Although there were sixteen cities named “Antioch” during the NT era, only two are mentioned in the NT: Pisidian Antioch and Syrian Antioch. Both cities are mentioned in the book of Acts.

Antioch of Pisidia. Pisidian Antioch was visited by Paul and Barnabas during their first missionary journey. The visit would have occurred during the late 40s of the first century and is reported in Acts 13:13–52. The author of Acts records this visit right after reporting on the conversion of a wealthy proconsul, Sergius Paulus, who ruled in Cyprus. There is evidence that Sergius Paulus was from Pisidian Antioch; thus it seems reasonable that his connections influenced the missionaries’ itinerary. After leaving Cyprus, the team traveled directly to Pisidian Antioch, which at the time was the capital of the Roman province of Galatia. It also was an influential Roman colony and as such was populated by veteran Roman soldiers and given special political privileges and prominence. The city was known for its breathtaking architecture and sculptures—the most elaborate honoring Caesar Augustus. A number of Jews also lived in the city, and the missionaries met with them in their synagogue and preached the gospel. Their message created great interest and excitement for the whole city. This response, however, made the Jewish leaders jealous, and they began to speak abusively toward Paul and Barnabas, causing the missionaries to focus their ministry on the Gentiles. The Jews ultimately persuaded their city leaders to expel Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:45–51). The team, however, did return to the city on their way back to Syrian Antioch in order to encourage and strengthen the new disciples (14:21). It is also probable that Paul returned to the city during his later missionary journeys.

Antioch of Syria. The most important Antioch mentioned in the NT was the capital city of the Roman province of Syria. The city, mentioned frequently in the book of Acts, played a strategic role in the advance of the gospel. Syrian Antioch was an important political, economic, and religious center during the Roman period.

Antioch as a political center. Syrian Antioch maintained a massive population during this period of history (as large as six hundred thousand people, by some estimates) and was the third-largest city in the Roman Empire, behind Alexandria and Rome. Founded by one of Alexander the Great’s generals, Seleucus I Nicanor, in 300 BC, Antioch became Rome’s military headquarters for the eastern part of the empire primarily due to its strategic location.

Antioch as an economic center. Antioch became a very important commercial center during the NT era. The city was located on the Orontes River and within fifteen miles of a strategic commercial port on the Mediterranean Sea. Additionally, its large and diverse population combined with its numerous natural resources and its location on the great trade route connecting Asia with the Mediterranean world made Antioch a powerful commercial hub.

Antioch as a religious center. Antioch’s diverse population made for a great diversity of religions connected to the city. Its suburb of Daphne was a major worship site for paganism, and the city maintained a large Jewish population throughout its history. Additionally, it was to Antioch that many Jerusalem Christians fled during the early persecution of the church. Here, for the first time, the Jewish Christians began to intentionally focus on sharing the gospel with Gentiles (Acts 11:19–21). The result was a large, multicultural, and vibrant church. The church at Antioch was known for its ethnic and cultural diversity, its generosity (sending an offering to Jerusalem during a famine [see 11:27–30]), and its heart for missions (serving as Paul’s headquarters for his three missionary journeys). Not surprisingly, it was at Antioch that Christ followers were first called “Christians” (11:26).

Primarily, the Israelite community united by a common bond to (or in covenant with) their God (Deut. 33:4; Josh. 8:35; 18:1; 1 Kings 8:5). Previous scholarship distinguished congregation (’edah) from assembly (qahal ), defining the former as the gathering of Israelites for a specific goal and the latter as the gathering of Israel as the special (covenant) people of God. This viewpoint was anchored in the LXX’s preponderant rendition of ’edah as synagōgē and qahal as ekklēsia. This sharp distinction between the two terms can no longer be sustained. The difference in the frequency of the two terms in the Hebrew Bible corresponds to the growth of the Scriptures: ’edah predominates in Genesis through Numbers, whereas qahal occurs more often in Deuteronomy, the Former Prophets, the Latter Prophets, and the Writings. The association of the verbal form of qahal with both nouns (’edah and qahal ) further buttresses the point (Exod. 35:1; Lev. 8:3; Num. 1:18; 10:7; Judg. 20:1; 21:5–8; 1 Chron. 13:2–5).

The terms also refer to Israelite gatherings for special purposes such as worship, war, lawcourt, and councils. They also refer to the assemblage of other peoples or beings such as divine beings, evildoers or enemies, beasts, and bees.

The NT uses both ekklēsia and synagōgē to refer to synagogue gatherings (Acts 7:38; 13:43). English versions translate both terms as either “congregation” or “assembly.” These translations render the ekklēsia in Heb. 2:12 as either “assembly” or “congregation,” whereas they translate synagōgē in James 2:2 as “assembly” or “meeting.” See also Church.

A name given by the apostles to Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, missionary companion of Paul, and cousin of John Mark (Acts 4:36). Luke interprets the name “Barnabas” to mean (in Aramaic) “son of encouragement,” although this etymology is debated. Barnabas was known in the early church for his generosity and reconciling spirit.

Barnabas first appears in the book of Acts as a model of generosity for the Jerusalem church when he sells a piece of property to support the poor in the church (4:36–37). His example contrasts sharply with Ananias and Sapphira, who are judged by God for lying to the Holy Spirit concerning their own gift to the church. Barnabas next appears as the member of the Jerusalem church courageous enough to bring Saul, the former persecutor, to the leaders of the Jerusalem church (9:26–27). Later, when reports of Gentile conversions in Antioch were received in Jerusalem, Barnabas was sent to Antioch to supervise the work there. Barnabas went to Tarsus and brought Saul with him to Antioch (11:22–26). There they ministered together, at one point delivering famine relief to Jerusalem (11:30).

The church in Antioch received a revelation from the Holy Spirit to send Barnabas and Saul on the first missionary outreach (Acts 13:2). Accompanied by Barnabas’s cousin John Mark, they traveled to Barnabas’s home island of Cyprus and then to the Roman province of Galatia. Mark deserted the group in Perga and returned to Jerusalem, but Paul and Barnabas established churches in Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe (Acts 13–14). After returning to Antioch, Barnabas accompanied Paul to the Jerusalem council to settle the Judaizing controversy concerning whether Gentiles must keep the law and be circumcised to be saved (Acts 15).

Upon returning to Antioch, Paul suggested a return to the churches in Galatia. Barnabas proposed taking John Mark, but Paul refused, and the ensuing conflict resulted in Paul’s departure to Galatia with Silas, with Barnabas taking John Mark to Cyprus (Acts 15:36–41). This is the last we hear of Barnabas in Acts.

Paul mentions Barnabas five times in his letters (1 Cor. 9:6; Gal. 2:1, 9, 13; Col. 4:10). He refers to Mark as Barnabas’s cousin (Col. 4:10), speaks of their Jerusalem famine visit (Gal. 2:1, 9), and relates an episode of apparent hypocrisy when Barnabas withdrew from Gentile table fellowship under pressure from Jewish Christians (Gal. 2:13).

Later church writings attributed additional traditions to Barnabas. Clement of Alexandria claimed that Barnabas was one of the seventy sent out by Jesus in Luke 10 and also identified him as the author of the Epistle of Barnabas. Tertullian said that Barnabas wrote Hebrews, and the fifth or sixth century Acts of Barnabas describes his later ministry and martyrdom in Cyprus. None of these later traditions have sufficient evidence to confirm their historicity.

A region generally identified with the landmass between ancient Syria and Egypt, including parts of the Sinai Peninsula, Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean, and southern Phoenicia (modern Lebanon). Although there is some discussion about the origin of the name “Canaan” and its meaning, the name apparently arises from the primary inhabitants of the region prior to Joshua’s incursion into the land, since it is primarily used in connection with the phrase “the land of,” indicating that the descendants of Canaan possess it. Because the identity of the land of Canaan was linked as much to its inhabitants as it was to any sort of fixed borders, the boundaries are identified in various ways throughout the biblical text. Such descriptions vary from a rather limited area of influence (as suggested by Num. 13:29) to a larger land spanning an area from the Euphrates to the Nile (Gen. 15:18; Exod. 23:23). Because of its strategic position as a buffer between Egypt and Mesopotamia and between Arabia and the sea, it served as a primary trading outpost and the location of numerous important historical events both prior to and after Israel’s appearance in the land.

In the Bible, the geographical reference “the land of Canaan” finds primary expression, not surprisingly, in Genesis through Judges. The promise to Abraham that his descendants would inherit the land of the Canaanites (Gen. 15:18–21) is the theological focal point of the uses of the term “Canaan” throughout these biblical books. Once that inheritance was achieved and Israel became a viable state, the term’s use seems to serve the double purpose of being both a geographical marker and a reminder of the nature of its former predominant inhabitants. The prophets drew upon the term to remind Israel of the land’s former status, both in its positive (Isa. 19:18) and negative (Isa. 23:11; Zeph. 2:5) connotations. The term is transliterated twice in the NT in the recounting of OT history (Acts 7:11; 13:19). One further connection between Canaan and the perspectives communicated concerning it in the OT is the apparent association of the land with corrupt trade practices. That is, while some believe that the word “Canaan” always meant “merchant” or some similar word, its use in Scripture suggests that the tradesmen of Canaan were of such disrepute in the recollection of ancient Israel that the term became a synonym for “unjust trader” (Job 41:6; Ezek. 16:29; 17:4; Zeph. 1:11; Zech. 14:21).

History

The proximity of Canaan to Egypt meant that from its earliest periods it found itself beholden to the pharaohs of Egypt. The Egyptian Execration texts from the Old Kingdom era tell of Egypt’s influence over Canaan in the early second millennium. After the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt, the pharaohs of the New Kingdom asserted their control over the land. Most famous among these records is Thutmose III’s account of his defeat of Megiddo through the implementation of both cunning and skill. This same pharaoh would establish a system of dividing Canaan and its inhabitants for taxation and administration that would be so successful that Solomon would reimplement the same system during his reign (1 Kings 4:7–19). Even in the weaker days of Egypt following the New Kingdom, pharaohs such as Necho and Shishak and their successors the Ptolemies would often seek to revisit the days of glory in campaigns into Canaan.

In addition to Egypt, other outside forces found their way into Canaan and exerted influence on its development. The earliest settlers seem to have come from Mesopotamia, and Semitic influence is witnessed as early as 3000 BC. In the period between Egypt’s control of Canaan during the Old Kingdom and its later reassertion after expelling the Hyksos, Canaan witnessed a massive influx of Amorites from the north and also incursions by the Hittites and the Hurrians. As Egypt’s power waned toward the end of the New Kingdom, the Philistines came in from the sea and the Israelites from across the Jordan. All these societies were absorbed into the Canaanite culture or were themselves modified by the Canaanites. Israelite success in removing mention of the Canaanites as an identifiable entity would not be firmly established until late in the eighth century under Hezekiah.

The story of Israel’s predominance in the area of Canaan begins, of course, with the infiltration into the land under Joshua and persists until the fall of the temple in AD 70 at the hands of the Romans. During that period, Canaan endured as a place of importance as a staging ground for controlling both Mesopotamia and Egypt and therefore witnessed campaigns by most of the great leaders of Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. Of course, with each campaign came alterations in both the political and the cultural landscape of the land and reinforcement of the view that the area was the center of the world. Indeed, it is in Canaan, in the Jezreel Valley, that Scripture turns its focus for the final battle between God and the forces of Satan at Armageddon.

Geography and Climate

Geography. Though small in scope, the region of Canaan encompassed a surprisingly wide variety of environments. Within its topography one could find perilous deserts, snow-capped mountains, thick forests, lush plains, coastal beaches, rugged hills, deep valleys, and separate water sources full of both life and minerals. The Shephelah, or coastal plain, lacks any natural harbor areas that would have led to the early exploitation of the Mediterranean in the south that is so well known in the northern areas of Phoenicia. It does, however, provide wide-open, fertile areas fed by the rain runoff from the central hill country, which allowed it to be a useful source of farming and civilization from a very early period.

The central hill country is essentially a ridge that runs parallel to the coast and undulates in elevation from the mountainous north to the rugged but less elevated regions of the south. This ridge served as a natural barrier against travel from west to east, so it is not surprising that important military towns such as Hazor cropped up in places where valleys in this ridge allowed travelers to move from the coast to the inland regions as necessary to reach Mesopotamia from Egypt. One such valley of significance through the history of the land of Canaan is the Esdraelon or Jezreel Valley. It provides a wide swath of land that moves from Akko in the west (  just north of the Carmel Range) to the Sea of Galilee in the east, with access points in the north and south. Within this valley were settlements such as Megiddo and Hazor in earlier times, and Nazareth and Tiberias in later times.

Along the eastern edge of the central hill country is the Jordan Rift Valley. The elevation drops dramatically from cities in the hill country, such as Jerusalem at about 2,500 feet above sea level, to cities in the valley, such as Jericho at about 1,000 feet below sea level, within the span of about fifteen miles. The valley itself is part of a much larger rift that starts in southeast Turkey and continues all the way to Mozambique in Africa. Waters from snowy Mount Hermon and a couple of natural springs feed into the Sea of Galilee and then flow into the Jordan River, which snakes its way down into the Dead Sea. The lands around the Jordan River were once very fertile in the north and probably included abundant forests and wildlife. Toward the south of the Jordan River, one approaches the wilderness surrounding the Dead Sea, a region well known for its mineral contents.

The southernmost section of Canaan, known as the Negev, is an unforgiving region with mountains, deserts, and interspersed oases throughout. It opens up into the Arabian Desert to the east and the Sinai Peninsula to the southwest. Its primary cities of importance in biblical times were Beersheba and Raphia. As the gateway from Egypt to Canaan, the Negev played a significant role in biblical history.

Climate. The climate of Canaan played a significant role in its religion and history. It is generally recognized that climate change played a rather momentous role in population movements by nomads, in destabilization of powerful governments, and in the capability, or lack thereof, of nations to participate in the trade that was at the heart of Canaan’s growth, spread of influence, and success. Within Canaan itself, because the natural water sources were on the wrong side of the central hill country, most of its water came from rainfall. It is not surprising, therefore, that many of the discussions that take place in both Canaanite and Israelite religious expressions concerning the power of their gods found utterance in terms of a god’s ability to grant rain (see 1 Kings 17–18). The rainy season began in October and typically continued through April. The other months of the year witnessed little or no rainfall. Although in a temperate zone within which one might expect high temperatures, the coastal plains were kept relatively cool by winds coming in off the sea. The coastal mountain areas, such as Carmel, were the most likely to receive rainfall, so when they were without it, all the land suffered (Amos 1:2).

Culture and Politics

The history of Canaan begins with an archaeological record that travels back into the first signs of human settlement anywhere in the world. Such early attestation exists within the confines of Palestine itself at Jericho and Megiddo, both sites of natural springs that would have attracted settlers. The pre-Israelite civilizations of Canaan are well attested during the Bronze Age (c. 3300–1200 BC). Their culture as represented in the art and architecture of the land demonstrates a developed people who were metropolitan in taste and gifted in style. Furthermore, because of the placement of the land between Egypt and Mesopotamia and the numerous incursions by outside forces throughout its history, Canaan reveals a people with a high tolerance for change and a willingness to absorb other viewpoints into their perspectives and practice. Archaeological finds reveal a mixture of Egyptian, Sumerian, Amorite, Hittite, and Akkadian influences in their literature, material wealth, and religion.

Though unified in terms of a worldview and religious expression, the people of Canaan were politically committed to independent expressions of their power and influence. The greater cities seem to have served as hubs around which smaller communities and cities organized and remained separate from each other. The Amarna letters of the fourteenth century BC reveal leaders who did not trust each other and who sought the Egyptian pharaoh’s favor as they vied for position and strength. As one would expect, different city-states held more sway in different eras. Ebla flourished in the period of 2500–2000 BC and then again around 1800 BC. Likewise, Byblos flourished in the period of 2500–1300 BC. It is in the Middle Bronze Age (2200–1550 BC) that cities more directly involved with the biblical narrative started to flourish. For instance, Jerusalem, Jericho, Hazor, and Megiddo reached their height of power and influence around 1700–1500 BC, and each of these is mentioned in various texts of the time that give us some insight into Canaan’s role in the greater political history. It is Ugarit/Ras Shamra, which flourished in 1400–1200 BC, however, that has granted us the greatest amount of textual knowledge and information about the religion and literature of Canaan.

Religion

The excavations of Ras Shamra (beginning in 1929), and the accompanying discovery of its archive of clay tablets, granted modern scholars a perspective into Canaanite religion that had been hinted at in the biblical text but previously had remained somewhat of a mystery. The tablets themselves date between 1400 and 1200 BC. They reveal a highly developed religion with identifiable, well-defined deities. These deities represent religious practice and thought in the region that go back to at least 2000 BC, and the Mesopotamian religions they are dependent on go back well beyond that.

Canaanite deities. The primary gods identified in the text include El, Baal, Asherah (at Ugarit, Athirat), Anath (at Ugarit, Anat), and Ashtoreth (at Ugarit, Astarte). El was the supreme Canaanite deity, though in popular use the people of Canaan seem to have been more interested in Baal.

The relationship between the Canaanite use of the name “El” for their supreme god and Israel’s use of the same in reference to its own God (Gen. 33:20; Job 8:3; Pss. 18:31, 33, 48; 68:21) is something that biblical authors used at various points in their writings (Ps. 81:9–10; Nah. 1:2), never in the sense of associating the two as one and the same, but solely for the purpose of distinguishing their God, Yahweh, from any associations with the descriptions and nature of the Canaanite El (Exod. 34:14). Practically speaking, the coincidence probably resulted from the fact that the Hebrew word ’el had a dual intent in its common usage, similar to the way a modern English speaker will sometimes use “god” as either a common or a proper noun.

Like “El,” the term “Baal” had a dual function in its use. Because the word means “master” or “lord,” the people of Canaan could apply “Baal” to either the singular deity of the greater pantheon or to individual gods of a more local variety. Local manifestations included Baal-Peor, Baal-Hermon, Baal-Zebul, and Baal-Meon. The OT acknowledges the multiplicity of Baals in some places (Judg. 2:11; 3:7; 1 Sam. 7:4) but also seems to allude to a singular ultimate Baal (1 Kings 18; 2 Kings 21:3), called “Baal-Shamen” or “Baal-Hadad” elsewhere. The fact that Baal was recognized in the Ugaritic texts as the god of the thunderbolt adds an interesting insight to the struggle on Mount Carmel, in which one would suppose that had he been real, the one thing he should have been able to do was bring fire down from the sky; but he could not (1 Kings 18). Recognition that the term “Baal” could refer to a number of gods or to one ultimate god may also help one understand the syncretism that took place in Israel between Yahweh and Baal addressed by the prophet Hosea (Hos. 2:16). To the common person who recognized the multiplicity of the term “Baal” and yet also heard of his supremacy, the assignment of the name to Yahweh and the resulting combining that would occur would seem a natural progression, though still sinful in the eyes of God.

The synthesis of Baal and Yahweh is demonstrated in Scripture as being a temptation from national Israel’s earliest encounters with Baalism. The events at Peor (Num. 25) demonstrate a propensity toward this type of activity, but the confusion between Yahweh and Baal became strongest once Israel entered into the land. Gideon had a second name, “Jerub-Baal” (Judg. 6:32), and the people themselves worshiped Baal-Berith (“Baal of the covenant”) as an indication that they believed their covenant to be with Baal, not Yahweh. Saul, Jonathan, and David all had sons named for Baal: Esh-Baal, Merib-Baal, and Beeliada respectively. Jeroboam I made the connection even more explicit in his setting of shrines at Dan and Bethel with the golden calves that were common icons for Baal in the era, but that he apparently viewed as being appropriate representations of Yahweh. By the time of the prophets, such confusion evidently was entrenched into the very heart of both Israel and Judah; however, Yahweh was able to utilize the false assessments of his character to clarify his true character and ultimately bring Israel back to him.

Asherah was the wife of El in Ugaritic mythology, but apparently because of Baal’s accessibility and ubiquitous nature, she was ultimately given to Baal as a consort among Canaanites in the south. Apparently, her worship was also linked to trees, and the mentioning of “Asherah poles” (Exod. 34:13; Deut. 7:5; Judg. 6:25) in Scripture suggests that such a linkage had been stylized into representative trees at sacred locations. Asherah had prophets (1 Kings 18:19) and specific instruments of worship in Israel (2 Kings 23:4) and became so ensconced in practice and thought that her form often was replicated in the form of items known as Asherim. The previously mentioned synthesis between Baal and Yahweh seems also to have found expression regarding Asherah within Israel. At Kuntillet Ajrud a famous graffito reads “Yahweh of Samaria and his Asherah.” This example of the people granting a consort to Yahweh is yet another instance where the biblical revelation is so distinct among surrounding cultures because of the absence of such imagery regarding God.

Anath was understood as both Baal’s sister and his lover in Canaanite mythology. Given her apparent replacement in the thought of the southern Canaanite tribes by Asherah, it is not surprising that the only place we find Anath mentioned is in appellations, such as “Beth Anath” (lit., “the house of Anath” [Josh. 19:38; Judg. 1:33]). She also seems to have played a role in the tone of Baal worship in that she functioned as a goddess of both warfare and sexuality. Her portrayal in Ugaritic texts and in inscriptions from Egypt suggests a lasciviousness that has become the defining characteristic of Canaanite worship and also seems to be at the center of the methodology implemented by Hosea to reach Israel, which had become ensnarled in a similar outlook regarding Yahweh (Hos. 1–3).

The descriptions of Ashtoreth at Ugarit portray her in much the same light as Anath. Some cultures such as Egypt and later Syria seem to have even melded them together into one being. Whether this combining was a part of the Israelite conceptions is difficult to determine, although such a combination may explain why only Ashtoreth is mentioned in the biblical text as an individual deity and not Anath. In any case, Ashtoreth apparently was a primary figure in the corruption of worship during the reign of Solomon (1 Kings 11:5, 33; 2 Kings 23:13).

Summary. By the time the Israelites entered the land, they found a religion that was already well established and accustomed to absorbing various viewpoints into its expression and practice. Additionally, they found a religion that catered to the more base and animalistic tendencies to which all humanity is drawn since the fall. The commonality of such practices among almost all ancient cultures serves as a potent reminder of the distinctiveness and power of the biblical worldview. The narratives, poems, and prophetic oracles of the OT demonstrate a knowledge of these beliefs and an acknowledgment of their place in the lives of everyday Israelites, but they never demonstrate a submission to them in their portrayal of the true God and his expectations of his people.

Primarily, the Israelite community united by a common bond to (or in covenant with) their God (Deut. 33:4; Josh. 8:35; 18:1; 1 Kings 8:5). Previous scholarship distinguished congregation (’edah) from assembly (qahal ), defining the former as the gathering of Israelites for a specific goal and the latter as the gathering of Israel as the special (covenant) people of God. This viewpoint was anchored in the LXX’s preponderant rendition of ’edah as synagōgē and qahal as ekklēsia. This sharp distinction between the two terms can no longer be sustained. The difference in the frequency of the two terms in the Hebrew Bible corresponds to the growth of the Scriptures: ’edah predominates in Genesis through Numbers, whereas qahal occurs more often in Deuteronomy, the Former Prophets, the Latter Prophets, and the Writings. The association of the verbal form of qahal with both nouns (’edah and qahal ) further buttresses the point (Exod. 35:1; Lev. 8:3; Num. 1:18; 10:7; Judg. 20:1; 21:5–8; 1 Chron. 13:2–5).

The terms also refer to Israelite gatherings for special purposes such as worship, war, lawcourt, and councils. They also refer to the assemblage of other peoples or beings such as divine beings, evildoers or enemies, beasts, and bees.

The NT uses both ekklēsia and synagōgē to refer to synagogue gatherings (Acts 7:38; 13:43). English versions translate both terms as either “congregation” or “assembly.” These translations render the ekklēsia in Heb. 2:12 as either “assembly” or “congregation,” whereas they translate synagōgē in James 2:2 as “assembly” or “meeting.” See also Church.

To be devout is to show reverence for and obedience to God and his law as worship. In the OT, Obadiah, a palace administrator for King Ahab, demonstrates his devotion by harboring God’s prophets during a persecution by Queen Jezebel (1 Kings 18:3). In the NT, Luke applies the term “devout” to both Jews and non-Jews, God-fearers who had adopted much of the Mosaic law (Luke 2:25; Acts 2:5; 8:1–2; 10:2, 7; 13:50; 22:12 NRSV). Devotion to deities was widespread in the Greco-Roman world.

The primary term in Hebrew is ’apar (“loose earth, dust”), which is related to the Hebrew terms for cultivatable “soil” (’adamah [Gen. 3:19]) and “earth” (’erets [Gen. 13:16]). These terms are semantically close enough to be used interchangeably (cf. 1 Sam. 4:12; 2 Sam. 1:2 with Josh. 7:6; Ezek. 27:30).

In the OT, the imagery of dust is used to illustrate notions of quantity and abundance (Num. 23:10; 2 Chron. 1:9; Job 27:16; Ps. 78:27; Isa. 40:12; Zech. 9:3). This stock of imagery is applied to annihilation (2 Sam. 22:43), worthlessness (Zeph. 1:17), humiliation (Isa. 25:12), and mourning (Isa. 2:10; Rev. 18:19). In the OT, ’apar alone is used figuratively over sixty times to refer to judgment. Thus, “to lick the dust” (Ps. 72:9) is a sign of subjugation. The opposite is “to shake off the dust,” a sign of repudiation (Isa. 52:2; Matt. 10:14; Mark 6:11; Luke 9:5; 10:11; Acts 13:51). It is this figurative use of “dust” that facilitates the theological use of ’apar. Yahweh acts to humiliate, debase, destroy, and “cast down” into the dust (Isa. 25:12); and he also restores, “lifting up” to remove the shame (1 Kings 16:2; Ps. 113:7).

The significance of ’apar is powerfully portrayed in the creation of humans. Whereas animals are made from the “earth,” humankind emerges from more refined material, the dust (’apar [Gen. 2:7]). In an etymological pun, the “human” (’adam) rises from the “humus” (’adamah; cf. Ps. 103:14; Job 4:19). Death comes when God withdraws the human’s “breath of life” (cf. Gen. 2:7), causing the groundling to collapse back to the ground like “crushed dust” (cf. Pss. 90:3; 104:29; 146:4). Human life is fragile, dependent, and transitory. This is the teacher’s argument and also the reason that he stresses death as the inevitable end of both human and animal life (Eccles. 3:18–20). However, Daniel knows that “multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake” (Dan. 12:2).

The empowering of another in belief or course of action (1 Thess. 2:3; 1 Tim. 4:13; Heb. 12:5). The concept overlaps semantically with encouragement, the lifting of another’s spirit (Acts 9:31; Phil. 2:1; 2 Cor. 1:4–7) and appeal (2 Cor. 8:4). Jews congregated regularly in synagogues to hear a reading from the Law and the Prophets, which then was applied to their immediate lives by a competent teacher as “a word of exhortation” or sermon (Acts 13:15; see Luke 4:16–21). Preaching weekly from an authoritative text for community formation appears to be a uniquely Jewish phenomenon in the Greco-Roman world. This practice continues in the church. The author of Hebrews describes his text as a “word of exhortation” (13:22). The Holy Spirit illumined the fuller sense of Scripture as a witness to Jesus Christ and also communicated directly to believers through prophetic utterances (Rom. 12:6; 1 Cor. 14:3).

The KJV rendering of the Greek word euangelizō, referring to the proclamation of the “good news” or “gospel” (Luke 1:19; 8:1; Acts 13:32; Rom. 10:15). See also Gospel.

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

Imagery of God

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

God is compared to the father who shows compassion and love to his children (Ps. 103:13; Rom. 8:15). The father image is also used by the prophets to reveal God’s creatorship (Isa. 64:8). Jesus predominantly uses the language of “Father” in reference to God (Mark 8:38; 13:32; 14:36), revealing his close relationship with the Father. God is also identified as the king of Israel even before the Israelites have a human king (1 Sam. 10:19).

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

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

Last, anthropomorphism often is employed to describe God’s activities. Numerous parts of the human body are used to speak of God: face (Num. 6:25–26), eyes (2 Chron. 16:9), mouth (Deut. 8:3), ears (Neh. 1:6), nostrils (Exod. 15:8), hands (Ezra 7:9), arms (Deut. 33:27), fingers (Ps. 8:3), voice (Exod. 15:26), shoulders (Deut. 33:12), feet (Ps. 18:9), and back (Exod. 33:21–22).

Names and Attributes of God

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God keeps a perfect balance between righteousness and mercy. His righteousness and mercy never infringe upon each other, nor does one operate at the expense of the other. God’s abundant mercy is shown to sinners through Jesus Christ, but if they do not repent of their sins, his righteous judgment will be brought upon them.

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

Goodness. Jesus said, “No one is good—except God alone” (Mark 10:18). God demonstrates his goodness in his actions (Ps. 119:68), in his work of creation (1 Tim. 4:4), in his love (Ps. 86:5), and in his promises (Josh. 23:14–15).

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

God of the Trinity

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

The founder of what became known as the movement of Jesus followers or Christianity. For Christian believers, Jesus Christ embodies the personal and supernatural intervention of God in human history.

Introduction

Name. Early Christians combined the name “Jesus” with the title “Christ” (Acts 5:42; NIV: “Messiah”). The name “Jesus,” from the Hebrew Yehoshua or Yeshua, was a common male name in first-century Judaism. The title “Christ” is from the Greek christos, a translation of the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one, messiah”). Christians eventually were named after Jesus’ title (Acts 11:26). During the ministry of Jesus, Peter was the first disciple to recognize Jesus as the Messiah (Matt. 16:16; Mark 9:29; Luke 9:20).

Sources. From the viewpoint of Christianity, the life and ministry of Jesus constitute the turning point in human history. From a historical perspective, ample early source materials would be expected. Indeed, both Christian and non-Christian first-century and early second-century literary sources are extant, but they are few in number. In part, this low incidence is due to society’s initial resistance to the Jesus followers’ movement. The ancient Roman historian Tacitus called Christianity “a superstition,” since its beliefs did not fit with the culture’s prevailing worldview and thus were considered antisocial. Early literary sources therefore are either in-group documents or allusions in non-Christian sources.

The NT Gospels are the principal sources for the life and ministry of Jesus. They consist of Matthew, Mark, Luke (the Synoptic Gospels), and John. Most scholars adhere to the so-called Four Source Hypothesis. In this theory, Mark was written first and was used as a source by Matthew and Luke, who also used the sayings source Q (from German Quelle, meaning “source”) as well as their own individual sources M (Matthew) and L (Luke). John used additional sources.

The early church tried to put together singular accounts, so-called Gospel harmonies, of the life of Jesus. The Gospel of the Ebionites represents one such attempt based on the Synoptic Gospels. Another harmony, the Diatessaron, based on all four Gospels, was produced around AD 170 by Tatian. Additional source materials concerning the life of Christ are provided in the NT in texts such as Acts, the Pauline Epistles, the General Epistles, and the Revelation of John. Paul wrote to the Galatians, “But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law” (Gal. 4:4). The first narrative about Jesus by the Christian community was a passion narrative, the account of his death and resurrection. The first extant references to this tradition are found in Paul’s letters (1 Cor. 2:2; Gal. 3:1). The resurrection was recognized from the beginning as the cornerstone of the Christian faith (1 Cor. 15:13–14).

Among non-Christian sources, the earliest reference to Jesus is found in a letter written circa AD 112 by Pliny the Younger, the Roman governor of Bithynia-Pontus (Ep. 10.96). The Roman historian Tacitus mentions Christians and Jesus around AD 115 in his famous work about the history of Rome (Ann. 15.44). Another Roman historian, Suetonius, wrote around the same time concerning unrest among the Jews in Rome because of a certain “Chrestos” (Claud. 25.4). Some scholars conclude that “Chrestos” is a misspelling of “Christos,” a reference to Jesus.

The Jewish author Josephus (first century AD) mentions Jesus in a story about the Jewish high priest Ananus and James the brother of Jesus (Ant. 20.200). A controversial reference to Jesus appears in a different part of the same work, where Josephus affirms that Jesus is the Messiah and that he rose from the dead (Ant. 18.63–64). The majority of scholars consider this passage to be authentic but heavily edited by later Christian copyists. Another Jewish source, the Talmud, also mentions Jesus in several places, but these references are very late and of little historical value.

Noncanonical Gospels that mention Jesus include, for example, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of James, the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Egerton Gospel, and the Gospel of Judas. Although some of these may contain an occasional authentic saying or event, for the most part they are late and unreliable.

Jesus’ Life

Birth and childhood. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke record Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem during the reign of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1; Luke 2:4, 11). Jesus was probably born between 6 and 4 BC, shortly before Herod’s death (Matt. 2:19). Both Matthew and Luke record the miracle of a virginal conception made possible by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:35). Luke mentions a census under the Syrian governor Quirinius that was responsible for Jesus’ birth taking place in Bethlehem (2:1–5). Both the census and the governorship at the time of the birth of Jesus have been questioned by scholars. Unfortunately, there is not enough extrabiblical evidence to either confirm or disprove these events, so their veracity must be determined on the basis of one’s view regarding the general reliability of the Gospel tradition.

On the eighth day after his birth, Jesus was circumcised, in keeping with the Jewish law, at which time he officially was named “Jesus” (Luke 2:21). He spent his growing years in Nazareth, in the home of his parents, Joseph and Mary (2:40). Of the NT Gospels, the Gospel of Luke contains the only brief portrayal of Jesus’ growth in strength, wisdom, and favor with God and people (2:40, 52). Luke also contains the only account of Jesus as a young boy (2:41–49).

Jesus was born in a lower socioeconomic setting. His parents offered a temple sacrifice appropriate for those who could not afford to sacrifice a sheep (Luke 2:22–24; cf. Lev. 12:8). Joseph, Jesus’ earthly father, was a carpenter or an artisan in wood, stone, or metal (Matt. 13:55). From a geographical perspective, Nazareth was not a prominent place for settling, since it lacked fertile ground. Jesus’ disciple Nathanael expressed an apparently common first-century sentiment concerning Nazareth: “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” (John 1:46).

Jesus was also born in a context of scandal. Questions of illegitimacy were surely raised, since his mother Mary was discovered to be pregnant before her marriage to Joseph. According to Matthew, only the intervention of an angel convinced Joseph not to break his betrothal (Matt. 1:18–24). Jesus’ birth took place in Bethlehem, far from his parents’ home in Nazareth. According to kinship hospitality customs, Joseph and Mary would have expected to stay with distant relatives in Bethlehem. It is likely that they were unwelcome because of Jesus’ status as an illegitimate child; thus Mary had to give birth elsewhere and place the infant Jesus in a feeding trough (Luke 2:7). A similar response was seen years later in Nazareth when Jesus was identified as “Mary’s son” (Mark 6:3) rather than through his paternal line, thereby shaming him as one who was born an illegitimate child. Jesus was likewise rejected at the end of his life as the crowds cried, “Crucify him!” (Matt. 27:22–23; Mark 15:13–14; Luke 23:21; John 19:6, 15). When Jesus was arrested, most of his followers fled (Matt. 26:56; Mark 14:50–52), and a core disciple, Peter, vehemently denied knowing him (Matt. 26:69–74; Mark 14:66–71; Luke 22:55–60; John 18:15–17, 25–27). His own siblings did not believe in him (John 7:5) and were evidently ashamed of his fate, since from the cross Jesus placed the care of his mother into the hands of “the disciple whom he loved” (19:26–27) rather than the next brother in line, as was customary.

Baptism, temptation, and start of ministry. After Jesus was baptized by the prophet John the Baptist (Luke 3:21–22), God affirmed his pleasure with him by referring to him as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Jesus’ baptism did not launch him into fame and instant ministry success; instead, Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, where he was tempted for forty days (Matt. 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13). Mark stresses that the temptations immediately followed the baptism. Matthew and Luke identify three specific temptations by the devil, though their order for the last two is reversed. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was tempted to turn stones into bread, expect divine intervention after jumping off the temple portico, and receive all the world’s kingdoms for worshiping the devil. Jesus resisted all temptation, quoting Scripture in response.

Matthew and Mark record that Jesus began his ministry in Capernaum in Galilee, after the arrest of John the Baptist (Matt. 4:12–13; Mark 1:14). Luke says that Jesus started his ministry at about thirty years of age (3:23). This may be meant to indicate full maturity or perhaps correlate this age with the onset of the service of the Levites in the temple (cf. Num. 4:3). John narrates the beginning of Jesus’ ministry by focusing on the calling of the disciples and the sign performed at a wedding at Cana (1:35–2:11).

Jesus’ public ministry: chronology. Jesus’ ministry started in Galilee, probably around AD 27/28, and ended with his death around AD 30 in Jerusalem. The temple had been forty-six years in construction (generally interpreted as the temple itself and the wider temple complex) when Jesus drove out the money changers (John 2:20). According to Josephus, the rebuilding and expansion of the second temple had started in 20/19 BC, during the eighteenth year of Herod’s reign (Ant. 15.380). The ministry of John the Baptist had commenced in the fifteenth year of Tiberius (Luke 3:1–2), who had become a coregent in AD 11/12. From these dates of the start of the temple building and the correlation of the reign of Tiberius to John the Baptist’s ministry, the onset of Jesus’ ministry can probably be dated to AD 27/28.

The Gospel of John mentions three Passovers and another unnamed feast in John 5:1. The length of Jesus’ ministry thus extended over three or four Passovers, equaling about three or three and a half years. Passover, which took place on the fifteenth of Nisan, came on a Friday in AD 30 and 33. The year of Jesus’ death was therefore probably AD 30.

Jesus’ ministry years may be divided broadly into his Galilean and his Judean ministries. The Synoptic Gospels describe the ministry in Galilee from various angles but converge again as Jesus enters Judea.

Galilean ministry. The early stages of Jesus’ ministry centered in and around Galilee. Jesus presented the good news and proclaimed that the kingdom of God was near. Matthew focuses on the fulfillment of prophecy (Matt. 4:13–17). Luke records Jesus’ first teaching in his hometown, Nazareth, as paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–30); the text that Jesus quoted, Isa. 61:1–2, set the stage for his calling to serve and revealed a trajectory of rejection and suffering.

All Gospels record Jesus’ gathering of disciples early in his Galilean ministry (Matt. 4:18–22; Mark 1:16–20; Luke 5:1–11; John 1:35–51). The formal call and commissioning of the Twelve who would become Jesus’ closest followers is recorded in different parts of the Gospels (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16). A key event in the early ministry is the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Matt. 5:1–7:29; Luke 6:20–49). John focuses on Jesus’ signs and miracles, in particular in the early parts of his ministry, whereas the Synoptics focus on healings and exorcisms.

During Jesus’ Galilean ministry, onlookers struggled with his identity. However, evil spirits knew him to be of supreme authority (Mark 3:11). Jesus was criticized by outsiders and by his own family (3:21). The scribes from Jerusalem identified him as a partner of Beelzebul (3:22). Amid these situations of social conflict, Jesus told parables that couched his ministry in the context of a growing kingdom of God. This kingdom would miraculously spring from humble beginnings (4:1–32).

The Synoptics present Jesus’ early Galilean ministry as successful. No challenge or ministry need superseded Jesus’ authority or ability: he calmed a storm (Mark 4:35–39), exorcized many demons (Mark 5:1–13), raised the dead (Mark 5:35–42), fed five thousand (Mark 6:30–44), and walked on water (Mark 6:48–49).

In the later part of his ministry in Galilee, Jesus often withdrew and traveled to the north and the east. The Gospel narratives are not written with a focus on chronology. However, only brief returns to Galilee appear to have taken place prior to Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. As people followed Jesus, faith was praised and fear resolved. Jerusalem’s religious leaders traveled to Galilee, where they leveled accusations and charged Jesus’ disciples with lacking ritual purity (Mark 7:1–5). Jesus shamed the Pharisees by pointing out their dishonorable treatment of parents (7:11–13). The Pharisees challenged his legitimacy by demanding a sign (8:11). Jesus refused them signs but agreed with Peter, who confessed, “You are the Messiah” (8:29). Jesus did provide the disciples a sign: his transfiguration (9:2–8).

Jesus withdrew from Galilee to Tyre and Sidon, where a Syrophoenician woman requested healing for her daughter. Jesus replied, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). Galileans had long resented the Syrian provincial leadership partiality that allotted governmental funds in ways that made the Jews receive mere “crumbs.” Consequently, when the woman replied, “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table,” Jesus applauded her faith (Matt. 15:27–28). Healing a deaf-mute man in the Decapolis provided another example of Jesus’ ministry in Gentile territory (Mark 7:31–37). Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ took place during Jesus’ travel to Caesarea Philippi, a well-known Gentile territory. The city was the ancient center of worship of the Hellenistic god Pan.

Judean ministry. Luke records a geographic turning point in Jesus’ ministry as he resolutely set out for Jerusalem, a direction that eventually led to his death (Luke 9:51). Luke divides the journey to Jerusalem into three phases (9:51–13:21; 13:22–17:10; 17:11–19:27). The opening verses of phase one emphasize a prophetic element of the journey. Jesus viewed his ministry in Jerusalem as his mission, and the demands on discipleship intensified as Jesus approached Jerusalem (Matt. 20:17–19, 26–28; Mark 10:38–39, 43–45; Luke 14:25–35). Luke presents the second phase of the journey toward Jerusalem with a focus on conversations regarding salvation and judgment (Luke 13:22–30). In the third and final phase of the journey, the advent of the kingdom and the final judgment are the main themes (17:20–37; 19:11–27).

Social conflicts with religious leaders increased throughout Jesus’ ministry. These conflicts led to lively challenge-riposte interactions concerning the Pharisaic schools of Shammai and Hillel (Matt. 19:1–12; Mark 10:1–12). Likewise, socioeconomic feathers were ruffled as Jesus welcomed young children, who had little value in society (Matt. 19:13–15; Mark 10:13–16; Luke 18:15–17).

Passion Week, death, and resurrection. Each of the Gospels records Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem with the crowds extending him a royal welcome (Matt. 21:4–9; Mark 11:7–10; Luke 19:35–38; John 12:12–15). Luke describes Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem as a time during which Jesus taught in the temple as Israel’s Messiah (19:45–21:38).

In Jerusalem, Jesus cleansed the temple of profiteering (Mark 11:15–17). Mark describes the religious leaders as fearing Jesus because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching, and so they “began looking for a way to kill him” (11:18). Dismayed, each segment of Jerusalem’s temple leadership inquired about Jesus’ authority (11:27–33). Jesus replied with cunning questions (12:16, 35–36), stories (12:1–12), denunciation (12:38–44), and a prediction of Jerusalem’s own destruction (13:1–31). One of Jesus’ own disciples, Judas Iscariot, provided the temple leaders the opportunity for Jesus’ arrest (14:10–11).

At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted a new Passover, defining a new covenant grounded in his sufferings (Matt. 26:17–18, 26–29; Mark 14:16–25; Luke 22:14–20). He again warned the disciples of his betrayal and arrest (Matt. 26:21–25, 31; Mark 14:27–31; Luke 22:21–23; John 13:21–30), and later he prayed for the disciples (John 17:1–26) and prayed in agony and submissiveness in the garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:36–42; Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–42). His arrest, trial, crucifixion, death, and resurrection followed (Matt. 26:46–28:15; Mark 14:43–16:8; Luke 22:47–24:9; John 18:1–20:18). Jesus finally commissioned his disciples to continue his mission by making disciples of all the nations (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 1:8) and ascended to heaven with the promise that he will one day return (Luke 24:50–53; Acts 1:9–11).

The Identity of Jesus Christ

Various aspects of Jesus’ identity are stressed in the four NT Gospels, depending on their target audiences. In the Gospels the witnesses to Jesus’ ministry are portrayed as constantly questioning and examining his identity (Matt. 11:2–5; 12:24; 26:63; 27:11; Mark 3:22; 8:11; 11:28; 14:61; Luke 7:18–20; 11:15; 22:67, 70; 23:39; John 7:20, 25–27; 18:37). Only beings of the spiritual realm are certain of his divinity (Mark 1:34; 3:11; Luke 4:41). At Jesus’ baptism, God referred to him as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Likewise, when Jesus was transfigured in the presence of Peter, James, and John, a voice affirmed, “This is my Son, whom I love” (Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7). At the moment of his death, the questioning of Jesus’ identity culminated in a confession by a Roman centurion and other guards: “Surely he was the Son of God!” (Matt. 27:54; cf. Mark 15:39).

Miracle worker. In the first-century setting, folk healers and miracle workers were part of the fabric of society. Jesus, however, performed signs and miracles in order to demonstrate the authority of the kingdom of God over various realms: disease, illness, the spiritual world, nature, and even future events. Especially in the Gospel of John, Jesus’ signs and miracles are used to show his authority and thus his identity.

No challenge superseded Jesus’ authority. Among his ample miracles and signs, he changed water into wine (John 2:7–9), calmed a storm in the sea (Matt. 8:23–27; Mark 4:35–39; Luke 8:22–25), exorcized demons (Matt. 9:32–34; Mark 5:1–13; Luke 9:42–43), healed the sick (Mark 1:40–44), raised the dead (Matt. 9:23–25; Mark 5:35–42; Luke 7:1–16; 8:49–54; John 11:17, 38–44), performed miraculous feedings (Matt. 14:17–21; 15:34–38; Mark 6:30–44; 8:5–9; Luke 9:10–17; John 6:8–13), and walked on water (Matt. 14:25–26; Mark 6:48–49; John 6:19).

The Pharisees requested miracles as evidence of his authority (Mark 8:11–12). Jesus refused, claiming that a wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign (Matt. 12:38–39; 16:1–4). The only sign that he would give was the sign of Jonah—his death and resurrection three days later—a personal sacrifice, taking upon himself the judgment of the world (Matt. 12:39–41).

Rabbi/teacher. Jesus’ teaching style was similar to other first-century rabbis or Pharisees (Mark 9:5; 10:51; John 1:38; 3:2). What distinguished him was that he spoke with great personal authority (Matt. 5:22, 28, 32, 39, 44; Mark 1:22). Like other rabbis of his day, Jesus gathered disciples. He called these men to observe his lifestyle and to join him in his ministry of teaching, healing, and exorcism (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16).

Jesus used a variety of teaching methods. He frequently spoke in parables (Matt. 6:24; 13:24–52; 18:10–14, 23–35; 21:28–22:14; 24:32–36, 45–51; 25:14–30; Mark 4:1–34; 12:1–12; 13:28–34; Luke 8:4–18; 12:41–46; 13:18–21; 14:15–24; 15:1–16:15, 19–31; 18:1–14; 19:11–27; 20:9–19; 21:29–33), used figures of speech (John 10:9), hyperbole (Matt. 19:24; Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25), argumentation (Matt. 26:11), object lessons (Matt. 24:32), frequent repetition (Matt. 13:44–47; Luke 13:18–21), practical examples, and personal guidance.

Major themes in Jesus’ teaching include the kingdom of God, the cost of discipleship, internal righteousness, the end of the age, his identity, his mission, and his approaching death. In his teachings, observance of Torah was given new context and meaning because God’s kingdom had “come near” (Matt. 3:2). Jesus had come to fulfill the law (Matt. 5:17).

Jesus’ teaching ministry often took place amid social conflict. These conflicts were couched in so-called challenge-riposte interactions in which the honor status of those involved was at stake. Jesus used these interactions as teachable moments. When questioned, Jesus gave replies that reveal omniscience or intimate knowledge of God’s will, especially in the Gospel of John. In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus’ answers are both ethical and practical in nature. The Synoptics portray Jesus as challenged repeatedly with accusations of violating customs specified in the Jewish law. Jesus’ answers to such accusations often echoed the essence of 1 Sam. 15:22, “To obey is better than sacrifice,” phrased by Jesus as “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Matt. 9:13; 12:7). An overall “better than” ethic was common in Jesus’ public teaching.

The Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7) contains a “better than” ethic in which internal obedience is better than mere outward obedience. For example, Jesus said that anger without cause is equal to murder (Matt. 5:21–22), that looking at a woman lustfully amounts to adultery (Matt. 5:28), and that instead of revenging wrongs one must reciprocate with love (Matt. 5:38–48). Jesus valued compassion above traditions and customs, even those contained within the OT law. He desired internal obedience above the letter of the law.

Jesus’ teachings found their authority in the reality of God’s imminent kingdom (Matt. 3:2; 10:7; Mark 1:15; Luke 10:9), necessitating repentance (Matt. 3:2), belief (Mark 1:15), dependence (Matt. 18:3–5; Mark 10:15), and loyalty to a new community—the family of Jesus followers (Mark 3:34; 10:29–30). Jesus urged, “Seek first [God’s] kingdom and his righteousness” (Matt. 6:33). Preaching with such urgency was common among prophetic teachers of the intertestamental period. Jesus, however, had his own grounds for urgency. He held that God deeply valued all humans (Matt. 10:31) and would bring judgment swiftly (Matt. 25:31–46).

Examples of a “greater good” ethic in the Synoptics include the occasions when Jesus ate with sinners (Mark 2:16–17). Jesus used an aphorism in response to accusations about his associations with sinners, saying, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mark 2:17). He advocated harvesting and healing on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23–28; 3:1–6), and when he was accused of breaking the law, he pointed to an OT exception (1 Sam. 21:1–6) to declare compassion appropriate for the Sabbath. Jesus also applied the “greater good” ethic in the case of divorce, since women suffered the societal stigma of adultery and commonly became outcasts following divorce (Matt. 19:8–9; Mark 10:5–9).

Jesus’ kingdom teachings were simultaneously spiritual, ethical, and eschatological in application. The teachings were aimed at internal transformation (Matt. 5:3–9; 18:3; Mark 10:15) and spurring on love (Matt. 5:44; 7:21). The Spirit of the Lord had called Jesus to bless the hurting ones as they aspired to a godly character. Jesus taught, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48), and “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful” (Luke 6:36). The “blessed” ones in Jesus’ teachings are poor of spirit, peace driven, mournful, and hungry for righteousness, consumed with emulating godly character.

Some scholars believe that Jesus promoted an “interim ethic” for the kingdom, intended only for a short period prior to the end of time. However, he was explicit regarding the longevity of his teachings: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (Matt. 24:35; Luke 16:17).

Messiah. The concept of an anointed one, a messiah, who would restore the glories of David’s kingdom and bring political stability was common in Jewish expectation. Both before and after the Babylonian captivity, many Jews longed for one who would bring peace and protection. Israel’s prophets had spoken of a coming deliverer, one who would restore David’s kingdom and reign in justice and righteousness (2 Sam. 7:11–16; Isa. 9:1–7; 11:1–16; Jer. 23:5–6; 33:15–16; Ezek. 37:25; Dan. 2:44; Mic. 5:2; Zech. 9:9). Isaiah’s description of the servant (Isa. 53) whose suffering healed the nation provided a slightly different angle of expectation in terms of a deliverer.

Jesus’ authority and popularity as a miracle worker called up messianic images in first-century Jewish minds. On several occasions hearers called him “Son of David,” hoping for the Messiah (Matt. 12:23; 21:9). Simon Peter was the first follower who confessed Jesus as the Christ, the “Messiah” (Matt. 16:16; Mark 8:29). In line with Isaiah’s model of the Suffering Servant, Jesus focused not on political ends but rather on spiritual regeneration through his own sacrificial death (Mark 10:45).

Eschatological prophet. Many scholars claim that Jesus is best understood as a Jewish apocalypticist, an eschatological prophet who expected God to intervene in history, destroy the wicked, and bring in the kingdom of God. Central in this understanding are Jesus’ prophecies concerning the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (Matt. 24:1–2, 15–22; Mark 13:1; Luke 21:5–24; John 2:19; Acts 6:14). In addition, it is noted that Jesus had twelve disciples, representative of the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:2–28; Luke 22:23–30). Certain of Jesus’ parables, those with apocalyptic images of coming judgment, present Jesus as an eschatological prophet (Matt. 24:45–25:30; Luke 12:41–46; 19:11–27).

Suffering Son of God. Jesus’ first recorded teaching in a synagogue in Nazareth was paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–21). He attributed the reading, Isa. 61:1–2, to his personal calling to serve, and in doing so he revealed a trajectory of suffering. The Gospel of Mark likewise aptly portrays Jesus as the suffering Son of God. Jesus’ own teachings incorporated his upcoming suffering (Mark 8:31; 9:12–13, 31; 10:33–34). He summarized his mission by declaring, “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). His earthly career ended with a trial in Jerusalem consisting of both Roman and Jewish components (Matt. 26:57–68; 27:1–31; Mark 14:53–65; 15:1–20; Luke 22:54–23:25; John 18:19–24; 18:28–19:16). He was insulted, scourged, mocked, and crucified.

Jesus’ suffering culminated in his humiliating death by crucifixion (Matt. 27:33–50; Mark 15:22–37; Luke 23:33–46; John 19:16–30). Crucifixion was a death of unimaginable horror, bringing shame and humiliation to the victim and his family. Anyone hanging on a tree was considered cursed (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13). Thus, especially in a Jewish society, anyone associated with a crucified person bore the shame of following one who was executed as a lowly slave and left as a cursed corpse. The apostle Paul referred to this shame of the cross when he stated, “I am not ashamed of the gospel” (Rom. 1:16).

Exalted Lord. Jesus had prophesied that he would rise again (Matt. 16:21; 17:9, 23; 20:19; 27:63; Mark 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:34; Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:7, 46). The testimony of the Synoptics is that the resurrection of Jesus Christ indeed occurred on the third day, Christ having died on Friday (Mark 15:42–45; Luke 23:52–54; John 19:30–33) and risen again on Sunday (Matt. 28:1–7; Mark 16:2–7; Luke 24:1–7; John 20:1–16). The resurrected Jesus was witnessed by the women (Matt. 28:8–9), the eleven disciples (Matt. 28:16–17; Luke 24:36–43), and travelers on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:31–32). According to Paul, he appeared to as many as five hundred others (1 Cor. 15:6). He appeared in bodily form, spoke, showed his scars, and ate (Luke 24:39–43; John 20:27; Acts 1:4). After forty postresurrection days, Jesus ascended into the heavenly realm (Acts 1:9).

As much as Jesus’ death was the epitome of shame, his victory over death was his ultimate exaltation (Phil. 2:5–11). At Pentecost, Peter proclaimed that in the resurrection God fulfilled OT promises (Ps. 16:10) by raising his Son from the grave (Acts 2:30–31). Furthermore, Christ provided freedom from the law through his resurrection (Rom. 5:13–14), God’s approval of his life and work (Phil. 2:8–9), and God’s designation of him as Lord over all the earth, the living and the dead (Acts 17:30–31; Phil. 2:10; Heb. 1:3), and over all his enemies (Eph. 1:20–23).

Jesus’ exaltation commenced the beginning of forgiveness and justification (Luke 24:46–47; Acts 13:30–39; Rom. 4:25) and his intercession for the people of God (Rom. 8:34). His ascension signaled the coming of the Holy Spirit as comforter and teacher (John 14:26; Acts 2:33) and was accompanied by the promise of his return in glory (Luke 24:51), at which time he will render judgment (Matt. 19:28; 24:31; Rev. 20:11–15) and establish his eternal kingdom (1 Cor. 15:24; 2 Tim. 4:1; Rev. 11:15; 22:5).

Jesus’ Purpose and Community

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah, who preaches the good news of the kingdom, urging people to repent (4:17–23). Repentance and belief allow one to enter the kingdom. The call into the kingdom is a call into a new covenant, one made in Jesus’ blood (26:28).

In the prologue to the Gospel of Mark, the narrator reveals the identity of Jesus (1:1). Jesus is presented as the one who brings good tidings of salvation (cf. Isa. 40:9; 52:7; 61:1). The centrality of the gospel, the good news (Mark 1:14–15), is evident.

Luke likewise presents the preaching of the good news as a main purpose of Jesus’ ministry (4:43). The content of this good news is the kingdom of God (4:43; 8:1; 16:16). When the disciples of John the Baptist asked Jesus if he was the one who was to come (7:20), Jesus answered, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor” (7:22). The kingdom of God, as presented in Luke, brings freedom for the prisoners, recovery of sight for the blind, and release for the oppressed (4:18). Jesus’ healings and exorcisms announce the coming kingdom of God already present in the ministry of Jesus (4:40–44; 6:18–20; 8:1–2; 9:2; 10:8–9).

In the Gospel of John, Jesus testifies to the good news by way of signs throughout his ministry. These signs point to Jesus’ glory, his identity, and the significance of his ministry. Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, who offers eternal and abundant life. This abundant life is lived out in community.

In the Gospel of John, the disciples of Jesus represent the community of God (17:21). The disciples did not belong to the world, but they continued to live in the world (17:14–16). Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).

Jesus’ ministry continued in the community of Jesus’ followers, God’s family—the church. Entrance into the community was obtained by adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and through the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–62; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9).

The Quests for the Historical Jesus

The quest for the historical Jesus, or seeking who Jesus was from a historical perspective, is a modern phenomenon deemed necessary by scholars who claim that the NT Gospels were written long after Jesus’ death and were heavily influenced by the post-Easter understanding of the church.

The beginning of this quest is often dated to 1770, when the lecture notes of Hermann Samuel Reimarus were published posthumously. Reimarus had launched an inquiry into the identity of Jesus that rejected as inauthentic all supernatural elements in the Gospels. He concluded that the disciples invented Jesus’ miracles, prophecies, ritualistic religion, and resurrection. Reimarus’s conclusions were not widely accepted, but they set off a flurry of rationalistic research into the historical Jesus that continued throughout the nineteenth century. This became known as the “first quest” for the historical Jesus.

In 1906 German theologian Albert Schweit-zer published The Quest of the Historical Jesus (German title: Von Reimarus zu Wrede: Eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung), a scathing indictment of the first quest. Schweitzer’s work showed that nineteenth-century researchers re-created Jesus in their own image, transforming the historical Jesus into a modern philanthropist preaching an inoffensive message of love and brotherhood. Schweitzer’s conclusions marked the beginning of the end for this first quest. Schweitzer himself concluded that the historical Jesus was an eschatological prophet whose purposes failed during his last days in Jerusalem.

With the demise of the first quest, some NT scholars, such as Rudolf Bultmann, rejected any claim to being able to discover the historical Jesus. This trend continued until 1953, when some of Bultmann’s former students launched what has come to be known as the “new quest” for the historical Jesus (1953–c. 1970). This quest created new interest in the historical Jesus but was still dominated by the view that the portrait of Jesus in the Gospels is largely a creation of the church in a post-Easter setting.

As the rebuilding years of the post–World War II era waned and scholars started to reap academic fruit from major archaeological finds such as the DSS, research on the historical Jesus moved on to what has been called the “third quest.” This quest seeks especially to research and understand Jesus in his social and cultural setting.

Patristic evidence identifies John Mark (Mark) as the author of the second Gospel. The house of Mark’s mother, Mary, served as a place for early Christians in Jerusalem to meet and pray (Acts 12:12). Mark followed his cousin Barnabas from Jerusalem to Antioch and joined Barnabas and Paul on their first missionary journey (Acts 13:5), working with them in Cyprus. When they left for the mainland of Asia Minor, Mark returned to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13). Later, when Paul and Barnabas wished to return to the churches that they had established, Barnabas wanted to take Mark again, but Paul objected because of Mark’s prior desertion (Acts 15:38). Paul and Barnabas differed so markedly on this point that they parted ways, with Bar-na-bas and Mark going to work in Cyprus, while Paul and Silas traveled elsewhere. The NT tells nothing more of Mark for ten years. The former disagreement apparently was resolved, for Mark was later present with Paul in Rome and received Paul’s recommendation to the Colossian church (Col. 4:10). Paul also speaks positively of Mark’s use in ministry (2 Tim. 4:11). It is quite likely that Mark was associated with Peter during this same period in Rome (1 Pet. 5:13).

Joy is not a prevalent theme in most of the Bible. In fact, the word “joy” is completely missing from many books of the OT and appears only sporadically in many others. The lack of prevalence of this word is understandable, since most of the Bible deals with a world in which the humans are outside the garden of Eden.

Old Testament. The most enthusiastic and concentrated expressions of joy in the OT are found in the context of worship when the people of God find joy in his presence, usually when the community is gathered for various feasts. Thus, words that connote joy are concentrated in Deuteronomy, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Isaiah, and especially the Psalter.

As one might expect, people are found rejoicing in the simple joys of life: when meeting a close relative (Exod. 4:14), when their enemies are defeated (1 Sam. 18:6; 2 Chron. 20:27), when a child is born (Jer. 20:15), at the sound of music (Ps. 45:8), and when they hear a good word (Prov. 12:25). Jonah is “exceedingly glad” (ESV; NIV: “very happy”) because a plant grew as a shade over his head (Jon. 4:6). The teacher of Ecclesiastes urges his students to rejoice in their youth (Eccles. 11:9), and he considers it a good thing to be joyful (3:12; 8:15). Wine may gladden the heart of humans (Ps. 104:15) and life in general (Eccles. 10:19). More important, men are encouraged both to bring joy to their young wives (Deut. 24:5 [NIV: “happiness”]) and to rejoice in the wife of their youth (Prov. 5:18). For the psalmist, the “teachings” of God are a reason for joy (Pss. 19:8; 119:111).

It is by far more common, however, to find joy and delight in the presence of God, especially when the community is gathered to celebrate various feasts. The psalmist understands quite well that more than wine or a young wife, it is God who brings joy to his servants (Ps. 86:4). Thus, the earliest calls to rejoice are always in the presence of God (Lev. 23:40; Deut. 12:7, 12, 18; 14:26; 16:11; 26:11). Psalm 16:11 is a good example: “You make known to me the path of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence, with eternal pleasures at your right hand.”

For the prophet Habakkuk, even if the crops fail and there is nothing left to eat, he finds reason for joy in God, the only one who can bring salvation: “Yet I will rejoice in the Lord, I will be joyful in God my Savior” (Hab. 3:18). This verse is important because it shows that the people of God must be able to rejoice apart from material blessings, and also because it unites two central reasons for joy in the OT: God and his salvation (Pss. 9:14; 21:1; Isa. 25:9; 61:10). The prophet Zechariah looks forward to a time of great joy when a righteous king will bring salvation to Zion (Zech. 9:9). Finally, real and complete joy can exist only when and where God reigns (1 Chron. 16:31; Ps. 97:1).

New Testament. The time of joy and salvation anticipated by the prophets begins to find fulfillment in the NT. The Gospels interpret the prophecy in Zech. 9:9 as referring to Jesus (Mark 11:9–10; Luke 19:37–38), and there is a strong note of joy already at Jesus’ birth (Matt. 2:10; Luke 1:47; 2:10). Jesus’ life (Luke 10:17; John 3:29) and resurrection also evoke intense joy (Matt. 28:8; Luke 24:52). In the Gospel of John, joy becomes the result of a deep fellowship between Jesus and the church (John 16:22; see also 1 John 1:3–4), and in Acts it marks the life of the early church (Acts 2:46; 8:8; 13:52; 15:3).

Paul uses joy in at least three ways. First, progress in faith of the children of God, particularly those whom Paul has led to Christ, is a great cause for joy (1 Thess. 2:19–20; cf. Phil. 2:2). Second, Paul stresses the paradox that joy may be the outcome of suffering and even sorrow for Christ’s sake (2 Cor. 6:10; Col. 1:24; cf. 1 Pet. 4:13). Thus, Paul’s letter to the Philippians, even though written under circumstances of great suffering, is also the most joyous of all his letters (Phil. 2:2; 3:1; 4:4). Third, joy is a gift of the Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:22), and true believers should be careful in their daily walk with the Lord to avoid “interrupting” this gift.

The last word on joy is appropriately found in the book of Revelation: “Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready” (19:7).

A region generally identified with the landmass between ancient Syria and Egypt, including parts of the Sinai Peninsula, Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean, and southern Phoenicia (modern Lebanon). Although there is some discussion about the origin of the name “Canaan” and its meaning, the name apparently arises from the primary inhabitants of the region prior to Joshua’s incursion into the land, since it is primarily used in connection with the phrase “the land of,” indicating that the descendants of Canaan possess it. Because the identity of the land of Canaan was linked as much to its inhabitants as it was to any sort of fixed borders, the boundaries are identified in various ways throughout the biblical text. Such descriptions vary from a rather limited area of influence (as suggested by Num. 13:29) to a larger land spanning an area from the Euphrates to the Nile (Gen. 15:18; Exod. 23:23). Because of its strategic position as a buffer between Egypt and Mesopotamia and between Arabia and the sea, it served as a primary trading outpost and the location of numerous important historical events both prior to and after Israel’s appearance in the land.

In the Bible, the geographical reference “the land of Canaan” finds primary expression, not surprisingly, in Genesis through Judges. The promise to Abraham that his descendants would inherit the land of the Canaanites (Gen. 15:18–21) is the theological focal point of the uses of the term “Canaan” throughout these biblical books. Once that inheritance was achieved and Israel became a viable state, the term’s use seems to serve the double purpose of being both a geographical marker and a reminder of the nature of its former predominant inhabitants. The prophets drew upon the term to remind Israel of the land’s former status, both in its positive (Isa. 19:18) and negative (Isa. 23:11; Zeph. 2:5) connotations. The term is transliterated twice in the NT in the recounting of OT history (Acts 7:11; 13:19). One further connection between Canaan and the perspectives communicated concerning it in the OT is the apparent association of the land with corrupt trade practices. That is, while some believe that the word “Canaan” always meant “merchant” or some similar word, its use in Scripture suggests that the tradesmen of Canaan were of such disrepute in the recollection of ancient Israel that the term became a synonym for “unjust trader” (Job 41:6; Ezek. 16:29; 17:4; Zeph. 1:11; Zech. 14:21).

History

The proximity of Canaan to Egypt meant that from its earliest periods it found itself beholden to the pharaohs of Egypt. The Egyptian Execration texts from the Old Kingdom era tell of Egypt’s influence over Canaan in the early second millennium. After the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt, the pharaohs of the New Kingdom asserted their control over the land. Most famous among these records is Thutmose III’s account of his defeat of Megiddo through the implementation of both cunning and skill. This same pharaoh would establish a system of dividing Canaan and its inhabitants for taxation and administration that would be so successful that Solomon would reimplement the same system during his reign (1 Kings 4:7–19). Even in the weaker days of Egypt following the New Kingdom, pharaohs such as Necho and Shishak and their successors the Ptolemies would often seek to revisit the days of glory in campaigns into Canaan.

In addition to Egypt, other outside forces found their way into Canaan and exerted influence on its development. The earliest settlers seem to have come from Mesopotamia, and Semitic influence is witnessed as early as 3000 BC. In the period between Egypt’s control of Canaan during the Old Kingdom and its later reassertion after expelling the Hyksos, Canaan witnessed a massive influx of Amorites from the north and also incursions by the Hittites and the Hurrians. As Egypt’s power waned toward the end of the New Kingdom, the Philistines came in from the sea and the Israelites from across the Jordan. All these societies were absorbed into the Canaanite culture or were themselves modified by the Canaanites. Israelite success in removing mention of the Canaanites as an identifiable entity would not be firmly established until late in the eighth century under Hezekiah.

The story of Israel’s predominance in the area of Canaan begins, of course, with the infiltration into the land under Joshua and persists until the fall of the temple in AD 70 at the hands of the Romans. During that period, Canaan endured as a place of importance as a staging ground for controlling both Mesopotamia and Egypt and therefore witnessed campaigns by most of the great leaders of Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. Of course, with each campaign came alterations in both the political and the cultural landscape of the land and reinforcement of the view that the area was the center of the world. Indeed, it is in Canaan, in the Jezreel Valley, that Scripture turns its focus for the final battle between God and the forces of Satan at Armageddon.

Geography and Climate

Geography. Though small in scope, the region of Canaan encompassed a surprisingly wide variety of environments. Within its topography one could find perilous deserts, snow-capped mountains, thick forests, lush plains, coastal beaches, rugged hills, deep valleys, and separate water sources full of both life and minerals. The Shephelah, or coastal plain, lacks any natural harbor areas that would have led to the early exploitation of the Mediterranean in the south that is so well known in the northern areas of Phoenicia. It does, however, provide wide-open, fertile areas fed by the rain runoff from the central hill country, which allowed it to be a useful source of farming and civilization from a very early period.

The central hill country is essentially a ridge that runs parallel to the coast and undulates in elevation from the mountainous north to the rugged but less elevated regions of the south. This ridge served as a natural barrier against travel from west to east, so it is not surprising that important military towns such as Hazor cropped up in places where valleys in this ridge allowed travelers to move from the coast to the inland regions as necessary to reach Mesopotamia from Egypt. One such valley of significance through the history of the land of Canaan is the Esdraelon or Jezreel Valley. It provides a wide swath of land that moves from Akko in the west (  just north of the Carmel Range) to the Sea of Galilee in the east, with access points in the north and south. Within this valley were settlements such as Megiddo and Hazor in earlier times, and Nazareth and Tiberias in later times.

Along the eastern edge of the central hill country is the Jordan Rift Valley. The elevation drops dramatically from cities in the hill country, such as Jerusalem at about 2,500 feet above sea level, to cities in the valley, such as Jericho at about 1,000 feet below sea level, within the span of about fifteen miles. The valley itself is part of a much larger rift that starts in southeast Turkey and continues all the way to Mozambique in Africa. Waters from snowy Mount Hermon and a couple of natural springs feed into the Sea of Galilee and then flow into the Jordan River, which snakes its way down into the Dead Sea. The lands around the Jordan River were once very fertile in the north and probably included abundant forests and wildlife. Toward the south of the Jordan River, one approaches the wilderness surrounding the Dead Sea, a region well known for its mineral contents.

The southernmost section of Canaan, known as the Negev, is an unforgiving region with mountains, deserts, and interspersed oases throughout. It opens up into the Arabian Desert to the east and the Sinai Peninsula to the southwest. Its primary cities of importance in biblical times were Beersheba and Raphia. As the gateway from Egypt to Canaan, the Negev played a significant role in biblical history.

Climate. The climate of Canaan played a significant role in its religion and history. It is generally recognized that climate change played a rather momentous role in population movements by nomads, in destabilization of powerful governments, and in the capability, or lack thereof, of nations to participate in the trade that was at the heart of Canaan’s growth, spread of influence, and success. Within Canaan itself, because the natural water sources were on the wrong side of the central hill country, most of its water came from rainfall. It is not surprising, therefore, that many of the discussions that take place in both Canaanite and Israelite religious expressions concerning the power of their gods found utterance in terms of a god’s ability to grant rain (see 1 Kings 17–18). The rainy season began in October and typically continued through April. The other months of the year witnessed little or no rainfall. Although in a temperate zone within which one might expect high temperatures, the coastal plains were kept relatively cool by winds coming in off the sea. The coastal mountain areas, such as Carmel, were the most likely to receive rainfall, so when they were without it, all the land suffered (Amos 1:2).

Culture and Politics

The history of Canaan begins with an archaeological record that travels back into the first signs of human settlement anywhere in the world. Such early attestation exists within the confines of Palestine itself at Jericho and Megiddo, both sites of natural springs that would have attracted settlers. The pre-Israelite civilizations of Canaan are well attested during the Bronze Age (c. 3300–1200 BC). Their culture as represented in the art and architecture of the land demonstrates a developed people who were metropolitan in taste and gifted in style. Furthermore, because of the placement of the land between Egypt and Mesopotamia and the numerous incursions by outside forces throughout its history, Canaan reveals a people with a high tolerance for change and a willingness to absorb other viewpoints into their perspectives and practice. Archaeological finds reveal a mixture of Egyptian, Sumerian, Amorite, Hittite, and Akkadian influences in their literature, material wealth, and religion.

Though unified in terms of a worldview and religious expression, the people of Canaan were politically committed to independent expressions of their power and influence. The greater cities seem to have served as hubs around which smaller communities and cities organized and remained separate from each other. The Amarna letters of the fourteenth century BC reveal leaders who did not trust each other and who sought the Egyptian pharaoh’s favor as they vied for position and strength. As one would expect, different city-states held more sway in different eras. Ebla flourished in the period of 2500–2000 BC and then again around 1800 BC. Likewise, Byblos flourished in the period of 2500–1300 BC. It is in the Middle Bronze Age (2200–1550 BC) that cities more directly involved with the biblical narrative started to flourish. For instance, Jerusalem, Jericho, Hazor, and Megiddo reached their height of power and influence around 1700–1500 BC, and each of these is mentioned in various texts of the time that give us some insight into Canaan’s role in the greater political history. It is Ugarit/Ras Shamra, which flourished in 1400–1200 BC, however, that has granted us the greatest amount of textual knowledge and information about the religion and literature of Canaan.

Religion

The excavations of Ras Shamra (beginning in 1929), and the accompanying discovery of its archive of clay tablets, granted modern scholars a perspective into Canaanite religion that had been hinted at in the biblical text but previously had remained somewhat of a mystery. The tablets themselves date between 1400 and 1200 BC. They reveal a highly developed religion with identifiable, well-defined deities. These deities represent religious practice and thought in the region that go back to at least 2000 BC, and the Mesopotamian religions they are dependent on go back well beyond that.

Canaanite deities. The primary gods identified in the text include El, Baal, Asherah (at Ugarit, Athirat), Anath (at Ugarit, Anat), and Ashtoreth (at Ugarit, Astarte). El was the supreme Canaanite deity, though in popular use the people of Canaan seem to have been more interested in Baal.

The relationship between the Canaanite use of the name “El” for their supreme god and Israel’s use of the same in reference to its own God (Gen. 33:20; Job 8:3; Pss. 18:31, 33, 48; 68:21) is something that biblical authors used at various points in their writings (Ps. 81:9–10; Nah. 1:2), never in the sense of associating the two as one and the same, but solely for the purpose of distinguishing their God, Yahweh, from any associations with the descriptions and nature of the Canaanite El (Exod. 34:14). Practically speaking, the coincidence probably resulted from the fact that the Hebrew word ’el had a dual intent in its common usage, similar to the way a modern English speaker will sometimes use “god” as either a common or a proper noun.

Like “El,” the term “Baal” had a dual function in its use. Because the word means “master” or “lord,” the people of Canaan could apply “Baal” to either the singular deity of the greater pantheon or to individual gods of a more local variety. Local manifestations included Baal-Peor, Baal-Hermon, Baal-Zebul, and Baal-Meon. The OT acknowledges the multiplicity of Baals in some places (Judg. 2:11; 3:7; 1 Sam. 7:4) but also seems to allude to a singular ultimate Baal (1 Kings 18; 2 Kings 21:3), called “Baal-Shamen” or “Baal-Hadad” elsewhere. The fact that Baal was recognized in the Ugaritic texts as the god of the thunderbolt adds an interesting insight to the struggle on Mount Carmel, in which one would suppose that had he been real, the one thing he should have been able to do was bring fire down from the sky; but he could not (1 Kings 18). Recognition that the term “Baal” could refer to a number of gods or to one ultimate god may also help one understand the syncretism that took place in Israel between Yahweh and Baal addressed by the prophet Hosea (Hos. 2:16). To the common person who recognized the multiplicity of the term “Baal” and yet also heard of his supremacy, the assignment of the name to Yahweh and the resulting combining that would occur would seem a natural progression, though still sinful in the eyes of God.

The synthesis of Baal and Yahweh is demonstrated in Scripture as being a temptation from national Israel’s earliest encounters with Baalism. The events at Peor (Num. 25) demonstrate a propensity toward this type of activity, but the confusion between Yahweh and Baal became strongest once Israel entered into the land. Gideon had a second name, “Jerub-Baal” (Judg. 6:32), and the people themselves worshiped Baal-Berith (“Baal of the covenant”) as an indication that they believed their covenant to be with Baal, not Yahweh. Saul, Jonathan, and David all had sons named for Baal: Esh-Baal, Merib-Baal, and Beeliada respectively. Jeroboam I made the connection even more explicit in his setting of shrines at Dan and Bethel with the golden calves that were common icons for Baal in the era, but that he apparently viewed as being appropriate representations of Yahweh. By the time of the prophets, such confusion evidently was entrenched into the very heart of both Israel and Judah; however, Yahweh was able to utilize the false assessments of his character to clarify his true character and ultimately bring Israel back to him.

Asherah was the wife of El in Ugaritic mythology, but apparently because of Baal’s accessibility and ubiquitous nature, she was ultimately given to Baal as a consort among Canaanites in the south. Apparently, her worship was also linked to trees, and the mentioning of “Asherah poles” (Exod. 34:13; Deut. 7:5; Judg. 6:25) in Scripture suggests that such a linkage had been stylized into representative trees at sacred locations. Asherah had prophets (1 Kings 18:19) and specific instruments of worship in Israel (2 Kings 23:4) and became so ensconced in practice and thought that her form often was replicated in the form of items known as Asherim. The previously mentioned synthesis between Baal and Yahweh seems also to have found expression regarding Asherah within Israel. At Kuntillet Ajrud a famous graffito reads “Yahweh of Samaria and his Asherah.” This example of the people granting a consort to Yahweh is yet another instance where the biblical revelation is so distinct among surrounding cultures because of the absence of such imagery regarding God.

Anath was understood as both Baal’s sister and his lover in Canaanite mythology. Given her apparent replacement in the thought of the southern Canaanite tribes by Asherah, it is not surprising that the only place we find Anath mentioned is in appellations, such as “Beth Anath” (lit., “the house of Anath” [Josh. 19:38; Judg. 1:33]). She also seems to have played a role in the tone of Baal worship in that she functioned as a goddess of both warfare and sexuality. Her portrayal in Ugaritic texts and in inscriptions from Egypt suggests a lasciviousness that has become the defining characteristic of Canaanite worship and also seems to be at the center of the methodology implemented by Hosea to reach Israel, which had become ensnarled in a similar outlook regarding Yahweh (Hos. 1–3).

The descriptions of Ashtoreth at Ugarit portray her in much the same light as Anath. Some cultures such as Egypt and later Syria seem to have even melded them together into one being. Whether this combining was a part of the Israelite conceptions is difficult to determine, although such a combination may explain why only Ashtoreth is mentioned in the biblical text as an individual deity and not Anath. In any case, Ashtoreth apparently was a primary figure in the corruption of worship during the reign of Solomon (1 Kings 11:5, 33; 2 Kings 23:13).

Summary. By the time the Israelites entered the land, they found a religion that was already well established and accustomed to absorbing various viewpoints into its expression and practice. Additionally, they found a religion that catered to the more base and animalistic tendencies to which all humanity is drawn since the fall. The commonality of such practices among almost all ancient cultures serves as a potent reminder of the distinctiveness and power of the biblical worldview. The narratives, poems, and prophetic oracles of the OT demonstrate a knowledge of these beliefs and an acknowledgment of their place in the lives of everyday Israelites, but they never demonstrate a submission to them in their portrayal of the true God and his expectations of his people.

A Roman city rebuilt by Augustus and located on the southwest coast of the island of Cyprus. Paul and Barnabas traveled to the new Paphos, where they encountered the Jewish magician Elymas (Bar-Jesus) and converted the Roman official Sergius Paulus to faith in Jesus (Acts 13:6–13).

A chief Greco-Roman city of Pamphylia eight miles from the southern coast of Asia Minor near the Cestrus River, with a port city of Attalia. Surviving architectural ruins testify to Perga’s beauty and wealth. Its patron deity was Artemis (Diana). On his first missionary campaign, Paul passed through Perga on his way out (Acts 13:13–14 [at which time John Mark left the party]) and preached there on the return leg (14:25).

The words “persecute” and “persecution” refer to the act of pursuing and wrongly afflicting someone. The terms occur mostly in the NT, where typically they refer to persecution of Jesus’ followers. Their persecution takes varying forms, such as false legal accusations, imprisonment, or execution.

Persecution throughout the Bible. Within the NT, the English words “persecute” and “persecution” are, with few exceptions, translations of the Greek verb diōkō or the related noun diōgmos. However, diōkō can also mean simply “to pursue, follow after,” such as when the object of pursuit is righteousness or peace (Rom. 9:30; 1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:22; 1 Pet. 3:11). The term is used in this same sense in the LXX (Gen. 14:15; Deut. 16:20; 19:6; 2 Sam. 22:38). The Greek words were translated into English as “persecute” or “persecution” when the translators thought that the context also showed wrongful affliction. The corresponding Hebrew word radap shares this meaning.

In this sense of wrongful affliction, persecution occurs throughout the Bible. The Egyptian army pursues the people of Israel to the Red Sea (Exod. 14:8; Neh. 9:11). On two occasions, the people want to stone the prophet Moses to death (Exod. 17:3–4; Num. 14:10). Saul hunts David (1 Sam. 23:25; 24:14; 26:18). Saul wrongly slays the Gibeonites out of a sense of patriotism (1 Sam. 21:1–2). Jezebel kills God’s prophets (1 Kings 18:13). The prophet Uriah is slain (Jer. 26:23), and the prophet Jeremiah is incarcerated (Jer. 38:6–9). Isaiah, Ezekiel, and other prophets are strongly opposed, suggesting persecution (2 Chron. 36:16; Isa. 1:2–6; Ezek. 2:3–4; 3:7–9; Acts 7:52). Daniel is cast to the lions (Dan. 6:16). A king’s decree allows execution of all Jews for holding the laws of God above the king’s commands, indicating pagan religious hostility (Esther 3). Pagan hostility is shown by the later deaths of many Jews in the religious persecution described in 1 Maccabees and in the first-century uprisings in Egypt described by the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria.

Persecution in the New Testament. In the NT, persecution begins with the imprisonment and beheading of John the Baptist (Mark 6:16–18; Josephus, Ant. 18.116–19). Jesus is accused by the religious authorities and eventually is tried and executed by Pilate. The religious authorities later flog Jesus’ apostles for teaching about him (Acts 5:40). The disciple Stephen is soon accused by false witnesses, tried, and executed by stoning (7:59–60). At this time, Saul (Paul) of Tarsus drags men and women from the Jerusalem church off to prison by authority from the chief priests. Saul has them beaten, and at their execution he casts votes against them (8:3; 22:4, 5, 19; 26:10). After this, Herod executes Jesus’ disciple James (12:2). Saul (Paul) converts, and then he suffers threats, beatings, stoning, and prison (Acts 13:50; 14:5, 19; 16:22–35; 24:27; 2 Cor. 11:23–25). Disciples in Macedonia and Achaia suffer; some Hebrew-speaking disciples suffer imprisonment and property seizure; and some disciples in Asia Minor die as martyrs (2 Cor. 1:6; 1 Thess. 1:6–7; Heb. 10:34; Rev. 2:8–13). Pagan persecution of Christians continued for nearly three centuries, sometimes far more severely, according to records compiled by Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 2.25; 3.17–19, 32–33; 4.8, 13, 15; 5.1–2; 6.1, 4, 41–42; 8.2–3, 7–13). Persecution was sporadic, often beginning with slander or legal accusations. It occurred in many regions, with leaders especially suffering. Records of persecution survived haphazardly.

Jesus says that we are to love and do good to our enemies and pray for our persecutors (Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27). While being crucified, Jesus accordingly prays, “Father, forgive them” (Luke 23:34; cf. Acts 7:60). Preparing for arrest, Jesus warns his disciples to pray to avoid temptation, and he himself prays (Matt. 26:41). Both Jesus and Paul say that believers will be persecuted (Matt. 24:9; 1 Thess. 3:4; 2 Tim. 3:12), but God gives strength in persecution (Acts 14:22; 2 Cor. 12:10).

The words “persecute” and “persecution” refer to the act of pursuing and wrongly afflicting someone. The terms occur mostly in the NT, where typically they refer to persecution of Jesus’ followers. Their persecution takes varying forms, such as false legal accusations, imprisonment, or execution.

Persecution throughout the Bible. Within the NT, the English words “persecute” and “persecution” are, with few exceptions, translations of the Greek verb diōkō or the related noun diōgmos. However, diōkō can also mean simply “to pursue, follow after,” such as when the object of pursuit is righteousness or peace (Rom. 9:30; 1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:22; 1 Pet. 3:11). The term is used in this same sense in the LXX (Gen. 14:15; Deut. 16:20; 19:6; 2 Sam. 22:38). The Greek words were translated into English as “persecute” or “persecution” when the translators thought that the context also showed wrongful affliction. The corresponding Hebrew word radap shares this meaning.

In this sense of wrongful affliction, persecution occurs throughout the Bible. The Egyptian army pursues the people of Israel to the Red Sea (Exod. 14:8; Neh. 9:11). On two occasions, the people want to stone the prophet Moses to death (Exod. 17:3–4; Num. 14:10). Saul hunts David (1 Sam. 23:25; 24:14; 26:18). Saul wrongly slays the Gibeonites out of a sense of patriotism (1 Sam. 21:1–2). Jezebel kills God’s prophets (1 Kings 18:13). The prophet Uriah is slain (Jer. 26:23), and the prophet Jeremiah is incarcerated (Jer. 38:6–9). Isaiah, Ezekiel, and other prophets are strongly opposed, suggesting persecution (2 Chron. 36:16; Isa. 1:2–6; Ezek. 2:3–4; 3:7–9; Acts 7:52). Daniel is cast to the lions (Dan. 6:16). A king’s decree allows execution of all Jews for holding the laws of God above the king’s commands, indicating pagan religious hostility (Esther 3). Pagan hostility is shown by the later deaths of many Jews in the religious persecution described in 1 Maccabees and in the first-century uprisings in Egypt described by the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria.

Persecution in the New Testament. In the NT, persecution begins with the imprisonment and beheading of John the Baptist (Mark 6:16–18; Josephus, Ant. 18.116–19). Jesus is accused by the religious authorities and eventually is tried and executed by Pilate. The religious authorities later flog Jesus’ apostles for teaching about him (Acts 5:40). The disciple Stephen is soon accused by false witnesses, tried, and executed by stoning (7:59–60). At this time, Saul (Paul) of Tarsus drags men and women from the Jerusalem church off to prison by authority from the chief priests. Saul has them beaten, and at their execution he casts votes against them (8:3; 22:4, 5, 19; 26:10). After this, Herod executes Jesus’ disciple James (12:2). Saul (Paul) converts, and then he suffers threats, beatings, stoning, and prison (Acts 13:50; 14:5, 19; 16:22–35; 24:27; 2 Cor. 11:23–25). Disciples in Macedonia and Achaia suffer; some Hebrew-speaking disciples suffer imprisonment and property seizure; and some disciples in Asia Minor die as martyrs (2 Cor. 1:6; 1 Thess. 1:6–7; Heb. 10:34; Rev. 2:8–13). Pagan persecution of Christians continued for nearly three centuries, sometimes far more severely, according to records compiled by Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 2.25; 3.17–19, 32–33; 4.8, 13, 15; 5.1–2; 6.1, 4, 41–42; 8.2–3, 7–13). Persecution was sporadic, often beginning with slander or legal accusations. It occurred in many regions, with leaders especially suffering. Records of persecution survived haphazardly.

Jesus says that we are to love and do good to our enemies and pray for our persecutors (Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27). While being crucified, Jesus accordingly prays, “Father, forgive them” (Luke 23:34; cf. Acts 7:60). Preparing for arrest, Jesus warns his disciples to pray to avoid temptation, and he himself prays (Matt. 26:41). Both Jesus and Paul say that believers will be persecuted (Matt. 24:9; 1 Thess. 3:4; 2 Tim. 3:12), but God gives strength in persecution (Acts 14:22; 2 Cor. 12:10).

A mountainous region in central Asia Minor (modern Turkey). Paul passed through Pisidia on his first missionary journey, on his way to Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:14). This Antioch was not actually in Pisidia, but was so named because of its proximity and to distinguish it from other cities of the same name. Paul passed again through Pisidia on the return leg of his first journey (Acts 14:24). Because of its mountainous terrain, the limited extent to which the region had been Hellenized and later Romanized, and the reputation of the inhabitants in antiquity for robbery, many commentators have suggested that Paul is referring to his travels in Pisidia in 2 Cor. 11:26, where he says, “I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits.”

In the early church, preaching often took place in a missionary context (e.g., Acts 10:34–43). An impressive variety of words is used to describe preaching to unbelievers, including the following: “evangelize” (euangelizomai [Acts 8:4, 12, 25, 35, 40]), “announce” (anangello [Acts 20:20]), “proclaim” (kēryssō [Acts 8:5]), and “persuade” (peithō [Acts 19:8, 26]). Preaching to believers also took place, in a worship context. This article highlights the latter context.

Influences on Preaching

From its inception, a core component of Christian worship was the public proclamation of a word from God. What form early Christian preaching took in the worship assembly is unclear. However, three elements seem most influential in its development: the practice of prophesying, the practices of the synagogue, and the tradition of Greco-Roman rhetoric.

Prophesying. The practice of prophesying in the public assembly appears to be an early form of preaching. Paul makes reference to prophets speaking in the church in Corinth (1 Cor. 11–14). Prophecy was that form of communication in which a word of God, a revelation, was shared and the church was edified (1 Cor. 11:4–5; 14:1, 3–5, 26, 29–31, 39). Others in the worship community tested the prophetic message to verify its truthfulness (1 Cor. 14:29; cf. 1 Thess. 5:19–22; 1 John 4:1–3).

A couple of indications lead to the conclusion that prophecy was more closely related to preaching than to speaking in tongues. For one, worshipers could comprehend the former but needed an interpreter for the latter. For another, the function of prophecy was exhortation (parakaleō [1 Cor. 14:4–5]). “Exhortation” (paraklēsis) is Paul’s most comprehensive term for public proclamation (e.g., 1 Thess. 2:3–4). That is why Paul admonishes worshipers not to interrupt one another in the process of prophesying (1 Cor. 14:29–31). The practice of prophecy influenced the shape that early Christian preaching took.

Synagogue. Another element influencing early Christian preaching was the synagogue. It seems quite likely that early Christian preaching flowed out of the practice found in Jewish synagogues. In the synagogue, the pattern was the reading of Scripture followed by commentary (Luke 4:14–30; Acts 13:15–41).

These two components—prophecy and the reading and exposition of Scripture in the synagogue—play the largest role in influencing the shape of early Christian preaching. How they did so remains uncertain. The early believers may have merged the two practices in Christian worship. Jewish Christians, who had attended the synagogue, took the practice of reading and interpreting Scripture and adopted it into the context of worship in house churches, along with the Jewish tradition of prophesying. Thus, the practice of prophesying merged with the practice of reading and expounding on Scripture to create a more systematic form of proclamation.

The exposition of Scripture may also have assisted in judging the validity of a particular prophecy. However, the criteria for verifying the truth of a prophecy were broader than Scripture alone; it was also measured against one’s lifestyle (Matt. 7:15–20, 21–23) and how the prophecy aligned with established doctrines of the church (1 Cor. 14:29, 37; 1 John 4:1–3).

Greco-Roman rhetoric. A third component influencing early Christian preaching was the classical rhetoric of the Greeks and the Romans. The teachings of rhetoric saturated the culture and education of the day. However, the degree to which it penetrated first-century Christian culture remains uncertain. Paul’s letters display a familiarity with Greco-Roman rhetoric, and from that, one can assume that its influence affected the practice of preaching to some extent.

Sermons and Their Content

The NT contains no fully developed sermon in the context of a public worship. Scholars do believe, however, that Paul’s sermon to the elders in Ephesus is a good representation of his preaching because it contains a theology and vocabulary that echo his teaching in his letters to various churches (Acts 20:17–35). Paul’s letters also likely indicate what he preached to believers. His letters have an oral quality about them and were read in the assemblies (Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 5:27). Thus, Paul’s letters offer a flavor of early Christian preaching.

Another important issue related to early Christian preaching involves the content of what was preached and whether a sharp distinction should be made between kerygma and didachē. C. H. Dodd has defined early Christian preaching as proclamation to nonbelievers. The term he uses to describe it is kerygma. For him, preaching was an evangelistic message about the gospel of God proclaimed to non-Christians. Teaching, didachē, remained distinct and was an ethical admonition (paraklēsis) delivered to Christians. However, Paul’s letters contain no such distinction between the two. Paul links his preaching the gospel of God with his appeal (paraklēsis) to the church (cf. 1 Thess. 2:2–3 with 2 Cor. 5:19–20). That is, Paul continues to announce the good news to the churches along with exhortations to incarnate that good news in the lives of the recipients. Both kerygma and didachē embodied the content of early Christian preaching.

In the early church, preaching often took place in a missionary context (e.g., Acts 10:34–43). An impressive variety of words is used to describe preaching to unbelievers, including the following: “evangelize” (euangelizomai [Acts 8:4, 12, 25, 35, 40]), “announce” (anangello [Acts 20:20]), “proclaim” (kēryssō [Acts 8:5]), and “persuade” (peithō [Acts 19:8, 26]). Preaching to believers also took place, in a worship context. This article highlights the latter context.

Influences on Preaching

From its inception, a core component of Christian worship was the public proclamation of a word from God. What form early Christian preaching took in the worship assembly is unclear. However, three elements seem most influential in its development: the practice of prophesying, the practices of the synagogue, and the tradition of Greco-Roman rhetoric.

Prophesying. The practice of prophesying in the public assembly appears to be an early form of preaching. Paul makes reference to prophets speaking in the church in Corinth (1 Cor. 11–14). Prophecy was that form of communication in which a word of God, a revelation, was shared and the church was edified (1 Cor. 11:4–5; 14:1, 3–5, 26, 29–31, 39). Others in the worship community tested the prophetic message to verify its truthfulness (1 Cor. 14:29; cf. 1 Thess. 5:19–22; 1 John 4:1–3).

A couple of indications lead to the conclusion that prophecy was more closely related to preaching than to speaking in tongues. For one, worshipers could comprehend the former but needed an interpreter for the latter. For another, the function of prophecy was exhortation (parakaleō [1 Cor. 14:4–5]). “Exhortation” (paraklēsis) is Paul’s most comprehensive term for public proclamation (e.g., 1 Thess. 2:3–4). That is why Paul admonishes worshipers not to interrupt one another in the process of prophesying (1 Cor. 14:29–31). The practice of prophecy influenced the shape that early Christian preaching took.

Synagogue. Another element influencing early Christian preaching was the synagogue. It seems quite likely that early Christian preaching flowed out of the practice found in Jewish synagogues. In the synagogue, the pattern was the reading of Scripture followed by commentary (Luke 4:14–30; Acts 13:15–41).

These two components—prophecy and the reading and exposition of Scripture in the synagogue—play the largest role in influencing the shape of early Christian preaching. How they did so remains uncertain. The early believers may have merged the two practices in Christian worship. Jewish Christians, who had attended the synagogue, took the practice of reading and interpreting Scripture and adopted it into the context of worship in house churches, along with the Jewish tradition of prophesying. Thus, the practice of prophesying merged with the practice of reading and expounding on Scripture to create a more systematic form of proclamation.

The exposition of Scripture may also have assisted in judging the validity of a particular prophecy. However, the criteria for verifying the truth of a prophecy were broader than Scripture alone; it was also measured against one’s lifestyle (Matt. 7:15–20, 21–23) and how the prophecy aligned with established doctrines of the church (1 Cor. 14:29, 37; 1 John 4:1–3).

Greco-Roman rhetoric. A third component influencing early Christian preaching was the classical rhetoric of the Greeks and the Romans. The teachings of rhetoric saturated the culture and education of the day. However, the degree to which it penetrated first-century Christian culture remains uncertain. Paul’s letters display a familiarity with Greco-Roman rhetoric, and from that, one can assume that its influence affected the practice of preaching to some extent.

Sermons and Their Content

The NT contains no fully developed sermon in the context of a public worship. Scholars do believe, however, that Paul’s sermon to the elders in Ephesus is a good representation of his preaching because it contains a theology and vocabulary that echo his teaching in his letters to various churches (Acts 20:17–35). Paul’s letters also likely indicate what he preached to believers. His letters have an oral quality about them and were read in the assemblies (Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 5:27). Thus, Paul’s letters offer a flavor of early Christian preaching.

Another important issue related to early Christian preaching involves the content of what was preached and whether a sharp distinction should be made between kerygma and didachē. C. H. Dodd has defined early Christian preaching as proclamation to nonbelievers. The term he uses to describe it is kerygma. For him, preaching was an evangelistic message about the gospel of God proclaimed to non-Christians. Teaching, didachē, remained distinct and was an ethical admonition (paraklēsis) delivered to Christians. However, Paul’s letters contain no such distinction between the two. Paul links his preaching the gospel of God with his appeal (paraklēsis) to the church (cf. 1 Thess. 2:2–3 with 2 Cor. 5:19–20). That is, Paul continues to announce the good news to the churches along with exhortations to incarnate that good news in the lives of the recipients. Both kerygma and didachē embodied the content of early Christian preaching.

A technical term for “promise” does not appear in the OT, but its concept is present throughout Scripture. God unfolds the history of redemption by employing the idea of promises. The writers of the NT repeatedly assert that Jesus Christ has fulfilled God’s promises in the OT (e.g., Luke 24:44–48; 1 Cor. 15:3–8).

Old Testament

The promises in the OT are closely related to the history of salvation. At each stage of redemptive history, God delivered a new message about redemption, usually in the form of a covenant. Immediately after the fall of humankind, God first revealed his plan of salvation: the promise that the seed of the woman would ultimately crush the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). After the flood, God made a covenant with Noah, promising never again to destroy the earth with a flood (Gen. 8:21–9:17).

Most remarkable is the promise that God made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Gen. 12:1–3; 13:14–17; 17:4–8; 22:17–18; 26:1–5; 28:13–15). God called Abraham in order to give him three specific blessings: the land, descendants, and the channel of blessing among the nations. As a sign of his promise, God made a covenant of circumcision with Abraham and his descendants (17:10–14). With Isaac (26:1–5) and Jacob (28:13–15), God repeatedly reconfirmed the promise made to Abraham. At the time of the exodus and later the settlement in Canaan, God’s promise to Abraham was partially fulfilled by multiplying his descendants into millions and by giving them the promised land.

At Mount Sinai, God made another covenant with the Israelites. In this covenant, God promised that they would be his “treasured possession” among the nations if they would obey him and keep his covenant (Exod. 19:5). God’s special blessings were pronounced for them to be “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (19:6). For this purpose, God gave them the Ten Commandments, which became the religious and ethical standard for his covenant people (20:1–17). In the book of Deuteronomy, moreover, God’s promises were made in the form of blessings to the obedient and of curses to the disobedient (Deut. 28). Later these became the criteria by which the kings of Israel were judged to determine whether they had lived an obedient life.

According to 2 Sam. 7:11–16, God made an eternal covenant with David, promising the permanence of David’s house, kingdom, and throne. In this covenant it was also promised that his offspring would build the house of the Lord. The Davidic covenant was partially fulfilled at the time of Solomon, who as king built the house of the Lord, the first temple in Jerusalem (1 Kings 8:15–25). Later, in the period of the classical prophets, when the hope for the Davidic throne was endangered, the permanence of the Davidic throne and kingdom reappeared in the form of messianic prophecy (Jer. 23:5–8; Ezek. 37:24–28). This promise was ultimately fulfilled by the coming of Jesus Christ from the line of David (Matt. 1:1–17).

The history of Israel shows that although the nation repeatedly broke God’s covenants, he remained faithful to them. According to Num. 23:19, God’s promises are absolutely trustworthy: “God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?” The trustworthiness of God’s promises results from his unchanging character (Ps. 110:4; Mal. 3:6–7). The almighty God has the power to fulfill his promises (Isa. 55:11). When Joshua finished conquering the land of Canaan, he confessed that God was faithful in keeping all his promises to his ancestors (Josh. 21:45; 23:14–15). Joshua himself witnessed that trusting God’s promises is a life-and-death issue. Those who had not trusted his promise to give them the land of Canaan perished in the wilderness, but those who had trusted his promise were allowed to enter it (Num. 14:1–35).

New Testament

The central message of the NT is that God’s promises in the OT are fulfilled with the coming of Jesus Christ. Matthew’s numerous citation formulas are evidence of this theme. In Luke 4:16–21 Jesus pronounces the fulfillment of Isaiah’s promise (about the Messiah’s ministry [Isa. 61:1–3]) in his own life. The book of Acts specifically states that Jesus’ suffering and resurrection and the coming of the Holy Spirit are the fulfillment of the OT promises (2:29–31; 13:32–34). Jesus’ identity both as the descendant of David (Acts 13:23) and as the prophet like Moses (Acts 3:21–26; cf. Deut. 18:15–18) is also regarded as the fulfillment of the OT.

Paul’s view of God’s promises is summarized in this statement: “For no matter how many promises God has made, they are ‘Yes’ in Christ” (2 Cor. 1:20). According to Rom. 1:2–3, Paul regards the gospel as the message that God “promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son.” In Rom. 4 Abraham’s faith is described in terms of his trust in God’s promises, which leads to his righteousness. He is presented as our model of faith in God’s promises. The famous phrase “according to the Scriptures” in 1 Cor. 15:3–4 is, in a sense, understood by Paul as the fulfillment of God’s promises regarding Christ’s death and resurrection.

In the book of Hebrews, the concept of promise plays an important role. In Heb. 6 Abraham is presented as the exemplary man who trusted in God’s promise. The author exhorts the Hebrew Christians to follow Abraham’s model of trust in God’s promise (6:12–20). The author also asserts that Jesus’ new covenant is superior to the old one because his ministry “is established on better promises” (8:6). In Heb. 11 the faith of the great OT saints is acclaimed in terms of their faith in God’s promises.

In the NT, God makes new promises based on the work of Christ, including the final resurrection and the second coming of Christ (John 5:29; 11:25–26; 1 Cor. 15:48–57; 2 Cor. 4:14; 1 Thess. 4:13–18). Furthermore, the message of the gospel is presented as multiple promises, including eternal life, the fullness of life in Christ, the forgiveness of sins, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the peace of God, the knowledge of God, and the joy of God (Matt. 28:18–20; John 3:16; 10:10; 14:16, 27; 16:20–24; 17:25–26; Phil. 4:4–9; 1 John 1:9).

Human Promises

The Scriptures contain many cases of people making promises to other people. For example, Abraham made promises to the king of Sodom and to Abimelek (Gen. 14:22–24; 21:22–24). The Israelite spies made a promise to Rahab (Josh. 2:12–21). People also make promises to God: Jacob, Jephthah, Hannah, and the returning exiles (Gen. 28:20–21; Judg. 11:29–40; 1 Sam. 1:11–20; Neh. 10:28–29). Human promises usually are accompanied by the taking of an oath (Gen. 14:22; 21:24; Deut. 6:13; Josh. 2:12–14) or the declaration of a curse in case of its breach (Ruth 1:17; 1 Sam. 14:24; 2 Sam. 3:35; 1 Kings 2:23). It is imperative to keep the promise that one makes to a human being or to God (Num. 30:1–2; Ps. 50:14). In Mal. 2:14–16, divorce is regarded as a breaking of the oath between husband and wife. In OT times, people were afraid of curses falling upon them when they broke a promise. The Bible warns of the danger of making false promises, as doing so will bring about sin and judgment (Lev. 19:12; Deut. 23:21; Zech. 8:17). It is an axiom of the wisdom literature that one should not make promises rashly or lightly (Prov. 20:25; Eccles. 5:1–7), and Jesus prohibits the taking of any oath because of the possibility of its breach (Matt. 5:33–37).

A Gentile convert to the religion of the Jews. Proselytism is the process whereby a Gentile assented to Jewish monotheism, concurred with Jewish criticism of pagan ethics and idolatry, accepted the obligations of the Mosaic law, and entered the nation of Israel. In the LXX the Greek word prosēlytos translates the Hebrew word ger (“foreigner”) seventy-seven times. The word can denote resident aliens (Lev. 19:10; 24:16) and even Israelites (Exod. 22:21; Lev. 19:34; Deut. 10:19). It is common to translate prosēlytos as “convert” because by the first century AD it did by and large have that meaning in inscriptions, in the NT (Matt. 23:15; Acts 2:11; 6:5; 13:43), Philo (Dreams 2.273; Spec. Laws 1.51, 308; QE 2.2), and the LXX (e.g., Exod. 12:48–49; Deut. 1:16; Pss. 93:6; 145:9; Jer. 7:6; Ezek. 14:7; Zech. 7:10; Mal. 3:5).

In later rabbinic regulations converts were required to make a sacrifice and to undergo baptism and circumcision. But this was not necessarily uniform in the Judaism of the Second Temple period or even in the rabbinic era. For instance, Philo asserts that what constitutes a proselyte is not circumcision but rather submission to God, “because the proselyte is one who circumcises not his uncircumcision but his desires and sensual pleasures and the other passions of the soul” (QE 2.2). Similarly, Josephus narrates a story about the conversion of King Izates of Adiabene, who is given two different views as to whether he needs to be circumcised in order to worship the God of Israel or to be “assuredly Jewish” (Ant. 20.34–48). It is quite likely that many of the converts to Christianity came from proselyte and God-fearer ranks. They were attracted to Christianity because they could worship the God of Israel through faith in Jesus Christ without adopting the religion and nationality of Judea.

A transliteration of the Greek word synagōgē, meaning “gathering, assembly, meeting.” In English, the word “synagogue” refers either to a Jewish congregation or to the place where that congregation meets. Synagogues of the biblical era functioned as both religious and civic centers for the Jewish community.

Origins

The origin of synagogues is uncertain. The earliest archaeological evidence is from Egypt in the third century BC, consisting of inscriptions and a papyrus letter. The oldest architectural find is from the island of Delos in the Aegean Sea, although whether this was constructed as a synagogue or redesigned into one is unknown, as is whether it was Jewish or Samaritan. The oldest structures yet found in Israel consist of two rooms at Qumran and the synagogue at Gamla, which date from the late first century BC. In Capernaum, the basalt synagogue was built by a Gentile centurion for the community in the first century AD (Luke 7:1–5).

By that time, synagogues were well attested in Israel, elsewhere in the Roman Empire, and in Egypt (Matt. 4:23; Luke 4:44; Acts 9:2; 17:10, 16–17; 18:8, 19). Synagogues were found wherever there were communities of Jews, in cities and rural areas alike. Especially in Diaspora settings or remote locations, they were the heart of Jewish life. Several hypotheses have been suggested to account for their apparently sudden appearance.

Some believe that synagogues were developed during the Babylonian captivity as the response of the exile community to the destruction of their temple and sacrificial system. Despite these enormous losses, the Jews still had the Torah, and from that point forward worship and prayer based on the reading and studying of the Scriptures, which could be done locally, began to gain ascendancy. Critics of this idea, however, point out that while it makes sense, there is no direct evidence to support it.

Others think that the spread of Hellenism in the second century BC precipitated a crisis of identity among Jews. For example, 1 Maccabees reports with distress that some Jews had abandoned the covenant and teamed with the Hellenists, even going so far as to build a Greek-style gymnasium in Jerusalem (1:11–15). Thus, the thought is that synagogues were a form of resistance to the overwhelming and perversely appealing cultural changes of the day.

More recently, it has been suggested that synagogues were the gradual successors to functions that had previously taken place at city gates. First-century synagogues served a wide range of functions for the community. Throughout Israel’s prior history, however, these same activities—assembly, legal, social, educational, and religious—had taken place at the city gate (Deut. 12:15; 2 Sam. 15:2; 2 Kings 23:8; Neh. 8:1–8). The Gamla synagogue sits against the east city wall next to a probable gate, and its location could be evidence of the slow development of the synagogue as city gates changed from multipurpose facilities to portals of ingress and egress.

First-Century Synagogues

First-century synagogues served as integrated centers supporting Jewish life. Regular communal reading and exposition of Scripture, including teaching and discussion of the law and transmission of its complex associated traditions (Luke 4:16; Acts 13:14–15), occurred there. Although formal liturgical rites evolved after the destruction of the temple in AD 70, synagogues were places of prayer in the first century (Matt. 6:5). Synagogues also served as courtrooms and places where crimes were punished (Acts 22:19), as well as locations for common meals and festivals (see Acts 6:2).

Synagogues were administered by local community leaders, including a president and a board (Acts 13:15). Synagogue leaders named in the NT include Jairus (Mark 5:22; Luke 8:41), Crispus (Acts 18:8), and Sosthenes (Acts 18:17). The role of the leader was to preside over services, to rule as the judge in court cases, to represent the community, and often to act as a patron. The board served in an advisory role and assisted with teaching. A scribe maintained community records and taught.

Congregations included Pharisees, who advocated strict adherence to the law, although they were chided by Jesus for their false piety (Luke 11:42–44). Women participated in the synagogue along with the men, and in some cases they were financial donors (cf. Luke 8:3). God-fearing Gentiles were welcomed (Acts 17:17). In Jerusalem, synagogues included both Hebrews and Jews from the Diaspora (Acts 6:1, 9).

A synagogue could be a designated room in a house or a discrete building. Most of the better archaeological evidence is later than the first century and reveals more clearly religious intentionality in design than may have been characteristic earlier. This evidence includes the door facing Jerusalem, artistic temple motifs, a niche for the Torah scrolls, and perimeter bench seating around an open central hall.

The Synagogue in the Bible

Since synagogues were institutions with a documented history no earlier than the third century BC, they are not mentioned in the OT. The Greek word from which the English one is derived does appear frequently in the LXX, but always with a general reference to a gathering, assembly, or meeting.

Rabbinic history (but not Scripture) makes reference to the “Great Synagogue,” meaning a group of men who transmitted traditions from the prophets to the earliest named rabbinic teachers. It is loosely based on Neh. 8–10, which describes the prayers and actions of the Jewish leaders who had returned from exile.

Synagogues frequently were locations of the teaching and healing ministry of Jesus. He began preaching the kingdom of God, teaching, and performing healing miracles in Galilean synagogues (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; 12:9; 13:54; Mark 1:21–29, 39; 3:1; 6:2; Luke 4:15–38, 44; 6:6–11; 13:10–17; John 6:59; 18:20). Later, the apostle Paul customarily initiated his mission work in the local synagogue at each of his destinations (Acts 9:19–20; 13:5, 14–15; 14:1; 17:1, 10, 17; 18:1–8; 19:8).

The last (and, from a twenty-first-century perspective, most controversial) use of the word “synagogue” in Scripture is the difficult phrase “synagogue of Satan” (Rev. 2:9; 3:9), which must be read in its context. This was written in response to the significant persecution in Asia Minor of the churches at Smyrna and Philadelphia by Jews who were in collusion with the Roman authorities. They were falsely accusing Jewish and Gentile Christian believers, creating unspeakable suffering for them. This phrase, intended to encourage Christian perseverance, implies that the churches in view represented true Israel, while their accusers were false Jews. Similar language was used by the covenant-keeping community in Qumran when, in the DSS, it referred to apostate Jews as a “congregation of Belial” and an “assembly of hypocrites” (1QHa 10:22; 15:34).

Samuel oversaw the transition from the period of judges to the time of the monarchy. He was the final judge (1 Sam. 7:6, 15–16; cf. 8:1 NIV mg.). He also was a priest (2:18) and functioned as a prophet (3:20).

The account of his life begins when his mother, Hannah, desperately prayed that God would open her barren womb. The situation in Israel was not good. Eli, the high priest, was incompetent and spiritually dull. He even mistook her sincere prayers for the blabbering of a drunkard (1 Sam. 1:12–16). In answer to her prayers and her vow to dedicate her future child as a Nazirite (cf. Num. 6:1–21), God opened her womb, and Samuel was born. Upon his birth, he was committed to the service of Yahweh at the tabernacle.

Samuel was quite different from Eli’s wicked sons, Hophni and Phinehas. While they stole from the sacrifices and slept with the women who ministered at the tabernacle, Samuel “was ministering before the Lord” (1 Sam. 2:18). The narrative even draws a contrast between Samuel and Eli in that the latter was dull and did not immediately recognize that God was speaking to Samuel one evening (1 Sam. 3).

Sometime after the death of Eli, Samuel found himself in the position of leadership as a judge in Israel (1 Sam. 7). God used him to inflict a serious, but not decisive, defeat against the Philistines. Afterward Samuel set up a stone called “Ebenezer” (“stone of help”) to commemorate the event.

The people, however, felt that Israel needed a stronger central leader to expel the Philistines from their land, so they requested that Samuel anoint a king over them (1 Sam. 8:5). This worried and angered Samuel, who took it as a personal affront, and in reality it was more seriously an insult toward God. The people should have trusted God to provide the victory over the Philistines. Even so, God directed Samuel to anoint a king over the people, and Saul was chosen.

After this event, Samuel no longer was judge over Israel, but he was a priest and a prophet. As such, he led the people in a covenant renewal ritual whereby they reaffirmed their allegiance to God, the heavenly king, even though they now had an earthly king (1 Sam. 12).

As part of his duties, Samuel operated as the conscience of King Saul. He confronted Saul on numerous occasions when the king chose to go his own way rather than obey the commands of Yahweh (1 Sam. 13; 15).

Saul greatly disappointed God and his representative Samuel. Accordingly, God commissioned Samuel to anoint the next king, even before the death of Saul. In Bethlehem, God directed Samuel to anoint David as the future king of Israel.

Samuel died and was buried at Ramah before David’s kingship became a reality (1 Sam. 25:1). Even with death, the story of Samuel does not end. Toward the end of Saul’s life, God cut off communication with him. Desperate to control the outcome of a battle with the Philistines, Saul showed his spiritual perversity by consulting a necromancer. The latter summoned Samuel from the dead (1 Sam. 28), and Samuel pronounced Saul’s demise.

Samuel was remembered as an important and faithful spiritual leader, compared favorably even to Moses (Jer. 15:1; Acts 13:20; Heb. 11:32). He is honored as a prophet whose words anticipated the coming of Jesus Christ (Acts 3:24).

In ancient times, footwear generally was sandals, a flat sole constructed of leather, wood, or matted grass secured to the foot with leather straps. Soldiers and dignitaries had more-substantial foot coverings than common people had (cf. Eph. 6:15). Sandals were common and cheap; their quality and presence or absence were indicators of social status (Ezek. 16:10; Luke 15:22). Prisoners were unshod (2 Chron. 28:15; Isa. 20:2–4), and those in mourning also went barefoot (2 Sam. 15:30; Ezek. 24:17). One put on sandals in preparation for a journey (Exod. 12:11; Mark 6:9; Acts 12:8). Moses and Joshua were instructed to take off sandals when they stood on holy ground (Exod. 3:5; Josh. 5:15). The transfer of a sandal from one party to another sealed a property transaction (Ruth 4:6–10; cf. Ps. 60:8), while the removal of the sandal of a man who refused to marry his brother’s widow was a ceremony of disgrace (Deut. 25:9–10).

The lowest servant in a household removed guests’ sandals and washed their feet, as Jesus demonstrated for his disciples (John 13:5; cf. 1 Sam. 25:41; Luke 7:38). John the Baptist did not consider himself worthy of the humble task of untying Jesus’ sandal (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:7; Acts 13:25).

In ancient times, footwear generally was sandals, a flat sole constructed of leather, wood, or matted grass secured to the foot with leather straps. Soldiers and dignitaries had more-substantial foot coverings than common people had (cf. Eph. 6:15). Sandals were common and cheap; their quality and presence or absence were indicators of social status (Ezek. 16:10; Luke 15:22). Prisoners were unshod (2 Chron. 28:15; Isa. 20:2–4), and those in mourning also went barefoot (2 Sam. 15:30; Ezek. 24:17). One put on sandals in preparation for a journey (Exod. 12:11; Mark 6:9; Acts 12:8). Moses and Joshua were instructed to take off sandals when they stood on holy ground (Exod. 3:5; Josh. 5:15). The transfer of a sandal from one party to another sealed a property transaction (Ruth 4:6–10; cf. Ps. 60:8), while the removal of the sandal of a man who refused to marry his brother’s widow was a ceremony of disgrace (Deut. 25:9–10).

The lowest servant in a household removed guests’ sandals and washed their feet, as Jesus demonstrated for his disciples (John 13:5; cf. 1 Sam. 25:41; Luke 7:38). John the Baptist did not consider himself worthy of the humble task of untying Jesus’ sandal (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:7; Acts 13:25).

In ancient times, footwear generally was sandals, a flat sole constructed of leather, wood, or matted grass secured to the foot with leather straps. Soldiers and dignitaries had more-substantial foot coverings than common people had (cf. Eph. 6:15). Sandals were common and cheap; their quality and presence or absence were indicators of social status (Ezek. 16:10; Luke 15:22). Prisoners were unshod (2 Chron. 28:15; Isa. 20:2–4), and those in mourning also went barefoot (2 Sam. 15:30; Ezek. 24:17). One put on sandals in preparation for a journey (Exod. 12:11; Mark 6:9; Acts 12:8). Moses and Joshua were instructed to take off sandals when they stood on holy ground (Exod. 3:5; Josh. 5:15). The transfer of a sandal from one party to another sealed a property transaction (Ruth 4:6–10; cf. Ps. 60:8), while the removal of the sandal of a man who refused to marry his brother’s widow was a ceremony of disgrace (Deut. 25:9–10).

The lowest servant in a household removed guests’ sandals and washed their feet, as Jesus demonstrated for his disciples (John 13:5; cf. 1 Sam. 25:41; Luke 7:38). John the Baptist did not consider himself worthy of the humble task of untying Jesus’ sandal (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:7; Acts 13:25).

A transliteration of the Greek word synagōgē, meaning “gathering, assembly, meeting.” In English, the word “synagogue” refers either to a Jewish congregation or to the place where that congregation meets. Synagogues of the biblical era functioned as both religious and civic centers for the Jewish community.

Origins

The origin of synagogues is uncertain. The earliest archaeological evidence is from Egypt in the third century BC, consisting of inscriptions and a papyrus letter. The oldest architectural find is from the island of Delos in the Aegean Sea, although whether this was constructed as a synagogue or redesigned into one is unknown, as is whether it was Jewish or Samaritan. The oldest structures yet found in Israel consist of two rooms at Qumran and the synagogue at Gamla, which date from the late first century BC. In Capernaum, the basalt synagogue was built by a Gentile centurion for the community in the first century AD (Luke 7:1–5).

By that time, synagogues were well attested in Israel, elsewhere in the Roman Empire, and in Egypt (Matt. 4:23; Luke 4:44; Acts 9:2; 17:10, 16–17; 18:8, 19). Synagogues were found wherever there were communities of Jews, in cities and rural areas alike. Especially in Diaspora settings or remote locations, they were the heart of Jewish life. Several hypotheses have been suggested to account for their apparently sudden appearance.

Some believe that synagogues were developed during the Babylonian captivity as the response of the exile community to the destruction of their temple and sacrificial system. Despite these enormous losses, the Jews still had the Torah, and from that point forward worship and prayer based on the reading and studying of the Scriptures, which could be done locally, began to gain ascendancy. Critics of this idea, however, point out that while it makes sense, there is no direct evidence to support it.

Others think that the spread of Hellenism in the second century BC precipitated a crisis of identity among Jews. For example, 1 Maccabees reports with distress that some Jews had abandoned the covenant and teamed with the Hellenists, even going so far as to build a Greek-style gymnasium in Jerusalem (1:11–15). Thus, the thought is that synagogues were a form of resistance to the overwhelming and perversely appealing cultural changes of the day.

More recently, it has been suggested that synagogues were the gradual successors to functions that had previously taken place at city gates. First-century synagogues served a wide range of functions for the community. Throughout Israel’s prior history, however, these same activities—assembly, legal, social, educational, and religious—had taken place at the city gate (Deut. 12:15; 2 Sam. 15:2; 2 Kings 23:8; Neh. 8:1–8). The Gamla synagogue sits against the east city wall next to a probable gate, and its location could be evidence of the slow development of the synagogue as city gates changed from multipurpose facilities to portals of ingress and egress.

First-Century Synagogues

First-century synagogues served as integrated centers supporting Jewish life. Regular communal reading and exposition of Scripture, including teaching and discussion of the law and transmission of its complex associated traditions (Luke 4:16; Acts 13:14–15), occurred there. Although formal liturgical rites evolved after the destruction of the temple in AD 70, synagogues were places of prayer in the first century (Matt. 6:5). Synagogues also served as courtrooms and places where crimes were punished (Acts 22:19), as well as locations for common meals and festivals (see Acts 6:2).

Synagogues were administered by local community leaders, including a president and a board (Acts 13:15). Synagogue leaders named in the NT include Jairus (Mark 5:22; Luke 8:41), Crispus (Acts 18:8), and Sosthenes (Acts 18:17). The role of the leader was to preside over services, to rule as the judge in court cases, to represent the community, and often to act as a patron. The board served in an advisory role and assisted with teaching. A scribe maintained community records and taught.

Congregations included Pharisees, who advocated strict adherence to the law, although they were chided by Jesus for their false piety (Luke 11:42–44). Women participated in the synagogue along with the men, and in some cases they were financial donors (cf. Luke 8:3). God-fearing Gentiles were welcomed (Acts 17:17). In Jerusalem, synagogues included both Hebrews and Jews from the Diaspora (Acts 6:1, 9).

A synagogue could be a designated room in a house or a discrete building. Most of the better archaeological evidence is later than the first century and reveals more clearly religious intentionality in design than may have been characteristic earlier. This evidence includes the door facing Jerusalem, artistic temple motifs, a niche for the Torah scrolls, and perimeter bench seating around an open central hall.

The Synagogue in the Bible

Since synagogues were institutions with a documented history no earlier than the third century BC, they are not mentioned in the OT. The Greek word from which the English one is derived does appear frequently in the LXX, but always with a general reference to a gathering, assembly, or meeting.

Rabbinic history (but not Scripture) makes reference to the “Great Synagogue,” meaning a group of men who transmitted traditions from the prophets to the earliest named rabbinic teachers. It is loosely based on Neh. 8–10, which describes the prayers and actions of the Jewish leaders who had returned from exile.

Synagogues frequently were locations of the teaching and healing ministry of Jesus. He began preaching the kingdom of God, teaching, and performing healing miracles in Galilean synagogues (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; 12:9; 13:54; Mark 1:21–29, 39; 3:1; 6:2; Luke 4:15–38, 44; 6:6–11; 13:10–17; John 6:59; 18:20). Later, the apostle Paul customarily initiated his mission work in the local synagogue at each of his destinations (Acts 9:19–20; 13:5, 14–15; 14:1; 17:1, 10, 17; 18:1–8; 19:8).

The last (and, from a twenty-first-century perspective, most controversial) use of the word “synagogue” in Scripture is the difficult phrase “synagogue of Satan” (Rev. 2:9; 3:9), which must be read in its context. This was written in response to the significant persecution in Asia Minor of the churches at Smyrna and Philadelphia by Jews who were in collusion with the Roman authorities. They were falsely accusing Jewish and Gentile Christian believers, creating unspeakable suffering for them. This phrase, intended to encourage Christian perseverance, implies that the churches in view represented true Israel, while their accusers were false Jews. Similar language was used by the covenant-keeping community in Qumran when, in the DSS, it referred to apostate Jews as a “congregation of Belial” and an “assembly of hypocrites” (1QHa 10:22; 15:34).

This book, commonly referred to simply as Acts, is the sequel to the Gospel of Luke and records the exciting history of the first three decades of the early church. The book begins with the ascension of Jesus, followed by his sending of the Holy Spirit, and ends with the gospel message being proclaimed by Paul as a prisoner in the capital city of the Roman Empire. In the pages in between, the reader is introduced to the key people, places, and events of this strategic and crucial time of Christian history. The book of Acts provides insightful and inspiring reading. It forms the backdrop for understanding much of the NT (especially Paul’s letters), and it provides important models for the contemporary church.

Historical Background

In order to understand the book of Acts, one must become familiar with its historical background. This includes understanding the book’s authorship, recipients, and setting. In terms of authorship, the book technically is anonymous; however, there are good reasons for holding to church history’s traditional view that its author is Luke. This tradition dates back to the early second century and is supported by internal evidence. This evidence further reveals that Luke was a physician and close companion of the apostle Paul (in fact, Luke was actually with Paul for some of the events that he records in Acts; see the “we” passages, found in 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:8–18; 27:1–28:16). Luke was well educated, well traveled, and familiar with both the Jewish and the Greco-​Roman worlds. He was a Hellenistic God-fearer and a Christian. He was also familiar with the Jewish Scriptures, Greco-Roman rhetoric, and ancient histories, thus making him the perfect candidate to write an accurate history of early Christianity.

The specific recipient of Acts is Theophilus (1:1). Theophilus could be characterized as a relatively new believer of high social status, a person educated in Greco-Roman rhetoric and history, and one who possessed the financial means to promote and publish Luke’s work (both the Gospel of Luke and Acts). It is probable that in some way Theophilus served as a bridge to a wider readership. It seems likely that Theophilus was Luke’s ideal reader (i.e., an influential Greco-Roman of high social standing).

The specific setting of Acts is difficult to determine; however, it seems clear that the book was written during a time of crisis for the church. This crisis involved persecution and slander of Christians by both Jews and Gentiles. Both groups were trying to persuade public opinion against Christianity, including the opinion of Greco-Roman authorities. The persecution and slander were taking their toll on the church, and many Christians were demoralized and struggling to remain faithful as witnesses of Jesus. Christianity needed someone to write a response to this crisis. This response had to do three things: (1) accurately relate the history of the church to influential Greco-Romans of high social status; (2) show that Christianity was an ancient religion (ancient religions were considered to be legitimate by Roman authorities) and an asset to the Roman Empire, not a threat; (3) legitimize Christianity over against Judaism. The author of this reponse had to be someone who was respected both inside and outside of the Christian faith community, who knew the church’s history well, and who was educated in Greco-Roman rhetoric. What better authorial candidate than Luke? Finally, the church also needed a person of high social status and financial means to help publish and promote the work; thus, Theophilus was chosen.

Purpose

The book of Acts was written for a variety of purposes. These include apologetics, legitimization, discipleship, and witness to salvation. The apologetic purpose of Acts focuses on how Christianity could be recognized as an ancient, honorable, and officially protected religion in the Roman Empire. Although Judaism had the status of religio licita (legal religion) with Roman authorities for most of the first century, Christianity encountered serious problems in this respect. Acts itself reveals a substantial amount of such evidence in this regard. For example, 16:20–21 shows that at Philippi, Paul and Silas were charged with disturbing the peace by advocating unlawful customs. In Thessalonica, the missionaries were accused of defying Caesar by promoting another king named “Jesus” (17:7). At Corinth, the charge was that of persuading the people toward unlawful worship (18:13). Later in Acts, Paul was charged by the Jewish priestly leaders with being part of an unacceptable sect that was stirring up riots in Jewish communities (24:5–9). In 28:22, when Paul addressed the Roman Jews, they responded by saying that “people everywhere are talking against this sect [Christianity].” Such accusations, accompanied by the fact that Christianity’s founder had been crucified by Roman authorities, made it difficult for the Christians to gain credibility. Christianity’s precarious position with Rome was further exacerbated by a strong Jewish campaign to separate from Christians and to label them as sectarian. This strategy certainly intended for Christianity to be viewed by Rome as religio illicita (illegal or forbidden religion). Thus, Luke writes Acts to defend Christianity by showing that it is not a replacement of Judaism, but rather its legitimate continuation. Therefore, it should be accepted by the Roman authorities as a legal religion just as Judaism was accepted.

Luke’s apologetic message also appears to be directed inwardly, to a struggling church. This inward focus leads to Luke’s next main purpose: legitimization of the Christian faith for its adherents. As part of his defense, Luke intends to equip the church in the midst of an identity crisis due to the constant threats of illegitimacy. This explains Luke’s strategy of retelling the story of the church’s origins so that followers of Christ would understand their true position from God’s perspective. Thus, Luke verifies four things: (1) the Jewish Scriptures prophesied a coming messiah, and Jesus matched these prophecies; (2) the resurrection was foretold in Scripture and verified by eyewitnesses; (3) it was God’s plan all along for Gentiles to be included in God’s redemptive work; (4) Jews who rejected Jesus were acting in the same way their ancestors did; therefore, believers should not be surprised by their negative reaction to Jesus. Luke uses stories such as the one in Acts 2:41–47 to verify that salvation was genuinely being accomplished in the church and that Christians were experiencing the fulfillment of God’s ancient promises to Israel. Luke’s writing is intended to encourage his contemporary church members to remain faithful in their service and witness for the Lord. He reminds them that they are the true (legitimate) “people of God” and that God’s Spirit will help them prevail and will give them abundant life even in the midst of hardship and persecution.

Another key purpose of the book of Acts is to foster discipleship. The prologues of both Luke’s Gospel and Acts verify that Luke is writing to provide instruction and teaching for Theophilus (see Luke 1:1–4; Acts 1:1–2). Part of this instruction reveals that the ascension of Jesus was not the end of his relationship with the world, but rather a new beginning. Jesus’ departure did not mean abandonment; in fact, it meant just the opposite. Jesus verifies his continuing presence and work in the world after his departure just as he had lived and worked before. In other words, the same Spirit who directed the ministry of Jesus is now going to direct the ministry of Jesus’ followers. The rest of the book of Acts provides instruction (with many personal examples) on how Christ can fulfill the ministry of believers through the power and direction of the Holy Spirit. Luke’s discipleship teaching includes helping believers learn how to experience and follow God’s Spirit (chap. 2), to boldly witness for Christ in the midst of persecution (chaps. 3–4, 8, 14, 16–17, 19–28), to sacrificially share resources with other Christians in need (chaps. 2, 4, 11), to resolve disputes within the church (chaps. 6, 15), and to take the gospel message of salvation to all people (chaps. 2, 11, 13–28).

The book of Acts places great emphasis on the message of salvation and the responsibility given to believers to share this salvific message with all people. This salvation-witness concept is clearly one of Luke’s key purposes for the book of Acts. The Pentecost event of Acts 2 initiates the theme of salvation for all people and thus sets the agenda for the rest of the book. In this passage, various Jews from many nations hear the good news in their own tongue, which suggests that this news is for peoples of all tongues and nations yet for Jews first. The rest of Acts continues this theme of the universal scope of salvation. Luke makes it clear that this salvation crosses all geographical, ethnic, and social boundaries. In Acts, Luke is bridging the gap between Jesus’ earthly ministry and a later generation of Christ followers who are to take the gospel to a much wider geographical area with even greater ethnic diversity. The message of salvation should be joined with Luke’s emphasis on witness. The centrality of the theme of witness in Acts is verified by Jesus’ words right before the ascension: “And you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (1:8). The book of Acts tells the story of how the early church received and obeyed the command of Jesus to bear witness of him to the ends of the earth.

Literary Features

These key purposes of Acts are expounded through some distinctive literary features found in the book. One such literary feature is that the book of Acts was written in a literary genre called “apologetic historiography.” This genre can be defined as the story of a subgroup of people told by a member of the group who explains the group’s traditions and history while using Greco-Roman literary features. A good example of this literary genre is Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities. Josephus tells the story of the Jews to Greco-Roman readers in hopes that they will better understand Jewish history and traditions and will accept the Jews in the larger Greco-Roman world. This appears to be exactly what Luke is doing in the book of Acts for Christians. However, Luke is not giving a defense of a particular ethnic group; rather, he is defending a multicultural people who transcend ethnic and geographical boundaries. In fact, this is a key part of Luke’s message. Throughout Acts, Luke is trying to explain why his religion is one that crosses ethnic boundaries and is a universal religion inclusive of all ethnicities. As Luke tells the story of Christianity, he is careful to utilize Hellenistic literary features in order to connect with his primary audience. Evidence of these Hellenistic literary features in the book of Acts includes a narrative style illustrating the history through the personal experiences of key characters (Acts tells the history of the early church through characters such as Peter and Paul), the frequent use of speeches, personal observation of at least part of the narrative while maintaining anonymity of authorship (the “we” passages of Acts), and the frequent use of summaries to guide the narrative (Acts contains three major summaries [2:42–47; 4:32–37; 5:12–16] and a number of minor summaries [6:7; 9:31; 12:24; 16:5; 19:20; 28:31]).

Outline and Survey

Acts can be outlined according to Jesus’ final words, recorded in 1:8: “You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

I. Witnesses in Jerusalem (1:1–8:3) II. Witnesses in Judea and Samaria (8:4–12:25) III. Witnesses to the Ends of the Earth (13:1–28:31)

I. Witnesses in Jerusalem (Acts 1:1–8:3). Immediately following his ascension, Jesus tells his followers to return to Jerusalem and wait for the coming of the Holy Spirit. They promptly obey, and after ten days of waiting, the disciples are dramatically filled with the Holy Spirit and begin to share the gospel with those around them. This event occurs at the Jewish Pentecost festival, which was attended by Jews and Jewish proselytes from throughout the Roman Empire. After the Spirit comes at Pentecost, Peter boldly preaches to the crowds, and over three thousand people respond with saving faith (2:41).

Luke next provides an exciting summary of the Spirit-led life within the early church. This life is characterized by the early believers’ participation together in the sharing of worship activities, material possessions, and spiritual blessings (2:42–47). This summary is followed by several dramatic healing miracles accomplished through Peter and the subsequent arrest of Christian leaders by Jewish religious authorities. Instead of squelching the Christian movement, however, these arrests only enhance the spiritual revival and its accompanying miracles. This revival is characterized by extreme generosity and unity within the early church (4:32–37).

The revival joy, however, is marred by the deceitful actions of Ananias and Sapphira, who lie to the church and to the Holy Spirit and are judged by God with immediate death (5:1–11). This story proves that God will go to extreme lengths to protect the unity of his church. Following more persecution and miracles, the disciples choose seven men to oversee distribution of food to Hellenistic widows who have been neglected in daily food distributions (6:1–7). One of these leaders, Stephen, is arrested and brought before the Sanhedrin. Stephen testifies boldly before the Jewish leaders and is promptly executed by stoning (chap. 7). This execution is endorsed by Saul, a zealous Pharisee who begins to lead fierce persecution against the church in Jerusalem (8:1–3).

II. Witnesses in Judea and Samaria (Acts 8:4–12:25). Saul’s persecution forces many of the early church believers to leave Jerusalem. These believers scatter throughout the surrounding areas of Judea and Samaria. As they scatter, however, they continue to preach the gospel (8:4). Philip preaches in Samaria and performs many miraculous signs, producing a spiritual revival in the region. Hearing about this, the apostles send Peter and John to Samaria to minister to the Samaritans (8:18–25), thus confirming the cross-cultural nature of the gospel (Samaritans traditionally were hated by the Jews). Next Luke tells of Philip’s evangelizing of an Ethiopian eunuch (8:26–40).

Following the Ethiopian’s belief in Jesus, the narrative tells of Saul’s dramatic conversion while traveling to Damascus to persecute Christians there (9:1–19). Saul’s dramatic turnaround is met with suspicion by the other disciples, but eventually he is accepted by the believers with the help of Barnabas (9:27–30). Next Peter travels to the Judean countryside and heals the paralytic Aeneas and raises Dorcas from the dead (9:32–42). These miracles produce an exciting spiritual revival in the region. Following this, God gives Peter a vision to go to the coastal city of Caesarea in order to minister to Cornelius, a Roman army officer. Cornelius is a God-fearer, and through Peter’s witness he responds to the gospel message and receives the Holy Spirit (chap. 10). Peter explains his actions with Cornelius to his concerned Jewish companions and verifies that God has indeed included the Gentiles in his plan of salvation (11:1–18).

This verification is followed by the report of what is happening in the church at Antioch, where Jews begin to share the gospel with larger groups of Gentiles (11:19–21). This cross-cultural evangelism produces a spiritual revival in Antioch, causing the Jerusalem church to send Barnabas to the large Syrian city to investigate (11:22–30). Barnabas confirms that God is indeed at work in Antioch and invites Saul to come and help him disciple the new Gentile believers (11:25–26). Next Luke reports more persecution breaking out against Christians in Jerusalem, resulting in the arrest of James and Peter by King Herod. James is executed, but Peter miraculously escapes from prison with the help of an angel (12:1–19), and the church continues to increase, spreading throughout the Roman Empire.

III. Witnesses to the ends of the earth (Acts 13:1–28:31). Starting with chapter 13, the narrative shifts its focus from the ministry of Peter to that of Paul (formerly Saul). The church at Antioch begins to take center stage over the church at Jerusalem. This church commissions Paul and Barnabas and sends them off on their first missionary journey, accompanied by Bar­na­bas’s cousin John Mark. The missionaries first sail to Cyprus, where they preach in synagogues and encounter a Jewish sorcerer, Bar-Jesus. Next they sail to Pamphylia, thus crossing into Asia Minor, and preach the gospel in Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe (this area was known as part of the region of Galatia). In these cities, God provides numerous miracles, and the missionaries experience a great response to the gospel as well as much persecution because of the gospel. On one occasion, Paul is actually stoned and left for dead (14:19–20).

Unfazed, Paul and his team boldly continue their mission. Eventually, they retrace their steps, strengthen the churches that they have started, and sail back to Syrian Antioch, where they give an exciting report to the church (14:26–28). Following this report, Luke tells of an important meeting of church leaders in Jerusalem. The subject of the meeting involves whether or not the new Gentile Christians should be required to follow the Jewish laws and customs. After debating the issue, the leaders side with Paul, determining that the Gentiles should not be burdened with Jewish laws and traditions, but simply must live moral lives and not eat food that has been sacrificed to idols (chap. 15).

Following this meeting, Paul and Barnabas decide to make a second missionary journey. Unfortunately, the two missionaries get into a dispute over whether to take John Mark with them again. The argument is such that the missionaries decide to separate, and Paul chooses a new partner, Silas. They travel by land back to Galatia. Barnabas takes John Mark and sails to Cyprus. Paul and Silas return to Derbe and Lystra and then make their way to Macedonia and Greece. They spend significant time in Philippi, Thessalonica, and Corinth before returning to Caesarea and Antioch (chaps. 16–18). Following his return, Paul makes a third missionary journey, revisiting churches in Galatia and Phrygia and staying in Ephesus for three years before visiting Macedonia and Greece for a second time.

Paul concludes his third missionary journey with a trip to Jerusalem, where he is falsely accused of bringing a Gentile into the temple. This accusation creates a riot, and Paul is rescued by Roman soldiers, who arrest him and transfer him to a prison in Caesarea, where he spends two years awaiting trial under the rule of Felix and Festus (23:34–25:22). Paul eventually exercises his right as a Roman citizen to have his case heard by the emperor. He is sent to Rome by boat and is shipwrecked on the island of Malta. Eventually he makes his way to the capital city, where he is placed under house arrest. While in Rome, Paul maintains a rented house and is free to receive visitors and write letters. In fact, it is thought that Paul penned his “prison letters” during this time of house arrest (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon). The narrative of Acts ends with Paul ministering boldly in Rome while awaiting his trial.

Acts and the Contemporary Church

The book of Acts provides a model for today’s church on numerous topics. These include understanding the role of the Holy Spirit, practicing community life within the church, dealing with hardship and persecution, overcoming social injustices, and carrying out missions.

Acts reveals that the key issue for Christians is learning to experience and follow God’s Holy Spirit, who enables believers to be bold in their witness for Christ, generous in their physical and spiritual support of each other, and effective in their ministries. Acts consistently reveals that one’s joy, power, and purpose come from the Holy Spirit. According to Acts, learning to follow and depend upon God’s Holy Spirit is the key to having a healthy church.

Acts also shows that the Holy Spirit produces a unique community life characterized by worship, generosity, blessing, and unity. Luke calls this Spirit-led common life koinōnia, which is explained and illustrated in the first five chapters of Acts (see esp. 2:42–47). It should be the desire and goal of every church to re-create this koinōnia community first experienced by the primitive church in Acts.

In addition to its koinōnia, the book of Acts serves as a model for the church in overcoming persecution and hardship. The narrative of Acts consistently reveals the sovereign power of God in overcoming opposition. The early church found great joy and growth in the midst of hardship and persecution, and today’s church can do the same.

Another important example for the church provided by Acts is in the area of social justice. Luke’s primitive church consistently removed ethnic prejudices, eliminated social hierarchy and status within the church, and elevated the role of women. Acts provides inspiration and guidance for today’s church in facing these same social issues.

In addition to overcoming social injustices, the church in Acts provides an excellent example of mission ministry. These believers consistently revealed God’s heart for the nations and made it a priority to share the gospel with all people everywhere. Acts’ emphasis on the universal nature of the gospel, the responsibility of individual Christians to witness for Christ, and the importance of planting new churches and discipling new believers sets a pattern for today’s church in the area of missions.

These examples should serve to inspire and guide the contemporary church as it seeks to follow and experience the Holy Spirit, who is so powerfully revealed in the book of Acts.

Architecture is the technology and the art of design and construction. The technology of architecture includes an understanding of mathematical and engineering principles; the art of architecture focuses attention on interest and beauty in design. The creative imagination of the architect is constantly considering how to artfully manage form and function in the design and construction process.

Architecture and the Bible

The term “architecture” does not occur in most English translations of the Bible. There is, however, evidence of and reference to the architectural activity of God’s people. In addition, Israel and the church were contextualized in significant architectural periods (Egyptian, Assyrian, Greek, and Roman), so the major empires of the biblical period often influenced the design and construction of cities, temples, and structures referenced in the biblical text. Architecture offers biblical studies a way to better understand the historical intentions of the Bible. By means of architectural investigation, the history and the heritage of past civilizations are illuminated. As a result, our reading of the biblical text is enhanced.

When we investigate the biblical text with attention to the technology and art of architecture, two perspectives emerge. First, architecture draws our attention to the background of the biblical text. In certain biblical texts we learn about the design and the construction that took place in Egypt, Assyria, and Palestine during major biblical events. For example, the patriarchal and Mosaic periods occurred during times of expansion and development in the Eighteenth to Twentieth Dynasties of Egypt (i.e., New Kingdom, sixteenth to eleventh centuries BC). For these periods, we gain knowledge about capital relocations along with temple and pyramid constructions. We learn that during the conquest, Israel took over existing Canaanite cities in keeping with the Mosaic policies. The architecture of Palestine enables us to better understand the form and function of these infrastructures.

Second, architecture draws our attention to the theological implications of the form and function of structures designed by God. In keeping with the scope of architecture, we are forced to understand that what God designed for altars, the ark, the tabernacle, and the temples of the past and the future included more than just the functional requirements of a nation’s religious system. The interpreter of the biblical text must consider how the design of these structures elicits response and communicates meaning. These structures are also windows on the social, political, and economic aspects of the Israelite nation.

Old Testament

Cities and fortifications. The biblical rec­ord makes reference to architectural structures, materials, and furnishings. Cities are referenced frequently throughout the OT canon. The city is obviously the context for architectural expression. The cities of the Bible are not described in extensive detail. We learn that Cain was a city builder who named his work after his son Enoch. The architectural feature of cities mentioned most often is the city gates (Gen. 19:1; 23:10, 18; Deut. 17:5; Josh. 2:5; 7:5; 20:4; Judg. 5:8). This was an important place for city life and activity (Gen. 23:1; Prov. 31:31). There was also sinister activity at city gates. Abner, for example, was killed in the city gate (2 Sam. 3:22–30). In addition, executions for covenant violations were carried out at the city gate (Deut. 17:5). There was more than one city gate, as we learn from the postexilic construction activity of Ezra and Nehemiah.

Within the city there was a strong tower. The people of Babel used thoroughly baked bricks instead of stone and tar for mortar in order to build the city and the tower that was designed to reach to the heavens (Gen. 11:3–4). A city tower functioned as a place of refuge for the people within the city limits (Judg. 9:49–51).

Cities were protected by a wall system (Lev. 25:29) that also provided space for housing (Josh. 2:15). The conquest of Jericho recounts the familiar defeat of that city by the very unconventional destruction of its walls (Josh. 6:20). A city square is another feature of the city architecture (Judg. 19:15–17) that served the public needs of the community.

The biblical descriptions of Jerusalem offer a measure of insight into its architecture. During the rebuilding process in the postexilic period, Nehemiah comments on both the construction and the building materials (Neh. 2:8; 13:31; cf. Ezra 6:4) and the spacious nature of the city (Neh. 7:4). From another perspective, the psalmist comments, “Jerusalem is built like a city that is closely compacted together” (Ps. 122:3).

Beyond these textual details we learn through the writings of the prophets that cities are the subject of God’s wrath for covenant violation (Jer. 6:6; Hos. 11:6; Mic. 5:11). Despite this, the nation of Israel is not left without the hope of restoration. The prophets also anticipated the return of the people along with the restoration of the city infrastructure (Amos 9:14; Mal. 1:4).

The temple and sacred structures. The other architectural features referenced by the writers of Scripture include altars, the tabernacle, the tent of meeting, and the temple. The tent and the tabernacle were also outfitted with unique furniture items described in detail and expertly crafted. The construction projects of Solomon are detailed in 1 Kings 5–7. Solomon, like David, pursued his architectural ambitions. The book of Ezekiel gives extensive architectural detail for the construction of a future temple in which God will reign and rule (Ezek. 40–48).

The temple and royal residences were made of stone with cedar roofing. The chamber buildings that surrounded the temple were three stories high. The interior walls and ceilings were lined with cedar to cover all the stone (1 Kings 6:1–10). In all the construction details for the temple, the text does not elaborate on architectural style. Perhaps the builders were influenced to some degree by the styles of the major periods.

What are the theological implications related to the form and function of the sacred structures in the biblical material? The first is that God is the ultimate designer of Israel’s architecture. God’s signature work certainly is not the tabernacle or the Solomonic temple, but rather the created realm. The beauty and the complexities of the created world continue to draw attention to God’s beauty and intelligence. As the psalmist declares, the creation, which God designed, is a constant source of praise (Ps. 19).

God’s skill and artistic beauty as a master architect are reflected also in the revelation of his plans for the sacred structures of Israel to the nation’s artisans. The skill that the artisans manifested in the construction process was also a gift from God (Exod. 35:35; 2 Chron. 2:14).

The structures designed by God for construction were primarily for him. This is understandable because the patriarchal and Mosaic periods included long desert pilgrimages and the related tent dwelling. References to homes and houses in the book of Leviticus are not about design and construction but about function. The domestic home must be free of mildew (Lev. 14:34–41) and thus clean according to the standards of the law. The construction of Davidic and Solomonic homes is given attention in Scripture (2 Sam. 5:11; 7:1; 1 Kings 7:1–12).

The tabernacle and the temple were divine residences (Exod. 30:6; 40:34; 2 Sam. 7:5; 1 Kings 8:11). For this reason, the design and function of each structure reflected the glorious worth of God and reminded the nation of its own uncleanness. Beyond the structures of temple and tabernacle, the city of Jerusalem was privileged to be the resting place of the “Name” (i.e., presence) of the Lord (2 Chron. 6:5–6) and to have David as the chosen ruler (2 Chron. 6:34).

The history of Israel reveals that the sustainability of these sacred structures was influenced by physical and spiritual factors. God occupied the structures or met with Israel at these sacred places as long as Israel conformed to the terms of the Mosaic covenant (1 Sam. 4:21; 1 Kings 9:6–9). During the monarchy, kings who departed from Torah would strip the temple to pay tribute to foreign overlords (2 Kings 24:13) or would modify the function of the structure to accommodate the worship of foreign gods (see 2 Kings 23). Although there were periodic times of rebuilding the sacred structures, sustainability was short lived. The ideology of the sacred structures anticipates a future time when their original function will be replaced with the opportunity to live in God’s presence forever.

New Testament

The NT refers only rarely to architects or architecture. Hebrews 11:10 speaks of God as the “architect [technitēs] and builder” of the heavenly Jerusalem. Paul refers to the church as the temple of God. Jesus Christ is the foundation, and Christian leaders are building upon that foundation with either gold, silver, and costly stones or wood, hay, and straw (1 Cor. 3:10–17; cf. 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16).

In terms of physical buildings, the church of the NT was a house church. During the time of Christ the significant architectural structures were the temple and synagogues. Herod the Great was the major builder of the time, whose impressive temple dominated the landscape of the Jerusalem area. Although the synagogue was a central structure during the life of Christ and the early church, function is emphasized over form in the biblical material. The synagogue was a place for prayer, Scripture study, and the administration of justice (Luke 4:16–30; Acts 13:15; 14:1).

The focus of the NT is also on the church’s function instead of its architectural form. The church, however, prospered and grew in the context of a significant Hellenistic architectural period (300 BC to AD 300). In this period the Seleucids were responsible for establishing large Greek cities across western and central Asia. The primary construction material continued to be the mud-brick, which resulted in rapidly decaying buildings. Although cities continued to be laid out in a grid format, a more dynamic, hilly format was being introduced. The homes in these cities often were built with courtyards like ones in Mesopotamia and Egypt. The temples of the Hellenistic period were designed with landscaping and terracing, along with porticoed enclosures and stairways.

The book of Revelation closes the canon with extensive detail about the new city of Jerusalem, which God will design and build (Rev. 21) and which will function to serve his sovereign purposes as creator and redeemer.

Asia Minor, the land area of modern-day Turkey, was initially settled by the Hatti people between 2500 and 2000 BC. Toward the end of that period, the Indo-European Hittites, drawn to the mild climate, began a slow settlement alongside the indigenous Hattis, mixing peaceably with them. By 1750 BC, the Hittites had become the dominant people group.

In the twelfth century BC the Hittites fell to the Sea Peoples. They developed coastal cities along the Aegean, which by the eighth century were conquered by the Greeks. The Lydian king Croesus came to power in 560 BC in Sardis and subdued the Greeks, only to fall in 546 BC to Cyrus of Persia. In 334–333 BC Alexander the Great defeated the Persians in two key battles and won Asia Minor. After Alexander’s death, one of his generals, Seleucus, took over. Then, in 190 BC the Romans defeated the Seleucids and assumed control. This inaugurated an extended period of peace, during which time Jewish communities of the Diaspora settled throughout the region.

The missionary journeys of the apostle Paul (Saul of Tarsus) took him into and around much of Asia Minor, and directly or indirectly he was responsible for the establishment of most of the first-century churches there. The following cities of Asia Minor are mentioned in the NT.

Eastern Mediterranean

Tarsus. The birthplace of the apostle Paul (Acts 9:11; 21:39; 22:3), Tarsus is located on the Mediterranean coast, nine miles northeast of modern-day Mersin. Tarsus became the capital of the Roman province of Cilicia in 67 BC. Cleopatra and Mark Antony met and built their fleet in this grand city. When his life was threatened after his conversion, Paul was sent to Tarsus from Jerusalem (9:30).

Antioch. Antioch (Antakya) is located just inland from the Mediterranean coast, on the east bank of the Orontes River. Jewish and Gentile believers who fled Jerusalem after the death of Stephen planted a church here, where followers of Jesus were first called “Christians.” Barnabas brought Saul from Tarsus to Antioch, where they labored together for a year, teaching the church, prior to setting off on their first missionary journey (Acts 11:19–30). Paul later returned, along with Silas, bearing the requirements for Gentile believers from the Jerusalem council (15:22–35).

Southern Ports

Seleucia. Known today as Samandağ, Seleucia was Antioch’s port, the place from which Saul, Barnabas, and John Mark embarked on their first missionary journey in AD 47 (Acts 13:4).

Perga in Pamphylia. Perga is just east of Antalya on the southern Mediterranean coast. Archimedes’ student Apollonius the mathematician lived here in the late third century BC. On their first missionary journey, Paul and Barnabas disembarked in Perga for destinations in southwestern Asia Minor, while John Mark left them to return to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13–14). On their return trip of the same journey, Paul and Barnabas stopped in Perga again, this time preaching before heading to Attalia (14:25).

Galatia

The following cities became part of the politically defined Roman province of Galatia in 25 BC. They are to be distinguished from ethnic Galatia, which is a region further north, around modern-day Ankara.

Pisidian Antioch. Modern Yalvaç, or Pisidian Antioch, is northeast of Isparta in the lake region. On their first missionary journey, Paul and Barnabas preached in the synagogue here and generated enormous interest in the gospel (Acts 13:14–43). The following Sabbath, nearly the entire city came out to listen to them. Jealous Jewish leaders incited a persecution, causing Paul and Barnabas to reorient their ministry to Gentiles and then leave the region for Iconium (13:26–51). They returned on their way back to Antioch to strengthen the disciples and appoint elders (14:21–23).

Iconium. Iconium, today called Konya, is about sixty-five miles southeast of Pisidian Antioch. It is one of the most ancient settlements of the region, dating to the third millennium BC. Paul and Barnabas preached in the synagogue here on their first missionary journey, initially winning Jewish and Gentile converts but angering other Jews. Paul and Barnabas eventually feared for their safety and escaped to Lystra and Derbe (Acts 14:1–6). However, they came back on the return trip to Antioch (14:21–23). Iconium is also noteworthy as the home of the ascetic St. Thecla from the apocryphal second-century Christian text Acts of Paul and Thecla.

Lystra. Frequently mentioned with Derbe (Acts 14:6; 16:1), Lystra (modern Hatunsaray) is nineteen miles south of Iconium. Paul and Barnabas fled here from Iconium and preached. Paul healed a lame man, and as a result he and Barnabas were presumed by the enthusiastic crowd to be Zeus and Hermes. At the instigation of Paul’s Jewish opponents, the crowd’s sentiments turned, and Paul was nearly stoned to death. He and Barnabas left for Derbe the following day (14:6–20), but they came back on their return trip (14:21–23). Paul returned on his second missionary journey, where he met his protégé, Timothy (16:1–2).

Derbe. About fifty miles southeast of Lystra and slightly north of present-day Karaman is Derbe. Paul and Barnabas fled here after Paul’s stoning in Lystra on their first missionary journey, preached the gospel, made many disciples, and appointed elders (Acts 14:21–23). Among the disciples likely was Gaius, who later accompanied Paul during his third missionary journey (Acts 20:4).

Western Aegean Ports

Troas. Troas was a major northwest seaport located about twelve miles southwest of Troy. On his second missionary journey, Paul, traveling with Silas and Timothy, was prevented from entering Bithynia by the Spirit of Christ and went instead to Troas. Here he had a vision beckoning him to Macedonia, which he promptly obeyed (Acts 16:6–11). Because this is the first of the so-called “we” passages in Acts, Luke may have joined the group here (16:10). Paul also stopped at Troas on the return to Jerusalem from his third missionary journey. There he raised Eutychus after the latter’s traumatic fall (20:4–12). Troas is mentioned twice more, suggesting that Paul spent time here in addition to the above visits (2 Cor. 2:12–13; 2 Tim. 4:13).

Adramyttium. A few miles south of Troas was the port of Adramyttium. It was the origin of the ship that transported Paul from Caesarea to Myra around AD 60 en route to Rome (Acts 27:2).

Assos. Assos is an acropolis sitting 774 feet above sea level, up from the village of Behramkale. It overlooks the Bay of Edremit and has a splendid view of Lesbos. Doric columns from the seventh-century BC temple of Athena are prominent at the site. According to Acts 20:13–14, on his return from his third missionary journey, Paul went overland from Troas to Assos, and there he joined his traveling companions on their ship. From here on the way to Miletus, they made several nearby island stops off the coast of Asia Minor: Mitylene on Lesbos, Chios, and Samos (20:14–16).

Miletus. Located about twenty miles south of Ephesus, at the point where the Meander River met the Gulf of Latmus (now silted over), was the important southwestern seaport of Miletus. The city was significant in the NT era for its four harbors. A center for commerce, scholarship, geometry, and science, it was also the prototype for principles of city planning later applied throughout the Roman Empire. On his third missionary journey, Paul’s farewell to the Ephesian elders took place here (Acts 20:15–38). Later he left the ill Trophimus in Miletus (2 Tim. 4:20).

Southwestern Ports

Patara. Sitting on the Mediterranean coast at the mouth of the Xanthus River, about forty miles west of present-day Demre, Patara was a flourishing harbor and commercial center in antiquity. Paul changed ships here as he returned to Jerusalem from his third missionary journey, after island stops in Kos and Rhodes (Acts 21:1–2).

Myra. Myra is a coastal ruin due south of present-day Demre. In the NT era, the seaport featured a Roman theater, Roman baths, and two rock-cut necropolises. Here, Paul changed ships around AD 60 on his way to Rome while in the custody of a centurion (Acts 27:5). Myra is perhaps best known as the home of the fourth-century bishop St. Nicholas, who was from nearby Patara.

Cnidus. At the tip of the long, narrow Datca peninsula on the extreme southwestern corner of Asia Minor lies Cnidus. Founded around 360 BC, the acropolis rises 1,000 feet above sea level. The port included two harbors and four theaters but was most famous for its fourth-century BC statue of Aphrodite, carved by the Athenian sculptor Praxiteles. Around AD 60 the ship carrying Paul to Rome stopped here because of slow winds and changed course (Acts 27:7).

Seven Churches of Revelation; Lycus Valley

The seven churches of Rev. 1–3 lay along a north-south elliptical route in western Asia Minor. Laodicea, the seventh, forms a tight geographic triangle with Hierapolis and Colossae in the Lycus Valley.

Ephesus. Known today as Selçuk, ancient Ephesus is located on the Aegean coast of Asia Minor at the mouth of the Cayster River. It was founded in the eleventh century BC by the Ionians and later ruled successively by the Athenians, Spartans, Persians, and Greeks. Roman governance began in 190 BC. Later, Ephesus became the capital of the province of Asia, as well as its most important commercial center. During the NT era, the Artemision (see Artemis) was an important pilgrimage site.

Paul stopped in Ephesus briefly on his second missionary journey, leaving Priscilla and Aquila. They later encountered and mentored Apollos there (Acts 18:19–26). On his third journey, Paul remained in Ephesus for three years, teaching, performing miracles, and healing the sick (19:1–22) until the riot incited by Demetrius the silversmith (20:1). He wrote 1 Corinthians in Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:8) and later wrote to the Ephesians from his Roman prison cell (Eph. 3:1) as well as to Timothy in Ephesus (1 Tim. 1:3).

In Rev. 2:1–7 the Ephesian church is commended for its perseverance but chastised for having lost its first love.

Smyrna. Smyrna (modern İzmir) is located about thirty-five miles north along the coast from Ephesus. In 195 BC it became the first city in Asia Minor to erect a temple for the imperial cult, and by the next century it was known as “the ornament of Asia.” In its letter, which mentions no negatives, the church is encouraged to be faithful in its suffering (Rev. 2:8–11).

Pergamum. About seventy miles north of Smyrna is Pergamum (modern Bergama). The dazzling acropolis sits one thousand feet high and about sixteen miles inland from the Aegean. The Attalids, who ruled 263–133 BC, allied Pergamum with Rome and built it into a major religious and intellectual center, constructing the great altar to Zeus Soter, the temple to Athena Nicephorus, and the large complex dedicated to Asclepius Soter. They also established a ruler cult and built a library containing two hundred thousand volumes, which at its peak was second only to the library at Alexandria.

The letter to the church (Rev. 2:12–17) references Satan’s throne, which many believe to be a reference to the altar to Zeus. The church is commended for its faithfulness and yet is admonished for tolerating those advocating pagan practices within the community.

Thyatira. Thyatira (now called Akhisar) is about thirty-five miles southeast of Pergamum. It was mainly noted as having a significant concentration of trade guilds, especially those connected with textiles. Lydia, Paul’s disciple and host in Philippi, was a dealer in purple cloth from Thyatira (Acts 16:14). The church is commended for its good deeds but criticized for tolerating the false teacher Jezebel (Rev. 2:18–29).

Sardis. Forty-five miles east of Smyrna, on the banks of the Pactolus, is Sardis, where Croesus, the sixth-century BC Lydian king, was said to have panned for gold. He also built an impressive Ionic temple to Artemis here. Archaeological evidence points to the presence of a significant Jewish community in Sardis, about which the NT is silent.

The letter to Sardis is a stern warning to wake up, highlighting the church’s incomplete deeds and impurity (Rev. 3:1–6).

Philadelphia. Philadelphia (modern Alaşehir) is twenty-six miles southwest of Sardis on the Cogamis River. The city was noted for its wine production, and it was nicknamed “Little Athens” during the Roman era. Its letter is thoroughly positive; the church is commended for its deeds and faithfulness (Rev. 3:7–13).

Laodicea. Laodicea is located about a hundred miles east of Ephesus, in a valley where the Lycus River joins the Meander; Hierapolis is just to the north, and Colossae just to the east. Laodicea was founded in the third century BC by the Seleucid king Antiochus II, who named it after his wife. Cicero served as proconsul there in 51 BC.

Laodicea was a prosperous city, a center for banking, eye salve (“Phrygian powder”), and wool production. Its water was supplied via aqueducts from Hierapolis’s hot springs, but it arrived lukewarm and heavy with mineral impurities—no match for either its hot source or Colossae’s cold springs. The Laodicean letter employs all of this background in its harsh message to the church, which it describes as tepid, poor, blind, and naked (Rev. 3:14–22).

Hierapolis. Eight miles to the north of Laodicea, Hierapolis sits atop dramatic white cliffs created by its hot springs (Col. 4:13). The city was home to the reputed entrance to the underworld, the Plutonium, and had an enormous necropolis.

Colossae. Colossae, ten miles east of Laodicea, was a center for dyed red wool. Although wealthy in the late fourth century BC, it was later eclipsed by Laodicea.

The churches in Laodicea, Hierapolis, and Colossae (the oldest of the three cities) were begun by Epaphras and shared letters, including Paul’s letter to the Colossians (Col. 4:13–16). The slave Onesimus carried it, along with the Letter to Philemon, to Colossae, where Philemon hosted the house church (Col. 4:9; Philem. 10–12).

Hermeneutics is the science and practice of interpretation. It can refer more generally to the philosophy of human understanding, or more specifically to the tools and methods used for interpreting communicative acts.

Human communication takes place in a variety of ways: through the use of nonverbal signs, through speech, and through writing. Effective communication requires some degree of shared belief, knowledge, and background between the participants. If the communicators have a significant amount of common ground, they will be able to successfully understand one another with little extra effort. Conversely, individuals with vastly different backgrounds will need to take extra steps to communicate effectively, such as defining special terms, avoiding jargon and colloquialisms, appreciating details about the other’s cultural assumptions, or learning a foreign language.

The Bible is not exempt from this process of communication. The Scriptures are meant to be read, understood, and put into practice (Luke 8:4–15; James 1:18), a task that requires effort and study on the part of its readers (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15). Everyone who reads the Bible is involved in this interpretative process, though readers will vary in their hermeneutical self-consciousness and skill. Thus, although readers are able to understand and appropriate much of the Bible without any special training in hermeneutical principles, such training is appropriate and helpful, both in attaining self-consciousness in interpretation and in acquiring new skills and insights in the effort to become a better reader.

The Development of Hermeneutics

The church has benefited from a long history of thinking about the nature and purpose of interpreting its Scriptures, and that reflection has resulted in a wide variety of hermeneutical theories and practices. How does one determine the meaning of a text? Is meaning the truth embedded within the passage? Or is it the original author’s intention in writing? Or does the text act independently of its author and history, either because it stands on its own terms or because it only “means” anything in interaction with readers? The answers to these questions will determine how readers approach a text, the questions they expect that text to answer, and the tools they use in interpretation.

From the early church to the Enlightenment. The early church emphasized the ability of the biblical text to convey heavenly truth, whether that truth was conceived as doctrinal teaching or absolute ethical rules. While the “literal meaning” of many texts could often supply simple truths and maxims, such a reading was at other times inadequate and could appear incompatible with what were considered basic and fundamental beliefs. Various allegorical techniques were therefore employed to explain such problematic texts. Interpreters often viewed the literal and historical features of the text as a starting point in the search for fuller meaning, as symbolic pointers to moral principles, absolute truths, or eternal realities. These practices were systematized throughout the Middle Ages and resulted in an extensive development of tradition. Church tradition, in turn, provided a degree of protection from the potential for arbitrariness in allegorical techniques, insisting that interpretation must be guided by the “rule of faith,” the traditional teaching and faith of the church.

Beginning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, scholarship moved to distance itself from such tradition. The Protestant Reformers, dissatisfied with the rule of church tradition, sought to displace its authority with the direct rule of Scripture. They therefore returned to the original biblical text, engaging in critical study of the text itself and translating the Bible into the vernacular to make it more widely accessible. In the centuries that followed, Enlightenment scholars went a step further in their rejection of the church as the sole repository of knowledge. Instead, they asserted, knowledge was acquired through scientific inquiry and critical study. Such inquiry could be applied to any field: the forces of nature, human anatomy, or the interpretation of texts. The meaning of a text was not some abstract truth or heavenly principle; rather, meaning was determined by the human author’s original intention in writing and was therefore a historical matter. The intention of an author could be better exposed and understood through a more complete study of both the language in which a text was written and the historical circumstances that surrounded it. Many of these same emphases had been championed by the Protestant Reformers; yet the Enlightenment thinkers differed on one key point: the Reformers never questioned that the text was the word of God.

From the Enlightenment to the present. This favorable attitude toward historical research dwindled over the centuries. In its place authors emphasized the primacy of the text as text, apart from any connection to its origin and history. Literature, it is argued, ultimately operates independently from its author’s intention. All that matters is the text, and it is the reader’s job to understand the text on its own terms, apart from the contingencies surrounding its creation. To that end, interpreters should pay careful attention to the text’s literary features, including its plot structure, characterization, themes, and use of imagery. An interesting example of this hermeneutical dynamic is found in John 19:22, where Pilate asserts, “What I have written, I have written.” Pilate’s words quickly take on significance far beyond their author’s intention, primarily because they are juxtaposed with other themes in John, such as testimony and the kingship of Christ.

More recent approaches have emphasized the role of the reader in the construction of meaning. Interpretation, it is argued, is determined by the interaction between reader and text; readers bring their own presuppositions to the task of interpretation, and such assumptions determine meaning. The author and the historical context of the text will exert some influence, but the primary determinant of meaning is the present reader in his or her present environment. This is not to say that the text “means” whatever a reader wants it to mean; rather, it makes meaning contingent upon the contemporary environment and not subject to anything external to individual readers. On the one hand, readers must“actualize” the text by applying and appropriating it within an environment alien to the original. On the other, readers have the right, and in some cases the responsibility, of undermining the text, particularly if that text assists in the oppression of others.

Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic

An effective hermeneutic requires keeping each of these elements in constant balance with one another. God’s word is truthful and fully trustworthy, yet it is given to his people through individual human authors, authors who wrote in a particular context to a particular audience at a particular time. Understanding the Bible therefore requires knowledge of the purposes of these authors in their specific historical contexts. Nevertheless, our primary access to authorial intention is through the biblical text itself. Finally, understanding always requires personal interaction with, and application of, the text of Scripture to each person’s own life and circumstances. Thus, hermeneutics involves the simultaneous interaction of a variety of perspectives—truth, author, text, and reader—each of which cannot function properly without the others. What follows here is an outline of the most important hermeneutical tools required for such a weighty endeavor.

Linguistics

An appreciation of the nature, structure, and function of language is fundamental to any interpretative endeavor. Obviously, this applies first of all to the specific languages in which the books of the Bible were originally composed. Each language has its own unique vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, and structures available to a writer in one language often are absent in another. Thus, while it is often necessary and acceptable to rely on translations (Neh. 7:73–8:12), readers should be aware that translation itself involves a degree of unavoidable interpretation.

A more general analysis of language is also useful. Understanding the typical patterns by which authors will string sentences together is necessary for following a writing’s train of thought. This tool, called “discourse analysis,” operates above the sentence level, attempting to understand and explain how sentences function in conjunction with one another in order to produce meaningful paragraphs, and how those paragraphs in turn operate within the overarching purpose of the discourse. These patterns of discourse can vary on the basis of book, author, language, culture, and literary genre, but there are also features of effective discourse common to all communication. Thus, while the principles and rules of communication are often intuitively grasped, understanding language, both generally and specifically, is foundational to the task of interpretation.

Literature and Literary Theory

The biblical writers are concerned not only with the informational content of their writing, but also with the manner in which that content is communicated. The words, patterns of speech, style, and imagery of any text provide significant insight into its purpose and message, apart from that text’s specific propositional content. The diversity of language used in the Gospels provides an example of this. Each of the four Gospel authors has a slightly different concern in his writing. John’s purpose, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31), explains his frequent use of courtroom language, such as “testimony” and “witness” (e.g., John 21:24). Mark, by contrast, sweeps the reader along a fast-paced and intensely personal exposition of Jesus’ life and death through the terseness and immediacy of his narration. Attention to these literary details allows the reader to more fully participate in the world of the text.

Such decisions will often depend upon a thorough analysis of genre. A reader naturally interprets historical narrative differently from poetry and didactic material. Furthermore, the conventions of different genres change over time. The book of Acts, for example, despite its essentially historical character, does not appear concerned with recording an exact dictation of the many speeches it reports, despite modern expectations that historical writing should be as precise as possible. The classification of ancient genres and the description of their respective conventions therefore require a good deal of analysis and sensitivity, but often such insights are provided by a careful and open reading of the text.

History

As the product of a particular author at a particular time, each book of the Bible is situated within its own unique historical context. Paul, for example, while perhaps conscious of the importance of his letters for posterity, wrote to specific churches or individuals with a singular purpose. This particularity of author, audience, and circumstance can often cause interpretative problems. Thus, while background studies are not always necessary to get the general idea of the author’s message, they can be invaluable in protecting readers from anachronism and enabling them to better appreciate the author’s purpose and perspective.

Historical study is assisted by specialized disciplines. Archaeology, for example, focuses on the beliefs, habits, practices, and history of ancient cultures, harnessing a wealth of evidence to that end. Similarly, anthropology and other social sciences are able to explore facets of modern cultures in order to better assess cross-cultural presuppositions and behaviors, many of which provide insight into ancient civilizations that shared similar attitudes. These methods provide the reader with the information necessary to understand a text in terms consistent with its cultural backdrop, highlighting both the similarities and the differences between the Bible and its environment. Recent discoveries of ancient Hittite treaties, for example, shed light on the “cutting ceremony” recorded in Gen. 15. These treaties detail similar ceremonies in which the vassal of a king would walk between hewed animal carcasses as a symbol of allegiance; if disobedience occurred, the vassal would share the fate of the animals. A similar ceremony occurs in Genesis, but with an interesting twist at the end: God, not Abram, passes through the pieces (15:17).

Humility and the Attitude of the Reader

Careful attention in interpretation requires a great deal of humility. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the attitude of the reader for an effective hermeneutic. Being a good reader requires willingness to share and participate in the world of the author and the text, a willingness that postpones judgment and expects personal change. This, in turn, requires a spirit of self-criticism, a commitment to defer one’s own presuppositions in favor of those of the text. Although readers are never able to fully distance themselves from their cultural situation and assumptions, the study of hermeneutics, among other things, can provide tools and skills for self-criticism and self-awareness, skills that enable the reader to better understand, appreciate, and appropriate the meaning of a text. Even a peripheral understanding of the complexities of interpretation can help readers develop an attitude of humility, imagination, and expectation as they approach the Scriptures.

Such humility is a prerequisite for application. The depth of meaning embedded in any text, and especially within the Bible, provides the humble reader with a rich and powerful tool for personal growth. Having better understood the world of the text on its own terms, readers are able to “project” that world onto themselves and their environment, to appropriate its meaning in a new and possibly foreign context. Thus, Jesus promises that those who hear, understand, and put his word into practice will yield a crop “some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown” (Mark 4:20).

Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation

Certain unique features of the biblical text can create special opportunities and challenges for the Christian interpreter. These challenges are at work in the Bible’s own interpretation of itself. The Bible was written by many different authors over the course of a long period of history; it is therefore not surprising to find later authors reflecting on earlier periods. This innerbiblical interpretation offers the Christian insights into the unique nature of biblical hermeneutics and therefore provides a foundational model in approaching the Bible as the word of God.

The common and preeminent assumption that grounds innerbiblical interpretation is the commitment to ultimate divine authorship. Thus, the writer of Hebrews, though affirming the diversity of human authorship in the Bible (1:1), regularly introduces OT quotations with statements such as “God says” (1:5), “he spoke through David” (4:7), and “the Holy Spirit says” (3:7). Other writers tend to prefer the formula “it is written,” but each of these reflects a common presupposition that the Scriptures are ultimately delivered by God (2 Pet. 1:21).

Divine authorship means, at the very least, that there is a depth of meaning and purpose to the text, a depth often hidden even from the human author (1 Pet. 1:10–12). Psalm 2, for example, probably originally served as a coronation hymn used to celebrate the appointment of a new king in Israel. Yet the NT understands this psalm as a prophecy fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5). The intention of the original speaker can even be at odds with God’s intention, such as when Caiaphas claims, “It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50; cf. Acts 5:35–39). In this case, the irony of Caiaphas’s statement creates a powerful testimony, contrary to his intent, and is used by John to promote confidence in Jesus.

Furthermore, because the Scriptures are from God, they have a consistent and central focus. The NT unhesitatingly views all of Scripture, in all its diversity, as focused, by virtue of divine inspiration, on the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is seen in, for example, Luke 24:13–35, where the resurrected Jesus, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” explains to his disciples “what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (cf. John 5:39; 12:41). This central focus on Christ requires the Christian interpreter to understand any individual verse in light of its context within the canon, to operate with the same assumption as the NT apostles, that all the Scriptures are concerned with testifying to Jesus the Christ.

Additionally, Paul views both Testaments as the special possession and once-for-all foundation of God’s church (Eph. 2:19–20; cf. Acts 2:42). The church, from a NT perspective, is the primary audience of the entirety of Scripture (1 Pet. 1:12) and is therefore uniquely entrusted with understanding and proclaiming its message (Matt. 28:18–20). While the Scriptures themselves are the only infallible guide for interpretation, believers should not forsake the teaching and tradition of the church (2 Thess. 2:15).

Finally, full understanding of the Bible requires the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the faith of the reader. Belief and understanding go together (John 10:38), and both are the result of the unique work of the Holy Spirit (16:13). The proof that such understanding has taken place is the godly life of the believer (Rom. 2:13; James 1:22–25). The reverse is also true: disobedience works against understanding the riches of God’s Word (James 1:21). Such considerations underline the importance of the hermeneutical task. The tools and principles of hermeneutics are valuable only insofar as they enable the reader to better understand and appropriate the biblical message, to hear the word of God and respond appropriately.

The first of the Major Prophets in the canon, the book of Isaiah is one of the longest books in the Bible. This, coupled with the NT’s frequent use of Isaiah, has contributed to the book’s great importance in Christian tradition. Isaiah contains some of the most memorable passages in Scripture, with its majestic poetry and evocative sermons making it a literary masterpiece. Nevertheless, it has also been characterized as a difficult book to comprehend and make sense of as a whole because the connections between different paragraphs and sections appear to be haphazard at times and are difficult to understand. However, some knowledge of the way the book was formed can aid in interpretation.

Authorship

The authorship of Isaiah has been one of the most debated issues in biblical interpretation. Ancient tradition credited the eighth-century BC prophet Isaiah with the entire sixty-six chapters. However, an early Jewish tradition in the Talmud claims that “the men of Hezekiah” compiled Isaiah, showing their awareness that the book did not come entirely from Isaiah.

Literary evidence. Isaiah son of Amoz is referred to as author in three sections of the book (1:1; 2:1; 13:1) and is featured in both third-person (chaps. 7; 20; 36–39) and first-person (chaps. 6; 8) narratives. However, chapters 40–66 have no such headings and do not even mention Isaiah. While references to Isaiah as author in specific sections may suggest that he actually did write the whole book, they may also indicate that he did not write sections that are not ascribed to him. Similarly, historical narratives referring to the prophet in the third person may suggest that someone else wrote them, although the intimate information in them (e.g., 7:3) could point to Isaianic authorship.

Another possible indication of multiple authorship is the marked difference in literary style and vocabulary found in different sections of Isaiah. While such judgments are quite subjective, both sides of the authorship debate acknowledge these stylistic differences.

Historical settings. The debate regarding the authorship of Isaiah really centers on the diverse historical settings within different sections of the book. Chapters 1–39 clearly are set during the late eighth century BC, the period when Assyria is threatening Judah. Assyria is frequently mentioned (e.g., 7:17; 8:4; 10:12; 11:11; 19:23; 20:1; 27:13; 36:1), as are Judean kings (e.g., 1:1; 6:1; 7:1; 14:28; 36:1) and the prophet Isaiah himself (e.g., 1:1; 2:1; 13:1; 20:2; 37:5).

In contrast, the historical setting of chapters 40–55 is not eighth-century BC Judah. Israel is described as in captivity and Jerusalem is referred to as ruined and deserted (44:26, 28; 52:9); there is frequent allusion to the sufferings of the exile (42:22, 25; 43:28; 47:6; 51:17; 52:5); and the coming return from exile is described as close at hand (40:2; 46:13; 48:20). Furthermore, in chapters 40–55 Babylon is Israel’s enemy, even though in Isaiah’s day they were allies. Also, Cyrus the Great, the Persian king who conquered Babylon in 539 BC (ending the exile), is mentioned with no introduction or explanation (44:28; 45:1), even though he lived 150 years after Isaiah. In sum, chapters 40–55 appear to be addressed to Judeans in Babylonian exile.

Conversely, chapters 56–66 appear to come from yet another historical period. Unlike in chapters 40–55, where the temple was destroyed and out of operation, in chapters 56–66 the temple (66:6), along with sacrifices (56:7; 66:3), offerings (57:6; 65:3; 66:3), and Sabbaths (56:2; 58:13; 66:23), is referred to. Also, Jerusalem and its walls are standing (62:6), unlike in chapters 40–55, where it is predicted that Jerusalem will be rebuilt (44:26). This seems to indicate that it addresses those who have returned to Jerusalem after the exile.

This evidence suggests that the book of Isaiah was written by several authors from different time periods. Alternatively, these diverse historical settings could be explained by supposing that Isaiah spoke to audiences in the distant future through divine inspiration. While skeptical scholars holding antisupernatural worldviews have denied this possibility, those who believe in an almighty God believe that he can reveal the distant future to his prophets. However, the question is whether that is in fact the case with Isaiah. It is significant that in chapters 40–55 Babylonian oppression is not predicted as something to come in the future but rather is presupposed as the present conditions under which the writer is living—only the release from exile is predicted. Logically, it would seem that the author lived in the situation that he presupposes and before the situation that he predicts.

Arguments for the unity of Isaiah. Some scholars still hold to the unity of Isaiah on the following grounds: (1) no ancient manuscripts show that the book ever existed in another form; (2) differences in style and vocabulary can be explained by different subject matter (besides which, the title “Holy One of Israel” unites all sections of Isaiah, as it is used thirteen times in chapters 1–39, sixteen times in chapters 40–66, and only seven times in the rest of the Bible); (3) it seems unlikely that an author as great as the one who wrote chapters 40–55 should remain anonymous; and (4) although it is logical to assume that a prophet is contemporary with what he presupposes, once a prophet makes a prediction, that prediction can become a presupposition for another prediction. Therefore, Isaiah’s prediction of exile in 39:6–7 could become the basis or presupposition on which he continued to prophesy the end to the exile.

However, these arguments are not compelling. Although no manuscripts attest to earlier versions of the book, we possess so few manuscripts from before the time of Christ (and none dating to the time during which the three sections of Isaiah are thought to have been combined) that this is insignificant. Also, the differences in subject matter do not seem great enough to explain the very different style and language in the various sections. Regarding the unlikelihood that the writer of chapters 40–55 could remain anonymous, the fact is that many biblical books are indeed anonymous (e.g., Judges, 1–2 Kings, 1–2 Chronicles). However, most significant are the different historical settings of the major sections of Isaiah. If Isaiah was addressing an audience in the distant future, not only would it be a situation unparalleled in the biblical prophets, but also the message would have been largely unintelligible to Isaiah’s contemporaries (especially references to Cyrus). Moreover, the text does not claim to predict these situations but only presupposes them. However, the reality of prophetic inspiration is underscored, as a later author predicts not only the end of the exile but also a suffering messiah.

First, Second, and Third Isaiah. For convenience (and not to imply that each author was named “Isaiah”), the three major sections are often referred to as First Isaiah (chaps. 1–39), Second Isaiah (chaps. 40–55), and Third Isaiah (chaps. 56–66). In light of the purposeful connections between the different sections, it is probable that the book was the product of a “school” of Isaiah’s disciples (cf. 8:16) who collected and organized Isaiah’s words and added to them over a long period of time.

In the end, the involvement of multiple authors in the composition of Isaiah does not undermine its authority as Scripture. Its authority derives not from the namesake prophet but rather from God, who inspired its writing (2 Tim. 3:16).

Plan of the Book

Isaiah has a literary structure similar to that of Ezekiel, Zephaniah, Joel, and the Greek translation of Jeremiah. The first section is concerned with judgment on Israel (chaps. 1–12), the second with judgment on foreign nations (chaps. 13–23), and the third records prophecies of hope and salvation (chaps. 24–27). This structure purposefully places hopeful oracles of comfort after the judgment oracles. Some view the entire book of Isaiah as following this pattern (chaps. 1–12, judgment on Israel; chaps. 13–35, judgment on other nations; chaps. 40–66, oracles of comfort). However, both of these schemes are somewhat forced, since each section is slightly mixed (there are oracles of salvation in chaps. 1–12, prophecies against Judah in chaps. 13–23, and judgment oracles in chaps. 56–66). However, in broad outline it is helpful to recognize this structure.

Outline

I. Judgment on Judah (1–12)

II. Judgment on the Nations (13–27)

III. Warnings to Trust in the Lord (28–35)

IV. The Assyrian Crisis (36–39)

V. The Second Exodus (40–48)

VI. The Restoration of Jerusalem (49–55)

VII. The Earthly and New Jerusalem (56–66)

First Isaiah (Isa. 1–39)

Key historical events. This section of Isaiah comes from the period when the nation of Assyria was aggressively expanding its territory and terrorizing weaker nations, such as Israel and Judah. Two key historical events form the background for many oracles in chapters 1–39 and are the prominent focus there: the Syro-Ephraimite war of 734 BC and the 701 BC Assyrian invasion of Judah.

The Syro-Ephraimite war. The nations of Aram (Syria) and Israel (Ephraim) allied together against Assyria and tried to coerce Judah into joining them. They planned to replace King Ahaz with a king of their choice (7:6), which would end the Davidic dynasty. In the end, Ahaz rejected Isaiah’s advice to simply trust God (7:9) and instead appealed to the king of Assyria for aid. The Assyrians conquered Aram (732 BC) and Israel (722 BC) and assimilated them into the Assyrian empire. Judah survived but had to pay tribute to Assyria from that point onward.

The Assyrian invasion of Judah. The Assyrian king Sennacherib invaded Judah when Hezekiah, Ahaz’s son, reigned in Jerusalem. The invasion devastated Judah; however, when Jerusalem was threatened, Hezekiah, in contrast to his father, trusted God to save them, and the Assyrian army suffered massive losses and failed to take Jerusalem (37:36).

Structure and themes. The structure of chapters 1–39 is quite complex. However, the prophecies and historical narratives concerned with Isaiah’s day are roughly in chronological order (e.g., prophecies and events occurring during the reign of King Ahaz [6:1–8:22] precede those during Hezekiah’s reign [36:1–39:8]). The structure of these chapters alternates between threat and promise (e.g., chap. 1 = threat; 2:1–4 = promise of hope; 2:5–4:1 = threat; 4:2–6 = promise of hope). Analogously, the main themes of these chapters alternate between threat and promise.

Holiness. A major theme of Isaiah is God’s holiness, as evidenced in its favorite title for the Lord, “Holy One of Israel.” While the original idea underlying holiness was physical separation and did not have an ethical dimension (e.g., temple prostitutes in the ancient Near East were called “holy women”), a different concept of holiness emerges in chapter 6, the account of Isaiah’s call. Since 6:1–9:7 is the only part in the book with autobiographical narration, these chapters probably come from an original memoir of Isaiah himself. The memoir is surrounded by judgment oracles with a repeated element, “Yet for all this, his anger is not turned away, his hand is still upraised” (5:25; 9:12, 17, 21; 10:4), suggesting that the memoir as a whole was inserted between these oracles to explain God’s anger recorded in 1–12. God’s mandate to Israel was to “be holy, because I am holy” (Lev. 11:44–45), but Israel failed to follow this command. In the presence of the holy God, Isaiah realized his own sinfulness and the sinfulness of his people (6:5), connecting the concepts of holiness and righteousness.

The remnant. Already in the first chapter we see the emergence of two groups within Israel: the wicked, who will be punished, and a remnant, who will be redeemed (1:27–31). This focus on the remnant was one way in which Isaiah saw hope for Israel despite the coming judgment that he predicted. The remnant theme highlights the apparent tension between God as holy and God as redeemer: God’s holiness is upheld through the judgment on Israel, but God’s character as savior is witnessed through the remnant that is redeemed.

A coming messianic king. The section 6:1–9:7 dates from the time of the Syro-Ephraimite war, and it appears that Isaiah wrote it down (8:16) when Ahaz refused his counsel. The memoir emphasizes the rejection of the Davidic king Ahaz and predicts the birth of a royal son who would replace Ahaz and bring freedom from oppression (9:1–7). This dissatisfaction with the reigning Davidic king was the seedbed for messianic expectations and is the background for the messianic trilogy of 7:14–16; 9:2–7; 11:1–9. While some of these passages may have originally referred to Hezekiah, he falls short of these messianic expectations, leaving the community of faith awaiting another anointed one (messiah). Ominously, chapter 39 describes Hezekiah’s entertaining guests from Babylon, perhaps implying an alliance between the two nations. Hezekiah’s actions prompt Isaiah to predict the Babylonian exile (39:6–7), providing a fitting segue to chapters 40–66.

Second Isaiah (Isa. 40–55)

A message to the exiles. Second Isaiah was written near the end of the exilic period for those who were deported by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon. Although the exiles in Babylon were settled in communities (Ezek. 3:15) and allowed to build houses and farm the land (Jer. 29:5–7), they had no temple for worship, and many of the exiles probably saw the destruction of Jerusalem and their temple as the end of God’s action on their behalf. The gods of Babylon appeared to have won the victory. The exiles’ faith was flagging, and even those who did not abandon worship of Israel’s God simply clung to the past and expected nothing new from him.

Contrary to these expectations, Second Isaiah proclaims that God is doing something new for his people and bringing an end to the exile (40:1; 55:12). The role of Cyrus in this deliverance is highlighted, with explicit and implicit reference made to the Persian king (41:2–3, 25; 44:28; 45:1–4, 13–14). However, amid the oracles of comfort there is also a challenge to Israel, which is somehow resistant to the message. To break down this resistance, the prophecy has a sustained rhetoric against idol worship, with some quite hilarious sections ridiculing idol makers (44:9–20). Israel needed to realize that only Yahweh is God and to trust that he will redeem Israel for his purposes. Chapters 1–39 allude to the redemption of Israel (1:27; 35:9), and chapters 40–66 reveal more of how this redemption will take place: the work of “the servant.”

The servant. Several poems featuring an anonymous “servant” (42:1–9; 49:1–12; 50:4–11; 52:13–53:12) are often referred to as the Servant Songs. As far back as the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:34), interpreters have struggled with how to identify “the servant.” At times, Israel is explicitly identified as the servant (Isa. 41:8–9; 42:19 [2×]; 43:10), yet the servant clearly also has individual features, suggesting that a person was to fill the role. Some have suggested Cyrus because 42:1 says that the servant “will bring justice to the nations,” and Cyrus is described as conquering nations (41:2, 25; 45:1). However, despite all the talk of Cyrus, the text never explicitly applies the term “servant” to him, which can hardly be by chance. Alternatively, the servant could be the prophet who speaks in these chapters (as the Ethiopian eunuch speculated), since he was destined for his mission before his birth (49:1) and equipped for a mission involving prophetic speech (49:2) and had received divinely revealed knowledge (50:4).

Yet the Servant Songs are also messianic and look forward to a future anointed one who will fulfill the role of the servant fully. In the NT, Jesus is presented as the new Israel (cf. Matt. 2:15 with Hos. 11:1) who truly fulfills the role of the servant (John 12:38, quoting Isa. 53:1; Matt. 8:17, quoting Isa. 53:4). However, Paul appears to hold to a collective interpretation of the songs, as he sees himself as the servant in some instances (Acts 13:47; Rom. 15:21; Gal. 1:15). Both the individual and the collective interpretations are legitimated in the NT, as both Jesus (individual) and the church (collective), which is Christ’s body, fulfill the role of the servant.

Third Isaiah (Isa. 56–66)

In 539 BC Cyrus allowed the exiles to return home to rebuild Jerusalem and its temple (Ezra 1:1–4). Despite many obstacles, the temple was finished in 515 BC. Even with this success, living in the land was challenging (see Malachi), with factions among the people, economic troubles, hypocritical worship (Isa. 58:1–14), and problems with corrupt leaders (56:9–57:13). It was for this postexilic community that Third Isaiah was written (probably before the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah in 445 BC brought lasting change to the desperate situation).

Unlike in chapters 40–55, where Israel needs to be roused from its despair by the imminent actions of God, in chapters 56–66 the people are pleading with God to help them (59:11; 62:7). In chapter 59 the prophet declares that God’s delay in helping his people is due not to his inability but rather to the sins of the people, which are described, confessed, and lamented.

In many ways, Third Isaiah unites the themes of First Isaiah and Second Isaiah. Second Isaiah emphasizes the inbreaking of a new age that contrasts with the old. The former things are remembered, but the new thing that God was doing—the return from exile—is stressed. However, in Third Isaiah the deliverance from Babylon is seen as merely a foretaste of God’s promise, which is now identified as a new heaven and earth (chaps. 65–66). Third Isaiah looks forward to the new things that are still ahead.

First Isaiah predicts a Davidic messiah who would rule in righteousness (9:1–7; 11:1–9) and a faithful remnant that would respond in trust (10:20; 28:16). Second Isaiah does not continue with these themes, instead turning attention to the “servant” whose suffering and death would atone for Israel (53:4–5). However, Third Isaiah links First Isaiah’s faithful remnant with obedient “servants” who take on the mission of the Suffering Servant in Second Isaiah. This interpretation sets the direction for the NT’s identification of the royal messiah of chapters 1–39 as the servant of chapters 40–55 (Luke 24:26; Acts 8:32). Third Isaiah thus unites and reinterprets the book as a whole.

It is fitting that Jesus read the opening verses of Isa. 61 in the synagogue at the beginning of his ministry. Like Third Isaiah, he united prophecies of both the messianic Davidic ruler of First Isaiah and the Suffering Servant of Second Isaiah, taking on both roles himself. Third Isaiah ends with a glorious future pictured for the Jewish community as they function as priests in the world (61:6). Similarly, Christ’s body, the church, now functions in these same roles in the world (cf. Acts 13:47; Rev. 5:10).

The books of Samuel tell the story of how kingship began in Israel and was subsequently secured under David. Almost all of David’s own story is recounted in Samuel, including God’s promise to him of a dynasty. This promise became a key seedbed for the messianic hope within the OT, which finds its fulfillment in Jesus as David’s son (Matt. 1:1).

Genre and Purpose

Samuel is part of a block of texts running from Joshua through Kings (excluding Ruth), which is known in the Hebrew Bible as the Former Prophets. This block offers a more or less continuous account of Israel’s life in the land of promise from its entry under Joshua until the exile after Jerusalem was captured by the Babylonians (2 Kings 25). Any assessment of the genre and purpose of Samuel must consider its relationship to these surrounding texts, though it should also recognize the distinctive elements of Samuel itself.

At its simplest, Samuel is a work of narrative prose that tells how kingship began in Israel and was secured under David after the failure of Saul, though it also contains a number of important poems. Although contemporary history writing would not be done in the same way, since Samuel points to the ways in which God is active throughout this time, Samuel certainly offers a testimony to this crucial period in Israel’s history. It is not the whole story of the period, as its testimony is concerned with a specific set of issues, and that testimony is related through God’s purposes for Samuel, Saul, and David. But this observation is vital for appreciating that Samuel is not just the story of how kingship came to Israel but is specifically a theological examination of it. It explores how God was at work, fulfilling the hope for kingship that had been expressed through Judg. 17–21, while also providing hope that the exile was not the end of his purposes for Israel as a whole and the kings of David’s line in particular. We should not think of this as a dry piece of history writing, for an important element is also that the telling of this story should entertain and grip those who either read or (perhaps more likely) heard it. Knowing that God had acted in the past for his people and that these actions continued to be important was not enough; the excitement that this should generate also needed to be apparent in the skill with which the story was told.

Outline

I. The Rise of Samuel (1 Sam. 1–7)

II. The Birth of Monarchy (1 Sam. 8–12)

III. Saul’s Early Reign and Rejection (1 Sam. 13–15)

IV. Long Rivalry Narrative: David and Saul (1 Sam.16–2 Sam. 1)

A. David’s anointing and arrival at court (1 Sam. 16–17)

B. David within Saul’s court (1 Sam. 18–20)

C. David as an outlaw in Judah (1 Sam. 21–26)

D. David in Philistine territory and Saul’s death (1 Sam. 27–2 Sam. 1)

V. Short Rivalry Narrative: David and Ish-Bosheth (2 Sam. 2:1–5:5)

VI. First Summary of David’s Reign (2 Sam. 5:6–8:18)

VII. Narrative of David’s Court (2 Sam. 9–20)

A. David accepts Mephibosheth (2 Sam. 9)

B. The war with Ammon and David’s sin (2 Sam. 10–12)

C. Long rebellion narrative: Absalom against David (2 Sam. 13–19)

D. Short rebellion narrative: Sheba against David (2 Sam. 20)

VIII. Second Summary of David’s Reign (2 Sam. 21–24)

Composition

Authorship and sources. The books of Samuel are anonymous, and any assessment of their authorship needs to start with this basic fact. There is a tradition in the Talmud (b. B. Bat. 14b; 15a) that associates the book with Samuel, Nathan, and Gad, presumably concluding that the books of Samuel constitute the source mentioned by 1 Chron. 29:29. But this reference is only to information on David’s life and thus is unlikely to refer to the whole of Samuel. Since Samuel’s own death is recorded in 1 Sam. 25:1, the book’s title in our tradition (in the LXX the books of Samuel are the first two books of Kingdoms, which continue into Kings) is unlikely to refer to authorship. Rather, it is more likely that a later author has drawn together a range of source materials in order to offer a coherent testimony about the origins of kingship.

For some time, the main sources behind Samuel seemed to have been identified, and they included a series of Shiloh traditions concerning the end of the house of Eli and the rise of Samuel (1 Sam. 1:1–4:1a), an ark narrative (2 Sam. 4:1b–7:1; 6), traditions concerning Saul and the origins of kingship (1 Sam. 7:2–15:35), a history of David’s rise (1 Sam. 16:1–2 Sam. 5:5), a succession narrative (2 Sam. 9–20), and a Samuel appendix (2 Sam. 21–24). Within this analysis, the place of 2 Sam. 5:6–25 and 2 Sam. 7:1–8:17 remained unclear, but the general thought was that the sources were more or less placed one after the other in their chronological sequence. But the probability of this conclusion has been challenged in recent times because the various sections of the books are clearly aware of information in other parts, so that the whole is actually well integrated. In addition, the actual boundaries of the sources remained unclear. An unfortunate effect of the source theories is that they tended to downplay some parts of the book, especially 2 Sam. 21–24, as being of less importance, whereas some recent studies have shown that they are closely integrated into the rest of the book, tying together themes developed elsewhere while also showing the structural integrity of the whole of Samuel.

Samuel is likely the end product of several stages of material collected together, rather than being the product of sources that are kept intact, but it is still a unified work. Possibly the oldest material is the collection of longer poems in 1 Sam. 2:1–10; 2 Sam. 1:17–27; 22:1–23:7, all of which draws on common themes and language and comments on the nature of kingship. The opening and closing blocks form the bookends, raising the hope of kingship (1 Sam. 2:1–10) and then commenting on how the king must submit to God’s reign (2 Sam. 22:1–23:7). In the central poem (2 Sam. 1:17–27) David laments the deaths of Saul and Jonathan. It is likely that these poems were joined with the stories about Samuel, Saul, and David in the ninth century BC but were then carefully placed to comment on the stories and yet also be commented on by them. Further editing may have continued until the time of Hezekiah in the late eighth century BC. Later on, more or less the whole of Samuel as we know it was included in the Former Prophets, perhaps during the exile. The important point to note here is that Samuel is a carefully composed whole and not simply a collection of source materials.

Literary devices. Evidence for the nature of the book’s composition can be seen in how it employs certain literary devices throughout. Two that are worth noting are the way the text plays with narrative chronology and employs repetition in various forms. The play with narrative chronology means that although the movement of the book is broadly chronological (moving from the origins of the monarchy to the latter period of David’s reign), not every element is recorded in its actual chronological sequence, since at some points other factors were more important. Alternatively, at some points different narrative strands are brought into a chronological relationship with one another, most notably in comparing the locations of David and Saul in 1 Sam. 27–2 Sam. 1. A simple example of relating material outside its chronological sequence occurs in 1 Sam. 26:12, where it is said that God had caused Saul’s soldiers to sleep so that David could enter Saul’s camp only after David had reached Saul, though clearly the soldiers must already have been asleep.

At other points, the breaks with chronological sequence cover different stories about David. For example, in 2 Sam. 5:17–8:14 there are four accounts about David, two in which he overcomes enemies (5:17–25; 8:1–14) and two associated with events in Jerusalem and public worship (6:1–7:29). Since 7:1 tells us that David’s desire to build a temple came after God had delivered him from all his enemies, it follows that the events of chapter 7 must have come after those of 8:1–14. Here, arranging the material to highlight the theme of public worship was more important than placing it in chronological sequence.

This same section also demonstrates the use of repetition. Hence, 5:17–25 recounts two nearly identical defeats of the Philistines in which David must trust God, while the victories in 8:1–14 are twice said to come about because God gave David victory wherever he went (8:6, 14). Similarly, both 6:1–23 and 7:1–29 depend upon interest in the ark and thus mutually interpret each other. Other large-scale repetitions include two announcements of the coming of kingship (1 Sam. 2:10, 34), two announcements of the end of Eli and his family in the sanctuary at Shiloh (1 Sam. 2:27–36; 3:10–14), and two times when David does not kill Saul (1 Sam. 24; 26). In an oral culture, such repetitions are not evidence of poor composition but rather are a crucial tool for emphasizing the central themes being developed. In addition, variations within each repetition are a tool for increasing the audience’s interest, showing that the authors of Samuel were interested in both giving historical testimony and entertaining their audience.

Text

It is generally agreed that the text of Samuel poses more than its fair share of difficulties, something that can be seen in the often significant differences between the received Hebrew text (MT) and the early translations, especially the main Greek translation (LXX). For example, in 1 Sam. 17 the best-regarded edition of the LXX lacks vv. 12–31, 50, 55–58, and even in shared material it is sometimes significantly shorter. It is generally agreed that the Greek version resolves a number of anomalies, but is this because the MT has been expanded or because the LXX has been abbreviated? In addition, three significant Samuel manuscripts were found at Qumran. Although two of these are only fragmentary, one covers significant portions of Samuel. Although the disputed portions of 1 Sam. 17 are absent from it, there are some points where it appears to support the LXX and others where it agrees with the MT while also introducing some other issues of its own.

It is clear, therefore, that complex issues are involved in determining the text of Samuel, and one must avoid taking a doctrinaire position and allow each point to be resolved on its own merits. At the same time, the difficulties should not be magnified beyond reason, since large sections of the text can be established with reasonable certainty, and for all the problems, the MT remains a reliable guide. One might suggest in the case of 1 Sam. 17, for example, that the LXX text represents an early attempt to address apparent difficulties in the narrative (especially the question of when Saul met David) that nevertheless failed to realize that not everything in Samuel is narrated in exact chronological order. Nevertheless, anyone who compares different translations of Samuel (e.g., NIV and NRSV) will notice variants and should make use of good commentaries at that point.

Central Themes

The reign of God. Kingship lies at the heart of Samuel. But although it is concerned with the story of Israel’s first two kings (Abimelek in Judg. 9 is an aberration and probably only a local figure), it places their story within the framework of God’s reign. No matter what authority a king in Israel might claim, it was always subject to God’s greater authority. Indeed, Samuel makes clear that God did not need a king but rather chose the monarchy as the means by which his own reign might be demonstrated.

An important way in which God’s reign is demonstrated is through the motif of the reversal of fortunes, in which the powerful are brought down and the weak raised. This is announced in Hannah’s Song (1 Sam. 2:4–8) and is then demonstrated when God removed the corrupt family of Eli from their position of power in the sanctuary at Shiloh (2:27–36; 4:1–18). On the other hand, Samuel himself came to prominence even though he had no position of power. Saul, likewise, although a member of a relatively wealthy family (9:1–2), knew that he was not someone who had automatic power (9:21) but still was raised up to be king by God. Yet when he, like Eli before him, became corrupt and clung to power rather than submit to God, he too was removed so that he could be replaced (15:28–29).

David also came from a humble position as the youngest son in his family (1 Sam. 16:11), but unlike Eli and Saul, he would not grasp power for himself. Indeed, he twice refused to kill Saul when he had the chance (1 Sam. 24; 26) and punished those who claimed that they could exercise violence on his behalf (2 Sam. 1:11–16; 4:9–12). Even when it seemed that David had later lost all to Absalom, he held to the fact that he could reign only as long as he had God’s support (2 Sam. 15:25–26). This, in fact, is a central theme in 2 Sam. 7 when David wanted to build a temple for God, for there it is made clear that David cannot act without God’s authority, and that his descendants will have authority as long as they too submit to God (2 Sam. 7:11b–15). David’s closing songs (22:1–23:7) make clear that the king has no authority apart from God.

Kingship. Kingship in Israel is closely related to the theme of God’s reign. The possibility of kingship first arises in Hannah’s Song (1 Sam. 2:10) and is confirmed by the man of God who announces the judgment against Eli’s family (2:34). Both references occur before Israel’s elders requested a king because of the failure of Samuel’s sons (8:1–9), indicating that the request for a king did not take God by surprise. In addition, it indicates that authentic kingship in Israel could only be that which was initiated by God.

The story of Saul’s rise to the throne needs to be read in light of this. Although the human move to kingship stemmed from the request of the elders for a king (1 Sam. 8:4–9), it was still the case that Saul could become king only because of God’s decision. Although 1 Sam. 8–12 often has been broken down into supposedly conflicting sources, it is better to read it as a unified text but to note that the narrator’s voice is not equivalent to any of the characters that speak through it. When the text is understood in this way, it is possible to appreciate that kingship was part of God’s purposes for Israel, but it needed to follow his model. Kings in Israel could prosper only when they submitted to the greater reign of God. It was Saul’s mistake that he did not recognize this. David, although he made some terrible mistakes, always understood this truth, and his closing songs (2 Sam. 22:1–23:7) reflect on it. David learned what Saul never did: power is never something to be grasped; rather, it can only be accepted as a gracious gift from God to be used for his purposes.

New Testament Connections

The importance of the books of Samuel for the NT is far greater than its five direct citations there (Acts 13:22; Rom. 15:9; 2 Cor. 6:18 [2×]; Heb. 1:5) might indicate. The theme of kingship and the associated promise to David in 2 Sam. 7 are fundamental to the messianic hope throughout the OT and are picked up in the NT. Even when the NT cites other OT texts (such as Ps. 2) with reference to Jesus, it is still the books of Samuel that lie behind the citation. In addition, the NT frequently indicates that Jesus was a son of David (e.g., Matt. 1:1). Although such texts do not cite Samuel directly, they clearly allude to it because of God’s promise that David’s throne would be established forever (2 Sam. 7:16). Jesus’ ministry transcends that of David in every way, but we cannot understand his ministry apart from David and God’s promise to him.

A call or calling is God’s summons to live one’s life in accordance with his purposes. At creation God instructed Adam to fill the earth and subdue it, and to have dominion over it. God created Eve to be Adam’s lifelong companion and to help him fulfill this task (Gen. 1:28). Thus, in the broader (universal) sense, the notion of calling includes the ordinances that God established at creation: work (Gen. 2:15), marriage (2:18, 24), building a family (1:28), and Sabbath rest (2:2–3).

When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they became alienated from God (Gen. 3:6–19). Their fall brought the same plight of alienation from God upon all humanity. However, it did not abolish the human duty to carry out God’s original creation ordinances. Since God showers his blessings on everyone alike (common grace), all human beings possess gifts and are given opportunities to “fill” the earth and “subdue” it. Thus, everyone participates in the universal call (Acts 17:25–26). This has come to be called the “cultural mandate.”

However, God’s original intention was to have communion with human beings. This could not be realized unless he made provision for human beings to be reconciled with him. Against this backdrop, God initiated his plan to redeem people from their plight of spiritual alienation.

The general call. The promise of God to bring deliverance through a future descendant of Eve established the provision for individuals (e.g., Adam, Abel, Seth, Noah) to be “called” back into a relationship of favor with him (Gen. 3:15). The first occasion when this call is made explicit is in God’s call to Abram to leave his country and go to a land that God would show him (11:32–12:1). God promised that Abram would become the father of a nation (12:2–3). In response to God’s call and his promise, Abram believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness (15:6). Abram’s call was implicitly twofold. First, it was a general call to acknowledge this God as the true God and yield to his lordship. Second, it entailed a specific call to leave his country and journey toward a new country.

Several generations later, God appointed Moses to lead these descendants of Abraham out of Egypt, where they had lived for four hundred years. God’s act of delivering them from slavery in Egypt also symbolized redemption from sin’s bondage (Exod. 20:2). God had called the people by means of a covenant to be his own special people, to serve him as a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (19:5–6). This was a call to set their lives apart for God by living according to his commands. This general call was more than a verbal summons; it was also the means God used to bring his people into existence (Hos. 11:1).

The NT indicates there is a general call to all people to believe in Christ (Matt. 11:28; Acts 17:30) that becomes effective in the ones that God has already chosen (Matt. 22:14; Acts 13:48; Eph. 1:4–5). The latter, which theologians identify as the “effectual call,” is what Paul refers to when he says, “Those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son. . . . And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified” (Rom. 8:29–30). Thus, this is also a sovereign call.

Particular callings. God has endowed each individual Christian with a particular gift set and calls each one to use those gifts in a variety of ways in service to him (1 Pet. 4:10). These callings include one’s occupation, place of residence, status as married or single, involvement in public life, and service in the local church. In the OT, God gifted Bezalel and “filled him with the Spirit of God, with wisdom, with understanding, with knowledge and with all kinds of skills” (Exod. 35:31–32) to beautify the tabernacle. In the parable of the talents, Jesus teaches that God has made each of us stewards of whatever he has entrusted to us; we are to become skilled in the use of our gifts and to seek opportunities to use them in service to him (Matt. 25:14–30). Desire is an important factor in discerning one’s particular callings (Ps. 37:4). One’s particular calling is progressive, unfolding through the different seasons of one’s life (Eph. 2:10; 1 Cor. 7:20, 24). No particular calling is more “sacred” than another in God’s eyes.

A call or calling is God’s summons to live one’s life in accordance with his purposes. At creation God instructed Adam to fill the earth and subdue it, and to have dominion over it. God created Eve to be Adam’s lifelong companion and to help him fulfill this task (Gen. 1:28). Thus, in the broader (universal) sense, the notion of calling includes the ordinances that God established at creation: work (Gen. 2:15), marriage (2:18, 24), building a family (1:28), and Sabbath rest (2:2–3).

When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they became alienated from God (Gen. 3:6–19). Their fall brought the same plight of alienation from God upon all humanity. However, it did not abolish the human duty to carry out God’s original creation ordinances. Since God showers his blessings on everyone alike (common grace), all human beings possess gifts and are given opportunities to “fill” the earth and “subdue” it. Thus, everyone participates in the universal call (Acts 17:25–26). This has come to be called the “cultural mandate.”

However, God’s original intention was to have communion with human beings. This could not be realized unless he made provision for human beings to be reconciled with him. Against this backdrop, God initiated his plan to redeem people from their plight of spiritual alienation.

The general call. The promise of God to bring deliverance through a future descendant of Eve established the provision for individuals (e.g., Adam, Abel, Seth, Noah) to be “called” back into a relationship of favor with him (Gen. 3:15). The first occasion when this call is made explicit is in God’s call to Abram to leave his country and go to a land that God would show him (11:32–12:1). God promised that Abram would become the father of a nation (12:2–3). In response to God’s call and his promise, Abram believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness (15:6). Abram’s call was implicitly twofold. First, it was a general call to acknowledge this God as the true God and yield to his lordship. Second, it entailed a specific call to leave his country and journey toward a new country.

Several generations later, God appointed Moses to lead these descendants of Abraham out of Egypt, where they had lived for four hundred years. God’s act of delivering them from slavery in Egypt also symbolized redemption from sin’s bondage (Exod. 20:2). God had called the people by means of a covenant to be his own special people, to serve him as a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (19:5–6). This was a call to set their lives apart for God by living according to his commands. This general call was more than a verbal summons; it was also the means God used to bring his people into existence (Hos. 11:1).

The NT indicates there is a general call to all people to believe in Christ (Matt. 11:28; Acts 17:30) that becomes effective in the ones that God has already chosen (Matt. 22:14; Acts 13:48; Eph. 1:4–5). The latter, which theologians identify as the “effectual call,” is what Paul refers to when he says, “Those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son. . . . And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified” (Rom. 8:29–30). Thus, this is also a sovereign call.

Particular callings. God has endowed each individual Christian with a particular gift set and calls each one to use those gifts in a variety of ways in service to him (1 Pet. 4:10). These callings include one’s occupation, place of residence, status as married or single, involvement in public life, and service in the local church. In the OT, God gifted Bezalel and “filled him with the Spirit of God, with wisdom, with understanding, with knowledge and with all kinds of skills” (Exod. 35:31–32) to beautify the tabernacle. In the parable of the talents, Jesus teaches that God has made each of us stewards of whatever he has entrusted to us; we are to become skilled in the use of our gifts and to seek opportunities to use them in service to him (Matt. 25:14–30). Desire is an important factor in discerning one’s particular callings (Ps. 37:4). One’s particular calling is progressive, unfolding through the different seasons of one’s life (Eph. 2:10; 1 Cor. 7:20, 24). No particular calling is more “sacred” than another in God’s eyes.

A call or calling is God’s summons to live one’s life in accordance with his purposes. At creation God instructed Adam to fill the earth and subdue it, and to have dominion over it. God created Eve to be Adam’s lifelong companion and to help him fulfill this task (Gen. 1:28). Thus, in the broader (universal) sense, the notion of calling includes the ordinances that God established at creation: work (Gen. 2:15), marriage (2:18, 24), building a family (1:28), and Sabbath rest (2:2–3).

When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they became alienated from God (Gen. 3:6–19). Their fall brought the same plight of alienation from God upon all humanity. However, it did not abolish the human duty to carry out God’s original creation ordinances. Since God showers his blessings on everyone alike (common grace), all human beings possess gifts and are given opportunities to “fill” the earth and “subdue” it. Thus, everyone participates in the universal call (Acts 17:25–26). This has come to be called the “cultural mandate.”

However, God’s original intention was to have communion with human beings. This could not be realized unless he made provision for human beings to be reconciled with him. Against this backdrop, God initiated his plan to redeem people from their plight of spiritual alienation.

The general call. The promise of God to bring deliverance through a future descendant of Eve established the provision for individuals (e.g., Adam, Abel, Seth, Noah) to be “called” back into a relationship of favor with him (Gen. 3:15). The first occasion when this call is made explicit is in God’s call to Abram to leave his country and go to a land that God would show him (11:32–12:1). God promised that Abram would become the father of a nation (12:2–3). In response to God’s call and his promise, Abram believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness (15:6). Abram’s call was implicitly twofold. First, it was a general call to acknowledge this God as the true God and yield to his lordship. Second, it entailed a specific call to leave his country and journey toward a new country.

Several generations later, God appointed Moses to lead these descendants of Abraham out of Egypt, where they had lived for four hundred years. God’s act of delivering them from slavery in Egypt also symbolized redemption from sin’s bondage (Exod. 20:2). God had called the people by means of a covenant to be his own special people, to serve him as a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (19:5–6). This was a call to set their lives apart for God by living according to his commands. This general call was more than a verbal summons; it was also the means God used to bring his people into existence (Hos. 11:1).

The NT indicates there is a general call to all people to believe in Christ (Matt. 11:28; Acts 17:30) that becomes effective in the ones that God has already chosen (Matt. 22:14; Acts 13:48; Eph. 1:4–5). The latter, which theologians identify as the “effectual call,” is what Paul refers to when he says, “Those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son. . . . And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified” (Rom. 8:29–30). Thus, this is also a sovereign call.

Particular callings. God has endowed each individual Christian with a particular gift set and calls each one to use those gifts in a variety of ways in service to him (1 Pet. 4:10). These callings include one’s occupation, place of residence, status as married or single, involvement in public life, and service in the local church. In the OT, God gifted Bezalel and “filled him with the Spirit of God, with wisdom, with understanding, with knowledge and with all kinds of skills” (Exod. 35:31–32) to beautify the tabernacle. In the parable of the talents, Jesus teaches that God has made each of us stewards of whatever he has entrusted to us; we are to become skilled in the use of our gifts and to seek opportunities to use them in service to him (Matt. 25:14–30). Desire is an important factor in discerning one’s particular callings (Ps. 37:4). One’s particular calling is progressive, unfolding through the different seasons of one’s life (Eph. 2:10; 1 Cor. 7:20, 24). No particular calling is more “sacred” than another in God’s eyes.

Asia Minor, the land area of modern-day Turkey, was initially settled by the Hatti people between 2500 and 2000 BC. Toward the end of that period, the Indo-European Hittites, drawn to the mild climate, began a slow settlement alongside the indigenous Hattis, mixing peaceably with them. By 1750 BC, the Hittites had become the dominant people group.

In the twelfth century BC the Hittites fell to the Sea Peoples. They developed coastal cities along the Aegean, which by the eighth century were conquered by the Greeks. The Lydian king Croesus came to power in 560 BC in Sardis and subdued the Greeks, only to fall in 546 BC to Cyrus of Persia. In 334–333 BC Alexander the Great defeated the Persians in two key battles and won Asia Minor. After Alexander’s death, one of his generals, Seleucus, took over. Then, in 190 BC the Romans defeated the Seleucids and assumed control. This inaugurated an extended period of peace, during which time Jewish communities of the Diaspora settled throughout the region.

The missionary journeys of the apostle Paul (Saul of Tarsus) took him into and around much of Asia Minor, and directly or indirectly he was responsible for the establishment of most of the first-century churches there. The following cities of Asia Minor are mentioned in the NT.

Eastern Mediterranean

Tarsus. The birthplace of the apostle Paul (Acts 9:11; 21:39; 22:3), Tarsus is located on the Mediterranean coast, nine miles northeast of modern-day Mersin. Tarsus became the capital of the Roman province of Cilicia in 67 BC. Cleopatra and Mark Antony met and built their fleet in this grand city. When his life was threatened after his conversion, Paul was sent to Tarsus from Jerusalem (9:30).

Antioch. Antioch (Antakya) is located just inland from the Mediterranean coast, on the east bank of the Orontes River. Jewish and Gentile believers who fled Jerusalem after the death of Stephen planted a church here, where followers of Jesus were first called “Christians.” Barnabas brought Saul from Tarsus to Antioch, where they labored together for a year, teaching the church, prior to setting off on their first missionary journey (Acts 11:19–30). Paul later returned, along with Silas, bearing the requirements for Gentile believers from the Jerusalem council (15:22–35).

Southern Ports

Seleucia. Known today as Samandağ, Seleucia was Antioch’s port, the place from which Saul, Barnabas, and John Mark embarked on their first missionary journey in AD 47 (Acts 13:4).

Perga in Pamphylia. Perga is just east of Antalya on the southern Mediterranean coast. Archimedes’ student Apollonius the mathematician lived here in the late third century BC. On their first missionary journey, Paul and Barnabas disembarked in Perga for destinations in southwestern Asia Minor, while John Mark left them to return to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13–14). On their return trip of the same journey, Paul and Barnabas stopped in Perga again, this time preaching before heading to Attalia (14:25).

Galatia

The following cities became part of the politically defined Roman province of Galatia in 25 BC. They are to be distinguished from ethnic Galatia, which is a region further north, around modern-day Ankara.

Pisidian Antioch. Modern Yalvaç, or Pisidian Antioch, is northeast of Isparta in the lake region. On their first missionary journey, Paul and Barnabas preached in the synagogue here and generated enormous interest in the gospel (Acts 13:14–43). The following Sabbath, nearly the entire city came out to listen to them. Jealous Jewish leaders incited a persecution, causing Paul and Barnabas to reorient their ministry to Gentiles and then leave the region for Iconium (13:26–51). They returned on their way back to Antioch to strengthen the disciples and appoint elders (14:21–23).

Iconium. Iconium, today called Konya, is about sixty-five miles southeast of Pisidian Antioch. It is one of the most ancient settlements of the region, dating to the third millennium BC. Paul and Barnabas preached in the synagogue here on their first missionary journey, initially winning Jewish and Gentile converts but angering other Jews. Paul and Barnabas eventually feared for their safety and escaped to Lystra and Derbe (Acts 14:1–6). However, they came back on the return trip to Antioch (14:21–23). Iconium is also noteworthy as the home of the ascetic St. Thecla from the apocryphal second-century Christian text Acts of Paul and Thecla.

Lystra. Frequently mentioned with Derbe (Acts 14:6; 16:1), Lystra (modern Hatunsaray) is nineteen miles south of Iconium. Paul and Barnabas fled here from Iconium and preached. Paul healed a lame man, and as a result he and Barnabas were presumed by the enthusiastic crowd to be Zeus and Hermes. At the instigation of Paul’s Jewish opponents, the crowd’s sentiments turned, and Paul was nearly stoned to death. He and Barnabas left for Derbe the following day (14:6–20), but they came back on their return trip (14:21–23). Paul returned on his second missionary journey, where he met his protégé, Timothy (16:1–2).

Derbe. About fifty miles southeast of Lystra and slightly north of present-day Karaman is Derbe. Paul and Barnabas fled here after Paul’s stoning in Lystra on their first missionary journey, preached the gospel, made many disciples, and appointed elders (Acts 14:21–23). Among the disciples likely was Gaius, who later accompanied Paul during his third missionary journey (Acts 20:4).

Western Aegean Ports

Troas. Troas was a major northwest seaport located about twelve miles southwest of Troy. On his second missionary journey, Paul, traveling with Silas and Timothy, was prevented from entering Bithynia by the Spirit of Christ and went instead to Troas. Here he had a vision beckoning him to Macedonia, which he promptly obeyed (Acts 16:6–11). Because this is the first of the so-called “we” passages in Acts, Luke may have joined the group here (16:10). Paul also stopped at Troas on the return to Jerusalem from his third missionary journey. There he raised Eutychus after the latter’s traumatic fall (20:4–12). Troas is mentioned twice more, suggesting that Paul spent time here in addition to the above visits (2 Cor. 2:12–13; 2 Tim. 4:13).

Adramyttium. A few miles south of Troas was the port of Adramyttium. It was the origin of the ship that transported Paul from Caesarea to Myra around AD 60 en route to Rome (Acts 27:2).

Assos. Assos is an acropolis sitting 774 feet above sea level, up from the village of Behramkale. It overlooks the Bay of Edremit and has a splendid view of Lesbos. Doric columns from the seventh-century BC temple of Athena are prominent at the site. According to Acts 20:13–14, on his return from his third missionary journey, Paul went overland from Troas to Assos, and there he joined his traveling companions on their ship. From here on the way to Miletus, they made several nearby island stops off the coast of Asia Minor: Mitylene on Lesbos, Chios, and Samos (20:14–16).

Miletus. Located about twenty miles south of Ephesus, at the point where the Meander River met the Gulf of Latmus (now silted over), was the important southwestern seaport of Miletus. The city was significant in the NT era for its four harbors. A center for commerce, scholarship, geometry, and science, it was also the prototype for principles of city planning later applied throughout the Roman Empire. On his third missionary journey, Paul’s farewell to the Ephesian elders took place here (Acts 20:15–38). Later he left the ill Trophimus in Miletus (2 Tim. 4:20).

Southwestern Ports

Patara. Sitting on the Mediterranean coast at the mouth of the Xanthus River, about forty miles west of present-day Demre, Patara was a flourishing harbor and commercial center in antiquity. Paul changed ships here as he returned to Jerusalem from his third missionary journey, after island stops in Kos and Rhodes (Acts 21:1–2).

Myra. Myra is a coastal ruin due south of present-day Demre. In the NT era, the seaport featured a Roman theater, Roman baths, and two rock-cut necropolises. Here, Paul changed ships around AD 60 on his way to Rome while in the custody of a centurion (Acts 27:5). Myra is perhaps best known as the home of the fourth-century bishop St. Nicholas, who was from nearby Patara.

Cnidus. At the tip of the long, narrow Datca peninsula on the extreme southwestern corner of Asia Minor lies Cnidus. Founded around 360 BC, the acropolis rises 1,000 feet above sea level. The port included two harbors and four theaters but was most famous for its fourth-century BC statue of Aphrodite, carved by the Athenian sculptor Praxiteles. Around AD 60 the ship carrying Paul to Rome stopped here because of slow winds and changed course (Acts 27:7).

Seven Churches of Revelation; Lycus Valley

The seven churches of Rev. 1–3 lay along a north-south elliptical route in western Asia Minor. Laodicea, the seventh, forms a tight geographic triangle with Hierapolis and Colossae in the Lycus Valley.

Ephesus. Known today as Selçuk, ancient Ephesus is located on the Aegean coast of Asia Minor at the mouth of the Cayster River. It was founded in the eleventh century BC by the Ionians and later ruled successively by the Athenians, Spartans, Persians, and Greeks. Roman governance began in 190 BC. Later, Ephesus became the capital of the province of Asia, as well as its most important commercial center. During the NT era, the Artemision (see Artemis) was an important pilgrimage site.

Paul stopped in Ephesus briefly on his second missionary journey, leaving Priscilla and Aquila. They later encountered and mentored Apollos there (Acts 18:19–26). On his third journey, Paul remained in Ephesus for three years, teaching, performing miracles, and healing the sick (19:1–22) until the riot incited by Demetrius the silversmith (20:1). He wrote 1 Corinthians in Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:8) and later wrote to the Ephesians from his Roman prison cell (Eph. 3:1) as well as to Timothy in Ephesus (1 Tim. 1:3).

In Rev. 2:1–7 the Ephesian church is commended for its perseverance but chastised for having lost its first love.

Smyrna. Smyrna (modern İzmir) is located about thirty-five miles north along the coast from Ephesus. In 195 BC it became the first city in Asia Minor to erect a temple for the imperial cult, and by the next century it was known as “the ornament of Asia.” In its letter, which mentions no negatives, the church is encouraged to be faithful in its suffering (Rev. 2:8–11).

Pergamum. About seventy miles north of Smyrna is Pergamum (modern Bergama). The dazzling acropolis sits one thousand feet high and about sixteen miles inland from the Aegean. The Attalids, who ruled 263–133 BC, allied Pergamum with Rome and built it into a major religious and intellectual center, constructing the great altar to Zeus Soter, the temple to Athena Nicephorus, and the large complex dedicated to Asclepius Soter. They also established a ruler cult and built a library containing two hundred thousand volumes, which at its peak was second only to the library at Alexandria.

The letter to the church (Rev. 2:12–17) references Satan’s throne, which many believe to be a reference to the altar to Zeus. The church is commended for its faithfulness and yet is admonished for tolerating those advocating pagan practices within the community.

Thyatira. Thyatira (now called Akhisar) is about thirty-five miles southeast of Pergamum. It was mainly noted as having a significant concentration of trade guilds, especially those connected with textiles. Lydia, Paul’s disciple and host in Philippi, was a dealer in purple cloth from Thyatira (Acts 16:14). The church is commended for its good deeds but criticized for tolerating the false teacher Jezebel (Rev. 2:18–29).

Sardis. Forty-five miles east of Smyrna, on the banks of the Pactolus, is Sardis, where Croesus, the sixth-century BC Lydian king, was said to have panned for gold. He also built an impressive Ionic temple to Artemis here. Archaeological evidence points to the presence of a significant Jewish community in Sardis, about which the NT is silent.

The letter to Sardis is a stern warning to wake up, highlighting the church’s incomplete deeds and impurity (Rev. 3:1–6).

Philadelphia. Philadelphia (modern Alaşehir) is twenty-six miles southwest of Sardis on the Cogamis River. The city was noted for its wine production, and it was nicknamed “Little Athens” during the Roman era. Its letter is thoroughly positive; the church is commended for its deeds and faithfulness (Rev. 3:7–13).

Laodicea. Laodicea is located about a hundred miles east of Ephesus, in a valley where the Lycus River joins the Meander; Hierapolis is just to the north, and Colossae just to the east. Laodicea was founded in the third century BC by the Seleucid king Antiochus II, who named it after his wife. Cicero served as proconsul there in 51 BC.

Laodicea was a prosperous city, a center for banking, eye salve (“Phrygian powder”), and wool production. Its water was supplied via aqueducts from Hierapolis’s hot springs, but it arrived lukewarm and heavy with mineral impurities—no match for either its hot source or Colossae’s cold springs. The Laodicean letter employs all of this background in its harsh message to the church, which it describes as tepid, poor, blind, and naked (Rev. 3:14–22).

Hierapolis. Eight miles to the north of Laodicea, Hierapolis sits atop dramatic white cliffs created by its hot springs (Col. 4:13). The city was home to the reputed entrance to the underworld, the Plutonium, and had an enormous necropolis.

Colossae. Colossae, ten miles east of Laodicea, was a center for dyed red wool. Although wealthy in the late fourth century BC, it was later eclipsed by Laodicea.

The churches in Laodicea, Hierapolis, and Colossae (the oldest of the three cities) were begun by Epaphras and shared letters, including Paul’s letter to the Colossians (Col. 4:13–16). The slave Onesimus carried it, along with the Letter to Philemon, to Colossae, where Philemon hosted the house church (Col. 4:9; Philem. 10–12).

The language of confirmation is used in the OT in reference to confirming a covenant (Lev. 26:9; Deut. 8:18; 9:5; 27:26; Dan. 9:27), an oath (Gen. 26:23; Ps. 119:106), or a people (Deut. 29:13). Gideon sought confirmation of success when he laid a fleece on the threshing floor (Judg. 6:36–40). God honors his request, not once, but twice. Israel’s language of “confirmation” of God’s revelation is distinct from the cultural backdrop in the ancient Near East. Whereas God would confirm his covenant relationship with his people, the gods of the ancient world were elusive and acted on whims, making them difficult and problematic to understand.

In the NT, the verb martyreō is used to refer generally to “attestation” (Acts 13:22; Rom. 10:2; 2 Cor. 8:3). Although both humans (Gal. 4:15; Col. 4:13) and God engage in this action, “God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son” (1 John 5:9).

The Diaspora (or the Dispersion) generally refers to Jews living outside the land of Israel. Especially by the first century AD, Jews lived throughout the Mediterranean world and Mesopotamia. Large populations of Jews lived in Egypt and in Babylon/Persia. Two Jewish communities in Egypt established temples: at Elephantine sometime from the fifth through the fourth centuries BC, and at Leontopolis in the second century BC.

According to 2 Kings 17:1–41, the first major relocation of Israelites occurred forcibly around 722 BC, when Samaria fell to Sargon II, king of Assyria. As punishment for breaking their subject obligations to Assyria, Sargon deported many Israelites elsewhere in the Assyrian Empire, a usual Assyrian practice. The Bible also records the deportations of Judeans by Babylon around the end of the seventh and beginning of the sixth century BC (2 Kings 24–25; Jer. 21; 25; 27; 29; 39; 52). It explains these forced dispersions, or exiles, as punishments for breaking covenant obligations to Yahweh (Lev. 26:31–39; Deut. 28:64–67). The Bible also notes some Jews relocating voluntarily (Jer. 40–43). Voluntary relocations likely constitute the primary source for Jews in the Diaspora.

According to Acts, Christianity’s spread was inseparably tied to the Diaspora. The initial large “conversion” that Acts records, at Pentecost, involves Jews from the Diaspora who have traveled to Jerusalem for the festival (Acts 2:5–13). Throughout the rest of Acts, the apostles and missionaries find refuge and audiences among many Diaspora Jewish communities. Even after Paul declares that he will turn to the Gentiles because the Jews have rejected the message (Acts 13:44–52), Diaspora communities continue to provide travel destinations and audiences for him (e.g., Acts 17:1–4, 10–12, 17; 18:1–11, 19; 28:17–30). Some NT authors label their recipients as those in the Diaspora (or Dispersion), perhaps a Christianizing deployment of the term (James 1:1; 1 Pet. 1:1–2).

Evangelism is the proclamation of the “evangel” (Gk. euangelion), the good news, of Jesus Christ. The content of the evangel includes Jesus’ birth, which was announced as good news to Zechariah by the angel Gabriel (Luke 1:19) and by the angels to the shepherds (Luke 2:10). The good news speaks of the reality of Jesus’ resurrection (Acts 17:18), is described as a message of grace (Acts 20:24) and reconciliation to God through the sacrificed body of Christ (Col. 1:22–23), and includes the expectation of a day of divine judgment (Rom. 2:16). Paul preached the gospel (from Old English gōdspel, “good news”) message, which he claimed had its origin with God, not humans (Gal. 1:11–12). He summarizes this message in 1 Cor. 15:3b–5: “that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.” The introduction to the Gospel of Mark (1:1) may indicate that this written gospel could serve evangelistic purposes.

Evangelistic efforts in the New Testament. Numerous figures throughout the NT participated in evangelistic endeavors. John the Baptist’s preaching about the coming Messiah is described as evangelism (Luke 3:18). Evangelism was a characteristic activity of Jesus’ own ministry (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; Mark 1:14; Luke 20:1), which focused on proclaiming the advent of the kingdom of God (Luke 4:43; 8:1) and at times was targeted toward the poor (Matt. 11:5; Luke 4:18; 7:22). Jesus commanded those who follow him to engage in evangelism. He sent out the twelve apostles for evangelistic purposes (Luke 9:2), and he issued the Great Commission to this end (Matt. 28:18–20).

The missionary enterprise recorded in Acts demonstrates the efforts of the earliest Christians to spread the gospel. The apostles in Jerusalem (Acts 5:42) proclaimed the gospel in spite of great opposition and persecution, and believers who were scattered outside Jerusalem because of persecution spread the gospel in new locales (8:4). Philip evangelized Samaritans and an Ethiopian (8:12, 35). The ministry of Paul and Barnabas is characterized as preaching the good news (14:7, 15, 21; 15:35; 16:10; 17:18). Philip, one of the seven chosen to distribute food (6:5), was given the name “the Evangelist” (21:8). Timothy, additionally, is said to be Paul’s fellow worker in evangelism (1 Thess. 3:2; cf. 2 Tim. 4:5).

Evangelism was a central part of Paul’s ministry (Rom. 1:9; 1 Cor. 1:17; 15:1–2; Eph. 6:19; 1 Thess. 2:2, 9). He indicated an explicit interest in sharing the gospel with Gentiles (Rom. 15:16; Gal. 1:16; 2:7; Eph. 3:8) and with those who had never heard it (Rom. 15:20; 2 Cor. 10:16), and he expressed a desire to preach the gospel at Rome (Rom. 1:15). Paul wrote of the necessity of evangelism in order for people to be saved (Rom. 10:15), and he preached the gospel message free of charge (1 Cor. 9:16, 18; 2 Cor. 11:7). He listed the role of the evangelist in the church along with apostles, prophets, pastors, and teachers (Eph. 4:11).

Goal and methods of evangelism. Evangelism’s goal is to spread the gospel across ethnic and religious boundaries until it reaches all nations (Mark 13:10; Col. 1:23). To this end, Acts details an intentional effort by the earliest Christians to share the gospel with those who came from both Jewish and non-Jewish backgrounds. Acts 8:25 records Peter and John’s evangelistic efforts in Samaritan villages, and Acts 15:7 identifies Peter as an evangelist to Gentiles. An outreach specifically to Gentiles is chronicled in Acts 11:20, and Paul’s intentional program of traveling from city to city further contributes to this goal (Rom. 15:19).

The evangelists recorded in the NT demonstrate a range of methods and approaches to sharing the good news. They often began with a point of contact from the religious worldview of their audience. For instance, Philip used Scripture as a starting point in speaking with an individual who was familiar with some portion of it (Acts 8:35). Similarly, when addressing Jews, Paul preached Jesus as the fulfillment of various OT Scriptures (Acts 13:32–41), but when preaching the gospel to the Greeks in Athens, he acknowledged their religiosity and their previous worship of one called “an unknown God” (17:22–23). Evangelists sought opportunities to gain an audience, and Paul even took advantage of an illness to stay with the Galatians and share the gospel with them (Gal. 4:13). Finally, much of the evangelistic work in the early church was coupled with miraculous signs and wonders, which served to authenticate the message being proclaimed (Rom. 15:19; 1 Thess. 1:5).

Hermeneutics is the science and practice of interpretation. It can refer more generally to the philosophy of human understanding, or more specifically to the tools and methods used for interpreting communicative acts.

Human communication takes place in a variety of ways: through the use of nonverbal signs, through speech, and through writing. Effective communication requires some degree of shared belief, knowledge, and background between the participants. If the communicators have a significant amount of common ground, they will be able to successfully understand one another with little extra effort. Conversely, individuals with vastly different backgrounds will need to take extra steps to communicate effectively, such as defining special terms, avoiding jargon and colloquialisms, appreciating details about the other’s cultural assumptions, or learning a foreign language.

The Bible is not exempt from this process of communication. The Scriptures are meant to be read, understood, and put into practice (Luke 8:4–15; James 1:18), a task that requires effort and study on the part of its readers (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15). Everyone who reads the Bible is involved in this interpretative process, though readers will vary in their hermeneutical self-consciousness and skill. Thus, although readers are able to understand and appropriate much of the Bible without any special training in hermeneutical principles, such training is appropriate and helpful, both in attaining self-consciousness in interpretation and in acquiring new skills and insights in the effort to become a better reader.

The Development of Hermeneutics

The church has benefited from a long history of thinking about the nature and purpose of interpreting its Scriptures, and that reflection has resulted in a wide variety of hermeneutical theories and practices. How does one determine the meaning of a text? Is meaning the truth embedded within the passage? Or is it the original author’s intention in writing? Or does the text act independently of its author and history, either because it stands on its own terms or because it only “means” anything in interaction with readers? The answers to these questions will determine how readers approach a text, the questions they expect that text to answer, and the tools they use in interpretation.

From the early church to the Enlightenment. The early church emphasized the ability of the biblical text to convey heavenly truth, whether that truth was conceived as doctrinal teaching or absolute ethical rules. While the “literal meaning” of many texts could often supply simple truths and maxims, such a reading was at other times inadequate and could appear incompatible with what were considered basic and fundamental beliefs. Various allegorical techniques were therefore employed to explain such problematic texts. Interpreters often viewed the literal and historical features of the text as a starting point in the search for fuller meaning, as symbolic pointers to moral principles, absolute truths, or eternal realities. These practices were systematized throughout the Middle Ages and resulted in an extensive development of tradition. Church tradition, in turn, provided a degree of protection from the potential for arbitrariness in allegorical techniques, insisting that interpretation must be guided by the “rule of faith,” the traditional teaching and faith of the church.

Beginning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, scholarship moved to distance itself from such tradition. The Protestant Reformers, dissatisfied with the rule of church tradition, sought to displace its authority with the direct rule of Scripture. They therefore returned to the original biblical text, engaging in critical study of the text itself and translating the Bible into the vernacular to make it more widely accessible. In the centuries that followed, Enlightenment scholars went a step further in their rejection of the church as the sole repository of knowledge. Instead, they asserted, knowledge was acquired through scientific inquiry and critical study. Such inquiry could be applied to any field: the forces of nature, human anatomy, or the interpretation of texts. The meaning of a text was not some abstract truth or heavenly principle; rather, meaning was determined by the human author’s original intention in writing and was therefore a historical matter. The intention of an author could be better exposed and understood through a more complete study of both the language in which a text was written and the historical circumstances that surrounded it. Many of these same emphases had been championed by the Protestant Reformers; yet the Enlightenment thinkers differed on one key point: the Reformers never questioned that the text was the word of God.

From the Enlightenment to the present. This favorable attitude toward historical research dwindled over the centuries. In its place authors emphasized the primacy of the text as text, apart from any connection to its origin and history. Literature, it is argued, ultimately operates independently from its author’s intention. All that matters is the text, and it is the reader’s job to understand the text on its own terms, apart from the contingencies surrounding its creation. To that end, interpreters should pay careful attention to the text’s literary features, including its plot structure, characterization, themes, and use of imagery. An interesting example of this hermeneutical dynamic is found in John 19:22, where Pilate asserts, “What I have written, I have written.” Pilate’s words quickly take on significance far beyond their author’s intention, primarily because they are juxtaposed with other themes in John, such as testimony and the kingship of Christ.

More recent approaches have emphasized the role of the reader in the construction of meaning. Interpretation, it is argued, is determined by the interaction between reader and text; readers bring their own presuppositions to the task of interpretation, and such assumptions determine meaning. The author and the historical context of the text will exert some influence, but the primary determinant of meaning is the present reader in his or her present environment. This is not to say that the text “means” whatever a reader wants it to mean; rather, it makes meaning contingent upon the contemporary environment and not subject to anything external to individual readers. On the one hand, readers must“actualize” the text by applying and appropriating it within an environment alien to the original. On the other, readers have the right, and in some cases the responsibility, of undermining the text, particularly if that text assists in the oppression of others.

Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic

An effective hermeneutic requires keeping each of these elements in constant balance with one another. God’s word is truthful and fully trustworthy, yet it is given to his people through individual human authors, authors who wrote in a particular context to a particular audience at a particular time. Understanding the Bible therefore requires knowledge of the purposes of these authors in their specific historical contexts. Nevertheless, our primary access to authorial intention is through the biblical text itself. Finally, understanding always requires personal interaction with, and application of, the text of Scripture to each person’s own life and circumstances. Thus, hermeneutics involves the simultaneous interaction of a variety of perspectives—truth, author, text, and reader—each of which cannot function properly without the others. What follows here is an outline of the most important hermeneutical tools required for such a weighty endeavor.

Linguistics

An appreciation of the nature, structure, and function of language is fundamental to any interpretative endeavor. Obviously, this applies first of all to the specific languages in which the books of the Bible were originally composed. Each language has its own unique vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, and structures available to a writer in one language often are absent in another. Thus, while it is often necessary and acceptable to rely on translations (Neh. 7:73–8:12), readers should be aware that translation itself involves a degree of unavoidable interpretation.

A more general analysis of language is also useful. Understanding the typical patterns by which authors will string sentences together is necessary for following a writing’s train of thought. This tool, called “discourse analysis,” operates above the sentence level, attempting to understand and explain how sentences function in conjunction with one another in order to produce meaningful paragraphs, and how those paragraphs in turn operate within the overarching purpose of the discourse. These patterns of discourse can vary on the basis of book, author, language, culture, and literary genre, but there are also features of effective discourse common to all communication. Thus, while the principles and rules of communication are often intuitively grasped, understanding language, both generally and specifically, is foundational to the task of interpretation.

Literature and Literary Theory

The biblical writers are concerned not only with the informational content of their writing, but also with the manner in which that content is communicated. The words, patterns of speech, style, and imagery of any text provide significant insight into its purpose and message, apart from that text’s specific propositional content. The diversity of language used in the Gospels provides an example of this. Each of the four Gospel authors has a slightly different concern in his writing. John’s purpose, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31), explains his frequent use of courtroom language, such as “testimony” and “witness” (e.g., John 21:24). Mark, by contrast, sweeps the reader along a fast-paced and intensely personal exposition of Jesus’ life and death through the terseness and immediacy of his narration. Attention to these literary details allows the reader to more fully participate in the world of the text.

Such decisions will often depend upon a thorough analysis of genre. A reader naturally interprets historical narrative differently from poetry and didactic material. Furthermore, the conventions of different genres change over time. The book of Acts, for example, despite its essentially historical character, does not appear concerned with recording an exact dictation of the many speeches it reports, despite modern expectations that historical writing should be as precise as possible. The classification of ancient genres and the description of their respective conventions therefore require a good deal of analysis and sensitivity, but often such insights are provided by a careful and open reading of the text.

History

As the product of a particular author at a particular time, each book of the Bible is situated within its own unique historical context. Paul, for example, while perhaps conscious of the importance of his letters for posterity, wrote to specific churches or individuals with a singular purpose. This particularity of author, audience, and circumstance can often cause interpretative problems. Thus, while background studies are not always necessary to get the general idea of the author’s message, they can be invaluable in protecting readers from anachronism and enabling them to better appreciate the author’s purpose and perspective.

Historical study is assisted by specialized disciplines. Archaeology, for example, focuses on the beliefs, habits, practices, and history of ancient cultures, harnessing a wealth of evidence to that end. Similarly, anthropology and other social sciences are able to explore facets of modern cultures in order to better assess cross-cultural presuppositions and behaviors, many of which provide insight into ancient civilizations that shared similar attitudes. These methods provide the reader with the information necessary to understand a text in terms consistent with its cultural backdrop, highlighting both the similarities and the differences between the Bible and its environment. Recent discoveries of ancient Hittite treaties, for example, shed light on the “cutting ceremony” recorded in Gen. 15. These treaties detail similar ceremonies in which the vassal of a king would walk between hewed animal carcasses as a symbol of allegiance; if disobedience occurred, the vassal would share the fate of the animals. A similar ceremony occurs in Genesis, but with an interesting twist at the end: God, not Abram, passes through the pieces (15:17).

Humility and the Attitude of the Reader

Careful attention in interpretation requires a great deal of humility. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the attitude of the reader for an effective hermeneutic. Being a good reader requires willingness to share and participate in the world of the author and the text, a willingness that postpones judgment and expects personal change. This, in turn, requires a spirit of self-criticism, a commitment to defer one’s own presuppositions in favor of those of the text. Although readers are never able to fully distance themselves from their cultural situation and assumptions, the study of hermeneutics, among other things, can provide tools and skills for self-criticism and self-awareness, skills that enable the reader to better understand, appreciate, and appropriate the meaning of a text. Even a peripheral understanding of the complexities of interpretation can help readers develop an attitude of humility, imagination, and expectation as they approach the Scriptures.

Such humility is a prerequisite for application. The depth of meaning embedded in any text, and especially within the Bible, provides the humble reader with a rich and powerful tool for personal growth. Having better understood the world of the text on its own terms, readers are able to “project” that world onto themselves and their environment, to appropriate its meaning in a new and possibly foreign context. Thus, Jesus promises that those who hear, understand, and put his word into practice will yield a crop “some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown” (Mark 4:20).

Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation

Certain unique features of the biblical text can create special opportunities and challenges for the Christian interpreter. These challenges are at work in the Bible’s own interpretation of itself. The Bible was written by many different authors over the course of a long period of history; it is therefore not surprising to find later authors reflecting on earlier periods. This innerbiblical interpretation offers the Christian insights into the unique nature of biblical hermeneutics and therefore provides a foundational model in approaching the Bible as the word of God.

The common and preeminent assumption that grounds innerbiblical interpretation is the commitment to ultimate divine authorship. Thus, the writer of Hebrews, though affirming the diversity of human authorship in the Bible (1:1), regularly introduces OT quotations with statements such as “God says” (1:5), “he spoke through David” (4:7), and “the Holy Spirit says” (3:7). Other writers tend to prefer the formula “it is written,” but each of these reflects a common presupposition that the Scriptures are ultimately delivered by God (2 Pet. 1:21).

Divine authorship means, at the very least, that there is a depth of meaning and purpose to the text, a depth often hidden even from the human author (1 Pet. 1:10–12). Psalm 2, for example, probably originally served as a coronation hymn used to celebrate the appointment of a new king in Israel. Yet the NT understands this psalm as a prophecy fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5). The intention of the original speaker can even be at odds with God’s intention, such as when Caiaphas claims, “It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50; cf. Acts 5:35–39). In this case, the irony of Caiaphas’s statement creates a powerful testimony, contrary to his intent, and is used by John to promote confidence in Jesus.

Furthermore, because the Scriptures are from God, they have a consistent and central focus. The NT unhesitatingly views all of Scripture, in all its diversity, as focused, by virtue of divine inspiration, on the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is seen in, for example, Luke 24:13–35, where the resurrected Jesus, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” explains to his disciples “what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (cf. John 5:39; 12:41). This central focus on Christ requires the Christian interpreter to understand any individual verse in light of its context within the canon, to operate with the same assumption as the NT apostles, that all the Scriptures are concerned with testifying to Jesus the Christ.

Additionally, Paul views both Testaments as the special possession and once-for-all foundation of God’s church (Eph. 2:19–20; cf. Acts 2:42). The church, from a NT perspective, is the primary audience of the entirety of Scripture (1 Pet. 1:12) and is therefore uniquely entrusted with understanding and proclaiming its message (Matt. 28:18–20). While the Scriptures themselves are the only infallible guide for interpretation, believers should not forsake the teaching and tradition of the church (2 Thess. 2:15).

Finally, full understanding of the Bible requires the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the faith of the reader. Belief and understanding go together (John 10:38), and both are the result of the unique work of the Holy Spirit (16:13). The proof that such understanding has taken place is the godly life of the believer (Rom. 2:13; James 1:22–25). The reverse is also true: disobedience works against understanding the riches of God’s Word (James 1:21). Such considerations underline the importance of the hermeneutical task. The tools and principles of hermeneutics are valuable only insofar as they enable the reader to better understand and appropriate the biblical message, to hear the word of God and respond appropriately.

An ethnic-geographic area in northern Asia Minor inhabited primarily by peoples of Gaulic and Celtic extraction since the mid-fourth century BC. In 25 BC the Romans conferred provincial status not only on the northern ethnic-geographic Galatian area, but also on parts of Pontus, Phrygia, Pisidia, and Lycaonia, farther to the south. Some of the towns that Paul visited on his first missionary journey (Acts 13–14) were in the southern part of this area: Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe. Very little evidence remains attesting to the presence of either Jews or Christians in the Roman provincial area of Galatia in the first or second century AD, beyond reference in the NT and Christian writings drawing from the NT.

The location of the Galatian churches to which Paul writes in his letter to the Galatians remains a thorny problem. On the one hand, the address (Gal. 1:2) naturally seems to indicate the ethnic-geographic area of the north. On the other hand, if one takes Acts seriously, Paul never traveled in that area and thus had no chance to proclaim the gospel to the ethnic Galatians. Even Acts 16:6 places Paul over 125 miles southwest of this area. Thus, some scholars adopt the South Galatian hypothesis: Paul addresses his letter to people living in the southern part of the Roman province of Galatia and its environs.

Both speaking in tongues and interpreting tongues are listed among the various gifts of the Spirit that God may choose to give to believers according to his will (1 Cor. 12:10, 28). The act of speaking in tongues is referred to as “glossolalia” (from Gk. glōssa [“tongue”] and laleō [“speak”]).

Narrative Record

Instances in which believers exercise the gift of tongues are recorded in three biblical narratives, with Acts 2 detailing the most notable occurrence. When the Holy Spirit first was poured out upon Christian believers gathered at Pentecost, visible tongues of fire were accompanied by a Spirit-enabled ability to speak in languages that were foreign to them (2:3–4). In this instance, the tongues spoken are identified as the actual human languages and dialects of various people groups who resided throughout the Mediterranean world (2:8–11). The phenomenon resulted in the ability of many to hear the wonders of God in their native languages and prompted both curiosity and scoffing (2:12–13).

A similar outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius and his fellow Gentiles in connection with the ministry of Peter was accompanied by speaking in tongues (Acts 10:44–46). This ability to speak in tongues provided undeniable evidence that God had indeed poured out the Holy Spirit upon Gentile Christians by manifesting the Spirit’s presence in a way comparable to the initial Pentecost experience of the Jewish Christians (11:15–18). A final account from the Pauline ministry notes the coming of the Holy Spirit upon a dozen disciples in Ephesus with the accompanying ability to speak in tongues (19:6). The text does not reveal what languages were spoken in either of these latter episodes.

It is sometimes argued that the gift of tongues normally accompanies Christian salvation or baptism with the Holy Spirit and is a gift that believers should earnestly seek. However, this argument cannot be sustained by the historical narratives of Acts. All three recorded instances of tongues detail the gift coming upon groups of people rather than individuals, and the gift is poured out upon them without their praying for it or seeking it out in any way. Furthermore, these are the only three instances in Scripture where tongues clearly accompany salvation, whereas numerous other Lukan accounts of the salvation of various individuals (Acts 2:41; 4:4; 8:36–39; 13:12, 48; 16:14, 34), including Paul (9:1–19; 22:6–16), contain no mention of the gift of tongues.

Paul’s Teaching

The first-century Corinthian church exercised a variety of spiritual gifts, including the gift of tongues. When Paul writes to that church, he includes teaching designed to correct various abuses of these spiritual gifts. A lengthy discussion about spiritual gifts in 1 Cor. 12–14 affirms the practice of speaking in tongues in the Corinthian assembly under certain conditions (14:39–40) while also relegating it to a status lower than the gift of prophecy (14:5). By its very nature, Paul asserts, those who speak in tongues are not understood by their human audience; utterances in tongues speak to God, not to human beings (14:2). Therefore, on its own, glossolalia cannot edify those who hear it unless an interpretation is also provided for them. For this reason, Paul directs the Corinthians to other spiritual gifts (14:6) that can function to build up the church (14:12). Nonetheless, Paul affirms the practice of glossolalia in the Corinthians’ public worship when it is limited to two or three speakers, when it is done in an orderly manner with the speakers taking turns, and when it is coupled with interpretation so that the church can be edified by its message (14:26–27).

Contemporary Debates

Three questions dominate modern discussions about the gift of tongues: (1) What is the primary purpose of speaking in tongues? (2) What is the nature of the language spoken when the gift of tongues is exercised? (3) Does the gift of tongues continue beyond the apostolic era? Answers to these questions vary and reflect diverse theological positions.

Primary purpose. One position maintains that when the Spirit gives the gift of tongues, it is always a public exercise that produces infallible revelation from God. The primary, or perhaps sole, purpose of this gift of miraculous utterance is as a sign to authenticate the gospel proclamation and thus contribute to the common good of the church as a whole by reaching unbelievers with the gospel in a powerful way. Proponents of this view find support in 1 Cor. 14:22, where Paul speaks of tongues as a sign for unbelievers. Also, the Pentecost experience, narrated in Acts 2, can be understood as a use of tongues that fits into this framework. Opponents object to this interpretation by noting that it was Peter’s subsequent sermon rather than the gift of tongues itself that served an evangelistic purpose.

Others find biblical support for an additional private use of tongues by believers in their prayer and praise directed toward God (1 Cor. 14:2, 28). Although the teaching in 1 Cor. 14 focuses on whether and how tongues are to be used in the public assembly, some adherents of this position point to 14:14–19 for evidence of Paul’s own use of the gift of tongues in his devotional life. This use of tongues is thought to contribute to the common good of the church through the personal edification of the individual believers who practice this gift (14:4) and who make up the believing community.

Nature of the language. It is not entirely clear from Scripture whether the tongues spoken by those with the gift of tongues are human languages otherwise unknown to the speaker, whether they consist of otherworldly (heavenly, angelic, spiritual) languages, or whether both constitute valid options. The record of Pentecost in Acts 2 is the only scriptural narrative of tongues that explicitly identifies the languages spoken by those exercising the gift of tongues; they are human languages. However, three NT passages are cited in support of the broader view.

First, in 1 Cor. 13:1 Paul alludes to the possibility of speech “in the tongues of men or of angels.” While this may affirm the idea of an angelic language being spoken by believers with the gift of tongues, those who limit tongues to human languages see in this statement hyperbole rather than a description of reality.

Second, when Paul discusses tongues in 1 Cor. 14:2, he indicates that no one who hears understands the language. This statement is easily true if the language spoken is “angelic,” but it would also be true of a human language generally unfamiliar to those in the Corinthian worship assembly.

Finally, Rom. 8:26, by describing the Spirit’s intercession in prayer as groans and utterances too deep for words, may support the idea that the gift of tongues consists of a spiritual rather than a human language. Opponents argue that this text in no way speaks of the gift of tongues.

Continuation beyond the apostolic era. Finally, nowhere does Scripture expressly teach that the gift of tongues will continue throughout the entire church age, nor does it clearly state a time, be it the end of the apostolic period, the closing of the NT canon, or some other time, when the gift of tongues will cease. Because the NT describes the gift of tongues functioning among believers in the first century, many believe that the gift of tongues continues to be expressed by God’s new covenant people today.

Continuationists argue that Scripture nowhere anticipates a change in the Holy Spirit’s work or empowerment for ministry, and so the life of Christians today should be similar to that of NT believers with regard to the expected and empowering presence of tongues.

On the other hand, cessationists believe that passages such as Eph. 2:11–21 identify the first century as a unique, foundational time in salvation history, characterized by apostolic leadership and an open canon. Just as there are no longer apostles today, one should not be surprised if the practice of miraculous gifts, including the gift of tongues, should significantly decrease or stop entirely following that foundational time. Some also point to 1 Cor. 13:8 as evidence that a time will come when the gift of tongues will end.

Others opt for an intermediate position, arguing that while speaking in tongues is not the standard for the church era, it is possible that the gift continues to operate today on a more limited scale, most likely only in places where the gospel is making inroads for the first time, a situation comparable to that of the NT era.

Both speaking in tongues and interpreting tongues are listed among the various gifts of the Spirit that God may choose to give to believers according to his will (1 Cor. 12:10, 28). The act of speaking in tongues is referred to as “glossolalia” (from Gk. glōssa [“tongue”] and laleō [“speak”]).

Narrative Record

Instances in which believers exercise the gift of tongues are recorded in three biblical narratives, with Acts 2 detailing the most notable occurrence. When the Holy Spirit first was poured out upon Christian believers gathered at Pentecost, visible tongues of fire were accompanied by a Spirit-enabled ability to speak in languages that were foreign to them (2:3–4). In this instance, the tongues spoken are identified as the actual human languages and dialects of various people groups who resided throughout the Mediterranean world (2:8–11). The phenomenon resulted in the ability of many to hear the wonders of God in their native languages and prompted both curiosity and scoffing (2:12–13).

A similar outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius and his fellow Gentiles in connection with the ministry of Peter was accompanied by speaking in tongues (Acts 10:44–46). This ability to speak in tongues provided undeniable evidence that God had indeed poured out the Holy Spirit upon Gentile Christians by manifesting the Spirit’s presence in a way comparable to the initial Pentecost experience of the Jewish Christians (11:15–18). A final account from the Pauline ministry notes the coming of the Holy Spirit upon a dozen disciples in Ephesus with the accompanying ability to speak in tongues (19:6). The text does not reveal what languages were spoken in either of these latter episodes.

It is sometimes argued that the gift of tongues normally accompanies Christian salvation or baptism with the Holy Spirit and is a gift that believers should earnestly seek. However, this argument cannot be sustained by the historical narratives of Acts. All three recorded instances of tongues detail the gift coming upon groups of people rather than individuals, and the gift is poured out upon them without their praying for it or seeking it out in any way. Furthermore, these are the only three instances in Scripture where tongues clearly accompany salvation, whereas numerous other Lukan accounts of the salvation of various individuals (Acts 2:41; 4:4; 8:36–39; 13:12, 48; 16:14, 34), including Paul (9:1–19; 22:6–16), contain no mention of the gift of tongues.

Paul’s Teaching

The first-century Corinthian church exercised a variety of spiritual gifts, including the gift of tongues. When Paul writes to that church, he includes teaching designed to correct various abuses of these spiritual gifts. A lengthy discussion about spiritual gifts in 1 Cor. 12–14 affirms the practice of speaking in tongues in the Corinthian assembly under certain conditions (14:39–40) while also relegating it to a status lower than the gift of prophecy (14:5). By its very nature, Paul asserts, those who speak in tongues are not understood by their human audience; utterances in tongues speak to God, not to human beings (14:2). Therefore, on its own, glossolalia cannot edify those who hear it unless an interpretation is also provided for them. For this reason, Paul directs the Corinthians to other spiritual gifts (14:6) that can function to build up the church (14:12). Nonetheless, Paul affirms the practice of glossolalia in the Corinthians’ public worship when it is limited to two or three speakers, when it is done in an orderly manner with the speakers taking turns, and when it is coupled with interpretation so that the church can be edified by its message (14:26–27).

Contemporary Debates

Three questions dominate modern discussions about the gift of tongues: (1) What is the primary purpose of speaking in tongues? (2) What is the nature of the language spoken when the gift of tongues is exercised? (3) Does the gift of tongues continue beyond the apostolic era? Answers to these questions vary and reflect diverse theological positions.

Primary purpose. One position maintains that when the Spirit gives the gift of tongues, it is always a public exercise that produces infallible revelation from God. The primary, or perhaps sole, purpose of this gift of miraculous utterance is as a sign to authenticate the gospel proclamation and thus contribute to the common good of the church as a whole by reaching unbelievers with the gospel in a powerful way. Proponents of this view find support in 1 Cor. 14:22, where Paul speaks of tongues as a sign for unbelievers. Also, the Pentecost experience, narrated in Acts 2, can be understood as a use of tongues that fits into this framework. Opponents object to this interpretation by noting that it was Peter’s subsequent sermon rather than the gift of tongues itself that served an evangelistic purpose.

Others find biblical support for an additional private use of tongues by believers in their prayer and praise directed toward God (1 Cor. 14:2, 28). Although the teaching in 1 Cor. 14 focuses on whether and how tongues are to be used in the public assembly, some adherents of this position point to 14:14–19 for evidence of Paul’s own use of the gift of tongues in his devotional life. This use of tongues is thought to contribute to the common good of the church through the personal edification of the individual believers who practice this gift (14:4) and who make up the believing community.

Nature of the language. It is not entirely clear from Scripture whether the tongues spoken by those with the gift of tongues are human languages otherwise unknown to the speaker, whether they consist of otherworldly (heavenly, angelic, spiritual) languages, or whether both constitute valid options. The record of Pentecost in Acts 2 is the only scriptural narrative of tongues that explicitly identifies the languages spoken by those exercising the gift of tongues; they are human languages. However, three NT passages are cited in support of the broader view.

First, in 1 Cor. 13:1 Paul alludes to the possibility of speech “in the tongues of men or of angels.” While this may affirm the idea of an angelic language being spoken by believers with the gift of tongues, those who limit tongues to human languages see in this statement hyperbole rather than a description of reality.

Second, when Paul discusses tongues in 1 Cor. 14:2, he indicates that no one who hears understands the language. This statement is easily true if the language spoken is “angelic,” but it would also be true of a human language generally unfamiliar to those in the Corinthian worship assembly.

Finally, Rom. 8:26, by describing the Spirit’s intercession in prayer as groans and utterances too deep for words, may support the idea that the gift of tongues consists of a spiritual rather than a human language. Opponents argue that this text in no way speaks of the gift of tongues.

Continuation beyond the apostolic era. Finally, nowhere does Scripture expressly teach that the gift of tongues will continue throughout the entire church age, nor does it clearly state a time, be it the end of the apostolic period, the closing of the NT canon, or some other time, when the gift of tongues will cease. Because the NT describes the gift of tongues functioning among believers in the first century, many believe that the gift of tongues continues to be expressed by God’s new covenant people today.

Continuationists argue that Scripture nowhere anticipates a change in the Holy Spirit’s work or empowerment for ministry, and so the life of Christians today should be similar to that of NT believers with regard to the expected and empowering presence of tongues.

On the other hand, cessationists believe that passages such as Eph. 2:11–21 identify the first century as a unique, foundational time in salvation history, characterized by apostolic leadership and an open canon. Just as there are no longer apostles today, one should not be surprised if the practice of miraculous gifts, including the gift of tongues, should significantly decrease or stop entirely following that foundational time. Some also point to 1 Cor. 13:8 as evidence that a time will come when the gift of tongues will end.

Others opt for an intermediate position, arguing that while speaking in tongues is not the standard for the church era, it is possible that the gift continues to operate today on a more limited scale, most likely only in places where the gospel is making inroads for the first time, a situation comparable to that of the NT era.

A song of worship and praise to God. The NIV only uses the word once in the OT, in Ps. 40:3, referring to a “hymn of praise” to God. The Hebrew word behind this phrase is tehillah, which is common in the OT and is elsewhere translated simply as “praise,” especially in the psalms. Psalms were part of Israel’s worship, and so such “hymns of praise” to God are more common than the English suggests.

The content of these hymns is not laid out for modern readers, but it involves things such as thanksgiving, gratitude, or generally giving God due recognition for who he is (e.g., Ps. 66:2) and what he has done (e.g., 106:2, 12).

In the NT, the word occurs only a handful of times in the NIV, and there is very little indication what these hymns were about. Here too, generally we can say that a hymn is a particular type of song of praise to God.

In Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:26, Jesus and the disciples sang a hymn at the conclusion of the Lord’s Supper. Since this meal was patterned after the Passover, it is likely that one or more of the Hallel psalms (Pss. 111–118) were sung. (“Hallel” means “praise” in Hebrew and is related to tehillah). The Greek word behind this use in the Gospels, hymneō, is the origin of the English word “hymn.” In Acts 16:25 Paul and Silas sang hymns at midnight while in prison, although we are told nothing about their content.

In 1 Cor. 14:26 Paul is instructing his readers about orderly worship. According to the NIV, one of the elements of worship includes hymns, although the Greek word here is psalmos (the word used to refer to the book of Psalms in Luke 20:42; 24:44; Acts 1:20; 13:30), which the KJV renders there as “psalm.” There is certainly significant overlap between hymns and psalms, since both involve praising God, but evidently there is some distinction too, as can be seen in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16, where Paul makes a distinction between “psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit.” Perhaps these terms do not reflect clearly marked categories in Paul’s mind. In Eph. 5:19 all three are directed to God “from [the] heart,” and in Col. 3:16 they are sung with “gratitude,” both of which reflect the use of psalms in the OT.

Biblical scholars also refer to other portions of the Bible as “hymns,” even though the word is not used. The Song of Moses (Exod. 15:1–18) and the Song of Hannah (1 Sam. 2:1–10) are sometimes called “hymns” simply as a convenient designation (although Hannah’s is more a prayer). The same goes for Mary’s song, the Magnificat (Luke 1:46–55), which clearly is modeled after Hannah’s song, and Zechariah’s song, the Benedictus (Luke 1:68–79), which reflects OT prophetic poems. Elsewhere biblical scholars detect the possibility of fragments of preexisting “hymns” that were incorporated into the NT (e.g., Phil. 2:6–11). This suggests to some that there was some hymn-writing activity in the early church.

Hermeneutics is the science and practice of interpretation. It can refer more generally to the philosophy of human understanding, or more specifically to the tools and methods used for interpreting communicative acts.

Human communication takes place in a variety of ways: through the use of nonverbal signs, through speech, and through writing. Effective communication requires some degree of shared belief, knowledge, and background between the participants. If the communicators have a significant amount of common ground, they will be able to successfully understand one another with little extra effort. Conversely, individuals with vastly different backgrounds will need to take extra steps to communicate effectively, such as defining special terms, avoiding jargon and colloquialisms, appreciating details about the other’s cultural assumptions, or learning a foreign language.

The Bible is not exempt from this process of communication. The Scriptures are meant to be read, understood, and put into practice (Luke 8:4–15; James 1:18), a task that requires effort and study on the part of its readers (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15). Everyone who reads the Bible is involved in this interpretative process, though readers will vary in their hermeneutical self-consciousness and skill. Thus, although readers are able to understand and appropriate much of the Bible without any special training in hermeneutical principles, such training is appropriate and helpful, both in attaining self-consciousness in interpretation and in acquiring new skills and insights in the effort to become a better reader.

The Development of Hermeneutics

The church has benefited from a long history of thinking about the nature and purpose of interpreting its Scriptures, and that reflection has resulted in a wide variety of hermeneutical theories and practices. How does one determine the meaning of a text? Is meaning the truth embedded within the passage? Or is it the original author’s intention in writing? Or does the text act independently of its author and history, either because it stands on its own terms or because it only “means” anything in interaction with readers? The answers to these questions will determine how readers approach a text, the questions they expect that text to answer, and the tools they use in interpretation.

From the early church to the Enlightenment. The early church emphasized the ability of the biblical text to convey heavenly truth, whether that truth was conceived as doctrinal teaching or absolute ethical rules. While the “literal meaning” of many texts could often supply simple truths and maxims, such a reading was at other times inadequate and could appear incompatible with what were considered basic and fundamental beliefs. Various allegorical techniques were therefore employed to explain such problematic texts. Interpreters often viewed the literal and historical features of the text as a starting point in the search for fuller meaning, as symbolic pointers to moral principles, absolute truths, or eternal realities. These practices were systematized throughout the Middle Ages and resulted in an extensive development of tradition. Church tradition, in turn, provided a degree of protection from the potential for arbitrariness in allegorical techniques, insisting that interpretation must be guided by the “rule of faith,” the traditional teaching and faith of the church.

Beginning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, scholarship moved to distance itself from such tradition. The Protestant Reformers, dissatisfied with the rule of church tradition, sought to displace its authority with the direct rule of Scripture. They therefore returned to the original biblical text, engaging in critical study of the text itself and translating the Bible into the vernacular to make it more widely accessible. In the centuries that followed, Enlightenment scholars went a step further in their rejection of the church as the sole repository of knowledge. Instead, they asserted, knowledge was acquired through scientific inquiry and critical study. Such inquiry could be applied to any field: the forces of nature, human anatomy, or the interpretation of texts. The meaning of a text was not some abstract truth or heavenly principle; rather, meaning was determined by the human author’s original intention in writing and was therefore a historical matter. The intention of an author could be better exposed and understood through a more complete study of both the language in which a text was written and the historical circumstances that surrounded it. Many of these same emphases had been championed by the Protestant Reformers; yet the Enlightenment thinkers differed on one key point: the Reformers never questioned that the text was the word of God.

From the Enlightenment to the present. This favorable attitude toward historical research dwindled over the centuries. In its place authors emphasized the primacy of the text as text, apart from any connection to its origin and history. Literature, it is argued, ultimately operates independently from its author’s intention. All that matters is the text, and it is the reader’s job to understand the text on its own terms, apart from the contingencies surrounding its creation. To that end, interpreters should pay careful attention to the text’s literary features, including its plot structure, characterization, themes, and use of imagery. An interesting example of this hermeneutical dynamic is found in John 19:22, where Pilate asserts, “What I have written, I have written.” Pilate’s words quickly take on significance far beyond their author’s intention, primarily because they are juxtaposed with other themes in John, such as testimony and the kingship of Christ.

More recent approaches have emphasized the role of the reader in the construction of meaning. Interpretation, it is argued, is determined by the interaction between reader and text; readers bring their own presuppositions to the task of interpretation, and such assumptions determine meaning. The author and the historical context of the text will exert some influence, but the primary determinant of meaning is the present reader in his or her present environment. This is not to say that the text “means” whatever a reader wants it to mean; rather, it makes meaning contingent upon the contemporary environment and not subject to anything external to individual readers. On the one hand, readers must“actualize” the text by applying and appropriating it within an environment alien to the original. On the other, readers have the right, and in some cases the responsibility, of undermining the text, particularly if that text assists in the oppression of others.

Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic

An effective hermeneutic requires keeping each of these elements in constant balance with one another. God’s word is truthful and fully trustworthy, yet it is given to his people through individual human authors, authors who wrote in a particular context to a particular audience at a particular time. Understanding the Bible therefore requires knowledge of the purposes of these authors in their specific historical contexts. Nevertheless, our primary access to authorial intention is through the biblical text itself. Finally, understanding always requires personal interaction with, and application of, the text of Scripture to each person’s own life and circumstances. Thus, hermeneutics involves the simultaneous interaction of a variety of perspectives—truth, author, text, and reader—each of which cannot function properly without the others. What follows here is an outline of the most important hermeneutical tools required for such a weighty endeavor.

Linguistics

An appreciation of the nature, structure, and function of language is fundamental to any interpretative endeavor. Obviously, this applies first of all to the specific languages in which the books of the Bible were originally composed. Each language has its own unique vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, and structures available to a writer in one language often are absent in another. Thus, while it is often necessary and acceptable to rely on translations (Neh. 7:73–8:12), readers should be aware that translation itself involves a degree of unavoidable interpretation.

A more general analysis of language is also useful. Understanding the typical patterns by which authors will string sentences together is necessary for following a writing’s train of thought. This tool, called “discourse analysis,” operates above the sentence level, attempting to understand and explain how sentences function in conjunction with one another in order to produce meaningful paragraphs, and how those paragraphs in turn operate within the overarching purpose of the discourse. These patterns of discourse can vary on the basis of book, author, language, culture, and literary genre, but there are also features of effective discourse common to all communication. Thus, while the principles and rules of communication are often intuitively grasped, understanding language, both generally and specifically, is foundational to the task of interpretation.

Literature and Literary Theory

The biblical writers are concerned not only with the informational content of their writing, but also with the manner in which that content is communicated. The words, patterns of speech, style, and imagery of any text provide significant insight into its purpose and message, apart from that text’s specific propositional content. The diversity of language used in the Gospels provides an example of this. Each of the four Gospel authors has a slightly different concern in his writing. John’s purpose, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31), explains his frequent use of courtroom language, such as “testimony” and “witness” (e.g., John 21:24). Mark, by contrast, sweeps the reader along a fast-paced and intensely personal exposition of Jesus’ life and death through the terseness and immediacy of his narration. Attention to these literary details allows the reader to more fully participate in the world of the text.

Such decisions will often depend upon a thorough analysis of genre. A reader naturally interprets historical narrative differently from poetry and didactic material. Furthermore, the conventions of different genres change over time. The book of Acts, for example, despite its essentially historical character, does not appear concerned with recording an exact dictation of the many speeches it reports, despite modern expectations that historical writing should be as precise as possible. The classification of ancient genres and the description of their respective conventions therefore require a good deal of analysis and sensitivity, but often such insights are provided by a careful and open reading of the text.

History

As the product of a particular author at a particular time, each book of the Bible is situated within its own unique historical context. Paul, for example, while perhaps conscious of the importance of his letters for posterity, wrote to specific churches or individuals with a singular purpose. This particularity of author, audience, and circumstance can often cause interpretative problems. Thus, while background studies are not always necessary to get the general idea of the author’s message, they can be invaluable in protecting readers from anachronism and enabling them to better appreciate the author’s purpose and perspective.

Historical study is assisted by specialized disciplines. Archaeology, for example, focuses on the beliefs, habits, practices, and history of ancient cultures, harnessing a wealth of evidence to that end. Similarly, anthropology and other social sciences are able to explore facets of modern cultures in order to better assess cross-cultural presuppositions and behaviors, many of which provide insight into ancient civilizations that shared similar attitudes. These methods provide the reader with the information necessary to understand a text in terms consistent with its cultural backdrop, highlighting both the similarities and the differences between the Bible and its environment. Recent discoveries of ancient Hittite treaties, for example, shed light on the “cutting ceremony” recorded in Gen. 15. These treaties detail similar ceremonies in which the vassal of a king would walk between hewed animal carcasses as a symbol of allegiance; if disobedience occurred, the vassal would share the fate of the animals. A similar ceremony occurs in Genesis, but with an interesting twist at the end: God, not Abram, passes through the pieces (15:17).

Humility and the Attitude of the Reader

Careful attention in interpretation requires a great deal of humility. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the attitude of the reader for an effective hermeneutic. Being a good reader requires willingness to share and participate in the world of the author and the text, a willingness that postpones judgment and expects personal change. This, in turn, requires a spirit of self-criticism, a commitment to defer one’s own presuppositions in favor of those of the text. Although readers are never able to fully distance themselves from their cultural situation and assumptions, the study of hermeneutics, among other things, can provide tools and skills for self-criticism and self-awareness, skills that enable the reader to better understand, appreciate, and appropriate the meaning of a text. Even a peripheral understanding of the complexities of interpretation can help readers develop an attitude of humility, imagination, and expectation as they approach the Scriptures.

Such humility is a prerequisite for application. The depth of meaning embedded in any text, and especially within the Bible, provides the humble reader with a rich and powerful tool for personal growth. Having better understood the world of the text on its own terms, readers are able to “project” that world onto themselves and their environment, to appropriate its meaning in a new and possibly foreign context. Thus, Jesus promises that those who hear, understand, and put his word into practice will yield a crop “some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown” (Mark 4:20).

Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation

Certain unique features of the biblical text can create special opportunities and challenges for the Christian interpreter. These challenges are at work in the Bible’s own interpretation of itself. The Bible was written by many different authors over the course of a long period of history; it is therefore not surprising to find later authors reflecting on earlier periods. This innerbiblical interpretation offers the Christian insights into the unique nature of biblical hermeneutics and therefore provides a foundational model in approaching the Bible as the word of God.

The common and preeminent assumption that grounds innerbiblical interpretation is the commitment to ultimate divine authorship. Thus, the writer of Hebrews, though affirming the diversity of human authorship in the Bible (1:1), regularly introduces OT quotations with statements such as “God says” (1:5), “he spoke through David” (4:7), and “the Holy Spirit says” (3:7). Other writers tend to prefer the formula “it is written,” but each of these reflects a common presupposition that the Scriptures are ultimately delivered by God (2 Pet. 1:21).

Divine authorship means, at the very least, that there is a depth of meaning and purpose to the text, a depth often hidden even from the human author (1 Pet. 1:10–12). Psalm 2, for example, probably originally served as a coronation hymn used to celebrate the appointment of a new king in Israel. Yet the NT understands this psalm as a prophecy fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5). The intention of the original speaker can even be at odds with God’s intention, such as when Caiaphas claims, “It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50; cf. Acts 5:35–39). In this case, the irony of Caiaphas’s statement creates a powerful testimony, contrary to his intent, and is used by John to promote confidence in Jesus.

Furthermore, because the Scriptures are from God, they have a consistent and central focus. The NT unhesitatingly views all of Scripture, in all its diversity, as focused, by virtue of divine inspiration, on the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is seen in, for example, Luke 24:13–35, where the resurrected Jesus, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” explains to his disciples “what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (cf. John 5:39; 12:41). This central focus on Christ requires the Christian interpreter to understand any individual verse in light of its context within the canon, to operate with the same assumption as the NT apostles, that all the Scriptures are concerned with testifying to Jesus the Christ.

Additionally, Paul views both Testaments as the special possession and once-for-all foundation of God’s church (Eph. 2:19–20; cf. Acts 2:42). The church, from a NT perspective, is the primary audience of the entirety of Scripture (1 Pet. 1:12) and is therefore uniquely entrusted with understanding and proclaiming its message (Matt. 28:18–20). While the Scriptures themselves are the only infallible guide for interpretation, believers should not forsake the teaching and tradition of the church (2 Thess. 2:15).

Finally, full understanding of the Bible requires the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the faith of the reader. Belief and understanding go together (John 10:38), and both are the result of the unique work of the Holy Spirit (16:13). The proof that such understanding has taken place is the godly life of the believer (Rom. 2:13; James 1:22–25). The reverse is also true: disobedience works against understanding the riches of God’s Word (James 1:21). Such considerations underline the importance of the hermeneutical task. The tools and principles of hermeneutics are valuable only insofar as they enable the reader to better understand and appropriate the biblical message, to hear the word of God and respond appropriately.

Hermeneutics is the science and practice of interpretation. It can refer more generally to the philosophy of human understanding, or more specifically to the tools and methods used for interpreting communicative acts.

Human communication takes place in a variety of ways: through the use of nonverbal signs, through speech, and through writing. Effective communication requires some degree of shared belief, knowledge, and background between the participants. If the communicators have a significant amount of common ground, they will be able to successfully understand one another with little extra effort. Conversely, individuals with vastly different backgrounds will need to take extra steps to communicate effectively, such as defining special terms, avoiding jargon and colloquialisms, appreciating details about the other’s cultural assumptions, or learning a foreign language.

The Bible is not exempt from this process of communication. The Scriptures are meant to be read, understood, and put into practice (Luke 8:4–15; James 1:18), a task that requires effort and study on the part of its readers (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15). Everyone who reads the Bible is involved in this interpretative process, though readers will vary in their hermeneutical self-consciousness and skill. Thus, although readers are able to understand and appropriate much of the Bible without any special training in hermeneutical principles, such training is appropriate and helpful, both in attaining self-consciousness in interpretation and in acquiring new skills and insights in the effort to become a better reader.

The Development of Hermeneutics

The church has benefited from a long history of thinking about the nature and purpose of interpreting its Scriptures, and that reflection has resulted in a wide variety of hermeneutical theories and practices. How does one determine the meaning of a text? Is meaning the truth embedded within the passage? Or is it the original author’s intention in writing? Or does the text act independently of its author and history, either because it stands on its own terms or because it only “means” anything in interaction with readers? The answers to these questions will determine how readers approach a text, the questions they expect that text to answer, and the tools they use in interpretation.

From the early church to the Enlightenment. The early church emphasized the ability of the biblical text to convey heavenly truth, whether that truth was conceived as doctrinal teaching or absolute ethical rules. While the “literal meaning” of many texts could often supply simple truths and maxims, such a reading was at other times inadequate and could appear incompatible with what were considered basic and fundamental beliefs. Various allegorical techniques were therefore employed to explain such problematic texts. Interpreters often viewed the literal and historical features of the text as a starting point in the search for fuller meaning, as symbolic pointers to moral principles, absolute truths, or eternal realities. These practices were systematized throughout the Middle Ages and resulted in an extensive development of tradition. Church tradition, in turn, provided a degree of protection from the potential for arbitrariness in allegorical techniques, insisting that interpretation must be guided by the “rule of faith,” the traditional teaching and faith of the church.

Beginning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, scholarship moved to distance itself from such tradition. The Protestant Reformers, dissatisfied with the rule of church tradition, sought to displace its authority with the direct rule of Scripture. They therefore returned to the original biblical text, engaging in critical study of the text itself and translating the Bible into the vernacular to make it more widely accessible. In the centuries that followed, Enlightenment scholars went a step further in their rejection of the church as the sole repository of knowledge. Instead, they asserted, knowledge was acquired through scientific inquiry and critical study. Such inquiry could be applied to any field: the forces of nature, human anatomy, or the interpretation of texts. The meaning of a text was not some abstract truth or heavenly principle; rather, meaning was determined by the human author’s original intention in writing and was therefore a historical matter. The intention of an author could be better exposed and understood through a more complete study of both the language in which a text was written and the historical circumstances that surrounded it. Many of these same emphases had been championed by the Protestant Reformers; yet the Enlightenment thinkers differed on one key point: the Reformers never questioned that the text was the word of God.

From the Enlightenment to the present. This favorable attitude toward historical research dwindled over the centuries. In its place authors emphasized the primacy of the text as text, apart from any connection to its origin and history. Literature, it is argued, ultimately operates independently from its author’s intention. All that matters is the text, and it is the reader’s job to understand the text on its own terms, apart from the contingencies surrounding its creation. To that end, interpreters should pay careful attention to the text’s literary features, including its plot structure, characterization, themes, and use of imagery. An interesting example of this hermeneutical dynamic is found in John 19:22, where Pilate asserts, “What I have written, I have written.” Pilate’s words quickly take on significance far beyond their author’s intention, primarily because they are juxtaposed with other themes in John, such as testimony and the kingship of Christ.

More recent approaches have emphasized the role of the reader in the construction of meaning. Interpretation, it is argued, is determined by the interaction between reader and text; readers bring their own presuppositions to the task of interpretation, and such assumptions determine meaning. The author and the historical context of the text will exert some influence, but the primary determinant of meaning is the present reader in his or her present environment. This is not to say that the text “means” whatever a reader wants it to mean; rather, it makes meaning contingent upon the contemporary environment and not subject to anything external to individual readers. On the one hand, readers must“actualize” the text by applying and appropriating it within an environment alien to the original. On the other, readers have the right, and in some cases the responsibility, of undermining the text, particularly if that text assists in the oppression of others.

Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic

An effective hermeneutic requires keeping each of these elements in constant balance with one another. God’s word is truthful and fully trustworthy, yet it is given to his people through individual human authors, authors who wrote in a particular context to a particular audience at a particular time. Understanding the Bible therefore requires knowledge of the purposes of these authors in their specific historical contexts. Nevertheless, our primary access to authorial intention is through the biblical text itself. Finally, understanding always requires personal interaction with, and application of, the text of Scripture to each person’s own life and circumstances. Thus, hermeneutics involves the simultaneous interaction of a variety of perspectives—truth, author, text, and reader—each of which cannot function properly without the others. What follows here is an outline of the most important hermeneutical tools required for such a weighty endeavor.

Linguistics

An appreciation of the nature, structure, and function of language is fundamental to any interpretative endeavor. Obviously, this applies first of all to the specific languages in which the books of the Bible were originally composed. Each language has its own unique vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, and structures available to a writer in one language often are absent in another. Thus, while it is often necessary and acceptable to rely on translations (Neh. 7:73–8:12), readers should be aware that translation itself involves a degree of unavoidable interpretation.

A more general analysis of language is also useful. Understanding the typical patterns by which authors will string sentences together is necessary for following a writing’s train of thought. This tool, called “discourse analysis,” operates above the sentence level, attempting to understand and explain how sentences function in conjunction with one another in order to produce meaningful paragraphs, and how those paragraphs in turn operate within the overarching purpose of the discourse. These patterns of discourse can vary on the basis of book, author, language, culture, and literary genre, but there are also features of effective discourse common to all communication. Thus, while the principles and rules of communication are often intuitively grasped, understanding language, both generally and specifically, is foundational to the task of interpretation.

Literature and Literary Theory

The biblical writers are concerned not only with the informational content of their writing, but also with the manner in which that content is communicated. The words, patterns of speech, style, and imagery of any text provide significant insight into its purpose and message, apart from that text’s specific propositional content. The diversity of language used in the Gospels provides an example of this. Each of the four Gospel authors has a slightly different concern in his writing. John’s purpose, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31), explains his frequent use of courtroom language, such as “testimony” and “witness” (e.g., John 21:24). Mark, by contrast, sweeps the reader along a fast-paced and intensely personal exposition of Jesus’ life and death through the terseness and immediacy of his narration. Attention to these literary details allows the reader to more fully participate in the world of the text.

Such decisions will often depend upon a thorough analysis of genre. A reader naturally interprets historical narrative differently from poetry and didactic material. Furthermore, the conventions of different genres change over time. The book of Acts, for example, despite its essentially historical character, does not appear concerned with recording an exact dictation of the many speeches it reports, despite modern expectations that historical writing should be as precise as possible. The classification of ancient genres and the description of their respective conventions therefore require a good deal of analysis and sensitivity, but often such insights are provided by a careful and open reading of the text.

History

As the product of a particular author at a particular time, each book of the Bible is situated within its own unique historical context. Paul, for example, while perhaps conscious of the importance of his letters for posterity, wrote to specific churches or individuals with a singular purpose. This particularity of author, audience, and circumstance can often cause interpretative problems. Thus, while background studies are not always necessary to get the general idea of the author’s message, they can be invaluable in protecting readers from anachronism and enabling them to better appreciate the author’s purpose and perspective.

Historical study is assisted by specialized disciplines. Archaeology, for example, focuses on the beliefs, habits, practices, and history of ancient cultures, harnessing a wealth of evidence to that end. Similarly, anthropology and other social sciences are able to explore facets of modern cultures in order to better assess cross-cultural presuppositions and behaviors, many of which provide insight into ancient civilizations that shared similar attitudes. These methods provide the reader with the information necessary to understand a text in terms consistent with its cultural backdrop, highlighting both the similarities and the differences between the Bible and its environment. Recent discoveries of ancient Hittite treaties, for example, shed light on the “cutting ceremony” recorded in Gen. 15. These treaties detail similar ceremonies in which the vassal of a king would walk between hewed animal carcasses as a symbol of allegiance; if disobedience occurred, the vassal would share the fate of the animals. A similar ceremony occurs in Genesis, but with an interesting twist at the end: God, not Abram, passes through the pieces (15:17).

Humility and the Attitude of the Reader

Careful attention in interpretation requires a great deal of humility. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the attitude of the reader for an effective hermeneutic. Being a good reader requires willingness to share and participate in the world of the author and the text, a willingness that postpones judgment and expects personal change. This, in turn, requires a spirit of self-criticism, a commitment to defer one’s own presuppositions in favor of those of the text. Although readers are never able to fully distance themselves from their cultural situation and assumptions, the study of hermeneutics, among other things, can provide tools and skills for self-criticism and self-awareness, skills that enable the reader to better understand, appreciate, and appropriate the meaning of a text. Even a peripheral understanding of the complexities of interpretation can help readers develop an attitude of humility, imagination, and expectation as they approach the Scriptures.

Such humility is a prerequisite for application. The depth of meaning embedded in any text, and especially within the Bible, provides the humble reader with a rich and powerful tool for personal growth. Having better understood the world of the text on its own terms, readers are able to “project” that world onto themselves and their environment, to appropriate its meaning in a new and possibly foreign context. Thus, Jesus promises that those who hear, understand, and put his word into practice will yield a crop “some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown” (Mark 4:20).

Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation

Certain unique features of the biblical text can create special opportunities and challenges for the Christian interpreter. These challenges are at work in the Bible’s own interpretation of itself. The Bible was written by many different authors over the course of a long period of history; it is therefore not surprising to find later authors reflecting on earlier periods. This innerbiblical interpretation offers the Christian insights into the unique nature of biblical hermeneutics and therefore provides a foundational model in approaching the Bible as the word of God.

The common and preeminent assumption that grounds innerbiblical interpretation is the commitment to ultimate divine authorship. Thus, the writer of Hebrews, though affirming the diversity of human authorship in the Bible (1:1), regularly introduces OT quotations with statements such as “God says” (1:5), “he spoke through David” (4:7), and “the Holy Spirit says” (3:7). Other writers tend to prefer the formula “it is written,” but each of these reflects a common presupposition that the Scriptures are ultimately delivered by God (2 Pet. 1:21).

Divine authorship means, at the very least, that there is a depth of meaning and purpose to the text, a depth often hidden even from the human author (1 Pet. 1:10–12). Psalm 2, for example, probably originally served as a coronation hymn used to celebrate the appointment of a new king in Israel. Yet the NT understands this psalm as a prophecy fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5). The intention of the original speaker can even be at odds with God’s intention, such as when Caiaphas claims, “It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50; cf. Acts 5:35–39). In this case, the irony of Caiaphas’s statement creates a powerful testimony, contrary to his intent, and is used by John to promote confidence in Jesus.

Furthermore, because the Scriptures are from God, they have a consistent and central focus. The NT unhesitatingly views all of Scripture, in all its diversity, as focused, by virtue of divine inspiration, on the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is seen in, for example, Luke 24:13–35, where the resurrected Jesus, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” explains to his disciples “what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (cf. John 5:39; 12:41). This central focus on Christ requires the Christian interpreter to understand any individual verse in light of its context within the canon, to operate with the same assumption as the NT apostles, that all the Scriptures are concerned with testifying to Jesus the Christ.

Additionally, Paul views both Testaments as the special possession and once-for-all foundation of God’s church (Eph. 2:19–20; cf. Acts 2:42). The church, from a NT perspective, is the primary audience of the entirety of Scripture (1 Pet. 1:12) and is therefore uniquely entrusted with understanding and proclaiming its message (Matt. 28:18–20). While the Scriptures themselves are the only infallible guide for interpretation, believers should not forsake the teaching and tradition of the church (2 Thess. 2:15).

Finally, full understanding of the Bible requires the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the faith of the reader. Belief and understanding go together (John 10:38), and both are the result of the unique work of the Holy Spirit (16:13). The proof that such understanding has taken place is the godly life of the believer (Rom. 2:13; James 1:22–25). The reverse is also true: disobedience works against understanding the riches of God’s Word (James 1:21). Such considerations underline the importance of the hermeneutical task. The tools and principles of hermeneutics are valuable only insofar as they enable the reader to better understand and appropriate the biblical message, to hear the word of God and respond appropriately.

Justification is an important topic because of its relationship to Christian salvation and sanctification. The word “justification” occurs only five times in the Bible (NIV), but related words comprise significant themes in both Testaments. Part of the difficulty in the exposition of “justification” is English terminology. English has two word groups that express the same conceptual range for single word groups in Hebrew and Greek. So in addition to words related to justification, such as “justly,” “just,” and the very important verb “to justify,” no discussion can avoid the terms “righteous” and “righteousness.” Care must also be exercised in allowing the biblical texts to determine word meaning, since both “justice” and “righteousness” terminology can have contemporary connotations foreign to the biblical texts.

Justification is often related to a legal setting in both Jewish and Greco-Roman contexts, with its judge, defendant, evidence, criteria for evaluating the evidence, verdicts, and the implications of verdicts. This is a good word picture for justification and is used in the Bible itself. As long as the legal picture is extended to everyday affairs, moral and ethical concerns, and different criteria for evidence evaluation, it is a fine starting point for understanding the doctrine of justification.

Common and Extraordinary Justification

The salvific importance of justification has greatly shaped the exposition that follows. Justification has been somewhat awkwardly divided into common and extraordinary justification, with the latter bearing a significant relationship to the doctrine of salvation. The former is discussed only briefly in OT and NT paragraphs. In common justification, a person’s works or deeds are judged according to a standard of righteousness. Righteous deeds are judged and given the verdict “righteous.” Unrighteous deeds are judged and given the verdict “unrighteous.” Extraordinary justification occurs when an unrighteous person or deed is judged and given the verdict “righteous” by some supernatural intervention.

Common justification in the OT may be described in various contexts: (1) in comparative or relative righteousness between humans (e.g., Gen. 38:26; Ezek. 16:51–52); (2) in specific or concrete situations with God as judge (e.g., 2 Chron. 6:23: “Judge between your servants, condemning the guilty and bringing down on their heads what they have done, and vindicating the innocent by treating them in accordance with their innocence”; (3) in specific or concrete situations with a human as judge (e.g., Deut. 25:1: “When people have a dispute, they are to take it to court and the judges will decide the case, acquitting the innocent and condemning the guilty”); (4) in giving justice (e.g., 2 Sam. 15:4; cf. Ps. 82:3); (5) in proving correct or right (e.g., Ps. 51:4; Isa. 43:9).

Extraordinary justification is much rarer in the OT. A possible example is Dan. 8:14, where in a vision the sanctuary is desecrated and after a time “will be reconsecrated” or, in other terms, “will be justified holy.” It seems quite unusual that the unholy “is justified” as holy. In Isa. 45:25 we find the promise that “in the Lord all the offspring of Israel shall be justified” (ESV). Another verse declares that Yahweh’s “righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities” (Isa. 53:11). The need for extraordinary justification and the deficiency of ordinary justification is clear in Ps. 143:1–2: “Lord, hear my prayer, listen to my cry for mercy; in your faithfulness and righteousness come to my relief. Do not bring your servant into judgment, for no one living is righteous before you” (cf. Job 4:17; 25:4). The last phrase might be translated “no person will be justified before you” and is cited by the apostle Paul in Gal. 2:16 (cf. Rom. 3:20).

In the NT, there are fewer references to common justification than in the OT and a much greater development of extraordinary justification, predominantly in the Pauline letters (for similar concepts in different terms, see, e.g., “kingdom of God” in the Synoptic Gospels or “eternal life” in the Gospel of John). Common justification in the NT may be described in various contexts: (1) in a specific situation with a human or God as judge and a person’s behavior as the object of judgment (e.g., Luke 16:15; 1 Cor. 4:3–4; perhaps Luke 10:29; 18:9–14); (2) when “wisdom is proved right,” meaning vindicated by the results (Matt. 11:19; Luke 7:35); (3) in the release from demands no longer binding (Rom. 6:7; cf. 1 Cor. 6:1); (4) in being proved morally right in fullness (1 Tim. 3:16; cf. Rom. 3:4).

Paul and Justification

Extraordinary justification in the NT is characteristic of the apostle Paul. Luke’s report of Paul’s synagogue sermon in Pisidian Antioch concludes with a brief overview of extraordinary justification (Acts 13:38–39). Paul proclaims that forgiveness of sins is available through Jesus. Every person trusting in Jesus is being justified “from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses” (NKJV). The forgiveness of sins leads to the verdict “innocent” even though sinners apart from Christ are guilty before God of their unrighteous deeds.

In Gal. 2:16 the verb “justify” is used three times: (1) “a person is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ”; (2) “we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law”; (3) “by the works of the law no one will be justified.” The statements may be paraphrased in the active voice (expressing the implied subject) as in the following: (1) God is justifying a person not by works of Mosaic law, but by trust in Jesus Christ; (2) God justified us by trust in Christ, not by works of Mosaic law; (3) God will justify no person by works of Mosaic law. In Gal. 2:16, God is the subject, the agent who justifies (cf. 3:8; Rom. 3:26, 30; 4:5; 8:30, 33). The basis of justification is faith in Christ, not works of the Mosaic law. The meaning of the verb “justify” may be discerned from the context. This justification is related to the gospel (e.g., Gal. 2:14) and to receiving the Spirit (Gal. 3:2, 14), and the verdict of “righteous” for the person trusting in Jesus (Gal. 2:21; cf. 3:6, 11; 5:5; 1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 5:21).

Justification and righteousness are important themes in Paul’s letter to the Romans. At the beginning of the letter, Paul declares that he is not ashamed of the gospel because it is the power of God that brings salvation to all who believe. In the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith (Rom. 1:16–17). Paul argues in Rom. 1:18–3:20, a section abounding with righteousness language, that all humanity, Gentile and Jew, is under the power of sin (3:10), that no one is righteous (e.g., 3:10–18). All are subject to condemnation (i.e., the declaration of “guilty” and “unrighteous” [cf. 5:16]) rather than justification (i.e., the declaration of “innocent” and “righteous”). No human will be justified before God by works of the law; the law provides knowledge of sin (3:20).

The state resulting from this unrighteousness and sin is God’s wrath (e.g., Rom. 1:18). It is into this situation, this sad state of affairs where all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, that the righteousness of God, God’s saving activity long anticipated in the OT, is revealed in the person and work of Jesus Christ (3:21; 10:3). This righteousness is from God (3:22), a righteousness not related to human fulfillment of Mosaic law or righteousness of one’s own (Rom. 3:21; 9:31–32; 10:4; Phil. 3:6, 9; cf. Eph. 2:8–9). This righteousness comes from God by trust in Christ (Rom. 3:22; 5:1; 9:30; 10:10; Phil. 3:9). By trust in Christ, God justifies each human in his freely given grace, whereby the human is redeemed from unrighteousness and sin (Rom. 3:24).

The death of Jesus is the sacrifice of atonement by which forgiveness of sins is accomplished and made effectual in the human when one trusts in Jesus’ sacrifice (Rom. 3:25). This sacrifice demonstrates God’s righteousness (3:26) because he justly judges human sin in Jesus. The one who had no sin of his own became sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21; cf. Rom. 5:6, 8; 1 Cor. 15:3). In merciful forbearance, God passes over sins previously committed, delaying the execution of his justice, that he might justify the ungodly person who trusts in Jesus’ person and work (Rom. 3:26; cf. 4:5). This justification is of a different nature than ordinary righteousness on the human level or of the kind that can be obtained by observing the Mosaic law. In this extraordinary justification, God reckons a human innocent of sin and righteous by trust and apart from works of Mosaic law (3:28). Both Jew and Gentile are reckoned righteous under the same condition: trust in Jesus (3:29–30).

Although the revelation of the person and work of Jesus the Messiah was relatively new at the time Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, Paul emphasizes in Rom. 4 that this idea of justification by trust and not by works goes back to the forefather of the Jews, Abraham. Quoting Gen. 15:6, Paul demonstrates from Scripture that trust, not works, was the basis of extraordinary justification: Abraham believes God, and it is credited to him as righteousness. God justifies Abraham (i.e., God credits righteousness to Abraham) on the basis of Abraham’s trust in God. Paul also cites most of Ps. 32:1–2, from a Davidic psalm, to further demonstrate the consistency of justification by faith with previous revelation. In this quotation the crediting of righteousness apart from works is related to the forgiveness of transgression, where the verdict of the guilty becomes “innocent.” “He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification” (Rom. 4:25). Extraordinary justification of unrighteous sinners leads to the twofold verdict: innocent and righteous.

Titus 3:3–6 expresses the same doctrine of extraordinary justification. Humanity is under sin when Jesus appears. God saves in his mercy through Jesus, not on the basis of righteous human works. This saving activity is equivalent to being justified by Jesus’ grace (3:7).

James and Justification

There are three references to justification in James 2:14–26, which appear at first glance to contradict extraordinary justification as presented by Paul. In support of the claim that faith without deeds is useless (James 2:20), two questions are asked: Was not Abraham considered righteous for what he did, and was not Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did (i.e., justified by works) (2:21, 25)? James 2:24 rephrases this as a proposition: a person is justified by what he or she does, not by faith alone. The context of 2:14–26 demonstrates that although the terms “faith,” “works,” and “justification” are the same as Paul’s, they have different meanings for James. Faith appears in this passage as mere knowledge (2:19), without any implications for living (2:14–18). For Paul, faith is a radical commitment of trust that submits one’s entire life under the lordship of Christ, something much different from the mere belief portrayed as faith by James. Deeds or works in the James passage are the concrete manifestations of what one believes (2:18). Works in the Pauline justification passages are set in opposition to trust in the person and work of the Lord Jesus. Outside of the justification context, Paul is an advocate of works properly related to faith, righteousness, and holiness (e.g., Eph. 2:10; 1 Thess. 1:3; cf. Rom. 1:5; 6:1–23; 8:4; 12:1–2). Justification is also different. Pauline justification most commonly relates to the extraordinary justification of declaring unrighteous sinners “innocent” and “righteous” based on trust in Christ. Justification in James has greater ties to common justification, focusing on the righteousness of a specific act at a specific time.

Other Views on Justification

Shortly after the age of the apostles, the doctrine of justification was deemphasized in many circles of church life in favor of a more moralistic system. One group has repeatedly argued for centuries that justification infuses righteousness into the believer, and then the believer must do good works to complete justification. This conception fails to differentiate between sanctification and justification and also misrepresents justification. In justification God declares the believer innocent and righteous, forgiving sin by means of Christ’s sacrifice and imputing Christ’s righteousness to the believer. This is not “legal fiction,” since justification has past, present, and future aspects (Rom. 3:30; 8:30–34; Gal. 2:16; 5:5). Believers have been, are being, and will be justified by faith in Christ Jesus. Recently, some have claimed that justification is related exclusively to the inclusion of Gentiles into the people of God without “works of the law,” racial and national identity markers (e.g., circumcision or food laws). Among the weaknesses of this view, the key one is that both Jew and Gentile are in need of extraordinary justification (Rom. 3:9, 19–20, 23–26, 30; 9:30–10:13; Gal. 2:15–3:14).

The English transliteration of the Greek word meaning “preaching, proclamation, message,” “kerygma” was coined as a scholarly term by C. H. Dodd, a professor of NT at Cambridge University, in 1964. In a lecture series titled “The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments,” Dodd observed that four of Peter’s proclamations of the gospel message (Acts 2:14–36, 38–39; 3:12–26; 4:8–15) follow an identifiable pattern. They present basic facts as interpreted through the eternal perspective of the first-century church: (1) The age of prophetic fulfillment has dawned. (2) This has occurred through the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus. (3) Jesus is exalted at the right hand of God as the messianic head of Israel. (4) The Holy Spirit in the church is the sign of Christ’s present power and glory. (5) The messianic age will soon be consummated in the return of Christ. (6) Therefore, hearers are to repent to receive forgiveness, the Holy Spirit, and salvation.

Dodd further developed his ideas by examining the Gospels and finding that they conform to the essential kerygma pattern as well (Mark particularly clearly so), as do the gospel summaries appearing in the writings of Paul and John. Each contains an essential core of information: the prophetic announcement of Jesus, especially through the ministry of John the Baptist, the trial and crucifixion of Jesus, his burial, his resurrection from the dead, and the affirmation of these events through the testimony of eyewitnesses. Examples of kerygma are found in Acts 5:30–32; 10:34–43; 13:16–41; 17:1–4; 26:12–29; 1 Cor. 15:1–11.

Noticeably absent from all these passages, however, is any mention of the ethical teaching of the NT. Dodd was emphatic that kerygma be distinguished from teaching, by which he meant the doctrinal, ethical, and apologetic aspects of Christianity. These he understood as appropriate to the life and thought of those already established in the faith but different from the evangelistic proclamation of kerygma, the purpose of which is to call unbelievers to salvation in Christ. Put another way, kerygma is primary, while teaching is secondary; the latter is effective only when presented to those who have already repented and believed.

Since Dodd, “kerygma” has been applied to the OT as well, where it refers to the specific saving acts of God, structured similarly to the NT speech of Stephen (Acts 7:2–53). Examples include Pss. 78; 105; 106; 135; 136.

The founder of what became known as the movement of Jesus followers or Christianity. For Christian believers, Jesus Christ embodies the personal and supernatural intervention of God in human history.

Introduction

Name. Early Christians combined the name “Jesus” with the title “Christ” (Acts 5:42; NIV: “Messiah”). The name “Jesus,” from the Hebrew Yehoshua or Yeshua, was a common male name in first-century Judaism. The title “Christ” is from the Greek christos, a translation of the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one, messiah”). Christians eventually were named after Jesus’ title (Acts 11:26). During the ministry of Jesus, Peter was the first disciple to recognize Jesus as the Messiah (Matt. 16:16; Mark 9:29; Luke 9:20).

Sources. From the viewpoint of Christianity, the life and ministry of Jesus constitute the turning point in human history. From a historical perspective, ample early source materials would be expected. Indeed, both Christian and non-Christian first-century and early second-century literary sources are extant, but they are few in number. In part, this low incidence is due to society’s initial resistance to the Jesus followers’ movement. The ancient Roman historian Tacitus called Christianity “a superstition,” since its beliefs did not fit with the culture’s prevailing worldview and thus were considered antisocial. Early literary sources therefore are either in-group documents or allusions in non-Christian sources.

The NT Gospels are the principal sources for the life and ministry of Jesus. They consist of Matthew, Mark, Luke (the Synoptic Gospels), and John. Most scholars adhere to the so-called Four Source Hypothesis. In this theory, Mark was written first and was used as a source by Matthew and Luke, who also used the sayings source Q (from German Quelle, meaning “source”) as well as their own individual sources M (Matthew) and L (Luke). John used additional sources.

The early church tried to put together singular accounts, so-called Gospel harmonies, of the life of Jesus. The Gospel of the Ebionites represents one such attempt based on the Synoptic Gospels. Another harmony, the Diatessaron, based on all four Gospels, was produced around AD 170 by Tatian. Additional source materials concerning the life of Christ are provided in the NT in texts such as Acts, the Pauline Epistles, the General Epistles, and the Revelation of John. Paul wrote to the Galatians, “But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law” (Gal. 4:4). The first narrative about Jesus by the Christian community was a passion narrative, the account of his death and resurrection. The first extant references to this tradition are found in Paul’s letters (1 Cor. 2:2; Gal. 3:1). The resurrection was recognized from the beginning as the cornerstone of the Christian faith (1 Cor. 15:13–14).

Among non-Christian sources, the earliest reference to Jesus is found in a letter written circa AD 112 by Pliny the Younger, the Roman governor of Bithynia-Pontus (Ep. 10.96). The Roman historian Tacitus mentions Christians and Jesus around AD 115 in his famous work about the history of Rome (Ann. 15.44). Another Roman historian, Suetonius, wrote around the same time concerning unrest among the Jews in Rome because of a certain “Chrestos” (Claud. 25.4). Some scholars conclude that “Chrestos” is a misspelling of “Christos,” a reference to Jesus.

The Jewish author Josephus (first century AD) mentions Jesus in a story about the Jewish high priest Ananus and James the brother of Jesus (Ant. 20.200). A controversial reference to Jesus appears in a different part of the same work, where Josephus affirms that Jesus is the Messiah and that he rose from the dead (Ant. 18.63–64). The majority of scholars consider this passage to be authentic but heavily edited by later Christian copyists. Another Jewish source, the Talmud, also mentions Jesus in several places, but these references are very late and of little historical value.

Noncanonical Gospels that mention Jesus include, for example, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of James, the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Egerton Gospel, and the Gospel of Judas. Although some of these may contain an occasional authentic saying or event, for the most part they are late and unreliable.

Jesus’ Life

Birth and childhood. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke record Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem during the reign of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1; Luke 2:4, 11). Jesus was probably born between 6 and 4 BC, shortly before Herod’s death (Matt. 2:19). Both Matthew and Luke record the miracle of a virginal conception made possible by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:35). Luke mentions a census under the Syrian governor Quirinius that was responsible for Jesus’ birth taking place in Bethlehem (2:1–5). Both the census and the governorship at the time of the birth of Jesus have been questioned by scholars. Unfortunately, there is not enough extrabiblical evidence to either confirm or disprove these events, so their veracity must be determined on the basis of one’s view regarding the general reliability of the Gospel tradition.

On the eighth day after his birth, Jesus was circumcised, in keeping with the Jewish law, at which time he officially was named “Jesus” (Luke 2:21). He spent his growing years in Nazareth, in the home of his parents, Joseph and Mary (2:40). Of the NT Gospels, the Gospel of Luke contains the only brief portrayal of Jesus’ growth in strength, wisdom, and favor with God and people (2:40, 52). Luke also contains the only account of Jesus as a young boy (2:41–49).

Jesus was born in a lower socioeconomic setting. His parents offered a temple sacrifice appropriate for those who could not afford to sacrifice a sheep (Luke 2:22–24; cf. Lev. 12:8). Joseph, Jesus’ earthly father, was a carpenter or an artisan in wood, stone, or metal (Matt. 13:55). From a geographical perspective, Nazareth was not a prominent place for settling, since it lacked fertile ground. Jesus’ disciple Nathanael expressed an apparently common first-century sentiment concerning Nazareth: “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” (John 1:46).

Jesus was also born in a context of scandal. Questions of illegitimacy were surely raised, since his mother Mary was discovered to be pregnant before her marriage to Joseph. According to Matthew, only the intervention of an angel convinced Joseph not to break his betrothal (Matt. 1:18–24). Jesus’ birth took place in Bethlehem, far from his parents’ home in Nazareth. According to kinship hospitality customs, Joseph and Mary would have expected to stay with distant relatives in Bethlehem. It is likely that they were unwelcome because of Jesus’ status as an illegitimate child; thus Mary had to give birth elsewhere and place the infant Jesus in a feeding trough (Luke 2:7). A similar response was seen years later in Nazareth when Jesus was identified as “Mary’s son” (Mark 6:3) rather than through his paternal line, thereby shaming him as one who was born an illegitimate child. Jesus was likewise rejected at the end of his life as the crowds cried, “Crucify him!” (Matt. 27:22–23; Mark 15:13–14; Luke 23:21; John 19:6, 15). When Jesus was arrested, most of his followers fled (Matt. 26:56; Mark 14:50–52), and a core disciple, Peter, vehemently denied knowing him (Matt. 26:69–74; Mark 14:66–71; Luke 22:55–60; John 18:15–17, 25–27). His own siblings did not believe in him (John 7:5) and were evidently ashamed of his fate, since from the cross Jesus placed the care of his mother into the hands of “the disciple whom he loved” (19:26–27) rather than the next brother in line, as was customary.

Baptism, temptation, and start of ministry. After Jesus was baptized by the prophet John the Baptist (Luke 3:21–22), God affirmed his pleasure with him by referring to him as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Jesus’ baptism did not launch him into fame and instant ministry success; instead, Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, where he was tempted for forty days (Matt. 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13). Mark stresses that the temptations immediately followed the baptism. Matthew and Luke identify three specific temptations by the devil, though their order for the last two is reversed. Both Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus was tempted to turn stones into bread, expect divine intervention after jumping off the temple portico, and receive all the world’s kingdoms for worshiping the devil. Jesus resisted all temptation, quoting Scripture in response.

Matthew and Mark record that Jesus began his ministry in Capernaum in Galilee, after the arrest of John the Baptist (Matt. 4:12–13; Mark 1:14). Luke says that Jesus started his ministry at about thirty years of age (3:23). This may be meant to indicate full maturity or perhaps correlate this age with the onset of the service of the Levites in the temple (cf. Num. 4:3). John narrates the beginning of Jesus’ ministry by focusing on the calling of the disciples and the sign performed at a wedding at Cana (1:35–2:11).

Jesus’ public ministry: chronology. Jesus’ ministry started in Galilee, probably around AD 27/28, and ended with his death around AD 30 in Jerusalem. The temple had been forty-six years in construction (generally interpreted as the temple itself and the wider temple complex) when Jesus drove out the money changers (John 2:20). According to Josephus, the rebuilding and expansion of the second temple had started in 20/19 BC, during the eighteenth year of Herod’s reign (Ant. 15.380). The ministry of John the Baptist had commenced in the fifteenth year of Tiberius (Luke 3:1–2), who had become a coregent in AD 11/12. From these dates of the start of the temple building and the correlation of the reign of Tiberius to John the Baptist’s ministry, the onset of Jesus’ ministry can probably be dated to AD 27/28.

The Gospel of John mentions three Passovers and another unnamed feast in John 5:1. The length of Jesus’ ministry thus extended over three or four Passovers, equaling about three or three and a half years. Passover, which took place on the fifteenth of Nisan, came on a Friday in AD 30 and 33. The year of Jesus’ death was therefore probably AD 30.

Jesus’ ministry years may be divided broadly into his Galilean and his Judean ministries. The Synoptic Gospels describe the ministry in Galilee from various angles but converge again as Jesus enters Judea.

Galilean ministry. The early stages of Jesus’ ministry centered in and around Galilee. Jesus presented the good news and proclaimed that the kingdom of God was near. Matthew focuses on the fulfillment of prophecy (Matt. 4:13–17). Luke records Jesus’ first teaching in his hometown, Nazareth, as paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–30); the text that Jesus quoted, Isa. 61:1–2, set the stage for his calling to serve and revealed a trajectory of rejection and suffering.

All Gospels record Jesus’ gathering of disciples early in his Galilean ministry (Matt. 4:18–22; Mark 1:16–20; Luke 5:1–11; John 1:35–51). The formal call and commissioning of the Twelve who would become Jesus’ closest followers is recorded in different parts of the Gospels (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16). A key event in the early ministry is the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Matt. 5:1–7:29; Luke 6:20–49). John focuses on Jesus’ signs and miracles, in particular in the early parts of his ministry, whereas the Synoptics focus on healings and exorcisms.

During Jesus’ Galilean ministry, onlookers struggled with his identity. However, evil spirits knew him to be of supreme authority (Mark 3:11). Jesus was criticized by outsiders and by his own family (3:21). The scribes from Jerusalem identified him as a partner of Beelzebul (3:22). Amid these situations of social conflict, Jesus told parables that couched his ministry in the context of a growing kingdom of God. This kingdom would miraculously spring from humble beginnings (4:1–32).

The Synoptics present Jesus’ early Galilean ministry as successful. No challenge or ministry need superseded Jesus’ authority or ability: he calmed a storm (Mark 4:35–39), exorcized many demons (Mark 5:1–13), raised the dead (Mark 5:35–42), fed five thousand (Mark 6:30–44), and walked on water (Mark 6:48–49).

In the later part of his ministry in Galilee, Jesus often withdrew and traveled to the north and the east. The Gospel narratives are not written with a focus on chronology. However, only brief returns to Galilee appear to have taken place prior to Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. As people followed Jesus, faith was praised and fear resolved. Jerusalem’s religious leaders traveled to Galilee, where they leveled accusations and charged Jesus’ disciples with lacking ritual purity (Mark 7:1–5). Jesus shamed the Pharisees by pointing out their dishonorable treatment of parents (7:11–13). The Pharisees challenged his legitimacy by demanding a sign (8:11). Jesus refused them signs but agreed with Peter, who confessed, “You are the Messiah” (8:29). Jesus did provide the disciples a sign: his transfiguration (9:2–8).

Jesus withdrew from Galilee to Tyre and Sidon, where a Syrophoenician woman requested healing for her daughter. Jesus replied, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). Galileans had long resented the Syrian provincial leadership partiality that allotted governmental funds in ways that made the Jews receive mere “crumbs.” Consequently, when the woman replied, “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table,” Jesus applauded her faith (Matt. 15:27–28). Healing a deaf-mute man in the Decapolis provided another example of Jesus’ ministry in Gentile territory (Mark 7:31–37). Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ took place during Jesus’ travel to Caesarea Philippi, a well-known Gentile territory. The city was the ancient center of worship of the Hellenistic god Pan.

Judean ministry. Luke records a geographic turning point in Jesus’ ministry as he resolutely set out for Jerusalem, a direction that eventually led to his death (Luke 9:51). Luke divides the journey to Jerusalem into three phases (9:51–13:21; 13:22–17:10; 17:11–19:27). The opening verses of phase one emphasize a prophetic element of the journey. Jesus viewed his ministry in Jerusalem as his mission, and the demands on discipleship intensified as Jesus approached Jerusalem (Matt. 20:17–19, 26–28; Mark 10:38–39, 43–45; Luke 14:25–35). Luke presents the second phase of the journey toward Jerusalem with a focus on conversations regarding salvation and judgment (Luke 13:22–30). In the third and final phase of the journey, the advent of the kingdom and the final judgment are the main themes (17:20–37; 19:11–27).

Social conflicts with religious leaders increased throughout Jesus’ ministry. These conflicts led to lively challenge-riposte interactions concerning the Pharisaic schools of Shammai and Hillel (Matt. 19:1–12; Mark 10:1–12). Likewise, socioeconomic feathers were ruffled as Jesus welcomed young children, who had little value in society (Matt. 19:13–15; Mark 10:13–16; Luke 18:15–17).

Passion Week, death, and resurrection. Each of the Gospels records Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem with the crowds extending him a royal welcome (Matt. 21:4–9; Mark 11:7–10; Luke 19:35–38; John 12:12–15). Luke describes Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem as a time during which Jesus taught in the temple as Israel’s Messiah (19:45–21:38).

In Jerusalem, Jesus cleansed the temple of profiteering (Mark 11:15–17). Mark describes the religious leaders as fearing Jesus because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching, and so they “began looking for a way to kill him” (11:18). Dismayed, each segment of Jerusalem’s temple leadership inquired about Jesus’ authority (11:27–33). Jesus replied with cunning questions (12:16, 35–36), stories (12:1–12), denunciation (12:38–44), and a prediction of Jerusalem’s own destruction (13:1–31). One of Jesus’ own disciples, Judas Iscariot, provided the temple leaders the opportunity for Jesus’ arrest (14:10–11).

At the Last Supper, Jesus instituted a new Passover, defining a new covenant grounded in his sufferings (Matt. 26:17–18, 26–29; Mark 14:16–25; Luke 22:14–20). He again warned the disciples of his betrayal and arrest (Matt. 26:21–25, 31; Mark 14:27–31; Luke 22:21–23; John 13:21–30), and later he prayed for the disciples (John 17:1–26) and prayed in agony and submissiveness in the garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:36–42; Mark 14:32–42; Luke 22:39–42). His arrest, trial, crucifixion, death, and resurrection followed (Matt. 26:46–28:15; Mark 14:43–16:8; Luke 22:47–24:9; John 18:1–20:18). Jesus finally commissioned his disciples to continue his mission by making disciples of all the nations (Matt. 28:18–20; Acts 1:8) and ascended to heaven with the promise that he will one day return (Luke 24:50–53; Acts 1:9–11).

The Identity of Jesus Christ

Various aspects of Jesus’ identity are stressed in the four NT Gospels, depending on their target audiences. In the Gospels the witnesses to Jesus’ ministry are portrayed as constantly questioning and examining his identity (Matt. 11:2–5; 12:24; 26:63; 27:11; Mark 3:22; 8:11; 11:28; 14:61; Luke 7:18–20; 11:15; 22:67, 70; 23:39; John 7:20, 25–27; 18:37). Only beings of the spiritual realm are certain of his divinity (Mark 1:34; 3:11; Luke 4:41). At Jesus’ baptism, God referred to him as his Son, whom he loved (Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). Likewise, when Jesus was transfigured in the presence of Peter, James, and John, a voice affirmed, “This is my Son, whom I love” (Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7). At the moment of his death, the questioning of Jesus’ identity culminated in a confession by a Roman centurion and other guards: “Surely he was the Son of God!” (Matt. 27:54; cf. Mark 15:39).

Miracle worker. In the first-century setting, folk healers and miracle workers were part of the fabric of society. Jesus, however, performed signs and miracles in order to demonstrate the authority of the kingdom of God over various realms: disease, illness, the spiritual world, nature, and even future events. Especially in the Gospel of John, Jesus’ signs and miracles are used to show his authority and thus his identity.

No challenge superseded Jesus’ authority. Among his ample miracles and signs, he changed water into wine (John 2:7–9), calmed a storm in the sea (Matt. 8:23–27; Mark 4:35–39; Luke 8:22–25), exorcized demons (Matt. 9:32–34; Mark 5:1–13; Luke 9:42–43), healed the sick (Mark 1:40–44), raised the dead (Matt. 9:23–25; Mark 5:35–42; Luke 7:1–16; 8:49–54; John 11:17, 38–44), performed miraculous feedings (Matt. 14:17–21; 15:34–38; Mark 6:30–44; 8:5–9; Luke 9:10–17; John 6:8–13), and walked on water (Matt. 14:25–26; Mark 6:48–49; John 6:19).

The Pharisees requested miracles as evidence of his authority (Mark 8:11–12). Jesus refused, claiming that a wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign (Matt. 12:38–39; 16:1–4). The only sign that he would give was the sign of Jonah—his death and resurrection three days later—a personal sacrifice, taking upon himself the judgment of the world (Matt. 12:39–41).

Rabbi/teacher. Jesus’ teaching style was similar to other first-century rabbis or Pharisees (Mark 9:5; 10:51; John 1:38; 3:2). What distinguished him was that he spoke with great personal authority (Matt. 5:22, 28, 32, 39, 44; Mark 1:22). Like other rabbis of his day, Jesus gathered disciples. He called these men to observe his lifestyle and to join him in his ministry of teaching, healing, and exorcism (Matt. 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16).

Jesus used a variety of teaching methods. He frequently spoke in parables (Matt. 6:24; 13:24–52; 18:10–14, 23–35; 21:28–22:14; 24:32–36, 45–51; 25:14–30; Mark 4:1–34; 12:1–12; 13:28–34; Luke 8:4–18; 12:41–46; 13:18–21; 14:15–24; 15:1–16:15, 19–31; 18:1–14; 19:11–27; 20:9–19; 21:29–33), used figures of speech (John 10:9), hyperbole (Matt. 19:24; Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25), argumentation (Matt. 26:11), object lessons (Matt. 24:32), frequent repetition (Matt. 13:44–47; Luke 13:18–21), practical examples, and personal guidance.

Major themes in Jesus’ teaching include the kingdom of God, the cost of discipleship, internal righteousness, the end of the age, his identity, his mission, and his approaching death. In his teachings, observance of Torah was given new context and meaning because God’s kingdom had “come near” (Matt. 3:2). Jesus had come to fulfill the law (Matt. 5:17).

Jesus’ teaching ministry often took place amid social conflict. These conflicts were couched in so-called challenge-riposte interactions in which the honor status of those involved was at stake. Jesus used these interactions as teachable moments. When questioned, Jesus gave replies that reveal omniscience or intimate knowledge of God’s will, especially in the Gospel of John. In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus’ answers are both ethical and practical in nature. The Synoptics portray Jesus as challenged repeatedly with accusations of violating customs specified in the Jewish law. Jesus’ answers to such accusations often echoed the essence of 1 Sam. 15:22, “To obey is better than sacrifice,” phrased by Jesus as “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Matt. 9:13; 12:7). An overall “better than” ethic was common in Jesus’ public teaching.

The Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7) contains a “better than” ethic in which internal obedience is better than mere outward obedience. For example, Jesus said that anger without cause is equal to murder (Matt. 5:21–22), that looking at a woman lustfully amounts to adultery (Matt. 5:28), and that instead of revenging wrongs one must reciprocate with love (Matt. 5:38–48). Jesus valued compassion above traditions and customs, even those contained within the OT law. He desired internal obedience above the letter of the law.

Jesus’ teachings found their authority in the reality of God’s imminent kingdom (Matt. 3:2; 10:7; Mark 1:15; Luke 10:9), necessitating repentance (Matt. 3:2), belief (Mark 1:15), dependence (Matt. 18:3–5; Mark 10:15), and loyalty to a new community—the family of Jesus followers (Mark 3:34; 10:29–30). Jesus urged, “Seek first [God’s] kingdom and his righteousness” (Matt. 6:33). Preaching with such urgency was common among prophetic teachers of the intertestamental period. Jesus, however, had his own grounds for urgency. He held that God deeply valued all humans (Matt. 10:31) and would bring judgment swiftly (Matt. 25:31–46).

Examples of a “greater good” ethic in the Synoptics include the occasions when Jesus ate with sinners (Mark 2:16–17). Jesus used an aphorism in response to accusations about his associations with sinners, saying, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mark 2:17). He advocated harvesting and healing on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23–28; 3:1–6), and when he was accused of breaking the law, he pointed to an OT exception (1 Sam. 21:1–6) to declare compassion appropriate for the Sabbath. Jesus also applied the “greater good” ethic in the case of divorce, since women suffered the societal stigma of adultery and commonly became outcasts following divorce (Matt. 19:8–9; Mark 10:5–9).

Jesus’ kingdom teachings were simultaneously spiritual, ethical, and eschatological in application. The teachings were aimed at internal transformation (Matt. 5:3–9; 18:3; Mark 10:15) and spurring on love (Matt. 5:44; 7:21). The Spirit of the Lord had called Jesus to bless the hurting ones as they aspired to a godly character. Jesus taught, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48), and “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful” (Luke 6:36). The “blessed” ones in Jesus’ teachings are poor of spirit, peace driven, mournful, and hungry for righteousness, consumed with emulating godly character.

Some scholars believe that Jesus promoted an “interim ethic” for the kingdom, intended only for a short period prior to the end of time. However, he was explicit regarding the longevity of his teachings: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (Matt. 24:35; Luke 16:17).

Messiah. The concept of an anointed one, a messiah, who would restore the glories of David’s kingdom and bring political stability was common in Jewish expectation. Both before and after the Babylonian captivity, many Jews longed for one who would bring peace and protection. Israel’s prophets had spoken of a coming deliverer, one who would restore David’s kingdom and reign in justice and righteousness (2 Sam. 7:11–16; Isa. 9:1–7; 11:1–16; Jer. 23:5–6; 33:15–16; Ezek. 37:25; Dan. 2:44; Mic. 5:2; Zech. 9:9). Isaiah’s description of the servant (Isa. 53) whose suffering healed the nation provided a slightly different angle of expectation in terms of a deliverer.

Jesus’ authority and popularity as a miracle worker called up messianic images in first-century Jewish minds. On several occasions hearers called him “Son of David,” hoping for the Messiah (Matt. 12:23; 21:9). Simon Peter was the first follower who confessed Jesus as the Christ, the “Messiah” (Matt. 16:16; Mark 8:29). In line with Isaiah’s model of the Suffering Servant, Jesus focused not on political ends but rather on spiritual regeneration through his own sacrificial death (Mark 10:45).

Eschatological prophet. Many scholars claim that Jesus is best understood as a Jewish apocalypticist, an eschatological prophet who expected God to intervene in history, destroy the wicked, and bring in the kingdom of God. Central in this understanding are Jesus’ prophecies concerning the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (Matt. 24:1–2, 15–22; Mark 13:1; Luke 21:5–24; John 2:19; Acts 6:14). In addition, it is noted that Jesus had twelve disciples, representative of the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:2–28; Luke 22:23–30). Certain of Jesus’ parables, those with apocalyptic images of coming judgment, present Jesus as an eschatological prophet (Matt. 24:45–25:30; Luke 12:41–46; 19:11–27).

Suffering Son of God. Jesus’ first recorded teaching in a synagogue in Nazareth was paradigmatic (Luke 4:16–21). He attributed the reading, Isa. 61:1–2, to his personal calling to serve, and in doing so he revealed a trajectory of suffering. The Gospel of Mark likewise aptly portrays Jesus as the suffering Son of God. Jesus’ own teachings incorporated his upcoming suffering (Mark 8:31; 9:12–13, 31; 10:33–34). He summarized his mission by declaring, “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). His earthly career ended with a trial in Jerusalem consisting of both Roman and Jewish components (Matt. 26:57–68; 27:1–31; Mark 14:53–65; 15:1–20; Luke 22:54–23:25; John 18:19–24; 18:28–19:16). He was insulted, scourged, mocked, and crucified.

Jesus’ suffering culminated in his humiliating death by crucifixion (Matt. 27:33–50; Mark 15:22–37; Luke 23:33–46; John 19:16–30). Crucifixion was a death of unimaginable horror, bringing shame and humiliation to the victim and his family. Anyone hanging on a tree was considered cursed (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13). Thus, especially in a Jewish society, anyone associated with a crucified person bore the shame of following one who was executed as a lowly slave and left as a cursed corpse. The apostle Paul referred to this shame of the cross when he stated, “I am not ashamed of the gospel” (Rom. 1:16).

Exalted Lord. Jesus had prophesied that he would rise again (Matt. 16:21; 17:9, 23; 20:19; 27:63; Mark 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:34; Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:7, 46). The testimony of the Synoptics is that the resurrection of Jesus Christ indeed occurred on the third day, Christ having died on Friday (Mark 15:42–45; Luke 23:52–54; John 19:30–33) and risen again on Sunday (Matt. 28:1–7; Mark 16:2–7; Luke 24:1–7; John 20:1–16). The resurrected Jesus was witnessed by the women (Matt. 28:8–9), the eleven disciples (Matt. 28:16–17; Luke 24:36–43), and travelers on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:31–32). According to Paul, he appeared to as many as five hundred others (1 Cor. 15:6). He appeared in bodily form, spoke, showed his scars, and ate (Luke 24:39–43; John 20:27; Acts 1:4). After forty postresurrection days, Jesus ascended into the heavenly realm (Acts 1:9).

As much as Jesus’ death was the epitome of shame, his victory over death was his ultimate exaltation (Phil. 2:5–11). At Pentecost, Peter proclaimed that in the resurrection God fulfilled OT promises (Ps. 16:10) by raising his Son from the grave (Acts 2:30–31). Furthermore, Christ provided freedom from the law through his resurrection (Rom. 5:13–14), God’s approval of his life and work (Phil. 2:8–9), and God’s designation of him as Lord over all the earth, the living and the dead (Acts 17:30–31; Phil. 2:10; Heb. 1:3), and over all his enemies (Eph. 1:20–23).

Jesus’ exaltation commenced the beginning of forgiveness and justification (Luke 24:46–47; Acts 13:30–39; Rom. 4:25) and his intercession for the people of God (Rom. 8:34). His ascension signaled the coming of the Holy Spirit as comforter and teacher (John 14:26; Acts 2:33) and was accompanied by the promise of his return in glory (Luke 24:51), at which time he will render judgment (Matt. 19:28; 24:31; Rev. 20:11–15) and establish his eternal kingdom (1 Cor. 15:24; 2 Tim. 4:1; Rev. 11:15; 22:5).

Jesus’ Purpose and Community

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah, who preaches the good news of the kingdom, urging people to repent (4:17–23). Repentance and belief allow one to enter the kingdom. The call into the kingdom is a call into a new covenant, one made in Jesus’ blood (26:28).

In the prologue to the Gospel of Mark, the narrator reveals the identity of Jesus (1:1). Jesus is presented as the one who brings good tidings of salvation (cf. Isa. 40:9; 52:7; 61:1). The centrality of the gospel, the good news (Mark 1:14–15), is evident.

Luke likewise presents the preaching of the good news as a main purpose of Jesus’ ministry (4:43). The content of this good news is the kingdom of God (4:43; 8:1; 16:16). When the disciples of John the Baptist asked Jesus if he was the one who was to come (7:20), Jesus answered, “Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor” (7:22). The kingdom of God, as presented in Luke, brings freedom for the prisoners, recovery of sight for the blind, and release for the oppressed (4:18). Jesus’ healings and exorcisms announce the coming kingdom of God already present in the ministry of Jesus (4:40–44; 6:18–20; 8:1–2; 9:2; 10:8–9).

In the Gospel of John, Jesus testifies to the good news by way of signs throughout his ministry. These signs point to Jesus’ glory, his identity, and the significance of his ministry. Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, who offers eternal and abundant life. This abundant life is lived out in community.

In the Gospel of John, the disciples of Jesus represent the community of God (17:21). The disciples did not belong to the world, but they continued to live in the world (17:14–16). Throughout his ministry, Jesus called his disciples to follow him. This was a call to loyalty (Matt. 10:32–40; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26), a call to the family of God (Matt. 12:48–50; Mark 3:33–35). Jesus’ declaration “On this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) was preceded by the call to community. Jesus’ presence as the head of the community was replaced by the promised Spirit (John 14:16–18).

Jesus’ ministry continued in the community of Jesus’ followers, God’s family—the church. Entrance into the community was obtained by adopting the values of the kingdom, belief, and through the initiation rite of baptism (Matt. 10:37–39; 16:24–26; Mark 8:34–38; Luke 9:23–26, 57–62; John 1:12; 3:16; 10:27–29; Acts 2:38; 16:31–33; 17:30; Rom. 10:9).

The Quests for the Historical Jesus

The quest for the historical Jesus, or seeking who Jesus was from a historical perspective, is a modern phenomenon deemed necessary by scholars who claim that the NT Gospels were written long after Jesus’ death and were heavily influenced by the post-Easter understanding of the church.

The beginning of this quest is often dated to 1770, when the lecture notes of Hermann Samuel Reimarus were published posthumously. Reimarus had launched an inquiry into the identity of Jesus that rejected as inauthentic all supernatural elements in the Gospels. He concluded that the disciples invented Jesus’ miracles, prophecies, ritualistic religion, and resurrection. Reimarus’s conclusions were not widely accepted, but they set off a flurry of rationalistic research into the historical Jesus that continued throughout the nineteenth century. This became known as the “first quest” for the historical Jesus.

In 1906 German theologian Albert Schweit-zer published The Quest of the Historical Jesus (German title: Von Reimarus zu Wrede: Eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung), a scathing indictment of the first quest. Schweitzer’s work showed that nineteenth-century researchers re-created Jesus in their own image, transforming the historical Jesus into a modern philanthropist preaching an inoffensive message of love and brotherhood. Schweitzer’s conclusions marked the beginning of the end for this first quest. Schweitzer himself concluded that the historical Jesus was an eschatological prophet whose purposes failed during his last days in Jerusalem.

With the demise of the first quest, some NT scholars, such as Rudolf Bultmann, rejected any claim to being able to discover the historical Jesus. This trend continued until 1953, when some of Bultmann’s former students launched what has come to be known as the “new quest” for the historical Jesus (1953–c. 1970). This quest created new interest in the historical Jesus but was still dominated by the view that the portrait of Jesus in the Gospels is largely a creation of the church in a post-Easter setting.

As the rebuilding years of the post–World War II era waned and scholars started to reap academic fruit from major archaeological finds such as the DSS, research on the historical Jesus moved on to what has been called the “third quest.” This quest seeks especially to research and understand Jesus in his social and cultural setting.

In the early church, preaching often took place in a missionary context (e.g., Acts 10:34–43). An impressive variety of words is used to describe preaching to unbelievers, including the following: “evangelize” (euangelizomai [Acts 8:4, 12, 25, 35, 40]), “announce” (anangello [Acts 20:20]), “proclaim” (kēryssō [Acts 8:5]), and “persuade” (peithō [Acts 19:8, 26]). Preaching to believers also took place, in a worship context. This article highlights the latter context.

Influences on Preaching

From its inception, a core component of Christian worship was the public proclamation of a word from God. What form early Christian preaching took in the worship assembly is unclear. However, three elements seem most influential in its development: the practice of prophesying, the practices of the synagogue, and the tradition of Greco-Roman rhetoric.

Prophesying. The practice of prophesying in the public assembly appears to be an early form of preaching. Paul makes reference to prophets speaking in the church in Corinth (1 Cor. 11–14). Prophecy was that form of communication in which a word of God, a revelation, was shared and the church was edified (1 Cor. 11:4–5; 14:1, 3–5, 26, 29–31, 39). Others in the worship community tested the prophetic message to verify its truthfulness (1 Cor. 14:29; cf. 1 Thess. 5:19–22; 1 John 4:1–3).

A couple of indications lead to the conclusion that prophecy was more closely related to preaching than to speaking in tongues. For one, worshipers could comprehend the former but needed an interpreter for the latter. For another, the function of prophecy was exhortation (parakaleō [1 Cor. 14:4–5]). “Exhortation” (paraklēsis) is Paul’s most comprehensive term for public proclamation (e.g., 1 Thess. 2:3–4). That is why Paul admonishes worshipers not to interrupt one another in the process of prophesying (1 Cor. 14:29–31). The practice of prophecy influenced the shape that early Christian preaching took.

Synagogue. Another element influencing early Christian preaching was the synagogue. It seems quite likely that early Christian preaching flowed out of the practice found in Jewish synagogues. In the synagogue, the pattern was the reading of Scripture followed by commentary (Luke 4:14–30; Acts 13:15–41).

These two components—prophecy and the reading and exposition of Scripture in the synagogue—play the largest role in influencing the shape of early Christian preaching. How they did so remains uncertain. The early believers may have merged the two practices in Christian worship. Jewish Christians, who had attended the synagogue, took the practice of reading and interpreting Scripture and adopted it into the context of worship in house churches, along with the Jewish tradition of prophesying. Thus, the practice of prophesying merged with the practice of reading and expounding on Scripture to create a more systematic form of proclamation.

The exposition of Scripture may also have assisted in judging the validity of a particular prophecy. However, the criteria for verifying the truth of a prophecy were broader than Scripture alone; it was also measured against one’s lifestyle (Matt. 7:15–20, 21–23) and how the prophecy aligned with established doctrines of the church (1 Cor. 14:29, 37; 1 John 4:1–3).

Greco-Roman rhetoric. A third component influencing early Christian preaching was the classical rhetoric of the Greeks and the Romans. The teachings of rhetoric saturated the culture and education of the day. However, the degree to which it penetrated first-century Christian culture remains uncertain. Paul’s letters display a familiarity with Greco-Roman rhetoric, and from that, one can assume that its influence affected the practice of preaching to some extent.

Sermons and Their Content

The NT contains no fully developed sermon in the context of a public worship. Scholars do believe, however, that Paul’s sermon to the elders in Ephesus is a good representation of his preaching because it contains a theology and vocabulary that echo his teaching in his letters to various churches (Acts 20:17–35). Paul’s letters also likely indicate what he preached to believers. His letters have an oral quality about them and were read in the assemblies (Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 5:27). Thus, Paul’s letters offer a flavor of early Christian preaching.

Another important issue related to early Christian preaching involves the content of what was preached and whether a sharp distinction should be made between kerygma and didachē. C. H. Dodd has defined early Christian preaching as proclamation to nonbelievers. The term he uses to describe it is kerygma. For him, preaching was an evangelistic message about the gospel of God proclaimed to non-Christians. Teaching, didachē, remained distinct and was an ethical admonition (paraklēsis) delivered to Christians. However, Paul’s letters contain no such distinction between the two. Paul links his preaching the gospel of God with his appeal (paraklēsis) to the church (cf. 1 Thess. 2:2–3 with 2 Cor. 5:19–20). That is, Paul continues to announce the good news to the churches along with exhortations to incarnate that good news in the lives of the recipients. Both kerygma and didachē embodied the content of early Christian preaching.

The term “predestination” means “to determine or decide something beforehand.” Some form of the Greek verb proorizō (“to determine beforehand”) occurs six times in the NT (Acts 4:28; Rom. 8:29, 30; 1 Cor. 2:7; Eph. 1:5, 11). It is practically synonymous with the concept of foreordination and is closely related to divine foreknowledge (Acts 2:23; Rom. 8:29; 1 Pet. 1:1–2, 20). Various Scriptures indicate that God the Father is the one who predestines (John 17:6–10; Rom. 8:29; Eph. 1:3–5; 1 Pet. 1:2).

The specific objects of predestination are humans, angels, and the Messiah. These divine predeterminations occurred before the creation of the world and were motivated by the love of God (Eph. 1:4–5). In regard to humans, this means that in eternity past, God determined that some individuals would be the recipients of his salvation. However, this determination does not rule out the necessity of human choice, responsibility, and faith. The decision to predestine some individuals for salvation was based not upon anything good or bad in the recipients, but solely on God’s good pleasure and according to his holy, wise, and eternal purpose (Isa. 46:10; Acts 13:48; Rom. 11:33).

Predestination as Part of God’s Larger Plan

The scope of God’s plan. Predestination is a part of God’s all-encompassing eternal plan (Isa. 40:13–14; Rom. 11:34; Eph. 1:11). Several terms express God’s plan. Among these are his “decree” (Ps. 2:7), “eternal purpose” (Eph. 3:11), “foreknowledge” (Acts 2:23), and “will” (Eph. 1:9, 11). God’s plan involves all things that come to pass, including major and insignificant events, direct and indirect causes, things appointed and things permitted. It therefore encompasses both good and evil (Ps. 139:16; Prov. 16:4; Isa. 14:24–27; 22:11; 37:26–27; 46:9–10; Acts 2:23; 4:27–28; Eph. 1:11; 2:10).

The inclusion of evil in the plan of God does not mean that he condones, authorizes, or commits moral evil. The apostle John stresses that God is light and that there is no darkness in him at all (1 John 1:5). He is absolutely holy and cannot be charged with the commission of sin (Hab. 1:13). When addressing the topic of God’s plan and purpose, the biblical authors are careful to distinguish between divine causation and human responsibility. Both fall under the purview of God’s plan. There is divine certainty about what will happen, but moral agents are never under compulsion to commit evil (see Acts 4:28; Rom. 9:11; 1 Cor. 2:7; 11:2; Heb. 2:5, 10–16; 1 Pet. 1:2, 20; 2 Pet. 3:17). For example, when Luke refers to the greatest miscarriage of justice in the history of the world, the crucifixion of Christ, he indicates that it was predestined by God, but the moral turpitude of the act is attributed to “wicked men” (Acts 2:23). The dual nature of such events is aptly reflected in Joseph’s statement to his brothers who sold him into slavery: “You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good” (Gen. 50:20 NASB).

Whereas the all-encompassing plan of God relates to his sovereign control over all things, predestination appears to be restricted primarily to certain divine decisions affecting humans, angels, and the Messiah (Isa. 42:1–7; Acts 2:23; 1 Tim. 5:21; 1 Pet. 1:20; 2:4). With reference to humans, Paul states, “In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will” (Eph. 1:11). Some scholars limit predestination to those things “in him,” thus linking this work of God to his purpose in salvation. Others argue that the following phrase, “who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,” demonstrates that all things fall under the purview of God’s controlling and guiding purpose (Eph. 1:11). It seems best to see the phrase “in him” as indicating the sphere in which believers are chosen and the term “predestinated” as one crucial aspect of the greater plan of God.

Divine foreknowledge and election. Some theologians argue that election and predestination are merely based upon God’s foreknowledge of those who will believe in him. Although God surely knows all those who will believe, the term “foreknowledge” connotes much more than simply knowing ahead of time who will come to faith. It means that God has sovereignly chosen to know some individuals in such an intimate way that it moved him to predestine them to eternal life (Rom. 8:29). Whereas the term “election” refers to God’s sovereign choice of those individuals, “predestination” looks forward toward the goal of that selection. Both predestination and election occur in eternity past (Eph. 1:4–5).

The purpose of predestination. Whereas election refers to God’s choice of individuals, predestination looks toward the purpose and goal of that choice. NT believers are designated as chosen by God and appointed to eternal life (Acts 13:48; Eph. 1:4). The express purpose is that they be adopted as his children (Eph. 1:5) and, as beloved children, become “conformed to the image of his Son” (Rom. 8:29). The idea is that those whom God has chosen are predestined in view of the purpose that he desires to fulfill in them, that of becoming his children who are conformed to the image of his Son. The ultimate purpose behind this plan is to bring glory to God (Eph. 1:5–6, 11–12).

Predestination and Reprobation

In his plan, God has chosen some individuals, nations, groups, and angels to fulfill special purposes, implying that other individuals, nations, groups, and angels have not been selected for those same purposes (2 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 2:10; 1 Pet. 1:2). With regard to God’s choice in salvation, this has led some theologians to argue that those not chosen for salvation are by default chosen for eternal damnation. They maintain that predestination applies not only to individuals whom God plans to save, but also to those whom he does not plan to save (Prov. 16:4; Matt. 26:23–24; Rom. 9:10–13, 17–18, 21–22; 2 Tim. 2:20; 1 Pet. 2:8; 2 Pet. 2:3, 9; Jude 4; Rev. 13:8; 20:15). This is sometimes called “reprobation.” The belief in the combined concepts of election and reprobation has been called “double predestination.”

While some scholars in the history of the church have argued that God is just as active in determining the reprobate as he is the elect, others have pointed out that God’s condemnation of the nonelect is based solely upon their sin and unbelief. A real distinction exists in the level of divine involvement with regard to the destiny of one class as compared with the other. God does not appear to have the same relationship to every event or thing in his creation. The degree of divine causation in each case differs. Scripture recognizes a difference between God’s direct working and his permissive will. In this view, God directly chooses some to be saved; however, he does not choose the others to be damned but rather passes them by, allowing them to continue on their own way and eventually suffer the just punishment that their sins deserve.

Whichever view one takes, it seems that the Scripture does not teach reprobation in the same way it teaches predestination leading to eternal life. Whereas the assignment to eternal death is a judicial act taking into account a person’s sin, predestination unto eternal life is purely an act of God’s sovereign grace and mercy not taking into account any actions by those chosen. Carrying the teaching of reprobation to the extreme threatens to view God as capricious, which clearly is not scriptural (1 John 1:5).

Predestination and Human Responsibility

God was in no way obligated or morally impelled to choose or predestine anyone to eternal life. His determination not to choose everyone in no way impinges upon his holy and righteous character (Rom. 9:13). On the contrary, justice would demand that all receive the punishment that they have rightly earned for their sins (Rom. 3:23; 6:23). Therefore, the predestination of some to become like his Son required that God exercise grace and mercy in providing for the cleansing of their sin, which he accomplished through the sacrifice of his beloved Son, Jesus Christ (Acts 2:23).

God’s predetermined plan does not force individuals to respond in predetermined ways, either to accept him or to reject him. In the one case, the sinner is drawn by God to himself but must also choose to place trust in Christ (John 6:37, 44). Even in the radical intervention of God in the life of Saul on the road to Damascus, where the divine call was indeed overpowering, Saul was given opportunity to respond either positively or negatively. In the case of those who are headed for eternal judgment, God’s working is not fatalistic or mechanistic in the sense that a person may want to choose God but God’s predetermined plan will not allow such a response. To the contrary, all are invited to come to Christ (Matt. 11:28; John 3:16). The apostle John clarifies, “Whoever comes to me I will never drive away” (John 6:37 [cf. Matt. 11:28]). Those who do not come to God refuse to do so by their own volition (Matt. 23:37; John 5:40). They are not merely unable to come to God but unwilling to do so (John 5:40; 6:65; Rom. 3:11). The NT teaches that Christ died for their sins (John 3:16), pleadingly warns them to repent, and cites their transgressions as the reason for their condemnation (1 Pet. 2:8; 2 Pet. 2:21–22; Jude 8–16). When all aspects of the issue are considered, there is indeed a mystery that lies outside the boundaries of our comprehension regarding God’s sovereign working and human choice.

The English transliteration of the Greek word meaning “preaching, proclamation, message,” “kerygma” was coined as a scholarly term by C. H. Dodd, a professor of NT at Cambridge University, in 1964. In a lecture series titled “The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments,” Dodd observed that four of Peter’s proclamations of the gospel message (Acts 2:14–36, 38–39; 3:12–26; 4:8–15) follow an identifiable pattern. They present basic facts as interpreted through the eternal perspective of the first-century church: (1) The age of prophetic fulfillment has dawned. (2) This has occurred through the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus. (3) Jesus is exalted at the right hand of God as the messianic head of Israel. (4) The Holy Spirit in the church is the sign of Christ’s present power and glory. (5) The messianic age will soon be consummated in the return of Christ. (6) Therefore, hearers are to repent to receive forgiveness, the Holy Spirit, and salvation.

Dodd further developed his ideas by examining the Gospels and finding that they conform to the essential kerygma pattern as well (Mark particularly clearly so), as do the gospel summaries appearing in the writings of Paul and John. Each contains an essential core of information: the prophetic announcement of Jesus, especially through the ministry of John the Baptist, the trial and crucifixion of Jesus, his burial, his resurrection from the dead, and the affirmation of these events through the testimony of eyewitnesses. Examples of kerygma are found in Acts 5:30–32; 10:34–43; 13:16–41; 17:1–4; 26:12–29; 1 Cor. 15:1–11.

Noticeably absent from all these passages, however, is any mention of the ethical teaching of the NT. Dodd was emphatic that kerygma be distinguished from teaching, by which he meant the doctrinal, ethical, and apologetic aspects of Christianity. These he understood as appropriate to the life and thought of those already established in the faith but different from the evangelistic proclamation of kerygma, the purpose of which is to call unbelievers to salvation in Christ. Put another way, kerygma is primary, while teaching is secondary; the latter is effective only when presented to those who have already repented and believed.

Since Dodd, “kerygma” has been applied to the OT as well, where it refers to the specific saving acts of God, structured similarly to the NT speech of Stephen (Acts 7:2–53). Examples include Pss. 78; 105; 106; 135; 136.

Architecture is the technology and the art of design and construction. The technology of architecture includes an understanding of mathematical and engineering principles; the art of architecture focuses attention on interest and beauty in design. The creative imagination of the architect is constantly considering how to artfully manage form and function in the design and construction process.

Architecture and the Bible

The term “architecture” does not occur in most English translations of the Bible. There is, however, evidence of and reference to the architectural activity of God’s people. In addition, Israel and the church were contextualized in significant architectural periods (Egyptian, Assyrian, Greek, and Roman), so the major empires of the biblical period often influenced the design and construction of cities, temples, and structures referenced in the biblical text. Architecture offers biblical studies a way to better understand the historical intentions of the Bible. By means of architectural investigation, the history and the heritage of past civilizations are illuminated. As a result, our reading of the biblical text is enhanced.

When we investigate the biblical text with attention to the technology and art of architecture, two perspectives emerge. First, architecture draws our attention to the background of the biblical text. In certain biblical texts we learn about the design and the construction that took place in Egypt, Assyria, and Palestine during major biblical events. For example, the patriarchal and Mosaic periods occurred during times of expansion and development in the Eighteenth to Twentieth Dynasties of Egypt (i.e., New Kingdom, sixteenth to eleventh centuries BC). For these periods, we gain knowledge about capital relocations along with temple and pyramid constructions. We learn that during the conquest, Israel took over existing Canaanite cities in keeping with the Mosaic policies. The architecture of Palestine enables us to better understand the form and function of these infrastructures.

Second, architecture draws our attention to the theological implications of the form and function of structures designed by God. In keeping with the scope of architecture, we are forced to understand that what God designed for altars, the ark, the tabernacle, and the temples of the past and the future included more than just the functional requirements of a nation’s religious system. The interpreter of the biblical text must consider how the design of these structures elicits response and communicates meaning. These structures are also windows on the social, political, and economic aspects of the Israelite nation.

Old Testament

Cities and fortifications. The biblical rec­ord makes reference to architectural structures, materials, and furnishings. Cities are referenced frequently throughout the OT canon. The city is obviously the context for architectural expression. The cities of the Bible are not described in extensive detail. We learn that Cain was a city builder who named his work after his son Enoch. The architectural feature of cities mentioned most often is the city gates (Gen. 19:1; 23:10, 18; Deut. 17:5; Josh. 2:5; 7:5; 20:4; Judg. 5:8). This was an important place for city life and activity (Gen. 23:1; Prov. 31:31). There was also sinister activity at city gates. Abner, for example, was killed in the city gate (2 Sam. 3:22–30). In addition, executions for covenant violations were carried out at the city gate (Deut. 17:5). There was more than one city gate, as we learn from the postexilic construction activity of Ezra and Nehemiah.

Within the city there was a strong tower. The people of Babel used thoroughly baked bricks instead of stone and tar for mortar in order to build the city and the tower that was designed to reach to the heavens (Gen. 11:3–4). A city tower functioned as a place of refuge for the people within the city limits (Judg. 9:49–51).

Cities were protected by a wall system (Lev. 25:29) that also provided space for housing (Josh. 2:15). The conquest of Jericho recounts the familiar defeat of that city by the very unconventional destruction of its walls (Josh. 6:20). A city square is another feature of the city architecture (Judg. 19:15–17) that served the public needs of the community.

The biblical descriptions of Jerusalem offer a measure of insight into its architecture. During the rebuilding process in the postexilic period, Nehemiah comments on both the construction and the building materials (Neh. 2:8; 13:31; cf. Ezra 6:4) and the spacious nature of the city (Neh. 7:4). From another perspective, the psalmist comments, “Jerusalem is built like a city that is closely compacted together” (Ps. 122:3).

Beyond these textual details we learn through the writings of the prophets that cities are the subject of God’s wrath for covenant violation (Jer. 6:6; Hos. 11:6; Mic. 5:11). Despite this, the nation of Israel is not left without the hope of restoration. The prophets also anticipated the return of the people along with the restoration of the city infrastructure (Amos 9:14; Mal. 1:4).

The temple and sacred structures. The other architectural features referenced by the writers of Scripture include altars, the tabernacle, the tent of meeting, and the temple. The tent and the tabernacle were also outfitted with unique furniture items described in detail and expertly crafted. The construction projects of Solomon are detailed in 1 Kings 5–7. Solomon, like David, pursued his architectural ambitions. The book of Ezekiel gives extensive architectural detail for the construction of a future temple in which God will reign and rule (Ezek. 40–48).

The temple and royal residences were made of stone with cedar roofing. The chamber buildings that surrounded the temple were three stories high. The interior walls and ceilings were lined with cedar to cover all the stone (1 Kings 6:1–10). In all the construction details for the temple, the text does not elaborate on architectural style. Perhaps the builders were influenced to some degree by the styles of the major periods.

What are the theological implications related to the form and function of the sacred structures in the biblical material? The first is that God is the ultimate designer of Israel’s architecture. God’s signature work certainly is not the tabernacle or the Solomonic temple, but rather the created realm. The beauty and the complexities of the created world continue to draw attention to God’s beauty and intelligence. As the psalmist declares, the creation, which God designed, is a constant source of praise (Ps. 19).

God’s skill and artistic beauty as a master architect are reflected also in the revelation of his plans for the sacred structures of Israel to the nation’s artisans. The skill that the artisans manifested in the construction process was also a gift from God (Exod. 35:35; 2 Chron. 2:14).

The structures designed by God for construction were primarily for him. This is understandable because the patriarchal and Mosaic periods included long desert pilgrimages and the related tent dwelling. References to homes and houses in the book of Leviticus are not about design and construction but about function. The domestic home must be free of mildew (Lev. 14:34–41) and thus clean according to the standards of the law. The construction of Davidic and Solomonic homes is given attention in Scripture (2 Sam. 5:11; 7:1; 1 Kings 7:1–12).

The tabernacle and the temple were divine residences (Exod. 30:6; 40:34; 2 Sam. 7:5; 1 Kings 8:11). For this reason, the design and function of each structure reflected the glorious worth of God and reminded the nation of its own uncleanness. Beyond the structures of temple and tabernacle, the city of Jerusalem was privileged to be the resting place of the “Name” (i.e., presence) of the Lord (2 Chron. 6:5–6) and to have David as the chosen ruler (2 Chron. 6:34).

The history of Israel reveals that the sustainability of these sacred structures was influenced by physical and spiritual factors. God occupied the structures or met with Israel at these sacred places as long as Israel conformed to the terms of the Mosaic covenant (1 Sam. 4:21; 1 Kings 9:6–9). During the monarchy, kings who departed from Torah would strip the temple to pay tribute to foreign overlords (2 Kings 24:13) or would modify the function of the structure to accommodate the worship of foreign gods (see 2 Kings 23). Although there were periodic times of rebuilding the sacred structures, sustainability was short lived. The ideology of the sacred structures anticipates a future time when their original function will be replaced with the opportunity to live in God’s presence forever.

New Testament

The NT refers only rarely to architects or architecture. Hebrews 11:10 speaks of God as the “architect [technitēs] and builder” of the heavenly Jerusalem. Paul refers to the church as the temple of God. Jesus Christ is the foundation, and Christian leaders are building upon that foundation with either gold, silver, and costly stones or wood, hay, and straw (1 Cor. 3:10–17; cf. 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16).

In terms of physical buildings, the church of the NT was a house church. During the time of Christ the significant architectural structures were the temple and synagogues. Herod the Great was the major builder of the time, whose impressive temple dominated the landscape of the Jerusalem area. Although the synagogue was a central structure during the life of Christ and the early church, function is emphasized over form in the biblical material. The synagogue was a place for prayer, Scripture study, and the administration of justice (Luke 4:16–30; Acts 13:15; 14:1).

The focus of the NT is also on the church’s function instead of its architectural form. The church, however, prospered and grew in the context of a significant Hellenistic architectural period (300 BC to AD 300). In this period the Seleucids were responsible for establishing large Greek cities across western and central Asia. The primary construction material continued to be the mud-brick, which resulted in rapidly decaying buildings. Although cities continued to be laid out in a grid format, a more dynamic, hilly format was being introduced. The homes in these cities often were built with courtyards like ones in Mesopotamia and Egypt. The temples of the Hellenistic period were designed with landscaping and terracing, along with porticoed enclosures and stairways.

The book of Revelation closes the canon with extensive detail about the new city of Jerusalem, which God will design and build (Rev. 21) and which will function to serve his sovereign purposes as creator and redeemer.

Architecture is the technology and the art of design and construction. The technology of architecture includes an understanding of mathematical and engineering principles; the art of architecture focuses attention on interest and beauty in design. The creative imagination of the architect is constantly considering how to artfully manage form and function in the design and construction process.

Architecture and the Bible

The term “architecture” does not occur in most English translations of the Bible. There is, however, evidence of and reference to the architectural activity of God’s people. In addition, Israel and the church were contextualized in significant architectural periods (Egyptian, Assyrian, Greek, and Roman), so the major empires of the biblical period often influenced the design and construction of cities, temples, and structures referenced in the biblical text. Architecture offers biblical studies a way to better understand the historical intentions of the Bible. By means of architectural investigation, the history and the heritage of past civilizations are illuminated. As a result, our reading of the biblical text is enhanced.

When we investigate the biblical text with attention to the technology and art of architecture, two perspectives emerge. First, architecture draws our attention to the background of the biblical text. In certain biblical texts we learn about the design and the construction that took place in Egypt, Assyria, and Palestine during major biblical events. For example, the patriarchal and Mosaic periods occurred during times of expansion and development in the Eighteenth to Twentieth Dynasties of Egypt (i.e., New Kingdom, sixteenth to eleventh centuries BC). For these periods, we gain knowledge about capital relocations along with temple and pyramid constructions. We learn that during the conquest, Israel took over existing Canaanite cities in keeping with the Mosaic policies. The architecture of Palestine enables us to better understand the form and function of these infrastructures.

Second, architecture draws our attention to the theological implications of the form and function of structures designed by God. In keeping with the scope of architecture, we are forced to understand that what God designed for altars, the ark, the tabernacle, and the temples of the past and the future included more than just the functional requirements of a nation’s religious system. The interpreter of the biblical text must consider how the design of these structures elicits response and communicates meaning. These structures are also windows on the social, political, and economic aspects of the Israelite nation.

Old Testament

Cities and fortifications. The biblical rec­ord makes reference to architectural structures, materials, and furnishings. Cities are referenced frequently throughout the OT canon. The city is obviously the context for architectural expression. The cities of the Bible are not described in extensive detail. We learn that Cain was a city builder who named his work after his son Enoch. The architectural feature of cities mentioned most often is the city gates (Gen. 19:1; 23:10, 18; Deut. 17:5; Josh. 2:5; 7:5; 20:4; Judg. 5:8). This was an important place for city life and activity (Gen. 23:1; Prov. 31:31). There was also sinister activity at city gates. Abner, for example, was killed in the city gate (2 Sam. 3:22–30). In addition, executions for covenant violations were carried out at the city gate (Deut. 17:5). There was more than one city gate, as we learn from the postexilic construction activity of Ezra and Nehemiah.

Within the city there was a strong tower. The people of Babel used thoroughly baked bricks instead of stone and tar for mortar in order to build the city and the tower that was designed to reach to the heavens (Gen. 11:3–4). A city tower functioned as a place of refuge for the people within the city limits (Judg. 9:49–51).

Cities were protected by a wall system (Lev. 25:29) that also provided space for housing (Josh. 2:15). The conquest of Jericho recounts the familiar defeat of that city by the very unconventional destruction of its walls (Josh. 6:20). A city square is another feature of the city architecture (Judg. 19:15–17) that served the public needs of the community.

The biblical descriptions of Jerusalem offer a measure of insight into its architecture. During the rebuilding process in the postexilic period, Nehemiah comments on both the construction and the building materials (Neh. 2:8; 13:31; cf. Ezra 6:4) and the spacious nature of the city (Neh. 7:4). From another perspective, the psalmist comments, “Jerusalem is built like a city that is closely compacted together” (Ps. 122:3).

Beyond these textual details we learn through the writings of the prophets that cities are the subject of God’s wrath for covenant violation (Jer. 6:6; Hos. 11:6; Mic. 5:11). Despite this, the nation of Israel is not left without the hope of restoration. The prophets also anticipated the return of the people along with the restoration of the city infrastructure (Amos 9:14; Mal. 1:4).

The temple and sacred structures. The other architectural features referenced by the writers of Scripture include altars, the tabernacle, the tent of meeting, and the temple. The tent and the tabernacle were also outfitted with unique furniture items described in detail and expertly crafted. The construction projects of Solomon are detailed in 1 Kings 5–7. Solomon, like David, pursued his architectural ambitions. The book of Ezekiel gives extensive architectural detail for the construction of a future temple in which God will reign and rule (Ezek. 40–48).

The temple and royal residences were made of stone with cedar roofing. The chamber buildings that surrounded the temple were three stories high. The interior walls and ceilings were lined with cedar to cover all the stone (1 Kings 6:1–10). In all the construction details for the temple, the text does not elaborate on architectural style. Perhaps the builders were influenced to some degree by the styles of the major periods.

What are the theological implications related to the form and function of the sacred structures in the biblical material? The first is that God is the ultimate designer of Israel’s architecture. God’s signature work certainly is not the tabernacle or the Solomonic temple, but rather the created realm. The beauty and the complexities of the created world continue to draw attention to God’s beauty and intelligence. As the psalmist declares, the creation, which God designed, is a constant source of praise (Ps. 19).

God’s skill and artistic beauty as a master architect are reflected also in the revelation of his plans for the sacred structures of Israel to the nation’s artisans. The skill that the artisans manifested in the construction process was also a gift from God (Exod. 35:35; 2 Chron. 2:14).

The structures designed by God for construction were primarily for him. This is understandable because the patriarchal and Mosaic periods included long desert pilgrimages and the related tent dwelling. References to homes and houses in the book of Leviticus are not about design and construction but about function. The domestic home must be free of mildew (Lev. 14:34–41) and thus clean according to the standards of the law. The construction of Davidic and Solomonic homes is given attention in Scripture (2 Sam. 5:11; 7:1; 1 Kings 7:1–12).

The tabernacle and the temple were divine residences (Exod. 30:6; 40:34; 2 Sam. 7:5; 1 Kings 8:11). For this reason, the design and function of each structure reflected the glorious worth of God and reminded the nation of its own uncleanness. Beyond the structures of temple and tabernacle, the city of Jerusalem was privileged to be the resting place of the “Name” (i.e., presence) of the Lord (2 Chron. 6:5–6) and to have David as the chosen ruler (2 Chron. 6:34).

The history of Israel reveals that the sustainability of these sacred structures was influenced by physical and spiritual factors. God occupied the structures or met with Israel at these sacred places as long as Israel conformed to the terms of the Mosaic covenant (1 Sam. 4:21; 1 Kings 9:6–9). During the monarchy, kings who departed from Torah would strip the temple to pay tribute to foreign overlords (2 Kings 24:13) or would modify the function of the structure to accommodate the worship of foreign gods (see 2 Kings 23). Although there were periodic times of rebuilding the sacred structures, sustainability was short lived. The ideology of the sacred structures anticipates a future time when their original function will be replaced with the opportunity to live in God’s presence forever.

New Testament

The NT refers only rarely to architects or architecture. Hebrews 11:10 speaks of God as the “architect [technitēs] and builder” of the heavenly Jerusalem. Paul refers to the church as the temple of God. Jesus Christ is the foundation, and Christian leaders are building upon that foundation with either gold, silver, and costly stones or wood, hay, and straw (1 Cor. 3:10–17; cf. 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16).

In terms of physical buildings, the church of the NT was a house church. During the time of Christ the significant architectural structures were the temple and synagogues. Herod the Great was the major builder of the time, whose impressive temple dominated the landscape of the Jerusalem area. Although the synagogue was a central structure during the life of Christ and the early church, function is emphasized over form in the biblical material. The synagogue was a place for prayer, Scripture study, and the administration of justice (Luke 4:16–30; Acts 13:15; 14:1).

The focus of the NT is also on the church’s function instead of its architectural form. The church, however, prospered and grew in the context of a significant Hellenistic architectural period (300 BC to AD 300). In this period the Seleucids were responsible for establishing large Greek cities across western and central Asia. The primary construction material continued to be the mud-brick, which resulted in rapidly decaying buildings. Although cities continued to be laid out in a grid format, a more dynamic, hilly format was being introduced. The homes in these cities often were built with courtyards like ones in Mesopotamia and Egypt. The temples of the Hellenistic period were designed with landscaping and terracing, along with porticoed enclosures and stairways.

The book of Revelation closes the canon with extensive detail about the new city of Jerusalem, which God will design and build (Rev. 21) and which will function to serve his sovereign purposes as creator and redeemer.

A song of worship and praise to God. The NIV only uses the word once in the OT, in Ps. 40:3, referring to a “hymn of praise” to God. The Hebrew word behind this phrase is tehillah, which is common in the OT and is elsewhere translated simply as “praise,” especially in the psalms. Psalms were part of Israel’s worship, and so such “hymns of praise” to God are more common than the English suggests.

The content of these hymns is not laid out for modern readers, but it involves things such as thanksgiving, gratitude, or generally giving God due recognition for who he is (e.g., Ps. 66:2) and what he has done (e.g., 106:2, 12).

In the NT, the word occurs only a handful of times in the NIV, and there is very little indication what these hymns were about. Here too, generally we can say that a hymn is a particular type of song of praise to God.

In Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:26, Jesus and the disciples sang a hymn at the conclusion of the Lord’s Supper. Since this meal was patterned after the Passover, it is likely that one or more of the Hallel psalms (Pss. 111–118) were sung. (“Hallel” means “praise” in Hebrew and is related to tehillah). The Greek word behind this use in the Gospels, hymneō, is the origin of the English word “hymn.” In Acts 16:25 Paul and Silas sang hymns at midnight while in prison, although we are told nothing about their content.

In 1 Cor. 14:26 Paul is instructing his readers about orderly worship. According to the NIV, one of the elements of worship includes hymns, although the Greek word here is psalmos (the word used to refer to the book of Psalms in Luke 20:42; 24:44; Acts 1:20; 13:30), which the KJV renders there as “psalm.” There is certainly significant overlap between hymns and psalms, since both involve praising God, but evidently there is some distinction too, as can be seen in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16, where Paul makes a distinction between “psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit.” Perhaps these terms do not reflect clearly marked categories in Paul’s mind. In Eph. 5:19 all three are directed to God “from [the] heart,” and in Col. 3:16 they are sung with “gratitude,” both of which reflect the use of psalms in the OT.

Biblical scholars also refer to other portions of the Bible as “hymns,” even though the word is not used. The Song of Moses (Exod. 15:1–18) and the Song of Hannah (1 Sam. 2:1–10) are sometimes called “hymns” simply as a convenient designation (although Hannah’s is more a prayer). The same goes for Mary’s song, the Magnificat (Luke 1:46–55), which clearly is modeled after Hannah’s song, and Zechariah’s song, the Benedictus (Luke 1:68–79), which reflects OT prophetic poems. Elsewhere biblical scholars detect the possibility of fragments of preexisting “hymns” that were incorporated into the NT (e.g., Phil. 2:6–11). This suggests to some that there was some hymn-writing activity in the early church.

A song of worship and praise to God. The NIV only uses the word once in the OT, in Ps. 40:3, referring to a “hymn of praise” to God. The Hebrew word behind this phrase is tehillah, which is common in the OT and is elsewhere translated simply as “praise,” especially in the psalms. Psalms were part of Israel’s worship, and so such “hymns of praise” to God are more common than the English suggests.

The content of these hymns is not laid out for modern readers, but it involves things such as thanksgiving, gratitude, or generally giving God due recognition for who he is (e.g., Ps. 66:2) and what he has done (e.g., 106:2, 12).

In the NT, the word occurs only a handful of times in the NIV, and there is very little indication what these hymns were about. Here too, generally we can say that a hymn is a particular type of song of praise to God.

In Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:26, Jesus and the disciples sang a hymn at the conclusion of the Lord’s Supper. Since this meal was patterned after the Passover, it is likely that one or more of the Hallel psalms (Pss. 111–118) were sung. (“Hallel” means “praise” in Hebrew and is related to tehillah). The Greek word behind this use in the Gospels, hymneō, is the origin of the English word “hymn.” In Acts 16:25 Paul and Silas sang hymns at midnight while in prison, although we are told nothing about their content.

In 1 Cor. 14:26 Paul is instructing his readers about orderly worship. According to the NIV, one of the elements of worship includes hymns, although the Greek word here is psalmos (the word used to refer to the book of Psalms in Luke 20:42; 24:44; Acts 1:20; 13:30), which the KJV renders there as “psalm.” There is certainly significant overlap between hymns and psalms, since both involve praising God, but evidently there is some distinction too, as can be seen in Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16, where Paul makes a distinction between “psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit.” Perhaps these terms do not reflect clearly marked categories in Paul’s mind. In Eph. 5:19 all three are directed to God “from [the] heart,” and in Col. 3:16 they are sung with “gratitude,” both of which reflect the use of psalms in the OT.

Biblical scholars also refer to other portions of the Bible as “hymns,” even though the word is not used. The Song of Moses (Exod. 15:1–18) and the Song of Hannah (1 Sam. 2:1–10) are sometimes called “hymns” simply as a convenient designation (although Hannah’s is more a prayer). The same goes for Mary’s song, the Magnificat (Luke 1:46–55), which clearly is modeled after Hannah’s song, and Zechariah’s song, the Benedictus (Luke 1:68–79), which reflects OT prophetic poems. Elsewhere biblical scholars detect the possibility of fragments of preexisting “hymns” that were incorporated into the NT (e.g., Phil. 2:6–11). This suggests to some that there was some hymn-writing activity in the early church.

A call or calling is God’s summons to live one’s life in accordance with his purposes. At creation God instructed Adam to fill the earth and subdue it, and to have dominion over it. God created Eve to be Adam’s lifelong companion and to help him fulfill this task (Gen. 1:28). Thus, in the broader (universal) sense, the notion of calling includes the ordinances that God established at creation: work (Gen. 2:15), marriage (2:18, 24), building a family (1:28), and Sabbath rest (2:2–3).

When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they became alienated from God (Gen. 3:6–19). Their fall brought the same plight of alienation from God upon all humanity. However, it did not abolish the human duty to carry out God’s original creation ordinances. Since God showers his blessings on everyone alike (common grace), all human beings possess gifts and are given opportunities to “fill” the earth and “subdue” it. Thus, everyone participates in the universal call (Acts 17:25–26). This has come to be called the “cultural mandate.”

However, God’s original intention was to have communion with human beings. This could not be realized unless he made provision for human beings to be reconciled with him. Against this backdrop, God initiated his plan to redeem people from their plight of spiritual alienation.

The general call. The promise of God to bring deliverance through a future descendant of Eve established the provision for individuals (e.g., Adam, Abel, Seth, Noah) to be “called” back into a relationship of favor with him (Gen. 3:15). The first occasion when this call is made explicit is in God’s call to Abram to leave his country and go to a land that God would show him (11:32–12:1). God promised that Abram would become the father of a nation (12:2–3). In response to God’s call and his promise, Abram believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness (15:6). Abram’s call was implicitly twofold. First, it was a general call to acknowledge this God as the true God and yield to his lordship. Second, it entailed a specific call to leave his country and journey toward a new country.

Several generations later, God appointed Moses to lead these descendants of Abraham out of Egypt, where they had lived for four hundred years. God’s act of delivering them from slavery in Egypt also symbolized redemption from sin’s bondage (Exod. 20:2). God had called the people by means of a covenant to be his own special people, to serve him as a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (19:5–6). This was a call to set their lives apart for God by living according to his commands. This general call was more than a verbal summons; it was also the means God used to bring his people into existence (Hos. 11:1).

The NT indicates there is a general call to all people to believe in Christ (Matt. 11:28; Acts 17:30) that becomes effective in the ones that God has already chosen (Matt. 22:14; Acts 13:48; Eph. 1:4–5). The latter, which theologians identify as the “effectual call,” is what Paul refers to when he says, “Those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son. . . . And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified” (Rom. 8:29–30). Thus, this is also a sovereign call.

Particular callings. God has endowed each individual Christian with a particular gift set and calls each one to use those gifts in a variety of ways in service to him (1 Pet. 4:10). These callings include one’s occupation, place of residence, status as married or single, involvement in public life, and service in the local church. In the OT, God gifted Bezalel and “filled him with the Spirit of God, with wisdom, with understanding, with knowledge and with all kinds of skills” (Exod. 35:31–32) to beautify the tabernacle. In the parable of the talents, Jesus teaches that God has made each of us stewards of whatever he has entrusted to us; we are to become skilled in the use of our gifts and to seek opportunities to use them in service to him (Matt. 25:14–30). Desire is an important factor in discerning one’s particular callings (Ps. 37:4). One’s particular calling is progressive, unfolding through the different seasons of one’s life (Eph. 2:10; 1 Cor. 7:20, 24). No particular calling is more “sacred” than another in God’s eyes.