#Exegetical study on Matthew 16:18 | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

kabane52 · 6 years ago

Text

The Canonical Edition of the New Testament and its Apostolic Origin

[Because I didn’t write this in one sitting, it might seem thematically all over the place in parts. For those who don’t want to read the whole thing, here’s my argument: I’m arguing that the New Testament was published in a specific canonical edition given its final form by the Apostle John, who organized the books of the New Testament into their present order, reflected in the Byzantine text and Vulgate, and who provided them with this order as part of the project he undertook in writing his Gospel, Letters, and Apocalypse. I argue that this simply completed a process which the apostles had undertaken from the beginning, intentionally composing the NT books as scripture and gathering them into distinct collections as soon as they were written.

The concept of a canonical edition of the New Testament is useful both theologically and exegetically, the former as it allows us to understand the significance and precise nature of the unity of Scripture as a badge of the church’s calling as the people of God, and exegetically in that it leads us to notice certain connections among the books of the New Testament which we would not notice if we assumed the order was insignificant. Obviously, there is some speculation involved, and while I think a sound case can be made for the concept of the canonical edition, I am not pretending that this is as rock solid as something like the divinity of Jesus or the identity of the church as Israel. I present it in case it provides a useful word, not as a final word.]

David Trobisch points to the remarkably consistent ordering of the books of the New Testament in the manuscript tradition. The gospels are almost always ordered as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The Catholic Epistles are almost always ordered as James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, and Jude. The letters of Paul, also, are quite consistent in their ordering, though there is slightly more variation and some dispute about the placement of Hebrews. This, Trobisch suggests, implies that the manuscript tradition of the New Testament was always transmitted as part of a collection of canonical books (or multiple collections) reflecting an autographic “canonical edition of the New Testament.” I think this is sound, though I have some slight differences with him concerning its order (I think the Vulgate and Byzantine text preserve the arrangement of the canonical edition for the church).

The evidence suggests to me that there was never a time when these books were being circulated without identification as scripture. We know that by the end of the Apostolic Age the Epistles of Paul were considered as a group and were considered scripture, as Peter identifies them as such in 2 Peter and describes debates about their interpretation which make most sense in light of widespread acknowledgement of their authoritative status. In 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul quotes the Gospel of Luke as Scripture. In 1 Corinthians 14:37, Paul states that everyone accepted as a member of the church should recognize that “the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord.”

If Luke was accepted as scripture from the apostolic age, then the other three gospels considered by the church as reliable would naturally also be revered as inspired Scripture, together with Acts as Luke’s second volume. We know that the letters of Paul were revered as Scripture, and there is no reason to think that the Catholic Epistles were treated or regarded differently, especially given 1-3 John’s position as the second part of John’s three part work (given the above about the reverence for the gospels as scripture)- Revelation, obviously, very explicitly presents itself as the authoritative word of God.

There are also features in the text of the New Testament which suggests that it was considered, collectively, as scripture. Matthew’s Gospel, which I consider to be the first book of the New Testament with James as its companion, begins and ends with allusions to the beginning and ending of Chronicles. Chronicles was the last book of the Tanakh, and begins with long genealogies and ends with God’s giving “all the kingdoms of the world” to Cyrus, who entrusts the Jews with a commission to build the temple. So also Matthew begins with a genealogy and ends with His commissioning the apostles to build the church-temple out of the baptism of all nations. Matthew was intentionally picking up where the Tanakh left off, presenting the final volume in a four-volume scriptural canon (Torah-Prophets-Writings-New Testament).

Revelation, the last book of the canon, concludes with extensive echoes of the introduction of Genesis, the first book of the canon. John thus presents what looks like an intentional literary “bookend” to the whole of Scripture as a single work written by the Spirit of God. Moreover, the command to neither add nor subtract from “this book” is almost the last verse in the whole of Scripture, echoing the last book of the Torah, Deuteronomy 12:32. While this could be read as only referring to the Book of Revelation, given John’s propensity for double-meanings, it very neatly fits as a conclusion and sealing of the entirety of Scripture as the one Word of God.

Who would have published this first canonical edition? I think the apostles, as they composed their books, were already in the process of gathering them into collections. In 2 Timothy, just after Paul has spoken of the authority of Scripture (3:16) and the necessity of sound teaching (4:1-5), tells Timothy to “bring...the books and above all the parchments” (4:13). The Pastoral Letters serve as a kind of “last instruction” text, where Paul sets forth the apostolic teaching for the regular business of the churches before he is “poured out as a drink offering.”

The natural identification of the publisher of the “canonical edition” would be the Apostle John who, after all, wrote the Book of Revelation with the aforementioned warning. Such a statement, if it applies to the whole canon, only makes sense if this is indeed the last book of scripture. In addition to the bookend of Revelation 20-22 with Genesis 1-3, the Apocalypse is in general the literary capstone of the whole Bible. While never quoting a biblical book by name, nearly every word is an echo of one or another biblical texts. It certainly echoes every book of the Tanakh, and as I have studied the text of Revelation, it seems likely to me that it echoes every book of the New Testament as well. Teachings of Jesus unique to each gospel are echoed in Revelation. For example, Jesus’ declaration that “I came to cast fire on the Earth” in Luke 12:49 and only there is fulfilled in Revelation 8:1-4. The uniquely Markan parable of the mysteriously growing seed contains the only use of the word “sickle” in the New Testament except for Revelation 14, which echoes it. Many other examples could be multiplied, but the fact that Revelation echoes every book of both Old and New Testaments suggests that it is using them together as the canonical text which it is completing.

I mentioned above John’s appreciation for double-meanings in his Gospel and Apocalypse. I want to suggest that one of the themes in the Johannine literature is in fact the completion of the scriptural canon, thus giving the children of Adam the Book of God in all its fullness. I acknowledge that this is not airtight in the sense that the deity of Christ is airtight, but I offer it as a reading which potentially illumines the text at a deeper level.

I believe that John composed his five books in the mid 60s, in the context of the looming fall of Jerusalem and Neronic persecution. I am a partial preterist with respect to the New Testament [though I don’t want to argue this specific point on this thread, so no arguments about that] and identify the “Babylon the Great” of Revelation with Jerusalem. The emphasis on the temple throughout John’s Gospel and Revelation is intelligible in light of the looming fall of the temple in AD 70, and John 2, in being placed at the forefront of the Gospel, accentuates this significance of His words: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will build it again.” The transition from old to new covenants is one of the central threads in the Gospel, as Jesus teaches in John 6 and 10 that He will lose none of those who have “learned from the Father” and whom the Father has given to Him. This is about the transition from the old covenant to the age of Christ- Jesus is teaching that the remnant of Israel, those Jews who are truly faithful to the words of God in Moses and the prophets- and not those who think they are pious but are not- they will all come to Christ without exception. “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me.”

I say that in order to provide a context for John’s use of the canonical theme- this was the last scriptural word of God, the completion of His definitive revelatory work, and the fulfillment of the covenants. Deuteronomy proclaims to Israel under the old covenant that “the secret things belong to the Lord our God” but in the New Testament, God has spoken all things in the incarnation of His Word. The completion of Scripture is the textual corollary of that. John opens with the incarnation of the eternal Word in part because of its significance for how he will compose his writings. John most of all among the Evangelists records Jesus’ extended verbal teaching, at greater length than any of the other gospels. John records, more than the other Evangelists, Jesus’ own teaching about His teaching and word: “If my words abide in you...” and so on. In John 15:15, Jesus says “no longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his Master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you.” The word “friend” here is being used in the sense that Job uses it of his three “friends”- it is a counselor at court, a royal adviser. A person is elevated to the heavenly council through the development of wisdom. In order to rule justly, one must have a deep understanding of the laws by which one can govern.

This is why, when Moses receives the Book of the Torah and Israel swears allegiance to it in Exodus 24, the covenant has been sealed at a common meal with God and Seventy Elders on Mt. Sinai. Seventy is the number of the heavenly council (Dt. 32:8-9, Gen. 10), and the Seventy Elders replicate that divine council according to the Book of the Torah given to Israel as a covenant. Isaiah 24-25 echoes Exodus 24 and links it with the narrative of his own call in Isaiah 6, speaking of the great feast that is prepared for all nations on a glorified Zion in the Messianic Age. These intertextual links provide the backdrop for what occurs at the Last Supper. While John (knowing that it is already documented in the synoptic gospels) does not give us the Words of Institution, everything that occurs in John 13-16 makes sense in light of it. Exodus 24 is when Moses sprinkled blood on Israel and declared that “this is the blood of the covenant”, the words used by Jesus to describe His blood when instituting the Eucharist. At the end of John 14, the Supper concludes and Jesus says “rise, let us go from here.” Immediately afterwards, He teaches on the theme of the vine, stating that “I am the vine, you are the branches.” This also beautifully fits with a Eucharistic context. Jesus has just given to the Apostles the fruit of the vine, and now He teaches them on the implications of their Eucharistic union.

This also provides the backdrop for the declaration that “all that I have heard from my Father, I have made known to you.” The Last Supper occupies the position of covenant meal, and Moses sprinkled the blood on the people and gave them the Book of the Torah in this context. The Torah, according to Deuteronomy 5, was meant to teach them and grow them up until they had learned to “discern between good and evil”, a phrase used to describe the capacity to exercise authority wisely. The Torah was, as Apostle Paul says, a tutor to lead Israel to the Messiah. That the people of God are now called “friends” signifies the glorification of old covenant into new covenant. The remnant of Israel has been sufficiently prepared to receive the Messiah and the Spirit, being finally incorporated into God’s heavenly council. As in the old covenant, so also in the new. Jesus sprinkles the blood of the covenant on them by giving them the Eucharist, and gives them the Book of the Torah in teaching them the famous “new commandment” of John 13:34.

I have suggested that John 15:15 should be read with a double meaning, referring to the completion of the Bible as the textual “Book of the Covenant” which both teaches man the truth of God and stands as a visible symbol of the eternal covenant that God has with Man through His Incarnate Son. I think we can see a pointer in this direction in John 14:25-26- “These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my Name, He will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” Jesus, thus, has told the apostles everything that He has heard from the Father, but the Spirit’s coming will bring it to their remembrance. Evidence that this includes the textual completion of scripture is found in John 15:26-27: “...the Spirit of Truth...will bear witness about me. And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning.” Part of the Spirit’s mission with the Apostles is in drawing them into the Spirit’s own attestation of the Son. This apostolic witness is textual in character, as we can see by noting the connection of the above texts with the very end of John’s Gospel: “This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.”

In sum, Jesus declares, as the incarnate Word, that He has told the Apostles “everything” He heard from the Father. The Spirit will come upon the Apostles to bring that comprehensive teaching to memory and to assist them in their “bearing witness” of this teaching. The concrete manifestation of this witness to Jesus’ comprehensive revelation is in the text of the Gospel of John itself. The Apocalypse is likewise included in this revelatory content, as Revelation 1:1-2 states: “The revelation of Jesus the Messiah...He made it known by sending His angel to His slave John, who bore witness to the word of God and to the witnessing of Jesus the Messiah, even to all that he saw.” Several things are worth noting. First, the theme of John’s apostolic “witness” links the beginning of the Apocalypse with the end of the Gospel. Second, we are told in the Gospel that the apostles will witness through the work of the Spirit. There is good reason for seeing Jesus’ “angel” in Revelation 1:1 as the Holy Spirit. “Angel” simply means “messenger”, and throughout both John and Revelation the Holy Spirit is the one whom Jesus sends to attest His message. That connects Revelation 1:1 with more of John’s Gospel. Third, we are told that Jesus sent His angel to His slave John. This reminds us of the teaching in John about this very topic: Jesus’ revelation to the Apostles from His Father creates friends where there were formerly slaves. Picking up on this theme, and confirming the strong thematic link between John and Revelation, the apostle begins the story as a slave but throughout the book comes to a deeper understanding of the work of God revealed in Christ and is exalted. Finally, “the revelation of Jesus the Messiah” can be read both in terms of the content Jesus reveals and in terms of the revelation of the hypostatic Word of God Himself. Both meanings are likely present. The completion of canonical scripture as the one book of God signifies the totality of the divine revelation which occurs in the incarnation of that Hypostatic Word.

The completion of God’s written word appears as a theme in various ways throughout Revelation. The best known is found in Revelation 6. In John, Jesus promised that His ascension would bring the Holy Spirit, the Spirit who would call to memory the revelation of Christ and lead His people into all truth. In Revelation 8:1-4, Jesus, functioning as the Angel of Yahweh (because Revelation ends the old covenant in the fall of Jerusalem, the incarnate Word is sometimes described as functioning in His old covenant office as head of the angels), takes fire from the heavenly altar and casts it on the Earth, fulfilling His word in Luke 12:49. The phenomena described as following this fire are taken from the Sinai revelation, which Pentecost commemorates- Sinai is the giving of the Torah, new covenant Pentecost writes that Torah on our hearts. The Spirit’s coming recalls to the world the revelation of God in Christ. The textuality of that revelation is symbolized in virtue of its being presented as a sealed scroll in Revelation 6. In Revelation 4-5, Jesus as the Lamb ascends to the Heavenly Court as High Priest- the “seven eyes” quote Zechariah 3, where it refers to the seven-letters on the crown of the high priest: “Holy to Yahweh.” The text is drawing on Daniel 7, which describes the ascent of the Son of Man as High Priest on the Day of Atonement, where the High Priest ascends into the Holy of Holies on a cloud of incense.

The Holy of Holies is utterly locked to Israel. Its ark of the covenant contains three gifts: first, it contains the scriptures. The tablets of the Ten Commandments are deposited in the ark as well as the books of scripture. Whenever a book of scripture was written, an official copy was made for preservation in the ark of the covenant as a witness of the covenant between God and Israel. Second, it contains the Manna from Heaven as a sign of life from heaven. Third, it contains Aaron’s rod, signifying the rule and dominion promised to mankind when the Kingdom arrives. The ascent of Jesus in Revelation 4-5 represents the first time a man has entered into what was symbolized by the Holy of Holies: God’s heavenly court. Jesus will work throughout the book to bring the Saints up with Him, as He said in John “I go to prepare a place for you.” What was previously hidden is now revealed.

It is appropriate, then, that when Jesus ascends into this Heavenly Court, one of the first orders of business is the opening of a sealed scroll. With each seal, we are given a particular image. It is important to understand that the seals do not represent a series of events preceding the trumpets. Rather, the seals describe the content of the book which will be enacted with the seven trumpets, the last of which is the seven bowls. The trumpets constitute the reading-aloud of the text found inside the unsealed scroll, and that reading aloud brings events on the land- God speaks into the world, and things change. The words are spoken by the power of the Spirit, which is why the trumpets follow the Day of Pentecost in Revelation 8:1-4.

Another sealed scroll in Revelation provides additional information. In Revelation 10, John sees Jesus, again functioning in His office as Angel of Yahweh, with a little scroll. The words spoken by Jesus echo very closely the words of the Angel of Yahweh at the end of the Book of Daniel. Compare the two:

(Daniel 12:7) And I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the stream; he raised his right hand and his left hand toward heaven and swore by him who lives forever that it would be for a time, times, and half a time, and that when the shattering of the power of the holy people comes to an end all these things would be finished.

(Revelation 10:5-7) And the angel whom I saw standing on the sea and on the land raised his right hand to heaven and swore by him who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and what is in it, the earth and what is in it, and the sea and what is in it, that there would be time no more, but that in the days of the trumpet call to be sounded by the seventh angel, the mystery of God would be fulfilled, just as he announced to his servants the prophets.

Whereas Jesus in Daniel 12 states that the prophecies of the book will take “time, times, and half a time” to be fulfilled, Jesus in Revelation 10 declares that there is “time no more” as the “mystery of God would be fulfilled” at last. The word “mystery” is usually used in a sense connecting it both with sacred space and with sacred time. Paul, in Ephesians and Colossians, uses “mystery” to refer to God’s plan for the church which is revealed definitively in the work of Christ. The word “plan” should be understood in the sense that we understand a “plan” for a house- something like a blueprint. Ephesians 3 uses the language of sacred architecture used in Zechariah and Ezekiel: “breadth, depth, height” and so on. The word ultimately comes from Daniel 2, where it is used several times to refer to the historical plan of God for the kingdoms of the world. This history is revealed in a vision of a statue consisting of gold, silver, bronze, and iron. These are the series of metals used to construct the Temple and its surrounding space.

The connection between sacred space and sacred time exists because as history unfolds, God’s presence spreads throughout the world. “Symbol” is usually used to convey an impression of a heavenly form on something spatial. The tabernacle is a symbol of the Logos, built out of the pattern Moses saw on Sinai. A “type” is usually used to describe an historical correspondence: Jacob is a type of Moses because their lives are structured in similar ways. In the eschaton, these two dimensions- the vertical and horizontal- meet. Heaven is fully joined with Earth and all temporal threads reach their appointed destiny. Revelation 10 describes the fulfillment of the “mystery” of God because the historical fulfillment of these prophecies consummates the appointed goal of Israel’s history in the Messiah and also because the proclamation of these words means that the textual blueprint of wise rule is published at last. The Inner Sanctuary is unlocked and the Scriptures emerge.

Above, I discussed the connection in Exodus 24 between the “blood of the covenant” sprinkled on Israel and the “Book of the Torah” by which they swear allegiance. As noted, the “blood of the covenant” becomes the Eucharist, and the “Book of the Torah” in John 13 is the “new commandment” which Jesus gives. Liturgically, the Eucharistic elements and the Gospel Book are placed next to each other for this reason. Revelation 10 links these two aspects together. Jesus gives the apostle John a little scroll and is told to “Take and eat it.” As with the fish in John 20, this is a quotation of the words of institution. Moreover, the taste of the scroll is “sweet as honey”, linking it with the taste of the manna according to Numbers and the link between the Eucharistic “Bread of Life” and the manna from heaven in John 6. The consumption of this scroll by John makes him wise, moving him from slavery to friendship. Jesus’ words on this matter, after all, took place at the Table for the Eucharist. John’s consumption of the scroll enables him to prophesy truly of the mysteries of God,

The blowing of the seventh trumpet puts a capstone on this theme. As the seventh trumpet blows, signifying the coming of Christ’s Kingdom, we are told in Revelation 11:19 that “God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of His covenant was seen within His temple.” The inner sanctuary where the ark of the covenant was located was perpetually locked to Israel. Because it was sealed, so also the mysteries of God were sealed. In Revelation, a scroll is first unrolled, and then it is consumed and digested by the Apostle John. In the Gospel, the beloved disciple is a symbol of the whole Christian community, who is “loved to the end” by Jesus. His dwelling at Jesus’ side signifies every Christian’s doing so. So also in this text: the things previously locked inside the inner sanctuary are now opened for all to see, and by the Spirit, the baptized Christian is enabled to digest the whole counsel of God. This was the very same scroll which was “sealed” at the end of the Book of Daniel after Daniel had copied a sufficient amount. One can imagine (this is symbolic, so don’t get your knickers all twisted) the Bible as a heavenly book containing the whole counsel of God, but which is locked to God’s children until the coming of Jesus Christ. Over time, God allows His prophets and apostles to copy greater and greater lengths of it, but there is always a portion that is sealed. Revelation 6 and 10-11 reveal this text’s unsealing. Jesus, as the incarnate Word, is the glorified Last Adam who enters into the Inner Sanctuary. The seals of this text are finally broken, and then given to man as a gift to be consumed and digested.

This provides the fuller canonical context to Jesus’ words in John 15 that “everything I heard from my Father I have told to you” and the basis for the words of Revelation 22:18-19, curses pronounced upon anyone who adds or takes away from that which is completed.

There is a case to be made that Mark, Luke, and John each begin their gospels by drawing on the conclusion of their predecessor. Matthew, as noted above, echoes the preceding book, Chronicles. It ends with Jesus enjoining the apostles to preach and baptize into the Name of Father, Son, and Spirit. Mark picks up by immediately, faster than any of the other gospels, launching into the story of Jesus’ baptism, beginning in 1:4. The baptism of Jesus then reveals “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” into whom Christians are baptized. The seam between Mark and Luke is weaker, but there are things to note. Mark ends with Jesus telling the eyewitnesses of the resurrection to go and proclaim the gospel, then describes how they went out and preached everywhere, the Lord confirming “the word” (logon) with signs. Luke begins by noting those who were “eyewitnesses and ministers of the word”, those very witnesses who proclaimed the gospel at the end of Mark. The ending of Mark notes the unbelief of the apostles rebuked by Jesus, Luke begins with the unbelief of Zechariah. As Jesus declares that the believers will “speak with new tongues”, so Zechariah is made mute. And as Jesus declares that the truth will be confirmed with signs, so also Zechariah is given a sign of John’s calling, the birth from a barren womb. Finally, there are sound links between the ending of Luke and the beginning of John. Luke ends with Jesus lifting up His hands to pronounce the priestly blessing on the apostles, after which they go and worship God in the temple. The Prologue of John revolves around the theology of the temple. The Word became flesh and “tabernacled” among us. Luke ends with Jesus telling the apostles that they are “witnesses of these things.” The first words after the Prologue are “this is the witness of John [the Baptist.]” Finally, we are told that the introductory narrative “took place in Bethany” just as Luke ends with Jesus going “as far as Bethany.”

There are some interesting textual features linking the opening of each of the four, as well. For example, each of the four gospels begins with a reference to the beginning, the latter three using the identical word. Matthew speaks of the “book of the genesis of Jesus the Messiah.” Mark speaks of “the beginning of the gospel of Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God.” Luke speaks of those who “from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word.” And John, of course, introduces Jesus with “In the beginning was the Word.” Matthew and Mark are paired in using “Jesus the Messiah” and identifying His ancestry. Matthew identifies “Jesus the Messiah, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham” and Mark identifies “Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God.” Luke and John are paired through their use of “beginning” (arxe) and “word” (logos)- “From the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word” links with “In the beginning was the Word.”

Each of the four gospels concludes with a commissioning of Jesus to disciple the nations. [I think Mark 16:9-20 is authentic, see Nick Lunn’s book on it.] Matthew ends with “Go forth and teach all nations, baptizing them...” Mark ends with “proclaim the gospel to all creation, everyone who believes and is baptized will be saved.” Luke ends with “...repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in [the Messiah’s] Name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem...I send the Promise of My Father upon you...” John 20 describes Jesus telling the apostles “As the Father sent me, so I send you” and giving them the Spirit. But the end of John’s Gospel is actually John’s form of the great-commission narrative. The catch of 153 fish signifies the gathering of the nations through the apostolic proclamation. The note that the “net did not tear” does two things. First, it links with the untorn high-priestly garment described on Jesus in John 19- the high priest wears Israel around himself, and Jesus wears the Church around Himself. Second, it echoes the synoptic account of the early great catch of fish where the net did tear- and where Peter was called to be a “fisher of men.” The number of fish, 153, is the triangular of 17- these are the numerical values of “Engedi” and “Eneglaim”, the site of the fishermen from the river of life in Ezekiel 47, where the river of life resurrects the Dead Sea and “gave life to the fish.” John and Revelation are constructed as parallel texts, and Revelation 21’s description of the river of life also echoes Ezekiel 47. The sea (Jonah, Daniel 7, etc) signifies the Gentile world, and “fish” symbolize Gentiles. These fish are then cooked and given, with bread, to the apostles by Jesus on the shore with the words “Take, and eat”- this echoes the Eucharist, accentuating the oneness of the body of Christ, Jew and Gentile, in the one untorn net/robe of Christ.

The ending of John may also link with the beginning of Acts (naturally, John would have written his ending to match Acts, not the other way around). John ends with a note that “there are also many other things that Jesus did” which would fill more books than the world had room for. Acts begins with Luke’s statement that his Gospel records “all that Jesus began to do and teach.” By implication, Acts records the ongoing ministry of Jesus through His Spirit and Church. John ends with the affirmation of the Beloved Disciple’s witness: “We know that his witness is true” (John 21:24). Acts begins with Jesus’ statement to the apostles that “you will be my witnesses” (Acts 1:8).

What emerges out of this is a portrait of the earliest Christianity that is quite different from the way in which we are accustomed to thinking. While many readers simply assume that we are “reading someone else’s mail” when we read Paul’s letters to the churches, this is not a helpful way to approach the text. Paul intended for his epistles to be read by a wider audience than the named recipients- the amount of literary craftsmanship poured into the letters is alone suggestive of that. Paul had written concerning the Torah that “all this was written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.” Given his identification of his epistles as “commands of the Lord”, there is no reason to imagine that he saw his letters any differently. Indeed, when one looks at the pattern of revelation, the idea that the apostles could profess that the redemption had come without producing new scripture seems absurd on its face.

Scripture does not merely have a communicative role in that it teaches the will of God. There were thousands of prophets in Israel, and the vast majority of them did not produce a word of scripture. Prophecy operated in the Apostolic Church and was not equivalent with Scripture- Apostle Paul even speaks of the authority of his own writings as a criterion by which to test the prophecies. Prophecy continues (I believe) today without any new scripture being produced. Scriptural texts play a special symbolic role in the life of God’s children. In addition to revealing the will of God, their existence is a symbol of particular events in the history of God’s work with His people. While there were undoubtedly inspired writings prior to the Sinai revelation, and while Genesis surely uses literary sources which precede the book itself, the covenant at Sinai is the occasion for the production of the first block of Scripture. The history of redemption should not be considered in terms of creation, fall, redemption, and consummation. Rather, it should be considered as creation, fall, covenant, redemption, and consummation. The birth of Israel at Sinai is a turning point in world history, signified by the book of that covenant produced by Moses. Joshua completes the story, so that for the time of the judges, Israel has the Torah and the Book of Joshua.

The next block of Scripture is produced in Israel’s death and resurrection in the days of Saul, David, and Solomon. Samuel produces a prophetic commentary on what came before in the Book of Judges. Nathan (utilizing the writings of Samuel and Gad) produces the Book of Samuel to describe Israel’s new exodus. The tabernacle is torn in two and reunited in the Temple of Solomon. And so with this change in covenant, there is a flurry of new scripture: Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs, Job, Ecclesiastes, Judges, Samuel, and Ruth. These scriptures sanctify Israel, mark its identity, and form the faithful as a distinctive people, learning and digesting wisdom until they are prepared for the next deposit.

The next flurry of scripture comes with the death and resurrection of Israel in her exile and return. The process begins with the prophetic callings of Elijah in the north and Isaiah in the south. The ministries of Elijah and Elisha are formative of a faithful remnant in the north who will constitute one part of the faithful, Torah-observant remnant who will be spread as the “four winds of heaven” to witness to the Gentiles. He establishes schools of the prophets for the transmission of scripture (prophets seem to me to have doubled as scribes and interpreters of the Torah and other scripture, which is why Huldah the prophetess could identify the Book of the Torah found in the Temple) its teaching in the tradition of the prophets. Isaiah in the south does much the same, and the composition of the Book of Isaiah signals the certainty of exile and the redemptive purpose of God through that exile. Other writing prophets will mark time relative to Isaiah’s words, as their allusive strategies relate Israel’s contemporary situation to particular prophetic words in Isaiah. So also for the other scriptures produced during this period- Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, the Twelve, Daniel, Esther, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles. The Psalter is expanded and reorganized from its original Davidic Psalter, and a new block of Solomonic teaching is added to Proverbs.

Ezra provides the final compositional organization for the whole Tanakh- the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings. He sharpens the literary seams of these three blocks in order to point his readers towards the ultimate destiny of Israel, which is the redemption during the days of Messiah and the lightening of the nations that results. In each of these flurries of scripture, scripture is produced as a sign of a new work that God is doing with His children. It functions as a special marker of Israel’s election as the priestly nation, since, as apostle Paul says, “to them was entrusted the oracles of God.” With the coming of Israel’s Messiah, the accomplishment of the redemption, and the opening of the doors to the nations, there is nothing more natural than the production of a new block of scripture to signify this new age, and that is exactly what we see.

From the earliest Christianity, it is evident that a distinctive biblical canon is providing a corporate sense of identity and serving as an impetus for theological reflection. Clement, Hermas, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Polycarp, virtually every one of the earliest Christian writers outside the New Testament makes extensive allusion to a wide variety of New Testament books, many of them explicitly citing them with a scriptural formula. Also telling is the distinctive Christian scribal practices that are evident across the early manuscript tradition, practices like the “nomina sacra” where sacred names like “Jesus Christ” were abbreviated in a ritualized and specific way. The early Christians also popularized the use of the codex, so that in the second century, 75% of Christian texts and 100% of biblical texts were written on codices, unlike 5% of non-Christian texts in the same period.

Persecutions against Christians generally included the seizing and destruction of their scriptures, and the historical authenticity of the Bible became a flashpoint in third century debates between pagans and Christians. These facts show that the New Testament was regarded as absolutely authoritative from the very earliest period, that it was transmitted as a collection of collections, probably with a single apostolic canonical order, that it was regarded as one book together with the Tanakh, and that it was one of the most important signs of the church’s distinctive identity, a distinctiveness enacted through a unique set of scribal practices.

2 notes · View notes

morganh1066-blog · 7 years ago

Text

why the historicity of the jesus character is poor

did the jesus character really exist?

keep in mind that i'm not saying that this character 100% didn't exist. i'm saying that it's extremely unlikely due to the lack of credible evidence. it is fallacious to say that because something is possible that it is therefore probable. i'll answer this in multiple posts, and they will be a bit long, but give it some patience, and i'll describe it in as much depth as i can.

historically the question on the historicity isn't anything new, there have been a number of people who have doubted the credibility of the proposed data. the scholarly research into the idea that the jesus character wasn't real goes back to the 1700s with Volney and Dupuis. There's also Bauer, Remsberg, W.B. Smith, Arthur Drews, Couchoud, Bolland, Allegro, GA Wells, Richard Carrier, Robert Price, Thomas Brodie, and Doherty

the main point is that *there is absolutely no direct evidence or primary sources for the character. * it never wrote anything, no one who met the character wrote anything about it, thus all of the proposed evidence is secondary at best and hearsay.

the people i have communicated with have brought up a number of people's writing as "proof." in particular:

Mara Bar Serapion (prisoner awaiting execution), Clement of Rome, 2 Clement4, Ignatius, Josephus (Jewish historian), Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Didache, Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, Fragments of Papias, Tacitus (Roman historian), Lucian (Greek satirist), Justin Martyr, Aristides, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Quadratus, Aristo of Pella, Phlegon (freed slave who wrote histories), Melito of Sardis, Diognetus, Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, Epistula Apostolorum, Celsus (Roman philosopher), Pliny the Younger (Roman politician), Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, Treatise, Suetonius, Thallus, gospels: Matt, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and the reference to tiberius

first off, the gospels themselves are not valid forms of biography.

_"Paul did not write the letters to Timothy to Titus or several others published under his name; and it is unlikely that the apostles Matthew, James, Jude, Peter and John had anything to do with the canonical books ascribed to them."_ -- Michael D. Coogan, Professor of religious studies at Stonehill College (Bible Review, June 1994)

_"The Gospel authors were Jews writing within the midrashic tradition and intended their stories to be read as interpretive narratives, not historical accounts."_ -- Bishop Shelby Spong, Liberating the Gospels

_"Other scholars have concluded that the Bible is the product of a purely human endeavor, that the identity of the authors is forever lost and that their work has been largely obliterated by centuries of translation and editing."_ -- Jeffery L. Sheler, “Who Wrote the Bible,” (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)

_"Yet today, there are few Biblical scholars– from liberal skeptics to conservative evangelicals- who believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John actually wrote the Gospels. Nowhere do the writers of the texts identify themselves by name or claim unambiguously to have known or traveled with Jesus."_ -- Jeffery L. Sheler, “The Four Gospels,” (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)

_"The bottom line is we really don’t know for sure who wrote the Gospels."_ -- Jerome Neyrey, of the Weston School of Theology, Cambridge, Mass. in “The Four Gospels,” (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)

_"So unreliable were the Gospel accounts that 'we can now know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus.' "_ -- Rudolf Bultmann, University of Marburg, the foremost Protestant scholar in the field in 1926

_"The gospels are very peculiar types of literature. They’re not biographies."_ -- Paula Fredriksen, Professor and historian of early Christianity, Boston University (in the PBS documentary, From Jesus to Christ, aired in 1998)

_"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts."_ -- Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School

the other very important fact is that there is no contemporaneous historical account of the jesus character. there are first century historians that never mention the jesus character at all:

*seneca*: 4bce-65ce *pliny the elder*: 23-79 *quintilian*: 39-96 *epictetus*: 55-135 *martial*: 38-103 *juvenal*: 55-127 *plutarch*: 46-119 *philo-judaeus*: 15bce-50ce

some of the dead sea scrolls were contemporaneous and they don't mention the character either.

next i’ll discuss the books of the new testament.

================================

here is the list of the books in the new testament:

_*writer book*_ *matt* matt *mark* mark *luke* luke acts *john* john I john II john III john revelation *peter* I peter II peter *james* james *jude* jude *paul* romans philipians I timothy II timothy I corinthians II corinthians colossians titus I thessalonians II thessalonians philemon galatians ephesians *undetermined* hebrews

note that paul appears to have written pretty much half of these books and according to *galatians 1:11-12* he clearly states that he didn't get this information from a man, but rather from revelation.

*matt*: not able to confirm author. _written in the 80s_. (ehrman, lost christianities: the battles for scripture and the faiths we never knew [oup2003], p235) no original manuscripts are in existence. could not have been an eyewitness as written far after the supposed death (einar thomassen, " 'forgery' in the new testament," in the invention of sacred tradition, ed. james r lewis and olav hammer [cambridge: cambridge university press, 2007], p141)

*mark*: not able to confirm author. _written 70-75._ no original manuscripts are in existence. not an eyewitness as per matt reference

*luke, acts*: not able to confirm author. _written in the 80s._ no original manuscripts are in existence.not an eyewitness as per matt reference

*john, I john, II john, III john, revelation*: not able to confirm author. however it is the only gospel that gives a clue that the actual author could have been john (john 21:20-24). _written in the 90s._ no original manuscripts are in existence. not an eyewitness as per matt reference.

*I peter, II peter*: not able to confirm author. _written about 80-90_ [Stanton, Graham. Eerdmans Commentary of the Bible. Wm.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 2003.] considered to be "wisdom literature." Many scholars are convinced that Peter was not the author. (Achtemeier, Paul. Peter 1 Hermeneia. Fortress Press. 1996) authorship of 1 Peter remains contested. (Travis B. Williams (1 November 2012). Persecution in 1 Peter: Differentiating and Contextualizing Early Christian Suffering. BRILL. pp. 28–. ISBN 978-90-04-24189-3. Retrieved 1 April 2013.)

*james*: not able to confirm author, considered to be pseudonymous. considered to be written in the last 1st and first 2nd century ("Epistle of James". Early Christian Writings. Retrieved 16 May 2012.) _The earliest extant manuscripts of James usually date to the mid-to-late third century._ (McCartney, Dan G (2009). Robert W Yarbrough and Robert H Stein, ed. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: James. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.)

*jude*: _written at the end of the 1st century_. Although some scholars consider the letter a pseudonymous work written between the end of the 1st century and the first quarter of the 2nd century, arguing from the references to the apostles (jude 17&18), and tradition (jude 3). and the book's competent Greek style, conservative scholars date it between 66 to 90 (Norman Perrin, (1974) The New Testament: An Introduction, p. 260 and Bauckham,RJ (1986), Word Biblical Commentary, Vol.50, Word (UK) Ltd. p.16-17)

*attributed to paul*: romans, philipians, I timothy, II timothy, I corinthians, II corinthians, colossians, titus, I thessalonians, II thessalonians, philemon, galatians, ephesians. thessalonians is usually dated to 49 ce, but later ones are mid 60s. paul, by his own witness was not an eye-witness of the jesus character as stated in galatians 1:11-12. no originals are in existence. the earliest are some from 200 (Ehrman, Bart (2005) Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, Harper SanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-073817-0. page 60)

*hebrews*: author unknown. _written around 80_. no original manuscript is in existence.

bruze metzger wrote: *"none of the original documents is extant, and the existing copies differ from one another."* (Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 1992) the earliest manuscripts date back to 125 to 400, and none of those are originals.

incidentally, bart ehrman considers that 11 or more books out of the 27 books of the new testament were written as forgeries and that the "New Testament books attributed to Jesus’ disciples could not have been written by them because they were illiterate." the article continues to say that ehrman believes that _"Many of the New Testament’s forgeries were manufactured by early Christian leaders trying to settle theological feuds."_ (*"Half of New Testament forged, Bible scholar says".* CNN. 2011. retrieved 1 25 14)

ehrman continues to say that these are the forged books: Acts of the Apostles, First Epistle of Peter, Second Epistle of Peter, Epistle of James, Epistle of Jude, First Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians, First Epistle of Paul to Timothy, Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy, Epistle of Paul to Titus, Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians, and the Epistle of Paul to the Colossians.

thus from this information, with no original documents in existence, none of the manuscripts is a primary source for the sole purpose of evaluating the historicity of the jesus character.

next, i'll show the "proofs" outside of the bible

==========================

now regarding the "proofs" outside of the bible that people have frequently presented to me:

1 Mara Bar Serapion (prisoner awaiting execution) 2 Clement of Rome 3 2 Clement4 4 Ignatius 5 Josephus (Jewish historian) 6 Polycarp 7 Martyrdom of Polycarp 8 Didache 9 Barnabas 10 Shepherd of Hermas 11 Fragments of Papias 12 Tacitus (Roman historian) 13 Lucian (Greek satirist) 14 Justin Martyr 15 Aristides 16 Athenagoras 17 Theophilus of Antioch 18 Quadratus 19 Aristo of Pella 20 Phlegon (freed slave who wrote histories) 21 Melito of Sardis 22 Diognetus 23 Gospel of Peter 24 Apocalypse of Peter 25 Epistula Apostolorum 26 Celsus (Roman philosopher) 27 Pliny the Younger (Roman politician) 28 Gospel of Thomas 29 Gospel of Truth 30 Apocryphon of John 31 Treatise. 32 Suetonius 33 Thallus

gospels: 34 Matt 35 Mark 36 Luke 37 John 38 Paul

39 reference to tiberius

what's also important is to not fall into the fallacy of mistaking *quantity over quality.* this is akin to two wrongs making a right. it needs to be *quality over quantity.*

so let's start with #39, tiberius:

that someone says another person lived during the time of the supposed character but that the person never wrote about the character is not proof. you have to have the writing about the character for there to actually be contemporaneous evidence. until then it's just claimed contemporaneous _*existence.*_ NOT evidence.

and let's go to 34-38. the gospels. and paul.

These are a few of the quotes regarding the gospels as non-historical accounts like i had mentioned before:

_"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts."_ -- Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School

_"the gospels are very peculiar types of literature. they're not biographies. I mean, there are all sorts of details about jesus that they're simply not interested in giving us. they are a kind of religious advertisement. what they do is proclaim their individual author's interpretation of the christian message through the device of using jesus of nazareth as a spokesperson for the evangelists's position"_ -- religious scholar and historian (paula fredriksen, pbs, "paula fredriksen: religious advertisements," accessed 2/4/12)

gospel "proof":

#34: *matt*: not able to confirm author. _written in the 80s_. (ehrman, lost christianities: the battles for scripture and the faiths we never knew [oup2003], p235) no original manuscripts are in existence. could not have been an eyewitness as written far after the supposed death (einar thomassen, " 'forgery' in the new testament," in the invention of sacred tradition, ed. james r lewis and olav hammer [cambridge: cambridge university press, 2007], p141)

#35: *mark*: not able to confirm author. _written 70-75._ no original manuscripts are in existence. not an eyewitness as per matt reference

#36: *luke, acts*: not able to confirm author. _written in the 80s._ no original manuscripts are in existence.not an eyewitness as per matt reference

#37: *john, I john, II john, III john, revelation*: not able to confirm author. however it is the only gospel that gives a clue that the actual author could have been john (john 21:20-24). _written in the 90s._ no original manuscripts are in existence. not an eyewitness as per matt reference.

#38: *attributed to paul*: romans, philipians, I timothy, II timothy, I corinthians, II corinthians, colossians, titus, I thessalonians, II thessalonians, philemon, galatians, ephesians. thessalonians is usually dated to 49 ce, but later ones are mid 60s. paul, by his own witness was not an eye-witness of the jesus character as stated in galatians 1:11-12. no originals are in existence. the earliest are some from 200 (Ehrman, Bart (2005) Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, Harper SanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-073817-0. page 60)

the gospels make no mention that the name of the gospel was written by that person. these are written far after the death of the jesus character, and thus is hearsay. none of these people ever met the jesus character.

hearsay is not credible evidence.

and now on to #1-#33 non-biblical "proofs:"

*#1:* Mara Bar Serapion (prisoner awaiting execution). the reference to the "crucifixion" was written 73 AD does not show direct evidence but just proves that people talked about it. he could have been talking about santa claus, but that doesn't mean it would be true.

*#2:* Clement of Rome. his papacy was between 92-99. he never met the character.

*#3:* 2 Clement4. this character is in the new testament. modern scholars believe 2 clement is written around 95-140 by an anonymous author.

*#4:* Ignatius. never met the jesus character. (from 98 to 117)

*#5:* Josephus (Jewish historian). born after the supposed death of the characer. never met the jesus character. this only confirms that christians existed. this is not direct evidence; it is hearsay

*#6:* Polycarp. was a 2nd-century Christian bishop of Smyrna. never met the character.

*#7:* Martyrdom of Polycarp. from 155-160. this is well outside the life of the supposed jesus character. it just proves that christians existed.

*#8:* Didache. late first and early 2nd century.

*#9:* Barnabas. never anywhere does it say that barnabas met the jesus character. and amusingly, there's another book called, the "gospel of barnabas" which is a post-medieval manuscript that says that the jesus character wasn't even the son of god and that it never died on the cross. dating on it is disputed, but it's post-medieval

*#10:* Shepherd of Hermas. first or second century. in the document it never states that the character ever met the jesus character.

*#11:* Fragments of Papias. who died in AD 155. never met the jesus character.

*#12:* Tacitus (Roman historian) 56-133. born after the supposed death of the characer. never met the jesus character. this only again confirms that christians existed. this is not direct evidence; it is hearsay. rafael lataster writes, _"it is interesting that the name 'jesus', 'jesus son of joseph' or 'jesus of nazareth' is never used, and that this is tacitus' only supposed reference to jesus."_ he continues, _"though 'Annals' covers the period of rome's history from around 14ce to 66ce no other mention is made of 'jesus christ'."_ ehrman references this as well in "did jesus exist, p54. lataster, p61.

Tacitus writes in annals, book 15, chapter 44, *written 116 ad:* _“Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.”_

*most importantly tacitus was born 20 years after the supposed death of the character and lived 2000 miles away and wrote the passage in 116. So as for the two sentences attributed to tacitus' to be a source to without a doubt to clinch it for the jesus character to actually exist, it's not going to be with tacitus.*

notice also that it was *written 116 ad.* this is almost 100 years after the supposed death of the jesus character. We have no primary sources for Tacitus only *copies or copies* that were *written centuries later.* To suggest that these are word for word copies of the original are absurd considering the considerable christian forgeries during that time.

This passage is also not any different or a more credible source for the jesus character than for me writing in 2014 on Mormonism, "the great golden plates were delivered unto joseph smith as told by moroni" just because i went to school 23.5 miles away from palmyra new york doesn't make it any more plausible.

johannes weiss, the german theologian wrote, _*“Assuredly there were the general lines of even a purely fictitious Christian tradition already laid down about the year 100; Tacitus may therefore draw upon this tradition” *_

german theologian david strauss wrote that the earliest christian communities reworded the gospels to suit local prejudices. hegel noted that christian doctrine kept changing to suit power hierarchy. forgery in the early church was rampant and nothing new.

the contradictions are rampant with regard to the completely missing mention of christianity in book 5 chapters 8 through 10 of the annals that describe judea at the supposed time of the jesus character. *they make no mention of the crucifiction of the jesus character as described in the dubious book 15 chapter 44 two sentences.*

What's more is in the annals of chapters 8-10 makes not even a mention of christians, christianity or the jesus character at all. and all of these references are from writings that are not primary sources as the originals are no longer extant and all we have are copies of copies.

In the tacitus' histories book 5.2-5 he rationalies the greek-roman myths by believing that zeus and kronos were kings. So we're not particularly dealing with someone who could separate fact from fiction.

and with these glaring contradictions, we can thoroughly question the credibility of the claim that the *mere two sentences* attributed to tacitus in any way corroborates anything about the life of a jesus figure's historicity.

We still have no contemporary sources for the existence of the jesus character, nothing written by the character, and especially nothing written about the tons of people that flocked to the character whether or not the character was miraculous or not.

*we want evidence; distinct, obvious, uncompromised evidence.* That is a reasonable request. we want evidence not based on hearsay accounts or ambiguous and slightly dubious sources. Evidence that is not just being argued to fit a narrative that is devoid of any contemporary evidence. then I will change my opinion. but until then, it doesn't matter at all how many times you bang the drum of an appeal to authority or populace or through abusive ad hom call those that require unabiguous evidence "delusional."

*#13:* Lucian (Greek satirist). *lucian (Greek satirist)* -- 125-180. born after the supposed death of the characer. never met the jesus character. this once again only confirms that christians existed. this is not direct evidence; it is hearsay.

*#14:* Justin Martyr. 100 – 165 Ad. he never met the jesus character.

*#15:* Aristides. do you mean "aristides the athenian" who was born in the 2nd century ad or do you mean aelius aristides (117-181)? neither of these people met the jesus character.

*#16:* Athenagoras. born 133 ad in greece. never met the character.

*#17:* Theophilus of Antioch. died around 183-185. never met the jesus character.

*#18:* Quadratus. again, born way late in the first century, and died 129. never met the jesus character. *#19:* Aristo of Pella. from 100-160, who is only known because of a mention by eusebius.

*#20:* Phlegon (freed slave who wrote histories). who lived in the 2nd century AD. born after the supposed death of the characer. never met the jesus character.

*#21:* Melito of Sardis. mid 2nd century.

*#22:* Diognetus. late 2nd century.

*#23:* Gospel of Peter. this is actually in the bible, so it's not, "outside the new testament." *I peter, II peter*: not able to confirm author. _written about 80-90_ [Stanton, Graham. Eerdmans Commentary of the Bible. Wm.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 2003.] considered to be "wisdom literature." Many scholars are convinced that Peter was not the author. (Achtemeier, Paul. Peter 1 Hermeneia. Fortress Press. 1996) authorship of 1 Peter remains contested. (Travis B. Williams (1 November 2012). Persecution in 1 Peter: Differentiating and Contextualizing Early Christian Suffering. BRILL. pp. 28–. ISBN 978-90-04-24189-3. Retrieved 1 April 2013.)

*#24:* Apocalypse of Peter. this is from the 2nd century. way after the death of the supposed character. this does not corroborate anything.

*#25:* Epistula Apostolorum. also from the 2nd century.

*#26:* Celsus (Roman philosopher). 2nd-century Greek philosopher. born after the supposed death of the character. never met the jesus character. this is not direct evidence; it is hearsay

*#27:* Pliny the Younger (Roman politician). 61-112 born after the supposed death of the character. never met the jesus character. this is not direct evidence; it is hearsay.

*#28:* Gospel of Thomas. Heretical Writings Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, and Treatise on resurrection. this is very nice, but most scholars state that thomas was written in the second century.

*#29:* Gospel of Truth. Was written in greek probably between 140 and 180 by valentinian gnostics. (Attridge, Harold W. and MacRae, George W. "The Gospel of Truth (Introduction and Translation)". The Nag Hammadi Library, James M. Robinson (ed.), pp. 38-51.) the text puts "error" in personified form. and says that the jesus character was sent down by god to remove ignorance. error grew angry that the jesus character confounded scribes and teachers and nailed the jesus character to a tree. bit of a different story there.

*#30:* Apocryphon of John. written in 185. it was referred to by irenaeus in "adversus haereses" and stated that teachers in the 2nd century were producing an "an indescribable number of secret and illegitimate writings, which they themselves have forged, to bewilder the minds of foolish people, who are ignorant of the true scriptures" (adversus haereses 1.20.1 and Pagels 2003:96)

*#31:* Treatise. not exactly sure what this is referring to. the book of acts refers to the gospel of luke as "the former treatise." if this is the case, it is not non-biblical. luke and acts do not have a confirmed author. _written in the 80s._ no original manuscripts are in existence.not an eyewitness as per matt reference.

*#32:* Suetonius. aside from seutonius not being a contemporary of the jesus character, only wrote, "since the jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of chrestus, he expelled them from rome." (seutonius and jc rolfe, the lives of the caesars, vol 2[london: heinemann, 1914, life of claudius 25.4]) chrestus is a greek name, meaning "the good," so does not necessarily have to refer to the jesus character. note that christians are also not specified, though many early christians were undoubtedly jews. this passage offers little to no information about the jesus of nazareth character.

*#33:* Thallus. lived in the third century. born after the supposed death of the character. never met the jesus character. it's just a reference that 9th century christian chronologer george syncellus wrote, "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse of the Sun in the third book of his Histories." this is ultimately not non-christian reference as syncellus wrote it.

nothing in the dead sea scrolls, btw, which actually was contemporaneous!

and lastly the talmud which some christians reference: there are a number of reference to various character called "jesus" (specifically from the "gemara") which may or may not reference the jesus character of nazareth. the gemara is actually from the 5th or 6th century which is 400-500 years after the death of the supposed character. there are other jesuses refered to in josephus as well, such as , "jesus ben pandira," jesus bar phabet,” and “jesus bar gamaliel." the name “jesus” was a very common name. nothing to directly connect to the jesus of nazareth character.

there is no additive truths here, that the more fractional truths add up to an actual truth. you can have a bunch of people pretending that santa claus was real and the more people saying it's true doesn't make it any more true due the the fallacy of appealing to populace. don't mistake quantity over quality and make two wrongs make a right.

and that something must have been amazing to cause people to write so much after the fact is not evidence either. it just made it an ad hoc popular idea. and evidence from silence is still silence not evidence.

there's also a quote from historian robert wilken:

_"when christianity gained control of the roman empire it suppressed the writings of its critics and even cast them into flames."_ (robert louis wilken, the christians as the romans saw them, [new haven, ct: yale university press, 2003] p xvi)

so there's some censorship for ya of critics of christianity. what they complained about we'll never know either.

next i will discuss the problem of the jesus character not fullfilling the prophecies. these are not at all related to proofs for the historical existence of the jesus character but internal criticism (relating just within the bible itself).

=============================

this is the last post of why the evidence (or lack of evidence) suggest that the jesus character very likely didn't exist. these are not at all related to proofs for the historical existence of the jesus character but internal criticism (relating just within the bible itself).

as for if the character even fulfilled the prophecies that's another problem and let's go over that, too:

and according to the jews, the jesus character doesn't fulfill the prophecies. specifically, the bible says he will: Build the Third Temple -- *Ezekiel 37:26-28* Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel -- *Isaiah 43:5-6* Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." -- *Isaiah 2:4* Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world ― on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" -- *Zechariah 14:9*

If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be the Messiah. none of these has been fulfilled.

and that this deity which cannot support any burden of proof of itself either sends this message of a mortal son to illiterate bronze age idiots instead of people who could actually make written testimony of it like china for example.

Sin is an imaginary disease that was invented to sell you an imaginary cure. it's the essence of marketing. and the outlandish cures are snake oil cures.

even the old testament doesn't allow for the scapegoat: Deut 24:16 states "Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin."

Exodus 32:30-34 shows that the deity refuses to make a scapegoat of moses: The next day Moses said to the people, “You have committed a great sin. But now I will go up to the Lord; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin.” So Moses went back to the Lord and said, “Oh, what a great sin these people have committed! They have made themselves gods of gold. But now, please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written.” The Lord replied to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book. Now go, lead the people to the place I spoke of, and my angel will go before you. However, when the time comes for me to punish, I will punish them for their sin.”

ezekiel 18:1-4 shows that the deity refuses to make scapegoats, each shall take responsibility for their actions: "guilty he word of the Lord came to me: “What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel: ‘The parents eat sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge’? “As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child��both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die."

and then of course there's the point that the jesus character was a total commie, " sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor and you will have treasure in heaven." *luke 18:22, mark 10:21, matt 19:21. *

horrible family values of the jesus character: _"... i have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother in law and one's foes will be members of one's own household"_ -- matt 10:35-36; luke 12:52-53

more horrible family values of the jesus character: _"whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me"_ -- matt 10:37

and even more bad family values of leaving one's own family: _"another said, 'i will follow you lord; but let me first say farewell to those at home.' jesus said to him 'no one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of god"_ -- luke 9:61-62

we all are a better example of this so-called savior who wants people to abandon their family.

and great forgotten teachings that no one follows: _".. anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery"_ -- matt 5:32; 19:9; mark 10:11-12; luke 16:18

this immoral character is not only not likely to be real, but is an horrible example of any kind of idol one should ever follow.

and after all of that, 1 cor 15:14, _"... if christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."_

1 note · View note

michaellozano171 · 8 years ago

Text

Salvation

Bible Study Salvation sal - vā´shun : I. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 1. General 2. Individualism 3. Faith 4. Moral Law 5. Sacrifices 6. Ritual Law II. INTERMEDIATE LITERATURE 1. General 2. The Law III. THE TEACHING OF CHRIST 1. The Baptist 2. Kingdom of God 3. Present and Future 4. Individualism 5. Moral Progress 6. Forgiveness 7. Person of Christ 8. Notes IV. PAUL 1. General 2. Moral Progress 3. The Spirit 4. Mystical Union 5. Forgiveness 6. Atonement 7. Summary 8. Notes V. THE REST OF THE NEW TESTAMENT : SUMMARY 1. John 2. Hebrews 3. Peter 4. Summary LITERATURE In English Versions of the Bible the words "salvation" "save," are not technical theological terms, but denote simply "deliverance," in almost any sense the latter word can have. In systematic theology, however, "salvation" denotes the whole process by which man is delivered from all that would prevent his attaining to the highest good that God has prepared for him. Or, by a transferred sense, "salvation" denotes the actual enjoyment of that good. So, while these technical senses are often associated with the Greek or Hebrew words translated "save," etc., yet they are still more often used in connection with other words or represented only by the general sense of a passage. And so a collection of the original terms for "save," etc., is of value only for the student doing minute detailed work, while it is the purpose of the present article to present a general view of the Biblical doctrine of salvation. I. In the Old Testament 1. General: (1) As long as revelation had not raised the veil that separates this life from the next, the Israelite thought of his highest good as long life in a prosperous Palestine, as described most typically in Deuteronomy 28:1-14 . But a definite religious idea was present also, for the "land of milk and honey," even under angelic protection, was worthless without access to God (Exodus 33:1-4 ), to know whom gives happiness (Isaiah 11:9; Habakkuk 2:14; Jeremiah 31:34 ). Such a concept is normal for most of the Old Testament, but there are several significant enlargements of it. That Israel should receive God's characteristic of righteousness is a part of the ideal (Isaiah 1:26; Isaiah 4:3 , Isaiah 4:4; Isaiah 32:1-8; Isaiah 33:24; Jeremiah 31:33 , Jeremiah 31:34; Ezekiel 36:25 , Ezekiel 36:26; Zec 8; Daniel 9:24; Psalms 51:10-12 ). Good was found in the extension of Israel's good to the surrounding nations (Micah 4:1-4; Isaiah 2:2-4; Isaiah 45:5 , Isaiah 45:6; Zechariah 2:11; Zechariah 8:22 , Zechariah 8:23; Isa 60; Isaiah 66:19-21; Zechariah 14:16 , Zechariah 14:17 , etc.), even to the extension of the legitimate sacrificial worship to the soil of Egypt (Isaiah 19:19-22 ). Palestine was insufficient for the enjoyment of God's gifts, and a new heaven and a new earth were to be received (Isaiah 65:17; Isaiah 66:22 ), and a share in the glories was not to be denied even to the dead (Isaiah 26:19; Daniel 12:2 ). And, among the people so glorified, God would dwell in person (Isaiah 60:19 , Isaiah 60:20; Zechariah 2:10-12 ). (2) Salvation, then, means deliverance from all that interferes with the enjoyment of these blessings. So it takes countless forms - deliverance from natural plagues, from internal dissensions, from external enemies, or from the subjugation of conquerors (the exile, particularly). As far as enemies constitute the threatening danger, the prayer for deliverance is often based on their evil character (Psalms 101:1-8 , etc.). But for the individual all these evils are summed up in the word "death," which was thought to terminate all relation to God and all possibility of enjoying His blessings (Psalms 115:17; Isaiah 38:18 , etc.). And so "death" became established as the antinomy to "salvation," and in this sense the word has persisted, although the equation "loss of salvation = physical death" has long been transcended. But death and its attendant evils are worked by God's wrath, and so it is from this wrath that salvation is sought (Joshua 7:26 , etc.). And thus, naturally, salvation is from everything that raises that wrath, above all from sin (Ezekiel 36:25 , Ezekiel 36:26 , etc.). 2. Individualism: (1) At first the "unit of salvation" was the nation (less prominently the family), i.e. a man though righteous could lose salvation through the faults of others. A father could bring a curse on his children (2 Samuel 21:1-14 ), a king on his subjects (2 Sam 24), or an unknown sinner could bring guilt on an entire community (Deuteronomy 21:1-9 ). (On the other hand, ten righteous would have saved Sodom (Genesis 18:32 ).) And the principle of personal responsibility was grasped but slowly. It is enunciated partly in Deuteronomy 24:16 (compare Jeremiah 31:29 , Jeremiah 31:30 ), definitely in Ezekiel 14:12-20; 18; 33:1-20, and fairly consistently in the Psalms. But even Ezekiel still held that five-and-twenty could defile the whole nation (Ezekiel 8:16 ), and he had not the premises for resolving the problem - that temporal disasters need not mean the loss of salvation. (2) But even when it was realized that a man lost salvation through his own fault, the converse did not follow. Salvation came, not by the man's mere merit, but because the man belonged to a nation peculiarly chosen by God. God had made a covenant with Israel and His fidelity insured salvation: the salvation comes from God because of His promise or (in other words) because of His name. Indeed, the great failing of the people was to trust too blindly to this promise, an attitude denounced continually by the prophets throughout (from, say, Amos 3:2 to Matthew 3:9 ). And yet even the prophets admit a real truth in the attitude, for, despite Israel's sins, eventual salvation is certain. Ezekiel 20 states this baldly: there has been nothing good in Israel and there is nothing good in her at the prophet's own day, but, notwithstanding, God will give her restoration (compare Isaiah 8:17 , Isaiah 8:18; Jeremiah 32:6-15 , etc.). 3. Faith: Hence, of the human conditions, whole-hearted trust in God is the most important. ( Belief in God is, of course, never argued in the Bible.) Inconsistent with such trust are, for instance, seeking aid from other nations ( Isaiah 30:1-5 ), putting reliance in human skill (2 Chronicles 16:12 ), or forsaking Palestine through fear (Jer 42). In Isaiah 26:20 entire passivity is demanded, and in 2 Kings 13:19 lukewarmness in executing an apparently meaningless command is rebuked. 4. Moral Law: (1) Next in importance is the attainment of a moral standard, expressed normally in the various codes of the Law. But fulfillment of the letter of the commandment was by no means all that was required. For instance, the Law permitted the selling of a debtor into slavery (Deuteronomy 15:12 ), but the reckless use of the creditor's right is sharply condemned (Nehemiah 5:1-13 ). The prophets are never weary of giving short formulas that will exclude such supralegalism and reduce conduct to a pure motive: "Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish justice in the gate" (Amos 5:15 ); "To do justly, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God" (Micah 6:8 ). And the chief emphasis on the Law as written is found in the later books, especially Ps 119 (compare Psalms 147:20 ). (2) Certain breaches of the Law had no pardon, but were visited with death at once, even despite repentance and confession (Josh 7). But for the most part it is promised that repentance will remove the guilt of the sin if the sin be forsaken (Ezek 18) or, in the case of a sin that would not be repeated, if contrition be felt (2 Sam 12). Suffering played a part in salvation by bringing knowledge of sin to the conscience, the exile being the most important example (Ezekiel 36:31 ). But almost always it is assumed that the possibility of keeping the Law is in man's own power, Deuteronomy 30:11-14 stating this explicitly, while the Wisdom Books equate virtue with learning. Consequently, an immense advance was made when man felt the need of God's help to keep the Law, the need of the inscription of the Laws on the heart ( Jeremiah 31:31-34 ). So an outlook was opened to a future in which God would make the nation righteous (see references in 1, above). 5. Sacrifices: (1) The acceptance of repentance as expiating past sins was an act of God's mercy. And so His mercy instituted other and additional means of expiation, most notably that of the sacrifices. But a theology of sacrifice is conspicuously absent from the whole Old Testament, for Leviticus 17:11 is too incidental and too obscure to be any exception. The Christian (or very late Jewish) interpretations of the ritual laws lack all solidity of exegetical foundation, despite their one-time prevalence. Nor is the study of origins of much help for the meaning attached to the rites by the Jews in historic times. General ideas of offering, of self-denial, of propitiation of wrath, and of entering into communion with God assuredly existed. But in the advanced stages of the religion there is no evidence that sacrifices were thought to produce their effect because of any of these things, but solely because God had commanded the sacrifices. (2) Most sins required a sacrifice as part of the act of repentance, although in case of injury done the neighbor, only after reparation had been made. It is not quite true that for conscious sins no sacrifices were appointed, for in Leviticus 5:1; Leviticus 6:1-3 , sins are included that could not be committed through mere negligence. And so such rules as Numbers 15:30 , Numbers 15:31 must not be construed too rigorously. (3) Sacrifices as means of salvation are taught chiefly by Ezekiel, while at the rebuilding of the temple (Haggai, Zechariah) and the depression that followed (Malachi), they were much in the foreground, but the pre-exilic prophets have little to say about their positive value ( Jeremiah 7:22 is the nadir ). Indeed, in preexilic times the danger was the exaltation of sacrifice at the expense of morality, especially with the peace offering, which could be turned into a drunken revel (Amos 5:21-24; Isaiah 22:13; compare Proverbs 7:14 ). Attempts were made to "strengthen" the sacrifices to Yahweh by the use of ethnic rites (Hosea 4:14; Isaiah 65:1-5 ), even with the extreme of human sacrifice (Jeremiah 7:31; Ezekiel 20:26 ). But insistence on the strict centralization of worship and increasing emphasis laid on the sin and trespass offerings did away with the worst of the abuses. And many of the Psalms, especially Ps 66 and Ps 118, give beautiful evidence of the devotion that could be nourished by the sacrificial rites. 6. Ritual Law: Of the other means of salvation the ritual law (not always sharply distinguishable from the moral law) bulks rather large in the legislation, but is not prominent in the prophets. Requisite to salvation was the abstention from certain acts, articles of food, etc., such abstinence seeming to lie at the background of the term "holiness." But a ritual breach was often a matter of moral duty (burying the dead, etc.), and, for such breaches, ritual means of purification are provided and the matter dropped. Evidently such things lay rather on the circumference of the religion, even to Ezekiel, with his anxious zeal against the least defilement. The highest ritual point is touched by Zechariah 14:20 , Zechariah 14:21 , where all of Jerusalem is so holy that not a pot would be unfit to use in the temple (compare Jeremiah 31:38-40 ). Yet, even with this perfect holiness, sacrifices would still have a place as a means by which the holiness could be increased. Indeed, this more "positive" view of sacrifices was doubtless present from the first. II. Intermediate Literature. 1. General: (1) The great change, compared with the earlier period, is that the idea of God had become more transcendent. But this did not necessarily mean an increase in religious value, for there was a corresponding tendency to take God out of relation to the world by an intellectualizing process. This, when combined with the persistence of the older concept of salvation in this life only, resulted in an emptying of the religious instinct and in indifferentism. This tendency is well represented in Ecclesiastes, more acutely in Sirach, and in New Testament times it dominated the thought of the Sadducees. On the other hand the expansion of the idea of salvation to correspond with the higher conception of God broke through the limitations of this life and created the new literary form of apocalyptics, represented in the Old Testament especially by Zechariah 9 through 14; Isaiah 24 through 27, and above all by Daniel. And in the intermediate literature all shades of thought between the two extremes are represented. But too much emphasis can hardly be laid on the fact that this intermediate teaching is in many regards simply faithful to the Old Testament. Almost anything that can be found in the Old Testament - with the important exception of the note of joyousness of Deuteronomy, etc. - can be found again here. (2) Of the conceptions of the highest good the lowest is the Epicureanism of Sirach. The highest is probably that of 2 Esdras 7:91-98 Revised Version: "To behold the face of him whom in their lifetime they served" the last touch of materialism being eliminated. Indeed, real materialism is notably absent in the period, even Enoch 10:17-19 being less exuberant than the fancies of such early Christian writers as Papias. Individualism is generally taken for granted, but that the opposite opinion was by no means dormant, even at a late period, is shown by Matthew 3:9 . The idea of a special privilege of Israel, however, of course pervades all the literature, Sibylline Oracles 5 and Jubilees being the most exclusive books and the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, the most broad-hearted. In place of national privilege, though, is sometimes found the still less edifying feature of party privilege (Ps Sol; Enoch 94-105), the most offensive case being the assertion of Enoch 90:6-9 that the (inactive) Israel will be saved by the exertions of the "little lamb" Pharisees, before whom every knee shall bow in the Messianic kingdom. 2. The Law: (1) The conceptions of the moral demands for salvation at times reach a very high level, especially in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (making every allowance for Christian interpolations). "The spirit of love worketh together with the law of God in long-suffering unto the salvation of men" (Test. Gad Matthew 4:7 ) is hardly unworthy of Paul, and even Jubilees can say, "Let each love his brother in mercy and justice, and let none wish the other evil" (Jub 36:8). But the great tendency is to view God's law merely as a series of written statutes, making no demands except those gained from a rigid construing of the letter. In Luke 10:29 , "Who is my neighbor?" is a real question - if he is not my neighbor I need not love him! So duties not literally commanded were settled by utilitarian motives, as outside the domain of religion, and the unhealthy phenomenon of works of supererogation made its appearance ( Luke 17:10 ). The writer of Wisdom can feel smugly assured of salvation, because idolatry had been abstained from (Wisd 15:4; contrast Paul's polemic in Rom 2). And discussions about "greatest commandments" caused character in its relation to religion to be forgotten. (2) As God's commands were viewed as statutes the distinction between the moral and the ritual was lost, and the ritual law attained enormous and familiar proportions. The beautiful story of Judith is designed chiefly to teach abstinence from ritually unclean food. And the most extreme case is in Jubilees 6:34-38 - all of Israel's woes come from keeping the feasts by the actual moon instead of by a correct (theoretical) moon (!). (3) Where self-complacency ceased and a strong moral sense was present, despair makes its appearance with extraordinary frequency. The period is the period of penitential prayers, with an undercurrent of doubt as to how far mercy can be expected (Song of Three Children verses 3-22; Pr Man; Baruch 3:1-8, etc.). "What profit is it unto us, if there be promised us an immortal time, whereas we have done the works that bring death?" (2 Esdras 7:119 the Revised Version (British and American)). The vast majority of men are lost (2 Esdras 9:16) and must be forgotten (2 Esdras 8:55), and Ezra can trust for his own salvation only by a special revelation (7:77 the Revised Version (British and American)). So, evidently, Paul's pre-Christian experience was no unique occurrence. (4) Important for the New Testament background is the extreme lack of prominence of the sacrifices. They are never given a theological interpretation (except in Philo, where they cease to be sacrifices). Indeed, in Sirach 35 they are explicitly said to be devotions for the righteous only, apparently prized only as an inheritance from the past and "because of the commandment" (Sirach 35:5; yet compare 38:11). When the temple was destroyed and the sacrifices ceased, Judaism went on its way almost unaffected, showing that the sacrifices meant nothing essential to the people. And, even in earlier times, the Essenes rejected sacrifices altogether, without losing thereby their recognition as Jews. III. The Teaching of Christ. 1. The Baptist: The Baptist proclaimed authoritatively the near advent of the kingdom of God, preceded by a Messianic judgment that would bring fire for the wicked and the Holy Spirit for the righteous. Simple but incisive moral teaching and warning against trusting in national privileges, with baptism as an outward token of repentance, were to prepare men to face this judgment securely. But we have no data to determine how much farther (if any) the Baptist conceived his teaching to lead. 2. Kingdom of God: It was in the full heat of this eschatological revival that the Baptist had fanned, that Christ began to teach, and He also began with the eschatological phrase, "The kingdom of God is at hand." Consequently, His teaching must have been taken at once in an eschatological sense, and it is rather futile to attempt to limit such implications to passages where modern eschatological phrases are used unambiguously. "The kingdom of God is at hand" had the inseparable connotation "Judgment is at hand," and in this context, "Repent ye" (Mark 1:15 ) must mean "lest ye be judged." Hence, our Lord's teaching about salvation had primarily a future content: positively, admission into the kingdom of God, and negatively, deliverance from the preceding judgment. So the kingdom of God is the "highest good" of Christ's teaching but, with His usual reserve, He has little to say about its externals. Man's nature is to be perfectly adapted to his spiritual environment (see RESURRECTION ), and man is to be with Christ (Luke 22:30 ) and the patriarchs (Matthew 8:11 ). But otherwise - and again as usual - the current descriptions are used without comment, even when they rest on rather materialistic imagery (Luke 22:16 , Luke 22:30 ). Whatever the kingdom is, however, its meaning is most certainly not exhausted by a mere reformation of the present order of material things. 3. Present and Future: But the fate of man at judgment depends on what man is before judgment, so that the practical problem is salvation from the conditions that will bring judgment; i.e. present and future salvation are inseparably connected, and any attempt to make rigid distinctions between the two results in logomachies. Occasionally even Christ speaks of the kingdom of God as present, in the sense that citizens of the future kingdom are living already on this earth (Matthew 11:11; Luke 17:21 (?); the meaning of the latter verse is very dubious). Such men are "saved" already (Luke 19:9; Luke 7:50 (?)), i.e. such men were delivered from the bad moral condition that was so extended that Satan could be said to hold sway over the world (Luke 10:18; Luke 11:21 ). 4. Individualism: That the individual was the unit in this deliverance needs no emphasis: Still, the divine privilege of the Jews was a reality and Christ's normal work was limited to them (Matthew 10:5; Matthew 15:26 , etc.). He admitted even that the position of the Jewish religious leaders rested on a real basis (Matthew 23:3 ). But the "good tidings" were so framed that their extension to all men would have been inevitable, even had there not been an explicit command of Christ in this regard. On the other hand, while the message involved in every case strict individual choice, yet the individual who accepted it entered into social relations with the others who had so chosen. So salvation involved admission to a community of service (Mark 9:35 , etc.). And in the latter part of Christ's ministry, He withdrew from the bulk of His disciples to devote Himself to the training of an inner circle of Twelve, an act explicable only on the assumption that these were to be the leaders of the others after He was taken away. Such passages as Matthew 16:18; Matthew 18:17 merely corroborate this. 5. Moral Progress: Of the conditions for the individual, the primary (belief in God being taken for granted) was a correct moral ideal. Exclusion from salvation came from the Pharisaic casuistry which had invented limits to righteousness. Exodus 20:13 had never contemplated permitting angry thoughts if actual murder was avoided, and so on. In contrast is set the idea of character, of the single eye ( Matthew 6:22 ), of the pure heart (Matthew 5:8 ). Only so can the spiritual house be built on a rock foundation. But the mere ideal is not enough; persistent effort toward it and a certain amount of progress are demanded imperatively. Only those who have learned to forgive can ask for forgiveness (Matthew 6:12; Matthew 18:35 ). They who omit natural works of mercy have no share in the kingdom (Mt 25:31-46), for even idle words will be taken into account (Matthew 12:36 ), and the most precious possession that interferes with moral progress is to be sacrificed ruthlessly (Matthew 18:8 , Matthew 18:9 , etc.). Men are known by their fruits (Matthew 7:20 ); it is he that doeth the will of the Father that shall enter into the kingdom (Matthew 7:21 ), and the final ideal - which is likewise the goal - is becoming a son of the Father in moral likeness (Matthew 5:45 ). That this progress is due to God's aid is so intimately a part of Christ's teaching on the entire dependence of the soul on God that it receives little explicit mention, but Christ refers even His own miracles to the Father's power (Luke 11:20 ). 6. Forgiveness: Moral effort, through God's aid, is an indispensable condition for salvation. But complete success in the moral struggle is not at all a condition, in the sense that moral perfection is required. For Christ's disciples, to whom the kingdom is promised (Luke 12:32 ), the palsied man who receives remission of sins (Mark 2:5 ), Zaccheus who is said to have received salvation (Luke 19:9 ), were far from being models of sinlessness. The element in the character that Christ teaches as making up for the lack of moral perfection is becoming "as a little child" (compare Mark 10:15 ). Now the point here is not credulousness (for belief is not under discussion), nor is it meekness (for children are notoriously not meek). And it most certainly is not the pure passivity of the newly born infant, for it is gratuitous to assume that only such infants were meant even in Luke 18:15 , while in Matthew 18:2 (where the child comes in answer to a call) this interpretation is excluded. Now, in the wider teaching of Christ the meaning is made clear enough. Salvation is for the poor in spirit, for those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, for the prodigal knowing his wretchedness. It is for the penitent publican, while the self-satisfied Pharisee is rejected. A sense of need and a desire that God will give are the characteristics. A child does not argue that it has earned its father's benefits but looks to him in a feeling of dependence, with a readiness to do his bidding. So it is the soul that desires all of righteousness, strives toward it, knows that it falls short, and trusts in its Father for the rest, that is the savable soul. 7. Person of Christ: Christ speaks of the pardon of the publican (Luke 18:9 ff) and of the prodigal welcomed by the Father ( Luke 15:20 ), both without intermediary. And it is perhaps not necessary to assume that all of those finding the strait gate (Matthew 7:14 ) were explicitly among Christ's disciples. But would Christ have admitted that anyone who had come to know Him and refused to obey Him would have been saved? To ask this question is to answer it in the negative (Mark 9:40 is irrelevant). Real knowledge of the Father is possible only through the unique knowledge of the Son ( Luke 10:21 , Luke 10:22 ), and lack of faith in the Son forfeits all blessings (Mark 6:5 , Mark 6:6; Mark 9:23 ). Faith in Him brings instant forgiveness of sins (Mark 2:5 ), and love directed to Him is an indisputable sign that forgiveness has taken place (Luke 7:47 ). But Christ thought of Himself as Messiah and, if the term "Messiah" is not to be emptied of its meaning, this made Him judge of the world (such verses as Mark 8:38 are hardly needed for direct evidence). And, since for Christ's consciousness an earthly judgeship is unthinkable, a transcendental judgeship is the sole alternative, corroborated by the use of the title Son of Man. But passage from simple humanity to the transcendental glory of the Son-of-Man Messiah involved a change hardly expressible except by death and resurrection. And the expectation of death was in Christ's mind from the first, as is seen by Mark 2:18 , Mark 2:19 (even without Mark 2:20 ). That He could have viewed His death as void of significance for human salvation is simply inconceivable, and the ascription of Mark 10:45 to Pauline influence is in defiance of the facts. Nor is it credible that Christ conceived that in the interval between His death and His Parousia He would be out of relation to His own. To Him the unseen world was in the closest relation to the visible world, and His passage into glory would strengthen, not weaken, His power. So there is a complete justification of Mark 14:22-25 : to Christ His death had a significance that could be paralleled only by the death of the Covenant victim in Exodus 24:6-8 , for by it an entirely new relation was established between God and man. 8. Notes: (1) Salvation from physical evil was a very real part, however subordinate, of Christ's teaching ( Mark 1:34 , etc.). (2) Ascetic practices as a necessary element in salvation can hardly claim Christ's authority. It is too often forgotten that the Twelve were not Christ's only disciples. Certainly not all of the hundred and twenty of Acts 1:15 (compare Acts 1:21 ), nor of the five hundred of 1 Corinthians 15:6 , were converted after the Passion. And they all certainly could not have left their homes to travel with Christ. So the demands made in the special case of the Twelve (still less in such an extremely special case as Mark 10:21 ) in no way represent Christ's normal practice, whatever readiness for self-sacrifice may have been asked of all. So the representations of Christ as ruthlessly exacting all from everyone are quite unwarranted by the facts. And it is well to remember that it is Matthew 11:19 that contains the term of reproach that His adversaries gave Him. IV. Paul. Instead of laying primal stress on Paul's peculiar contributions to soteriology, it will be preferable to start from such Pauline passages as simply continue the explicit teaching of Christ. For it is largely due to the common reversal of this method that the present acute "Jesus-Paulus" controversy exists. 1. General: That Paul expected the near advent of the kingdom of God with a judgment preceding, and that salvation meant to him primarily deliverance from this judgment, need not be argued. And, accordingly, emphasis is thrown sometimes on the future deliverance and sometimes on the present conditions for the deliverance (contrast Romans 5:9 and Romans 8:24 ), but the practical problem is the latter. More explicitly than in Christ's recorded teaching the nature and the blessings of the kingdom are described (see KINGDOM OF GOD ), but the additional matter is without particular religious import. A certain privilege of the Jews appears (Romans 3:1-8; 9-11), but the practical content of the privilege seems to be eschatological only (Romans 11:26 ). Individual conversion is of course taken for granted, but the life after that becomes highly corporate. See CHURCH . 2. Moral Progress: (1) The moral ideal is distinctly that of character. Paul, indeed, is frequently obliged to give directions as to details, but the detailed directions are referred constantly to the underlying principle, Romans 14 or 1 Corinthians 8:1-13 being excellent examples of this, while "love is the fulfillment of the law" ( Romans 13:10 ) is the summary. (2) Persistent moral effort is indispensable, and the new life absolutely must bring forth fruit to God (Romans 6:4; Romans 13:12; Galatians 5:24; Colossians 3:5; Ephesians 2:3; Ephesians 4:17 , Ephesians 4:22-32; Titus 2:11-14 ). Only by good conduct can one please God (1 Thessalonians 4:1 ), and the works of even Christians are to be subjected to a searching test (1 Corinthians 3:13; 1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Corinthians 5:10 ) in a judgment not to be faced without the most earnest striving (1 Corinthians 10:12; Philippians 2:12 ), not even by Paul himself (1 Corinthians 9:27; Philippians 3:12-14 ). And the possibility of condemnation because of a lack of moral attainment must not be permitted to leave the mind (1 Corinthians 3:17; Galatians 5:21; compare Romans 8:12 , Romans 8:13; Romans 11:20; 1 Corinthians 10:12; Galatians 6:7-9 ). Consequently, growth in actual righteousness is as vital in Paul's soteriology as it is in that teaching of Christ: Christians have "put off the old man with his doings" ( Colossians 3:9 ). 3. The Spirit: That this growth is God's work is, however, a point where Paul has expanded Christ's quiet assumption rather elaborately. In particular, what Christ had made the source of His own supernatural power - the Holy Spirit - is specified as the source of the power of the Christian's ordinary life, as well as of the more special endowments (see SPIRITUAL GIFTS ). In the Spirit the Christian has received the blessing promised to Abraham (Galatians 3:14 ); by it the deeds of the body can be put to death and all virtues flow into the soul (Galatians 5:16-26 ), if a man walks according to it (1 Corinthians 6:19 , 1 Corinthians 6:20; 1 Thessalonians 4:8 ). The palmary passage is Romans 7 through 8. In Romans 7 Paul looks back with a shudder on his pre-Christian helplessness (it is naturally the extreme of exegetical perversity to argue that he dreaded not the sin itself but only God's penalty on sin). But the Spirit gives strength to put to death the deeds of the body (Romans 8:13 ), to disregard the things of the flesh (Romans 8:5 ), and to fulfill the ordinance of the Law (Romans 8:4 ). Such moral power is the test of Christianity: as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God (Romans 8:14 ). 4. Mystical Union: This doctrine of the Spirit is simply that what Christ did on earth would be carried on with increased intensity after the Passion. That this work could be thought of out of relation to Christ, or that Christ Himself could have so thought of it (see above, III, 7) is incredible. So the exalted Christ appears as the source of moral and spiritual power (Paul speaks even more of Christ's resurrection than of the Passion), the two sources (Christ and the Spirit) being very closely combined in 2 Corinthians 3:17; Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6 . Our old man has been crucified, so putting an end to the bondage of sin, and we can prevent sin from reigning in our mortal bodies, for our burial into Christ's death was to enable us to walk in newness of life (Romans 6:2-14 ). The resurrection is a source of power, and through Christ's strength all things can be done (Philippians 4:13 , Philippians 4:10 ). Christ is the real center of the believer's personality (Galatians 2:20 ); the man has become a new creature (2 Corinthians 5:17; compare Colossians 2:20; Colossians 3:3 ); we were joined to another that we might bring forth fruit to God (Romans 7:4 ). And by contact with the glory of the Lord we are transformed into the same image (2 Corinthians 3:18 ), the end being conformation to the image of the Son (Romans 8:30 ). 5. Forgiveness: (1) This growth in actual holiness, then, is fundamental with Paul: "If any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his" (Romans 8:9 ). And the acquisition of strength through union with Christ is vitally connected with the remission of sins. In Romans 7:1-6 (compare Colossians 2:11 , Colossians 2:12 ), the mystical union with Christ makes His death ours (compare Colossians 3:3 ) and so removes us from the Law (compare Romans 10:4; 1 Corinthians 15:56 ), which has no relation to the dead. And by the life-giving power of this union the strength of sin is broken (Romans 6:6 ). (2) The condition in man that makes forgiveness possible Paul calls "faith" - a very complicated term. Its chief use, however, is in opposition to "works" (most clearly in Rom 9:30 through 10:13). The Jews' "pursuit after righteousness" - the attempt to wring salvation from God as wages earned - was vain (Romans 10:13 ), and in contrast is the appeal to God, the conscious relinquishment of all claim (Romans 4:5 ). The soul looks trustingly for salvation to its Father, precisely the attitude of the "children" in the teaching of Christ. But no more than in the teaching of Christ is faith a purely passive virtue, for man must be "obedient" to it (Romans 1:5; Romans 10:16; 1 Thessalonians 2:13 ). And for the necessary presence of love in faith compare 1 Corinthians 13:2; Galatians 5:6; Ephesians 3:17 . 6. Atonement: Because of faith - specifically, faith in Christ (except Romans 4; Galatians 3:6 ) - G od does not visit the penalties of sins on believers, but treats them as if they were righteous (Romans 5:1 , etc.). But this is not because of a quality in the believer or in the faith, but because of an act that preceded any act of Christian faith, the death of Christ (not the cross, specifically, for Paul does not argue from the cross in all of Roman). Through this death God's mercy could be extended safely, while before this the exercise of that mercy had proved disastrous (Romans 3:25 , Romans 3:26 ). And this death was a sacrifice (Romans 3:25 , etc.). And it is certain that Paul conceived of this sacrifice as existing quite independently of its effect on any human being. But he has given us no data for a really complete sacrificial doctrine, a statement sufficiently proved by the hopeless variance of the interpretations that have been propounded. And that Paul ever constructed a theory of the operation of sacrifices must be doubted. There is none in the contemporary Jewish literature, there is none in the Old Testament, and there is none in the rest of the New Testament, not even in Hebrews. Apparently the rites were so familiar that sacrificial terminology was ready to hand and was used without particular reflection and without attempting to give it precise theological content. This is borne out by the ease with which in Romans 3:24 , Romans 3:25 Paul passes from a ransom (redemption) illustration to a (quite discordant) propitation illustration. For further discussion see ATONEMENT; JUSTIFICATION . Here it is enough make a juridical theory constructed from Pauline implications and illustrations central in Christianity is to do exactly what Paul did not do. 7. Summary: Summing up, there is a double line of thought in Paul: the remission of penalties through the atoning death of Christ and the destruction of the power of sin through strength flowing from Christ, the human element in both cases being faith. The question of the order of the steps is futile, for "to have faith," "to be in Christ," and "to have the Spirit" are convertible terms, i.e. in doctrinal phraseology, the beginnings of sanctification are simultaneous with justification. Attempts to unify the two lines of thought into a single theory cannot claim purely Biblical support. The "ethical" theory, which in its best form makes God's pardon depend on the fact that the sinner will be made holy (at least in the next world), introduces the fewest extraneous elements, but it says something that Paul does not say. On the other hand one may feel that considering Paul as a whole - to say nothing of the rest of the New Testament - the pure justification doctrine has bulked a little too large in our dogmatics. God's pardon for sin is an immensely important matter, but still more important is the new power of holiness. 8. Notes: (1) Baptism presents another obstacle to a strict unifying of Pauline theology. A very much stronger sacramentarianism is admitted in Paul today than would have been accepted a generation ago, and such passages as Romans 6:1-7; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12 make it certain that he regarded baptism as conferring very real spiritual powers. But that he made a mechanical distinction between the blessings given then and those given at some other time must be doubted. (2) Salvation from the flesh ( Romans 7:24 ) involves no metaphysical dualism, as "flesh" is the whole of the lower nature from which the power to holiness saves a man (Romans 8:13 ). Indeed, the body itself is an object of salvation (Romans 8:11; and see RESURRECTION ). (3) Quite in the background lies the idea of salvation from physical evil (2 Corinthians 1:10 , etc.). Such evils are real evils (1 Corinthians 11:30 ), but in God's hands they may become pure blessings (Romans 5:3; 2 Corinthians 12:7 ). (4) Salvation from sin after conversion is due to God's judging the man in terms of the acquired supernatural nature ( Romans 8:14 , etc.). Yet certain sins may destroy the union with Christ altogether (1 Corinthians 3:17 , etc.), while others bring God's chastening judgment (1 Corinthians 11:30-32 ). Or proper chastisement may be inflicted by Paul himself (1 Corinthians 5:1-5; 1 Timothy 1:20 ) or by the congregation (Galatians 6:1; 2 Thessalonians 3:10-15; 2 Corinthians 2:6 ). V. Rest of New Testament: Summary. 1. John: (1) John had the task of presenting Christ to Gentiles, who were as unfamiliar with the technical meaning of such phrases as "kingdom of God" or "Son of Man" as is the world today, and to Gentiles who had instead a series of concepts unknown in Palestine. So a "translation of spiritual values" became necessary if the gospel were to make an immediate appeal, a translation accomplished so successfully that the Fourth Gospel has always been the most popular. The Synoptists, especially the extremely literal Mark, imperatively demand a historical commentary, while John has successfully avoided this necessity. (2) The "kingdom of God," as a phrase (John 3:3 , John 3:5; compare John 18:36 ), is replaced by "eternal life." This life is given in this world to the one who accepts Christ's teaching (John 5:24; John 6:47 ), but its full realization will be in the "many mansions" of the Father's house (John 14:2 ), where the believer will be with Christ (John 17:24 ). A judgment of all men will precede the establishment of this glorified state (John 5:28 , John 5:29 ), but the believer may face the judgment with equanimity (John 5:24 ). So the believer is delivered from a state of things so bad as expressible as a world under Satan's rule (John 12:31; John 14:30; John 16:11 ), a world in darkness (John 3:19 ), in ignorance of God (John 17:25 ), and in sin (John 8:21 ), all expressible in the one word "death" (John 5:24 ). (3) The Jews had real privilege in the reception of Christ's message (John 1:11; John 4:22 , etc.), but the extension of the good tidings to all men was inevitable (John 12:23 , John 12:12 , etc.). Belief in Christ is wholly a personal matter, but the believers enter a community of service (John 13:14 ), with the unity of the Father and Son as their ideal (John 17:21 ). (4) The nature of the moral ideal, reduced to the single word "love" (John 13:34; John 15:12 ), is assumed as known and identified with "Christ's words" (John 5:24; John 6:63 , etc.), and the necessity of progress toward it as sharply pointed as in the Synoptists. The sinner is the servant of sin (John 8:34 ), a total change of character is needed (John 3:6 ), and the blessing is only on him who does Christ's commandments (John 13:17 ). This "doing" is the proof of love toward Christ (John 14:15 , John 14:21 ); only by bearing fruit and more fruit can discipleship be maintained (John 15:1-6; compare John 14:24 ), and, indeed, by bearing fruit men actually become Christ's disciples (John 15:8 , Gr). The knowledge of Christ and of God that is eternal life (John 17:3 ) comes only through moral effort (John 7:17 ). In John the contrasts are colored so vividly that it would almost appear as if perfection were demanded. But he does not present even the apostles as models of sanctity (John 13:38; John 16:32 ), and self-righteousness is condemned without compromise; the crowning sin is to say, "We see" (John 9:41 ). It is the Son who frees from sin (John 8:36 ), delivers from darkness (John 8:12; John 12:46 ), and gives eternal life (John 11:25 , John 11:26; compare John 3:16; John 5:24;

0 notes