Chapter 4

Traditionally, Christians have defined missions in terms of cross-cultural evangelism and discipleship. The biblical goal of such cross-cultural ministry, however, was never meant to yield a long-range distinction between sending churches and receiving churches. Partnership among churches with reciprocal gifts and responsibilities is a much closer idea (cf. Rom 15:27; 2 Cor 8-9), although the defined roles and differentiation often attached to notions of partnership must be adaptable, pragmatic tools, not inflexible boundaries. The eschatological reality and present ideal in Ephesians 2 point to a more ultimate principle, one of proclaiming an equal citizenship in God’s kingdom and a unity in worship that welcomes all contributions without ignoring the diversity of the contributing cultures.

Paul’s image of a temple uniting Jew and Gentile challenged the ethnically segregated reality of the temple standing in his own day. The ancient Israelite temple did not segregate Gentiles from Jews or women from men, but just priests from laity (1 Kings 8:41-43; 2 Chron 6:32-33). By the time of Jesus and Paul, however, Herod’s temple did csegregate all these groups to fulfill a stricter understanding of purity regulations. The outer court was now divided into the court of Israel (Jewish men only); on a lower level outside it, the court of women (Jewish women only); and on a lower level outside that, the outer court beyond which Gentiles could not pass. Strategically posted signs (attested to by both Josephus and archaeology) warned Gentiles that those who passed this point would be responsible for their own immediate execution. Although Judeans normally were not allowed to execute death sentences directly, violation of their temple constituted the one exception!

Both Paul and his audience would have been well-aware of this symbol of Jewish-Gentile division at the very heart of divine worship. In Acts 21:27, some Jewish people from the Roman province of Asia saw Paul exiting the temple. Much of the Jewish community in Ephesus (that province’s most prominent city) felt they had reason for animosity against Paul, since he had split their synagogue (19:9) and they had been blamed for a riot in reacting against his monotheistic preaching (19:34-35). Thus, when they saw him in Jerusalem with Trophimus, a Gentile from Ephesus (21:29), and knowing his commitment to Gentiles as well as to Jews, they drew a faulty conclusion—that Paul had violated the temple’s sanctity by bringing a Gentile inside (21:28)! A riot quickly ensued; and God ironically used the Roman garrison on the Temple Mount to protect him, even though the garrison commander initially presumed that Paul was the instigator of the unrest.

Paul’s ensuing speech to the crowd was in Aramaic, which offered abundant common ground with his audience (e.g., 22:12). Thus they listened patiently to his testimony about Jesus—perhaps because of the culturally sensitive witness of the Jerusalem church (cf. 21:20). Paul could have built on this hearing (as Peter did in 2:37-41) and summoned people to repentance. He would not, however, leave out his call to the Gentiles (22:21-22), so the riot resumed.

Why did Paul insist on talking about Gentiles, even when it risked alienating a hostile crowd? Judean nationalism had been on the rise since Judea briefly had its own king (41-44 CE) and suffered abuses under subsequent Roman governors, and revolt against Rome (66-73 CE) was probably less than a decade away. Although the Jerusalem church had successfully identified with their culture in proclaiming Christ to them (21:20), the church did not prophetically warn them that their nationalism was likely leading toward cultural destruction.

The lesson for us is that we should indeed identify with our peoples (cf. 21:26; 1 Cor 9:20-21) but not to the extent of breaking fellowship with believers of other cultures. If Christ is truly our Lord, then we must be loyal to his Body (despite its diversity of languages and customs) more than to any ethnicity. For Paul, as we shall see, the true gospel involved ethnic reconciliation; and someone truly embracing Christ could not hate other peoples. While Paul’s provocative message had been rejected, God later vindicated that message—and Jesus’s warnings (Luke 19:41-44; 21:20-24)—when Jerusalem fell in 70.

Paul’s failure to accommodate hatred of Gentiles ironically led to several years in Roman custody. He was held for up to two years in Caesarea (Rome’s capital for Judea) then sent on to Rome itself. Paul, from Roman custody (Eph 3:1; 4:1; 6:20), writes to the churches in the Roman province of Asia, starting in Ephesus. (Although Ephesians circulated in Roman Asia beyond Ephesus, that was probably the center of his audience.) Because both Trophimus’ and Paul’s accusers were from Ephesus, the believers in Ephesus would know why Paul was writing to them.

For Paul and his audience, there could be no greater symbol of the division between Jew and Gentile than this dividing wall in the temple. Yet he declares that this barrier, established by biblical laws, has been shattered by Jesus Christ—“For he himself is our peace, who forged both Israelite and Gentile into one and abolished the dividing barrier, annulling the enmity . . .” (Eph 2:14-15)! Paul offers this startling claim in a setting where many would have resented it. He was declaring that there was neither Jew nor Gentile in Christ (1 Cor 12:13; Gal 3:28) in a world of mutual hostility between these groups. Sadly, just a few years later, Jews and Syrians began massacring each other in the streets of Caesarea; and less than a decade afterward, Romans devastated Jerusalem, burning its temple and enslaving its survivors.

Yet with a vision to the future, Paul goes on to speak here of a new temple in which Jews and Gentiles together become a holy temple—God’s household, the dwelling of the Spirit (2:19-22). Paul’s conceptualization of this new temple related concretely to his own situation, but it also reflected antecedent teaching by Jesus himself, who both predicted the temple’s destruction and posed theological challenges to the segregation there.

Paul had significant precedent for the connection between the temple and perceptions of Jewish-Gentile separation. As already noted, Herod’s temple separated Gentiles (who risked carrying impurity associated with idolatry) from the courts of Jewish women and men. When Jesus overturned the merchants’ tables, he challenged the one part of the temple to which Gentiles had access. While one could otherwise doubt a connection between these two features (there being other activities limited to the outer court as well), Mark 11:17 indicates a concern for Gentiles’ worship in God’s house.

Jesus cried out two texts as he overturned the tables— Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11. The context of Isaiah 56 welcomed Gentiles to worship God, removing their stigma as second-class citizens among the true God’s worshipers. In particular, verse 7 declares, “I will bring foreigners to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house for prayer . . . because my house will be called a house of prayer for all the nations.” Thus, from the outset, God had intended his house to welcome all peoples! Gentiles’ restriction to the outer court, however, cannot have encouraged them the way that Isaiah intended.

Jesus blends his reference to Isaiah 56 with another allusion in Jeremiah 7, when he indicates that the Sadducean elite (who currently controlled the temple) had turned it into a “robber’s den.” This phrase derives from Jeremiah 7:11, in a context emphasizing judgment against the temple. Israel thought that God would never destroy his own temple (7:4). In their estimation (shared with their contemporaries in many surrounding cultures), judgment was not what a god was for. But God challenged their blindness, saying in essence, “Will you mistreat your neighbor and worship other gods, then come into this house that is called by my name and say, ‘We are protected’?” (7:5-10). He goes on to warn that they are treating his house like the way robbers treat their lairs—a safe place to store their loot and hide out. But the temple will not protect them; they cannot hide from God’s anger there, for he will destroy that temple and banish them from the land (7:12-15).

Jesus does not simply echo texts casually in order to sound biblical, but rather selects these texts deliberately. He pronounced judgment against the temple (Mark 13:1-2), just as Jeremiah did. Overturning merchants’ tables offered an even more overt symbol of judgment than had Jeremiah’s smashing of a pot (Jer 19:10-12). Jesus’s other teachings suggest that he, like Isaiah, also wanted Gentiles to be welcome in God’s eschatological temple. False witnesses seem to have twisted his words about a “new temple” (Mark 14:58; 15:29; cf. Acts 6:14), but John declares that the new temple that Jesus really proclaimed was his body (John 2:19-21).

The Gospels also provide us other indications that Jesus considered a new spiritual temple or at least offered the raw material (cf. e.g., Luke 19:40, 44; 20:17-18) that coalesced into an early Christian consensus about this image (cf. e.g., 1 Cor 3:16; 6:19; 1 Pet 2:4-8; Rev 3:12; 13:6). Clearest among these are Jesus’s words to the Samaritan woman in John 4. In this passage, he seeks a true worshiper of God (John 4:23), hence he “must” pass through Samaria (4:4), even though that route was merely the shortest way, not a strict geographic necessity.

Jesus crosses multiple barriers to talk with this woman. First, he crosses a gender barrier. Strict Jewish pietists did not wish to be seen talking alone with a woman. In their estimation, not only might this arouse temptation, but it might hurt one’s reputation for piety. Thus the text notes that Jesus’s disciples were “surprised” to find him speaking with a woman, although it also implies that they knew him well enough not to question him (4:27).

Second, as with tax collectors and sinners in the other Gospels, Jesus crosses a moral barrier that his strictest contemporaries normally would not have. In this culture, most women came to the well together. That this woman came separately and at the hottest time of day (about the sixth hour, 4:6) made it obvious that she was not welcome in the company of the other women. Shockingly, Jesus asks her for a drink (4:7), something normal religious Jewish men would not do. Jewish law treated Jewish women as unclean one week of every month, but strict Jewish pietists viewed Samaritan women as unclean every week of every month (immoral or not)!

Also, pietists would have resented the setting’s ambiguity, because wells were notorious. It was at wells that Isaac’s steward met Rebekah (Gen 24:11, 15-19), Jacob met Rachel (Gen 29:10), and Moses met Zipporah (Exod 2:15-17). Other sources show us that some people considered a well an appropriate place to find a mate. When Jesus asks this woman to bring her husband (John 4:16), she apparently assumes that he is questioning whether she is married, and she responds that she is not (4:17)—in other words, that she is available. At this point, Jesus identifies the real issue, which was her not being married to the man she’s living with (4:18). Thus her further response was that Jesus must be a prophet (4:19). One would not have to be a prophet merely to discern that she had a bad reputation, since her coming to the well alone suggested that. Yet Jesus further revealing that she had been married five times before and was not married to her current boyfriend was not the sort of thing a stranger could have known.

Third, Jesus crosses the cultural and ethnic barrier. As we already learned in 4:9, Jews did not deal with Samaritans—and vice versa. Now the woman claims that Jesus is a prophet. As best as we can reconstruct on the basis of later Samaritan traditions, however, Samaritans did not believe in regular prophets, apart from an end-time prophet like Moses. By calling this Jew a prophet, she implicitly acknowledges that the Jewish people rather than the Samaritans are right about God (as Jesus reaffirms in 4:22).

When she goes on to say, “Our ancestors worshiped at this mountain” (Mount Gerizim, in full view of the well), “but you Jews worship in Jerusalem,” we might suppose that she is trying to change the subject in order to evade the issue of her immorality. But such a cultural reading is far from how Samaritans would have understood it. If Jesus is a prophet, then her entire religious worldview must be reconstructed.

The most fundamental point of contention between Jews and Samaritans was their respective holy sites. This is evident already in the verb tenses she employs—“Your ancestors worshipped (aorist) . . . , but you Jews worship” (present) . . .” Jews had destroyed the Samaritans’ temple on Mount Gerizim about 150 years earlier. Samaritans would never have been able to destroy Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, but they had once desecrated it and continue to ridicule it. Samaritans were now barred from Jerusalem’s temple. Thus, if the Jewish people are right and the Samaritans wrong, how can this woman worship God?

Jesus responds that the true site of worship is neither in Jerusalem nor on Mount Gerizim. Rather, the true place is in Spirit and in truth (possibly a hendiadys for “in the Spirit of truth”). That is, no physical location defines where God is to be worshipped; what matters is Spirit-empowered worship (4:24). God is so great that no worship of him is adequate unless God’s own Spirit births it. The true temple is us dwelling in God and God dwelling in us (cf. John 14:23). Even in Revelation, where we might expect an eschatological temple like the one described in Ezekiel 40-48, we find something better, not worse, than Ezekiel’s vision. The entire New Jerusalem, which is shaped like the Holy of Holies, has no need of a temple, for God dwells with all his people in all the city. God himself and the Lamb are its temple (Rev 21:22).

Because the true temple is one in the Spirit, Jesus crossed those three barriers to make this woman a true worshiper of God. Because true worship is not limited to any geographic location or ethnicity or culture, we must cross every barrier to introduce people to new life (hence true worship of God) in the Spirit.

In Ephesians, Paul’s vision of a new spiritual temple is no afterthought to his theology; in earlier letters he had already addressed all believers as a spiritual temple (1 Cor 3:16; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16) and those who offer spiritual worship (Rom 12:1). Even more critically, the bringing together of Jews and Gentiles had always been a dominant element in his preaching. In the United States, where in some locations blacks and whites once had to eat at different lunch counters, I like to remark that Paul once challenged Peter at a segregated lunch counter (Gal 2:11-14).

Paul is most explicit about this perspective in Romans, probably because the church in Rome had special problems surrounding it. Following Claudius’ edict (probably c. AD 49), many Jewish Christians left Rome (Acts 18:1-3); but when Claudius died a few years later, some returned (Rom 16:3). Many or most scholars believe that the consequent influx of Jewish believers into what had for several years been a largely Gentile movement in Rome set the stage for the clash of cultures there. I agree that this scenario is very likely, but we may be even more certain about Paul’s solution, since it remains explicit in the letter itself, in which he goes out of his way to emphasize that salvation is for both Jew and Gentile (e.g., 1:16; 10:11-13). The body of his letter climaxes with scriptural proofs for Jews and Gentiles worshiping God together (15:6-12).

Paul constructs all of Romans to advance this theme. Jewish hearers would agree with his verdict that the Gentiles are lost (1:18-32), but he uses this same verdict to establish in the next two chapters that Jews are also lost (2:1 through 3:23). Thus, Paul argues, all must come to God the same way—i.e., through Jesus Christ (3:24-31). Some Jewish people would have demurred, holding that they were saved because they were chosen in Abraham! Paul responds that, far from being able to depend on ancestral merit, they must follow Abraham’s model, which is justification through faith alone (4:1-5:11). Moreover, if they wished to appeal to their ancestry in Abraham, he reminds them of everyone’s common ancestry in Adam, who introduced sin (5:12-21).

Jewish people might object that the law gave them a righteousness that unconverted Gentiles could not possess and (close to Paul’s concern here) that converted Gentiles could acquire only with difficulty. Many sages felt most Jews usually kept all 613 commandments that Jewish tradition found in the Torah, whereas most Gentiles could not even maintain the seven commandments that Jewish tradition attributed to Noah. But Paul insists that the law, although it was meant to bring life, actually facilitated his death because it could not transform him (7:7-25). The law could inform him about righteousness but could transform him only if written in his heart by the Spirit (8:2; cf. Ezek 36:26-27; 2 Cor 3:3-6).

Now in Romans 9 through 11, Paul comes to the heart of his argument about the relation between Jew and Gentile. Jewish people believed that they were chosen in Abraham, but Paul insists that, with respect to salvation, God is not bound to choose on the basis of ethnicity. Indeed, he warns that “not all Israel’s descendants are Israel” nor are all Abraham’s descendants counted as his children (9:6-7). Abraham had two sons while Sarah remained alive—Isaac and Ishmael—yet only one received the promise (9:7-8), although both were blessed. Likewise, Isaac had two sons—Esau and Jacob—but only one received the promise (9:10-13). In view of this pattern, how could Jewish people assume that they automatically belonged to the saving covenant based on their ethnicity?

But lest we think that Paul lectures only the minority of Jewish believers in Jesus involved with the Roman church, he decisively challenges the now-complacent and dominant Gentile believers as well. Not only is there still a remnant of Jewish believers (11:1-5) and a long-range hope for the Jewish people submitting to Jesus (11:12, 15, 26-27), but also Gentile believers are merely grafted as proselytes into Israel’s heritage (11:17-21). As God used Israel’s disobedience to afford opportunity for Gentiles’ repentance before the end of the age, he also uses Gentiles’ obedience through Christ to provoke Israel’s jealousy that eschatological expectations about Gentiles are being fulfilled through Christ (11:13-14).

Having established the theological groundwork, Paul now turns to the practical demand that follows from these observations—i.e., believers need to serve one another (12:9-15), for the heart of the law is loving one another (13:8-10). On a practical level, this teaching especially meant that Gentile believers must not look down on Jewish people’s food customs or holy days (Rom 14:1-15:6), which ancient sources show Roman Gentiles frequently did. Rather, Paul urges unity in Christ that welcomes, not suppresses, the diversity of our cultures.

Paul concludes that argument by citing scriptures for Jews and Gentiles united in common worship of Israel’s true God (15:6-12) then offers the following examples of Jewish-Gentile cooperation:

• Paul, a Jewish missionary, evangelizes Gentiles (15:18-24).

• Paul brings an offering from the mixed diaspora churches to the needy believers in Jerusalem (15:25-27) and invites the Gentile Roman believers to partner with him in prayer (15:30) and support (15:24, 28).

• Paul exhorts both Jewish and Gentile believers to beware of those who cause division among them (16:17).

Personal note. When I was going through the deepest crisis of my life since my conversion, an African-American family basically adopted me into their family and circle of churches and nurtured me back to wholeness. African-Americans had survived slavery and countless other trials and had learned how to depend on God in ways that I had not discovered in the white church circles of which I had usually been a part. Since 1991 I have been a minister in a largely African-American church movement. My wife, who is from the Congo in Central Africa, survived 18 months as a refugee during an ethnic war in her country. Over that time, she and her family showed love to people from the other side of the war, including providing for a foreign mercenary (working for that other side) who had been captured and abused. We have observed that Christ’s love must transcend ethnic boundaries, no matter what the cost.

The image of united, multi-cultural worship to God continues into the latest parts of the New Testament, the closing witness of the first apostolic church. Thus the ‘furniture’ that Revelation depicts in heaven evokes that of the biblical temple—the ark (Rev 11:19), an altar of sacrifice (6:9), an altar of incense (8:3-5), a sea (4:6; 15:2; cf. 1 Kings 7:23-25), lamps (Rev 4:5), and even harps (14:2; 15:2). Indeed, it is called both a tabernacle (Rev 13:6; 15:5) and a temple (14:15, 17; 15:5-8; 16:1, 17). So what does one do in a temple? In particular, one worships. Whereas the scenes of earth in Revelation involve judgment (e.g., chs. 6; 8-9; 16) or the worship of the beast (13:4, 8, 12, 15; 14:11; 16:2; 19:20; cf. 9:20), the scenes of heaven involve worshipping God and the Lamb (4:8-10; 5:9-14; 7:11; 11:1, 16; 14:7; 19:4).

Likewise, in the eternal future, the very shape of the New Jerusalem evokes (as noted earlier) the Holy of Holies (21:16; cf. 1 Kings 6:20). One would normally not expect a city to be over 2,000 kilometers high, but its equal length, breadth, and height reinforces the allusion to the Holy of Holies. When God promises that he will dwell among his people there (21:3), he portrays the city not only as a temple, but also as the Holy of Holies itself! Thus the eternal future, involving ‘heaven on earth’ so to speak, continues the worship that Revelation reveals already in heaven (22:3). Although the New Jerusalem is for all believers, it is founded on the twelve tribes of Israel and the twelve apostles of the Lamb (21:12, 14).

One of Revelation’s scenes of worship shows that the multi-cultural multitude has been grafted into Israel’s heritage (7:9-17). Although this multitude is comprised of members from all peoples (7:9), Jesus’s followers are depicted in language evoking prophetic promises to Israel, because devotion to Israel’s true king rather than ethnicity determines one’s status in God’s covenant (cf. 2:9; 3:9). Thus, they neither hunger nor thirst nor suffer from the sun, but the Lamb leads them to springs of water (7:16). Revelation’s language here mirrors Isaiah 49:10, where God would protect his people from hunger, thirst, and the sun and would lead them to springs of water. In Revelation 7:17, the Lamb wipes away the tears of his followers; and in Isaiah 25:8, at the resurrection God would wipe away his people’s tears. By the way this passage reframes Old Testament prophecies, it emphasizes that Jesus is God and that his followers from all nations are together God’s people.

This scene immediately follows another vision in which God has 144,000 servants from Israel’s twelve tribes. Since scripture predicts the turning of the Jewish people to Christ in the end time (Rom 11:26-27), we cannot rule out the possibility that this eschatological event is the point of this image in Revelation. Sometimes in scripture, however, a second vision or dream simply re-articulates the point of the first one (e.g., Gen 37:7, 9; 40:1-7), and that may be the case here.

We have already seen that 7:9-17 portrays believers from all nations as part of God’s people. So what is the likelihood that this is the case for the 144,000? We do know that Revelation portrays all believers as spiritually Jewish, grafted into Israel’s heritage (e.g., 1:20; 2:9; 3:9). Moreover, the 144,000 is the number of God’s servants (7:3-4), which elsewhere in Revelation involves the saved (1:1; 10:7; 11:18; 19:2, 5; 22:3, 6). The seal on them connects them with all believers (3:12; 22:4; cf. 2 Cor 1:22; Eph 1:13; 4:30; Ezek 9:4; Ps. Sol. 15:6-9). Further, John’s vision omits the tribe of Dan from the list of tribes, which is a curious omission if he intends the designation literally, since in Ezekiel the tribe of Dan receives the first eschatological allotment (Ezek 48:1).

Most importantly, Revelation reuses these numbers later. Although translations sometimes obscure the figures, the New Jerusalem is 12,000 stadia (about 1,500 miles or 2,400 kilometers) cubed, with a wall of some 144 cubits (over 200 feet or nearly 80 meters) (21:16-17). A wall of that size is utterly disproportionate to a city that’s 1,500 miles (2,400 kilometers) long, wide, and tall. But Revelation elsewhere informs us that the measurements involve the people, not just the place (11:1). The New Jerusalem is the city of God for the people of God, a city whose very dimensions evoke the 144,000. When John saw the Lamb’s followers standing on Mount Zion (14:1), it was likely because they symbolized the citizens of the new Zion.

Revelation speaks of two cities. One is the city of the present evil empires (this present world), portrayed as Babylon the prostitute and decorated with gold and pearls (17:3-5). Those without faith to await the future city settle for the prostitute. But those who keep themselves chaste, such as the 144,000 in 14:4, await a better city—the New Jerusalem (the bride of Christ), whose streets are gold and whose gates pearls (21:2, 10-11, 18-21). This world is nothing compared to the world to come!

Ancient cities always had temples, but John says of the New Jerusalem, “I saw no temple there . . .” (21:16). The New Jerusalem itself, and New Jerusalemites (cf. 3:12), are God’s temple (21:3). He dwells in us, and we dwell in him (21:22). In a city whose gates were named for the twelve tribes and its foundation stones for the twelve apostles, Jew and Gentile together worship God and the Lamb in the fullness of their glory forever and ever. The city of God for the people of God includes all who follow the Lamb.

How central is our unity in Christ? It is central enough to transcend all other loyalties, so that loyalty to Christ as Lord entails loyalty to one another as God’s family, above all ethnic, cultural, and earthly kinship connections. It is central enough that Paul repeatedly emphasizes it as a necessary corollary of the gospel. It is central enough that the worship that God desires is a united worship of believers from many different peoples and languages. We are different, bringing diverse cultural gifts; but we are one, for God (the Lord whom we worship) is One.

See e.g., Josephus Ant. 3.318-19; 15.417; War 5.194; 6.124-26, 426-27; m. Kel. 1:8. Such purity regulations may be partly in mind in Eph 2:15 as it relates to shattering the dividing wall in Eph 2:14.

Josephus Ant. 15.417; War 5.194; 6.125-26; cf. Philo Embassy 212; the inscription in Efrat Carmon, ed., Inscriptions Reveal: Documents from the Time of the Bible, the Mishna and the Talmud (trans. R. Grafman; Jerusalem: Israel Museum, 1973), pp. 76, 167-68, §169; G. Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), 80-81; comment in Jack Finegan, The Archeology of the New Testament: The Life of Jesus and the Beginning of the Early Church (Princeton: Princeton University, 1969), 119-20. Most ancients could not read, but presumably word would spread; many ancient temples had various sorts of purity regulations, some requiring death for violation (e.g., Strabo 14.6.3; Hesiod Astron. fig. 3).

Cf. Josephus War 6.126; m. Sanh. 9:6; discussion in Peretz Segal, “The ‘Divine Death Penalty’ in the Hatra Inscriptions and the Mishnah,” JJS 40, no. 1 (1989): 46-52.

I cover these observations from Acts in much more detail in my [Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, vol. 3.]

Dangerous riots sometimes occurred in the temple (Josephus War 2.224-27), requiring extra precautions during the festivals (War 5.244); this is probably a festival or just after one (see Acts 20:16).

From the staircase (Acts 21:40) noted in Josephus War 5.243-44.

Paul did exercise the rhetorical sensitivity to otherwise establish rapport first (as recommended in rhetoric; see e.g., Rhet. Alex. 29, 1436b.17-19, 38-40; 1437a.1-1438a.2; 1442a.22-1442b.27).

I treat this question more fully in my [Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, vol. 3] passim. Since Jesus prophesied this event before 70, this issue differs from the question of Acts’ dating; some evangelicals date Acts after 70 (e.g., F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary [3rd rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leicester: Apollos, 1990], 18, in contrast to his earlier view; Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998], 165-72), others before (e.g., E. M. Blaiklock, The Acts of the Apostles: An Historical Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959], 16; tentatively, Darrell L. Bock, Acts [BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007], 25-27).

Many scholars have argued against Pauline authorship; see e.g., Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians (WBC 42; Dallas: Word, 1990), lix-lxxiii; D. E. Nineham, “The Case Against the Pauline Authorship,” 21-35 in Studies in Ephesians, ed. F. L. Cross (London: A. R. Mowbray & Co., 1956); C. L. Mitton, Ephesians, NCBC (Greenwood, SC: Attic, 1976), 4-11; John C. Kirby, Ephesians: Baptism and Pentecost. An Enquiry into the Structure and Purpose of the Epistle to the Ephesians (Montreal: McGill University, 1968), 3-56. But in favor of Pauline authorship, see e.g., Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 2-61, 114-30 (thoroughly); J. N. Sanders, “The Case for the Pauline Authorship,” 9-20 in Studies in Ephesians, ed. Cross; John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: The Westminster; London: SCM, 1976), 63; Markus Barth, Ephesians (2 vols.; AB 34-34A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1974), 1:3-60; cf. A. Van Roon, The Authenticity of Ephesians (NovTSup 39; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1974), 37-44; Henry J. Cadbury, “The Dilemma of Ephesians,” NTS 5, no. 2 (1959): 91-102. I believe that the style is sufficiently Pauline, if one allows for some “Asianist” rhetoric and his increased skill in using Stoic language (as in Philippians; cf. Acts 19:9), and that Hoehner’s argument (favoring Paul’s authorship) is compelling.

For this approach to the circular letter, see e.g., Hoehner, Ephesians, 78-79, 144-48; J. Armitage Robinson, St Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians (2nd ed.; London: James Clarke & Co. Ltd., 1904), 11; Frank Stagg, The Book of Acts: The Early Struggle for an Unhindered Gospel (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1955), 199; J. Massyngberde Ford, Revelation (AB 38; Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, 1975), 389; Clinton E. Arnold, Ephesians: Power and Magic. The Concept of Power in Ephesians in Light of its Historical Setting (SNTSMS 63; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1989), 5-6. Manuscripts could also generalize originally more specific addressees; see Harry Y. Gamble, “Canonical Formation of the New Testament,” 183-94 in Dictionary of New Testament Background (ed. Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), 186; Lincoln, Ephesians, 1-4.

Josephus War 2.266-70, 457-58.

Historically, see Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 560-63, and the many sources cited there; also my forthcoming work on the historical Jesus of the Gospels.

Qumran also spoke of a spiritual temple (e.g., 1QS 8.5-9; Bertril Gärtner, The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament: A Comparative Study in the Temple Symbolism of the Qumran Texts and the New Testament [Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1965], 16-46), but Gentiles were excluded.

Matthew and Luke, laying emphasis instead on the judgment element, omit “Gentiles” here.

Cf. e.g., E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 70, 368. Skeptics about Jesus’s prediction exercise a double standard against canonical texts; some other Jewish people expected judgment on the temple before the event occurred (T. Mos. 6:8-9; 1 En. 90:28-29; 11QTemple 29:8-10; Josephus War 6.301, 304, 306, 309), and others also prophesied Roman conquest before it happened (e.g., 1QpHab 9.6-7). Many less skeptical scholars also point to multiple attestation in favor of Jesus’s warning.

See e.g., Michael F. Bird, Jesus and the Origins of the Gentile Mission (LNTS 331; London: T&T Clark International, 2006).

On the eschatological temple in Jewish expectation, see Sanders, Jesus and Judasm, 77-90.

See my article, “Human Stones in a Greek Setting: Lk 3:8; Matt 3:9; Lk 19:40," Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism, 6 (2009): 28-36.

I treat this in greater detail, and with further documentation, in Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (2 vols.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 611-19.

The verb dei refers to divine necessity elsewhere in John (3:7, 14, 30; 4:20, 24; 9:4; 10:16; 12:34; 20:9), and probably bears this sense here (Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes [NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971], 255; Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John [2 vols.; AB 29-29A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, 1966-1970], 1:169; J. Ramsey Michaels, John [GNC; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984], 59). Samaria was the preferred route (Josephus War 2.232; Ant. 10.118), but “necessary” only if one required haste (Life 269), which Jesus apparently did not (John 4:40).

E.g., Sir 9:9; 42:12; m. Ab. 1:5; Ket. 7:6; t. Shab. 1:14; b. Ber. 43b, bar. More widely, see e.g., Euripides Electra 343-44; Livy 34.2.9, 18 (though most Romans were more progressive). In the Middle East today, Carol Delaney, “Seeds of Honor, Fields of Shame,” 35-48 in Honor and Shame and the Unity of the Mediterranean (ed. David D. Gilmore; AAAM 22; Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association, 1987), 41, 43.

E.g., Sophocles Antig. 416; Apollonius Rhodius 2.739; 4.1312-13; Ovid Metam. 1.591-92; Jos. Asen. 3:2/3:3. People thus normally broke from work and found shade at this time (e.g., Columella Trees 12.1; Longus 2.4; Ovid Metam. 3.143-54). It aroused thirst (Livy 44.36.1-2; Longus 3.31), also relevant here (John 4:7).

Cf. e.g., Brown, John, 1:169.

M. Nid. 4:1; Toh. 5:8; t. Nid. 5:1; see comments in David Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, n.d.; London: University of London, 1956), 373.§19.

Arrian Alex. 2.3.4; perhaps Lam. Rab. 1:1, §19.

F. F. Bruce, New Testament History (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, 1972), 37-38; idem, The Time is Fulfilled (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 39. Josephus’ Samaritan prophet on Mount Gerizim (Ant. 18.85-86) possibly fits this expectation.

For Samaritan emphasis on Mount Gerizim, see Josephus Ant. 18.85-87; War 3.307-15; t. A.Z. 3:13; John Bowman, Samaritan Documents Relating to Their History, Religion & Life (POTTS 2; Pittsburgh, PA: Pickwick, 1977), 14.

Josephus War 1.63-66; Ant. 13.255-56. Scholars have cited possible archaeological evidence for its destruction; see Robert J. Bull, “Field Report XII,” BASOR 180 (Dec. 1965): 37-41, here 41; Finegan, Archeology, 35; Howard Clark Kee, “Tell-Er-Ras and the Samaritan Temple,” NTS 13, no. 4 (1967): 401-2; G. G. Garner, “The Temples of Mt. Gerizim. Tell er Ras—Probable Site of the Samaritan Temple,” Buried History 11, no. 1 (1975): 33-42; Benedikt Schwank, “Grabungen auf ‘diesem Berg’ (Joh 4,20-21). Der archäologische Beitrag,” BK 47, no. 4 (1992): 220-21. Others, however, find this more questionable; see Robert T. Anderson, “The Elusive Samaritan Temple,” BA 54, no. 2 (1991): 104-7; but cf. John McRay, “Archaeology and the NT,” 93-100 in Dictionary of NT Background, 96.

Josephus Ant. 18.29-30.

See e.g., Gen. Rab. 32:10; 81:3; cf. Luke 9:51-53.

Josephus Ant. 18.30. This exclusion began in the time of Coponius (Ant. 18.29), who was governor from 6-9 CE.

With Brown, John, 1:180.

Cf. Phil 3:3; discussion in Keener, John, 615-19.

See Craig Keener, Revelation (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 497, especially 504.

I address this theme in Romans in more detail in Keener, “Gospel and Reconciliation,” 122-25; idem, “Invitations,” 208-10; also my Romans, New Covenant Commentary Series (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009).

Suetonius Claud. 25.4. For the date, see e.g., Arthur Darby Nock, “Religious Developments from the Close of the Republic to the Death of Nero,” 465-511 in The Augustan Empire: 44 B.C. – A.D. 70, vol. 10 in The Cambridge Ancient History (12 vols., ed. S. A. Cook, F. E. Adcock and M. P. Charlesworth; Cambridge: University Press, 1966), 500; Rudolf Brändle and Ekkehard W. Stegemann, “The Formation of the First ‘Christian Congregations’ in Rome in the Context of the Jewish Congregations,” 117-27 in Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome (ed. Karl P. Donfried and Peter Richardson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 125-26; George Howard, “The Beginnings of Christianity in Rome: A Note on Suetonius, Life of Claudius XXV.4,” ResQ 24, no. 3 (1981): 175-77; Stanley E. Porter, “Chronology, New Testament,” 201-8 in Dictionary of New Testament Background, 206; Robert O. Hoerber, “The Decree of Claudius in Acts 18:2,” CTM 31, no. 11 (1960): 690-94; Jacob Jervell, Die Apostelgeschichte (KEKNT 17; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 458; Lo Lung-Kwong, Paul’s Purpose in Writing Romans: The Upbuilding of A Jewish and Gentile Christian Community in Rome (Jian Dao DS 6, Bible and Literature 4; Hong Kong: Alliance Bible Seminary, 1998), 78-82; Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries (ed. Marshall D. Johnson; trans. Michael Steinhauser; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 11-16.

E.g., A. Andrew Das, Paul and the Jews (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2003), 53-61; James D. G. Dunn, Romans (2 vols.; WBC 38A, B; Dallas: Word, 1988), 1:liii; Lung-Kwong, Purpose, 78-82; Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1996), 5; Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 12-14, 797-98; Thomas H. Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts: The Argument of Romans (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 35-41; A. Katherine Grieb, The Story of Romans: A Narrative Defense of God’s Righteousness (Louisville, London: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 7.

For Paul seeking to reconcile Jewish and Gentile believers in Rome, see e.g., W. S. Campbell, “Why Did Paul Write Romans?” Expository Times 85, no. 9 (1974) 264-69; Bruce Chilton, Judaic Approaches to the Gospels (USFISFCJ, vol. 2; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), 222-24; Schreiner, Romans, 19-21; Lung-Kwong, Purpose, 413-14.

Technically, most of Romans’ audience is ethnically Gentile (cf. 1:5, 13; 11:13), though they will identify with the Jewish roots of their faith.

Neh 9:7; Mic 7:20; E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 87-101; Marcus J. Borg, Conflict, Holiness & Politics in the Teachings of Jesus (SBEC 5; New York: Edwin Mellen, 1984), 207.

Jewish people agreed that Adam introduced sin and death (4 Ezra 3:7; 4:30; 2 Bar. 17:2-3; 23:4; 48:42-45; 56:5-6; L.A.E. 44:3-4; Sipre Deut. 323.5.1; 339.1.2), but many believed that his descendants also replicated the sin (4 Ezra 3:21; 2 Bar. 18:1-2; 54:15, 19; cf. 4 Ezra 4 Ezra 7:118-26).

I agree with most scholars that the point of Rom 7 is life under the law more generally, not Paul’s personal autobiography, but believe that Paul’s own background enables and informs his description. The point would not differ for our purposes in any case.

The sense of “Israel” in the immediate context of 11:26 seems ethnic rather than spiritual; cf. Johannes Munck, Christ & Israel: An Interpretation of Romans 9-11 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967), 136; George E. Ladd, “Israel and the Church,” Evangelical Quarterly 36 (1964): 206-13.

For Gentile converts as proselytes here, see Terence L. Donaldson, “‘Riches for the Gentiles’ (Rom 11:12): Israel's Rejection and Paul's Gentile Mission,” JBL 112, no. 1 (1993): 81-98; idem, “Israelite, Convert, Apostle to the Gentiles: The Origin of Paul’s Gentile Mission,” 62-84 in The Road from Damascus: The Impact of Paul’s Conversion on His Life, Thought, and Ministry (ed. Richard N. Longenecker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 81-82; idem, Paul and the Gentiles: Remapping the Apostle’s Convictional World (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), 230-47; also Richard B. Hays, The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005): 5.

See discussion in Mark D. Nanos, The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 249-50; see also Craig S. Keener, “Interdependence and Mutual Blessing in the Church,” in Introduction to Messianic Judaism: Its Ecclesial Context and Biblical Foundations (ed. David Rudolph and Joel Willitts; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013), 187-95.

See e.g., Juvenal Sat. 14.96-106.

Perhaps even over food (16:18). Nevertheless, “belly” was used widely in moralistic literature for any uncontrolled passions; see e.g., 3 Macc 7:11; Philo Spec. Laws 1.148, 192, 281; 4.91; further sources in Keener, Matthew, 342; for “slave of the belly,” as here, see e.g., Maximus of Tyre Or. 25.6; Achilles Tatius 2.23.1; Philostratus V.A. 1.7.

On the story, see e.g., Lynette Blair Mitchell, “Charismatic Scholar Targets Racism,” Charisma (June 1996): 28, 30; Gayle White, “Colorblind Calling,” The Atlanta Journal & Constitution (Nov. 3, 1991): M1, 4; Flo Johnston, “Ordination will cross racial lines,” Religious News Service (e.g., in Chicago Tribune, Aug. 9, 1991, secton 2.9).

See e.g., Craig Keener and Médine Moussounga Keener, “Reconciliation for Africa: Resources for Ethnic Reconciliation” (Bukuru: Africa Christian Textbooks, 2006), 12; Craig Keener and Médine Moussounga Keener, Impossible Love (Grand Rapids: Chosen, 2016).

See also Keener, Revelation, 91-92.

This echoes Nebuchadnezzar’s empire (e.g., Dan 3:7, 31; 5:19; 6:25; 7:14; esp. 3:4), but God’s kingdom would supplant all worldly empires (2:44-45), and will include representatives from all peoples (7:13-14; see Richard Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993], 326-29).

With most commentators, e.g., G. B. Caird, A Commentary on the Revelation of Saint John the Divine [HNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1966], 94-95; Mathias Rissi, Time and History: A Study on the Revelation (trans. Gordon C. Winsor; Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1966), 89, 110; Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977], 168-70; George R. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation (NCBC; Greenwood, SC: Attic; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1974], 140; Bauckham, Climax, 399; Alan F. Johnson, Revelation (Expositor’s Bible Commentary; Zondervan, 1996), 85; J. Ramsey Michaels, Revelation (IVPNTC; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997), 113; Gregory K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 412-23. I address this in Keener, Revelation, 230-33.

Lampstands were the most pervasive symbol for Judaism in the Roman empire; see e.g., CIJ 1:8, §4; 1:16, §14; 2:12, §743; 2:32, §771 and passim through 2:53, §801 (CIJ altogether contains about 200 examples); Harry J. Leon, The Jews of Ancient Rome (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1960), 49, 196-97; Erwin R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period (13 vols.; New York: Pantheon Books for Bollingen Foundation, 1953-1965), 12:79-83.

To compensate, some translations assign the cubit measure to the wall’s thickness (see Ezek 41:9, 12; see Aune, Revelation [3 vols.; WBC 52, 52b, 52c; Dallas: Word, 1997], 1162), but this is still utterly disproportionate from an ancient or even modern engineering standpoint.

I do agree with those who see Babylon through the lens of Rome, because Rome was the “Babylon” of John’s day (having destroyed Jerusalem like Babylon of old, and becoming even a Jewish cipher for Rome; see 1 Pet 5:13; Sib. Or. 5.143, 159-61; 4 Ezra 3:1-2, 28; 2 Bar. 11:1-2; 67:7). But the very use of the symbolic title “Babylon” also looks beyond Rome, epitomizing more generally evil empire (i.e., what is analogous to Babylon).

This contrasts starkly with ancient Jewish expectations (Jub. 1:27-29; 1 En. 90:28-29; Sib. Or. 3.702-6; m. Ab. 5:20; Taan. 4:8; fully Charles H. Talbert, The Apocalypse: A Reading of the Revelation of John [Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1994], 102).

I evoke here the Shema (Deut 6:4), a fundamental principle of Judaism (cf. e.g., Let. Aris. 131-32; m. Ber. 1:1 and passim; Tam. 5:1; Sipre Deut. 31.4.1; William Oscar Emil Oesterley, The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy (Oxford: Clarendon, 1925), 42-46; Ephraim E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (2d ed.; 2 vols.; trans. Israel Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes, Hebrew University, 1979), 1:19-36, 400-2) and a basic presupposition of NT theology (Mark 12:29; Rom 3:30; 1 Cor 8:6; Jas 2:19).