Category: Textual Studies

Lust and Divorce (Matt. 5:27-32)

This specific topic is a hot-button issue. Divorce is widespread, and divorced people tend to be ostracized in the church. I am a child of divorced parents. Both of my parents remarried and have since divorced. Both sets of my grandparents were divorced. Growing up in that environment doesn’t inspire much hope in marriage, but when we look to God, he gives us the proper view. I am one person and can only do what I can do. My wife also wants to live for Jesus, which helps our marriage. If either of us became selfish, it could end in divorce. 

I have empathy for divorced people because they tend to be viewed one way by the church, but what a lot of people may not know is how hard some have fought to preserve their marriages. Through no fault, they could only do their part and not their spouse’s part. There are some scenarios that Jesus doesn’t address—desertion, physical and mental abuse, toxicity in marriage (substance abuse), and some others. My rule is that you must leave if you are in a home where you live in fear. My mother suffered domestic abuse, and the bravest thing she did was to go. Many women stay for reasons most of us won’t understand, some to their peril. We should support such people, especially those who hold our beliefs about this topic. Some will not leave because of what Scripture says on this topic because they feel they will be sinning, and I have had to remind several women that Jesus commands the husband to love his wife as Christ loves the church. Many husbands fail to do this when they are careless or abusive in any specific way. 

According to Forbes, half of all first marriages end in divorce. Second and third marriages fail at a higher rate. The average length of a marriage is eight years. When I do premarital counseling, I encourage couples to agree on four things: 1) religion (I would discourage a Christian marrying a Muslim, atheist, etc. We’re not to be unequally yolked), 2) money, 3) children (do you want to have them; how many do you want; how will you raise/discipline them?), and 4) inlaws (setting boundaries). Marriages will have their ups and downs, but when we are married, we say, “I do,” not, “I’ll try.” 

Jesus builds a hedge against adultery, saying that if you look at a woman with lust, you’ve already committed adultery. The term gyne is used here, and it is not a term that can be translated as “maiden” (kore) or “virgin” (parthenos). The woman in question may have been another man’s wife, so to look at another man’s wife with lust is adultery. Were it the other two, it may not be adultery unless the man looking upon her was married. In that case, it would be fornication. Both are sinful, but it’s essential to be as precise in the context as possible. The law prescribed that both offenders were to be put to death (Lev. 20:10), reminding us of the woman caught in adultery (despite the man not being brought forth). I couldn’t find evidence of this capital punishment being carried out. 

Amy-Jill Levine wrote that a Jewish man could have sexual relations with a divorcee, prostitute, or another unmarried and unengaged woman. At the same time, he was married, and it wasn’t considered adultery, which I find odd. The command is one-sided here and likely so due to the makeup of society at the time. Women are as capable of doing what the man here does. “Lust” could be translated as “covet” or “desire.” Israel was guilty of adultery by her eyes in lusting after idols (Ezek. 6:9). The rest of what he says in verses twenty-nine and thirty are standard rabbinic hyperbole. He isn’t commanding bodily mutilation but emphasizing that whatever is the cause of the temptation is what should be eliminated from the person’s life lest they are cast into hell. In our time, it may be social media, rendezvous with someone of the opposite sex, etc. A lot of people criticized Mike Pence because he doesn’t meet with women alone, something called the Billy Graham rule, but he does that to protect himself and his marriage because people talk.  

Jesus begins his discussion on divorce by referring to Deuteronomy 24:1–4. Our phrase “some uncleanness” in Hebrew is vague. At its root, it means “nakedness,” “genitals,” or “indecent.” Some suggest this has to do with barrenness. Others say that it has to do with infidelity. Robert Alter points out that the same idiom appears in Deuteronomy 23:14 (v. 15 in his text) and denotes prohibited sexual nakedness. The jury remains out of what was meant, but when we turn back to Matthew, Jesus says a man may divorce his wife for “sexual immorality” and not “adultery.” We have two different words for the two used a few verses earlier. Sexual immorality derives from the word that gives us the English word “pornography.” This term is broad and encompasses adultery, harlotry, incest, idolatry, and fornication (which can include premarital sex). In Deuteronomy, the summary was that if a husband divorced his wife and she married again, he could not take her back because another man had defiled her. Here, however, whoever marries this divorced woman commits adultery. Jesus restricts the meaning they had. 

On another occasion, Jesus is tested on this topic in Matthew 19. Once more, Deuteronomy 24 begins the conversation. There were two prevalent schools of thought at that time. The House of Shammai was pretty conservative in that a person could only divorce for adultery (Gittin 9:10). The House of Hillel takes a no-fault position, which means for any reason. Jesus appeals to God’s intent on creation by making one man and one woman. Their joining together isn’t meant to be separated. God hates divorce (Mal. 2:16), but we have to remember that God divorced Israel (Jer. 3:7–8), so he has a vested interest in the topic. He explains why they were given the exception when they pressed the topic. This teaching is so conservative that his disciples ponder celibacy.

There’s one last text worth looking at that some call the Pauline exception in 1 Corinthians 7:10–16. In context, some had converted while their spouse remained unconverted to faith in Jesus. In this case, they were to live with one another peaceably. Still, some use a phrase to justify divorce and remarriage: “A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases” (v. 15). They suggest that this permits the believer who’s been deserted to marry again. I can’t see Paul contradicting Jesus, and I don’t believe that’s what he means. The whole context is him urging Christians to remain or reconcile with their unbelieving spouse, but if the unbeliever departs, the believer isn’t obligated to stay with them. 

Jesus’ View of the Law and Murder (Matt. 5:17-26)

Rumors had undoubtedly circulated about Jesus’ view on the Law and Prophets—two of the three divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures; the last is the Psalms. The Law entails the first five books of the Bible. We usually only think of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the like regarding the prophets. However, Joshua, Judges, the books of Samuel, and the Kings are considered former prophets in Jewish circles. He spoke of it with great reverence since Jesus and his disciples were living under the law. The “jot” is the Hebrew yod, and the tittle is the extension of the dalet when compared with the resh or vav. Any minor alteration in the law could have changed the meaning, so scribes were meticulous to preserve the text. No matter how insignificant someone believes it is, every part is meaningful. We can learn much from Jesus’ regard for the law, which should also inform how we view Scripture. We can also look at his call to righteousness in one of two ways: denigrating the scribes and Pharisees or as a high bar. There is an element of the former, but the latter seems to be more accurate. 

In Jesus’ commentary on the law, he says, “You have heard it said,” and then follows up with, “But I say to you.” We see this six times in the remainder of chapter five. The first commandment he addresses is murder. There’s a difference between murder, killing, manslaughter, and justice. Murder is premeditated with malicious intent. Even the commandment in Hebrew reads, “You shall do no murder.” If I were to strike a pedestrian with my truck because they ran in front of me and they died, I would not have murdered them. However, if I see this person and target them, then that’s murder. Were I negligible in hitting them, say because I was inebriated, I could be charged with manslaughter. When the state executes a criminal, it’s supposed to be in the name of justice, and murder was a capital offense (cf. Num. 35:16–18). The murderer being put to death is justice and not another murder or killing. What’s interesting, though, is how God protects Cain after he murdered Abel and Moses after he killed the Egyptian. 

Words matter, and “murder” is the appropriate term in both Greek and Hebrew. Yet, Jesus takes it farther than murder. He builds a hedge around the commandment, much like rabbis in his time. He begins with anger and progresses to insults—something that could be a legal offense.  Depending on your translation, you may have the wording as having anger “without a cause.” Most translations, if they don’t include the phrase, have some sort of note ascribing it to some ancient manuscripts. The earliest manuscript of Matthew 5:22 is dated between AD 125–50 and is designated as the Barcelona papyrus (P67). This fragment doesn’t contain the phrase “without a cause.” Two other manuscripts contain it—Coptic and Old Syriac (third–fourth centuries). Its appearance or disappearance doesn’t affect the overall meaning of our faith. Jesus teaches us to rid our lives of anger if it’s excluded. If it does appear, we later read how to handle someone we may be angry with in the following verses (cf. Matt. 18:15–17). 

A person becomes angry with another, then begins to insult them, and they call them the worst thing imaginable in that culture (cf. Eph. 4:29–32). The progression builds up to murder, which is why Jesus begins with anger. Rather than getting that far, Jesus urges reconciliation before worship, possibly alluding to Cain and Abel. Jews taught that you had to seek peace with your neighbors before reconciliation with God (Prov. 6:1–5). Today, however, most Christians give this no mind. If you’re offended, you just go somewhere else. Sometimes, people may not even know that you feel wronged. Meanwhile, you carry the weight of the hurt, expecting the offender to lift it when they might be clueless. In his context, Jesus urged reconciliation, and Paul urged suffering wrongdoing rather than seeking retribution (cf. 1 Cor. 6:1–6). Please remember that the context is within the community of faith (church), as indicated by the term “ brother.”

The Magna Carta of Christianity

In the year 1215, a very important document was issued. This document was the first to put into writing that the king and his government were not above the law, so it placed limitations on royal authority by establishing law as a power in itself. I’m talking about the Magna Carta. The pioneer law inspired legislation in the West from there on out. The Sermon on the Mount is the Christian version of the Magna Carta in that it sets forth the heart of God and the nature of his kingdom. Where misunderstandings existed, Jesus clarified. Where obscurities puzzled, Jesus explained. 

When we arrive at Matthew 5, we must recall how Jesus’ fame had spread through Syria, Galilee, and Judea at the end of the previous chapter. They undoubtedly follow when he ascends the mountain, but they may be more concerned with being fed or healed. Yet, Jesus is speaking to his disciples. What’s unsure is whether Matthew has in mind all twelve or just the ones he’s called thus far: Peter and Andrew, James and John. Jesus speaks to them, but anyone who overhears is welcome to listen. As Moses ascended Sinai to receive the Law from God, so God ascended a mountain to deliver his Sermon on the Mount. There’s a new lawgiver in town, and it’s God in the flesh. 

He inaugurates his sermon by pronouncing blessings. “Beatitude” comes from the Latin Bible, where the word beati is in the place of “blessed.” It denotes “blessed,” “happy,” and even “rich,” with the connotation that they are divine in nature. Many Jewish prayers begin with the Hebrew version, baruch, as in, “Blessed are you, Lord our God.” Examples abound in the Hebrew Scriptures (Jer. 17:7–8; Ps. 118:26). The situations in which Jesus pronounced this blessing seem like the most unlikely candidates for it. This is the nature of God’s kingdom—it turns the world right side up. The wisdom of God is wiser than the wisdom of the world, so we will have to overhaul our thinking to think as God does. 

“Poor in spirit” has always intrigued me. It doesn’t mean weak in faith. According to David Bentley Hart, the word describes a beggar who seems to be cowering. These folks lack pride and are beneficiaries of the help others offer. They will even pay it forward and help others in need. I believe they recognize their dependence on God and live with that realization in acting. Because this is in the present tense, it’s not something in the future but the present. The kingdom of heaven is theirs now, not in some distant time. In the next one, bereavement could describe not only those mourning loss but the state of women and children who were often destitute and impoverished if no male was present. Their comfort could come in the manner of material help as well as emotional support. Mourning shouldn’t be minimized, however. Trite sayings and platitudes aren’t helpful. To mourn means that you had someone in your life that you truly loved, whose absence now leaves a void. While a dreadful feeling, comfort is promised. 

You may have heard the saying, “Meekness is not weakness, but strength under control.” It’s a nice saying with some truth. This beatitude resembles Psalm 37:11, and the same word is used regarding Jesus in Matthew 11:29 and 21:5. There’s no weakness but strength under control. Jesus never lorded his power over his disciples. He served and led them by serving them (cf. Phil. 2:6–11). Environmentalists love the play on inheriting the earth and tying it to treating the world well. I’m not sure Jesus meant that, but caring for the planet is still good. I believe Jesus’ intention concerns the new heaven and earth (cf. 2 Peter 3:13; Rev. 21:1). Some usually take the next beatitude to mean Bible study or knowledge. After all, the will of God in Scripture is righteous and leads us to such, but that’s an internal reading. It’s more of a state of things—of justice. There needn’t be a qualifier placed on the word “justice” (i.e., environmental, gender, etc.). We should desire it on the personal, societal, and global levels. We see so many injustices, so our hunger and thirst for such are met in God’s kingdom.

The next one is misleading. From an initial impression, it means that a forgiving person is blessed and they will be forgiven. However, the term translated as merciful denotes sympathy felt towards another, leading to action. This would be like seeing an elderly person struggling to open a door, so you open it for them. We call it common courtesy, which can be in little or big things. When I envision someone that’s pure in heart, several people come to mind. They were good people who wanted only good and didn’t wrap themselves with worldliness. God was at the forefront of their very being. 

The peacemaker beatitude has been popularized and applied to law enforcement, but the idea is more about one who isn’t a tattler or busybody. We all can do things to stir up trouble, but as peacemakers, we don’t offer to do so. In the first century, a group called the Zealots were a revolutionary group that wanted to restore the kingdom of Israel using violence. They aimed to depose the Roman oppressors. Their influence penetrated all Jewish society (cf. John 6:15; 18:10–11), but this wasn’t what Jesus wanted (cf. John 18:36). This was not the kingdom of God. 

The beatitudes are closed out by blessings pronounced on those who will suffer for righteousness’ sake (1 Peter 4:14–16). “Revile” is an antiquated term. It’s better to think of “insult,” as we understand it. Physical harm, ostracizing (cf. Luke 6:22), verbal abuse, and false accusations may occur. If it’s the result of being a Christian, Jesus says we are blessed. 

Ancient Interpretations (Acts 8:16)

In Acts, Luke uses a similar phrase for different meanings. Given the context, it’s up to the reader to discern what he means by what he says. Let’s lay the groundwork. In Acts 2:38, we’re told that when one repents and is baptized, they receive forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit. This is stated with a promise to those present, those who come after them, and all who are far off, as many as the Lord calls to Himself by preaching the gospel. We conclude that everyone who repents and is baptized, obeying God, receives forgiveness and, more pointedly, the gift of the Holy Spirit. Some folks disagree as to what the gift of the Holy Spirit is. Still, I interpret it as the believer being given the Holy Spirit himself. If you disagree, that’s a discussion we can have another time since that isn’t the focus of this article.

As we read through Acts, we come to Acts 8, where Philip is preaching to the Samaritans. We read that after Philip preached and worked wonders, many people, men and women, believed the preaching and were baptized (Acts 8:12). We read a couple verses later that Peter and John are sent to Samaria to pray “for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit” (Acts 8:15–16). Have we misunderstood our earlier interpretation? Many brethren interpret as I do as a double entendre (a word or phrase open to two interpretations). In Acts 2:38, we don’t see Christians working signs and wonders. Only the apostles could work signs and wonders (Acts 2:43; 4:33; 5:12). Even in Acts 8:18, the laying on of apostolic hands conferred the ability to work signs and wonders. What are we to make of these two interpretations?

 Let’s ask an ancient Christian by the name of John Chrysostom. He flourished around the end of the fourth century and was Bishop of Constantinople. While we may have many disagreements about how church was done in his time, we must credit him for being a great expositor of Scripture. That second name, Chrysostom, wasn’t a surname but an honorarium given to him by many people. It means “Golden-mouthed” in Greek because John was a gifted orator who captivated audiences with his eloquent speaking style. He preached a series of homilies in the book of Acts, and when he comes to Acts 8:16, here’s what he wrote: “How was it then that they did not receive the Spirit? They had received the Spirit of remission of sins but not the Spirit of the signs.… To show that this was the case and that it was the Spirit of signs that they had not received, notice how Simon, once he saw the result, came and asked for this.” It would seem that John agrees with our conclusion, and he did centuries before we opened the Word.

Ancient Interpretations (Romans 10:9–13)

When studying a passage, I enjoy reading commentaries, word studies, and other research materials. Yet, I’ve learned to also consult Christians who lived closer to the time of Jesus than the scholars and commentators who give us great work. Neither the early church leaders nor modern scholars are always right, but it doesn’t mean they didn’t get anything right.

Some good neighbors instruct a person to be saved using Romans 10:9–13, and they even use this passage and say, “Invite Jesus into your heart,” or, “Pray the sinner’s prayer.” Allow me to say that I don’t question a person’s sincerity in their beliefs. As the late Antonin Scalia once said, “I attack ideas. I don’t attack people. Some very good people have some very bad ideas.” Neither the sinner’s prayer nor asking Jesus into your heart is in the Bible. This notion can be traced back to Billy Graham popularizing it in his crusades.

Historian Thomas Kidd traces it back to Anglo-American Puritans in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The Puritan devotional writer John Flavel spoke of those who heard the gospel but would “receive not Christ into their hearts.” Thomas Boston, a Scottish Calvinist, encouraged Christians to take communion to receive “Christ into their hearts.” Benjamin Colman wrote in the early eighteenth century that Christians should “receive Christ into their hearts and hold him forth in their lives.” The phraseology became more and more formalized as time passed.

How should this passage be interpreted? Let’s ask some ancient Christians. While many have commentaries on this passage, I want to introduce you to Augustine. Augustine lived from the middle of the fourth century into the fifth century. He was a rather worldly fellow until he heard the preaching of Ambrose of Milan. Ambrose communicated the gospel in a way that appealed to Augustine because the sinner was also a philosopher and very intelligent. Most of the preachers he heard preached so simply that it turned him away, but Ambrose helped him. Later on, Augustine would become the bishop of Hippo (now Algeria). Western civilization owes a lot to Augustine. He lived to see the fall of the Roman Empire, and his writings have shaped much of Western civilization.

In his writing entitled The Christian Life, Augustine writes, “This condition is fulfilled at the time of baptism when faith and profession of faith are all that is demanded for one to be baptized.” Just as we do today, we ask for their confession before baptizing someone. They confess that they believe that Jesus is the Son of God. We also see it in verses such as Acts 2:21, 9:14, 22:16, and 1 Corinthians 1:2 in one form or another.

The Holy Spirit Told Me

Some Christians will say, “The Holy Spirit told me.” I never doubt a person’s sincerity, but I don’t quite know what to make of this. I have a lot of questions. For example, how did He tell you? What did He say? What do you mean that he told you? Was it a dream? An email? Help me understand this. 

If you read it in Scripture, fair enough, I can understand that. I recommend you see a counselor if you’re hearing voices. Others have listened to voices in their heads, sometimes leading to awful things (e.g., drinking the Kool-Aid, Waco). Sometimes, you and I intuit or suspect a specific path or action should be followed. I urge caution about attributing something that might have arisen in our minds to the Holy Spirit. Along with this is often the statement that “God called me to do x, y, or z.” The only semblance of a divine calling is the call all Christians receive through gospel preaching (cf. 1 Peter 2:9–10; 1 Cor. 1:9; 2 Thess. 2:13–14). 

We have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as promised by God (Acts 2:37–39). By the way, please refer to Him as Him and not as “it.” That’s how He’s referred to in Scripture. What, precisely, does He do for us?

  • He comforts us (Acts 9:31). 
  • He pours out the love of God (Rom. 5:5).
  • He helps with our prayers (Rom. 8:26–27). 
  • He causes hope to abound (Rom. 15:13). 
  • He transforms us (2 Cor. 3:18). 
  • He produces fruit (Gal. 5:22–23). 
  • He strengthens us (Eph. 3:16). 

As God’s children, His Holy Spirit can lead us, but only if we so choose (Rom. 8:12–14). When we live according to the Holy Spirit’s teachings, we are led by Him. These teachings are attested to in Scripture since he is the Divine Author. Being led by the Spirit depends primarily upon surrendering to Him (cf. Gal. 5:16, 18, 25). 

Aside from Scripture, I’m unsure how He might lead a person in our time. I don’t presume that He does now as he did in the apostolic era. There are non-micaculous things he does for us, as mentioned above. I haven’t the knowledge to explain how He does these things, but it’s in Scripture, and I’m content to accept what He has told us—without understanding all the ins and outs. He was given to us as a pledge (2 Cor. 1:21–22; 5:5) to be redeemed when Jesus returns. He seals us to show we belong to God (Eph. 1:13–14; 4:30). Going beyond what Scripture says is in many people’s sentiments. Though they are well-meaning, I would need clarification on what they mean by this type of talk. There are times when coincidences occur. We sometimes say, “That’s a God thing.” Could it have been the Holy Spirit? There’s the possibility, but it could also be providence. I’m just cautious about attributing something to the Holy Spirit without certainty that it was Him.

If people through whom the Holy Spirit directly acted can misuse His gifts, we’re not better off. Take the Corinthians Church. Paul commanded that an interpreter be present for those who spoke in tongues so that the church might be edified (1 Cor. 14:10–14). Moreover, tongues were a sign for unbelievers, not believers (1 Cor. 14:20–23). Is this how we see the alleged use of tongues today? No. Instead, those who claim to speak in tongues today behave as the Corinthians Church whom Paul rebuked. Then, he limits the number of the tongue speakers for the sake of order (1 Cor. 14:27–28). He wraps a bow around this by reminding them that the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets (1 Cor. 14:32–33), so any accusation that they cannot exercise control when the Spirit is working is something Paul would not have accepted. 

The Frequency With Which We Partake of the Lord’s Supper (i.e., Communion, Eucharist)

One unique feature of Christ’s Church compared to many other fellowships is the weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper. Many others take it daily (Catholic Church), while some observe it quarterly or on “holidays” (e.g., Easter, Christmas). Nevertheless, the weekly observance is observable when looking at Scripture and early church history. The book of James is likely the earliest written letter of the New Testament (AD 45–48), but 1 Corinthians, written in AD 55, contains the earliest description of a worship service (1 Cor. 11–16). From that passage, we can draw out what they did by how Paul rebukes them for not doing it correctly. 

In 1 Cor. 11:17–18, Two phrases stick out in this passage: 1) “when you come together” in verse seventeen, and 2) “when you come together as a church” in verse eighteen. The phrases “coming together” (1 Corinthians 11:20) and “same place” are most often to be understood as the worship assembly unless the immediate context determines otherwise. We see a variant of these phrases in 1 Corinthians 14:23—“If, therefore, the whole church comes together …” A rather famous passage used of Christian worship in this respect is Hebrews 10:25, “Not neglecting to meet together …” 1 Cor. 11:20 explained the purpose of their coming together—the Lord’s Supper. Who partook? The church, or Christians (1 Cor. 11:22; cf. 12:13). Paul spoke of Christians, not visitors or outsiders. His entire discourse in chapter 12 was regarding the body, the church. Prophecy and the speaking of tongues that he spent so much time on would have been their equivalent of our modern notion of preaching since they were revelatory (1 Cor. 13:1–2, 8–9; 14:1–5). Prayer and singing are next mentioned. Each of these was followed by a congregational “Amen” (1 Cor. 14:14–16; cf. v. 26). At the portion of the worship where praying, singing, and preaching occurred, we read of visitors being present in the assembly (1 Cor. 14:23–24).

We note from 1 Cor. 14:33–35 that women were to have been silent in teaching/preaching since Paul was coming off the heels of speaking about preaching (1 Cor. 14:27–32). This may reflect his earlier mentioned women praying and prophesying (1 Cor. 11:5). Some people say this was a command only for the Corinthians. However, Paul told the Corinthians other things he told all the other churches (1 Cor. 4:17; 7:17; 14:33; 16:1). Paul takes a momentary detour and talks at length about the resurrection in 1 Cor. 15. However, he twice notes that the things he speaks of were “according to the Scriptures,” which suggests that the Scriptures (likely the OT) were read during the assembly as well (1 Cor. 15:3–4). Finally, in 1 Cor. 16:1–3, he mentions a contribution for the relief of those in Jerusalem that was to have been collected “on the first day of the week.” Some versions insert the term “every,” but it’s not present in the Greek, though Paul might have meant it. Everything he mentioned from 1 Cor. 11:17–18 are the “acts of worship.” There was the Lord’s Supper, preaching, praying, singing, Scripture reading, and a collection. We mention the five acts of worship, but there are six here when you account for Scripture reading. This was done, according to 1 Cor. 16:2, “on the first day of the week.”

Another passage regarding the weekly partaking of the Lord’s Supper is in Acts 20:7–12. This passage implies that they broke bread on the first day of the week or Sunday. The Sabbath was the last day of the week, the seventh day of the week. Along with this supper was the proclamation of the word. Luke writes as if his audience is aware of the custom, so he doesn’t go into detail but mentions what they did. 

Even in Christian history, we see a weekly observance. In a writing that was likely written around the same time as 1 Corinthians or thereabouts, we read, “Having earlier confessed your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure, come together each Lord’s day of the Lord, break bread, and give thanks.” (Didache 14). Often referred to as “breaking bread,” the Lord’s Supper was under discussion here since the author(s) mentioned it only a few verses earlier.  

Even 100 years later, Justin Martyr wrote to the Emperor a defense of Christianity called his 1 Apology, in which he describes the weekly Christian worship meeting. 

Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion. And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined … And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day. on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead.

1 Apology 64-66

By the fourth century, it was observed daily. The medieval church required penance before taking it, so many believers only took it annually, the absolute minimum permitted by the clergy. This was right before the Reformation. “The Lord’s Table should have been spread at least once a week for the assembly of Christians, and the promises declared in it should feed us spiritually” (Calvin, Inst., 4.17.46; c. 1536). The powers-that-be in Geneva, where Calvin reformed, were unwilling for the Reformation to go this far, but they permitted it to be taken four times a year. This is why many Protestant churches observe it as infrequently as they do, while the ancient Christians observe it weekly.

Now, infrequency will not make it more meaningful as much as weekly partaking makes it less significant. God has given the supper its meaning, and nothing can change that. Moreover, why not only give once a quarter or have the preacher deliver a sermon only infrequently? If someone finds it too familiar, that’s a heart problem, not the observation. We partake in the manner of our forebearers because they, having the apostles of Jesus, were so instructed.

Why “Worship” Is Too Broad

I was conversing with someone at church who relayed the statement another made about worshipping in their car while the radio played on the Christian station. After they told me what was said, I replied, “I think the term ‘worship’ is too broad. There are three Greek terms translated as ‘worship’ in the New Testament, and they each denote something different that our word ‘worship’–which has become a catch-all term for anything we consider to be worship.”

The first thing we need is a real revolution in our relation to language ….  It simply no longer occurs to us that everything that we have all known for so long, and all too well, could be otherwise—that these grammatical forms have not dissected and regulated language as such since eternity like an absolute, that instead, they grew out of a very definite interpretation of the Greek [language].

Martin Heidegger

Andrew McGowan addresses this in his book, Ancient Christian Worship. The form for a wedding pronouncement as far back as 1549 entailed these words when the groom placed the ring on his bride: “With this ring I thee wed; this gold and silver I thee give; with my body I thee worship; and withal my worldly goods I thee endow.” Certainly, we’re not talking about the sort of worship one gives to God! McGowan observes that at that time, the sharing of wealth was worship.

Here are the terms we see in the New Testament.

  • Proskyneses—This term spoke to a person’s posture before another more worthy than they. We “bow” our heads for prayer when, decades ago, men would kneel. In some congregations, people stand during the reading of the Bible. In denominations, some will prostrate themselves at certain times. Our posture is reflective of our attitude. Some argue that we don’t have to have any particular posture but should be the posture of one’s mind and heart. However, our physical posture sometimes moves our mind and heart to be in sync. When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped [proskunesen] him. But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I too am a man.” (Acts 10:25–26 ESV)
  • Latreia—This term was used regarding cultic forms of worship and the accompanying tasks. Anna, the prophetess, worshiped [latreuousa] “with fasting and prayer” (Luke 2:37). In Hebrews, the term is used in this particular vein as well when referring to the worship in the Temple and Tabernacle (Hebrews 8:5; 9:9; 10:2; 13:10).
  • Leitourgeo—“liturgy” is simply a transliteration of the Greek word used in the Bible several times. In Luke 1:23, it’s translated as “service” to describe Zechariah’s priestly service in the temple. It’s also used in sacrificial, worshipful contexts as “offering” (Philippians 2:17) and “worship” (Hebrews 9:21). We see it explicitly in Acts 13:2.

We have taken several terms and boiled it down to one word, “worship.” However, first-century Christians understood that it included one’s physical posture, a particular task or act performed, and a ritualistic nature to what was done. In some ways, we use the term correctly, but we may also use it as a catchall for what we believe is worship. The issue may not be resolved so easily, because even Augustine of Hippo encountered the same problem.

To make offerings and sacrifice, and to consecrate our possessions and ourselves . . . is the worship [cultus] that is due to the divinity . . . and since no Latin term sufficiently exact to express this in a single word occurs to me, I shall avail myself, where needed, of Greek. Latreia, whenever it occurs in Scripture, is rendered by the word “service” [servitus]. But that service that is due to humans, referring to which the apostle writes that servants must be subject to their own masters, tends to be referred to by another word in Greek, whereas the service that is paid to God alone by worship [cultus], is always, or almost always, called latreia in the usage of those who wrote down the divine oracles for us. So if we only used the word “worship,” it would not seem to be due exclusively to God; for we also speak of “worship” of humans, whom we celebrate with honors, whether in memory or in the present.

City of God 10.1.2

Leviticus 19:28 and Tattoos

The picture is of an eighty century Sudanese Christian woman whose mummy shows that she had a tattoo.

For disclosure, I have five tattoos. I didn’t get them before I was a preacher, but only in the last few years. No, I’m not having a mid-life crisis. I always wanted tattoos, but my dad told me to wait until I was older so I wouldn’t get something I would regret. I don’t regret any of them. On my left arm are three: the chi/rho symbol flanked on each side with alpha/omega. This was the symbol used by Emperor Constantine’s soldiers on their shields. Just beneath that one, the second is Deuteronomy 6:4 in Hebrew because that was the first verse I memorized while taking Hebrew classes. Under that is in Roman Numerals the date that I met my wife. I suppose you might say that my left arm is the arm of antiquity. On my right arm are two. The first is the seal of my tribe, the Mississippi Band of Choctaws. Under that is a tribal symbol that tells the story of our people.

I know some fellow Christians are opposed to tattoos, and they invoke Leviticus 19:28, which reads, “You shall not make any gashes in your flesh for the dead or tattoo any marks upon you: I am the Lord” (NRSV). Robert Alter offers this note, “The polyvalent Hebrew noun nefesh often means ‘person,’ but in some contexts it refers to a dead person or corpse, and the implication of mourning here points to that meaning” (The Five Books of Moses, p. 630). My SBL study Bible simply says, “Pagan mourning rites.” Marking oneself as a sign of mourning was meant to convey a heightened expression of sorrow (Jer. 16:6; 41:5).

Dr. David Bernat observes that the noun translated as “tattoo” only appears here in all the Hebrew Scriptures. Its root, moreover, indicates writing of some kind but is unspecified. Abraham ibn Ezra (c. 1089-1167) interpreted with the connection to mourning, as have others I’ve mentioned above. Agreeing with this position was Moshe Isaac Ashkenazy (c. 1821-1898). His theological explanation was:

The reason for tattooing was to remember the beloved dead, and they would carve the person’s name or picture on their hand or arm with a needle…so they would be before them always…and this is a bad practice, since it denies the survival of the soul after dead…since according to our faith, after a short time, we will see the other person again after death, we should not try so hard to have keepsakes, and those who are particular about this, to the point that they cause pain to their own flesh with this harsh act, show that they are not confident that they will see their departed loved ones again, and if so, they are deniers of the immortality of the soul.

Here’s the thing: I could provide more rabbis and scholars who hold this view. Nevertheless, as a Christian, the law is no longer something by which I am bound in Jesus. I am justified by faith in him and not the keeping of the law. Furthermore, Christians who invoke this passage, if they are to remain logically consistent, must observe everything contained in Leviticus. Also, in keeping with the premise, what about plastic surgery or any other modifications one makes to the body?

In early Christianity, tattoos were degrading and reserved for criminals and outlaws by Roman Law. It was a form of public punishment, like wearing the scarlett letter. Some early Christians claimed that their tattoos appeared as a miraculous experience that referred to the wounds of Christ or the early martyrs (e.g., Macrina). The Montanist sect took Revelation 7:3 literally and would tattoo “slaves of God” on their foreheads. Coptic Christians have tattooed themselves as far back as the eighth century. Apparently, they branded crosses on their foreheads, temples, and writsts. After the Muslim conquest of Palestine and Israel, Christians were tattooed by the state with a cross on their inner right wrist. Pilgrims who go to the Holy Land often commemorate their experiences with a tattoo of a cross on their inner wrist. History also attests to medieval Christians receiving tattoos upon making pilgrimages to the Holy Land. In fairness, some of the Church Fathers were of the opinion that they should be prohibited, so there isn’t a uniform view throughout early Christianity and even into late antiquity.

If anything, I would view it as a matter of Christian liberty. If you don’t want them, don’t get them. If you get them, make sure it isn’t something that would be offensive to God. I know some will invoke “the body is a temple” passage, and that’s fine. But tell me you eat healthy and that you never played a sport that affects your joints and wellbeing. If we’re to interpret the passage in that vain, I’m sure I could use it against anyone throwing it at me. Let’s just leave it to personal choice and reserve judgment for things that really matter.

Translation is Interpretation

Translators have to make judgment calls all the time. Sometimes they hit the nail on the head, and other times they don’t. Nevertheless, it’s worth noting that the job isn’t the easiest and they do their best. Let’s take one passage as an example: 1 Thessalonians 4:4

NIV: That each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honorable. 

NASB: That each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor. 

I would translate it as, “To know each one of you his own vessel how to acquire/possess in holiness and honor.” The term “vessel” was often used concerning a wife in antiquity because she received the seed of her male counterpart in sexual intercourse (cf. 1 Peter 3:7). Simply put, Paul may be giving instructions on acquiring and having a wife. Since the vessel was utilized as a receptacle, we see it elsewhere in Scripture: Paul was God’s chosen vessel (Acts 9:15), and indeed he received the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17). Believers, too, were vessels meant for honorable use while unbelievers were for dishonorable use (Rom. 9:21; cf. 2 Tim. 2:20–21). The honorable were receptors of the Holy Spirit like Paul (Rom. 8:9–11) and mercy, while the dishonorable were receptors of wrath (9:23). Since her husband ruled the wife in ancient Rome, she was considered his possession. Therefore, the proper acquisition of a wife demands the husband avoid passion. One reason this interpretation is plausible is based on verse six, which discusses exploiting a brother or sister.

Passion was the dishonorable loss of self-control, according to the ancients. As one scholar put it, “Vices of excess bring shame upon those who commit them [1 Cor. 7:35-36; cf. 6:18].” The active form of decorum referred to a dignified appearance obtained through the control of elimination of all passions, particularly those relevant to drinking alcohol, overeating, and sex. Pleasures overindulged in were seen as filled with passion and ugly practices. What was Paul advocating? Paul likely encourages that men regard women as valued. Perhaps even Christian equality, friendship, and mutual openness. 

This was counter to the Greco-Roman view:

For this is what living with a woman as one’s wife means—to have children by her and to introduce the sons to the members of the clan and of the deme, and to betroth the daughters to husbands as one’s own. Mistresses we keep for the sake of pleasure, concubines for the daily care of our persons, but wives to bear us legitimate children and to be faithful guardians of our households. (Demosthenes 59.122; ca. 382–322 BC)

Avoid impurity to the utmost of your power before marriage, and if you indulge your passion, let it be done lawfully. But do not be offensive or censorious to those who indulge it, and do not be always bringing up your own chastity. (Epic. Ench. 33.8; ca. AD 55–135)

While it was not unusual for Roman citizens to have multiple sexual partners, homosexual encounters, and engagement with temple prostitutes, Christians stood out precisely because of their refusal to engage in these practices.

“One in mind and soul, we do not hesitate to share our earthly goods with one another. All things are common among us but our wives” (Tertullian, Apol. 39). 

 “[Christians] share their meals, but not their sexual partners” (Diogn. 5.7).  

Christians “do not commit adultery nor fornication” and “their men keep themselves from every unlawful union” (Aristides, Apol. 15).

In his defense to Octavius, Marcus Felix (c. third century) contrasts the sexual ethic of the pagan world with that of Christians:

Among the Persians, a promiscuous association between sons and mothers is allowed. Marriages with sisters are legitimate among the Egyptians and in Athens. Your records and your tragedies, which you both read and hear with pleasure, glory in incests: thus also you worship incestuous gods, who have intercourse with mothers, with daughters, with sisters. With reason, therefore, is incest frequently detected among you, and is continually permitted. Miserable men, you may even, without knowing it, rush into what is unlawful: since you scatter your lusts promiscuously, since you everywhere beget children, since you frequently expose even those who are born at home to the mercy of others, it is inevitable that you must come back to your own children, and stray to your own offspring. Thus you continue the story of incest, even although you have no consciousness of your crime. But we maintain our modesty not in appearance, but in our heart we gladly abide by the bond of a single marriage; in the desire of procreating, we know either one wife, or none at all (31).

Now, for argument’s sake, let’s say that he isn’t talking about having a wife. The other interpretation would be how one uses his or her own body in holiness and honor by avoiding fornication. Either interpretation is in keeping with Christian doctrine and morality. Yet, you see why some translations would prefer body to vessel.

Mount Ebal Produces the Oldest Hebrew Inscription

Years ago, one of my professors and I casually discussed God’s providence. Because my studies centered on the canon of the Great Books of the Western World, compiled by Mortimer Adler, I often read works based on the Enlightenment and unkind to faith. As we spoke, I made a point that around the time of these critiques was when archaeology was surging. While many “scholars” criticized the Bible for, as they claimed, not being based on history, archaeologists were discovering artifacts confirming the Bible’s history.

In Deuteronomy 27:15–26, Moses instructed the Levites to lead Israel from Mount Ebal with eleven curses against anyone who partakes in idolatry, dishonors their parents, or moves their neighbor’s boundary stone. In Joshua 8:30, Joshua built an altar on Mount Ebal after taking Ai, where he repeated the curses of Moses. In the 1980s, archaeologists sifted through Mount Ebal, cataloging discoveries. In 2019, discarded material thought to be irrelevant was examined further. Recently, an amulet was run through an x-ray tomographic measurement to reveal a hidden text—“You are cursed by God YHW.” The YHW is God’s name, often considered “Yahweh.”

One scholar believes the inscription dates to the 13th century BC, which was the time that Joshua and Israel settled in the land of Canaan. Others believe it is older, making this discovery the oldest Hebrew inscription. Before this discovery, the oldest Hebrew inscription dated to the late tenth century, which is the period during which Saul and David were kings.

What’s neat, at least to me, is how these discoveries confirm the biblical account and do so in the timeline established. Since some think this inscription is older than the 13th century—the timeline of Joshua—it is likely that it was during Moses’ lifetime—roughly the middle of the fifteenth century onward. While some continue to doubt the Scriptures, plenty of evidence confirms their historicity. Hopefully, we have faith enough that we don’t need this evidence to “prove” what we already believe. Instead, it is nice to see the confirmation of a divinely given, inspired Bible. 

Praying, They Were Singing

I’ve always been impressed with the verbiage of Acts 16:25. “About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them” (NRSV). What’s fascinating is the Greek verbiage, not the English. In English, singing and praying are two things, but in Greek, it’s seen as one and the same.

A. T. Robertson’s Word Pictures reads: “Praying they were singing (simultaneously, blending together petition and praise).” Wayne Jackson’s New Testament commentary reads: “The Greek construction suggests they were ‘singing prayers.’” Alford’s Greek Testament notes: “…in their prayers, [they] were singing praises. The distinction of modern times between prayer and praise, arising from our attention being directed to the shape rather than to the essence of devotion, was unknown in these days.” Vincent’s Word Studies notes: “Lit., praying, they sang hymns. The praying and the praise are not described as distinct acts. Their singing of hymns was their prayer, probably Psalms.”

I find this so interesting because we distinguish prayer and praise, but in the early church, they were not as distinct as we made them out to be. There are many passages where prayer is isolated from praise (Matt. 26:39; Luke 22:44; Heb. 5:7; et. al.). Even in worship, prayer is sometimes distinguished from praise, but it’s often mentioned near to praise (1 Cor. 14:15; James 5:13; Rev. 5:8-9). These commentaries made me wonder if even those of the Reformation understood this concept better than we because Charles Spurgeon commented on Psalm 42 in his Treasury of David, “I would just as soon pray with machinery as to sing with machinery.” Makes you think, doesn’t it?

Orthodox philosopher and theologian David Bentley Hart’s New Testament translation accurately reflect this nuance. “And at about midnight, as they were praying, Paul and Silas sang hymns to God, and the prisoners listened to them.” I also consulted N. T. Wright’s New Testament translation, but he doesn’t reflect this. Most English translations don’t, but why are so many commentaries keen to point this out? Why not translate it as it should be?