42 They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
Why Join a Church?
Acts 2:42-47Sermon
by J. Howard Olds
by J. Howard Olds
At the tender age of 18, I accepted my first appointment as pastor of a local church. Almost every Sunday for the past 38 years, I have stepped into some pulpit to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ. For a lifetime, the local Church has captured my heart, my mind, my strength, and my deepest devotion. Today, I believe in her mission more than ever before. The local Church, in my opinion, is still God’s best hope for humanity.
What makes a church great is not its building and not its steeple. What makes a church great is its people, people joined together as the body of Christ bringing hope and healing to a hurting world. It is to this high and holy calling that I invite you today. I would like to talk today and next Sunday about what it means to be a member of a church. I form it in the phrase of a question—why would anybody in the beginning of the twenty-first century want to be a member of a church? Why join the Church, any church? Let me count some ways.
I. WE NEED TO BELONG
In the first place, we ought to join a church because we need to belong. In several opinion polls over the last ten years, George Gallop has repeatedly said, “Americans are more religious than ever, they just don’t care much for churches and religious organizations.” They are believers but not joiners.
“I believe in God but I’m not into organized religion.” Somebody in this community says that to me every week as I move from place to place.
Maybe there was a time when we could practice our faith privately, get our religion electronically, pursue our beliefs individually. After all, rugged individualism is the American way. For nearly half a century, the mass media has told us we could “have it our way.” So why bother with people in a church when we can build our own sacred spaces and have the money to escape to some paradise island? Well, maybe there was a time when that would do. But things are different now.
When the world stopped turning that September day, we discovered we did not want to be alone; we needed to belong. We needed a faith to carry on. So we went to church and held hands with a stranger and said a prayer in the midst of danger. We discovered something a year or so ago that I think will be healthy for us in the long run. We discovered that Barbara Streisand was right 25 years ago when she sang, “People who need people are the luckiest people in the world.”
There is a phrase in the New Testament that has captured my imagination for a number of years. You can find it particularly in the epistles, those letters that describe the theology and community of the early church. There are two simple little words that show up again and again in the letters and those words are these — one another. If you want a challenge, read the letters of the New Testament and underline how often they say one another. Let me give just a few. Love one another, encourage one another, be kind to one another, comfort one another, edify one another, fellowship with one another, confess your faults to one another, forgive one another, pray for one another, minister to one another, bear one another’s burdens.
We will never achieve Christian maturity apart from Christian community. We need more resources than our interior lives can supply and more influences than our few like-minded friends will give us. We need the support of a community of people who are both like us and different from us.
I was playing golf recently. I always look up too much when I am golfing. I happened to be looking up and I saw a flock of geese flying right over the golf course. I just stopped and watched them for a few moments, flying in that familiar “V” formation. I thought how geese are much smarter than people. They always fly together heading south or north. By flying in the uplifting wake of the goose in front, the whole flock adds at least 71% to its total flying range. Geese have learned some other things that the rest of us need to learn. Leadership is shared. The head goose is only there for a little while, then comes back into the flock in order to be restored in energy. All of that honking is the encouragement of one goose to another to keep going, to keep going, to keep at it. When one goose falls, is wounded or becomes ill, at least two others will fly to the ground, swoop down and stay with it until it is restored to the flock.
Why join a church? We join a church because deep in the human soul is a hunger and a need to belong. It is inherent in creation, and a church provides the community for it.
II. WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND
In the second place, I think people join a church because there is a deep need to understand. I had been in that first congregation at the age of 18 for ten days when its most prominent member, one of the few members I had, was killed in a tragic farming accident. Without having a course in pastoral care, without having an opportunity to read a single book in pastoral counseling, I was thrust into the responsibility of trying to care for a widow and several children as they walked through the valleys of the shadows of death. Through the years, I have walked with two mothers who accidentally ran over their own babies. I have led the funeral processions of far too many teenagers. I have listened to spouses despair over being left for another person. I have watched parents age over wayward children. I have picked up the pieces of communities being wiped out by tornadoes and floods. My life is not any different than yours. “It’s life,” we say.
The questions are always the same:
Why do bad things happen to good people?
Where is God when it hurts?
Where is the answer to the riddle of suffering?
Why is hate so strong?
How come good people go astray?
Frank was over 80 years old when he came to see me. A friend brought him there. When they sat down in my office, I asked what I might possibly do to help them. She said matter-of-factly, “Frank needs to make peace with God before it’s too late.” I began to ask Frank about his life. “Did you ever believe in God?” I asked him. Feeble now, he said, “Once I did. My mother was a believing person and she used to take me to church and her prayers followed me all the days of her life. But I grew up and the big war came and I entered that war. I became an officer in the Army. On one awful day of battle, I watched all of those for whom I was responsible killed on a hillside. In that awful horror of war, I looked up to the sky and I cursed God and I walked away, never to believe in God again.”
Well, my friends, it’s not easy to unpack 50 years of hate, brokenness, sorrow, and anger. But piece-by-piece, slowly we chipped away at it. I will never forget the day. It was a Sunday morning at the 11 o’clock worship service. In his feeble way, Frank walked down the center aisle of the church to profess his faith in Jesus Christ, to affirm once more that he believed in God, and he came to be a member of a Christian community.
You see, it is my conviction that everybody ought to know that God is love. Everybody ought to know that Jesus can save. Everybody ought to know that forgiveness is possible. Everybody ought to know that no trouble enjoys everlasting life. Everybody ought to know that things are not always what they sometime seem to be.
How can they know unless there is a community of faith that is not afraid of the questions nor timid about pointing the way to the Christ who has the answer? Oh, I know, the Church can become “Mickey Mouse,” spending its life on trivial things that do not matter in the light of eternity. But it doesn’t have to be. The Church can be a mighty force for good moving people toward faith, hope, and love. It can sound the trumpet for peace above the rumblings of war. It can call attention to the least, when everybody is wanting more. It can challenge us to understand even as we long to be understood. Why join a church? Because there are moments and times in a person’s life when you just need to know the deep questions of faith.
III. WE NEED TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE
Why join a church? Because we need to make a difference. That’s why. A friend of mine said to me the other day, “Would it be alright if I withdraw my membership and just become a guest at Brentwood?” That way,” he said teasingly, “I can get a better parking place because you give nice parking places to guests and you tell members to park off campus. Furthermore, once a year you expect me to make a financial pledge to the church and now you are hitting me with building campaigns. When I miss church for four weeks, somebody calls and asks, ‘Where’ve you been and how come you haven’t been in your pew?’ In fact, it seems to me we treat guests a lot better than members.”
I said to him, “Of course we do. Isn’t that what we are supposed to do?” The Church is not a country club. Whosoever will may participate in all our ministries with no particular pressure to join. There is no charge at the door. Our services are free. So why not enjoy the benefits without assuming the commitments and responsibilities that come with it? I have only one answer to that question. It is because I want to participate in a partnership that will make a difference in the world.
Bill Hybels says, “I was sitting in an airport in San Juan, Puerto Rico, waiting for an airplane to take me home when these two little kids, one about eight and one about six got into a fight with one another. They were squabbling back and forth. At first I tried not to notice them, but when the skirmish became a slugfest, I began asking out loud ‘Where are the parents of these kids?’ Nobody seemed to know. As the bigger boy finally got the little one and began to beat his head into the tile floor, I stepped out of the boarding line and went over, pulled them apart, and settled the fight.”
“A little later on the plane,” says Bill, “I began to ask questions about that experience. Doesn’t the government have any laws against child neglect? Couldn’t schools teach children to behave? Would some counseling eventually help that kid work through his unresolved anger? Isn’t there some business that would finally provide him a job?”
“I was going down my litany and then it dawned on me. All that is good and wonderful but can anybody transform a human being, except God? It would take a miracle for that kid to have a chance. It would take the love of Jesus to heal his wounds. It would take the power of the Holy Spirit for him to have a future. Only God can mend a heart. Only God can make us new again.” “And then,” says Bill, “the question became obvious. Why is the Church waiting for somebody else to do its work?”
One year ago, we rolled out a new vision for this church under the banner of touching hearts and transforming lives. Let me just say it again today.
We are in the disciple-making business, that’s the job we have to do.
We believe that persons in Christ are new creations.
We believe that children reared in Jesus’ name will never forget it.
We believe that transformation of a life is possible.
We are in the people serving business.
We find a need and try to fill it.
We see a hurt and try to heal it.
Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. We need to put those words of Lady Liberty on our front door and then put our feet behind them in action. That is what the Church is about. Why be a part of a church except that somewhere down in the depths of your heart you want to make a difference in a hurting world.
IV. WE NEED TO KEEP HOPE ALIVE.
A national poll, taken by the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research in the fall of 2001, discovered that only one in five Americans feel hopeful about the future. Back in 1990, seven out of ten people answered the same survey as being hopeful. What has happened?
After one of our September 11 remembrance services last week, a public official came up to me and said, “I have been going to special events all day. I have cried until my eyes are dry. But I do have to say, here in your Sanctuary I heard the most hopeful words spoken in this entire national observance.” Surely it is God who saves us, let us trust in Him and not be afraid.
John Ortberg reports on a study of 122 men who suffered their first heart attack. They were evaluated on their degree of hopefulness and pessimism following their attack. Of the 25 most pessimistic, 21 of them died within eight years. Of the 25 most optimistic, only six had died in eight years. Loss of hope increased the odds of death by more than 300% leading John Ortberg to say, “It’s better to eat Twinkies in hope than broccoli in despair.”
Hope is the Church’s business. You see, we are people of hope because we know the final score. We know who finally wins in this riddle of life. And so, whatever the circumstances, we live as people of faith and hope. That is who we are and I want to be around people like that.
My favorite church member of all these years was a little guy by the name of Charlie Hitt. Charlie wore extremely thick glasses and a hearing aid in each ear. He didn’t own a car, so he hitchhiked six miles to church every Sunday morning. He sat on the front row near the center aisle. He always sang about three measures behind everybody else when we sang the hymn. On his way out every Sunday he would tell me a whole sermon related to the title of the sermon in the bulletin. He had not heard a single word I said, he just made up his own sermon. I wish he had called me on Saturday. It would have helped my sermons a lot. One day somebody asked Charlie, “Why do you bother to come to church? You can’t see, you can’t hear, you don’t have a way to get here. Why don’t you just stay home?” Little, short Charlie Hitt, with a twinkle in his eye said, “Oh, but come Sunday, I want my neighbors to know whose side I’m on so I’m always in church.”
My friends, I want to tell you, come Sunday I want the world to know whose side I’m on. I continue to believe in the depths of my heart and with all of my soul and with more energy than ever before in all of my life, that the Church, the local Church, is God’s best hope for humanity. And I ask you, will you join in that effort to make a difference in the world? Amen.
ChristianGlobe Networks, Inc., Faith Breaks, by J. Howard Olds
Overview: After all the disciples’ praying and waiting, the promised Holy Spirit finally arrives in a mighty way (2:1–13). The Jewish pilgrimage festival of Pentecost (also called the Feast of Weeks or Firstfruits) was observed fifty days after the Passover to celebrate the grain harvest. The 120 believers were together in one place when the miracle of Pentecost occured (2:1).
This event represents a major step in God’s redemptive program, a time when the Holy Spirit would live permanently in individual believers. There is a sound like a violent wind coming from heaven and filling the house (2:2), tongues of fire rest on each person (2:3), and all are filled with the Holy Spirit and speak in other languages (2:4). This powerful outpouring of God’s personal presence attracts God-fearing Jews…
The Baker Bible Handbook by , Baker Publishing Group, 2016
42 They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
The many who respond to Peter’s message become the foundation of the early Christian community (2:41–47). These believers’ sharing “everything in common” (2:44) fulfills the Hellenistic ideal of a utopian community, and the fact that they gave to “anyone who had need” (2:45; cf. 4:34) also fulfills the Jewish ideal of the sabbatical/Jubilee era (cf. Deut. 15:4). This portrayal again reaffirms the location of this community at the end of time as they experience the renewed presence of God in this new era. The basis of this unity does not lie in an unrealistic vision of social harmony or a perverse sense of economic utility, but in the “apostles’ teaching” (2:42) that points to the power of the work of Jesus Christ. Moreover, this practice is not to be universally imposed, as some believers still own personal property (cf. 4:37), and the perfect unity of the Christian community is a reality that is yet to be fulfilled (cf. 5:1–11). Their practice of “breaking of bread” (2:42) provides continuity with the practice of the earthly Jesus (cf. Luke 5:27–32; 7:34; 9:10–17; 15:2; 19:7; cf. 14:8–24). This act points to the formation of a new community in the name of Jesus. Moreover, the breaking of bread “in their homes” (2:46) also marks a shift in the central meeting place of the early Christian community, as the households became the center where the presence of God could be experienced.
The Baker Illustrated Bible Commentary by Gary M. Burge, Baker Publishing Group, 2016
It is a feature of Luke’s method in these early chapters to intersperse his narrative with little cameos of life in the early church, intended, no doubt, as models for the church of his own day (see R. J. Karris, Perspectives, p. 117). This section contains the first of these sketches. It touches on a number of matters: the teaching, the miracles, the fellowship, and the prayers. Other such summaries are found in 4:32–35; 5:12–16; 9:31; 12:24. Compare also 5:42; 6:7, and 28:30f., which are similar in effect but tied more closely to the preceding narratives. Of the lifestyle depicted in the passage before us, C. F. D. Moule writes: “Whenever the Acts account may have been written, there is nothing here that seems incompatible with the very earliest days of the Christian Church in Jerusalem” (p. 16); Dunn remarks of the miracles in particular, “We need not doubt that it is a sound historical fact that many healings of a miraculous sort did occur in the early days of the first Christian communities and of the early Christian mission.… Periods of religious excitement have always produced healers and a crop of healings hailed as miraculous by those present at the time” (Jesus, pp. 163f.).
2:42 Luke mentions four things that may have characterized the church’s meetings especially but were not all confined to their meetings. First, they took part in the apostles’ teaching. The Greek indicates that they gave the apostolic teaching their constant attention (the meaning of the verb itself heightened by the imperfect tense). From the use of the definite article, “the teaching,” it seems that a specific body of instruction is indicated. Second, they took part in the fellowship. The word thus translated (Gk. koinōnia) means “sharing in” or “causing to share in” something or someone, and in this context we should understand the implied object to be God. God was present, and the whole community shared in his Spirit (see disc. on vv. 3, 4, 38; cf. 2 Cor. 13:13). Despite their differences and difficulties (cf. 5:1–11; 6:1–7; 11:1–18; 15:1–21), this common bond held them together. But in addition to this broader meaning of the word, koinōnia is employed in the New Testament in the sense of the collection and distribution of gifts, in which the fellowship of the believers found particular expression (cf. Rom. 15:26; 2 Cor. 8:4; 9:13; Heb. 13:16). In the light of the verses that follow (44, 45), we should almost certainly include this sense in the meaning of this verse. Third, they shared in the breaking of bread. This phrase does not compel us to understand anything more than an ordinary meal. But in view of the definite article, “the bread,” a particular meal may be indicated, and what more likely than the Lord’s Supper? Fourth, they prayed. The one verb governs each of the activities mentioned in this verse, so that they gave their “constant attention” to them all, and not least to “the prayers.” Again, the use of the definite article suggests a particular reference (see disc. on 1:14), either to specific prayers or to times of prayer, corresponding, perhaps, to the regular Jewish prayers (see disc. on 3:1). But in any case, prayer, whether formal (cf. 3:1; 22:17; Luke 24:53) or informal (cf. 4:24), whether at fixed times or as occasion demanded, was of the very warp and woof of their lives. It was integral to the whole forward thrust of the church, and in Luke’s eyes at least, the vitality of the church was a measure of the reality of their prayers (cf. v. 47; see disc. on 1:14).
2:43 Paul’s letters provide early evidence that believers possessed “gifts of healing and miraculous powers” (cf. 1 Cor. 12:9f.; Gal. 3:5), though he implies that such gifts and powers belonged especially to the apostles (cf. Rom. 15:19; 2 Cor. 12:12). The same is implied here in Luke’s statement that many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles (see notes on 2:22). They were, of course, no more than God’s agents (the word “by” is literally “through”; see notes on 1:26). The power was God’s (cf. 1:8), and whether by deed or by word—for the preaching was itself a kind of miracle—they were channels of his grace (see further the disc. on 5:12). Luke often draws attention to the awe engendered by the miracles (cf. 3:10; 5:5, 11, 13; 19:17). This was probably his intention here, but in the Greek there are simply two statements (albeit, closely linked): “awe came to everyone”—the reference is probably to non-believers—and “many signs and wonders came about through the apostles.”
2:44–45 All the believers were together (v. 44; see disc. on v. 42). One result of this was their readiness to share their belongings with one another. They made this their practice. The verb is in the imperfect and could be rendered “they kept on having all things (in) common.” Spirituality for these Christians was inseparable from social responsibility (see Deut. 15:4f.; cf. Acts 6:1–6; 11:28; 20:33–35; 24:17; Luke 19:8). The whole thing appears to have been an ad hoc arrangement, but a necessary one for all that. The poverty prevailing in Palestine in the first century is almost unimaginable, but the already desperate case of most Palestinians must have been exacerbated for the church by the fact that many of its early members had abandoned their source of livelihood in Galilee and many of its subsequent converts from elsewhere had stayed on in the city, held there by the intimacy and intensity of the fellowship and the hope of the Lord’s return.
2:46 Every day the believers met in the temple. We are not told what they did there, but we may assume that they participated as fully as anyone could in the temple rites (see disc. on 3:1; cf. 21:16). They had not ceased to think of themselves as Jews, though unlike most Jews, they recognized that the Messiah had come. Beyond this, they ate together. The Greek could mean either “at home” or “from house to house.” The latter is to be preferred and implies that a number of homes were available to them for their Christian meetings (see notes on 14:27). On these occasions they broke bread, which raises the question of whether we should give to this phrase the same meaning as in verse 42 or regard it now as simply a reference to ordinary meals. The additional words, “eating the food,” and the absence of the definite article (cf. v. 42, “the bread”) suggest the latter, though the argument is by no means conclusive. Their fellowship was marked by joy (see disc. on 3:8) and a “simplicity of heart” (NIV sincere hearts). This expression is found in the New Testament only here, though kindred ideas occur. It suggests both sincerity (cf., e.g., 1 Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:10) and single-mindedness (cf. Rom. 12:8)—a condition in which deeds and thoughts alike are controlled by one motive, namely, a desire to please God. Like joy (cf. 13:52), “simplicity of heart” is a gift of the Spirit, but like much of the Spirit’s work, it is grounded in the recipient’s wholehearted obedience (see notes on 2:2ff.).
2:47 Their fellowship was further characterized by their praising God. Such a manner of life could not help but impress others, and consequently the church enjoyed the favor of all the people. There was no hint as yet of any separation of church and synagogue. In this atmosphere of acceptance and good will, the number of those who were being saved grew daily. The present participle, “were being saved,” gives the sense that they were being maintained in a state to which they had already come. They had been saved (cf., e.g., Rom. 8:24) and were now being “shielded,” as Peter puts it, “by God’s power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time” (1 Pet. 1:5; cf., e.g., Rom. 8:23). The steady growth of the church was due ultimately to the Lord (Jesus; cf. v. 21; see notes on 11:20). There was much (essential) human activity, but it was he who added to their number.
Additional Notes
2:44 All the believers were together: The phrase that Luke uses here (Gk. epi to auto) has a primarily local sense (it occurs again in 1:15; 2:1, 47; 4:26; 1 Cor. 11:20; 14:23)—“they all met together.” But in view of the stress that Luke lays in these early chapters on the oneness of the believers, it is almost certain that he intended the deeper secondary meaning that GNB expresses in its rendering: they “continued together in close fellowship.”
2:45 Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need: This practice is comparable with that of the Essenes, who practiced communal ownership of property (Philo, Every Good Man is Free 12.86; Hypothetica 11.10–13; 1QS 6) and maintained a communal purse administered by “stewards” (Josephus, Antiquities 18.18–22; cf. 1QS 6.19–20; see disc. on Acts 4:34). But whereas this was a rule with the Essenes, with the Christians it remained an individual and voluntary matter. Thus in 12:12ff. we find Mary still with her house and servants, while Barnabas’ gift of the price of a field in 4:37 may have been mentioned as especially noteworthy.
2:47 Enjoying the favor of all the people (cf. Luke 2:52): The word translated favor is that commonly rendered “grace.” It is often used of finding favor in God’s sight (cf. Luke 1:30; Acts 7:46), and that sense would be possible here, “having (God’s) favor before all the people.” But the word is also used of human goodwill, and NIV is probably right to adopt that meaning in this verse (cf. 7:10). Yet another possibility would be “giving (God) thanks before all the people.”
Understanding the Bible Commentary Series by David J. Williams, Baker Publishing Group, 2016
Direct Matches
Generally made of grain, this staple of foods has been known to be in existence since prehistoric days, being mentioned in the oldest literatures of humanity. Though usually made of wheat, it can be made of any grain and also some kinds of beans or lentils.
To make bread, grain must be ground into flour, mixed with salt and water, kneaded into a dough, and baked. Most breads included a leaven to add substance. As a food staple, it became a symbol of hospitality (Neh. 13:1 2; Matt. 14:15–21) and community as people ate together (Acts 2:42). Bread was considered a gift from God, so it was treated with special deference. Unleavened bread was required during Passover feasts and in most occasions related to the worship of God. The “bread of the Presence” (KJV: “shewbread”), representing the twelve tribes of Israel in the temple, was made of unleavened bread (Exod. 25:30) with special flour and was carefully eaten by the priests.
Jesus used bread in the Lord’s Prayer to represent asking God to meet our basic needs (Matt. 5:11), and he called himself the “bread of life” to show that he is the one who “gives life to the world,” our ultimate sustenance (John 6:33–35). During this exchange with the Jews about the bread of life, Jesus foreshadows what takes place at the Last Supper with his disciples, suggesting that believers must “eat [his] flesh” (represented by bread) and “drink [his] blood” (represented by wine) (John 6:53–59; cf. Luke 22:19). Additionally, bread was used symbolically to represent those things that were present in daily life (Pss. 127:2; 80:5; Prov. 4:17; 20:17).
The nature of the church is too broad to be exhausted in the meaning of one word. To capture its significance, the NT authors utilize a rich array of metaphorical descriptions. Nevertheless, there are those metaphors that seem to dominate the biblical pictures of the church, five of which call for comment: the people of God, the kingdom of God, the eschatological temple of God, the bride of Christ, and the body of Christ.
The people of God. Essentially, the concept of the people of God can be summed up in the covenantal phrase: “I will be their God, and they will be my people” (see Exod. 6:6 7; 19:5; Lev. 26:9–14; Jer. 7:23; 30:22; 32:37–40; Ezek. 11:19–20; 36:22–28; Acts 15:14; 2 Cor. 6:16; Heb. 8:10–12; Rev. 21:3). Thus, the people of God are those in both the OT and the NT eras who responded to God by faith and whose spiritual origin rests exclusively in God’s grace.
The kingdom of God. Many scholars have maintained that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus inaugurated the kingdom of God, producing the overlapping of the two ages. The kingdom has already dawned but is not yet complete. The first aspect pertains to Jesus’ first coming, and the second aspect relates to his second coming. In other words, the age to come has broken into this age, and now the two exist simultaneously. This background is crucial in ascertaining the relationship between the church and the kingdom of God, because the church also exists in the tension that results from the overlapping of the two ages. Accordingly, one may define the church as the foreshadowing of the kingdom. Two ideas flow from this definition: first, the church is related to the kingdom of God; second, the church is not equal to the kingdom of God.
The church and the kingdom of God are related. Not until after the resurrection of Jesus does the NT speak with regularity about the church. However, there are early signs of the church in the teaching and ministry of Jesus, in both general and specific ways. In general, Jesus anticipated the later official formation of the church in that he gathered to himself the twelve disciples, who constituted the beginnings of eschatological Israel—in effect, the remnant. More specifically, Jesus explicitly referred to the church in two passages: Matt. 16:18–19; 18:17. In the first passage Jesus promised that he would build his church despite satanic opposition, thus assuring the ultimate success of his mission. The notion of the church overcoming the forces of evil coincides with the idea that the kingdom of God will prevail over its enemies and bespeaks the intimate association between the church and the kingdom. The second passage relates to the future organization of the church, not unlike the Jewish synagogue practices of Jesus’ day.
The church and the kingdom of God are not identical. As intimately related as the church and the kingdom of God are, the NT does not equate the two, as is evident in the fact that the early Christians preached the kingdom, not the church (Acts 8:12; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31). The NT identifies the church as the people of the kingdom (e.g., Rev. 5:10), not the kingdom itself. Moreover, the church is the instrument of the kingdom. This is especially clear from Matt. 16:18–19, where the preaching of Peter and the church become the keys to opening up the kingdom of God to all who would enter.
The eschatological temple of God. Both the OT and Judaism anticipated the rebuilding of the temple in the future kingdom of God (e.g., Ezek. 40–48; Hag. 2:1–9). Jesus hinted that he was going to build such a structure (Matt. 16:18; Mark 14:58; John 2:19–22). Pentecost witnessed to the beginning of the fulfillment of that dream in that when the Spirit inhabited the church, the eschatological temple was formed (Acts 2:16–36). Other NT writers also perceived that the presence of the Spirit in the Christian community constituted the new temple of God (1 Cor. 3:16–17; 2 Cor. 6:14–7:1; Eph. 2:19–22; see also Gal. 4:21–31; 1 Pet. 2:4–10). However, that the eschatological temple is not yet complete is evident in the preceding passages, especially in their emphasis on the need for the church to grow toward maturity in Christ, which will be fully accomplished only at the parousia (second coming of Christ). In the meantime, Christians, as priests of God, are to perform their sacrificial service to the glory of God (Rom. 12:1–2; Heb. 13:15; 1 Pet. 2:4–10).
The bride of Christ. The image of marriage is applied to God and Israel in the OT (see Isa. 54:5–6; 62:5; Hos. 2:7). Similar imagery is applied to Christ and the church in the NT. Christ, the bridegroom, has sacrificially and lovingly chosen the church to be his bride (Eph. 5:25–27). Her responsibility during the betrothal period is to be faithful to him (2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:24). At the parousia the official wedding ceremony will take place, and with it the eternal union of Christ and his wife will be actualized (Rev. 19:7–9; 21:1–2).
The body of Christ. The body of Christ as a metaphor for the church is unique to the Pauline literature and constitutes one of the most significant concepts therein (Rom. 12:4–5; 1 Cor. 12:12–27; Eph. 4:7–16; Col. 1:18). The primary purpose of the metaphor is to demonstrate the interrelatedness of diversity and unity within the church, especially with reference to spiritual gifts. The body of Christ is the last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45), the new humanity of the end time that has appeared in history. However, Paul’s usage of the image, like the metaphor of the new temple, indicates that the church, as the body of Christ, still has a long way to go spiritually. It is not yet complete.
The common experience/sharing of something with someone else.
The close and intimate fellowship that the members of the Trinity experience with one another (John 10:30; 14:10; 16:14 15; 17:5) is something that Jesus prays for his people to experience themselves (17:20–26). He asks that believers “may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (17:21). Just as the Father is in Jesus and Jesus is in the Father, believers are described as being in both the Father and the Son. The stated purpose for such fellowship is twofold: that the world may know and believe that the Father has sent the Son, and that the Father loves believers even as he has loved the Son (17:21, 23). Central to this fellowship between God and believers is the sharing of the glory that the Father and the Son experience (17:22). Jesus expresses similar truths in John 15:1–11 when he speaks of himself as the true vine and his followers as the branches who must remain in him because “apart from me you can do nothing” (v. 5).
Paul frequently speaks of the believer’s fellowship with Christ, even though he rarely uses the word “fellowship” to speak of this reality. It is God who calls the believer into fellowship with Christ (1 Cor. 1:9), but such fellowship involves both the “power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death” (Phil. 3:10). When believers celebrate the Lord’s Supper, they are participating in the body and blood of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16–17). Far more frequently, Paul expresses the concept of fellowship with Christ by his use of the phrase “with Christ.” Believers have been crucified, buried, raised, clothed, and seated in the heavenly realms with Christ (Rom. 6:4–9; 2 Cor. 13:4; Gal. 2:20–21; Eph. 2:5–6; Col. 2:12–13; 3:1–4). They also share in the inheritance that Christ has received from the Father (Rom. 8:16–17) and one day will reign with him (2 Tim. 2:12).
The fellowship that believers have with one another is an extension of their fellowship with God. John wrote, “We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3). Just as walking in darkness falsifies a believer’s claim to fellowship with God, so also walking in the light is necessary for fellowship with other believers (1:6–7). Paul strikes a similar note when he says, “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?” (2 Cor. 6:14–15). The point is not to avoid all contact with unbelievers (cf. 1 Cor. 5:9–10), but rather that the believer is so fundamentally identified with Christ that to identify with unbelievers should be avoided.
From the earliest days of the church, believers found very tangible ways to demonstrate that their fellowship was rooted in their common faith in Jesus. Immediately after Pentecost, “they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. . . . All the believers were together and had everything in common” (Acts 2:42–44). This common experience led believers to voluntarily sell their possessions and share with any who had a need (2:45; 4:32). This meeting of very practical needs was motivated by a common experience of God’s abundant generosity in freely giving his Son (Rom. 8:32). The self-sacrificial sharing of resources became a staple of the early church (Rom. 12:13; Gal. 6:6; 1 Tim. 6:18) and provided an opportunity for Paul to demonstrate the unity of the church when he collected money from Gentile churches to alleviate the suffering of Jewish Christians in Judea (Rom. 15:26–27; 2 Cor. 8–9).
Physiologically, the heart is an organ in the body, and in the Bible it is also used in a number of metaphors.
Metaphorically, the heart refers to the mind, the will, the seat of emotions, or even the whole person. It also refers to the center of something or its inner part. These metaphors come from the heart’s importance and location.
Mind. The heart refers to the mind, but not the brain, and in these cases does not involve human physiology. It is a metaphor, and while the neurophysiology of the heart may be interesting in its own right, it has no bearing on this use of language. Deuteronomy 6:5 issues the command to love God with all one’s heart, soul, and strength. When the command is repeated in the Gospels, it occurs in three variations (Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27). Common to all three is the addition of the word “mind.” The Gospel writers want to be sure that the audience hears Jesus adding “mind,” but this addition is based on the fact that the meaning of the Hebrew word for “heart” includes the mind.
The mental activities of the metaphorical heart are abundant. The heart is where a person thinks (Gen. 6:5; Deut. 7:17; 1 Chron. 29:18; Rev. 18:7), where a person comprehends and has understanding (1 Kings 3:9; Job 17:4; Ps. 49:3; Prov. 14:13; Matt. 13:15). The heart makes plans and has intentions (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Prov. 20:5; 1 Chron. 29:18; Jer. 23:20). One believes with the heart (Luke 24:25; Acts 8:37; Rom. 10:9). The heart is the site of wisdom, discernment, and skill (Exod. 35:34; 36:2; 1 Kings 3:9; 10:24). The heart is the place of memory (Deut. 4:9; Ps. 119:11). The heart plays the role of conscience (2 Sam. 24:10; 1 John 3:20 21).
It is often worth the effort to substitute “mind” for “heart” when reading the Bible in order to grasp the mental dimension. For example, after telling the Israelites to love God with all their heart, Moses says, “These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts” (Deut. 6:6). Reading it instead as “be on your mind” changes our perspective, and in this case the idiom “on your mind” is clearer and more accurate. The following verses instruct parents to talk to their children throughout the day about God’s words. In order for parents to do this, God’s requirements and deeds need to be constantly on their minds, out of their love for him. Similarly, love for God and loyalty are expressed by meditation on and determination to obey his law (Ps. 119:11, 112). The law is not merely a list of rules; it is also a repository of a worldview in which the Lord is the only God. To live consistently with this truth requires careful, reflective thought.
Emotions and attitude. The heart, as the seat of emotion, is associated with a number of feelings and sentiments, such as gladness (Exod. 4:14; Acts 2:26), hatred (Lev. 19:17), pride (Deut. 8:14), resentment (Deut. 15:10), dread (Deut. 28:67), sympathy (Judg. 5:9), love (Judg. 16:15), sadness (1 Sam. 1:8; John 16:6), and jealousy and ambition (James 3:14). The heart is also the frame of reference for attitudes such as willingness, courage, and desire.
In the OT there is no language or understanding comparable to modern ways of talking about prayer as conversational or dialogical. Prayer does not involve mutuality. Prayer is something that humans offer to God, and the situation is never reversed; God does not pray to humans. Understanding this preserves the proper distinction between the sovereign God and the praying subject. Therefore, prayers in the OT are reverential. Some OT prayers have extended introductions, such as that found in Neh. 1:5, that seem to pile up names for God. These should be seen as instances not of stiltedness or ostentation, but rather as setting up a kind of “buffer zone” in recognition of the distance between the Creator and the creature. In the NT, compare the same phenomenon in Eph. 1:17.
A presupposition of prayer in the OT is that God hears prayer and may indeed answer and effect the change being requested. Prayer is not primarily about changing the psychological state or the heart of the one praying, but rather about God changing the circumstances of the one praying.
The depiction of prayer in the NT is largely consistent with that of the OT, but there are important developments.
Jesus tells his disciples to address God as “Father” (Matt. 6:9; cf. Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). Prayer to God is now to be made in the name of Jesus (Matt. 18:19 20; John 14:13; 15:16; 16:23–26).
Prayer can also be made to Jesus (John 14:14), and such devotion to him in the early church is evidence of his being regarded as deity. Unlike anything prior in the OT, Jesus tells his followers to pray for their enemies (Matt. 5:44). Jesus and his followers serve as examples (Luke 23:34; Acts 7:60).
The Holy Spirit plays a vital role in prayers. It is by him that we are able to call out, “Abba, Father” (Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). The Spirit himself intercedes for us (Rom. 8:26). Our praying is to be done in the Spirit (Eph. 6:18; Jude 20; possibly 1 Cor. 14:15).
Jesus encourages fervent and even continual or repeated prayer (Luke 18:1–8), but not showy or repetitive prayer (Matt. 6:5–8).
Jesus becomes the model of prayer. He prays before important decisions (Luke 6:12–13) and in connection with significant crisis points (Matt. 14:23; 26:36–44; Luke 3:21; 9:29; John 12:27). He offers prayers that are not answered (Luke 22:41–44) and prayers that are (Heb. 5:7). Even as he tells his disciples to always pray and not give up (Luke 18:1 [which is also the meaning of the sometimes overly literalized “pray without ceasing” in 1 Thess. 5:17 NRSV]), so he himself wrestles in prayer (Luke 22:41–44; Heb. 5:7). He has prayed for his disciples (John 17; Luke 22:32), and even now, in heaven, he still intercedes for us (Heb. 7:25). Indeed, our intercession before God’s throne is valid because his is (Heb. 4:14–16).
The way the word “soul” is used in English does not align well with any single Hebrew or Greek word in the Bible. It is widely accepted that the biblical view (both OT and NT) of humanity does not recognize sharp boundaries between body and soul (bipartite anthropology) or between body, soul, and spirit (tripartite). The human being is, according to biblical teaching, a psychosomatic unity.
Because Scripture sees all things as providentially arranged and sustained by God’s sovereign power at all times (Heb. 1:3), miracles are not aberrations in an otherwise closed and mechanical universe. Nor are miracles raw demonstrations of divinity designed to overcome prejudice or unbelief and to convince people of the existence of God (Mark 8:11 12). Still less are they clever conjuring tricks involving some kind of deception that can be otherwise explained on a purely scientific basis. Rather, God in his infinite wisdom sometimes does unusual and extraordinary things to call attention to himself and his activity. Miracles are divinely ordained acts of God that dramatically alert us to the presence of his glory and power and advance his saving purposes in redemptive history.
In the OT, miracles are not evenly distributed but rather are found in greater number during times of great redemptive significance, such as the exodus and the conquest of Canaan. Miracles were performed also during periods of apostasy, such as in the days of the ninth-century prophets Elijah and Elisha. Common to both of these eras is the powerful demonstration of the superiority of God over pagan deities (Exod. 7–12; 1 Kings 18:20–40).
In the NT, miracles often are acts of compassion, but more significantly they attest the exalted status of Jesus of Nazareth (Acts 2:22) and the saving power of his word (Heb. 2:3–4). In the Synoptic Gospels, they reveal the coming of God’s kingdom and the conquest of Satan’s dominion (Matt. 8:16–17; 12:22–30; Mark 3:27). They point to the person of Jesus as the promised Messiah of OT Scripture (Matt. 4:23; 11:4–6). John shows a preference for the word “signs,” and his Gospel is structured around them (John 20:30–31). According to John, the signs that Jesus performed were such that only the one who stood in a unique relationship to the Father as the Son of God could do them.
Just as entrenched skepticism is injurious to faith, so too is naive credulity, for although signs and wonders witness to God, false prophets also perform them “to deceive, if possible, even the elect” (Matt. 24:24). Christians are to exercise discernment and not be led astray by such impostors (Matt. 7:15–20).
The relationship between miracles and faith is not as straightforward as sometimes supposed. Miracles do not necessarily produce faith, nor does faith necessarily produce miracles. Miracles were intended to bring about the faith that leads to eternal life (John 20:31), but not all who witnessed them believed (John 10:32). Additionally, Jesus regarded a faith that rested only on the miracle itself as precarious (Mark 8:11–13; John 2:23–25; 4:48), though better than no faith at all (John 10:38). Faith that saves must ultimately find its grounding in the person of Jesus as the Son of God.
It is also clear that although Jesus always encouraged faith in those who came to him for help (Mark 9:23), and that he deliberately limited his miraculous powers in the presence of unbelief (Mark 6:5), many of his miracles were performed on those who did not or could not exercise faith (Matt. 12:22; Mark 1:23–28; 5:1–20; Luke 14:1–4).
The fact that Jesus performed miracles was never an issue; rather, his opponents disputed the source of his power (Mark 3:22). Arguments about his identity were to be settled by appeal not to miracles but to the word of God (Matt. 22:41–46).
Direct Matches
A title designating members of the group of twelve disciples (Matt. 10:2–4; Mark 3:16–19; Luke 6:13–16) who received Jesus’ teaching (Luke 17:5) and to whom he granted authority (Mark 6:7, 30; Luke 9:1, 10). Matthias later replaced Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:24). These apostles provided leadership to the early church in Jerusalem (Acts 15:6), performed miracles (Acts 2:43; 2 Cor. 12:12), and faced persecution (Acts 5:18) as they testified to Jesus’ resurrection (Acts 4:33; 5:32). Broader usage of the term includes witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection (1 Cor. 15:7), James the brother of Jesus (Gal. 1:19), Barnabas and Paul (Acts 14:14), and possibly Silas (1 Thess. 2:6) and Andronicus and Junias/Junia (Rom. 16:7). Paul regularly speaks of his calling in apostolic terms (Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:1; Titus 1:1), while Peter similarly self-identifies (1 Pet. 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:1). The word is once used of Jesus himself (Heb. 3:1).
Generally made of grain, this staple of foods has been known to be in existence since prehistoric days, being mentioned in the oldest literatures of humanity. Though usually made of wheat, it can be made of any grain and also some kinds of beans or lentils. The Hebrew term, lekhem, is first used in Gen. 3:19 (see KJV) and is found throughout the Bible. The NIV uses the English word “bread” over 250 times.
To make bread, grain must be ground into flour, mixed with salt and water, kneaded into a dough, and baked. Most breads included a leaven to add substance. As a food staple, it became a symbol of hospitality (Neh. 13:1–2; Matt. 14:15–21) and community as people ate together (Acts 2:42). Bread was considered a gift from God, so it was treated with special deference. Unleavened bread was required during Passover feasts and in most occasions related to the worship of God. The “bread of the Presence” (KJV: “shewbread”), representing the twelve tribes of Israel in the temple, was made of unleavened bread (Exod. 25:30) with special flour and was carefully eaten by the priests.
Bread was such a basic part of life that it often was used in Scripture to represent the daily aspects of life and people’s most basic needs. During the days of Moses and the Israelites wandering in the desert, God provided for them special bread, manna, which they collected and ate each day, demonstrating God’s consistent care for them as they traveled (Exod. 16). Jesus used bread in the Lord’s Prayer to represent asking God to meet our basic needs (Matt. 5:11), and he called himself the “bread of life” to show that he is the one who “gives life to the world,” our ultimate sustenance (John 6:33–35). During this exchange with the Jews about the bread of life, Jesus foreshadows what takes place at the Last Supper with his disciples, suggesting that believers must “eat [his] flesh” (represented by bread) and “drink [his] blood” (represented by wine) (John 6:53–59; cf. Luke 22:19). Additionally, bread was used symbolically to represent those things that were present in daily life (Pss. 127:2; 80:5; Prov. 4:17; 20:17).
Terminology
The NT word for “church” is ekklēsia, which means “gathering, assembly, congregation.” In classical Greek the term was used almost exclusively for political gatherings. In particular, in Athens the word signified the assembling of the citizens for the purpose of conducting the affairs of the city. Moreover, ekklēsia referred only to the actual meeting, not to the citizens themselves. When the people were not assembled, they were not considered to be the ekklēsia. The NT records three instances of this secular usage of the term (Acts 19:32, 39, 41).
The most important background for the Christian use of the term is the LXX (Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, dated c. 250 BC), which uses the word in a religious sense about one hundred times, almost always as a translation of the Hebrew word qahal. While qahal does not indicate a secular gathering (in contrast to ’edah, the typical Hebrew word for Israel’s religious gathering, translated by Greek synagōgē), it does denote Israel’s sacred meetings. This is especially the case in Deuteronomy, where qahal is linked with the covenant.
In the NT, ekklēsia is used to refer to the community of God’s people 109 times (out of 114 occurrences of the term). Although the word occurs in only two Gospel passages (Matt. 16:18; 18:17), it is of special importance in Acts (23 times) and the Pauline writings (46 times). It is found 20 times in Revelation and in isolated instances in James and Hebrews. Three general conclusions can be drawn from this usage. First, ekklēsia (in both the singular and the plural) applies predominantly to a local assembly of those who profess faith in and allegiance to Christ. Second, ekklēsia designates the universal church (Acts 8:3; 9:31; 1 Cor. 12:28; 15:9; especially in the later Pauline letters: Eph. 1:22–23; Col. 1:18). Third, the ekklēsia is God’s congregation (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1).
The Nature of the Church
The nature of the church is too broad to be exhausted in the meaning of one word. To capture its significance, the NT authors utilize a rich array of metaphorical descriptions. Nevertheless, there are those metaphors that seem to dominate the biblical pictures of the church, five of which call for comment: the people of God, the kingdom of God, the eschatological temple of God, the bride of Christ, and the body of Christ.
The people of God. Essentially, the concept of the people of God can be summed up in the covenantal phrase: “I will be their God, and they will be my people” (see Exod. 6:6–7; 19:5; Lev. 26:9–14; Jer. 7:23; 30:22; 32:37–40; Ezek. 11:19–20; 36:22–28; Acts 15:14; 2 Cor. 6:16; Heb. 8:10–12; Rev. 21:3). Thus, the people of God are those in both the OT and the NT eras who responded to God by faith and whose spiritual origin rests exclusively in God’s grace.
To speak of the one people of God transcending the eras of the OT and the NT necessarily raises the question of the relationship between the church and Israel. Modern interpreters prefer not to polarize the matter into an either/or issue. Rather, they talk about the church and Israel in terms of there being both continuity and discontinuity between them.
Continuity between the church and Israel. Two ideas establish the fact that the church and Israel are portrayed in the Bible as being in a continuous relationship. First, in the OT the church was present in Israel in some sense. Acts 7:38 suggests this connection when, alluding to Deut. 9:10, it speaks of the church (ekklēsia) in the wilderness. The same idea is probably to be inferred from the intimate association noted earlier existing between the words ekklēsia and qahal, especially when the latter is qualified by the phrase “of God.” Furthermore, if the church is viewed in some NT passages as preexistent, then one finds therein the prototype of the creation of Israel (see Exod. 25:40; Acts 7:44; Gal. 4:26; Heb. 12:22; Rev. 21:11; cf. Eph. 1:3–14).
Second, Israel in some sense is present in the church in the NT. The many OT names for Israel applied to the church in the NT establish that fact. Some of those are “Israel” (Gal. 6:15–16; Eph. 2:12; Heb. 8:8–10; Rev. 2:14), “a chosen people” (1 Pet. 2:9), “the circumcision” (Rom. 2:28–29; Phil. 3:3; Col. 2:11), “Abraham’s seed” (Rom. 4:16; Gal. 3:29), “the remnant” (Rom. 9:27; 11:5–7), “the elect” (Rom. 11:28; Eph. 1:4), “the flock” (Acts 20:28; Heb. 13:20; 1 Pet. 5:2), and “priesthood” (1 Pet. 2:9; Rev. 1:6; 5:10).
Discontinuity between the church and Israel. The church, however, is not totally identical with Israel; discontinuity also characterizes the relationship. The church, according to the NT, is the eschatological (end-time) Israel incorporated in Jesus Christ and, as such, is a progression beyond historical Israel (1 Cor. 10:11; 2 Cor. 5:14–21). Indeed, significant discontinuity is introduced by the fact that the church includes Gentiles as members of Israel, without requiring them to convert to Judaism first. Gentiles enter as Gentiles. However, a caveat must be issued at this point. Although the church is a progression beyond Israel, it does not seem to be the permanent replacement of Israel (see Rom. 9–11, esp. 11:25–27).
The kingdom of God. Many scholars have maintained that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus inaugurated the kingdom of God, producing the overlapping of the two ages. The kingdom has already dawned but is not yet complete. The first aspect pertains to Jesus’ first coming, and the second aspect relates to his second coming. In other words, the age to come has broken into this age, and now the two exist simultaneously. This background is crucial in ascertaining the relationship between the church and the kingdom of God, because the church also exists in the tension that results from the overlapping of the two ages. Accordingly, one may define the church as the foreshadowing of the kingdom. Two ideas flow from this definition: first, the church is related to the kingdom of God; second, the church is not equal to the kingdom of God.
The church and the kingdom of God are related. Not until after the resurrection of Jesus does the NT speak with regularity about the church. However, there are early signs of the church in the teaching and ministry of Jesus, in both general and specific ways. In general, Jesus anticipated the later official formation of the church in that he gathered to himself the twelve disciples, who constituted the beginnings of eschatological Israel—in effect, the remnant. More specifically, Jesus explicitly referred to the church in two passages: Matt. 16:18–19; 18:17. In the first passage Jesus promised that he would build his church despite satanic opposition, thus assuring the ultimate success of his mission. The notion of the church overcoming the forces of evil coincides with the idea that the kingdom of God will prevail over its enemies and bespeaks the intimate association between the church and the kingdom. The second passage relates to the future organization of the church, not unlike the Jewish synagogue practices of Jesus’ day.
The church and the kingdom of God are not identical. As intimately related as the church and the kingdom of God are, the NT does not equate the two, as is evident in the fact that the early Christians preached the kingdom, not the church (Acts 8:12; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31). The NT identifies the church as the people of the kingdom (e.g., Rev. 5:10), not the kingdom itself. Moreover, the church is the instrument of the kingdom. This is especially clear from Matt. 16:18–19, where the preaching of Peter and the church become the keys to opening up the kingdom of God to all who would enter.
The eschatological temple of God. Both the OT and Judaism anticipated the rebuilding of the temple in the future kingdom of God (e.g., Ezek. 40–48; Hag. 2:1–9; 1 En. 90:29; 91:3; Jub. 1:17, 29). Jesus hinted that he was going to build such a structure (Matt. 16:18; Mark 14:58; John 2:19–22). Pentecost witnessed to the beginning of the fulfillment of that dream in that when the Spirit inhabited the church, the eschatological temple was formed (Acts 2:16–36). Other NT writers also perceived that the presence of the Spirit in the Christian community constituted the new temple of God (1 Cor. 3:16–17; 2 Cor. 6:14–7:1; Eph. 2:19–22; see also Gal. 4:21–31; 1 Pet. 2:4–10). However, that the eschatological temple is not yet complete is evident in the preceding passages, especially in their emphasis on the need for the church to grow toward maturity in Christ, which will be fully accomplished only at the parousia (second coming of Christ). In the meantime, Christians, as priests of God, are to perform their sacrificial service to the glory of God (Rom. 12:1–2; Heb. 13:15; 1 Pet. 2:4–10).
The bride of Christ. The image of marriage is applied to God and Israel in the OT (see Isa. 54:5–6; 62:5; Hos. 2:7). Similar imagery is applied to Christ and the church in the NT. Christ, the bridegroom, has sacrificially and lovingly chosen the church to be his bride (Eph. 5:25–27). Her responsibility during the betrothal period is to be faithful to him (2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:24). At the parousia the official wedding ceremony will take place, and with it the eternal union of Christ and his wife will be actualized (Rev. 19:7–9; 21:1–2).
The body of Christ. The body of Christ as a metaphor for the church is unique to the Pauline literature and constitutes one of the most significant concepts therein (Rom. 12:4–5; 1 Cor. 12:12–27; Eph. 4:7–16; Col. 1:18). The primary purpose of the metaphor is to demonstrate the interrelatedness of diversity and unity within the church, especially with reference to spiritual gifts. The body of Christ is the last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45), the new humanity of the end time that has appeared in history. However, Paul’s usage of the image, like the metaphor of the new temple, indicates that the church, as the body of Christ, still has a long way to go spiritually. It is not yet complete.
Sacraments
At the heart of the expression of the church’s faith are the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The former symbolizes entrance into the church, while the latter provides spiritual sustenance for the church.
Baptism. Baptism symbolizes the sinner’s entrance into the church. Three observations emerge from the biblical treatment of this sacrament. First, the OT intimated baptism, especially in its association of repentance of sin with ablutions (Num.19:18–22; Ps. 51:7; Ezek. 36:25; cf. John 3:5). Second, the baptism of John anticipated Christian baptism. John administered a baptism of repentance in expectation of the baptism of the Spirit and fire that the Messiah would exercise (Matt. 3:11 // Luke 3:16). Those who accept Jesus as Messiah experience the baptism of fire and judgment (which may be an allusion to undergoing the great tribulation/messianic woes that lead into the messianic kingdom). Third, the early church practiced baptism in imitation of the Lord Jesus (Matt. 3:13–17 // Mark 1:9–11 // Luke 3:21–22; see also John 1:32–34; cf. Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38; 8:16; Rom. 6:3–6; 1 Cor. 1:13–15; Gal. 3:27; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:21). These passages demonstrate some further truths about baptism: baptism is intimately related to faith in God; baptism identifies the person with the death and resurrection of Jesus; baptism incorporates the person into the community of believers.
Lord’s Supper. The other biblical sacrament is the Lord’s Supper. This rite symbolizes Christ’s spiritual nourishment of his church as it celebrates the sacred meal. Two basic points emerge from the biblical data concerning the Lord’s Supper. First, it was instituted by Christ (Matt. 26:26–29; Mark 14:22–25; Luke 22:15–20; 1 Cor. 11:23–25), probably as an adaptation of the Passover meal. If that is the case, then, Jesus will have introduced two changes into the Passover seder: he replaced the unleavened bread with a reference to his body being given for us on the cross; he replaced the cup of redemption with a reference to his shed blood on the cross, the basis of the new covenant. Second, the early church practiced the Lord’s Supper probably weekly, in conjunction with the love feast (see 1 Cor. 11:18–22; cf. Jude 12). A twofold meaning is attached to the Lord’s Supper by the NT authors. First, it involves participation in Christ’s salvation (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24–25), and in two ways: participating in the Lord’s Supper looks back to the death of Jesus, in which the believer now shares; participating in the Lord’s Supper looks forward to Christ’s return, the culmination point of the believer’s salvation. Second, the Lord’s Supper involves identification with the body of Christ, the community of faith (1 Cor. 10:16–17; 11:27–33).
Worship
The ultimate purpose of the church is to worship God through Christ and in the power of the Holy Spirit (see, e.g., Rev. 4–5). The early church first worshiped in the Jerusalem temple (Acts 2:46; 3:1; 5:42) as well as in the synagogue (Acts 22:19; cf. John 9:22; James 2:2). At the same time, and into the near future, believers met in homes for worship (Acts 1:13; 2:46; 5:42; cf. Rom. 16:15; Col. 4:15; Philem. 2; 2 John 10; 3 John 1, 6). Although many Jewish Christians no doubt continued to worship God on the Sabbath, the established time for the church’s worship came to be Sunday, the day of Jesus’ resurrection (Acts 20:7; Rev. 1:10). The early church most probably patterned its order of worship after the synagogue service: praise in prayer (Acts 2:42, 47; 3:1; 1 Thess. 1:2; 5:17) and in song (1 Cor. 14:26; Phil. 2:6–11; Col. 1:15–20), the expounding of Scripture (Acts 2:42; 6:4; Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Tim. 4:13), and almsgiving to the needy (Acts 2:44–45; 1 Cor. 16:1–2; 2 Cor. 8–9; James 2:15–17).
Service and Organization
Five observations emerge from the NT regarding the service and organization of the early church. First, the ministry of the church centers on its usage of spiritual gifts, which are given to believers by God’s grace and for his glory as well as for the good of others (Rom. 12:3; Eph. 4:7–16). Second, every believer possesses a gift of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:7; Eph. 4:7). Third, it is through the diversity of the gifts that the body of Christ matures and is unified (Rom. 12:4; 1 Cor. 12:12–31; Eph. 4:17–18). Fourth, although there was organized leadership in the NT church, including elders (1 Tim. 3:1–7 [also called “pastors” and “bishops”; see Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Pet. 5:1–4]) and deacons (1 Tim. 3:8–13), there does not seem to have been a gap between the “clergy” and the “laity” in the church of the first century; rather, those with the gift of leadership are called to equip all the saints for the work of the ministry (Eph. 4:7–16). Fifth, spiritual gifts are to be exercised in love (1 Cor. 13).
In Christian theology, doctrine is the synthesis of Christian teaching, especially as set forth in its various related themes. The early disciples frequently referred to the teachings of Christ and to the teachings of the apostles and the church. These were memorized, compiled, and passed through the generations in the church (2 Tim. 2). As early as Acts 2 reference is made to the teaching of the apostles and the devotion of the church to it. By the second century, a body of teaching had crystallized into a doctrinal treatise called the Didache. Doctrinal teaching as a set structure is especially emphasized in the Pastoral Epistles, such that it has caused some to conjecture a later date and early catholic outlook for those letters. Regardless of the validity of this postulation, these letters evidence an early doctrinal and confessional outlook within the church.
This was, of course, nothing new, since the Israelites had a body of teaching that they had passed on through the generations: the law, both written and oral. For the Israelites, the law, both written and oral, was memorized, taught, interpreted, and heeded through all of society. The church simply followed suit in forming its teachings.
In the NT two words, didachē and didaskalia, are commonly translated “teaching” and in some cases are rendered by some translations as “doctrine.” The term didachē appears more widely throughout the NT, whereas didaskalia is used largely in the Pastoral Epistles (referring to both the content and the act of teaching). The term didaskalia is sometimes used with the term logos when the latter indicates sound speech (Titus 2:7–8) and words of the faith (1 Tim. 4:6). In fact, in one verse in the Pastoral Epistles all three terms are used together as “the faithful word,” “in accordance with the teaching,” and “in sound doctrine” (Titus 1:9 NASB).
The first body of teaching for the church is the teaching of Jesus (Matt. 7:28), such as that found in the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus notes the ethic of his messiahship and his followers. The teaching of Jesus, which is authoritative (Mark 1:22, 27), and confrontational (Mark 12:38), is an astonishing answer to the religious leaders (Matt. 22:33; cf. Luke 4:32). Jesus notes the vanity of teaching the human commandments as if they were the doctrine from God (Mark 7:7). When questioned, Jesus sets forth his teaching as from the Father (John 7:16–17). The chief priests seek to destroy both Jesus and his followers because of the teaching (Mark 11:18; John 18:19; Acts 5:28). On Cyprus the proconsul is astonished at the doctrine of Christ taught by Paul (Acts 13:12), and in Athens Paul’s teaching about Christ is new and unusual to those of the Areopagus (Acts 17:18–20).
For Paul, doctrine is fundamental for believers. He notes the commitment to the teaching of Christ after conversion as normative for the Roman believers (Rom. 6:17), and he instructs further that they keep an eye out for those who cause division and hinder adherence to sound doctrine (Rom. 16:17). In fact, God has given gifted people to the body for building up the saints to avoid such doctrinal problems (Eph. 4:12–14). Further, a straightforward expression of teaching has priority over gifts such as tongues (1 Cor. 14:6, 26). Paul also points out that the Colossian heresy is the doctrine of human beings rather than that of God (Col. 2:22).
In the Pastoral Epistles the injunction from Paul to Timothy is that he be nourished on and persevere in sound doctrine (1 Tim. 4:6, 16) and set forth doctrine in preaching (1 Tim. 4:13 [along with public reading of Scripture]; 2 Tim. 4:2). All this is certainly fitting for Timothy, as he has followed the teaching of Paul (2 Tim. 3:10). The injunction to Titus is to hold to the word and to the sound doctrine and teaching as he corrects the church (Titus 1:9). Those who are servants are encouraged to show honesty and good faith, so that the teaching of the Savior will be respected (Titus 2:10). It is clear for Paul that Scripture is the basis of doctrine (2 Tim. 3:16). This doctrine (teaching) will be tolerated by few; as a whole, sound doctrine will be rejected in favor of a message more palatable to human interest (2 Tim. 4:3). The task of the servant of God is to stand against heterodox teaching (1 Tim. 1:3; 6:3). Heterodoxy leads to heteropraxy (1 Tim. 1:10). Paul notes the doctrine of demons, false teaching that is ultimately based in satanic teaching (1 Tim. 4:1).
The injunction of the writer to the Hebrews is that they are not to submit to strange teachings, which deny grace (13:9). This accords with the book’s argument as a whole. For John, staying in the doctrine of Christ is salvific, but going outside it is not (2 John 9). John’s readers are not to receive those who pervert the doctrine of Christ (2 John 10).
In the book of Revelation, Jesus warns the church at Pergamum about the false teaching of Balaam (2:14) and that of the Nicolaitans (2:15). The church at Thyatira is likewise warned to shun the teachings of the false prophetess known as “Jezebel” (2:20, 24).
The common experience/sharing of something with someone else. In the NT, the most common Greek word group to express this idea has the root koin- (“common”), with the cognate verb koinōneō, noun koinōnia, and adjective koinos. But the concept of fellowship extends well beyond this single word family and finds expression in a variety of different contexts.
Fellowship between the Members of the Trinity
The Gospel of John makes several claims about the fellowship that the members of the Trinity have experienced with each other from all eternity. Jesus claims, “I and the Father are one” (10:30) and “It is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work” (14:10). Regarding the Holy Spirit, Jesus says, “He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine” (16:14–15). The Son has even shared in the Father’s glory from before the creation of the world (17:5). Within the unity of the Godhead, the individual members experience perfect fellowship as they share in the fullness of deity.
Fellowship between Jesus and Outcasts
During his earthly ministry, Jesus modeled God’s love for the marginalized by associating with them. Such fellowship often took the form of sharing meals with outcasts such as tax collectors and sinners (Mark 2:15–17; Luke 5:29–32; 7:36–50; 19:1–10), a practice that provoked sharp criticism from the Pharisees (Luke 15:1–2). In Luke 15:3–32, Jesus tells three parables in response to such criticism. These parables indicate that his fellowship with sinners demonstrates God’s love for the lost and the joy that comes from restored fellowship with God. Such table fellowship served as a foretaste of the eschatological messianic banquet, when all of God’s people (Jew and Gentile alike) will eat together in the kingdom of God as the fellowship of the forgiven (Matt. 8:11; Luke 13:29–30; Rev. 19:6–9).
Fellowship between Believers and God
The close and intimate fellowship that the members of the Trinity experience with one another is something that Jesus prays for his people to experience themselves (John 17:20–26). He asks that believers “may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (17:21). Just as the Father is in Jesus and Jesus is in the Father, believers are described as being in both the Father and the Son. The stated purpose for such fellowship is twofold: that the world may know and believe that the Father has sent the Son, and that the Father loves believers even as he has loved the Son (17:21, 23). Central to this fellowship between God and believers is the sharing of the glory that the Father and the Son experience (17:22). Jesus expresses similar truths in John 15:1–11 when he speaks of himself as the true vine and his followers as the branches who must remain in him because “apart from me you can do nothing” (v. 5).
Although fellowship with God is something that Christ has purchased for his people through his death and resurrection, it can be broken by sin in the believer’s life: “If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth” (1 John 1:6). When sin does break a believer’s fellowship with God, we are reassured, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness” (1:9). This restoration of fellowship is based on the work of Jesus to plead our case before the Father (2:1).
Paul frequently speaks of the believer’s fellowship with Christ, even though he rarely uses the word “fellowship” to speak of this reality. It is God who calls the believer into fellowship with Christ (1 Cor. 1:9), but such fellowship involves both the “power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death” (Phil. 3:10). When believers celebrate the Lord’s Supper, they are participating in the body and blood of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16–17). Far more frequently, Paul expresses the concept of fellowship with Christ by his use of the phrase “with Christ.” Believers have been crucified, buried, raised, clothed, and seated in the heavenly realms with Christ (Rom. 6:4–9; 2 Cor. 13:4; Gal. 2:20–21; Eph. 2:5–6; Col. 2:12–13; 3:1–4). They also share in the inheritance that Christ has received from the Father (Rom. 8:16–17) and one day will reign with him (2 Tim. 2:12).
Fellowship between Believers and Others
The fellowship that believers have with one another is an extension of their fellowship with God. John wrote, “We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3). Just as walking in darkness falsifies a believer’s claim to fellowship with God, so also walking in the light is necessary for fellowship with other believers (1:6–7). Paul strikes a similar note when he says, “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?” (2 Cor. 6:14–15). The point is not to avoid all contact with unbelievers (cf. 1 Cor. 5:9–10), but rather that the believer is so fundamentally identified with Christ that to identify with unbelievers should be avoided.
Because they are joined to Christ by faith, believers share a wide variety of experiences and blessings with each other. In the broadest sense, they share in the gospel and its blessings (1 Cor. 9:23; Phil. 1:5–7; Philem. 6; 2 Pet. 1:4), especially the Spirit (2 Cor. 13:13–14; Phil. 2:1). But the most common shared experience is suffering. When believers suffer because of their identification with Christ, they are said to share in Christ’s suffering (Phil. 3:10; 1 Pet. 4:13). In addition to this vertical element, there is a horizontal aspect. Because believers are united in one body (1 Cor. 12:12–13; Eph. 4:4–6), when one believer suffers, the entire body shares in that suffering (2 Cor. 1:7; Heb. 10:33; Rev. 1:9).
From the earliest days of the church, believers found very tangible ways to demonstrate that their fellowship was rooted in their common faith in Jesus. Immediately after Pentecost, “they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. . . . All the believers were together and had everything in common” (Acts 2:42–44). This common experience led believers to voluntarily sell their possessions and share with any who had a need (2:45; 4:32). This meeting of very practical needs was motivated by a common experience of God’s abundant generosity in freely giving his Son (Rom. 8:32). The self-sacrificial sharing of resources became a staple of the early church (Rom. 12:13; Gal. 6:6; 1 Tim. 6:18) and provided an opportunity for Paul to demonstrate the unity of the church when he collected money from Gentile churches to alleviate the suffering of Jewish Christians in Judea (Rom. 15:26–27; 2 Cor. 8–9).
Conclusion
Biblical fellowship is not merely close association with other believers. The NT emphasizes what believers share in Christ rather than whom they share it with. True biblical fellowship between believers is an outworking of their fellowship with God through the gospel.
Another name for Sunday, this term reminds us that this day belongs to the Lord and should be used for his honor and glory. The term itself is used only once in Scripture, where John mentions how he was in the Spirit “on the Lord’s Day” when Christ commissioned him to write the book of Revelation (Rev. 1:10). There are no other specific details clearly given in Scripture about the identification of this day or how it was observed. Our understanding of this term and how it fits in with other passages of Scripture touches on three separate issues.
A special day. First, should Christians today celebrate any day of the week in a special way? At least some believers throughout history have believed that it is possible to observe every day of the week as equally special in the sense that “this is the day that the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it” (Ps. 118:24 ESV). Paul regards the observance of special days for worship as an area of Christian freedom: “One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind” (Rom. 14:5). The same principle is found in Col. 2:16: “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.” Nevertheless, most Christians have concluded that the expression “the Lord’s Day” clearly points to a specific day during the week when the Lord is to be worshiped in a special way.
A specific day. Second, which day of the week should we celebrate in a special way? When is the Lord’s Day? For OT believers, the answer is clear: it is the last, or seventh, day of the week. In the Bible, both the idea of a seven-day week and the setting apart of the seventh day are based ultimately on the creation account in Gen. 2:1–3. This Sabbath principle is codified in the Ten Commandments, which indicate that the Sabbath is to be kept holy by requiring people and their animals not to engage in work (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15). Observance of the seventh day, or Sabbath, continues among Jews in the present. More recently, other groups, such as Seventh-Day Adventists and Seventh-Day Baptists, have felt the weight of this OT evidence and have continued to observe Saturday as the proper day for worship.
Nevertheless, most Christians have been persuaded by the practice of the early church to gather together for worship on the first day of the week. Two key passages of Scripture provide support for this conclusion. In Acts 20:7 the church had gathered for the Lord’s Supper specifically “on the first day of the week,” and in 1 Cor. 16:2 Paul instructs the church at Corinth to collect an offering specifically “on the first day of every week” (presumably during its local weekly meetings). Thus, most Christians have concluded that they are no longer under the OT observance of the Sabbath as the seventh day of the week (cf. Rom. 14:5; Col. 2:16), and now they are to worship in honor of Jesus’ resurrection “on the first day of the week” (Matt. 28:1 pars.).
A sacred day. Third, how should we celebrate this day? The Puritans and others throughout church history have considered Sunday as the Christian Sabbath. In other words, they made the shift from the seventh day of the week in the OT to the first day of the week in the church age, but they believed that all the OT rules and regulations for the Sabbath were still binding on believers today. Nevertheless, most Christians today accept Sunday as the “Lord’s Day,” when they worship in a NT manner and not under the letter of the OT ceremonial law, with its focus primarily on resting or not working. Under the OT system there was no concept of people gathering together on a regular weekly basis for corporate worship. OT worship revolved around various annual feasts and festivals when people would gather together at the central temple in Jerusalem a few times each year. The idea of weekly worship services emerged only later, during the Babylonian captivity, with the development of the Jewish synagogue. Thus, most Christians have concluded that Sunday is no longer a transposed OT Sabbath, but rather the NT Lord’s Day, and consequently that it should be celebrated accordingly, as when “they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer” (Acts 2:42).
Secondary Matches
The following suggestions occured because Acts 2:42-47 is mentioned in the definition.
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.
A Greek form of the common Hebrew name “Hananiah.” (1) A member of the Jerusalem church whose death was followed by that of his wife, Sapphira, as a result of holding back part of their possessions (Acts 5:1–11). Peter rebuked Ananias and Sapphira’s deception as lying to or testing “the Holy Spirit” (vv. 3, 5). This incident is best understood against the background of Acts 2–4, which describes as closely related being “filled with the Holy Spirit” (2:4; 4:31), the spread of the gospel (2:40; 4:4), and the communal sharing of possessions (2:44–45; 4:32–37).
(2) A disciple at Damascus who helped restore Saul’s eyesight and baptized him in accordance with the Lord’s direction in a vision (Acts 9). In Acts 22:12 Paul describes Ananias as “a devout observer of the law and highly respected by all the Jews living [at Damascus].” He was the one who informed Paul of his calling as a witness for Jesus to all people (22:12–15).
(3) A high priest in Jerusalem during AD 47–58. He presided over the interrogation of Paul at the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem (Acts 23:1–10) and testified against Paul before Felix (24:1). His character is well illustrated in his command to strike Paul on the mouth, upon which Paul calls him a “whitewashed wall” and sees him unfit for the high priesthood (23:2–5). Being a pro-Roman figure, Ananias was assassinated by the Zealots in AD 66.
The outpouring of the Spirit that was prophesied in the OT to take place in the last days, in connection with the arrival of the Messiah.
Spirit baptism in the Bible. The OT prophets had spoken of both the Spirit of God coming upon the Messiah (e.g., Isa. 11:2; 42:1; 61:1) and a giving or pouring out of the Spirit in the last days (e.g., Isa. 32:15; 44:3; Ezek. 36:27; 37:14; 39:29; Joel 2:28). Peter connects the giving of the Spirit with Jesus’ being received by the Father and being granted messianic authority (Acts 2:33–38). The experience of Cornelius in particular associates the pouring out of the Spirit (Acts 10:45) with a baptism with the Spirit (11:16).
Seven passages in the NT directly speak of someone being baptized in/with the Spirit. Four of these passages refer to John the Baptist’s prediction that Jesus will baptize people in/with the Spirit in contrast to his own water baptism (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33). In Matthew and Luke, Jesus’ baptism is referred to as a baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Two passages refer to Jesus’ prediction that the disciples would receive Spirit baptism, which occurred at Pentecost. As recorded in Acts 2, tongues of fire came to rest on each of them, they were filled with the Holy Spirit, and they began to speak in other tongues. As the disciples spoke to the Jews who had gathered in Jerusalem for the festival, three thousand were converted. Acts 1:5 contains Jesus’ prediction of this baptism with the Spirit, which Peter recounts in 11:16.
The final reference occurs in 1 Cor. 12:13, where Paul says, “For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.” Thus, Christians form one body through their common experience of immersion in the one Spirit.
A second baptism? While in 1 Cor. 12 Paul seems to refer to an experience that all Christians undergo at conversion, there are several incidents in Acts where the reception of the Spirit occurs after conversion. The question then arises as to whether there is a separate “baptism in/with the Holy Spirit” distinct from the Spirit’s initial work of regeneration and incorporation into the body of Christ at conversion and whether this two-stage process is normative for the church. This belief in a second baptism is particularly prominent in Pentecostal traditions.
Examples such as Acts 2; 8; 10; 19 are commonly used to support the view of a second and subsequent experience of Spirit baptism. In Acts 2 the disciples are already converted and wait for the Spirit, who comes to them at Pentecost. In Acts 8 the Samaritans first respond to Philip’s preaching and receive water baptism. However, they receive the Spirit only after Peter and John come from Jerusalem and pray for them to receive the Holy Spirit. In Acts 10 Cornelius is a God-fearing Gentile, and after Peter visits him, the Spirit falls on his household. In Acts 19 Paul finds some disciples in Ephesus. After he lays hands on them, the Holy Spirit comes upon them, and they begin to speak in tongues and prophesy.
In understanding these experiences, it must be remembered that Acts describes a transitional period for the church. Acts 2 in particular recounts the initial giving of the Spirit under the new covenant. It is possible, then, to see the events in Acts 8; 10 as the coming of the Spirit upon two other people groups, the Samaritans and the Gentiles. Acts 2:38 and 5:32 indicate that the apostles expected the reception of the Spirit to accompany conversion, and this appears to be the case in the rest of the book. Acts 19 narrates an incomplete conversion, where the people had only experienced John’s baptism and receive the Spirit after Paul baptizes them “in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
Filled with the Spirit. Although the NT does not support a theology of a second Spirit baptism, it does commonly mention an experience of being “filled” with the Spirit. The concept of being “filled with the Spirit” frequently occurs in contexts referring to spiritual growth, such as in Eph. 5:18, where Paul exhorts, “Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.” Apparently, this filling can occur numerous times. It can lead to worship of and thanksgiving to God (Eph. 5:19–20). It can also result in empowerment for ministry.
The immediate consequence of the disciples’ filling in Acts 2:4 is speaking in tongues to the various Jews gathered in Jerusalem, and in 4:31 they are empowered to speak “the word of God boldly.” Fullness of the Spirit can also be a characteristic of a believer’s life, such as in Acts 6:3, where the seven men chosen to look after the widows were to be men “known to be full of the Spirit.”
John the Baptist announces that one more powerful than he will “baptize . . . with the Holy Spirit and fire” (Matt. 3:11; Luke 3:16). A baptism of fire connotes judgment, yet Luke characterizes this as “good news” (Luke 3:17–18), for judgment signals the arrival of God’s eschatological kingdom in Jesus (cf. 12:49). John’s words evoke Isa. 4:4, which announces that Jerusalem/Zion will be cleansed “by a spirit of judgment and a spirit of fire.” They also resonate with numerous OT and intertestamental texts that predict God’s fiery judgment (e.g., Zeph. 1:18; Mal. 4:1). As a sign of the end times (Joel 2:28; Acts 2), God’s eschatological community, the church, experiences the baptism (1 Cor. 12:23) and fire (1 Thess. 5:19) of the Spirit.
The outpouring of the Spirit that was prophesied in the OT to take place in the last days, in connection with the arrival of the Messiah.
Spirit baptism in the Bible. The OT prophets had spoken of both the Spirit of God coming upon the Messiah (e.g., Isa. 11:2; 42:1; 61:1) and a giving or pouring out of the Spirit in the last days (e.g., Isa. 32:15; 44:3; Ezek. 36:27; 37:14; 39:29; Joel 2:28). Peter connects the giving of the Spirit with Jesus’ being received by the Father and being granted messianic authority (Acts 2:33–38). The experience of Cornelius in particular associates the pouring out of the Spirit (Acts 10:45) with a baptism with the Spirit (11:16).
Seven passages in the NT directly speak of someone being baptized in/with the Spirit. Four of these passages refer to John the Baptist’s prediction that Jesus will baptize people in/with the Spirit in contrast to his own water baptism (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33). In Matthew and Luke, Jesus’ baptism is referred to as a baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Two passages refer to Jesus’ prediction that the disciples would receive Spirit baptism, which occurred at Pentecost. As recorded in Acts 2, tongues of fire came to rest on each of them, they were filled with the Holy Spirit, and they began to speak in other tongues. As the disciples spoke to the Jews who had gathered in Jerusalem for the festival, three thousand were converted. Acts 1:5 contains Jesus’ prediction of this baptism with the Spirit, which Peter recounts in 11:16.
The final reference occurs in 1 Cor. 12:13, where Paul says, “For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.” Thus, Christians form one body through their common experience of immersion in the one Spirit.
A second baptism? While in 1 Cor. 12 Paul seems to refer to an experience that all Christians undergo at conversion, there are several incidents in Acts where the reception of the Spirit occurs after conversion. The question then arises as to whether there is a separate “baptism in/with the Holy Spirit” distinct from the Spirit’s initial work of regeneration and incorporation into the body of Christ at conversion and whether this two-stage process is normative for the church. This belief in a second baptism is particularly prominent in Pentecostal traditions.
Examples such as Acts 2; 8; 10; 19 are commonly used to support the view of a second and subsequent experience of Spirit baptism. In Acts 2 the disciples are already converted and wait for the Spirit, who comes to them at Pentecost. In Acts 8 the Samaritans first respond to Philip’s preaching and receive water baptism. However, they receive the Spirit only after Peter and John come from Jerusalem and pray for them to receive the Holy Spirit. In Acts 10 Cornelius is a God-fearing Gentile, and after Peter visits him, the Spirit falls on his household. In Acts 19 Paul finds some disciples in Ephesus. After he lays hands on them, the Holy Spirit comes upon them, and they begin to speak in tongues and prophesy.
In understanding these experiences, it must be remembered that Acts describes a transitional period for the church. Acts 2 in particular recounts the initial giving of the Spirit under the new covenant. It is possible, then, to see the events in Acts 8; 10 as the coming of the Spirit upon two other people groups, the Samaritans and the Gentiles. Acts 2:38 and 5:32 indicate that the apostles expected the reception of the Spirit to accompany conversion, and this appears to be the case in the rest of the book. Acts 19 narrates an incomplete conversion, where the people had only experienced John’s baptism and receive the Spirit after Paul baptizes them “in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
Filled with the Spirit. Although the NT does not support a theology of a second Spirit baptism, it does commonly mention an experience of being “filled” with the Spirit. The concept of being “filled with the Spirit” frequently occurs in contexts referring to spiritual growth, such as in Eph. 5:18, where Paul exhorts, “Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.” Apparently, this filling can occur numerous times. It can lead to worship of and thanksgiving to God (Eph. 5:19–20). It can also result in empowerment for ministry.
The immediate consequence of the disciples’ filling in Acts 2:4 is speaking in tongues to the various Jews gathered in Jerusalem, and in 4:31 they are empowered to speak “the word of God boldly.” Fullness of the Spirit can also be a characteristic of a believer’s life, such as in Acts 6:3, where the seven men chosen to look after the widows were to be men “known to be full of the Spirit.”
Every faithful translation of the Bible is the word of God. In this respect, Christianity is very different from Islam, which considers the Arabic version of the Qur’an exclusively holy. It is true that only the original versions of the biblical books, which were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, were verbally inspired, and this means that individual translations, like copies, can contain errors. Translations also necessarily involve some degree of interpretation. However, all language is created by God, and in the incarnation the Word became fully human as well as fully divine. In God’s hands, every human language is as capable as any other of expressing his truth.
Since Pentecost, the Holy Spirit has been at work to reverse the effect of human sin at Babel (Gen. 11:9), not by reducing all languages to one, but by redeeming the diversity and richness of the world’s languages so that all can hear God speak to them in their own tongue (Acts 2:1–11). Indeed, translations of Scripture themselves transform the languages and cultures in which they are written, endowing them with new or revised concepts of God, humanity, sin, and the means of salvation.
The History of Translation
Bible translation began long before the Bible as we know it was complete. In the fifth century BC the Israelites who returned from exile spoke Aramaic. Thus, they needed the Levites to translate the Hebrew law for them (Neh. 8:8). This Levitical teaching was probably an early example of a Targum, a translation into Aramaic with interpretation and expansion. We do not know exactly when the Targumim began to be written down, but some of the earliest fragments that have been found are among the DSS.
By about the third century BC the dominant languages of Palestine were Greek and Aramaic. Many NT quotations from the OT use an established Greek translation of the OT. This was known as the Septuagint (LXX), after the legend that it was translated by seventy-two men, six from each tribe of Israel, on the orders of Ptolemy Philadelphus of Egypt (285–247 BC). The NT was written in similar “common” (koinē) Greek, but in some places the Gospels and Acts translate words that Jesus and Paul originally spoke in Aramaic (Mark 5:41; 15:34; Acts 21:40; 22:2; 26:14; see also John 5:2; 19:13, 17, 20; 20:16).
Until Pentecost, God’s revelation was translated only into the languages spoken by the Jewish people in their everyday life. At Pentecost, however, the coming of the Holy Spirit was marked by a display of miraculous linguistic gifts, and a new era of Bible translation had begun (Acts 2). As Christians obeyed Christ’s command to take the word of God into all the world, they began to translate it into all the languages used by the growing church.
Within three centuries, Scripture was translated from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into Syriac, Coptic, and Latin. The earliest translations into these languages were then revised and improved in the subsequent centuries until some, such as Jerome’s Latin Vulgate and the Syriac Peshitta, emerged as acknowledged standards. Other early translations included Ethiopic, Armenian, Georgian, and Old Slavonic. Many of these languages were already written, but as missionaries ventured further, they sometimes had to start by reducing spoken languages to writing. Ulfilas, missionary to the Goths, was the first to do this.
All of the thirty-three translations prior to the Reformation had to be copied out by hand, and almost all were “secondary translations” made from the Latin. Moreover, despite the efforts of early reformers such as John Wycliffe (AD 1330–84), the Catholic Church continued to use the Latin text itself, which was accessible only to the educated. In the sixteenth century, however, the printing press was invented, Renaissance scholars rediscovered the value of consulting texts in the original Hebrew and Greek, and Protestantism realized that believers need the Bible in their mother tongue.
The most influential sixteenth-century translator into English was William Tyndale (1494–1536). His work on the NT and parts of the OT was gradually expanded and revised by other scholars, culminating in the 1611 King James Version, which is still widely used. Meanwhile, other European translations were produced in German (by Martin Luther), Spanish, Hungarian, Portuguese, and French.
The Reformation also gave new momentum to mission outside Europe, and by the end of the eighteenth century the number of languages having the Bible had roughly doubled. A much greater global achievement, however, began in the nineteenth century, when the newly formed Bible societies, with other mission agencies, were instrumental in the translation and publication of portions of Scripture in over four hundred languages. Famous translators from this century include William Carey in India, John Robert Morrison in China, Henry Martyn in Persia, and Adoniram Judson in Burma. About five hundred more translations were added in the first half of the twentieth century. Progress was, nevertheless, slow. Many languages were difficult to analyze, and it was particularly hard to produce translations that read smoothly, using the genres and idioms that a native speaker would use.
Since the 1950s, linguistic science has revolutionized the way that translation is carried out, and organizations such as Wycliffe Bible Translators have set themselves the task of giving every person in the world the Scriptures in their everyday language. Increasingly, translation is carried out by linguistically trained native speakers of the target languages, working wherever possible from the original Hebrew and Greek. Translators understand better than before how extended discourses are constructed at levels above the sentence, and how social and pragmatic factors affect meaning. The combination of linguistics and technology has also greatly increased the speed with which translations can be produced; sometimes a first draft in a new language can be generated from a closely related language using a computer program.
Types of Translation
All translators aim for both accuracy and acceptability, but the work of translation constantly involves compromise between these two factors. There are, broadly speaking, two types of translation: formal correspondence and functional equivalence.
In a formal correspondence translation (also called “literal”), the translator, as far as possible, preserves the word order and structure of the original text and translates each word the same way every time it occurs, even if the result is slightly wooden. This is helpful for word studies, and it preserves patterns of repetition that give structure to the text. There is always a danger, however, that the closest formal match to the original actually conveys a meaning different from the original in a particular context. Literalness is not the same as accuracy. Pushed to its extreme, formal correspondence produces the kind of semitranslation found in interlinear texts (where the English is reproduced word for word below a line of Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek); it is not grammatically acceptable, cannot be used on its own for public or private reading, and loses many of the nuances of the original. However, formal correspondence translations that avoid such extremes are important for detailed Bible study.
In a functional equivalence translation (also called “dynamic,” “idiomatic equivalence,” or “meaning-based”), the translator aims to produce the same response in a modern reader as the original text would have done in an ancient reader. To achieve this, the syntactic structures and figures of speech of Greek and Hebrew are replaced by their equivalents in the target language. A word may be translated many different ways in different contexts, even when it has a single basic meaning in the original. While this preserves some nuances, it loses others, obscuring structure and the deliberate echo of one verse in another. In this case there is always a danger that the translator has misunderstood the original meaning and the response that it would have produced. Pushed to its extreme, this type shades into paraphrase, and it may be overly subjective or jeopardize the historical particularity of the text. However, dynamic equivalence translations that avoid such pitfalls are valuable for evangelism, new readers, and public and devotional reading.
In practice most translations sit somewhere on the spectrum between these two extremes. Some intermediate translations are a deliberate compromise, aiming to keep as close as possible to the original while communicating its meaning clearly in a common language that is accessible to all. The NIV is a widely used example. One problem in using such a translation is knowing when form has been preserved at the expense of meaning, and when meaning has been preserved at the expense of form. For serious study, therefore, it is useful to compare intermediate translations with translations of the other two types, and to learn from the introductory material what translation principles have been used.
To illustrate the differences between the types of translation, consider how Rom. 3:21 is rendered by the NASB (formal correspondence), the NIV (intermediate), and the NLT (functional equivalence):
But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets. (NASB)
But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. (NIV)
But now God has shown us a way to be made right with him without keeping the requirements of the law, as was promised in the writings of Moses and the prophets long ago. (NLT)
Further Choices in Translation
Within this spectrum translators have further detailed decisions to make.
First, what are the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, as determined by the discipline of textual criticism?
Second, what style should be used? An elevated or archaic style is sometimes preferred in order to convey the dignity of the word; others use a deliberately colloquial style in order to maximize accessibility. Different books of the Bible themselves have different styles and genres, ranging from vivid stories and evocative poems to precise doctrinal formulations, and a translation may attempt to reflect this diversity. At the same time, the style and range of vocabulary chosen will depend to some extent on the needs of the target audience.
Third, should the translation contain complexity and ambiguity when the original does, or should it clarify and simplify? Some parts of Scripture were never easy reading even in the original (see 2 Pet. 3:15–16). However, it is sometimes necessary to disambiguate in order to produce grammatically acceptable text in the target language. In modern books it is also normal to divide text into paragraphs and chapters, often with subheadings. Ancient texts, however, were written without any such breaks, so this too is an interpretation of the text for the sake of clarity.
Fourth, what should the translator do when there is no equivalent word or phrase in the target language? Many people groups have never seen a sheep! Sometimes a choice must be made between coining a new word and refocusing the meaning of an existing word. This is particularly difficult when deciding how to refer to God in a pagan culture. Translating gesture can also be challenging. For example, in Jer. 31:19 the Hebrew is literally “I slapped my thigh,” which is an indication of distress; but in Western culture slapping one’s thigh would probably mean enjoying a good joke, so the NIV translates the Hebrew as “beat my breast.” Footnotes may be necessary to ensure that the meaning is fully understood.
Finally, in cultures that have possessed the Bible for many generations tradition plays a role. A previous translation of a particular verse may be so well known that, unless it is seriously wrong, it is preferable to let it stand than to “modernize” it. Conversely, tradition may so change the meaning of “biblical” words (such as “saint”) that verses containing them need to be retranslated.
As a result of all these decisions, there is scope for many different translations even in a single language. Where several translations exist, serious study should always include comparison between translations along with the use of commentaries. Where available resources as yet permit only one translation in a language, the type of translation to be produced must be chosen with great care. In either case, new translations will always be needed. On the one hand, although God’s word never changes, scholars can improve our textual, linguistic, and exegetical understanding of the Hebrew and Greek originals. On the other hand, the human languages into which the Bible is translated are in a process of constant change.
Gender-Neutral Translations
Recent English-language translations have grappled in particular with the question of gender neutrality. All languages differ in the way they denote gender. Until recently, the masculine gender in English was also the inclusive gender; hence, “man” could simply mean “person” or “humanity.” In many cases, the biblical languages work the same way, so that the older dynamic translations could, like formal correspondence translations, mirror the original. Feminist concerns, however, have changed English usage. It is increasingly unacceptable to use the masculine gender inclusively, and everyday language now substitutes plurals (“person,” or “they” with singular meaning) or expansions (“man or woman,” “he or she”). This introduces a divergence between formal correspondence translations, which preserve the gender usage of the original, and functional equivalence translations, which prefer inclusive forms to masculine forms if the meaning of the original is entirely inclusive. To complicate matters further, many careful readers of Scripture disagree on where masculine nuances exist and how important they are, in each specific instance, to the meaning of the text.
Hermeneutics is the science and practice of interpretation. It can refer more generally to the philosophy of human understanding, or more specifically to the tools and methods used for interpreting communicative acts.
Human communication takes place in a variety of ways: through the use of nonverbal signs, through speech, and through writing. Effective communication requires some degree of shared belief, knowledge, and background between the participants. If the communicators have a significant amount of common ground, they will be able to successfully understand one another with little extra effort. Conversely, individuals with vastly different backgrounds will need to take extra steps to communicate effectively, such as defining special terms, avoiding jargon and colloquialisms, appreciating details about the other’s cultural assumptions, or learning a foreign language.
The Bible is not exempt from this process of communication. The Scriptures are meant to be read, understood, and put into practice (Luke 8:4–15; James 1:18), a task that requires effort and study on the part of its readers (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15). Everyone who reads the Bible is involved in this interpretative process, though readers will vary in their hermeneutical self-consciousness and skill. Thus, although readers are able to understand and appropriate much of the Bible without any special training in hermeneutical principles, such training is appropriate and helpful, both in attaining self-consciousness in interpretation and in acquiring new skills and insights in the effort to become a better reader.
The Development of Hermeneutics
The church has benefited from a long history of thinking about the nature and purpose of interpreting its Scriptures, and that reflection has resulted in a wide variety of hermeneutical theories and practices. How does one determine the meaning of a text? Is meaning the truth embedded within the passage? Or is it the original author’s intention in writing? Or does the text act independently of its author and history, either because it stands on its own terms or because it only “means” anything in interaction with readers? The answers to these questions will determine how readers approach a text, the questions they expect that text to answer, and the tools they use in interpretation.
From the early church to the Enlightenment. The early church emphasized the ability of the biblical text to convey heavenly truth, whether that truth was conceived as doctrinal teaching or absolute ethical rules. While the “literal meaning” of many texts could often supply simple truths and maxims, such a reading was at other times inadequate and could appear incompatible with what were considered basic and fundamental beliefs. Various allegorical techniques were therefore employed to explain such problematic texts. Interpreters often viewed the literal and historical features of the text as a starting point in the search for fuller meaning, as symbolic pointers to moral principles, absolute truths, or eternal realities. These practices were systematized throughout the Middle Ages and resulted in an extensive development of tradition. Church tradition, in turn, provided a degree of protection from the potential for arbitrariness in allegorical techniques, insisting that interpretation must be guided by the “rule of faith,” the traditional teaching and faith of the church.
Beginning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, scholarship moved to distance itself from such tradition. The Protestant Reformers, dissatisfied with the rule of church tradition, sought to displace its authority with the direct rule of Scripture. They therefore returned to the original biblical text, engaging in critical study of the text itself and translating the Bible into the vernacular to make it more widely accessible. In the centuries that followed, Enlightenment scholars went a step further in their rejection of the church as the sole repository of knowledge. Instead, they asserted, knowledge was acquired through scientific inquiry and critical study. Such inquiry could be applied to any field: the forces of nature, human anatomy, or the interpretation of texts. The meaning of a text was not some abstract truth or heavenly principle; rather, meaning was determined by the human author’s original intention in writing and was therefore a historical matter. The intention of an author could be better exposed and understood through a more complete study of both the language in which a text was written and the historical circumstances that surrounded it. Many of these same emphases had been championed by the Protestant Reformers; yet the Enlightenment thinkers differed on one key point: the Reformers never questioned that the text was the word of God.
From the Enlightenment to the present. This favorable attitude toward historical research dwindled over the centuries. In its place authors emphasized the primacy of the text as text, apart from any connection to its origin and history. Literature, it is argued, ultimately operates independently from its author’s intention. All that matters is the text, and it is the reader’s job to understand the text on its own terms, apart from the contingencies surrounding its creation. To that end, interpreters should pay careful attention to the text’s literary features, including its plot structure, characterization, themes, and use of imagery. An interesting example of this hermeneutical dynamic is found in John 19:22, where Pilate asserts, “What I have written, I have written.” Pilate’s words quickly take on significance far beyond their author’s intention, primarily because they are juxtaposed with other themes in John, such as testimony and the kingship of Christ.
More recent approaches have emphasized the role of the reader in the construction of meaning. Interpretation, it is argued, is determined by the interaction between reader and text; readers bring their own presuppositions to the task of interpretation, and such assumptions determine meaning. The author and the historical context of the text will exert some influence, but the primary determinant of meaning is the present reader in his or her present environment. This is not to say that the text “means” whatever a reader wants it to mean; rather, it makes meaning contingent upon the contemporary environment and not subject to anything external to individual readers. On the one hand, readers must“actualize” the text by applying and appropriating it within an environment alien to the original. On the other, readers have the right, and in some cases the responsibility, of undermining the text, particularly if that text assists in the oppression of others.
Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic
An effective hermeneutic requires keeping each of these elements in constant balance with one another. God’s word is truthful and fully trustworthy, yet it is given to his people through individual human authors, authors who wrote in a particular context to a particular audience at a particular time. Understanding the Bible therefore requires knowledge of the purposes of these authors in their specific historical contexts. Nevertheless, our primary access to authorial intention is through the biblical text itself. Finally, understanding always requires personal interaction with, and application of, the text of Scripture to each person’s own life and circumstances. Thus, hermeneutics involves the simultaneous interaction of a variety of perspectives—truth, author, text, and reader—each of which cannot function properly without the others. What follows here is an outline of the most important hermeneutical tools required for such a weighty endeavor.
Linguistics
An appreciation of the nature, structure, and function of language is fundamental to any interpretative endeavor. Obviously, this applies first of all to the specific languages in which the books of the Bible were originally composed. Each language has its own unique vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, and structures available to a writer in one language often are absent in another. Thus, while it is often necessary and acceptable to rely on translations (Neh. 7:73–8:12), readers should be aware that translation itself involves a degree of unavoidable interpretation.
A more general analysis of language is also useful. Understanding the typical patterns by which authors will string sentences together is necessary for following a writing’s train of thought. This tool, called “discourse analysis,” operates above the sentence level, attempting to understand and explain how sentences function in conjunction with one another in order to produce meaningful paragraphs, and how those paragraphs in turn operate within the overarching purpose of the discourse. These patterns of discourse can vary on the basis of book, author, language, culture, and literary genre, but there are also features of effective discourse common to all communication. Thus, while the principles and rules of communication are often intuitively grasped, understanding language, both generally and specifically, is foundational to the task of interpretation.
Literature and Literary Theory
The biblical writers are concerned not only with the informational content of their writing, but also with the manner in which that content is communicated. The words, patterns of speech, style, and imagery of any text provide significant insight into its purpose and message, apart from that text’s specific propositional content. The diversity of language used in the Gospels provides an example of this. Each of the four Gospel authors has a slightly different concern in his writing. John’s purpose, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31), explains his frequent use of courtroom language, such as “testimony” and “witness” (e.g., John 21:24). Mark, by contrast, sweeps the reader along a fast-paced and intensely personal exposition of Jesus’ life and death through the terseness and immediacy of his narration. Attention to these literary details allows the reader to more fully participate in the world of the text.
Such decisions will often depend upon a thorough analysis of genre. A reader naturally interprets historical narrative differently from poetry and didactic material. Furthermore, the conventions of different genres change over time. The book of Acts, for example, despite its essentially historical character, does not appear concerned with recording an exact dictation of the many speeches it reports, despite modern expectations that historical writing should be as precise as possible. The classification of ancient genres and the description of their respective conventions therefore require a good deal of analysis and sensitivity, but often such insights are provided by a careful and open reading of the text.
History
As the product of a particular author at a particular time, each book of the Bible is situated within its own unique historical context. Paul, for example, while perhaps conscious of the importance of his letters for posterity, wrote to specific churches or individuals with a singular purpose. This particularity of author, audience, and circumstance can often cause interpretative problems. Thus, while background studies are not always necessary to get the general idea of the author’s message, they can be invaluable in protecting readers from anachronism and enabling them to better appreciate the author’s purpose and perspective.
Historical study is assisted by specialized disciplines. Archaeology, for example, focuses on the beliefs, habits, practices, and history of ancient cultures, harnessing a wealth of evidence to that end. Similarly, anthropology and other social sciences are able to explore facets of modern cultures in order to better assess cross-cultural presuppositions and behaviors, many of which provide insight into ancient civilizations that shared similar attitudes. These methods provide the reader with the information necessary to understand a text in terms consistent with its cultural backdrop, highlighting both the similarities and the differences between the Bible and its environment. Recent discoveries of ancient Hittite treaties, for example, shed light on the “cutting ceremony” recorded in Gen. 15. These treaties detail similar ceremonies in which the vassal of a king would walk between hewed animal carcasses as a symbol of allegiance; if disobedience occurred, the vassal would share the fate of the animals. A similar ceremony occurs in Genesis, but with an interesting twist at the end: God, not Abram, passes through the pieces (15:17).
Humility and the Attitude of the Reader
Careful attention in interpretation requires a great deal of humility. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the attitude of the reader for an effective hermeneutic. Being a good reader requires willingness to share and participate in the world of the author and the text, a willingness that postpones judgment and expects personal change. This, in turn, requires a spirit of self-criticism, a commitment to defer one’s own presuppositions in favor of those of the text. Although readers are never able to fully distance themselves from their cultural situation and assumptions, the study of hermeneutics, among other things, can provide tools and skills for self-criticism and self-awareness, skills that enable the reader to better understand, appreciate, and appropriate the meaning of a text. Even a peripheral understanding of the complexities of interpretation can help readers develop an attitude of humility, imagination, and expectation as they approach the Scriptures.
Such humility is a prerequisite for application. The depth of meaning embedded in any text, and especially within the Bible, provides the humble reader with a rich and powerful tool for personal growth. Having better understood the world of the text on its own terms, readers are able to “project” that world onto themselves and their environment, to appropriate its meaning in a new and possibly foreign context. Thus, Jesus promises that those who hear, understand, and put his word into practice will yield a crop “some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown” (Mark 4:20).
Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation
Certain unique features of the biblical text can create special opportunities and challenges for the Christian interpreter. These challenges are at work in the Bible’s own interpretation of itself. The Bible was written by many different authors over the course of a long period of history; it is therefore not surprising to find later authors reflecting on earlier periods. This innerbiblical interpretation offers the Christian insights into the unique nature of biblical hermeneutics and therefore provides a foundational model in approaching the Bible as the word of God.
The common and preeminent assumption that grounds innerbiblical interpretation is the commitment to ultimate divine authorship. Thus, the writer of Hebrews, though affirming the diversity of human authorship in the Bible (1:1), regularly introduces OT quotations with statements such as “God says” (1:5), “he spoke through David” (4:7), and “the Holy Spirit says” (3:7). Other writers tend to prefer the formula “it is written,” but each of these reflects a common presupposition that the Scriptures are ultimately delivered by God (2 Pet. 1:21).
Divine authorship means, at the very least, that there is a depth of meaning and purpose to the text, a depth often hidden even from the human author (1 Pet. 1:10–12). Psalm 2, for example, probably originally served as a coronation hymn used to celebrate the appointment of a new king in Israel. Yet the NT understands this psalm as a prophecy fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5). The intention of the original speaker can even be at odds with God’s intention, such as when Caiaphas claims, “It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50; cf. Acts 5:35–39). In this case, the irony of Caiaphas’s statement creates a powerful testimony, contrary to his intent, and is used by John to promote confidence in Jesus.
Furthermore, because the Scriptures are from God, they have a consistent and central focus. The NT unhesitatingly views all of Scripture, in all its diversity, as focused, by virtue of divine inspiration, on the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is seen in, for example, Luke 24:13–35, where the resurrected Jesus, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” explains to his disciples “what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (cf. John 5:39; 12:41). This central focus on Christ requires the Christian interpreter to understand any individual verse in light of its context within the canon, to operate with the same assumption as the NT apostles, that all the Scriptures are concerned with testifying to Jesus the Christ.
Additionally, Paul views both Testaments as the special possession and once-for-all foundation of God’s church (Eph. 2:19–20; cf. Acts 2:42). The church, from a NT perspective, is the primary audience of the entirety of Scripture (1 Pet. 1:12) and is therefore uniquely entrusted with understanding and proclaiming its message (Matt. 28:18–20). While the Scriptures themselves are the only infallible guide for interpretation, believers should not forsake the teaching and tradition of the church (2 Thess. 2:15).
Finally, full understanding of the Bible requires the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the faith of the reader. Belief and understanding go together (John 10:38), and both are the result of the unique work of the Holy Spirit (16:13). The proof that such understanding has taken place is the godly life of the believer (Rom. 2:13; James 1:22–25). The reverse is also true: disobedience works against understanding the riches of God’s Word (James 1:21). Such considerations underline the importance of the hermeneutical task. The tools and principles of hermeneutics are valuable only insofar as they enable the reader to better understand and appropriate the biblical message, to hear the word of God and respond appropriately.
Simon Peter is the best-known and the most colorful of Jesus’ twelve disciples. The name “Peter” means “rock” in Greek. In some biblical texts, he is also called “Cephas,” which is the Aramaic word for “rock” (see esp. John 1:42). Despite the ups and downs of Peter’s spiritual life, God was able to use him as the foundational apostle for the establishment of the NT church. Peter first met Jesus immediately after Jesus’ baptism, when Peter’s brother, Andrew, heard John the Baptist’s identification of Jesus as the Lamb of God (John 1:35). In classic missionary style, “the first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, ‘We have found the Messiah’ ” (John 1:41). Peter’s official call to ministry took place later, when he was fishing on the Sea of Galilee and Jesus issued the well-known invitation “Come, follow me, . . . and I will send you out to fish for people” (Matt. 4:19).
Peter was the chief spokesman for the disciples at Caesarea Philippi when Jesus asked them, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” (Matt. 16:13). Peter responded, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God,” an insight given him by God the Father (16:16–17). Jesus promised him, “I tell you that you are Peter [petros], and on this rock [petra] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it” (16:18). Yet Peter almost immediately became a “stumbling block” to Jesus when he chided Jesus for saying that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things and be killed (16:21–22). Another major failure by Peter came with his threefold denial of Jesus after Jesus had warned him, “This very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times” (Matt. 26:34). Fortunately, there were tears of repentance, and Peter was forgiven and restored after Jesus’ threefold question (“Do you love me?” [John 21:15–19]).
Jesus’ death and resurrection, as well as the giving of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, had stabilizing effects on Peter. After Jesus’ ascension, Peter exercised primary leadership among the other disciples during the upper room prayer meetings and the choosing of the replacement for Judas (Acts 1). Peter clearly was the public spokesman for the apostles on the day of Pentecost and a key player in the establishment of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 2–5), in receiving the first Samaritan converts (Acts 8:14–25), and in receiving Cornelius as the first Gentile convert (Acts 10–11). Following Peter’s miraculous deliverance from prison in Acts 12, he essentially disappears from recorded history. By the time of the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), Peter reappeared briefly, but by this time he had been replaced by James as the leader of the Jerusalem church. Peter apparently continued to live as a missionary (1 Cor. 9:5), specifically “to the circumcised” (Gal. 2:7–8), for the rest of his life. Yet Peter was still human, and on one occasion Paul gave him a stinging rebuke (Gal. 2:11–21).
During his travels, Peter undoubtedly visited the recipients of his later letter 1 Peter (and possibly 2 Peter) in north central Asia Minor (the regions of “Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia” [1 Pet. 1:1]), possibly Corinth (1 Cor. 1:12; 3:22), and, at least by the end of his life, Rome itself. According to tradition, he was put to death by Nero between AD 64 and 68, apparently by being crucified upside down (cf. John 21:18–19). Peter’s life is a vivid illustration of the Christian’s fight for faith, God’s gracious provision, and Jesus’ intercession on his behalf (“I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail” [Luke 22:32]).
In the book of Acts, after describing the coming of the Holy Spirit, the author provides an important summary of the Spirit-led life of the early church. This summary provides a picture of the church in a spiritual revival characterized by worship, sharing, and unity. These characteristics are illustrated by saying that “all the believers were together and had everything in common” (Acts 2:44). This theme of commonality is also mentioned in the next major summary of Acts when the author describes the believers as being “one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had” (Acts 4:32). These passages describe the early church as experiencing a special type of community of goods or common life.
However, the early church’s practice of holding “all things in common” was not unique to the Jerusalem church described in Acts. In fact, similar types of common life are described in the Jewish sect at Qumran, Greco-Roman concepts of friendship and kinship, and Greek utopian ideals. It also finds close parallels to Jesus’ teaching and his relationship with his disciples.
Based on these similarities, one must ask what the author’s intention was for including the “community of goods” description of the early church in the book of Acts. Is he promoting a form of Christian communism intended to be practiced by Christians of all ages, or does he have something else in mind? The immediate context of these passages helps to answer this question.
First, the church in Acts is not advocating that its members participate in a compulsory communism such as was found among the Essenes at Qumran. By contrast, the text makes it clear that the early believers of Acts maintained their rights to own private property (Acts 4:34; 5:4). Instead of compulsory communism, the early church of Acts presents a model of voluntary sharing motivated by love for God and among its members.
Second, the larger context of the community-of-goods passages in Acts is the kōinonia mentioned in Acts 2:42. Most versions translate kōinonia as “fellowship,” but it involved more than mere association. Devotion to kōinonia by the early church involved participation together in worship activities as well as in the sharing of possessions. It was the result of the Spirit’s presence among the people, and it produced a beautiful unity within the church. The community of goods described in the early chapters of Acts illustrates the intimacy of the church’s kōinonia. It was a life of following the teaching and example of Jesus. It was a life among friends in the family of God. It was a life that actually fulfilled the highest longings of the Greeks. It was true utopia.
(1) The word “communion” (Gk. koinōnia and cognates) is used to describe the fellowship of God’s people in experience and action. Paul uses the terminology with reference to the believer’s fellowship with Christ (1 Cor. 1:9), which may result in sharing Christ’s sufferings (Phil. 3:10). John uses koinōnia to speak of Christian fellowship shared among believers, rooted in God’s fellowship with Christ (1 John 1:3, 6–7). Early believers shared within the faith community (Acts 2:42; Rom. 15:26; 2 Cor. 8:4). (2) Communion, or the Eucharist, celebrates fellowship between Christ and his people (1 Cor. 10:16) by participating in the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:17–34). See also Lord’s Supper.
In the book of Acts, after describing the coming of the Holy Spirit, the author provides an important summary of the Spirit-led life of the early church. This summary provides a picture of the church in a spiritual revival characterized by worship, sharing, and unity. These characteristics are illustrated by saying that “all the believers were together and had everything in common” (Acts 2:44). This theme of commonality is also mentioned in the next major summary of Acts when the author describes the believers as being “one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had” (Acts 4:32). These passages describe the early church as experiencing a special type of community of goods or common life.
However, the early church’s practice of holding “all things in common” was not unique to the Jerusalem church described in Acts. In fact, similar types of common life are described in the Jewish sect at Qumran, Greco-Roman concepts of friendship and kinship, and Greek utopian ideals. It also finds close parallels to Jesus’ teaching and his relationship with his disciples.
Based on these similarities, one must ask what the author’s intention was for including the “community of goods” description of the early church in the book of Acts. Is he promoting a form of Christian communism intended to be practiced by Christians of all ages, or does he have something else in mind? The immediate context of these passages helps to answer this question.
First, the church in Acts is not advocating that its members participate in a compulsory communism such as was found among the Essenes at Qumran. By contrast, the text makes it clear that the early believers of Acts maintained their rights to own private property (Acts 4:34; 5:4). Instead of compulsory communism, the early church of Acts presents a model of voluntary sharing motivated by love for God and among its members.
Second, the larger context of the community-of-goods passages in Acts is the kōinonia mentioned in Acts 2:42. Most versions translate kōinonia as “fellowship,” but it involved more than mere association. Devotion to kōinonia by the early church involved participation together in worship activities as well as in the sharing of possessions. It was the result of the Spirit’s presence among the people, and it produced a beautiful unity within the church. The community of goods described in the early chapters of Acts illustrates the intimacy of the church’s kōinonia. It was a life of following the teaching and example of Jesus. It was a life among friends in the family of God. It was a life that actually fulfilled the highest longings of the Greeks. It was true utopia.
Hermeneutics is the science and practice of interpretation. It can refer more generally to the philosophy of human understanding, or more specifically to the tools and methods used for interpreting communicative acts.
Human communication takes place in a variety of ways: through the use of nonverbal signs, through speech, and through writing. Effective communication requires some degree of shared belief, knowledge, and background between the participants. If the communicators have a significant amount of common ground, they will be able to successfully understand one another with little extra effort. Conversely, individuals with vastly different backgrounds will need to take extra steps to communicate effectively, such as defining special terms, avoiding jargon and colloquialisms, appreciating details about the other’s cultural assumptions, or learning a foreign language.
The Bible is not exempt from this process of communication. The Scriptures are meant to be read, understood, and put into practice (Luke 8:4–15; James 1:18), a task that requires effort and study on the part of its readers (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15). Everyone who reads the Bible is involved in this interpretative process, though readers will vary in their hermeneutical self-consciousness and skill. Thus, although readers are able to understand and appropriate much of the Bible without any special training in hermeneutical principles, such training is appropriate and helpful, both in attaining self-consciousness in interpretation and in acquiring new skills and insights in the effort to become a better reader.
The Development of Hermeneutics
The church has benefited from a long history of thinking about the nature and purpose of interpreting its Scriptures, and that reflection has resulted in a wide variety of hermeneutical theories and practices. How does one determine the meaning of a text? Is meaning the truth embedded within the passage? Or is it the original author’s intention in writing? Or does the text act independently of its author and history, either because it stands on its own terms or because it only “means” anything in interaction with readers? The answers to these questions will determine how readers approach a text, the questions they expect that text to answer, and the tools they use in interpretation.
From the early church to the Enlightenment. The early church emphasized the ability of the biblical text to convey heavenly truth, whether that truth was conceived as doctrinal teaching or absolute ethical rules. While the “literal meaning” of many texts could often supply simple truths and maxims, such a reading was at other times inadequate and could appear incompatible with what were considered basic and fundamental beliefs. Various allegorical techniques were therefore employed to explain such problematic texts. Interpreters often viewed the literal and historical features of the text as a starting point in the search for fuller meaning, as symbolic pointers to moral principles, absolute truths, or eternal realities. These practices were systematized throughout the Middle Ages and resulted in an extensive development of tradition. Church tradition, in turn, provided a degree of protection from the potential for arbitrariness in allegorical techniques, insisting that interpretation must be guided by the “rule of faith,” the traditional teaching and faith of the church.
Beginning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, scholarship moved to distance itself from such tradition. The Protestant Reformers, dissatisfied with the rule of church tradition, sought to displace its authority with the direct rule of Scripture. They therefore returned to the original biblical text, engaging in critical study of the text itself and translating the Bible into the vernacular to make it more widely accessible. In the centuries that followed, Enlightenment scholars went a step further in their rejection of the church as the sole repository of knowledge. Instead, they asserted, knowledge was acquired through scientific inquiry and critical study. Such inquiry could be applied to any field: the forces of nature, human anatomy, or the interpretation of texts. The meaning of a text was not some abstract truth or heavenly principle; rather, meaning was determined by the human author’s original intention in writing and was therefore a historical matter. The intention of an author could be better exposed and understood through a more complete study of both the language in which a text was written and the historical circumstances that surrounded it. Many of these same emphases had been championed by the Protestant Reformers; yet the Enlightenment thinkers differed on one key point: the Reformers never questioned that the text was the word of God.
From the Enlightenment to the present. This favorable attitude toward historical research dwindled over the centuries. In its place authors emphasized the primacy of the text as text, apart from any connection to its origin and history. Literature, it is argued, ultimately operates independently from its author’s intention. All that matters is the text, and it is the reader’s job to understand the text on its own terms, apart from the contingencies surrounding its creation. To that end, interpreters should pay careful attention to the text’s literary features, including its plot structure, characterization, themes, and use of imagery. An interesting example of this hermeneutical dynamic is found in John 19:22, where Pilate asserts, “What I have written, I have written.” Pilate’s words quickly take on significance far beyond their author’s intention, primarily because they are juxtaposed with other themes in John, such as testimony and the kingship of Christ.
More recent approaches have emphasized the role of the reader in the construction of meaning. Interpretation, it is argued, is determined by the interaction between reader and text; readers bring their own presuppositions to the task of interpretation, and such assumptions determine meaning. The author and the historical context of the text will exert some influence, but the primary determinant of meaning is the present reader in his or her present environment. This is not to say that the text “means” whatever a reader wants it to mean; rather, it makes meaning contingent upon the contemporary environment and not subject to anything external to individual readers. On the one hand, readers must“actualize” the text by applying and appropriating it within an environment alien to the original. On the other, readers have the right, and in some cases the responsibility, of undermining the text, particularly if that text assists in the oppression of others.
Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic
An effective hermeneutic requires keeping each of these elements in constant balance with one another. God’s word is truthful and fully trustworthy, yet it is given to his people through individual human authors, authors who wrote in a particular context to a particular audience at a particular time. Understanding the Bible therefore requires knowledge of the purposes of these authors in their specific historical contexts. Nevertheless, our primary access to authorial intention is through the biblical text itself. Finally, understanding always requires personal interaction with, and application of, the text of Scripture to each person’s own life and circumstances. Thus, hermeneutics involves the simultaneous interaction of a variety of perspectives—truth, author, text, and reader—each of which cannot function properly without the others. What follows here is an outline of the most important hermeneutical tools required for such a weighty endeavor.
Linguistics
An appreciation of the nature, structure, and function of language is fundamental to any interpretative endeavor. Obviously, this applies first of all to the specific languages in which the books of the Bible were originally composed. Each language has its own unique vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, and structures available to a writer in one language often are absent in another. Thus, while it is often necessary and acceptable to rely on translations (Neh. 7:73–8:12), readers should be aware that translation itself involves a degree of unavoidable interpretation.
A more general analysis of language is also useful. Understanding the typical patterns by which authors will string sentences together is necessary for following a writing’s train of thought. This tool, called “discourse analysis,” operates above the sentence level, attempting to understand and explain how sentences function in conjunction with one another in order to produce meaningful paragraphs, and how those paragraphs in turn operate within the overarching purpose of the discourse. These patterns of discourse can vary on the basis of book, author, language, culture, and literary genre, but there are also features of effective discourse common to all communication. Thus, while the principles and rules of communication are often intuitively grasped, understanding language, both generally and specifically, is foundational to the task of interpretation.
Literature and Literary Theory
The biblical writers are concerned not only with the informational content of their writing, but also with the manner in which that content is communicated. The words, patterns of speech, style, and imagery of any text provide significant insight into its purpose and message, apart from that text’s specific propositional content. The diversity of language used in the Gospels provides an example of this. Each of the four Gospel authors has a slightly different concern in his writing. John’s purpose, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31), explains his frequent use of courtroom language, such as “testimony” and “witness” (e.g., John 21:24). Mark, by contrast, sweeps the reader along a fast-paced and intensely personal exposition of Jesus’ life and death through the terseness and immediacy of his narration. Attention to these literary details allows the reader to more fully participate in the world of the text.
Such decisions will often depend upon a thorough analysis of genre. A reader naturally interprets historical narrative differently from poetry and didactic material. Furthermore, the conventions of different genres change over time. The book of Acts, for example, despite its essentially historical character, does not appear concerned with recording an exact dictation of the many speeches it reports, despite modern expectations that historical writing should be as precise as possible. The classification of ancient genres and the description of their respective conventions therefore require a good deal of analysis and sensitivity, but often such insights are provided by a careful and open reading of the text.
History
As the product of a particular author at a particular time, each book of the Bible is situated within its own unique historical context. Paul, for example, while perhaps conscious of the importance of his letters for posterity, wrote to specific churches or individuals with a singular purpose. This particularity of author, audience, and circumstance can often cause interpretative problems. Thus, while background studies are not always necessary to get the general idea of the author’s message, they can be invaluable in protecting readers from anachronism and enabling them to better appreciate the author’s purpose and perspective.
Historical study is assisted by specialized disciplines. Archaeology, for example, focuses on the beliefs, habits, practices, and history of ancient cultures, harnessing a wealth of evidence to that end. Similarly, anthropology and other social sciences are able to explore facets of modern cultures in order to better assess cross-cultural presuppositions and behaviors, many of which provide insight into ancient civilizations that shared similar attitudes. These methods provide the reader with the information necessary to understand a text in terms consistent with its cultural backdrop, highlighting both the similarities and the differences between the Bible and its environment. Recent discoveries of ancient Hittite treaties, for example, shed light on the “cutting ceremony” recorded in Gen. 15. These treaties detail similar ceremonies in which the vassal of a king would walk between hewed animal carcasses as a symbol of allegiance; if disobedience occurred, the vassal would share the fate of the animals. A similar ceremony occurs in Genesis, but with an interesting twist at the end: God, not Abram, passes through the pieces (15:17).
Humility and the Attitude of the Reader
Careful attention in interpretation requires a great deal of humility. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the attitude of the reader for an effective hermeneutic. Being a good reader requires willingness to share and participate in the world of the author and the text, a willingness that postpones judgment and expects personal change. This, in turn, requires a spirit of self-criticism, a commitment to defer one’s own presuppositions in favor of those of the text. Although readers are never able to fully distance themselves from their cultural situation and assumptions, the study of hermeneutics, among other things, can provide tools and skills for self-criticism and self-awareness, skills that enable the reader to better understand, appreciate, and appropriate the meaning of a text. Even a peripheral understanding of the complexities of interpretation can help readers develop an attitude of humility, imagination, and expectation as they approach the Scriptures.
Such humility is a prerequisite for application. The depth of meaning embedded in any text, and especially within the Bible, provides the humble reader with a rich and powerful tool for personal growth. Having better understood the world of the text on its own terms, readers are able to “project” that world onto themselves and their environment, to appropriate its meaning in a new and possibly foreign context. Thus, Jesus promises that those who hear, understand, and put his word into practice will yield a crop “some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown” (Mark 4:20).
Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation
Certain unique features of the biblical text can create special opportunities and challenges for the Christian interpreter. These challenges are at work in the Bible’s own interpretation of itself. The Bible was written by many different authors over the course of a long period of history; it is therefore not surprising to find later authors reflecting on earlier periods. This innerbiblical interpretation offers the Christian insights into the unique nature of biblical hermeneutics and therefore provides a foundational model in approaching the Bible as the word of God.
The common and preeminent assumption that grounds innerbiblical interpretation is the commitment to ultimate divine authorship. Thus, the writer of Hebrews, though affirming the diversity of human authorship in the Bible (1:1), regularly introduces OT quotations with statements such as “God says” (1:5), “he spoke through David” (4:7), and “the Holy Spirit says” (3:7). Other writers tend to prefer the formula “it is written,” but each of these reflects a common presupposition that the Scriptures are ultimately delivered by God (2 Pet. 1:21).
Divine authorship means, at the very least, that there is a depth of meaning and purpose to the text, a depth often hidden even from the human author (1 Pet. 1:10–12). Psalm 2, for example, probably originally served as a coronation hymn used to celebrate the appointment of a new king in Israel. Yet the NT understands this psalm as a prophecy fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5). The intention of the original speaker can even be at odds with God’s intention, such as when Caiaphas claims, “It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50; cf. Acts 5:35–39). In this case, the irony of Caiaphas’s statement creates a powerful testimony, contrary to his intent, and is used by John to promote confidence in Jesus.
Furthermore, because the Scriptures are from God, they have a consistent and central focus. The NT unhesitatingly views all of Scripture, in all its diversity, as focused, by virtue of divine inspiration, on the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is seen in, for example, Luke 24:13–35, where the resurrected Jesus, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” explains to his disciples “what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (cf. John 5:39; 12:41). This central focus on Christ requires the Christian interpreter to understand any individual verse in light of its context within the canon, to operate with the same assumption as the NT apostles, that all the Scriptures are concerned with testifying to Jesus the Christ.
Additionally, Paul views both Testaments as the special possession and once-for-all foundation of God’s church (Eph. 2:19–20; cf. Acts 2:42). The church, from a NT perspective, is the primary audience of the entirety of Scripture (1 Pet. 1:12) and is therefore uniquely entrusted with understanding and proclaiming its message (Matt. 28:18–20). While the Scriptures themselves are the only infallible guide for interpretation, believers should not forsake the teaching and tradition of the church (2 Thess. 2:15).
Finally, full understanding of the Bible requires the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the faith of the reader. Belief and understanding go together (John 10:38), and both are the result of the unique work of the Holy Spirit (16:13). The proof that such understanding has taken place is the godly life of the believer (Rom. 2:13; James 1:22–25). The reverse is also true: disobedience works against understanding the riches of God’s Word (James 1:21). Such considerations underline the importance of the hermeneutical task. The tools and principles of hermeneutics are valuable only insofar as they enable the reader to better understand and appropriate the biblical message, to hear the word of God and respond appropriately.
The Israelites gathered regularly to celebrate their relationship with God. Such festivals were marked by communal meals, music, singing, dancing, and sacrifices. They celebrated, conscious that God had graciously brought them into a relationship with him. Within this covenant he had committed himself to act on their behalf both in regular ways, such as the harvest, and in exceptional ways, such as deliverance from Egypt. At the festivals, Israel celebrated God’s work in its past, present, and future and reaffirmed its relationship with this covenant God.
We know of Israel’s festivals from several calendars in the Mosaic legislation (Exod. 23:14–17; 34:18–23; Lev. 23; Num. 28–29; Deut. 16:1–17), calendars further clarified by the prophets (e.g., Ezek. 45:18–25; Zech. 14), and narrative material (e.g., 2 Kings 23:21–23). Some read discrepancies between calendars as evidence of multiple sources, but this fails to account for the various purposes that these calendars served. The narrative and prophetic passages suggest that Israel did not observe these festivals as frequently as, and in the ways, God intended (e.g., Amos 8:5), but when Israel sought to renew its relationship with God, it often did so with a festival (e.g., 2 Kings 23:21–23).
Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread
Israel’s religious calendar began with Passover, the day set aside to commemorate deliverance from Egypt. Occurring in spring, this single day was joined with a weeklong celebration known as the Festival of Unleavened Bread, during which all males were required to make a pilgrimage to the sanctuary and offer the firstfruits of the barley harvest (Lev. 23:9–14). Israel observed Passover with rituals that reactualized the night God’s destroyer spared the Israelites in Egypt. A lamb was killed, and its blood was put on the doorposts of the homes and on the bronze altar in the sanctuary. The lamb was roasted and served with unleavened bread and bitter herbs while those partaking—dressed in their traveling clothes—listened to the retelling of the exodus story. No yeast was to be found anywhere among them, no work was to be done on the first and last days of the festival, and offerings were to be brought to the sanctuary (Num. 9:1–5; Josh. 5:10–11; 2 Kings 23:21–23; 2 Chron. 30; 35:1–19).
Early Christians associated Jesus’ death with that of the Passover lamb (1 Cor. 5:7–8), encouraged by Jesus’ comments at the Last Supper (described by the Synoptic Gospels as a Passover meal [e.g., Matt. 26:17–30]). Perhaps Jesus meant to emphasize that just as Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread reminded God’s people of his deliverance and provision, his followers would find true freedom and full provision in him.
The Festival of Weeks
Also known as the Festival of Harvest, the Day of Firstfruits, or Pentecost (because it occurred fifty days after Passover), the Festival of Weeks took place on the sixth day of the third month (corresponding to our May or June). This marked another occasion when all Jewish men were required to come to the sanctuary. They were to bring an offering of the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, abstain from work, and devote themselves to rejoicing in God’s goodness.
Early in the NT period, if not before, this festival also became associated with the giving of the law on Mount Sinai. The Jews who assembled in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost as described in Acts 2 came to celebrate not only God’s provision but also the revelation of his nature and will. Significantly, God chose this day to send the Holy Spirit, the One who would produce a harvest of believers and reveal God more fully to the world.
The Festival of Tabernacles
So important was the Festival of Tabernacles (also known as the Festival of Ingathering or the Festival of Booths) that Israel sometimes referred to it as “the festival of the Lord” (Judg. 21:19) or simply “the festival” (cf. 1 Kings 8:65). Held from the fifteenth to the twenty-first of the seventh month (September–October), this was the third of the three pilgrimage festivals. For that week, Israel lived in booths to remind them of their ancestors’ time in the wilderness. They also celebrated the fruit harvest. They were to “take the fruit of majestic trees, branches of palm trees, boughs of leafy trees, and willows of the brook; and you shall rejoice” before God for seven days (Lev. 23:40 NRSV). Avoiding all work on the first and last days of the festival, they were to mark the week with sacrifices, celebration, and joy. Also, every seventh year the law was to be read at this festival (Deut. 31:10–11).
The Mishnah, a collection of rabbinic laws compiled around AD 200 but often reflecting earlier traditions, records how Israel observed this festival during the early Roman period. As part of the celebration, men danced and sang in the courtyard of the temple while Levites, standing on the steps that led down from the court of the Israelites, played harps, lyres, cymbals, and other instruments. Two priests blew trumpets—one long blast, then a quavering one, then another long blast—while walking toward the eastern gate. When they reached the gate, they turned back toward the temple and said, “Our fathers when they were in this place turned with their backs toward the Temple of the Lord and their faces toward the east, and they worshiped the sun toward the east [referring to the apostasy of the Jews as described by Ezekiel]; but as for us, our eyes are turned toward the Lord” (m. Sukkah 5:4). Another part of this festival involved the drawing of water for a libation offering from the Pool of Siloam with great ceremony and joy. John 7 records Jesus’ secretive departure to Jerusalem for the Festival of Tabernacles, where he spent several days teaching in the temple courts. It was on the last and greatest day of the festival when Jesus invited those thirsty to come to him and drink.
The Festival of Trumpets
Occurring on the first day of the seventh month (September–October), this feast marked the beginning of the civil and agricultural year for the Jews; it was also referred to as Rosh Hashanah (lit., “head/beginning of the year”). Observed as a Sabbath with sacrifices and trumpet blasts, this day was intended for rest and to begin preparations for the coming Day of Atonement. The Mishnah makes this connection more explicit by identifying the Festival of Trumpets as the day when “all that come into the world pass before [God] like legions of soldiers” or flocks of sheep to be judged (m. Rosh HaSh. 1:2).
The Day of Atonement
Some festivals, like Passover, looked back to what God had done or was doing for his people; other festivals, like Trumpets and the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), focused on the relationship itself. The latter was marked by repentance and rituals designed to remove the nation’s sins and restore fellowship with God. Coming ten days after the Festival of Trumpets, this was a solemn occasion during which the Israelites abstained from eating, drinking, and other activities. This was the only prescribed annual fast in the Jewish calendar, though other fasts were added in the fourth, fifth, seventh, and tenth months to mourn the Babylonian exile (Zech. 7:3, 5; 8:19).
In Leviticus, God clarified the purpose of this day: “On this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. Then, before the Lord, you will be clean from all your sins” (16:30). Not only would the people be purified, but so also would the sanctuary, so that God could continue to meet his people there. Sacrifices were offered for both priest and people, and the blood was taken into the most holy place. Only on Yom Kippur could this room be entered, and only by the high priest, who sprinkled blood on the cover of the ark of the covenant. Leaving that room, he also sprinkled blood in the holy place (16:14–17) and then on the bronze altar in the courtyard.
Yom Kippur was marked by another ritual that symbolized the removal of Israel’s sins, this one involving two goats. One goat, chosen by lot, was offered as a sacrifice to God. The high priest placed his hands on the other goat and transferred to it the sins of the nation. He then released the goat into the wilderness, for “the goat will carry on itself all their sins to a remote place” (Lev. 16:22).
The Mishnah describes how this day was observed when the second temple stood. The high priest, having been carefully prepared, washed, and clothed, placed both hands on the head of a bull and confessed his own sins. After this, the lots were drawn for the goats; the goat to be sacrificed had a thread tied around its throat, while the other had a scarlet thread bound around its head. When the high priest had confessed the sins of the priests over the bull, it was slaughtered, and its blood was collected in a basin. Taking coals from the bronze altar and incense from the holy place, he then entered the holy of holies. There he placed the incense on the coals, filling the room with smoke to obscure the ark from his view. Returning to the holy place, he offered a short prayer, lest he pray too long and “put Israel in terror” that he had died performing the ritual. He returned to the courtyard and took the basin of blood back into the most holy place. Dipping his finger into the blood, he sprinkled it with a whipping motion, and repeated this seven times. He did the same with the blood of the goat chosen for sacrifice, and then he poured out the remaining blood at the base of the bronze altar.
Then the high priest laid his hands on the head of the scapegoat and said, “O God, thy people, the House of Israel, have committed iniquity, transgressed, and sinned before thee. O God, forgive, I pray, the iniquities and transgressions and sins which thy people, the House of Israel, have committed and transgressed and sinned before thee; as it is written in the law of thy servant Moses . . .” (m. Yoma 6:2). The goat was then led outside Jerusalem, where it was pushed down a ravine to its death, apparently to keep it from wandering back into the city.
The Mishnah recognized that rituals alone were insufficient for true forgiveness, for it contains this warning: “If a man said, ‘I will sin and repent, and sin again and repent,’ he will be given no chance to repent. [If he said,] ‘I will sin and the Day of Atonement will effect atonement,’ then the Day of Atonement effects no atonement. For transgressions that are between man and God the Day of Atonement effects atonement, but for transgressions that are between a man and his fellow the Day of Atonement effects atonement only if he has appeased his fellow” (m. Yoma 8:9).
The book of Hebrews uses the symbols of Yom Kippur to describe Jesus’ death. As the high priest entered the most holy place, so Jesus entered God’s presence, carrying not the blood of bull and goat but his own. His once-for-all death at the “culmination of the ages” (Heb. 9:26) not only allows him to remain in God’s presence (10:12) but also gives us access to God’s presence as well (10:19–22).
Sabbath Year
Every seven years, the Israelites were to observe a “Sabbath of the land” (Lev. 25:6 ESV), a time for the land to rest. They could not sow fields or prune vineyards, but they could eat what grew of itself (Lev. 25:1–7). Deuteronomy 15:1–11 speaks of all debts being canceled (some would say deferred) every seventh year, presumably the same year the land was to lie fallow. When Israel was gathered at the Festival of Tabernacles during this Sabbath Year, the law of Moses was to be read aloud. The Chronicler described the seventy years of Babylonian exile as “sabbaths” for the land, perhaps alluding to the neglect of the Sabbath Year (2 Chron. 36:21; cf. Lev. 26:43). Those returning from exile expressed their intent to keep this provision (Neh. 10:31), and it appears to have been observed in the intertestamental period (see 1 Macc. 6:48–53; Josephus, Ant. 14.202–10).
This year seems intended to maintain the fertility of the land and to allow Israel’s economy to “reset,” equalizing wealth and limiting poverty. Observing such a provision took great faith and firm allegiance, for they had to trust God for daily bread and put obedience above profit. Rereading the law at the Festival of Tabernacles reminded the Israelites of God’s gracious covenant and their required response.
Jubilee
God instructed Israel to count off seven “sevens” of years and in the fiftieth year, beginning on the Day of Atonement, to sound a trumpet marking the Jubilee Year. As in the Sabbath Year, there was to be no sowing and reaping. Further, the land was released from its current owners and returned to those families to whom it originally belonged. Individual Israelites who had become indentured through economic distress were to be freed. The assumption underlying the Jubilee Year was that everything belonged to God. He owned the land and its occupants; the Israelites were only tenants and stewards (Lev. 25:23, 55). As their covenant lord, he would provide for their needs even during back-to-back Sabbath Years (Lev. 25:21). The year began on the Day of Atonement, perhaps to emphasize that the best response to God’s redemptive mercy is faith in his provision and mercy to others. Although the Jubilee Year is commanded in the Mosaic law and spoken about by the prophets (Isa. 61:1–2; Ezek. 46:17), rabbis, and Jesus (Luke 4:18–19), Scripture is silent on how or if Israel observed this year.
New Moon
The beginning of each month was marked with the sounding of trumpets, rejoicing, and sacrifices (Num. 10:10; 28:11–15). There is some indication that work was to be suspended on this day, as on the Sabbath (Amos 8:5), and that people gathered for a meal (1 Sam. 20:5, 18, 24, 27). By faithfully observing this day, Israel was in a position to properly observe the remaining days, set up, as they were, on the lunar calendar. Paul learned of some in Colossae who were giving undue attention to New Moon celebrations (Col. 2:16).
Purim
Beyond the festivals commanded in the law of Moses, the Jews added two more to their sacred calendar, one during the postexilic period and one between the Testaments. Both commemorated God’s deliverance of his people from their enemies. A wave of anti-Semitic persecution swept over the Jews living in Persia during the reign of Xerxes (486–465 BC). God delivered his people through Esther, and the Jews celebrated this deliverance with the festival of Purim. Their enemies determined when to attack by casting lots, so the Jews called this festival “Purim,” meaning “lots.” It was celebrated on the fourteenth and fifteenth days of the twelfth month (February-March) with “feasting and joy and giving presents of food to one another and gifts to the poor” (Esther 9:22).
Festival of Dedication
During the intertestamental period, the Jews came under great persecution from the Seleucids, who outlawed the practice of Judaism and desecrated the Jerusalem temple. After recapturing the temple, the Jews began the process of purification. On the twenty-fifth day of their ninth month, in the year 164 BC, the Jews rose at dawn and offered a lawful sacrifice on the new altar of burnt offering which they had made. The altar was dedicated, to the sound of hymns, zithers, lyres and cymbals, at the same time of year and on the same day on which the gentiles had originally profaned it. The whole people fell prostrate in adoration and then praised Heaven who had granted them success. For eight days they celebrated the dedication of the altar, joyfully offering burnt offerings, communion and thanksgiving sacrifices. . . . Judas [Maccabees], with his brothers and the whole assembly of Israel, made it a law that the days of the dedication of the altar should be celebrated yearly at the proper season, for eight days beginning on the twenty-fifth of the month of Chislev [December], with rejoicing and gladness. (1 Macc. 4:52–56, 59 NJB)
Summary
What did God want to impress on his people by commanding and permitting these specific festivals? First, these festivals reminded Israel of God’s help in the past, how he delivered them from Egypt, provided for them in the wilderness wanderings, or protected them from their enemies. Second, the festivals were occasions to celebrate God’s present provision. He had promised to provide for his covenant partner; the festivals, especially those timed to occur at the harvest, were occasions to celebrate how faithfully he had kept that promise for another year and opportunities to commit to providing for the needs of others.
The festivals prompted the Israelites not only to look back to God’s help in the past and recognize God’s help in the present, but also to look ahead, anticipating the promised consummation. The OT announced God’s intention to bring all nations into full allegiance, and the festivals were occasions to anticipate that day. Isaiah spoke of a festival in which all the nations would share: “On this mountain the Lord Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine—the best of meats and the finest of wines” (Isa. 25:6). God promised to bless “foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be his servants, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant—these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations” (Isa. 56:6–7). Micah predicted a day when the nations would go on pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Mic. 4:1–5), and Zephaniah anticipated when God would “purify the lips of the peoples, that all of them may call on the name of the Lord and serve him shoulder to shoulder,” even bringing offerings to the temple (Zeph. 3:9–10). According to Zechariah, a time was coming when “the survivors from all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the Lord Almighty, and to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles” (Zech. 14:16). Israel’s festivals allowed them to look back at what God had done, was doing, and was going to do for them and, through them, for the whole world.
The Israelites experienced a wide range of emotions during these festivals, but the prevailing emotion was joy. They rejoiced in their selection by God, living “together in unity” (Ps. 133:1), in God’s deliverance, provision, and protection, and in the hope of God’s consummation of his plan. Over and over, God instructed them to gather and rejoice in his presence, suggesting a fourth insight: a God who desires his people’s happiness must love his people.
Finally, the festivals were occasions to recognize God’s rule over Israel. Especially in an agricultural economy such as Israel’s, to refrain from work on the Sabbath and on festival days was to confess God’s sovereignty over time and to admit dependence on God. To leave house and fields and travel to Jerusalem confessed faith in God to protect. Offerings of firstfruits confessed that the whole harvest came from God. When they gathered, it was in the sanctuary, God’s palace, yet another reminder that God was Israel’s king, and they were his subjects.
The Israelites gathered regularly to celebrate their relationship with God. Such festivals were marked by communal meals, music, singing, dancing, and sacrifices. They celebrated, conscious that God had graciously brought them into a relationship with him. Within this covenant he had committed himself to act on their behalf both in regular ways, such as the harvest, and in exceptional ways, such as deliverance from Egypt. At the festivals, Israel celebrated God’s work in its past, present, and future and reaffirmed its relationship with this covenant God.
We know of Israel’s festivals from several calendars in the Mosaic legislation (Exod. 23:14–17; 34:18–23; Lev. 23; Num. 28–29; Deut. 16:1–17), calendars further clarified by the prophets (e.g., Ezek. 45:18–25; Zech. 14), and narrative material (e.g., 2 Kings 23:21–23). Some read discrepancies between calendars as evidence of multiple sources, but this fails to account for the various purposes that these calendars served. The narrative and prophetic passages suggest that Israel did not observe these festivals as frequently as, and in the ways, God intended (e.g., Amos 8:5), but when Israel sought to renew its relationship with God, it often did so with a festival (e.g., 2 Kings 23:21–23).
Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread
Israel’s religious calendar began with Passover, the day set aside to commemorate deliverance from Egypt. Occurring in spring, this single day was joined with a weeklong celebration known as the Festival of Unleavened Bread, during which all males were required to make a pilgrimage to the sanctuary and offer the firstfruits of the barley harvest (Lev. 23:9–14). Israel observed Passover with rituals that reactualized the night God’s destroyer spared the Israelites in Egypt. A lamb was killed, and its blood was put on the doorposts of the homes and on the bronze altar in the sanctuary. The lamb was roasted and served with unleavened bread and bitter herbs while those partaking—dressed in their traveling clothes—listened to the retelling of the exodus story. No yeast was to be found anywhere among them, no work was to be done on the first and last days of the festival, and offerings were to be brought to the sanctuary (Num. 9:1–5; Josh. 5:10–11; 2 Kings 23:21–23; 2 Chron. 30; 35:1–19).
Early Christians associated Jesus’ death with that of the Passover lamb (1 Cor. 5:7–8), encouraged by Jesus’ comments at the Last Supper (described by the Synoptic Gospels as a Passover meal [e.g., Matt. 26:17–30]). Perhaps Jesus meant to emphasize that just as Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread reminded God’s people of his deliverance and provision, his followers would find true freedom and full provision in him.
The Festival of Weeks
Also known as the Festival of Harvest, the Day of Firstfruits, or Pentecost (because it occurred fifty days after Passover), the Festival of Weeks took place on the sixth day of the third month (corresponding to our May or June). This marked another occasion when all Jewish men were required to come to the sanctuary. They were to bring an offering of the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, abstain from work, and devote themselves to rejoicing in God’s goodness.
Early in the NT period, if not before, this festival also became associated with the giving of the law on Mount Sinai. The Jews who assembled in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost as described in Acts 2 came to celebrate not only God’s provision but also the revelation of his nature and will. Significantly, God chose this day to send the Holy Spirit, the One who would produce a harvest of believers and reveal God more fully to the world.
The Festival of Tabernacles
So important was the Festival of Tabernacles (also known as the Festival of Ingathering or the Festival of Booths) that Israel sometimes referred to it as “the festival of the Lord” (Judg. 21:19) or simply “the festival” (cf. 1 Kings 8:65). Held from the fifteenth to the twenty-first of the seventh month (September–October), this was the third of the three pilgrimage festivals. For that week, Israel lived in booths to remind them of their ancestors’ time in the wilderness. They also celebrated the fruit harvest. They were to “take the fruit of majestic trees, branches of palm trees, boughs of leafy trees, and willows of the brook; and you shall rejoice” before God for seven days (Lev. 23:40 NRSV). Avoiding all work on the first and last days of the festival, they were to mark the week with sacrifices, celebration, and joy. Also, every seventh year the law was to be read at this festival (Deut. 31:10–11).
The Mishnah, a collection of rabbinic laws compiled around AD 200 but often reflecting earlier traditions, records how Israel observed this festival during the early Roman period. As part of the celebration, men danced and sang in the courtyard of the temple while Levites, standing on the steps that led down from the court of the Israelites, played harps, lyres, cymbals, and other instruments. Two priests blew trumpets—one long blast, then a quavering one, then another long blast—while walking toward the eastern gate. When they reached the gate, they turned back toward the temple and said, “Our fathers when they were in this place turned with their backs toward the Temple of the Lord and their faces toward the east, and they worshiped the sun toward the east [referring to the apostasy of the Jews as described by Ezekiel]; but as for us, our eyes are turned toward the Lord” (m. Sukkah 5:4). Another part of this festival involved the drawing of water for a libation offering from the Pool of Siloam with great ceremony and joy. John 7 records Jesus’ secretive departure to Jerusalem for the Festival of Tabernacles, where he spent several days teaching in the temple courts. It was on the last and greatest day of the festival when Jesus invited those thirsty to come to him and drink.
The Festival of Trumpets
Occurring on the first day of the seventh month (September–October), this feast marked the beginning of the civil and agricultural year for the Jews; it was also referred to as Rosh Hashanah (lit., “head/beginning of the year”). Observed as a Sabbath with sacrifices and trumpet blasts, this day was intended for rest and to begin preparations for the coming Day of Atonement. The Mishnah makes this connection more explicit by identifying the Festival of Trumpets as the day when “all that come into the world pass before [God] like legions of soldiers” or flocks of sheep to be judged (m. Rosh HaSh. 1:2).
The Day of Atonement
Some festivals, like Passover, looked back to what God had done or was doing for his people; other festivals, like Trumpets and the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), focused on the relationship itself. The latter was marked by repentance and rituals designed to remove the nation’s sins and restore fellowship with God. Coming ten days after the Festival of Trumpets, this was a solemn occasion during which the Israelites abstained from eating, drinking, and other activities. This was the only prescribed annual fast in the Jewish calendar, though other fasts were added in the fourth, fifth, seventh, and tenth months to mourn the Babylonian exile (Zech. 7:3, 5; 8:19).
In Leviticus, God clarified the purpose of this day: “On this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. Then, before the Lord, you will be clean from all your sins” (16:30). Not only would the people be purified, but so also would the sanctuary, so that God could continue to meet his people there. Sacrifices were offered for both priest and people, and the blood was taken into the most holy place. Only on Yom Kippur could this room be entered, and only by the high priest, who sprinkled blood on the cover of the ark of the covenant. Leaving that room, he also sprinkled blood in the holy place (16:14–17) and then on the bronze altar in the courtyard.
Yom Kippur was marked by another ritual that symbolized the removal of Israel’s sins, this one involving two goats. One goat, chosen by lot, was offered as a sacrifice to God. The high priest placed his hands on the other goat and transferred to it the sins of the nation. He then released the goat into the wilderness, for “the goat will carry on itself all their sins to a remote place” (Lev. 16:22).
The Mishnah describes how this day was observed when the second temple stood. The high priest, having been carefully prepared, washed, and clothed, placed both hands on the head of a bull and confessed his own sins. After this, the lots were drawn for the goats; the goat to be sacrificed had a thread tied around its throat, while the other had a scarlet thread bound around its head. When the high priest had confessed the sins of the priests over the bull, it was slaughtered, and its blood was collected in a basin. Taking coals from the bronze altar and incense from the holy place, he then entered the holy of holies. There he placed the incense on the coals, filling the room with smoke to obscure the ark from his view. Returning to the holy place, he offered a short prayer, lest he pray too long and “put Israel in terror” that he had died performing the ritual. He returned to the courtyard and took the basin of blood back into the most holy place. Dipping his finger into the blood, he sprinkled it with a whipping motion, and repeated this seven times. He did the same with the blood of the goat chosen for sacrifice, and then he poured out the remaining blood at the base of the bronze altar.
Then the high priest laid his hands on the head of the scapegoat and said, “O God, thy people, the House of Israel, have committed iniquity, transgressed, and sinned before thee. O God, forgive, I pray, the iniquities and transgressions and sins which thy people, the House of Israel, have committed and transgressed and sinned before thee; as it is written in the law of thy servant Moses . . .” (m. Yoma 6:2). The goat was then led outside Jerusalem, where it was pushed down a ravine to its death, apparently to keep it from wandering back into the city.
The Mishnah recognized that rituals alone were insufficient for true forgiveness, for it contains this warning: “If a man said, ‘I will sin and repent, and sin again and repent,’ he will be given no chance to repent. [If he said,] ‘I will sin and the Day of Atonement will effect atonement,’ then the Day of Atonement effects no atonement. For transgressions that are between man and God the Day of Atonement effects atonement, but for transgressions that are between a man and his fellow the Day of Atonement effects atonement only if he has appeased his fellow” (m. Yoma 8:9).
The book of Hebrews uses the symbols of Yom Kippur to describe Jesus’ death. As the high priest entered the most holy place, so Jesus entered God’s presence, carrying not the blood of bull and goat but his own. His once-for-all death at the “culmination of the ages” (Heb. 9:26) not only allows him to remain in God’s presence (10:12) but also gives us access to God’s presence as well (10:19–22).
Sabbath Year
Every seven years, the Israelites were to observe a “Sabbath of the land” (Lev. 25:6 ESV), a time for the land to rest. They could not sow fields or prune vineyards, but they could eat what grew of itself (Lev. 25:1–7). Deuteronomy 15:1–11 speaks of all debts being canceled (some would say deferred) every seventh year, presumably the same year the land was to lie fallow. When Israel was gathered at the Festival of Tabernacles during this Sabbath Year, the law of Moses was to be read aloud. The Chronicler described the seventy years of Babylonian exile as “sabbaths” for the land, perhaps alluding to the neglect of the Sabbath Year (2 Chron. 36:21; cf. Lev. 26:43). Those returning from exile expressed their intent to keep this provision (Neh. 10:31), and it appears to have been observed in the intertestamental period (see 1 Macc. 6:48–53; Josephus, Ant. 14.202–10).
This year seems intended to maintain the fertility of the land and to allow Israel’s economy to “reset,” equalizing wealth and limiting poverty. Observing such a provision took great faith and firm allegiance, for they had to trust God for daily bread and put obedience above profit. Rereading the law at the Festival of Tabernacles reminded the Israelites of God’s gracious covenant and their required response.
Jubilee
God instructed Israel to count off seven “sevens” of years and in the fiftieth year, beginning on the Day of Atonement, to sound a trumpet marking the Jubilee Year. As in the Sabbath Year, there was to be no sowing and reaping. Further, the land was released from its current owners and returned to those families to whom it originally belonged. Individual Israelites who had become indentured through economic distress were to be freed. The assumption underlying the Jubilee Year was that everything belonged to God. He owned the land and its occupants; the Israelites were only tenants and stewards (Lev. 25:23, 55). As their covenant lord, he would provide for their needs even during back-to-back Sabbath Years (Lev. 25:21). The year began on the Day of Atonement, perhaps to emphasize that the best response to God’s redemptive mercy is faith in his provision and mercy to others. Although the Jubilee Year is commanded in the Mosaic law and spoken about by the prophets (Isa. 61:1–2; Ezek. 46:17), rabbis, and Jesus (Luke 4:18–19), Scripture is silent on how or if Israel observed this year.
New Moon
The beginning of each month was marked with the sounding of trumpets, rejoicing, and sacrifices (Num. 10:10; 28:11–15). There is some indication that work was to be suspended on this day, as on the Sabbath (Amos 8:5), and that people gathered for a meal (1 Sam. 20:5, 18, 24, 27). By faithfully observing this day, Israel was in a position to properly observe the remaining days, set up, as they were, on the lunar calendar. Paul learned of some in Colossae who were giving undue attention to New Moon celebrations (Col. 2:16).
Purim
Beyond the festivals commanded in the law of Moses, the Jews added two more to their sacred calendar, one during the postexilic period and one between the Testaments. Both commemorated God’s deliverance of his people from their enemies. A wave of anti-Semitic persecution swept over the Jews living in Persia during the reign of Xerxes (486–465 BC). God delivered his people through Esther, and the Jews celebrated this deliverance with the festival of Purim. Their enemies determined when to attack by casting lots, so the Jews called this festival “Purim,” meaning “lots.” It was celebrated on the fourteenth and fifteenth days of the twelfth month (February-March) with “feasting and joy and giving presents of food to one another and gifts to the poor” (Esther 9:22).
Festival of Dedication
During the intertestamental period, the Jews came under great persecution from the Seleucids, who outlawed the practice of Judaism and desecrated the Jerusalem temple. After recapturing the temple, the Jews began the process of purification. On the twenty-fifth day of their ninth month, in the year 164 BC, the Jews rose at dawn and offered a lawful sacrifice on the new altar of burnt offering which they had made. The altar was dedicated, to the sound of hymns, zithers, lyres and cymbals, at the same time of year and on the same day on which the gentiles had originally profaned it. The whole people fell prostrate in adoration and then praised Heaven who had granted them success. For eight days they celebrated the dedication of the altar, joyfully offering burnt offerings, communion and thanksgiving sacrifices. . . . Judas [Maccabees], with his brothers and the whole assembly of Israel, made it a law that the days of the dedication of the altar should be celebrated yearly at the proper season, for eight days beginning on the twenty-fifth of the month of Chislev [December], with rejoicing and gladness. (1 Macc. 4:52–56, 59 NJB)
Summary
What did God want to impress on his people by commanding and permitting these specific festivals? First, these festivals reminded Israel of God’s help in the past, how he delivered them from Egypt, provided for them in the wilderness wanderings, or protected them from their enemies. Second, the festivals were occasions to celebrate God’s present provision. He had promised to provide for his covenant partner; the festivals, especially those timed to occur at the harvest, were occasions to celebrate how faithfully he had kept that promise for another year and opportunities to commit to providing for the needs of others.
The festivals prompted the Israelites not only to look back to God’s help in the past and recognize God’s help in the present, but also to look ahead, anticipating the promised consummation. The OT announced God’s intention to bring all nations into full allegiance, and the festivals were occasions to anticipate that day. Isaiah spoke of a festival in which all the nations would share: “On this mountain the Lord Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine—the best of meats and the finest of wines” (Isa. 25:6). God promised to bless “foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be his servants, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant—these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations” (Isa. 56:6–7). Micah predicted a day when the nations would go on pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Mic. 4:1–5), and Zephaniah anticipated when God would “purify the lips of the peoples, that all of them may call on the name of the Lord and serve him shoulder to shoulder,” even bringing offerings to the temple (Zeph. 3:9–10). According to Zechariah, a time was coming when “the survivors from all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the Lord Almighty, and to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles” (Zech. 14:16). Israel’s festivals allowed them to look back at what God had done, was doing, and was going to do for them and, through them, for the whole world.
The Israelites experienced a wide range of emotions during these festivals, but the prevailing emotion was joy. They rejoiced in their selection by God, living “together in unity” (Ps. 133:1), in God’s deliverance, provision, and protection, and in the hope of God’s consummation of his plan. Over and over, God instructed them to gather and rejoice in his presence, suggesting a fourth insight: a God who desires his people’s happiness must love his people.
Finally, the festivals were occasions to recognize God’s rule over Israel. Especially in an agricultural economy such as Israel’s, to refrain from work on the Sabbath and on festival days was to confess God’s sovereignty over time and to admit dependence on God. To leave house and fields and travel to Jerusalem confessed faith in God to protect. Offerings of firstfruits confessed that the whole harvest came from God. When they gathered, it was in the sanctuary, God’s palace, yet another reminder that God was Israel’s king, and they were his subjects.
The Israelites gathered regularly to celebrate their relationship with God. Such festivals were marked by communal meals, music, singing, dancing, and sacrifices. They celebrated, conscious that God had graciously brought them into a relationship with him. Within this covenant he had committed himself to act on their behalf both in regular ways, such as the harvest, and in exceptional ways, such as deliverance from Egypt. At the festivals, Israel celebrated God’s work in its past, present, and future and reaffirmed its relationship with this covenant God.
We know of Israel’s festivals from several calendars in the Mosaic legislation (Exod. 23:14–17; 34:18–23; Lev. 23; Num. 28–29; Deut. 16:1–17), calendars further clarified by the prophets (e.g., Ezek. 45:18–25; Zech. 14), and narrative material (e.g., 2 Kings 23:21–23). Some read discrepancies between calendars as evidence of multiple sources, but this fails to account for the various purposes that these calendars served. The narrative and prophetic passages suggest that Israel did not observe these festivals as frequently as, and in the ways, God intended (e.g., Amos 8:5), but when Israel sought to renew its relationship with God, it often did so with a festival (e.g., 2 Kings 23:21–23).
Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread
Israel’s religious calendar began with Passover, the day set aside to commemorate deliverance from Egypt. Occurring in spring, this single day was joined with a weeklong celebration known as the Festival of Unleavened Bread, during which all males were required to make a pilgrimage to the sanctuary and offer the firstfruits of the barley harvest (Lev. 23:9–14). Israel observed Passover with rituals that reactualized the night God’s destroyer spared the Israelites in Egypt. A lamb was killed, and its blood was put on the doorposts of the homes and on the bronze altar in the sanctuary. The lamb was roasted and served with unleavened bread and bitter herbs while those partaking—dressed in their traveling clothes—listened to the retelling of the exodus story. No yeast was to be found anywhere among them, no work was to be done on the first and last days of the festival, and offerings were to be brought to the sanctuary (Num. 9:1–5; Josh. 5:10–11; 2 Kings 23:21–23; 2 Chron. 30; 35:1–19).
Early Christians associated Jesus’ death with that of the Passover lamb (1 Cor. 5:7–8), encouraged by Jesus’ comments at the Last Supper (described by the Synoptic Gospels as a Passover meal [e.g., Matt. 26:17–30]). Perhaps Jesus meant to emphasize that just as Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread reminded God’s people of his deliverance and provision, his followers would find true freedom and full provision in him.
The Festival of Weeks
Also known as the Festival of Harvest, the Day of Firstfruits, or Pentecost (because it occurred fifty days after Passover), the Festival of Weeks took place on the sixth day of the third month (corresponding to our May or June). This marked another occasion when all Jewish men were required to come to the sanctuary. They were to bring an offering of the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, abstain from work, and devote themselves to rejoicing in God’s goodness.
Early in the NT period, if not before, this festival also became associated with the giving of the law on Mount Sinai. The Jews who assembled in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost as described in Acts 2 came to celebrate not only God’s provision but also the revelation of his nature and will. Significantly, God chose this day to send the Holy Spirit, the One who would produce a harvest of believers and reveal God more fully to the world.
The Festival of Tabernacles
So important was the Festival of Tabernacles (also known as the Festival of Ingathering or the Festival of Booths) that Israel sometimes referred to it as “the festival of the Lord” (Judg. 21:19) or simply “the festival” (cf. 1 Kings 8:65). Held from the fifteenth to the twenty-first of the seventh month (September–October), this was the third of the three pilgrimage festivals. For that week, Israel lived in booths to remind them of their ancestors’ time in the wilderness. They also celebrated the fruit harvest. They were to “take the fruit of majestic trees, branches of palm trees, boughs of leafy trees, and willows of the brook; and you shall rejoice” before God for seven days (Lev. 23:40 NRSV). Avoiding all work on the first and last days of the festival, they were to mark the week with sacrifices, celebration, and joy. Also, every seventh year the law was to be read at this festival (Deut. 31:10–11).
The Mishnah, a collection of rabbinic laws compiled around AD 200 but often reflecting earlier traditions, records how Israel observed this festival during the early Roman period. As part of the celebration, men danced and sang in the courtyard of the temple while Levites, standing on the steps that led down from the court of the Israelites, played harps, lyres, cymbals, and other instruments. Two priests blew trumpets—one long blast, then a quavering one, then another long blast—while walking toward the eastern gate. When they reached the gate, they turned back toward the temple and said, “Our fathers when they were in this place turned with their backs toward the Temple of the Lord and their faces toward the east, and they worshiped the sun toward the east [referring to the apostasy of the Jews as described by Ezekiel]; but as for us, our eyes are turned toward the Lord” (m. Sukkah 5:4). Another part of this festival involved the drawing of water for a libation offering from the Pool of Siloam with great ceremony and joy. John 7 records Jesus’ secretive departure to Jerusalem for the Festival of Tabernacles, where he spent several days teaching in the temple courts. It was on the last and greatest day of the festival when Jesus invited those thirsty to come to him and drink.
The Festival of Trumpets
Occurring on the first day of the seventh month (September–October), this feast marked the beginning of the civil and agricultural year for the Jews; it was also referred to as Rosh Hashanah (lit., “head/beginning of the year”). Observed as a Sabbath with sacrifices and trumpet blasts, this day was intended for rest and to begin preparations for the coming Day of Atonement. The Mishnah makes this connection more explicit by identifying the Festival of Trumpets as the day when “all that come into the world pass before [God] like legions of soldiers” or flocks of sheep to be judged (m. Rosh HaSh. 1:2).
The Day of Atonement
Some festivals, like Passover, looked back to what God had done or was doing for his people; other festivals, like Trumpets and the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), focused on the relationship itself. The latter was marked by repentance and rituals designed to remove the nation’s sins and restore fellowship with God. Coming ten days after the Festival of Trumpets, this was a solemn occasion during which the Israelites abstained from eating, drinking, and other activities. This was the only prescribed annual fast in the Jewish calendar, though other fasts were added in the fourth, fifth, seventh, and tenth months to mourn the Babylonian exile (Zech. 7:3, 5; 8:19).
In Leviticus, God clarified the purpose of this day: “On this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. Then, before the Lord, you will be clean from all your sins” (16:30). Not only would the people be purified, but so also would the sanctuary, so that God could continue to meet his people there. Sacrifices were offered for both priest and people, and the blood was taken into the most holy place. Only on Yom Kippur could this room be entered, and only by the high priest, who sprinkled blood on the cover of the ark of the covenant. Leaving that room, he also sprinkled blood in the holy place (16:14–17) and then on the bronze altar in the courtyard.
Yom Kippur was marked by another ritual that symbolized the removal of Israel’s sins, this one involving two goats. One goat, chosen by lot, was offered as a sacrifice to God. The high priest placed his hands on the other goat and transferred to it the sins of the nation. He then released the goat into the wilderness, for “the goat will carry on itself all their sins to a remote place” (Lev. 16:22).
The Mishnah describes how this day was observed when the second temple stood. The high priest, having been carefully prepared, washed, and clothed, placed both hands on the head of a bull and confessed his own sins. After this, the lots were drawn for the goats; the goat to be sacrificed had a thread tied around its throat, while the other had a scarlet thread bound around its head. When the high priest had confessed the sins of the priests over the bull, it was slaughtered, and its blood was collected in a basin. Taking coals from the bronze altar and incense from the holy place, he then entered the holy of holies. There he placed the incense on the coals, filling the room with smoke to obscure the ark from his view. Returning to the holy place, he offered a short prayer, lest he pray too long and “put Israel in terror” that he had died performing the ritual. He returned to the courtyard and took the basin of blood back into the most holy place. Dipping his finger into the blood, he sprinkled it with a whipping motion, and repeated this seven times. He did the same with the blood of the goat chosen for sacrifice, and then he poured out the remaining blood at the base of the bronze altar.
Then the high priest laid his hands on the head of the scapegoat and said, “O God, thy people, the House of Israel, have committed iniquity, transgressed, and sinned before thee. O God, forgive, I pray, the iniquities and transgressions and sins which thy people, the House of Israel, have committed and transgressed and sinned before thee; as it is written in the law of thy servant Moses . . .” (m. Yoma 6:2). The goat was then led outside Jerusalem, where it was pushed down a ravine to its death, apparently to keep it from wandering back into the city.
The Mishnah recognized that rituals alone were insufficient for true forgiveness, for it contains this warning: “If a man said, ‘I will sin and repent, and sin again and repent,’ he will be given no chance to repent. [If he said,] ‘I will sin and the Day of Atonement will effect atonement,’ then the Day of Atonement effects no atonement. For transgressions that are between man and God the Day of Atonement effects atonement, but for transgressions that are between a man and his fellow the Day of Atonement effects atonement only if he has appeased his fellow” (m. Yoma 8:9).
The book of Hebrews uses the symbols of Yom Kippur to describe Jesus’ death. As the high priest entered the most holy place, so Jesus entered God’s presence, carrying not the blood of bull and goat but his own. His once-for-all death at the “culmination of the ages” (Heb. 9:26) not only allows him to remain in God’s presence (10:12) but also gives us access to God’s presence as well (10:19–22).
Sabbath Year
Every seven years, the Israelites were to observe a “Sabbath of the land” (Lev. 25:6 ESV), a time for the land to rest. They could not sow fields or prune vineyards, but they could eat what grew of itself (Lev. 25:1–7). Deuteronomy 15:1–11 speaks of all debts being canceled (some would say deferred) every seventh year, presumably the same year the land was to lie fallow. When Israel was gathered at the Festival of Tabernacles during this Sabbath Year, the law of Moses was to be read aloud. The Chronicler described the seventy years of Babylonian exile as “sabbaths” for the land, perhaps alluding to the neglect of the Sabbath Year (2 Chron. 36:21; cf. Lev. 26:43). Those returning from exile expressed their intent to keep this provision (Neh. 10:31), and it appears to have been observed in the intertestamental period (see 1 Macc. 6:48–53; Josephus, Ant. 14.202–10).
This year seems intended to maintain the fertility of the land and to allow Israel’s economy to “reset,” equalizing wealth and limiting poverty. Observing such a provision took great faith and firm allegiance, for they had to trust God for daily bread and put obedience above profit. Rereading the law at the Festival of Tabernacles reminded the Israelites of God’s gracious covenant and their required response.
Jubilee
God instructed Israel to count off seven “sevens” of years and in the fiftieth year, beginning on the Day of Atonement, to sound a trumpet marking the Jubilee Year. As in the Sabbath Year, there was to be no sowing and reaping. Further, the land was released from its current owners and returned to those families to whom it originally belonged. Individual Israelites who had become indentured through economic distress were to be freed. The assumption underlying the Jubilee Year was that everything belonged to God. He owned the land and its occupants; the Israelites were only tenants and stewards (Lev. 25:23, 55). As their covenant lord, he would provide for their needs even during back-to-back Sabbath Years (Lev. 25:21). The year began on the Day of Atonement, perhaps to emphasize that the best response to God’s redemptive mercy is faith in his provision and mercy to others. Although the Jubilee Year is commanded in the Mosaic law and spoken about by the prophets (Isa. 61:1–2; Ezek. 46:17), rabbis, and Jesus (Luke 4:18–19), Scripture is silent on how or if Israel observed this year.
New Moon
The beginning of each month was marked with the sounding of trumpets, rejoicing, and sacrifices (Num. 10:10; 28:11–15). There is some indication that work was to be suspended on this day, as on the Sabbath (Amos 8:5), and that people gathered for a meal (1 Sam. 20:5, 18, 24, 27). By faithfully observing this day, Israel was in a position to properly observe the remaining days, set up, as they were, on the lunar calendar. Paul learned of some in Colossae who were giving undue attention to New Moon celebrations (Col. 2:16).
Purim
Beyond the festivals commanded in the law of Moses, the Jews added two more to their sacred calendar, one during the postexilic period and one between the Testaments. Both commemorated God’s deliverance of his people from their enemies. A wave of anti-Semitic persecution swept over the Jews living in Persia during the reign of Xerxes (486–465 BC). God delivered his people through Esther, and the Jews celebrated this deliverance with the festival of Purim. Their enemies determined when to attack by casting lots, so the Jews called this festival “Purim,” meaning “lots.” It was celebrated on the fourteenth and fifteenth days of the twelfth month (February-March) with “feasting and joy and giving presents of food to one another and gifts to the poor” (Esther 9:22).
Festival of Dedication
During the intertestamental period, the Jews came under great persecution from the Seleucids, who outlawed the practice of Judaism and desecrated the Jerusalem temple. After recapturing the temple, the Jews began the process of purification. On the twenty-fifth day of their ninth month, in the year 164 BC, the Jews rose at dawn and offered a lawful sacrifice on the new altar of burnt offering which they had made. The altar was dedicated, to the sound of hymns, zithers, lyres and cymbals, at the same time of year and on the same day on which the gentiles had originally profaned it. The whole people fell prostrate in adoration and then praised Heaven who had granted them success. For eight days they celebrated the dedication of the altar, joyfully offering burnt offerings, communion and thanksgiving sacrifices. . . . Judas [Maccabees], with his brothers and the whole assembly of Israel, made it a law that the days of the dedication of the altar should be celebrated yearly at the proper season, for eight days beginning on the twenty-fifth of the month of Chislev [December], with rejoicing and gladness. (1 Macc. 4:52–56, 59 NJB)
Summary
What did God want to impress on his people by commanding and permitting these specific festivals? First, these festivals reminded Israel of God’s help in the past, how he delivered them from Egypt, provided for them in the wilderness wanderings, or protected them from their enemies. Second, the festivals were occasions to celebrate God’s present provision. He had promised to provide for his covenant partner; the festivals, especially those timed to occur at the harvest, were occasions to celebrate how faithfully he had kept that promise for another year and opportunities to commit to providing for the needs of others.
The festivals prompted the Israelites not only to look back to God’s help in the past and recognize God’s help in the present, but also to look ahead, anticipating the promised consummation. The OT announced God’s intention to bring all nations into full allegiance, and the festivals were occasions to anticipate that day. Isaiah spoke of a festival in which all the nations would share: “On this mountain the Lord Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine—the best of meats and the finest of wines” (Isa. 25:6). God promised to bless “foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be his servants, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant—these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations” (Isa. 56:6–7). Micah predicted a day when the nations would go on pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Mic. 4:1–5), and Zephaniah anticipated when God would “purify the lips of the peoples, that all of them may call on the name of the Lord and serve him shoulder to shoulder,” even bringing offerings to the temple (Zeph. 3:9–10). According to Zechariah, a time was coming when “the survivors from all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the Lord Almighty, and to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles” (Zech. 14:16). Israel’s festivals allowed them to look back at what God had done, was doing, and was going to do for them and, through them, for the whole world.
The Israelites experienced a wide range of emotions during these festivals, but the prevailing emotion was joy. They rejoiced in their selection by God, living “together in unity” (Ps. 133:1), in God’s deliverance, provision, and protection, and in the hope of God’s consummation of his plan. Over and over, God instructed them to gather and rejoice in his presence, suggesting a fourth insight: a God who desires his people’s happiness must love his people.
Finally, the festivals were occasions to recognize God’s rule over Israel. Especially in an agricultural economy such as Israel’s, to refrain from work on the Sabbath and on festival days was to confess God’s sovereignty over time and to admit dependence on God. To leave house and fields and travel to Jerusalem confessed faith in God to protect. Offerings of firstfruits confessed that the whole harvest came from God. When they gathered, it was in the sanctuary, God’s palace, yet another reminder that God was Israel’s king, and they were his subjects.
The outpouring of the Spirit that was prophesied in the OT to take place in the last days, in connection with the arrival of the Messiah.
Spirit baptism in the Bible. The OT prophets had spoken of both the Spirit of God coming upon the Messiah (e.g., Isa. 11:2; 42:1; 61:1) and a giving or pouring out of the Spirit in the last days (e.g., Isa. 32:15; 44:3; Ezek. 36:27; 37:14; 39:29; Joel 2:28). Peter connects the giving of the Spirit with Jesus’ being received by the Father and being granted messianic authority (Acts 2:33–38). The experience of Cornelius in particular associates the pouring out of the Spirit (Acts 10:45) with a baptism with the Spirit (11:16).
Seven passages in the NT directly speak of someone being baptized in/with the Spirit. Four of these passages refer to John the Baptist’s prediction that Jesus will baptize people in/with the Spirit in contrast to his own water baptism (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33). In Matthew and Luke, Jesus’ baptism is referred to as a baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Two passages refer to Jesus’ prediction that the disciples would receive Spirit baptism, which occurred at Pentecost. As recorded in Acts 2, tongues of fire came to rest on each of them, they were filled with the Holy Spirit, and they began to speak in other tongues. As the disciples spoke to the Jews who had gathered in Jerusalem for the festival, three thousand were converted. Acts 1:5 contains Jesus’ prediction of this baptism with the Spirit, which Peter recounts in 11:16.
The final reference occurs in 1 Cor. 12:13, where Paul says, “For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.” Thus, Christians form one body through their common experience of immersion in the one Spirit.
A second baptism? While in 1 Cor. 12 Paul seems to refer to an experience that all Christians undergo at conversion, there are several incidents in Acts where the reception of the Spirit occurs after conversion. The question then arises as to whether there is a separate “baptism in/with the Holy Spirit” distinct from the Spirit’s initial work of regeneration and incorporation into the body of Christ at conversion and whether this two-stage process is normative for the church. This belief in a second baptism is particularly prominent in Pentecostal traditions.
Examples such as Acts 2; 8; 10; 19 are commonly used to support the view of a second and subsequent experience of Spirit baptism. In Acts 2 the disciples are already converted and wait for the Spirit, who comes to them at Pentecost. In Acts 8 the Samaritans first respond to Philip’s preaching and receive water baptism. However, they receive the Spirit only after Peter and John come from Jerusalem and pray for them to receive the Holy Spirit. In Acts 10 Cornelius is a God-fearing Gentile, and after Peter visits him, the Spirit falls on his household. In Acts 19 Paul finds some disciples in Ephesus. After he lays hands on them, the Holy Spirit comes upon them, and they begin to speak in tongues and prophesy.
In understanding these experiences, it must be remembered that Acts describes a transitional period for the church. Acts 2 in particular recounts the initial giving of the Spirit under the new covenant. It is possible, then, to see the events in Acts 8; 10 as the coming of the Spirit upon two other people groups, the Samaritans and the Gentiles. Acts 2:38 and 5:32 indicate that the apostles expected the reception of the Spirit to accompany conversion, and this appears to be the case in the rest of the book. Acts 19 narrates an incomplete conversion, where the people had only experienced John’s baptism and receive the Spirit after Paul baptizes them “in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
Filled with the Spirit. Although the NT does not support a theology of a second Spirit baptism, it does commonly mention an experience of being “filled” with the Spirit. The concept of being “filled with the Spirit” frequently occurs in contexts referring to spiritual growth, such as in Eph. 5:18, where Paul exhorts, “Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.” Apparently, this filling can occur numerous times. It can lead to worship of and thanksgiving to God (Eph. 5:19–20). It can also result in empowerment for ministry.
The immediate consequence of the disciples’ filling in Acts 2:4 is speaking in tongues to the various Jews gathered in Jerusalem, and in 4:31 they are empowered to speak “the word of God boldly.” Fullness of the Spirit can also be a characteristic of a believer’s life, such as in Acts 6:3, where the seven men chosen to look after the widows were to be men “known to be full of the Spirit.”
The biblical concept of friendship involves a relationship of association that usually entails a degree of fondness and companionship. Examples of friends in the OT include David and Jonathan (1 Sam. 20) and Ruth and Naomi (Ruth 1:16–18; 2:11), whose relationships reflect a high degree of closeness, loyalty, honesty, and intimacy. The book of Proverbs relates these same ideals to friendship. Some examples are closeness (“there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother” [18:24]), loyalty (“do not forsake your friend and a friend of your family” [27:10]), honesty (“wounds from a friend can be trusted” [27:6]), and intimacy (“a friend loves at all times” [17:17]).
The Bible sometimes uses friendship terminology to describe human relationships with God. For instance, Moses is identified as a friend of God and privileged to speak with God face-to-face (Exod. 33:11). Also, in John 15:13 Jesus says, “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” Then, in dramatic fashion and with great emotion, Jesus describes the disciples as his “friends” (John 15:14–16), clearly a term meant to reflect these same qualities of closeness, loyalty, honesty, and intimacy.
In the Greco-Roman world of the NT, friendship was a popular topic. In fact, most first-century philosophers and historians wrote numerous essays about friendship. The topic’s importance is reflected in Dio Chrysostom’s statement that friendships are ultimate partnerships, even more sacred than kinship (3 Regn. 113). Other first-century Greco-Roman authors who wrote extensively on the subject of friendship include Seneca, Epictetus, and Plutarch. These authors often reflect upon Hellenistic proverbs that express ideas such as “friends are one soul” and “for friends all things are common.” These phrases actually date back to the time and writing of Aristotle (384–322 BC). It is likely that Aristotle’s concept of friendship was influenced by the writings of Plato (429–347 BC), who in turn was influenced by Pythagoras (c. 580–490 BC). This confirms that the Greco-Roman concept of friendship was built upon older Greek ideals that were still embraced during the NT era.
This fact is verified by Luke’s description of the early church believers having “everything in common” (Acts 2:44) and being “one in heart and mind” (4:32). Luke is alluding to the reality that those who were part of the early church were friends. However, in Luke’s primitive church, friendship could be shared by the socially unequal and by people of different ethnicities, something that would be unusual according to first-century Greco-Roman social customs. Also, Luke’s presentation of friendship in Acts rejects the need for reciprocity between friends. In other words, Christian friends are to serve and care for one another as an act of love, without expecting anything in return. Scholars of the NT have also seen Greco-Roman friendship ideals in the writings of Paul. Key passages include Paul’s conflict resolution with the Corinthians (2 Corinthians), his reflection on the Galatians’ hospitality (Gal. 4:2–20), and the structure of his letter to the Philippians (some see this as following the model of a Greco-Roman friendship letter).
These texts confirm that friendship is an important biblical concept. The OT ideals of closeness, loyalty, honesty, and intimacy are fully realized in the NT. Here, believers in Christ are entitled to a new kind of friendship with God. In turn, this divine friendship produces a new kind of relationship with others in the church. This relationship is characterized by loving commitment to one another and a generous sharing of goods and possessions to meet one another’s needs. All of this results in a deep sense of closeness and unity (“a oneness of heart and soul”). In other words, in Christ, the church has the ability to produce the best of friends.
The biblical concept of friendship involves a relationship of association that usually entails a degree of fondness and companionship. Examples of friends in the OT include David and Jonathan (1 Sam. 20) and Ruth and Naomi (Ruth 1:16–18; 2:11), whose relationships reflect a high degree of closeness, loyalty, honesty, and intimacy. The book of Proverbs relates these same ideals to friendship. Some examples are closeness (“there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother” [18:24]), loyalty (“do not forsake your friend and a friend of your family” [27:10]), honesty (“wounds from a friend can be trusted” [27:6]), and intimacy (“a friend loves at all times” [17:17]).
The Bible sometimes uses friendship terminology to describe human relationships with God. For instance, Moses is identified as a friend of God and privileged to speak with God face-to-face (Exod. 33:11). Also, in John 15:13 Jesus says, “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” Then, in dramatic fashion and with great emotion, Jesus describes the disciples as his “friends” (John 15:14–16), clearly a term meant to reflect these same qualities of closeness, loyalty, honesty, and intimacy.
In the Greco-Roman world of the NT, friendship was a popular topic. In fact, most first-century philosophers and historians wrote numerous essays about friendship. The topic’s importance is reflected in Dio Chrysostom’s statement that friendships are ultimate partnerships, even more sacred than kinship (3 Regn. 113). Other first-century Greco-Roman authors who wrote extensively on the subject of friendship include Seneca, Epictetus, and Plutarch. These authors often reflect upon Hellenistic proverbs that express ideas such as “friends are one soul” and “for friends all things are common.” These phrases actually date back to the time and writing of Aristotle (384–322 BC). It is likely that Aristotle’s concept of friendship was influenced by the writings of Plato (429–347 BC), who in turn was influenced by Pythagoras (c. 580–490 BC). This confirms that the Greco-Roman concept of friendship was built upon older Greek ideals that were still embraced during the NT era.
This fact is verified by Luke’s description of the early church believers having “everything in common” (Acts 2:44) and being “one in heart and mind” (4:32). Luke is alluding to the reality that those who were part of the early church were friends. However, in Luke’s primitive church, friendship could be shared by the socially unequal and by people of different ethnicities, something that would be unusual according to first-century Greco-Roman social customs. Also, Luke’s presentation of friendship in Acts rejects the need for reciprocity between friends. In other words, Christian friends are to serve and care for one another as an act of love, without expecting anything in return. Scholars of the NT have also seen Greco-Roman friendship ideals in the writings of Paul. Key passages include Paul’s conflict resolution with the Corinthians (2 Corinthians), his reflection on the Galatians’ hospitality (Gal. 4:2–20), and the structure of his letter to the Philippians (some see this as following the model of a Greco-Roman friendship letter).
These texts confirm that friendship is an important biblical concept. The OT ideals of closeness, loyalty, honesty, and intimacy are fully realized in the NT. Here, believers in Christ are entitled to a new kind of friendship with God. In turn, this divine friendship produces a new kind of relationship with others in the church. This relationship is characterized by loving commitment to one another and a generous sharing of goods and possessions to meet one another’s needs. All of this results in a deep sense of closeness and unity (“a oneness of heart and soul”). In other words, in Christ, the church has the ability to produce the best of friends.
In the Bible, gestures are made with either parts of the body or items, such as clothing and rings, directly connected to the body. For this reason, it makes sense to classify biblical gestures in relation to the different body parts that are identified with the gestures. It is, however, challenging to know where to draw a line on classifying a gesture. For example, a devious person is described in Prov. 6:13 as one “who winks maliciously with his eye, signals with his feet and motions with his fingers.” It is unclear whether this is a single gesture or multiple ones, and whether all signify different things or the same thing.
Head
Gestures that relate to the head range from simple head motions to semiviolent acts such as hair pulling. Simple head motions include lifting of one’s head in honor (Gen. 40:13), bowing one’s head in mourning (Ps. 35:14), tossing one’s head in mockery and derision (2 Kings 19:21), and shaking one’s head as insult (Ps. 22:7; Mark 15:29).
A common action is the shaving of the head, which can be for purification (Lev. 14:8–9; Num. 6:9; 8:7 [includes all body hair]), mourning (Deut. 21:11–13; Job 1:20; Isa. 15:2; Jer. 16:6; 47:5; 48:37; Ezek. 27:31; Amos 8:10; Mic. 1:16), remorse (Jer. 41:5), or shaming (Jer. 2:16). However, priests are forbidden from shaving their heads even in mourning (Lev. 21:5; Ezek. 44:20), while the high priest is to wear a turban on his head during sacrificial duties (Exod. 29:6).
Anointing of the head is done when a priest or king is installed (Exod. 29:7; Ps. 23:5) or simply as a sign of God’s goodness and blessing on a person (Eccles. 9:8). Blessing may also involve placing a hand on the head of the person being blessed (Gen. 48:14–18; Exod. 29:19), while the same gesture on the head of sacrificial animals is a symbolic means of transferring sin (Lev. 3:2, 8, 13; 4:4, 15, 24, 29, 33; 8:18, 22).
In the OT, a woman’s head can be shaved in mourning (Deut. 21:12–13; cf. Jer. 47:5), but in the NT, a shaved head can be a cause for disgrace (1 Cor. 11:5–6).
Face. Facial gestures range from expressions to actions such as touching or covering the face. A face can be downcast in anger (Gen. 4:5–6) or bowed to the ground in honor (Gen. 48:12), in dejection (Josh. 7:6), in humility (Ruth 2:10), in worship (2 Chron. 20:18; Ps. 138:2), in subjection, supplication, reverence (1 Sam. 20:41; 25:41; 28:14; 2 Sam. 14:4, 22; 18:28; 24:20; 1 Kings 1:23; 1 Chron. 21:20), or in dread (e.g., Moses before Yahweh [Exod. 3:6]).
The face can be covered or veiled as an indication of uncleanness (Lev. 13:45), in grief/mourning (2 Sam. 19:4; Ezek. 24:17), in resignation (1 Kings 19:13), with intent to deceive in adultery (Job 24:15), or in horror of judgment (Esther 7:8; Ezek. 12:6, 12). It can also be buried in the dust in remorse (Lam. 3:29).
God can be described as hiding or turning away his face against wickedness and evil (Deut. 31:18; 32:20; Ps. 34:16; Isa. 8:17; Jer. 33:5; Ezek. 7:22; 15:7; 20:46; 21:2) or in an act of withholding blessings (Job 13:15; Pss. 10:1; 13:1; 27:9; 30:7; 34:16; Isa. 54:8; 59:2; 64:7). God can also turn his face toward a place in judgment (Ezek. 4:3, 7; 6:2). In 1 Sam. 5:3–4 the idol of the Philistine god Dagon falls facedown before the ark of the covenant, apparently overpowered by Yahweh.
Acts of humiliation or dishonor can involve spitting in the face (Num. 12:14; Deut. 25:9; Job 17:6; 30:10; Isa. 50:6), slapping the face (1 Kings 22:24; 2 Chron. 18:23; Job 16:10; Lam. 3:30; Mic. 5:1), pulling a skirt up over someone’s face in shaming judgment (Jer. 13:26; Nah. 3:5), and hooking and dragging someone by the nose (2 Kings 19:28). Although being struck on the cheek is humiliating, Jesus instructs his disciples to “turn the other cheek” as a sign of resistance to violence (Matt. 5:39; Luke 6:29).
One can lift one’s face in worship (2 Kings 20:2; Job 22:26; Isa. 38:2) or in confidence (Job 11:15) and can fail to lift it in shame and disgrace (Ezra 9:6). Although the shaving of beards in mourning is common practice (Ezra 9:3; Isa. 15:2; Jer. 41:5; 48:37), the forced shaving of beards is an act of shaming and insulting (2 Sam. 10:4; 1 Chron. 19:4–5; Isa. 7:20; 50:6).
Eyes. Winking the eye is perceived as an evil, deceptive, or malicious act (Ps. 35:19; Prov. 6:13; 16:30). Eyes can be lifted up in worship and expectation (Pss. 121:1; 123:1).
Mouth. Pursed lips can characterize an evil person (Prov. 16:30), while a hand can be clapped over the mouth in awe and submission (Job 21:5; 40:4). Psalm 72:9 looks to the righteous king before whom the desert tribes will bow and whose “enemies lick the dust” in defeat.
Ears. An Israelite slave for life is to have a hole punched through his or her earlobe, held against a doorpost, with an awl (Exod. 21:6; Deut. 15:17). Blood is sprinkled on the lobe of the right ear for purification (Exod. 29:20; Lev. 8:23–24; 14:17), while supplication can be described as asking for the turning of an ear (2 Kings 19:16; Ps. 31:2). Turning one’s ear signifies paying attention or taking something to heart (Ps. 49:4; Prov. 4:20; 5:13).
Neck. The neck can be adorned (Song 1:10) as a sign of pride and honor (Gen. 41:42; Judg. 5:30; Prov. 1:9; Ezek. 16:11) or outstretched in arrogance (Ps. 75:5 TNIV: “Do not lift your horns against heaven; do not speak with outstretched neck”). Jeremiah put a yoke on his neck as a prophetic sign of the approaching Babylonian conquest (Jer. 27–28). While putting someone’s neck in a yoke is an act of triumphal conquest (Ps. 105:18), stepping on the neck of a subdued enemy is an act of subjugation and humiliation (Josh. 10:24).
Body
Nakedness in public is considered shameful (Gen. 9:22–23; Nah. 3:5; Rev. 3:18), so that it is sometimes pictured as part of divine judgment (Deut. 28:48; Isa. 47:2–3; Lam. 1:8; Mic. 1:11) or as a sign of promiscuity (Isa. 57:8; Ezek. 16:36). An unkempt body can be a sign of mourning, as it is for Mephibosheth (2 Sam. 19:24). A certain kind of body covering is a sign of marriage proposal or protection (Ezek. 16:8; 23:18; Hos. 2:9). Body dismembering, even in war, is an act of humiliation (2 Sam. 4:12).
Chest. In self-mortification, one can pound one’s chest in mourning (Ezek. 21:12) or in remorse (Jer. 31:19; Luke 18:13). The breasts of sacrificial animals are waved before God as a “wave offering” before being eaten (Exod. 29:26; Lev. 7:30; Num. 6:20).
Hand, arm. Hand gestures include motions such as lifting hands in worship, clapping hands in joy, and clapping a hand over one’s mouth in awe. The expression “outstretched arm” (Exod. 6:6; Deut. 4:34; 5:15; 7:19; 9:29; 11:2; 26:8; 1 Kings 8:42; 2 Kings 17:36; 2 Chron. 6:32; Ps. 136:12; Jer. 21:5; 27:5; 32:17, 21; Ezek. 20:33–34) indicates power, might, strength. It is often used of God to indicate his ability to defeat powerful armies and enemies. God is implored by the psalmist to lift his hand and act for the sake of the righteous (Ps. 10:12).
Since the right hand is the hand of power, the act of sitting at the right hand indicates being favored (1 Kings 2:19; Ps. 110:1; Matt. 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:43; Acts 2:35; Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet. 3:22). When taking an oath, one places a hand under the thigh/crotch (Gen. 24:2; 47:29), most likely the right hand (see Gen. 48:14, 17–18; Lev. 8:23; 14:14).
Clapping the hands can be a sign of awe (Ezek. 6:11), malice, or remorse (25:6), while a bared arm can be a sign of judgment (4:7). Job claps his hand over his mouth in awe of God and in submission and repentance (Job 40:4–5).
Hands can be lifted in worship (1 Kings 8:22; 1 Tim. 2:8), to beseech (Ps. 28:2), to protect and bless (Ps. 10:12), in an oath (Deut. 32:40), or to harm (Exod. 24:11; 1 Sam. 24:6, 10; 2 Sam.1:14; 18:12).
Pilate washes his hands to proclaim his innocence over the death of Jesus (Matt. 27:24), while 1 Pet. 5:6 urges believers to humble themselves “under God’s mighty hand,” so that in due time they will be lifted up.
Buttocks. Exposure of the buttocks can serve as a humiliating insult and provocation, as happens to David’s men (2 Sam. 10:4; 1 Chron. 19:4) and Egyptian and Cushite captives (Isa. 20:4).
Leg. The leg or thigh is often a euphemism for the male reproductive organs, so that putting one’s hand under a thigh in oath (Gen. 24:2; 47:29) may involve actually grabbing the genitalia. Animal thighs are waved to God in offering before being consumed (Lev. 9:21; 10:14; Num. 6:20), while oaths administered to uncover adultery cause a guilty woman’s thighs to waste (Num. 5:2–27).
The most common gesture involving the knee is bowing, in worship or reverence (Deut. 33:3; Isa. 45:23; Rom. 11:4; 14:11; Phil. 2:10), in defeat (2 Sam. 22:40; Ps. 18:38; Isa. 60:14), in distress (Ps. 57:6), or in respect (1 Kings 1:31). In what seems to be a somewhat awkward position, Elijah puts his face between his knees in prayer (1 Kings 18:42).
Feet. Gestures involving the feet are probably the most common gestures in the Bible. Feet can be washed in hospitality (Gen. 18:4; 19:2; 24:32; 43:24; 1 Sam. 25:41), in ablution (Exod. 30:19, 21; 40:31), or in supplication (1 Sam. 25:41). Feet can be bathed in oil as a blessing (Deut. 33:24), uncovered in marriage proposals (Ezek. 16:8; cf. Ruth 3:4, 7), and stamped in remorse (Ezek. 25:6), and sandals can be removed from them in honor (Exod. 3:1–10) or disgrace (Deut. 25:9). The heavenly seraphs cover their feet in supplication before the throne of God (Isa. 6:2), while the feet of humans can signal deception (Prov. 6:13).
Enemies can be placed under one’s feet in subjugation (1 Kings 5:3; Pss. 8:6; 18:39; 45:5; 47:3; 110:1; Mal. 4:3; Rom. 16:20), have their feet shackled or ensnared (Job 13:27; 33:11; Pss. 25:15; 105:18), and be forced to lick the feet of victors in humiliation and defeat (Isa. 49:23). The righteous will bathe their feet in the blood of their enemies in revenge (Pss. 58:10; 68:23).
Those overwhelmed can grovel at the feet of the powerful (2 Kings 4:27, 37; Esther 8:3; Matt. 28:9; Mark 5:33; 7:25; Acts 10:25), while those emboldened can rise to their feet in confidence (Ezek. 2:1–2; 3:24; Dan. 8:18).
In the NT, dust can be shaken off one’s feet as an indication of divine judgment (Matt. 10:14; Mark 6:11; Luke 9:5), even as lying at a person’s feet is a recognition of authority/submission (Matt. 15:30; Mark 5:33; Luke 8:28, 35, 41, 47; 10:39; 17:16; Acts 4:37; 5:2). A woman publicly washes Jesus’ feet with her tears, wipes them with her hair, and kisses and perfumes them in what seems an act of love and repentance; but Jesus indicates that she has prepared his body for burial (Luke 7:38–46; John 11:2; 12:3). Jesus washes his disciples’ feet as instruction on servanthood and discipleship (John 13:5–14).
Fingers, Toes. Different fingers seem to have different roles assigned them. A finger sprinkles blood in cleansing (Lev. 4:6, 17, 25, 30, 34; 8:15; 9:9; 14:16; 16:14, 19; Num. 19:4), while blood on the tip of the right thumb and on the right big toe is for cleansing (Exod. 29:20; Lev. 8:23–24; 14:17, 25, 28).
One wears a signet ring as a sign of power (Esther 3:10) or a gesture of restoration and forgiveness (Luke 15:22). But fingers can also motion in deception (Prov. 6:13) or point in blame (Isa. 58:9). Jesus writes with his finger on the ground, apparently as a gesture of indifference to those pointing accusing fingers (John 8:6).
Clothes and Shoes
Garments. Garments attain significance as they are related to specific emotions. Wearing sackcloth and ashes in mourning is common (Gen. 37:34; Ezek. 7:18; 2 Sam. 3:31), while ripping garments in mourning is also frequently attested (Gen. 37:34; 44:13; Lev. 10:6; 21:10; Josh. 7:6; 2 Sam. 1:11; 3:31; 13:31; 1 Kings 21:27; 2 Kings 2:12; 19:1; Esther 4:1; Isa. 32:11; 37:1; Jer. 41:5).
Ripping someone’s clothing to expose nakedness (Ezek. 16:39; 2 Sam. 10:4) or pulling a person’s skirts up over the face (Jer. 13:26) is an act of shaming or insulting. But tearing one’s clothes off can be a sign of fury (Matt. 26:65). Persons with defiling diseases are expected to warn off others by wearing torn clothes and shouting, “Unclean! Unclean!” (Lev. 13:45).
By laying their clothes at Saul’s feet, the crowd may be acknowledging his authority in the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:58).
Sandals. A woman can remove a man’s sandal in contempt (Deut. 25:5–10), while a sandal can be removed by a kinsman-redeemer to indicate giving up a right or as a transfer of property (Ruth 4:7–8). A sandal can also be removed in mourning (Ezek. 24:17) or be cast over a piece of land to claim ownership (Pss. 60:8; 108:9).
Prophetic Gestures
Prophetic gestures in the OT are mostly concerned with the call to repentance and approaching judgments upon failure to heed the warning. Jeremiah puts a yoke on his neck (Jer. 27–28; cf. Deut. 28:48), Ezekiel cooks with dung (Ezek. 4:12) and sleeps on his left side for 390 days and then on his right side for 40 days (4:5–6), Isaiah strips off his clothing (Isa. 20:2–3; 32:11), and Hosea marries an unfaithful wife (Hos. 1:1–3).
In the NT, Jesus cleanses the temple as an act of symbolic judgment (Matt. 21:12; Mark 11:15; John 2:15). He also breaks bread and drinks wine (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 24:30, 35; Acts 2:46; 20:11; 27:35; 1 Cor. 11:24–25) and washes his disciples’ feet (John 13:1–13), thereby establishing symbolic Christian practices.
Both speaking in tongues and interpreting tongues are listed among the various gifts of the Spirit that God may choose to give to believers according to his will (1 Cor. 12:10, 28). The act of speaking in tongues is referred to as “glossolalia” (from Gk. glōssa [“tongue”] and laleō [“speak”]).
Narrative Record
Instances in which believers exercise the gift of tongues are recorded in three biblical narratives, with Acts 2 detailing the most notable occurrence. When the Holy Spirit first was poured out upon Christian believers gathered at Pentecost, visible tongues of fire were accompanied by a Spirit-enabled ability to speak in languages that were foreign to them (2:3–4). In this instance, the tongues spoken are identified as the actual human languages and dialects of various people groups who resided throughout the Mediterranean world (2:8–11). The phenomenon resulted in the ability of many to hear the wonders of God in their native languages and prompted both curiosity and scoffing (2:12–13).
A similar outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius and his fellow Gentiles in connection with the ministry of Peter was accompanied by speaking in tongues (Acts 10:44–46). This ability to speak in tongues provided undeniable evidence that God had indeed poured out the Holy Spirit upon Gentile Christians by manifesting the Spirit’s presence in a way comparable to the initial Pentecost experience of the Jewish Christians (11:15–18). A final account from the Pauline ministry notes the coming of the Holy Spirit upon a dozen disciples in Ephesus with the accompanying ability to speak in tongues (19:6). The text does not reveal what languages were spoken in either of these latter episodes.
It is sometimes argued that the gift of tongues normally accompanies Christian salvation or baptism with the Holy Spirit and is a gift that believers should earnestly seek. However, this argument cannot be sustained by the historical narratives of Acts. All three recorded instances of tongues detail the gift coming upon groups of people rather than individuals, and the gift is poured out upon them without their praying for it or seeking it out in any way. Furthermore, these are the only three instances in Scripture where tongues clearly accompany salvation, whereas numerous other Lukan accounts of the salvation of various individuals (Acts 2:41; 4:4; 8:36–39; 13:12, 48; 16:14, 34), including Paul (9:1–19; 22:6–16), contain no mention of the gift of tongues.
Paul’s Teaching
The first-century Corinthian church exercised a variety of spiritual gifts, including the gift of tongues. When Paul writes to that church, he includes teaching designed to correct various abuses of these spiritual gifts. A lengthy discussion about spiritual gifts in 1 Cor. 12–14 affirms the practice of speaking in tongues in the Corinthian assembly under certain conditions (14:39–40) while also relegating it to a status lower than the gift of prophecy (14:5). By its very nature, Paul asserts, those who speak in tongues are not understood by their human audience; utterances in tongues speak to God, not to human beings (14:2). Therefore, on its own, glossolalia cannot edify those who hear it unless an interpretation is also provided for them. For this reason, Paul directs the Corinthians to other spiritual gifts (14:6) that can function to build up the church (14:12). Nonetheless, Paul affirms the practice of glossolalia in the Corinthians’ public worship when it is limited to two or three speakers, when it is done in an orderly manner with the speakers taking turns, and when it is coupled with interpretation so that the church can be edified by its message (14:26–27).
Contemporary Debates
Three questions dominate modern discussions about the gift of tongues: (1) What is the primary purpose of speaking in tongues? (2) What is the nature of the language spoken when the gift of tongues is exercised? (3) Does the gift of tongues continue beyond the apostolic era? Answers to these questions vary and reflect diverse theological positions.
Primary purpose. One position maintains that when the Spirit gives the gift of tongues, it is always a public exercise that produces infallible revelation from God. The primary, or perhaps sole, purpose of this gift of miraculous utterance is as a sign to authenticate the gospel proclamation and thus contribute to the common good of the church as a whole by reaching unbelievers with the gospel in a powerful way. Proponents of this view find support in 1 Cor. 14:22, where Paul speaks of tongues as a sign for unbelievers. Also, the Pentecost experience, narrated in Acts 2, can be understood as a use of tongues that fits into this framework. Opponents object to this interpretation by noting that it was Peter’s subsequent sermon rather than the gift of tongues itself that served an evangelistic purpose.
Others find biblical support for an additional private use of tongues by believers in their prayer and praise directed toward God (1 Cor. 14:2, 28). Although the teaching in 1 Cor. 14 focuses on whether and how tongues are to be used in the public assembly, some adherents of this position point to 14:14–19 for evidence of Paul’s own use of the gift of tongues in his devotional life. This use of tongues is thought to contribute to the common good of the church through the personal edification of the individual believers who practice this gift (14:4) and who make up the believing community.
Nature of the language. It is not entirely clear from Scripture whether the tongues spoken by those with the gift of tongues are human languages otherwise unknown to the speaker, whether they consist of otherworldly (heavenly, angelic, spiritual) languages, or whether both constitute valid options. The record of Pentecost in Acts 2 is the only scriptural narrative of tongues that explicitly identifies the languages spoken by those exercising the gift of tongues; they are human languages. However, three NT passages are cited in support of the broader view.
First, in 1 Cor. 13:1 Paul alludes to the possibility of speech “in the tongues of men or of angels.” While this may affirm the idea of an angelic language being spoken by believers with the gift of tongues, those who limit tongues to human languages see in this statement hyperbole rather than a description of reality.
Second, when Paul discusses tongues in 1 Cor. 14:2, he indicates that no one who hears understands the language. This statement is easily true if the language spoken is “angelic,” but it would also be true of a human language generally unfamiliar to those in the Corinthian worship assembly.
Finally, Rom. 8:26, by describing the Spirit’s intercession in prayer as groans and utterances too deep for words, may support the idea that the gift of tongues consists of a spiritual rather than a human language. Opponents argue that this text in no way speaks of the gift of tongues.
Continuation beyond the apostolic era. Finally, nowhere does Scripture expressly teach that the gift of tongues will continue throughout the entire church age, nor does it clearly state a time, be it the end of the apostolic period, the closing of the NT canon, or some other time, when the gift of tongues will cease. Because the NT describes the gift of tongues functioning among believers in the first century, many believe that the gift of tongues continues to be expressed by God’s new covenant people today.
Continuationists argue that Scripture nowhere anticipates a change in the Holy Spirit’s work or empowerment for ministry, and so the life of Christians today should be similar to that of NT believers with regard to the expected and empowering presence of tongues.
On the other hand, cessationists believe that passages such as Eph. 2:11–21 identify the first century as a unique, foundational time in salvation history, characterized by apostolic leadership and an open canon. Just as there are no longer apostles today, one should not be surprised if the practice of miraculous gifts, including the gift of tongues, should significantly decrease or stop entirely following that foundational time. Some also point to 1 Cor. 13:8 as evidence that a time will come when the gift of tongues will end.
Others opt for an intermediate position, arguing that while speaking in tongues is not the standard for the church era, it is possible that the gift continues to operate today on a more limited scale, most likely only in places where the gospel is making inroads for the first time, a situation comparable to that of the NT era.
Both speaking in tongues and interpreting tongues are listed among the various gifts of the Spirit that God may choose to give to believers according to his will (1 Cor. 12:10, 28). The act of speaking in tongues is referred to as “glossolalia” (from Gk. glōssa [“tongue”] and laleō [“speak”]).
Narrative Record
Instances in which believers exercise the gift of tongues are recorded in three biblical narratives, with Acts 2 detailing the most notable occurrence. When the Holy Spirit first was poured out upon Christian believers gathered at Pentecost, visible tongues of fire were accompanied by a Spirit-enabled ability to speak in languages that were foreign to them (2:3–4). In this instance, the tongues spoken are identified as the actual human languages and dialects of various people groups who resided throughout the Mediterranean world (2:8–11). The phenomenon resulted in the ability of many to hear the wonders of God in their native languages and prompted both curiosity and scoffing (2:12–13).
A similar outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius and his fellow Gentiles in connection with the ministry of Peter was accompanied by speaking in tongues (Acts 10:44–46). This ability to speak in tongues provided undeniable evidence that God had indeed poured out the Holy Spirit upon Gentile Christians by manifesting the Spirit’s presence in a way comparable to the initial Pentecost experience of the Jewish Christians (11:15–18). A final account from the Pauline ministry notes the coming of the Holy Spirit upon a dozen disciples in Ephesus with the accompanying ability to speak in tongues (19:6). The text does not reveal what languages were spoken in either of these latter episodes.
It is sometimes argued that the gift of tongues normally accompanies Christian salvation or baptism with the Holy Spirit and is a gift that believers should earnestly seek. However, this argument cannot be sustained by the historical narratives of Acts. All three recorded instances of tongues detail the gift coming upon groups of people rather than individuals, and the gift is poured out upon them without their praying for it or seeking it out in any way. Furthermore, these are the only three instances in Scripture where tongues clearly accompany salvation, whereas numerous other Lukan accounts of the salvation of various individuals (Acts 2:41; 4:4; 8:36–39; 13:12, 48; 16:14, 34), including Paul (9:1–19; 22:6–16), contain no mention of the gift of tongues.
Paul’s Teaching
The first-century Corinthian church exercised a variety of spiritual gifts, including the gift of tongues. When Paul writes to that church, he includes teaching designed to correct various abuses of these spiritual gifts. A lengthy discussion about spiritual gifts in 1 Cor. 12–14 affirms the practice of speaking in tongues in the Corinthian assembly under certain conditions (14:39–40) while also relegating it to a status lower than the gift of prophecy (14:5). By its very nature, Paul asserts, those who speak in tongues are not understood by their human audience; utterances in tongues speak to God, not to human beings (14:2). Therefore, on its own, glossolalia cannot edify those who hear it unless an interpretation is also provided for them. For this reason, Paul directs the Corinthians to other spiritual gifts (14:6) that can function to build up the church (14:12). Nonetheless, Paul affirms the practice of glossolalia in the Corinthians’ public worship when it is limited to two or three speakers, when it is done in an orderly manner with the speakers taking turns, and when it is coupled with interpretation so that the church can be edified by its message (14:26–27).
Contemporary Debates
Three questions dominate modern discussions about the gift of tongues: (1) What is the primary purpose of speaking in tongues? (2) What is the nature of the language spoken when the gift of tongues is exercised? (3) Does the gift of tongues continue beyond the apostolic era? Answers to these questions vary and reflect diverse theological positions.
Primary purpose. One position maintains that when the Spirit gives the gift of tongues, it is always a public exercise that produces infallible revelation from God. The primary, or perhaps sole, purpose of this gift of miraculous utterance is as a sign to authenticate the gospel proclamation and thus contribute to the common good of the church as a whole by reaching unbelievers with the gospel in a powerful way. Proponents of this view find support in 1 Cor. 14:22, where Paul speaks of tongues as a sign for unbelievers. Also, the Pentecost experience, narrated in Acts 2, can be understood as a use of tongues that fits into this framework. Opponents object to this interpretation by noting that it was Peter’s subsequent sermon rather than the gift of tongues itself that served an evangelistic purpose.
Others find biblical support for an additional private use of tongues by believers in their prayer and praise directed toward God (1 Cor. 14:2, 28). Although the teaching in 1 Cor. 14 focuses on whether and how tongues are to be used in the public assembly, some adherents of this position point to 14:14–19 for evidence of Paul’s own use of the gift of tongues in his devotional life. This use of tongues is thought to contribute to the common good of the church through the personal edification of the individual believers who practice this gift (14:4) and who make up the believing community.
Nature of the language. It is not entirely clear from Scripture whether the tongues spoken by those with the gift of tongues are human languages otherwise unknown to the speaker, whether they consist of otherworldly (heavenly, angelic, spiritual) languages, or whether both constitute valid options. The record of Pentecost in Acts 2 is the only scriptural narrative of tongues that explicitly identifies the languages spoken by those exercising the gift of tongues; they are human languages. However, three NT passages are cited in support of the broader view.
First, in 1 Cor. 13:1 Paul alludes to the possibility of speech “in the tongues of men or of angels.” While this may affirm the idea of an angelic language being spoken by believers with the gift of tongues, those who limit tongues to human languages see in this statement hyperbole rather than a description of reality.
Second, when Paul discusses tongues in 1 Cor. 14:2, he indicates that no one who hears understands the language. This statement is easily true if the language spoken is “angelic,” but it would also be true of a human language generally unfamiliar to those in the Corinthian worship assembly.
Finally, Rom. 8:26, by describing the Spirit’s intercession in prayer as groans and utterances too deep for words, may support the idea that the gift of tongues consists of a spiritual rather than a human language. Opponents argue that this text in no way speaks of the gift of tongues.
Continuation beyond the apostolic era. Finally, nowhere does Scripture expressly teach that the gift of tongues will continue throughout the entire church age, nor does it clearly state a time, be it the end of the apostolic period, the closing of the NT canon, or some other time, when the gift of tongues will cease. Because the NT describes the gift of tongues functioning among believers in the first century, many believe that the gift of tongues continues to be expressed by God’s new covenant people today.
Continuationists argue that Scripture nowhere anticipates a change in the Holy Spirit’s work or empowerment for ministry, and so the life of Christians today should be similar to that of NT believers with regard to the expected and empowering presence of tongues.
On the other hand, cessationists believe that passages such as Eph. 2:11–21 identify the first century as a unique, foundational time in salvation history, characterized by apostolic leadership and an open canon. Just as there are no longer apostles today, one should not be surprised if the practice of miraculous gifts, including the gift of tongues, should significantly decrease or stop entirely following that foundational time. Some also point to 1 Cor. 13:8 as evidence that a time will come when the gift of tongues will end.
Others opt for an intermediate position, arguing that while speaking in tongues is not the standard for the church era, it is possible that the gift continues to operate today on a more limited scale, most likely only in places where the gospel is making inroads for the first time, a situation comparable to that of the NT era.
Hermeneutics is the science and practice of interpretation. It can refer more generally to the philosophy of human understanding, or more specifically to the tools and methods used for interpreting communicative acts.
Human communication takes place in a variety of ways: through the use of nonverbal signs, through speech, and through writing. Effective communication requires some degree of shared belief, knowledge, and background between the participants. If the communicators have a significant amount of common ground, they will be able to successfully understand one another with little extra effort. Conversely, individuals with vastly different backgrounds will need to take extra steps to communicate effectively, such as defining special terms, avoiding jargon and colloquialisms, appreciating details about the other’s cultural assumptions, or learning a foreign language.
The Bible is not exempt from this process of communication. The Scriptures are meant to be read, understood, and put into practice (Luke 8:4–15; James 1:18), a task that requires effort and study on the part of its readers (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15). Everyone who reads the Bible is involved in this interpretative process, though readers will vary in their hermeneutical self-consciousness and skill. Thus, although readers are able to understand and appropriate much of the Bible without any special training in hermeneutical principles, such training is appropriate and helpful, both in attaining self-consciousness in interpretation and in acquiring new skills and insights in the effort to become a better reader.
The Development of Hermeneutics
The church has benefited from a long history of thinking about the nature and purpose of interpreting its Scriptures, and that reflection has resulted in a wide variety of hermeneutical theories and practices. How does one determine the meaning of a text? Is meaning the truth embedded within the passage? Or is it the original author’s intention in writing? Or does the text act independently of its author and history, either because it stands on its own terms or because it only “means” anything in interaction with readers? The answers to these questions will determine how readers approach a text, the questions they expect that text to answer, and the tools they use in interpretation.
From the early church to the Enlightenment. The early church emphasized the ability of the biblical text to convey heavenly truth, whether that truth was conceived as doctrinal teaching or absolute ethical rules. While the “literal meaning” of many texts could often supply simple truths and maxims, such a reading was at other times inadequate and could appear incompatible with what were considered basic and fundamental beliefs. Various allegorical techniques were therefore employed to explain such problematic texts. Interpreters often viewed the literal and historical features of the text as a starting point in the search for fuller meaning, as symbolic pointers to moral principles, absolute truths, or eternal realities. These practices were systematized throughout the Middle Ages and resulted in an extensive development of tradition. Church tradition, in turn, provided a degree of protection from the potential for arbitrariness in allegorical techniques, insisting that interpretation must be guided by the “rule of faith,” the traditional teaching and faith of the church.
Beginning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, scholarship moved to distance itself from such tradition. The Protestant Reformers, dissatisfied with the rule of church tradition, sought to displace its authority with the direct rule of Scripture. They therefore returned to the original biblical text, engaging in critical study of the text itself and translating the Bible into the vernacular to make it more widely accessible. In the centuries that followed, Enlightenment scholars went a step further in their rejection of the church as the sole repository of knowledge. Instead, they asserted, knowledge was acquired through scientific inquiry and critical study. Such inquiry could be applied to any field: the forces of nature, human anatomy, or the interpretation of texts. The meaning of a text was not some abstract truth or heavenly principle; rather, meaning was determined by the human author’s original intention in writing and was therefore a historical matter. The intention of an author could be better exposed and understood through a more complete study of both the language in which a text was written and the historical circumstances that surrounded it. Many of these same emphases had been championed by the Protestant Reformers; yet the Enlightenment thinkers differed on one key point: the Reformers never questioned that the text was the word of God.
From the Enlightenment to the present. This favorable attitude toward historical research dwindled over the centuries. In its place authors emphasized the primacy of the text as text, apart from any connection to its origin and history. Literature, it is argued, ultimately operates independently from its author’s intention. All that matters is the text, and it is the reader’s job to understand the text on its own terms, apart from the contingencies surrounding its creation. To that end, interpreters should pay careful attention to the text’s literary features, including its plot structure, characterization, themes, and use of imagery. An interesting example of this hermeneutical dynamic is found in John 19:22, where Pilate asserts, “What I have written, I have written.” Pilate’s words quickly take on significance far beyond their author’s intention, primarily because they are juxtaposed with other themes in John, such as testimony and the kingship of Christ.
More recent approaches have emphasized the role of the reader in the construction of meaning. Interpretation, it is argued, is determined by the interaction between reader and text; readers bring their own presuppositions to the task of interpretation, and such assumptions determine meaning. The author and the historical context of the text will exert some influence, but the primary determinant of meaning is the present reader in his or her present environment. This is not to say that the text “means” whatever a reader wants it to mean; rather, it makes meaning contingent upon the contemporary environment and not subject to anything external to individual readers. On the one hand, readers must“actualize” the text by applying and appropriating it within an environment alien to the original. On the other, readers have the right, and in some cases the responsibility, of undermining the text, particularly if that text assists in the oppression of others.
Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic
An effective hermeneutic requires keeping each of these elements in constant balance with one another. God’s word is truthful and fully trustworthy, yet it is given to his people through individual human authors, authors who wrote in a particular context to a particular audience at a particular time. Understanding the Bible therefore requires knowledge of the purposes of these authors in their specific historical contexts. Nevertheless, our primary access to authorial intention is through the biblical text itself. Finally, understanding always requires personal interaction with, and application of, the text of Scripture to each person’s own life and circumstances. Thus, hermeneutics involves the simultaneous interaction of a variety of perspectives—truth, author, text, and reader—each of which cannot function properly without the others. What follows here is an outline of the most important hermeneutical tools required for such a weighty endeavor.
Linguistics
An appreciation of the nature, structure, and function of language is fundamental to any interpretative endeavor. Obviously, this applies first of all to the specific languages in which the books of the Bible were originally composed. Each language has its own unique vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, and structures available to a writer in one language often are absent in another. Thus, while it is often necessary and acceptable to rely on translations (Neh. 7:73–8:12), readers should be aware that translation itself involves a degree of unavoidable interpretation.
A more general analysis of language is also useful. Understanding the typical patterns by which authors will string sentences together is necessary for following a writing’s train of thought. This tool, called “discourse analysis,” operates above the sentence level, attempting to understand and explain how sentences function in conjunction with one another in order to produce meaningful paragraphs, and how those paragraphs in turn operate within the overarching purpose of the discourse. These patterns of discourse can vary on the basis of book, author, language, culture, and literary genre, but there are also features of effective discourse common to all communication. Thus, while the principles and rules of communication are often intuitively grasped, understanding language, both generally and specifically, is foundational to the task of interpretation.
Literature and Literary Theory
The biblical writers are concerned not only with the informational content of their writing, but also with the manner in which that content is communicated. The words, patterns of speech, style, and imagery of any text provide significant insight into its purpose and message, apart from that text’s specific propositional content. The diversity of language used in the Gospels provides an example of this. Each of the four Gospel authors has a slightly different concern in his writing. John’s purpose, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31), explains his frequent use of courtroom language, such as “testimony” and “witness” (e.g., John 21:24). Mark, by contrast, sweeps the reader along a fast-paced and intensely personal exposition of Jesus’ life and death through the terseness and immediacy of his narration. Attention to these literary details allows the reader to more fully participate in the world of the text.
Such decisions will often depend upon a thorough analysis of genre. A reader naturally interprets historical narrative differently from poetry and didactic material. Furthermore, the conventions of different genres change over time. The book of Acts, for example, despite its essentially historical character, does not appear concerned with recording an exact dictation of the many speeches it reports, despite modern expectations that historical writing should be as precise as possible. The classification of ancient genres and the description of their respective conventions therefore require a good deal of analysis and sensitivity, but often such insights are provided by a careful and open reading of the text.
History
As the product of a particular author at a particular time, each book of the Bible is situated within its own unique historical context. Paul, for example, while perhaps conscious of the importance of his letters for posterity, wrote to specific churches or individuals with a singular purpose. This particularity of author, audience, and circumstance can often cause interpretative problems. Thus, while background studies are not always necessary to get the general idea of the author’s message, they can be invaluable in protecting readers from anachronism and enabling them to better appreciate the author’s purpose and perspective.
Historical study is assisted by specialized disciplines. Archaeology, for example, focuses on the beliefs, habits, practices, and history of ancient cultures, harnessing a wealth of evidence to that end. Similarly, anthropology and other social sciences are able to explore facets of modern cultures in order to better assess cross-cultural presuppositions and behaviors, many of which provide insight into ancient civilizations that shared similar attitudes. These methods provide the reader with the information necessary to understand a text in terms consistent with its cultural backdrop, highlighting both the similarities and the differences between the Bible and its environment. Recent discoveries of ancient Hittite treaties, for example, shed light on the “cutting ceremony” recorded in Gen. 15. These treaties detail similar ceremonies in which the vassal of a king would walk between hewed animal carcasses as a symbol of allegiance; if disobedience occurred, the vassal would share the fate of the animals. A similar ceremony occurs in Genesis, but with an interesting twist at the end: God, not Abram, passes through the pieces (15:17).
Humility and the Attitude of the Reader
Careful attention in interpretation requires a great deal of humility. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the attitude of the reader for an effective hermeneutic. Being a good reader requires willingness to share and participate in the world of the author and the text, a willingness that postpones judgment and expects personal change. This, in turn, requires a spirit of self-criticism, a commitment to defer one’s own presuppositions in favor of those of the text. Although readers are never able to fully distance themselves from their cultural situation and assumptions, the study of hermeneutics, among other things, can provide tools and skills for self-criticism and self-awareness, skills that enable the reader to better understand, appreciate, and appropriate the meaning of a text. Even a peripheral understanding of the complexities of interpretation can help readers develop an attitude of humility, imagination, and expectation as they approach the Scriptures.
Such humility is a prerequisite for application. The depth of meaning embedded in any text, and especially within the Bible, provides the humble reader with a rich and powerful tool for personal growth. Having better understood the world of the text on its own terms, readers are able to “project” that world onto themselves and their environment, to appropriate its meaning in a new and possibly foreign context. Thus, Jesus promises that those who hear, understand, and put his word into practice will yield a crop “some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown” (Mark 4:20).
Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation
Certain unique features of the biblical text can create special opportunities and challenges for the Christian interpreter. These challenges are at work in the Bible’s own interpretation of itself. The Bible was written by many different authors over the course of a long period of history; it is therefore not surprising to find later authors reflecting on earlier periods. This innerbiblical interpretation offers the Christian insights into the unique nature of biblical hermeneutics and therefore provides a foundational model in approaching the Bible as the word of God.
The common and preeminent assumption that grounds innerbiblical interpretation is the commitment to ultimate divine authorship. Thus, the writer of Hebrews, though affirming the diversity of human authorship in the Bible (1:1), regularly introduces OT quotations with statements such as “God says” (1:5), “he spoke through David” (4:7), and “the Holy Spirit says” (3:7). Other writers tend to prefer the formula “it is written,” but each of these reflects a common presupposition that the Scriptures are ultimately delivered by God (2 Pet. 1:21).
Divine authorship means, at the very least, that there is a depth of meaning and purpose to the text, a depth often hidden even from the human author (1 Pet. 1:10–12). Psalm 2, for example, probably originally served as a coronation hymn used to celebrate the appointment of a new king in Israel. Yet the NT understands this psalm as a prophecy fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5). The intention of the original speaker can even be at odds with God’s intention, such as when Caiaphas claims, “It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50; cf. Acts 5:35–39). In this case, the irony of Caiaphas’s statement creates a powerful testimony, contrary to his intent, and is used by John to promote confidence in Jesus.
Furthermore, because the Scriptures are from God, they have a consistent and central focus. The NT unhesitatingly views all of Scripture, in all its diversity, as focused, by virtue of divine inspiration, on the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is seen in, for example, Luke 24:13–35, where the resurrected Jesus, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” explains to his disciples “what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (cf. John 5:39; 12:41). This central focus on Christ requires the Christian interpreter to understand any individual verse in light of its context within the canon, to operate with the same assumption as the NT apostles, that all the Scriptures are concerned with testifying to Jesus the Christ.
Additionally, Paul views both Testaments as the special possession and once-for-all foundation of God’s church (Eph. 2:19–20; cf. Acts 2:42). The church, from a NT perspective, is the primary audience of the entirety of Scripture (1 Pet. 1:12) and is therefore uniquely entrusted with understanding and proclaiming its message (Matt. 28:18–20). While the Scriptures themselves are the only infallible guide for interpretation, believers should not forsake the teaching and tradition of the church (2 Thess. 2:15).
Finally, full understanding of the Bible requires the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the faith of the reader. Belief and understanding go together (John 10:38), and both are the result of the unique work of the Holy Spirit (16:13). The proof that such understanding has taken place is the godly life of the believer (Rom. 2:13; James 1:22–25). The reverse is also true: disobedience works against understanding the riches of God’s Word (James 1:21). Such considerations underline the importance of the hermeneutical task. The tools and principles of hermeneutics are valuable only insofar as they enable the reader to better understand and appropriate the biblical message, to hear the word of God and respond appropriately.
Hermeneutics is the science and practice of interpretation. It can refer more generally to the philosophy of human understanding, or more specifically to the tools and methods used for interpreting communicative acts.
Human communication takes place in a variety of ways: through the use of nonverbal signs, through speech, and through writing. Effective communication requires some degree of shared belief, knowledge, and background between the participants. If the communicators have a significant amount of common ground, they will be able to successfully understand one another with little extra effort. Conversely, individuals with vastly different backgrounds will need to take extra steps to communicate effectively, such as defining special terms, avoiding jargon and colloquialisms, appreciating details about the other’s cultural assumptions, or learning a foreign language.
The Bible is not exempt from this process of communication. The Scriptures are meant to be read, understood, and put into practice (Luke 8:4–15; James 1:18), a task that requires effort and study on the part of its readers (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15). Everyone who reads the Bible is involved in this interpretative process, though readers will vary in their hermeneutical self-consciousness and skill. Thus, although readers are able to understand and appropriate much of the Bible without any special training in hermeneutical principles, such training is appropriate and helpful, both in attaining self-consciousness in interpretation and in acquiring new skills and insights in the effort to become a better reader.
The Development of Hermeneutics
The church has benefited from a long history of thinking about the nature and purpose of interpreting its Scriptures, and that reflection has resulted in a wide variety of hermeneutical theories and practices. How does one determine the meaning of a text? Is meaning the truth embedded within the passage? Or is it the original author’s intention in writing? Or does the text act independently of its author and history, either because it stands on its own terms or because it only “means” anything in interaction with readers? The answers to these questions will determine how readers approach a text, the questions they expect that text to answer, and the tools they use in interpretation.
From the early church to the Enlightenment. The early church emphasized the ability of the biblical text to convey heavenly truth, whether that truth was conceived as doctrinal teaching or absolute ethical rules. While the “literal meaning” of many texts could often supply simple truths and maxims, such a reading was at other times inadequate and could appear incompatible with what were considered basic and fundamental beliefs. Various allegorical techniques were therefore employed to explain such problematic texts. Interpreters often viewed the literal and historical features of the text as a starting point in the search for fuller meaning, as symbolic pointers to moral principles, absolute truths, or eternal realities. These practices were systematized throughout the Middle Ages and resulted in an extensive development of tradition. Church tradition, in turn, provided a degree of protection from the potential for arbitrariness in allegorical techniques, insisting that interpretation must be guided by the “rule of faith,” the traditional teaching and faith of the church.
Beginning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, scholarship moved to distance itself from such tradition. The Protestant Reformers, dissatisfied with the rule of church tradition, sought to displace its authority with the direct rule of Scripture. They therefore returned to the original biblical text, engaging in critical study of the text itself and translating the Bible into the vernacular to make it more widely accessible. In the centuries that followed, Enlightenment scholars went a step further in their rejection of the church as the sole repository of knowledge. Instead, they asserted, knowledge was acquired through scientific inquiry and critical study. Such inquiry could be applied to any field: the forces of nature, human anatomy, or the interpretation of texts. The meaning of a text was not some abstract truth or heavenly principle; rather, meaning was determined by the human author’s original intention in writing and was therefore a historical matter. The intention of an author could be better exposed and understood through a more complete study of both the language in which a text was written and the historical circumstances that surrounded it. Many of these same emphases had been championed by the Protestant Reformers; yet the Enlightenment thinkers differed on one key point: the Reformers never questioned that the text was the word of God.
From the Enlightenment to the present. This favorable attitude toward historical research dwindled over the centuries. In its place authors emphasized the primacy of the text as text, apart from any connection to its origin and history. Literature, it is argued, ultimately operates independently from its author’s intention. All that matters is the text, and it is the reader’s job to understand the text on its own terms, apart from the contingencies surrounding its creation. To that end, interpreters should pay careful attention to the text’s literary features, including its plot structure, characterization, themes, and use of imagery. An interesting example of this hermeneutical dynamic is found in John 19:22, where Pilate asserts, “What I have written, I have written.” Pilate’s words quickly take on significance far beyond their author’s intention, primarily because they are juxtaposed with other themes in John, such as testimony and the kingship of Christ.
More recent approaches have emphasized the role of the reader in the construction of meaning. Interpretation, it is argued, is determined by the interaction between reader and text; readers bring their own presuppositions to the task of interpretation, and such assumptions determine meaning. The author and the historical context of the text will exert some influence, but the primary determinant of meaning is the present reader in his or her present environment. This is not to say that the text “means” whatever a reader wants it to mean; rather, it makes meaning contingent upon the contemporary environment and not subject to anything external to individual readers. On the one hand, readers must“actualize” the text by applying and appropriating it within an environment alien to the original. On the other, readers have the right, and in some cases the responsibility, of undermining the text, particularly if that text assists in the oppression of others.
Elements of an Effective Hermeneutic
An effective hermeneutic requires keeping each of these elements in constant balance with one another. God’s word is truthful and fully trustworthy, yet it is given to his people through individual human authors, authors who wrote in a particular context to a particular audience at a particular time. Understanding the Bible therefore requires knowledge of the purposes of these authors in their specific historical contexts. Nevertheless, our primary access to authorial intention is through the biblical text itself. Finally, understanding always requires personal interaction with, and application of, the text of Scripture to each person’s own life and circumstances. Thus, hermeneutics involves the simultaneous interaction of a variety of perspectives—truth, author, text, and reader—each of which cannot function properly without the others. What follows here is an outline of the most important hermeneutical tools required for such a weighty endeavor.
Linguistics
An appreciation of the nature, structure, and function of language is fundamental to any interpretative endeavor. Obviously, this applies first of all to the specific languages in which the books of the Bible were originally composed. Each language has its own unique vocabulary, grammar, and syntax, and structures available to a writer in one language often are absent in another. Thus, while it is often necessary and acceptable to rely on translations (Neh. 7:73–8:12), readers should be aware that translation itself involves a degree of unavoidable interpretation.
A more general analysis of language is also useful. Understanding the typical patterns by which authors will string sentences together is necessary for following a writing’s train of thought. This tool, called “discourse analysis,” operates above the sentence level, attempting to understand and explain how sentences function in conjunction with one another in order to produce meaningful paragraphs, and how those paragraphs in turn operate within the overarching purpose of the discourse. These patterns of discourse can vary on the basis of book, author, language, culture, and literary genre, but there are also features of effective discourse common to all communication. Thus, while the principles and rules of communication are often intuitively grasped, understanding language, both generally and specifically, is foundational to the task of interpretation.
Literature and Literary Theory
The biblical writers are concerned not only with the informational content of their writing, but also with the manner in which that content is communicated. The words, patterns of speech, style, and imagery of any text provide significant insight into its purpose and message, apart from that text’s specific propositional content. The diversity of language used in the Gospels provides an example of this. Each of the four Gospel authors has a slightly different concern in his writing. John’s purpose, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31), explains his frequent use of courtroom language, such as “testimony” and “witness” (e.g., John 21:24). Mark, by contrast, sweeps the reader along a fast-paced and intensely personal exposition of Jesus’ life and death through the terseness and immediacy of his narration. Attention to these literary details allows the reader to more fully participate in the world of the text.
Such decisions will often depend upon a thorough analysis of genre. A reader naturally interprets historical narrative differently from poetry and didactic material. Furthermore, the conventions of different genres change over time. The book of Acts, for example, despite its essentially historical character, does not appear concerned with recording an exact dictation of the many speeches it reports, despite modern expectations that historical writing should be as precise as possible. The classification of ancient genres and the description of their respective conventions therefore require a good deal of analysis and sensitivity, but often such insights are provided by a careful and open reading of the text.
History
As the product of a particular author at a particular time, each book of the Bible is situated within its own unique historical context. Paul, for example, while perhaps conscious of the importance of his letters for posterity, wrote to specific churches or individuals with a singular purpose. This particularity of author, audience, and circumstance can often cause interpretative problems. Thus, while background studies are not always necessary to get the general idea of the author’s message, they can be invaluable in protecting readers from anachronism and enabling them to better appreciate the author’s purpose and perspective.
Historical study is assisted by specialized disciplines. Archaeology, for example, focuses on the beliefs, habits, practices, and history of ancient cultures, harnessing a wealth of evidence to that end. Similarly, anthropology and other social sciences are able to explore facets of modern cultures in order to better assess cross-cultural presuppositions and behaviors, many of which provide insight into ancient civilizations that shared similar attitudes. These methods provide the reader with the information necessary to understand a text in terms consistent with its cultural backdrop, highlighting both the similarities and the differences between the Bible and its environment. Recent discoveries of ancient Hittite treaties, for example, shed light on the “cutting ceremony” recorded in Gen. 15. These treaties detail similar ceremonies in which the vassal of a king would walk between hewed animal carcasses as a symbol of allegiance; if disobedience occurred, the vassal would share the fate of the animals. A similar ceremony occurs in Genesis, but with an interesting twist at the end: God, not Abram, passes through the pieces (15:17).
Humility and the Attitude of the Reader
Careful attention in interpretation requires a great deal of humility. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the attitude of the reader for an effective hermeneutic. Being a good reader requires willingness to share and participate in the world of the author and the text, a willingness that postpones judgment and expects personal change. This, in turn, requires a spirit of self-criticism, a commitment to defer one’s own presuppositions in favor of those of the text. Although readers are never able to fully distance themselves from their cultural situation and assumptions, the study of hermeneutics, among other things, can provide tools and skills for self-criticism and self-awareness, skills that enable the reader to better understand, appreciate, and appropriate the meaning of a text. Even a peripheral understanding of the complexities of interpretation can help readers develop an attitude of humility, imagination, and expectation as they approach the Scriptures.
Such humility is a prerequisite for application. The depth of meaning embedded in any text, and especially within the Bible, provides the humble reader with a rich and powerful tool for personal growth. Having better understood the world of the text on its own terms, readers are able to “project” that world onto themselves and their environment, to appropriate its meaning in a new and possibly foreign context. Thus, Jesus promises that those who hear, understand, and put his word into practice will yield a crop “some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown” (Mark 4:20).
Unique Features of Biblical Interpretation
Certain unique features of the biblical text can create special opportunities and challenges for the Christian interpreter. These challenges are at work in the Bible’s own interpretation of itself. The Bible was written by many different authors over the course of a long period of history; it is therefore not surprising to find later authors reflecting on earlier periods. This innerbiblical interpretation offers the Christian insights into the unique nature of biblical hermeneutics and therefore provides a foundational model in approaching the Bible as the word of God.
The common and preeminent assumption that grounds innerbiblical interpretation is the commitment to ultimate divine authorship. Thus, the writer of Hebrews, though affirming the diversity of human authorship in the Bible (1:1), regularly introduces OT quotations with statements such as “God says” (1:5), “he spoke through David” (4:7), and “the Holy Spirit says” (3:7). Other writers tend to prefer the formula “it is written,” but each of these reflects a common presupposition that the Scriptures are ultimately delivered by God (2 Pet. 1:21).
Divine authorship means, at the very least, that there is a depth of meaning and purpose to the text, a depth often hidden even from the human author (1 Pet. 1:10–12). Psalm 2, for example, probably originally served as a coronation hymn used to celebrate the appointment of a new king in Israel. Yet the NT understands this psalm as a prophecy fulfilled in the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts 13:33; Heb. 5:5). The intention of the original speaker can even be at odds with God’s intention, such as when Caiaphas claims, “It is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish” (John 11:50; cf. Acts 5:35–39). In this case, the irony of Caiaphas’s statement creates a powerful testimony, contrary to his intent, and is used by John to promote confidence in Jesus.
Furthermore, because the Scriptures are from God, they have a consistent and central focus. The NT unhesitatingly views all of Scripture, in all its diversity, as focused, by virtue of divine inspiration, on the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is seen in, for example, Luke 24:13–35, where the resurrected Jesus, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets,” explains to his disciples “what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (cf. John 5:39; 12:41). This central focus on Christ requires the Christian interpreter to understand any individual verse in light of its context within the canon, to operate with the same assumption as the NT apostles, that all the Scriptures are concerned with testifying to Jesus the Christ.
Additionally, Paul views both Testaments as the special possession and once-for-all foundation of God’s church (Eph. 2:19–20; cf. Acts 2:42). The church, from a NT perspective, is the primary audience of the entirety of Scripture (1 Pet. 1:12) and is therefore uniquely entrusted with understanding and proclaiming its message (Matt. 28:18–20). While the Scriptures themselves are the only infallible guide for interpretation, believers should not forsake the teaching and tradition of the church (2 Thess. 2:15).
Finally, full understanding of the Bible requires the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the faith of the reader. Belief and understanding go together (John 10:38), and both are the result of the unique work of the Holy Spirit (16:13). The proof that such understanding has taken place is the godly life of the believer (Rom. 2:13; James 1:22–25). The reverse is also true: disobedience works against understanding the riches of God’s Word (James 1:21). Such considerations underline the importance of the hermeneutical task. The tools and principles of hermeneutics are valuable only insofar as they enable the reader to better understand and appropriate the biblical message, to hear the word of God and respond appropriately.
Joy is not a prevalent theme in most of the Bible. In fact, the word “joy” is completely missing from many books of the OT and appears only sporadically in many others. The lack of prevalence of this word is understandable, since most of the Bible deals with a world in which the humans are outside the garden of Eden.
Old Testament. The most enthusiastic and concentrated expressions of joy in the OT are found in the context of worship when the people of God find joy in his presence, usually when the community is gathered for various feasts. Thus, words that connote joy are concentrated in Deuteronomy, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Isaiah, and especially the Psalter.
As one might expect, people are found rejoicing in the simple joys of life: when meeting a close relative (Exod. 4:14), when their enemies are defeated (1 Sam. 18:6; 2 Chron. 20:27), when a child is born (Jer. 20:15), at the sound of music (Ps. 45:8), and when they hear a good word (Prov. 12:25). Jonah is “exceedingly glad” (ESV; NIV: “very happy”) because a plant grew as a shade over his head (Jon. 4:6). The teacher of Ecclesiastes urges his students to rejoice in their youth (Eccles. 11:9), and he considers it a good thing to be joyful (3:12; 8:15). Wine may gladden the heart of humans (Ps. 104:15) and life in general (Eccles. 10:19). More important, men are encouraged both to bring joy to their young wives (Deut. 24:5 [NIV: “happiness”]) and to rejoice in the wife of their youth (Prov. 5:18). For the psalmist, the “teachings” of God are a reason for joy (Pss. 19:8; 119:111).
It is by far more common, however, to find joy and delight in the presence of God, especially when the community is gathered to celebrate various feasts. The psalmist understands quite well that more than wine or a young wife, it is God who brings joy to his servants (Ps. 86:4). Thus, the earliest calls to rejoice are always in the presence of God (Lev. 23:40; Deut. 12:7, 12, 18; 14:26; 16:11; 26:11). Psalm 16:11 is a good example: “You make known to me the path of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence, with eternal pleasures at your right hand.”
For the prophet Habakkuk, even if the crops fail and there is nothing left to eat, he finds reason for joy in God, the only one who can bring salvation: “Yet I will rejoice in the Lord, I will be joyful in God my Savior” (Hab. 3:18). This verse is important because it shows that the people of God must be able to rejoice apart from material blessings, and also because it unites two central reasons for joy in the OT: God and his salvation (Pss. 9:14; 21:1; Isa. 25:9; 61:10). The prophet Zechariah looks forward to a time of great joy when a righteous king will bring salvation to Zion (Zech. 9:9). Finally, real and complete joy can exist only when and where God reigns (1 Chron. 16:31; Ps. 97:1).
New Testament. The time of joy and salvation anticipated by the prophets begins to find fulfillment in the NT. The Gospels interpret the prophecy in Zech. 9:9 as referring to Jesus (Mark 11:9–10; Luke 19:37–38), and there is a strong note of joy already at Jesus’ birth (Matt. 2:10; Luke 1:47; 2:10). Jesus’ life (Luke 10:17; John 3:29) and resurrection also evoke intense joy (Matt. 28:8; Luke 24:52). In the Gospel of John, joy becomes the result of a deep fellowship between Jesus and the church (John 16:22; see also 1 John 1:3–4), and in Acts it marks the life of the early church (Acts 2:46; 8:8; 13:52; 15:3).
Paul uses joy in at least three ways. First, progress in faith of the children of God, particularly those whom Paul has led to Christ, is a great cause for joy (1 Thess. 2:19–20; cf. Phil. 2:2). Second, Paul stresses the paradox that joy may be the outcome of suffering and even sorrow for Christ’s sake (2 Cor. 6:10; Col. 1:24; cf. 1 Pet. 4:13). Thus, Paul’s letter to the Philippians, even though written under circumstances of great suffering, is also the most joyous of all his letters (Phil. 2:2; 3:1; 4:4). Third, joy is a gift of the Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:22), and true believers should be careful in their daily walk with the Lord to avoid “interrupting” this gift.
The last word on joy is appropriately found in the book of Revelation: “Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready” (19:7).
The keys of the kingdom picture the power and authority entrusted to Simon Peter by Jesus immediately after Peter’s confession of faith (Matt. 16:16). Jesus responded, “I tell you that you are Peter [petros], and on this rock [petra] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it” (Matt. 16:18). It is at this point that Jesus tells Peter, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (16:19). Roman Catholics have understood these keys, along with this symbolism of loosing and binding, to refer to a special authority in the forgiveness of sins and in the practices of penance and absolution given to the apostle Peter, and by extension to the institution of the papacy as his spiritual heir. Protestants have often understood this power as involving the apostles in general, or perhaps even the entire church (see 18:18).
The symbolism of keys is normally used in the Bible to refer to a means of entry. Jesus is addressing Peter in particular in Matt. 16:19, not the apostles as a whole, since the “you” is singular in the Greek text. Perhaps the best way to understand this phrase is to interpret it in its original context of something that Peter was to do in the initial establishment of the NT church. Significantly, Peter is given an unparalleled initiatory role in the spread of the gospel. Peter is the one who takes on leadership in the upper room prayer meeting in Acts 1 and also in the process of finding another apostle to replace Judas Iscariot. Peter is the spokesman for the apostles on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) as well as in the subsequent events involving the Jerusalem church (Acts 3–5). Peter (along with John) goes down to Samaria to examine the new believers in Samaria and to be the human channel through which they would receive the Spirit (Acts 8:14–17). Peter is the one who is entrusted by God with reaching out to Cornelius, the first Gentile convert (Acts 10–11). At every step along the way, Peter is the one whom God used to open the door to new groups of people in the spread of the gospel.
According to the Gospels and Paul, Jesus had a final meal with his closest followers the night before his crucifixion, which is remembered as the “Last Supper” (Matt. 26:26–29; Mark 14:22–25; Luke 22:15–20; 1 Cor. 11:23–26; cf. John 13:1–30, which mentions the meal but describes and focuses on Jesus washing his disciples’ feet and elaborates on the betrayal by Judas Iscariot). The Synoptic and Pauline accounts of the meal fit into two distinct groups according to their representation in the NT: Matthew/Mark and Luke/1 Corinthians. The unique aspects of Luke/1 Corinthians include “do this in remembrance of me,” the “new covenant in my blood,” and “which is poured out for you.” Matthew/Mark include Jesus’ command to “take” the bread, his giving “thanks” before taking up the cup, and his referring to the cup as “my blood of the covenant” and his blood poured out for “many.”
Two further issues involve when this meal took place and whether it was a Passover meal. According to the Gospels, Jesus was crucified on a Friday (Matt. 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:31, 42). However, in the Synoptic Gospels the supper was a Passover meal (Matt. 26:17–19; Mark 14:12–16; Luke 22:7–15), but John 13:1, 29; 18:28; 19:31 imply that the trial and crucifixion took place before Passover. It may be that John is correct, and Jesus had a quasi-Passover meal ahead of the actual Passover because he knew that he would not live long enough to celebrate it. Or perhaps the Synoptics are correct, and John altered the chronology in order to have Jesus crucified on the same day the Passover lambs were sacrificed, thus making a theological point about Jesus as the Lamb of God. In any event, the meal was symbolic of the new exodus, the renewal of the covenant, and the atonement that Jesus would achieve through his death.
In the early church this commemorative meal became an integral part of the fellowship and worship of the first Christians. It was variously referred to as giving thanks (lit., “Eucharist,” [from the Greek word for “thanks”]) (Matt. 26:27; Mark 14:23; Luke 22:17, 19; 1 Cor. 11:24), “the breaking of bread” (Acts 2:42, 46; 20:7, 11), “communion” (1 Cor. 10:16 KJV), the “Lord’s table” (1 Cor. 10:21), the “Lord’s Supper” (1 Cor. 11:20), and a “love feast” (Jude 12). See also Lord’s Supper.
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)
Taken together “poor,” “orphan,” and “widow” are mentioned in the NIV 280 times, evidence of God’s particular concern for those in need. “Poor” is an umbrella term for those who are physically impoverished or of diminished spirit. In biblical terms, “poor” would include most orphans and widows, though not every poor person was an orphan or widow. With over 170 references to the “poor” in the NIV, the biblical writers emphasize God’s concern for the poor. This is best summarized in Deuteronomy: “There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land” (15:11).
The Poor
Old Testament. All sections of the OT (including the Torah, Major Prophets, Minor Prophets, and wisdom literature) contain both instructions and warnings regarding the treatment of the poor. Portions of the tithes and offerings were to be set aside for the needs of the poor (Deut. 14:28–29; 26:12–13). The law made specific provisions that allowed the poor in the land to glean from fields that they had not planted or tended (Lev. 19:9–10; 23:22). Boaz’s allowance of Ruth’s gleanings is an example (Ruth 2:7–8, 15, 23).
Favor was given to those who were kind to the poor (Job 29:12; 30:25; 31:16; Ps. 112:9; Prov. 19:17; 22:9; 28:8, 27; Isa. 58:5–7; Jer. 22:16). Inversely, those who did not care for the poor were strongly warned (Prov. 21:13; Ezek. 16:49; Amos 8:4–9). The OT often warns against oppression of the poor, with the added emphasis that God is their defender (2 Sam. 12:3–4; Job 20:19; Pss. 109:16; 140:12; Prov. 14:31; 23:11; Isa. 3:14). If a poor person made a vow, specific regulations were provided to prevent a pledge of unfair amount and to prevent the pledge from being kept overlong (Lev. 27:8; Deut. 24:12). Israelites who were hired as workers because they were impoverished were to be treated fairly and not as slaves (Lev. 25:39–42; Deut. 24:14–15). The poor were to be judged fairly, being shown neither favoritism nor oppression because of their situation (Exod. 23:3, 6; 30:15; Lev. 19:15; Job 34:19; Ps. 49:2; Isa. 10:2).
In addition, the poor were not to be disregarded in the Sabbath Year or Jubilee Year. During the Sabbath Year, the poor and the needy of the land were permitted to gather food from the land, including the fields, olive groves, and vineyards (Exod. 23:11). If a man became poor and was forced to sell his land, and if it was not redeemed by a family member, the land would be returned to the man during the Jubilee Year (Lev. 25:25–30). Also, if a man was forced to submit himself to being a hired worker, he would be redeemed in the Jubilee Year (Lev. 25:47–54).
New Testament. The NT advances the atmosphere of kindness and nonoppression toward the poor and those in need found in the OT. The NT church was marked by such a real and selfless generosity that its members sold their own possessions and gave to “anyone who had need” (Acts 2:45). The poor were to be treated with generosity, and needs were to be addressed whenever they were discovered (Matt. 19:21; Luke 3:11; 11:41; 12:33; 14:13; 19:8; Acts 6:1; 9:36; Rom. 15:26; Gal. 2:10).
Kindness to the poor was regarded as a natural manifestation of the love of God. Several NT writers considered a lack of concern and kindness toward the poor in a believer’s life cause to question the authenticity of that person’s faith (James 2:15–16; 1 John 3:17–18).
Furthermore, because of the incarnation of Christ, in which the almighty God chose to dwell with humanity, distinctions between believers on the basis of material wealth and, more specifically, favoritism toward the rich were expressly forbidden by the NT writers (1 Cor. 11:20–22; Phil. 2:1–8; James 2:1–4).
Orphans
Other specific biblical instructions regarding people in need concern those without parents and especially those without a father. Such individuals are referred to as “fatherless.” As with the provisions made for the poor, oppression of orphans or the fatherless was strictly forbidden (Exod. 22:22; Deut. 24:17; 27:19; Isa. 1:17; 10:1–2; Zech. 7:10). Furthermore, God is often referred to as the provider and helper of the orphan or fatherless (Deut. 10:18; Pss. 10:14, 18; 68:5; 146:9; Jer. 49:11). Jesus promised not to leave his followers as “orphans,” implying that he would not leave them unprotected (John 14:18). In one of the clearest statements of how Christian belief is to manifest itself, James states, “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world” (James 1:27). (See also Fatherless.)
Widows
Since widows are bereft of their husbands and thus similar to orphans in vulnerability and need, they are the beneficiaries of special provisions in both Testaments. Oppression was forbidden (Exod. 22:22), provisions were to be given in similar fashion to that of the poor and orphans (Deut. 24:19–21), and ample warnings were given to those who would deny justice to widows (Deut. 27:19). Jesus raised a widow’s son from death (Luke 7:14–15), a miracle especially needed because she lacked provision after her only son’s death. The apostle Paul gave specific rules to Timothy regarding who should be placed on the list of widows to receive daily food: they must be over sixty years old and must have been faithful to their husbands (1 Tim. 5:9). In the book of Revelation, a desolate city without inhabitants is aptly described as a “widow” (18:7). (See also Widow.)
Simon Peter is the best-known and the most colorful of Jesus’ twelve disciples. The name “Peter” means “rock” in Greek. In some biblical texts, he is also called “Cephas,” which is the Aramaic word for “rock” (see esp. John 1:42). Despite the ups and downs of Peter’s spiritual life, God was able to use him as the foundational apostle for the establishment of the NT church. Peter first met Jesus immediately after Jesus’ baptism, when Peter’s brother, Andrew, heard John the Baptist’s identification of Jesus as the Lamb of God (John 1:35). In classic missionary style, “the first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, ‘We have found the Messiah’ ” (John 1:41). Peter’s official call to ministry took place later, when he was fishing on the Sea of Galilee and Jesus issued the well-known invitation “Come, follow me, . . . and I will send you out to fish for people” (Matt. 4:19).
Peter was the chief spokesman for the disciples at Caesarea Philippi when Jesus asked them, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” (Matt. 16:13). Peter responded, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God,” an insight given him by God the Father (16:16–17). Jesus promised him, “I tell you that you are Peter [petros], and on this rock [petra] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it” (16:18). Yet Peter almost immediately became a “stumbling block” to Jesus when he chided Jesus for saying that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things and be killed (16:21–22). Another major failure by Peter came with his threefold denial of Jesus after Jesus had warned him, “This very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times” (Matt. 26:34). Fortunately, there were tears of repentance, and Peter was forgiven and restored after Jesus’ threefold question (“Do you love me?” [John 21:15–19]).
Jesus’ death and resurrection, as well as the giving of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, had stabilizing effects on Peter. After Jesus’ ascension, Peter exercised primary leadership among the other disciples during the upper room prayer meetings and the choosing of the replacement for Judas (Acts 1). Peter clearly was the public spokesman for the apostles on the day of Pentecost and a key player in the establishment of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 2–5), in receiving the first Samaritan converts (Acts 8:14–25), and in receiving Cornelius as the first Gentile convert (Acts 10–11). Following Peter’s miraculous deliverance from prison in Acts 12, he essentially disappears from recorded history. By the time of the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), Peter reappeared briefly, but by this time he had been replaced by James as the leader of the Jerusalem church. Peter apparently continued to live as a missionary (1 Cor. 9:5), specifically “to the circumcised” (Gal. 2:7–8), for the rest of his life. Yet Peter was still human, and on one occasion Paul gave him a stinging rebuke (Gal. 2:11–21).
During his travels, Peter undoubtedly visited the recipients of his later letter 1 Peter (and possibly 2 Peter) in north central Asia Minor (the regions of “Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia” [1 Pet. 1:1]), possibly Corinth (1 Cor. 1:12; 3:22), and, at least by the end of his life, Rome itself. According to tradition, he was put to death by Nero between AD 64 and 68, apparently by being crucified upside down (cf. John 21:18–19). Peter’s life is a vivid illustration of the Christian’s fight for faith, God’s gracious provision, and Jesus’ intercession on his behalf (“I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail” [Luke 22:32]).
Taken together “poor,” “orphan,” and “widow” are mentioned in the NIV 280 times, evidence of God’s particular concern for those in need. “Poor” is an umbrella term for those who are physically impoverished or of diminished spirit. In biblical terms, “poor” would include most orphans and widows, though not every poor person was an orphan or widow. With over 170 references to the “poor” in the NIV, the biblical writers emphasize God’s concern for the poor. This is best summarized in Deuteronomy: “There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land” (15:11).
The Poor
Old Testament. All sections of the OT (including the Torah, Major Prophets, Minor Prophets, and wisdom literature) contain both instructions and warnings regarding the treatment of the poor. Portions of the tithes and offerings were to be set aside for the needs of the poor (Deut. 14:28–29; 26:12–13). The law made specific provisions that allowed the poor in the land to glean from fields that they had not planted or tended (Lev. 19:9–10; 23:22). Boaz’s allowance of Ruth’s gleanings is an example (Ruth 2:7–8, 15, 23).
Favor was given to those who were kind to the poor (Job 29:12; 30:25; 31:16; Ps. 112:9; Prov. 19:17; 22:9; 28:8, 27; Isa. 58:5–7; Jer. 22:16). Inversely, those who did not care for the poor were strongly warned (Prov. 21:13; Ezek. 16:49; Amos 8:4–9). The OT often warns against oppression of the poor, with the added emphasis that God is their defender (2 Sam. 12:3–4; Job 20:19; Pss. 109:16; 140:12; Prov. 14:31; 23:11; Isa. 3:14). If a poor person made a vow, specific regulations were provided to prevent a pledge of unfair amount and to prevent the pledge from being kept overlong (Lev. 27:8; Deut. 24:12). Israelites who were hired as workers because they were impoverished were to be treated fairly and not as slaves (Lev. 25:39–42; Deut. 24:14–15). The poor were to be judged fairly, being shown neither favoritism nor oppression because of their situation (Exod. 23:3, 6; 30:15; Lev. 19:15; Job 34:19; Ps. 49:2; Isa. 10:2).
In addition, the poor were not to be disregarded in the Sabbath Year or Jubilee Year. During the Sabbath Year, the poor and the needy of the land were permitted to gather food from the land, including the fields, olive groves, and vineyards (Exod. 23:11). If a man became poor and was forced to sell his land, and if it was not redeemed by a family member, the land would be returned to the man during the Jubilee Year (Lev. 25:25–30). Also, if a man was forced to submit himself to being a hired worker, he would be redeemed in the Jubilee Year (Lev. 25:47–54).
New Testament. The NT advances the atmosphere of kindness and nonoppression toward the poor and those in need found in the OT. The NT church was marked by such a real and selfless generosity that its members sold their own possessions and gave to “anyone who had need” (Acts 2:45). The poor were to be treated with generosity, and needs were to be addressed whenever they were discovered (Matt. 19:21; Luke 3:11; 11:41; 12:33; 14:13; 19:8; Acts 6:1; 9:36; Rom. 15:26; Gal. 2:10).
Kindness to the poor was regarded as a natural manifestation of the love of God. Several NT writers considered a lack of concern and kindness toward the poor in a believer’s life cause to question the authenticity of that person’s faith (James 2:15–16; 1 John 3:17–18).
Furthermore, because of the incarnation of Christ, in which the almighty God chose to dwell with humanity, distinctions between believers on the basis of material wealth and, more specifically, favoritism toward the rich were expressly forbidden by the NT writers (1 Cor. 11:20–22; Phil. 2:1–8; James 2:1–4).
Orphans
Other specific biblical instructions regarding people in need concern those without parents and especially those without a father. Such individuals are referred to as “fatherless.” As with the provisions made for the poor, oppression of orphans or the fatherless was strictly forbidden (Exod. 22:22; Deut. 24:17; 27:19; Isa. 1:17; 10:1–2; Zech. 7:10). Furthermore, God is often referred to as the provider and helper of the orphan or fatherless (Deut. 10:18; Pss. 10:14, 18; 68:5; 146:9; Jer. 49:11). Jesus promised not to leave his followers as “orphans,” implying that he would not leave them unprotected (John 14:18). In one of the clearest statements of how Christian belief is to manifest itself, James states, “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world” (James 1:27). (See also Fatherless.)
Widows
Since widows are bereft of their husbands and thus similar to orphans in vulnerability and need, they are the beneficiaries of special provisions in both Testaments. Oppression was forbidden (Exod. 22:22), provisions were to be given in similar fashion to that of the poor and orphans (Deut. 24:19–21), and ample warnings were given to those who would deny justice to widows (Deut. 27:19). Jesus raised a widow’s son from death (Luke 7:14–15), a miracle especially needed because she lacked provision after her only son’s death. The apostle Paul gave specific rules to Timothy regarding who should be placed on the list of widows to receive daily food: they must be over sixty years old and must have been faithful to their husbands (1 Tim. 5:9). In the book of Revelation, a desolate city without inhabitants is aptly described as a “widow” (18:7). (See also Widow.)
Taken together “poor,” “orphan,” and “widow” are mentioned in the NIV 280 times, evidence of God’s particular concern for those in need. “Poor” is an umbrella term for those who are physically impoverished or of diminished spirit. In biblical terms, “poor” would include most orphans and widows, though not every poor person was an orphan or widow. With over 170 references to the “poor” in the NIV, the biblical writers emphasize God’s concern for the poor. This is best summarized in Deuteronomy: “There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land” (15:11).
The Poor
Old Testament. All sections of the OT (including the Torah, Major Prophets, Minor Prophets, and wisdom literature) contain both instructions and warnings regarding the treatment of the poor. Portions of the tithes and offerings were to be set aside for the needs of the poor (Deut. 14:28–29; 26:12–13). The law made specific provisions that allowed the poor in the land to glean from fields that they had not planted or tended (Lev. 19:9–10; 23:22). Boaz’s allowance of Ruth’s gleanings is an example (Ruth 2:7–8, 15, 23).
Favor was given to those who were kind to the poor (Job 29:12; 30:25; 31:16; Ps. 112:9; Prov. 19:17; 22:9; 28:8, 27; Isa. 58:5–7; Jer. 22:16). Inversely, those who did not care for the poor were strongly warned (Prov. 21:13; Ezek. 16:49; Amos 8:4–9). The OT often warns against oppression of the poor, with the added emphasis that God is their defender (2 Sam. 12:3–4; Job 20:19; Pss. 109:16; 140:12; Prov. 14:31; 23:11; Isa. 3:14). If a poor person made a vow, specific regulations were provided to prevent a pledge of unfair amount and to prevent the pledge from being kept overlong (Lev. 27:8; Deut. 24:12). Israelites who were hired as workers because they were impoverished were to be treated fairly and not as slaves (Lev. 25:39–42; Deut. 24:14–15). The poor were to be judged fairly, being shown neither favoritism nor oppression because of their situation (Exod. 23:3, 6; 30:15; Lev. 19:15; Job 34:19; Ps. 49:2; Isa. 10:2).
In addition, the poor were not to be disregarded in the Sabbath Year or Jubilee Year. During the Sabbath Year, the poor and the needy of the land were permitted to gather food from the land, including the fields, olive groves, and vineyards (Exod. 23:11). If a man became poor and was forced to sell his land, and if it was not redeemed by a family member, the land would be returned to the man during the Jubilee Year (Lev. 25:25–30). Also, if a man was forced to submit himself to being a hired worker, he would be redeemed in the Jubilee Year (Lev. 25:47–54).
New Testament. The NT advances the atmosphere of kindness and nonoppression toward the poor and those in need found in the OT. The NT church was marked by such a real and selfless generosity that its members sold their own possessions and gave to “anyone who had need” (Acts 2:45). The poor were to be treated with generosity, and needs were to be addressed whenever they were discovered (Matt. 19:21; Luke 3:11; 11:41; 12:33; 14:13; 19:8; Acts 6:1; 9:36; Rom. 15:26; Gal. 2:10).
Kindness to the poor was regarded as a natural manifestation of the love of God. Several NT writers considered a lack of concern and kindness toward the poor in a believer’s life cause to question the authenticity of that person’s faith (James 2:15–16; 1 John 3:17–18).
Furthermore, because of the incarnation of Christ, in which the almighty God chose to dwell with humanity, distinctions between believers on the basis of material wealth and, more specifically, favoritism toward the rich were expressly forbidden by the NT writers (1 Cor. 11:20–22; Phil. 2:1–8; James 2:1–4).
Orphans
Other specific biblical instructions regarding people in need concern those without parents and especially those without a father. Such individuals are referred to as “fatherless.” As with the provisions made for the poor, oppression of orphans or the fatherless was strictly forbidden (Exod. 22:22; Deut. 24:17; 27:19; Isa. 1:17; 10:1–2; Zech. 7:10). Furthermore, God is often referred to as the provider and helper of the orphan or fatherless (Deut. 10:18; Pss. 10:14, 18; 68:5; 146:9; Jer. 49:11). Jesus promised not to leave his followers as “orphans,” implying that he would not leave them unprotected (John 14:18). In one of the clearest statements of how Christian belief is to manifest itself, James states, “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world” (James 1:27). (See also Fatherless.)
Widows
Since widows are bereft of their husbands and thus similar to orphans in vulnerability and need, they are the beneficiaries of special provisions in both Testaments. Oppression was forbidden (Exod. 22:22), provisions were to be given in similar fashion to that of the poor and orphans (Deut. 24:19–21), and ample warnings were given to those who would deny justice to widows (Deut. 27:19). Jesus raised a widow’s son from death (Luke 7:14–15), a miracle especially needed because she lacked provision after her only son’s death. The apostle Paul gave specific rules to Timothy regarding who should be placed on the list of widows to receive daily food: they must be over sixty years old and must have been faithful to their husbands (1 Tim. 5:9). In the book of Revelation, a desolate city without inhabitants is aptly described as a “widow” (18:7). (See also Widow.)
Simon Peter is the best-known and the most colorful of Jesus’ twelve disciples. The name “Peter” means “rock” in Greek. In some biblical texts, he is also called “Cephas,” which is the Aramaic word for “rock” (see esp. John 1:42). Despite the ups and downs of Peter’s spiritual life, God was able to use him as the foundational apostle for the establishment of the NT church. Peter first met Jesus immediately after Jesus’ baptism, when Peter’s brother, Andrew, heard John the Baptist’s identification of Jesus as the Lamb of God (John 1:35). In classic missionary style, “the first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, ‘We have found the Messiah’ ” (John 1:41). Peter’s official call to ministry took place later, when he was fishing on the Sea of Galilee and Jesus issued the well-known invitation “Come, follow me, . . . and I will send you out to fish for people” (Matt. 4:19).
Peter was the chief spokesman for the disciples at Caesarea Philippi when Jesus asked them, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” (Matt. 16:13). Peter responded, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God,” an insight given him by God the Father (16:16–17). Jesus promised him, “I tell you that you are Peter [petros], and on this rock [petra] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it” (16:18). Yet Peter almost immediately became a “stumbling block” to Jesus when he chided Jesus for saying that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things and be killed (16:21–22). Another major failure by Peter came with his threefold denial of Jesus after Jesus had warned him, “This very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times” (Matt. 26:34). Fortunately, there were tears of repentance, and Peter was forgiven and restored after Jesus’ threefold question (“Do you love me?” [John 21:15–19]).
Jesus’ death and resurrection, as well as the giving of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, had stabilizing effects on Peter. After Jesus’ ascension, Peter exercised primary leadership among the other disciples during the upper room prayer meetings and the choosing of the replacement for Judas (Acts 1). Peter clearly was the public spokesman for the apostles on the day of Pentecost and a key player in the establishment of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 2–5), in receiving the first Samaritan converts (Acts 8:14–25), and in receiving Cornelius as the first Gentile convert (Acts 10–11). Following Peter’s miraculous deliverance from prison in Acts 12, he essentially disappears from recorded history. By the time of the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), Peter reappeared briefly, but by this time he had been replaced by James as the leader of the Jerusalem church. Peter apparently continued to live as a missionary (1 Cor. 9:5), specifically “to the circumcised” (Gal. 2:7–8), for the rest of his life. Yet Peter was still human, and on one occasion Paul gave him a stinging rebuke (Gal. 2:11–21).
During his travels, Peter undoubtedly visited the recipients of his later letter 1 Peter (and possibly 2 Peter) in north central Asia Minor (the regions of “Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia” [1 Pet. 1:1]), possibly Corinth (1 Cor. 1:12; 3:22), and, at least by the end of his life, Rome itself. According to tradition, he was put to death by Nero between AD 64 and 68, apparently by being crucified upside down (cf. John 21:18–19). Peter’s life is a vivid illustration of the Christian’s fight for faith, God’s gracious provision, and Jesus’ intercession on his behalf (“I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail” [Luke 22:32]).
The Israelites gathered regularly to celebrate their relationship with God. Such festivals were marked by communal meals, music, singing, dancing, and sacrifices. They celebrated, conscious that God had graciously brought them into a relationship with him. Within this covenant he had committed himself to act on their behalf both in regular ways, such as the harvest, and in exceptional ways, such as deliverance from Egypt. At the festivals, Israel celebrated God’s work in its past, present, and future and reaffirmed its relationship with this covenant God.
We know of Israel’s festivals from several calendars in the Mosaic legislation (Exod. 23:14–17; 34:18–23; Lev. 23; Num. 28–29; Deut. 16:1–17), calendars further clarified by the prophets (e.g., Ezek. 45:18–25; Zech. 14), and narrative material (e.g., 2 Kings 23:21–23). Some read discrepancies between calendars as evidence of multiple sources, but this fails to account for the various purposes that these calendars served. The narrative and prophetic passages suggest that Israel did not observe these festivals as frequently as, and in the ways, God intended (e.g., Amos 8:5), but when Israel sought to renew its relationship with God, it often did so with a festival (e.g., 2 Kings 23:21–23).
Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread
Israel’s religious calendar began with Passover, the day set aside to commemorate deliverance from Egypt. Occurring in spring, this single day was joined with a weeklong celebration known as the Festival of Unleavened Bread, during which all males were required to make a pilgrimage to the sanctuary and offer the firstfruits of the barley harvest (Lev. 23:9–14). Israel observed Passover with rituals that reactualized the night God’s destroyer spared the Israelites in Egypt. A lamb was killed, and its blood was put on the doorposts of the homes and on the bronze altar in the sanctuary. The lamb was roasted and served with unleavened bread and bitter herbs while those partaking—dressed in their traveling clothes—listened to the retelling of the exodus story. No yeast was to be found anywhere among them, no work was to be done on the first and last days of the festival, and offerings were to be brought to the sanctuary (Num. 9:1–5; Josh. 5:10–11; 2 Kings 23:21–23; 2 Chron. 30; 35:1–19).
Early Christians associated Jesus’ death with that of the Passover lamb (1 Cor. 5:7–8), encouraged by Jesus’ comments at the Last Supper (described by the Synoptic Gospels as a Passover meal [e.g., Matt. 26:17–30]). Perhaps Jesus meant to emphasize that just as Passover and the Festival of Unleavened Bread reminded God’s people of his deliverance and provision, his followers would find true freedom and full provision in him.
The Festival of Weeks
Also known as the Festival of Harvest, the Day of Firstfruits, or Pentecost (because it occurred fifty days after Passover), the Festival of Weeks took place on the sixth day of the third month (corresponding to our May or June). This marked another occasion when all Jewish men were required to come to the sanctuary. They were to bring an offering of the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, abstain from work, and devote themselves to rejoicing in God’s goodness.
Early in the NT period, if not before, this festival also became associated with the giving of the law on Mount Sinai. The Jews who assembled in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost as described in Acts 2 came to celebrate not only God’s provision but also the revelation of his nature and will. Significantly, God chose this day to send the Holy Spirit, the One who would produce a harvest of believers and reveal God more fully to the world.
The Festival of Tabernacles
So important was the Festival of Tabernacles (also known as the Festival of Ingathering or the Festival of Booths) that Israel sometimes referred to it as “the festival of the Lord” (Judg. 21:19) or simply “the festival” (cf. 1 Kings 8:65). Held from the fifteenth to the twenty-first of the seventh month (September–October), this was the third of the three pilgrimage festivals. For that week, Israel lived in booths to remind them of their ancestors’ time in the wilderness. They also celebrated the fruit harvest. They were to “take the fruit of majestic trees, branches of palm trees, boughs of leafy trees, and willows of the brook; and you shall rejoice” before God for seven days (Lev. 23:40 NRSV). Avoiding all work on the first and last days of the festival, they were to mark the week with sacrifices, celebration, and joy. Also, every seventh year the law was to be read at this festival (Deut. 31:10–11).
The Mishnah, a collection of rabbinic laws compiled around AD 200 but often reflecting earlier traditions, records how Israel observed this festival during the early Roman period. As part of the celebration, men danced and sang in the courtyard of the temple while Levites, standing on the steps that led down from the court of the Israelites, played harps, lyres, cymbals, and other instruments. Two priests blew trumpets—one long blast, then a quavering one, then another long blast—while walking toward the eastern gate. When they reached the gate, they turned back toward the temple and said, “Our fathers when they were in this place turned with their backs toward the Temple of the Lord and their faces toward the east, and they worshiped the sun toward the east [referring to the apostasy of the Jews as described by Ezekiel]; but as for us, our eyes are turned toward the Lord” (m. Sukkah 5:4). Another part of this festival involved the drawing of water for a libation offering from the Pool of Siloam with great ceremony and joy. John 7 records Jesus’ secretive departure to Jerusalem for the Festival of Tabernacles, where he spent several days teaching in the temple courts. It was on the last and greatest day of the festival when Jesus invited those thirsty to come to him and drink.
The Festival of Trumpets
Occurring on the first day of the seventh month (September–October), this feast marked the beginning of the civil and agricultural year for the Jews; it was also referred to as Rosh Hashanah (lit., “head/beginning of the year”). Observed as a Sabbath with sacrifices and trumpet blasts, this day was intended for rest and to begin preparations for the coming Day of Atonement. The Mishnah makes this connection more explicit by identifying the Festival of Trumpets as the day when “all that come into the world pass before [God] like legions of soldiers” or flocks of sheep to be judged (m. Rosh HaSh. 1:2).
The Day of Atonement
Some festivals, like Passover, looked back to what God had done or was doing for his people; other festivals, like Trumpets and the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), focused on the relationship itself. The latter was marked by repentance and rituals designed to remove the nation’s sins and restore fellowship with God. Coming ten days after the Festival of Trumpets, this was a solemn occasion during which the Israelites abstained from eating, drinking, and other activities. This was the only prescribed annual fast in the Jewish calendar, though other fasts were added in the fourth, fifth, seventh, and tenth months to mourn the Babylonian exile (Zech. 7:3, 5; 8:19).
In Leviticus, God clarified the purpose of this day: “On this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. Then, before the Lord, you will be clean from all your sins” (16:30). Not only would the people be purified, but so also would the sanctuary, so that God could continue to meet his people there. Sacrifices were offered for both priest and people, and the blood was taken into the most holy place. Only on Yom Kippur could this room be entered, and only by the high priest, who sprinkled blood on the cover of the ark of the covenant. Leaving that room, he also sprinkled blood in the holy place (16:14–17) and then on the bronze altar in the courtyard.
Yom Kippur was marked by another ritual that symbolized the removal of Israel’s sins, this one involving two goats. One goat, chosen by lot, was offered as a sacrifice to God. The high priest placed his hands on the other goat and transferred to it the sins of the nation. He then released the goat into the wilderness, for “the goat will carry on itself all their sins to a remote place” (Lev. 16:22).
The Mishnah describes how this day was observed when the second temple stood. The high priest, having been carefully prepared, washed, and clothed, placed both hands on the head of a bull and confessed his own sins. After this, the lots were drawn for the goats; the goat to be sacrificed had a thread tied around its throat, while the other had a scarlet thread bound around its head. When the high priest had confessed the sins of the priests over the bull, it was slaughtered, and its blood was collected in a basin. Taking coals from the bronze altar and incense from the holy place, he then entered the holy of holies. There he placed the incense on the coals, filling the room with smoke to obscure the ark from his view. Returning to the holy place, he offered a short prayer, lest he pray too long and “put Israel in terror” that he had died performing the ritual. He returned to the courtyard and took the basin of blood back into the most holy place. Dipping his finger into the blood, he sprinkled it with a whipping motion, and repeated this seven times. He did the same with the blood of the goat chosen for sacrifice, and then he poured out the remaining blood at the base of the bronze altar.
Then the high priest laid his hands on the head of the scapegoat and said, “O God, thy people, the House of Israel, have committed iniquity, transgressed, and sinned before thee. O God, forgive, I pray, the iniquities and transgressions and sins which thy people, the House of Israel, have committed and transgressed and sinned before thee; as it is written in the law of thy servant Moses . . .” (m. Yoma 6:2). The goat was then led outside Jerusalem, where it was pushed down a ravine to its death, apparently to keep it from wandering back into the city.
The Mishnah recognized that rituals alone were insufficient for true forgiveness, for it contains this warning: “If a man said, ‘I will sin and repent, and sin again and repent,’ he will be given no chance to repent. [If he said,] ‘I will sin and the Day of Atonement will effect atonement,’ then the Day of Atonement effects no atonement. For transgressions that are between man and God the Day of Atonement effects atonement, but for transgressions that are between a man and his fellow the Day of Atonement effects atonement only if he has appeased his fellow” (m. Yoma 8:9).
The book of Hebrews uses the symbols of Yom Kippur to describe Jesus’ death. As the high priest entered the most holy place, so Jesus entered God’s presence, carrying not the blood of bull and goat but his own. His once-for-all death at the “culmination of the ages” (Heb. 9:26) not only allows him to remain in God’s presence (10:12) but also gives us access to God’s presence as well (10:19–22).
Sabbath Year
Every seven years, the Israelites were to observe a “Sabbath of the land” (Lev. 25:6 ESV), a time for the land to rest. They could not sow fields or prune vineyards, but they could eat what grew of itself (Lev. 25:1–7). Deuteronomy 15:1–11 speaks of all debts being canceled (some would say deferred) every seventh year, presumably the same year the land was to lie fallow. When Israel was gathered at the Festival of Tabernacles during this Sabbath Year, the law of Moses was to be read aloud. The Chronicler described the seventy years of Babylonian exile as “sabbaths” for the land, perhaps alluding to the neglect of the Sabbath Year (2 Chron. 36:21; cf. Lev. 26:43). Those returning from exile expressed their intent to keep this provision (Neh. 10:31), and it appears to have been observed in the intertestamental period (see 1 Macc. 6:48–53; Josephus, Ant. 14.202–10).
This year seems intended to maintain the fertility of the land and to allow Israel’s economy to “reset,” equalizing wealth and limiting poverty. Observing such a provision took great faith and firm allegiance, for they had to trust God for daily bread and put obedience above profit. Rereading the law at the Festival of Tabernacles reminded the Israelites of God’s gracious covenant and their required response.
Jubilee
God instructed Israel to count off seven “sevens” of years and in the fiftieth year, beginning on the Day of Atonement, to sound a trumpet marking the Jubilee Year. As in the Sabbath Year, there was to be no sowing and reaping. Further, the land was released from its current owners and returned to those families to whom it originally belonged. Individual Israelites who had become indentured through economic distress were to be freed. The assumption underlying the Jubilee Year was that everything belonged to God. He owned the land and its occupants; the Israelites were only tenants and stewards (Lev. 25:23, 55). As their covenant lord, he would provide for their needs even during back-to-back Sabbath Years (Lev. 25:21). The year began on the Day of Atonement, perhaps to emphasize that the best response to God’s redemptive mercy is faith in his provision and mercy to others. Although the Jubilee Year is commanded in the Mosaic law and spoken about by the prophets (Isa. 61:1–2; Ezek. 46:17), rabbis, and Jesus (Luke 4:18–19), Scripture is silent on how or if Israel observed this year.
New Moon
The beginning of each month was marked with the sounding of trumpets, rejoicing, and sacrifices (Num. 10:10; 28:11–15). There is some indication that work was to be suspended on this day, as on the Sabbath (Amos 8:5), and that people gathered for a meal (1 Sam. 20:5, 18, 24, 27). By faithfully observing this day, Israel was in a position to properly observe the remaining days, set up, as they were, on the lunar calendar. Paul learned of some in Colossae who were giving undue attention to New Moon celebrations (Col. 2:16).
Purim
Beyond the festivals commanded in the law of Moses, the Jews added two more to their sacred calendar, one during the postexilic period and one between the Testaments. Both commemorated God’s deliverance of his people from their enemies. A wave of anti-Semitic persecution swept over the Jews living in Persia during the reign of Xerxes (486–465 BC). God delivered his people through Esther, and the Jews celebrated this deliverance with the festival of Purim. Their enemies determined when to attack by casting lots, so the Jews called this festival “Purim,” meaning “lots.” It was celebrated on the fourteenth and fifteenth days of the twelfth month (February-March) with “feasting and joy and giving presents of food to one another and gifts to the poor” (Esther 9:22).
Festival of Dedication
During the intertestamental period, the Jews came under great persecution from the Seleucids, who outlawed the practice of Judaism and desecrated the Jerusalem temple. After recapturing the temple, the Jews began the process of purification. On the twenty-fifth day of their ninth month, in the year 164 BC, the Jews rose at dawn and offered a lawful sacrifice on the new altar of burnt offering which they had made. The altar was dedicated, to the sound of hymns, zithers, lyres and cymbals, at the same time of year and on the same day on which the gentiles had originally profaned it. The whole people fell prostrate in adoration and then praised Heaven who had granted them success. For eight days they celebrated the dedication of the altar, joyfully offering burnt offerings, communion and thanksgiving sacrifices. . . . Judas [Maccabees], with his brothers and the whole assembly of Israel, made it a law that the days of the dedication of the altar should be celebrated yearly at the proper season, for eight days beginning on the twenty-fifth of the month of Chislev [December], with rejoicing and gladness. (1 Macc. 4:52–56, 59 NJB)
Summary
What did God want to impress on his people by commanding and permitting these specific festivals? First, these festivals reminded Israel of God’s help in the past, how he delivered them from Egypt, provided for them in the wilderness wanderings, or protected them from their enemies. Second, the festivals were occasions to celebrate God’s present provision. He had promised to provide for his covenant partner; the festivals, especially those timed to occur at the harvest, were occasions to celebrate how faithfully he had kept that promise for another year and opportunities to commit to providing for the needs of others.
The festivals prompted the Israelites not only to look back to God’s help in the past and recognize God’s help in the present, but also to look ahead, anticipating the promised consummation. The OT announced God’s intention to bring all nations into full allegiance, and the festivals were occasions to anticipate that day. Isaiah spoke of a festival in which all the nations would share: “On this mountain the Lord Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine—the best of meats and the finest of wines” (Isa. 25:6). God promised to bless “foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be his servants, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant—these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations” (Isa. 56:6–7). Micah predicted a day when the nations would go on pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Mic. 4:1–5), and Zephaniah anticipated when God would “purify the lips of the peoples, that all of them may call on the name of the Lord and serve him shoulder to shoulder,” even bringing offerings to the temple (Zeph. 3:9–10). According to Zechariah, a time was coming when “the survivors from all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the Lord Almighty, and to celebrate the Festival of Tabernacles” (Zech. 14:16). Israel’s festivals allowed them to look back at what God had done, was doing, and was going to do for them and, through them, for the whole world.
The Israelites experienced a wide range of emotions during these festivals, but the prevailing emotion was joy. They rejoiced in their selection by God, living “together in unity” (Ps. 133:1), in God’s deliverance, provision, and protection, and in the hope of God’s consummation of his plan. Over and over, God instructed them to gather and rejoice in his presence, suggesting a fourth insight: a God who desires his people’s happiness must love his people.
Finally, the festivals were occasions to recognize God’s rule over Israel. Especially in an agricultural economy such as Israel’s, to refrain from work on the Sabbath and on festival days was to confess God’s sovereignty over time and to admit dependence on God. To leave house and fields and travel to Jerusalem confessed faith in God to protect. Offerings of firstfruits confessed that the whole harvest came from God. When they gathered, it was in the sanctuary, God’s palace, yet another reminder that God was Israel’s king, and they were his subjects.
The outpouring of the Spirit that was prophesied in the OT to take place in the last days, in connection with the arrival of the Messiah.
Spirit baptism in the Bible. The OT prophets had spoken of both the Spirit of God coming upon the Messiah (e.g., Isa. 11:2; 42:1; 61:1) and a giving or pouring out of the Spirit in the last days (e.g., Isa. 32:15; 44:3; Ezek. 36:27; 37:14; 39:29; Joel 2:28). Peter connects the giving of the Spirit with Jesus’ being received by the Father and being granted messianic authority (Acts 2:33–38). The experience of Cornelius in particular associates the pouring out of the Spirit (Acts 10:45) with a baptism with the Spirit (11:16).
Seven passages in the NT directly speak of someone being baptized in/with the Spirit. Four of these passages refer to John the Baptist’s prediction that Jesus will baptize people in/with the Spirit in contrast to his own water baptism (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33). In Matthew and Luke, Jesus’ baptism is referred to as a baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Two passages refer to Jesus’ prediction that the disciples would receive Spirit baptism, which occurred at Pentecost. As recorded in Acts 2, tongues of fire came to rest on each of them, they were filled with the Holy Spirit, and they began to speak in other tongues. As the disciples spoke to the Jews who had gathered in Jerusalem for the festival, three thousand were converted. Acts 1:5 contains Jesus’ prediction of this baptism with the Spirit, which Peter recounts in 11:16.
The final reference occurs in 1 Cor. 12:13, where Paul says, “For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.” Thus, Christians form one body through their common experience of immersion in the one Spirit.
A second baptism? While in 1 Cor. 12 Paul seems to refer to an experience that all Christians undergo at conversion, there are several incidents in Acts where the reception of the Spirit occurs after conversion. The question then arises as to whether there is a separate “baptism in/with the Holy Spirit” distinct from the Spirit’s initial work of regeneration and incorporation into the body of Christ at conversion and whether this two-stage process is normative for the church. This belief in a second baptism is particularly prominent in Pentecostal traditions.
Examples such as Acts 2; 8; 10; 19 are commonly used to support the view of a second and subsequent experience of Spirit baptism. In Acts 2 the disciples are already converted and wait for the Spirit, who comes to them at Pentecost. In Acts 8 the Samaritans first respond to Philip’s preaching and receive water baptism. However, they receive the Spirit only after Peter and John come from Jerusalem and pray for them to receive the Holy Spirit. In Acts 10 Cornelius is a God-fearing Gentile, and after Peter visits him, the Spirit falls on his household. In Acts 19 Paul finds some disciples in Ephesus. After he lays hands on them, the Holy Spirit comes upon them, and they begin to speak in tongues and prophesy.
In understanding these experiences, it must be remembered that Acts describes a transitional period for the church. Acts 2 in particular recounts the initial giving of the Spirit under the new covenant. It is possible, then, to see the events in Acts 8; 10 as the coming of the Spirit upon two other people groups, the Samaritans and the Gentiles. Acts 2:38 and 5:32 indicate that the apostles expected the reception of the Spirit to accompany conversion, and this appears to be the case in the rest of the book. Acts 19 narrates an incomplete conversion, where the people had only experienced John’s baptism and receive the Spirit after Paul baptizes them “in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
Filled with the Spirit. Although the NT does not support a theology of a second Spirit baptism, it does commonly mention an experience of being “filled” with the Spirit. The concept of being “filled with the Spirit” frequently occurs in contexts referring to spiritual growth, such as in Eph. 5:18, where Paul exhorts, “Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.” Apparently, this filling can occur numerous times. It can lead to worship of and thanksgiving to God (Eph. 5:19–20). It can also result in empowerment for ministry.
The immediate consequence of the disciples’ filling in Acts 2:4 is speaking in tongues to the various Jews gathered in Jerusalem, and in 4:31 they are empowered to speak “the word of God boldly.” Fullness of the Spirit can also be a characteristic of a believer’s life, such as in Acts 6:3, where the seven men chosen to look after the widows were to be men “known to be full of the Spirit.”
The management of available resources in the recognition that God is the owner and provider of all things. The Bible is clear that God is the maker and owner of all things. The psalmist wrote, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it” (Ps. 24:1). God told Job, “Everything under heaven belongs to me” (Job 41:11). In the same way, God says, “The silver is mine and the gold is mine” (Hag. 2:8). Stewardship is based upon the principle that God is the maker of all things. Since God is the creator and owner of all things, God’s followers are charged with managing what he has given.
The term “steward” is used in the OT to refer to Joseph’s steward (Gen. 43:19; 44:1, 4) and to Arza, who was the steward of Baasha’s son Elah, who reigned over Israel (1 Kings 16:9 KJV). The steward was the manager who oversaw all household operations. Having a great deal of responsibility, the slave or servant in this position had to be someone whom the owner trusted. Jesus used similar terms in referring to a household manager in some of his parables (Matt. 20:8; Luke 16:1, 3). The concept of stewardship is applied to the believer as God’s servant. Believers are stewards for God in the sense that they manage God’s resources in this world.
The biblical concept of stewardship begins with Adam and Eve being charged with the responsibility of caring for the creative work of God (Gen. 2:15). In the garden of Eden, humankind was given the responsibility to care for the earth, manage it, and have dominion over it. On an individual level, all that Christians possess is intended to be used for God’s purposes and glory. Biblical stewardship involves more than financial resources, although certainly those are included. Proper stewardship involves managing every resource (time, talent, finances, opportunity) under the leadership of God, who owns it all.
Regarding financial matters, the Bible teaches that a tithe (one-tenth) of one’s income should be returned to God as a reminder that all one has comes from him (Lev. 27:30). The OT concept of the tithe is assumed by Jesus in Matt. 23:23 when he rebukes the scribes and the Pharisees for tithing and yet neglecting more important things such as justice and mercy. However, the tithe is not frequently mentioned in the NT. Rather than focusing on tithing, the NT focuses on the attitude of the believer in giving. Believers are encouraged to give sacrificially (Mark 12:41–44; Acts 2:44–45). In addition, Paul stresses giving in love with generosity (2 Cor. 9:6–8). Giving to others in need is a reflection of trust that God will provide for our own needs as we give to meet the needs of others. God expects that everything that one has will be used in ways that honor him.
Another name for Sunday, this term reminds us that this day belongs to the Lord and should be used for his honor and glory. The term itself is used only once in Scripture, where John mentions how he was in the Spirit “on the Lord’s Day” when Christ commissioned him to write the book of Revelation (Rev. 1:10). There are no other specific details clearly given in Scripture about the identification of this day or how it was observed. Our understanding of this term and how it fits in with other passages of Scripture touches on three separate issues.
A special day. First, should Christians today celebrate any day of the week in a special way? At least some believers throughout history have believed that it is possible to observe every day of the week as equally special in the sense that “this is the day that the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it” (Ps. 118:24 ESV). Paul regards the observance of special days for worship as an area of Christian freedom: “One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind” (Rom. 14:5). The same principle is found in Col. 2:16: “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.” Nevertheless, most Christians have concluded that the expression “the Lord’s Day” clearly points to a specific day during the week when the Lord is to be worshiped in a special way.
A specific day. Second, which day of the week should we celebrate in a special way? When is the Lord’s Day? For OT believers, the answer is clear: it is the last, or seventh, day of the week. In the Bible, both the idea of a seven-day week and the setting apart of the seventh day are based ultimately on the creation account in Gen. 2:1–3. This Sabbath principle is codified in the Ten Commandments, which indicate that the Sabbath is to be kept holy by requiring people and their animals not to engage in work (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15). Observance of the seventh day, or Sabbath, continues among Jews in the present. More recently, other groups, such as Seventh-Day Adventists and Seventh-Day Baptists, have felt the weight of this OT evidence and have continued to observe Saturday as the proper day for worship.
Nevertheless, most Christians have been persuaded by the practice of the early church to gather together for worship on the first day of the week. Two key passages of Scripture provide support for this conclusion. In Acts 20:7 the church had gathered for the Lord’s Supper specifically “on the first day of the week,” and in 1 Cor. 16:2 Paul instructs the church at Corinth to collect an offering specifically “on the first day of every week” (presumably during its local weekly meetings). Thus, most Christians have concluded that they are no longer under the OT observance of the Sabbath as the seventh day of the week (cf. Rom. 14:5; Col. 2:16), and now they are to worship in honor of Jesus’ resurrection “on the first day of the week” (Matt. 28:1 pars.).
A sacred day. Third, how should we celebrate this day? The Puritans and others throughout church history have considered Sunday as the Christian Sabbath. In other words, they made the shift from the seventh day of the week in the OT to the first day of the week in the church age, but they believed that all the OT rules and regulations for the Sabbath were still binding on believers today. Nevertheless, most Christians today accept Sunday as the “Lord’s Day,” when they worship in a NT manner and not under the letter of the OT ceremonial law, with its focus primarily on resting or not working. Under the OT system there was no concept of people gathering together on a regular weekly basis for corporate worship. OT worship revolved around various annual feasts and festivals when people would gather together at the central temple in Jerusalem a few times each year. The idea of weekly worship services emerged only later, during the Babylonian captivity, with the development of the Jewish synagogue. Thus, most Christians have concluded that Sunday is no longer a transposed OT Sabbath, but rather the NT Lord’s Day, and consequently that it should be celebrated accordingly, as when “they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer” (Acts 2:42).
A title designating members of the group of twelve disciples (Matt. 10:2–4; Mark 3:16–19; Luke 6:13–16) who received Jesus’ teaching (Luke 17:5) and to whom he granted authority (Mark 6:7, 30; Luke 9:1, 10). Matthias later replaced Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:24). These apostles provided leadership to the early church in Jerusalem (Acts 15:6), performed miracles (Acts 2:43; 2 Cor. 12:12), and faced persecution (Acts 5:18) as they testified to Jesus’ resurrection (Acts 4:33; 5:32). Broader usage of the term includes witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection (1 Cor. 15:7), James the brother of Jesus (Gal. 1:19), Barnabas and Paul (Acts 14:14), and possibly Silas (1 Thess. 2:6) and Andronicus and Junias/Junia (Rom. 16:7). Paul regularly speaks of his calling in apostolic terms (Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:1; Titus 1:1), while Peter similarly self-identifies (1 Pet. 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:1). The word is once used of Jesus himself (Heb. 3:1).
The idea of unity has always been significant for God’s people and their relatedness to one another. In the OT, unity centered on the covenant and on Yahweh, who is the heart of the covenant. In 2 Chron. 30:12 the hand of God was on the people to give them unity to carry out the tasks that had been ordered by the king at God’s command. In Ps. 133:1 the psalmist notes the goodness of the unity of the extended family, no doubt also to be extended to the unity of God’s people, Israel.
In the NT, unity centers on Jesus Christ, who is the heart of the new covenant. John emphasizes this unity as he records the teaching of Jesus on the relationship of the Father and the Son (John 14). The Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father. In John 16 Jesus notes that this is the standard by which oneness is to be compared; the disciples are to be one, just as the Father and the Son are one. There will also be oneness between the triune God and his people as the Holy Spirit comes to reside in the disciples. Unity and its various outcomes are the subject of Jesus’ final prayer in the garden (John 17).
In Acts 1 Luke notes that the disciples were unified after the resurrection and ascension as they worshiped and prayed together in the upper room (v. 14 NASB, NET: “with one mind” [homothymadon]). Luke uses the same word in Acts 2:46 when he notes the same unity for the early church as they gathered for the sake of worship and praise to God in the temple (cf. 4:24 [unison prayer for power from God]; 5:12 [meeting together at Solomon’s Colonnade]; 15:25 [unanimity in a decision to send representatives to Antioch]). Indeed, the story of the beginning of the early church is the story of the fulfillment of Christ’s command to be unified. It is sometimes supposed, probably correctly, that the apostles from Jerusalem went to the Samaritan church to lay on hands for the bestowal of the Spirit in order that the long-standing Jewish-Samaritan rift might not destroy the unity of the growing body (see Acts 8:14–17).
In Eph. 4:3 Paul commands the believers to be zealous to keep their unity based in the Spirit as they are bound together by the peace that Christ gives. Later, in 4:13, Paul notes that God has given gifted people to the body of Christ so that the believers may be trained for the ministry of building up that body. This has its goal in the unity of believers and maturity of the faith in the knowledge of Christ—so that the body might be like him. So the unity of believers here is linked to the ubiquitous NT goal of Christlikeness. This also entails rejecting false teaching (4:14).
Those who offer themselves freely and willingly, without compulsion or consideration of value in return, to perform a task, make a vow, or serve another. In the OT, volunteers usually serve God (Deut. 23:23; 2 Chron. 17:16; Ps. 110:3), Israel (Ezra 7:13; Neh. 11:2), or a leader in Israel (Judg. 5:2, 9; 1 Chron. 28:21). God himself is the ultimate volunteer, as he freely gives place, purpose, and a partner to Adam (Gen. 2:15–22); unilaterally covenants with Abram to give him descendants, blessing, and land (Gen. 12:2–3; 15:17–21); liberates Israel from bondage in Egypt (Exod. 6:6–8; Deut. 20:1; Josh. 24:17; Ps. 81:10); and remains faithful to Israel despite its repeated failures (Pss. 68:35; 106:44–46).
In the NT, God is also the sender of Jesus (Matt. 10:40; Mark 9:37; Luke 4:18–21; John 4:34; 5:24, 30, 36–37), who heals of his own volition (Luke 5:13), gives rest to the weary (Matt. 11:28), and lays down his life of his own accord for our redemption (Mark 10:45; John 10:18; Gal. 3:13–14; Eph. 5:2; Titus 2:14; 1 Pet. 1:18–19). With Jesus as the standard, the concept of willingly giving of oneself and one’s possessions runs throughout the NT (Eph. 5:1–2). Christians are called to love and serve one another in spiritual and practical ways (Acts 2:44–45; Rom. 12:9–21; 1 Thess. 5:15–18; Philem. 14). They are also to love their enemies and pray for their persecutors (Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27, 35). Those who wish to lead must first volunteer themselves as servants to others (Matt. 20:27; Mark 9:35; Luke 22:26). Elders are to shepherd voluntarily (1 Pet. 5:2). Paul, who urges Christians to offer their bodies as living sacrifices (Rom. 12:1), is himself a model of volunteerism and self-sacrifice (Acts 20:34–35; 21:13; 1 Cor. 9:19–23; 2 Cor. 4:5; 11:23–27).
Governmental agencies established to distribute money, vouchers, medical coverage, and other necessities to those who are in need and who qualify for such distributions according to government-established rubrics. Welfare programs as we know them in our own modern societies are modern creations of secular states and are not aspects of the biblical or ancient Near Eastern world. The Bible, however, significantly addresses the complex subject of poverty and Israel’s responsibility to the poor.
The OT emphasizes Israel’s responsibility for the poor, especially fellow Israelites, but also foreigners sojourning in Israel (Exod. 22:25; Lev. 25:25, 35; Ruth 2:10). Because of the blessings bestowed on them by God, Israelites were commanded to be personally generous to those in need (Lev. 25:36–38; Deut. 15:7–13). They were to underharvest their fields, vineyards, and groves so that the poor might glean from them (Lev. 19:9–10; Deut. 24:19–22; Ruth 2:2–3, 7–11). Those who aided the poor were promised blessing (Prov. 19:17; 22:9; 28:27).
The powerful were not to oppress the poor by lending to them usuriously (Lev. 25:36–38) or enslaving them indefinitely (Lev. 25:39–42; Deut. 15:12; 24:14–15). Oppression was a grave offense because God had led Israel out from oppression in Egypt (Exod. 22:21; 22:9; Ps. 72:4, 12–14; Prov. 22:16; Jer. 22:17–19; Ezek. 18:5–9; 22:29–31; Amos 4:1–3).
Particularly in Proverbs, Israel is also cautioned against behaviors that lead to poverty, including sloth (6:6), slacking (10:4), neglecting discipline (13:18; 20:13), loving sleep (20:13), loving pleasure (21:17), heavy drinking and gluttony (23:21), and empty pursuits (28:19).
The NT builds and expands on the OT’s admonitions about treatment of the poor. Giving to the poor remains an imperative (Acts 2:45; Rom. 12:13; James 2:15; 1 John 3:17), but it is to be done without fanfare (Matt. 6:2–3; Mark 12:38–40). Generosity ought to be from the heart and regardless of means (Luke 21:2–4; 2 Cor. 8:1–5), yet not under compulsion (2 Cor. 8:8–9; 9:7). Christians are called to assume responsibility for themselves (2 Cor. 11:9; Eph. 4:28; 2 Thess. 3:7–11) and their families (1 Tim. 5:8, 16).
Worship of God is a critical dimension of both Testaments. One might argue that it is the very goal for which Israel and the church were formed.
Terminology
Our understanding of worship is informed by the terms, practices, exhortations, and warnings of Scripture. The worship vocabulary in both Testaments provides insight into the personal dispositions and posture associated with worship focused on the person of God. The first set of biblical terms concerns the posture of the worshiper. The Hebrew terminology communicates the idea of bowing down and falling prostrate before the sovereign and worthy God (Ps. 95:6; 1 Chron. 29:20). NT words bear a similar idea of humble acknowledgment of God’s authority with a reverent prostrate position (Matt. 28:9; Rev. 5:14).
The second set of worship terms concerns service. In the OT, the worship of God includes the idea of serving with a view to bringing honor to him (Exod. 3:12; Mal. 3:14, 18). In the NT, worship bears the nuance of serving in the sense of carrying out religious duties (Heb. 12:28). This set of terminology has a priestly connotation to it. The OT priests and the NT believers (1 Pet. 2:5) serve God with their individual lives and their routines of life as acceptable offerings.
The final set of terms describes the attitude or disposition of worship. This word group includes terms such as “fear,” “awe,” and “dread,” which initially seem out of place in the context of worship. However, the terminology serves to inculcate an attitude of genuine respect. Yahweh is the awesome God, who is to be feared (Exod. 3:6; 15:11). Israel is to love and trust who God is and what God says in promise or in warning. The fear that one is to have for God involves a respect for him, a reverence for his divine worth (Col. 3:22; Rev. 11:18).
God as the Object of Worship
The worship terminology sets the focus of worship. The living God is the sole object of worship. He delights in the satisfying joy that his children find in him. The nature of worship is not about servant entertainment or passive observation; it is an active acknowledgment of God’s worth in a variety of humble ways.
A genuine selfless focus on the person and work of God brings about a humble response that affects one’s posture, generates works of service, and stirs up a healthy attitude of fear and respect. Knowledge of God is the foundational element in worship. God is worshiped for who he is and what he does. He is the Eternal One (Ps. 90:1; 1 Tim. 1:17), unique in every way (Isa. 44:8); he is God alone (Deut. 6:4). He is distinguished by his self-existence, the self-reliant quality of his life (Exod. 3:14; Deut. 32:30). The psalmist calls God’s people to shout joyfully to their good, loving, eternal, and faithful Creator (Ps. 100).
God is worshiped as the Creator of all life. This magnificent creative work of God, declared in the opening of Genesis, is a critical focus in worship (Ps. 95:6; Rom. 1:25; Rev. 4:11). Along with this is the companion declaration that God is the redeemer. The redemptive work of God is celebrated in the Song of Moses (Exod. 15:1–18) and in the Song of the Redeemed (Rev. 14:3).
Worship is also associated with the royal aspects of God’s character. It was the desire of the magi to find Jesus the king and worship him (Matt. 2:1–2). The final scenes of history will be characterized by humble submission to and worship of the King of kings (1 Tim. 6:15; Rev. 17:14; 19:16; cf. Rev. 15:3–4). The psalms often draw the reader’s attention to God’s royal character as a basis for worship (Pss. 45:11; 98:6).
Finally, God is worshiped as the Lord of his covenant relationship with the nation of Israel. This covenant theme and metaphor summarize the varied aspects of God’s character and his relationship with Israel. The God who brought Israel into a covenant relationship is to be sincerely and exclusively worshiped (2 Kings 17:35, 38; cf. Deut. 31:20). These confessional statements about the character of God are a glorious weight that moves believers to prostrate themselves, to have an attitude of awe and respect, and to obediently serve.
The Form of Worship
Although the form of worship looks different in each Testament, the essential elements of worship are constant. In the OT, the priests primarily led the worship of God. In addition, the duties of the king (Deut. 17:18–20) and of the prophet (18:14–22) had worship implications and responsibilities. Ideally, these three administrators were to work together to ensure a healthy quality of covenant life for the nation. Worship in both Testaments has both corporate and individual aspects.
OT worship was organized around sacred places such as designated locations (Gen. 3:8; 12:7), the tabernacle (Exod. 29:42), and the temple (1 Kings 8; cf. Rev. 21–22). In addition, there were sacred times in the calendar of Israel for celebration of the appointed feasts (Lev. 23). The three main feasts in Israel’s calendar are Unleavened Bread, Weeks, and Tabernacles (Deut. 16:16; cf. Exod. 34:23). The sacred actions of worship for the nation involved burnt offerings, meal or tribute offerings, peace offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings (Lev. 1–5).
The regulation and routine of OT worship never were intended to be merely dutiful. The routine of worship was to manifest a love for God and for the covenant community (Deut. 6:1–5; Mal. 2:10). The prophets often challenged Israel to have a heart for God and at times called upon them to consider the emptiness of their worship routine (Isa. 1:11). The heart of worship was nurtured in psalms of praise and lament and in the call to remember God (Pss. 42; 77:11).
The form of NT worship is not distinguished with the same externals as in the OT. However, similar core beliefs underlie the form and practice of NT worship. The distinguishing feature in this new era is the final and sufficient work of Christ (Heb. 9–10). As with previous revelation, worship is not anthropocentric; it is joyfully Christocentric, based on the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1–5). Christ and his work replace the OT temple. Jesus is the greater temple that has come (Matt. 12:6). Sacrifice is no longer limited to any particular geographic location, but instead involves the offering of oneself (Rom. 12:1–2) along with the presentation of spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God (1 Pet. 2:4–5). NT worship is regulated by the Spirit and truth (John 4:20–24). This type of worship is distinguished by the word of God, the Spirit, preaching, prayer, Spirit-filled service, and mutual edification. NT worship also includes the regular celebration of the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Acts 2:42–47) within the context of the local church.
- Christian business owner prays over Trump, sees hurricane as catalyst for community healing
- Reformation Sunday: 2M Koreans unite to protest law, prevent nation from going down liberal path
- Pastor Jack Hibbs poses question to Evangelicals for Harris after ‘wrong rally’ rebuke
- Christians will ‘go to court’ on Judgment Day over what they did, John Piper says
- Majority of practicing Christians admit to viewing porn, many comfortable with habit: study
- Russell Brand: People in Hollywood are 'terrified of being exposed' for their sins
- Therapists urge churches to offer more than celibacy for people with unwanted same-sex attraction
- White House hails record decline in drug overdose deaths
- UMC's highest court to determine how churches can leave denomination
- Christian convert in Somalia suffers 3rd brutal attack by Muslim relatives for praying to Jesus
- Christians will ‘go to court’ on Judgment Day over what they did, John Piper says
- Watch 'The Real Housewives of New York City' season 15 episode 4 for free
- Chabad Jews celebrate at 5,000-square-foot sukkah in New York
- Man exposed himself, committed lewd act in front of passengers on flight to Boston, feds say
- Michigan Pastor Charged With Pedo Crimes Is MAGA, Of Course
- Are Jews safe in America?
- Obama roasts Trump's bible: ‘He’s Mr. Tough Guy on China except when it comes to making a few bucks’
- ‘It’s About The Kingdom Of God!’ Trump Evangelical Rally Speaker Boasts ‘We Are Bigger Than Black Hispanic And Union Vote’
- What Campaign Signs Taught Me About Being a Good Neighbor
- An atheist for 35 years, she reencountered God at the tomb of St. John Paul II
- An Almost Christian Nation
- China and Vatican Agree to Extend Agreement on Appointing Bishops
- Harris Puts Religion Back in Spotlight in Closing Election Weeks
- Students Speak Out After Harris Told Them They were at 'Wrong Rally'
- Ukraine's Independent Orthodox Christians May Tear Country Apart
- The American Evangelicals 'Deconstructing' Their Religion To Save It
- I Left My Religion. Should I Still Raise My Kid With It?
- What Science Says About Power of Religion and Prayer to Heal
- How the Synodality Synod Comes to a Close
- Thousands of Paper Cuts, Then a Nuclear Bomb