speeches-acts

The Speeches of Acts, Part 17: Acts 14:8-18

By | Exegetical/Study Series | No Comments

The speech of Paul recorded in Acts 14:8-18 is so brief that one might decide not to treat it among the Speeches in the book of Acts; however, it warrants inclusion as the first (apostolic) address to Gentiles specifically, and because it prepares the groundwork for the much longer speech by Paul in Athens (Acts 17:16-34).

The outline of the speech is extremely simple (here it is actually an outline of the narrative itself):

  • Narrative Introduction (vv. 8-14)
  • Introductory Address (v. 15)
  • Central Proclamation (vv. 16-17)
  • Narrative Conclusion (v. 18)

Narrative Introduction (vv. 8-14)

A healing miracle is recorded, similar to that in Acts 3:1-10, only here the event is noteworthy as the first reported in the context of the mission to the Gentiles. It takes place at Lystra, in the southern portion of the district of Lycaonia, during the first Missionary Journey of Paul (and Barnabas) in Acts 13-14. One may divide this narrative section into three parts:

  • The healing miracle (vv. 8-10)
  • The reaction of the crowd (vv. 11-13)
  • The response of Paul and Barnabas (v. 14)

The crowd reaction is particularly striking and memorable, as the Lycaonians shout out: “The gods becoming like men have stepped down toward us!”—the miraculous power apparently being understood as the work of gods in human form (v. 11). Barnabas is identified with Zeus (Rom. Jupiter) and Paul with Hermes (Rom. Mercury) (v. 12); for a story involving appearances of Zeus and Hermes (also set in Asia Minor), see Ovid Metamorphoses 8:617-725. So extreme is the reaction that the priest of Zeus brings gifts and sacrificial offerings to present along with the crowd (v. 13). Paul and Barnabas respond with horror, tearing their clothing, and rush into the crowd hoping to put an immediate stop to things (v. 14). This sets the stage for Paul’s address to the crowd in verses 15-17.

Introductory Address (v. 15)

This begins with a vocative (“Men!…”, cf. 13:14, 26, 38, etc) followed by a question: “(For) what [i.e. why] are you doing these things?” Paul’s address then is two-fold, stressing his (and Barnabas’) proper identity:

  • “We also are like-passioned [o(moiopaqei=$] men (along) with you…”—The declaration of the crowd was that Paul and Barnabas must be the gods (Zeus and Hermes) “become like men” [o(moiwqe/nte$ a)nqrw/poi$]; Paul’s response is a forceful play on words, that he and Barnabas are simply “like-passioned men” [o(moiopaqei=$ a&nqrwpoi], that is, they are fully ordinary human beings (affected by various things) like everyone else.
  • “…to bring the good message [eu)aggeli/zomenoi] for you…”—the same verb eu)aggeli/zw is used in 13:32 where Paul likewise emphasizes his (and Barnabas’) role and purpose in proclaiming the good message (Gospel).

The clause in verse 15b clarifies the “Good Message”, specifically as it relates to Gentiles, those unfamiliar with the Old Testament Scriptures and Israelite/Jewish religion:

“…to turn away from these empty (thing)s (and) upon [i.e. toward] (the) living God who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all the (thing)s in them”

This exhortation away from (pagan) polytheism, involving various forms of image/idol-worship, will be expanded considerably by Paul in the Athens speech (17:22-29). Here Paul refers to the Lycaonian (Greco-Roman) religious worship (and superstition) as “empty/vain [ma/taio$] things”, using standard Old Testament terminology (cf. 1 Kings 16:13; 2 Kings 17:15; Isa 31:2; Jer 2:5; 8:19; Zech 10:2, etc). The empty/vain things (idols, etc) are contrasted with “the living God”—cf. Deut 5:26; Josh 3:10; 2 Kings 19:4, 16; Psalm 42:2; 84:2; Isa 37:4, 17; Hos 2:1, etc.; in the New Testament, see Matt 16:16; 26:63; 2 Cor 3:3; 6:16; Heb 3:12; 9:14, etc. In preaching to polytheistic Gentiles, God is emphasized as Creator of (“[the one] who made”) all the things (natural phenomena, etc) typically venerated as representing divine powers—heaven, earth, sun, moon, stars, sea, etc.

Central Proclamation (vv. 16-17)

Syntactically, these verses form a single sentence with verse 15; note the structure:

  • “…(the) living God”
    • who [o^$] made the heaven and earth and sea and all that is in them (v. 15b)
    • who [o^$] in the (times) come to be (but now) passed along [i.e. in times past], let [i.e. permitted] all the nations to travel in their (own) ways (v. 16)

The main proclamation occurs with the compound clause in verse 17:

  • “and yet he did not leave him(self) without witness,
    working good(ness)—”

    • giving rain to us (from) heaven and fruit-bearing seasons
    • filling (us full) of nourishment and our hearts (with) a good (state of) mind [i.e. joy/gladness]

Taken together, vv. 15b-17 serves as a well-constructed theological statement, from the standpoint of what we would call “general (or natural) revelation”, which could be understood by almost anyone, more or less apart from the specific (special) revelation in the Scriptures. For the basic message of verse 16, stated somewhat differently, see Acts 17:30. On creation as a witness to God—his character and existence—see the famous passage in Romans 1:19-20ff; on the goodness of God (as Creator) in terms of rain and harvest, the fruitfulness of the earth, etc., cf. Lev 26:4ff; Deut 11:14; 28:12; Job 5:10; Psalm 147:8-9; Ezek 34:26ff; Zech 8:12; and especially, in a similar context, Matthew 5:45. The final clause in verse 17 appears to be an echo of Psalm 104:14-15, 27.

Narrative Conclusion (v. 18)

The reaction to Paul’s address suggests that the people did not entirely understand what he was telling them—

“and relating these things, (only with) difficulty did they settle down the throng so as not to slaughter [i.e. offer sacrifice] to them”

that is, Paul and Barnabas could hardly stop them from offering sacrifices. Clearly it was easier for missionaries to address Gentiles with a Jewish context (that is, proselytes or ‘Godfearers’, such as Cornelius [cf. Acts 10-11]). Relating to the wider pagan/heathen world, without benefit of a common understanding based on the Scriptures and familiarity with Israelite/Jewish religious tradition, would prove to be more difficult work (note also the lack of initial success in Athens). Yet even in the early missionary work of Paul and Barnabas in Asia Minor there were numerous Gentile converts, as indicated in verses 21-23 and 27-28. These last references coincide with their return trip to Antioch and set the stage for the “Jerusalem Council” in chapter 15.

speeches-acts

The Speeches of Acts, Part 16: Acts 13:13-52 (continued)

By | Exegetical/Study Series | No Comments

For the first part of this article, including a detailed discussed of verses 13-37, see Part 15. I continue here with the third (and final) main section of the speech:

Concluding Exhortation (vv. 38-41)

This section, like the two main sections prior, begins with a similar vocative address, but with some variation, as a solemn declaration (cf. 4:10, also 1:19): “Therefore (let it) be known to you—Men, Brothers…” The exhortation has two parts: (a) an announcement of forgiveness, and (b) a warning (citing Scripture).

(a) Announcement of Forgiveness (vv. 38-39)—This is an important element of the exhortation section of prior speeches (2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43) and follows as part of the basic Gospel proclamation (cf. Lk 24:47). The core declaration here is:

“…that through this one [i.e. Jesus] release [i.e. forgiveness] of sins is given down (as a) message [i.e. announced] to you”

Verses 38b-39 appear to be distinctly Pauline addition (see below), relating forgiveness to the idea of justification (making/declaring one to be just/righteous):

“…[and] from all things [pa/ntwn] of which you were not able to be made/declared just in/by the Law of Moses,
in/by this one [i.e. Jesus] every [pa=$] one trusting is made/declared just.”

The demonstrative pronoun “this (one)” (ou!to$, acc. tou=ton) is used frequently referring to Jesus (2:23, 32, 36; 4:10-11; 5:31; 9:20; 10:36, 40, 42-43; cf. also 3:16; 4:17; 5:28; 7:35-38 [Moses/Jesus parallel], and similar usage in 6:13-14).

(b) Warning from Scripture (vv. 40-41)—”See (to it), therefore, (that) it not come upon you, the (thing) spoken in/by the Foretellers [i.e. Prophets]…” The Scripture citation which follows is from Habakkuk 1:5, and is one of the most extreme examples in the New Testament of an Old Testament passage taken out of its original context. Originally, verses 5-11 were an announcement of judgment (to Judah and the surrounding nations), that of the impending invasion by the Babylonians (Chaldeans). The important point carried over by Paul is that the (historical) Babylonian conquest was the work of God (Hab 1:5-6)—”I (am about to) work a work in your days…”—and foreshadows the coming eschatological Judgment. On this theme and emphasis elsewhere in Acts, see 2:19-20, 40; 3:23; 10:42; 17:31; 24:25. There is perhaps a tendency for modern Christians to ignore or minimize the importance of the idea of God’s impending (and imminent) Judgment in the New Testament, but it is a key and vital component of early Christian preaching and teaching, going back to the authentic words of Jesus himself (regarding the Kingdom of God and the Son of Man, etc).

Narrative Conclusion (vv. 42-43ff)

Verses 42-43 represent the immediate narrative conclusion to the speech, with two main details:

  • Paul and Barnabas were asked to speak more on the subject on the next Sabbath (v. 42)
  • After the meeting, many Jews and (Gentile) proselytes/Godfearers followed Paul and Barnabas to hear more (v. 43); it is further stated that Paul and Barnabas persuaded them “to remain toward the favor/grace of God” (cf. 11:23; 14:22).

Thus we see emphasized: (a) the initial success of the Gospel preaching, and (b) Jews and Gentiles both respond to the Gospel. This leads to a second, supplemental narrative section (vv. 44-52), which further sets the stage (and pattern) for the subsequent mission work of Paul (and Barnabas) as narrated in Acts; note the following themes:

  • The Sabbath/Synagogue preaching and teaching (v. 44; 14:1; 16:13; 17:1, 10, 17; 18:4, 7-8; 19:8)
  • The initial success among Jews (and Gentiles) (vv. 44-45, 48; 14:1; 16:14-15; 17:4, etc)
  • Jewish jealousy and (organized) opposition, resulting in a hostile crowd (vv. 45, 50; 14:2, 4-5, 19; 17:5-9, 13; 18:12ff, etc)
  • A shift in missionary focus toward Gentiles (vv. 46-48; 14:1, 27; 15:3; chap. 16ff)

Central to verses 44-52 is the quotation from Isaiah 49:6 in verse 47, corresponding the the LXX version (slightly abridged):

“I have set you unto a light of the nations [i.e. as a light for the nations],
(for) you to be unto salvation [i.e. to bring salvation] until the end(s) of the earth”

Interestingly, Paul cites this verse as a charge laid by God on he and Barnabas (!), another striking example of the way that Paul (along with many other early Christians) creatively applied and interpreted the text of the Old Testament. This is one of the so-called Servant Songs in Isaiah, passages which eventually came to be treated as ‘Messianic’ references related and applied to Jesus (cf. Acts 8:28-35); for another allusion to Isa 49:6 in Luke-Acts, see the canticle of Simeon (Lk 2:29-32). With regard to Paul’s identification with the appointed figure in Isaiah, it may be better to view this in terms of Paul and Barnabas as appointed to preach the word of God and proclaim the good message (Gospel) of Jesus (see verse 32). In other words, the emphasis is on the Gospel, centered on the person and work of Jesus, that they preach, rather than on Paul and Barnabas themselves; at any rate, this would be the more natural (orthodox) understanding of verse 47. Verse 48 follows with a clear statement of the Gentile response to the Gospel message:

“And hearing (this), the nations were happy [i.e. rejoiced] and they honored/esteemed the word of the Lord and trusted, as (many) as were set [i.e. appointed] unto (the) life of the age(s) [i.e. eternal life]”

Concluding Observations

In conclusion, for the moment, I must return to the question (see at the beginning of Part 15) regarding the composition of the Speeches in the book of Acts—namely, the critical view (that they are primarily Lukan compositions) versus the traditional-conservative view (that they substantially reflect the authentic words of the speakers). Analysis of Paul’s speech, compared with other speeches earlier in Acts, provides certain pieces of evidences related to each viewpoint. Generally in favor of the critical approach is the close resemblance especially—in terms of style, structure, and content—between Paul’s speech and the Pentecost speech of Peter (Acts 2:14-36, on which cf. Parts 2 & 3 of this series). Consider the points of similarity:

  • The three-part structure—both use a vocative address (“Men, Judeans/Israelites/Brothers…”) to begin each section (2:14, 22, 29; 13:16, 26, 38)
  • In each, the second section is devoted to the kerygma and citation(s) from Scripture (Psalms) (2:22-28; 13:26-37)
  • In each, there is citation of a primary ‘Messianic’ passage applied to Jesus (Ps 110:1; 2:7, respectively)—specifically to his resurrection/exaltation (2:34f; 13:33ff)
  • Both cite Psalm 16:10, interpreted and applied to Jesus’ death and resurrection, in much the same way (2:25-31; 13:35-37)

It seems unlikely that this is merely an historical coincidence; it may be that the similarities reflect a basic style and format of early preaching, but some degree of intentional literary adaptation and patterning of material (by the author) seems to have taken place as well. Furthermore, there is a clear literary purpose to the similarities: Acts 2:14-36 and 13:16-41 represent the (first) major sermon-speeches by Peter and Paul, respectively—the two principal figures in the book; it is natural that they should be closely related.

On the other hand, as I have pointed out previously in this series, the speeches of Acts seem to preserve many authentic details from the early kerygma (Gospel proclamation), including a number of phrases and formulae not typically found in subsequent Christian writing (in the New Testament and elsewhere). A comparison between the speeches of Peter and Paul in Acts 2 & 13 show that: (a) in Peter’s speech the kerygma is presented piecemeal (2:22-25, 32-33, 36), in rougher and less ‘standard’ phrasing; while (b) in Paul’s speech there is a more developed, continuous, polished presentation (13:26-32f). The difference and development could be considered as historical (Paul’s speech is some years later than Peter’s), or literary (the author purposely gives a fuller treatment in Paul’s speech), or both. A possible argument in favor of the authenticity of Paul’s speech is the presence of several apparent ‘Pauline’ ideas and arguments, recognizable to those familiar with his letters (especially the undisputed epistles, e.g. Galatians, Romans); note the following details:

  • The Jewish lack of recognition of the Scriptural testimony regarding Jesus (v. 27; cf. 2 Cor 6:14)
  • Paul’s self-understanding as an Apostle (implied) (v. 32, 47; cf. Rom 1:1, 5; 11:13; 1 Cor 1:1; 9:1-2; 2 Cor 1:1; 12:12; Gal 1:1, 17, etc)
  • Jesus and the Gospel as the promise (to the Fathers) (v. 32) is a prominent theme in several epistles (Rom 1:2; 4:13-21; 9:8; 15:8; Gal 3-4; Eph 3:6, etc), though hardly unique to Paul
  • Salvation and forgiveness (lit. “release”) involve freedom from the Law (v. 38-39; cf. throughout Galatians and Romans 3-4, 7:1-8:7, 10:4-5; also Phil 3:9, etc)
  • Specifically the idea and terminology of justification (“made/declared just”) (v. 38-39, and frequently esp. throughout Galatians and Romans)
speeches-acts

The Speeches of Acts, Part 15: Acts 13:13-52

By | Exegetical/Study Series | No Comments

Acts 13:13-52 represents one of the longest speeches in the book of Acts, and the first delivered by Paul—it is the centerpiece of Paul’s “First Missionary Journey” (Acts 13-14). It is also the last of the major sermon-speeches in the first half of the book, and serves as a veritable compendium of all that has gone before.

One should perhaps mention again here the critical theory that the speeches in the book of Acts are essentially the product of the author (trad. Luke), rather than reflecting the actual words of the putative speakers. There is some evidence in confirmation of this basic viewpoint here in Acts 13:13-52, as we shall see, but also certain details which appear to reflect authentic Pauline thought. The ‘Pauline’ elements will be discussed in their place below.

In this first Missionary Journey, Paul and Barnabas set out from Antioch (13:1-3), traveling to Cyprus (vv. 4-12), then sailing up to the southern/central coast of Anatolia (‘Asia Minor’), journeying first to Perga in the district of Pamphylia (v. 13), then north through Pisidia until they reached Antioch in Phrygia (v. 14). This Antioch was on the border facing Pisidia, and so is referred to as “Pisidian Antioch” (sometimes, inaccurately, as “Antioch in Pisidia”). From there, Paul and Barnabas traveled east through Lycaonia (13:51-14:23), before journeying back, apparently along the same route from whence they came (14:24-26ff). The speech of Paul in Acts 13:13-52 is set during the missionary work in Pisidian Antioch. It may be outlined as follows:

  • Narrative Introduction (vv. 13-15)
  • Introductory Address (vv. 16-25), with two main sections:
    (a) Historical Summary (vv. 17-22) and
    (b) Kerygmatic Summary (vv. 23-25)
  • Central Section (vv. 26-37)—a developed form of the Scripture citation and exposition (with kerygma) from the earlier sermon-speech pattern, divided into three sections:
    (a) Kerygmatic Introduction (vv. 26-32)
    (b) Scripture Citation (v. 33)
    (c) Exposition (vv. 34-37), with two other Scripture citations
  • Concluding Exhortation (vv. 38-41), also with a Scripture quotation
  • Narrative Conclusion (vv. 42-43), which leads into a second narrative section (vv. 44-52) with a central Scripture citation

Special attention should be given to the way that the three-fold structure of the speech proper (vv. 16-41) parallels almost precisely that of Peter’s Pentecost speech (Acts 2:14-36), each section beginning with a vocative address (“Men…”). I present them side by side for comparison:

Acts 2:14-36

  • vv. 14-21: “Men, Judeans…” ( &Andre$  )Ioudai=oi…)
  • vv. 22-28: “Men, Israelites…” ( &Andre$  )Israhli=tai…)
  • vv. 29-36: “Men, brothers…” ( &Andre$ a)delfoi/…)

Acts 13:16-41

  • vv. 16-25: “Men, Israelites ( &Andre$  )Israhli=tai) and the ones fearing God…”
  • vv. 26-37: “Men, brothers ( &Andre$ a)delfoi/), sons of Abraham and the ones fearing God among you…”
  • vv. 38-41: “Men, brothers (a&ndre$ a)delfoi/)…”

It is hard to believe that this is simply an historical coincidence. Critical scholars would perhaps regard it as evidence for Lukan composition of both speeches; at the very least, some form of intentional adaptation or patterning by the author seems likely. It may also reflect a basic sermon format or technique in common use, by the apostles and/or in Luke’s time. In discussing Peter’s Pentecost speech, I argued that there is a definite progression in the three addresses—from geographical (Judeans) to ethnic/religious (Israelites) to an even closer familial tie (Brothers). I would argue for a similar kind of progression in Paul’s speech, especially in the qualifying phrases he uses:

  • “Men, Israelites and the ones fearing God (oi( fobou/menoi to\n qeo/n)”—this connects the (Gentile) ‘Godfearers’ (such as Cornelius, cf. chapters 10-11) with the people of Israel.
  • “Men, brothers, sons of the lineage of Abraham (ui(oi\ ge/nou$  )Abraa\m) and the ones fearing God among you (oi( e)n u(mi=n fobou/menoi to\n qeo/n)”—this draws an even closer connection between Israelites and (Gentile) Godfearers, and labels them both as “brothers”.
  • “Men, brothers”—here the address is to brothers, inclusive, without any qualification.

Though Paul is primarily addressing Jews (in the Synagogue), the inclusion of “Godfearers” is surely significant (and intentional), presumably by Paul himself (as the speaker), but certainly by the author of Acts. In this first mission, Paul and Barnabas begin to “turn to the Gentiles” (vv. 46-47ff), and the narrative of the mission (chs. 13-14) is positioned between the Cornelius episode (chs. 10-11) and the Jerusalem ‘Council’ of chap. 15—both of which deal specifically with the question of the acceptance and inclusion of Gentile converts. This thematic emphasis will be strengthened by an examination of the speech in detail.

Narrative Introduction (vv. 13-15)

Verses 13-14a briefly narrate the arrival of Paul and Barnabas in Pisidian Antioch; verses 14b-15 establish the Synagogue setting of the speech. In his missionary work, Paul customarily began by speaking to Jews (and proselytes) in the local synagogue (Acts 9:20; 14:1; 17:1, 10, 17; 18:4, 7-8; 19:8; cf. also Apollos in 18:26), a practical approach, if nothing else—in the synagogue one might find, among those gathered together, a number of persons who would be interested in the Gospel, familiar with the Old Testament Scriptures and Israelite/Jewish history. Here in Antioch, Paul and Barnabas are invited to take part in the service of worship, to offer a possible “word of comfort/exhortation [lo/go$ paraklh/sew$]” for the people. Paul’s sermon-speech is presented as a response to this invitation.

Introductory Address (vv. 16-25)

“Men, Israelites and the ones fearing God…”—this is the first of the three vocative formulas which begin the three major sections of the speech (cf. above). This particular section is perhaps to be considered as the first clear presentation of “Salvation History” in the New Testament; certainly, as an authentic speech by Paul (at least in substance), it would have to be regarded as such. It can be divided into two parts:

(a) Historical Summary (vv. 17-22)—This brief summary of Old Testament (Israelite/Jewish) history naturally brings to mind the earlier speech of Stephen (Acts 7:1-53); though Stephen’s historical presentation is much lengthier, it similarly covers the period from Abraham and Joseph (“the Fathers”, 13:17) down through the reign of David (13:22). More significant is the different purpose and tone of the historical summary in Stephen’s speech, a defense speech (given before the Sanhedrin), with a severe rhetorical and polemical thrust, especially in the latter sections (7:35-53). Paul’s speech, on the other hand, is intended to convince interested Jews of the truth of the Gospel, and the historical summary is preparatory for his proclamation of Gospel history (kerygma). The historical summary concludes in v. 22b, with a composite citation of Psalm 89:20 and 1 Sam 13:14 (cf. also Isa 44:28): “I have found David the (son) of Jesse, a man according to my heart, who will do all my wishes”. If the comparison in Stephen’s speech was between Jesus and Moses, here it is between Jesus and David.

(b) Gospel Summary (vv. 23-25)—This short summary is really just the first part of the kerygma (Gospel proclamation) in the speech, the second part begins the central section (vv. 26-32). Verse 23 joins (and completes) the prior statement regarding David: “from the seed of this one [i.e. David] God has led forth to Yisrael a Savior, Yeshua” (cf. Acts 2:30). Verses 24-25 transition to the baptizing by John, which had become a key touchpoint for beginning the Gospel narrative (cf. 1:5, 22; 10:37; 11:16; 19:4, and in the Gospel tradition). V. 25 is an interesting blend of traditions (sayings) otherwise attested separately in the Synoptics and John (cf. Jn 1:20-21; Mk 1:7 par).

Central Section (vv. 26-37)

The sermon-speech pattern I have recognized (and been using) in these studies on the Speeches of Acts typically contains: (a) kerygmatic elements, (b) a central citation from Scripture, and (c) and exposition/application of the Scripture, in something of that order. The same components are present here as well, but more clearly and precisely brought together within a single section. This second section begins with a similar vocative address as the first: “Men, brothers, sons of the lineage of Abraham and the ones fearing God among you—to you this word/account [lo/go$] of salvation has been sent forth [lit. set out from {God}]” (v. 26). On expressions comparable to “word/account of salvation”, cf. Acts 5:20; 6:2, 7, etc; 4:12; 16:17; 28:28.

(a) Kerygmatic Introduction (vv. 26-32)—For those who have followed these studies on the Speeches of Acts, or are otherwise familiar with the speeches themselves, the phrases and details in these verses will be recognizable from the prior speeches, including that of Peter in Acts 10:34-48 (cf. vv. 37-42 and the discussion in part 14). I will isolate these kerygmatic elements, citing similar occurrences, and with occasional comments:

V. 27—for the role of the rulers (a&rxonte$) of Jerusalem in the death of Jesus, cf. 3:17; 4:26-27 (and vv. 5-11); 5:30; 7:52; on the motif of ignorance and unknowing, cf. 3:17 (and note Jn 16:3; Lk 23:34); for the Prophets’ witness to Jesus, cf. 3:18, 21-25; 8:34; 10:43; for a similar emphasis as in this verse, see also 2 Cor 3:14ff.
V. 28—on Jesus’ innocence (i.e. no crime requiring an interrogation or trial), and Pilate’s role in his death, cf. 3:13ff; 4:27, also 7:52; 8:32ff, and the Gospel tradition; on the use of the verb a)naire/w for putting Jesus to death, cf. 2:23; 10:39.
V. 29—on the death of Jesus specifically as the fulfillment of what is written in the Scriptures, cf. Lk 24:25-27, 33, 44-48; Acts 1:16, also 3:18, 21-25; 8:34; 10:43; on the mention of Jesus’ death by hanging on a tree, cf. 5:30; 10:39; here is the first reference to Jesus’ burial in Acts (cf. the Gospel tradition).
V. 30—Jesus’ resurrection is stated briefly, cf. 2:24, 32; 3:15; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40.
V. 31—on the resurrection appearances of Jesus, cf. 1:3-4; 10:40-41; on the apostles/disciples as witnesses, cf. 1:8, 22; 2:32, 40; 5:32; 10:39, 41; Lk 24:48; on the geographical detail (Galilee–Jerusalem), cf. 1:8, 11-12; 10:37; Lk 24:47.
V. 32—the pronoun “we” (h(mei=$) connects Paul and Barnabas with the other apostles/disciples (cf. 14:14; chap. 15) as ones called to proclaim the good message; on the ‘promise’ (e)paggeli/a) made to the Fathers, cf. 3:25; 26:6, note also 1:4; 2:33, 39; 7:17; 13:23.

(b) Scripture Citation (v. 33)—Verse 33 concludes the kerygma by emphasizing (a) the resurrection of Jesus (v. 30) as the fulfillment of the promise made to Israel (the Fathers) in v. 32, and (b) the Jews (and Godfearers) of Paul’s day as the offspring (heirs/children) of the Fathers. For the idea of believers as ‘children of the promise’, cf. 3:25-26, and e.g. in Galatians 3-4. This leads into the central citation from Scripture in v. 33b, a precise quotation of the LXX of Psalm 2:7b—

ui(o/$ mou ei@ su/, e)gw\ sh/meron gege/nnhka/ se
“You are my Son, today I have caused you to be (born)”

which is also an accurate rendering of the Hebrew. This verse holds much the same position as Psalm 110:1 in Peter’s Pentecost speech (Acts 2:34-35). Ps 2:7 and 110:1 come from royal Psalms, with the setting of the coronation/inauguration/enthronement of the (new) king, and both were understood by Christians early on as related to Jesus. Ps 2:7 is cited in Hebrews 1:5 and by the heavenly voice at Jesus’ baptism in the ‘Western’ text of Lk 3:22. Hebrews 5:5-6 quotes Ps 2:7 and 110:1 together.

(c) Exposition of Scripture (vv. 34-37)—In subsequent Christology, Ps 2:7 and 110:1 were generally understood in terms of Jesus’ divine nature and status as the (pre-existent) Son of God (this also appears to be the sense of Heb 1:5). In Acts, however, these verses relate the Sonship/Lordship of Jesus specifically with (and as a result of) his resurrection and exaltation to the right hand of God. Here in Paul’s speech, Ps 2:7 is clearly interpreted in the context of the resurrection, emphasized right before and after the citation in vv. 33a, 34a. For more on early Christological thought compared with (Nicene) orthodoxy, see part 3 of this series, along with several supplemental notes and the article on Adoptionism. The citation of Ps 2:7 is followed and expounded with quotations from two further passages of Scripture, as follows:

  • An allusion to Ps 16:10 in verse 34a—”(God) made him stand up out the dead, no more about to turn under into (complete) ruin/decay [diafqora]”
    • Reference to Isa 55:3 in v. 34b (see below)
  • Citation of Ps 16:10 in v. 35—”you will not give your holy/righteous [o%sio$] One to see (complete) ruin/decay [diafqora]”

The association between Isa 55:3 and Ps 16:10 is based on the substantive adjective o%sio$ (Hebrew dysj); here is the relevant portion of Isa 55:3, in the three versions (MT/LXX/Acts) side by side:

Isa 55:3 MT

<yn]m*a$n# dw]d* yd@s=j^ <l*ou tyr!B= <k#l* ht*r=k=a#w+
“…and I will cut for/with you a lasting agreement,
the (well) supported loving/loyal things of David”

Isa 55:3 LXX

kai\ diaqh/somai u(mi=n diaqh/khn ai)w/nion ta\ o%sia Dauid ta\ pista/
“…and I will arrange for/with you an arrangement of-the-ages,
the holy (and) trustworthy things of David”

Acts 13:34b

dw/sw u(mi=n ta\ o%sia Daui\d ta\ pista/
“…and I will give you the holy (and) trustworthy things of David”

The Greek verb diati/qhmi has the fundamental meaning of setting (or arranging) things through, i.e. in order, or for a specific end purpose. The noun, of course, is related, i.e. an “arrangement”—in basic English, the Greek expression could be fairly rendered “I have arranged with you an arrangement…” (as above). The noun diaqh/kh often had the more technical sense of a “disposition (of goods/property)”, “testament”, or the like, and was also regularly used to translate the Hebrew tyrb (“agreement, covenant”). It is this latter sense (from the Old Testament) that diaqh/kh is typically carries in the New Testament. Paul’s quotation does not mention the agreement/covenant, but only the final phrase, “the holy (and) trustworthy things of David”, which is synonymous with the covenant (promises). The Hebrew adjective dysj has a wide and diverse semantic range, but perhaps could be summarized as “good, kind/loving, loyal”. The corresponding Greek adjective o%sio$ more properly relates to the religious sphere—that which is proper, good and right (“pure, whole, holy, sacred”, etc); in the LXX and New Testament it is largely synonymous with di/kaio$ (“just, right[eous]”).

Verses 36 and 37 apply Psalm 16:10 to the death and resurrection of Jesus in a manner very similar to that in Peter’s Pentecost speech—cf. Acts 2:29-32 and the notes in Parts 2 & 3 of this series.

(The remainder of the discussion is continued in Part 16)

speeches-acts

The Speeches of Acts, Part 14: Acts 10:34-43 and 11:1-18 (continued)

By | Exegetical/Study Series | No Comments

The narrative setting and background (10:1-33) were discussed in part 13 of this series; here the two speeches themselves will be treated. For the first speech of Peter (10:34-43) the outline is as follows:

  • Narrative introduction (vv. 30-33)—the entirety of the narrative in Acts 10:1-33 (esp. vv. 23b-33) really should be considered here (see above), but I isolate verses 30-33 as the proper introduction to the speech itself.
  • Introductory Address (vv. 34-35)
  • [Citation from Scripture] (vv. 36-42)—instead of a Scripture citation (and exposition), we have a central kerygma (Gospel proclamation), the most complete and developed thus far in Acts.
  • Concluding Exhortation (v. 43)
  • Narrative Conclusion (vv. 44-48)

Narrative Introduction (vv. 30-33)—All of chapter 10 up to this point serves as an introduction to the speech, in particular the section narrating Peter’s visit to Cornelius (vv. 23b-33). Here I focus on verses 30-33, in which Cornelius recounts his visionary experience of vv. 1-8. Verse 33b sets the stage for the speech:

“Now therefore we are all along (here) in the sight of God to hear all the (thing)s set in order toward you under the Lord [i.e. appointed/arranged for you by the Lord]”

Introductory Address (vv. 34-35)—this consists of two theological statements:

  1. “God is not a ‘receiver of the face’ [proswpolh/pth$]” (v. 34)
  2. “In every nation, the one fearing Him and working justice/righteousness is accepted by Him” (v. 35)

The word proswpolh/pth$ (“receiver of the face”, “one who takes/receives the face”) is taken from the Old Testament (LXX)—lamba/nein pro/swpon—and based on the Hebrew/Semitic idiom <ynp acn (“lift/raise faces”), cf. Deut 10:17; 2 Chron 19:7, etc. In the ancient Near Eastern world, a greeting of respect or honor (esp. to a superior) involved prostrating oneself and/or lowering one’s face toward the ground. Lifting or raising the face is a sign that the person so greeted recognizes and accepts the one greeting. However, in a judicial context especially, the expression could have the sense of favoring one person over another, showing partiality or preference, superficial flattery, and the like. From a social-ethical standpoint, judges were expected to render verdicts and decisions without regard to a person’s status or the extent to which one sought to influence the judgment (by offering a bribe or other incentive). The noun proswpolh/yia (“receiving the face”, i.e. showing favoritism/partiality) came to be part of Hellenistic Jewish vocabulary, and is used in the New Testament (Rom 2:11; Eph 6:9; Col 3:25; James 2:1). When applied to God, it means that he is a completely fair and just judge, who does not act with regard to a person’s status, outward appearance, and so forth. The expression ‘Godfearer’ (“one fearing God”, o( fobou/meno$ to\n qeo/n) has already been used of Cornelius in verses 2 and 22 (on which see part 13), as has the description di/kaio$ (“just/righteous” [in the traditional sense], v. 22). The idea here is that Gentiles like Cornelius who are (or would be) sympathetic to the Israelite/Jewish religion, devoted to prayer, charitable giving and other acts of mercy, are accepted (dekto/$) by God, just like Jews who faithfully uphold the Covenant and observe the Torah. Verses 34-35 do not entirely equate Jews and Gentiles before God, but they do lay the groundwork for that doctrine.

Citation of Kerygma (vv. 36-42)—In place of the citation from Scripture (in the sermon-speech pattern), here we have a central kerygma (Gospel proclamation). In earlier speeches, there were kerygmatic elements and statements in and around a central Scripture citation; here the kerygma is greatly expanded and developed, bringing together the various strands found in the prior sermon-speeches. We can almost see the formation of the core Gospel narrative taking shape before our eyes. The kerygma is introduced in verse 36 (note the emphatic chain-structure):

  • The word/account [lo/go$]
    • which He sent
      • to the sons/children of Israel
        • announcing [lit. bringing the good message of] peace
          • through Jesus the Anointed (One)
            • this One is Lord of all

The accusative object “the word/account” (to\n lo/gon), which effectively serves as subject of the clause in v. 36, picks up again in verse 37, but with an odd shift in vocabulary: “you know the word/utterance [r(h=ma] (which) came to be down (through) the whole of Judea…”. This may be a sign that a kergymatic (credal) formula has been incorporated (somewhat awkwardly) into the speech (note also the use of the ‘frozen’ participle a)rca/meno$ which follows); Acts 1:1b-5 may draw upon a similar formula. I will now note briefly the key kerygmatic elements and phrases in each verse, with details found in prior speeches indicated; new/additional details are italicized.

V. 37—”beginning from [a)rca/meno$ a)po\]… the dipping/dunking [i.e. baptism]…” (1:22); the baptism by John is specifically mentioned in 1:5 (cf. also 13:24-25). For the idea of “beginning from Galilee”, see 13:31.
V. 38—”God anointed him” (4:27; cf. 2:36; 3:18); on his being anointed by/with the Holy Spirit (and power), cf. Lk 3:22; 4:1, 14; 5:17. For the association of the (Holy) Spirit and power, cf. also 1:8; 8:19; Lk 1:35; 4:14. The idea in Acts 2:22—Jesus’ doing works of power, signs and wonders—is here specified as doing good works, healing those down under the power of the devil (depicting numerous times in the Synoptic tradition). We have also the additional detail that God was with him.
V. 39—The apostles (and other early believers) are witnesses to all that happened (1:8, 22; 2:32; 3:5; 5:32; 13:31; Lk 24:48) in Jerusalem and Judea (1:8; Lk 24:47), especially to the death (2:36; 3:15; 4:10) and resurrection (in v. 40) of Jesus. The verb a)naire/w is also used of Jesus’ death in 2:23; 13:28; his death as “hanging upon a tree” occurs in 5:30.
V. 40—The demonstrative pronoun “this (one)” (ou!to$, acc. tou=ton) is used frequently referring to Jesus (2:23, 32, 36; 4:10-11; 5:31; 9:20; 10:36; cf. also 3:16; 4:17; 5:28; 7:35-38 [Moses/Jesus parallel], and similar usage in 6:13-14). Of course God’s raising of Jesus is central to the kerygma (2:24, 32; 3:15; 4:10; 5:30, etc), with the formula on the third day (or “after three days”) familiar from Synoptic tradition. The post-resurrection appearances (v. 41) are described here in unusual terminology: (God) gave him [i.e. made him] to come to be in (a manner of) shining forth [i.e. to appear clearly].
V. 41—The apostles are witnesses of the resurrection appearances (1:3, 22; 2:32; 13:31 etc); the emphasis on eating and drinking with Jesus after the resurrection is attested in Gospel tradition, and may be suggested in Acts 1:4a. Here the apostles are uniquely described as those chosen [lit. by raising the hand] before(hand) under [i.e. by] God; on witness to the resurrection appearances as a requisite qualification for apostleship, cf. 1:21-22.
V. 42—The disciples are commanded by Jesus to proclaim what they have witnessed (Lk 24:47-48); and they are to witness thoroughly/throughout (Acts 2:40; 8:25). Verse 42 concludes with a final kerygmatic statement, again using the demonstrative pronoun “this one” (ou!to$); Jesus is described as:
“the (one) marked out [i.e. appointed, w(risme/no$] under [i.e. by] God” (2:23; 17:31, cf. also Rom 1:4)
“(to be) judge of (the) living and dead” (cf. 17:31)

Concluding Exhortation (v. 43)—In many ways, this verse continues the central kerygma; note the following:

“to this one” (tou=tw|)—on this use of the demonstrative pronoun for Jesus, cf. vv. 40, 42 above.
“the Foretellers [i.e. Prophets] give witness”—cf. Lk 24:25-27, 44; Acts 3:18, 21-25; 8:34; 13:27, etc.
“to receive release [i.e. forgiveness] of sins”—Lk 24:27; Acts 2:38; 5:31; 13:38.
“through his name”—Acts 4:30, and cf. 2:21, 38; 3:6, 16; 4:10, 12; 8:12, 16, etc.
“(for) every (one) trusting in him”—cf. Acts 2:44; 3:16; 4:4, 32; 5:14; 8:12-13; 9:42, etc.

The adjective pa=$ (acc. pa/nta), “all/every (one)” in context here means both Jews and Gentiles—cf. the use of pa=$ in Peter’s vision (v. 12, 14).

Narrative Conclusion (vv. 44-48)—The inclusion of Gentiles is thus emphasized in the first and last verses (vv. 34-35, 43) which bracket the speech. This theological (missionary) theme is played out dramatically in the narrative, as the Holy Spirit suddenly (“as Peter was yet speaking these words…”) falls upon all (e)pi\ pa/nta$) the ones hearing the word (v. 44). Clearly, this re-enacts the Pentecost manifestation of the Spirit (Acts 2:1-4ff), a fact which amazes the Jewish Christians who are with Peter (referred to as “the ones of circumcision [who also] trusted [in Jesus]”), v. 45-46. The central underlying conflict (see verse 28) is addressed forcefully by Peter, with a question that effectively serves as a command: “(Surely) no one is powered [i.e. able] to cut off water for these (people) not to be dipped/dunked [i.e. baptized], (these) who have received the holy Spirit as we also (have)(—are they?)” It is important to note that the “baptism by the Spirit” takes prior to any baptism with water, which expressly emphasizes the miraculous, divinely-ordained sign that the Gentiles are to be included and accepted as believers in Christ.

The Second Speech of Peter (11:1-18)

This section is unusual in that it largely repeats (in summary fashion) the narrative of chapter 10. The only other such example we find in Acts is the conversion of Paul (Saul) in Acts 9:1-19ff, which Paul re-states and describes (in considerable detail) on two other occasions in his (defense) speeches (Acts 22:4-16ff; 26:9-18). This demonstrates the central importance of the Cornelius episode for the author of Acts (and/or his underlying sources). Before briefly treating the second speech of Peter in ch. 11, it is worth re-iterating the theological and apologetic character of the narrative, which dramatically illustrates a key controversy in the early Church—that is, the acceptance and admission of Gentile believers (cf. Haenchen, p. 360):

  • Thematic strand #1—(Jewish) Christians resisting admission of the Gentiles (10:14, 28, 47; 11:2, 8, 17)
  • Thematic strand #2—Admission of Gentiles confirmed as God’s work (10:3, 11-16, 22, 30; 11:5-10, 13)

When confronted with the miraculous and divine nature of the mission to the Gentiles, Jewish believers are forced to recognize its validity (cf. the conclusion at 11:17-18, echoing 10:47).

The second speech of Peter has a different character and purpose from the first—it is not a sermon-speech, but an (apologetic) address to fellow believers. The outline is relatively simple:

  • Narrative Introduction (vv. 1-3)
  • Citation from (recent) History (vv. 4-17)
  • Narrative Conclusion (v. 18)

Narrative Introduction (vv. 1-3)—This sets the basic conflict:

  • Other Christians (“the apostles and brothers down [through] Judea”) hear that the Gentiles (“the nations”) also have “received the word of God” (v. 1).
  • When Peter arrives in Jerusalem, certain believers are said to have “judged thoroughly [diekri/nonto] toward him”, that is, they marked/separated Peter out and disputed/contended with him about the matter (v. 2). These believers are described as “the ones of/from circumcision” (cf. 10:45), which has a two-fold significance here: (a) it means, of course, that they are Jewish Christians, but also (b) it is a foreshadowing of those Jewish Christians who would require that Gentile converts be circumcised and observe the Torah (cf. 15:1, 5).
  • They are critical of Peter, saying “you went in toward men having a foreskin [i.e. uncircumcised men] and you ate with them” (v. 3). On the essential conflict involved, see 10:28 and the significance of Peter’s vision in 10:9-16 (related to the Jewish dietary regulations).

Narration of Recent Events (vv. 4-17)—Here Peter narrates the recent events of the episode with Cornelius (chapter 10); in the speech-pattern it effectively takes the place of the Gospel kerygma and citation(s) from Scripture. It also serves much the same role as the narratio in classical (deliberative) rhetoric (cf. Galatians 1:11-2:14). This recapitulation can be divided into three sections:

The Vision (vv. 5-10; cf. 10:9-16)—there is very little difference from the account in Acts 10, but note the way that the three appearances of the vision and the arrival of three messengers in vv. 10-11 are related even more directly (cp. 10:16-18).
The Message (vv. 11-14; cf. 10:17-22)—this corresponds with the visit of the men from Cornelius to Peter and the message which they bring from Cornelius.
Verse 12 is especially notable (cf. 10:20): “and the Spirit said to me to go with them, not judging one thing thoroughly”. There is a bit of wordplay involving the verb diakri/nw (also used in 11:2; 15:9)—it is an intensive compound form of kri/nw, usually rendered “judge”, but with the fundamental sense of separate. In English it corresponds with the idea of making a distinction, i.e., distinguishing, discerning, judging. It can have the secondary meanings of “giving (considerable) thought” to something, even “to question (or doubt)”; also the idea of distinguishing or separating one person from another may carry the nuance of “oppose, contend (with), dispute”. In the simple narrative context of 10:20 and 11:12, the Spirit may be telling Peter not to hesitate or doubt, but the real underlying message (via the wordplay) is not to make any distinction between people; similarly, in 11:2, the Jewish Christians are judging Peter and contending with him, but again the underlying emphasis is on judging/distinguishing between people (i.e., Jews and Gentiles, cf. 15:9).
In verse 12, then, there are two themes embedded: (a) the role of the Spirit in the mission to the Gentiles, and (b) the divine command not to make any distinction between Jew and Gentile.
The Manifestation of the Spirit (vv. 15-17; cf. 10:44-47)—this is narrated in abbreviated form, with one additional detail, the kerygmatic mention of John’s baptism in verse 16 (see 1:5, also 1:22; 13:24); thus we have both aspects of baptism re-iterated: by water and the Spirit.
The possible objection to accepting Gentile believers (10:47) is also presented here, by way of conclusion to the speech, in verse 17, with one particular difference: to cut off [kwlu=sai, i.e. prevent/hinder] water (for baptism) from the Gentiles is the same as (attempting) to cut off [kwlu=sai, prevent/hinder] God!

Narrative Conclusion (v. 18)—Upon hearing these things, those who questioned or contended with Peter were silent (see the same reaction to Peter’s speech in 15:12)—indicating that the dispute came to and end, the conflict being resolved through hearing the word/account of God—and they honored/esteemed (i.e. gave glory to) God in response. This, of course, parallels and foreshadows the events of the “Jerusalem Council” in chapter 15, as does the ultimate declaration, with tacit or basic acceptance of the Gentile converts, in verse 18b:

“Then also God has given to the nations change-of-mind [i.e. repentance] unto/into life!” (cf. 2:38; 5:31)

speeches-acts

The Speeches of Acts, Part 13: Acts 10:34-43 and 11:1-18

By | Exegetical/Study Series | No Comments

In this part of the series on the Speeches of Acts, I will be looking at the two speeches given by Peter in chapters 10 & 11. As speeches, they are quite different from each other, but they are both essential to the overall narrative in these chapters—the episode of Cornelius, which begins the early Christian mission to the Gentiles. In order to understand the context of this episode within the overall structure of Acts, I offer the following outline of the first half of the book:

  • Introduction—the Disciples with Jesus (Acts 1:1-11)
  • The Believers in Jerusalem (Acts 1:12-8:3)
    Acts 1:12-26: The reconstitution of the Twelve, with a speech by Peter
    Acts 2:1-47: The Pentecost narrative (the coming of the Spirit), with a speech by Peter
    Acts 3:1-4:31: The healing miracle and the Apostles before the Sanhedrin, with two speeches by Peter and a prayer
    Acts 4:32-5:11: Conflict among the Believers—Ananias/Sapphira
    Acts 5:12-42: Miracle(s) and the Apostles before the Sanhedrin, with two speeches (by Peter and Gamaliel)
    Acts 6:1-7: Conflict among the Believers—the appointment of the Seven (incl. Stephen and Philip)
    Acts 6:8-8:3: The Stephen narrative, with a major speech, concluding with onset of persecution
  • The Early Mission outside of Jerusalem (Acts 8:4-12:25)
    Acts 8:4-40: Two episodes involving Philip (in Samaria and on the road to Gaza), along with an episode of the Apostles in Samaria (Peter and Simon Magus)
    Acts 9:1-31: The Conversion and early Ministry of Saul Paulus (Paul) (around Damascus)
    Acts 9:32-43: Two episodes (healing miracles) involving Peter (in Lydda/Sharon and Joppa)
    Acts 10:1-11:18: Peter and Cornelius (in Caesarea): first outreach to Gentiles, with two speeches by Peter
    Acts 11:19-30: Introduction to the Church in Antioch
    Acts 12:1-25: The arrest (and miraculous release) of Peter, followed by the death of Herod Agrippa
  • Paul’s (First) Mission to the Gentiles (Acts 13:1-15:35)

These two speeches by Peter emphasize the importance and centrality of the Cornelius episode, marking the beginning of the mission to the Gentiles, and the first clear Gentile converts to Christianity. It is noteworthy that this episode appears prominently in the so-called Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 (cf. vv. 7-9, 14ff), serving to legitimize the mission of Paul and Barnabas. The main speech of Peter in chapter 10 concludes an extensive narrative, which I divide as follows:

  • The vision of Cornelius, 10:1-8
    The vision of Peter, 10:9-16
  • The visit (of Cornelius) to Peter, 10:17-23a
    The visit of Peter to Cornelius, 10:23b-33

These are two interconnected pairs, each scene serving to draw Peter and Cornelius (Jew and Gentile) closer together. Before proceeding to the speech itself, I will briefly discuss each of the narrative scenes.

Scene 1: The vision of Cornelius (10:1-8)

The personal character of Cornelius (vv. 1-2)—A Roman military commander stationed in Caesarea, Cornelius is described (in verse 2) as:

  • eu)sebh/$ (euseb¢¡s)—This word is a bit difficult to translate literally, but fundamentally it would be rendered something like “(having/showing) good/proper respect”, especially in religious matters (i.e. “pious, devout”); though originally the root verb se/bomai would have more concretely indicated “fall back (in fear/awe)”. It is generally synonymous with qeosebh/$ (theoseb¢¡s, shorthand for sebome/no$ to\n qeo\n, “showing fear/respect for God”). For the eu)seb- wordgroup elsewhere, see Acts 3:12; 10:7; 17:23; it is especially common in the later (Pastoral) writings, 1 Tim 2:2; 3;16; 4:7-8; 5:4; 6:5-6, 11; 2 Tim 3:5, 12; Tit 1:1; 2:12; 2 Pet 1:3, 6-7; 3:11; for qeoseb- see John 9:31; 1  Tim 2:10. On the similar use of se/bomai, cf. Acts 13:43, 50; 16:14; 17:4, 17; 18:7, 13; 19:27.
  • fobou/meno$ to\n qeo\n (“[one who] is in fear of God”, i.e. ‘God-fearer’)—This concrete expression is parallel to eu)sebh/$/qeosebh/$ (and the similar sebome/no$ to\n qeo\n); it also appears in Acts 13:16, 26, and generally seems to derive from the LXX (cf. Psalm 115:11 [113:19]; 118:4; 135:20). On the idea of “fearing God” in the New Testament, see Rom 3:18; 2 Cor 5:11; 7:1; Heb 11:7; 1 Pet 2:17; Rev 14:7; 19:5, etc.
  • “one doing (act)s of mercy [e)lehmosu/na$] for the people”—in such a context, the Greek word is typically understood as charitable gifts or contributions (“alms”); here “the people” specifically means the Jewish people.
  • “making request of God through all (things)”—The verb de/omai means to ask or request from someone (out of need); in a religious context, of course, it means requesting from God, but can have the more general sense of “prayer” as well as the specific sense of “petition”.
    —”prayer and almsgiving” came to be a typical expression of religious piety in Jewish tradition (cf. Tobit 12:8-9, 12, 15; Sirach 35:6; 38:11; 45:16, etc).

The vision of Cornelius (vv. 3-6)—He receives his vision at the Jewish hour for prayer (Acts 3:1); the angel specifically mentions his prayer and “gifts of mercy” (alms) which have gone up (like a sacrificial offering) as a memorial before God. For a similar angelic visitation and message, see Luke 1:13ff (and note Acts 9:10-12).

Cornelius’ response to the vision (vv. 7-8)—Cornelius’ obedience and care in responding is narrated simply (cf. Acts 9:17; 10:21; 11:12).

Scene 2: The vision of Peter (10:9-16)

Peter’s vision is something of a different character than that of Cornelius—it is a symbolic, revelatory vision, one which also takes place during a time of prayer (v. 9). It is also specifically related to food (note Peter’s hunger and the time setting for the noon-day meal), touching upon the dietary regulations in the Old Testament / Jewish Law (Lev 11:1-47; Deut 14:3-20). The revelatory character is indicated by:

  • Heaven being “opened” [a)new|gme/non] (cf. Acts 7:56; Lk 3:21)—v. 11
  • The vessel “stepping down” [katabai=non] (i.e., descending) out of heaven (cf. Mark 1:10 par; Jn 1:32-33, 51, and frequently in John)—v. 11
  • The vessel was “taken up” [a)nelh/mfqh] into heaven (cf. Acts 1:2, 11)—v. 16

Elsewhere in the Gospels, this sort of language and imagery is associated with the incarnation and theophanous manifestation of Jesus. The vision occurs three times (an echo of Peter’s three-fold denial? cf. Jn 21:15-17), each time accompanied by a (divine) voice. There is a two-fold aspect to the symbolism of the vision, marked by the adjective pa=$ (“all”):

  • “All [pa/nta] kinds of animals” (v. 12)—this indicates a removal of the clean/unclean distinction in the dietary laws; note Peter’s objection (“I have never eaten anything [pa=n] common or unclean”).
  • “All parts of the earth”—as symbolized by the vessel as a “great sheet” with four corners set down upon the earth (v. 11); this indicates the universality of the Christian mission (to the Gentiles), cf. Lk 24:47; Acts 1:8; 2:5ff; 9:15.

Note in particular the structure of Peter’s objection (following the dietary laws) and the divine response (vv. 14-15):

  • Not anything common [koino/$]
    • Not anything unclean [a)ka/qarto$]
    • God has cleansed [kaqari/zw]
  • Do not call/consider common [koino/w]

Some commentators have tried to suggest that the vision does not abolish the dietary laws, but is simply meant as an example that the Gentiles should be accepted into the Church. This is most unlikely; while the symbolism regarding acceptance of the Gentiles is certainly correct (see vv. 28b, 35, 45 and 11:1ff), the argument related to the dietary laws themselves seems abundantly clear and specific. I will deal with this question in more detail as part of my series on “The Law and the New Testament” (in the article “The Law in Luke-Acts“).

Scene 3: The visit (of Cornelius) to Peter (10:17-23a)

This visit, of course, is made by Cornelius’ representatives—two servants and a soldier (v. 7)—rather than Cornelius himself. It is interesting how the drama of the scene is heightened by verse 17a, reflecting Peter’s uncertainty regarding the vision (“as Peter was thoroughly without answer in himself [as to] what [the meaning of] the vision might be…”); this may well reflect the joining of a separate tradition (Peter’s vision) into the fabric of the narrative, but it is most effective—note how this motif repeats in verse 19 (“and [at] Peter’s being thoroughly aroused in [thought] about the vision…”). There are perhaps several other subtle echoes of the vision in this scene:

  • Another revelation, here by the Spirit—”See, three men are seeking you” (v. 19)
  • Three men, just as the vision appeared three times
  • Peter “steps down” (i.e. goes down) to meet them (vv. 20-21), just as the vision “steps down” out of heaven—in both instances the verb katabai/nw is used

There is an additional parallel to Scene 1 with the description of Cornelius in verse 22, which now also characterizes him as “just/righteous” (di/kaio$).

Scene 4: The visit of Peter to Cornelius (10:23b-33)

The narrative builds as Peter’s arrival and his reception is described in solemn fashion (vv. 24-27); the “Western” text of Acts shows many differences in these verses. Peter states the central issue (and the basic conflict) clearly in verse 28:

  • It is contrary to law/custom [i.e. unlawful, a)qe/mito$]
    • for a Jewish man
  • to join [kolla=sqai] or come toward [prose/rxesqai]
    • (one) of another fulh/ [i.e. tribe/clan/race, etc]

Peter interprets or applies his vision in terms of people—no person should be treated as common or unclean. In verses 30-33, Cornelius reprises his own vision, setting the stage for the speech of Peter to follow.

The Speech of Peter (10:34-48)

Verses 34-48 could be broken into two scenes (5 and 6): the speech of vv. 34-43 and the effect/result of the speech (the manifestation of the Spirit) in vv. 44-48; however, I will deal with both under a single heading. Here is an outline of the speech, which loosely follows the basic sermon-speech pattern I have recognized and used earlier throughout this series:

  • Narrative introduction (vv. 30-33)—the entirety of the narrative in Acts 10:1-33 (esp. vv. 23b-33) really should be considered here (see above), but I isolate verses 30-33 as the proper introduction to the speech itself.
  • Introductory Address (vv. 34-35)
  • [Citation from Scripture] (vv. 36-42)—instead of a Scripture citation (and exposition), we have a central kerygma (Gospel proclamation), the most complete and developed thus far in Acts.
  • Concluding Exhortation (v. 43)
  • Narrative Conclusion (vv. 44-48)

The two speeches of 10:34-38 and 11:1-18 will be examined in detail in the next part of this article.

 

The Law in Luke-Acts, Part 1: The Temple and Torah Observance

By | Exegetical/Study Series | No Comments

The question of the Old Testament Law (Torah) in the Gospel of Luke has already been addressed in the series “Jesus and the Law”; in this article I will be looking at the overall treatment of the subject by the author of Luke-Acts (traditionally Luke, the physician and companion of Paul). The article will be divided into two parts:

  1. The Temple and Torah observance
  2. The early Mission to the Gentiles, with special emphasis on the “Jerusalem Council” in Acts 15

The Temple and Torah Observance

This part will be further divided into two main sections:

  • The Temple setting and theme in Luke-Acts
  • Torah observance by the Apostles and other disciples in Acts

The Temple setting and theme in Luke-Acts

This can be examined according to three aspects—narrative, theological, and apologetic—which are interconnected and impossible to separate out entirely; these will be discussed at the appropriate points below. To begin, with one may isolate several main narrative sections in Luke-Acts where the Temple setting and theme is central:

  • The Infancy Narratives (Lk 1-2)
  • The Passion Narrative (Lk 19:28 through chapter 23)
  • The Sanhedrin “trial” scenes in Acts 3-7
  • The Arrest of Paul (Acts 21-22)

The Infancy Narratives (Lk 1-2)

The Temple in Jerusalem provides the setting for three episodes in the Lukan Infancy narratives:

The Angelic annunciation to Zechariah (Lk 1:5-23)—The conception/birth of John the Baptist is announced by the heavenly Messenger Gabriel to John’s father Zechariah, during his priestly duty in the Temple sanctuary (vv. 8-10, 21ff). Gabriel appears to Zechariah standing on the right side of the altar (of incense).

The “Presentation” of Jesus at the Temple (Lk 2:22-38)—Two different rituals are combined in the narrative (vv. 22-24)—the sacrifice for purification after childbirth, and the ‘redemption’ of the firstborn male child—the latter being described in terms of Jesus being presented/dedicated to God in the Temple. This setting also serves as the dramatic stage for the encounters with Simeon (vv. 25-35) and Anna (vv. 36-38).

The Boy Jesus in the Temple (Lk 2:41-51)—This famous and dramatic narrative is set in the Temple, following the observance of Passover in Jerusalem (v. 41). The twelve-year old Jesus remains behind—when his parents find him again, he is in the Temple precincts, sitting (as a pupil) with the teachers (of the Law). The exchange between Jesus and his parents in vv. 48-49 is the climax of the episode.

Besides providing a dramatic narrative setting for these episodes, the Temple serves a theological and apologetic purpose for the author (and/or his traditional source[s]). An important point of emphasis is the religious devotion and faithfulness of Zechariah/Elizabeth (1:6) and Joseph/Mary (2:21, 22-24, 27, 39, 41), which includes the prescribed ritual activities (priestly duty, sacrificial offering, observance of Passover) in the Temple. This theme runs through the infancy narrative, culminating in Jesus’ declaration to his parents in verse 49: “…did you not know that it is necessary for me to be in/among the (thing)s of my Father?” Jesus stands in the midst of the Old Testament religious forms and fulfills the righteousness of the Torah and Temple—from an early Christian perspective, he is connected to the older Israelite/Jewish religious world, to venerable figures such as Zechariah/Elizabeth or Simeon/Anna (see esp. Lk 2:25ff, 37-38). This also reflects a positive view of the Temple, which we see throughout Luke (and Acts), moreso than in the other Gospels.

The Passion Narrative

There are three traditional elements in the Passion narrative(s) of the Gospels involving the Temple: (1) the symbolic “cleansing” of the Temple by Jesus, (2) the Temple as a setting for Jesus’ teaching during the days before his death, and (3) the tearing of the Temple veil at Jesus’ death. With regard to the Lukan handling of these details, the following should be noted:

  • The Temple “cleansing” scene is greatly abbreviated (Lk 19:45-46), compared with the account in Mark
  • Luke makes no mention of the “Temple saying” during the ‘trial’ of Jesus (Mk 14:58, Matt 26:60-61, presented as false witness, but cf. Jn 2:19); however, he presumably was aware of the tradition (cf. Acts 6:14), so the omission here is likely intentional
  • Special emphasis is given to Jesus’ presence teaching in the Temple (Lk 19:47; 20:1, 21:5, 37)
  • In Lk 23:45 the Temple veil is torn prior to Jesus’ actual death (cp. Mk 15:38; Matt 27:51)

The Sanhedrin “Trial” scenes in Acts 3-7

The Temple setting and theme is prominent in three different narrative episodes in the early chapters of Acts:

  • Acts 3:1-4:31—a narrative arc including: (a) the healing of a crippled beggar by Peter and John in the Temple precincts (3:1-10), (b) a sermon-speech by Peter (3:11-26), (c) the arrest of Peter and John and their appearance before the Sanhedrin (4:1-22), including a second speech by Peter (vv. 8-12)
  • Acts 5:12-42—a similar narrative arc, involving: (a) additional healing miracles, including mention of the disciples again in the Temple precincts (vv. 12-16), (b) a second arrest of Peter and others, with their miraculous release and instruction (by the Angel) to go and preach in the Temple (vv. 17-21a); (c) search for the disciples, who are found teaching in the Temple (vv. 21b-26); (d) a second appearance before the Sanhedrin (vv. 27-42), with twin speeches by Peter (vv. 29-32) and Gamaliel (vv. 35-39)
  • Acts 6:8-8:1a—a narrative arc involving the arrest (6:8-15) and death (7:54-8:1a) of Stephen, in between which is the speech (set before the Sanhedrin) in 7:1-53; the Temple plays a key role in both the charges against Stephen (6:11-14) and the climactic sections of his speech (7:35-53)

The Arrest of Paul (Acts 21-22)

During Paul’s final visit to Jerusalem, he took part in a purification ritual in the Temple (21:23-26), where he was recognized and seized by the hostile crowd (vv. 27-30) and removed from the Temple precincts, being taken into custody by Roman authorities. This sets the stage for the speech by Paul in 22:1-21.

The Significance of the Temple setting and theme

This can be summarized under two basic thematic headings related to early Christianity and Judaism—continuity and conflict:

1. Early Christianity as a continuation of Israelite/Jewish religion (centered on the Temple)
  • This an important theme in the Infancy narratives (cf. above)—the parents of John the Baptist and Jesus are shown as righteous (in the traditional Jewish sense), faithfully observing the commands and ordinances of the Law, including participation in the prescribed Temple ritual. Jesus and his parents encounter similar examples of Israelite/Jewish piety in the figures of Simeon and Anna who regularly frequent the Temple. It is following the pilgrimage festival of Passover in Jerusalem, that Jesus stays behind in the Temple.
  • The theme of teaching in the Temple precincts, extending from Jesus (Lk 2:46; 19:47; 20:1; 21:37; 22:53) to the apostles (Acts 3:12; 4:2; 5:20-21, 25, 28, 42).
  • After the Resurrection/Ascension of Jesus, the early believers continue to frequent the Temple (Lk 24:53; Acts 2:46; 3:1; 5:42).
  • Paul, the ‘apostle to the Gentiles’ (in Acts 13-20), willingly takes part (along with observant Jewish Christians) in a Temple ritual (Acts 21:23-26).
2. The Temple as a source and symbol of conflict between early Christianity and Judaism
  • The Temple action (“cleansing”) and saying by Jesus, though minimized in the Lukan narrative (cf. above), clearly serve as a point of conflict and controversy in the early Church. The substance of the charge (that Jesus would destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three days) in Mk 14:58 par is retained in the accusation against Stephen (Acts 6:14, below).
  • The Temple setting is central to the twin narratives (in Acts 3-5), where Peter and the apostles are arrested and brought before the Sanhedrin; it serves to heighten the sense of conflict (especially in 5:20-25ff).
  • The accusations and charges against Stephen (Acts 6:11-14) are:
    “we heard him speaking abusive/slanderous words unto [i.e. against] Moses and God” (v. 11)
    “this man does not cease speaking words against [this] holy Place and the Law” (v. 13)
    “we have heard him say that Jesus the Nazarean will loose down [i.e. dissolve/destroy] this place and make different [i.e. change/alter] the customs which Moses gave along to us” (v. 14)
    The last two are said to have been made by “false witnesses”, and are clearly related to the charge made against Jesus at his ‘trial’ (Mk 14:58 par).
  • The speech of Stephen remarkably draws a connection between the Temple and idolatry (the episode of the Golden Calf, etc) in 7:39-43ff, and questions the value and purpose of the Temple itself (especially with the citation of Isa 66:1-2) in vv. 44-50. The improper approach to God (and His “dwelling”) is further wrapped up in the counter-charge that the Jewish leaders (i.e. the Sanhedrin, implied) are the ones who have not kept the Law (v. 53). I have discussed this at length in the series on the Speeches of Acts.
  • Paul’s arrest in Acts 21-22 (above) is similarly related to accusations against him, that he speaks against the Jewish Law and religious customs (21:20-21). While it is hard to say whether such claims have any basis with regard to Stephen, they could more plausibly be made against Paul, according to his argument in Galatians (and parts of Romans). However, the author of Acts, in presenting the episode of chaps. 21-22, takes pains to emphasize that this is not true of Paul. James’ recommendation for Paul to participate in the purification ritual is specifically made so that other Jews (and Jewish Christians) will know that “(the things) sounded down about you are nothing [i.e. are not true], but (rather) you walk in line and (your)self (are) keeping the Law” (v. 24). When Paul is recognized by the crowd, the accusation is stated: “this is the man teaching everyone everywhere against the Law and this Place” (note the similarity to 6:13). All of this takes place in the setting of the Temple precincts.

Torah observance by the Apostles and other Disciples in Acts

The episode in Acts 21 (discussed above) brings out more clearly the fundamental issue of whether, or to what extent, the early Christians faithfully observed the commands and ordinances of the Law (Torah). Though the evidence is relatively slight, the book of Acts suggests that the early believers in Jerusalem (Jewish Christians) were observant. The following passages may be noted:

  • The Apostles and early Christians continued to frequent the Temple (Lk 24:53; Acts 2:46; 3:1; 5:42); though they are not depicted especially participating in the Temple ritual, it is likely that they did so as well (cf. Acts 3:1; 21:23-26).
  • The charge that Stephen speaks against the Law (Acts 6:13) is presented as false testimony; there is no clear evidence that he ever did such, though there does appear to be an anti-Temple theme in his sermon-speech (cf. Acts 7:35-53).
  • Peter’s objection to the command in the vision of Acts 10:9-16 suggests that he faithfully observed the dietary regulations in the Torah; on this, see below.
  • The conflict leading to the “Jerusalem Council” in Acts 15 clearly shows that many, if not most, Jewish Christians were strictly observant, and some wished that Torah observance be required of Gentile converts as well (v. 1, 5); cf. also 11:1-3ff. This will be discussed in more detail in the next part of this series.
  • The circumcision of Timothy (Acts 17:3), in apparent contrast with Gal 2:3-5 (and the argument throughout Galatians, etc).
  • James, the leading figure of the Jerusalem Church, is depicted as a staunch supporter of the Torah, both in Acts 21:17-26 and (to a lesser extent) in 15:12-29. Other Jewish believers in Jerusalem are described as “zealous for the Law” (21:20; cf. also 22:12) and as those who would regularly take part in the required Temple ritual (vv. 23-24). James is concerned to quash any rumors that Paul opposed the Law and Jewish religious custom (vv. 21ff), and so recommends that Paul participate in the ritual.
  • In addition to Paul’s participation in the ritual of Acts 21:23-26, he makes several direct statements in his subsequent defense speeches regarding his support and observance of the Law—cf. Acts 22:3, 17; 24:11-14, 17; 25:8. The question of Paul’s observance of the Torah, as well as the portrait of Paul in Acts compared with the Epistles, will be addressed later in this series.

A treatment of the mission to the Gentiles and the “Jerusalem Council” will come in the second part of this article; here, however, it is necessary to discuss briefly Peter’s vision in Acts 10:9-16 (cf. also 11:5-10).

Peter’s Vision (Acts 10:6-16; 11:5-10)

The vision involved the descent of a vessel filled with all kinds of animals—clean and unclean (cf. the dietary regulations in Lev 11:1-47; Deut 14:3-20). A voice commanded Peter to “stand up… slay (the animals) and eat” (v. 13), the implication being that he should eat the unclean animals as well. To this Peter objects saying, “not so, Lord, (in) that I have not ever eaten any (thing) common and unclean” (v. 14). In response, the (heavenly) voice declares: “(that) which God has cleansed you must not consider common” (v. 15). It is a striking and powerful scene, but how is it to be understood? Is it simply about food (dietary regulations), or is it symbolic—or both?

Some commentators have tried to suggest that the vision does not abolish the dietary laws, but is simply meant as an example that the Gentiles should be accepted into the Church. I find this most unlikely, even though it is the primary interpretation given in 11:18. While the symbolism regarding acceptance of the Gentiles is certainly correct (see vv. 28b, 35, 45 and 11:1ff), the argument related to the dietary laws themselves seems abundantly clear and specific. It may be helpful to distinguish between the meaning of the vision itself (as a possible independent historical tradition) and the role it plays in Acts 10-11. Taken at face value, the vision appears to be about food and the dietary restrictions of the Torah regarding “clean and unclean” animals; if so, then declaration in verse 15 means that God has declared all animals clean and that they may be eaten without restriction. This would effectively abolish the dietary laws in Lev 11, etc.; however, it must be admitted that the specific logical consequences of the vision do not play any role further in Acts, nor in the rest of the New Testament. Apart from the behavior of Peter narrated in Gal 2:12, it is hard to find evidence of any apostolic sanction for Jewish Christians to disregard the dietary regulations. Upon hearing Peter’s account of the vision (and subsequent events), the Jewish believers accept that Gentiles have come to salvation, but make no comment about the implications related to clean and unclean food. This certainly accords with the purpose of Acts—the emphasis is on the inclusion of the Gentiles, not a commentary on the Torah regulations per se.

The force of the vision itself may be appreciated by a closer examination of the actual language and symbolism used; first, there appears to be a two-fold aspect to the symbolism of the vision, marked by the adjective pa=$ (“all”):

  • “All [pa/nta] kinds of animals” (v. 12)—this indicates a removal of the clean/unclean distinction in the dietary laws; note Peter’s objection (“I have never eaten anything [pa=n] common or unclean”).
  • “All parts of the earth”—as symbolized by the vessel as a “great sheet” with four corners set down upon the earth (v. 11); this indicates the universality of the Christian mission (to the Gentiles), cf. Lk 24:47; Acts 1:8; 2:5ff; 9:15.

In addition, note the careful structure of Peter’s objection (following the dietary laws) and the divine response (vv. 14-15):

  • Not anything common [koino/$]
    • Not anything unclean [a)ka/qarto$]
    • God has cleansed [kaqari/zw]
  • Do not call/consider common [koino/w]

It is a clear, symmetric argument, which certainly appears to undo or abolish the dietary regulations in the Torah. If the vision originally (at the historical-traditional level) addressed the food laws specifically, the author of Acts has deftly incorporated it into the Cornelius narrative of chapters 10-11. This is indicated by the presence of several details—for example, the three-fold vision (10:16) coincides with the appearance of three men (vv. 17-19); similarly, just as the visionary scene “steps down” from heaven to meet Peter (v. 11), so Peter “steps down” (vv. 20-21) to meet his visitors (the same verb katabai/nw is used). This complex thematic interweaving is appropriate, for the question of the dietary laws is ultimately interwoven with the early Christian mission to the Gentiles, as is made abundantly clear in the episode at Antioch narrated in Galatians 2. For Jewish-Christian missionaries, to continue observing the dietary restrictions of the Torah meant that Gentiles would effectively be required to do the same if they wished to enjoy proper table fellowship with their fellow (Jewish) believers. Paul saw the serious problem this created, both at the practical and deeper theological levels.

The next part of this article will deal specifically with the mission to the Gentiles and the central episode of the “Jerusalem Council” in Acts 15.

blog-header-3_LawNT

Jesus and the Law, Part 10: Concluding Observations

By | Exegetical/Study Series | No Comments

It is possible to draw some basic conclusions regarding Jesus’ view of the Old Testament Law (Torah), based on the narratives and sayings in the Gospels. I would reiterate the point that this analysis follows the methodological assumption that the sayings in the Gospels are substantially authentic, and that the narrative episodes likewise are derived from authentic tradition. The situation becomes more complex if one factors in critical questions and hypotheses regarding authenticity—I have touched upon some of these in the notes and articles, and may address them in more detail in future studies. Once sayings or episodes are taken out of consideration as being of doubtful authenticity or historicity, the picture will change somewhat; however, I regard such critical methodology as highly questionable. As an example, many critical scholars would doubt the authenticity of the Scripture citations (of Isa 56:7 / Jer 7:11) in the Synoptic account of Jesus’ Temple “cleansing” action, and yet this dual-citation provides the only explanation for Jesus’ action in the Synoptics; if it is ‘removed’, we are forced further into educated guess-work and speculation as to what the historical Jesus intended. While there may be value in such detective work (regarding the “historical Jesus”), it fairly well ignores the context of the Gospels themselves—thoughtful scholars and students should not be too quick to separate the historical and literary strands of the Gospel, for they are closely and carefully intertwined.

Source-criticism is helpful in outlining specific sources within the Gospels which should be taken into account when examining certain aspects of Jesus’ view of the Law:

  • The Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7) shows Jesus affirming the continued validity of the Torah commands (esp. Matt 5:17-20), though giving to them a new dimension and interpretation, pointing to a deeper sense (or level) of religious and ethical commitment. The Woes against the Scribes and Pharisees in Matt 23 appear to have a similar emphasis and viewpoint. Jesus’ followers are required to take the more difficult road, going beyond what is simply written in the Law. Though expanded and developed in Matthew, these portions largely stem from the so-called “Q” tradition—material common to Matthew and Luke (but not found in Mark). For a similar example in the wider Synoptic tradition, see Jesus’ instruction to the “Rich Young Ruler” (Mark 10:17-22 par). On Matt 5:17-20 and the Antitheses of Matt 5:21-47, see Part 3 of this series, along with a series of supplemental notes.
  • On the other hand, there are sayings and episodes unique to the Gospel of Matthew which seem to devalue or minimize the importance of the Law, at least in its ritual/ceremonial aspects. These include:
    (1) The citation of Hosea 6:6 in Matt 9:13; 12:7
    (2) The saying(s) regarding the Temple in Matt 12:5-6
    (3) The episode involving the Temple-tax in Matt 17:24-27 (esp. vv. 25-26)
    There are also certain sayings in the “Q” tradition which seem to relativize or limit the force of the Law, e.g. Matt 11:13/Lk 16:16; Matt 8:21-22/Lk 9:59-60.
  • The Synoptic (triple) tradition records numerous debates/disputes with “Scribes and Pharisees” regarding points of Law and/or Jesus and his disciples’ observance of religious custom, e.g. Mark 2:15-17, 18-20, 23-28; 3:1-6; 7:1-15; 10:1-12; 12:13-17; 12:28-34 etc. and pars. Especially noteworthy are the “Sabbath controversy” episodes (Mark 2:23-28; 3:1-6 par; also Lk 13:10-17; 14:1-6). These “controversy”-narratives serve as the setting for a saying or parable (often enigmatic or provocative) which provides an interpretation or comments on the Law in some way. The thrust of much of Jesus’ teaching in these episodes is to emphasize his personal authority and to stress the social-ethical aspect of religious matters. Jesus’ controversies and debates with religious authorities are narrated somewhat differently in the Gospel of John, but note the Sabbath-controversy framework of Jn 5 which has certain similarities with the Synoptic accounts. See Parts 4 & 5.
  • All four Gospels narrate the Temple action (“cleansing”, Mk 11:15-18 par; Jn 2:13-17) and Temple saying of Jesus (Jn 2:19ff; Mk 14:58 par, not in Lk but cf. Acts 6:14); the authenticity of both seems secure (entirely on objective grounds), but their meaning and significance continue to be debated (see Parts 6 & 7 of this series). At the very least, Jesus appears to: (a) emphasize the temporary nature of the current/earthly Temple, and (b) attack the machinery associated with the Temple ritual (and the way it is used/abused), in a manner similar to that of the Prophets (note the citations of Isa 56:7/Jer 7:11 in the Synoptic accounts). See also my prior series of notes on the Temple action and saying.
  • The Gospel of John provides a unique association of Jesus with the Israelite/Jewish holy (feast) days, in terms of: (a) the narrative framework of chapters 2-12ff centered on various feast days, and (b) the Discourses of Jesus in John. The Discourses combine and adapt Jesus’ sayings and teaching in a way that is very different from the Synoptics, while the narrative framework is used to incorporate the discourse-scenes in a festal setting. The result is that Jesus repeatedly ends up commenting on the various holy days (Sabbath and Feasts [Passover, Booths/Tabernacles, Weeks/Pentecost?, and Dedication/Hanukkah]), identifying himself (i.e. his own person and teaching) with many of their associated religious types and forms. This can be understood in terms of fulfillment and/or replacement (see Part 8 of this series).

I make the following summary notes, by way of response to hypothetical (but understandable) questions:

  • Did Jesus and his followers observe/obey the Torah commands and ordinances? It is likely that Jesus himself was observant, though it must be admitted that this is not indicated especially in the Gospels. According to the Gospel of Luke (Lk 2:21-24, 39, 41-42), Jesus’ parents were devout in religious/ritual matters, and presumably would have sought to raise him the same way (cf. Lk 2:51-52), so it can fairly be inferred that, as an adult, Jesus would have been similarly devout and “righteous” (in the traditional Jewish sense, cf. Matt 3:15; 5:6, 17-20). The Gospels depict Jesus attending the local synagogues on the Sabbath (Mk 1:21 par; Lk 4:16, etc), and the Temple in Jerusalem on the appointed (feast) days (Mark 11 par; Jn 2:13ff; 7-8; 10:22ff; 12:20ff, note also chap. 5). However, it is important to point out that Jesus is not depicted participating in the religious ritual as such (though at the historical level, he presumably would have); rather, he is always shown in the Synagogue and Temple in the role of teaching, and possessing a unique religious authority himself (cf. Mk 1:21-22; 12:35 par, et al; Jn 7:14 etc). It is even less clear from the Gospels that Jesus’ disciples observed the Torah, though there is evidence that the importance of the Torah was part of his teaching (see esp. Matt 5:17-20), and it is likely that they would have been devout in religious matters, though not necessarily according to every custom (cf. Mk 2:18; 7:1-5 par). In Luke-Acts, after the Resurrection/Ascension of Jesus, the disciples continued to frequent the Temple regularly (Lk 24:53; Acts 2:46; 3:1; 5:42), though they are not depicted directly participating in the sacrificial ritual—the emphasis is rather on prayer and gathering together to worship God. Peter’s objection to the visionary command in Acts 10:9-16 (cf. v. 14f) would indicate that he faithfully observed the dietary regulations in the Torah. Indeed, it has been argued that the opposition among Jewish Christians to Paul’s teaching and missionary approach with the Gentiles regarding the Law (cf. Acts 15; Gal 2, etc) only makes sense if the early Jewish believers in Jerusalem had been strictly observant themselves.
  • Did Jesus specifically command his followers to continue to observe the Law? This is a difficult question to answer, since the Gospels do not specifically address it; Jesus’ teaching was entirely within a Jewish context, and it would have been customary for Jews to observe the Torah commands, if only as a matter of religious habit. In other words, for someone who already keeps the Sabbath or the dietary regulations, it would hardly be necessary to command that these be kept. What Jesus does—in the Sermon on the Mount (and elsewhere in his teaching)—is to point his followers to the deeper religious-ethical dimension which underlies the (written) Law. In terms of the ceremonial/ritual aspects of the Law, there is only one instance where Jesus directs a would-be follower to take part in the sacrificial ritual (Mk 1:44 par, cf. also Lk 17:4); in Matt 5:23-24 he appears to accept the validity of sacrificial offerings, or at least recognizes the practice. There is also the episode involving the half-shekel Temple tax (Matt 17:24-27), but in that instance the teaching is somewhat ambiguous. Similarly ambiguous is his teaching regarding the Sabbath (cf. above); interestingly, apart from a passing reference in Jn 7:22-23, he makes no mention of circumcision. With regard to the fundamental social-ethical commands of the Decalogue (Exod 20:12-17), the situation is somewhat different, for Jesus seems to treat these commands as binding (cf. Mark 10:19-20 par; Matt 5:21-30); likewise the underlying regulation related to divorce (Mk 10:1-12 par; Matt 5:31-32). Overall, Jesus’ teaching in Matt 5:17-20 would seem to support observance of the Torah; however, these verses are rife with difficulties of interpretation.
  • Did Jesus ever teach that his followers need not observe the commands/regulations in the Torah? It is hard to find a specific example of this, though there are a number of relevant instances which have been pointed out (cf. above and throughout this series), including: (a) the Sabbath controversy episodes, esp. Matt 12:1-8, (b) the teaching in Mark 2:19-22 and 7:14-23 pars, (c) the exchange in Matt 8:21-22/Lk 9:59-60, (d) the teaching regarding the Temple tax in Matt 17:25-26, and, perhaps, (e) the (apparent) temporal limitation of the Law in Matt 11:13/Lk 16:16.
  • Did Jesus draw a distinction between the “ritual” and “ethical” parts of the Law? The answer appears to be a qualified “yes”, though we must be cautious about making too great of a ‘separation’ in the Law. As mentioned above, it is primarily the social-ethical side of the Decalogue that Jesus emphasizes, both in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere in his teaching. The ritual/ceremonial aspects of the Law also appear to relativized or devalued, in sayings such as Mark 2:27-28; 7:15-23 pars; Matt 9:13; 12:5-7, etc. In the Temple “cleansing” action and Temple saying, Jesus emphasizes the impending destruction of the entire Temple apparatus, along with its associated ritual; in Jn 2:19ff, it is Jesus himself, by his death and resurrection, who effectively ‘replaces’ the Temple. The two-fold “Greatest Commandment” (Mk 12:28-34 par) effectively reduces the Law to the love of God and love of neighbor (cf. Deut 6:4-5; Lev 19:18)—see especially the exchange in Mk 12:32-34 which places these two commands over and above all sacrificial ritual.
  • Did Jesus see himself as superseding or ‘replacing’ the Torah? This is a most sensitive question; for the most part, he does not do this directly, but much of his teaching and example could be said to point in this direction. It is clearest in the Gospel of John, where Jesus is seen to be fulfilling, in his own person, the Temple (Jn 2:19ff) and many aspects of the religious feasts (with their symbolism and sacrificial ritual, cf. above). In the Synoptic Gospels, it also may inferred (cautiously) from many of the passages cited above; in particular, Jesus’ personal authority may be said to supersede the written Law in the sense that: (a) he provides a definitive interpretation of it (which his followers are to observe), and (b) his words, action and example (in healing, associating with ‘sinners’, declaring forgiveness of sin, etc) stems from a divine source which surpasses the written Law itself.

This concludes the series on “Jesus and the Law”; the wider series (“The Law and the New Testament”) will continue according to the following outline:

  • The Law in the book of Acts (drawing also upon the Gospel of Luke)
  • Paul’s view of the Law
    • In Galatians
    • In Romans
    • Key references in the remaining epistles
    • Paul’s view of the Law in Acts compared with the Epistles
  • The Law in the Epistle of James
  • The Law in the Epistle to the Hebrews
  • The Law in the rest of the New Testament (with key references in the Apostolic Fathers)

Due to the length required, several of these articles may be divided into two or more parts.

 

 

blog-header-3_LawNT

Jesus and the Law, Part 9: The Gospel of John (continued)

By | Exegetical/Study Series | No Comments

The outline for this article is:

  1. The Festal Setting of the Discourses and related Narratives
  2. The Word(s) of Jesus and Jesus as the Word
  3. The Farewell Discourses and the “Love Command”

The first heading was discussed in Part 8 of this series; here I will continue with the second and third sections.

2. The Word(s) of Jesus and Jesus as the Word

Since the Law and Torah (as Scripture) is sometimes identified as the “Word of God” it is worth exploring the distinctive manner in which “word” (lo/go$, and/or r(h=ma) is associated with Jesus in the Gospel of John—both the Word(s) of Jesus and Jesus as the Word. I will start with the second of these concepts.

(a) Jesus as the Word

[This section draws especially on the fine summary by R. E. Brown in his classic commentary on John (Anchor Bible vol. 29), Appendix II, pp. 519-24.]

This is found primarily in the Prologue to the Gospel (Jn 1:1-18), where Jesus is identified with the (divine) lo/go$ in verses 1 (3 times) and 14. There is no single satisfactory English translation for lo/go$—”word” being as good as any. From the standpoint of creation (vv. 3, 10), it could also be understood: (i) in the sense of the underlying creative principle giving order to things (already used this way by Heraclitus, 6th-early 5th cent. B.C.), or (ii) as reason, reflecting the (ordered) thought and mind of God (cf. the typical Stoic usage). Philo of Alexandria, representing Hellenistic (and Alexandrian) Judaism at the time of the New Testament, blends the Greek philosophical use of lo/go$ with Old Testament concepts, resulting in the idea of the Logos as a divine intermediary, used by God in creation and serving as a pattern for the human mind/soul. In recent decades, scholars have looked closer at the Jewish background to the Logos-concept in John in at least three respects—(i) the “word of YHWH” as a distinct hypostasis, (ii) the personification of (divine) Wisdom, and (iii) the pre-existence of the Torah.

(i) The “word of YHWH” (hw`hy+Árb^D=) in the Old Testament does not simply reflect a statement or utterance received (by the Prophets, etc), but represents a dynamic (revelatory) manifestation of God to human beings, especially in the formula “the word of YHWH came to {so-and-so}…” (Gen 15:1, 4; 1 Sam 15:10; 2 Sam 7:4; 24:11; 1 Kings 6:11, etc; Hos 1:1; Joel 1:1, et al). According to Genesis 1:1ff, the universe (the heavens and the earth) was created by the word of God (by his speaking), and continues to be sustained/renewed by his word—cf. Psalm 33:6; 147:15ff; Isa 55:11; also Wisd 9:1, etc. Over time, and with an interest in safeguarding the idea of God’s transcendence, the “word of God” came to be used as a kind of substitute (or periphrasis) for God Himself, which would speak and act (toward human beings)—effectively becoming a distinct hypostasis (divine manifestation). In Aramaic, this term for “the word” of God was ar*m=ym@ (m¢mrâ).

(ii) Similarly, the Wisdom of God could be personified or treated as a distinct hypostasis (manifestation); originally, this personification need have been nothing more than a poetic representation in ancient Wisdom Literature, used for dramatic and didactic effect (cf. Prov 1:20-33; 9:1-12, etc). However, the practical usage came to take on added theological dimension, as we see already in the famous passage of Proverbs 8—especially vv. 23-31 which depict Wisdom as existing at the beginning with God and participating in the work of Creation. There is indeed a close parallel between the Wisdom and (personified) Word of God in Jewish tradition—both are involved in the process of creation, being with God in the beginning, reflecting His glory, and coming forth from (the mouth of) God (cf. Sir 1:1; 24:3ff; Wisd 7:22, 25–8:1; 9:1-2). The parallels with the Johannine prologue are strong enough to suggest a Wisdom background, possibly even involving the influence or adaptation of a hymn in praise of (divine) Wisdom. There are a number of passages which refer to Wisdom coming (from heaven) to dwell among human beings, or wishing to (Prov 8:31; Wisd 9:10; Sir 24:8ff), but with some doubt as to whether she will be welcome (Baruch 3:9ff, etc); in the book of Enoch (1 Enoch) chapter 42, we find an especially close parallel to the idea in John 1:10-11, 14—Wisdom wishes to make her dwelling among the children of men, but sadly can find no dwelling-place and must return to heaven.

(iii) In later Rabbinic and mystical tradition, this personification (or hypostasis) of the Word of God was extended specifically to the Torah, conceived of as God’s offspring (or daughter, as with Wisdom) and existing prior to the creation of the universe. This was a natural identification, since Scripture (and particularly the Torah) was regularly understood as the “Word of God”. Already in Wisdom literature, the Law (Torah) is specifically identified with personified (divine) Wisdom (cf. especially Baruch 4:1 and Sirach 24:23ff). There is a long history as well of referring to the the Law (Torah) as light, which serves to illuminate human beings with God’s own (holy and revelatory) light (Jn 1:4-5, 9)—cf. Psalm 119:105; Baruch 4:2; Wisd 18:4; Testament of Levi 14:4.

(b) The Word(s) of Jesus

As a theme and motif, the word (or words) of Jesus plays a key role in the Gospel of John, occurring frequently (more than 40 times). These can be categorized as follows (note that lo/go$ [“word, account”] and r(h=ma [“word, utterance”] appear to be used interchangeably, with little difference in meaning):

  • Jesus’ words identified as God’s words, i.e. that which the Father (the one who sent him) gave him to speak—Jn 3:34; 8:47, 55; 14:10, 24; 17:8, 14; cf. also 5:24, 38; 6:68; 12:49-50.
  • Jesus’ words treated as synonymous/parallel with Scripture—Jn 2:22; 5:47 (also vv. 39-40); 10:34-36; 18:9, 32.
  • Emphasis on keeping Jesus’ words, as one is to keep God’s own Word (i.e. keep the Law/Torah)—8:51-52, 55; 12:47; 14:23-24; 15:20; 17:6.
  • Similar language on hearing Jesus’ word, abiding in his word, etc.—Jn 5:24, 38; 8:31, 37, 43; 12:47-48; 15:7; 17:8; cf. also 10:3-5; 18:47.
  • Jesus’ words have life-giving power and effect, as God’s own Word—Jn 4:50; 6:64, 68; 8:31-32; 15:3, 7; 17:17, 20; cf. also 5:25, 28; 11:43.
  • Keeping Jesus’ words is a guarantee of (eternal) life, much as keeping/observing the Torah preserves the covenant with God (and guarantees future salvation) according to Jewish thought—Jn 5:24; 8:51-52; 12:47-48; cf. also 14:23; 17:6.

So we see evidence in the Gospel of John that: (a) according to the Prologue (1:1-18), Jesus is the incarnation of the eternal and pre-existent Word of God, which encompasses the idea of the Wisdom and Law (Torah) of God, and (b) Jesus’ words are to be treated and regarded as God’s own Word, including everything typically associated with the commands and ordinances of the Torah.

3. The Farewell Discourses and the “Love Command”

When discussing the sayings of Jesus in Matthew 5:17-20 (especially verse 19) in an earlier note, I brought up the important question as to the relationship between the command(ment)s of Jesus and those of the Torah. We find the same issue here in the Gospel of John (and will see it again when addressing 1 John). There are a dozen or so references to: (a) commandments Jesus received from God the Father, and (b) Jesus’ (own) commandments to his followers; conceptually these two are closely related, if not synonymous. The passages are:

(a) Commandments Jesus received from God the Father—Jn 10:18; 12:49-50; 14:31; 15:10

(b) Commandments given by Jesus (to his disciples)—Jn 13:34; 14:15, 21; 15:10, 12, 14, 17

All of these instances involve the noun e)ntolh/ (or the related verb e)nte/llomai), which fundamentally refers to something “laid on (a person) to complete”, and is usually translated “command(ment)” or sometimes “charge, order,” and the like. In a Jewish religious context, of course, e)ntolh/ refers to the commands of the Law (Torah), the corresponding term in Hebrew being primarily hw`x=m! (from the verb hw`x*). Yet, here in the Gospel of John, it is not clear to what extent (if at all) the “commandments” are related to the Torah commands. Let us look briefly at the context of these passages:

(a) Commandments Jesus received from God the Father:
Jn 10:18—here the command (or charge) has to with the power/authority Jesus has to (willingly) lay down his life and then take it up again (his death and resurrection)
Jn 12:49-50—the emphasis is on what the Father (“the One who sent me”) has given Jesus to speak; again this indicates the divine source (and authority) of Jesus’ own words
Jn 14:31—the sense is much the same: that Jesus does just as (and only as) the Father has commanded him
Jn 15:10—here Jesus states that he has kept the Father’s commandments, and abides/remains in His love

(b) Commandments given by Jesus (to his disciples):
Jn 13:34—Jesus gives his disciples a “new” commandment, the “love command” (see below)
Jn 14:15, 21—In these two verses Jesus states that those who love him will keep his commandments (and vice versa); it is a general statement, with no specific indication what those commandments are
Jn 15:10—draws a parallel between keeping Jesus’ commandments and abiding/remaining in his love, just as Jesus does for the Father
Jn 15:12, 14, 17—verse 12 restates the “love command” (13:34), verse 14 generally restates 14:15, 21, and verse 17 brings both of these together into a single teaching

Of all the references above, only 15:10a could conceivably relate to the Torah commands specifically, but even that is highly uncertain; in light of the other passages in category (a), it is better to see 15:10a in terms of Jesus’ mission—what he is directed to say and do. The Torah commands are clearly referenced as such only in Jn 8:5, which is part of the passage on the woman caught in adultery (generally recognized as an interpolation, and likely not part of the original Gospel).

Many of these references come from the so-called Farewell Discourse (chapters 13-17), a cluster of discourses probably built up out of (separate) smaller blocks of teaching, in which Jesus gives definitive instruction (and exhortation) to his disciples. There are many sayings and teachings of Jesus—both in John and throughout the Synoptic Gospels—which may be regarded as commands; but the only command clearly identified and emphasized as such in the Farewell Discourse(s) is the so-called “love command” in 13:34; 15:12. In Jn 13:34 the command is:

“that you should love one another—even as I have loved you, (I say) that you should love one another”
(the aorist subjunctive forms of the verb having the force of imperatives)

Clearly this is related in some way to the “Great Commandment” (Mk 12:29-31 par)—complete love for God and one’s neighbor—the second half of which, in particular, would become central in Jesus’ teaching as preserved in the early Church (Rom 13:9-10; Gal 5:14; James 2:8). Love for God—demonstrated by loving Jesus (whom God sent)—is effectively treated as a command elsewhere in John, particularly in terms of abiding/remaining in Christ (Jn 15:4, 9, etc); but it is love for one’s fellow (believer) that is stressed in Jn 13:34; 15:12ff, and specifically referred to as a commandment. Indeed, it is called a “new” (kaino/$) commandment in 13:34, though the precise meaning and force of this distinction remains uncertain. These and other related questions will be dealt with in more detail in an article on “The Commandments of Christ” later on in this series; for now, it will suffice to conclude with the following observations:

  1. Jesus’ commandments come directly from God the Father (stressing Jesus’ unique role and nature as Son of God)
  2. They relate primarily to his mission on earth—what he is to say (teaching and proclamation, etc) and do (miracles, his willing and sacrificial death [and resurrection], etc)
  3. By word and example, he transmits these commandments to his disciples, best exemplified in the Farewell Discourse(s)
  4. The primary and leading command is two-fold: (i) to love one another, and (ii) to abide/remain in Christ (and his love)

The Old Testament Law (Torah) as such does not appear to be an essential part of this, except insofar as it provides the religious and ethical background to the “love command” and other teachings of Jesus. In this respect, the Gospel of John differs somewhat from the Synoptic Gospels, which depict Jesus dealing more directly (and regularly) with questions derived from (and related to) the Law of Moses.

 

blog-header-3_LawNT

Jesus and the Law, Part 8: The Gospel of John

By | Exegetical/Study Series | No Comments

The Gospel of John holds a unique and unusual position in New Testament studies, with critical scholars having mixed views as to the relationship between this Gospel and (authentic) traditions and sayings of Jesus. On the one hand, the lengthy and theologically-developed Discourses in John are really like nothing we find in the Synoptics; moreover, the language, style and thematic treatment of the Discourses is often extremely close to that of 1 John, making it seem rather unlikely that we are dealing simply with the unvarnished words of (the historical) Jesus. On the other hand, critical scholars have increasingly recognized numerous strands suggesting early (authentic) tradition, even within the most ‘developed’ sections of the Gospel, and many commentators are willing to admit a significant historical kernel (or core) to the Discourses.

In light of all this, and with regard to this overall series on “The Law and the New Testament”, one could either: (a) discuss the Gospel of John under “Jesus and the Law”, or (b) discuss it along with the Epistles of John under the wider heading. I have decided to treat the Gospel of John primarily as part of the sub-series “Jesus and the Law”, under the basic premise (for the purposes of these articles), that the sayings of Jesus in the Gospels (including the Discourses in John) reflect the authentic words and teachings of Jesus, at least in substance (the ipsissima vox if not the ipsissima verba). However, I recognize that many scholars would dispute this; it should be stated that I neither reject nor dismiss the more critical examination and scrutiny regarding authenticity, and realize fully that the question is even more difficult and complicated with regard to the Discourses of Jesus in John. Yet I believe that my approach is justified, all the more as I am quite convinced of the extreme difficulty (and precarious nature) of attempting to separate the “authentic” words of Jesus from subsequent early Christian interpretation and elaboration. Ultimately, we must work from the integral text of the Gospels as they have come down to us.

This article will proceed according to the following outline:

  1. The Festal Setting of the Discourses and related Narratives
  2. The Word(s) of Jesus and Jesus as the Word
  3. The Farewell Discourses and the “Love Command”

1. The Festal Setting of the Discourses and related Narratives

The Gospel of John is also unique (among the four canonical Gospels) in its presentation of Jesus appearing in Jerusalem on multiple occasions, in observance of the holy days—i.e. the Israelite/Jewish festivals (or “feasts”). This in contrast to the Synoptic Gospels, which record just one main journey to Jerusalem, for the Passover, shortly before Jesus’ death. The Johannine festal settings should be considered according to three principal aspects: (a) historical, (b) narrative, and (c) theological.

(a) Historical—The “feasts” are more properly referred to as appointed days or times, generally related to the harvest and seasons of the year, which the people of Israel were to observe with religious ritual, sacrifice and communal celebration. There were five main appointed times (cf. Lev 23:4), including three pilgrimage festivals—Pesach/”Passover” (Unleavened Bread), Shavuot/Weeks (‘Pentecost’), and Sukkot/Booths (‘Tabernacles’)—which (according to Deut 16:16) adult males were commanded to attend, bringing offerings for the Lord. An observant Israelite or Jew in Jesus’ time would journey to Jerusalem at least three times a year for the pilgrimage festivals. In this regard, the Johannine framework of Jesus appearing in Jerusalem on multiple occasions, more accurately reflects the historical situation than the single Passover journey of the Synoptics, as virtually all commentators recognize. Jesus’ appearance in Jerusalem (and in the Temple) suggests a (religious) concern to observe the Torah commands, though this is nowhere so stated in the Gospels. Clearly it was not an important point to emphasize for the Gospel writers (or was simply taken for granted), otherwise there surely would have been some mention of Jesus’ religious devotion, such as we find in the Lukan Infancy narratives for Joseph/Mary and Zechariah/Elizabeth (Lk 1:6; 2:21-24, 39). The closest we come, perhaps, is Jesus’ statement in Lk 22:15, where he speaks of his fervent desire to share the Passover with his disciples; though the context rather emphasizes his impending suffering and death as the reason.

(b) Narrative—Chapters 2-12, sometimes referred to as the “book of Signs”, are primarily divided according to the occasions of the feasts, each of which are associated with a discourse by Jesus:

  • Passover (Jn 2:13-25)
  • Sabbath/Unspecified feast (Jn 5:1-47)
  • Passover (Jn 6:1-15, 22-65, [66-71])
  • Booths (Jn 7:1-52; 8:12-59)
  • Dedication (Jn 10:22-39)
  • Passover (Jn 12:1-13:30ff)

The Discourse-format in John is the primary method used to incorporate traditional material—sayings of Jesus, miracle stories, etc—into the narrative framework; it is likely that, to some extent, shorter discourses (or simple exchanges) have been combined into a larger discourse-structure. A basic outline of the discourse-format would be:

  • A question (from “the Jews”) posed to Jesus
  • A saying by Jesus, often enigmatic or provocative, in response
  • A further question or reaction indicating misunderstanding of the true meaning of Jesus’ words
  • An exposition by Jesus, in reply

In Jn 2:13-25, the shortest of the episodes listed above, we do not have a full-fledged discourse, but it still more or less follows the basic format:

  • Question from “the Jews” (v. 18), in response to the Temple “cleansing” action of Jesus (vv. 14-17)
  • Enigmatic/provocative saying by Jesus (v. 19)
  • Question/reaction misunderstanding the true meaning of Jesus’ words (v. 20)
  • Instead of an exposition by Jesus, there is an explanation provided by the author (vv. 21-22)

The narrative structure of the Discourses, with their festal settings, can be demonstrated further:

  • Passover (2:13-25)—including the Temple-saying (v. 19) which foreshadows and prefigures the death and resurrection of Jesus
    • Two discourses with a feast setting, each of which is preceded by a miracle similar to those in the Synoptic tradition, but neither takes place (entirely) in the Jerusalem Temple:
      Sabbath (& unspecified feast, 5:1-47)—miracle (healing of crippled man), vv. 1-15; discourse, vv. 16-18, 19-47
      Passover (6:1-65, [66-71])—miracle (feeding the multitude), vv. 1-15; discourse, vv. 25-65ff
    • Two discourses with a feast setting, each taking place in Jerusalem (and the Temple); these discourses are specifically centered on the theme of the identity of Jesus, and his relation to God the Father:
      Booths (7:1-52; 8:12-59)—a highly complex structure with a narrative introduction (7:1-13), followed by a sequence of five (or six) discourse-scenes, the last two of which (8:21-30, 31-59) identify Jesus with the Father
      Dedication (10:22-39)—a shorter combination of two discourse-sections (vv. 22-30, 31-38), each of which concludes by Jesus identifying himself with the Father
  • Passover (12:1-13:30)—a complex narrative and discourse structure in preparation of Jesus’ death and resurrection, leading into the “Farewell Discourse(s)” (13:31-16:33 and chap. 17) and the Passion narrative (chaps. 18-19)—all set during Passover

(c) Theological—It is not possible here to study each discourse (or discourse sequence) in detail, as they are dense and often complex, with an unbelievably rich thematic and symbolic texture. I will simply provide some basic observations which indicate the way in which Jesus is depicted as fulfilling (in his own person) certain Old Testament themes and symbols related to the feasts and holy days. I begin with the two “outer” sections in the chiastic outline above, both of which show Jesus in Jerusalem for the Passover:

John 2:13-25—This is John’s version of the symbolic Temple action (“cleansing”) by Jesus (vv. 13-17) and the Temple-saying (v. 19ff), each of which is attested in Synoptic tradition (Mark 11:15-19; 14:58 par); however, in John, the two are connected, with the clear implication (explained by the author in vv. 21-22) that Jesus fulfills (or replaces) the Temple itself, including the entire sacrificial/ritual apparatus associated with it. I have discussed this section in more detail in prior notes and earlier in this series.

John 12:1-13:30ff—Jesus’ death, presenting himself as a sacrificial offering, is suggested throughout this section (see esp. 12:23-24, 32f; 13:4-11ff) beyond what is found in the common Gospel tradition shared by the Synoptics (cf. 12:3-8, 27; 13:1-3, 21-30). John’s account of the Passion is unique in having the crucifixion occur on the very eve of Passover (19:14) when the lambs are slaughtered, and clearly identifies Jesus with the Passover lamb (19:31-33, 36; cf. also 1:29, 36).

The first pair of discourses of the “inner” sections (in the outline above) are:

John 5:1-47
Festal setting: The feast is unspecified, though commentators have frequently suggested the feast of Weeks (Shavuot, or ‘Pentecost’), which is traditionally associated with the giving of the Law to Moses on Sinai (cf. Exod 19:1). This is likely, since it would relate to the Sabbath—the Sabbath command (Exod 20:8-11) being part of the Decalogue given to Moses on Sinai. More important to the author is the fact that the festal day coincides with the Sabbath.
Narrative setting: The section begins with a Sabbath healing miracle story (vv. 1-16ff) which has similarities to those in the Synoptics (Mark 3:1-6 par; Luke 13:10-17); the objection to Jesus healing on the Sabbath (vv. 10-16, 18) is central to the discourse which follows (vv. 17, 19-47) and serves to introduce it. The miracle took place at the pool of Bethesda (or Betzatha), a location close (just N/NE) to the Temple; the action then shifts to the Temple precincts (v. 14), with the discourse presumably understood as occurring in the Temple as well.
Structure of the Discourse: The principal saying of Jesus is in verse 17 (“my Father is even working until [now], and I [also] am working”). The bulk of the discourse (vv. 19-47) consists entirely of a lengthy exposition which can be divided into three sections:
—Jesus’ work: the Son does what the Father shows him (life-giving power), vv. 19-30
—Witness to Jesus’ work: four-fold witness (John the Baptist, the miracles themselves, the Word of God in the heart of believers, and Scripture), vv. 31-40
—Refusal of people to believe the witness (disbelief), vv. 41-47
Theological significance: The Sabbath theme is central, with Jesus identifying himself with God the Father in terms of his work as Creator (an important aspect of the Sabbath command itself, Exod 20:11). According to Jewish tradition (cf. b. Taanith 2a), God is understood to be continually at work, especially in the life-giving areas of: (a) rain, (b) birth, and (c) resurrection. It is the last of these (the power of resurrection) that Jesus particularly emphasizes (and claims for himself) in the discourse (vv. 21, 25, 28-29). According to the narrative (v. 18), some of “the Jews” who heard him recognized that Jesus was identifying himself with God the Father. It is not clear that Jesus here specifically fulfills (or replaces) the Sabbath, but the Synoptic saying in Mark 2:28 par would certainly take on added dimension in this context.

John 6:1-65ff—
Festal setting: It is close to the time of the festival of Passover and Unleavened Bread (v. 4).
Narrative setting: Verses 1-15 record the miracle of feeding the 5000, similar to the Synoptic accounts (Mk 6:30-44; 8:1-10 par); verses 16-21 have the episode of Jesus walking on the water, already joined to the feeding of the 5000 in early tradition (cf. Mk 6:45-51 par). Verses 22-24f serve as a narrative bridge leading into the discourse.
Structure of the Discourse: I have discussed the structure of chapter 6 in more detail elsewhere; the “Bread of Life” discourse proper I limit to verses 31-59.
Theological significance: Jesus himself fulfills two main symbols and motifs related to Passover and the Exodus:
—He identifies himself with God the Father who fed the hungry Israelites in the wilderness (cf. the miracle in vv. 1-15 and the discussion in vv. 25-30); note especially in this regard Scripture references such as Psalm 107:4-9.
—In the discourse (vv. 31-59) and the discussion which follows (vv. 60-71) he identifies himself with the manna (“bread from heaven”, cf. Exod 16:4, 15; Psalm 78:24; Wisd 16:20), specifying that he is the true bread which has come down from heaven.
The episode of Jesus walking on the water (vv. 16-21) may also be connected with God’s role in Israel’s crossing the sea (see esp. Psalm 77:19).

The second pair of discourses are as follows:

John 7:1-52; 8:12-59—
Festal setting: The feast of Booths (Tabernacles), as indicated in the narrative introduction (v. 2).
Narrative setting: This is provided by the narrative introduction in verses 1-13, which records a partial dialogue with Jesus and his brothers, and narrates Jesus’ (secret) journey to Jerusalem for the feast. Verse 14 shows him in the Temple, teaching.
Structure of the Discourse: The structure is lengthy and complex, spanning two whole chapters, and is further complicated by the presence of the pericope of the woman caught in adultery (Jn 7:53-8:11, generally recognized as an interpolation and not part of the original Gospel). I understand 7:14-8:59 (not including 7:53-8:11) as representing a cluster or sequence of five (possibly six) discourses combined into a single arc, which emphasizes different aspects of Jesus’ identity (and his relationship to the Father):
—Jesus as Teacher (7:14-24): his relation to the Law, with a reprise of the Sabbath question from chapter 5
—Jesus as Messiah (7:25-36): where he comes from and goes to (returns)
—Jesus as (living) Water and Light (7:37-39ff; 8:12 + vv. 13-20): motifs associated with the feast of Booths
—Jesus as I AM (8:21-30): he comes from the Father and goes (returns) to Him
—Jesus as Word of God (I AM) (8:31-59): juxtaposition of Abraham and God as Father
Theological significance: Here I will limit discussion to the discourse in 7:37-39ff; 8:12-20, and the two principal motifs, associated with the feast of Booths, with which Jesus identifies himself. Traditional themes and images are largely dependent on Zechariah 9-14 (on Jewish ritual and ceremony, from a slightly later period, see the Mishnah tractate Sukkah):
Water (7:37-39): Cf. Zech 12:10; 13:1; 14:8; also Isa 44:3; Jer 2:13. A festal ceremony developed, involving filling a golden pitcher with water from the Gihon spring, followed by a procession to the Temple, where the water was poured out and made to flow into the ground around the altar; during the ceremony Isa 12:3 and Psalm 118:25 were recited. The ritual itself reflects an agricultural background and involving a prayer for rain (cf. Zech 10:1; 14:17).
Light (8:12ff): Cf. Zech 14:8. For the traditional ceremony of lighting the four golden candlesticks, see m. Sukkah 5:2-4. The theme of Jesus as light continues in the next chapter (Jn 9), and see also the thematic reprise in 12:35-36.

John 10:22-39—
Festal setting: The feast of Dedication (Hanukkah), v. 22.
Narrative setting: It is likely that 10:1-21 is meant to be connected with this section (as chap. 9 is with the prior discourse); note the reprise of the “good shepherd” theme in vv. 25-28. The possibility has also been raised that Ezekiel 34 may have been a synagogue reading (haphtorah) from the Prophets around the time/season of Dedication, which means that the “good shepherd” discourse of 10:1-21 may have been delivered at that time. In verse 23, Jesus is shown in the Temple, the setting for the discourse which follows.
Structure of the Discourse: It can be divided simply into two sections: verses 22-30 and 31-38, with a short narrative summary in verse 39. The structure becomes more complex if one wishes to include the “good shepherd” discourse of vv. 1-21 are part of unified sequence.
Theological significance: Like the Tabernacles discourse(s) of chapters 7-8 (above), these two discourse sections specifically emphasize the identity of Jesus and his relationship to the Father, and each concludes with a specific identification:
—Jesus as Messiah (vv. 22-30): identification with the Father in verse 30 (“I and the Father are one”)
—Jesus as Son of God (vv. 31-38): identification with the Father in verse 38 (“the Father [is] in me and I [am] in the Father”)
The feast of Dedication commemorates the rebuilding of the altar and new dedication of the Temple (1 Maccabees 4:41-61); this theme of consecration is implicit in this section, emphasized only in verse 36. The implication is that Jesus is to be identified (in his person) with the sacrificial altar (and the Temple itself), much as we see in the Temple saying of Jn 2:19ff.

The remainder of this article will continue in the next part of this series.

For a number of points and references above, I am indebted to R. E. Brown’s excellent critical commentary (part of the Anchor Bible series, vol. 29), cf. especially pp. 212-230, 245, 255-6, 261-6, 277-80, 326-9, 343-4, 404-12.

blog-header-3_LawNT

Jesus and the Law, Part 7: The Temple (continued)

By | Exegetical/Study Series | No Comments

In Part 6, I looked at the episode of Jesus’ “cleansing” of the Temple, as well as the “Temple saying” in John 2:19 par; in this part, I will conclude the article on “Jesus and the Temple” with an examination of other sayings related to the Temple, followed by a summary discussion.

3. Other sayings and teachings related to the Temple

References with an asterisk (*) indicate sayings related to sacrificial offerings (associated with the Temple cult), but do not refer to the Temple itself.

Luke 2:49

In the episode from the Lukan Infancy narratives (Lk 2:41-51), of the twelve-year old Jesus remaining behind in Jerusalem (following the Passover observance), when his parents (Mary and Joseph) find him and ask (v. 48)—

“Child, what [i.e. why] have you done thus to us? See, your father and I, being in pain, search [for] you”

Jesus responds:

ti/ o%ti e)zhtei=te me; ou)k h&|deite o%ti e)n toi=$ tou= patro/$ mou dei= ei@nai/ me;
“What that [i.e. why do] you search [for] me? Did you not know that it is necessary for me to be in/among the (thing)s of my Father?”

The precise meaning and rendering of the Greek phrase e)n toi=$ tou= patro/$ mou is debated, as I have discussed in a prior note. It is sometimes translated as “in my Father’s house”, but this is rather inaccurate and misleading. The expression e)n toi=$ tou= {person} (“in/among the things/people of {so-and-so}”) can indeed have the wider sense of “in/among the possessions of …”, translated conventionally as “in the house(-hold) of…”. Such a basic meaning is attested in the Greek version of the Old Testament (cf. Genesis 41:51), and elsewhere in Greek texts of the period; a close parallel is found in Josephus (Against Apion I.118: e)n toi=$ tou= Dio$ “in the house-(hold) [i.e. temple] of Zeus”). However, if Jesus (or the Gospel writer) had wished to emphasize the Temple (building) as such, he certainly could have used the common word oi@ko$ (“house, building”). The AV/KJV translation “about my Father’s business” reflects the basic sense “in the affairs of my father”—that is, the things in an abstract sense, again referring, one would assume, to the teaching of the Torah and temple activity. Sometimes cited supporting this basic meaning is Luke 20:25, but better Mark 8:33/Matthew 16:23. The specific Greek phrase in verse 49 may be intended to capture both of these senses.

Overall, we see here a positive view of the Temple, which fits the key role and setting it plays in the Lukan Infancy narratives (chs. 1-2). However, it is important to note that Jesus’ saying does not emphasize the Temple, but rather God the Father (“my Father”)—he is in/among the things (and/or people) belonging to his Father. This clearly is meant as a juxtaposition between Jesus’ earthly parents and his (true) heavenly Father in the narrative scene. The specific wording may also imply that the Temple is only the “house(hold) of God” insofar as the things truly belonging to God take place there. Though the Temple ritual is implied in the festal (Passover) setting of the narrative, Jesus is specifically taking part (as a pupil) in teaching and instruction. This is an important emphasis throughout the Gospels (and Acts)—the role of teaching and prayer in the Temple seems to have priority over that of the sacrificial ritual.

Matthew 5:23-24*

In the first of the so-called Antitheses (Matt 5:21-47) of the Sermon on the Mount, the teaching on murder/anger (vv. 21-26), Jesus offers two practical examples of the importance of reconciling with one’s fellow neighbor, etc. The first of these (vv. 23-24) describes a situation where a person is in the midst of presenting a (sacrificial) offering at the altar (i.e. of the Temple), and realizes that he/she has an unresolved conflict with another person (“your brother holds something against you”); Jesus’ instruction is to leave the offering and first be reconciled with (lit. “be thoroughly changed”  toward) the other person. The implied principle is that fundamental ethical matters take priority over fulfilling the sacrificial/ceremonial requirements of the Law. This generally follows the common criticism leveled by the Prophets, denouncing those who participate in the religious ritual despite otherwise behaving in a wicked or faithless manner toward God and neighbor (see below). I have discussed the Antitheses at some length earlier in the series on “Jesus and the Law”.

Matthew 9:13; 12:7* (citing Hosea 6:6a)

I have discussed both of these verses in a recent note. Jesus’ teaching follows in line with the practical example from the Antitheses (above); and see also, especially, on Mark 12:33 below.

Matthew 12:5-6

This pair of verses was also discussed, along with v. 7, in the previous note.

Mark 12:33*

In the Markan version of the so-called “Great Commandment” (Mk 12:28-34; par Matt 22:34-40; Lk 10:25-28), in response to a question from a certain scribe (“which [thing] laid upon [us] to complete [i.e. commandment] is first of [them] all?”), Jesus answers by citing Deut 6:4-5 and Lev 19:18 together, emphasizing (total) love toward God and neighbor (“there is no other [thing] laid upon [us] to complete [i.e. no commandment] greater than these”, v. 31b). The scribe then responds to Jesus as follows (v. 33):

“Upon truth [i.e. truly] you have said (it) beautifully, Teacher… to love Him out of (one’s) whole heart and out of (one’s) whole understanding and out of (one’s) whole strength—and to love (one’s) neighbor as himself—is over (and) above [i.e. far more than] all the whole burnt (offering)s and (ritual) slayings [i.e. sacrifices]” (vv. 32-33)

Jesus affirms the substance of the scribe’s comment by saying “you are not far from the kingdom of God” (v. 34). So here Jesus effectively teaches that the two-fold “love command” far surpasses the ritual/ceremonial aspects of the Law. This reflects other sayings of Jesus in the Sermon the Mount (and elsewhere, cf. above), and would become a cornerstone teaching in the early Church (see esp. Romans 13:8-10; Galatians 5:14).

Luke 18:10ff

Jesus’ parable of the Pharisee and the “Tax collector” takes place in the Temple (v. 10), though it is not entirely clear if there is any special significance to this setting; the emphasis is rather on the contrast between the approach and conduct of the two men. The Pharisee is apparently scrupulous and devout in religious matters, observing the Torah, but also is self-assured (“self-righteous”), justifying himself in prayer before God. The tax collector, on the other hand, is humble and contrite before God, confessing that he is a sinner and asking for mercy. The parable is typical of other “reversal of fortune” sayings and parables by Jesus, such as in the Lukan Beatitudes (Lk 6:20-26) or the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus (Lk 16:19-31). Indeed, the Beatitudes (see Matt 5:3-12) especially emphasize the characteristics of meekness and humility. Beyond this, it is hard to ignore the apparent contrast also present in the Lukan parable between external religious observance and inward purpose or intention—without the second, the first is of little or no value. An implicit connection with the Temple, in this regard, has already been noted in the sayings above. A similar passage, with a Temple setting, is found in Mark 12:41-44, with Jesus’ comments on the widow’s offering.

Mark 13:2 par

In Mark 13:1-2 (and the parallel in Matt 24:1-2; Lk 21:5-6) we have Jesus predicting/foretelling the destruction of the Temple. This begins a collection of teachings and sayings (in the Synoptic tradition) known as the “Eschatological” (or Olivet) Discourse (Mk 13 / Matt 24 /Lk 21:5-36 [cf. also Lk 17:20-37]). A foretelling of the coming siege and destruction of Jerusalem runs through this section; the Gospel of Luke, in particular, shows Jesus predicting the siege (more or less fulfilled in the war of 66-70 A.D.) in fairly graphic detail (Lk 19:41-44; 21:20-24; cf. also 23:28-31). This prediction may be related to one or both of the main traditions involving Jesus and the Temple—(1) Jesus’ “cleansing” of the Temple, and (2) the “Temple saying” of Jn 2:19; Mk 14:58 par (on both of these, see Part 6 of this series). One possible interpretation of the Temple “cleansing” event is that Jesus meant to symbolize the destruction of the current (earthly) Temple; if so, then the prediction in Mk 13:2 par should be read in this light. Similarly, the “Temple saying” may indicate a belief or expectation (whether by Jesus or others) that the current Temple would be destroyed and replaced with something new.

The prediction in Mark 13:2 par does not necessarily indicate a particular view (positive or negative) of the Temple on the part of Jesus; however, at least two points may be fairly inferred:

  1. Jesus did not see the current (earthly) Temple as permanent—the building itself would be destroyed. The “Temple saying”, however understood or interpreted, could conceivably mean that something new would take its place.
  2. The destruction likely means that God’s judgment—against Jerusalem and/or the Temple establishment—was involved.

Jesus is responding to comments by his disciples (Mk 13:1 par) admiring the physical/material grandeur of the Temple building; this certainly would suggest a devaluing of the building itself, along with the accompanying Temple ritual—a view which would conform with a number of the sayings above.

Mark 14:49 par

In Mark 14:49 (and the parallel in Matt 26:55; Lk 22:53) Jesus refers to the fact that he had spent considerable time in the Temple, teaching. The Synoptic narrative tradition records just one main visit by Jesus to Jerusalem—during the Passover season just prior to his death. During the time between his (triumphal) entry into the city and his arrest, the Gospels present Jesus as spending most of his time teaching in the Temple (emphasized repeatedly in Luke, cf. 19:47; 20:1; 21:5, 37-38). In the Gospel of John, which records multiple visits by Jesus to Jerusalem (for the holy days), there too the image is of Jesus teaching in the Temple (for more on this see in Part 8). Though the picture painted by the Gospels is rather simplistic, two clear observations can be made:

  1. Jesus presumably was observing the Torah commands in coming to Jerusalem (and the Temple) during the holy (feast) days (such as Passover, Sukkot/Booths, etc)
  2. He is not depicting as participating the sacrificial/ceremonial Temple ritual (though presumably, at the historical level, he would have); rather, he is consistently shown in the role and act of teaching.

Summary Observations

In concluding this study on Jesus and the Temple, it may be useful to summarize the results and highlight several key observations which will be important to keep in mind as we proceed further in the series of “Jesus and the Law”:

The Temple action (“cleansing”)—the four Gospel accounts of this scene all stem from a single historical tradition, a dramatic event which had already begun to be interpreted differently in the various Gospels. By his provocative action, Jesus appears to be following the Old Testament Prophets (cf. the citation of Isa 56:7; Jer 7:11) who occasionally leveled harsh criticism against the sacrificial ritual of the Temple (especially when it was not accompanied by proper ethical and religious behavior). The action by Jesus was primarily symbolic, in two main respects:

  • Driving out the buyers and sellers, etc. likely was meant to be a kind of “cleansing”, at least in the sense of emphasizing the intended holiness of the Temple as the house/dwelling of God. In this respect, the symbolic action strikes against the Temple machinery and apparatus associated with the sacrificial ritual—the very aspect of the Temple most likely to become corrupted through its customary use (and misuse).
  • Turning over the tables, etc. probably was meant to symbolize the impending destruction of the Temple—either as a prediction or a warning. Early Gospel tradition may have connected the “Temple saying” (below) with the “cleansing” episode in various ways, as we see in John 2; the emphasis in the saying is on the destruction of the Temple.

If one gives credence to the quotation of Isa 56:7, especially, in the Synoptic accounts, it is also possible that Jesus was establishing (or at least suggesting) a different (symbolic) role for the Temple, in a two-fold sense:

  1. Emphasizing prayer, rather than sacrificial offering, as the basis for proper worship of God
  2. Inclusion of Gentiles (“a house of prayer for all nations“)—at the historical level, the buying/selling probably would have taken place in the Court of Gentiles; by driving out the buyers/sellers, Jesus may have been declaring the holiness of the entire Temple precincts, extending its sanctity to the Gentiles

There was probably also a definite eschatological dimension to Jesus’ action—ushering in a “new age” with the coming of the (end-time) kingdom of God meant that the old religious forms would either be replaced or given a new significance. If we accept the Johannine version (and context) of the “temple saying” (Jn 2:19ff), then Jesus had already consciously connected the Temple action with his own (sacrificial) death and resurrection.

The Temple saying—it seems certain (on entirely objective grounds) that Jesus made a statement similar to that reported during his trial (Mark 14:58; Matt 26:61; cf. also Mk 15:29 par; Acts 6:14)—that he would destroy the Temple and rebuild it (in three days)—even though Mark and Matthew report this as “false” testimony. John 2:19 perhaps records this very statement, accepting the Gospel record at face value: “loose [i.e. dissolve/destroy] this shrine, and in three days I will raise it (up again)”. Most likely this saying is related in some way to the Temple action (above), though only in John 2:13-22 is a specific connection made. It is also only in John (vv. 20-22) that we have a direct interpretation of the saying, made by the Gospel writer (or his underlying sources) and not by Jesus himself. The author clearly states that Jesus was speaking of “the shrine of his (own) body”, though the disciples did not understand this until after the resurrection. In Acts 6:14ff this saying places a role in the charges made against Stephen and provides the setting for his great speech in Acts 7:2-53 (discussed in detail elsewhere). Stephen’s speech climaxes with a rhetorical (and polemic) argument against the Temple itself, comparing it in some sense with idolatry, in part through repeated use of the phrase “made with hands” (“work of [their] hands”, etc). Whether this, in any way, reflects authentic teaching of Jesus is uncertain.

Other teaching regarding the Temple and its Ritual—Jesus says relatively little about the Temple elsewhere in the Gospels, but the sayings and teachings which have been preserved (see above) would seem to suggest, or reflect, several related themes:

  • Jesus’ presence in the Temple occurs mainly in the context of teaching, rather than in the performance of sacrificial ritual (e.g. Lk 2:46ff; Mark 14:49 par). In several other sayings, teaching or prayer in the Temple is also emphasized (cf. the citation of Isa 56:7 in Mk 11:17 par; also Lk 18:10).
  • In several sayings and teachings, Jesus clearly states the importance and priority of love (for God and neighbor) over sacrificial offerings (Matt 5:23-24; the citation of Hos 6:6a in Matt 9:13 and 12:7; Mark 12:28-34 par; cf. also Lk 18:10ff).
  • Similarly, one may fairly adduce in such sayings a principle emphasizing inward intention and attitude over against external observance of the ritual (though the latter may still be deemed important).
  • The prediction of the destruction of the Temple (Mk 13:1-2 par) would seem to confirm an important aspect of both the Temple action (“cleansing”) and Temple saying—that the current (earthly) Temple was about to be destroyed, as part of God’s (end-time) Judgment.
  • The sayings in Matt 12:5-6, could be understood in a Christological sense, somewhat similar to the Temple saying (and explanation) in John 2:19ff, whereby Jesus (in his own person) surpasses (and/or replaces) the religious authority and position of the Temple. As there is relatively little evidence for this idea elsewhere in Jesus’ teaching (at least in the Synoptic Gospels), one must be cautious about such an interpretation; on the other hand, neither should it be dismissed simply as a product of early Christian belief.

It is possible—even likely, I should say—that early Christian belief more strongly influences the way that Gospel traditions are presented and narrated in the Gospel of John, and it is here (the Fourth Gospel) that we will now turn for the next part in this series.