Home|Contents New Testament

New  Testament Survey

 

 

Rex Banks

 

 

 

 

© 2005 by RJB


 

 

 

Lesson 1

 

Introduction

 

Those who believe that  the words of scripture are a product of divine inspiration (2 Tim 3:16-17), a lamp to our feet in this life (Psa 119:105) and the standard by which we will be judged in the next (Jn 12:48) will readily understand why wise men like Job have treasured these words more than food itself (Job 23:12).  Among other things, the Bible is said to be the means whereby we are born again (1 Pet 1:22-25), saved (Jas 1:21), sanctified (Jn 17:17) and encouraged (Rom 15:4) - so it’s little wonder that the Psalmist speaks of the blessedness of the man who delights in the “law of the Lord” and who meditates upon it “day and night” (Psa 1:2).

 

The purpose of this series of lessons is to provide:

 

·        A basic framework and helpful guide for the 27 units which make up the New Testament.

 

·        Some background information relating to the authorship, circumstances and main purpose of each document.

 

Whatever the area of study, a general overview can function as a useful introduction and Bible study is no exception.  Moreover, while it is true that the God of the Bible does not change (Mal 3:6), it is equally true that God’s progressive revelation to man took place over a period of many centuries, against a whole range of historical, political and social backgrounds.  The message of scripture remains constant, but is conveyed in language and imagery which spring out of a particular culture and age.  It really does help to know something about first century customs, history and world views when trying to come to grips with a document from that era.

 

Although there are 66 books in the Bible (39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament), scripture has but one centre, focus and heart - Jesus Christ.  The Old Testament points forward to His coming, while the New Testament tells of His arrival, the eternal impact of His first advent and the certainty of His return at the end of time.  In his Toward an Old Testament Theology, Walter C. Kaiser speaks of salvation in Christ as scripture’s “central hope” and “ubiquitous concern.”  He says:

 

“While the New Testament eventually referred to this focal point of the Old Testament teaching as the promise, the Old Testament knew it under a constellation of such words as promise, oath, blessing, rest, and seed....  It could also be seen as a divine plan in history which promised to bring a universal blessing through the agency of an unmerited, divine choice of a human offspring:  “In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed” (Gen 12:3).

 

It is this focus upon Jesus Christ that binds the Old Testament to the New Testament (and indeed which binds every portion of scripture together).  The Holy Scriptures entrusted to the Jewish people (Rom 3:2) spoke of their “adoption as sons” and of the great blessings which went with their special relationship with God (eg “the glory,” “the covenants,” “the giving of the Law” - Rom 9:4-5).  Most important of all, the Jews knew from scripture that it was through their nation that the Christ was to come (Rom 9:5) and a multitude of prophesies combined to give details of His birth, life, teaching, death and resurrection.  Luke tells us that when the baby Jesus is brought to the temple at Jerusalem, a “righteous and devout man” named Simeon recognizes Him as the promised “consolation of Israel” and “the Lord’s Christ” (Lk 2:25-26).  Lightfoot explains:

 

“The whole nation waited for the consolation of Israel; insomuch that there was nothing more common with them than to swear by the desire which they had of seeing it.  R. Judah Ben Tabbai said, ‘So let me see the consolation [of Israel]; if I have not put to death a false witness.  Simeon Ben Shetah saith to him, ‘So let me see the consolation, if thou hast not shed innocent blood.’  R. Eliezer Ben Zadok said, ‘So let me see the consolation; if I did not see her gleaning barley under the horsesheels.’  R. Simeon Ben Shetah said, ‘So let me see the consolation; I saw one pursuing another with a drawn sword.”’ (Commentary of the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica).

 

Later when Andrew, one of Jesus’ early disciples, tells his brother Simon about the Lord, he speaks of Him as “the Messiah (which translated means Christ)” (Jn 2:41) while another early disciple speaks of Jesus as “Him of whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote” (Jn 2:45).  The first century Jewish historian Josephus explains how misplaced messianic expectations played a part in a tragic event in the nation’s history:

 

“But now, what did most elevate them in undertaking this war (against Rome in 70 AD - Rex) was an ambitious oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how, ‘about that time one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth.’  The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular; and many of their wise men were thereby deceived in their determination” (Josephus:  Wars of the Jews, Bk 6 chpt 5 [4]).

 

According to the Roman historian Tacitus,

 

“The majority (of the Jewish people) firmly believed that their ancient priestly writings contained the prophecy that this was the very time when the East should grow strong and that men starting from Judea should possess the world...  There were arms for all those who could use them…  Men and women showed the same determination; and if they were to be forced to change their home, they feared life more than death” (Histories Bk 5).

 

Strong evidence of Messianic expectations is also to be found in the writings of peripheral religious groups of the time.  For example, speaking of the Qumram community of the Dead Sea Scrolls fame, R. K. Harrison tells us that members of this group (which flourished in the first century BC and the first century AD) “withdrew to the Judean wilderness in protest against the ‘epoch of wickedness’ and organized themselves as a covenant group to prepare the way for the divine coming in the New Age(Zonderan’s Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible).  Elsewhere Harrison says in the same article that “Philo recorded that the Essenes studied their sacred writings with a view to finding out their symbolic meaning, in the belief that the divine promises to the prophets of Israel were being fulfilled in their own day.”

 

Thus the Jews were an expectant people and their anticipation of the Messiah and the glorious new age grew out of their study of the Old Testament.  It was by means of these writings that the Lord prepared His covenant people for the advent of His Son.  Jesus’ birth, ministry, death and resurrection all took place according to the divine timetable.  He was “the Word” of God who “became flesh” (Jn 1:14) when “the fullness of time came” (Gal 4:4) meaning that His arrival took place when all things were ready for His coming.  It was “at the right time” (Rom 5:6) that God’s Son died on a cross, having been “delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23) for the sins of the world (Jn 1:29).  Clearly our study of the New Testament is greatly enhanced by a basic understanding of the preparatory work of the Old Testament. 

 

It is also important to keep in mind that Jesus was born 400 years following the closure of the Old Testament.  This is a significant point because even a nodding acquaintance with the two Testaments is enough to show us that, in these four centuries, the circumstances of God’s chosen people changed quite dramatically.  Sects, movements, foreign rulers and influences which are not part of Jewish life in the closing era of the Old Testament period feature prominently in the New Testament record.  In light of this, it is useful to begin this survey by saying a few words about the events which took place in that period between the Testaments – the Intertestament period.

 

 

Between the Old and New Testaments

 

The Intertestament Years

 

It is helpful to know something about the history and circumstances of the period between the Testaments because the events of this era helped shape the world into which Jesus was born.

 

The historical period under discussion begins with the cessation of Old Testament Prophecy and extends through to the beginning of the Christian period.  In our Old Testament Chronology and Canon we cited evidence to show that:

 

“the time during which the sacred books of the Jews were written extended from Moses to Artaxerxes 1 (who reigned 465-424 BC)…that nothing was added after the death of Artaxerxes (424 BC) because the line of prophets had ceased to be at that time, (and) that since that time no one had dared to make any addition, subtraction or alteration” (H. S. Miller, General Biblical Introduction).

 

The “line of prophets” came to an end with Malachi, who prophesied sometime about 435 BC, shortly before Nehemiah’s second visit to Jerusalem.  His final recorded words anticipate the arrival of John the Baptist whom he calls “Elijah the prophet” (cf Matt 17:10–13):  

 

“Remember the law of Moses My servant, even the statutes and ordinances which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel.  Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD.  He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse” (Mal 4:4-6).

 

Some four centuries later, the silence is broken when an angel of the Lord tells a godly priest named Zechariah “your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you will give him the name John” (Lk 1:13).  Couching his message in the language of Malachi, the angel tells Zechariah:

  

“It is he who will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, TO TURN THE HEARTS OF THE FATHERS BACK TO THE CHILDREN, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous, so as to make ready a people prepared for the Lord” (Lk 1:17).

 

Of course Modern Critical Scholarship, committed to evolutionary explanations for the origin of Scripture, does not accept that the OT Canon was closed some four centuries before John’s birth. Driven by anti-supernatural bias, adherents to this school insist that various OT books originated, in part or in whole, during the Intertestament Period.  For example, because predictive prophecies in the book of Daniel contain many accurate details about the rise of four successive world kingdoms, and because predictive prophecy is incompatible with Modern Historical Criticism, many critics deny that this book is the product of the sixth century BC.  They insist that Daniel was composed between about 168-165 BC, during the days of the Syrian ruler Antiochus Epiphanes the 4th.  This historical readjustment is wholly speculative and grows out of a philosophical framework which requires a naturalistic explanation for the origin and development of the OT.  Solid archaeological evidence refutes this theory (see our The Old Testament as History).

 

 

Critical Historical Events of the Intertestament Period

 

Our main written records from this period come from the first century Jewish historian Josephus, the so called Apocryphal books (see our Old Testament  Canon) and  scattered references from Greek and Jewish writers.  It is convenient to discuss the events and circumstances of this period under four main headings:

 

(1)          Babylon and Medo-Persia.

 

(2)          Greece.

 

(3)          The Maccabean Period.

 

(4)          Rome (The Roman era overlaps the New Testament period).

 

 

 

Babylon and Medo-Persia

 

About 1400 years before Jesus was born, Moses stood in the plains of Moab and spoke to God’s chosen people on the eve of their entrance into the promised land of Canaan (Deut 1:5).  The great prophet is about to die (Deut 34:5) and in this last address he reminds the nation of Israel that:

 

faithfulness to the Mosaic covenant will bring blessings (“the Lord your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth” - Deut 28:1)

 

and

 

unfaithfulness will bring curses (“all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you” - Deut 28:15).

 

One curse was as follows: 

 

“The Lord will bring a nation against you from afar, from the end of the earth, as the eagle swoops down, a nation whose language you shall not understand…  Moreover the Lord will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth....” (Deut 28:49, 64).

 

This was no hollow threat, and we read that some 700 years later (about 722 BC), God in His anger “removed...(Israel) from His sight; none was left except the tribe of Judah” (2 Kings 17:18).  Assyria was the “rod of...(God’s) anger” (Isa 10:5) on this occasion, and about 120 years later, Judah too is “led away into exile from its land” (2 Kings 25:21).  This time the rod of God’s anger is the nation of Babylon under king Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 24:1 ff).

 

Deprived of the Temple and sacrificial system, the exiles in Babylon developed a system of worship centered upon the synagogue about which we will say more in the next lesson.  However, the Lord had also promised that having disciplined Israel, He would “gather” them and bring them back to the land of promise (Deut 30:3-4).  According to the prophets, captivity was to last 70 years (Isa 29:10) and then the Lord would use a pagan king who did not know Him, Cyrus by name (Isa 44:28-45:4), to restore the covenant people to their homeland.  This is how it happened:

 

612 BC          Babylon and Media destroy Assyria, the world power at that time.

                      The Medo-Babylonian alliance did not last.

 

605 BC          Nebuchadnezzar succeeds his father Nabopolassar on the throne of Babylon.

 

586 BC          Nebuchadnezzar destroys Jerusalem. 

 

                      Nabonidus follows Nebuchadnezzar on the throne and his son Belshazzar is co-regent.

559 BC          Cyrus becomes the Persian ruler and ten years later he revolts successfully against Media to become lord of the Medo-Persians.

 

539 BC          Cyrus conquers Babylon (Dan 9).  Cyrus’ policy was to show clemency to defeated enemies and to permit conquered peoples to observe their own customs of worship.

 

In keeping with his policy of restoring captive peoples to their homeland, Cyrus permits the Jews to return home with the utensils of the Temple and to re-establish Temple worship.  His decree was issued in 538 BC.  The Bible is clear that God’s hand is in all this:

 

“Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfil the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he sent a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and also put it in writing, saying:  ‘Thus says Cyrus king of Persia, The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and He has appointed me to build Him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah.  Whoever there is among you of all His people, may his God be with him!  Let him go up to Jerusalem which is in Judah and rebuild the house of the LORD, the God of Israel; He is the God who is in Jerusalem.  Every survivor, at whatever place he may live, let the men of that place support him with silver and gold, with goods and cattle, together with a freewill offering for the house of God which is in Jerusalem’” (Ezra 1:1-4).

 

According to Josephus, Cyrus knew of Isaiah’s prophecy concerning him and as a result:

 

“an earnest desire and ambition seized upon him to fulfil what was so written; so he called for the most eminent Jews that were in Babylon, and said to them, that he gave them leave to go back to their own country, and to rebuild their city Jerusalem, and the temple of God, for that he would be their assistant, and that he would write to the rulers and governors that were in the neighborhood of their country of Judea, that they should contribute to them gold and silver for the building of the temple, and besides that, beasts for their sacrifices”(Antiquities 11.5).

 

The books of Ezra and Nehemiah record three returns from exile, the rebuilding of the Temple (with encouragement from Haggai and Zechariah) and the rebuilding of the walls amid great opposition from the peoples of the land.  Many Jews did not return to Jerusalem but remained in Babylon.  Others were scattered throughout the world as we will see in the next lesson.

 

Many Jews never returned from Persia and Babylon.  This helps explain the development of the so called Babylonian Talmud apart from the Palestinian Talmud.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Greeks

 

529 - 523 BC           Cyrus is succeeded by his son Cambyses.

 

     522 BC           Darius Hystaspis defeats a pretender to become king (the king of Ezra 6).

 

486 – 465 BC           Darius is succeeded by his son Xerxes (king Ahasuerus of

                                 Esther).

 

Xerxes is succeeded by Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:1).  Next in succession come Darius 2nd, Artaxerxes 2nd, Artaxerxes 3rd and Darius 3rd (possibly the Darius of Nehemiah 12:22).  The same year that Darius 3rd became king, Alexander the Great ascended the throne of Macedonia at the age of twenty.

 

Determined to free Greece from Persian oppression, Alexander crosses the Dardenelles, captures Troy and then defeats the Persians at Granicus in 334 BC.  Having liberated the Greek cities of Asia Minor, he moves eastward, not meeting serious opposition until he comes to Issus in 333 BC, where he again defeats the Persians.  Moving down the coast of Syria and Palestine he takes Sidon, Byblus, Tyre and Gaza.

 

In his Antiquities, Josephus claims that when Alexander besieged Tyre, “he sent an epistle to the Jewish high-priest, to send him some auxiliaries, and to supply his army with provisions” (11.8.3).  According to Josephus, Jaddus the high priest replied that he had given his oath to Darius not to bear arms against him” (ibid).  As a consequence, Alexander resolved to punish the Jewish people, and would have done so apart from divine intervention.  Josephus says that “when Jaddus understood that Alexander was not far from the city, he went out in procession, with the priests and the multitude of the citizens.  The procession was venerable, and the manner of it different from that of other nations.”  He continues:  

 

“And when the Phoenicians and the Samarians that followed him thought they should have liberty to plunder the city, and torment the high-priest to death, which the king’s displeasure fairly promised them, the very reverse of it happened; for Alexander, when he saw the multitude at a distance, in white garments, while the priests stood clothed with fine linen, and the high-priest in purple and scarlet clothing, with his mitre on his head, having the golden plate whereon the name of God was engraved, he approached by himself, and adored that name, and first saluted the high-priest” (11.8.5).

 

Explaining his action to one Parmenion, Alexander says:

 

“I did not adore (the high priest of the Jews) , but that God who has honoured him with his high priesthood; for I saw this very person in a dream, in this very habit, when I was at Dion in Macedonia, who, when I was considering with myself how I might obtain the dominion of Asia, exhorted me to make no delay, but boldly to pass over the sea thither, for that he would conduct my army, and would give me the dominion over the Persians; whence it is that, having seen no other in that habit, and now seeing this person in it, and remembering that vision, and the exhortation which I had in my dream, I believe that I bring this army under the Divine conduct, and shall therewith conquer Darius, and destroy the power of the Persians, and that all things will succeed according to what is in my own mind.”

 

Josephus claims that Alexander:

 

went up into the temple, he offered sacrifice to God, according to the high-priest’s direction, and magnificently treated both the high-priest and the priests.  And when the Book of Daniel was showed him wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that himself was the person intended.  And as he was then glad, he dismissed the multitude for the present” (ibid).

 

Alexander then moves on to Egypt where he is greeted by many as a liberator from the Persians.  He then goes back through Palestine and Syria, and in 331 BC he defeats Darius 3rd at Gaugamela in the Mesopotamian plain.  Subsequently all the capitals of the Persian Empire (Babylon, Susa, Persepolis and Ecbatana) are taken.

 

After Persia, Alexander moves eastward to India, but at the Punjab his army refuses to continue and so he turns toward home.  He dies at Babylon in 323 BC at the age of 33. The effects of Alexander’s campaign of conquest live on after him and we will say more about Greek influence upon the first century world in the next lesson.

 

 

The Maccabean Period

 

Following a few years of struggle after Alexander’s death, four leaders emerge, one of whom, Ptolemy Soter, gains control of Egypt.  In due course the Ptolomies capture Jerusalem (according to Josephus because the Jews would not defend the city on the Sabbath) and rule for about a century.  During this time, the Jews typically enjoyed peace and religious freedom.  Soter’s successor Ptolemy Philadelphus (who founded the famous Alexandrian library) is reputed to have played an important role in the production of the Greek translation of the Old Testament Scriptures known as the Septuagint.  We will have more to say about the importance of this work in the next lesson.

 

About 198 BC Antiochus the Great of Syria gained control of Palestine and this ushered in a new era of Jewish history.  In about 175 BC Antiochus 4th (Antiochus Epiphanes “the madman”) began to rule and he set out to impose Greek culture and customs upon the peoples over whom he ruled, including the Jews.  At that time Onias 3rd, a strictly orthodox Jew was High Priest.  Onais was opposed by those Jews who favored Greek culture, led by his brother Jason, who bribed his way into the High priesthood.  Jason and his followers encouraged the introduction of Greek customs, and in opposition to these innovations, a resistance movement arises among orthodox Jews. This party is called the “Hasidim” and we will say more about them under the heading Pharisees in the next lesson.

 

Jason is replaced as High Priest by Menelaus, a Benjamite who outdoes Jason in the bribery stakes and who is installed with Syrian support.  The Hasidim are further enraged. Aware of opposition to his attempts to Hellenize the land, Antiochus attacks Jerusalem, destroys the walls and commands that Greek deities be worshipped by all.  He defiles the Temple and forbids observance of Jewish religious rites.  An apocryphal book contains the following account:

 

“After subduing Egypt, Antiochus returned in the one hundred and forty-third year. He went up against Israel and came to Jerusalem with a strong force.  He arrogantly entered the sanctuary and took the golden altar, the lampstand for the light, and all its utensils.  He took also the table for the bread of the Presence, the cups for drink offerings, the bowls, the golden censers, the curtain, the crowns, and the gold decoration on the front of the temple; he stripped it all off.  He took the silver and the gold, and the costly vessels; he took also the hidden treasures which he found.  Taking them all, he departed to his own land.  He committed deeds of murder, and spoke with great arrogance.  Israel mourned deeply in every community, rulers and elders groaned, maidens and young men became faint, the beauty of women faded.  Every bridegroom took up the lament; she who sat in the bridal chamber was mourning.  Even the land shook for its inhabitants, and all the house of Jacob was clothed with shame.” (1 Maccabees 1:20-28).

 

Later “the king sent letters by messengers to Jerusalem and the cities of Judah; he directed them to follow customs strange to the land, to forbid burnt offerings and sacrifices and drink offerings in the sanctuary, to profane Sabbaths and feasts, to defile the sanctuary and the priests, to build altars and sacred precincts and shrines for idols, to sacrifice swine and unclean animals, and to leave their sons uncircumcised. They were to make themselves abominable by everything unclean and profane, so that they should forget the law and change all the ordinances”

(1 Maccabees 1:44-49).

 

However, his actions provoke a violent response from the orthodox Jews which leads to what is often called the “Maccabean revolt.”

 

The Maccabean revolt begins when an aged priest, Mattathias, refuses the command of an emissary of Antiochus to offer sacrifices upon a pagan altar.  Mattathias kills the emissary as well as a fellow Jew who attempts to obey the command; he destroys the pagan altar and flees with his five sons and sympathizers to the hills.  He conducts a guerilla war against the Hellenistic Jews until he dies and is succeeded as leader by his son Judas, who in turn, is killed by the Syrians in battle.  Judas’ brothers Jonathon and Simon become leaders successively, and the latter gains independence for the Jews with Roman approval.

 

Simon is named leader and High Priest and the Hasmonean dynasty begins.  Simon is succeeded by his son John Hyrcanus after he (Simon) and two of his other sons are murdered.  Syria recognizes the government of Hyrcanus.  This took the wind out of the sails of the Hellenistic party but the ideals of this group continued on in the party of the Sadducees about whom we will say more later on.  Hyrcanus became a Sadducee before his death.  Before leaving Hyrcanus, we note that he conquers Idumanea and forces the Idumaneans to be circumcised and accept Judaism.  This will help us later when we say a word about the Herodians.

 

John Hyrcanus is succeeded by his son Aristobulus who continues his father’s policy of territorial expansion and proves himself a cruel tyrant.  After his death, his equally brutal brother Alexander Jannaeus (Jonathon - Heb) takes his place and continues to extend Palestine’s frontiers.  The rift which began between the Hasmoneans and the Pharisees during the time of John Hyrcanus erupts into civil war and Alexander crucifies eight hundred Pharisees.

 

After Alexander’s death, his widow Salome Alexandra (who had also been married to Aristobulus) ascends the throne as queen.  Her eldest son Hyrcanus becomes High Priest.  During her reign the land enjoys relative peace.  However, the Pharisees regain power at the expense of the Sadducees.  When the Pharisees use their newly-acquired power to take revenge upon the Sadducees, civil war again threatens.  After Alexandra’s death however, Hyrcanus is bullied out of the throne by his younger brother Aristobulus, who becomes king and High Priest (Aristobulus 2nd).  Aristobulus is backed by the Sadducees.

 

Having fled to Areta, king of the Nabatean Arabs, Hyrcanus is persuaded by one Antipater, an Idumanean by birth, to return to Jerusalem and take back the throne with the help of Aretas and the Nabatean Arabs.  Jerusalem is besieged and it is at this point that Rome enters the picture.

 

 

Rome

 

By the middle of the third century Rome controlled Italy, and in the so called Punic Wars which followed, Rome defeated the Carthaginians, eliminating Carthage as a world power.  Rome’s presence in the eastern Mediterranean region increases and in 63 BC the Roman general Pompey, supported by Hyrcanus, takes the city of Jerusalem.  The Jews come under Roman control and Judea becomes part of the Roman province of Syria. Pompey outrages the Jews by entering the holy of holies.  Hyrcanus is appointed to the office of High Priest and is also named Ethnarch of Judea, including Galilee, Idumea and Perea.

 

Under Hyrcanus and his Roman overlords, Antipater, governor of Idumea strengthens his position.  Ultimately his son Herod becomes “King of the Jews” as a result of currying favour with the winning sides during Rome’s internal strife (involving such well-known figures as Caesar, Brutus, Cassius, Mark Antony and Octavian).  Thus when Jesus is born in the little town of Bethlehem in Judea, the Jews are ruled over by an Idumanean king.  This is bitterly resented by many Jews, especially since Edom was the traditional enemy of the Jews.  To cement his claims to the throne, Herod married a Hasmonean princess called Miriamne.

 

“Alarmed by the tidings of one ‘born King of the Jews,’ he sent forth and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under” (Matt 2:16).  He was fond of splendour, and lavished great sums in rebuilding and adorning the cities of his empire.  He rebuilt the city of Caesarea (qv) on the coast, and also the city of Samaria (qv), which he called Sebaste, in honour of Augustus.  He restored the ruined temple of Jerusalem, a work which was begun BC 20, but was not finished till after Herod’s death, probably not till about AD 50 (Jn 2:20).  After a troubled reign of thirty-seven years, he died at Jericho amid great agonies both of body and mind, BC 4, ie, according to the common chronology, in the year in which Jesus was born” (Easton’s Bible Dictionary).

 

After Herod’s death his kingdom was divided among three of his sons, Philip (the land east of Jordan), Antipas (Galilee and Peraea) and Archelaus (Judea and Samaria).  It was because “Archelaus (4 BC-6 AD) was reigning over Judea” (Matt 2:22) that Joseph took his family into Galilee.  Subsequently Archelaus was removed from power and exiled to Gaul.  Antipas (4 BC-39 BC, Lk 3:1) was “the fox” who sought Jesus’ life (Lk 13:31-32), who questioned Him before His death (Lk 23:6-12), who married the wife of his brother Philip (4 BC-34 AD) and who imprisoned John the Baptist (Mk 6:14-28).

 

Herod Agrippa, who had the apostle James put to death and cast Peter into prison (Acts 12:1-19) was the grandson of Herod the Great and son of Aristobulus and Bernice. In 44 AD, he was smitten by an angel of the Lord and died (Acts 12:21-23) at the age of 54.  Following Agrippa’s death, his territory was annexed to the province of Syria and was governed by procurators under the direction of the proconsul of Syria.  We meet two of these procurators, Antonius Felix and Porcius Festus in Acts (24:1-27; 24:27-25:12).

 

Agrippa’s son (Acts 25:13 ff) Agrippa 2nd was given rule over Philip’s territory by Claudius and he retained control under Nero.    

 

Claudius’ successor Nero began to reign as emperor in 54 AD and he continued to rule until his suicide in 68 AD.  He is the Caesar to whom Paul appealed in Acts 25:11. Nero’s descent into madness and his cruel persecution of first century Christians is well documented and according to Eusebius, the apostles Peter and Paul were martyred during Nero’s reign.  In Book 15 of the Annals, Tacitus tells of a fire which swept over the city of Rome, which he describes as “a disaster...whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor.”  Tacitus informs his readers that a rumour began to circulate that Nero was responsible for the conflagration, and he adds:

 

“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.  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, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.  Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.  Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths.  Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

 

Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a cart.  Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man’s cruelty, that they were being destroyed.”

 

Political instability followed Nero’s death as various individuals competed for power.  By 69 AD, Vespasian had gained control of the empire.  In 70 AD the Romans destroyed the Jewish Temple.  For several years prior to this event, a Jewish independence movement whose members were called “Zealots” had instigated rebellion against Rome and had eventually killed some Roman soldiers stationed at the citadel of Antonia.  Ultimately this rebellion resulted in the destruction of the Jewish state and in our comments on the Gospel of Matthew, will we discuss Jesus’ warning about the impending destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.  

 

Hopefully this brief outline will help place our next lesson on the First Century Setting in context.

 

 


First Century Setting

 

 

 

Lesson 2

 

The Jewish Factor

 

 

Scattered Jews and the Synagogue

 

Earlier we mentioned the deportation of the Jews (Northern Israel) by the Assyrians and (Southern Israel) by the Babylonians.  Many Jews did not return to Jerusalem following the decree of Cyrus and according to Josephus, in the time of Christ, “innumerable myriads” remained in Babylon (Antiquities 11).

 

Ptolemy of Egypt (322-285) brought many Jews to Alexandria in Egypt; Antiochus the Great of Syria resettled many Jews in Phrygia and Lydia, while Pompey took a number to Rome in 63 BC following the capture of Jerusalem.  In addition, many Jews emigrated for purposes of trade and commerce.  About one million Jews lived in Egypt in the first century and large numbers lived in Asia Minor.  Some indication of the spread of Judaism is given in Acts 2 where we read that pilgrims who came to Jerusalem for the Feast of Pentecost included “Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jew and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs” (Acts 2:9-11).

 

Many Jews of the Dispersion show signs of having been greatly influenced by Greek culture and ideas, but still, they were Jews first.  Regular pilgrimages to Jerusalem along with payment towards the services of the Temple maintained the bond of unity with their brethren in Palestine.

 

We noted that during the Babylonian captivity, the Jews, having been deprived of the Temple, established synagogues or places of assembly where they worshipped each Saturday and taught their children during the week.  The focus of this teaching was of course the Old Testament.  A synagogue could exist anywhere where there were ten family heads.  The synagogue buildings faced towards Jerusalem.  Wherever the Jews went, the synagogue went and James says in Acts 15:21 that “Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”  Monotheism and proselytizing zeal were features of Judaism wherever it went.

 

International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia has the following:

 

“The Jewish people thus widely distributed over the Roman world with their monotheism, with their Scriptures and with their Messianic hopes, did much to prepare the way for the advent of the Redeemer who was to be the fulfillment of Jewish expectation and hope.  It was due to the strange and unique influence of Judaism and to the circulation of the glowing visions of Israel’s prophets among the nations that there was so widespread an expectation...that from Judea would arise a Ruler whose dominion would be over all…

 

And not only did the Jewish Dispersion thus prepare the way for the world’s Redeemer in the fullness of time, but when He had come...it furnished a valuable auxiliary to the proclamation of the gospel.  Wherever the apostles and the first preachers travelled with the good news, they found Jewish communities to whom they offered first the great salvation.”

 

Although often puzzled by the Jews, the Romans were very tolerant of them, in large measure because of the support which Julius Caesar had received from Hyrcanus during the Alexandrian war.  Josephus speaks of the “honors that the Romans and their emperor paid to our nation, and of the leagues of mutual assistance they have made with it” (Antiquities 14:10).  Caesar confirmed these honors by statute, and Josephus has a list of the enactments in Antiquities 14:10.  They include the following:

 

“That the Jews shall possess Jerusalem, and may encompass that city with walls; and that Hyrcanus, the son of Alexander, the high priest and ethnarch of the Jews, retain it in the manner he himself pleases; and that the Jews be allowed to deduct out of their tribute, every second year the land is let [in the Sabbatic period], a corus of that tribute; and that the tribute they pay be not let to farm, nor that they pay always the same tribute” (14.19.5).

 

“That all the country of the Jews, excepting Joppa, do pay a tribute yearly for the city Jerusalem, excepting the seventh, which they call the sabbatical year, because thereon they neither receive the fruits of their trees, nor do they sow their land; and that they pay their tribute in Sidon on the second year [of that sabbatical period], the fourth part of what was sown: and besides this, they are to pay the same tithes to Hyrcanus and his sons which they paid to their forefathers” (14.10.6).

 

“(That) no one, neither president, nor lieutenant, nor ambassador, raise auxiliaries within the bounds of Judea; nor may soldiers exact money of them for winter quarters, or under any other pretense; but that they be free from all sorts of injuries; and that whatsoever they shall hereafter have, and are in possession of, or have bought, they shall retain them all” (14.10.6).

 

Josephus goes on to record that the Jews were granted great religious freedom, were able to observe the Sabbath, were free from conscription and had their own courts with authority to enact fines and inflict scourgings.  In short, they enjoyed enviable social and economic benefits.

 

We will see from the book of Acts that the scattering of the Jews throughout the world greatly helped the spread of the gospel in the first century.  However, Judaism also offered many challenges to Christian evangelists in the first century:

 

·        Many Jews eagerly anticipated the arrival of an all conquering Messiah who would free the Holy Land from Roman domination, but the Christian Messiah had died ignominiously on a cross, and accordingly was under God’s curse (Deut 21:22 ff).  In his discussion with Justin Martyr, Trypho the Jew protests:

“Be assured that all our nation waits for Christ; and we admit that all the Scriptures which you have quoted refer to Him.  Moreover, I do also admit that the name of Jesus, by which the son of Nave (Nun) was called, has inclined me very strongly to adopt this view.  But whether Christ should be so shamefully crucified, this we are in doubt about.  For whosoever is crucified is said in the law to be accursed, so that I am exceedingly incredulous on this point.  It is quite clear, indeed, that the Scriptures announce that Christ had to suffer; but we wish to learn if you can prove it to us whether it was by the suffering cursed in the law” (Dialogue with Trypho 89).

 

Justin replies that Trypho would have good cause to wonder” if the writings of the prophets had not spoken of a suffering Messiah.

 

·        Many Jews were offended by the Christian teaching that Jesus was God in the flesh - a doctrine which seemed to challenge their strict monotheism.  Trypho charges that the doctrine of the virgin birth is similar to the “fables of those who are called Greeks” and tells Justin:  “(You) ought to feel ashamed when you make assertions similar to theirs, and rather [should] say that this Jesus was born man of men” (Dialogue 62).

 

·        The fact that the early Christian preachers were not members of any rabbinic school, taught that the Mosaic Law was no longer binding, did not observe the Sabbath, did not practice circumcision and appeared to dishonor the Temple offended many Jews.  Trypho says to Justin:

 

“But this is what we are most at a loss about:  that you, professing to be pious, and supposing yourselves better than others, are not in any particular separated from them, and do not alter your mode of living from the nations, in that you observe no festivals or sabbaths, and do not have the rite of circumcision; and further, resting your hopes on a man that was crucified, you yet expect to obtain some good thing from God, while you do not obey His commandments.  Have you not read, that that soul shall be cut off from his people who shall not have been circumcised on the eighth day?  And this has been ordained for strangers and for slaves equally.  But you, despising this covenant rashly, reject the consequent duties, and attempt to persuade yourselves that you know God, when, however, you perform none of those things which they do who fear God” (Dialogue 10).

 

We will encounter various Jewish challenges to the Gospel in our study of the New Testament books. 

 

 

Jewish Sects

 

In his Studies in the Life of Christ, R. C. Foster says:

 

“The life of Jesus can not be clearly understood until it is studied in relation to the sects from which His enemies arose. The Jews at the time of Jesus were divided into the following sects: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Herodians, and Zealots.”

 

Let’s have a brief look at four of these sects mentioned in the New Testament.

 

Pharisees

 

As we said in lesson 1, it seems likely that the Pharisees evolved out of the Hasidim of the Intertestament period - a group made up of orthodox Jews who opposed attempts to introduce Greek customs and innovations into Jewish life.  (We recall that the Syrian ruler Antiochus Epiphanes tried to wipe out Judaism and to Hellenize Jewish society).  The Hasidim wanted to preserve Judaism and to apply the principles of the Law to the questions and circumstances of the day.  Some think that the term “Pharisees” meant “separated ones” and was used to denote those who tried to maintain their purity by being separatists; others think that the term grew out of the words meaning “expounder/interpreter.”  Some think that this title was adopted by the Hasidim themselves while others think that it was given in derision.  It is not possible to be certain about all this.  The Pharisees believed in the existence of the soul, in angels, demons, bodily resurrection, and also in a future judgment.  

 

We learn from Josephus that in the first century there were about 6,000 Pharisees, the most learned of them being called scribes.  It is clear from the New Testament that they have supreme influence among the people, dominating the synagogue system.  It is also clear that they were Jesus’ main opponents.  According to The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible:

 

“The main characteristic of the Pharisees was their legalism or legalistic rigorism. Josephus informs us that the Pharisees were noted for their strict accuracy in their interpretation of the law and their scrupulous adherence to it…  It was their ‘accuracy’ in the interpretation of the law which led to the development of the elaborate system of legal traditions, handed down orally “from the Fathers” which came to be regarded as the main characteristic feature of historical Phariseeism.”

 

They shunned the non-Pharisees as unclean, and the traditions of “the Fathers” became a hedge around the Law which many times resulted in their setting aside the Law itself.  According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, “they added new restrictions to the Biblical law in order to keep the people at a safe distance from forbidden ground; as they termed it, ‘they made a fence around the Law’…”  Thus:

 

“(They) forbade the people to drink wine or eat with the heathen, in order to prevent associations which might lead either to intermarriage or to idolatry (Shab. 17b).  To the forbidden marriages of the Mosaic law relating to incest (Lev. xviii.-xx.) they added a number of others (Yeb. ii. 4).  After they had determined the kinds of work prohibited on the Sabbath they forbade the use of many things on the Sabbath on the ground that their use might lead to some prohibited labour.  It was here that the foundation was laid of that system of rabbinic law which piled statute upon statute until often the real purpose of the Law was lost sight of” (ibid).

 

In Matthew 23 Jesus accuses them, among other things, of binding burdens upon others which they themselves would not carry; of desiring praise and pre-eminence; of making artificial, meaningless religious distinctions; of missing the weightier provisions of the Law - justice, mercy and faithfulness.  It appears that many Pharisees fell into the trap of viewing externals as more important than the disposition of the heart.

 

Sadducees

 

“This prominent Jewish sect, though not so numerous as their opponents, the Pharisees, by their wealth and the priestly descent of many of them had an influence which fully balanced that of their more popular rivals.  They were a political party, of priestly and aristocratic tendency, as against the more religious and democratic Pharisees” (International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia).

 

Foster describes them as “the liberal theologians, the cultured aristocrats, and the smooth politicians of the time,” and he tells us that their “liberal views make it evident that they accepted the Old Testament Scripture in about the same way in which the radical critic accepts it today.”  We noticed in lesson 1 that from the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, many Jews, including priests, were friendly to Greek culture and Hellenization.  This readiness to compromise with the surrounding Gentile culture characterized the Sadducean party.  If the Pharisees ruled the synagogue, the Sadducees ruled the Temple, and the High Priests of Jesus’ day were Sadducees.  Many believe that the term “Sadducee” derives from the name of the high priest Zadok who officiated in David’s reign, and whose family retained the High Priesthood until Maccabean times.

 

Several of the early church Fathers maintained that the Sadducees accepted as canonical only the first five books of the Old Testament, but neither Josephus nor the Talmud mention this.  Anyway, they denied the immortality of the soul, the resurrection, the existence of angels and spirits (cf Matt 22:23-33; Acts 23:6-10).  What’s more:

 

“Instead of sharing the Messianic hopes of the Pharisees, who committed the future into the hand of God, they took the people’s destiny into their own hands, fighting or negotiating with the heathen nations just as they thought best, while having as their aim their own temporary welfare and worldly success.  This is the meaning of what Josephus chooses to term their disbelief in fate and divine providence (“B. J.” ii. 8, § 14; “Ant.” xiii. 5 § 9)” (Jewish Encyclopedia).

 

They also rejected the traditions of the “Fathers” so valued by the Pharisees.

 

“According to Josephus (ib. xiii. 10, § 6), they regarded only those observances as obligatory which are contained in the written word, and did not recognize those not written in the law of Moses and declared by the Pharisees to be derived from the traditions of the fathers.  Instead of accepting the authority of the teachers, they considered it a virtue to dispute it by arguments” (ibid).

 

Their opposition to Jesus grew out of the fear that His Messianic claims would lead to Roman intervention and to their own loss of power.  The Sadducees became relentless persecutors of the infant church but ceased to exist after the destruction of Jerusalem.

 

 

Herodians

 

In lesson 1 we discussed the circumstances under which the Jewish nation came to have an Idumaean king.  The New Testament speaks of “the Herodians” in Jerusalem and Galilee, and evidently they were members of a political party of well-to-do people who favored Herodian rule (and thus Roman rule).  Seeing Christ as a threat to their position, they joined with the Pharisees in opposing Jesus and plotting His downfall.

 

Antipas (4 BC-39 AD) is the most prominent of the Herodians in the Gospels.  He is “the fox” (Lk 13:32), the murderer of John the Baptist (Matt 14:10) and the one before whom Jesus was tried (Lk 23:7-12).  In Acts 12 we meet Antipas’ nephew Herod Agrippa 1, who executed James and imprisoned Peter.  Luke records his death (Acts 12:23) in 44 AD.  We meet three of Agrippa’s children later in the sacred narratives:  Bernice, Agrippa 2nd (Acts 25-26) and Drusilla (Acts 24:24).  In 66 AD, Agrippa 2nd openly supported the Roman suppression of Jewish rebels.  He died in 100 AD.

 

 

Zealots

 

This party was made up of Jewish patriots who advocated revolt against Roman rule and whose rallying cry was “No tribute to Caesar, no king but Jehovah, no tax but the Temple tax.”  Evidently the movement was started by one Judas the Galilean during the days of Quirinius (6/7 AD).  The Zealots’ fierce opposition to Roman rule was a major factor in the abortive revolution which led to the destruction of Jerusalem in

70 AD.  Foster says:

 

“The continual necessity which Jesus had of warning men who were healed by prodigious miracles to keep silent about it, and not to stir up too much excitement by reporting it abroad, doubtless came from the constant pressure of the Zealots to start a revolution against Rome.”

 

We are told that one of the apostles was a Zealot (Matt 10:4).

 

 

The Greek Factor

 

Earlier we spoke about the amazing conquests of Alexander the Great more than three centuries before Christ was born, and of the spread of the Greek language and culture throughout the ancient world as a result of his astonishing victories.  The effects of Alexander’s campaigns continued long after his death.  In his Grammar of the Greek New Testament, A. T. Robertson reminds us that the Greek language of Alexander’s day became what he calls a world-speech “because Alexander united Greek and Persian, east and west, into one common world-empire.”

 

Robertson tells us that the “successors of Alexander could not stop the march toward universalism” and that “the time for world-speech had come and it was ready for use.”  It was he says, “an epoch in the world’s history when the Babel of tongues was hushed in the wonderful language of Greece.”  We are told that “The language spread by Alexander’s army over the Eastern world persisted after the division of the kingdom and penetrated all parts of the Roman world, even Rome itself” and that “The Greeks were the school-teachers of the empire.”  Thus in the providence of God, the Greek language and culture became the medium through which the gospel was spread to the outposts of the civilized world.  The New Testament documents are all written in common Greek, the second language of virtually everyone.  It is also worth noting that for centuries the Greek language had been used by some of the world’s greatest thinkers to express philosophical and theological ideas, and this made it an ideal vehicle for the dissemination of a theological message.

 

Also see Religion and Philosophy on page 22.

 

 

The Septuagint

 

It is worth saying a word about what is called the Septuagint version of the Old Testament.  Briefly, this is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament which likely appeared in the third century BC as a result of the labours of certain Jews living in Alexandria.  Many Jewish fables surround its origin (see the Letter of Aristeas).  The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible says:

 

“As a landmark in history, the Sept. can hardly be overestimated…  It was the Bible of the Diaspora (the Dispersion - Rex) and as such became the Bible of the Church which was given its global form and mission by Hellenistic Jews.”

 

Moreover, because the Septuagint is based upon a Hebrew text which antedates the Masoretic manuscripts, it often provides helpful insights for the student of the Old Testament.  Many Old Testament quotations by New Testament writers are taken from the Septuagint and this translation “exerted a deep influence on the NT, and words, phrases and verbal echoes abound in the text” (Zondervan).  Evidently:

 

“Some of the great theological words of the apostolic age “seem to have been prepared for their Christian connotation” by their use in the Septuagint “to quote Swete (p. 404)...” (ibid).

 

The Catholic Encyclopaedia points out that “the Apostles and Evangelists utilised it also and borrowed Old Testament citations from it, especially in regard to the prophecies.”

 

“The Fathers and the other ecclesiastical writers of the early Church drew upon it, either directly, as in the case of the Greek Fathers, or indirectly, like the Latin Fathers and writers and others who employed Latin, Syriac, Ethiopian, Arabic and Gothic versions.  It was held in high esteem by all, some even believed it inspired” (ibid).

 

 

The Roman Factor

 

The world of the first century was under the dominion of Rome, the iron kingdom spoken of by the prophet Daniel (Dan 2:40 ff) and in lesson 1 we saw that in 63 BC Pompey annexed Judea.  Augustus (Lk 2:1) was the first emperor of Rome and ruled until 14 AD.  During his reign Christ was born.  Augustus was succeeded in 14 AD by Tiberius (Lk 3:1).  However,

“Josephus, the Jewish historian who was contemporary with John, counted Julius as the first.  He identified Augustus and Tiberius as the second and third Emperors, and Caligula as the fourth (Ant., 18, 2, 2; 16, 6, 2; 18, 6, 10).  Suetonius, a Roman historian of the first and second centuries, begins Lives of the Twelve Caesars with Julius as the first.  Dio Cassius also counts him as first in his Roman History, and the Sibylline Oracles (Book 5) calls Julius “the first king”” (Henry Cowles, The Revelation of John).

 

It is worth noting this point because some find an important chronological note at Rev 17:10.  Supposedly the seven heads of “the beast” (Rome - Satan’s tool) are here identified as a succession of Roman Emperors, and Revelation is dated to the time of the sixth Emperor.  Anyway, the following chart lists the first century emperors after Julius:

 

 

Dates                             Name

 

27-14                              Augustus

14-37                              Tiberius

37-41                              Gaius (Caligula)

41-54                              Claudius

54-68                              Nero

68-69                              Galba

69                                   Otho

69                                   Vitellius

69-79                              Vespasian

79-81                              Titus

81-96                              Domitian

96-98                              Nerva

98-117                            Trajan

 

The New Testament also mentions Claudius in connection with the famine (Acts 11:28) and the expulsion of the Jews from Rome (Acts 18:2).  Nero was the Caesar to whom Paul appealed (Acts 25:10; 28:19).  We will refer to several of the others again at a later date.

 

Apart from Italy, most of the Roman world was made up of territory under provincial government and there were two kinds of such government:

 

·        The more peaceful provinces loyal to Rome were under proconsuls (Acts 13:7) who were responsible to the Roman Senate.

 

·        The less peaceful provinces (like Palestine) were governed by prefects, procurators or propraetors, answerable directly to the emperor.  Often armies were stationed in these provinces.  Pontius Pilate was the agent of the emperor in Palestine at the time of Christ’s death (Matt 27:11) and two other Roman procurators mentioned in the Bible are Antonius Felix (Acts 23, 24) and Portius Festus (Acts 24:27).

 

Roman Peace, Roman Law and Roman Roads

 

Following the Third Punic War (see Lesson 1), Rome emerged as the dominant power in the Mediterranean basin.  Not long after the destruction of Carthage in 146 BC, she was plagued by a series of civil wars which disrupted the entire known world. Internal struggles rocked Rome for about 100 years until Caius Octavius (63 BC-4 AD), grand nephew of Julius Caesar, succeeded in restoring order and prosperity.  In 27 AD the Roman Senate bestowed the title “Augustus” (“divine” or “majestic”) upon him.  The age of Augustan is often spoken of as the Pax Romana or the “Peace of Rome” and is remembered as an era of peace, prosperity and cultural achievement.  Early Christians found evidence of divine providence in these circumstances, arguing that the world was being prepared for the advent of the Gospel.  For example, Origen of Alexandria (185-254 AD) wrote: 

 

“(For) righteousness has arisen in (Jesus’) days, and there is abundance of peace, which took its commencement at His birth, God preparing the nations for His teaching, that they might be under one prince, the king of the Romans, and that it might not, owing to the want of union among the nations, caused by the existence of many kingdoms, be more difficult for the apostles of Jesus to accomplish the task enjoined upon them by their Master, when He said, ‘Go and teach all nations.’ Moreover it is certain that Jesus was born in the reign of Augustus, who, so to speak, fused together into one monarchy the many populations of the earth.  Now the existence of many kingdoms would have been a hindrance to the spread of the doctrine of Jesus throughout the entire world; not only for the reasons mentioned, but also on account of the necessity of men everywhere engaging in war, and fighting on behalf of their native country, which was the case before the times of Augustus, and in periods still more remote…  How, then, was it possible for the Gospel doctrine of peace, which does not permit men to take vengeance even upon enemies, to prevail throughout the world, unless at the advent of Jesus a milder spirit had been everywhere introduced into the conduct of things?”  (Against Celsus 2:30).

 

It is clear that Roman Peace and its attendant benefits greatly facilitated the spread of the Gospel in the first century.  A clearly defined legal code along with an efficient administration of the law contributed significantly to the stability of the Roman world. Some degree of protection was provided for minorities and the apostle Paul found protection in his Roman citizenship.  The network of Roman roads connecting the great cities could be travelled in relative safety, as could the sea lanes, because they were protected by Roman military might.  Lengthy journeys were undertaken by Paul and others, journeys which would have been extremely difficult following the demise of the Roman Empire until recent times.

 

Basically, the Romans respected local religious practices as far as possible and the Jews were able to observe the Sabbath and engage in Temple worship.  Ordinary civil and criminal cases between Jews were left in the hands of the governing body of the nation called the Sanhedrin which acted as a municipal court for Jerusalem and which exercised religious authority over Jews of the Dispersion. 

 

 

 

Religion and Philosophy

 

The religious world of the first century was enormously complex.  Various encyclopedias (religious and historical) deal with the subject, as do many books on the “classical” or Roman-Greek world and related topics.  Our study of the New Testament will be enhanced if we are aware of the following:

 

 

The Practice of Emperor Worship

 

This consisted of “Reverence paid to a Roman Emperor, whether living or dead, as a divine being.  Generally speaking, unofficial enthusiasm could recognize deity, or a germ of deity, in a living ruler, but officially (by vote of the Senate) deity could be recognized only after the rulers’ death.  In the first two centuries, those emperors who believed that they themselves were divine, were all murdered or had to commit suicide (Caligula, Nero, Domitian, Commodus (Outside) Rome, worship of a living emperor, theoretically spontaneous, was never discouraged by local authorities who say it as a vital symbol of solidarity especially valuable in times of crisis…” (Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible).  Emperor worship combined religion and loyalty to the state, making allegiance to Rome a religious duty.  Of course this created a difficulty for Christians who “repeatedly stated that while they could, and did pray for the emperor, they could not possibly pray to him” (ibid).  See The Graeco-Roman Pantheon below.   

 

 

The Graeco-Roman Pantheon

 

By the first century, the Romans, under Greek influence had taken over the Greek pantheon of gods under new names.  For example, Jupiter was identified with the Zeus the god of the sky; Juno his wife with Hera; Neptune with Poseidon and Pluto with Hades.

 

The failure to diligently observe Roman state religion was thought to have resulted in the chaotic civil wars (above) and under Augustus there was a short lived religious revival.  The observance of the ceremonial practices of official state religion was part of one’s civic duty and had little to do with personal religious convictions.  In fact Rome was very tolerant of private religious beliefs and practices provided they did not threaten public order.  See Mystery Religions on page 23.

 

In Acts, Luke demonstrates that those involved in keeping order were favourably impressed by the early Christians and found no grounds for complaint.  Eventually however, the refusal of Christians to “toe the party line” on state religion brought down the wrath of Rome upon the heads of Christ’s disciples and many were martyred for their faith.  Because they refused to engage in state worship, they were accused of atheism. They were also accused of anti-social behavior by the ill-informed.  For example, Tacitus describes Christians as “a class hated for their abominations” and speaks of their “hatred against mankind” (Annals 15).  He records that having accused them of arson, Nero cruelly persecuted those who embraced this new superstition.  They were “(covered) with the skins of beasts…torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired” (ibid).  According to Eusebius, “Domitian…finally became a successor of Nero in his hatred and enmity toward God (and) stirred up a persecution against us” (Church History 3.17).  Pliny the Younger (61 AD-113 AD) recognized that “those who (were) really Christians” would not “(offer) prayer with incense and wine to (Caesar’s) image” and accordingly took no action against those who “worshipped (Caesar’s) image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ” (Letters 96). 

 

 

Disillusionment with the “gods”

 

Some influential Greek thinkers had expressed their disdain for the Homeric “gods” whose immoralities, brutalities and deceptions repulsed many thoughtful people.  For example, in Plato’s ideal society, the citizenry are not to be exposed to unwholesome stories of rapacious, gluttonous, unjust deities.  Plato places these words in the mouth of Socrates:

 

“And let us equally refuse to believe, or allow to be repeated, the tale of Theseus son of Poseidon, or of Peirithous son of Zeus, going forth as they did to perpetrate a horrid rape; or of any other hero or son of a god daring to do such impious and dreadful things as they falsely ascribe to them in our day:  and let us further compel the poets to declare either that these acts were not done by them, or that they were not the sons of gods; - both in the same breath they shall not be permitted to affirm.  We will not have them trying to persuade our youth that the gods are the authors of evil, and that heroes are no better than men - sentiments which, as we were saying, are neither pious nor true, for we have already proved that evil cannot come from the gods” (Republic Book 3).

 

In a surviving fragment from Xenophanes writings we read:  “Homer and Hesiod have attributed to the gods all sorts of things that are matters of reproach and censure among men:  theft, adultery, and mutual deception.”  The contempt which Xenophanes, Plato and other influential Greek thinkers expressed for decadent “gods” of the poets was shared by many ordinary Greeks who were exposed to the ideas of the philosophers by the travelling teachers found in the major cities of the ancient world.  Understandably, many of these thoughtful individuals were attracted to the holy, loving, just God of the Christian faith.      

 

 

The Mystery Religions

 

“The term ‘mystery’ derives from the Greek mysteria which described the oldest initiation rites at Eleusis.  The Eleusinian and Dionysian mysteries were Greek, while those of Isis, Mithras, Kybele and Attis came from the East.  (Other well known mystery cults include Demeter, Persephone and Atargatis - Rex).  Common to each of the mysteries was the prohibition against revealing its secrets to non initiates.  They were literally unspeakable because it was not knowledge but an experience that was transmitted through specific ritual acts, with each cult offering a different experience through the performance of an initiatory rite” (Gregory Shaw, The Oxford Companion to the Bible).   

 

These cults appealed greatly to those who were unmoved by the cold formalism of state religion.  “Men were seeking a more personal faith that would bring them into immediate contact with deity, and they were ready for any sort of experience that would promise them that contact.  The mystery religions fulfilled that desire” (Tenney).  Various means, such as the use of wine, stirring music and the inhalation of fumes, were used to induce forms of ecstatic feeling in worshippers and these feelings were expressed in such things as frenzied dancing, the gnashing of the flesh, “speaking in tongues,” feelings of euphoria and such like.  Typically, the cults offered enlightenment, provided an outlet for the religious feelings of the people, and supplied an environment in which people of all classes could mingle and interact.  Some kind of resuscitated god features in various mystery religions.

 

The mystery religions enjoyed great popularity, particularly since, among other things they promised:

 

·        To deal with man’s guilt problem

 

“The early Christian preachers could assume in their hearers, whether Jews...or Pagans, a sense of guilt.  (That this was common among Pagans is shown by the fact that both Epicureanism and the Mystery Religions both claimed, though in different ways, to assuage it).  Thus the Christian message was in those days unmistakably the Evangelium, the Good News” (C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock).

 

·        Some kind of immortality

 

“Why were the priests able to attract the men and women who were dissatisfied with their lives and anxious for a better hope?  What could they offer to the votaries?  The best answer maybe given in a single word.  The great need and longing of the time was for salvation, soteria.  Men and women were eager for such a communion with the divine, such a realization of the interest of God in their affairs, as might serve to support them in the trials of life, and guarantee to them a friendly reception in the world beyond the grave(P. Gardner, Mysteries Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics).

 

·        Safety and security

 

Inhabitants of the first century world were dominated by fear of malignant spirits, a sense that they were simply the toys of Fate and a conviction that human life was ruled by “the stars.”  Some “tried to deal with these powers in various ways that included resignation to fate, magical practices and initiation into mystery cults(Andrew T. Lincoln Word Biblical Commentary Ephesians).  Union with a god or goddess promised deliverance from the tyranny of Fate and the cruelty of malevolent deities.

 

Many spiritually minded first century individuals recognised that the Gospel answered the greatest yearnings of the human heart, and that Christ’s call to holiness offered a peace and joy which could not be secured by the drunken orgies, ecstatic experiences and groundless superstitions of the mystery cults. 

 

Attempts to show that Christianity developed from the “Mysteries” are misguided and unconvincing for a number of reasons.  

 

 

Intimations of monotheism and materialism

 

Although the details are not always clear, it is evident that the notion of a motionless, changeless and eternal “One” permeated Greek thought.  For example, Xenophanes spoke of “one God, greatest among gods and men, neither in shape nor in thought like unto mortals...  He is all sight, all mind, all ear...  Without an effort ruleth he all things by thought.  He abideth ever in the same place motionless, and it befitteth him not to wander hither and thither...  Yet men imagine gods to be born and to have raiment and voice and body, like themselves...”  Plato, Aristotle and others helped this movement towards monotheism and although such concepts as an impersonal “Prime Mover” and secondary deities are foreign to the New Testament, interest in monotheism and monism helped pave the way for the Gospel with its message about the One True God.  For example, consider Paul’s words in Acts 17:28 when he reminds the Athenians of the statement of the Cicilian poet Aratus:  “It is with Zeus that every one of us in every way has to do, for we are also his offspring.”

 

“By (this maxim) Paul is not suggesting that God is to be thought of in terms of the Zeus of Greek polytheism or Stoic pantheism.  He is rather arguing that the poets his hearers recognized as authorities have to some extent corroborated his message.  In his search for a measure of common ground with his hearers, he is, so to speak, disinfecting and rebaptizing the poets’ words for his own purposes” (Richard N. Longenecker, The Expositors Bible Commentary vol 9).

 

Ironically the earliest known expressions of atheism (as we understand this term today) are also found among the Greeks.  Epicurus (341-270 BC) is considered by many to be the first atheist, and although he is ambiguous on the subject of the gods, it is clear if they did exist, they had no interest or involvement in human existence.          

 

“Epicurus believed that, on the basis of a radical materialism which dispensed with transcendent entities such as the Platonic Ideas or Forms, he could disprove the possibility of the soul’s survival after death, and hence the prospect of punishment in the afterlife.  He regarded the unacknowledged fear of death and punishment as the primary cause of anxiety among human beings, and anxiety in turn as the source of extreme and irrational desires.  The elimination of the fears and corresponding desires would leave people free to pursue the pleasures, both physical and mental, to which they are naturally drawn, and to enjoy the peace of mind that is consequent upon their regularly expected and achieved satisfaction” (David Konstan, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

 

 

 

 

Magic and Occultic Practices

 

Magic and occultic practices saturated the ancient world.  Convinced that the universe was inhabited by spirits and demons possessing knowledge or power which could be made available to men, many in the first century experimented with a variety of different ways of manipulating reality and making contact with the unseen world.  Magic is an attempt to interfere “with the usual course of physical nature by apparently inadequate means (recitation of formularies, gestures, mixing of incongruous elements, and other mysterious actions), the knowledge of which is obtained through secret communication with the force underlying the universe (God, the Devil, the soul of the world, etc.)…  (It) is the attempt to work miracles not by the power of God, gratuitously communicated to man, but by the use of hidden forces beyond man’s control.  Its advocates, despairing to move the Deity by supplication, seek the desired result by evoking powers ordinarily reserved to the Deity” (Catholic Encyclopaedia).

 

Astrology, incantations, spells, palmistry etc were all popular and widespread practices, and we are told that at Ephesus, converts to Christianity destroyed magic books to the value of 50,000 pieces of silver (Acts 19:19) at a time when one piece of silver was equal to about one day’s wage (cf Acts 8:9-24; 13:6-11; 1 Cor 10:20-21).

 

 

Gnosticism

 

We need to keep in mind that while some of the ideas which led to the development of Gnosticism were alive and well in Paul’s day; fully developed Gnosticism did not emerge until the second century.  Robert McL. Wilson warns:

 

“One common error of method has been to identify terms or concepts as ‘gnostic’ because of their appearance in developed gnostic systems, and then to trace them back through Greek philosophy or the religions of Egypt, Persia, or Babylon

 

A question still in debate is the extent of ‘gnostic’ influence on the New Testament, since the evidence has to be found in the New Testament itself, and there is always the danger of interpreting it in light of later systems, which may be to impose on it the ideas of a later period” (The Oxford Companion to the Bible). 

 

On the other hand it seems evident that the seeds of this teaching were present in the first century.  At the heart of Gnosticism was the notion that matter was wholly evil and spirit wholly good. This being the case, matter was held to be a creation, not of the Supreme God, but rather of an inferior deity, and the result of some primeval disorder. Man’s spirit, held captive by the physical body, yearns to be set free from its prison, and this release can only be attained by means of some special “knowledge” (gnosis).  Thus redemption was a matter of philosophy, and the content of this philosophy was derived from various sources such as tradition (allegedly communicated to a coterie of like minded spirits), “enlightened” members of different sects and such like.  We will have more to say about this teaching in our study of several New Testament books.

 

It is convenient to point out here that the Gospel was a stumbling block to many who had fallen in love with the philosophical speculation and impressive rhetoric associated chiefly with the Greek intellectual tradition.  Impressed by clever sophistries and impressive oratory, many had no time for “the word of the cross” (1 Cor 1:18), which to them spoke of weakness, failure and inferiority.  In the Greek tradition, wisdom and knowledge were to be found in such things as Plato’s eidos or eternal transcendent form, but in the Gospel, Truth and Wisdom are particularized in Jesus.  Origen tells us that Celsus characterized Christians as “uninstructed, and servile, and ignorant,” adding: “Celsus, I suppose, means those who are not acquainted with his laws, nor trained in the branches of Greek learning” (Against Celsus 6.14).  Celsus “subsequently adds in his attack upon the Christian system…that Christians ‘repel every wise man from the doctrine of their faith, and invite only the ignorant and the vulgar’” (3.18).

 

It appears that among the Christians at Corinth, there were those who wanted to raise the intellectual tone of the message by playing down the crucifixion and dressing up the gospel in philosophical garb.  In effect Paul responds:

 

“(In the cross God has) brought an end to human self-sufficiency as it is evidenced through human wisdom and devices.  No, Paul argues with his Corinthian friends, the gospel is not some new sophia (wisdom or philosophy) not even a divine sophia.  For sophia allows for human judgments or evaluations of God’s activity.  But the gospel stands as the divine antithesis to such judgments.  No mere human, in his or her right mind or otherwise, would ever have dreamed up God’s scheme for redemption - through a crucified Messiah.  It is too preposterous, too humiliating, for a God” (Fee).

 

 

Concluding comments

 

It was into this colorful world that Christ was born “in the fulness of time.”  In his New Testament Times, Tenney reminds us that it was a world in which, apart from Judaism, “there was no faith that could speak with certainty of divine revelation nor of any true concept of sin and salvation.”  As far as ethical standards were concerned, these were superficial, despite the ideal and insights possessed by some philosophers.  When these philosophers spoke of evil and virtue “they had neither the remedy for the one nor the dynamic to produce the other.”  Paganism had produced “a parody and a perversion of God’s original revelation to man” and “the consequent confusion of beliefs and of values left men wandering in a maze of uncertainties.”  Tenney continues:

 

“To some, expediency became the dominating philosophy of life; for if there can be no ultimate certainty, there can be no permanent principles by which to guide conduct; and if there are no permanent principles, one must live as well as he can by the advantage of the moment.  Skepticism prevailed, for the old gods had lost their power and no new gods had appeared.  Numerous novel cults invaded the empire from every quarter and became the fads of the dilettante rich or the refuge of the desperate poor. Men had largely lost the sense of joy and of destiny that made human life worthwhile.”

 

Thankfully, at the appointed time “the Word became flesh” and men beheld “the true light which coming into the world, enlightens every man” (Jn 1:14, 9).   


The Testaments

 

 

 

Lesson 3

 

The Bible is made up of two testaments - the Old and the New.  Usually the English word “testament” means a will, but this is not the sense in which it is used in speaking of the two parts of the Bible.  In his The Canon of Scripture, F. F. Bruce says:

 

“Our word “testament” comes from Latin testamentum, which...means a will, but in this particular context the Latin word is used as the translation of the Greek diatheke. The Greek word may indeed mean a will (elsewhere Bruce cites Gal 3:15 and Heb 9:16 as examples - Rex) but it is used more widely of various kinds of settlement or agreement, not so much of one which is made between equals as of one in which a party superior in power or dignity confers certain privileges on an inferior while the inferior undertakes certain obligations towards the superior.”

 

Examples in the Old Testament include God’s covenant with Noah and his descendants (Gen 9:8-17), God’s covenant with Abraham (Gen 15:18; 17:1-4) and His covenant with the people of Moses’ day (Ex 24:7).  At Sinai, the people of Moses’ day responded “All that the Lord has spoken we will do and we will be obedient” (Ex 24:7). Centuries later, the prophet Jeremiah speaks of a time in the future when God will replace the covenant made at Sinai with “a new covenant” (Jer 31:31-34).  It is this covenant that Jesus has in mind some 600 years later when He speaks of His shed blood as “the blood of the covenant” (Matt 26:28 cf 1 Cor 11:25).

 

The Old Testament is made up of 39 books from Genesis to Malachi (in the English Bible).  The New Testament is made up of 27 books from Matthew to Revelation which are associated with the New Covenant.

 

 

New Testament Books

 

It is convenient to classify the 27 books of the New Testament into three groups:

 

·        The five historical books (The Gospels and Acts).  These tell of the coming of Christ, who He is, why He came and the growth of the infant church under Spirit-guided men.

 

·        The 21 epistolary books (Romans through Jude).  These letters, written to individuals and to churches, develop the full significance of Christ’s person and work, explaining what this means in the life of the Christian.

 

·        The one prophetical book (Revelation).  Here we find assurance of victory to the suffering saints grounded upon the fact that the enemies of God’s people will not prevail.

The Gospels

 

We read in The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia that “(the) word “gospel” is derived from the Anglo-Saxon word which meant ‘the story concerning God’ (Godspell - Rex).”  We are told:

 

“In the NT the Greek word euaggelion means “good news.”  It proclaims tidings of deliverance.  The word sometimes stands for the record of the life of our Lord (Mk 1:1), embracing all His teachings, as in Acts 20:24.  But the word “gospel” now has a peculiar use, and describes primarily the message which Christianity announces. “Good news” is its significance.  It means a gift from God.  It is the proclamation of the forgiveness of sins and son ship with God restored through Christ.  It means remission of sins and reconciliation with God.  The gospel is not only the message of God but also the instrument through which the Holy Spirit works (Rom 1:16).”

 

Also included in this is what men must do to be saved.

 

Now this “gospel” is set forth in the New Testament which includes the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  In the post-biblical period, these books came to be referred to as “the Gospels” (capitalized to mark the distinction).  These four and only these four books have been widely recognized as “the Gospels” from the earliest time despite the appearance of spurious “Gospels” from time to time (see next lesson).

 

Foster tells us:

 

“The first line of division made in current study of the Gospel narratives is between Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which are called “Synoptic Gospels,” and the Gospel of John.  Synoptic comes from the Greek “seen together” and is applied to these three narratives because they can, at least in certain sections, be arranged in parallel columns.  They show a certain similarity in outline and at times, in language.  John’s Gospel is however, entirely different from the others.  He presents an immense amount of new material even in discussing the same scenes, and, for the most part, devotes his attention to speeches and events to which the others do not refer at all.”

 

Now, the three synoptic Gospels do not accord equal space to each topic which they treat in common.  It is clear that each writer selected and arranged his material with a particular purpose in view.  Moreover, each writer has his distinct emphasis.  Having said this, we briefly note the following:

 

“Matthew Mark and Luke structure the ministry of Jesus according to a general geographical sequence:  ministry in Galilee, withdrawal to the North (with Peter’s confession as a climax and point of transition), ministry in Judea and Perea while Jesus is on his way to Jerusalem (less clear in Luke), and final ministry in Jerusalem. Very little of this sequence can be found in John, where the focus is on Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem during periodic visits to the city”

(Carson et. al).

 

 

 

 

Examples of material common to the Synoptics include:

 

·        Announcement of the Messiah by John the Baptist (Matt. 3; Mark 1; Luke 3).

 

·        Baptism of Jesus (Matt. 3; Mark 1; Luke 3).

 

·        Temptation of Jesus (Matt. 4; Mark 1; Luke 4).

 

·        Teaching and miracles of Jesus.

 

·        Transfiguration of Jesus (Matt. 17; Mark 9; Luke 9).

 

·        Trial, death, and burial of Jesus (Matt. 26-27; Mark 14-15; Luke 22-23).

 

·        Resurrection of Jesus (Matt. 28; Mark 16; Luke 24).

 

(This should not be taken to mean that John mentions none of this material).

 

In his Commentary on Matthew, William Hendriksen points out that John:

 

devotes much space to the Lord’s teaching in the form, not of parables but of elaborate discourses to - or discussions with - friends and /or enemies.  But it is the same Lord who is speaking in all four.” 

 

We will say more about this when we survey John, but we simply note here that the Synoptics and John supplement one another, and when we look at each Gospel in light of the others, we obtain valuable insights and much that is helpful in terms of background material.  We will also see when we look at some of the characteristics of the Gospels, that there are good reasons why we have four rather than one.

 

The similarity of material and wording found in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke suggests some kind of literary dependence.  Complicating the matter is the fact that some material is common to all three Gospels while some material is common to just two Gospels, and the fact that common material is sometimes presented in a different order. The so called “Synoptic problem” has to do with questions about the relationship of the Synoptics to one another and the following points feature prominently in the debate:

 

·        Verbatim agreement is a feature of the Synoptics.  It is rare for such agreement to exist in reports which are completely independent of one another.  When John reports the same events, there is far less agreement.

 

·        Only a few of the many sayings and actions of Jesus are reported in the Synoptics which indicates that editorial decisions were made about what to include and exclude.  The fact that the Synoptics relate many of the same events, miracles and sayings suggests some interconnectedness. 

 

·        Even when material is arranged non-chronologically, events are sometimes reported at the same place in the narratives.

 

·        Similar editorial comments and asides suggest some kind of dependence.

 

·        Agreements in arrangement and wording between Mark and Matthew against Luke, and Mark and Luke against Matthew are far more prevalent than agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark.  This pattern is unlikely to have emerged by accident.

 

Until the 18th century, most students of Scripture accepted the explanation for the literary relationship of the Synoptics which was provided by Augustine (354-430). Speaking of the Gospel writers, Augustine says that:

 

“Although each of these may appear to preserve a certain order of narration proper to himself, this certainly should not be taken as though each individual writer chose to write in ignorance of what his predecessor had done, or left out things, which nonetheless another is discovered to have recorded, as matters about which there was no information….” (De consensus evangelistarum 1).

 

According to Augustine, the Gospel of Matthew was written first and “Mark follows him closely, and looks like his assistant and epitomizer” (ibid).  Luke then used both Mark and Matthew in the production of his own Gospel.

 

Since the 18th century, a bewildering assortment of theories has arisen as various scholars, conservative and liberal, have offered competing and frequently overlapping “solutions” to the “Synoptic problem.”  The ever expanding, maze-like body of material produced by these discussions includes conjectures about the priority of Mark, Matthew and Luke, the so called “two source” hypothesis, the “triple tradition” hypothesis and so on.

 

Of course many contributors to this discussion are committed to naturalistic, evolutionary explanations for the origin of scripture and their speculative reconstructions are incompatible with the Biblical doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration.

 

Although this is not the place to consider the doctrine of inspiration in depth, we will simply affirm here our belief in what is often called “verbal plenary inspiration.” This simply means that “God superintended the very choice of words in the Holy Volume so that it may be truly said to be entirely God’s Word without admixture of human error” (R. Laird-Harris:  Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible).  Laird-Harris is of course speaking of the original manuscripts.  Such a view does not mean that the individuality of various writers is lost and as B.  B. Warfield points out:

 

“If God wished to give His people a series of letters like Paul’s He prepared a Paul to write them, and the Paul He brought to the task was a Paul who spontaneously would write such letters” (Limited Inspiration).

 

On the other hand, we need to keep in mind that the doctrine of inspiration is not irreconcilable with the use of various sources by those infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit.  In our Old Testament Canon we argued that Moses likely compiled the Genesis account using written sources from other inspired men.  It is clear from various OT passages that the inspired writers of the pre Christian era were acquainted with materials other than their own (eg Num 21:14; Josh 10:13; 2 Sam 1:18; 1 Kgs 11:41; 14:19, 29;

1 Chron 29:29; 2 Chron 9:29; 12:15; 13:22; 20:34; 32:32).  The introduction to Luke’s Gospel (Lk 1:1-4) strongly suggests his use of various sources.  It is clear that Peter was acquainted with various letters of Paul (2 Pet 3:16) and the similarities between 2 Peter and Jude are striking.

 

The bottom line is that regardless of the mechanics of the process, the Gospels are, like the rest of scripture - the product of divine inspiration.   

 

Our next lesson discusses the process whereby these books came to be recognized as canonical, that is, recognized as authoritative by virtue of their being divinely inspired.  

 


 

Home|Contents