrest and imprisonment inRome, where, according to church tradition, he was executed.
Duringhis itinerant ministry, Paul traveled Roman roads that led him tofree cities (Ephesus, Thessalonica, Athens) and Roman colonies(Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, Troas, Philippi, Corinth).Founding churches in urban centers afforded Paul more opportunitiesfor ministry and for his work of making and repairing tents.Traveling within the borders of the Roman Empire also provided abetter chance of protection as a citizen. At first, Paul and Barnabascovered familiar territory: Cyprus (Barnabas’s home region) andAnatolia (Paul’s home region). Then, with successive journeysPaul and other missionary companions branched out to Asia Minor,Macedonia, and Achaia. Some of the towns that Paul visited were smalland provincial (Derbe, Lystra); others were major cities of greateconomic and intellectual commerce (Ephesus, Corinth, Athens). In themidst of such cultural diversity, Paul found receptive ears among avariety of ethnic groups: Gauls, Phrygians and Lycaonians, Greeks,Romans, and Jews. Previously, Paul’s Gentile converts hadworshiped many gods (local, ethnic, and imperial), offered sacrificesat many shrines and temples, and joined in all the religiousfestivals (often involving immoral and ungodly practices). Afterbelieving the gospel, Paul’s predominantly Gentile churchesturned from their idolatrous ways to serve “the living and trueGod” (1Thess. 1:9). Their exclusive devotion to one Godquickly led to economic and political problems, for both Paul’sconverts and the cities of their residence. No more offerings forpatron gods, no more support for local synagogues or the imperialcult—Paul’s converts were often persecuted for theirnewly found faith by local religious guilds (idol makers!) and civicleaders courting Roman favor (Acts 17:6–9; 19:23–41;Phil. 1:27–30; 1Thess. 2:14–16). Indeed, Paul oftenwas run out of town as a troublemaker who preached a message thatthreatened both the Jewish and the Roman ways of life (Acts 16:19–24;Phil. 3:17–4:1). It is no wonder that Paul’s activitieseventually landed him in a Roman prison. It was only a matter of timebefore his reputation as a “lawbreaker” caught up withhim (Acts 21:21). But that did not stop Paul. Whether as a prisoneror a free man, Paul proclaimed the gospel of Jesus Christ until theday he died.
Paul’sGospel
Thesources of Paul’s gospel.Paul ministered his entire life without the benefit of literaryGospels. Most scholars think that the earliest Gospel, Mark, waswritten about the time that Paul was martyred. Since Paul was not adisciple of Jesus and probably never heard him speak or witnessed hisearthly ministry, how did Paul know what to preach? Where did Paulget his gospel? Paul mentioned four sources. First, he received oraltraditions about Jesus from other Christians (1Cor. 15:1–7).For him, hearing what happened during the Lord’s Supper fromthose who followed Jesus was the same as receiving it from the Lord(1Cor. 11:23). Second, the Hebrew Scriptures were a majorsource of Paul’s gospel (Acts 17:2). Illumined by the HolySpirit, Paul saw the gospel proclaimed in the law (Rom. 10:6–8)and predicted by the prophets (15:12). Third, in addition to theChristophany on the road to Damascus, Paul experienced revelations ofChrist as epiphanies of the gospel (Acts 18:9–10; 26:18). Thisgave Paul the authority to claim that he received his gospelpreeminently from Christ (Gal. 1:1, 16; 2:2). Fourth, Paul saw lifeexperiences as a resource for the gospel (2Cor. 12:7–10).As Paul made sense of what happened to him, he shared these insightswith his converts as proof that “Christ is speaking through me”(2Cor. 13:3–4). Indeed, Paul’s ways of doing thegospel were to be taught in all the churches as gospel truth (1Cor.4:17), because as far as Paul was concerned, the gospel of JesusChrist was the gospel according to Paul.
Thedeath and resurrection of Jesus Christ.The center of Paul’s gospel was the death and resurrection ofJesus. The essence of what he preached was “Jesus Christ andhim crucified” (1Cor. 2:2). Furthermore, the resurrectionof Christ was indispensable to the gospel that Paul proclaimed.Without the resurrection, Paul argued, faith in Christ would be vainbecause believers would still be dead in their sins with no hope oflife after death—the resurrection of their bodies (1Cor.15:13–19). Exploring the center, Paul used several metaphorsdrawn from everyday life to explain the significance of Christ’swork on the cross. Paul used legal terms such as“justification”/“righteousness,” “law,”and “condemnation” when he explained how sinners arejustified by faith in Christ. Paul described the implications ofChrist’s death in religious terms, using words such as“sacrifice,” “sin,”“propitiation”/“expiation” (NIV: “sacrificeof atonement”), and “temple,” which would makesense to both Jews and Gentiles. He also borrowed words from theworld of commerce, such as “redemption,” “purchase,”and “slave,” especially when he emphasized the obedienceof Christ, of Paul, of all believers. He even used military terms todescribe how God turned enemies into friends through the cross: the“reconciliation” that came through the “victory”of Christ’s death when he “disarmed” the “powers.”
Paulalso relied heavily on Jewish theology as he sorted out the work ofGod in Christ Jesus. Paul was a monotheist but attributed divinestatus to Jesus (Phil. 2:6). Paul believed that Israel was God’schosen people but maintained that his Gentile converts were theelect, calling them the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). Paulaffirmed the law was holy but argued that holiness came only throughthe indwelling Spirit (Rom. 7:12; 1Thess. 4:7–8). Paulbelieved that the Messiah’s appearance would bring about theend of the world but looked forward to Christ’s parousia(“appearance”) at the end of time. In other words, theperson and work of Christ formed the lens through which Paulinterpreted the Bible and made sense of the world. Indeed, Paul’sgospel was built on a foundation of Jewish doctrine, Jesus tradition,and religious experience.
Away of life.For Paul, the gospel was more than a set of beliefs; it was a way oflife. To believe in Christ Jesus not only entailed accepting hissacrificial death as atonement for sin but also meant followingChrist by taking up his cross—a life of sacrifice. Paulbelieved that he experienced the cross of Christ every time heendured hardship, every time he was persecuted, every time hesuffered loss (Phil. 3:7–11). And it was in the crucified lifethat Paul found resurrection power (3:12–21). The gospel wasthe divine paradigm for living. What happened to Christ is whathappened to Paul, and what happened to Paul is what would happen toall his converts. “Follow my example,” he wrote, “asI follow the example of Christ” (1Cor. 11:1). In fact,Paul believed that all Christians were constantly being conformed tothe image of God’s Son (Rom. 8:29). He was convinced that Godwould finish what he had started: the perfecting of his convertsuntil the day of Christ’s return and the resurrection of everybeliever (Phil. 1:6; 3:21). The only thing that his converts neededto imitate Christ was the indwelling power of his Spirit (the HolySpirit), the example of Paul’s life, and a letter every now andthen from their apostle.
Paul’sLetters
Paulsent letters to churches and individuals to inform his converts ofhis situation, offer encouragement, answer questions, and addressproblems that developed while he was away. There are thirteen lettersof Paul in the New Testament. Nine were written to churches or groupsof churches (Romans; 1 and 2Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians;Philippians; Colossions; 1 and 2Thessalonians) and four toindividuals (1 and 2Timothy; Titus; Philemon).
Paulthe apostle.In most of his letters, Paul was on the defense: defending hisapostleship, defending his itinerary, defending his gospel.Evidently, Paul’s opponents questioned whether Paul deserved tobe called “apostle,” since he had not followed thehistorical Jesus and used to persecute the church (1Cor.15:8–9). According to Acts, when the first Christians decidedto replace Judas Iscariot as one of the twelve apostles, theyestablished the following criterion: the candidate must have been afollower of Jesus from his baptism to his ascension (Acts 1:21–22).Two men were qualified; one was chosen by divine lot, implying thatthere could be only twelve. Did the early church’s decision torecognize only twelve apostles define apostleship once and for all?Paul did not think so. He recognized the significance of the Twelve,but he believed that there were other apostles as well: Bar-na-bas,James the brother of Jesus, and himself (1Cor. 15:5–9;Gal. 2:8–9). Paul knew that there were false apostles causingtrouble in the churches (2Cor. 11:13), some even carrying“letters of recommendation” (2Cor. 3:1). But onlythose who had seen the resurrected Christ and were commissioned byhim to preach the gospel were legitimate apostles (1Cor.9:1–2). The signs of apostleship were evident when thecommission was fulfilled: planting churches and dispensing the Spirit(2Cor. 3:2; 12:12; Gal. 3:5). Of all people, Paul’sconverts should have never questioned the authority of their apostle.They were the proof of his apostleship.
AlthoughPaul never mentioned this, the fact that he sent letters is evidenceof his apostleship. Paul believed that the obedience of Gentileconverts was his responsibility, a confirmation of his calling (Rom.15:18–19). So he sent letters to make sure that they werekeeping the traditions that he had taught them (1Cor. 11:2).Sometimes, all that his readers needed was a little encouragement tokeep up the good work (most of 1Thessalonians and 2Timothyare exhortations to keep doing what they were doing) or a moredetailed explanation of what they already knew (Ephesians,Philippians, 1Timothy, Titus). Many times, Paul sent letters tocorrect major problems within his churches. For example, some of theGalatians were submitting to the law and being circumcised (Gal.4:21; 5:2–7). Some of the Colossians were involved in strangepractices of asceticism and angel worship (Col. 2:16–23). Someof the Thessalonians had quit working for a living (2Thess.3:6–15). And, worst of all, the Corinthians were plagued withall kinds of problems: factions, lawsuits, incest, prostitutes,idolatry. Some of the Corinthians were also espousing falsetheological ideas, such as denying the resurrection (1Cor.15:12). Other churches had problems sorting out Paul’s theologyas well. For example, the Thessalonians were confused about lifeafter death, end times, and the return of Christ (1Thess.4:13–18; 2Thess. 2:1–12), and the Romans needed,among other things, instruction about the role of Israel in the lastdays (Rom. 9:1–11:32). The fact that Paul felt obliged to sendhis lengthiest letter, loaded with some of his most sophisticatedtheological arguments, to the church in Rome, which he did not startand had not visited, says much about the way Paul saw the authorityof his apostleship. Because he was the apostle to the Gentiles, Pauloperated as if he were the mentor of all churches with Gentilemembers.
Churchunity.Paul believed in the unity of the church. Indeed, he used severalmetaphors to help his readers see why it was important that one Lordand one faith should form one church. He described the church as atemple (1Cor. 3:16–17), a family (Eph. 2:19), and abody—his favorite metaphor (1Cor. 12:12–27). Hewarned of desecrating the temple with divisive teaching and immoralbehavior (1Cor. 3:1–6:20). He rebuked his children whenthey refused to obey him as their father (1Cor. 3:14–21)or mother (Gal. 4:19–20). And, more than any other analogy,Paul likened the church to a human body that could be maimed byprejudice and threatened by sickness (1Cor. 11:17–34). Tohim, a dismembered body was an unholy body; a segregated church meantthat Christ was divided (1Cor. 1:10–13). The ethnic,religious, social, political, geographical, and economic differencesevident in one of the most diverse collections of people in thefirst-century Mediterranean world made Paul’s vision of aunified church appear like an impossible dream. Yet the apostle tothe Gentiles believed that the unity of the body of Christ wasindispensable not only to his mission but also to the gospel of JesusChrist (Eph. 4:1–6). So he collected a relief offering amonghis Gentile converts to help poor Jewish Christians in Jerusalem(Rom. 15:26–27). He taught masters to treat their slaves likesiblings (Philem. 16). And he solicited Romans to fund his missiontrip to Spain (Rom. 15:24). As far as Paul was concerned, the gospelbrought down every wall that divides humanity because all people needsalvation in Christ (Eph. 2:14–18).
Conclusion
Paulwas a tentmaker, a missionary, a writer, a preacher, a teacher, atheologian, an evangelist, a mentor, a prophet, a miracle worker, aprisoner, and a martyr. His life story reads like the tale of threedifferent men: a devout Pharisee, a tireless traveler, an ambitiouswriter. He knew the Scriptures better than did most people. He sawmore of the world than did most merchants. He wrote some of thelongest letters known at that time. To his converts, he was afaithful friend. To his opponents, he was an irrepressibletroublemaker. But, according to Paul, he was nothing more or lessthan the man whom God had called through Jesus Christ to take thegospel to the ends of the earth.
A Pharisee commissioned by Jesus Christ to preach the gospelto Gentiles. His Jewish name was “Saul” (Acts 9:4; 13:9),but he preferred using his Roman name, especially when he signed hisletters. Actually, “Paul” was his last name. Romancitizens had three names; the last name was the family name, calledthe “cognomen.” We do not know Paul’s first andmiddle Roman name, but his last name is derived from the Latin Paulus(Sergius Paulus, the proconsul of Cyprus, had the same family name[13:7]). Most people were known and called by their last name becausegroup identity was more important in the first-century Mediterraneanworld than individual recognition. For example, when speakingpublicly, Paul did not use his favorite self-designations, “apostleto the Gentiles” or “slave of Christ Jesus”;instead, he identified himself as a Jew, a citizen of Tarsus, astudent of Gamaliel (21:39; 22:3). His social identity was embeddedin his ethnicity, his nativity, his religion. However, even thosecategories cannot adequately describe Paul. He was a Jew but also aRoman citizen. Tarsus was his home (11:25–26), but he claimedthat he was brought up in Jerusalem. He spoke Aramaic but wrote Greekletters. He was once a Pharisee but then preached a circumcision-freegospel to Gentiles. In many respects, Paul is an enigma. Who was he?What did he believe? Why did he think he had to leave his previouslife in Judaism to become the apostle to the Gentiles? Why is he oneof the major contributors to the NT even though he was not a followerof the historical Jesus?
Paul’sLife
Paulas a converted Pharisee.Paul spent the first half of his life as a Pharisee. The Phariseeswere a Jewish sect that emphasized obedience to the law of God as themeans of maintaining holiness. Practically all Jews believed thatthey should obey the law, but what made the Pharisees unique wastheir emphasis on applying all commandments, even those intended onlyfor Levites and priests, to all Jews. For example, priests wererequired to keep certain rituals of hand washing before they ate(Lev. 22:1–9; cf. Exod 30:19–21; 40:31–32). So thePharisees extended these requirements to all Israel in order to showGod how serious they were about obeying the law (Mark 7:3–4).Obedience was crucial to God’s blessing; disobedience broughtGod’s curse. Therefore, the Pharisees established manytraditions, going beyond the letter of the law, to ensure compliance.To what extent the Jewish people followed the example of thePharisees is debated, but certainly it appeared to the people that noone was more zealous for God and his law than the Pharisees—azeal that would compel them to join in the stoning of obviousoffenders (Lev. 24:14; Acts 7:58). As a Pharisee, Paul’s zealfor the law led him to persecute Jewish Christians, not only inJerusalem but also outside Israel, in places such as Damascus (Acts8:3; 9:1–3; 22:4–5; Gal. 1:13–14; Phil. 3:6).Neither Paul nor Luke explains what the Pharisees found objectionableabout this Jewish movement known as “the Way.” In fact,Paul’s teacher, Gamaliel, advised the Sanhedrin to ignoremembers of the Way and not make trouble for them (Acts5:34–39)—advice obviously not taken by Paul. Perhaps itwas Jesus’ reputation as a lawbreaker or the fact that he haddied a cursed death according to the law that convinced Paul toimprison Jesus’ disciples (Deut. 21:23). Whatever the reason,Paul saw his role as persecutor of the church as the ultimate proofof his blamelessness under the law (Phil. 3:6).
AfterChrist appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus, everything changed:his life, his mission, his worldview (Acts 9:3–30). Paul leftPharisaism and immediately began preaching the gospel (Gal. 1:11–17).Those whom he persecuted were now friends. His zeal for the law wasreplaced by his zeal for Christ. It was a radical reversal. The rumorspread quickly: “The man who formerly persecuted us is nowpreaching the faith he once tried to destroy” (Gal. 1:23). Whythe sudden change? Some think that it is what Paul saw—theglorified Messiah—that changed his perspective. Theresurrection of Christ turned the curse of the cross into a blessing,death into life, shame into honor. The appearance of Christ(Christophany) was a revelation, an apocalypse, an end-of-the-worldevent for Paul. Old things passed away; everything became new (2Cor.5:17). What was divided under the old age of the law—Jews andGentiles, male and female, slave and free—was united in Christ.Other scholars emphasize it is what Paul heard during theChristophany that changed the course of his life. Paul interpretedChrist’s charge, “Go, preach to the Gentiles,” as aprophetic calling, perhaps even fulfilling Isaiah’s end-timevision of salvation of the whole world (Isa. 49:1–7; Gal.1:15–16). Thus, Paul’s westward push to take the gospelto the coastlands (Spain) was by divine design (Rom. 15:15–24).God commissioned Saul the Pharisee of the Jews to become Paul theapostle to the Gentiles because “the culmination of the ageshas come” (1Cor. 10:11).
Paul’sministry.By our best estimates, Paul spent about thirty years preaching thegospel of Jesus Christ (AD 34–67)—a ministry that can bedivided roughly into three decades. The first decade of his ministry(AD 34–46) has been called the “silent years,” aswe have few details from Acts or the Pauline Epistles about hisactivities. For example, we know that he preached in Damascus for awhile and spent some time in Arabia (a total of three years [Gal.1:17–18]). He made a quick trip to Jerusalem to meet Peter andJames the brother of Jesus. Then he returned home to Tarsus,evidently preaching there for several years, until Barnabas broughthim to Antioch in Syria to help with the ministry of this mixedcongregation of Jews and Gentiles (Acts 9:26–30; 11:25–26).In the second decade of his ministry (AD 46–59), Paul spentmost of his life on the road, an itinerant ministry of preaching thegospel and planting churches from Cyprus to Corinth. For most of thethird decade (AD 59–67), Paul ministered the gospel fromprison, spending over two years imprisoned in Caesarea, another twoto three years in a Roman prison (Acts ends here), released for abrief time (two years?) before his final arrest and imprisonment inRome, where, according to church tradition, he was executed.
Duringhis itinerant ministry, Paul traveled Roman roads that led him tofree cities (Ephesus, Thessalonica, Athens) and Roman colonies(Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, Troas, Philippi, Corinth).Founding churches in urban centers afforded Paul more opportunitiesfor ministry and for his work of making and repairing tents.Traveling within the borders of the Roman Empire also provided abetter chance of protection as a citizen. At first, Paul and Barnabascovered familiar territory: Cyprus (Barnabas’s home region) andAnatolia (Paul’s home region). Then, with successive journeysPaul and other missionary companions branched out to Asia Minor,Macedonia, and Achaia. Some of the towns that Paul visited were smalland provincial (Derbe, Lystra); others were major cities of greateconomic and intellectual commerce (Ephesus, Corinth, Athens). In themidst of such cultural diversity, Paul found receptive ears among avariety of ethnic groups: Gauls, Phrygians and Lycaonians, Greeks,Romans, and Jews. Previously, Paul’s Gentile converts hadworshiped many gods (local, ethnic, and imperial), offered sacrificesat many shrines and temples, and joined in all the religiousfestivals (often involving immoral and ungodly practices). Afterbelieving the gospel, Paul’s predominantly Gentile churchesturned from their idolatrous ways to serve “the living and trueGod” (1Thess. 1:9). Their exclusive devotion to one Godquickly led to economic and political problems, for both Paul’sconverts and the cities of their residence. No more offerings forpatron gods, no more support for local synagogues or the imperialcult—Paul’s converts were often persecuted for theirnewly found faith by local religious guilds (idol makers!) and civicleaders courting Roman favor (Acts 17:6–9; 19:23–41;Phil. 1:27–30; 1Thess. 2:14–16). Indeed, Paul oftenwas run out of town as a troublemaker who preached a message thatthreatened both the Jewish and the Roman ways of life (Acts 16:19–24;Phil. 3:17–4:1). It is no wonder that Paul’s activitieseventually landed him in a Roman prison. It was only a matter of timebefore his reputation as a “lawbreaker” caught up withhim (Acts 21:21). But that did not stop Paul. Whether as a prisoneror a free man, Paul proclaimed the gospel of Jesus Christ until theday he died.
Paul’sGospel
Thesources of Paul’s gospel.Paul ministered his entire life without the benefit of literaryGospels. Most scholars think that the earliest Gospel, Mark, waswritten about the time that Paul was martyred. Since Paul was not adisciple of Jesus and probably never heard him speak or witnessed hisearthly ministry, how did Paul know what to preach? Where did Paulget his gospel? Paul mentioned four sources. First, he received oraltraditions about Jesus from other Christians (1Cor. 15:1–7).For him, hearing what happened during the Lord’s Supper fromthose who followed Jesus was the same as receiving it from the Lord(1Cor. 11:23). Second, the Hebrew Scriptures were a majorsource of Paul’s gospel (Acts 17:2). Illumined by the HolySpirit, Paul saw the gospel proclaimed in the law (Rom. 10:6–8)and predicted by the prophets (15:12). Third, in addition to theChristophany on the road to Damascus, Paul experienced revelations ofChrist as epiphanies of the gospel (Acts 18:9–10; 26:18). Thisgave Paul the authority to claim that he received his gospelpreeminently from Christ (Gal. 1:1, 16; 2:2). Fourth, Paul saw lifeexperiences as a resource for the gospel (2Cor. 12:7–10).As Paul made sense of what happened to him, he shared these insightswith his converts as proof that “Christ is speaking through me”(2Cor. 13:3–4). Indeed, Paul’s ways of doing thegospel were to be taught in all the churches as gospel truth (1Cor.4:17), because as far as Paul was concerned, the gospel of JesusChrist was the gospel according to Paul.
Thedeath and resurrection of Jesus Christ.The center of Paul’s gospel was the death and resurrection ofJesus. The essence of what he preached was “Jesus Christ andhim crucified” (1Cor. 2:2). Furthermore, the resurrectionof Christ was indispensable to the gospel that Paul proclaimed.Without the resurrection, Paul argued, faith in Christ would be vainbecause believers would still be dead in their sins with no hope oflife after death—the resurrection of their bodies (1Cor.15:13–19). Exploring the center, Paul used several metaphorsdrawn from everyday life to explain the significance of Christ’swork on the cross. Paul used legal terms such as“justification”/“righteousness,” “law,”and “condemnation” when he explained how sinners arejustified by faith in Christ. Paul described the implications ofChrist’s death in religious terms, using words such as“sacrifice,” “sin,”“propitiation”/“expiation” (NIV: “sacrificeof atonement”), and “temple,” which would makesense to both Jews and Gentiles. He also borrowed words from theworld of commerce, such as “redemption,” “purchase,”and “slave,” especially when he emphasized the obedienceof Christ, of Paul, of all believers. He even used military terms todescribe how God turned enemies into friends through the cross: the“reconciliation” that came through the “victory”of Christ’s death when he “disarmed” the “powers.”
Paulalso relied heavily on Jewish theology as he sorted out the work ofGod in Christ Jesus. Paul was a monotheist but attributed divinestatus to Jesus (Phil. 2:6). Paul believed that Israel was God’schosen people but maintained that his Gentile converts were theelect, calling them the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). Paulaffirmed the law was holy but argued that holiness came only throughthe indwelling Spirit (Rom. 7:12; 1Thess. 4:7–8). Paulbelieved that the Messiah’s appearance would bring about theend of the world but looked forward to Christ’s parousia(“appearance”) at the end of time. In other words, theperson and work of Christ formed the lens through which Paulinterpreted the Bible and made sense of the world. Indeed, Paul’sgospel was built on a foundation of Jewish doctrine, Jesus tradition,and religious experience.
Away of life.For Paul, the gospel was more than a set of beliefs; it was a way oflife. To believe in Christ Jesus not only entailed accepting hissacrificial death as atonement for sin but also meant followingChrist by taking up his cross—a life of sacrifice. Paulbelieved that he experienced the cross of Christ every time heendured hardship, every time he was persecuted, every time hesuffered loss (Phil. 3:7–11). And it was in the crucified lifethat Paul found resurrection power (3:12–21). The gospel wasthe divine paradigm for living. What happened to Christ is whathappened to Paul, and what happened to Paul is what would happen toall his converts. “Follow my example,” he wrote, “asI follow the example of Christ” (1Cor. 11:1). In fact,Paul believed that all Christians were constantly being conformed tothe image of God’s Son (Rom. 8:29). He was convinced that Godwould finish what he had started: the perfecting of his convertsuntil the day of Christ’s return and the resurrection of everybeliever (Phil. 1:6; 3:21). The only thing that his converts neededto imitate Christ was the indwelling power of his Spirit (the HolySpirit), the example of Paul’s life, and a letter every now andthen from their apostle.
Paul’sLetters
Paulsent letters to churches and individuals to inform his converts ofhis situation, offer encouragement, answer questions, and addressproblems that developed while he was away. There are thirteen lettersof Paul in the New Testament. Nine were written to churches or groupsof churches (Romans; 1 and 2Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians;Philippians; Colossions; 1 and 2Thessalonians) and four toindividuals (1 and 2Timothy; Titus; Philemon).
Paulthe apostle.In most of his letters, Paul was on the defense: defending hisapostleship, defending his itinerary, defending his gospel.Evidently, Paul’s opponents questioned whether Paul deserved tobe called “apostle,” since he had not followed thehistorical Jesus and used to persecute the church (1Cor.15:8–9). According to Acts, when the first Christians decidedto replace Judas Iscariot as one of the twelve apostles, theyestablished the following criterion: the candidate must have been afollower of Jesus from his baptism to his ascension (Acts 1:21–22).Two men were qualified; one was chosen by divine lot, implying thatthere could be only twelve. Did the early church’s decision torecognize only twelve apostles define apostleship once and for all?Paul did not think so. He recognized the significance of the Twelve,but he believed that there were other apostles as well: Bar-na-bas,James the brother of Jesus, and himself (1Cor. 15:5–9;Gal. 2:8–9). Paul knew that there were false apostles causingtrouble in the churches (2Cor. 11:13), some even carrying“letters of recommendation” (2Cor. 3:1). But onlythose who had seen the resurrected Christ and were commissioned byhim to preach the gospel were legitimate apostles (1Cor.9:1–2). The signs of apostleship were evident when thecommission was fulfilled: planting churches and dispensing the Spirit(2Cor. 3:2; 12:12; Gal. 3:5). Of all people, Paul’sconverts should have never questioned the authority of their apostle.They were the proof of his apostleship.
AlthoughPaul never mentioned this, the fact that he sent letters is evidenceof his apostleship. Paul believed that the obedience of Gentileconverts was his responsibility, a confirmation of his calling (Rom.15:18–19). So he sent letters to make sure that they werekeeping the traditions that he had taught them (1Cor. 11:2).Sometimes, all that his readers needed was a little encouragement tokeep up the good work (most of 1Thessalonians and 2Timothyare exhortations to keep doing what they were doing) or a moredetailed explanation of what they already knew (Ephesians,Philippians, 1Timothy, Titus). Many times, Paul sent letters tocorrect major problems within his churches. For example, some of theGalatians were submitting to the law and being circumcised (Gal.4:21; 5:2–7). Some of the Colossians were involved in strangepractices of asceticism and angel worship (Col. 2:16–23). Someof the Thessalonians had quit working for a living (2Thess.3:6–15). And, worst of all, the Corinthians were plagued withall kinds of problems: factions, lawsuits, incest, prostitutes,idolatry. Some of the Corinthians were also espousing falsetheological ideas, such as denying the resurrection (1Cor.15:12). Other churches had problems sorting out Paul’s theologyas well. For example, the Thessalonians were confused about lifeafter death, end times, and the return of Christ (1Thess.4:13–18; 2Thess. 2:1–12), and the Romans needed,among other things, instruction about the role of Israel in the lastdays (Rom. 9:1–11:32). The fact that Paul felt obliged to sendhis lengthiest letter, loaded with some of his most sophisticatedtheological arguments, to the church in Rome, which he did not startand had not visited, says much about the way Paul saw the authorityof his apostleship. Because he was the apostle to the Gentiles, Pauloperated as if he were the mentor of all churches with Gentilemembers.
Churchunity.Paul believed in the unity of the church. Indeed, he used severalmetaphors to help his readers see why it was important that one Lordand one faith should form one church. He described the church as atemple (1Cor. 3:16–17), a family (Eph. 2:19), and abody—his favorite metaphor (1Cor. 12:12–27). Hewarned of desecrating the temple with divisive teaching and immoralbehavior (1Cor. 3:1–6:20). He rebuked his children whenthey refused to obey him as their father (1Cor. 3:14–21)or mother (Gal. 4:19–20). And, more than any other analogy,Paul likened the church to a human body that could be maimed byprejudice and threatened by sickness (1Cor. 11:17–34). Tohim, a dismembered body was an unholy body; a segregated church meantthat Christ was divided (1Cor. 1:10–13). The ethnic,religious, social, political, geographical, and economic differencesevident in one of the most diverse collections of people in thefirst-century Mediterranean world made Paul’s vision of aunified church appear like an impossible dream. Yet the apostle tothe Gentiles believed that the unity of the body of Christ wasindispensable not only to his mission but also to the gospel of JesusChrist (Eph. 4:1–6). So he collected a relief offering amonghis Gentile converts to help poor Jewish Christians in Jerusalem(Rom. 15:26–27). He taught masters to treat their slaves likesiblings (Philem. 16). And he solicited Romans to fund his missiontrip to Spain (Rom. 15:24). As far as Paul was concerned, the gospelbrought down every wall that divides humanity because all people needsalvation in Christ (Eph. 2:14–18).
Conclusion
Paulwas a tentmaker, a missionary, a writer, a preacher, a teacher, atheologian, an evangelist, a mentor, a prophet, a miracle worker, aprisoner, and a martyr. His life story reads like the tale of threedifferent men: a devout Pharisee, a tireless traveler, an ambitiouswriter. He knew the Scriptures better than did most people. He sawmore of the world than did most merchants. He wrote some of thelongest letters known at that time. To his converts, he was afaithful friend. To his opponents, he was an irrepressibletroublemaker. But, according to Paul, he was nothing more or lessthan the man whom God had called through Jesus Christ to take thegospel to the ends of the earth.
The words “persecute” and “persecution”refer to the act of pursuing and wrongly afflicting someone. Theterms occur mostly in the NT, where typically they refer topersecution of Jesus’ followers. Their persecution takesvarying forms, such as false legal accusations, imprisonment, orexecution.
Persecutionthroughout the Bible.Within the NT, the English words “persecute” and“persecution” are, with few exceptions, translations ofthe Greek verb diōkō or the related noun diōgmos.However, diōkō can also mean simply “to pursue,followafter,” such as when the object of pursuit is righteousness orpeace (Rom. 9:30; 1Tim. 6:11; 2Tim. 2:22; 1Pet.3:11). The term is used in this same sense in the LXX (Gen. 14:15;Deut. 16:20; 19:6; 2Sam. 22:38). The Greek words weretranslated into English as “persecute” or “persecution”when the translators thought that the context also showed wrongfulaffliction. The corresponding Hebrew word radap shares this meaning.
Inthis sense of wrongful affliction, persecution occurs throughout theBible. The Egyptian army pursues the people of Israel to the Red Sea(Exod. 14:8; Neh. 9:11). On two occasions, the people want to stonethe prophet Moses to death (Exod. 17:3–4; Num. 14:10). Saulhunts David (1Sam. 23:25; 24:14; 26:18). Saul wrongly slays theGibeonites out of a sense of patriotism (1Sam. 21:1–2).Jezebel kills God’s prophets (1Kings 18:13). The prophetUriah is slain (Jer. 26:23), and the prophet Jeremiah is incarcerated(Jer. 38:6–9). Isaiah, Ezekiel, and other prophets are stronglyopposed, suggesting persecution (2Chron. 36:16; Isa. 1:2–6;Ezek. 2:3–4; 3:7–9; Acts 7:52). Daniel is cast to thelions (Dan. 6:16). A king’s decree allows execution of all Jewsfor holding the laws of God above the king’s commands,indicating pagan religious hostility (Esther 3). Pagan hostility isshown by the later deaths of many Jews in the religious persecutiondescribed in 1Maccabees and in the first-century uprisings inEgypt described by the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria.
Persecutionin the New Testament.In the NT, persecution begins with the imprisonment and beheading ofJohn the Baptist (Mark 6:16–18; Josephus, Ant. 18.116–19).Jesus is accused by the religious authorities and eventually is triedand executed by Pilate. The religious authorities later flog Jesus’apostles for teaching about him (Acts 5:40). The disciple Stephen issoon accused by false witnesses, tried, and executed by stoning(7:59–60). At this time, Saul (Paul) of Tarsus drags men andwomen from the Jerusalem church off to prison by authority from thechief priests. Saul has them beaten, and at their execution he castsvotes against them (8:3; 22:4, 5, 19; 26:10). After this, Herodexecutes Jesus’ disciple James (12:2). Saul (Paul) converts,and then he suffers threats, beatings, stoning, and prison (Acts13:50; 14:5, 19; 16:22–35; 24:27; 2Cor. 11:23–25).Disciples in Macedonia and Achaia suffer; some Hebrew-speakingdisciples suffer imprisonment and property seizure; and somedisciples in Asia Minor die as martyrs (2Cor. 1:6; 1Thess.1:6–7; Heb. 10:34; Rev. 2:8–13). Pagan persecution ofChristians continued for nearly three centuries, sometimes far moreseverely, according to records compiled by Eusebius (Hist. eccl.2.25; 3.17–19, 32–33; 4.8, 13, 15; 5.1–2; 6.1, 4,41–42; 8.2–3, 7–13). Persecution was sporadic,often beginning with slander or legal accusations. It occurred inmany regions, with leaders especially suffering. Records ofpersecution survived haphazardly.
Jesussays that we are to love and do good to our enemies and pray for ourpersecutors (Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27). While being crucified, Jesusaccordingly prays, “Father, forgive them” (Luke 23:34;cf. Acts 7:60). Preparing for arrest, Jesus warns his disciples topray to avoid temptation, and he himself prays (Matt. 26:41). BothJesus and Paul say that believers will be persecuted (Matt. 24:9;1Thess. 3:4; 2Tim. 3:12), but God gives strength inpersecution (Acts 14:22; 2Cor.12:10).
The words “persecute” and “persecution”refer to the act of pursuing and wrongly afflicting someone. Theterms occur mostly in the NT, where typically they refer topersecution of Jesus’ followers. Their persecution takesvarying forms, such as false legal accusations, imprisonment, orexecution.
Persecutionthroughout the Bible.Within the NT, the English words “persecute” and“persecution” are, with few exceptions, translations ofthe Greek verb diōkō or the related noun diōgmos.However, diōkō can also mean simply “to pursue,followafter,” such as when the object of pursuit is righteousness orpeace (Rom. 9:30; 1Tim. 6:11; 2Tim. 2:22; 1Pet.3:11). The term is used in this same sense in the LXX (Gen. 14:15;Deut. 16:20; 19:6; 2Sam. 22:38). The Greek words weretranslated into English as “persecute” or “persecution”when the translators thought that the context also showed wrongfulaffliction. The corresponding Hebrew word radap shares this meaning.
Inthis sense of wrongful affliction, persecution occurs throughout theBible. The Egyptian army pursues the people of Israel to the Red Sea(Exod. 14:8; Neh. 9:11). On two occasions, the people want to stonethe prophet Moses to death (Exod. 17:3–4; Num. 14:10). Saulhunts David (1Sam. 23:25; 24:14; 26:18). Saul wrongly slays theGibeonites out of a sense of patriotism (1Sam. 21:1–2).Jezebel kills God’s prophets (1Kings 18:13). The prophetUriah is slain (Jer. 26:23), and the prophet Jeremiah is incarcerated(Jer. 38:6–9). Isaiah, Ezekiel, and other prophets are stronglyopposed, suggesting persecution (2Chron. 36:16; Isa. 1:2–6;Ezek. 2:3–4; 3:7–9; Acts 7:52). Daniel is cast to thelions (Dan. 6:16). A king’s decree allows execution of all Jewsfor holding the laws of God above the king’s commands,indicating pagan religious hostility (Esther 3). Pagan hostility isshown by the later deaths of many Jews in the religious persecutiondescribed in 1Maccabees and in the first-century uprisings inEgypt described by the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria.
Persecutionin the New Testament.In the NT, persecution begins with the imprisonment and beheading ofJohn the Baptist (Mark 6:16–18; Josephus, Ant. 18.116–19).Jesus is accused by the religious authorities and eventually is triedand executed by Pilate. The religious authorities later flog Jesus’apostles for teaching about him (Acts 5:40). The disciple Stephen issoon accused by false witnesses, tried, and executed by stoning(7:59–60). At this time, Saul (Paul) of Tarsus drags men andwomen from the Jerusalem church off to prison by authority from thechief priests. Saul has them beaten, and at their execution he castsvotes against them (8:3; 22:4, 5, 19; 26:10). After this, Herodexecutes Jesus’ disciple James (12:2). Saul (Paul) converts,and then he suffers threats, beatings, stoning, and prison (Acts13:50; 14:5, 19; 16:22–35; 24:27; 2Cor. 11:23–25).Disciples in Macedonia and Achaia suffer; some Hebrew-speakingdisciples suffer imprisonment and property seizure; and somedisciples in Asia Minor die as martyrs (2Cor. 1:6; 1Thess.1:6–7; Heb. 10:34; Rev. 2:8–13). Pagan persecution ofChristians continued for nearly three centuries, sometimes far moreseverely, according to records compiled by Eusebius (Hist. eccl.2.25; 3.17–19, 32–33; 4.8, 13, 15; 5.1–2; 6.1, 4,41–42; 8.2–3, 7–13). Persecution was sporadic,often beginning with slander or legal accusations. It occurred inmany regions, with leaders especially suffering. Records ofpersecution survived haphazardly.
Jesussays that we are to love and do good to our enemies and pray for ourpersecutors (Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27). While being crucified, Jesusaccordingly prays, “Father, forgive them” (Luke 23:34;cf. Acts 7:60). Preparing for arrest, Jesus warns his disciples topray to avoid temptation, and he himself prays (Matt. 26:41). BothJesus and Paul say that believers will be persecuted (Matt. 24:9;1Thess. 3:4; 2Tim. 3:12), but God gives strength inpersecution (Acts 14:22; 2Cor.12:10).
Hebrewsuses the word archēgos in highlighting Jesus as the “pioneer”of salvation and faith (Heb. 2:10; 12:2; NASB: “author”).The same Greek term is used in the phrase “author of life”in Acts 3:15 and is translated as “Prince”in Acts 5:31. See also Author, Author of Life.
A “head” tax levied by a government, oftenfollowing a census (see 2Sam. 24:1–17; 1Chron.21:1–17). Taxes were levied against conquered peoples (2Kings15:19–20; 23:35). The Romans demanded tribute from every head(tributum capitis) annually (see Mark 12:13–17 pars.). Theprocurator (e.g., Pontius Pilate) or regional head (e.g., HerodAntipas) was responsible for collecting these taxes. Around the timeof Jesus’ birth, many Jews rebelled against the census and tax(Acts 5:37). According to Luke 2:1, Joseph and Mary came to Bethlehemnear the time of Jesus’ birth because of a census for taxpurposes decreed by Caesar Augustus.
The English transliteration of the Greek word meaning“preaching, proclamation, message,” “kerygma”was coined as a scholarly term by C.H. Dodd, a professor of NTat Cambridge University, in 1964. In a lecture series titled “TheApostolic Preaching and Its Developments,” Dodd observed thatfour of Peter’s proclamations of the gospel message (Acts2:14–36, 38–39; 3:12–26; 4:8–15) follow anidentifiable pattern. They present basic facts as interpreted throughthe eternal perspective of the first-century church: (1)The ageof prophetic fulfillment has dawned. (2)This has occurredthrough the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus. (3)Jesusis exalted at the right hand of God as the messianic head of Israel.(4)The Holy Spirit in the church is the sign of Christ’spresent power and glory. (5)The messianic age will soon beconsummated in the return of Christ. (6)Therefore, hearers areto repent to receive forgiveness, the Holy Spirit, and salvation.
Doddfurther developed his ideas by examining the Gospels and finding thatthey conform to the essential kerygma pattern as well (Markparticularly clearly so), as do the gospel summaries appearing in thewritings of Paul and John. Each contains an essential core ofinformation: the prophetic announcement of Jesus, especially throughthe ministry of John the Baptist, the trial and crucifixion of Jesus,his burial, his resurrection from the dead, and the affirmation ofthese events through the testimony of eyewitnesses. Examples ofkerygma are found in Acts 5:30–32; 10:34–43; 13:16–41;17:1–4; 26:12–29; 1Cor. 15:1–11.
Noticeablyabsent from all these passages, however, is any mention of theethical teaching of the NT. Dodd was emphatic that kerygma bedistinguished from teaching, by which he meant the doctrinal,ethical, and apologetic aspects of Christianity. These he understoodas appropriate to the life and thought of those already establishedin the faith but different from the evangelistic proclamation ofkerygma, the purpose of which is to call unbelievers to salvation inChrist. Put another way, kerygma is primary, while teaching issecondary; the latter is effective only when presented to those whohave already repented and believed.
SinceDodd, “kerygma” has been applied to the OT as well, whereit refers to the specific saving acts of God, structured similarly tothe NT speech of Stephen (Acts 7:2–53). Examples include Pss.78; 105; 106; 135; 136.
Simon Peter is the best-known and the most colorful of Jesus’twelve disciples. The name “Peter” means “rock”in Greek. In some biblical texts, he is also called “Cephas,”which is the Aramaic word for “rock” (see esp. John1:42). Despite the ups and downs of Peter’s spiritual life, Godwas able to use him as the foundational apostle for the establishmentof the NT church. Peter first met Jesus immediately after Jesus’baptism, when Peter’s brother, Andrew, heard John the Baptist’sidentification of Jesus as the Lamb of God (John 1:35). In classicmissionary style, “the first thing Andrew did was to find hisbrother Simon and tell him, ‘We have found the Messiah’ ”(John 1:41). Peter’s official call to ministry took placelater, when he was fishing on the Sea of Galilee and Jesus issued thewell-known invitation “Come, follow me, ... and Iwill send you out to fish for people” (Matt. 4:19).
Peterwas the chief spokesman for the disciples at Caesarea Philippi whenJesus asked them, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”(Matt. 16:13). Peter responded, “You are the Messiah, the Sonof the living God,” an insight given him by God the Father(16:16–17). Jesus promised him, “I tell you that you arePeter [petros], and on this rock [petra] I will build my church, andthe gates of Hades will not overcome it” (16:18). Yet Peteralmost immediately became a “stumbling block” to Jesuswhen he chided Jesus for saying that he must go to Jerusalem andsuffer many things and be killed (16:21–22). Another majorfailure by Peter came with his threefold denial of Jesus after Jesushad warned him, “This very night, before the rooster crows, youwill disown me three times” (Matt. 26:34). Fortunately, therewere tears of repentance, and Peter was forgiven and restored afterJesus’ threefold question (“Do you love me?” [John21:15–19]).
Jesus’death and resurrection, as well as the giving of the Holy Spirit onthe day of Pentecost, had stabilizing effects on Peter. After Jesus’ascension, Peter exercised primary leadership among the otherdisciples during the upper room prayer meetings and the choosing ofthe replacement for Judas (Acts 1). Peter clearly was the publicspokesman for the apostles on the day of Pentecost and a key playerin the establishment of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 2–5), inreceiving the first Samaritan converts (Acts 8:14–25), and inreceiving Cornelius as the first Gentile convert (Acts 10–11).Following Peter’s miraculous deliverance from prison in Acts12, he essentially disappears from recorded history. By the time ofthe Jerusalem council (Acts 15), Peter reappeared briefly, but bythis time he had been replaced by James as the leader of theJerusalem church. Peter apparently continued to live as a missionary(1Cor. 9:5), specifically “to the circumcised”(Gal. 2:7–8), for the rest of his life. Yet Peter was stillhuman, and on one occasion Paul gave him a stinging rebuke (Gal.2:11–21).
Duringhis travels, Peter undoubtedly visited the recipients of his laterletter 1Peter (and possibly 2Peter) in north central AsiaMinor (the regions of “Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia andBithynia” [1Pet. 1:1]), possibly Corinth (1Cor.1:12; 3:22), and, at least by the end of his life, Rome itself.According to tradition, he was put to death by Nero between AD 64 and68, apparently by being crucified upside down (cf. John 21:18–19).Peter’s life is a vivid illustration of the Christian’sfight for faith, God’s gracious provision, and Jesus’intercession on his behalf (“I have prayed for you, Simon, thatyour faith may not fail” [Luke 22:32]).
A title designating members of the group of twelve disciples(Matt. 10:2–4; Mark 3:16–19; Luke 6:13–16) whor*ceived Jesus’ teaching (Luke 17:5) and to whom he grantedauthority (Mark 6:7, 30; Luke 9:1, 10). Matthias later replaced JudasIscariot (Acts 1:24). These apostles provided leadership to the earlychurch in Jerusalem (Acts 15:6), performed miracles (Acts 2:43;2 Cor. 12:12), and faced persecution (Acts 5:18) as theytestified to Jesus’ resurrection (Acts 4:33; 5:32). Broaderusage of the term includes witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection(1 Cor. 15:7), James the brother of Jesus (Gal. 1:19), Barnabasand Paul (Acts 14:14), and possibly Silas (1 Thess. 2:6) andAndronicus and Junias/Junia (Rom. 16:7). Paul regularly speaks of hiscalling in apostolic terms (Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor.1:1; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:1;Titus 1:1), while Peter similarly self-identifies (1 Pet. 1:1;2 Pet. 1:1). The word is once used of Jesus himself (Heb. 3:1).
Showing
1
to
50
of345
results
1. DOCTOR OF THE LAW
Illustration
Stephen Stewart
Luke 5:17 - "On one of these days, as he was teaching, there were Pharisees and teachers of the law sitting by, who had come from every village of Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem;"
Acts 5:34 - "But a Pharisee in the council, named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, held in honor by all the people, stood up and ordered the men to be put outside for a while."
Later we will speak of the role of the lawyer in Jewish life, but here we are speaking of persons whom we might consider as being advanced beyond that specified role; men who specialized in the sacred statutes. These men concerned themselves with teaching rather than with the giving of written opinions. This is a strictly New Testament term, and the men themselves were of a type unique in history.
These men belonged to God, but not in a priestly way. They had nothing to do with worship; their dress was the same as that of the other Hebrews; they did not eat of the sacrificial meat; and, although they did make up a caste, they made no claim to belonging to the blood of Aaron nor the tribe of Levi. In the beginning they were simply the "scribes," but as they devoted themselves more and more to the study of religious questions, they began to be differentiated from the scribes; they felt themselves, and perhaps, with reason, to be an aristocracy of intellect and piety.
Although they traced their claim back to the time of Ezra, they became most prominent after the Maccabean wars, the national struggle against the Greeks. They had "built a hedge around the Law," and, by doing so, had preserved the essence of Judaism. They provided true intellectual life of the nation, and guided its thought; they controlled education, and particularly the higher education; they named the judges and fixed the jurisprudence; they uttered the commentaries on the Law in the synagogues; they had made the Great Sanhedrin not only a governing body and a supreme court; but also a theological college - in other words, they had the say in every phase of national life.
Today, we don’t have men who have powers of such broad scope and far-reaching potential, but we can perhaps compare these doctors of the law to the professors or heads of departments of our colleges and universities. And they became doctors of the law in much the same way that professors become professors. Any Hebrew at all could aspire to this position, no matter what his economic or sociological status. If a man left the vocation to devote himself to one of the most famous doctors, under whom he might study. After however long a period of time was necessary for him to have achieved a sense of readiness to teach, he was on his own, with students following him.
They more than studied the Law; they scrutinized every part of it and analyzed its application to the every day life of the Jews. To this degree, they went far beyond the modern professor, who seldom works with material of his own. Of course, these men weren’t working with extraneous material, either, but they were making individual judgments and applications that affected almost all of the people.
It was through the work of these men that was built up the Talmud - "the Instruction," or, "the Recitation." This is an extraordinary work, made up of two divisions. The first is the Mishnah, which is written in classical Hebrew; it is the basic canonical legal code, and its 63 tractates cover the whole field of human activity. The second is the Gemara, an immense commentary of the Mishnah; it was written in Aramaic, and there are two recensions, the Jerusalem and the Babylonian.
The greatest doctor of the Law of whom we know was Gamaliel, who might have been a teacher of St. Paul. We must tread warily when judging these men; there is a tendency to confuse them with the Pharisees of the worst kind which Jesus often criticized. But a doctor of the Law was not necessarily a Pharisee. They taught what they felt to be the truth, as our best professors do today, sometimes at risk.
And, as many professors have left works of inestimable value, so too the doctors of the Law left behind the Talmud, to which the expatriated Jews could cling as a symbol that the destruction of the Temple did not mean the end of their religion. We may not always agree with the opinions of our professors, but we must acknowledge the debt of their works, just as we must acknowledge the works of the doctors of the Law.
2. SENATOR
Illustration
Stephen Stewart
Acts 5:21 - "Now the high priest came and those who were with him and called together the council and all the senate of Israel, and sent to the prison to have them brought."
Psalm 105:22 - "To bind his princes at his pleasure; and teach his senators wisdom" (KJV).
The quotation from the Psalms is the only place in the Old Testament where we find the use of the term "senator;" generally the Hebrew uses the word "elder." It may have been this use of the term which made Luke think that there was a separate branch of the Great Sanhedrin which was composed of "senators." However, although some have thought that the Sanhedrin was in fact composed of three bodies - senators, scribes, and priests - it was, in fact, an entity, always considered as a whole, not separate factions.
However, again the apocryphal writings do use it rather more frequently; according to II Macc 6:1, Antiochus Epiphanes sent an "Athenian senator" to the Jews to force their acceptance of the worship of Olympian Zeus. The earliest historical writings to use the term in referring to members of the Great Sanhedrin come from Josephus, that fount of ancient knowledge - in Antiq. XII. iii. 3, again it is Antiochus the Great who uses the term.
We can, then, by gathering together all these divergent uses, conclude that the term was at least one of respect, indicating a person of rank within the legal and judicial system of the Jews. We can easily bridge the time gap and consider the "senator" today as a member, perhaps, of a supreme court or other law-making and law-enforcing body. Just as the term implies a person of wisdom, experience, and sound judgment, so we think of the officials whom we elect to be the arbiters and maintainers of our way of life. We, of course, still use the term in connection with the members of our state and federal governmental systems. And, hopefully, the men that we elect to fill these positions are also men of wisdom and judgment.
3. Great Reversals
Illustration
Richard A. Jensen
The theme of poverty, riches, possessions and the realm of God is a constant theme of Luke. It begins with Mary's song. Mary had an encounter with an angel. "You will bear a son and call his name Jesus," the angel announced. "Let it be with me according to your word," said Mary. Elizabeth, Mary's relative, blessed Mary for her trust that God's word of promise would be fulfilled. And then Mary sang a song. Mary's song may just well be the central song of Luke's entire gospel. Luke tells many stories in his gospel that are best understood as comments on her song!
Mary's song sings of a God of great reversals. This God has high regard for a lowly maiden. This God scatters the proud and puts down the mighty from their thrones. The high are made low and the low are exalted. This God, furthermore, fills the hungry with good things and sends the rich away empty-handed. That's the kind of God that Mary sings about it. A God of great reversals. A God who makes the rich poor and the poor rich.
Jesus sings a similar song in his hometown synagogue in Nazareth. During the worship service that day Jesus was given the scroll of Isaiah that he might read it to the congregation. "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me," Jesus read, "because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor" (Luke 4:18-19). Isaiah had prophesied that God would send a spirit-filled servant who would bring a great reversal to human affairs. After he had finished reading from the Isaiah scroll, Jesus gave it to the attendant and sat down. Every eye in the synagogue was fixed upon him. Jesus spoke. "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing," he said. He was the spirit-filled servant of whom Isaiah had prophesied. He was the one who would bring great reversals to life in fulfillment of Mary's song. He was the one who brought good news to the poor.
"Blessed are you poor." We should not be surprised at these words of Jesus to his disciples. In Luke 6:20-26 Jesus also speaks of great reversals. The poor will be blessed. The hungry will be satisfied. The weeping ones shall laugh. Those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake will rejoice. Reversals work the other way as well. The weak of the earth will be blessed but the mighty of the earth shall be filled with woe. Woe to the rich. Woe to those who are full now. Woe to those who laugh now. Woe to those of whom the world now speaks well.
John the Baptist watched Jesus' ministry from afar. John wondered about Jesus. Was he really the promised Messiah? John sent some of his disciples to Jesus with just this question. "Are you the one who is to come, or are we to wait for another?" John's disciples asked Jesus on John's behalf (Luke 7:21). Jesus had an answer for John. "Go and tell John what you have seen and heard," he instructs John's disciples, "the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them" (Luke 7:22). The "great reversals" have begun. That's Jesus' word to John.
Today's story from Luke is a story in this lineage. A great reversal takes place. The rich man is sent away empty. The poor hear good news!"
4. The Bedrock of Faith - Sermon Starter
Illustration
Brett Blair
Have you ever tried to make a prediction? Here are some predictions from the past. All from people who were trusted individuals:
"We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out." Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962.
Popular Mechanics magazine in 1949 made this prediction: "Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh only 1.5 tons."
There was an inventor by the name of Lee DeForest. He claimed that "While theoretically and technically television may be feasible, commercially and financially it is an impossibility."
The Decca Recording Co. made a big mistake when they made this prediction: "We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out." That was their prediction in 1962 concerning a few lads form Liverpool. Their band was called the Beatles.
As the disciples walked out of the Temple in Jerusalem Jesus paused, looked back at the Temple and predicted, "Do you see all these great buildings. Not one stone will be left on another." To the disciples this was bedrock. Nothing could bring down these walls. "Look, teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!" they said to Jesus.
The smallest stones in the structure weighed 2 to 3 tons. Many of them weighed 50 tons. The largest existing stone, part of the Wailing Wall, is 12 meters in length and 3 meters high, and it weighs hundreds of tons! The stones were so immense that neither mortar nor any other binding material was used between the stones. Their stability was attained by the great weight of the stones. The walls towered over Jerusalem, over 400 feet in one area. Inside the four walls was 45 acres of bedrock mountain shaved flat and during Jesus' day a quarter of a million people could fit comfortably within the structure. No sports structure in America today comes close.
You can then understand the disciples' surprise. As they walked down the Kidron Valley and up Mount Olive Peter, James, and John wanted to hear more. Jesus' prediction that a structure so immense would be leveled to the ground seemed implausible. But they pressed Jesus for more information. They wanted to know when. What would be the sign that this was about to take place? In their voice was fear. Fear of the unknown. Fear that their lives were about to change forever. Jesus had not made any predictions like this one. This was different. This, they could understand.
Forty years later Jesus' prediction came true. In 70 AD the Temple was destroyed by Rome. What are we to learn from this prediction and its fulfillment?
1. The bedrock of faith is not in Temples.
2. The bedrock of faith is not in Signs.
3. The bedrock of faith is in Christ.
5. Proclaim the Gospel
Illustration
Karl Barth
The life of the one holy Universal Church is determined by the fact that it is the fulfillment of the service as ambassador enjoined upon it.
Where the life of the Church is exhausted in self-serving, it smacks of death; the decisive thing has been forgotten, that this whole life is lived only in the exercise of what we called the Church's service as ambassador, proclamation, kerygma. A Church that recognizes its commission will neither desire nor be able to petrify in any of its functions, to be the Church for its own sake. There is the "Christ-believing group"; but this group is sent out: "Go and preach the gospel!" It does not say, "Go and celebrate services!" "Go and edify yourselves with the sermon!" "Go and celebrate the Sacraments!" "Go and present yourselves in a liturgy, which perhaps repeats the heavenly liturgy!" "Go and devise a theology which may gloriously unfold like the Summa of St. Thomas!" Of course, there is nothing to forbid all this; there may exist very good cause to do it all; but nothing, nothing at all for its own sake! In it all the one thing must prevail: "Proclaim the gospel to every creature!" The Church runs like a herald to deliver the message. It is not a snail that carries its little house on its back and is so well off in it that only now and then it sticks out its feelers and then thinks that the "claim of publicity" has been satisfied. No, the Church lives by its commission as herald, it is la compagnie de Dieu.
Where the Church is living, it must ask itself whether it is serving this commission or whether it is a purpose in itself. If the second is the case, then as a rule it begins to smack of the "sacred," to affect piety, to play the priest and to mumble. Anyone with a keen nose will smell it and find it dreadful! Christianity is not "sacred"; rather there breathes in it the fresh air of the Spirit. Otherwise it is not Christianity. For it is an out-and-out "worldly" thing open to all humanity: "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to every creature."
6. A Good Word for The Pharisees
Illustration
Jirair Tashjian
It may come as a surprise to Christian listeners, who are used to thinking of Pharisees as hypocrites and enemies of Jesus, that in this passage it is Pharisees who warn Jesus to flee from Galilee because Herod wants to kill him. Not all Pharisees were hostile to Jesus. While Jesus and the Pharisees did not see things eye to eye, we find in Luke and Acts that Pharisees are often in the company of Jesus and not always antagonistic. Jesus is often invited to the home of a Pharisee for dinner (Luke 7:36, 11:37; 14:1). In Acts 5:33-39, when the Jewish Sanhedrin wanted to kill the apostles, a well-known Pharisee, Gamaliel, counsels them to be careful how they treat these men. If the undertaking of the apostles is of human origin, Gamaliel says, it will fail; "but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them in that case you may even be found fighting against God!" Some Pharisees had even become Christians (Acts 15:5). And of course we know that Paul himself was a Pharisee. In fact, in his defense before the Sanhedrin he uses the present tense and says, "I am a Pharisee" (Acts 23:6).
7. A Way to God
Illustration
King Duncan
Legend has it that before the Reformation, before he transformed the church, Martin Luther was in his room in the monastery weeping because of his sins. His confessor, a young man, simply didn't know what to do, so he began repeating the Apostles' Creed
"I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth; And in Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
"I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy Catholic Church; the communion of Saints; the forgiveness of sins; the . . . ."
Wait!" Luther interrupted his confessor. "What did you say?"
What do you mean, what did I say?"
That last part. What was it again?"
Oh, that. I said, ‘I believe in the forgiveness of sins.'"
"The forgiveness of sins," Luther said as if savoring each word. "The forgiveness of sins.Then there is hope for me somewhere. Then maybe there is a way to God."
There is a way to God. Jesus Christ died to provide that way. We may not be a woman of the city but there are sins that break our hearts as well. And there is One who sees those broken hearts and cares, and forgives, and heals, and makes whole.
8. The Good News
Illustration
Once, during the hours of a quiet, starlit night, above the hills of Bethlehem, from a strange voice there came an announcement this world will never forget. To a few shepherds then - and to all the world eventually - that voice said, "Behold! I bring you good news of a great joy which shall be to all people ..."
We cannot be sure what language that messenger spoke - perhaps Hebrew, maybe Aramaic, or possibly some language never named and not understood except by a few. But the message heard that night has been translated into almost every language spoken on this planet. When the message reached primitive England, there it encountered an old Anglo-Saxon word, "godspell," which meant "good news" and thus the message became the "gospel" and so it has remained ever since.
"I bring you good news!" From whatever source, these are welcome words to most people most of the time. But this particular piece of news is especially good because it is good for all people in all time. For almost 2,000 years it has occupied an uppermost place in human thought.
And now today, it is because of this piece of good news that we are gathered here - to think about it again, to talk about it some more, to ponder it anew, to give thanks for it and rejoice in it - and to prepare ourselves to share it with all others wherever we can.
9. They Had a Secret
Illustration
Bill Bouknight
Some years ago the late, great Norman Vincent Peale visited Europe. In Belgium he went to what used to be a Nazi prison camp, between Antwerp and Brussels. His guide that day told him that he remembered the morning when the Nazis arrested his own father. They brought him to this very camp and shot him. Dr. Peale asked the guide, "How did those prisoners stand up against the awesome fear that must have haunted this place day and night?" The guide replied, "They had a secret." The guide took Dr. Peale to a small cell far back in a corner where there was just a little slit in a stone wall. "Now," said the guide, "reach inside there and tell me what you feel." Dr. Peale reached inside and said, "I feel a stone statue, the facial features of a statue." The guide said, "What you are feeling is the face of a statue of our Savior Jesus Christ. Those men and women in the darkest hours of their hopelessness would come here and put their hands on His holy and loving face. It was this that sustained them and gave them victory over their fears."
Note: This Camp does indeed exist but we have not been able to substantiate the statue story. Might be introduced as "NormanVincent Peale recounts a personal experience..."
10. The Law and the Gospel
Illustration
David Ernst
The primary purpose of the Law is, like a mirror, to teach man the true knowledge of his sin. We see this in the example of the publican. The publicans were tax-collectors for the Roman imperialists. They were Jews, but were not respected by their people. They were considered traitors and thieves, with some justification.
So the publican did not approach God with pride, demanding what was owed him. On the contrary, he approached the Lord with maximum humility and true repentance. Repentance is essential to receive the forgiveness of sins in Christ. That is why the Law should be preached to unrepentant sinners, but the Gospel to those who are troubled by their sins and terrified of damnation.
The Law demands, threatens and condemns; the Gospel promises, gives and confirms our forgiveness and salvation. God offers forgiveness of sins only in the Good News that we are saved because Christ fulfilled the Law, suffered, died and rose from the dead for us. So let us draw near to God in humility and repentance, of course, but also in the hope and faith that we are justified through faith, not by works, and that in Christ we are children of God.
11. Good News - Sermon Starter
Illustration
Brett Blair
The story is told of a Franciscan monk in Australia was assigned to be the guide and "gofer" to Mother Teresa when she visited New South Wales. Thrilled and excited at the prospect of being so close to this great woman, he dreamed of how much he would learn from her and what they would talk about. But during her visit, he became frustrated. Although he was constantly near her, the friar never had the opportunity to say one word to Mother Teresa. There were always other people for her to meet.
Finally, her tour was over, and she was due to fly to New Guinea. In desperation, the Franciscan friar spoke to Mother Teresa: If I pay my own fare to New Guinea, can I sit next to you on the plane so I can talk to you and learn from you? Mother Teresa looked at him. You have enough money to pay airfare to New Guinea? she asked.
Yes, he replied eagerly. “Then give that money to the poor,” she said. “You'll learn more from that than anything I can tell you.” Mother Teresa understood that Jesus’ ministry was to the poor and she made it hers as well. She knew that they more than anyone else needed good news.
On a Saturday morning, in Nazareth, the town gathered in the synagogue to listen to Jesus read and teach. It was no big surprise. He was well known in the area; it was his hometown. He was raised there. They wanted to learn from him. So when he read from the Isaiah scroll, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach the good news to the poor” everyone understood these words to be the words of Isaiah. It is how that prophet from long ago defined his ministry.
When Jesus finished that reading he handed the scroll to the attendant and sat down. In that day you sat in the Moses Seat to teach to the people. Today preachers stand in a pulpit. So all eyes were on Jesus, waiting for him to begin his teaching. What would he say about this great prophet Isaiah? Would he emphasis the bad news? Israel had sinned and would be taken into captivity by the Babylonians. Or would he emphasis the good news? One day God would restore his people and bring them back from captivity. It was Israel’s ancient history but it still spoke volumes.
Now here’s the wonderful twist, the thing that catches everyone off guard that Saturday morning in Nazareth. Jesus does neither. He doesn’t emphasize those things past. He focuses on the present. He doesn’t lift up Isaiah as the great role model; Jesus lifts up himself. This is the pertinent point. It’s what upsets everybody at the synagogue. It’s why everybody was furious with him and drove him out of town. They were going to kill him. He dared to say that these great words of Isaiah were really about himself. “Today,” he said, “this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”
Why does Jesus describe himself as the new Isaiah? How is it that he is the fulfillment of Isaiah’s words? Let’s take a look at…
1. The captivity and restoration of Israel under Isaiah’s ministry.
2. The captivity of mankind under Jesus’ ministry.
3. The restoration of mankind under Jesus’ ministry.
12. Faith in Jesus Christ
Illustration
Will Willimon
Princeton preacher James F. Kay puts it this way, "If the Gospel is good news, it is not because it predicts a bright, shiny future based on our morality or piety. The Gospel is neither a cocoon that insulates us from the sufferings of this present age nor a pair of ear plugs that shuts out the groaning of creation....The Gospel is Good News, not because it predicts a future based on our good behavior or other present trends; the Gospel is Good News because it promises a future based on God's faithfulness to Jesus Christ." (The Seasons of Grace, Eerdmann, 1995, p. 7).
13. Be Opened!
Illustration
David E. Leininger
In a Peanuts comic strip Charlie Brown and Linus come across Snoopy who is shivering in the snow. Charlie says, "Snoopy looks kind of cold, doesn't he?"
"I'll say," replies Linus, "maybe we'd better go over and comfort him."
They walk over to the dog, pat his head and say, "Be of good cheer, Snoopy."
"Yes, be of good cheer."
In the final frame, the boys are walking away, still bundled up in the winter coats. Snoopy is still shivering, and over his head is a big "?".
The messageofthe cartoon was powerful. The most noxious lifestyleofall is when compassionate words come from a care-less heart.Snoopywould no doubt prefer a blanket over a greeting. A compassionate heart is a reflectionofthe heartofGod.
ALTERNATE CONCLUSION WITH THE MARK 7 PASSAGE
The Good News is that the Kingdom of God is not a pat on the head. EPHPHATHA...Be opened! Jesus exclaims and healing happens.Can the good news be limited? Is it merely a jesture? The story of a certain Gentile who sought healing for her daughter says no. "EPHPHATHA...Be opened!" Itis not limited by geography.Not in Jesus' day, and certainly not in ours. "EPHPHATHA...Be opened!" It is not limited by race, or creed, or political persuasion. The Good News is not a mere jesture or word of well wishing. "EPHPHATHA...Be opened!" It is God in action in our world through you.
14. ARE CHRISTIANS AN ENDANGERED SPECIES?
Illustration
John H. Krahn
Are Christians an endangered species? This is really not the most pleasant question to consider. But at some time or another I would imagine we have all thought about it.
Faced with an uncomfortable question, we find comfort and assurance in God’s Word. Speaking of Jesus, in John 1:5 (GNB) it says, "His life is the light that shines through the darkness - and the darkness can never extinguish it." Never, it says. The power of God’s light can never be extinguished. The good news about Jesus will always be good news. Sin will have its triumphs, but it never will completely prevail.
Most of the danger to Christianity does not come from the outside but from within. I would like to consider with you three of the dangers from within referring to them as Christianity’s sin from within.
There is the endangering problem of self-centeredness or the S of sin from within. Often we get so caught up with our own church or our own denomination that our world view of Christianity doesn’t go much beyond our congregation’s front door. In our quest to preserve our peculiar understanding of Scripture, we often fail to bask in the good news of a Christ who stands at the center of Scripture. The New Testament abounds with encouragement for us to be one with each other - to rejoice in that which unites us in the Body of Christ rather than to dwell upon our theological idiosyncrasies. It is incompatible with Christianity for us to separate ourselves from other Christians in order to do just our own thing. We are going to spend our eternity with all these people. The time to get acquainted and work together is now.
Another aspect of the problem is inhibited love. Inhibited love is the I of the sin from within. There is no virtue in loving someone who is lovable. Anyone can do that - even non-believers. There is no virtue in loving someone with whom we agree, that is almost like loving ourself. Jesus said, "If you love only those who love you, what good is that? Even scoundrels do that much." But there is virtue in uninhibited, unconditional love. We are called by Jesus to embrace with forgiving love a brother or sister who has disappointed or even offended us. Forgiveness flows in a church when the Spirit of God resides in its members. Love that flows freely is the love that Jesus spoke about when he said, "Love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you. In that way you will be acting as true sons of your Father in heaven."
The final sin from within, represented by the N in sin, is nonchalance. Too many of us take our Christianity too casually - with nonchalance. Saint Paul, in his letter to the Ephesians, encourages us to put on God’s armour so that we will be able to stand safe against all the strategies and tricks of Satan. We are encouraged to use every piece of God’s armor available to us.
Self-centeredness, inhibited love, and nonchalance - three sins from within that endanger Christianity. And so we return to our question, "Are Christians an endangered species?" Some are and some are not. Although we have the promise of God that the light will never go completely out, our task together with the total church is to make sure we shine brightly. We continue to do battle with the forces of evil from both without and from within. To plan to do less is to risk joining the list of endangered species.
15. The Only Place We Have No Fear
Illustration
King Duncan
Pretend something like this happened for a moment: The angel Gabriel got back to heaven and rushed up to God and said, "I've got good news, and I've got bad news."
And God said, "Well, give me the good news first."
"The good news is," said the angel, "mission accomplished. I've visited those people you told me to visit. I told them what you told me to tell them. And it's all accomplished."
God said, "So what's the bad news?"
"The bad news," the angel said, "is that those people down there on earth are terrified of you. Every time I visited someone I had to start it off with 'fear not,' because they got so frightened that you were coming close."
God said to the angel, "That's the reason I have to carry out the plan I've made."
"You see," God said to the angel, "I need to go to earth because my people are so frightened. They are so full of fear that I've got to bring the message that they no longer need to be afraid."
The angel said, "And how are you going to do that, since they're so fearful?"
God said, "There's one place on earth that people are not afraid: that one remaining place is a little baby. My people on earth are not afraid of a baby. When a baby is born they rejoice and give thanks without fear because that's the only place left in their lives where they're not afraid. So I will go to earth. I will become a little baby, and they will receive me with no fear at all, because that's the one place my people have no fear."
God acted in the only way God could act without overwhelming us and taking away our freedom. God became a tiny babe. Christmas is an act of God. In Christmas God acted in the only way God could have acted.
16. Bad News First
Illustration
A farmer went into his banker and announced that he had bad news and good news. "First, the bad news..."
"Well," said the farmer, "I can't make my mortgage payments. And that crop loan I've taken out for the past 10 years I can't pay that off, either. Not only that, I won't be able to pay you the couple of hundred thousand I still have outstanding on my tractors and other equipment. So I'm going to have to give up the farm and turn it all over to you for whatever you can salvage out of it."
Silence prevailed for a minute and then the banker said, "What's the good news?"
"The good news is that I'm going to keep on banking with you," said the farmer.
17. Daring Words
Illustration
Larry Powell
The Gospel according to Mark, commonly accepted to be the earliest of the synoptics, relates that Jesus began his Galilean ministry by 1. making an announcement, 2. extending an invitation, and 3. issuing a command. It would be pressing the matter entirely too far to even remotely suggest that the sequence of events was intentional, yet there is a certain familiarity about the sequence itself. As a matter of fact, the three ingredients, broadly categorized above, probably bear a striking resemblance to the sermon you will likely hear in your particular church on any given Sunday: a. the announcement of a Gospel truth; b. the exhortation, with some degree of urgency, to accomplish something in the name of Christ, and c. the invitation to respond. Intentional or not, Jesus began his ministry with a format exceptionally accommodating to Gospel preachers. However, let us take up the sequence as described by Mark.
1. The announcement. The arrest of John the baptizer apparently served as the catalyst for Jesus to reveal the messianic secret. For thirty years, he had maintained a low profile, preparing himself, shaping his perspectives, waiting - waiting for the proper time to thrust himself prominently into the midst of human affairs. At last, the moment had arrived: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel" (1:15). Daring words! He had made bold as a young man sometime earlier in his hometown synagogue to proclaim that the Scriptures had been fulfilled at his reading. The Nazarenes responded by chasing him from the community. He knew full well that there would be a more general uprising against him now by both civil and religious authorities. But there was no choice. The groundwork had been laid, preparations had been completed, John was in prison, and the alarm must continue to be sounded: "The kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel."
2. The invitation. He would need help. Passing along the Sea of Galilee he saw two brothers, Simon and Andrew. Without the slightest qualification, he said to them, "Follow me and I will make you fishers of men." Take notice that no questions were asked, no excuses offered, no "process planning" nor introspective "objective-setting" dialogue transpired. Mark says, "And immediately they left their nets and followed him." Going a little farther, two other brothers, James and John heard a similar, abrupt invitation to respond in like manner. How do you account for the fact that these four individuals, secure in employment, having obligations and immediate responsibilities, walked away from it all to follow one who had come upon them from behind, no questions asked? Perhaps a part of the answer is found in 1:22 where Jesus is referred to as one who spoke with "authority," and not as the scribes. This particular reflection upon the scribes, implying a certain insipidness, interests us. They possessed authority by virtue of their position. Why did they not speak with authority? Conjecture is risky business, but we have a notion that their recitations were mechanical, unfeeling, and sing-song. Devotion may have been reduced to formalized vocation, and the sharp edge of adeptness dulled by neglect. Figureheads occupy space but command little respect, whether they be scribes, ministers, bishops, church-school teachers, or members of a church staff. One must be more than simply a "figure-head." Perhaps we should each take counsel with ourselves regarding the phrase, "for he taught as one having authority, not as the scribes."
3. The command. Jesus rebuked an unclean spirit and commanded it to come out of a man in the synagogue, "and the unclean spirit ... came out of him" (1:26). Let us note the response: "They were all amazed and said ‘With authority he commands even the unclean spirits’ " (1:27).
Jesus began his public ministry with an announcement, an invitation, and a command, but most of all with authority.
18. I Take God Forever
Illustration
Philip Henry
This is abaptismal declaration written by Philip Henry, the father of Matthew Henry, the writer of thesix-volume commentary series written in 1706:
I take God the Father to be my chief end and highest good.
I take God the Son to be my prince and Savior.
I take God the Holy Spirit to be my sanctifier, teacher, guide, and comforter.
I take the Word of God to be my rule in all my actions and the people of God to be my people under all conditions.
I do hereby dedicate and devote to the Lord all I am, all I have, and all I can do.
And this I do deliberately, freely, and forever.
19. The Master's Tools
Illustration
Michael P. Green
Imagine the Master Carpenter’s tools holding a conference:
Brother Hammer presides, but several suggest he leave the meeting because he is too noisy. Brother Hammer replies, “If I have to leave this shop, Brother Screw must go also. You have to turn him around again and again to get him to accomplish anything.”
Brother Screw then speaks up. “If you wish, I’ll leave. But Brother Plane must leave, too. All his work is on the surface. His efforts have no depth.”
To this, Brother Plane responds, “Brother Rule will also have to withdraw, for he is always measuring folks as though he were the only one who is right.”
Brother Rule then complains about Brother Sandpaper: “He ought to leave, too, because he’s so rough and always rubbing people the wrong way.” And so goes the discord.
In the midst of all this discussion, in walks the Carpenter of Nazareth. He has arrived to start his day’s work. Putting on his apron, he goes to the bench to make a pulpit from which to proclaim the gospel. He uses Brothers Hammer, Screw, Plane, Rule, Sandpaper, and all the other tools. After the day’s work, when the pulpit is finished, Brother Saw arises and remarks, “Brethren, I observe that all of us are workers together with the Lord.”
God is a God of variety. In nature, what a diversity of animals! Every snowflake is different, every fingerprint, every face. Likewise, God is a God of variety in His church. What a diversity of gifts He has bestowed on believers to equip them for service!
20. JC = PJP!
Illustration
John H. Krahn
JC = PJP is the formula for a happy and successful life. The formula begins with a few shepherds and a suddenly-appearing angel who tells them of a wonderful event happening in Bethlehem. In this nondescript place, the Savior, Jesus Christ, is being born. The angel is now joined by the armies of heaven praising God and saying, "Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace, good will toward men."
Peace came to earth as the Son of God struggled out of a human womb. God became man. The Prince of Peace was born. That peace can now become ours. For peace is to know Christ is mine and all is well.
Yes JC = P but it also equals J! With Jesus Christ and his peace also comes joy. Christianity is a religion of joy and enthusiasm. There is nothing dull about it! If you cannot stand excitement, it has little to offer you. Long faces and sad eyes are out of place. So if you see someone who does not have a smile, give him one of yours.
Jesus Christ equals Peace! Joy! and also Power! The Bible tells us that we now have the power for doing his will as we wait for the return of our Lord Jesus Christ. Because of this power, Christianity is the religion of great possibilities. Saint Luke writes, "The things which are impossible with men are possible with God." When we know Jesus, even the impossible can become a possibility for our lives.
A successful and a happy life is one in which the Holy Spirit works the formula JC = PJP. For in Jesus Christ we can have the peace of God that the angels sang about. In Jesus Christ we can have great joy enabling us to sing all the way through life. In Jesus Christ we can have the power of God that even makes the impossible, possible.
21. Someone Had Tripped the Switch
Illustration
James W. Moore
Bishop Bob Morgan in his book Who's Coming To Dinner? tells a powerful story about a Dutch pastor and his family who during the second World War got into big trouble with the Nazis.The Dutch pastor and his family had been hiding Jewish people in their home to keep them safe from Hitler's forces.They were eventually found out.And one night in the darkness, they heard the sound of heavy boots and the loud impatient knocking on the door.They were arrested and loaded into a cattle car to be taken to one of the notorious death camps.All night long the Dutch pastor and his family rode along in heart-breaking anguish, jostling against one another and against the other prisoners who were jammed into the train cattle car.They were stripped of any form of dignity and absolutely terrified. They knew they were being taken to one of Hitler's extermination centers.But which one?Would it be Auschwitz, Buchenwald, or Dachau?
Finally, the long night ended and the train stopped. The doors of the cattle car were opened and light streamed into that tragic scene. They were marched out and were lined up beside the railroad tracks, resigned to unspeakable pain, as they knew they would be separated from each other and ultimately killed. But in the midst of their gloom, they discovered some amazing good news… good news beyond belief. They discovered in the bright morning sunlight that they were not in a death camp at all, not in Germany at all. Rather, they were in Switzerland!
During the night, someone through personal courage and daring had tripped a switch… and sent the train to Switzerland… and to freedom. And those now who came to them were not their captors at all, but rather their liberators. Instead of being marched to death, they were welcomed to new life. In the midst of his joy and relief, the Dutch pastor said, "What do you do with such a gift?"
Something like that happened to the disciples at Pentecost. They were afraid, confused, unsure, overwhelmed… and then came this incredible gift… the gift of the Holy Spirit! It turned their lives around… and empowered by this amazing gift, they went out and turned the world upside down.
22. Transactional Theology
Illustration
Barbara Brown Taylor
On the occasions when Jesus praises peoples’ faith, most Christians automatically assume that he means their faith in his divinity, which he then rewards by helping them out; but that is just another sorry example of transactional theology. According to this theology, if you believe the right things about Jesus, then he will help you. If you don’t, he won’t. I am not sure where this idea comes from, but in the first three gospels Jesus seems much more concerned with making people well than with making them believe in him.
Jesus does not proclaim himself; he proclaimsthe coming of God’s kingdom. The only thing people have to believe is that God can help them. In Luke’s gospel, when Jesus heals the ten lepers and the lone Samaritan among them comes back to say thanks, Jesus does not say, “Rise up and follow me.” He says, “Get up and go on your way; your faith has made you well.” The faith that helps Jesus do his saving work; the faith that makes people well; is their full-bodied trust that God can act in their lives, both to forgive and to heal.
23. Looking for Signs
Illustration
Larry Powell
Several years agoI was a member of the Arkansas delegation which attended a jurisdictional seminar of some sort in Dallas, Texas. Our delegation included an exceptional Christian gentlemen, whose name you would probably recognize, just recently assigned as the Episcopal leader of the Arkansas Area. As a matter of fact, he had moved into the Episcopal residence only two weeks prior to the seminar. One evening as we filed slowly past a buffet table to fill our plates, I chanced to be behind two members of the conference from which the new bishop had come. One of the gentlemen nudged his companion, nodded toward the new bishop, and said under his breath, "Does he look like a bishop to you?" The companion continued to heap up his plate, smiled, and softly replied, "No way." Apparently, they saw no sign of authority in his gentle manner, no sign of dignity in his congeniality, no sign of spiritual aura about his unpretentious appearance. Brother, were they wrong!
Some people are always looking for signs. It is not a new thing under the sun. How many times do you suppose it was remarked behind Jesus’ back, "Does he look like a messiah to you?" Joseph’s son he was; a carpenter by trade, wearing a mother-made robe, keeping company with the blue-collar element, and stirring up everything that had been settled. Oh, there were signs all right ... signs that he was in league with the Prince of Darkness: a miracle here, an exorcism there, taking liberty with the Scriptures, condemning the establishment. How could any rational person believe him? But rational people did believe him. What is more, many believed him without a sign. That is actually the emphasis of what we are about here ... that he was believed without a sign.
1. The Gospel according to John tells us that many Samaritans believed in Jesus because of the testimony of the woman at the well (4:7-30). However, let us hasten to verse 42; "They said to the woman, ‘It is no longer because of your words that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world.’ "
2. John further relates that when Jesus came to Capernaum, an official prevailed upon him to heal his son who was at the point of death. Jesus said, "Unless you see signs and wonders you will not believe" (v. 48). The official impressed Jesus by answering, "Sir, come down before my child dies" (v. 49). In other words, without benefit of signs, the man already believed. Jesus rewarded the official’s faith by saying, "Go; your son will live" (v. 50). Now, take notice of the response: "The man believed the word that Jesus spoke to him and went on his way" (50). He believed before the sign (4:51-53).
Is your belief contingent upon a sign? If so, what? A supernatural event, a special feeling, a bush of fire, or on the other hand, is your belief and faith in Christ operative beyond dependency upon signs?
24. Speaking for the Lord
Illustration
James Packer
Paul considered himself Christ's ambassador. What is an ambassador? He is an authorized representative of a sovereign. He speaks not in his own name but on behalf of the ruler whose deputy he is, and his whole duty and responsibility is to interpret that ruler's mind faithfully to those to whom he is sent.
Paul used this "ambassador" image twice both in connection with his evangelistic work. Pray for me, he wrote from prison, "that utterance may be given me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains; that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak" (Eph. 6:18-20). He wrote also that God "gave us the ministry of reconciliation...So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God" (2 Corinthians 5:18-20).
Paul called himself an ambassador because he knew that when he proclaimed the gospel facts and promises and urged sinners to receive the reconciliation effected at Calvary, he was declaring Christ's message to the world. The figure of ambassadorship highlights the authority Paul had, as representing his Lord, as long as he remained faithful to the terms of his commission and said neither less nor more than he had been given to say.
25. His Hand in Ours
Illustration
Arthur G. Ferry
A little girl had a cut near her eye. Her father quickly took her to see the doctor. The cut was not serious, but the location of the injury made it important that it be fixed properly. The doctor decided a couple of stitches were needed, but he didn't want to give the child an anesthetic. He explained to her that the procedure would be painful and asked if she could stand it. The little girl replied that she could, if her father would hold her hand. The father then took her in his lap, slipped his arm around her, and held her tight. The doctor did his work, and the little girl never flinched. The father could not possibly have erased the pain from this process. If he had not been there, though, the girl's reaction would have been much different.
So it was for the disciples. The time was fast approaching when they would split up and travel to the far corners of the world to proclaim the gospel. Jesus would not be with them physically. He wanted them to know, though, that they would not be alone. His hand would still be in theirs. And that made all the difference in the world.
26. EASTER POWER
Illustration
John H. Krahn
Easter is a magnificent day! It is the most significant day of the entire year. It is a day of celebration ... the finest clothes, lilies trumpeting their beautiful fragrance, Christian fellowship, joyful greetings ... nothing can be too good. On Easter we celebrate new hope and the possibility of living life to its fullest. God is saying to us that his blessings and love are ours. Good and even great days are now possible for us with the best of days still to come in heaven.
What problems lurk in your life? Are you afraid of death? Are you afraid of life? Easter proclaims that you can be victorious over any problem that you might face. Victory can be yours by believing in Easter and by appropriating Easter into your daily life.
But what is Easter? Easter is power. The power of God released which raised a dead Son after he had been in the grave for three days. Many gravestones carry the inscription, "Here lies ...," but on Christ’s tomb are the words, "He is not here." In Joseph’s garden is history’s only empty grave. I believe Christ rose from the dead, and I believe the resurrection power of God is still being unleashed today.
God wants to resurrect us from whatever defeat is in our lives and then give us a victorious death. He wants to resurrect us from a life of loneliness and gloom into one of meaning and joy. He wants to resurrect us from a life deadened by fear to a life enlivened by confidence. He especially wants to resurrect us from our own personal death into his very own personal paradise.
So roll back the stone of any unbelief in your hearts, behold the glory of the empty tomb, and thrill to the power that can now be yours. Place your weak and trembling hand into his and say with Thomas, "My Lord and my God." Belief in Jesus and his resurrection is the key that delivers us from fear and sorrow. Jesus is the key to personal happiness, to peace, and to life everlasting. You can know this peace, you can know this joy, you can have this power, if today you will commit yourself to him, and then say with your whole heart, "I know that my Redeemer lives!"
27. Who Do You Say He Is?
Illustration
Herb Miller
If I told you to pull out a piece of paper and write on it who you say Jesus is what would you write? We all have some answer; we all have some images of Jesus. Some of them are the images we learned as children in Sunday school which have proved troubling and we don't' have anything to replace them with. Sometimes we dismiss Jesus on the basis of what we knew about Jesus at age six. Some of us have never examined the evidence for ourselves.
One of my main goals in preaching is to gain a fresh hearing for Jesus, especially among those who believe they already understand him. I'm sorry to tell you this, but you probably don't. Because what happens sometimes is that presumed familiarity has led to unfamiliarity. Jesus is sometimes obstructed by clouds of well-intentioned misinformation.
But ultimately, rather than give you my answer to the question I'd rather challenge you to answer the question for yourself because that's the only answer that matters. Is he Messiah? If that's what you think, what does that mean? Jesus clearly didn't' fit into what a Messiah was expected to be. Messiahs were supposed to have power, were supposed to take charge, were supposed to set things right and free the Jews from political expression. But Jesus refused to stiff arm anybody. He refused to dominate or to take up arms.
Is he Savior? OK. But what is he saving us from and what is he saving us to? Some people clearly had no interest in being saved. When Jesus said the poor are precious and the rich are in big trouble, only those on one side of that equation found it intriguing.
Is he Teacher? Surely, but is that all?
Who do you say he is? Messiah, Savior, Lord, shaman, teacher, friend, prophet, prince of peace?
Now, as you try and answer that question, don't be too alarmed if you cant' nail it down. Even those of us who wrestle with the question regularly find it difficult, because Jesus is sometimes downright incomprehensible; he is often enigmatic, ambiguous. From the very beginning, who Jesus was, what he was about, was far from self-evident. There were people who stood face-to-face with Jesus and said, "This is God incarnate." There appear to be many more who said, "This man is nuts." Although I think that for most of us, the biggest issue isn't that we've listened to Jesus and found him incomprehensible; it's that we've listened to him and found him too damned difficult.
28. Love for God Is a Commitment
Illustration
King Duncan
An old Russian woman lay on a sofa. Multiple sclerosis had twisted her body almost beyond recognition. The simplest tasks had become almost impossible for her. Corrie Ten Boom visited her at night, using the cover of darkness to escape detection by the Lithuanian authorities. Corrie kissed the woman's wrinkled cheek. The old woman could respond only by rolling her eyes and smiling because the atrophied muscles in her neck would no longer allow her to move her head. The only part of her body she could still control was her right hand. With her gnarled knuckles she stroked Corrie's face. Corrie reached up to take her hand, and kissed her index finger for a special reason.
The routine was the same every morning as the old lady's husband propped her into a sitting position on the sofa. A battered old typewriter was placed on a little table in front of her. Every day the old woman would begin to type. She could only use that one index finger to peck out the letters. This woman served God by translating Christian books into Russian. It was slow going sometimes only typing a page or two a day but this was her way of loving God. She typed portions of the Bible as well as some of the books of Billy Graham and other Christian witnesses.
The woman's attitude was extraordinary. She saw her sickness as a prerequisite, not a detriment, for the work she did. Every other Christian in the city was watched by the secret police. But because she had been sick for so long the police took no interest in her, and she could work undetected spreading the good news of Jesus to a people who were starving for good news.
"Not only does she translate these books," her husband told Corrie, "but she prays while she types. Sometimes it takes a long time for her finger to hit the key, or for her to get the paper in the machine, but all the time she is praying for those whose books she is working on."
That's loving God. People make the same mistake with loving God that they make with loving a spouse. They confuse love with a feeling. Feelings are important, of course, but love for God is, first of all, a commitment.
29. Two Great Men and Two Simple Women
Illustration
Charles H. Bayer
Every year the president of the United States meets with influential people. Leaders of other States. Together they discussbig things, things of import and influence. But perhaps these great men do not have an iota of the influence on the world as did two simple women, who met for three months at the home of one of them somewhere in the hill country of Judah, and talked. From their long conversation comes a song, a reflection of Hannah's song of long ago. And from that song has come to us the ethic of Jesus of Nazareth, Prince of Peace, savior of the world.
30. Satan Is No Myth
Illustration
J. O. Sanders
J. O. Sanders offers this interesting description of the counterfeit nature of Satan:
- Satan has his own trinity the devil, the beast, and the false prophet (Revelation 16:13).
- He has his own church, "a synagogue of Satan" (Revelation 2:9).
- He has his own ministers, "ministers of Satan" (2 Corinthians 11:4-5).
- He has formulated his own system of theology "doctrines of demons" (1 Timothy 4:1).
- He has established his own sacrificial system; "The Gentiles...sacrifice to demons" (1 Corinthians 10:20).
- He has his own communion service, "the cup of demons...and the table of demons" (1 Corinthians 10:21).
- His ministers proclaim his own gospel, "a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you" (Galatians 1:7-8).
- He has his own throne (Revelation 13:2) and his own worshipers (Revelation 13:4).
- So he has developed a thorough imitation of Christianity, viewed as a system of religion.
- In his role as the imitator of God, he inspires false christs, self-constituted messiahs (Matthew 24:4-5).
- He employs false teachers who are specialists in his "theology," to bring in "destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them" (2 Peter 2:1). They are adept at mixing truth and error in such proportions as to make error palatable. They carry on their teaching surreptitiously and often anonymously.
- He sends out false prophets. "And many false prophets will arise, and will mislead many" (Matthew 24:11).
- He introduces false brethren into the church, who "had sneaked in to spy out our liberty...in order to bring us into bondage" (Galatians 2:4).
- He sponsors false apostles who imitate the true (2 Corinthians 11:13).
31. I Built a Shrine
Illustration
King Duncan
When Jesus told those early disciples to fear not he was not telling them to seek safety and security. Rather he was telling them to move forward, but to always trust him.
Years ago there was a little comic strip that spoke to this quite beautifully. The comic strip "B.C.," set in cavemen days, had its hero, B.C., sitting in his fur loincloth, opening a box. A letter in the box says, "Congratulations! You have just purchased the world's finest fire-starting kit!" The next picture shows him reading on, "The flint is of the finest stone imported from the Orient. Your striker has been handcrafted by Old World craftsmen. The kindling has been carefully selected by screened lumberjacks. Your kit was packaged and inspected by little old grannies working in a dust-free environment, and your fire kit dealer has sworn an oath of devotion to customers."
The next picture shows B.C. rubbing two sticks together in time-honored fashion, trying to start a fire. One of the cave women comes by and says, "What's with the sticks? Where is your new fire starting kit?" B.C. looks up, smiles and says, "I built a shrine around it."
The temptation is great to say, "Oh, yes, I trust Christ," and then sit passively in our little comfort zone, with a shrine surrounding our faith experience. It is another thing to step out of the boat, to attempt to walk on the water, to attempt the thing we have never attempted before in Christ's name.
32. I Am Baptized!
Illustration
Kenneth H. Sauer
“I am baptized!” Martin Luther, the great 16th century figure of the Reformation used to take great comfort from these words.
When it seemed to him that the whole Church had left the precepts of the Gospel, when he was under scrutiny from Church officials as to the truth of his beliefs, when his life was being threatened and when he suffered self-doubt he would boldly proclaim: “I am baptized!”
And those words don’t just belong to the Martin Luther’s of this world. They belong to each and every baptized person. To each of us who have had water poured over us in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit . . . let’s let those words sink in this morning: “I am Baptized!”
God’s grace is being offered to all people, and it is our job to love all people into His kingdom.
33. The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe
Illustration
Brett Blair
A great Christian writer that most of you know wrote a brilliant children's fantasy called "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe." C.S. Lewis tells the story of a great Lion whose roar shakes the very foundations of the forest. At the beginning of the book four children are playing in their uncle's wardrobe when they discover it's a doorway to Narnia. As they enter Narnia they learn it is under the spell of a wicked witch. It is a depressing land. Lucy, the youngest of the four, says that in Narnia under the witch it is always winter but never Christmas.
The children hear rumors that Aslan, the great Lion, will soon return to the forest so they devise a plan to overthrow the witch. But chaos enters in when the younger boy Edmund commits treason and joins the witch plunging all of Narnia deeper into the witch's spell. When Aslan returns he frees Edmund from the clutches of the witch.
I love what happens next. The witch requests an audience with Aslan and talks to him about the deep magic from the dawn of time. She says, and I quote, "You at least know the magic which the Emperor [that's God the Father] put into Narnia at the very beginning. You know that every traitor belongs to me as my lawful prey and that for every treachery I have a right to a kill."
Aslan agrees and Edmund is to be sacrificed on the Stone Table, a large ritual stone that has always been in Narnia. But then something unexpected and horrible happens. Aslan, at th elast moment, offers to be sacrificed in Edmund's place. The witch is delighted to be rid of Aslan once for all. He is bound, humiliated before the Witches entourage, and killed. It appears to the children that wickedness has won the day and that all is lost.
As the children tearfully leave the scene it is dawn. They hear a great cracking, a deafening noise. They rush back and find the great table split in two and Aslan gone. Suddenly he appears before them and as they shake in fear he explains to them "that though the witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she does not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the Dawn of Time. But if she could have looked a little further back, into the stillness and the darkness before Time dawned, she would have read there a different incantation. She would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor's stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backwards."
The meaning of the story is plain enough for all to see, a wonderful allegory of the fall of mankind and the redemption of the world. It is one of the best stories ever told because it tells of the worst in us, the best in us, and the grace offered to us all.
34. Someone to Call Our Name
Illustration
Maxie Dunnam
"After the death of her husband, Prince Albert, Queen Victoria said, "There is no one left to call me Victoria." I know there are a number of you here this morning who have experienced what this woman of royalty experienced. The death of a spouse or loved one simply means that you do not hear your name called the way you remember it being called for so long. Only time helps us to cope with that pain.
In spite of her royalty, Queen Victoria needed someone to call her by name. That's what baptism is about. We are named by God as His child. In adult, or what we may call "believer's baptism," baptism becomes the sign of our return to our Father from whom we have wandered. By repentance and our profession of faith in Christ as Savior and Lord, we claim the inheritance God has offered us as His children.
35. God's Instant Recipe
Illustration
Instant cake mix at first was a big flop. The instructions said all you had to do was add water and bake. The company couldn't understand why it didn't sell until their research discovered that the buying public felt uneasy about a mix that required only water. Apparently people thought it was too easy. So the company altered the formula and changed the directions to call for adding an egg to the mix in addition to the water. The idea worked and sales jumped dramatically.
That's how some people react to the plan of salvation. To them it sounds too easy and simple to be true, even though the Bible says, "By grace you have been saved through faith...; it is the gift of God, not of works" (Eph. 2:8-9). They feel that there is something more they must do, something they must add to God's "recipe" for salvation. They think they must perform good works to gain God's favor and earn eternal life. But the Bible is clear we are saved, "not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy" (Titus 3:5). Unlike the cake-mix manufacturer, God has not changed His "formula" to make salvation more marketable. The gospel we proclaim must be free of works, even though it may sound too easy.
36. GOD’S CURE FOR LONELINESS
Illustration
John H. Krahn
"My days are so busy with lawyers, people stopping by, letters to write ... and I’m so lonely through it all," writes a woman who has just lost her husband.
After the death of her husband, Prince Albert, Queen Victoria said, "There is no one left to call me Victoria." Even though she was a queen, she knew what it meant to be lonely. Loneliness is no respecter of persons.
Loneliness plagues us in many ways. There is the loneliness of failure. No one jumps onto a sinking ship to keep the captain company as he goes down. There can even be a loneliness of success. Having accomplished something noteworthy, you are reluctant to talk about it because people will think you are bragging. There is the loneliness of standing up for what you believe is right and finding that you are only a majority of one. There is the extreme loneliness of not feeling loved. Everyone seems to have friends but you, and you would guess that even your death would not cause anyone to break stride.
Confronting all of these feelings of loneliness is the shrill cry of the Newborn from Bethlehem. And as we listen to the God-Babe now born, we discover that he is the Father’s cure for loneliness. Christ is the answer to loneliness. A simple answer to a complex problem? Yes, but no less an answer. Christ is the answer to our every baffling perplexity. In him is found a balm for bereavement, a healing for hurts, a sufficiency for our insufficiency, and the answer for loneliness.
Now there will always be times in our lives when we will be alone, but we need not be lonely. There is a difference. Christ can be the difference when we welcome him not only as our Savior but also as our companion and our friend. Alone but not lonely is the Christian’s possibility. It is God’s gift to us. Talk with the Lord throughout the day, for he is with us wherever we are and whatever the circ*mstances.
37. Grounded in Faith
Illustration
John E. Harnish
St. Paul's letters to the Corinthian church are written to a church torn by political and theological battles, a church unsure of its foundations and faith, a church struggling with issues of sexual morality and social pressure. So he reminds them:
Now I would remind you, brothers and sisters, in what terms I preached the Gospel, which you received and in which you stand. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: That Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, that he was buried and that he was raised on the third day, in accordance to the scriptures. (I Corinthians 15:1)
It's the reminder of the central message of the Gospel, a reminder of the word we have to proclaim. And today, just as in the Corinthian church, there is a desperate need for disciples of Christ to be grounded in the faith, to grow together in our spiritual journey, to nurture one another in the life and spirit of Jesus Christ.
38. God's Evangelism Plans
Illustration
Richard A. Jensen
The fall of Haile Selassie in 1974 did not bring the kind of peace that the Ethiopians had hoped might follow their somewhat "benevolent" dictator. They had hoped for democracy. They had hoped for freedom. What they got, instead, was a Marxist state that ruled with an iron hand. Repression was everywhere. Persecution was everywhere. The Christian church became a target of this repression and persecution. The almost 20 years of Marxist rule was a very difficult time for the Christians of Ethiopia. During the waning years of this Marxist rule an Ethiopian pastor named Yadessa addressed an American audience concerning this persecution. He told of churches being closed and of many Christians and Christian leaders being put in prison. He said that there were hardly any churches left open in the western region of Ethiopia where evangelical Christianity had been very strong.
But closed church buildings did not close down the church. "Houses became churches," Pastor Yadessa told his audience. Christianity not only survived but thrived and grew under state repression. Pastor Yadessa reminded his audience that the most significant person to be imprisoned in those years was the president of the church himself, Pastor Gudina. Pastor Gudina was jailed and released several times but he eventually died in prison, Pastor Yadessa reported. He further reported that Pastor Gudina's wife was also imprisoned. "She has adjusted to prison life very well," Pastor Yadessa said. "She sews sweaters for people and distributes Bibles that are sent to her. She and many of the other imprisoned Christians have become great evangelists in the prisons. God has God's own evangelism plans," Pastor Yadessa proclaimed with a smile.
He told another story of God's evangelism planning. At the time of his address to his American audience Pastor Yadessa was the director of evangelism for the Ethiopian Evangelical Church -- Mekane Yesus. (Mekane Yesus means "the place of Jesus.") He planned that evangelism leaders from the Addis Ababa area and evangelism leaders from the land to the West that had been so heavily persecuted should meet in a city on the border of the two areas. "Just the logistics of planning the meeting," Pastor Yadessa said, "were extremely difficult. Communication between parties was almost impossible. But," he continued, "when the day for the meeting arrived, somehow, under God's providence, all of us arrived safely." The meeting, of course, was a bit subversive in light of the state's persecution of the church. The evangelism leaders gathered, therefore, in a simple home in the city. "We were just about to start our meeting," said Pastor Yadessa, "when seven uniformed policemen barged through the door of the house. 'This is an illegal meeting,' the head of the policemen shouted at us. 'You are all under arrest. Come with us at once.' It wasn't long until all of us werelocked together in prison." As Pastor Yadessa told the story he indicated that the first hour or two that the leaders were in the jail were moments of great despair. "But then," he said brightening, "we realized that God had given us a great opportunity. Here we were all together in one place with nothing to do but pray together and talk together and think about evangelism together. We found ourselves on a wonderfully unplanned evangelism retreat. God, indeed, has God's own evangelism plans that surprise and surpass our own!""
39. Hymns at Midnight
Illustration
Larry Powell
Paul and Silashad been thrown into prison at Philippi because Paul had cast a demon from a slave girl. However, there were extenuating circ*mstances. It seems the slave girl allegedly had powers of divination which enabled her to engage in "fortune telling." Her owners had managed to turn her condition into a rather lucrative business. And, of course, when Paul removed the demon, he also eliminated the owner’s profit. Let’s think about that for a moment. Isn’t it fortunate that some people cannot receive the joy of a blessing because of a bitter spirit? A young girl, who is described by commentators as being mentally deranged, is healed! And yet all her owners could think about was the money her healing was going to cost them. I am reminded of the woman who went into the hospital for a physical examination without the knowledge of the minister or anyone else in the church. When her tests confirmed that she was in excellent health, she was dismissed to go home. A few days later, when the minister learned she had been in the hospital, he stopped by to see her. She proceeded to scold him because neither he nor anyone at the church had been to see her in the hospital (one and one-half days). She was sadly unable to enjoy the good news about her health because she had a bitterness in her spirit. It was the same kind of attitude that put Paul and Silas in prison.
Paul and Silas were singing hymns in the cell and, about midnight, there was a great earthquake. The foundations of the jail quivered and shook. The doors were flung open and the fetters of all the prisoners were unfastened. When the jailer saw that the doors were opened he supposed the prisoners had escaped. Knowing that he would be held accountable, he drew his sword and was about to take his own life when Paul said, "Do not harm yourself, for we are all here" (v. 28). The jailer immediately fell to his knees before Paul and said, "What must I do to be saved?" Paul answered, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved." The jailer and his entire family were baptized and received into the fellowship of Christ. His life had been saved twice; once during the earthquake, and once from his own hand. Now he was saved for all eternity.
In all probability, the hymns which Paul and Silas were singing at midnight had little if anything to do with the Philippian jailer’s conversion. I would suspect that the eartquake stood him mentally erect, causing him to get in touch with the condition of his spirit. An earthquake can do that. So can foxholes, tornadoes, or a doctor saying to us, "I’m afraid I have some bad news." These and similar situations which you could name confront us with reality in a hurry. The earthquake made its impact on the jailer.
However, the fact that Paul and Silas did not attempt to escape from their cell also impacted the jailer. The coincidences were too numerous to ignore; the hymn singing, the earthquake, the cell being opened, the fetters on all the prisoners unfastened, and ... not the slightest attempt to escape. Something was going on here! The accumulation of events brought the jailer to his moment of conversion.
Let the record show that conversion may occur suddenly, in the twinkling of an eye, or it may come upon us slowly, cumulatively, as the result of assorted experiences and reflections. And in the simple story of the Philippian jailer, we find the format for conversion in its simplest form (16:29-31), regardless of time, place, or manner.
40. A Faithful Harlot
Illustration
Richard A. Jensen
What's a bad girl like you doing in a list like this? The author of the book of Hebrews tells of a great cloud of witnesses that surround us in our own faith walk. The usual biblical heroes and heroines are there. The biggest surprise in the list is Rahab. Rahab was not an Israelite after all. She was a harlot who plied her trade in pre-Israelite Jericho. Who is this woman anyway? And what is she doing in a list like this?
Rahab's story is told in the Old Testament book of Joshua. In the story we hear that Jericho was next on Joshua's list of cities to be conquered. Joshua sent two spies into Jericho to size up the task of triumphing over this great city. After sneaking into the city they were made welcome in the house of a harlot. That's how Rahab entered Israel's story.
The king of Jericho had spies of his own, of course. They informed him that Rahab was housing two spies of the people of Israel. The king of Jericho, therefore, sent a message to Rahab calling upon her to take a great patriotic action and give up the spies. But the king's message had come to late. Rahab had already hidden the spies on her roof. She told the king's messengers that two unknown men had come to her house but that they had left the city before the gate was closed the night before. "You can probably catch them if you hurry," she told them.
Then Rahab went to the Israelite spies on her roof. The intent of her mission is astounding. She confesses to them her faith in the God who has brought them here! "I know that the Lord has given you the land," she said to them, "and that dread of you has fallen on us, and that all the inhabitants of the land melt in fear before you. For we have heard how the Lord dried up the water of the Red Sea before you when you came out of Egypt .... The Lord your God is indeed God in heaven above and on earth below" (Joshua 2:9-11). The author of Hebrews has it right. Rahab is a woman of faith. She has heard the stories of the Lord's deliverance and she has believed. In Rahab we meet a harlot who believes; a sinner who is a saint.
Now Rahab had a request for the spies sent by Joshua. "Give me a sign of good faith," she says to them, "that you will spare my father and mother, my brother and sisters and all who belong to them and deliver our lives from death" (Joshua 2:12-13). The spies agreed. "Our life for yours!" they promise her.
Rahab then let the men down a rope from her window that they might escape the city. She gave them complete escape instructions. The spies promised again that they would remember their oath to protect Rahab and her family. They gave Rahab a scarlet cord and told her to let it hang from the window of their escape. This would be a sign of protection for Rahab and her family would all be spared because of the sign. "According to your words, so be it," Rahab declared (Joshua 2:21). How nearly do Mary's words in response to the angel's promise match those of Rahab! Mary said, "... let it be with me according to your word" (Luke 1:38). Was Rahab Mary's teacher in faith?
Joshua and the army of Israel soon conquered the city of Jericho. The sign of faith, the scarlet cord, hung from Rahab's window. Rahab and her family were saved by her faith. Faith bloomed in a powerful way in this person we would least expect. That's what Rahab is doing in a list like this."
41. FOR UNTO YOU
Illustration
John H. Krahn
Imagine with me for a moment what it was like that first Christmas Eve, the night Jesus left heaven to go down to earth. Like any boy leaving home, Jesus left heaven. Perhaps the Father said something like this to him, "Now, Son, I’ve got to send you down to earth because my people have really messed things up. They are unhappy. Many are lonely and down on themselves. I want you to go down to give them new hope and to provide a way for their sins to be forgiven so that we can all get back together again."
So Jesus walked to the door of heaven, but before descending he turned and asked, "Father, what will I tell them?" And the good Heavenly Father put his arms around his Son and said, "When you get down there, all you need to do is tell them that I love them. That is all. Just tell them that I love them."
At Christmas all of us gladly hear these words of love: "For unto you," the angel said, "is born ... a Savior." He is ours, each one of us individually. In Christ the Father says, "I love you, Bill. I love you, Barbara. I love you, Jim, Bob, Peggy, Marge. I sent my Son unto you, Ralph, Betty, Fred." The baby Jesus is the Father’s message of love for each of us individually.
Listen carefully for the Good News God has for each one of you personally. Three simple, powerful, wonderful words, "I love you." Everyone presently having a hard time - remember that you are not alone: God loves you. Everyone feeling lonely or grieving should know that you are not alone, for God loves you. Everyone afraid of tomorrow and what the future might bring, you are not alone, God loves you.
"For unto you is born a Savior." "Unto you," the angel said. Oh, let the meaning of a personal Savior, Jesus, the Babe of Bethlehem, crash in upon your heart and your entire being. There is Good News for you, the Lord of the entire universe loves you personally. For Emmanuel, God with us, is truly with us. Rejoice and give thanks over God’s gift of love to you. Receive him and the peace of God the angels sang about that first Christmas will keep your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus until life everlasting.
42. That is A
Illustration
Michael P. Green
Truth does not need updating. There is a story of a man who came to his old friend, a music teacher, and said to him, “What’s the good news today?” The old teacher was silent as he stood up and walked across the room, picked up a hammer, and struck a tuning fork. As the note sounded out through the room, he said, “That is A. It is today; it was five thousand years ago, and it will be ten thousand years from now. The soprano upstairs sings off-key, the tenor across the hall flats on his high notes, and the piano downstairs is out of tune.” He struck the note again and said, “That is A, my friend, and that’s the good news for today.”
43. Prayer Doesn't Change God; It Changes Me
Illustration
Thomas Long
In a scene from Shadowlands, a film based on the life of C.S. Lewis, Lewis has returned to Oxford from London, where he has just been married to Joy Gresham, an American woman, in a private Episcopal ceremony performed at her hospital bedside. She is dying from cancer, and, through the struggle with her illness, she and Lewis have been discovering the depth of their love for each other. As Lewis arrives at the college where he teaches, he is met by Harry Harrington, an Episcopal priest, who asks what news there is. Lewis hesitates; then, deciding to speak of the marriage and not the cancer, he says, "Ah, good news, I think, Harry. Yes, good news."
Harrington, not aware of the marriage and thinking that Lewis is referring to Joy's medical situation, replies, "I know how hard you've been praying .... Now, God is answering your prayer."
"That's not why I pray, Harry," Lewis responds. "I pray because I can't help myself. I pray because I'm helpless. I pray because the need flows out of me all the time, waking and sleeping. It doesn't change God; it changes me."
44. Delivery Confirmation
Illustration
Staff
George Sweeting, in his book "The No-Guilt Guide for Witnessing," tells of a man by the name of John Currier who in 1949 was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life in prison. Later he was transferred and paroled to work on a farm near Nashville, Tennessee.
In 1968, Currier's sentence was terminated, and a letter bearing the good news was sent to him. But John never saw the letter, nor was he told anything about it. Life on that farm was hard and without promise for the future. Yet John kept doing what he was told even after the farmer for whom he worked had died.
Ten years went by. Then a state parole officer learned about Currier's plight, found him, and told him that his sentence had been terminated. He was a free man.
Sweeting concluded that story by asking, "Would it matter to you if someone sent you an important message, the most important in your life, and year after year, the urgent message was never delivered?"
We who have heard the good news and experienced freedom through Christ are responsible to proclaim it to others still enslaved by sin. Are we doing all we can to make sure that people get the message?
45. Philosophers and Pessimists
Illustration
Brett Blair
When it comes to talking about the hereafter, I like the words of St Paul: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived, What God has prepared for those who love him."
Resurrection is not some natural right that we are given. It is a remarkable gift from the grace of God. Gratis! Some Greek philosophers believed that we are, by nature, immortal spirits. The human body and life on earth are but crude prisons that we endure like caged eagles. For them immortality is our right, which is restored at death as we escape to our true element.
Pessimists on the other hand said we die like any animal and that is it. Look at Ecclesiastes and you will find this emphatic despair.
But Christianity said two things:
To the pessimists Christianity answers: "No! You are wrong. There is a gift of life after death." Death does not snuff out the candle of our soul.
To the Greeks: "No you are wrong. The body is not a cage; it is a good gift to be used in this life. Death is real to be sure but it is not an escape, a loophole by which we escape the sentence of living on earth. God gives us the gift of life: Earthly life and Resurrection life: Both are Gift! Both are Grace!"
Note: Adapted from a sermons by Australian Pastor Bruce Prewer.
46. He Already Owned It
Illustration
Maxie Dunnam
William Randolph Hurst, the famous newspaper owner and multimillionaire, once saw the print of a famous painting. He decided he wanted that painting. So he hired a detective to find the original.
Several months and several thousand dollars later, the detective returned with some good news and some bad news. The good news was that he had found the painting. The bad news was that he had found it in one of Mr. Hurst’s own warehouses. Hurst already owned it.
Most of us are somewhat dull, even blind, to what is already ours: love, friendship, good health, a free land in which to live. A word of caution is in order. Don’t go looking around for something you think will make you happy, before you pay attention to what you already have.
47. England's Leading Poet
Illustration
Dr. Gary Collins
For many years Sir Walter Scott was the leading literary figure in the British Empire. No one could write as well as he. Then the works of Lord Byron began to appear, and their greatness was immediately evident. Soon an anonymous critic praised his poems in a London Paper. He declared that in the presence of these brilliant works of poetic genius, Scott could no longer be considered the leading poet of England. It was later discovered that the unnamed reviewer had been none other than Sir Walter Scott himself!
There is a distinction between jealousy and envy. To envy is to want something which belongs to another person. "You shall not covet your neighbor's house, his wife or his servant, his ox or donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor." In contrast, jealousy is the fear that something which we possess will be taken away by another person. Although jealousy can apply to our jobs, our possessions, or our reputations, the word more often refers to anxiety which comes when we are afraid that the affections of a loved one might be lost to a rival. We fear that our mates, or perhaps our children, will be lured away by some other person who, when compared to us, seems to be more attractive, capable and successful.
48. Setting the Prisoners Free
Illustration
Brett Blair
No greater image of oppression and captivity exist today than that of World War II's Nazi concentration camps. Elie Wiesel, a teenager then, witnessed the death of many family members. He recalls the day when he, as well as the other prisoners, were finally liberated from Auschwitz by the allies. On that day powerful, strong soldiers broke down the fences of the concentration camp to release the prisoners. Frail, feeble, gaunt, and near death they were terrible victims of a horrible criminal evil.
In spite of his condition Wiesel remembers one solider, a strong black man who upon seeing the horror of human suffering was overcome with grief. He fell to his knees sobbing in a mix of disbelief and sorrow. The captives, now liberated, walked over to the soldier, put their arms around him, and offered comfort to him.
I can't help but wonder what it is that Jesus saw on that day he began his ministry. Looking out at those gathered in the synagogue, just as I am looking out at you this morning, as near as I can figure, he saw the same thing that strong black soldier saw: Terrible victims of a horrible criminal evil. Now this is no complement! Listen to his words: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor, he has sent me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free.
We don't like to think of ourselves as victims of sin. But evil, in a manner of speaking, has had its own way with us and when Jesus arrived on the scene ready to liberate us prisoners I am sure he was over come with grief.
(If this is used as a sermon ender then finish with the line: The good news is that our Ally has Arrived. Amen!)
49. The Urgency of the Task
Illustration
Editor James S. Hewett
Luiqi Tarisio was found dead one morning with hardly any creature comforts in his home, except the presence of 246 exquisite violins. He had been collecting them all his life. They were all stored in the attic, the best in the bottom drawer of an old rickety bureau. In his very devotion to the violin, he had robbed the world of all that music. Much of that collection was owned by others before him who had done the same. So that when the greatest of his collection, a Stradivarius, was first played it had had 147 speechless years. How many of Christ's people are like old Tarisio? In our very love of the church we fail to give the glad tidings to the world; in our zeal for the truth we forget to publish it. When shall we all learn that the Good News needs not just to be cherished, but needs to be told? Don't bury God's Good News of Easter at the bottom of a rickety old bureau. Let the people hear the great sound of the music: He is Risen!
50. What’s the Bad News
Illustration
Maxie Dunnam
Good news-bad news jokes are somewhat passé. Even so there is one that makes a good point to introduce the sermon this morning. There were two fellows who lived and breathed baseball. They were professional players with the Atlanta Braves and you would think that playing for a living would be enough. But not so – these guys breathed, ate, and slept baseball. More than teammates, they were very close friends. So, they talked with each other about that mattered most in their lives. One of their big concerns was whether there would be baseball in heaven. They loved baseball so much that they were not sure at all they wanted to spend eternity in heaven unless they could play baseball.
They had an agreement that the first one who died would somehow get a message back to earth, letting the other know whether baseball was in heaven or not. Well, it happened. John died, and Jim grieved. He grieved for days - deeply saddened over his friend John's death. About two weeks went by, and then it happened. Jim was awakened in the middle of the night by the calling of his name, "Jim, Jim, Jim, wake up! This is John." "John, where are you?"
"I'm in heaven - and I have some good news and bad news. It's exciting, Jim. We do have baseball in heaven. It's great. We play every day and there are marvelous teams, and tough, exciting competition."
"That's great," said Jim. "But what's the bad news?"
"Well," said John, "You are scheduled to pitch next Tuesday."
Showing
1
to
50
of
345
results
- 'An effort to suffocate': Experts warn of emerging threats in America's religious freedom battle
- Hundreds gather, dozens baptized at revival event on Ohio State University campus
- 12-year-old Christian girl forcibly converted by Muslim man who kidnapped her in Pakistan
- Episcopal diocese rejects 'misinformation' amid claims it failed to enforce 'safe church' policies
- Abortions on the rise since Roe reversal thanks to abortion pill spike: report
- 'Christian nationalism' label emerges from ignorance and intimidation, panelists warn
- State gov't attacks on pro-life pregnancy care centers on the rise, legal expert says
- Taliban bans women from speaking, showing bare faces in public
- Unconstitutional: Religious broadcasters, churches file lawsuit against Johnson Amendment
- Christian man sentenced to death over TikTok video sparks outcry
- German Pastor to Pay for Anti-LGBTQ Statements
- Should Christians Across Denominations Be Singing the Same Songs?
- Rwanda Explains Why It Closed Thousands of Churches. Again.
- Activist Lila Rose Under Fire for Suggesting Trump Hasn’t Earned the Pro-Life Vote
- More Christian Colleges Will Close. Can They Finish Well?
- Choose This (Labor) Day Whom You Will Serve
- What to Watch for in ‘Rings of Power’ Season 2
- When to Respond to Slander (and When to Ignore It)
- It Is Not Best for Man to Eat Alone
- David Bentley Hart’s Brain-Breaking Argument for the Supremacy of the Mind
- Mountain selfie costs 23-year-old gymnast her life
- Carmelites find St. Teresa of Ávila's body still incorrupt after opening coffin for study of relics
- 'He's in big trouble': GOP adviser says Trump knows he's losing votes on key issue
- Loony MAGA 'Prophet': Trump's Been President Last Four Years
- I was a Trump hater — until I learned the truth of the media’s ‘very fine’ lies
- Donald Trump chases politics and stabs evangelical supporters in the back
- Amitabh Bachchan Schools KBC 16 Contestant On View Of Unmarried Women As ‘Burden’ & We All Are In For It
- Hillsong Founders Launch ‘Online Church’ And Ask For Money
- The Sovereignty of the Latter-day Saints
- Who Is Dan Bilzerian? The Israel-Obsessed, Jew-Hating Misogynist That Elon Musk Protects
- A Shroud of Evidence
- There Never Was a Pro-Life Case for Trump
- Donald Trump and the Sovereign Rights of God
- How a Church Fought Back Against a Liberal Takeover — And Won
- St. Teresa of Ávila's Body Remains Incorrupt After Almost 5 Centuries
- Faith of My Fathers
- Chinese Christians are the Canary in the Coal Mine
- Mohamad Jebara, 'Reclaimer' of the Quran
- Algerian Man Charged Over Synagogue Arson Attack in France
- Religion is America's Mighty Engine of Charitable Goodness
