Matt Christiansen Bible Study: Recent Episodes
Matt Christiansen Media
Study session scripture: Ephesians 1:1 - 14
Study session topics:
- ‘Apostolos’
- Verses 3-14 as one sentence
- Verses 3-14 segmented into sections
**Ephesians intro - this study session’s topics include:**
- Introduction to Reverend David Rogers - background and teaching philosophy
- Introduction to the Letter to the Ephesians
- Geography of the region and the city
- The City of Ephesus
- Institutions, buildings, and cultural elements
- Characteristics of the city
Scripture Reading: Acts of the Apostles
**Outline****What Happened After Two Years*** **Martyrdom?**
- Release?
- Why not narrate Paul’s future travels (if there were any)?
- Paul was later rearrested?
- Church tradition
- The Pastorals
- Historical Plausibility
Robert’s Takeaways Acts grounds the whole Christian story in history * A corollary: the supernatural is historical * The Christian story involves people—normal people * Some people become ministers, but most do not * Peter and Paul attempt to communicate cleverly and effectively * The Holy Spirit is at work * Churches are not perfect, and they experience conflict * Local believers gather regularly*
Scripture Reading: Acts 28:16–31
16 When we entered Rome, Paul was allowed to live by himself, with the soldier who was guarding him.
17 After three days Paul called the local Jewish leaders together. When they had assembled, he said to them, “Brothers, although I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our ancestors, from Jerusalem I was handed over as a prisoner to the Romans. 18 When they had heard my case, they wanted to release me, because there was no basis for a death sentence against me.19 But when the Jews objected, I was forced to appeal to Caesar—not that I had some charge to bring against my own people. 20 So for this reason I have asked to see you and speak with you, for I am bound with this chain because of the hope of Israel.” 21 They replied, “We have received no letters from Judea about you, nor have any of the brothers come from there and reported or said anything bad about you. 22 But we would like to hear from you what you think, for regarding this sect we know that people everywhere speak against it.”
23 They set a day to meet with him, and they came to him where he was staying in even greater numbers. From morning until evening he explained things to them, testifying about the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus from both the law of Moses and the prophets. 24 Some were convinced by what he said, but others refused to believe. 25 So they began to leave, unable to agree among themselves, after Paul made one last statement: “The Holy Spirit spoke rightly to your ancestors through the prophet Isaiah 26 when he said,
‘Go to this people and say,
“You will keep on hearing, but will never understand, and you will keep on looking, but will never perceive.
27 For the heart of this people has become dull, and their ears are hard of hearing,
and they have closed their eyes,
so that they would not see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their heart
and turn, and I would heal them.” ’
28 “Therefore be advised that this salvation from God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen!”
30 Paul lived there two whole years in his own rented quarters and welcomed all who came to him, 31 proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with complete boldness and without restriction.
OutlinePaul in Rome Introduction to the end of the book * Rome, the eternal city * Paul is permitted to stay in his rented apartment * To the Jew first * The schism between Jews and Christians in Rome * Paul’s reassures Jewish leaders: he doesn’t mean trouble * The Jewish leaders have heard nothing negative of Paul * Paul testifies about the Kingdom of God and Jesus using the law and the prophets * The Jews are divided * Then to the Gentiles * Paul’s ministry while under house arrest*
The Sudden Ending A sudden ending? * But what if it is a sudden ending? * A hopeful ending? * What happened after two years? * Paul was released and later rearrested?*
Scripture Reading: Acts 28:1–22
28 After we had safely reached shore, we learned that the island was called Malta. 2 The local inhabitants showed us extraordinary kindness, for they built a fire and welcomed us all because it had started to rain and was cold. 3 When Paul had gathered a bundle of brushwood and was putting it on the fire, a viper came out because of the heat and fastened itself on his hand. 4 When the local people saw the creature hanging from Paul’s hand, they said to one another, “No doubt this man is a murderer! Although he has escaped from the sea, Justice herself has not allowed him to live!” 5 However, Paul shook the creature off into the fire and suffered no harm. 6 But they were expecting that he was going to swell up or suddenly drop dead. So after they had waited a long time and had seen nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.
7 Now in the region around that place were fields belonging to the chief official of the island, named Publius, who welcomed us and entertained us hospitably as guests for three days. 8 The father of Publius lay sick in bed, suffering from fever and dysentery. Paul went in to see him and after praying, placed his hands on him and healed him. 9 After this had happened, many of the people on the island who were sick also came and were healed. 10 They also bestowed many honors, and when we were preparing to sail, they gave us all the supplies we needed.
11 After three months we put out to sea in an Alexandrian ship that had wintered at the island and had the “Heavenly Twins” as its figurehead. 12 We put in at Syracuse and stayed there three days. 13 From there we cast off and arrived at Rhegium, and after one day a south wind sprang up and on the second day we came to Puteoli. 14 There we found some brothers and were invited to stay with them seven days. And in this way we came to Rome. 15 The brothers from there, when they heard about us, came as far as the Forum of Appius and Three Taverns to meet us. When he saw them, Paul thanked God and took courage. 16 When we entered Rome, Paul was allowed to live by himself, with the soldier who was guarding him.
17 After three days Paul called the local Jewish leaders together. When they had assembled, he said to them, “Brothers, although I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our ancestors, from Jerusalem I was handed over as a prisoner to the Romans. 18 When they had heard my case, they wanted to release me, because there was no basis for a death sentence against me.19 But when the Jews objected, I was forced to appeal to Caesar—not that I had some charge to bring against my own people. 20 So for this reason I have asked to see you and speak with you, for I am bound with this chain because of the hope of Israel.” 21 They replied, “We have received no letters from Judea about you, nor have any of the brothers come from there and reported or said anything bad about you. 22 But we would like to hear from you what you think, for regarding this sect we know that people everywhere speak against it.”
OutlinePaul’s Adventures in Malta Brief introduction: Paul is vindicated at sea and on land * Paul is shipwrecked in Malta * The shipwrecked voyagers are welcomed by the barbarians * Paul is bitten by a snake! * Publius hosts (some) of the voyagers * The father of Publius and many others are healed*
To Rome! Three months in Malta, then back to sailing to Italy * Paul is welcome in Puteoli * Puteoli to Rome, the last stretch! * Brothers come to meet Paul*
Paul in Rome Introduction to the end of the book * Rome, the eternal city * Paul is permitted to stay in his rented apartment * To the Jew first * The schism between Jews and Christians in Rome * Paul’s reassures Jewish leaders: he doesn’t mean trouble * The Jewish leaders have heard nothing negative of Paul*
Bible study for March 28, 2025, is cancelled.
Scripture Reading: Acts 27:1–44
27 When it was decided we would sail to Italy, they handed over Paul and some other prisoners to a centurion of the Augustan Cohort named Julius. 2 We went on board a ship from Adramyttium that was about to sail to various ports along the coast of the province of Asia and put out to sea, accompanied by Aristarchus, a Macedonian from Thessalonica. 3 The next day we put in at Sidon, and Julius, treating Paul kindly, allowed him to go to his friends so they could provide him with what he needed. 4 From there we put out to sea and sailed under the lee of Cyprus because the winds were against us. 5 After we had sailed across the open sea off Cilicia and Pamphylia, we put in at Myra in Lycia. 6 There the centurion found a ship from Alexandria sailing for Italy, and he put us aboard it. 7 We sailed slowly for many days and arrived with difficulty off Cnidus. Because the wind prevented us from going any farther, we sailed under the lee of Crete off Salmone. 8 With difficulty we sailed along the coast of Crete and came to a place called Fair Havens that was near the town of Lasea.
9 Since considerable time had passed and the voyage was now dangerous because the fast was already over, Paul advised them, 10 “Men, I can see the voyage is going to end in disaster and great loss not only of the cargo and the ship, but also of our lives.” 11 But the centurion was more convinced by the captain and the ship’s owner than by what Paul said. 12 Because the harbor was not suitable to spend the winter in, the majority decided to put out to sea from there. They hoped that somehow they could reach Phoenix, a harbor of Crete facing southwest and northwest, and spend the winter there. 13 When a gentle south wind sprang up, they thought they could carry out their purpose, so they weighed anchor and sailed close along the coast of Crete. 14 Not long after this, a hurricane-force wind called the northeaster blew down from the island. 15 When the ship was caught in it and could not head into the wind, we gave way to it and were driven along. 16 As we ran under the lee of a small island called Cauda, we were able with difficulty to get the ship’s boat under control. 17 After the crew had hoisted it aboard, they used supports to undergird the ship. Fearing they would run aground on the Syrtis, they lowered the sea anchor, thus letting themselves be driven along. 18 The next day, because we were violently battered by the storm, they began throwing the cargo overboard, 19 and on the third day they threw the ship’s gear overboard with their own hands. 20 When neither sun nor stars appeared for many days and a violent storm continued to batter us, we finally abandoned all hope of being saved.
21 Since many of them had no desire to eat, Paul stood up among them and said, “Men, you should have listened to me and not put out to sea from Crete, thus avoiding this damage and loss. 22 And now I advise you to keep up your courage, for there will be no loss of life among you, but only the ship will be lost. 23 For last night an angel of the God to whom I belong and whom I serve came to me 24 and said, ‘Do not be afraid, Paul! You must stand before Caesar, and God has graciously granted you the safety of all who are sailing with you.’ 25 Therefore keep up your courage, men, for I have faith in God that it will be just as I have been told. 26 But we must run aground on some island.”
27 When the fourteenth night had come, while we were being driven across the Adriatic Sea, about midnight the sailors suspected they were approaching some land. 28 They took soundings and found the water was twenty fathoms deep; when they had sailed a little farther they took soundings again and found it was fifteen fathoms deep. 29 Because they were afraid that we would run aground on the rocky coast, they threw out four anchors from the stern and wished for day to appear. 30 Then when the sailors tried to escape from the ship and were lowering the ship’s boat into the sea, pretending that they were going to put out anchors from the bow, 31 Paul said to the centurion and the soldiers, “Unless these men stay with the ship, you cannot be saved.” 32 Then the soldiers cut the ropes of the ship’s boat and let it drift away.
33 As day was about to dawn, Paul urged them all to take some food, saying, “Today is the fourteenth day you have been in suspense and have gone without food; you have eaten nothing. 34 Therefore I urge you to take some food, for this is important for your survival. For not one of you will lose a hair from his head.” 35 After he said this, Paul took bread and gave thanks to God in front of them all, broke it, and began to eat. 36 So all of them were encouraged and took food themselves. 37 (We were in all 276 persons on the ship.) 38 When they had eaten enough to be satisfied, they lightened the ship by throwing the wheat into the sea.
39 When day came, they did not recognize the land, but they noticed a bay with a beach, where they decided to run the ship aground if they could. 40 So they slipped the anchors and left them in the sea, at the same time loosening the linkage that bound the steering oars together. Then they hoisted the foresail to the wind and steered toward the beach. 41 But they encountered a patch of crosscurrents and ran the ship aground; the bow stuck fast and could not be moved, but the stern was being broken up by the force of the waves. 42 Now the soldiers’ plan was to kill the prisoners so that none of them would escape by swimming away. 43 But the centurion, wanting to save Paul’s life, prevented them from carrying out their plan. He ordered those who could swim to jump overboard first and get to land, 44 and the rest were to follow, some on planks and some on pieces of the ship. And in this way all were brought safely to land.
OutlinePaul Sails to Rome Luke narrates the shipwreck with special detail * God wants Paul to go to Rome; Paul is innocent*
How It Started Paul and his companions are assigned to a centurion * Sailing from Caesarea to Asia Minor * Put in at Sidon * To Myra in Lycia * Transfer at Myra * With difficulty they reached Fair Havens * Paul’s first warning * Winter travel—a dangerous affair * Let’s winter in Phoenix! * To Phoenix*
How It’s Going The weather suddenly changes * Find shelter behind Cauda and haul the boat! * Anything but the Syrtis! * Preparing the ship for the worse * All hope is lost*
Paul Offers Hope Paul rises as a leader and encourages them * Paul has had a vision * The ship approaches some land * Some sailors attempt to escape * Everyone on board shares a meal * Discarding more cargo * Last ditch effort: run the ship aground * The prisoners are spared * Everyone swims to shore; everyone is saved!*
Scripture Reading: Acts 26:1–32
26 So Agrippa said to Paul, “You have permission to speak for yourself.” Then Paul held out his hand and began his defense:
2 “Regarding all the things I have been accused of by the Jews, King Agrippa, I consider myself fortunate that I am about to make my defense before you today, 3 because you are especially familiar with all the customs and controversial issues of the Jews. Therefore I ask you to listen to me patiently. 4 Now all the Jews know the way I lived from my youth, spending my life from the beginning among my own people and in Jerusalem. 5 They know, because they have known me from time past, if they are willing to testify, that according to the strictest party of our religion, I lived as a Pharisee. 6 And now I stand here on trial because of my hope in the promise made by God to our ancestors, 7 a promise that our twelve tribes hope to attain as they earnestly serve God night and day. Concerning this hope the Jews are accusing me, Your Majesty! 8 Why do you people think it is unbelievable that God raises the dead? 9 Of course, I myself was convinced that it was necessary to do many things hostile to the name of Jesus the Nazarene. 10 And that is what I did in Jerusalem: Not only did I lock up many of the saints in prisons by the authority I received from the chief priests, but I also cast my vote against them when they were sentenced to death. 11 I punished them often in all the synagogues and tried to force them to blaspheme. Because I was so furiously enraged at them, I went to persecute them even in foreign cities.
12 “While doing this very thing, as I was going to Damascus with authority and complete power from the chief priests, 13 about noon along the road, Your Majesty, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining everywhere around me and those traveling with me. 14 When we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? You are hurting yourself by kicking against the goads.’ 15 So I said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And the Lord replied, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. 16 But get up and stand on your feet, for I have appeared to you for this reason, to designate you in advance as a servant and witness to the things you have seen and to the things in which I will appear to you. 17 I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you 18 to open their eyes so that they turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a share among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’
19 “Therefore, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, 20 but I declared to those in Damascus first, and then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds consistent with repentance. 21 For this reason the Jews, after they seized me while I was in the temple courts, were trying to kill me. 22 I have experienced help from God to this day, and so I stand testifying to both small and great, saying nothing except what the prophets and Moses said was going to happen: 23 that the Christ was to suffer and be the first to rise from the dead, to proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles.”
24 As Paul was saying these things in his defense, Festus exclaimed loudly, “You have lost your mind, Paul! Your great learning is driving you insane!” 25 But Paul replied, “I have not lost my mind, most excellent Festus, but am speaking true and rational words. 26 For the king knows about these things, and I am speaking freely to him, because I cannot believe that any of these things has escaped his notice, for this was not done in a corner. 27 Do you believe the prophets, King Agrippa? I know that you believe.” 28 Agrippa said to Paul, “In such a short time are you persuading me to become a Christian?” 29 Paul replied, “I pray to God that whether in a short or a long time not only you but also all those who are listening to me today could become such as I am, except for these chains.”
30 So the king got up, and with him the governor and Bernice and those sitting with them, 31 and as they were leaving they said to one another, “This man is not doing anything deserving death or imprisonment.” 32 Agrippa said to Festus, “This man could have been released if he had not appealed to Caesar.”
OutlinePaul’s Last and Greatest Defense of the Gospel Not a trial—Paul is innocent * The climactic speech of Paul’s apologetic ministry * Paul argues for the gospel, not his innocence*
Paul’s Introduction, Character, Hope, and Former Folly Paul’s respectful and honest introduction * Paul narrates his life to establish ethos—he has always been a law-abiding Jew * Paul is on trial because of his hope in the promise—the resurrection! * Paul himself used to be a hater*
Paul’s Conversion From an agent of the aristocratic priests to an agent of Jesus * A revelation at midday * Saul, why are you persecuting me? * Paul is called to the Gentiles * Opened eyes; opened mind * From Satan to God; from darkness to light; to forgiveness of sins and the inheritance of the saints!*
Obedience to the Holy Commission Paul is obeying God’s call * In Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth * Repent and turn to God! * Paul has been targeted for his piety and believing the Old Testament, but God has delivered him * Testifying to all about the Christ*
Festus, Agrippa, and Paul Festus says, “Paul, you are mad!” * Paul responds, “I am of sober mind” * Paul calls Agrippa as a witness * Agrippa reacts, “Do you really seek to convert me?!” * Paul responds, “everyone should be a Christian!” * Paul, a consummate sage and an innocent man*
Scripture Reading: Acts 25:1–26:11
25 Now three days after Festus arrived in the province, he went up to Jerusalem from Caesarea. 2 So the chief priests and the most prominent men of the Jews brought formal charges against Paul to him. 3 Requesting him to do them a favor against Paul, they urged Festus to summon him to Jerusalem, planning an ambush to kill him along the way. 4 Then Festus replied that Paul was being kept at Caesarea, and he himself intended to go there shortly. 5 “So,” he said, “let your leaders go down there with me, and if this man has done anything wrong, they may bring charges against him.”
6 After Festus had stayed not more than eight or ten days among them, he went down to Caesarea, and the next day he sat on the judgment seat and ordered Paul to be brought. 7 When he arrived, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood around him, bringing many serious charges that they were not able to prove. 8 Paul said in his defense, “I have committed no offense against the Jewish law or against the temple or against Caesar.” 9 But Festus, wanting to do the Jews a favor, asked Paul, “Are you willing to go up to Jerusalem and be tried before me there on these charges?” 10 Paul replied, “I am standing before Caesar’s judgment seat, where I should be tried. I have done nothing wrong to the Jews, as you also know very well. 11 If then I am in the wrong and have done anything that deserves death, I am not trying to escape dying, but if not one of their charges against me is true, no one can hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar!” 12 Then, after conferring with his council, Festus replied, “You have appealed to Caesar; to Caesar you will go!”
13 After several days had passed, King Agrippa and Bernice arrived at Caesarea to pay their respects to Festus. 14 While they were staying there many days, Festus explained Paul’s case to the king to get his opinion, saying, “There is a man left here as a prisoner by Felix. 15 When I was in Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews informed me about him, asking for a sentence of condemnation against him. 16 I answered them that it was not the custom of the Romans to hand over anyone before the accused had met his accusers face-to-face and had been given an opportunity to make a defense against the accusation. 17 So after they came back here with me, I did not postpone the case, but the next day I sat on the judgment seat and ordered the man to be brought. 18 When his accusers stood up, they did not charge him with any of the evil deeds I had suspected. 19 Rather they had several points of disagreement with him about their own religion and about a man named Jesus who was dead, whom Paul claimed to be alive. 20 Because I was at a loss how I could investigate these matters, I asked if he were willing to go to Jerusalem and be tried there on these charges. 21 But when Paul appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of his Majesty the Emperor, I ordered him to be kept under guard until I could send him to Caesar.” 22 Agrippa said to Festus, “I would also like to hear the man myself.” “Tomorrow,” he replied, “you will hear him.”
23 So the next day Agrippa and Bernice came with great pomp and entered the audience hall, along with the senior military officers and the prominent men of the city. When Festus gave the order, Paul was brought in. 24 Then Festus said, “King Agrippa, and all you who are present here with us, you see this man about whom the entire Jewish populace petitioned me both in Jerusalem and here, shouting loudly that he ought not to live any longer. 25 But I found that he had done nothing that deserved death, and when he appealed to His Majesty the Emperor, I decided to send him. 26 But I have nothing definite to write to my lord about him. Therefore I have brought him before you all, and especially before you, King Agrippa, so that after this preliminary hearing I may have something to write. 27 For it seems unreasonable to me to send a prisoner without clearly indicating the charges against him.”
26 So Agrippa said to Paul, “You have permission to speak for yourself.” Then Paul held out his hand and began his defense:
2 “Regarding all the things I have been accused of by the Jews, King Agrippa, I consider myself fortunate that I am about to make my defense before you today, 3 because you are especially familiar with all the customs and controversial issues of the Jews. Therefore I ask you to listen to me patiently. 4 Now all the Jews know the way I lived from my youth, spending my life from the beginning among my own people and in Jerusalem. 5 They know, because they have known me from time past, if they are willing to testify, that according to the strictest party of our religion, I lived as a Pharisee. 6 And now I stand here on trial because of my hope in the promise made by God to our ancestors, 7 a promise that our twelve tribes hope to attain as they earnestly serve God night and day. Concerning this hope the Jews are accusing me, Your Majesty! 8 Why do you people think it is unbelievable that God raises the dead? 9 Of course, I myself was convinced that it was necessary to do many things hostile to the name of Jesus the Nazarene. 10 And that is what I did in Jerusalem: Not only did I lock up many of the saints in prisons by the authority I received from the chief priests, but I also cast my vote against them when they were sentenced to death. 11 I punished them often in all the synagogues and tried to force them to blaspheme. Because I was so furiously enraged at them, I went to persecute them even in foreign cities.
OutlineFestus Arrives in the Province New governor, new chances for better Roman-Jewish relations * New governor, new chances to get prosecutions * A change of venue*
Festus Judges Paul Paul’s case is prioritized * The judge takes his seat and the prosecution makes its accusations * Paul defends himself * Festus offers a change of venue * Paul appeals to Caesar * Rome: the supreme court * Does Paul choose Rome and reject Israel?*
King Agrippa and Bernice Arrives at Caesarea Historical question: what is Luke’s source? * Festus request of King Agrippa and Bernice * King Agrippa and Bernice * Pomp and fanfare*
Paul’s Defense Not a trial—Paul is innocent * The climactic speech of Paul’s apologetic ministry * Paul argues for the gospel, not his innocence * Paul’s respectful and honest introduction * Paul narrates his life to establish ethos—he has always been a law-abiding Jew * Paul is on trial because of his hope in the promise—the resurrection! * Paul himself used to be a hater*
Scripture Reading: Acts 24:1–27
24 After five days the high priest Ananias came down with some elders and an attorney named Tertullus, and they brought formal charges against Paul to the governor. 2 When Paul had been summoned, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying, “We have experienced a lengthy time of peace through your rule, and reforms are being made in this nation through your foresight. 3 Most excellent Felix, we acknowledge this everywhere and in every way with all gratitude. 4 But so that I may not delay you any further, I beg you to hear us briefly with your customary graciousness. 5 For we have found this man to be a troublemaker, one who stirs up riots among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. 6 He even tried to desecrate the temple, so we arrested him. 8 When you examine him yourself, you will be able to learn from him about all these things we are accusing him of doing.” 9 The Jews also joined in the verbal attack, claiming that these things were true.
10 When the governor gestured for him to speak, Paul replied, “Because I know that you have been a judge over this nation for many years, I confidently make my defense. 11 As you can verify for yourself, not more than twelve days ago I went up to Jerusalem to worship. 12 They did not find me arguing with anyone or stirring up a crowd in the temple courts or in the synagogues or throughout the city, 13 nor can they prove to you the things they are accusing me of doing. 14 But I confess this to you, that I worship the God of our ancestors according to the Way (which they call a sect), believing everything that is according to the law and that is written in the prophets. 15 I have a hope in God (a hope that these men themselves accept too) that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous. 16 This is the reason I do my best to always have a clear conscience toward God and toward people. 17 After several years I came to bring to my people gifts for the poor and to present offerings, 18 which I was doing when they found me in the temple, ritually purified, without a crowd or a disturbance. 19 But there are some Jews from the province of Asia who should be here before you and bring charges, if they have anything against me. 20 Or these men here should tell what crime they found me guilty of when I stood before the council, 21 other than this one thing I shouted out while I stood before them: ‘I am on trial before you today concerning the resurrection of the dead.’ ”
22 Then Felix, who understood the facts concerning the Way more accurately, adjourned their hearing, saying, “When Lysias the commanding officer comes down, I will decide your case.” 23 He ordered the centurion to guard Paul, but to let him have some freedom, and not to prevent any of his friends from meeting his needs.
24 Some days later, when Felix arrived with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish, he sent for Paul and heard him speak about faith in Christ Jesus. 25 While Paul was discussing righteousness, self-control, and the coming judgment, Felix became frightened and said, “Go away for now, and when I have an opportunity, I will send for you.” 26 At the same time he was also hoping that Paul would give him money, and for this reason he sent for Paul as often as possible and talked with him. 27 After two years had passed, Porcius Festus succeeded Felix, and because he wanted to do the Jews a favor, Felix left Paul in prison.
OutlineThe Prosecution It’s a status measuring contest * Tertullus, a professional speaker * Paul: a troublemaker throughout the whole word * The prosecution’s best shot: sedition * Paul—the ringleader of those pesky Nazarenes * Paul “attempted” to profane the temple * The judge should investigate himself * The audience joins the prosecution*
The Defense Summary of the defense * Paul appears pro se * Paul’s captatio benevolentiae (introduction) * Paul’s narratio (summary of the facts) * The prosecution provided no evidence, particularly witnesses * Paul’s argument from ethos (character) and as a follower of the Way * Did Jews really believe in the resurrection? * Paul came to bring alms and sacrifice, not trouble * Paul subtly returns the charges to his accusers * Paul’s best legal argument: the true plaintiffs did not show up (and neither did any witnesses) * Paul’s conclusion: this trial is a religiously motivated sham!*
Felix’s Judgment and Post-Trial Behavior Felix adjourns * Paul is kept captive for “two years” * Felix continues to be entertained by Paul, until he isn’t * Paul’s message of righteousness, self-control, and coming judgment * Felix hopes for a bribe * Festus, now it’s your problem*
Scripture Reading: Acts 23:11–24:9
11 The following night the Lord stood near Paul and said, “Have courage, for just as you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome.”
12 When morning came, the Jews formed a conspiracy and bound themselves with an oath not to eat or drink anything until they had killed Paul. 13 There were more than forty of them who formed this conspiracy. 14 They went to the chief priests and the elders and said, “We have bound ourselves with a solemn oath not to partake of anything until we have killed Paul. 15 So now you and the council request the commanding officer to bring him down to you, as if you were going to determine his case by conducting a more thorough inquiry. We are ready to kill him before he comes near this place.”
16 But when the son of Paul’s sister heard about the ambush, he came and entered the barracks and told Paul. 17 Paul called one of the centurions and said, “Take this young man to the commanding officer, for he has something to report to him.” 18 So the centurion took him and brought him to the commanding officer and said, “The prisoner Paul called me and asked me to bring this young man to you because he has something to tell you.” 19 The commanding officer took him by the hand, withdrew privately, and asked, “What is it that you want to report to me?” 20 He replied, “The Jews have agreed to ask you to bring Paul down to the council tomorrow, as if they were going to inquire more thoroughly about him. 21 So do not let them persuade you to do this, because more than forty of them are lying in ambush for him. They have bound themselves with an oath not to eat or drink anything until they have killed him, and now they are ready, waiting for you to agree to their request.” 22 Then the commanding officer sent the young man away, directing him, “Tell no one that you have reported these things to me.” 23 Then he summoned two of the centurions and said, “Make ready 200 soldiers to go to Caesarea along with 70 horsemen and 200 spearmen by nine o’clock tonight, 24 and provide mounts for Paul to ride so that he may be brought safely to Felix the governor.” 25 He wrote a letter that went like this:
26 Claudius Lysias to His Excellency Governor Felix, greetings. 27 This man was seized by the Jews and they were about to kill him, when I came up with the detachment and rescued him, because I had learned that he was a Roman citizen. 28 Since I wanted to know what charge they were accusing him of, I brought him down to their council. 29 I found he was accused with reference to controversial questions about their law, but no charge against him deserved death or imprisonment. 30 When I was informed there would be a plot against this man, I sent him to you at once, also ordering his accusers to state their charges against him before you.
31 So the soldiers, in accordance with their orders, took Paul and brought him to Antipatris during the night. 32 The next day they let the horsemen go on with him, and they returned to the barracks. 33 When the horsemen came to Caesarea and delivered the letter to the governor, they also presented Paul to him. 34 When the governor had read the letter, he asked what province he was from. When he learned that he was from Cilicia, 35 he said, “I will give you a hearing when your accusers arrive too.” Then he ordered that Paul be kept under guard in Herod’s palace.
24 After five days the high priest Ananias came down with some elders and an attorney named Tertullus, and they brought formal charges against Paul to the governor. 2 When Paul had been summoned, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying, “We have experienced a lengthy time of peace through your rule, and reforms are being made in this nation through your foresight. 3 Most excellent Felix, we acknowledge this everywhere and in every way with all gratitude. 4 But so that I may not delay you any further, I beg you to hear us briefly with your customary graciousness. 5 For we have found this man to be a troublemaker, one who stirs up riots among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. 6 He even tried to desecrate the temple, so we arrested him. 8 When you examine him yourself, you will be able to learn from him about all these things we are accusing him of doing.” 9 The Jews also joined in the verbal attack, claiming that these things were true.
OutlinePaul is Delivered from an Assassination Plot The Lord assures Paul * The plot to kill Paul * They would have gotten away with it if it wasn’t for that meddling kid! * Lysias foils the assasins’ plan * How many soldiers?! * Why send such a large force (at night)? * To Caesarea, to Felix * Lysias’ Report*
Paul is Judged by Felix Felix receives Paul * Paul’s trial: a typical Roman trial * The prosecution*
Scripture Reading: Acts 22:22–23:10
22 The crowd was listening to him until he said this. Then they raised their voices and shouted, “Away with this man from the earth! For he should not be allowed to live!” 23 While they were screaming and throwing off their cloaks and tossing dust in the air, 24 the commanding officer ordered Paul to be brought back into the barracks. He told them to interrogate Paul by beating him with a lash so that he could find out the reason the crowd was shouting at Paul in this way. 25 When they had stretched him out for the lash, Paul said to the centurion standing nearby, “Is it legal for you to lash a man who is a Roman citizen without a proper trial?” 26 When the centurion heard this, he went to the commanding officer and reported it, saying, “What are you about to do? For this man is a Roman citizen.” 27 So the commanding officer came and asked Paul, “Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?” He replied, “Yes.” 28 The commanding officer answered, “I acquired this citizenship with a large sum of money.” “But I was even born a citizen,” Paul replied. 29 Then those who were about to interrogate him stayed away from him, and the commanding officer was frightened when he realized that Paul was a Roman citizen and that he had had him tied up.
30 The next day, because the commanding officer wanted to know the true reason Paul was being accused by the Jews, he released him and ordered the chief priests and the whole council to assemble. He then brought Paul down and had him stand before them.
23 Paul looked directly at the council and said, “Brothers, I have lived my life with a clear conscience before God to this day.” 2 At that the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near Paul to strike him on the mouth. 3 Then Paul said to him, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Do you sit there judging me according to the law, and in violation of the law you order me to be struck?” 4 Those standing near him said, “Do you dare insult God’s high priest?” 5 Paul replied, “I did not realize, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, ‘You must not speak evil about a ruler of your people.’ ”
6 Then when Paul noticed that part of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, he shouted out in the council, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. I am on trial concerning the hope of the resurrection of the dead!” 7 When he said this, an argument began between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 8 (For the Sadducees say there is no resurrection, or angel, or spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.) 9 There was a great commotion, and some experts in the law from the party of the Pharisees stood up and protested strongly, “We find nothing wrong with this man. What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?” 10 When the argument became so great the commanding officer feared that they would tear Paul to pieces, he ordered the detachment to go down, take him away from them by force, and bring him into the barracks.
OutlineThe Crowd Riots The crowd listened until he said this! * The pattern of rejection is fulfilled * Throwing off their cloaks and tossing dust in the air * The tribune decides to “investigate” * Paul plays his trump card: Roman citizenship*
The Sanhedrin The Romans seek help from the local aristocracy * Ordering the Sanhedrin to assemble * Paul is placed before the Sanhedrin * “I have lived my life with a clear conscience” * Ananias orders a strike * The true king shall strike back * High priest who? * Divide and conquer: Sadducees vs Pharisees * The hope of the resurrection * The Pharisees’ verdict: Paul is innocent*
Scripture Reading: Acts 21:30–22:21
30 The whole city was stirred up, and the people rushed together. They seized Paul and dragged him out of the temple courts, and immediately the doors were shut. 31 While they were trying to kill him, a report was sent up to the commanding officer of the cohort that all Jerusalem was in confusion. 32 He immediately took soldiers and centurions and ran down to the crowd. When they saw the commanding officer and the soldiers, they stopped beating Paul. 33 Then the commanding officer came up and arrested him and ordered him to be tied up with two chains; he then asked who he was and what he had done. 34 But some in the crowd shouted one thing, and others something else, and when the commanding officer was unable to find out the truth because of the disturbance, he ordered Paul to be brought into the barracks. 35 When he came to the steps, Paul had to be carried by the soldiers because of the violence of the mob, 36 for a crowd of people followed them, screaming, “Away with him!” 37 As Paul was about to be brought into the barracks, he said to the commanding officer, “May I say something to you?” The officer replied, “Do you know Greek? 38 Then you’re not that Egyptian who started a rebellion and led the 4,000 men of the ‘Assassins’ into the wilderness some time ago?” 39 Paul answered, “I am a Jew from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of an important city. Please allow me to speak to the people.” 40 When the commanding officer had given him permission, Paul stood on the steps and gestured to the people with his hand. When they had become silent, he addressed them in Aramaic,
22 “Brothers and fathers, listen to my defense that I now make to you.” 2 (When they heard that he was addressing them in Aramaic, they became even quieter.) Then Paul said, 3 “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated with strictness under Gamaliel according to the law of our ancestors, and was zealous for God just as all of you are today. 4 I persecuted this Way even to the point of death, tying up both men and women and putting them in prison, 5 as both the high priest and the whole council of elders can testify about me. From them I also received letters to the brothers in Damascus, and I was on my way to make arrests there and bring the prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished. 6 As I was en route and near Damascus, about noon a very bright light from heaven suddenly flashed around me. 7 Then I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?’ 8 I answered, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ He said to me, ‘I am Jesus the Nazarene, whom you are persecuting.’ 9 Those who were with me saw the light, but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me. 10 So I asked, ‘What should I do, Lord?’ The Lord said to me, ‘Get up and go to Damascus; there you will be told about everything that you have been designated to do.’ 11 Since I could not see because of the brilliance of that light, I came to Damascus led by the hand of those who were with me. 12 A man named Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who live there, 13 came to me and stood beside me and said to me, ‘Brother Saul, regain your sight!’ And at that very moment I looked up and saw him. 14 Then he said, ‘The God of our ancestors has already chosen you to know his will, to see the Righteous One, and to hear a command from his mouth, 15 because you will be his witness to all people of what you have seen and heard. 16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.’ 17 When I returned to Jerusalem and was praying in the temple, I fell into a trance 18 and saw the Lord saying to me, ‘Hurry and get out of Jerusalem quickly, because they will not accept your testimony about me.’ 19 I replied, ‘Lord, they themselves know that I imprisoned and beat those in the various synagogues who believed in you. 20 And when the blood of your witness Stephen was shed, I myself was standing nearby, approving, and guarding the cloaks of those who were killing him.’ 21 Then he said to me, ‘Go, because I will send you far away to the Gentiles.’ ”
OutlinePolytheistic Romans Rescue Paul from His People All Jerusalem is in confusion * The Romans rescue Paul * The report goes up to the chiliarch * Paul is arrested and falsely accused * Paul speaks Greek very well * The Egyptian Jew and the Sicarii * Paul the citizen of Tarsus is no Egyptian, much less an assassin*
Paul Addresses His People Could Paul have addressed the crowd? * Brothers and fathers * A Jew, brough up in Jerusalem, educated under Gamaliel, zealous for God * A persecutor of the Way * Slight variations in Paul’s retelling of his Damascus experience * The second vision and the final twist: go to the Gentiles*
Scripture Reading: Acts 21:15–32
15 After these days we got ready and started up to Jerusalem. 16 Some of the disciples from Caesarea came along with us too, and brought us to the house of Mnason of Cyprus, a disciple from the earliest times, with whom we were to stay. 17 When we arrived in Jerusalem, the brothers welcomed us gladly. 18 The next day Paul went in with us to see James, and all the elders were there. 19 When Paul had greeted them, he began to explain in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all ardent observers of the law. 21 They have been informed about you—that you teach all the Jews now living among the Gentiles to abandon Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22 What then should we do? They will no doubt hear that you have come. 23 So do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow; 24 take them and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself live in conformity with the law. 25 But regarding the Gentiles who have believed, we have written a letter, having decided that they should avoid meat that has been sacrificed to idols and blood and what has been strangled and sexual immorality.” 26 Then Paul took the men the next day, and after he had purified himself along with them, he went to the temple and gave notice of the completion of the days of purification, when the sacrifice would be offered for each of them. 27 When the seven days were almost over, the Jews from the province of Asia who had seen him in the temple area stirred up the whole crowd and seized him, 28 shouting, “Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches everyone everywhere against our people, our law, and this sanctuary! Furthermore he has brought Greeks into the inner courts of the temple and made this holy place ritually unclean!” 29 (For they had seen Trophimus the Ephesian in the city with him previously, and they assumed Paul had brought him into the inner temple courts.) 30 The whole city was stirred up, and the people rushed together. They seized Paul and dragged him out of the temple courts, and immediately the doors were shut. 31 While they were trying to kill him, a report was sent up to the commanding officer of the cohort that all Jerusalem was in confusion. 32 He immediately took soldiers and centurions and ran down to the crowd.
OutlinePaul Has Enemies Jerusalem Paul heads to Jerusalem, stopping at Mnason’s * The church leaders welcome Paul * Paul’s problematic reputation * The 10,000-strong church * James, the elders, and Paul view the law positively * The elders’ plan to reintegrate Paul * Paul is seized and accused * Gentiles could not enter the temple * Paul’s view of the temple * The riot and the Romans*
Scripture Reading: Acts 20:28–21:14
28 Watch out for yourselves and for all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son. 29 I know that after I am gone fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Even from among your own group men will arise, teaching perversions of the truth to draw the disciples away after them. 31 Therefore be alert, remembering that night and day for three years I did not stop warning each one of you with tears. 32 And now I entrust you to God and to the message of his grace. This message is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified. 33 I have desired no one’s silver or gold or clothing. 34 You yourselves know that these hands of mine provided for my needs and the needs of those who were with me. 35 By all these things, I have shown you that by working in this way we must help the weak, and remember the words of the Lord Jesus that he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’ ”
36 When he had said these things, he knelt down with them all and prayed. 37 They all began to weep loudly, and hugged Paul and kissed him, 38 especially saddened by what he had said, that they were not going to see him again. Then they accompanied him to the ship.
21 After we tore ourselves away from them, we put out to sea, and sailing a straight course, we came to Cos, on the next day to Rhodes, and from there to Patara. 2 We found a ship crossing over to Phoenicia, went aboard, and put out to sea. 3 After we sighted Cyprus and left it behind on our port side, we sailed on to Syria and put in at Tyre, because the ship was to unload its cargo there. 4 After we located the disciples, we stayed there seven days. They repeatedly told Paul through the Spirit not to set foot in Jerusalem. 5 When our time was over, we left and went on our way. All of them, with their wives and children, accompanied us outside of the city. After kneeling down on the beach and praying, 6 we said farewell to one another. Then we went aboard the ship, and they returned to their own homes. 7 We continued the voyage from Tyre and arrived at Ptolemais, and when we had greeted the brothers, we stayed with them for one day. 8 On the next day we left and came to Caesarea, and entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, and stayed with him. 9 (He had four unmarried daughters who prophesied.)
10 While we remained there for a number of days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. 11 He came to us, took Paul’s belt, tied his own hands and feet with it, and said, “The Holy Spirit says this: ‘This is the way the Jews in Jerusalem will tie up the man whose belt this is, and will hand him over to the Gentiles.’ ” 12 When we heard this, both we and the local people begged him not to go up to Jerusalem. 13 Then Paul replied, “What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be tied up, but even to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” 14 Because he could not be persuaded, we said no more except, “The Lord’s will be done.”
OutlineThe Climax of Paul’s Speech Take heed! * Bishops: overseers * Shepherds * The assembly God purchased with blood * The wolves are coming * Committing the elders to God * By “these things” Paul has set an example * The disciples mourn Paul’s departure*
Miletus, Cos, Rhodes, Patara, Tyre, Ptolemais, and Caesarea Travel details * A week in Tyre * Meeting an old enemy-turned friend in Caesarea * Visited by a prophet in Caesarea*
Scripture Reading: Acts 20:1–27
20 After the disturbance had ended, Paul sent for the disciples, and after encouraging them and saying farewell, he left to go to Macedonia. 2 After he had gone through those regions and spoken many words of encouragement to the believers there, he came to Greece, 3 where he stayed for three months. Because the Jews had made a plot against him as he was intending to sail for Syria, he decided to return through Macedonia. 4 Paul was accompanied by Sopater son of Pyrrhus from Berea, Aristarchus and Secundus from Thessalonica, Gaius from Derbe, and Timothy, as well as Tychicus and Trophimus from the province of Asia. 5 These had gone on ahead and were waiting for us in Troas. 6 We sailed away from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread, and within five days we came to the others in Troas, where we stayed for seven days. 7 On the first day of the week, when we met to break bread, Paul began to speak to the people, and because he intended to leave the next day, he extended his message until midnight. 8 (Now there were many lamps in the upstairs room where we were meeting.) 9 A young man named Eutychus, who was sitting in the window, was sinking into a deep sleep while Paul continued to speak for a long time. Fast asleep, he fell down from the third story and was picked up dead. 10 But Paul went down, threw himself on the young man, put his arms around him, and said, “Do not be distressed, for he is still alive!” 11 Then Paul went back upstairs, and after he had broken bread and eaten, he talked with them a long time, until dawn. Then he left. 12 They took the boy home alive and were greatly comforted.
13 We went on ahead to the ship and put out to sea for Assos, intending to take Paul aboard there, for he had arranged it this way. He himself was intending to go there by land. 14 When he met us in Assos, we took him aboard and went to Mitylene. 15 We set sail from there, and on the following day we arrived off Chios. The next day we approached Samos, and the day after that we arrived at Miletus. 16 For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus so as not to spend time in the province of Asia, for he was hurrying to arrive in Jerusalem, if possible, by the day of Pentecost. 17 From Miletus he sent a message to Ephesus, telling the elders of the church to come to him.
18 When they arrived, he said to them, “You yourselves know how I lived the whole time I was with you, from the first day I set foot in the province of Asia, 19 serving the Lord with all humility and with tears, and with the trials that happened to me because of the plots of the Jews. 20 You know that I did not hold back from proclaiming to you anything that would be helpful, and from teaching you publicly and from house to house, 21 testifying to both Jews and Greeks about repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus. 22 And now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem without knowing what will happen to me there, 23 except that the Holy Spirit warns me in town after town that imprisonment and persecutions are waiting for me. 24 But I do not consider my life worth anything to myself, so that I may finish my task and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the good news of God’s grace.
25 “And now I know that none of you among whom I went around proclaiming the kingdom will see me again. 26 Therefore I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of you all. 27 For I did not hold back from announcing to you the whole purpose of God.
OutlinePaul’s Journey to Jerusalem and Rome Paul’s final voluntary journey begins * Paul organizes a collection for the Jerusalem church (mostly omitted in Acts) * Back to a “we” section * Still celebrating Jewish festivals*
The Revivification in Troas Something remarkable happened in Troas * Speaking all night * Meeting on the first day of the week * Meeting in the upper room * Eutychus falls from a third-story window*
Paul’s Time in Miletus Miletus, faster than Ephesus? * Paul’s Speech: A Farewell * Paul’s Speech: A Commissioning * Paul: A Suffering Servant * Paul preached openly and privately, withholding nothing * Repentance and faith * Paul knows of his upcoming “passion” * Paul wishes to finish well * Paul’s diligent faithfulness keeps him innocent*
Scripture Reading: Acts 19:10–41
11 God was performing extraordinary miracles by Paul’s hands, 12 so that when even handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his body were brought to the sick, their diseases left them and the evil spirits went out of them. 13 But some itinerant Jewish exorcists tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who were possessed by evil spirits, saying, “I sternly warn you by Jesus whom Paul preaches.” 14 (Now seven sons of a man named Sceva, a Jewish high priest, were doing this.) 15 But the evil spirit replied to them, “I know about Jesus and I am acquainted with Paul, but who are you?” 16 Then the man who was possessed by the evil spirit jumped on them and beat them all into submission. He prevailed against them so that they fled from that house naked and wounded. 17 This became known to all who lived in Ephesus, both Jews and Greeks; fear came over them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was praised. 18 Many of those who had believed came forward, confessing and making their deeds known. 19 Large numbers of those who had practiced magic collected their books and burned them up in the presence of everyone. When the value of the books was added up, it was found to total 50,000 silver coins. 20 In this way the word of the Lord continued to grow in power and to prevail.
21 Now after all these things had taken place, Paul resolved to go to Jerusalem, passing through Macedonia and Achaia. He said, “After I have been there, I must also see Rome.” 22 So after sending two of his assistants, Timothy and Erastus, to Macedonia, he himself stayed on for a while in the province of Asia.
23 At that time a great disturbance took place concerning the Way. 24 For a man named Demetrius, a silversmith who made silver shrines of Artemis, brought a great deal of business to the craftsmen. 25 He gathered these together, along with the workmen in similar trades, and said, “Men, you know that our prosperity comes from this business. 26 And you see and hear that this Paul has persuaded and turned away a large crowd, not only in Ephesus but in practically all of the province of Asia, by saying that gods made by hands are not gods at all. 27 There is danger not only that this business of ours will come into disrepute, but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis will be regarded as nothing, and she whom all the province of Asia and the world worship will suffer the loss of her greatness.”
28 When they heard this they became enraged and began to shout, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” 29 The city was filled with the uproar, and the crowd rushed to the theater together, dragging with them Gaius and Aristarchus, the Macedonians who were Paul’s traveling companions. 30 But when Paul wanted to enter the public assembly, the disciples would not let him. 31 Even some of the provincial authorities who were his friends sent a message to him, urging him not to venture into the theater. 32 So then some were shouting one thing, some another, for the assembly was in confusion, and most of them did not know why they had met together. 33 Some of the crowd concluded it was about Alexander because the Jews had pushed him to the front. Alexander, gesturing with his hand, was wanting to make a defense before the public assembly. 34 But when they recognized that he was a Jew, they all shouted in unison, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” for about two hours. 35 After the city secretary quieted the crowd, he said, “Men of Ephesus, what person is there who does not know that the city of the Ephesians is the keeper of the temple of the great Artemis and of her image that fell from heaven? 36 So because these facts are indisputable, you must keep quiet and not do anything reckless. 37 For you have brought these men here who are neither temple robbers nor blasphemers of our goddess. 38 If then Demetrius and the craftsmen who are with him have a complaint against someone, the courts are open and there are proconsuls; let them bring charges against one another there. 39 But if you want anything in addition, it will have to be settled in a legal assembly. 40 For we are in danger of being charged with rioting today, since there is no cause we can give to explain this disorderly gathering.” 41 After he had said this, he dismissed the assembly.
OutlineJesus is King not Magic An anti-magic apologetic * A brief primer on exorcisms * Sceva and his sons * The reverse exorcism * Jesus and Paul are well known in the unseen realm * Paul is recognized; Jesus is glorified * Magic books are destroyed*
Paul’s Focus Turns to RomeA Great Disturbance Concerning the Way No reason to lie about it * The cult of Artemis * Idols of Artemis * Demetrius and the silversmiths * The Artemis temple * The accusation: challenging the goddess and the temple * The riot (or assembly?) * Paul wishes to defend himself * The Jews get blamed * The city clerk to the rescue*
Scripture Reading: Acts 18:18–19:10
18 Paul, after staying many more days in Corinth, said farewell to the brothers and sailed away to Syria accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila. He had his hair cut off at Cenchrea because he had made a vow. 19 When they reached Ephesus, Paul left Priscilla and Aquila behind there, but he himself went into the synagogue and addressed the Jews. 20 When they asked him to stay longer, he would not consent, 21 but said farewell to them and added, “I will come back to you again if God wills.” Then he set sail from Ephesus, 22 and when he arrived at Caesarea, he went up and greeted the church at Jerusalem and then went down to Antioch. 23 After he spent some time there, Paul left and went through the region of Galatia and Phrygia, strengthening all the disciples.
24 Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, arrived in Ephesus. He was an eloquent speaker, well-versed in the scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and with great enthusiasm he spoke and taught accurately the facts about Jesus, although he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak out fearlessly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained the way of God to him more accurately. 27 When Apollos wanted to cross over to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. When he arrived, he assisted greatly those who had believed by grace, 28 for he refuted the Jews vigorously in public debate, demonstrating from the scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.
19 While Apollos was in Corinth, Paul went through the inland regions and came to Ephesus. He found some disciples there 2 and said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They replied, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 So Paul said, “Into what then were you baptized?” “Into John’s baptism,” they replied. 4 Paul said, “John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, 6 and when Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they began to speak in tongues and to prophesy. 7 (Now there were about twelve men in all.)
8 So Paul entered the synagogue and spoke out fearlessly for three months, addressing and convincing them about the kingdom of God. 9 But when some were stubborn and refused to believe, reviling the Way before the congregation, he left them and took the disciples with him, addressing them every day in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. 10 This went on for two years, so that all who lived in the province of Asia, both Jews and Greeks, heard the word of the Lord.
OutlinePaul Returns to Antioch A geographic transition from Corinth to Ephesus * Paul makes a vow * Cenchrea to Ephesus * Paul leaves Priscilla and Aquila behind * Ephesus to Caesarea (maybe) to Jerusalem to Antioch to Galatia and Phrygia*
Apollos Apollos, instructed in the way of the Lord * How did Apollos have incomplete knowledge? * Apollos is further instructed by Aquila and Priscilla*
The Twelve-ish Disciples Apollo vs the disciples * Who were the disciples? * The disciples receive the Spirit*
Paul the Sage First to the Jew then to the Gentile * Paul opens a school * Paul’s success in “all” of Asia*
Scripture Reading: Acts 18:1–17
18 After this Paul departed from Athens and went to Corinth. 2 There he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to depart from Rome. Paul approached them, 3 and because he worked at the same trade, he stayed with them and worked with them (for they were tentmakers by trade). 4 He addressed both Jews and Greeks in the synagogue every Sabbath, attempting to persuade them.
5 Now when Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia, Paul became wholly absorbed with proclaiming the word, testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ. 6 When they opposed him and reviled him, he protested by shaking out his clothes and said to them, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am guiltless! From now on I will go to the Gentiles!” 7 Then Paul left the synagogue and went to the house of a person named Titius Justus, a Gentile who worshiped God, whose house was next door to the synagogue. 8 Crispus, the president of the synagogue, believed in the Lord together with his entire household, and many of the Corinthians who heard about it believed and were baptized. 9 The Lord said to Paul by a vision in the night, “Do not be afraid, but speak and do not be silent, 10 because I am with you, and no one will assault you to harm you, because I have many people in this city.” 11 So he stayed there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.
12 Now while Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews attacked Paul together and brought him before the judgment seat, 13 saying, “This man is persuading people to worship God in a way contrary to the law!” 14 But just as Paul was about to speak, Gallio said to the Jews, “If it were a matter of some crime or serious piece of villainy, I would have been justified in accepting the complaint of you Jews, 15 but since it concerns points of disagreement about words and names and your own law, settle it yourselves. I will not be a judge of these things!” 16 Then he had them forced away from the judgment seat. 17 So they all seized Sosthenes, the president of the synagogue, and began to beat him in front of the judgment seat. Yet none of these things were of any concern to Gallio.
OutlinePaul in Corinth Paul: itinerant on purpose? * Corinth * Sin city * A cultural transition towards Rome*
Jews are Expelled from Rome Jews are expelled * What does expulsion mean? * The extent of the expulsion * When were the Jews expelled? * Expelled because of “Chrestus”*
Paul the Tradesman Aquila and Priscilla * Birds of a (trade) feather * Paul accepts the “humiliation” of trade work * Tentmaker? Or Leatherworker?*
Paul and the Synagogue Reasoning in the synagogue * Paul devotes himself entirely to ministry * Paul stays with Titius Justus * Crispus, the synagogue ruler, accepts Christ*
Paul is Persecuted Unsuccessfully Paul has a dream * Historicity of Paul’s appearance before Gallio * Paul is prosecuted once more * Paul is innocent; the accusers are punished*
Scripture Reading: Acts 17:16–34
16 While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, his spirit was greatly upset because he saw the city was full of idols. 17 So he was addressing the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles in the synagogue, and in the marketplace every day those who happened to be there. 18 Also some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers were conversing with him, and some were asking, “What does this foolish babbler want to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign gods.” (They said this because he was proclaiming the good news about Jesus and the resurrection.) 19 So they took Paul and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are proclaiming? 20 For you are bringing some surprising things to our ears, so we want to know what they mean.” 21 (All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there used to spend their time in nothing else than telling or listening to something new.)
22 So Paul stood before the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I see that you are very religious in all respects. 23 For as I went around and observed closely your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: ‘To an unknown god.’ Therefore what you worship without knowing it, this I proclaim to you. 24 The God who made the world and everything in it, who is Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by human hands, 25 nor is he served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives life and breath and everything to everyone. 26 From one man he made every nation of the human race to inhabit the entire earth, determining their set times and the fixed limits of the places where they would live, 27 so that they would search for God and perhaps grope around for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28 For in him we live and move about and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we too are his offspring.’ 29 So since we are God’s offspring, we should not think the deity is like gold or silver or stone, an image made by human skill and imagination. 30 Therefore, although God has overlooked such times of ignorance, he now commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has set a day on which he is going to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom he designated, having provided proof to everyone by raising him from the dead.”
32 Now when they heard about the resurrection from the dead, some began to scoff, but others said, “We will hear you again about this.” 33 So Paul left the Areopagus. 34 But some people joined him and believed. Among them were Dionysius, who was a member of the Areopagus, a woman named Damaris, and others with them.
OutlinePaul in Athens A reprieve from persecution * The formerly great Athens * Paul the philosopher? * The setting—a city full of idols*
From the Agora to the Areopagus Paul at the agora * Epicureans * Stoics * Paul, the new Socrates*
Paul and the Areopagus Areopagus: a place or a council? * Paul the bold Jewish philosopher*
Paul’s Speech Emphasizing common ground * The exordium: winning over the audience * The narratio: proving Paul does not preach “foreign gods” * The propositio and probatio: the “unknown God” is the supreme author of existence * The peroratio: repentance, judgment, and the resurrection*
Scripture Reading: Acts 17:1–15
17 After they traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. 2 Paul went to the Jews in the synagogue, as he customarily did, and on three Sabbath days he addressed them from the scriptures, 3 explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and to rise from the dead, saying, “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.” 4 Some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large group of God-fearing Greeks and quite a few prominent women. 5 But the Jews became jealous, and gathering together some worthless men from the rabble in the marketplace, they formed a mob and set the city in an uproar. They attacked Jason’s house, trying to find Paul and Silas to bring them out to the assembly. 6 When they did not find them, they dragged Jason and some of the brothers before the city officials, screaming, “These people who have stirred up trouble throughout the world have come here too, 7 and Jason has welcomed them as guests! They are all acting against Caesar’s decrees, saying there is another king named Jesus!” 8 They caused confusion among the crowd and the city officials who heard these things. 9 After the city officials had received bail from Jason and the others, they released them.
10 The brothers sent Paul and Silas off to Berea at once, during the night. When they arrived, they went to the Jewish synagogue. 11 These Jews were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they eagerly received the message, examining the scriptures carefully every day to see if these things were so. 12 Therefore many of them believed, along with quite a few prominent Greek women and men. 13 But when the Jews from Thessalonica heard that Paul had also proclaimed the word of God in Berea, they came there too, inciting and disturbing the crowds. 14 Then the brothers sent Paul away to the coast at once, but Silas and Timothy remained in Berea. 15 Those who accompanied Paul escorted him as far as Athens, and after receiving an order for Silas and Timothy to come to him as soon as possible, they left.
OutlineThessalonica and Beroea A tale of two cities * Like Jesus, like Paul*
Thessalonica The city’s reputation precedes it (for the original audience) * Thessalonica * A working missionary * Reasoning at the synagogue * Some are persuaded, some are threatened, a church form * Severe persecution * Jason pays the price * Jesus and Christians are traitors?*
Beroea Getting out of dodge * Received the message, examined the scriptures * Fleeing yet again, but this time with compan*y
Scripture Reading: Acts 16:13–40
13 On the Sabbath day we went outside the city gate to the side of the river, where we thought there would be a place of prayer, and we sat down and began to speak to the women who had assembled there. 14 A woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, a God-fearing woman, listened to us. The Lord opened her heart to respond to what Paul was saying. 15 After she and her household were baptized, she urged us, “If you consider me to be a believer in the Lord, come and stay in my house.” And she persuaded us.
16 Now as we were going to the place of prayer, a slave girl met us who had a spirit that enabled her to foretell the future by supernatural means. She brought her owners a great profit by fortune-telling. 17 She followed behind Paul and us and kept crying out, “These men are servants of the Most High God, who are proclaiming to you the way of salvation.” 18 She continued to do this for many days. But Paul became greatly annoyed, and turned and said to the spirit, “I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her!” And it came out of her at once. 19 But when her owners saw their hope of profit was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged them into the marketplace before the authorities. 20 When they had brought them before the magistrates, they said, “These men are throwing our city into confusion. They are Jews 21 and are advocating customs that are not lawful for us to accept or practice, since we are Romans.”
22 The crowd joined the attack against them, and the magistrates tore the clothes off Paul and Silas and ordered them to be beaten with rods. 23 After they had beaten them severely, they threw them into prison and commanded the jailer to guard them securely. 24 Receiving such orders, he threw them in the inner cell and fastened their feet in the stocks.
25 About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the rest of the prisoners were listening to them. 26 Suddenly a great earthquake occurred, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken. Immediately all the doors flew open, and the bonds of all the prisoners came loose. 27 When the jailer woke up and saw the doors of the prison standing open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, because he assumed the prisoners had escaped. 28 But Paul called out loudly, “Do not harm yourself, for we are all here!” 29 Calling for lights, the jailer rushed in and fell down trembling at the feet of Paul and Silas. 30 Then he brought them outside and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him, along with all those who were in his house. 33 At that hour of the night he took them and washed their wounds; then he and all his family were baptized right away. 34 The jailer brought them into his house and set food before them, and he rejoiced greatly that he had come to believe in God, together with his entire household. 35 At daybreak the magistrates sent their police officers, saying, “Release those men.” 36 The jailer reported these words to Paul, saying, “The magistrates have sent orders to release you. So come out now and go in peace.” 37 But Paul said to the police officers, “They had us beaten in public without a proper trial—even though we are Roman citizens—and they threw us in prison. And now they want to send us away secretly? Absolutely not! They themselves must come and escort us out!” 38 The police officers reported these words to the magistrates. They were frightened when they heard Paul and Silas were Roman citizens 39 and came and apologized to them. After they brought them out, they asked them repeatedly to leave the city. 40 When they came out of the prison, they entered Lydia’s house, and when they saw the brothers, they encouraged them and then departed.
OutlinePaul’s Encounter with Lydia Looking for Jews or God-fearers * Finding women and a “place of prayer” * Lydia the God-fearer * Lydia the (wealthy?) purple dye merchant * Fancy purple! * Lydia’s home and hospitality*
The Slave Girl with the Spirit of Prophecy A slave girl * The girl’s (more properly, the spirit’s) prophecy * Why did Paul wait to act?*
Paul and Silas Are Prosecuted The slave-owners’ hope of profit is “expelled” * Paul and Silas are dragged into the marketplace and before the magistrates * Paul and Silas are charged with disloyalty * Paul and Silas are beaten with rods * Why did Paul and Silas not protest based on their citizenship?*
Jail, an Earthquake, and a Jailer Paul and Silas are imprisoned * Praise in suffering * A providential earthquake frees the prisoners, but they refuse to escape * The jailer is saved by Paul, then is saved by Jesus * The jailer takes the missionaries to his home*
The Authorities Are in Trouble The authorities broke the law * The irony clears the missionaries’ shame*
Scripture Reading: Acts 15:36–16:12
36 After some days Paul said to Barnabas, “Let’s return and visit the brothers in every town where we proclaimed the word of the Lord to see how they are doing.” 37 Barnabas wanted to bring John called Mark along with them too, 38 but Paul insisted that they should not take along this one who had left them in Pamphylia and had not accompanied them in the work. 39 They had a sharp disagreement, so that they parted company. Barnabas took along Mark and sailed away to Cyprus, 40 but Paul chose Silas and set out, commended to the grace of the Lord by the brothers and sisters. 41 He passed through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.
16 He also came to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple named Timothy was there, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but whose father was a Greek. 2 The brothers in Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. 3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was Greek. 4 As they went through the towns, they passed on the decrees that had been decided on by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the Gentile believers to obey. 5 So the churches were being strengthened in the faith and were increasing in number every day.
6 They went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been prevented by the Holy Spirit from speaking the message in the province of Asia. 7 When they came to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them to do this, 8 so they passed through Mysia and went down to Troas. 9 A vision appeared to Paul during the night: A Macedonian man was standing there urging him, “Come over to Macedonia and help us!” 10 After Paul saw the vision, we attempted immediately to go over to Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to proclaim the good news to them.
11 We put out to sea from Troas and sailed a straight course to Samothrace, the next day to Neapolis, 12 and from there to Philippi, which is a leading city of that district of Macedonia, a Roman colony.
OutlinePaul Goes on Another Journey Second half of Acts: carrying out the Gentile mission * Timeline of Paul’s missionary journey*
Paul and Barnabas Part Over Mark After some days * The Mark conflict * Silas joins the team*
Timothy Joins the Team From Derbe to Lystra * Timothy, “the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but whose father was a Greek” * Timothy, Jew or Gentile? * Timothy is circumcised*
Phrygia, Galatia, Mysia, and Down to Troas Phrygia and Galatia * Not Asia or Bithynia * Mysia * Invading Europe from Troas? * Dreaming of Macedonia*
“We” Passages The narrator seems to be present * How should “we” be interpreted*
Ministry in Philippi Philippi, a Roman colony*
Scripture Reading: Acts 15:6–35
15:6 Both the apostles and the elders met together to deliberate about this matter. 15:7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that some time ago God chose me to preach to the Gentiles so they would hear the message of the gospel and believe. 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, has testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 15:9 and he made no distinction between them and us, cleansing their hearts by faith. 15:10 So now why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? 15:11 On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they are.”
15:12 The whole group kept quiet and listened to Barnabas and Paul while they explained all the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 15:13 After they stopped speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. 15:14 Simeon has explained how God first concerned himself to select from among the Gentiles a people for his name. 15:15 The words of the prophets agree with this, as it is written,
15:16 ‘After this I will return,
and I will rebuild the fallen tent of David;
I will rebuild its ruins and restore it,
15:17 so that the rest of humanity may seek the Lord,
namely, all the Gentiles I have called to be my own,’ says the Lord, who makes these things 15:18 known from long ago.
15:19 “Therefore I conclude that we should not cause extra difficulty for those among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 15:20 but that we should write them a letter telling them to abstain from things defiled by idols and from sexual immorality and from what has been strangled and from blood. 15:21 For Moses has had those who proclaim him in every town from ancient times, because he is read aloud in the synagogues every Sabbath.”
15:22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to send men chosen from among them, Judas called Barsabbas and Silas, leaders among the brothers, to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. 15:23 They sent this letter with them:
From the apostles and elders, your brothers, to the Gentile brothers and sisters in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, greetings! 15:24 Since we have heard that some have gone out from among us with no orders from us and have confused you, upsetting your minds by what they said, 15:25 we have unanimously decided to choose men to send to you along with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul, 15:26 who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15:27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas who will tell you these things themselves in person. 15:28 For it seemed best to the Holy Spirit and to us not to place any greater burden on you than these necessary rules: 15:29 that you abstain from meat that has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what has been strangled and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from doing these things, you will do well. Farewell.
15:30 So when they were dismissed, they went down to Antioch, and after gathering the entire group together, they delivered the letter. 15:31 When they read it aloud, the people rejoiced at its encouragement. 15:32 Both Judas and Silas, who were prophets themselves, encouraged and strengthened the brothers with a long speech. 15:33 After they had spent some time there, they were sent off in peace by the brothers to those who had sent them. 15:35 But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, teaching and proclaiming (along with many others) the word of the Lord.
OutlinePeter’s Speech The church—the assembly * A leader speaks * God’s actions prove the message—says Peter * So do not test God * Saved through grace*
Barnabas and Paul Recount Miraculous Signs God’s actions prove the message—says Paul * But scripture says otherwise?*
James’ Speech James who? * James speaks * As Simeon Explained * Quoting Amos * A “people” from among the Gentiles * Imposing no extra difficulty*
The Decree Views on the decree 1. The prohibitions are purely moral, analogous to the three most basic Jewish moral prohibitions. 2. The prohibitions concern activity in pagan temples. 3. They echo prohibitions for strangers in the land in Lev 17–18. 4. They echo traditions that became the Noahide laws. * Did Paul agree with the decree? What can we conclude? * How hard was following the decree? * A circular was sent*
Scripture Reading: Acts 14:21-15:35
14:21 After they had proclaimed the good news in that city and made many disciples, they returned to Lystra, to Iconium, and to Antioch. 14:22 They strengthened the souls of the disciples and encouraged them to continue in the faith, saying, “We must enter the kingdom of God through many persecutions.” 14:23 When they had appointed elders for them in the various churches, with prayer and fasting they entrusted them to the protection of the Lord in whom they had believed. 14:24 Then they passed through Pisidia and came into Pamphylia, 14:25 and when they had spoken the word in Perga, they went down to Attalia. 14:26 From there they sailed back to Antioch, where they had been commended to the grace of God for the work they had now completed. 14:27 When they arrived and gathered the church together, they reported all the things God had done with them, and that he had opened a door of faith for the Gentiles. 14:28 So they spent considerable time with the disciples.
15:1 Now some men came down from Judea and began to teach the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 15:2 When Paul and Barnabas had a major argument and debate with them, the church appointed Paul and Barnabas and some others from among them to go up to meet with the apostles and elders in Jerusalem about this point of disagreement. 15:3 So they were sent on their way by the church, and as they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, they were relating at length the conversion of the Gentiles and bringing great joy to all the brothers. 15:4 When they arrived in Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all the things God had done with them. 15:5 But some from the religious party of the Pharisees who had believed stood up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise the Gentiles and to order them to observe the law of Moses.”
15:6 Both the apostles and the elders met together to deliberate about this matter. 15:7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that some time ago God chose me to preach to the Gentiles so they would hear the message of the gospel and believe. 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, has testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 15:9 and he made no distinction between them and us, cleansing their hearts by faith. 15:10 So now why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? 15:11 On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they are.”
15:12 The whole group kept quiet and listened to Barnabas and Paul while they explained all the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 15:13 After they stopped speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. 15:14 Simeon has explained how God first concerned himself to select from among the Gentiles a people for his name. 15:15 The words of the prophets agree with this, as it is written,
15:16 ‘After this I will return,
and I will rebuild the fallen tent of David;
I will rebuild its ruins and restore it,
15:17 so that the rest of humanity may seek the Lord,
namely, all the Gentiles I have called to be my own,’ says the Lord, who makes these things 15:18 known from long ago.
15:19 “Therefore I conclude that we should not cause extra difficulty for those among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 15:20 but that we should write them a letter telling them to abstain from things defiled by idols and from sexual immorality and from what has been strangled and from blood. 15:21 For Moses has had those who proclaim him in every town from ancient times, because he is read aloud in the synagogues every Sabbath.”
15:22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to send men chosen from among them, Judas called Barsabbas and Silas, leaders among the brothers, to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. 15:23 They sent this letter with them:
From the apostles and elders, your brothers, to the Gentile brothers and sisters in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, greetings! 15:24 Since we have heard that some have gone out from among us with no orders from us and have confused you, upsetting your minds by what they said, 15:25 we have unanimously decided to choose men to send to you along with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul, 15:26 who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15:27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas who will tell you these things themselves in person. 15:28 For it seemed best to the Holy Spirit and to us not to place any greater burden on you than these necessary rules: 15:29 that you abstain from meat that has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what has been strangled and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from doing these things, you will do well. Farewell.
15:30 So when they were dismissed, they went down to Antioch, and after gathering the entire group together, they delivered the letter. 15:31 When they read it aloud, the people rejoiced at its encouragement. 15:32 Both Judas and Silas, who were prophets themselves, encouraged and strengthened the brothers with a long speech. 15:33 After they had spent some time there, they were sent off in peace by the brothers to those who had sent them. 15:35 But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, teaching and proclaiming (along with many others) the word of the Lord.
Bonus Scripture Reading: Galatians 2:1–14
2:1 Then after fourteen years I went up to Jerusalem again with Barnabas, taking Titus along too. 2:2 I went there because of a revelation and presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did so only in a private meeting with the influential people, to make sure that I was not running—or had not run—in vain. 2:3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, although he was a Greek. 2:4 Now this matter arose because of the false brothers with false pretenses who slipped in unnoticed to spy on our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, to make us slaves. 2:5 But we did not surrender to them even for a moment, in order that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.
2:6 But from those who were influential (whatever they were makes no difference to me; God shows no favoritism between people)—those influential leaders added nothing to my message. 2:7 On the contrary, when they saw that I was entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised just as Peter was to the circumcised 2:8 (for he who empowered Peter for his apostleship to the circumcised also empowered me for my apostleship to the Gentiles) 2:9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who had a reputation as pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we would go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 2:10 They requested only that we remember the poor, the very thing I also was eager to do.
2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he had clearly done wrong. 2:12 Until certain people came from James, he had been eating with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself because he was afraid of those who were pro-circumcision. 2:13 And the rest of the Jews also joined with him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray with them by their hypocrisy. 2:14 But when I saw that they were not behaving consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “If you, although you are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you try to force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”
OutlineBack to Antioch* Returning to prior locations * Persevere! * Paul appoints “elders” for each “assembly”
The Jerusalem Council* Is Galatians 2 about Acts 15? * Why does Paul omit the decrees? * Did Luke invent consensus?
Schism in Antioch* In Antioch yet again * Schismatics in Antioch * Circumcision for salvation? * Paul and Barnabas are sent yet again
The Meeting in Jerusalem* Who were the elders? * Backseat drivers? * Received joyfully in other churches but not Jerusalem * The sect of the Pharisees * Reports before the whole assembly, then (maybe) a private meeting
Peter’s Speech* The church—the assembly * A leader speaks * Saved through grace
Barnabas and Paul Recount Miraculous SignsJames’ Speech* James who? * James speaks * Quoting Amos * Imposing no extra difficulty
Scripture Reading: Acts 14:1-28
14:1 The same thing happened in Iconium when Paul and Barnabas went into the Jewish synagogue and spoke in such a way that a large group of both Jews and Greeks believed. 14:2 But the Jews who refused to believe stirred up the Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brothers. 14:3 So they stayed there for a considerable time, speaking out courageously for the Lord, who testified to the message of his grace, granting miraculous signs and wonders to be performed through their hands. 14:4 But the population of the city was divided; some sided with the Jews, and some with the apostles. 14:5 When both the Gentiles and the Jews (together with their rulers) made an attempt to mistreat them and stone them, 14:6 Paul and Barnabas learned about it and fled to the Lycaonian cities of Lystra and Derbe and the surrounding region. 14:7 There they continued to proclaim the good news.
14:8 In Lystra sat a man who could not use his feet, lame from birth, who had never walked. 14:9 This man was listening to Paul as he was speaking. When Paul stared intently at him and saw he had faith to be healed, 14:10 he said with a loud voice, “Stand upright on your feet.” And the man leaped up and began walking. 14:11 So when the crowds saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have come down to us in human form!” 14:12 They began to call Barnabas Zeus and Paul Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. 14:13 The priest of the temple of Zeus, located just outside the city, brought bulls and garlands to the city gates; he and the crowds wanted to offer sacrifices to them. 14:14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard about it, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting, 14:15 “Men, why are you doing these things? We too are men, with human natures just like you! We are proclaiming the good news to you, so that you should turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and everything that is in them. 14:16 In past generations he allowed all the nations to go their own ways, 14:17 yet he did not leave himself without a witness by doing good, by giving you rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying you with food and your hearts with joy.” 14:18 Even by saying these things, they scarcely persuaded the crowds not to offer sacrifice to them.
14:19 But Jews came from Antioch and Iconium, and after winning the crowds over, they stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, presuming him to be dead. 14:20 But after the disciples had surrounded him, he got up and went back into the city. On the next day he left with Barnabas for Derbe.
14:21 After they had proclaimed the good news in that city and made many disciples, they returned to Lystra, to Iconium, and to Antioch. 14:22 They strengthened the souls of the disciples and encouraged them to continue in the faith, saying, “We must enter the kingdom of God through many persecutions.” 14:23 When they had appointed elders for them in the various churches, with prayer and fasting they entrusted them to the protection of the Lord in whom they had believed. 14:24 Then they passed through Pisidia and came into Pamphylia, 14:25 and when they had spoken the word in Perga, they went down to Attalia. 14:26 From there they sailed back to Antioch, where they had been commended to the grace of God for the work they had now completed. 14:27 When they arrived and gathered the church together, they reported all the things God had done with them, and that he had opened a door of faith for the Gentiles. 14:28 So they spent considerable time with the disciples.
OUTLINETwo Missionaries Causing Trouble* Introduction—conflict continues in towns of southern Asia minor * These towns were (probably) part of Galatia * A return of miraculous signs * Jews and Greeks
Iconium* Greek paganism and the Roman cult * Jewish influence * Miraculous signs of grace are performed * Paul is threatened with stoning * Paul escapes
Lystra* Paul’s first described healing * The people’s response to Zeus and Hermes * Language barrier * Paul and Barnabas try to set the record straight * God has always been partially revealed but now is fully revealed
Trouble Comes Looking for the Missionaries* Jews from Antioch and Iconium come to stone Paul * The disciples help Paul back into the city * Paul seemed dead
To Derbe and Back* Derbe * Returning to prior locations * Persevere! * Paul appoints “elders” for each “assembly”
Scripture Reading: Acts 13:13-52
13:13 Then Paul and his companions put out to sea from Paphos and came to Perga in Pamphylia, but John left them and returned to Jerusalem. 13:14 Moving on from Perga, they arrived at Pisidian Antioch, and on the Sabbath day they went into the synagogue and sat down. 13:15 After the reading from the law and the prophets, the leaders of the synagogue sent them a message, saying, “Brothers, if you have any message of exhortation for the people, speak it.” 13:16 So Paul stood up, gestured with his hand and said,
“Men of Israel, and you Gentiles who fear God, listen: 13:17 The God of this people Israel chose our ancestors and made the people great during their stay as foreigners in the country of Egypt, and with uplifted arm he led them out of it. 13:18 For a period of about forty years he put up with them in the wilderness. 13:19 After he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, he gave his people their land as an inheritance. 13:20 All this took about four hundred fifty years. After this he gave them judges until the time of Samuel the prophet. 13:21 Then they asked for a king, and God gave them Saul son of Kish, a man from the tribe of Benjamin, who ruled forty years. 13:22 After removing him, God raised up David their king. He testified about him: ‘I have found David the son of Jesse to be a man after my heart, who will accomplish everything I want him to do.’ 13:23 From the descendants of this man God brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus, just as he promised. 13:24 Before Jesus arrived, John had proclaimed a baptism for repentance to all the people of Israel. 13:25 But while John was completing his mission, he said repeatedly, ‘What do you think I am? I am not he. But look, one is coming after me. I am not worthy to untie the sandals on his feet!’ 13:26 Brothers, descendants of Abraham’s family, and those Gentiles among you who fear God, the message of this salvation has been sent to us. 13:27 For the people who live in Jerusalem and their rulers did not recognize him, and they fulfilled the sayings of the prophets that are read every Sabbath by condemning him. 13:28 Though they found no basis for a death sentence, they asked Pilate to have him executed. 13:29 When they had accomplished everything that was written about him, they took him down from the cross and placed him in a tomb. 13:30 But God raised him from the dead, 13:31 and for many days he appeared to those who had accompanied him from Galilee to Jerusalem. These are now his witnesses to the people. 13:32 And we proclaim to you the good news about the promise to our ancestors, 13:33 that this promise God has fulfilled to us, their children, by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second psalm, ‘You are my Son; today I have fathered you.’ 13:34 But regarding the fact that he has raised Jesus from the dead, never again to be in a state of decay, God has spoken in this way: ‘I will give you the holy and trustworthy promises made to David.’ 13:35 Therefore he also says in another psalm, ‘You will not permit your Holy One to experience decay.’ 13:36 For David, after he had served God’s purpose in his own generation, died, was buried with his ancestors, and experienced decay, 13:37 but the one whom God raised up did not experience decay. 13:38 Therefore let it be known to you, brothers, that through this one forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, 13:39 and by this one everyone who believes is justified from everything from which the law of Moses could not justify you. 13:40 Watch out, then, that what is spoken about by the prophets does not happen to you:
13:41 ‘Look, you scoffers; be amazed and perish!
For I am doing a work in your days,
a work you would never believe, even if someone tells you.’ ”
13:42 As Paul and Barnabas were going out, the people were urging them to speak about these things on the next Sabbath. 13:43 When the meeting of the synagogue had broken up, many of the Jews and God-fearing proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who were speaking with them and were persuading them to continue in the grace of God.
13:44 On the next Sabbath almost the whole city assembled together to hear the word of the Lord. 13:45 But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy, and they began to contradict what Paul was saying by reviling him. 13:46 Both Paul and Barnabas replied courageously, “It was necessary to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we are turning to the Gentiles. 13:47 For this is what the Lord has commanded us: ‘I have appointed you to be a light for the Gentiles, to bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’ ” 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began to rejoice and praise the word of the Lord, and all who had been appointed for eternal life believed. 13:49 So the word of the Lord was spreading through the entire region. 13:50 But the Jews incited the God-fearing women of high social standing and the prominent men of the city, stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and threw them out of their region. 13:51 So after they shook the dust off their feet in protest against them, they went to Iconium. 13:52 And the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit.
OutlinePaul’s Speech at the Synagogue* A message of exhortation for the people * Hear me Men of Israel, and Gentile God Fearers * The God of Israel chose our ancestors * God made the people great in Egypt and led them out * God endured the people in the wilderness * God gave the people the land * God gave the people judges * God gave the people a king * God removed the bad king (Saul) and gave the people a good king (David) * From the David came Jesus the Savior * John the Baptist announced repentance and Jesus * Like the prophets predicted, the people did not recognize Jesus and killed him * Jesus was crucified, buried, and then appeared to many * So, “we proclaim to you the good news about the promise to our ancestors,” the promise has been fulfilled * The Son shall never see decay * Through the Son there is forgiveness of sins * Through the Son there is the justification the law of Moses could not bring * So, do not scoff and believe
From the Law to the MessiahWith minor modifications, the explanations below come from Jason A. Staples’ Paul and the Resurrection of Israel: Jews, Former Gentiles, Israelites.
- The law (Torah) was never going to work—it was never going to be followed
Deuteronomy 31:16–18
31:16 Then the LORD said to Moses, “You are about to die, and then these people will begin to prostitute themselves with the foreign gods of the land into which they are going. They will reject me and break my covenant that I have made with them. 31:17 At that time my anger will erupt against them and I will abandon them and hide my face from them until they are devoured. Many disasters and distresses will overcome them so that they will say at that time, ‘Have not these disasters overcome us because our God is not among us?’ 31:18 But I will certainly hide myself at that time because of all the wickedness they will have done by turning to other gods.
Deuteronomy 31:24–30
31:24 When Moses finished writing on a scroll the words of this law in their entirety, 31:25 he commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the LORD’s covenant, 31:26 “Take this scroll of the law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God. It will remain there as a witness against you, 31:27 for I know about your rebellion and stubbornness. Indeed, even while I have been living among you to this very day, you have rebelled against the LORD; you will be even more rebellious after my death! 31:28 Gather to me all your tribal elders and officials so I can speak to them directly about these things and call the heavens and the earth to witness against them. 31:29 For I know that after I die you will totally corrupt yourselves and turn away from the path I have commanded you to walk. Disaster will confront you in the days to come because you will act wickedly before the LORD, inciting him to anger because of your actions.” 31:30 Then Moses recited the words of this song from start to finish in the hearing of the whole assembly of Israel.
Deuteronomy 30:1–6
30:1 “When you have experienced all these things, both the blessings and the curses I have set before you, you will reflect upon them in all the nations where the LORD your God has banished you. 30:2 Then if you and your descendants turn to the LORD your God and obey him with your whole mind and being just as I am commanding you today, 30:3 the LORD your God will reverse your captivity and have pity on you. He will turn and gather you from all the peoples among whom he has scattered you. 30:4 Even if your exiles are in the most distant land, from there the LORD your God will gather you and bring you back. 30:5 Then he will bring you to the land your ancestors possessed and you also will possess it; he will do better for you and multiply you more than he did your ancestors. 30:6 The LORD your God will also cleanse your heart and the hearts of your descendants so that you may love him with all your mind and being and so that you may live.
- A new covenant is coming
Jeremiah 31:31–34.
31:31 “Indeed, a time is coming,” says the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah. 31:32 It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt. For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them,” says the LORD. 31:33 “But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the LORD. “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds. I will be their God and they will be my people.
31:34 “People will no longer need to teach their neighbors and relatives to know me. For all of them, from the least important to the most important, will know me,” says the LORD. “For I will forgive their sin and will no longer call to mind the wrong they have done.”
This passage presumes the following three premises:
(1) Israel’s covenantal infidelity: The passage explicitly states that the reason a new covenant is needed is that Israel has broken the covenant made at the exodus from Egypt through infidelity and injustice.
(2) The curse of the covenant: Israel consequently no longer stands in a relationship of covenantal favor with YHWH. This is made explicit in Hosea.
Hosea 1:9
Then the LORD said: “Name him ‘Not My People’ (Lo-Ammi), because you are not my people and I am not your God.”
Like the other nations, Israel now stands under God’s wrath rather than under covenantal favor until the covenant is renewed.
(3) Future restoration: YHWH will nevertheless renew his covenant with Israel and Judah, reelecting and readopting Israel as his people and restoring them to covenantal relationship and favor: “I will be their God and they will be my people” (Jer 31:33).
God promises not only to return and restore Israel but also to rectify the root cause of Israel’s present plight: the infidelity and injustice that brought Israel under the covenantal curse in the first place. That is, whereas the broken covenant had been contingent on Israel’s obedience to external written instructions (Torah), the new covenant will involve YHWH writing his Torah on the heart of Israel, who will then naturally fulfill the parameters of the covenant.
Of course, while the specific language and imagery of the new covenant prophecy is unique, the idea that Israel’s restoration will be accompanied by Israel’s transformation into a just people is by no means unusual in the prophets. On the contrary, it is a biblical commonplace that since Israel’s exile was the result of Israel’s infidelity, Israel’s restoration will necessarily involve renewed fidelity and righteousness. Restated in more familiar Pauline vernacular, Israel’s restoration requires Israel’s justification—that is, for Israel to be restored, Israel must become a righteous people who live according to YHWH’s stipulations. This ethical transformation will then ensure that the restoration is permanent, a sentiment reflected in the prophetic declaration, “Your people shall all be righteous; they shall possess the land forever” (Isa 60:21).
- The new covenant shall come about by divine transformation—new hearts
Ezekiel 11:17–21
11:17 “Therefore say: ‘This is what the sovereign LORD says: When I regather you from the peoples and assemble you from the lands where you have been dispersed, I will give you back the country of Israel.’
11:18 “When they return to it, they will remove from it all its detestable things and all its abominations. 11:19 I will give them one heart and I will put a new spirit within them; I will remove the hearts of stone from their bodies and I will give them tender hearts, 11:20 so that they may follow my statutes and observe my regulations and carry them out. Then they will be my people, and I will be their God. 11:21 But those whose hearts are devoted to detestable things and abominations, I hereby repay them for what they have done, says the sovereign LORD.”
Ezekiel 36:24–31
36:24 “ ‘I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries; then I will bring you to your land. 36:25 I will sprinkle you with pure water and you will be clean from all your impurities. I will purify you from all your idols. 36:26 I will give you a new heart, and I will put a new spirit within you. I will remove the heart of stone from your body and give you a heart of flesh. 36:27 I will put my Spirit within you; I will take the initiative and you will obey my statutes and carefully observe my regulations. 36:28 Then you will live in the land I gave to your fathers; you will be my people, and I will be your God. 36:29 I will save you from all your uncleanness. I will call for the grain and multiply it; I will not bring a famine on you. 36:30 I will multiply the fruit of the trees and the produce of the fields, so that you will never again suffer the disgrace of famine among the nations. 36:31 Then you will remember your evil behavior and your deeds which were not good; you will loathe yourselves on account of your sins and your abominable deeds.
2 Corinthians 3:1–6
3:1 Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? We don’t need letters of recommendation to you or from you as some other people do, do we? 3:2 You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everyone, 3:3 revealing that you are a letter of Christ, delivered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on stone tablets but on tablets of human hearts.
3:4 Now we have such confidence in God through Christ. 3:5 Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as if it were coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, 3:6 who made us adequate to be servants of a new covenant not based on the letter but on the Spirit, for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
Paul emphasizes divine transformative activity in 2 Corinthians 3, where he explains that Messiah has written on the Corinthians themselves, “not with ink but with the spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts” (3:3). They have thereby been incorporated in “a new covenant, not of the letter but of the spirit—for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life” (3:6). This passage is especially important not only because it explicitly invokes the new covenant and heart transformation of Jeremiah 31 but also because it reveals how Paul links that promise with Ezekiel’s declaration that YHWH would “give you a new heart and a new spirit” (Ezekiel 11:19; 36:26), connecting the new covenant with the spirit language that so permeates the Pauline epistles.
Remarkably, the prevalence of these very concepts of spirit, heart transformation, justification by grace, and new creation in the Pauline epistles have frequently been understood as evidence that Paul has departed from a traditional Jewish covenantal framework.
This is a puzzling claim in light of other early Jewish evidence that strongly associates the reception of the spirit with the new covenant. Based on that evidence and Paul’s own conflation of “new covenant” and “spirit” in 2 Corinthians 3:3–6, it is apparent that Paul’s emphasis on receiving the spirit does not signal a departure from traditional Jewish covenantal theology but instead demonstrates exactly the opposite. In the Prophets, the promise of the spirit is all about Israel being empowered to obey, and Paul’s references to the gift of the spirit, circumcision of the heart, and other related concepts are ways of saying that the new covenant has been initiated. This is why Paul writes to the Thessalonians of his confidence that “you yourselves are taught by God to love one another” because God has “given his sacred spirit to you”—that is, the new covenant promise of intrinsic divine instruction and ethical transformation has come to pass.
- The law (Torah) is a curse not because it is bad but because it is good but it was not (and will not be) followed
Romans 3:19–23
3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 3:20 For no one is declared righteous before him by the works of the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin. 3:21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets) has been disclosed—3:22 namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
Deuteronomy 30:15–18
30:15 “Look! I have set before you today life and prosperity on the one hand, and death and disaster on the other. 30:16 What I am commanding you today is to love the LORD your God, to walk in his ways, and to obey his commandments, his statutes, and his ordinances. Then you will live and become numerous and the LORD your God will bless you in the land which you are about to possess. 30:17 However, if you turn aside and do not obey, but are lured away to worship and serve other gods, 30:18 I declare to you this very day that you will certainly perish!
This framework helps explain Paul’s assertion that those “from works of Torah are under a curse” (Galatians 3:10) and his strident insistence on the inability of the “letter” or “works of Torah” to make God’s people righteous. The Torah itself prospectively declares Israel’s infidelity to be inevitable because even as the new generation prepared to enter the Promised Land, YHWH still had not given them “a heart to know, nor eyes to see, nor ears to hear to this day” (Deut 29:3). Consequently, when (not if) the covenant has been broken and the people have fallen under the curse, Israel’s God will be vindicated for his dealings with his people (Deut 31:16–22). YHWH’s justness is all the more demonstrated in that even after Israel’s inevitable infidelity, he will yet redeem them, at which time he finally will circumcise their hearts, enabling them to keep the (renewed) covenant henceforth (Deuteronomy 30:1–14). The Book of the Torah is therefore given to Israel “as a witness against you” (Deuteronomy 31:26), in anticipation of Israel’s covenant-breaking, thereby vindicating YHWH in light of what will come. That is, later hearers and readers will be able to recognize that Israel has been unfaithful despite YHWH’s fidelity.
The knowledge of sin is revealed through Torah precisely because sin had not been removed from the heart of Israel when the Torah was given. But without a command to transgress, that sin lay latent, present but hidden: “where there is no law, there is no transgression” (Romans 4:15). The command is therefore necessary to awaken and reveal sin in order that sin may be dealt with. This is what Paul means when he says “I would not have known sin except through the law” (7:7). Consequently, although “the Torah is sacred, and the command is sacred and just and good” (7:12), because of the presence of sin in the flesh, it is nevertheless an administration of death (2 Corinthians 3:7), since “the command which was for life, the same was for death” (Romans 7:10).
The problem is not with the command but with the inclination of the people, and the command reveals that problem precisely by “bringing about my death through what is good so that through the command sin would become utterly sinful” (Romans 7:13). That is, since the Torah is good, the fact that the command resulted in death reveals the true source of that death—sin dwelling in the “fleshly” inclination of those to whom the command was given, who are not only unable to keep the command but inclined to rebel against it (7:8–9, 14; 8:7).
While the command reveals that sinful inclination, it cannot remove it. That removal, Paul argues, must take place pneumatically, on the same “spiritual” plane as the Torah itself, through the circumcision of the heart by the spirit.
- Does faith nullify the law? No!
Romans 3:31
3:31 Do we then nullify the law through faith? Absolutely not! Instead we uphold the law.
It is in this respect that Paul can argue that his gospel in no way “discontinues Torah through fidelity” but rather “establishes Torah” (Rom 3:31). He is not arguing that the Torah has been eliminated, nor does he argue against “legalism” or “law-keeping.” Instead, he argues for a particular understanding of the written Torah’s function. “The works of Torah,” he argues, are not a means through which the covenant can be kept or reestablished – the covenant has been broken and cannot be renewed in that manner. Instead, the written Torah, in its proper function, simultaneously serves as a witness to God’s justness and fidelity over and against Israel’s infidelity and injustice while also pointing forward to the ultimate pneumatic justification of God’s people via the new covenant after passing through the curse for disobeying the command – that is, after the age of wrath.
- The Spirit of Christ is God’s glory revealed
2 Corinthians 3:7–18
3:7 But if the ministry that produced death—carved in letters on stone tablets—came with glory, so that the Israelites could not keep their eyes fixed on the face of Moses because of the glory of his face (a glory which was made ineffective), 3:8 how much more glorious will the ministry of the Spirit be? 3:9 For if there was glory in the ministry that produced condemnation, how much more does the ministry that produces righteousness excel in glory! 3:10 For indeed, what had been glorious now has no glory because of the tremendously greater glory of what replaced it. 3:11 For if what was made ineffective came with glory, how much more has what remains come in glory! 3:12 Therefore, since we have such a hope, we behave with great boldness, 3:13 and not like Moses who used to put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from staring at the result of the glory that was made ineffective. 3:14 But their minds were closed. For to this very day, the same veil remains when they hear the old covenant read. It has not been removed because only in Christ is it taken away. 3:15 But until this very day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their minds, 3:16 but when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is present, there is freedom. 3:18 And we all, with unveiled faces reflecting the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another, which is from the Lord, who is the Spirit.
Paul presents the Torah revealed through Moses (the “letter”) as a mediated and attenuated version of the unmediated, heavenly, spiritual, eternal Torah revealed to Moses. It is the latter Torah—the “Torah of fidelity” (Rom 3:27)—that Paul understands as written on the hearts of new covenant members, who no longer must look to “Moses” to see the glory of God filtered through the veil because they now see what Moses himself saw.
- The Messiah has put an end to the age of wrath—he has atoned for the people and changed their hearts
In summary, when Paul speaks of deliverance “from this present evil age” (Galatians 1:4; cf. Romans 12:2) and proclaims that now is the “season of good favor” (2 Corinthians 6:2), he is operating from within the same framework as his contemporaries who referred to “the age of wrath.”
Israel is under the ongoing reality of the Deuteronomic curses, of which death itself is the ultimate curse. For Israel to overcome death, God himself will have to provide the solution to Israel’s chronic infidelity. This traditional connection between Israel’s restoration and justification (that is, becoming a righteous and just people) explains why justification is so central to the gospel. The messiah died to put an end to the age of wrath characterized by sin and to inaugurate a new era of God’s favor characterized by fidelity mediated through the spirit and resulting in the blessings promised to God’s people of old. Whereas Israel’s moral impairment and inclination to sin meant the Torah could never grant what it promised (Romans 8:3), God has acted to fulfill that promise, providing a new heart and new spirit capable of exceeding the justness that could be accomplished through the written Torah (Romans 8:2–4, 9–17; 2 Corinthians 3:4–18).
But the end of the age of wrath does not mark a discontinuation of Torah (Romans 3:31). In the death of the messiah who fulfilled the Torah’s requirements to end the wrath brought about by disobedience to Torah (cf. Romans 4:15; 3:19–31), the Torah has come to its telos (Rom 10:4): the curse of death followed by the renewed life promised by the Torah itself. Those who have received the spirit are therefore no longer “under Torah but under favor” (Rom 6:14–15), having moved beyond the age of wrath into the age of favor.
Scripture Reading: Acts 13:4 - 13:14
13:4 So Barnabas and Saul, sent out by the Holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia, and from there they sailed to Cyprus. 13:5 When they arrived in Salamis, they began to proclaim the word of God in the Jewish synagogues. (Now they also had John as their assistant.) 13:6 When they had crossed over the whole island as far as Paphos, they found a magician, a Jewish false prophet named Bar-Jesus, 13:7 who was with the proconsul Sergius Paulus, an intelligent man. The proconsul summoned Barnabas and Saul and wanted to hear the word of God. 13:8 But the magician Elymas (for that is the way his name is translated) opposed them, trying to turn the proconsul away from the faith. 13:9 But Saul (also known as Paul), filled with the Holy Spirit, stared straight at him 13:10 and said, “You who are full of all deceit and all wrongdoing, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness—will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord? 13:11 Now look, the hand of the Lord is against you, and you will be blind, unable to see the sun for a time!” Immediately mistiness and darkness came over him, and he went around seeking people to lead him by the hand. 13:12 Then when the proconsul saw what had happened, he believed, because he was greatly astounded at the teaching about the Lord.
13:13 Then Paul and his companions put out to sea from Paphos and came to Perga in Pamphylia, but John left them and returned to Jerusalem. 13:14 Moving on from Perga, they arrived at Pisidian Antioch, and on the Sabbath day they went into the synagogue and sat down.
OutlinePaul and Barnabas Go to Cyprus* The first deliberate mission to gentiles * Why Cyprus * Way to Cyprus * To the Jew first, then to the Gentile * A pair of missionaries and a helper
Sergius Paulus and the “Power Encounter”* Paphos * Sergius Paulus * Elymas Bar-Jesus * The “power encounter” * Such a short summary about such an important person
Ministry in Pisidian Antioch* Why Pisidian Antioch * Way to Pisidian Antioch * Mark leaves them
Scripture Reading: Acts 12:12 - 13:3
12 When Peter realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, where many people had gathered together and were praying. 13 When he knocked at the door of the outer gate, a slave girl named Rhoda answered. 14 When she recognized Peter’s voice, she was so overjoyed she did not open the gate, but ran back in and told them that Peter was standing at the gate. 15 But they said to her, “You’ve lost your mind!” But she kept insisting that it was Peter, and they kept saying, “It is his angel!” 16 Now Peter continued knocking, and when they opened the door and saw him, they were greatly astonished. 17 He motioned to them with his hand to be quiet and then related how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. He said, “Tell James and the brothers these things,” and then he left and went to another place.
18 At daybreak there was great consternation among the soldiers over what had become of Peter. 19 When Herod had searched for him and did not find him, he questioned the guards and commanded that they be led away to execution. Then Herod went down from Judea to Caesarea and stayed there.
20 Now Herod was having an angry quarrel with the people of Tyre and Sidon. So they joined together and presented themselves before him. And after convincing Blastus, the king’s personal assistant, to help them, they asked for peace because their country’s food supply was provided by the king’s country. 21 On a day determined in advance, Herod put on his royal robes, sat down on the judgment seat, and made a speech to them. 22 But the crowd began to shout, “The voice of a god, and not of a man!” 23 Immediately an angel of the Lord struck Herod down because he did not give the glory to God, and he was eaten by worms and died. 24 But the word of God kept on increasing and multiplying.
25 So Barnabas and Saul returned to Jerusalem when they had completed their mission, bringing along with them John Mark.
1 Now there were these prophets and teachers in the church at Antioch: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius the Cyrenian, Manaen (a close friend of Herod the tetrarch from childhood) and Saul. 2 While they were serving the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 Then, after they had fasted and prayed and placed their hands on them, they sent them off.
OutlineFree and on the Run (Continued)* Tell James * Peter flees
Agrippa’s Death* God and rulers * Agrippa’s lost honor and punishing the guards * Agrippa moves to Caesarea * Tyre and Sidon * The arrogant king * Struck dead and eaten by worms
The Beginning of Paul’s Mission* The narrative turns to Paul * Travel in the ancient world * Paul & Barnabas are sent * Antiochian leadership * Praying and fasting * The Holy Spirit “spoke” * The sendoff
Scripture Reading: Acts 11:27 - 12:17
11:27 At that time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. 11:28 One of them, named Agabus, got up and predicted by the Spirit that a severe famine was about to come over the whole inhabited world. (This took place during the reign of Claudius.) 11:29 So the disciples, each in accordance with his financial ability, decided to send relief to the brothers living in Judea. 11:30 They did so, sending their financial aid to the elders by Barnabas and Saul.
12:1 About that time King Herod laid hands on some from the church to harm them. 12:2 He had James, the brother of John, executed with a sword. 12:3 When he saw that this pleased the Jews, he proceeded to arrest Peter too. (This took place during the feast of Unleavened Bread.) 12:4 When he had seized him, he put him in prison, handing him over to four squads of soldiers to guard him. Herod planned to bring him out for public trial after the Passover. 12:5 So Peter was kept in prison, but those in the church were earnestly praying to God for him. 12:6 On that very night before Herod was going to bring him out for trial, Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains, while guards in front of the door were keeping watch over the prison. 12:7 Suddenly an angel of the Lord appeared, and a light shone in the prison cell. He struck Peter on the side and woke him up, saying, “Get up quickly!” And the chains fell off Peter’s wrists. 12:8 The angel said to him, “Fasten your belt and put on your sandals.” Peter did so. Then the angel said to him, “Put on your cloak and follow me.” 12:9 Peter went out and followed him; he did not realize that what was happening through the angel was real, but thought he was seeing a vision. 12:10 After they had passed the first and second guards, they came to the iron gate leading into the city. It opened for them by itself, and they went outside and walked down one narrow street, when at once the angel left him. 12:11 When Peter came to himself, he said, “Now I know for certain that the Lord has sent his angel and rescued me from the hand of Herod and from everything the Jewish people were expecting to happen.”
12:12 When Peter realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark, where many people had gathered together and were praying. 12:13 When he knocked at the door of the outer gate, a slave girl named Rhoda answered. 12:14 When she recognized Peter’s voice, she was so overjoyed she did not open the gate, but ran back in and told them that Peter was standing at the gate. 12:15 But they said to her, “You’ve lost your mind!” But she kept insisting that it was Peter, and they kept saying, “It is his angel!” 12:16 Now Peter continued knocking, and when they opened the door and saw him, they were greatly astonished. 12:17 He motioned to them with his hand to be quiet and then related how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. He said, “Tell James and the brothers these things,” and then he left and went to another place.
Outline
The Relief Mission* Continuity in emphasis; unity in the church * In those days came a prophet * Traveling prophets * Agabus and the prophecy of famine * Antioch, a benefactor to Jerusalem * Elders in the church
Peter’s Deliverance* Introduction to Peter’s last major narrative * Agrippa I * Not a martyr story * Peter is arrested * Peter is imprisoned * Peter’s deliverance
Free and on the Run* To the city * To the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark * House churches * Rhoda answers the door * The unbelief of those gathered * Tell James * Peter flees
Scripture Reading: Acts 11:1-30
11:1 Now the apostles and the brothers who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles too had accepted the word of God. 11:2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers took issue with him, 11:3 saying, “You went to uncircumcised men and shared a meal with them.” 11:4 But Peter began and explained it to them point by point, saying, 11:5 “I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision, an object something like a large sheet descending, being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came to me. 11:6 As I stared I looked into it and saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild animals, reptiles, and wild birds. 11:7 I also heard a voice saying to me, ‘Get up, Peter; slaughter and eat!’ 11:8 But I said, ‘Certainly not, Lord, for nothing defiled or ritually unclean has ever entered my mouth!’ 11:9 But the voice replied a second time from heaven, ‘What God has made clean, you must not consider ritually unclean!’ 11:10 This happened three times, and then everything was pulled up to heaven again. 11:11 At that very moment, three men sent to me from Caesarea approached the house where we were staying. 11:12 The Spirit told me to accompany them without hesitation. These six brothers also went with me, and we entered the man’s house. 11:13 He informed us how he had seen an angel standing in his house and saying, ‘Send to Joppa and summon Simon, who is called Peter, 11:14 who will speak a message to you by which you and your entire household will be saved.’ 11:15 Then as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as he did on us at the beginning. 11:16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, as he used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 11:17 Therefore if God gave them the same gift as he also gave us after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to hinder God?” 11:18 When they heard this, they ceased their objections and praised God, saying, “So then, God has granted the repentance that leads to life even to the Gentiles.”
11:19 Now those who had been scattered because of the persecution that took place over Stephen went as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, speaking the message to no one but Jews. 11:20 But there were some men from Cyprus and Cyrene among them who came to Antioch and began to speak to the Greeks too, proclaiming the good news of the Lord Jesus. 11:21 The hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number who believed turned to the Lord. 11:22 A report about them came to the attention of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. 11:23 When he came and saw the grace of God, he rejoiced and encouraged them all to remain true to the Lord with devoted hearts, 11:24 because he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith, and a significant number of people were brought to the Lord. 11:25 Then Barnabas departed for Tarsus to look for Saul, 11:26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught a significant number of people. Now it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians.
11:27 At that time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. 11:28 One of them, named Agabus, got up and predicted by the Spirit that a severe famine was about to come over the whole inhabited world. (This took place during the reign of Claudius.) 11:29 So the disciples, each in accordance with his financial ability, decided to send relief to the brothers living in Judea. 11:30 They did so, sending their financial aid to the elders by Barnabas and Saul.
Outline
Peter’s “Trial”* Early church government * The church misses the point * A serious violation but Peter had no choice * Full members of the covenant people * Peter’s defense * Gentiles are saved because of the Spirit * If saved then certainly baptism is alright * Surprised by God’s generous plan
Evangelizing Antioch* A literary and cultural point of transition * The action goes beyond the heroes * Remembering those providentially scattered * Antioch * “Began to speak to the Greeks” * The mother church is skeptical once more
Barnabas and Paul’s Mission* Barnabas the encourager * New believers need teaching * A longtime mission * “Christians” for the first time
The Relief Mission* Continuity in emphasis; unity in the church * In those days came a prophet * Traveling prophets * Agabus and the prophecy of famine * Antioch, a benefactor to Jerusalem * Elders in the church
Scripture Reading: Acts 10:9-10:48
10:9 About noon the next day, while they were on their way and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10:10 He became hungry and wanted to eat, but while they were preparing the meal, a trance came over him. 10:11 He saw heaven opened and an object something like a large sheet descending, being let down to earth by its four corners. 10:12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals and reptiles of the earth and wild birds. 10:13 Then a voice said to him, “Get up, Peter; slaughter and eat!” 10:14 But Peter said, “Certainly not, Lord, for I have never eaten anything defiled and ritually unclean!” 10:15 The voice spoke to him again, a second time, “What God has made clean, you must not consider ritually unclean!” 10:16 This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into heaven.
10:17 Now while Peter was puzzling over what the vision he had seen could signify, the men sent by Cornelius had learned where Simon’s house was and approached the gate. 10:18 They called out to ask if Simon, known as Peter, was staying there as a guest. 10:19 While Peter was still thinking seriously about the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Look! Three men are looking for you. 10:20 But get up, go down, and accompany them without hesitation, because I have sent them.” 10:21 So Peter went down to the men and said, “Here I am, the person you’re looking for. Why have you come?” 10:22 They said, “Cornelius the centurion, a righteous and God-fearing man, well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation, was directed by a holy angel to summon you to his house and to hear a message from you.” 10:23 So Peter invited them in and entertained them as guests.
On the next day he got up and set out with them, and some of the brothers from Joppa accompanied him. 10:24 The following day he entered Caesarea. Now Cornelius was waiting anxiously for them and had called together his relatives and close friends. 10:25 So when Peter came in, Cornelius met him, fell at his feet, and worshiped him. 10:26 But Peter helped him up, saying, “Stand up. I too am a mere mortal.” 10:27 Peter continued talking with him as he went in, and he found many people gathered together. 10:28 He said to them, “You know that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile, yet God has shown me that I should call no person defiled or ritually unclean. 10:29 Therefore when you sent for me, I came without any objection. Now may I ask why you sent for me?” 10:30 Cornelius replied, “Four days ago at this very hour, at three o’clock in the afternoon, I was praying in my house, and suddenly a man in shining clothing stood before me 10:31 and said, ‘Cornelius, your prayer has been heard and your acts of charity have been remembered before God. 10:32 Therefore send to Joppa and summon Simon, who is called Peter. This man is staying as a guest in the house of Simon the tanner, by the sea.’ 10:33 Therefore I sent for you at once, and you were kind enough to come. So now we are all here in the presence of God to listen to everything the Lord has commanded you to say to us.”
10:34 Then Peter started speaking: “I now truly understand that God does not show favoritism in dealing with people, 10:35 but in every nation the person who fears him and does what is right is welcomed before him. 10:36 You know the message he sent to the people of Israel, proclaiming the good news of peace through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all)—10:37 you know what happened throughout Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism that John announced: 10:38 with respect to Jesus from Nazareth, that God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went around doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, because God was with him. 10:39 We are witnesses of all the things he did both in Judea and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, 10:40 but God raised him up on the third day and caused him to be seen, 10:41 not by all the people, but by us, the witnesses God had already chosen, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 10:42 He commanded us to preach to the people and to warn them that he is the one appointed by God as judge of the living and the dead. 10:43 About him all the prophets testify, that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”
10:44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all those who heard the message. 10:45 The circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter were greatly astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles, 10:46 for they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, 10:47 “No one can withhold the water for these people to be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” 10:48 So he gave orders to have them baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay for several days.
OutlinePeter’s Vision* Complementary visions * An Old Testament kind of call * Eating with Gentiles * Peter’s vision * Peter’s resistance * The main point: people not food
Peter and the Visitors* Peter welcomes Gentiles * The visitors’ request * Peter travels with a delegation
Peter and Cornelius* Cornelius receives Peter and his party * Cornelius worships Peter
The Holy Spirit Fell on All* The Spirit confirms the Gentiles’ acceptance * The gift for the covenant people * Speaking in tongues and praising God * Surely baptism is alright
Scripture Reading: Acts 9:32-10:8
9:32 Now as Peter was traveling around from place to place, he also came down to the saints who lived in Lydda. 9:33 He found there a man named Aeneas who had been confined to a mattress for eight years because he was paralyzed. 9:34 Peter said to him, “Aeneas, Jesus the Christ heals you. Get up and make your own bed!” And immediately he got up. 9:35 All those who lived in Lydda and Sharon saw him, and they turned to the Lord.
9:36 Now in Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (which in translation means Dorcas). She was continually doing good deeds and acts of charity. 9:37 At that time she became sick and died. When they had washed her body, they placed it in an upstairs room. 9:38 Because Lydda was near Joppa, when the disciples heard that Peter was there, they sent two men to him and urged him, “Come to us without delay.” 9:39 So Peter got up and went with them, and when he arrived they brought him to the upper room. All the widows stood beside him, crying and showing him the tunics and other clothing Dorcas used to make while she was with them. 9:40 But Peter sent them all outside, knelt down, and prayed. Turning to the body, he said, “Tabitha, get up.” Then she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter, she sat up. 9:41 He gave her his hand and helped her get up. Then he called the saints and widows and presented her alive. 9:42 This became known throughout all Joppa, and many believed in the Lord. 9:43 So Peter stayed many days in Joppa with a man named Simon, a tanner.
10:1 Now there was a man in Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort. 10:2 He was a devout, God-fearing man, as was all his household; he did many acts of charity for the people and prayed to God regularly. 10:3 About three o’clock one afternoon he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God who came in and said to him, “Cornelius.” 10:4 Staring at him and becoming greatly afraid, Cornelius replied, “What is it, Lord?” The angel said to him, “Your prayers and your acts of charity have gone up as a memorial before God. 10:5 Now send men to Joppa and summon a man named Simon, who is called Peter. 10:6 This man is staying as a guest with a man named Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the sea.” 10:7 When the angel who had spoken to him departed, Cornelius called two of his personal servants and a devout soldier from among those who served him, 10:8 and when he had explained everything to them, he sent them to Joppa.
OutlinePeter’s Ministry* An expansion of Jesus’ ministry * Peter visit Jewish cities * The healing at Lydda * The resuscitation at Joppa * Getting comfortable with ritual impurity
Introduction to the Roman Officer’s Conversion* Summary of this section * The importance of this section * Table fellowship: a great barrier * God is the initiator * Paired visions
Caesarea, Roman presence, and Cornelius* Caesarea * Military presence in Caesarea * Cornelius * Cornelius’ household * A God-fearing Gentile
Cornelius Receives a Vision* An angel visits Cornelius * Directions to find the “oracle” * Servants and a soldier are sent
Scripture Reading: Acts 9:23-43
For several days he was with the disciples in Damascus, 9:20 and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, “This man is the Son of God.” 9:21 All who heard him were amazed and were saying, “Is this not the man who in Jerusalem was ravaging those who call on this name, and who had come here to bring them as prisoners to the chief priests?” 9:22 But Saul became more and more capable, and was causing consternation among the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Christ.
9:23 Now after some days had passed, the Jews plotted together to kill him, 9:24 but Saul learned of their plot against him. They were also watching the city gates day and night so that they could kill him. 9:25 But his disciples took him at night and let him down through an opening in the wall by lowering him in a basket.
9:26 When he arrived in Jerusalem, he attempted to associate with the disciples, and they were all afraid of him, because they did not believe that he was a disciple. 9:27 But Barnabas took Saul, brought him to the apostles, and related to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had spoken out boldly in the name of Jesus. 9:28 So he was staying with them, associating openly with them in Jerusalem, speaking out boldly in the name of the Lord. 9:29 He was speaking and debating with the Greek-speaking Jews, but they were trying to kill him. 9:30 When the brothers found out about this, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him away to Tarsus.
9:31 Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria experienced peace and thus was strengthened. Living in the fear of the Lord and in the encouragement of the Holy Spirit, the church increased in numbers.
9:32 Now as Peter was traveling around from place to place, he also came down to the saints who lived in Lydda. 9:33 He found there a man named Aeneas who had been confined to a mattress for eight years because he was paralyzed. 9:34 Peter said to him, “Aeneas, Jesus the Christ heals you. Get up and make your own bed!” And immediately he got up. 9:35 All those who lived in Lydda and Sharon saw him, and they turned to the Lord.
9:36 Now in Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (which in translation means Dorcas). She was continually doing good deeds and acts of charity. 9:37 At that time she became sick and died. When they had washed her body, they placed it in an upstairs room. 9:38 Because Lydda was near Joppa, when the disciples heard that Peter was there, they sent two men to him and urged him, “Come to us without delay.” 9:39 So Peter got up and went with them, and when he arrived they brought him to the upper room. All the widows stood beside him, crying and showing him the tunics and other clothing Dorcas used to make while she was with them. 9:40 But Peter sent them all outside, knelt down, and prayed. Turning to the body, he said, “Tabitha, get up.” Then she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter, she sat up. 9:41 He gave her his hand and helped her get up. Then he called the saints and widows and presented her alive. 9:42 This became known throughout all Joppa, and many believed in the Lord. 9:43 So Peter stayed many days in Joppa with a man named Simon, a tanner.
OutlineFilling in the Details of Paul’s early years* Luke omits details irrelevant to his narrative * Paul provides more information in Galatians 1:13-24 and 2 Corinthians 11:32
The Timeline* “For several days he was with the disciples in Damascus” (Acts 9:19b) * Paul proclaims Jesus, “the Son of God,” in the synagogues (Acts 9:20) * Time in Arabia—Nabataea (Galatians 1:17) * Paul returns to Damascus (Acts 9:19b; Galatians 1:17b) * Paul is persecuted but escapes in a basket (Acts 9:25; 2 Corinthians 11:32-33) * Paul travels to Jerusalem
Paul in Jerusalem* Again, Luke omits some details * Jerusalem believers fear Paul * Paul is introduced by Barnabas * Hellenists try to kill Paul * Paul’s Jerusalem trip is brief * Paul goes to Caesarea on his way to Tarsus
Peace and Strength* Verse 9:31 is a positive conclusion
Peter’s Ministry* Peter’s ministry is like Jesus’ ministry but more expansive * Peter travels to Jewish cities * The healing at Lydda * The resuscitation at Joppa * Getting comfortable with ritual impurity
Scripture Reading: Acts 9:1-22
9:1 Meanwhile Saul, still breathing out threats to murder the Lord’s disciples, went to the high priest 9:2 and requested letters from him to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any who belonged to the Way, either men or women, he could bring them as prisoners to Jerusalem. 9:3 As he was going along, approaching Damascus, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 9:4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” 9:5 So he said, “Who are you, Lord?” He replied, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting! 9:6 But stand up and enter the city and you will be told what you must do.” 9:7 (Now the men who were traveling with him stood there speechless, because they heard the voice but saw no one.) 9:8 So Saul got up from the ground, but although his eyes were open, he could see nothing. Leading him by the hand, his companions brought him into Damascus. 9:9 For three days he could not see, and he neither ate nor drank anything.
9:10 Now there was a disciple in Damascus named Ananias. The Lord said to him in a vision, “Ananias,” and he replied, “Here I am, Lord.” 9:11 Then the Lord told him, “Get up and go to the street called ‘Straight,’ and at Judas’ house look for a man from Tarsus named Saul. For he is praying, 9:12 and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and place his hands on him so that he may see again.” 9:13 But Ananias replied, “Lord, I have heard from many people about this man, how much harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem, 9:14 and here he has authority from the chief priests to imprison all who call on your name!” 9:15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, because this man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before Gentiles and kings and the people of Israel. 9:16 For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.” 9:17 So Ananias departed and entered the house, placed his hands on Saul and said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came here, has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 9:18 Immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 9:19 and after taking some food, his strength returned.
For several days he was with the disciples in Damascus, 9:20 and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, “This man is the Son of God.” 9:21 All who heard him were amazed and were saying, “Is this not the man who in Jerusalem was ravaging those who call on this name, and who had come here to bring them as prisoners to the chief priests?” 9:22 But Saul became more and more capable, and was causing consternation among the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Christ.
OutlineGod Using Foes and Friends* Primer on Paul * Acts 7:58-8:3—The persecutor spreads (disperses) the message * Acts 9—The persecutor spreads (preaches) the message
Words and Places* “The Way” * Damascus
Chronology* We do not know exactly when (in the story or in history) Paul’s conversion occurred * Many years go went by afterward
Key Event; Discrepancies Between Accounts* This event is recounted three times * The retelling of the event by Luke and Paul’s comments raise questions of consistency
Paul’s Conversion* Psychology, hallucinations, or an encounter with God * Let’s be clear: not simply a vision * Conversion or calling * Change in theology
The Theophany* Light and glory * Why do you persecute me? * Who are you, Lord? * I am Jesus whom you are persecuting! * But stand up and enter the city and you will be told what you must do.
The Aftermath* Blindness * Fasting * Entering Damascus
Paired Visions (Actually Three)* Ananias vision * Paul’s vision about Ananias’s vision
Ananias* Needing clarification about the “absurd” command * Vision restored
Suffering* Paul’s pain is not punishment
Brother* Kinship language was not exclusively Christian but is deeply meaningful
The main point: a question of fact
Scripture Reading: Acts 8:26-40
26 Then an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Get up and go south on the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” (This is a desert road.) 27 So he got up and went. There he met an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasury. He had come to Jerusalem to worship, 28 and was returning home, sitting in his chariot, reading the prophet Isaiah. 29 Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go over and join this chariot.” 30 So Philip ran up to it and heard the man reading the prophet Isaiah. He asked him, “Do you understand what you’re reading?” 31 The man replied, “How in the world can I, unless someone guides me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. 32 Now the passage of scripture the man was reading was this:
“He was led like a sheep to slaughter,
and like a lamb before its shearer is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
33 In humiliation justice was taken from him.
Who can describe his posterity?
For his life was taken away from the earth.”
34 Then the eunuch said to Philip, “Please tell me, who is the prophet saying this about—himself or someone else?” 35 So Philip started speaking, and beginning with this scripture proclaimed the good news about Jesus to him. 36 Now as they were going along the road, they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “Look, there is water! What is to stop me from being baptized?” 38 So he ordered the chariot to stop, and both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and Philip baptized him. 39 Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him any more, but went on his way rejoicing. 40 Philip, however, found himself at Azotus, and as he passed through the area, he proclaimed the good news to all the towns until he came to Caesarea.
OutlineBut you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest parts of the earth. Acts 1:8* Philips reaches beyond Israel and Samaria. * “Ethiopia” was one of the primary locations envisioned when people spoke of the “ends of the earth.”
Old Testament Background* Eunuchs were excluded from the covenant.
The First Gentile Convert* The Ethiopian official or the Roman official?
Historical Notes* Why does the scene lack details? * The Nubian Kingdom of Meroë.
The Spirit at Work* The “absurd” command.
Linguistic Notes* Noon or south? * Official or eunuch?
The African Official* An important official on a religious pilgrimage. * Convert or Gentile? * The reputation of eunuchs. * Emphasizing respectable people. * Connection with the Queen of Sheba.
The Action* How they traveled. * The Spirit’s guidance. * Reading aloud. In Hebrew or Greek? * Invited on the chariot. * Interpreting Isaiah. The eunuch’s question and Philip’s response.
Baptism* What prevents me from being baptized? * Isaiah 56:1-15. * The baptism.
Carried Away by the Spirit* Jewish background. * Literal?
Scripture Reading: Acts 8:1-25
And Saul agreed completely with killing him.
Now on that day a great persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were forced to scatter throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria. 2 Some devout men buried Stephen and made loud lamentation over him. 3 But Saul was trying to destroy the church; entering one house after another, he dragged off both men and women and put them in prison.
4 Now those who had been forced to scatter went around proclaiming the good news of the word. 5 Philip went down to the main city of Samaria and began proclaiming the Christ to them. 6 The crowds were paying attention with one mind to what Philip said, as they heard and saw the miraculous signs he was performing. 7 For unclean spirits, crying with loud shrieks, were coming out of many who were possessed, and many paralyzed and lame people were healed. 8 So there was great joy in that city.
9 Now in that city was a man named Simon, who had been practicing magic and amazing the people of Samaria, claiming to be someone great. 10 All the people, from the least to the greatest, paid close attention to him, saying, “This man is the power of God that is called ‘Great.’” 11 And they paid close attention to him because he had amazed them for a long time with his magic. 12 But when they believed Philip as he was proclaiming the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they began to be baptized, both men and women. 13 Even Simon himself believed, and after he was baptized, he stayed close to Philip constantly, and when he saw the signs and great miracles that were occurring, he was amazed.
14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. 15 These two went down and prayed for them so that they would receive the Holy Spirit. 16 (For the Spirit had not yet come upon any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on the Samaritans, and they received the Holy Spirit.
18 Now Simon, when he saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, offered them money, 19 saying, “Give me this power too, so that everyone I place my hands on may receive the Holy Spirit.” 20 But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you because you thought you could acquire God’s gift with money! 21 You have no share or part in this matter because your heart is not right before God! 22 Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that he may perhaps forgive you for the intent of your heart. 23 For I see that you are bitterly envious and in bondage to sin.” 24 But Simon replied, “You pray to the Lord for me so that nothing of what you have said may happen to me.”
25 So after Peter and John had solemnly testified and spoken the word of the Lord, they started back to Jerusalem, proclaiming the good news to many Samaritan villages as they went.
Main ThemesSaul—An IntroductionLuke introduces Saul at the end of chapter 7. Spoiler alert: Saul is the man that becomes the Apostle Paul—one of the central figures of the New Testament. So, we should spend a few minutes thinking about him.
Luke introduces Saul like he does Barnabas, initially as a minor character to acclimate the reader. Nevertheless, we should ask, why would Saul be present during Stephen’s trial before the Sanhedrin?
Although we cannot know for sure, the most likely explanation is that Saul of Tarsus was a member of the radical wing of the Hellenist synagogue mentioned in Acts 6:9. Perhaps Paul was even one of those Jews who unsuccessfully challenged Stephen (see Acts 6:10).
We are also told that the witnesses who testified against Stephen “laid their cloaks at the feet of a young man named Saul.” This probably symbolizes recognition of Saul as a leader. This is surprising because Saul is described as young. We will discuss this more in a minute. First, let’s see what more we can learn about Saul from Paul’s letters.
Paul claims to be a Pharisee (Philippians 3: 5). Pharisees existed exclusively or almost exclusively in Israel, especially in Jerusalem. At the same time, his letters reveal comfort with Greek and thorough familiarity with the Septuagint. For one who spent enough time in Israel to be a Pharisee, this Greek aptitude also suggests an educated and hence economically stable family in urban Jerusalem. He could either be from a Diaspora Jewish family that settled in Jerusalem, be an aristocratic Pharisee like Gamaliel (whose family taught Greek), or both.
The portrait of Saul as zealous for the law to the point of persecuting the church perfectly fits Paul’s frequent summary of his preconversion past. Paul also tells us he “was advancing in Judaism beyond many of [his] contemporaries” (Galatians 1:14). Partly, this was probably because he studied under the esteemed teacher Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). Nevertheless, the Acts narrative makes clear that Saul’s strategy regarding competing sects is quite different to his teacher’s. (This was not unusual in the ancient world. Wealthy families would send their children to study with renown teachers without expecting that the children would adopt all the teacher’s beliefs.)
As I mentioned above, Saul is “young.” What does this mean? Scholars differ on the precise sense of the term, and for good reason: various ancient sources employ it differently. Some sources define it as anyone from 24 to 40 years of age, others, ages twenty-one to twenty-eight; yet the term could also be applied to someone under twenty. Some Jewish pietists felt twenty was the age when a youth could discern morality on his own. For the rabbis and presumably most Jews, personal moral accountability began especially around age thirteen.
Given Saul’s role here, he is probably not a young adolescent merely beginning studies with Gamaliel or some other teacher. Instead, he has probably finished his studies. I think we can safely speculate Saul was somewhere in his mid-twenties to very early thirties.
Achieving leadership at his age would be difficult, since those who were young might have trouble gaining respect (in Israel and elsewhere). Young men were expected to have some limitations, for example, Classical Athens considered those below thirty to be young and hence easily misled and ineligible to sit in the city council. Nevertheless, exceptions were sometimes appropriate, and some young men were allowed to lead. This could result in self-assurance on the part of the youth and envy and animosity on the part of other members of the community.
That the most violent zeal would be associated with a young man would not surprise ancient hearers (or today’s readers). This zeal could be used by the older leaders. Some elders might have allowed the younger hotheads to take care of details, while the elders maintained their own dignity.
Chapter 8—IntroductionChapters 6 and 7 focus on Stephen, one of the seven so-called deacons. Chapter 8 focuses on another one of these leaders: Philip. Stephen lays the groundwork by teaching that God is not bound to the sacred land or the temple. Philip implements the vision by evangelizing Samaritans and the first fully Gentile convert, an African official.
Recall the words of Jesus at the very beginning of Acts, “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest parts of the earth” (Acts 1:8). Philip reaches both Samaritans and a representative from the “ends of the earth.” (Geographically, Philip advances the gospel north to Samaria and south to Africans.)
Persecution and ScatteringSaul persecutes the church harshly. The effect of the persecution, however, is the dispersing of the church, fulfilling Acts 1:8 more fully but in a manner undoubtedly not expected by the apostles. This outcome testifies to God’s sovereign activity even through opposition. Let’s consider these points further.
Saul’s persecution of the church is undoubtedly historical. Paul himself admits participation in violent persecution of Christians, mentioning it regularly in his letters (1 Cor 15:9; Gal 1:13; Phil 3:6).
The persecution has the effect of scattering “all” except the apostles. A major interpretive crux in this passage is what Luke means by “all.” Few scholars take “all” literally, and most assume that the object of the persecution was the Hellenists. This proposal is also unlikely. If only the Hellenists were scattered, saying “all the church” is an unusual way to specify this. Moreover, this view is based on an incorrect (and now outdated) assumption that Hebrews and Hellenists had large theological differences regarding the temple.
So what does “all” mean? “All the church” is surely hyperbole, which is a typical use of the word “all” by Luke (e.g., Luke 1:6; 2:1; 5:17; Acts 1:1). Nevertheless, it clearly conveys the idea that a large number of Christians left Jerusalem. There is no indication that any particular group of Christians was more prone to flee. (We could speculate that more Hellenist Christians left Israel than other Christians. The story focuses on Hellenists moving to the Diaspora. Moreover, Hellenists may have had more connections outside Israel, making the move easier.)
We should also ask, why are the apostles explicitly excepted from the scattering? Maybe Saul avoids persecuting the apostles because of his teacher Gamaliel’s words in their favor (recall Acts 5). Maybe Saul respected them as miracle-working men. Both of these proposals seem unlikely because in the ancient world ringleaders would be persecuted first. The more likely explanation is the apostles remained and went “underground.” (Notice the text does not say the apostles escaped persecution. It only says the apostles remained in Jerusalem.)
Sometimes we forget the sacrifice made even by the Christians who fled. Some of them would have abandoned property, probably permanently as it could have been deemed legally abandoned or been confiscated. Confiscation was often concomitant with other criminal sentences.
Saul persecuted believers from house to house. Homes were viewed as private. Persecuting someone at home was more grievous than public arrest. Persecuting someone at home intruded upon the domestic sphere, associated with women. In the ancient world, women were less often punished than men, but exceptions were made, including times they were killed for their husbands’ rebellion.
The term used to describe Saul’s persecuting activity was a strong term that could apply to torture, military devastation, or outrages.
Mourning and Burying StephenWith all this in mind, we should notice the courage of those who bury Stephen. Helping a prisoner or otherwise identifying with a condemned person could be dangerous. The fact that Stephen’s burial was allowed is not surprising. For Jew and Gentile alike, to be left unburied was a horrific fate that was rarely imposed upon anyone. Jews did not believe in withholding burial for any circumstances. It contradicted their law (Deuteronomy 21: 23). However, the fact that Stephen’s death was allowed to be mourned is surprising. Jewish tradition, at least as we know it from later evidence, did not permit open mourning for those executed by approval of a Jewish court. If that later evidence is representative of Stephen’s time, then the open mourning is evidence that the Sanhedrin did not intend to execute Stephen immediately. It was an unofficial lynching that ended his life.
God’s Use of PersecutionSaul’s persecution of the church lead to Philip’s ministry and that of untold scattered believers. Saul was a vessel of God before he was ever Paul, though an unwitting agent who merited destruction. (In the Old Testament, God used Assyria and Babylon as his “clubs” to punish the wicked, although Assyria and Babylon were also wicked and were eventually judged.)
Scattering from Jerusalem as a result of Stephen’s persecution proved a major factor in spreading the Jesus movement. Nevertheless, this was probably unexpected for the apostles and early church. As we have discussed throughout Acts, the Old Testament prophesied that through Israel all the nations would be blessed. But early Jewish Christians probably guessed that Gentile nations would be drawn to Israel’s exalted glory after it accepted its Messiah. Instead, as we can see in retrospect, God’s plan was accomplished through Israel’s rejection of its Messiah.
A Samaritan TownPhilips goes to a Samaritan town or, as our translation puts it, “the main city of Samaria.” As the NET translators acknowledge, the word “main” is not in the text—they provide it for clarity. Moreover, the authenticity of the definite article “the” is debated. So, the text either reads “the city of Samaria” or “a city of Samaria.” The NET translators think the city described is Sebaste.
The main city of Samaria most likely refers to the principal city of Samaria, rebuilt by Herod the Great as Sebaste in honor of Augustus . . . . This is the best option if the article before “city” is taken as original. If the reading without the article is taken as autographic, then another city may be in view: Gitta, the hometown of Simon Magus according to Justin Martyr . . . .
Most scholars reject the Sebaste proposition. Luke always uses “Samaria” for the region of the Samaritan people and Sebaste was a Gentile city.
SamaritansThe significance of Philip’s activity in Samaria this will be lost on us if we do not discuss who were the Samaritans. As one website explains:
After King Solomon ruled over the Israelites—God’s people—the unwise actions of his son Rehoboam in the tenth century BC led to a schism in which the kingdom was split into the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah, each with its own king.
Both kingdoms devolved into corruption and sin, despite repeated warnings from prophets sent by God. Thus, God warned, they would be overtaken by conquerors. The northern kingdom fared worse than the southern kingdom, with a long line of wicked rulers. It didn’t help that the temple, where God’s people were to worship, was located in the southern kingdom.
In 721 B.C., the northern kingdom of Israel fell to the Assyrians. Many of the people of Israel were led off to Assyria as captives, but some remained in the land and intermarried with foreigners planted there by the Assyrians. These half-Jewish, half-Gentile people became known as the Samaritans.
Because of their shared heritage, Samaritans worshipped the same God as Jews and shared roughly the same Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament). Also because of this shared heritage, Samaritans were not Jews but were not Gentiles either. For example, Josephus once refers to them as Jewish apostates. A major point of contention between Samaritans and Jews concerned their respective holy sites. Samaritans regarded Gerizim as the holiest of mountains, not Jerusalem. The Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim was destroyed in 128 B.C.
It is this proximity yet distinctiveness between the two groups that fueled competition and animosity. Jewish people did not think highly of Samaritans and did not trust them. Jewish tradition indicates that hostilities had begun immediately after some Jews returned from the Babylonian exile. A story goes that Samaritans convinced Romans to prevent Jews from rebuilding the temple in Hadrian’s reign. The hostilities reached a boiling point when, according to a Jewish report, some Samaritans in the early first century defiled the Jerusalem temple one night with human bones. This provided the reason for Jews prohibiting Samaritans’ attendance at the Jerusalem Passover.
Samaritans’ very insistence to be descendants of Israel rendered their temple all the more suspect to Jews. Some Jews extended more leeway to Gentiles, but if Samaritans were truly Jews, then they should worship nowhere else but the temple.
Keep this in mind when you read that Philip proclaimed Christ to them. You mean, without serious catechism first? Without teaching them and requiring them to acknowledge the true temple? The true Judaism? The true people of God? To embrace Samaritans “as they were” was to agree not to make the temple or Jerusalem—the cornerstones of the Jewish faith—matters of division.
To add further shock and scandal, Samaritans were baptized! Why is this surprising? Recall from our prior discussions of baptism, that despite the many water purification rituals practiced by Jews, full-immersion baptism was reserved for proselyte Gentiles. The early church, following the footsteps of John the Baptist, seems to have repurposed this ritual to signify full conversion and acceptance into the Christian faith—even when coming from Judaism. Because Samaritans were already circumcised (remember, they were not Gentiles), Jewish baptism would have been inappropriate for them. So, this is Christian baptism that is in view. What we have here is Philip welcoming Samaritans to the true faith by baptism without requiring Samaritans’ confession of loyalty to the Jerusalem temple versus their heretical allegiance to Mount Gerizim. Philip successfully evangelized Samaritans with the good news of the kingdom and Jesus Christ.
Samaritans Expected a MessiahWould the idea of a Christ-figure make sense to Samaritans?
Samaritans may have heard Philip’s preaching in terms of their own traditions of the Taheb—the Samaritan concept most equivalent to the Jewish Messiah. Yet, these two concepts were not the same. Samaritans did not speak of a Davidic Messiah or of an anointed, messianic agent but of the Taheb, the “Restorer.” He would be like Moses. He would rule. He would restore the era of divine favor that had ended after Moses.
The text does not indicate that Philip corrected the Samaritan tradition. Perhaps the text is simply omitting those discussions for the sake of brevity. But, considering the vehement differences between Jews and Samaritans, one might conclude that Philip did not attempt to convince the Samaritans about the Jewish concept of Messiah. Instead, Philip may have repurposed their expectation of a Restorer to explain Christ. If so, this has missiological implications.
Miracles and ExorcismsAs we have read in Acts about other bold proclaimers of the gospel, Philip performed miracles. We are told he healed many paralyzed and lame people. Philip probably healed other conditions too, but cases of paralysis were the most dramatic and noteworthy examples.
Philip also performed exorcisms. Ancients accepted the possibility of exorcisms, as do many people today. The “loud shouts” of the unclean spirits fit Jesus’ experience.
As Jesus stepped ashore, a certain man from the town met him who was possessed by demons. For a long time this man had worn no clothes and had not lived in a house, but among the tombs. When he saw Jesus, he cried out, fell down before him, and shouted with a loud voice, “Leave me alone, Jesus, Son of the Most High God! I beg you, do not torment me!” Luke 8:27-28
Exorcisms feature in stories from the early church. For example, Irenaeus attests that many nonbelievers in his day became Christians after experiencing successful exorcisms. Exorcisms also feature prominently in modern day stories. For example, John Wesley (the co-founder of the Methodist movement) was reported to have cast out demons from those involuntarily possessed, yielding deliverance. Pentecostal and charismatic churches report this kind of activity constantly. Many missiologists do as well. Surely some of these exorcism reports are false, but almost as certainly some are true. The Bible undeniably speaks of spiritual realities.
The Holy Spirit In a rather strange turn of events, the Samaritans “accept the word” (Acts 8:14) and are baptized (Acts 8:12), yet they do not receive the Holy Spirit. Particularly in the letters of Paul (but, truly, in all other New Testament author’s letters), conversion and receiving the Spirit are simultaneous if not synonymous. Was the Samaritans’ conversion defective? If so, the text does not even hint as much. At the same time, we must grapple with the fact that Peter and John travel together to Samaria to convey the Holy Spirit. Before we get deep into pneumatology, let’s acknowledge what seems evident in the text.
The apostles and church in Jerusalem seem compelled to certify that the propagation of the Jesus movement to Samaritans is genuine. This may have been for the benefit of Samaritans but also (and perhaps particularly) for the Jerusalem church. Is God acting outside of Israel? Only one way to find out.
I think we can also say with confidence that the text makes clear that the Holy Spirit is of paramount importance to “complete the mission.” God’s ratification of his kingdom and promises is the Holy Spirit.
Now to the controversy. For whatever the reason, the Spirit is apparently received subsequent to conversion in the Samaritan story. This has occasioned considerable discussion. Historically, various groups have advocated a second experience of the Spirit, often citing this passage, including Anglo-Catholics and Catholics with their views of confirmation; Puritan and Reformed Sealers; Wesleyan and Holiness groups; and classical Pentecostals. Yet, most Christians would agree that the Holy Spirit is received, at least in some sense, at conversion or baptism.
In Acts, we see both a reception of the Spirit at conversion and a later, empowering reception of the Spirit.
I will not attempt to settle the debate. Instead, I will point out a few things that I think are worthy of consideration. Suggesting that the Samaritan conversion was incomplete until they were visited by apostles is a hard position to hold. One must claim that a person can embrace God’s message joyfully, believe, and be baptized yet require the imposition of apostolic hands to produce genuine conversion. (I cannot think of a single Christian denomination that believes in laying of hands for conversion.) Moreover, the apostles accept the Samaritans’ conversion instead of rebaptizing them. There is no hint in the text that the conversion is defective or incomplete. (Some argue that initially when Samaritans “believe,” it only means intellectual assent. But Luke does not normally use the word believe in that sense.) Finally, we should not assume that all spiritual realities must behave according to unbendable norms. For example, people who lie to the church today do not drop dead like Ananias and Sapphira. Modern preachers do not walk the streets healing the lame and paralyzed. Perhaps the granting of the Spirit to Samaritans was delayed for a specific an unusual purpose. The fact that Luke mentions that Samaritans did not receive the Spirit at baptism suggests that was the normal expectation. The most common and plausible explanation is that God waited for apostolic ratification to maintain the unity of the Jerusalem and Samaritan churches.
As a side note, notice the exciting challenge presented by telling true stories. Other New Testament writers address the Spirit theologically, always connecting the Spirit to conversion. Luke recounts not simply the theological ideal but the experience of early Christians. He is the only New Testament writer to do so. Therefore we should weigh his narrative seriously. (I am not suggesting Luke’s superiority to other New Testament writers or that there is contradiction between them. What I am saying is that when we address a topic in abstract terms, we might unintentionally convey a sense of simplicity and uniformity that is not consistent with experience.)
As a closing note, modern theological discussion about timing can distract us from hearing Luke’s own theological emphasis. Few expected the Spirit to be conferred widely in this age, still fewer through these human agents, and—worst of all—Jewish people had no expectation that this would happen among Samaritans!
Simon the SorcererIn chapter 8, we read of a man named Simon. “Simon, who had been practicing magic and amazing the people of Samaria, claim[ed] to be someone great” (Acts 8:9). The narrative presents Simon as similar to Philip in many ways. Here is a chart provided in Craig Keener’s commentary on Acts:
Simon and Philip are similar yet very different, much like a hero and villain in a comic book. The key contrast between Simon and Philip is that Simon claims to be someone great, seeking his own status, while Philip acts only “in the name of Jesus.”
Such contrast between true and false sign-workers evoke biblical portraits of Moses confronting Pharaoh’s magicians and Elijah confronting the false prophets on Mount Carmel.
When Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh, they did so, just as the Lord had commanded them—Aaron threw down his staff before Pharaoh and his servants, and it became a snake. Then Pharaoh also summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the magicians of Egypt by their secret arts did the same thing. Each man threw down his staff, and the staffs became snakes. But Aaron’s staff swallowed up their staffs. Yet Pharaoh’s heart became hard, and he did not listen to them, just as the Lord had predicted. Exodus 7:10-13
Elijah approached all the people and said, “How long are you going to be paralyzed by indecision? If the Lord is the true God, then follow him, but if Baal is, follow him!” But the people did not say a word. Elijah said to them: “I am the only prophet of the Lord who is left, but there are 450 prophets of Baal. Let them bring us two bulls. Let them choose one of the bulls for themselves, cut it up into pieces, and place it on the wood. But they must not set it on fire. I will do the same to the other bull and place it on the wood. But I will not set it on fire. Then you will invoke the name of your god, and I will invoke the name of the Lord. The god who responds with fire will demonstrate that he is the true God.” All the people responded, “This will be a fair test.” 1 Kings 18:21-24
Modern people (Christians included) may be surprised to find out that encounters like that of Philip and Simon are still very much reported today. In fact, Missiologists often cite the relevance of “power encounters” for reaching cultures that affirm superhuman powers.
Magic vs MiraclesBy the way, how do we distinguish magic from miracles? I think we often read Simon’s story and some similar tales in the Bible but do not stop to ask this question. The difference is not always clear, but we can point to some distinctions. Magic generally seeks to manipulate spirits or forces whereas religion and miracles do not. Magic is generally used for selfish purposes, although miracles (such as those of healing) could be accused of the same. Nevertheless, the broad distinction remains, i.e., whether people believed that the power was used for personal advantage or the common good. (This might evident as a practical matter: did the sorcerer or miracle-worker expect payment?) Ancient peoples often used another criterion: supernatural activity in alien groups was magic, while supernatural activity in their own group was not. This last subject standard to differentiate magic and miracles is not particularly useful.
I think the first distinction is the most important: is the supernatural event the result of an “adept” who is able to manipulate the world, including its spiritual and divine realities. If it works like a science of the supernatural, in which specific requirements must be met to achieve a result, then it probably falls under the category of magic. The socioreligious context is helpful in determining whether a supernatural event is magic or not. Recall the miracles of Jesus. The sociocultural context was Jesus preaching about the one true God and his imminent kingdom. The context makes clear that the miracles are brought upon by God—neither nature nor God are being manipulated into bringing upon the supernatural events.
We should also note that ancient peoples often recognized magicians as charlatans. Sadly, we often speaks of ancient peoples as naïve idiots who believed any superstition. This was not the case.
One last point on magic: how did Jews view magic? In Acts 8:9 and 11, Luke seems to employ a pejorative word for magic, associated with Medo-Persian astrologers and diviners who were often considered quacks or viewed negatively. The word also ties to the story of Daniel 2, which portrays these magicians as fraudulent or powerless. Nevertheless, some Jews had embraced magic—even if magic was condemned in the Old Testament and by many rabbis. Jewish sources sometimes associated magic with fallen angels or Satan. Some rabbis embraced magic as the science of their era.
Simon’s WickednessI think a key fact to understand the interaction between Philip, the apostles, and Simon, is what exactly Simon claimed to be. Simon claimed to be someone “great” (Acts 8:9). This word by no means necessarily implies a divine title, but it is consistent with one. We gain more insight from the people calling him “the power of God that is called ‘Great’” (Acts 8:10). Potentially, this could be translated as “the Great Power of God.” So, many scholars believe that Simon was not simply claiming to be someone great in a generic sense but to be divine.
One could retort: surely Samaritans were not calling Simon divine. They were monotheistic! Yes, Samaritans were monotheistic and intensely religious. However, they were also hellenized, a hallmark of which was religious syncretism. By this point in their history, Samaritans may have assimilated other deities and viewed Simon as one of them (or at least an avatar of one of them).
Before we review Simon’s falling from grace, figuratively speaking, let’s remember his believing into grace.
Even Simon himself believed, and after he was baptized, he stayed close to Philip constantly, and when he saw the signs and great miracles that were occurring, he was amazed. Acts 8:13
Perhaps Simon was not converted to begin with. Nevertheless, we are told he “believed,” no different (at least in language) than the other Samaritans. How are we to make sense of this? We could consider a recurring theme in the gospels, particularly in John: faith in response to signs is only the most basic level of faith. Persevering faith is the kind of faith that really matters. We might also recall the parable of the sower.
Listen! A sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seeds fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured them. Other seeds fell on rocky ground where they did not have much soil. They sprang up quickly because the soil was not deep. But when the sun came up, they were scorched, and because they did not have sufficient root, they withered. Other seeds fell among the thorns, and they grew up and choked them. But other seeds fell on good soil and produced grain, some a hundred times as much, some sixty, and some thirty. The one who has ears had better listen! Matthew 13:3b-9
“So listen to the parable of the sower: When anyone hears the word about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches what was sown in his heart; this is the seed sown along the path. The seed sown on rocky ground is the person who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy. But he has no root in himself and does not endure; when trouble or persecution comes because of the word, immediately he falls away. The seed sown among thorns is the person who hears the word, but worldly cares and the seductiveness of wealth choke the word, so it produces nothing. But as for the seed sown on good soil, this is the person who hears the word and understands. He bears fruit, yielding a hundred, sixty, or thirty times what was sown.” Matthew 13:18-23
Regardless of whether Simon was a true believer or not, upon the apostles visit to Samaria, Simon somehow “saw” that people received the Spirit, and this reception was dramatic enough to provoke his desire for the gift. Simon offered them money for the gift. I think everyone, at a gut level, recoils at the thought. Should the gift of communion with the one and only good and gracious God be something to buy and sell? Absolutely not. It is inconceivable.
At a worldview level, Simon and the apostles are at odds. Simon seeks a power he can manipulate and that could lead to personal advantage. Philip and the apostles act only on behalf of (in the name of) God. The apostles will tolerate no syncretism and chastise Simon severely. They tell Simon that anyone who thinks he can purchase “God’s gift” fundamentally misunderstands God. Simon is urged to repent—to truly convert. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, early church fathers, claimed to know Simon’s fate. According to them, Simon did not convert.
As the sin of Ananias could have marred the reputation and effectiveness of the early church if not confronted and terminated, Simon presented a similar threat.
Simon responds with a request for prayer. There are similar scenes in the Old Testament in which those confronted with judgement asked a godly man to pray for them, the hope being that God would hear a holy man’s prayer. At least once the prayer was effective:
When the king heard the prophet’s message that he had cried out against the altar in Bethel, Jeroboam took his hand from the altar and pointed it saying, “Seize him!” Then the hand that he had pointed at him stiffened up, and he could not pull it back. Meanwhile the altar split open, and the ashes poured from the altar in fulfillment of the sign the prophet had given with the Lord’s message. The king responded to the prophet, “Seek the favor of the Lord your God and pray for me, so that my hand may be restored.” So the prophet sought the Lord’s favor and the king’s hand was restored as it was at first. 1 Kings 13:4-6
We do not have Peter’s response to Simon’s request for prayer. However, Simon’s issue does not seem like the type of problem that someone else’s prayer could “fix.”
In Acts 8:25, concluding Luke’s section on the Samaritan mission, the apostles follow Philip’s example. This makes clear that salvation has truly gone out to Samaria.
Scripture Reading: Acts 7:44-60
44 Our ancestors had the tabernacle of testimony in the wilderness, just as God who spoke to Moses ordered him to make it according to the design he had seen. 45 Our ancestors received possession of it and brought it in with Joshua when they dispossessed the nations that God drove out before our ancestors, until the time of David. 46 He found favor with God and asked that he could find a dwelling place for the house of Jacob. 47 But Solomon built a house for him. 48 Yet the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands, as the prophet says,
49 ‘Heaven is my throne,
and earth is the footstool for my feet.
What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord,
or what is my resting place?
50 Did my hand not make all these things?’
51 “You stubborn people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are always resisting the Holy Spirit, like your ancestors did! 52 Which of the prophets did your ancestors not persecute? They killed those who foretold long ago the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become! 53 You received the law by decrees given by angels, but you did not obey it.”
54 When they heard these things, they became furious and ground their teeth at him. 55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked intently toward heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 “Look!” he said. “I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” 57 But they covered their ears, shouting out with a loud voice, and rushed at him with one intent. 58 When they had driven him out of the city, they began to stone him, and the witnesses laid their cloaks at the feet of a young man named Saul. 59 They continued to stone Stephen while he prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!” 60 Then he fell to his knees and cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them!” When he had said this, he died.
Main ThemesWhere We Left OffLast week we covered most of Stephen’s speech. Stephen recounts the lives of the heroes of the faith: Abraham, Joseph, and Moses. Several connections can be drawn between them and Jesus, with the most prominent connection being the idea of a deliverer that was rejected by his people (particularly evident in the stories of Joseph and Moses). This is evidence that the Jews’ rejection of Jesus does not mean Jesus was an impostor nor that, if Jesus really was the Messiah, God’s plan failed. Instead, it is the mark of a true deliverer. Christ’s rejection is fulfilled scripture (see also, Isaiah 43:1-4). It is a greater, alas the greatest, fulfillment of that archetype in scripture.
Stephen also reminds his hearers of their sins—their constant sins. Their idolatry merited exile, which climaxed with the Babylonian empire’s conquest of Israel. But, their sinful hearts were present even during the exodus. This is evidence that the Jews’ sinful behavior against Jesus was expected. As with the prior example, given Jesus’ identity, the Jews’ sinful behavior against God in the flesh is the greatest fulfillment of this archetype in scripture.
Now that Stephen’s words are fresh in our minds, let’s continue to read his conclusion and the audience’s reaction.
David & God’s House
Our ancestors had the tabernacle of testimony in the wilderness, just as God who spoke to Moses ordered him to make it according to the design he had seen. Our ancestors received possession of it and brought it in with Joshua when they dispossessed the nations that God drove out before our ancestors, until the time of David. He found favor with God and asked that he could find a dwelling place for the house of Jacob. But Solomon built a house for him. Yet the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands, as the prophet says,
‘Heaven is my throne, and earth is the footstool for my feet. What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord, or what is my resting place? Did my hand not make all these things?’
“You stubborn people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are always resisting the Holy Spirit, like your ancestors did! Which of the prophets did your ancestors not persecute? They killed those who foretold long ago the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become! You received the law by decrees given by angels, but you did not obey it.” Acts 7:44-53
When David, Israel’s greatest king, ruled the promised land, did God need a temple? Not only is the answer no, but God did not allow David to build a temple. Sure, Israel had a tabernacle, but that only furthers Stephen’s point. God will dwell where he will dwell. Moreover, even when the people had the tabernacle they still practiced idolatry continuously. A temple would not change that.
David’s son was finally allowed to build a temple. Although we already know the answer, let’s ask, Did God need a house to dwell among his people? Isaiah 66:1-2, quoted by Stephen, settles the matter.
‘Heaven is my throne, and earth is the footstool for my feet. What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord, or what is my resting place? Did my hand not make all these things?’
This is why Stephen can confidently say, “Yet the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands . . . .” As the NET translators explain:
The phrase made by human hands is negative in the NT . . . . It suggests “man-made” or “impermanent.” The rebuke is like parts of the Hebrew scripture where the rebuke is not of the temple, but for making too much of it . . . .
The temple was an accommodation to human need, but God desired pure worship, not simply a place or institution.
Notice that in verses 40 and 41 of chapter 7, idolaters make gods with their own hands and worship them. In utter opposition, verses 48 and 49 tell us that nothing made can contain God because God has made all things.
Reversing the Charges, Circumcision of the HeartOpposing the Law and the Temple
Recall from chapter 6 that Stephen faces two charges: he opposes the law and the temple. As we just discussed, Stephen argues against making too much of the temple. God was with his people before they had a temple; God refused Israel’s greatest king’s offer to build him a temple; God cannot be contained in anything created. Notice, this is not an anti-temple argument. Stephen is not advocating for the destruction or even the abandonment of the temple. Stephen is requesting that the temple be placed in proper perspective against the backdrop of God’s infinitude.
In verse 51, Stephen addresses the charge that he opposes the law. As we have discussed before, a common ancient rhetorical technique was to reverse a charge on the accuser. (This would have been terribly unwise in a trial context—at least if one wished to receive mercy. That is clearly not Stephen’s goal.) Stephen, in no uncertain terms, answers the question: who is disobeying the law? His accusers. They are spiritually uncircumcised (7: 51), murderers of the prophets (7: 52), and general disobeyers of the law (7: 53). His hearers’ resistance against the Holy Spirit places them in the same category as those who rejected the biblical prophets.
Circumcision of the Heart
God’s ideal was always that his people’s hearts be circumcised. We see this throughout the Old Testament.
Therefore, cleanse your hearts and stop being so stubborn! Deuteronomy 10:16
In this verse, the text translated as “cleanse” literally reads, “circumcise the foreskin of.” As the NET translators explain, “Just as that act signified total covenant obedience, so spiritual circumcision (cleansing of the heart) signifies more internally a commitment to be pliable and obedient to the will of God . . . .”
God makes clear that an external circumcision without a circumcision of heart was never any good.
The Lord says, “Watch out! The time is soon coming when I will punish all those who are circumcised only in the flesh. That is, I will punish the Egyptians, the Judeans, the Edomites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, and all the desert people who cut their hair short at the temples. I will do so because none of the people of those nations are really circumcised in the Lord’s sight. Moreover, none of the people of Israel are circumcised when it comes to their hearts.” Jeremiah 9:25-26
This is a fundamental Christian belief—and Stephen’s speech makes it clear that it was fundamental to Judaism as well. We generally speak of Judaism as a religion based purely on strict adherence to laws. Notice, that is not entirely correct. As I have repeated before, Jesus’ followers are not attempting to replace Judaism with a new religion but to “do” Judaism correctly.
Sincere Belief
Let’s explore this idea of sincere belief in one’s heart. There are many New Testament passages to this effect.
Because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 10:9, emphasis added
Therefore, brothers and sisters, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the fresh and living way that he inaugurated for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a sincere heart in the assurance that faith brings, because we have had our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed in pure water. And let us hold unwaveringly to the hope that we confess, for the one who made the promise is trustworthy. Hebrews 10:19-23, emphasis added
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. Matthew 5:8, emphasis added
“Watch out for false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are voracious wolves. You will recognize them by their fruit. Grapes are not gathered from thorns or figs from thistles, are they? In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree is not able to bear bad fruit, nor a bad tree to bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will recognize them by their fruit. Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of heaven—only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day, many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many powerful deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you. Go away from me, you lawbreakers!’ Matthew 7:15-23, emphasis added
Because of verses such as these, Christians generally believe that outside behaviors will not save a man. Only Jesus saves. And Jesus will only save those who earnestly wish to be saved; those who wish to be righteous; those who wish to love and be loved the way that Love himself would have it; those who truly wish for true Heaven. Those people not only believe in God but believe God. God is not only real but the master and the prize.
Stephen—The First MartyrMartyrs, in the ancient world and today, function as models. They are like brave soldiers who die upon the battlefield inspiring other soldiers. Stories of martyrs were not foreign to ancient Jews. The Maccabean martyrs would have been well-remembered examples at the time of Jesus. Gentiles (i.e., non-Jews) had their martyr stories too.
Stephen is the first Christian martyr. As such, the church fathers regarded him as the “protomartyr,” offering an example for many to follow. Stephen’s martyrdom is also special because of the parallels with Jesus’ death. See below for a chart from Craig Keener’s commentary on Acts that compares the deaths of Jesus and Stephen.
**The Sanhedrin’s Power to Execute**I discussed the Sanhedrin’s inability to carry out capital punishment during our study of John. Here I will provide a brief reminder.
Rome jealously guarded the power of capital punishment. Generally, only the Roman representative in the area (e.g., governor) could approve it. Local councils could pronounce capital punishment but, without ratification from Roman authorities, carrying it out would have been a serious affront against the empire. The Sanhedrin was no different. (To be fair, some scholars think that Rome allowed the Sanhedrin to execute capital sentences directly, but this is highly unlikely and not widely accepted. Moreover, that theory does not make sense of Pontius Pilate’s involvement in Jesus’ death.)
The Roman authorities may have looked the other way in the case of lynchings—since they would not have been a deliberate and organized defiance of Rome. However, even deaths by lynching could generate complaints to Rome.
For these reasons, scholars debate whether Acts 7 is narrating a formal trial of Stephen, a trial and a later lynching, or a trial quickly followed by a lynching. If Acts 7 describes a trial and a formally executed punishment, perhaps the Jewish authorities sought Roman ratification of Stephen’s death penalty after the fact. Proponents of this theory suggest that otherwise (that is, without Roman approval), the Jewish persecution of Christians involving arrests and investigations reaching as far as Damascus, would have met Roman resistance.
The second proposal is that Stephen’s trial and Stephen’s death were not immediately successive events. Some time passed and a mob did what the Sanhedrin could not. To take this view, one must believe that Luke collapsed and confused both events in his narrative. This view does not treat the text seriously and there are more plausible alternatives.
What about a trial and an immediate lynching? Perhaps the Sanhedrin did not intend to execute Stephen on the spot, but things just got out of control. Oops. I am sure they were devastated. Mob violence was a common phenomenon of ancient life, particularly in Jewish court settings. Jewish trials often devolved into unruly shouting and could degenerate further than this. Surprisingly, throwing stones at one’s legal adversaries was not unusual. So, the proposition that the action went from throwing stones to a stoning is not hard to believe.
The Great ReversalI will argue that there is a running double entendre beginning on verse 7:54 and ending with verse 8:1. At every turn, what is happening on earth is the opposite of what is happening in heaven. The good guys are the bad guys, the condemned is innocent, human justice is God’s injustice. Ultimately, the winners are the losers, and the losers are the winners. The effect of the juxtaposition is to give us hope than one day all will be set right.
Furious, Grinding Their Teeth
The Jewish accusers became “furious” with Stephen—a strong word used only once more in the New Testament, the prior trial of the apostles in chapter 5. Unlike chapter 5, no Gamaliel intervenes. In their anger, the accusers “grind their teeth.” The literal expression is “gnashed their teeth.” This could indicate anger or frustration (see, for example, Psalm 112:10), but it often conveyed anguish. The phrase appears in relation to judgment and hell. For example:
Then Jesus traveled throughout towns and villages, teaching and making his way toward Jerusalem. Someone asked him, “Lord, will only a few be saved?” So he said to them, “Exert every effort to enter through the narrow door because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. Once the head of the house gets up and shuts the door, then you will stand outside and start to knock on the door and beg him, ‘Lord, let us in!’ But he will answer you, ‘I don’t know where you come from.’ Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets.’ But he will reply, ‘I don’t know where you come from! Go away from me, all you evildoers!’ There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God but you yourselves thrown out. Then people will come from east and west, and from north and south, and take their places at the banquet table in the kingdom of God. But indeed, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last.” Luke 13:22-30, emphasis added
The reversal—the irony— is that those who gnash their teeth in anger persecuting the righteous will gnash their teeth in anguish upon the final judgment.
Looking to Heaven; Seeing God’s Glory
Today, we pray by bowing our heads and closing our eyes. There is nothing inherently spiritual about this. It is a cultural preference. In Jesus’ day, looking to heaven was a common posture for prayer. Presumably, this was because God resided in heaven.
Stephen does exactly as expected and looks intently towards heaven. Before his prayer, he has a vision. He sees the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. Some other Jewish texts presented similar heavenly visions, although they were often ambiguous. The speaker may have been narrating events as if he were actually seeing them when both him and his audience understood that he was not. Stephen’s case contains no such ambiguity. Both the narrator and Stephen tell us he is genuinely seeing something.
Stephen claims that the heavens opened. We have heard these words before.
Now when all the people were baptized, Jesus also was baptized. And while he was praying, the heavens opened, and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my one dear Son; in you I take great delight.” Luke 3:21-22, emphasis added
Further, notice that Stephen sees God’s glory in heaven rather than in the temple. As Stephen has just declared, heaven is God’s throne, rather than any earthly temple containing him.
Most important, however, is that Stephen’s vision of the Son of Man at God’s right hand clearly parallels Jesus’s announcement of the Son of Man at God’s right hand.
Now the men who were holding Jesus under guard began to mock him and beat him. They blindfolded him and asked him repeatedly, “Prophesy! Who hit you?” They also said many other things against him, reviling him. When day came, the council of the elders of the people gathered together, both the chief priests and the experts in the law. Then they led Jesus away to their council and said, “If you are the Christ, tell us.” But he said to them, “If I tell you, you will not believe, and if I ask you, you will not answer. But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.” So they all said, “Are you the Son of God, then?” He answered them, “You say that I am.” Then they said, “Why do we need further testimony? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips!” Luke 22:63-71, emphasis added
Stephen’s vision confirms to him and to us that his sacrifice is not in vain. The promises of Jesus are true. He reigns. Jesus lives so Stephen shall live again. We should also note that the title “Son of Man” is rare outside the Gospels and barely ever occurs on anyone’s lips but Jesus’. Stephen is relying on the words of his lord.
Right Hand
That Jesus is at the Father’s right hand emphasizes the claim of his exaltation as sovereign Messiah and Lord, the “Lord” of Ps 110.
Here is the Lord’s proclamation to my lord: “Sit down at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.” The Lord extends your dominion from Zion. Rule in the midst of your enemies. Your people willingly follow you when you go into battle. On the holy hills at sunrise the dew of your youth belongs to you. The Lord makes this promise on oath and will not revoke it: “You are an eternal priest after the pattern of Melchizedek.” O Lord, at your right hand he strikes down kings in the day he unleashes his anger. Psalm 110:1b-5, emphasis added
Even if the Sanhedrin did not believe Stephen, they would have felt the political defiance embedded in his alleged vision. Stephen is claiming that the Jesus they crucified claims an alternate kingdom, a greater kingdom. Here is the second piece of the double entendre. The Sanhedrin believes itself to be sovereign. If they are sovereign at all it is of a small kingdom. The true sovereign is Jesus, sitting at the right hand of God almighty.
The True Trial—Standing
Stephen sees Jesus standing at God’s right hand. This is unusual. Generally, Jesus is depicted as sitting next to the Father (e.g., Psalm 110:1; Hebrews 1:3; Ephesians 1:20-21).
The Old Testament depicted witnesses as standing. (A vindicating witness would stand at the right hand of the accused.) Here, recall that Stephen is being accused by false witnesses, who presumably would also be standing to testify against Stephen. A standing Jesus conveys the contrasting image that as Stephen is accused by the earthly tribunal at the hands of deceitful men, he is vindicated in the heavenly tribunal by the testimony of Jesus.
The motif of vindication is reinforced by the fact that although judges generally sat though cases, tradition is that they stood to render a verdict. So, a standing Jesus also conveys the idea that as Stephen is convicted by the earthly tribunal, Jesus acquits him.
Hear No Evil
Upon Stephen’s description of his vision, the crowd rushes at him with “one intent.” Perhaps the crowd is outraged by what they interpret as further blasphemy. Perhaps the crowd is outraged because they understand Stephen’s words as a political claim that defies the authority of the Sanhedrin. Perhaps both are true.
When the crowd launches at Stephen, they cover their ears and shout (or “cry”) in a loud voice. Why would they do this? Covering one’s ears to prevent hearing further blasphemy may have been considered a pious act. In a sense, they were keeping themselves clean from Stephen’s blasphemy.
Here is another, powerful ironic reversal. The crowd shuts its ears and cries to make sure the message will not reach it. Recall what Stephen said just a few verses before, “You stubborn people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are always resisting the Holy Spirit, like your ancestors did!” The Jews think they are closing their ears to lies when they are closing their ears to truth.
The PunishmentCast Out
Stephen is “driven out” of the city, also translated as “cast out.” Standard Jewish custom was to cast someone out of the city before executing them. Jesus was also “cast out” in the parable of the vineyard.
Then he began to tell the people this parable: “A man planted a vineyard, leased it to tenant farmers, and went on a journey for a long time. When harvest time came, he sent a slave to the tenants so that they would give him his portion of the crop. However, the tenants beat his slave and sent him away empty-handed. So he sent another slave. They beat this one too, treated him outrageously, and sent him away empty-handed. So he sent still a third. They even wounded this one and threw him out. Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What should I do? I will send my one dear son; perhaps they will respect him.’ But when the tenants saw him, they said to one another, ‘This is the heir; let’s kill him so the inheritance will be ours!’ So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? Luke 20:9-15, emphasis added
Stoning
Greeks and other peoples, like Jews, executed people by stoning. Roman law limited these local forms of punishment, but even in this period Roman law could not prevent stoning from occurring altogether, since it was a common way for mobs to execute vengeance without regard for official laws. Stoning was often a mob action both in Israel and elsewhere.
Stoning was simply the most ready-to-hand form of public violence available, including in Judea. Stoning was appropriate for blasphemy, among other offenses, and had to be done outside the city.
Oftentimes God’s people tried to stone God’s prophets.
God’s Spirit energized Zechariah son of Jehoiada the priest. He stood up before the people and said to them, “This is what God says: ‘Why are you violating the commands of the Lord? You will not be prosperous. Because you have rejected the Lord, he has rejected you!’” They plotted against him and by royal decree stoned him to death in the courtyard of the Lord’s temple. 2 Chronicles 24:20-21
Then Moses cried out to the Lord, “What will I do with this people?—a little more and they will stone me!” Exodus 17:4
In a stoning, witnesses were the first to cast stones, perhaps as a deterrent to false witnesses.
Laid Their Cloaks
The hostile witnesses discard their “cloaks” (ἱμάτια). Most people wore a tunic or shirt composed of two pieces of cloth sewn together. The simplest form was sleeveless, but in cooler weather one could add a himation (a rectangular piece of cloth draped around the body). Thus the removal of the cloak does not involve complete nakedness.
Why did the witnesses remove their cloaks? For a simple but morbid reason. Because they were about to engage in strenuous exercise to stone Stephen. Nevertheless, the self-stripping gives us our last “great reversal.” Prisoners were often stripped naked before they received their public punishment, such as lashings or stoning. Nakedness increased their shame. (Nakedness had been shameful for Jewish people throughout their history.) Luke portrays the Hellenist accusers as stripping themselves for a strenuous physical activity but, in so doing, portrays them ironically as the guilty party.
The Prayer
Like I mentioned above, today we pray in silence (except in some corporate settings), but ancient Jews prayed out loud. So, people generally heard the supplicant’s prayer. Also, kneeling was a common posture for prayer, denoting submission. Stephen’s prayer was:
Lord Jesus, receive my spirit! Lord, do not hold this sin against them!
This prayer recalls Jesus’ prayer before his death.
But Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they don’t know what they are doing.” Luke 23:34a*
Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” Luke 23:46
(*There is some textual controversy regarding the first part of verse Luke 23:34. The verse may not be original but still historically authentic.)
The person addressed in Stephen’s prayer is significant. He is “calling on the name of the Lord” fulfilling the words of Peter’s speech (quoting the prophet Joel).
And then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. Acts 2:21
Moreover, notice that in the gospels Jesus addressed the Father. Stephen call out to “Lord Jesus.” This is highly significant. Stephen thought of Jesus as God.
The climax of the scene of Stephen’s martyrdom (before his death) is his prayer for his persecutors. Jesus taught prayer for one’s oppressors.
But I say to you who are listening: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. Luke 6:27-28
You have heard that it was said, “Love your neighbor” and “hate your enemy.” But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be like your Father in heaven, since he causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Even the tax collectors do the same, don’t they? And if you only greet your brothers, what more do you do? Even the Gentiles do the same, don’t they? Matthew 5:43-47
Stephen’s prayer for his accusers is particularly shocking if we understand their culture. Jewish people believed in confessing sins before God as a form of atonement. Normally death was considered sufficient suffering to atone for a Jewish person, if coupled with repentance. Thus one in danger might pray for safety and add, as a precaution, “May my death atone for all my sins.” People condemned to capital punishment were invited to make confession a few feet from the site of execution so that they could share in the coming world.
So, imagine the shock when Stephen confesses not his own sins but those of his opponents. Also shocking is the fact that unlike most martyrs who prayed for vindication, Stephen’s prayer was for mercy rather than justice. This is Christ’s love. This is Christian love.
Scripture Reading: Acts 6:8-7:53
Now Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and miraculous signs among the people. 9 But some men from the Synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called), both Cyrenians and Alexandrians, as well as some from Cilicia and the province of Asia, stood up and argued with Stephen. 10 Yet they were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit with which he spoke. 11 Then they secretly instigated some men to say, “We have heard this man speaking blasphemous words against Moses and God.” 12 They incited the people, the elders, and the experts in the law; then they approached Stephen, seized him, and brought him before the council. 13 They brought forward false witnesses who said, “This man does not stop saying things against this holy place and the law. 14 For we have heard him saying that Jesus the Nazarene will destroy this place and change the customs that Moses handed down to us.” 15 All who were sitting in the council looked intently at Stephen and saw his face was like the face of an angel.
1 Then the high priest said, “Are these things true?” 2 So he replied, “Brothers and fathers, listen to me. The God of glory appeared to our forefather Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he settled in Haran, 3 and said to him, ‘Go out from your country and from your relatives, and come to the land I will show you.’ 4 Then he went out from the country of the Chaldeans and settled in Haran. After his father died, God made him move to this country where you now live. 5 He did not give any of it to him for an inheritance, not even a foot of ground, yet God promised to give it to him as his possession, and to his descendants after him, even though Abraham as yet had no child. 6 But God spoke as follows: ‘Your descendants will be foreigners in a foreign country, whose citizens will enslave them and mistreat them for 400 years. 7 But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves,’ said God, ‘and after these things they will come out of there and worship me in this place.’ 8 Then God gave Abraham the covenant of circumcision, and so he became the father of Isaac and circumcised him when he was eight days old, and Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob of the 12 patriarchs. 9 The patriarchs, because they were jealous of Joseph, sold him into Egypt. But God was with him, 10 and rescued him from all his troubles, and granted him favor and wisdom in the presence of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, who made him ruler over Egypt and over all his household. 11 Then a famine occurred throughout Egypt and Canaan, causing great suffering, and our ancestors could not find food. 12 So when Jacob heard that there was grain in Egypt, he sent our ancestors there the first time. 13 On their second visit Joseph made himself known to his brothers again, and Joseph’s family became known to Pharaoh. 14 So Joseph sent a message and invited his father Jacob and all his relatives to come, seventy-five people in all. 15 So Jacob went down to Egypt and died there, along with our ancestors, 16 and their bones were later moved to Shechem and placed in the tomb that Abraham had bought for a certain sum of money from the sons of Hamor in Shechem.
17 “But as the time drew near for God to fulfill the promise he had declared to Abraham, the people increased greatly in number in Egypt, 18 until another king who did not know about Joseph ruled over Egypt. 19 This was the one who exploited our people and was cruel to our ancestors, forcing them to abandon their infants so they would die. 20 At that time Moses was born, and he was beautiful to God. For three months he was brought up in his father’s house, 21 and when he had been abandoned, Pharaoh’s daughter adopted him and brought him up as her own son. 22 So Moses was trained in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was powerful in his words and deeds. 23 But when he was about forty years old, it entered his mind to visit his fellow countrymen the Israelites. 24 When he saw one of them being hurt unfairly, Moses came to his defense and avenged the person who was mistreated by striking down the Egyptian. 25 He thought his own people would understand that God was delivering them through him, but they did not understand. 26 The next day Moses saw two men fighting and tried to make peace between them, saying, ‘Men, you are brothers; why are you hurting one another?’ 27 But the man who was unfairly hurting his neighbor pushed Moses aside, saying, ‘Who made you a ruler and judge over us? 28 You don’t want to kill me the way you killed the Egyptian yesterday, do you?’ 29 When the man said this, Moses fled and became a foreigner in the land of Midian, where he became the father of two sons.
30 “After forty years had passed, an angel appeared to him in the desert of Mount Sinai, in the flame of a burning bush. 31 When Moses saw it, he was amazed at the sight, and when he approached to investigate, there came the voice of the Lord, 32 ‘I am the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.’ Moses began to tremble and did not dare to look more closely. 33 But the Lord said to him, ‘Take the sandals off your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy ground. 34 I have certainly seen the suffering of my people who are in Egypt and have heard their groaning, and I have come down to rescue them. Now come, I will send you to Egypt.’ 35 This same Moses they had rejected, saying, ‘Who made you a ruler and judge?’ God sent as both ruler and deliverer through the hand of the angel who appeared to him in the bush. 36 This man led them out, performing wonders and miraculous signs in the land of Egypt, at the Red Sea, and in the wilderness for forty years. 37 This is the Moses who said to the Israelites, ‘God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your brothers.’ 38 This is the man who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our ancestors, and he received living oracles to give to you. 39 Our ancestors were unwilling to obey him, but pushed him aside and turned back to Egypt in their hearts, 40 saying to Aaron, ‘Make us gods who will go in front of us, for this Moses, who led us out of the land of Egypt —we do not know what has happened to him!’ 41 At that time they made an idol in the form of a calf, brought a sacrifice to the idol, and began rejoicing in the works of their hands. 42 But God turned away from them and gave them over to worship the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the prophets: ‘It was not to me that you offered slain animals and sacrifices forty years in the wilderness, was it, house of Israel? 43 But you took along the tabernacle of Moloch and the star of the god Rephan, the images you made to worship, but I will deport you beyond Babylon.’ 44 Our ancestors had the tabernacle of testimony in the wilderness, just as God who spoke to Moses ordered him to make it according to the design he had seen. 45 Our ancestors received possession of it and brought it in with Joshua when they dispossessed the nations that God drove out before our ancestors, until the time of David. 46 He found favor with God and asked that he could find a dwelling place for the house of Jacob. 47 But Solomon built a house for him. 48 Yet the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands, as the prophet says,
49 ‘Heaven is my throne,
and earth is the footstool for my feet.
What kind of house will you build for me, says the Lord,
or what is my resting place?
50 Did my hand not make all these things?’
51 “You stubborn people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are always resisting the Holy Spirit, like your ancestors did! 52 Which of the prophets did your ancestors not persecute? They killed those who foretold long ago the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become! 53 You received the law by decrees given by angels, but you did not obey it.”
Main ThemesStephenThe second half of chapter 6 focuses on one of the new leaders: Stephen. “Stephen” was a very common Greek name, but it was rare in Israel. (We have no evidence of any non-Hellenist Jews with that name.) Therefore, we have good reason to suspect Stephen belongs to the immigrant Hellenists.
We are told that Stephen “full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and miraculous signs among the people” (Acts 6:8). For how long? That is unclear. The summary statements in the book of Acts (which were required to keep the length of the book short enough to fit in one scroll) can give a modern reader the impression that the action moves quicker than it really did.
We have discussed the terms grace (meaning favor, empowerment, or both); power (empowerment through divine gift; in relation to proclamation, boldness); and the phrase “signs and wonders” (it evokes the miracles God performed in the exodus through Moses). So, I will not discuss those again. However, we should note that Stephen performing miraculous signs demonstrates that signs were not limited to the Twelve. Also, the language describing Stephen as performing signs among “the people,” conveys the idea of performing signs before Israel as a whole. The phrase “the people” was an expression referring to historic Israel. This is reminiscent of Old Testament prophets.
Some Argued with StephenStephen faces resistance. From whom? His own people! Recall last week’s discussion of Hebrews and Hellenists. The Hellenist widows complained that they were overlooked in the church’s charity ministry—implying favoritism. In response, the church appointed seven leaders, including Stephen—all of them Hellenists. In this week’s text, the resistance against Stephen comes from the Synagogue of the Freedmen, a synagogue of Hellenists. Perhaps the Hellenists felt responsible for disciplining members of their own community in Jerusalem. Perhaps the Hellenists felt threatened because many of their own were being converted.
Quite possibly, Hellenists were a distinct community within Jerusalem, overseeing some of their own affairs. They may have lived in their own area of the city, seeking intervention from the general authorities only when escalating a matter.
Synagogues and FreedmenSynagogues probably started outside Israel. We have records of synagogues in Egypt as early as the third century B.C. Synagogues were similar to, but in a sense much more than, modern churches. The term synagogue refers to local gatherings, formal or informal, that usually met in the same place. In the Diaspora the places of gathering were called “places of prayer.” Many synagogues were small and simple. Like a small country church, it was the activity that defined the synagogue and not the structure.
Why do I say synagogues were more than churches? I do not mean this in a moral or spiritual sense but in a practical sense. Certainly they functioned religiously, but they also functioned as community courts, gathering sites for charity, collection points for funds for the temple, hostels, and banquet halls.
The synagogue mentioned in Acts 6 is the Synagogue of the Freedmen. Freedmen were former slaves that had been manumitted (freed) and had become Roman citizens. The synagogue probably contained the children of freedmen as well. In Roman society, freedmen remained a distinct social group. They received lower seating in banquets, could not marry higher-class women, and could not serve in Roman legions. Many Jews brought to Rome as slaves under Pompey were soon freed, possibly through the financial help of other Jews.
Stephen Punches BackThe members of the synagogue start the argument; Stephen ends it. We are told that “they were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit with which [Stephen] spoke” (Acts 6:10).
Presumably, that language means that Stephen was able to maintain the upper hand due to the miraculous signs that validated his message and due to his intellectually superior arguments as a result of his divinely given wisdom. (As I have discussed before, Judaism recognized God as the source of wisdom.)
This scene is a fulfillment of Jesus’ words.
But when they bring you before the synagogues, the rulers, and the authorities, do not worry about how you should make your defense or what you should say, for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that moment what you must say. Luke 12:11-12
But before all this, they will seize you and persecute you, handing you over to the synagogues and prisons. You will be brought before kings and governors because of my name. This will be a time for you to serve as witnesses. Therefore be resolved not to rehearse ahead of time how to make your defense. For I will give you the words along with the wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict. You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers, relatives, and friends, and they will have some of you put to death. You will be hated by everyone because of my name. Yet not a hair of your head will perish. By your endurance you will gain your lives. Luke 21:12-19
False Witnesses and False ChargesWhen the church needed leaders (earlier in chapter 6), they sought men of good reputation. The enemies of the church sought (“instigated,” in fact) the exact opposite, “false witnesses.”
The witnesses attempt not only to have Stephen convicted but also to turn the people against him and, by extension, the Jesus movement. Notice the accusations:
“We have heard this man speaking blasphemous words against Moses and God.” Acts 6:11b
“This man does not stop saying things against this holy place and the law. 14 For we have heard him saying that Jesus the Nazarene will destroy this place and change the customs that Moses handed down to us.” Acts 6:13b-14
We will discuss the accusations at more length later, be we should note that they involve the temple. Stephen and the Jesus followers wished the temple destroyed—or so they were accused of. If true, this is a religiously shocking statement, but sometimes we forget more practical reasons why the masses may have been infuriated by such heresy. As Craig Keener writes:
Much of Jerusalem’s economy depended on the temple, in ways that sometimes would have applied to immigrant as well as native citizens. The temple establishment “required bakers, weavers, goldsmiths, washers, merchants of ointments and money changers.” Because it was still under construction, it required also stonemasons and carpenters; its completion (in 62– 64 C.E.) would create an estimated eighteen thousand unemployed workers (Jos. Ant. 20.219).
To oppose the temple in first century Jerusalem was to preach against slavery in early 19th century Virginia; to preach against tobacco in 20th century North Carolina; or to preach against oil and gas in modern day Alaska. Nothing incites rage quite like advocating for a total economic collapse. Add the religious dimension to the mix and this is a lynching in the making.
We should be aware that, sadly, the tale of Stephen and his accusers has similar precedent in the Old Testament. In the book of Kings we read of Jezebel and how she uses false witnesses against the pious man Ahab. The story is quoted below. I point this out to show that Stephen’s accusers knew their behavior was wicked.
She wrote out orders, signed Ahab’s name to them, and sealed them with his seal. She then sent the orders to the leaders and to the nobles who lived in Naboth’s city. This is what she wrote: “Observe a time of fasting and seat Naboth in front of the people. Also seat two villains opposite him and have them testify, ‘You cursed God and the king.’ Then take him out and stone him to death.”
The men of the city, the leaders, and the nobles who lived there followed the written orders Jezebel had sent them. They observed a time of fasting and put Naboth in front of the people. The two villains arrived and sat opposite him. Then the villains testified against Naboth right before the people, saying, “Naboth cursed God and the king.” So they dragged him outside the city and stoned him to death. Then they reported to Jezebel, “Naboth has been stoned to death.” 1 Kings 21:8-14
The Charges
Let’s focus on the charges brought against Stephen. Albeit with slightly different wording each time, Stephen is thrice charged with opposing Moses (phrased as either Moses, the law, or the customs, all referring to one idea). He is twice charged with opposing the temple. He is once charged with opposing God. Perhaps the charge of opposing God was a broader way of restating the first two charges (opposing God’s law and His temple).
Both the temple and the law were central to first-century Judaism. The law contained what was most fundamental to Jewish heritage and practice and hence to the Jews’ identity as a people. A challenge to the law was thus a challenge to their very understanding of their existence as a people, as well as a challenge to God the lawgiver and to what God required. Violation of the law’s main tenets was grounds for conviction and terrible punishment.
Profaning or even denouncing the temple might be viewed as worthy of death, especially to the Sadducees who controlled the temple. For example, a generation later, one Jesus ben Ananias prophesied the temple’s demise, and this led to his arrest by the authorities and being handed over to the governor for a brutal flogging. Moreover, like I mentioned above, the temple was central to the city’s identity and livelihood. Destroying the temple could have left nearly 20,000 people without jobs—in a city with a population somewhere between 60,000 and 100,000. It would have been devastating.
The final version of the temple charge specifies Jesus as the temple’s destroyer. Did Jesus say he would destroy the temple? No! This was a false claim in Jesus’ trial as well.
Many gave false testimony against him, but their testimony did not agree. Some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with hands and in three days build another not made with hands.’” Yet even on this point their testimony did not agree. Mark 14:56-59
Jesus said something similar yet entirely different.
Jesus replied, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again.” Then the Jewish leaders said to him, “This temple has been under construction for 46 years, and are you going to raise it up in three days?” But Jesus was speaking about the temple of his body. So after he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the scripture and the saying that Jesus had spoken. John 2:19-22
As we will see in Stephen’s response, Stephen does argue for a certain antilocalization of God—that is, God’s presence is more far reaching than the temple. Yet, Stephen is never anti-temple per se, so he probably did not preach against the temple either. Similarly, Jesus was not anti-law, so there is no reason to think Stephen was.
Face Like and AngelChapter 6 ends on a powerful note. As Stephen's adversaries close in, his face looks like that of an angel. This statement hardly makes sense without a bit of Old and New Testament context. Let's begin with Moses seeing and then reflecting the glory of God.
The LORD descended in the cloud and stood with him there and proclaimed the LORD by name. The LORD passed by before him and proclaimed: “The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, and abounding in loyal love and faithfulness, keeping loyal love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin. But he by no means leaves the guilty unpunished, responding to the transgression of fathers by dealing with children and children’s children, to the third and fourth generation.” Exodus 34:5-7
Now when Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two tablets of the testimony in his hand—when he came down from the mountain, Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him. When Aaron and all the Israelites saw Moses, the skin of his face shone, and they were afraid to approach him. But Moses called to them, so Aaron and all the leaders of the community came back to him, and Moses spoke to them. After this all the Israelites approached, and he commanded them all that the LORD had spoken to him on Mount Sinai. When Moses finished speaking with them, he would put a veil on his face. But when Moses went in before the LORD to speak with him, he would remove the veil until he came out. Then he would come out and tell the Israelites what he had been commanded. When the Israelites would see the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses’ face shone, Moses would put the veil on his face again, until he went in to speak with the Lord. Exodus 34:29-35
We must also recall the transfiguration of Jesus in the gospels.
Now about eight days after these sayings, Jesus took with him Peter, John, and James, and went up the mountain to pray. As he was praying, the appearance of his face was transformed, and his clothes became very bright, a brilliant white. Then two men, Moses and Elijah, began talking with him. They appeared in glorious splendor and spoke about his departure that he was about to carry out at Jerusalem. Now Peter and those with him were quite sleepy, but as they became fully awake, they saw his glory and the two men standing with him. Then as the men were starting to leave, Peter said to Jesus, “Master, it is good for us to be here. Let us make three shelters, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah”—not knowing what he was saying. As he was saying this, a cloud came and overshadowed them, and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. Then a voice came from the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, my Chosen One. Listen to him!” After the voice had spoken, Jesus was found alone. So they kept silent and told no one at that time anything of what they had seen. Luke 9:28-36
We should notice a few things. First, Moses’ face really did shine. Exodus clearly means that description literally. In the case of Jesus’ transfiguration, although the scene is more ethereal such that its description may be less literal, the witnessing apostles can still clearly see what is happening. The phenomenon described is real. So, in the case of Stephen's transfiguration (as is sometimes referred to by scholars), I think we should also take the event literally if perhaps ambiguously. I mention ambiguity because the text itself makes use of a figure of speech (face like an angel). This is entirely sensible; some events are hard to describe technically or precisely.
Also notice the timing of Stephen’s transfiguration. He becomes like Moses, reflecting the glory of God, as he is accused of opposing Moses. This seems like divine verification that Stephen is on God's side, and therefore on Moses' side as well.
The TrialIntroduction
The narrative of the trial does not repeat the charges brought against Stephen. Nevertheless, as we read Stephen's response, we must keep the charges in mind. They are the proper framing of Stephen's long speech. In short, the two charges are that Stephen opposes the temple and the law.
Stephen’s death is a turning point in the narrative. The church passes from a phase of popularity in Jerusalem to one of persecution and scattering. Other Jewish sects kept their distance from the authorities, creating their own somewhat isolated communities. Jesus’ followers, on the other hand, challenged the temple authorities claiming that Jesus was the true priest and his followers preached the true words of God. Conflict was inevitable.
This is an important observation—that Christ’s followers saw themselves as the truly pious Jews and not as a separate religion. Otherwise, we might be tempted to understand Stephen’s speech anachronistically: as a Christian anti-Jewish message. Stephen does not oppose the temple; he argues that there is more to God’s plan. Stephen does not even oppose the law. Much the opposite, he argues from the law! Jesus is the fulfillment of all the stories of old—the finale. Not a new and different story.
In the ancient world, orators would often used quotations as proofs. In Stephen’s case, his quotations are granted by all present as God’s word. They carry significant weight in the argument. Almost the entire speech consists of retellings of sacred stories about the heroes of the faith.
The Old Testament also used historical retrospectives to powerfully move God’s people to repentance, sacrifice, and faithfulness. Consider, for example:
When your children ask you later on, “What are the stipulations, statutes, and ordinances that the Lord our God commanded you?” you must say to them, “We were Pharaoh’s slaves in Egypt, but the Lord brought us out of Egypt in a powerful way. And he brought signs and great, devastating wonders on Egypt, on Pharaoh, and on his whole family before our very eyes. He delivered us from there so that he could give us the land he had promised our ancestors. The Lord commanded us to obey all these statutes and to revere him so that it may always go well for us and he may preserve us, as he has to this day. We will be innocent if we carefully keep all these commandments before the Lord our God, just as he demands.” Exodus 6:20-25
There are two axioms that are essential to understanding Stephen’s speech. First, if one believes that these biblical stories are true, then one believes that the present times are a continuation of those stories. So, one may apply the patterns and lessons from those stories to the present day. Second, if one reads Scripture as Scripture, one will seek to emulate the good examples in it. Scripture becomes a model for life and even an interpretive grid—one understands life in light of biblical lessons.
So, we should consider both of those axioms in relation to the charges brought against Stephen. After each tale told by Stephen, let’s ask question like:
(1) What is the pattern of God’s actions particularly in relation to the land of Israel, the temple, the Torah, and the law?
(2) Must the hero suffer? How is the hero regarded by others? Is he rewarded for his piety?
(3) Does God act in predictable ways? Are God’s promises fulfilled how people expect them to be fulfilled? Are God’s promises fulfilled when people expect them to be fulfilled?
Abraham
The God of glory appeared to our forefather Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he settled in Haran, and said to him, ‘Go out from your country and from your relatives, and come to the land I will show you.’ Then he went out from the country of the Chaldeans and settled in Haran. After his father died, God made him move to this country where you now live. He did not give any of it to him for an inheritance, not even a foot of ground, yet God promised to give it to him as his possession, and to his descendants after him, even though Abraham as yet had no child. But God spoke as follows: ‘Your descendants will be foreigners in a foreign country, whose citizens will enslave them and mistreat them for 400 years. But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves,’ said God, ‘and after these things they will come out of there and worship me in this place.’ Then God gave Abraham the covenant of circumcision, and so he became the father of Isaac and circumcised him when he was eight days old, and Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob of the 12 patriarchs. Acts 7:2b-8
(1) What is the pattern of God’s actions particularly in relation to the land of Israel, the temple, the Torah, and the law?
Where did God appear to Abraham? In Mesopotamia, before he settled in Haran. God did not act because Abraham was on or possessed the Holy Land. God can act anywhere. He is not restricted to the land. When did God appear to Abraham? Before the law was ever given. Neither possessing the Torah nor keeping it is what set Abraham apart.
(2) Must the hero suffer? How is the hero regarded by others? Is he rewarded for his piety?
At least in Stephen’s summary of Abraham’s life, Abraham is not persecuted by others. Of course, if we read his entire story in Genesis, Abraham did confront strong opposition and serious threats. However, Stephen makes clear that Abraham’s story begins with him leaving his country. Leaving both kin and his land to follow God’s plan. Following God may lead one to do such things.
(3) Does God act in predictable ways? Are God’s promises fulfilled how people expect them to be fulfilled? Are God’s promises fulfilled when people expect them to be fulfilled?
God promised Abraham the land as his possession and to his descendants after him. One would expect Abraham to own all the promised land by the end of his life. Is this what happens? “[God] did not give any of it to him for an inheritance, not even a foot of ground.” And if that is not surprising enough, God does not give Abraham a child until long after Abraham and his wife could hope for one. But wait, there’s more! Abraham’s descendants will not inherit the land until after they have moved to a foreign nation and been slaves for 400 years! Only after all that will they worship God “in this place”—that is, the land of Israel and the holy temple. However, God’s promise did not fail, and to remind Abraham of God’s faithfulness—of the “deal” they made—God gave Abraham a covenant sign: circumcision.
Joseph
The patriarchs, because they were jealous of Joseph, sold him into Egypt. But God was with him, and rescued him from all his troubles, and granted him favor and wisdom in the presence of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, who made him ruler over Egypt and over all his household. Then a famine occurred throughout Egypt and Canaan, causing great suffering, and our ancestors could not find food. So when Jacob heard that there was grain in Egypt, he sent our ancestors there the first time. On their second visit Joseph made himself known to his brothers again, and Joseph’s family became known to Pharaoh. So Joseph sent a message and invited his father Jacob and all his relatives to come, seventy-five people in all. So Jacob went down to Egypt and died there, along with our ancestors, and their bones were later moved to Shechem and placed in the tomb that Abraham had bought for a certain sum of money from the sons of Hamor in Shechem. Acts 7:9-16
(1) What is the pattern of God’s actions particularly in relation to the land of Israel, the temple, the Torah, and the law?
Joseph is taken to a foreign land, and God meant it for good!
As for you, you meant to harm me, but God intended it for a good purpose, so he could preserve the lives of many people, as you can see this day. So now, don’t be afraid. I will provide for you and your little children.” Then he consoled them and spoke kindly to them. Genesis 50:20-21
Not only does God take Joseph toa foreign land, then all of “their” ancestors (the ancestors of the Jewish people) must go to a foreign land seeking food. They would up remaining there for centuries. Joseph died there. Jacob died there. In fact all their ancestors (presumably referring to the 75 mentioned in the passage) died there. God’s story is not restricted to the land of Israel.
Nevertheless, the bones of the ancestors were taken to Shechem—to the land. Recall Joseph’s words as he neared death.
Then Joseph said to his brothers, “I am about to die. But God will surely come to you and lead you up from this land to the land he swore on oath to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” Joseph made the sons of Israel swear an oath. He said, “God will surely come to you. Then you must carry my bones up from this place.” So Joseph died at the age of 110. After they embalmed him, his body was placed in a coffin in Egypt. Genesis 50:24-26
Those are the last verses of the book of Genesis. Why would the bones of the Israelite ancestors be taken to the land? That’s a key point of recounting Joseph’s story. God is a god of promise. The fact that neither Joseph nor the other ancestors possessed the land does not mean that God’s promises failed. Joseph certainly did not believe that. It meant that God’s plan is larger in scope and history than a single generation can conceive.
(2) Must the hero suffer? How is the hero regarded by others? Is he rewarded for his piety?
In Stephen’s retelling of Joseph’s story, the action begins with Joseph leaving his kin and his land. Unlike Abraham who did so willingly, Joseph does so by force. He is sold into slavery and taken to Egypt. By whom? The patriarchs! Some of the most venerated figures in Jewish history cause the hero to be exiled. And, how is this hero regarded by the patriarchs? They are jealous of him and wish him harm. Again, exile from country and kin is a means used by God to accomplish his plans.
(3) Does God act in predictable ways? Are God’s promises fulfilled how people expect them to be fulfilled? Are God’s promises fulfilled when people expect them to be fulfilled?
In the land of Canaan—that is, the promised land—the patriarchs could not find food. How did God preserve them in the land, the very land God promised to them? Did God reverse the famine? No, God had already put a plan into to motion,, and it involved foreign lands. The patriarchs would find food and shelter in Egypt, which would take them out of the land for hundreds of years. This is neither how nor when (in the sense of timing) one would expect God to deliver on his promise.
Moses
Stephen’s section is lengthy, and we may not have time to reread it. That is why I bolded certain statement to “hit the high points.”
“But as the time drew near for God to fulfill the promise he had declared to Abraham, the people increased greatly in number in Egypt, until another king who did not know about Joseph ruled over Egypt. This was the one who exploited our people and was cruel to our ancestors, forcing them to abandon their infants so they would die. At that time Moses was born, and he was beautiful to God. For three months he was brought up in his father’s house, and when he had been abandoned, Pharaoh’s daughter adopted him and brought him up as her own son. So Moses was trained in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was powerful in his words and deeds. But when he was about forty years old, it entered his mind to visit his fellow countrymen the Israelites. When he saw one of them being hurt unfairly, Moses came to his defense and avenged the person who was mistreated by striking down the Egyptian. He thought his own people would understand that God was delivering them through him, but they did not understand. The next day Moses saw two men fighting and tried to make peace between them, saying, ‘Men, you are brothers; why are you hurting one another?’ But the man who was unfairly hurting his neighbor pushed Moses aside, saying, ‘Who made you a ruler and judge over us? You don’t want to kill me the way you killed the Egyptian yesterday, do you?’ When the man said this, Moses fled and became a foreigner in the land of Midian, where he became the father of two sons.
“After forty years had passed, an angel appeared to him in the desert of Mount Sinai, in the flame of a burning bush. When Moses saw it, he was amazed at the sight, and when he approached to investigate, there came the voice of the Lord, ‘I am the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.’ Moses began to tremble and did not dare to look more closely. But the Lord said to him, ‘Take the sandals off your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy ground. I have certainly seen the suffering of my people who are in Egypt and have heard their groaning, and I have come down to rescue them. Now come, I will send you to Egypt.’ This same Moses they had rejected, saying, ‘Who made you a ruler and judge?’ God sent as both ruler and deliverer through the hand of the angel who appeared to him in the bush. This man led them out, performing wonders and miraculous signs in the land of Egypt, at the Red Sea, and in the wilderness for forty years. This is the Moses who said to the Israelites, ‘God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your brothers.’ This is the man who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our ancestors, and he received living oracles to give to you. Our ancestors were unwilling to obey him, but pushed him aside and turned back to Egypt in their hearts, saying to Aaron, ‘Make us gods who will go in front of us, for this Moses, who led us out of the land of Egypt —we do not know what has happened to him!’ At that time they made an idol in the form of a calf, brought a sacrifice to the idol, and began rejoicing in the works of their hands. But God turned away from them and gave them over to worship the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the prophets: ‘It was not to me that you offered slain animals and sacrifices forty years in the wilderness, was it, house of Israel? But you took along the tabernacle of Moloch and the star of the god Rephan, the images you made to worship, but I will deport you beyond Babylon.’ Acts 7:27-43
(1) What is the pattern of God’s actions particularly in relation to the land of Israel, the temple, the Torah, and the law?
God chooses a man in a foreign land (Egypt), raised by foreigners (Pharaoh’s daughter)! This is the man that was “beautiful to God.” Not only that, but Moses is doubly exiled. From Egypt he goes to Midian. Moses is selected and considered “beautiful” by God before God has given him the Torah or the law.
(2) Must the hero suffer? How is the hero regarded by others? Is he rewarded for his piety?
How is Moses treated by others? The Egyptians forced his mother to abandon him. The Israelites did not treat him much better. Moses defends the Israelites from the Egyptians. Do the Israelites see this as any kind of deliverance? Not at all. They “did not understand.” Moses tries to “make peace between” fellow Israelites, but they will not accept that either. Instead, they ask, “Who made you a ruler and judge over us?” In the story, Moses is their proper ruler and deliverer, but the people reject him.
The story only gets worse. At the first opportunity, the Israelites abandon Moses and God. They claim they do not know what has happened to him and demand a calf to worship. Most shockingly, Stephen applies a prophecy from the book of Amos to imply that Israel continued in their idolatry permanently. Even in the wilderness, as they obeyed God, their hearts were directed at another.
(3) Does God act in predictable ways? Are God’s promises fulfilled how people expect them to be fulfilled? Are God’s promises fulfilled when people expect them to be fulfilled?
God chooses an unlikely hero. As I said above, a man in a foreign land, raised by a foreign people, and rejected by the Israelites. Yet, he is favored by God before he enters the land, before he receives the law, and before he obeys the law.
Perhaps more surprising than God delivering his people through Moses is the response of God’s people. If one were simply guessing at the story of God and the deliverance of his people, one would think that when salvation finally arrives the people would be joyful, grateful, and ultimately obedient. Yet one would be mistaken. The people turn from both their human deliverer and their divine deliverer at every turn. After God’s great miracles in Egypt, the people are ready to worship a calf. Even after the law is given, the people obey hypocritically and wish for other gods.
And more surprising still, the great deliverance of God’s people from Egypt is not the final fulfillment of God’s promise to “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” No, this man “who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai” speaks of someone else. Another prophet like him will come. The surprises are not over.
Preliminary Conclusions
We will discuss the end of the chapter next week. I wish we had more time because everything we discussed today builds up to the mention of David—their greatest king—and the temple—the House of the Lord.
But perhaps there is something good about pausing for a minute. We need to ask: what are the points that Stephen is trying to make by retelling the stories of Abraham, Joseph, and Moses?
Truly, the main point goes beyond any particular parallel between Jesus and either Abraham, Joseph, or Moses (although those are important). The core of Stephen’s argument is about God and his redemptive plan.
Is God restricted to the land of Israel? No! God often acts outside of Israel. In His plans, God has disposed of any land as he saw fit.
Is God restricted to the Torah and the law? No! God does not need to show exclusive favor to or act exclusively through those who have the Torah or follow his law. God has been acting in history and choosing people well before the Torah or the law had been delivered.
Is God’s plan of redemption narrow and mechanical? Is it about the Jews and the land of Israel? Is that where God resides in a special and exclusive way? As we will see in the last few verses of chapter 7: no! God was just as present in Egypt and Midian as he was in Israel. If it fits God’s plan, God himself will take his people out of the promised land for centuries at a time.
Put differently, Stephen’s main point is that the Jews of his day place the wrong interpretive grid on the Old Testament. If perhaps simplistically, one could summarize the Jews’ perspective as being that God’s plan was to establish the Jews in Israel, given the the Torah, teach them to obey the law within it, and reside in the temple. Stephen, representative of Jesus’ followers, is trying to show that the correct interpretive grid is quite different. God is a god of promise. He has been acting in history for thousands of years (if we start counting merely from the time of Abraham) towards a redemptive goal. Whenever his promises seemed to fail, they didn’t. They were part of a grander plan. Whenever his promises seemed to be fulfilled, they weren’t. The people of God still rejected him. But this too was part of a grander plan. Moses himself, this man who spoke with God, spoke of it. Another prophet would come. If the people of God misunderstood every other prophet, should we expect them to recognize that final prophet? No.
Stephen’s argument is neither against the law nor the temple. It is about whether those things are the fulfillment of God’s promise or a step towards a greater fulfillment. It is in this sense that Christians today and Stephen in ancient Israel say that all the Old Testament is about Jesus.
Scripture Reading: Acts 6:1-7
1 Now in those days, when the disciples were growing in number, a complaint arose on the part of the Greek-speaking Jews against the native Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. 2 So the twelve called the whole group of the disciples together and said, “It is not right for us to neglect the word of God to wait on tables. 3 But carefully select from among you, brothers, seven men who are well-attested, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this necessary task. 4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” 5 The proposal pleased the entire group, so they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, with Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a Gentile convert to Judaism from Antioch. 6 They stood these men before the apostles, who prayed and placed their hands on them. 7 The word of God continued to spread, the number of disciples in Jerusalem increased greatly, and a large group of priests became obedient to the faith.
Major ThemesToday we read a short text, but I want to slow down for two reasons. First, this text introduces an important new group of people who serve as a bridge on the journey to sharing the gospel with all the world. Second, this text is often described as the appointment of the church’s first seven deacons. I want to take that idea, whether accurate or not, as a springboard to discuss church government more broadly. I think this is an important topic as new or prospective Christians assess which church they would like to visit or join.
Hebrews and HellenistsChapter 6 broadens the stage of the church’s story. Up to this point, the narrative has centered exclusively on Israeli Jews—Jews who lived in Israel, spoke the Israeli language (which was no longer Hebrew but Aramaic), and followed the Israeli customs. These are the “native Hebraic Jews,” as the NET translation puts it, or, literally, “Hebrews.”
In chapter 6, we meet a different kind of Jew—the “Greek-speaking Jew”—or, literally, the “Hellenist.” The NET translation avoids using that word not because it is inaccurate but because “this descriptive term is largely unknown to the modern English reader.”
However, the phrase “Greek-speaking Jew” can be misleading. Taken too literally, one may conclude that the key difference, perhaps the only difference, between the two Jewish groups is their first language. The translators seem to share my concern since they add a few explanatory notes. First, they point out that, “The translation ‘Greek-speaking Jews’ attempts to convey something of who these were, but it was more than a matter of language spoken; it involved a degree of adoption of Greek culture as well.” They add, “The Greek-speaking Jews were the Hellenists, Jews who to a greater or lesser extent had adopted Greek thought, customs, and lifestyle, as well as the Greek language. The city of Alexandria in Egypt was a focal point for them, but they were scattered throughout the Roman Empire.”
Many earlier scholars focused on a supposed theological divide between Hebrews and Hellenists. The claim was that Hellenists had lesser regard for or perhaps even opposed the temple and temple worship. The trend today, as evidenced by the NET notes, is to view the groups as linguistically and to some extent culturally distinct. The Hebrews spoke primarily Aramaic and in varying measures Greek; the Hellenists were primarily Greek speakers. Hellenists were probably Diaspora immigrants or their descendants in Jerusalem. (The term Diaspora refers to the dispersion of the Jewish people beyond Israel.)
Notice that the term Hellenist does not mean “Gentile.” For context, the verb “hellenize” was often used in contrast to “barbarize” and hence meant speaking correct Greek. Greeks spread their language and culture together. Consequently, the title Hellenist probably included a certain Greek disposition, education, and support for Greek culture.
However, we must also recall that Jews in the Diaspora—that is, in the Greek and Roman world—did not abandon their Jewish customs. So, we should not conclude that Hellenists adopted all Greek customs and beliefs, particularly those opposed to Judaism. Moreover, Jews who cared enough to relocate to their homeland probably had high regard for Jewish customs. (Archaeological evidence suggests that many Diaspora Jews did settle in Jerusalem, perhaps to spend their final days there.)
Racism?The interaction of two ethnic groups predictably leads to problems. I use the term ethnicity not to denote race—both groups were made up of Jews—but, as Oxford Dictionary puts it, to denote groups “made up of people who share a common cultural background.”
The neglect of the Hellenist widows leads to charges of favoritism or, at worst, discrimination. This is the first reported internal schism in the church (as long as one does not count the episode with Ananias and Sapphira, which was more of an infiltration than an internal schism).
In the ancient world—Israel included—widows were truly marginalized. They were often unable to inherit property, purchase land, or work outside the home. In other words, the system left them destitute, which also left them dependent on the resources of relatives and charity. Due to war, the number of widows was great (by one study, a third of all women in the Roman empire). Their need could overwhelm a community.
Notice that the problem between Hebrews and Hellenists is prefaced with the good news that “the disciples were growing in numbers.” Growth presents challenges; the church is not an exception to the rule. And, if the last 20 years of multiculturalism in the West have taught us anything, cross-cultural growth is even more challenging. (This is only an observation, not an argument that the church should not expand cross-culturally.)
The apostles were among the Hebrews and supervised the distribution of food (4:35). So, the widows’ complaint was aimed not only at the church in general but, at least by implication, at the apostles in particular. Should we assume ill will on the part of the apostles? Not really. Given the rapid spread of their fame in the city and explosive rise in church membership, surely they were unable to offer detailed attention to the ministry of charity. Their very success pressed them beyond their abilities.
But, how could the apostles overlook the Hellenist widows unintentionally? Although unlikely, food for the poor may have been distributed through a public dole. (In the Roman world, the grain dole was the system by which the government provided subsidized or free grain to the Roman population. Much like welfare today, eligible citizens would be entered into a registry. Then they would receive grain stored by the government.) Immigrants might have had less knowledge of and access to the dole. However, the more likely case is that charity was distributed through private means and synagogues. In that case, Hellenists may have had fewer connections to local families distributing the food. In either case, Hellenists may have had a disproportionate number of widows since many Hellenists moved to Israel once advanced in age. (So, perhaps there were more unprovided Hellenist widows simply because there were more Hellenist widows.) Finally, as I explained above, local widows may have had family to care for them, making them less dependent on charity.
The SolutionFaced with the widows’ charge, how do the apostles respond? They recognize their limitations and their explicit calling. They realize that they must prioritize the “word of God” and leave the distribution of food to someone else. This is a clear example of delegation of duties in the context of ministry. It is also an example of prioritizing the message over charity when the two are mutually exclusive. Jesus had already exemplified both of these points.
After Jesus called the twelve together, he gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases, and he sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal the sick. Luke 9:1-2
The next morning Jesus departed and went to a deserted place. Yet the crowds were seeking him, and they came to him and tried to keep him from leaving them. But Jesus said to them, “I must proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns too, for that is what I was sent to do.” So he continued to preach in the synagogues of Judea. Luke 4:42-44
Even if a solution is clear in principle, it is not always clear in practice. To whom should the apostles delegate the important duty of handling and distributing church property? We will discuss the character requirement of the new leaders in a minute, but we must notice that (probably) all of them belong to the offended minority. We can surmise their Hellenist ethnicity from their names and the bit of information provided about a couple of them. I know that the church’s “affirmative action” in Acts 6 is sure to be viewed extremely negatively (or extremely positively, depending on one’s political persuasion) in our modern-day culture; but, if we can leave that aside for a minute, consider the strategy’s efficacy. To address the complaint that Hellenists are being subjected to discrimination in the distribution of food, Hellenist are put in charge of the food distribution. The claim of favoritism is resoundingly defeated. (Notice the apostles did not require the church to select Hellenists. Presumably, the church as a whole thought that this course of action was appropriate.)
Nonetheless, the new leaders are not merely affirmative-action hires. The apostles define basic qualifications for service: good reputation; full of the Spirit and wisdom. They invite the church as a whole to choose representatives who meet these qualifications.
In the ancient world, qualifications for leadership were common, including to hold civic offices. Being of good reputation, or as our passage puts it, “favorably attested,” was essential in Greco-Roman politics. The new leaders must also be “full of the Spirit.” This probably indicates a continuous state rather than a mere occasion of being “filled with the Spirit” (although the two senses of the phrase are not mutually exclusive).
In the list of qualifications for leadership, the Spirit is linked to wisdom (“full of the Spirit and wisdom”). As we discussed during our study of John, Jewish literature often linked and sometimes equated the Spirit of God with wisdom. Consider, for example:
You are to speak to all who are specially skilled, whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom, so that they may make Aaron’s garments to set him apart to minister as my priest. Exodus 28:3
For the Lord gives wisdom, and from his mouth comes knowledge and understanding. Proverbs 2:6
For wisdom is more mobile than any motion; because of her pureness she pervades and penetrates all things. For she is a breath of the power of God, and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty; therefore nothing defiled gains entrance into her. For she is a reflection of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God, . . . Wisdom 7:24-26
Part of the requisite wisdom would undoubtedly be knowledge of how to manage funds.
12 and 7As we discussed at the beginning of our Acts study, the number of apostles is important. Twelve was the number of Jewish tribes; the twelve apostles represent the remnant of Israel carrying on the faith. What about the number seven? Is there a reason that seven people were selected as leaders of the Jerusalem church?
Several ancient cultures, including the Jewish people, used the number seven symbolically, particularly for groups of leaders. The number 70 (or seventy-something) appears frequently as well. For example, in Luke 10:1, Jesus appoints 72 men to preach the good news from town to town. But most importantly, there is a particular Old Testament story that connects with Acts 6. The fact that seven leaders are appointed in response to a complaint by the people of God harkens back to Numbers 11.
When the people complained, it displeased the Lord. When the Lord heard it, his anger burned, and so the fire of the Lord burned among them and consumed some of the outer parts of the camp. When the people cried to Moses, he prayed to the Lord, and the fire died out. So he called the name of that place Taberah because there the fire of the Lord burned among them.
Now the mixed multitude who were among them craved more desirable foods, and so the Israelites wept again and said, “If only we had meat to eat! We remember the fish we used to eat freely in Egypt, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic. But now we are dried up, and there is nothing at all before us except this manna!” . . .
Moses heard the people weeping throughout their families, everyone at the door of his tent; and when the anger of the Lord was kindled greatly, Moses was also displeased. And Moses said to the Lord, “Why have you afflicted your servant? Why have I not found favor in your sight, that you lay the burden of this entire people on me? Did I conceive this entire people? Did I give birth to them, that you should say to me, ‘Carry them in your arms, as a foster father bears a nursing child,’ to the land that you swore to their fathers? From where shall I get meat to give to this entire people, for they cry to me, ‘Give us meat, that we may eat!’ I am not able to bear this entire people alone, because it is too heavy for me! But if you are going to deal with me like this, then kill me immediately. If I have found favor in your sight then do not let me see my trouble.”
The Lord said to Moses, “Gather to me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom you know are elders of the people and officials over them, and bring them to the tent of meeting; let them take their position there with you. Then I will come down and speak with you there, and I will take part of the Spirit that is on you, and will put it on them, and they will bear some of the burden of the people with you, so that you do not bear it all by yourself. Numbers 11:1-16
However, we should also consider the possibility that the apostles meant nothing by the number seven. Perhaps they were simply being practical. Consider the study note in the NET Bible:
Seven. Jewish town councils often had seven members (Josephus, Ant. 4.18.14 [4.214])
In other words, the apostles needed a ruling council and ruling councils generally had seven members. This would be like if we started a company today and appointed a president, a secretary, and a treasurer. Why three officers? Why call them president, secretary, and treasurer? Because that is “how it’s done.” We would intend no deeper meaning.
Deacons for Them, Deacons for Us? Wait, Deacons?A question churches have wrestled to answer for two thousand years is what constitutes proper church government—or, as is referred to in theological terms, church polity. Central to the discussion of church polity is determining which church “offices” (if any) are ordained by Scripture. Recall my example above in which I mentioned three corporate offices: president, secretary, and treasurer. One can hardly discuss which duties belong to the secretary and which belong to the treasurer until one determines that a company should have a secretary and a treasurer. In the church context, there are three potential offices: bishop, elder (or pastor, or presbyter), and deacon (or servant). (Sometimes a fourth office is considered, that of pastor or teacher from the Greek words poimen and didaskalos. Let’s ignore that for now, but I will mention it again at the end of our discussion.) Each of these offices comes from a distinct Greek term. Here is a brief rundown of these terms that I adapted from this handy article.
Episkopos. This word episkopos (from which we get Episcopal) is used a total of 5 times in the New Testament, always in reference to someone who has authority to lead in ministry. It is usually translated “overseer” or “bishop.”
Presbuteros. The word presbuteros occurs 72 times in the New Testament, and it has a range of meanings. The majority of the time (57 times) it is translated "elder" and means a position of leadership in the church, like a pastor or other member of church leadership. It differs from episkopos in that it also assumes the quality of old age. In fact, the word presbuteros is also translated at times to mean “older man” (10 times) and even once as “older woman.”
Diakonos. The word diakonos means “one who serves in ministry” or more generally, “servant.” The word appears 29 times in the New Testament. Of those 29 times, it is translated (by the NASB) as “deacon” three times, as “minister” seven times, and as “servant” 19 times.
The most controversial of the three offices is the first: bishop. Bishops are generally understood to be overseers of several pastors (i.e., presbuteros). They are regional leaders. Yet, many Christian denominations believe that each congregation is governmentally independent so there can be no such thing as a leader of multiple congregations. An example of a denomination that recognizes bishops (episkopos) as distinct and superior in rank to elders (presbuteros) is the Catholic church. An example of a denomination that does not recognize bishops is Baptist churches. The main argument made by churches that do not recognize bishops is that the terms episkopos and presbuteros are synonyms—not distinct church offices.
You might be wondering: how can Christian churches disagree about something like this? Surely the text of scripture is crystal clear. Alas, languages are tricky and Greek is no exception. Consider Acts 6. Is it a good biblical foundation for the church office of deacon (diakonos)?
In Acts 6, the word diakonos does not appear. In verses 1 and 4, a related but different noun appears (diakonia), translated as “distribution” and “ministry” respectively. The verb cognate of diakonos appears in verse 2. It is translated as “to wait” (as in, “to wait on tables”). Yet, one cannot simply assume that the verb points to its noun cognate. In other words, the text may only be referring to the act of service and not to some special office. For example, consider the noun “server” and the verb “to serve” in English. The noun can refer to a particular office (e.g., a restaurant server) while the verb rarely points to such office. (If I say, “I served food at home,” I am not implying that I hold the office of “server” at home.) However, this has not stopped many Christian thinkers, including ancient thinkers such as Irenaeus, Pseudo-Tertullian, Cyprian, and others, from applying this passage to the diaconate.
Of course, one could use Acts 6 to argue for a certain church office apart from linguistic evidence. Undoubtedly, the apostles gave the new seven leader some kind of authority in the church. But without the linguistic component to connects Acts 6 with other passages that mention the word diakonos, one has a harder time arguing for a universal church office. Moreover, even the noun form of diakonos most often refers not to a church leader but to servants in other ministry contexts (Christ as minister (Rom 15:8), Paul as minister (2 Cor 11:23; Eph 3:7; Col 1:23, 25), Paul and colleagues (1 Cor 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6; 6:4), Paul’s fellow ministers of the gospel (Rom 16:1; Eph 6:21; Col 1:7; 4:7; 1 Tim 4:6)).
Where am I headed with this extensive discussion? In regard to Acts 6 particularly, I think the text clearly shows that a church may find itself in need of people to assist with different matters, and the church is right to recognize and appoint such helpers. However, I do not think that Acts 6, at least on its own, can be used to argue for some special, universal church office. In regard to the broader discussion of church polity, I am trying to show that church polity is a difficult topic. Scriptural passages are sometimes used to argue beyond what the text truly conveys. Furthermore, even when arguing in good faith, churches may reasonably reach different conclusions.
With that in mind, I would like to explore some of the different ways that churches organize and govern themselves. Before we do that, let’s discuss the last two noteworthy points in today’s text.
Democracy?How are the seven leaders selected? We are not really told, but we are given two important details. The selection was made by the “group.” And, the group “chose” the leaders. The latter fact means that the group did not cast lots or employ another form of chance to identify the leaders. So, how did the “group” make the selection? As modern readers, we assume a democratic vote was taken. That could be the case, but it is by no means a necessary implication of the text. For example, perhaps the elders (i.e., older men) made the choice. As with the discussion of deacons above, Acts 6 allows for only modest conclusions. On one hand, the apostles did not lord their authority over the congregation and left the leadership decision up to the group. On the other hand, we are not told that the church should be organized democratically. In this passage, there is simply not enough data to surmise a non-hierarchical, democratic church government or, for that matter, its opposite. (Perhaps one could reach some of those conclusions by taking the whole counsel of scripture. I am obviously not denying that.)
Laying HandsThe people chose the leaders, but the apostles commissioned them by praying and “lay[ing] hands on them.” This recalls the Old Testament scene in Numbers 27.
Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go up this mountain of the Abarim range, and see the land I have given to the Israelites. When you have seen it, you will be gathered to your ancestors, as Aaron your brother was gathered to his ancestors. . . .
Then Moses spoke to the Lord: “Let the Lord, the God of the spirits of all humankind, appoint a man over the community, who will go out before them, and who will come in before them, and who will lead them out, and who will bring them in, so that the community of the Lord may not be like sheep that have no shepherd.”
The Lord replied to Moses, “Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the Spirit, and lay your hand on him; set him before Eleazar the priest and before the whole community, and commission him publicly. Then you must delegate some of your authority to him, so that the whole community of the Israelites will be obedient. . . .
So Moses did as the Lord commanded him; he took Joshua and set him before Eleazar the priest and before the whole community. He laid his hands on him and commissioned him, just as the Lord commanded, by the authority of Moses. Numbers 27:12-22
Laying of hands is a form of commissioning, but it also evokes patriarchal blessings and empowerment. After the fall of Jerusalem, Rabbis used laying of hands to ordain their pupils. Unsurprisingly, churches use it today to ordain pastors, priests, bishops, and sometimes deacons. The fullest examples of laying of hands in the New Testament are found in two letters written by Paul.
Command and teach these things. Let no one look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in your speech, conduct, love, faithfulness, and purity. Until I come, give attention to the public reading of scripture, to exhortation, to teaching. Do not neglect the spiritual gift you have, given to you and confirmed by prophetic words when the elders laid hands on you. 1 Timothy 4:11-14
(As the NET notes explain, the last phrase in the verses quoted above can be translated more literally as, “with the imposition of the hands of the presbytery,” i.e., the council of elders.)
Because of this I remind you to rekindle God’s gift that you possess through the laying on of my hands. For God did not give us a Spirit of fear but of power and love and self-control. So do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord or of me, a prisoner for his sake, but by God’s power accept your share of suffering for the gospel. 2 Timothy 1:6-8
Notice that inducting members into a position of authority by laying of hands requires there to be someone already in leadership. Otherwise, there would be nobody to perform the laying of hands. This raises a no small question. Is church leadership only valid if it is conveyed by a prior church leader. Must there be a line of succession from Jesus, to the apostles, to whomever the apostles appointed to lead, all the way to your local pastor? As you might imagine, this idea is debated, but (rather surprisingly) most denominations agree that some kind of succession is necessary. I say “some kind” of succession because there is less agreement as to what succession really entails.
Modern Denominations’ PolityAs I mentioned at the beginning, I want to end today’s session on a practical note. I imagine that some of this Bible study’s participants may be considering which church to join. One of the questions that seems unfathomable from the outside is how churches are organized. Who is really in charge? How are churches connected, if at all? Below I include a summary of churches’ polities adapted from a Gospel Coalition article. This summary is not great, but I will discuss more details during our live session.
Eastern Orthodox: Bishops, following in the succession of the apostles, appoint male priests (also known as elders or presbyters) to pastor the people. Deacons serve the material needs of the congregation and play a key role in liturgical life. Synods (teams of bishops) lead the church, not a single bishop or pope.
Catholic: Authority rests with the bishops who follow in the succession of the apostles. Bishops are helped by male priests (also known as elders or presbyters) to pastor the people. Deacons serve the material needs of the congregation. The pope, the bishop of Rome, is the key human authority over the church, who is infallible when speaking ex cathedra (from the full seat of authority on issues of faith or morals).
Anglican: Anglicanism resembles Catholicism in organizational structure, with an archbishop presiding over other bishops, who preside over priests and deacons in local congregations. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the senior bishop and symbolic head, as a first among equals.
Lutheranism: Lutheran Churches can vary between a more episcopal form of government and a more congregational form of government. Lutheran churches in America tend to be more congregational, though with some authority given to synods at different levels.
Presbyterian: Local congregations are governed by teams of elders (teaching and ruling elders), who take part in a larger assembly of elders (presbyteries), which take part in an even larger assembly (synod or a general assembly).
Methodism: The Methodist system follows the polity of connexionalism, which teaches the importance of connection among believers at various levels. Methodism uses conferences at different levels composed of both elected laypeople and ordained ministers to govern the needs and concerns of local churches up through the entire denomination.
Baptist: Baptist churches believe that Christ is the head of the church and that Christ guides every local church through the Spirit living within the members of each church. While Baptists may voluntarily join associations, each individual church is autonomous. Most Baptist churches are congregation-ruled, but some are led by single pastors while others are led by a plurality of elders, selected by church members.
Evangelical Free Church: Evangelical Free churches follow a congregational model of church governance.
Church of Christ: Churches of Christ are independent congregations with elders, deacons, and ministers leading the congregation. Ministers are understood to serve under the oversight of the elders. While the presence of a long-term professional minister has sometimes created significant de facto ministerial authority"and led to conflict between the minister and the elders, the eldership has remained the ultimate locus of authority in the congregation.
Pentecostal: Pentecostal churches are congregationalists. They may be independent congregations or local congregations that associate with other like-minded churches (“cooperative fellowships”). Generally, the congregation selects a minister and a board of deacons. Some Pentecostal churches are adopting an “eldership model” vesting some of the congregation’s authority on a group of elders.
Non-Denominational Churches: Non-denominational churches will be congregational since they have no commitment to any specific denomination.
Scripture Reading: Acts 5:17-42
17 Now the high priest rose up, and all those with him (that is, the religious party of the Sadducees), and they were filled with jealousy. 18 They laid hands on the apostles and put them in a public jail. 19 But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the doors of the prison, led them out, and said, 20 “Go and stand in the temple courts and proclaim to the people all the words of this life.” 21 When they heard this, they entered the temple courts at daybreak and began teaching.
Now when the high priest and those who were with him arrived, they summoned the Sanhedrin—that is, the whole high council of the Israelites—and sent to the jail to have the apostles brought before them. 22 But the officers who came for them did not find them in the prison, so they returned and reported, 23 “We found the jail locked securely and the guards standing at the doors, but when we opened them, we found no one inside.” 24 Now when the commander of the temple guard and the chief priests heard this report, they were greatly puzzled concerning it, wondering what this could be. 25 But someone came and reported to them, “Look! The men you put in prison are standing in the temple courts and teaching the people!” 26 Then the commander of the temple guard went with the officers and brought the apostles without the use of force (for they were afraid of being stoned by the people).
27 When they had brought them, they stood them before the council, and the high priest questioned them, 28 saying, “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name. Look, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man’s blood on us!” 29 But Peter and the apostles replied, “We must obey God rather than people. 30 The God of our forefathers raised up Jesus, whom you seized and killed by hanging him on a tree. 31 God exalted him to his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are witnesses of these events, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him.”
33 Now when they heard this, they became furious and wanted to execute them. 34 But a Pharisee whose name was Gamaliel, a teacher of the law who was respected by all the people, stood up in the council and ordered the men to be put outside for a short time. 35 Then he said to the council, “Men of Israel, pay close attention to what you are about to do to these men. 36 For sometime ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and about 400 men joined him. He was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and nothing came of it. 37 After him Judas the Galilean arose in the days of the census and incited people to follow him in revolt. He too was killed, and all who followed him were scattered. 38 So in this case I say to you, stay away from these men and leave them alone because if this plan or this undertaking originates with people, it will come to nothing, 39 but if it is from God, you will not be able to stop them, or you may even be found fighting against God.” He convinced them, 40 and they summoned the apostles and had them beaten. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus and released them. 41 So they left the council rejoicing because they had been considered worthy to suffer dishonor for the sake of the name. 42 And every day both in the temple courts and from house to house, they did not stop teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus was the Christ.
Main ThemesIntroduction—Setting the SceneToday’s text narrates the apostles’ second arrest. The scene begins with the high priest “rising up.” Remember that this “high priest” was introduced in Acts 4:6 as Annas, although historically Caiaphas was high priest at this time. We have good reason to believes that Annas (Caiaphas’ father-in-law) was the de facto head of the high-priestly family. Thus, Annas seems to lead the trial.
The Sadducees are also mentioned. We have discussed them at length, so I will only remind you that this is the party that claims to believe in the Old Testament but that denies life after death and miraculous interventions by God.
The high priest and Sadducees are described as being filled with “jealousy.” This is a strong word that in Judaism was generally reserved for religiously motivated rage. Ironically, it conveys a zeal motivated by a desire to maintain the purity of the faith.
Moreover, envy is a strong, motivating emotion in an honor-shame society. Within a competitive limited honor culture the popularity of the apostles’ ministry diminishes the honor (i.e., support) of the ruling elite. This is particularly the case given the apostles’ claim that the leaders had unjustly crucified an innocent Jew who was anointed by God.
The apostles’ popularity and peaceful behavior had protected them from trouble with the authorities. But now (after the trial in chapter 4), they are defying a direct order from the authorities. Allowing the apostles to continue in their disobedience threatens the authority and power of the ruling council. They must act.
I mentioned this before, but the arrests in chapter 4 and 5 work as a redemptive arc in Peter’s story. When Jesus was arrested, Peter claimed that he was willing to face “both prison and death” for Jesus (Luke 22:33)—but he failed (22:34, 57-61). In Acts, Peter finally follows through.
Miraculous Prison BreakThe apostles’ miraculous release from prison works in two levels: on the literal level, it is a miraculous sign that validates their mission from God; on the literary level, it fulfills prophecy. Jesus’s mission includes release of captives.
The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is upon me, because the Lord has chosen me. He has commissioned me to encourage the poor, to help the brokenhearted, to decree the release of captives and the freeing of prisoners, . . . Isaiah 61:1
In chapter 12, we will read of another miraculous escape at the hands of the Angel of the Lord. Many scholars note that miraculous escapes are a frequent motif in ancient literature. Perhaps the best known story would have been that of Euripides. Some try to show narrative parallels between Euripides’ Bacchae and Acts. You can review them here, but in my opinion it is a stretch at best. Moreover, one could grant that a popular story such as that of Euripides could impact how Luke told the story of Peter’s escape without in any way affecting the substance of the story. For example, I could begin a story about my childhood with the phrase, “once upon a time,” and then tell a true and factual tale. I would be copying how classic children stories are told, not the events they narrate.
We must also keep in mind that Luke generally employs Jewish stories as his models and background, not Greek or Roman mythology. The Old Testament lacks a tradition of angels aiding in prison escapes, but it does contain stories of the Angel of the Lord helping people while imprisoned (see, e.g., Dan 6: 22).
Perhaps the most important question we should ask is: Why does God release the apostles from prison? For proclamation (Acts 5:20). More specifically, the command is to go speak at the temple. This makes sense for several reasons. The apostles could address large crowds there. It is also reminiscent of Old Testament prophets tasked with addressing all Israelites. Recall, for example, Jeremiah 7.
The Lord said to Jeremiah: “Stand in the gate of the Lord’s temple and proclaim this message: ‘Listen to the Lord’s message, all you people of Judah who have passed through these gates to worship the Lord. The Lord of Heaven’s Armies, the God of Israel, says: Change the way you have been living and do what is right. If you do, I will allow you to continue to live in this land. Stop putting your confidence in the false belief that says, “We are safe! The temple of the Lord is here! The temple of the Lord is here! The temple of the Lord is here!” You must change the way you have been living and do what is right. You must treat one another fairly. Stop oppressing resident foreigners who live in your land, children who have lost their fathers, and women who have lost their husbands. Stop killing innocent people in this land. Stop paying allegiance to other gods. That will only bring about your ruin. If you stop doing these things, I will allow you to continue to live in this land that I gave to your ancestors as a lasting possession. Jeremiah 7:1-7
The apostles are tasked with proclaiming the “words of this life” (Acts 5:20). This could refer to wisdom—the behavior that leads to a better life. Given Jesus’ emphasis on eternal life (Luke 10:25; 18:18, 30), and Peter’s earlier preaching about “the prince of life” (Acts 3:15), the more likely conclusion is that the words of life are about Jesus being the way to eternal life.
Preaching at the TempleThe apostles are specifically tasked with preaching in the temple. By proclaiming the true message of the true God in the temple, this is a sort of reconsecration—a recurring theme in Jewish history.
Notice that the angel’s command puts God and the authorities in direct conflict. God says proclaim the message of Jesus in the temple. The authorities say do not speak in the name of Jesus (Acts 5:21, 29), which would certainly include doing so in the most religiously significant and very densely populated place—the temple. In the narrative, the apostles have made it clear already, and will do so again, that they must obey God over people.
The apostles began teaching immediately at daybreak. This is the same time at which the Sanhedrin would have gathered. Public life in the ancient Mediterranean world began at daybreak. Moreover, Jewish people offered morning prayers before work at sunrise. The priests would have already been working on the customary daybreak sacrifice. So the apostles would find a ready-made crowd to teach at that time.
We should note the subtle jab at the rulers when we are told the rulers had to be informed of the apostles’ preaching. “Someone” came and informed them. None of them were at the temple for early morning prayers. An outsider to the group had to tell them. In contrast to the apostles, the mostly priestly city leaders are depicted as further removed from the liturgical life of the temple and the Jerusalemites who worshiped there.
The DiscoveryWe are told that the guards were at the jail. This implies that the guards had not abandoned their post and presumably also had not participated in a conspiracy. The facts clearly point towards a miracle. The Sadducees, however, who denied miracles, are not amazed—they are puzzled. As I have highlighted in the past, they never stop to wonder whether they are wrong. As the meme goes, they do not ask, “Are we the baddies?” Acknowledging the possibility of a miracle would have only made things worse. The people may have held the apostles in even higher esteem.
Instead, the leaders immediately call for the arrest of the apostles. Undoubtedly, the high priest and captain of the guard lost face before the other leaders—failing to control a handful of prisoners who then openly defied them for a second time. Preaching at the temple instead of escaping was nothing less than a public challenge to the authority of the Sanhedrin. Nevertheless, the guards must arrest the apostles nonviolently. Why? “For they were afraid of being stoned by the people.”
Given the history of Israel—recall the Maccabean rebellion we discussed last time, for example—a violent uprising was not implausible. Not only was this immediately dangerous to the members of the Sanhedrin, but stirring the crowds could provoke Roman retribution. On a theological level, we should note that the leaders’ actions are not motivated by what is right or wrong. They act based on what is advantageous and are only limited by power.
The TrialYet again the apostles find themselves in the middle of an interrogation. Surprisingly, the interrogation does not open with, “How did you escape?” This matter was less pressing to the authorities than the apostles’ disobedience to their previous warning. Besides, asking such a question could open the door for a bold speech about God helping the righteous—only a rookie lawyer asks open ended questions of a hostile witness.
What is the authorities’ problem with the apostles preaching? We have discussed this before, so I will keep this brief. The authorities claim the apostles are bringing Jesus’ “blood on them” (Acts 5:28). This refers to the concept of bloodguilt: one who carried guilt for shedding innocent blood would need to be punished. Interestingly, later in Acts this is a standard that the apostles would apply to themselves. In chapter 20, Paul implies that he would have blood guilt if failed to preach the gospel.
“And now I know that none of you among whom I went around proclaiming the kingdom will see me again. Therefore I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of you all. For I did not hold back from announcing to you the whole purpose of God. Acts 20:25-27
Peter’s response to the authorities is also one we have discussed before. Peter claims that he must obey God over people (Acts 5:29). Although the background to Peter’s claim is clearly the Old Testament prophets who often antagonized the nation of Israel for the sake of delivering God’s message, Peter’s response would have been intelligible to someone with a Hellenistic background as well. His words recall the story of Socrates’ trial, and his obeying “the god” rather than his judges.
Notice that Peter does not accuse the leaders of “crucifying” Jesus. Instead he speaks in a manner appropriate not to Romans but to Israel’s leaders: they “hanged him on a tree.” The language alludes to a shameful mode of execution in Deuteronomy 21:22-23, which Jews by this period applied to crucifixion.
Peter’s response was surely unexpected to the council. Those on trial, much less the uneducated and politically weak, did not speak with such boldness and open defiance. In challenging the officials’ behavior, Peter and the other apostles appear unafraid even of provoking their martyrdom. This fearlessness indicates their absolute conviction
What was the divine commission the apostles were called to obey?
But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest parts of the earth.” Acts 1:8
The PunishmentThe apostles’ refusal to be intimidated threatens the elite’s socially accepted status of honor. This is a situation in which the message of the gospel collides against hardened hearts. The result is “fury” (Διαπρίω). The term indicates extreme rage. In its only other New Testament use, the council proceeds to kill the object of their anger.
The elite wished to execute the apostles. Both an impromptu lynching or a formally carried out death sentence without Roman approval would have been against Roman law. (We discussed this during our study of John.) However, in antiquity like today, such restrictions could be finessed politically. Ancient reports suggest that the Sadducees sometimes abused their power violently. (But we should not exaggerate either. We do not have evidence of the Sanhedrin being involved in lynchings.) The Pharisees, to their credit, were probably much more stringent in evidential requirements for capital cases. So, perhaps if Gamaliel had not intervened, the Sadducees would have held the apostles until they could secure an execution by the Roman authorities.
We will discuss Gamaliel in a minute, but let’s conclude the discussion of the apostles’ punishment. Having been calmed down, the council members decide against capital punishment. The apostles were too popular in Jerusalem to risk disposing of them the way Jesus was dealt with. However, the apostles do not escape with another warning. Not at all.
A flogging was a severe punishment. Many scholars suspect that the flogging was the traditional Jewish thirty-nine lashes. (The Pharisees in the council would not have approved of more lashes in view of Deuteronomy 25:2-3.) We know that such a flogging punishment was somewhat common after an offender defied a warning. The person would be tied to a post or lie on the ground, receiving one-third of the blows on the front of the body and two-thirds on the back.
GamalielLuke’s portrayal of Jerusalem’s aristocracy is not monolithic. Luke tells us of a fair member of the council named Gamaliel. Gamaliel, a minority Pharisee on the council, does not so much defend the apostles’ views as the Pharisaic position of tolerance.
Gamaliel is described as a “teacher of the law.” Gamaliel was a renown teacher, respected by all the people. This was both presupposed by Paul (see Acts 22:3) and attested in rabbinic comments on both him and his grandson. Gamaliel was also wealthy. We can learn something about his wealth from the comments made of his son. Josephus tells us that Gamaliel’s son held much authority in the Jerusalem assembly; that he was a Pharisee from a prominent Jerusalem family; that he was very intelligent; and that he had influence with two high priests.
Gamaliel ordered the apostles to be put outside, undoubtedly partly for privacy but perhaps also to prevent the apostles from making the court still angrier. Gamaliel’s tolerance makes sense from a Pharisaic perspective. Whereas the Sadducees, who held most of the political power, were sensitive to political threats, the Pharisees would likely object to executing those who kept the law. The Pharisees are reported to have favored more leniency than the Sadducees.
That Gamaliel, a renowned and respected Pharisee, was able to persuade the Sanhedrin is not surprising. The Pharisees seemed to have represented the views of the people, a status that often enabled them to sway the council’s decisions. (Recall that the council was already concerned that the people might react violently and stone them.)
The speech opens and closes with its main theme—a warning against hasty action. Gamaliel speaks eloquently, starting with the phrase “pay close attention to,” a familiar idiom in the context of exhortations. Gamaliel then compares the Jesus movement to armed resistance movements. Clearly, Gamaliel understands that is exactly the Sanhedrin’s concern regarding Jesus followers. Gamaliel makes the point that the prior revolutionary movements came to nothing, and the same would happen to the Jesus movement if it lacked God’s blessing.
Gamaliel’s argument is not a good one. First, the prior revolutionary movements came to nothing because they were violently stopped. So one could not draw the conclusion that because they failed then the Jesus movement would also fail without any need for violent opposition from the authorities. Moreover, the main premise of his argument invites a logical error. Gamaliel claims that a movement from God cannot be stopped. Fair enough. But we must keep in mind that simply because a movement from God cannot be stopped does not mean that a movement that cannot be stopped is from God. So, even if prior revolutions had succeeded, that would prove nothing. (Many ancients recognized the limits of Gamaliel’s logic, realizing one cannot always judge what is praiseworthy on the basis of successes or failures.)
Gamaliel’s argument is a classic instance of the descriptive versus prescriptive question when interpreting the Bible (or any text). One cannot assume that all things the Bible narrates is teaching us lessons to follow. The Bible may simply be describing something that happened, as in this case it describes the argument Gamaliel makes. Sometimes, of course, it is teaching us how to live or what to believe. We must be careful not to get the two confused.
Gamaliel’s closing statement to the council does not mince words. He cautions the elite that they might be “fighting against God.” This expression appeared in a widely circulated Jewish text (2 Maccabees 7:19). In that text, “fighting against God” is what the pagan persecutors of the Maccabean martyrs did. Maccabean martyrs were national heroes.
Although Gamaliel does not speak from a Christian perspective, perhaps Gamaliel entertained the possibility that God was acting though the apostles. The Sadducees were intellectually committed to the fact that no miracle had release the apostles from prison. Gamaliel, as a Pharisee, held no such commitment.
A Historical Error?Gamaliel compares the Jesus movement to Judas the Galilean and Theudas. Judas led a revolt in the days of the census, that is, in 6 A.D. Judas’ sons were later crucified for rebellion.
Theudas was apparently an eschatological prophet (i.e., a wannabe Jesus) who tried, unsuccessfully, to part the Jordan. Theudas was quickly captured and his head was cut off.
Here’s the problem. Theudas’ revolt was in 44 A.D. This is after Gamaliel’s speech and long after Judas the Galilean’s revolt in 6 A.D. (rather than before as the text in Acts 5:37 seems to imply).
Various solutions to this dating issue are possible.
The first solution is that our source dating Theudas’ revolt was wrong. That source is Josephus. Josephus certainly makes mistakes in his writing, several times contradicting himself. Besides, Theudas’ revolt, as dated by Josephus, happened when Josephus was only 7 years old. Maybe Josephus remembers incorrectly. Yet given Josephus’ more detailed treatment of Theudas and Judas, explicit mention of the governors in authority during their revolts, and his apparent access to written sources, on the grounds normally used to ascertain historical probability Josephus seems likelier than Luke to have access to the correct chronology.
Another solution sometimes offered is that there was an earlier Theudas before Jesus’ birth. This would resolve the dating issue and the chronology in Acts 5 (i.e., first came Theudas, then came Judas). Undoubtedly, prophetic figures abounded, before and after Jesus. Theudas, however, was a rare name. But maybe “Theudas” was a nickname, short for such popular names as “Theodorus,” “Theodosius,” and “Theodotus.”
Most scholars believe that the simplest solution is that Luke made a mistake, either unaware of the true date of Theudas or confusing him with some other rebel. If this is a mistake on Luke’s part, it would not have been a “big deal” to him or his audience. Even the best of ancient historians made mistakes, and Luke still captures the essence of Gamaliel’s speech.
I wish to make two comments about this potential error. First, many Christians are committed to the inerrancy of scripture. Inerrancy is not always defined the same way. Its stronger form means that the Bible contains no errors whatsoever, of any kind, including in details such as weights and distances it describes. A more modest version of inerrancy is that the Bible contains no errors regarding anything it teaches. Without going into too much detail, this view allows for certain statements in the Bible to be false because the Bible itself is not committed to their truth. (An example would the mustard seed being the smallest seed in the garden.) Nevertheless, the Theudas mistake flies in the face of either view of inerrancy. So, I ask, if one could prove that there was in fact a mistake in Acts, such that biblical inerrancy fell apart, would that be the end of the Christian faith? No! I say this emphatically because many Christian seem to think so. As long as the Bible is reliable, we are justified in holding our faith in Jesus and in his recorded teachings. Reliability is a much more modest standard than inerrancy.
My second comment is, do we know that Luke made a mistake? Luke’s other significant historical assertions that can be tested most securely (Gallio, Felix and Festus, Drusilla, Agrippa and Berenice, the Egyptian prophet, local titles for officials, etc.) can all be corroborated. Over the centuries, there have been several instances in which scholars believed Luke made a mistake only to be proven wrong by later archaeological discoveries. Therefore, we have good reason to believe Luke did not make a mistake in the case of Theudas either.
Joy in Persecution[I did not have time to finish this section, but here is a brief summary. The narrative concludes by reinforcing the characterization that the apostles, in contrast to Jerusalem’s political elite, obey God rather than people. They rejoice when suffering for Jesus’s name, as he commanded, while disobeying the Sanhedrin’s injunction not to teach in Jesus’s name. The apostles return with joy, as they did after Jesus’s ascension. Luke often emphasizes joy over embracing the gospel.]
Scripture Reading: Acts 4:32-5:16
32 The group of those who believed were of one heart and mind, and no one said that any of his possessions was his own, but everything was held in common. 33 With great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was on them all. 34 For there was no one needy among them because those who were owners of land or houses were selling them and bringing the proceeds from the sales 35 and placing them at the apostles’ feet. The proceeds were distributed to each, as anyone had need. 36 So Joseph, a Levite who was a native of Cyprus, called by the apostles Barnabas (which is translated “son of encouragement”), 37 sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and placed it at the apostles’ feet.
1 Now a man named Ananias, together with Sapphira his wife, sold a piece of property. 2 He kept back for himself part of the proceeds with his wife’s knowledge; he brought only part of it and placed it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back for yourself part of the proceeds from the sale of the land? 4 Before it was sold, did it not belong to you? And when it was sold, was the money not at your disposal? How have you thought up this deed in your heart? You have not lied to people but to God!”
5 When Ananias heard these words he collapsed and died, and great fear gripped all who heard about it. 6 So the young men came, wrapped him up, carried him out, and buried him. 7 After an interval of about three hours, his wife came in, but she did not know what had happened. 8 Peter said to her, “Tell me, were the two of you paid this amount for the land?” Sapphira said, “Yes, that much.” 9 Peter then told her, “Why have you agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out!” 10 At once she collapsed at his feet and died. So when the young men came in, they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 Great fear gripped the whole church and all who heard about these things.
12 Now many miraculous signs and wonders came about among the people through the hands of the apostles. By common consent they were all meeting together in Solomon’s Portico. 13 None of the rest dared to join them, but the people held them in high honor. 14 More and more believers in the Lord were added to their number, crowds of both men and women. 15 Thus they even carried the sick out into the streets and put them on cots and pallets, so that when Peter came by at least his shadow would fall on some of them. 16 A crowd of people from the towns around Jerusalem also came together, bringing the sick and those troubled by unclean spirits. They were all being healed.
Main ThemesThe GoodOur reading begins immediately after we are told that all the believers were “filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 4:31). There seems to be a pattern that after such outpourings of the Spirit the community experiences power and unity.
One Heart and Mind
We are told first that the community is of “one heart and mind.” This expression is not exclusive to biblical writers. The exact same expression and also close variations of it were used by other writers to express unity, particularly in friendship relationships (although not exclusively). I think that this is an important clue. I have been in several situations where believers wonder what such unity means and how to achieve it. Perhaps the answer is familiar—too familiar—so we rather avoid it. We should be true friends of our brothers and sisters in Christ.
Moreover, the expression “one heart and mind,” literally “one heart and soul,” seems to recall the Old Testament. The mention of heart and soul in the same phrase appeared in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament). Undoubtedly the reference that would have been in every ancient Jew’s mind would have been the Shema prayer in Deuteronomy 6:5-6. (The Shema prayer is one of the most famous prayers in the Bible. It was a daily prayer for ancient Israelites and is still recited by Jewish people today.)
Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord is one! You must love the Lord your God with your whole mind [literally, heart], your whole being [literally, soul], and all your strength. Deuteronomy 6:5-6
The Ideal Community
We have already discussed the “ideal community” that was the early church in chapter 2. At the end of chapter 4, we encounter that ideal community again. Everything was held in common. (The imperfect verbs suggest not a sale of all property upon conversion but believers selling their property when needs arose and contributing to a common fund supervised by the apostles.)
Much like the idea of being of “one heart and mind,” the idea of holding everything in common was especially attributed to friends. Biblically speaking, it seems like the fulfillment to Deuteronomy 15:4-5:
However, there should not be any poor among you, for the Lord will surely bless you in the land that he is giving you as an inheritance, if you carefully obey him by keeping all these commandments that I am giving you today. Deuteronomy 15:4-5
That the goods were deposited at the apostles’ feet means that the apostles were the managers who would supervise distribution among the needy. The location at their feet also indicates submission. The apostles were the leaders of the movement. That the apostles used all the funds for the needy contrasts them with members of the religious elite who exploited others economically. The contrast intensified by the fact that the goods were distributed according to need.
The apostles gave testimony with great power, which probably implies miraculous works and bold speech. We are also told that “grace was on them all.” This phrase is difficult to interpret. Consider when the same words were used to speak about Jesus.
And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom, and the favor [literally, grace] of God was upon him. Luke 2:40, emphasis added
Consider also Paul’s use of the word in Romans and Ephesians:
And we have different gifts according to the grace given to us. If the gift is prophecy, that individual must use it in proportion to his faith. Romans 12:6
But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift. Therefore it says, “When he ascended on high he captured captives; he gave gifts to men.” Ephesians 4:7-8
So, grace could mean God’s favor, empowerment, or both.
Barnabas—The Good Example
Maybe Barnabas was singled out because his monetary contribution to the church was the largest. Although some scholars think so, one must wonder whether Luke—who seems critical of the wealthy and concerned for the poor—would have thought that to be reason enough. The more likely explanation is that this reference works as an introduction to Barnabas, who will play a larger role later in the story.
Joseph was an incredibly common name at the time, so giving a “Joseph” a nickname was not unusual. (The same is true of the name Simon.) We could also make a connection with instances in the Old Testament in which a person was renamed—naming a person signified authority over them. So, perhaps this shows Barnabas submission to the apostles. His nickname, however, relates not to submission but to encouragement. Later passages in Acts confirm that the name was well placed.
Barnabas is from Cyprus. Many Jews lived in Cyprus at the time. Perhaps Barnabas’ associations with Cyprus help explain his wealth. Cyprus was a prosperous land both rich in minerals (especially copper but also gems) and agriculture. Presumably, this made the field Barnabas sold quite valuable.
Notice that Barnabas does everything right. That’s the point. He sold a field. He placed the money at the feet of the apostles. He showed generosity, charity, love, unity, and submission to the leadership. I point this out because we are about to read the “bad example.” In my opinion, the chapter division was placed incorrectly. The story of Barnabas is clearly meant to be contrasted with story of Ananias and Sapphira.
The BadAnanias—What Did He Do Wrong?
Immediately after the introduction of Barnabas, we read “Now a man named Ananias.” Like I said above, these two stories are clearly meant to be read together and contrasted. Let’s review what Ananias did.
Now a man named Ananias, together with Sapphira his wife, sold a piece of property. He kept back for himself part of the proceeds with his wife’s knowledge; he brought only part of it and placed it at the apostles’ feet. Acts 5:1-2
We learn the key detail from the verses that follow: Ananias pretended like the money he placed at the apostles’ feet was all the sale proceeds.
What is so wrong about this? Think about it. After all, the guy donated a bunch of money to the church. Doesn’t the good outweigh the bad (that is, the lie)? Was he required to give the whole amount? Did he keep back too much? Let’s address these questions.
Sanctity, Honor, and Hypocrisy
We could say that the early chapters of Acts describing the “ideal community” emphasize sacrificial giving, and Ananias failed to give sacrificially. However, as we will discuss in a moment, Peter makes clear that Ananias had no obligation to give. Instead, the passage in chapter 5 emphasizes the community’s sanctity.
Ananias and Sapphira wanted to be honored in God’s community. One does need to read much of the Bible, Old or New Testament, to encounter verses about the dangers of seeking honor for oneself.
You are still exalting yourself against my people by not releasing them. Exodus 9:17
How can you believe, if you accept praise from one another and don’t seek the praise that comes from the only God? John 5:44
As all the people were listening, Jesus said to his disciples, “Beware of the experts in the law. They like walking around in long robes, and they love elaborate greetings in the marketplaces and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. They devour widows’ property, and as a show make long prayers. They will receive a more severe punishment.” Luke 20:45-47
Notice that even if sharing was voluntary, the incentive to engage in the practice for selfish reasons is still there. When voluntary practices become a dominant practice of a group, they exert considerable influence on other members to conform to the new standard. Moreover, benefactors in the ancient Mediterranean world expected public honor.
Honoring oneself by pretending to engage in sacrificial behavior is also a blatant example of hypocrisy. If you participated in our study of John, then you know that this was a recurring (perhaps the main) issue that Jesus had with the religious leaders.
He said to them, “Isaiah prophesied correctly about you hypocrites, as it is written: “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.’” Mark 7:6
“Be careful not to display your righteousness merely to be seen by people. Otherwise you have no reward with your Father in heaven. Thus whenever you do charitable giving, do not blow a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in synagogues and on streets so that people will praise them. I tell you the truth, they have their reward! But when you do your giving, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your gift may be in secret. And your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you.” Matthew 6:1-4
Of course, I cannot mention hypocrisy without quoting the “7 woes.”
“But woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You keep locking people out of the kingdom of heaven! For you neither enter nor permit those trying to enter to go in.
“Woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You cross land and sea to make one convert, and when you get one, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves!
“Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the temple is bound by nothing. But whoever swears by the gold of the temple is bound by the oath.’ Blind fools! Which is greater, the gold or the temple that makes the gold sacred? And, ‘Whoever swears by the altar is bound by nothing. But if anyone swears by the gift on it he is bound by the oath.’ You are blind! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. And whoever swears by the temple swears by it and the one who dwells in it. And whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and the one who sits on it.
“Woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You give a tenth of mint, dill, and cumin, yet you neglect what is more important in the law—justice, mercy, and faithfulness! You should have done these things without neglecting the others. Blind guides! You strain out a gnat yet swallow a camel!
“Woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and the dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup, so that the outside may become clean too!
“Woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs that look beautiful on the outside but inside are full of the bones of the dead and of everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you look righteous to people, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
“Woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have participated with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ By saying this you testify against yourselves that you are descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up then the measure of your ancestors! You snakes, you offspring of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?” Matthew 23:13-33
Hypocrisy is obviously bad. But is it really that big of a deal? After all, we do not read of Jesus slashing through Pharisees and leaving them for dead. We also do hear of the apostles attempting to violently subjugate anyone, or performing destructive miracles that force the crowds to behave honestly. How is Ananias worse than the experts in the law and the Pharisees such that he should be struck dead on the spot? God judged impostors within the community much more severely than false prophets or leaders outside of it.
The apostle Paul expresses a similar distinction in his first letter to the Corinthians.
I wrote you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people. In no way did I mean the immoral people of this world, or the greedy and swindlers and idolaters, since you would then have to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who calls himself a Christian who is sexually immoral, or greedy, or an idolater, or verbally abusive, or a drunkard, or a swindler. Do not even eat with such a person. For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Are you not to judge those inside? But God will judge those outside. Remove the evil person from among you. 1 Corinthians 9-13
God sacrificed his one and only beloved son to create a path for salvation; He also protected the early church from the sins of hypocrisy and self-aggrandizing which would have prevented the good news from going forth to the world.
Satan Filled His Heart
Ananias’s behavior seeking to deceive the community recalls the betrayal of Judas: both men had Satan in their hearts. Recall Luke’s description of Judas:
The chief priests and the experts in the law were trying to find some way to execute Jesus, for they were afraid of the people. Then Satan entered Judas, the one called Iscariot, who was one of the twelve. He went away and discussed with the chief priests and officers of the temple guard how he might betray Jesus, handing him over to them. They were delighted and arranged to give him money. So Judas agreed and began looking for an opportunity to betray Jesus when no crowd was present. Luke 22:2-6
We learn from Peter’s question that Ananias’ heart was “filled” by Satan.
But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back for yourself part of the proceeds from the sale of the land? Acts 5:3
There are at least two important observations that should be noted. First, whether our modern sensibilities like it or not, scripture does seem to speak of supernatural evil entities. Satan is at work opposing God. In fact, Peter’s question makes Satan and the Holy Spirit the main players in the conflict, not Ananias and Peter. Paul expresses a similar idea in his letter to the Ephesians.
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavens. Ephesians 6:12
Among the more progressive Christians (not to mention nonbelievers), the idea of personal forces of evil (I mean evil creatures with agency, as opposed to simply the concept of evil) is often denied. To do so, one would have to interpret references to Satan as figures of speech meaning something like, “Why have you chosen evil?” This is both an implausible reading of the text and certainly not what the original writers meant to convey or original audience understood.
The other observation we should make is that Ananias, working for the enemy, commits no small sin. In the story, he is an agent of Satan infiltrating the community of God. He seeks to embed the spirit of Satan with the Spirit of God. God does not allow it. Put another way, whereas some onlookers may have viewed Ananias’ action as at worst merely selfish from a personal perspective, it was in fact Satan’s activity to infiltrate the community with hypocrisy.
Sapphira—A Quick Detour
I want to discuss the rest of Peter’s response to Ananias. Before we do that, let’s briefly discuss Sapphira.
The name “Sapphira,” in its various spellings, means “beautiful” and appears almost exclusively among wealthy Jerusalem families in this century. This lends credibility to Luke’s account.
Given the usual authority structure in ancient households, one should not be surprised that Ananias took the lead. Notice, however, that verse 5:1 attributes the sale of the property to both spouses. Although in the ancient Jewish world land sales would have generally involved exclusively men, we have record of contracts that included women as co-sellers.
Legalities aside, the main point made by God’s punishment of Sapphira is that even if she was of subordinate rank in a patriarchal society, she was not excused in disobeying God. God is the ultimate authority. If Sapphira did not have an opportunity to stop her husband from withholding funds or lying about it, she had an opportunity to be honest. She did not take that opportunity.
Was It Not Yours?
Now, let’s return to Peter’s response. At the risk of being misunderstood, I must admit that the story of Ananias and Sapphira is one of my favorites in the New Testament. No, not because I wish all sinners in the church to be struck dead. (I would surely be dead too.) It is because it conveys a couple of ideas that are central to Christian morality: Christian freedom and sins of conscience.
Listen to Peter’s words once more.
Before it was sold, did it not belong to you? And when it was sold, was the money not at your disposal? How have you thought up this deed in your heart? Acts 5:4a
Did Ananias sin because he did not give enough to the church? Did he sin because he kept some money for himself? No! The story of Ananias and Sapphira is not about money. It is not about tithing.
Ananias’ field was his to do as he pleased. He could have kept it. He could have sold it and kept all the money. He could have donated 10% of the proceeds, 20%, 50%, or 100%. Ananias had what we often call the “Christian freedom” to do as he believed was right.
Christian Freedom
One of the “go to” passages for Christian freedom is in Galatians 5. I will read it, although in my opinion, it is not the best passage to explain the concept.
For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not be subject again to the yoke of slavery. Listen! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you at all! 3 And I testify again to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be declared righteous by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace! For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait expectantly for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision carries any weight—the only thing that matters is faith working through love. Galatians 5:1-6
That quotation from Galatians clearly teaches that we are no longer bound by or saved by obeying the law of the Old Testament. The reason I think it is not the best text to explain Christian freedom is because it does not explain the alternative. (This is not a critique of the passage, only of how it is used.) If we don’t have to follow the Old Testament law, then what? What do we follow now?
I would rather explain Christian freedom by focusing on any particular moral issue. Given that we are reading Acts 5, let’s pick the topic of giving to the church. How does the New Testament address this topic? What are the “commands”?
Do not lag in zeal, be enthusiastic in spirit, serve the Lord. Rejoice in hope, endure in suffering, persist in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints, pursue hospitality. Romans 12:11-13
Contribute to the needs of the saints. Got it. But how much? Practice hospitality. Got it. But when? To whom? Is there something like a safe-harbor rule to know when I have done enough?
Surely when Paul addresses this topic at length in his letter to Timothy he answers all those questions and provides details.
For we have brought nothing into this world and so we cannot take a single thing out either. But if we have food and shelter, we will be satisfied with that. Those who long to be rich, however, stumble into temptation and a trap and many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all evils. Some people in reaching for it have strayed from the faith and stabbed themselves with many pains.
But you, as a person dedicated to God, keep away from all that. Instead pursue righteousness, godliness, faithfulness, love, endurance, and gentleness. Compete well for the faith and lay hold of that eternal life you were called for and made your good confession for in the presence of many witnesses. I charge you before God who gives life to all things and Christ Jesus who made his good confession before Pontius Pilate, to obey this command without fault or failure until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ—whose appearing the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, will reveal at the right time. He alone possesses immortality and lives in unapproachable light, whom no human has ever seen or is able to see. To him be honor and eternal power! Amen.
Command those who are rich in this world’s goods not to be haughty or to set their hope on riches, which are uncertain, but on God who richly provides us with all things for our enjoyment. Tell them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, to be generous givers, sharing with others. In this way they will save up a treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the future and so lay hold of what is truly life. 1 Timothy 6:7-19
Wait, I still didn’t catch it. How much—exactly—do I have to give to the church? The uncomfortable answer is: Scripture does not say. Then what is a Christian to do?! Allow me to repeat Peter’s words:
Before it was sold, did it not belong to you? And when it was sold, was the money not at your disposal? Acts 5:4a
As uncomfortable as this might be, Christians have freedom regarding how they “pursue righteousness, godliness, faithfulness, love, endurance, and gentleness.” This is not say that nothing is truly right or truly wrong, but it does mean that the application of moral principles may be different in different situations, and that people have a range of acceptable decisions from which to choose.
Sins of Conscience
Where was the sin of Ananias? Was it in his actions? He gave a bunch of money to the church. Surely that in itself does not deserve punishment but praise. He did lie. (This is implied in the text, but quite clearly so.) So that must be it. But what if he had lied for a different reason. Imagine Ananias had kept some of the money to help someone who was poor but who was embarrassed to receive help publicly from the church. That lie may or may not be justified, but one would hardly argue that God would have struck Ananias dead for that. So, where is the sin of Ananias? In his heart. Ananias’ great sin is not the “what,” it is the “why” behind his actions.
Why we do something is often more important than what we do. We find this idea discussed at length in chapter 14 of the letter to the Romans. I quote a redacted version below. Keep in mind that the context of this text is a question: Should Christians abstain from eating food sacrificed to pagan Gods? (In ancient markets, much of the meat being sold would have been sacrificed to the gods. So this was a very real, very practical problem for believers to navigate.) Some believers said yes, some said no. Paul wrote:
Now receive the one who is weak in the faith, and do not have disputes over differing opinions. One person believes in eating everything, but the weak person eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not despise the one who does not, and the one who abstains must not judge the one who eats everything, for God has accepted him. Who are you to pass judgment on another’s servant? Before his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
One person regards one day holier than other days, and another regards them all alike. Each must be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day does it for the Lord. The one who eats, eats for the Lord because he gives thanks to God, and the one who abstains from eating abstains for the Lord, and he gives thanks to God. . . .
But you who eat vegetables only—why do you judge your brother or sister? And you who eat everything—why do you despise your brother or sister? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. For it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee will bow to me, and every tongue will give praise to God.” Therefore, each of us will give an account of himself to God.
Therefore we must not pass judgment on one another, but rather determine never to place an obstacle or a trap before a brother or sister. I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean in itself; still, it is unclean to the one who considers it unclean. For if your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy by your food someone for whom Christ died. Therefore do not let what you consider good be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God does not consist of food and drink, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. For the one who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by people.
So then, let us pursue what makes for peace and for building up one another. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. For although all things are clean, it is wrong to cause anyone to stumble by what you eat. . . . Blessed is the one who does not judge himself by what he approves. But the man who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not do so from faith, and whatever is not from faith is sin. Romans 14:1-23, emphasis added
Paul’s statements are incredible. Take his statement about unclean foods, for example. On one hand, no food is unclean. (This means that there is no food we cannot eat or that would be sinful to eat.) On the other hand, food is unclean if one believes it to be unclean. Why? Because if one believes God commands not to eat something but he eats it anyways, in his heart he have disobeyed God. That is a great sin.
Does this mean that morality is subjective? Not at all! Love, generosity, and kindness are objectively good. Cruelty, avarice, and covetousness are objectively wrong. What it means is that whether someone is being generous or greedy can generally not be determined without looking at their heart. And we (people) cannot see the heart of man, but God can.
All a person’s ways seem right in his own opinion, but the Lord evaluates his thoughts. Proverbs 21:2
But the Lord said to Samuel, “Don’t be impressed by his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. God does not view things the way people do. People look on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” 1 Samuel 16:7
I, the Lord, probe into people’s minds. I examine people’s hearts. I deal with each person according to how he has behaved. I give them what they deserve based on what they have done. Jeremiah 17:10
For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any double-edged sword, piercing even to the point of dividing soul from spirit, and joints from marrow; it is able to judge the desires and thoughts of the heart. And no creature is hidden from God, but everything is naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must render an account. Hebrews 4:12-13
Allow me to conclude by reminding us of the day of judgment. In that day, all will be revealed. This is the fear of some and the hope of others.
Meanwhile, when many thousands of the crowd had gathered so that they were trampling on one another, Jesus began to speak first to his disciples, “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. 2 Nothing is hidden that will not be revealed, and nothing is secret that will not be made known. 3 So then whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms will be proclaimed from the housetops. Luke 12:1-2
[I left out many discussion points regarding some of the text we read today, particularly the section about miracles. If we have time we will discuss those, but the blog seems long enough for one week.]
Scripture Reading: Acts 4:1-31
While Peter and John were speaking to the people, the priests and the commander of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to them, 2 angry because they were teaching the people and announcing in Jesus the resurrection of the dead. 3 So they seized them and put them in jail until the next day (for it was already evening). 4 But many of those who had listened to the message believed, and the number of the men came to about 5,000.
5 On the next day, their rulers, elders, and experts in the law came together in Jerusalem. 6 Annas the high priest was there, and Caiaphas, John, Alexander, and others who were members of the high priest’s family. 7 After making Peter and John stand in their midst, they began to inquire, “By what power or by what name did you do this?” 8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, replied, “Rulers of the people and elders, 9 if we are being examined today for a good deed done to a sick man—by what means this man was healed— 10 let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, this man stands before you healthy. 11 This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, that has become the cornerstone. 12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be saved.”
13 When they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and discovered that they were uneducated and ordinary men, they were amazed and recognized these men had been with Jesus. 14 And because they saw the man who had been healed standing with them, they had nothing to say against this. 15 But when they had ordered them to go outside the council, they began to confer with one another, 16 saying, “What should we do with these men? For it is plain to all who live in Jerusalem that a notable miraculous sign has come about through them, and we cannot deny it. 17 But to keep this matter from spreading any further among the people, let us warn them to speak no more to anyone in this name.” 18 And they called them in and ordered them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John replied, “Whether it is right before God to obey you rather than God, you decide, 20 for it is impossible for us not to speak about what we have seen and heard.” 21 After threatening them further, they released them, for they could not find how to punish them on account of the people, because they were all praising God for what had happened. 22 For the man, on whom this miraculous sign of healing had been performed, was over forty years old.
23 When they were released, Peter and John went to their fellow believers and reported everything the high priests and the elders had said to them. 24 When they heard this, they raised their voices to God with one mind and said, “Master of all, you who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and everything that is in them, 25 who said by the Holy Spirit through your servant David our forefather,
‘Why do the nations rage,
and the peoples plot foolish things?
26 The kings of the earth stood together,
and the rulers assembled together,
against the Lord and against his Christ.’
27 “For indeed both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, assembled together in this city against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, 28 to do as much as your power and your plan had decided beforehand would happen. 29 And now, Lord, pay attention to their threats, and grant to your servants to speak your message with great courage, 30 while you extend your hand to heal, and to bring about miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.” 31 When they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak the word of God courageously.
Main ThemesIntroductionPersecution (But Not Immediately)
Persecution is a major theme in Acts. More broadly, persecution seems inseparable with the spreading of the gospel. Christian persecution is recorded by Luke, Paul, non-Christian ancient historians, and early Christian writers. This remains a true fact today. According to data by Open Doors (which I have not corroborated but I have also not heard to be disputed), about 360 million Christians experience intense persecution today. That is about one out of every seven Christians.
Nevertheless, despite the intense persecution endured by Christian in the Acts narrative, we might ask: why was the Jesus revolution not completely eliminated quickly and swiftly? Authorities did not move against Jesus’ followers the way they did against the followers of other revolutionaries, such as Theudas, the Samaritan prophet, or the Egyptian prophet. Perhaps differences between the political leaders involved accounts for the slower response to early Christians. The more likely reason is that the authorities did not perceive early Jesus followers as a real threat. Neither Jesus nor his followers had taken up arms or spoken of overthrowing the government.
The Parable of the Vinyard
The above notwithstanding, in chapter 4, the disciples must confront the municipal aristocracy. As I am sure you remember from our study of John, the chief priests and scribes were particular targets of Jesus’ criticisms and were his most critical enemies. The same is true in the Gospel of Luke. To understand the conflict in Acts 4, we should read the parable of the vineyard and the tenants found in Luke’s first volume.
Then he began to tell the people this parable: “A man planted a vineyard, leased it to tenant farmers, and went on a journey for a long time. When harvest time came, he sent a slave to the tenants so that they would give him his portion of the crop. However, the tenants beat his slave and sent him away empty-handed. So he sent another slave. They beat this one too, treated him outrageously, and sent him away empty-handed. So he sent still a third. They even wounded this one and threw him out. Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What should I do? I will send my one dear son; perhaps they will respect him.’ But when the tenants saw him, they said to one another, ‘This is the heir; let’s kill him so the inheritance will be ours!’ So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others.” When the people heard this, they said, “May this never happen!” But Jesus looked straight at them and said, “Then what is the meaning of that which is written: ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone’? Everyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, and the one on whom it falls will be crushed.” Then the experts in the law and the chief priests wanted to arrest him that very hour because they realized he had told this parable against them. But they were afraid of the people. Luke 20:9-19
The parable treats the religious elite as people who may have had legitimate power, but who now have exceeded their proper station rendering them illegitimate usurpers of Jesus the king’s rightful position.
Public Perception of the Authorities
Jesus’ criticisms of the elite were shared by many others. Most of the minority Jewish sects viewed the elite as little more than Roman political lackeys. Why? Because they were little more than Roman political lackeys.
The Sanhedrin—Jerusalem’s ruling council—became completely dominated by quasi-Roman appointments and Roman sympathizers. With Rome’s support, Herod the Great had installed his own backers in the Sanhedrin, and Rome determined who filled the high-priestly office. By the time of Jesus, the Sadducees were the dominant (although not exclusive) voice in the Sanhedrin. The Sadducees would be unnervingly familiar to us. They claimed to believe in the Scriptures—in the Jewish constitution, so to speak—while denying the Scripture’s heart and soul. They did not believe in an afterlife, or the promises and curses of the Bible. The were much like modern “progressive Christians.”
This background information helps us to frame the conflict between the apostles and the Sanhedrin correctly. We might be tempted to think of it as Christians versus Jews. This is utterly anachronistic. Both the apostles and the Sadducees claim to lead the people. The apostles claim legitimacy through truth. The Sadducees claim legitimacy through power. The issue is one of political power versus truth.
Inventing Persecution
We should also ask one more introductory question. Would Luke lie about the persecution of Christians? What I mean is, would Luke make it up to make Christians seem courageous? Is Luke going for those highly coveted victimhood points? (Forgive me is my commentary today sounds overly political, but what we read in chapter 4 is quite similar to modern political conflicts. Using language more familiar to us can help us understand what is happening in Acts 4.) The likely answer to these questions is no.
To invent political persecution would have been counterproductive to Luke’s Christian apologetic. Portraying Christians as opponents of a Roman-friendly ruling council would only worsen Christianity’s reputation in the rest of the empire. I say worsen because many in Rome already disliked Jews for their foreign ways and attempts (sometimes successful) to convert Romans. If Luke was inclined to fiction or exaggeration, the more useful narrative would have been to portray Jesus followers as endorsed by the establishment.
Trouble with the FuzzPriests, Commander of the Temple Guard, and the Sadducees
The apostles are arrested by the priests, commander of the temple guard, and the Sadducees. “Priests” obviously refers to various priests in the temple. We should keep in mind that they would have been under or part of the leadership of the aristocratic priests—a large percentage of whom were Sadducees.
The “commander of the temple guard” was a high officer who, according to some ancient reports, occasionally even rose to the office of high priest. His rank seemed to have been only second to the high priest, and his duties included preserving order in the temple. One individual who filled this office close to the time period of Acts 4 is Ananus, who we have reason to believe was the son of the high priest Ananias. If Ananus is the same temple officer as in Acts 4, he later became high priest himself and executed James the Lord’s brother.
The Sadducees are mentioned only once in the Gospel of Luke—those who deny the resurrection (Luke 20:27). As we read Acts, Luke also tells us that they are the circle around the high priests (Acts 5:17) and form a significant part of the ruling assembly (4:5, 15). From other historical sources, we know they were most likely a well-to-do priestly sect who returned to power after the Maccabean era due to Roman influence. Sadducees rejected Pharisaic tradition probably by claiming Scripture as their only authority. However, because of the people’s support for the more Israel-friendly Pharisees, sometimes Sadducees had to play along. In other words, Sadducees had to accommodate populist sentiments.
The Arrest
Chapter 3 ends with Peter calling Israel to repentance. Quoting Deuteronomy and Leviticus, Peter tells them, “Every person who does not obey that prophet will be destroyed and thus removed from the people.” This is the context of the arrest. If one believes Peter’s words, then the Jewish authorities appear as the very people disobeying “the prophet.”
Why are the authorities arresting the apostles? Is it because the Sadducees reject the doctrine of the resurrection? On its own, that is not the issue. Pharisees also preached an eschatological resurrection of dead people. This theological difference generated considerable conflict with the Sadducees. Yet, we do not have record of the Sadducees using force against the Pharisees. So what’s the difference between the apostles and the Pharisees? The apostles preached the resurrection “in Jesus”—the man the Sadducees tortured and killed. This same Jesus was the man that claimed to be the true owner of the vineyard—or, put politically, an alternative and more legitimate priestly authority. By preaching Jesus, the apostles are publicly dishonoring the ruling class. Honor was a paramount value in this society.
Night trials were extremely rare in the ancient world. So, the fact that the authorities jailed the apostles overnight and convened in the morning is in keeping with standard procedure.
5,000 Believers
Luke clarifies that the political pressure on the Jesus movement does not dissuade the apostles or new converts. This is in keeping with Jesus’ predictions.
But before all this, they will seize you and persecute you, handing you over to the synagogues and prisons. You will be brought before kings and governors because of my name. This will be a time for you to serve as witnesses. Luke 21:12-13
Luke reports that the number of believers “came to” five thousand. This could mean that 5,000 converted on that occasion or that the total number of believers came to 5,000 in total. Given the population of Jerusalem at the time, the latter is more likely.
Rulers, Elders, Experts in the Law (“Scribes”), and the Sanhedrin
“Rulers” could refer to temple administrators but more likely refers to the ruling priests, who appear alongside “scribes” and “elders” in the Gospel of Luke (Luke 9:22; 20:1). The term “elders” can apply to local synagogue leadership but can also be connected with chief priests. We should keep in mind that the apostles were young men. So, they would be much younger than these “elders” in a culture that valued age.
Experts in the law, that is “scribes,” had knowledge of the law (obviously) and could draft legal documents. Some scribes may well have been Pharisees, given the Pharisees’ popular reputation for skill in the law and their availability for training. However, not all scribes were Pharisees. Many of the scribes may have been priests, who may have been better equipped financially to pursue such training.
The assembly described in Acts 4:5 consists of the same groups as Jerusalem’s “council,” or Sanhedrin. A Sanhedrin was a ruling council equivalent to a senate. Many cities in the ancient world had their own ruling senates composed of the leading citizens. Rome ruled through local aristocracies, and Judea was no different.
According to rabbinic (and probably Pharisaic) ideals, judges who proved themselves locally could be promoted to the Sanhedrin, but in actuality the Sanhedrin in the apostles’ day probably consisted mainly of members of the Jerusalem aristocracy and wealthy landowners in the vicinity.
Jerusalem’s Sanhedrin was the ruling council for Jerusalem, the major urban center that watched over Judea. Just as the Roman senate wielded power far beyond Rome because of Rome’s power, Jerusalem’s Sanhedrin wielded some influence in Jewish national affairs.
At some point the Sanhedrin may have held seventy-one members, as tradition indicates. However, even if that were the case, not all members would have been present on all occasions, especially for an emergency meeting.
Rulers could use sanhedrins to secure the end they wanted without taking full responsibility for their decision.
The high priest presided over the ruling council and hence was Jerusalem’s most powerful resident (with the exception of an appointed or visiting Roman ruler), to whom the Roman prefect would likely defer many decisions. Moreover, Luke assumes his audience’s knowledge of Annas and Caiaphas, whom he introduced as high priests in his gospel. That Caiaphas held power as long as he did (nineteen years) reinforces the suspicion he was a skilled and ruthless politician.
Some people suggest that Luke was incorrect about Annas being the high priest, since Caiaphas was officially high priest in this period. However, as we discussed during our study of John, Luke is aware (Luke 3:2) that there can be a difference between who technically holds the office and who truly wields the power. Annas reigned as paterfamilias. Besides, Luke clearly employs the term “high priests” in the plural for all the leading priests. One could argue that there was only one high priest, since that is what the Old Testament established. However, even Josephus, the Jewish historian, used the plural “high priests” (and more often than Luke). It was standard terminology at the time. This could reflect foreign influence. Perhaps the Jews began to treat the priestly aristocracy just like Greeks and Romans treated their aristocracies, removing some of the religious connotations.
The Trial
Peter and John stand in the “midst” of the rulers, elders, and scribes. This fits the tradition that the Sanhedrin sat in a semicircle.
The authorities begin the trial with the most important question: by what power or by what name did you do this? In this question, “name” signifies authority. Notice that this is the exact question that Peter sought to answer time and time again in chapter 3. He repeatedly made clear that the miracle and the message he preached came by the power and authority of Jesus.
Before Peter responds to the question, he is described as “having been filled” with the Holy Spirit—using the aorist passive participle. This verb tense more naturally points back to an earlier infilling of the Spirit (probably Pentecost) but it could mean a new infilling—meaning that Peter received fresh power and inspiration for this particular instance. Grammar alone may not be sufficient to settle the question. Some point to other passages that seem to show multiple infillings of the Spirit.
Informed readers might also make a connection between Peter’s God-inspired, bold testimony, and that of prophets of old. In the Old Testament, sometimes prophets were empowered by God to confront Kings and other institutions.
When Rehoboam arrived in Jerusalem, he summoned 180,000 skilled warriors from all Judah and the tribe of Benjamin to attack Israel and restore the kingdom to Rehoboam son of Solomon. But God told Shemaiah the prophet, “Say this to King Rehoboam son of Solomon of Judah, and to all Judah and Benjamin, as well as the rest of the people, ‘This is what the Lord has said: “Do not attack and make war with your brothers, the Israelites. Each of you go home. Indeed this thing has happened because of me.”’” So they obeyed the Lord’s message. They went home in keeping with the Lord’s message. 1 Kings 12:21-24
He said to me, “Son of man, stand on your feet and I will speak with you.” As he spoke to me, a wind came into me and stood me on my feet, and I heard the one speaking to me. He said to me, “Son of man, I am sending you to the house of Israel, to rebellious nations who have rebelled against me; both they and their fathers have revolted against me to this very day. The people to whom I am sending you are obstinate and hard-hearted, and you must say to them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says.’” Ezekiel 2:1-4
Peter ends up responding “boldly,” but he begins with a respectful address, “rulers of the people and elders.” In rhetoric, this would have been the customary captatio benevolentiae.
After the address, Peter’s response drips with sarcasm. He asks whether the apostles are being detained for doing a good deed, literally an “act of kindness.” Or perhaps they were detained because a man was healed—literally “delivered.” (Keep in mind the semantic range of the word translated as “healed.” This will be important later.)
Peter is both providing a defense and going on offense. The claim is that Peter and John did nothing wrong. In fact, they did something good. And, that the authorities are opposing a good act, which by implication makes them evil. This probably goes without saying, but the argument is predicated on the idea that benefaction is virtuous—an idea universally accepted in the ancient world. Moreover, in the ancient Mediterranean ideology of reciprocity, the proper response to benefaction was gratitude. The ungrateful person was viewed negatively, and to harm benefactors was grossly wicked.
Peter then reloads with the phrase, “Let it be known to you.” This prepares the audience for a shocking statement. In rhetoric, a standard practice was charging one’s accuser with something. However, to employ that tactic against one’s judges was highly unusual. Appealing positively to them would be expected and probably more effective in obtaining a favorable ruling.
And what is the shocking truth the authorities must know? “By the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, this man stands before you healthy.” Rhetorically speaking, he stabs and then twists the knife.
Peter then applies prophecy to bolster his case. “Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, that has become the cornerstone.” This is a quotation from Psalm 118:22, but Peter inserts the word “you” to remove all doubt as to whom the prophecy is condemning.
The irony in the use of Ps 118:22-23 here is that in the Old Testament, Israel was the one rejected (or perhaps her king) by the Gentiles, but in the New Testament it is Jesus who is rejected by Israel. Remember that this is exactly the prophecy that Jesus used to condemn the authorities.
What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? 16 He will come and destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others.” When the people heard this, they said, “May this never happen!” But Jesus looked straight at them and said, “Then what is the meaning of that which is written: ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone’? Everyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, and the one on whom it falls will be crushed.” Then the experts in the law and the chief priests wanted to arrest him that very hour because they realized he had told this parable against them. But they were afraid of the people. Luke 20:15b-19.
Jesus implied the identity of the “builders.” Peter outright stated it.
The cornerstone or topstone (also called capstone) to which Psalm 118 refers is part of the architecture of the temple. Many scholars interpret the “cornerstone” as a “capstone,” the final stone fitted in place to hold the others in place. However, notice what the translators of the NET have to say:
[The Greek word can be translated as] “capstone,” “keystone.” Although these meanings are lexically possible, the imagery in Eph 2:20-22 and 1 Cor 3:11 indicates that the term κεφαλὴ γωνίας (kephalē gōnias) refers to a cornerstone, not a capstone.
The Twist
Peter finishes his argument by returning to the idea of being saved or delivered. Recall earlier I pointed out that the word used to convey the lame man was “healed” also means “delivered” or “saved.” In verse 12, Peter claims this deliverance can come only through Christ, alluding to a greater kind of deliverance.
That no other name provides salvation “under heaven” means that no other name provides it “anywhere.” Notice that Peter leaves little question that salvation is through Christ and Christ alone. There are many Christians and so-called Christians who deny that, but the text does not seem to allow for such theology. (However, exactly how exclusive is the group of people saved through Christ could be debated.) Moreover, early Jewish groups held a range of views, from universalism to the salvation only of a single sect. So, Peter’s statement is probably not careless but an idea thoughtfully considered.
Uneducated and Ordinary Men
The authorities did not expect the “boldness” of these “uneducated” and “ordinary” men.
The authorities almost surely expected these commoners to fear them and seek their favor—as certainly most would have done. But Peter and John answer to a higher authority.
The word translated as “uneducated” literally means “illiterate.” Many, if not most, Jewish boys would have had training at least in reciting Torah, and fishermen probably had more education than that. Instead, the term indicates lack of formal education (hence the translation “uneducated”). The term is particularly poignant in the presence of scribes—highlighting the difference between the elite authorities and the disciples.
The word translated as “ordinary” formally designates an ignorant person or one who lacks training, such as in philosophy or rhetoric. However, it was used to refer to less educated “common” people.
We should notice that the authorities recognized that these men had been with Jesus. Recall the last time people recognized that Peter had been with Jesus. Peter denied his lord three times and let him die alone. This scene in chapter 4 is, in a sense, the redemption in Peter’s story arc. The fact that Peter lacked boldness before shows the impact of the Holy Spirit.
Although the apostles are uneducated commoners, the authorities are silenced by the facts. The miracle is undeniable. A man lame from birth, a fact to which multitudes could attest since he was placed at the temple daily, was standing right in front of them (see verse 14). What to do?
Saving Face—They Get Off with a Warning
The authorities need to save face. They simply cannot allow the apostles to have “the last word.” At the same time, they cannot antagonize the people, who have witnessed a miracle and an act of kindness for a member of the most disenfranchised class. Should they punish a benefaction by having the apostles flogged? This would be unwise. So the authorities release the apostles with a mere warning. The ability to issue the warning shows who is in power without having to actually punish the apostles.
We should note that the leaders do not seem to question their own position. Although they cannot deny the miracle, they refuse to consider its implications. Luke may be implying political corruption and hardness of heart among the elite. This would be in keeping with the teachings of Jesus, which explicitly addressed people so set in their wicked ways they would not see the truth. In Matthew 13, Jesus applied a text from Isaiah to them:
You will listen carefully yet will never understand,
you will look closely yet will never comprehend.
For the heart of this people has become dull;
they are hard of hearing,
and they have shut their eyes,
so that they would not see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them. Matthew 13:14b-15 quoting Isaiah 6:9-10
No More Talking About Jesus
The authorities order the apostles not to speak in Jesus’ name. This means not to speak as his representatives or acting on his authority, thus drawing attention to a person who was executed by the authorities. The phrasing, however, creates a narrative contrast between the elite and the apostles. The name of Jesus is precisely the authority and power by which miracles are happening and, ultimately, deliverance.
Peter and John openly refuse to abide by the order. There is a sad and almost mocking difference between the “inability” of the apostles and that of the authorities. The apostles are not able to deny or keep secret that which they have seen and heard. The authorities are also unable to deny the miracle (4:16) but they are also unable to acknowledge its implications.
The Jewish tradition contained examples of justified civil disobedience, particularly when obedience to God and obedience to the government became unavoidably contradictory. Perhaps the most memorable example is in Daniel 3.
Then Nebuchadnezzar in a fit of rage demanded that they bring Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego before him. So they brought them before the king. Nebuchadnezzar said to them, “Is it true, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, that you don’t serve my gods and that you don’t pay homage to the golden statue that I erected? Now if you are ready, when you hear the sound of the horn, flute, zither, trigon, harp, pipes, and all kinds of music, you must bow down and pay homage to the statue that I had made. If you don’t pay homage to it, you will immediately be thrown into the midst of the furnace of blazing fire. Now, who is that god who can rescue you from my power?” Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego replied to King Nebuchadnezzar, “We do not need to give you a reply concerning this. If our God whom we are serving exists, he is able to rescue us from the furnace of blazing fire, and he will rescue us, O king, from your power as well. But if he does not, let it be known to you, O king, that we don’t serve your gods, and we will not pay homage to the golden statue that you have erected.” Daniel 3:13-18
A more prescient example that was probably in the minds of apostles and the authorities was the Maccabean revolt. In the 2nd century BC, when Antiochus ruled over Israel, he encouraged the Semitic peoples of the Mediterranean coast to regard him as the ancient god Baal of the Canaanites. Consider how Britannica explains the lead up to revolution:
This conception of revealed religion and of loyalty to the Word of God, rather than to a human king, Antiochus could not appreciate, particularly since he himself delighted in the name God Manifest. In order to extirpate the faith of Israel, therefore, he attacked Israel’s religious practices. He thus forbade the observance of the Sabbath and of the traditional feasts, for these had been ordained by a “jealous,” or intolerant, God. All sacrifices were to come to an end. He forbade the reading of the Law of Moses and gave orders to search out and burn any copies that could be found. He forbade the practice of circumcision, for it was this that set the Jews off from other peoples as the one “people of God.” In place of these practices, Antiochus encouraged the development of cultural clubs called gymnasia, in which people gathered to study, to learn, and to enjoy each other’s company. After competing in various forms of athletics, men and women used to soak themselves in hot baths. But because the pursuit of the “good” included a delight in the body beautiful, such activities were performed naked. A circumcised Jew taking part in the games in a gymnasium could not therefore hide where his loyalty lay. Finally, in 168 BCE, Antiochus invaded Jerusalem and desacralized the Holy of Holies in the Temple. This was the one place on earth about which Yahweh said “My name” (the expression of his Person) “shall be there” (I Kings).
A number of Jews, under their leader Jason, the high priest, took the easy way of conformity with the new universal trends. But with Antiochus’s impious act, a strong general reaction set in. Thus, when, later in the same year, Antiochus again entered Jerusalem, this time plundering and burning and setting up his citadel, the Acra, on the hill overlooking the Temple courts, he went too far, for his final act of spite, on December 25, 167 BCE, was to rededicate the Temple in Jerusalem to the Olympian god Zeus.
I provide the long quotation above because the Maccabean Revolt was brutal and bloody. (It is from its success in rededicating the temple that the holiday of Hanukkah finds its origin.) This is exactly the kind of revolution the authorities sought to prevent. But, we should notice by now, this is not quite the kind of revolution the apostles sought to start.
Should We Be Like Peter?Is the boldness and disobedience of Peter an example for all Christians—an example for us today? Answering this question could take an entire Bible study session, but perhaps we can discern some general principles from Luke’s writing.
In Luke 20, Jesus is asked about paying taxes to the Romans (Caesar in particular). Jesus responds,
“Show me a denarius. Whose image and inscription are on it?” They said, “Caesar’s.” So he said to them, “Then give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Luke 20-24-25
We must keep in mind that the context of Luke 20 is people attempting to deceive Jesus into saying something treacherous and worthy of arrest and death. So we should expect his answer to be less than straightforward. However, it is still clear from his answer that government has a proper sphere in which it deserves obedience.
At the same time, we must keep in mind Peter’s attitude in chapter 4. “Is it “right before God to obey the [authorities] rather than God”? Peter answer, in word and deed, is no.
Put broadly, Luke’s writings seem to suggest that we should obey the government unless doing so is directly contrary to obeying God. In practice, however, this principle can be hard to apply.
Scripture Reading: Acts 3
Now Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time for prayer, at three o’clock in the afternoon. 2 And a man lame from birth was being carried up, who was placed at the temple gate called “the Beautiful Gate” every day so he could beg for money from those going into the temple courts. 3 When he saw Peter and John about to go into the temple courts, he asked them for money. 4 Peter looked directly at him (as did John) and said, “Look at us!” 5 So the lame man paid attention to them, expecting to receive something from them. 6 But Peter said, “I have no silver or gold, but what I do have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, stand up and walk!” 7 Then Peter took hold of him by the right hand and raised him up, and at once the man’s feet and ankles were made strong. 8 He jumped up, stood and began walking around, and he entered the temple courts with them, walking and leaping and praising God. 9 All the people saw him walking and praising God, 10 and they recognized him as the man who used to sit and ask for donations at the Beautiful Gate of the temple, and they were filled with astonishment and amazement at what had happened to him.
11 While the man was hanging on to Peter and John, all the people, completely astounded, ran together to them in the covered walkway called Solomon’s Portico. 12 When Peter saw this, he declared to the people, “Men of Israel, why are you amazed at this? Why do you stare at us as if we had made this man walk by our own power or piety? 13 The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our forefathers, has glorified his servant Jesus, whom you handed over and rejected in the presence of Pilate after he had decided to release him. 14 But you rejected the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a man who was a murderer be released to you. 15 You killed the Originator of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this fact we are witnesses! 16 And on the basis of faith in Jesus’ name, his very name has made this man—whom you see and know—strong. The faith that is through Jesus has given him this complete health in the presence of you all. 17 And now, brothers, I know you acted in ignorance, as your rulers did too. 18 But the things God foretold long ago through all the prophets—that his Christ would suffer—he has fulfilled in this way. 19 Therefore repent and turn back so that your sins may be wiped out, 20 so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and so that he may send the Messiah appointed for you—that is, Jesus. 21 This one heaven must receive until the time all things are restored, which God declared from times long ago through his holy prophets. 22 Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your brothers. You must obey him in everything he tells you. 23 Every person who does not obey that prophet will be destroyed and thus removed from the people.’ 24 And all the prophets, from Samuel and those who followed him, have spoken about and announced these days. 25 You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your ancestors, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your descendants all the nations of the earth will be blessed.’ 26 God raised up his servant and sent him first to you, to bless you by turning each one of you from your iniquities.”
Main ThemesThe MiracleThe SettingWe learn in chapter 2 that believers pray daily in the temple. (This means they prayed in the temple courts, not literally inside the temple.) So, chapter 3 opens with a predictable scene—Peter and John find themselves going to the temple to pray (3:1). We can safely assume they were going to participate in a corporate prayer meeting (as opposed to a time of personal prayer).
We are aware that at some point synagogues established three prayer times during the day. We have evidence from early Christian writers that Christians continued this practice for a while. Even in Acts we read of three times of prayer: 9:00 AM (Acts 2:15), noon (Acts 10:9), and 3:00 PM (Acts 3:1). There is some doubt that the synagogue tradition was firmly in place at the time of Acts chapter 3, but most agree that was the case.
We might ask ourselves: What did these times of corporate prayer look like? It may have included corporate singing of Psalms and other worship, a person leading everyone in prayer, and everyone praying differently but simultaneously.
We might also ask ourselves: How long did the miracle and Peter’s preaching (which we are about to discuss) take? We learn at the beginning of chapter 4 that Peter and John are arrested towards evening, and recall that Peter and John head towards the temple around 3 PM. So, the miracle and subsequent preaching probably lasted about 3 hours. Although this may be obvious to the reader already, we should note that the speeches we read in Acts are obviously summaries. Luke records the main points made by Peter.
The Lame Man and the GateAs the believers head to the temple to pray, they run across a lame man who was placed at the temple gate daily. As a quick historical note, we are not certain at which gate he was placed. Ancient sources do not specify which gate was popularly called “the Beautiful Gate.” We are able to ascertain that it referred to either the Nicanor Gate (which led from the Court of the Gentiles into the Court of Women) or the Shushan Gate at the eastern wall. Since the fifth century, the tradition has been that “the Beautiful Gate” referred to the Shushan Gate, but that tradition may not be reliable.
Of more relevance than which gate is being described is the fact that the lame man was at a gate. Because of his defect, he may not have been allowed to go any further into the temple. Also, temple gates were useful for begging since they were frequented by many people. Moreover, one may assume that people at the temple were a more charitable audience than elsewhere. Finally, we must keep in mind the lame man’s dismal situation. Begging (considered highly shameful) would have been his only way to provide for himself. There was no other social safety net. As a scholar points out, the poor in ancient cities were “ill-fed, housed in slums or not at all, ravaged by sickness,” and with little hope of social betterment.
The ExchangeThe lame man begins the exchange with the apostles on the basis of his need—he requests money. Truly, he requested alms—money given to the poor as an act of charity—but our translation uses money because the term alms is unfamiliar to current readers. Giving alms was viewed as honorable by Judaism.
The lame man’s request opens the door for a dramatic demonstration of the gospel. The Old Testament strongly emphasized the charitable treatment of the disabled. Consider, for example:
You must not curse a deaf person or put a stumbling block in front of a blind person. You must fear your God; I am the Lord. Leviticus 19:14
“Cursed is the one who misleads a blind person on the road.” Then all the people will say, “Amen!” Deuteronomy 27:18
Like I have pointed out many times before, the gospels are replete with commands to help the poor.
Most importantly, according to the Old Testament, healing of the sick would be a sign of the messianic era. Consider Isaiah:
Tell those who panic, “Be strong! Do not fear! Look, your God comes to avenge; with divine retribution he comes to deliver you.” Then blind eyes will open, deaf ears will hear. Then the lame will leap like a deer, the mute tongue will shout for joy; for water will burst forth in the wilderness, streams in the arid rift valley. Isaiah 35:4-6)
In the Old Testament, the lame also work as a type for the mistreated people of God:
Look, at that time I will deal with those who mistreated you. I will rescue the lame sheep and gather together the scattered sheep. I will take away their humiliation and make the whole earth admire and respect them. Zephaniah 3:19
So, Peter healing a lame man works on a literal level—it is an astonishing miracle that validates his credentials as one sent by God—and on a narrative level—the story of redemption has reached the messianic era in which the people of God will be gathered.
The Disclaimer—No MoneyUpon the lame man’s request, Peter and John clarify that they do not have any money. (The phrase “silver and gold” simply means money, “minted coins.”) Although this is nothing but a footnote in the story, we should notice that as the believers shared all their possessions with one another (see chapter 2), the apostles do not seem to have been enriched. Also, this distinguishes Peter and John from magicians of that time, who took payment for their services.
The MiracleJesus’ NamePeter begins the miracle by giving credit to Jesus Christ. Jesus’s name is a key element that recurs throughout this section. It is repeated many times in chapter 3, and its mention continues into chapter 4. This leaves no doubt that the apostles are acting only as agents for the one who sent them—Jesus.
We should notice that Peter specifies that he speaks of Jesus “the Nazarene.” This shows a reference to a real, historical figure, and it operates as defiance to popular expectations of greatness. Being from Nazareth was certainly nothing to brag about.
How should we understand the use of Jesus’ name? For example, in the context of prayer, calling God’s name generally means one is addressing God. For example:
Now Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he stopped, one of his disciples said to him, “Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples.” 2 So he said to them, “When you pray, say: “‘Father, may your name be honored; may your kingdom come. . . .” Luke 11:1-2
But in prayer, one is also calling on the Lord himself to act. Consider how the Lord’s prayer continues:
Give us each day our daily bread, and forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us. And do not lead us into temptation. Luke 11:3-4
Invocations of God’s name could be directed at people or at least with people as the intended audience to prove who is acting. Consider Elijah challenging the prophets of Baal:
“Then you will invoke the name of your god, and I will invoke the name of the Lord. The god who responds with fire will demonstrate that he is the true God.” All the people responded, “This will be a fair test.” 1 Kings 18
Consider also David’s blessing of the people of God in the name of the Lord. This probably means he was calling on the Lord to the bless them.
When David finished offering burnt sacrifices and peace offerings, he pronounced a blessing over the people in the Lord’s name. 1 Chronicles 16:2
So, when Peter asks the lame man to walk “in the name of Jesus Christ,” he may be pointing to who is doing the miracle.
We could also understand calling on the Lord’s name slightly differently. Both in Jewish and Gentile tradition, we can find brokers (i.e., representatives or messengers) using the name of their patron to denote on whose authority they speak or act. So, to say “in the name of Jesus Christ” is to say, “as a representative of Jesus Christ.” We find this (or a very similar) use of the expression in the Gospel of John when praying in Jesus’ name (John 14:13; 15:16; 16:23-24). In John, praying “in one’s name” evokes praying “on the merits of,” or because of, another’s status before the one entreated (much like Israel seeking favor before God on account of their ancestors’ favor).
Notice that under either interpretation of using the Lord’s name, it is Jesus or through the power of Jesus that the miracle happens. The difference is whether the apostle works as an announcer of what Jesus is doing or as the agent through whom Jesus acts.
We should also notice that Peter does not use a particular ritual. For pagans, God’s favor could be sought by using very specific rituals that needed perfect execution. Jewish ritual was less particular, but correctly implementing the ritual remained important, leading to conflicts between, for example, Pharisees and Sadducees. Peter also does not employ techniques or ingredients that would lend themselves to be interpreted as magic. The only ingredient, so to speak, is the power and authority of Jesus.
The HealingPeter clasps the lame man’s right hand—typically a sign of agreement or covenant in the ancient world. Given the man’s low social status, this denotes acceptance and kindness on Peter’s part. Peter helps him up.
The miracle is emphatically evident. The man jumps up and immediately walks. Then we are told repeatedly that he “walks around,” walks and leaps,” and all saw him “walking.” The miracle works as a sign that draws attention to the message about to be preached.
Why is the miracle so effective? Those at the temple recognized this man as the one “who used to sit and ask for donations.” Since he had been lame from birth, we can conclude he had been placed there daily for a very long time.
Moreover, if we are correct in concluding that the lame man could venture no further into the temple due to his disability, the fact that the man enters the temple courts to praise God is significant. His barrier to experience God has been removed by the power and grace of Jesus.
The SpeechThe SettingPetter delivers his speech at Solomon’s Portico. It was a long outdoor hallway supported by pillars on the east of a pre-Herodian structure, which overlooked the steep Kidron Valley. Apparently Solomon’s Portico was a traditional place for Christians to meet and preach; we read about it in Acts (Acts 3:11; 5:12) and in John 10:23.
The MessageWhodunit?
Peter begins his sermon by correcting an apparent misunderstanding by the crowd. He makes clear that the cause of the healing is Jesus, not himself.
Wonder-workers were common at the time, and they were often understood as sorcerers. Clarifying that Jesus was the source of the miracle, along with other passages in Acts (e.g., Acts 8:7-13, 18-24; 19:11-20) work as an antimagical apologetics. These are miracles done by God, Peter is pointing out, not magical works done by Peter’s power or cunning. Moreover, Peter is separating himself from certain Jewish traditions that held holy men had power to make certain things happen. (Pagans had a similar notion, believing that piety could lead to spiritual power. For example, Romans believed that their sacrifices could expiate the gods and that their continued worship could even make the gods embarrassed to continue in anger against Rome.)
Unlike a sorcerer or a man acting by his own piety-fueled power, Peter points to Jesus and immediately says the following::
The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our forefathers, has glorified his servant Jesus, whom you handed over and rejected in the presence of Pilate after he had decided to release him.
In other words, the main proposition of the speech is that the God of Israel who acted to resurrect Jesus is continuing to act.
The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
“The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” was a familiar Jewish expression, derived from the biblical revelation to Moses recorded in the book of Exodus. It appears multiple times in Exodus and the Old Testament, but probably the most memorable mention is in the scene of the burning bush.
Now Moses was shepherding the flock of his father-in-law Jethro, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the desert and came to the mountain of God, to Horeb. The angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from within a bush. He looked, and the bush was ablaze with fire, but it was not being consumed! So Moses thought, “I will turn aside to see this amazing sight. Why does the bush not burn up?” When the Lord saw that he had turned aside to look, God called to him from within the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!” And Moses said, “Here I am.” God said, “Do not approach any closer! Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.” He added, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” Then Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God. Exodus 3:1-6
This title for God was common in Jesus’ time, appearing in Jewish prayers and benedictions, making it one of the most familiar titles for God. Someone who had read both of Luke’s works would remember that Jesus had used this title before—once before. Jesus defended the resurrection of the dead with this very title and the very scene of the burning bush, concluding:
But even Moses revealed that the dead are raised in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live before him.” Then some of the experts in the law answered, “Teacher, you have spoken well!” For they did not dare any longer to ask him anything. Luke 20:37-40
There seems to be no coincidence that Peter uses that same title for God to preach about restoration as Jesus did to preach about resurrection. The God who demonstrated his faithfulness to the patriarchs in the exodus would be faithful to his promise to raise them from the dead; God demonstrated that faithfulness in raising Jesus from the dead; so, one can expect God to deliver on his promises of restoration as well.
The Servant, the Holy and Righteous One, the Originator of Life
Because I have discussed some of these Old Testament allusions in many occasions, I will provide only a brief summary of what the titles used for Jesus are meant to evoke in the listeners’ minds.
The term servant along with the theme of glorification almost inarguably points to Isaiah’ servant.
Look, my servant will succeed! He will be elevated, lifted high, and greatly exalted—(just as many were horrified by the sight of you) he was so disfigured he no longer looked like a man; his form was so marred he no longer looked human—so now he will startle many nations. Kings will be shocked by his exaltation, for they will witness something unannounced to them, and they will understand something they had not heard about.
Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the Lord’s power revealed through him? He sprouted up like a twig before God, like a root out of parched soil; he had no stately form or majesty that might catch our attention, no special appearance that we should want to follow him. He was despised and rejected by people, one who experienced pain and was acquainted with illness; people hid their faces from him; he was despised, and we considered him insignificant. But he lifted up our illnesses, he carried our pain; even though we thought he was being punished, attacked by God, and afflicted for something he had done. He was wounded because of our rebellious deeds, crushed because of our sins; he endured punishment that made us well; because of his wounds we have been healed. Isaiah 52:13 – 53-5
“The Holy One” was especially a title for God himself in both the Old Testament and in early Judaism. In a context that draws heavily on Isaiah, the “holy one” title could imply deity (“Holy One” appears thirty times in Isaiah, including for God as Israel’s savior and “redeemer” in the servant contexts). The title could also function as an acceptable title for one of God’s servants when conjoined with “of God.” In the case of Acts 3, that seems like a difficult interpretation to hold.
“Righteous one” is not a common expression for Christ later in the New Testament. (Although we see some uses, such as in 1 John 1-2. It says, “But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous One, and he himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for our sins but also for the whole world.”) So why is this title for Jesus used in Acts?
In Acts, the title of righteous one is used exclusively when preaching to Jerusalem audiences, which is perhaps a clue as to its intended meaning. Calling Jesus the “righteous one” heightens both the contrast with Barabbas the “murderer” and the guilt of those who denied Jesus. It also fits one of Luke’s central themes: Jesus was innocent. Moreover, the term “righteous servant” appears in the servant song of Isaiah (Isaiah 53:11), solidifying the connection between the term “servant” and Isaiah’s servant.
“Prince of life,” “Founder of life,” or as our translation puts it, “Originator of life” is antonomasia—a title that substitutes the name of a person. Examples in other contexts would be referring to Shakespeare as the Bard or to Lebron James as the GOAT.
In Peter’s speech, we see a recurring contrast between life and death, including between he who raised to life and those who kill. Calling Jesus the Originator of life is a great rhetorical device to emphasize that contrast. Also, a biblically literate listener would probably recall Deuteronomy 30:
“Look! I have set before you today life and prosperity on the one hand, and death and disaster on the other. What I am commanding you today is to love the Lord your God, to walk in his ways, and to obey his commandments, his statutes, and his ordinances. Then you will live and become numerous and the Lord your God will bless you in the land that you are about to possess. However, if you turn aside and do not obey, but are lured away to worship and serve other gods, I declare to you this very day that you will certainly perish! You will not extend your time in the land you are crossing the Jordan to possess. Today I invoke heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set life and death, blessing and curse, before you. Therefore choose life so that you and your descendants may live! I also call on you to love the Lord your God, to obey him and be loyal to him, for he gives you life and enables you to live continually in the land the Lord promised to give to your ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” Deuteronomy 30:15-20
There is much debate about exactly to interpret the word translated as prince, founder, or originator (ἀρχηγός). The term appears frequently in the Septuagint to refer to heads of clans—hence the translations prince and founder. The term could apply to authors or originators of something, or the “initiator” of something. However, for readers steeped more in biblical Greek than in Greek tradition, the image of leadership would be dominant. Jesus is thus the hero leading the way to the historic goal of achieving eternal life, and as such fulfills the promises and inaugurates the opportunity for the eschatological era of blessing. In the words of other New Testament passages, he is the “firstborn” from the dead, who thereby guarantees life to the rest of his people. Perhaps a great translation of ἀρχηγός is “pioneer,” but modern scholars find “pioneer” to be on the list of icky words (for reasons I am sure you could guess).
Believe, Repent, and Then . . . The Messiah’s Return
Verses 15 through 21 sounds quite similar to the speech in chapter 2, so I will not discuss them in detail except for the conspicuous differences. By differences, I do not mean inconsistencies. I mean the two speeches are not identical and we learn some distinct information.
As in the prior chapter, Peter tells the Jewish audience that they killed Jesus, their divine king sent by God, yet God raised him from the dead, a fact to which the apostles are witnesses. In chapter 2 Peter points to the audience as witnesses of God’s miracles (as opposed to the apostles). But in chapter 3 Peter quickly points out that the audience has now witnessed a miracle. The crowd was familiar with the lame man who was healed, making this charge effective. All in all, the setup of the message in chapter 3 is similar to that of chapter 2.
The first distinction, albeit in tone and not theology, is in how Peter addresses the crowd’s culpability. In chapter 2, Peter emphasizes the guilt of the crowd. In chapter 3, Peter minimizes (although does not remove) their guilt by highlighting their ignorance.
Then just like in chapter 2, Peter then clarifies that Jesus’ death was according to scripture. Finally, Peter calls the crowd to repentance.
The real difference between the two speeches begins in verse 20. What are the fruits of repentance in chapter 2? “Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’” (Acts 2:38). Peter also tells them to “Save yourselves from this perverse generation!” (Acts 2:40). In short, the result of repentance is forgiveness of sins, receiving the Holy Spirit, and salvation (which in the context of chapter 2 means avoiding judgment).
What are the fruits of repentance in chapter 3? “[S]o that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and so that he may send the Messiah appointed for you—that is, Jesus. This one heaven must receive until the time all things are restored, which God declared from times long ago through his holy prophets” (Acts 3:20b-21). Repentance will be followed by “times of refreshing” or what may also be called restoration; and, once sufficient restoration has occurred (“the time all things are restored”) then Jesus will return.
This idea of restoration is found throughout the Old Testament prophets. Perhaps the best known passage is in Ezekiel:
“‘I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries; then I will bring you to your land. I will sprinkle you with pure water, and you will be clean from all your impurities. I will purify you from all your idols. I will give you a new heart, and I will put a new spirit within you. I will remove the heart of stone from your body and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my Spirit within you; I will take the initiative, and you will obey my statutes and carefully observe my regulations. Then you will live in the land I gave to your fathers; you will be my people, and I will be your God. I will save you from all your uncleanness. I will call for the grain and multiply it; I will not bring a famine on you. I will multiply the fruit of the trees and the produce of the fields, so that you will never again suffer the disgrace of famine among the nations. Then you will remember your evil behavior and your deeds that were not good; you will loathe yourselves on account of your sins and your abominable deeds. Ezekiel 36:24-31
Jews during Jesus’ day and thereafter linked the idea of turning to God with the restoration of Israel. Many Jewish sources show an expectation that Israel would return to God’s law in the last days. Often Jewish teachers, particularly in later rabbinic texts, predicated the end’s arrival and Israel’s restoration as chronologically contingent on Israel’s repentance.
Summary and Conclusions
What does this tell us about the current age? The opportunity to turn to God is now. The good news is going out to all the nations (see verse 25) that the Lord has already raised the firstborn from the dead. Anyone who trusts the “Pioneer of life” shall reach the same destination. And, one day, when all the people of God have turned to Him, Jesus will return to judge, to heal, to restore, and to reign a world that will be filled with love, peace, and joy.
The concept of restoration and Jesus’ return also prompts a few questions. Peter’s speech claiming that heaven would receive Jesus until the period of restoration echoes Psalm 110:1, which Peter quoted in chapter 2. The psalm says:
Here is the Lord’s proclamation to my lord: “Sit down at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.” The Lord extends your dominion from Zion. Rule in the midst of your enemies. Your people willingly follow you when you go into battle. On the holy hills at sunrise the dew of your youth belongs to you. The Lord makes this promise on oath and will not revoke it: “You are an eternal priest after the pattern of Melchizedek.” O Lord, at your right hand he strikes down kings in the day he unleashes his anger. He executes judgment against the nations. He fills the valleys with corpses; he shatters their heads over the vast battlefield. From the stream along the road he drinks; then he lifts up his head. Psalm 110:1b-7
So, will all enemies of Christ be defeated and then Jesus will return? Should we expect the church to advance and (peacefully) conquer all the world, every institution, and every person? Will nearly everyone become a follower of Christ? Some believe this. Other passages in scripture have led most Christian throughout history to temper those expectations, with some taking an opposite, extremely negative view of history’s arch. But regardless of how we harmonize scripture, the theme of an advancing church (whether ultimately victorious or not) seems inarguable. Many will come to Christ. The enemies of the church will not prevail against the plan of salvation.
The second question we might ask is whether Acts 3 (and other texts, such as Romans 11) means that it is the conversion of Jews (not Gentiles) that will trigger the end—the return of Jesus. Many Christians in the United States hold this view today. Often times, although not always, this view includes the belief that national Israel will be restored and blessed before the final judgment. In other words, that Acts 3 is talking specifically about the ethnic nation of Israel. This partially explains why many conservatives in the United States are committed to supporting the nation of Israel. One may also take a passage like Acts 3 and argue that, for example, Peter seems to intentionally omit the more Israel-centric portions of the Old Testament text he cites, and that at the end of chapter 3 Peter again highlights that the promise of salvation is for all nations. Therefore, restoration involves all the people of God—the Church—and not specifically Jews. (Of course, the arguments for the different theological positions look for evidence all over the Bible. I give examples only from the texts we have recently read so as not to derail our conversation.)
So far I have avoided these eschatological topics because people feel very strongly about them. Discussion can easily get heated. My intention behind these brief comments is simply to introduce some of the options available.
Scripture Reading: Acts 2:37 - 2:47
37 Now when they heard this, they were acutely distressed and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “What should we do, brothers?” 38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far away, as many as the Lord our God will call to himself.” 40 With many other words he testified and exhorted them saying, “Save yourselves from this perverse generation!” 41 So those who accepted his message were baptized, and that day about 3,000 people were added.
42 They were devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Reverential awe came over everyone, and many wonders and miraculous signs came about by the apostles. 44 All who believed were together and held everything in common, 45 and they began selling their property and possessions and distributing the proceeds to everyone, as anyone had need. 46 Every day they continued to gather together by common consent in the temple courts, breaking bread from house to house, sharing their food with glad and humble hearts, 47 praising God and having the good will of all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number every day those who were being saved.
Main ThemesTHE RESPONSERepentance
The crowd is persuaded by Peter. Contrite over killing their own graciously God-given king, the crowd asks what to do. Peter summons them to repentance, as in the prophets, and to call on Jesus’ name in a baptism involving such repentance. God’s promise to them is the Holy Spirit. The biblical prophets summoned Israel to “turn” or “return” to the Lord. Similarly, in Acts 2 individuals need to turn from wickedness to righteousness, that is, change their lifestyle. Early Judaism heavily emphasized the value of repentance.
The crowd is described as having a deep emotional response to Peter’s message (“struck to the heart”), producing a favorable behavioral response. We need not assume exaggeration on Luke’s part. He provides two other occasions where, by contrast, the emotional response provoked deadly hostility (Acts 5:33; 7:54).
I think that we are so used to our current Christian world, we simply assume that joining a religious movement involves repentance. This was not the case at the time (and it is not the case today with many non-Abrahamic religions). Gentiles did not speak much of moral repentance in light of religion. Joining a new mystery cult simply supplemented one’s previous religious experience.
Because God’s “kingdom” was his reign, those who turned to embrace his reign were accepting a new king. Genuine faith in Jesus as Lord requires acknowledgment of his lordship and beginning to adjust to its practical demands.
Baptism
Just as John the Baptist preached a baptism symbolizing repentance, so now does Peter. Jewish people traditionally applied immersion baptism only to Gentiles (more on this later). Peter here demands a conversion no less radical than that of a Gentile converting to Judaism, but from members of his own people who must likewise turn to Israel’s God and the divinely appointed king, Jesus.
After reading this passage in acts, we might ask: Is forgiveness tied to baptism or repentance? Are both required? “Forgiveness of sins” is explicitly associated especially with repentance in Acts and in Luke. Most importantly, Jesus’ final command to the disciples in the Gospel of Luke was that of preaching repentance.
Then he opened their minds so they could understand the scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it stands written that the Christ would suffer and would rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And look, I am sending you what my Father promised. But stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” Luke 24:45-49
One could debate to what extent forgiveness of sins is also associated with baptism (i.e., the act of baptism itself as distinct from repentance). Some of the arguments are based on the grammar of the text we just read. Those arguments are complex and, frankly, beyond me. Besides, grammar alone is hardly dispositive of the issue. If we surveyed texts in Luke and Acts relating to forgiveness, we would find that forgiveness is more often associated with repentance than baptism, and repentance is never missing when baptism is mentioned with forgiveness of sins. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the fact that for Luke baptism is not dissociated from repentance. At least under normal circumstances, one does not separate the two.
As I remarked above, we live in such a Christianized age, we are not surprised by facts that ought to surprise us. The fact that Jesus’ followers used baptism as the initiation rite is actually quite unexpected. Ritual lustrations were common throughout the ancient world. Various temples had their own rules mandating ritual purity. The early Jewish practice of ritual washings was widespread long before the time of the Jesus movement. Christian baptism seems a bit different, though. John’s baptism in the Synoptic tradition was initiatory and eschatological, a baptism of repentance in light of the coming kingdom of God. The Qumran community practiced initiatory baptism, but unlike for early Christians, the initial baptism at Qumran was apparently viewed only as the first among many.
The closest Jewish parallel to John the Baptist’s and early Christian baptism was proselyte baptism, a specific and extremely potent form of ritual purification. Proselyte baptism provided a clear, symbolic line of demarcation between a proselyte’s Gentile past and Jewish present, much like the baptism suggested in Acts.
In Jesus Name
Peter calls his audience to be baptized in Jesus’ name. Jewish people were known for “calling on the Lord’s name,” and the more specific application to Jesus would be striking. (Again, this reveals a high Christology.) But what does the phrase mean? Baptism “in Jesus’s name” distinguishes this baptism from other Jewish immersion practices noted above, with respect to its object. That is, it clarifies the convert’s new allegiance.
We should also note that for Luke, baptism in Jesus’s name does not involve a ritual formula uttered over an initiate but the new believer’s calling on the name of Jesus. In Luke’s writings, the verb to baptize (βαίτίζω) appears in both passive and active forms. However, in the formula “in the name of Jesus,” it appears only with passive uses of the verb. Put simply, I do not baptize you, you are baptized. This indicates that the formula has to do with receiving rather than giving. This is not to argue that early Christians would not have cared who supervised baptisms.
The Promise of the Spirit
Luke recalls earlier teachings about the Spirit through his terms “gift” and “promise.” By noting that the promise is for others, he makes the proper response for the present crowd (namely, repentance and baptism in Jesus’s name) and the gift of the Spirit paradigmatic for all subsequent believers. By alluding to “far-off” Gentiles by way of Isaiah’s language, Luke also reiterates the promise of the Spirit for the Gentile mission.
By concluding that the gift was available to “as many as God calls,” Luke clearly echoes the end of Joel 2:32, completing the quotation interrupted in Acts 2:21.
It will so happen that
everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be delivered.
For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be those who survive,
just as the Lord has promised;
the remnant will be those whom the Lord will call.
SUMMARY AND EXHORTATIONVerse 2:40 (“[w]ith many other words he testified”) probably means that Luke skips through many supplementary proofs and arguments provided by Peter. Instead, Luke’s narrative moves quickly to the final exhortation and emotional appeal: “Save yourselves!” This restates briefly the speech’s central idea. The immediate referent of “save” here is Joel’s prophecy in Acts 2:21: whoever calls on the Lord’s name will be saved. Therefore this salvation at least includes deliverance from God’s eschatological wrath and destruction, available through Christ.
For Peter’s hearers to save themselves from the generation’s wickedness was not, as some later Gentile Christian interpreters would have it, a summons to leave Israel and their Jewishness; rather, it was a summons to leave their rebellion against God, like a repeated prophetic summons to Israel in the Old Testament.
Peter’s term γενεά (genea) means here a temporal “generation,” not (as some would interpret it) “race” (γένος). By calling the generation crooked here, Peter is appealing to the Old Testament, particularly Deuteronomy 32:5. Peter’s point is an exhortation not to harden their hearts as their ancestors did in the wilderness.
Peter thus continues the preaching tradition followed by John the Baptist, underlining the continuity of salvation history and of the saving message.
3,000
We discussed baptism earlier, so I will not discuss the religious significance of 3,000 people being baptized. Nevertheless, we should briefly consider the mechanics of this. Could so many people even be baptized in a day? (The text could easily be understood to mean that 3,000 came to believe in Jesus, regardless of whether the actual baptisms would have taken several days to perform. But let’s assume the harder, albeit simpler reading of the text.) To accommodate the thousands of worshipers the temple hosted daily, the Temple Mount had plenty of baptismal pools. Even the Roman historian Tacitus was familiar with the claim that the temple held many pools.
“Baptizing” in this period involved mainly supervision while the people coming for purification immersed themselves. Like John the Baptist, the disciples could have supervised mass baptisms, without having to physically lay hands on each person. Once verbal instructions were issued, mass immersions in response to Peter’s command could have occurred.
One more question: is 3,000 converts in one day a believable number? At feast times such as Pentecost, Jerusalem could host as many as half a million people, with an estimated thirty thousand from the Diaspora. The Temple Mount was large enough to hold tens of thousands at one time, perhaps up to four hundred thousand (according to some of the larger estimates). Even if some of these estimates are too high (although they might be correct), thousands of hearers and a rapid mass movement of three thousand conversions are not at all implausible.
Another reason to believe Luke’s account of converts is that Luke seems quite honest about audiences’ reactions to hearing the gospel. After each sermon in Acts, Luke reports people’s acceptance or rejection (2:41; 4:4; 5:33; 7:54; 8:6, 36;10:44; 13:44, 48-50; 17:32; 22:22; 28:24, 29). Reporting rejections does not seem to fit a false narrative of ineffable success.
The First ChurchVerse 42 begins a summary section describing the Jerusalem community of disciples, or what I may refer to as the first church. Before we discuss whether this first church is meant as a model for the rest of us, let’s just focus on the text. What is the community engaged in? Prayer, learning from the apostles, signs, eating together, and sharing of possessions. Let’s discuss these in further detail.
Summaries
As a quick side note, what do I mean by a summary section? Speaking of situations in broad terms (i.e., summarizing) is typical of ancient historiographical works that were based on research and the use of sources. In other words, here Luke condenses a wider collection of information than he can afford space to narrate.
The Ideal Community
In the ancient world, just like today, tales and dreams of ideal communities that shared all possessions were not unusual. The language employed by Luke is reminiscent of Hellenistic language for the ideal community. However, Luke and his audience are probably not thinking of Gentile sources. Instead, there is a nearly unmistakable connection between this first church and the Old and New Testament emphases on caring for the poor. For example, recall a passage like Deuteronomy 15:7-11:
If a fellow Israelite from one of your villages in the land that the Lord your God is giving you should be poor, you must not harden your heart or be insensitive to his impoverished condition. Instead, you must be sure to open your hand to him and generously lend him whatever he needs. Be careful lest you entertain the wicked thought that the seventh year, the year of cancellation of debts, has almost arrived, and your attitude be wrong toward your impoverished fellow Israelite and you do not lend him anything; he will cry out to the Lord against you, and you will be regarded as having sinned. You must by all means lend to him and not be upset by doing it, for because of this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you attempt. There will never cease to be some poor people in the land; therefore, I am commanding you to make sure you open your hand to your fellow Israelites who are needy and poor in your land. Deuteronomy 15:7-11
Consider also the following verses in Deuteronomy:
One must not take either lower or upper millstones as security on a loan, for that is like taking a life itself as security. Deuteronomy 24:6
When you make any kind of loan to your neighbor, you may not go into his house to claim what he is offering as security. You must stand outside and the person to whom you are making the loan will bring out to you what he is offering as security. If the person is poor you may not use what he gives you as security for a covering. You must by all means return to him at sunset the item he gave you as security so that he may sleep in his outer garment and bless you for it; it will be considered a just deed by the Lord your God.
You must not oppress a lowly and poor servant, whether one from among your fellow Israelites or from the resident foreigners who are living in your land and villages. You must pay his wage that very day before the sun sets, for he is poor and his life depends on it. Otherwise he will cry out to the Lord against you, and you will be guilty of sin. Deuteronomy 24:10-15
There are countless verses about helping the poor in the Psalms. Broadly speaking, the psalmists express the idea that the one who helps the poor will be blessed (e.g., Psalm 41:1-2). Jesus spoke repeatedly about helping the poor and about their blessings to come.
So, this first church is surprising and unsurprising. Surprisingly, it describes a nearly unbelievable setting filled with love and generosity. Unsurprisingly, this has been the goal Moses, the Prophets, and Jesus spoke about. One could hardly expect otherwise.
If one believes that Pentecost was a sort of reversal of the curse at Babel, then the church’s unity in these verses builds upon that reversal.
Teaching
The apostles’ teaching provides a crucially important link to Jesus’ ministry. The early church devoted itself to the apostles’ teachings, which is to say they devoted themselves to Jesus’ teachings passed on by the apostles. Luke is emphasizing the continuity between the mission of Jesus and his church.
What might this teaching have looked like? Moral teaching was not unusual in the ancient world. For example, we could picture the lectures in a philosophic schools. However, considering the Jewish background of the apostles and other (approximately 120) Jesus’ followers that received the Spirit during the Pentecost miracle, the teaching probably looked like the Midrashic exposition familiar in the synagogues. Or, put even more simply, it would have looked like Peter’s speech: lessons and admonitions expanding on scriptures.
Fellowship (Koinōnia)
The first church engaged in “fellowship,” the Greek word being koinōnia (κοινωνία). I mention this bit of Greek trivia because the Greek word often appears in churches and Christian college campuses to describe events and meeting places. It has become part of the modern Christian lingo. The word means exactly that, a partnership, community, or “sharing in” something. The term can refer to the sort of harmony created by shared purpose and working together. In a commercial context, the word could mean sharing profits.
In light of early Christian teaching, much like sharing possessions, fellowship is not a surprising fruit of Pentecost. Remember what we read in the Gospel of John when Jesus prays for the believers:
“I am not praying only on their behalf, but also on behalf of those who believe in me through their testimony, that they will all be one, just as you, Father, are in me and I am in you. I pray that they will be in us, so that the world will believe that you sent me. The glory you gave to me I have given to them, that they may be one just as we are one—I in them and you in me—that they may be completely one, so that the world will know that you sent me, and you have loved them just as you have loved me. John 17:20-23
In verse 46, we read the believers met by common consent. The term translated as such is rare (appearing nowhere else in the New Testament or Septuagint). Although I do not want to read too much into it, I think it does show a strong form of unity.
Breaking Bread
In the text, breaking bread and fellowship are side by side, giving the impression that fellowship included sharing meals. We may surmise that these common meals were at the expense of those who were sharing their possessions—those who could afford the food. More importantly, what do we mean by breaking bread? Certainly our modern experiences with the Eucharist or Lord’s Supper (the wording will change depending on the Christian tradition) affects how we read this passage. We should, however, keep in mind that, as the most basic staple, “bread” could easily stand for food in general. The passage is probably conveying the idea of eating together, not exclusively the breaking of literal bread. Recall the original Lord’s Supper (Luke 22), in which bread and wine were shared, but just like they were shared at other meals. They were notable components in a meal involving many other components. If anything, the bread and wine were special in the fact that they were not—they were the most basic and always-present elements of Jewish meals.
One could read the text to say that the early Christians were simply taking bread together, like the sacrament with which we are so familiar. That is not the most likely reading. (I am not trying to make a broader point about the sacraments. I am simply trying to clarify what the text means.)
As we read this text, we should remember that a host who shared a meal with guests was thought to have formed a bond of relationship that was not taken lightly. Providing food and partaking of what was provided were important social obligations. To eat with someone was, at least to some extent, to befriend them. Considering that this early church was made up of people from all over the known world, and rich and poor, this sharing of meals was nothing short of revolutionary.
Prayer and Worship
Prayer was the prelude to Pentecost, but it did not stop there. At the end of chapter 2, we see that prayer is a continuing part of the Christian community life.
On a related note, we find that they praise God together. The word Luke uses for praise is found many times in the Septuagint. It is almost always associated with praise carried out in the temple. Consider, for example:
They brought the ark of God and put it in the middle of the tent David had pitched for it. Then they offered burnt sacrifices and peace offerings before God. When David finished offering burnt sacrifices and peace offerings, he pronounced a blessing over the people in the Lord’s name. He then handed out to each Israelite man and woman a loaf of bread, a date cake, and a raisin cake. He appointed some of the Levites to serve before the ark of the Lord, to offer prayers, songs of thanks, and hymns to the Lord God of Israel. 1 Chronicles 16:1-4
What did that early worship look like? Again, considering the background of most of the people involved, it probably looked like (not necessarily the same as) the Jewish liturgy and reading of the Psalms. Nevertheless, early Christians would have rejected the idea that the Jewish liturgy in the temple was the required or even best way to pray and worship.
Signs
In verse 43, we have one of many miracle summaries in Acts (e.g., 5:12; 8:7; 19:11-12; 28:9). We are also told how people reacted. “Reverential awe came over everyone . . . .” In the Greek, the imperfect tense is used. Awe (or fear) was coming over everyone. This suggests a continued phenomenon rather than a one time event.
What is this “awe” or, literally, “fear” that they felt? The text suggests a newfound attitude of paying attention to God, his work, his commandments, and his very person (i.e., who he is).
Meeting at the Temple
Undeniably, homes became the dominant meeting places for Christians. Yet, notice that in this first church, they meet both in the temple and in homes. Some suggest that Christians used public meeting places to evangelize, but houses to disciple the converts. That very well could be the case, but in the case of Acts 2, worshipping at the Temple does not seem like a tactic. Instead, at this point, the temple serves a positive function—it right and proper to worship at the temple.
The revival of spiritual temple worship here would evoke for Luke’s biblically informed audience grand precedents. In the Old Testament, renewal of temple or tabernacle worship accompanied revivals in Israel’s history. The early Christians thus had good reason to expect (and experience) a renewal of temple worship, whether or not the authorities saw fit to cooperate with their agenda. (Many Jewish people expected a new or renewed temple in this period.)
Lessons for TodayI am going to do something a little unusual for this Bible study. Generally, I try to stay close to the text—focusing on the cultural and linguistic issues. My goal is to explain what the text really says—what it meant to the author and original audience. The implications of the text, particularly for our lives, I touch on lightly and briefly. As some have let me know (and there is nothing wrong with that), this has the effect of hiding the forest for the trees. I spend much of the time discussing details like grammar, and I never get to the “good stuff.”
Well, today, I do want to pause for a brief moment and consider some questions. In particular, I have three in mind. First, does charity matter? Second, should we preach like “Acts 2 Peter”? Third, should our churches resemble the “Acts 2 church”?
Does Charity Matter?
I do not wish to repeat myself, but the Old Testament and Jesus’ ministry have a heavy emphasis on charity. Helping the poor is part of the Jewish law. The Psalms say that helping the poor will result in blessings. Jesus says that helping the poor will result in exaltation.
Then when Jesus noticed how the guests chose the places of honor, he told them a parable. He said to them, “When you are invited by someone to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor because a person more distinguished than you may have been invited by your host. So the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, ‘Give this man your place.’ Then, ashamed, you will begin to move to the least important place. But when you are invited, go and take the least important place, so that when your host approaches he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up here to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all who share the meal with you. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”
He said also to the man who had invited him, “When you host a dinner or a banquet, don’t invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors so you can be invited by them in return and get repaid. But when you host an elaborate meal, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. Then you will be blessed because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.” Luke 14:7-14
It is this Bible-wide emphasis on caring for the poor that climaxes in the depiction of the first church. And, I think the undeniable truth is that this emphasis on the poor has been crucial for the vitality and expansion of the church. Listen how Craig Keener describes how early thinkers, Christian and pagan alike, noticed the early church’s attitude towards the poor:
Justin claims that former pagans, converted to Christianity, continue to share their resources in common and with the needy (Justin 1 Apol. 14). In the late second century, Tertullian remarks wittily that Christians readily share everything in common except their wives—the one thing, he complains, pagans were most willing to share (Tert. Apol. 39.11– 12). In antithetical contrast to the apologists’ idealized portraits, Lucian ridicules worshipers of “the crucified sophist” as despising “all things indiscriminately” and reckoning everything as “common property,” hence easily cheated. Celsus critiqued Christians for their effective appeal to “the socially objectionable classes” as well as to “the unhappy and sinful.” Other sources also attest to Christians’ continuing commitment to share their resources in the second century and beyond.
In short, I think charity is both a means of blessing in this life (I mean for the giver, not the recipient) and one of the primary means by which we show the kingdom of God in this world. Regarding blessings, allow me to make a wildly inflammatory statement: the answer to many of our personal problems is a lack of charity. Are you experiencing depression? Go help the poor. Are you having trouble with your wife? Go help the poor. Are you dissatisfied with your job? Go help the poor. No, I am not saying that helping the poor will make your problems go away, but I am saying that helping the poor will provide you with a certain perspective and patience that will help solve them. Charity is simply that crucial and life-changing. And, do we want our churches to be lively and vibrant? We must help and welcome the poor. What are the limits to charity? Yes, a line must be drawn. My suggestion is we discuss that once we think we are getting close to the line.
Should We Preach Like Acts 2 Peter?
In Acts 2, Peter makes a perfect presentation of what we generally call “the gospel.”
Peter stood up and told them (paraphrased), “Listen! The scriptures spoke of a day when the Spirit of God would be poured out on all people. As you can see and hear (because of the Pentecost miracle), that day is today. That also means that the end is near, call on the name of the Lord and you will be saved. Who is the Lord? Jesus. How do we know? He did miracles among you. Also, you killed him using dirty tactics but God raised him from the dead. The scriptures spoke of one who would not see decay—that’s Jesus! The scriptures also spoke of a king who would reign forever, who would be exalted. That’s Jesus! He has been taken up to heaven as King and Savior. He will not lose. Save yourselves! Repent!”
Obviously, I do not disagree with Peter one bit. My question is not whether Peter is right. I believe he speaks of true things. My question is whether we should present that truth the same way, and whether his argument would be compelling today.
If you are thinking I am about to start a discussion about how sensitive people are today, and how offended they would be by Peter’s speech, do not worry. I am not convinced people have ever been different (e.g., more or less sensitive), but be that as it may, I am more interested in the argument itself.
Peter’s argument depends partly on the audience’s personal experience with Jesus. It depends much more, though, on scripture that the audience believes to be true. Peter does not even need to argue that scripture is truthful.
Would we find a similar audience today? In my opinion, yes and no. In the United States, we live in a time of great apostasy (or at least of many people leaving the churches). People are leaving the Christian faith by the hundreds of thousands. In 2007, religious “nones” were only about 16%. Now that number has nearly doubled (29%). Perhaps many of these people still believe the Bible to be true, much like Peter’s audience, and we can call them back to God based on that. But about a third of Americans (coincidentally, also 29%) believe that the Bible is simply fables. What then?
I have two suggestions. First, like we will read of Paul preaching in Athens, we must meet them where they (the audience) are. We must explain why the gospel is true and good. Second, and this will lead into my question of the early church, we must help them experience Jesus. How? The church is the body of Christ. I think that unbelievers should truly encounter Jesus in the community of his followers.
Should our churches resemble the “Acts 2 church”?
Why do I ask this question? Partly because many churches claim to be Acts 2 churches. This is particularly common with nondenominational churches (this is not an attack, simply a statement of fact), but even some more traditional, denominational churches advocate for this.
We must begin by asking what do we mean by an Acts 2 church. Here are some answers I found to get us started:
Their Four Keys
The church in Acts 2 has four priorities: studying good teaching, hanging out, sharing meals, and praying (verse 42). That’s a great start, but many churches today don’t even do that, not really.
Their Miracles
Amazing supernatural things occur. People are amazed (verse 43). Today, most churches don’t encounter miracles or anything supernatural. They forgot how or never learned. And for many who do walk in the power of the Holy Spirit, their focus is on the experience, not on people’s reaction. Their emphasis is backwards. The purpose of “signs and wonders” isn’t to gratify themselves. It’s to show God’s power, pointing outsiders to him, not delighting insiders.
Their Finances
The kicker is that they pool their resources; they even sell their possessions to give to everyone in need. The church takes care of their own (verses 44 and 45). Too many churches today do not even care for the needs of their members; they expect government or some other organization to. And I’ve never encountered a church that shares all their material possessions. That’s just un-American!
Their Pattern
They continue to hang out—every day—and share food. They are delighted (verse 46). I don’t know of any church family that meets every day, but the Acts 2 church did.
Their Results
Because of all this, others esteem them and they grow (verse 47). Too often today’s churches don’t have the respect of society but quite the opposite. Too many churches aren’t growing; they’re not even maintaining; they’re dying. However, none of the things the church did in Acts 2 are commands for us to follow. The passage is descriptive; it shows what the church did and the outcome they enjoyed. It may be a viable model for us to follow.
Unfortunately, many churches today don’t even practice these four key actions; supernatural results are rare; and sharing everything is virtually nonexistent. Is it any wonder why churches aren’t respected by society or growing? Perhaps they’re doing church wrong and not more closely following the Acts 2 model.
—Peter Dehaan
Being an Acts 2 Church in the 21st Century
Some churches are known for their music programs, others for their children or youth ministries, while yet others for some sort of “niche” that appeals to a large audience. While all such ministries can be good and helpful for both reaching your community and encouraging the church, it’s interesting to look back at what the first church devoted themselves to. In Acts 2, after Peter’s Jewish audience heard the gospel proclaimed, they responded with repentance and faith, were incorporated into the church through baptism, and they devoted themselves to a common faith and a common life.
It’s no accident that the first devotion mentioned was to the apostles’ teaching. We too should be devoted to the apostles’ teaching. But what is their teaching? In Acts 2:22-26, Peter preaches the good news concerning Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, and exaltation as Lord and King. In Acts 4, Peter and John annoy the Jewish leaders because they were “teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead” (v.2). Then the Jewish leaders charged them not “to teach at all in the name of Jesus” (v.18). Then in Acts 5, the apostles’ teaching is referred to as “the words of life” (v.20-21). But again, the Jewish leaders “strictly charged them not to teach in this name” (v.28). Nevertheless, after they were released, Luke says of the apostles:
And every day in the temple and from house to house they did not cease teaching and preaching that Jesus is the Christ. (v.42)
I trust you get the idea of what the apostles’ teaching entails.
Still, there is a little more going on in Acts 2:42 then first meets the eye. You see, faithful Jews were to be devoted to Moses’ teaching. By devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching, the early church understood that they were under a new authority—King Jesus, the new and better prophet than Moses. The apostles’ teaching is nothing other than all of Scripture, now interpreted through the lens of Jesus. This is, after all, how Jesus himself viewed all of Scripture (Luke 24:44-49). All Scripture is inspired by God and points to Jesus.
For this reason, we should want what we do together as a church to be Word-saturated (all of Scripture) and gospel-centered (interpreted through the lens of Jesus). In light of this gospel commitment, here are four areas in which we should encourage our church to be devoted to the apostles’ teaching.
Personal Devotions
If our churches are to be devoted to the apostles’ teaching, then our members need to be personally devoted to the apostles’ teaching. . . .
Sunday School
Your church may or may not have Sunday school. At High Pointe, we call it Life Classes, and we offer topic specific classes. . . .
Small Groups
Perhaps your church has small groups that meet throughout the week. These groups should also be Word-saturated and gospel-centered. . . .
Worship Gatherings
It is a great joy when God’s people gather to declare our joint allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ. . . . .
—Lifeway
Church As It Was Meant To Be
In many respects, the contemporary church in America looks more like a large corporation than like anything described in the New Testament. Even church leaders sometimes bear a closer resemblance to CEOs and corporate executives than to humble, tender shepherds. Sadly, the good news — that a sinner can find forgiveness for sins before a holy God by placing his trust in and committing his whole life to Jesus Christ—is often eclipsed by “success”-oriented programs and an interest in the bottom line.
As a result, many churches have become nothing more than entertainment centers, employing tactics that effectively draw people into the church, but are incapable of truly ministering to them once they come.
…
So, what’s the blueprint? A logical place to start is at the beginning with the first church—the church at Jerusalem. It began on the Day of Pentecost . . . .
Back to the Blueprint: Bible Study, Fellowship, and Prayer
Acts 2:42 gives the blueprint they followed: “They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” Those are the vital elements that make up the actual function and life of the church— and all of that in just one verse!
Here’s an obvious starting point: A church built to the Master’s plan will begin with the right raw material—a saved congregation. Verse 41 identifies the church as being made up of “those who had received [Peter’s] word,” and “were continually devoting themselves.” The church at Jerusalem was filled with true Christians — those who continually adhered to apostolic teaching.
…
While the early church didn’t have a New Testament, they had God’s Word in the form of the “apostles’ teaching.” The church at Jerusalem was committed to receiving that Word. Doctrine is the basis of the church—you can’t live out what you don’t know or understand. . . . Don’t ever allow anyone to stand in the pulpit who isn’t committed to leading the congregation through a deep, penetrating study of God’s Word.
The central focus of the early church’s fellowship was the breaking of bread — the Lord’s Table. It was the most fitting symbol of their fellowship since it reminded them of the basis for their unity—salvation in Christ and adherence to apostolic doctrine. . . .
We eat and drink in remembrance of Christ’s self-sacrificing love that took Him to the cross. In your fellowship, make it your habit to practice the same kind of love Christ demonstrated toward you. Practically speaking, you can always give your life to those God brings across your path. Do you habitually pray for fellow believers? Are you encouraging them, edifying them, meeting their physical needs? Do you love them enough to confront them when they are sinning? Those are the marks of true Christian fellowship. It is church as it was meant to be.
Acts 2:42 says the believers continually devoted themselves to prayer. Sadly, the same devotion to prayer is often neglected today. Churches can pack pews by offering entertainment, but when a prayer meeting is held, only a faithful few trickle in. . . .
Built to Scale: Wonder, Love, and Joy
What happens when true believers remain under biblical teaching, in a spiritual fellowship, and in devotion to prayer? Acts 2:43 says, “Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe.” “Awe,” the Greek word for fear, speaks of a sense of reverence. It is reserved for special times when people are struck with wonder because of something divine or powerful that defies human explanation.
Your church ought to be able to instill awe in your community. . . .
—Grace to You
I think we can pick up on a couple of things. First, everyone picks and chooses. Some emphasize signs, some leave them out. (Of course, there are theological reasons for this.) In the second example I quoted, we see a nearly exclusive emphasis on learning—on words. Is that what we see in Acts 2?
The community of believers in Acts 2 is the culmination of the salvation story, at least in this life. It has learning but it has has doing; it has giving and receiving; it has love and generosity. Whatever we decide we should carry forward to today’s church, I think we cannot forget that the first church was like family.
Scripture Reading: Acts 2:14-47
14 But Peter stood up with the eleven, raised his voice, and addressed them: “You men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, know this and listen carefully to what I say. 15 In spite of what you think, these men are not drunk, for it is only nine o’clock in the morning. 16 But this is what was spoken about through the prophet Joel:
17 ‘And in the last days it will be,’ God says,
‘that I will pour out my Spirit on all people,
and your sons and your daughters will prophesy,
and your young men will see visions,
and your old men will dream dreams.
18 Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.
19 And I will perform wonders in the sky above
and miraculous signs on the earth below,
blood and fire and clouds of smoke.
20 The sun will be changed to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes.
21 And then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’
22 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man clearly attested to you by God with powerful deeds, wonders, and miraculous signs that God performed among you through him, just as you yourselves know— 23 this man, who was handed over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you executed by nailing him to a cross at the hands of Gentiles. 24 But God raised him up, having released him from the pains of death because it was not possible for him to be held in its power. 25 For David says about him,
‘I saw the Lord always in front of me,
for he is at my right hand so that I will not be shaken.
26 Therefore my heart was glad and my tongue rejoiced;
my body also will live in hope,
27 because you will not leave my soul in Hades,
nor permit your Holy One to experience decay.
28 You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will make me full of joy with your presence.’
29 “Brothers, I can speak confidently to you about our forefather David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 So then, because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants on his throne, 31 David by foreseeing this spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did his body experience decay. 32 This Jesus God raised up, and we are all witnesses of it. 33 So then, exalted to the right hand of God, and having received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father, he has poured out what you both see and hear. 34 For David did not ascend into heaven, but he himself says,
‘The Lord said to my lord,
“Sit at my right hand
35 until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”’
36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know beyond a doubt that God has made this Jesus whom you crucified both Lord and Christ.”
37 Now when they heard this, they were acutely distressed and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “What should we do, brothers?” 38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far away, as many as the Lord our God will call to himself.” 40 With many other words he testified and exhorted them saying, “Save yourselves from this perverse generation!” 41 So those who accepted his message were baptized, and that day about 3,000 people were added.
42 They were devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Reverential awe came over everyone, and many wonders and miraculous signs came about by the apostles. 44 All who believed were together and held everything in common, 45 and they began selling their property and possessions and distributing the proceeds to everyone, as anyone had need. 46 Every day they continued to gather together by common consent in the temple courts, breaking bread from house to house, sharing their food with glad and humble hearts, 47 praising God and having the good will of all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number every day those who were being saved.
Main ThemesSettingAramaic or Greek
It is unlikely that Peter originally preached the sermon in Aramaic. Some of Peter’s hearers (like the Mesopotamians) would have known Aramaic, but many would not have been able to understand it. So, Peter probably preached in Greek. The Septuagint quotes support this inference.
Public Speaking
Much like today, in ancient times one would rise to speak. This was helpful visually and acoustically.
The text tells us that Peter “raised his voice,” a frequent idiom in the Septuagint, making Peter seem like an Old Testament prophet. The phrase also appears in Greek writings with a literal meaning. One would expect Peter to project his voice loudly to address more than three thousand people. There is no reason to doubt that someone could address thousands of people without a modern sound system. For example, the famous preacher Charles Spurgeon (1834 - 1892) once preached to over 23,000 without amplification. George Whitefield (1714-1770), another well-known pastor, had similar fame for preaching to thousands at certain events. Curiously enough, Benjamin Franklin was skeptical of these reports. Nevertheless, Franklin investigated and determined that as many as thirty thousand people could hear Whitefield at a time.
However, raising one’s voice will not reach many people if there is much noise. The scene implies that the crowd went silent. This makes sense after the miracle of Pentecost, which puzzled those present.
The SpeechI. Introduction
Deflecting
Remember where we left off last week. Jesus’ followers are preaching the good news in the different languages of people from all over the known world. The crowd, amazed and confused at the ability of these Galileans (i.e., country bumpkins, explains the phenomenon by accusing the disciples of being drunk. Our reading today starts with Peter’s deflection.
You men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, know this and listen carefully to what I say. In spite of what you think, these men are not drunk, for it is only nine o’clock in the morning. Acts 2:14b-15
This is a witty aside to the audience. Imagine Peter delivering the line with a bit of irony. These interactions between speakers and their audience, sometimes making points at each others’ expense, was common in antiquity. However, notice that Peter deflects the mockery with a potentially humorous response that does not shame the hecklers. Peter seems determined to win over the entire audience—not to antagonize them.
9 A.M.
Peter remarks that men are not drunk in the third hour, which our translation appropriately calls nine in the morning. Just like today, drunkenness was a night activity. The few people who were said to start drinking in the morning and continue through the day were considered exceptional and viewed quite negatively. The mention of the third hours gives some more insight into the scene. At that time of day, the temple courts would have been very busy. This partly explains and grants credibility to the account of a large crowd.
The Address
Peter addresses the men, but such a manner of speaking would not have excluded the women—it merely presupposes an androcentric society. Peter invites the audience to hear him carefully because “know this,” or as other translations may put it, “let it be known.” This was daring speech, often used in Jewish and Greek rhetoric. In the Old Testament, this phrase was often used to confront Israel.
II. The Argument
Quoting Joel, Kinda
Preview: Peter explains that the power to speak in other tongues was the outward sign of the fulfilment of Joel’s prophecy that God would pour out his Holy Spirit on all his people. In Joel this promise was associated with the Day of the Lord; Peter asserts that this event has now occurred in history. It results from the fact that God had exalted the crucified Jesus, had enthroned him at his right hand, thus inaugurating his messianic reign; and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon his people was nothing less than the blessing of the messianic age.
Peter begins his main argument by quoting Joel 2:28-32. But, something we often miss is that Peter does not provide an exact quotation. He adds or modifies Joel’s text at different points to bring out its implications. This is neither deception nor error. Imagine if I was sharing the gospel with someone, and I quoted John 3:16 as follows:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, Jesus, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
The word “Jesus” is not in the original verse. It is my attempt to quickly explain the text. Peter is doing something similar. Moreover, this was a common rhetorical device used by Torah teachers at the time. These teacher peppered their expositions with numerous biblical allusions while making deliberate changes.
So, what did Peter modify? The two most relevant changes are:
(1) Peter changes “after these things” to “in the last days, says God.” Thus, Peter reinforces the eschatological nature of the gift of the Spirit. Obviously, Peter’s argument is that the disciples’ inspired praise in other languages represents the gift of the Spirit, also showing that the “last days” have come.
(2) Peter omits “because in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem will be survivors (those saved), just as the Lord said.” His omission of the specifically Israel-centered part of the quotation seems significant to universalize the promise of the Spirit to all peoples. This reinforces the universality of the text quoted. The quotation speaks of men and women, young and old, seeing visions and prophesying—that is, the promise of the Spirit is for everyone.
Last Days
I have discussed the realized eschatology of Acts quite extensively, so I will make the current discussion of the last days brief. The phrase “in the last days” and other similar expressions, such as “last times” are found all over the Old Testament. Generally, they relate to the period of Israel’s restoration. However, if we pay more attention, we find that the phrase has at least two meanings. On one hand, it has that meaning of restoration (Isa 2:2; Hos 3:5; Mic 4:1; Dan 2:28).
Here is the message about Judah and Jerusalem that was revealed to Isaiah son of Amoz. In future days the mountain of the Lord’s temple will endure as the most important of mountains and will be the most prominent of hills. All the nations will stream to it . . . . Isaiah 2:1-2
On the other hand, this eschatological title also applied to a period of great suffering just before that restoration (Jer 23:20; 30:24; Ezek 38:16; Dan 10:14).
But just watch! The wrath of the Lord will come like a storm! Like a raging storm it will rage down on the heads of those who are wicked. The anger of the Lord will not turn back until he has fully carried out his intended purposes. In future days you people will come to understand this clearly. Jeremiah 23:19-20
“Therefore, prophesy, son of man, and say to Gog: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: On that day when my people Israel are living securely, you will take notice and come from your place, from the remote parts of the north, you and many peoples with you, all of them riding on horses, a great company and a vast army. You will advance against my people Israel like a cloud covering the earth. In future days I will bring you against my land so that the nations may acknowledge me, when before their eyes I magnify myself through you, O Gog. Ezekiel 38:14-16
The New Testament continues this dual description, speaking of an advancing kingdom with eventual glory but also a period of great suffering and apostasy. We find this “already/not yet” tension in the writings of Paul and in the words of Jesus.
Peter’s “last days” fits the expectation that the disciples had entered an interim era between the first and the second comings of the Messiah, called to testify to the nations by the eschatological gift of the Spirit. The very affirmation that the Christ had come constituted the basis for a realized eschatology alongside a future one.
All Flesh (“On All People”)
In Acts 2:17, the phrase translated as “on all people” would more literally translate to “all flesh.” The translation, however, accurately captures the intended meaning of the phrase—particularly how Peter intends it. Clearly Acts teaches that Joel’s prophecy of the Spirit is not only for the apostles, but for all of Christ’s followers. Luke undoubtedly interprets “all flesh” as referring not simply to the men and women, young and old, and servants stated in Joel 2:28-29 but to people from all nations.
Calling on the Lord’s Name
The Joel quotation ends with everyone “calling on the name of the Lord.” The expression “call on the Lord’s name” was familiar in Jewish texts, generally referring to praying to him or praising him. The term carried additional punch at the time, since it is also the expression that would have been used to make a formal appeal to Caesar.
Peter will expand on this phrase, making clear that this Lord upon which people must call is Jesus, they must do so particularly during baptism. In Greek, the term for Lord was kurios or (kyrios). In the Old Testament, this title generally referred to God. It is partly because the word kurios is not specific that the early church is able to apply it to Jesus and also make an equivalence with God Almighty.
Notice how early this high christological understanding appears in the narrative. Jesus is not understood as God progressively throughout the history of the early church. For Luke, God the Father is “Lord” (Acts 2:20, 39; 3:19-20, 22; 4:25-26, 29), but Christ also receives this title by exaltation (1:21; 2:36; 4: 33; 5:14; 9:1); Jesus receives faith (Acts 3:16) and prayer (7:59) and is the world’s judge (10:42; 17:31). Contrary to what some scholars would expect, most of the uses of “Lord” for Jesus in Acts appear in the first half of the book and hence are attributed to the Jerusalem church. In fact, this view of Jesus as God is found early in the gospels. For example, we encounter it in the story of John the Baptist declaring that Jesus would baptize with the Spirit—clearly a role of God and God alone. We may still wonder how Peter came to this high christology when he does not seem to “get it” in the gospels. Luke probably expects his audience to infer Peter’s further learning during the forty days of resurrection appearances in Acts 1:3.
Jesus and His Powerful Signs and Wonders
In verse 22, Peter again invites the audience to listen—to pay attention. In typical rhetorical style, this frames the exhortation to come.
Peter opens this new section of the speech with a mention of Jesus and then with a sort of proof—the signs and wonders. We must remember that in the gospels, signs are central to demonstrating Jesus’ identity and his relationship with the father. Notice also that Peter is connecting the signs and miracles attested in the gospels to those prophesied in Joel (verse 19), bolstering the point that the end times have come.
The pairing of signs and wonders appears elsewhere in the New Testament, probably always evoking the Old Testament story of Moses. (This pairing appears elsewhere in the Old Testament, but the most recognizable and iconic story would be that of Moses.) The narrative of Moses is found in Exodus, but below I quote the summary provided in Deuteronomy.
No prophet ever again arose in Israel like Moses, who knew the Lord face to face. He did all the signs and wonders the Lord had sent him to do in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh, all his servants, and the whole land, and he displayed great power and awesome might in view of all Israel. Deuteronomy 34:10-11
Notice that one would not expect Diaspora Jewish visitors to be as familiar with Jesus’s signs as Galileans or some Jerusalemites, but Luke seems to imply that the word had spread far and wide.
Jesus’ Death and God’s Plan
Peter clarifies that Jesus did not die by surprise. This is a point we discussed extensively during out study of John, so I will keep it brief. Particularly in verse 23, Peter highlights the fulfillment-of-prophecy theme and summarizes the Gospel’s plot as a part of God’s larger plan in salvation history. God’s sovereignty stands even behind the very political powers and treacherous actions that brought about Jesus’s death.
Luke is sometimes accused of minimizing the cross and focusing almost exclusively on the resurrection. This misunderstands Luke. Notice that Peter’s speech begins with cross—it was a key part of God’s salvific plan. There is simply no need to explain the cross. His audience was well aware of the brutal, shameful execution by Roman crucifixion. Moreover, the resurrection is what proves the significance of the cross, so highlighting the resurrection makes sense in a context of speeches and arguments.
Peter charges the “men of Israel” with Jesus’s death. Presumably, he does so because of the participation of the crowds and the leaders. Sometimes, Christians and non-Christians alike accuse Luke (and Peter and John) of antisemitism. Forgive my strong language, but such a charge is ridiculous. First, Biblical prophets often denounced Israel as a whole. And Jewish people understood well the notion of corporate responsibility and its demands for atonement or restitution. Second, speaking in collective terms, particularly in relation to nations, does not imply an inherently negative view of individual people. For example, in modern day we speak of Russia invading Ukraine. Or more poignantly, we may say “Russians” invaded Ukraine. This by no means entails that individual Russians are somehow predisposed (e.g., genetically) to be invaders.
Notice that Peter gives the “men of Israel” no breaks. Not only does he fault them directly for the death of Jesus but claims that they have killed Jesus by the hands of the Gentiles—literally “lawless men.” The lawless were Romans and other Gentiles who did not acknowledge God’s law. In other words, Peter is accusing audience, which presumably prided itself of its obedience to the Torah, of getting in bed with those who rejected the Torah. Peter held no punches, using deeply offensive rhetoric. (Peter’s use of the phrase “by the hand” of another to commit the crime is also reminiscent of Old Testament passages were someone sought to kill another but avoid personal guilt.) In this Bible study, I try not to make overly broad prescriptive conclusions from the text, so I will not claim that we ought to take homiletic lessons from Peter’s speech. But I think we can safely say that one is not necessarily wrong to be offensive for the sake of the gospel.
Released from Death and Psalm 16
Summary. In Acts 2:25-36, Peter makes an argument from Scripture that the risen one is the Lord (2: 25– 31, 34– 35), an argument from the testimony of eyewitnesses and the Spirit’s present confirmation that Jesus has risen (2: 32– 33), with the resulting conclusion that Jesus is the Lord (2: 36).
Although Jesus’s death is pivotal, Peter’s speech focuses on the resurrection. Resurrection is a theme in the speeches in Acts, even more so than in the gospels.
Peter begins this new section of his speech pointing out that Jesus was delivered from the pains or “pangs” of death. (The term translated pains is frequently used to describe pains associated with giving birth, which is why the translation “pangs” is appropriate.) Deliverance from the “pangs of death” alludes to Psalm 16, “inviting” it as part of the argument. Peter will then explain psalm 16 by connecting it to anoher—Psalm 110. (Peter does this using gezerah shevah on the premise that similar language among the psalms might convey related ideas or at least evoke related feelings.) The quoted section of Psalm 16 is:
‘I saw the Lord always in front of me,
for he is at my right hand so that I will not be shaken.
Therefore my heart was glad and my tongue rejoiced;
my body also will live in hope,
because you will not leave my soul in Hades,
nor permit your Holy One to experience decay.
You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will make me full of joy with your presence.’
The way that New Testament writers understood the original meaning of certain Old Testament passages can be perplexing. For example, one is not certain whether Peter believed that the psalm referred simply to David’s restoration of health but its basic principle could be subject to a greater fulfillment, or if Peter believed that the psalm was always about the resurrection of the Messiah, which encouraged David that death would not separate him from God. One may argue that the first interpretation (that the psalm refers to David’s restoration of health) is the obvious, plain reading of the text. However, not only Peter and the early church, but later rabbis interpreted the passage eschatologically.
One scholar argues that even though the psalmist had no prediction of a messiah’s resurrection in mind, the New Testament teaching of the resurrection from the dead and the thoughts which here occupy the mind of the psalmist are based on the same fundamental conviction, namely, an unshakable belief in the life-giving power of God.
Lord at the Right Hand
Luke and other New Testament authors affirm that Christ is at the Father’s right hand. The idea was pervasive in early Christianity, making it into the Apostle’s Creed. Presumably, the idea is based on Psalms 16 and 110.
The language of the right hand is often used metaphorically. Most ancients associated the left hand with dishonor (although being at a king’s left hand was still a position of honor). A temporary seat at a ruler’s right hand was a position of honor, but this was still more the case if the seat was permanent. The position at the right hand of the throne invested its holder with delegated authority to act for the ruler.
Joy
The theme of joy in Acts 2:28) is probably deliberate. After all, Luke could have skipped this part of the quotation.
Rejoicing characterizes the early church following Pentecost. The theme of joy appears in momentous events such as miracle working, suffering in hope of divine vindication, celebrating eternal life, celebrating others’ conversions, and celebrating other good news. Joy was sometimes empowered by the Holy Spirit.
Notice that, as explained above, Peter hits the crowd hard. However, he does not do so to leave them in disgrace or despair but to invite them into joy.
Hades and Decay
A key part of Peter’s argument (which Luke repeats later in Acts) is the idea that the Holy One was not left in Hades, and he did not see decay. That Jesus was no longer in “Hades” (emphasized again in 2:31) simply means that he was no longer dead. (The mention of Hades is both rhetorically colorful and it provides a contrast with heaven.)
If the soul was in Hades, then the body would decay. Hence, Hades and decay are both pointing towards death. However, notice that (as some Christians suggest) even if Hades were a metaphor for nonexistence (not its typical usage in ancient texts), the experience of death for the body here, though parallel and related, does not appear identical to that for the soul. As evidenced by the psalm, early Judaism often accepted this differentiation between the soul and the body.
Conclusion—Jesus Is the One Who Lives, Jesus is the Exalted King
Finally, Peter argues that David, having died and been buried yet not having ascended, cannot be the true fulfillment of Psalm 16. Rather, both the apostles as eyewitnesses and the outpoured Spirit attest that Jesus has risen and ascended to God’s right hand. Therefore Jesus is the Lord of Psalm 16—the “Christ,” the ultimate Davidic king.
Peter’s line of argumentation was typical at the time. A teacher who wanted to argue that a psalm (or any other text) applied in a way other than what it seemed to claim literally could begin by showing that the apparent literal meaning was not fulfilled. That David (in contrast to, e.g., Moses or Ezra) died, was not disputed. Peter can point out the obvious: the tomb is in plain view among them, and David has not vacated it. We must also keep in mind that to use David as a sort of title for the messiah was not unusual. The Old Testament is full of such uses.
Nevertheless, Peter makes his argument respectfully. His use of the phrase, “I can speak confidently” (sometimes translated as “I may say boldly”), can mean something like “Do not be offended if I point out.”
Peter emphasizes that David spoke not of himself but in his role as a prophet. Probably many Jewish teachers would have shared the assumption that prophets spoke especially of the messianic era.
Peter completes his argument by mentioning God’s promises to David, including the promise of his kingship (2 Sam 3:9) and his continuing seed (Ps 132:11).
Christ’s Exaltation and Psalm 110
Summary. If Jesus is in God’s presence (Acts 2:25, 29), Peter can infer for his hearers that Jesus is in heaven. Peter bolsters his argument with Psalm 110. If Jesus is already enthroned at the Father’s right hand, then he has begun his messianic reign, and hence the messianic age has begun and the messianic blessings have been given.
Jesus and the Spirit
On the theological level, the Spirit’s outpouring stems from Christ’s exaltation (Acts 2:33).
Notice that in verse 33 Jesus “pours out” the Spirit. This is a clear allusion to God’s pouring out the Spirit in 2:17-18 (the only other passage in Luke-Acts using that expression). Jewish texts also speak of God’s pouring out wisdom as his gift. Wisdom would also sit by God’s throne. Again, notice the high Christology. If Jesus is the Spirit-baptizer, he takes on a divine role in light of the Old Testament, where only God can pour out God’s Spirit (e.g., Isaiah 44:3).
Acts 2:33 is among the most important for understanding Luke’s Christology and pneumatology and their relationship with each other. According to Acts, Jesus is enthroned as Messiah and now reigns in his church by the Spirit. Instead of an absentee Christology, by relating the Spirit to Jesus in the way Jewish people had understood the Spirit’s relationship to God, Luke takes the reader beyond anything Judaism conceived of the messiah.
The Exalted Lord
Peter shows that David, being dead and buried, could not fulfill the promise of resurrection or incorruption in Psalm 16. Then Peter produces another key text that David could not fulfill—Psalm 110. Peter claims that it is self-evident that Psalm 110, with which Peter links Psalm 16, cannot apply to David both because David did not ascend and because he speaks of his Lord.
As Psalm 110 shows, the exaltation of Jesus involves sitting at the right hand of God. Jesus’s position here is familiar in terms of a viceroy or vizier. Sometimes this position could apply to a son installed or functioning as coregent. For example, Titus dictated letters and edicts in his father’s name and publicly read his speeches.
“Lord”
As a title for the Messiah, “Lord” predates Luke’s writings. For example, the pre-Christian work called the Psalms of Solomon speaks of the “Lord Messiah.” That is, the basic line of interpretation was established even before Jesus. Christian sources differ from this pre-Christian tradition only in associating this title with Jesus’s deity.
The church’s use of the title “Lord” for Jesus was certainly dominant well before Luke wrote (and before the later speeches in Acts would have occurred). It is Paul’s primary title for Jesus and appears in every part of early Christianity
In Psalm 110, if one assumes Davidic authorship for the psalm, as most first-century hearers would have done, “my Lord” becomes someone greater than David (the greatest king). A midrashic connection to Ps 16:2 also suggests the deity of “my lord,” as it is addressed directly to God. This fits the exposition here, where this “Lord” bears the specific divine name on which hearers must call to be saved.
His Footstools
The remainder of the quotation in Acts 2:35 is hardly simple decoration. Although Peter’s primary point in quoting Psalm 110 is Christology, it also support his eschatology. In this eschatology, Jesus’s present reign is an interim period until its consummation.
First-century readers would still understand the metaphor of enemies being made a footstool. Prisoners had long been symbolically “trampled underfoot,” as lavishly illustrated, for example, by Egyptian royal sandals with bound prisoners portrayed on the soles.
Conclusion: Lord and Christ
Speakers commonly provided a final summation of their argument. That’s the case in Acts 2:36. The proclamatory “Let all the house of Israel know” fits such a climax. Jesus is the “Lord” of in Joel’s passage (Acts 2:21) by way of Psalm 110 (Acts 2:34-35). By way of Psalm 16, he is “Christ” (Acts 2: 31)—that is, the king from David’s line.
That Jesus is Messiah (i.e., Israel’s king) and that he is Lord at God’s right hand are truth claims that demand universal allegiance; that is, they demand the response of all humanity. Notice that this response could costly. “King” was a dangerous title in the Roman world. (“Lord” could be construed in less political, purely religious terms.)
The closing reference to Peter’s hearers crucifying their own king invites a response. The plural pronoun “you” is emphatic in 2:36.
The ResponseThe crowd is persuaded by Peter. Contrite over killing their own graciously God-given king, the crowd asks what to do. Peter summons them to repentance, as in the prophets, and to call on Jesus’s name in a baptism involving such repentance. God’s promise to them is the Holy Spirit. In Acts 2:38 and 3:19, Peter preaches repentance like the Old Testament prophets calling Israel to return. The biblical prophets summoned Israel to “turn” or “return” to the Lord. Individuals needed to turn from wickedness to righteousness, that is, change their lifestyle, not merely indulge in guilty feelings. Early Judaism heavily emphasized the value of repentance.
Although the very deep emotional response described here (“struck to the heart”) produces a favorable behavioral response, Luke provides two other occasions where, by contrast, the emotional response provoked deadly hostility (Acts 5:33; 7:54).
I think that we are so used to our current Christian world, we simply assume that joining a religious movement involves repentance. This was not the case at the time (and it is not the case today with many non-Abrahamic religions). Gentiles did not speak much of moral repentance in light of religion. Joining a new mystery cult simply supplemented one’s previous religious experience.
Because God’s “kingdom” was his reign, those who turned to embrace his reign were accepting a new king. Genuine faith in Jesus as Lord requires acknowledgment of his lordship and beginning to adjust to its practical demands.
Baptism
Just as John the Baptist preached a baptism symbolizing or effecting repentance, so now does Peter. One Jewish use of baptism in antiquity was as an act of conversion (as part of the process of conversion), although Jewish people traditionally applied this function of immersion only to Gentiles. Peter here demands a conversion no less radical, but from members of his own people who must likewise turn to Israel’s God and the divinely appointed king, Jesus.
The “forgiveness of sins” is explicitly associated especially with repentance in Acts and in Luke. Most importantly, Jesus’ final command to the disciples in the Gospel of Luke was that of preaching repentance.
Then he opened their minds so they could understand the scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it stands written that the Christ would suffer and would rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And look, I am sending you what my Father promised. But stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” Luke 24:45-49
One could debate to what extent forgiveness of sins is also associated with baptism (i.e., the act of baptism itself as distinct from repentance). Some of the arguments are based on the grammar of the text we just read. Those arguments are complex and, frankly, beyond me. Besides, grammar alone is probably not dispositive of the issue. If we surveyed texts in Luke and Acts relating to forgiveness, we would find that forgiveness is more often associated with repentance than baptism, and repentance is never missing when baptism is mentioned with forgiveness of sins. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the fact that for Luke baptism is not dissociated from repentance. At least under normal circumstances, one does not separate the two.
As I remarked above, we live in such a Christianized age, we are not surprised by facts that ought to surprise us. The fact that Jesus’ followers used baptism as the initiation rite is unexpected. Ritual lustrations were common throughout the ancient world. Various temples had their own rules mandating ritual purity. The early Jewish practice of ritual washings was widespread long before the time of the Jesus movement. Although such Jewish lustrations and their broader cultural background provide a context for John’s and early Christian baptism, they cannot define them. John’s baptism in the Synoptic tradition was initiatory and eschatological, a baptism of repentance in light of the coming kingdom of God. The Qumran community practiced initiatory baptism, but unlike for early Christians, the initial baptism at Qumran was apparently viewed only as the first among many.
The closest Jewish parallel to John’s and early Christian baptism, namely, proselyte baptism, a specific and extremely potent form of ritual purification. Major differences naturally distinguish John’s baptism from proselyte baptism, including the former’s public and eschatological orientation and particularly its summoning of Jews as well as Gentiles to turn to Israel’s God. However, the conversion ritual provided a clear, symbolic line of demarcation between a proselyte’s Gentile past and Jewish present, much like the baptism suggested in Acts.
In Jesus Name
Peter calls his audience to be baptized in Jesus’ name. Jewish people were known for “calling on the Lord’s name,” and the more specific application to Jesus would be striking. (Again, this reveals a high Christology.) But what does the phrase mean? Baptism “in Jesus’s name” distinguishes this baptism from other Jewish immersion practices noted above, with respect to its object. That is, it clarifies the convert’s new allegiance.
We should also note that for Luke, baptism in Jesus’s name does not involve a ritual formula uttered over an initiate but the new believer’s calling on the name of Jesus. In Luke’s writings, the verb to baptize (βαίτίζω) appears in both passive and active forms. However, in the formula “in the name of Jesus,” it appears only with passive uses of the verb. Put simply, I do not baptize you, you are baptized. This indicates that the formula has to do with receiving rather than giving. This is not to argue that early Christians would not have cared who supervised baptisms.
The Promise of the Spirit
Luke recalls earlier teachings about the Spirit through his terms “gift” and “promise.”. By noting that the promise is for others, he makes the proper response for the present crowd (namely, repentance and baptism in Jesus’s name) and the gift of the Spirit paradigmatic for all subsequent believers. By alluding to “far-off” Gentiles by way of Isaiah’s language, Luke also reiterates the prominence of the Spirit for the Gentile mission.
By concluding that the gift was available to “as many as God calls,” Luke clearly echoes the end of Joel 2:32, completing the quotation interrupted in Acts 2:21.
It will so happen that
everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be delivered.
For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be those who survive,
just as the Lord has promised;
the remnant will be those whom the Lord will call.
Summary and ExhortationVerse 2:40 (“[w]ith many other words he testified”) probably means that Luke skips through many supplementary proofs and arguments provided by Peter. Instead, Luke’s narrative moves quickly the final exhortation and emotional appeal: “Save yourselves!” This restates briefly the speech’s central idea. The immediate referent of “save” here is Joel’s prophecy in Acts 2:21: whoever calls on the Lord’s name will be saved. Therefore this salvation at least includes deliverance from God’s eschatological wrath and destruction, available through Christ.
For Peter’s hearers to save themselves from the generation’s wickedness was not, as some later Gentile Christian interpreters would have it, a summons to leave Israel and their Jewishness; rather, it was a summons to leave their rebellion against God, like a repeated prophetic summons to Israel in the Old Testament.
Peter’s term γενεά (genea) means here a temporal “generation,” not (as some would interpret it) “race” (γένος). By calling the generation crooked here, Peter is appealing to the Old Testament, particularly Deuteronomy 32:5. Peter’s point is an exhortation not to harden their hearts as their ancestors did in the wilderness.
Peter thus continues the preaching tradition followed by John the Baptist, underlining the continuity of salvation history and of the saving message.
Scripture Reading: Acts 1:12 - 2:13
12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mountain called the Mount of Olives (which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey away). 13 When they had entered Jerusalem, they went to the upstairs room where they were staying. Peter and John, and James, and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James were there. 14 All these continued together in prayer with one mind, together with the women, along with Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers. 15 In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a gathering of about 120 people) and said, 16 “Brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled that the Holy Spirit foretold through David concerning Judas—who became the guide for those who arrested Jesus— 17 for he was counted as one of us and received a share in this ministry.” 18 (Now this man Judas acquired a field with the reward of his unjust deed, and falling headfirst he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out. 19 This became known to all who lived in Jerusalem, so that in their own language they called that field Hakeldama, that is, “Field of Blood.”) 20 “For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his house become deserted, and let there be no one to live in it,’ and ‘Let another take his position of responsibility.’ 21 Thus one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time the Lord Jesus associated with us, 22 beginning from his baptism by John until the day he was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness of his resurrection together with us.” 23 So they proposed two candidates: Joseph called Barsabbas (also called Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know the hearts of all. Show us which one of these two you have chosen 25 to assume the task of this service and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” 26 Then they cast lots for them, and the one chosen was Matthias; so he was counted with the eleven apostles.
1 Now when the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like a violent wind blowing came from heaven and filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3 And tongues spreading out like a fire appeared to them and came to rest on each one of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit, and they began to speak in other languages as the Spirit enabled them.
5 Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven residing in Jerusalem. 6 When this sound occurred, a crowd gathered and was in confusion because each one heard them speaking in his own language. 7 Completely baffled, they said, “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that each one of us hears them in our own native language? 9 Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and the province of Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, 11 both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own languages about the great deeds God has done!” 12 All were astounded and greatly confused, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” 13 But others jeered at the speakers, saying, “They are drunk on new wine!”
Main ThemesWAITING ON THE PROMISE AND SELECTING A NEW APOSTLEThe fulfillment of Acts 1: 8 is interrupted by a problem left over from the gospel. One of the twelve witnesses must be replaced. Yet there is also a sense in which 1:12-26 is not simply a “problem” but part of the preparation for Pentecost. The disciples pray together (which is often linked with the Spirit’s descent) and the leadership structure for the righteous remnant of Israel is restored.
The Physical Setting—The Upper Room
One might suppose that the entire group was staying in one upper room, but surely Luke means only that they habitually met there. No upper room would accommodate 120 people, and certainly the women would not have stayed with the men. One may also ask: which upper room? The definite article might suggest that this was a well-known upper room. The reader of Luke-Acts will infer that it is probably the same upper room that hosted the Last Supper (Luke 22:11-12).
The Theological Setting—The Remnant
What do I mean by a righteous remnant? Throughout the rocky history of the nation of Israel, full of disobedience to God, a small contingent always remained faithful. This was the remnant—quite literally, what remained and rebuilt after each of God’s judgments. One can hardly avoid connecting this idea of a righteous remnant to the apostles, particularly given their number (12, just like the tribes of Israel). Thus, selecting a twelfth apostle was important to restore the symbolic value of the first leaders of the church. Israel’s remnant fits well into the context of the Spirit and Israel’s restoration and role in salvation. In fact, this is the fulfillment of God’s first covenant with his people. All the way back in Genesis, God promised Abraham:
Now the Lord said to Abram,
“Go out from your country, your relatives, and your father’s household
to the land that I will show you.
Then I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you,
and I will make your name great,
so that you will exemplify divine blessing.
I will bless those who bless you,
but the one who treats you lightly I must curse,
so that all the families of the earth may receive blessing through you.” Genesis 12:1-3
The continuity between Genesis and Acts is incredible.
12 out of (Approximately) 120 and the Language of Calling
The connection between the apostles and the remnant is reinforced when we notice the number of apostles and how Peter spoke of their calling. Peter notes that Judas the traitor had received the same privileges of calling that the other eleven had. Judas is described as being “numbered.” Peter describes the apostolic calling here as a “service” in which Judas once shared. Peter also describes this calling in terms of a “portion” or “lot” in the service. This description reinforces the fact that possessors of the office of apostle were chosen by divine purpose, including the betrayer. There is a beautiful connection between Peter’s language and the Old Testament. In Numbers, for example, God chooses the Levites to serve as his priests:
5 The Lord spoke to Moses: 6 “Bring the tribe of Levi near, and present them before Aaron the priest, that they may serve him. 7 They are responsible for his needs and the needs of the whole community before the tent of meeting, by attending to the service of the tabernacle. 8 And they are responsible for all the furnishings of the tent of meeting, and for the needs of the Israelites, as they serve in the tabernacle. 9 You are to assign the Levites to Aaron and his sons; they will be assigned exclusively to him out of all the Israelites. 10 So you are to appoint Aaron and his sons, and they will be responsible for their priesthood, but the unauthorized person who comes near must be put to death.”
11 Then the Lord spoke to Moses: 12 “Look, I myself have taken the Levites from among the Israelites instead of every firstborn who opens the womb among the Israelites. So the Levites belong to me, 13 because all the firstborn are mine. When I destroyed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, I set apart for myself all the firstborn in Israel, both man and beast. They belong to me. I am the Lord.” Number 3:5-13
Furthermore, notice the numbers involved. Twelve are chosen out of approximately 120. A tenth. Like the tithe.
Any tithe of the land, from the grain of the land or from the fruit of the trees, belongs to the Lord; it is holy to the Lord. Leviticus 27:30
Or exactly like in Nehemiah (during the restoration of Israel after the Babylonian exile).
So the leaders of the people settled in Jerusalem, while the rest of the people cast lots to bring one out of every ten to settle in Jerusalem, the holy city, while the other nine remained in other cities. The people gave their blessing on all the men who volunteered to settle in Jerusalem. Nehemiah 11:1-2
Sometimes I think we miss the point that Acts is the restoration of Israel through the remnant of the people of God. Put simply, the Spirit comes, the sick are healed, the remnant rebuilds. Acts is the coming of the kingdom.
CHOOSING A SUCCESSORMany church assemblies in Acts addressed controversial issues (Acts 6:1; 11:2-3; 15:1-7; 21:21-22); the matter of choosing Judas’s successor, however, seems not so much controversial as necessary to prepare a united witness for the time when the Spirit would come.
The Problem—Judas the Betrayer
In Acts, Peter speaks of Judas as a guide to those who arrested Jesus. However, Luke’s audience would surely think of the fuller account of this betrayal in Luke. Treachery or betrayal was considered one of the most heinous offenses in antiquity, a breach of sacred trust. Notice that just like in the Gospel John, this treachery is not treated as a surprise. Instead, it was foretold. Jesus knew what would happen if he remained with Judas. Jesus went intentionally to his grave.
How Did Judas Die?
In the Bible, we have multiple accounts of Judas’s death. Yet Matthew’s version of Judas’s demise seems to differ at key points from Luke’s. Is it possible to reconcile these accounts?
Now when Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus had been condemned, he regretted what he had done and returned the 30 silver coins to the chief priests and the elders, saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood!” But they said, “What is that to us? You take care of it yourself!” So Judas threw the silver coins into the temple and left. Then he went out and hanged himself. The chief priests took the silver and said, “It is not lawful to put this into the temple treasury, since it is blood money.” After consulting together they bought the Potter’s Field with it, as a burial place for foreigners. For this reason that field has been called the “Field of Blood” to this day. Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the 30 silver coins, the price of the one whose price had been set by the people of Israel, and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.” Matthew 27:3-10
The major differences are (1) whether Judas obtained the field himself (Acts 1:18 vs. Matt 27:7) and (2) how he met his end (Acts 1:18 vs. Matt 27:5). Regarding the first problem, perhaps Luke’s narrative stems from his (or his sources’) abbreviation of a longer account that could have included the high priests or that the priests, counting the money as legally belonging to Judas, could have bought the field in Judas’s name. Regarding the second problem, plausibly, if Judas hanged himself from a tall tree or building in the sort of rocky field natural in Judean hill country, his innards might well spatter (assuming that the tree was tall) when someone cut or (less likely) untied the rope (or it eventually broke). (This assumes that the body was cut down before it decomposed or before it was picked apart by scavengers; in view of Judean piety, this assumption is likely, again assuming that the corpse was found, as it probably would have been if near Jerusalem.) Others have suggested the possibility of the body’s being torn down and opened by wild dogs, fitting both versions. Luke or his source would then report the gorier fate of Judas’s corpse rather than his actual mode of death.
Qualifications for Apostleship
Peter lists the qualifications (1:20) for Judas’s replacement. This gives us great insight into the requirements to be an apostle, so we should spend a minute or two making note of them.
Antiquity was no stranger to lists of qualifications, particularly for reliable witnesses. Peter could have safely assumed that Judas’ replacement had to be of good moral character and male. (Male testimony was nearly always accepted most highly. There could also be theological reasons to select a male.) But, what were the special qualifications to be not simply a witness but an apostle?
Thus one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time the Lord Jesus associated with us, beginning from his baptism by John until the day he was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness of his resurrection together with us. Acts 1:21-22
This looks like one requirement but, in a sense, it is two. First, an apostle had to be a firsthand eyewitness of all of Jesus’ ministry—from his baptism to his resurrection. Choosing those who had spent the most time with Jesus was important so that they could guarantee and interpret the message about him. Moreover, in antiquity just like now, eyewitness sources were considered the best, and those further removed from the witnesses were considered weaker.
Second, and this is implied but it is no less important, an apostle had to be one of those who persevered. At the cross, all disciples deserted Jesus. So that desertion could be ignored (or all persons would be disqualified from discipleship). Nevertheless, throughout Jesus’ ministry many of his followers left him. Recall, for example, the crowd’s reaction after Jesus fed the five thousand and taught them that he was the bread of life:
I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that has come down from heaven, so that a person may eat from it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats from this bread he will live forever. The bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
Then the Jews who were hostile to Jesus began to argue with one another, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves.
…
Then many of his disciples, when they heard these things, said, “This is a difficult saying! Who can understand it?” When Jesus was aware that his disciples were complaining about this, he said to them, “Does this cause you to be offended? Then what if you see the Son of Man ascending where he was before? The Spirit is the one who gives life; human nature is of no help! The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus had already known from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.)
…
After this many of his disciples quit following him and did not accompany him any longer. So Jesus said to the twelve, “You don’t want to go away too, do you?” John 6:41b-53, 60-64, 66-67
Two Are Proposed, Lots Are Cast
Two candidates are proposed by the community: Joseph called Barsabbas (also called Justus) and Matthias. (“Joseph” was a very common name, hence requiring some further description. Historians often provided additional names for historical figures with common names.)
How did the apostles choose between the two men? First, they prayed in recognition of two facts: (1) God knows the hearts of all men, and (2) God selects the apostles.
Then they prayed, “Lord, you know the hearts of all. Show us which one of these two you have chosen 25 to assume the task of this service and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” Acts 1:24-25
I discussed God’s election of his apostles above. The idea that God knows men’s hearts is also not new. We read statements to that effect in John, and it appears throughout the Old Testament. For example:
But the Lord said to Samuel, “Don’t be impressed by his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. God does not view things the way people do. People look on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” 1 Samuel 16:7
So, the assembly’s prayer indicates that they are depending on God to provide the right replacement for Judas. The Lord’s “choosing” Matthias provides continuity with his “choosing” other apostles. The question we often have is whether casting lots was the proper way to let God choose or communicate his decision.
(By the way, what are lots? The lots may have been stones or pottery fragments shaken in a container, with Matthias’s being the first to emerge.)
Lot oracles (usually answering yes/no questions or other binary choices) were common in antiquity. Many cities had dice oracles for their citizens to consult in city centers. More relevant here is the use of lots for choosing public officials. Various classical Athenian officials were chosen by lot. Democracies in particular, but also other Greek cities, used lots to distribute, with a minimum of conflict, public offices among those who were equally eligible. The use of lots is also well documented in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt. In the Roman Republic, Romans could evade partisan politics by drawing lots. Romans did not use lots for selecting normal magistrates but did use them for selecting judges and other offices. Lots could be used to decide who would lead in battle, which general would go to war, which positions the legions would take in battle, which members of a disgraced cohort would be beaten to death, who might be sacrificed, and whose property would have to be sold.
The point is that the apostles did not use some weird or irresponsible system to decide between Joseph and Matthias. They used a fairly standard procedure to elect officials when the candidates were equally qualified. Perhaps this is why casting lots seemed unobjectionable to the apostles and the rest of the believers. At the same time, we should notice that casting lots is not used again by the apostles. So, we should not consider its use prescriptive for the church.
PentecostAll Together in One Place—Where?
The Pentecost miracle happened when all the disciples were together in one place (Acts 2:1). To be honest, I always assumed that was the upper room mentioned in chapter 1. Maybe that’s right, but maybe it isn’t. If one inspects the text closely, the place is not specified. There are two choices for this unspecified location: the temple or a private home (presumably the one with the upper room).
Before we consider the evidence, why would think the temple was their gathering place? The narrative that follows verse 2:1 implies that either they were in or at some point they enter the temple courts. Nowhere else in Jerusalem could they have drawn a crowd sufficient to produce three thousand converts, whereas the Temple Mount could fit about seventy-five thousand people. So, the disciples were either in or near the temple. Let’s consider some of the evidence.
The apostles frequently met in the temple (Luke 24:53; Acts 2:46; 5:12) but also “from house to house” (Acts 2:46), so both options are plausible. But maybe we can figure it out from verse two, which refers to the “entire house” being filled. Is the term “house" dispositive of the issue? Not decisively. The temple or tabernacle is called a house in Luke 6:4 and 19:46 (quoting Isaiah 56) and Acts 7:46-47; but the term also appears in contrast to the temple (Luke 1:23; Acts 2:46; 5:42), and Luke’s emphasis on house meetings makes that sense more likely (Acts 2:46; 5:42; 20:20).
If we favor preceding context over following context (i.e., chapter 1 over chapter 3), as someone reading the book in sequence for the first time would do and consider the allusion to the disciples’ unity, we might be pointed back to the upper room of 1:13. If this is the case, we might conclude that the disciples rushed from there into the temple, still praising God. A transition from upper room to temple is plausible. Any home large enough to host huge numbers in an upper room would have to have been in the Upper City near the Temple Mount.
When? During the Festival of Pentecost
Pentecost, another name for the Feast of Weeks, was one of the great Jewish pilgrimage festivals, and as such, it would have been heavily attended by Jews from all over the world (as they knew it) and perhaps some Gentile tourists. Its history dates to the Old Testament. As a scholar explains:
The Passover feast was celebrated at twilight in the evening of the fourteenth day of the first month (Lev 23:5). It was followed on the fifteenth day by the beginning of the closely related seven-day Feast of Unleavened Bread (Lev 23:6). On the next day, the sixteenth, the first fruits of the (barley) harvest had to be brought to the Lord (Lev 23:11, cf. vv. 6-7). Seven weeks and one day later, the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost) was celebrated, during which, among other things, offerings from the grain (wheat) harvest and two loaves of bread had to be brought to God (Exod 34:22; Lev 23:1517). (The fact that this festival was on the fiftieth day later gave rise to the name Pentecost, from the Greek word for “fiftieth.”)
Although many ancient estimates of festival attendance may be exaggerations (e.g., later rabbinic estimates), massive attendance (in the thousands or tens of thousands) is not disputed. Such well-attended festivals were not unusual in the Mediterranean. Both pious believers and tourists would attend. Well-to-do Greeks and Romans apparently visited sanctuaries as tourists, and it is reasonable to guess that the Jerusalem temple’s grandeur may have drawn a few Gentile tourists. Nevertheless, pilgrims would constitute the vast majority of visitors for Pentecost.
Although Scripture demanded the attendance of all Israelite males at these festivals (Exodus 23:17; 34:23; Deuteronomy 16:16), first-century Jews seem to have applied the requirement only within the Holy Land itself due to practical realities. Some sources suggest that more Diaspora Jews attended Pentecost than Passover because of the difficulties of traveling earlier in the season.
Although Pentecost was originally a harvest festival, eventually a tradition developed that associated the occassion with the giving of Law at Sinai. Whether this tradition was known by Luke and his audience or relevant to them is disputed. Luke certainly does not acknowledge the connection. Luke mentions Pentecost for two clear reasons: he shows that, as Jesus had promised, the disciples did not have long to wait for the gift of the Spirit (1:5), and he explains why so many Diaspora Jews were present to recognize the languages spoken (2:5-12).
The MiracleWind and Fire
On Pentecost, God provided objective, external phenomena to confirm the internal empowerment taking place when he filled the church with the Spirit. Yet, we should notice that Luke is reserved in his description. He speaks of it “like” wind and “like” fire, just as he spoke of the Spirit coming on Jesus as “like” a dove. This might be intentional on his part, to prevent the reader from understanding the Spirit as a substance—as the Greeks would have done. Instead, Luke presents a more Jewish and biblical theology, in which the Spirit is only compared to substances.
Why wind and fire? Broadly speaking, this imagery would have connected with anyone in the ancient world. Theophanic storm images of wind and fire were common signs of divine presence. But, is there a more specific connection we should make?
Wind
Wind often indicates the powerful presence of God in the Old Testament. In particular, the scene in Acts evokes Ezekiel 37 (more on that in a minute).
In Acts 2:2, Luke uses a rare term for “wind.” The term πνοῆς appears elsewhere in the New Testament only at Acts 17:25, where it refers to human “breath” as a gift of God (and alludes directly to Gen 2:7). It appears 24 times in the Septuagint, referring especially to the breath of life. Whereas the more common term for “wind” and “breath” in Greek provides more obvious associations with God’s “Spirit,” the term used by Luke points us to Genesis and life-giving. Moreover, Jewish tradition connected the divine breath of Gen 2:7 with the eschatological wind of the Spirit in Ezekiel 37. Jewish people expected an eschatological “wind” of the Spirit to bring the breath of life into the slain of Israel. A redacted version of Ezekiel 37 is presented below:
The hand of the Lord was on me, and he brought me out by the Spirit of the Lord and placed me in the midst of the valley, and it was full of bones. 2 He made me walk all around among them. I realized there were a great many bones in the valley, and they were very dry. 3 He said to me, “Son of man, can these bones live?” I said to him, “Sovereign Lord, you know.” 4 Then he said to me, “Prophesy over these bones, and tell them: ‘Dry bones, listen to the Lord’s message. 5 This is what the Sovereign Lord says to these bones: Look, I am about to infuse breath into you and you will live. 6 I will put tendons on you and muscles over you and will cover you with skin; I will put breath in you, and you will live. Then you will know that I am the Lord.’”
7 So I prophesied as I was commanded. There was a sound when I prophesied— I heard a rattling, and the bones came together, bone to bone. 8 As I watched, I saw tendons on them, then muscles appeared, and skin covered over them from above, but there was no breath in them.
9 He said to me, “Prophesy to the breath—prophesy, son of man—and say to the breath: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe on these corpses so that they may live.’” 10 So I prophesied as I was commanded, and the breath came into them; they lived and stood on their feet, an extremely great army.
11 Then he said to me, “Son of man, these bones are all the house of Israel. Look, they are saying, ‘Our bones are dry, our hope has perished; we are cut off.’ 12 Therefore prophesy, and tell them, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Look, I am about to open your graves and will raise you from your graves, my people. I will bring you to the land of Israel. 13 Then you will know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves and raise you from your graves, my people. 14 I will place my breath in you and you will live; I will give you rest in your own land. Then you will know that I am the Lord—I have spoken and I will act, declares the Lord.’”
…
24 “‘My servant David will be king over them; there will be one shepherd for all of them. They will follow my regulations and carefully observe my statutes. 25 They will live in the land I gave to my servant Jacob, in which your fathers lived; they will live in it—they and their children and their grandchildren forever. David my servant will be prince over them forever. 26 I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be a perpetual covenant with them. I will establish them, increase their numbers, and place my sanctuary among them forever. 27 My dwelling place will be with them; I will be their God, and they will be my people. 28 Then, when my sanctuary is among them forever, the nations will know that I, the Lord, sanctify Israel.’” Ezekiel 37
If you remember from our study of John, Jesus continually promised life, abundant and eternal. We need to look no further than the famous verse, John 3:16
For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.
Notice, therefore, that if the Spirit gives life, and we receive the Spirit now, then Acts is presenting a realized eschatology. Eternal life begins now.
Fire
Fire was also commonly associated with the presence of God in the Old Testament. Perhaps the best-known example is the burning bush:
Now Moses was shepherding the flock of his father-in-law Jethro, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the desert and came to the mountain of God, to Horeb. The angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from within a bush. He looked, and the bush was ablaze with fire, but it was not being consumed! Exodus 3:1-3
The other major example (although many more could be provided) is the pillar of fire that guided the Israelites through the desert.
They journeyed from Sukkoth and camped in Etham, on the edge of the desert. Now the Lord was going before them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead them in the way, and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so that they could travel day or night. He did not remove the pillar of cloud by day nor the pillar of fire by night from before the people. Exodus 13:20-22
Fire was also an image associated with judgments, including end-time judgments, and purification. More importantly, Luke’s informed audience would quickly connect the fire with Luke 3:16-17 (which, incidentally, contains both motifs).
John answered them all, “I baptize you with water, but one more powerful than I am is coming—I am not worthy to untie the strap of his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 17 His winnowing fork is in his hand to clean out his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his storehouse, but the chaff he will burn up with inextinguishable fire.” Luke 3:16-17
Though less common than simply “flames,” the expression “tongues of fire” is common in Jewish texts, perhaps because fire is often said to devour (sometimes translated as consumes). For example, the expression appears in the Qumran scrolls. Of course, Luke may have also selected that comparison to make a connection with the Spirit empowering the disciples to speak in tongues.
Empowered
In Scripture, the phrase “filled with the Spirit” applied to the Spirit’s gifting for skills, whether in sacred craftsmanship (Exodus 31:3; 35:31), for leadership (Deuteronomy 34:9), or for prophecy (Micah 3:8). Luke employs the biblical phrase “filled with the Spirit” frequently, especially for an experience enabling prophets and prophetic inspiration (Luke 1:15, 41, 67) and for power for Christian proclamation, both for apostles (Acts 4: 8; 9:17; 13:9) and others (4:31; 13:52).
Speaking in Tongues
In Greek, the term for tongues, as in tongues of fire or speaking in tongues, is glōssais. Just like in English, the term can refer to a physical, literal tongue (e.g., “I burned my tongue”) or a language. The activity of speaking in tongues is glossolalia, which just means speaking (although it was often used to refer to prophetic speech).
The idea of the Spirit of God enabling Christ followers to speak in tongues is rather novel. There is scant precedent. In one document from Qumran, different angels apparently lead the heavenly worship on successive Sabbaths in different languages. There is also a Jewish source speaking of divine sashes that allowed some women to speak in Angelic languages—but this source may be later than Acts (and the languages spoken by the women are described as intelligible, so perhaps they are no angelic after all). So, Spirit-inspired use of other languages seems unprecedented in the Judaic background of Acts.
However, Jewish tradition certainly affirmed Spirit-filled prophecy. For example, consider 1 Samuel:
Afterward you will go to Gibeah of God, where there are Philistine officials. When you enter the town, you will meet a company of prophets coming down from the high place. They will have harps, tambourines, flutes, and lyres, and they will be prophesying. 6 Then the Spirit of the Lord will rush upon you and you will prophesy with them. You will be changed into a different person. When these signs have taken place, do whatever your hand finds to do, for God will be with you. 1 Samuel 10:5-7
Could this speaking in tongues have been borrowed from non-Jewish cultures? As Craig Keener points out:
Many scholars think that the early Christian experience of tongues originated in such magical syllables or in unintelligible ecstatic speech, attested in both Egypt and Greece. The extant early Christian understandings of the experience, however (in Luke and Paul), do not reflect this background, and the experience probably (as Luke suggests) initially predates the expansion of Christianity into a Diaspora setting where such a background could make sense.
In short, God-empowered speaking in tongues, even if interpreted liberally, was unusual in the ancient world. However, it is central to Acts and the early church. This kind of speaking in tongues is even attested to by church fathers. For example, Irenaeus (c. 130 – 202 AD) wrote:
In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the Church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God . . . . Her. 5.6.1
A Reversal of Babel
Many people (including scholars and commentators, current and ancient) understand Acts 2 as a reversal of the Babel story and believe that Luke patterned his narrative after it. The allusion is not immediately clear but there are some indications. The table of nations in Genesis 10 (shortly preceding the Babel narrative) seems to inform the list of nations in Acts 2. Acts 2 speaks of spreading tongues and confusion, using terms that sound similar to the confusion of tongues in the Babel narrative. More importantly, whether the author makes a textual allusion or not, the theological inference seems justified. Let’s read the Babel story.
The whole earth had a common language and a common vocabulary. . . . Then they said, “Come, let’s build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens so that we may make a name for ourselves. Otherwise we will be scattered across the face of the entire earth.”
But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower that the people had started building. And the Lord said, “If as one people all sharing a common language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be beyond them. Come, let’s go down and confuse their language so they won’t be able to understand each other.”
So the Lord scattered them from there across the face of the entire earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why its name was called Babel—because there the Lord confused the language of the entire world, and from there the Lord scattered them across the face of the entire earth.
In Babel, God scattered nations for trying to deify themselves, paralleling Adam’s revolt and his expulsion from the garden. By contrast, the disciples at Pentecost were waiting in obedience to a divine command; instead of trying to reach heaven, they were waiting for their Lord, who had ascended to heaven, to send them the Spirit. In Gen 11:7, God descended to confound the transgressors, but at Pentecost God descends to clarify the mystery of the gospel to all people. In Genesis, God descended and scattered tongues to prevent unity; in Acts, the Spirit descends and scatters tongues to create unity across cultures and nations.
I said last time, but I will say it again. The coming of the Spirit, the story of Acts, is the beginning of the end of the world. The curse on sinful mankind is being reversed. The kingdom of God is both here and growing. The message of salvation spreads from Israel to all nations.
Scripture Reading: Acts 1:1-11 [Edited: Changed 26 to 11.]
I wrote the former account, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after he had given orders by the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3 To the same apostles also, after his suffering, he presented himself alive with many convincing proofs. He was seen by them over a forty-day period and spoke about matters concerning the kingdom of God. 4 While he was with them, he declared, “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait there for what my Father promised, which you heard about from me. 5 For John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
6 So when they had gathered together, they began to ask him, “Lord, is this the time when you are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He told them, “You are not permitted to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest parts of the earth.” 9 After he had said this, while they were watching, he was lifted up and a cloud hid him from their sight. 10 As they were still staring into the sky while he was going, suddenly two men in white clothing stood near them 11 and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand here looking up into the sky? This same Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven will come back in the same way you saw him go into heaven.”
[Edited: Moved verses 12-26 to next week.]
Main ThemesLiterary PrefaceThe literary preface of Acts is its first two verses, although its introduction could be considered to extend through verses 11, 14, or even the end of the second chapter (verse 2:47) when the book adds its first summary statement.
As we discussed last time, the book is addressed to Theophilus, possibly a patron of Luke or a person of high standing who Luke hoped to honor. In ancient times, an author’s hope in dedicating a book to such a high-ranking person was that the book be read to audiences during parties or other events.
Transition of LeadershipAlmost immediately, with its second verse, the book of Acts tells us of a key event: a transition of leadership in the early church. We are reminded that Jesus has been “taken up,” almost surely referring to the Lord’s ascension, and who was left with his instructions? The apostles. This might seem obvious to us, but it isn’t. One could at least imagine an egalitarian early church in which every believer had equal voice and insight. That is certainly not what Acts describes. A very select group—the apostles—are left to guide the flock. In fact, just a few verses down (15-26), this leadership group is clearly defined. (My commentary here is not addressing potential corollaries to this transition of leadership, such as apostolic succession or the magisterium.)
Later in the book of Acts, we will encounter another transition of leadership, namely, to Paul. He will lead the mission to the gentiles. We will discuss that in future sessions, however.
Notice that the acts of the apostles are described as following what “Jesus began to do and teach.” The word began in verse 1 is debated. Some argue that it is simply a Semitic pleonasm, that is, a distinctly Jewish way of speaking. This Semitic construction appears mutliple times in the Septuagint, with which Luke and his audience would have been familiar. If this is the case, the expression does not imply a continued action. Conversely, some have suggested that it means that Acts addresses what Jesus continued to do and teach (presumably by his name and the Spirit) through the disciples. This would make Jesus the paradigm of the church and the church an extension of Jesus. Although the first explanation is more likely, the latter certainly fits the theology in Luke.
Luke’s RecapitulationChapter 1 of Acts quickly catches up the listener to the end of “volume 1,” the Gospel of Luke. Here is a brief Acts 1 to Luke 24 correspondence. (The format is a bit strange, but I did not want to add an unwieldy table. I added verse quotations when helpful.)
1. Acts 1: Jesus teaches the disciples through the Spirit (1:2). Luke 24: Jesus teaches the disciples after the resurrection, including explicit times (24:25-27, 32, 44-48).
They said to each other, “Didn’t our hearts burn within us while he was speaking with us on the road, while he was explaining the scriptures to us?” Luke 24:32
Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the scriptures, 46 and said to them, “Thus it stands written that the Christ would suffer and would rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. Luke 24:44-48
2. Acts 1: Jesus offers many proofs of his risen state (1:3a). Luke 24: Jesus demonstrates his risen state (24:13-32, 34, 36-40).
Now that very day two of them were on their way to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem. 14 They were talking to each other about all the things that had happened. 15 While they were talking and debating these things, Jesus himself approached and began to accompany them . . . . Luke 24:13-15
While they were saying these things, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 37 But they were startled and terrified, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 Then he said to them, “Why are you frightened, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 Look at my hands and my feet; it’s me! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones like you see I have.” Luke 24:36-39
3. Acts 1: Jesus appears for forty days (1:3b). Luke 24: Technically missing (i.e., 40 days are not specified). However, some period of time is assumed to accommodate the appearances of Jesus.
4. Acts 1: Jesus speaks of the kingdom (1:3b). Luke 24: As with the 40 days, the kingdom lessons are not explicit in Luke 24, but they can be inferred given Jesus’ repeated mentions of the kingdom in the earlier chapters of Luke.
[Jesus] said to them, “Thus it stands written that the Christ would suffer and would rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. Luke 24:46-47
See below for a discussion of the kingdom.
5. Acts 1: Jesus orders them not to leave Jerusalem (1:4b). Luke 24: Jesus orders them to stay in Jerusalem (24:49b).
And look, I am sending you what my Father promised. But stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” Luke 24:49
6. Acts 1: Jesus instructs them to wait for the Father’s promise (1:4b). Luke 24: They must stay in the city until they receive the Father’s promise (24: 49). (See the verse under number 5 above.)
7. Acts 1: Disciples expect the kingdom’s restoration to Israel (1:6). Luke24: A similar notion expressed by other disciples, who expected Jesus to redeem Israel (24:21).
But we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. Not only this, but it is now the third day since these things happened. Luke 24:21
8. Acts 1: Jesus promises the Spirit and that they will be witnesses (1:8). Luke 24: They are witnesses and will receive promised power (24:48-49).
You are witnesses of these things. 49 And look, I am sending you what my Father promised. But stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.” Luke 24:48-49
9. Acts 1: They will receive power (1:8). Luke 24: They will be clothed with power (24:49). (See the verse under number 5 above.)
10. Acts 1: Jesus ascends (1:9-11). Luke 24: Jesus ascends (24: 51).
Now during the blessing he departed and was taken up into heaven. Luke 24:51
11. Acts 1: The disciples leave Mount Olivet for Jerusalem (1: 12). Luke 24: They leave Bethany (24:50; this is near the Mount of Olives, 19:29) and return to Jerusalem (24:52).
12. They pray in the upper room (1:13-14). Luke 24: In the gospel, they worship in the temple (24:53). Luke probably expects us to suppose that they met both in homes (here, the upper room) and in the temple.
The KingdomActs Assumes We are Familiar with the Gospel of Luke
As suggested above, Jesus spoke much about the “kingdom” in the Gospel of Luke. Jesus preached about the kingdom (Luke 4:43; 8:1; 9:11), promising it to the poor (6:20), little ones (18:16-17; cf. 12:32), and the radically obedient (9:62; 16:16); by contrast, it would be difficult for the rich to enter it (6:24-25; 18:24-25). Jesus also sent his disciples to preach the kingdom (9:2, 60; 10:9, 11).
In Acts, we will see a continued proclamation of the kingdom (Acts 8:12; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31). However, in Acts Luke seems to presuppose that the reader is familiar with Jesus’ words about the kingdom found in the Gospel of Luke. So, we need to take a minute and go back.
Already in the gospel we see something curious about the kingdom. People should yearn for the kingdom (Luke 11:2; 12:31; 23:51), although the kingdom was already present in a hidden way (13:18-21), currently available for those willing to receive it (8:10). Jesus’s followers could enter the kingdom and find there a role greater than that of John the Baptist (7:28; 16:16). Then Acts opens with what seems like a realized eschatology—that is, the kingdom, whatever that is, is here! Craig Keener explains this present but future mystery as follows:
The Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek terms here translated “kingdom” usually signify the concept “reign” or “authority” or “rule.” Like the OT (e.g., Isa 6: 5), Jewish teachers could speak of God’s present rule (especially among the people who obeyed his law). But Jewish people also looked for the kingdom as God’s future rule, when God would reign unchallenged, as attested in regular Jewish prayers. Because “heaven” was a common Jewish periphrasis for “God,” some other Jewish texts use “kingdom of heaven” as a periphrasis for “kingdom of God” (e.g., Sipra Qed. pq. 9.207.2.13; y. Qidd. 1: 2, §24; Matthew, passim). Sometimes they also seem to use “kingdom” as a periphrasis for the divine name.
…
If one examines the entire evidence available in the Gospels, the kingdom appears to be both present and future, as is widely recognized today. It was only natural for Jesus and his first followers, once they recognized that Jesus would need to come again to establish his kingdom fully, to recognize that the anticipated kingdom would arrive in two stages corresponding to Jesus’s first and second coming. If one does not arbitrarily exclude either set of evidence by posing a contradiction that the first generations of disciples would not have recognized, both sets of evidence fit together adequately. If Jesus implied his messiahship and spoke of a future Son of Man, we may thus assume that when he announced the kingdom, he undoubtedly announced God’s imminent rule in the final sense (rather than simply God’s providential rule over creation or over Israel through the law). But his claim also suggests that he expected to play a role in the kingdom, already active in a hidden way in the present (Luke 13: 18– 30).
Kingdom Talk in the Gospel of Luke
Because the kingdom of God is such a recurrent theme in Acts, and that theme is built upon the teachings of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke, I think we must read the Luke verses before we move on. I will offer brief commentary on these. My purpose is to create some narrative tension that perhaps can be resolved as we study the rest of Acts.
The next morning Jesus departed and went to a deserted place. Yet the crowds were seeking him, and they came to him and tried to keep him from leaving them. But Jesus said to them, “I must proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns too, for that is what I was sent to do.” Luke 4:42-43
Then he looked up at his disciples and said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for the kingdom of God belongs to you. 21 Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh. 22 Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you and insult you and reject you as evil on account of the Son of Man! 23 Rejoice in that day, and jump for joy because your reward is great in heaven. For their ancestors did the same things to the prophets. 24 But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your comfort already. 25 Woe to you who are well satisfied with food now, for you will be hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep. 26 Woe to you when all people speak well of you, for their ancestors did the same things to the false prophets. 27 “But I say to you who are listening: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. Luke 6:20-27
I tell you, among those born of women no one is greater than John. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he is. Luke 7:28
Sometime afterward [Jesus] went on through towns and villages, preaching and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. . . . While a large crowd was gathering and people were coming to Jesus from one town after another, he spoke to them in a parable: “A sower went out to sow his seed. And as he sowed, some fell along the path and was trampled on, and the wild birds devoured it. Other seed fell on rock, and when it came up, it withered because it had no moisture. Other seed fell among the thorns, and they grew up with it and choked it. But other seed fell on good soil and grew, and it produced a hundred times as much grain.” As he said this, he called out, “The one who has ears to hear had better listen!” Then his disciples asked him what this parable meant. 10 He said, “You have been given the opportunity to know the secrets of the kingdom of God, but for others they are in parables, so that although they see they may not see, and although they hear they may not understand. “Now the parable means this: The seed is the word of God. Those along the path are the ones who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved. Those on the rock are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in a time of testing fall away. As for the seed that fell among thorns, these are the ones who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by the worries and riches and pleasures of life, and their fruit does not mature. But as for the seed that landed on good soil, these are the ones who, after hearing the word, cling to it with an honest and good heart, and bear fruit with steadfast endurance. Luke 8:1, 4-15
After Jesus called the twelve together, he gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases, and he sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal the sick. . . . When the apostles returned, they told Jesus everything they had done. Then he took them with him and they withdrew privately to a town called Bethsaida. But when the crowds found out, they followed him. He welcomed them, spoke to them about the kingdom of God, and cured those who needed healing. Luke 9:1-2, 10-11
As they were walking along the road, someone said to him, “I will follow you wherever you go.” Jesus said to him, “Foxes have dens and the birds in the sky have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.” Jesus said to another, “Follow me.” But he replied, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.” But Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.” Yet another said, “I will follow you, Lord, but first let me say goodbye to my family.” Jesus said to him, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.” Luke 9:57-62
Whenever you enter a town and the people welcome you, eat what is set before you. 9 Heal the sick in that town and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come upon you!’ But whenever you enter a town and the people do not welcome you, go into its streets and say, ‘Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet we wipe off against you. Nevertheless know this: The kingdom of God has come.’ I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town! Luke 10:8-12
Now Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he stopped, one of his disciples said to him, “Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples.” So he said to them, “When you pray, say: “‘Father, may your name be honored; may your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread, and forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us. And do not lead us into temptation.’” Luke 11:1-4
And which of you by worrying can add an hour to his life? So if you cannot do such a very little thing as this, why do you worry about the rest? Consider how the flowers grow; they do not work or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his glory was clothed like one of these! And if this is how God clothes the wild grass, which is here today and tomorrow is tossed into the fire to heat the oven, how much more will he clothe you, you people of little faith! So do not be overly concerned about what you will eat and what you will drink, and do not worry about such things. For all the nations of the world pursue these things, and your Father knows that you need them. Instead, pursue his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well “Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father is well pleased to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide yourselves purses that do not wear out—a treasure in heaven that never decreases, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. Luke 12:25-34
Thus Jesus asked, “What is the kingdom of God like? To what should I compare it? It is like a mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his garden. It grew and became a tree, and the wild birds nested in its branches.” Again he said, “To what should I compare the kingdom of God? It is like yeast that a woman took and mixed with three measures of flour until all the dough had risen.” Luke 13:18-21
The law and the prophets were in force until John; since then, the good news of the kingdom of God has been proclaimed, and everyone is urged to enter it. 17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tiny stroke of a letter in the law to become void. Luke 16:16-17
Now at one point the Pharisees asked Jesus when the kingdom of God was coming, so he answered, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is in your midst.” Luke 17:20-21
Now people were even bringing their babies to him for him to touch. But when the disciples saw it, they began to scold those who brought them. But Jesus called for the children, saying, “Let the little children come to me and do not try to stop them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will never enter it.” Now a certain leader asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’” The man replied, “I have wholeheartedly obeyed all these laws since my youth.” When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” But when the man heard this, he became very sad, for he was extremely wealthy. When Jesus noticed this, he said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! In fact, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” Those who heard this said, “Then who can be saved?” He replied, “What is impossible for mere humans is possible for God.” And Peter said, “Look, we have left everything we own to follow you! Then Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, there is no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of God’s kingdom who will not receive many times more in this age—and in the age to come, eternal life.” Luke 18:15-30
Now there was a man named Joseph who was a member of the council, a good and righteous man. (He had not consented to their plan and action.) He was from the Judean town of Arimathea, and was looking forward to the kingdom of God. He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Luke 23:50-52
The Spirit and the Kingdom
I think we need one last bit of background before we move on—and that is the connection between the pouring of the Spirit of God and the coming of the kingdom. Certainly Jesus taught about and proclaimed the coming of both, the Spirit and the kingdom. What we often miss though is that given the Old Testament (the Jewish scriptures), the disciples would have had every reason to understand these two themes as inseparably linked. The prophets had regularly linked God’s pouring out his Spirit with the time of Israel’s restoration. Take the end of Isaiah 43 and the beginning of 44, for example:
[The Lord Rebukes His People] 22 “But you did not call for me, O Jacob; you did not long for me, O Israel. 23 You did not bring me lambs for your burnt offerings; you did not honor me with your sacrifices. I did not burden you with offerings; I did not make you weary by demanding incense. 24 You did not buy me aromatic reeds; you did not present to me the fat of your sacrifices. Yet you burdened me with your sins; you made me weary with your evil deeds. 25 I, I am the one who blots out your rebellious deeds for my sake; your sins I do not remember. 26 Remind me of what happened. Let’s debate! You, prove to me that you are right! 27 The father of your nation sinned; your spokesmen rebelled against me. 28 So I defiled your holy princes, and handed Jacob over to destruction, and subjected Israel to humiliating abuse.
[The Lord Will Renew Israel] 44 “Now, listen, Jacob my servant, Israel whom I have chosen!” 2 This is what the Lord, the one who made you, says—the one who formed you in the womb and helps you: “Don’t be afraid, my servant Jacob, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen. 3 For I will pour water on the parched ground and cause streams to flow on the dry land. I will pour my Spirit on your offspring and my blessing on your children. 4 They will sprout up like a tree in the grass, like poplars beside channels of water. 5 One will say, ‘I belong to the Lord,’ and another will use the name ‘Jacob.’ One will write on his hand, ‘The Lord’s,’ and use the name ‘Israel.’”
Notice, then, that the disciples are not off base when they ask: When will Jesus restore the kingdom to Israel? Some view their question as shortsighted, but this context specifies that the problem with the question, if any, is with timing (Acts 1:7), not with content.
The Promise of the Holy SpiritIn the Gospels and immediately in the opening of Acts we read about the promise of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is the foretaste of the kingdom and the empowerment to prepare a people for it. The Spirit thus enables the witnesses (e.g., the apostles) to carry on Jesus’ mission after his ascension.
We are so used to the stories in the Bible, that sometimes we are unsurprised by details that should otherwise give us some pause. Notice that after Jesus is gone the disciples could not generate the Spirit or spiritual experience on their own. They must “wait” for the “promise” of God, requiring faithful dependence on God. In Acts, this dependence is another key theme. God both assigns tasks and provides the power to accomplish them. Luke’s pneumatology emphasizes especially the Spirit’s empowering the church for mission.
Luke expects his audience to be able to fill in details surrounding the promise by remembering what they have already learned in Luke 24:49. There Jesus promises the believers “power” for their mission, which probably includes signs and wonders that would confirm their powerful message.
For Luke, the “promise” here is not only a matter of historical interest concerning Jesus’s first witnesses; it is paradigmatic, at least in some sense, for all Christians. This is clear from the fact that the promise is later reiterated for all who will repent (Acts 2:38), including the “far off” Gentiles (2:39).
Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far away, as many as the Lord our God will call to himself.” Acts 2:38-39
The promise here also evokes the prophecies of John the Baptist.
Now this was John’s testimony when the Jewish leaders sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?” He confessed—he did not deny but confessed—“I am not the Christ!” So they asked him, “Then who are you? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not!” “Are you the Prophet?” He answered, “No!” Then they said to him, “Who are you? Tell us so that we can give an answer to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?”
John said, “I am the voice of one shouting in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way for the Lord,’ as the prophet Isaiah said.” 24 (Now they had been sent from the Pharisees.) So they asked John, “Why then are you baptizing if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”
John answered them, “I baptize with water. Among you stands one whom you do not recognize, who is coming after me. I am not worthy to untie the strap of his sandal!” These things happened in Bethany across the Jordan River where John was baptizing.
On the next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! This is the one about whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who is greater than I am, because he existed before me.’ I did not recognize him, but I came baptizing with water so that he could be revealed to Israel.”
Then John testified, “I saw the Spirit descending like a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. And I did not recognize him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘The one on whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining—this is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ I have both seen and testified that this man is the Chosen One of God.”
John 1:19-34
From Jerusalem to the Ends of the EarthThe Spirit and the kingdom come together in the central thesis of Acts expressed in Acts 1:8.
But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest parts of the earth. Acts 1:8
Two points can be made. Salvation begins in Jerusalem. Salvation will come to all the earth. Chapter 2 of Acts will quote Isaiah and give us more details about this mission. Nevertheless, the allusions to Isaiah are already present in verse1:8. The language of “my witnesses” is reminiscent of Isaiah. The same can be said for the geographic range of the testimony of God’s salvation (Isa 41:5, 9; 42:10; 43:6; 45:22; 48:20; 49:6; 52:10; 62:11). That Luke depends on Isaiah’s language here is clear: although mention of the ends of the earth is common in ancient literature, Luke’s complete and exact phrase “to the end of the earth” appears four or five times in the Septuagint (Isa 8:9; 48:20; 49:6; 62:11; also Pss. Sol. 1:4) and only twice in the NT (Acts 13:47 and here); it also appears in Christian writings dependent on Isaiah or Acts but “nowhere else in the immense range” of literature in the Thesaurus linguae graecae.
[Edited: All text from this point forward was moved to next week.]
Scripture Reading: Acts 1:1-2
I wrote the former account, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after he had given orders by the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.
End of Genesis DiscussionLast week I attempted to wrap up our brief discussion of Genesis. Because I ran out of time, I would like to use the first few minutes of our current session to tie up loose ends. I think it is important that as we study Acts, we have a general understanding of the Christian worldview—the key reason behind my Genesis detour.
I attempted to take a “minimum facts” approach to the first three chapters of Genesis. By that I mean that I focused on the core or basic lessons taught by the text. These are by no means all the lessons we could learn from it but, instead, those central tenets with which nearly every Christian would agree. Here’s a brief summary of the points we discussed:
(1) One God. The text of Genesis contains no theogony (i.e., genealogy of gods), theomachy (i.e., conflict between gods), or deicide (i.e., death of a god). None of that. Genesis has God—the one and only. This monotheism was radically different than any other belief in the region. (A question was asked last time regarding whether Genesis was the first religious story to introduce monotheism. I still cannot confirm an answer, but I can say that all the major monotheistic religions trace back to the Genesis account.)
(2) God Is Not Like Nature. Whereas in other ancient Near Eastern myths, the line between nature and gods is blurred, that line is an unbreachable chasm in Genesis. Other stories have the gods turning into nature, such as the earth being made out of Tiamat’s corpse, or being one with a natural phenomenon, like the night being a god of the night. In Genesis, God simply speaks creation into being. Nature is not divine in any sense. And God is not “natural” in any sense. If we are willing to go beyond the Genesis story and take into account the whole counsel of scripture along with a bit of theology, I think we can confidently say that God is an uncreated, necessary being, in whose unchanging character goodness itself is rooted.
(3) Nature Is Not Spiritual. Is there a spirit of the water, and a spirit of the wind, and spirit of the day, and a spirit of the night? According to many, if not all, ancients myths: yes. According to Genesis: no. This is the very foundation of science. The natural world is not personal, so it behaves according to impersonal principles that can be relied upon to act consistently. Moreover, this natural world has been made by a mind not completely unlike ours, so we can expect the natural world to be intelligible. This is another foundational principle of science. In our modern world, we are so used to assuming these concepts, we forget how original and revolutionary they truly are.
(4) Man in the Image of God. Other ancient Near Eastern myths tell us that man was created to do the drudging work of which the gods had grown weary. Genesis tells an entirely different story. Man was created in the image of God, to be fruitful and multiply, and rule the earth. Regarding the image of God, often called the imago Dei, I went into a little bit of philosophy to explain what that could possibly mean. I suggested that the mainstream Christian view is that of ontological personalism—although many people get it wrong and think that it is empirical functionalism. This latter view says that personhood is being able to perform certain functions—such as rational thinking. Well, that means fetuses, people in a state of coma, and even people who are asleep are not persons! Ontological personalism says that we are a rational soul. So, the imago Dei is part of our substance, so we can’t lose it.
There is a fifth point I wanted to make but that I did not have time to discuss, and it is a crucial point to the Christian story.
THE ORIGINAL PLAN WAS GOOD BUT THEN…THE FALLAuthor Sandra Richter in The Epic of Eden describes God’s original intent by pointing out that the creation narrative is not complete in six days—there is a seventh day. On that day God rested. On the seventh day creation is as it should be, so God could stop to rule over all of it. God and creation were in peace. With that in mind, Richter concludes:
In sum, Genesis 1 tells us of God’s first, perfect plan—a flawlessly ordered world infused with balance and productivity. Here every rock, plant and animal had its own designated place within God’s design, a God-ordained space in which each could thrive, reproduce and serve the good of the whole. And we see from the structure of Genesis 1 that the force that held this peaceful and productive cohabitation in balance was Yahweh’s sovereignty over all. But as Day 6b makes clear, God chose to manage this creation through his representative ʾAdām. Thus humanity is given all authority to protect, maintain and develop God’s great gift under God’s ultimate authority. This is who Yahweh is, who humanity is and how both relate to the creation. And regardless of how you choose to harmonize science and Bible, this message is clearly part of the intent of Genesis 1. I would say it is the primary intent.
Then Richter makes the connection between Genesis 1 and the repeating theme of the book of Genesis: covenant.
You may have noticed that my description of Genesis 1 sounds a lot like the relationship between a vassal and his suzerain; a relationship in which the vassal is given full autonomy within the confines of his overlord’s authority. When this reading of Genesis 1 is wedded to Genesis 2, the profile of covenant becomes even clearer. Here the suzerain (Yahweh) offers his vassals (Adam and Eve) the land grant of Eden with the stipulation that humanity care for it and protect it.
Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate [ ʿābad] and keep it [šāmar]. (Gen 2:15)
In addition to this perfect place, Adam and Eve are given each other (Gen 2:18-25), and as is implied by Genesis 3:8, they are given full access to their loving Creator. The only corner of the garden which was not theirs to use and enjoy was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil:
From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die. (Gen 2:16-17)
In essence, Adam and Eve are free to do anything except decide for themselves what is good and what is evil. Yahweh reserves the right (and the responsibility) to name those truths himself. (Emphasis added)
This was Adam and Eve’s perfect world. Not just fruit and fig leaves, but an entire race of people stretching their cognitive and creative powers to the limit to build a society of balance and justice and joy. Here the sons of Adam and the daughters of Eve would learn life at the feet of the Father, build their city in the shadow of the Almighty, create and design and expand within the protective confines of his kingdom. The blessing of this gift? A civilization without greed, malice or envy; progress without pollution, expansion without extinction. Can you imagine it? . . . This was God’s perfect plan: the people of God in the place of God dwelling in the presence of God. Yet, as with all covenants, God’s perfect plan was dependent on the choice of the vassal. Humanity must willingly submit to the plan of God. The steward must choose this world; for in God’s perfect plan, the steward had been given the authority to reject it.
But then the fall came. And, surprisingly, then redemption came too.
God’s perfect plan (and humanity’s perfect world) was a matter of choice. Did ʾAdām want this world? Or one of their own making? The ones made in the image of God could not be forced or coerced, but instead were called upon to choose their sovereign. And choose they did. Whenever I think of this moment, the lyrics of Don Francisco’s old folk song echo in my mind: “And all their unborn children die as both of them bow down to Satan’s hand.”16 God’s original intent was sabotaged by humanity, stolen by the Enemy. ʾAdām rejected the covenant, and all the cosmos trembled. Genesis 2:17 makes it painfully clear what the consequences of such an insurrection would be: in that day, “you shall surely die.” But amazingly, mercifully, even though Yahweh had every right to wipe out our rebellious race, he chose another course—redemption. In a move that continues to confound me, God spared the lives of Adam and Eve (and their unborn children) by redirecting the fury of the curse toward another—the battered flesh of his own Son. This is the one the New Testament knows as “the last Adam” (Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45). And although the first Adam did not die, the second surely did. But we are getting ahead of ourselves.
Introduction to ActsWe are finally done with our brief exploration of Genesis, and we are ready to start discussing Acts. We should introduce the book first and consider its genre, date, author, and historical context. Next week we will finally fall into our trusted pattern of reading scripture and discussing its main points. Believe me, I am as ready as you are to start doing that.
GenreAs we begin the study of Acts, just like with Genesis, we need to ask the question of genre. Except in this case, there is hardly a question. Virtually everyone agrees that Acts is narrating history. The only (rather nuanced) debate is whether Acts is historiography or biography. (I am using the term historiography to refer to a genre of literature. Using the term “history” can be confusing because one is not certain whether the claim is that the text intends to convey historical facts or whether those historical facts are true.)
Historiography vs Biography
What’s the difference between historiography and biography? Roughly speaking, biography focuses on one person, his life, his accomplishments, and his character. Historiography focuses on something other than a person (although it may discuss notable individuals at length), such as an event, a nation, or a movement. Is Acts about the life of Paul? Or, is Acts about the early church?
I bet your question is a different one: why does it matter? The truth is it does not matter much, but it could change our interpretation of certain passages. When we ask question like, “Why would the author include this material?” or “Why would he omit that information?”, our choice of genre matters.
Anyways, I will keep the discussion of this topic brief.
Biography Proposal
Biography is the most common genre proposal after historiography. This proposal retains for Acts the same genre usually assigned to the Gospel of Luke. To many scholars, extending the Gospel’s genre to the second volume seems a logical step. Acts, as a continuation of Luke’s Gospel, provides parallels of Peter and Paul with Jesus, as one might expect in the ancient genre of parallel lives or in ancient double biographies. Moreover, Acts falls in the correct length range for ancient biographies.
Despite many biographic elements, however, Acts self-evidently does not constitute a biography of a single figure. In fact, it seems less interested in sketching vivid portraits of past heroes than in tracing the spectacular development of “the way.” Certainly Acts focuses on major characters, but Acts does not focus on a single character. Even Paul, its dominant and climactic example, functions as an agent of the work’s driving theme, the gospel’s expansion. Acts closes not with his death but with his proclamation in Rome. Despite its biographic emphases, Acts thus functions as historiography carried out partly in a biographic manner.
Historiography Proposal
The genre proposal most supported by scholars is that of historiography—to be more precise, that of a historical monograph (i.e., a one-volume historiographical text). As a historical monograph, it is a work covering a specific historical topic. In contrast to listing events by year in annalistic fashion (a common type of text in the ancient world), some ancient historians would write monographs that arranged their accounts around a main theme. Various factors support the thesis that Luke conceives of his project as primarily a history of some sort. Unlike in a novel, Luke uses sources abundantly in his first volume (i.e., the Gospel of Luke) and presumably in his second volume as well, although we cannot distinguish them clearly in Acts. Luke’s claim to investigate or have close acquaintance with his information (Luke 1: 3) fits historical works, and his occasional use of the first-person plural emphasizes the involvement considered ideal for a good Hellenistic historian. Speeches, the preface, the employment of world history as a context, and other features support this understanding of the work’s genre. Luke’s extensive use of public monologues in Acts plainly fits the conventions of ancient histories but not of biographies or novels. Luke-Acts also includes what appear very much like the prefaces found in histories. When possible, Luke sets his events in the context of world history, just as historians (and almost exclusively historians) did in their histories (Luke 2: 1– 2; 3: 1– 2; Acts 18: 12).
Although it should go without saying, we must be careful to distinguish ancient historiography from modern historiography. We should not demand ancient historians to conform precisely to modern historiography. Ancient historians sometimes fleshed out scenes and speeches to produce a coherent narrative in a way that their contemporaries expected but that modern academic historians would not consider acceptable when writing for their own peers. This contrast reflects the different interests of ancient and modern historiography: ancients emphasized a cohesive narrative more than simple recitation of facts; moderns value exactness in details much more than the rhetorical flow of the narrative for their audience.
DateViews on the date of Acts range widely. No particular proposed date between 64 A.D. and 90 A.D. is absolutely compelling. The centrist position (70s– 80s), has by far the most adherents; probably the early date (60s) is second in number of adherents; a date in the 90s ranks third; and the second century boasts the fewest adherents. I will only discuss the two most widely held views.
Pre-70
Usually, scholars arguing for a pre-70 date contend that Acts ends where it does because the events had unfolded only this far at the time of Luke’s writing, that is, about 62 A.D. I will discuss the reasons for this view and their potential responses by scholars who hold to the “centrist view.”
Both ancient and modern interpreters have asked and argued: Why else would Luke devote a quarter of Acts to Paul’s trial and appeal yet not record the outcome? Scholars respond that these abrupt endings were not entirely uncommon. Examples would include the Gospel of Mark and Thucydides text on the Peloponnesian War. Granted, they might add, if Luke recorded Paul’s Roman hearings in Jerusalem and Caesarea for use at a trial before Caesar, this material was clearly compiled before Paul’s death. One can, however, still affirm a later publication of the material. Moreover, Luke could have suppressed explicit mention of Paul’s death because it did not suit his larger narrative purpose (e.g., martyrdom). Luke is under no obligation to narrate Paul’s execution, the centrist would claim, because his climax is the gospel reaching the heart of the empire. Finally, the number of Greek words in Acts is nearly the same as for the Gospel of Luke, which may have been the fullest length for Luke’s normal scrolls. In other words, Luke may have run out of room when writing Acts.
Scholars supporting a pre-70 date have also advanced other arguments favoring this position, drawn especially from the setting the book seems to address. One argument is based on Luke’s failure to describe the temple’s destruction as past. Other arguments to date Acts before 70 AD include:
-
Acts portrays Jews as being both a spiritual and political power who had influence with Roman courts, an unlikely situation after 70.
-
Expectation of Roman justice would be unlikely after the Neronian persecution of 64–65.
-
Acts betrays almost no knowledge of Paul’s letters.
Post-70
The argument for a date after Paul’s death follows from the usual premise that Mark wrote before Luke. Papias reports that Mark wrote what he had heard from Peter; if this language suggests that their relation is past, it probably points to a date after Peter’s death. If Luke wrote after using Mark, he presumably would be writing after Peter’s death as well and presumably after Mark’s Gospel had begun circulating among churches in urban centers.
Most scholars believe that Luke 21 (e.g., Luke 21: 20; cf. 23: 29– 31) reflects the accomplished fall of Jerusalem and argue that Luke wrote Acts after completing his Gospel. However, one could counter that most of the discrete elements in Luke 21 could date from before the war of 66–70; various Jewish figures predicted judgment on Jerusalem and its temple before its demise, and the language recycles Septuagintal descriptions of Jerusalem’s earlier sufferings. Certainly, Jerusalem’s judgment was in view before 70 A.D. (Luke 11: 50– 51; Matt 23: 35– 36).
Most scholars today suggest dates between 70 and 85, with some as late as 90. This range of dates is before Josephus’s publications. (Scholars who suggest a later date for Acts often also suggest that it is based or influenced by the works of Josephus.)
Author of Luke-ActsToday almost all scholars acknowledge that Luke and Acts share the same author. Beyond this general agreement, a majority of scholars agree that Luke was a Gentile, writing for a largely Gentile (or, perhaps more accurately, mixed Gentile and Jewish) Diaspora audience. A much smaller number, though probably still the majority, argue that the author was at least a short-term companion of Paul. Of possible candidates in Pauline literature who fit this description, Luke the physician (Col 4:14) is the likeliest candidate historically and also the one supported (despite his relative obscurity) by subsequent Christian writers who claimed access to earlier sources no longer available to us. Let’s explore that last claim a little further.
Luke the Physician
If we treat Acts the way we treat analogous historical works from its era we should accept the work’s eyewitness claims as authentic indications of the author’s presence. Internal evidence points strongly to a Christian who accompanied Paul on a small number of his travels and should have become well acquainted with him especially on the journey to Jerusalem and Rome. Although the external evidence is less important, it strongly points to Luke “the physician” (Col 4: 14) as the author, a claim that tradition is not likely to have invented (given Luke’s relative obscurity). The external and the internal evidence are compatible, making Luke the likeliest author.
The primary reason for many scholars treating “we” in Acts differently than they would in most other ancient historical works is the argument that a genuine traveling companion of Paul cannot have so misunderstood him. (As we study Acts we can examine this assertion further. Is Acts really at odds with the letters of Paul?)
What is some of the external evidence that supports Luke the physician as the author of Acts? Irenaeus (ca. 180 A.D.) attributes Acts to Luke. The same is true of Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and others. Moreover, a very early manuscript (175–225 A.D.) calls the gospel the “Gospel according to Luke.” Simply put, our earliest external evidence unanimously supports Luke’s authorship. Given his relative obscurity, this is probably not coincidence.
Finally, and admittedly of less importance, the language is consistent with that of a physician.
Gentile or Jew
Whether we believe the author of Luke and Acts to be Luke, can we determine whether the author is Gentile or Jew? From his geographical competence and his interpretation of Judaism, it is certain that he was not a Palestinian Jew. He may have been a Diaspora Jew with interests in the Gentile mission, but given his relationship to Judaism and perspectives, many scholars prefer the idea that he was a Gentile. Scholars who, on other grounds, identify the author with the Luke mentioned in Col 4: 14 will likely also conclude that he was a Gentile. If Luke was a Gentile, he was nevertheless one with considerable experience of Judaism. Although he could have acquired much of this knowledge as a Christian, it is reasonable to suggest, as some scholars have, that he may have been a God-fearer with a long-standing knowledge of the Diaspora synagogue. His immersion in the Septuagint, however, is considerable; if he did not grow up with it, he must have acquired it long before and thoroughly, for he knows how to write Greek with a “biblical” or “Jewish accent,” so to speak.
AudienceScholars often suggest that Luke’s audience was wealthier and more highly educated, on average, than that of the other Gospels. Luke dedicates his work to a “most excellent” Theophilus (Luke 1: 3), a title suggesting that Theophilus was probably a person of prestige and rank in society. Although Theophilus is an explicit “narratee,” no ancient audience would assume that the dedicatee was necessarily socially representative of Luke’s ideal audience. One might dedicate a work to a patron who would be of higher rank than the clients who heard the work read, for example, at one of the banquets sponsored by the patron. Nevertheless, by addressing Theophilus as at least a part of his audience, Luke appeals to a person with some status in the larger society. Luke further emphasizes many people of status following the Way (e.g., Luke 8:3; 23:50–51; Acts 13:12; 17:4; 28:7); likewise, he portrays Paul’s status as relatively high, a point of interest to any ancient hearer but perhaps especially to another person of status. Although his Gospel contains the most sweeping condemnations of the accumulation of wealth (e.g., Luke 3:11; 12:13–21, 33; 14:33), his very emphasis on this issue might suggest an audience that can afford to be challenged in the area of generosity. Finally, an educated audience would best appreciate the elements of classical rhetoric alongside the appropriate stylistic variations for different settings.
What we can possibly conclude from this is that Luke’s target audience is relatively stable (and hence not hostile to the culture). Luke is positive toward the culture without needing to sound polemical about the need to separate from it.
Luke’s ideal audience appears to be urban, Greek, and perhaps in officially Romanized cities such as Corinth and Philippi and would be familiar with some measure of education and with public orations, Jewish religion, and some philosophic ideas.
The question as to whether Luke’s audience is largely Jewish or Gentile may be, in one sense, a forced dilemma. By this period the Greek churches included a sizable number of Gentiles; Philippi had never had a large Jewish population to begin with. At the same time, most of these churches grew from synagogues or at least Jewish prayer groups and would include a sizable number of Jewish people.
Finally, we are ready to start reading Acts!
Scripture Reading: Genesis 1:1-3:24 (we won’t read it again, but we will discuss it)
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water. 3 God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light! 4 God saw that the light was good, so God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day.
6 God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters and let it separate water from water.” 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. It was so. 8 God called the expanse “sky.” There was evening, and there was morning, a second day.
9 God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place and let dry ground appear.” It was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” God saw that it was good.
11 God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: plants yielding seeds and trees on the land bearing fruit with seed in it, according to their kinds.” It was so. 12 The land produced vegetation—plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening, and there was morning, a third day.
14 God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs to indicate seasons and days and years, 15 and let them serve as lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” It was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to rule over the day and the lesser light to rule over the night. He made the stars also. 17 God placed the lights in the expanse of the sky to shine on the earth, 18 to preside over the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening, and there was morning, a fourth day.
20 God said, “Let the water swarm with swarms of living creatures and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” 21 God created the great sea creatures and every living and moving thing with which the water swarmed, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds multiply on the earth.” 23 There was evening, and there was morning, a fifth day.
24 God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: cattle, creeping things, and wild animals, each according to its kind.” It was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the cattle according to their kinds, and all the creatures that creep along the ground according to their kinds. God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”
27 God created humankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them,
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it! Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every creature that moves on the ground.” 29 Then God said, “I now give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the entire earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the animals of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has living breath in it—I give every green plant for food.” It was so.
31 God saw all that he had made—and it was very good! There was evening, and there was morning, the sixth day.
1 The heavens and the earth were completed with everything that was in them. 2 By the seventh day God finished the work that he had been doing, and he ceased on the seventh day all the work that he had been doing. 3 God blessed the seventh day and made it holy because on it he ceased all the work that he had been doing in creation.
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created—when the Lord God made the earth and heavens.
5 Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6 Springs would well up from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 7 The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
8 The Lord God planted an orchard in the east, in Eden; and there he placed the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow from the soil, every tree that was pleasing to look at and good for food. (Now the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were in the middle of the orchard.)
10 Now a river flows from Eden to water the orchard, and from there it divides into four headstreams. 11 The name of the first is Pishon; it runs through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is pure; pearls and lapis lazuli are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is Gihon; it runs through the entire land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is Tigris; it runs along the east side of Assyria. The fourth river is the Euphrates.
15 The Lord God took the man and placed him in the orchard in Eden to care for it and to maintain it. 16 Then the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard, 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die.”
18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a companion for him who corresponds to him.” 19 The Lord God formed out of the ground every living animal of the field and every bird of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man named all the animals, the birds of the air, and the living creatures of the field, but for Adam no companion who corresponded to him was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he was asleep, he took part of the man’s side and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the part he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said,
“This one at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
this one will be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and unites with his wife, and they become one family. 25 The man and his wife were both naked, but they were not ashamed.
1 Now the serpent was shrewder than any of the wild animals that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Is it really true that God said, ‘You must not eat from any tree of the orchard’?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit from the trees of the orchard; 3 but concerning the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the orchard God said, ‘You must not eat from it, and you must not touch it, or else you will die.’” 4 The serpent said to the woman, “Surely you will not die, 5 for God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will open and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
6 When the woman saw that the tree produced fruit that was good for food, was attractive to the eye, and was desirable for making one wise, she took some of its fruit and ate it. She also gave some of it to her husband who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them opened, and they knew they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God moving about in the orchard at the breezy time of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the orchard. 9 But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” 10 The man replied, “I heard you moving about in the orchard, and I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid.” 11 And the Lord God said, “Who told you that you were naked? Did you eat from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?” 12 The man said, “The woman whom you gave me, she gave me some fruit from the tree and I ate it.” 13 So the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” And the woman replied, “The serpent tricked me, and I ate.”
14 The Lord God said to the serpent,
“Because you have done this,
cursed are you above all the cattle
and all the living creatures of the field!
On your belly you will crawl
and dust you will eat all the days of your life.
15 And I will put hostility between you and the woman
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he will strike your head,
and you will strike his heel.”
16 To the woman he said,
“I will greatly increase your labor pains;
with pain you will give birth to children.
You will want to control your husband,
but he will dominate you.”
17 But to Adam he said,
“Because you obeyed your wife
and ate from the tree about which I commanded you,
‘You must not eat from it,’
the ground is cursed because of you;
in painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
but you will eat the grain of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat food
until you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust, and to dust you will return.”
20 The man named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all the living. 21 The Lord God made garments from skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them. 22 And the Lord God said, “Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, he must not be allowed to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God expelled him from the orchard in Eden to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken. 24 When he drove the man out, he placed on the eastern side of the orchard in Eden angelic sentries who used the flame of a whirling sword to guard the way to the tree of life.
Main ThemesInitial RemarksLet’s Come Together (Finally!)
If the last two weeks of the Bible study have been divisive, I hope that this week brings us all back together. During those two sessions, I suggested the possibility that the early chapters of Genesis are figurative. Nevertheless, I asserted repeatedly that they are true. Today, I want to focus on those truths embedded in the narrative. What is Genesis teaching us? And here’s the surprising part: even if you adamantly disagree with me and believe the text is meant to be taken completely literally, or if you land somewhere in between, I think we will agree on the main lessons taught by the text. They stand mostly independently of the figurative versus literal debate.
A Minimum Facts Presentation
Before we jump into the substantive portion of our discussion, I want to make one important clarification. The purpose of my dive into Genesis is to establish a Christian worldview. We are not engaging in an exhaustive exploration of every textual and theological issue. So, the discussion today will be a sort of “minimum facts” presentation. That is, I want to highlight the most basic lessons in the text with which virtually every Christian agrees. I will not delve into every possible conclusion that can be drawn from the text, although that would be very interesting. And, as always, participants are free to discuss anything I did not include in my presentation. So, again, the list below is not an exhaustive list of the points made by the first three chapters of Genesis, much less by the entire book. It is more of a “top four.”
Genesis v/s Enuma Elish
I think that a good way to explore the worldview presented by Genesis is to compare the biblical text to the Enuma Elish, the ancient Babylonian creation myth. (You can find it here.) The Enuma Elish is fairly representative of many Ancient Near East myths, so it provides a great backdrop against which Genesis shows its distinctive outline. (I am not necessarily embracing or rejecting the view that Genesis is a polemic against other Ancient Near Eastern myths. I simply find the comparison to be helpful.)
One God—No Theomachy, No Theogony, No Deicide Listen the words of the Enuma Elish:
1 When the heavens above did not exist,
2 And earth beneath had not come into being —
3 There was Apsû, the first in order, their begetter,
4 And demiurge Tia-mat, who gave birth to them all;
5 They had mingled their waters together
6 Before meadow-land had coalesced and reed-bed was to be found —
7 When not one of the gods had been formed
8 Or had come into being, when no destinies had been decreed,
9 The gods were created within them:
10 Lah(mu and Lah(amu were formed and came into being.
11 While they grew and increased in stature
12 Anšar and Kišar, who excelled them, were created.
13 They prolonged their days, they multiplied their years.
14 Anu, their son, could rival his fathers.
15 Anu, the son, equalled Anšar,
16 And Anu begat Nudimmud, his own equal.
17 Nudimmud was the champion among his fathers:
18 Profoundly discerning, wise, of robust strength;
19 Very much stronger than his father's begetter, Anšar
20 He had no rival among the gods, his brothers.
21 The divine brothers came together,
22 Their clamour got loud, throwing Tia-mat into a turmoil.
23 They jarred the nerves of Tia-mat,
24 And by their dancing they spread alarm in Anduruna.
25 Apsû did not diminish their clamour,
26 And Tia-mat was silent when confronted with them.
27 Their conduct was displeasing to her,
28 Yet though their behaviour was not good, she wished to spare them.
29 Thereupon Apsû, the begetter of the great gods,
30 Called Mummu, his vizier, and addressed him,
31 "Vizier Mummu, who gratifies my pleasure,
32 Come, let us go to Tia-mat!"
33 They went and sat, facing Tia-mat,
34 As they conferred about the gods, their sons.
35 Apsû opened his mouth
36 And addressed Tia-mat
37 "Their behaviour has become displeasing to me
38 And I cannot rest in the day-time or sleep at night.
39 I will destroy and break up their way of life
40 That silence may reign and we may sleep."
41 When Tia-mat heard this
42 She raged and cried out to her spouse,
43 She cried in distress, fuming within herself,
44 She grieved over the (plotted) evil,
45 "How can we destroy what we have given birth to?
46 Though their behaviour causes distress, let us tighten discipline graciously."
47 Mummu spoke up with counsel for Apsû—
48 (As from) a rebellious vizier was the counsel of his Mummu—
49 "Destroy, my father, that lawless way of life,
50 That you may rest in the day-time and sleep by night!"
51 Apsû was pleased with him, his face beamed
52 Because he had plotted evil against the gods, his sons.
53 Mummu put his arms around Apsû's neck,
54 He sat on his knees kissing him.
55 What they plotted in their gathering
56 Was reported to the gods, their sons.
57 The gods heard it and were frantic.
58 They were overcome with silence and sat quietly.
59 Ea, who excels in knowledge, the skilled and learned,
60 Ea, who knows everything, perceived their tricks.
61 He fashioned it and made it to be all-embracing,
62 He executed it skilfully as supreme—his pure incantation.
63 He recited it and set it on the waters,
64 He poured sleep upon him as he was slumbering deeply.
65 He put Apsû to slumber as he poured out sleep,
66 And Mummu, the counsellor, was breathless with agitation.
67 He split (Apsû's) sinews, ripped off his crown,
68 Carried away his aura and put it on himself.
69 He bound Apsû and killed him;
Notice how this ancient myth sounds nothing like Genesis. It immediately greets us with multiple gods (Apsû, the first in order, and the demiurge Tia-mat). Other gods are subsequently created. A genealogy of gods is called a theogony, and it was common to ancient myths. Genesis, however, has no genealogy. At most, in Genesis, when God speaks he uses a plural form—like maybe he is addressing a crowd. This has led some scholars to posit a heavenly council. But there is no god other than God—Yahweh.
The Enuma Elish tells the story not only of multiple gods but of their animosity. A conflict between the gods arises. A war between the gods is called theomachy. This is also common to ancient myths. Finally, the gods’ quarrel ends in the death of a god—deicide. If we continue reading, we would learn that creation itself is the result of this rivalry between the gods and their death.
What do we find in Genesis? None of that!
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1
In the beginning there is no two anything. There are no two gods opposing one another. There is not even an impersonal dualism like a ying and yang. There is no good and evil. There is only good. And this good is not some mystical goodness, like a force or energy or “waters,” but a good God—a personal being.
This is one of the most shocking and powerful lessons from Genesis—monotheism! And, if we are willing to take more of scripture into account, we could go as far as to say that it is “perfect being monotheism.” This means that there’s not only one God, but that God is perfect. He is all powerful and morally perfect. I think that this “perfect being theology” is key to a robust conception of “good.” A theology that includes multiple gods will generally fail the Euthyphro Dilemma: “Is the good good because God approves it, or does God approve it because it’s good?” A theology with no gods (atheism or some form of dualism) makes goodness accidental—it is a robust fact that could be different—and cannot account for moral duties. It is only when goodness is grounded in a necessary being that what is good could never be otherwise and goodness becomes personal such that it can give moral duties to others.
God is Not Like NatureAgain, hear the words of the Enuma Elish:
49 [Marduk] gathered [Tia-mat’s foam] together and made it into clouds.
50 The raging of the winds, violent rainstorms,
51 The billowing of mist—the accumulation of her spittle—
52 He appointed for himself and took them in his hand.
53 He put her head in position and poured out . . [ . . ] .
54 He opened the abyss and it was sated with water.
55 From her two eyes he let the Euphrates and Tigris flow,
57 He heaped up the distant [mountains] on her breasts,
58 He bored wells to channel the springs.
59 He twisted her tail and wove it into the Durmah,
61 [He set up] her crotch—it wedged up the heavens—
62 [(Thus) the half of her] he stretched out and made it firm as the earth.
In the Babylonian story, the clouds, the wind, the rainstorms, the rivers, the mountains, and much of creation is a part of or physically connected with Tiamat’s body. Notice the connection between the gods and creation—they might not be entirely the same but they are not entirely distinct either.
What do we find in Genesis?
God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters and let it separate water from water.” Genesis 1:6
God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place and let dry ground appear.” Genesis 1:9
God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: plants yielding seeds and trees on the land bearing fruit with seed in it, according to their kinds.” Genesis 1:11
God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs to indicate seasons and days and years . . . .” Genesis 1:14
I could quote more verses, but I think the point is clear. God is not like creation. Creation is not made of God. It is made by God. God simply speaks creation into being. God transcends it. The creator who makes things good exists even if nothing else exists and would exists if all stopped existing. He is the beginning and the end.
Nature is Not SpiritualAlthough the Enuma Elish story does not contain as many spirits of nature as other Ancient Near Eastern myths, we still have a clear example. Listen to this:
11 He placed the heights (of heaven) in her (Tia-mat's) belly,
12 He created Nannar, entrusting to him the night.
13 He appointed him as the jewel of the night to fix the days,
14 And month by month without ceasing he elevated him with a crown,
15 (Saying,) "Shine over the land at the beginning of the month,
16 Resplendent with horns to fix six days.
17 On the seventh day the crown will be half size,
18 On the fifteenth day, halfway through each month, stand in opposition.
19 When Šamaš [sees] you on the horizon,
20 Diminish in the proper stages and shine backwards.
In the Enuma Elish, night is a personal god. Night does not behave according to some natural principle. Night only comes and stays for as long as it does because the god of night is following orders. Presumably, the god of night could be enticed to disobey. Is all of nature like this? (For purposes of this discussion I am not including animals or humans in the definition of nature.) Is there a spirit of the waters? Is there a spirit of the sky? Are the flowers sprites and the trees dryads? Does everything around us behave as it does because a personal being—a spirit—is choosing to behave a certain way? The implications of these questions are staggering.
Perhaps we scoff at the idea that nature is personal and spiritual, but we shouldn’t. Not because I think that it is true but because it is the worldview that was held by nearly everyone in the ancient world and many (perhaps most) people still hold it today. If anything, the idea that nature is “non-spiritual” is not the rule but the exception. If to the belief in a non-spiritual natural world you you add the belief that nature was created by a mind—a mind not entirely unlike ours—then you have an entirely peculiar worldview. That is the worldview of Genesis.
The Christian, non-spiritual, intelligible understanding of creation is distinctive and has shaped the modern world. For example, it is foundational and necessary for science. This is the reason that many historians (Christian and non-Christian alike) agree that science is an outgrowth of Christian theology. Here’s how an article explains the connection between Genesis and science, which, if overly simplistic, gets the point across:
1. Laws Up Above
The ancient Chinese had incredible technology, but not science as we know it. Why? Because while they were intelligent, they did not believe in a Higher Intelligence—not in the Bible’s sense. They didn’t think there were ever-present, always-applicable laws of nature that governed the universe. They went out into the world and tamed it through technology, but they didn’t seek to press into the deeper laws of the universe.
That’s because they didn’t have Genesis 1. They didn’t believe that “In the beginning, God.” They didn’t believe that through his Word an ordered cosmos was created that shows all the hallmarks of dependable regularities—seasons and spheres with boundaries and signs in the sky, all going round and round, evening and morning, evening and morning. . . .
2. World Out There
The ancient Greeks were smart cookies. All philosophy is a footnote to Plato, as they say. Philosophy, mathematics, art, and literature were all spheres of excellence for the Greeks. Science? Not so much, because science requires you to believe in a stable and predictable world out there that’s open to investigation. Science occurs when you make repeatable observations and check your theories against the cold, hard facts. But Greeks didn’t believe in cold, hard facts. They believed in minds and reason and laws but not in empirical investigation. For them, study entailed a journey within the mind, not a venture out into the field. So, no science.
3. Minds In Here
If human minds are the product of mindless operations that only honored survival, not intelligence (the two aren’t at all synonymous), then why should we trust our minds to understand the laws up above and the world out there? If we’re the product of the cosmos and part of the cosmos with no higher calling than to pass on our genes, why trust a brain that whirs away according to its own survival imperative?
If you really want confidence in the scientific endeavor, turn to Genesis 1, where humanity is specially created in relationship with the Orderer above and the world out there. . . .
Another website summarizes the same principles as follows:
Nearly all scientists today, regardless of their religious beliefs, believe a certain set of foundational principles which make it possible for them to do science. Some of these common basic beliefs include:
(1) Human beings can understand the natural world at least in part.
(2) Nature typically operates with regular, repeatable, universal patterns of cause and effect so things that we learn in the lab here today will also hold true half way around the world a week from now.
(3) It’s not enough to sit and theorize how the world ought to work, we actually have to test our theories; science is a worthwhile pursuit.
These beliefs seem obvious today, but for most of human history, many people did not hold all those beliefs. For example, animists who believe that gods or spirits inhabit many aspect of the physical world might doubt that nature operates on regular, repeatable, universal patterns of cause and effect; instead they would believe that nature is controlled by gods and spirits who need to be appeased or manipulated by ritual. Or for a very different example, some of the most brilliant philosophers of the ancient world did not see the need to do experiments because they thought it was possible to derive from logic and first principles how the world ought to behave.
Allow me to explain the last statement in the quotation above. The Greeks, for example, believed that the universe had to be modeled by elegant abstract principles, such as geometry, which were discoverable only through thought. So, they assumed that the orbits of planets had to be circular. The Christian worldview recognizes that the universe was made by a mind—a mind that could have created the world this way or that way. Because the creator had options, much like an artist does, we can not simply assume that the world is a certain way. We must discover what that mind decided.
Man in the Image of GodThe Enuma Elish is one of the least outrageous Ancient Near Eastern myths when it comes to the creation of mankind, but it repeats a common theme:
1 When Marduk heard the gods' speech
2 He conceived a desire to accomplish clever things.
3 He opened his mouth addressing Ea,
4 He counsels that which he had pondered in his heart,
5 "I will bring together blood to form bone,
6 I will bring into being Lullû, whose name shall be 'man'.
7 I will create Lullû—man
8 On whom the toil of the gods will be laid that they may rest.
In the Babylonian creation myth, why is man created? So that the “toil of the gods will be laid” on him. You might remember that last week I mentioned an Egyptian myth that answers the question similarly. Here is how scholar John Walton discusses that Egyptian myth within the broader context of Mesopotamian myths:
[I]n Mesopotamian traditions people are created to serve the gods by doing the work that the gods are tired of doing. Turning again to KAR 4, "the corvée of the gods will be their corvée: They will fix the boundaries of the fields once and for all, and take in their hands hoes and baskets, to benefit the House of the great gods." The labor that had been required for the gods to meet their own needs was drudgery, so people were expected to fill that gap and work to meet those needs.
In Genesis, why is man created?
Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”
God created humankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them,
male and female he created them.
God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it! (Genesis 1:26-28a)
This is shocking and remarkable! Man is created to be like God (at least in some sense), to rule the earth, and to be fruitful and multiply. I will discuss each of these points in reverse order.
Be Fruitful and Multiply
According to Genesis, to marry and have children is integral to being human. Marriage is the very reason that God has made us male and female.
So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he was asleep, he took part of the man’s side and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the part he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. Then the man said,
“This one at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
this one will be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
That is why a man leaves his father and mother and unites with his wife, and they become one family. The man and his wife were both naked, but they were not ashamed. (Genesis 2:21-25)
To be clear, there are several New Testament verses that make clear that marriage is not a moral duty—one has not sinned for remaining single. However, sadly, this caveat has started acting like the exception that swallows the rule. The Apostle Paul, the one who spoke of marriage and singleness this way, did not suggest singleness as a mere alternative to marriage. Listen to the following verses from 1 Corinthians:
I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that everyone was as I am. But each has his own gift from God, one this way, another that.
To the unmarried and widows I say that it is best for them to remain as I am. But if they do not have self-control, let them get married. For it is better to marry than to burn with sexual desire. (1 Corinthians 7:6-9)
And I want you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the things of the world, how to please his wife, and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is concerned about the things of the Lord, to be holy both in body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the things of the world, how to please her husband. I am saying this for your benefit, not to place a limitation on you, but so that without distraction you may give notable and constant service to the Lord. (1 Corinthians 7:32-35)
He who is single can focus exclusively on ministry. This is a gift. This does not override the fact, “It is not good for the man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18)! I know that much more can be said about this topic and forgive me if I am painting with too broad a stroke, but the fact that marriage and childbearing is part of God’s plan for us is unmistakable in the Genesis narrative.
Rule the Earth
Our modern, egalitarian, environmentalist sensibilities are sure to be offended by the idea that we are to rule and subdue the earth. However, this idea is not as ominous as it sounds. As a website explains:
God’s command to subdue the earth and the animal life in it is a command to have the mastery over all of it. A true mastery (of anything) cannot be accomplished without an understanding of the thing mastered. In order for a musician to master the violin, he or she must truly understand the instrument. In order for mankind to attain mastery over the animal kingdom, we must understand the animals.
With the authority to rule comes the responsibility to rule well. There is an inherent accountability in the command to subdue the earth. Man has a duty to exercise his dominion under the authority of the One who delegated it. All authority is of God (Romans 13:1-5), and He delegates it to whomever He will (Daniel 4:17). The word subdue doesn’t have to imply violence or mistreatment. It can mean “to bring under cultivation.”
Man is to be the steward of the earth; he is to bring the material world and all of its varied elements into the service of God and the good of mankind. The command to subdue the earth is actually part of God’s blessing on mankind. Created in the image of God, Adam and Eve were to use the earth’s vast resources in the service of both God and themselves. It would only make sense for God to decree this, since only humans were created in God’s image.
The Imago Dei
We are made in the “image of God”—which in theology is often referred to by the Latin phrase imago Dei. What does that mean? I could spend an entire session of our study answering this question. Different theologians give different answers. But, because this is a primer in Genesis, I think that presenting the mainstream position is sufficient. Besides, and rather ironically, it is the mainstream position that is often most misunderstood. Fair warning though, I will go a little beyond the text in Genesis to discuss this topic.
What makes a person a person? Even Christians will answer with something like the ability to reason. That is not entirely wrong, but I am sure you can immediately think of examples that work as counterarguments. What about a human being that is in a comma? What about a fetus? What about someone who is asleep? Neither of these three humans can reason, so they are not persons. Taken to its logical conclusion, killing a human in their sleep is not murder. No person was killed.
So, what gives? Can we give a better explanation of the imago Dei? I think so. To be a person is to be a rational soul. To explain this further, I will quote extensively from a 2003 paper by Dennis Sullivan (emphases are my own):
Empirical functionalism is the view that human personhood may be defined by a set of functions or abilities. Such abilities must be present in actual, not potential form. The classical expression of this view is that of Joseph Fletcher who in 1972 outlined twenty criteria for human personhood. These included such hallmarks as minimum intelligence, self-awareness, a sense of time, and the capacity to relate to others (Fletcher, 1972). In response, Michael Tooley weighed in with the idea of self-awareness (1972), and McCormick with the concept of “relational potential,” based on the ability to interact socially with others (1974). Fletcher then decided, based on feedback from these and other writers, that the sine qua non for human personhood was neocortical functioning (Fletcher, 1974). Neocortical functions are those “higher brain” processes of the cerebral cortex necessary for active consciousness and volition. This should be contrasted with whole-brain functioning, which includes activities of the brainstem as well as the cortex.
…
Functionalists would extend the above argument to deny personhood to the unborn child, since she lacks rationality or self-awareness. However, by this criterion, one could argue that adults also lack self-awareness when asleep or under anesthesia, yet no one questions their personhood during such moments. One way to circumvent this objection is to use Tooley’s idea that only “continuing selves” have personhood, which includes both self-awareness and a sense of the future (Tooley, 1983). This would nonetheless deny personhood to the unborn and justify abortion on that basis.
Michael Tooley, and more recently, the Princeton philosophy professor Peter Singer, have both advocated the next logical step: infanticide (Veith, 1998). If the fetus has no right to personhood because it is not yet self-aware, then neither does the newborn: “Infanticide before the onset of self-awareness . . . cannot threaten anyone who is in a position to worry about it” (Singer, 1985, p. 138).
…
Ontological personalism states that all human beings are human persons. On this view, the intrinsic quality of personhood begins at conception and is present throughout life (O’Mathuna, 1996). Such individuals are not potential persons or “becoming” persons; they are persons by their very nature. There is no such thing as a potential person or a human non-person.
In order to understand this it will be helpful to reflect on the worldview assumptions that underlie both personhood views. Since the Enlightenment, society in general has been dominated by a high regard for science and the secular tradition of naturalism. Naturalism is the concept that only observable data has reality. A scientist who adheres to this view is free to have any metaphysical or philosophical opinion he would like, as long as it does not influence his practice. In other words, he need not hold to naturalism as a philosophy, but he must adhere to it in his methodology (Plantinga, 1997). However, the Christian scientific community should not be bound by the constraints of methodological naturalism. Herein lies the tension between the two ideas of personhood. The influence of naturalism has led secular science away from a reverence for life, replacing it with a reductionism that claims the human organism is no more than the sum of its chemical parts. The empirical functionalism idea of personhood is compatible with this view, which makes man simply a collection of parts and functions, or a property-thing. Put together enough chemical molecules in the right way, and you have a human being; put another set of parts together, and you have a 1957 Chrysler. Philosophically, it makes no difference.
Ontological personalism, on the other hand, is based on the premise that a human being is a substance. A substance is a distinct unity of essence that exists ontologically prior to any of its parts. This traditional concept dates back to Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. This view has been well summarized by the Christian philosopher J. P. Moreland (1995), and is discussed in great detail in the book Body and Soul (Moreland & Rae, 2000). For this review, I will focus on two implications of the idea of substance: the parts v. whole distinction, and continuity.
To expand on my earlier illustration of a classic automobile, consider a nicely restored 1957 Chrysler. Many of the original parts have rusted away and have been replaced, so that this vintage car is a collection of old and new. Although many will refer to it as the same car as when it was new, intuition tells us that this is not the case. In fact, as stated earlier, remove the wheels, the motor, the seats, and the body, and the result is no longer a 1957 Chrysler; it is not even a car. To go still further, imagine adding other parts to the original chassis, such that the result(God forbid) is a1972Volkswagen Beetle! There was no continuity of essence between the two vehicles; each is nothing more than a collection of parts (my apologies to VW lovers).
Try to do the same kind of thought experiment on a human being. Remove an arm or a leg from John Doe, and he remains a person, in fact, the same person. You can amputate all of John’s extremities and even remove many internal organs; as long as he remains alive, his substance will never change. You can even “add new parts,” by transplanting organs from other persons, yet John Doe will never become James Smith; his substance is not defined by his component parts. He will always remain the same person.
…
Naturalism has its greatest difficulty here. To hold to a property-thing view of persons is to deny the commonsense understanding of personal continuity, with a host of attendant problems for law and morality.
…
I might add that this view is also compatible with biblical teaching on the image of God. It allows us to explore the way human beings resemble the Divine (rationality, volition, social nature, etc.), while helping us to avoid the dangers of a strictly functional definition. On this view, the image of God is intrinsic to the nature of persons. Thus, Scripture teaches the value of man from the womb, whereas intuition and philosophy help us to affirm that such valuation begins at conception.
The philosophical idea of a human being as substance arises out of a broader philosophical principle, that of substance dualism. Substance dualism holds that there is an entity called a soul, and that the mind is a faculty of the soul. Body and soul (mind) are functionally holistic, which means that the two entities are deeply integrated and functionally interdependent. Yet they are ontologically separate, which means that the soul can exist independently of the body. This allows for a personal existence after death (Moreland & Rae, 2000). Another implication of this idea is that if personhood begins at conception, then that is when the soul originates as well.
The Original Plan Was Good but then…the FallAuthor Sandra Richter in The Epic of Eden describes God’s original intent by pointing out that the creation narrative is not complete in six days—there is a seventh day. On that day God rests. Creation is as intended so God may stop to rule overall. With that in mind, Richter concludes:
In sum, Genesis 1 tells us of God’s first, perfect plan—a flawlessly ordered world infused with balance and productivity. Here every rock, plant and animal had its own designated place within God’s design, a God-ordained space in which each could thrive, reproduce and serve the good of the whole. And we see from the structure of Genesis 1 that the force that held this peaceful and productive cohabitation in balance was Yahweh’s sovereignty over all. But as Day 6b makes clear, God chose to manage this creation through his representative ʾAdām. Thus humanity is given all authority to protect, maintain and develop God’s great gift under God’s ultimate authority. This is who Yahweh is, who humanity is and how both relate to the creation. And regardless of how you choose to harmonize science and Bible, this message is clearly part of the intent of Genesis 1. I would say it is the primary intent.
Then Richter makes the connection to the repeating theme of the entire book of Genesis: covenant.
You may have noticed that my description of Genesis 1 sounds a lot like the relationship between a vassal and his suzerain; a relationship in which the vassal is given full autonomy within the confines of his overlord’s authority. When this reading of Genesis 1 is wedded to Genesis 2, the profile of covenant becomes even clearer. Here the suzerain (Yahweh) offers his vassals (Adam and Eve) the land grant of Eden with the stipulation that humanity care for it and protect it.
Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate [ ʿābad] and keep it [šāmar]. (Gen 2:15)
In addition to this perfect place, Adam and Eve are given each other (Gen 2:18-25), and as is implied by Genesis 3:8, they are given full access to their loving Creator. The only corner of the garden which was not theirs to use and enjoy was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil:
From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die. (Gen 2:16-17)
In essence, Adam and Eve are free to do anything except decide for themselves what is good and what is evil. Yahweh reserves the right (and the responsibility) to name those truths himself. (Emphasis added)
This was Adam and Eve’s perfect world. Not just fruit and fig leaves, but an entire race of people stretching their cognitive and creative powers to the limit to build a society of balance and justice and joy. Here the sons of Adam and the daughters of Eve would learn life at the feet of the Father, build their city in the shadow of the Almighty, create and design and expand within the protective confines of his kingdom. The blessing of this gift? A civilization without greed, malice or envy; progress without pollution, expansion without extinction. Can you imagine it? . . . This was God’s perfect plan: the people of God in the place of God dwelling in the presence of God. Yet, as with all covenants, God’s perfect plan was dependent on the choice of the vassal. Humanity must willingly submit to the plan of God. The steward must choose this world; for in God’s perfect plan, the steward had been given the authority to reject it.
But then the fall came. And, surprisingly, then redemption came too.
God’s perfect plan (and humanity’s perfect world) was a matter of choice. Did ʾAdām want this world? Or one of their own making? The ones made in the image of God could not be forced or coerced, but instead were called upon to choose their sovereign. And choose they did. Whenever I think of this moment, the lyrics of Don Francisco’s old folk song echo in my mind: “And all their unborn children die as both of them bow down to Satan’s hand.”16 God’s original intent was sabotaged by humanity, stolen by the Enemy. ʾAdām rejected the covenant, and all the cosmos trembled. Genesis 2:17 makes it painfully clear what the consequences of such an insurrection would be: in that day, “you shall surely die.” But amazingly, mercifully, even though Yahweh had every right to wipe out our rebellious race, he chose another course—redemption. In a move that continues to confound me, God spared the lives of Adam and Eve (and their unborn children) by redirecting the fury of the curse toward another—the battered flesh of his own Son. This is the one the New Testament knows as “the last Adam” (Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45). And although the first Adam did not die, the second surely did. But we are getting ahead of ourselves.
Conclusion—A Personal NoteWhen I read Genesis, I am astounded. I am not attempting to be overly dramatic or sentimental, but Genesis is so true I can hardly believe it. It paints a picture I cannot deny: Nature is just that. Yet it is curiously intelligible. But it is not divine. The divine things, like goodness, seem to transcend nature but not be less real than it. If nothing else, goodness seems more real. Whereas nature could not exist, goodness seems necessary. Man seems to be like nature but also somewhat divine. Something about man is not like the animals or anything else. Man and nature seem beautiful, yet both seem broken. Is this not truly our experience?
Scripture Reading (for the next three weeks): Genesis 1:1-3:24
Last week I attempted to make three simple points:
(1) Simply assuming that a text should be read literally is not a “safer” approach than being open to figurative understandings—that is, that assumption runs the “risk” of forcing a wrong interpretation of the text.
(2) Texts that are meant to be understood non-literally can convey information—they are not so open to interpretation that they can mean anything at all. Even in cases when the message lacks specificity or clarity, the message still has a limited semantic range. Put simply, non-literal text can have meaning, be interpreted correctly, and be interpreted incorrectly.
(3) Finally, the early chapters of Genesis have been interpreted non-literally since the dawn of the church (and before). The accusation that only modern Christians, yielding to the pressure of modern science, have conveniently interpreted the text figuratively is simply false. To interpret the text non-literally is not a departure from established church (or Jewish) tradition.
All three points can be summarized as follows: genre is key to reading a text. Reading poetry like historiography or historiography as poetry is dangerous. Neither approach is likely to reach truth.
I am well aware that, so far, I have not offered a shred of evidence that the early chapters of Genesis should be read literally or otherwise. That has been intentional. All I have attempted to show is that considering a non-literal interpretation is not offensive in itself and foreclosing that interpretation a priori may force a reader to reach the wrong conclusions.
So, with all that in mind, the time has come to read the text.
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water. 3 God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light! 4 God saw that the light was good, so God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day.
6 God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters and let it separate water from water.” 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. It was so. 8 God called the expanse “sky.” There was evening, and there was morning, a second day.
9 God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place and let dry ground appear.” It was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” God saw that it was good.
11 God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: plants yielding seeds and trees on the land bearing fruit with seed in it, according to their kinds.” It was so. 12 The land produced vegetation—plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening, and there was morning, a third day.
14 God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs to indicate seasons and days and years, 15 and let them serve as lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” It was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to rule over the day and the lesser light to rule over the night. He made the stars also. 17 God placed the lights in the expanse of the sky to shine on the earth, 18 to preside over the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening, and there was morning, a fourth day.
20 God said, “Let the water swarm with swarms of living creatures and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” 21 God created the great sea creatures and every living and moving thing with which the water swarmed, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds multiply on the earth.” 23 There was evening, and there was morning, a fifth day.
24 God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: cattle, creeping things, and wild animals, each according to its kind.” It was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the cattle according to their kinds, and all the creatures that creep along the ground according to their kinds. God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”
27 God created humankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them,
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it! Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every creature that moves on the ground.” 29 Then God said, “I now give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the entire earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the animals of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has living breath in it—I give every green plant for food.” It was so.
31 God saw all that he had made—and it was very good! There was evening, and there was morning, the sixth day.
1 The heavens and the earth were completed with everything that was in them. 2 By the seventh day God finished the work that he had been doing, and he ceased on the seventh day all the work that he had been doing. 3 God blessed the seventh day and made it holy because on it he ceased all the work that he had been doing in creation.
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created—when the Lord God made the earth and heavens.
5 Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6 Springs would well up from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 7 The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
8 The Lord God planted an orchard in the east, in Eden; and there he placed the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow from the soil, every tree that was pleasing to look at and good for food. (Now the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were in the middle of the orchard.)
10 Now a river flows from Eden to water the orchard, and from there it divides into four headstreams. 11 The name of the first is Pishon; it runs through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is pure; pearls and lapis lazuli are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is Gihon; it runs through the entire land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is Tigris; it runs along the east side of Assyria. The fourth river is the Euphrates.
15 The Lord God took the man and placed him in the orchard in Eden to care for it and to maintain it. 16 Then the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard, 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die.”
18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a companion for him who corresponds to him.” 19 The Lord God formed out of the ground every living animal of the field and every bird of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man named all the animals, the birds of the air, and the living creatures of the field, but for Adam no companion who corresponded to him was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he was asleep, he took part of the man’s side and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the part he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said,
“This one at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
this one will be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and unites with his wife, and they become one family. 25 The man and his wife were both naked, but they were not ashamed.
1 Now the serpent was shrewder than any of the wild animals that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Is it really true that God said, ‘You must not eat from any tree of the orchard’?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit from the trees of the orchard; 3 but concerning the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the orchard God said, ‘You must not eat from it, and you must not touch it, or else you will die.’” 4 The serpent said to the woman, “Surely you will not die, 5 for God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will open and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
6 When the woman saw that the tree produced fruit that was good for food, was attractive to the eye, and was desirable for making one wise, she took some of its fruit and ate it. She also gave some of it to her husband who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them opened, and they knew they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God moving about in the orchard at the breezy time of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the orchard. 9 But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” 10 The man replied, “I heard you moving about in the orchard, and I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid.” 11 And the Lord God said, “Who told you that you were naked? Did you eat from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?” 12 The man said, “The woman whom you gave me, she gave me some fruit from the tree and I ate it.” 13 So the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” And the woman replied, “The serpent tricked me, and I ate.”
14 The Lord God said to the serpent,
“Because you have done this,
cursed are you above all the cattle
and all the living creatures of the field!
On your belly you will crawl
and dust you will eat all the days of your life.
15 And I will put hostility between you and the woman
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he will strike your head,
and you will strike his heel.”
16 To the woman he said,
“I will greatly increase your labor pains;
with pain you will give birth to children.
You will want to control your husband,
but he will dominate you.”
17 But to Adam he said,
“Because you obeyed your wife
and ate from the tree about which I commanded you,
‘You must not eat from it,’
the ground is cursed because of you;
in painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
but you will eat the grain of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat food
until you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust, and to dust you will return.”
20 The man named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all the living. 21 The Lord God made garments from skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them. 22 And the Lord God said, “Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, he must not be allowed to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God expelled him from the orchard in Eden to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken. 24 When he drove the man out, he placed on the eastern side of the orchard in Eden angelic sentries who used the flame of a whirling sword to guard the way to the tree of life.
Does Genesis Belong to the Literary Genre of Myth?We must face the million-dollar question: are there clues in the text of Genesis that would lead the reader to believe that it is not to be taken literally? Notice that the question focuses and begins with the text itself. The endeavor is to read the text the way it “wants” to be read. This interpretive exercise is not starting out with modern beliefs and reading the text the way a modern reader may want to read it.
However, before we start this conversation, I want to address why we are having this conversation at all. Spoiler alert—the ending of the story is this: when we focus on the potential concordance between science and Genesis we are asking the wrong questions. Not only will this result in wrong answers, it will keep us from asking the right questions! Ultimately, that is what I want. I want to take Genesis seriously—dead seriously. I believe in Genesis. I believe it is scripture. I believe it is true. My view of everything is shaped by it. So I am eager to discuss the truths that Genesis truly means to convey. An yes, I believe Genesis is historical just not historiography. It conveys real world truths in figurative language.
Ok, back to the myth discussion. (Most of the discussion in this week’s blog comes from William Lane Craig’s In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration. Sometimes the discussion is a summary of his work, sometimes it is a straight copy. I would certainly fail for plagiarism if this blog were a paper.)
Before You Stone Me—A Definition of MythThe word myth is nowadays used to refer to a false fact, statement, or story. If I told you that chewing bread while chopping an onion will prevent teary eyes, you might respond, “That’s just a myth.” If I were calling Genesis a myth in that sense—well, go ahead and stone me. It would be well deserved.
When I use the term myth in this discussion, I mean something else entirely. I am using the term as another element in the set containing poetry, epic, biography, and historiography. I am not using myth as a synonym for lie, fiction, wives’ tale, or falsity. Explained differently, I am using myth the way a folklorist would.
In the field of folklore, a myth is a sacred narrative explaining how the world and man came to be in their present form. Let’s break down this brief definition. First, a myth is a linguistic composition, either oral or literary. Second, it is a narrative; that is to say, it is a story, which involves characters and a plotline. Third, it is a sacred narrative—it has religious significance in the culture in which it is embraced. This implies that it will have something to do with a deity as one of its principal figures. Fourth, (and this is implied) it is a traditional narrative, one that is handed down over the generations, not a recent, free composition.
Myths are narratives that, in the society in which they are told, are considered to be truthful accounts of what happened in the remote past. They are to be believed and may be cited as authoritative. They are the embodiment of dogma and are often associated with theology and ritual. Their main characters are not usually human beings but deities, heroes, or animals, whose activities are set in an earlier age, when the earth was different than it is today, or in another realm such as the sky or underworld. Compare this to, for example, legends. Legends are similar to myths, but they take place in the current era, not in the remote past, and are not considered sacred. Compare myths also to folktales. Folktales are narratives that, in the society in which they are told, are regarded as fiction. The events they relate may or may not have happened. They are not to be taken seriously as dogma or history.
Finally, myths are often highly metaphorical rather than literal. Let’s focus on Ancient Near Eastern myths to provide evidence of this point. The first example we can examine is the Mesopotamian myth Enuma elish. As a scholar put it, “[n]o one but a lunatic . . . could ever arrive at the theory that [the earth and sky] were originally formed by splitting the body of a dragon in half.” We can be confident that no ancient Babylonian looking to the sky expected to see the desiccated flesh and bones of Tiamat overhead, nor did he expect to find the Tigris and Euphrates flowing out of Tiamat’s eye sockets. These are figurative images. The same could be said for Egyptians and their myths. In Egyptian mythology, for example, the sky could be depicted as the goddess Nut arched over the earth with hands and feet touching the ground. No Egyptian looking at the sky expected to see the body of a naked woman arched above him. Sadly, when we refer to ancient peoples as believing these things literally, it is us who do not understand and impose an overly literalistic interpretation of their myths.
So, are the early chapters of Genesis a myth? To determine what is a myth, one can look for certain elements that are shared by most myths (i.e., “family resemblances”). We can summarize these family resemblances as follows:
(1) Myths are narratives, whether oral or literary.
(2) Myths are traditional stories handed down from generation to generation.
(3) Myths are sacred for the society that embraces them.
(4) Myths are objects of belief by members of the society that embraces them.
(5) Myths are set in a primaeval age or another realm.
(6) Myths are stories in which deities are important characters.
(7) Myths seek to anchor present realities such as the world, mankind, natural phenomena, cultural practices, and the prevailing cult in a primordial time.
(8) Myths are associated with rituals.
(9) Myths express correspondences between the deities and nature.
(10) Myths exhibit fantastic elements and are not troubled by logical contradiction or incoherence.
By the way, these characteristics of myth come from folklorist, scholars who study myths of many different cultures and religions—not from biblical scholars. In other words, this is not an attempt to draft a definition of myth that will conveniently fit the Genesis account.
Application to Genesis 1-11Let us apply the list of elements above to the early chapters of Genesis and see if Genesis might belong to the genre of myth.
(1) Myths are narratives, whether oral or literary.
Not only the individual units of Genesis 1-11 work as narratives, but the first 11 chapters as a whole constitute a narrative as well. These chapters tell the story of primaeval events in roughly chronological succession. For example, the fall of mankind occurred after the creation of mankind, the flood occurred after the fall, and the confusion of languages at the Tower of Babel occurred after the flood.
(2) Myths are traditional stories handed down from generation to generation.
Genesis 1-11 is universally recognized as comprising traditional stories. That is to say, the author of Genesis (traditionally held to be Moses), wrote down the traditions passed down to him. Most scholars adopt what is termed the “documentary hypothesis,” which explores the potential sources upon which the Genesis author relied.
(3) Myths are sacred for the society that embraces them.
Again, there is universal agreement that the narratives of Genesis 1-11 are sacred for Israelite society. Not only do these stories tell the acts of the God of creation, but more particularly they tell the acts of Israel’s covenantal God, Yahweh. Sabbath observance and animal sacrifice, so central to Israel’s cult, are already grounded in the early chapters of Genesis. Moreover, Genesis 1-11 provides the prehistory and foundation for Yahweh’s call of Abraham to establish the nation of Israel in order to achieve the blessing of all mankind that was forfeited by Adam and Eve.
(4) Myths are objects of belief by members of the society that embraces them.
We see this fact clearly when later passages in the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) reaffirm statements in the primaeval narrative. For example, in Exodus 20:8-11 we have a recapitulation of the creation week: “Remember the Sabbath day to set it apart as holy. For six days you may labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; on it you shall not do any work, . . . . For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, and he rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.”
(5) Myths are set in a primaeval age or another realm.
The stories of Gen 1-11 are set in a primaeval age. The primaeval age in Genesis runs right back to God’s creation of the world “in the beginning” (Gen 1:1). Moreover, the Genesis account narrates the creation of humankind as well as of plant and animal life. The origin of civilization and several of its inventions, such as metallurgy and music, are related. The origin of the world’s languages is described. The period described is thus truly the primal age of mankind and the world.
(6) Myths are stories in which deities are important characters.
This element is controversial, but not for the reason you might think. Many folklorist do not consider the Genesis account to be myth because it does not involve many gods. In their view, monotheism is antithetical to myth. This seems to be a mistake, however. There is no reason that a monotheistic society could not use the genre of myth.
(7) Myths seek to anchor present realities such as the world, mankind, natural phenomena, cultural practices, and the prevailing cult in a primordial time.
This is the very heart of myth. In grounding present realities in the primordial past, the narrative functions to establish Israel’s worldview. Notice, it does not ground the founding of Israel as a nation, at least not merely that. More fundamentally, the Genesis myth is universal in that it explains the origin of the world, the origin of humanity, and natural phenomena. All three of these ideas will be explored later.
(8) Myths are associated with rituals.
The narratives of Gen 1-11 do not seem to be associated with rituals, despite the motif of animal sacrifice. But inclusion of this eighth family resemblance probably reflects the influence of the so-called myth and ritual school, which is now widely rejected. While some myths have ritual associations, such a connection is missing from many myths.
(9) Myths express correspondences between the deities and nature.
The primaeval narratives of Genesis likewise do not express correspondences between deities and nature. But the absence of such correspondences from Genesis 1-11 is due to Israel’s monotheism, in contrast to the polytheism of its neighbors.
(10) Myths exhibit fantastic elements and are not troubled by logical contradiction or incoherence.
Does the Genesis narrative exhibit fantastic elements? Is it untroubled by logical contradiction or incoherence? It seems that on both counts the primaeval narrative shares this family resemblance of myths, even if to several orders of magnitude less in comparison to Ancient Near Eastern polytheistic myths.
(a) Anthropomorphisms. Despite God’s transcendence so dramatically declared in Genesis 1, God is portrayed in the story of man’s creation in Genesis 2 as a humanoid deity worthy of polytheistic myths, as he forms man from the dirt and breathes the breath of life into his nostrils. The same is true of the story of the fall in Genesis 3, where God strolls in the cool of the day and searches for the man and woman hiding among the trees. One must wonder whether the author meant these anthropomorphic descriptions of God to be just part of the storyteller’s art or serious theology.
(b) Narrative Inconsistencies. The author of Genesis seems untroubled by the apparent inconsistencies that occur in his narratives. It would have been easy for him to bring the account of the creation of man in Genesis 2 into accord with Genesis 1, rather than leave the apparent inconsistencies concerning the order of creation of man, the vegetation, and the animals. In Genesis 1, vegetation is created in the third day (Genesis 1:11-13):
God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: plants yielding seeds and trees on the land bearing fruit with seed in it, according to their kinds.” It was so. 12 The land produced vegetation—plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. God saw that it was good. There was evening, and there was morning, a third day.
Also, in Genesis 1 man is created after vegetation.
Man is not made until the sixth day (see Genesis 1:28-30).
However, in Genesis 2 we read the following (Genesis 2:5-7):
Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. Springs would well up from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
(c) Fantastic Elements. Before we can determine whether Genesis contains fantastic elements, we must explain that term. Miracles and fantastic elements are not the same. I believe in miracles! Fantastic means events that are so extraordinary or odd that, on their face, seem palpably false to the audience. I am not saying these events seem palpably false to us in light of increased knowledge of the world. Fantastic means palpably false to the original audience. Put another way, these are elements that both the original author and original audience understand to be figurative. Allow me to provide modern examples. If I told you I was diagnosed with cancer but after my church prayed for me I received a healthy diagnosis, I have not narrated a “fantastic element.” I have narrated a miracle which, even if you disbelieve it, you and I both understand that I mean for you to believe it. On the other hand, imagine that before you announce your wife’s pregnancy I somehow find out, and when you ask me how I learned of it, I respond, “A little birdy told me.” That is much closer to a fantastic element. Both you and I, the speaker and the audience, understand that the statement is too odd to be taken as anything other than a literary device.
So, are there fantastic elements in Genesis? I think so. The best example is the snake. The snake may very well represent Satan, but notice the actual description in the text, “Now the serpent was shrewder than any of the wild animals that the Lord God had made.” In the story, the snake is a snake—just a snake. And no one is surprised by the talking snake! And the implication that the snake is shrewder than other animal is that other animals are like the snake (presumably they can also speak), just a little less clever. In fact, an ancient Jewish interpretation explains the reference to the serpent precisely in this literal manner, attributing the capacity to speak to all the animals in the orchard (Jubilee 3:28).
Other great examples of fantastical elements are the trees of life and of knowledge of good and evil. Notice that in regard to the effect of eating the fruits of these trees there is no hint of miraculous action on God’s part. The trees seem to be “magical.” God does not bestow eternal life if one eats from the tree of life. The tree does it. Man could event subvert God’s punishment if he could simply get his hands on that fruit. “And the Lord God said, ‘Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, he must not be allowed to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever’” (Genesis 3:22).
Conclusion and CliffhangerOk, there’s my abbreviated argument that the early chapters of Genesis are myth. Now, allow me to return to the definition of myth and the entire reason I am spending time on this topic: Myths are narratives that, in the society in which they are told, are considered to be truthful accounts of what happened in the remote past. They are to be believed and may be cited as authoritative. Sure, the fact that they are truthful does not mean that they are literal—but they are truthful! So, what are these truths that story conveys? We won’t have time to explore this until next week, but let me give you a brief taste of what is to come:
Themes and Etiology
(1) Origin of the World. Genesis 1 is obviously an etiological account of the origin of the world through God’s creative activity. As such it is spectacularly different from the cosmic etiologies of Israel’s neighbors. In contrast to Babylonian and Egyptian myths, there is neither theogony nor theomachy in Genesis; rather, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen 1:1). All of physical reality is brought into being by an unoriginate and transcendent Deity.
(2) Origin of Humanity. In Genesis 2 we have an etiological account of the origin of humanity that supplements the brief notice of mankind’s creation in 1:26–27. In other myths in the Ancient Near East, humans are often treated as later creations of the gods for the purpose of relieving the minor deities of backbreaking labor. For example, in the Atrahasis Epic the minor deities are said to have labored for thousands of years before finally rebelling against their overseers, necessitating the creation of man to take over their labors.
Scholars have often asked why the Pentateuch does not begin with the call of Abraham and the founding of Israel in Genesis 12. Commentators seem widely agreed that the reason the author prefixes the prehistory to the patriarchal narratives is his universalizing interest. He wants to show that God’s original plan was to bless all mankind and that this aim still remains ultimately in mind through the election of Israel, which is now God’s means of fulfilling his original intent. Moreover, Ancient Near East myths share an etiological interest in telling how mankind in general came to exist. For example, as cited above, in the Atrahasis Epic, in response to protests and rebellion of the lesser gods over their burdensome labors, the mother goddess decides to create man to take over the labor for them. Humans were created basically as slave labor for the gods. Such stories seek to answer the question of human origins in general. When read against this backdrop, Genesis 2 is seen to share a similar etiological interest—but with a very different answer!
Finally, etiology comes explicitly to the fore in the closing comment on the story, “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed” (Gen 2:24–25). The man and the woman are now man and wife. Marriage is thus God’s plan for man and woman and is grounded in the primordial creation of man and of woman as his helper. The marriage relationship is taken to be the proper sphere for human sexual activity. This etiological note confirms that the author takes his story to be universal in scope, for marriage is not plausibly taken to be merely God’s special provision for this specially created couple but his intention for all humanity.
(3) Natural Phenomena. Etiological motifs concerning natural phenomena are also evident in Genesis 1-11. Such motifs are especially obvious in the account in Genesis 3 of the primordial couple’s disobedience to God as a result of their seduction by the serpent. In the punishments pronounced by God on the serpent, the man, and the woman, etiological motifs abound. For example, the toil of farming is attributed to the fact that the land is cursed because of the man’s disobedience. Thus, natural phenomena with which later Israelites would have been all too familiar are explained in terms of our primordial parents’ fall into sin.
Next week I want to explain these ideas further. I hope you give me the chance.
Scripture Reading (for the next three weeks): Genesis 1:1-3:24
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water. 3 God said, “Let there be light.” And there was light! 4 God saw that the light was good, so God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day.
6 God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters and let it separate water from water.” 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. It was so. 8 God called the expanse “sky.” There was evening, and there was morning, a second day.
9 God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place and let dry ground appear.” It was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” God saw that it was good.
11 God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: plants yielding seeds and trees on the land bearing fruit with seed in it, according to their kinds.” It was so. 12 The land produced vegetation—plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening, and there was morning, a third day.
14 God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs to indicate seasons and days and years, 15 and let them serve as lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” It was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to rule over the day and the lesser light to rule over the night. He made the stars also. 17 God placed the lights in the expanse of the sky to shine on the earth, 18 to preside over the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening, and there was morning, a fourth day.
20 God said, “Let the water swarm with swarms of living creatures and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” 21 God created the great sea creatures and every living and moving thing with which the water swarmed, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds multiply on the earth.” 23 There was evening, and there was morning, a fifth day.
24 God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: cattle, creeping things, and wild animals, each according to its kind.” It was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the cattle according to their kinds, and all the creatures that creep along the ground according to their kinds. God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”
27 God created humankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them,
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it! Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every creature that moves on the ground.” 29 Then God said, “I now give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the entire earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the animals of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has living breath in it—I give every green plant for food.” It was so.
31 God saw all that he had made—and it was very good! There was evening, and there was morning, the sixth day.
1 The heavens and the earth were completed with everything that was in them. 2 By the seventh day God finished the work that he had been doing, and he ceased on the seventh day all the work that he had been doing. 3 God blessed the seventh day and made it holy because on it he ceased all the work that he had been doing in creation.
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created—when the Lord God made the earth and heavens.
5 Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6 Springs would well up from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 7 The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
8 The Lord God planted an orchard in the east, in Eden; and there he placed the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow from the soil, every tree that was pleasing to look at and good for food. (Now the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were in the middle of the orchard.)
10 Now a river flows from Eden to water the orchard, and from there it divides into four headstreams. 11 The name of the first is Pishon; it runs through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is pure; pearls and lapis lazuli are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is Gihon; it runs through the entire land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is Tigris; it runs along the east side of Assyria. The fourth river is the Euphrates.
15 The Lord God took the man and placed him in the orchard in Eden to care for it and to maintain it. 16 Then the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard, 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die.”
18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a companion for him who corresponds to him.” 19 The Lord God formed out of the ground every living animal of the field and every bird of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man named all the animals, the birds of the air, and the living creatures of the field, but for Adam no companion who corresponded to him was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he was asleep, he took part of the man’s side and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the part he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said,
“This one at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
this one will be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and unites with his wife, and they become one family. 25 The man and his wife were both naked, but they were not ashamed.
1 Now the serpent was shrewder than any of the wild animals that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Is it really true that God said, ‘You must not eat from any tree of the orchard’?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit from the trees of the orchard; 3 but concerning the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the orchard God said, ‘You must not eat from it, and you must not touch it, or else you will die.’” 4 The serpent said to the woman, “Surely you will not die, 5 for God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will open and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
6 When the woman saw that the tree produced fruit that was good for food, was attractive to the eye, and was desirable for making one wise, she took some of its fruit and ate it. She also gave some of it to her husband who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them opened, and they knew they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God moving about in the orchard at the breezy time of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the orchard. 9 But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” 10 The man replied, “I heard you moving about in the orchard, and I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid.” 11 And the Lord God said, “Who told you that you were naked? Did you eat from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?” 12 The man said, “The woman whom you gave me, she gave me some fruit from the tree and I ate it.” 13 So the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” And the woman replied, “The serpent tricked me, and I ate.”
14 The Lord God said to the serpent,
“Because you have done this,
cursed are you above all the cattle
and all the living creatures of the field!
On your belly you will crawl
and dust you will eat all the days of your life.
15 And I will put hostility between you and the woman
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he will strike your head,
and you will strike his heel.”
16 To the woman he said,
“I will greatly increase your labor pains;
with pain you will give birth to children.
You will want to control your husband,
but he will dominate you.”
17 But to Adam he said,
“Because you obeyed your wife
and ate from the tree about which I commanded you,
‘You must not eat from it,’
the ground is cursed because of you;
in painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
but you will eat the grain of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat food
until you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust, and to dust you will return.”
20 The man named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all the living. 21 The Lord God made garments from skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them. 22 And the Lord God said, “Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, he must not be allowed to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God expelled him from the orchard in Eden to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken. 24 When he drove the man out, he placed on the eastern side of the orchard in Eden angelic sentries who used the flame of a whirling sword to guard the way to the tree of life.
Introduction to the Bible StudyWelcomeWelcome to “season 2” of the Bible study. The fact that we got through an entire book of the Bible, went on break, and are now starting a new book certainly has that “season” feel to it. I’ll use that terminology of seasons, but please know that I do so only tongue-in-cheek. This study is not a show or even a podcast—it is meant to be a group of people getting together to study the Bible in an interactive forum. Sure, “episodes” are published as a podcast for anyone who would like to listen afterward, but my main interest is the community. There is enough Christian content being produced for general audience consumption (which is great!); that is not my goal here. So, if you are a new participant, I am glad you are here. If you are a returning participant, I am glad you are here.
I would like to begin this second season with some introductory remarks. Inevitably, some of these comments will sound redundant to returning Bible study veterans, but I hope they will bear with me for just a minute. I think that clarifying the scope of an engagement goes a long way in setting the right expectations, avoiding misunderstandings, and ultimately preventing disappointment and conflict. So, with that in mind:
(1) Who I Am. I’m just a guy. I’m a fan of Matt and Blonde’s show, and I feel extremely privileged to get to lead this Bible study. Professionally, I am an accountant and an attorney. I also have a degree in math. More importantly, I have been a Christian for a couple of decades. I went from outspoken atheist to committed Christian. Ever since, I have spent much of my time studying the Bible, theology, church history, and so forth. My hope is to think just as rigorously and precisely about my faith and the Bible as I do about matters in my profession.
(2) What I Hope to Do. Here are the characteristics and goals of this study:
a. Scholarship Based. I honestly attempt to base what I teach in solid scholarship. I read scholarly sources and check their citations. I try to say only what I know to be supported by scholarship and no more. I am sure I will fail at times, but luckily there are many brilliant participants who can set the record straight when I make a mistake.
b. Nondenominational. I try to remain “nondenominational.” When different Christian traditions offer different interpretations of a passage, I try to present those options and let the participants decide. I worry that the longer we do this study, the more my theological leanings will become obvious. To the extent that outcome is unavoidable, I will try to remain respectful of other theological bents.
c. Christian. I believe the Bible is inspired by God and is reliable. I take the facts presented in it to be true facts. If you are a skeptic, you are still very much welcome in this study. You are also more than welcome to add the word “allegedly” before any claim made in the Bible. Feel free to push back on anything I say. All that notwithstanding, I will present the text of the Bible as true.
(3) What I Hope We Do. I teach for about the first 45 minutes of each session, and then it is open to questions and comments. Feel free to say whatever you think is appropriate. I only ask that you wait your turn and respect everyone’s time.
(4) A Quick Note on Bible Translations. For this study, I will use the NET (New English Translation). It was originally published in 2005; it was composed by a committee of 25 scholars; and, it was meant to be a free online English translation of the Bible. As far as I know, this translation does not have a theological bias (i.e., reformed, Catholic, modern, etc.). I particularly enjoy it because of the thousands of translators’ notes that are provided along with the English text. However, feel free to use whichever translation you prefer. If you want my advice on Bible translations, I discussed translations at length during an early episode of season 1. Long story short, ideally do not use a paraphrase like The Message, a “modified” Bible like The Passion (the quote-on-quote translator claimed to receive additional divine revelation that impacted his rendering of the English text), and choose a Bible that you can understand. Different translations use different levels of language (i.e., 8th grade level, college level, etc.). There is no shame in reading at your level. In fact, the NIV uses 8th grade English level, and I really like it. I guess my low I.Q. is showing.
Season 2: Three Weeks(ish) in Genesis then ActsWhen we finished the first season, we asked the participants which book they wanted to study next. Nearly every response was in favor of studying Exodus or Acts. Since the votes were about equally split, the choice came down to me. I selected Acts for a couple of reasons. Chronologically, it comes right after John. So, studying Acts will feel like a continuation of our last study. Also, Acts was written in Greek, and it takes place in the more familiar Greco-Roman world. Exodus was written in Hebrew, and its action takes place in the much more foreign Ancient Near-East. For most people, myself included, studying Acts is a bit simpler. (However, I am not opposed to studying Exodus in the future. I do hope we have that opportunity.)
Then why are we taking a few weeks to talk about Genesis? I have two main reasons:
(1) One of the Biggest Objections. Think of the objections that skeptics level against Christianity. Nearly at the top of the list, if not truly chief among them, is the claim that believing in Christianity requires a rejection of modern science. At its worst, the accusation says that to be Christian entails believing that the universe is 6,000 years old, and one must disregard evolution, astrophysics, geology, linguistics, and history. I want to address this objection head on, and that inevitably involves a discussion of Genesis.
(2) A Christian Worldview. The first few chapters of Genesis, regardless of whether they are taken literally or figuratively, establish key beliefs of the Christian worldview. Before we get deeper into studying the expansion of the church and nuanced doctrinal issues (i.e., Acts), I think we should stop and discuss those more fundamental points first.
(Important clarification: From here on out, when I write about Genesis, I am referring to the first few chapters of it—particularly the first eleven often just to the first three. I did not want to type “the early chapters of Genesis” every time. Everyone agrees that after chapter 11, Genesis is intended as history, so the following discussion would clearly not apply to the entire book or those later chapters.)
So, what will our study of Genesis look like? Well, it won’t really be a study. It will be more of a primer that hopefully presents some exciting possibilities. That’s the key: possibilities. I am not interested in convincing everyone to believe exactly like me. However, I want to give a good-faith, well intentioned “spoiler alert.” Many Christians are deeply committed to a literal interpretation of Genesis. I intend to present a competing alternative, and I know that will be controversial and perhaps even offensive. I respect that. If you do not wish to hear it, that is no problem at all. Simply skip the first few weeks of this study and come back when we are discussing Acts. You can also stay and disagree with me the whole time—totally fine.
Ok, ok, let’s be practical. Here’s the plan to tackle the two goals described above:
Genesis: Literal or Not and Its Interaction with Modern Science
(1) Read chapters 1, 2, and 3 of Genesis.
(2) Discuss some important literary concepts, particularly (a) what it means to read a text “literally” and whether it is more “conservative” to do so, (b) the importance of literary genre, and (c) how these concepts apply to Genesis (and any other text).
(3) Discuss whether a non-literal reading of the first few chapters of Genesis is plausible based on the text itself (not on modern science).
(4) Discuss the interaction between Christianity and science given the different interpretations of Genesis.
Genesis: What It Says About God, Us, and the World
(1) Recall chapters 1, 2, and 3 of Genesis.
(2) Discuss features of God.
(3) Discuss features of creation.
(4) Discuss features of man.
(5) Discuss the effect of sin and the Fall.
I hope we can get through all that material in the next two weeks, but it might take an additional week. After that, we will start covering Acts verse by verse. I intend to delve heavily into the cultural and historical context of the text. For that purpose, I have been reading Craig Keener’s obscenely lengthy, four-volume commentary on Acts.
Questions? Comments?Since this is the introductory session to season 2 of the Bible study, I want to stop for questions and comments before we proceed. If questions and comments run out with time remaining, I have prepared additional material.
If Time Allows… Otherwise I Will Move this Content to the Next SessionSince I want to present a nonliteral interpretation of Genesis, I will begin the discussion by addressing some of the concerns that are sure to come up. My hope is that by addressing these concerns at the start, I will bring the “temperature down.” The debate on Genesis can get quite fiery, after all.
The More Conservative Way to Read a TextConservative: Minimizing Risk
Is reading a text literally generally (or always) the most conservative approach to interpreting that text? First, I need to define my terms. What do I mean by conservative? Conservative can mean different things in different contexts. In politics, it generally means the position held by those right of political center. In scholarly disciplines, conservative can take at least two meanings. It can mean the traditional (i.e., the historical) position or the one held by the most scholars.
As I using the term conservative in this discussion, I am not referring to any of the denotations above. There is another possible meaning for conservative, which we use in daily life and in disciplines such as accounting and law. Conservative refers to the attitude, interpretation, or action that minimizes risk. Imagine that you are planning a backpacking trip in a dry area. You need to pack your drinking water. You think that you will need 4 gallons of water. However, you may choose to be conservative and pack an additional gallon. Or, imagine that you are preparing your tax return. You are wondering whether you should deduct a certain travel expense. Since you are not sure whether the deduction would hold up in case of an audit, you choose to be conservative and not deduct it.
With that definition of conservative in mind, is reading a text literally rather figuratively a more conservative approach? That is, does reading a text literally minimize the risk of misinterpreting a text? My contention is that the answer is no.
Consider the well-known expression: “I love you to the moon and back.” (Apparently this expression originated with Tom Topor’s 1979 play Nuts. It grew in popularity in the 90s and 2000s.)
Let us interpret this expression literally and consider the outcome. Literally, there are two ways to interpret it. The first would be that I will love you only throughout the duration of a trip to the moon and return to earth. Although not logically entailed in the statement, if I am specifying that I will love you specifically during the voyage, one could infer that I will not love you before or after.
The other literal interpretation is that love can be measured similarly to distance. At first glance, this would mean that I love you extensively since the distance from Earth to the moon (and back) is extensive. But notice that the distance from Earth to the moon is infinitesimal compared to other distances within our solar system, not to mention our galaxy or the whole universe. Really what I am saying is that I love you a nearly incomprehensibly small amount in comparison to the vastness of true love.
Of course, we know that the two literal interpretations are wrong. Moreover, those interpretations reach nearly antithetical conclusions to what the expression “love you to the moon and back” is attempting to convey, which is the vastness of the affection felt by one person towards another. What this example is meant to show is that assuming a text should be read literally is not conservative—it does not minimize or eliminate the risk of misinterpretation. Proper interpretation of a text requires that one considers the genre of the text.
If It’s Not Literal then It Doesn’t Mean AnythingI think a concern that Christians often have regarding the possibility of reading Genesis non-literally is that doing so neuters the text—it renders the text meaningless. Perhaps the argument is that the text would no longer have any meaning because non-literal texts are subject to so many different interpretations that one can no longer be certain of any one of them.
Again, I think we can dispel this concern with some examples. Notice that the expression “I love you to the moon and back,” although non-literal, clearly means something different to, “My love for you is like a flame that has gone out.” Even if both expression have semantic ranges, those ranges do not overlap. They convey distinctly different ideas—and they both do so non-literally.
Let’s use a more sophisticated example. One of the most popular English poems is Robert Frost’s “The Road Not Taken,” written in 1915. Ironically, this is also one of the most misinterpreted English poems.
Before we read it, try to recall what the poem is about. I bet you thought the poem was called something like “The Path Less Traveled,” and the point of it is that taking a harder, lonelier path leads to better, more fulfilling outcomes in life.
Now consider the actual text of the poem.
The Road Not Taken by Robert Frost
Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;
Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
What is the poem saying? First, let’s begin with the title (one of the most important contextual clues when interpreting poetry). The poem is about “the road not taken.” Notice, it is not about the road actually taken—the one less traveled. It is about the other road.
The first stanza tells us that the traveler runs into an intersection, and he was sorry he could not travel both paths. The second stanza tells us that as far as the traveler could see, both paths seemed about the same. (One of the paths does not seem more adventurous than the other!)
Then, in the third stanza, the author copes with his choice of selecting one path by lying to himself. He tells himself that one day he will return and traverse the road not taken, but he knows that is not true. He will probably never come back.
The last stanza, the one everyone remembers, tells us how that lie will grow in time. The traveler will deal with the pain of never knowing what the “the road not taken” was like by telling himself and others that surely he chose the boldest path and it made all the difference—something he could not possibly know since both paths looked nearly identical (“worn . . . about the same”), and his whole regret is not knowing the outcome of taking the other path.
What’s the point of this exercise? Notice that poetry is a genre of literature that is not meant to be interpreted literally, unlike historiography or technical writings, yet it has a discernible meaning. And people can get that meaning wrong! Robert Frost’s poem is not about the positive outcomes from following the “path less traveled” but about the regret of not being able to take all paths in life.
Similarly, if we interpret Genesis figuratively, we are not rendering the text meaningless. It can still have a correct interpretation and, by extension, incorrect interpretations. A nonliteral interpretation means that the way the text coveys its message is not direct, not that it has no message.
Conservative in Other Ways?There is one last roadblock I wish to remove before we get into the text. Oftentimes Christians will claim that a literal interpretation of Genesis is the conservative interpretation in the sense that it is the historical interpretation of the text. The claim may also add that the only reason we (modern Christians) are attempting to re-interpret the text is because of our desire to accommodate modern science. We are straying from Christianity’s historical beliefs, and we are compromising our view of scripture—is the accusation.
So, is a literal interpretation of Genesis a more conservative interpretation given that meaning of the word conservative? Put another way, is it true that a literal interpretation of Genesis is the traditional interpretation of the church? Has the church held to a literal interpretation as a crucial matter of faith? Surprisingly, the answer is no. To make my point I will give one example, although many could be provided.
Short of Jesus and the Apostle Paul, no one person has had a bigger impact in the western church than Augustine of Hippo. He lived in the late 300s and early 400s—centuries before the advent of modern science. Did he—literally the patron saint of theologians (according to some traditions)—take Genesis literally? No. Augustine wrote extensively on the book of Genesis (five commentaries!) and after thinking long and hard about the early chapters, he admitted that understanding what the writer of Genesis meant by days is a hard thing. This is already instructive. An early church father, reading nothing but the text without pressure from modern science, could already see that the text does not seem straightforward.
Augustine concluded that God created all that exists in an instant. Therefore, the days in Genesis are not (and cannot be) literal. The days are an accommodation to human understanding. They are like a metaphor. They put creation in terms of a human work week so people can understand it.
Why would Augustine conclude such a thing? For many reasons, but chiefly among those are three peculiarities in the text. First, light appears in day one but the luminaries (e.g., the sun, moon, and stars) are not created until day four. Second, the dischronology between chapter 1 and chapter 2:4-6. In chapter 1, vegetation is created early on. In chapter 2, there is still no vegetation. Finally, the idea of God literally resting. Augustine argued that God cannot grow weary (there are verses in the Bible that explicitly state this) so the idea that God would literally rest, if taken literally, is nonsensical. The language must be figurative, he concluded.
Other church fathers, such as Clement (c. 35-99), Origen (c. 185-254), Didymus (c. 313-398) and Athanasius (c. 296-373), also understood the Genesis creation story as non-literal to different extents.
The point I am making is simple: to claim that to interpret the early of chapters of Genesis non-literally is an unprecedent deviation from the church’s historical interpretation of those chapters is simply not true. Of course, this says nothing of which interpretation is correct. The point is merely that non-literal interpretations of Genesis are not heterodox per se.
There is a related conclusion that one can draw from Augustine and the other church fathers. They were not influenced by modern science. They came to their conclusions by simple observation of the world and from the text itself. So, the accusation that modern Christians are reinterpreting Genesis merely because of their concordist desires (between modern science and the Bible) loses much of its bite.
Scripture Reading: John 21:9-25
9 When they got out on the beach, they saw a charcoal fire ready with a fish placed on it, and bread. 10 Jesus said, “Bring some of the fish you have just now caught.” 11 So Simon Peter went aboard and pulled the net to shore. It was full of large fish, 153, but although there were so many, the net was not torn. 12 “Come, have breakfast,” Jesus said. But none of the disciples dared to ask him, “Who are you?” because they knew it was the Lord. 13 Jesus came and took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish. 14 This was now the third time Jesus was revealed to the disciples after he was raised from the dead.
15 Then when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these do?” He replied, “Yes, Lord, you know I love you.” Jesus told him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 Jesus said a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He replied, “Yes, Lord, you know I love you.” Jesus told him, “Shepherd my sheep.” 17 Jesus said a third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that Jesus asked him a third time, “Do you love me?” and said, “Lord, you know everything. You know that I love you.” Jesus replied, “Feed my sheep. 18 I tell you the solemn truth, when you were young, you tied your clothes around you and went wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and others will tie you up and bring you where you do not want to go.” 19 (Now Jesus said this to indicate clearly by what kind of death Peter was going to glorify God.) After he said this, Jesus told Peter, “Follow me.”
20 Peter turned around and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them. (This was the disciple who had leaned back against Jesus’ chest at the meal and asked, “Lord, who is the one who is going to betray you?”) 21 So when Peter saw him, he asked Jesus, “Lord, what about him?” 22 Jesus replied, “If I want him to live until I come back, what concern is that of yours? You follow me!” 23 So the saying circulated among the brothers and sisters that this disciple was not going to die. But Jesus did not say to him that he was not going to die, but rather, “If I want him to live until I come back, what concern is that of yours?”
24 This is the disciple who testifies about these things and has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true. 25 There are many other things that Jesus did. If every one of them were written down, I suppose the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
Main Themes[The blog is unfinished. This is an incomplete draft.]
Jesus at the ShoreJesus Already Has Fire, Fish, and BreadWhen Peter finally arrives to meet Jesus, Jesus has a fire ready, fish is cooking, and there is bread to go with it. It paints a picture of a self-sufficient Jesus. Jesus does not need anything from the disciples. Instead, Jesus makes an invitation: “Bring some of the fish you have just now caught”—the fish Jesus effectively gave to them—and “come, have breakfast.”
As a quick historical sidenote, the apostles were probably very much looking forward to having breakfast (aristēsate, the morning meal). Wealthy Romans would eat three meals a day. Most everyone else ate two meals a day. Some ate the morning meal at dawn and some closer to midday. After a long night of work, the apostles were surely ready to eat and rest.
The Abundant Catch, the Stronger NetWhen Jesus invites Peter to bring some of the catch, we are given two important details. The net was full (including some large fish), yet the net was not torn. There is a double image of abundance. The fish are many. If the fish symbolize people, then multitudes will come to Jesus. But even more beautifully, not a single fish is one too many. The net can hold all of them without problem. The Kingdom of God is sufficiently vast—it can handle the abundance of all who will come.
Now this is the will of the one who sent me—that I should not lose one person of every one he has given me, but raise them all up at the last day. (John 6:39)
153The number of fish caught amounted to 153. As you are probably familiar, there are few things that will cause more wild speculation than numbers in the Bible. This is no exception. Many people have applied the hermeneutical technique known as gematria to assign meaning to this number. Gematria is “the practice of assigning a numerical value to a name, word or phrase according to an alphanumerical cipher.” (Forgive me, this is one of the few times I have quoted Wikipedia.) For example, some suggest that the numerical value of the Hebrew expression for “children of God” is 153. Others use gematria to assign the numerical value to the fishing villages in Ezekiel 47:10. Others suggest even more remote possibilities like “Nathaniel gamma” or “alpha Mary.”
Would John expect his readers to decipher the secret code behind the number 153? Obviously not. There is probably no secret code to be deciphered. It is the number of fish—a very large number that stresses the abundance of the fish and the historicity of the account. It also emphasizes the nearly miraculous fact that the net did not tear.
Peter the ServantNotice that Peter was eager to reach and serve Jesus. As we discussed last time, he jumps from the boat and swims to shore, getting his clothes soaking wet. Then, when Jesus tells Peter to bring some of the catch, Peter immediately runs back to the boat and “pull[s] the net to shore.” (Not that this is the point of the passage, but Peter’s ability to pull a full net to land suggests considerable physical strength.)
The Third AppearanceJohn tells us this was the third appearance of Jesus to the disciples. One cannot be confident regarding exactly how John is counting, since Jesus appears to different disciples (particularly if the women are counted) more than three times. The context of chapter 20 suggests that John may be accounting for the appearance to the apostles when Thomas was not present, the appearance to the apostles when Thomas was present, and then this one.
Jesus Feeds Them Bread and FishJesus gives the disciples bread and fish. This is reminiscent of Jesus’ most public miracle, the feeding of the 5,000.
Jesus said, “Have the people sit down.” (Now there was a lot of grass in that place.) So the men sat down, about 5,000 in number. Then Jesus took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed the bread to those who were seated. He then did the same with the fish, as much as they wanted. When they were all satisfied, Jesus said to his disciples, “Gather up the broken pieces that are left over, so that nothing is wasted.” So they gathered them up and filled 12 baskets with broken pieces from the five barley loaves left over by the people who had eaten. (John 6:10-13)
Notice that the miracle in chapter 6 has the same motif of abundance discussed above. In chapter 21, the net does not break despite the large number of fish. In chapter 6, the food does not run out despite the large number of people fed. There’s even ample leftovers. There is no competition in the message of the gospel. One man getting in does not push another one out. There is plenty for all.
No One DaredIn my opinion, the most curios part of this scene is the apostles’ fear to ask, “Who are you?” The text explains they were hesitant to ask “because they knew it was the Lord.”
An online commentary has a potential explanation:
The disciples lack of questions about Jesus' identity can be taken in several ways. One possibility is John emphasizing the lack of doubt, as if saying, "there's no need to ask, since it's clear."
The other option is that the men believe this is Jesus, but they're tempted to ask, just to be sure. This would be like someone asking a close friend, "is it really you?" Or, as when seeing someone wearing new clothes with a new hair style, Jesus' resurrected form might have been subtly different (Luke 24:13–16, 31; John 20:14). This would cast John's remark as reassurance: even though Jesus' appearance was not exactly as it had been, there was no valid reason to think it was someone else.
I lean towards the second explanation. Recall the first appearance to the apostles:
Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. (John 20:19b-20, emphasis added)
Jesus had to prove his identity during their first encounter. Then recall the second appearance to the apostles:
Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and examine my hands. Extend your hand and put it into my side. Do not continue in your unbelief, but believe.” Thomas replied to him, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:26b-28, emphasis added)
Jesus had to prove his identity during their second encounter as well.
Should Jesus have to prove his identity a third time? Perhaps the apostles thought that to ask for identity verification a third time would be tantamount to denial.
The CallDo You Love Me More Than “These” Do?Peter receives a special call (i.e., vocation) from Jesus. The conversation begins with a pointed question, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these do?” Before we move on to Peter’s answer, we must ask: who are “these”? The text does not provide an antecedent for the pronoun, so we must use context to understand to whom or what it refers. As translator’s note 30 in the NET explains (emphasis added):
To whom (or what) does “these” (τούτων, toutōn) refer? Three possibilities are suggested: (1) τούτων should be understood as neuter, “these things,” referring to the boats, nets, and fishing gear nearby. In light of Peter’s statement in 21:3, “I am going fishing,” some have understood Peter to have renounced his commission in light of his denials of Jesus. Jesus, as he restores Peter and forgives him for his denials, is asking Peter if he really loves his previous vocation more than he loves Jesus. Three things may be said in evaluation of this view: (a) it is not at all necessary to understand Peter’s statement in 21:3 as a renouncement of his discipleship, as this view of the meaning of τούτων would imply; (b) it would probably be more likely that the verb would be repeated in such a construction (see 7:31 for an example where the verb is repeated); and (c) as R. E. Brown has observed (John [AB], 2:1103) by Johannine standards the choice being offered to Peter between material things and the risen Jesus would seem rather ridiculous, especially after the disciples had realized whom it was they were dealing with (the Lord, see v. 12). (2) τούτων refers to the other disciples, meaning “Do you love me more than you love these other disciples?” The same objection mentioned as (c) under (1) would apply here: Could the author, in light of the realization of who Jesus is which has come to the disciples after the resurrection, and which he has just mentioned in 21:12, seriously present Peter as being offered a choice between the other disciples and the risen Jesus? This leaves option (3), that τούτων refers to the other disciples, meaning “Do you love me more than these other disciples do?” It seems likely that there is some irony here: Peter had boasted in 13:37, “I will lay down my life for you,” and the synoptics present Peter as boasting even more explicitly of his loyalty to Jesus (“Even if they all fall away, I will not,” Matt 26:33; Mark 14:29). Thus the semantic force of what Jesus asks Peter here amounts to something like “Now, after you have denied me three times, as I told you you would, can you still affirm that you love me more than these other disciples do?” The addition of the auxiliary verb “do” in the translation is used to suggest to the English reader the third interpretation, which is the preferred one.
I favor the emphasized, third interpretation. As the translator’s note explains, Peter had promised to die for Jesus, and that he loved Jesus more than all the other disciples.
Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, where are you going?” Jesus replied, “Where I am going, you cannot follow me now, but you will follow later.” Peter said to him, “Lord, why can’t I follow you now? I will lay down my life for you!” (John 13:36-37)
Peter said to him, “If they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away!” Jesus said to him, “I tell you the truth, on this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” (Matthew 26:33-34)
But Peter denied and deserted Jesus just like all the others. Now that Jesus has died and resurrected, what will Peter do? Will Peter look at his failures and lose all self-confidence? Maybe a downtrodden Peter is unwilling to try again, unwilling to commit to a lofty cause. Or will a foolish Peter learn nothing from his mistakes and arrogantly make the same promises again? If “these” refers to the other disciples, Jesus is putting Peter to the test and asking, (I paraphrase) “Do you stand by your prior statements?”
Slightly paraphrased, Peter responds saying, “You know the answer. I love you.” Peter is speaking earnestly, since he is counting on Jesus’ divine ability to see into Peter’s heart and mind. But Peter also seems to have learned some humility. The answer is not, “Yes, I love you more that them.” It is simply, “Yes, I love you.” Maybe Peter realizes he is neither as good as he thought nor are the other disciples as bad as he thought. This newfound humility, however, does not change the fact that Peter is hurt by Jesus’ repeated questions, which begin to sound accusatory. The word translated as “distressed” is the same word used to describe the sorrow the disciples felt for the death of Jesus (John 16:20).
Agape vs PhileoA detail that we must discuss is the different Greek words translated as “love” in Jesus’ three questions and Peter’s three responses. Jesus’ first question uses agapas, and Peter’s first response uses philo. The second question again uses agapas, and Peter once again responds with philo. The third time, however, Jesus uses the word phileis, and Peter again responds with philo.
In the Greek language, both agape and phileo mean love. Nevertheless, their semantic ranges are different. Agape is normally associated with a “higher” love that involves wishing well, taking pleasure in, esteem, and in the Christian context, self-sacrifice. Phileo often means to be friends (of a person or object), such as what brothers or close friends may feel for one another.
Because of these different semantic ranges and the fact that English only has one word for love, Christians often use the Greek terms to explain and distinguish the kinds of love God has for us and that we should have for God and one another. Broadly speaking, Christians say that agape love is the higher type of love that God has for us and that we should have for him. Christians may even say we need to strive to have this agape love towards one another. Although that may very well be true, we must be careful to understand the Greek words and how they are used in the Bible. Sometimes agape is being used intentionally and distinctly from other words for love such as phileo—precisely to emphasize its higher, self-sacrificial nature. But not always. Sometimes the terms are used interchangeably.
In the Gospel of John, and particularly during this closing scene between Jesus and Peter, agape and phileo are clearly used interchangeably. The story makes little sense if we ready it like this:
Jesus: Peter, do you have high love for me? Peter: Yes, I have low love for you. Jesus: Peter, do you have high love for me? Peter: Yes, I have low love for you. Jesus: Peter, do you have low love for me? Peter: Yes, I have low love for you. Jesus: Great! Take care of my people.
The moral of the story is, let’s use linguistics wisely.
The TaskTo each affirmation of Peter’s love, Jesus gives a response and a task. First, “Feed my lambs.” Second, “Shepherd my sheep.” Finally, “Feed my sheep.” Then Jesus makes a somber prophecy:
I tell you the solemn truth, when you were young, you tied your clothes around you and went wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and others will tie you up and bring you where you do not want to go. (John 21:18)
Jesus concludes his instructions to Peter with the simplest command, “Follow me.”
Although the setting of the conversation includes fishing, fishermen, and fish, already an analogy for the ministry, the apostles, and believers, Jesus uses different imagery to deliver his message—shepherding. Jesus says “feed my lambs” and “feed my sheep.” These are effectively identical statements with lambs acting as a synonym for sheep. Jesus also says, “shepherd my sheep,” which in a literal sense includes all the duties of the shepherd, not only feeding. The three successive statements are a command to Peter—be like a shepherd to my people.
Then, Jesus’ prophecy clarifies the extent of the call. Shall Peter abandon the sheep if trouble comes? No. Notice Jesus does not command, “care for my sheep with your life,” he goes much further and predicts that outcome. Peter will die caring for believers. Jesus’ foretelling is sobering. When Peter is old he will “stretch out [his] hands” that someone may bind them—which usually preceded execution. Early Christian tradition is that Peter died by crucifixion, probably upside down. So, early Christian texts interpreted the phrase “stretch out your hands” to mean crucifixion.
The prediction of Peter’s death for the sheep is incredibly powerful in light of an earlier use of the shepherd analogy. Recall the following passage:
“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. The hired hand, who is not a shepherd and does not own sheep, sees the wolf coming and abandons the sheep and runs away. So the wolf attacks the sheep and scatters them. Because he is a hired hand and is not concerned about the sheep, he runs away. (John 10:11-13)
Jesus calls Peter to be like the good shepherd, not like the hireling. But that call only makes sense if Peter is in fact not a hireling anymore. The whole point of the analogy in chapter 10 is that the hireling is not part of the household. The sheep belong to someone else, so he has no incentive to die for them. The call to Peter in chapter 21 implies that Peter is now part of the household. As I have been saying throughout this study, it means Peter is now a son of God—one with inheritance rights. At least in either the filial or fraternal sense, the sheep are now his.
What About Him?Peter must have understood Jesus’ prophecy—that he was to be executed—because when Peter noticed John (“the disciple whom Jesus loved”), he asked, “Lord, what about him?” Jesus responds harshly, “What concern is that of yours?” (Some translations put it more bluntly, “What is that to you?”) Jesus makes clear that even if he chose to have John “live until [Jesus] comes back” that is no business of Peter.
Two important points must be noted. First, such is the call of God—completely up to him. I can hardly express this point better than the Wesley Covenant Prayer:
I am no longer my own, but yours. Put me to what you will, place me with whom you will. Put me to doing, put me to suffering. Let me be put to work for you or set aside for you, Praised for you or criticized for you. Let me be full, let me be empty. Let me have all things, let me have nothing. I freely and fully surrender all things to your glory and service. And now, O wonderful and holy God, Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer, you are mine, and I am yours. So be it. And the covenant which I have made on earth, Let it also be made in heaven. Amen. (This version uses modern language. The original prayer can be found here.)
Our duty is to heed the call, not to decide what the call is. This is the true Christian egalitarianism. Some may be called to rule nations, some to intense and unappreciated physical labor. Some may be called to preach, some to sing, some to write, some to remain silent. Some may be called to be great adventurers and some to be homebound. But what is that to you and me? Nothing at all. Your call is yours and mine is mine, and in that sense we are the same.
The second point to be made is that even Jesus’ early disciples misinterpreted him! Notice that Jesus uses hyperbole to respond to Peter, “If I want him to live until I come back, what concern is that of yours?” Jesus will come back in the eschaton—at the end times. We could paraphrase Jesus’ response as, “If I want John to live forever, what is that to you?” The point is that Peter’s comparison with John is inappropriate. Yet, as the text tells us, early Christians misunderstood Jesus’ hyperbole and believed John “was not going to die.” Notice that as John writes the gospel late in his life, he attempts to set the record straight, “But Jesus did not say to him that he was not going to die, but rather, ‘If I want him to live until I come back, what concern is that of yours?’” We should be careful to interpret Jesus properly as well.
The ClosingJohn closes his gospel with two statements. First, in verse 24, he emphasizes that his gospel is his testimony. The implication is he saw and lived the things he wrote down, and therefore the gospel is reliable. This statement is also in keeping with ancient Mediterranean documents, which typically listed witnesses at the end of the document.
Finally, verse 25 is a throwback to verse 20:30, “Now Jesus performed many other miraculous signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not recorded in this book.” Like we discussed last time, ancient biographies sometimes ended with this kind of summary praise. But as we also discussed, whereas other documents may have meant it solely as hyperbolic praise, we have good reason to believe John meant it more literally.
My SuggestionWe have come to the end of John. Believe it or not, we covered almost the entire commentary on John by Craig Keener—a two-volume, 1200-page text! My blog alone is approximately 130,000 words! That’s roughly the length of Tolkien’s The Return of the King. The point I am trying to make is that regardless of what you think of me, we learned. I dare say there is not a seminary course out there that covers John in as much detail as we have.
But if Christianity is true, then there is more to it than propositional knowledge. There is more than just learning. So I end the Gospel of John with a simple suggestion: experience it. Go meet with believers and see for yourself. I say this with trepidation. I fear you may allow a bad Christian (or a group of bad Christians) to disprove the gospel. Although that would not be proper logic, I must concede that if the gospel is true, then it must have an effect. There must be some group somewhere that is different because of it. It is in that spirit that I encourage you: try it out. Go to church.
But what if the church you visit or have already been attending is a bad one? How would you even know that it is a bad one? Here are some further suggestions. Consider the following:
(1) Does the church believe the Bible? An easy way to figure this out is by observing the church’s response to the controversial topics, such as homosexuality. I am not saying that homosexuality is some primary theme of scripture. It is a sin as many others. Nevertheless, it is one of those behaviors that is clearly considered sinful in the Old Testament and the New Testament, several times over. When a church condones homosexual behavior, you might consider a different church not because of their take on homosexuality per se, but because that church does not believe that the Bible is authoritative. That’s the real problem.
(2) Does the church believe the core Christian doctrines? I will make it simple. Could they honestly recite the Apostles’ Creed?
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.
(3) Does the church practice fellowship? You don’t go to church just to learn. You can do that through an odd Saturday-night bible study taught by some stranger. You go to church to be a part of a family. Again, I will put it simply: are you treated like a new friend? I mean a real friend. If not, you might reconsider your church choice.
(4) Can you bear with all the other details? This last suggestion may seem surprising, but it is eminently practical. If the style of worship is so modern you feel silly and embarrassed to participate, I doubt you will go back. If the style is too old and stuffy, you might be looking at your watch more than you focus on worship. Do you have nothing in common with the people there? Is the drive to church too far? Is the service too early? To be honest, I would drive a long way, to a service that is too early, to sing songs I don’t like, with people with which I have nothing in common, if the people at the church were godly and the message was true. But it’s not always an either/or matter. If you can find a church in which you fit better (after taking into account the first three considerations above), do it.
If you have a hard time finding a church, or if you are wondering whether some church has sound doctrine, email me. I will be glad to help you research that church. It can be difficult sometimes. A common trend for modern churches is to have vague names that sound inviting, but those names are hardly helpful in determining what they believe or to what denomination they belong. If you want to know what you are stepping into, visit the church's website for a statement of beliefs or watch some of their sermons available on YouTube, if any. Of course, if you know their denomination, you already know their “official” beliefs. I put “official” in quotation marks because individual congregations often depart from what the larger denomination believes. There are “good” and “bad” churches of most denominations. Again, if you are struggling, send me an email. I will be happy to help.
May God bless you forever and ever.
Scripture Reading: John 20:24-21:25
24 Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 The other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he replied, “Unless I see the wounds from the nails in his hands, and put my finger into the wounds from the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will never believe it!”
26 Eight days later the disciples were again together in the house, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and examine my hands. Extend your hand and put it into my side. Do not continue in your unbelief, but believe.” 28 Thomas replied to him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are the people who have not seen and yet have believed.”
30 Now Jesus performed many other miraculous signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
1 After this Jesus revealed himself again to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias. Now this is how he did so. 2 Simon Peter, Thomas (called Didymus), Nathanael (who was from Cana in Galilee), the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples of his were together. 3 Simon Peter told them, “I am going fishing.” “We will go with you,” they replied. They went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing.
4 When it was already very early morning, Jesus stood on the beach, but the disciples did not know that it was Jesus. 5 So Jesus said to them, “Children, you don’t have any fish, do you?” They replied, “No.” 6 He told them, “Throw your net on the right side of the boat, and you will find some.” So they threw the net and were not able to pull it in because of the large number of fish.
7 Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” So Simon Peter, when he heard that it was the Lord, tucked in his outer garment (for he had nothing on underneath it), and plunged into the sea. 8 Meanwhile the other disciples came with the boat, dragging the net full of fish, for they were not far from land, only about a hundred yards.
9 When they got out on the beach, they saw a charcoal fire ready with a fish placed on it, and bread. 10 Jesus said, “Bring some of the fish you have just now caught.” 11 So Simon Peter went aboard and pulled the net to shore. It was full of large fish, 153, but although there were so many, the net was not torn. 12 “Come, have breakfast,” Jesus said. But none of the disciples dared to ask him, “Who are you?” because they knew it was the Lord. 13 Jesus came and took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish. 14 This was now the third time Jesus was revealed to the disciples after he was raised from the dead.
15 Then when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these do?” He replied, “Yes, Lord, you know I love you.” Jesus told him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 Jesus said a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He replied, “Yes, Lord, you know I love you.” Jesus told him, “Shepherd my sheep.” 17 Jesus said a third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that Jesus asked him a third time, “Do you love me?” and said, “Lord, you know everything. You know that I love you.” Jesus replied, “Feed my sheep. 18 I tell you the solemn truth, when you were young, you tied your clothes around you and went wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and others will tie you up and bring you where you do not want to go.” 19 (Now Jesus said this to indicate clearly by what kind of death Peter was going to glorify God.) After he said this, Jesus told Peter, “Follow me.”
20 Peter turned around and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them. (This was the disciple who had leaned back against Jesus’ chest at the meal and asked, “Lord, who is the one who is going to betray you?”) 21 So when Peter saw him, he asked Jesus, “Lord, what about him?” 22 Jesus replied, “If I want him to live until I come back, what concern is that of yours? You follow me!” 23 So the saying circulated among the brothers and sisters that this disciple was not going to die. But Jesus did not say to him that he was not going to die, but rather, “If I want him to live until I come back, what concern is that of yours?”
24 This is the disciple who testifies about these things and has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true. 25 There are many other things that Jesus did. If every one of them were written down, I suppose the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
Main Themes[I am still working on the blog post.]
Doubting Thomas
Scripture Reading: John 20:1-31
Now very early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been moved away from the entrance. 2 So she went running to Simon Peter and the other disciple whom Jesus loved and told them, “They have taken the Lord from the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!” 3 Then Peter and the other disciple set out to go to the tomb. 4 The two were running together, but the other disciple ran faster than Peter and reached the tomb first. 5 He bent down and saw the strips of linen cloth lying there, but he did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter, who had been following him, arrived and went right into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen cloth lying there, 7 and the face cloth, which had been around Jesus’ head, not lying with the strips of linen cloth but rolled up in a place by itself. 8 Then the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, came in, and he saw and believed. 9 (For they did not yet understand the scripture that Jesus must rise from the dead.)
10 So the disciples went back to their homes. 11 But Mary stood outside the tomb weeping. As she wept, she bent down and looked into the tomb. 12 And she saw two angels in white sitting where Jesus’ body had been lying, one at the head and one at the feet. 13 They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” Mary replied, “They have taken my Lord away, and I do not know where they have put him!” 14 When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know that it was Jesus.
15 Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Who are you looking for?” Because she thought he was the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will take him.” 16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She turned and said to him in Aramaic, “Rabboni” (which means “Teacher”). 17 Jesus replied, “Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father. Go to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” 18 Mary Magdalene came and informed the disciples, “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them what Jesus had said to her.
19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the disciples had gathered together and locked the doors of the place because they were afraid of the Jewish leaders. Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. 21 So Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. Just as the Father has sent me, I also send you.” 22 And after he said this, he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven; if you retain anyone’s sins, they are retained.”
24 Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 The other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he replied, “Unless I see the wounds from the nails in his hands, and put my finger into the wounds from the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will never believe it!”
26 Eight days later the disciples were again together in the house, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and examine my hands. Extend your hand and put it into my side. Do not continue in your unbelief, but believe.” 28 Thomas replied to him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are the people who have not seen and yet have believed.”
30 Now Jesus performed many other miraculous signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
Main Themes[I am still working on the blog. This is an unfinished draft.]
Historical QuestionsHarmonizing the Four GospelsOne questions that often comes up when reading the resurrection is whether all four gospels are consistent with one another in their narrations of the event. Here are the narratives found in the 3 other gospels:
Matthew 28:1-10: Now after the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. Suddenly there was a severe earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descending from heaven came and rolled away the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were shaken and became like dead men because they were so afraid of him. But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here, for he has been raised, just as he said. Come and see the place where he was lying. Then go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has been raised from the dead. He is going ahead of you into Galilee. You will see him there.’ Listen, I have told you!” So they left the tomb quickly, with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. But Jesus met them, saying, “Greetings!” They came to him, held on to his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee. They will see me there.”
Mark 16:1-8: When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought aromatic spices so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, at sunrise, they went to the tomb. They had been asking each other, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?” But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled back. Then as they went into the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed. But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has been raised! He is not here. Look, there is the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples, even Peter, that he is going ahead of you into Galilee. You will see him there, just as he told you.” Then they went out and ran from the tomb, for terror and bewilderment had seized them. And they said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.
Luke 24:1-12: Now on the first day of the week, at early dawn, the women went to the tomb, taking the aromatic spices they had prepared. They found that the stone had been rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were perplexed about this, suddenly two men stood beside them in dazzling attire. The women were terribly frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here, but has been raised! Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.” Then the women remembered his words, and when they returned from the tomb, they told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. Now it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who told these things to the apostles. But these words seemed like pure nonsense to them, and they did not believe them. But Peter got up and ran to the tomb. He bent down and saw only the strips of linen cloth; then he went home, wondering what had happened.
Are these three narratives contradictory? Can they be harmonized (that is, can they be read together as supplementary to each other)? Before we attempt to answer these questions, I want to share a word of caution expressed very well by the website gotquestions.org:
The events surrounding Jesus’ resurrection can be difficult to piece together. We must remember two things: first, the news of Jesus’ resurrection produced much excitement in Jerusalem, and in the ensuing chaos many people were going many different directions. Groups were separated, and several different groups paid visits to the tomb, possibly more than once. Second, the writers of the Gospels did not attempt an exhaustive narrative; in other words, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John had no intention of telling us every detail of the resurrection or every event in the order that it happened.
In the battle with skeptics regarding Jesus’ resurrection, Christians are in a "no-win" situation. If the resurrection accounts harmonize perfectly, skeptics will claim that the writers of the Gospels conspired together. If the resurrection accounts have some differences, skeptics will claim that the Gospels contradict each other and therefore cannot be trusted. It is our contention that the resurrection accounts can be harmonized and do not contradict each other.
Generally speaking, when multiple witnesses describe an event slightly differently, that adds to the reliability of the testimony. It means that the witnesses are truly sharing their own recollection of the event, instead of organizing to repeat one witness’s version of events or colluding to share a crafted narrative. So, from a historical standpoint, the fact that the four gospels describe the resurrection of Jesus differently is not a negative—instead, it is strong evidence of historical reliability. So what’s the problem? If the differences between the gospels are truly irreconcilable, then the Christian must give up on what is knows as biblical inerrancy (which means that the Bible contains no errors). As I have explained before, biblical inerrancy is an important doctrine—one that should not be discarded lightly. However, it is not central to Christianity. As long as the core claims of the Bible are reliably recorded, small errors would not undo the religion as a whole.
In fact, before we consider a harmonization, let’s consider the question: are there core facts unquestionably affirmed by all four narratives? The answer is yes. Even if we grant differences in the gospels, they all clearly affirm that:
- Jesus was buried in a tomb.
- The tomb was empty a few days later.
- The testimony of women (or one woman).
- Jesus appeared to the disciples (some of these appearances are in verses after those quoted above).
- The disciples went from despair to belief (again, some of this content is found in verses after those quoted above).
With all that in mind, let’s consider a possible harmonization of the events described in all four gospel. There are several possible for harmonizations, such as George Eldon Ladd’s. Here’s the harmonization proposed by the same website I quoted above:
- Jesus is buried, as several women watch (Matthew 27:57-61; Mark 15:42-47; Luke 23:50-56; John 19:38-42).
- The tomb is sealed and a guard is set (Matthew 27:62-66).
- At least 3 women, including Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome, prepare spices to go to the tomb (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1).
- An angel descends from heaven, rolls the stone away, and sits on it. There is an earthquake, and the guards faint (Matthew 28:2-4).
- The women arrive at the tomb and find it empty. Mary Magdalene leaves the other women there and runs to tell the disciples (John 20:1-2).
- The women still at the tomb see two angels who tell them that Jesus is risen and who instruct them to tell the disciples to go to Galilee (Matthew 28:5-7; Mark 16:2-8; Luke 24:1-8).
- The women leave to bring the news to the disciples (Matthew 28:8).
- The guards, having roused themselves, report the empty tomb to the authorities, who bribe the guards to say the body was stolen (Matthew 28:11-15).
- Mary the mother of James and the other women, on their way to find the disciples, see Jesus (Matthew 28:9-10).
- The women relate what they have seen and heard to the disciples (Luke 24:9-11).
- Peter and John run to the tomb, see that it is empty, and find the grave clothes (Luke 24:12; John 20:2-10).
- Mary Magdalene returns to the tomb. She sees the angels, and then she sees Jesus (John 20:11-18).
- Later the same day, Jesus appears to Peter (Luke 24:34; 1 Corinthians 15:5).
- Still on the same day, Jesus appears to Cleopas and another disciple on their way to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-32).
- That evening, the two disciples report the event to the Eleven in Jerusalem (Luke 24:32-35).
- Jesus appears to ten disciples—Thomas is missing (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-25).
- Jesus appears to all eleven disciples—Thomas included (John 20:26-31).
- Jesus appears to seven disciples by the Sea of Galilee (John 21:1-25).
- Jesus appears to about 500 disciples in Galilee (1 Corinthians 15:6).
- Jesus appears to His half-brother James (1 Corinthians 15:7).
- Jesus commissions His disciples (Matthew 28:16-20).
- Jesus teaches His disciples the Scriptures and promises to send the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:44-49; Acts 1:4-5).
- Jesus ascends into heaven (Luke 24:50-53; Acts 1:6-12).
Pagan Origins of the ResurrectionJohn certainly presents the resurrection narrative as a historical event. There is no indication in the text that it is meant to be myth or fiction. However, claims are often made that Jesus’ resurrection repurposes other ancient myths. Is this claim plausible? In other words, during the first century, were there other legends that would strike us as too similar to the story of Jesus? Honestly, no. These myth-borrowing theories only work if one is unfamiliar with the narrative of Jesus’ resurrection and whatever other myth allegedly it is based upon. Once the two tales are studied, the conclusion is that any similarities are too general of superficial.
First of all, one is hard pressed to find a true resurrection myth. Ancient stories often involved apparitions of deceased persons (sort of like ghosts) or persons who had become immortal. Notice that neither of these scenarios involves true resurrection—the body remains buried. True resurrection, as Craig Keener points out, was an almost exclusively Jewish belief.
But what about the Greco-Roman mystery cults? Didn’t they have dying and rising deities? At a glance, there are parallels between some of the Mysteries and Jesus’ resurrection, but we must look at the date. The most striking resemblances occur after the first century, when the Christian story had time to influence the mystery cults. (And the mystery cults influenced Christianity, with Christian authors beginning to adopt some of the Mysteries’ terminology.) Moreover, the Mysteries understood the world differently. Their narratives did not assign a spiritual and moral meaning to the events as Christianity did.
Finally, yes, there were myths of dying and rising gods pre-Jesus. Some of them would not have been known by the first-century Jews. Some of them would have. Of this latter category, they are not as similar as is claimed. Take Osiris for example (a myth often compared to Jesus). As J. Warner Wallace explains:
Osiris was murdered and his body was then dismembered and scattered. Later, his body pieces were recovered and rejoined, and he was rejuvenated. Osiris then journeyed to the underworld, where he became the lord of the dead. He did not resurrect with a glorified body and walk with men on earth, as did Jesus. He was not alive again, as was Jesus, but was instead a “dead” god who never returned among the living.
One important observation we should make is how unique the Jewish and Christian understanding of resurrection truly is. It is not a belief in merely survival of the soul once the body has died, nor a belief in a happy life in either the underworld or Elysium. It is the belief in a true bodily resurrection. In fact, one would not expect persecution of the disciples if they had simply claimed they saw a ghost of Jesus.
Mary at the TombMary goes to the tomb on Sunday, the first day of the week, to finish the burial preparations. Recall that Jesus was buried late on Friday and the Sabbath begins on Friday night. Some of the burial preparations could not be performed on the Sabbath.
John tells us that Mary Magdalene goes to Jesus very early, “while it was still dark,” connoting devotion. She finds that the stone has been moved away, and she infers that body had been taken. Mary Magdalene’s conclusion is not an impossible one. Sometimes robbers would break into tombs. These tomb robbers would take items of value and leave the body. To take the body would have been appalling. However, corpses could be used for magic, particularly corpses of those who died gruesome deaths. Notice also the plural in verse 2, “we don’t know where they have put him!” Mary Magdalene was not alone. As the other gospels inform us, she went to the tomb with other women.
Could there be other explanations for the missing body?
One theory is that Jesus was not dead—the “swoon” theory. As Craig Keener explains:
Nor is there historical merit to the old “swoon” theory (that Jesus was not yet dead and hence managed to revive sufficiently to act “resurrected” but then died somewhere unknown). Crucified persons simply did not revive: Josephus had three friends taken from crosses, and despite medical attention, two died (Josephus Life 420–421). Further, if one could revive, one would still be trapped within the tomb, which would lead to death (Chariton 1.4.11–12; 1.8). Keener, Craig S.. The Gospel of John : 2 Volumes (p. 1180). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
Another theory is that the whole thing was fabricated by the disciples. There are many problem with this theory. If the story was false, why make women (considered unreliable in the ancient world) the primary witnesses? Why would the Jewish or Roman authorities not produce the body to put an end to the rumors of resurrection? Why would the apostles die for a claim they knew to be false (since they fabricated it themselves)?
The consensus among historians is that Jesus died, he was buried, and then the tomb was found empty.
The Linen Wrappings John makes sure that we notice the fact that the line wrappings were “lying there.” He says it in verses 5, 6, and 7. John also tells us that the face cloth was rolled up in a place by itself.
There are two points to John’s description of the scene. First of all, whatever happened in that tomb may have been similar yet clearly distinct from Lazarus’ experience. Recall the resurrection of Lazarus:
When he had said this, he shouted in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” The one who had died came out, his feet and hands tied up with strips of cloth, and a cloth wrapped around his face. Jesus said to them, “Unwrap him and let him go.” (John 11:43-44)
As we discussed at the time we covered chapter 11, the decedent would be tightly wrapped in cloth. The cloth would have probably stuck to the body due to all the bodily fluids, not to mention the spices. Lazarus was raised just as he was when he lived and was immediately phased by his cloth captivity.
Jesus was also wrapped after he died. Yet somehow Jesus does not phase the same problem. Christians generally speculate that this has to do with Jesus resurrected body. Lazarus merely had his old body revivified. Jesus was resurrected into a glorified, permanent body. This new body does not seem to have the same limitations as the old. Of course, another possibility is a further miracle.
The second point that John makes by highlighting the cloth wrappings—particularly that the face cloth was rolled up and placed next to the other wrappings—is that the scene was not in disarray. This is not the aftermath of robber acting in haste. This is like a room with a bed well made. This was the result of a peaceful and thoughtful exit.
One could read some theological significance to leaving the wrappings behind. Just like Moses’ veil covered divine revelation (see 2 Corinthians 3:7-9), Jesus leaving the veil behind could mean that a full revelation has come. The text is not clear on this point, so I will not explore it further.
John BelievesJohn tells us that Peter “and the other disciple” rush to the tomb. This other disciple is thought to be John himself. When John sees the tomb, he “believed.” Throughout the Gospel of John, we have read this expression before. Recall all the way back to chapter 1:
Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel!” Jesus said to him, “Because I told you that I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe? You will see greater things than these.” (John 1:49-50)
Yet when the darkest moment came, everyone who had “believed” deserted Jesus. That kind of apostasy no longer happens to the apostles from this point in the narrative and onward. This “believed” in chapter 20 is something more, or something different, than in prior chapters. As the revelation of Jesus is complete, so is the belief in him.
John explains that the disciples had not understood (or known) the scripture foretelling that Jesus had to rise from the dead. As I always ask, what scripture? In this case, it is unclear.
We could speculate a passage such as Psalm 16:10:
You will not abandon me to Sheol;
you will not allow your faithful follower to see the Pit.
However, we cannot be sure.
Mary and the AngelsMary Magdalene was the first to Jesus’ empty tomb. Then she is given the privilege of being the first to see the risen Lord. The scene is, in my opinion, the sweetest in the whole gospel. She woke up that morning wanting to honor Jesus. She finds the tomb empty, informs the disciples, they come, see, and go back home. She remains there weeping. She is not ready to leave. In that moment, she sees two “angels” sitting inside the tomb who ask, “Woman, why are you weeping?”
I want to avoid delving too deep into the topic of angels (because it is likely to derail us), but angels in the Bible do not look like how they are portrayed in popular media. The word angel comes from the Greek “angelous,” which simply means messenger. In Genesis 18 and 19, two angels visit Sodom. They are not described in detail, but they are casually called “two men” and do not seem to call any attention to themselves. I think the reasonable assumption is that these angels looked like regular people. I point all this out to elucidate the scene with Mary Magdalene. The two angels in the tomb, with whom she has a seemingly normal interaction, may have looked like normal men. That explains the dialogue.
Nonetheless, I do not want to ignore the fact that these angels were dressed in white. White garbs were not utterly unusual in Jewish tradition or the ancient world. Pagans would worship heavenly deities in white garments. More importantly, Jewish priests wore linen. Worshipers, including in the Jerusalem temple, often wore white. And angels in Jewish texts appeared in linen, white, or clothed in glory. Black symbolized mourning and death. White symbolized joy and life. So, the fact that the angels wore white is important. They were not mourning the death of Jesus. This was not a sad and solemn time. It was a time of celebration for Jesus lived.
Mary and JesusMary Magdalene then turns around and sees another man, who she believes to be the gardener. This makes sense—remember the tomb was located in a garden. In typical Johannine style, this man asks a question that makes sense on the surface but takes on much deeper meaning as we consider it from a theological standpoint: “Who are you looking for?”
The sweetness and heart wrenching quality of the scene continues. Mary Magdalene is distraught. She wishes to honor her master. She is not concerned with accusations, or asking why would someone do something as despicable as stealing a body. She simply wants an opportunity to make it right. She pleads, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will take him.”
The “gardener” calls her by name, “Mary.” Mary instantly recognizes him and calls Jesus by a title of respect, “my teacher.” This is the first of several “recognition scenes.” John and Luke describe instances in which disciples saw Jesus but did not recognize him until Jesus made himself known. This ability of Jesus’ resurrected body seems to be a trait of the heavenly beings. Jewish tradition held that angels could appear in different forms. In the Old Testament, God himself could appear in unrecognizable forms. (See Genesis 18.)
This appearance to Mary is the first of many that Jesus will make. These appearances are the “proof,” the “certificate of approval” that Jesus was who he said he was and his words were therefore true. Without these appearances, the gospel might be good news but we would never know. What I mean is, maybe Jesus would have been God who died for our sins, but we would hardly believe it. Consider what is probably the earliest Christian creed ever recorded:
Now I want to make clear for you, brothers and sisters, the gospel that I preached to you, that you received and on which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. 3 For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received—that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, 4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than 500 of the brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as though to one born at the wrong time, he appeared to me also. (1 Corinthians 15:1-8)
On the cross, Jesus says his work is done. In the resurrection, Jesus shows his work was in fact done.
Most historians grant that at least the apostles believed to have seen Jesus resurrected. The Christian movement is otherwise extremely hard to explain. Some claim that the appearances are merely mythological; however, appearances of deities to large groups of people appear in mythology many centuries before the time of Jesus. The story of Jesus would be surprisingly anachronistic. Others claim that the appearances of Jesus were corporate visions, similar to mass delusion. This claim is unlikely. Not only are corporate visions exceedingly rare, but they are practically nonexistent if the vision is multimodal—that is, the vision engages multiple senses. Finally, as explained earlier when comparing the story of Jesus to pagan myths, the concept of corporal resurrection was barely intelligible to non-Jews and associated exclusively with the eschaton for Jews. If the resurrection appearances were either a delusion or a lie, there is hardly an explanation why the narrative would be that Jesus rose bodily.
Jesus tells Mary, “Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father.” This expression seems curious at first. We should probably not envision Mary poking at Jesus’ body with one finger like if to make sure he was not a ghost. In context, we might envision Mary holding on to Jesus, either in an embrace, or holding on to this hands, or perhaps even his feet. Then Jesus’ response makes perfect sense. He is saying, “Mary, you must let me go. There are things yet to be done. I must leave again and return to my Father.” Some scholars do argue that what we have here is a prohibition on touching the sacred, such as in Exodus 19:12. This makes little sense of the heartwarming scene and of later appearance of Jesus when he encourages his disciples to touch him.
Jesus tells Mary, “Go to my brothers and tell them.” (Emphasis added.) This is the first time Jesus calls his disciples brothers, and such a title fits perfectly with the theology presented in John. Recall the very beginning of the gospel:
But to all who have received him—those who believe in his name—he has given the right to become God’s children. (John 1:12)
What did Jesus come to do? To make a way for everyone to become children of God—part of the family. Not mere servants or guests but children, sons or daughters, with inheritance rights. Noe that the work of Jesus is done, he can refer to his disciples as brothers. Members of the household of God!
Another shocking fact of Jesus telling Mary, “Go to my brothers and tell them,” is that Jesus told Mary. I mean, Jesus asked a woman to deliver his message. The gospels and early Christian tradition are unanimous that Jesus’ resurrection was first revealed to women. Since women were not considered reliable witnesses, Christians would hardly have invented this.
Jesus Appears to the DisciplesAs the women go to the tomb to honor their teacher, the disciples remain hidden and afraid. This is hardly a flattering description of the men. The narrative specifies that the doors were locked. This detail is presumably there to highlight that when Jesus appears among the disciples, he does so in some supernatural sense. As I have mentioned before, Jesus’ resurrected body seems to have some heavenly qualities that cannot be restrained by the physical world.
Jesus immediately offers peace, not reproach for their failures or their fear, but peace. The story does not give many details, but I think we can infer that the disciples are surprised and have many questions. “Is he a ghost?” “Is it really him?” “Could this be happening?” Jesus settles the interrogation by showing him his wounds. “Yes, it’s really me,” he proves.
Then Jesus breathes on them and says, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven; if you retain anyone’s sins, they are retained.” These statements require come examination. Let’s begin with the receiving of the Holy Spirit.
One of the most iconic scenes in the New Testament is the Holy Spirit descending a flaming tongues during Pentecost.
Now when the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like a violent wind blowing came from heaven and filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3 And tongues spreading out like a fire appeared to them and came to rest on each one of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit, and they began to speak in other languages as the Spirit enabled them. (Acts 2:1-4)
Moreover, this event occurs after Jesus tell the apostles to wait to “receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest parts of the earth.” (Acts 1-8)
The question naturally arises, how are we to understand Jesus granting the Holy Spirit in John 20 and apostles receiving the Holy Spirit a few weeks later during Pentecost? One option is that the event John describes in chapter 20 is the same Pentecost event. John simply moves the meeting closer to Passover and describes it differently for narrative purposes (i.e., it is the climax of John’s Christology and Pneumatology). Some scholars take this view. In my opinion, this is hardly better than claiming that John made it up.
Is there a better alternative? There meeting in John 20 and the event in Pentecost only seem contradictory if we assume that both grant the Holy Spirit in the same sense. Jesus promises every believer that he or she will receive the water that will satisfy such that there in no thirst ever again (John 3:13). Whoever believes in Jesus will have “living water” (John 7:37-39), which is Holy Spirit. This giving of the Spirit seems to be described in Ezekiel 36:26-27:
I will give you a new heart, and I will put a new spirit within you. I will remove the heart of stone from your body and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put my Spirit within you; I will take the initiative, and you will obey my statutes and carefully observe my regulations.
I think that is the granting of the Spirit that John is describing—the guarantee made to every believer. Pentecost, on the other hand, seems like an unusual event in which the Spirit grants special powers. Recall, for example the prophets Elijah and Elisha, and how they are “energized” by the spirit to do prophesy and do miracles. (2 Kings 2). Pentecost was an event in which the Spirit empowered miracles. We might not experience that. John 20 describes the Spirit that empowers us to follow God. That we are guaranteed to experience.
Finally, we must notice how the scene in John does represent the conclusion to his gospel. The Spirit finally comes to give life an continue the ministry that Jesus started. Jesus imparts the Spirit by breathing. This is reminiscent of Genesis 2:7:
The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
The Spirit comes and gives eternal life.
For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16)
And the Spirit, as another paraclete, is directly connected with the prophetic mission of sharing the gospel. As soon as the Spirit is granted, the apostles are sent just like Jesus was sent.
Now we must explore the second statement, “If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven; if you retain anyone’s sins, they are retained.” First we must notice that this statement is made in the context of a “sending.” Jesus says, “Peace be with you. Just as the Father has sent me, I also send you.” The apostles are sent just like the Father sent Jesus. (Some try to distinguish the two words translated as “send” in that statement, but the Greek words are used interchangeably in John’s Gospel.) Moreover, these identical “sendings” are made explicit elsewhere in John. Recall chapter 17:
I am not asking you to take them out of the world, but that you keep them safe from the evil one. 16 They do not belong to the world just as I do not belong to the world. 17 Set them apart in the truth; your word is truth. 18 Just as you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world. 19 And I set myself apart on their behalf, so that they too may be truly set apart. (John 17:15-19)
So what is the meaning of the apostles’ ability to forgive or retain sins? One could take the Catholic approach:
In John’s Gospel, following his Resurrection, Jesus makes plain he’s assigning the ministry to forgive sins to particular Church leaders, specifically his apostles and those they designate in succeeding them (John 20:20-23). The apostles and their successors are given not only the unique ministry to forgive sins in Jesus’ name, but also the power to “retain” sins if a minister judges someone has not genuinely repented of their wrongdoing.
Is there another possibility? We could (and I would argue, should) interpret the statement in chapter 20 in light of Jesus’ explanation in chapter 16:
But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I am going away. For if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you, but if I go, I will send him to you. 8 And when he comes, he will prove the world wrong concerning sin and righteousness and judgment— 9 concerning sin because they do not believe in me; 10 concerning righteousness because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer; 11 and concerning judgment because the ruler of this world has been condemned. (John 16:7-11)
Notice that in the passage above we see the same connection between the Spirit and judgment. Therefore, the apostles carry with them the agent of judgment. As they share the gospel they bring with it a decision to believe or not to believe, to embrace the righteousness or Christ or to follow the “ruler of this world.”
Scripture Reading: John 19:31-42
31 Then because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies should not stay on the crosses on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was an especially important one), the Jewish leaders asked Pilate to have the victims’ legs broken and the bodies taken down. 32 So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the two men who had been crucified with Jesus, first the one and then the other. 33 But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and blood and water flowed out immediately. 35 And the person who saw it has testified (and his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth), so that you also may believe. 36 For these things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled, “Not a bone of his will be broken.” 37 And again another scripture says, “They will look on the one whom they have pierced.”
38 After this, Joseph of Arimathea, a disciple of Jesus (but secretly because he feared the Jewish leaders), asked Pilate if he could remove the body of Jesus. Pilate gave him permission, so he went and took the body away. 39 Nicodemus, the man who had previously come to Jesus at night, accompanied Joseph, carrying a mixture of myrrh and aloes weighing about 75 pounds. 40 Then they took Jesus’ body and wrapped it, with the aromatic spices, in strips of linen cloth according to Jewish burial customs. 41 Now at the place where Jesus was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden was a new tomb where no one had yet been buried. 42 And so, because it was the Jewish day of preparation and the tomb was nearby, they placed Jesus’ body there.
Main ThemesBreaking BonesAs we have discussed before, victims of crucifixion could survive for days while agonizing on the cross. This presented a problem for the Jews: this was against their law.
If a person commits a sin punishable by death and is executed, and you hang the corpse on a tree, his body must not remain all night on the tree; instead you must make certain you bury him that same day, for the one who is left exposed on a tree is cursed by God. You must not defile your land that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. (Deuteronomy 21:22-23)
Put simply, an executed man had to be buried the same day. To leave the body exposed for longer would defile the land. But in the case of Jesus’ crucifixion, the defilement would extend well beyond the land. The day following the crucifixion was Saturday, the Sabbath—a holy day on its own right. (Recall that the most offensive crime committed by Jesus was “working” on the Sabbath.) As if that were not enough, the day following Jesus’ crucifixion was not any Sabbath—it was the Sabbath of Passover, the most holy festival of the year. As Craig Keener points out, “Leaving the bodies hanging on any day would have violated Jewish custom; leaving them up on a Sabbath was worse; leaving them up on a festal Sabbath was unconscionable.”
Consequently, the Jews could not wait for all three crucified men to die painfully, painfully slowly. They request that the victims’ legs be broken. Such an injury would prevent the prisoners from holding their weight up, leaving them hanging from their tied or nailed arms. This would result in quick suffocation.
Three observations are noteworthy. First, the Roman acquiescence to the Jewish request shows the Romans were at least somewhat accommodating to the Jews and their customs. We see an inkling of this when Pilate comes out of the praetorium to meet the religious elite, since they could not enter the home of a Gentile without becoming unclean. Second, the request reinforces the recurring theme that Jesus’ execution is primarily the responsibility of the Jewish elite, not the Romans. They are even directing some of the details of the execution. Third, and most importantly, Jesus “gives up” his spirit before the Jewish request is carried out. Jesus remains in control and purposefully directs the situation. And Jesus does so such that his bones not be broken.
The obvious follow up question is, “Why does it matter that Jesus’ bones were not broken?” As verse 36 tells us, “these things happened so that the scriptures would be fulfilled.” Which scriptures?
Primarily, Jesus’ unbroken bones fulfill the paschal lamb type. Before I cite the Old Testament, lets discuss what is a type. As a Christian website explains:
Typology is a special kind of symbolism. (A symbol is something that represents something else.) We can define a type as a “prophetic symbol” because all types are representations of something yet future. More specifically, a type in Scripture is a person or thing in the Old Testament that foreshadows a person or thing in the New Testament. For example, the flood of Noah’s day (Genesis 6—7) is used as a type of baptism in 1 Peter 3:20–21. The word for “type” that Peter uses is figure.
When we say that someone is a type of Christ, we are saying that a person in the Old Testament behaves in a way that corresponds to Jesus’ character or actions in the New Testament. When we say that something is “typical” of Christ, we are saying that an object or event in the Old Testament can be viewed as representative of some quality of Jesus.
While typology can sometimes be misused by careless theologians, it is a beautiful and powerful literary device. We can better understand the “real” thing by studying its “shadows.”
In this case, what is the type? As I stated above, it is the paschal lamb—the lamb that was sacrificed during Passover. (Recall, Passover is the very festival being celebrated when Jesus is crucified.)
How does John inform us of the connection between Jesus and the paschal lamb? By point out no bones were broken. An informed listener of the Gospel would quickly realize that this was just like God commanded regarding the lamb:
The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “This is the ordinance of the Passover. No foreigner may share in eating it. But everyone’s servant who is bought for money, after you have circumcised him, may eat it. A foreigner and a hired worker must not eat it. It must be eaten in one house; you must not bring any of the meat outside the house, and you must not break a bone of it. The whole community of Israel must observe it. (Exodus 12:43-47, emphasis added)
Ok, so the paschal lamb is a type for Jesus. Why does this matter? Because the “shadows” can inform us about the “real” thing. The paschal lamb tradition goes all the way back to the exodus of the Israelites from their Egyptian oppressors.
The Lord said to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, “This month is to be your beginning of months; it will be your first month of the year. Tell the whole community of Israel, ‘On the tenth day of this month they each must take a lamb for themselves according to their families—a lamb for each household. . . . Your lamb must be perfect, a male, one year old; you may take it from the sheep or from the goats. You must care for it until the fourteenth day of this month, and then the whole community of Israel will kill it around sundown. They will take some of the blood and put it on the two side posts and top of the doorframe of the houses where they will eat it. . . .
“‘I will pass through the land of Egypt in the same night, and I will attack all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both of humans and of animals, and on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment. I am the Lord. The blood will be a sign for you on the houses where you are, so that when I see the blood I will pass over you, and this plague will not fall on you to destroy you when I attack the land of Egypt. (Exodus 12:1-13, edited for brevity, emphasis added)
Notice some of the key characteristics of the paschal lamb. It had to be perfect. It had to live among the people for a while. Then the whole community had to get together to slaughter it. And what was its purpose? Those who marked their household with its blood would be “passed over,” avoiding God’s judgment.
Notice how important is the connection between the paschal lamb and Jesus. John does not make the theology of Jesus’ sacrifice explicit. What he does instead is to make clear that the paschal lamb is a type of Christ. We can then connect the dots. Jesus was a perfect sacrifice. Just like the paschal lamb, he lived among the people until the entire community gathered to kill him. Not one of his bones was broken. And what’s the purpose? Whoever marks himself with the blood of Christ will avoid the judgment of God.
The connection between the unbroken bones of the paschal lamb and Jesus on the cross would not have been missed on first-century Jews. Early Judaism carefully observed the prohibition against breaking the lamb’s bones. One who violated this rule was liable to receiving the forty lashes!
Finally, the fact that Jesus’ bones were not broken would also remind John’s audience of Psalm 34:19-20:
The godly face many dangers, but the Lord saves them from each one of them.
He protects all his bones; not one of them is broken.
Pierced His SideAs much as the connection between Jesus and the paschal lamb informs us, John points to additional scripture. Jesus’ bones were not broken, but his side was pierced. John makes a connection to prophecy by quoting Zechariah, “They will look on the one whom they have pierced.” Let’s read the source passage:
“I will pour out on the kingship of David and the population of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication so that they will look to me, the one they have pierced. They will lament for him as one laments for an only son, and there will be a bitter cry for him like the bitter cry for a firstborn. On that day the lamentation in Jerusalem will be as great as the lamentation at Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo. The land will mourn, each clan by itself . . . . “In that day there will be a fountain opened up for the dynasty of David and the people of Jerusalem to cleanse them from sin and impurity.” (Zechariah 12:10-13:1)
Later Jewish rabbis would also interpret this passage in Zechariah messianically.
And what happens next? John tells us that when Jesus was pierced on his side, “blood and water flowed out.” This also happened such that “the scripture would be fulfilled.” (v. 36) The recurring question returns: which scripture?
Before we answer that question, let’s consider some history. Roman soldiers carried both a short sword and a lace, or pilum. Consequently, the claim that a prisoner would be pierced by a spear is historically consistent. The surprise is not the piercing but the blood and water. Technically, as Craig Keener points out, “a substance that appears like water could flow from the pericardial sac around the heart along with blood.” However, the biology of blood and water flowing from Jesus is hardly the point of discussion today. The question is, what does it mean?
In the piercing of Jesus, some view a further connection to the paschal lamb. The Passover lamb was also “pierced” as it was cooked. A pomegranate limb would run from its mouth all the way through its body. Additionally, the blood of the lamb would be collected and sprinkled on the altar. The argument is that the emphasis on piercing Jesus and observing his blood is similar to how the paschal lamb was treated. However, this misses the key point in the text: not only blood flowed out but water as well. Water is the key.
In the Gospel of John, water has immense symbolic significance. Recall the conversation with the Samaritan woman:
A Samaritan woman came to draw water. Jesus said to her, “Give me some water to drink.” (For his disciples had gone off into the town to buy supplies.) So the Samaritan woman said to him, “How can you—a Jew—ask me, a Samaritan woman, for water to drink?” (For Jews use nothing in common with Samaritans.)
Jesus answered her, “If you had known the gift of God and who it is who said to you, ‘Give me some water to drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.” “Sir,” the woman said to him, “you have no bucket and the well is deep; where then do you get this living water? Surely you’re not greater than our ancestor Jacob, are you? For he gave us this well and drank from it himself, along with his sons and his livestock.”
Jesus replied, “Everyone who drinks some of this water will be thirsty again. But whoever drinks some of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again, but the water that I will give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up to eternal life.” (John 3:7-14, emphasis added)
Recall also Jesus’ concluding lesson at the Feast of Booths:
On the last day of the feast, the greatest day, Jesus stood up and shouted out, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me, and let the one who believes in me drink. Just as the scripture says, ‘From within him will flow rivers of living water.’” (Now he said this about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were going to receive, for the Spirit had not yet been given because Jesus was not yet glorified.) (John 7:37-39, emphasis added)
Water represents the Holy Spirit that will indwell the believers—but that would not come until Jesus were “glorified.” And what would be this “glorification?” Jesus spoke of the crucifixion with that exact word:
When Jesus had finished saying these things, he looked upward to heaven and said, “Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, so that your Son may glorify you—just as you have given him authority over all humanity, so that he may give eternal life to everyone you have given him. (John 17:1-2, emphasis added)
In short, now that Jesus has been glorified, now that his work is “completed,” the water of the Spirit of life flows. The scriptures have been fulfilled.
Joseph of ArimatheaThe Romans would prefer for the bodies of those crucified to remain exposed. Eventually, after the bodies had succumbed to rot and wild animals, they would be thrown in common burials. However, Jewish custom demanded burial by sunset (more on this later). So, is the account of Jesus burial historically reasonable? Pilate would have been aware of the Jewish custom concerning burial. Pilate shows his willingness to accommodate Jewish custom by meeting the Jewish elite outside the praetorium, he accommodates the execution of Jesus, and the Roman soldiers accommodate the breaking of the prisoners’ legs. Therefore, Pilate accommodating the burial of those crucified, particularly during one of the most holy festivals of the Jewish people, seems likely. Moreover, Pilate seemed to hold no personal animus against Jesus, and both Jesus’ enemies and his followers would have argued for Jesus’ burial. One could say that Roman law prohibited burying the executed. However, we know Romans sometimes surrendered the bodies to friends or relatives who sought to bury them. Since Pilate did not take seriously the charge of treason levied on Jesus, he had no reason to withhold Jesus’ burial.
The man who requests the body of Jesus for proper burial is one Joseph of Arimathea. John provides no introduction. At most, one could presume he must have been an important man to gain access to Pilate. Fortunately, the other gospels provide more information that confirm that presumption.
Joseph of Arimathea, a highly regarded member of the council, who was himself looking forward to the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. (Mark 15:43)
Perhaps the reason John does not provide information on Joseph of Arimathea is because Joseph had already become well known in the Christian community.
What is surprising about Joseph’s behavior is not so much the request to bury Jesus—even Jesus’ enemies wanted him buried before nightfall. The shock is that Joseph would bury Jesus in a family tomb rather than a criminal burial plot. (“Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut in the rock.” Matthew 27:59-60) Joseph was a secret disciple because of his fear of the Jewish elite. In a model act of courage, Joseph not only intercedes for Jesus (even if posthumously), but this intercession become undeniably public by honoring Jesus’ body with Joseph’s family tomb. Joseph acts in public defiance of the Jewish elite. Since technically Roman law prohibited the burial of the executed, one could also claim Joseph acts valiantly before the Romans by making his request. (We know that Pilate would grant the request, but Joseph would not have been so certain.)
Nicodemus, the Man Who Had Come at NightJoseph of Arimathea provides the tomb. Nicodemus provides the remaining burial arrangements.
Much like Joseph, Nicodemus had been afraid to publicly support Jesus. John makes sure we remember.
When we first meet Nicodemus, he comes to Jesus at night, presumably to meet in secret. His conversation with Jesus is riddled with confusion, denial, or both.
Now a certain man, a Pharisee named Nicodemus, who was a member of the Jewish ruling council, came to Jesus at night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs that you do unless God is with him.” Jesus replied, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter his mother’s womb and be born a second time, can he?” (John 3:1-4)
We later meet Nicodemus in chapter 7. As the Jewish elite seek to condemn Jesus for breaking the Sabbath and blasphemy, Nicodemus attempts to mount a legal defense of Jesus. He does so without exposing himself:
Nicodemus, who had gone to Jesus before and who was one of the rulers, said, “Our law doesn’t condemn a man unless it first hears from him and learns what he is doing, does it?” They replied, “You aren’t from Galilee too, are you? Investigate carefully and you will see that no prophet comes from Galilee!” (John 7:52-53)
Now, in chapter 19, John reminds us of this history. He introduces Nicodemus as “the man who had previously come to Jesus at night.” And in chapter 19, John also tells us the most important step in Nicodemus’ journey: he is finally willing to risk his reputation to follow Jesus.
We must notice the contrast between Joseph and Nicodemus on one hand and the disciples on the other. Joseph and Nicodemus remained secret because of fear, but in the darkest moment they displayed bravery and loyalty. The disciples followed Jesus openly, only to fall in the end.
If Joseph provides the tomb, what service does Nicodemus provide? The text says he brings “75 pounds” of spices. The Greek reads “100 pounds.” As the NET’s study note 115 explains:
The Roman pound (λίτρα, litra) weighed 12 ounces or 325 grams. Thus 100 Roman pounds would be about 32.5 kilograms or 75 pounds.
This is an extraordinary amount. If it is meant to be taken literally, according to Craig Keener, it would be worth tens of thousands of denarii (“was perhaps worth 30,000”). Recall that a denarii was a laborer’s compensation for one day’s work. Comparing such ancient currency to American dollars is difficult, but it would amount to tens of thousands or perhaps over a hundred thousand dollars. The amount is so extravagant, some believe it simply symbolizes a large, large amount.
Either way, whether the amount of spices is taken literally or not, the message is clear: Nicodemus comes bearing a gift befitting of kings, befitting of the “king of the Jews.” (Other ancient stories described kings being buried with huge amounts of spices. John’s audience would probably have understood the distinctly regal honor being bestowed on Jesus.) This is reminiscent of Mary the sister of Martha:
Then Mary took three quarters of a pound of expensive aromatic oil from pure nard and anointed the feet of Jesus. She then wiped his feet dry with her hair. (Now the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfumed oil.) But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (the one who was going to betray him) said, “Why wasn’t this oil sold for 300 silver coins and the money given to the poor?” (Now Judas said this not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief. As keeper of the money box, he used to steal what was put into it.) So Jesus said, “Leave her alone. She has kept it for the day of my burial. For you will always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me!” (John 12:3-8)
What was the purposes of the spices brought by Nicodemus? Jewish tradition, common throughout the ancient world, was to anoint bodies with spices. This brings us to the last theme of the night: Jesus’ burial.
Jesus’ BurialJesus had to be buried quickly. The Sabbath was fast approaching (remember the Sabbath begins at sunset on Friday), and some elements of burial could not be conducted on the Sabbath. For example, one could not move a corpse or its members on the Sabbath.
The few people at the gravesite take Jesus’ body and wrap it in strips of linen cloth along with spices. Spices were important not to preserve the body as the Egyptians may have done, but to diminish the stench. Jewish custom was to wait for one year such that the flesh had rotted off the bones, then the bones were collected and buried in an ossuary. The linen shroud was part of honorable burial.
The burial preparations, however, remain incomplete (presumably because sunset catches up to the mourners). The day after the Sabbath (on Sunday) the women would return to the tomb to do what was left undone. Of course, they would encounter a surprise beyond their imagination.
According to John, Jesus is placed in a nearby tomb “where no one had yet been buried.” Only the Gospel of Matthew explicitly states that the tomb was that of Joseph of Arimathea’s family (“and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut in the rock” Matthew 27:60), however a keen reader would guess as much. Joseph would have had no time to purchase a tomb in such short a time. People where often buried in fields or gardens. The location of Joseph’s tomb (in a garden) is therefore not surprising.
Private family tombs in Judea were often caves with an opening covered by a large stone rolled in a groove. The rock would have been hard to move from the outside and nearly impossible from the inside of the tomb. Given the wealth of Joseph of Arimathea, the rock covering his tomb may have measured approximately a yard in diameter, making it too large for one person to move. Notice that the kind of burial practiced by the Jews involved no shoveling of dirt or a coffin. As mentioned above, the body would simply rot in the antechamber of the tomb, and a year later the bones would be gathered in a box and buried in a niche in the wall.
Historical evidence and reasonable inferences support the tradition that Christians preserved the accurate site of the tomb, and it is probably located at the site of the Catholic Holy Sepulcher.
The Meaning of the CrossUp to this point we have studied the passion narrative in detail, recalling any Old Testament references, and taking into account historical evidence that elucidates the text. But the million-dollar question is, “What does this mean?” Why is the cross so central to Christianity? Indeed, it is not central only to Christianity as some late invention, it is the focus of the New Testament authors.
To answer those questions my mind is flooded with terms such as “substitutionary atonement,” “ransom theory,” and “moral influence.” This time, and just this once, I wish to try a different approach. I want to explain the significance of Jesus’ death—what we call the “atonement”—in a way that will be more relatable. For that purpose I wrote a short story, an analogy, perhaps a parable, to explain some of the meaning of the atonement. If you find my analogy to be overly quaint or off the mark, feel free to disregarded it.
Imagine a wonderful kingdom. The land is soft and fertile. The rain is plentiful yet measured. The rivers are so clean one can drink from them. The trees provide fruit, and every bush gives berries. No thorns or weeds are found. No dangerous critters of any kind crawl on the ground or walk upon it. Yet no one lives there other than the King and his Prince.
The land was well suited for all the King’s subjects, and the King wished his people to enjoy it. However, the King was a very good one, who desired his people do good and rejoice. Yet, all the people committed crimes against each other, the Kingdom, and the King. Every single one was condemned to exile and eventually death.
One day, as the King patrolled the borders of the kingdom, one of the exiles approached him. The man said, “King, I have thought much about the condition of my countrymen and I. Grant me this request. Take my life here and now as payment for everyone’s crimes. May our debt be settled, and may my countrymen return to the Kingdom.”
The King responded, “You bargain with something that is not yours. You are a man on death row. You have forfeited your life already. Your crimes have taken it from you. You offer me something that isn’t yours.” The man walked away hopeless.
The next day, as the King prepared to patrol the borders once more, his son the Prince approached him. “King and Judge,” began the Prince, “do you remember the conversation you had yesterday with that man?” “Yes,” responded the King. “May I make the same offer?” asked the Prince.
A pause ensued. The gravity of the request was not lost on either man. Finally, the King nodded granting permission. The Prince added, “My life is mine for I have committed no crime. Indeed, I am the only one in the Kingdom who has held onto his life.” The King listened. “These are my people. May their crimes be my crimes. May their penalties fall on my head. And so may they return to the Kingdom.”
“Son,” the King responded, “if I spare them, I will not spare you. If there is to be justice in this world, a wrong must be treated as a wrong.” “I would have it no other way,” responded the Prince.
“Your life, the life of one who has committed no crime, a regal life that can stand for the kingdom, is a proper and sufficient ransom,” said the King. Yet he added, “Be that as it may, that is not the only problem. They are criminals. They lie, cheat, and steal. They feel sorrow at another’s joy. They dream of calamities for their neighbor. Yet they forgive not the slightest iniquity if aimed at them.” He paused and then asked, “Shall I bring them to the Kingdom as they are? It will no longer be a perfect Kingdom, alas not even a good Kingdom.”
The Prince met the eyes of his King and responded, “Your words are true as always. May we therefore impose a condition.” The King retorted, “Any price on their part is sure to go unpaid. Cheap and fickle people they are.” “Oh no,” said the Prince, “nothing but the simplest of conditions.” He proceeded, “They must believe I paid for their crimes. That is, they must believe they have committed crimes and that they have been paid for by me.”
A kind smile crossed the King’s face. The King responded, “That is both the smallest and the greatest of all conditions. For a man to believe that he has committed crimes is to give up everything. He would have to look outside of himself for a judge and a jury. Then what is left to him? His ways might not be the ways. His thoughts may not be the truth. He might be wrong in this or that. He would need direction. A man who believes such a thing is a servant of another and dead to himself.”
The King paused for a minute, then continued, “And to believe the Prince has paid for his crimes would be a return to life. The Prince would have to be one worthy of such a feat. One whose ways are right and whose thoughts are truth. One worthy of following and of the utmost gratitude. The Prince would be the one worthy to provide direction. And the death of the Prince would exclaim the first instruction, ‘I love you. You are accepted. Enter the Kingdom.’ A man who believed such a thing would be a man ever more alive than he ever was before.”
“You would have them die and live again?” asked the King rhetorically.
“May it be so,” said the Prince. “May it be so,” said the King.
Scripture Reading: John 19:16b-30
So they took Jesus, 17 and carrying his own cross he went out to the place called “The Place of the Skull” (called in Aramaic Golgotha). 18 There they crucified him along with two others, one on each side, with Jesus in the middle. 19 Pilate also had a notice written and fastened to the cross, which read: “Jesus the Nazarene, the king of the Jews.” 20 Thus many of the Jewish residents of Jerusalem read this notice because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the notice was written in Aramaic, Latin, and Greek. 21 Then the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, “Do not write, ‘The king of the Jews,’ but rather, ‘This man said, I am king of the Jews.’” 22 Pilate answered, “What I have written, I have written.”
23 Now when the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes and made four shares, one for each soldier, and the tunic remained. (Now the tunic was seamless, woven from top to bottom as a single piece.) 24 So the soldiers said to one another, “Let’s not tear it, but throw dice to see who will get it.” This took place to fulfill the scripture that says, “They divided my garments among them, and for my clothing they threw dice.” So the soldiers did these things.
25 Now standing beside Jesus’ cross were his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 So when Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing there, he said to his mother, “Woman, look, here is your son!” 27 He then said to his disciple, “Look, here is your mother!” From that very time the disciple took her into his own home.
28 After this Jesus, realizing that by this time everything was completed, said (in order to fulfill the scripture), “I am thirsty!” 29 A jar full of sour wine was there, so they put a sponge soaked in sour wine on a branch of hyssop and lifted it to his mouth. 30 When he had received the sour wine, Jesus said, “It is completed!” Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
Main Themes[I am still working on the blog post.]
Historical Context: Roman CrucifixionThe latter half of chapter 19 describes the crucifixion of Christ, arguably the most significant event of human history even without taking into account its religious implications. If its theology is true, then its significance is certainly without rival. Yet, I fear the story—gory and mystical as it is—barely fazes us. It is part of our cultural DNA. It’s too familiar, while yet remaining unexamined. In an attempt to bring some “newness” to the story, I will begin this session by reading an extended quotation from Tom Holland’s (the historian, not Spider-Man) Dominion. Tom Holland is not a Christian, yet he realized, to quote the books byline, “how the Christian revolution remade the world.” He has the best description of crucifixion and its first century cultural significance I have encountered. Without further ado, here is Tom Holland in the preface to Dominion:
No death was more excruciating, more contemptible, than crucifixion. To be hung naked, ‘long in agony, swelling with ugly weals on shoulders and chest’, helpless to beat away the clamorous birds: such a fate, Roman intellectuals agreed, was the worst imaginable. This in turn was what rendered it so suitable a punishment for slaves. Lacking such a sanction, the entire order of the city might fall apart. Luxury and splendour such as Rome could boast were dependent, in the final reckoning, on keeping those who sustained it in their place. ‘After all, we have slaves drawn from every corner of the world in our households, practicing strange customs, and foreign cults, or none—and it is only by means of terror that we can hope to coerce such scum.’
Nevertheless, while the salutary effect of crucifixion on those who might otherwise threaten the order of the state was taken for granted, Roman attitudes to the punishment were shot through with ambivalence. Naturally, if it were to serve as a deterrent it needed to be public. Nothing spoke more eloquently of a failed revolt than the sight of hundreds upon hundreds of corpse-hung crosses, whether lining a highway or else massed before a rebellious city, the hills all around it stripped bare of their trees. Even in peacetime, executioners would make a spectacle of their victims by suspending them in a variety of inventive ways: ‘one, perhaps, upside down, with his head towards the ground, another with a stake driven through his genitals, another attached by his arms to a yoke’. Yet in the exposure of the crucified to the public gaze there lurked a paradox. So foul was the carrion-reek of their disgrace that many felt tainted even by viewing a crucifixion. The Romans, for all that they had adopted the punishment as the ‘supreme penalty’, refused to countenance the possibility that it might have originated with them. Only a people famed for their barbarousness and cruelty could ever have devised such a torture: the Persians, perhaps, or the Assyrians, or the Gauls. Everything about the practice of nailing a man to a cross—a ‘crux’—was repellent. ‘Why, the very word is harsh on our ears.’ It was this disgust that crucifixion uniquely inspired which explained why, when slaves were condemned to death, they were executed in the meanest, wretchedest stretch of land beyond the city walls; and why, when Rome burst its ancient limits, only the planting of the world’s most exotic and aromatic plants could serve to mask the taint. It was also why, despite the ubiquity of crucifixion across the Roman world, few cared to think much about it. Order, the order loved by the gods and upheld by magistrates vested with the full authority of the greatest power on earth, was what counted—not the elimination of such vermin as presumed to challenge it. Criminals broken on implements of torture: who were such filth to concern men of breeding and civility? Some deaths were so vile, so squalid, that it was best to draw a veil across them entirely.
The surprise, then, is less that we should have so few detailed descriptions in ancient literature of what a crucifixion might actually involve, than that we should have any at all. The corpses of the crucified, once they had first provided pickings for hungry birds, tended to be flung into a common grave. In Italy, undertakers dressed in red, ringing bells as they went, would drag them there on hooks. Oblivion, like the loose earth scattered over their tortured bodies, would then entomb them. This was a part of their fate. Nevertheless, amid the general silence, there is one major exception which proves the rule. Four detailed accounts of the process by which a man might be sentenced to the cross, and then suffer his punishment, have survived from antiquity. Remarkably, they all describe the same execution: a crucifixion that took place some sixty or seventy years after the building of the first heated swimming pool in Rome. The location, though, was not the Esquiline, but another hill, outside the walls of Jerusalem: Golgotha, ‘which means the place of a skull’. The victim, a Jew by the name of Jesus, a wandering preacher from an obscure town named Nazareth, in a region north of Jerusalem named Galilee, had been convicted of a capital offence against Roman order. The four earliest accounts of his execution, written some decades after his death, specify what this meant in practice. The condemned man, after his sentencing, was handed over to soldiers to be flogged. Next, because he had claimed to be ‘the king of the Jews’, his guards mocked him, and spat on him, and set a crown of thorns on his head. Only then, bruised and bloodied, was he led out on his final journey. Hauling his cross as he went, he stumbled his way through Jerusalem, a spectacle and an admonition to all who saw him, and onwards, along the road to Golgotha. There, nails were driven into his hands and feet, and he was crucified. After his death, a spear was jabbed into his side. There is no reason to doubt the essentials of this narrative. Even the most sceptical historians have tended to accept them. ‘The death of Jesus of Nazareth on the cross is an established fact, arguably the only established fact about him.’ Certainly, his sufferings were nothing exceptional. Pain and humiliation, and the protracted horror of ‘the most wretched of deaths’: these, over the course of Roman history, were the common lot of multitudes.
Decidedly not the common lot of multitudes, however, was the fate of Jesus’ corpse. Lowered from the cross, it was spared a common grave. Claimed by a wealthy admirer, it was prepared reverently for burial, laid in a tomb and left behind a heavy boulder. Such, at any rate, is the report of all four of the earliest narratives of Jesus’ death—narratives that in Greek were called euangelia, ‘good news’, and would come to be known in English as gospels. The accounts are not implausible. Certainly, we know from archaeological evidence that the corpse of a crucified man might indeed, on occasion, be granted dignified burial in the ossuaries beyond the walls of Jerusalem. Altogether more startling, though—not to say unprecedented—were the stories of what happened next. That women, going to the tomb, had found the entrance stone rolled away. That Jesus, over the course of the next forty days, had appeared to his followers, not as a ghost or a reanimated corpse, but resurrected into a new and glorious form. That he had ascended into heaven and was destined to come again. Time would see him hailed, not just as a man, but as a god. By enduring the most agonising fate imaginable, he had conquered death itself. ‘Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth…’
The utter strangeness of all this, for the vast majority of people in the Roman world, did not lie in the notion that a mortal might become divine. The border between the heavenly and the earthly was widely held to be permeable. In Egypt, the oldest of monarchies, kings had been objects of worship for unfathomable aeons. In Greece, stories were told of a ‘hero god’ by the name of Heracles, a muscle-bound monster-slayer who, after a lifetime of spectacular feats, had been swept up from the flames of his own pyre to join the immortals. Among the Romans, a similar tale was told of Romulus, the founder of their city. In the decades before the crucifixion of Jesus, the pace of such promotions into the ranks of the gods had begun to quicken. So vast had the scope of Roman power become that any man who succeeded in making himself its master was liable to seem less human than divine. The ascent into heaven of one of those, a warlord by the name of Julius Caesar, had been heralded by the blaze across the skies of a fiery-tailed star; that of a second, Caesar’s adopted son, who had won for himself the name of Augustus, by a spirit seen rising—just as Heracles had done—from a funeral pyre. Even sceptics who scorned the possibility that a fellow mortal might truly become a god were happy to concede its civic value. ‘For the human spirit that believes itself to be of divine origin will thereby be emboldened in the undertaking of mighty deeds, more energetic in accomplishing them, and by its freedom from care rendered more successful in carrying them out.’
Divinity, then, was for the very greatest of the great: for victors, and heroes, and kings. Its measure was the power to torture one’s enemies, not to suffer it oneself: to nail them to the rocks of a mountain, or to turn them into spiders, or to blind and crucify them after conquering the world. That a man who had himself been crucified might be hailed as a god could not help but be seen by people everywhere across the Roman world as scandalous, obscene, grotesque. The ultimate offensiveness, though, was to one particular people: Jesus’ own. The Jews, unlike their rulers, did not believe that a man might become a god; they believed that there was only the one almighty, eternal deity. Creator of the heavens and the earth, he was worshipped by them as the Most High God, the Lord of Hosts, the Master of all the Earth. Empires were his to order; mountains to melt like wax. That such a god, of all gods, might have had a son, and that this son, suffering the fate of a slave, might have been tortured to death on a cross, were claims as stupefying as they were, to most Jews, repellent. No more shocking a reversal of their most devoutly held assumptions could possibly have been imagined. Not merely blasphemy, it was madness.
Even those who did come to acknowledge Jesus as ‘Christos’, the Anointed One of the Lord God, might flinch at staring the manner of his death full in the face. ‘Christians’, as they were called, were as wise to the connotations of crucifixion as anyone. ‘The mystery of the cross, which summons us to God, is something despised and dishonourable.’ So wrote Justin, the foremost Christian apologist of his generation, a century and a half after the birth of Jesus. The torture of the Son of the Most High God was a horror simply too shocking to be portrayed in visual form. Scribes copying the gospels might on occasion draw above the Greek word for ‘cross’ delicate pictograms that hinted at the crucified Christ, but otherwise it was left to sorcerers or satirists to illustrate his execution. Yet this, to many across the Roman world, was not as deep a paradox as perhaps it might have seemed. So profound were some mysteries that mortals had no choice but to keep them veiled. The naked radiance of the gods was far too dazzling for the human eye. No one, by contrast, had been blinded by the spectacle of the Son of the Most High God being tortured to death; but Christians, although accustomed to make the sign of the cross as a gesture of piety, and to contemplate with wide-eyed reverence the gospel accounts of their Saviour’s sufferings, seem to have shrunk from seeing them represented in physical form.
Only centuries after the death of Jesus—by which time, astonishingly, even the Caesars had been brought to acknowledge him as Christ—did his execution at last start to emerge as an acceptable theme for artists. By AD 400 the cross was ceasing to be viewed as something shameful. Banned as a punishment decades earlier by Constantine, the first Christian emperor, crucifixion had come to serve the Roman people as an emblem of triumph over sin and death. An artist, carving the scene out of ivory, might represent Jesus in the skimpy loincloth of an athlete, no less muscled than any of the ancient gods. Even as the western half of the empire began to slip away from the rule of the Caesars and fall to barbarian invaders, so in the eastern half, where Roman power endured, the Cross provided assurance to an embattled people that victory would ultimately be theirs. In Christ’s agonies had been the index of his defeat of evil. This was why, triumphant even on the implement of his torture, he was never shown as suffering pain. His expression was one of serenity. It proclaimed him Lord of the Universe.
Carrying His Cross to GolgothaJesus carries his cross out of Jerusalem to a place called Golgotha. Jews and Romans alike performed executions outside of a town. The Romans made a spectacle of it, in which soldiers would march the prisoner while crowds of spectators gathered to watch.
John tells us that Jesus “carr[ied] his own cross.” The Roman custom was to have the prisoners carry his own patibulum—the transverse beam of the cross. This cross was later affixed over the upright stake (the palus, stipes, or staticulum). So, Jesus probably did not carry the entire cross as we normally see it depicted in paintings or movies. The Romans would often continue to scourge the prisoner. Given that Jesus had already been severely scourged, this may not have happened. Jesus could have died before ever reaching the cross.
The Synoptics tells us that someone else carried the cross:
As they led him away, they seized Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country. They placed the cross on his back and made him carry it behind Jesus. (Luke 23:26)
The texts can be easily harmonized. After the severe scourging Jesus received, he was probably unable to carry the cross the whole way to Golgotha. The Romans quickly conscript Simon of Cyrene to finish the job. No point in ruining a perfectly sadistic execution. The inference that Jesus was extremely weak is not mere speculation. Crucifixions lasted days with the criminal hanging on the cross. All four Gospels attest to Jesus dying quickly after being lifted. This shows he was mortally wounded well before the actual crucifixion.
Golgotha is probably at or near where the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is today. As Britannica explains:
Church of the Holy Sepulchre, also called Holy Sepulchre, church built on the traditional site of Jesus’ Crucifixion and burial. According to the Bible (John 19:41–42), his tomb was close to the place of the Crucifixion, and so the church was planned to enclose the site of both the cross and the tomb.
The Church of the Holy Sepulchre lies in the northwest quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem.
This is not mere reliance on the tradition that accompanies that church, but on historical evidence. The same evidence weighs against the famous “Garden Tomb”—which some Protestants believe to be Jesus burial site—from being the correct location.
Golgotha was also called “The Place of the Skull.” This could be from the shape of the terrain or, more likely, from the executions carried out there. Why do we, in the English-speaking Christian tradition, call this place “calvary”? As study note 56 in the NET tells us,
The Latin word for the Greek κρανίον (kranion) is calvaria. Thus the English word “Calvary” is a transliteration of the Latin rather than a NT place name (cf. Luke 23:33 in the KJV).
They Crucified Him Along Two OthersWhat is central to the Christian faith? The crucifixion of Jesus. Christians put crosses on their churches, wear crosses on their necks, and sing hymns like “The Old Rugged Cross.” Yet, in how much detail does the Gospel of John describe the crucifixion? In one. short. sentence.
There they crucified him along with two others, one on each side, with Jesus in the middle. (John 19:18)
The other Gospels hardly add much detail. Why? Because crucifixion was an unspeakably well-known horror at the time. It was the kind of event with which everyone in John’s audience would have been familiar, and the kind of event no one wanted to think about—particularly in relation to someone beloved, much less their Lord!
As explained by Tom Holland, crucifixions were intentionally horrific. They sent a public message. Executioners were given free reign to improvise and improved upon them. Sometimes the victim might tied to the cross, other times they might be nailed to it. The nails were 5 to 7 inches long. They penetrated the wrist and sunk deep into the wood. The criminal would hang for hours or days. He (or sometime she) would be unable to swat the flies off his wounds. He could not contain his bodily wastes. All while hanging from a cross anywhere from 6 to 10 feet in height.
Jesus was crucified with two others. At first, this may seem surprising. They appear nowhere else in the story. However, this is not an unlikely situation. Crucifixions were a form of government propaganda. What better way to broadcast the message than during a popular festival drawing thousands of people from all over the empire.
Jesus, King of the JewsPilate had a tablet made that displayed the charge against Jesus—“king of the Jews.” This would have been somewhat customary. During an execution, one of the soldiers might carry a tabula (tablet) declaring the charge and cause of execution. There dark humor embedded in this scene. Pilate included the charge provided to him by the Jews themselves. He writes it in Aramaic, Latin, and Greek. Remember that during this festival Jews from all over the empire and some Gentiles would travel to Jerusalem. Many of them may have been more fluent in Latin or Greek. So, Pilate advertises to all there: this is the king of the Jews being crucified.
Think of how the situation would have been perceived by those not “in the know.” The king of the Jews is being crucified by the Romans during the most important Jewish festival of the year, while a crowd of Jews—particularly the Jewish religious elite—cheer on. This would be confusing at best, and treacherous at worst. It would have looked like the Jewish religious elite were siding with the Romans against the Jewish claim of sovereignty.
The chief priests protest. The tablet must be rewritten, they request. “Do not write, ‘The king of the Jews,’ but rather, ‘This man said, I am king of the Jews.’” Pilate gets the last laugh. The Jewish leaders may have involved him in a situation with which he wanted no involvement; they may have twisted his arm by threatening to accuse him of treason to Caesar; but they certainly cannot direct Pilate’s execution of Jesus. “What I have written, I have written” he responds, taking his small revenge on them.
There is a subtle theological point made by the message on the tablet. Remember Jesus’ words in chapter 12:
And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself. (John 12:32)
The message, at least on its face, seems serious: “king of the Jews.” And it is written not only in Aramaic (the language of the Jews) but in the “universal” languages. Greek was still the lingua franca and Latin was a close second. They were the languages spoken all over the world, or that’s what anyone in John’s audience would have thought.
The point is that the message of Jesus’ kingship is displayed for all to see, not just the Jews. Of course, there are many more languages and the Gospel message is still making its way to the whole world today, but the symbolism is powerful. Jesus died so that “everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16, emphasis added)
They Took His Clothes; Psalm 22The soldiers proceed to take whatever few possessions Jesus had upon his arrest. Confiscating the goods of a executed prisoner was standard practice. The removal of clothing upon execution was also standard. The Romans executed prisoners naked. In the ancient world just as today, nakedness in the wrong settings can be cause of shame. For the Jews particularly, public nakedness would have especially shameful. Given that Jesus was crucified in a Jewish setting and during a Jewish festival, the Romans could have agreed to keep a loincloth covering the criminals.
The Roman army’s basic unit was a contubernium, eight men who shared a tent. Dispatching half a unit, i.e., four men, would have been common for a task such as crucifixion. (This was called a quaternion, a squad of four soldiers.) Hence the need to divide the garments among several soldiers. The NET translation says they “threw dice.” This is possible (that they used actual dice), but as translator’s note 74 to the NET explains:
Grk “but choose by lot” (probably by using marked pebbles or broken pieces of pottery). A modern equivalent, “throw dice,” was chosen here because of its association with gambling.
What the text calls a tunic would be an unfamiliar garment to us. Like translator’s note 71 in the NET explains:
Or “shirt” (a long garment worn under the cloak next to the skin). The name for this garment (χιτών, chitōn) presents some difficulty in translation. Most modern readers would not understand what a ‘tunic’ was any more than they would be familiar with a ‘chiton.’ On the other hand, attempts to find a modern equivalent are also a problem: “Shirt” conveys the idea of a much shorter garment that covers only the upper body, and “undergarment” (given the styles of modern underwear) is more misleading still. “Tunic” was therefore employed, but with a note to explain its nature.
The main point John is making by describing how soldiers divided Jesus’ clothes among them is a prophetic one. He reminds us how Psalm 22 is being fulfilled. I quote the entire psalm below (for the sake of legibility, I format it as if it were prose):
For the music director, according to the tune “Morning Doe”; a psalm of David. My God, my God, why have you abandoned me? I groan in prayer, but help seems far away. 2 My God, I cry out during the day, but you do not answer, and during the night my prayers do not let up.
3 You are holy; you sit as king receiving the praises of Israel. 4 In you our ancestors trusted; they trusted in you and you rescued them. 5 To you they cried out, and they were saved; in you they trusted and they were not disappointed.
6 But I am a worm, not a man; people insult me and despise me. 7 All who see me taunt me; they mock me and shake their heads. 8 They say, “Commit yourself to the Lord! Let the Lord rescue him! Let the Lord deliver him, for he delights in him.”
9 Yes, you are the one who brought me out from the womb and made me feel secure on my mother’s breasts. 10 I have been dependent on you since birth; from the time I came out of my mother’s womb you have been my God.
11 Do not remain far away from me, for trouble is near and I have no one to help me. 12 Many bulls surround me; powerful bulls of Bashan hem me in. 13 They open their mouths to devour me like a roaring lion that rips its prey.
14 My strength drains away like water; all my bones are dislocated. My heart is like wax; it melts away inside me. 15 The roof of my mouth is as dry as a piece of pottery; my tongue sticks to my gums.
You set me in the dust of death. 16 Yes, wild dogs surround me—a gang of evil men crowd around me; like a lion they pin my hands and feet.
17 I can count all my bones; my enemies are gloating over me in triumph. 18 They are dividing up my clothes among themselves; they are rolling dice [literally, “casting lots”] for my garments.
19 But you, O Lord, do not remain far away. You are my source of strength. Hurry and help me! 20 Deliver me from the sword. Save my life from the claws of the wild dogs. 21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lion and from the horns of the wild oxen.
You have answered me. 22 I will declare your name to my countrymen. In the middle of the assembly I will praise you. 23 You loyal followers of the Lord, praise him.
All you descendants of Jacob, honor him. All you descendants of Israel, stand in awe of him. 24 For he did not despise or detest the suffering of the oppressed. He did not ignore him; when he cried out to him, he responded.
25 You are the reason I offer praise in the great assembly; I will fulfill my promises before the Lord’s loyal followers. 26 Let the oppressed eat and be filled. Let those who seek his help praise the Lord. May you live forever!
27 Let all the people of the earth acknowledge the Lord and turn to him. Let all the nations worship you. 28 For the Lord is king and rules over the nations.
29 All the thriving people of the earth will join the celebration and worship; all those who are descending into the grave will bow before him, including those who cannot preserve their lives.
30 A whole generation will serve him; they will tell the next generation about the Lord. 31 They will come and tell about his saving deeds; they will tell a future generation what he has accomplished.
Look, Here is Your MotherWho is standing near Jesus as he is crucified. All the disciples except the “beloved disciple” have deserted him. The women are the ones who remain with him. This is not entirely surprising from a historical standpoint. Roman soldiers would probably have permitted women followers to remain with the convicted criminal. There would have been many bystanders anyways, and women—if followers of the criminal—may not have been viewed as active revolutionaries. In the Ancient world, women were allowed more latitude in mourning, and women were executed far less often. (Less often—but not never. The female followers of Jesus were still putting themselves at risk by openly supporting a crucified revolutionary.)
Only the Gospel of John mentions the presence of a male disciple at the cross. We have discussed the identity of the “beloved disciple” before. Christian tradition is that the beloved disciple is John himself (the author of the gospel). The fact that only John mentions his presence at the cross makes sense. The other gospel authors focus on the crucifixion itself. John adds a short description or touching moment he had with Jesus and Jesus’ mother.
Caution, a short rant is incoming: Nowadays, there are different proposals as to the identity of the beloved disciple. But, frankly, nowadays we can’t even agree on what is a woman, so scholarly disagreement on any given point is not as weighty as it once was. Moreover, biblical scholarship is staunchly opposed to tradition. Scholars seem to go out of their way to suggest non-traditional hypotheses, even if they are quite weak or nonsensical. At any rate, I will proceed as if the beloved disciple is John. I don’t think the other proposals are even worth discussing, but may this short rant serve as a disclaimer that you should look into those if you are interest. Ok, rant over. Back to the text.
Remember that Jesus began his ministry at the behest of his mother, although she did not understand what she was requesting.
When the wine ran out, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no wine left.” Jesus replied, “Woman, why are you saying this to me? My time has not yet come.” (John 2:3-4)
Now, Jesus’ mother is present at the end of his earthly ministry.
Remember that Jesus is Mary’s oldest son, or only son if you take the Catholic approach. Joseph is absent from the narrative, which means is probably deceased. This means that the responsibility of caring for Mary fell on Jesus’ shoulders. We will have a difficult time understanding the legal position of women in ancient Jewish society. They were “connected” to society through the men in their lives: as the daughter of a man, as the wife of a man, or as the mother of a man. A woman left with no man in her life, either as a father, husband, or son, was a woman that belonged to no household. And a woman without a household was most often destitute. (A younger woman might be expected to remarry or return to his father’s household if he is still living. With Mary, those choices are not available.)
Consequently, the duty of a son, particularly the eldest, was to care for her aging parents, particularly his mother. Moreover, from what we understand of Jewish custom, a dying man was allowed an encouraged to settle the legal status of the women for which he was responsible. A crucified man could make testament even from the cross.
Moreover, in the ancient world, both Jew and Roman, friendship could create a bond almost as meaningful as kinship. There are several ancient stories in which a dying man asks his friend to become like a son to the decedent’s mother. Consequently, the exchange between Jesus, Mary, and John would not have seem odd to an ancient audience. The last cultural fact we need to understand is that adoptive ties would have been taken seriously. A man adopting a woman as his mother is not mere poetry, but an honorable and serious commitment to care for her for the rest of her life.
It is with all that in mind that we need to read the conversation in verses 26 and 27. “’Woman, look, here is your son!’ He then said to his disciple, ‘Look, here is your mother!’” This was a serious exchange in which Jesus discharged his last duty—caring for his mother. There is a poetic beauty in that fact that as Jesus was crucified, he went to the grave with no earthly possessions. He had nothing to write a will about, except to settle the legal status of his mother. His mother is all he had and he gave her away as well.
One notable detail in this exchange is that Jesus entrusted his mother to his disciple, not to a sibling (whether full or half-sibling, if the Catholic approach is taken). Jesus’ ministry has cost him his family. He is now closer to his faith family than he is to his “real family.” This would become a model for many Christians including to this day, when families would disown their own fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, and children because they placed their faith in Jesus Christ.
I Am ThirstyEven on the cross, Jesus is working. He is careful even with his words in order to “fulfill the scripture.” He exclaims, “I am thirsty.” One its face, this statement is a visible symbols of Jesus’ mortality. The more biblically literate in John’s audience would recognize a reference to either Psalm 69 or Psalm 22. Psalm 22 was quoted above. Here I quote Psalm 69 in its entirety, again in the form of prose for easier legibility:
For the music director, according to the tune of “Lilies”; by David. Deliver me, O God, for the water has reached my neck. 2 I sink into the deep mire where there is no solid ground; I am in deep water, and the current overpowers me.
3 I am exhausted from shouting for help. My throat is sore; my eyes grow tired from looking for my God.
4 Those who hate me without cause are more numerous than the hairs of my head. Those who want to destroy me, my enemies for no reason, outnumber me.
They make me repay what I did not steal. 5 O God, you are aware of my foolish sins; my guilt is not hidden from you. 6 Let none who rely on you be disgraced because of me, O Sovereign Lord of Heaven’s Armies. Let none who seek you be ashamed because of me, O God of Israel.
7 For I suffer humiliation for your sake and am thoroughly disgraced. 8 My own brothers treat me like a stranger; they act as if I were a foreigner. 9 Certainly zeal for your house consumes me; I endure the insults of those who insult you.
10 I weep and refrain from eating food, which causes others to insult me. 11 I wear sackcloth and they ridicule me. 12 Those who sit at the city gate gossip about me; drunkards mock me in their songs.
13 O Lord, may you hear my prayer and be favorably disposed to me. O God, because of your great loyal love, answer me with your faithful deliverance. 14 Rescue me from the mud. Don’t let me sink.
Deliver me from those who hate me, from the deep water. 15 Don’t let the current overpower me. Don’t let the deep swallow me up. Don’t let the Pit devour me.
16 Answer me, O Lord, for your loyal love is good. Because of your great compassion, turn toward me. 17 Do not ignore your servant, for I am in trouble. Answer me right away.
18 Come near me and redeem me. Because of my enemies, rescue me. 19 You know how I am insulted, humiliated, and disgraced; you can see all my enemies. 20 Their insults are painful and make me lose heart; I look for sympathy, but receive none, for comforters, but find none.
21 They put bitter poison into my food, and to quench my thirst they give me vinegar to drink. 22 May their dining table become a trap before them. May it be a snare for that group of friends.
23 May their eyes be blinded. Make them shake violently. 24 Pour out your judgment on them. May your raging anger overtake them. 25 May their camp become desolate, their tents uninhabited. 26 For they harass the one whom you discipline; they spread the news about the suffering of those whom you punish.
27 Hold them accountable for all their sins. Do not vindicate them. 28 May their names be deleted from the scroll of the living. Do not let their names be listed with the godly.
29 I am oppressed and suffering. O God, deliver and protect me. 30 I will sing praises to God’s name. I will magnify him as I give him thanks. 31 That will please the Lord more than an ox or a bull with horns and hooves.
32 The oppressed look on—let them rejoice. You who seek God, may you be encouraged. 33 For the Lord listens to the needy; he does not despise his captive people.
34 Let the heavens and the earth praise him, along with the seas and everything that swims in them. 35 For God will deliver Zion and rebuild the cities of Judah, and his people will again live in them and possess Zion. 36 The descendants of his servants will inherit it, and those who are loyal to him will live in it.
The Gospel of Matthew seems to connect Jesus’ statement with Psalm 69. In the Greek, Matthew describes the drink as being mixed with cholēn, translated as gall or bile in English. This is the same Greek word used in the Septuagint translation of Psalm 69:21. (Notice that Matthew probably based his gospel on the Gospel of Mark, which uses the word esmyrnismenon (myrrh), so this seems like a deliberate interpretation by Matthew.) On the other hand, the Gospel of John (and the Gospel of Mark in Mark 15:34) make a reference to Psalm 22 just a few verses before. Interpreting the reference as connected to Psalm 22 shows more literary consistency with the rest of chapter 19. Of course, as your resident fence-sitter, I must also suggest that the reference could be to both Psalms. Jewish understanding of prophecy fulfillment was much more fluid than our modern sensibilities would like.
Most importantly, both Psalms place us in the context of the suffering servant, persecuted for his service to God.
Gave Up His SpiritAfter fulfilling scripture, Jesus exclaims “It is completed!” and gives up his spirit. Allow me to begin the discussion of verse 30 with its latter half.
John has emphasized time and time again that Jesus is in control, not the Jews, not Pilate, not anyone else but himself. He goes to the cross willingly and deliberately. The second half of verse 30 is the culmination of that theme. Jesus does not simply die. He gives up his spirit. Even at the moment of death, he is in control. Jesus, being God himself, sacrifices himself willingly.
The verb used by John to refer to Jesus’ giving up of his spirit is paredōken. This is the same verb (although different tense) as the verb used twice in Isaiah 53:12 (paredothē). In Isaiah, the verb is used passively (he is “given up”), while in John the suffering servant is active (he “gives up” his spirit). Nonetheless, the reference is fairly clear, particularly when we consider than John has referenced Isaiah 53 before (John 12:38).
Isaiah 53 is a key passage to understand the death of Jesus. As I did before with Psalm 22 and Psalm 69, I quote Isaiah 53 here as if it were prose:
Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the Lord’s power revealed through him?
2 He sprouted up like a twig before God, like a root out of parched soil; he had no stately form or majesty that might catch our attention, no special appearance that we should want to follow him. 3 He was despised and rejected by people, one who experienced pain and was acquainted with illness; people hid their faces from him; he was despised, and we considered him insignificant.
4 But he lifted up our illnesses, he carried our pain; even though we thought he was being punished, attacked by God, and afflicted for something he had done. 5 He was wounded because of our rebellious deeds, crushed because of our sins; he endured punishment that made us well; because of his wounds we have been healed.
6 All of us had wandered off like sheep; each of us had strayed off on his own path, but the Lord caused the sin of all of us to attack him.
7 He was treated harshly and afflicted, but he did not even open his mouth. Like a lamb led to the slaughtering block, like a sheep silent before her shearers, he did not even open his mouth.
8 He was led away after an unjust trial—but who even cared?
Indeed, he was cut off from the land of the living; because of the rebellion of his own people he was wounded. 9 They intended to bury him with criminals, but he ended up in a rich man’s tomb because he had committed no violent deeds, nor had he spoken deceitfully.
10 Though the Lord desired to crush him and make him ill, once restitution is made, he will see descendants and enjoy long life, and the Lord’s purpose will be accomplished through him.
11 Having suffered, he will reflect on his work, he will be satisfied when he understands what he has done. “My servant will acquit many, for he carried their sins. 12 So I will assign him a portion with the multitudes, he will divide the spoils of victory with the powerful, because he willingly submitted to death and was numbered with the rebels, when he lifted up the sin of many and intervened on behalf of the rebels.”
Scripture Reading: John 18:28-19:27
28 Then they brought Jesus from Caiaphas to the Roman governor’s residence. (Now it was very early morning.) They did not go into the governor’s residence so they would not be ceremonially defiled, but could eat the Passover meal. 29 So Pilate came outside to them and said, “What accusation do you bring against this man?” 30 They replied, “If this man were not a criminal, we would not have handed him over to you.”
31 Pilate told them, “Take him yourselves and pass judgment on him according to your own law!” The Jewish leaders replied, “We cannot legally put anyone to death.” 32 (This happened to fulfill the word Jesus had spoken when he indicated what kind of death he was going to die.)
33 So Pilate went back into the governor’s residence, summoned Jesus, and asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” 34 Jesus replied, “Are you saying this on your own initiative, or have others told you about me?” 35 Pilate answered, “I am not a Jew, am I? Your own people and your chief priests handed you over to me. What have you done?”
36 Jesus replied, “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my servants would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish authorities. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here.” 37 Then Pilate said, “So you are a king!” Jesus replied, “You say that I am a king. For this reason I was born, and for this reason I came into the world—to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.” 38 Pilate asked, “What is truth?”
When he had said this he went back outside to the Jewish leaders and announced, “I find no basis for an accusation against him. 39 But it is your custom that I release one prisoner for you at the Passover. So do you want me to release for you the king of the Jews?” 40 Then they shouted back, “Not this man, but Barabbas!” (Now Barabbas was a revolutionary.)
1 Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged severely. 2 The soldiers braided a crown of thorns and put it on his head, and they clothed him in a purple robe. 3 They came up to him again and again and said, “Hail, king of the Jews!” And they struck him repeatedly in the face.
4 Again Pilate went out and said to the Jewish leaders, “Look, I am bringing him out to you, so that you may know that I find no reason for an accusation against him.” 5 So Jesus came outside, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, “Look, here is the man!” 6 When the chief priests and their officers saw him, they shouted out, “Crucify him! Crucify him!” Pilate said, “You take him and crucify him! Certainly I find no reason for an accusation against him!” 7 The Jewish leaders replied, “We have a law, and according to our law he ought to die because he claimed to be the Son of God!”
8 When Pilate heard what they said, he was more afraid than ever, 9 and he went back into the governor’s residence and said to Jesus, “Where do you come from?” But Jesus gave him no answer. 10 So Pilate said, “Do you refuse to speak to me? Don’t you know I have the authority to release you and to crucify you?” 11 Jesus replied, “You would have no authority over me at all, unless it was given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of greater sin.”
12 From this point on, Pilate tried to release him. But the Jewish leaders shouted out, “If you release this man, you are no friend of Caesar! Everyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar!” 13 When Pilate heard these words he brought Jesus outside and sat down on the judgment seat in the place called “The Stone Pavement” (Gabbatha in Aramaic). 14 (Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover, about noon.) Pilate said to the Jewish leaders, “Look, here is your king!”
15 Then they shouted out, “Away with him! Away with him! Crucify him!” Pilate asked, “Shall I crucify your king?” The high priests replied, “We have no king except Caesar!” 16 Then Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified.
So they took Jesus, 17 and carrying his own cross he went out to the place called “The Place of the Skull” (called in Aramaic Golgotha). 18 There they crucified him along with two others, one on each side, with Jesus in the middle. 19 Pilate also had a notice written and fastened to the cross, which read: “Jesus the Nazarene, the king of the Jews.” 20 Thus many of the Jewish residents of Jerusalem read this notice because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the notice was written in Aramaic, Latin, and Greek. 21 Then the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, “Do not write, ‘The king of the Jews,’ but rather, ‘This man said, I am king of the Jews.’” 22 Pilate answered, “What I have written, I have written.”
23 Now when the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes and made four shares, one for each soldier, and the tunic remained. (Now the tunic was seamless, woven from top to bottom as a single piece.) 24 So the soldiers said to one another, “Let’s not tear it, but throw dice to see who will get it.” This took place to fulfill the scripture that says, “They divided my garments among them, and for my clothing they threw dice.” So the soldiers did these things.
25 Now standing beside Jesus’ cross were his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 So when Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing there, he said to his mother, “Woman, look, here is your son!” 27 He then said to his disciple, “Look, here is your mother!” From that very time the disciple took her into his own home.
Main ThemesPilateThe Jewish authorities sentence Jesus. Jesus’ apostles—most notably Peter—desert him. Then the time comes for the Romans to get involved.
The first question we ought to ask is: why? Why must the Romans be involved at all? I have discussed this already, so I will be brief. The Romans depended on delatores—accusers—to bring criminals to justice. These accusers could be individuals or councils, such as the Sanhedrin. In particular, the Sanhedrin was composed of the aristocratic elite of the most important city in Israel. The Roman governor would certainly cooperate with such a group.
The Jews deliver Jesus to Pilate “very early in the morning,” probably around 6 am. For Romans, “late morning” in the summer months was before 8 or 9 am. A Roman governor would probably end his public transactions around noon, leaving some time for leisure. In fact, Romans rarely slept in; doing so could carry the implication of drinking or partying the night before.
When the Jews deliver Jesus, they avoid entering into the “governor’s residence”—the praetorium. There is some debate whether the praetorium was Fortress Antonia, adjoining the temple courts, or the old palace of Herod the Great. The lavishness of Herod’s old palace, which would have been preferred by a Roman governor, along with confirmation from other ancient writings seem to support the latter alternative. Either way, why did the Jews not enter the praetorium? Because houses of non-Jews were ritually impure and entering them would render a Jew impure as well, keeping him from fully participating in the Passover festivities. This concern for ritual purity serves as evidence of the aristocrats’ hypocrisy: they spent the night ignoring the weightier matters of the law, such as justice and fairness, to then show concern for more superficial rituals. Recall Matthew 23:23-24:
“Woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You give a tenth of mint, dill, and cumin, yet you neglect what is more important in the law—justice, mercy, and faithfulness! You should have done these things without neglecting the others. Blind guides! You strain out a gnat yet swallow a camel!
Notice Pilate’s attitude. From Josephus’ writings (an ancient Jewish historian) we know that originally Pilate was quite unsympathetic towards the Jewish customs. In John, we find a Pilate much more willing to avoid unnecessary friction. He comes out to meet the Jewish elite, accommodating of the fact that they could not enter the home. However, Pilate also shows some annoyance with the situation. He asks, “What accusation do you bring against this man?” The response is, “If this man were not a criminal, we would not have handed him over to you.” If we read between the lines, Pilate’s question does not seem like an honest request for information. He seems to be aware of the accusation but remains unconvinced that this is a matter worthy of his involvement. The Jews insist they would not seek audience before Pilate if Jesus was not really a criminal.
The Jewish elite finally speak truly when they say, “We cannot legally put anyone to death.” As I explained above, only the Roman governor could order a person killed—particularly by crucifixion. Notice, therefore, that the only way in which Jesus’ words could be fulfilled (e.g., “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” John 12:32) was if the Jews involved the Romans. This was expected, indeed planned, by Jesus.
Roman citizens could not be legally crucified, but slaves and provincials could be, generally for rebellion against Rome.
Pilate was known for his brutality. He had sometimes executed Jews without trial. The Jewish elite knew that if they wanted Jesus dead, they were asking the right guy. They may have expected no hearing at all, even if Roman law technically required one. But there were politics at play. An overly cruel governor could give rise to revolts by the provincials. In fact, later in his life, Pilate’s excessive use of capital punishment cost him his office. We also have other reasons to believe that Pilate may have been trying to be more careful than usual. His patron, Sejanus, was executed in the year 31 AD. If the crucifixion happened in the year 33 AD, then Pilate found himself in a precarious situation with little political support. Even if the crucifixion happened in the year 30 AD (the other widely argued for date), Pilate may have already been feeling the mounting opposition to his patron. Pilate himself was only an equestrian, a class lower than senators. Finally, there is likely some personal animosity at work as well. Pilate had gained some political savvy by this point, but he probably strongly disliked the Jews. Pilate may have been fair to Jesus simply to spite the Jews.
Pilate Questions JesusAccording to normal judicial procedure, the accuser spoke first. So, Pilate had to already be aware of the charge of treason when he begins Jesus’ interrogation. The question Pilate asks is, “Are you the king of the Jews?” Ain’t that the million dollar question! In classic Johannine fashion, this moment drips with irony. Pilate is probably employing sarcasm, perhaps even mockery. But the gospel audience understands that the question is serious—the most important question ever, in fact. Is Jesus the Messiah, the Christ, the High Priest, the King, God himself?
Notice that Pilate’s question is strange in one regard: so far no one has used his exact terminology. Jesus’ detractors do not calling him king of the Jews. Jesus himself does not make the claim with those exact words. The title is not even a traditional Christian confession. Christians will call Jesus Messiah, Christ, Lord, or perhaps even King of Israel or King of Kings, but generally not King of the Jews. There is irony in the fact that a Gentile is one to speak with such insight, even if he spoke more than he knew.
Jesus’ reply plays on the irony of Pilate’s question. Jesus retorts, “Are you saying this on your own initiative, or have others told you about me?” Allow me to rephrase it as, “Oh, so you can tell? You figured it out on your own or someone told you?” Pilate’s response makes perfect sense, “I am not a Jew, am I?” In other words, “How would I know? I am not a Jew.”
If up to this point the conversation had a mocking tone, it becomes serious as Pilate asks, “Your own people and your chief priests handed you over to me. What have you done?” This is a hefty question. Paraphrased, Pilate says, “Your people wish me to have you killed. Why?” There is also some legalese at play here. If a defendant failed to offer a defense, the judge would ask about the charge three times before convicting the defendant by default.
Jesus explains that his kingdom is not of this world. He offers a simple proof. If his kingdom were of this world, his followers would be fighting to free Jesus; they would probably be fighting against Jews to establish Jesus as King and fighting against the Romans to liberate Israel. They are not. “As it is,” meaning, “look around, there is no fighting,” Jesus’ kingdom is certainly not political. But Jesus does not deny the charge against him. Jesus affirms he has a kingdom: “my kingdom is not from here.” If Jesus were trying to win his trial, this was not a wise move.
Pilate picks up on Jesus confession. “So you are a king!” To whatever extent Pilate is following standard trial procedure, notice that this is the third time the charge is brought up to the defendant. The defendant’s lack of defense will result in a conviction by default. (Although, perhaps the conversation simply developed this way and the governor is not thinking in terms of legal procedure.) For the last time, Jesus fails to defend himself. “You say that I am a king.” This statement can be taken in a few different ways. Jesus may mean it as, “You say I am king because I am.” As an older commentary puts it, “Thou sayest; for I am a king.” Another alternative is that Jesus bypasses the title and instead affirms the substance of the accusation. Then we could rephrase Jesus response as follows: “Is King the proper title for someone like me? I came into the world to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to me. Does that make me king?” However we interpret Jesus’ response, it is not a denial of the charge against him. Jesus may have sealed his fate.
Pilate ends the conversation with another million dollar question, “What is truth?” The true tone and intent behind his questions is hard to discern. Maybe Pilate is mocking Jesus’ and his commitment to truth. After all, Pilate lived a life of Roman politics and military prowess. Truth? Who cares. Power—that’s what really matters. We can almost hear his argument: “Do you think a man is convicted because he is guilty? He is convicted because he is weak. Do you think the powerful escape justice because they are righteous? Don’t be naïve! Do you think only the wicked are conquered and enslaved? We conquer devils and saints alike. Do you think the righteous rule the world? The strong rule over all. Do you think that kings speak only truth? If not, go ahead and disagree with them and see what happens. Do you think truth matters at all? Don’t be a child.”
Maybe Pilate means his question earnestly. The other gospels tell us that Pilate knew Jesus to be innocent. Moreover, Pilate’s wife had received a vision confirming Jesus was blameless and should not be convicted.
So after they had assembled, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release for you, Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Christ?” (For he knew that they had handed him over because of envy.) As he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent a message to him: “Have nothing to do with that innocent man; I have suffered greatly as a result of a dream about him today.” Matthew 27:17-19
We can imagine a corrupt ruler of a corrupt nation being asked by a corrupt ruling council to brutally crucify a man he knows to be innocent and asking himself: “What is truth? Is there anything worth fighting for? Anything worth sacrificing for? If so, what is that truth? Where does it come from?” These could be the questions of a wicked man who is beginning to see that what is right and wrong is not simply a matter of power.
Pilate Attempts to Release JesusPilate finds no (legal) fault in Jesus and attempts to release him. Pilate follows a custom of releasing one prisoner during Passover (as scholars call it, the “paschal amnesty custom”). A Roman governor was free to issue amnesties. We have record of Romans sometimes releasing prisoner en masse on local feasts. During their own festivities, Romans usually delayed punishments. So, the custom described in John would not have seemed odd in the ancient world.
Pilate gives the Jewish people a choice: Jesus or Barabbas? To Pilate’s surprise, the people exclaim: “Barabbas!” There is irony upon irony here. Jesus was accused of being a revolutionary but found to be innocent. Barabbas was an actual revolutionary! Technically, the word used in verse 40 is “robber,” but that was a euphemism for revolutionary. As the NET’s translators’ note 118 explains:
Or “robber.” It is possible that Barabbas was merely a robber or highwayman, but more likely, given the use of the term ληστής (lēstēs) in Josephus and other early sources, that he was a guerrilla warrior or revolutionary leader.
Moreover, the Jewish leaders allegedly acted against Jesus to prevent a revolution that could destroy Israel. John 11:49-50:
Then one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said, “You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is more to your advantage to have one man die for the people than for the whole nation to perish.”
Yet, they requested the release of the very type of person who would bring demise to the nation just 40 years later.
[I am working on the remainder of the blog post.]
Scripture Reading: John 18:1-40
When he had said these things, Jesus went out with his disciples across the Kidron Valley. There was an orchard there, and he and his disciples went into it. 2 (Now Judas, the one who betrayed him, knew the place too, because Jesus had met there many times with his disciples.) 3 So Judas obtained a squad of soldiers and some officers of the chief priests and Pharisees. They came to the orchard with lanterns and torches and weapons.
4 Then Jesus, because he knew everything that was going to happen to him, came and asked them, “Who are you looking for?” 5 They replied, “Jesus the Nazarene.” He told them, “I am he.” (Now Judas, the one who betrayed him, was standing there with them.) 6 So when Jesus said to them, “I am he,” they retreated and fell to the ground. 7 Then Jesus asked them again, “Who are you looking for?” And they said, “Jesus the Nazarene.” 8 Jesus replied, “I told you that I am he. If you are looking for me, let these men go.” 9 He said this to fulfill the word he had spoken, “I have not lost a single one of those whom you gave me.”
10 Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, pulled it out and struck the high priest’s slave, cutting off his right ear. (Now the slave’s name was Malchus.) 11 But Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword back into its sheath! Am I not to drink the cup that the Father has given me?”
12 Then the squad of soldiers with their commanding officer and the officers of the Jewish leaders arrested Jesus and tied him up. 13 They brought him first to Annas, for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. 14 (Now it was Caiaphas who had advised the Jewish leaders that it was to their advantage that one man die for the people.)
15 Simon Peter and another disciple followed them as they brought Jesus to Annas. (Now the other disciple was acquainted with the high priest, and he went with Jesus into the high priest’s courtyard.) 16 But Peter was left standing outside by the door. So the other disciple who was acquainted with the high priest came out and spoke to the slave girl who watched the door, and brought Peter inside. 17 The girl who was the doorkeeper said to Peter, “You’re not one of this man’s disciples too, are you?” He replied, “I am not.” 18 (Now the slaves and the guards were standing around a charcoal fire they had made, warming themselves because it was cold. Peter also was standing with them, warming himself.)
19 While this was happening, the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and about his teaching. 20 Jesus replied, “I have spoken publicly to the world. I always taught in the synagogues and in the temple courts, where all the Jewish people assemble together. I have said nothing in secret. 21 Why do you ask me? Ask those who heard what I said. They know what I said.” 22 When Jesus had said this, one of the high priest’s officers who stood nearby struck him on the face and said, “Is that the way you answer the high priest?” 23 Jesus replied, “If I have said something wrong, confirm what is wrong. But if I spoke correctly, why strike me?” 24 Then Annas sent him, still tied up, to Caiaphas the high priest.
25 Meanwhile Simon Peter was standing in the courtyard warming himself. They said to him, “You aren’t one of his disciples too, are you?” Peter denied it: “I am not!” 26 One of the high priest’s slaves, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, said, “Did I not see you in the orchard with him?” 27 Then Peter denied it again, and immediately a rooster crowed.
28 Then they brought Jesus from Caiaphas to the Roman governor’s residence. (Now it was very early morning.) They did not go into the governor’s residence so they would not be ceremonially defiled, but could eat the Passover meal. 29 So Pilate came outside to them and said, “What accusation do you bring against this man?” 30 They replied, “If this man were not a criminal, we would not have handed him over to you.”
31 Pilate told them, “Take him yourselves and pass judgment on him according to your own law!” The Jewish leaders replied, “We cannot legally put anyone to death.” 32 (This happened to fulfill the word Jesus had spoken when he indicated what kind of death he was going to die.)
33 So Pilate went back into the governor’s residence, summoned Jesus, and asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” 34 Jesus replied, “Are you saying this on your own initiative, or have others told you about me?” 35 Pilate answered, “I am not a Jew, am I? Your own people and your chief priests handed you over to me. What have you done?”
36 Jesus replied, “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my servants would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish authorities. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here.” 37 Then Pilate said, “So you are a king!” Jesus replied, “You say that I am a king. For this reason I was born, and for this reason I came into the world—to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.” 38 Pilate asked, “What is truth?”
When he had said this he went back outside to the Jewish leaders and announced, “I find no basis for an accusation against him. 39 But it is your custom that I release one prisoner for you at the Passover. So do you want me to release for you the king of the Jews?” 40 Then they shouted back, “Not this man, but Barabbas!” (Now Barabbas was a revolutionary.)
Main ThemesThe Passion NarrativeChapter18 puts us squarely within the “passion narrative.” As one website summarizes:
The term “passion narrative” is used primarily to refer to the accounts given in the canonical gospels of the suffering and death of Jesus. Generally, scholars treat the passion narratives as beginning with Jesus’ agony and arrest in Gethsemane and concluding with his burial. The sections to which these narratives are typically assigned consist therefore of Matthew 26:30–27:66, Mark 14:26–15:47, Luke 22:39–23:56, and John 18:1–19:42.
The passion narratives (referring to the different passion narratives in each gospel) are quite unique in their literary genre. The Gospels resemble the genre of ancient biographies. Ancient biographies ending with the subjects’ deaths were not unusual, but they rarely ended with the subjects’ martyrdom. If considered on their own (not within the larger context of each gospel), the passion narratives resemble martyr stories but even this comparison is not perfect. The shared elements with ancient martyrdom narratives include a righteous person’s unjust death, betrayal, refusal to compromise, and sentencing. However, the passion narratives do not include other distinctive elements of martyr narratives, such as sensationalistic details, interpretive speeches, and vengeful threats. The passion narratives are also different from the typical Greek apotheosis stories. Jesus is not promoted into divinity (e.g., like when Hercules turns “shiny” in the animated Disney movie); Jesus returns to his preexistent glory with the Father. All this has led at least one scholar (Theissen) to claim that, “There is no analogy to the Passion narrative in all of ancient literature.” To whatever extent this is an overstatement, it is not far off the mark.
The High Priest and the SanhedrinThe High PriestThe High Priesthood was a religious office instituted in the Old Testament by God (see, e.g., Exodus 28). By Jesus’ day, the office was quite different. According to the Old Testament, the office was held for life and was hereditary. In the first century, the office was appointed and held at the pleasure of the emperor and his political delegates. Thus, Quirinius appointed Annas, Gratus appointed Caiaphas, and Vitellius retired Caiaphas. In the Old Testament, only one person was referred to as the High Priest. In the first century, the High Priest and his sons were commonly referred to as high priests. Finally, the High Priest was meant to hold an incredibly important religious role, which was a linchpin of the Israelite’s religion. As such, we might expect the high priests in Jesus’ day to be Pharisees, given their religious fanaticism. Surprisingly, however, the office was dominated by Sadducees.
The SadduceesWho were the Sadducees? As one Christian website explains:
The Sadducees were an aristocratic class connected with everything going on in the temple in Jerusalem. They tended to be wealthy and held powerful positions, including that of chief priests and high priest, and they held the majority of the 70 seats of the ruling council called the Sanhedrin.
The Sadducees worked hard to keep the peace by agreeing with the decisions of Rome (Israel at the time was under Roman control), and they seemed to be more concerned with politics than religion. Because they were accommodating to Rome and were the wealthy upper class, they did not relate well to the common man, nor did the common man hold them in high opinion. The commoners related better to those who belonged to the party of the Pharisees. Though the Sadducees held the majority of seats in the Sanhedrin, history indicates that much of the time they had to go along with the ideas of the Pharisaic minority, because the Pharisees were more popular with the masses.
Not all priests were Sadducees, but many of them were. The Sadducees preserved the authority of the written Word of God, especially the books of Moses (Genesis through Deuteronomy). While they could be commended for this, they definitely were not perfect in their doctrinal views. The following is a brief list of Sadducean beliefs that contradict Scripture:
The Sadducees were extremely self-sufficient to the point of denying God’s involvement in everyday life.
They denied any resurrection of the dead (Matthew 22:23; Mark 12:18–27; Acts 23:8). Due to this belief, the Sadducees strongly resisted the apostles’ preaching that Jesus had risen from the dead.
They denied the afterlife, holding that the soul perished at death and therefore denying any penalty or reward after the earthly life.
They denied the existence of a spiritual world, i.e., angels and demons (Acts 23:8).
Notice what an odd bunch the Sadducees were. They used the biblical tradition as a set of societal rules but denied the underlying spiritual realities. Without an after life, the resurrection of the dead, or even a spiritual world, the Old Testament is rendered nearly meaningless. Judgment, atonement, and the eschaton become, at most, symbolic. God, if real at all, ought to be followed to avoid his wrath, have a pleasant life, and a prosperous nation. When I think about it, the Sadducees don’t sound that odd. In fact, they sound oddly familiar.
Sadducees were rarely concerned with purity rules, particularly the extrabiblical ones followed by the Pharisees. They were much more concerned with politics. And these were the people that dominated the priesthood, the high priesthood, and Jerusalem’s ruling council—the Sanhedrin.
The SanhedrinThe Sanhedrin was a municipal aristocracy. Large cities in the ancient world often had their own senates or ruling councils. They would be comprised of the wealthy elite. In the case of the Sanhedrin, although a municipal group, its power influenced national affairs. Because the group was dominated by Sadducees, it was more of a political council with a religious veneer than a religious council with political power. Tradition indicates the group had 71 members, although this may have been more of an average rather than an exact number. Some or most of the members may have been appointed by the local rulers, such as Herod. Also according to tradition, the group met in the Chamber of Hewn Stone on the Temple Mount.
The Romans were glad to interact and delegate to local councils. The Roman justice system worked with a system of delatores instead of prosecutors. A local individual or group would accuse and then testify against an alleged criminal. Local councils could also issue sentences and administer punishments themselves, without involving the Romans. The Romans, however, reserved the power of capital punishment. Part of the reason for this limitation on local councils was to prevent them from executing fellow provincials for being pro-Roman.
Betrayal and ArrestAfter Jesus concludes his speech (recall chapters 13 through 17), he goes out with his disciples to the Kidron Valley. This valley is east of Jerusalem and separates the Temple Mount from the Mount of Olives. A creek is found at the bottom of the valley, but it is dry much of the year. The valley runs all the way to the Dead Sea. The Old Testament refers to part of this valley as the "Valley of Josaphat." The location is relevant to some eschatological prophecies.
Jesus reaches an orchard or garden, depending on the translation. At the time, gardens were often enclosed by walls, but that may not be in view here. The word orchard may be a better translation considering that the Gospel of Mark calls the place Gethsemane, which means “olive press.” So, Jesus probably reaches an olive orchard with an olive press as part of the agricultural unit.
Judas knew this place because Jesus often met there with his disciples. Judas guides a “squad of soldiers” and some officers of the chief priests and Pharisees. The term translated as “squad of soldiers” is literally “cohort.” As translators’ note 6 in the NET explains:
Grk “a cohort.” The word σπεῖραν (speiran) is a technical term for a Roman cohort, normally a force of 600 men (one-tenth of a legion). It was under the command of a χιλίαρχος (chiliarchos, v. 12). Because of the improbability of an entire cohort being sent to arrest a single man, some have suggested that σπεῖραν here refers only to a maniple, a force of 200. But the use of the word here does not necessarily mean the entire cohort was present on this mission, but only that it was the cohort which performed the task (for example, saying the fire department put out the fire does not mean that every fireman belonging to the department was on the scene at the time). These Roman soldiers must have been ordered to accompany the servants of the chief priests and Pharisees by Pilate, since they would have been under the direct command of the Roman prefect or procurator. It is not difficult to understand why Pilate would have been willing to assist the Jewish authorities in such a way. With a huge crowd of pilgrims in Jerusalem for the Passover, the Romans would have been especially nervous about an uprising of some sort. No doubt the chief priests and Pharisees had informed Pilate that this man Jesus was claiming to be the Messiah, or in the terms Pilate would understand, king of Israel.
However, the matter is not quite as straightforward as the translators’ note may lead us to believe. Although the term cohort is certainly a Roman one, such military terms had long been transferred to Jewish soldiers. It is more historically probable that the arrest did not involve Roman authorities, which have not been alerted yet in the story. Neither the Synoptics nor John’s Gospel seem to involve the Romans at this point in the story.
Notice that the soldiers come with lanterns and torches. Although this could simply imply it was dark, it may also suggest that the authorities expected Jesus to run and a chase to ensue. That did not occur. Jesus turns himself in since “he knew everything that was going to happen to him.”
In the Synoptics, Judas identifies Jesus with a kiss. In the Gospel of John, the author omits that detail and jumps straight to the dialogue.
I Am HeThe dialogue between Jesus and the arresting authorities has a seemingly strange moment. Jesus asks, “Who are you looking for?” They reply, “Jesus the Nazarene.” Jesus responds, “I am he.” Upon saying this, “they retreated and fell to the ground.” Why? As translators’ note 16 to the NET explains (quoted only in part):
When Jesus said to those who came to arrest him “I am,” they retreated and fell to the ground. L. Morris says that “it is possible that those in front recoiled from Jesus’ unexpected advance, so that they bumped those behind them, causing them to stumble and fall” (John [NICNT], 743-44). Perhaps this is what in fact happened on the scene, but the theological significance given to this event by the author implies that more is involved. The reaction on the part of those who came to arrest Jesus comes in response to his affirmation that he is indeed the one they are seeking, Jesus the Nazarene. But Jesus makes this affirmation of his identity using a formula which the reader has encountered before in the Fourth Gospel, e.g., 8:24, 28, 58. Jesus has applied to himself the divine Name of Exod 3:14, “I AM.”
Jesus identifies himself with a formula that sounds like he is calling himself God. Everyone present certainly takes it as such and reacts to the deadly blasphemy. They drop to the ground almost as if to avoid the lightning that was sure to strike from the sky—so grievous was the offense.
Peter’s ResitanceThe Synoptics do not tell us who reacts violently during Jesus’ arrest. The Gospel of John does: Peter. It even tells us the name of the victim, Malchus. Perhaps the earlier gospels omitted this information to protect Peter from arrest and prosecution. John, writing years later, can provide people’s identities without problem.
Peter’s brave attack creates a striking backdrop against his impending abandonment of Jesus. As Craig Keener points out, “Loyalty with a weapon in one’s hand and hope of messianic help is not the same as loyalty when self-defense is impossible . . . .”
Why Peter harmed only Malchus’ ear is unclear. The chances that Peter was confident and dexterous enough with a blade to do so on purpose are slim to none. Peter may have meant a much more serious wound to the face or neck, and Malchus may have partially moved out of the way.
Jesus rebukes Peter and insist Jesus must “drink the cup” that the Father has given him. What is this “the cup?” The cup is a symbol of judgment often employed in the Old Testament. For example:
May he rain down burning coals and brimstone on the wicked! A whirlwind is what they deserve. (In Hebrew, the literal text says, “[may] a wind of rage [be] the portion of their cup.”) Psalm 11:6
You have made your people experience hard times; you have made us drink intoxicating wine. Psalm 60:3
You will be shocked and amazed! You are totally blind! They are drunk, but not because of wine; they stagger, but not because of beer. For the Lord has poured out on you a strong urge to sleep deeply. He has shut your eyes (you prophets), and covered your heads (you seers). Isaiah 29:9-10
Wake up! Wake up! Get up, O Jerusalem! You drank from the cup the Lord passed to you, which was full of his anger. You drained dry the goblet full of intoxicating wine. Isaiah 51:17
Annas and CaiaphasAnnas and the Corrupt TrialUpon arrest Jesus is first taken to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, “who was high priest that year.” Please recall the discussion of the high priesthood above. According to Jewish law, the high priest was to serve for life. Now that the Romans had conquered the Jews, the high priest could be changed at the whim of the Roman authorities. That was the case with Annas. He had been appointed high priest by the Romans and was later deposed by them. However, there are strong indications that Annas held on to the powerful office albeit unofficially. After Annas left office, all five of his sons followed in office. In all likelihood, Annas remained the powerful figure pulling the strings of his children. Also, Annas was probably still viewed by the people of Israel as the true high priest. John outright refers to him as the high priest while also acknowledging that technically Caiaphas was the high priest that year. All this explains why Jesus was first brought to him although officially Annas held no office.
Beginning with Annas, the Jewish trial of Jesus shows evidence of corruption. For example, Pharisaic tradition prohibited a single individual from acting as judge. Perhaps Annas, who was a Sadducee and not a Pharisee, could be excused from such a requirement. There were other irregularities, however. To the extent that later rabbinic sources give us insight into Jewish first century practices, judges were meant to conduct capital trials during daylight (this may explain the brief meeting with Caiaphas early in the morning), trials should not occur on the eve of or during a Sabbath or festival (although emergency situations could justify doing so), pharisaic tradition required a day to pass before issuing a verdict of condemnation (Sadducees may not have felt bound to this tradition), and the Sanhedrin was supposed to meet in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. Most importantly, Jewish law forbade false witnesses. The penalty for a false witness in a capital case was death. Although not found in John, the other gospels mention such false witnesses (e.g., Matthew 26:59).
The original audience of John’s Gospel would have picked up on the irregularities. Yet, they also would have never expected otherwise. The law in the first century unabashedly favored the wealthy and powerful. There was no expectation of fairness.
Annas Questions JesusAnnas questions Jesus regarding his disciples and his teachings. Although the text does not say, we can make an educated guess that Annas probably focused on statements like Jesus’ threat against the temple (“Jesus replied, ‘Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again.’ Then the Jewish leaders said to him, ‘This temple has been under construction for 46 years, and are you going to raise it up in three days?’” John 2:19-20); Jesus’ blasphemous claims (“‘The Father and I are one.’ The Jewish leaders picked up rocks again to stone him to death. Jesus said to them, ‘I have shown you many good deeds from the Father. For which one of them are you going to stone me?’ The Jewish leaders replied, ‘We are not going to stone you for a good deed but for blasphemy because you, a man, are claiming to be God.’” John 10:30-33); and the violent or sacrilegious behavior of Jesus’ disciples (“Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, pulled it out and struck the high priest’s slave, cutting off his right ear.” John 18:10).
Jesus does not directly address the accusations. There might be a legal strategy at work. There is some indication (although from later sources), that a Jewish tribunal could not condemn a prisoner based solely on his own testimony in a capital case. Another possibility is that since Jesus had been confronted by the authorities in public and been vindicated in public (e.g., “The officers replied, ‘No one ever spoke like this man!’” John 7:46), this trial was inappropriate, in a similar way that we prohibit double jeopardy. Regardless of whether the author intends us to pick up on such legal tactics, Jesus certainly does not display the submissive behavior expected of him. Most prisoners brought before an aristocratic tribunal would have known to act self-effacingly and highly adulatory of the authorities.
Jesus’ response to Annas’ questioning makes perfect sense. (“I have spoken publicly to the world. I always taught in the synagogues and in the temple courts, where all the Jewish people assemble together. I have said nothing in secret. Why do you ask me? Ask those who heard what I said. They know what I said.” John 18:20-21) Whatever the accusations may be of him, why is an investigation (i.e., a trial with testimony and evidence) required? Jesus taught publicly. There is nothing to discover. Surely if Jesus said anything worthy of death in public, there would have been public opposition. Both Jews and Romans were highly suspicious of secret religious groups—a prejudice on which Annas’ questioning is predicated. Jesus makes clear he is not part of a secret sect. Moreover, Jesus’ response has an implied accusation. He taught in public. The religious elite, however, arrested him in secret.
Annas strikes Jesus because of his disrespect. In Annas’ mind, Jesus ought to beg not challenge. Striking the prisoner during questioning would have violated Jewish law, but as I discussed above, no ancient listener would be surprised by a member of the elite taking certain liberties. Jesus response to the strike is another challenge. (“If I have said something wrong, confirm what is wrong. But if I spoke correctly, why strike me? John 18:23) If Annas has struck Jesus without reason, then the one who has broken the law is Annas while Jesus remains blameless.
Caiaphas Takes Jesus to the RomansAnnas sends Jesus to Caiaphas. Caiaphas is the one to turn Jesus in to the Romans. There are a few reasons this was the case. Primarily, we must remember that Caiaphas was technically holding the office of high priest that year. Annas could pull the strings in the background, but Caiaphas’ rubber stamp was still required. Also, and this is much more speculative, Jewish law may have required a daytime trial in a capital case. A brief, early morning hearing with Caiaphas may have technically fulfilled this requirement.
Peter’s DenialsPeter denies Jesus three times. The first denial is found in verses 15 through 18. An anonymous disciple introduces Peter into the high priest’s household. The level of acquaintance between the unknown disciple and the high priest is not described. It could range from a person who regularly supplied the high priest’s household (for example, of fish) and had therefore met his servants, to a person who was a true friend of someone in the high priest’s household. One could speculate regarding the identity of this disciple, but there is no indication that he was even one of the twelve. The options are too many.
In verse 17, the slave girl at the door asks, or perhaps the better word is accuses, “You’re not one of this man’s disciples too, are you?” Perhaps she remembered having seen Peter with Jesus. Maybe Peter’s Galilean accent gave him away. Peter, now surrounded by the high priest’s slaves and guards, responds, “I am not.” Given the value of honor towards one’s teacher, Peter’s behavior would have been seen as bringing shame not only upon himself but upon Jesus as well. Peter fails to do what Jesus requires, “The one who loves his life destroys it, and the one who hates his life in this world guards it for eternal life. If anyone wants to serve me, he must follow me, and where I am, my servant will be too. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him.” John 12:25-26
Peter’s second and third denials are described in verses 25 through 27. In verse 25, “they” recognize him—probably servants of the high priest. Again we are not told how he is recognized. Peter emphatically denies being one of Jesus disciples, “I am not!” Finally, a relative of Malchus—the man Peter attacked and cut off his ear—recognizes Peter. Then the most damning accusation is made, “Did I not see you in the orchard with him?” Peter had attacked (with probable lethal intent) a servant of the arresting officials. If Peter were identified, he could have been properly sentenced. Peter denies Jesus one more time and the rooster crows.
The rooster crowing marks the climax, though not the end, to Peter’s story. The words of Jesus are fulfilled. Recall John 13:31-38:
31 When Judas had gone out, Jesus said, “Now the Son of Man is glorified, and God is glorified in him. 32 If God is glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself, and he will glorify him right away. 33 Children, I am still with you for a little while. You will look for me, and just as I said to the Jewish religious leaders, ‘Where I am going you cannot come,’ now I tell you the same.
34 “I give you a new commandment—to love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. 35 Everyone will know by this that you are my disciples—if you have love for one another.”
36 Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, where are you going?” Jesus replied, “Where I am going, you cannot follow me now, but you will follow later.” 37 Peter said to him, “Lord, why can’t I follow you now? I will lay down my life for you!” 38 Jesus answered, “Will you lay down your life for me? I tell you the solemn truth, the rooster will not crow until you have denied me three times!
Notice that Peter’s denials are interspersed with Jesus’ fearless responses to the high priest. This literary device creates a stark comparison between he who is willing to lay down his life and he who is not. Notice as well that Peter’s later restoration (John 21:7-ff) provides hope for all those who have faltered.
PilateThe Jewish authorities sentence Jesus. Jesus’ apostles—most notably Peter—desert him. Then the time comes for the Romans to get involved.
The first question we ought to ask is: why? Why must the Romans be involved at all? I have discussed this already, so I will be brief. The Romans depended on delatores—accusers—to bring criminals to justice. These accusers could be individuals or councils, such as the Sanhedrin. In particular, the Sanhedrin was composed of the aristocratic elite of the most important city in Israel. The Roman governor would certainly cooperate with such a group.
The Jews deliver Jesus to Pilate “very early in the morning,” probably around 6 am. For Romans, “late morning” in the summer months was before 8 or 9 am. A Roman governor would probably end his public transactions around noon, leaving some time for leisure. In fact, Romans rarely slept in; doing so could carry the implication of drinking or partying the night before.
When the Jews deliver Jesus, they avoid entering into the “governor’s residence”—the praetorium. There is some debate whether the praetorium was Fortress Antonia, adjoining the temple courts, or the old palace of Herod the Great. The lavishness of Herod’s old palace, which would have been preferred by a Roman governor, along with confirmation from other ancient writings seem to support the latter alternative. Either way, why did the Jews not enter the praetorium? Because houses of non-Jews were ritually impure and entering them would render a Jew impure as well, keeping him from fully participating in the Passover festivities. This concern for ritual purity serves as evidence of the aristocrats’ hypocrisy: they spent the night ignoring the weightier matters of the law, such as justice and fairness, to then show concern for more superficial rituals. Recall Matthew 23:23-24:
“Woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You give a tenth of mint, dill, and cumin, yet you neglect what is more important in the law—justice, mercy, and faithfulness! You should have done these things without neglecting the others. Blind guides! You strain out a gnat yet swallow a camel!
Notice Pilate’s attitude. From Josephus’ writings (an ancient Jewish historian) we know that originally Pilate was quite unsympathetic towards the Jewish customs. In John, we find a Pilate much more willing to avoid unnecessary friction. He comes out to meet the Jewish elite, accommodating of the fact that they could not enter the home. However, Pilate also shows some annoyance with the situation. He asks, “What accusation do you bring against this man?” The response is, “If this man were not a criminal, we would not have handed him over to you.” If we read between the lines, Pilate’s question does not seem like an honest request for information. He seems to be aware of the accusation but remains unconvinced that this is a matter worthy of his involvement. The Jews insist they would not seek audience before Pilate if Jesus was not really a criminal.
The Jewish elite finally speak truly when they say, “We cannot legally put anyone to death.” As I explained above, only the Roman governor could order a person killed—particularly by crucifixion. Notice, therefore, that the only way in which Jesus’ words could be fulfilled (e.g., “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” John 12:32) was if the Jews involved the Romans. This was expected, indeed planned, by Jesus.
Roman citizens could not be legally crucified, but slaves and provincials could be, generally for rebellion against Rome.
Pilate was known for his brutality. He had sometimes executed Jews without trial. The Jewish elite knew that if they wanted Jesus dead, they were asking the right guy. They may have expected no hearing at all, even if Roman law technically required one. But there were politics at play. An overly cruel governor could give rise to revolts by the provincials. In fact, later in his life, Pilate’s excessive use of capital punishment cost him his office. We also have other reasons to believe that Pilate may have been trying to be more careful than usual. His patron, Sejanus, was executed in the year 31 AD. If the crucifixion happened in the year 33 AD, then Pilate found himself in a precarious situation with little political support. Even if the crucifixion happened in the year 30 AD (the other widely argued for date), Pilate may have already been feeling the mounting opposition to his patron. Pilate himself was only an equestrian, a class lower than senators. Finally, there is likely some personal animosity at work as well. Pilate had gained some political savvy by this point, but he probably strongly disliked the Jews. Pilate may have been fair to Jesus simply to spite the Jews.
Pilate Questions JesusAccording to normal judicial procedure, the accuser spoke first. So, Pilate had to already be aware of the charge of treason when he begins Jesus’ interrogation. The question Pilate asks is, “Are you the king of the Jews?” Ain’t that the million dollar question! In classic Johannine fashion, this moment drips with irony. Pilate is probably employing sarcasm, perhaps even mockery. But the gospel audience understands that the question is serious—the most important question ever, in fact. Is Jesus the Messiah, the Christ, the High Priest, the King, God himself?
Notice that Pilate’s question is strange in one regard: so far no one has used his exact terminology. Jesus’ detractors do not calling him king of the Jews. Jesus himself does not make the claim with those exact words. The title is not even a traditional Christian confession. Christians will call Jesus Messiah, Christ, Lord, or perhaps even King of Israel or King of Kings, but generally not King of the Jews. There is irony in the fact that a Gentile is one to speak with such insight, even if he spoke more than he knew.
Jesus’ reply plays on the irony of Pilate’s question. Jesus retorts, “Are you saying this on your own initiative, or have others told you about me?” Allow me to rephrase it as, “Oh, so you can tell? You figured it out on your own or someone told you?” Pilate’s response makes perfect sense, “I am not a Jew, am I?” In other words, “How would I know? I am not a Jew.”
If up to this point the conversation had a mocking tone, it becomes serious as Pilate asks, “Your own people and your chief priests handed you over to me. What have you done?” This is a hefty question. Paraphrased, Pilate says, “Your people wish me to have you killed. Why?” There is also some legalese at play here. If a defendant failed to offer a defense, the judge would ask about the charge three times before convicting the defendant by default.
Jesus explains that his kingdom is not of this world. He offers a simple proof. If his kingdom were of this world, his followers would be fighting to free Jesus; they would probably be fighting against Jews to establish Jesus as King and fighting against the Romans to liberate Israel. They are not. “As it is,” meaning, “look around, there is no fighting at all",” Jesus’ kingdom is certainly not political. But Jesus does not deny the charge against him. Jesus affirms he has a kingdom: “my kingdom is not from here.” If Jesus were trying to win his trial, this was not a wise move. It amounts to a confession.
Pilate picks up on Jesus confession. “So you are a king!” To whatever extent Pilate is following standard trial procedure, notice that this is the third time the charge is brought up to the defendant. The defendant’s lack of defense will result in a conviction by default. (Perhaps the conversation simply developed this way and the governor is not thinking in terms of legal procedure.) For the last time, Jesus fails to defend himself. “You say that I am a king.” This statement can be taken in a few different ways. Jesus may mean it as, “You say I am king because I am.” Or as an older commentary puts it, “Thou sayest; for I am a king.” Another alternative is that Jesus bypasses the title and instead affirms the substance of the accusation. Then we could rephrase Jesus response as follows: “Is King the proper title for someone like me? I came into the world to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to me. Does that make me king?” Either way we interpret Jesus response, it is not a denial. Jesus seals his fate.
Scripture Reading: John 17:1-26
When Jesus had finished saying these things, he looked upward to heaven and said, “Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, so that your Son may glorify you— 2 just as you have given him authority over all humanity, so that he may give eternal life to everyone you have given him. 3 Now this is eternal life—that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent. 4 I glorified you on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory I had with you before the world was created.
6 “I have revealed your name to the men you gave me out of the world. They belonged to you, and you gave them to me, and they have obeyed your word. 7 Now they understand that everything you have given me comes from you, 8 because I have given them the words you have given me. They accepted them and really understand that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. 9 I am praying on behalf of them. I am not praying on behalf of the world, but on behalf of those you have given me because they belong to you. 10 Everything I have belongs to you, and everything you have belongs to me, and I have been glorified by them. 11 I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them safe in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are one. 12 When I was with them I kept them safe and watched over them in your name that you have given me. Not one of them was lost except the one destined for destruction, so that the scripture could be fulfilled. 13 But now I am coming to you, and I am saying these things in the world, so they may experience my joy completed in themselves. 14 I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world. 15 I am not asking you to take them out of the world, but that you keep them safe from the evil one. 16 They do not belong to the world just as I do not belong to the world. 17 Set them apart in the truth; your word is truth. 18 Just as you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world. 19 And I set myself apart on their behalf, so that they too may be truly set apart.
20 “I am not praying only on their behalf, but also on behalf of those who believe in me through their testimony, 21 that they will all be one, just as you, Father, are in me and I am in you. I pray that they will be in us, so that the world will believe that you sent me. 22 The glory you gave to me I have given to them, that they may be one just as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—that they may be completely one, so that the world will know that you sent me, and you have loved them just as you have loved me.
24 “Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, so that they can see my glory that you gave me because you loved me before the creation of the world. 25 Righteous Father, even if the world does not know you, I know you, and these men know that you sent me. 26 I made known your name to them, and I will continue to make it known, so that the love you have loved me with may be in them, and I may be in them.”
Main ThemesJesus Prays for Himself[I am still working on the blog.]
Scripture Reading: John 16:1-33
1 “I have told you all these things so that you will not fall away. 2 They will put you out of the synagogue, yet a time is coming when the one who kills you will think he is offering service to God. 3 They will do these things because they have not known the Father or me. 4 But I have told you these things so that when their time comes, you will remember that I told you about them.
“I did not tell you these things from the beginning because I was with you. 5 But now I am going to the one who sent me, and not one of you is asking me, ‘Where are you going?’ 6 Instead your hearts are filled with sadness because I have said these things to you. 7 But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I am going away. For if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you, but if I go, I will send him to you. 8 And when he comes, he will prove the world wrong concerning sin and righteousness and judgment— 9 concerning sin because they do not believe in me; 10 concerning righteousness because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer; 11 and concerning judgment because the ruler of this world has been condemned.
12 “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. For he will not speak on his own authority, but will speak whatever he hears and will tell you what is to come. 14 He will glorify me because he will receive from me what is mine and will tell it to you. 15 Everything that the Father has is mine; that is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what is mine and will tell it to you. 16 In a little while you will see me no longer; again after a little while, you will see me.”
17 Then some of his disciples said to one another, “What is the meaning of what he is saying, ‘In a little while you will not see me; again after a little while, you will see me,’ and ‘because I am going to the Father’?” 18 So they kept on repeating, “What is the meaning of what he says, ‘In a little while’? We do not understand what he is talking about.”
19 Jesus could see that they wanted to ask him about these things, so he said to them, “Are you asking each other about this—that I said, ‘In a little while you will not see me; again after a little while, you will see me’? 20 I tell you the solemn truth, you will weep and wail, but the world will rejoice; you will be sad, but your sadness will turn into joy. 21 When a woman gives birth, she has distress because her time has come, but when her child is born, she no longer remembers the suffering because of her joy that a human being has been born into the world. 22 So also you have sorrow now, but I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy away from you. 23 At that time you will ask me nothing. I tell you the solemn truth, whatever you ask the Father in my name he will give you. 24 Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive it, so that your joy may be complete.
25 “I have told you these things in obscure figures of speech; a time is coming when I will no longer speak to you in obscure figures, but will tell you plainly about the Father. 26 At that time you will ask in my name, and I do not say that I will ask the Father on your behalf. 27 For the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. 28 I came from the Father and entered into the world, but in turn, I am leaving the world and going back to the Father.”
29 His disciples said, “Look, now you are speaking plainly and not in obscure figures of speech! 30 Now we know that you know everything and do not need anyone to ask you anything. Because of this we believe that you have come from God.”
31 Jesus replied, “Do you now believe? 32 Look, a time is coming—and has come—when you will be scattered, each one to his own home, and I will be left alone. Yet I am not alone because my Father is with me. 33 I have told you these things so that in me you may have peace. In the world you have trouble and suffering, but take courage—I have conquered the world.”
Main Themes[I am still working on the blog post.]
Scripture Reading: John 14:1-27
1 “I am the true vine and my Father is the gardener. 2 He takes away every branch that does not bear fruit in me. He prunes every branch that bears fruit so that it will bear more fruit. 3 You are clean already because of the word that I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me, and I will remain in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it remains in the vine, so neither can you unless you remain in me.
5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. The one who remains in me—and I in him—bears much fruit because apart from me you can accomplish nothing. 6 If anyone does not remain in me, he is thrown out like a branch and dries up; and such branches are gathered up and thrown into the fire and are burned up. 7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you want, and it will be done for you. 8 My Father is honored by this, that you bear much fruit and show that you are my disciples.
9 “Just as the Father has loved me, I have also loved you; remain in my love. 10 If you obey my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commandments and remain in his love. 11 I have told you these things so that my joy may be in you, and your joy may be complete. 12 My commandment is this—to love one another just as I have loved you. 13 No one has greater love than this—that one lays down his life for his friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command you. 15 I no longer call you slaves because the slave does not understand what his master is doing. But I have called you friends because I have revealed to you everything I heard from my Father. 16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that remains, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name he will give you. 17 This I command you—to love one another.
18 “If the world hates you, be aware that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, the world would love you as its own. However, because you do not belong to the world, but I chose you out of the world, for this reason the world hates you. 20 Remember what I told you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they obeyed my word, they will obey yours too. 21 But they will do all these things to you on account of my name because they do not know the one who sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. But they no longer have any excuse for their sin. 23 The one who hates me hates my Father too. 24 If I had not performed among them the miraculous deeds that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen the deeds and have hated both me and my Father. 25 Now this happened to fulfill the word that is written in their law, ‘They hated me without reason.’ 26 When the Advocate comes, whom I will send you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me, 27 and you also will testify because you have been with me from the beginning.
Main ThemesThe True Vine BackgroundThe fact that Jesus uses vine imagery should not surprise us. Indeed, there are several reasons why we should expect use of such an allegory.
Old Testament
In the Old Testament a vine or vineyard was a common depiction of Israel. Probably the most salient is Isaiah 5:1-7:
I will sing to my love—a song to my lover about his vineyard. My love had a vineyard on a fertile hill. He built a hedge around it, removed its stones, and planted a vine. He built a tower in the middle of it and constructed a winepress. He waited for it to produce edible grapes, but it produced sour ones instead. So now, residents of Jerusalem, people of Judah, you decide between me and my vineyard! What more can I do for my vineyard beyond what I have already done? When I waited for it to produce edible grapes, why did it produce sour ones instead? Now I will inform you what I am about to do to my vineyard: I will remove its hedge and turn it into pasture, I will break its wall and allow animals to graze there. I will make it a wasteland; no one will prune its vines or hoe its ground, and thorns and briers will grow there. I will order the clouds not to drop any rain on it. Indeed, Israel is the vineyard of the Lord of Heaven’s Armies, the people of Judah are the cultivated place in which he took delight. He waited for justice, but look what he got—disobedience! He waited for fairness, but look what he got—cries for help!
That is by no means the only use of the vine-Israel analogy in the Old Testament. Consider also Psalm 80:8-16:
You uprooted a vine from Egypt;you drove out nations and transplanted it. You cleared the ground for it; it took root and filled the land. The mountains were covered by its shadow,the highest cedars by its branches. Its branches reached the Mediterranean Sea, and its shoots the Euphrates River. Why did you break down its walls, so that all who pass by pluck its fruit? The wild boars of the forest ruin it; the insects of the field feed on it. O God of Heaven’s Armies, come back.Look down from heaven and take notice.Take care of this vine, the root your right hand planted,the shoot you made to grow. It is burned and cut down.May those who did this die because you are displeased with them.
Finally, consider Ezekiel 15:1-6:
The Lord’s message came to me: “Son of man, of all the woody branches among the trees of the forest, what happens to the wood of the vine? Can wood be taken from it to make anything useful? Or can anyone make a peg from it to hang things on? No! It is thrown in the fire for fuel; when the fire has burned up both ends of it and it is charred in the middle, will it be useful for anything? Indeed! If it was not made into anything useful when it was whole, how much less can it be made into anything when the fire has burned it up and it is charred? “Therefore, this is what the Sovereign Lord says: Like the wood of the vine is among the trees of the forest that I have provided as fuel for the fire—so I will provide the residents of Jerusalem as fuel. [emphasis added]
This last quotation becomes relevant context for New Testament uses of the vine allegory. Notice that the wood from vines is good for nothing. The vine either produces fruit or it should be burned. There is no middle ground.
Vine Images During the Time of Jesus
The vine was such an important symbol of God’s people—the Israelites—that during Jesus’ time it even appeared on some coins issued by the Maccabees. There was also a large golden vine on the doors to the temple sanctuary. This vine was impressive enough that the Roman historian Tacitus wrote about it:
The Egyptians worship many animals and monstrous images; the Jews conceive of one god only, and that with the mind alone: they regard as impious those who make from perishable materials representations of gods in man's image; that supreme and eternal being is to them incapable of representation and without end. Therefore they set up no statues in their cities, still less in their temples; this flattery is not paid their kings, nor this honour given to the Caesars. But since their priests used to chant to the accompaniment of pipes and cymbals and to wear garlands of ivy, and because a golden vine was found in their temple, some have thought that they were devotees of Father Liber, the conqueror of the East, in spite of the incongruity of their customs. For Liber established festive rites of a joyous nature, while the ways of the Jews are preposterous and mean. (History 5.5)
Vines Were Widely Planted Trees
If the facts that the Old Testament called Israel a vine and that a gigantic golden vine was the portal to the temple’s sanctuary were not sufficient to keep such imagery on every Jew’s mind, their own gardens would have done so. The only trees that were widely planted in ancient Israel were the fig, olive, and vine. All three of these were drought resistant. Although the fig needed little attention, olives and vines did.
Nearly every Jew would have been familiar with vines, how they grew, and how they were pruned. Jesus using vines as an allegory in ancient Israel would be like a modern teacher using potatoes in rural Idaho, cotton in rural West Texas, or corn in rural Iowa.
Pruning Vines
[I am still working on the blog post.]
Scripture Reading: John 14:15-31
15 “If you love me, you will obey my commandments. 16 Then I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot accept because it does not see him or know him. But you know him because he resides with you and will be in you.
18 “I will not abandon you as orphans, I will come to you. 19 In a little while the world will not see me any longer, but you will see me; because I live, you will live too. 20 You will know at that time that I am in my Father and you are in me and I am in you. 21 The person who has my commandments and obeys them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will reveal myself to him.”
22 “Lord,” Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, “what has happened that you are going to reveal yourself to us and not to the world?” 23 Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and take up residence with him. 24 The person who does not love me does not obey my words. And the word you hear is not mine, but the Father’s who sent me.
25 “I have spoken these things while staying with you. 26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and will cause you to remember everything I said to you.
27 “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you; I do not give it to you as the world does. Do not let your hearts be distressed or lacking in courage. 28 You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father because the Father is greater than I am. 29 I have told you now before it happens, so that when it happens you may believe. 30 I will not speak with you much longer, for the ruler of this world is coming. He has no power over me, 31 but I am doing just what the Father commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father. Get up, let us go from here.
Main ThemesIf You Love Me, You Will Obey My CommandmentsTo love is to obey. That is certain to evoke a nearly visceral reaction in our modern culture. Honestly, I think that for us modern readers (myself included) even understanding such a statement is difficult. That is why we should take a minute to explore it in detail.
Let’s consider this statement from two angles.
Covenantal TermsFirst, let’s remember the Old Testament background to statements of love and hate. In the Old Testament we find God making covenants with people, such as Adam, Noah, Abraham, and David. These bĕrît were common in the ancient Near East. So common, in fact, they followed a particular format. We do this kind of standardization today with common contracts as well, such as with bills of sale. Covenants also used particular language. We also do this today. Have you ever read a deed? It probably includes a phrase such as “conveys to Grantee to have and to hold it to Grantee and Grantee’s heirs, successors, and assigns forever.” Someone unfamiliar with our legal system may not understand that such language is legalese for “convey in fee simple.” What are we missing when we read ancient covenants? Consider the following quotation:
Blessings were another important feature of a bĕrît. These were the benefits promised if the contract were maintained. Curses were the consequences if the contract were violated. Covenant loyalty (“lovingkindness” or ḥesed) was the objective of the agreement. The parity treaties report that the partners are now brothers; the suzerain/vassal covenants speak of the parties as father/son or lord/servant. To abide by the contract with one’s suzerain was to love him, and to betray the suzerain or to fail to keep his stipulations was to hate him. Is any of this language sounding familiar? It should be! The Bible is riddled with it. Why? Because this is the terminology associated with the international politics of the ancient Near East, and the Bible is describing Israel’s relationship to Yahweh in terms of a bĕrît. Yahweh has become Israel’s suzerain and Israel has become his vassal. Richter, Sandra L.. The Epic of Eden (p. 79). InterVarsity Press. Kindle Edition [emphasis added].
Forgive me for belaboring the point, but we really need to understand covenants in some detail before the “New Covenant” really makes sense to us. For that, let’s consider the format of the Old Covenant—the suzerain/vassal covenant that God made with his people Israel:
I. Preamble/Title: “I am Yahweh your God . . .” Gives title of superior party Exod 20:2a; Deut 5:6a
II. Historical Prologue: “. . . who brought you up out of the land Furnishes the basis of obligation of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.” and the motive for accepting the covenant’s stipulations as binding Exod 20:2b; Deut 5:6b (cf. Deut 1—3)
III. Stipulations/Obligations Imposed: “You shall have no other gods before me. . . .” Exod 20:3-17; Deut 5:7-21 (cf. Deut 12—26)
IV. Deposition and Provision for Periodic Reading of the Treaty Before the People: Treaty text archived in the temple of the vassal’s chief deity (i.e., the witness to his oath)
“Then Moses turned and went down from the mountain with the two tablets of the testimony in his hand . . .” (Ex 32:15) “. . . and in the ark you shall put the testimony which I shall give you.” (Ex 25:21; cf. Ex 40:20; Deut 10:5) “At the end of every seven years . . . when all Israel comes to appear before Yahweh your God at the place which He will choose, you shall read this law in front of all Israel in their hearing. Assemble the people, the men and the women and children and the alien who is in your town, in order that they may hear and learn and fear Yahweh your God, and be careful to observe all the words of this law.” (Deut 31:10-12; cf. Ex 24:7; Josh 8:30-35)
V. List of Witnesses: “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today . . .” The deities of both parties are summoned to act as witnesses to the oaths taken Deut 4:26; 30:19-20; 31:28
VI. Curses and Blessings: “And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you if you will obey Yahweh your God . . . But if you will not obey Yahweh your God . . . all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you.” Deut 27:11–28:68 These acts of treaty-making were sealed by means of a ratification ceremony involving oath and sacrifice (Ex 24:3-8; cf. Gen 15:17-21; Jer 34:17-20; Mt 27:22-25). [emphasis added]
Richter, Sandra L.. The Epic of Eden (pp. 83-84). InterVarsity Press. Kindle Edition.
It is in this covenantal context that we find one of the most well-known verses of the whole Bible:
You must love the Lord your God with your whole mind, your whole being, and all your strength. (Deuteronomy 6:5)
As a clarification, I am not claiming that all references to love and hate in the Old or New Testaments are part of covenantal language. They are certainly not. However, if they are, we need to make sure we understand how the meaning can be affected.
The New Covenant—the covenant that God makes with all believers in Christ is also a suzerain/vassal covenant. It can be expressed in the same format as before. I encourage you to take each of the six sections above and fill in the blanks for the New Covenant.
What is the point of all this extended discussion on covenants? A covenant is a deal, like an ancient contract. Both sides have responsibilities. There are benefits for following the deal and penalties for breaching it. And notice that in this deal, one who follows the deal is said to love the other party. In covenantal terms, obedience does not result from love, obedience is love. So to say, “if you love me, you will obey my commandments” is nearly to express a tautology.
Of course, the New Covenant is quite a one-sided deal. Christ is the sacrifice by which the contract is sealed (see part VI above) and nearly all the stipulations (see part III above) are placed on Christ too. He must be perfect and fulfill the law, not us. What do we have to do? Believe. No more, no less. But if we really believe in someone or something, won’t that affect our behavior? Absolutely. This takes us into the next point.
Faith Implies ObedienceLet’s consider this verse from a different angle. Throughout the Gospel of John, Jesus encourages his disciples to persevere. I do not mean only the twelve disciples, but all the people who place their faith in Jesus. Throughout the story many fall away. Jesus requires too much for them.
Consider what that means. What does disobedience imply? A lack of trust. An example is useful. If I were invited to go bungee jumping, there would come a point when I am standing before a great fall. I am told, “jump!” Assume I don’t. I just stand there. I cannot get over the fear that the elastic rope will snap. I step away from the edge and go home. What went wrong? I did not have faith in the rope. I did not believe in the rope.
Those who love Jesus will obey his commandments because they trust him. They trust that what Jesus says is good is truly good and worthwhile. They trust that what Jesus says is bad is truly bad and worth avoiding. They believe Jesus words about this life and the next.
Christians are often accused of obeying out of fear. The accusation is not completely wrong. Leaving questions of salvation aside for a moment, God designed the world a certain way. Opposing that design will generally have bad consequences, which we are right to fear. But notice that the overarching reason to obey is trust. If a doctor I trusted told me I needed to take some vitamin every day, I would do it even if I did not know what would happen if I did not. There might be no fear of consequences, but there would be trust that following his directions would lead to a better life.
He Will Give You Another AdvocateOnce Jesus departs, he tells the disciples, the Father will send another “advocate.” At least that is the word used by the translation we are using. Other translations may use a different word. Here’s translator note 37 from the NET Bible, which sets up the issue quite well:
Or “Helper” or “Counselor”; Grk “Paraclete,” from the Greek word παράκλητος (paraklētos). Finding an appropriate English translation for παράκλητος is a very difficult task. No single English word has exactly the same range of meaning as the Greek word. “Comforter,” used by some of the older English versions, appears to be as old as Wycliffe. But today it suggests a quilt or a sympathetic mourner at a funeral. “Counselor” is adequate, but too broad, in contexts like “marriage counselor” or “camp counselor.” “Helper” or “Assistant” could also be used, but could suggest a subordinate rank. “Advocate,” the word chosen for this translation, has more forensic overtones than the Greek word does, although in John 16:5-11 a forensic context is certainly present. Because an “advocate” is someone who “advocates” or supports a position or viewpoint and since this is what the Paraclete will do for the preaching of the disciples, it was selected in spite of the drawbacks.
We could get caught up in the weeds of this translation dilemma. For example, the translation of “Consoler” dates back at least to Origen (circa 200 AD). The “Comforter” translation dates back to the Wycliffe translation (circa 1390). The translation “Advocate” is arguably most consistent with Rabbinic uses of the term. At the end of the day, the context should dictate the proper translation. And which translation fits the context best? That is tough to answer. Instead, let’s explore this idea of the Paraclete in more detail. A great starting point is to ask: how does the Paraclete compare with Jesus?
Paraclete Christ
14:16 given by the father 3:16
14:16–17 with, in, by the disciples 3:22; 13:33; 14:20
14:17 not received by the world 1:11; 5:53 [sic:43]; (12:48)
14:17 not known by world (only believers) 16:3; 8:19; 10:14
14:17 not seen by world (only believers) 14:19; 16:16–17
14:26 sent by the Father cf. chs. 5, 7, 8, 12
14:26 teaches 7:14–15; 8:20; 18:19
15:26; 16:7, 13 he comes (from the Father into world) 5:43; 16:28; 18:37
15:26 gives testimony 5:31ff.; 8:13ff.; 7:7
16:8 convicts the world (3:19f.; 9:41; 15:22)
16:13 speaks not from self but from what is heard 7:17; 8:26ff.; 14:10
16:14 glorifies his sender 12:28; 17:1, 4
16:13ff. reveals, discloses, proclaims 4:25; (16:25)
16:13 leads into fulness of truth 18:37; 14:6
15:26; 14:17; 16:13 is Spirit of truth/is truth 14:6
14:16 (etc.) a Paraclete (14:16); 1 John 2:1
Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of John : 2 Volumes (p. 965). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. (citing Burge)
[I am still working on the blog post.]
Scripture Reading: John 14:1-31
1 “Do not let your hearts be distressed. You believe in God; believe also in me. 2 There are many dwelling places in my Father’s house. Otherwise, I would have told you, because I am going away to make ready a place for you. 3 And if I go and make ready a place for you, I will come again and take you to be with me, so that where I am you may be too. 4 And you know the way where I am going.”
5 Thomas said, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going. How can we know the way?” 6 Jesus replied, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you have known me, you will know my Father too. And from now on you do know him and have seen him.”
8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father, and we will be content.” 9 Jesus replied, “Have I been with you for so long and yet you have not known me, Philip? The person who has seen me has seen the Father! How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you, I do not speak on my own initiative, but the Father residing in me performs his miraculous deeds. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me, but if you do not believe me, believe because of the miraculous deeds themselves. 12 I tell you the solemn truth, the person who believes in me will perform the miraculous deeds that I am doing, and will perform greater deeds than these because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.
15 “If you love me, you will obey my commandments. 16 Then I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot accept because it does not see him or know him. But you know him because he resides with you and will be in you.
18 “I will not abandon you as orphans, I will come to you. 19 In a little while the world will not see me any longer, but you will see me; because I live, you will live too. 20 You will know at that time that I am in my Father and you are in me and I am in you. 21 The person who has my commandments and obeys them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will reveal myself to him.”
22 “Lord,” Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, “what has happened that you are going to reveal yourself to us and not to the world?” 23 Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and take up residence with him. 24 The person who does not love me does not obey my words. And the word you hear is not mine, but the Father’s who sent me.
25 “I have spoken these things while staying with you. 26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and will cause you to remember everything I said to you.
27 “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you; I do not give it to you as the world does. Do not let your hearts be distressed or lacking in courage. 28 You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father because the Father is greater than I am. 29 I have told you now before it happens, so that when it happens you may believe. 30 I will not speak with you much longer, for the ruler of this world is coming. He has no power over me, 31 but I am doing just what the Father commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father. Get up, let us go from here.
Main ThemesMany Dwelling Places in my Father’s House[I am still working on the blog.]
Scripture Reading: John 13:1-38
Just before the Passover Feast, Jesus knew that his time had come to depart from this world to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now loved them to the very end. 2 The evening meal was in progress, and the devil had already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, that he should betray Jesus. 3 Because Jesus knew that the Father had handed all things over to him, and that he had come from God and was going back to God, 4 he got up from the meal, removed his outer clothes, took a towel and tied it around himself. 5 He poured water into the washbasin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to dry them with the towel he had wrapped around himself.
6 Then he came to Simon Peter. Peter said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?” 7 Jesus replied, “You do not understand what I am doing now, but you will understand after these things.” 8 Peter said to him, “You will never wash my feet!” Jesus replied, “If I do not wash you, you have no share with me.” 9 Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, wash not only my feet but also my hands and my head!” 10 Jesus replied, “The one who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean. And you disciples are clean, but not every one of you.” 11 (For Jesus knew the one who was going to betray him. For this reason he said, “Not every one of you is clean.”)
12 So when Jesus had washed their feet and put his outer clothing back on, he took his place at the table again and said to them, “Do you understand what I have done for you? 13 You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and do so correctly, for that is what I am. 14 If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you too ought to wash one another’s feet. 15 For I have given you an example—you should do just as I have done for you. 16 I tell you the solemn truth, the slave is not greater than his master, nor is the one who is sent as a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17 If you understand these things, you will be blessed if you do them.
18 “What I am saying does not refer to all of you. I know the ones I have chosen. But this is to fulfill the scripture, ‘The one who eats my bread has turned against me.’ 19 I am telling you this now, before it happens, so that when it happens you may believe that I am he. 20 I tell you the solemn truth, whoever accepts the one I send accepts me, and whoever accepts me accepts the one who sent me.”
21 When he had said these things, Jesus was greatly distressed in spirit, and testified, “I tell you the solemn truth, one of you will betray me.” 22 The disciples began to look at one another, worried and perplexed to know which of them he was talking about. 23 One of his disciples, the one Jesus loved, was at the table to the right of Jesus in a place of honor. 24 So Simon Peter gestured to this disciple to ask Jesus who it was he was referring to. 25 Then the disciple whom Jesus loved leaned back against Jesus’ chest and asked him, “Lord, who is it?” 26 Jesus replied, “It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread after I have dipped it in the dish.” Then he dipped the piece of bread in the dish and gave it to Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son. 27 And after Judas took the piece of bread, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, “What you are about to do, do quickly.” 28 (Now none of those present at the table understood why Jesus said this to Judas. 29 Some thought that because Judas had the money box, Jesus was telling him to buy whatever they needed for the feast, or to give something to the poor.) 30 Judas took the piece of bread and went out immediately. (Now it was night.)
31 When Judas had gone out, Jesus said, “Now the Son of Man is glorified, and God is glorified in him. 32 If God is glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself, and he will glorify him right away. 33 Children, I am still with you for a little while. You will look for me, and just as I said to the Jewish religious leaders, ‘Where I am going you cannot come,’ now I tell you the same.
34 “I give you a new commandment—to love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. 35 Everyone will know by this that you are my disciples—if you have love for one another.”
36 Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, where are you going?” Jesus replied, “Where I am going, you cannot follow me now, but you will follow later.” 37 Peter said to him, “Lord, why can’t I follow you now? I will lay down my life for you!” 38 Jesus answered, “Will you lay down your life for me? I tell you the solemn truth, the rooster will not crow until you have denied me three times!
Main ThemesThe SettingThe Hour Has Come
You may recall that we started John’s Gospel with Jesus telling his own mother, “Woman, why are you saying this to me? My time has not yet come.” (John 2:4) You may also recall Jesus telling his brothers that he could not attend the Feast of Tabernacles with them because, “My time has not yet arrived . . . .” (John 7:6). You might even remember Jesus escaping unscathed from those who “tried to seize” him, “but no one laid a hand on him because his time had not yet come.” (John 7:30) Chapter 13 puts the suspense to rest, “Jesus knew his time had come . . . .” (John 13:1)
The story is coming to an end. Jesus will return to the Father through death. All that is left is to see the event through.
Love is the Theme
As Jesus nears his Passion (from the Latin passio, meaning suffering or enduring), notice that the focus of Chapter 13 is not that Jesus was brave to the very end, righteous to the very end, or obedient to God to the very end—although he certainly was all those things. Instead, the focus of the narrative is that Jesus loved “his own” to the very end. Of course, this is another double entendre. The phrase “to the very end” can imply “to the utmost” as it can also imply “to the point of death.” But far more noteworthy than the play on words is the focus on love. This focus on love is the theme for Chapter 13.
The Banquet
John does not mention who is present at the meal. However, if we think that the event described by John is the same as or connected with the last supper, then we can be confident that the twelve disciples were present. (The twelve disciples are expressly mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels, for example Matthew 26:20.) This would be a reasonable assumption even without the information found in the Synoptics. There could have been other people present as well, but practical considerations bar a crowd much larger. A Jewish home, particularly an upper room as the Synoptics describe (e.g., Mark 14:15), could not have hosted much more than Jesus and his twelve disciples.
Although Jewish people normally sat on chairs, they had adopted the Hellenistic custom of reclining for banquets. At a banquet, a square table would be surrounded by three couches. The word “couch,” however, is confusing for a modern audience. Imagine a table surrounded by three twin size mattresses (long end of each mattress facing the table). A guest would lie on his side with his feet away from the table, holding his head with his left hand. He would proceed to eat with his right hand. Several guests would lie on each couch “spooning” each other. Forgive my comical description, but this will matter later.
Foot Washing
I have discussed the uncleanness, both literal and ceremonial, of feet in prior sessions. Now I want to focus on the practice on foot washing. Washing one’s feet was common enough that “unwashed feet” became a proverbial way of describing “without preparation.” Normally foot washing would precede a meal. (Here, it seems to occur sometime in the middle of the meal.) A host was supposed to provide water for guests to wash their feet. Sometimes, as a welcoming act, a host may provide for a servant to wash a guest’s feet. Not only Jewish people, but Greeks and Romans also practiced foot washing. Foot washing was decidedly an act of service. Although sometimes a wife or young child may wash the feet of the home’s patriarch, it was a task almost exclusively reserved for slaves. Disciples of a teacher would do nearly anything for that teacher except wash his feet.
From a practical standpoint, how was a foot washing done? One could use a pitcher and pour water directly on the person’s feet. One could also use a basin in which the water was poured. The word translated washbasin in 13:5 could mean pitcher or basin, but since the story occurs indoors a basin was almost certainly used. Jesus girds himself with a towel, presumably se he can use both his hands. We can also speculate that the disciples remained in their reclining positions at the table while Jesus washed their feet. There is no indication they left their places at the table. This means our artistic depictions of this moment are probably incorrect. This detail (that the disciples remained in their reclining position) adds to Jesus’ humility during that moment.
Rank and Etiquette
Ancient Mediterranean etiquette observed rank carefully. Where one would sit during a meeting or a meal, when one should speak, and to whom one would bestow honor or a gift were all determined by rank. Certainly humility was praised as a virtue, particularly for the pious, but to ignore rank would have been socially awkward if not considered outright wrong. For a patron host to take the posture of a slave by washing his guests’ feet would have been unthinkable.
The Meaning of the Foot WashingThe meaning of the foot washing is informed by its immediate context: the passion of the Christ. Jesus will soon die. The chapter begins with that reminder. It is in light of Jesus’ impending sacrifice that we read of his humble act of service.
Additionally, the foot washing is meant to work on two levels: first, the necessity of Jesus’ sacrifice on our behalf, and second, as an example of the love that believers must show for one another. Let’s consider each meaning in turn.
The Necessity of Jesus’ Sacrifice
The first meaning is expressed during the conversation with Peter. Peter exclaims, “You will never wash my feet!” Peter is not off base. The foot washing is wrong. Wait, don’t throw stones at me yet. I obviously do not mean morally wrong. But put yourself in a similar situation. Imagine someone you admire, someone you consider your superior in a truly meaningful way, someone to whom you are deeply grateful, someone you love, respect, and wish to honor, someone to whom you are dedicated, and he decides to serve you in a humbling, even humiliating way. Personally, I imagine meeting someone like C.S. Lewis and him offering to do my laundry. I would most certainly exclaim, “You will never do my laundry!” It’s all wrong. I should be doing his laundry if nothing else but a way to honor him.
And the surprising response from Jesus is: there is no other way. If I paraphrase, “You either allow me to serve you or you cannot take part in me.” The beauty and the tragedy of this idea is hard to describe. The servant should serve the master—especially when the master is a good one! It’s all backwards and upside down, and yet there is no other way. No other solution will do because we cannot serve him first. The disciples claim they will follow Jesus to his death, but they all desert him. Every single one. Speaking more broadly, no one ever has or ever will serve God. That is why we need to be washed by, covered by Jesus’ service to God. Without that substitution, there is no hope of being reconciled with God.
An Example for All Believers
The second layer of meaning of the foot washing is its power as an example for all believers. This is explained in the paragraph following Peter’s protest.
Jesus begins with a statement of authority: I am your Lord and Teacher. Notice that Jesus does not eliminate rank. There is no hint of egalitarianism. Instead, Jesus’ rank is key to the point he is trying to make: if I, your superior, have served you, how much more should you serve one another? The implied answer is obvious and powerful.
If we must serve one another, then how and to what extent? The foot washing is a scandalous example of how to love one another: with humility that defies belief. There is no indignity we should not endure to serve one another. Jesus’ passion will become the answer to the question of extent. We must be willing to lose our lives for one another.
Notice that these are the extreme claims of Christianity. Every Christian is a religious extremist. Not because of his views on sex, marriage, government, or any other tangential (although important) issue, but because of his views on love. Consider what John writes in one of his epistles (1 John 3:11-17):
11 For this is the gospel message that you have heard from the beginning: that we should love one another, 12 not like Cain who was of the evil one and brutally murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his deeds were evil, but his brother’s were righteous.
13 Therefore do not be surprised, brothers and sisters, if the world hates you. 14 We know that we have crossed over from death to life because we love our fellow Christians. The one who does not love remains in death. 15 Everyone who hates his fellow Christian is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him. 16 We have come to know love by this: that Jesus laid down his life for us; thus we ought to lay down our lives for our fellow Christians. 17 But whoever has the world’s possessions and sees his fellow Christian in need and shuts off his compassion against him, how can the love of God reside in such a person?
Finally, notice that the foot washing discourse ends with a beatitude: you will be blessed if you do this. Blessings are notably hard to interpret. Will they be received now or in heaven? Are they internal (like a sense of joy) or external (like material or interpersonal gains)? Without spending too much time on this, I think the answer is all of the above. If you are a Christian and have felt your spiritual life grow stale, meditate on this commandment to love and practice it. I feel confident that the blessings will be noticeable.
Judas the Betrayer[I am still working on the blog.]
Scripture Reading: John 12:27-50
27 “Now my soul is greatly distressed. And what should I say? ‘Father, deliver me from this hour’? No, but for this very reason I have come to this hour. 28 Father, glorify your name.” Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again.” 29 The crowd that stood there and heard the voice said that it had thundered. Others said that an angel had spoken to him. 30 Jesus said, “This voice has not come for my benefit but for yours. 31 Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out. 32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” 33 (Now he said this to indicate clearly what kind of death he was going to die.)
34 Then the crowd responded, “We have heard from the law that the Christ will remain forever. How can you say, ‘The Son of Man must be lifted up’? Who is this Son of Man?” 35 Jesus replied, “The light is with you for a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, so that the darkness may not overtake you. The one who walks in the darkness does not know where he is going. 36 While you have the light, believe in the light, so that you may become sons of light.” When Jesus had said these things, he went away and hid himself from them.
37 Although Jesus had performed so many miraculous signs before them, they still refused to believe in him, 38 so that the word of the prophet Isaiah would be fulfilled. He said, “Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” 39 For this reason they could not believe because again Isaiah said,
40 “He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their heart,
so that they would not see with their eyes
and understand with their heart,
and turn to me, and I would heal them.”
41 Isaiah said these things because he saw Christ’s glory and spoke about him.
42 Nevertheless, even among the rulers many believed in him, but because of the Pharisees they would not confess Jesus to be the Christ, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue. 43 For they loved praise from men more than praise from God.
44 But Jesus shouted out, “The one who believes in me does not believe in me, but in the one who sent me, 45 and the one who sees me sees the one who sent me. 46 I have come as a light into the world, so that everyone who believes in me should not remain in darkness. 47 If anyone hears my words and does not obey them, I do not judge him. For I have not come to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 The one who rejects me and does not accept my words has a judge; the word I have spoken will judge him at the last day. 49 For I have not spoken from my own authority, but the Father himself who sent me has commanded me what I should say and what I should speak. 50 And I know that his commandment is eternal life. Thus the things I say, I say just as the Father has told me.”
13 Just before the Passover Feast, Jesus knew that his time had come to depart from this world to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now loved them to the very end. 2 The evening meal was in progress, and the devil had already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, that he should betray Jesus. 3 Because Jesus knew that the Father had handed all things over to him, and that he had come from God and was going back to God, 4 he got up from the meal, removed his outer clothes, took a towel and tied it around himself. 5 He poured water into the washbasin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to dry them with the towel he had wrapped around himself.
6 Then he came to Simon Peter. Peter said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?” 7 Jesus replied, “You do not understand what I am doing now, but you will understand after these things.” 8 Peter said to him, “You will never wash my feet!” Jesus replied, “If I do not wash you, you have no share with me.” 9 Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, wash not only my feet but also my hands and my head!” 10 Jesus replied, “The one who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean. And you disciples are clean, but not every one of you.” 11 (For Jesus knew the one who was going to betray him. For this reason he said, “Not every one of you is clean.”)
12 So when Jesus had washed their feet and put his outer clothing back on, he took his place at the table again and said to them, “Do you understand what I have done for you? 13 You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and do so correctly, for that is what I am. 14 If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you too ought to wash one another’s feet. 15 For I have given you an example—you should do just as I have done for you. 16 I tell you the solemn truth, the slave is not greater than his master, nor is the one who is sent as a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17 If you understand these things, you will be blessed if you do them.
Main ThemesJesus’ Soul Is Greatly DistressedJesus is greatly distressed or “troubled.” I think I speak for most of us when I say that this is an unexpected turn of events. Not only did the ancient Mediterranean world consider praiseworthy a hero who faced suffering bravely, without sorrow, but we do as well. When we think of a suffering hero, we may think of someone like Mel Gibson in Braveheart, defiantly exclaiming “freedom” as he is martyred. In the case of Jesus, the distress is also unexpected because Jesus knows all things, and he has walked to the cross deliberately. This intentionality is nothing short of a core theme of John’s gospel.
What should we think of this, then? First, as a quick apologetics note, this is another time that the criterion of embarrassment seems to apply. If one were trying to write a story that made Jesus appear as grand as possible, one would almost certainly omit any feelings of distress on the part of the hero. Instead, the hero would face his unjust persecution with defiance and never complaining. Second, and most importantly for our study, what does this scene tell us about Jesus? What does it tell us about his sacrifice?
Jesus is human—truly human. Throughout church history, different sects have sought to make Jesus truly God but not human, or truly human but not God. The orthodox Christian view is that Jesus has both natures, indivisible yet unconfused. This is called the hypostatic union. This theology was settled in the Council of Ephesus (AD 431) and the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451), which built upon prior ecumenical councils. Because Jesus is truly human, we can say that Christ is “like us in all things, sin apart.” Just like we would be troubled over extreme physical punishment, so was Jesus. More importantly, just like we would be troubled over receiving punishment for sin, so was Jesus. This latter point requires further explanation.
(Trying to stay true to my mission for this Bible study, I must point out that the Council of Chalcedon led to the first major church split. The Oriental Orthodox church fully affirmed that Christ is truly God and truly man, but they affirmed that Jesus had only one nature, instead of two indivisible natures. The Oriental Orthodox view is called either monophysitism (by those who disagree with it) or miaphysitism (by those who agree with it). The Oriental Orthodox Church is not the same as the Eastern Orthodox Church. This latter group is the one we normally refer to as the “Orthodox Church” or “Greek Orthodox Church.” Notice that this theological disagreement does not impinge on our current lesson. Every Christian agrees that Jesus is truly God and truly man. Whether those two natures remain distinct or become one, well that’s a question for another day.)
Ok, so Jesus being troubled points to his humanity. But what does it say about the suffering he was about to endure? Consider how other martyrs “went to their deaths singing:”
In the 3rd century AD, the Roman Emperor Valerian ordered St. Lawrence, one of the seven deacons of Rome, executed in a particularly cruel way. Such was the emperor’s rage that Lawrence was to be burned alive on a grill. Yet Lawrence showed not the least fear; instead, at one point during his martyrdom, he is said to have turned to his executioners and joked: “You can turn me over now; I’m done on this side.” In a similar vein, St. Thomas More was weakened from long imprisonment and sentenced to hanging. He asked for help ascending the scaffold, but assured his executioner that coming down would not be so much trouble. He even moved his beard out of the way so it should not be cut, lightly remarking that at least it “hath not committed treason.”
If regular Christians could endure their horrific deaths with joy, why couldn’t Jesus? (I feel thoroughly disrespectful even asking that question, but I do think it is important to consider.) Jesus was not only headed to the cross in a physical sense. His physical punishment would be unimaginably great, but that would not be the greatest punishment being inflicted on Jesus. As Paul writes (2 Corinthians 5:20b-21):
We plead with you on Christ’s behalf, “Be reconciled to God!” God made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him we would become the righteousness of God.
We will discuss Jesus’ atoning sacrifice in a later session, but we should already have an understanding of what is coming. It will be so awful and costly that even Jesus is troubled by it. Why? Because Jesus will pay the ultimate (i.e., eschatological) penalty for all wrongs ever committed. No other Christian saint did ever or will ever suffer such punishment. That is why they could rejoice in their martyrdom but Jesus did not.
God’s Voice Like ThunderIn this chapter of John, we read that God’s voice sounds like thunder. This is a “throwback” to one of the greatest moments in Jewish history: God making a covenant with his people at Mount Sinai. In that instance, God’s voice also sounded like thunder. How did the people react?
Exodus 20:18-19: All the people were seeing the thundering and the lightning, and heard the sound of the horn, and saw the mountain smoking—and when the people saw it they trembled with fear and kept their distance. They said to Moses, “You speak to us and we will listen, but do not let God speak with us, lest we die.”
Throughout the Gospel of John, the author has toyed with the irony of the religious leaders claiming to know God’s word while the Jews literally asked not to hear it. John 12:29 is no exception. God’s voice was heard for the benefit of the crowd. The crowd did not recognize it—because they have not heard it before.
The Ruler of this WorldThe ruler of this world will be driven out by Jesus’ sacrifice and resurrection. To a modern audience, that probably comes as a surprise. Who is this ruler? His mention seems to come out of nowhere. Throughout the Gospel of John, we have heard much of sin but little of this ruler. The expression can also be translated as the “prince of this world.” And notice that this prince will be “driven out.” The most obvious sources to understand what John is saying is his other writings. The Book of Revelation was also written by John, and in its characteristic apocalyptic style it tells us something strikingly similar (Revelation 12:9):
So that huge dragon—the ancient serpent, the one called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world—was thrown down to the earth, and his angels along with him.
Does this mean that Satan has been rendered fully powerless? We should also keep in mind what John says in one of his other letters (1 John 5:19):
We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.
How can we put all this together? One alternative is to say that Satan has not been driven out yet. He will be driven out and destroyed in the end times but he currently holds his post as prince of this world. Another alternative is that in principle Satan was driven out at the time of crucifixion and resurrection, but in practice that process is still happening. Think of it like making a winning move in chess. You might know that your opponent cannot recover—no matter what he does from this point forward the outcome is certain. However, if your opponent does not concede, you still have to play out the match. If this latter interpretation is correct, how much power does Satan currently hold? Honestly, this gets into murky waters. I want to affirm what is clear. Jesus says “Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out.” The effect seems immediate upon his death and resurrection. Consider Hebrews 2:14-15, “Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, he likewise shared in their humanity, so that through death he could destroy the one who holds the power of death (that is, the devil), and set free those who were held in slavery all their lives by their fear of death.” At the same time, when John writes his epistle after Jesus’ passion, he still makes clear that “the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.” One important clarification is that when John speaks of “the world,” he is often making a comparison between those who are “in Christ” and those who are not. At the very least, then, we can conclude that the ruler of this world no longer has power to destroy those who are in Christ, while he still has power to affect (perhaps even to rule) over those who are not. Notice also that Satan is not in hell. The image of Satan reigning over a fiery hell while he tortures the damned is a popular misconception driven by our culture. It is not even close to the biblical image. Satan is in this world with us, exerting power over the living—not the dead.
Let’s also not miss the irony that Satan is defeated and dislodged from his place of authority through the evil act of crucifying Jesus. It is Satan’s work that is used by God to defeat Satan.
Christ Will Remain ForeverThe crowd demonstrates a mixed understanding of Jesus’ words. They seem to understand that Jesus is calling himself the Christ. They also understand that “being lifted up” is a reference to crucifixion. But they make a distinction between the Christ and the Son of Man. Why? Because they believe that the Christ “will remain forever.” So, they seem to postulate that maybe Jesus is speaking of two people, the Christ and the Son of Man. It is only the latter that will be killed, they think.
Is the crowd justified in believing that the Christ “will remain forever?” Yes they are. Isaiah speaks of an everlasting father (Isaiah 9:6):
For a child has been born to us,
a son has been given to us.
He shoulders responsibility
and is called
Wonderful Adviser,
Mighty God,
Everlasting Father,
Prince of Peace.
Psalms speak of an everlasting priest (Psalm 110:4):
The Lord makes this promise on oath and will not revoke it:
“You are an eternal priest after the pattern of Melchizedek.”
So, what does the crowd get wrong? They improperly assume that Jesus dying means that Jesus is not “remaining forever.” They do so because they “[do] not know where he is going,” just like someone who walks in the darkness. If they believed in the light, such that they became children of light, they would know that Jesus will die and be resurrected to return to the Father, from where he will reign and “remain forever.”
The Judicial HardeningJohn poses a difficult dilemma: Why did the Jews not believe? “Jesus had performed so many miraculous signs before them, they still refused to believe in him.” Why? “[S]o that the word of the prophet Isaiah would be fulfilled.” Which word? Isaiah 53. This is an Old Testament prophecy that is almost required context to understand the life, death, and work of Jesus. We need to read it in its entirety.
1 Who would have believed what we just heard?
When was the Lord’s power revealed through him?
2 He sprouted up like a twig before God,
like a root out of parched soil;
he had no stately form or majesty that might catch our attention,
no special appearance that we should want to follow him.
3 He was despised and rejected by people,
one who experienced pain and was acquainted with illness;
people hid their faces from him;
he was despised, and we considered him insignificant.
4 But he lifted up our illnesses,
he carried our pain;
even though we thought he was being punished,
attacked by God, and afflicted for something he had done.
5 He was wounded because of our rebellious deeds,
crushed because of our sins;
he endured punishment that made us well;
because of his wounds we have been healed.
6 All of us had wandered off like sheep;
each of us had strayed off on his own path,
but the Lord caused the sin of all of us to attack him.
7 He was treated harshly and afflicted,
but he did not even open his mouth.
Like a lamb led to the slaughtering block,
like a sheep silent before her shearers,
he did not even open his mouth.
8 He was led away after an unjust trial—
but who even cared?
Indeed, he was cut off from the land of the living;
because of the rebellion of his own people he was wounded.
9 They intended to bury him with criminals,
but he ended up in a rich man’s tomb
because he had committed no violent deeds,
nor had he spoken deceitfully.
10 Though the Lord desired to crush him and make him ill,
once restitution is made,
he will see descendants and enjoy long life,
and the Lord’s purpose will be accomplished through him.
11 Having suffered, he will reflect on his work,
he will be satisfied when he understands what he has done.
“My servant will acquit many,
for he carried their sins.
12 So I will assign him a portion with the multitudes,
he will divide the spoils of victory with the powerful,
because he willingly submitted to death
and was numbered with the rebels,
when he lifted up the sin of many
and intervened on behalf of the rebels.”
But John does not stop there. He says that the Jews did not believe because of another prophecy as well, Isaiah 6:10. I quote Isaiah 6:9-11 below:
He said, “Go and tell these people:
“‘Listen continually, but don’t understand.
Look continually, but don’t perceive.’
10 Make the hearts of these people calloused;
make their ears deaf and their eyes blind.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
their hearts might understand and they might repent and be healed.”
11 I replied, “How long, Lord?” He said,
“Until cities are in ruins and unpopulated,
and houses are uninhabited,
and the land is ruined and devastated,
These prophesies are important beyond the immediate issue of God hardening people, i.e., “blind[ing] their eyes.” But because that is the main focus of John 12:37-41, I want to focus on that first. Isaiah 53 will remain relevant for the next several chapters of John.
The idea that God hardens people’s hearts is more common in scripture than many of us may realize. The classic Old Testament example is God hardening Pharaoh’s heart. When God sends Moses to liberate the Israelites, he says (Exodus 4:21), “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the wonders I have put under your control. But I will harden his heart and he will not let the people go.” God explains His reasons when He repeats his message to Moses in Exodus 7:2-5, “You are to speak everything I command you, and your brother Aaron is to tell Pharaoh that he must release the Israelites from his land. But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and although I will multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt, Pharaoh will not listen to you. I will reach into Egypt and bring out my regiments, my people the Israelites, from the land of Egypt with great acts of judgment. Then the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord when I extend my hand over Egypt and bring the Israelites out from among them.” (Emphasis added.)
As the seven plagues are unleashed on Egypt, Pharaoh’s heart is first described as being hard, then remaining hard, then as Pharaoh hardening his own heart, and eventually as God hardening his heart. And what is the result? The greatest miracle in the history of the Israelite nation. This is the event that propels forward the story that includes the giving of the law to the Jewish people and culminates with the coming of the Messiah. Notice that in Isaiah 6 (quoted above), there is also a purpose to the hardening: “until cities are in ruins and unpopulated.” So God has a purpose for hardening people. What is the purpose of hardening the Jews during Jesus’ time? That Christ may be sacrificed for the sins of the world and that the good news may go out to the Gentiles. (See Romans 9-11.)
This idea of hardening can raise a number of questions. Is it fair that God does this to people? Does God harden people who don’t deserve it?
We must begin from the standpoint that God is entitled to do with his creation as he pleases. This is expressed in no unclear terms by the Apostle Paul in Romans 9:20-21, “But who indeed are you—a mere human being—to talk back to God? Does what is molded say to the molder, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ Has the potter no right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special use and another for ordinary use?” Interestingly, in the Letter to the Romans, Paul is dealing with the exact same issue as John: why did the Jews reject their Messiah. Paul gives the same answer: the Jews were judicially hardened such that the gospel may go out to the Gentiles. We must keep in mind that God is perfectly good. To say that God may do as he pleases is not to say God will act capriciously. God may and will use us for a good purpose—and we have no right to complain.
Ok, so God has the right to harden someone, but will he do it to anyone, seemingly at random? Will he turn a good person into an evil person and harden him in his evil resolve to accomplish a good purpose? To answer this question, we must turn to Paul’s source material, Jeremiah 18. Consider Jeremiah 18:1:11:
1 The Lord said to Jeremiah: 2 “Go down at once to the potter’s house. I will speak to you further there.” 3 So I went down to the potter’s house and found him working at his wheel. 4 Now and then there would be something wrong with the pot he was molding from the clay with his hands. So he would rework the clay into another kind of pot as he saw fit.
5 Then the Lord’s message came to me, 6 “I, the Lord, say: ‘O nation of Israel, can I not deal with you as this potter deals with the clay? In my hands, you, O nation of Israel, are just like the clay in this potter’s hand.’ 7 There are times, Jeremiah, when I threaten to uproot, tear down, and destroy a nation or kingdom. 8 But if that nation I threatened stops doing wrong, I will cancel the destruction I intended to do to it. 9 And there are times when I promise to build up and establish a nation or kingdom. 10 But if that nation does what displeases me and does not obey me, then I will cancel the good I promised to do to it. 11 So now, tell the people of Judah and the citizens of Jerusalem this: The Lord says, ‘I am preparing to bring disaster on you! I am making plans to punish you. So, every one of you, stop the evil things you have been doing. Correct the way you have been living and do what is right.’
What do we learn in Jeremiah? God has a good purpose for a pot, but if there is “something wrong with the pot” then God will not hesitate to put it to a different use. What is this “something wrong”? That something wrong is that the nation (or person) will not “stop doing wrong.” That nation (or person) does “what displeases [him] and does not obey [him].” That nation (or person) will not “correct the way [they] have been living and do what is right.”
This is a terrifying thought. I think we assume that we will always have a chance to avoid destruction. There is always more time. But that is not so. God gives a nation or a person many chances to repent and turn from his wicked ways. There comes a point, though, when God says, “Fine, let’s steady your resolve and play this scenario all the way through.” God may force us to see the full consequences of our wickedness.
As a final point of clarification, God’s hardening is mentioned in the Bible in relation to large, nationwide events. But do we have good reason to believe that hardening, or something like it, could happen to an individual in a more personal context. I think so. Consider Romans 1:18-24:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, 19 because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts, and their senseless hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies among themselves. (Emphasis added.)
What is God’s wrath? To give you up to your own desires. If this is not hardening, it is very close indeed. And it is also a terrifying prospect.
Praise from Men Over Praise from GodMany of the leaders believed Jesus, but they did not have the courage to say it. Why? As a practical matter, “so that they would not be put out of the synagogue.” As a spiritual and moral matter, “[f]or they loved praise from men more than praise from God.” We have encountered this theme before. Nicodemus came to Jesus at night. Many of the Pharisees are hypocrites who seek the praise of men. Jesus seeks honor from the Father and not from men. This is one of the main challenges to embrace Jesus—particularly for the wealthy and powerful. It is no surprise that Jesus tells us that (Matthew 19:24), “Again I say, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter into the kingdom of God.” Jesus also teaches that (Luke 6:20), “Blessed are you who are poor, for the kingdom of God belongs to you.” This theme of great reversal, in which the poor are better off than the rich, is more explicit in the other gospels, but it is clearly present in John as well.
The Summary SpeechChapter 12 ends with what many consider to be a summary of Jesus’ teachings throughout the Gospel of John. I can do no better than to simply repost it here:
44 But Jesus shouted out, “The one who believes in me does not believe in me, but in the one who sent me, 45 and the one who sees me sees the one who sent me. 46 I have come as a light into the world, so that everyone who believes in me should not remain in darkness. 47 If anyone hears my words and does not obey them, I do not judge him. For I have not come to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 The one who rejects me and does not accept my words has a judge; the word I have spoken will judge him at the last day. 49 For I have not spoken from my own authority, but the Father himself who sent me has commanded me what I should say and what I should speak. 50 And I know that his commandment is eternal life. Thus the things I say, I say just as the Father has told me.”
Consider how we have discussed every point that Jesus makes.
Scripture Reading: John 12:1-26
1 Then, six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom he had raised from the dead. 2 So they prepared a dinner for Jesus there. Martha was serving, and Lazarus was among those present at the table with him. 3 Then Mary took three quarters of a pound of expensive aromatic oil from pure nard and anointed the feet of Jesus. She then wiped his feet dry with her hair. (Now the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfumed oil.) 4 But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (the one who was going to betray him) said, 5 “Why wasn’t this oil sold for 300 silver coins and the money given to the poor?” 6 (Now Judas said this not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief. As keeper of the money box, he used to steal what was put into it.) 7 So Jesus said, “Leave her alone. She has kept it for the day of my burial. 8 For you will always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me!”
9 Now a large crowd of Judeans learned that Jesus was there, and so they came not only because of him but also to see Lazarus whom he had raised from the dead. 10 So the chief priests planned to kill Lazarus too, 11 for on account of him many of the Jewish people from Jerusalem were going away and believing in Jesus.
12 The next day the large crowd that had come to the feast heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem. 13 So they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him. They began to shout, “Hosanna! Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the king of Israel!” 14 Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it, just as it is written, 15 “Do not be afraid, people of Zion; look, your king is coming, seated on a donkey’s colt!” 16 (His disciples did not understand these things when they first happened, but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things were written about him and that these things had happened to him.)
17 So the crowd who had been with him when he called Lazarus out of the tomb and raised him from the dead were continuing to testify about it. 18 Because they had heard that Jesus had performed this miraculous sign, the crowd went out to meet him. 19 Thus the Pharisees said to one another, “You see that you can do nothing. Look, the world has run off after him!”
20 Now some Greeks were among those who had gone up to worship at the feast. 21 So these approached Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and requested, “Sir, we would like to see Jesus.” 22 Philip went and told Andrew, and they both went and told Jesus. 23 Jesus replied, “The time has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 24 I tell you the solemn truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains by itself alone. But if it dies, it produces much grain. 25 The one who loves his life destroys it, and the one who hates his life in this world guards it for eternal life. 26 If anyone wants to serve me, he must follow me, and where I am, my servant will be too. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him.
Main ThemesJesus’ Anointing—1, 2, or 3At the beginning of Chapter 12 we find the anointing of Jesus. The scene is strange yet incredibly moving. Before we can delve deeper into it though, we need to address an issue of consistency between all four gospels. There is a similar anointing story in each gospel. Yet each story seems to be different in some ways. Do they refer to the same event? If so, maybe some (or all) of the gospels got details wrong. That is not a conclusion we should accept lightly. Christians have an incredibly high regard for scripture. In fact, many Christians hold that there are no mistakes in scripture. Can biblical inerrancy hold up to the four anointing stories? I think so. (This is the kind of topic on which we could spend a couple of hours. My blog will present an abbreviated answer. There is a more detailed resource linked at the end.)
Luke has the most different version of events. Let’s begin by comparing Luke to Mark. Consider the following passages:
Luke 7:36-50. 36 Now one of the Pharisees asked Jesus to have dinner with him, so he went into the Pharisee’s house and took his place at the table. 37 Then when a woman of that town, who was a sinner, learned that Jesus was dining at the Pharisee’s house, she brought an alabaster jar of perfumed oil. 38 As she stood behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. She wiped them with her hair, kissed them, and anointed them with the perfumed oil. 39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who and what kind of woman this is who is touching him, that she is a sinner.” 40 So Jesus answered him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” He replied, “Say it, Teacher.” 41 “A certain creditor had two debtors; one owed him 500 silver coins, and the other 50. 42 When they could not pay, he canceled the debts of both. Now which of them will love him more?” 43 Simon answered, “I suppose the one who had the bigger debt canceled.” Jesus said to him, “You have judged rightly.” 44 Then, turning toward the woman, he said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house. You gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45 You gave me no kiss of greeting, but from the time I entered she has not stopped kissing my feet. 46 You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with perfumed oil. 47 Therefore I tell you, her sins, which were many, are forgiven, thus she loved much; but the one who is forgiven little loves little.” 48 Then Jesus said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” 49 But those who were at the table with him began to say among themselves, “Who is this, who even forgives sins?” 50 He said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”
Mark 14:1-11. 1 Two days before the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the chief priests and the experts in the law were trying to find a way to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him. 2 For they said, “Not during the feast, so there won’t be a riot among the people.”
3 Now while Jesus was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, reclining at the table, a woman came with an alabaster jar of costly aromatic oil from pure nard. After breaking open the jar, she poured it on his head. 4 But some who were present indignantly said to one another, “Why this waste of expensive ointment? 5 It could have been sold for more than 300 silver coins and the money given to the poor!” So they spoke angrily to her. 6 But Jesus said, “Leave her alone. Why are you bothering her? She has done a good service for me. 7 For you will always have the poor with you, and you can do good for them whenever you want. But you will not always have me! 8 She did what she could. She anointed my body beforehand for burial. 9 I tell you the truth, wherever the gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will also be told in memory of her.
Then Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, went to the chief priests to betray Jesus into their hands. 11 When they heard this, they were delighted and promised to give him money. So Judas began looking for an opportunity to betray him.
What are the similarities that would make us consider that both stories refer to the same event? Both accounts happen at a Simon’s house, both accounts involve perfume in alabaster jars, and both accounts involve a woman using the perfume to anoint Jesus. What are the differences? The Luke story happens in Galilee and much earlier in Jesus’ ministry. The Mark story happens in Bethany (Judea), a few days before Jesus’ death. One Simon is a Pharisee, the other Simon is called a leper. The dialogue is different as well.
Can we explain the similarities if the two narratives are describing different events? Yes. Simon was the most common name at the time. This is why the Bible rarely refers to a Simon without giving a sort of last name (Simon Peter, Simon the leper, Simon the Zealot, etc.) The fact that two stories involve Simons should be barely eye-catching. Also, perfume was commonly held in alabaster jars. Despite what you may have heard, alabaster jars were not rare. Thousand of these jars have been discovered. So, the alabaster detail is unimportant as well.
But what are the odds that two women anoint Jesus with perfume using their hair? (The hair detail is not in Mark, but it is in John.) Completely independently, that would be suspiciously unlikely. Nevertheless, the odds are pretty good if we do not assume that the stories are independent. The later woman could have been inspired by the prior one. To put it simply, Luke refers to a different anointing. This earlier anointing of Jesus described in Luke helps inspire Mary’s behavior in John. Why would Mary think of doing such a thing? Because she had heard how another woman had shown kindness to Jesus. She wished to do the same.
Now, let’s consider the more difficult question: can Mark, Matthew, and John be reconciled? Consider the following passage in Matthew and the verses of John we read today.
Matthew 26:6-18. 6 Now while Jesus was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, 7 a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of expensive perfumed oil, and she poured it on his head as he was at the table. 8 When the disciples saw this, they became indignant and said, “Why this waste? 9 It could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor!” 10 When Jesus learned of this, he said to them, “Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a good service for me. 11 For you will always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me! 12 When she poured this oil on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. 13 I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will also be told in memory of her.”
14 Then one of the 12, the one named Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests 15 and said, “What will you give me to betray him into your hands?” So they set out 30 silver coins for him. 16 From that time on, Judas began looking for an opportunity to betray him.
Matthew and Mark have similar descriptions of the story. But what about John? At first glance there are some glaring inconsistencies. Maybe, then, there are three anointings of Jesus: one in Luke, one in Matthew and Mark, and one in John. Although that is not technically impossible, it is not convincing. In Matthew, Mark, and John, the story occurs at the same time in Jesus’ ministry (plus or minus a few days), in the same town, with the same amount of perfume, that could have been sold for the same 300 silver coins, and it resulted in Judas turning on Jesus. Quite clearly, Matthew, Mark, and John are discussing the same event.
What are the major inconsistencies between John and the other two gospels. There are two. First, the timing. Mark seems to place the story “[t]wo days before the Passover.” John seems to place the story “six days before the Passover.” Second, the location. Mark and Matthew seem to place the story in the home of “Simon the leper.” John seems to place the story “where Lazarus lived.”
The timing question is the trickiest one. John seems firm on the timing—I mean we could hardly interpret John’s Gospel any other way than the anointing happening six days before Passover. Is Mark as firm on the timing? Not really. What we find in Mark may very well be a “Markan sandwich.” Mark will sometimes divide one story in two by introducing another story in the middle of the narrative. This is not as strange as it sounds. I bet you have been telling a story once and had to interrupt it to tell another story as proper background information, and then returned to your main story. In Mark, what happens two days before the Passover is the meeting of the priests and Pharisees. (See also Matthew 26:57.) Then Mark interrupts his story to tell us about “now while Jesus was in Bethany.”
The location question is not quite as difficult. Mark and Matthew unequivocally state that the event occurred at “Simon the leper’s” house. Does John make an equally definitive statement that the scene happened at Lazarus’ house? Not at all. Notice that John says the following, “Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom he had raised from the dead. So they prepared a dinner for Jesus there.” There where? There where Lazarus lived. Where did Lazarus live? In Bethany. All that John makes clear is that the event happened in Bethany—not at Lazarus’ house specifically.
Everything I wrote above is based on Mike Winger’s work. Please watch his video for a more detailed explanation.
Jesus’ Anointing—Anointing a King and a Dead ManAfter taking into account the information presented above, the event of Jesus’ anointing by Mary goes something like this. Six days before the Passover, Jesus returns to Bethany. A meal is prepared at the house of Simon the leper. Jesus’ disciples, Lazarus, Martha, Mary, and perhaps other people are present. In this context, Mary takes approximately 12 ounces (a Roman pound; for scale, this is the amount of liquid in a typical soda can) of expensive nard perfume and pours it on Jesus’ head and feet. She proceeds to wipe Jesus’ feet dry with her hair.
Let’s consider some details. What is nard? Nard is a plant that grows far from Israel, in the modern countries of India, China, and Nepal. That made nard perfume highly expensive. The word perfume is also misleading to the modern reader. Nowadays, we might refer to a nard “perfume” as an essential oil. Additionally, the normal quantity of perfume one might buy was about one ounce. No one would have used a full 12 ounces to anoint anyone. In fact, 12 ounces of nard perfume would have been worth more than most women would inherit from their families. One silver coin was one day’s wage for a laborer. The perfume was worth about 300 silver coins—more than a whole year’s wages.
I wrote about the odd significance of feet in Jewish culture in my last blog post. However, I did not get to discuss it during the session and it is relevant for this week. So, I am reposting some of that material. We must keep in mind that feet were dirty in a literal sense and in a ceremonial sense. To come close to someone’s feet was a dramatic demonstration of humility. Consider this excerpt from the Jewish Encyclopedia
Since the Israelites, like all other Oriental peoples, wore sandals instead of shoes, and as they usually went barefoot in the house, frequent washing of the feet was a necessity. Hence among the Israelites it was the first duty of the host to give his guest water for the washing of his feet (Gen. xviii. 4, xix. 2, xxiv. 32, xliii. 24; Judges xix. 21); to omit this was a sign of marked unfriendliness. It was also customary to wash the feet before meals and before going to bed (comp. Cant. v. 3); to abstain for a long time from washing them was a sign of deep mourning (II Sam. xix. 24). Though there are no extant laws for laymen in regard to washing the feet, such laws for priests are given in Ex. xxx. 19-21. There mention is made of brazen vessels, placed between the Tabernacle and the altar of burnt offering, in which the priests had to wash their hands and feet on entering the Tabernacle or before approaching the altar of burnt offerings: hence at all their priestly functions. Just as no one is allowed to approach a king or prince without due preparation, which includes the washing of the hands and feet, so the Israelite, and especially the priest, is forbidden in his unclean condition to approach Yhwh, for he who comes defiled will surely die.
Finally, we must talk of a woman’s hair. (I bet you didn’t anticipate today’s lesson was on feet and hair. Neither did I.) In 1 Corinthians 11:15, the apostle Paul refers to a woman’s long hair as her glory. During biblical times, Jewish women often covered their hair when outside the home. Their custom was similar to the Muslim practice today.
So let’s put all this together. Mary takes the equivalent of a year’s worth of earnings in perfume (for perspective, using the American minimum wage rate that would be about $15,000) and pours it on Jesus. Then she not only touches his feet—a literally and ceremonially unclean part of the body—with her hands, but with her hair! She would not have dared even show her hair to most men, and here she uses it as a rag to clean Jesus’ feet. As a modern audience, we might see this situation as strange. Sure, it was. But that is missing the point entirely. This is a scene of the utmost humility on the part of Mary—a humility beneath that of a slave. And this is a scene of the utmost exaltation—exaltation not even due a king. Exaltation only properly due to God.
Moreover, as we have grown accustomed throughout John’s Gospel, the moment drips with irony. Kings were anointed before their coronation. Jesus is about to be received as king in Jerusalem. The other common anointing was that of dead bodies before burial. Jesus is about to be killed. Jesus does not require two anointings though, because his coronation is his death on the cross. His raising up as king is his raising up as sacrifice.
Judas the Betrayer
Mark: Then Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, went to the chief priests to betray Jesus into their hands. When they heard this, they were delighted and promised to give him money. So Judas began looking for an opportunity to betray him.
Matthew: Then one of the 12, the one named Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said, “What will you give me to betray him into your hands?” So they set out 30 silver coins for him. From that time on, Judas began looking for an opportunity to betray him.
John: But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (the one who was going to betray him) said, “Why wasn’t this oil sold for 300 silver coins and the money given to the poor?” (Now Judas said this not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief. As keeper of the money box, he used to steal what was put into it.)
Christian and non-Christian alike knows that Judas is nearly synonymous with betrayer. We have finally come to the verse that tells us the very moment Judas decided to betray Jesus. I quote three gospels above to give us a better picture of what happened. For some reason Mary using the expensive perfume to anoint Jesus was the tipping point for Judas. People speculate about the reason. Maybe Judas was disappointed and upset that his (ill-gotten) wealth was wasted and decided to create wealth elsewhere. Maybe it was not about the money at all. Maybe Judas finally realized that Jesus was not the savior he desired—a king and conqueror who would give Judas an honorable role in the kingdom. Some people have even speculated that Judas betrayed Jesus to force Jesus into starting his kingly conquest. Your guess is as good as mine.
But more importantly, what do we know with certainty? John’s remark that Judas was not truly concerned with the poor is a clear way of letting the reader know that Judas was of evil character. Additionally, the term John employs to describe Judas as “unconcerned” is the same that John used to describe the hirelings “unconcerned” for the sheep.
The story of Judas should also make us consider the criterion of embarrassment. According to Wikipedia (shame on me for quoting Wikipedia), “The criterion of embarrassment is a type of critical analysis in which an account is likely to be true as the author would have no reason to invent an account which might embarrass them.” Judas was not only selected by Jesus to be a disciple; Jesus made him treasurer! For an omniscient being, Jesus was quite a poor judge of character. Applying the criterion of embarrassment, the story is likely true. Why would anyone make that up? Of course, one can interpret Jesus’ decisions in two ways. As stated above, one option is that Jesus was a poor judge of character. Alternatively, Jesus walked to the cross intentionally—selecting every piece on the chess board just right. The chess game needed a betrayer.
The Triumphal EntryThe key to understanding the triumphal entry is to focus on the language used by the crowds and the odd things involved: a donkey and palm branches.
Hosanna. The word “hosanna” renders the Hebrew of Psalm 118:25. As translator note 26 to John 12:13 in the NET Bible explains,
The expression ῾Ωσαννά (hōsanna, literally in Hebrew, “O Lord, save”) in the quotation from Ps 118:25-26 was probably by this time a familiar liturgical expression of praise, on the order of “Hail to the king,” although both the underlying Aramaic and Hebrew expressions meant “O Lord, save us.” As in Mark 11:9 the introductory ὡσαννά is followed by the words of Ps 118:25, εὐλογημένος ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου (eulogēmenos ho erchomenos en onomati kuriou), although in the Fourth Gospel the author adds for good measure καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῦ ᾿Ισραήλ (kai ho basileus tou Israēl). In words familiar to every Jew, the author is indicating that at this point every messianic expectation is now at the point of realization. It is clear from the words of the psalm shouted by the crowd that Jesus is being proclaimed as messianic king.
For context, here is Psalm 118:14-27
14 The Lord gives me strength and protects me;
he has become my deliverer.”
15 They celebrate deliverance in the tents of the godly.
The Lord’s right hand conquers.
16 The Lord’s right hand gives victory;
the Lord’s right hand conquers.
17 I will not die, but live,
and I will proclaim what the Lord has done.
18 The Lord severely punished me,
but he did not hand me over to death.
19 Open for me the gates of the just king’s temple.
I will enter through them and give thanks to the Lord.
20 This is the Lord’s gate—
the godly enter through it.
21 I will give you thanks, for you answered me,
and have become my deliverer.
22 The stone that the builders discarded
has become the cornerstone.
23 This is the Lord’s work.
We consider it amazing!
24 This is the day the Lord has brought about.
We will be happy and rejoice in it.
25 Please, Lord, deliver!
Please, Lord, grant us success!
26 May the one who comes in the name of the Lord be blessed.
We will pronounce blessings on you in the Lord’s temple.
27 The Lord is God, and he has delivered us.
Tie the offering with ropes
to the horns of the altar.
I encourage you to read Psalm 118 from the standpoint of the believer. Imagine a man who is well aware of how he perishes in his own sin, but he trusts that God will deliver. God will not let him die. Finally the day of deliverance comes. He is overjoyed and exclaims, “tie the offering with ropes!” What he does not know is that the offering is God himself.
Donkey. As a Christian article explains:
[T]o modern readers the donkey seems to be an unlikely and surprising device for Jesus’ use. That is because we see donkeys primarily as work animals capable of carrying heavy loads, or as docile creatures used for children’s rides, but certainly not as the animals of choice to transport triumphant kings. In the ancient world, however, donkeys were used for ceremonial purposes. Whereas horses were symbols of war, donkeys were symbols of peace and often used to enact treaties. [Emphasis added.]
Additionally, the donkey is part of prophecy fulfillment. Zechariah 9:9 foretold,
Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion!
Shout, daughter of Jerusalem!
Look! Your king is coming to you:
He is legitimate and victorious,
humble and riding on a donkey—
on a young donkey, the foal of a female donkey.
Palm Branches. Palm branches recall military triumph. The most immediate reference in the Jews’ minds may have been that of the Maccabean rebellion. Consider 1 Maccabees 13:51 (NCB):
On the twenty-third day of the second month, in the year one hundred and seventy-one, the Jews entered the citadel with shouting and the waving of palm branches, to the accompaniment of lyres and cymbals and harps and the singing of hymns and canticles, because a great enemy of Israel had been destroyed.
So what does the expression Hosanna, a donkey, and palm branches have in common: Jesus is king. Jesus comes as one who has succeeded (i.e., celebrated with palm branches) and returns in peace (i.e., on a donkey). The crowds recognize this as they exclaim, Lord, saves us!
Greeks Want to See JesusSome Greeks were attending the Passover festivities. What does John mean by Greeks? He could be referring to Diaspora Jews, Gentile proselytes, or Greek God-fearers. However, the first two groups would normally be referred to by terms other than “Greeks.” The word “Greeks” is likely referring to the third possibility: gentiles who feared (that is, followed) the God of Judaism but had not converted to Judaism.
Notice that Jesus does not respond to the Greeks’ request. Instead Jesus exclaims, “The time has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.” Jesus recognizes that we are at the end of the story. The prophecy to Abraham is almost complete. God promised Abraham he would have many descendants, those descendants would become a conquering nation, and eventually blessings would come from that nation to the entire world. Acts I and II are over, and the Gentiles coming to Jesus signifies the climax of Act III.
The Price of Following JesusJesus uses a commonplace image to explain how his death will work. It is like a kernel of wheat planted in the ground. The kernel will break and open—no longer being a grain of wheat. It that sense, it dies. Yet from its death something else sprouts. An entire plant springs forth from which many kernels come. In the same way, Jesus lays down his life such that many may obtain eternal life.
Here’s an interesting question: is this a sacrifice only Jesus must make? The answer is decidedly no. Jesus adds the following statements to his short parable, “The one who loves his life destroys it, and the one who hates his life in this world guards it for eternal life. If anyone wants to serve me, he must follow me, and where I am, my servant will be too. If anyone serves me, the Father will honor him.” Of course Jesus’ sacrifice is unique. Only he can satisfy divine justice and he does so completely. We can add nothing to what Jesus has done. Nevertheless, the fact remains that every believer must lose his life as well. Don’t believe me? This is Jesus’ most common teaching. Consider the following verses:
Matthew 10:39. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life because of me will find it.
Matthew 16:25. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life because of me will find it.
Mark 8:34b-35. If anyone wants to become my follower, he must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life because of me and because of the gospel will save it.
And finally, the most shocking:
Luke 14:26. If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother, and wife and children, and brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.
What does it mean that we must hate our own life, hate our parents, hate our wife, and hate our children? This sounds pretty bad. Quite clearly, Jesus does not mean hate in the emotional sense we employ today, but I do not want to downplay the demand made by Jesus. He says one must hate one’s life to the point of losing one’s life. Surely that must mean something important.
The best way to understand these statements is in covenantal terms. A covenant was an ancient form of treaty between nations or sometimes groups or individuals. Oftentimes this kind of treaty was between a suzerain and a vassal. (Both the terms suzerain and vassal are anachronistic. They come from medieval times. However, they are used by historians and theologians as useful terms to describe relationships even in more ancient times.) Covenants had their own type of language, just like modern contracts. For example, a modern contract has recitals, conditions, and promises. To break a contractual promise is called a breach. Covenants also had promises and responsibilities that the parties had to follow. However, if a party broke the covenant, that party was not said to have breached. That party was said to “hate” the covenant and the other party. To follow the covenant was called to “love” the covenant and the other party. In a covenantal context, love and hate are not emotional terms. They are terms of fidelity and obedience.
So, how are we to “hate” our lives and even the people closest to us? We “hate” them because they are not our highest allegiance. Our highest allegiance is not even ourselves. We follow God over all things. In a funny turn of events, what does God commands us to do towards everyone? To love them. This is one of the most profound Christian truths. We love people because our allegiance is not to them, but to God. This is why Christians love differently from the world. For example, Christians cannot love someone by affirming a lie or going along with something harmful that person desires, even if it hurts their feelings. Christians must engage in holy love. They must sacrifice for others within the confines of God’s goodness.
Scripture Reading: John 11:1-57
Now a certain man named Lazarus was sick. He was from Bethany, the village where Mary and her sister Martha lived. 2 (Now it was Mary who anointed the Lord with perfumed oil and wiped his feet dry with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.) 3 So the sisters sent a message to Jesus, “Lord, look, the one you love is sick.” 4 When Jesus heard this, he said, “This sickness will not lead to death, but to God’s glory, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.” 5 (Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.)
6 So when he heard that Lazarus was sick, he remained in the place where he was for two more days. 7 Then after this, he said to his disciples, “Let us go to Judea again.” 8 The disciples replied, “Rabbi, the Jewish leaders were just now trying to stone you to death! Are you going there again?” 9 Jesus replied, “Are there not 12 hours in a day? If anyone walks around in the daytime, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world. 10 But if anyone walks around at night, he stumbles because the light is not in him.”
11 After he said this, he added, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep. But I am going there to awaken him.” 12 Then the disciples replied, “Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover.” 13 (Now Jesus had been talking about his death, but they thought he had been talking about real sleep.)
14 Then Jesus told them plainly, “Lazarus has died, 15 and I am glad for your sake that I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.” 16 So Thomas (called Didymus) said to his fellow disciples, “Let us go too, so that we may die with him.”
17 When Jesus arrived, he found that Lazarus had been in the tomb four days already. 18 (Now Bethany was less than two miles from Jerusalem, 19 so many of the Jewish people of the region had come to Martha and Mary to console them over the loss of their brother.) 20 So when Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went out to meet him, but Mary was sitting in the house. 21 Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. 22 But even now I know that whatever you ask from God, God will grant you.”
23 Jesus replied, “Your brother will come back to life again.” 24 Martha said, “I know that he will come back to life again in the resurrection at the last day.” 25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live even if he dies, 26 and the one who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?” 27 She replied, “Yes, Lord, I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God who comes into the world.”
28 And when she had said this, Martha went and called her sister Mary, saying privately, “The Teacher is here and is asking for you.” 29 So when Mary heard this, she got up quickly and went to him. 30 (Now Jesus had not yet entered the village, but was still in the place where Martha had come out to meet him.) 31 Then the people who were with Mary in the house consoling her saw her get up quickly and go out. They followed her because they thought she was going to the tomb to weep there.
32 Now when Mary came to the place where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet and said to him, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.” 33 When Jesus saw her weeping, and the people who had come with her weeping, he was intensely moved in spirit and greatly distressed. 34 He asked, “Where have you laid him?” They replied, “Lord, come and see.” 35 Jesus wept. 36 Thus the people who had come to mourn said, “Look how much he loved him!” 37 But some of them said, “This is the man who caused the blind man to see! Couldn’t he have done something to keep Lazarus from dying?”
38 Jesus, intensely moved again, came to the tomb. (Now it was a cave, and a stone was placed across it.) 39 Jesus said, “Take away the stone.” Martha, the sister of the deceased, replied, “Lord, by this time the body will have a bad smell because he has been buried four days.” 40 Jesus responded, “Didn’t I tell you that if you believe, you would see the glory of God?” 41 So they took away the stone. Jesus looked upward and said, “Father, I thank you that you have listened to me. 42 I knew that you always listen to me, but I said this for the sake of the crowd standing around here, that they may believe that you sent me.” 43 When he had said this, he shouted in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” 44 The one who had died came out, his feet and hands tied up with strips of cloth, and a cloth wrapped around his face. Jesus said to them, “Unwrap him and let him go.”
45 Then many of the people, who had come with Mary and had seen the things Jesus did, believed in him. 46 But some of them went to the Pharisees and reported to them what Jesus had done. 47 So the chief priests and the Pharisees called the council together and said, “What are we doing? For this man is performing many miraculous signs. 48 If we allow him to go on in this way, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away our sanctuary and our nation.”
49 Then one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said, “You know nothing at all! 50 You do not realize that it is more to your advantage to have one man die for the people than for the whole nation to perish.” 51 (Now he did not say this on his own, but because he was high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the Jewish nation, 52 and not for the Jewish nation only, but to gather together into one the children of God who are scattered.) 53 So from that day they planned together to kill him.
54 Thus Jesus no longer went around publicly among the Judeans, but went away from there to the region near the wilderness, to a town called Ephraim, and stayed there with his disciples. 55 Now the Jewish Feast of Passover was near, and many people went up to Jerusalem from the rural areas before the Passover to cleanse themselves ritually. 56 Thus they were looking for Jesus, and saying to one another as they stood in the temple courts, “What do you think? That he won’t come to the feast?” 57 (Now the chief priests and the Pharisees had given orders that anyone who knew where Jesus was should report it, so that they could arrest him.)
Main ThemesWhy is Lazarus not in the SynopticsThe other three gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are called the Synoptic Gospels or simply the Synoptics. They are called so because “they are so similar in structure, content, and wording that they can easily be set side by side to provide a synoptic comparison of their content.” John is the only non-Synoptic Gospel. It leaves out stories that are included in all three of the other gospels, and it includes stories that are not found in any of the other three gospels. The raising of Lazarus is one of those stories.
In the Synoptics, Jesus’ last great act of defiance against the religious (and political) elite is cleansing the temple followed by an incendiary discourse. In John’s Gospel, Jesus’ last act of defiance is raising Lazarus. There is no contradiction between the two accounts—that’s not the issue (if there is any). The question is an editorial one. What are the odds that the climactic event (other than the cross, of course) in John’s telling of the story does not feature at all in the other narrations of the same story?
I will briefly present two ideas that should be considered. First, each gospel writer has a different angle. This is not a criticism of the gospels. It is simply a fact. Each gospel highlights different themes by means of what material it includes and excludes and how that material is organized and presented. We do this every day. Consider how you could retell the Kyle Rittenhouse saga in different ways—using completely true facts—to show Kyle as a dutiful servant of his community or as a protector of his community. The former telling may spend a great deal of time describing his efforts to clean unwanted graffiti and briefly mention that he was unsuccessfully attacked. The latter telling of the story may not even mention the graffiti cleaning and describe the attack in extravagant detail. But notice that if both narratives are true (that is, they present true information), they are complementary. By reading both stories we get a better picture of who Kyle is and what happened.
The Gospel of Matthew, for example, is aimed at a Jewish audience. It emphasizes the fact that Jesus is the Messianic Davidic King who fulfills the Old Covenant prophesies. The Gospel of Luke, instead, is aimed at a Hellenized audience and emphasizes that Jesus is the prophesied Messiah who came to save people of all nations. Mark had a Roman audience in mind and emphasized Jesus as the true ruler. The Gospel of John—our main concern in this study—is more interested in showing Jesus as truly divine, who brings true life through his willing sacrifice. Which gospel is right? All of them. These are complementary accounts.
With the above idea in mind, consider whether we should expect the story of Lazarus in all gospels. All gospels agree that Jesus brought people back to life. Jesus brought Jairus’ daughter back to life (Matthew 9:23-26, Mark 5:35-43, and Luke 8:40-56), as well as the son of the widow of Nain (Luke 7:12-15). John doesn’t mention either of these miracles! So that’s not the issue at all. In John’s Gospel, Lazarus is a prefigurement of what Jesus would go through (physically, i.e., death and resurrection) and what the believer will go through (spiritually and eschatologically). It connects all the dots. Perhaps the other gospel writers preferred to end on a religious and political dispute (the temple cleansing) to show Jesus as the true prophet, the true king, and the true priest, while John wants to end on a scene that shows Jesus as the true life.
There is another reason the Synoptics may have deliberately excluded the story of Lazarus. This is called the protective anonymity theory. As one website explains:
There may be a good reason Mark, Matthew and Luke failed to mention Lazarus’ resurrection, even though they described similar miracles. When Jesus arrived at the tomb of Lazarus, “many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary, to console them concerning their brother” (John 11:18). Martha even went out to meet Jesus prior to his arrival, seemingly aware of the disciple’s concern that “these Jews were just now seeking to stone [Jesus]” (John 11:8). Jesus performed the miracle in the presence of these Jewish witnesses and “many of the Jews who came to Mary, and saw what He had done, believed in Him” (John 11:45). As a result, the chief priests and Pharisees convened a council and “from that day on they planned together to kill [Jesus]” (John 11:53). The raising of Lazarus had an impact on the Jewish opposition that was unique amongst those who had been raised by Jesus. Early chroniclers may simply have wanted to minimize Lazarus’ presence in the gospel accounts to protect him and his sisters earlier in the first century. By the time John penned his version of the ministry of Jesus (much later than Mark, Matthew or Luke), this concern may have rightfully waned.
The MiracleThe Request
[I am working on the remainder of the blog post.]
Scripture Reading: John 10:1-42
1 “I tell you the solemn truth, the one who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs in some other way, is a thief and a robber. 2 The one who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 The doorkeeper opens the door for him, and the sheep hear his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 When he has brought all his own sheep out, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they recognize his voice. 5 They will never follow a stranger, but will run away from him because they do not recognize the stranger’s voice.” 6 Jesus told them this parable, but they did not understand what he was saying to them.
7 So Jesus said again, “I tell you the solemn truth, I am the door for the sheep. 8 All who came before me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. 9 I am the door. If anyone enters through me, he will be saved, and will come in and go out, and find pasture. 10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come so that they may have life, and may have it abundantly.
11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 The hired hand, who is not a shepherd and does not own sheep, sees the wolf coming and abandons the sheep and runs away. So the wolf attacks the sheep and scatters them. 13 Because he is a hired hand and is not concerned about the sheep, he runs away.
14 “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that do not come from this sheepfold. I must bring them too, and they will listen to my voice, so that there will be one flock and one shepherd. 17 This is why the Father loves me—because I lay down my life, so that I may take it back again. 18 No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down of my own free will. I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it back again. This commandment I received from my Father.”
19 Another sharp division took place among the Jewish people because of these words. 20 Many of them were saying, “He is possessed by a demon and has lost his mind! Why do you listen to him?” 21 Others said, “These are not the words of someone possessed by a demon. A demon cannot cause the blind to see, can it?”
22 Then came the feast of the Dedication in Jerusalem. 23 It was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple area in Solomon’s Portico. 24 The Jewish leaders surrounded him and asked, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” 25 Jesus replied, “I told you and you do not believe. The deeds I do in my Father’s name testify about me. 26 But you refuse to believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish; no one will snatch them from my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one can snatch them from my Father’s hand. 30 The Father and I are one.”
31 The Jewish leaders picked up rocks again to stone him to death. 32 Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good deeds from the Father. For which one of them are you going to stone me?” 33 The Jewish leaders replied, “We are not going to stone you for a good deed but for blasphemy because you, a man, are claiming to be God.”
34 Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If those people to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’ (and the scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say about the one whom the Father set apart and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I do not perform the deeds of my Father, do not believe me. 38 But if I do them, even if you do not believe me, believe the deeds, so that you may come to know and understand that I am in the Father and the Father is in me.” 39 Then they attempted again to seize him, but he escaped their clutches.
40 Jesus went back across the Jordan River again to the place where John had been baptizing at an earlier time, and he stayed there. 41 Many came to him and began to say, “John performed no miraculous sign, but everything John said about this man was true!” 42 And many believed in Jesus there.
Main ThemesShepherds in AntiquitySheep
In the ancient world, both Jew and Gentile, sheep were prized. They provided wool; meat; milk that could be turned into cheese; and, leather that could be turned into “canteens” to carry liquids. Shepherds cared for sheep and oftentimes goats as well.
Sheep (and goats) would learn to follow the voice and pipe of the shepherd. (Forgive me, I tried learning more about what a shepherd’s pipe may have looked like or sounded like, but I did not gain a good level of confidence on the material I found. Suffice it to say, it was some kind of flute, perhaps made of reeds.) Obedient animals could be led by voice and pipe without requiring the use of a staff. We have modern examples of shepherds guiding over 200 sheep by walking slowly and giving them a call about every forty seconds. In our daily lives, the closest analogue to this would be our relationships with our dogs.
Shepherds’ Reputations
Shepherds were important in Old Testament times. Moses was a shepherd (Exodus 3:1). David was a shepherd (1 Samuel 16:11). Yet, despite the greatest patriarchs of the Jewish people being shepherds, the profession became despised by the elite during Jesus’ time. As Craig Keener points out in his John commentary, contemporary texts portrayed shepherds as rogues, thieves, and murderers. Shepherds were considered the only class of people lower than peasants. And these texts include not only gentile sources. Surprisingly, Jewish rabbis shared these opinions considering shepherds as dishonorable—like tax collectors.
In Chapter 10, Jesus is obviously speaking with a positive outlook on shepherds, very much in keeping with the Old Testament precedent. What we might not consider as we read the text is that Jesus is speaking to the religious elite, who probably do not share Jesus’ positive description of pastoral life. This does not change the theological meaning of the text, but it informs us about the tone of the conversation. By this point in Chapter 10, the argument between Jesus and the religious elite has reached a boiling point. Jesus’ use of shepherds in his parable probably did not bring the temperature down.
The Sheepfold
Many households would have owned sheep in Jesus’ time. If the sheep were being kept “at home,” then they would be kept in the modern equivalent of the yard. (Perhaps our closest equivalent word would be the curtilage.) The yard was surrounded by a tall wall made of a permanent material, such as stone. There would be a door to enter the yard. Teenagers who were part of the household may be hired to care for the sheep. This may be the image we encounter in the first few verses of Chapter 10.
Large herds, though, were not kept in anyone’s backyard. They would be out in pastures and moved around from pasture to pasture as the seasons changed. The herds would have been taken higher into the mountains during summer and low into the valleys in winter. Neither the shepherd nor the sheep were safe during all this travel. Lions, wolves, and criminals posed dangers. We will discuss these dangers in a minute. For now, I want to focus on the kind of enclosure in which sheep could be kept when out in the pastures. A shepherd could use a cave, build a temporary shelter with thornbushes for sides, or perhaps use a temporary summer shelter built of stone walls topped with briars. This last kind of shelter would have no door but simply an opening, so the shepherd would sleep across the opening, himself acting as the door.
Different shepherds might share the same sheepfold at night. We may think that separating the animals would be difficult in the morning, but that was not the case. The sheep would distinguish the voice of their shepherd and follow him.
Thieves and Robbers
Thieves and robbers were common at the time. Technically there was a difference between the two. Generally, thieves broke into homes and robbers assaulted travelers.
Robbers may not only steal sheep but kill the shepherd. Bands of robbers could grow powerful enough to require military intervention. Shepherds had to be ready for combat, which was part of the reason they carried a staff. They also had vicious dogs with them, but it is unclear how often dogs were used by Jewish shepherds. (Dog’s were ceremonially unclean.)
Of course, the words thieves and robbers were also used as insults. For example, a politician who exploited his people might be referred to as a robber. Pagan nations oppressing Israel could be referred to likewise.
Shepherds in the Old Testament
The last bit of background we need to better understand Chapter 10 is Ezekiel 34. Certainly Ezekiel 34 is not the only chapter in the Old Testament that calls Israel sheep, but it is the primary allusion in John 10. I quote verses 1-24 below,
1 The Lord’s message came to me: 2 “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy, and say to them—to the shepherds: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Woe to the shepherds of Israel who have been feeding themselves! Should not shepherds feed the flock? 3 You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the choice animals, but you do not feed the sheep! 4 You have not strengthened the weak, healed the sick, bandaged the injured, brought back the strays, or sought the lost, but with force and harshness you have ruled over them. 5 They were scattered because they had no shepherd, and they became food for every wild beast. 6 My sheep wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill. My sheep were scattered over the entire face of the earth with no one looking or searching for them.
7 “‘Therefore, you shepherds, listen to the Lord’s message: 8 As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, my sheep have become prey and have become food for all the wild beasts. There was no shepherd, and my shepherds did not search for my flock, but fed themselves and did not feed my sheep. 9 Therefore, you shepherds, listen to the Lord’s message. 10 This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Look, I am against the shepherds, and I will demand my sheep from their hand. I will no longer let them be shepherds; the shepherds will not feed themselves anymore. I will rescue my sheep from their mouths, so that they will no longer be food for them.
11 “‘For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: Look, I myself will search for my sheep and seek them out. 12 As a shepherd seeks out his flock when he is among his scattered sheep, so I will seek out my flock. I will rescue them from all the places where they have been scattered on a cloudy, dark day. 13 I will bring them out from among the peoples and gather them from foreign countries; I will bring them to their own land. I will feed them on the mountains of Israel, by the streams and all the inhabited places of the land. 14 In a good pasture I will feed them; the mountain heights of Israel will be their pasture. There they will lie down in a lush pasture, and they will feed on rich grass on the mountains of Israel. 15 I myself will feed my sheep and I myself will make them lie down, declares the Sovereign Lord. 16 I will seek the lost and bring back the strays; I will bandage the injured and strengthen the sick, but the fat and the strong I will destroy. I will feed them—with judgment!
17 “‘As for you, my sheep, this is what the Sovereign Lord says: Look, I am about to judge between one sheep and another, between rams and goats. 18 Is it not enough for you to feed on the good pasture that you must trample the rest of your pastures with your feet? When you drink clean water, must you muddy the rest of the water by trampling it with your feet? 19 As for my sheep, they must eat what you trampled with your feet and drink what you have muddied with your feet!
20 “‘Therefore, this is what the Sovereign Lord says to them: Look, I myself will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep. 21 Because you push with your side and your shoulder, and thrust your horns at all the weak sheep until you scatter them abroad, 22 I will save my sheep; they will no longer be prey. I will judge between one sheep and another.
23 “‘I will set one shepherd over them, and he will feed them—namely, my servant David. He will feed them and will be their shepherd. 24 I, the Lord, will be their God, and my servant David will be prince among them; I, the Lord, have spoken!
The Parable of the Shepherd and the SheepForgive me, that was a lot of background information before we got to today’s text. But, hopefully, all that information will help us understand the text with more depth.
Parables in John’s Gospel
One final side note. You may have heard that the Gospel of John contains no parables. Yet, in John 10:6 you see the word “parable.” Why would people say that, then? The Greek word in John 10 is paroimian. When the Gospel of Matthew, for example, introduces a parable, it uses the word parabolēn. Some people argue that these two terms are not synonymous. The former might mean something more like a riddle while the latter truly means parable. However, both terms are used in the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew term “mashal,” and the paroimian in John 10 behaves just like a parable in Matthew’s gospel: Jesus uses earthly shepherds as analogies. I do not believe that there is any meaningful distinction between John’s paroimian and Matthew’s parabolēn, so I will call the text in John 10 a parable.
Sheep Kept at Home
In verses 1 through 6, Jesus seems to describe the very familiar situation in which sheep were kept “at home.” As I explained above, sheep would be kept in the modern equivalent of the front and backyards. The yard was surrounded by a tall, stone wall. Someone was tasked with watching the sheep and the door. In the parable, the one who enters through the door is one who belongs to the household. He is known to the doorkeeper. The thieves and robbers do not belong to the household, so they must sneak in. Moreover, when the member of the household returns, his sheep recognize him. Notice that there is a bidirectional familiarity described here. Of course the “household member” is familiar with his household; but also, the household (i.e., the doorkeeper and the sheep) is familiar with him.
To better understand the parable, let’s recall the passage from Ezekiel I quoted above,
The Lord’s message came to me: “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy, and say to them—to the shepherds: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Woe to the shepherds of Israel who have been feeding themselves! Should not shepherds feed the flock? You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the choice animals, but you do not feed the sheep! You have not strengthened the weak, healed the sick, bandaged the injured, brought back the strays, or sought the lost, but with force and harshness you have ruled over them.
As the last piece of the puzzle, let’s also recall Matthew 23. In the first 7 verses of that chapter, Jesus speaks of the Pharisees as follows,
[T]hey do not practice what they teach. They tie up heavy loads, hard to carry, and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing even to lift a finger to move them. They do all their deeds to be seen by people, for they make their phylacteries wide and their tassels long. They love the place of honor at banquets and the best seats in the synagogues and elaborate greetings in the marketplaces and to have people call them “Rabbi.”
I think the connection of John 10, Ezekiel 34, and Matthew 23 is hard to deny. Jesus’ parable demotes the religious leaders from selfish shepherds (like in Ezekiel) to outright thieves and robbers—people outside the household and unrecognizable to the sheep. This is a harsh condemnation of the Pharisees. They are outside of the God’s family. Of all people, those who considered themselves most holy stand damned.
Sheep Out in the Field
In verses 7 through 13, Jesus continues to use the shepherd analogy but seemingly changes the setting. Now Jesus seems to be describing a situation in which sheep are being kept in a temporary, summer sheepfold. As I described above, this would have been a temporary structure made of stone and briars. It would not have a door, so the shepherd slept across the opening and became the door himself. If this is the situation that Jesus had in mind, describing himself as the door makes perfect sense. Notice he is still the shepherd, so there is no lack of continuity in the parable.
For anyone to enter the fold properly, they must go through Jesus. If they enter the fold any other way, they are nothing but a thief or a robber. Remember, the Jews believed that they were already part of God’s family. They shared in God’s inheritance because they were descendants of Abraham. Jesus is denying this. Jesus is denying there is any other way to enter God’s family but through faith in him. The parable goes a step further. It accuses these impostors of causing harm to the sheep. The Pharisees are not innocently mistaken people; they have evil desires.
In verse 11, the parable becomes prophetic. The good shepherd will sacrifice his own life for the sheep. Jesus will do exactly that on the cross. Contrast the good shepherd with the “hired hands.” We understand the difference between an owner and a hired hand very well. People do not take good care of things that are not theirs. The sheep owner is willing to risk (and lose) his life protecting the sheep. The hired hand says, “they don’t pay me enough for this” and runs away. If Jesus is the good shepherd, who are the hired hands? Probably the Pharisees. Parables tend to have one message and not multiple, complex messages. Jesus is probably repeating that same, simple message multiple times. In this last iteration of the parable, the Pharisees are described as cowards who did not take real “ownership” of their jobs and left the sheep to die.
Knowing God
The idea of knowing God is found throughout the Old Testament. For example, in Exodus 6:7 God says, “I will take you to myself for a people, and I will be your God. Then you will know that I am the Lord your God, who brought you out from your enslavement to the Egyptians.” In John 10, however, this “knowledge” grows exponentially. Jesus explains that his “own” know him and he knows them—just as the Father knows Jesus and Jesus knows the Father! We must stop and consider the weight of this statement. Consider the intimacy that exists between the Father and the Son. They are one. Believers somehow are elevated to a similar level of closeness with God.
Of course, I am not suggesting that believers become one in substance with God. That would be heretical, to say the least. We are creation, he is creator. There is an unbreachable ontological chasm between us. But that is the very reason that we should be shocked when Jesus says, “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me— just as the Father knows me and I know the Father.” We are brought into a “knowledge” of God that far exceeds that of even the biblical prophets. Remember the words of the prophet Jeremiah (Jeremiah 24:7), “I will give them the desire to acknowledge that I am the Lord. I will be their God, and they will be my people. For they will wholeheartedly return to me.” Our division with God is finally fully remedied. How is this accomplished? Consider John 14:15-17, “If you love me, you will obey my commandments. Then I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you forever—the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot accept because it does not see him or know him. But you know him because he resides with you and will be in you.”
Another Sheepfold
Jesus will call another sheep “that do not come from this sheepfold.” Who are these other sheep? Let’s consider the alternatives. This could be referring to uniting Ephraim and Judah—that is, the northern and southern kingdoms of Israel. In Jesus’ time, the northern kingdom was called Samaria. Jesus could also be referring to the Diaspora Jews. For example, when the high priest in Chapter 11 refers to gathering “God’s scattered children,” he is referring to Diaspora Jews. This also seems to be the most obvious meaning in passages like Ezekiel 34:13, “I will bring them out from among the peoples and gather them from foreign countries.” The last alternative is that Jesus is referring to Gentiles. I think this is the correct interpretation for multiple reasons. The passage speaks of sheep that are not of “this sheepfold.” Both Ephraim and the Diaspora Jews would be of “this sheepfold.” They are scattered, sure, but they are from the same source. The words of the high priest in Chapter 11 are not dispositive of what Jesus meant in Chapter 10. Also, although Ezekiel’s listeners would have interpreted his prophecy to mean Diaspora Jews, we understand Old Testament prophesies were often “bigger” than the original audience would have understood. The Jews expected a political king; they received a king of the universe instead. The Jews expected deliverance for their nation; they received deliverance for the whole world instead. The Jews expected a gathering of the Diaspora; they received a gathering of the whole world instead. Contemporary Jews already believed that Gentiles who converted to Judaism became part of the Jewish people. So, the idea of sheep from another sheepfold becoming part of the Jewish sheepfold would not have been strange. And, finally, this is the interpretation favored by the New Testament. Consider, for example, Romans 11:17. Paul explicitly refers to Gentiles (“wild olive shoots”) as being grafted onto the main olive tree. This is an equivalent analogy to the sheep of another sheepfold.
Feast of Dedication (Hanukkah)The Setting
Hanukkah is an extrabiblical feast—it was not ordained in the Old Testament. A website explains the origin of the feast as follows:
When Israel was under the Syrian-Greek Empire, the Temple in Jerusalem had been desecrated and set up as a house of worship to Zeus. A faithful Hebrew priest, Mattathias and his family, known as the Maccabees, led a rebellion for several years to restore Israel’s independence and their ability to worship Yahweh properly. According to the second book of Maccabees, the time for the festival of Sukkot (The Feast of Tabernacles, which is a remembrance of Yahweh’s provision for the Israelites in the wilderness) passed shortly before their victory. But the Jewish people did not celebrate because the Temple was not in order.
However, when they did achieve victory, they began to restore the Temple and they celebrated the Feast of Tabernacles in conjunction with a rededication of the Temple to Yahweh.
Hanukkah is celebrated approximately three months after the Feast of Tabernacles, in the wintertime. The season alone would have made it a less popular feast. Like the Feast of Tabernacles, Hanukkah was celebrated for seven days. Notice that Hanukkah celebrated national liberation, not a religious theme. Naturally, we may expect fewer connections between the feast and the biblical passage in John 10.
Using a “portico” or porch during the wintertime would have been natural. It provided some shelter from the elements while a speaker gathered with his audience.
The Messianic Secret
The Jewish leaders surround Jesus and demand an answer. “Tell us who you are!” (I am paraphrasing, of course.) This naturally raises the question of the Messianic Secret, which I will explain in a minute. However, before we even get to that, let’s get to the main irony. In verse 30, Jesus humors them and clearly replies, “I am God.” (Again, I am paraphrasing.). And the Jewish leaders try to kill him. The answer to their question has been clear, it is made clear again, and it is simply not an answer they are willing to accept.
What is the Messianic Secret? As a Christian website explains,
The Messianic Secret is a theme of biblical criticism developed in 1901 by a German Lutheran theologian named Wilhelm Wrede. The Messianic Secret involves Wrede’s explanation for Jesus wanting to hide His identity from His enemies by commanding the disciples to keep silent about His mission on earth and the miracles He performed. Wrede claimed that Jesus did not ever think He was the Messiah and that Mark (and the rest of the New Testament authors) sensationalized Jesus and made Him into the Messiah. Wrede claims Mark added the Messianic Secret in an attempt to give a reason for why Jesus was not accepted by many as Messiah until after His death. Wrede’s theory enjoyed some popularity during the 1920s but faded soon thereafter.
Is there any biblical basis for Wrede’s theory? It is undeniable that Jesus told His disciples on several occasions to keep what He had done secret. Each of those incidents, however, has a much more plausible explanation than the one put forth by Wilhelm Wrede. Further, each is consistent with the other Gospel accounts, and not an invention by Mark.
In Mark 1:43–45 Christ commanded the leper He had healed, “‘See that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.’ But he went out and began to proclaim it freely, and to spread the word, so that Jesus could no longer go into a town openly, but stayed out in the country; and people came to him from every quarter.” Jesus knew the publicity about the healing would hinder His ability to minister in the area, which is exactly what happened when the leper disobeyed, and worse, the sensationalism caused by miraculous healings would hamper the spreading of His message. Because of the leper’s disobedience, Jesus could no longer enter a city without being mobbed by those seeking healing, causing Him to abandon His ministry in the city and keep to relatively uninhabited areas. The healing of the leper is also found in Matthew 8:1–4 and Luke 5:12–16, with Luke reiterating the reason for the command for secrecy in verses 15–16.
Further “evidence” for Wrede’s theory of secrecy involves the explanation for Jesus speaking in parables in Mark 4:11 where He tells His disciples that the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God had been given to them, but to others He spoke in parables so that, “though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.” This is not, however, a plea for secrecy. Rather, it is an explanation of divine revelation in the hearts of true believers, revelation that is unavailable for those who, like the Pharisees, continued to reject the truth. The “mysteries of the kingdom” are revealed to those who have “ears to hear” but not to those whose hearts are darkened. As the Messiah, the Son of God, Jesus would have been able to distinguish between those two groups. Again, this is not an invention of Mark, as it is reiterated in Matthew 13:11–17.
Let’s assume the Messianic Secret for a minute. Let's assume that, particularly in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus conceals his identity until the “end of the story.” Is this consistent with what we see in the Gospel of John. I think so. Remember that Jesus’ brothers ask him to go do public miracles during the Feast of Tabernacles. Jesus declines and makes his public appearance during the middle of the festival. He performs a miracle (healing the blind man) but he does not perform a highly public miracle, like the feeding of the 5,000. Throughout the Gospel of John, Jesus speaks using imagery that confuses his audience (e.g., “born again,” “living water,” “bread from Heaven”). In fact, the Gospel of John seems to explain the Messianic Secret. Jesus’ “own” will listen and believe. Those who are not his sheep will not. Notice that this “listening” is not primarily an intellectual hurdle. In verse 31, the Jewish leaders clearly understand that Jesus is calling himself God. The intellectual component is there. They do not believe, however.
You are Gods
In verse 34, Jesus begins to make a how-much-more kind of argument. This line of argumentation is called qal vaomer, and it was commonplace in religious debates among Jesus’ contemporaries. Although verses 34 through 36 may seem a little confusing, the argument is as follows:
Your* scripture uses the term “god” for people who merely received the word of God.
(When Jesus refers to “your* law,” he is not dissociating himself from the Old Testament. He is highlighting the fact that his adversaries are already committed to this first premise.)
I did not merely receive the word of God, God set me apart and sent me (i.e., God considers me unique and special). (Notice that the reader is filling in the blanks as well, thinking, “I did not merely receive the word of God, I am the word of God.”
How much more should the term “god” be appropriate for me.
Bonus Argument: And I do not even call myself “god” but “son of god.” (Notice that Jesus consistently makes himself one with the Father ontologically but subject to the Father in rank.)
Scripture Reading: John 9:1-41
1 Now as Jesus was passing by, he saw a man who had been blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who committed the sin that caused him to be born blind, this man or his parents?” 3 Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but he was born blind so that the acts of God may be revealed through what happens to him. 4 We must perform the deeds of the one who sent me as long as it is daytime. Night is coming when no one can work. 5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” 6 Having said this, he spat on the ground and made some mud with the saliva. He smeared the mud on the blind man’s eyes 7 and said to him, “Go wash in the pool of Siloam” (which is translated “sent”). So the blind man went away and washed, and came back seeing.
8 Then the neighbors and the people who had seen him previously as a beggar began saying, “Is this not the man who used to sit and beg?” 9 Some people said, “This is the man!” while others said, “No, but he looks like him.” The man himself kept insisting, “I am the one!” 10 So they asked him, “How then were you made to see?” 11 He replied, “The man called Jesus made mud, smeared it on my eyes and told me, ‘Go to Siloam and wash.’ So I went and washed, and was able to see.” 12 They said to him, “Where is that man?” He replied, “I don’t know.”
13 They brought the man who used to be blind to the Pharisees. 14 (Now the day on which Jesus made the mud and caused him to see was a Sabbath.) 15 So the Pharisees asked him again how he had gained his sight. He replied, “He put mud on my eyes and I washed, and now I am able to see.”
16 Then some of the Pharisees began to say, “This man is not from God because he does not observe the Sabbath.” But others said, “How can a man who is a sinner perform such miraculous signs?” Thus there was a division among them. 17 So again they asked the man who used to be blind, “What do you say about him, since he caused you to see?” “He is a prophet,” the man replied.
18 Now the Jewish religious leaders refused to believe that he had really been blind and had gained his sight until at last they summoned the parents of the man who had become able to see. 19 They asked the parents, “Is this your son, whom you say was born blind? Then how does he now see?” 20 So his parents replied, “We know that this is our son and that he was born blind. 21 But we do not know how he is now able to see, nor do we know who caused him to see. Ask him, he is a mature adult. He will speak for himself.” 22 (His parents said these things because they were afraid of the Jewish religious leaders. For the Jewish leaders had already agreed that anyone who confessed Jesus to be the Christ would be put out of the synagogue. 23 For this reason his parents said, “He is a mature adult, ask him.”)
24 Then they summoned the man who used to be blind a second time and said to him, “Promise before God to tell the truth. We know that this man is a sinner.” 25 He replied, “I do not know whether he is a sinner. I do know one thing—that although I was blind, now I can see.” 26 Then they said to him, “What did he do to you? How did he cause you to see?” 27 He answered, “I told you already and you didn’t listen. Why do you want to hear it again? You people don’t want to become his disciples too, do you?”
28 They heaped insults on him, saying, “You are his disciple! We are disciples of Moses! 29 We know that God has spoken to Moses! We do not know where this man comes from!” 30 The man replied, “This is a remarkable thing that you don’t know where he comes from and yet he caused me to see! 31 We know that God doesn’t listen to sinners, but if anyone is devout and does his will, God listens to him. 32 Never before has anyone heard of someone causing a man born blind to see. 33 If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.” 34 They replied, “You were born completely in sinfulness, and yet you presume to teach us?” So they threw him out.
35 Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, so he found the man and said to him, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” 36 The man replied, “And who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?” 37 Jesus told him, “You have seen him; he is the one speaking with you.” [ 38 He said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him. 39 Jesus said,] “For judgment I have come into this world, so that those who do not see may gain their sight, and the ones who see may become blind.”
40 Some of the Pharisees who were with him heard this and asked him, “We are not blind too, are we?” 41 Jesus replied, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin, but now because you claim that you can see, your guilt remains.
Main ThemesThe SettingSince the beginning of chapter 7, we have had a continuous sequence of events. Chapters 7, 8, 9, and 10 are one “scene.” Because the chapters tell one narrative, but we tend to study them separately (out of convenience, not for any theological reason), we need to be intentional in carrying over the information provided in the earlier chapters that apply to the later chapters in this story.
For purposes of chapter 9, we must remember the chronology of the Feast of Tabernacles. The feast lasted eight days. It began on a Sabbath (a Saturday) and it ended on the next Sabbath. Beginning with verse 7:37, all the action has been occurring “[o]n the last day of the feast.“ That means chapter 9 is happening during a Sabbath.
In chapter 9, Jesus heals a blind man on the Sabbath. Sounds familiar. It didn’t go well the first time, how will it go over this time? (Spoiler: not well.)
Who Committed the SinAfter Jesus heals a blind man on the Sabbath for the first time (see John 5), Jesus tells the man, “Look, you have become well. Don’t sin any more, lest anything worse happen to you.” (v. 5:14) As I discussed during Session 10, Jesus words should not be assumed to mean that sickness will occur as a supernatural result of the man’s sin. That very well may be the case, but one could also take Jesus’ words in a more ordinary way. Sometimes sin naturally leads to injury and disease. Sexual immorality can lead to sexually transmitted diseases. In some parts of the world, stealing could lead to one’s hands being lost. Drug use can lead to addiction and mental illness. The list could go on.
However, the first-century world did believe there was a strong connection between ailments and sin—particularly in the case of blindness. Jewish literature provides examples of the connection. For example, according to one contemporary source, one who saw a blind, lame, or otherwise seriously afflicted person should praise God as judge. Presumably, the assumption was that the person must have done something to properly merit such a condition. However, the case should not be overstated. Certainly the contemporary Jewish people understood that sin could cause affliction as a natural consequence (like the examples in the previous paragraph). They also believed that demons could cause disease, so God was not the only available cause.
What is curious (to put it mildly) about the blind man in chapter 9 is that he was blind from birth. This limits the range of options. The man could not have caused his own blindness in a natural sense, and no one seems to posit demon possession. Therefore God must have caused his blindness. Moreover, in a further logical leap, it must have been for someone’s sin. Who’s sin? That is how the conversation begins.
Many people at the time would have accepted the possibility that the man’s blindness was the result of the parents’ sin—most likely of the mother’s while she was pregnant. Some people at the time may have also believed in prenatal activity significant enough to constitute sin. This is not a Jewish example but Isis and Osiris were said to have copulated in the womb. (Weird, I know.)
As much as our modern sensibilities may be offended by the idea that someone may suffer illness for someone else’s sins, Jesus reply may be even more offensive to modern readers. He explains, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but he was born blind so that the acts of God may be revealed through what happens to him.”
God in his sovereignty orchestrated the man’s illness such that a great good would come of it. Notice that this is a very powerful response to the problem of evil and suffering in general. Why would a good God allow evil and suffering in the world? Perhaps God has a plan. Maybe he is working all this out for good. In fact, the logical “Problem of Evil” is no longer very popular in the philosophical community. It is impossible to show that God can have no justifying reasons to allow evil and pain. The philosophical battle is now the probabilistic “Problem of Evil.” In other words, given the current state of the world is it more or less probable that a good God exists.
Spittle and DirtJesus spat on the ground and made some mud. In the ancient world, spittle was sometimes associated with curative powers. For example, emperor Vaspasian (who postdates Jesus by a few decades) reportedly also healed blindness with spittle. This tradition regarding spittle already existed in the Jewish world, although it was probably borrowed from the Gentile world. Perhaps Jesus uses spittle because his audience would have understood the reference: Jesus was curing someone. The other alternative is that this is an allusion to the creative act of Genesis 2:7. (Genesis 2:7 says, “The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”)
There is a potential double entendre in the word “smeared,” which other translations may translate as “applied.” This is the same word as “anoint.” To anoint means to apply oil. Anointing has a powerful religious meaning. Both in the Old and New Testaments, it means one blessed by God. In the New Testament, God anoints with the Holy Spirit (e.g., Acts 10:38). Perhaps Jesus anointing the blind man with mud giving him physical sight is a prefigurement of Jesus anointing believers with the Holy Spirit giving them spiritual sight.
Jesus sends the blind man to wash himself in the pool of Siloam. This was the exact same pool used in the water-drawing ritual during the Feast of Tabernacles (remember, the feast going on “right now” in the story world). Jesus uses the “holy water” of the festival for his own purposes. Talk about cultural appropriation.
What Will the Neighbors Think?The blind man is healed and the “neighbors” are amazed and confused.
In Jerusalem, a man could survive as a beggar though he would remain poor. Jewish contemporaries emphasized charity. Charity towards the destitute was also commanded in the Old Testament. (However, I do not want to give the misimpression that a life of begging was viewed favorably in any way. Jewish contemporaries recognized begging as a shameful condition to be avoided—perhaps even to the point of death, i.e., it would be better to die than to live as a beggar.)
The main point is that the “neighbors” were probably Jerusalemites. These were people who had seen the blind man beg on a daily basis since, probably, a very early age. They had probably donated to him regularly. They had indisputable knowledge of the blind man and his condition. When the healing occurred, the neighbors are shocked to the point of denial.
Making Mud on the SabbathJesus is doubly guilty of breaking the Sabbath, the Pharisees will claim. Not only did Jesus heal on the Sabbath like he did back in chapter 5, but he made mud on the Sabbath! Sadly, I am not kidding. Notice how the text keeps going back to the mud. “Now the day on which Jesus made the mud and caused him to see was a Sabbath.”
The Pharisees do not praise God for the healing. Even if they intend to investigate a potential violation, they do not seek Jesus first to obtain first-hand testimony. They simply accuse Jesus of being a sinner (i.e., he cannot be from God because he does not observe the Sabbath).
The TrialThe text immediately shifts into a sort of legal proceeding. The Pharisees treat the blind man and his parents as witnesses.
An Epistemological Conflict
Notice that there is an epistemological conflict between the Pharisees and the blind man. The Pharisees “know” from their interpretation of the law. They know that the law forbids working on the Sabbath. So they know that Jesus cannot be from God. The blind man “knows” from experience. He knows he was blind. He knows that he can see. So, he knows that Jesus must be from God. For the sake of clarity, I am not trying to make a larger point about epistemology here, like whether we should trust our own experience more than scripture. I think that would be a dangerous conclusion to draw. Jesus never undermines the Torah. Jesus does, however, also appeal to experience. See the miracles and believe. Even through clear and convincing miracles the Pharisees were unwilling to consider that perhaps they did not “know” the Torah as well as they thought. Or, more accurately, the Pharisees were unwilling to recognize their hypocrisy and ill intentions. It’s not so much that they “knew” the scriptures condemned Jesus as much as they were committed to that statement because it served their purposes. As we have seen throughout the Gospel of John, this inability to see is not an intellectual shortcoming but a moral one.
As an interesting side note, an example of biblical hermeneutics that accounts for both scripture and experience is the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, which considers scripture as the first authority and then also takes into account tradition, reason, and experience. For example, Wesley praises the church fathers because not only did they remain faithful to Christian doctrine “[b]ut still they never relinquish this: 'What the Scripture promises, I enjoy. Come and see what Christianity has done here, and acknowledge it is of God.'“
Only a Man of God Could Do This
The Pharisees recognize a problem with their argument. They believed that no one would be able to restore blindness like Jesus did unless that man were from God. Remember John 3:1-2: “Now a certain man, a Pharisee named Nicodemus, who was a member of the Jewish ruling council, came to Jesus at night and said to him, ‘Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs that you do unless God is with him.’” So the Pharisees must deny the healing.
Rigging the Trial
The Pharisees call on the blind man’s parents to testify. Before the testimony, they rig the trial. Anyone who confesses Jesus as the Christ will be excommunicated. The text does not explicitly say this, but the Pharisees probably hoped that with enough pressure the parents would even deny that their child had really been blind. The parents would have earned great favor with the religious leaders if they had testified that their son had faked his illness to receive charity. The blind man’s parents are in fact intimidated. They are only willing to confirm that their son was blind and can now see. How that happened? They won’t say. Ask our son, they say instead, he is “mature” or “of age.” That means that the blind man is at least 13 but could be much older.
The Blind Man’s Faith
The Pharisees call the blind man to the stand once more. Notice the leading the question. They demand (if I paraphrase), “Condemn Jesus as a sinner.” But the blind man is an example of faith. He may not fully know who Jesus is but he will not deny the miracle. “Say what you will about Jesus, but I was blind and now I see.” The Pharisees give him one more chance to recant his statement. “Tell us again what he did to you.” The blind man responds with mockery. “Do you want me to tell you again so you also might believe?” Of course that’s not the reason for the Pharisees’ question.
The Pharisees go on the offensive. They insult the blind man, “You are his disciple!” This works on two levels. First, it is an accusation of bias. The blind man is lying for the benefit of his master. Second, as the Pharisees claim to be disciples of Moses, it is accusing the blind man of betraying their religion and their God. Notice that both the “you are” and “we are” are emphatic in Greek. It is like saying, “I myself had to fix it” to emphasize who performed the action. This is a heated debate filled with accusatory overtones.
The Pharisees make one more claim. “We do not know where this man comes from!” We have discussed this idea extensively in prior sessions. Jesus is from above; he is from God; he is from heaven. The religious leaders refuse to see this. In this case, the Pharisees may not only be accusing Jesus of being a stranger to Jerusalem and their religious community but also perhaps accusing him of being an illegitimate child.
The blind man goes on the offensive himself. Remember that everyone, the Pharisees included, granted the premise that only a man of God could do the miraculous signs that Jesus was doing. The blind man points this out and leaves the Pharisees with no excuse. Additionally, the blind man’s claim that no one had ever heard of a blind man from birth being healed appears to be historical when considered in context. Such claims existed in the Gentile world but they did not seem to exist in the Jewish world.
The Pharisees stoop low. Remember the assumption was that the man’s blindness was caused by sin. The Pharisees have no issues using that assumption. “You are a filthy sinner and you dare attempt to correct us, disciples of Moses?”
Notice that the blind man grows in his belief and understanding of Jesus as more information is presented to him. First Jesu is a “man” (v. 9:11), then a “prophet” (v. 9:17), and finally “Son of Man” (v. 9:35-37).
Jesus Comes to JudgeRemember John 3:17-18:
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him. The one who believes in him is not condemned. The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God.
The word for “condemn” in John 3 is the same as the word for judge in John 9 when Jesus says:
For judgment I have come into this world, so that those who do not see may gain their sight, and the ones who see may become blind.
This sure seems like a contradiction at first blush. Let’s consider what contradiction means. The law of non-contradiction says that two contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. Both verses quoted above refer to the same time: Jesus coming into the world. But, do both verses refer to judgment in the same sense? I do not think so. Consider John 12:47-50:
I have come as a light into the world, so that everyone who believes in me should not remain in darkness. If anyone hears my words and does not obey them, I do not judge him. For I have not come to judge the world, but to save the world. The one who rejects me and does not accept my words has a judge; the word I have spoken will judge him at the last day. For I have not spoken from my own authority, but the Father himself who sent me has commanded me what I should say and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. Thus the things I say, I say just as the Father has told me.
What do all three passages in John tell us when read in conjunction? Jesus did not come to judge in the sense of inflicting immediate punishment—i.e., condemn. Those who hear Jesus and disobey he does not condemn. They may continue to do as they please. Jesus is on earth to save not to destroy. However, the revelation that comes through Jesus will eventually judge in the sense of deciding or determining. Jesus’ words divide people between those who believe and those do not. And in the last day, at the final judgment, that is the only consideration that will matter.
The Great ReversalJesus words at the end of this chapter are enigmatic. “For judgment I have come into this world, so that those who do not see may gain their sight, and the ones who see may become blind.” Jesus also says, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin, but now because you claim that you can see, your guilt remains.”
To gain sight is only valuable to one who is blind. To anyone who who thinks that they can already see, that offer is worthless. A doctor is only valuable to a sick man, not to a healthy man. Salvation is only valuable to a condemned sinner, not to a righteous man.
Consider these statements found in Matthew 9:12-13:
“Those who are healthy don’t need a physician, but those who are sick do.”
“I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
The word “gospel” comes from “god-spell” meaning a “good story.” Gospel is in turn a translation of the Latin word evangelium (from the Greek euangelion) that means “good news.” [Edit: The original post mistakenly stated, “Gospel is in turn a translation of the Latin word euangelion . . . .” Thanks to the commenter below for pointing this out.] What is “good” about the news of Jesus? Christ has come to save the world. He offers this salvation freely to all who would believe in him. But notice that this message is not just pointless but offensive to someone who thinks that they need no saving. That offense, I think, is why those who see become blind. Whatever truth is held by those who see is intentionally discarded by the offense of the good news. They turn deliberately and vehemently from the truth of the gospel. In this way, those who recognize their need are given all things while those who recognize their good things lose all things.
Scripture Reading: John 8:12-59
12 Then Jesus spoke out again, “I am the light of the world! The one who follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life.” 13 So the Pharisees objected, “You testify about yourself; your testimony is not true!” 14 Jesus answered, “Even if I testify about myself, my testimony is true because I know where I came from and where I am going. But you people do not know where I came from or where I am going. 15 You people judge by outward appearances; I do not judge anyone. 16 But if I judge, my evaluation is accurate because I am not alone when I judge, but I and the Father who sent me do so together. 17 It is written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. 18 I testify about myself and the Father who sent me testifies about me.”
19 Then they began asking him, “Who is your father?” Jesus answered, “You do not know either me or my Father. If you knew me you would know my Father too.” 20 (Jesus spoke these words near the offering box while he was teaching in the temple courts. No one seized him because his time had not yet come.)
21 Then Jesus said to them again, “I am going away, and you will look for me but will die in your sin. Where I am going you cannot come.” 22 So the Jewish leaders began to say, “Perhaps he is going to kill himself because he says, ‘Where I am going you cannot come.’” 23 Jesus replied, “You people are from below; I am from above. You people are from this world; I am not from this world. 24 Thus I told you that you will die in your sins. For unless you believe that I am he, you will die in your sins.”
25 So they said to him, “Who are you?” Jesus replied, “What I have told you from the beginning. 26 I have many things to say and to judge about you, but the Father who sent me is truthful, and the things I have heard from him I speak to the world.” 27 (They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father.)
28 Then Jesus said, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and I do nothing on my own initiative, but I speak just what the Father taught me. 29 And the one who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone because I always do those things that please him.” 30 While he was saying these things, many people believed in him.
31 Then Jesus said to those Judeans who had believed him, “If you continue to follow my teaching, you are really my disciples 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” 33 “We are descendants of Abraham,” they replied, “and have never been anyone’s slaves! How can you say, ‘You will become free’?” 34 Jesus answered them, “I tell you the solemn truth, everyone who practices sin is a slave of sin. 35 The slave does not remain in the family forever, but the son remains forever. 36 So if the son sets you free, you will be really free. 37 I know that you are Abraham’s descendants. But you want to kill me because my teaching makes no progress among you. 38 I am telling you the things I have seen while with the Father; as for you, practice the things you have heard from the Father!”
39 They answered him, “Abraham is our father!” Jesus replied, “If you are Abraham’s children, you would be doing the deeds of Abraham. 40 But now you are trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth I heard from God. Abraham did not do this! 41 You people are doing the deeds of your father.”
Then they said to Jesus, “We were not born as a result of immorality! We have only one Father, God himself.” 42 Jesus replied, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come from God and am now here. I have not come on my own initiative, but he sent me. 43 Why don’t you understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot accept my teaching. 44 You people are from your father the devil, and you want to do what your father desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not uphold the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he lies, he speaks according to his own nature because he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I am telling you the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Who among you can prove me guilty of any sin? If I am telling you the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 The one who belongs to God listens and responds to God’s words. You don’t listen and respond because you don’t belong to God.”
48 The Judeans replied, “Aren’t we correct in saying that you are a Samaritan and are possessed by a demon?” 49 Jesus answered, “I am not possessed by a demon, but I honor my Father—and yet you dishonor me. 50 I am not trying to get praise for myself. There is one who demands it, and he also judges. 51 I tell you the solemn truth, if anyone obeys my teaching, he will never see death.”
52 Then the Judeans responded, “Now we know you’re possessed by a demon! Both Abraham and the prophets died, and yet you say, ‘If anyone obeys my teaching, he will never experience death.’ 53 You aren’t greater than our father Abraham who died, are you? And the prophets died too! Who do you claim to be?” 54 Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory is worthless. The one who glorifies me is my Father, about whom you people say, ‘He is our God.’ 55 Yet you do not know him, but I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you. But I do know him, and I obey his teaching. 56 Your father Abraham was overjoyed to see my day, and he saw it and was glad.”
57 Then the Judeans replied, “You are not yet fifty years old! Have you seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am!” 59 Then they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus was hidden from them and went out from the temple area.
Main ThemesThe Light of the WorldJesus is the light of the world. This is not the first time we encounter this imagery. Recall John 1:4-5, “In him was life, and the life was the light of mankind. And the light shines on in the darkness, but the darkness has not mastered it.” This imagery, in fact, was prophesied in the Old Testament. Consider Isaiah 42:5-7:
5 This is what the true God, the Lord, says—
the one who created the sky and stretched it out,
the one who fashioned the earth and everything that lives on it,
the one who gives breath to the people on it,
and life to those who live on it:
6 “I, the Lord, officially commission you;
I take hold of your hand.
I protect you and make you a covenant mediator for people
and a light to the nations,
7 to open blind eyes,
to release prisoners from dungeons,
those who live in darkness from prisons.
Also consider Isaiah 49:5-6:
5 So now the Lord says,
the one who formed me from birth to be his servant—
he did this to restore Jacob to himself,
so that Israel might be gathered to him;
and I will be honored in the Lord’s sight,
for my God is my source of strength—
6 he says, “Is it too insignificant a task for you to be my servant,
to reestablish the tribes of Jacob,
and restore the remnant of Israel?
I will make you a light to the nations,
so you can bring my deliverance to the remote regions of the earth.”
We have already discussed that early Judaism applied the idea of light to multiple entities, particularly Wisdom and Torah. Jesus is a greater light though, both in nature and reach. He is the very source of truth, and his reach will extend beyond Israel to all the earth.
Jesus’ use of light imagery could relate to a torchlight ceremony that was part of the Feast of Tabernacles, which commemorated the pillar of fire in the wilderness. However, given Jesus’ repeated use of light symbolism, this is probably not the main connection the audience is intended to make.
The light is contrasted to walking in darkness. Walking in darkness works in both a literal and a symbolic sense. On a literal level, one who walks in darkness is more prone to trip because he cannot see where he is going. At the symbolic level, the idea of “walking in darkness” had already become a standard depiction of humanity living in sin.
You Testify About YourselfIn first century Israel and the Greek world, self-praise was considered dishonorable and discrediting. Jesus’ opponents point this out as well as bring in a forensic charge. As we have discussed, Jewish law required that important legal matters be settled by the testimony of two or three reliable witnesses. Here Jesus praises himself and brings no other witnesses, or so his opponents imply.
Jesus has a two-fold rebuttal. Jesus can testify about himself because he has a special kind of knowledge. He knows where he is from and where he is going. In other words, he is divine. His knowledge is not like the knowledge of a human witness. It is self-sufficient. And, Jesus adds, even if I played by your rules, I have a second witness: God. Well, or at least we know that is what he meant. Jesus does not use the term God but “his father.” The religious leaders express confusion, “Who is your father?”
The question “Who is your father?” may have worked as a demand to produce the witness. You cite a witness, produce him! In which case Jesus’ reply amounts to, “I did. You just didn’t recognize him.” Alternatively, the question could express confusion, but a confusion brought upon by disbelief.
I Am Going AwayThe conversation heats up. Jesus claims he will go away where his opponents cannot follow. Jesus adds, “[you] will die in your sin.” Jesus will die soon and eventually so will them, but they will not go to the same place—that much is clear. Jesus is returning to the Father. They, therefore, are not. Jesus’ language is reminiscent of texts like Sirach 16:9 (which is a deuterocanonical book), “He showed no mercy on that nation which he doomed to destruction for its sins.”
Notice that the requirement to avoid dying in one’s sins is simple: believe that Jesus “is he.” Actually, the way I quoted the text eliminates a powerful double entendre that we ought not miss. Jesus says to believe that “I am [he].” The he is implied. This is an allusion to texts like Isaiah 43:10,
10 “You are my witnesses,” says the Lord,
“my servant whom I have chosen
so that you may consider and believe in me,
and understand that I am he.
No god was formed before me,
and none will outlive me.
The allusion is a bit cloaked and we could miss it. But the theophanic formula becomes clear in verse 8:58.
What about the discussion about being from above or below? Jesus is not making a distinction between heaven and hell. He is distinguishing between heaven and earth. Unlike the Hellenistic world that understood the evil realm to be below the earth (i.e., Hades), the Jews of Jesus time were more prone to understand Satan’s realm as being earth.
When You Lift Up the Son of ManI’m sure you are tired of me pointing this out again and again, but in classic Johannine style we find another powerful double entendre when Jesus claims that the religious leaders would lift him up. The word for “lifting up” can also mean “exalting.” Conceptually this is true in English as well. You may have heard the Christian worship song that says, “Lord of all the earth / And all of heaven / I come and seek Your face / Worship You with all I have within me / Humbled by Your grace / Every heart every nation / Every tribe all creation / Will bow before Your presence and sing / You are high and lifted up.”
Consider Matthew 23:11-12 as an example of “lifting up” being translated as exalting,
The greatest among you will be your servant. And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
So, Jesus’ opponents probably heard the following: “When you exalt me, then you will know that I am who I say I am.” (Notice that we have the same “I am [he]” potential double entendre, but I think the religious leaders would have missed that too.”) They are not happy. We are not going to exalt you, they are surely thinking.
The careful listener, particularly the Gospel reader, knows what Jesus meant. “When you lift me up on the cross my deity will be revealed.”
Persevere in Belief and Know the TruthAs in prior chapters in John, we again find the fact that some believed in Jesus. Jesus warns them, though, that only if they continue to believe are they truly a disciple. Some who initially believe fall away. The greatest example of apostasy in John’s gospel is Judas. However, Jesus explains the same idea in a parable found in the other gospels. Consider Matthew 13:3b-9,
“Listen! A sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seeds fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured them. Other seeds fell on rocky ground where they did not have much soil. They sprang up quickly because the soil was not deep. But when the sun came up, they were scorched, and because they did not have sufficient root, they withered. Other seeds fell among the thorns, and they grew up and choked them. But other seeds fell on good soil and produced grain, some a hundred times as much, some sixty, and some thirty. The one who has ears had better listen!”
Jesus then explains in Matthew 13:18-23,
So listen to the parable of the sower: When anyone hears the word about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches what was sown in his heart; this is the seed sown along the path. The seed sown on rocky ground is the person who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy. But he has no root in himself and does not endure; when trouble or persecution comes because of the word, immediately he falls away. The seed sown among thorns is the person who hears the word, but worldly cares and the seductiveness of wealth choke the word, so it produces nothing. But as for the seed sown on good soil, this is the person who hears the word and understands. He bears fruit, yielding a hundred, sixty, or thirty times what was sown.”
The passage in John then explains that those who continue to believe will “know the truth.” This idea functions in two levels. On the first level, it relates to what Jewish teachers would have meant at the time—knowing who the true God is and knowing his law (Torah). But, in John’s gospel this idea of knowing takes on an experiential component. It is to live and worship with integrity. (John 3:21, “But the one who practices the truth comes to the light, so that it may be plainly evident that his deeds have been done in God.) In John’s gospel, there is no knowing without acting upon it. Moreover, Jesus is the truth itself (this is a sneak preview of John 14:6). To know the truth is know Jesus.
The Truth Will Set You FreeWhat will knowing the truth do? Set you free. The Jews take offense to this. They claim they have never been slaves. This is an interesting claim. Surely it is not a historical claim since that would be absurd. The heart of the Torah is the Israelites’ deliverance from Egypt, where they were slaves. The Israelites also became slaves during their times in exile. Perhaps the audience means that they, personally and not as a people, had never been slaves. There is some truth to this. Under Herod, the Romans allowed Israel more freedom than to other conquered nations. Surely this would have been a point of pride for the Jews and calling them slaves was to put them at the level of the lowlier peoples. Additionally, there is Jewish tradition that would increase the insulting nature of the term slave. Jesus alludes to this in the following verses. Slaves were not permanent members of the household. They were not inheritors. Jesus has already explained that he will make us children of God (John 1:12)—true members of the family who will inherit the Father’s kingdom. Jews already saw themselves as such. Perhaps, in their minds, even when they were physically conquered and enslaved they were never truly slaves. They were always children of God who would reign in the end. Jesus tries to warn them—without him, that is not the case.
What is freedom? In this context, it means rising from slave status to sonship status with all the privileges that implies. Jesus says as much. But Jesus also says that we are slaves to sin. What do we make of that? This actually goes along with the slave/son duality. Imagine sin as a different household. Jesus is saying, you cannot return to your true household and enjoy the life of a son because you are being held in a different household as a slave. Someone has to set you free before you can return. Remember the story of the prodigal son? It is the same concept.
Notice the reply to Jesus’ words, “Abraham is our father!” The Jews are setting the record straight. They don’t need to be brought into Abraham’s household; they are already part of it. Jesus denies it. If they were, they would do as Abraham does. This is another important theme in John’s gospel. There is no dividing who you are from what you do. They do as Sin does, so they are of the household of Sin. To be a slave to sin is to be a slave to one’s false ideologies and passions. This was a well known concept in both the Jewish and Hellenistic worlds.
Finally, Jesus stabs and then twists the knife. If I paraphrase, “Abraham certainly did not try to kill me. He spoke of me! If you were truly of Abraham you would understand this. Your real father is Sin for his deeds you do.”
Children of God or the Devil[I am working on this portion of the blog. There is a chance I may not be able to finish the blog post this week. If so, forgive me. There have been some extenuating circumstances.]
Scripture Reading: John 7:10-52
10 But when his brothers had gone up to the feast, then Jesus himself also went up, not openly but in secret. 11 So the Jewish leaders were looking for him at the feast, asking, “Where is he?” 12 There was a lot of grumbling about him among the crowds. Some were saying, “He is a good man,” but others, “He deceives the common people.” 13 However, no one spoke openly about him for fear of the Jewish leaders.
14 When the feast was half over, Jesus went up to the temple courts and began to teach. 15 Then the Jewish leaders were astonished and said, “How does this man know so much when he has never had formal instruction?” 16 So Jesus replied, “My teaching is not from me, but from the one who sent me. 17 If anyone wants to do God’s will, he will know about my teaching, whether it is from God or whether I speak from my own authority. 18 The person who speaks on his own authority desires to receive honor for himself; the one who desires the honor of the one who sent him is a man of integrity, and there is no unrighteousness in him. 19 Hasn’t Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law! Why do you want to kill me?”
20 The crowd answered, “You’re possessed by a demon! Who is trying to kill you?” 21 Jesus replied, “I performed one miracle and you are all amazed. 22 However, because Moses gave you the practice of circumcision (not that it came from Moses, but from the forefathers), you circumcise a male child on the Sabbath. 23 But if a male child is circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses is not broken, why are you angry with me because I made a man completely well on the Sabbath? 24 Do not judge according to external appearance, but judge with proper judgment.”
25 Then some of the residents of Jerusalem began to say, “Isn’t this the man they are trying to kill? 26 Yet here he is, speaking publicly, and they are saying nothing to him. Do the ruling authorities really know that this man is the Christ? 27 But we know where this man comes from. Whenever the Christ comes, no one will know where he comes from.”
28 Then Jesus, while teaching in the temple courts, cried out, “You both know me and know where I come from! And I have not come on my own initiative, but the one who sent me is true. You do not know him, 29 but I know him because I have come from him and he sent me.”
30 So then they tried to seize Jesus, but no one laid a hand on him because his time had not yet come. 31 Yet many of the crowd believed in him and said, “Whenever the Christ comes, he won’t perform more miraculous signs than this man did, will he?”
32 The Pharisees heard the crowd murmuring these things about Jesus, so the chief priests and the Pharisees sent officers to arrest him. 33 Then Jesus said, “I will be with you for only a little while longer, and then I am going to the one who sent me. 34 You will look for me but will not find me, and where I am you cannot come.”
35 Then the Jewish leaders said to one another, “Where is he going to go that we cannot find him? He is not going to go to the Jewish people dispersed among the Greeks and teach the Greeks, is he? 36 What did he mean by saying, ‘You will look for me but will not find me, and where I am you cannot come’?”
37 On the last day of the feast, the greatest day, Jesus stood up and shouted out, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me, and 38 let the one who believes in me drink. Just as the scripture says, ‘From within him will flow rivers of living water.’” 39 (Now he said this about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were going to receive, for the Spirit had not yet been given because Jesus was not yet glorified.)
40 When they heard these words, some of the crowd began to say, “This really is the Prophet!” 41 Others said, “This is the Christ!” But still others said, “No, for the Christ doesn’t come from Galilee, does he? 42 Don’t the scriptures say that the Christ is a descendant of David and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David lived?” 43 So there was a division in the crowd because of Jesus. 44 Some of them were wanting to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him.
45 Then the officers returned to the chief priests and Pharisees, who said to them, “Why didn’t you bring him back with you?” 46 The officers replied, “No one ever spoke like this man!” 47 Then the Pharisees answered, “You haven’t been deceived too, have you? 48 None of the members of the ruling council or the Pharisees have believed in him, have they? 49 But this rabble who do not know the law are accursed!”
50 Nicodemus, who had gone to Jesus before and who was one of the rulers, said, 51 “Our law doesn’t condemn a man unless it first hears from him and learns what he is doing, does it?” 52 They replied, “You aren’t from Galilee too, are you? Investigate carefully and you will see that no prophet comes from Galilee!”
Main ThemesJesus Goes in SecretIn verses 10 through 13 John gives us insight as to how dangerous Jerusalem had become for Jesus, which may come as a surprise to the reader. Because the Gospels are ancient writings they had to be brief. The media on which the texts were written, probably papyrus scrolls, had limited space; and, using multiple scrolls would have presented challenges of its own (e.g., difficulties in storage, transportation, and copying). So, the Gospel writers give us snapshots. This can give the modern reader the misimpression that what is recorded in the Gospels is all that happened or that it happened in quick succession. The thought might be something like, “Why would the Jewish rulers seek to kill Jesus? Jesus just did a handful of miracles and said some cryptic things. That seems like an odd overreaction.”
Truly, at this point in the story (chapter 7) about two years have transpired. Jesus has performed many miracles. Remember verses like John 2:23, “Now while Jesus was in Jerusalem at the Feast of the Passover, many people believed in his name because they saw the miraculous signs he was doing.” Jesus has undoubtedly risen in popularity; he has had many conflicts with the authorities—both recorded and, it’s safe to speculate—unrecorded; word has spread far and wide about him; and the authorities have clearly discussed the situation. Jesus is a threat to the system.
Then why go to the festival at all? The law requires it (Exodus 23:16). Jesus follows the law perfectly. Jesus is also there to do the will of the Father (v.16 his teachings are “from the one who sent [him]). So Jesus goes, but he remains hidden until the middle of the celebration. Thousands of people would have been there. Blending with the crowds would have been possible. Moreover, the authorities would probably not interrupt such a holy and festive occasion with the arrest and prosecution of a man who was dear to many in the crowd. There was safety in numbers. Now, remember that Jesus is deliberately advancing towards the cross. This is not out of cowardice; his time has not yet come. He will lay down his life—just not yet.
Finally, notice the “atmosphere.” It was the masses, the rubes, who were being taken in by this charlatan. And if anyone thought Jesus was a good man, well he wouldn’t say that in public for fear of the elites. Sounds a bit familiar in this day and age.
The Argument1 How does this man know so much?
Jesus is the son of a carpenter (Matthew 13:55) and a carpenter himself (Mark 6:3). This is completely expected. The sons learned the trade of their father. The crowd’s amazement at Jesus’ knowledge is because of this very fact—his lack of formal education. A member of the elite may have received formal education in a school for the study of the Law (the Torah). Jesus certainly did not and yet he spoke with eloquence, knowledge, and authority. Notice that this functions as a sign in itself. We may fail to grasp how astonishing this sign is because we live in an age where information is readily available. If I encountered, for example, a mechanic, the son of a mechanic, who only attended school through 8th grade and never went to college, expounding on the writings of Plato in the original Greek, I could believe he has learned this from watching YouTube videos. Perhaps he downloaded an app to learn Greek. Maybe he goes to the library and learns the “old school” way. But what if none of these resources were available. Then his knowledge would be nothing short of miraculous.
2 My teaching is not from me.
So how does a carpenter who is the son of a carpenter go toe to toe with the educated elite in scriptural discussions? Jesus has been taught by—perhaps more accurately, directed by—the Father. Jesus does not expect the audience to simply believe this claim. He says (and I paraphrase), “If anyone is seeking God, they will recognize my words as coming from him.” The Jews had the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. If anyone was reading them humbly and earnestly, they should recognize that Jesus was speaking in accordance with them. Moreover, the idea that Jesus would have learned from his father would have been intimately familiar to his audience. In their culture, one’s father was to teach him the Shema (a prayer from Deuteronomy 6:4-5), the Torah, and Hebrew (the language).
To get a better picture of what Jesus is saying, remember Psalm 119:97-113
97 מ (Mem)
O how I love your law!
All day long I meditate on it.
98 Your commandments make me wiser than my enemies,
for I am always aware of them.
99 I have more insight than all my teachers,
for I meditate on your rules.
100 I am more discerning than those older than I,
for I observe your precepts.
101 I stay away from every evil path,
so that I might keep your instructions.
102 I do not turn aside from your regulations,
for you teach me.
103 Your words are sweeter
in my mouth than honey!
104 Your precepts give me discernment.
Therefore I hate all deceitful actions.
105 נ (Nun)
Your word is a lamp to walk by
and a light to illumine my path.
106 I have vowed and solemnly sworn
to keep your just regulations.
107 I am suffering terribly.
O Lord, revive me with your word.
108 O Lord, please accept the freewill offerings of my praise.
Teach me your regulations.
109 My life is in continual danger,
but I do not forget your law.
110 The wicked lay a trap for me,
but I do not wander from your precepts.
111 I claim your rules as my permanent possession,
for they give me joy.
112 I am determined to obey your statutes
at all times, to the very end.
113 ס (Samek)
I hate people with divided loyalties,
but I love your law.
3 Whose honor do you seek?
Notice how the Psalm quotation above ends, “I hate people with divided loyalties.” Jesus goes on the offensive. The argument is simple. Whoever one is serving is the person one is honoring. If one is serving himself, then one brings honor to himself. If one is serving God, then one brings honor to God. Who are you [rhetorical audience] serving?! The religious elite speak as if they are serving God but they act as if they are serving themselves. They teach the Torah but do not follow it. Remember Matthew 23:1-7:
1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5 “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.
4 Why do you want to kill me?
Jesus asks the religious leaders why they seek to kill him. This question is key to understanding the entire conversation. In a rather funny turn of events, they both accuse him of an act deserving death and also deny wanting to kill him. (Exodus 22:18 commands that, “You must not allow a sorceress to live.” A person who is demon possessed, using his powers to perform magical feats, and deceiving the people would almost certainly fall in the sorcerer category.) Of course, the Jews do want to kill Jesus. The crowds even respond, “Isn’t this the man they are trying to kill?” Oh gaslighting, it has been used by the elites in every era.
But let’s return to the question. Why are they trying to kill Jesus? Because he performed “one miracle.” Which one? Healing on the Sabbath. Remember John 5:1-18
1 After this there was a Jewish feast, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 2 Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool called Bethzatha in Aramaic, which has five covered walkways. 3 A great number of sick, blind, lame, and paralyzed people were lying in these walkways. 5 Now a man was there who had been disabled for 38 years. 6 When Jesus saw him lying there and when he realized that the man had been disabled a long time already, he said to him, “Do you want to become well?” 7 The sick man answered him, “Sir, I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up. While I am trying to get into the water, someone else goes down there before me.” 8 Jesus said to him, “Stand up! Pick up your mat and walk.” 9 Immediately the man was healed, and he picked up his mat and started walking. (Now that day was a Sabbath.)
10 So the Jewish leaders said to the man who had been healed, “It is the Sabbath, and you are not permitted to carry your mat.” 11 But he answered them, “The man who made me well said to me, ‘Pick up your mat and walk.’” 12 They asked him, “Who is the man who said to you, ‘Pick up your mat and walk’?” 13 But the man who had been healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had slipped out, since there was a crowd in that place.
14 After this Jesus found him at the temple and said to him, “Look, you have become well. Don’t sin any more, lest anything worse happen to you.” 15 The man went away and informed the Jewish leaders that Jesus was the one who had made him well.
16 Now because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began persecuting him. 17 So he told them, “My Father is working until now, and I too am working.” 18 For this reason the Jewish leaders were trying even harder to kill him because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was also calling God his own Father, thus making himself equal with God.
We covered this passage already and discussed the Sabbath. This is the thing. This is why they are trying to kill Jesus. Now, allow me to suggest an idea. Are the religious leaders being sincere? Are they truly so offended by Jesus’ actions? Or, perhaps, is this Jesus’ most concrete crime? Perhaps this is the crime that is easiest to prosecute. Just a thought.
Regardless of the leaders’ sincerity, Jesus leaves them with no argument. They circumcise on the Sabbath. This is both a medical procedure, and one that is intended for the wellbeing of the person. Jesus does much the same. Judge properly, Jesus chastises them. As Craig Keener points out, “Jesus’ argument was readily intelligible. To fulfill various biblical commandments, those practicing the Law sometimes had to override specific requirements of the Law, such as Sabbath observance. Festivals like Passover, the Feast of Tabernacles (perhaps in some of Jesus’ hearers’ minds, 7:2), the temple service, and any activities necessary to conduct them, properly override the Sabbath. Circumcision, a central commandment in Judaism, likewise overrides the Sabbath. That some commandments must override some other commandments is a well-attested principle of rabbinic ethics.”
Jesus’ argument takes a form that was common at the time, called qal va-ḥomer. This is the argument from the minor to the major. If the “minor” has this or that property then the “major” must undoubtedly have it.
5 The Messiah will come from a secret place.
Despite the religious leaders’ gaslighting, the crowds recognize Jesus. The crowds know this is the guy the authorities seek to kill. The crowds know the claim that Jesus is the Christ. But, the crowds also know that Jesus is a lowly carpenter from Galilee, and they apparently believe that no one would know where the Christ is from. They try to decide what to make of all this.
Firstly, let’s discuss this idea of the secret Messiah. On one hand, we know there was a tradition that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem. This is not only prophesied in Micah 5:2 but also explicitly mentioned in Matthew 2:5-6 and later on in this very chapter of John. On the other hand, the crowds in John 7:27 speak of a different tradition that held no one would know the Messiah’s origin. Scholars believe the crowds are referencing a rabbinic tradition that taught not that the Messiah’s original location would be unknown, but his place of concealment just before he made himself publicly known would be unknown. Consequently, the Bethlehem and rabbinic traditions were not explicitly at odds.
Secondly, and much more importantly, the crowd’s words about the hidden Messiah are dripping with irony. They say they know where Jesus comes from so he can’t be the Messiah. They obviously mean Galilee, which is already not quite right. (Jesus is from Bethlehem in Judea.) But Jesus has emphasized again and again that he is from above, from the Father, from God, from heaven. The crowd doesn’t know that. Jesus was in fact a secret Messiah to the crowd.
Jesus takes the crowd from confusion to anger. If I paraphrase, “You should know where I come from: God. And you do not know him.”
6 Some react in anger, some in belief.
Some try to seize Jesus, presumably for expedient execution. Some recognize that his miracles attest to the truth of who he is and what he is saying.
7 Where is Jesus going?
When officers approach Jesus to arrest him, he addresses them with a confusing statement. “I will go where you cannot follow.” Keep the context in mind. This sounds like Jesus is going to make a run for his life. Just like Nicodemus and the birth from above, the Samaritan woman and the living water, and the crowds and the bread from heaven, the officers miss the double entendre. Will Jesus run away to the Gentile world? (The Jewish people living outside Israel were called the Diaspora.) No, Jesus will return to God. Because the Jews did not understand where Jesus was from they also could not understand where he was going. But the text drips with irony again. “Will he teach the Greeks?” they ask aghast. Eventually, yes.
8 Come to me. Drink. Receive the Spirit.
This is the climax of the whole scene. The themes that recur throughout John’s gospel are stated forcefully and concisely by Jesus on the last day . . . of the feast, on the greatest day. Those who are thirsty, drink from Jesus who brings the living water. Remember John 4:10-14:
10 Jesus answered her, “If you had known the gift of God and who it is who said to you, ‘Give me some water to drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.” 11 “Sir,” the woman said to him, “you have no bucket and the well is deep; where then do you get this living water? 12 Surely you’re not greater than our ancestor Jacob, are you? For he gave us this well and drank from it himself, along with his sons and his livestock.”
13 Jesus replied, “Everyone who drinks some of this water will be thirsty again. 14 But whoever drinks some of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again, but the water that I will give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up to eternal life.”
Those who believe, receive the Spirit. This passage in John 7 explicitly connects the living waters with the Spirit. Let’s fast-forward to John 14:25-26:
I have spoken these things while staying with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and will cause you to remember everything I said to you.
The water motif takes on additional depth given the context of Jesus’ words. As Craig Keener points out, “Central to this festival was the famous ‘water-drawing’ ceremony, including the procession from the pool of Siloam to the temple, in which priests and people marched in, after which priests would pour out water and wine at the base of the altar.” The meaning of the water ceremony is a bit unclear. Perhaps it was a prayer for rain. Perhaps it was connected to wisdom and Torah, which were often portrayed as water. But it was certainly an important water ritual which, in this instance, was followed by Jesus’ words, “From within him will flow rivers of living water.”
9 The conversation repeats itself.
Verses 40 through 49 create an almost chiastic structure with verses 14 through 36. The same themes repeat themselves. Some say Jesus is the Christ. However, Jesus is not of correct origin (they say). In the prior verses, the Messiah was supposed to have a secret origin. Now the problem is that the Messiah is supposed to come from Bethlehem, not Galilee. Some believe, some don’t. Officer are amazed at how Jesus speaks. The rubes have been deceived. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
10 Nicodemus speaks up.
Nicodemus (remember John 3) speaks up for Jesus—meekly, one imagines. Doesn’t the law require direct testimony from the accused? Nicodemus is right. The elites respond aggressively. “You are not from Galilee too, are you?” In other words, “You are not a Jesus sympathizer, are you?” “Are you with us or against us? The Law be damned. We are going to kill him.”
The Missing Verses About the Adulterous WomanYou may have noticed that I did not mention John 7:53. This begins a “pericope” (a passage) ending in 8:11 that is widely regarded as not original to John’s gospel. Many of the ancient manuscripts omit these verses. Moreover, the Greek grammar is distinctly non-Johannine. The writing style fits Luke much better, and in fact some of the manuscripts include these verses in Luke’s gospel. If you would like to know more about this textual issue, please go back and listen to the first session of the Bible study.
The story in the omitted verses is well known—better known than most stories in the Bible. I bet you remember the following verses:
“Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of adultery. 5 In the law Moses commanded us to stone to death such women. What then do you say?” (Now they were asking this in an attempt to trap him, so that they could bring charges against him.) Jesus bent down and wrote on the ground with his finger. When they persisted in asking him, he stood up straight and replied, “Whoever among you is guiltless may be the first to throw a stone at her.”
Instead of talking about the story narrated in those verses, I would like to discuss what we do with such a text that is in question. Should Christians read this story? Should they learn from it?
There are three possibilities. We consider the story canonical despite nearly every evidence and scholar consensus to the contrary. We consider the story non-canonical and disregard it altogether as a fake or deception. Or, perhaps there is a middle approach. To explain this middle approach, I must take an unexpected detour.
Nearly every Christian agrees on the New Testament canon. On the Old Testament canon there is more disagreement. Protestants have the same canon as the Jews. Catholics include an additional 7 books. These books are often called the “apocrypha.” This is a misnomer. Catholics should certainly not use this label, but Protestants should not either. Apocrypha is a pejorative term referring to secret writings—writings that are false and deceitful. The better term for the seven books included in the Catholic canon is deuterocanonical. This means books forming a secondary canon. Why make the distinction?
The early church used the term apocrypha to refer to secret writings it unequivocally rejected, like the Gospel of Thomas. The early church never refers to the seven books in the Catholic canon as apocryphal. (There are only two potential exceptions to that statement, but later writings by that same church father make it clear he did not reject the books and merely used the word apocrypha loosely.)
Instead, the early church felt comfortable with a second level or degree of sacred writings. Here is an excerpt from a YouTube video discussing this very topic (I edited the transcript slightly to “clean it up” for written form):
Athanasius for example and this is, I think, important. Athanasius quotes books like Wisdom [of Solomon] and Ecclesiasticus, he actually quotes them as among the scriptures. He will actually say they are “grafi” or scriptures, but when it comes time for Athanasius to list the books that are in the canon interestingly he does not include Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus amongst the canonical books. Yes, in early Christianity there are tiers of spiritual literature. You have canon. Athanasius describes these as the sources of salvation. This is where doctrine comes from. On the far end of the spectrum he has the apocryphal books. But Athanasius has a middle category of books. He calls them the books that are able to be read, and these are books that explain piety or illustrate true religion for early Christians. They're not canonical but they're not heretical either, and this is where he puts the books like Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus. And what that does for us, I think, it shows that a church father can even cite something as scripture but he might just be referring to books in the middle category and not the books in the canonical category necessarily. You actually need the canon list to be the interpretive key for which books are establishing doctrine and which books are just illustrating piety to other new believers or new converts.
What am I suggesting then? I think that verses like 7:53-8:11 can be treated as deuterocanonical books. They can be read by the churches as examples of piety. They should not, however, be used to determine doctrine.
Scripture Reading: John 6:59-71 & John 7:1-9 (a prior version of the blog said 7:1-36, but I want to slow down a bit this week)
59 Jesus said these things while he was teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. 60 Then many of his disciples, when they heard these things, said, “This is a difficult saying! Who can understand it?” 61 When Jesus was aware that his disciples were complaining about this, he said to them, “Does this cause you to be offended? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascending where he was before? 63 The Spirit is the one who gives life; human nature is of no help! The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus had already known from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65 So Jesus added, “Because of this I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has allowed him to come.”
66 After this many of his disciples quit following him and did not accompany him any longer. 67 So Jesus said to the Twelve, “You don’t want to go away too, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom would we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God!” 70 Jesus replied, “Didn’t I choose you, the Twelve, and yet one of you is the devil?” 71 (Now he said this about Judas son of Simon Iscariot, for Judas, one of the Twelve, was going to betray him.)
7 After this Jesus traveled throughout Galilee. He stayed out of Judea because the Jewish leaders wanted to kill him. 2 Now the Jewish Feast of Shelters was near. 3 So Jesus’ brothers advised him, “Leave here and go to Judea so your disciples may see your miracles that you are performing. 4 For no one who seeks to make a reputation for himself does anything in secret. If you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.” 5 (For not even his own brothers believed in him.)
6 So Jesus replied, “My time has not yet arrived, but you are ready at any opportunity! 7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I am testifying about it that its deeds are evil. 8 You go up to the feast yourselves. I am not going up to this feast because my time has not yet fully arrived.” 9 When he had said this, he remained in Galilee.
Main ThemesThis Is a Difficult Saying!So far (last session) we knew that Jesus was giving the discourse about the bread of life in Capernaum. In verse 59, John narrows down the setting. Jesus is at the synagogue. And this is certainly not his first time receiving a wide audience there. Recall Mark 2:1-12
1 Now after some days, when he returned to Capernaum, the news spread that he was at home. 2 So many gathered that there was no longer any room, not even by the door, and he preached the word to them. 3 Some people came bringing to him a paralytic, carried by four of them. 4 When they were not able to bring him in because of the crowd, they removed the roof above Jesus. Then, after tearing it out, they lowered the stretcher the paralytic was lying on. 5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” 6 Now some of the experts in the law were sitting there, turning these things over in their minds: 7 “Why does this man speak this way? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” 8 Now immediately, when Jesus realized in his spirit that they were contemplating such thoughts, he said to them, “Why are you thinking such things in your hearts? 9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Stand up, take your stretcher, and walk’? 10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins,”—he said to the paralytic— 11 “I tell you, stand up, take your stretcher, and go home.” 12 And immediately the man stood up, took his stretcher, and went out in front of them all. They were all amazed and glorified God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this!”
Synagogues were community centers, the use of which was not restricted to Saturdays. Also recall that in the Gospel of John the main opposition to Jesus has come from religious leaders, who would naturally control the synagogue.
In this religious and adversarial context—but also a context in which Jesus has proven himself—the audience responds, “This is a difficult saying! Who can understand it?” There is, ironically, a difficulty of translation here. The word “difficult” connotes harshness and difficulty in following rather than a comprehension barrier. The second question, regarding understanding, can also be translated as, “Who is able to hear?” That is, who is able to heed such words. This makes sense of Jesus reply. Jesus does not call them dummies; he accuses them of being offended. The audience understood but rejected the lesson. The word for offended can also be translated as “stumble.” This term is used in the Bible and outside of it to refer to apostasy or “falling away.” Put simply, Jesus is asking whether his followers will follow him or desert him.
Jesus ups the ante. “Then what if you see the Son of Man ascending where he was before?” What if they see Jesus ascending into heaven? Would more proof that Jesus is speaking the truth change their mind or would it cause a greater rejection? Forgive my pop culture reference, but the following Joan Osborne song lyrics come to mind
If God had a face what would it look like?
And would you want to see
If seeing meant that you would have to believe
In things like heaven and in Jesus and the Saints
And all the prophets?
Jesus offers hope though. How can you heed his words? Can you comply with such a hard teaching? You must have the Spirit! The teaching is not that harsh after all. To eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus is to partake in his eternal life by being filled with the Spirit. This, in fact, is not harsh at all. It is an offer of a free gift!
How can I get the Spirit then? Listen to Jesus’ words, the Spirit and life are found there (v. 63). “This is the deed God requires—to believe in the one whom he sent.” This is the recurring theme of John’s gospel. How can we share in Jesus? How can we be saved? How can we have eternal life? How can we do what God requires of us? Believe. If Jesus is who he says he is, and he does what he says he will do, he has everything covered.
Many Depart but Peter ConfessesMany of those in the same crowd that was ready to force Jesus into kingship reject him. Jesus offers his disciples the chance to do the same. There is no coercion. To paraphrase, “If this is too difficult for you, you can leave too. In fact, one of you will.” Notice that Jesus is fully aware of his impending betrayal. Jesus is not surprised by the cross. He is steadily walking towards it, even by choosing his own betrayer.
Peter does not reject Jesus. He confesses instead, “you are the Holy One of God.” This is a title for God himself in the Old Testament. In the Old Testament it is often said a little differently, “the Holy One of Israel.” I could provide many, many examples, but here is just one from Psalms 71:22:
I will express my thanks to you with a stringed instrument,
praising your faithfulness, O my God.
I will sing praises to you accompanied by a harp,
O Holy One of Israel.
The same term (Holy One of God) could function as a title for a servant of God. So, very much in John’s style, I think this is another beautiful double entendre. Jesus is both God and a servant of God. He is the Word and he does the will of the Father.
To Whom Would We Go—A Personal NotePeter asks such a poignant question, “to whom would we go?” Anyone participating in this Bible study can hopefully see that I have endeavored to stay close to the text. Here, I would like to add a personal note. To the extent it is unhelpful, simply disregard it.
I was not raised in a Christian home or in a Christian culture. I was an outspoken atheist by the time I was in my late teens. I can clearly remember my atheistic worldview. Looking back I realize my worldview was “full of holes” and it was quite empty too. I will explain using a not-so-quick analogy.
The AnalogyAssume for just a brief moment that I were a good mechanic (I am not). You come to me with a problem. This morning, as you backed up your car to head to work, you noticed there was a puddle right under the car. The puddle is not very large. The liquid is greenish, but parts of it seem gold too. The pavement underneath is quite dark, so you have a hard time discerning how dark the liquid itself is.
I am a good mechanic, so I quickly come up with some options. It could be water, oil, coolant, and transmission fluid. I theorize that water would have evaporated by the morning and scratch it off the list. I also know that transmission fluid is dark red, so it’s probably not the right answer. Now the answer is narrowed down to two possibilities: oil or coolant. Coolant is generally green, but if spread thin on dark pavement it can look yellowish. Oil looks yellow, unless dirty. Then it looks black. Your car is old, you haven’t changed the oil in a few thousand miles, so the oil would probably look black. The best explanation for your mystery puddle is coolant.
Now further assume another mechanic is there too. He argues, almost as convincingly, that oil is the best explanation. A few thousand miles is not enough to turn oil black, he says, and the car, although old, is not burning any oil.
After we are done theorizing about the puddle, we move on to a different topic. You tell me that your car has been running hot. Oh dear, that leaves quite a few possibilities. The problem could lie in the radiator, belts, hoses, oil, cooling system, water pump, and bad thermostat. Now, you probably already want to pick one particular solution given the prior paragraphs. Please, for a moment, refrain. Assume that I, the brilliant mechanic, again engage in my Holmesian deductive process while also ignoring everything mentioned in the prior paragraphs. I review all the evidence carefully and conclude the problem is in the cooling system. But that wretched other mechanic is still available to second-guess my conclusion. He believes the best explanation for the car overheating is the thermostat—in fact, the car is not overheating at all. We both lay out our evidence and either conclusion seems likely.
Finally, you tell me another odd story. The car smells funny. “Funny,” I ask, “how?” Well, it’s not an unpleasant smell. A little sweet. Again, I know you (the reader) are dying to jump to a conclusion. Hold your horses for one more minute. While ignoring the prior paragraphs, I theorize about all the possible causes. Then I lay out a sound and thorough argument as to why the most probable explanation for that smell is a coolant leak. At this point the other mechanic scoffs at me. There are a thousand possible explanations for an odd, faintly sweet smell. From spilled soda to air freshener. Any firm conclusion is certainly unwarranted, he convincingly argues.
Now, let’s retell the story a different way. You come to me, the mechanic, with the following issues: there was a greenish, yellowish puddle under the car, the car is getting hot, and there is a faintly sweet smell in the car. The solution is obviously a coolant leak. To quote our former president, “I know it, you know it, everyone knows it.”
At this point let’s make two observations. When the symptoms are isolated, one can have reasonable debates as to the best explanation of each. When the symptoms are conjoined, the best explanation is inarguable.
The ApplicationOk, so what does my little story have to do with anything? It seems to me that reality suffers from several “symptoms.” These are facts of the world that are almost undeniable while at the same time being puzzling. The universe seems to have a beginning. There are powerful scientific reasons to believe this—but frankly this is a fact wholly within our own common sense. If time is infinite in the past, how would we have reached this very moment? Why has energy not fully devolved into heat if the universe exists eternally in the past? The universe seems oddly fine-tuned for life. The more we learn about the universe, the more we realize that if the very fundamental rules of the universe (like the gravitational force) were any different, life could not exist. I am not talking about human life—no life could exist. But the symptoms get stranger. There seems to be good and evil. Not just good. Not just evil. The view that everything is how it should be can account for good but not evil. The view that matter is all that exists and life is meaningless can account for neither. There seems to be minds that have intentionality. If someone steals my wallet, I blame the criminal. I really do blame the criminal. I don’t blame some unguided chain of events that inevitably resulted in that outcome. There seems to be beauty. The view that beauty is in the eye of the beholder is sheer nonsense—we might not say it, but we all know this. Taste might be in the eye of the beholder. A person can have bad taste and like the ugly, but that doesn’t make the ugly into beautiful. Shockingly, mathematics—a completely abstract concept—seems to describe the physical reality. Math would exist even if no time, matter, or space existed. It is untethered from the universe, and yet it can elegantly summarize the universe’s workings. People seem to have inherent worth. And people seem to have a higher worth than animals, so the mere possession of brain function does not seem to entirely explain people’s worth. Life seems to have purpose. Take the Star Wars philosophy—the force always returns to balance. That view can account for good and evil, but it eliminates any sense of purpose. A life may seem to have a purpose but history as a whole has no arch. And because of that, neither does life if considered within the wider framework.
Forgive my stream of conscience above, but it accurately reflects the quandary. Sure, naturalism might be able to explain fine-tuning by positing a multiverse, but it can’t explain good and evil. Sure, some form of Taoism could account for good and evil, but it can’t account for purpose. Sure, new ageism exalting the divine nature of individuals can account for people’s inherent worth, but it struggles to explain the way people intentionally hurt one another, much less what should be done about it. And so allow me to repeat Peter’s question, “If not Christ, to whom will I go?”
Christ was not my default choice. I was not raised to believe in him. Nonetheless, the more I realize how he explains every “symptom” of the universe the more I realize I could not not believe. What else would I believe? And notice I have not mentioned the most personal “symptom” of all. It seems to me I am not perfect; I am not good. Who can speak to me the words of life?
The Feast of TabernaclesChapter 7 opens up with the Feast of Shelters, known by several other names but perhaps most popularly as the Feast of Tabernacles. I will present an edited version of the explanation given a Christian website:
The Feast of Tabernacles, also known as the Feast of Booths and Sukkot, is the seventh and last feast that the Lord commanded Israel to observe and one of the three feasts that Jews were to observe each year by going to “appear before the Lord your God in the place which He shall choose” (Deuteronomy 16:16). . . . [I]t was at this time that Solomon’s Temple was dedicated to the Lord (1 Kings 8:2).
It was at the Feast of Tabernacles that the Israelites, who had returned to rebuild the temple, gathered to celebrate under the leadership of Joshua and Zerubbabel (Ezra 3). Later, the Jews heard Ezra read the Word of God to them during the Feast of Tabernacles (Nehemiah 8). Ezra’s preaching resulted in a great revival as the Israelites confessed and repented of their sins. . . .
The feast begins five days after the Day of Atonement and at the time the fall harvest had just been completed. It was a time of joyous celebration as the Israelites celebrated God’s continued provision for them in the current harvest and remembered His provision and protection during the 40 years in the wilderness.
As one of the three feasts that all “native born” male Jews were commanded to participate in . . . . As one of the pilgrim feasts (when Jewish males were commanded to go to Jerusalem), it was also the time when they brought their tithes and offerings to the Temple (Deuteronomy 16:16). . . . Thousands upon thousands of people coming together to remember and celebrate God’s deliverance and His provision, all living in temporary shelters or booths as part of the requirements of the feast. . . .
Lasting eight days, the Feast of Tabernacles begins and ends with a Sabbath day of rest. During the eight days of the feast, the Israelites would dwell in booths or tabernacles that were made from the branches of trees (Leviticus 23:40–42). . . .
Leviticus 23:43 tells us the purpose of the festival, “so that your future generations may know that I made the Israelites live in shelters when I brought them out from the land of Egypt. I am the Lord your God."
Jesus and His BothersJudeans want to kill Jesus. Galileans are simply unwilling to follow. And Jesus’ brothers are no exception. Although they have travelled with Jesus and his mother Mary, they do not trust Jesus’ plan. This is disconcerting. Honoring kinship ties was extremely important in Jewish culture. For those closest to a teacher to disbelieve him could be seen as discrediting. At least one of Jesus’ brothers (James) would later become a leader in the church, and this disbelief could be used against him. Yet John doesn’t shy away from the disbelief of Jesus’ brothers.
What is the problem with Jesus going to Jerusalem and performing miracles in front of everyone? His time has not yet come. Notice, the time will come. There will come a moment when Jesus goes to Jerusalem, makes a public appearance, and allows his enemies to kill him. Not yet though. The point is reinforce: the cross is deliberate.
Then comes the main point of these verses (1-9). The world cannot hate the world, and the world will hate the spirit. The verses do not include the word spirit, but that is the dualism that John returns to time and time again. This is a major theme in the Gospel of John and in the New Testament as a whole. The world has turned from what is good. The world has turned from its intended purpose to worship God, who is good. Whenever God or one of his followers points that out to the world, the world hates it. Otherwise the world would be confronted with its own guilt.
Scripture Reading: John 6:1-58
After this Jesus went away to the other side of the Sea of Galilee (also called the Sea of Tiberias). 2 A large crowd was following him because they were observing the miraculous signs he was performing on the sick. 3 So Jesus went on up the mountainside and sat down there with his disciples. 4 (Now the Jewish Feast of the Passover was near.) 5 Then Jesus, when he looked up and saw that a large crowd was coming to him, said to Philip, “Where can we buy bread so that these people may eat?” 6 (Now Jesus said this to test him, for he knew what he was going to do.) 7 Philip replied, “200 silver coins worth of bread would not be enough for them, for each one to get a little.” 8 One of Jesus’ disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, said to him, 9 “Here is a boy who has five barley loaves and two fish, but what good are these for so many people?”
10 Jesus said, “Have the people sit down.” (Now there was a lot of grass in that place.) So the men sat down, about 5,000 in number. 11 Then Jesus took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed the bread to those who were seated. He then did the same with the fish, as much as they wanted. 12 When they were all satisfied, Jesus said to his disciples, “Gather up the broken pieces that are left over, so that nothing is wasted.” 13 So they gathered them up and filled 12 baskets with broken pieces from the five barley loaves left over by the people who had eaten.
14 Now when the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus performed, they began to say to one another, “This is certainly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” 15 Then Jesus, because he knew they were going to come and seize him by force to make him king, withdrew again up the mountainside alone.
16 Now when evening came, his disciples went down to the lake, 17 got into a boat, and started to cross the lake to Capernaum. (It had already become dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them.) 18 By now a strong wind was blowing and the sea was getting rough. 19 Then, when they had rowed about three or four miles, they caught sight of Jesus walking on the lake, approaching the boat, and they were frightened. 20 But he said to them, “It is I. Do not be afraid.” 21 Then they wanted to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat came to the land where they had been heading.
22 The next day the crowd that remained on the other side of the lake realized that only one small boat had been there, and that Jesus had not boarded it with his disciples, but that his disciples had gone away alone. 23 Other boats from Tiberias came to shore near the place where they had eaten the bread after the Lord had given thanks. 24 So when the crowd realized that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they got into the boats and came to Capernaum looking for Jesus.
25 When they found him on the other side of the lake, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?” 26 Jesus replied, “I tell you the solemn truth, you are looking for me not because you saw miraculous signs, but because you ate all the loaves of bread you wanted. 27 Do not work for the food that disappears, but for the food that remains to eternal life—the food which the Son of Man will give to you. For God the Father has put his seal of approval on him.”
28 So then they said to him, “What must we do to accomplish the deeds God requires?” 29 Jesus replied, “This is the deed God requires—to believe in the one whom he sent.” 30 So they said to him, “Then what miraculous sign will you perform, so that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? 31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, just as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”
32 Then Jesus told them, “I tell you the solemn truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but my Father is giving you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is the one who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” 34 So they said to him, “Sir, give us this bread all the time!”
35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. The one who comes to me will never go hungry, and the one who believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But I told you that you have seen me and still do not believe. 37 Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me, and the one who comes to me I will never send away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me. 39 Now this is the will of the one who sent me—that I should not lose one person of every one he has given me, but raise them all up at the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father—for everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him to have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”
41 Then the Jews who were hostile to Jesus began complaining about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven,” 42 and they said, “Isn’t this Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” 43 Jesus replied, “Do not complain about me to one another. 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who hears and learns from the Father comes to me. 46 (Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God—he has seen the Father.) 47 I tell you the solemn truth, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that has come down from heaven, so that a person may eat from it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats from this bread he will live forever. The bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”
52 Then the Jews who were hostile to Jesus began to argue with one another, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54 The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood resides in me, and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so the one who consumes me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven; it is not like the bread your ancestors ate, but then later died. The one who eats this bread will live forever.”
Main ThemesThe SettingThe other side of the lake. The other side of the lake contrasts with Jesus’ usual location on the west side of the lake.
Passover. The mention of Passover suggests that a little over a year has passed since the story began. Remember that Jesus cleanses the temple (2:13) during Passover.
A large crowd. A large crowd was following Jesus because of his miracles. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. However, one must notice that these are not followers in the same sense as disciples or believers are followers of Jesus.
The price of food. Philip’s response to Jesus implies that all they have is 200 silver coins, or denarii. A silver coin would have been roughly equivalent to one day’s wages for one worker. A day’s wages would provide little more than enough food for the worker and his family. So, even if Jesus and his disciples had exhausted their treasury, they may have been able to feed two or three hundred men with heir wives and children—not near enough.
5,000 men. Notice that 5,000 men are mentioned. In this case, men probably does not mean “people” but strictly men. There is no telling what the true size of the crowd was if women and children had been counted.
Given thanks. In a traditional Jewish gathering, the leader or father would have blessed the meal. If historically later evidence is anything to go by, the blessing may have said something like, “Blessed are you who bring forth bread from the earth.”
The MiracleWe will discuss the meaning of the miracle in a minute. For now, let’s just highlight the key facts.
Evidently a miracle. The number of people fed is in the many thousands: 5,000 men and an uncounted number of women and children. This would clearly have been understood as a miracle by all who shared in the meal. Indeed, this may be Jesus’ most clear “sign” (other than his resurrection, of course). Unsurprisingly, the crowds recognize Jesus as “the Prophet.”
Bread and meat. Jesus multiplied loaves of bread and fish. This bread and meat combination will be significant later.
All were satisfied. People ate to satisfaction. Just like the bread and meat comment, this may seem like a detail now but it relates to Old Testament precedent.
Twelve baskets of leftovers. Not only did everyone eat their fill, but twelve baskets of leftovers were collected. The number twelve could hold some deeper meaning but, for purposes of our discussion, I think we can agree that it at least signifies abundance. The bread and fish were not even close to running out.
Jesus Walks on WaterShockingly, Jesus walking on water is not the main event of this section. It does, however, function as a theophany that reinforces the message of the feeding of the 5,000 (more on this in just a bit). The same miracle appears in the gospels of Matthew and Mark. I will focus exclusively on the narrative theme emphasized by John, but I will use the information recorded in Matthew and Mark to bolster that theme.
As I mentioned above, this miracle functions as a theophany—it reveals that Jesus is God. In the Jewish framework, the immediate connection between Jesus walking on water and their scripture would have been Job 9:8. I quote from the beginning of the chapter.
Then Job answered:
2 “Truly, I know that this is so.
But how can a human be just before God?
3 If someone wishes to contend with him,
he cannot answer him one time in a thousand.
4 He is wise in heart and mighty in strength—
who has resisted him and remained safe?
5 He who removes mountains suddenly,
who overturns them in his anger,
6 he who shakes the earth out of its place
so that its pillars tremble,
7 he who commands the sun, and it does not shine
and seals up the stars,
8 he alone spreads out the heavens
and treads on the waves of the sea.
Also, consider Mark 6:51-52: “Then he went up with them into the boat, and the wind ceased. They were completely astonished, because they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.”
The disciples should have understood who Jesus was from the feeding of the 5,000. But they didn’t.
Matthew 14:33 adds: “Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, ‘Truly you are the Son of God.’”
They finally understood, or at least understood a little bit better.
So, to summarize. The feeding of the 5,000 is a clear sign of Jesus’ Christology. The disciples miss the point. Then Jesus walks on water to emphasize his divinity. The disciples seem to finally understand.
The Manna DiscourseBefore we can discuss what the miracles mean, we need to review the account of manna in the Old Testament. I quote from Exodus 16:4-23 with a few verses omitted for brevity:
4 Then the Lord said to Moses, “I am going to rain bread from heaven for you, and the people will go out and gather the amount for each day, so that I may test them. Will they walk in my law or not? 5 On the sixth day they will prepare what they bring in, and it will be twice as much as they gather every other day.”
6 Moses and Aaron said to all the Israelites, “In the evening you will know that the Lord has brought you out of the land of Egypt, 7 and in the morning you will see the glory of the Lord, because he has heard your murmurings against the Lord. As for us, what are we, that you should murmur against us?”
11 [A]nd the Lord spoke to Moses, 12 “I have heard the murmurings of the Israelites. Tell them, ‘During the evening you will eat meat, and in the morning you will be satisfied with bread, so that you may know that I am the Lord your God.’”
13 In the evening the quail came up and covered the camp, and in the morning a layer of dew was all around the camp. 14 When the layer of dew had evaporated, there on the surface of the wilderness was a thin flaky substance, thin like frost on the earth. 15 When the Israelites saw it, they said to one another, “What is it?” because they did not know what it was. Moses said to them, “It is the bread that the Lord has given you for food.
16 “This is what the Lord has commanded: ‘Each person is to gather from it what he can eat, an omer per person according to the number of your people; each one will pick it up for whoever lives in his tent.’” 17 The Israelites did so, and they gathered—some more, some less. 18 When they measured with an omer, the one who gathered much had nothing left over, and the one who gathered little lacked nothing; each one had gathered what he could eat.
19 Moses said to them, “No one is to keep any of it until morning.” 20 But they did not listen to Moses; some kept part of it until morning, and it was full of worms and began to stink, and Moses was angry with them. 21 So they gathered it each morning, each person according to what he could eat, and when the sun got hot, it would melt. 22 And on the sixth day they gathered twice as much food, two omers per person; and all the leaders of the community came and told Moses. 23 He said to them, “This is what the Lord has said: ‘Tomorrow is a time of cessation from work, a holy Sabbath to the Lord. Whatever you want to bake, bake today; whatever you want to boil, boil today; whatever is left put aside for yourselves to be kept until morning.’”
The Miracle or the Sign. The crowd goes looking for Jesus. Why? Jesus immediately confronts them with their true motivation. They ate as much as they wanted. They are hungry again, so they want Jesus again. That misses the whole point. Remember John 5:36: “But I have a testimony greater than that from John. For the deeds that the Father has assigned me to complete—the deeds I am now doing—testify about me that the Father has sent me.” Jesus miracles are proof of who he is. The crowd should be looking for him because he is the Messiah who brings true life.
The Food that Abides. Jesus tells the crowds to look for the food that “remains” to eternal life. Think about 1 John 3:15: “Everyone who hates his fellow Christian is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.” The word for “residing” is the same as “remains.” Consider also 2 John 1:2-3: “[B]ecause of the truth that resides in us and will be with us forever. Grace, mercy, and peace will be with us from God the Father and from Jesus Christ the Son of the Father, in truth and love.”
Also, notice the finality of this food. It is a “once for all time” type of food. Remember the words to the Samaritan woman. “Jesus replied, ‘Everyone who drinks some of this water will be thirsty again. But whoever drinks some of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again, but the water that I will give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up to eternal life.’” This is unlike wisdom or Torah. Wisdom is great food and water, but it will leave one wanting more. Jesus offers something lasting and satisfying.
The Dialogue. I will paraphrase the dialogue found in verses 27-58, taking great creative liberties. Please, be a bit gracious with me. I am not trying to rewrite the Bible, just bring out some clarity for a modern audience.
Jesus: Your main concern should be doing what God requires to have eternal life. (v. 27 work for the food that remains to eternal life).
Crowd: What does God require? (v. 28 what must we do to accomplish the deeds God requires).
Jesus: Believe in me. (v. 29 believe in the one whom he sent)
Crowd: Prove it. (v. 30 then what miraculous sign will you perform, so that we may see it and believe you?)
Crowd: Moses gave us bread. You did that yesterday and is the very reason we are here, but we are going to conveniently forget that now. You should really give us more bread. (v. 31 our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness)
Jesus: You want to talk about Moses and the manna from heaven. Lets. What you call food from heaven is not really food from heaven. If you ate something truly heavenly, it would sustain you forever. (v. it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but my Father is giving you the true bread from heaven)
Crowd: This bread sounds delicious. How do we get some? (v. 34 give us this bread all the time!)
Jesus: It’s me you dummies! (v. I am the bread of life)
Jesus: Whoever comes to me has nothing to fear. I am true to my word. He will live eternally with me. (vv. 37-40 I should not lose one person of every one he has given me)
Crowd: That sounds lame. We want real bread! And you didn’t come from heaven! We know your folks! (vv. 41-42 began complaining . . . whose father and mother we know)
Jesus: Quit complaining. You have rejected the Torah and so you reject me too. (vv. 43-44 no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him) (see also John 5:39-44)
Jesus: Remember Isaiah 54:13? “All your children will be followers of the Lord.” It’s in your prophets and it is happening now! (vv. 45-51)
Subtext: Remember all of Isaiah 54 and 55?
Isaiah 55:1-6. “Hey, all who are thirsty, come to the water!
You who have no money, come!
Buy and eat!
Come! Buy wine and milk
without money and without cost.
2 Why pay money for something that will not nourish you?
Why spend your hard-earned money on something that will not satisfy?
Listen carefully to me and eat what is nourishing!
Enjoy fine food.
3 Pay attention and come to me.
Listen, so you can live.
Then I will make an unconditional covenantal promise to you,
just like the reliable covenantal promises I made to David.
4 Look, I made him a witness to nations,
a ruler and commander of nations.”
5 Look, you will summon nations you did not previously know;
nations that did not previously know you will run to you,
because of the Lord your God,
the Holy One of Israel,
for he bestows honor on you.
Crowd: Flesh to eat? Gross. (v. 52 How can this man give us his flesh to eat?)
Jesus: You know, like when you eat the Paschal lamb that takes away your sin? During Passover? Which is right now! Connect the dots people. Trust me to be your sacrifice instead of that lamb and I will not disappoint. You will never need another sacrifice. I promise you, you will live forever. (vv. 52-58).
Scripture Reading: John 4:43 - John 5:47
43 After the two days he departed from there to Galilee. 44 (For Jesus himself had testified that a prophet has no honor in his own country.) 45 So when he came to Galilee, the Galileans welcomed him because they had seen all the things he had done in Jerusalem at the feast (for they themselves had gone to the feast).
46 Now he came again to Cana in Galilee where he had made the water wine. In Capernaum there was a certain royal official whose son was sick. 47 When he heard that Jesus had come back from Judea to Galilee, he went to him and begged him to come down and heal his son, who was about to die. 48 So Jesus said to him, “Unless you people see signs and wonders you will never believe!” 49 “Sir,” the official said to him, “come down before my child dies.” 50 Jesus told him, “Go home; your son will live.” The man believed the word that Jesus spoke to him, and set off for home.
51 While he was on his way down, his slaves met him and told him that his son was going to live. 52 So he asked them the time when his condition began to improve, and they told him, “Yesterday at one o’clock in the afternoon the fever left him.” 53 Then the father realized that it was the very time Jesus had said to him, “Your son will live,” and he himself believed along with his entire household. 54 Jesus did this as his second miraculous sign when he returned from Judea to Galilee.
1 After this there was a Jewish feast, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 2 Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool called Bethzatha in Aramaic, which has five covered walkways. 3 A great number of sick, blind, lame, and paralyzed people were lying in these walkways. 5 Now a man was there who had been disabled for 38 years. 6 When Jesus saw him lying there and when he realized that the man had been disabled a long time already, he said to him, “Do you want to become well?” 7 The sick man answered him, “Sir, I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up. While I am trying to get into the water, someone else goes down there before me.” 8 Jesus said to him, “Stand up! Pick up your mat and walk.” 9 Immediately the man was healed, and he picked up his mat and started walking. (Now that day was a Sabbath.)
10 So the Jewish leaders said to the man who had been healed, “It is the Sabbath, and you are not permitted to carry your mat.” 11 But he answered them, “The man who made me well said to me, ‘Pick up your mat and walk.’” 12 They asked him, “Who is the man who said to you, ‘Pick up your mat and walk’?” 13 But the man who had been healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had slipped out, since there was a crowd in that place.
14 After this Jesus found him at the temple and said to him, “Look, you have become well. Don’t sin any more, lest anything worse happen to you.” 15 The man went away and informed the Jewish leaders that Jesus was the one who had made him well.
16 Now because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began persecuting him. 17 So he told them, “My Father is working until now, and I too am working.” 18 For this reason the Jewish leaders were trying even harder to kill him because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was also calling God his own Father, thus making himself equal with God.
19 So Jesus answered them, “I tell you the solemn truth, the Son can do nothing on his own initiative, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him everything he does, and will show him greater deeds than these, so that you will be amazed. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whomever he wishes. 22 Furthermore, the Father does not judge anyone, but has assigned all judgment to the Son, 23 so that all people will honor the Son just as they honor the Father. The one who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.
24 “I tell you the solemn truth, the one who hears my message and believes the one who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned, but has crossed over from death to life. 25 I tell you the solemn truth, a time is coming—and is now here—when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26 For just as the Father has life in himself, thus he has granted the Son to have life in himself, 27 and he has granted the Son authority to execute judgment because he is the Son of Man.
28 “Do not be amazed at this, because a time is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and will come out—the ones who have done what is good to the resurrection resulting in life, and the ones who have done what is evil to the resurrection resulting in condemnation. 30 I can do nothing on my own initiative. Just as I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just because I do not seek my own will, but the will of the one who sent me.
31 “If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true. 32 There is another who testifies about me, and I know the testimony he testifies about me is true. 33 You have sent to John, and he has testified to the truth. 34 (I do not accept human testimony, but I say this so that you may be saved.) 35 He was a lamp that was burning and shining, and you wanted to rejoice greatly for a short time in his light.
36 “But I have a testimony greater than that from John. For the deeds that the Father has assigned me to complete—the deeds I am now doing—testify about me that the Father has sent me. 37 And the Father who sent me has himself testified about me. You people have never heard his voice nor seen his form at any time, 38 nor do you have his word residing in you because you do not believe the one whom he sent. 39 You study the scriptures thoroughly because you think in them you possess eternal life, and it is these same scriptures that testify about me, 40 but you are not willing to come to me so that you may have life.
41 “I do not accept praise from people, 42 but I know you, that you do not have the love of God within you. 43 I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me. If someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him. 44 How can you believe, if you accept praise from one another and don’t seek the praise that comes from the only God?
45 “Do not suppose that I will accuse you before the Father. The one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have placed your hope. 46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me because he wrote about me. 47 But if you do not believe what Moses wrote, how will you believe my words?”
Chapter 4His Reputation Precedes Him. The Galileans welcomed Jesus because they had seen what Jesus had done in Jerusalem at the feast. Remember John 2:23 (which is right after Jesus cleanses the temple): “Now while Jesus was in Jerusalem at the Feast of the Passover, many people believed in his name because they saw the miraculous signs he was doing.”
No Honor in His Own Country. Jesus testifies that a prophet has no honor in his own country, obviously referring to Jesus himself. The saying, however, is grounded in many Old Testament stories of Israel rejecting its own prophets. Consider Hosea 9:7:
The time of judgment is about to arrive!
The time of retribution is imminent!
Israel will be humbled!
The prophet is considered a fool—
the inspired man is viewed as a madman—
because of the multitude of your sins
and your intense animosity.
The question is, which country is that? This verse comes immediately after Jesus leaves Samaria and returns to Galilee, Jesus’ own “hometown” (more like home region). Consequently, Jesus could be highlighting the fact that he was better received in Samaria (the place with racially impure, religiously deviant people) than Galilee. The other possibility is that Jesus is talking about Israel in general (or Judea). A key theme in John’s gospel is the Jews’ rejection of the Messiah, which is more consistent with this second interpretation.
From the Samaritan Woman to the Royal Official. Last week we discussed the scandal of Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman. This week the scandal continues. Galileans would have been every bit as suspicious of this royal official as they were of the Samaritan woman.
The royal official could have been a Roman official, probably connected to the military. (Remember, the Jews had been conquered and occupied by the Romans. The Jews hated the Romans.) Alternatively, he could have been a Herodian Jew. Many relatives of the Herodian family and other aristocrats lived in Tiberias. Tiberias was the wealthiest city in Galilee and the Galilean capital for many years. However, the place is almost never mentioned in the gospels. Why? Herod Antipas built Tiberias. Antipas was quite flippant to the religious and cultural sensitivities of the Jews. Some examples of his disregard for religion include his location choice for Tiberias (a graveyard, which made the city unclean), his marriage to his half-brother’s wife, and his beheading of John the Baptist.
Either way the result would have been the same: disdain from a Galilean Jew towards the royal official. The Romans were the enemy. The Herodian Jews were enemy sympathizers (or outright traitors) and religiously sinful and unclean. And in either case as well, the official would have been an oppressor (militarily, politically, commercially, or a combination of those).
Signs-Faith. In the gospels, signs (miracles) do not always lead to faith. In this case, the official and his entire household believe. This puts the royal official in the worst company: the Samaritan woman and many Samaritans in her town. I am being a bit sarcastic. The point stands though: who is believing in Jesus? Those the Jews would have least expected. Who is not believing? The Jewish religious leaders.
Chapter 5The Pool of Bethesda. External evidence confirms the existence of a pool of Bethesda in Jerusalem. To the best of our knowledge the pool was actually two pools as large as a football field and about twenty feet deep. The biblical text implies a tradition that the pool had healing properties. Such beliefs were common in the ancient world, so even John’s audience that was unfamiliar with the pool of Bethesda would recognize the idea.
That Day Was a Sabbath. The story takes place during a Jewish feast. Feasts had great religious importance and many of Jesus’ actions, including his crucifixion, occurred during Jewish feasts. In this case, however, the feast is not specified. What is specified is that the day was the Sabbath.
What is the Sabbath? Consider the following verses:
Genesis 2:2-3: By the seventh day God finished the work that he had been doing, and he ceased on the seventh day all the work that he had been doing. God blessed the seventh day and made it holy because on it he ceased all the work that he had been doing in creation.
Exodus 20:8: Remember the Sabbath day to set it apart as holy. For six days you may labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; on it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, or your male servant, or your female servant, or your cattle, or the resident foreigner who is in your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, and he rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.
Exodus 31:12-14: The Lord said to Moses, “Tell the Israelites, ‘Surely you must keep my Sabbaths, for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you. So you must keep the Sabbath, for it is holy for you. Everyone who defiles it must surely be put to death; indeed, if anyone does any work on it, then that person will be cut off from among his people.
Mark 2:23-27: Jesus was going through the grain fields on a Sabbath, and his disciples began to pick some heads of wheat as they made their way. So the Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is against the law on the Sabbath?” He said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions were hungry—how he entered the house of God when Abiathar was high priest and ate the sacred bread, which is against the law for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to his companions?” Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for people, not people for the Sabbath. For this reason the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”
It was against the law to carry burdens on the Sabbath if it was interpreted as work. The Pharisees held different views on the Sabbath, but generally they would have agreed that any activity that could be done before the Sabbath should not be done during the Sabbath. So, a matter of life and death would be an exception to Sabbath prohibitions but a minor healing would not have been.
Disabled Due to Sin
In this story, Jesus tells the man, “Look, you have become well. Don’t sin any more, lest anything worse happen to you.” Compare this with John 9:1-3,
Now as Jesus was passing by, he saw a man who had been blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who committed the sin that caused him to be born blind, this man or his parents?” Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but he was born blind so that the acts of God may be revealed through what happens to him.
In John 9, the man was not blind due to anyone’s sin. In John 5, it seems that it was sin that caused the man to be disabled. This could have a supernatural or a natural explanation. Maybe the man became disabled because he consumed a certain substance or as the result of being punished for a crime. The point is, we should not infer a general principle that disease is divine punishment for sin.
For This They Were Trying to Kill Him
Because Jesus dishonored the Sabbath (by Pharisees’ standards) and he claimed to be “equal with God,” the Jewish leaders sought to kill him (even more).
Let’s consider the charges. First there’s the charge that Jesus dishonored the Sabbath. Jesus denies the accusation. What Jesus does on the Sabbath is what he sees the Father doing (v. 19). According to Jewish theology, God was still active on the Sabbath. God sustains all life and all the world and that function does not cease on the Sabbath. Jesus is claiming to do the same work the Father does on the Sabbath, no more and no less.
Additionally, since the Father is the lord of the Sabbath and the Son does as the Father says, the Son cannot violate the Sabbath.
Regarding the second claim—equality with the Father—Jesus denies the accusation too. Notice that this equality is one of authority and not one of identity. Jesus says the Son can do nothing on his own initiative (v. 19), the Father shows the Son what to do (v. 20), and the Father assigns roles to the Son (v. 22). Jesus, in other words, submits to the Father. They are not equal in authority. This probably made more sense to the Pharisees than it does to the modern listener. The modern listener is probably thinking, but aren’t the Father and the Son one? Yes, but not the same. They are one in the ontological Trinity—that is, they are one being and share the same divine substance. They are distinct in the economic Trinity, which focuses on what God does. Jesus submits to the Father in the work of the Trinity. (The ontological Trinity and economic Trinity are not different Trinities. It is simply a way to describe the co-equal nature of the persons of the Trinity and yet their distinct roles.)
Jesus as Giver of Life and Judge
God was widely viewed as the giver of life. Not only that, but in the eschaton (the end times) God would give life again by raising the dead. Consider the following Old Testament scriptures:
Daniel 12:2. Many of those who sleep
in the dusty ground will awake—
some to everlasting life,
and others to shame and everlasting abhorrence.
Isaiah 26:19. Your dead will come back to life;
your corpses will rise up.
Wake up and shout joyfully, you who live in the ground!
For you will grow like plants drenched with the morning dew,
and the earth will bring forth its dead spirits.
But wait, there’s more! (Feel free to read that in infomercial voice.) God also gives eternal life. Remember:
John 3:14-15. Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.
John 3:35-36. The Father loves the Son and has placed all things under his authority. The one who believes in the Son has eternal life.
So, in John 5, is Jesus talking about life, resurrection, or eternal life? By this point we have seen that John uses double entendres to add depth of meaning. I think that this is a clear case. The healing that occurs immediately before this discourse points us to a more literal understanding of life. However, as the discourse goes on, Jesus clearly speaks of eternal life (v. 24).
Jesus describes those who believe in him as passing from death to life (v. 25). This is the same image used in John 3. For example, let’s revisit John:35-36 but let’s add just one more verse:
The Father loves the Son and has placed all things under his authority. The one who believes in the Son has eternal life. The one who rejects the Son will not see life, but God’s wrath remains on him.
Also consider John 3:16:
For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.
Notice that John uses “will perish,” “raises the dead,” and “crossed over from death to life” interchangeably. There is a future reality (“will perish”) but it begins in the present (“crossed over from death to life”).
Jesus’ claims to give life and be the judge would have unsettled his listeners. These are claims of divine authority. More importantly, he who complains about the Son complains about the Father.
Why does the Son have the authority to execute judgment? Because he is Son of Man. In the Greek, the expression Son of Man is anarthrous (used without the article) just like that expression appears in the LXX (the Septuagint) translation of Daniel.
Daniel 7:13-14. I was watching in the night visions,
And with the clouds of the sky,
one like a son of man was approaching.
He went up to the Ancient of Days
and was escorted before him.
To him was given ruling authority, honor, and sovereignty.
All peoples, nations, and language groups were serving him.
His authority is eternal and will not pass away.
His kingdom will not be destroyed.
Testimony About Jesus
Jesus is being accused of blasphemy, a capital offense. Jesus employs a legal defense.
Deuteronomy 17:6. At the testimony of two or three witnesses the person must be executed. They cannot be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.
To be clear, Jesus is defending himself not accusing someone. He is adapting the legal principle that the testimony of two or three people is credible in a capital offense case.
The first witness? John the Baptist. He points to the Baptist’s testimony and to the fact that the Pharisees believed him (“you wanted to rejoice greatly for a short time”).
The second witness? God. This is a key point in any of the Gospels. Why is Jesus doing miracles? Because they prove who he is. The time has not yet come to make everything right. That is not the main reason Jesus is healing the sick and turning water into wine. “The deeds [he is] now doing” are a testimony to who he is and the truth of his message. This message would have resonated with his audience. Early Judaism understood that the invisible God attested to himself through his works. Moreover, Jews should make God known by sharing his works and miracles.
The third witness? The Torah. This one hurts. The Pharisees were incredibly proud that God’s word—Torah—was in them. But the Torah testifies of Jesus. To reject Jesus is to reject Torah. The word was not in them.
Jesus Is Judge not Accuser
Who accuses the Pharisees? Moses. That is to say, the Torah. In Palestinian Judaism accusers were witnesses against the defendant, not prosecutors. The irony that the very hope of the Pharisees would be their accuser would not be lost on them. The argument is simple. Moses wrote about Jesus. The Pharisees received Moses’ words. The Pharisees rejected Moses’ words by rejecting Jesus. Hence their guilt.
Scripture Reading: John 4:1-42 (I had posted that we would cover the whole chapter but that was just my ambitions getting the best of me)
Now when Jesus knew that the Pharisees had heard that he was winning and baptizing more disciples than John 2 (although Jesus himself was not baptizing, but his disciples were), 3 he left Judea and set out once more for Galilee.
4 But he had to pass through Samaria. 5 Now he came to a Samaritan town called Sychar, near the plot of land that Jacob had given to his son Joseph. 6 Jacob’s well was there, so Jesus, since he was tired from the journey, sat right down beside the well. It was about noon.
7 A Samaritan woman came to draw water. Jesus said to her, “Give me some water to drink.” 8 (For his disciples had gone off into the town to buy supplies.) 9 So the Samaritan woman said to him, “How can you—a Jew—ask me, a Samaritan woman, for water to drink?” (For Jews use nothing in common with Samaritans.)
10 Jesus answered her, “If you had known the gift of God and who it is who said to you, ‘Give me some water to drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.” 11 “Sir,” the woman said to him, “you have no bucket and the well is deep; where then do you get this living water? 12 Surely you’re not greater than our ancestor Jacob, are you? For he gave us this well and drank from it himself, along with his sons and his livestock.”
13 Jesus replied, “Everyone who drinks some of this water will be thirsty again. 14 But whoever drinks some of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again, but the water that I will give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up to eternal life.” 15 The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water, so that I will not be thirsty or have to come here to draw water.” 16 He said to her, “Go call your husband and come back here.” 17 The woman replied, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “Right you are when you said, ‘I have no husband,’ 18 for you have had five husbands, and the man you are living with now is not your husband. This you said truthfully!”
19 The woman said to him, “Sir, I see that you are a prophet. 20 Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you people say that the place where people must worship is in Jerusalem.” 21 Jesus said to her, “Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You people worship what you do not know. We worship what we know because salvation is from the Jews. 23 But a time is coming—and now is here—when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such people to be his worshipers. 24 God is spirit, and the people who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” 25 The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming” (the one called Christ); “whenever he comes, he will tell us everything.” 26 Jesus said to her, “I, the one speaking to you, am he.”
27 Now at that very moment his disciples came back. They were shocked because he was speaking with a woman. However, no one said, “What do you want?” or “Why are you speaking with her?” 28 Then the woman left her water jar, went off into the town and said to the people, 29 “Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did. Surely he can’t be the Messiah, can he?” 30 So they left the town and began coming to him.
31 Meanwhile the disciples were urging him, “Rabbi, eat something.” 32 But he said to them, “I have food to eat that you know nothing about.” 33 So the disciples began to say to one another, “No one brought him anything to eat, did they?” 34 Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of the one who sent me and to complete his work. 35 Don’t you say, ‘There are four more months and then comes the harvest?’ I tell you, look up and see that the fields are already white for harvest! 36 The one who reaps receives pay and gathers fruit for eternal life, so that the one who sows and the one who reaps can rejoice together. 37 For in this instance the saying is true, ‘One sows and another reaps.’ 38 I sent you to reap what you did not work for; others have labored and you have entered into their labor.”
39 Now many Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the report of the woman who testified, “He told me everything I ever did.” 40 So when the Samaritans came to him, they began asking him to stay with them. He stayed there two days, 41 and because of his word many more believed. 42 They said to the woman, “No longer do we believe because of your words, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this one really is the Savior of the world.”
Samaria—Geography and HistoryOur discussion of the text must begin with an understanding of Samaria and its relation with Israel lest we miss some of the most shocking elements in the story.
Here is an abbreviated version of a Christian website’s explanation:
Samaria was both a region and a city that experienced many changes throughout biblical history. The city of Samaria was located in central Israel, about 30 miles north of Jerusalem and about 6 miles northwest of Shechem.
As the Israelites were dividing the Promised Land, the region of Samaria was given to the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. King Omri, the sixth king of the northern kingdom of Israel, bought a hill in the Valley of Shechem in the region of Samaria and built the city of Samaria, which became his capital city (1 Kings 16:23–24). Eventually, the name of the capital was applied to the entire northern kingdom. Omri’s son, King Ahab, erected a temple to Baal in the city of Samaria (1 Kings 16:32).
[The woman at Jacob’s well] brought up a centuries-old controversy: “Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem” (verse 20). “This mountain” is a reference to Mount Gerizim in the central Samaritan highlands, the place where the Samaritans had built their own temple, which they considered the true temple of God.
The Jews of Jesus’ day disliked the Samaritans because of their religious syncretism and their mixed racial heritage. The temple in Samaria located on Mount Gerizim was destroyed in 129 BC by the Jews, adding to the hostility between the two groups.
As a region, Samaria was significant in the Old Testament as being synonymous with the northern kingdom and in the New Testament as an idolatrous area Jews tried to avoid.
Here’s also a map that will be quite helpful:
From the brief explanation and map above there are some key points we should keep in mind:
- The Bible passage emphasizes that Jesus had to pass through Samaria. Other routes did exist. So, did he have to pass through Samaria because of a geographic reason (e.g., he was in a hurry and Samaria was the shortest route)? Or did he have a plan that required going through Samaria? Verse 23 tells us that “the Father seeks such people to be his worshipers.” (Also, keep in mind how John uses the word dei (had to) in other verses, like John 3:14, “so must the Son of Man be lifted up.”)
- The Jews would have considered the Samaritans as racially impure. Consider the following verses in 2 Kings 17:
1 In the twelfth year of King Ahaz’s reign over Judah, Hoshea son of Elah became king over Israel. He reigned in Samaria for nine years. 2 He did evil in the sight of the Lord, but not to the same degree as the Israelite kings who preceded him.
5 The king of Assyria marched through the whole land. He attacked Samaria and besieged it for three years. 6 In the ninth year of Hoshea’s reign, the king of Assyria captured Samaria and deported the people of Israel to Assyria. He settled them in Halah, along the Habor (the river of Gozan), and in the cities of the Medes.
24 The king of Assyria brought foreigners from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath, and Sepharvaim and settled them in the cities of Samaria in place of the Israelites.
Therefore, the Samaritans were neither Jew nor Gentile. They were somewhere in between. This tension surfaced in many ways, from considering Samaritans unclean to outright military conflicts.
- The Samaritans believed that the true holy mountain was Mt. Gerizim. That was a political and religious challenge against the Jews. To insult the Jerusalem temple was the greatest offense after insulting God himself (or perhaps there would have been little distinction between the two insults). Add to this the fact that the Jews destroyed the Samaritan temple in 128 BC.
- The brief explanation above talks about religious syncretism. This means that Samaritans mixed their Judaism with pagan religions—the kind of offense that led to their destruction in the Old Testament. For our purposes, we must also be aware that of the Old Testament writings Samaritans only accepted a form of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament). So, they rejected David and the Davidic line, but they expected the prophet of which Moses spoke.
The Woman at the Well and Gender DynamicsIn this story Jesus crosses a gender barrier that no longer exists in our culture. Because we can hardly imagine the scandal, I want to make a few points about the woman at the well and the gender dynamics of first century Israel.
- According to Jewish sages, Jewish men were to avoid conversation with women. Although requesting water from strangers was expected if one’s need was urgent, a conversation of more than a few minutes between a man and woman would warrant the assumption of sexual intercourse. The conversation described in this story would be grounds enough to divorce a woman. The gentile world (Roman and Greek) had similar standards.
- Even the Samaritan woman immediately identified the gender scandal amplified by the racial scandal. “How can you—a Jew—ask me, a Samaritan woman, for water to drink?” Samaritan women were unclean, considered as menstruants “from their cradle.”
- Imagine the following scene in a movie: A guy and a girl are walking in opposite directions in an office. They bump each other. She drops the papers she was carrying. Both immediately reach down to pick up the papers. Their faces nearly meet. They exchange some nervous glances and words. What’s going to happen? We all know the answer. This is how their romantic story begins. Believe it or not, there is a similar expectation at the well. Consider Isaac and Rebekah (Genesis 24:12-14):
12 Then he prayed, “Lord, God of my master Abraham, make me successful today, and show kindness to my master Abraham. 13 See, I am standing beside this spring, and the daughters of the townspeople are coming out to draw water. 14 May it be that when I say to a young woman, ‘Please let down your jar that I may have a drink,’ and she says, ‘Drink, and I’ll water your camels too’—let her be the one you have chosen for your servant Isaac. By this I will know that you have shown kindness to my master.”
Consider also Jacob and Rachel (Genesis 29:9-20, but I skip some verses):
9 While he was still speaking with them, Rachel came with her father’s sheep, for she was a shepherdess. 10 When Jacob saw Rachel the daughter of his mother’s brother Laban, and the sheep of his mother’s brother Laban, Jacob went up and rolled the stone from the mouth of the well, and watered the flock of his mother’s brother Laban. 11 Then Jacob kissed Rachel, and raised his voice and wept. 12 Jacob told Rachel that he was a relative of her father and that he was Rebekah’s son, and she ran and told her father.
15 Then Laban said to Jacob, “Because you are my relative, should you therefore serve me for nothing? Tell me, what shall your wages be?” 16 Now Laban had two daughters; the name of the older was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel. 17 And Leah’s eyes were weak, but Rachel was beautiful in figure and appearance. 18 Now Jacob loved Rachel, so he said, “I will serve you seven years for your younger daughter Rachel.” 19 Laban said, “It is better that I give her to you than to give her to another man; stay with me.” 20 So Jacob served seven years for Rachel, and they seemed to him like only a few days because of his love for her.
Finally, consider Moses and Zipporah (Exodus 2:16-21):
16 Now the priest of Midian had seven daughters; and they came to draw water and filled the troughs to water their father’s flock. 17 Then the shepherds came and drove them away, but Moses stood up and helped them and watered their flock. 18 When they came to their father Reuel, he said, “Why have you come back so soon today?” 19 They said, “An Egyptian saved us from [t]the shepherds, and what is more, he even drew water for us and watered the flock.” 20 So he said to his daughters, “Where is he then? Why is it that you have left the man behind? Invite him [u]to have something to eat.” 21 And Moses was willing to live with the man. And he gave his daughter Zipporah to Moses.
I am obviously not suggesting that that story between Jesus and the woman at the well is romantic. I am suggesting that John’s audience would have been immediately nervous upon hearing the setting of the story
-
The woman at the well was probably of disrepute. Consider the following:
- The woman goes to the well alone in the hottest part of the day. This has led to much speculation, but it is quite likely that no one wanted to be around her. (The culture would have discouraged being around overt sinners.)
- The woman had been divorced five times. The story does not say that she had been committing adultery, but five husbands had found some ground to divorce her. The most reasonable explanation is adultery.
- The woman was living with a man who was not her husband. This would have been seen as sinful and socially unacceptable.
Main Themes in the TextNow that the background of the story has been discussed, we can focus on its main themes and lessons. I am a little short on time, so I will set these out as bullet points:
- The Gift of Living Water. Like the reaction of Nicodemus to Jesus’ requirement that one must be born again, the woman at the well is puzzled (or bothered) by Jesus’ offer of living water. Can Jesus be greater than Jacob? The woman’s tone is unclear. She might be responding in mockery. Keep in mind that that the woman probably emphasizes “our” in “our Father Jacob.” Apparently Samaritan tradition emphasized their descent from Jacob although they were aware of the Jews’ version of their ancestry (2 Kings 17).
Jesus’ offer of living water is not demeaning bodily needs for regular water. Jesus is using the source of the regular water—the sacred well—as a springboard to discuss something ever holier. Moreover, Torah was often compared to water and a good teacher to a well. But were wisdom (and here I am using wisdom and Torah nearly interchangeably) will make one hunger and thirst for more of it, the living water is enough to satisfy forever.
Living water is literally fresh, running water, which was the preferred water for purification. Additionally, water could refer to God (Jeremiah 2:13 “For My people have committed two evils: They have abandoned Me, The fountain of living waters, To carve out for themselves cisterns, Broken cisterns That do not hold water.”) and to the blessings of the end times (Zechariah 14:8 “On that day living water will flow out from Jerusalem . . . .”). 2. Salvation Is from the Jews. The woman recognizes Jesus as a prophet. She was probably thinking of the Taheb, the restorer, who would be like Moses (Deuteronomy 18:18) since Samaritans apparently did not believe in the prophets after Moses in the Old Testament. Jesus corrects her misunderstanding. The Jews are right, the Samaritans are wrong. Salvation comes from the Jews. This an affirmation of the Jewish sacred writings and prophesies within them. Christians are just as committed to the Old Testament as the Jews. 3. Worship in Spirit. “Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you people say that the place where people must worship is in Jerusalem.” That time is ending, Jesus tells her. Now we worship in spirit. I will quote the scholar Craig Keener at length here.
“John here refers to worship empowered by the Spirit. Some argue that the passage refers to worship with the human spirit, that is, passionate worship with one’s whole heart. But more natural expression for this existed in the LXX . . . . Moreover, the human spirit is hardly John’s usual sense of “Spirit”; apart from references to Jesus’ personal spirit (11:33, 13:21; 19:30), the only other probable exception, 3:6, includes a reference to God’s spirit, and fourteen undisputed references plainly refer to God’s Spirit .”
Also consider that the preposition “in,” as in “in Jersualem” or “in Gerizim” seems to retain its locative sense. “In spirit” probably means inside the power of or indwelling of the Spirit. Given the emphasis on prophetic inspiration in early Jewish conceptions, John’s audience probably understood the phrase in terms of inspiration as well.
Spirit and truth is most likely another hendiadys. Jesus is the truth. Similarly, the Spirit can be considered one with the truth. 4. The Mission and the Revelation. Jesus says, “But a time is coming—and now is here—when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such people to be his worshipers.” She responds, “I know that Messiah is coming (the one called Christ); whenever he comes, he will tell us everything.” In the climax of the story, Jesus responds, “I, the one speaking to you, am he.”
You know I try to keep a scholarly tone, but wow. This is incredible. The prophesies are coming true. (The Samaritans seem to have believed that the era of divine favor (rahutha) ended soon after Moses. The era of divine displeasure (panutha) was upon them and would end with the Taheb, who would restore the era of divine favor.) And, as it turns out, the Taheb is looking for worshippers in the Spirit regardless of race, gender, or sinful past. And the wait is over. The Christ is not coming—he is here.
Question from Last WeekThe Fate of the Unevangelized
Last week we discussed that Jesus did not come to judge but to save. (John 3:17) People are already condemned by their wrongdoings. (John 3:18) Christ offers a way to be reconciled with God, both in the sense of being forgiven and in the sense of one’s very nature being turned from darkness to light. So, the question naturally arose, what happens to those who never hear of Jesus?
This is a difficult question but it is a very important one. Honest Christians disagree. The answer will depend on several theological commitments. As you guys already know, I have been trying to avoid taking a position on most theological debates. To some extent I will do that here as well. I will present options. There is, however, one theological position that I must and will affirm. Christ is “the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through [him].” So, I will not discuss any position that denies the truth that Jesus’ sacrifice is the only way to be reconciled with God. Those views can simply be labeled as non-Christian. I do not mean that as an insult but simply as an accurate description. And non-Christian beliefs are not the focus of our Bible study.
I also need to give an extremely important introduction. The Christian conception of God is that he is perfectly good, perfectly just, and he loves us self-sacrificially. God has organized all of history in light of his plan of mercy and salvation for us. He wishes that no person should perish. (2 Peter 3) If God is who he says he is, then the question of the unevangelized is not as emotionally charged as it seems. I can trust that however it is resolved, it is done so in a loving and just way—indeed in a more loving and just way than I can even imagine. With that said, let’s move on to the possibilities.
Roughly, the answers to this question can be divided into five categories:
(1) Gospel Exclusivism. This is the view that people must hear the gospel to be saved. There is no way around it. (You can find an example here.) This view may seem unfair, but that is not necessarily the case. Many Christians believe that God unilaterally chooses those who are saved. Those who are not chosen could be placed in situations in which they will not hear the gospel, since they will not be saved anyways. A different way to argue for the fairness of “gospel exclusivism” is that God knows exactly who would and would not respond to the gospel message. Those who would respond in denial may be placed in situations where they will never hear it, since they would reject it if they heard it anyways.
(2) General Revelation Inclusivism. This is the view that people can react positively (in humility and faith) to the revelation they have received. Their faith in God brings them into salvation through Christ’s sacrifice. (Notice, this is not a different path to salvation.) Here’s an example of this view:
The Bible says that God wants all persons to be saved. Those who have never heard of Christ will not be judged on the basis of what they don't know; they'll be judged on the basis of what they do know. So what do people who have never heard of Christ know? There are two truths God has revealed to everyone, everywhere. First, he exists. We all know this by observing the natural world around us. And second, there's a moral law. We all know this by experiencing our conscience within us. Every one of us has a moral sense of right and wrong.
So those who never hear of Christ can still respond to the light they have been given in nature and conscience. On the basis of their knowledge of God and the moral law they can turn to God for forgiveness and new life. Just like people who lived prior to the time of Christ, they can be saved through Christ, even though they haven't heard of Christ.
(3) Postmortem Evangelism. This is the view that unevangelized persons will have the opportunity to respond to the gospel after death. An example of this view is found in Postmortem Opportunity: A Biblical and Theological Assessment of Salvation After Death, by theologian James Beilby. The argument is simple. God desires every individual to be saved, and because a person can only be saved by placing conscious faith in Christ, God will make an opportunity in this life or the next for that person to respond in faith. Because the Bible and Christian theology do not give us a reason to think God can’t or won’t do this, at least so goes the argument, there is a strong possibility that there will be postmortem opportunities for the unevangelized and pseudoevangelized.
(4) Christian Universalism. By calling it Christian, I am not implying that this view is in fact correct. I add the word Christian to distinguish this form of universalism from a decidedly non-Christian one. Non-Christian universalism claims that there are many ways to be reconciled with God. Most religions, if not all of them, take us to the same place. That denies the exclusivity of Jesus, which is a core Christian tenet. On the other hand, there is a Christian form of universalism. It claims that all people, whether in this life or the next, will accept Christ as their savior. Notice that this is technically not a different view from the prior three. It simply adds a modal distinction—not only may people come to saving faith but they will. (If all will come to faith, how exactly they do so is not all that important.)
(5) Agnosticism. This is the view that we cannot know for certain. Notice, this is not only stating that one does not know but that one cannot know. Scripture does not tell us, is the claim.
I must add a couple of comments before I leave this discussion. First, I am not implying that all these views are equally likely considering scriptural data. Universalism, for example, has a great deal of trouble making sense of passages like Jesus’ description of the narrow gate to salvation (Matthew 7:13) and Jesus’ rejection of some hypocritical followers (Matthew 7:23). I am implying, however, that someone can hold one of these views and properly call themselves a Christian—even if they might be a Christian who is incorrect.
Second, notice the one unifying theme. Christ is the only way to salvation. Everyone reconciled with God, both in the Old Testament and New Testament, is saved through Jesus.
I hope this is helpful. We can discuss this matter further during the Bible study.
Scripture Reading: John 3:16-36
16 For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him. 18 The one who believes in him is not condemned. The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God. 19 Now this is the basis for judging: that the light has come into the world and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil deeds hates the light and does not come to the light, so that their deeds will not be exposed. 21 But the one who practices the truth comes to the light, so that it may be plainly evident that his deeds have been done in God.
22 After this, Jesus and his disciples came into Judean territory, and there he spent time with them and was baptizing. 23 John was also baptizing at Aenon near Salim because water was plentiful there, and people were coming to him and being baptized. 24 (For John had not yet been thrown into prison.)
25 Now a dispute came about between some of John’s disciples and a certain Jew concerning ceremonial washing. 26 So they came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, the one who was with you on the other side of the Jordan River, about whom you testified—see, he is baptizing, and everyone is flocking to him!”
27 John replied, “No one can receive anything unless it has been given to him from heaven. 28 You yourselves can testify that I said, ‘I am not the Christ,’ but rather, ‘I have been sent before him.’ 29 The one who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom, who stands by and listens for him, rejoices greatly when he hears the bridegroom’s voice. This then is my joy, and it is complete. 30 He must become more important while I become less important.”
31 The one who comes from above is superior to all. The one who is from the earth belongs to the earth and speaks about earthly things. The one who comes from heaven is superior to all. 32 He testifies about what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. 33 The one who has accepted his testimony has confirmed clearly that God is truthful. 34 For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for he does not give the Spirit sparingly. 35 The Father loves the Son and has placed all things under his authority. 36 The one who believes in the Son has eternal life. The one who rejects the Son will not see life, but God’s wrath remains on him.
I. The Gospel in Three Chapters—A Brief Review
Bible commentaries outline the Gospel of John in different ways. For example, one commentary breaks the Gospel of John into the prologue (1:1-18) and into Jesus’ witness in Judea, Samaria, and Galilee (1:19-6:71). Not wishing to quibble over trifles, I would suggest a slightly different outline. I think that the first three chapters of John function as a concise, yet rich summary of the Gospel.
Chapter 1 explains who Christ is and his qualitative differences with creation:
(1) Jesus as a Person in the Trinity. Jesus is God and Jesus is with God.
(2) Jesus as Creator of All. All things were created by him.
(3) Creation is in Darkness. In Christ is life. He is the light. The light shines in the darkness—that is, the world. And the darkness did not “master” the light.
(4) Jesus as Man. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.
(5) Jesus as Expiatory Sacrifice. Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world!
(6) Jesus the Giver of the Holy Spirit. He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.
(7) Jesus as Messiah. “We have found the Messiah!” “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel!”
Chapter 2 explains that the old is passing away and the new is here.
(8) True Purification is in Christ. The jars for ceremonial washing that used to be filled with water are now filled with wine. The best wine has been saved for last.
(9) True Religion is in Christ. The temple has become but a marketplace. Destroy it and it will be rebuilt in Christ in three days.
Chapter 3 explains salvation.
(10) The Way of Salvation. “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
(11) The Price of Salvation. Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.
(12) The Offer of Salvation. For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.
(13) The Condemnation of Sin. The one who does not believe has been condemned already.
II. God So Loved the World
And now we return to today’s text. It begins with the most famous verse in the New Testament, if not the entire Bible. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (I quoted from the King James version because that is the most familiar translation of the verse.)
As Craig Keener points out, “Some could understand English translations (God “so” love the world) as intending, ‘God loved the world so much’; but John’s language is qualitative rather than quantitative. Οὕτως means, ‘This is how God loved the world.’” This is not to take away from God’s great love for us, but it is to point out that God shows his love with action (self-sacrifice) not merely with words.
In the Old Testament, God gave mainly two gifts to Israel: the land and the Torah. Israelites were meant to be kind and generous to foreigners, and foreigners could convert to Judaism. However, the gifts were still, at least in some sense, to the Israelites. Now the gift is explicitly to the world.
God giving up his son is the capstone to the story that begun in Genesis 22, which is the very beginning of Israel. I quote Genesis 22:1-18 below:
Some time after these things God tested Abraham. He said to him, “Abraham!” “Here I am!” Abraham replied. 2 God said, “Take your son—your only son, whom you love, Isaac—and go to the land of Moriah! Offer him up there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains which I will indicate to you.”
3 Early in the morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey. He took two of his young servants with him, along with his son Isaac. When he had cut the wood for the burnt offering, he started out for the place God had spoken to him about.
4 On the third day Abraham caught sight of the place in the distance. 5 So he said to his servants, “You two stay here with the donkey while the boy and I go up there. We will worship and then return to you.”
6 Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and put it on his son Isaac. Then he took the fire and the knife in his hand, and the two of them walked on together. 7 Isaac said to his father Abraham, “My father?” “What is it, my son?” he replied. “Here is the fire and the wood,” Isaac said, “but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?” 8 “God will provide for himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son,” Abraham replied. The two of them continued on together.
9 When they came to the place God had told him about, Abraham built the altar there and arranged the wood on it. Next he tied up his son Isaac and placed him on the altar on top of the wood. 10 Then Abraham reached out his hand, took the knife, and prepared to slaughter his son. 11 But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven, “Abraham! Abraham!” “Here I am!” he answered. 12 “Do not harm the boy!” the angel said. “Do not do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God because you did not withhold your son, your only son, from me.”
13 Abraham looked up and saw behind him a ram caught in the bushes by its horns. So he went over and got the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son. 14 And Abraham called the name of that place “The Lord provides.” It is said to this day, “In the mountain of the Lord provision will be made.”
15 The angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven 16 and said, “I solemnly swear by my own name, decrees the Lord, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will indeed bless you, and I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they will be as countless as the stars in the sky or the grains of sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the strongholds of their enemies. 18 Because you have obeyed me, all the nations of the earth will pronounce blessings on one another using the name of your descendants.”
The prophesies are fulfilled! (Or at least they will be once Christ’s sacrifice has happened.) Blessings will come through one of Abraham’s descendants. The Lord provides. In the mountain of the Lord provision will be made. That provision is God’s only son.
III. Already Condemned or Everlasting Life
Just as a reminder, let’s consider John 3:16 once more, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
God saves us from what? God saves us “into” what? For example, if I were in prison because I could not pay a fine and someone else paid it, I would be saved from prison and be brought into freedom. If I were a slave and someone paid my redemption price, I would be saved from slavery and similarly be brought into freedom. John 3:16 tells us we are saved from perishing and brought into eternal life. This idea was already present in the Old Testament. Daniel 12:2 says,
Many of those who sleep in the dusty ground will awake—some to everlasting life, and others to shame and everlasting abhorrence.
John 3:17-18 make clear that we are already condemned. We are not condemned for not believing in Jesus. That only keeps us perishing. Verse 36 reemphasizes the point. God’s wrath “remains” on the unbeliever. This is an important distinction. People are not condemned for their lack of belief. They are condemned for their sins.
But Jesus offers a way into eternal life. What is that?
Whatever eternal life is, it begins now. John 3:16 uses the present active subjunctive, emphasizing that the new life begins at the new birth.
Ok, but what is it? Well . . . it gets a little unclear. Please, don’t misunderstand me, the Bible is very clear on some things about everlasting life. Let’s consider a few verses.
2 Peter 3:13
But, according to his promise, we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness truly resides.
Revelation 21:1-5
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and earth had ceased to exist, and the sea existed no more. 2 And I saw the holy city—the new Jerusalem—descending out of heaven from God, made ready like a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying: “Look! The residence of God is among human beings. He will live among them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them. 4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death will not exist any more—or mourning, or crying, or pain, for the former things have ceased to exist.”
Isaiah 65:17-19
17 For look, I am ready to create
new heavens and a new earth!
The former ones will not be remembered;
no one will think about them anymore.
18 But be happy and rejoice forevermore
over what I am about to create!
For look, I am ready to create Jerusalem to be a source of joy,
and her people to be a source of happiness.
19 Jerusalem will bring me joy,
and my people will bring me happiness.
The sound of weeping or cries of sorrow
will never be heard in her again.
Another aspect of eternal life that is clear is that it is physical. Our bodies may be different, the earth may be different, the heavens may be different, but it is a time and a place where we physically live. Consider the Apostles Creed,
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.
Our final destination is not heaven, at least not what popular culture might call heaven. It is the new earth. Consider also the Nicene Creed,
We look forward to the resurrection of the dead, and to life in the world to come.
II. Loving the Darkness
Why do men reject Christ? Because they love the darkness rather than the light.
In light of the passage, consider the following belief of the Methodist Church. In part, the Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church (1808) explain that,
[Original sin] is the corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually.
The light will expose evil deeds. Evil men will not tolerate by that. However, notice that the light’s effect is not restricted to the damned. Light will expose evil deeds. All of them. Those who place their faith in Jesus must humble themselves and accept that. They must trust that forgiveness through Jesus is greater than their exposed evil deeds.
III. Belief and Practice
The words of James (James 2:14-17) come to mind,
What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but does not have works? Can this kind of faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacks daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm and eat well,” but you do not give them what the body needs, what good is it? 17 So also faith, if it does not have works, is dead being by itself.
In John 3:18-21, John speaks of faith and deeds interchangeably. The one who believes is not condemned. The one who practices truth comes to the truth. The one who does not believe is already condemned. Everyone who does evil deeds hates the light.
I am not building up to a clever argument denying sola fide (justification by faith alone), but I simply wish to acknowledge that faith and deeds are tied together. He who has faith in Jesus will act differently. Later in the book of John, Jesus will make it even clearer, “The person who has my commandments and obeys them is the one who loves me.” As a commentator explains, “One does the works of the one whose nature one shares.”
IV. John the Baptist Revisited
The Synoptic Gospels can give the impression that Jesus was John the Baptist’s successor and their ministries did not overlap. John (the apostle) makes it explicitly clear that John the Baptist continued his ministry at least until he was imprisoned.
Three great points can be discerned from John the Baptist’s responses to his followers:
(1) No one can receive anything unless it has been given to him from heaven. There is no rivalry with God. He provides for us. We cannot take from Him. We rejoice in his provision.
(2) He must become more important while I become less important. Jesus is the main figure of the story—the story of the Bible and the story of creation. We should rejoice when he is exalted.
(3) The one who comes from heaven is superior to all. He testifies about what he has seen and heard. Jesus’ words and works are reliable because of who he is.
[I’m still working on this part.]
Scripture Reading: John 3:1-15 (and maybe John 3:16-21)
Now a certain man, a Pharisee named Nicodemus, who was a member of the Jewish ruling council, 2 came to Jesus at night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs that you do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus replied, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter his mother’s womb and be born a second time, can he?”
5 Jesus answered, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must all be born from above.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it will, and you hear the sound it makes, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
9 Nicodemus replied, “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you don’t understand these things? 11 I tell you the solemn truth, we speak about what we know and testify about what we have seen, but you people do not accept our testimony. 12 If I have told you people about earthly things and you don’t believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven—the Son of Man. 14 Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.”
This week I want to slow down a bit and focus on the phrase “born again” (which the NET Bible translates as “born from above”). As usual, I will also briefly discuss the context of the passage and the Greek linguistic nuances.
I. Context—Who were the Pharisees?
A Christian website explains:
The Pharisees were an influential religious sect within Judaism in the time of Christ and the early church. They were known for their emphasis on personal piety (the word Pharisee comes from a Hebrew word meaning “separated”), their acceptance of oral tradition in addition to the written Law, and their teaching that all Jews should observe all 600-plus laws in the Torah, including the rituals concerning ceremonial purification.
The Pharisees were mostly middle-class businessmen and leaders of the synagogues. Though they were a minority in the Sanhedrin and held a minority number of positions as priests, they seemed to control the decision-making of the Sanhedrin because they had popular support among the people.
Among the Pharisees were two schools of thought, based on the teachings of two rabbis, Shammai and Hillel. Shammai called for a strict, unbending interpretation of the Law on almost every issue, but Hillel taught a looser, more liberal application. Followers of Shammai fostered a hatred for anything Roman, including taxation—Jews who served as tax collectors were persona non grata. The Shammaites wanted to outlaw all communication and commerce between Jews and Gentiles. The Hillelites took a more gracious approach and opposed such extreme exclusiveness. Eventually, the two schools within Pharisaism grew so hostile to each other that they refused to worship together.
The Pharisees accepted the written Word as inspired by God. At the time of Christ’s earthly ministry, this would have been what we now call the Old Testament. Unfortunately, the Pharisees gave equal authority to oral tradition, saying the traditions went all the way back to Moses. Evolving over the centuries, the Pharisaic traditions had the effect of adding to God’s Word, which is forbidden (Deuteronomy 4:2). The Gospels abound with examples of the Pharisees treating their traditions as equal to God’s Word (Matthew 9:14; 15:1–9; 23:5; 23:16, 23; Luke 11:42). Jesus applied the condemnation of Isaiah 29:13 to the Pharisees, saying, “Their teachings are merely human rules” (Mark 7:7).
II. The Double Entendre—Born Again or Born from Above
The following two footnotes to John 3:3 on the NET Bible explain the issue very well:
Or born again. The Greek word ἄνωθεν (anōthen) can mean both “again” and “from above,” giving rise to Nicodemus’ misunderstanding about a second physical birth (v. 4).
The word ἄνωθεν (anōthen) has a double meaning, either “again” (in which case it is synonymous with παλίν [palin]) or “from above” (BDAG 92 s.v. ἄνωθεν). This is a favorite technique of the author of the Fourth Gospel, and it is lost in almost all translations at this point. John uses the word 5 times, in 3:3, 7; 3:31; 19:11 and 23. In the latter 3 cases the context makes clear that it means “from above.” Here (3:3, 7) it could mean either, but the primary meaning intended by Jesus is “from above.” Nicodemus apparently understood it the other way, which explains his reply, “How can a man be born when he is old? He can’t enter his mother’s womb a second time and be born, can he?” The author uses the technique of the “misunderstood question” often to bring out a particularly important point: Jesus says something which is misunderstood by the disciples or (as here) someone else, which then gives Jesus the opportunity to explain more fully and in more detail what he really meant.
III. Born Again—An Ontological Change or a Forensic Change? Both
(Although the section above suggests that the more correct expression is “born from above,” the undeniable fact is that “born again” is the widely used phrase. So, I will also use the phrase “born again.”)
Regardless if you are a Christian or not, you have probably heard the expression “born again” or “born again Christian.” What does that mean? The origin of the phrase is John 3:3 (although it also appears in 1 Peter). The meaning of it is recognized by nearly every Christian tradition, and it generally involves two ideas, one forensic and one ontological. Let’s discuss each in turn.
A Forensic Change—Justification
Nicodemus thought he was already a son of God by virtue of his ancestry. He was a Jew so, in his mind, that conferred him the correct status before God. Jesus corrects Nicodemus. For Nicodemus to truly hold the correct status—that of being a child and heir of God—he must be born again. The idea of having the correct status or standing before God is a forensic (i.e., legal) idea. A modern example would be citizenship. The day I became a United States citizen, my person (or substance) did not change. I was the same guy the day before and the day after I became a citizen. I did not become a free-speech-defending person by virtue of my legal status. (Hopefully I am such a person, but the point is that it didn’t happen because of a stamp on a document.) Citizenship was merely a forensic change. However, I don’t use the word “merely” to minimize the importance of a forensic change. Becoming a citizen had tremendous impact in my life—granting me rights I did not have before.
Similarly, new birth causes a forensic change in the believer. He now enjoys citizenship in the Kingdom of God. That citizenship is only possible because of another forensic change—the believer now stands blameless (or forgiven) before God. This idea is often called justification.
An Ontological Change—Regeneration
Nicodemus, like everyone else, is a fallen man. The Kingdom of God is a place with no evil. Everyone will follow God perfectly—a being of infinite goodness, wisdom, and justice. How can a man ruled by flesh do anything else but obey his own flesh? How can a man, whose very nature is opposed to the Spirit of God, follow the Spirit instead? That man must be changed. He must turn (or be turned) from his evil ways and start growing in the righteousness of God. This is the ontological component of new birth. The very person, his substance, is changed. This idea is often called regeneration.
These ideas of justification and regeneration are so important and central to the Christian faith, that I decided to set forth examples from multiple denominations. Notice that different denominations may differ on the moment of rebirth (i.e., baptism vis-à-vis a born-again experience), but the doctrinal unity on the new birth is incredible.
Baptist Faith and Message 2000, IV Salvation
Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.
A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God’s grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.
Repentance is a genuine turning from sin toward God. Faith is the acceptance of Jesus Christ and commitment of the entire personality to Him as Lord and Saviour.
B. Justification is God’s gracious and full acquittal upon principles of His righteousness of all sinners who repent and believe in Christ. Justification brings the believer unto a relationship of peace and favor with God.
Book of Concord, III. The Righteousness of Faith Before God
-
We believe, teach, and confess that according to the usage of Holy Scripture the word justify means in this article, to absolve, that is, to declare free from sins. Prov. 17:15: He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the righteous, even they both are abomination to the Lord. Also Rom. 8:33: Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.
-
We believe, teach, and confess also that notwithstanding the fact that many weaknesses and defects cling to the true believers and truly regenerate, even to the grave, still they must not on that account doubt either their righteousness which has been imputed to them by faith, or the salvation of their souls, but must regard it as certain that for Christ’s sake, according to the promise and [immovable] Word of the holy Gospel, they have a gracious God.
-
We believe, teach, and confess that, although the contrition that precedes, and the good works that follow, do not belong to the article of justification before God, yet one is not to imagine a faith of such a kind as can exist and abide with, and alongside of, a wicked intention to sin and to act against the conscience. But after man has been justified by faith, then a true living faith worketh by love, Gal. 5:6, so that thus good works always follow justifying faith, and are surely found with it, if it be true and living; for it never is alone, but always has with it love and hope.
Catholic Encyclopedia, Regeneration
Regeneration is a Biblico-dogmatic term closely connected with the ideas of justification, Divine sonship, and the deification of the soul through grace. Confining ourselves first to the Biblical use of this term, we find regeneration from God used in indissoluble connection with baptism, which St. Paul expressly calls "the laver of regeneration" (Titus 3:5). In His discourse with Nicodemus (John 3:5), the Saviour declares: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." In this passage Christianity from its earliest days has found the proof that baptism may not be repeated, since a repeated regeneration from God is no less a contradiction than repeated physical birth from a mother. The idea of "birth from God" enjoys a special favour in the Joannine theology. Outside the Fourth Gospel (1:12 sq.; 3:5), the Apostle uses the term in a variety of ways, treating "birth of God" as synonymous now with the "doing of justice" (1 John 5:1, 4 sq.), and elsewhere deducing from it a certain "sinlessness" of the just (1 John 3:9; 5:18), which, however, does not necessarily exclude from the state of justification the possibility of sinning (cf. Bellarmine, "De justificatione", III, xv). It is true that in all these passages there is no reference to baptism nor is there any reference to a real "regeneration"; nevertheless, "generation from God", like baptismal "regeneration", must be referred to justification as its cause.
United Methodist Church, Book of Discipline, The Confession of Faith of the Evangelical United Brethren Church, Article IX—Justification and Regeneration
We believe we are never accounted righteous before God through our works or merit, but that penitent sinners are justified or accounted righteous before God only by faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.
We believe regeneration is the renewal of man in righteousness through Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit, whereby we are made partakers of the divine nature and experience newness of life. By this new birth the believer becomes reconciled to God and is enabled to serve him with the will and the affections. We believe, although we have experienced regeneration, it is possible to depart from grace and fall into sin; and we may even then, by the grace of God, be renewed in righteousness.
17th Catechetical Lecture, Saint Cyril of Jerusalem
[I]f you play the hypocrite, though men baptize you now, the Holy Spirit will not baptize you. But if you approach with faith, though men minister in what is seen, the Holy Ghost bestows that which is unseen. . . . [I]f you be counted worthy of the grace, your soul will be enlightened, you will receive a power which you had not, you will receive weapons terrible to the evil spirits . . . .
If you believe, you shall not only receive remission of sins, but also do things which pass man's power. receivest now remission of thy sins, and the gifts of the King's spiritual bounty.
Scripture Reading: John 2:12-25 (and maybe John 3:1-8)
12 After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples, and they stayed there a few days. 13 Now the Jewish Feast of Passover was near, so Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
14 He found in the temple courts those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers sitting at tables. 15 So he made a whip of cords and drove them all out of the temple courts, with the sheep and the oxen. He scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold the doves he said, “Take these things away from here! Do not make my Father’s house a marketplace!” 17 His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will devour me.”
18 So then the Jewish leaders responded, “What sign can you show us, since you are doing these things?” 19 Jesus replied, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again.” 20 Then the Jewish leaders said to him, “This temple has been under construction for 46 years, and are you going to raise it up in three days?” 21 But Jesus was speaking about the temple of his body. 22 So after he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the scripture and the saying that Jesus had spoken.
23 Now while Jesus was in Jerusalem at the Feast of the Passover, many people believed in his name because they saw the miraculous signs he was doing. 24 But Jesus would not entrust himself to them because he knew all people. 25 He did not need anyone to testify about man, for he knew what was in man.
How many times did Jesus cleanse the temple?
I want to address this question because this is one of the main texts brought up to show contradictions in the Bible. I don’t, however, want to spend most of our time on this (unless participants are interested).
I thought the dilemma was nicely laid out by a Christian website:
The second chapter of John explains that during the Passover, Jesus went to the temple in Jerusalem, made a whip of cords, and drove out the money changers who were doing business there. He also poured out the money and turned over the tables (John 2:13–15). Jesus said to those who sold doves, “Take these things away! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!” (John 2:16).
The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) also tell of Jesus entering the temple, driving out those who bought and sold, overturning their tables, and telling the crowd that they had turned the temple into a “den of thieves” (Matthew 21:12–13; Mark 11:15–17; Luke 19:45–46).
Some Christians believe these accounts describe the same event, but there is a problem. John describes the cleansing of the temple as occurring during the first Passover (of three) mentioned in his Gospel. Meanwhile, Matthew, Mark, and Luke all describe the temple-cleansing as taking place just days before Christ’s Crucifixion. Is this a contradiction and if so, who is right?
Did John intend to write chronologically?
As scholar Lydia McGrew points out, there are four ways to narrate about time (emphasis added):
(1) The author intends to imply or state a chronology and gets it right. That chronology corresponds to the way that things literally happened historically.
(2) The author intends to imply or state a chronology and gets it wrong by accident. The chronology does not correspond to the way that things happened historically, but the author does not know this. The document contains an ordinary error.
(3) The author intends to imply or state a chronology, it does not correspond to historical reality, and the author knows that. The author intends to change the chronology in the apparently realistic world of the narrative. I will dub this dyschronological narration.
Note that this definition of dyschronological narration is compatible with but does not entail an authorial intention to deceive the audience. The audience may or may not take the chronology seriously and be confused. The definition by itself leaves open either possibility. It would be possible under this definition for the audience to take the story’s chronology lightly (perhaps due to genre considerations) and hence not to be misled, though it is also possible that they take the work to be giving chronological information. All that this definition says is that the author intentionally changes the chronology in an invisible way in the story as narrated. Dyschronological narration could be attempted deception, but whether it is or not depends on other factors.
(4) The author does not intend either to imply or to state a chronology in the story concerning the event or series of events in question. If an interpreter thinks that chronology is intended, this is due to a misunderstanding. I will dub this achronological narration.
If John narrates using methods (3) or (4), perhaps there is no contradiction between the Gospels. But is method (3) compatible with biblical inerrancy? I will address these thoughts during the session.
Or maybe John does intend to write chronologically. Could there have been two temple cleansings? Here are Craig Blomberg’s reasons to consider that view:
-
The details of the cleansing given in John’s account are completely different from those given in the Synoptics (i.e. Matthew, Mark, Luke).
-
If Jesus felt strongly enough about the temple corruption to cleanse it once at the beginning of His ministry, it is not really too difficult to believe that He might do it again at the end of His ministry.
-
Since cleansing the temple was an overtly Messianic act, about which some of the Jews would have approved, it is not surprising that He could get away with doing this once at the outset of His ministry. However, when the Jews began to realize that Jesus was not really the sort of Messiah they were looking for, a second cleansing would have almost certainly sealed His fate (see Mark 11:18).
-
In the Synoptics, Jesus is accused of having said that He would destroy the temple and rebuild another in three days not made with human hands (Mark 14:58). But a similar comment by Jesus is only explicitly mentioned in John 2:19. Furthermore, since the witnesses in Mark’s gospel get the statement slightly wrong, and cannot agree among themselves (Mark 14:59), it may be a confused memory of something Jesus said two or three years earlier, rather than just a few days earlier.
-
Jesus’ statement in the Synoptics is more severe than that in John. Only in the Synoptics does He refer to the Gentiles’ need to pray at the temple, and only in the Synoptics does He refer to the Jews as “robbers”.
-
In John 2:20 the Jews refer to the temple rebuilding project having begun 46 years earlier. This would mark the date of the cleansing at around AD 27 or 28. But Jesus was almost certainly not crucified until at least AD 30. And it is most unlikely that John would have simply made up such a figure. Therefore, it is quite likely that John is describing a distinct (and earlier) cleansing from the one mentioned in the Synoptics.
Key Themes
I. The Setting—The Temple
Here’s my edited version of an encyclopedia entry regarding the Temple:
The First Temple was constructed during the reign of David’s son, Solomon, and completed in 957 BCE. Josiah (reigned c. 640–609 BCE) established the Temple of Jerusalem as the only place of sacrifice in the Kingdom of Judah.
The First Temple was built as an abode for the Ark and as a place of assembly for the entire people. The building itself, therefore, was not large, but the courtyard was extensive. The Temple consisted of three rooms of equal width: the porch, or vestibule; the main room of religious service, or Holy Place; and the Holy of Holies, the sacred room in which the Ark rested.
The Temple suffered at the hands of Nebuchadrezzar II of Babylonia, who removed the Temple treasures in 604 BCE and 597 BCE and totally destroyed the building in 587/586. Jews were deported to Babylonia in 586 and 582.
Cyrus II, founder of the Achaemenian dynasty of Persia and conqueror of Babylonia, in 538 BCE issued an order allowing exiled Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple. Work was completed in 515 BCE. There is no known detailed plan of the Second Temple, which was constructed as a modest version of the original building. It did not include the ritual objects of the First Temple; of special significance was the loss of the Ark itself.
During the Persian and Hellenistic (4th–3rd century BCE) periods, the Temple generally was respected, and in part subsidized, by Judaea’s foreign rulers. Antiochus IV Epiphanes, however, plundered it in 169 BCE and desecrated it in 167 BCE by commanding that sacrifices be made to Zeus on an altar built for him. This final act touched off the Hasmonean revolt, during which Judas Maccabeus cleansed and rededicated the Temple; the event is celebrated in the annual festival of Hanukkah.
In 54 BCE Crassus plundered the Temple treasury. Of major importance was the rebuilding of the Second Temple begun by Herod the Great, king (37 BCE–4 CE) of Judaea.
Construction began in 20 BCE and lasted for 46 years. The area of the Temple Mount was doubled and surrounded by a retaining wall with gates. The Temple was raised, enlarged, and faced with white stone. The new Temple square served as a gathering place, and its porticoes sheltered merchants and money changers. A stone fence and a rampart surrounded the consecrated area forbidden to Gentiles. The Temple proper began, on the east, with the Court of Women, each side of which had a gate and each corner of which had a chamber. The western gate of the court, approached by a semicircular staircase, led to the Court of the Israelites, that portion of the Court of Priests open to all male Jews. Surrounding the inner sanctuary, the Court of Priests contained the sacrificial altar and a copper laver for priestly ablutions. This court was itself surrounded by a wall broken with gates and chambers. The Temple sanctuary building was wider in front than in the rear; its eastern facade had two pillars on either side of the gate to the entrance hall. Within the hall, a great gate led to the sanctuary, at the western end of which was the Holy of Holies.
The Herodian Temple was again the centre of Israelite life. It was not only the focus of religious ritual but also the repository of the Holy Scriptures and other national literature and the meeting place of the Sanhedrin, the highest court of Jewish law during the Roman period. The rebellion against Rome that began in 66 CE soon focused on the Temple and effectively ended with the Temple’s destruction on 70 CE.
I. The Reason for Overturning the Tables
Jesus says, “Take these things away from here! Do not make my Father’s house a marketplace!”
In 2 Chronicles 7:11-15, the Lord explains the purpose of the temple as follows:
11 After Solomon finished building the Lord’s temple and the royal palace and accomplished all his plans for the Lord’s temple and his royal palace, 12 the Lord appeared to Solomon at night and said to him: “I have answered your prayer and chosen this place to be my temple where sacrifices are to be made. 13 When I close up the sky so that it doesn’t rain, or command locusts to devour the land’s vegetation, or send a plague among my people, 14 if my people, who belong to me, humble themselves, pray, seek to please me, and repudiate their sinful practices, then I will respond from heaven, forgive their sin, and heal their land. 15 Now I will be attentive and responsive to the prayers offered in this place.
In Matthew 21:12-13, Jesus affirms the temple as a place of prayer:
Then Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all those who were selling and buying in the temple courts and turned over the tables of the money changers and the chairs of those selling doves. 13 And he said to them, “It is written, ‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are turning it into a den of robbers!”
Perhaps the problem was that the merchants were inside the temple courts, which should have been kept holy. Not only could this be a desecration of the temple, but it would have interfered with the worship of Gentiles. Gentiles were welcome alongside Israelites in the Solomonic temple but were excluded from the inner courts at Jesus’ time. Gentiles would have been trying to worship and pray in the midst of a busy market.
Perhaps the problem was the economic exploitation of the worshipers in the temple. There is little historical indication that such exploitation went on, but at a glance it seems to fit Jesus’ accusation in the synoptic gospels that the temple was turned into a den of robbers. Does it really fit though? Consider the passage that Jesus is alluding to, Jeremiah 7:8-11:
8 “‘But just look at you! You are putting your confidence in a false belief that will not deliver you. 9 You steal. You murder. You commit adultery. You lie when you swear on oath. You sacrifice to the god Baal. You pay allegiance to other gods whom you have not previously known. 10 Then you come and stand in my presence in this temple I have claimed as my own and say, “We are safe!” You think you are so safe that you go on doing all those hateful sins! 11 Do you think this temple I have claimed as my own is to be a hideout for robbers? You had better take note! I have seen for myself what you have done! says the Lord.
Notice that robbers is not indicating financial crimes. It points to murderers, adulterers, and, most importantly, idolaters who thought were “in the clear” simply because they had the temple. I think this is the key to Jesus’ reaction. Personally, I think that the temple had not only become a market in the sense that merchants were there, but the whole attitude towards God had become transactional. Read the following description of the selling of indulgences (a medieval practice) and consider whether it is similar:
One particularly well-known Catholic method of exploitation in the Middle Ages was the practice of selling indulgences, a monetary payment of penalty which, supposedly, absolved one of past sins and/or released one from purgatory after death.
I. The Solution—Destroy and Rebuild
Jesus responds to the Pharisees, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again.” An NET Bible footnote explains the verb tense of the word destroy. “The imperative here is really more than a simple conditional imperative (= ‘if you destroy’); its semantic force here is more like the ironical imperative found in the prophets (Amos 4:4, Isa 8:9) = ‘Go ahead and do this and see what happens.’”
It's a challenge filled with irony. The Pharisees effectively respond with a resounding no! “This temple has been under construction for 46 years . . . .” Yet they will destroy the temple. In three years they will crucify Jesus, on whom God dwells in an infinitely fuller sense.
And Jesus will be true to his prophecy. He will resurrect in three days.
Scripture Reading: John 2:1-11 (and maybe 12-22)
1 Now on the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, 2 and Jesus and his disciples were also invited to the wedding. 3 When the wine ran out, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no wine left.” 4 Jesus replied, “Woman, why are you saying this to me? My time has not yet come.” 5 His mother told the servants, “Whatever he tells you, do it.”
6 Now there were six stone water jars there for Jewish ceremonial washing, each holding 20 or 30 gallons. 7 Jesus told the servants, “Fill the water jars with water.” So they filled them up to the very top. 8 Then he told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the head steward,” and they did. 9 When the head steward tasted the water that had been turned to wine, not knowing where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), he called the bridegroom 10 and said to him, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and then the cheaper wine when the guests are drunk. You have kept the good wine until now!” 11 Jesus did this as the first of his miraculous signs, in Cana of Galilee. In this way he revealed his glory, and his disciples believed in him.
Key Themes:
I. The Setting—A First Century Jewish Wedding
The wedding occurs in Cana. John could be referring to a couple of different locations, either site being a reasonable walk from Nazareth. Without going into undue geographic and historical details, the location gives us a clue regarding the likely religious attitude of the wedding attendants. Cana would have been a small village far from Jerusalem. The people attending were probably not Pharisees.
The miracle happens on the “third day.” The third day from what? Many argue that the third day is being used as a literary device, making an allusion to Christ’s resurrection (or possibly God coming on Sinai in Exodus 19:11-16). Although that might be the case, the simplest explanation is the most likely: the miracle happened “the day after tomorrow” from the last event described in Chapter 1.
Joyous celebration at a Jewish wedding was emphasized, nearly to the point of being mandated. As one was supposed to mourn at a funeral, one was supposed to rejoice at a wedding. Weddings would customarily last seven days, and many would stay the entire time. Any invitee was expected to accept the invitation, regardless of their closeness to the host. (Jesus, his family, and disciples may not have been particularly close to the bride and groom.)
Wine was not unfermented “grape juice.” Before refrigeration there was no way to prevent fermentation, particularly over long periods of time. Wine was not used only to purify water either, but to liven up (consider Psalm 104:14-15, “He provides grass for the cattle and crops for people to cultivate, so they can produce food from the ground as well as wine that makes people glad, and olive oil to make their faces shine as well as bread that sustains them.). Moreover, the host is aware that some excess has taken place already (the word methysthōsin consistently means drunk, such as in Acts 2:15 and 1 Thessalonians 5:7). Several Galilean villages were heavily engaged in wine production. However, the alcoholic content of wine was not increased through distillation, and wine served with meals was often mixed with two to four parts water.
To run out of food or wine at a wedding would have brought great shame to the host (the groom’s family). Indeed, the custom would be to have food and wine left over, such as to never even come close to running out. How would Jesus’ mother be aware of the wine running out? The women probably ran the kitchen and were privy to this information.
II. The Request and the Response
Mary (although not named by John) seems to act as a model of faith. She asks—not demands—but is fully confident that Jesus can grant her request. She commands the servants to do whatever Jesus says. Again, her confidence in Jesus is absolute. John presents this miracle as Jesus’ first miraculous sign. How was Mary so confident? This is left unexplained.
Jesus responds, “Woman, why are you saying this to me?” The response “woman,” although rude to our English-speaking sensibilities, was not rude at the time. However, it was not the expected response a son would probably give his mother, which may have included a more polite word often used for a woman of rank. As Keener points out, “More likely, in view of the prominent role assigned to honoring one’s parent in Judaism (and indeed the ancient Mediterranean in general), Jesus is establishing a degree of distance between himself and his mother . . . . She approached him not as her son but as a miracle worker; he replies not as her son but as her Lord.”
Jesus adds, “My time has not yet come.” What is his “time” or “hour”? Jesus has come to die on the cross. This is his intentional plan, not an accident. Jesus’ first miracle begins the journey to the cross. In a sense, one could say this is the beginning of the Passion. (What’s the Passion of Christ? Catholiceducation.org explains that, “The Passion of Christ, from the Latin patior meaning ‘suffer,’ refers to those sufferings our Lord endured for our redemption from the agony in the garden until His death on Calvary.”)
John 12:23 says, “Jesus replied, ‘The time has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.’
In Mark 14:41-42 Jesus says, “The hour has come. Look, the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Get up, let us go. Look! My betrayer is approaching!”
III. From Water to Spirit—From Water to Wine
The water jars had been set aside for ritual purification. We have already discussed that water cleansing was an important and ubiquitous part of Judaism. From washing hands before meals to cleansing the entire body before certain festivals or rituals, every Jew understood the religious significance of water. Using water set aside for purification for another purpose would likely have been considered an insult to Judaism.
Jesus takes the cleansing water—not just any water, I cannot emphasize this enough—and turns it into wine. The old is passing away and the new is coming. Baptism is no longer with water, baptism is now with the Spirit. Cleansing is no longer with water, but with wine, the blood of Christ.
Matthew 26:26-30. While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after giving thanks he broke it, gave it to his disciples, and said, “Take, eat, this is my body.” And after taking the cup and giving thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, that is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, from now on I will not drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” After singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.
Wine alludes to both celebration—perhaps the eschatological feast—and to the cost of the celebration. At the cross both the awful penalty for sin and awesome news of redemption come together.
Personally, I find the symbolism of a depth and beauty that is hard to express.
Edit: A Bible study participant emailed me with insightful comments. In my original post, I briefly mentioned the possibility that wine alludes to “the eschatological feast.” I was hinting to the connection between Jesus’ first miracle and the eschatological promises found in the Old Testament. The email I received explains a similar view as follows:
The whole point of this episode is that it was "the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory," i.e., the first of the Seven Signs around which John's Gospel is arranged. Those signs are "signs" in that they each point back, in some way, to the Law and the Prophets, connecting Jesus to the biblical narrative in general and the messianic prophecies in particular. This particular sign points back to Jacob's blessing of Judah in Genesis 49:8-12. This passage is the climax of the entire book of Genesis, and this portion of the passage is the high point of that climax, and according to it, during the time of the Messiah's reign, Israel's prosperity will be such that choice wine will flow as abundantly as water (people can wash their clothes in it, tether their donkey's to premium grape vines, etc.). His miracle at the wedding in Cana wasn't a "sign" merely for being miraculous, and certainly not for pointing ahead to sacraments the disciples didn't have yet, but specifically because it connects Jesus back to this prophecy. And, this "sign" sort of bookends Jesus' remarks in 1:51, about "the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man."
Merely as a point of clarification on my own blog post, I am not suggesting a sacramental view of Jesus’ sign, but only that wine gains an additional interpretation as it comes to represent the blood and sacrifice of Christ. After all, John is writing to an audience that already knows the how the story ends. Does the miracle point to the promises of the Old Testament or does it foreshadow the rest of the New Testament? The reader will have to make up his own mind (John doesn’t come with an instruction manual). Personally, I think it does both. I am grateful to the person who sent the email. (I would credit him by name, but I don’t want to doxx anyone.)
IV. Those Who Recognize the Miracle
The servants know what Jesus has done. The disciples believe after witnessing the miracle. Indeed, in someway they behold Christ’s glory. But the wedding guests are none the wiser. Perhaps this conveys a similar message to the Parable of the Wedding Banquet.
Matthew 22:1-14. Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: “The kingdom of heaven can be compared to a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son. He sent his slaves to summon those who had been invited to the banquet, but they would not come. Again he sent other slaves, saying, ‘Tell those who have been invited, “Look! The feast I have prepared for you is ready. My oxen and fattened cattle have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.”’ But they were indifferent and went away, one to his farm, another to his business. The rest seized his slaves, insolently mistreated them, and killed them. The king was furious! He sent his soldiers, and they put those murderers to death and set their city on fire. Then he said to his slaves, ‘The wedding is ready, but the ones who had been invited were not worthy. So go into the main streets and invite everyone you find to the wedding banquet.’ And those slaves went out into the streets and gathered all they found, both bad and good, and the wedding hall was filled with guests. But when the king came in to see the wedding guests, he saw a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. And he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without wedding clothes?’ But he had nothing to say. Then the king said to his attendants, ‘Tie him up hand and foot and throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth!’ For many are called, but few are chosen.”
A running theme in the Gospel of John is that the elite reject Christ while the dispossessed, socially or materially, believe him.
What is the glory of Christ revealed by this miracle? Christ shows his concern for the wedding host. Christ answers the request of a faithful believer. Christ willingly begins the journey that will end in his crucifixion. Christ shows he is the lord and fulfillment of ritual purification.
Potential Scripture Reading: John 2:12-22
12 After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples, and they stayed there a few days. 13 Now the Jewish Feast of Passover was near, so Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
14 He found in the temple courts those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers sitting at tables. 15 So he made a whip of cords and drove them all out of the temple courts, with the sheep and the oxen. He scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold the doves he said, “Take these things away from here! Do not make my Father’s house a marketplace!” 17 His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will devour me.”
18 So then the Jewish leaders responded, “What sign can you show us, since you are doing these things?” 19 Jesus replied, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again.” 20 Then the Jewish leaders said to him, “This temple has been under construction for 46 years, and are you going to raise it up in three days?” 21 But Jesus was speaking about the temple of his body. 22 So after he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the scripture and the saying that Jesus had spoken.
I am not sure we will get to cover this text, but if time allows I would like to introduce the obvious question: Did Jesus clear the temple once or twice?
John tells the story of a temple cleansing at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. The synoptic gospels tell a similar story but at the end of Jesus’ ministry.
Matthew 21:12-13. Then Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all those who were selling and buying in the temple courts and turned over the tables of the money changers and the chairs of those selling doves. And he said to them, “It is written, ‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are turning it into a den of robbers!”
Are these the same event? If so, is John wrong? The following video has great answers:
(The video is long. I will discuss its content during the Bible study.)
Scripture Reading: John 1:19-51
Quick Personal Note: I have given much thought to how I am planning and delivering my lessons. Please keep in mind that this format of Bible study is a little unusual and figuring out the best way to do it may take a little time. I sincerely appreciate your patience. On one hand, I want to be as detailed and nuanced as possible. In my personal experience, I remember times when I felt cheated because the presenter (e.g., teacher, pastor, theologian) left out, perhaps purposefully, some key information. At the same time, I must come to terms with the fact that pacing is important—and so far we are on a zillion-year track before we are done with a single book. So, it’s a balancing act. What’s to be done? I will try not going verse by verse. Instead, I will select some of the key themes in the scripture reading, and we will dive into those. Hopefully, all the precision will be maintained—just refocused. After our fourth session, please let me know if you like it or not.
Key Themes:
I. John the Baptist’s Three Denials
John is asked whether he is the Christ, Elijah, or the Prophet. John denies all three titles. This short exchange is incredibly meaningful and enlightening. It gives as an understanding of what Jesus’ contemporaries expected in the end-time and how they interpreted the Old Testament.
(a) The Christ. (For this section on the expectation of the Christ, most of my research come from The Jewish Messianic Expectation in the Time of Jesus by Shailer Mathews.)
Jewish contemporaries had certain expectations of the Messiah (or Christ, in Greek) who was to come, as are clearly expressed in the following sources:
The Kingdom Eschatological—The righteous dead shall judge the nations.
But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and there shall no torment touch them. In the sight of the unwise they seemed to be dead ; and their departure was taken for a misfortune and their going from us annihilation ; but they are in peace. For, though they shall have experienced punishment according to the judgment of men, yet is their hope full of immortality.—Wisdom of Solomon 3:1-6.
The Kingdom on Earth—Prosperity of the Jews under the King of Peace.
Then from the sunrise God will send a king,
Who will make all earth cease from evil war,
Killing some, others binding with strong oaths.
Nor yet will he by his own counsels do
All these things, but by excellent decrees
Of God persuaded. But again the people
Of the great God with wealth will be weighed down,
With gold and silver and purple ornament,
And of good things will earth and sea be full.—Sibylline Oracles, iii : 776-784.
The Kingdom on Earth—Messiah a new Moses and Joshua.
But there shall come from heaven a wondrous man,
Whose hands were stretched out on the fruitful wood,
The noblest of the Hebrews, who once caused
The sun to stand still when he gave command
With admirable speech and hallowed lips.—Sibylline Oracles, v : 332-335.
The Kingdom on Earth—The unending reign of Messiah.
But when Rome also over Egypt rules,
Having one end in view, then shall appear
The mighty kingdom of the immortal king
Set over men. A holy man shall come
Wielding the sceptre over every land
Unto all ages of advancing time.—Sibylline Oracles, iii : 55-60.
The following themes are also present in Jewish literature:
-
The triumph of the Son of Man.
-
The wicked dead will not rise to join the Kingdom of God.
-
The Messiah will establish his kingdom of the risen righteous.
-
The Son of Man will judge the world.
-
The members of the kingdom of God are to resemble the Messiah.
The Jewish expectations are correct—if interpreted correctly. Consider the prophecies in Daniel 7:13-14 and 9:24-27.
Daniel 7
13 “I was watching in the night visions,
And with the clouds of the sky,
one like a son of man was approaching.
He went up to the Ancient of Days
and was escorted before him.
14 To him was given ruling authority, honor, and sovereignty.
All peoples, nations, and language groups were serving him.
His authority is eternal and will not pass away.
His kingdom will not be destroyed.
Daniel 9
24 “Seventy weeks have been determined
concerning your people and your holy city
to put an end to rebellion,
to bring sin to completion,
to atone for iniquity,
to bring in perpetual righteousness,
to seal up the prophetic vision,
and to anoint a Most Holy Place.
25 So know and understand:
From the issuing of the command to restore and rebuild
Jerusalem until an anointed one, a prince arrives,
there will be a period of seven weeks and sixty-two weeks.
It will again be built, with plaza and moat,
but in distressful times.
26 Now after the sixty-two weeks,
an anointed one will be cut off and have nothing.
As for the city and the sanctuary,
the people of the coming prince will destroy them.
But his end will come speedily like a flood.
Until the end of the war that has been decreed
there will be destruction.
27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one week.
But in the middle of that week
he will bring sacrifices and offerings to a halt.
On the wing of abominations will come one who destroys,
until the decreed end is poured out on the one who destroys.”
(b) Elijah. The Jews expected Elijah to come before the Messiah. Consider Malachi 4:5-6.
4 “Remember the law of my servant Moses, to whom at Horeb I gave rules and regulations for all Israel to obey. 5 Look, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of the Lord arrives. 6 He will encourage fathers and their children to return to me, so that I will not come and strike the earth with judgment.”
Remember, Elijah was taken up to heaven. Consider 2 Kings 2:11:
11 As they were walking along and talking, suddenly a fiery chariot pulled by fiery horses appeared. They went between Elijah and Elisha, and Elijah went up to heaven in a windstorm.
Was John the Baptist Elijah? Yes and no.
John the Baptist was not literally Elijah. We know this because literal Elijah appears in the transfiguration. Consider Mark 9:4.
Then Elijah appeared before them along with Moses, and they were talking with Jesus.
However, John played the role of Elijah. Consider Jesus’ words in Matthew 11:7-15.
7 While they were going away, Jesus began to speak to the crowd about John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind? 8 What did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft clothing? Look, those who wear soft clothing are in the palaces of kings! 9 What did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet! 10 This is the one about whom it is written:
“‘Look, I am sending my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way before you.’
11 “I tell you the truth, among those born of women, no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he is! 12 From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and forceful people lay hold of it. 13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John appeared. 14 And if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah, who is to come. 15 The one who has ears had better listen!
(c) The Prophet. The Old Testament spoke of a great prophet who was to come. Deuteronomy 18-18-19 says:
18 I will raise up a prophet like you for them from among their fellow Israelites. I will put my words in his mouth and he will speak to them whatever I command. 19 I will personally hold responsible anyone who then pays no attention to the words that prophet speaks in my name.
II. John the Baptist’s Water Baptism
The topic of Baptism was discussed during our last session, so I will touch on this briefly. John’s water baptism would have been reminiscent of proselyte baptism—a specific, once-for-all immersion ritual by which gentiles could be initiated into Judaism. Notice, however, that John the Baptist is calling Jews to undergo this conversion. This is an extremely powerful image and message.
III. Jesus is the Lamb
What is the lamb referencing? Luckily, we hardly need to guess. We only need to look later in John’s Gospel. Consider John 19:36:
For these things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled, “Not a bone of his will be broken.”
It may not be obvious at first, but this is a reference to the Passover Lamb. Recall Exodus 12:46, which is discussing the Passover Lamb:
It must be eaten in one house; you must not bring any of the meat outside the house, and you must not break a bone of it.
To understand the great significance of the paschal lamb, we must go back to Exodus 12. I present a redacted version here (beginning with the last verses of chapter 11):
Chapter 11
9 The Lord said to Moses, “Pharaoh will not listen to you, so that my wonders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt.”
10 So Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh, but the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he did not release the Israelites from his land.
Chapter 12
1 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, 2 “This month is to be your beginning of months; it will be your first month of the year. 3 Tell the whole community of Israel, ‘On the tenth day of this month they each must take a lamb for themselves according to their families—a lamb for each household.
5 Your lamb must be perfect, a male, one year old; you may take it from the sheep or from the goats. 6 You must care for it until the fourteenth day of this month, and then the whole community of Israel will kill it around sundown. 7 They will take some of the blood and put it on the two side posts and top of the doorframe of the houses where they will eat it.
11 This is how you are to eat it—dressed to travel, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand. You are to eat it in haste. It is the Lord’s Passover.
12 “‘I will pass through the land of Egypt in the same night, and I will attack all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both of humans and of animals, and on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment. I am the Lord. 13 The blood will be a sign for you on the houses where you are, so that when I see the blood I will pass over you, and this plague will not fall on you to destroy you when I attack the land of Egypt.
14 “‘This day will become a memorial for you, and you will celebrate it as a festival to the Lord—you will celebrate it perpetually as a lasting ordinance.
19 For seven days yeast must not be found in your houses, for whoever eats what is made with yeast—that person will be cut off from the community of Israel, whether a resident foreigner or one born in the land.
21 Then Moses summoned all the elders of Israel, and told them, “Go and select for yourselves a lamb or young goat for your families, and kill the Passover animals. 22 Take a branch of hyssop, dip it in the blood that is in the basin, and apply to the top of the doorframe and the two side posts some of the blood that is in the basin. Not one of you is to go out the door of his house until morning. 23 For the Lord will pass through to strike Egypt, and when he sees the blood on the top of the doorframe and the two side posts, then the Lord will pass over the door, and he will not permit the destroyer to enter your houses to strike you. 24 You must observe this event as an ordinance for you and for your children forever. 25 When you enter the land that the Lord will give to you, just as he said, you must observe this ceremony. 26 When your children ask you, ‘What does this ceremony mean to you?’— 27 then you will say, ‘It is the sacrifice of the Lord’s Passover, when he passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt, when he struck Egypt and delivered our households.’” The people bowed down low to the ground, 28 and the Israelites went away and did exactly as the Lord had commanded Moses and Aaron.
29 It happened at midnight—the Lord attacked all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the prison, and all the firstborn of the cattle. 30 Pharaoh got up in the night, along with all his servants and all Egypt, and there was a great cry in Egypt, for there was no house in which there was not someone dead. 31 Pharaoh summoned Moses and Aaron in the night and said, “Get up, get out from among my people, both you and the Israelites! Go, serve the Lord as you have requested! 32 Also, take your flocks and your herds, just as you have requested, and leave. But bless me also.”
33 The Egyptians were urging the people on, in order to send them out of the land quickly, for they were saying, “We are all dead!”
IV. Other Themes (I Probably Won’t Get to)
(a) The Holy Spirit Abides in Jesus. Consider the theme as it reoccurs in the Gospel.
John 1:33: And I did not recognize him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘The one on whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining—this is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’
John 14:26: But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and will cause you to remember everything I said to you.
John 20:22: And after he said this, he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
(b) New Disciples.
The other Gospels give us extremely abbreviated versions of the apostles’ callings. John gives us some background that could explain the events. As Craig Keeners points out, “The readiness of those disciples to abandon their livelihood on the occasion depicted in Markan Tradition (or to lend Jesus use of their boat in Luke) may actually make more sense historically if they had encountered Jesus on a prior occasion, as this narrative in John would suggest.”
Scripture Reading: John 1:6-39
I tried to put together a verse-by-verse explanation of verses 6 through 18. That should create a solid foundation for us to simply read, understand, and enjoy verses 19 to 39.
6 A man came, sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify about the light, so that everyone might believe through him. 8 He himself was not the light, but he came to testify about the light.
The prologue is emphatic in contrasting John the Baptist and Jesus. Maybe John the Apostle was trying to settle a polemic stirred up by the Baptist’s followers. (The contrast includes testifying about the light versus being the light, water baptism versus spirit baptism, witness versus the messiah.)
“Witness” was a legal term, although it was also used more generally. In the Septuagint, the term often appeals to objective evidence and is associated with controversy imagery. Consider John 5:31-35:
31 “If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true. 32 There is another who testifies about me, and I know the testimony he testifies about me is true. 33 You have sent to John, and he has testified to the truth. 34 (I do not accept human testimony, but I say this so that you may be saved.) 35 He was a lamp that was burning and shining, and you wanted to rejoice greatly for a short time in his light.
The Baptist came that “everyone” might believe. Who is “everyone”? The context may limit “everyone” to Jewish contemporaries. Or does it refer to the general offer of the Gospel that is set in motion? The Baptist fulfills the role prophesied in Malachi 3:1:
“I am about to send my messenger, who will clear the way before me. Indeed, the Lord you are seeking will suddenly come to his temple, and the messenger of the covenant, whom you long for, is certainly coming,” says the Lord of Heaven’s Armies.
Consider the relation between revelation and the witness to revelation. God is revealed by Jesus. Jesus is witnessed by the Baptist and his disciples. Then Jesus becomes invisible again and his witnesses become the community of believers.
9 The true light, who gives light to everyone, was coming into the world.
John the Baptist was a lamp (5:35). Jesus was the light itself. Greek philosophers applied “enlightenment” to the revealing of knowledge; Jewish tradition applied it to the revelation of moral truth (i.e., the Torah and then the Gospel).
Jesus gives light to “everyone.” Who is “everyone”? This may parallel a widespread and early Jewish tradition that God made the Torah available to all nations at a specific time at Mount Sinai (although only Israel accepted the truth).
10 He was in the world, and the world was created by him, but the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to what was his own, but his own people did not receive him.
Jesus was in the world (present participle). Scholars and many church fathers applied the phrase to various manifestations of the Word previous to the incarnation.
Jesus created the world but the world did not recognize him. The world belongs to Jesus, but the world “did not receive him,” which John uses elsewhere in his gospel to connote deliberate rejection. There seems to be two stages. First, the world does not recognize the Lord as he takes on flesh. However, once the world recognizes the master has come, then the world deliberately rejects Jesus. Or perhaps the world refers to the gentiles and “his own” refers to the Jewish people. The world did not know Jesus, but the Jews rejected Him. Jewish tradition remarked that the Torah had been offered to all nations but only Israel had accepted it. That certainly was not the case with Jesus.
12 But to all who have received him—those who believe in his name—he has given the right to become God’s children—
Craig Keener points out “‘Receiving’ the Jesus of [John’s Gospel] embraces the mystery of God’s power revealed in weakness and submitting to the revealing Lord of the universe regardless of the cost.”
Believing in Jesus’ “name” is probably an allusion to the divine name, which in turn is a stand-in for God. This means that trusting in Jesus implies trusting in him as deity. Throughout John’s gospel we see that Jesus followers are to believe in Jesus’ name, receive life in his name, and expect to suffer for his name.
Greeks may have considered God as a father of humanity by virtue of creation. Jews had a much more intimate conception of God’s fatherhood towards them as the chosen people. Believers in Jesus assume the covenant role granted Israel as a people. Notice believers receive the right (which could also be translated as “authority”)! Believers have the authority to claim something that no human effort could accomplish. That is incredible language.
13 children not born by human parents or by human desire or a husband’s decision, but by God.
Consider John 3:1-6:
1 Now a certain man, a Pharisee named Nicodemus, who was a member of the Jewish ruling council, 2 came to Jesus at night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs that you do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus replied, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter his mother’s womb and be born a second time, can he?”
5 Jesus answered, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Notice the distinction between genetic Israel and children born of God by belief in His Name.
14 Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory—the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father.
The stoics believed God was not of human shape, the Platonist spoke of an unnamed and unseen intellect, and the Neoplatonist denied that wisdom could be seen through a body. But John states that the Word became flesh—fully. Not in a temporary or partial way.
To take up residence is to “tabernacle”—like God did in the Old Testament. Remember Exodus 25:8:
Let them make for me a sanctuary, so that I may live among them.
Most importantly, consider how John 1:14-18 fulfills Exodus 33-34:
(1) In Exodus, God gives Torah from Mount Sinai. In John, as prophesied (Isaiah 46:13), the redeemer comes from Zion.
(2) In Exodus, the Torah is given to the people. In John, the Logos tabernacles among the people.
(3) In Exodus, Moses beholds God. In John, the eyewitnesses (e.g., John the Baptist and the Disciples) behold Jesus.
The story of Moses, the highest Jewish figure, culminates in the story of Jesus.
As a reminder, here are the relevant portions of Exodus 33-34
Exodus 33
12 Moses said to the Lord, “See, you have been saying to me, ‘Bring this people up,’ but you have not let me know whom you will send with me. But you said, ‘I know you by name, and also you have found favor in my sight.’ 13 Now if I have found favor in your sight, show me your way, that I may know you, that I may continue to find favor in your sight. And see that this nation is your people.”
18 And Moses said, “Show me your glory.”
19 And the Lord said, “I will make all my goodness pass before your face, and I will proclaim the LORD by name before you; I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious; I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy.” 20 But he added, “You cannot see my face, for no one can see me and live.” 21 The LORD said, “Here is a place by me; you will station yourself on a rock. 22 When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and will cover you with my hand while I pass by. 23 Then I will take away my hand, and you will see my back, but my face must not be seen.”
Exodus 34
3 No one is to come up with you; do not let anyone be seen anywhere on the mountain; not even the flocks or the herds may graze in front of that mountain.” 4 So Moses cut out two tablets of stone like the first; early in the morning he went up to Mount Sinai, just as the LORD had commanded him, and he took in his hand the two tablets of stone.
5 The LORD descended in the cloud and stood with him there and proclaimed the LORD by name. 6 The LORD passed by before him and proclaimed: “The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, and abounding in loyal love and faithfulness, 7 keeping loyal love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin. But he by no means leaves the guilty unpunished, responding to the transgression of fathers by dealing with children and children’s children, to the third and fourth generation.”
8 Moses quickly bowed to the ground and worshiped 9 and said, “If now I have found favor in your sight, O Lord, let my Lord go among us, for we are a stiff-necked people; pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for your inheritance.”
10 He said, “See, I am going to make a covenant before all your people. I will do wonders such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation. All the people among whom you live will see the work of the LORD, for it is a fearful thing that I am doing with you.
29 Now when Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two tablets of the testimony in his hand—when he came down from the mountain, Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone while he talked with him. 30 When Aaron and all the Israelites saw Moses, the skin of his face shone, and they were afraid to approach him.
33 When Moses finished speaking with them, he would put a veil on his face. 34 But when Moses went in before the Lord to speak with him, he would remove the veil until he came out. Then he would come out and tell the Israelites what he had been commanded. 35 When the Israelites would see the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses’ face shone, Moses would put the veil on his face again, until he went in to speak with the Lord.
What is “glory”? It is a revelation of God’s character. Jesus revealed his glory in ways obscure to the elite but visible to those who believed in Him. Consider 1 Corinthians 1:18:
18 For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
Monogenous (μονογενοῦς) is difficult to translate into English. Some translate it as “one and only” and some as “only begotten.” In the Septuagint and other contemporary Jewish writings, the term applies to an only child but it also applies to other unique things (most significantly, to divine Wisdom). To the extent the term means an only child, it connotes “beloved.” A Jewish family with only one son would depend on him for the preservation of the family. To say someone was an “only son” was to say he was extremely important and beloved. Christians are called God’s children, but Jesus is the special, beloved, one-of-a-kind Son.
15 John testified about him and shouted out, “This one was the one about whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is greater than I am, because he existed before me.’”
John’s public ministry preceded Jesus’ ministry, but Jesus outranked John because Jesus preexisted John. Jesus was not a disciple of John—quite the opposite. Indeed, Jesus was greater than Abraham, “I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am!” (John 8:58)
16 For we have all received from his fullness one gracious gift after another. 17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came about through Jesus Christ.
What does grace and truth mean? Remember Exodus 34. Verse 6 says that “[t]he LORD passed by before [Moses] and proclaimed: ‘The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, and abounding in loyal love and faithfulness . . . .” Grace points us to God’s “loyal love,” which can also be translated as “covenant-love.” As I pointed out above, truth points us to God’s moral truth and faithfulness. When God revealed his grace and truth at Mount Sinai, it was incomplete. Moses only saw part. That revelation becomes complete in Christ. As Craig Keener points out:
“Christ is the full embodiment of Torah, completing what was partial (but actually present) in Torah. Jesus Christ thus embodies the hope of Judaism. John does not encourage his community to forsake its Jewish past, but to recognize that in following Christ, the embodiment of Torah, his community fulfills the highest demands of Judaism.”
Christ is the full embodiment of the law, the actual model of lived-out commandments, in flesh. The contrast between law and Christ is not between something bad and something good, but between something good and something better.
In the first century, “grace” (charis) generally involved a patron-client relation. It involved the giving of an undeserved benefit but also a lasting relationship. Entering into a patron-client relationship was not a light commitment. The client was expected to show respect and gratitude, and the patron was to protect the client’s economic, social, and legal interests.
18 No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.
The Lord told Moses, “You cannot see my face, for no one can see me and live.” But people beheld Jesus, who was God. Consider what Jesus did, as Philippians 2:6-8 says:
6 who, though he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped,7 but emptied himself by taking on the form of a slave, by looking like other men, and by sharing in human nature. 8 He humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross!
Moses beheld a part of God’s glory, and Moses’ face shone. Christ is that light itself.
The rest of John’s Gospel maintains the Father’s invisibility but qualifies it, for anyone who has seen the incarnate God who has fully revealed the character of the Father has seen the Father. Although blasphemous to the Jewish audience, John’s claim is that one who saw Jesus saw a fuller picture of God than Moses did. For Jesus to make God known implies more than communicating a visual image; it suggests that Jesus fully interprets God’s character.
The Testimony of John the Baptist
19 Now this was John’s testimony when the Jewish leaders sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?” 20 He confessed—he did not deny but confessed—“I am not the Christ!” 21 So they asked him, “Then who are you? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not!” “Are you the Prophet?” He answered, “No!” 22 Then they said to him, “Who are you? Tell us so that we can give an answer to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?”
23 John said, “I am the voice of one shouting in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way for the Lord,’ as the prophet Isaiah said.” 24 (Now they had been sent from the Pharisees.) 25 So they asked John, “Why then are you baptizing if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”
26 John answered them, “I baptize with water. Among you stands one whom you do not recognize, 27 who is coming after me. I am not worthy to untie the strap of his sandal!” 28 These things happened in Bethany across the Jordan River where John was baptizing.
29 On the next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is the one about whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who is greater than I am, because he existed before me.’ 31 I did not recognize him, but I came baptizing with water so that he could be revealed to Israel.”
32 Then John testified, “I saw the Spirit descending like a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. 33 And I did not recognize him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘The one on whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining—this is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ 34 I have both seen and testified that this man is the Chosen One of God.”
35 Again the next day John was standing there with two of his disciples. 36 Gazing at Jesus as he walked by, he said, “Look, the Lamb of God!” 37 When John’s two disciples heard him say this, they followed Jesus. 38 Jesus turned around and saw them following and said to them, “What do you want?” So they said to him, “Rabbi” (which is translated Teacher), “where are you staying?” 39 Jesus answered, “Come and you will see.” So they came and saw where he was staying, and they stayed with him that day. Now it was about four o’clock in the afternoon.
Session Recording
Scripture Reading: John 1:1-5
It’s only session 2 and we already fell behind! I intended to cover John’s prologue in the first session, but I planned too much material and didn’t get to it. (Apologies!) The questions I posed in the first blog post will still be our guide to discussing the text. So, if you haven’t read that post, you might do so. I will try to post some additional notes on this second blog post. There’s a small catch though: I have limited time every night. I will have to update this blog post several times throughout the week. Hopefully by Saturday there is a complete set of notes.
Chiastic Structure in John 1:1-2
I don’t know about you, but other than some vague recollection about Shakespeare’s iambic pentameter, I do not remember a lot of literary structures. Well, we need to refresh our memories just a bit.
A chiasm is a figure of speech in which the grammar of one phrase is inverted in the following phrase, such that two key concepts from the original phrase reappear in the second phrase in inverted order. Here’s an example:
She is the most beautiful woman, my eyes cannot stop staring. My sight won’t leave her, she is such a gorgeous girl.
Notice (other than my awful poetry):
A She is the most beautiful woman,
B my eyes cannot stop staring.
B’ My sight won’t leave her,
A’ she is such a gorgeous girl.
Now, notice that John 1:1-2 has a chiastic structure as well:
A In the beginning
B was
C the word
D and the word
E was
F with God
F’ and God
E’ was
D’ the word (this seems out of order, but think in Greek)
C’ This one
B’ was
A’ in the beginning with God.
The chiastic structure is not exact, but neither were the parallelisms of the Psalms and other Semitic poetry.
What does a chiastic structure suggest? Scholars will sometimes consider whether John adapted a song or poem that was popular at the time (“borrowing” in the ancient world was not frowned upon like today). Regardless of whether that is the case, I think what is more important is how deliberate the first two verses are. The literary structure gives them beauty and depth, while making them easy to remember. These verses are masterful in content and structure and should be taken seriously (and probably memorized).
In the Beginning
Genesis 1:1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
John 1:1-3. In the beginning was the Word . . . . All things were created by Him . . . .
The allusion to Genesis 1:1 is unmistakable, particularly since John 1:3 goes on to talk about creation.
John’s point is groundbreaking: remember all that creation talk in the Torah? Well, none of that happened without Jesus. Moreover, in the beginning God is there. He does not come into existence, he is not born, he is not made, He Is.
Exodus 3:11-14. Moses said to God, “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh, or that I should bring the Israelites out of Egypt?” He replied, “Surely I will be with you, and this will be the sign to you that I have sent you: When you bring the people out of Egypt, you and they will serve God at this mountain.” Moses said to God, “If I go to the Israelites and tell them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’—what should I say to them?” God said to Moses, “I AM that I AM.” And he said, “You must say this to the Israelites, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”
There are some astounding conclusions: God exists “asei.” Indeed, God is necessary.
Asseity (from gotquestions.org): The aseity of God is His attribute of independent self-existence. God is the uncaused Cause, the uncreated Creator. He is the source of all things, the One who originated everything and who sustains everything that exists. The aseity of God means that He is the One in whom all other things find their source, existence, and continuance.
Necessity (from reasonablefaith.org): When we say that God is metaphysically necessary, we mean that it is impossible that He fail to exist.
These attributes of God are also evident from natural theology.
Consider Leibniz’ question: Why is there something rather than nothing?
This is a good introductory video to the contingency argument (which the video calls a cosmological argument). Not only can you go into much further depth into the argument, but some versions of it do not rely on the principle of sufficient reason or at least use a more modest version.
Also consider modern cosmology: The universe seems to have a beginning.
The following argument can be made:
(1) Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3) The universe has a cause.
Wisdom (Sofia), Torah (Nomos), or even Better—the Word (Logos)
Why did John use the word Logos? Sometimes considering the alternatives can be enlightening.
John could have used the word Wisdom (Sofia). Nearly everything John says about the Logos, Jewish literature said about divine Wisdom. John and his readers would have shared a common understanding of this background. Using Wisdom, however, may have caused some issues.
(1) Sofia is feminine. Although the gender of a word is nothing more than an accident, switching from feminine wisdom to an incarnate male could be awkward.
(2) The fact that Wisdom was already being personified, both in the Old Testament and contemporary Jewish writings, provided a common understanding—but what if that understanding is not completely correct when applied to Jesus. Consider Proverbs 8.
Proverbs 8:1-7
Does not wisdom call out?
Does not understanding raise her voice?
At the top of the prominent places along the way,
at the intersection of the paths she has taken her stand;
beside the gates opening into the city,
at the entrance of the doorways she cries out:
“To you, O people, I call out,
and my voice calls to all mankind.
You who are naive, discern wisdom!
And you fools, understand discernment!
Listen, for I will speak excellent things,
and my lips will utter what is right.
For my mouth speaks truth,
and my lips hate wickedness.
Sounds pretty good, right? But then comes verse 22:
The Lord created me as the beginning of his works,
before his deeds of long ago.
By the way, I believe the entire Bible is good. I am not saying that verse 22 is bad—it just doesn’t apply to Jesus. Calling Jesus the Sofia could have caused confusion.
John could have used the word Law (Nomos). Nomos was the Greek word used by Hellenistic Jews to refer to the Torah. Torah, like Wisdom, was commonly personified. Torah was spoken of as being involved in creation, as either being the first creation or eternal, and as being associated with life, light, and truth. So why not use Nomos:
(1) Nomos may not be the best translation of Torah into Greek. Many scholars agree that the word limited the understanding of Torah only to law and not to the greater concept of revelation.
(2) The personification of wisdom was more common than of Torah. By choosing neither Sofia nor Nomos, John’s audience could pull from the personification of both.
(3) Logos refers not only to the Torah, but to the Word that the Torah talks about. An example would be Isaiah 40:8. “The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God endures forever.” (NIV)
Truly, using the word Logos is brilliant. Consider how much the Pharisees cared for the Torah:
As Craig Keener points out: The relatively popular Pharisees and their successors were particularly known for their study of the Law. Tannaim emphasized lifelong study of Torah. A Torah scroll could be said to be "beyond price." Some declared study of Torah the Bible's point in saying "serve the Lord with all one's heart and soul"; other Tannaitic texts attribute the exile to neglect of Torah, or declare it better never to have been born than to be unable to recite words of Torah, or declare one who does not study worthy of death; or declare that Torah study is a greater role than priesthood or kingship.
By using Logos, John makes Christ greater than Moses, greater than Torah, greater than all—Jesus is the supreme revelation. Hence those who claimed to love Torah but hated Jesus were blind or hypocrites. That is a recurring theme of John’s gospel.
The Word as Life and Light
John 1:4-5. In him was life, and the life was the light of mankind. And the light shines on in the darkness, but the darkness has not mastered it.
Life
Translators’ Note 8 in the NET Bible explains in part: John uses ζωή (zōē) 36 times: 17 times it occurs with αἰώνιος (aiōnios), and in the remaining occurrences outside the prologue it is clear from context that “eternal” life is meant. The two uses in 1:4, if they do not refer to “eternal” life, would be the only exceptions. (Also 1 John uses ζωή 13 times, always of “eternal” life.)
Light
A figurative use of light is frequent in the Old Testament (e.g., Ps 119:105), and it was common in Jewish sources. However, it was the Dead Sea Scrolls that finally convinced scholars that John’s use of light and darkness was not gnostic in origin.
Craig Keener points out: [Verse 5] introduces the light/darkness dualism of the rest of the Gospel. Both light (1:4, 5, 7, 8, 9; 3:19, 20, 21; 5:35; 8:12; 9:5; 11:9, 10; 12:35, 36, 46) and day (9:4), darkness (1:5; 3:19; 8:12; 12:35, 46) and night (9:4; 11:10) appear regularly throughout the Gospel, sometimes even with symbolic significance in the narratives (e.g., 3:2; 13:30; 19:39; perhaps 6:19).
Darkness
Did the darkness not overcome or not comprehend light? The Greek word katelaben in verse 5 could be translated either way.
Consider Cyril of Alexandria: Darkness he calls the nature that lacks illumination, i. e. the whole originate nature. . . . For this, I suppose, is the meaning of The darkness comprehended it not. For the Word of God shineth upon all things that are receptive of His Irradiance, and illumineth without exception things that have a nature receptive of illumining. But He is unknown of the darkness. For that which is the rational nature upon earth, I mean man, served the creature more than the Creator: it comprehended not the Light, for it knew not the Creator, the Fountain of wisdom, the beginning of understanding, the root of sense. (https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_on_john_01_book1.htm)
But also consider Origen and other Greek church fathers who understood katelaben as overtake.
My personal view is that this is an intentional and profound double entendre. Imagine I liked a girl and her best friend told me, “Forget it. She doesn’t like you, in any sense of the word.” In that sentence, the word “like” means she does not like me romantically or as a friend, at the same time. In the same sense, katelaben can mean the darkness neither understood nor overcame the light, at the same time.
God is Fully Revealed
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Chapter Two, Article I, Subsection III:
III. Christ Jesus—“Mediator and Fullness of All Revelation”
God has said everything in his Word
“In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son.” (Heb 1:1-2) Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father's one, perfect, and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:
In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word—and he has no more to say... because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.
There will be no further Revelation
Session Recording
Hello! This is our very first Bible study session. I’m excited and I hope you are too.
I will try to make one blog post before each session letting everyone know the text or topic we will be discussing. After each session, I will amend the blog post to include a link to the recorded audio.
Introductory Comments
Allow me to make some general comments before I describe my plan for June 4th.
Guilt by citation. Throughout the Bible study, I will cite all sorts of people and websites. I might quote the Catholic Catechisms although I am not Catholic. I might cite the Westminster Confession although I am not Presbyterian. I might link to a website that has a great article on textual criticism while also hosting an article on bible translations with which I totally disagree. The point is that I don’t endorse all content published by a source I cite. (This should go without saying, but I’d rather be clear.)
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. I’m sure I already offended someone for saying Catholic Catechisms instead of Roman Catholic Catechisms. Now I’m sure I offended other people by adding the word Roman. I will try to be respectful to everyone, but sometimes a neutral term just doesn’t exist.
Considering the options. I am a lawyer and, for better or worse, I think like one. I want to define the issue, consider the options, and then select the most reasonable alternative. And, generally, that is how I present content. Discussing the different options can get me in trouble. I am not saying all are correct (I am not a relativist). But I think I would be dishonest if I didn’t at least present the possibilities.
Making mistakes. I will say dumb things along the way. Just point them out. I want to be faithful to the truth and being corrected is part of that.
Without further ado, here’s what we will be discussing during Session 1.
Session 1
Introduction to the Bible. I don’t know who will be joining in on Saturday, so I want to make sure we are all “up to speed” on some introductory things. Some people may not even own a Bible. That’s totally fine. But I figure they are pretty confused when they go to the bookstore or search online only to be greeted with the options: NASB, NIV, NET, ESV, KJV, BABC, and more. Ok, that last one was made up, but did you even notice? Point is, it’s confusing. To explain the different translations, two main topics need to be covered:
1. Textual Criticism. Before we even worry about English translations, what’s up with the original Greek text? Where do we get it from? Are there different Greek texts? Has the Greek text been changed thousands of times? (I’ve heard that last question more than once. Short answer: no.)
Good Resource on Textual Criticism:
https://www.bereanpatriot.com/majority-text-vs-critical-text-vs-textus-receptus-textual-criticism-101/
2. English Translations. What’s the difference between English translations? Which translations are better? Are they all equally reliable? Here’s a chart I will reference on Saturday:
Introduction to John and the Gospel of John. Who was John? Did John (the Apostle) write the Gospel of John? If so, where did he write it? When?
John’s Gospel Prologue. (Finally some scripture!) We will discuss the first five verses of John, which are generally referred to as the prologue. It’s one of the most iconic and well-known passages in scripture. The Word was God, and Word was with God, and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Talk about loaded statements! I hope to consider the following questions:
-
In the beginning . . . the Word is already there. Does that make sense? What does it tell us about God?
-
The “Word”—what does that mean? Is it a reference to Greek philosophy, to Philo’s Jewish-Greek blend, to the Old Testament, or something else? Could John have used other words, such as Wisdom or Law?
-
The Word is God and the Word is with God. Are there multiple gods? (Don’t worry, the answer is no.)
-
If the Word became flesh, can we know God personally?
See you Saturday!
Session Recording and Errata
-
Dates. When discussing manuscripts, I think I said BC when I obviously meant AD. Apologies.
-
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—Who were the Apostles? When talking about the four gospels, my wires got crossed (I could feel it happening in real time), and I incorrectly got Matthew and Mark confused. Matthew was an Apostle, Mark was not.