Caesar and the Sacrament

Baptism: A Rite of Resistance

R. Alan Streett

foreword by Walter Brueggemann

CAESAR AND THE SACRAMENT

Baptism: A Rite of Resistance

Copyright © 2018 R. Alan Streett. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3 , Eugene, OR 97401.

Cascade Books

An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers

199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3

Eugene, OR 97401

www.wipfandstock.com

paperback isbn: 978-1-4982-2840-4

hardcover isbn: 978-1-4982-2842-8

ebook isbn: 978-1-4982-2841-1

Cataloging-in-Publication data:

Names: Streett, R. Alan | Brueggemann, Walter (foreword)

Title: Caesar and the sacrament : baptism : a rite of resistance / by R. Alan Streett; foreword by Walter Brueggemann.

Description: Eugene, OR : Cascade Books, 2018 | Includes bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers: ISBN 978-1-4982-2840-4 (paperback) | ISBN 978-1-4982-2842-8 (hardcover) | ISBN 978-1-4982-2841-1 (ebook)

Subjects: LCSH: Baptism—History of doctrines. | Bible. New Testament—Criticism, interpretation, etc.| Baptism—Biblical teaching. | Christian life—History—Early church, ca. 30–600. | Church history—Primitive and early church, ca. 30–600.

Classification: LCC BS2545.B36 S7 2018 (print) | LCC BS2545.B36 (ebook)

Manufactured in the U.S.A. January 29, 2018

Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated are from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright 1989, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission.

Table of Contents

Title Page

Foreword

Acknowledgments

List of Abbreviations

Chapter 1: Defining our Terms

1.1 Caesar

1.2 The Sacrament

1.3 And

1.4 Baptism

1.5 A Rite

1.6 Resistance

Chapter 2: Baptism in its Historical Context

2.1 Israel’s Troubled Past

2.2 The Assyrian Invasion of the North

2.3 The Babylonian Invasion of the South

2.4 The Rise of the Medo-Persian Empire

2.5 The Rise of Greece and Jewish Resistance

2.6 The Maccabean Era

2.7 The Roman Empire

Chapter 3: Baptism and Roman Domination

3.1 The Roman Elites

3.2 Native Elites

3.3 The Vast Underclass

3.4 Slaves and Free Men, Citizens and NonCitizens

3.5 Pax Romana

3.6 The Military

3.7 Taxes and Tributes

3.8 Confiscation of Property

3.9 The Imperial Cult

3.10 Religious Syncretism

3.11 Honor and Patronage

3.12 Collegia

3.13 Jewish Resistance to Domination

3.14 John the Baptizer and Jesus

Chapter 4: John the Baptizer

4.1 A Prophet among the Politicians

4.2 The Meaning of John’s Message

4.3 The Reactions of the Political Power brokers

4.4 John’s Baptism of Jesus

Chapter 5: The Baptism of Jesus

5.1 Jesus’ Baptism from a Johannine Perspective

5.2 Jesus’ Baptism from a Synoptic Perspective

5.3 The Prophetic Meaning of Jesus’ Baptism

5.4 The Political Meaning of Jesus’ Baptism

5.5 Jesus Commences his Mission

5.6 Jesus the King

5.7 Summary

Chapter 6: Baptism, Resurrection, and Restoration of the Kingdom

6.1 Introduction

6.2 Resurrection and Kingdom Restoration in the Old Testament

6.3 Resurrection and Kingdom Restoration in the New Testament

6.4 The Twelve

6.5 Jesus Demonstrates Kingdom Power

6.6 Jesus Before Pilate

6.7 Resurrection and Kingdom

6.8 The Risen King and Baptism

Chapter 7: Baptism and Pentecost

7.1 Peter’s Pentecostal Sermon and his Call for Baptism

7.2 The Human Side of Salvation

7.3 The Divine Side of Salvation

7.4 Water or Spirit Baptism?

7.5 A Message for the Nations

7.6 The Aftermath of Peter’s sermon

7.7 A SocioPolitical versus a Theological Approach to Baptism

Chapter 8: Baptisms beyond Jerusalem

8.1 Philip the Baptizer

8.2 The Baptism of Saul

8.3 Baptism of the Gentiles

Chapter 9: Paul the Baptizer

9.1 Paul’s Baptisms in Philippi

9.2 Paul’s Baptisms in Corinth

9.3 Paul’s Baptisms in Ephesus

Chapter 10: Baptism in the Undisputed Pauline Epistles

10.1 Baptism in Romans

10.2 Baptism in First Corinthians

10.3 Baptism in Galatians

10.4 Summary

Chapter 11: Baptism in Other Epistles and the Apocalypse

11.1 Baptism in Ephesians

11.2 Baptism in Colossians

11.3 Baptism in Titus

11.4 Baptism in James

11.5 Baptism in First Peter

11.6 Baptism in First John

11.7 Baptism in the Apocalypse

11.8 Postscript

Bibliography

To my ten grandchildren:

Elena, William, Jude, Adeline, Gwyneth, Eden, Ezekiel,

Winston, Olive, and Adia

FOREWORD

Alan Streett has written a book to which any serious Christian should pay attention. In his previous book, Subversive Meals , he has shown the ways in which the Christian practice of the Eucharist was a meal of resistance that both imitated and countered the practices of the Roman Empire. In this present book he extends the argument to a second sacrament, baptism, and in remarkable ways defamiliarizes this most familiar of Christian rites.

While Streett is a very fine reader of texts, he begins his study not with the text, but with context. In this case, the context behind Christian baptism is in two parts. On the one hand, Streett considers the “sacramental” practice of the Roman Empire that consisted in “oath-taking” in loyalty to imperial authorities whereby soldiers were bound in demanding loyalty to their superiors. The “sacrament” was an act of oath-taking. Christian baptism, in a parallel way, consists in oath-taking toward the Lord of the gospel that entailed the renunciation of all old oaths and loyalties. On the other hand, the long-term history of ancient Israel (to which the early church—alongside Judaism—is heir) was a story of life amid exploitative greedy empires. In that recurring context, the maintenance of Israelite-Jewish identity required intentional practices. As a result, the community of ancient Israel was an “anti-royal resistance movement” that perforce had ritual acts to sustain a dissident identity.

Streett’s reading shows us that the earliest Christian movement, as an heir to ancient Israel, was also a movement resistant to Roman authority. Streett’s analysis pivots on John the Baptizer and on the baptism of Jesus. The baptism of John was on the one hand an act of “repentance,” of renouncing old loyalties not unlike “cancelling my subscription” or even “burning my draft card” and so undoing an old loyalty. In either figure it constitutes a renunciation of a past oath to Rome and the obedience that was required by the old oath. On the other hand baptism, by way of God’s ready forgiveness of past betrayal, was an entry into the “kingdom of God,” a this-worldly alternative to the kingdom of Rome. John’s act of baptism was a perfect subversion of imperial authority that earned him execution by Herod, a toady of Rome.

Streett makes much of Luke’s statement (that I had not fully appreciated) that at the baptism of Jesus a dove descended “in bodily form” (Luke 3:22). This particular imagery is significant in two ways. First, it is a dove that descended, not the eagle of Roman domination. (The contrast strikes me as not unlike the arrival of Jesus in Jerusalem on a donkey and not on a military horse, or perhaps even Pope Francis arriving in Washington DC in a Fiat and not a limo). Second, the “bodily” form, Streett sees, signifies that the baptism of Jesus was a theo-political act tilting the “body politic” in an anti-Roman direction.

From this defining event on which much of the gospel narrative turns, Streett sees an interpretive prism that consists in baptism, resurrection to new life, and the restoration of Israel as the renewed people of God. His argument is in many ways congruent with the shrewd reading of Jon Levenson, Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life . Streett considers the texts of Ezek 37, Isa 24–27, and the book of Daniel, all of which concern resurrection and all of which anticipate the restoration of Israel that is emancipated from imperial domination. The combination of human “repentance” and divine “forgiveness” constitutes a readiness on the part of the God of Israel to begin again with Israel after Israel’s recalcitrance. Thus, the baptism of repentance (as human act) and forgiveness (as divine act) constitute the way of baptism that is in acute continuity with the ancient attestation of prophetic Israel.

Having made a compelling case that the interplay of human repentance and divine forgiveness attest a new theo-political movement, Streett exposits in persuasive detail the way in which the Christian movement, as narrated in the New Testament, is much preoccupied with baptism; indeed, the early church is a baptism-propelled movement that claims and performs emancipated life outside the reach of Roman domination. His discussion may be seen as a thematic exposition in three literary clusters.

First, the book of Acts features the baptism of Saul and the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch at the hands of Philip, and the preaching of Peter that led to many baptisms. It is evident that the baptism-resurrection narrative of the apostles caused much nervousness among imperial authorities and encounters with magistrates that seem reminiscent of that of the Roman governor, Pilate, before “the King of the Jews.” Second, Paul’s letters are preoccupied with baptism. In the Galatian letter Streett’s discussion might be joined to that of Brigitte Kahl, Galatians Re-Imagined: Reading with the Eyes of the Vanquished . In Kahl’s purview the “law” in Galatians is “the law of Rome,” not the Jewish Torah. Thus, baptism for Paul is a departure from Roman authority to new life that is summed up in neighbor love, the very antithesis of Roman expectation (see Gal 5:14; 6:2). Third, Streett considers the remainder of the New Testament epistles and shows the way in which baptism is central in the entire corpus. A concluding observation concerns the book of Revelation and the radical either/or concerning the whore Babylon and the new world of the rule of the lamb. Everywhere, so Streett makes clear, the Christian movement is powered by the public act of baptism wherein new oaths of loyalty are taken that commit to an alternative life in the world and that is free from and in defiance of imperial expectations.

Streett’s fine exposition does not move in any explicit way toward contemporaneity beyond the observation that the church in our society now suffers from a great dose of amnesia whereby we have lost our understanding of this core event. Streett is not explicit in making those connections, but much is implied in his work. His book is indeed a summons to the church to move out of our narcoticized amnesia into a recovery of the memory that is regularly performed in the sacrament of baptism, a memory that celebrates, names, and mediates a new life of emancipated obedience to the alternative Lord of reality. The church, in all of its parts in our culture, is excessively “familiar” with baptism. This excessive and comfortable familiarity is evident in both the churches that practice infant baptism and believer’s baptism. Infant baptism, it seems obvious, is largely done with theological indifference by its participants. Believer’s baptism all too often occurs in churches that willingly embrace conventional and dominant cultural values. In neither mode is the true grit of baptism much taken into account. Streett does nothing less than show that the understanding of baptism in Constantinian Christianity, which privatized and spiritualized baptism, was a gross misinterpretation that we, at the end of Christendom, may now unlearn. One may hope that Streett’s study will awaken the church to the wide and deep accents of baptism that is both a gift from God and mandate to an emancipated transformed public life. The implications of Streett’s work are immense; at the end of Christendom we might recover this ancient act that is a gateway to a more excellent way in the world.

Walter Brueggemann

Columbia Theological Seminary

May 1, 2017

Acknowledg ments

Caesar and the Sacrament: Baptism: A Rite of Resistance serves as a companion to my book Subversive Meals (Pickwick, 2013). A big “thank you” to the entire Wipf and Stock publishing team that was involved in this project, particularly to Chris Spinks and Chelsea Lobey, my editor and copyeditor.

A special word of appreciation goes to Walter Brueggemann for writing the foreword. Dr. Brueggemann is the epitome of a Christian gentleman and scholar. His love for people is remarkable and his enthusiasm is contagious. For the past few years we have met at SBL, where he listened to my ideas about this book and offered positive input.

I am indebted to my son Daniel R. Streett, associate professor of NT (Houston Baptist University), whose article “Rome and the Risen Jesus” stimulated my thinking and became the basis for writing chapter 6.

Above all, I wish to recognize my wife, Lynn Fenby Streett, who read this manuscript many times, spotted errors, and made suggestions for improvement. Lynn is an excellent proofreader and worked diligently to get the book ready for publication. Most of all, she supported and encouraged me every day as I researched and wrote Caesar and the Sacrament .

List of Abbreviations

I. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

1 En. 1 Enoch

Jub. Jubilees

II. Greek and Latin Works

Caesar

Bell. civ. Bellum civile Civil War

Bell. gall. Bellum gallicum Gallic War

Chrysostom

Hom. Act. Homiliae in Acta apostolorum

Cicero

Brut. Brutus

Off. De officiis

Div. De divination

Leg. De legibus

Phil. Orationes philippicae

Flac. Pro Flacco

Rep. De republica

Dio Cassius

Hist. Historiae Romanae Roman History

Epictetus

Diatr. Diatribai (Dissertationes)

Eusebiu s

Hist. eccl. Historia ecclesiastica Ecclesiastical History

Hippolytus

Trad. Ap. Traditio apostolic The Apostolic Tradition

Homer

Od. Odyssea

Horace

Carm. Carmina Odes

Ep. Epistulae Epistles

Josephus

Ag. Against Apion

Ant. Jewish Antiquities

J.W. Jewish War

Life The Life

Livy

Hist. History of Rome

Philo

Embassy On the Embassy to Gaius

Hypoth. Hypothetica

Good Person That Every Good Person Is Free

Spec. De specialibus legibus

Pliny the Elder

Nat. Naturalis historia

Pliny the Younger

Ep. Epistulae

Plutarch

Is. Os. De Iside et Osiride

Quaest. Rom. Quaestiones romanae et graecae

Rom. Romulus

Sue tonius

Aug. Divus Augustus

Claud. Divus Claudius

Dom. Domitianus

Jul. Divus Julius

Tib. Tiberius

Tacitus

Ann. Annales

Hist. Historiae

Tertullian

Bapt. De Baptismo

Idol. De Idololatria

Marc. Adversus Marcionem Against Marcion

Virgil

Aen. Aeneid

III. Mishnah, Talmud and Related Literature

Ber. Berakot

Pesah. Pesahim

Yebam. Yebamot

IV. New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

Gos. Thom. Gospel of Thomas

Prot. Jas. Protevangelium of James

V. Apostolic Fathers

1 –2 Clem. 1 –2 Clement

Herm. Sim. Shepherd of Hermas, Similitude

Chapter 1

Defining our Terms

—Part 1—

Caesar and the Sacrament

The main title “Caesar and the Sacrament” is composed of three important terms that must be understood in light of their historical context.

1.1 Caesar

“Caesar” was the Latin ancestral name of an influential Roman political family, dating to 208 BCE. Among the most famous Caesars was Julius who ruled over the Roman Republic from 49–44 BCE. His assassination on the “Ides of March” (15 March 44 BCE) led to a prolonged struggle for power with his grandnephew Gaius Octavian emerging as victor over rival Mark Antony at the Battle of Actium in 31 BCE. The “good news” (εὐαγγέλιον) of the victory moved the masses to proclaim Octavian their “savior” (σωτὴρ), the one who single-handedly brought “peace and security” to the kingdom.

Because Julius Caesar placed an adoption clause in his Last Will and Testament naming Octavian as his adopted son, the latter took the family name Caesar for himself. Under his leadership, the Republic gave way to the Empire, with Octavian becoming its first emperor. In 27 BCE, the Roman Senate bestowed upon him the esteemed title Augustus, meaning majestic one. From that time forward, Octavian was addressed as Augustus Caesar. The Julio-Caesar dynasty continued until the death of its fifth emperor Nero in 68 CE.

Because the term “Caesar” had become so embedded in the public consciousness as a designation for the emperor, all future rulers during the first century took it as their own title with the exception of Vitellius, whose short reign in 69 CE lasted less than eight months.

During the first one hundred years of the church, thirteen different Caesars sat on the throne. The members of the nascent Jesus movement often found themselves at odds with a political system that called upon all citizens and subjects to declare Caesar as Lord.

1.2 The Sacrament

The second term “sacrament” has been defined in many ways by theologians and church councils throughout the centuries, often leading to confusion and controversy. However, it was not originally a “Christian” word. Early Christ-followers simply borrowed the familiar Latin term sacramentum— being used in the Roman world at the time—and contextualized it for their own use. According to D. Van Slyke, there are 150 extant references to sacramentum found in ancient Roman literature. 1

Originally, sacramentum was a legal term. According to ancient Roman scholar Marcus Terentius Varro (116–27 BCE) sacramentum referred to the fixed amount of funds two opposing parties in a legal dispute had to deposit with a court before their case could be adjudicated. Once a decision was rendered, the victor’s sacrament (sacramento ) was returned, while the loser’s deposit was forfeited to the court. 2

Roman dictator Julius Caesar was the first to use sacramentum in a military sense. 3 He described it as a voluntary oath taken by soldiers upon entering the Roman army. 4 Once sacramentum became part of the military lexicon, it quickly fell into disuse as a legal term. 5

Livy (ca. 59 BCE–17 CE), the Roman historian, likewise noted that sacramentum was used during the age of the Republic as a soldier’s oath of obedience, which was administered by a consul and obligated a soldier to obey his superiors and not to abandon his comrades-in-arms. The verbalized ritual thus served as a covenant or agreement between officers and soldiers, and was a requirement to serve in the military. 6 Marcus Tullius Cicero (106–43 BCE) wrote that when General Popilius chose to disband one of his legions, young Cato wanted to continue serving in the army. His father said the general “should swear him into service with a new oath of allegiance,” since his original sacramentum was no longer legally binding. 7

Tacitus (56–117 CE), the Roman senator and historian, referred to sacramentum during the Empire as the verbal pledge of allegiance a soldier gives to his emperor. 8 Tacitus was the first to speak of “receiving the sacrament” (sacramentum acciperent ) because the oath was being administered to the soldier on behalf of the emperor. 9 The wording of the oath remained constant; only the object of the oath changed from one Caesar to the next. 10 Through the reign of Caesar Tiberius (14–37 CE), soldiers were required to take the sacrament only once during their career, 11 but during a time of great turmoil in the Empire, Galba (68 CE) required them to take the sacrament on a yearly basis. 12

Suetonius (70–122 CE) writes that all military personnel serving Imperial Rome were “bound by the sacrament” (sacramentum ) or oath of fidelity. 13 He also points out that Gaius Caligula, who ruled over the Empire from 37 CE to 41 CE, deviated from tradition and required soldiers to pledge their faith not only to him, but his family as well. 14

Maurus Servius Honoratus (ca. 365 CE–? ), the respected Roman grammarian, mentions in his commentary on Virgil’s Aeneid that each Roman soldier in the first century made a sacramentum at the start of his military career that remained in force throughout. The exception occurred only in case of an extreme emergency when masses of soldiers had to be recruited and deployed at a moment’s notice. In such times soldiers either took the oath en masse or skipped it altogether. 15

Once ensconced in the public consciousness, people began using sacramentum loosely in contexts other than the military to refer to vows made between thieves and conspirators to pledges of faithfulness given by candidates seeking membership into a mystery cult. 16 Thus, while sacramentum retained its meaning as an oath, its application broadened. Because the oath was sacred and taken in front of witnesses—both humans and deities—it was irrevocable. Those breaking fidelity faced penalties similar to those in the military, ranging from shame to death. 17

Christians likewise practiced oath keeping. Pliny the Younger (61–113 CE), the governor of Bithynia, in his investigative report for Emperor Trajan, told of Christians (ca. 110 CE) who met before dawn to worship Christ “and to pledge themselves by a sacrament . . . that they will not break faith.” 18 It is impossible to know exactly what specific act Pliny had in mind when he said they “pledge themselves by a sacrament.” Was he referring to baptism, the Lord’s Supper, or some other analogous oath that bound members together?

Tertullian (160–225 CE), the famed apologist, was more specific and identified the act of baptism as the Christian sacramentum and contrasted it to a Roman soldier’s pledge of loyalty to the emperor and Empire. 19 By analogy, he makes the case that just as a soldier, upon his oath of allegiance, was inducted into Caesar’s army, so a believer was initiated by the sacrament (oath) of baptism into God’s kingdom. Each vowed faithful service to his god and kingdom.

Tertullian also included the Eucharist under the rubric of sacramentum . 20 For him, eating the sacred meal was as much a promise of faithful devotion and service to Christ, albeit a continuous one, as the initial sacramentum of baptism.

With the passing of time words change meaning. Sacramentum was no exception. Post-Nicene writers started defining it as an outward sign of an inward spiritual grace. Jerome (ca. 345–430 CE) chose to translate the Greek word mysterion (“mystery”) as sacramentum in his Latin Vulgate. This opened the door for the development of various sacramental theories and the resultant controversies that still exist into the twenty-first century.

My use of sacramentum will be limited to the way it was used from the time of Julius Caesar until Tertullian, e.g., taking an oath, making a pledge or promise, or entering into a covenant. Specifically, I show how the NT portrays baptism as the believer’s sacramentum . Just as Roman soldiers pledged their allegiance to Caesar and Empire, so soldiers of the cross vowed their fealty to Christ and his kingdom.

I will give particular attention to how undergoing baptism “in Jesus’ name” changed the participant’s status, identity, relationships, and loyalties.

1.3 And

The conjunction “and” is the third crucial word in the title. This important connective points out that those making oaths respectively to Caesar and Christ in the first century lived in proximity to each other, which made for complex and often hostile relationships between church and empire.

1.3.1 Withdraw or Engage?

Unlike the Essenes at Qumran, the earliest baptized Christ-followers did not withdraw from society or practice their faith in a corner, hidden from the view of the world. Jewish Christ-followers aggressively argued in the synagogues and temple courtyards that Jesus was the Christ. These claims led to heated debates among all in attendance and often resulted in the baptized believers being marginalized or even excommunicated from the religious community.

When Gentile Christ-followers refused to participate in pagan temple rituals and meals, everyone in their circle of contacts knew about it and inquired of their sudden absence from worship. This gave believers an opportunity to explain their beliefs and behavior. It often led to ridicule and persecution.

In both Jewish and Gentile circles, temples were more than religious sites. They were also centers of political and economic power in the community. To renounce the temple was to oppose the authority of a governmental institution.

Romans viewed the Christ movement as a menace and a threat to imperial ideology. Jewish native elites, serving the Roman government, viewed it as defiant and a challenge to the status quo. Neither Jewish nor Gentile officials dealt kindly with such resistance. In many cases they felt compelled to take action against the rebels.

The earliest believers in Christ had to find ways to navigate a socio-political system that insisted that Caesar alone was Lord, while maintaining their baptismal/sacramental loyalty to Jesus as Lord. This was not an easy task. Cornelius, a Roman centurion, is a case in point. When he pledged his sacramentum to Christ just as he had done previously to Caesar, are we to imagine his commanding general was delighted or that the emperor suddenly relinquished his claim on the soldier’s devotion? This new reality did not make for a “live and let live” atmosphere as found in many modern Western societies, but likely resulted in tension.

The title “Caesar and the Sacrament” seeks to explore that complexity.

1.3.2 Cultural Warriors or Subverters

The first Christ-followers were not cultural warriors as many are in the twenty-first century. They did not seek or expect to transform the City of Man into the City of God. Rather, they lived in the midst of society, and embraced an alternative lifestyle based on kingdom of God ethics.

Christ-followers often used imperial language and adopted familiar Roman rituals to express their faithfulness to Jesus. By Christianizing Roman language and customs intended to promote loyalty to Caesar and Jupiter, they subverted the culture. For example, baptism and mealtime practices in many ways mimicked similar Roman activities.

To an outsider, Christian baptism might have appeared to be no different than a cleansing Roman bath or a Jewish water ritual, but it signified something antithetical to both the Roman and Jewish ways of life. 21

—Part 2—

Baptism: A Rite of Resistance

The subtitle consists of three important words: “baptism,” “rite,” and “resistance.” This book deals with baptism as both a rite and as an act of resistance.

1.4 Baptism

Baptism, from the Greek βάπτισμα, means immersion. In the NT it was used to describe a ritual cleansing bath in which individuals were submerged in water. John the Baptist, Jesus, and their disciples called for people to reform morally by repenting of their sins and submitting to baptism. After Jesus’ death and resurrection, his representatives invited others to join their movement through baptism “in the name of Jesus.”

Christian baptism was an intensely political act that symbolized one’s death to the present world order and allegiance to the all-encompassing kingdom of God.

1.5 A Rite

All societies, whether modern or ancient, have observed important rites or rituals. The Roman Empire was no exception. The Feast of Liberalia (March 17), for instance, was an annual celebration of maturity. All sons of Roman citizens, having reached their fourteenth birthday, participated in a coming of age ceremony whereby they transitioned from childhood to adulthood. This rite of passage, comprised of formulaic words and symbolic gestures, concluded with the father placing a white toga virilis over his son’s shoulders, the symbol of manhood and citizenship.

Rituals were associated with all aspects of Roman life from birth to death. Purification customs, marriage ceremonies, cultic sacrifices, inaugurations, deifications of emperors, libations to the gods, ritual baths, and sacred meals were ritualistic in one way or another.

Jews also practiced a whole array of rituals including daily and annual sacrifices, cleansings, kosher food rites, exorcisms, Sabbath keeping, circumcisions, proselyte baptism, and burial rites. One would be hard pressed to discover any aspect of Jewish life that did not involve some kind of ritual observance.

The nascent Christ movement was no different. Such acts as anointing with oil, the laying on of hands, exorcisms, and healings done “in the name of Jesus” were all rituals. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper also came under the category of ritual activity.

What Is a Ritual?

A ritual is a ceremony comprised of certain actions that are carried out according to a prearranged formula. By nature, rituals include the utterance of standardized phrases or secret oaths that convey symbolic meaning of reality, truth, or a desired outcome. The dramatic aspect of the ritual graphically drives home the importance and seriousness of the ceremonial truth or lesson and cauterizes it into the minds of the participants and witnesses. Thus, rituals are rarely undertaken haphazardly or in a frivolous manner.

A few modern-day examples of ritual include wedding ceremonies with the exchange of vows, the giving of rings, and the pronouncement by the minister; commencement exercises with the university president—on behalf the state and the board of trustees—declaring that the students are now graduates, the awarding of diplomas, and moving the tassels from right to left across the mortar boards; Masonic inductions of membership with a blindfolded initiate kneeling before a Bible, a tow line around his neck, and the point of a dagger pressed to his breast, all accompanied by oaths and obligations; and investiture of knighthood in which the queen or king taps the flat side of a ceremonial sword on the shoulders of the kneeling candidate, dubbing him a knight, followed by the presentation of the insignia of the UK, which gives him the right to use the title “sir” and wear the insignia as an emblem of his knighthood.

Rituals as Change Agents

Whether a rite of passage such as the Toga Virilis ceremony or a rite of initiation such as the Masonic induction, all rituals are transformative. A child legally becomes an adult and a candidate becomes a member. They join the ranks of others who have gone through similar rituals. Boundary lines are crossed. The undergraduate is now a graduate, the single person is now married, the resident alien is now a citizen, and a civilian is now a soldier.

In this sense, rituals affect reality. They are intended to be more than hollow words or inconsequential gestures. Rituals are weighty.

Many of us witnessed the serious nature and transforming power of ritual when former President Barack Obama took the oath of office for the first time. In his attempt to administer the oath from memory, Chief Justice John Roberts inadvertently skipped a few words. Realizing the significance of his error, Roberts met with Mr. Obama the next day and re-administered the oath precisely word-for-word, noting that there was some doubt whether Obama actually had become president the day before. Only after the ritual was properly performed a second time did the nation have a new leader. Barack Obama’s status had been officially changed from private citizen to the president of the United States.

Or who can forget the surreal scene in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963, when Vice President Lyndon Johnson, stood before federal judge Sarah T. Hughes on Air Force One and took the presidential oath of office to become the thirty-sixth president of the United States. According to the Warren Commission report, it was “Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, who advised that Mr. Johnson take the Presidential oath of office before the plane left Dallas.” 22 There was no time for delay. America needed a standing president, but without the oath Lyndon Johnson could not step into the presidency.

A couple is not married, for instance, when a proposal of marriage is made or even when a marriage license is obtained. Marriage occurs only after there is the exchange of vows and the official pronounces the couple to be husband and wife.

Rituals as Communal Events

Rituals are seldom private affairs; rather, they are communal events. Regardless of the ceremonial site—a secluded grove of trees or a public beach or Air Force One—others attend either as witnesses or as officiants/participants in the rite. Rituals draw together those of like mind. As the ceremony proceeds, those in attendance experience unity.

Rituals are tied to group identity. New fictive relationships are formed as the one undergoing the rite becomes part of a new family or body politic. Former ties are often supplanted in importance by the new bonds, effecting social change. Fresh alliances are formed that may produce friction with longtime friends and new commitments are embraced that may replace loyalty to other organizations. We become new people and belong to new groups.

The Ritual of Baptism

By definition, baptism is a ritual. Through it, individuals affiliate with the people of God and thus receive a new identity. For first-century believers this meant becoming part of a new sociopolitical entity, the kingdom of God, which required its citizens to reorder their lives in accordance with covenantal ethics.

1.6 Resistance

“Resistance,” the third word in the subtitle, speaks of opposition to something or someone and refusal to accept the status quo. The church in the first century, as the locus and earthly manifestation of God’s kingdom, was the antithesis of the Roman Empire. Through baptism, believers sided with the kingdom of God and rejected Rome’s dominant narrative that it alone possessed a divine right to rule the world. Another kingdom under another Lord had arisen to challenge Rome’s claims and ethical practices. When Christ-followers submitted to baptism they committed an act of resistance against Rome by becoming part of a movement that challenged Roman ideology, its hierarchical social order, and rejected Caesar as the ultimate Lord. For many of the original believers, baptism was the initial step that led to persecution and even death. Hence, baptism was a rite of resistance.

Baptism was a “boundary crossing ritual,” 23 i.e., a proverbial line drawn in the sand. When crossed, it meant breaking formal ties with the past, declaring fealty to another Lord, and accepting a new and alternative identity—Christ-follower. As such, baptism was a political act of subversion or a rite of resistance against the prevailing power structures of the day. Is there any wonder that the early believers were challenged to count the cost before taking the plunge?

As the radical Jesus movement evolved over the centuries and became the established cultural religion of the Empire, baptism lost its counter-imperial significance. No longer seen as a mark of resistance, it became a sign of acceptability and respectability. The idea that baptism was a rite of entrance into an alternative kingdom fell by the wayside.

Modern-Day Amnesia

The twenty-first-century church, especially in the West, suffers from amnesia. The church has lost consciousness of baptism as a rite of resistance. It has forgotten its kingdom mandate to embrace and exhibit an alternative ethic in the midst of a culture of domination.

Baptism’s subversive significance has been muted. It is not uncommon for a newly baptized individual to discover that the church s/he joins is powerful, wealthy, and operates like a Fortune 500 company with little or no interest for missions or feeding the poor of the city. The church has exchanged its camel hair for a scarlet robe. Its prophetic voice has ceased as it has sought a place at the table with the other power brokers.

The primitive church saw baptism as the first step toward radically redefining one’s life in accordance with God’s standards. It involved a break with the predominant culture of violence and oppression. The gospel of the kingdom was an invitation to a different kind of life. Baptism was the response. Those baptized “in the name of Jesus” became part of God’s new creation.

The church is “what God intends the world to become.” 24 Even now we can participate in the age to come, although we live in the present evil world. At least, that’s the way it is supposed to be.

To help us recover from our historical amnesia and regain our memory, I have written Caesar and the Sacrament: Baptism: A Rite of Resistance . This book focuses on baptism in its first-century, sociopolitical context.

1 . Van Slyke, “Sacramentum in Ancient Non-Christian Authors,” 167.

2 . Varro, On the Latin Language , 5.180.

3 . Caesar, Bell. gall. , 6.1; Bell. civ. , 1.86; 2.28.

4 . Caesar, Bell. civ. , 1.86.

5 . I am deeply indebted to Van Slyke, who recounts in “Changing Meanings of sacramentum ,” 2 45–79, how the definition of sacramentum changed over the centuries dating from Varro to the Second Vatican Council.

6 . Livy, Hist. , 22.38.

7 . Cicero, Off. , 1.11.36.

8 . Tacitus, Hist ., 1.56.

9 . Ibid., 4.21.

10 . Ibid., 1.5; 2.81.

11 . Tacitus, Ann ., 1.8.

12 . Tacitus, Hist ., 1 .55 .

13 . Quoted in Van Slyke, “Sacramentum in Ancient Non-Christian Authors,” 178 .

14 . Ibid., 179.

15 . Ibid., 181.

16 . Sacramentum also continued being used as a military oath into the third century. See Campbell, Emperor and the Roman Army .

17 . Livy, Hist ., 28.27.

18 . Pliny, Ep. , 10.96.

19 . Tertullian, Bapt. , 4.4–5. Also see Idol ., 19.2. According to Barnes, Tertullian , 55, Tertullian wrote De baptismo between 197–201 CE.

20 . Tertullian, Marc ., 4.34.5.

21 . In Streett, Subversive Meals , I show how Christian meals followed the Greco-Roman structure of deipnon and symposion , making them inconspicuous to the undiscerning eye. Yet, they honored a Lord other than Caesar and a god other than Jupiter. Hence, the Lord’s Supper was an act of resistance, performed in open view.

22 . United States, Warren Commission, Report of the President’s Commission , 263 .

23 . DeMaris, New Testament , 102.

24 . Stookey, Baptism , 39.

Chapter 2

Baptism in its Historical Context

2.1 Israel’s Troubled Past

Rome was not the first empire to dominate or enslave the Jewish people. Throughout their long history, Jews had struggled to remain free from foreign oppression. As Norman Gottwald observes, “Early Israel was born as an anti-imperial resistance movement.” 25 Their earliest experiences of suffering—beatings, pain, hunger, exhaustion—at the hands of the Egyptians (Exod 1:8) caused them to cry out to their god for deliverance. Based on Yahweh’s promise to Abraham that from his loins would come a great kingdom, they embraced their identity as the children of God and envisioned a preferred future living under God’s reign (Exod 3:8). 26

According to the book of Exodus, on the night the slaves prepared to flee Pharaoh’s tyrannical regime they prepared to eat their first Passover meal as God had instructed them. Each household slaughtered a lamb, smeared its blood on the doorpost of their respective homes, and ate the roasted lamb. As they consumed the meal, God destroyed the firstborn of Egypt, leading to Israel’s release from bondage. 27 This anti-imperial Passover meal not only anticipated but also effected Israel’s emancipation from Egypt. 28

Written from the perspective of the victims, the book of Exodus is a piece of subversive literature that exposed the dominant ideology of Egypt. 29 Throughout the centuries, wherever Jews found themselves again in exile, they turned to this story to understand their own predicament and find hope and inspiration for the future. 30

As the Jews marched to freedom they were forced to cross the Red Sea. The Apostle Paul later associates this escape through water with Christian baptism, a rite that depicts deliverance from slavery and provides the believer with a new identity in Christ (1 Cor 10:4).

These events, eating a Passover meal and traversing the Red Sea, were essential to God’s rescue of two million Hebrews. 31

When the Hebrew people arrived at Sinai, God formed them into a nation (a political entity) and declared them to be his peculiar treasure. Two key concepts are linked to Israel’s national identity.

The first is the kingdom of God . Once out of harm’s way, the throng of liberated slaves sang a joyful canticle by the sea (Exod 15:1–18) that concludes with the words, “The Lord will reign forever and ever.” This stanza acknowledged Yahweh as the true king whose dominion was far superior to the world’s most powerful pharaoh. Yahweh had “triumphed gloriously” over Egypt’s mighty war machine by casting “horse and rider . . . into the sea” (vv. 20–21).

At Sinai God declared of his people: “you shall be for me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation” (Exod 19:6).

As Israel marched through the desert toward its promised land, God gave them instructions for choosing a righteous king when they reached their destination and got settled. A godly kingdom needed a godly king. According to Deut 17, he must be a leader who: 1) is a native Jew and not a foreigner (v. 15); 2) does not trust in the size of his army or in alliances with foreign nations for victory (v. 16); 3) does not marry multiple wives, i.e., enter political marriages with daughters of pagan kings who might draw his heart away from trusting in Yahweh (v. 17); 4) lives modestly and does not use his office to accumulate wealth (v. 17); 5) keeps a personal copy of Torah by his side (v. 18); 6) reads and obeys the Law in the fear of God (vv. 18–19); and 7) acts humbly before the people and God so that his dynasty may prosper for many generations (v. 20).

Israel was God’s kingdom and owed its existence and allegiance to him.

The Mosaic covenant was the second concept linked to Israel’s national identity. Georgia Harkness observes, “The concept of the covenant between God and his chosen people . . . underlies [the] concept of kingdom.” 32 They go hand in hand. Through the covenant, God entered into an agreement with his people. They would be his people and he their God.

The Mosaic covenant or Torah functioned like a constitution for the nation. It laid out the sociopolitical structure of Israel, delineated economic principles, and provided ethical guidelines on how to live under God’s reign. 33

The covenant established Israel as an alternative political system. In comparison to other nations that exploited and enslaved, God intended for his kingdom to practice social justice, extend mercy, offer debt relief, restore forfeited land, care for the poor, widows, and orphans, and show hospitality to resident aliens. These hallmarks were to characterize God’s nation. Covenant-keeping would bring specified blessings that were intended to testify of God’s goodness to the surrounding Gentile nations. Covenant-breaking, however, would lead to divine judgment (Deut 27–28).

Very early in its history, Israel’s worship of Yahweh became perfunctory and empty. God’s people continually disobeyed the covenant, selected unrighteous kings, and pursued their own self-interests. As a result, the nation suffered the consequences. Over time, it split in two with ten tribes forming a northern confederacy and two tribes (Benjamin and Judah), a southern confederacy. Weakened both morally and militarily, north and south struggled to survive. The divided kingdoms faced famines, plagues, and invasions.

2.2 The Assyrian Invasion of the North

The kings of the northern kingdom mimicked the rulers of the Gentile nations, failed to carry out God’s social vision, and supported their own devious plans. Prophets railed against their unholy alliances with foreign leaders, corruption, half-hearted worship, oppression, and affliction of the poor and disenfranchised, and the charging of usury. The prophets pronounced woe on the institution of the monarchy itself (Amos 2:6–16; 3:9–10; 4:1–13; 5:10, 22; 6:12; Hos 4:1; 6:8; 8:1–4, 14; 10:4; Mic 2:1–5; Isa 3:13–15; Jer 7:5; etc.). They called for nationwide repentance and for a return to covenant observance (Hos 14:2). Instead of heeding the warnings, the rulers persecuted and killed the prophets (1 Kgs 18, 19; Amos 2:6–7; Jer 26:17–23). As a result, God lifted his hand of blessing and moved Assyria to attack and conquer the recalcitrant northern kingdom in 722 BCE, taking spoils of battle and scattering the Jews abroad.

Yet, God did not leave the North without hope (Amos 2:6–7). Amos spoke of a day when God would “raise up the booth of David that is fallen, and repair its breaches, and raise up its ruins, and rebuild it as in the days of old in order that they may possess . . . all the nations who are called by my name” (Amos 9:11–12). He added:

The mountains shall drip sweet wine, and all the hills shall flow with it. I will restore the fortunes of my people Israel, and they shall rebuild the ruins and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards and drink their wine, and shall make gardens and eat their fruit. I will plant them upon the land, and they shall never again be plucked up out of the land I have given them, says the Lord your God. (Amos 9:13–15)

Likewise Isaiah, son of Amoz, envisioned a brighter future when weapons of warfare are replaced by farm implements and peace is restored to the kingdom (Isa 2:4).

2.3 The Babylonian Invasion of the South

The southern kingdom of Judah did not fare much better as its kings continually destroyed the moral fiber of the nation. Only a small remnant of Jews remained faithful to the Mosaic covenant. For more than two centuries prophets condemned the rulers for their inequitable practices and harsh and repressive treatment of the lowly masses and called upon its leaders to turn back to God or else face judgment (Isa 26:21; 30:1–5; Jer 7:1–4; Mic 3:1–2, 9–12). Jeremiah (626–587 BCE), for example, charged the priestly authorities with transforming God’s temple into “a den of robbers” (Jer 7:8–10), and declared judgment upon God’s wayward people (Jer 9:1–11; 22:13–19; 23:1–4).

Only kings Hezekiah (ca. 715–687 BCE) and Josiah (641–609 BCE) stood out as the exceptions. They restored covenant faithfulness during their respective reigns, but after their deaths the nation returned to its wicked ways. Because the kings of Judah carried on the Davidic line, God withheld judgment for a prolonged period. But finally, his anger reached a tipping point and judgment fell. Babylon, the new world power, conquered Assyria and gained control of its territory and treasure. Babylon then invaded Judah in 586 BCE, burning Jerusalem to the ground and leading her people into seventy years of captivity (2 Chr 23–24).

The prophet Isaiah prophetically saw that after the judgment ran its course and accomplished its purpose, God would restore the kingdom. This would result in God being praised “from the ends of the earth” (Isa 24:14–16) and Israel being transformed into a utopian society where “the Lord of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-matured wines, of rich food filled with marrow, of well-matured wines strained clear” (Isa 25:6).

2.4 The Rise of the Medo-Persian Empire

The closing verses of Second Chronicles tell how King Cyrus, the ruler of Persia, stoutly defeated the Babylonian Empire. As a result, the masses of displaced Jews now became his vassals. The chronicler then records an interesting turn of events:

In the first year of King Cyrus’s reign, the Lord moved him to send heralds throughout the empire to declare, “Thus says King Cyrus of Persia: The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever is among you of all his people, may the Lord his God be with him! Let him go up” (2 Chr 36:22–23).

The vast majority of Jews decided to forego the arduous trek back to the land of their forefathers. Only a small contingent initially moved back to Palestine and others migrated over the next decades. Although back in their homeland, they still did not have political autonomy. They remained subjects of King Cyrus. As the text makes clear, Cyrus remained ruler over “all the kingdoms of the earth” (v. 22).

Under the leadership of Nehemiah, Ezra, and Zerubbabel, respectively, the Jews rebuilt the city wall, restored the temple, and pledged their loyalty to Yahweh. However, trouble was lurking on the horizon. The reconstruction of the temple opened the way for the establishment of “a ruling priestly aristocracy that owed their position to the imperial regime, and it set up a Temple administration to secure revenues for the imperial court as well as itself.” 34 In other words, the Jewish priests worked for Persia and did the king’s bidding. The nation eventually fell back into its old patterns and abandoned its covenant obligations.

This led additional prophets, such as Micah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi to call once again for national repentance. They also told of God’s plans for gathering his people from the four winds and uniting them in peace under his reign (Hag 2:6–9; Zech 9:9–10; Mal 3:23–24). Only the smallest remnant of covenant-keeping Jews, however, hanged onto this hope and passed it down from one generation to the next. The vast majority were not motivated. They offered lip service to God, but did not keep his covenant.

2.5 The Rise of Greece and Jewish Resistance

Upon the assassination of King Philip of Macedon in 336 BCE, the kingdom of Greece fell to his twenty-year-old son Alexander, who led a powerful army on a successful conquest of Persian territory. By 325 BCE Alexander controlled a vast swath of land from Greece to India. When his troops marched into Palestine in 332 BCE, Jewish life was altered yet again. Jews now found themselves living under a new regime that promoted Hellenization. The elite temple priesthood made adjustments as it embraced Greek culture, language, and customs, and served as surrogates for the new empire, collecting taxes for the state and tithes for their own coffers.

Having been dominated by one Gentile kingdom after another since their days in Egypt or ruled over by their own tyrannical leaders, many Jews prayed for God to deliver them and restore his kingdom to Israel under the eschatological Davidic ruler as the prophets had foreseen.

After the death of Alexander the Great (323 BCE), many vied to fill the political vacuum. At first Ptolemy of Egypt, one of Alexander’s trusted generals, prevailed and Judea found itself under a somewhat benevolent Ptolemy dynasty for the next century and a half. Circumstances changed for the worse when the Seleucids of Syria challenged the Ptolemies for power. Seleucid strong man Antiochus IV (175–164 BCE) moved into Palestine and recruited Jewish collaborators to help him rule the nation (1 Macc 1:20–64). In 168 BCE Antiochus marched into Jerusalem and plundered the temple of its treasury and sought to transform it into a sanctuary of Jupiter. He levied excessive taxes on the Jews, built a Greek-style gymnasium to train prospective young leaders, and encouraged Jewish males to participate in athletic games, which required competing in the nude (1 Macc 1:13). Embarrassed by circumcision, the physical sign of their Jewish identity, many young athletes attempted to “remove the marks of circumcision,” and thus abandon the holy covenant (1 Macc 1:15).

In 167 BCE with sociopolitical pressures worsening and the extinction of Judaism a real possibility, a remnant of Jews launched a resistance movement. This resulted in a scribal and priestly uprising in the capital city and a popular revolt in the outlying villages that was led by Judas, a priest and son of Mattathias, the Hasmonean. Judas rose to a position of leadership. At the same time, a body of apocalyptic literature was being produced by the pens of anonymous writers that spoke of God’s intervention in the latter times, leading to the restoration of Israel and his universal kingdom on earth. 35 Motivated by these apocalypses, Jewish freedom fighters struggled for national liberation.

Waging full-scale guerilla warfare against Antiochus and his troops involved prolonged and fearless combat, but the Jewish resistance movement prevailed and in 164 BCE won liberation for the nation. Their first actions were to cleanse the sanctuary and establish self-rule, which lasted from 164–63 BCE (1 Macc 4:36–59).

2.6 The Maccabean Era

When Simon Maccabeus, Judas’s brother, took the office of high priest and became leader of the nation, the Jewish masses again found themselves living under a tyrant, this time he was one of their own. 36 The priestly Hasmonean family formed a dynasty that enlarged the borders of the Jewish state. Within thirty years they militarily conquered other areas of Palestine, establishing a regional empire of their own. Despite protests over expansion from pious Pharisees and scribes, they took control of Idumea to the south and Samaria to the north, where they destroyed the temple in Gerizim. By 104 BCE they gained control of Galilee, north of Samaria, and required the Galileans to obey Judean laws by paying tithes to the Jerusalem temple. Gentile men were required to submit to circumcision. If they refused, they were forced off their land.

Ignoring the social and ethical requirements of the Mosaic covenant, the Hasmoneans became oppressors of their own people. Like many rulers before them, they personally amassed great wealth and power, and exploited their citizenry.

Some scribes, resisting priestly exploitation and colonial rule, withdrew into the wilderness to form a community at Qumran. 37 They renewed their commitment to the Mosaic covenant and anxiously waited for God’s kingdom to arrive.

2.7 The Roman Empire

Israel’s century of independent rule (164–63 BCE) was a tenuous one at best. Rome was gaining military superiority in the region. In 202 BCE Rome defeated the North African city of Carthage and began her march eastward. Over the next twelve decades Rome conquered one Greek stronghold after another until the kingdom of Greece finally collapsed in 88 BCE. Led by General Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (Pompey), hailed as the greatest military genius of his day, the Roman troops marched into Jerusalem. Aristobulus II, the controversial high priest, and his supporters barricaded themselves in the temple. A battle ensued that lasted for three months. In the end, the city and its temple lay in ruins. Pompey captured Aristobulus and sent him to Rome, where he was put on public display and shamed as a prisoner of war.

Pompey appointed Hyrcanus II as the new high priest but did not grant him the royal status that he desired. The Hasmonean state was brought to its knees. Much of its land became part of the newly formed province of Syria. The former Jewish state was reduced in size to include only Judea, Samaria, southern Galilee, and eastern Idumea.

In 60 BCE, generals Julius Caesar, Marcus Crassus, and Pompey formed a political triumvirate and virtually took control of Roman politics for more than a dozen years. Caesar’s victories in the Gallic Wars (58–50 BCE) expanded Rome’s landholdings in the west to include Briton and Germany, and catapulted him into prominence over Pompey, since Crassus had died in 53 BCE during his unsuccessful campaign against the Parthian Empire. Caesar and Pompey then contended for power. While Caesar was off fighting a war, Pompey aligned himself with a conservative wing of the Senate, which ordered Caesar to leave the battlefield at once and report to Rome. Instead, he led his Thirteenth Legion (Legio XIII Gemina ) across the Rubicon River to confront the opposition. The Senate and Pompey fled for their lives. A five-year civil war ensued (49–45 BCE) with Caesar emerging victorious. He took the title Dictator perpetuo (“dictator in perpetuity”) and ruled Rome with an iron fist.

In 44 BCE Marcus Junius Brutus and Gaius Cassius Longinus assassinated Julius Caesar. In response, Marcus Lepidus (a Caesar loyalist and highly decorated general), Mark Antony (Caesar’s young, but brilliant political and military confidant), and Gaius Octavian (Caesar’s grand-nephew and adopted son) joined forces to avenge Caesar’s death and save the Republic. The triumvirate pursued the assassins and defeated them at the battle of Philippi in 42 BCE.

The three victors gained uncontested rule over the Roman state and brazenly gave themselves authority over the affairs of government, circumventing the approval of the Senate. One of the Senate’s last official acts was to bestow on Julius Caesar posthumously the title Divus Iulious (“Divine Julius”).

With the Senate’s authority diminished, the Republic breathed its last breath and the triad divided Roman territory among themselves.

The relationship between the three rulers was strained from the start and each tried to gain authority over the others. Lepidus, the weakest of the princes, found himself squeezed out of power in 36 BCE and relegated to a minor role in the government. Antony and Octavian sought to out maneuver each other. Octavian ultimately gained the upper hand and built a massive war machine. In a stroke of genius he strategically sought support from the neglected Senate that gladly gave him their backing and labeled Antony an “Enemy of the State,” who fled for his life. Octavian pursued and defeated him in the battle at Actium in 31 BCE.

Octavian assumed complete power over all Roman territories. He then proceeded to transform Rome into an empire (Latin, imperare ), over which he reigned as “king of kings.” 38 The nations coming under the Roman umbrella were ruled by client kings. Their cities were governed by native magistrates, all of whom pledged their allegiance to Octavian.

Octavian then returned power to the Senate and took for himself the title princeps , meaning “first among equals.” The Senate, in appreciation for his magnanimity, designated him “Augustus,” or marvelous one. Despite his apparent self-effacement, he gladly accepted the moniker. Claiming that Rome had a manifest destiny to rule the earth on behalf of the gods, Augustus gained and exercised immense power throughout the realm. Even the poet Virgil wrote of Rome’s divine right to rule the world. 39

Rome became an imperial juggernaut. It conquered lands to increase its vast economic power base. In reality, Augustus had become an emperor (Latin, imperator ) over an empire. Any challenge to Augustus’s rule was viewed and treated as an act of sedition and punishable by death.

His subjects rarely, if ever, saw him in person, but all recognized his face from Roman coins that bore his graven image, and the larger than life statues and reliefs located throughout the empire in his honor.

25 . Gottwald, “Early Israel,” 9.

26 . Brueggemann, Hope , 20–21.

27 . In Streett, Subversive Meals , 52, I make the case that Jesus’ Last Supper with his disciples and the earliest Lord’s Suppers were also anti-imperial events.

28 . Ibid.

29 . Brueggemann, Hope , 8, 12.

30 . Some scholars suggest the exodus story was put in its final written form in the eighth-century BCE when the Jews were exiled to Babylon. It helped explain why they were in their current dilemma.

31 . Prior to leaving Egypt, God exhorted his people never to forget the exodus. To this end they were to eat an annual meal of remembrance. “This day shall be a day of remembrance for you. You shall celebrate it as a festival to the Lord; throughout your generations you shall observe it as a perpetual ordinance” (Exod 12:14). The Passover feast (vv. 24–27) was a liturgical enactment of the rescue from tyranny (also see Exod 23:4–15; 34:18–25; Lev 23:4–6; Num 9:1–8; 28:16–25; Deut 16:1–8). The meal reminded Israel of the exodus and the miracle of the Red Sea crossing. In similar fashion, the Lord’s Supper points Christ-followers back to their baptism and escape from the kingdom of darkness. It is intended to motivate Christ’s followers to walk continuously in the ways of the Lord.

32 . Harkness, Understanding the Kingdom , 69.

33 . Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, Prophets , 5.

34 . Horsley, Jesus in Context , 25.

35 . For example 1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses .

36 . For an excellent overview of the Hasmonean period, see Helyer, “Hasmoneans,” 38–53.

37 . 1 En. 94–105.

38 . All emperors, by virtue of their office, held this title. But the first-century church made a subversive counter claim and identified Jesus as “the ruler of the kings of the earth” (Rev 1:5) and then likened the emperor to a powerful “beast” that commits fornication with the kings of earth (17:2, 5, 8). Together they “make war with the Lamb . . . for he is Lord of lords and King of kings” (v. 14). In the Apocalypse, the lamb prevails and defeats their armies with a sword that proceeds from his mouth. He is called “KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS” (Rev 19:19).

This anti-imperialistic message, which the church circulated throughout Asia Minor and read aloud during their gatherings, pitted the Jesus communities against their imperial dominators.

39 . Virgil, Aen ., 6.793.

Chapter 3

Baptism and Roman Domination

Jesus and his followers did not live or minister in a sociopolitical vacuum. They lived in occupied territory and were subjects of the Roman Empire, a vast political domination system that conquered and controlled nations from Spain to Palestine and from the Mediterranean Sea in the south to the Black Sea in the north. Like all imperial empires, Rome knew how to keep people in their place and used whatever means necessary, including military force, heavy taxation, and class stratification. Little opportunity existed for individual economic advancement.

When the early apostles travelled across the Empire and preached that the kingdom of God was at hand, calling on their listeners to repent, be baptized, and pledge their allegiance to Jesus as Lord, they challenged imperial Rome’s assertion that it alone had a divine right to demand peoples’ loyalty. When viewed in this context, we can understand why baptism might be considered a subversive act.

When Jews answered the kingdom call they faced an additional problem. They defied the wishes of their own ethnic leaders in Palestine who had cut a deal with Rome and served as its surrogates throughout the nation. A baptized Jew often faced ostracism and/or expulsion from the synagogue. A baptized Gentile living outside Palestine faced similar rejection from family and friends who practiced idolatry and gave their loyalty (pistis ) to Caesar as Lord.

Any attempt to understand baptism in the first century must take into account its context within the Greco-Roman and Jewish political structures of that day. When we succeed at this task, we will discover that baptism was originally a rite of political resistance against the Empire, and thus a counter-imperial act. 40

Rome operated as a domination system. 41 According to Marcus Borg, domination systems have four key characteristics: 1) an elite class of persons composed of a king or dictator and nobles who rule over the masses without the latter having a say in government; 2) economic exploitation by which the ruling class organize and control commerce, production, agriculture, and trade to benefit themselves without regard for the welfare of the masses; 3) the threat and use of violence to keep the masses subservient to the ruling class, and the use and threat of war to acquire more lands and wealth for the elites; and 4) the claim that the elites rule by divine mandate and those opposing them are rebelling against God or the gods. 42

Politically speaking, only two classes of people existed in the Empire: the rulers and the ruled, the dominators and the dominated.

3.1 The Roman Elites

The Roman aristocracy or noble class accounted for less than 2 percent of the entire population, but they possessed the collective wealth and power of the Empire. 43 John H. Kautsky defines aristocracy as the “ruling class in an agrarian economy that does not engage in productive labor but lives wholly and primarily off the labor of peasants.” 44

By virtue of being Julius Caesar’s adopted son, Augustus held the most honored position in the Empire. Until Augustus’s reign, only deceased rulers were granted divine status. Not willing to wait for such an acclamation, Augustus claimed for himself the title Divi filius (“Son of God”). 45

Some people, especially in Greece and eastern sections of the Empire, accepted Augustus as the earthly embodiment of a god, while others viewed him simply as a representative of the gods. In either case, he was in a class by himself.

Augustus and all future emperors who succeeded him were given the title “Father of the Fatherland” (Pater Patriae ), which implied that the Empire was a big family over which the emperor stood as a father figure who protected, disciplined, and blessed his family members. 46 The designation also spoke of the emperor’s divine right to rule the earth on behalf of Jupiter, the highest Roman god (equal to the Greek god Zeus), and to carry out his will. 47

When Jesus called God his “Father” and admonished his disciples to “call no one your father on earth, for you have one Father—the one in heaven” (Matt 6:9; 23:9), he was saying that they were to look only to God for their welfare and not Caesar. 48

Next in rank after Caesar were six hundred Senators with vast landholdings and wealth that exceeded one million sesterces or silver coins. 49 Senate seats were passed down from one generation to the next as an inheritance. The Senate governed Italy and other peaceful areas in the Empire. It also managed the Empire’s finances, which were funded in large part by Augustus’s ever-expanding personal wealth.

Equestrians, who ranked immediately below Senators, were freeborn men with a net worth of 400,000 sesterces or more. Most drew their income from real estate leases, business holdings, and lucrative government contracts. Caesar chose equestrians to serve in positions of authority in the provinces. Pontius Pilate was an equestrian.

Councilors composed the third group of aristocrats and served Caesar exclusively at the local or city level in provinces throughout the Empire. Councilors were property owners with financial means, leadership qualities, and loyalty to Caesar. They served mainly on town councils, which often required them to fund civil projects, meet community needs, and underwrite public projects from their own resources.

3.2 Native Elites

When Rome conquered a nation it immediately formed an alliance with the native ruling class and retained them to govern their own country on behalf of Rome. 50 These wealthy and influential persons were previously heads of state, judges, priests, and other high-ranking officials in their respective homelands before they succumbed to Rome. Since Rome’s empire spanned from western Europe to eastern borders of civilization, these native retainers were from many ethnic and national backgrounds, and represented about 8 percent of the Empire’s total population. As part of Rome’s provincial bureaucracy, they served as client kings, governors, and proconsuls, members of city councils, military officers, tax merchants, and so forth. 51

To handle its affairs of Palestine, the homeland of the Jews, and its capital city of Jerusalem, Rome chose retainers from among the leaders associated with the temple, the dominant political-economic institution in Judean society throughout the Second Temple period.

The Sanhedrin was the supreme council located in Jerusalem that adjudicated matters throughout Judea. It consisted of seventy-two members, mainly priests, scribes, and respected elders associated with the Pharisees or Sadducees. 52 The Herodian family served as client kings and did Rome’s bidding.

3.3 The Vast Underclass

Peasants, menial laborers, and artisans constituted the remaining 90 percent of the population in the Roman Empire. They had few rights and no representation in the Senate. They served as functionaries, meeting the needs of the elites. Many were day laborers and field hands who worked seven days a week from dawn to dusk. They were typically paid a denarius at the end of each day, just enough to cover food and housing costs. When inclement weather struck or when a ship failed to reach port on schedule the field hand and the dock worker lost a day’s wages. The poor were concerned mainly about survival. They had no opportunity to move up the socioeconomic ladder. They were born into poverty and would likely die in poverty.

The literacy rate in Roman Palestine was about 3 percent. Most people could not read or write and depended on scribes to read and interpret the Scriptures. Most relied on memory to retain information.

The Roman Empire of the first-century CE was devoid of a middle class. A person was either rich or poor. 53 We might liken it to a bi-level economic caste system.

3.4 Slaves and Free Men, Citizens and NonCitizens

People in the Roman Empire were either slave or free. Approximately 20 percent of the Empire’s sixty-five million people were slaves, who had been: 1) captured in battle; 2) indentured because of debt; or 3) born into a slave family. Slaves had few if any rights and worked for the masters as laborers, secretaries, tutors, bookkeepers, and clerks, etc., depending on their skills and literacy. Rome operated as a slave economy. Without slaves the Empire would have faced economic collapse. Owners usually provided slaves room and board, often rendering them better off than free peasants who had to pay their own expenses. Many slaves were given a very small fee for their services, which they could save to purchase their freedom. 54 Some indentured slaves were able to gain their freedom by working off their debt, being freed by their masters, or even being adopted by the elite family, thus paving the way for possible citizenship and a new economic status.

Free people in the Empire fell into one of two categories: noncitizens and citizens. The peregrini or noncitizens made up 90 percent of the population. Noncitizens were scattered throughout the Empire and the majority lived in outlying provinces that were managed by Roman governmental elites and native retainers.

Citizens comprised the remainder of the population and lived throughout the Empire. Many, but not most, lived in the capital of Rome or one of the colonies, such as Corinth and Philippi. Citizens had privileges unknown to the peregrini . Being a citizen did not mean a person was an elite or wealthy, just free. The Apostle Paul, a lowly tent maker, was a Roman citizen.

3.5 Pax Romana

Pax Romana was Rome’s grand plan to establish universal peace among peoples of different national and ethnic backgrounds who lived under its banner. Augustus considered Pax Romana to be his greatest contribution to humankind. 55

To accomplish the goal of universal peace, Augustus sent envoys, accompanied by armed troops, to those nations outside Roman territory with the good news (εὐαγγέλιον) of peace and invited them to join the satellite of Roman nations. In exchange for their pledge of loyalty, Caesar guaranteed their “peace and safety,” promising that the Roman military would protect their borders from invaders and maintain concord within their provincial boundaries. 56 If Caesar’s offer was rejected, he sent his troops to invade and conquer the nation, and bring it under Roman rule. 57

3.6 The Military

Believing that well-paid professional soldiers would likely be more loyal to the emperor and less likely to support a coup, Augustus Caesar dissolved the militias and formed the first permanent full-time army and navy, over which he served as commander-in-chief and master of the sea. 58 As such, Caesar was the most powerful person in the Empire and a threat to all adversaries within and without. Augustus specifically took upon himself to govern the outer provinces of the Empire and often stationed soldiers there to protect the borders. 59 This explains why a large contingent of troops was stationed at Fort Antonio in Judea, which was located on the eastern border of the Empire. 60

The army consisted of between twenty-five to thirty legions, about 200,000 infantrymen, composed entirely of Roman citizens. They were assisted by another 200,000 foot soldiers and cavalrymen, recruited from non-Roman ranks but granted Roman citizenship upon discharge. Sons usually followed in their father’s footsteps. Each soldier made a sacramentum to serve Caesar and defend Rome at all cost. Military service was considered a lifetime profession with many soldiers serving twenty-five years or more.

Rome sent soldiers from Caesarea to Jerusalem during the three major Jewish festivals to control the teeming crowds. While Jews in general, including members of the Jesus movement, had little contact with Roman governors or client kings, they were consciously aware of troops in their midst. Military personnel patrolled the streets, always ready to quell riots, arrest dissenters, and when called upon to do so, swiftly crucify insurrectionists, brigands, and other violent types who threatened social stability. The military represented Rome’s absolute power over life and death.

Crucifixion was a torturous form of capital punishment reserved mainly for noncitizens and those deemed political enemies of the state. Crucifixion was carried out publicly along the busiest thoroughfares to drive the fear of Rome into the vast numbers of travelers and passersby. Anyone plotting to rebel against Rome could expect to face a similar fate.

Jesus was crucified on charges of sedition. He was judged a rebel king who challenged Caesar’s authority.

3.7 Taxes and Tributes

Rome also dominated the masses through the instruments of tribute and taxes. The Empire’s main source of revenue was the tribute (Latin, tributum ), which was imposed upon those foreign nations Rome had conquered and incorporated into the Empire. At the time of Jesus, tribute was usually paid every two years and the amount was determined by a periodic national census of the conquered territory. 61 These funds were needed to feed the Roman troops and to distribute grain to its citizens throughout the Empire. 62 A tribute was essentially a poll tax. According to Josephus, Rome required Jews to pay an annual tribute exceeding ten thousand talents. 63

Jews despised the tribute for two reasons. First, because the denarius, the main coinage of tribute, bore Caesar’s image on one side and an inscription on the other side that declared him to be divine (Matt 22:15–22; Mark 12:13–17; Luke 20:20–26). Second, they viewed forced tribute as a mark of slavery and revolted against the practice on numerous occasions. The issue of tribute was the cause in part of the first Jewish revolt of 66 CE. After the revolt and the destruction of the Jewish temple, Emperor Vespasian levied a two-denarii tribute on each Jew to be used for the maintenance of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome. 64

Besides tribute, Rome taxed its subjects. Taxes were required that the net worth of the Empire might grow. Much of it found its way into the coffers of the noble class. Rome levied several kinds of taxes—to use public facilities such as baths and gymnasia, traverse roads, cultivate land, mine salt, etc.

Client kings, like Herod, also taxed people at a provincial level to pay for building projects and social services. In many cases, native kings used taxation as a means to increase their personal wealth. Onerous taxation kept the working class in a state of perpetual poverty.

Diaspora Jews and those living in Palestine were also charged an annual temple tax of one-half shekel to underwrite the various costs and upkeep of the Jerusalem temple. As a result, the Jewish temple became one of richest institutions in the Empire. 65

3.8 Confiscation of Property

Rome increased its own landholdings by invading more nations. The emperor shared the spoils of battle with the nobles, who passed down their landholdings from one generation to the next. A few people in the Empire accumulated large swaths of land known as latifundia , consisting of great estates whose grain, wine, and olive oil was exported throughout the Empire. Pliny the Elder (23–79 CE) writes of six Roman elites whose holdings accounted for 50 percent of the land in Africa. 66

Conquered peoples were often forced to relinquish their land and work as sharecroppers on the same property they once owned. Of the harvest, they were allowed to keep only a small portion (about 30 percent) for themselves. From this amount, they had to pay high taxes to Rome and rents to their landlords. The remainder of the crops went to the new aristocratic owners, who sent it abroad or sold it in the marketplace for profit.

Some peasants, whose lands had been confiscated, were kept on as year-round laborers without any claim to the crops. As a result, they were forced to purchase the very food they grew from the agora at retail prices. The peasants had no recourse but go along with the oppressive system. If they ratcheted up their courage to protest and/or conduct a work stoppage, they faced possible starvation. When a protest was prolonged, the military was called into the fray, leading to merciless beatings until the strikers disbanded and went back into the fields. To cope with economic hardship, peasants often resorted to deception by hiding crops that later could be retrieved. If these deeds were discovered, workers were frequently terminated and replaced by seasonal day-laborers or field slaves.

Tribute, heavy taxation, and land confiscation assured that the great masses of poor could never rise economically above a subsistence level. For non-elites, life in the Empire was oppressive.

3.9 The Imperial Cult

After Augustus defeated Antony and claimed the title “Son of God,” a new imperial cult was born—the cult of the Emperor, which gained widespread popularity. A temple was built in his honor in Pergamum, which became the center of emperor worship throughout Asia Minor. 67 The emperor accepted the honor on the condition that a temple also would be built to honor the goddess Roma, the divine personification of Rome.

The poet Horace writes, “Upon you . . . while still among us, we already bestow honors, [and] set up altars to swear by in your name.” 68 After hailing Augustus as Rome’s greatest leader, Virgil pronounced, “This is he . . . Augustus Caesar, son of a god, who shall set up again the Golden Age.” 69

Augustus’s successor, Tiberius, who ruled from 14–37 CE, also carried the divine title and allowed a temple to be built in his name in Smyrna. He was followed by Gaius, also known as Caligula (37–41 CE), who likewise claimed divinity for himself, and when appearing in public, dressed “in symbolic garb traditionally associated with various deities.” 70 Both Nero (54–68 CE) and Domitian (81–96 CE) followed their predecessors in accepting divine accolades. Domitian wanted to be addressed as Dominus et Deus noster , i.e., “our Lord and God.” 71

A provincial temple was built (ca. 89–90 CE) in Ephesus for emperor worship and consecrated to Emperor Vespasian, who ruled from 69–79 CE, and his two sons who reigned after him, Titus from 79–81 CE and Domitian from 81–96 CE. 72 Ceremonies honoring the emperor were modeled closely on traditional ceremonies honoring the Greek gods. Apart from “obstinate Jews and Christians,” the majority living in the Mediterranean region of the Empire “worshipped at the feet of the emperor.” 73

The citizens of Italy and its capital of Rome, however, saw the emperor more as their benefactor, who provided them with goods and services on behalf of the gods, rather than being a god himself, although some of their poets wrote lyrically of the emperor as a divine being. Italians reverenced the emperor only to the degree that he exhibited high virtues of kindness, generosity, and justice.

Whether one believed the reigning emperor was literally divine or simply represented Roman virtues and ideals, the emperor cult as the civil religion of the empire supported patriotism and produced civic pride. It was the “unifying bond of the imperium, the symbol of the loyalty of all citizens to emperor and state.” 74 Crossan and Reed call it the “superglue” that held the entire empire together. 75

At the time of Jesus, the imperial cult permeated every facet of Roman life and culture. Public events became opportunities to pay homage to the religion of the state. Special days were set aside to honor imperial Rome and its leaders. The emperor’s birthday, which marked the beginning of the Roman New Year, was such an occasion. Others included anniversaries of great victories at sea and on land, celebrations to remember deceased rulers and heroes, attendance at sporting events, and national feast days. 76 Banquets were eaten in Caesar’s name where people expressed piety (eusebia ) and devotion, and renewed their commitment to the emperor and Rome. 77 Horsley rightly assesses, “The Spirit of the Empire ran deep and wide.” 78

3.10 Religious Syncretism

As the Empire expanded its borders, it not only acquired the lands and resources of the conquered people, but also inherited their native religions. Rome did not tolerate religious competitors, since it held its religious beliefs were superior to all others. However, it willingly Romanized foreign religions and gods that were compatible with its own basic cultic system. The highest Greek god Zeus was deemed equivalent to Jupiter, Artemis to Diana, Dionysus to Bacchus, Mars to Ares, Mercury to Hermes, etc. Many pagan religions had common characteristics, making syncretism possible. On this basis, Rome granted official status (religio licita ) to many non-Roman religions, which enabled the conquered masses to continue practicing their respective faiths, attending their own temples, and observing their own festivals.

Since Judaism was uniquely monotheistic, Rome did not grant Judaism legal status. Based on a special agreement between Pompey and the Jewish priests in 63 BCE, Rome permitted Jews to worship Yahweh exclusively and to observe their annual feasts of Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles, so long as they paid their tribute to Rome, prayed for and offered sacrifices to their god on behalf of the emperor and the well-being of the Empire, and did not seek to proselytize non-Jewish neighbors.

Conflict between Jewish purists, who despised Rome and its religion, and their compromising leaders was never far away and often led to civil unrest, especially during the pilgrim feasts. Whenever they gathered in Jerusalem to celebrate Passover—the commemoration of their liberation from Egyptian oppression—emotions ran high and it was not uncommon for Jews to cry out publicly for God to send another deliverer like Moses.

As early as 53 BCE Cicero recognized that the religions of the Romans and Jews were irreconcilable, and predicted trouble in the future. 79

When John the Baptizer and Jesus called for Jews to prepare for God’s kingdom, they excited the masses. The priestly class and native retainers, however, were concerned Rome would rightfully perceive the message to be anti-imperial and come down on the nation with a vengeance. They decided to take necessary action to rid themselves of Jesus and his movement.

Despite having freedom to worship and receiving many perks from Rome, the Jewish religious establishment wearied of Roman domination. Eleazar, son of the high priest, ordered the sacrifice for the emperor to cease in 66 CE, which in turn set the stage for the war with Rome and the ultimate destruction of Jerusalem. 80

3.11 Honor and Patronage

Benefaction or patronage was a cornerstone of the Roman economy and became a useful tool to control the masses and gain their allegiance. All people throughout the Empire from top to bottom benefitted from the system. By divine right, the full blessings of Jupiter and the gods flowed down to Caesar, who in turn bestowed favors upon the elites below him. Caesar was the supreme human patron and made sure that the wealthiest of his realm—senators, equestrians, and councilors—maintained and even increased their fortunes. He passed out land grants, shared the spoils of battle, conferred titles, and appointed the elites to prestigious posts.

In exchange for his benevolence, the recipients, known as clients or “friends,” first of all pledged their faith (Latin, fides ; Greek, pistis ) to him, i.e., their loyalty and fidelity. Second, they bestowed public honor on Caesar, a ritual known as salutatio . This took the form of praising him, sponsoring spectacular feast days and celebrations in his name, dedicating buildings and monuments to him, and organizing a host of other activities.

Honor was a core value in the Empire. How a person was perceived by his family, acquaintances, and the public mattered. Hence, patronage was a means of acquiring honor for oneself.

All social strata of society practiced patronage. Senators were patrons to equestrians, equestrians to councilors, councilors to those below them. It reached from the top of the social ladder to its lowest rung. Patronage was one way relationships were formed and maintained. Just as Caesar had done for them, the rich served as patrons for the poor. Because of the scarcity of resources, the underclass depended on benefactors for their survival, who provided them food, advice, influence, or a small weekly allowance in exchange for loyalty and honor. As such clients were beholden to their benefactor and often gathered at his front door to cheer him, greet him, or praise him publicly when he emerged from the house. Clients continually spoke to their friends and acquaintances about their patron’s virtues whenever an opportunity arose; thus, the patron’s prestige was elevated in the community.

While law and order theoretically was the way Rome kept its subjects in line, patronage was an even more powerful force. 81 It was a natural means of domination. It established positive relationships between people of different social status. Patronage was the foundation for a society built on mutual aid. Only those on the outskirts of society, such as the criminal element and political zealots, had to be brought under subjection by force.

3.12 Collegia

Nearly everyone in the Empire belonged to a voluntary association (Latin, collegia ). These groups were organized to promote common interests. Some were social clubs and funeral societies, others were civic organizations that promoted community welfare, and many were professional, i.e., guilds or unions. They were all religious in nature with patron gods. 82

All had one thing in common. When their members gathered they ate a meal together, which included a formal reclining supper known as a deipnon , followed by after-dinner activities known as a symposion , which included lively discussion, pleasing entertainment, and an abundance of drinking mixed wine. Each meal included singing a hymn to a club’s patron god and the pouring out of a libation to the god.

The first-century church operated as a voluntary association with members gathering weekly to eat together. Words we usually think as being unique to the church—ekklesia , koinonia , diakonos , presbyteros , episkopas —were common terms used first in voluntary associations.

3.13 Jewish Resistance to Domination

Since their captivity in Babylon, pious Jews had awaited the “Day of the Lord” when God would intervene on their behalf, renew his covenant, restore the kingdom to Israel, and reunite his divided and exiled people under the reign of another King David (Ezek 37:15–28). Popular apocalyptic and eschatological literature circulating at the time spoke of the arrival of a new high priest who would purify the temple and free the nation from enslavement. Other tractates told of a God-sent emissary, a Moses-like prophet, or a warrior-king who would triumph over their enemies. 83

When Augustus appointed Herod to be king of the Jews (37 BCE) and personally selected the high priest to rule on his behalf, the downtrodden Jews of Palestine must have thought God had forsaken their nation. 84 Pockets of resistance soon developed in and around Galilee, a breeding ground for civil unrest.

Ezechias, the forefather of the Zealot movement, was the first to oppose Herod. Known as “the robber,” Ezechias roamed the Galilean hills with his bandits and led a revolt against the new king. He was swiftly defeated and along with his marauders was executed. 85

After the death of Herod in 4 BCE and while his army was away in battle, Judas of Galilee, son of Ezechias and co-founder of the Sicarii movement, 86 recruited a band of insurrectionists and seized the arsenals at Sepphoris. Varus, the governor of Syria, came to the rescue and squashed the rebellion, restored order, and crucified the rebels. The event is referenced in Acts 5:37.

Athronges, a Judean shepherd and revolutionary, declared himself to be king of the Jews at Herod’s death. Along with his four brothers, he mounted a guerilla war to capture the throne. He was defeated by Archelaus, Herod the Great’s son, who ruled over Judea, Idumea, and Samaria (4 BCE–6 CE). 87

Simon of Perea, Herod the Great’s slave, proclaimed himself to be king. He and his gang of bandits ransacked many cities before they were stopped by Gratus, Herod’s general who caught and beheaded him. 88

Theudas, a miracle worker and false messiah, 89 led four hundred followers to the edge of the Jordan River and commanded the waters to part, an act symbolizing a new conquest of the promised land. The Judean Governor Crispus Fadus (44–46 CE) got wind of the impending revolution and ordered his troops into action. They massacred the entire company, brought Theudas’s head back on a pole, and paraded it through Jerusalem. 90 In Acts, Gamaliel mentions Theudas as an example of a revolutionary whose efforts were brought to naught (Acts 5:36).

Ezechias’s descendants continued their resistance against the Jewish collaborators for more than a century. Between 46–48 CE, his grandsons were charged for political banditry and crucified by Tiberius Caesar.

On another occasion the Apostle Paul was mistaken by a Roman commander as being an insurrectionist known simply as “the Egyptian,” who “some time ago stirred up a rebellion and led four thousand assassins out into the wilderness” (Acts 21:38). According to Josephus, the Egyptian ascended the Mount of Olives and told his followers, like Joshua of old, that at his command the walls of Jerusalem would fall and as Israel’s new prophetic leader, he would defeat the Roman troops stationed in the city. 91 Governor Felix (52–60 CE), anticipating his strategy, preemptively attacked the insurgents, slaughtering and/or capturing six hundred of them. Somehow, “the Egyptian” escaped.

Scott views these open acts of rebellion as the natural outcome of oppression. 92 When the marginalized and disenfranchised reach the point of hopelessness, some among their number eventually break loose and attack their oppressors, either verbally or violently.

Sometimes protests were spontaneous, as when Augustus Caesar visited Syria in 20 BCE, and the people of Gadara rushed forward and accused Herod of stealing from Rome and destroying temples to Roman gods, hoping to have him removed from office. They were unsuccessful. On another occasion a riot broke out when the prefect Pontius Pilate strategically placed throughout Jerusalem military ensigns, which bore the image and divine title of Caesar. 93 It caused an uproar and masses of Jews journeyed to Caesarea to lodge a protest in front of Pilate’s palace. On the sixth day, with no signs of the protest abating, Pilate ordered his soldiers to ready themselves for action. He demanded the Jews return home, but they refused and lay bare their necks, saying they would rather die than break God’s Law. Impressed by their bravery and convictions, Pilate acquiesced and had the ensigns removed. 94 These bold demonstrations by the politically oppressed were rare, but show to what extent they would go to protect their monotheistic tradition. Philo writes of another Pilate-related incident that took place in 26 CE, when Pilate entered Jerusalem by night carrying golden imperial shields and planted them in public sight. 95 This resulted in another prolonged Jewish protest, which ended only after word reached Tiberius Caesar and he ordered Pilate to remove the shields. 96

When Caligula Caesar disregarded the Jewish law prohibiting idolatry and “ordered a colossal statue of himself be erected in the holy of holies” in the temple in 40–41 CE, the Jews grieved. 97 Their sadness soon turned to anger and they marched en masse to protest the decree. 98 Since Rome had little tolerance for any public displays of rebellion, troops were often called to break up the crowds and arrest the troublemakers. The native Jewish retainers intervened whenever possible to stay judgment.

Riots were numerous throughout Judea and rumors of revolution filled the air. Between self-proclaimed prophets, messiahs, bandits, charlatans, agitators, and gangs of assassins, something was always astir. 99

3.14 John the Baptizer and Jesus

John the Baptizer and Jesus began their public ministries as prophets of a renewal movement. Claiming to speak for God, they called on the nation to prepare for the imminent arrival of God’s kingdom and return to covenant faithfulness—which their national leaders had abandoned—and to undergo a baptism of repentance. Both Roman and Jewish authorities closely watched and investigated them. When the scribes (the official interpreters of the Mosaic Law), the pious Pharisees (the guardians of Jewish tradition), and other native elites and retainers perceived (rightly or wrongly) that John and Jesus were leading an opposition movement, they sought to stop them.

In chapter 4 we will examine the prophetic ministry of John the Baptizer, whose preaching and public baptisms were a threat to the Jewish political establishment and eventually led to his death. This, in turn, launched Jesus’ prophetic ministry.

40 . Carter, “Matthew and Empire,” 90. The Roman Empire is not mere background for studying the NT, it stands in the foreground. Any attempt to understand Jesus’ message and deeds or the church’s actions in the first century without understanding how Roman imperialism dominated every aspect of life throughout the Empire would be like trying to understand Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address without knowing about the founding of America, the issue of slavery, and the devastation of the Civil War.

41 . Domination and empire building usually go hand in hand. Imperial Rome operated on the principle of domination, using her military might to invade and conquer nations, and then dominate them both politically and economically. For an expanded discussion of Rome as a domination system see “The Jesus Movement in its First-Century CE Context,” in Streett, Subversive Meals , 88–130.

42 . Borg, Convictions , 154–55.

43 . Stegemann and Stegemann, Jesus Movement , 14; Carter, Roman Empire , 3.

44 . Kautsky, Politics of Aristocratic , 24.

45 . Syme, Roman Revolution , 202.

46 . Suetonius, Aug ., 2.58.

47 . Carter, Roman Empire , 32.

48 . Paul carried on this tradition when he wrote, “Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist” (1 Cor 8:6). Such counter-imperial statements were politically subversive, and if overheard, would bring down the wrath of Rome on all who subscribed to them.

49 . Dio Cassius, Hist. Rom ., 56.41.3, tells how Augustus increased the “property requirements” for one to become a Senator. Stegemann and Stegemann, Jesus Movement , 72–73, provide an excellent explanation of the various stratifications among the elites.

50 . The wisdom of this strategy can be seen by comparing it to America’s invasion of Iraq and the chaos that ensued when all Iraqi government and military personnel who had been previously loyal to Saddam were dismissed and replaced with anti-Saddam people who had no idea how to run a nation or protect its borders. History reveals that when conquered, those among the ruling class readily switch their allegiances as long as they remain in positions of authority.

51 . Carter, Matthew and Empire , 17.

52 . Sartre, Middle East , 105. At the town and village level, local town councils, consisting of elders, handled all decisions.

53 . Friesen, “Poverty in Pauline Studies,” 323–61, holds that a “middling” class did exist in the Empire, comprising 7 percent of the population. Included in this category he places some merchants, traders, and artisans, freedmen, and military veterans. While better off than the poorest around them, this class of people was still poor. A “middle class” as a category and as a reality did not exist in any society before the French Revolution.

54 . Elites paid slaves in hopes that the slaves would work toward their freedom rather than rebel against their owners or run away.

55 . For a definitive treatment of Pax Romana see Wengst, Pax Romana .

56 . Horace, Carm. , 4.15.

57 . Virgil, Aen. , 6.850–853, writes in poetic form, of Rome’s heavenly entitlement to rule the world and to “conquer and crush” all resistance, if necessary. Crossan, “Roman Imperial Theology,” 65, remarks that Pax Romana could be characterized mainly by the succinct mantra, “Peace through Victory ” (emphasis in original).

58 . Stegemann and Stegemann, Jesus Movement , 48.

59 . Sartre, Middle East , 56.

60 . Josephus, J.W. , 5.5.8.

61 . Horsley, Prophet Jesus , 80.

62 . Tacitus, Hist. , 4.73–74.

63 . Josephus, Ant. , 14.78.

64 . Josephus, J.W ., 7.218.

65 . Philo, Spec. , 1.76.

66 . Pliny, Nat. hist. , 18.7.35.

67 . Dio Cassius, Hist. Rom. , 51:20; Tacitus, Ann. , 4.37.

68 . Horace, Ep. , 2.1.15–16.

69 . Virgil, Aen. , 6.793.

70 . Thatcher, Greater than Caesar , 24. Philo (ca. 30 BCE–50 CE) in Emb. , 349–67, writes of Alexandrian Jews who opposed the reign of Emperor Caligula because he claimed to be a god, but were unwilling to voice their opposition openly without being arrested and charged with treason.

71 . Suetonius, Dom. , 13.2. This is similar to Thomas’s statement in John 20:28 and identical to the words of the twenty-four elders in Rev 4:11, showing that Christ-followers considered Jesus, not Caesar, to be heir to this title.

72 . Kraybill, Apocalypse and Allegiance , 60. Crossan, “Roman Imperial Theology,” 61, notes that the Arch of Titus in Rome was dedicated to the “divine Titus Vespasian Augustus, the son of the divine Vespasian.” Brigitte Kahl, “Acts of the Apostles,” 149, adds, “A panel at the very top of the Arch of Titus portrays the emperor going up into heaven on the back of an eagle.”

73 . Kraybill, Apocalypse and Allegiance , 20.

74 . Wengst, Pax Romana , 49.

75 . Crossan and Reed, In Search of Paul , 142.

76 . Harden, Galatians and the Imperial Cult , 116–47, holds that these celebrations became the basis of Paul’s reprimand of the Galatian believers for “observing special days, and months, and seasons, and years.” And then lamenting, “I am afraid that my work for you may have been wasted” (Gal 4:10–11). Instead of remaining true to their baptismal vows by resisting the Empire’s narrative, they have acquiesced.

77 . Horsley, Paul and Empire , 20–21.

78 . Ibid., 13.

79 . Cicero, Flac. , 69.

80 . Josephus, Ant ., 20.409.

81 . Lendon, Empire of Honour , 3–4.

82 . See Kloppenborg and Wilson, Voluntary Associations , 18–22.

83 . Testimonia (4Q175).

84 . According to Ferguson, “Herodian Dynasty,” 54–55, Herod’s ancestral family was Idumean. His grandfather Alexander Jannaeus was converted to Judaism and named governor of Idumea when the Hasmoneans conquered the region. This made Herod a third generation proselyte.

85 . Josephus, J.W. , 1.204, 256; Ant ., 14.159–60, 167.

86 . According to Josephus, J.W. , 7.218; Ant ., 18.23–25, a zealot movement arose that he called the “Fourth Philosophy,” whose members thought they could hasten the end of the age and the coming of the Messiah. Like Robin Hood, they stole from the rich and gave to the poor. This gave them legitimacy among the common folk. While most scholars feel the Zealots as a movement did not actually develop until the 60s CE, many zealous insurrectionists and revolutionaries had been wreaking havoc for decades; among them the sicarii , a group of assassins who infiltrated crowds at festivals and plunged their sicos , or curved daggers, into the bodies of unsuspecting victims, usually a Roman officer or compromising Jewish official.

87 . Vermes, Who’s Who , 55; Josephus, J.W ., 2.60–65; Ant ., 17.278–84.

88 . Josephus, J.W ., 2.57–59; Ant. 273–77.

89 . Josephus, Ant. , 20.97–98, called him a sorcerer and imposter.

90 . Ibid.

91 . Josephus, Ant ., 20.171.

92 . Scott, Domination , 213–15.

93 . Josephus, Ant ., 18.55–59.

94 . Ibid.

95 . Philo, Emb ., 774.

96 . Ibid., 299–308.

97 . Ibid., 774.

98 . Josephus, Ant. , 18.271–72.

99 . For a thorough treatment of the various resistance movements in the first-century CE see Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, Prophets .

Chapter 4

John the Baptizer

From the Synoptic Gospels we get a composite picture of John the Baptist as a prophet of covenant renewal who called on God’s people to prepare for a new exodus. According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jerusalem had become another Egypt that held people in bondage (Matt 2:15). Their own tyrannical leaders were their taskmasters. In the midst of suffering, many Jews cried out to God. He answered by sending a man called John (John 1:6) as the forerunner to an eschatological Moses, who would lead the new exodus and restore the kingdom to covenantal faithfulness.

The Gospel of Mark traces the “beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” back to the ministry of John the Baptizer (Mark 1:1–4) and describes him as a “voice of one crying out in the wilderness” (Isa 40:3) who exhorts God’s people to “prepare the way of the Lord” and “make his paths straight” (Matt 3:3; Mark 1:2–3; Luke 3:4–5). The Lukan account adds a fitting conclusion: “and all flesh shall see the salvation of God” (Luke 3:6).

These words quoted from Isa 40 were associated originally with an unnamed “Servant of the Lord,” whom God sent to comfort his people during the Babylonian captivity and to declare that deliverance was near. He was tasked with preparing the people for Yahweh’s arrival and their journey back to the promised land (Isa 40:1–5). This message of hope was called “glad tidings” (Isa 40:9) or “good news,” (LXX, ὁ εὐαγγελιζόμενος), i.e., the gospel. This was the first time “gospel” appeared in the OT. The author of Isaiah then shouted, “Behold, your God!” In other words, “Stand back and watch God’s victory over Babylon. Watch how he delivers you from exile.”

The gospel writers interpret Isa 40 eschatologically, and apply it to the mission of John the Baptist. The Jews found themselves again oppressed by a pagan power, this time Rome. Into this social milieu, John brought “good news” and announced, “The kingdom of God is at hand.” But instead of saying, “Behold your God,” John cried out, “Behold the Lamb of God” (John 1:29) and pointed to Jesus as the coming deliverer. John’s message got the people’s attention and captured their imaginations.

John’s message was one of political deliverance. If Yahweh was about to intervene on Israel’s behalf, as John intimated, what would that mean for Rome and its Jewish national retainers who had cast their lot with the Empire? They benefitted from the present arrangement and did not welcome anything that threatened the status quo. Surely they must have sensed trouble was in the air!

4.1 A Prophet among the Politicians

One cannot fully understand or appreciate John’s message and mission apart from the sociopolitical context of his day. In the Lukan account we read, “In the fifteenth year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was ruler of Galilee, and his brother Philip ruler of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias ruler of Abilene, during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John” (Luke 3:1–2).

This is a list of first-century power brokers, ranging from the emperor at the top of the pyramid to those below him like Herod and Pilate, who were Roman officials. Others like Annas and Caiaphas were Jewish retainers. John’s message about God’s kingdom had profound political implications and likely caused governmental eyebrows to rise.

The last phrase in Luke 3:2 (“the word of God came to John”) identifies John as a prophet. Like his OT counterparts—Elijah and Amos—John spoke truth to power and challenged the Jewish ruling class to return to covenant obedience. Prophets were always an irritation to the political authorities. John was no exception.

Luke further identifies John as “the son of Zechariah” (Luke 3:2), a priest in the “order of Abijah,” a descendant of Aaron, and a righteous man (1:5–6). Priests were separated into twenty-four divisions, named for two dozen of Aaron’s descendants (1 Chr 24:7–18; Ezra 6:15, 18). They served at the Jerusalem temple semi-annually and during the three pilgrim feasts. Each division performed its tasks on a rotation basis from Sabbath to Sabbath, with the priests passing on their duties to the next division at midday on Saturday. 100

John, however, did not follow in his father’s footsteps, but marched to the beat of a different drummer. Believing he was commissioned by God to get Israel ready for the kingdom’s advent, John launched a non-violent anti-temple movement. The temple complex was the political and financial hub of Palestine. Priests were the “local heads of state.” 101 They were appointed by Rome and owed their allegiance to Caesar, serving as his surrogates. On behalf of the Empire they collected tithes, tributes, and taxes, and made sure they reached their destination.

Wearing the garb of an OT prophet, John embraced an austere lifestyle, departed Jerusalem, and headed out into the desert where he administered his mass immersions. The site was in the vicinity where the Jews, following Joshua, crossed the Jordan River into the promised land and first experienced political autonomy and security. If the Baptizer’s ministry was located in the region of Perea as the Gospel of John suggests (John 1:28; 3:26; 10:40), then his ministry was conducted east of the Jordan. In such a case, each baptism might have been viewed as a prophetic drama with the candidates entering the water on one side of the Jordan and emerging on the other side to reenter Judea, symbolic of covenant renewal, purification, and conquest (Josh 3:1—4:18). 102

The restoration of Israel would not begin in the “hallowed halls” of the temple, the political and religious center of Jewish power. 103

4.2 The Meaning of John’s Message

Matthew tells that John travelled throughout the region preaching, “Repent for the Kingdom of heaven has come near” (Matt 3:3). The Gospels of Mark and Luke state that John proclaimed “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3:3). When joined together we see John’s message consisted of three elements: 1) a call for action— repent and be baptized; 2) a result of the action—forgiveness of sins; and 3) a reason for the action—the kingdom of God is at hand.

4.2.1 Repent

How did the Jews interpret John’s message? What did he mean by the terms repent, be baptized, and kingdom of God?

When John exhorted his fellow Jews to repent, what did he actually expect them to do? The Gospel of Luke gives us a clue. When the angel of the Lord appeared to Zechariah and announced the birth of his son John (the Baptist), he said, “You will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth, for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. . . . He will turn many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God” (Luke 1:14–16). The angel then added, “With the spirit and power of Elijah he will . . . make ready a people prepared for the Lord” (v. 17).

John’s mission was to turn people back to God. He called them to abandon their present allegiances and return to the faith of their fathers.

Repentance and Sin

For Jews, sin always included a political (as well as personal) dimension and it could be traced in the biblical record to Genesis. This “first” book relates how God created male and female “in his image” and gave them “dominion” over creation. They were charged with ruling the earth on God’s behalf and under his authority (Gen 1:26–27). This account is loaded with political and kingdom language.

Since “image” and “dominion” are juxtaposed in the text, the image of God likely included the capacity to rule. Having derived their authority from God, the couple served as his representatives to humankind as it grew numerically and expanded geographically beyond the cradle of civilization. As such, they were stewards of God’s assets and accountable to him for the way they governed.

When the progenitors of the race succumbed to the serpentine temptation, their sin was far worse than a personal transgression. They sinned against God’s government; hence, they committed a political act of treason. Rather than obey the Creator’s voice, they ironically obeyed the seductive voice of a creature over which they had been given dominion. God exiled them and banished them from his presence.

The first sin, therefore, is depicted in the biblical record as something more significant than a personal act of disobedience. It entailed a transfer of allegiance from God to the creature. The ruling couple became subject to the usurper’s authority. The results were immediate. A new kingdom emerged to rival God’s own.

According to Genesis, as the population increased, two distinct lines of humanity took form, one that ruled its own affairs without seeking divine assistance and another that called upon the name of the Lord (Gen 4:25–26).

From the antediluvian age onward sin was primarily an act of rebellion against God’s reign and resulted in exile and slavery. Likewise, salvation implied much more than rescue from personal sin. It focused on deliverance or escape from political forces and structures, which were aligned with Satan.

Throughout Israel’s colorful history, it found itself repeatedly in exile and under foreign dominion for the same reason as its first ancestors: rebellion against God’s rule, failure to keep their covenant responsibilities, and aligning with the opposition. Israel’s sins were more than personal. They were national, political, and treasonous.

When John the Baptist answered the prophetic call, God’s people were again oppressed. While a very small remnant of pious Jews in the Empire remained faithful to Yahweh, the vast majority survived by their wits and learned to navigate the system of patronage. Israel’s privileged leaders were the worst abusers. They had again broken covenant with God. Rome was simply the latest incarnation of an oppressive empire.

The only solution was to repent of their misguided political allegiances, confess their sin, and submit once again to God’s kingly rule.

Repentance and the Covenant

When a crowd of seekers heard John preach, they asked, “What then should we do?” And he replied, “Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise.” Then the tax-collectors wanting to be baptized, asked, “Teacher, what should we do?” John admonished, “Collect no more than the amount prescribed for you.” Finally soldiers spoke up, asking the same questions, and he responded, “Do not extort money from anyone by threats or false accusation, and be satisfied with your wages” (Luke 3:10–14).

These instructions implied they must return to Yahweh and obey the covenant. John did not suggest they should withdraw from society, but live within society, according to a different set of rules. Even toll collectors and Jews serving in the Roman military could prepare themselves for the kingdom’s advent, but an ideological and practical change was required.

John’s call to repent signaled a need for a national about-face and a return to the covenant upon which the kingdom of Israel was established.

4.2.2 Be Baptized

Those heeding John’s message to repent were also commanded to be baptized, i.e., ritually immersed in water. Where did John come up with this idea for baptism and what did it signify? Did he mimic Jewish proselyte baptism? Or did he follow in the steps of the Essenes? We shall briefly examine both options.

Proselyte Baptism

Some early- to mid-twentieth-century scholars looked upon John’s baptism as an initiation rite, similar to the Jewish practice of immersing Gentile proselytes. In reality, proselyte baptism can be traced no further back than early-second-century CE. 104

According to the Law of Moses, a Gentile male only had to undergo circumcision in order to become a Jew (Exod 12:48). This requirement remained constant for millennia. But by the early-second-century CE, Gentile converts to Judaism were also obligated to undergo a ritual bath. The water ceremony carried multifaceted significance. It conveyed the idea of: 1) cleansing from past impurities; 105 2) conversion to a new way of life, i.e., accepting the “yoke of the Torah”; 106 and 3) initiation into the covenant family of God.

John’s baptism, however, predated Gentile proselyte baptism by more than seventy-five years and was limited to Jews. John never called Gentiles to be baptized.

In addition, John’s baptism was not initiatory but preparatory only. 107 He issued a wake-up call to God’s people and prepared them for the Coming One who would incorporate them into the kingdom through Spirit baptism. John was the Messiah’s advance man, and his baptism opened the way for Messiah’s arrival.

John and the Essenes

One can find similarities between John’s baptism practices and those of the Essenes, but to what extent did they influence him? According to Philo of Alexandria, the Essenes dwelt in numerous villages throughout Judea, possibly some of the places where John preached and conducted his baptisms. 108 Essenes lived, worked, and ate together. They held all things in common, including income. Most were aging celibate males. They did not attend annual feasts or make sacrifices at the temple. Rather, they were contemplative and read Scriptures. 109

Based on some similarities, one can envision John participating in such a community. For example, both the Essenes and John used water for purification. The Essenes, however, practiced immersion to cleanse one from ritual impurity to the body. John, on the other hand, applied baptism to remove moral impurity, i.e., sins. 110

A variety of causes rendered a person ceremonially unclean: touching a person with an infectious skin disease or open wound, coming in contact with a corpse, eating an unclean animal, having a bodily discharge, or rubbing shoulders with a Gentile, among other things. Even childbirth rendered a person unclean. Leviticus 11–15 is devoted to the issue. 111

Ritual impurity did not have to do with physical hygiene, although analogous language was used to describe it. Rather, impurity was a state of invisible contamination that had to be removed by a symbolic washing. To regain a state of purity, one had to bathe in “fresh water” (lit. “running water”), e.g., a stream or river (Lev 15:13). During the Second Temple period, Jews were allowed to immerse themselves in a miqveh or pool whose source was natural rainwater. From recent discoveries, we know that there were many purification pools located throughout Jerusalem and large pools located in proximity of the temple to accommodate worshippers.

Purification prepared a person to approach God in worship. Jewish priests, for example, had to bathe at the laver before entering the Holy Place in the temple (Lev 16:4).

John differed from the Essenes not only because he baptized “for the forgiveness of sins,” but also because he personally immersed people. The Essenes practiced self-immersion.

This contrast between John and others becomes clearer when we compare his baptismal practices with those of Bannus, his contemporary, who also was influenced by the Essenes. Bannus was an aesthetic who lived in the Judean desert, clothed himself with leaves and tree bark, and ate food from the desert floor. As his popularity grew, he gathered around him a group of loyal disciples, including Josephus for a time. To assure he remained ritually pure, Bannus cleansed himself repeatedly each day by immersing himself in cold water. As a result, he became known as Bannus, “the Bather.” 112 However, John immersed others and was called [ὁ] βαπτίζων, i.e., the Baptizer (Mark 3:4) or ὁ βαπτιστὴς, i.e., the Baptist (Matt 3:1).

Bannus sought cleansing from contamination for himself, while John sought cleansing of sins for others. Ritual impurity was the inevitable consequence of living in the world. Sin, on the other hand, was about rebellion against God and an act of self-will. John called for his listeners to turn away from their present allegiances, reorient their lives, and submit to his unique purification ritual of immersion as they waited for the promised kingdom. 113

4.2.3 For the Forgiveness of Sins

Those obeying the double command (“repent and be baptized”) did so to receive forgiveness of sins and be brought back into a covenant relationship with God. John’s message was electrifying and the response was immediate and enthusiastic: “And the people from the whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem were going out to him and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins” (Mark 1:5; also Matt 3:5).

4.2.4 For the Kingdom of God is at Hand

The word “for” (γάρ) signaled the reason or need for the action: “for the kingdom of heaven/God is at hand.” John was sounding the alarm. The new age was about to begin. The people needed to return to God before it was too late. 114 Only those taking the necessary steps of repentance and committing themselves to God through baptism would be ready for the kingdom’s appearance (Matt 3:5–6; Mark 1:5).

Unlike prophets of old, John was not simply calling for another return to God. Rather, he spoke of a final return and an eschatological restoration of the kingdom that would be accompanied by an outpouring of the Spirit (Matt 3:11; Luke 3:15, 17; John 1:33).

The meaning of “at hand” (ἤγγικεν) is difficult to interpret. It may refer to timing and/or presence. If the former, then the kingdom was imminent; it was about to begin. If the latter, then the kingdom was immanent; God’s presence was close at hand. This prophecy may have been intentionally nuanced to include references to both timing and presence. The time of the Lord’s arrival was quickly approaching. Israelites needed to respond forthrightly and publicly.

The Baptist’s message focused on a single theme (the kingdom of God) and it struck a chord with the oppressed masses still living in exile. Messianic hopes filled the air.

4.3 The Reactions of the Political Power brokers

John’s actions likely caused consternation among the temple elite in Jerusalem. They reasoned that if God wanted to speak to his people he would have done so through the high priest or at least a chief priest, and not through a disheveled self-ordained prophet in the desert. One can only imagine John’s father Zechariah being called into Caiaphas’ office for questioning!

4.3.1 Reaction of the Jewish Religious Establishment

As John’s followers grew in number (Matt 3:5), the Jewish Council became more concerned. What if the penitents united and morphed into a movement? What if they paraded into Jerusalem and insisted on self-rule in the name of Yahweh? Even more troubling, what if some anarchist wanting to take advantage of this unstable and politically charged atmosphere led the masses in an attempted coup? The authorities might soon face a full-scale insurgency.

The Sanhedrin could easily handle one man, but not a throng marching in solidarity against the government and demanding liberation. The Jewish native elites found themselves between a rock and a hard place. They already had one company of revolutionaries to contend with—the Zealots, a violent fringe group of the Pharisee party who claimed allegiance to God alone and sought freedom from foreign domination. 115 Rumors of a people’s revolt might reach the attention of Roman officials, disrupt the political status quo, and leave the Palestinian native retainers to face the consequences.

They decided to investigate and sent an official delegation of Pharisee and temple authorities to meet with John. He called them a “brood of vipers” and said they were headed for destruction (Matt 3:7–10; Luke 3:7–9).

4.3.2 Reaction of King Herod

Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, considered John’s message to be politically subversive and a threat to his authority. He arrested John, not because he was simply preaching on a street corner! To Herod, the Baptizer was a dangerous fanatic who excited the masses with unrealistic expectations of independence.

According to Josephus, Herod Antipas put John to death for purely political reasons. While Josephus described John as a “good man” who urged Jews to embrace the covenant, practice social justice, and seal their commitment by submitting to immersion, Herod saw things differently. He feared John’s influence over the people might weaken his hold on office, so he decided to intervene before things got out of hand. He arrested John and sent him off to the Machaerus Fortress on the east side of the Dead Sea, and executed him. 116

The Gospels of Matthew and Mark, however, tell a different story. They say John was beheaded because he criticized Herod for breaking Mosaic Law (Lev 18:16) by marrying Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife (Matt 14:3; Mark 6:17; Luke 3:19).

The explanation offered by Josephus and the gospel writers may not be that far apart. Roman law permitted Herod’s new marriage and John may have been angry that the king chose to follow the civil law rather than the Law of God, showing where his true loyalty lay. 117 If John publicly criticized the ruler in his sermons throughout Jerusalem, Judea, and Perea, he likely turned the crowds against Herod, making it difficult for the king to control or even assuage his subjects. 118

In Matthew’s gospel, Herod Antipas is portrayed as hesitant to execute John too soon after the arrest, for “he feared the crowd, because they regarded him as a prophet” (Matt 14:5). Herod did not want to have a riot on his hands. Using a literary device designed to stir their audience’s memory of a familiar OT event, both Matthew and Mark recount how John finally met his death. 119 It was only after Herodias’ daughter Salome danced for him at his birthday banquet that the delighted king “promised on oath to grant her whatever she might ask.” The Markan version adds, “Whatever you ask me, I will give you, even half of my kingdom.” 120 At her mother’s prompting, she replied, “Give me the head of John the Baptist here on a platter” (Matt 14:6–8; Mark 6:22–28).

Taylor comments, “Herodias’ hatred for John is similar to Jezebel’s hatred for Elijah (1 Kgs 18; 19:2),” who cunningly manipulated Ahab, her husband-king. As Elijah of old confronted Ahab for covenant disloyalty (1 Kgs 21:17–21), so the Baptizer did the same with Herod Antipas. 121

Both Josephus’ and the gospels’ accounts point to the same reality. Herod viewed John’s transgressions as political in nature and intent. 122 He was correct. In John’s opinion, neither the Emperor, nor the high priest, nor Herod, nor the social structures they represented deserved the allegiance of God’s people. 123 John called Jews back to their true identity as children of Abraham by faith. For the Baptizer, a genuine act of repentance included a renunciation of the moral system in which the people found themselves and adoption of covenant ethics as outlined in Deut 28–29. Hence, repentance and baptism were acts of resistance.

John the Baptist functioned in the role of a God-sent prophet, calling the nation to ethical reform. Bornkamm notes that baptism was basically “the turning away from an old godless past and the turning towards God and his coming reign.” 124

4.4 John’s Baptism of Jesus

When Jesus came to be baptized, John initially protested. Most likely, he believed Jesus was already a pious covenant keeper and lived according to the principles of neighborly love. Jesus had no need of repentance or baptism. If anything, John reasoned that he needed to be baptized by Jesus (Matt 3:13–14). “But Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.’ Then he allowed Him” (v. 15). 125 Jesus knew that his baptism was part of God’s eschatological plan. John had now fulfilled his mission. He had readied Israel for the kingdom.

After John’s execution, Jesus launched his own public ministry of preaching and baptizing. Lest we forget, he too lived under Herod Antipas’ rule. This means that the authorities did not view Jesus’ ministry any more favorably than they did John’s.

100 . Josephus, Ag. Ap. , 2.8.

101 . Horsley, Jesus and the Powers , 7.

102 . McKnight, “Jesus’ New Vision,” 80–81.

103 . Garland, Reading Matthew , 34.

104 . Epictetus, Diatr. , 2.9, 19, the first written record of proselyte baptism dates only to ca. 110 CE.

105 . Pesah. , 8.8.

106 . b . Yebam ., 22a, likens proselytes to newborn babies.

107 . The Qumran community, which was contemporaneous to John, practiced baptism as both an initiation and purification rite. Since John’s baptism emphasized neither, he was likely not influenced by the Qumran custom. His was clearly termed a “baptism of repentance.”

108 . Philo, Hypoth ., 11.1–18; Josephus, J.W. , 2.150.

109 . Philo, Good Person , 75–91.

110 . Josephus, Ant ., 18.117, incorrectly understood John’s baptism as an act of bodily purification only. John’s full-body baptism symbolized cleansing from sin because it was accompanied by repentance.

111 . When Peter is told in his vision of the sheet descending from Heaven filled with unclean animals, reptiles, and birds “to rise and eat,” he resists. But a heavenly voice says, “What God has made clean, you must not call profane.” When he realizes the command applies to taking the gospel to unclean Gentiles, he obeys. Therefore, impurity does not deal with sin that must be forgiven but contagion that must be cleaned up.

112 . Josephus, Life , 1.2.11.

113 . John’s water ritual in the desert carried symbolic significance. He was calling Israel to prepare for a new political exodus. In their first exodus God rescued the Hebrews from an oppressive heathen regime as Moses led them through water and wilderness and established them as a holy nation for himself.

114 . Garland, Reading Matthew , 33.

115 . Josephus, Ant. , 18.4–10, 23.

116 . Ibid., 18.116–19.

117 . The client kings of Palestine conformed to the Mosaic covenant only when it was expedient.

118 . Taylor, Immerser , 239–40; Webb, John the Baptizer , 367.

119 . Taylor, Immerser , 246.

120 . Ibid., 246–47. Taylor points out how the story of Esther might have influenced Mark’s account. Antipas’s promise to Salome is nearly identical to King Ahasueras’s to Esther: “What is your request? It shall be given to you, even half my kingdom” (Esth 5:6; 7:2). “A banquet follows, and bound by oath, the king has to obey Esther’s wish.” Esther indicates Haman is the king’s enemy and is then swiftly killed.

121 . Ibid., 246.

122 . Likewise, Herod viewed Jesus with similar suspicion. As Jesus traveled toward Jerusalem, he preached in towns and villages along the way about the kingdom of God, i.e., about God’s government or empire. A group of sympathetic Pharisees warned him, “Get away from here, for Herod wants to kill you.” (Luke 13:20–23, 31). It is in this context that Jesus responded, “Go and tell that fox for me . . .” He goes on to explain that he will finish his work, and arrive in Jerusalem, the city that kills all prophets who speak truth to power. There he will pronounce judgment. “See, your house is left [desolate] to you.” And he announces his part in God’s future kingdom: “And I tell you, you will not see me until the time comes when you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord’” (vv. 32–35).

While Herod does not have a direct hand in Jesus’ death, his presence in Jerusalem during the Passover festivities allows him an opportunity to confront Jesus. As Pilate examines Jesus on the political charge of being the “king of the Jews,” he learns that Jesus is from Galilee, a province over which Herod (the recognized “king of the Jews”) rules. Pilate sends Jesus to Herod for interrogation. When Jesus refuses to answer Herod’s questions, Herod turns him over to his soldiers who mock and taunt Jesus, before sending him back to Pilate (Luke 23:6–12).

123 . Myers, Binding , 129.

124 . Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth , 46.

125 . We will examine Jesus’ baptism in more detail in the next chapter.

Chapter 5

The Baptism of Jesus

All four gospel writers agree that Jesus launched his public ministry after John the Baptizer plunged him beneath the waters of the Jordan (Matt 3:1, 13; Mark 1:1–4, 9; Luke 3:21; John 1:6, 24–29). We do not know how long John had been proclaiming the soon arrival of the kingdom and conducting mass baptisms before Jesus came to be baptized. But we know that John considered his water rituals only preliminary and temporary until the coming of the Messiah who would baptize with the Spirit and usher in the kingdom of God (John 1:24, 33–34). In the interim, John sought to prepare the people for this event and proclaimed “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Mark 1:5; Luke 3:11). 126

When Jesus finally arrived at the Jordan and asked John to baptize him, we learn that John sought to dissuade him, saying. “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” (Matt 3:13–14). We cannot be certain why John hesitated to baptize Jesus. Possibly he knew Jesus was part of a pious remnant that was already prepared for the kingdom’s arrival and therefore did not need to repent. There is nothing to indicate at this juncture that John recognized Jesus as the Messiah.

Only after Jesus insisted, “Let it be so now; for it is proper for us in this way to fulfil all righteousness” did John consent (v. 15). Jesus’ response seemed to imply that his baptism was part of God’s eschatological plan, and that he was cognizant of it. 127 Possibly Jesus saw his baptism as an enacted parable, pointing to his death. On two future occasions he will use baptism as a metaphor for political execution (Mark 10:38) and crucifixion, the vehicle used for capital punishment in the Roman Empire (Mark 8:34). 128

5.1 Jesus’ Baptism from a Johannine Perspective

The prologue of John’s gospel tells how the Baptist was divinely commissioned to bear witness to the light (John 1:6–8), earlier identified as the eternal Logos (1:1–2), who “became flesh and lived among us” (1:14).

Priestly and Levitical inquisitors then came from Jerusalem and questioned John’s authority to baptize. They were not concerned so much about baptism per se ; other groups had conducted water-related purification rituals. The Qumran community, for example, observed daily self-administered washings as they waited for the end of the age. The delegation’s question dealt specifically with the issue of John’s right to baptize others. Who did he claim to be? In responding, he denied being the Messiah, or Elijah, or another prophet (1:22). In the thinking of first-century Jews these personages were associated traditionally with the restoration of God’s kingdom. If John saw himself in one of these roles, then he might have had divine authority to carry out baptisms. But John claimed only to be “the voice of one crying out in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as the prophet Isaiah said” (v. 23). As such, the officials insisted that he explain on what grounds he baptized (vv. 24–25). 129 John claimed his job was to tell people about the Coming One who was to set up the kingdom (vv. 26–30).

On the following day, John baptized Jesus. He then explained further the purpose of his baptismal ministry, saying he did not know initially that Jesus was Messiah. He added, “But I came baptizing with water for this reason, that he [Messiah] might be revealed to Israel” (John 1:31). John’s baptism had a twofold purpose. First, it served to prepare Israel for the advent of the kingdom. Second, it served as a “coming out” event for the Messiah, i.e., his presentation to the nation.

Then how did John recognize Jesus as the Messiah? He explained:

I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water said to me, “He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.” (John 1:32–33)

In some undisclosed manner God had revealed to John that the one upon whom the Spirit came and rested was the Messiah. When he baptized Jesus, the events unfolded just as predicted and John witnessed the phenomena. On this basis, John identified Jesus as: 1) “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (v. 29) and, 2) “the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit” (v. 33).

Not only did the Spirit descend on Jesus, but it remained on him. Later the Johannine author writes how God gave Jesus “the Spirit without measure” (John 3:34), 130 which would enable him to baptize others with the Holy Spirit. 131

The giving of the Holy Spirit to Jesus (as a visible and abiding presence) led the Baptist to declare, “And I myself have seen and have testified that this is the Son of God” (v. 34), i.e., Israel’s new Davidic king. 132 On this basis, Bultmann characterized John’s baptism of Jesus as an eschatological rite. 133

5.2 Jesus’ Baptism from a Synoptic Perspective

The Synoptic Gospels present the baptism of Jesus from his own, and not John’s, perspective. In these accounts, Jesus, not John, is the one who has the vision. According to the Gospel of Mark:

In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.

And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.” (Mark 1:9–11)

The Markan priority serves as the template for Matthew and Luke’s account, with Matthew following Mark almost verbatim (Matt 3:16–17).

According to the Synoptics, at Jesus’ baptism the heavens were “torn apart” (Matt 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:21) and eternity intersected with time. The traditional use of “torn apart” or “opened” implies that God made himself known in a clear and obvious way. 134 In this case, he used sight and sound: the Spirit alighted on Jesus and God declared Jesus to be his Son. He then announced that Jesus had his approval. According to Luke, Jesus prayed just prior to his baptism (Luke 3:21), which suggests the Spirit’s descent and heavenly voice were possibly a response to the prayer. God had revealed beforehand to John that the Spirit would descend and rest on the Messiah. Did he do likewise with Jesus?

5.3 The Prophetic Meaning of Jesus’ Baptism

By using the simile of the Spirit’s coming upon Jesus “like a dove,” the authors not only described what happened at Jesus’ baptism, but intended to stir up Jewish memories of two events in the Hebrew Scriptures that told of the Spirit acting in a similar dove-like manner in relationship to water.

At the beginning of the Genesis narrative, the Spirit (like a bird) hovered over the face of the dark and chaotic waters as God created light and separated it from darkness (Gen 1:1–4). This constituted the first day of the newly formed world (v. 5).

A few chapters later, the narrator tells how God judged the world with a flood, sparing only Noah and his family, and pairs of nonhuman species (Gen 7:1–7). After the flood waters receded, Noah sent out a dove that returned with a freshly plucked olive branch (8:6–12), signifying the world was cleansed from sin and evil. Peace was restored. Humanity had a fresh start and a new opportunity to fill the earth with the knowledge of God.

The readers of the Synoptic Gospels surely drew an analogy between these ancient stories and Jesus’ baptism, since all the accounts contained imagery of the Spirit, dove, water, and allusions to judgment, peace, and the emergence of a new humanity. The Spirit’s descent on Jesus as he emerged from the water was evidence of God’s presence and approval. The old age was judged and a new world was born with Jesus representing the head of a new humanity.

5.4 The Political Meaning of Jesus’ Baptism

Luke’s telling of the Spirit’s descent at Jesus’ baptism is unique in one aspect and makes it stand apart from the other gospel accounts. Luke adds that the Spirit came upon Jesus “in bodily form” (Luke 3:22a). These opaque words served as a hidden transcript or coded message, designed to let those “in the know” recognize that Jesus’ baptism was a political act with anti-imperial overtones. 135

What political meaning could these words possibly carry? For Luke’s readers the Spirit landing on Jesus “in bodily form” reminded them of the avian signs that normally accompanied the selection and subsequent inauguration of Roman emperors. 136

In the course of his doctoral research at Baylor University on the British monarchy, William Karlson traced the ritual coronation of English kings to the coronation practices in ancient Rome. 137 In his dissertation he documents how Romans used divination, particularly augury, i.e., observing the flight of birds, to select their kings. Those who studied avian signs were called augurs or auspices. The term augur has Latin roots and etymologically means “to consecrate by augury.” We find it imbedded in the English word inaugur ation, meaning the coronation of a king.

Luke’s readers, familiar with the way emperors were chosen, would surely know that the Spirit alighting on Jesus as a dove “in bodily form” functioned in the same manner. It served as an avian sign or omen from heaven that pointed to Jesus as Yahweh’s choice as king. 138

5.4.1 Roman Augury and King Making

Cicero (106–46 BCE) wrote that Romulus, the fabled founder of Rome and its earliest monarch, attributed his rise to the throne to avian signs. 139 This legendary event became the basis for historical precedence. During the three major periods of Roman history augury was the customary means for choosing a head of state. 140 Numa Pompilius, whose rule commenced in 715 BCE, became king by an accompanying sign of augury. 141 As a result, he originated the office of the augurate and founded an augural college to train diviners. Both the office and college remained vibrant until the late-fourth-century CE. 142

Augury was both an art and science. Over time, a body of literature emerged that contained the secrets of the craft. At first, the king appointed all augurs. As the college grew in numbers, membership became self-perpetuating and was passed down from one generation to another within a family. When the line of male heirs in a family had ended, elder members nominated new candidates for office. 143 Augurs were recognizable by the curved wand they carried and the tunic they wore of scarlet and purple with narrow white stripes around the sleeves. 144 Nobles turned regularly to augurs in order to discern the will of the gods before making any major decisions. 145

Romans believed Jupiter personally selected each emperor and used birds as messengers to reveal his choice. 146 Augurs read and interpreted the signs on his behalf. When the Senate confirmed Gaius Octavian as Rome’s emperor in 27 CE, it also bestowed upon him the title Augustus, which Suetonius links etymologically to augury. 147

5.4.2 The Flight of the Eagle

Because the eagle had a distinctive relationship with Jupiter, it became an emblem of the Roman Empire. Augurs paid particular attention to the flight of eagles. 148 Just as Jupiter was the king of the gods, so the eagle was the most majestic of the birds. 149 As the toughest and most aggressive of all birds, it ruled the skies. It soared higher and dived faster than all other birds, picking off weaker prey with little or no resistance. Pliny the Elder said, “Of the birds known to us the eagle is the most honorable and also the strongest.” 150 As a result, “the eagle became the bird of emperors,” divinely sent to authenticate the selection of the next ruler. 151

During the first-century CE, every emperor pointed to the flight of an eagle as confirmation for his office. Tiberius (14–37 CE), successor to Augustus, for example, could confidently wear his crown because an eagle had landed on the roof of his house. 152 Claudius was confirmed as an emperor in waiting after “an eagle swooped down and perched on his shoulder.” 153

5.4.3 The Flight of the Dove

By his unique description of the Spirit descending and landing on Jesus “in bodily form,” Luke intended for his audience to understand it as an avian sign. Jesus was Yahweh’s choice to rule the world. Luke presented Jesus’ baptism as an inauguration of a different kind of king—one confirmed by a dove, not an eagle. As such, this text is extremely political in its content and context. Since the other gospel writers did not include this phrase in their narratives, possibly Luke used “in bodily form” as a literary device to convey to his readers that Caesar had a challenger. 154 If so, Luke intended his account of Jesus’ baptism to have counter-imperial implications.

Jewish, Christian, and Greco-Roman literature extant in the first-century CE characterized the dove in terms antithetical to that of an eagle. In the Hebrew Scriptures the dove is associated with serenity and gentleness (Gen 8:8–12; Cant 2:14; 5:2; 6:9; Nah 2:7). The nation of Israel is depicted as a dove (2 Esd 5:23). Homer portrayed the dove as vulnerable and unable to stave off attacks from birds of prey, especially from the eagle. 155 Plutarch described the dove as a placid, domesticated creature that loves and cares for its own and refuses to attack other living things, whereas the eagle seeks to devour and destroy even its own. 156 Romans linked the dove to Aphrodite, the goddess of love. Philo, a Hellenistic Jew, described the dove (περιστερά) as “the gentlest of those whose nature is tame and gregarious.” 157 Christians such as Pliny the Elder also contrasted the mild behavior of the dove to aggressive actions of the eagle. 158 Jesus admonished his disciples to be “as wise as serpents and harmless as doves” (Matt 10:16).

Matthew and Mark use the adverbial phrase “as a dove” to describe the sweeping motion of the Spirit’s descent. According to Keck, when Luke adds the words “in bodily form” he transforms it into an adjectival phrase. 159 This means he is not concerned with the way the Spirit descends, but the description of the Spirit itself. For Luke, the coming of the Spirit “in bodily form” means it is an avian sign. Jesus is God’s choice as king. Unlike the Roman emperors, however, his reign will not be based on violence and domination. Throughout his gospel, Luke consistently portrays God’s kingdom as the antithesis of the Roman Empire (Luke 6:20; 13:29–30; 18:16; 22:25–27). Jesus is a king who brings peace, not at the expense and suffering of others, but through his own service and suffering. Jesus’ kingly power must be understood in contrast to the Roman understanding of power.

5.4.4 The Heavenly Voice

This anti-imperial interpretation of the baptism is strengthened by the announcement that Jesus is God’s chosen king: “And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, ‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased’” (Matt 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). The first part of this declaration [“This is my beloved Son”] is a quote from Ps 2:7, known as a royal or enthronement psalm, in which God declares David at his inauguration to be his anointed king and adopted son. This decree takes place as the raging nations surround Jerusalem and plot to destroy God’s people (vv. 1–3). The psalmist portrays God as laughing at the nations’ machinations and announcing from heaven, “I have set my king on Zion, my holy hill” (vv. 4–6). The Davidic psalmist then recalls the day God chose him to be king: “He said to me, ‘You are my son; today I have begotten you’” (v. 7). The “today” in this passage refers to coronation day, when the king is anointed for his task and declared by the prophet to be God’s son or representative on earth. 160 At his inauguration God promised David the rule over the nations and warned the nations to make peace with the anointed king or face wrath (vv. 8–11). 161

The gospel writers interpret Jesus’ baptism, the heavenly anointing, and God’s words as an eschatological fulfillment of God’s promise to David in Ps 2:7.

The last part of God’s declaration to Jesus (“in whom I am well pleased”) is a paraphrase of Isa 42:1–2: “Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations.”

The combination of Ps 2:7 and Isa 42:1–2 gives us a composite picture of God’s Messiah. He is an anointed king and a humble servant. To the Jewish and Roman minds of the first century, this idea was an oxymoron. Kings did not serve, they ruled. Others served them. Yet, this is how God describes his chosen monarch. Jesus was anointed to be a different kind of king than Caesar—a servant king. Likewise, Jesus declared of himself, “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45).

Jesus’ public ministry commenced with his baptism in the Jordan. It was the defining event when God declared Jesus to be king over his restored kingdom (Luke 3:22). At his birth, God appointed Jesus to be a future king. At his baptism God anointed him to be a king. This was confirmed by the heavenly signs—the voice and the dove. However, he had not yet taken the throne. 162 That would come later at his glorification. In the interim, he continued to preach the good news of the kingdom and call on his hearers to repent and be baptized.

5.5 Jesus Commences his Mission

In Luke’s account of Jesus’ baptism, Luke does something else very unusual. He speaks of the Baptist’s arrest and imprisonment before he relates the story of Jesus’ baptism. In other words, Luke presents events in reverse order. He likely does this for literary effect.

Luke first says that Herod arrested John bringing his ministry to a virtual halt (Luke 3:20), and then he flashes back and writes, “When all the people were baptized, Jesus was also baptized” (v. 21, NAS). At first glance the wording here seems to suggest that Jesus was the last person John ever baptized. But John probably baptized many others after Jesus. So what message is Luke trying to convey by placing Jesus’ baptism at the end of the sentence and after the account of John’s arrest?

By flashing back to Jesus’ baptism and placing his baptism sequentially last, Luke possibly wants his readers to understand that Jesus’ baptism marked the end of John’s ministry. This is Luke’s way of shifting attention away from John and to Jesus. The Messiah had arrived, been anointed, and identified (v. 22). Luke will now focus on him. 163 Whatever John did between baptizing Jesus and going to prison was inconsequential to Luke’s narrative.

Among the four gospel accounts, only the Gospel of John hints that Jesus began his ministry in the style of the Baptizer and contemporaneous with him, at least for a while. Jesus preached the kingdom and called on people to be baptized (John 3:1—4:2). The Gospel of John says, “After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside, and he spent some time there with them and baptized” (John 3:22). Hearing this report, the Baptizer’s disciples complained to him, saying, “Rabbi, the one who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you testified, here he is baptizing, and all are going to him” (John 3:26). 164 This grievance leads the Baptizer to reply,

No one can receive anything except what has been given from heaven. You yourselves are my witnesses that I said, “I am not the Messiah, but I have been sent ahead of him.” He who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice. For this reason my joy has been fulfilled. He must increase, but I must decrease. (John 3:27–30)

The Synoptic Gospels, however, never mention Jesus as a baptizer. Rather, they relate how Jesus, immediately following his baptism, faced forty days of temptation in the Judean wilderness (Matt 4:1–11; Mark 1:12; Luke 4:1–13), 165 and then say he proceeded to Galilee after John’s arrest where he declared, “The time is fulfilled.” At the synagogue in Capernaum, after reading aloud Isa 61:1–2: “The spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to the prisoners.” Jesus declared, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing” (Luke 4:21). Jesus’ words stirred the hearts of the people with anticipation. Many wondered if Jesus was the Coming One who would bring Rome down and restore the kingdom to Israel.

5.6 Jesus the King

Each gospel writer wanted his readers to understand that Jesus was Israel’s authorized king and made this point in various ways. For example, when the angel Gabriel came to Mary and announced that she was pregnant, he said of Jesus, “He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end” (Luke 1:32–33).

Matthew begins Jesus’ genealogy by referring to him as “the messiah, son of David” and ending with the words “Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah” (Matt 1:1, 16).

After following a star to Palestine, the magi inquired of King Herod, “Where is the child who has been born king of the Jews?” (Matt 2:2). Herod must have choked! After all, Augustus had appointed him king of the Jews.

Once Jesus was baptized and launched his public ministry, others began to call him king. Upon meeting Jesus for the first time, Nathaniel declared, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” (John 1:49). Again, after Jesus had multiplied the loaves and fishes and fed the multitudes, the crowd began to say among themselves, “This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world.” John then adds, “When Jesus realized that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, he withdrew again to the mountain by himself” (John 6:14–15).

During his grand entry into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey the excited pilgrims lined the roadway and cried out, “Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!” (Luke 19:38; also see Mark 11:9–10; Matt 21:5–9; John 12:15). Their shouts were based on Zech 9:9 (“Behold your king is coming to you”), which the Jews interpreted eschatologically.

When the Jews arrested Jesus and brought him to Pilate, they charged, “We found this man perverting our nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor, and saying that he himself is the Messiah, a king” (Luke 23:2). This led to an interrogation of Jesus by Pilate: “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus responded, “You say so.” (Luke 23:3; Mark 15:2; John 18:33). After a lengthy exchange, Pilate turned Jesus over to the guards to be scourged, who also dressed him in a robe, crowned him with thorns, placed a reed in his right hand, and mocked him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!” (Matt 27:29; John 19:3).

Throughout the entirety of his arrest, trial, and crucifixion, Jesus’ enemies derisively called him king nearly two dozen times. The gospel writers want their readers to come away knowing that Jesus is Israel’s king. The angel announced it, the magi searched for him, his disciples and enemies declared it. At his baptism God anointed him for the office and signified it with the descent of the dove.

5.7 Summary

The thesis of this chapter was that Jesus’ baptism was the occasion when God revealed that Jesus was his choice to be Israel’s king. As such, the baptism was as much a political as a religious event. The Lukan account, with its use of avian imagery, portrayed Jesus as an anti-imperial king who would challenge Rome’s right to rule. His kingdom, based on social justice, covenant mercy, and the establishment of peace apart from the use of violence, was antithetical to the Roman domination system.

126 . Matt 3:11 renders John’s words: “I baptize you in water for repentance.”

127 . Taylor, Immerser , 263, contra to this view, notes, “At face value, the circumstances seem quite clear: Jesus accepted the veracity of John’s predictions of the imminent end and counted himself as one who had not fulfilled the Law adequately.” From the overall biblical record, however, it seems more consistent to hold that Jesus believed John’s teaching about the kingdom was correct, yet Jesus submitted to baptism for a reason other than to repent.

128 . Myers, Binding , 390.

129 . The angel Gabriel spoke of John in these terms: “With the spirit and power of Elijah he will go before him, to turn the hearts of parents to their children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord” (Luke 1:17). Jesus would later identify John as the “Elijah to come” for all who are ready to accept it (Matt 11:14), and upheld John’s divine authority to baptize (Matt 21:25; Mark 11:30; Luke 20:4).

130 . The first-century church viewed Jesus’ reception of the eschatological Spirit as a fulfillment of Isa 11:1; 42:1; 61:1.

131 . The baptism with the Spirit finds its fulfillment in Jer 31:31–34; Ezek 36:25–27, when God gives the eschatological Spirit to his people.

132 . How John envisioned the Messiah to accomplish this goal is a matter of controversy. Most likely he expected him to overthrow Rome through divine intervention and restore the kingdom to Israel. After being put in prison for his own activities, John has doubts that Jesus is the chosen one. This might be explained because Jesus does not fulfill his mission in the manner John expects.

133 . Bultmann, Gospel of John , 88.

134 . Also see Ezek 1:1; Rev 4:1.

135 . Streett, Subversive Meals , 117.

136 . Nolland, Luke 1 : 1 — 9 : 20 , 161. Also see Keck, “Spirit and the Dove,” 41–67, who offers a brief summary of various interpretations of the texts, none of which grasps the subversive significance of the phrase “in bodily form.”

137 . Karlson, “Syncretism.”

138 . Although the early church rejected augury as an art or the augurate as an office, it believed that God occasionally and sovereignly used signs to reveal his will. In the Prot. Jas. , paragraphs 8–9, the temple priest asks God to indicate by a sign who is to be the Virgin Mary’s husband. When a dove lands on Joseph’s head, it is taken as an avian sign that he is God’s choice. Eusebius mentions in Eccl. Hist ., 6.29, the descent of a dove upon the head of Fabianus convinced the people in 236 CE that God had chosen him to be the new bishop of Rome.

139 . Cicero, Div. , 1.48. Likewise, Livy, Hist. , 1.6.4–7.1, attributes Romulus’s selection as king over that of his twin brother Remus, to the preponderance of avian signs.

140 . Scholars divide the history of ancient Rome into three major periods: the Regal (753–509 BCE), the Republican (509–27 BCE), and the Imperial (27–476 CE).

141 . According to Plutarch, Quest. Rom. , (Question 72), 281B, the term “auspices” was originally synonymous with augury and referred to divination or prognostication through observing birds. Since the history of Rome can be traced to avian signs, Rome can be said to have had an auspicious beginning. In time, the auspices came to mean the observing of the sign, while augury referred to interpreting its meaning.

142 . Livy, Hist. , 1.18. Cicero, Rep ., 2.9, 14, states that Romulus actually started the first augural college, appointing three augurs, and that Numa expanded it adding two more augurs. In either case augury had a prominent place in Rome’s earliest history.

143 . Cicero, Phil ., 2.2. New members were chosen only from the patrician class. After being inaugurated into the sacred office, the entire college of augurs feasted together (Cicero, Brut. , 1).

144 . Servius, ad Aen. , 7.190. Also see Armstrong, Significance of Certain Colors , 8. This is her published PhD dissertation from Johns Hopkins University.

145 . Cicero, Leg ., 2.13; Cicero, Div. , 1.16.

146 . Cicero, Div. , 2.34.

147 . Suetonius, Aug. , 7.2.

148 . Augurs observed the flight of other kinds of birds like the vulture and raven when it came to discerning the will of the gods on lesser issues, but when choosing high ranking officials, they turned to the eagle, which became the national symbol of Rome.

149 . Cicero, Div. , 2.34; Josephus, J.W ., 3.6.2 called the eagle the king of birds.

150 . Pliny the Elder, Nat. , 10.6–15.

151 . Woolf, Ancient Civilizations , 38.

152 . Suetonius, Tib. , 14.2–3.

153 . Suetonius, Claud. , 5.7.

154 . In other words, the Spirit may not have actually come “in bodily form.” Rather, Luke described it this way to reinforce his anti-imperial message.

155 . Homer, Od. , 3.535–34; 4.4.32.

156 . Plutarch, Is. Os. , 379–D.

157 . Philo, Spec. , 1.163.

158 . Pliny, Nat. , 10.10.

159 . Keck, “Spirit and the Dove,” 63–67.

160 . “Son of God” and “king of Israel” are used as synonyms in John 1:49.

161 . Myers, Binding , 129, notes that Ps 2 is the first royal psalm in which God’s king is enthroned over and against the “rulers of the earth” (2:2, 10).

162 . Bates, Allegiance , 74, suggests that while God anointed Jesus to be king at his baptism, he actually became “the king in waiting.”

163 . Myers, Binding , 130, “Jesus takes up the mantle of the fallen prophet.”

164 . Since Jesus’ meeting with Nicodemus takes place in John 3, his statement that “no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit” (John 3:5) should be understood as a likely reference to water and Spirit baptism. After all, the Gospel of John was written in 95 CE and read by those who themselves were baptized and had received the Spirit. This is surely how they would have understood Jesus’ command.

165 . Possibly the Synoptics want the reader to draw a parallel between Jesus and Israel of old. As soon as Jesus goes through the waters, he is tested in the wilderness, but emerges victorious, which calls to mind Israel’s deliverance by water and forty years of testing in the wilderness.

Chapter 6

Baptism, Resurrection, and Restoration of the Kingdom

6.1 Introduction

The Hebrew Scriptures rarely mention resurrection. On the few occasions when they do, most references relate to the restoration of God’s kingdom. Resurrection in the OT had more to do with corporate or national resurrection than a personal resuscitation of the dead. 166 The emphasis is placed on bringing the nation back to life, i.e., God leading his people out of exile and restoring the kingdom to Israel.

We will analyze three key resurrection passages in the OT: Ezek 37, Isa 24–27, and Dan 2–12. Each is situated “in an imperial context” and carries “clear counter-imperial force.” 167 First-century Christ-followers, living under the domination of the Roman Empire, were familiar with these texts, so their understanding of resurrection and kingdom would have been informed by these Scriptures.

John the Baptizer, Jesus, and their followers announced that God was about to intervene on behalf of his people and resurrect Israel to its former glory. 168 They challenged their hearers to embrace God’s alternative narrative for the world, adopt a kingdom-oriented lifestyle, and submit to baptism as a pledge of allegiance to a different Lord than Caesar. As such, baptism was a bold and potentially dangerous subversive act.

The gospel of the kingdom was counter-imperial in nature and asserted that Jesus, and not Caesar, possessed the divine right to rule the world. At his baptism, Jesus was anointed by God to be his son and king. At his resurrection, God installed him as king. At his Parousia , he will turn the kingdom over to God. A great resurrection company will dwell with Christ in the kingdom.

In this chapter, we will examine the relationship between resurrection and kingdom, and their link with baptism. This will help us understand why Roman and Jewish elites in the first-century CE opposed the Jesus movement and attempted to snuff it out.

6.2 Resurrection and Kingdom Restoration in the Old Testament

6.2.1 Ezekiel 37: God Raises an Army

After Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion and destruction of Jerusalem in 587–86 BCE, the Jewish people were exiled from their homeland and scattered throughout the Babylonian Empire. Their disregard for God’s covenant led them to this point. God, however, did not leave them without hope. Through the prophet Ezekiel, he spoke of Israel’s future restoration as a kingdom. The prophet declared that in God’s time, Babylon’s imperial and idolatrous reign would end.

In the prophecy, Ezekiel tells how God’s scattered sheep will return to their homeland, and the northern and southern tribes will reunite under the rule of a servant/shepherd king, one like David, who will lead them in righteousness (34:23–24). This new king David will protect the people, reestablish God’s covenant, and pour out blessings upon the land (34:25–31). To assure the exiles that God will keep his promise, Ezekiel repeats the prophecy: “I will take you from the nations, and gather you from all the countries, and bring you into your own land” (Ezek 36:24). God also promises to cleanse them with water and put a new spirit in them, which will enable them to keep his laws in the restored kingdom (vv. 25–28). 169

In a vision, Ezekiel is taken to a valley where he sees human bones. These are dead Jews who fell in battle with Babylon and whose flesh had since been picked clean by vultures. The skeletal remains are dried out and brittle from prolonged exposure to the sun (Ezek 37:1–3).

God then commands Ezekiel to “prophesy to these bones” and announce, “O dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. Thus says the Lord God to these bones: I will cause breath [spirit] to enter you, and you shall live” (vv. 4–5). When Ezekiel follows the instructions, the bones begin to rattle, and sinew, flesh, and skin return to the bones, yet there is still no life in the bones (vv. 6–8). Next God says,

Prophesy to the breath, prophesy, mortal [son of man], and say to the breath: Thus says the Lord God: Come from the four winds, O breath [spirit/wind], and breathe upon these slain, that they may live. (Ezek 37:9)

In recounting the event, Ezekiel writes, “I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood on their feet, a vast multitude [an exceedingly great army]” (v. 10).

In explaining the vision to Ezekiel, God reveals that the dry bones represent “the whole house of Israel” in exile to a foreign power. They are demoralized and “cut off completely” from God (v. 11). The vision thus reflects the reality on the ground. The Babylonian Empire has prevailed and Israel is dead as a nation.

God then gives further instructions that reveal the motive for the vision and its meaning:

Therefore prophesy, and say to them, “Thus says the Lord God: I am going to open your graves, and bring you up from your graves , O my people; and I will bring you back to the land of Israel. And you shall know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves, and bring you up from your graves, O my people. I will put my spirit within you, and you shall live, and I will place you on your own soil; then you shall know that I, the Lord, have spoken and will act, says the Lord.” (Ezek 37:12–14)

Just as God breathed life into Adam at the beginning of the Genesis story, so again he will breathe life into his people. The nation will be raised from the dead and the kingdom restored to Israel under a new king David. The nation will return to covenant obedience, idolatry will be banished, and the people filled with the Spirit so that everyone will know God.

As Daniel Streett observes,

The point is clear: while Babylon’s vicious empire may have the power to kill and destroy, it does not have the final word. Israel’s God will overturn Babylon’s edict and overthrow Babylon’s dominion, for he alone has the power to give new life, to raise the dead, and to restore his covenant people. Here it is clear that the resurrection of God’s people from the grave of exile is God’s forceful rebuttal to the claims and actions of an oppressive empire. 170

From this passage in Ezekiel we discover an obvious relationship exists between resurrection (of dry bones) and national restoration of Israel (via the Spirit). This also helps us grasp why people in NT times likely understood that resurrection involved more than personal eschatology (i.e., hope for individual resurrection), but was part of a bigger picture—the resurrection or restoration of the kingdom to Israel.

When baptism is added to the mix, the picture becomes even clearer. Both John and Jesus related baptism to the imminent arrival of the kingdom. Jesus’ own baptism symbolized his future resurrection as Israel’s exalted king.

On Easter Sunday when God raised Jesus from the dead, he became the first of the nation to be resurrected and given authority to rule over God’s restored kingdom. He, in turn, commissioned the apostles to go and make kingdom disciples and to baptize them, symbolizing death and resurrection (Matt 28:18). According to the Johannine account of the Great Commission, Jesus said, “Peace be with you,” an allusion to Ezek 37:26 (“I will make a covenant of peace with them”). He then added, “As the Father has sent me, so I send you” and then as in Ezekiel’s vision he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit” (John 20:20–22). Ezekiel’s prophecy was coming to pass. The restoration of Israel had begun. The apostles and their Jewish conscripts constituted “the exceedingly great army” commissioned to make God known among the nations.

After Jesus’ exaltation, every call for baptism was a call to new life and participation in the restored kingdom. It spoke of the ever-widening expansion of God’s kingdom and a return to covenant renewal.

6.2.2 Isaiah 24–27

Covering many of the same events as Ezekiel, this textual composition attributed to Isaiah recounts the struggles that God’s people endured under Babylonian imperialism.

In chapters 24–27, the writer gets a prophetic glimpse of Babylon’s future. He is shocked to see this powerful and violent empire in complete turmoil and its capital city laying in waste by the hand of Yahweh (Isa 24–25). The devastation is the result of God delivering his people from exile returning them to their own land. In describing God’s defeat of Babylon, the author writes, “On that day the Lord with his cruel and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will kill the dragon that is in the sea” (Isa 27:1). The unthinkable is about to happen: mighty Babylon will be brought to her knees.

Like Ezekiel, Isaiah portrays the restoration of Israel in terms of resurrection. He declares God “will swallow up death forever” (25:8). And again, “Your dead shall live, their corpses shall rise. ‘O dwellers in the dust, awake and sing for joy! For your dew is a radiant dew, and the earth will give birth to those long dead’” (26:19).

In the context of the Babylonian captivity, this language of resurrection clearly serves as a metaphor for national restoration in the sixth-century BCE and less as a promise of individual resurrection. 171

By the first-century CE, pious Jews living under the oppression of Rome began reading these texts anew and discovered a fuller meaning in them. 172 The texts not only had historical importance for their forefathers, but eschatological significance for them. As they read Ezekiel and Isaiah, they found hope for the restoration of Israel, when God would raise his people from the dead to join the living under the banner of God’s universal reign on a renewed earth (1 Cor 15:15–54; Rev 21:1–4). 173

Resurrection and kingdom restoration went hand in hand. No wonder John the Immerser instructed people to be baptized as they readied themselves for the kingdom’s arrival. Baptism pictured death to the old order and resurrection in the new. Each individual could be prepared for the kingdom’s advent.

6.2.3 The Book of Daniel

The book of Daniel also deals with resurrection and kingdom, and has particular relevance for our study of baptism. When Seleucid King Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the latest successor to Alexander the Great, marched into the Jewish capital and defiled the temple, Judas Maccabeus and his siblings mounted a successful guerilla counter-assault that lasted nearly four years (167–64 BCE). Throughout their revolt, the Maccabees looked to the book of Daniel for encouragement and inspiration.

Resurrection and Kingdom in Daniel 2:20–45

The narrative of Daniel is set during the reign of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. Daniel, a vibrant and intelligent Jewish youth, is captured during the invasion of Judah in 605 BCE. He rises to prominence in Babylon because of his faithfulness to Yahweh and his ability to interpret correctly the King’s troubling dreams.

The dreams focus on a giant statue with a head of gold, body and arms of silver, a torso and thighs of bronze, and two legs and feet of iron mixed with clay. Aided by divine insight, Daniel discerns that the massive image represents four powerful kingdoms of the world. He also sees a rock, not cut by human hands, which represents the kingdom of God and which pulverizes the image. The rock then grows into a mountain and covers the entire earth. It endures forever (Dan 2:20–45).

Daniel identifies the first three kingdoms as Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece (8:20–21). The precise identity of the fourth is debatable. 174 Each succeeding empire is more powerful than its predecessor (Dan 2:32–33) and overthrows it. But more important, the rock not made with hands destroys each idolatrous kingdom represented on the image.

When the final kingdom is crushed, only the kingdom of God—presumably a Jewish kingdom—remains standing. Although instituted by God, it is not a heavenly kingdom, but a perpetual earthly and political kingdom.

Resurrection and Kingdom in Daniel 7

In chapter 7, Daniel experiences his own night vision about four great beasts that come out of the sea (Dan 7:2–3). Each represents the same four successive kingdoms depicted in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream: Babylon (symbolized as a winged lion), Medo-Persia (characterized as a blood-thirsty bear), Greece (viewed as a winged leopard), and a fourth unidentified kingdom (represented as a ten-horned, iron-toothed monster) labelled “dreadful and exceedingly strong” (v. 7). These kingdoms, like savage beasts, devour weaker nations. In the end, however, they are all toppled by “one like the Son of Man” (vv. 7–12). After seeing a heavenly court scene where justice is meted out to the beasts, Daniel’s vision focuses on the coronation of a king:

As I watched in the night visions,

I saw one like a son of man,

coming with the clouds of heaven.

And he came to the Ancient of Days,

and was presented before him.

To him was given dominion and glory and kingship,

that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him.

His dominion is an everlasting dominion,

that shall not pass away,

And his kingship is one

that shall never be destroyed. (Dan 7:13–14)

The victorious son of man is installed as ruler over God’s universal and unending kingdom.

Reflecting upon Daniel’s vision, the Maccabees identified “the winged leopard” as Greece, the enemy whom they presently faced and the one whom the son of man defeated. Gaining courage from this revelation, they continued to fight the forces of Antiochus and eventually prevailed against him.

Resurrection and Kingdom in Daniel 12

Daniel 12 is the last passage germane to our discussion. Here we meet Michael, an archangel sent by God, who reveals to Daniel that Israel’s prolonged tribulation will soon end and that God’s people will be exonerated, including those who have died while maintaining covenant faith. Michael assures Daniel, “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake. . . . Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever” (12:2–3).

Daniel 12:2–3 is the first and clearest reference in the OT to an individual resurrection. But, like Ezekiel and Isaiah, “Daniel 12 also portrays resurrection as God’s response to imperial oppression and bloodshed. In the end, God will by all means vindicate the faithful; even death cannot stand in the way.” 175

The language shining “like the stars” was normally used to describe the exaltation of kings and emperors to the status of astral deities upon death. In this context, Michael portrays resurrection as the “future righting of wrongs in which the tables are turned on the empires of this world— the lowly and oppressed are exalted, while the mighty and oppressive are brought low.” 176 Thus, personal resurrection is not understood as a solitary event, but always connected with the defeat of oppression and tyranny, and the restoration of God’s kingdom.

6.3 Resurrection and Kingdom Restoration in the New Testament

In the NT we find the Jews living once again under foreign domination. The imperial Roman Empire, thought by many at the time to be the fourth beast of Dan 7, rules the Mediterranean world. 177 The dreams and visions of God’s restored kingdom found in the books of Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Daniel had not yet been fulfilled, but many Jews hoped it would soon happen.

6.3.1 Baptism and Resurrection during the Ministry of John and Jesus

John the Baptist ignited the flame of expectation when he began to preach that the kingdom of God was drawing near (Matt 3:2). John urged his contemporaries to prepare themselves for the kingdom by undergoing a water ritual that involved a complete lowering and raising of the body that symbolized resurrection and pointed to Israel’s future as a resurrected nation.

But John’s baptism was only preparatory. He spoke of one greater than he, who would baptize with the Spirit and incorporate people into the kingdom. When Jesus came out to be baptized, John announced, “This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks ahead of me because he was before me.’ I myself did not know him; but I came baptizing with water for this reason, that he might be revealed to Israel” (John 1:29–31). Through a heavenly proclamation and the descent of the Spirit, God disclosed that Jesus was the coming One and baptizer with the Spirit (vv. 32–34).

As John’s ministry waned, Jesus picked up the baton. He and his disciples, many of whom were previously followers of the Baptizer, preached about the kingdom’s imminence and declared that “the time is fulfilled” (Mark 1:14–15; Luke 4:21; 16:16).

Like John, Jesus called on people to prepare themselves for the kingdom’s arrival by submitting to baptism (John 4:1–2). In fact, his widespread success drew the attention of the Pharisees and the Jesus-troop had to depart Judea and head northward (vv. 3–4).

When crowds begged for Jesus to remain, he replied, “I must proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God to the other cities also; for I was sent for this purpose” (Luke 4:43). He had a singular message. As Luke affirms, Jesus “went on through cities and villages, proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. The twelve were with him” (Luke 8:1). To expand his outreach, he sent them out “to proclaim the kingdom of God” (Luke 9:2). On another occasion Jesus commanded an unnamed disciple to “go and proclaim the kingdom of God” to those of his own community (Luke 9:60).

When Jesus appointed the Seventy, he sent them “on ahead of him in pairs to every town and place where he himself intended to go” and instructed them to “cure the sick who are there, and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you’” (Luke 10:1, 9).

Jesus preached the good news of the kingdom everywhere he went, in all kinds of situations, and to every kind of person, including Nicodemus (John 3:3–5), a rich young ruler (Luke 18:24–25), a wise scribe (Mark 12:34), and a convicted thief (Luke 23:24–43). He used parables (Matt 13), beatitudes (Matt 5), exorcisms (Luke 11:20), healings, and object lessons (Mark 14:25) to teach about the kingdom.

6.4 The Twelve

Since the gospel focused on the kingdom, it was by its very nature a political message. A kingdom was a form of government with a king, subjects, and laws. Jesus chose twelve apostles, representative of the twelve tribes of Israel. This was a crucial step in reuniting the tribes and restoring the kingdom that had been divided between north and south with its people scattered. Jesus’ mission was to restore the kingdom. The Twelve were the foundation of an eschatological community of redemption that Jesus was forming. 178

In response to Peter’s claim that the apostles have left everything to follow him, Jesus replies, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matt 19:28). Similarly, at the Last Supper, Jesus says, “You are those who have stood by me in my trials; and I confer on you, just as my Father has conferred on me, a kingdom, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Luke 22:28–30). By implication, the Twelve will replace the current leader of the nation.

McKnight sees a parallel between the Twelve and Joshua, who lead the people across the Jordan and sent out twelve tribal leaders to claim the land, reunite the tribes, reestablish the covenant, restore the kingdom to Israel, and then rule over it (Josh 4). 179

Jesus sent out these twelve as ambassadors to announce the good news of the kingdom’s arrival and to call people to repent and return to covenant loyalty. According to John’s gospel the call includes a command to be baptized.

6.5 Jesus Demonstrates Kingdom Power

The Spirit-anointed Jesus not only preached the kingdom. Luke tells “how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power [at his baptism]” and “how he went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him” (Acts 10:38).

6.5.1 Exorcisms and the Kingdom

From the start of his public ministry he performed various acts of power, including exorcisms that pointed to the kingdom (Mark 1:24–28). Jesus saw each exorcism as a victory over Satan. Each triumph was a sign that God’s kingdom had arrived and Satan was losing his grip over people’s lives.

But Jesus’ exorcisms were more than individual acts of compassion. They were enacted prophecies that dramatically pointed to the future judgment and/or deliverance for the entire nation. The deliverance of the Gadarene demoniac is an example, which speaks about Israel’s future in a dramatic way (Matt 8:28–34; Mark 5:1–19; Luke 8:26–29). The exorcism has a dual function. First, the demoniac is set free. Second, it points beyond itself to the day when Israel is set free.

When the man from the tombs meets Jesus on the seashore, the demon inside him cries out, “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me” (Mark 5:7). As the gospel writer notes, these words were a response to a command given by Jesus— “For He [Jesus] said to him, ‘Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!’ Then Jesus asked him, ‘What is your name?’” (vv. 8–9a).

The first clue that this passage should be read at two levels is found in verse 9: “And he answered, saying, ‘My name is Legion; for we are many.’” On a literal plane, the demoniac’s response meant he was possessed by a myriad of demons; however, to the readers of the gospel, “Legion” had political connotations as well. “Legion” was commonly used to refer to a contingent of six thousand Roman foot soldiers.

The second clue that this passage had future political connotations as well is found in the mention of pigs. After begging Jesus “not to send them out of the country,” a multitude of the demons implored that he send them into the swine. Jesus granted permission (vv. 11–13). According to Josephus, a pig or boar’s head was the symbol of the Roman Tenth Legion (Fretensis) that besieged Jerusalem. 180 The Legion occupied the Mount of Olives in the Jewish War (67–70 CE). It was nearly wiped out twice and escaped only after General Titus came to the rescue.

The result of the exorcism provides the final clue: “And the unclean spirits came out and entered the swine; and the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed down the steep bank into the sea, and were drowned in the sea” (v. 13). This enacted prophecy triggered the memory of God’s deliverance from Egyptian domination, while Pharaoh’s army perished in the sea. The wording is similar to that of the exodus scene at the Red Sea (Exod 15:1, 10).

The exorcism at Gadara pointed to something beyond one man’s deliverance. A new exodus had begun. God’s people would one day be set free from political oppression just as the demoniac had been freed of his demons.

On another occasion, when the Jews charge Jesus with casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub, he exposes the illogic of their argument by saying if that were the case, Satan’s kingdom is divided against itself and cannot stand (Matt 12:24–27; Luke 11:15–19). Then he offers a rejoinder: “But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come to you” (Matt 12:28). Here we have an unequivocal statement that the kingdom has arrived. Jesus’ Spirit-baptized power demonstrates its reality.

Jesus’ response in Luke’s gospel defers from Matthew’s account by one word: “But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out the demons, then the kingdom of God has come to you” (Luke 11:20). This is an obvious allusion to Exod 8:9, where Moses performed miracles by the “finger of God,” delivered God’s people from Egypt, formed them into a holy nation, and instituted God’s covenant with them. Luke sees Jesus as another Moses, leading an eschatological exodus and restoring covenant renewal.

6.5.2 Kingdom Healings

After his baptism, Jesus also performed healings that served the same prophetic function as the exorcisms. Two examples will suffice.

While Jesus reclined at a meal in Levi’s house, a well-known but uninvited guest interrupted the lively after-dinner discussion (Matt 9:18). Matthew identifies the man as a “ruler” of the synagogue, while Mark gives his name as Jairus (Mark 5:22). He faces an emergency situation. His twelve-year-old daughter has just died, and in desperation he seeks out Jesus and asks him to lay hands on her that she might live (Matt 9:18).

When Jesus and his disciples arise to follow, a great crowd swells up around them and slows them to a snail’s pace. Then they face another unexpected obstacle. A woman with a twelve-year-old blood condition comes from behind and touches Jesus’ robe and says to herself, “If I only touch his cloak, I will be made well” (vv. 19–21).

Instead of ignoring the woman with a chronic condition, Jesus turns and responds, “Be of good cheer, daughter; your faith has made you well.” Matthew adds, “And the woman was made well from that hour” (v. 22). With his daughter’s life hanging in the balance, Jairus must have thought the delay was unconscionable.

But Matthew is sure to let his readers know that the woman and Jairus have something in common: faith in Jesus’ power to heal (vv. 18, 21).

When Jesus finally reaches Jairus’ house, a wake is in progress, replete with flute players and professional mourners (v. 23). Jesus removes the crowd, takes the girl “by the hand,” and she awakes and rises (v. 24–25). The news of the miraculous healing spreads throughout the region (v. 26).

Often missed in the story is the fact that the woman has been ill for as long as the girl has been alive—twelve years. This is not coincidental, but essential. To the Jewish mind the number twelve represents the nation of Israel. There were twelve tribes, twelve stones on the high priest’s breastplate, twelve loaves of showbread. The gospel writers likely view these two females as emblematic of Israel. Israel is being raised from the dead and restored as the OT prophets had foretold.

Jesus’ healings, like his exorcisms, served as enacted parables/prophecies that pointed to the victory over the power of evil that kept God’s people in bondage. If Jesus was correct and the kingdom was right around the corner, the people must have thought Rome’s day of domination over the Jewish nation was about to end. Freedom was close at hand. While this was good news to the oppressed and marginalized, the Jewish native elites and the Roman governmental officials felt otherwise. Jesus, like the Baptizer, posed a threat to the political stability of Palestine.

When Jesus entered the Jewish capital on the back of a donkey, a crowd of enthusiasts gave him a royal welcome. They laid their clothes at his feet, waved palm branches, and shouted “Hosanna to the Son of David!” (Matt 21:1–11; Mark 11:1–11; Luke 19:28–44; John 12:12–19). The whole scene was reminiscent of King Solomon’s enthronement (1 Kgs 1:33–35) or a fulfilment of Zechariah’s prophecy: “Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey” (Zech 9:9). Those observing Jesus’ grand entry into the city likely remembered that the prophecy went on to say that the king will end war, establish peace, and “his dominion shall be from sea to sea” and extend “to the ends of the earth” (v. 10).

Some of the Pharisees reacted by demanding of Jesus: “Teacher, order your disciples to stop.” Instead of complying, he answered, “I tell you, if these were silent, the stones would shout out” (Luke 19:38–39). He then proceeded to launch a one-man attack on the “temple-industrial complex.” 181

Jesus’ actions obviously concerned Jewish authorities. Passover was an opportune time to foment discontent among the fringe population. After all, Passover was the feast of deliverance, when thousands gathered in Jerusalem to remember and celebrate Israel’s escape from Pharaoh’s tyrannical regime.

Toward the end of the week Jesus reclined with his disciples for the Passover meal and quite naturally the discussion turned to the kingdom of God. He confessed, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I tell you, I will not eat it [again] until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God” (Luke 22:14–16).

The disciples must have thought, “Jesus expects to be wounded and suffer in a battle to usher in the kingdom. He will succeed and the next Passover meal we eat together will be in the restored kingdom.” Every part of their mealtime conversation pointed to a bloody conflict ahead. Jesus spoke about his body being broken and his blood being poured out to establish a new covenant (vv. 17–20).

The Twelve expected they too would have to join the fight in order to bring in the kingdom. On a previous occasion, when the sons of Zebedee asked to sit on his right and left in the kingdom, Jesus replied, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?” They assured him, “We are able” (Mark 10:35–39). They did not understand that God had another plan to marshal his kingdom—Jesus’ death and resurrection. 182

With Jesus riding the latest wave of Jewish nationalism, the authorities decided to stop him in his tracks just as they had with numerous other seditionists. So, the authorities issued an arrest warrant, which was carried out in the dark. According to Luke’s version of the events, Jesus was brought before dawn to the Sanhedrin, where he was questioned. When they asked if he claimed to be the Jewish messiah, he said, “But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God” (Luke 22:66–69). Here Jesus was self-identifying with the victorious apocalyptic king of Dan 7. Jesus was as dangerous as they suspected.

6.6 Jesus Before Pilate

The authorities then brought Jesus to Roman Governor Pontius Pilate and charged, “We found this man perverting our nation . . . saying that he himself is the Messiah, a king” (Luke 23:2). In John’s gospel the accusation reads, “He has claimed to be the Son of God” (John 19:7). This amounted to an accusation of treason. Caesar alone had exclusive claim to the title “Son of God.” Jesus had committed sedition against the Empire, a crime worthy of death.

When Pilate sought to release Jesus after ordering a severe beating, the Jewish leaders countered, “If you release this man, you are no friend of the emperor. Everyone who claims to be a king sets himself against the emperor” (John 19:12). 183 When Pilate placed Jesus before the judgment stand in full view of the gathered Jews, he proclaimed, “Here is your King!” (vv. 13–14). But the chief priests answered, “We have no king but the emperor [Caesar]!” (v. 15). Pilate ordered Jesus to be executed as an enemy of the state.

Jesus was crucified between two subversives atop an execution hill located at a busy crossroads outside the city (vv. 16–18). Rome used crucifixion to instill fear into all who might consider leading a provocation against the Empire.

The charge against Jesus was placed above his head in Hebrew, Greek and Latin: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS (John 19:19–22). Within a few hours, Jesus breathed his last and died.

The disciples’ optimism now turned to despair. Their kingdom hopes were dashed.

6.7 Resurrection and Kingdom

As far as the official Roman account was concerned, Jesus’ story ended with his death. But the gospel writers give us an alternative ending—Jesus emerged from the grave just as he had from the baptismal waters. Jesus, not Rome, had the final word. Through the resurrection, God vindicated Jesus and his message, and declared him to be the earth’s rightful ruler. Christus Victor!

In raising Jesus from the dead, God exposed Rome as a bully and its ultimate weapon of domination—death—as ineffective against his Spirit. The resurrection was God’s powerful “no” to violence as a way of establishing and keeping peace. Rome was a beast that solved problems through bloodshed (“might makes right”). By contrast, Jesus, like a lamb, did not defend himself or call on his followers to take up arms. Rather, he placed his confidence in God alone to provide the victory. The Roman Empire was established and sustained by force. God’s empire was founded and maintained by faith.

Had Jesus remained in the tomb, “his vision of the kingdom” would have been “just another failed utopian fantasy.” 184 But God raised him and the prophecies of Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Jeremiah were coming to pass. The kingdom was being restored.

6.8 The Risen King and Baptism

Matthew 28:16–20 is another key gospel text that links baptism, kingdom, and resurrection. According to Matthew’s account, God not only restored life to Jesus, but also granted him ultimate power and authority in the universe. When the risen Jesus appeared to his disciples in Galilee he said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (v. 18). This was a clear allusion to Dan 7, where God inaugurates the son of man, victorious over the beastly nations, as ruler over all kingdoms. 185 As God’s glorified king, Jesus’ authority was not limited to the heavenly realm or to spiritual matters, but included authority over earth, including tangible political matters. “All authority” means all ! Christ, not Caesar, reigned supreme over the world.

Jesus then commanded the apostles: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (v. 19). These were the same nations that Rome had conquered and controlled. The apostles’ assignment was clear and unambiguous. They were to summon Roman subjects to pledge their loyalty to Christ, God’s authorized king.

Making disciples also included “teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you.” This entailed obeying the Mosaic covenant as Jesus had reconstituted and explained it (Matt 5–7). This counter-imperial mission would be a dangerous undertaking, but Jesus promised to be with them until the assignment was completed (“even to the end of the age”).

From the text, we also discover they were to make disciples by “baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (v. 20). 186 From its start baptism was connected to the kingdom of God and covenant renewal. John the Baptizer immersed people in water to prepare them for the kingdom’s arrival (Luke 3:3–4). Jesus’ disciples followed John’s example and did the same (John 4:1–2). But John also spoke of a future baptism with the Holy Spirit that would bring people into the kingdom. The prophets Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Isaiah linked the Spirit to the resurrection and kingdom. Both John and Jesus understood the giving of the Spirit to be an eschatological event.

As mentioned earlier, Jesus appeared to the frightened disciples and “he breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’” (John 20:21). With this symbolic act, the restoration of Israel began. The Spirit-empowered apostles constituted restored Israel (Ezek 37:10).

Jesus previously promised them the “keys of the kingdom” and gave them authority to forgive sins (Matt 16:19–23; 19:18). With the bestowal of the Spirit, they were now prepared for their mission to make God known to the nations.

Luke joins the other gospel writers in connecting resurrection with kingdom restoration. In two post-resurrection stories he tells how Jesus taught the disciples from the Hebrew Bible of God’s plan to restore the kingdom to Israel through Messiah’s suffering and glorification (Luke 24:13–27), and then commissioned them to preach “repentance and forgiveness of sins . . . in his name to all nations” (Luke 24:44–48). To equip them for their mission, Jesus added, “And see, I am sending upon you what my Father promised [i.e., the baptism with Holy Spirit]; so stay here in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high” (v. 49; see Acts 1:3–8).

166 . In its final form, the restoration of the kingdom will include personal resurrection of the dead, who will become participants at the end of the age.

167 . Streett, “Rome and the Risen Jesus,” 58.

168 . The gospels, the undisputed letters of Paul, and the apocalypse use resurrection language to imply that the Roman Empire will be destroyed and replaced by the kingdom of God.

169 . Jesus likely alluded to these verses when he told Nicodemus he must be born of water and spirit to enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5).

170 . Streett, “Rome and the Risen Jesus,” 59.

171 . God also spoke through Jeremiah about a coming day in which he will make a new covenant with the houses of Israel and Judah and in which he will put his law in the hearts of his people, forgive their sins, and establish a personal relationship with them (Jer 31:31–34). The past will be past as Israel embraces covenant renewal.

172 . Brown, Sensus Plenior , 92, popularized the term sensus plenior to describe the fuller or deeper meaning of a biblical text “not clearly intended by the human author” but intended by God for a later audience.

173 . The pesher method of interpretation sought to uncover the eschatological or messianic meaning of a text, a meaning that the original author did not necessarily intend. This interpretative method began in the Second Temple period and was prevalent in the first-century CE, especially among the scribes in the Qumran community.

174 . Most first-century Jews, like historian Josephus, believed it to be Rome. I personally believe that the fourth symbolic kingdom is left unnamed because it represents not only Rome, but all the other ungodly kingdoms that rise and fall “in the latter days” (v. 28).

175 . Streett, “Rome and the Risen Jesus,” 61.

176 . Ibid.

177 . Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, Prophets , 79, comments that the Roman emperors that dominated Judea were like terrifying “predatory beasts that devour people and devastate their land.”

178 . Jeremias, New Testament Theology , 234–35; Wright, Jesus and the Victory , 300; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism , 104.

179 . McKnight, “Jesus’ New Vision,” 80–81.

180 . Josephus, J.W. , 5.71–97.

181 . Streett, “Rome and the Risen Jesus,” 62.

182 . In his discourse about the Baptizer’s ministry, Jesus said, “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force” (Matt 11:12). From this statement, we learn two things. First, many suffered and died for the kingdom, including John in the past and Jesus, Stephen, Paul, and others in the future. Second, many misguided zealots and revolutionaries attempted to bring in the kingdom by use of violence. Roman and Jewish authorities defeated them. The disciples possibly expected Jesus to succeed where the others failed. But the way of the kingdom was faith, not force.

183 . Campbell, Rise of Imperial Rome , 13, notes that in the Roman patronage system provincial governors were called Caesar’s “friend.” This privileged status was something to protect. The Jewish leaders are basically threatening to derail Pilate’s relationship with Caesar if he releases Jesus.

184 . Streett, “Rome and the Risen Jesus,” 63.

185 . Davies and Allison, Exegetical and Critical Commentary , 678 .

186 . This baptismal language also includes references to Father and Son. This Trinitarian formula most certainly reflects the church’s understanding of baptism at the time this text took written form in the mid-80s CE.

Chapter 7

Baptism and Pentecost

Luke begins the book of Acts by telling how Jesus after his crucifixion “presented himself alive” to the apostles and spent the next forty days “speaking about the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:2–3). He then commanded them to remain in Jerusalem and wait for “the promise of the Father” (v. 4), i.e., the gift of the Holy Spirit that would mark the beginning of the kingdom age. Their reason for waiting was clear: “for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now” (v. 5).

From this introductory passage in Acts, we discover that Jesus’ post resurrection discourses focused mainly on the kingdom of God, which he connected to the coming of the Spirit and identified as the “baptism in the Spirit.” 187

This announcement led the apostles to ask, “Lord, is this the time when you will restore the kingdom to Israel?” (v. 6). Their question was a logical one, since the Hebrew prophets specifically associated kingdom restoration and resurrection—the very things Jesus had just spoken about. If they understood Jesus correctly, his resurrection meant that the restoration of the nation was right around the corner. Their new Davidic king was about to ascend the throne and reunite the people (Jer 23:5; Ezek 27:15–24). Based on Jesus’ words, and their reading of the sacred Scriptures, they expected God to fulfill his promises “to bring Jacob back . . . and to restore the survivors of Israel . . . that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth” (Isa 49:5–6). They remembered God’s words of comfort to their forefathers: “Do not be dismayed, O Israel; for I am going to save you from far away, and your offspring from the land of their captivity. Jacob shall return . . . for I am with you, says the Lord, to save you” (Jer 30:10–11). Surely, the long awaited kingdom was at hand!

In response to their inquiry, Jesus gave them a two-part reply. First, he explained the timing of kingdom restoration was set by the Father alone (Acts 1:7). Second, he said they would participate in the restoration process: “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (v. 8). The answer must have been confusing.

They asked, “Lord will you restore . . .” and he replied, “you will be my witnesses.”

They were to testify of him—his suffering, resurrection, and exaltation as king to David’s throne—and in doing so, bring the multitudes under his kingly reign. Jerusalem was the capital of the Jewish homeland while “all Judea and Samaria” represented the southern and northern kingdoms of divided Israel, respectively. 188

Empowered by the gift of the eschatological Spirit, the apostles were to have an important role in restoring the divided kingdom. 189 Jesus then said their mission would extend “to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8). 190 They were to testify to the Jews scattered far and wide among the nations. 191 Luke’s readers in the mid-80s CE likely interpreted this phrase to include Gentiles who by this time had come under the reign of Christ in the fifty-plus years since Jesus gave the command.

To the ears of the apostles, this kingdom restoration project must have sounded like a long-term enterprise. And baptism would be a significant part of the mission. Since the time of John the Baptist, baptism was the expected response to prepare oneself for the kingdom’s arrival. Now it would be the expected response to enter the kingdom.

After Jesus commissioned the apostles, “he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight” (Acts 1:9). As they stood gazing upward, two men [angels] dressed in white, asked, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking up towards heaven? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven” (vv. 10–11).

Among NT writers, Luke alone mentions Jesus’ exaltation to heaven. What message did he wish to convey by this inclusion? Was he making a parallel between Moses’ ascension to Mount Sinai to receive the Law and Jesus’ ascension into heaven to receive the Spirit, the one representing the old covenant and the latter the renewed covenant (Jer 31:31)?

Possibly, Luke was thinking back to Daniel’s night vision of “one like the son of man coming with the clouds of heaven” to the Ancient of Days who receives him and gives him “dominion and glory and kingship that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him” (Dan 7:12–14a).

In a Jewish context, these allusions make sense. But how might Luke’s Gentile readers have interpreted Jesus’ ascension? Is it possible they associated Jesus’ ascension to God’s right hand as an apotheosis, just as deceased Roman rulers were raised to godlike status? An elaborate ceremony marked an apotheosis, including the release of an eagle which the Romans believed carried the soul of the dead emperor to heaven. 192 Henceforth, the emperor was accepted into the pantheon of gods and worshipped throughout the Empire as a god. He, in turn, could bestow benefaction to his devotees. The legendary Romulus was the first to attain divine honors. 193 Likewise, Julius Caesar was posthumously given the title Divus Julius at his apotheosis. 194 For the Roman readers of Acts, Christ’s ascension might have seemed like an apotheosis. Luke may have chosen to use this familiar language to say that the new ruler of Israel’s kingdom was received into heaven and attained divine status from whence he could pour out blessings on followers, especially the gift of the Spirit. 195

Acts 1 concludes with the apostles selecting a replacement for Judas. After all, if they were to have a major role in kingdom restoration, a twelfth tribal leader had to be chosen.

7.1 Peter’s Pentecostal Sermon and his Call for Baptism

In Acts 2 we find 120 Christ-followers gathered in the upper room praying and waiting for the Spirit. The readers assume these believers “have already been immersed in water ” by either John or Jesus. 196 This scene sets the stage for the “twofold Christian baptism of water and Spirit.” 197 As they worshipped, God poured out his Spirit and they were “baptized with [in] the Spirit” just as the resurrected Jesus had promised (Acts 1:5). Soon they found themselves speaking in foreign tongues (2:4). Visiting pilgrims from Ethiopia, Parthia, Libya, and regions beyond who heard these tongues were bewildered and asked, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us, in our native language?” (2:7–12). The opinions varied and one group even mockingly suggested they were drunken babblers (2:13). The confusion provided Peter an opportunity to address the issue and preach the gospel (2:14–40).

When we examine Peter’s sermon, we discern a clear organizational pattern. His sermon is divided into three parts, starting at verses 14, 22, and 29, respectively. Each section begins by addressing the audience variously as: 1) “Men [people] of Judea and all who live in Jerusalem”; 2) “You that are Israelites”; and 3) “The entire house of Israel.” These identities follow closely the pattern Jesus lays out in Acts 1:8, and point to kingdom restoration. 198 The phrase “the entire house of Israel” is also found in Ezek 37:16. 199 These diasporic Jews (Acts 2:5–11), now in Jerusalem for the Feast of Pentecost, will become the first wave to enter the kingdom of God through the rite of baptism.

In the first section of his sermon Peter refuted the notion that those speaking in tongues were drunk. Rather, they were actually experiencing the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy that “in the last days” God will give his Spirit without measure to his people (“all flesh”) regardless of their gender, age, or social status. The event was, according to Peter, an eschatological sign that pointed to “the coming of the Lord’s great and glorious day” (vv. 14–20), i.e., the kingdom. Peter closed out this section with these words of encouragement: “Then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved,” i.e., delivered (v. 21).

In the second part of Peter’s sermon he proclaimed the gospel: “Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him . . . you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law. But God raised him up, having freed him from death, because it was impossible for him to be held in its power” (vv. 22–24). Peter then mentioned this was part of God’s salvific plan that he revealed to King David of old (vv. 25–27). Despite Christ being approved by God, both Jews and Roman officials were responsible for his execution. Hence the executioners opposed God’s will.

In section three of his sermon, Peter called on King David as a witness to these events: “Since he was a prophet, he knew that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would put one of his descendants on his throne. Foreseeing this, David spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah [Christ]” (vv. 30–31).

Peter then asserted that the risen and enthroned Christ was responsible for giving the Spirit: “This Jesus [i.e., the one you executed] God raised up, and of that all of us are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you both see and hear” (vv. 32–33). Peter next quoted Ps 110:1 and applied it to Jesus:

The Lord says to my Lord,

“Sit at my right hand

until I make your enemies your footstool.”

Given that God placed Jesus at his right hand (the position of ultimate authority in the universe), Peter concluded with these words: “Therefore let the entire house of Israel know with certainty that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified” (v. 36).

For Peter, the restoration of the kingdom began with the resurrection of Jesus, and the baptism in the Spirit.

When the Jews, whom Luke earlier described as gathered “from every nation under heaven” (v. 5) heard this, “they were cut to the heart” (v. 37a). “Conscience-stricken” and faced with the gut-wrenching realization that they as a people collectively rejected and killed their God-given king, they cried out, “Brothers, what should we do?” (v. 37b). 200

The crowd’s shocking reaction to Peter’s sermon and their question of how they as a nation might be rescued from their present dilemma was much more than an individual response.

Peter’s answer was clear and unequivocal: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (v. 38).

7.2 The Human Side of Salvation

First, Peter called on his audience, as part of scattered Israel, to “repent” (μετανοήσατε), i.e., turn away from the present alliances and way of thinking, and turn back to God. “Israel as a whole needed to repent.” 201 The turning should start with this group gathered in Jerusalem to celebrate Pentecost.

Second, Peter commanded them to “be baptized” (βαπτισθήτω), i.e., immersed in water “in the name of Jesus Christ” (ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). Baptism “in the name” distinguished Christian baptism from other Jewish immersion practices and John’s baptism. 202 Hurtado says the phrase identifies Jesus as God’s sole intermediary of salvation. 203

From the time of John the Baptist onward, repentance and baptism were connected (Luke 3:3; Acts 2:38; 13:24; 19:4). They were not conceived as being separate from each other, but together constituted conversion, the human side of salvation. 204 According to Joel and quoted by Peter earlier in his sermon, “[E]veryone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (v. 21). 205 In his closing exhortation, he urged them to take action: “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation” (v. 40).

Luke records the result: “So those who welcomed his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand persons were added” (Acts 2:41). The restoration of the kingdom had begun.

A large swath of Jews took the necessary action to escape out from under the power of the present age, and come under the reign of God’s exalted king.

Conversion for the first Pentecostal believers entailed breaking with the past (repentance) and making a subversive sacramentum (baptism) to the one whom Rome and its Jewish collaborators crucified for treason and fomenting revolution.

7.3 The Divine Side of Salvation

Peter pressed his hearers to repent and be baptized “so that your sins may be forgiven” (v. 38). While this NRSV translation accurately conveys the meaning of the text, a more literal rendering is: “for the forgiveness of sins” (εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν). Conversion thus leads to forgiveness. Hence, there appears to be a cause-and-effect relationship between repentance and baptism on the one hand and forgiveness on the other. 206 While God alone forgives sins, repentance and baptism are instrumental in the process. 207

Peter then added, “And (καὶ) you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” His use of καὶ links the Spirit to what precedes it—namely repentance, baptism, and forgiveness. Thus, those converted and pardoned receive the Spirit, although the timing of its arrival is not indicated. 208 The bestowal can immediately follow forgiveness or be delayed. This initial impartation of the Spirit is what Jesus referred to as being “baptized with the Spirit.”

The giving of the Spirit was the eschatological gift—spoken of by Joel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and other OT prophets—that marked the restoration of the kingdom.

Luke likely intended for his readers to view Peter’s sermon on Pentecost as programmatic. 209 This means all other evangelistic sermons found in Acts should be understood to contain the same anti-imperial gospel content, the same invitation, and same promised consequences as Peter’s initial sermon. Therefore, Luke will not present in its entirety the content of every sermon in Acts. At times he will simply say that a particular herald “preached Christ to them” or that the respondents “were baptized.” This is Lukan shorthand. 210 The reader must fill in the gaps based on Peter’s sermon at Pentecost.

As a result, we can make two assumptions: 1) All evangelistic messages recorded in Acts contained the kerygma and called on hearers to repent and be baptized, and 2) All those taking the necessary actions (human response) were forgiven of sins and received the Spirit at some point (divine response) after the conversion event. 211 Luke expected all readers to grasp this as the normative pattern of the events surrounding the preaching and hearing of the gospel.

7.4 Water or Spirit Baptism?

How are water and Spirit baptism related? Are they two separate baptisms or two parts of the same baptismal process? Both John the Baptist and Peter called upon their listeners to repent and submit to water baptism for remission of sins. To this extent, their messages were identical.

John preached with urgency and commanded God’s people to prepare for the eschatological arrival of God’s kingdom. Hence the message, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt 3:1). Or as Mark tells the story—“John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Mark 1:4–5; Matt 3:6).

The phrase “baptism of repentance” describes the nature of John’s water ritual. Repentance and baptism are a couplet. The phrase “for forgiveness of sins” (εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν) is the purpose statement. John’s and Peter’s messages look very similar (εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν).

Peter’s baptism, however, differed from John’s in two ways. First, Peter administered water baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ.” Second, he promised that his respondents would receive the Holy Spirit (Spirit baptism). For Peter, water baptism “in the name” and the resultant Spirit baptism were interconnected and logically could not be separated. 212 They worked in tandem.

When John’s and Peter’s baptism are compared, we discover a pattern:

John’s Baptism

Peter’s Baptism

Called for repentance

Called for repentance

Called for baptism

Called for baptism

Element—Water

Element—Water

“In Jesus’ Name”

Result—Forgiveness of Sins

Result—Forgiveness of Sins

Result—Receive gift of Holy Spirit

Purpose—Preparatory

Purpose—Participatory

John’s baptism prepared God’s people for the kingdom’s arrival and pointed them to Jesus’ “baptism with the Holy Spirit” that was to follow (Mark 1:8; Acts 1:5; 11:16), through which God’s people might enter the restored kingdom. The baptism in the Spirit did not supplant baptism in water. 213 The church continued to minister the rite of water baptism, but now “in the name of Jesus” along with the expectation that God would give his Spirit to the baptized ones. Peter baptized with water, but God baptized with the Spirit (Acts 1:8).

John’s baptism of Jesus served as a model for Peter’s baptismal practices. Although John the Baptist originally protested Jesus’ need for water baptism, Jesus knew it was his route to receiving the Spirit, which identified him as God’s son and empowered him to fulfill his kingdom mission. In Christian baptism, believers likewise receive a new identity and become kingdom citizens through Spirit baptism. 214

7.5 A Message for the Nations

Modern-day Christians usually explain the importance of baptism for the individual, but Peter directed his message to “the entire house of Israel” (Acts 2:36). God’s end-time plan called for national renewal. Peter directed the people to abandon all allegiances and submit to God’s reign as found in King Jesus. As a result, God reconstituted them into his eschatological people and established a new covenant with them. 215

Peter assured his listeners that “the promise” was not only for them, but “for your children” (v. 39a). He had previously mentioned their “sons and daughters” prophesying in “the last days” (2:17). The restoration of Israel and the giving of the Spirit would extend beyond the present generation. Then Peter took the promise one step further: “and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him” (v. 39b). When Peter uttered these words in 30 CE, he was probably thinking of other Jews scattered throughout the Empire. But from the perspective of Luke’s readers in 85 CE, they know the kingdom promises had already spread beyond the scattered Jews to include multitudes of Gentiles who had since been brought into the kingdom.

7.6 The Aftermath of Peter’s sermon

Peter’s gut-wrenching sermon produced an astonishing result: “So those who welcomed his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand persons were added,” presumably to the other 120 believers (v. 41 ). How did the apostles baptize so many people? Since pilgrims to Jerusalem ordinarily had to be ritually cleansed before entering the temple, between 75 and 150 Mikvaot pools were located nearby. When the southern wall of the Temple Mount was excavated in the early 197 0 s, numerous ritual pools were unearthed in front of the steps leading up to the temple. 216 Tacitus mentions the abundance of pools and cisterns in proximity to the temple. 217

These pools likely functioned as baptismal pools for the three thousand. One can only imagine the impact that this first Christian baptism had on passersby and the multitudes making their way to the temple. And how did the temple rulers and chief priests react to the mass baptism taking place on their doorsteps? They thought they had solved the Jesus problem. Now less than two months later, his movement was growing and stronger than ever.

These newly transformed Jewish converts formed themselves into alternative communities and “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (v. 42). Old friends, ideas, ethical standards, and practices were being exchanged for new ones.

When describing the crowd, Luke characterized them simply as those “who believed” (v. 44). Yet, in his sermon, Peter never asked them to “believe,” but only to “repent.” So, how does “believe” fit into the equation? Are repentance and belief interchangeable? 218 Or is “believe” to be equated with “be baptized”? 219 Or does “believe” simply mean the hearers accepted what Peter preached about Jesus and acted on it? Possibly, Luke is simply distinguishing those who believed from those who did not believe and thus remained part of the “corrupt generation” (v. 40). 220

We will seek to answer these questions as we examine the other baptism passages throughout the NT.

7.7 A SocioPolitical versus a Theological Approach to Baptism

Whenever I teach about baptism, my students invariably ask three questions: 1) If baptism is required for salvation, doesn’t this mean we are saved by works and not grace? 2) Shouldn’t “for (eis ) the forgiveness of sins” be understood to modify “repent” only and not “be baptized” so that baptism follows forgiveness rather than precede it? 3) If we take Acts 2:38 at face value, doesn’t this lead to a doctrine of baptismal regeneration?

My students, of course, are concerned that salvation is not seen as a by-product of works. But those listening to Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost would not have asked these kinds of questions. The reason is simple. Peter was not speaking about salvation in the same way as my students. He was not teaching about regeneration of the individual, but regeneration of a nation. He was not talking about going to heaven when we die, but about calling his audience to pledge their loyalty to God’s kingdom. Repentance was turning their backs on former alliances. It was the first step of resistance. One writer likens it to saying, “I cancel my subscription.” Myers likened it to the act of burning one’s draft card during the Vietnam War. 221 It was an act of nonviolence that declared, “I am not participating in this war. I no longer subscribe to the values of this society, and plan to live by an alternative set of values.” Baptism was a call to pledge by oath (sacramentum ) one’s loyalty to another king than Caesar and another empire than Rome.

When seen in this light, my students’ questions become irrelevant. They have nothing to do with what was happening on the ground in the first century. Rather, these theological questions developed during the post-apostolic era when the church fathers began to view salvation 1) as deliverance of the soul and not as deliverance of a people out of exile, and 2) as individual regeneration not as kingdom restoration. Baptism entailed switching allegiance from Caesar to Christ and was the ritual of initiation into the kingdom community.

187 . John’s baptism with water was a rite of preparation for the kingdom. Jesus’ baptism with the Spirit was a rite of participation in the kingdom.

188 . Thompson, Acts , 103–24, explores this theme in detail. In many ways his explanation opens the doors to better understanding the programmatic structure of Acts.

189 . They indeed go out and call upon hearers to repent and be converted that the restoration of the kingdom can occur (Acts 3:19).

190 . Notice how Jesus uses the identical wording of Isa 49:5 previously quoted in this chapter.

191 . The Gospel of Luke version of the Great Commission finds Jesus teaching his disciples from the Scriptures the nature of Messiah’s mission as well as their own:

Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, and he said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And see, I am sending upon you what my Father promised; so stay here in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:45–49).

192 . See Kreizer, “Apotheosis,” 210–17, for a good overview of the practices of apotheosis in Rome, giving particular attention to related pictures and inscriptions on Roman coins.

193 . Plutarch, Rom ., 27–28; Livy, Hist ., 1.16; Cicero, Rep ., 2.10.

194 . Suetonius, Jul ., 1.88.

195 . A question which demands further investigation is why Luke alone among the biographical writers includes the ascension account, while the others only speak of Christ’s resurrection? It seems inconceivable that an event of such proportions would escape their attention or mention. Is it possible that Luke’s ascension story is a literary device he uses to convey a message that Yahweh, Israel’s God, received Jesus in bodily form into Heaven? If so, the Lukan account of Jesus’ ascension—like his account of the baptism—serves as a hidden transcript meant to trigger the imagination of his readers and convey an anti-imperial message. Jesus, not Caesar, is God’s choice to rule the world.

196 . Taylor, Immerser , 298.

197 . Ibid.

198 . Thompson, Acts , 110.

199 . Ezekiel speaks of God joining together the northern and southern kingdoms of Israel that have been divided because of covenant disobedience and making them “one nation . . . and one king shall be king over them all” (Ezek 37:22).

200 . Keener, Acts , 970, understands this as a communal realization and response, and not an individual one.

201 . Ibid., 972–73.

202 . Peter uses the same formula when healing the lame man (Acts 3:1–10). A day later the Sanhedrin asked, “By what name did you do this?” (4:7).

203 . Hurtado, One God , 108.

204 . White, Biblical Doctrine , 199–200, and Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament , 272, are representative of scholars who view repentance and baptism as part of the conversion process.

205 . Through baptism they visibly dramatized their intent to break with the past and follow Christ.

206 . Baptism alone does not lead to forgiveness. It must be accompanied by repentance.

207 . See Caneday, “Baptism,” 312.

208 . Twelftree, People of the Spirit , 85–86.

209 . Ibid., 86.

210 . Dunn, Baptism , 5.

211 . Ibid.

212 . Peter will eventually learn that God may give the Spirit prior to baptism or delay giving it until long after baptism.

213 . Bruce, Book of Acts , 76.

214 . John the Baptizer equated the coming of the kingdom with “the coming of the Lord” (Isa 40:3). The pouring out of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost was the fulfillment of Isa 40:3. The eschatological giving of the Spirit was God’s presence with the people and marked the arrival of the kingdom. In like manner, Jesus received the Spirit at his baptism and the kingdom was singularly manifested in and through him “for God was with him” (Acts 10:38).

215 . While each baptism involves the individual, it is more political than personal. The baptized individual becomes a participant in the kingdom of God, a political entity.

216 . McRay, Archeology , 106–7.

217 . Tacitus, Hist ., 5.12.

218 . See Streett, Effective Invitation , 40 –48 , for a fuller examination of this relationship.

219 . In other passages in Acts, the gospel heralds the call for their listeners to “repent and believe” without reference to baptism (Acts 3:19; 20:21). Is repent and be baptized, therefore, the same as “repent and believe”? If so, those “who believed” (v. 44) can be taken to mean “those who were baptized.”

220 . In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus labels those who reject his message as a “faithless and perverse generation” (Luke 9:41).

221 . Myers, Binding , 130.

Chapter 8

Baptisms beyond Jerusalem

As the gospel spread throughout Judea and the number of Jewish Christ-followers grew, persecution soon followed. Under duress, especially after the martyrdom of Stephen, many believers left Jerusalem and headed for other towns and villages, where they would eventually settle (Acts 8:1). In route to their respective destinations, they told their story of persecution and shared the gospel of the kingdom.

In this chapter we examine how the kingdom message reached Samaria and multitudes responded through baptism. Next, we learn how Philip proclaimed Christ to an African government official who ordered his convoy stopped at an oasis so he could be baptized. Through this new convert the gospel of the kingdom spread far beyond the borders of Israel. As the story in Acts continues, we meet Saul who, while on a deputation to arrest Jewish Christ-followers, encountered the living Jesus and was baptized. He in turn took the gospel of the kingdom throughout the Empire and called for Jews and Gentiles to be baptized.

8.1 Philip the Baptizer

Luke focuses first on Philip, one of the Seven, who stopped in Samaria on his way to Caesarea Philippi where he and his daughters would eventually settle.

8.1.1 The Samaritans Are Baptized

Upon his arrival in Samaria, Philip preached Christ to the masses (Acts 8:1–5). 222 This was the next step in restoring the kingdom to Israel. Samaria was part of the old northern kingdom that had split with the southern kingdom, which God intended to reunite. As Philip proclaimed the good news, the crowds listened intently and God’s Spirit moved among the people. Many were cured of debilitating illnesses and delivered from evil spirits (v. 6). Luke uses the word “signs” to describe these miracles, indicating they pointed to something beyond themselves. In this case, they confirmed the validity of the gospel message. A sweeping revival resulted (vv. 7–8).

Before Philip’s arrival, all of Samaria—from highest officeholder to lowest peasant—was under the deceptive sway of Simon the Great, a magician who claimed divine power to perform amazing feats (vv. 9–11). Like a first-century Rasputin, Simon influenced Samaritan life, possibly extending even into political affairs.

Things changed quickly and unexpectedly. Luke reports, “But when they believed Philip, who was proclaiming the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women (v. 12). 223

At this juncture we should take note of several things. First, Luke says Philip preached “Christ,” “the good news of the kingdom of God,” and “the name of Jesus Christ.” This threefold description corresponds to the message Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost, which included Christ’s death, resurrection, and exaltation as king. Second, although there is no evidence in the surrounding verses that Philip ever mentioned baptism, we can assume he did, since baptism was the expected response to the gospel and the people indeed submitted to baptism. Third, Philip baptized “both men and women,” showing that salvation was offered equally to all regardless of gender, fulfilling Joel’s egalitarian prophecy. A new kingdom community was created whose members pledged their allegiance to King Jesus.

Their decision to follow Christ had political as well as personal consequences. To pledge allegiance to a kingdom other than Caesar’s entailed a calculated risk. This becomes especially clear when we understand how the Samaritans perceived the kingdom of God. According to Beasley-Murray, Fitzmyer, and others, the Samaritans only accepted the Torah and not the prophets or writings as authoritative. Therefore, they did not follow a purely Jewish understanding of messiah. But they anxiously waited for God to fulfill his promise (Deut 18:15–16) of sending tā’ēb , the “one like Moses” (i.e., a christ or “anointed one”) who would unite all Israel, establish a “Second Kingdom” of prolonged blessing, defeat her enemies, and exalt the Samaritan peoples to their rightful place. 224 When the Samaritans submitted to the ritual of baptism, they committed a subversive act of resistance against the Roman Empire of which they were a part.

Luke writes, “Even Simon himself believed. After being baptized, he stayed constantly by Philip’s side and watched in amazement at the signs and great miracles happening before his eyes” (v. 13). 225 Luke later reveals that Simon’s conversion was spurious and his belief was likely based only on his fascination with the signs. In the Gospel of John, Jesus put no stock in a person’s faith when it rested on signs alone (John 2:23). 226 This may have been a similar situation. 227

When word reached the apostles at Jerusalem “that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them” (v. 14). This raises the question, “What motivated the leaders at Jerusalem to send representatives to Samaria?” Luke offers no clues. The two most plausible answers are: 1) they were doubtful that the Samaritans had embraced a Jewish gospel of kingdom restoration, especially since Samaritans were on the fringes of Judaism; 228 or 2) the mother church had not authorized the Samaritan mission and wanted to supervise the work and place its seal of approval or disapproval on it. 229

This was not a unique case. On another occasion, when reports filtered back that Hellenists in Antioch had received the gospel, the church at Jerusalem sent Barnabas to investigate (Acts 11:19–26). Luke says that upon his arrival he “saw the grace of God, he rejoiced, and he exhorted them all to remain faithful to the Lord with steadfast devotion” (v. 23).

When Peter and John inspected the situation in Samaria, they immediately discovered something was amiss. Although the authentic gospel was preached and the townsfolk submitted to baptism, there was no apparent evidence that they received the gift of the Spirit. Even though they were converted, they were not yet full participants in the restored kingdom. To remedy the situation, the two apostles prayed and then laid hands on the new believers (Acts 8:15–17). Luke explains, “For as yet the Spirit had not come upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (v. 16).

If Peter’s Pentecostal sermon and invitation serve as a pattern, forgiveness and the giving of the Spirit should have followed repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38–39). Luke’s comment that the Spirit had “not yet” (oudepo ) fallen on the converts, shows he saw this as a departure from the norm. We are not told how much time passed before the Samaritans were baptized, the word reached Jerusalem, and Peter and John arrived on the scene—a week, three weeks, a month, or more? Certainly, enough time for the Spirit to be poured out! In any case, the Spirit’s absence was an aberration and a matter of concern.

For Peter, water baptism “in the name” and Spirit baptism were two sides of the same coin, constituting a single baptism. Why then had the expected pattern been broken or at least delayed so long? Marshall believes God withheld the Spirit until the apostles’ arrival so the Samaritan believers could be “fully incorporated into the community of Jerusalem Christians who had received the Spirit at Pentecost.” 230 However, it seems more logical that since this was the first account of the gospel being embraced by nontraditional Jews, God withheld the Spirit so the apostles could be eyewitnesses to the outpouring upon the Samaritans, thus confirming the legitimacy of their inclusion into the kingdom.

“Then Peter and John laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit” (v. 17). Luke doesn’t explain how they knew the Spirit had arrived. He doesn’t mention any visible or auditory manifestation as on Pentecost, but some observable change took place. Even Simon the sorcerer was able to see something was different, although he himself did not receive the Spirit (v. 18).

Philip was successful in preaching the gospel, healing the sick, and performing signs and wonders, but was unable to impart the Spirit. Only Peter and John succeeded in this divine task. Fitzmyer believes Luke wanted his readers to understand that the Holy Spirit comes only through the ministry of the Twelve and later through their authorized representatives. 231

Over time, the post-apostolic church began to lay hands on all baptismal candidates. 232 Fitzmyer believes this ritual already may have been part of the Lukan community. 233 Among liturgical churches today that baptize infants, a gap exists from the time of baptism and the laying on of hands at Confirmation, when the Spirit is received. 234 But in the first-century church an elongated span of time between baptism and receiving the Spirit was a matter of concern.

Once Peter and John imparted the Spirit, Simon stopped clinging to Philip and started following the apostles, and sought to purchase the ability to bestow the Spirit (vv. 13, 18–24). Peter condemned Simon, declaring, “May your money perish with you!” (v. 20), or as J. B. Phillips paraphrases it, “To hell with you and your money!”

We do not know how many baptized converts the apostles chose not to lay their hands on, or possibly laid their hands on without obtaining Spirit-filled results. But we know Simon did not receive the Spirit and the reasons he did not: 1) his “heart was not right”; 2) he still needed to repent and seek forgiveness; and 3) he remained in “the chains of wickedness” (vv. 21–23). This shows that Christian baptism, even in the first century, apart from genuine repentance and faith, was an empty ritual and not a sacramentum leading to life in the kingdom.

Without the indwelling Spirit, can a “believer” even be considered a legitimate Christ-follower in the true sense of the term (Rom 8:9)? Dunn says “no,” and defines a follower of Christ as a person who possesses the Spirit. 235 For the early church, one could not enter the kingdom apart from Spirit baptism.

Peter and John did not sweep into town, impart the Spirit, and leave immediately. Luke tells us they continued to witness to Jesus and preach the gospel. Then they headed back to Jerusalem, “proclaiming the good news to many villages of the Samaritans” on their journey home (v. 25).

Jerusalem now accepted the Samaritans as full members of the Christ community that was expanding beyond the Jewish capital (Acts 1:8). The deep divide that existed for centuries between Jews and Samaritans had been healed—at least among Christ-followers—by the giving of the Spirit through the hands of the apostles. God’s approval rested on both. Jew and Samaritan were now one in Christ, members together in the kingdom of God.

8.1.2 An African Baptism

The next baptism in Acts focuses on Philip’s unusual encounter with a eunuch from Ethiopia who was travelling along a desert road from Jerusalem to Gaza (Acts 8:27). Described as a “court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians” and the person “in charge of her entire treasury,” the eunuch was a man of great authority and responsibility. He had been on a religious pilgrimage to Jerusalem and was now returning home. The eunuch was either an Ethiopian Jew or Jewish proselyte. 236 Being a high-ranking official, the eunuch was likely accompanied by an entourage of assistants and attendants, comparable to a modern-day motorcade. Seated comfortably in his chariot—did he have a driver?—he was reading aloud from a handwritten scroll of Isaiah the prophet (v. 28). To own a scroll from the Bible was rare, since they were not readily available to individuals and were very expensive. Philip approached the chariot and heard him reading from Isaiah and asked if he understood the text (vv. 29–30). The eunuch replied, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to get in and sit beside him (v. 31). The particular Scripture in question was Isa 53:7–8, known as the Suffering Servant passage:

Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter,

and like a lamb silent before its shearer,

so he does not open his mouth.

In his humiliation justice was denied him.

Who can describe his generation?

For his life is taken away from the earth.

When the eunuch asked Philip if he knew to whom the passage referred—to the prophet or someone else—Philip gave a Christological interpretation and preached “the good news about Jesus” (vv. 32–35), variously identified as “the good news of the kingdom of God,” and “the name of Jesus Christ.” This is Luke’s abbreviated way of saying Philip preached the same message here as he did back in Samaria.

Because of his condition as a eunuch, the Jewish religious establishment considered him to be a defective or blemished Jew whom they barred from full participation in temple affairs (see Deut 23:1). Yet, Isaiah spoke of a day when God would grant eunuchs full status as people of God, saying, “I will give them an everlasting name that will not be cut off” (Isa 56:5). This would transpire when God brought back the exiles and restored the kingdom to Israel. “Thus says the Lord God, who gathers the outcasts of Israel; I will gather others [eunuchs] to them besides those already gathered” (v. 8). Since Philip’s message focused on the restoration of the kingdom, we need little imagination to sense the excitement it must have brought the eunuch.

As Peter before him, Philip might have given assurance to the eunuch that “the promise is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him” (Acts 2:39). By preaching the gospel to the eunuch, Philip participated in extending the message of the kingdom “to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8).

The next scene demands special attention: “As they were going along the road, they came to some water; and the eunuch said, ‘Look, here is water! What is to prevent me from being baptized?’” (v. 36). What caused the eunuch to request baptism? If the Lukan homiletical pattern holds true, Philip concluded his gospel presentation the same way Peter did on Pentecost (Acts 2:38), and encouraged the eunuch to be baptized. The eunuch’s exclamation, “Look, here is water” indicated his eagerness to carry out the required action.

In what must have seemed like a subversive act to his entire entourage, this high ranking Ethiopian officer “commanded the chariot to stop, and both of them, Philip and the eunuch, went down into the water, and Philip baptized him” (v. 38). 237 The eunuch made his sacramentum to the exalted Christ and his kingdom.

Little is known about the relationship Queen Candace and the eunuch had with the Roman Empire, but it is possible that Ethiopia was a client state of Rome and they were both native retainers. 238 The eunuch would have been responsible for collecting taxes and tribute from the people and sending it to Rome. To align himself with Jesus and his kingdom would be deemed an intensely political act of sedition.

Luke does not tell us that the eunuch received the Spirit, but we can assume it. Obviously, the Spirit’s presence was very real during the Philip/eunuch interchange. In fact, the manifestation was so palpable that Luke writes, “When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; the eunuch saw him no more . . .” (v. 39a). Ferguson remarks “that the Spirit took Philip away after the baptism shows that his task was complete and nothing further was necessary for the conversion of the Ethiopian.” 239

Philip’s sudden departure left the eunuch “rejoicing as he went on his way” (v. 39). Despite his former second-class status as a Jew, he had now become a member in full standing in God’s kingdom. Since these events took place in a desolate location, we know the eunuch was not baptized into a local church, but into the restored kingdom of God. He presumably returned to Africa, shared the kingdom story with others, and established a kingdom community among those who believed.

As for Philip, he continued preaching as he headed toward Caesarea, where he and his family settled (v. 40). If these two accounts in Acts 8 are indicative, he likely had similar results as he preached along the route. As news of Philip’s success spread, he became known over time simply as “the evangelist” (Acts 21:8).

8.2 The Baptism of Saul

Christians are so familiar with the story of Saul’s transcendental encounter with the living Christ on the Damascus road that little needs to be said about it. However, they are less acquainted with the events surrounding his baptism, which are mentioned twice in the book of Acts.

According to Luke, Saul was authorized—presumably by the high priest or the Sanhedrin—to hunt down, arrest, and bring back for trial Hellenistic Jewish Christ-followers who left Jerusalem upon the stoning of Stephen. In modern-day secular terms, we might compare him to a United States Marshal or an Israeli Shin Bet officer. Why did the council send Saul on Operation Extradition? The most logical explanation is that the diasporic Jewish believers had settled in Jewish communities and joined local synagogues where they proclaimed Jesus to be the promised Messiah. When word of these heretical practices reached the ears of the Sanhedrin, Saul was charged with stopping it.

On his way to an assignment in Damascus, 135 miles northeast of Jerusalem, Saul had a visionary experience. A bright light from heaven spooked his horse and knocked Saul to the ground. From the light came a voice: “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But get up and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do” (Acts 9:1–6). In the OT a light from the sky was a common feature of a theophany (Exod 19:16; 2 Sam 22:15; Ps 27:1, et al.). 240 But in this case the theophany was a Christophany, i.e., a post-Pentecostal appearance of the risen Jesus. The heavenly encounter compelled Saul to reevaluate his mission. “Were the Christ-followers right all along? Was Jesus alive and guiding them? By persecuting believers, was Saul fighting against Christ and thereby against God himself, who raised him from the dead?”

Because the brightness of the light blinded him, Saul’s traveling companions had to lead him by the hand into Damascus. He was so shaken he didn’t eat or drink for three days.

In a related vision, Christ also appeared to Ananias, a Jewish disciple of Christ, and relayed all that had happened. He told Ananias where to find Saul and instructed him to lay his hands on Saul that he might regain his sight. Aware of Saul’s reputation for brutality and afraid that Saul might bind and take back him back to Jerusalem, Ananias questioned the order. But Jesus said, “Go, for he is an instrument whom I have chosen to bring my name before Gentiles and kings and before the people of Israel” (Acts 9:10–15).

So Ananias went and entered the house. He laid his hands on Saul and said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on your way here, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and his sight was restored. Then he got up and was baptized, and after taking some food, he regained his strength. (vv. 17–19)

From the text, we discern that Saul was healed through the laying on of hands and was filled with the Spirit through baptism.

In the second account of Saul’s baptism, Ananias stood alongside Saul and commanded him, “Brother Saul, regain your sight!” (Acts 22: 12). According to Saul’s testimony, “In that very hour I regained my sight and saw him” (v. 13). Again we see the same progression. Saul was healed and he was baptized, which resulted in forgiveness of sins. Next, Ananias reassured Saul with these words, “The God of our ancestors has chosen you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear his own voice; for you will be his witness to all the world of what you have seen and heard” (vv. 14–15). Finally, Ananias queried, “And now why do you delay? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away” (vv. 16–17).

When we compare the accounts of Saul’s baptism (Acts 9 and 22), we observe in the first instance that Luke says baptism leads to Saul being filled with the Spirit (Acts 9) and in the second instance Luke says Saul is forgiven (Acts 22). Peter promised the same twofold results to his hearers on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38).

Additionally, Ananias commanded Saul to “be baptized . . . calling on his [Jesus’] name” (Acts 22:16; compare with Acts 2:21, 38). Here we observe that it is the one who is being baptized who calls on the Lord and not the one who does the baptizing. This was Saul’s sacramentum and constituted his conversion from one form of Judaism to another—from being a “committed Pharisee to being a highly committed Messianist.” 241 As a recipient of the eschatological Spirit, he was now initiated into the restored kingdom and given a special mission. He was appointed to be a witness to Jews, Gentiles, and their rulers, and to entreat them to pledge loyalty to Christ and his kingdom. His conversion/calling was another step toward the good news of the kingdom reaching to “the ends of the earth.”

8.3 Baptism of the Gentiles

The conversion of Cornelius, a Gentile Roman centurion stationed in Caesarea Maritima, is crucial to Luke’s story of how the gospel of the kingdom reached Gentiles. He devotes more space (sixty-six verses) to this account than he does to the events surrounding Pentecost. Although Paul went on to become the apostle to the Gentiles, Luke wants his readers to understand that Peter was the first to reach the Gentiles with the gospel. As one of the Twelve and a representative of the original messianic community, he sanctioned and validated the Gentile mission.

Eusebius believed that the Gentile mission actually began with the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch and not with Cornelius, 242 a position adopted by Tannehill, Barrett, and Polhill. 243 Such a view flies in the face of Peter’s testimony before the Jerusalem Council: “You know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers” (Acts 15:7). The risen Jesus gave Peter the keys of the kingdom, and he was the first to unlock the door of the kingdom to the Jews (Acts 2), Samaritans (Acts 8), and to the Gentiles (Acts 10).

The story of Peter and Cornelius can be divided in two sections: encounter (10:1–49) and evaluation (11:1–18).

8.3.1 The Encounter

Luke begins the narrative by introducing his readers to Cornelius, a Roman soldier stationed at Caesarea, whom he describes as a “devout man who feared God with all his household; he gave alms generously to the people and prayed constantly to God” (Acts 10:2). Though a Gentile, Cornelius had great respect for Judaism and its God. He was often benevolent toward poor Jews and believed their God answered his prayers.

Caesarea was a provincial capital that served as administrative headquarters for the Roman procurator, who ruled over Judea. It was also a military town and served as a hub for the Roman army. Herod the Great renamed the city Caesarea in honor of Emperor Caesar Augustus and devoted limitless funds to improve its massive harbor, build a multi-thousand seat outdoor amphitheater, and construct several temples dedicated to the emperor and Roman gods. It was a city bursting with Roman pride, whose Gentile inhabitants made up the vast majority of the population.

Cornelius was a professional soldier, holding the rank of centurion, which meant he had command of one hundred troops. 244 As an officer in the military, he was either a Roman citizen or would be granted that status upon retirement after twenty years of service. Compared to commoners, he held an enviable and privileged position. Upon entering the army, he voluntarily pledged a sacramentum to Caesar and the Empire, promising to protect and defend Roman peace until death.

One afternoon, as he was praying, Cornelius had a vision in which an angel appeared and told him to send for Peter who was staying at the home of Simon the Tanner in Joppa. He obeyed and sent messengers to bring Peter (vv. 3–7).

At noon the next day Peter went to the roof of Simon’s house to pray. As he waited for lunch to be prepared, he fell into a trance and saw a large sheet descending out of heaven that was covered with all kinds of unclean animals, birds, and reptiles. He then heard a voice saying, “Get up, Peter; kill and eat” (vv. 8–13). In the vision he argued with God and said he had never eaten anything unclean and he was not about to start now. He received a reply, “What God has made clean, you must not call profane.” This happened three times before the vision ended (vv. 14–16).

As Peter pondered the meaning of this mysterious vision, the messengers arrived and told him about Cornelius’ mysterious vision and how an angel had directed him to request Peter come to his house. They explained that Cornelius is a man of good character and a friend of the Jews (vv. 17–22). Peter now realized his vision was not about unclean food alone but also about the acceptance of unclean Gentiles into the restored kingdom of Israel. Peter then offered the couriers a meal and lodging for the night. The next day the messengers, Peter, and six of his fellow Jewish believers departed for Caesarea (vv. 23–24). 245

Anticipating their arrival Cornelius gathered his friends and relatives to meet and hear God’s spokesperson. When Peter reached his destination Cornelius bowed before him. Peter demurred, entered the house, and saw the crowd. Everyone listened intently as Cornelius recounted the vision, angelic instructions, and his sending for Peter (vv. 25–32). “So now all of us are here in the presence of God to listen to all that the Lord has commanded you to say” (v. 33).

Peter began his kerygmatic message by emphasizing God’s concern for all peoples of all nations (v. 34–35). 246 He likely came to this conclusion based on his vision. He then launched into the specifics of God’s kingdom, explained that God sent Jesus, his anointed one, to preach a message of universal “peace” and that “he is Lord of all” (v. 36). 247 To a centurion this apostolic utterance must have sounded subversive, if not treasonous.

Peter told how God anointed Jesus “with the Spirit and with power” at his baptism and that Jesus went throughout all of Judea preaching his gospel, performing kind deeds, healing the sick and casting out demons, because “God was with him” (vv. 37–38).

Peter then explained that despite Jesus’ good works and kingdom message, the Jewish leaders rejected his message and, along with the Roman authorities, charged him with subverting the government, found him guilty, and crucified him (v. 39). We can barely imagine the thoughts that ran through Cornelius’ mind when he heard Peter extolling the merits of a man guilty of sedition.

Peter’s next words must have been shocking: “God raised him on the third day” (v. 39b). Talbert observes that “human rejection . . . [was] countered by divine vindication.” 248 The message was clear, both Roman and Jewish leaders opposed God’s will and plan for the world.

As Cornelius and his guests listened intently, Peter explained that after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to the apostles and ate with them before charging them with the task of telling the world that God had appointed Jesus “as judge of the living and dead” (vv. 40–41). Cornelius listened in silence.

Peter’s concluding appeal—“everyone who believes in him [Jesus] receives forgiveness of sins through his name” (vv. 42–43)—was reminiscent of his sermon at Pentecost. “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins ” (Acts 2:38–39).

Luke surprises his audience when he writes that while Peter “was still speaking,” possibly ready to make his final point about receiving the Spirit as in Acts 2:38, “the Holy Spirit fell upon all who heard the word” (v. 44). 249 The suddenness of this divine outpouring caught everyone off guard. “The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles, for they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God” (vv. 45–46a).

When Peter realized that God poured the Spirit on the Gentiles, he asked his six Jewish travelling companions—all Christ-followers as himself—“Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” (vv. 46b–47). Without objection “he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” (v. 48).

Although not stated, the reader can assume that Cornelius, his family, servants, and friends (male and female) submitted to water baptism, which was their sacramentum to Messiah Jesus as Lord of all. The reception of the Spirit did not nullify the need to be baptized, nor was it a substitute for water baptism. In this instance, baptism was their human response to the divine enduement. 250 A new kingdom community had been formed in Caesarea.

The first Gentiles were added to the restored kingdom of Israel, or to use Pauline terminology, they were grafted into the olive branch (Rom 11:22–24). The new kingdom was being filled with people of all rank, ethnic origin, gender, and status. In God’s new kingdom societal barriers gave way to egalitarianism. Roman ideology was replaced by covenantal ethics, where people relate to each other simply as children of God.

Peter remained as Cornelius’s guest for several days (Acts 10:46b), which implies that he overcame, at least temporarily, his prejudices against Gentiles and even ate nonkosher, i.e., unclean, food.

8.3.2 The Evaluation (Acts 11:1–18)

When Peter returned and reported to the Jewish Christ-followers in Jerusalem that Gentiles in Caesarea had “accepted the word of God,” he was met with immediate criticism (Acts 11:1–2). 251 Their main concern was that Peter ate with an uncircumcised man (v. 3). In response, Peter told them of his vision of the sheet, the messengers’ invitation, how “the Spirit told [him] to go with them,” and of his subsequent meeting with the household of Cornelius (vv. 4–12).

Peter then related how God also spoke previously to Cornelius through a vision and said, “Send to Joppa and bring Simon, who is called Peter; he will give you a message by which you and your entire household will be saved” (vv. 13–14).

By placing his ministry to Cornelius in the context of two visions, Peter claimed his meeting with Cornelius was a preordained event. God willed for the Gentiles to be saved. Then Peter added, “And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as it had upon us at the beginning” (v. 15). He attributed the giving of the Spirit to a sovereign act of God and equated it to the Jews receiving the Spirit on Pentecost; thus, he absolved himself of culpability. Next, he appealed to the prophetic words of the risen Lord in Acts 1:5: “And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit’” (v. 16). The outpouring of the Spirit on the Gentiles was as much a fulfillment of that prophecy as Pentecost was when God gave the Spirit to Jews.

Peter finally concluded his report this way: “If then God gave them the same gift that he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God?” (v. 17). The answer was obvious: “This was God’s doing not mine!” By giving the Spirit, “God bore witness to Cornelius’ belief.” 252

“When they heard this, they were silenced. And they praised God, saying, ‘Then God has given even to the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life’” (v. 18). 253 According to their final evaluation, “the God of Israel . . . was responsible for having non-Israelites join the Jesus group.” 254

Interestingly, while Peter spoke of belief (Acts 11:17; also see Acts 15:7), the Jerusalem leaders spoke in terms of repentance . These two designations were used interchangeably, individually, or in combination with each other to speak of conversion. 255 In either case, the Jerusalem leaders concluded that Cornelius had broken with his past and entered the kingdom of God. The proof was that he received the eschatological or end-time Spirit. 256

The words “saved” and “life” must all be interpreted in light of the gospel of the kingdom. “Saved” referred to deliverance out from under the kingdom of darkness. “Life” spoke of life in the Spirit now and eternal life in the kingdom at the Parousia (Luke 18:18–24).

Peter was instrumental in the Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles receiving the Spirit. On Pentecost Peter expected God to give the Spirit after repentance and baptism. At Samaria, God delayed the giving of the Spirit for many days and possibly weeks after belief and baptism. At Caesarea God poured out the Spirit before baptism. In time, Peter came to expect the unexpected.

Since the first century many have developed opinions as to when the Spirit is given. Because this is not the focus of this book, we shall let others speak to the issue. Tertullian, however, concluded that from a theological perspective, baptism and the giving of the Spirit are part of the one and selfsame conversion, but from a chronological perspective they may be separated by time and not in a certain sequence. 257 God is sovereign and does not operate according to our timetable or expectations.

Regardless of when God chooses to give the Spirit, we can unanimously agree that in the book of Acts all those who heard and believed the gospel responded by submitting to baptism. 258 It was their sacramentum to Christ and his kingdom.

222 . The reference to “Samaria” is somewhat vague. Did Philip go into the city of Samaria or stop only in an unnamed town in the region of Samaria? Talbert, Reading Acts , 84, points out that P74, Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus include a definite article in the description and thus reads, “Philip went down to the city of Samaria,” i.e., Sebaste, the key city of the district of Samaria (see Josephus, J.W. , 2.6.3).

223 . What motivates the Samaritans to embrace the gospel? Keener, IVP Bible Background , 342, offers an explanation: “Throughout history and in many cultures today people are convinced about God through what missiologists have called ‘power encounters,’ where God’s power is revealed as greater than that of those claiming to be spiritual competitors.”

224 . Beasley-Murray, “Baptism,” 62–63; Fitzmyer, Acts , 402; Bruce, Book of Acts , 183.

225 . Here we see that healings and miracles are not apostolic gifts alone, but accompany the preaching of the kingdom, whomever the herald.

226 Peterson, Acts , 284; Bruce, Book of Acts , 179–80.

227 . Witherington, Troubled Waters , 66.

228 . The Samaritans had a common ancestry with the Jews that dated back to Abraham. During the era of the divided kingdom, Samaria served as the capital of the north. When Assyria invaded and captured Samaria, the people were exiled. The king of Assyria sent people from Babylon and other foreign countries to Samaria to replace the exiles. Fearing retribution from Israel’s God, he also sent a Jewish priest back to Samaria to teach these immigrants to worship Yahweh (2 Kgs 17). Many married Jews in the region that had not been scattered. Their religion was a combination of Judaism and idolatry. When Greece became the dominant world power, the Samaritans received permission to build a temple of their own on Mount Gerizim, which they dedicated to Zeus. Jews who had remained true to their faith living in Judea despised the Samaritans. As time passed, resentment grew even stronger. In 128 BCE, Jewish high priest John Hyrcanus attacked and destroyed the temple. Two decades later he destroyed the entire city. In 27 BCE King Herod rebuilt the city in honor of Augustus Caesar and named it Sebaste, which means Augustus in Latin. At the time of Philip’s visit, Jews considered Samaritans to be apostates (John 4:9). John and James (“the sons of thunder”) desired to call fire down from heaven upon the Samaritans (Luke 9:54). But Jesus showed no such anger. He boldly entered the region and ministered openly to the Samaritans. Philip, following Jesus’ example and mandate, took the gospel to Samaria.

229 . Witherington, Acts , 289.

230 . Marshall, Acts , 157.

231 . Fitzmyer, Acts , 400–401. At first glance this explanation sounds reasonable until we consider the case of Saul of Tarsus who receives the Spirit under the ministry of Ananias, described simply as “a certain disciple” and “a devout man, according to the law” (Acts 9:10; 22:12), who likely does not possess apostolic authority.

232 . Tertulllian, Bapt. , 8.1–2; Keener, Bible Background , 343, maintains, “From a theological standpoint the work of the Spirit is one package (Acts 2:38–39), but in the experience of the church not all aspects of his work are necessarily manifested simultaneously.”

233 . Fitzmyer, Acts , 406.

234 . Stookey, Baptism , 191–94, discusses the validity of using Acts 8:14–17 as the basis for Confirmation. He also examines the water-hands-Spirit passages in Acts and offers an original, if not totally convincing, conclusion.

235 . Dunn, Christ and the Spirit , 217; Witherington, Troubled Waters , 66.

236 . However, Eusebius, Hist. eccl. , 2.1.13, believed the eunuch was the first Gentile convert, a position adopted by Tannehill, Narrative Unity , 110; Barrett, Acts , 425–26; Polhill, Acts , 222, among others. But Fitzmyer, Acts , 410, notes, based on Peter’s account at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:7), Cornelius was the first Gentile convert. This places Peter on the scene at the start of the Jewish, Samaritan, and Gentile missions, respectively (Acts 2, 8, 10). Therefore, the eunuch was most likely a Jewish pilgrim.

237 . Some manuscripts add Philip’s response to the eunuch’s question: “And Philip said, ‘If you believe with all your heart, you may.’ And he replied, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God’” (v. 37). See Metzger, Textual Commentary , 359–60, for a discussion of why this verse is not included in such major mss as P45, P74, and others. Witherington, Acts , 300, attributes the verse to “Christian scribes who thought it unthinkable the eunuch would be baptized without the requirement of a confession of faith.”

238 . Ethiopia, also known as Nubia, was located on the Nile River just south of the Egyptian border in the area known today as Sudan. Strabo, 17.1.53–54, writes in 23 BCE, Roman Governor Gaius Petronius, ruler in southern Egypt, sent troops into Nubia in response to border skirmishes. He easily conquered the capital city of Meroë, captured prisoners, and sent them back to Rome as spoils of battle. Candace escaped to the royal palace in Napata. Petronius pursued her and offered an ultimatum—submit to Rome, become a client state, and pay tribute, or face the dire consequences. A peace treaty was negotiated and Petronius remitted the tribute.

239 . Ferguson, Baptism , 173.

240 . Talbert, Reading Acts , 98.

241 . Ibid., 101.

242 . Eusebius, Hist. eccl. , 2.1.13.

243 . Tannehill, Narrative Unity , 110; Barrett, Acts , 425–26; Polhill, Acts , 222.

244 . A century (one hundred troops) was one-sixth the size of a regiment (six hundred troops). A regiment was one-tenth the size of a legion (six thousand troops).

245 . In many ways, Peter’s ministry to the Gentiles can be compared with Jonah’s similar struggle. Both were reluctant prophets. Both went to Joppa. Both had to be persuaded to take the mission. Both had a similar name (“Simon bar Jonah”). Both had success in preaching to the Gentiles.

246 . Dodd, Apostolic Preaching , 56, believes Peter’s message establishes a pattern for future gospel messages preached to Gentiles.

247 . Epictetus, Diatr. , 4.1.12.

248 . Talbert, Reading Acts , 110.

249 . Marshall, Acts , 197.

250 . Bruce, Book of Acts , 231.

251 . The reaction to Peter’s report meets with the same skepticism as “when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God ” (Acts 8:14). In that instance they sent Peter and John to investigate. Here it is Peter himself who delivers the report. Yet, they remain concerned.

252 . Dunn, Baptism , 82.

253 . Peterson, Acts , 349, “Not simply repentance of particular sins, but a rejection of everything that hinders the reception of salvation through faith in Christ is meant.”

254 . Malina and Pilch, Social-Science Commentary , 80.

255 . Repent/repentance is the focus in Acts 2:23; 3:19; 5:31; 8:22; 9:35; 11:18; 17:30; 26:16–20. Believe/faith is the focus in Acts 2:44; 4:4; 5:14; 6:7; 9:42; 10:43; 11:17; 13:13, 39, 48; 14:1, 27; 15:7, 9; 16:15, 31–34; 17:12; 18:8, 27; 19:2, 9, 18; 24:24; 28:24. Repent/repentance and believe/faith in combination: Acts 2:38, 44; 9:35, 42; 10:43; 11:18; 11:21 (both in same verse); 17:30; 34; 19:4 (both); 20:21 (both); 26:18, 20.

256 . Repent/repentance and Spirit: Acts 2:38; 11:16–18. Believe/faith and Spirit: Acts 10:43–46; 19:2.

257 . Tertullian, Bapt ., 8:1–2; Keener, IVP Bible Background , 343.

258 . Bruner, Theology , 193, concludes, “The Holy Spirit may come immediately prior to baptism . . . , immediately after baptism (cf. 19:5–6), or with baptism (Acts 2:38), but never anywhere in the New Testament after Pentecost, apart from baptism.”

Chapter 9

Paul the Baptizer

We now turn our attention to Paul’s ministry of baptism. Luke chose to include only a few accounts, which were likely representative of scores of others. After his encounter with the glorified Jesus, Paul abandoned his mission to hunt down and arrest Christ-followers. He had become one himself. In a complete reversal he entered synagogues at Damascus and began to preach that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah who was restoring the kingdom to Israel. The traditional Jews were confused and turned against him. He immediately found himself on the receiving end of an assassination plot (Acts 9:19–29). He returned to Jerusalem and attempted to join other Christ-followers in that city, but they were suspicious of him. Only Barnabas stood with him. As he preached Christ in synagogues throughout the city, others conspired to kill him. Paul departed and headed for Tarsus where he remained for several years (9:30–31). He will not reappear in the book of Acts until Barnabas recruits him to disciple the large number of Gentiles who had joined the Christ movement in Antioch (11:19–26). After a prolonged ministry there, Paul and a team of evangelists were sent out by the church on three missionary journeys (Acts 13:1–4).

9.1 Paul’s Baptisms in Philippi

On his second endeavor, Paul had a vision of a man of Macedonia pleading, “come over to Macedonia and help us” (Acts 16:9). Taking this as a sign that God wanted him to “proclaim the good news to them,” Paul and his team set sail and eventually found their way to Philippi, a Roman colony. 259 The people of this important city “considered themselves to be Romans rather than Philippians or Macedonians.” 260

Luke writes of two instances when Paul and Silas, his new co-laborer, had preached about Christ to a woman and a man, respectively (vv. 11–40). Witherington opines that Luke focused purposefully on the conversion of one woman and one man “in order to stress the equality of women and men in God’s plan of salvation and their equal importance in the new community.” 261

9.1.2 Baptism of Lydia

After a few days in Philippi, Paul searched unsuccessfully to find a synagogue where Jews worshipped on the Sabbath. 262 He eventually went outside the city limits and found a group of women praying by the riverside, a place with enough water for Jews to practice their purification rites (Acts 16:13). Despite Jewish customs of gender separation during worship, Paul joined them. In doing so, Paul turned social decorum on its head. Luke writes that as Paul spoke to them about Jesus, “the Lord opened [the] heart” of Lydia, a God-fearer and businesswoman from Thyatira who listened “eagerly to what was said by Paul” (v. 14). Luke does not provide the details of Paul’s message, but by examining one of Paul’s earlier sermons we might get a clue into what he said.

Paul’s sermon at Antioch Pisidia (Acts 13:13–41) served as a model for his later kerygmatic discourses in the same way as Peter’s Pentecostal sermon did for him. Talbert divides Paul’s speech into three sections. 263 In section one, Paul gave a selective overview of salvation history, starting at the exodus and leading to the promised land, mentioned Israel’s judges and kings, the ascension of David to the throne, and that from “his descendants God . . . has brought to Israel a savior, Jesus” (v. 23). Next, he told how John the Baptist spoke of a coming one and called “all the people of Israel” to repent in preparation of his arrival (Acts 13:17–25). Paul then showed that his message of Jesus was in harmony with God’s plan for Israel.

Section two of Paul’s sermon (vv. 26–37) focused on how the Jewish leaders did not understand the Scriptures, rejected Jesus, and put him to death. Ironically, they were the instruments in fulfilling the Scriptures that the Messiah must suffer. After they placed Jesus in a tomb, God raised him from the dead and installed him as Israel’s messianic king in accordance with his promise to David (Isa 55:3). Paul called this message “the good news” that God “has fulfilled for us.”

In section three (vv. 38–41), Paul promised forgiveness of sins to all who believe on (i.e., pledges loyalty to) Jesus, but warned of judgment for all who reject the offer. 264

This message likely represented the content of a typical sermon preached by Paul. Therefore, we should understand that his other evangelistic sermons were similar.

Luke says that when Lydia heard the gospel, “she and her household were baptized” (Acts 16:15a). This indicates that Paul included a call to be baptized in his gospel presentation. Here we see how the divine and human worked together. Paul preached, but the Lord opened the heart.

Then Lydia, like Cornelius, extended hospitality to Paul and his team: “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come and stay at my home” (v. 15b). Talbert observes, “That Paul stays in the house of a Gentile believer indicates that Lydia is accepted as a disciple of equal standing.” 265 This was a welcome ending for this female God-fearer whose status within Judaism could never have reached that of a man.

Lydia’s house served as the first messianic ekklesia in Philippi and became Paul’s home base during his stay in the city.

9.1.3 Baptism of the Jailer

When Paul and Silas headed to the marketplace and preached Christ there, a demon-possessed fortune-teller followed them around and thwarted their efforts. Paul’s patience finally ran out and he exorcised the demon, which stripped the woman of her power to prognosticate. Her masters, angry over losing their income, had Paul and Silas arrested for “disturbing our city,” saying, “They are Jews and are advocating customs that are not lawful for us as Romans to adopt or observe” (Acts 16:19–21). Notice the charge leveled against Paul was political, 266 showing that Paul’s actions and message were viewed as illegal and unpatriotic. What did Paul say that caused such uproar? Most assuredly, he testified that Jesus, the very one Rome crucified as a revolutionary, had been raised from the dead, and reigned as Lord over a kingdom that challenged Caesar’s. This messianic kingdom “was in the process of dawning” and was “an implicit threat to Roman imperial order.” 267

Paul likely proclaimed Jesus to be the “Son of God,” a title reserved for Caesar, and called people to give their allegiance to Jesus. Paul’s message was both political and treasonous. One can imagine the outrage this caused. How brazen to invite the crowd to follow Jesus, a convicted and disgraced political enemy of the state! Besides all this, he was disrupting business. He had to be stopped.

Luke writes that the crowds joined in the verbal attack and the magistrate ordered Paul and Silas “stripped” and “beaten with rods” (v. 22). “After they had given them a severe flogging, the authorities threw them into prison and ordered the Roman jailer to keep them secure. Following instructions, he put them in the innermost cell and fastened their feet in the stocks” (vv. 23–24). The inner cell was reserved for noncitizens or those committing serious crimes.

Undeterred by their beating and imprisonment, the two evangelists prayed and sang as the prisoners listened (v. 25). A sudden and violent earthquake at midnight shook the prison walls and the cell doors flew open. 268 Everyone was free to escape (v. 26).

Jarred out of a deep sleep and supposing the prisoners had fled, the jailer drew his sword to take his life (v. 27). This hari-kari-like action was a better option than facing shame for dereliction of duty. To get his attention, Paul cried out, “Do not harm yourself, for we are all here” (v. 28). Still trembling from the aftershock of the quake and the thought of facing disgrace and humility, the jailer rushed in and fell down before Paul and Silas (v. 29). “Then he brought them outside away from the crumbling structure and said, ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” (v. 30).

From the context, the jailer probably meant “saved” from the physical punishment he would face at the hands of the government. But Paul answered, “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household” (v. 31). What did this imply? It might have meant, “Just as Jesus rescued us from this prison, he can rescue you from punishment,” or, “If you give your loyalty to Jesus as Lord, even if you face punishment and die, you will escape judgment to come and gain entrance into God’s eternal kingdom.” Whichever the case may be, the answer stopped the jailer in his tracks and led Paul and Silas to declare “the word of God to him and all who were in his house” (v. 32). The jailer, a member of the Roman domination system that punished Paul and Silas, took note and believed the message. As evidence, he immediately cared for the prisoners. “At the same hour of the night he took them and washed their wounds (v. 33a). 269 This was in complete defiance of the magistrate’s command. To show the seriousness of his new allegiance, “he and his entire family were baptized without delay” (v. 33b). He then took a calculated risk. He extended hospitality to Paul and Silas, brought them into his house, and fed them—an act considered a violation of custom and law, and punishable by loss of job or even death (v. 34a). 270 This was similar to the actions of other converts in Acts (Samaritans, Acts 8; Cornelius, Acts 10; Lydia, Acts 16).

Luke summarizes the encounter with these words: “And he and his entire household rejoiced that he had become a believer in God” (v. 34b).

Again, we should notice that Luke does not give the details of Paul’s sermon, or that he ever mentioned baptism, 271 or that the unnamed jailer received forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Spirit. Luke expects his readers to take these things for granted based on the previous evangelistic encounters, and especially Paul’s own conversion experience.

Because of his official government position in a Roman colony and his oath to serve Caesar and uphold the law, the jailer must have counted the cost before pledging his allegiance to a new Lord. 272 The jailer’s baptism, i.e., his sacramentum to Jesus and the kingdom of God, was a subversive act. 273 The only thing that spared the jailer from being executed was the magistrate’s discovery that Paul and Silas were actually Roman citizens who had been beaten and thrown into the inner prison illegally. The matter needed to be hushed up, and thus, the magistrates were more than happy to put the whole affair behind them (vv. 35–39).

The jailer and his family joined the ekklesia that met in Lydia’s house. This alternative society ate and worshipped together and lived according to the covenant ethics of God’s kingdom. Imagine the jailer, once loyal to Caesar, now singing about the One . . .

Who, though he was in the form of God,

did not regard equality with God

as something to be exploited [grasped],

but emptied himself,

taking the form of a slave,

being born in human likeness.

And being found in human form,

he humbled himself and became obedient

to the point of death—even death on a cross.

Therefore God also highly exalted him

and gave him the name

that is above every name,

so that at the name of Jesus

every knee should bend,

in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

and every tongue should confess

that Jesus Christ is Lord,

to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:5–11)

This song contains strong anti-imperial language. 274 Think of the ramifications for the jailer and his family if someone saw him worshipping and singing this hymn.

After being released from prison, Paul and Silas visited Lydia’s home and encouraged the new believers before moving ahead with their evangelistic journeys (v. 40).

9.2 Paul’s Baptisms in Corinth

Luke’s next mention of baptism is connected with Paul’s eighteen-month ministry in Corinth, although his team certainly baptized converts whenever and wherever they were made (Acts 18:1–8).

Every Sabbath Paul attended a synagogue meeting and sought to convince Jews and God-fearers that Jesus was Messiah (vv. 4–5). When the Jews opposed him, he “went next door to the home of Titus Justus and preached the gospel to the Gentiles (vv. 6–7). While he doesn’t tell how it happened, Luke writes that “Crispus, the official of the synagogue, became a believer in the Lord, together with all his household; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul became believers and were baptized” (v. 8). Paul succeeded in bringing both Jews and Gentiles into God’s kingdom. Corinth was a colony like Philippi, so every Gentile citizen who converted and vowed their fidelity to the Lord Jesus Christ acted contrary to Roman law. Such a stand may have cost some colonists their government stipend.

Gentiles who aligned with the Christ movement abandoned many former cultural activities that once defined them as Romans, including temple attendance, idol worship, cultic banquets, Roman baths, patriarchal superiority, etc. They no longer settled legal matters in the courts. Gentiles living in a Roman colony—baptized in the name of a despised Jewish extremist and insurgent—became isolated from friends and family.

Since the Jesus movement viewed itself as part of a larger renewal movement within Judaism, what did Gentile neighbors think of their misguided friends and relatives who joined a messianic cult and rubbed shoulders with Jews, especially since Judaism was considered a lesser religion than Roman religions or the emperor cult?

9.3 Paul’s Baptisms in Ephesus

Luke includes two unusual encounters Paul had with disciples of John the Baptist. The first focuses on Apollos, an Alexandrian Jew, who is described as “an eloquent man, well-versed in the scriptures” (Acts 18:24). The second spotlights a dozen disciples who were completely oblivious to the Jesus-movement’s existence (Acts 19:1–7).

9.3.1 The Unusual Case of Apollos

Apollos was a bold and enthusiastic itinerant teacher who knew “the Way of the Lord and . . . taught accurately the things concerning Jesus.” Lest his readers assume that Apollos was a full-fledged disciple of Jesus, however, Luke adds the caveat, “though he knew only the baptism of John” (v. 25). From this description we conclude: 1) if Apollos knew only John’s baptism, he may have been unaware of baptism in Jesus’ name; 2) he had not been baptized in Jesus’ name and therefore had not received the Spirit; and 3) when Apollos preached he did not call for his listeners to be baptized in Jesus’ name. 275 He knew certain things about Jesus, possibly even about his death, but his knowledge did not extend to the exaltation of Jesus and the giving of the Holy Spirit. 276

When Priscilla and Aquila heard Apollos speak at a synagogue in Ephesus, they sensed he lacked some essential truths, so they took “him aside” and instructed him “more accurately in the Way of God” (v. 26 ). From Luke’s description of Apollos’ deficiency, we assume they tutored him about the resurrection, “Christian” baptism, and the pouring out of the Spirit, which was absent from his body of knowledge and preaching. 277

Luke does not say specifically that Aquila and Priscilla baptized Apollos “in the name of the Lord” or that he received the Spirit, but we are led to believe it happened for two reasons. First is the literary context. In chapter 19, we encounter twelve itinerant preachers who, like Apollos, knew only John’s baptism. Since Paul undertook to remedy their situation, we can presume Aquila and Priscilla did the same for Apollos. The second reason is historical context. With letters of introduction in hand from the Ephesians, Apollos traveled to Greece where he ministered in Corinth to new believers and challenged nonbelievers from the Scriptures that Jesus was Messiah (vv. 27–28). His message had changed and he now called on his audience members to be baptized in Jesus’ name. In First Corinthians, Paul writes about a division in the church that was caused when converts began siding with the charismatic person who baptized them: “Each of you says, ‘I belong to Paul’ or ‘I belong to Apollos’ or ‘I belong to Cephas’” (1 Cor 1:12). Obviously, by this time Apollos had been baptized in the name of Jesus and had received the Spirit. He was now a full member in the restored kingdom of Israel.

9.3.2 The Unusual Case of Twelve More Disciples of John

Following on the heels of the Apollos narrative, Luke writes that Paul encountered a group of “disciples” in Ephesus who, at first glance, appeared to be messianic Jews (Acts 19:1). Upon closer scrutiny, however, Paul concluded otherwise and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you became believers?” 278 This question was designed to discern if they were genuine Christ-followers. They replied, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit” (v. 2). 279

Their answer clearly did not mean they were unaware of the Spirit’s existence. Every Jew and God-fearer knew there was a Spirit. They meant they had not received news of the eschatological arrival of the Spirit. These twelve men, like Apollos, were still following the teachings of John the Baptist.

When Paul heard their response, he asked, “Into what then were you baptized?” (v. 3a). They answered, “Into John’s baptism” (v. 3b). 280

Two observations are in order: 1) Paul’s first question implied that receiving the Spirit involved belief —“Did you receive the Spirit when you believed?” (NASV); 2) his second question implied that baptism was the means of receiving the Spirit—“Into what then were you baptized?” From the first question, we conclude belief was the necessary requirement to receive the Spirit. From the second, we conclude that a certain kind of baptism was required.

Paul used the terms “belief” and “baptism” interchangeably or at least saw them as two sides of conversion. 281

When they claimed they had received John’s baptism only, Paul explained, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to com e after him, that is, in Jesus ” (v. 4). Again Paul focused on belief, but added that belief must have the right object—Jesus (v. 5). After receiving instruction, “they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus ” (v. 6).

As Talbert says, “A correct understanding leads to a correct transfer of allegiance.” 282 Baptism thus became their oath of allegiance, i.e., their sacramentum to King Jesus, whose death and exaltation inaugurated the new age of the Spirit of which John spoke. The disciples of John became part of a kingdom community when they believed in the right person and were baptized in the name.

After they followed Paul’s instructions, he “laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied— altogether there were about twelve of them” (vv. 6–7). This brings to mind Peter’s “laying on of hands” in Samaria (Acts 8:17). 283 The giving of the Spirit was a divine confirmation that “the shift of allegiance” had taken place. 284

259 . Fitzmyer, Acts , 584, notes that as a Roman colony, Philippi had special privileges above other cities in the Empire, including self-government, citizenship status for most of its residents, and exemption from taxes. Very few Jews lived in Philippi.

260 . Peterson, Acts , 457.

261 . Witherington, Acts , 487.

262 . A synagogue could not be established without a quorum of ten Jewish men. No men are mentioned here.

263 . Talbert, Reading Acts , 130–31.

264 . Paul’s use of “savior” and “good news” has political overtones, since Caesar is savior and his good news is Pax Romana . Hence, to accept Paul’s understanding of these terms is to reject Rome’s.

265 . Talbert, Reading Acts , 150.

266 . Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power , 116.

267 . Ibid.

268 . Talbert, Reading Acts , 154–55, sees this as a possible theophany, Acts 4:31.

269 . Chrysostom, Hom. Act. , 36.2, writes, he “washed these and was washed: those he washed from their stripes, himself was washed from his sins.”

270 . Josephus, Ant ., 18.230–33.

271 . Paul does exhort the jailer to “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.” For Luke, baptism is the way one expresses that belief in Christ. Therefore, Luke’s audience may have understood Paul’s exhortation in terms of baptism.

272 . Bruce, Acts , 336, states the jailer was likely a retired Roman soldier. As such he knew about the serious implications of taking a sacramentum .

273 . Since it was conducted in the dark or soon after midnight, it is questionable that the jailer’s baptism was a “public” profession of faith.

274 . Most commentators (Heen, “Phil 2:6–11,” 125; Crossan and Reed, In Search of Paul , 289, being the exceptions) miss the strong anti-imperial language which characterizes this song because they approach it from a theological perspective and give little attention to its sociohistorical context. When one considers that the opening phrase “equality with God” was used to describe the Roman emperor, the song becomes a political statement. To Romans, no one deserved the same status as the emperor. According to the hymn, Jesus, unlike Caesar, does not exploit his divine position but chooses to live humbly, accepting the status of a slave. Even when facing crucifixion he does not use his authority or resort to force to defeat his adversaries or free himself, but trusts God for deliverance. In fact, the song speaks of his death as an act of obedience to God (v. 8).

The second stanza begins with the word “therefore” and shows that because Jesus chose the path of obedient submission, God vindicated and exalted him above his adversaries to the rank of Lord, a position he did not seek (vv. 9–11). To assert that “Jesus is Lord” meant that Caesar was not! This pronouncement was a slap in Rome’s imperial face. The one Rome crucified as a criminal, God ironically gives “a name that is above every name” (v. 9).

The hymn goes on to say “every knee” will bow to him and “every tongue” (including those of Caesar and Roman senators, along with Roman and native elites) will confess Jesus as Lord.”

When the jailer and his family sang this song at the communal meal they were committing subversive acts against the Empire.

275 . Bruner, Theology , 206.

276 . Hurst, “Apollos,” 301.

277 . Bruner, Theology , 206, observes that this “passage teaches the importance of baptism to preaching; without baptism in the name of Christ following preaching . . . the preacher’s work and the believers’ lives are incomplete.”

278 . Dunn, Baptism , 84, perceptively notes that in the book of Acts the word “disciples” usually refers to Christian disciples, but the usage in v. 1 is unique because it is the only time “disciples” is not preceded by the definite article.

279 . Fitzmyer, Acts , 643, emphasizes that “reception of the Spirit was the genuine sign of Christian discipleship.” These men claim complete ignorance, placing them outside the circle of Christ.

280 . Their response, “into John’s baptism,” seems to place them in the same category as Apollos in the preceding paragraph. Neither had been baptized into Jesus’ name. John’s baptism was a rite of washing or purification only.

281 . Paul’s wording, “when you believed,” indicated the Spirit comes at the point of belief. His next question, “Into what then were you baptized?” presupposes that Christian baptism and the arrival of the Spirit are interrelated.

282 . Talbert, Reading Acts , 174.

283 . The significance of laying hands on baptized believers to receive the Spirit is part of the discussion of Baptism in Samaria in chapter 5.

284 . Talbert, Reading Acts , 174.

Chapter 10

Baptism in the Undisputed Pauline Epistles

Since the first-century Christ movement operated as an alternative society within the Roman Empire and followed the ethical principles espoused by Jesus, his followers found themselves living in tension with the prevailing culture. 285 Their goal was not to transform the Roman Empire into a Christian society. Such a task would have been impossible. Rather, they sought to be a witness to God’s kingdom, while living among pagans.

Disciples of the risen Jesus invited relatives, friends, and neighbors to attend dinner meetings at one of their assemblies, where the guests could hear the good news of the kingdom and experience the manifest power of the Spirit via healings, prophecies, and teaching. Those wishing to become followers of Christ were invited to be baptized, pledge their allegiance to Jesus as Lord, and join the weekly gathering of believers.

The Apostle Paul was the first of the NT authors to write about baptism. While opinions vary about which of the Epistles he wrote first (e.g., 1 Thessalonians or Galatians), his thoughts about baptism remained consistent throughout all his letters.

10.1 Baptism in Romans

Paul pens his Letter to the Romans around 56–57 CE, during the early reign of Emperor Nero. The recipients, both Jewish and Gentile Christ-followers, are located in the capital city of the Empire. Although Paul has never met these brethren, he feels compelled to write to them.

In the salutation, Paul calls himself “a servant” of Jesus Christ and an ambassador of the “good news of God” (Rom 1:1). The message concerns Jesus, the Jewish Messiah of whom the OT prophets spoke (v. 2). He then identifies Jesus as the “son of David” and royal heir to David’s throne (1:3), and adds that Jesus “was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead” (v. 4a).

The kingly designation “son of God” was a title reserved for the emperor. Caesar was the divi filius by adoption and senate pronouncement. To ascribe the title to Jesus was politically disloyal and dangerous. In essence, Paul was challenging Caesar’s claim to sovereignty.

Worse yet, Paul claimed that Jesus received this status when God raised him from the dead after Rome had executed him as an insurrectionist. This implied that the God of the Jews was more powerful than the Empire and its gods! For Paul, the resurrection of Jesus marked his ascent to the throne of God from which he presently ruled the world.

As a result, Paul says, Jesus is “our Lord” (Rom 1:4b). The use of the pronoun “our” (both Paul and his readers) means the resurrected Jesus has gained a following in the capital city of Rome, the political center of the Empire, where loyalty to Caesar is taken for granted.

At the close of Romans, Paul will again speak of Jesus’ royal inheritance by quoting Isa 11:1 (LXX): “The root of Jesse shall come, the one who rises to rule the nations; in him the nations shall hope” (Rom 15:12).

The term (ἀνάστασις/ἀνίστημι) is used to describe both the future king “the one who rises” and Jesus whom God raised (Rom 1:4). When interpreted Christologically, Isa 11:1 refers to Jesus who rose “to rule the nations.” While Paul exults, “in him shall the nations hope,” it is unlikely that should this news reach Caesar’s ears he will feel the same.

Roman authorities had executed Jesus a quarter-century ago. He was dead. But if enough people believed the “superstition” that he was alive, they might mount a resistance movement against Rome. As Paul’s letter implies, a growing anti-imperial presence already existed in Rome. Paul’s own zealous activities testified to the potential danger. Paul believed Jesus was alive and exalted to the position of ruler of the world. Paul travelled far and wide to herald the message and call the nations to submit to God and his authorized king. And now he was writing a letter to Roman Christ-followers and planning a trip to the capital city.

Throughout his letter Paul appeals for his readers to honor their pledge to the one who conquered death (Rom 6:4–6) and reigns as Lord over both life and death (Rom 14:7–9). Paul reminds Roman Christ-followers that their commitment to Jesus as Lord might lead to persecution and even death, but he promises that they will be vindicated at a future resurrection (Rom 8:17). In the interim, God has given them the eschatological gift of the Spirit that will empower them to remain faithful and to experience the first fruits of the resurrected life, even while living under Roman rule (Rom 8:11).

10.1.1 The Context of Paul’s Discussion on Baptism

Paul delivers his short discourse on baptism (Rom 6:4) only after explaining that Adam’s rebellion against the reign of God brought condemnation and death to all humans, and plunged the cosmos into chaos. As a result, the present age abounds in sin and is bound by sin (Rom 5:12–18). Through Christ, however, God extended grace, forgiveness, and life to all who side with Christ and come under his righteous reign (vv. 19–21). Since sin and grace exist side by side in the world, Paul asks, “Should we keep on sinning, so God can extend to us more grace?” (6:1). The question and the obvious answer are revealing. First, it signals that the Roman believers were still struggling with sin; otherwise, he would not have had to ask the question. Second, continuing on a sinful path is not an option (Rom 6:1–2). In this context, Paul introduces the subject of the believer’s baptism.

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. (Rom 6:3–4)

While Paul did not personally catechize any members of the Roman church, he assumes all believers know the answer to this rhetorical question (v. 3). Since baptism comes at the beginning of the Christian life, this is common and not advanced knowledge. 286 Everyone surely knows we “all . . . have been baptized . . . into his death.”

This leads to two more considerations. First, what does Paul mean by the phrase “baptized into Christ”? While there are conflicting and often complicated answers, 287 C. K. Barrett offers the simplest and clearest explanation. He takes the phrase to be an “abbreviated form” of the words, “into the name of Christ Jesus.” 288 If he is correct, it refers simply to “Christian” baptism as opposed to John’s baptism or some other kind of water ritual. Baptism “into Christ” or “into the name” is the act whereby penitents pledge their fidelity to the reigning Jesus. As such, it is a sacramentum or oath. The words “into Christ Jesus” carry no mystical connotation, e.g., union with Christ. Rather, they merely describe baptism as a “Christian” act. 289 Schnackenburg holds that in baptism, the believer sides with Christ and his mission. 290

Second, what does Paul mean to be “baptized into his death ”? Now things get a little more complicated. As Morris points out, death is a theme of this section “and is mentioned in every verse up to v. 13.” 291

When James and John requested to be seated at Jesus’ right and left hand “in glory,” Jesus answered, “Are you able to . . . be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?” (Mark 10:38). He was referring to his impending death. According to the apostolic tradition, Jesus linked the term baptism to his death. Paul wants his readers to acknowledge that when baptized, they identify with Christ’s death and count themselves as being dead.

Jesus’ death had sociopolitical implications because he was crucified for political acts of sedition. What could be less patriotic and dishonorable than for a person to vow allegiance to a man executed by imperial authorities? 292 To identify ritually through baptism with a political radical placed one in a highly vulnerable position. We might liken it to a colonist who, after the American Revolution, joined an organization that honored and followed the precepts of the notorious traitor Benedict Arnold. Such persons would be stigmatized and reasonably suspected of being anti-American. How much more in Imperial Rome that believed it alone had a divine mandate to rule the world?

Paul expects his readers to understand that their baptism identifies them with the death of Christ and it has consequences. “Therefore we have been buried with him ” (v. 4a). Burial naturally follows death. One leads to the other. “Burial is the seal of death.” 293 It is the ultimate evidence that life has ended. If so, the life of sin has ended for the believer. But how is the believer buried with Christ? Paul adds, “By (διὰ) baptism into death” (v. 4b). Hence, baptism seals the death.

Baptized believers, of course, do not literally die with Christ. Rather, through the ritual of baptism they must count themselves as both dead and buried. What actually happened to Christ on the cross happens figuratively to believers in baptism.

In this respect baptism is similar to the ritual of Passover, when celebrants become participants in the original exodus. 294 Through the ritual meal, the diners relive the exodus and see themselves as the ones being led out of Egypt. Likewise, “Paul regards baptism as such a symbol, an event that actuates for the community the experience of Jesus’ death and resurrection.” 295 Immersion into the baptismal waters becomes a graphic enactment of being buried with Christ (Rom 6:4) and marks the believer as a Christ-follower.

Next, Paul explains the purpose for being buried with Christ: “So that (ἵνα), just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life” (v. 4b). 296

Notice the comparison: “just as Christ . . . so we too.” The implication is that as the Father raised Christ by his glory or manifest power, so he enables believers to walk continuously in a new way, according to a new set of ethics. It implies a change has taken place. While Paul doesn’t go into specifics here, his Letter to the Colossians sheds further light on the issue. “You were buried with him in baptism, [and] you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead” (Col 2:12). The ability to walk in “newness of life” is accomplished by: 1) the believer’s faith, and 2) God’s resurrection power. Here we see human faith and a divine response. Baptism is the believer’s sacramentum that leads to a new life. If it is undertaken apart from faith, however, it is an ineffective ritual. But when coupled with faith, God’s power works in the believer.

Paul offers an explanation: “For if we have been united (σύμφυτοι) with him in a death like his, we will (ἐσόμεθα) certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his” (Rom 4:5). At first glance, the verb (ἐσόμεθα) in future tense seems to point to our final resurrected state; however, in this context it likely deals with the immediate aftermath of baptism. 297 When submersed in water (v. 5a), the believers identify with Christ’s death and burial. When they emerge from the water (v. 5b), they identify with his resurrection, but not in an exact correspondence. Just as we do not actually die, so we are not actually raised from the dead. Our coming out of the water is “like” (ὁμοιώματι), or represents his resurrection. We join him in purpose and mission.

This is confirmed in the following verses: “We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. For whoever has died is freed from sin” (Rom 6:6–7).

Clearly, believers are not crucified in the same manner as Jesus. He died the first Good Friday at Golgotha on a Roman execution stake. God then raised him from the dead on the first Easter Sunday. These events were central to salvation history, and we identify with them in our own baptism. Baptismal identification with the crucifixion has a twofold purpose: “so that the body of sin might be destroyed and we might no longer be enslaved to sin” (v. 6). Our baptism signals the end of our former life. Sin should no longer hold us captive.

Paul then offers the explanation: “For whoever has died is freed from sin” (v. 7). Through the Christ event and our identification with it in baptism, we are released from sin’s grip over our lives. 298

10.1.2 What is Sin’s Nature?

Earlier in his letter, Paul wrote that “all, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin” (Rom 3:9). Now he says baptism frees the believer from sin (Rom 6:6). But what does he mean?

Westerners often define sin as individual trespasses, e.g., lying, stealing, etc. Paul likely has a much bigger idea in mind. 299 Ehrensperger suggests that to be “under sin” means “to live in the unbearable situation where the imposition of imperial power structures permeated all aspects of life so that no one could escape . . . [its] influence.” 300 According to Käsemann, sin “is viewed as a power and not just an offense.” 301 For one living in the Empire, options were limited. One could choose either to: 1) “collaborate with the imperial power and thus collaborate with the power of sin”; 2) “submit and be driven into poverty or even slavery due to heavy tax”; or 3) “one could react violently in joining armed resistance groups.” 302

These were the three options, but according to Paul there is a fourth option. When baptized, the believer’s status changes. Being dead to sin, they no longer have to kowtow in fear to the Empire. While still in poverty, they no longer have to depend on patronage to exist, but now have a new Father, new Lord, and a new “family” who helps to meet their needs. And certainly, they must not participate in/or support violence as a means of bringing in God’s kingdom.

Those baptized “in the name” have died and risen with Christ, and are now freed from the power of sin. The Empire no longer sets their agenda. Paul assures his Roman readers that should they suffer the same fate as Jesus and die for their faith, they too will be resurrected as symbolized by baptism: “But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him” (v. 8). Their call to serve and obey the Lord Jesus is unconditional and rests on the promise that as Christ lives, so shall we (vv. 9–11). Käsemann sees baptism “as a rite of initiation . . . [that] gives a share in Christ’s destiny.” 303

In light of these commonly held truths, Paul commands his Roman audience to live ethically under the reign of God in the midst of an oppressive empire (vv. 12–13).

Within a dozen years of writing this letter, Paul will be called to keep his own sacramentum of baptism as he faces the executioner’s sword. Nero, the reigning emperor, will order Paul beheaded in Rome. 304

10.1.3 The Inauguration of God’s Eschatological Kingdom

Many Jews anticipated a future resurrection when God would judge tyranny, vindicate his faithful followers, and fully restore his kingdom (Dan 12:2–3; 2 Macc 7:11; Pss. Sol. , 3:12). For Paul, the resurrection of Jesus marks the dawning of the new age already and baptism with the Spirit is “the seal of membership in the eschatological people of God.” 305

Paul admonishes his Roman readers: “Therefore . . . present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God” and “do not be conformed to this world [age],” but rather “be transformed by the renewing of your minds.” To what end? That “you may discern what is the will of God” (Rom 12:1–2). The kingdom of God transcends all national and social agendas, all ethnic, economic, and gender barriers. It is characterized by “righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom 14:17).

10.2 Baptism in First Corinthians

In his letter to the church at Corinth, Paul mentions baptism on four specific occasions. The last two contain sociopolitical and anti-imperial overtones.

10.2.1 1 Corinthians 1:12–17

The household of Chloe has informed Paul that the Corinthian church faces severe divisions (1 Cor 1:11). Members have lined up behind their favorite teachers, saying, “I belong to Paul, I belong to Apollos, I belong to Cephas” (v. 12). In expressing dismay over the divisions, Paul asks three rhetorical questions: 1) Is Christ divided? 2) Was Paul crucified for you? 3) Were you baptized in the name of Paul? The answer to all three is “no.” The issue is not the one who preached the gospel to them or even immersed them, but the one into whose name they were baptized. 306

For Paul, “the nature of one’s baptism determines one’s identity.” 307 All members have one thing in common: all are baptized in the name of the crucified and risen Jesus. Therefore, each one is Christ’s disciple. 308 Therefore, they must put aside their factions and unite around Jesus. Paul appeals to baptism in the name of Christ as the basis for this unity in the body.

This passage confirms that Paul views baptism as the act by which believers vow their unqualified faithfulness to the person in whose name they were baptized. Hence, only one deserves their allegiance.

10.2.2 1 Corinthians 10:1–2

In 1 Cor 9:24–27, Paul describes the Christian life as a metaphorical race and exhorts his audience to persevere in the faith, so they might gain an eschatological prize, i.e., eternal life. He then turns to the exodus event—a story of deliverance from political tyranny—to illustrate how God’s people in times past, despite initial deliverance, failed to enter the promised land. This story is intended as a warning to his readers, lest they too fall short of their goal.

[For, γάρ] I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the Sea. (1 Cor 10:1–2)

By tracing the Corinthian readers’ spiritual heritage back to their forefathers (οἱ πατέρες), he establishes a continuity between Gentile believers and the original people of God. 309 Thus, a link exists between Israel of old and the church. 310 Like Israelites of old, these Corinthian Christ-followers live under an oppressive regime. 311 They have one thing in common—baptism.

Why does Paul bring up Israel’s baptism in the sea? Paul senses that some in the church at Corinth believe baptism will protect them from future judgment. 312 Paul wants them to know this is not the case. Their OT counterparts were baptized, but later fell into condemnation. Many wanted to return to Egypt.

The exodus was the most significant event in Israel’s storied past. Two million people escaped the tyranny of Egypt through the Red Sea. God was with them and saved them. Paul describes their trek to freedom between the two walls of water as a baptism “into (εἰς) Moses” (v. 2). Being baptized “into Moses” meant they identified with Moses and his mission, and “shared in the destiny of . . . [their] leader.” 313 For Paul, the crossing of the Red Sea is a prototype of Christian baptism. 314 An analogy, therefore, exists between baptism “into Moses” and “into Christ.” The former points to the later eschatological baptism. Those baptized “into Christ,” like their OT counterparts, receive a new identity as the people of God.

Paul says they were “all baptized into Moses,” yet their baptism in the sea was no guarantee that they would reach their final destination. Although they were all under the glory cloud and “all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink” (vv. 3–4), they were “struck down in the wilderness” because of idolatry (vv. 5, 7). They may have gotten out of Egypt, but Egypt never got out of them.

According to Paul’s analogy, the Red Sea crossing and eating of spiritual food were types of NT baptism and the Lord’s Supper. 315 Paul writes, “Now these things occurred as examples for us” (v. 6) and again, “These things happened to them to serve as an example, and they were written down to instruct us, on whom the ends of the ages have come” (v. 11). The Corinthians must learn vicariously from these past lessons.

From the content of this letter, we learn that some Corinthians continued eating cultic meals, offering libations to the Roman gods, and some returned to their former idolatrous activities. Their baptismal pledge of allegiance to God’s empire and his king was short-lived. So Paul warns them, “Flee from the worship of idols” (v. 14), and then concludes, “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons” (v. 21).

The Corinthians face many pressures and temptations to return to the old life just like the ancient Egyptians. Paul warns them throughout the Letter to avoid drunkenness, visiting prostitutes, committing idolatry, filing for divorce, taking each other to court, etc. (5:12; 6:1–5; 6:15–19; 7:12–16). He reminds them of the transaction that took place at their baptism: “And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (6:11). The Corinthians must never forget their vows, relying on the Spirit of God to help them overcome.

While baptism is not a magical rite that keeps one from falling, it is a proverbial “line drawn in the sand” that shouts, “Do not cross back into old territory! Remember your sacramentum !”

10.2.3 1 Corinthians 12:12–13

After devoting the remainder of chapter 10 and the entirety of chapter 11 to issues surrounding the Lord’s Supper, Paul takes up the issue of unity amidst diversity in the church (12:4–11). To make his point, he compares the church to a physical body: “For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ” (v. 12).

The phrase “so it is with Christ” implies that Christ has a comparable earthly body (albeit metaphorical), comprised of many kinds of members who function in harmony with each other. The Spirit is the one who produces unity in the church. 316 As Paul explains:

For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. (1 Cor 12:13)

Paul sees baptism as the basis of the church’s unity and he uses the same argument as he did earlier in 1:13. Conversion and forgiveness leads to receiving the eschatological Spirit (“we were all made to drink of one Spirit”). Spirit baptism forms us into a new body-politic, characterized by unity and equality, whose members belong to Christ (compare Gal 3:28; Col 3:11). 317 Males have no precedence over females when it comes to giftedness, free men have no advantage over slaves when it comes to table fellowship, and Jews have no higher standing in God’s kingdom than Gentiles.

This new political ethic rubbed against the grain of the Roman way of life and culture in the Corinthian colony. For instance, in the Empire slaves had no rights or privileges. But once they stepped inside an ekklesia devoted to Christ, they were on equal footing with every other member, including free persons, citizens, and elites. This was accomplished through the initiation ritual of water baptism and impartation of the Spirit.

10.2.4 1 Corinthians 15:29

In 1 Cor 15, Paul defends belief in resurrection and he does so by appealing to baptism. Some Corinthian church members are claiming that Jesus was not raised from the dead. Paul starts out by saying that belief in the resurrection is an essential part of the authentic apostolic gospel: “For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, 318 and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures” (vv. 4–5).

Paul goes on to say, “If Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain” (v. 14). If resurrection is a fantasy, then the apostles are all liars or else deceived (v. 15), believers are lost in their sins (v. 17), and there is no hope beyond the grave (v. 18). Paul likens Jesus’ resurrection to the “first fruits” of a harvest, which guarantees that his followers also will be raised from the dead in the future (vv. 20–23).

If Paul had simply been an advocate for resurrection, his detractors—steeped in Greek dualism—might have found his belief either interesting or ridiculous, just as the philosophers at the Areopagus (Acts 17:22–34). Instead, he placed resurrection in a political context by drawing on Ps 8:

Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (1 Cor 15:24–25)

By implication, the rulers that will be destroyed are none other than Caesar and his ilk. The judgment is assured because Jesus, the legitimate emperor of the universe, has already taken his throne. Paul expects the victory over Caesar, the Empire, and Roman imperialism to be imminent.

Paul adds one comment: “The last enemy to be destroyed is death” (v. 26). Rome’s ultimate weapon of domination will be abolished at the Parousia . Just as God raised Christ from the dead to inaugurate the kingdom, so, at the consummation of the kingdom, he will raise all who have died in the faith. In the end, when all is subjected to the exalted Christ, he will turn the kingdom over to his Father “so that God may be all in all” (vv. 27–28).

Paul then relates resurrection to baptism and asks two logical questions: 1) “Otherwise, what will those people do who receive baptism on behalf of the dead? 2) If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?” (v. 29).

Paul finds no need to explain “baptism on behalf of (ὑπέρ) the dead.” His readers are familiar with it. Unfortunately, modern-day readers may be uninformed. Since the word ὑπέρ can be translated variously as “on behalf of,” “over,” and “beyond,” it makes for a wide range of possible and often bizarre interpretations. 319 The most viable theory is that certain individuals (“those people” v. 29a) are being baptized by proxy on behalf of the dead to assure they have a place in God’s future kingdom. 320 Paul does not condemn the practice, but uses it to argue for a resurrection, i.e., if a person is not raised from the dead, why do the Corinthians participate in a ritual that symbolizes resurrection?

10.3 Baptism in Galatians

In the Letter to the Galatians, Paul addresses two questions: 1) Who is the seed of Abraham? 2) Must a Gentile Christ-follower observe the Law of Moses? Paul writes that the promise made to Abraham’s seed finds its fulfillment in Jesus. He and all who follow him are Abraham’s seed. Paul also says NT believers do not have to follow the Law as interpreted by traditional Jews. Since Christ has come, believers in him are not subject to the requirements of the Law (Gal 3:24–25). Paul explains:

For in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. [For] as many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring [seed], heirs according to the promise. (Gal 3:26–29)

Longenecker observes that v. 26 appears to be a “sayings” statement regarding the status of all believers as children of God (v. 26). 321 The Greek text opens with an emphatic “all” (πάντες) to convey the inclusiveness of God’s family. Three times in these verses Paul uses the phrase “in” or “into Christ” to describe children of God. This language speaks of a believer’s relationship with the risen Christ. 322 Conversely, apart from a relationship with Christ, one is not a child of God. Paul says we attain this status of being in Christ “through faith” (v. 26) and in the next verse explains that believers are placed in Christ through baptism. “For (γὰρ) as many as were baptized into Christ” have clothed yourselves with Christ (v. 27). 323 Which is it—“through faith” (v. 26) or “were baptized” (v. 27)? Most likely, Paul sees no contradiction. One includes the other. Those who believe the gospel submit to baptism. This is their outward pledge of faith or sacramentum . In doing so, believers have figuratively “clothed themselves with [in] Christ” (v. 27b), i.e., they take upon themselves the virtues and social ethics of Christ. 324 Rather than “wrap themselves in the Roman flag,” so to speak, they wrapped themselves in the banner of the cross. As such, there was no longer Jew or Greek, slave or free, male and female. 325 They were all “one in Christ Jesus” (v. 28). In the community of believers, “every barrier was swept away.” 326

Baptism unites believers with Christ and each other, as Paul mentions elsewhere in 1 Cor 12:13. 327 The ethnic, social, and gender distinctions that were so important in Roman society were irrelevant in the Christ community as new egalitarian relationships formed. Jewish and Greek distinctions no longer mattered. 328 Circumcision as an identity marker that previously separated Jews from Gentiles was now immaterial. Gentile Christ-followers were now full participants in the family of God, the same as Jewish believers. Likewise, in the Christ community, a person of high standing had no advantage, privilege, or power over another of a lesser status.

Paul views the church “as an alternative community that prefigures the new creation in the midst of a world that continues to resist God’s justice.” 329 Paul does not encourage believing slaves to revolt against their masters or use unlawful means to gain their freedom. But he calls for the church to practice equality among its members, despite their status in society. At the Lord’s Table they can experience the blessings of the future kingdom in the present as they wait for God’s coming new world order. 330

Paul changes his language from “or” (Jew “or” Gentile, slave “or” free) to “and” when he broaches gender. Here, he likely reflects the language in Gen 1:27—“God made them male and female.” Since Galatians deals primarily with the issue of law, Paul is possibly reflecting on circumcision as the key identity marker under the old covenant; hence, men held privileged positions in the Jewish community. But now the Spirit is the identity marker and both “males and females” are included and thus have equal status. 331

Paul not only espouses an egalitarian theology, but he expects Galatian church members to put it into practice and to be reconciled with each other. Galatians also speaks powerfully to believers today. Some of the categories have changed, but the issues remain the same. What steps must we take to ensure believers of different ethnic backgrounds (Hispanic, African, Anglo, Asian, or Native American) are treated equally and given equal opportunities to serve at all levels in the Christian church? How can we incorporate members of our congregations who—while not technically slaves—work in menial jobs, receive public welfare, or look different than we do? Gender roles also remain problematic in many evangelical congregations. All churches should provide an atmosphere where women and men are free to minister their spiritual gifts.

The church is the venue of the kingdom. It must function in accordance with kingdom principles.

This leads to Paul’s conclusion. All who pledge their faith to Christ in baptism “belong to Christ” and constitute “Abraham’s offspring” [his “seed”] and are “heirs according to the promise” (v. 29). 332

Such a drastic declaration stood counter to the entire hierarchical structure of the Empire. Stratification was an essential part of both Roman and Jewish society, and everyone knew their place and functioned within those limitations. But in the kingdom of God slaves could serve as elders, women could prophesy, and Jews and Gentiles were equals. The Christ movement, operating as an alternative polis potentially threatened Roman social stability.

Paul’s threefold egalitarian assertion must have caused concern for the Jewish establishment as well. 333 After all, the temple was divided into three courtyards to separate the sexes and ethnicities: Court of the Jews, Court of the Women, and Court of the Gentiles (God-fearers). The priestly ruling class in Jerusalem must have looked askance on Paul’s claim that ethnic, gender, and social distinctions were now irrelevant in God’s restored kingdom. Paul’s insistence likely assured the Christ movement would never find a home among traditional Jews.

Regardless of how Jewish society viewed or treated Christ-followers, Paul affirmed they were full members in God’s family because they received the Spirit of adoption at baptism and could call God “Abba” (4:1–7).

10.4 Summary

In his epistles, Paul clearly related faith to baptism. He could not have conceived of faith apart from baptism. For Paul, all believers were baptized believers. Although he taught that people entered the kingdom through faith alone, baptism was the locus where the faith commitment was made and God responded by giving the Spirit. 334

285 . By the fourth century, the Empire became more “Christianized,” leading eventually to the rise of Christendom. With the dominant society transformed, Christianity lost its function as an alternative polis. The baptized now identified with the prevailing culture.

286 . Morris, Epistle to the Romans , 246.

287 . Moo, Romans , 376–77, provides an overview of the various interpretations of the phrase “baptized into Christ.”

288 . Barrett, Epistle to the Romans , 122.

289 . Ibid.

290 . Schnackenburg, Baptism , 170.

291 . Morris, Epistle to the Romans , 247.

292 . Gorman, Apostle , 12.

293 . Moo, Romans , 378.

294 . Johnson, Reading Romans , 96.

295 . Barrett, Epistle to the Romans , 122.

296 . Those who hold that immersion speaks of one’s mystical “union” with Christ must logically believe also that coming up out of the water breaks one’s union with Christ. This is untenable and is not Paul’s position. Immersion for Paul represents death. Rising from the water represents life.

297 . Eph 2:6; Col 2:12.

298 . Paul will not deal with the Spirit who gives the believer power to live the resurrected life until Rom 8.

299 . In chapter 4, “John the Baptizer,” I briefly touched upon sin as a political construct for Jews.

300 . Ehrensperger, Paul , 115.

301 . Käsemann, Commentary on Romans , 163.

302 . Ehrensperger, Paul , 115.

303 . Käsemann, Commentary on Romans , 162.

304 . Eusebius, Hist. eccl. , 2.25.2.

305 . Käsemann, New Testament Questions , 119.

306 . The question, “Were you baptized into the name of Paul?” supports the premise that baptism “in the name of Jesus” is formulaic. Ferguson, Baptism , 149, rightly concludes, “The force of the argument is that the nature of one’s baptism determines one’s identity—whose name one wears, with whom one is associated, and to whom one is a disciple.”

307 . Ferguson, Baptism , 149.

308 . Notice, Paul attributes no mystical dimension to being baptized in the name of Jesus.

309 . Barrett, Commentary on the First Epistle , 220 .

310 . Grosheide, Commentary on the First Epistle , 219.

311 . Barrett, Commentary on the First Epistle , 221.

312 . Ferguson, Baptism , 151.

313 . Ibid.

314 . Cullmann, Baptism , 49.

315 . Fee, First Epistle , 442.

316 . Fee, First Epistle , 603.

317 . Barrett, Commentary on the First Epistle , 288.

318 . That Paul included burial as part of the gospel is significant. Likewise, the Apostles Creed includes it: “I believe in God the Father almighty and in his son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and BURIED. He arose the third day.” For the early church, Christ’s burial was a central element of the gospel because it was related to the resurrection. Of course, death, burial, and resurrection are all language associated with baptism.

319 . Hull, Baptism , 3, examines over forty interpretations of 15:29. Hull ultimately rejects proxy baptism and believes v. 29 refers to traditional believer’s baptism.

320 . Also see Herm. Sim. , 3.9.16, where the righteous who died prior to baptism are sealed and promised a place in the kingdom of God through vicarious baptism.

321 . Longenecker, Galatians , 150–51.

322 . Ibid., 152–53.

323 . The phrase “baptized into Christ” might be formulaic and mean simply the act of being baptized “in the name of Jesus” as found in Rom 6:4 and Acts 2:38–39. See Hartman, Into the Name of Jesus , 56, who makes a case for this interpretation.

324 . Bruce, Epistle to the Galatians , 186, suggests the metaphor of clothing oneself in Christ may have been suggested by the converts’ practice of removing one’s clothes to be baptized and putting on new clothes afterward.

325 . 1 Cor 12:13; Col 3:11; Acts 2:39 affirm that these distinctions, while important in Roman culture, were insignificant within the church of God.

326 . Lightfoot, Epistle of St. Paul , 150.

327 . Carter and Levine, New Testament , 180, believe v. 28 might have been part of the baptismal formula, which is hinted at in other Pauline texts such as 1 Cor 12:13; Col 3:11, and non-canonical texts like Gos. Thom ., 22, and 2 Clem ., 12:2–6.

328 . Hays, Galatians , 272.

329 . Ibid.

330 . Ibid., 273.

331 . Ibid.

332 . Longenecker, Galatians , 151, notes that three connecting participles γὰρ (for) . . . γὰρ (for) . . . ἄρα (then) introduce each of the three key statements in this section.

333 . Around 150 CE (t. Ber ., 7:18) Jewish men began each day praying to God in a fashion similar to this:

“Blessed are you, Hashem, King of the Universe, for not having made me a Gentile.”

“Blessed are you, Hashem, King of the Universe, for not having made me a slave.”

“Blessed are you, Hashem, King of the Universe, for not having made me a woman.”

334 . Newbigin, Household of God , 69–70.

Chapter 11

Baptism in Other Epistles and the Apocalypse

11.1 Baptism in Ephesians

The Letter to the Ephesians opens by focusing on Jesus’ resurrection and ascension to God’s right hand (1:20). From this exalted place Jesus reigns over creation and holds a rank above every other ruler and authority on earth or in heaven. As supreme Lord, all nations, states, regimes, potentates, and monarchs are positioned “under his feet” (1:21–22).

The Pauline writer encourages his Jewish and Gentile readers to live in harmony with each other. In Christ, the wall that separated the two no longer exists (2:1–22). Now they must adopt and display an attitude of humility, gentleness, patience, and charity, which will serve as a witness to onlookers, even to those rulers and authorities in the heavenly places” (3:9–11). Therefore, the author charges these Christ-followers to remain loyal to their exalted king (v. 12) and depend on the Spirit to give them continued strength to love Christ and others (vv. 13–21).

The Ephesians must strive “to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph 4:1–3). That the author devotes so much space to address the issue of unity reveals the struggle Jewish and Gentile church members of Ephesus were having with this issue.

The author next provides the basis for congregational unity. He writes, “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all” (4:4–5). One can detect the following chiastic structure in the text.

A One body

B One Spirit

C One hope (just as you were called to the one hope of your calling)

D ONE LORD

C One faith

B One baptism

A One God and Father (of all, who is above all and through all and in all)

When looking at the text as a chiasm, a correspondence becomes evident. The “one body” (the church) and “One God and Father” are connected. The “one Spirit” and “one baptism” are likewise linked. Spirit baptism produces unity in the body, and must be maintained. Baptism with water and baptism with the Spirit are so closely related and complement each other that we must not imagine one as excluding the other. The “one hope of your calling” and “one faith” are couplets. Eschatological hope focuses on future resurrection (not yet), while faith focuses on present loyalty (already).

The focal point of the chiasm is the central, stand-alone phrase, “one Lord.” The principle declaration of the Christ movement in the first century was “Jesus is Lord” (see 1 Cor 12:3). Since Jesus is the “one Lord,” Caesar and all other claimants are not. 335 At the time of this writing, Emperor Nero claimed to be universal Lord and Jupiter’s earthly representative.

The oneness and diversity of the triune God—one Spirit, one Lord, one God and Father—is a model for the church. Distinctions exist among members with regard to ethnicity, gender, social rank, economic status, and giftedness, but in the church these must be put aside to maintain harmony. In this way, the church serves as an alternative to society and as a witness to the kingdom of God.

11.2 Baptism in Colossians

As in Ephesians, Jesus is presented as “the firstborn from the dead” who possesses “first place” in the universe (1:18). The Christ-followers in Colossae must maintain their allegiance to Christ as reigning Lord and not be seduced by defective Greek and Jewish philosophies (Col 2:8). “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have come to fullness in him, who is the head of every ruler and authority” (vv. 9–10). So, why pursue other philosophies?

Next, the writer reminds his readers:

In him also you were circumcised with a spiritual circumcision, by putting off the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ; when you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. And when you were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive together with him, when he forgave us all our trespasses, erasing the record that stood against us with its legal demands. He set this aside, nailing it to the cross. (vv. 11–14)

The “spiritual circumcision” that these Gentile believers experienced “in Christ” is related to the physical “circumcision of Christ” (v. 11), which had nothing to do with removal of his foreskin. Christ’s life was cut off as he underwent a circumcision of death. 336 The believers’ identification with Christ’s death, likewise, renders them dead to sin. Using “the language of Rom 6:4,” 337 the author writes, “When you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God” (v. 12). Baptism in water is not the “spiritual circumcision” to which the author refers because that kind of baptism is performed by human hands. By nature, “Spirit circumcision” is the work of the Spirit and thus an act of God. Water baptism leads to Spirit baptism and “spiritual circumcision” when the old life is removed and placed in a metaphoric grave and new life emerges. 338

The writer goes on to say that through his death and resurrection Christ “disarmed the rulers and authorities and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in it” (v. 15). These defeated ones are Rome and her surrogates and the demon forces behind them. Rome used violence to rid itself of Jesus. The resurrection exposed it as an utter failure when God exalted Jesus to a position over all ruling authorities.

The readers are then asked, “If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the universe, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world?” (v. 20). This rhetorical question implies that Christ expects his followers to live above their worldly circumstance and not conform to the sociopolitical pressures.

11.3 Baptism in Titus

The author, purporting to be Paul, reminds Titus that he left him on the island of Crete to “put in order what remained to be done” and to “appoint elders in every town” (Titus 1:5). 339 He then advises Titus to teach church members how to conduct their family affairs according to Christ-centered household codes (2:1–10). Finally, Paul implores Titus to instruct those under his charge to obey their rulers and authorities and to be courteous to all people, remembering that the believers themselves “were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures” and wasted their days in malicious, despicable activity, even “hating one another” (3:1–3). But then God intervened on their behalf and changed the trajectory of their lives.

But when the goodness and loving-kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water [lit. washing] of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit. This Spirit he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (vv. 4–7)

Fee notes vv. 4–7 constitute a single sentence in the Greek text and comprises “an early creedal formulation” that succinctly expresses Pauline soteriology. 340

Important for our study are the words “he saved us . . . according to his mercy, through (dia , by) the water (loutron , washing) of rebirth and renewal of the Holy Spirit.” This describes the means God used to rescue the Cretans out of paganism. It is hard to imagine that Titus and the Cretans would have thought water/washing (louton ) referred to anything other than baptism. Similar language is used in other baptism-related passages: “Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away , calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). In another situation, after describing their former life of debauchery, Paul reminds the Corinthians, “And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed . . . in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor 6:9–11). Likewise, Paul’s declaration that “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word” (Eph 5:25–26). The term “word” should be understood as “the proclamation of the gospel, which is the basis of baptism.” 341 In similar fashion, the writer of Hebrews issues a twofold command to his readers: “Let us approach with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water . Let us hold fast to the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who has promised is faithful” (Heb 10:22–23). The terms “washed,” “confession,” and “cleansed” point to baptism.

Next we ask, does Paul understand the link between “the washing of rebirth” and “renewal of the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5) as two “distinct operations” or two “different aspects of one operation“? 342 If “through” (dia ) were used before “renewal” and before “the water of rebirth,” then salvation would be a two-step process involving: 1) “washing” (louton ), i.e., water baptism that leads to new birth; 343 and 2) the “renewal of the Holy Spirit,” i.e., Spirit baptism that follows and leads to the restoration of God’s people. 344 If this is the case, the phrase “Spirit that has been poured out on us” (vv. 6–7) is our guarantee of a future resurrection and inheritance in the eternal kingdom.

However, dia appears only once in the text before “water/washing.” This means the phrase describes a single operation with the washing referring to the “activity of the Holy Spirit” that includes both rebirth and renewal. 345

It is impossible to be definitive on the matter. Water baptism and Spirit baptism are inexorably linked to conversion, justification (forgiveness), and regeneration (new birth). The Cretan believers, who were once characterized as “liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons” (Titus 1:12), have now “renounce[d] impiety and worldly passions” and have begun “to live lives that are self-controlled, upright, and godly” as they “wait for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (2:11–13).

The trifecta of resurrection, kingdom, and baptism found in this pericope is consistent with the pattern in the other authentic and disputed letters of Paul.

11.4 Baptism in James

The Epistle of James contains one possible allusion to baptism, reflected by the words, “the excellent name that was invoked over you” (Jas 2:7). 346 When the verse is examined in its immediate context, this supposition seems plausible.

James writes his letter to Christ-followers, whom he identifies as “the twelve tribes in the Dispersion” (Jas 1:1), i.e., members of the restored kingdom. These might be Jews scattered throughout the Empire who were converted by messianic evangelists, or they may be Hellenized Jewish believers who were originally from Jerusalem and left the region after the stoning of Stephen (Acts 8:1–3). If the latter, James could be elder of the church at Jerusalem who now writes to his former congregants. In either case, the recipients are followers of Christ who presently suffer for their faith (Jas 1:2–4). James reminds them to pray for wisdom and direction (vv. 5–8), urges them to persevere and trust God in the midst of poverty and worldly temptations (vv. 9–16, 27b), warns them to cast aside anger, and encourages them to be doers of the word and not hearers only by caring “for orphans and widows in their distress” (vv. 17–27).

He exhorts his readers to remain cognizant that God birthed them into his family through “the word of truth . . . [as] a kind of first fruits of his creatures” (v. 18). He says they must depend therefore on “the implanted word that has the power to save your souls” (v. 21).

James’s audience is obviously struggling in their faith. Chapter 2 begins with a not-so-subtle question of rebuke: “My brothers and sisters, do you with your acts of favoritism really believe in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ?” (Jas 2:1). The objects of their preferential treatment are the rich (vv. 2–4). This leads to a series of rhetorical questions, interspersed with a charge:

Has not God chosen the poor in the world to be rich in faith and to be heirs of the kingdom that he has promised to those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who oppress you? Is it not they who drag you into court? Is it not they who blaspheme the excellent name that was invoked over you? (vv. 5–7)

The identity of the “excellent name” is the “Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1). The blasphemers who are identified as “they” in v. 7 refers to the rich, who take believers to court and show disregard for “the excellent name that was invoked over you.” The verb “was invoked” in the aorist speaks of a fixed point when the excellent or noble name “was invoked,” 347 and is likely an “allusion to the ritual use of Jesus’ name in baptism.” 348

This understanding fits with the thesis that baptism, kingdom, and resurrection are interrelated. James’s “already/not yet” kingdom perspective can be seen throughout the letter. His ethical exhortations are placed in an eschatological context. The members of these “twelve tribes” must not forsake covenant faithfulness, which they pledged to keep when they were baptized. The restoration of the kingdom has begun, and covenant constancy on the part of Christ-followers is essential.

Taking a page from Deut 28–29, James warns his readers about judgment to come for the disobedient (1:10–11; 2:12–13; 3:1; 5:1–6, 9, 12) and rewards to come for those obedient to the renewed covenant, whom he describes as those chosen “to be heirs of the kingdom” at the resurrection (1:12; 2:5; 4:10; 5:20). James’s exclamation that “the Lord’s coming is near” and “the Judge is standing at the door” are intended to motivate the readers to live up to their baptismal vows (5:8–9). They have evidently fallen far short, leading their critics to “blaspheme the excellent name that was invoked over” them at baptism.

11.5 Baptism in First Peter

First Peter 3:18–22 is an important baptismal text, but one of the more difficult to interpret. What does the author mean when he writes, “baptism . . . now saves”? In order to make sense of this statement, we must examine it within the larger context of First Peter.

11.5.1 Remote Context

From Tertullian onward the church has traditionally attributed First Peter to the apostle bearing the same name, but scholars believe it is the work of a pseudonymous author, perhaps a Roman believer and advocate of Petrine tradition, who penned the letter between 80 and 90 CE, during the reign of Domitian. 349 The author’s main concern is to help a smattering of Jewish believers and a growing number of Gentile Christ-followers navigate their hostile world without compromising their faith.

First Peter is written to “resident aliens” who have dispersed throughout “Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” (1 Pet 1:1), which were five Roman provinces in Asia Minor. The author identifies these disciples as ones: 1) “who have been chosen . . . by God the Father,” and 2) “who have been . . . sanctified [set apart or made holy] by the Spirit” (v. 2), likely at their baptism, and placed into a new community. As a result, God’s people were “destined to be obedient to Jesus Christ and to be sprinkled with his blood” (v. 2). They must live in continual submission to Jesus and remain in a state of constant cleansing of sins. 350 A doxology follows that describes God as a Father who “has given us a new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (v. 3). Rebirth by definition “implies a preceding death and termination of old associations and alliances,” including allegiance to the Empire’s gods and agenda. 351 The resurrection of Christ makes the separation from the world and inclusion into God’s family possible.

Some scholars suggest First Peter is either a baptismal homily or a set of instructions offered to newly baptized believers at the time of their admission into church membership. 352

Whether or not that is so, we are certain that the letter is addressed to baptized believers, who after pledging their fidelity to the exalted Lord Jesus, now face persecution and possibly even death (3:13–17; 4:12–19). For Gentiles to reject local and national deities and to align with a religion that had no visible gods was an egregious offense and the equivalent to becoming an atheist. The writer warns the readers not to renounce their faith when faced with persecution or use inappropriate means against the satanic onslaught. Instead, they are to follow the example of Christ who suffered and died (1:19; 2:21–25; 3:18). As they embrace and follow the alternative ethics of God’s kingdom, they will fulfill their baptismal vows.

Among NT documents, First Peter is one of the few that speaks explicitly of new birth, tracing its source to the Father, whose implanted gospel seed takes root and produces eternal life (v. 23).

11.5.2 Immediate Context

In its immediate context, baptism is placed in a section on Christ’s suffering and vindication:

For Christ also suffered once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit, in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison, who in former times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight people, were saved through water. And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers made subject to him. (1 Pet 3:18–22)

Here the author gives a theological explanation for Christ’s death. First, his death was universal in scope; Christ died for all people. Second, Christ’s death was vicarious; the innocent one died for the guilty. Third, Christ died for a purpose—reconciliation (“in order to bring you to God”). Fourth, Rome executed him; he was “put to death in the flesh.” Fifth, God vindicated him; he was “made alive in [or ‘by’] the spirit.” This litany is intended to encourage the readers to live righteously and to suffer willingly for Christ, knowing that one day they too will be vindicated. Sixth, by means of the Spirit (“in which”), the resurrected Jesus visited and preached to “the spirits in prison.” Likely, these are the disobedient spirits of “the days of Noah,” i.e., the “sons of God” who cohabitated with women (Gen 6:1–4), and identified as the Watchers in 1 Enoch . 353 This shows that the exalted Christ is Lord of all beings—human and angelic (also see v. 22). Some commentators, like Feldmeier, believe that Christ descended to Hades to deliver his message of victory over humans in prison, 354 but the event in 1 Pet 3:19 is linked to his resurrection and exaltation to “the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers made subject to him” (1 Pet 3:22), so it is more likely he ascended rather than descended. 355

This is the immediate context into which the writer introduces baptism. He mentions the flood because he sees an analogical or corresponding relationship between the “former times” of Noah’s day and the “now” of his audience, and compares “the few” righteous souls saved then to the relatively miniscule number of Christ’s followers living among the pagan masses in the Roman Empire. 356 Just as “the few were saved (i.e., delivered) through water” back then, the writer assures his faithful few (the “chosen” of 1:2) that “baptism . . . now saves you” (sōzei baptisma ).

This is the only verse in the NT where baptism serves “as the subject of an action verb.” 357 The author, thus, conveys the impression that baptism actually achieves or accomplishes something—human salvation.

The word “now” should be viewed eschatologically (1:5), since Peter’s audience and their experience of baptism are part of God’s end-time plan of deliverance. The flood was a type or pattern that foreshadowed this eschatological salvation. Baptism is the antitype (ἀντίτυπον) or fulfillment to which the flood pointed (3:21).

This leads us to ask, “From what does baptism deliver?” Like the flood, baptism represents a “break with the old world” 358 and a fresh start in the new creation, God’s kingdom. This encompasses both a present and a future deliverance from judgment, with the latter taking place at the consummation of the age.

Peter then explains what baptism is and is not, only in reverse order. He says it is “not (οὐ) . . . a removal of dirt from the body” like a Roman bath or Jewish ceremonial washing, but (ἀλλὰ) something of a completely different nature. 359 Rather, baptism is “an appeal (ἐπερώτημα) to God for a good conscience,” or as the NIV translates, “a pledge to God of [or ‘from’] a good conscience,” thus positioning it in the category of a sacramentum . 360 It is like a soldier’s sincere oath to serve Lord Caesar and the Empire even to the point of death. The word ἐπερώτημα carries the meaning of keeping up one’s end of a contract, a pledge of fidelity.

Dunn calls this verse the closest thing to a definition of baptism found in the NT. 361

In some ways baptism in the first century functioned the way a sinner’s prayer does in the twenty-first century. It was a cry from the heart for God to save. Ananias’ instructions to Paul come to mind: “Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16).

The Qumran community required all candidates seeking admission into membership to undergo a ritual bath and pledge their obedience to God and community. 362 Immersion and sacramentum were an essential part of the ritual.

By the second-century CE the appeal was made at the conclusion of a series of questions asked of the baptismal candidate, who answered each and declared his sincere loyalty to God’s king and kingdom. This might be likened to a modern-day wedding ceremony when the minister asks a couple to answer questions and pledge their faith one to another, or to the required responses and oath a candidate for US citizenship must give before being declared a citizen. In any case, baptism here is interpreted as a human appeal or request directed toward God.

This leads us to ask whether “good conscience” modifies “appeal” or is the appeal made to acquire or attain a clear conscience. In the first case, the baptismal candidate makes a “good faith” promise to serve Christ. In the latter, s/he seeks a clear conscience from idolatry and other sins through baptism. Given that baptism is compared to the flood, the first option seems the best fit. Noah was not attempting to cleanse his conscience, but was pledging loyalty to God from a good conscience.

How then does baptism save or deliver the seeker? Surely H₂O contains no salvific properties. Neither do humans have innate ability to save themselves. While the flood was a saving event, God was the savior. He saved Noah through the flood. In like fashion, baptism delivers the believers from judgment “through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” This phrase links baptism to the “new birth.” 363 The heavenly Father both births and saves his chosen ones “through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1:3). 364 As Michaels concludes, “The resurrection of Jesus Christ is what makes an appeal or pledge to God . . . efficacious, and guarantees eternal life to the one baptized.” 365

This implies several things. First, baptism—apart from Christ’s resurrection—has no power to deliver. Second, just as Jesus faced hostile forces and emerged victorious over death, so too his followers. Third, salvation has both a present and future dimension. Believers are rescued from the present evil age and transferred into God’s kingdom through the new birth, and will be rescued when God’s judgment comes upon the earth at the end of the age.

The crucified Jesus emerged alive from the tomb, ascended into heaven, and now “is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers made subject to him” (1 Pet 3:22). As God’s right hand man, Jesus now reigns over all living beings, good and bad, earthly and heavenly. The powers behind the Empire, although not witnessed by humans, have been conquered and stripped of their power over Spirit-energized believers. 366 With this assurance, the Christ-followers are encouraged to stand strong in the midst of suffering and to resist these enemies. Although some may face death, they know they will be raised in the last day when evil is eradicated. Jesus, not Caesar, has been given a manifest destiny to rule the world.

Hence, baptism is placed both “in the context of Christ’s death for sins (3:18) and resurrection to heavenly authority (3:22).” 367

Whether a pledge or an appeal, First Peter portrays baptism as a human action directed toward God in response to the gospel. As such, it is part of the conversion process—the human side of salvation.

When Christ-followers submit to baptism they identify in a demonstrative way with Christ’s ignominious death and glorious resurrection, and pledge their loyalty to God and his kingdom. Brooks calls it “the drama of decision.” 368 Such a public act in the first century was not taken lightly. To side with Christ was to stand opposed to Imperial Rome and its Lord Caesar. This may explain why these Christ-followers were facing trials by fire.

In First Peter salvation is eschatological in nature and design. The author writes that while God’s redemptive plan through Christ was “destined before the foundation of the world,” it was not disclosed until the “end of the ages for your sake” (1:20). As he opened his letter, so he closes, reminding his readers that the present age is winding down. He says, “The end of all things is near” (4:7), and then instructs them how to live in the meantime (4:12—5:11).

Christians are God’s end-time people, a fifth column embedded in enemy territory awaiting the Lord from heaven. Through baptism, those from all walks of life enter a new relationship that transcends the social, ethnic, economic, and gender categories. Or as First Peter puts it, those who “were not a people” are now . . . God’s people” (2:10). This new status has both a present and future dimension.

To the recipients of First Peter the exclamation “baptism saves” (sōzei baptisma ) was more than a doctrinal truth. It provided them assurance that despite the fiery trials, baptism guaranteed them deliverance in the end.

11.6 Baptism in First John

First John is written to a church struggling with present and former false teachers who deny that Jesus is the Messiah. The Johannine writer distinguishes between genuine children of God who love God and obey his covenant by extending charity to their brethren and those who profess faith in Christ, but show no evidence of neighborly love.

Using baptismal language, the author writes, “If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). And again, “I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven on account of his name” (2:12). The words “confess,” “forgive,” “cleanse,” and “name” have a connection with baptism, and it is likely the readers understood them this way.

The writer labels the false brethren as deceivers (1:8; 2:26), liars (2:4), disobedient (2:4), haters of brethren (2:11; 3:13), lovers of the world (2:15), antichrists (2:18), deniers of Father and Son (2:22–24), lawless (3:4), children of the devil (3:8), false prophets (4:1), among other epithets.

By contrast, First John says of genuine Christ-followers, “But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and all of you have knowledge” (2:20). This is a reference to the anointing they received as a result of baptism. As a result, they discern truth from error, persevere in the faith, believe in Messiah Jesus, love God and obey his commandments, love the brethren, and overcome the world and its magnetic lure (5:1–5).

Their believers’ baptism and the resultant gift of the Spirit find a correlation to Jesus’ own baptism (5:6). 369

This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one that testifies, for the Spirit is the truth. (1 John 5:6)

The phrase “by water” points to Jesus’ baptism by John; “and the blood” refers to his death. These are the two terminal points of Jesus ministry. 370 His earthly messianic mission began with his baptism and ended with his crucifixion.

D. R. Streett remarks that Jesus’ immersion by the Baptizer was “essential to the early proclamation” of the church in three ways. First, they preached that Jesus received the anointing of the Spirit to be Messiah at his baptism (Luke 4:14; Acts 4:27; 10:38); second, God declared him to be his beloved son (Mark 1:11); and third, John the Baptizer testified that Jesus was the coming one (John 1:7, 8, 15, 18, 32–34; 3:28, 35). 371

11.7 Baptism in the Apocalypse

Explicit baptism language seems to be absent from the book of Revelation, but a careful reading reveals several allusions to the practice. The first readers were baptized members of the seven churches of Asia Minor, who made a life and death oath to serve King Jesus during a most difficult time for the Christian community. Domitian (81–96 CE) was an oppressive emperor, who heavily taxed his subjects. 372 Eusebius, referencing second-century chronicler Hegesippus (ca. 110–180 CE), writes that Domitian unleashed his wrath upon Christians. 373 From the text of Revelation, we discover the Christ-followers in the Lycos Valley faced persecution (Rev 2–3). Their baptismal vows were being tested.

Revelation is the most overtly anti-imperial book in the NT. Beginning in chapter 1 Jesus’ resurrection is linked to his status as reigning Lord. He is identified as: 1) the “faithful witness,” 2) the “firstborn from the dead,” and 3) “the ruler of the kings of the earth” (1:5). The description of “faithful witness” is likely an allusion to his unwavering proclamation of God’s kingdom despite facing arrest and martyrdom on a Roman cross. This is the same language used to describe the martyred Antipas (2:13).

The title “the ruler of the kings of the earth” represents “a clear counterpoint to Roman imperial power, embodied in the emperor, who ruled the ancient world through his client kings and governors.” 374

The visionary author is highly cognizant of the humiliating and dishonorable death Jesus experienced at the hand of Rome’s imperial authorities. However, the Revelator views Rome’s execution of Jesus in terms of a Greek tragedy of sorts. By crucifying Jesus, Rome believed it brought an end to Jesus’ kingdom revolution. But instead, the act would expose its own weakness and lead to its own defeat. On Easter Sunday, Jesus overcame Rome’s most powerful weapon by breaking the bonds of death. He rose from the grave as a conquering hero, and now holds the keys of Death and Hades (1:18; 3:21). The one who presently reigns from heaven will return with power to judge all kingdoms that opposed God (1:7).

As with their master, many Christ-followers should expect martyrdom. However, if they keep their baptismal vows inviolate and remain faithful to the end, they too will be resurrected, exalted, and inherit a throne just as Jesus (Rev 3:21). In turn they will share in judging the nations and reign as kings and priests with Jesus (20:4; 22:5).

The vision in Revelation presents Jesus’ resurrection as the eschatological pivot point in the narrative, leading up to the Messiah gaining geopolitical control of the world (Rev 21:24; Ps 2:8–10). Thus, the first-century believers’ salvation was not viewed as the individual flight of the soul to heaven, but as the liberation of the earth from “its violent overlords who through evil oppression corrupt and destroy God’s good creation (Rev 11:18).” 375

Revelation describes believers from every nation, tribe, people, and tongue that have been “sealed” by God, language normally associated with baptism (Rev 7:1–17). 376 Seals had significance in the ancient world. They denoted ownership. The seal of baptism marked a believer as belonging to God (see 2 Cor 1:22; Eph 1:13–14; 4:30; Rom 4:11). The seal protects the Revelation saints from falling away from the faith and guarantees that should they be martyred they will have part in the great resurrection company at the Lord’s parousia .

By the late-second to early-third century, the church began to include words of sealing in their baptismal rites. In the Apostolic Tradition , arguably attributed to Hippolytus of Rome (170–235 CE), we find these instructions to bishops:

After this he pours the oil into his hand, and laying his hand on each of their heads, says,

“I anoint you with holy oil

in God the Father Almighty,

and Christ Jesus,

and the Holy Spirit.”

Then, after sealing each of them on the forehead, he shall give them the kiss of peace and say,

“The Lord be with you.”

And the one who has been baptized shall say,

“And with your spirit.” 377

11.7.1 The Name

In his address to the seven churches, the exalted Christ commends the believers for their perseverance in the faith. To the church at Ephesus he says, “I also know that you are enduring patiently and bearing up for the sake of my name, and that you have not grown weary” (Rev 2:3).

He likewise praises the church of Pergamum: “Yet you are holding fast to my name, and you did not deny your faith in me even in the days of Antipas my witness, my faithful one, who was killed among you, where Satan lives” (Rev 2:13).

To the Philadelphians the reigning Christ commends: “You have kept my word and have not denied my name” (Rev 3:8).

The “my name” language in these verses indicates that these believers have pledged allegiance either to the name of Jesus Christ or made a vow in his name , and in either case this likely refers to their baptism. The pledge has held and Christ commends them for their faithfulness in such difficult times.

11.7.2 White Robes

The Revelator also envisions martyred saints standing before God and the Lamb, dressed in “white robes” (Rev 7:9), another possible allusion to baptism, where believers exchange their old garments for new clean ones. Boring describes the two groups as comprising the church militant and the church triumphant. 378 Both are wearing white garments or robes (3:4–5, 18; 4:4; 6:11; 7:1–14; 16:15; 22:14). 379

The recipients of John’s Revelation have been baptized in the name of Jesus. These apocalyptic visions are intended to encourage them to remain faithful to their baptismal pledge (sacramentum ) by overcoming the temptation to abandon the faith. The visions dealing with the future status of martyred saints dressed in white lets them know that just as Jesus had been raised from the dead, so they would be raised. The full restoration of the kingdom is not only a possibility but a reality to come. Imperial Rome’s demise is assured.

11.8 Postscript

In this chapter we confirmed that the message of kingdom restoration, Jesus’ resurrection, and baptism are interconnected. The message was indeed good news for those living under Roman imperialism. The gospel of the kingdom was an alternative metanarrative to Rome’s claims of manifest destiny and its good news of peace (Pax Romana ). It was not about individual bliss in the afterlife. The message of the resurrection of Christ in its first-century context was essentially a counter-imperial proclamation that was subversive to the core. When the first Christ-followers submitted to baptism in the name of Jesus, they joined a revolution that Rome perceived as a threat to the social order. The earliest believers embraced an egalitarian kingdom ethic based on social justice where neighborly love was the hallmark of the movement. Through the testimony of their word and actions, others were attracted to the movement and pledged their allegiance to Christ through baptism. A supernatural power was released in the lives of the Christ-followers. The Empire would never be the same.

Many of us read Scripture through a set of lenses that often distort rather than cast light on the meaning of the text. Some of us read our Bibles through the eyes of Western individualism, others from the perspective of a particular theology, still others through the spectacles of the Enlightenment. If we can only remove these blinders, use our historical imaginations, and walk in the shoes of the original readers, then we might be able to recapture the authentic gospel. Whether we live in North America or North Korea, Syria or Sierra Leone, England or Egypt, perhaps it will be said once again of Christians, “These people who have been turning the world upside down have come here also. . . . They are all acting contrary to the decrees of the emperor, saying that there is another king named Jesus” (Acts 17:6–7).

Baptism is our point of entry into the kingdom. It delivers us out from under the powers and principalities of the world and transfers us into God’s family. The church must return to its roots, preach the pure gospel of the kingdom, and call on all to make God’s story their story. As Walter Brueggemann poignantly observes and challenges, “The waters of baptism are the path to freedom, so do not keep your feet dry.” 380

335 . To the Corinthians Paul writes similarly: “Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as in fact there are many gods and many lords—yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist” (1 Cor 8:5–6).

336 . Lincoln, Colossians , 624.

337 . Ibid.

338 . Ferguson, Baptism , 159.

339 . Most critical scholars do not view Paul as author of Titus. For purposes of literary simplicity, I will refer to the author as Paul.

340 . Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy , 156.

341 . Ferguson, Baptism , 161.

342 . Guthrie, Pastoral Epistles , 205–6.

343 . As in John 3:5, 8.

344 . Johnson, 1 Timothy , 136, translates “the water of rebirth” as “the bath of regeneration.”

345 . Lea and Griffin, 1 , 2 Timothy , 323.

346 . Moo, Letter of James , 109; Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ , 202.

347 . Davids, Epistle of James , 113.

348 . Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ , 203.

349 For an excellent discussion of the theories surrounding authorship and date, see Achtemeier, 1 Peter , 39–50. For purposes of literary simplicity, I will at times refer to the author as Peter without regard to his identity.

350 . This is similar to the Apostle Paul’s description of the Corinthians, who were formerly “fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers” (1 Cor 6:9–10) and then adds, “But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God (1 Cor 6:11).

351 . Elliott, Conflict , 30.

352 . For a helpful discussion of the options, see Achtemeier, 1 Peter , 59–60 and Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament , 251–58. Brooks, Drama , 139, believes the declaration “baptism now saves” is the controlling idea of First Peter.

353 . Dalton, Christ’s Proclamations , 32–36; Webb, “Intertexture and Rhetorical Strategy,” 96; 1 En . 6:2; 12:2–4; Jude 6; 2 Pet 2:4.

354 . Feldmeier, First Letter of Peter , 200–206.

355 . Achtemeier, 1 Peter , 240–41, notes that vv. 19 and 22 form an inclusio and that both verses speak of the vindicated Jesus’ interaction with defeated spiritual beings. In v. 19 they are imprisoned spirits. In v. 22, they are subordinated powers. Achtemeier points out that the direction of Christ’s movement in v. 22 is heavenward, and is likely the same in v. 19. This supports the identity of the imprisoned spirits being The Watchers. Michaels, 1 Peter , 197, comes to the same conclusion, observing the following sequential pattern:

“put to death in the flesh” (v. 18b)

“made alive in the Spirit” (v. 18b)

“gone to heaven” (v. 22)

There is no indication from these verses that Christ ever descended to preach to the spirits in prison.

356 . Boring, 1 Peter , 141.

357 . Brooks, Drama , 139.

358 . Ibid.

359 . This was possibly an erroneous belief among some Christ-followers. Hence, the author feels the necessity to make this point. Kelly, Epistles of Peter , 161–62, believes the “removal of dirt from the body” refers to circumcision, a position held by very few scholars.

360 . Reicke, Epistles of James , 106–7, 139, translates the phrase as “a pledge of good will toward God.” Also see Reicke, Disobedient Spirits , 182–86. This thought was possibly the basis for Pliny’s report to Trajan that Christians “bound themselves by an oath (sacramentum ).” Pliny, Ep ., 10.96.

361 . Dunn, Baptism , 145.

362 . 1QS 1.16; 5.7–8.

363 . Gorman, Inhabiting , 59–60, 73–79, makes a strong case that the Apostle Paul also identifies baptism with justification.

364 . The death and resurrection are the two key components of the gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation (Rom 1:16).

365 . Michaels, 1 Peter , 218.

366 . According to Jewish thought these defeated spirit beings were the powers behind human governments, hostile to God and the perpetrators of idolatry: 1 En . 99.7; Jub . 1.1; 22.17. Some NT writers seem to agree (1 Cor 10:19–21; Rev 9:20).

367 . Ferguson, Baptism , 192.

368 . Brooks, Drama of Decision , 21–32.

369 . Marshall, Pastoral Epistles , 231; Bultmann, Johannine Epistles , 80; Yarbrough, 1 – 3 John , 282.

370 . Streett, They Went Out , 326.

371 . Ibid., 312–13.

372 . Suetonius, Dom. , 12.2.

373 . Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. , 3:19.

374 . Streett, “Rome and the Risen Jesus,” 65.

375 . Ibid., 66.

376 . Beale, Book of Revelation , 409–16.

377 . Hippolytus, Trad. Ap. , 21.22–23.

378 . Boring, Revelation , 131.

379 . Gieschen, “Sacramental Theology,” 149–74, gives an extensive treatment of the sacramental language in the book of Revelation, and also documents how the church in the third century gave baptism candidates new white garments, signifying that the old life of sin was past and the believers had begun a fresh journey to redemption.

380 . Brueggemann, Faith and Culture Conference, April 13–15, Word of Life Church, St. Joseph, Missouri, as quoted by Derek Vreeland in “The Totalism of Empire and the Hope of #TrulyHuman Life,” April 20, 2015. www.missioalliance.org/the-totalism-of-empire-and-the-hope-of-trulyhuman-life/.

Bibliography

Abernathy, C. David. An Exegetical Summary of 1 Peter. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1998.

Achtemeier, Paul J. 1 Peter. Hermen eia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996.

Adams, Edward, and David G. Horrell, eds. Christianity at Corinth: The Quest for the Pauline Church . Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004.

Albright, W. F., and C. S. Mann. Matthew . The Anchor Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971.

Armstrong, Mary Emma. The Significance of Certain Colors in Roman Ritual . Manasha, WI: George Banta, 1917.

Arnold, Clinton E. The Colossian Syncretism . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996.

Ascough, Richard. Paul’s Macedonian Associations: The Social Context of Philippians and 1 Thessalonians . Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.

Barnes, Timothy D. Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study . Oxford: Clarendon, 1971.

Barrett, C. K. Acts 1 – 14 . Vol. 1. International Critical Commentary. London: T. & T. Clark, 2004.

———. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians . Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987.

———. The Epistle to the Romans. Harper’s New Testament Commentaries. New York: Harper & Row, 1957.

———. The Gospel According to St. John . 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978.

Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics . Vol. 4, The Doctrine of Reconciliation . Translated by G. W. Bromiley. Peabody, MA: Hendrikson, 2010.

Bates, Matthew W. Salvation by Allegiance Alone . Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017.

Bauckham, Richard. The Bible in Politics: How to Read the Bible Politically . Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1989.

Beale, G. K. The Book of Revelation . New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

Beasley-Murray, George R. “Baptism.” In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters , edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin, 60–65. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993.

———. Baptism in the New Testament . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962.

Benko, Stephen. Pagan Rome and Early Christians . Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986.

Blackwell, Ben C., John K. Goodrich, and Jason Maston, eds. Reading Romans in Context. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015.

Borg, Marcus J. Convictions: How I Learned What Matters Most . New York: Harper One, 2014.

Boring, M. Eugene. 1 Peter. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon, 1999.

———. Revelation . Interpretation: A Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1988.

Bornkamm, Günther. Jesus of Nazareth . Translated by Irene McLuckey, Fraser McLuckey, and James M. Robinson. New York: Harper & Row, 1960.

Bosch, David J. Transforming Mission . New York: Orbis, 1991.

Brooks, Oscar S. The Drama of Decision: Baptism in the New Testament . Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987.

Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel According to John (i–xii). 2nd ed. The Anchor Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1978.

———. The Gospel According to John (xiii–xxi) . The Anchor Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970.

———.The Sensus Plenior of Sacred Scripture . Baltimore: St. Mary’s University, 1955.

Bruce, F. F. The Book of Acts . Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.

———. The Epistle to the Galatians : A Commentary on the Greek Text . New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

Brueggemann, Walter. Hope within History . Atlanta: Westminster John Knox, 1987.

———. Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy . Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997.

Bruner, Frederick Dale. A Theology of the Holy Spirit . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970.

Bryan, Christopher. Render to Caesar: Jesus, the Early Church, and the Roman Superpower . London: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Bultmann, Rudolf Karl. The Gospel of John: A Commentary . Translated by George R. Beasley-Murray. Oxford: Blackwell, 1971.

———. The Johannine Epistles: A Commentary on the Johannine Epistles . Hermeneia. Translated by R. Philip O’Hara. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973.

Campbell, Duncan B. The Rise of Imperial Rome AD 14 – 193 . Oxford: Osprey, 2013.

Campbell, J. B. The Emperor and the Roman Army 31 BC–AD 235 . Oxford: Clarendon, 1984. Reprint, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Campbell, William S. Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity . London: T. & T. Clark, 2006.

Caneday, A. B. “Baptism in the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement.” In Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ . Edited by Thomas R. Scheiner and Shawn D. Wright, 285–328. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2006.

Carey, Greg. Sinners: Jesus and His Earliest Followers . Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009.

Carter, Warren. “Matthew and Empire.” In Empire in the New Testament , edited by Stanley E. Porter and Cynthia Long Westfall, 90–119. New Testament Studies. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011.

———. Matthew and Empire: Initial Explorations . Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 2001.

———. The Roman Empire and the New Testament: An Essential Guide . Nashville: Abingdon, 2006.

Carter, Warren, and Amy-Jill Levine. The New Testament: Methods and Meanings . Nashville: Abingdon, 2013.

Conzelmann, Hans. First Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians . Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1975.

Cotter, Wendy. “The Collegia and Roman Law: State Restrictions on Voluntary Associations, 64 BCE–200 CE.” In Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World , edited by John S. Kloppenborg and Stephen G. Wilson, 74–89. New York: Routledge, 1996.

Cross, F. L. 1 Peter: A Paschal Liturgy . Bristol, UK: Mowbray, 1957.

Crossan, John Dominic. The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus . San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1998.

———. God and Empire: Jesus Against Rome, Then and Now . San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2007.

———. “Roman Imperial Theology.” In In the Shadow of Empire: Reclaiming the Bible as a History of Faithful Resistance , edited by Richard A. Horsley, 59–73. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008.

Crossan, John Dominic, and Jonathan Reed. In Search of Paul: How Jesus’s Apostle Opposed Rome’s Empire with God’s Kingdom . San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2004.

Cullmann, Oscar. Baptism in the New Testament . Philadelphia: Westminster, 1950.

———. Christ and Time . Translated by Floyd V. Filson. London: SCM, 1951.

———. Jesus and the Revolutionaries . New York: Harper & Row, 1970.

———. Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr . Translated by Floyd V. Filson. New York: Meridian, 1958.

———. Salvation in History . London: SCM, 1967.

———. The State in the New Testament . New York: Scribner, 1956.

Dalton, William J. Christ’s Proclamations to the Spirits: A Study of 1 Peter 3 : 18 – 4 : 6 . Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1989.

Danker, F. W. Jesus and the New Age: A Commentary on Luke’s Gospel . Rev. ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.

Davids, Peter H. The Epistle of James . New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

———. The First Epistle of Peter. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.

———. A Theology of James, Peter, and Jude . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014.

Davies, W. D., and Dale C. Allison Jr. An Exegetical and Critical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew . International Critical Commentary 3. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1997.

DeMaris, Richard E. The New Testament in Its Ritual World . London: Routledge, 2008.

deSilva, David A. Honor, Patronage, Kinship, and Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture . Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000.

Dibelius, Martin. Jesus . Translated by Charles B. Hedrick and Frederick C. Grant. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1949.

Dittenberger, Wilhelmus, ed. Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae . Reprint, Chicago: Ares, 2001.

Dodd, C. H. Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments . London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1944.

Donovan, Vincent J. Christianity Rediscovered . Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2000.

Downs, David J. “Economics, Taxes, and Tithes.” In The World of the New Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts , edited by Joel B. Green and Lee Martin McDonald, 156–68. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013.

Dunn, James D. G. Baptism in the Holy Spirit . Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970.

———. The Christ and the Spirit . Vol. 2. Pneumatology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

———. The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon . New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

———. Romans 1 – 8 . Word Biblical Commentary 38. Dallas: Word, 1988.

———. Titus . The New Interpreter’s Bible: Second Corinthians–Philemon XI. Peabody, MA: Abingdon, 2000.

Ehrensperger, Kathy. Paul and the Dynamics of Power: Communication and Interaction in the Early Christ-Movement . Library of New Testament Studies. London: T. & T. Clark, 2009.

Eller, Vernard. In Place of Sacraments: A Study of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972.

———. The Promise: Ethics in the Kingdom of God . Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970.

Elliott, John H. Conflict, Community, and Honor: 1 Peter in Social-Scientific Perspective. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2007.

Elliott, Neil. “The Apostle Paul and Empire.” In In the Shadow of Empire . Edited by Richard A. Horsley, 97–116. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008.

Ellis, E. Earle. The Gospel of Luke. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981.

Esler, Philip F. Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Evans, Craig A. Luke . New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1990.

Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians . New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.

———. God’s Empowering Presence . Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

———. Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God . Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996.

———. 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus . A Good News Commentary. New York: Harper & Row, 1984.

Feldmeier, Reinhard. The First Letter of Peter: A Commentary on the Greek Text . Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008.

Ferguson, Everett. Baptism in the Early Church. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.

———. “The Herodian Dynasty.” In The World of the New Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts , edited by Joel B. Green and Lee Martin McDonald, 54–76. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary . The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1998.

———. The Gospel According to Luke I–IX: Introduction, Translation, and Notes . The Anchor Bible 28. New York: Doubleday, 1982.

———. The Gospel According to Luke, X–XXIV . The Anchor Bible 28A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985.

France, R. T. The Gospel of Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985.

Friesen, Steven J. “Poverty in Pauline Studies: Beyond the So-Called New Concensus.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26 (2004) 323–61.

Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians . Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003.

———. Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Reading of the First Gospel . New York: Crossroad, 1993.

Gieschen, Charles A. “Sacramental Theology in the Book of Revelation.” Concordia Theological Quarterly 67 (2003) 149–74.

Gloer, W. Hulitt. Eschatology and the New Testament . Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988.

Gorman, Michael J. Apostle of the Crucified Lord: A Theological Introduction to Paul and His Letters . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.

———. Inhabiting the Cruciform God . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.

Gottwald, Norman K. “Early Israel as an Anti-Imperial Community.” In In the Shadow of Empire , edited by Richard A. Horsley, 9–24. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008.

———. The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of Religion of Liberated Israel 1250 – 1050 BCE . Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.

Gowan, Donald E. Eschatology in the Old Testament . Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.

Grasham, Bill. “Archeology and Christian Baptism.” Restoration Quarterly 43 (2001). www.acu.edu/sponsored/restoration_quarterly/archives/2000s/vol_43_no_2_contents/grasham.

Green, Joel B. Conversion in Luke-Acts . Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015.

———. The Gospel of Luke . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.

Grosheide, F. W. Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953.

Gundry, Robert H. Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution . 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.

Guthrie, Donald. The Pastoral Epistles . Tyndale Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.

Hagner, Donald A. The Jewish Reclamation of Jesus: An Analysis and Critique of Modern Jewish Study of Jesus . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.

———. Matthew 14 – 28 . Word Biblical Library 33B. Dallas: Word, 1995.

Hanson, K. C., and Douglas E. Oakman. Palestine in the Time of Jesus: Social Structures and Social Conflicts . 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009.

Harkness, Georgia. Understanding the Kingdom of God. Nashville: Abingdon, 1974.

Harland, Philip A. Associations, Synagogues, and Congregations: Claiming a Place in Ancient Mediterranean Society . Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003.

Harrington, Daniel J. The Gospel of Matthew . Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1991.

Harris, Murray J. Colossians and Philemon . Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.

Hartman, Lars. “Baptism.” In vol. 1 of Anchor Bible Dictionary , edited by David Noel Freedman, 583–594. New York: Doubleday, 1992 .

———. Into the Name of Jesus: Baptism in the New Testament . Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1997.

Hay, David M. Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity . Nashville: Abingdon, 1973 .

Hays, Richard B. First Corinthians . Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997.

———. Galatians . The New Interpreter’s Bible: Second Corinthians–Philemon XI. Nashville: Abingdon, 2000.

Heen, Erik M. “Phil 2:6–11 and Resistance to Local Theocentric Rule.” In Paul and the Roman Imperial Order , edited by Richard A. Horsley, 125–49. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 2004.

Helyer, Larry R. “The Hasmoneans and the Hasmonean Era.” In The World of the New Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts , edited by Joel B. Green and Lee Martin McDonald, 38–53. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013.

Hendriksen, William. I–II Thessalonians, I–II Timothy and Titus . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979.

Herzog, William R. Jesus, Justice and the Reign of God: A Ministry of Liberation . Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000.

———. Parables as Subversive Speech . Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994.

Hicks, John Mark. Enter the Water, Come to the Table : Baptism and the Lord’s Supper in Scripture’s Story of New Creation . Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 2014.

Hicks, John Mark, and Greg Taylor. Down in the River to Pray . Siloam Springs, AR: Leafwood, 2004.

Horsley, Richard A. 1 Corinthians . Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon, 1998.

———. Hidden Transcripts and Arts of Resistance: Applying the Work of James C. Scott to Jesus and Paul . Atlanta: SBL, 2004.

———. Jesus in Context: People, Power, and Performance . Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008.

———. “Jesus and Empire.” In In the Shadow of the Empire , edited by Richard A. Horsley, 75–96. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008.

———. Jesus and Empire: The Kingdom of God and the New World Disorder . Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003.

———. Jesus and the Powers: Conflict, Covenant, and the Hope of the Poor . Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011.

———. The Message and the Kingdom . Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002.

———. Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society . Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 1997.

———. Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation . Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 2000.

———. Paul and the Roman Imperial Order . Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 2004.

———. The Prophet Jesus and the Renewal of Israel: Moving Beyond a Diversionary Debate . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012.

———, ed. In the Shadow of Empire: Reclaiming the Bible as a History of Faithful Resistance . Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008.

Horsley, Richard A., and John S. Hanson. Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements at the Time of Jesus . San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988.

Howard-Brook, Wes, and Anthony Gwyther. Unveiling Empire: Reading Revelation Then and Now . Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1999.

Hull, Michael F. Baptism on Account of the Dead ( 1 Cor 15 : 29 ): An Act of Faith in the Resurrection . Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005.

Hurst, L. D. “Apollos.” In vol. 1 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary , edited by David Noel Freedman, 301. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

———. One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism . 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998.

Jeffers, James S. The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament: Exploring the Background of Early Christianity . Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999.

Jensen, Robin M. Baptismal Imagery in Early Christianity: Ritual, Visual, and Theological Dimensions . Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012.

Jeremias, Joachim. New Testament Theology . New York: Scribner, 1971.

Jewett, Robert. Romans . Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006.

Johnson, Dennis E. The Message of Acts in the History of Redemption . Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1997.

Johnson, Luke Timothy. “Book of Luke-Acts.” In vol. 4 of Anchor Bible Dictionary , edited by David Noel Freedman, 406. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

———. The Gospel of Luke . Sacra Pagina 3. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1991.

———. Reading Romans: A Literary and Theological Commentary. New York: Crossroad, 1997.

———. 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus . Atlanta: John Knox, 1987.

Kahl, Brigitte. “Acts of the Apostle.” In In the Shadow of Empire: Reclaiming the Bible as a History of Faithful Resistance , edited by Richard A. Horsley, 137–56. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008.

Karlson, William, Jr. “Syncretism: The Presence of Roman Augury in the Consecration of English Monarchs.” PhD diss., Baylor University, 2007.

Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. Translated and edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.

———. New Testament Questions of Today . Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969.

Kautsky, John H. Politics of Aristocratic Empires . Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1982.

Keck, Leander E. “The Spirit and the Dove.” New Testament Studies 17 (1970–71) 41–67.

Keener, Craig S. Acts: An Exegetical Commentary . Vol. 1 . Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012.

———. 1 – 2 Corinthians . New Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

———. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. 2 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003.

———. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament . 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014.

Kelly, John N. D. Epistles of Peter and Jude . Black’s New Testament Commentary. London: A & C Black, 1969.

Kloppenborg, John S., and Stephen S. Wilson. Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World . New York: Routledge, 1996.

Kraybill, Donald B. The Upside Down Kingdom . Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1978.

Kraybill, J. Nelson. Apocalypse and Allegiance: Worship, Politics, and Devotion in the Book of Revelation . Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2010.

Kreizer, Larry. “Apotheosis of the Roman Emperor.” The Biblical Archeologist 53 (Dec 1990) 210–17.

Kuhn, Karl Allen. The Kingdom According to Luke and Acts . Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015.

Lang, Bernhard. Sacred Games: A History of Christian Worship . New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997.

Lea, Thomas D., and Hayne P. Griffin Jr. 1 , 2 Timothy, Titus . New American Commentary 34. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.

Lendon, J. E. Empire of Honour: The Art of Government in the Roman World . Oxford: Clarendon, 1997.

Lenski, Gerhard. Power and Privilege: A Theory of Stratification . 2nd ed. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984.

Liebenberg, Jacobus. The Language of the Kingdom and Jesus. New York: de Gruyter, 2001.

Lightfoot, J. B. The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957.

Lincoln, Andrew T. Colossians . The New Interpreter’s Bible: Second Corinthians–Philemon XI. Peabody, MA: Abingdon, 2000.

Lohfink, Gerhard. Jesus and Community: The Social Dimension of Christian Faith . Translated by John P. Galvin. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.

Longenecker, Richard N. The Epistle to the Romans . New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016.

—— —. Galatians . Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, 1990.

Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 21 – 28 : A Commentary . Hermeneia. Translated by James E. Crouch. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005.

MacDonald, D. R. There Is No Male or Female: The Fate of the Dominical Saying in Paul and Gnosticism . Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.

Malherbe, Abraham J. Social Aspects of Early Christianity . 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.

Malina, Bruce J. The Social Gospel of Jesus: The Kingdom of God in Mediterranean Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001.

Malina, Bruce J., and John J. Pilch. Social-Science Commentary on the Book of Acts . Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008.

Marshall, I. Howard. Acts . The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.

———. The First Epistle to the Corinthians . New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

———. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text . New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

———. The Pastoral Epistles . International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1999.

Martin, Ralph P. A Hymn of Christ: Philippians 2 : 5 – 11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christianity . Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997.

Martin, Ralph P., and Gerald F. Hawthorne. Philippians . Word Biblical Commentary. Rev. and exp. Nashville: Nelson, 2004.

Matthews, Shelly, and E. Leigh Gibson, eds. Violence in the New Testament . London: T. & T. Clark, 2005.

McGinn, Sheila E., ed. Celebrating Romans: Template for Pauline Theology . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.

McGowan, Andrew B. Ancient Christian Worship . Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014.

McKnight, Scot. “Jesus’ New Vision within Judaism.” In Who Was Jesus? A Jewish-Christian Dialogue , edited by P. Copan and C. A. Evans, 73–96. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001.

———. A New Vision for Israel: The Teachings of Jesus in National Context . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

McRay, John. Archeology and the New Testament . Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1991.

Meeks, Wayne A. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul . New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983.

Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus . Vol. 2 , Mentor, Message and Miracles . New York: Doubleday, 1994.

Metzger, Bruce M., ed. The Oxford Annotated Apocrypha . New York: Oxford University Press, 1965.

———. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament . 2nd ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005.

Michaels, J. Ramsey. 1 Peter. Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, TX: Word, 1988.

Millar, Fergus. The Roman Near East, 31 B.C.–A.D. 337 . Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993.

Miller, Amanda C. Rumors of Resistance: Status Reversals and Hidden Transcripts in the Gospel of Luke . Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012.

Moloney, Francis J. The Gospel of John. Sacra Pagina 4. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1998.

Moltmann, Jürgen. Theology of Hope . Translated by James W. Leith. New York: Harper & Row, 1967.

Moo, Douglas J. The Letter of James . The Pillar New Testament Commentary Series. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

—— —. Romans 1 – 8 . The Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary. Chicago: Moody, 1991.

Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.

Myers, Ched. Binding the Strong Man . Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2008.

Newbigin, Lesslie. The Household of God: Lectures on the Nature of the Church . New York: Friendship, 1954.

Nolland, John. The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

———. Luke 1 : 1 — 9 : 20 . Word Biblical Commentary 35A. Dallas: Word, 1989.

Oakes, Peter. Reading Romans in Pompeii: Paul’s Letter at Ground Level . Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009.

Peterson, David G. The Acts of the Apostles . The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.

Pleins, J. David. The Social Visions of the Hebrew Bible: A Theological Introduction . Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001.

Polhill, John B. Acts . The New American Commentary 26. Nashville: Broadman, 2001.

Porter, Stanley E., and Cynthia Long Westfall, eds. Empire in the New Testament. New Testament Studies. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011.

Price, S. R. F. Rituals and Powers: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor . New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

Rasmusson, Arne. The Church as Polis . Rev. ed. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995.

Reicke, Bo. The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism: A Study of 1 Peter 3 : 19 and Its Context . Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2005.

———. The Epistles of James, Peter and Jude . The Anchor Bible 37. New York: Doubleday, 1964.

Revell, Louise. Roman Imperialism and Local Identities . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Roberts, Chris. Heavy Words Lightly Thrown: The Reason Behind the Rhyme . New York: Gotham, 2004.

Robinson, Anthony B., and Robert W. Wall. Called to Be Church: The Book of Acts for a New Day . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.

Roller, Matthew B. Dining Posture in Ancient Rome: Bodies, Values, and Status . Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006.

Rowe, C. Kavin. World Upside Down: Reading Acts in the Graeco-Roman Age . New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Saldarini, Anthony J. Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society . Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1988.

Sanders, E. P. The Historical Figure of Jesus . New York: Penguin, 1993.

———. Jesus and Judaism . Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.

———. Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977.

Sartre, Maurice. The Middle East Under Rome . Translated by Catherine Porter and Elizabeth Rawlings. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005.

Schnackenburg, Rudolf. Baptism in the Thought of St. Paul . Translated by George R. Beasley-Murray. New York: Herder & Herder, 1964.

Scholer, David M., ed. Social Distinctives of the Christians in the First Century: Pivotal Essays by E. A. Judge . Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008.

Schreiner, Thomas R., and Shawn D. Wright, eds. Believer’s Baptism . Nashville: B&H Academic, 2006.

Scott, James C. Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts . New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990.

Simonetti, Manlio, ed. Matthew 14 – 28 . Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture 1B. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002.

Smith, James K. A. Desiring the Kingdom : Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation . Cultural Liturgies 1. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009.

Soards, Marion L. The Speeches in Acts: Their Content, Context, and Concerns . Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994.

Spencer, F. Scott. Journeying Through Acts: A Literary-Cultural Reading . Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004.

Stackhouse, John G., Jr. Finally Feminist: A Pragmatic Understanding of Gender . Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005.

Stegemann, Ekkehard W., and Wolfgang Stegemann. The Jesus Movement: A Social History of Its First Century . Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999.

Stevens, Marty E. Temples, Tithes, and Taxes: The Temple and Economic Life in Ancient Israel . Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006.

Stookey, Laurence Hull. Baptism: Christ’s Act in the Church . Nashville: Abingdon, 1982.

Storkey, Alan. Jesus and Politics: Confronting the Powers . Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005.

Streett, Andrew. The Vine and the Son of Man: Eschatological Interpretation of Psalm 80 in Early Judaism . Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014.

Streett, Daniel R. They Went Out from Us . Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011.

———. “Rome and the Risen Jesus: Reading the Resurrection in Imperial Context.” The City 9 (2016) 57–66.

Streett, R. Alan. The Effective Invitation . Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2004.

———. Subversive Meals: An Analysis of the Lord’s Supper under Roman Domination during the First Century . Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2013.

Syme, Ronald. The Roman Revolution. Rev. ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Talbert, Charles H. Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles . New York: Crossroad, 1977.

———. Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel. New York: Crossroad, 1982.

Tannehill, Robert C. The Narrative Unity of Luke–Acts: A Literary Interpretation . Vol. 2. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.

Taylor, Joan E. The Immerser: John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.

Thatcher, Tom. Greater Than Caesar: Christology and Empire in the Fourth Gospel . Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009.

Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians . New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

Thompson, Alan J. The Acts of the Risen Lord Jesus . New Studies in Biblical Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2011.

Towner, Philip H. The Letters to Timothy and Titus . New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.

Twelftree, Graham H. People of the Spirit: Exploring Luke’s View of the Church . Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009.

United States, Warren Commission. Report of the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy . Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1964 .

Van Slyke, Daniel G. “The Changing Meanings of Sacramentum : Historical Sketches.” Antiphon: A Journal for Liturgical Renewal 11 (2007).

———.“Sacramentum in Ancient Non-Christian Authors.” Antiphon: A Journal for Liturgical Renewal 9.2 (2005).

Vermes, Geza. The Changing Faces of Jesus. London: Penguin, 2000.

———. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English . New York: Penguin, 1997.

———. Who’s Who in the Age of Jesus . London: Penguin, 2005.

Volf, Miroslav. The End of Memory: Remembering Rightly in a Violent World . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.

Wagner, J. Ross. Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letters to the Romans . Boston: Brill, 2002.

Walsh, Brian J., and Sylvia C. Keesmaat. Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire . Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004.

Waltke, Bruce K., and Charles Yu. An Old Testament Theology . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007.

Webb, Robert L. “Intertexture and Rhetorical Strategy in First Peter’s Apocalyptic Discourse: A Study in Sociorhetorical Interpretation.” In Reading First Peter with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of First Peter , edited by Betsy Bauman-Martin and Robert L. Webb, 72–110. London: T. & T. Clark, 2007.

———. John the Baptizer and Prophet. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006.

Wenham, David. “The Purpose of Luke-Acts: Israel’s Story in the Context of the Roman Empire.” In Reading Luke: Interpretation, Reflection Formation , edited by Craig Bartholomew et al., 79–103. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.

Wengst, Klaus. Pax Romana and the Peace of Jesus Christ . Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.

White, R. E. O. The Biblical Doctrine of Initiation . London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1960.

Willis, Wendell Lee. Idol Meat in Corinth: The Pauline Argument in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 . Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2004.

Winter, Bruce W. Seek the Welfare of the City: Christians as Benefactors and Citizens . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.

Wire, Antoinette Clark. The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction through Paul’s Rhetoric . Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.

Witherington, Ben. The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Religious Commentary . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

———. Troubled Waters: Rethinking the Theology of Baptism . Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007.

Woolf, Greg, ed. Ancient Civilizations: The Illustrated Guide to Belief, Mythology, and Art . San Diego: Tender Bay, 2005.

Wright, N. T. Jesus and the Victory of God . Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996.

———. The New Testament and the People of God . Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996.

———. “Paul’s Gospel and Caesar’s Empire.” In Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation , edited by Richard A. Horsley, 160–83. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 2000.

———. The Resurrection of the Son of God . Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003.

Yarbrough, Robert W. 1 – 3 John . Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.

Scripture Index

Old Testament/APOCRYPHA/ PSEUDEPIGRAPHA

Genesis

1:1–4 55

1:5 55

1:26–27 42

1:27 137

4:25–26 43

6:1–4 149

7:1–7 55

8:6–12 56

8:8–12 59

Exodus

1:8 12

3:8 12

8:9 77

12:24–27 13n7

12:14 13n7

12:48 44

15:1–18 13

15:1 76

15:10 76

15:20–21 13

19:6 13

19:16 104

23:4–15 13n7

34:18–25 13n7

Leviticus

11–15 45

15:13 46

16:4 46

18:16 49

23:4–6 13n7

Numbers

9:1–8 13n7

28:16–25 13n7

Deuteronomy

16:1–8 13n7

17:15 14

17:16 14

17:17 14

17:18–19 14

17:18 14

17:20 14

18:15–16 97

23:1 101

27–28 14

28–29 50, 146

Joshua

3:1—4:18 41

4 75

2 Samuel

22:15 104

1 Kings

1:33–35 78

18 15, 49

19 15

19:2 49

21:17–21 49

2 Kings

17 98n7

1 Chronicles

24:7–18 40

2 Chronicles

23–24 16

36:22–23 17

36:22 17

Esther

5:6 49n21

7:2 49n21

Ezra

6:15 40

6:18 40

Psalms

2 60

2:1–3 60

2:2 60n36

2:4–6 60

2:7 60, 61

2:8–11 60

2:8–10 155

2:10 60n36

8 134

27:1 104

110:1 87

Canticles

2:14 59

5:2 59

6:9 59

Isaiah

2:4 15

3:13–15 15

11:1 54n5, 124

24–27 xii

24:14–16 16

25:6 16

25:8 69

26:19 69

26:21 16

27:1 69

30:1–5 16

40 39, 40

40:1–5 39

40:3 39, 92n28

40:9 39

42:1–2 60, 61

42:1 54n5

49:5–6 83, 84n4

53:7–8 101

55:3 114

56:5 101

56:8 102

61:1–2 62

61:1 54n5

Jeremiah

7:1–4 16

7:5 15

7:8–10 16

9:1–11 16

22:13–19 16

23:1–4 16

23:5 83

26:17–23 15

30:10–11 84

31:31–34 54n6, 69n6

31:31 85

Ezekiel

1:1 55n9

27:15–24 83

34:23–24 66

34:25–31 66

36:24 66

36:25–28 67

36:25–27 54n6

37 xii, 65

37:1–3 67

37:4–5 67

37:6–8 67

37:9 67

37:10 67

37:11 67

37:12–14 67

37:15–28 35

37:26 68

Daniel

2–12 65

2:20–45 70

2:28 71n9

2:32–33 71

7 73, 79, 81

7:2–3 71

7:7–12 71

7:7 71

7:12–14a 85

7:13–14 72

8:20–21 71

12 72

12:2–3 72, 130

Hosea

4:1 15

6:8 15

8:1–4 15

8:14 15

10:4 15

14:2 15

Amos

2:6–16 15

2:6–7 15

3:9–10 15

4:1–13 15

5:10 15

5:22 15

6:12 15

9:11–12 15

9:13–15 15

Micah

2:1–5 15

3:1–2 16

3:9–12 16

Nahum

2:7 59

Haggai

2:6–9 17

Zechariah

9:9‒10 17

9:9 63, 78

9:10 78

Malachi

3:23–24 17

1 Maccabees

1:13 18

1:15 18

1:20–64 18

4:36–59 18

2 Maccabees

7:11 130

1 Enoch

6:2 149n19

12:2–4 149n19

94–105 19n13

99:7 152n32

2 Esdras

5:23 59

Jubilees

1:1 152n32

22:17 152n32

Psalms of Solomon

3:12 130

•

New Testament/ NAG HAMMADI/APOSTOLIC FATHERS

Matthew

2:2 63

2:15 39

3:1 46, 52, 90

3:2 73

3:3 39, 41

3:5–6 47

3:5 47, 48

3:6 90

3:7–10 48

3:11 47, 52n1

3:13–14 50, 52

3:13 52

3:15 52

3:16–17 55

3:16 55

3:17 60

5 75

5–7 81

6:9 24

8:28–34 75

9:18 77

9:19–21 77

9:21 77

9:22 77

9:23 77

9:24–25 77

9:26 77

10:16 59

11:12 79n17

11:14 53n4

12:24–27 76

12:28 76

13 74

14:3 49

14:5 49

14:6–8 49

16:19–23 82

19:18 82

19:28 74

21:1–11 78

21:5–9 63

21:25 53n4

22:15–22 29

23:9 24

27:29 64

28:16–20 81

28:18 68

28:19 81

28:20 81

Mark

1:1–4 39, 52

1:2–3 39

1:4–5 90

1:5 47, 52

1:8 91

1:9–11 55

1:9 52

1:10 55

1:11 60, 154

1:12 62

1:14–15 73

1:24–28 75

3:4 46

5:1–19 75

5:7 75

5:8–9a 76

5:9 76

5:11–13 76

5:13 76

5:22 77

6:17 49

6:22–28 49

8:34 53

10:35–39 79

10:38 53, 126

10:45 61

11:1–11 78

11:9–10 63

11:30 53n4

12:13–17 29

12:34 74

14:25 74

15:2 63

Luke

1:5–6 40

1:14–16 42

1:17 42, 53n4

1:32‒33 63

3:1–2 40

3:2 40

3:3 41, 88

3:3–4 82

3:4–5 39

3:6 39

3:7–9 48

3:10–14 43

3:11 52

3:15 47

3:17 47

3:19 49

3:20 61

3:21 52, 55, 61

3:22 xii, 60, 61

3:22a 56

4:1‒13 62

4:14 154

4:21 62, 73

4:43 74

6:20 60

8:1 74

8:26–29 75

9:2 74

9:41 93n34

9:54 98n7

9:60 74

10:1 74

10:9 74

11:15–19 76

11:20 74, 77

13:20–23 50n23

13:29–30 60

13:31 50n23

13:32–35 50n23

16:16 73

18:16 60

18:18–24 111

18:24–25 74

19:28–44 78

19:38–39 78

19:38 63

20:4 53n4

20:20–26 29

22:14–16 78

22:17–20 79

22:25–27 60

22:28–30 75

22:66–69 79

23:2 63, 79

23:3 63

23:6–12 50n23

23:24–43 74

24:13–27 82

24:44–48 82

24:45–49 84n5

24:49 82

John

1:1–2 53

1:6–8 53

1:6 39, 52

1:7 154

1:8 154

1:14 53

1:15 154

1:18 154

1:22 53

1:23 53

1:24–29 52

1:24–25 53

1:24 52

1:26‒30 53

1:28 41

1:29–31 73

1:29 40, 54

1:31 53

1:32–34 73, 154

1:32–33 54

1:33–34 52

1:33 47, 54

John (continued )

1:34 54

1:49 60n35, 63

2:23 97

3:1—4:2 62

3:3–5 74

3:5 62n39, 67n4, 144n9

3:8 144n9

3:22 62

3:26 41, 62

3:27–30 62

3:28 154

3:34 54

3:35 154

4:1–2 73

4:3–4 73

4:9 98n7

6:14–15 63

10:40 41

12:12–19 78

12:15 63

18:33 63

19:3 64

19:7 79

19:12 80

19:13–14 80

19:15 80

19:16–18 80

19:19–22 80

20:20–22 68

20:21 82

20:28 31n32

Acts

1:2–3 83

1:3–8 82

1:4 83

1:5 83, 86, 91, 110

1:6 83

1:7 84

1:8 84, 86, 91, 100, 102

1:9 85

1:10–11 85

2 86, 101n15, 106

2:4 86

2:5–11 87

2:5 88

2:7–12 86

2:13 86

2:14–40 86

2:14–20 87

2:14 86

2:17 92

2:21 87, 105

2:22–24 87

2:22 6

2:23 110n34

2:25–27 87

2:29 86

2:30–31 87

2:32–33 87

2:36 88, 92

2:37a 88

2:37b 88

2:38–39 99n11, 108, 136n39

2:38 88, 102, 105, 108, 110n34, 110n35, 111n37

2:39 102, 136n41

2:39a 92

2:39b 92

2:40 93

2:41 92

2:42 93

2:44 93, 93n33, 110n34

3:1‒10 88n16

3:19 93n33, 110n34

4:4 110n34

4:7 88n16

4:27 154

4:31 115n10

5:14 110n34

5:31 110n34

5:36 36

5:37 36

6:7 110n34

8 101n15, 103, 106, 116

8:1–5 96

8:1‒3 145

8:1 95

8:6 96

8:7–8 96

8:9–11 96

8:12 96

8:13 97, 100

8:14–17 99n13

8:14 97, 109n30

8:15–17 98

8:16 98

8:17 99, 122

8:18–24 100

8:18 99

8:20 100

8:21–23 100

8:22 110n34

8:25 100

8:27 100

8:28 101

8:29–30 101

8:31 101

8:32–35 101

8:36 102

8:37 102n16

8:38 102

8:39 103

8:39a 103

8:40 103

9 105

9:1–6 104

9:10–15 104

9:10 99n10

9:17–19 104

9:19–29 112

9:30–31 112

9:35 110n34

9:42 110n34

10 101n15, 106, 116

10:1–49 106

10:2 106

10:3–7 107

10:8–13 107

10:14–16 107

10:17–22 107

10:23–24 107

10:25–32 107

10:33 107

10:34–35 107

10:36 108

10:37–38 108

10:38 75, 92n28, 154

10:39 108

10:39b 108

10:40–41 108

10:42–43 108

10:43–46 110n35

10:43 110n34

10:44 108

10:45–46a 108

10:46b–47 109

10:46b 109

10:48 109

11:1–18 106, 109

11:1–2 109

11:3 109

11:4–12 109

11:13–14 109

11:15 110

11:16–18 110n35

11:16 91, 110

11:17 110, 110n34

11:18 110, 110n34

11:19–26 98, 112

11:21 110n34

11:23 98

13:1–4 112

13:13–41 113

13:13 110n34

13:17–25 114

13:23 113

13:24 88

13:26–37 114

13:38–41 114

13:39 110n34

13:48 110n34

14:1 110n34

14:27 110n34

15:7 101n15, 106, 110, 110n34

15:9 110n34

16 116

16:9 112

16:11–40 113

16:13 113

16:14 113

16:15 110n34

16:15a 114

Acts (continued )

16:15b 114

16:19–21 115

16:22 115

16:23–24 115

16:25 115

16:26 115

16:27 115

16:28 115

16:29 115

16:30 115

16:31–34 110n34

16:31 116

16:32 116

16:33a 116

16:33b 116

16:34a 116

16:34b 116

16:35‒39 117

16:40 118

17:6–7 158

17:12 110n34

17:22–34 134

17:30 110n34

17:34 110n34

18:1–8 118

18:4–5 118

18:6–7 118

18:8 110n34, 118

18:24 119

18:25 119

18:26 119

18:27–28 120

18:27 110n34

19:1–7 119

19:1 120

19:2 110n34, 110n35, 120

19:3a 121

19:3b 121

19:4 88, 110n34, 121

19:5–6 111n37

19:5 121

19:6–7 121

19:6 121

19:9 110n34

19:18 110n34

20:21 93n33, 110n34

21:8 103

21:38 37

22 105

22:12 99n10, 104

22:13 105

22:14–15 105

22:16–17 105

22:16 105, 144, 151

24:24 110n34

26:16–20 110n34

26:18 110n34

26:20 110n34

28:24 110n34

Romans

1:1 124

1:2 124

1:3 124, 151

1:4 124

1:4a 124

1:4b 124

1:16 151n30

3:9 129

4:5 128

4:5a 128

4:5b 128

4:11 155

5:12–18 125

5:19–21 125

6:1–2 125

6:1 125

6:3–4 125

6:3 125

6:4–6 125

6:4 125, 127, 136n39, 142

6:4a 127

6:4b 127

6:6–7 128

6:6 128, 129

6:7 128

6:8 129

6:9–11 129

6:12–13 130

6:13 126

8:9 100

8:11 125

8:17 125

11:22–24 109

12:1–2 130

14:7–9 125

14:17 130

15:12 124

1 Corinthians

1:11 130

1:12–17 130

1:12 120, 130

1:13 133

5:12 133

6:1–5 133

6:9–11 144

6:9–10 147n16

6:11 133, 147n16

6:15–19 133

7:12–16 133

8:5–6 141n1

8:6 24n9

9:24–27 131

10 133

10:1–2 131

10:3–4 132

10:4 132

10:5 132

10:6 132

10:7 132

10:11 132

10:14 133

10:19–21 152n32

10:21 133

11 133

12:3 141

12:4–11 133

12:12–13 137n43

12:12 133

12:13 133, 136n41, 137, 137n43

15 134

15:4–5 134

15:14 134

15:15–54 70

15:15 134

15:17 134

15:18 134

15:20–23 134

15:24–25 135

15:26 135

15:27–28 135

15:29 134, 135n35

15:29a 134

2 Corinthians

1:22 155

Galatians

3:24–25 136

3:26–29 136

3:26 136

3:27 136

3:27b 136

3:28 134

3:29 138

4:1–7 138

4:10–11 32n37

Ephesians

1:13–14 155

1:20 140

1:21–22 140

2:1–22 150

2:6 128n13

3:9–11 140

3:12 140

3:13–21 140

4:1–3 140

4:4–5 141

4:30 155

5:25–26 144

Philippians

2:5–11 117

2:8 118n16

2:9–11 118n16

2:9 118n16

Colossians

1:18 118

2:8 142

2:9–10 142

2:11–14 142

2:11 142

2:12 128n13, 142

2:15 142

2:20 143

3:11 134, 136n41, 137n43

Titus

1:5 143

1:12 145

2:1–10 143

2:11–13 145

3:1–3 143

3:4–7 143

3:5 144

3:6–7 144

Hebrews

10:22–23 144

James

1:1 145

1:2–4 145

1:5–8 145

1:9–16 145

1:10–11 146

1:12 146

1:17–27 145

1:18 145

1:21 145

1:27b 145

2:1 146

2:2–4 146

2:5–7 146

2:5 146

2:7 145, 146

2:12–13 146

3:1 146

4:10 146

5:1–6 146

5:8–9 146

5:9 146

5:12 146

5:20 146

1 Peter

1:1 147

1:2 147, 150

1:3 147, 151

1:5 150

1:19 148

1:20 152

2:10 153

2:21–25 148

3:13–17 148

3:18–22 147, 148

3:18 148, 152

3:18b 149n21

3:19 149, 149n21

3:21 150

3:22 149, 149n21, 152

3:23 148

4:7 153

4:12—5:11 153

4:12–19 148

2 Peter

2:4 149n19

1 John

1:8 153

1:9 153

2:4 153

2:11 153

2:12 153

2:15 153

2:18 153

2:20 153

2:22–24 153

2:26 153

3:4 153

3:8 153

3:13 153

4:1 153

5:1–5 153

5:6 153, 154

Jude

6 149n19

Revelation

1:5 21n14, 154

1:7 155

1:18 155

2‒3 154, 156

2:3 156

2:13 155, 156

3:4–5 157

3:8 156

3:18 157

3:21 155

4:1 55n9

4:4 157

4:11 31n32

6:11 157

7:1–17 155

7:1–14 157

7:9 157

9:20 152n32

11:18 155

16:15 157

17:2 21n14

17:5 21n14

17:8 21n14

17:14 21n14

19:19 21n14

20:4 155

21:1–4 70

21:24 155

22:5 155

22:14 157

Gospel of Thomas

22 137n43

2 Clement

12:2–6 137n43