Commissioning a Stained Glass Installation

This article gives helpful advice for planning or commissioning a stained glass work, describing the process that might be used and important decisions that need to be made by both the artist and the commissioning congregation.

Stained glass, from its origins, has been an integral element of church architecture because of its inherently dynamic qualities. While it stimulates our visual senses, it stirs us emotionally toward a more reverential sensitivity, encouraging introspection and contemplation. Stained glass complements the liturgical action by infusing the place and people with a heightened sense of purpose.

However, like all aspects of building or renovation, the successful use of stained glass depends on careful and thoughtful planning. These notes will focus on the steps involved in commissioning stained glass work rather than aesthetic or stylistic considerations.

The Parish Team

A committee or task force for procuring stained glass should be formed early in the design of the project to work with the building team and the parish as a whole. This group is best comprised of a member of the building or renovation committee, the architect, the pastor or a representative, and several interested parishioners who reflect the diversity of the congregation but who are also knowledgeable in the arts. Five to seven members is a good size. This team is then charged with the selection of the artist or team of artists, with design review, parish communication, and cost control. (Editor’s note: We would encourage parishes to include an art consultant on the overall building/renovation committee. This person would also be included on the task force dealing with stained glass.)

The committee should begin by learning at least a bit of the history of stained glass and by visiting stained glass installations in the area to familiarize themselves with the scope of the medium. Then they are ready to determine the role of stained glass in their building. Important factors are:

  • Purpose: e.g., to express ideas, beliefs, feelings
  • Light: e.g., aesthetic effect, control, level of brightness, emphasis, color
  • Effect: e.g., quiet, calm, meditative, exciting, dynamic, joyful
  • Expression: e.g., realistic, symbolic, abstract
  • Style: e.g., attitude toward traditional or contemporary

Artist/Studio Selection

The committee can go to an independent artist/designer, or to a studio with a staff artist/designer. There are arguments to be made for either. The committee should consider both possibilities. Sources for learning about possible candidates include the architect, other churches, local arts organizations, and national organizations such as SGAA and IFRAA.

Initially, the committee should request from each candidate a brochure describing the person’s work, slides, and photos, a resume with references, and a list of previous commissions. By reviewing these materials, the committee can reduce the number of candidates to a manageable few. Each of these should then be invited for an interview. At the interview, the committee and the artist view and discuss the artist’s work; the committee shares with the artist their thoughts about the parish’s project, about the process, and possibly about the concept. The committee should inquire about costs, insurance, length of time for design and production, background and experience of any other persons who would be involved through the artist.

This selection of an artist should be made as soon as possible after the schematic (preliminary) design of the building or renovation so that the artist/designer can collaborate with the architect during the further development of the design. This allows for a high degree of integration between stained glass and the building itself.

Contracting the Artist

After the selection of the artist or studio, the relationship between the artist/studio and the parish (owner/client) should be set down in a contract. A complete contract usually involves the following:

  • Well-defined scope of services to be performed by the artist/studio
  • Description of the work and responsibilities involved in performing the scope of services
  • The work schedule and temporal conditions of the work’s performance
  • The cost/fee for the contracted work and an explicit payment schedule
  • Any terms or conditions that are peculiar to the project

The Design Process

The stained glass design process begins with a contract that commissions the artist. (Note that sometimes people suggest that the artist be selected by means of competitive [and unpaid] design submissions. This begins the design process before the artist is a member of the team and thus removes the possibility of productive interaction between the artist and other team members. The result of such competitions is often inferior art, and the whole process is unfair to the artists who are not selected.)

The first phase of the design process begins with meetings between the committee and the artist to share perceptions of the role stained glass will play in the project. The artist then initiates preliminary designs for the committee’s consideration. This process does not imply that the committee tells the artist how to design. Rather, the shared impressions and the interaction help the artist to become more sensitive to the character and personality of the community being served.

From these discussions, the artist prepares the final designs, preferably in a transparent form so that the effects of transmitted light are better understood. It is also beneficial if the artist provides a sample panel, or prototype, that demonstrates the materials and techniques that are proposed for use in the windows.

Upon approval of the final design, the committee’s work is essentially complete, although visits to the studio during production may be warranted and helpful. The success of the installed windows is, to a great extent, the result of the work of parishioners and building team members through their involvement in the early phases of the process.

Laying on of Hands in Israelite and Early Christian Worship

The Christian church has practiced the laying on of hands in the context of worship since apostolic times. In the New Testament, three purposes are associated with this act: healing, the impartation of the Holy Spirit, and commissioning for service.

The practice of the laying on of hands for blessing or consecration is of ancient origin. Jacob blessed the children of Joseph by laying his hands upon their heads (Gen. 48:14, 18). Worshipers in Israel laid their hands upon the head of their atonement sacrifices before offering them (Lev. 1:4). The “sons of Israel” laid their hands on the Levites in presenting them to the Lord (Num. 8:10 NASB). Like the sprinkling of blood, the laying on of hands constitutes an identification between the two participants in the ritual. Jacob claimed Joseph’s two sons as his own, including them in the family inheritance. The Israelite worshiper recognized that the slain animal was taking on itself the judgment belonging to the one who sacrificed it, and the sons of Israel presented the Levites to the Lord as a substitute for themselves and their children.

In the New Testament, the laying on of hands also indicates identification and confers blessing. Accordingly, it is regularly practiced in Christian churches. This practice is carried on in three principal areas: healing of the sick, the impartation of the Holy Spirit, and various practices of commissioning.

Healing

Although most Christians pray for healing, the Pentecostal movement has always maintained it as a major emphasis. The “full gospel,” say Pentecostals, includes healing as one of its components; their common practice is to pray for healing with the laying on of hands, frequently anointing the sufferer with oil according to James 5:14.

The biblical foundation for this ritual is drawn from several New Testament accounts. Jesus himself often laid hands on people for healing. Luke writes: “The people brought to Jesus all who had various kinds of sickness and laying his hands on each one, he healed them” (Luke 4:40). Mark records a number of instances in which Jesus used his hands in healing the sick and raising the dead: he took both Peter’s feverish mother-in-law (1:31) and Jairus’s dead daughter (5:41) by the hand, took the hand of a demonized boy and lifted him up (9:27), reached out his hand to touch a leper (1:41), put his fingers into the ears of a deaf-mute (7:33), and laid his hands on a number of sick people in his hometown (6:5). Apparently, Jesus’ own spiritual vitality was transferred to those in need through the physical touch of his hands.

After his ascension, Jesus’ healing ministry was carried on through his church, as the book of Acts records. Peter took a lame beggar by the hand, and he was healed (3:7); he raised Tabitha from the dead, lifting her by the hand (9:40–41); handkerchiefs and aprons that had come into contact with Paul’s body were used to heal the sick (19:12); Paul laid hands on Publius’s father and he was made well (28:7–8). Before his ascension, Jesus had given all believers the authority to lay hands on the sick for their healing. “In my name,” he said, “[those who believe] will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well” (Mark 16:17–18).

In view of the scriptural precedents and Jesus’ clear statement, “full gospel” Christians affirm that laying on of hands for healing should be a regular practice in the church. They see no biblical reason why the body of Christ should not continue to provide healing in his name in this way for all time to come.

Impartation of the Holy Spirit

A number of Bible passages connect the laying on of hands with the gift of the Holy Spirit. Most of these occur in the Acts of the Apostles. After Philip had proclaimed the gospel and baptized a group of Samaritans, Peter and John, who had come down from Jerusalem, “placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit” (8:17). Some three days after Saul of Tarsus had recognized Jesus as Lord, Ananias went to him and, “placing his hands on Saul,” declared both his healing from temporary blindness and his being filled with the Holy Spirit (9:17). Many years later Saul, now known as Paul, ministered in a similar fashion to a number of disciples in Ephesus. They came to faith in Jesus, were baptized in his name, and subsequently received the Holy Spirit “when Paul placed his hands on them” (19:6).

The Bible records a few instances in which the Holy Spirit was given without the laying on of hands. These include the initial outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:4) and the occasion on which Peter preached to the household of Cornelius (10:44). In the first case, the 120 believers on whom the Spirit fell were the first to receive this gift; there was no one available to lay hands on them. In the latter instance, Peter himself was taken by surprise when the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius and his family and friends who were Gentiles; he had apparently not intended to pray for them to receive the gift. In both cases, God acted sovereignly to bestow his Spirit without the use of a human intermediary.

An important concern for Catholic charismatics is the relationship between the laying on of hands in the sacrament of confirmation and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The church teaches that the Spirit is conferred on believers for their strengthening and outward witness when the bishop lays his hands on them in confirmation. For this reason, Roman Catholics sometimes refer to confirmation as “the Pentecostal sacrament.” However, Catholic charismatic believers also recognize and practice the laying on of hands by laypersons of all denominations for the baptism of the Holy Spirit. These two apparently conflicting doctrines have been reconciled in a number of ways. Some Catholics view the charismatic laying on of hands as a prayer for the confirmand that he or she will have “full docility” to the grace received in the sacrament. Others regard the baptism in the Spirit as the release of the power of the Spirit already given at confirmation, in which a person experiences “the effects of confirmation.” Still, others believe that the Holy Spirit is offered at confirmation but must be accepted personally by the confirmand. This latter view moves the emphasis away from a sacramental understanding of the laying on of hands as an objective medium of Spirit baptism to an offer of the Spirit that can be received subsequently.

Clearly, there is a need in the church at large for a better understanding of the relationship between the laying on of hands and the gift of the Holy Spirit. The writer of Hebrews refers to the laying on of hands as an elementary doctrine that the church should already have mastered (6:12); the context of this passage indicates that he is talking about the impartation of the Holy Spirit. Without having clarified its understanding of this doctrine, then, the church cannot very well go on to maturity as the writer admonishes it to do (6:1).

Commissioning

Most Christian bodies practice the laying on of hands for commissioning (ordaining, appointing). In its first move toward organization, the infant church chose seven men to serve tables; in preparing them for this responsibility the apostles laid their hands on them and prayed (Acts 6:5–6). Several years later, prophets and teachers in the church at Antioch set aside Paul and Barnabas to be missionaries by fasting, praying, and laying hands on them (Acts 13:1–3). During one of their journeys, Paul and Barnabas appointed (literally “chose by stretching out the hand”) elders in a number of churches (Acts 14:23).

Paul’s references to Timothy’s being consecrated for ministry through the laying on of hands have prompted churches of various denominations to continue the practice when ordaining ministers. Paul says that a body of elders laid hands on Timothy (1 Tim. 4:14) and indicates that he himself was a part of that group (2 Tim. 1:6). In both of these passages, Paul says that the gift for ministry was given to Timothy through the process of laying on of hands.

In all three situations in which the Bible mentions the laying on of hands, impartation of some grace is the result; a closer examination will reveal that this grace always involves the Spirit of Christ. In the case of healing, there is a transfer of energy or life, which is the Spirit; in the baptism of the Holy Spirit, the connection is explicit; and in commissioning, a gift of the Spirit is given.

Symbolic Objects in Biblical Worship

Together with symbolic actions and structures, biblical worship incorporates symbolic objects. Sometimes these are real objects, physically present in the place of worship. Sometimes they are verbal symbols of things not physically present. And sometimes they are both, either at the same time or at different times. Such objects include the ark of the covenant, books and scrolls, anointing oil, the lamp, incense, blood, the bread and cup, and the cross.

Ark of the Covenant

One of the most important and powerful symbols in the worship of Israel was the small, gold-covered box crowned with the fearsome cherubim. Beneath its golden cover were two stone tablets on which the Lord himself had written the covenant text, the Ten Commandments. These tablets were themselves symbols of the covenant and all that pertained to it—the stipulations and sanctions, the moral code by which it was lived out, and the system of sacrificial worship it required.

The Atonement Cover and Cherubim. The top of the ark was a lid or cover, sometimes called in English the “mercy seat,” or atonement cover, because it played a role in the symbolic acts of the Day of Atonement. On either side of the atonement cover, and made of one piece with it, were cherubim, overlaid with gold, with wings outstretched and faces turned inward toward the ark. When the ark was moved to Solomon’s temple it sat beneath a second pair of cherubim, making a total of four. These are the same living creatures that appear in Ezekiel’s vision of the glory of the Lord (Ezek. 1:5–11) and in John’s Revelation, in which they surround the throne of God (Rev. 4:6–7). Thus, although there were visual cherubim in the temple of Solomon, they became a verbal symbol in later worship.

In ancient sculpture, cherubim sometimes appear next to royal thrones; apparently these composite creatures symbolized the power of the king whose throne they guarded. For Israel, the ark of the covenant was the footstool of Yahweh’s throne (1 Chron. 28:2; Pss. 99:5; 132:7); the throne itself was invisible, held aloft by the cherubim (Ezek. 10:1). The “glory” or weight of the Lord (another verbal symbol of his awesome presence) rested on it, between the wings of the cherubim (2 Sam. 6:2; Ps. 99:1); there he dwelt in the midst of his people and reigned over them.

Movements of the Ark. The ark, together with the manifestations of the Lord’s glory, in cloud by day and fire by night, led the Israelites during their trek through the wilderness (Num. 10:33–36). The ark also led Israel’s crossing of the Jordan into the land Yahweh had promised them (Josh. 3:8–17). When Israel went to war, the ark was sometimes carried into battle ahead of the military units (1 Sam. 4:3); symbolically, Yahweh as Israel’s covenant king led his armies in warfare (1 Sam. 4:7–8). This practice ended after the ark was brought to Zion. However, scholars have theorized that the ark might sometimes have been carried in sacred procession at the festivals of Israel, as suggested by Psalms 24, 68, and 132.

The Heavenly Ark. Eventually the ark disappeared from the temple (Jer. 3:16). In Herod’s temple the Holy of Holies was empty, although sacrifices were carried on as if the throne of Yahweh were still there. The rending of the temple veil at the crucifixion of Jesus exposed this emptiness; the presence of the Lord no longer graced the old institution, with its ceremonies, animal sacrifices, and symbolic cleansings. Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God and Great High Priest, was about to enter the heavenly sanctuary with his own blood to offer it before the throne of God once for all people (Heb. 9:11–14; 10:10). John describes the scene thus:

Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant. And there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake and a great hailstorm. (Rev. 11:19)

Thus the visible ark, which for centuries has symbolized the footstool of the throne of God in Israel’s worship, has been replaced by a word picture conveying the greater reality of its heavenly pattern, now sprinkled with the blood of Jesus, which he presented on that final Day of Atonement to which all the annual observances looked forward (Heb. 9:11–12; 10:1–10). The Lord God and the Lamb dwell in the new temple, the church of the firstborn (Heb. 12:23), of which the old was a symbol (1 Cor. 3:16–17; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:22). “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us” (John 1:14).

Books and Scrolls

In ancient times political agreements were inscribed on clay or stone tablets, or sometimes on papyrus, as a record of the treaty. These covenant texts were then deposited in the shrine of the god(s), whose duty it was to witness the oath and to enforce its stipulations. When Israel entered into a political treaty with Yahweh, Moses deposited a copy of the text at the shrine of Yahweh, the ark of the covenant. The ark in turn was housed first in the tabernacle of Moses, then in David’s tent, and finally in the temple of Solomon.

The Book of the Covenant. Originally the text of the treaty between Yahweh and Israel was written on stone tablets, which Moses brought down from his encounter with the Lord on Mount Sinai. Later, however, the law, or covenant text, was recorded on a scroll. (Books in Scripture are always scrolls; the modern form of the book, known as the codex, was not used in the biblical period.) This book was known variously as the Book of the Covenant, the Book of the Law (or simply “the Law”), and the Book of the Testimony (or simply “the Testimony”). References to the “Book of Life” are probably to this document as well. The covenant was the structure through which Israel related to the Lord, and the written text was emblematic of that relationship. This explains Moses’ breaking of the stone tablets on which the covenant was written when he witnessed Israel’s idolatry; the action betokened what had happened to the covenant itself. The kings of Judah, like David, who had founded their dynasty, were considered mediators of the covenant on behalf of the people. In what may have been a typical coronation ceremony, the child king Joash was presented with the Book of the Law when he was enthroned (2 Kings 11:12). During the religious reforms under Josiah, the forgotten Book of the Law was found during temple renovations and was immediately brought to the king (2 Chron. 34:16).

The Book of Life. In ancient covenants, the “great king” granting the treaty was sometimes said to have “created” the servant nation, his treaty partner. Since a created thing was not thought to exist until it was named, the great king often renamed the servant people, sometimes giving them his own name as a sign of ownership. The covenant text, then, was the guarantee of the people’s existence. When their names were inscribed in it, they had an identity. If the covenant were broken, however, their names were expunged and they no longer enjoyed the legal and military protection of the great king. Moses intercedes for wayward Israel saying: “Please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written” (Exod. 32:32). The Lord responds that he will blot out those who have sinned (Exod. 32:33–34). The result was death for the offenders, who could no longer remain among the covenant people whose names were recorded in the book. The same concept appears in the New Testament, where the symbolic “Book of Life” (Phil. 4:3; Rev. 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:15; 21:27) contains the names of those who are in covenant with the Lord God and the Lamb.

Scrolls of Curses. Zechariah sees a flying scroll with curses written on both sides. The scroll is being sent to those who break the covenant by lying or by swearing falsely and will avenge these violations (Zech. 5:1–2). In a vision Ezekiel is given a book containing the covenant curses and told to eat it so the words will be in his mouth and he can speak them to the house of Israel (Ezek. 2:9–3:4). The book was as sweet as honey on his tongue because it was the covenant with Yahweh, but it became bitter in his stomach because he tasted the curses he was commissioned to announce to the unfaithful nation.

John relates a similar experience in his Revelation. He sees a book in the hand of the one sitting on the throne. This is also the book of the covenant curses, as the events that follow make clear. The scroll is sealed with seven seals and no one is found worthy to open it; only the slain but victorious Lamb, as mediator of the new covenant and redeemer of his people, is able to unseal it (Rev. 5:1–10). Later in his vision John is given the book to eat. Like Ezekiel, he experiences it as sweet in his mouth and bitter in his stomach; the covenant is his delight but the curses concerning which he is to prophesy leave an unpleasant aftertaste (Rev. 10:1–11).

Although the text of Yahweh’s covenant with Israel includes stipulations for fulfilling the agreement and blessings for doing so, it appears that the pronouncement of curses on the unfaithful dominates in those biblical texts which refer to the Book or Scroll of the Covenant (Deut. 27:26; Gal. 3:10; cf. Rev. 22:18). Isaiah promises that when the new covenant is established those who have been deaf to the book will hear its words, and as a result their blind eyes will see. These afflicted “will rejoice in the Lord” (Isa. 29:19).

Anointing Oil

The land of Israel produced olive oil in abundance, reputed to have been the finest available in the ancient world. It was a staple of the economy and was sometimes used as a medium of exchange. When creditors threatened a widow of one of the prophets with selling her children as slaves, Elisha multiplied her last jar of oil so that she could pay her debts (2 Kings 4:1–7). Oil was valuable because it had many ordinary uses: it was burned in lamps to produce light, mixed with flour to produce bread, applied to the body as a cosmetic, and poured on wounds for healing. In addition to these pragmatic uses, oil was a part of the symbolic worship of Israel and is also mentioned in connection with practices in the New Testament church.

Oil in Israelite Worship. Jacob the patriarch poured oil over a stone to sanctify it as an altar, memorializing the place where God appeared to him in a dream (Gen. 28:10–19). The occasion was the Lord’s affirmation that the covenant he had made with Abraham and Isaac was now being extended to include Jacob. At this point in his life Jacob probably did not realize the full significance of God’s announcement, but to a young man who has deceived his father and has been sent away from home to escape an angry brother, the blessing of the Lord was an event of major importance.

The seven-branched lampstand that lit the sanctuary burned olive oil. As a part of the covenant worship instructions, Moses was told by the Lord to make a perfumed anointing oil using myrrh, cinnamon, cane, and cassia; this fragrant oil was sprinkled on the priests and their clothing and the tabernacle with all its furnishings to consecrate them and was not to be used for any other purpose. Pure olive oil was offered with flour as a part of some of the offerings made by fire to the Lord (Lev. 2:1, 4–6, 15; 14:10). When the offering was for cleansing from a disease, oil was also sprinkled before the Lord and put on the head of the diseased person “to make atonement for him before the Lord” (Lev. 14:29).

Oil and Commissioning. In the Old Testament, oil is a symbol of the special commission given by Yahweh to persons in public service. The high priest was consecrated with oil (Num. 35:25; Ps. 133:2). Prophets and kings were set apart for their special offices by anointing and were called “the Lord’s anointed” or “oiled one” (mashi‡ḥ, 1 Sam. 16:6; 24:6, 10; 2 Sam. 23:1). In recognition that their commissioning was from the Lord, Samuel poured oil on the heads of both Saul (1 Sam. 10:1) and David (1 Sam. 16:1, 13) when the Lord chose them to be kings of Israel, but David testified that it was truly the Lord who had anointed him (Ps. 23:5). Jesus’ very title “the Christ” (Christos, Acts 4:26) is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew “messiah” (mashi‡ḥ), “the one anointed with oil.” As Peter is praying after having been released by the Jewish religious leaders, he calls Jesus the holy Servant of God whom God had anointed (Acts 4:27).

Oil and the Holy Spirit. Elijah was told to anoint Elisha to succeed him as prophet (1 Kings 19:16); however, there is no record that he actually did so. Instead, Elijah’s mantle or cloak fell upon the younger prophet when a flaming chariot of the Lord’s presence separated the two men and Elijah was taken to heaven in a whirlwind. Elisha had requested a double portion of Elijah’s spirit, which was, of course, the Spirit of the Lord empowering the prophet. Elisha’s reqquest was granted when Elijah’s mantle fell to him. (2 Kings 2:11–14). This incident provides one link between anointing with oil and empowerment or anointing by the Holy Spirit. In the New Testament, a connection between oil and the Holy Spirit is amplified; it is with the Spirit, rather than with actual oil, that the Lord commissions those whom he has called for his special purposes. While preaching to the household of Cornelius, Peter declares that God “anointed [Jesus] with the Holy Spirit and with power” (Acts 10:38). John writes that believers are also anointed with the Holy Spirit:

As for you, the anointing you received from him [the Son] remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him. (1 John 2:27)

John is referring to Jesus’ promise that he would send the Spirit to teach his disciples all things (John 14:26). Paul also refers to the believers’ anointing and links it with the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 1:21–22). Although the New Testament does not record anyone’s being anointed with actual oil as an act of commissioning, the New Testament writers understand anointing with oil as a word picture of blessing and empowerment by the Holy Spirit, no doubt directly associated with the baptism or filling of the Spirit as described in Acts 2:1–4 and elsewhere.

Oil and Healing. Jesus tells of a Samaritan who finds a robbed and beaten man beside the road, whose wounds he treats with wine and oil (Luke 10:33–34). These two substances were commonly used medicinally: wine cleansed and reduced infection while oil promoted healing. In the New Testament wine often symbolizes the cleansing of God’s people in the new covenant through the blood of Jesus, as in the institution of the Last Supper (Luke 22:20) and the marriage at Cana of Galilee (John 2:1–10). Oil speaks of God’s blessing through the Holy Spirit; when James instructs Christians who are sick to be anointed with oil by elders of the church (James 5:14), he is combining the symbolism of physical healing and the Spirit’s supernatural blessing.

The Lamp

In the sanctuary of Israel stood the golden lampstand with its seven lamps (Exod. 25:31–37), which were to burn continually (Lev. 24:2). The lampstand was not a “candlestick,” as in older English versions, but used olive oil. The lamps served a practical function in the house of the Lord, as in other houses, where the lack of windows rendered the interior quite dark even in the daytime. However, the lamp also has a symbolic significance in the Bible.

When the Psalms associate light with the Lord’s presence in the sanctuary, the image of the lampstand may be the background symbolism. Thus the psalmist cries out to the Lord to “send forth your light and your truth” to lead him to the house of God (Ps. 43:3). In the protective refuge of the holy place, “in your light we see light” (Ps. 36:9). Radiance, light, and shining are common scriptural images for the impact of the presence of the holy (Pss. 27:1; 50:2–3; 67:1; Matt. 17:2; 2 Cor. 4:6; 1 Tim. 6:16; Rev. 1:16). The lampstand, while not encompassing this imagery, is a part of it, especially as it is connected with the sanctuary.

The lamp is an element in the general biblical symbolism of light versus darkness, representing good versus evil, truth versus ignorance and falsehood. The Lord lights the lamp of the worshiper (Ps. 18:28; the variant in 2 Sam. 22:29 says, “You are my lamp, O Lord”). The lamp is a metaphor for the word of God, which gives direction to the faithful (Ps. 119:105). The spirit of man is called “the lamp of the Lord,” which illuminates a person’s inmost being (Prov 20:27; cf. John 1:4).

The lamp shares the association of olive oil with the Spirit of God, as in Zechariah’s vision of the lampstand and the two anointed ones (Zech. 4:1–6) and Jesus’ parable of the wise and foolish maidens (Matt. 25:1–13). This is most clearly seen in John’s vision of the throne of God, in which “Before the throne, seven lamps were blazing. These are the seven spirits of God” (Rev. 4:5). In John’s opening vision of the living Christ,he beholds him standing amid seven lampstands (Rev. 1:12–13), which represent the seven churches (Rev. 1:20). Since the number seven is symbolic of the covenant (being the root of the expression “swear an oath”), the seven lamps or lampstands are emblematic of the bond between the Lord and the people who are his witnesses. Thus Jesus compares the people of the kingdom of God to lamps, not hidden under baskets, but placed on stands, giving light to all the world (Matt. 5:14–16) as he supremely is the Light of the World (John 1:9; 8:12; 9:5).

Incense

The offering of incense in worship has its roots in antiquity. It was a common custom among the pagan peoples living in the vicinity of Israel, who burned incense to the moon, called the “queen of heaven,” and to various other gods (1 Kings 11:8; Jer. 44:17, 25). Those ancient peoples that sacrificed animals and grain to their gods did so in order to provide them with food. However, the Lord made it clear to Israel that he did not need their offerings in order to satisfy his hunger (Ps. 50:12–13), but accepted them as a sweet smell (Exod. 29:18; Num. 15:13). Accordingly, he gave Moses instructions to add fragrant incense to some of the grain offerings (Lev. 2:1–2, 15–16; 6:15; Num. 7:14) and to burn incense morning and evening in the Holy Place within the tabernacle (Exod. 30:7–8). Pure frankincense was put with the twelve cakes known as the “shewbread” or “bread of the presence” (Num. 4:7), which was laid on the golden table in the Holy Place.

On the Day of Atonement the high priest brought a pan of burning coals from the bronze altar into the Holy Place and poured two handfuls of sweet incense on the coals. The cloud formed by the burning incense covered the ark of the covenant, preventing the priest from seeing the mercy seat when he presented the blood and from dying as a result of looking on the glory of the Lord (Lev. 16:12–13). Only a priest who was descended from Aaron was allowed to offer incense to the Lord (Lev. 2:2). Violation of this restriction brought death to Korah and his company and a plague upon the people (Num. 16).

Malachi prophesies that incense will be offered “from the rising to the setting of the sun. In every place” (Mal. 1:11) to honor the great name of the Lord. This offering symbolizes the prayers of God’s people, which apparently accompanied it (Luke 1:10). David asks that the Lord will accept his prayer as the evening incense offering (Ps. 141:2), a symbol John repeats in his Revelation (Rev. 5:8; 8:3–4). In the early church, incense becomes a verbal symbol or word picture of prayer; Christian worship at this time does not include the literal offering of incense. In addition to prayer, the knowledge of Christ (2 Cor. 2:14) and a gift given to Paul (Phil. 4:18) are likened to the offering of incense.

Blood

In the Scripture, blood is a symbol of life (Gen. 9:4). While the spirit or breath is the life force, blood is the life substance. For this reason the Lord forbade Israel to eat or drink the blood of animals; it was to be poured out into the ground, symbolically returning it to God, who had given them life (Lev. 17:10–14). Because blood represents life, it was used for sanctification ceremonies in Israel’s rituals. Even before the law was given, while the Hebrews were still in Egypt, the Lord gave instructions for killing a lamb and smearing its blood over their doorways for protection. The blood “sanctified,” or set apart, the family within; the messenger of death recognized that the occupants of the house belonged to Yahweh and refrained from killing their firstborn (Exod. 12:13).

This same symbolism is at the heart of the various sprinklings of blood required by the Mosaic Law. A sacrifice made to the Lord was holy, or set apart, for him. Whatever touched it also became holy (Exod. 30:29). When the various altars, tables, utensils, and the tabernacle itself were sprinkled with the blood of the sacrifice, they were sanctified (Lev. 16:11–20). The covenant theme underlies this practice; those persons entering into covenant typically kill an animal and either sprinkle the blood on themselves or drink it as a way of identifying with the animal. The idea is that they will share the fate of the slain beast if they break the stipulations of the treaty. As worshipers of Yahweh, the people of Israel were prohibited from drinking blood; when they offered sacrifices the priest sprinkled the animal’s blood on them as an identification with the covenant, but they substituted drinking wine for drinking blood in the covenant meal. Being bound to Yahweh made Israel holy; since he is holy, all that belongs to him is holy as well (Lev. 11:44–45; Deut. 7:6, 14:2, 21; 26:19).

The author of Hebrews states that the blood of Jesus Christ is the blood of the new covenant. He is the Passover Lamb, sacrificed for the new covenant people. As the priest carried the blood of the sacrificed animal into the Most Holy Place on the Day of Atonement and sprinkled it on the cover of the ark, so Jesus, the High Priest and Mediator of the new covenant, entered the heavenly sanctuary with his own blood to make atonement for his people (Heb. 9:11–15; 10:29; 13:20).

Jesus said that those who eat his flesh and drink his blood will receive his life (John 6:54–56), a reference to the idea that blood is the life substance. When instituting the Lord’s Supper, he used wine to symbolize the shedding of his blood. Wine was known to be a cleansing agent in the case of flesh wounds (Luke 10:34), while blood was the Old Testament agent for spiritual cleansing (Heb. 9:22). Under the new covenant it is Jesus’ blood that provides cleansing for all who believe in him (1 Pet. 1:18–19; 1 John 1:7; Rev. 1:5), and that blood is symbolized by the wine of the Eucharist (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25).

John visualizes the victorious Christ clothed in a “robe dipped in blood” (Rev. 19:13), while the great company of the redeemed are wearing garments that have been washed and made “white in the blood of the Lamb” (Rev. 7:14). Obviously the blood of Christ is a verbal, not a visual, symbol in New Testament usage; washing in literal blood would not make things white. Even the wine or grape juice of the Lord’s Supper is not important as a visual symbol of Jesus’ blood; it is the corporate action of partaking of the cup and the loaf that conveys the meaning of the ordinance as the covenant meal and the emblem of cleansing.

Bread and Cup

Both bread, or the loaf, and the cup are biblical symbols having several meanings. When combined, as the emblems of the Lord’s Supper, they take on additional significance in Christian worship.

Bread and Life. Bread, which in the Bible often stands for all food, is a symbol for the Word of God, and by extension, for the covenant relationship it governs and the life that flows from the covenant. In the Lord’s name, Isaiah appeals to Israel to “eat what is good,” the true bread of the “everlasting covenant” (Isa. 55:2–3). Moses compared the Word of the Lord to bread as the true basis for life in the covenant (Deut. 8:3); his words are quoted by Jesus in resisting the tempter (Matt. 4:4). In speaking of bread, Moses was referring to the manna that fell during Israel’s wanderings, by which the people were miraculously fed in a barren wilderness. Jesus also mentions the manna, contrasting it with himself as the “Bread of Life,” or living bread (John 6:49–51). This discourse of Jesus is filled with overlapping symbols: the manna is a token of the “true bread out of heaven,” yet the bread represents Jesus’ flesh, which he gives in dying that the world might live (John 6:32–33, 51). The discourse is occasioned by the feeding of the multitude, in which Jesus “gave thanks”; John pointedly records this twice (John 6:11, 23), suggesting that the entire chapter is an interpretation of the Eucharist. (Mention of the impending Passover celebration in the introduction to the account [John 6:4] reinforces this hypothesis.) Yet, in the end, it is neither the manna, nor the bread, nor his flesh, nor any ceremonial act that Jesus has in mind, but a spiritual reality symbols can only suggest: “the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life” (John 6:63).

Bread of the Presence (Shewbread). In the sanctuary, the “bread of the presence,” or shewbread (leḥem panim, literally “bread of face”), was to be set out on a table before the Lord at all times (Exod. 25:30), being replaced each Sabbath. Since there were twelve loaves, placed with frankincense as a “memorial,” the bread may have been symbolic of the continual covenant between Yahweh and Israel. The bread of the presence was sacrosanct, and only the priests could eat it (Lev. 24:9; 1 Sam. 21:4). However, David and his soldiers, being in a consecrated state, were allowed to eat it when no other food was available (1 Sam. 21:6). Jesus cites this incident to prove to the Pharisees that the institutions of Israel’s religion, especially the Sabbath, were created to benefit the people of God and not to bind them (Mark 2:25–28).

Unleavened Bread. The unleavened bread eaten during the observance of the Passover (Exod. 12:15–30; 13:3–7) is a reminder of the Exodus from Egypt and especially of the haste in which the Israelites had to depart, there being no time on the journey to allow the dough to rise before baking (Exod. 12:39). As a memorial of the Lord’s mighty act of deliverance, through which he created a people for himself (Exod. 19:4), the unleavened bread and the entire Passover are a covenant meal, celebrating the relationship God has decreed with his sons and daughters. The Lord’s Supper transfers the same symbolism to the new covenant as Jesus relates the bread to his body given in death to enact it (Luke 22:19). Although some interpreters, in administering the Lord’s Supper, have associated the striped appearance of modern commercial matzah with Isaiah’s words, “with his stripes we are healed” (Isa. 53:5 kjv), there is no scriptural evidence that the unleavened bread had this appearance or that the Lord’s Supper was associated with physical healing.

The Bread of Communion. Paul, writing of the Lord’s Supper, refers to the broken bread as “a koinōnia in the body of Christ” (1 Cor. 10:16). The term koinōnia, sometimes translated “fellowship” or “sharing,” indicates mutual participation at a more than superficial level. The broken loaf symbolizes an inward communion in the body of Christ, both his body on the cross in death and his body the church: “we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf” (1 Cor. 10:17). Not only is the loaf an inadequate symbol of this communion, but the word koinōnia and its English equivalents cannot really encompass it; the unity of Christ’s body, as energized by the Spirit of the living Lord, is a numinous reality that must be apprehended intuitively through corporate worship and the deeper bonding of covenanted lives.

The Cup of Wrath. Symbolism of the cup in Scripture includes the negative symbolism of God’s wrath and judgment on the unfaithful; yet even this is relevant to worship, since biblical worship celebrates the covenant and employs its structure. The prophet Jeremiah is told to take from the Lord’s hand the “cup filled with the wine of my wrath” and administer it to the disobedient nations of the world, including Jerusalem and Judah (Jer. 25:15–18). Ezekiel also proclaims the judgment of the Lord God against the harlot sister nations of Israel and Judah, using the figure of “the cup of ruin and desolation” (Ezek. 23:31–34). The background for such language is the use of cup symbolism in the sanctions of ancient treaties; one of the curses pronounced on the traitor is that he must drink the cup of poison (a practice with which we are familiar from Plato’s account of the death of Socrates). As the Judge, God administers his poison cup to the wicked of the land (Ps. 75:8), the prideful who refuse to recognize his sovereignty (Ps. 75:4–5; cf. Ps. 11:6). When Jesus prays in the Garden of Gethsemane, “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me” (Luke 22:42), he is referring to the penalty for unfaithfulness to the covenant that he himself is to bear on the cross that others might be released from its curse (cf. Gal. 3:13).

The Cup of Blessing. The cup is also, of course, a positive symbol of fellowship with the Lord and of his blessing. David celebrates the abundance of Yahweh his Shepherd in singing, “My cup overflows. Surely goodness and love [ḥesed] will follow me all the days of my life” (Ps. 23:5–6). In Psalm 16 he testifies, “Lord, you have assigned me my portion and my cup” (Ps. 16:5), perhaps in contrast to the libations, or drink offerings, of those who have exchanged Yahweh for another god (Ps. 16:4). Such a libation offered to Yahweh may be intended in Psalm 116:13, in which the speaker says, “I will lift up the cup of salvation and call on the name of the Lord,” in fulfillment of a vow. In ancient Jewish custom, a meal was concluded by a prayer of thanksgiving over a cup of wine, called the “cup of blessing”; Paul borrows this phrase in describing the cup of the Lord’s Supper: “Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing [koinōnia] in the blood of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16 nasb). Like the common loaf, the cup of the Eucharist is a token of a deeper communion in the death of Christ, symbolized by his blood.

Eucharistic Symbols: The Bread and the Cup. The bread and the cup together are the visual tokens of the Lord’s Supper, physical objects that do not stand in isolation but are part of a larger whole, a corporate act of worship that is the real sacramental symbol. It is significant that in the New Testament accounts of the institution of the Last Supper it is not the wine but the cup of which Jesus speaks. Had he spoken of the wine itself, the focus would be on the substance, a visual representation of his literal blood. In focusing on the cup, Jesus calls attention instead to the action by which his assembled worshipers are to memorialize and represent his death. The bread, which bore less resemblance to his physical body, could be mentioned directly without compromising the deeper symbolism intended. When the second-century church began to produce visual symbols, one of the favorite motifs in catacomb frescoes was the symbol of the Eucharist; typically it took the form, not of the loaf and cup, but of the loaves and fish of the feeding of the multitude (John 6:4–14), with the chalice of wine sometimes faintly visible in the background (Walter Lowrie, Art in the Early Church, 2nd ed. [New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1965], plate 13).

The Cross

The church did not use the cross as a visual symbol until around the fifth century a.d. In the New Testament, the cross is a physical object, the instrument of Jesus’ execution. But it is also a word picture in apostolic teaching, and Jesus spoke of it symbolically.

Appearance of the Cross. The shape of the cross on which Jesus died is unknown. The Greek word stauros indicates the instrument of crucifixion but not necessarily the arrangement of “crossed” wooden beams that has become familiar from later Christian art, the so-called Latin cross. Although the Romans may have used crosses in this form, crucifixion was usually on a simple vertical stake without a cross arm. Several New Testament passages speak of Christ’s death on a “tree” (xulon, Acts 5:30; Gal. 3:13; 1 Pet. 2:24) in fulfillment of Deuteronomy 21:22, suggesting a wooden stake.

Use of the cross as a visual symbol originated in paganism; it is found throughout the ancient world in cultures that preceded the Christian era. A common cross in the eastern Mediterranean world was that used in the worship of the god Tammuz. The symbol of Tammuz was the initial letter of his name, the Greek letter tau, shaped like a “T,” with a circle over it representing the sun. Along with many pagan symbols and customs, the “T” cross and other cross symbols eventually passed into Christian usage, introducing the horizontal arm.

The Cross As Instrument of Execution. Roman officials used the cross as a means of execution in certain cases. An especially cruel method of torture and punishment, crucifixion was the penalty for acts of rebellion against authority, such as the revolt of slaves or of subject nations. The victim hung on the cross might linger for several days, alternating between periods of half-consciousness and agonizing pain. Josephus, the Jewish historian who deserted to the Romans during the revolt of a.d. 66–70, tells of encountering several of his friends, crucified, while traveling with the Roman commander; at his request the men were taken down, and some survived. The Jewish method of capital punishment was not crucifixion but stoning; however, the apostolic preaching of Acts holds the Jewish authorities ultimately responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus, with the Romans as their willing agents (Acts 2:23, 36; 3:13–15; 4:10).

Jesus’ Use of the Symbolism of the Cross. In the discourse recorded in Matthew 16:21–28, Jesus predicted his own suffering at the hands of the religious establishment. When Peter protested, Jesus replied, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me” (Matt. 16:24). In this imagery, the “cross” does not mean trials and problems in general, but persecution for the sake of the kingdom of God, as the context of Jesus’ words makes clear. The cross is emblematic of the truth that one must “lose his life” in the present order of things in order to gain it in the new order to come (Matt. 16:25–26). Those entering the new order are considered traitors to the old institutions and are made the objects of abuse, a theme found elsewhere in Jesus’ teaching (for example, Matt. 5:10–12; John 15:18–20) and throughout the New Testament. The author of Hebrews, for instance, reminds his readers that Jesus “suffered outside the city gate,” adding, “let us, then, go out to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore” (Heb. 13:12–13). According to Jesus, the new kingdom is to make its appearance while some of those hearing his words are still living (Matt. 16:27–28), suggesting that the events of a.d. 70, the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, are pivotal. At that time the victory of the one crucified will be manifest, and the persecuted of the new order will prevail over their persecutors of the old.

The Cross in Apostolic Teaching. Thus, in the proclamation and teaching of the apostles, the cross stands not only for Jesus’ suffering, but also for his triumph over the forces opposed to the kingdom of God. Paul, in a remarkable turnabout of symbolism, declares that it is Jesus who nails to the cross “the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us”; in the cross, Jesus exposed and disarmed the “rulers and authorities” of the old system which had held people captive “through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men” (Col. 2:8–15 nasb). The powers of the old order, “the rulers of this age, who are passing away,” were defeated when they “crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor. 2:6–8 nasb). It is not the cross, but the identity of the one crucified, which is the crucial factor. In taking upon himself the curse of the old covenant (Gal. 3:13), the Son of God cancelled its effect, making it possible for both Jew and Gentile to enter the new covenant by faith (Gal. 3:22). “By making peace through his blood shed on the cross,” Jesus has reconciled all people to God the Father (Col. 1:19–22). The cross of Christ, then, is his victory, one reality with his resurrection and exaltation, all summed up in Jesus’ words: “But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself” (John 12:32, italics added).

The preaching of the cross is an offense. The image of an instrument of torture is not a pretty one, nor is the message of the cross the clever and entertaining speech of the polished orator. To the world it is offensive and foolish (1 Cor. 1:17–23). But this is exactly the potency of the cross as a verbal image. As a mere image, the cross may degenerate into a decoration, a repetitive ornamental motif, or a magical talisman. In itself it is insignificant, unintelligible, even repulsive. As a true symbol, however, it can only direct beyond itself to the reality it represents, and that is its power.