That Fateful Shavu'ot
A fresh look at Acts 2 through the eyes of "Progressive Revelation"
| Written by Ariel Berkowitz |
The principle of Biblical continuity, or progressive revelation, is an
important factor to consider when we are attempting to understand how the
revelation of the Brit Chadasha relates to the revelation in the period of
the Torah. Progressive revelation is the theological way of describing the
fact that God discloses His truths in a gradual and deliberate manner. Dr.
Clarence E. Mason defines this concept, as follows: "It was not God's
purpose to reveal all the truth concerning any one doctrine at one given
time. Rather His method has been to unfold progressively the doctrine
through successive writers. In light of this fact, later books may be
expected to elaborate upon and elucidate the teachings of the earlier."1
There are many examples that can illustrate the concept of progressive revelation. Perhaps one of the most exciting is comparing the concept of the Mishkan/Temple in the Tanakh with the Temple discussed in the Brit Chadasha. When we explore this comparison, we will be better equipped to understand one of the most important events in the history of God's people, the events that took place in Acts chapter 2 and that fateful Pentecost.
Evangelical scholars generally agree that "The Word teaches that the Church was founded on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2)." 1 We think that there might be another explanation for what happened in Acts chapter 2.
What we are about to say is merely a suggestion! We do not mean to propagate the following as if it is absolute truth. It is difficult to be a theological fish and attempt to swim upstream against the current fashions of biblical interpretation. In a sense, that is what we are about to do in presenting our theory below. What you are about to read is our attempt to practice the principle of progressive revelation and apply it to the biblical teaching concerning the nature of the body of Messiah. Please grant us the grace to be wrong, if necessary! At the same time, please give the following ideas a chance.
Having written the above preface, here is our thinking regarding what happened in Acts 2 and how it demon strates a biblical continuity between the Mishkan/Temple of the Tanakh and that of the Brit Chadasha.
We do not necessarily agree with Dr. Thiessen and a host of other fine Bible teachers who suggest that the church was born on Pentecost in Acts chapter 2. Yes, we do agree that something special did happen when the Ruach haKodesh (Holy Spirit) visited God's people on that fateful Shavu'ot. Yet, we do not think that this event was the beginning of a movement which would divorce itself from the Land, the people, and the Scriptures of Israel.
At the outset, we should note that the group of Messianic believers who were worshiping God on this Holy Day were Jewish believers. They were wondering when God would "restore the kingdom to Israel" (Acts 1:6). Messianic Jews in the Book of Acts never departed from the Torah in lifestyle or worship; they simply knew Yeshua to be the focal point of the community in which the Torah was the basis of life and instruction. Furthermore, they expected this same type of community to exist with the new believers from among the nations; this became especially evident when they encouraged the God-fearers to continue following the Torah.
Another Movable "Mishkan"In our opinion, the events which occurred on this occasion represent a shift from that which was a covenant reality in the period of the Tanakh to a change under the Renewed Covenant. The major change lay in the form in which the Temple was now to exist. In the Torah, God commanded that a Mishkan (Tabernacle) be built, where He would manifest Himself and where the people would worship Him via offerings and sacrifices. Later, this movable Mishkan was made permanent and named Beit haMikdash, the Temple. Now from the time of the events of Acts 2, this Temple would again become a movable Mishkan. However, the materials for this new Temple would be what the Brit Chadasha calls "living stones"-the lives of all who are called by God's grace to be a part of the body of Messiah.
To understand our viewpoint, one must realize that the meeting of believers recorded at the opening of chapter 2 took place in the Temple. The fact that the "blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting" (italics ours) leads many to believe that the disciples were meeting in the "upper room." However, scholar Danny Litvin rightly observes:
Such an interpretation is fraught with difficulties. It is impossible to imagine a crowd of three thousand people or more gathered with the disciples (verse 6) if they were in a small upper room. Even if the room had a balcony and the disciples were all standing on it speaking in tongues, the narrow streets of Jerusalem would not allow three thousand people to hear voices emanating from one small balcony.2
In addition, "the house" does not necessarily refer to a person's private home. Rather, this phrase was commonly used during the Second Temple period to denote the Temple itself. Litvin states:
There is no need to assume that they were sitting together having a meal or discussing things around a table or on the floor. If one were to say in Hebrew, "He is in the house," [one] would say, "He is sitting in the house." This is a Hebrew idiom used to indicate location. Secondly, the Hebrew word for house (bayit) can either mean an everyday house in which people live or the Temple which stood on Mount Moriah·.Even today, in Israel, if you were to take a taxi and ask the driver to take you to the Temple Mount, you would ask him to take you to "Har HaBayit," which translated literally means "Mountain of the House." 3
Where would these Torah-observant Jews have been on the morning of Shavu'ot? It seems clear that the disciples were meeting on the Temple Mount, celebrating Shavu'ot as was their custom every year of their lives, as did the rest of their Torah-observant countrymen.
Indeed, this location is a central part of our argument. In Acts chapter 2, because of what He did on that day, it seems that God was making a clear statement about the new Temple. It appears that He was saying that the new and the visible Temple in the world would now be one in which living stones would be built into a spiritual house "·upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Messiah Yeshua Himself being the corner {stone} in whom the whole building, being fitted together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit." (Ephesians 2:21-22)
We believe this for two reasons. First, the Brit Chadasha clearly speaks of the chosen remnant of God as the Temple. I Corinthians 3:16-17, I Corinthians 6:19-20 and Ephesians 2:19-20 all describe the called-out holy community which was living the Torah. The Holy community, in so doing, functioned as the Temple of the living God.
We know that within a few years after the Shavu'ot of Acts 2, the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, thus completing the shift of emphasis from a Temple made of stones to a house made of living stones. Consequently, the Shavu'ot of that year became the day in which God made a public proclamation before the nation of Israel: The holy community of believers in Yeshua would now be His Temple. This was not necessarily understood on that day; rather, we are able to discern it now in light of the completed revelation of the Brit Chadasha. (However, we would not be surprised to find out that many on that day had their eyes opened by the Spirit of God to exactly this message!)
The second reason for our interpretation of Acts chapter 2 is our understanding of the flames of fire which alighted on the heads of Yeshua's disciples. What were these flames? The Torah states in Leviticus 9:23 that when the priests and Levites were consecrated for their ministry, they came out "blessed the people, and the glory of the Lord appeared to all the people. Fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed the burnt offering and the fat portions on the altar." A Talmudic tradition based on this passage in Leviticus holds that this fire, while in context coming from the Holy of Holies, actually emanated from the heavens.77 In other words, God sent fire from heaven for the altar of sacrifice.
On the Shavu'ot of Acts 2, just as God had sent the fire from heaven (from the presence of the Lord) to alight upon the altar of sacrifices, so also did He send this fire from heaven upon His new altar-the body of believers. The text in verse 3 indicates that the fire divided into tongues that touched each of the disciples, thus identifying them as the living stones which now would make up His Temple.
Accordingly, the Brit Chad-asha instructs believers, "I urge you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, {which is} your spiritual service of worship." (Romans 12:1) The flames of fire upon the altar of sacrifice in the Tabernacle consumed the burnt offerings, enabling the savor of that sacrifice to rise up to God as a pleasing aroma. In the same way, God smells the sweet aroma of our lives as we daily offer ourselves in service to Him as living sacrifices. When we offer our bodies as instruments of God's righteousness on the earth, rather than walking carelessly in our flesh, the sweet aroma of our sacrifice brings Him great pleasure.
In addition to the Talmudic tradition about the fire from heaven coming down to set the altar of sacrifice ablaze, another rabbinic tradition says that a portion of that same flame was carried into the Holy Place and used for the fire upon the altar of incense.78 As indicated in the Book of Revelation, the incense represents the prayers of the saints (Revelation 5:8); hence, just as the incense was to burn continually in the Temple, we as believers are instructed to pray without ceasing.
There is another compelling reason to believe that the events recorded in Acts 2 happened in the Temple Mount and not in the Upper Room. We are told in Acts 2:41 that after Peter preached a sermon, "So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and there were added that day about three thousand souls." That is a lot of people to believe at one time! What is just as startling, however, is the fact that they were all baptized! Anyone who has ever been to Jerusalem knows that there are no lakes, small ponds, or even sizable streams in the vicinity of Jerusalem which can accommodate such a mass baptism-that, is, if we think about baptism in a typical Baptist setting. In order to understand and appreciate how this occurred we need to know something about baptism and something about the layout of late Second Temple period Jerusalem.
Christians did not invent baptism. It was a practice of symbolic cleansing widely used by the Jewish people of the Second Temple period, and even perhaps before then. It was based on the Torah concept of cleanings. When someone was "baptized" he went into a small pool of running water and immersed himself. This was considered a symbolic act. The water itself did nothing for the person. Rather immersing into the water was a symbol of several different things. It symbolized a change of status such as changing from being a single person to a married person, or going into the ministry of being a Torah teacher (i.e. Yeshua's immersion). Another reason why a person would have immersed himself was to indicate that he was a convert to Judaism.
In addition, people also immersed themselves when they repented of their sins and sought to demonstrate the fact that God cleansed them of their sin by symbolically immersing into a pool of fresh water. Going into the water was likened to dying, since one became in a state picturing death (one cannot live under water). Coming up out of the water pictured a new life coming out of a womb.
These new Jewish believers were not converting to Judaism. They were possibly going through a change of status, especially when we consider the fact that God changed them from being a sinner to being a saint. Moreover, the God of Israel was also, cleansing them from their sin. Thus, it would have been quite natural for them to go to the mikveh. But what about the vast amount of people who went into the mikveh? Where could that have been done? Here we must relinquish any notion that there was a preacher standing, perhaps with his elders, dipping people backwards into the water while they held on to them. This scene may be typical of many of our contemporary churches, but it was unheard of among the Jewish people of the First Century. People simply immersed themselves. A witness stood by making sure that all of their body went into the water, and perhaps listening to their testimony. But an individual simply went under by himself.
In recent years, archaeologists have discovered dozens of mikva'ot (ritual immersion pools) located just outside the doors of the Second Temple period wall that surrounded the Temple mount. On this page as well as on page six at the beginning of this article several pictures are shown of one these ancient Mikva'ot. There was one structure alone that could easily accommodate hundreds of people going into the mikveh in a short period of time. When these Jewish men and women who had just believed in Yeshua as a result of Peter's preaching, went into the mikveh they undoubtedly would have given verbal testimony about the reason they were immersing themselves. Moreover, when they came out of the water, I am also sure that they would not have been able to contain the joy they experienced because they were forgiven and cleansed from their sin by the blood of Yeshua, their Messiah.
Essentially, then, in our view, the true meaning of that defining moment in Acts 2 hinges on two concepts. First, God used the flames of fire to identify the new Temple. This Temple would be like the movable Mishkan of old: rather than standing in a fixed spot, it would move with believers wherever they were sent with the Good News of Yeshua.
Up to this point, it had been the norm for the nations to come up to Jerusalem. Now the Temple would go out from Jerusalem-unto the uttermost parts of the earth. In the millennial age, the Temple will once again stand in the midst of Jerusalem and again, the nations will come up to worship the King in Jerusalem.
Second, it was at this moment that He gave us the essential gifts and empowerment we would need to accomplish the task of taking the Good News to all nations of the earth. All that was needed for us to be the true "movable mishkan" was provided for. Yeshua emphasized this necessary empowerment when He predicted the events recorded in Acts 2. Just before returning to His Father's throne in Acts 1:6-8, He told His students to wait in Jerusalem, presumably because Shavu'ot was approaching. Then He declared to them, "But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth." Notice the connection between the giving of the Spirit of God to Yeshua's followers, their empowerment, and their mission. As far as He was concerned, it was a simple sequence: the Spirit coming upon them to empower them for their new task, and the sending forth of His followers with that task.
There is biblical continuity between Israel-the people of God in the times of the Tanakh-and this present age. Admittedly, some differences may exist, such as the addition of multitudes to the continuing stream of the remnant people of God. Yet whatever characterized the believing community before Pentecost is that which would also characterize them afterward. Non-Jews together with the remnant of Israel are God's called-out people, designed to function most consistently in their identities as new creations and as a holy community when the Torah is being lived out in their midst. For, in addition to being that which established and defined the holy community in the past, the Torah is the basis for further instruction on the nature of that community in this present age. The epistles of the Brit Chadasha merely expound on its principles, while speaking to the specific needs of the local communities to whom they were sent.
There is a long history of stressing perceived differences between those called out before and after the events of Acts 2. If we continue in this manner of interpretation, we will remain a fractured body of Messiah-one in which the Church and Israel (represented by the believing remnant) are seen as two distinct spiritual entities, two different flows of the stream of God's covenanted people. This is neither necessary nor true to our reality as believers in the same Messiah!
