The name “James” is a form of the name “Jacob” (Heb. Ya’aqob; Gk. Iakōbos), which was very popular in the first century. In the NT there are five individuals named “James.”

(1) James the son of Zebedee and the older brother of John. He was martyred by Herod Agrippa I in AD 40 (Mark 1:19; 3:17; Acts 12:2). Eusebius records a tradition from Clement of Alexandria that the individual who brought James before Herod was so moved by James’s testimony that he converted on the spot and was martyred along with James (Hist. eccl. 2.9).

(2) James the son of Alphaeus we know very little about other than that he is consistently listed among the disciples (Mark 3:18; Matt. 10:3; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13).

(3) James “the younger” (Mark 15:40), whose mother, named “Mary,” appears in Mark 16:1 just as the “mother of James.” In church tradition, he is sometimes identified with James the son of Alphaeus.

(4) James the father of Judas (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13) is mentioned only to distinguish this Judas from Judas Iscariot.

(5) James the brother of Jesus was an early leader of the Jerusalem church (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3; Acts 12:17; 15:13–31; 21:18; 1 Cor. 15:7; Gal. 1:19; 2:9, 12; Jude 1). A number of Jesus’ family members became prominent leaders in the early Christian movement in Palestine, James being the most prominent.

Although he was not one of the twelve disciples and likely did not accept Jesus as the Messiah until after the resurrection (cf. John 7:5; Acts 1:14), James quickly emerged as a key leader in the Jerusalem church, where he served until his death in AD 62. Because the Jerusalem church was the parent of all churches and thus granted a central authority by early Christians, James played an important role by giving leadership and direction to the movement. According to Paul’s account, Jesus singled James out following the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:7), and in Luke’s narrative James is described as the leader of the church (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18)—a depiction confirmed by Paul’s description of James as one of the three “pillars” of the church in Jerusalem (Gal. 2:9). During Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem, James’s standing was such that Paul felt it necessary to name him along with Peter as having seen him there (Gal. 1:19).

From the influential position of leadership in the Jerusalem church, James wrote two letters that shaped the contours of early Christian life. According to Luke, after the pivotal meeting and decision regarding circumcision in Acts 15, James, along with the “apostles and elders” (Acts 15:23), wrote to the Gentile believers to inform them that they would not have to follow the practice of circumcision in order to become followers of Jesus Christ. During the negotiations James provided a key exegetical argument from the OT (Amos 9:11–12 and Jer. 12:15, recorded in Acts 15:16–17) advocating the inclusion of Gentiles in the church. In the Letter of James, he wrote from this position of central authority in Jerusalem to Jewish Christians throughout the Diaspora. Here James again demonstrates his exceptional abilities as an interpreter of the OT regarding Jewish legal (Lev. 19) and wisdom (Prov. 3:34) traditions through the lens of Christ in order to call his readers to wholehearted living.

Memories of James were preserved well into the second century because he was viewed as the model of a pious person. Eusebius cites Hegesippus, a second-century Jewish believer from Jerusalem, who recounts how James was so often found kneeling in prayer for the people that his knees grew hard like a camel’s, and that “because of his unsurpassable righteousness” he was called “the Just” (Hist. eccl. 2.23.4–7). The same passage records that because of his confession of Christ before the Jews, James was thrown from the parapet of the temple, stoned, and finally killed by a blow from a fuller’s club (Hist. eccl. 2.23.16–18). In addition to these traditions there is a substantial body of apocryphal Christian writings composed in the name of James by individuals during the second and third centuries. These, mainly gnostic, texts promote an almost legendary man of piety and ascetic lifestyle (e.g., First Apocalypse of James, Second Apocalypse of James, Apocryphon of James).

The Letter of James has been hailed as possibly the earliest, most Jewish, and most practical of all NT letters. James 3:13 aptly communicates the book’s theme: “Who is wise and understanding among you? Let them show it by their good life, by deeds done in humility that comes from wisdom.” The terms “wise” and “wisdom” occur five times in the book (1:5; 3:13 [2×], 15, 17). Hence, the author instructed his readers on leading a life of faith that was characterized by a wisdom expressed through speech and actions (2:12).

Literary Features

The author’s employment of picturesque, concrete language has close affinities to OT wisdom literature and reflects Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount.

James 1:2 – Matthew 5:10-12

James 1:4 – Matthew 5:48

James 1:5; 5:15 – Matthew 7:7-12

James 1:9 – Matthew 5:3

James 1:20 – Matthew 5:22

James 1:22 – Matthew 7:21

James 2:5 – Matthew 5:3

James 2:13 – Matthew 5:7; 6:14-15

James 2:14-16 – Matthew 7:21-23

James 3:12 – Matthew 7:16

James 3:17-18 – Matthew 5:9

James 4:4 – Matthew 6:24

James 4:10 – Matthew 5:3-4

James 4:11 – Matthew 7:1-2

James 5:2 – Matthew 6:19

James 5:10 – Matthew 5:12

James 5:12 – Matthew 5:33-37

Like the OT wisdom literature, the teaching in James has a strongly practical orientation. Although the book contains some lengthier paragraphs, much of it consists of sequential admonishments and ethical maxims that in some cases are only loosely related to one another. The sentences generally are short and direct. There are fifty-four verbs in the imperative. Connection between sentences is sometimes created through repeated words. Yet the overall topic of practical faith and wisdom links these exhortations together.

Background and Occasion

After the death of Stephen, many disciples were scattered into the regions of Judea and Samaria (Acts 7:54–8:3). In Acts 11:19 the narrator notes, “Now those who had been scattered by the persecution that broke out when Stephen was killed traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, spreading the word only among Jews.” James may have written this letter to instruct and comfort those scattered believers, as he addressed his letter to “the twelve tribes dispersed abroad” (1:1 NET). These Jewish Christians no longer had direct contact with the apostles in Jerusalem and needed to be instructed and admonished in their tribulations. Apparently, the rich were taking advantage of them (2:6; 5:1–6), and their trials had led to worldliness, rash words, and strained relationships (2:1; 4:1, 11; 5:9). In view of persecution, some may have been tempted to hide their faith (5:10–11). James exhorted them to demonstrate a lifestyle that would reflect their faith.

James’s View on Works and Salvation

Some readers of this letter have observed a seeming contradiction between James’s call for good works and Paul’s insistence on salvation by grace through faith apart from works (cf. James 2:14–26 with Eph. 2:8–10). The discussion is complicated by James’s argument that a faith without works cannot “save” and by his observation that Abraham was justified by what he did, not by faith alone (James 2:14, 20–24). Paul, by contrast, maintains that Abraham was justified exclusively by faith (Rom. 4:1–3).

Referring rhetorically to people who claim to have faith but have no deeds, James asks, “Can such faith save them?” (2:14). That is, can the kind of faith that results in no works be genuine? The expected answer is no. The kind of faith that produces no works cannot be genuine faith; rather, it is “dead” (2:17, 26) and “useless” (2:20). This kind of faith is “by itself,” meaning that it produces no lasting fruit (2:17). James’s point is that genuine faith will produce good works in the believer’s life. By way of contrast, a mere profession is not necessarily an indication of genuine faith. Even demons believe in God, but they are not saved; the kind of belief that they exhibit is merely an acknowledgment of God’s existence (2:19).

According to James, Abraham was justified not in the sense of first being declared righteous, but rather in the sense that his faith was demonstrated as genuine when he offered up Isaac (2:21). Paul, on the other hand, argues that salvation is obtained not through works but rather by faith alone. He quotes Gen. 15:6 to show that Abraham trusted God and was declared righteous several years before he offered up Isaac (Rom. 4:3).

According to Paul, Abraham was justified (declared righteous) before God when he believed God’s promise (Gen. 15:6), but for James, he was justified in the sense of giving observable proof of salvation through his obedience to God. Whereas Paul refers to the point and means of positional salvation, James refers to a subsequent event that confirmed that Abraham was justified.

I. Faith

A. Paul (Romans 4:1-3):

1. Is personal trust in God

2. Justifies one before God

3. Is not proof of Salvation

B. James (2:14-26)

1. Is a mere claim if there is no resulting fruit

II. Works

A. Paul (Romans 4:1-3):

1. Precede salvation

2. Attempt to merit salvation

3. Cannot justify before God

B. James (2:14-26)

1. Follow conversion

2. Are evidence of salvation

3. Confirm one’s salvation

It is important to keep in mind that each author wrote with a different purpose. Paul wrote against Judaizers, who taught that a man had to be circumcised and keep the OT law to be saved. James was warning against a mere profession of faith that leads to self-deception (1:22). John Calvin correctly expressed the biblical teaching that faith alone saves, but that kind of faith does not remain alone; it produces good works (cf. Rom. 3:21–6:14; Eph. 2:8–10; Titus 2:11–14; 3:4–7).

Authorship

The author identifies himself as “James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (1:1). The NT mentions five persons having the name “James”: (1) James the son of Zebedee and the brother of John (Matt. 4:21); (2) James the son of Alphaeus (Matt. 10:3); (3) James “the younger” (Mark 15:40); (4) James the father of the apostle Judas (not Judas Iscariot; Luke 6:16); and (5) James the brother of Jesus (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3; Gal. 1:19).

James the brother of John was executed by Herod Agrippa I, who died in AD 44 (Acts 12:2). Since the Letter of James probably was written after this date, the brother of John could not have written it. Neither James the son of Alphaeus, James the younger, nor James the father of Judas was as prominent in the early church as the writer of this letter, who simply identified himself and assumed that his readers would know him (1:1). James the son of Alphaeus is mentioned for the last time in Acts 1:13, and nothing is known of James the father of Judas apart from the listing of his name in Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13. (It is uncertain whether James the younger should be identified with one of the other four or is a separate figure.) Thus, it is unlikely that any of them wrote the book. James the brother of Jesus is most likely the author of this letter.

James the Brother of the Lord

At the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, James, as well as his brothers Joses (Joseph), Judas, and Simon, did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3; John 7:5). However, they came to believe in him after the resurrection (Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 15:7). Paul called James, along with Peter and John, the “pillars” of the church (Gal. 2:9). James does not claim to be an apostle in this letter; however, he is identified as one in Gal. 1:19. But there the term “apostle” probably refers to a group of leading disciples outside the Twelve (cf. Acts 14:4, 14; 1 Cor. 15:7; Gal. 2:9). Since the author of this letter employed many imperatives, his readers clearly accepted his authority. James, the brother of Jesus, who also became a key leader of the church in Jerusalem, possessed such authority (Acts 12:17; 15:13, 19; 21:18; Gal. 1:18–19; 2:9).

Date

Some scholars hold that the Letter of James was written around AD 62, while others argue that James wrote this letter sometime in AD 45–50. Those who favor the earlier dates point out that the Jewish character of this letter fits with this period when the church was mainly Jewish, based on the following criteria: (1) There is no mention of Gentile Christians in the letter. (2) The author does not refer to the teachings of the Judaizers. If the letter had been written at a later date, we would expect the author to address the issue of circumcision among Christians. (3) The mention of “teachers” (3:1) and “elders” (5:14) as the leaders in the church reflects the structure of the primitive church. (4) The word “meeting” in 2:2 is the same Greek word as for “synagogue.” It describes the gathering place of the early church. This implies a time when the congregation was still primarily Jewish (Acts 1–7).

Outline

I. Introduction (1:1)

II. The Wise Christian Is Patient in Trials (1:2–18)

A. How the Christian should face trials (1:2–12)

B. The source of temptations (1:13–18)

III. The Wise Christian Is a Practical Doer of the Word (1:19–2:26)

A. Hearers and doers of the word (1:19–25)

B. True religion (1:26–27)

C. Prejudice in the church (2:1–13)

D. Faith that works (2:14–26)

IV. The Wise Christian Masters the Tongue (3:1–18)

A. The power of the tongue (3:1–12)

B. The wisdom from above (3:13–18)

V. The Wise Christian Seeks Peace in Relationships (4:1–17)

A. The cause of quarrels (4:1–3)

B. Warning against worldliness (4:4–10)

C. Warning against slander (4:11–12)

D. Warning against boasting and self-sufficiency (4:13–17)

VI. The Wise Christian Is Patient and Prays When Facing Difficulties (5:1–20)

A. Warning to the rich (5:1–6)

B. Exhortation to patience (5:7–12)

C. The power of prayer (5:13–18)

D. The benefit of correcting those in error (5:19–20)

Meat, or food, sacrificed to idols refers to animal offerings to pagan deities. The expression translates the Greek word eidōlothyton, meaning “idol sacrifice,” which was a wordplay on the pagan term hierothytos meaning “offered in a temple sacrifice.” Consumption of this meat was prohibited for Gentile converts by the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:29; 21:25) because it was linked to pagan worship, especially when combined with sexual immorality (cf. Ezek. 18:5–6, 15; 22:9; Rev. 2:14, 20). However, the ban eventually created problems for Christians (e.g., dining out), as most meat markets in the Greco-Roman world obtained their inventory from local temples (Rom. 14:21; 1 Cor. 8; 10:18–33). Paul therefore modified the teaching by upholding the prohibition in cases where eating the meat violated one’s conscience, harmed Christian witness, or caused a weaker Christian to stumble, but relaxing it in cases where partaking was a social courtesy or otherwise separated from pagan practice.

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

Old Testament

OT offerings included cereals (whether the grain was whole, ground into flour, or mixed with other elements), liquids (wine, oil, or water), and animals (or parts thereof, such as the blood and fat). Although the Bible acknowledges that other ancient Near Eastern people had their own sacrificial rites, it rejects them as unworthy of the God of Israel. The people of God therefore were instructed how to sacrifice properly while at Sinai. Even so, offerings and sacrifices are recorded as taking place before the law was given.

Prior to the law. Cain and Abel brought the earliest offerings. Contrary to a common interpretation, Cain’s offering was not rejected because it did not include blood; the Hebrew word for the brothers’ gifts, minkhah, usually denotes grain offerings. A better conclusion is that Cain only brought some of his produce (no mention of firstfruits), while Abel brought the best of the best (the fat portions from the firstborn of the flock).

Immediately after the flood, Noah built an altar and presented the first burnt offering mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 8:20). That this (and other sacrifices) was received as a “pleasing aroma” indicates that God approved of and accepted it. It is significant that immediately after the offering, God made a covenant with Noah, his descendants, and every living creature. Sacrifices are closely related to covenant relationships, as can be seen in the story of Abraham enacting a covenant ceremony in Gen. 15 and in Israel receiving many instructions about sacrifice while at Sinai (cf. Gen. 31:43–54).

Sacrificial laws in Leviticus. Sacrificial laws are found throughout the Pentateuch, the most being in Lev. 1–7. As Leviticus makes clear, Israel understood sacrifice to have a number of different purposes. It was a means to bring a gift to God, to express communion with him and others in the community, to consecrate something or someone for God’s use, and to deal with personal uncleanness or sin. These ideas are developed in the descriptions of the different sacrifices that Israel was required to bring to God. In general, the sacrifices were made of clean animals raised by the one making the offering or of grain or wine produced by the person. In some cases, the offering was connected with the person’s economic ability, a poorer person being allowed to present doves or even cereal if a lamb or goat was unaffordable for a sin offering (Lev. 5:6–13). In all cases, only the best—what was “without defect”—was to be offered.

Priest as mediator. Three parties were involved in the sacrifices: the worshiper, the priest, and God. The worshiper—the person who had sinned or become unclean in some way—brought an animal to God, laid a hand upon it, and then killed it. Whether the animal’s death represents the death that the worshiper deserves due to sin or whether the sin is transferred to the animal that bears it instead is unclear. The priest served as a mediator who offered the blood of the sacrifice to God and, in many instances, burned all or part of the offering. In response to the offering, God, who had graciously given the sacrificial system so that those who had sinned could be restored to fellowship with him, forgave the person. Uniquely in the ancient world, Israelite sacrifices were not considered magical acts that could manipulate God to act on behalf of the worshiper. Presenting an improper sacrifice while exhibiting an improper attitude or motive resulted in rejection.

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

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

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

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

This offering significantly recognized the covenant relationship existing between those who shared in it. God received the fatty portions, the officiating priest received the right thigh, the other priests the breast, and the remainder was shared among members of a family, clan, tribe, or some other group. According to Leviticus, a thanksgiving offering was to be eaten on the day it was offered, and a vow or freewill offering could be eaten within two days. Anything not eaten in the prescribed time period was to be burned.

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

The kind of animal sacrificed and the sacrificial ritual varied with the offender and the offense. If a priest or the entire congregation sinned, a bull was sacrificed and its blood was sprinkled before the veil of the tabernacle and on the incense altar in the holy place. The rest was burned, leaving nothing to be eaten. Leaders who sinned sacrificed a male goat. Its blood was sprinkled on the bronze altar, and the remainder was given to the priest. A commoner brought and slaughtered a she-goat or lamb, the priest sprinkled its blood on the horns of the altar, and the fat was burned for God and the rest given to the priests. A poor person could bring two doves or pigeons, and the very poor could bring a grain offering. This differentiation apparently indicated that the sins of some members of the community had more serious consequences than others. Those in closest contact with the tabernacle contaminated it at a deeper level, requiring a more costly sacrifice. The poor were not required to bring more than they could afford.

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

Altars. According to Leviticus, only the Aa-ron-ic priests could handle the blood or other parts of a sacrifice brought to the altar at the tabernacle. Even so, throughout Israel’s history other sacrificial altars were built. While some of these were illicitly used for syncretistic practices, others were constructed at God’s instruction (Josh. 8:30–35; Judg. 6:25–26). Some of these were used by priests making rounds so that people from different areas could sacrifice to God (1 Sam. 7:17). Others were used by individuals who were not priests yet desired to call upon the name of the Lord or sacrifice for communal meals. The solitary altars were mainly used for burnt offerings and peace offerings, although grain and drink offerings also were known. Sin and guilt offerings were offered only at the tabernacle or temple.

Times and purposes. The OT regulates a number of different occasions upon which regular sacrifices were to be made. Burnt offerings were presented every morning and evening (Exod. 29:38–41; Num. 28:1–8). Additional offerings were sacrificed on the Sabbath and the new moon (Num. 28:9–15). Special sacrifices were brought to celebrate the major festivals of the year (Num. 28:16–29:39), particularly the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). Sacrifices might also accompany requests for safety or deliverance or in response to God’s deliverance. Thus, burnt and fellowship offerings could be brought along with prayers that God would put an end to a plague (2 Sam. 24:18–25). King David brought burnt offerings and fellowship offerings when the ark of the covenant was returned after having been captured by the Philistines (2 Sam. 6:1–19).

Sacrifices could also be made to consecrate people or things for a special task. When the tabernacle was consecrated, special offerings were brought for twelve continuous days (Num. 7). Later, fellowship, burnt, and grain offerings were sacrificed when the temple was dedicated (1 Kings 8:62–64). Sin offerings were presented when a priest was ordained (Lev. 8–9). Those who completed a vow dedicating themselves as Naz-i-rites brought sacrifices to God so that they could again become a normal member of the congregation (Num. 6:9–21). Fellowship offerings often accompanied the announcement of or installation of a king (1 Sam. 11:14–15; 1 Kings 1:9, 25).

Although the sacrificial system was intended to bring the Israelites back into fellowship with God, at times their misuse of it separated them from him. When his people showed more interest in sacrificial ritual than in obeying God’s instructions, they were chastened (1 Sam. 15:13–22; Jer. 7:21–28). When the people of Israel were guilty of confusing the worship of Yahweh with Canaanite fertility cults, God sent prophets to warn them (Isa. 1:11–16; Amos 4:4–5). Prophetic statements denouncing sacrificial rites were aimed at the misuse of sacrifices rather than their existence. Jeremiah and Ezekiel were so positive about sacrificial worship that they looked forward to a time when it would be reestablished in its pure form (Jer. 17:26; Ezek. 43:18–27; 46:1–24).

New Testament

The NT indicates that the OT sacrificial system was still in place in the early first century AD. Following directions given in Leviticus, Mary brought a sacrifice to the temple in Jerusalem so that she could be purified after giving birth to Jesus (Luke 2:21–24; cf. Lev. 12:3, 8). Mary and Joseph would have sacrificed and eaten a Passover lamb during their annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Passover. It is not recorded whether Jesus always went with them, but he did join them at the Passover celebration when he was twelve years old. It is safe to assume that at this time and after he grew up, Jesus took part in the sacrifices when he visited Jerusalem to celebrate the feasts.

Jesus’ disciples attend several feasts with him. In addition, after his resurrection they frequently went to the temple to pray at the time when sacrifices were made. Encouraged by the Jerusalem church leaders, Paul went to the temple to join in and pay for the purification rites of some men who had taken a vow, perhaps to serve as Nazirites (Acts 21:23–26). He later testified before Felix that he had returned to Jerusalem in order to bring gifts to the poor and present offerings in the temple (24:17). Although Gentile believers were exempt from these practices (15:1–29), early Jewish believers clearly saw no contradiction between believing the gospel of Jesus Christ and engaging in sacrificial rituals. They likely followed Jewish piety until the destruction of the temple in AD 70, when all sacrifices at the temple ceased.

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

The end of the OT sacrificial system does not mean that those who come to God through Jesus Christ no longer bring sacrifices. Instead of animal and grain offerings, spiritual sacrifices are to be made (1 Pet. 2:5). Emulating their Savior, Christ’s followers should offer themselves as living sacrifices, devoted to God (Rom. 12:1). This implies that everything done in this life could be considered a sacrifice. Simply believing the gospel makes one an acceptable offering to God (Rom. 15:16). Labor for the sake of the gospel, or perhaps martyrdom, can be viewed as a drink offering (Phil. 2:17). The author of Hebrews identifies three types of sacrifices that believers should offer: praise, good deeds, and sharing with those in need (13:15–16). In line with the last of these points, Paul counts the gift sent by the Philippian church as a fragrant offering that pleases God (Phil. 4:18).

A Pharisee commissioned by Jesus Christ to preach the gospel to Gentiles. His Jewish name was “Saul” (Acts 9:4; 13:9), but he preferred using his Roman name, especially when he signed his letters. Actually, “Paul” was his last name. Roman citizens had three names; the last name was the family name, called the “cognomen.” We do not know Paul’s first and middle Roman name, but his last name is derived from the Latin Paulus (Sergius Paulus, the proconsul of Cyprus, had the same family name [13:7]). Most people were known and called by their last name because group identity was more important in the first-century Mediterranean world than individual recognition. For example, when speaking publicly, Paul did not use his favorite self-designations, “apostle to the Gentiles” or “slave of Christ Jesus”; instead, he identified himself as a Jew, a citizen of Tarsus, a student of Gamaliel (21:39; 22:3). His social identity was embedded in his ethnicity, his nativity, his religion. However, even those categories cannot adequately describe Paul. He was a Jew but also a Roman citizen. Tarsus was his home (11:25–26), but he claimed that he was brought up in Jerusalem. He spoke Aramaic but wrote Greek letters. He was once a Pharisee but then preached a circumcision-free gospel to Gentiles. In many respects, Paul is an enigma. Who was he? What did he believe? Why did he think he had to leave his previous life in Judaism to become the apostle to the Gentiles? Why is he one of the major contributors to the NT even though he was not a follower of the historical Jesus?

Paul’s Life

Paul as a converted Pharisee. Paul spent the first half of his life as a Pharisee. The Pharisees were a Jewish sect that emphasized obedience to the law of God as the means of maintaining holiness. Practically all Jews believed that they should obey the law, but what made the Pharisees unique was their emphasis on applying all commandments, even those intended only for Levites and priests, to all Jews. For example, priests were required to keep certain rituals of hand washing before they ate (Lev. 22:1–9; cf. Exod 30:19–21; 40:31–32). So the Pharisees extended these requirements to all Israel in order to show God how serious they were about obeying the law (Mark 7:3–4). Obedience was crucial to God’s blessing; disobedience brought God’s curse. Therefore, the Pharisees established many traditions, going beyond the letter of the law, to ensure compliance. To what extent the Jewish people followed the example of the Pharisees is debated, but certainly it appeared to the people that no one was more zealous for God and his law than the Pharisees—a zeal that would compel them to join in the stoning of obvious offenders (Lev. 24:14; Acts 7:58). As a Pharisee, Paul’s zeal for the law led him to persecute Jewish Christians, not only in Jerusalem but also outside Israel, in places such as Damascus (Acts 8:3; 9:1–3; 22:4–5; Gal. 1:13–14; Phil. 3:6). Neither Paul nor Luke explains what the Pharisees found objectionable about this Jewish movement known as “the Way.” In fact, Paul’s teacher, Gamaliel, advised the Sanhedrin to ignore members of the Way and not make trouble for them (Acts 5:34–39)—advice obviously not taken by Paul. Perhaps it was Jesus’ reputation as a lawbreaker or the fact that he had died a cursed death according to the law that convinced Paul to imprison Jesus’ disciples (Deut. 21:23). Whatever the reason, Paul saw his role as persecutor of the church as the ultimate proof of his blamelessness under the law (Phil. 3:6).

After Christ appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus, everything changed: his life, his mission, his worldview (Acts 9:3–30). Paul left Pharisaism and immediately began preaching the gospel (Gal. 1:11–17). Those whom he persecuted were now friends. His zeal for the law was replaced by his zeal for Christ. It was a radical reversal. The rumor spread quickly: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy” (Gal. 1:23). Why the sudden change? Some think that it is what Paul saw—the glorified Messiah—that changed his perspective. The resurrection of Christ turned the curse of the cross into a blessing, death into life, shame into honor. The appearance of Christ (Christophany) was a revelation, an apocalypse, an end-of-the-world event for Paul. Old things passed away; everything became new (2 Cor. 5:17). What was divided under the old age of the law—Jews and Gentiles, male and female, slave and free—was united in Christ. Other scholars emphasize it is what Paul heard during the Christophany that changed the course of his life. Paul interpreted Christ’s charge, “Go, preach to the Gentiles,” as a prophetic calling, perhaps even fulfilling Isaiah’s end-time vision of salvation of the whole world (Isa. 49:1–7; Gal. 1:15–16). Thus, Paul’s westward push to take the gospel to the coastlands (Spain) was by divine design (Rom. 15:15–24). God commissioned Saul the Pharisee of the Jews to become Paul the apostle to the Gentiles because “the culmination of the ages has come” (1 Cor. 10:11).

Paul’s ministry. By our best estimates, Paul spent about thirty years preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ (AD 34–67)—a ministry that can be divided roughly into three decades. The first decade of his ministry (AD 34–46) has been called the “silent years,” as we have few details from Acts or the Pauline Epistles about his activities. For example, we know that he preached in Damascus for a while and spent some time in Arabia (a total of three years [Gal. 1:17–18]). He made a quick trip to Jerusalem to meet Peter and James the brother of Jesus. Then he returned home to Tarsus, evidently preaching there for several years, until Barnabas brought him to Antioch in Syria to help with the ministry of this mixed congregation of Jews and Gentiles (Acts 9:26–30; 11:25–26). In the second decade of his ministry (AD 46–59), Paul spent most of his life on the road, an itinerant ministry of preaching the gospel and planting churches from Cyprus to Corinth. For most of the third decade (AD 59–67), Paul ministered the gospel from prison, spending over two years imprisoned in Caesarea, another two to three years in a Roman prison (Acts ends here), released for a brief time (two years?) before his final arrest and imprisonment in Rome, where, according to church tradition, he was executed.

During his itinerant ministry, Paul traveled Roman roads that led him to free cities (Ephesus, Thessalonica, Athens) and Roman colonies (Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, Troas, Philippi, Corinth). Founding churches in urban centers afforded Paul more opportunities for ministry and for his work of making and repairing tents. Traveling within the borders of the Roman Empire also provided a better chance of protection as a citizen. At first, Paul and Barnabas covered familiar territory: Cyprus (Barnabas’s home region) and Anatolia (Paul’s home region). Then, with successive journeys Paul and other missionary companions branched out to Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Achaia. Some of the towns that Paul visited were small and provincial (Derbe, Lystra); others were major cities of great economic and intellectual commerce (Ephesus, Corinth, Athens). In the midst of such cultural diversity, Paul found receptive ears among a variety of ethnic groups: Gauls, Phrygians and Lycaonians, Greeks, Romans, and Jews. Previously, Paul’s Gentile converts had worshiped many gods (local, ethnic, and imperial), offered sacrifices at many shrines and temples, and joined in all the religious festivals (often involving immoral and ungodly practices). After believing the gospel, Paul’s predominantly Gentile churches turned from their idolatrous ways to serve “the living and true God” (1 Thess. 1:9). Their exclusive devotion to one God quickly led to economic and political problems, for both Paul’s converts and the cities of their residence. No more offerings for patron gods, no more support for local synagogues or the imperial cult—Paul’s converts were often persecuted for their newly found faith by local religious guilds (idol makers!) and civic leaders courting Roman favor (Acts 17:6–9; 19:23–41; Phil. 1:27–30; 1 Thess. 2:14–16). Indeed, Paul often was run out of town as a troublemaker who preached a message that threatened both the Jewish and the Roman ways of life (Acts 16:19–24; Phil. 3:17–4:1). It is no wonder that Paul’s activities eventually landed him in a Roman prison. It was only a matter of time before his reputation as a “lawbreaker” caught up with him (Acts 21:21). But that did not stop Paul. Whether as a prisoner or a free man, Paul proclaimed the gospel of Jesus Christ until the day he died.

Paul’s Gospel

The sources of Paul’s gospel. Paul ministered his entire life without the benefit of literary Gospels. Most scholars think that the earliest Gospel, Mark, was written about the time that Paul was martyred. Since Paul was not a disciple of Jesus and probably never heard him speak or witnessed his earthly ministry, how did Paul know what to preach? Where did Paul get his gospel? Paul mentioned four sources. First, he received oral traditions about Jesus from other Christians (1 Cor. 15:1–7). For him, hearing what happened during the Lord’s Supper from those who followed Jesus was the same as receiving it from the Lord (1 Cor. 11:23). Second, the Hebrew Scriptures were a major source of Paul’s gospel (Acts 17:2). Illumined by the Holy Spirit, Paul saw the gospel proclaimed in the law (Rom. 10:6–8) and predicted by the prophets (15:12). Third, in addition to the Christophany on the road to Damascus, Paul experienced revelations of Christ as epiphanies of the gospel (Acts 18:9–10; 26:18). This gave Paul the authority to claim that he received his gospel preeminently from Christ (Gal. 1:1, 16; 2:2). Fourth, Paul saw life experiences as a resource for the gospel (2 Cor. 12:7–10). As Paul made sense of what happened to him, he shared these insights with his converts as proof that “Christ is speaking through me” (2 Cor. 13:3–4). Indeed, Paul’s ways of doing the gospel were to be taught in all the churches as gospel truth (1 Cor. 4:17), because as far as Paul was concerned, the gospel of Jesus Christ was the gospel according to Paul.

The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The center of Paul’s gospel was the death and resurrection of Jesus. The essence of what he preached was “Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2). Furthermore, the resurrection of Christ was indispensable to the gospel that Paul proclaimed. Without the resurrection, Paul argued, faith in Christ would be vain because believers would still be dead in their sins with no hope of life after death—the resurrection of their bodies (1 Cor. 15:13–19). Exploring the center, Paul used several metaphors drawn from everyday life to explain the significance of Christ’s work on the cross. Paul used legal terms such as “justification”/“righteousness,” “law,” and “condemnation” when he explained how sinners are justified by faith in Christ. Paul described the implications of Christ’s death in religious terms, using words such as “sacrifice,” “sin,” “propitiation”/“expiation” (NIV: “sacrifice of atonement”), and “temple,” which would make sense to both Jews and Gentiles. He also borrowed words from the world of commerce, such as “redemption,” “purchase,” and “slave,” especially when he emphasized the obedience of Christ, of Paul, of all believers. He even used military terms to describe how God turned enemies into friends through the cross: the “reconciliation” that came through the “victory” of Christ’s death when he “disarmed” the “powers.”

Paul also relied heavily on Jewish theology as he sorted out the work of God in Christ Jesus. Paul was a monotheist but attributed divine status to Jesus (Phil. 2:6). Paul believed that Israel was God’s chosen people but maintained that his Gentile converts were the elect, calling them the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). Paul affirmed the law was holy but argued that holiness came only through the indwelling Spirit (Rom. 7:12; 1 Thess. 4:7–8). Paul believed that the Messiah’s appearance would bring about the end of the world but looked forward to Christ’s parousia (“appearance”) at the end of time. In other words, the person and work of Christ formed the lens through which Paul interpreted the Bible and made sense of the world. Indeed, Paul’s gospel was built on a foundation of Jewish doctrine, Jesus tradition, and religious experience.

A way of life. For Paul, the gospel was more than a set of beliefs; it was a way of life. To believe in Christ Jesus not only entailed accepting his sacrificial death as atonement for sin but also meant following Christ by taking up his cross—a life of sacrifice. Paul believed that he experienced the cross of Christ every time he endured hardship, every time he was persecuted, every time he suffered loss (Phil. 3:7–11). And it was in the crucified life that Paul found resurrection power (3:12–21). The gospel was the divine paradigm for living. What happened to Christ is what happened to Paul, and what happened to Paul is what would happen to all his converts. “Follow my example,” he wrote, “as I follow the example of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1). In fact, Paul believed that all Christians were constantly being conformed to the image of God’s Son (Rom. 8:29). He was convinced that God would finish what he had started: the perfecting of his converts until the day of Christ’s return and the resurrection of every believer (Phil. 1:6; 3:21). The only thing that his converts needed to imitate Christ was the indwelling power of his Spirit (the Holy Spirit), the example of Paul’s life, and a letter every now and then from their apostle.

Paul’s Letters

Paul sent letters to churches and individuals to inform his converts of his situation, offer encouragement, answer questions, and address problems that developed while he was away. There are thirteen letters of Paul in the New Testament. Nine were written to churches or groups of churches (Romans; 1 and 2 Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians; Philippians; Colossions; 1 and 2 Thessalonians) and four to individuals (1 and 2 Timothy; Titus; Philemon).

Paul the apostle. In most of his letters, Paul was on the defense: defending his apostleship, defending his itinerary, defending his gospel. Evidently, Paul’s opponents questioned whether Paul deserved to be called “apostle,” since he had not followed the historical Jesus and used to persecute the church (1 Cor. 15:8–9). According to Acts, when the first Christians decided to replace Judas Iscariot as one of the twelve apostles, they established the following criterion: the candidate must have been a follower of Jesus from his baptism to his ascension (Acts 1:21–22). Two men were qualified; one was chosen by divine lot, implying that there could be only twelve. Did the early church’s decision to recognize only twelve apostles define apostleship once and for all? Paul did not think so. He recognized the significance of the Twelve, but he believed that there were other apostles as well: Bar-na-bas, James the brother of Jesus, and himself (1 Cor. 15:5–9; Gal. 2:8–9). Paul knew that there were false apostles causing trouble in the churches (2 Cor. 11:13), some even carrying “letters of recommendation” (2 Cor. 3:1). But only those who had seen the resurrected Christ and were commissioned by him to preach the gospel were legitimate apostles (1 Cor. 9:1–2). The signs of apostleship were evident when the commission was fulfilled: planting churches and dispensing the Spirit (2 Cor. 3:2; 12:12; Gal. 3:5). Of all people, Paul’s converts should have never questioned the authority of their apostle. They were the proof of his apostleship.

Although Paul never mentioned this, the fact that he sent letters is evidence of his apostleship. Paul believed that the obedience of Gentile converts was his responsibility, a confirmation of his calling (Rom. 15:18–19). So he sent letters to make sure that they were keeping the traditions that he had taught them (1 Cor. 11:2). Sometimes, all that his readers needed was a little encouragement to keep up the good work (most of 1 Thessalonians and 2 Timothy are exhortations to keep doing what they were doing) or a more detailed explanation of what they already knew (Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Timothy, Titus). Many times, Paul sent letters to correct major problems within his churches. For example, some of the Galatians were submitting to the law and being circumcised (Gal. 4:21; 5:2–7). Some of the Colossians were involved in strange practices of asceticism and angel worship (Col. 2:16–23). Some of the Thessalonians had quit working for a living (2 Thess. 3:6–15). And, worst of all, the Corinthians were plagued with all kinds of problems: factions, lawsuits, incest, prostitutes, idolatry. Some of the Corinthians were also espousing false theological ideas, such as denying the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:12). Other churches had problems sorting out Paul’s theology as well. For example, the Thessalonians were confused about life after death, end times, and the return of Christ (1 Thess. 4:13–18; 2 Thess. 2:1–12), and the Romans needed, among other things, instruction about the role of Israel in the last days (Rom. 9:1–11:32). The fact that Paul felt obliged to send his lengthiest letter, loaded with some of his most sophisticated theological arguments, to the church in Rome, which he did not start and had not visited, says much about the way Paul saw the authority of his apostleship. Because he was the apostle to the Gentiles, Paul operated as if he were the mentor of all churches with Gentile members.

Church unity. Paul believed in the unity of the church. Indeed, he used several metaphors to help his readers see why it was important that one Lord and one faith should form one church. He described the church as a temple (1 Cor. 3:16–17), a family (Eph. 2:19), and a body—his favorite metaphor (1 Cor. 12:12–27). He warned of desecrating the temple with divisive teaching and immoral behavior (1 Cor. 3:1–6:20). He rebuked his children when they refused to obey him as their father (1 Cor. 3:14–21) or mother (Gal. 4:19–20). And, more than any other analogy, Paul likened the church to a human body that could be maimed by prejudice and threatened by sickness (1 Cor. 11:17–34). To him, a dismembered body was an unholy body; a segregated church meant that Christ was divided (1 Cor. 1:10–13). The ethnic, religious, social, political, geographical, and economic differences evident in one of the most diverse collections of people in the first-century Mediterranean world made Paul’s vision of a unified church appear like an impossible dream. Yet the apostle to the Gentiles believed that the unity of the body of Christ was indispensable not only to his mission but also to the gospel of Jesus Christ (Eph. 4:1–6). So he collected a relief offering among his Gentile converts to help poor Jewish Christians in Jerusalem (Rom. 15:26–27). He taught masters to treat their slaves like siblings (Philem. 16). And he solicited Romans to fund his mission trip to Spain (Rom. 15:24). As far as Paul was concerned, the gospel brought down every wall that divides humanity because all people need salvation in Christ (Eph. 2:14–18).

Conclusion

Paul was a tentmaker, a missionary, a writer, a preacher, a teacher, a theologian, an evangelist, a mentor, a prophet, a miracle worker, a prisoner, and a martyr. His life story reads like the tale of three different men: a devout Pharisee, a tireless traveler, an ambitious writer. He knew the Scriptures better than did most people. He saw more of the world than did most merchants. He wrote some of the longest letters known at that time. To his converts, he was a faithful friend. To his opponents, he was an irrepressible troublemaker. But, according to Paul, he was nothing more or less than the man whom God had called through Jesus Christ to take the gospel to the ends of the earth.

The concepts of purity and purification are largely unfamiliar to modern Western readers of the Bible. These terms often appear in cultic contexts and are used to refer to physical, ritual, and ethical purity. They are most frequently applied to the process needed to restore someone to a state of purity so that he or she could participate in ritual activities once again (Lev. 22:4–7). These terms are cultural and theological, serving to constrain actions and behaviors through definite boundaries; thus, in their ancient use they have little to do with modern notions of hygiene (e.g., diseases that may be caught from a pig [Lev. 13]; the medical advantages of washing [Lev. 15]; quarantining a leper [Lev. 13]). Although some have attempted to relate the rules of purity to simple physical events, such modern medical rationale cannot account for the range of prohibitions or find explicit support in the text.

Old Testament

The law of Moses. According to Lev. 10:10, it was the duty of the priests to “distinguish between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean” and to teach the nation of Israel the difference between the two. God required that his people observe purification rites when they came into his presence for worship. Ritual purity was intended to teach God’s holiness and moral purity; thus purification rituals functioned to prepare individuals to approach God (Exod. 19:10; Num. 8:15). These fundamental regulations and rites are outlined in Mosaic law.

Two major sections of the Torah describe ritual purity and the laws of purification: Lev. 11–15 and Num. 19. Here the need for purification resulted from direct or indirect contact with any one of a number of natural processes, including childbirth (Lev. 12:1–8), scale disease (Lev. 13:1–14:32), genital discharges (Lev. 15:1–33), the carcasses of certain animals (Lev. 11:1–47), and human corpses (Num. 19:1–22). Although both the duration of impurity and the rite of purification for each of these conditions differ, there are three distinct characteristics of ritual impurity: (1) the sources of ritual impurity generally were natural and more or less unavoidable; (2) it was not necessarily sinful to contract these impurities; (3) these conditions conveyed temporary loss of ritual purity.

Although sexual discharge, contact with corpses and carcasses, and the contraction of diseases were sources of impurity, they were unavoidable in the normal course of life. Israelites were obligated to reproduce (Gen. 1:28; 9:7), and they, along with their priests, were obligated to bury their dead (Lev. 21:1–4). Therefore, many of these impurities were unavoidable and, though not encouraged, not necessarily sinful. Further, these conditions conveyed a temporary loss of purity. All the impurities described in Lev. 11–15 and Num. 19 were not permanent and had specific rites of purification. These rites included washings (a man who had a discharge waited seven days and then washed his clothes and bathed in order to be clean [Lev. 15:13]), offerings (after the birth of a child, a mother had to wait a certain period and then bring certain offerings to be cleansed “from her flow of blood” [12:7–8]), and other procedures (a “leprous” man who had been healed had to go through an elaborate ceremony to be declared clean [14:4–20]; a “leprous” house went through a similar process [14:48–53]). The ultimate instance of cleansing was the Day of Atonement, which required blood as the purifying agent: “[The priest] shall sprinkle some of the blood on [the altar] with his finger seven times to cleanse it and to consecrate it from the uncleanness of the Israelites” (16:19).

A final characteristic of ritual purity is that it was highly graded; that is, there were various degrees of impurities. Corpse impurity was especially serious and highly contagious. One could contract corpse impurity through direct contact, proximity (being in the same tent with a corpse [Num. 19:14]), or by merely touching the bone or the grave of a human (19:16). The individual who contracted corpse impurity was able to contaminate other objects and individuals. Major impurities also demanded greater time for purification (seven days rather than one). Unlike major impurities, minor impurities lasted only until sundown and were not contagious. Individuals might contract minor impurity from contact with unclean carcasses (whether by touching [Lev. 11:24, 27] or carrying [Lev. 11:25, 28]), someone defiled with corpse impurity (Lev. 22:4, 6; Num. 19:22), a diseased person or house (Lev. 13:45–46; 14:46–47), or discharge from either a man or a woman (Lev. 15:5–11, 19–23, 26–27). The duration of minor impurity was only a day (“until evening” [Lev. 11:24–25, 27–28, 39–40]), and one was purified either by bathing or washing one’s clothing.

The Prophets and the Writings. Outside the Mosaic law, the terms of “purity” and “purification” are much less common; however, at times they are taken up figuratively to describe sin. Loss of purity is used figuratively for transgression. For example, the technical term for “menstrual impurity” is used figuratively to illustrate the sin of Israel: “Zion stretches out her hands, but there is no one to comfort her. . . . Jerusalem has become an unclean thing among them” (Lam. 1:17); and in Ezek. 36:17, “When the people of Israel were living in their own land, they defiled it by their conduct and their actions. Their conduct was like a woman’s monthly uncleanness in my sight.”

It was not the ritual purification that ultimately mattered for the prophets, but rather the forgiveness from God that rendered people pure from sin. Thus, purification is a figure of God’s forgiveness; God says, “Your hands are full of blood! Wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight; stop doing wrong” (Isa. 1:15–16). God promises cleansing in key passages in Ezekiel: “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols” (Ezek. 36:25; cf. 36:33); “they will no longer defile themselves with their idols and vile images or with any of their offenses, for I will save them from all their sinful backsliding, and I will cleanse them” (37:23).

Although there are “those who are pure in their own eyes and yet are not cleansed of their filth” (Prov. 30:12), it is only God who can promise, “I will cleanse them from all the sin they have committed against me and will forgive all their sins of rebellion against me” (Jer. 33:8). Painfully aware of his sin with Bathsheba, David cries out, “Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin. . . . Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean. . . . Create in me a pure heart, O God” (Ps. 51:2, 7, 10).

New Testament

In the NT, the idea of ceremonial purity as an important element in Jewish life appears in John 11:55; Acts 21:23; 24:18. But just as in the prophets, the notion of purity is applied to a life lived in wholehearted devotion to God. An individual is purified when obeying the truth (1 Pet. 1:22). James describes repentance in terms of purity: “Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded” (James 4:8); and he describes helping those in distress as the kind of genuine piety that “God our Father accepts as pure and faultless” (James 1:27).

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

Old Testament

OT offerings included cereals (whether the grain was whole, ground into flour, or mixed with other elements), liquids (wine, oil, or water), and animals (or parts thereof, such as the blood and fat). Although the Bible acknowledges that other ancient Near Eastern people had their own sacrificial rites, it rejects them as unworthy of the God of Israel. The people of God therefore were instructed how to sacrifice properly while at Sinai. Even so, offerings and sacrifices are recorded as taking place before the law was given.

Prior to the law. Cain and Abel brought the earliest offerings. Contrary to a common interpretation, Cain’s offering was not rejected because it did not include blood; the Hebrew word for the brothers’ gifts, minkhah, usually denotes grain offerings. A better conclusion is that Cain only brought some of his produce (no mention of firstfruits), while Abel brought the best of the best (the fat portions from the firstborn of the flock).

Immediately after the flood, Noah built an altar and presented the first burnt offering mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 8:20). That this (and other sacrifices) was received as a “pleasing aroma” indicates that God approved of and accepted it. It is significant that immediately after the offering, God made a covenant with Noah, his descendants, and every living creature. Sacrifices are closely related to covenant relationships, as can be seen in the story of Abraham enacting a covenant ceremony in Gen. 15 and in Israel receiving many instructions about sacrifice while at Sinai (cf. Gen. 31:43–54).

Sacrificial laws in Leviticus. Sacrificial laws are found throughout the Pentateuch, the most being in Lev. 1–7. As Leviticus makes clear, Israel understood sacrifice to have a number of different purposes. It was a means to bring a gift to God, to express communion with him and others in the community, to consecrate something or someone for God’s use, and to deal with personal uncleanness or sin. These ideas are developed in the descriptions of the different sacrifices that Israel was required to bring to God. In general, the sacrifices were made of clean animals raised by the one making the offering or of grain or wine produced by the person. In some cases, the offering was connected with the person’s economic ability, a poorer person being allowed to present doves or even cereal if a lamb or goat was unaffordable for a sin offering (Lev. 5:6–13). In all cases, only the best—what was “without defect”—was to be offered.

Priest as mediator. Three parties were involved in the sacrifices: the worshiper, the priest, and God. The worshiper—the person who had sinned or become unclean in some way—brought an animal to God, laid a hand upon it, and then killed it. Whether the animal’s death represents the death that the worshiper deserves due to sin or whether the sin is transferred to the animal that bears it instead is unclear. The priest served as a mediator who offered the blood of the sacrifice to God and, in many instances, burned all or part of the offering. In response to the offering, God, who had graciously given the sacrificial system so that those who had sinned could be restored to fellowship with him, forgave the person. Uniquely in the ancient world, Israelite sacrifices were not considered magical acts that could manipulate God to act on behalf of the worshiper. Presenting an improper sacrifice while exhibiting an improper attitude or motive resulted in rejection.

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

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

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

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

This offering significantly recognized the covenant relationship existing between those who shared in it. God received the fatty portions, the officiating priest received the right thigh, the other priests the breast, and the remainder was shared among members of a family, clan, tribe, or some other group. According to Leviticus, a thanksgiving offering was to be eaten on the day it was offered, and a vow or freewill offering could be eaten within two days. Anything not eaten in the prescribed time period was to be burned.

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

The kind of animal sacrificed and the sacrificial ritual varied with the offender and the offense. If a priest or the entire congregation sinned, a bull was sacrificed and its blood was sprinkled before the veil of the tabernacle and on the incense altar in the holy place. The rest was burned, leaving nothing to be eaten. Leaders who sinned sacrificed a male goat. Its blood was sprinkled on the bronze altar, and the remainder was given to the priest. A commoner brought and slaughtered a she-goat or lamb, the priest sprinkled its blood on the horns of the altar, and the fat was burned for God and the rest given to the priests. A poor person could bring two doves or pigeons, and the very poor could bring a grain offering. This differentiation apparently indicated that the sins of some members of the community had more serious consequences than others. Those in closest contact with the tabernacle contaminated it at a deeper level, requiring a more costly sacrifice. The poor were not required to bring more than they could afford.

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

Altars. According to Leviticus, only the Aa-ron-ic priests could handle the blood or other parts of a sacrifice brought to the altar at the tabernacle. Even so, throughout Israel’s history other sacrificial altars were built. While some of these were illicitly used for syncretistic practices, others were constructed at God’s instruction (Josh. 8:30–35; Judg. 6:25–26). Some of these were used by priests making rounds so that people from different areas could sacrifice to God (1 Sam. 7:17). Others were used by individuals who were not priests yet desired to call upon the name of the Lord or sacrifice for communal meals. The solitary altars were mainly used for burnt offerings and peace offerings, although grain and drink offerings also were known. Sin and guilt offerings were offered only at the tabernacle or temple.

Times and purposes. The OT regulates a number of different occasions upon which regular sacrifices were to be made. Burnt offerings were presented every morning and evening (Exod. 29:38–41; Num. 28:1–8). Additional offerings were sacrificed on the Sabbath and the new moon (Num. 28:9–15). Special sacrifices were brought to celebrate the major festivals of the year (Num. 28:16–29:39), particularly the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). Sacrifices might also accompany requests for safety or deliverance or in response to God’s deliverance. Thus, burnt and fellowship offerings could be brought along with prayers that God would put an end to a plague (2 Sam. 24:18–25). King David brought burnt offerings and fellowship offerings when the ark of the covenant was returned after having been captured by the Philistines (2 Sam. 6:1–19).

Sacrifices could also be made to consecrate people or things for a special task. When the tabernacle was consecrated, special offerings were brought for twelve continuous days (Num. 7). Later, fellowship, burnt, and grain offerings were sacrificed when the temple was dedicated (1 Kings 8:62–64). Sin offerings were presented when a priest was ordained (Lev. 8–9). Those who completed a vow dedicating themselves as Naz-i-rites brought sacrifices to God so that they could again become a normal member of the congregation (Num. 6:9–21). Fellowship offerings often accompanied the announcement of or installation of a king (1 Sam. 11:14–15; 1 Kings 1:9, 25).

Although the sacrificial system was intended to bring the Israelites back into fellowship with God, at times their misuse of it separated them from him. When his people showed more interest in sacrificial ritual than in obeying God’s instructions, they were chastened (1 Sam. 15:13–22; Jer. 7:21–28). When the people of Israel were guilty of confusing the worship of Yahweh with Canaanite fertility cults, God sent prophets to warn them (Isa. 1:11–16; Amos 4:4–5). Prophetic statements denouncing sacrificial rites were aimed at the misuse of sacrifices rather than their existence. Jeremiah and Ezekiel were so positive about sacrificial worship that they looked forward to a time when it would be reestablished in its pure form (Jer. 17:26; Ezek. 43:18–27; 46:1–24).

New Testament

The NT indicates that the OT sacrificial system was still in place in the early first century AD. Following directions given in Leviticus, Mary brought a sacrifice to the temple in Jerusalem so that she could be purified after giving birth to Jesus (Luke 2:21–24; cf. Lev. 12:3, 8). Mary and Joseph would have sacrificed and eaten a Passover lamb during their annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Passover. It is not recorded whether Jesus always went with them, but he did join them at the Passover celebration when he was twelve years old. It is safe to assume that at this time and after he grew up, Jesus took part in the sacrifices when he visited Jerusalem to celebrate the feasts.

Jesus’ disciples attend several feasts with him. In addition, after his resurrection they frequently went to the temple to pray at the time when sacrifices were made. Encouraged by the Jerusalem church leaders, Paul went to the temple to join in and pay for the purification rites of some men who had taken a vow, perhaps to serve as Nazirites (Acts 21:23–26). He later testified before Felix that he had returned to Jerusalem in order to bring gifts to the poor and present offerings in the temple (24:17). Although Gentile believers were exempt from these practices (15:1–29), early Jewish believers clearly saw no contradiction between believing the gospel of Jesus Christ and engaging in sacrificial rituals. They likely followed Jewish piety until the destruction of the temple in AD 70, when all sacrifices at the temple ceased.

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

The end of the OT sacrificial system does not mean that those who come to God through Jesus Christ no longer bring sacrifices. Instead of animal and grain offerings, spiritual sacrifices are to be made (1 Pet. 2:5). Emulating their Savior, Christ’s followers should offer themselves as living sacrifices, devoted to God (Rom. 12:1). This implies that everything done in this life could be considered a sacrifice. Simply believing the gospel makes one an acceptable offering to God (Rom. 15:16). Labor for the sake of the gospel, or perhaps martyrdom, can be viewed as a drink offering (Phil. 2:17). The author of Hebrews identifies three types of sacrifices that believers should offer: praise, good deeds, and sharing with those in need (13:15–16). In line with the last of these points, Paul counts the gift sent by the Philippian church as a fragrant offering that pleases God (Phil. 4:18).

Binding promises made to God while awaiting God’s help (Gen. 28:20; Num. 21:2; 1 Sam. 1:11). When God’s answer comes, worshipers fulfill their vows by performing what they have promised (1 Sam. 1:21; Acts 21:23–24).

Mosaic regulations address how and by whom vows are to be implemented (e.g., Lev. 7:16; 22:17–25; 23:38; 27:2–11; Num. 30; Deut. 12:5–28), including the “Nazirite vow” of radical separation to God (Num. 6:1–21; cf. Judg. 13:2–5; Acts 18:18). Lament psalms connect vows with the outcry to God and portray their fulfillment in thank offerings that respond to God’s deliverance (Pss. 50:14–15; 56:12–13; 66:13–15; cf. Job 22:27; Jon. 2:9). Since vows are intended to distinguish God’s faithful worshipers (e.g., Ps. 116:14, 17–18), Scripture condemns rash or unfulfilled vows (Num. 30:2; Deut. 23:21–23; Prov. 20:25; Eccles. 5:5–6; cf. Judg. 11:30–39). Some vows are made insincerely (2 Sam. 15:7–8; Prov. 7:14) or to idols (Jer. 44:25).

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.

The concept of authority in Scripture includes two distinct elements. First, a person has authority in various settings if he or she has the right to tell others what to do and decide how matters should be arranged. Second, a person has authority if he or she has not only the right to rule, as in the first case, but also the power to control, so that what this person decrees actually happens. When the angel of the Lord tells Hagar, “Go back to your mistress and submit to her,” he employs the first aspect of authority (Gen. 16:9). Hagar must do what Sarah tells her to do. The same sense of authority operates in Deut. 1:15, where Moses recalls, “So I took the leading men of your tribes, wise and respected men, and appointed them to have authority over you” (cf. Exod. 18:13–27). On the other hand, when Yahweh says of his word, “It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it,” the second sense of authority also plays a role (Isa. 55:11; cf. Heb. 4:12). Likewise regarding the one who “overcomes” in the book of Revelation: the Son gives the church authority, and its people rule the nations “with an iron scepter” (2:26–27). Both ideas—forensic right and power to effect—arise in that context.

The authority of Christ is a prominent theme of the Gospels, being evidence of his deity and messianic status. In Matthew’s Gospel, for instance, the Sermon on the Mount concludes with the crowd’s wonder that Jesus teaches “as one who had authority,” unlike the teachers of the law (7:28–29). Jesus then displays his authority over diseases (8:1–10), natural forces (8:26–27), and demonic entities (8:28–32), culminating in his authority to forgive sins (9:6) and resuscitate the dead (9:18–26). Mark and Luke also include parallel passages that emphasize the authority of Christ over similar domains. John’s Gospel highlights the authority of Jesus to judge (5:27), to lay down his life and take it up again (10:18), and to grant eternal life to those who abide in him (17:2). The authority of Christ over all events, even the worst of them, is the grand theme of the book of Revelation. Jesus has the right and power to rule for the sake of his church, overcoming all powers that usurp authority in opposition to him (Rev. 4–5; 13; 20). Finally, even the Great Commission proclaims the supreme authority of Christ (Matt. 28:18; cf. Eph. 1:21; Col. 2:10). With God, we expect authority as right and as power always to coincide in the end.

On this same trajectory, the church must submit to authority, first to God and then to human rulers, in the latter case when it can be done in good conscience. Paul’s references to Jesus as “Lord” throughout the Corinthian letters highlight his authority over those whom he has “bought at a price” (1 Cor. 6:9–20). For his own part, Paul can implicitly “pull rank” on the Corinthians, citing his own God-given authority over them (2 Cor. 10:8; 13:10; cf. 1 Tim. 4:2). No one should “lord it over” others (Luke 22:25–26), but even when they do, the servant must respect the master’s authority (1 Pet. 2:17–19). Wives must submit to the servant leadership of their husbands (Eph. 5:22), children must obey their parents (Eph. 6:1–3), slaves must yield to their masters (Eph. 6:5–8), and laypersons must obey the church’s elders (Heb. 13:17).

Respect for authority also extends to secular governments, whatever the character of their leaders. Even though Saul had intended to kill David (1 Sam. 20:33), David is outraged that anyone would kill Saul (2 Sam. 1:14). The apostle Paul has many reasons to distrust secular governments and defy their authority; yet when he is subjected to official abuse, he respects Rome’s laws (Acts 16:16–40; 21–28). In Rom. 13:1–6 Paul commands the church to be subject to governing authorities, assuming that God has established them, so that “whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted” (v. 2). In 1 Tim. 2:1–3 the church is called to prayer for secular rulers. These passages do not require obedience to human authority even when it conflicts with the will of God (Acts 5:29), but they do prevent the church from hindering the gospel with outbreaks of revolutionary enthusiasm.

A rendering of Kananaios, which is a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic word for zealot, used as an epithet for the disciple Simon to differentiate him from Simon Peter (Matt. 10:4; Mark 3:18; cf. Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13 [NIV: “the Zealot”]). It is not known whether Simon belonged to the Zealots, the Jewish sect that opposed Roman rule in Palestine, or was zealously devoted to Jewish law (see Acts 21:20).

Theme

The Gospel of Luke has been traditionally known as the Gospel that portrays Jesus as the perfect man who came to bring salvation to all humanity (2:32; 3:6; 4:25–27; 9:54; 24:47). This thematic focus is captured in the frequent use of the words “gospel” or “good news” (1:19; 2:10; 3:18; 4:18, 43; 7:22; 8:1; 9:6; 16:16; 20:1) and “salvation” (1:69, 71, 77; 3:6; 19:9). By way of contrast, the word “salvation” does not appear in either the Gospel of Matthew or the Gospel of Mark. The author aptly summarizes the focus of the third Gospel in Luke 19:10: “For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”

Authorship, Recipient(s), Date

The author of this Gospel also penned the book of Acts (cf. Luke 1:1–4; Acts 1:1–3). These two books comprise almost one-third of the NT. Luke is not directly named as the author of this Gospel, but the early church attributed it as well as the book of Acts to him. The author of Acts included himself in the “we” passages of that book (Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–28:16). According to these passages, the narrator was a companion of Paul. This harmonizes with other Scriptures in which Paul identified Luke as one of his coworkers (Col. 4:14; 2 Tim. 4:11; Philem. 24). Luke accompanied Paul on part of his second missionary journey (Acts 16:10–17) and on his journey to Rome when the apostle experienced shipwreck on the island of Malta (Acts 27–28). Even after some of the other missionaries deserted Paul, Luke remained at his side to minister to his needs (2 Tim. 4:11). Apparently, Luke was a Gentile physician (Col. 4:14). This would explain why he described sicknesses with such precision.

Luke addressed his Gospel to Theophilus, who possibly was a patron or government official and undoubtedly a believer and follower of Christ. His name means “lover of God.” Although Theophilus was the immediate recipient, Luke no doubt had a larger audience in view.

The dating of the Gospel of Luke is contingent upon the date ascribed to the book of Acts, which was written after the Gospel account (cf. Luke 1:1–4; Acts 1:1). In his Gospel, Luke portrays the destruction of Jerusalem as a future event (Luke 21). This implies that the Gospel was written before AD 70. In addition, Acts was written probably before the death of Paul, since the apostle was still alive in Rome at the end of that account (Acts 28:30). It is traditionally held that Paul was executed during his second imprisonment in Rome around AD 67 (2 Tim. 4:6). Leaving time for Paul’s travels and ministry between his first and second Roman imprisonments would place the writing of Acts around AD 63. While Paul was a prisoner in Caesarea, Luke would have had a two-year period to interview witnesses and research sources in order to write his former account (Acts 24:27). This would place the authorship of the Gospel of Luke around AD 60 in either Caesarea or Rome.

Purpose

Luke is unique among the Gospel writers in declaring his purpose at the outset of his writing. He informs his readers that he has used several sources available to him when composing his Gospel. These sources were written by “eyewitnesses and servants of the word” and were already being handed down to others (1:2). Luke maintains that he investigated these sources thoroughly and gleaned from them the information that he then put into an “orderly account” (1:3). Luke’s purpose was to instruct Theophilus about the “certainty” of the events that surrounded the life and ministry of Jesus the Messiah (1:4). The chronological data provided in 1:1–4; 2:1; 3:1–2 reinforce this purpose.

Beyond his specific instructions to Theophilus, the content of this Gospel reveals that Luke had a universal audience in mind. Although his audience likely included Jews, he appears to be writing primarily for Gentiles (2:32; 3:6; 4:25–27; 9:54; 24:47). The following observations make this clear: he explains the location and names of places that would have been common knowledge to the Jews (8:26; 21:37; 23:51; 24:13); he locates John’s ministry in the reign of the Roman caesar (1:5; 2:1); he uses words that Gentiles would understand, such as “teacher” instead of “master” or “rabbi” (3:12; 6:40; 7:40; 8:49; 9:38; 10:25; 11:45; 18:18; 19:39; 21:7; 22:11); he usually quotes from the LXX, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (2:23–24; 3:4–6; 4:4, 8, 10–12, 18–19; 10:27; 18:20; 19:46; 20:17, 28, 37, 42–43; 22:37). Luke seeks to show that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus are indeed the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel, but the salvation that he has accomplished is for all people everywhere.

Luke’s Narrative

Jesus’ childhood. Scholars have praised Luke’s literary excellence, historical sensitivity, and social concern. Luke records more information about the birth and early years of Jesus than any of the other canonical Gospels. The account begins some four hundred years after the last events of the OT with the angel of the Lord announcing to Zechariah the birth of John the Baptist, the forerunner of the Messiah (1:11). Six months later the angel Gabriel announces to Mary the birth of Jesus, the heir to the throne of David who “will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever” and whose “kingdom will never end” (1:26, 31–33). Historically, Luke ties Jesus’ birth to the reign of Caesar Augustus and his ministry to the rule of Tiberius Caesar (2:1; 3:1). His interpretation of these events is that God has prepared salvation “in the sight of all nations” (2:30–31) and “all people will see God’s salvation” (3:6). In these early chapters the narrator links Christ’s humanity and his salvation purpose all the way back to Adam (3:23–38). Yet the humanity of Jesus is carefully balanced with his deity. The term “Lord” is used nineteen times in reference to God at the beginning of the Gospel, but it is also applied to Christ in 2:11. In Gabriel’s announcement to Mary, the child is called “the Son of the Most High” (1:32). He was recognized as such also by demons (4:34, 41; 8:28), by Jesus himself (10:22; 22:70), and by God the Father (3:22; 9:35).

The writer also accentuates the ministry of the Holy Spirit by revealing that key characters such as John the Baptist, Mary, Elizabeth, Zechariah, Simeon, and Jesus were filled with the power of the Spirit (1:15, 35, 41, 67; 2:25–27; 3:16, 22; 4:1, 14, 18; 24:49).

Jesus’ ministry in Galilee. In chapters 4–9, Luke chronicles Jesus’ ministry in Galilee. His early miracles and ministry serve as messianic credentials that substantiate his authority and message, demonstrating that he is the Messiah and that in him the kingdom of God has drawn near (1:33; 4:40–43; 6:20; 7:28; 8:1, 10; 9:2, 11, 27, 60, 62). Prayer is a discipline that Jesus practices from the beginning of his ministry to the end (3:21; 5:16; 6:12; 9:18, 29; 22:32, 40–42). The Messiah’s initial popularity is countered by jealousy and growing opposition, especially from the religious establishment (4:28–30, 36–37; 5:15, 20–22, 26; 6:11; 7:16, 30, 39). In these early chapters, Jesus calls his disciples and begins to prepare them for the full implication of what it will mean to follow him (5:1–11, 27; 6:12–16).

Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. In 9:51–19:27, Luke records an extended account of Jesus’ journey toward Jerusalem from Galilee. This section contains several parables and narratives not found in any of the other Gospels. Throughout this section the narratives, miracles, and parables point to a Messiah who came expressly to seek out and save the lost, especially the disadvantaged, the underprivileged, and those outside the Jewish establishment, such as the Samaritans, women, children, notorious sinners, and the poor. Luke records more about Jesus’ view of money and material things than any other book of the NT. Joy and salvation characterize the ministry of the Messiah (1:14; 8:13; 10:17, 21; 13:17; 15:5, 9, 32; 17:15–16; 19:37). But the establishment in Israel, particularly the Pharisees, rejects his claims (4:28–29; 5:21–24, 30; 6:7–11; 7:30, 39; 8:36–37; 9:7–9, 53; 10:25, 29; 11:15–16, 37–53; 13:31; 14:1; 15:1; 16:14). As this rejection and opposition increase, he begins to reveal to his followers his coming death and calls them to an ever-increasing commitment to his purpose and person (9:22–26, 57–62; 10:1–3; 14:25–35).

Jesus’ death and resurrection. Once Jesus reaches Jerusalem, the stage is set for the official presentation of the king to the nation (19:28–44). But rather than joyfully accepting the Messiah, the nation’s leaders hotly contest his claims (19:39; 20:1–2, 19, 20, 27). Jesus weeps over the city (19:41) and announces its future judgment and his future coming in glory (21:6–36). Luke brings his narrative of Jesus’ ministry to a close by recording the events that lead up to the death of the Messiah: the betrayal by Judas (2:1–6), the Last Supper (22:7–23), Jesus’ arrest (22:47–53), the denial by Peter (22:54–62), Jesus’ crucifixion, and finally his death and burial (23:26–56). However, this unjust and tragic end is trumped by Jesus’ glorious resurrection (24:1–12). Luke alone records the postresurrection conversation on the Emmaus road, where Jesus reveals himself to the two disciples and subsequently explains his victory over death (24:25–26, 45–49). The account closes with the Messiah’s ascension into heaven (24:50–53), preparing the reader for the sequel that continues in the book of Acts (Acts 1:1–5).

Outline

I. The Prologue (1:1–4)

II. The Birth and Childhood of Jesus Christ (1:5–2:52)

III. John Prepares the Way for Christ (3:1–4:13)

IV. The Ministry of the Son of Man in Galilee (4:14–9:50)

V. The Son of Man Faces Rejection on His Way to Jerusalem (9:51–19:27)

VI. The Ministry of the Son of Man in Jerusalem (19:28–21:38)

VII. The Passion of the Son of Man (22:1–23:56)

VIII. The Resurrection of the Son of Man (24:1–53)

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

Old Testament

OT offerings included cereals (whether the grain was whole, ground into flour, or mixed with other elements), liquids (wine, oil, or water), and animals (or parts thereof, such as the blood and fat). Although the Bible acknowledges that other ancient Near Eastern people had their own sacrificial rites, it rejects them as unworthy of the God of Israel. The people of God therefore were instructed how to sacrifice properly while at Sinai. Even so, offerings and sacrifices are recorded as taking place before the law was given.

Prior to the law. Cain and Abel brought the earliest offerings. Contrary to a common interpretation, Cain’s offering was not rejected because it did not include blood; the Hebrew word for the brothers’ gifts, minkhah, usually denotes grain offerings. A better conclusion is that Cain only brought some of his produce (no mention of firstfruits), while Abel brought the best of the best (the fat portions from the firstborn of the flock).

Immediately after the flood, Noah built an altar and presented the first burnt offering mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 8:20). That this (and other sacrifices) was received as a “pleasing aroma” indicates that God approved of and accepted it. It is significant that immediately after the offering, God made a covenant with Noah, his descendants, and every living creature. Sacrifices are closely related to covenant relationships, as can be seen in the story of Abraham enacting a covenant ceremony in Gen. 15 and in Israel receiving many instructions about sacrifice while at Sinai (cf. Gen. 31:43–54).

Sacrificial laws in Leviticus. Sacrificial laws are found throughout the Pentateuch, the most being in Lev. 1–7. As Leviticus makes clear, Israel understood sacrifice to have a number of different purposes. It was a means to bring a gift to God, to express communion with him and others in the community, to consecrate something or someone for God’s use, and to deal with personal uncleanness or sin. These ideas are developed in the descriptions of the different sacrifices that Israel was required to bring to God. In general, the sacrifices were made of clean animals raised by the one making the offering or of grain or wine produced by the person. In some cases, the offering was connected with the person’s economic ability, a poorer person being allowed to present doves or even cereal if a lamb or goat was unaffordable for a sin offering (Lev. 5:6–13). In all cases, only the best—what was “without defect”—was to be offered.

Priest as mediator. Three parties were involved in the sacrifices: the worshiper, the priest, and God. The worshiper—the person who had sinned or become unclean in some way—brought an animal to God, laid a hand upon it, and then killed it. Whether the animal’s death represents the death that the worshiper deserves due to sin or whether the sin is transferred to the animal that bears it instead is unclear. The priest served as a mediator who offered the blood of the sacrifice to God and, in many instances, burned all or part of the offering. In response to the offering, God, who had graciously given the sacrificial system so that those who had sinned could be restored to fellowship with him, forgave the person. Uniquely in the ancient world, Israelite sacrifices were not considered magical acts that could manipulate God to act on behalf of the worshiper. Presenting an improper sacrifice while exhibiting an improper attitude or motive resulted in rejection.

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

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

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

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

This offering significantly recognized the covenant relationship existing between those who shared in it. God received the fatty portions, the officiating priest received the right thigh, the other priests the breast, and the remainder was shared among members of a family, clan, tribe, or some other group. According to Leviticus, a thanksgiving offering was to be eaten on the day it was offered, and a vow or freewill offering could be eaten within two days. Anything not eaten in the prescribed time period was to be burned.

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

The kind of animal sacrificed and the sacrificial ritual varied with the offender and the offense. If a priest or the entire congregation sinned, a bull was sacrificed and its blood was sprinkled before the veil of the tabernacle and on the incense altar in the holy place. The rest was burned, leaving nothing to be eaten. Leaders who sinned sacrificed a male goat. Its blood was sprinkled on the bronze altar, and the remainder was given to the priest. A commoner brought and slaughtered a she-goat or lamb, the priest sprinkled its blood on the horns of the altar, and the fat was burned for God and the rest given to the priests. A poor person could bring two doves or pigeons, and the very poor could bring a grain offering. This differentiation apparently indicated that the sins of some members of the community had more serious consequences than others. Those in closest contact with the tabernacle contaminated it at a deeper level, requiring a more costly sacrifice. The poor were not required to bring more than they could afford.

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

Altars. According to Leviticus, only the Aa-ron-ic priests could handle the blood or other parts of a sacrifice brought to the altar at the tabernacle. Even so, throughout Israel’s history other sacrificial altars were built. While some of these were illicitly used for syncretistic practices, others were constructed at God’s instruction (Josh. 8:30–35; Judg. 6:25–26). Some of these were used by priests making rounds so that people from different areas could sacrifice to God (1 Sam. 7:17). Others were used by individuals who were not priests yet desired to call upon the name of the Lord or sacrifice for communal meals. The solitary altars were mainly used for burnt offerings and peace offerings, although grain and drink offerings also were known. Sin and guilt offerings were offered only at the tabernacle or temple.

Times and purposes. The OT regulates a number of different occasions upon which regular sacrifices were to be made. Burnt offerings were presented every morning and evening (Exod. 29:38–41; Num. 28:1–8). Additional offerings were sacrificed on the Sabbath and the new moon (Num. 28:9–15). Special sacrifices were brought to celebrate the major festivals of the year (Num. 28:16–29:39), particularly the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). Sacrifices might also accompany requests for safety or deliverance or in response to God’s deliverance. Thus, burnt and fellowship offerings could be brought along with prayers that God would put an end to a plague (2 Sam. 24:18–25). King David brought burnt offerings and fellowship offerings when the ark of the covenant was returned after having been captured by the Philistines (2 Sam. 6:1–19).

Sacrifices could also be made to consecrate people or things for a special task. When the tabernacle was consecrated, special offerings were brought for twelve continuous days (Num. 7). Later, fellowship, burnt, and grain offerings were sacrificed when the temple was dedicated (1 Kings 8:62–64). Sin offerings were presented when a priest was ordained (Lev. 8–9). Those who completed a vow dedicating themselves as Naz-i-rites brought sacrifices to God so that they could again become a normal member of the congregation (Num. 6:9–21). Fellowship offerings often accompanied the announcement of or installation of a king (1 Sam. 11:14–15; 1 Kings 1:9, 25).

Although the sacrificial system was intended to bring the Israelites back into fellowship with God, at times their misuse of it separated them from him. When his people showed more interest in sacrificial ritual than in obeying God’s instructions, they were chastened (1 Sam. 15:13–22; Jer. 7:21–28). When the people of Israel were guilty of confusing the worship of Yahweh with Canaanite fertility cults, God sent prophets to warn them (Isa. 1:11–16; Amos 4:4–5). Prophetic statements denouncing sacrificial rites were aimed at the misuse of sacrifices rather than their existence. Jeremiah and Ezekiel were so positive about sacrificial worship that they looked forward to a time when it would be reestablished in its pure form (Jer. 17:26; Ezek. 43:18–27; 46:1–24).

New Testament

The NT indicates that the OT sacrificial system was still in place in the early first century AD. Following directions given in Leviticus, Mary brought a sacrifice to the temple in Jerusalem so that she could be purified after giving birth to Jesus (Luke 2:21–24; cf. Lev. 12:3, 8). Mary and Joseph would have sacrificed and eaten a Passover lamb during their annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Passover. It is not recorded whether Jesus always went with them, but he did join them at the Passover celebration when he was twelve years old. It is safe to assume that at this time and after he grew up, Jesus took part in the sacrifices when he visited Jerusalem to celebrate the feasts.

Jesus’ disciples attend several feasts with him. In addition, after his resurrection they frequently went to the temple to pray at the time when sacrifices were made. Encouraged by the Jerusalem church leaders, Paul went to the temple to join in and pay for the purification rites of some men who had taken a vow, perhaps to serve as Nazirites (Acts 21:23–26). He later testified before Felix that he had returned to Jerusalem in order to bring gifts to the poor and present offerings in the temple (24:17). Although Gentile believers were exempt from these practices (15:1–29), early Jewish believers clearly saw no contradiction between believing the gospel of Jesus Christ and engaging in sacrificial rituals. They likely followed Jewish piety until the destruction of the temple in AD 70, when all sacrifices at the temple ceased.

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

The end of the OT sacrificial system does not mean that those who come to God through Jesus Christ no longer bring sacrifices. Instead of animal and grain offerings, spiritual sacrifices are to be made (1 Pet. 2:5). Emulating their Savior, Christ’s followers should offer themselves as living sacrifices, devoted to God (Rom. 12:1). This implies that everything done in this life could be considered a sacrifice. Simply believing the gospel makes one an acceptable offering to God (Rom. 15:16). Labor for the sake of the gospel, or perhaps martyrdom, can be viewed as a drink offering (Phil. 2:17). The author of Hebrews identifies three types of sacrifices that believers should offer: praise, good deeds, and sharing with those in need (13:15–16). In line with the last of these points, Paul counts the gift sent by the Philippian church as a fragrant offering that pleases God (Phil. 4:18).

Jesus’ brothers are mentioned several times in the Gospels, Acts, and the Pauline Epistles. In Mark 6:3 (see also Matt. 13:55–56) four brothers are named, and sisters are mentioned, though the name or number of sisters is not given. The people of Nazareth are offended by Jesus’ preaching in the synagogue and express surprise that Jesus, given the dramatic claims that he has made about himself in his sermon there (see Luke 4:16–30), is the son and brother of local villagers (Mary and her sons James, Joses [named “Joseph” in Matthew], Judas, and Simon). In the crucifixion scene in Mark, one of the women present is identified as “Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph [NIV mg.: “Greek Joses”]” (Mark 15:40). It is unlikely, however, that this is Jesus’ mother and brothers, since it would be strange to identify Mary as the mother of these two lesser-known siblings rather than of Jesus himself.

In Mark 3:32–35 Jesus redefines what it means to be his brother, sister, or mother in the kingdom of God in response to being notified that his earthly mother and brothers, who at this point in time did not understand his mission (see 3:21), are waiting for him outside the house in Capernaum. Although Mary and Jesus’ brothers appear to have traveled around Galilee with him (see John 2:12), John’s Gospel makes explicit the brothers’ unbelief (7:2–10), which is only implicit in Matthew and Mark. Acts 1:14 shows the dramatic reversal that has taken place in the response to Jesus by his brothers after the resurrection. Mary and Jesus’ brothers are gathered together with the entire body of Jesus’ disciples in prayer, fellowship, and teaching.

James (apparently Jesus’ oldest sibling) became a key leader in the Jerusalem church (Acts 12:17; 21:18) and pronounced the decision at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:13). He is also traditionally identified as the author of the NT letter that bears his name (James 1:1). Another NT letter may also have been penned by a brother of Jesus, since Jude identifies himself as “a brother of James” (Jude 1), a probable reference to this same James.

In 1 Cor. 9:5 Paul argues (through a rhetorical question) that Christian missionaries have the right to take “a believing wife” along with them in their work, just as the other apostles and Jesus’ brothers had done. Finally, while recounting his first trip to Jerusalem after his conversion, Paul mentions a meeting with James, “the Lord’s brother” (Gal. 1:19).

According to the Jewish historian Josephus, Jesus’ brother James died a martyr’s death at the hands of the Jewish high priest Ananus (Ant. 20.197–200).

The author of the third Gospel and the book of Acts; coworker, loyal friend, and periodic companion of Paul during his missionary journeys; and by profession a medical doctor.

Although Luke was not an eyewitness of Jesus’ earthly ministry (Luke 1:1–4), the use of the pronoun “we” indicates that he was present for some of the events critical to the missionary expansion of the early church (Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–28:16). Luke is mentioned in Paul’s letters, being identified as a “dear friend” and “doctor” (Col. 4:14) and, by inference, as a Gentile (Col. 4:11). He also provided support for Paul during his imprisonments in Rome (2 Tim. 4:11; Philem. 24).

Luke was an accomplished historian. His medical training of accurate observation and diagnosis served him well in composing both a biography of Jesus and the historical narrative of Acts. These books together contribute more than a quarter of the NT, more than any other writer.

The distinctive features of his writing reveal something of him as a person. He took a keen interest in individuals both rich and poor, men and women, respectable and outcast, the elderly and children. This interest served to demonstrate that in the gospel the fulfillment of OT promises was taking place. Hence, all kinds of people were entering into God’s kingdom through the apostolic preaching of the word of Jesus.

He was also a skillful apologist and diplomat who demonstrated that the Christian faith was no threat to Roman law and order.

The author of the third Gospel and the book of Acts; coworker, loyal friend, and periodic companion of Paul during his missionary journeys; and by profession a medical doctor.

Although Luke was not an eyewitness of Jesus’ earthly ministry (Luke 1:1–4), the use of the pronoun “we” indicates that he was present for some of the events critical to the missionary expansion of the early church (Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–28:16). Luke is mentioned in Paul’s letters, being identified as a “dear friend” and “doctor” (Col. 4:14) and, by inference, as a Gentile (Col. 4:11). He also provided support for Paul during his imprisonments in Rome (2 Tim. 4:11; Philem. 24).

Luke was an accomplished historian. His medical training of accurate observation and diagnosis served him well in composing both a biography of Jesus and the historical narrative of Acts. These books together contribute more than a quarter of the NT, more than any other writer.

The distinctive features of his writing reveal something of him as a person. He took a keen interest in individuals both rich and poor, men and women, respectable and outcast, the elderly and children. This interest served to demonstrate that in the gospel the fulfillment of OT promises was taking place. Hence, all kinds of people were entering into God’s kingdom through the apostolic preaching of the word of Jesus.

He was also a skillful apologist and diplomat who demonstrated that the Christian faith was no threat to Roman law and order.

Both men and women could take the Nazirite vow (Num. 6:1–21), consecrating themselves to God and abstaining from all grapevine products, avoiding contact with corpses, and allowing their hair to grow long. The first two stipulations mandate separation from conditions reflective of decay and corruption, clearly an affront to God’s holiness (cf. Amos 2:11–12). Long hair was the sign of the vow, symbolic of the power of God (Judg. 16:17).

Inadvertently touching a corpse interrupted the vow. Rededication necessitated shaving the head and sacrificing sin and burnt offerings, along with a guilt offering for having defiled something holy (Lev. 5:14–19). The vow could last one’s entire life, as was intended for Samson (Judg. 13:7) and Samuel (1 Sam. 1:11), or it could simply be for a period of time (Acts 18:18; 21:24). In the latter case, the vow was terminated with the presentation of sin, burnt, and fellowship offerings and shaving and burning the hair at the tabernacle.

An individual could take the vow by personal volition, or it could be imposed by others. Most of the biblical examples fall into the latter category. The angel of the Lord declared that Samson would be a Nazirite for his entire life, although Samson despised the sanctity of the vow in just about every way (Judg. 13–16). Hannah dedicated Samuel for his life (1 Sam. 1:11). John the Baptist was also apparently given over to these conditions by the word of the angel Gabriel (Luke 1:15).

A Pharisee commissioned by Jesus Christ to preach the gospel to Gentiles. His Jewish name was “Saul” (Acts 9:4; 13:9), but he preferred using his Roman name, especially when he signed his letters. Actually, “Paul” was his last name. Roman citizens had three names; the last name was the family name, called the “cognomen.” We do not know Paul’s first and middle Roman name, but his last name is derived from the Latin Paulus (Sergius Paulus, the proconsul of Cyprus, had the same family name [13:7]). Most people were known and called by their last name because group identity was more important in the first-century Mediterranean world than individual recognition. For example, when speaking publicly, Paul did not use his favorite self-designations, “apostle to the Gentiles” or “slave of Christ Jesus”; instead, he identified himself as a Jew, a citizen of Tarsus, a student of Gamaliel (21:39; 22:3). His social identity was embedded in his ethnicity, his nativity, his religion. However, even those categories cannot adequately describe Paul. He was a Jew but also a Roman citizen. Tarsus was his home (11:25–26), but he claimed that he was brought up in Jerusalem. He spoke Aramaic but wrote Greek letters. He was once a Pharisee but then preached a circumcision-free gospel to Gentiles. In many respects, Paul is an enigma. Who was he? What did he believe? Why did he think he had to leave his previous life in Judaism to become the apostle to the Gentiles? Why is he one of the major contributors to the NT even though he was not a follower of the historical Jesus?

Paul’s Life

Paul as a converted Pharisee. Paul spent the first half of his life as a Pharisee. The Pharisees were a Jewish sect that emphasized obedience to the law of God as the means of maintaining holiness. Practically all Jews believed that they should obey the law, but what made the Pharisees unique was their emphasis on applying all commandments, even those intended only for Levites and priests, to all Jews. For example, priests were required to keep certain rituals of hand washing before they ate (Lev. 22:1–9; cf. Exod 30:19–21; 40:31–32). So the Pharisees extended these requirements to all Israel in order to show God how serious they were about obeying the law (Mark 7:3–4). Obedience was crucial to God’s blessing; disobedience brought God’s curse. Therefore, the Pharisees established many traditions, going beyond the letter of the law, to ensure compliance. To what extent the Jewish people followed the example of the Pharisees is debated, but certainly it appeared to the people that no one was more zealous for God and his law than the Pharisees—a zeal that would compel them to join in the stoning of obvious offenders (Lev. 24:14; Acts 7:58). As a Pharisee, Paul’s zeal for the law led him to persecute Jewish Christians, not only in Jerusalem but also outside Israel, in places such as Damascus (Acts 8:3; 9:1–3; 22:4–5; Gal. 1:13–14; Phil. 3:6). Neither Paul nor Luke explains what the Pharisees found objectionable about this Jewish movement known as “the Way.” In fact, Paul’s teacher, Gamaliel, advised the Sanhedrin to ignore members of the Way and not make trouble for them (Acts 5:34–39)—advice obviously not taken by Paul. Perhaps it was Jesus’ reputation as a lawbreaker or the fact that he had died a cursed death according to the law that convinced Paul to imprison Jesus’ disciples (Deut. 21:23). Whatever the reason, Paul saw his role as persecutor of the church as the ultimate proof of his blamelessness under the law (Phil. 3:6).

After Christ appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus, everything changed: his life, his mission, his worldview (Acts 9:3–30). Paul left Pharisaism and immediately began preaching the gospel (Gal. 1:11–17). Those whom he persecuted were now friends. His zeal for the law was replaced by his zeal for Christ. It was a radical reversal. The rumor spread quickly: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy” (Gal. 1:23). Why the sudden change? Some think that it is what Paul saw—the glorified Messiah—that changed his perspective. The resurrection of Christ turned the curse of the cross into a blessing, death into life, shame into honor. The appearance of Christ (Christophany) was a revelation, an apocalypse, an end-of-the-world event for Paul. Old things passed away; everything became new (2 Cor. 5:17). What was divided under the old age of the law—Jews and Gentiles, male and female, slave and free—was united in Christ. Other scholars emphasize it is what Paul heard during the Christophany that changed the course of his life. Paul interpreted Christ’s charge, “Go, preach to the Gentiles,” as a prophetic calling, perhaps even fulfilling Isaiah’s end-time vision of salvation of the whole world (Isa. 49:1–7; Gal. 1:15–16). Thus, Paul’s westward push to take the gospel to the coastlands (Spain) was by divine design (Rom. 15:15–24). God commissioned Saul the Pharisee of the Jews to become Paul the apostle to the Gentiles because “the culmination of the ages has come” (1 Cor. 10:11).

Paul’s ministry. By our best estimates, Paul spent about thirty years preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ (AD 34–67)—a ministry that can be divided roughly into three decades. The first decade of his ministry (AD 34–46) has been called the “silent years,” as we have few details from Acts or the Pauline Epistles about his activities. For example, we know that he preached in Damascus for a while and spent some time in Arabia (a total of three years [Gal. 1:17–18]). He made a quick trip to Jerusalem to meet Peter and James the brother of Jesus. Then he returned home to Tarsus, evidently preaching there for several years, until Barnabas brought him to Antioch in Syria to help with the ministry of this mixed congregation of Jews and Gentiles (Acts 9:26–30; 11:25–26). In the second decade of his ministry (AD 46–59), Paul spent most of his life on the road, an itinerant ministry of preaching the gospel and planting churches from Cyprus to Corinth. For most of the third decade (AD 59–67), Paul ministered the gospel from prison, spending over two years imprisoned in Caesarea, another two to three years in a Roman prison (Acts ends here), released for a brief time (two years?) before his final arrest and imprisonment in Rome, where, according to church tradition, he was executed.

During his itinerant ministry, Paul traveled Roman roads that led him to free cities (Ephesus, Thessalonica, Athens) and Roman colonies (Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, Troas, Philippi, Corinth). Founding churches in urban centers afforded Paul more opportunities for ministry and for his work of making and repairing tents. Traveling within the borders of the Roman Empire also provided a better chance of protection as a citizen. At first, Paul and Barnabas covered familiar territory: Cyprus (Barnabas’s home region) and Anatolia (Paul’s home region). Then, with successive journeys Paul and other missionary companions branched out to Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Achaia. Some of the towns that Paul visited were small and provincial (Derbe, Lystra); others were major cities of great economic and intellectual commerce (Ephesus, Corinth, Athens). In the midst of such cultural diversity, Paul found receptive ears among a variety of ethnic groups: Gauls, Phrygians and Lycaonians, Greeks, Romans, and Jews. Previously, Paul’s Gentile converts had worshiped many gods (local, ethnic, and imperial), offered sacrifices at many shrines and temples, and joined in all the religious festivals (often involving immoral and ungodly practices). After believing the gospel, Paul’s predominantly Gentile churches turned from their idolatrous ways to serve “the living and true God” (1 Thess. 1:9). Their exclusive devotion to one God quickly led to economic and political problems, for both Paul’s converts and the cities of their residence. No more offerings for patron gods, no more support for local synagogues or the imperial cult—Paul’s converts were often persecuted for their newly found faith by local religious guilds (idol makers!) and civic leaders courting Roman favor (Acts 17:6–9; 19:23–41; Phil. 1:27–30; 1 Thess. 2:14–16). Indeed, Paul often was run out of town as a troublemaker who preached a message that threatened both the Jewish and the Roman ways of life (Acts 16:19–24; Phil. 3:17–4:1). It is no wonder that Paul’s activities eventually landed him in a Roman prison. It was only a matter of time before his reputation as a “lawbreaker” caught up with him (Acts 21:21). But that did not stop Paul. Whether as a prisoner or a free man, Paul proclaimed the gospel of Jesus Christ until the day he died.

Paul’s Gospel

The sources of Paul’s gospel. Paul ministered his entire life without the benefit of literary Gospels. Most scholars think that the earliest Gospel, Mark, was written about the time that Paul was martyred. Since Paul was not a disciple of Jesus and probably never heard him speak or witnessed his earthly ministry, how did Paul know what to preach? Where did Paul get his gospel? Paul mentioned four sources. First, he received oral traditions about Jesus from other Christians (1 Cor. 15:1–7). For him, hearing what happened during the Lord’s Supper from those who followed Jesus was the same as receiving it from the Lord (1 Cor. 11:23). Second, the Hebrew Scriptures were a major source of Paul’s gospel (Acts 17:2). Illumined by the Holy Spirit, Paul saw the gospel proclaimed in the law (Rom. 10:6–8) and predicted by the prophets (15:12). Third, in addition to the Christophany on the road to Damascus, Paul experienced revelations of Christ as epiphanies of the gospel (Acts 18:9–10; 26:18). This gave Paul the authority to claim that he received his gospel preeminently from Christ (Gal. 1:1, 16; 2:2). Fourth, Paul saw life experiences as a resource for the gospel (2 Cor. 12:7–10). As Paul made sense of what happened to him, he shared these insights with his converts as proof that “Christ is speaking through me” (2 Cor. 13:3–4). Indeed, Paul’s ways of doing the gospel were to be taught in all the churches as gospel truth (1 Cor. 4:17), because as far as Paul was concerned, the gospel of Jesus Christ was the gospel according to Paul.

The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The center of Paul’s gospel was the death and resurrection of Jesus. The essence of what he preached was “Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2). Furthermore, the resurrection of Christ was indispensable to the gospel that Paul proclaimed. Without the resurrection, Paul argued, faith in Christ would be vain because believers would still be dead in their sins with no hope of life after death—the resurrection of their bodies (1 Cor. 15:13–19). Exploring the center, Paul used several metaphors drawn from everyday life to explain the significance of Christ’s work on the cross. Paul used legal terms such as “justification”/“righteousness,” “law,” and “condemnation” when he explained how sinners are justified by faith in Christ. Paul described the implications of Christ’s death in religious terms, using words such as “sacrifice,” “sin,” “propitiation”/“expiation” (NIV: “sacrifice of atonement”), and “temple,” which would make sense to both Jews and Gentiles. He also borrowed words from the world of commerce, such as “redemption,” “purchase,” and “slave,” especially when he emphasized the obedience of Christ, of Paul, of all believers. He even used military terms to describe how God turned enemies into friends through the cross: the “reconciliation” that came through the “victory” of Christ’s death when he “disarmed” the “powers.”

Paul also relied heavily on Jewish theology as he sorted out the work of God in Christ Jesus. Paul was a monotheist but attributed divine status to Jesus (Phil. 2:6). Paul believed that Israel was God’s chosen people but maintained that his Gentile converts were the elect, calling them the “Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). Paul affirmed the law was holy but argued that holiness came only through the indwelling Spirit (Rom. 7:12; 1 Thess. 4:7–8). Paul believed that the Messiah’s appearance would bring about the end of the world but looked forward to Christ’s parousia (“appearance”) at the end of time. In other words, the person and work of Christ formed the lens through which Paul interpreted the Bible and made sense of the world. Indeed, Paul’s gospel was built on a foundation of Jewish doctrine, Jesus tradition, and religious experience.

A way of life. For Paul, the gospel was more than a set of beliefs; it was a way of life. To believe in Christ Jesus not only entailed accepting his sacrificial death as atonement for sin but also meant following Christ by taking up his cross—a life of sacrifice. Paul believed that he experienced the cross of Christ every time he endured hardship, every time he was persecuted, every time he suffered loss (Phil. 3:7–11). And it was in the crucified life that Paul found resurrection power (3:12–21). The gospel was the divine paradigm for living. What happened to Christ is what happened to Paul, and what happened to Paul is what would happen to all his converts. “Follow my example,” he wrote, “as I follow the example of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1). In fact, Paul believed that all Christians were constantly being conformed to the image of God’s Son (Rom. 8:29). He was convinced that God would finish what he had started: the perfecting of his converts until the day of Christ’s return and the resurrection of every believer (Phil. 1:6; 3:21). The only thing that his converts needed to imitate Christ was the indwelling power of his Spirit (the Holy Spirit), the example of Paul’s life, and a letter every now and then from their apostle.

Paul’s Letters

Paul sent letters to churches and individuals to inform his converts of his situation, offer encouragement, answer questions, and address problems that developed while he was away. There are thirteen letters of Paul in the New Testament. Nine were written to churches or groups of churches (Romans; 1 and 2 Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians; Philippians; Colossions; 1 and 2 Thessalonians) and four to individuals (1 and 2 Timothy; Titus; Philemon).

Paul the apostle. In most of his letters, Paul was on the defense: defending his apostleship, defending his itinerary, defending his gospel. Evidently, Paul’s opponents questioned whether Paul deserved to be called “apostle,” since he had not followed the historical Jesus and used to persecute the church (1 Cor. 15:8–9). According to Acts, when the first Christians decided to replace Judas Iscariot as one of the twelve apostles, they established the following criterion: the candidate must have been a follower of Jesus from his baptism to his ascension (Acts 1:21–22). Two men were qualified; one was chosen by divine lot, implying that there could be only twelve. Did the early church’s decision to recognize only twelve apostles define apostleship once and for all? Paul did not think so. He recognized the significance of the Twelve, but he believed that there were other apostles as well: Bar-na-bas, James the brother of Jesus, and himself (1 Cor. 15:5–9; Gal. 2:8–9). Paul knew that there were false apostles causing trouble in the churches (2 Cor. 11:13), some even carrying “letters of recommendation” (2 Cor. 3:1). But only those who had seen the resurrected Christ and were commissioned by him to preach the gospel were legitimate apostles (1 Cor. 9:1–2). The signs of apostleship were evident when the commission was fulfilled: planting churches and dispensing the Spirit (2 Cor. 3:2; 12:12; Gal. 3:5). Of all people, Paul’s converts should have never questioned the authority of their apostle. They were the proof of his apostleship.

Although Paul never mentioned this, the fact that he sent letters is evidence of his apostleship. Paul believed that the obedience of Gentile converts was his responsibility, a confirmation of his calling (Rom. 15:18–19). So he sent letters to make sure that they were keeping the traditions that he had taught them (1 Cor. 11:2). Sometimes, all that his readers needed was a little encouragement to keep up the good work (most of 1 Thessalonians and 2 Timothy are exhortations to keep doing what they were doing) or a more detailed explanation of what they already knew (Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Timothy, Titus). Many times, Paul sent letters to correct major problems within his churches. For example, some of the Galatians were submitting to the law and being circumcised (Gal. 4:21; 5:2–7). Some of the Colossians were involved in strange practices of asceticism and angel worship (Col. 2:16–23). Some of the Thessalonians had quit working for a living (2 Thess. 3:6–15). And, worst of all, the Corinthians were plagued with all kinds of problems: factions, lawsuits, incest, prostitutes, idolatry. Some of the Corinthians were also espousing false theological ideas, such as denying the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:12). Other churches had problems sorting out Paul’s theology as well. For example, the Thessalonians were confused about life after death, end times, and the return of Christ (1 Thess. 4:13–18; 2 Thess. 2:1–12), and the Romans needed, among other things, instruction about the role of Israel in the last days (Rom. 9:1–11:32). The fact that Paul felt obliged to send his lengthiest letter, loaded with some of his most sophisticated theological arguments, to the church in Rome, which he did not start and had not visited, says much about the way Paul saw the authority of his apostleship. Because he was the apostle to the Gentiles, Paul operated as if he were the mentor of all churches with Gentile members.

Church unity. Paul believed in the unity of the church. Indeed, he used several metaphors to help his readers see why it was important that one Lord and one faith should form one church. He described the church as a temple (1 Cor. 3:16–17), a family (Eph. 2:19), and a body—his favorite metaphor (1 Cor. 12:12–27). He warned of desecrating the temple with divisive teaching and immoral behavior (1 Cor. 3:1–6:20). He rebuked his children when they refused to obey him as their father (1 Cor. 3:14–21) or mother (Gal. 4:19–20). And, more than any other analogy, Paul likened the church to a human body that could be maimed by prejudice and threatened by sickness (1 Cor. 11:17–34). To him, a dismembered body was an unholy body; a segregated church meant that Christ was divided (1 Cor. 1:10–13). The ethnic, religious, social, political, geographical, and economic differences evident in one of the most diverse collections of people in the first-century Mediterranean world made Paul’s vision of a unified church appear like an impossible dream. Yet the apostle to the Gentiles believed that the unity of the body of Christ was indispensable not only to his mission but also to the gospel of Jesus Christ (Eph. 4:1–6). So he collected a relief offering among his Gentile converts to help poor Jewish Christians in Jerusalem (Rom. 15:26–27). He taught masters to treat their slaves like siblings (Philem. 16). And he solicited Romans to fund his mission trip to Spain (Rom. 15:24). As far as Paul was concerned, the gospel brought down every wall that divides humanity because all people need salvation in Christ (Eph. 2:14–18).

Conclusion

Paul was a tentmaker, a missionary, a writer, a preacher, a teacher, a theologian, an evangelist, a mentor, a prophet, a miracle worker, a prisoner, and a martyr. His life story reads like the tale of three different men: a devout Pharisee, a tireless traveler, an ambitious writer. He knew the Scriptures better than did most people. He saw more of the world than did most merchants. He wrote some of the longest letters known at that time. To his converts, he was a faithful friend. To his opponents, he was an irrepressible troublemaker. But, according to Paul, he was nothing more or less than the man whom God had called through Jesus Christ to take the gospel to the ends of the earth.

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

Old Testament

OT offerings included cereals (whether the grain was whole, ground into flour, or mixed with other elements), liquids (wine, oil, or water), and animals (or parts thereof, such as the blood and fat). Although the Bible acknowledges that other ancient Near Eastern people had their own sacrificial rites, it rejects them as unworthy of the God of Israel. The people of God therefore were instructed how to sacrifice properly while at Sinai. Even so, offerings and sacrifices are recorded as taking place before the law was given.

Prior to the law. Cain and Abel brought the earliest offerings. Contrary to a common interpretation, Cain’s offering was not rejected because it did not include blood; the Hebrew word for the brothers’ gifts, minkhah, usually denotes grain offerings. A better conclusion is that Cain only brought some of his produce (no mention of firstfruits), while Abel brought the best of the best (the fat portions from the firstborn of the flock).

Immediately after the flood, Noah built an altar and presented the first burnt offering mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 8:20). That this (and other sacrifices) was received as a “pleasing aroma” indicates that God approved of and accepted it. It is significant that immediately after the offering, God made a covenant with Noah, his descendants, and every living creature. Sacrifices are closely related to covenant relationships, as can be seen in the story of Abraham enacting a covenant ceremony in Gen. 15 and in Israel receiving many instructions about sacrifice while at Sinai (cf. Gen. 31:43–54).

Sacrificial laws in Leviticus. Sacrificial laws are found throughout the Pentateuch, the most being in Lev. 1–7. As Leviticus makes clear, Israel understood sacrifice to have a number of different purposes. It was a means to bring a gift to God, to express communion with him and others in the community, to consecrate something or someone for God’s use, and to deal with personal uncleanness or sin. These ideas are developed in the descriptions of the different sacrifices that Israel was required to bring to God. In general, the sacrifices were made of clean animals raised by the one making the offering or of grain or wine produced by the person. In some cases, the offering was connected with the person’s economic ability, a poorer person being allowed to present doves or even cereal if a lamb or goat was unaffordable for a sin offering (Lev. 5:6–13). In all cases, only the best—what was “without defect”—was to be offered.

Priest as mediator. Three parties were involved in the sacrifices: the worshiper, the priest, and God. The worshiper—the person who had sinned or become unclean in some way—brought an animal to God, laid a hand upon it, and then killed it. Whether the animal’s death represents the death that the worshiper deserves due to sin or whether the sin is transferred to the animal that bears it instead is unclear. The priest served as a mediator who offered the blood of the sacrifice to God and, in many instances, burned all or part of the offering. In response to the offering, God, who had graciously given the sacrificial system so that those who had sinned could be restored to fellowship with him, forgave the person. Uniquely in the ancient world, Israelite sacrifices were not considered magical acts that could manipulate God to act on behalf of the worshiper. Presenting an improper sacrifice while exhibiting an improper attitude or motive resulted in rejection.

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

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

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

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

This offering significantly recognized the covenant relationship existing between those who shared in it. God received the fatty portions, the officiating priest received the right thigh, the other priests the breast, and the remainder was shared among members of a family, clan, tribe, or some other group. According to Leviticus, a thanksgiving offering was to be eaten on the day it was offered, and a vow or freewill offering could be eaten within two days. Anything not eaten in the prescribed time period was to be burned.

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

The kind of animal sacrificed and the sacrificial ritual varied with the offender and the offense. If a priest or the entire congregation sinned, a bull was sacrificed and its blood was sprinkled before the veil of the tabernacle and on the incense altar in the holy place. The rest was burned, leaving nothing to be eaten. Leaders who sinned sacrificed a male goat. Its blood was sprinkled on the bronze altar, and the remainder was given to the priest. A commoner brought and slaughtered a she-goat or lamb, the priest sprinkled its blood on the horns of the altar, and the fat was burned for God and the rest given to the priests. A poor person could bring two doves or pigeons, and the very poor could bring a grain offering. This differentiation apparently indicated that the sins of some members of the community had more serious consequences than others. Those in closest contact with the tabernacle contaminated it at a deeper level, requiring a more costly sacrifice. The poor were not required to bring more than they could afford.

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

Altars. According to Leviticus, only the Aa-ron-ic priests could handle the blood or other parts of a sacrifice brought to the altar at the tabernacle. Even so, throughout Israel’s history other sacrificial altars were built. While some of these were illicitly used for syncretistic practices, others were constructed at God’s instruction (Josh. 8:30–35; Judg. 6:25–26). Some of these were used by priests making rounds so that people from different areas could sacrifice to God (1 Sam. 7:17). Others were used by individuals who were not priests yet desired to call upon the name of the Lord or sacrifice for communal meals. The solitary altars were mainly used for burnt offerings and peace offerings, although grain and drink offerings also were known. Sin and guilt offerings were offered only at the tabernacle or temple.

Times and purposes. The OT regulates a number of different occasions upon which regular sacrifices were to be made. Burnt offerings were presented every morning and evening (Exod. 29:38–41; Num. 28:1–8). Additional offerings were sacrificed on the Sabbath and the new moon (Num. 28:9–15). Special sacrifices were brought to celebrate the major festivals of the year (Num. 28:16–29:39), particularly the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). Sacrifices might also accompany requests for safety or deliverance or in response to God’s deliverance. Thus, burnt and fellowship offerings could be brought along with prayers that God would put an end to a plague (2 Sam. 24:18–25). King David brought burnt offerings and fellowship offerings when the ark of the covenant was returned after having been captured by the Philistines (2 Sam. 6:1–19).

Sacrifices could also be made to consecrate people or things for a special task. When the tabernacle was consecrated, special offerings were brought for twelve continuous days (Num. 7). Later, fellowship, burnt, and grain offerings were sacrificed when the temple was dedicated (1 Kings 8:62–64). Sin offerings were presented when a priest was ordained (Lev. 8–9). Those who completed a vow dedicating themselves as Naz-i-rites brought sacrifices to God so that they could again become a normal member of the congregation (Num. 6:9–21). Fellowship offerings often accompanied the announcement of or installation of a king (1 Sam. 11:14–15; 1 Kings 1:9, 25).

Although the sacrificial system was intended to bring the Israelites back into fellowship with God, at times their misuse of it separated them from him. When his people showed more interest in sacrificial ritual than in obeying God’s instructions, they were chastened (1 Sam. 15:13–22; Jer. 7:21–28). When the people of Israel were guilty of confusing the worship of Yahweh with Canaanite fertility cults, God sent prophets to warn them (Isa. 1:11–16; Amos 4:4–5). Prophetic statements denouncing sacrificial rites were aimed at the misuse of sacrifices rather than their existence. Jeremiah and Ezekiel were so positive about sacrificial worship that they looked forward to a time when it would be reestablished in its pure form (Jer. 17:26; Ezek. 43:18–27; 46:1–24).

New Testament

The NT indicates that the OT sacrificial system was still in place in the early first century AD. Following directions given in Leviticus, Mary brought a sacrifice to the temple in Jerusalem so that she could be purified after giving birth to Jesus (Luke 2:21–24; cf. Lev. 12:3, 8). Mary and Joseph would have sacrificed and eaten a Passover lamb during their annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Passover. It is not recorded whether Jesus always went with them, but he did join them at the Passover celebration when he was twelve years old. It is safe to assume that at this time and after he grew up, Jesus took part in the sacrifices when he visited Jerusalem to celebrate the feasts.

Jesus’ disciples attend several feasts with him. In addition, after his resurrection they frequently went to the temple to pray at the time when sacrifices were made. Encouraged by the Jerusalem church leaders, Paul went to the temple to join in and pay for the purification rites of some men who had taken a vow, perhaps to serve as Nazirites (Acts 21:23–26). He later testified before Felix that he had returned to Jerusalem in order to bring gifts to the poor and present offerings in the temple (24:17). Although Gentile believers were exempt from these practices (15:1–29), early Jewish believers clearly saw no contradiction between believing the gospel of Jesus Christ and engaging in sacrificial rituals. They likely followed Jewish piety until the destruction of the temple in AD 70, when all sacrifices at the temple ceased.

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

The end of the OT sacrificial system does not mean that those who come to God through Jesus Christ no longer bring sacrifices. Instead of animal and grain offerings, spiritual sacrifices are to be made (1 Pet. 2:5). Emulating their Savior, Christ’s followers should offer themselves as living sacrifices, devoted to God (Rom. 12:1). This implies that everything done in this life could be considered a sacrifice. Simply believing the gospel makes one an acceptable offering to God (Rom. 15:16). Labor for the sake of the gospel, or perhaps martyrdom, can be viewed as a drink offering (Phil. 2:17). The author of Hebrews identifies three types of sacrifices that believers should offer: praise, good deeds, and sharing with those in need (13:15–16). In line with the last of these points, Paul counts the gift sent by the Philippian church as a fragrant offering that pleases God (Phil. 4:18).

The concepts of purity and purification are largely unfamiliar to modern Western readers of the Bible. These terms often appear in cultic contexts and are used to refer to physical, ritual, and ethical purity. They are most frequently applied to the process needed to restore someone to a state of purity so that he or she could participate in ritual activities once again (Lev. 22:4–7). These terms are cultural and theological, serving to constrain actions and behaviors through definite boundaries; thus, in their ancient use they have little to do with modern notions of hygiene (e.g., diseases that may be caught from a pig [Lev. 13]; the medical advantages of washing [Lev. 15]; quarantining a leper [Lev. 13]). Although some have attempted to relate the rules of purity to simple physical events, such modern medical rationale cannot account for the range of prohibitions or find explicit support in the text.

Old Testament

The law of Moses. According to Lev. 10:10, it was the duty of the priests to “distinguish between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean” and to teach the nation of Israel the difference between the two. God required that his people observe purification rites when they came into his presence for worship. Ritual purity was intended to teach God’s holiness and moral purity; thus purification rituals functioned to prepare individuals to approach God (Exod. 19:10; Num. 8:15). These fundamental regulations and rites are outlined in Mosaic law.

Two major sections of the Torah describe ritual purity and the laws of purification: Lev. 11–15 and Num. 19. Here the need for purification resulted from direct or indirect contact with any one of a number of natural processes, including childbirth (Lev. 12:1–8), scale disease (Lev. 13:1–14:32), genital discharges (Lev. 15:1–33), the carcasses of certain animals (Lev. 11:1–47), and human corpses (Num. 19:1–22). Although both the duration of impurity and the rite of purification for each of these conditions differ, there are three distinct characteristics of ritual impurity: (1) the sources of ritual impurity generally were natural and more or less unavoidable; (2) it was not necessarily sinful to contract these impurities; (3) these conditions conveyed temporary loss of ritual purity.

Although sexual discharge, contact with corpses and carcasses, and the contraction of diseases were sources of impurity, they were unavoidable in the normal course of life. Israelites were obligated to reproduce (Gen. 1:28; 9:7), and they, along with their priests, were obligated to bury their dead (Lev. 21:1–4). Therefore, many of these impurities were unavoidable and, though not encouraged, not necessarily sinful. Further, these conditions conveyed a temporary loss of purity. All the impurities described in Lev. 11–15 and Num. 19 were not permanent and had specific rites of purification. These rites included washings (a man who had a discharge waited seven days and then washed his clothes and bathed in order to be clean [Lev. 15:13]), offerings (after the birth of a child, a mother had to wait a certain period and then bring certain offerings to be cleansed “from her flow of blood” [12:7–8]), and other procedures (a “leprous” man who had been healed had to go through an elaborate ceremony to be declared clean [14:4–20]; a “leprous” house went through a similar process [14:48–53]). The ultimate instance of cleansing was the Day of Atonement, which required blood as the purifying agent: “[The priest] shall sprinkle some of the blood on [the altar] with his finger seven times to cleanse it and to consecrate it from the uncleanness of the Israelites” (16:19).

A final characteristic of ritual purity is that it was highly graded; that is, there were various degrees of impurities. Corpse impurity was especially serious and highly contagious. One could contract corpse impurity through direct contact, proximity (being in the same tent with a corpse [Num. 19:14]), or by merely touching the bone or the grave of a human (19:16). The individual who contracted corpse impurity was able to contaminate other objects and individuals. Major impurities also demanded greater time for purification (seven days rather than one). Unlike major impurities, minor impurities lasted only until sundown and were not contagious. Individuals might contract minor impurity from contact with unclean carcasses (whether by touching [Lev. 11:24, 27] or carrying [Lev. 11:25, 28]), someone defiled with corpse impurity (Lev. 22:4, 6; Num. 19:22), a diseased person or house (Lev. 13:45–46; 14:46–47), or discharge from either a man or a woman (Lev. 15:5–11, 19–23, 26–27). The duration of minor impurity was only a day (“until evening” [Lev. 11:24–25, 27–28, 39–40]), and one was purified either by bathing or washing one’s clothing.

The Prophets and the Writings. Outside the Mosaic law, the terms of “purity” and “purification” are much less common; however, at times they are taken up figuratively to describe sin. Loss of purity is used figuratively for transgression. For example, the technical term for “menstrual impurity” is used figuratively to illustrate the sin of Israel: “Zion stretches out her hands, but there is no one to comfort her. . . . Jerusalem has become an unclean thing among them” (Lam. 1:17); and in Ezek. 36:17, “When the people of Israel were living in their own land, they defiled it by their conduct and their actions. Their conduct was like a woman’s monthly uncleanness in my sight.”

It was not the ritual purification that ultimately mattered for the prophets, but rather the forgiveness from God that rendered people pure from sin. Thus, purification is a figure of God’s forgiveness; God says, “Your hands are full of blood! Wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight; stop doing wrong” (Isa. 1:15–16). God promises cleansing in key passages in Ezekiel: “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols” (Ezek. 36:25; cf. 36:33); “they will no longer defile themselves with their idols and vile images or with any of their offenses, for I will save them from all their sinful backsliding, and I will cleanse them” (37:23).

Although there are “those who are pure in their own eyes and yet are not cleansed of their filth” (Prov. 30:12), it is only God who can promise, “I will cleanse them from all the sin they have committed against me and will forgive all their sins of rebellion against me” (Jer. 33:8). Painfully aware of his sin with Bathsheba, David cries out, “Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin. . . . Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean. . . . Create in me a pure heart, O God” (Ps. 51:2, 7, 10).

New Testament

In the NT, the idea of ceremonial purity as an important element in Jewish life appears in John 11:55; Acts 21:23; 24:18. But just as in the prophets, the notion of purity is applied to a life lived in wholehearted devotion to God. An individual is purified when obeying the truth (1 Pet. 1:22). James describes repentance in terms of purity: “Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded” (James 4:8); and he describes helping those in distress as the kind of genuine piety that “God our Father accepts as pure and faultless” (James 1:27).

The concepts of purity and purification are largely unfamiliar to modern Western readers of the Bible. These terms often appear in cultic contexts and are used to refer to physical, ritual, and ethical purity. They are most frequently applied to the process needed to restore someone to a state of purity so that he or she could participate in ritual activities once again (Lev. 22:4–7). These terms are cultural and theological, serving to constrain actions and behaviors through definite boundaries; thus, in their ancient use they have little to do with modern notions of hygiene (e.g., diseases that may be caught from a pig [Lev. 13]; the medical advantages of washing [Lev. 15]; quarantining a leper [Lev. 13]). Although some have attempted to relate the rules of purity to simple physical events, such modern medical rationale cannot account for the range of prohibitions or find explicit support in the text.

Old Testament

The law of Moses. According to Lev. 10:10, it was the duty of the priests to “distinguish between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean” and to teach the nation of Israel the difference between the two. God required that his people observe purification rites when they came into his presence for worship. Ritual purity was intended to teach God’s holiness and moral purity; thus purification rituals functioned to prepare individuals to approach God (Exod. 19:10; Num. 8:15). These fundamental regulations and rites are outlined in Mosaic law.

Two major sections of the Torah describe ritual purity and the laws of purification: Lev. 11–15 and Num. 19. Here the need for purification resulted from direct or indirect contact with any one of a number of natural processes, including childbirth (Lev. 12:1–8), scale disease (Lev. 13:1–14:32), genital discharges (Lev. 15:1–33), the carcasses of certain animals (Lev. 11:1–47), and human corpses (Num. 19:1–22). Although both the duration of impurity and the rite of purification for each of these conditions differ, there are three distinct characteristics of ritual impurity: (1) the sources of ritual impurity generally were natural and more or less unavoidable; (2) it was not necessarily sinful to contract these impurities; (3) these conditions conveyed temporary loss of ritual purity.

Although sexual discharge, contact with corpses and carcasses, and the contraction of diseases were sources of impurity, they were unavoidable in the normal course of life. Israelites were obligated to reproduce (Gen. 1:28; 9:7), and they, along with their priests, were obligated to bury their dead (Lev. 21:1–4). Therefore, many of these impurities were unavoidable and, though not encouraged, not necessarily sinful. Further, these conditions conveyed a temporary loss of purity. All the impurities described in Lev. 11–15 and Num. 19 were not permanent and had specific rites of purification. These rites included washings (a man who had a discharge waited seven days and then washed his clothes and bathed in order to be clean [Lev. 15:13]), offerings (after the birth of a child, a mother had to wait a certain period and then bring certain offerings to be cleansed “from her flow of blood” [12:7–8]), and other procedures (a “leprous” man who had been healed had to go through an elaborate ceremony to be declared clean [14:4–20]; a “leprous” house went through a similar process [14:48–53]). The ultimate instance of cleansing was the Day of Atonement, which required blood as the purifying agent: “[The priest] shall sprinkle some of the blood on [the altar] with his finger seven times to cleanse it and to consecrate it from the uncleanness of the Israelites” (16:19).

A final characteristic of ritual purity is that it was highly graded; that is, there were various degrees of impurities. Corpse impurity was especially serious and highly contagious. One could contract corpse impurity through direct contact, proximity (being in the same tent with a corpse [Num. 19:14]), or by merely touching the bone or the grave of a human (19:16). The individual who contracted corpse impurity was able to contaminate other objects and individuals. Major impurities also demanded greater time for purification (seven days rather than one). Unlike major impurities, minor impurities lasted only until sundown and were not contagious. Individuals might contract minor impurity from contact with unclean carcasses (whether by touching [Lev. 11:24, 27] or carrying [Lev. 11:25, 28]), someone defiled with corpse impurity (Lev. 22:4, 6; Num. 19:22), a diseased person or house (Lev. 13:45–46; 14:46–47), or discharge from either a man or a woman (Lev. 15:5–11, 19–23, 26–27). The duration of minor impurity was only a day (“until evening” [Lev. 11:24–25, 27–28, 39–40]), and one was purified either by bathing or washing one’s clothing.

The Prophets and the Writings. Outside the Mosaic law, the terms of “purity” and “purification” are much less common; however, at times they are taken up figuratively to describe sin. Loss of purity is used figuratively for transgression. For example, the technical term for “menstrual impurity” is used figuratively to illustrate the sin of Israel: “Zion stretches out her hands, but there is no one to comfort her. . . . Jerusalem has become an unclean thing among them” (Lam. 1:17); and in Ezek. 36:17, “When the people of Israel were living in their own land, they defiled it by their conduct and their actions. Their conduct was like a woman’s monthly uncleanness in my sight.”

It was not the ritual purification that ultimately mattered for the prophets, but rather the forgiveness from God that rendered people pure from sin. Thus, purification is a figure of God’s forgiveness; God says, “Your hands are full of blood! Wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight; stop doing wrong” (Isa. 1:15–16). God promises cleansing in key passages in Ezekiel: “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols” (Ezek. 36:25; cf. 36:33); “they will no longer defile themselves with their idols and vile images or with any of their offenses, for I will save them from all their sinful backsliding, and I will cleanse them” (37:23).

Although there are “those who are pure in their own eyes and yet are not cleansed of their filth” (Prov. 30:12), it is only God who can promise, “I will cleanse them from all the sin they have committed against me and will forgive all their sins of rebellion against me” (Jer. 33:8). Painfully aware of his sin with Bathsheba, David cries out, “Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin. . . . Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean. . . . Create in me a pure heart, O God” (Ps. 51:2, 7, 10).

New Testament

In the NT, the idea of ceremonial purity as an important element in Jewish life appears in John 11:55; Acts 21:23; 24:18. But just as in the prophets, the notion of purity is applied to a life lived in wholehearted devotion to God. An individual is purified when obeying the truth (1 Pet. 1:22). James describes repentance in terms of purity: “Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded” (James 4:8); and he describes helping those in distress as the kind of genuine piety that “God our Father accepts as pure and faultless” (James 1:27).

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

Old Testament

OT offerings included cereals (whether the grain was whole, ground into flour, or mixed with other elements), liquids (wine, oil, or water), and animals (or parts thereof, such as the blood and fat). Although the Bible acknowledges that other ancient Near Eastern people had their own sacrificial rites, it rejects them as unworthy of the God of Israel. The people of God therefore were instructed how to sacrifice properly while at Sinai. Even so, offerings and sacrifices are recorded as taking place before the law was given.

Prior to the law. Cain and Abel brought the earliest offerings. Contrary to a common interpretation, Cain’s offering was not rejected because it did not include blood; the Hebrew word for the brothers’ gifts, minkhah, usually denotes grain offerings. A better conclusion is that Cain only brought some of his produce (no mention of firstfruits), while Abel brought the best of the best (the fat portions from the firstborn of the flock).

Immediately after the flood, Noah built an altar and presented the first burnt offering mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 8:20). That this (and other sacrifices) was received as a “pleasing aroma” indicates that God approved of and accepted it. It is significant that immediately after the offering, God made a covenant with Noah, his descendants, and every living creature. Sacrifices are closely related to covenant relationships, as can be seen in the story of Abraham enacting a covenant ceremony in Gen. 15 and in Israel receiving many instructions about sacrifice while at Sinai (cf. Gen. 31:43–54).

Sacrificial laws in Leviticus. Sacrificial laws are found throughout the Pentateuch, the most being in Lev. 1–7. As Leviticus makes clear, Israel understood sacrifice to have a number of different purposes. It was a means to bring a gift to God, to express communion with him and others in the community, to consecrate something or someone for God’s use, and to deal with personal uncleanness or sin. These ideas are developed in the descriptions of the different sacrifices that Israel was required to bring to God. In general, the sacrifices were made of clean animals raised by the one making the offering or of grain or wine produced by the person. In some cases, the offering was connected with the person’s economic ability, a poorer person being allowed to present doves or even cereal if a lamb or goat was unaffordable for a sin offering (Lev. 5:6–13). In all cases, only the best—what was “without defect”—was to be offered.

Priest as mediator. Three parties were involved in the sacrifices: the worshiper, the priest, and God. The worshiper—the person who had sinned or become unclean in some way—brought an animal to God, laid a hand upon it, and then killed it. Whether the animal’s death represents the death that the worshiper deserves due to sin or whether the sin is transferred to the animal that bears it instead is unclear. The priest served as a mediator who offered the blood of the sacrifice to God and, in many instances, burned all or part of the offering. In response to the offering, God, who had graciously given the sacrificial system so that those who had sinned could be restored to fellowship with him, forgave the person. Uniquely in the ancient world, Israelite sacrifices were not considered magical acts that could manipulate God to act on behalf of the worshiper. Presenting an improper sacrifice while exhibiting an improper attitude or motive resulted in rejection.

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

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

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

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

This offering significantly recognized the covenant relationship existing between those who shared in it. God received the fatty portions, the officiating priest received the right thigh, the other priests the breast, and the remainder was shared among members of a family, clan, tribe, or some other group. According to Leviticus, a thanksgiving offering was to be eaten on the day it was offered, and a vow or freewill offering could be eaten within two days. Anything not eaten in the prescribed time period was to be burned.

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

The kind of animal sacrificed and the sacrificial ritual varied with the offender and the offense. If a priest or the entire congregation sinned, a bull was sacrificed and its blood was sprinkled before the veil of the tabernacle and on the incense altar in the holy place. The rest was burned, leaving nothing to be eaten. Leaders who sinned sacrificed a male goat. Its blood was sprinkled on the bronze altar, and the remainder was given to the priest. A commoner brought and slaughtered a she-goat or lamb, the priest sprinkled its blood on the horns of the altar, and the fat was burned for God and the rest given to the priests. A poor person could bring two doves or pigeons, and the very poor could bring a grain offering. This differentiation apparently indicated that the sins of some members of the community had more serious consequences than others. Those in closest contact with the tabernacle contaminated it at a deeper level, requiring a more costly sacrifice. The poor were not required to bring more than they could afford.

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

Altars. According to Leviticus, only the Aa-ron-ic priests could handle the blood or other parts of a sacrifice brought to the altar at the tabernacle. Even so, throughout Israel’s history other sacrificial altars were built. While some of these were illicitly used for syncretistic practices, others were constructed at God’s instruction (Josh. 8:30–35; Judg. 6:25–26). Some of these were used by priests making rounds so that people from different areas could sacrifice to God (1 Sam. 7:17). Others were used by individuals who were not priests yet desired to call upon the name of the Lord or sacrifice for communal meals. The solitary altars were mainly used for burnt offerings and peace offerings, although grain and drink offerings also were known. Sin and guilt offerings were offered only at the tabernacle or temple.

Times and purposes. The OT regulates a number of different occasions upon which regular sacrifices were to be made. Burnt offerings were presented every morning and evening (Exod. 29:38–41; Num. 28:1–8). Additional offerings were sacrificed on the Sabbath and the new moon (Num. 28:9–15). Special sacrifices were brought to celebrate the major festivals of the year (Num. 28:16–29:39), particularly the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). Sacrifices might also accompany requests for safety or deliverance or in response to God’s deliverance. Thus, burnt and fellowship offerings could be brought along with prayers that God would put an end to a plague (2 Sam. 24:18–25). King David brought burnt offerings and fellowship offerings when the ark of the covenant was returned after having been captured by the Philistines (2 Sam. 6:1–19).

Sacrifices could also be made to consecrate people or things for a special task. When the tabernacle was consecrated, special offerings were brought for twelve continuous days (Num. 7). Later, fellowship, burnt, and grain offerings were sacrificed when the temple was dedicated (1 Kings 8:62–64). Sin offerings were presented when a priest was ordained (Lev. 8–9). Those who completed a vow dedicating themselves as Naz-i-rites brought sacrifices to God so that they could again become a normal member of the congregation (Num. 6:9–21). Fellowship offerings often accompanied the announcement of or installation of a king (1 Sam. 11:14–15; 1 Kings 1:9, 25).

Although the sacrificial system was intended to bring the Israelites back into fellowship with God, at times their misuse of it separated them from him. When his people showed more interest in sacrificial ritual than in obeying God’s instructions, they were chastened (1 Sam. 15:13–22; Jer. 7:21–28). When the people of Israel were guilty of confusing the worship of Yahweh with Canaanite fertility cults, God sent prophets to warn them (Isa. 1:11–16; Amos 4:4–5). Prophetic statements denouncing sacrificial rites were aimed at the misuse of sacrifices rather than their existence. Jeremiah and Ezekiel were so positive about sacrificial worship that they looked forward to a time when it would be reestablished in its pure form (Jer. 17:26; Ezek. 43:18–27; 46:1–24).

New Testament

The NT indicates that the OT sacrificial system was still in place in the early first century AD. Following directions given in Leviticus, Mary brought a sacrifice to the temple in Jerusalem so that she could be purified after giving birth to Jesus (Luke 2:21–24; cf. Lev. 12:3, 8). Mary and Joseph would have sacrificed and eaten a Passover lamb during their annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Passover. It is not recorded whether Jesus always went with them, but he did join them at the Passover celebration when he was twelve years old. It is safe to assume that at this time and after he grew up, Jesus took part in the sacrifices when he visited Jerusalem to celebrate the feasts.

Jesus’ disciples attend several feasts with him. In addition, after his resurrection they frequently went to the temple to pray at the time when sacrifices were made. Encouraged by the Jerusalem church leaders, Paul went to the temple to join in and pay for the purification rites of some men who had taken a vow, perhaps to serve as Nazirites (Acts 21:23–26). He later testified before Felix that he had returned to Jerusalem in order to bring gifts to the poor and present offerings in the temple (24:17). Although Gentile believers were exempt from these practices (15:1–29), early Jewish believers clearly saw no contradiction between believing the gospel of Jesus Christ and engaging in sacrificial rituals. They likely followed Jewish piety until the destruction of the temple in AD 70, when all sacrifices at the temple ceased.

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

The end of the OT sacrificial system does not mean that those who come to God through Jesus Christ no longer bring sacrifices. Instead of animal and grain offerings, spiritual sacrifices are to be made (1 Pet. 2:5). Emulating their Savior, Christ’s followers should offer themselves as living sacrifices, devoted to God (Rom. 12:1). This implies that everything done in this life could be considered a sacrifice. Simply believing the gospel makes one an acceptable offering to God (Rom. 15:16). Labor for the sake of the gospel, or perhaps martyrdom, can be viewed as a drink offering (Phil. 2:17). The author of Hebrews identifies three types of sacrifices that believers should offer: praise, good deeds, and sharing with those in need (13:15–16). In line with the last of these points, Paul counts the gift sent by the Philippian church as a fragrant offering that pleases God (Phil. 4:18).

A revolutionary religious group made up of junior priests from the Jerusalem temple and others who were anti-Roman. Their activities precipitated the war with Rome that led to the destruction of the temple in AD 70. Other revolutionary groups were brigands, Sicarii, and the Fourth Philosophy. Simon, one of Jesus’ disciples, is identified as a “zealot” (Matt. 10:4; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13), but it is not known whether he had been a member of a revolutionary group or whether this was a general term for zeal for his God and nation (cf. Acts 21:20). See also Jewish Parties.