Podcasts about Papias

Episode: Jason Staples and Stephen Carlson try to ruin your Nativity! Jason discusses Stephen's essay "The Accommodations of Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem: Κατάλυμα in Luke 2:7." They also discuss when and how Mary and Joseph get married, the census in Luke 2:2, and ... (wait for it) ... the Spanish Inquisition.  Guest: Dr. Stephen Carlson is Associate Professor in the Biblical and Early Christian Studies program at the Australian Catholic University. He's the author of three books, The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark (Baylor, 2007), which debunked the "Secret Gospel of Mark"; The Text of Galatians and its History (Mohr Siebeck, 2014), which applied state-of-the-art computer phylogenetic software he wrote himself to produce a family tree of ninety-two manuscripts and witnesses of Galatians; and Papias of Hierapolis' Exposition of Dominical Oracles (Oxford, 2021), the most complete edition of the fragments of Papias of Hierapolis, a second-century Christian commentator. He is also the author of numerous peer-reviewed journal articles, including his article on the so-called "inn" in Luke's infancy account (under discussion in this episode) and essays on the donkeys in Matthew's triumphal entry: Stephen C. Carlson, “‘The Jenny and the Colt' in Matthew's Messianic Entry, Part 1: Matthew 21:5 as a Reading of Zechariah 9:9 in Light of Mark 11:1-10,” in the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, volume 81, number 1 (January 2019), pages 62-84 (link). Stephen C. Carlson, “‘The Jenny and the Colt' in Matthew's Messianic Entry, Part 2: Matthew 21:7 as a Reading of Mark 11:7 in Light of Zechariah 9:9,” in the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, volume 81, number 2 (April 2019), pages 235-251 (link). HERE is a link to the article "Luke 2:2 and the Census."  

This week Jeff and Dave continue their discussion of John Wenham's arguments against the hypothesis of Markan priority and the Q document as explaining the many similarities in the synoptic Gospels. Here they pick up with "external evidence" in chapter 5, after a concluding look at the internal evidence. Wenham argues in chapters 5 and following for the priority of Matthew, reestablishing the reliability of Papias and other church fathers like Irenaeus and Origen, in the overwhelming testimony that Matthew was first, and wrote Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ. Does this mean in a Semitic language like Hebrew or Aramaean – the traditional interpretation – or is the understanding commonly attributed to Eusebius correct, that Matthew wrote "in a Semitic style", but not necessarily in the Hebrew language? The arguments are complicated, and require very careful attention to sort the wheat from the chaff. Was Peter the inspiration for Mark's gospel? Was Peter in Rome, and if, so when? Come along for a careful look at a perennially interesting and pressing question, namely the relationship between the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Also, be sure to check out the giveaway of the brand-new collected works of Aristotle by Hackett publishing, our sponsor. You can find it at this link.

Finish Faithful - https://finishfaithful.org/ @finishfaithful7807  In this episode, my father, Jeff Tideman, and I discuss our spiritual journeys and the complex world of Christian eschatology. We explore Jeff's religious history, including his experience with The Way International, the early church's premillennial beliefs, and the fascinating history of how the doctrine of the "rapture" developed later in the 19th century. The conversation ultimately centers on the nature of the Kingdom of God—whether it is a purely spiritual reality "within you" or a future, literal, geopolitical restoration of Israel and the earth, and why understanding this is crucial for believers today.We mention The Way International, Dr. Victor Paul Wierwille, John Nelson Darby, Dr. E. W. Bullinger, Cyrus Ingerson Scofield, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyon, Papias of Hierapolis, Hippolytus of Rome, Tertullian, Origen of Alexandria, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Athanasius of Alexandria, Julian the Apostate, Chuck Lamatina, Sir Anthony Buzzard, Sean Finnegan. @restitutio8765  , Dr. Beau Branson, Will Barlow. @compasschurchlou  , Antichrist, Eschatology, Kingdom of God, Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology, Premillennialism, Amillennialism, Preterism, Chiliasm, Supersessionism, The Rapture, Pre-Tribulation Rapture, Pre-Wrath Rapture, Zionism and more.

King Jesus Returns G'day and welcome to Partake! We are now on day 30 of our series "Glimpses", looking at the story of the Bible in 30 days - from the time of creation through to the time of the fullness of redemption! Today we conclude this series, looking at when, as King Jesus Himself promised, that He would "come again". For believers in Jesus Christ, living almost 2000 years after Jesus spoke these words in Revelation 22v7, "Behold, I am coming soon", this is their hope. When will King Jesus come? Jesus frequently said during his earthly life, things like "I will come back and take you to be with me" (John 14v3). The angels after Jesus' ascension said to the disciples "Jesus will come back the same way He went to heaven" (Acts 1v11). When will this occur? No-one knows (Matthew 24v36) but we do know it will be unexpected (1 Thessalonians 5v1-3), that there will be events preceding His coming (Matthew 24) and occur after the gospel has been preached in the whole world (Matthew 24v14). What we also know is that believers are to be alert, ready, waiting, watching and working for God's kingdom (Matthew 24v42-44). His people, His church of all believers, are to be alert, self-controlled and encouraging each other (1 Thessalonians 5v6-8, 11)! Why will King Jesus return? Jesus sayt that will come to judge the antichrist and his followers (Revelation 16v12-16, 19v11-16)! Jesus will come to bind Satan (Revelation 20v1-3). Secondly, He will come to judge all of humanity (Matthew 25v31-46; Joel 3v11-17). Finally, Jesus Christ will come and set up an earthly kingdom for 1,000 years (Revelation 20v2-7). Two Different Views Unsurprisingly there are many different views about this event, but there are two main schools of thought. They are Amillenialism & Premillenialism. Amillenial View - Primarily a figurative/spiritual interpretation. This view sees the Old Testament promises to Israel are being fulfilled in the church. The Millennium is the reign of Christ in the Church - the new Israel. The Church is already experiencing tribulation. Premillenial View - Christ will return to set up His kingdom on earth for 1000 years (Revelation 19v1-7). God promises to Israel of restoration, a future king and temple will await fulfilment. God has a separate programme for the Church. His coming is when Jesus Christ returns to take His people to be with Him (1 Thessalonians 4v16). The dead in Christ are raised and the living are changed (1 Corinthians 15v51-54) His coming to Earth will be to the Mount of Olives (Zechariah 14v4; Acts 1v11) with power and glory (Matthew 24v30) and everyone will see Him. What does Church History say? The view of the church for the first 200 years was that of a literal return of Jesus Christ, 1000 years after the coming of the Holy Spirit. Early church leaders such as Papias, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr taught this, and these men were not far removed from the Apostle John. Origen promoted the figurative (spiritual) method of interpretation and Augustine developed an Amillenial view, identifying the Church with the fulfilment of the Old Testament promises to Israel and this became official Roman Catholic doctrine. Many scholars later returned to the Premillenial (literal) view after the Reformation. Resurrection! King Jesus will come suddenly, bringing destruction while people are saying ‘peace and safety' (1 Thessalonians 5v1-3). The bodily resurrection of the dead, both believers and unbelievers, is clearly taught in the Bible (John 5v28-29; Acts 24v15). Jesus' own resurrection is the guarantee of the resurrection of believers (1 Corinthians 15v20-22) At their resurrection, believers will have bodies changed into those like Jesus' glorious body (1 Corinthians 15v49; Philippians 3v21; 1 John 3v2), that wont be made of flesh and blood (1 Corinthians 15v50ff) and not just partly spiritual (Luke 24v39; 1 Corinthians 15v42, 53)! For those who are unbelievers, they will be resurrected (John 5v28-29) and cast into the lake of fire! What is the timing of these two resurrections? The first Resurrection will occur when Jesus Christ comes in the air to take his believers and followers (1 Corinthians 15v23; 1 Thessalonians 4v16). The second Resurrection, will be of the unsaved and unbelievers (Revelation 20v5, 11-13). Both believers and unbelievers will face judgement! Judgment Comes! There is a certainty of judgment for all people and King Jesus will judge the whole world with justice and mercy (Acts 17v31). Every human who has ever lived is destined to die once and after that to face judgment (Hebrews 9v27). Who is the Judge? - God is the judge of all the earth (Hebrews 12v23) and God the Father has given all judgment to Jesus Christ, God the Son (John 5v22-27) Judgment of believers: Believers and followers of King Jesus will not be judged for their sin, because that has been judged (Isaiah 53v4-6; 1 Peter 2v24) when they started believing in Jesus as the Messiah and King! They will be judged for their works and have to give an account to God (Romans 14v10) of what they have done with what they were given (2 Corinthians 5v10). The quality of work will be tested (1 Corinthians 3v11-15) and motives will be exposed - either things were done for God's glory (1 Corinthians 4v4-5) or for their own glory. Rewards may be gained or lost (1 Corinthians 3v14-15) and includes various crowns! There is the incorruptible crown (1 Corinthians 9v25), the crown of glory (1 Peter 5v4) the crown of righteousness (2 Timothy 4v8) the crown of rejoicing (1 Thessalonians 2v19) and finally the crown of life (James 1v12) Judgment of unbelievers: These people will stand before The Great White Throne of Judgment (Revelation 20v11-15) and as they didn't respond to Jesus' call of salvation, they will be cast into the lake of fire with satan and his angels (Revelation 20v15; Matthew 25v41). This punishment is everlasting (Matthew 25v46). Heaven and Hell Then there is talk of two places: heaven and hell. What are heaven and hell like? Both are physical places where every person will be in one or the other. It is either heaven or hell. King Jesus spoke of the reality of a literal hell more than anybody else! 1. Hell Characteristics Everlasting fire and punishment (Matthew 25v41-46) Constant and outer darkness (Matthew 8v12) Everlasting destruction (2 Thessalonians 1v9) Lakes of fire (Revelation 19v20) It is prepared for Satan and his demons (Matthew 25v41; 2 Peter 2v4); the wicked (Revelation 21v8) and the disobedient (Romans 2v8-9). It is for all those who openly rejected Jesus Christ during their earthly life (Matthew 10v14-15). 2. Heaven As opposed to this place of Hell, there is Heaven! Characteristic of heaven will be: Joy (Luke 15v7-10), Rest (Revelation 14v13), Peace (Luke 16v19-25), Righteousness (2 Peter 3v12), Service (Revelation 7v15), Reward (Matthew 5v11-12), Inheritance (1 Peter 1v4), Glory (Romans 8v17-18)! Martin Luther exclaimed that heaven is "full of laughter!" This is prepared for all believers in Jesus Christ and therefore have their names recorded in the Book of Life (Malachi 3v16-18; Philippians 4v3) as they will be declared righteous (Matthew 5v20), obedient (Revelation 22v14) and holy (Revelation 19v8) Heaven is described as a House (John 14v2), a Kingdom (Matthew 25v34) a Paradise (2 Corinthians 12v2-4) and a Holy City (Revelation 21v2) There will be a new heaven and a new earth to replace the old heaven and old earth! This is the fullness of redemption, the whole story of the Bible that we have been looking at in this series. Do you know where you stand? Are you a believer or unbeliever? What now? If you are not yet a believer, you can respond to King Jesus today and then you will not be without an excuse when it comes your time to face Him as your judge! He is ready and willing to take you as His own - right now. If you want to become a Christian believer right now, there are three simple steps to follow. Firstly, admit that you have done wrong against God and His ways. Secondly, believe and trust in Jesus. Call on Him, receive, trust, obey and worship Him, recognizing Him for who He is and what He has done. Lastly, confess Jesus as your Lord and Saviour. Once sin has been confessed, and Jesus is believed in and trusted as Saviour, then you are a Christian believer. Now you are ready as Peter writes in the Bible, "to grow in grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 3:18). Welcome to the family of God. Let us know if you have taken this step! Thank you! Tap or click here to download as a MP3 audio file

In this conversation, Dr. Will Varner discusses his extensive research on the Gospels, particularly focusing on the authorship of the Gospels and the his belief that Matthew was written first (Matthew Priority rather than Markan Priority) and then Luke, and finally Mark. He explores the historical context of Gospel writing, the influence of higher criticism on the New Testament, and the significance of early church fathers like Papias and Irenaeus. Varner argues for a reevaluation of the traditional views on Gospel authorship, emphasizing the Jewish context of Matthew and the implications of these findings for contemporary biblical scholarship and bible study as well as exegesis and hermeneutics. In this conversation, Dr. William Varner and Dr. Paul Weaver delve into the complexities of the Gospels, particularly focusing on the relationship between Matthew and Mark. They discuss the implications of the unique details found in Mark's Gospel. The conversation also touches on the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding the authors, the debate between Matthew Priority and Mark Priority, and the influence of modern scholarship on these views. Varner recommends several resources for those interested in exploring Matthew Priority further, emphasizing the importance of understanding the Gospels in their historical and theological context.0:00 Introduction02:21 - Dr. Varner's Journey and Insights on the Gospels07:15 - Debating Markan vs. Matthean Priority12:31 - The Role of Early Church Fathers in Establishing Priority19:00 - Understanding Papias and the "Hebrew Dialect" 24:52 - The Synoptic Problem and Mutual Dependence31:03 - Exploring the Influence of Academia on Gospel Studies38:07 - Recommended Resources for Further Study

In this behind-the-scenes episode, I share where things stand with Season 3 of The Church History Project—what's already in the works, what's coming next, and what I've been learning along the way. From early research on Ignatius of Antioch to deep dives into the Didache, Papias, and the Epistle of Barnabas, this episode offers a sneak peek at what's ahead. I also talk about future plans for tighter season releases, give a quick update on the paused Season 1 devotional, and share how you can support the podcast through the podcast's Buy Me a Coffee profile. Thanks, as always, for your prayers and encouragement!

Two of the more puzzling questions regarding how we got the Bible, especially the writings of the New Testament, are "who wrote them" and "how did we get the books that we have?"  The answers aren't as straightforward as one would think.  Still, thanks to the evidence within the Scriptures themselves and to the writings of some of the earliest Christians, we can with confidence know most of the true authors of the books of the Bible. More importantly, we can approach with these writings with trust, that they will lead us to eternal life if followed.  Scriptures covered: Luke 24:44-45.  1 Timothy 5:18.To see David Hicks on YouTube, click here.

Richard Bauckham est un expert britannique du Nouveau Testament, de confession anglicane. Son livre Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, publié en 2006, défend l'idée que les évangiles sont basés sur des témoins directs des événements. Il s'oppose ainsi aux nombreux experts qui parlent de traditions anonymes, transmises aux évangélistes par des communautés où les récits avaient pris forme et évolué.Cet ouvrage a été largement cité dans le milieu académique, parce qu'il bouscule des idées bien établies dans la réflexion académique. Ben Witherington III, par exemple, voit dans cet ouvrage un changement de paradigme dans l'étude des évangiles.Dans ce balado, nous vous en présentons quelques points clés :Les personnages secondaires sont rarement nommés. Cependant, quand un évangéliste prend la peine de nommer tel aveugle ou tel disciple, c'est parce que cette personne est une des sources, voire LA source, pour le récit raconté. (Ex. Bartimée, l'aveugle de Jéricho, ou Simon de Cyrène, celui qui porta la croix de Jésus.)Marc utilise un procédé littéraire pour souligner que son témoin principal est Pierre, le leader des Douze. Ce procédé s'appelle un inclusio. Et cette donnée corrobore le témoignage de Papias (un contemporain des apôtres), qui rapporte que Marc était le scribe de Pierre. Si on a effectivement le témoignage d'un tel apôtre, on se retrouve aux premières loges de la vie de Jésus!Les prénoms utilisés dans les évangiles et dans les Actes correspondent rigoureusement aux prénoms palestiniens de l'époque. Si des Juifs de l'Égypte ou de Rome avaient voulu inventer des récits pour mettre leur Messie en valeur, il leur aurait été très difficile de bien nommer les personnages palestiniens, car la popularité des prénoms variait grandement d'une région à l'autre.L'insistance d'évangélistes (notamment Luc et Jean) sur le fait de rapporter les faits "depuis le commencement", puisqu'il s'agissait d'une bonne façon de faire de l'histoire à cette époque. Les évangélistes avaient donc le souci de faire un compte-rendu historique.

In this episode, I got to talk with Dr. Stephen Carlson. Dr. Carlson is the Associate Professor in Biblical and Early Christian Studies at the Australian Catholic University. He is the author of three books including The Gospel Hoax, The Text of Galatians and its History, and Papias of Hierapolis. He is also the author of many peer reviewed journal articles. Dr. Stephen Carlson and I did a podcast episode in April on why we should trust our Bible translations.In this discussion we talked about the Book of Enoch, an ancient text that claims to have been written by Enoch (prior to the flood). We also talked about the Nephilim (in Genesis 6) and fallen angels (in the Book of Enoch) - who they are and how we should interpret the Bible verses that talk about them. We finally talked about how the 66 books in the Bible, and more specifically, the 27 books in the New Testament, were chosen. I hope you enjoy!Subscribe to the newsletter: www.optivnetwork.com Sign up for my newsletter and never miss an episode: https://optivnetwork.comFollow me on X: https://x.com/andyschmitt99Email me at andy@optivnetwork.com with your questions!Music: "nesting" by Birocratic (http://birocratic.lnk.to/allYL)

J. Warner examines the Gospel of Mark for signs of Peter's influence. Papias, the early church bishop, claimed Mark's Gospel was written as he sat at the feet of Peter in Rome. According to Papias, Mark scribed Peter's sermons and created the narrative we now have in our Bible. In this audio podcast, J. Warner applies Forensic Statement Analysis to Mark's text to see if Peter's fingerprints are present.

Today, "Cold Case Detective" J. Warner Wallace explains to us how he examines the claims of the bible, and how his cold case experience "helps" him with that examination.Cards:Investigating J Warner Wallace's Back Story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TA5_lisYNkWho REALLY Wrote the Gospels?:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du-Ucq5QrAcMike Winger Doesn't Understand Context?!?:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-BrkpbwklMOriginal Video: https://tinyurl.com/26kaf6rwSources:5 ways to solve a cold case: https://tinyurl.com/2cljl7qaA call for more science in forensic science: https://tinyurl.com/2dej7arqThe Fragments of Papias: https://tinyurl.com/2bkb8hopKorean Proverb 똥 묻은 개가 겨 묻은 개 나무란다: https://tinyurl.com/2b6ec26yThe Problems of Making a Contemporary Translation: https://tinyurl.com/2p2dnohgAll my various links can be found here:http://links.vicedrhino.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/viced-rhino-the-podcast--4623273/support.

Dr. Svigel returns to the BTM podcast to discuss what the early church fathers (Apostolic Fathers) have to say about the End Times. We disuss the writings of Irenaeus, Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, and the Didache have to say about the tribulation, Anti-Christ, judgment of the wicked, resurrection of the saints, and the coming 1,000 year reign of Christ on the earth. You won't want to miss this discussion. We also discuss when and how the church changed so drastically from its earliest teaching on the end times.

Revelation, Session Two Christ the Savior, Anderson SC Fr. Anthony Perkins Sources: The translation of the Apocalypse is from the Orthodox Study Bible. Lawrence R. Farley, The Apocalypse of St. John: A Revelation of Love and Power, The Orthodox Bible Study Companion (Chesterton, IN: Ancient Faith Publishing, 2011), Bishop Averky, The Epistles and the Apocalypse (Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament, Volume III. (Holy Trinity Seminary Press, 2018). Andrew of Caesarea, Commentary on the Apocalypse, ed. David G. Hunter, trans. Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou, vol. 123, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2011). Venerable Bede, The Explanation of the Apocalypse, trans. Edward Marshall (Oxford: James Parker and Co., 1878). William C. Weinrich, ed., Revelation, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005). Correction from Last Week Revelation was removed from active use because it was being used to support the Marcionists, not the Gnostics [or Montanism as I said in the class!]. The Orthodox Study Bible; “[I]n the second and third centuries Revelation was widely twisted and sensationally misinterpreted, and the erroneous teachings brought troublesome confusion to Christians – a trend that continues to this day.” Review of Last Week The Church wants us to be aware of the Last Judgement but from WITHIN the sacraments and the “good defense” God gives us through them.  Authorship and Dating of the Work The author was St. John the Theologian St. John's disciple Papias of Hierapolis, St. Justin the Martyr (lived in Ephesus), St. Irenaeus (disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna who was a disciple of St. John), St. Hippolytus (disciple of St. Irenaeus), St. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Origen were early leaders of the Church who knew and witnessed to this. The work itself (see 1:2; also exile on Patmos). The date of the work is AD 95/96 St. Irenaeus; Against Heresies (5.30.3) Purpose of the Work To show things that must shortly come to pass (1:1). Pastoral protection and encouragement to the early Church against state persecution and (internal) heresy. Apokalypsis means uncovering of something that has been hidden. Style and Interpretation of the Work Apocalyptic Literature.  A “visceral” (Fr. Lawrence) and heavily symbolic genre.  It is meant to be prophetic in every sense of the word. “It is a human work.  But it is also an apostolic work, and as an apostle, John tells the truth, striving to convey to us the substance and power of what the Lord revealed to him for our sake.” (Fr. Lawrence) What are we to make of the diverse interpretations offered by saints? Not to be taken literally in the modern sense; “Thus, for example, a literalistic understanding of the images of this book has given occasion, and even now continues to give occasion, for the false teaching of “Chiliasm” – the thousand-year reign of Christ on earth.” (Bishop Averky) Bishop Averky says four main categories of interpretation (and calls for a combination): Visions and symbols of the “last times” (end of the world, the anti-christ, second coming) Description of the historical pagan Roman persecutions against the Church in the first century. Look for realization of the prophecies in recent history. Allegorical and moral meaning. The Orthodox Study Bible: “Faithfulness in tribulation” is the main theme, with subthemes of Divine Judgment of human wickedness and The symbolic presentation of most major New Testament teachings concerning eschatology, the study of the last things. 1:1. The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants – things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John. Andrew of Caesarea. “An apocalypse is the manifestation of hidden mysteries when the intellect is illuminated either through divine dreams or according to waking visions from divine enlightenment. To be given to Christ, it says, making this statement about him especially with respect to his human , since in the Gospel he above all others dwelt on the sublime and things that befit God. And here, the magnitude of the divinity of Christ is shown through the attending angel, and through the name of the teaching servants, for “all things are his servants.” The must come to pass soon means that some of the predictions concerning them are to come to pass immediately thereafter and the things regarding the end are not to be delayed, because “one thousand years” to God is “like yesterday's day, which is reckoned as having elapsed.” St. Bede. The revelation of Jesus Christ.  The progress with which the Church that had been founded by the Apostles was to be extended, or the end with which it was to be perfected, had need to be revealed, in order to strengthen the preachers of the faith against the opposition of the world. And John, in his own manner, refers the glory of the Son to the Father, and testifies that Jesus Christ has received from God. shortly. That is, which are to happen to the Church in the present time. signified. He wrapped up this revelation in mystical words, that it might not be manifested to all, and become lightly esteemed. angel. For an angel appeared to John in the form of Christ, as will be seen more clearly in that which follows. John. That through John He might lay open to all His servants the things which he, by the privilege of a peculiar chastity, obtained above all others to behold. Oecumenius: When it is said to him, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him,” it is as though he said, “This revelation is given from the Father to the Son, and then from the Son to us,” his servants. By calling the saints the “servants” of Christ, he safeguards what is proper to his deity. For, to whom would men belong, unless to him who is the Maker and Creator of humankind? And who is the Creator of human-kind and of all creation? No one other than the only begotten Word and Son of God! For, the present author says in the Gospel, “All things were made through him.” And why does he wish to add “what must soon take place,” although those events which will take place have not yet occurred, even though a considerable span of time has passed, more than five hundred years, since these words were spoken? Because to the eyes of the eternal and endless God all ages are regarded as nothing, for, as the prophet says, “A thousand years in your sight, O Lord, are as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night.”3 For this reason, therefore, he added “soon,” not to indicate a measure of time which must pass before the fulfillment of what must happen, but to indicate the power and eternality of God. For to him who is, any passage of time, even should it be great and considerable, is something small when compared with that which is unending   1:2. Who bore witness to the Word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw.   OSB: Testimony of Jesus refers to a witness concerning Jesus; not the testimony of Christ Himself. Andrew of Caesarea.  “Christ,” he says, “declared these things to me through an angel, as a master to a household servant, as I had borne witness to my confession to him,” of which, on the basis of the visions to bear witness and, in view of the return of those who hear, to preach both the things which are and which escape human understanding and the things which will occur in the future, for, prophetically, he had seen them both. And clear from what he says: those things which are and those which must come to pass. These are descriptions both of the present time and of the future. St. Bede; testimony. That thou mayest not doubt of the person of John, he is the same who gave testimony to the eternal Word of God incarnate, according as he saw, saying, “Whose glory we saw, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father.”   1:3.  Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near. Andrew of Caesarea.  He blesses those who read and hear through the actions, for the present time is near, through which it is possible to acquire the blessing, and to all the work is laid open. As the Lord says, “Work [13] while it is day.” And elsewhere, the time is near, the time of the distribution of prizes, on account of the brevity of the present life in comparison to the future. St. Bede. Blessed. Teachers and hearers are therefore blessed, because they who keep the Word of God find that a short time of labour is followed by everlasting joys. Averky; “The book of the Apocalypse has, consequently, not only a prophetic but also a moral significance.  The meaning of these words is as follows: blessed is he who, reading this book, will prepare himself by his life and deeds of piety for eternity, for the translation to eternity is near for each of us. Fr. Lawrence.  Seven beatitudes (blessings) are pronounced upon (Fr. Lawrence): 1:3 “the one who reads and the ones who hear the words of the prophecy, and keep the things which are written in it” 14:13 the martyrs “who die in the Lord from now on” 16:15 “the one who keeps alert,” faithfully awaiting the Lord's Coming 19:9 “those who are called to the wedding supper of the Lamb” 20:6 the martyrs who have “a part in the first resurrection” 22:7 all who “keep the words of the prophecy of this book” 22:14 all those in the martyric Church, “those who wash their robes, so that they may have their right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.”  

In the first episode of an interim series on lesser known fathers, Dr. Papandrea introduces one of the “apostolic fathers,” Papias of Hierapolis. We only have fragments of his writings, but those fragments started a controversy over the authorship of the book of Revelation and the Johannine letters. Papias is a good example of how the Church fathers, as individuals, were not right about everything - Papias was wrong in his methodology for interpreting the Book of Revelation, among other things, but he gives us some important clues into the authorship and writing of the Gospels. Links To read some of the fragments of Papias' Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=1609&repos=8&subrepos=0&searchid=2418437 To listen to Mike Aquilina's episode on Ignatius of Antioch: https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/episode-4-ignatius-antioch-to-know-jesus-christ-our-god/ To listen to Mike Aquilina's episode on Polycarp of Smyrna: https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/episode-5-st-polycarp-and-social-network/ To listen to Mike Aquilina's episode on the fourth century historian Eusebius of Caesarea: https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/ep-25eusebius-history-from-wrong-side-history/ For more on Papas and the apostolic fathers, in the context of the history of the early Church, see the book: Reading the Church Fathers: A History of the Early Church and the Development of Doctrine: https://sophiainstitute.com/product/reading-the-church-fathers/ For Dr. Papandrea's take on the Book of Revelation, see the book: The Wedding of the Lamb: A Historical Approach to the Book of Revelation: https://wipfandstock.com/9781608998067/the-wedding-of-the-lamb/ To watch Dr. Papandrea's short video on the early hierarchy of the Church and the definitions of the Greek words for the clergy, see: Did The Original Church Have Bishops?: https://youtu.be/bXQ0UYfN9a0?si=SxFVGcfkiME9jlXa SIGN UP for Catholic Culture's Newsletter:  https://www.catholicculture.org/newsletters/ DONATE at:  http://www.catholicculture.org/donate/audio To connect with Dr. James Papandrea, On YouTube - The Original Church:  https://www.youtube.com/@TheOriginalChurch Join the conversation in the Original Church Community on Locals:  https://theoriginalchurch.locals.com/ Dr. Papandrea's Homepage:  http://www.jimpapandrea.com Theme Music: Gaudeamus (Introit for the Feast of All Saints), sung by Jeff Ostrowski. Courtesy of Corpus Christi Watershed:  https://www.ccwatershed.org/  

This is part 11 of the Read the Bible For Yourself. The Gospels are evangelistic biographies of Jesus. In today's episode you'll learn the basic storyline of the four biblical Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Then we'll go through them from shortest to longest to see how each brings a unique and helpful perspective in telling the life of Christ. We'll also hit some important concepts like the kingdom of God, parables, and the word of God. Lastly, we'll ask about application. How can you figure out which sayings of Christ apply to you today and which ones do not? Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts https://youtu.be/0iHhidbL4e8?si=3rs4fGGtQjsJAObB —— Links —— See other episodes in Read the Bible For Yourself Other classes are available here, including How We Got the Bible, which explores the manuscript transmission and translation of the Bible Get the transcript of this episode Support Restitutio by donating here Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow Sean Finnegan on Twitter @RestitutioSF Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play them out on the air Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library. Who is Sean Finnegan?  Read his bio here —— Notes —— The Four Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John Gospel = good news The Gospels are biographies about Jesus which seek to convince readers about the good news that he is the Messiah. Basic Storyline of the Gospels Birth narratives John's ministry John baptizes Jesus. Jesus calls the twelve. Teachings of Jesus Miracles of Jesus Conflict with critics Triumphal entry Intensified conflict Last supper Arrest, trial, execution Resurrection appearances Great commission Mark (11,305 words) Papias: “And the elder used to say this: ‘Mark, having become Peter's interpreter, wrote down accurately everything he remembered, though not in order, of the things either said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, followed Peter, who adapted his teachings as needed but had no intention of giving an ordered account of the Lord's sayings. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong in writing down some things as he remembered them, for he made it his one concern not to omit anything that he heard or to make any false statement in them.'”[1] John (15,633 words) Purpose statement: John 20:30-3130 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples that are not written in this book. 31 But these are written so that you may continue to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name. Matthew (18,348 words) Five blocks of teaching 5-7 Sermon on the Mount 10 Missionary Instruction 13 Parables of the Kingdom 18 Discourse on the Church 24-25 Olivet Discourse Luke (19,483 words) Luke's method: Luke 1:1-41 Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative about the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 I, too, decided, as one having a grasp of everything from the start, to write a well-ordered account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may have a firm grasp of the words in which you have been instructed. Luke's historical precision: Luke 3:1-21 In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was ruler of Galilee, and his brother Philip ruler of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias ruler of Abilene, 2 during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness. The Synoptic Gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke Matthew and Luke quote Mark extensively. Both quote another source of sayings as well. Still, much of Matthew and Luke is unique to them. Fee & Stuart: “Take, for example, the fact that there is such a high degree of verbal similarity among Matthew, Mark, and Luke in their narratives, as well as in their recording of the sayings of Jesus. Remarkable verbal similarities should not surprise us about the sayings of the one who spoke as no one ever did (John 7:46). But for this to carry over to the narratives is something else again—especially so when one considers (1) that these stories were first told in Aramaic, yet we are talking about the use of Greek words; (2) that Greek word order is extremely free, yet often the similarities extend even to precise word order; and (3) that it is highly unlikely that three people in three different parts of the Roman Empire would tell the same story with the same words—even to such minor points of individual style as prepositions and conjunctions.”[2] Fee & Stuart: “The best explanation of all the data is …that Mark wrote his gospel first, probably in part at least from his recollection of Peter's preaching and teaching. Luke and Matthew had access to Mark's gospel and independently used it as the basic source for their own. But they also had access to all kinds of other material about Jesus, some of which they had in common. This common material, however, is scarcely ever presented in the same order in the two gospels, a fact suggesting that neither one had access to the other's writing. Finally, John wrote independently of the other three, and thus his gospel has little material in common with them. This, we would note, is how the Holy Spirit inspired the writing of the Gospels. …[W]ith the Spirit's help, they creatively structured and rewrote the materials to meet the needs of their readers.”[3] Kingdom of God Understanding what Jesus meant by the kingdom of God is critical Fee & Stuart: “[T]he major hermeneutical difficulty lies with understanding “the kingdom of God,” a term that is absolutely crucial to the whole of Jesus' ministry…”[4] Likely, Jesus was pulling from Daniel who prophesies extensively about God's kingdom coming to earth (Dan 2:44; 7:26-27) Parables Short fictional stories that make a point Get the main point; don't get lost in trying to find a meaning for every aspect of the story. Jesus told some parables to hide truth from those who didn't want it. He told others to teach his disciples important truth simply and effectively. Still others, he told as zingers to confront his critics. Word of God The Bible does not typically call itself “the word”. “The word” is the message Jesus preached to repent due to the coming Kingdom. He wasn't telling his Jewish listeners to repent and believe in the Bible, since they already believed in it. Compare Mark 4:13-15; Luke 8:11-12; Mat 13:19 Word = word of God = word of the Kingdom Application Must discern between the sayings Jesus limited to the people in front of him at that time and those that remain applicable to all his followers today Mat 10:9-11 tells his disciples not to carry any money with them. Does that mean true Christians don't use money and just mooch off their neighbors? Luke 6:27-28 tells us to love our enemies, a commandment repeated in Mat 5:43-48; Rom 12:17-21; 1 Pet 3:9-11 and exemplified by Jesus' actions. Review The NT begins with four evangelistic biographies of Jesus called Gospels. Mark is the shortest Gospel. Its action-packed narrative is probably derived from Peter's recollections as well as God's direction via his spirit. John is the most theologically developed, and it contains monologues where Jesus talks about himself and his relationship to his Father. Matthew showcases Jesus as a Rabbi who teaches his followers how to live in light of the Kingdom of God. Luke was a careful historian who made an effort to present a "well-ordered account" to present the life of Christ to a noble Roman audience. The Kingdom of God is the core of Jesus' message and ministry. It refers to a coming age when God sets everything wrong with the world right. Jesus' favorite self-title was "Son of Man," which could either mean a human being or the ruler of the coming Kingdom. Parables are short fictional stories told to make a point. In the Gospels, the "word" refers to the message Jesus preached about the Kingdom of God, not the Bible in general. Although it's hard to be sure, most think Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source as well as another sayings source. In order to discern what sayings of Jesus apply to you, consider the circumstances in which they were given, whether other parts of the NT repeat the statement, and what Jesus' example can tell you. [1] Fragments of Papias 3.15 in Apostolic Fathers, trans. Michael Holmes, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, Baker Academic, 2007). [2] Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), 141. [3] Stuart, 142. [4] Stuart, 132.

In this episode, I got to talk with Dr. Stephen Carlson. Dr. Carlson is the Associate Professor of Biblical and Early Christian Studies at the Australian Catholic University. He earned his Ph.D in New Testament from Duke University and went on to complete his postdoctoral research fellow at Uppsala University in Sweden. Stephen is also the author to three books; The Gospel Hoax, The Text of Galatians and its History, and Papias of Hierapolis.We talked about textual criticism, what it is, and how it affects our Bible translations. Just recently, Dr. Carlson was in France where he made a discovery of a unregistered manuscript of the Gospel of Mark, we talked about this discovery and what it means. Finally, we discussed why Christians should trust their English Bible translations and we (maybe) learn which Bible translation is Dr. Stephen Carlson's favorite. I hope you enjoy! Sign up for an Optiv Network subscription: https://optivnetwork.comFollow us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/optivnetworkFollow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/OptivNetworkEmail us at andy@optivnetwork.com with your questions!Music: "nesting" by Birocratic (http://birocratic.lnk.to/allYL)

The Four Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John Gospel = good news The Gospels are biographies about Jesus which seek to convince readers about the good news that he is the Messiah. Basic Storyline of the Gospels Birth narratives John's ministry John baptizes Jesus. Jesus calls the twelve. Teachings of Jesus Miracles of Jesus Conflict with critics Triumphal entry Intensified conflict Last supper Arrest, trial, execution Resurrection appearances Great commission Mark (11,305 words) Papias: “And the elder used to say this: ‘Mark, having become Peter's interpreter, wrote down accurately everything he remembered, though not in order, of the things either said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, followed Peter, who adapted his teachings as needed but had no intention of giving an ordered account of the Lord's sayings. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong in writing down some things as he remembered them, for he made it his one concern not to omit anything that he heard or to make any false statement in them.'”[[Fragments of Papias 3.15 in Apostolic Fathers, trans. Michael Holmes, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, Baker Academic, 2007).]] John (15,633 words) Purpose statement: John 20:30-31 30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples that are not written in this book. 31 But these are written so that you may continue to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name. Matthew (18,348 words) Five blocks of teaching 5-7 Sermon on the Mount 10 Missionary Instruction 13 Parables of the Kingdom 18 Discourse on the Church 24-25 Olivet Discourse Luke (19,483 words) Luke's method: Luke 1:1-4 1 Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative about the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 I, too, decided, as one having a grasp of everything from the start, to write a well-ordered account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may have a firm grasp of the words in which you have been instructed. Luke's historical precision: Luke 3:1-2 1 In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was ruler of Galilee, and his brother Philip ruler of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias ruler of Abilene, 2 during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness. The Synoptic Gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke Matthew and Luke quote Mark extensively. Both quote another source of sayings as well. Still, much of Matthew and Luke is unique to them. Fee & Stuart: “Take, for example, the fact that there is such a high degree of verbal similarity among Matthew, Mark, and Luke in their narratives, as well as in their recording of the sayings of Jesus. Remarkable verbal similarities should not surprise us about the sayings of the one who spoke as no one ever did (John 7:46). But for this to carry over to the narratives is something else again—especially so when one considers (1) that these stories were first told in Aramaic, yet we are talking about the use of Greek words; (2) that Greek word order is extremely free, yet often the similarities extend even to precise word order; and (3) that it is highly unlikely that three people in three different parts of the Roman Empire would tell the same story with the same words—even to such minor points of individual style as prepositions and conjunctions.”[[Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), 141.]] Fee & Stuart: “The best explanation of all the data is …that Mark wrote his gospel first, probably in part at least from his recollection of Peter's preaching and teaching. Luke and Matthew had access to Mark's gospel and independently used it as the basic source for their own. But they also had access to all kinds of other material about Jesus, some of which they had in common. This common material, however, is scarcely ever presented in the same order in the two gospels, a fact suggesting that neither one had access to the other's writing. Finally, John wrote independently of the other three, and thus his gospel has little material in common with them. This, we would note, is how the Holy Spirit inspired the writing of the Gospels. …[W]ith the Spirit's help, they creatively structured and rewrote the materials to meet the needs of their readers.”[[Stuart, 142.]] Kingdom of God Understanding what Jesus meant by the kingdom of God is critical Fee & Stuart: “[T]he major hermeneutical difficulty lies with understanding “the kingdom of God,” a term that is absolutely crucial to the whole of Jesus' ministry…”[[Stuart, 132.]] Likely, Jesus was pulling from Daniel who prophesies extensively about God's kingdom coming to earth (Dan 2:44; 7:26-27) Parables Short fictional stories that make a point Get the main point; don't get lost in trying to find a meaning for every aspect of the story. Jesus told some parables to hide truth from those who didn't want it. He told others to teach his disciples important truth simply and effectively. Still others, he told as zingers to confront his critics. Word of God The Bible does not typically call itself “the word”. “The word” is the message Jesus preached to repent due to the coming Kingdom. He wasn't telling his Jewish listeners to repent and believe in the Bible, since they already believed in it. Compare Mark 4:13-15; Luke 8:11-12; Mat 13:19 Word = word of God = word of the Kingdom Application Must discern between the sayings Jesus limited to the people in front of him at that time and those that remain applicable to all his followers today Mat 10:9-11 tells his disciples not to carry any money with them. Does that mean true Christians don't use money and just mooch off their neighbors? Luke 6:27-28 tells us to love our enemies, a commandment repeated in Mat 5:43-48; Rom 12:17-21; 1 Pet 3:9-11 and exemplified by Jesus' actions. Review The NT begins with four evangelistic biographies of Jesus called Gospels. Mark is the shortest Gospel. Its action-packed narrative is probably derived from Peter’s recollections as well as God’s direction via his spirit. John is the most theologically developed, and it contains monologues where Jesus talks about himself and his relationship to his Father. Matthew showcases Jesus as a Rabbi who teaches his followers how to live in light of the Kingdom of God. Luke was a careful historian who made an effort to present a “well-ordered account” to present the life of Christ to a noble Roman audience. The Kingdom of God is the core of Jesus’ message and ministry. It refers to a coming age when God sets everything wrong with the world right. Jesus’ favorite self-title was “Son of Man,” which could either mean a human being or the ruler of the coming Kingdom. Parables are short fictional stories told to make a point. In the Gospels, the “word” refers to the message Jesus preached about the Kingdom of God, not the Bible in general. Although it’s hard to be sure, most think Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source as well as another sayings source. In order to discern what sayings of Jesus apply to you, consider the circumstances in which they were given, whether other parts of the NT repeat the statement, and what Jesus’ example can tell you. The post 11: How to Read the Gospels first appeared on Living Hope.

The Four Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John Gospel = good news The Gospels are biographies about Jesus which seek to convince readers about the good news that he is the Messiah. Basic Storyline of the Gospels Birth narratives John's ministry John baptizes Jesus. Jesus calls the twelve. Teachings of Jesus Miracles of Jesus Conflict with critics Triumphal entry Intensified conflict Last supper Arrest, trial, execution Resurrection appearances Great commission Mark (11,305 words) Papias: “And the elder used to say this: ‘Mark, having become Peter's interpreter, wrote down accurately everything he remembered, though not in order, of the things either said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, followed Peter, who adapted his teachings as needed but had no intention of giving an ordered account of the Lord's sayings. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong in writing down some things as he remembered them, for he made it his one concern not to omit anything that he heard or to make any false statement in them.'”1 John (15,633 words) Purpose statement: John 20:30-31 30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples that are not written in this book. 31 But these are written so that you may continue to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name. Matthew (18,348 words) Five blocks of teaching 5-7 Sermon on the Mount 10 Missionary Instruction 13 Parables of the Kingdom 18 Discourse on the Church 24-25 Olivet Discourse Luke (19,483 words) Luke's method: Luke 1:1-4 1 Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative about the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 I, too, decided, as one having a grasp of everything from the start, to write a well-ordered account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may have a firm grasp of the words in which you have been instructed. Luke's historical precision: Luke 3:1-2 1 In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was ruler of Galilee, and his brother Philip ruler of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias ruler of Abilene, 2 during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness. The Synoptic Gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke Matthew and Luke quote Mark extensively. Both quote another source of sayings as well. Still, much of Matthew and Luke is unique to them. Fee & Stuart: “Take, for example, the fact that there is such a high degree of verbal similarity among Matthew, Mark, and Luke in their narratives, as well as in their recording of the sayings of Jesus. Remarkable verbal similarities should not surprise us about the sayings of the one who spoke as no one ever did (John 7:46). But for this to carry over to the narratives is something else again—especially so when one considers (1) that these stories were first told in Aramaic, yet we are talking about the use of Greek words; (2) that Greek word order is extremely free, yet often the similarities extend even to precise word order; and (3) that it is highly unlikely that three people in three different parts of the Roman Empire would tell the same story with the same words—even to such minor points of individual style as prepositions and conjunctions.”2 Fee & Stuart: “The best explanation of all the data is …that Mark wrote his gospel first, probably in part at least from his recollection of Peter's preaching and teaching. Luke and Matthew had access to Mark's gospel and independently used it as the basic source for their own. But they also had access to all kinds of other material about Jesus, some of which they had in common. This common material, however, is scarcely ever presented in the same order in the two gospels, a fact suggesting that neither one had access to the other's writing. Finally, John wrote independently of the other three, and thus his gospel has little material in common with them. This, we would note, is how the Holy Spirit inspired the writing of the Gospels. …[W]ith the Spirit's help, they creatively structured and rewrote the materials to meet the needs of their readers.”3 Kingdom of God Understanding what Jesus meant by the kingdom of God is critical Fee & Stuart: “[T]he major hermeneutical difficulty lies with understanding “the kingdom of God,” a term that is absolutely crucial to the whole of Jesus' ministry…”4 Likely, Jesus was pulling from Daniel who prophesies extensively about God's kingdom coming to earth (Dan 2:44; 7:26-27) Parables Short fictional stories that make a point Get the main point; don't get lost in trying to find a meaning for every aspect of the story. Jesus told some parables to hide truth from those who didn't want it. He told others to teach his disciples important truth simply and effectively. Still others, he told as zingers to confront his critics. Word of God The Bible does not typically call itself “the word”. “The word” is the message Jesus preached to repent due to the coming Kingdom. He wasn't telling his Jewish listeners to repent and believe in the Bible, since they already believed in it. Compare Mark 4:13-15; Luke 8:11-12; Mat 13:19 Word = word of God = word of the Kingdom Application Must discern between the sayings Jesus limited to the people in front of him at that time and those that remain applicable to all his followers today Mat 10:9-11 tells his disciples not to carry any money with them. Does that mean true Christians don't use money and just mooch off their neighbors? Luke 6:27-28 tells us to love our enemies, a commandment repeated in Mat 5:43-48; Rom 12:17-21; 1 Pet 3:9-11 and exemplified by Jesus' actions. Review The NT begins with four evangelistic biographies of Jesus called Gospels. Mark is the shortest Gospel. Its action-packed narrative is probably derived from Peter’s recollections as well as God’s direction via his spirit. John is the most theologically developed, and it contains monologues where Jesus talks about himself and his relationship to his Father. Matthew showcases Jesus as a Rabbi who teaches his followers how to live in light of the Kingdom of God. Luke was a careful historian who made an effort to present a “well-ordered account” to present the life of Christ to a noble Roman audience. The Kingdom of God is the core of Jesus’ message and ministry. It refers to a coming age when God sets everything wrong with the world right. Jesus’ favorite self-title was “Son of Man,” which could either mean a human being or the ruler of the coming Kingdom. Parables are short fictional stories told to make a point. In the Gospels, the “word” refers to the message Jesus preached about the Kingdom of God, not the Bible in general. Although it’s hard to be sure, most think Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source as well as another sayings source. In order to discern what sayings of Jesus apply to you, consider the circumstances in which they were given, whether other parts of the NT repeat the statement, and what Jesus’ example can tell you. Fragments of Papias 3.15 in Apostolic Fathers, trans. Michael Holmes, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, Baker Academic, 2007).Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), 141.Stuart, 142.Stuart, 132.The post 11: How to Read the Gospels first appeared on Living Hope.

2 Peter 1:14 This verse is a classic example of where the original Greek is a good deal more interesting and colourful than the English translation. The expression that Peter actually used was that he must soon leave this earthly tent. It powerfully describes the temporary nature of life, but also reminds us of the many times in the Old Testament when the people of God were tent dwellers. The writer of Hebrews noted that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob all lived in tents as they confidently looked forward “to a city with eternal foundations, a city designed and built by God” (Hebrews 11:10). It would have been understandable if Peter had used this reference to his imminent death as an opportunity to seek sympathy from his readers. But no, his focus was on his legacy. He was keen to ensure that his teaching would be remembered because he knew that their Christian lives depended on sound doctrine. It is widely believed that Peter was in Rome when he wrote this letter, and that he passed on to Mark the material for his gospel. Papias, one of the early Church fathers, wrote: “Mark, who was Peter's interpreter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, all that he collected of what Christ had said and done.” This was clearly a major part of Peter's legacy. When Jesus spoke with Peter after his resurrection beside the Sea of Galilee he told him that he was going to die a terrible death. We are told that Peter was crucified upside down in Rome because he didn't feel worthy to die in the same way as his Lord. However, we get no sense of him being fearful about putting down his human tent. He was confident of his Lord in life and death, and eager to work as hard as possible until he received his eternal reward. Question What do you want your legacy to be? Prayer Lord God, I thank you for the gift of life. Help me to live well and to leave behind me a legacy that will bless others. Amen

In this episode of Religion Today, host Martin Tanner introduces the most important early Christian Church leaders after the death of the apostles. A short summary of their life and major writings is given.  The early Church Fathers were Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Papias of Hierapolis, Quadratus of Athens and Hermas, who wrote The Shepherd based on his five visions. This episode is a look into those who led the early Christian Church and influenced its doctrine. It also names scholarly books which include the writings of the Apostolic Fathers.

Scripture Reading: Acts 1:1-2 I wrote the former account, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after he had given orders by the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.End of Genesis DiscussionLast week I attempted to wrap up our brief discussion of Genesis. Because I ran out of time, I would like to use the first few minutes of our current session to tie up loose ends. I think it is important that as we study Acts, we have a general understanding of the Christian worldview—the key reason behind my Genesis detour.I attempted to take a “minimum facts” approach to the first three chapters of Genesis. By that I mean that I focused on the core or basic lessons taught by the text. These are by no means all the lessons we could learn from it but, instead, those central tenets with which nearly every Christian would agree. Here's a brief summary of the points we discussed:(1) One God. The text of Genesis contains no theogony (i.e., genealogy of gods), theomachy (i.e., conflict between gods), or deicide (i.e., death of a god). None of that. Genesis has God—the one and only. This monotheism was radically different than any other belief in the region. (A question was asked last time regarding whether Genesis was the first religious story to introduce monotheism. I still cannot confirm an answer, but I can say that all the major monotheistic religions trace back to the Genesis account.)(2) God Is Not Like Nature. Whereas in other ancient Near Eastern myths, the line between nature and gods is blurred, that line is an unbreachable chasm in Genesis. Other stories have the gods turning into nature, such as the earth being made out of Tiamat's corpse, or being one with a natural phenomenon, like the night being a god of the night. In Genesis, God simply speaks creation into being. Nature is not divine in any sense. And God is not “natural” in any sense. If we are willing to go beyond the Genesis story and take into account the whole counsel of scripture along with a bit of theology, I think we can confidently say that God is an uncreated, necessary being, in whose unchanging character goodness itself is rooted.(3) Nature Is Not Spiritual. Is there a spirit of the water, and a spirit of the wind, and spirit of the day, and a spirit of the night? According to many, if not all, ancients myths: yes. According to Genesis: no. This is the very foundation of science. The natural world is not personal, so it behaves according to impersonal principles that can be relied upon to act consistently. Moreover, this natural world has been made by a mind not completely unlike ours, so we can expect the natural world to be intelligible. This is another foundational principle of science. In our modern world, we are so used to assuming these concepts, we forget how original and revolutionary they truly are.(4) Man in the Image of God. Other ancient Near Eastern myths tell us that man was created to do the drudging work of which the gods had grown weary. Genesis tells an entirely different story. Man was created in the image of God, to be fruitful and multiply, and rule the earth. Regarding the image of God, often called the imago Dei, I went into a little bit of philosophy to explain what that could possibly mean. I suggested that the mainstream Christian view is that of ontological personalism—although many people get it wrong and think that it is empirical functionalism. This latter view says that personhood is being able to perform certain functions—such as rational thinking. Well, that means fetuses, people in a state of coma, and even people who are asleep are not persons! Ontological personalism says that we are a rational soul. So, the imago Dei is part of our substance, so we can't lose it.There is a fifth point I wanted to make but that I did not have time to discuss, and it is a crucial point to the Christian story.THE ORIGINAL PLAN WAS GOOD BUT THEN…THE FALLAuthor Sandra Richter in The Epic of Eden describes God's original intent by pointing out that the creation narrative is not complete in six days—there is a seventh day. On that day God rested. On the seventh day creation is as it should be, so God could stop to rule over all of it. God and creation were in peace. With that in mind, Richter concludes:In sum, Genesis 1 tells us of God's first, perfect plan—a flawlessly ordered world infused with balance and productivity. Here every rock, plant and animal had its own designated place within God's design, a God-ordained space in which each could thrive, reproduce and serve the good of the whole. And we see from the structure of Genesis 1 that the force that held this peaceful and productive cohabitation in balance was Yahweh's sovereignty over all. But as Day 6b makes clear, God chose to manage this creation through his representative ʾAdām. Thus humanity is given all authority to protect, maintain and develop God's great gift under God's ultimate authority. This is who Yahweh is, who humanity is and how both relate to the creation. And regardless of how you choose to harmonize science and Bible, this message is clearly part of the intent of Genesis 1. I would say it is the primary intent.Then Richter makes the connection between Genesis 1 and the repeating theme of the book of Genesis: covenant.You may have noticed that my description of Genesis 1 sounds a lot like the relationship between a vassal and his suzerain; a relationship in which the vassal is given full autonomy within the confines of his overlord's authority. When this reading of Genesis 1 is wedded to Genesis 2, the profile of covenant becomes even clearer. Here the suzerain (Yahweh) offers his vassals (Adam and Eve) the land grant of Eden with the stipulation that humanity care for it and protect it.Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate [ ʿābad] and keep it [šāmar]. (Gen 2:15)In addition to this perfect place, Adam and Eve are given each other (Gen 2:18-25), and as is implied by Genesis 3:8, they are given full access to their loving Creator. The only corner of the garden which was not theirs to use and enjoy was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil:From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die. (Gen 2:16-17)In essence, Adam and Eve are free to do anything except decide for themselves what is good and what is evil. Yahweh reserves the right (and the responsibility) to name those truths himself. (Emphasis added)This was Adam and Eve's perfect world. Not just fruit and fig leaves, but an entire race of people stretching their cognitive and creative powers to the limit to build a society of balance and justice and joy. Here the sons of Adam and the daughters of Eve would learn life at the feet of the Father, build their city in the shadow of the Almighty, create and design and expand within the protective confines of his kingdom. The blessing of this gift? A civilization without greed, malice or envy; progress without pollution, expansion without extinction. Can you imagine it? . . . This was God's perfect plan: the people of God in the place of God dwelling in the presence of God. Yet, as with all covenants, God's perfect plan was dependent on the choice of the vassal. Humanity must willingly submit to the plan of God. The steward must choose this world; for in God's perfect plan, the steward had been given the authority to reject it.But then the fall came. And, surprisingly, then redemption came too.God's perfect plan (and humanity's perfect world) was a matter of choice. Did ʾAdām want this world? Or one of their own making? The ones made in the image of God could not be forced or coerced, but instead were called upon to choose their sovereign. And choose they did. Whenever I think of this moment, the lyrics of Don Francisco's old folk song echo in my mind: “And all their unborn children die as both of them bow down to Satan's hand.”16 God's original intent was sabotaged by humanity, stolen by the Enemy. ʾAdām rejected the covenant, and all the cosmos trembled. Genesis 2:17 makes it painfully clear what the consequences of such an insurrection would be: in that day, “you shall surely die.” But amazingly, mercifully, even though Yahweh had every right to wipe out our rebellious race, he chose another course—redemption. In a move that continues to confound me, God spared the lives of Adam and Eve (and their unborn children) by redirecting the fury of the curse toward another—the battered flesh of his own Son. This is the one the New Testament knows as “the last Adam” (Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45). And although the first Adam did not die, the second surely did. But we are getting ahead of ourselves.Introduction to ActsWe are finally done with our brief exploration of Genesis, and we are ready to start discussing Acts. We should introduce the book first and consider its genre, date, author, and historical context. Next week we will finally fall into our trusted pattern of reading scripture and discussing its main points. Believe me, I am as ready as you are to start doing that.GenreAs we begin the study of Acts, just like with Genesis, we need to ask the question of genre. Except in this case, there is hardly a question. Virtually everyone agrees that Acts is narrating history. The only (rather nuanced) debate is whether Acts is historiography or biography. (I am using the term historiography to refer to a genre of literature. Using the term “history” can be confusing because one is not certain whether the claim is that the text intends to convey historical facts or whether those historical facts are true.)Historiography vs BiographyWhat's the difference between historiography and biography? Roughly speaking, biography focuses on one person, his life, his accomplishments, and his character. Historiography focuses on something other than a person (although it may discuss notable individuals at length), such as an event, a nation, or a movement. Is Acts about the life of Paul? Or, is Acts about the early church?I bet your question is a different one: why does it matter? The truth is it does not matter much, but it could change our interpretation of certain passages. When we ask question like, “Why would the author include this material?” or “Why would he omit that information?”, our choice of genre matters.Anyways, I will keep the discussion of this topic brief.Biography ProposalBiography is the most common genre proposal after historiography. This proposal retains for Acts the same genre usually assigned to the Gospel of Luke. To many scholars, extending the Gospel's genre to the second volume seems a logical step. Acts, as a continuation of Luke's Gospel, provides parallels of Peter and Paul with Jesus, as one might expect in the ancient genre of parallel lives or in ancient double biographies. Moreover, Acts falls in the correct length range for ancient biographies.Despite many biographic elements, however, Acts self-evidently does not constitute a biography of a single figure. In fact, it seems less interested in sketching vivid portraits of past heroes than in tracing the spectacular development of “the way.” Certainly Acts focuses on major characters, but Acts does not focus on a single character. Even Paul, its dominant and climactic example, functions as an agent of the work's driving theme, the gospel's expansion. Acts closes not with his death but with his proclamation in Rome. Despite its biographic emphases, Acts thus functions as historiography carried out partly in a biographic manner.Historiography ProposalThe genre proposal most supported by scholars is that of historiography—to be more precise, that of a historical monograph (i.e., a one-volume historiographical text). As a historical monograph, it is a work covering a specific historical topic. In contrast to listing events by year in annalistic fashion (a common type of text in the ancient world), some ancient historians would write monographs that arranged their accounts around a main theme. Various factors support the thesis that Luke conceives of his project as primarily a history of some sort. Unlike in a novel, Luke uses sources abundantly in his first volume (i.e., the Gospel of Luke) and presumably in his second volume as well, although we cannot distinguish them clearly in Acts. Luke's claim to investigate or have close acquaintance with his information (Luke 1: 3) fits historical works, and his occasional use of the first-person plural emphasizes the involvement considered ideal for a good Hellenistic historian. Speeches, the preface, the employment of world history as a context, and other features support this understanding of the work's genre. Luke's extensive use of public monologues in Acts plainly fits the conventions of ancient histories but not of biographies or novels. Luke-Acts also includes what appear very much like the prefaces found in histories. When possible, Luke sets his events in the context of world history, just as historians (and almost exclusively historians) did in their histories (Luke 2: 1– 2; 3: 1– 2; Acts 18: 12).Although it should go without saying, we must be careful to distinguish ancient historiography from modern historiography. We should not demand ancient historians to conform precisely to modern historiography. Ancient historians sometimes fleshed out scenes and speeches to produce a coherent narrative in a way that their contemporaries expected but that modern academic historians would not consider acceptable when writing for their own peers. This contrast reflects the different interests of ancient and modern historiography: ancients emphasized a cohesive narrative more than simple recitation of facts; moderns value exactness in details much more than the rhetorical flow of the narrative for their audience.DateViews on the date of Acts range widely. No particular proposed date between 64 A.D. and 90 A.D. is absolutely compelling. The centrist position (70s– 80s), has by far the most adherents; probably the early date (60s) is second in number of adherents; a date in the 90s ranks third; and the second century boasts the fewest adherents. I will only discuss the two most widely held views.Pre-70Usually, scholars arguing for a pre-70 date contend that Acts ends where it does because the events had unfolded only this far at the time of Luke's writing, that is, about 62 A.D. I will discuss the reasons for this view and their potential responses by scholars who hold to the “centrist view.”Both ancient and modern interpreters have asked and argued: Why else would Luke devote a quarter of Acts to Paul's trial and appeal yet not record the outcome? Scholars respond that these abrupt endings were not entirely uncommon. Examples would include the Gospel of Mark and Thucydides text on the Peloponnesian War. Granted, they might add, if Luke recorded Paul's Roman hearings in Jerusalem and Caesarea for use at a trial before Caesar, this material was clearly compiled before Paul's death. One can, however, still affirm a later publication of the material. Moreover, Luke could have suppressed explicit mention of Paul's death because it did not suit his larger narrative purpose (e.g., martyrdom). Luke is under no obligation to narrate Paul's execution, the centrist would claim, because his climax is the gospel reaching the heart of the empire. Finally, the number of Greek words in Acts is nearly the same as for the Gospel of Luke, which may have been the fullest length for Luke's normal scrolls. In other words, Luke may have run out of room when writing Acts.Scholars supporting a pre-70 date have also advanced other arguments favoring this position, drawn especially from the setting the book seems to address. One argument is based on Luke's failure to describe the temple's destruction as past. Other arguments to date Acts before 70 AD include:- Acts portrays Jews as being both a spiritual and political power who had influence with Roman courts, an unlikely situation after 70.- Expectation of Roman justice would be unlikely after the Neronian persecution of 64–65.- Acts betrays almost no knowledge of Paul's letters.Post-70The argument for a date after Paul's death follows from the usual premise that Mark wrote before Luke. Papias reports that Mark wrote what he had heard from Peter; if this language suggests that their relation is past, it probably points to a date after Peter's death. If Luke wrote after using Mark, he presumably would be writing after Peter's death as well and presumably after Mark's Gospel had begun circulating among churches in urban centers.Most scholars believe that Luke 21 (e.g., Luke 21: 20; cf. 23: 29– 31) reflects the accomplished fall of Jerusalem and argue that Luke wrote Acts after completing his Gospel. However, one could counter that most of the discrete elements in Luke 21 could date from before the war of 66–70; various Jewish figures predicted judgment on Jerusalem and its temple before its demise, and the language recycles Septuagintal descriptions of Jerusalem's earlier sufferings. Certainly, Jerusalem's judgment was in view before 70 A.D. (Luke 11: 50– 51; Matt 23: 35– 36).Most scholars today suggest dates between 70 and 85, with some as late as 90. This range of dates is before Josephus's publications. (Scholars who suggest a later date for Acts often also suggest that it is based or influenced by the works of Josephus.)Author of Luke-ActsToday almost all scholars acknowledge that Luke and Acts share the same author. Beyond this general agreement, a majority of scholars agree that Luke was a Gentile, writing for a largely Gentile (or, perhaps more accurately, mixed Gentile and Jewish) Diaspora audience. A much smaller number, though probably still the majority, argue that the author was at least a short-term companion of Paul. Of possible candidates in Pauline literature who fit this description, Luke the physician (Col 4:14) is the likeliest candidate historically and also the one supported (despite his relative obscurity) by subsequent Christian writers who claimed access to earlier sources no longer available to us. Let's explore that last claim a little further.Luke the PhysicianIf we treat Acts the way we treat analogous historical works from its era we should accept the work's eyewitness claims as authentic indications of the author's presence. Internal evidence points strongly to a Christian who accompanied Paul on a small number of his travels and should have become well acquainted with him especially on the journey to Jerusalem and Rome. Although the external evidence is less important, it strongly points to Luke “the physician” (Col 4: 14) as the author, a claim that tradition is not likely to have invented (given Luke's relative obscurity). The external and the internal evidence are compatible, making Luke the likeliest author.The primary reason for many scholars treating “we” in Acts differently than they would in most other ancient historical works is the argument that a genuine traveling companion of Paul cannot have so misunderstood him. (As we study Acts we can examine this assertion further. Is Acts really at odds with the letters of Paul?)What is some of the external evidence that supports Luke the physician as the author of Acts? Irenaeus (ca. 180 A.D.) attributes Acts to Luke. The same is true of Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and others. Moreover, a very early manuscript (175–225 A.D.) calls the gospel the “Gospel according to Luke.” Simply put, our earliest external evidence unanimously supports Luke's authorship. Given his relative obscurity, this is probably not coincidence.Finally, and admittedly of less importance, the language is consistent with that of a physician.Gentile or JewWhether we believe the author of Luke and Acts to be Luke, can we determine whether the author is Gentile or Jew? From his geographical competence and his interpretation of Judaism, it is certain that he was not a Palestinian Jew. He may have been a Diaspora Jew with interests in the Gentile mission, but given his relationship to Judaism and perspectives, many scholars prefer the idea that he was a Gentile. Scholars who, on other grounds, identify the author with the Luke mentioned in Col 4: 14 will likely also conclude that he was a Gentile. If Luke was a Gentile, he was nevertheless one with considerable experience of Judaism. Although he could have acquired much of this knowledge as a Christian, it is reasonable to suggest, as some scholars have, that he may have been a God-fearer with a long-standing knowledge of the Diaspora synagogue. His immersion in the Septuagint, however, is considerable; if he did not grow up with it, he must have acquired it long before and thoroughly, for he knows how to write Greek with a “biblical” or “Jewish accent,” so to speak.AudienceScholars often suggest that Luke's audience was wealthier and more highly educated, on average, than that of the other Gospels. Luke dedicates his work to a “most excellent” Theophilus (Luke 1: 3), a title suggesting that Theophilus was probably a person of prestige and rank in society. Although Theophilus is an explicit “narratee,” no ancient audience would assume that the dedicatee was necessarily socially representative of Luke's ideal audience. One might dedicate a work to a patron who would be of higher rank than the clients who heard the work read, for example, at one of the banquets sponsored by the patron. Nevertheless, by addressing Theophilus as at least a part of his audience, Luke appeals to a person with some status in the larger society. Luke further emphasizes many people of status following the Way (e.g., Luke 8:3; 23:50–51; Acts 13:12; 17:4; 28:7); likewise, he portrays Paul's status as relatively high, a point of interest to any ancient hearer but perhaps especially to another person of status. Although his Gospel contains the most sweeping condemnations of the accumulation of wealth (e.g., Luke 3:11; 12:13–21, 33; 14:33), his very emphasis on this issue might suggest an audience that can afford to be challenged in the area of generosity. Finally, an educated audience would best appreciate the elements of classical rhetoric alongside the appropriate stylistic variations for different settings.What we can possibly conclude from this is that Luke's target audience is relatively stable (and hence not hostile to the culture). Luke is positive toward the culture without needing to sound polemical about the need to separate from it.Luke's ideal audience appears to be urban, Greek, and perhaps in officially Romanized cities such as Corinth and Philippi and would be familiar with some measure of education and with public orations, Jewish religion, and some philosophic ideas.The question as to whether Luke's audience is largely Jewish or Gentile may be, in one sense, a forced dilemma. By this period the Greek churches included a sizable number of Gentiles; Philippi had never had a large Jewish population to begin with. At the same time, most of these churches grew from synagogues or at least Jewish prayer groups and would include a sizable number of Jewish people. Finally, we are ready to start reading Acts!

Dr. Varner returns to the BTM podcast to discuss the Apostolic Fathers - the first generation of writers after the Apostles. In this episode Dr. Varner discuss the intriguing figures of Ignatius, Polycarp, and Papias.

In this episode: The Millennium, 1000 years, Key to the Abyss, the dragon, serpent, devil, Satan, deceive the nations, bound, 3 Millennium views, A-Pre-Post, Davidic Kingdom, Church fathers, Polycarp, Papias, Augustine, allegory, antisemitism, binding of Satan, The King is back. Become a supporter and get unlimited questions turned into podcasts at: www.patreon.com/theologyandapologetics YouTube Channel: Theology & Apologetics www.youtube.com/channel/UChoiZ46uyDZZY7W1K9UGAnw Instagram: www.instagram.com/theology.apologetics Websites: www.ezrafoundation.org/ www.theologyandapologetics.com/

For additional notes and resources check out Douglas' website.Ron Moseley's book, Yeshua: A Guide to the Real Jesus and the Original Church (Clarksville, Maryland: Messianic Jewish Publishers, 1996) is an interesting read. I have met representatives of this movement before, and read a number of their books, especially once I came into direct personal contact with this school of thought on my first trip to Israel. This school of thought is well described by the term Messianic Judaism, a movement within evangelical Christianity that has been in motion for half a century now. This review is not only a critique of Moseley's book, but also a challenge to the Messianic movement as a whole.ExcellentMany things Moseley and his associates emphasize are correct -- even excellent.Jesus and Paul were Jews. Most Bible readers forget this, and this seriously affects their ability to interpret the scriptures. There's great benefit in setting aside time for study, worship, and cultivating an awe of God (p.42). Yet this is no proof that we need to observe the Jewish calendar. Slowing down and stopping normal work one day a week, attending seminars; going on retreats, having daily devotional times, and so on can serve this purpose equally well. The Jewish background of NT teaching is brought to light, often in a captivating way.The Pharisees' teaching was similar to Jesus' (p.91). I might go even further: if we were to compare our own spiritual heritage to the many Jewish sects active in the first century, theirs is unquestionably the group with which we have most in common.Possibly correctA number of his ideas may be on track, but lack support. I think it is fine for Bible teacher to share his ideas, but only with a confidence in proportion to the evidence itself. This attitude Moseley repeatedly fails to exhibit.His comments on the tzitzit may be right (p.21), though it strikes me as a bit of a stretch. Yet I like this view. John hesitates to enter Jesus' tomb because of his association with the high priestly family (pp.24-25). Could be. But then there are other reasons for which he didn't enter (fear, deference to Peter, being out of breath…). Peter chopped off Malchus' ear to disqualify him for the priesthood, or to insult the priesthood of Caiaphas (p.25). This strikes me as speculative, though I did mention the possibility in my (premium) podcast on Malchus. I think it is more likely Peter was trying to kill Malchus than maim him. Matthew 8:21-22 may refer to secondary burial (pp.27-28). I am familiar with the practice of secondary interment, and have shown ossuaries on many of my tours. Yet such an understanding of Jesus' words does not significantly affect the point Jesus is making, that we are to let nothing, even family obligations, come between us and him. He claims that coins falling into the temple collection containers in effect “sounded the trumpet” (p.28). Yet what is the reference? This sounds like pure speculation. There are many such claims in this book. "Leaven” means giving God your second best (p.110). To prove this, he cites only a secondary source; there is no proof for this assertion. The problem with the teaching of the Pharisees was that it could spread so far and affect so many, not that it was second best. RM's interpretation weakens the point Jesus and Paul make when they resort to this metaphor in their teaching.Definitely wrongYet the patent errors in the book are often not minor, but major.Moseley claims that the “new covenant” is not better than the old, but only an extension of it, or a call to observe it (pp.36, 57). That is certainly not how I and Bible scholars read Jeremiah 31! The Hebrew writer does not put down the old covenant – the fault lay with the people (Hebrews 8) – but he definitely says the new is better. Moseley's group believes that the NT was written in Hebrew, yet I am aware of no evidence. Even among early Christians, the only tradition circulating of which I am aware is that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (the view of Papias). I believe Semitic thought patterns are discernible in most of the documents of the Greek NT, and without doubt Jesus taught primarily in the language of the people of Palestine, but there is not a shred of manuscript evidence for an original Hebrew NT.   Luke 16:16, commenting on the Law being proclaimed until John, is claimed by Moseley not to indicate any fundamental shift vis-à-vis the Torah (p.41). Moseley is correct that we are under grace and still obligated to obey God's laws; Protestant Bible teachers often stumble over that one, falsely pitting Paul against James, for example. Yet there is more than one way that the Law can remain the word of God for us. I would put it this way. For the ancient Jews, the Torah was the word of God and the law of God; for us, the Torah is still the word of God, yet not the law. “Replacement theology” makes its first appearance 160 AD, with Justin Martyr (p.60). What about Matthew 21:43? Here Jesus says the kingdom will be taken away from the Jews.The moral principles of Torah still apply today (p.50). Please listen to hear my series (“Night of Redemption: A Study of Exodus,” October 2011). We are called to go well beyond the moral level of the Jews. There is a trajectory in the Bible, from paganism to Judaism, and from Judaism to Christianity. The law leads us to Christ, after which point we are mature enough no longer to need it (Galatians 3:21-26). One obvious example is how we treat our enemies. While there are parts of the OT where grace is shown to enemies, in other parts the Jews are told to kill them, even to exterminate them without mercy. Jesus raises the bar. No longer are we permitted to kill, take revenge, or even resist the evil person. How to implement Jesus' teaching in Matthew (also Paul's in Romans 12) may be difficult, yet that does not entitle us to ignore it. Since the Torah was an “everlasting covenant”, it still applies today (p.62). This view shows a lack of understanding of Hebrew idiom, which is unfortunate for one who promotes himself as an expert. Here let me share an excerpt from my paper on Terminal Punishment, which I believe is germane. “We have to let the Bible define its terms... [T]here are a number of scriptures where words such as 'forever,' 'eternal,' and 'everlasting' do not entail a sense of infinite duration. For example, the following list is based (only) on the Greek root aion*, which appears in the LXX and the NT numerous times, with the general sense of (world) age, forever, always, eternity, etc. In none of the following cases does the word aion* bear the sense of infinite eternity. [Whether for the Greek aionios, the Hebrew ‘olam, or the Latin aeternalis, the point is that 'forever' isn't always literally forever, at least in Hebrew thought.]Genesis 6:4—'Men of old' (giants/ungodly persons/fallen ones/sons of Cain) did not live infinitely.Jeremiah 25:12—Destruction of Babylon (though not literally destroyed)Genesis 9:12—Perpetual generationsExodus 21:6—The man or woman would become one's servant'“forever' (!)Leviticus 25:34—Perpetual possession of fieldsDeuteronomy 23:3—“Forever” means the tenth generation1 Samuel 2:22—Young Samuel was to serve at the house of the Lord 'forever'1 Chronicles 16:5—'Forever' ~ 1000 generations—also Psalm 105:8Ezra 4:15, 19—Israelites had been 'eternally' resisting political dominationPsalm 24:7—'Ancient' doorsProverbs 22:28—'Ancient' boundary stoneJonah 2:6—The prophet was confined in (the fish) 'forever'" Moseley claims that “fulfill” in Matthew 5:17-19 means to correctly teach (p.64). Yet when prophecies are fulfilled, they are not merely “correctly taught.” Rather, their words come true, or a deeper parallelism becomes manifest. “Out of Egypt I called my Son” (Matthew 2:15, quoting Hosea 11:1) is fulfilled when Jesus' family returns from Egypt. When Jesus fulfills Psalm 22, Psalm 69, Isaiah 53, and so forth, he is not “correctly teaching” them—though he may have—but rather bringing to pass the plan of God, and bringing to light the truth of God, in accordance with what had previously been written. Christians knelt for prayer, so in reaction the Jews stood (p.60). The ancient literary and archaeological evidence refutes this claim. The preferred position of the early Christians was standing. Moreover, the orans (plural orantes) is well known from ancient art. The ethical requirements of the OT are the same as those of the NT (p.70). Not so, as I mentioned above in my comment on warfare. Back when we lived in the DC area, I pursued this notion, and wanted to include it in my part of the DPI book on the Sermon on the Mount. Tom Jones and Gordon Ferguson shot me down—and I'm glad they did. Back then I was trying too hard to find in the old law justification for many current practices. The point: between the covenants there is not only continuity, but also a radical discontinuity.Certain parts of the law were to be kept by Gentiles (all of it by Jews), in effect creating two levels or standards of commitment (p.79). There is no evidence that Gentiles could be saved through part of the covenant! RM's exegesis of Acts 15 is questionable. Then he claims to have found, out of the traditional total 613 laws in the Torah, many of which still apply to Gentiles (33 positive commands and 135 prohibitions). He overreaches. Let me give two examples. We are to show reverence when enter the house of worship (Leviticus 19:30). I'm all for that, but in Christianity there is no church building (originally). He also states that Deuteronomy 24:15 requires employers to pay workers their wages when the job is done. Yet the passage refers to daily wages, not payment for completing a job. In short, Moseley's method smacks of arbitrariness. In connection with the Feast of Tabernacles, rituals involving water and light had been neglected (p.135). Moseley says that this was part of the ceremonial law. There's only one problem: it's nowhere in the OT! Acts 2:38 refers to Gentile baptism (p.143). Proponents of another eccentric view teach that Gentiles were to be saved by faith alone, and Acts 2:38 baptism was only for the first generation of Jewish converts. In Acts 2:39 the phrase “those who are far off” refers to Gentiles (not the distant descendants of the audience), a point illustrated in such passages as Ephesians 2:17. RM's understanding of conversion is lacking. The Messianic movement often claims that the NT was originally written in Hebrew. On this assumption, they rely on a reconstructed Semitic text of the NT, even though no such ancient manuscripts have survived. Claiming that the Greek NT is less accurate than the "lost" [and hypothetical] Semitic original, they dismiss verses that are problematic for their position. Be aware that no evidence exists for an original "Hebrew Testament." This is pure conjecture.OverstatedThere were some points I wasn't sure which category to place in. They contained some truth, but were pushed too far. Maybe these should be listed under a “maybe correct” heading, but I chose to list them separately.Augustine championed Marcion (p.40). Augustine (354-430 AD) would have vigorously protested this allegation! Marcion  (c.140 AD) rejected the OT completely; Augustine relied heavily it as he promoted his relatively novel ideas, such as original sin and Christian military service. Paul did not intend Greek readers to interpret nomos (law) in the normal way (p.59). It is true that we must discern whether the word means law (generally), the Law of Moses (which is both law in the common sense and Torah in the sense of instruction [

This is part 17 of the Early Church History class. Throughout the first five hundred years of Christian history, a significant shift occurred in what we believed about our ultimate destiny. The New Testament and the early church fathers repeatedly expressed belief in God's kingdom coming to earth. Over time, however, this idea gave way to the more recognizable medieval dichotomy of heaven or hell immediately at death. In this episode you'll learn who the major players were on both sides of this struggle as well as the main reasons why Christianity ultimately rejected the kingdom. Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3pTATsdfME&list=PLN9jFDsS3QV2lk3B0I7Pa77hfwKJm1SRI&index=17 —— Links —— Check out our entire class on the Kingdom of God available on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. This class includes the four original lectures on which this single one was based. More Restitutio resources on Christian history See other classes here Support Restitutio by donating here Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow Sean Finnegan on Twitter @RestitutioSF Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play them out on the air Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library. Who is Sean Finnegan?  Read his bio here —— Notes —— The Kingdom of God is the idea that the Messiah Jesus will come back to earth, resurrect the saved, and initiate an age of restoration, eventually making everything wrong with the world right. We find robust belief in this idea in the New Testament; however, by the Middle Ages, heaven or hell at death had entirely replaced the Kingdom idea. Kingdom Believers First Century Didache 8.2; 9.4; 10.5; 16.7-8 Clement of Rome, 1 Clement 42.3; 50.3 Psuedo-Barnabas, Epistle of Barnabas 1.7; 6.13; 10.11; 15.4-5 Second Century Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Ephesians 16.1 Polycarp of Smyrna, Epistle to the Philippians 5.2; 11.2 Hermas, Similitude 9.15.2-3; 9.20.2-3 Pseudo-Clement; 2 Clement 5.5; 9.6; 11.7; 12.1, 6; 17.4-5 Papias of Hierapolis, cited in Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.33.3-4; see also Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men 18 Justine Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 80 Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 5.32-5.36 Third Century Hippolytus, On Genesis Fragment 3; On Daniel 2.4; Scholia of Daniel 7.22; Treatise on Christ and Antichrist 65 Commodian, Instructions 29; 33; 34; 35; 44 Nepos of Egypt, cited in Eusebius, The Church History 7.24.1 Victorinus, Commentary on Revelation 1.5, 15; 14.15; 20.2, 5, 6 (Greek version[1]); On the Creation of the World 5 Fourth Century Lactantius, Divine Institutes 4.12; 5.24 Fifth Century Augustine, Sermon 259.2 Jerome, Commentary to Isaiah 18. Prologue Kingdom Deniers Too crude Origen of Alexandria, Commentary on Song of Songs Prologue Eusebius of Caesarea, The Church History 3.39 Too hedonic Dionysius of Alexandria, cited in Eusebius, The Church History 7.25 Jerome, Commentary to Isaiah 18. Prologue Augustine, City of God 20.7 Too Jewish Origen of Alexandria, On First Principles 2.11.2 Eusebius of Caesarea, Commentary on Isaiah 2.1-4 Jerome, Commentary to Isaiah 11.15-16 Review From the first to the fifth centuries, many important authors spoke about their belief in the coming Kingdom of God on earth. They conceived of the Kingdom as a new age we enter at the coming of Christ. Early on, going to heaven was considered a serious heresy. Over time, a relatively small number of influential Christians began arguing against the Kingdom. They considered living on a mutable earth forever in physical bodies to be too crude and out of touch with their cosmology. They criticized believers in the Kingdom for seeking bodily pleasures like eating fine food, drinking alcohol, and having intercourse. They rejected the literal interpretation of Kingdom prophecies found throughout scripture as a Jewish way to understand. Although Augustine had believed in the Kingdom at one point, his ultimate rejection of it in favor of heaven-at-death settled the matter for the Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages. [1] Jerome changed Victorinus' book in his Latin translation. The Greek version is online at http://www.bombaxo.com/victorinus-in-apocalypsin/

The Gospel According to Mark: IntroductionEach of the four Gospels in the New Testament takes on a different “personality” and focus. Matthew (dated late 50s/early 60s) is written to the Jews to show that Jesus is the Messiah. Luke wrote a two-volume set (his Gospel and Acts) around A.D. 62. His Gospel is written to a Greek audience (in particular, Theophilus), proving that Jesus is the Son of Man. John, who wrote his Gospel around A.D. 80-90, makes his purpose clear in John 20:31: “…These are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”Mark was the first Gospel written, and it is dated in the A.D. 50s. It's a hard-hitting and fast-paced account. Mark does not focus so much on what Jesus said, but on what he did. Throughout the book, there is a sense of urgency. The word translated “immediately” is found over 40 times in the book. He presents Jesus as the Servant. The key verse of this book is, “For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45).Most scholars believe that Mark was led to Christ by Peter (1 Pet 5:13) and that his book is based on Peter's sermons. Papias wrote in A.D. 140 that Mark was the “interpreter of Peter” and many early church fathers agreed.--------DAILY DEVOTIONAL WITH RON MOOREGet Ron's Daily Devotional to your inbox each morning; visit biblechapel.org/devo.LIVING GROUNDEDLearn more about how you can grow deeper and embrace the foundational truths of the Christian faith with Living Grounded. Whether you're just starting out in faith or you've been a Christian for years, Living Grounded offers truth, wisdom, and encouragement for every stage. Contact gdevore@biblechapel.org to get connected.CAREGIVINGDo you have a need we can pray for? Do you need someone to walk alongside you? Do you know of another person who needs care? Let us know at caregiving@biblechapel.org.CAMPUS FACEBOOK GROUPSYou're invited to connect with The Bible Chapel family in your campus Facebook Group. Look for Facebook Groups at facebook.com/biblechapel and click on Groups on the left side.FIND AN ENCOURAGER TODAY! JOIN A SMALL GROUPCommunity Groups are our easiest on-ramp to community at The Bible Chapel; these groups use sermon-based questions to dive deeper into weekly messages. Visit biblechapel.org/smallgroups to learn more and sign up!

Our focus for this episode is the collection of second-century Christian literature known as the Apostolic Fathers. In total, there are 11 authors in this collection, 9 of whom we will briefly cover today. You'll learn about the earliest Christian documents outside the New Testament, two of  which were possibly written even before the last book of the New Testament. What did Christians write about? Although the Apostolic Fathers is far from cohesive, they do give us a great window into some of the dominant threads of Christian thought in the generation after the apostles died. Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyJwqv-Y87M&list=PLN9jFDsS3QV2lk3B0I7Pa77hfwKJm1SRI&index=4 —— Links —— More Restitutio resources on Christian history More classes here Support Restitutio by donating here Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow Sean Finnegan on Twitter @RestitutioSF Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play them out on the air Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library. Who is Sean Finnegan?  Read his bio here —— Notes —— The Apostolic Fathers is a collection of Christian writings primarily from the second century. The Didache Epistle of Barnabas 1 Clement Shepherd of Hermas Epistles of Ignatius Fragments of Papias 2 Clement Epistle of Polycarp Martyrdom of Polycarp Fragment of Quadratus Epistle to Diognetus Sources for APF (Apostolic Fathers) Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org) Michael Holmes' translation (available in English or English in parallel with Greek) Didache (60-150) Jewish-Christian document partly focused on righteous living and partly on church order (baptism, communion, fasting, hospitality, etc.) citations: Didache 9.1-3; 8.1; 2.1-2 Research Recommendation David Bercot's A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs Epistle of Barnabas (70-132) author referred to as Psuedo-Barnabas allegorizing method of interpreting scripture, especially the Old Testament citation: Barnabas 10.11-12; 1 Clement (80-100) letter written from Roman leader to help church of Corinth resolve a dispute citations 1 Clement 59.4 Shepherd of Hermas (100-150) freed slave writing on holiness and repentance citation: Shepherd 59.5-7 Epistles of Ignatius (108-160) bishop in Antioch arrested and brought to Rome where he faced martyrdom three recensions survive: long, middle, and short Long Recension To the Ephesians To the Magnesians To the Trallians To the Romans To the Philadelphians To the Smyrnaeans To Polycarp To Mary of Cassabola From Mary of Cassabola To Tarsians To Antiochenes To Philippians To Hero Middle Recension To the Ephesians To the Magnesians To the Trallians To the Romans To the Philadelphians To the Smyrnaeans To Polycarp Short Recension To the Ephesians To the Romans To Polycarp citations: Ephesians 7.2; Polycarp 3.2 (both from middle recension) Fragments of Papias (130) preferred oral testimony to written[1] wanted to get to the truth of the matter bishop in Hierapolis Citation: Papias 3.3-4 2 Clement (130-160) neither a letter nor was it written by Clement anonymous sermon citation: 2 Clement 9.1-6 Polycarp to the Philippians (135-160) the Philippians had requested Polycarp to discuss righteousness Martyrdom of Polycarp (155-175) narrates story of Polycarp's capture, interrogation, and public execution in Smyrna sets precedent for future martyrs Review The Apostolic Fathers is a diverse collection of Christian books from the 2nd century major focus Christian morality identity vis-à-vis Judaism variety of views about Christ authenticity (Papias) and unity (Ignatius, 1 Clement) [1] See also Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.

Each of the four Gospels in the New Testament takes on a different “personality” and focus. Matthew (dated late 50s/early 60s) is written to the Jews to show that Jesus is the Messiah. Luke writes a two-volume set (his Gospel and Acts) around A.D. 62. His Gospel is written to a Greek audience (in particular, Theophilus), proving that Jesus is the Son of Man. John, who wrote his Gospel around A.D. 80-90, makes his purpose clear in John 20:31: “…These are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”Mark was the first Gospel written. It is dated in the A.D. 50s. It is a hard-hitting and fast-paced account. Mark does not focus so much on what Jesus said but on what he did. Throughout the book, there is a sense of urgency. The word translated “immediately” is found over forty times in the book. He presents Jesus as the Servant. The key verse of this book is, “For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45).Most scholars believe that Mark was led to Christ by Peter (1 Pet 5:13) and that his book is based on Peter's sermons. Papias wrote in A.D. 140 that Mark was the “interpreter of Peter,” and many early church fathers agree.Mark came from a wealthy family, and his mother was a well-known believer in Jerusalem. It is possible that the last supper was served in her home. Her house was a meeting place for the early church in Acts (Acts 1:13-14, 12:12). Mark's uncle was Barnabas. Mark joined Barnabas and Paul on their first missionary journey but returned home in the middle of the trip. When Barnabas wanted to take Mark on the second trip, Paul refused, and that ended in Barnabas and Paul splitting up. Later they reconciled.--------DAILY DEVOTIONAL WITH RON MOOREGet Ron's Daily Devotional to your inbox each morning; visit biblechapel.org/devo.LIVING GROUNDEDLearn more about how you can grow deeper and embrace the foundational truths of the Christian faith with Living Grounded. Whether you're just starting out in faith or you've been a Christian for years, Living Grounded offers truth, wisdom, and encouragement for every stage. Contact gdevore@biblechapel.org to get connected.CAREGIVINGDo you have a need we can pray for? Do you need someone to walk alongside you? Do you know of another person who needs care? Let us know at caregiving@biblechapel.org.CAMPUS FACEBOOK GROUPSYou're invited to connect with The Bible Chapel family in your campus Facebook Group. Look for Facebook Groups at facebook.com/biblechapel and click on Groups on the left side.FIND AN ENCOURAGER TODAY! JOIN A SMALL GROUPCommunity Groups are our easiest on-ramp to community at The Bible Chapel; these groups use sermon-based questions to dive deeper into weekly messages. Visit biblechapel.org/smallgroups to learn more and sign up!

Star Wars nerds have an argument about Han Solo, and whether he fired his gun first in the bar scene of “A New Hope.” There are t-shirts that say, “Han shot first.” I am here to tell you of a similar argument, one that has far greater importance and consequence for anyone that believes Jesus is God incarnate, also known as the Creator of the Universe. This one matters immensely because your spiritual life may depend on how you answer it, and the truth about this matters much in the founding of Christ's Church. This question is about which Gospel was written first, and I am here to tell you: Matthew shot first. Matthew wrote the first Gospel. He wrote it in Hebrew first before it was translated into Greek. He wrote it before the year 70 A.D. And it was Matthew the Apostle that wrote it, not some random Matthew from Accounting. Why does any of this matter? Because for two centuries, people have been spending incredible amounts of ink to disprove this Tradition, because it undermines the Church. According to Sacred Tradition, from Papias and Irenaeus, to Ignatius of Antioch, all the way to St. Jerome and St. Augustine, Matthew was known to be the first Gospel. This is documented in various writings from the Church fathers. The whole tradition of the Church said so for nearly two millennia. For a terrific read on this, check out Brant Pitre's book The Case for Jesus which cuts through two hundred years of fog spewed from anti-Catholic scholarship and atheists. For anyone who attended college in the 1990s, brace yourself and be seated when reading this book. Much of what I learned in my freshman year of college turned out to be false, it's just unfortunate that I can't get a refund from Viterbo University for it. (Note: there's a video series on formed.org of Pitre's The Case for Jesus). Matthew happens to be the Gospel with the most pro-Catholic references. But that is not the reason I believe it is important to believe that Matthew shot first. Not at all. Rather, it is the overwhelming evidence of history and testimony of the early church that indicates that Matthew, the apostle, wrote a Hebrew or Aramaic gospel first, and no one batted an eye about this claim until 19th century scholars decided that Matthew a.) didn't write it all, and b.) wrote it much later, and c.) maybe didn't even exist. All of Christianity, for 1800 years, knew that the gospel of Matthew was written first, hence the ordering that we all learn as children: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Until the 19th century, in Germany's “culture war” (Kulturkampf) against the Catholic Church, Matthew shot first. Then, magically, by textual criticism, in mostly Lutheran academic circles, suddenly Mark became the first Gospel. You have to marvel at this sudden change, when you consider how much Catholics and other faithful talk about Jesus, and things related to Jesus, and anything that could possibly even relate to Jesus. People talk about Jesus and the Gospels like breathing air. But we are to assume that for 1800 years, no one had really thought about which Gospel was written first? And, stranger still, only when the Protestant era and Enlightenment humanism arrived did the topic finally come up? I find it difficult to imagine that the early Church members, from bishops downward to the lowliest lay person, didn't constantly discuss these things. Moreover, you have copies of Matthew scattered about the known world with “According to Matthew” written at the very top of the scrolls, indicating very clearly that the authorship was not in question. But suddenly in modern times, the question erupts: “Did Matthew really write Matthew?”There is literally no copy of Matthew that does not have his name written at the top. Zero. The only question of authorship comes from those who do not want it to be written by an apostle and an eyewitness of Jesus' life. Further, there is not a single argument in the writings of the early Church that dispute that Matthew was written first. When scripture first started being read in liturgy, the Church would still have been almost entirely oral tradition. In other words, spreading the word of Jesus was not done by handing someone a Gideon's Bible or leaving a pamphlet on the bathroom sink at the airport. No, the word, was all passed on by the spoken word, and through relationships. Anyone still remember relationships? This is hard to remember for us now, but relationships and human contact was a pre-Internet phenomenon when people got together and talked about things that really mattered to them instead of watching cat videos, sports, and porn by themselves. In the early church, there was no printing press, and most people were illiterate. So if you wanted to learn about Christ, you had to talk about Christ with others, listen, repeat, retell, and revisit. No podcasts were available, no wordy blogs like this one. Yet clearly the copyists and the Church fathers knew that Matthew existed, wrote the first Gospel, and wrote it first. This is what is called Tradition in the Catholic Church. It is beyond my ceiling of credibility to imagine that no one during the Apostolic era stopped to ask, or thought to discuss, or bent anyone's ear about which evangelist wrote first, or who wrote it. We are to believe that we had to wait some 1800 years for English and German Protestant scholars to come up with these questions. Now, I can watch just about any fantasy or science fiction movie and let my ceiling be raised to accommodate the director's or author's imagination, but I cannot imagine that no one said, “Hey guys, which Gospel was written first?” In addition, the one Apostle who most certainly knew how to write was the tax collector, Matthew, who worked in Jerusalem and would have obviously needed to know multiple languages to merely do his job. Yet, we plant this stamp of doubt upon it and ask, “Did Matthew really write Matthew?” as if no one ever asked that question. But there is good reason for enemies of the Church to argue that Mark shot first. There are extremely compelling reasons to take up this banner and fight against “Matthew shot first.”The motive to remove eyewitness accounts of Jesus' life is strong on the atheist side of the fence, because it increases doubt and alleviates their conscience for not believing. If you push Matthew out to 90 A.D., then a sixty year gap from Crucifixion to writing the Gospel makes it more of a legend than a biography. On the flip side, for Protestants, moving Matthew to a much later date elevates the argument against Peter as the first Pope. Matthew is full of references to Peter as the founder of Christ's Church, as well as the Sacraments of confession and marriage being defined exactly as the Church still teaches them in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. In both cases, the Church is attacked. This is nothing new, and every heresy and battle the Catholic Church ever faced comes from the same places, going as far back as Marcion, Pelagius, Arius, Celsus, and every other would-be Pope-slayer. But here's one of the funny things about all of those historical heresies: not one of them, not a single one, ever challenged the idea that Matthew shot first. This only came up relatively recently, starting in countries with kings and politicians that hated the Church, who were either Protestant or unbelievers. But most interesting is that in both writing the author as Matthew and declaring the order with Matthew first, the early church had no motive or reason to lie about any of this, because neither the specter of atheism nor the idea of future Protestantism in the 16th century would have occurred to them. It's difficult, if not impossible, to imagine how every scribe in the world wrote “The Gospel according to Matthew” on top of the scroll, when as this thing was spread out it was like feathers flying out of a pillow from a rooftop. Yet, we are to believe that every scribe who caught a feather was somehow in on a conspiracy to mask the authorship of some random writer by tricking everyone into believing that the apostle Matthew wrote it. Perhaps more amazing is the minor, miniscule errors in copying that the scribes made as this document flew around the world. To follow this a bit more, we are to believe that those first Christians who were willing to preach in the streets and be martyred for proclaiming the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, had some kind of massive, Orwellian, bureaucratic memory-hole operation in place to bury any copy that could have unwound the conspiracy. This is beyond comprehension, because it assumes that rather than just trying to spread the word of Jesus, the apostles were master manipulators, like Machiavelli, or Iago from Othello, and somehow these fishermen cooked up a story so profound and so life-changing, that not only were they willing to tell it to everyone, but they were willing to be boiled, clubbed, beaten, stabbed, flayed, and crucified for it. The “synoptic problem” was not a problem until it was a problem for unbelievers and Protestants, especially kings who wanted to have their own form of religion and morality, like every mythological cult that ever got started. The problem with allowing kings and power into your religion is that in that very moment, that instant, you've lost your religion. This is, essentially, what paganism is. It's the hammering of God's law and natural law to fit the goals of the king or the State. And re-writing history to remove Matthew is one of those methods of “winning” that modern kings and governments and academics have attempted to use. But the motive of the Apostles motives was evangelism, as they were on fire with the Holy Spirit, literally, from Pentecost onward. Things were moving at a pace far too fast for creeping conspiracies, and the Word of God was spreading even without them, because as soon as they told someone, that person told the next, and the next, and the next. It's worth pointing out that the Apostles and early Church Fathers didn't have TV or YouTube, so they had immense amounts of time to ponder these things, and they knew the scriptures, not to mention Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, far better than anyone alive today. They lived far closer to the oral tradition and the texts themselves, and St. Jerome even wrote that he saw and read from the Hebrew version of Matthew in Alexandria. What scholars do with lines like that is find an error in the writing, unrelated to the claim, and then cast out the author as “unreliable.” Or they look to the motives and say, “This Church father was a propagandist for the Catholic Church.” This is classic hitman work, but if that is the case, then this cancel culture should be applied equally to modern scholarship, where if any error is ever made, the Ph.D. should be rescinded. As for who I would rather trust, I would take saints Jerome, Augustine, Papias, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, and Matthew himself over the 19th century anti-Catholics and 20th century atheists. After all, a lot of the Church Fathers and the Apostles died for their proclamations, and none of them, not one, cracked and cried out in the fires or at their beheadings, “You're right, I lied. We all lied! In the seven weeks between the Crucifixion and Pentecost, we came up with a grand conspiracy, and we would say that Matthew wrote in Hebrew first, and that he wrote it after the Temple was destroyed so that we could make it look prophetic, and actually Matthew didn't write it all, it was Matthew from Accounting - he wrote it! We hired a ghost writer, just please, please don't kill me!”No, they go to their deaths. They go boldly, without apostatizing or recanting. They die saying things much different than what I just imagined. "Eighty-six years have I have served him," Polycarp said on his way to the fire, "and he has done me no wrong. How can I blaspheme my king and my savior?"Ignatius of Antioch, dragging his chains, spoke defiantly to the Roman emperor Trajan. He said, “You are in error, emperor, when you call the demons of your nation gods. For there is but one God who made heaven, earth, the sea and all that are in them. And one Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God.” Church tradition even holds that Ignatius was the actual kid that Jesus held in the Gospel stories. (Mt 18:1-5) In other words, guys like Ignatius of Antioch were alive when Christ was alive. He met Jesus. So here's the dilemma, the choice: am I to believe a 19th or 20th century scholar who spent all of his time in a library reviewing fragments of paper and letting his imagination soar, or am I to believe the testimony of Matthew, Ignatius, Papias, Irenaeus, Jerome, Eusebius, Augustine, and all the others, who lived and died in the era when the Church was forming and when many were being slaughtered by kings and governors in professing that Jesus is the son of God? I choose the latter. Sorry, C.H. Weisse. Sorry, Bart Ehrman. It requires more faith to believe anything that Ehrman claims than it does to believe in the Resurrection of Christ. Here's the thing: these scholars have sacrificed nothing and only sown doubt, and led millions to the death of their faith. It is not difficult to destroy faith. It is difficult to be in the counter-culture and live a life of faith. Ehrman and the others may be searching for truth, but they are doing so in the darkness, willfully choosing to reject God, which is what God allows us to do. Each of us has the choice to turn toward or away from God, and the effort of scholars to spurn God requires that they reject hard historical written evidence in order to produce and uphold their faith in nothing. But then of course they must do this - when all you have is this world, and no spiritual life, it's imperative that you recruit others to your worldview, because we all need our cheerleaders, and standing alone in the abyss without God is a lonely place to be. We get to choose our own hell, but some of us like Ehrman want others to choose it as well. St. Thomas, the doubting apostle, was told, “Blessed are those who have not seen and believe.” (Jn. 20:29) This is, of course, the great test, the final test, the one we get to answer on our deathbed. It's the one that Ehrman and Dawkins have already answered, but could still change their mind. It's the kind of final exam you really don't need to study for, but you do need to prepare for it, because how you decide will crystallize your eternal state. Perhaps the most difficult thing for me to believe is that we have several different writings from Church Fathers which mention that Matthew first wrote a document in Hebrew, but because we cannot find that document today, we assume it doesn't exist. Here's a news flash for modern people: paper crumbles. Time decays paper. If you don't believe me, go find your grandmother's photo album and inspect it. There's this odd sense that if we don't dig up the original draft that it didn't exist, when we know full well that paper falls apart, and copyists had to copy and yes, even translate the texts. There is a reason scribes were called scribes, and that was to copy texts so they didn't disintegrate. Yet many deny a Hebrew writing by Matthew exists because we haven't found it. But this leads us to the best part, the most fantastic and ludicrous thing of all about 19th century German scholarship and 20th century atheist scholarship, which has even bled over into Catholic teaching at universities like the one I attended. You cannot make up the next part, except that they did make it up… Of all things that confound me, replacing this Hebrew version of Matthew, we have scholars who have invented a fictional document called “Q” for which there is no evidence, no scrap, not a letter of, but which is assumed to exist. So we have writings that mention Matthew's earlier writing in Hebrew, which is discarded for a hypothetical document that is not mentioned anywhere, has never existed, and will never exist, that takes its place. We even have St. Jerome saying that he saw a Hebrew version of Matthew in Alexandria. We have testimony of eyes on the Hebrew version of Matthew. However, this fairy Q document has nothing, but is treated as if it were the first Gospel. So the next time someone tells you that Matthew was written after 80 A.D., you should assume that they are referring to the Greek translation of Matthew, because there is clearly a Hebrew version of Matthew, of some kind, of some format, written long before that. Because if the scholars can “prove” that a Greek translation of Matthew was written after the fall of the Temple in Jerusalem, and that someone other than Matthew translated it, that's not a terribly big deal. The point of massive significance is that Matthew wrote first, that Matthew wrote a Gospel, and he wrote it first in Hebrew. He was the only apostle that certainly had to be literate because of his occupation as a tax collector, and even if he dictated it to a scribe, that's no different than any other author speaking to a secretary that types a memo. It should come as no surprise that copies and translations had to be made, and my New Testament college professor acted as if the Gospels had to a.) either fall from the sky, b.) or had to have the finger of God directing the hand motion on the paper, or c.) if neither of the above happened, then it was just a game of telephone that only academics and the Jesus Seminar unbelievers could decipher. To this day, I am stunned, really beyond stunned, that a Catholic University was teaching and guiding students to read the output of the Jesus Seminar from the 1990s. The same attack on Matthew has been done to the point of insanity on the books of Moses, with the same batch of motives, which is to reduce the sacred texts to “nation-building” lies, or worse, to deny the existence of Moses altogether. When things come up like this you have to look at the motives of the scholars. To quote the Dude in The Big Lebowski, who quotes Vladimir Lenin, before his stoner mind drifts off: “You look to the person who will benefit…and ah…”Walter Sobchak: The Dude: It's all a fake, man. It's like Lenin said: you look for the person who will benefit, and, uh, uh, you know... Donny: I am the walrus.Who benefits from this scholarship that removes Matthew as author, as the first author, and pushes his writing back to 90 A.D.? It's quite simple. Protestants and atheists benefit, and they benefit in different ways. The Church's authority is undermined, which is what Protestants wanted, but funny thing about that, in their zeal for undermining Catholic authority, they undermined scripture altogether, because as soon as they finished their sprint around the track, atheists took the baton and ran so that today people don't even believe that Jesus existed. Now, I can go on for days about this railroading of Matthew, and I probably will, because one of the greatest attacks on the Church, sustained now for two hundred years, is this effort to force Matthew down from it's chronological position as the first Gospel. The goal is multi-faceted. The attack has various prongs, but first of all, his writing clearly elevates the Catholic Church, and most of the scholars on this topic truly hated the Catholic Church. They still do. Second, removing Matthew as an eyewitness account of Christ makes the miracles seem fishy. Hence, you get unbelievers like Ehrman calling it all a “telephone game” rather than eyewitness accounts of God in the flesh. What's funny is that there is a telephone game happening, but it's among academics starting in the 1500s right up until today in 2023. Third, pushing Matthew's writing to beyond the year 70 A.D. after the temple was destroyed in Jerusalem, makes the prophecy of Christ about the temple destruction seem more like a statement from Captain Obvious than the Son of God. Moving the goal posts on the chronology of the Gospel writers has a clear motive, which is to remove the eyewitness nature of the accounts and play up the “telephone game” nonsense. There's just one major problem with this, Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:1:1)Peter and Paul were martyred before 70 A.D. So was this a vast conspiracy by Irenaeus and Papias and the various other writers to befuddle us all until we were blessed with Protestant German scholars and atheist academics? I think the QAnon people have a more plausible conspiracy theory than this one. So who are we to believe? Some random professor today? Or Irenaeus, who was taught by Polycarp, who knew the Apostle John, who stood at the Cross during the Crucifixion? Which of these two people are more likely to have known when and by whom the Gospels were written? Here's the pedigree of Irenaeus, who today's random professor has written off as unreliable:Polycarp was a bishop of the early church, a disciple of the apostle John, a contemporary of Ignatius, and the teacher of Irenaeus. According to Irenaeus, Polycarp “was instructed by the apostles, and was brought into contact with many who had seen Christ.” He lived from the latter half of the first century to the mid-second century. Polycarp was martyred by the Romans, and his death was influential, even among the pagans. (from gotquestions.org) I choose Irenaeus. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.whydidpetersink.com

Host Martin Tanner describes how Papias in 140 AD said "Mark . . . the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately but not in order all" Peter told him about the life of Jesus. Luke's Gospel says he "wrote in order" meaning he corrected the order.  Luke also supplemented Mark's Gospel with additional information from "eyewitnesses" at a time when there were many accounts of the life of Jesus.  The earliest Christians called their religion the "New Covenant" or sometimes "The Way" of Jesus or as taught by Jesus.  "Christians" was a put down by outsiders, which over time became the new way the early Church was described.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Outline:IntroductionThe Voice of the LordThe Kingdom Glorious Semper Virgo?Saint Athanasius ChurchContra Mundum SwaggerVideo VersionFeller of Tree Blog (Transcript)

When Papias speaks of Mark as Peter's "interpreter," how would a reader in the second century CE understand that?

Greetings! It's good to have you with us today. In our passage today here in Acts 21, we find Paul and his companions on their way to Jerusalem to deliver a special offering. And they are about to leave the city of Tyre, where (if you were with us last week) you'll remember they found a community of believers with whom they stayed seven days. And now they are getting ready to leave. And in looking at this passage, I found it so astounding how quickly these believers in Tyre grew to love Paul. Or perhaps it's not so amazing. It seems to be the case in many of the churches Paul goes to. It is easy to fall in love with somebody who genuinely loves and shows care for you. Maybe you know somebody who, whenever they enter a room, immediately makes you and other people there feel like the most important people in the world and who seems to communicate that you are the best thing to have happened to his/her day. There are people like that. I know people like that. I want to be a person like that. And Paul definitely was, which is why we see that even after just one week Paul and his missionary team are accompanied to the shore not just by the church leaders; and not just by the men, but by everyone; all the men, accompanied by their wives and children. Look at verse five. It says… Acts 21:5 (NKJV)— 5 When we had come to the end of those days, we departed and went on our way; and they all accompanied us, with wives and children, till we were out of the city. And we knelt down on the shore and prayed. Kneeling— And one scholar notes that normally the custom during that time was to stand when praying. We see that in Mark 11:25 Luke 18:11-13. And so here the fact that we see them kneeling together publicly shows just how intense, solemn, and sincere their prayers for Paul's protection really were. Now after they pray together, it says in… Acts 21:6-7 (NKJV)— 6 When we had taken our leave of one another, we boarded the ship, and they returned home. 7 And when we had finished our voyage from Tyre, we came to Ptolemais, greeted the brethren, and stayed with them one day. At Ptolemais— Now Ptolemais was only a few miles south of Tyre. Paul and his missionary team stay there just one day, but take the opportunity to greet the believers there and spend some time with them. After that, it says… Acts 21:8 (NKJV)— 8 On the next day we who were Paul's companions departed and came to Caesarea, and entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, and stayed with him. Philip The Evangelist— Now Philip of course had been one of the original deacons (Acts 6:1-6) of the church who also served as an evangelist (Acts 8:5ff). He was both a public evangelist, which we saw in his ministry in Samaria; but he was also a personal evangelist, as he was the one who remember led the Ethiopian eunuch to Christ (Acts 8). But he had also been an associate of Stephen, who's murder Paul had been a part of. So in another very personal way, it is amazing to see how God can bring good out of bad, as we see these men (20 years later) coming together under the banner of ministry for Christ. Now it says of Philip… Acts 21:9 (NKJV)— 9 Now this man had four virgin daughters who prophesied. Philip's Daughters— Now this is an interesting little detail given to us. The Greek word that Luke uses here to describe them (parthenoi) probably indicates that they are a young, under the age of sixteen. And prophecy wasn't unusual in the early church. In fact it was one of the most cherished gifts (1 Corinthians 14:5, 39). But why this verse is important (and maybe why Luke includes it) is because women (and especially unmarried women) usually did not have a very high standing in culture. And so this little verse shows that people of low status in society were often included in positions of prominence in the Church. Now we do know a little bit more about them outside of the Bible. [Eusebius refers to these daughters twice, mentioning that they lived and were buried in Hierapolis, which is in Phrygia in Asia Minor. Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, said that these daughters were sources of valuable information of what happened in the early years of Christianity. Philip and his daughters may have been one of Luke's information sources.] Now it says… Acts 21:10 (NKJV)— 10 And as we stayed many days, a certain prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. Agabus Comes Down— Now this prophet Agabus was not a stranger to Paul. Fifteen years prior he had worked together with Paul in a famine relief program for Judea (Acts 11:27-30). It was he who had predicted the famine (accurately) which remember prompted a collection from the church in Antioch. And here we see that he comes to deliver a message to Paul. And it is a very dramatic and visually powerful acted prophecy, which was a familiar method used by many of the Old Testament prophets. It says in… Acts 21:11 (NKJV)— 11 When he had come to us, he took Paul's belt, bound his own hands and feet, and said, “Thus says the Holy Spirit, ‘So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man who owns this belt, and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.' ” Fighting For Unity— Now note that the Holy Spirit does not forbid Paul to go to Jerusalem here either. Agabus doesn't say that. He just merely tells what will happen to Paul if he does go. And Paul, who sees the growing division between the “far right“ legalistic Jews and the believing Gentiles, sees the task of fighting for the unity of the church as being more important than his very life. He knew that he was part of the answer to the problem and that he could not solve it remotely through a representative. No, he had to go to Jerusalem personally. Now the believers try to convince him otherwise. It says in… Acts 21:12-13 (NKJV)— 12 Now when we heard these things, both we and those from that place {(so not Agabus, which is something to observe)} pleaded with him not to go up to Jerusalem. 13 Then Paul answered, “What do you mean by weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” Was Paul Right or Not?— Now people have argued back-and-forth about whether or not Paul was right or not in making this trip to Jerusalem. And for us it may seem wrong to question an apostle; but we need to remember that Paul wasn't infallible. He was a human being just like us. His writings were inspired, but that doesn't mean that everything he did was perfect or that he always made the right choice. To the believers Paul encountered, as well as to us, these repeated messages to Paul through the ministry of prophetic Christians do sound like warnings for Paul to stay out of Jerusalem. And over 20 years prior, the Lord had commanded Paul to get out of Jerusalem because he knew that the Jews would not receive Paul's testimony (Acts 22:18). But that was not a permanent command, and we see afterwards that the Lord did allow him to return to Jerusalem on other occasions: with famine relief (Acts 11:27–30); to attend the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15:1ff.); and after his second missionary journey (Acts 18:22 – “going up to greet the church” refers to Jerusalem). But Paul seems to see things differently here. He doesn't sense any prohibition from God. As we said before, he felt compelled by God. But even before these prophecies, Paul was aware of the dangers that awaited for him should he go to Jerusalem. Paul had written in his letter to the Romans concerning the dangers in Judea (Acts 15:30–31) and had shared these same feelings with the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:22–23). So he was obviously fully aware of the dangers. But these warnings (and this is what Paul sensed) may not in fact to be prohibitions at all. Rather than God saying “You must not go”, God may in fact be saying “Get ready!”. Acts 21:14-16 (NKJV)— 14 So when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, “The will of the Lord be done.” {Now after this it says… } 15 And after those days we packed and went up to Jerusalem. 16 Also some of the disciples from Caesarea went with us and brought with them a certain Mnason of Cyprus, an early disciple, with whom we were to lodge. From Caesarea to Jerusalem— And so the Christians in Caesarea leave and travel with Paul to Jerusalem, probably intending to celebrate the feast themselves. Now this was a sixty-five mile trek that took three days if they went on foot – two days if they had animals. So they had some time together, no doubt fellowshipping, praying with one another, worshiping together, sharing stories about what God had done in and through them, but also anticipating the challenges that they ahead of them; and particularly the persecution that awaited Paul. But Paul was no doubt greatly encouraged by their companionship as he took this difficult journey up to Jerusalem. Arrival At Jerusalem— Now it's a long trip, so they stop somewhere along the way at the house of a man named Mnason, who is described as “an early disciple”. We don't know exactly who he is. It is possible that he came to faith after hearing Peter preach at Pentecost at the beginning of the book of Acts. Or he may have come to faith later in and through the ministry of Barnabas (Acts 4:36). We don't know. But what we do know is that now he is traveling with them. He had been visiting Caesarea (where they just were), but he had a house somewhere along the route to Jerusalem. And so, apparently being given to hospitality, he opens his home to Paul to help him and his team at this very important time in his ministry. Now after this Paul and his team make the rest of the trek to Jerusalem and arrive there. The city is crowded with other pilgrims who have come up for the feast. And Paul and his missionary team are received by the Church there. How Was The Gift Received?— Now we don't know how the first meeting with the church leaders in Jerusalem went. It would've been nice for Luke to give us more detail on that. We do know that James and the other leaders in Jerusalem received Paul and his missionary team gladly; but it would've been great to see their reaction at receiving this gift from Paul. Did they all receive it gladly or did some of them look on it with suspicion? A few years after this, the Roman writer Martial said “gifts are like hooks!” And maybe some of the Jewish leaders looked at Paul's gift that way. The legalistic wing of the church would certainly have questioned anything that Paul said or did. What To Worry About— But you and I can't always worry about how other people will look at or receive the good things we do. And we shouldn't. All we need to worry about is pleasing our Lord. Paul did not let what his adversaries thought of him affect either the way he viewed himself or the way that he did his ministry. He didn't even allow well-meaning believers to dissuade him from what he thought was right. He always acted confidently and with full assurance, knowing that his security was in his relationship with God. And the same is true of us. You and I must always remember that when we live our lives on purpose for Christ, He can give us confidence and courage to accomplish all that He wants us to accomplish. And so let's live on purpose for Him. Amen.

Matthew 26:75 Rooktown - The Clamour and the Crash Thanks to everyone who supports TMBH at patreon.com/thetmbhpodcast You're the reason we can all do this together! Discuss the episode here Music written and performed by Jeff Foote.

Mark has the crowd hail “the kingdom of our father that is coming,” while Matthew has “Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord.” Is it possible that Mark believed Jesus was the Messiah ben Joseph and still expected that Simon bar Kochba would appear as the Messiah ben David? And that Matthew wrote after bar Kochba was defeated and makes Jesus fulfill both roles? Don't you realize that the Clementines were written in the 4th century, not the 2nd as your heroes F.C. Baur and Bruno Bauer thought? Why the seeming neglect of Nehemiah?? Could the writing ascribed to Mark by Papias be something other than our canonical Mark? You mentioned that Karl Marx had a death bed religious conversion. I could not find anything about that online. Did you confuse him with someone else? Pope Gregory I identified Mary Magdalene with the woman who washed Jesus's feet in Luke 7:38. Why think either was a prostitute?

Dr. Boyce will be focusing on the internal evidence of Matthew, to demonstrate that the main material was based on the eyewitness testimony of a tax collector. He will also demonstrate key elements of Papias' testimony in regards to individuals "translating" the original sayings of Matthew from Hebrew/Aramaic. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/stephen623/support

In this episode of "Exploring the Gospels as Eyewitness Accounts, Dr. Boyce will be exploring the potentiality that there are two accounts of Matthew. He will be examining the testimony of Papias, Irenaeus, and others as to how we've received this Gospel account, and if it is possible to be traced to the Apostles. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/stephen623/support

Modern day academia has placed major doubt on the authenticity of the Gospels. Even Biblical institutions have abandoned the traditional view of the authorship of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. In this episode, Dr. Boyce will be exploring the earliest attestations of these ancient Gospel accounts, by examining the testimony of Papias --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/stephen623/support

Episode 149 – Truth and Proof – Part 9 – The New Testament is Reliable Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. Script: …why are some of you saying there will be no resurrection of the dead? For if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your faith is useless. 1 Corinthians, Chapter 15, verses 12 through 14, New Living Translation ******** Hello! I’m Victoria K. Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. As listeners who have been with us for the last several episodes know we have been working on a series that addresses Christian apologetics. We’ve called this series “Truth and Proof.” This series was inspired by Dr. Gregg Alexander who has been teaching Sunday school for more than 25 years. Several years ago Dr. Alexander developed a very similar series for his class. When we learned about it, we were so impressed we wanted everyone to have access to the wonderful work Dr. Alexander had done. And Dr. Alexander has been kind enough to join us on a few of our episodes during the series. But today we are joined by another special guest. Today on the show we have Doug Apple who is the manager of the WAVE-94 radio station in Tallahassee, Florida. Doug is an extremely faithful student of the Bible and he has thought deeply about his faith. Doug would you like to take a couple of minutes and tell us a little about yourself? DOUG: - Introductory comments - VK: Wow. 14 grandchildren! That’s such a blessing and I’m sure one of the reasons Doug has been so blessed is because of his love for – and dedication to – God’s Word. Doug is so serious about his love of scripture that he has taken upon himself to memorize entire books of the Bible including several from the New Testament. So, it’s particularly appropriate for us to have Doug here today because today on Anchored by Truth we are going to tackle one of the most important topics about the truth of Christianity – the reliability of the New Testament documents. The New Testament is the part of the Bible that tells us about Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection. DOUG: And, of course, we get the very title of our faith from Jesus. Jesus was the Christ. The term “Christ” comes from the Greek word Christos which means the “anointed one” or the “chosen one.” This is the same term as “Messiah” which came from the ancient Hebrew word “Mashiach.” So, Christianity is essentially a belief in the work and person of Christ. And while that sounds very simple to say it’s actually a truth so profound we’ll spend all eternity understanding it more thoroughly. But we certainly begin our understanding of that truth by reading the New Testament documents. As such, knowing that the New Testament is reliable and true is a fundamental part of demonstrating that the God that logic tells us must exist is, in fact, the God of the Bible. VK: Christianity depends entirely on the historical person of Jesus Christ. Otherwise Paul could not have said the verse that we heard in our opening scripture from 1 Corinthians. Notice that Paul said, “For if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your faith is useless.” The Apostle Paul stated very plainly that the Christian faith is all about Jesus. And, while there is information about the Messiah in the Old Testament, that information is prophetic. The Old Testament anticipates the arrival of Jesus. But it is in the New Testament that hear we hear about that arrival. Therefore, since the New Testament is the primary source of information about the words and works of Christ, if it is not accurate then we do not possess a first-hand account of Jesus’ claims, character, and credentials. The historical integrity of the New Testament is crucial to Christian apologetics. DOUG: Before we get too much into our discussion about why we can have confidence in the reliability of the New Testament, we should probably note that there are some people who believe that no history can be objectively known. Unfortunately, we live in a time when the past is often manipulated by the subjective desires of historians, writers, politicians, social change advocates, con artists, or others who have an agenda that is served by a revision of history. Political correctness doesn’t just affect how contemporary issues are being framed. It is also being woven into all kinds of discussions of history. Pretty much everyone who is paying attention knows that. But political correctness is not what I’m talking about here. There is a strain of thought among some elites, especially academic elites, who believe that it is impossible for us to know anything true from or about history. VK: But the kind of radical skepticism that would say that history is objectively unknowable eliminates the possibility of knowing anything at all about the past. As soon as we get anywhere close to such a radical belief all university history and classical departments evaporate – there is no source about past events that can be trusted. Such skepticism would eliminate all historical science, such as anthropology, geology, paleontology, archaeology, and forensic science because each of these depends on examining and interpreting remains or evidence from the past. Since everything not occurring now is history, such a belief system would eliminate all eyewitness testimony. Even living witnesses could only testify to what they saw at some other point in time. But if this skepticism were true their testimony would not be considered relevant, real, or accurate. On the other hand, if their testimony could be accepted while they are living, wouldn’t it also be true to say that the records they leave behind are just as credible as their testimony in the present time? DOUG: And, another question: isn’t a statement that says we can’t objectively know history an attempt at establishing an absolute and objective truth about history? The statement that “The past is not objectively knowable” is itself an objective statement about the past. Therefore, the position against the knowability of history is self-defeating. It fails the test of its own central premise. In effect, metaphorically speaking, the idea that we can’t know anything true from or about history shoots itself in the head. VK: So, let’s move on to talking about the reliability of the New Testament documents. As we have indicated without a reliable New Testament, we have no objective, historical way to know what Jesus said or did. We cannot establish whether Jesus was God, what Jesus taught, or what His followers did and taught. We must know if the sources or witnesses used by the authors were reliable, and we must show that the manuscripts were written early enough and with enough attention to detail to be accurate records of actual events. As we look at these questions, we will see that we have every reason to be confident in the accuracy of the New Testament. DOUG: So, what you’ve proposed is that the first step in establishing the historical accuracy of the New Testament is to show that the documents were written by reliable eyewitnesses of the events or their contemporaries. And the second step you mentioned is to show that the New Testament documents have been accurately transmitted from the time of their original autographs, i.e. the original documents, down from the time of their creation to our time. And contrary to what many critics believe and say, there is more evidence for the historical accuracy of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ than for any other event from the ancient world. These issues are a crucial part of the overall rational defense of Christianity. VK: So, let’s start by looking first at one of the things we just mentioned: the dating of the New Testament manuscripts. One of the things we want to determine is whether they were “early enough?” In other words, were they prepared close enough in time to the events they tell us about to be reliable? Critics of the Bible and of Christianity would have better arguments if they are able to separate the actual events from the records of those events by as much time as possible. If they can stretch out the time from the date of the event to when the event was first recorded they can argue that the New Testament writers created the events rather than reported them. This then permits them to argue that the New Testament, especially the Gospels, more than likely contains myths. This is a common assertion among scholars. The longer the time between an event and the first record made about it the more likely that embellishments will creep in. And another thing we want to determine is the question of authorship. Said differently, we want to be sure that the record writer was not too greatly removed from the event. Distance is not a problem if the writer was also an eye witness of the event, but historical records are often prepared by people who were not eye witnesses themselves. But we would still consider a record to be reliable if the writer spoke directly to an eye witness or had direct access to supporting information such as records or artifacts that corroborated key details. DOUG: So, let’s take a look at some specifics at one of the most important books of the New Testament, the book of Acts. The Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts were both written by Luke. The person to whom they were written “Theophilus”, the style, and the vocabulary indicate that they were, indeed, written by the same person. The date and authenticity of the Acts of the Apostles is crucial to the historical account of early Christianity, because if Acts was written before AD 70 then it has great historical value in informing us of the earliest Christian beliefs. AD 70 is a crucial date because that was when the famous Roman general and later emperor, Titus, destroyed Jerusalem. When Titus destroyed Jerusalem a great many Jews died and the rest were scattered. The nation of Israel disappeared in 70 AD and would not be restored for almost 2 millennia. It was ultimately reconstituted in 1948 by the allies after World War II. VK: So, if the book of Acts was written before 70 AD there’s a much better chance Luke would have been able to speak to eyewitnesses while they were still alive. And the fact that Acts was written by Luke is also crucial. We know from Paul’s letters that Luke was a companion of the Apostle Paul during many of his ministry travels. Therefore, if Acts was written by Luke, it brings us right to the apostolic circle. In other words this means Acts was written by someone who would been a close companion to those who participated in the events reported. And Luke himself was likely an eyewitness to some of the events. In other words, we have the very closest relationship of the author to the historical report. DOUG: Right. So, that is one big point about the historicity of the book of Acts. The author would have had personal knowledge of the events he recorded or he spoke to people who had personal knowledge. As to the question of the when Acts as written, the traditional date assigned to the creation of Acts is 62 AD. This means it was written before the loss of many of the eyewitnesses from the destruction of Jerusalem. It also means it was written by a contemporary of Jesus himself because Jesus died in approximately 33 AD. One person who has assigned a date for the composition of Acts to no later than 62 AD is Roman historian Colin Hemer. Hemer cites a wide range of evidence for his view. For instance, there is no mention in the book of Acts of the fall of Jerusalem. This would be an extremely unlikely omission if the fall of Jerusalem had already occurred. Acts contains no hint of the outbreak of the Jewish War which occurred in AD 66. Acts also does not mention the dramatic deterioration of relations between Romans and Jews which preceded the war. This implies it was written before that time. Moreover, there is no hint of the deterioration of Christian relations with Rome which was caused by Nero’s persecution of the Christians in the late 60s. Hemer believes that Acts was most likely composed between 60 AD and 62 AD because of these and other factors. VK: The other factors include the fact that there is no hint of the death of Jesus’ half-brother, James, at the hands of the Sanhedrin. According to the famous Jewish historian, Josephus, in his book, Antiquities, James was martyred in 62 AD. Had the martyrdom of James already occurred it is extremely unlikely that Luke would have ignored an event that important to the early church. Also, the prominence and authority of the Jewish sect called the Sadducees noted in Acts belongs to the pre-70 AD era. This indicates that Acts was written before the collapse of the Sadducees’ political cooperation with Rome. DOUG: Yes. Also, Luke doesn’t give any indication in the book of Acts that he is aware of Paul’s letters, his epistles, to the various churches in Greece and Asia. In both his gospel and in Acts Luke is very careful about getting particular details right. If Acts was written later in the first century, why wouldn’t Luke have attempted to support his historical account by citing relevant sections of the Epistles? The Epistles evidently circulated through the churches and must have become available sources because they were passed along in every generation. This silence suggests that Acts was written early during the apostolic era. Finally, the ending of the book of Acts does not continue Paul’s story. It simply stops at the end of the two year described in Acts 28, verses 30-31. VK: Those verses say “For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him. Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ.” DOUG: So, the fact that Acts just ends with a simple declaration of what Paul had been doing for the previous two years makes it look very much like Luke was just bringing his narrative up to date at that point. Remember, that Luke tells us that he was writing both of the books attributed to him to a man named Theophilus in order for Theophilus to “know the certainty of the things you have been taught.” In his book, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, Hemer says, “It may be argued simply that Luke had brought the narrative up to date at the time of writing, the final note being added at the conclusion of the two years.” So, all of these factors tell us that the date for the composition of the book of Acts was quite likely not later than 62 AD and may have been even earlier. VK: So why have we spent so much time now focusing on demonstrating that the book of Acts is a reliable record of history. How does this fit in to our larger goal of establishing that the God that exists is the God of the Bible? DOUG: Because, if Acts is shown to be accurate history, then it brings credibility to its reports about the most basic Christian beliefs. For instance, the book of Acts contains accounts of the life, death (Acts 2:23), resurrection (Acts 2:23, 29–32), and ascension of Christ (Acts 1:9–10). It also contains the records of a number of miracles (Acts 2:22) and it gives us important contextual information that enable us to make better use of that Paul’s letters to the churches that are also important parts of the New Testament. VK: Acts also contains significant details about Jerusalem, Rome, and many other geographical areas that have been extensively substantiated by historical and archaeological research. In other words, Acts is confirmed by overwhelming evidence. Nothing like this amount of detailed confirmation exists for any other book from antiquity. This is not only a direct confirmation of the earliest Christian belief in the death and resurrection of Christ, but also, indirectly, of the Gospel record, since Luke also wrote a detailed Gospel. The evidence that we have that validates Acts confirms not only the historical accuracy of the book of Acts but also the reliability and validity of several other books of the New Testament. DOUG: Exactly. Luke’s Gospel directly parallels the Gospels of Mark and Matthew. As we’ve been talking about, the best evidence is that Acts was composed around AD 60 which places its composition only about twenty-seven years after the traditional dating of the death of Jesus. This places the writing during the lifetime of eyewitnesses to the events recorded – and as we have mentioned this enhances our confidence in the trustworthiness of what it reports. This dating of Acts does not allow time for any mythological development by persons living generations after the events. Furthermore, if Luke wrote Acts, then his “former treatise” (Acts 1:1), the Gospel of Luke, should be seen as written at an even earlier date, and, therefore, easily within the life-time of apostles and eye-witnesses who could have refuted all or part of Luke’s Gospel if he had gotten anything wrong. VK: And as we have mentioned in other episodes of Anchored by Truth we have to remember that all of the New Testament documents were being written in a world that was largely hostile to Christianity. If Luke had been creating fabrications it would have been easy for the people of the time to rebut his books and many of the people of the time had a strong motivation for doing so. The fact that Luke’s records have survived with the content they did tells us that he was reporting the truth. DOUG: So, let’s take a quick look at some of the other writings of Paul. It is widely accepted by critical and conservative scholars that 1st Corinthians was written by AD 55 or 56. This is only about a quarter century after the crucifixion. Further, in 1 Corinthians Paul speaks of “most” of the 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrection who were still alive when he wrote (15:6). This shows that was a substantial body of people at the time that Paul wrote who could confirm the central fact of the Christian faith, Christ’s resurrection from the dead. VK: And along with 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians and Galatians are known to be early. All three reveal a historical interest in the events of Jesus’ life and give facts that agree with the Gospels. Paul speaks of Jesus’ virgin birth (Galatians 4:4), sinless life (2 Corinthians 5:21), death on the cross (1 Corinthians 15:3); resurrection on the third day (1 Corinthians 15:4), and post-resurrection appearances (1 Corinthians 15:5-8). Paul also gives historical details about Jesus’ contemporaries, the apostles (1 Corinthians 15:5-8), including his private encounters with Peter and the apostles (Galatians 1:18-2:14). DOUG: Critics of the New Testament sometimes claim that the New Testament was not written until almost 400 years after Jesus lived – but these critics are confusing the date that the New Testament documents were written with the time at which they were compiled into the form that we most commonly see them today. We have abundant evidence that the New Testament documents were all prepared well before the end of the 1st century AD. For example, we know that the many of the books of the New Testament were widely quoted by the early church fathers starting in the late 1st century AD. Well for the early church fathers to quote the documents they had to have already been in wide circulation. VK: For instance, of the four Gospels alone there are 19,368 citations by the church fathers from the late first century on. This includes 268 by Justin Martyr who lived from 100 AD until 165 AD. There were 1017 by Clement of Alexandria who lived from approximately 155 AD to 220 AD and there were 3822 by Tertullian who lived around the same time. DOUG: And even earlier, Clement of Rome cited Matthew, John, and 1 Corinthians in AD 95-97. Ignatius referred to six Pauline Epistles in about 110 AD, and between 110 and 150 Polycarp quoted from all four Gospels, Acts, and most of Paul’s Epistles. Papias who was a companion of Polycarp quoted from the Gospel of John. This is particularly significant because Polycarp knew John personally and was a disciple of the apostle John. This argues powerfully that the Gospels were in existence before the end of the first century, while eyewitnesses (including the Apostle John) were still alive. Jose O’Callahan, a Spanish Jesuit paleographer, made headlines around the world on March 18, 1972, when he identified a manuscript fragment from the Dead Sea Scrolls, Qumran Cave 7 as a piece of the Gospel of Mark. Fragments from this cave had previously been dated between 50 BC and AD 50 which in 1972 was not typically thought of as being within the time frame for New Testament writings. Using the accepted methods of papyrology and paleography, O’Callahan compared sequences of letters with existing documents and eventually identified nine fragments as belonging to one Gospel, Acts, and a few Epistles. Some of these were dated slightly later than 50, but still extremely early. VK: Both friends and critics agreed that, if valid, O’Callahan’s conclusions revolutionize New Testament theories. If O’Callahan is correct, the implications for Christian apologetics are enormous. The Gospel of Mark must have been written within the lifetimes of the apostles and contemporaries of the events. This completely eliminates any time for mythological embellishment of the record. It must be accepted as historical. And since the manuscripts found in the Dead Sea scrolls are not originals but copies, the originals would have necessarily been written earlier. This means these parts of the New Testament would have certainly been copied and disseminated during the lives of the writers. These early dates do not allow time for myths or legends to creep into the stories about Jesus. Historians generally agree legend development takes at least two full generations. Even putting aside O’Callahan’s claims, the cumulative evidence places the New Testament documents within the first century and the lives of eyewitnesses of Jesus’s life and resurrection. DOUG: There is a growing acceptance of early New Testament dates, even among some critical scholars. Let’s take a quick look at two of them illustrate this point: former liberal archeologist William F. Albright and radical critic John A. T. Robinson. Albright wrote, “We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about AD 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today” (Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands, 136). Elsewhere Albright said, “In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and the eighties of the first century (very probably sometime between about AD 50 and 75)” (“Toward a More Conservative View,” 3). Known for his role in launching the “Death of God” movement, Robinson wrote a revolutionary book entitled Redating the New Testament. In it he determined that the New Testament books should be dated even earlier than even the most conservative scholars ever believed. Robinson places Matthew at AD 40-60, Mark at about 45-60, Luke at or before 57-60, and John at 40-65. This would mean that one or two Gospels could have been written as early as 7-10 years after the crucifixion. At the latest they were all composed within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses and contemporaries of the events who could have refuted any parts of the accounts had they been in error. VK: In short we have very strong evidence that the New Testament documents were written very close to the time of the events they record. We know that they were composed by either eyewitnesses to the events or the authors had direct access to eyewitnesses. And we have so many quotations from the original documents in the writings of the early church fathers we can be very sure that the transmission of the original texts was reliable. This sounds like a time to go to God I prayer. Today let’s listen to a prayer for our country – that God’s hand of mercy and provision would be with us now and always. ---- PRAYER FOR THE NATION (MARCUS) VK: We’d like to remind our audience that a lot of our radio episodes are linked together in series of topics so if they missed any episodes or if they just want to hear one again, all of these episodes are available on your favorite podcast app. To find them just search on “Anchored by Truth by Crystal Sea Books.” If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not perfect but our Boss is!” (Bible Quote from the New Living Translation) 1 Corinthians, Chapter 15, verses 12 through 14, New Living Translation SELECTED FACTS THAT DEMONSTRATE THE HISTORICITY OF ACTS Archaeologists at first believed Luke's implication wrong that Lystra and Derbe were in Lycaonia and Iconium was not (Acts 14:6). They based their belief on the writings of Romans such as Cicero who indicated that Iconium was in Lycaonia. Thus, archaeologists said the Book of Acts was unreliable. However, in 1910, Sir William Ramsay found a monument that showed that Iconium was a Phrygian city. Later discoveries confirm this. Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Ch. 4 p. 8 (angelfire.com) Similarly, Luke’s identifying Gallio as proconsul of Achaia in A.D. 51 has been confirmed by a discovered inscription at Delphi (18:12). His report of Claudius’ expulsion of the Jews from Rome around A.D. 49 is referred to by Suetonius (Life of Claudius, 25:4). His incidental reference to Felix as Roman procurator along with his Jewish wife Drusilla is corroborated both by both Josephus and Tacitus (24:24, cf. Ant. 20:131–43, History, 5:9, Annals, 12:54). His identification of Festus as Felix’s successor is likewise confirmed by Jospehus and Suetonius (Ant. 20:182; Claudius, 28). And his mentioning of Agrippa II and Bernice, elder sister of Drusilla and widow of Herod, is again corroborated by Jospehus (25:13, cf. Ant. 20:145). Is the Book of Acts Reliable? - Greg Boyd - ReKnew The topographical position of Iconium is clearly indicated in Acts, and the evidence of Ac has been confirmed by recent research. Was Iconium in Phrygia or in Lycaonia, and in what sense can it be said to have belonged to one ethnical division or the other? The majority of our ancient authorities (e.g. Cicero, Strabo, Pliny), writing from the point of view of Roman provincial administration, give Iconium to Lycaonia, of which geography makes it the natural capital. But Xenophon, who marched with Cyrus' expedition through Phrygia into Lycaonia, calls Iconium the last city of Phrygia. The writer of Acts 14:6 makes the same statement when he represents Paul and Barnabas as fleeing from Iconium to the cities of Lycaonia--implying that the border of Phrygia and Lycaonia passed between Iconium and Lystra, 18 miles to the South. Other ancient authorities who knew the local conditions well speak of Iconium as Phrygian until far into the Roman imperial period. At the neighboring city of Lystra (Acts 14:11), the natives used the "speech of Lycaonia." Two inscriptions in the Phrygian language found at Iconium in 1910 prove that the Phrygian language was in use there for 2 centuries after Paul's visits, and afford confirmation of the interesting topographical detail in Ac (see Jour. Hell. Stud., 1911, 189). In the apostolic period, Iconium was one of the chief cities in the southern part of the Roman province Galatia, and it probably belonged to the "Phrygian region" mentioned in Acts 16:6. The emperor Claudius conferred on it the title Claudiconium, which appears on coins of the city and on inscriptions, and was formerly taken as a proof that Claudius raised the city to the rank of a Roman colonia. It was Hadrian who raised the city to colonial rank; this is proved by its new title, Colonia Aelia Hadriana Iconiensium, and by a recently discovered inscription, which belongs to the reign of Hadrian, and which mentions the first duumvir who was appointed in the new colonia. Iconium was still a Hellenic city, but with a strong pro-Roman bias (as proved by its title "Claudian") when Paul visited it. Iconium - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (biblestudytools.com)

BORN IN THE SECOND CENTURY'S journey through the New Testament continues with the undeniably late gospel of Luke. This is the first of a two part episode.Host Chris Palmero examines the structure and sources of Luke, and tracks Luke's earliest mentions in history. What we'll find is that Luke's gospel can't be detected in the historical record until almost the very end of the second century. When it finally appears, we can see that it seems to have gone through at least two phases of editing.Anyone who listens to this episode can learn about the theory of Proto-Luke; as well as the strange fact that the first draft of Luke appears to have been unaware of Mark. The supposed use and reception of Luke's gospel by the great arch-heretic Marcion is also covered. In the next episode, the date of the book will be examined.Patreon: www.patreon.com/borninthesecondcenturyWebsite: facebook.com/BornInTheSecondCenturyE-mail: secondcenturypodcast@gmail.comMusic: Pompeii Gray on Apple Music, Spotify, SoundCloud00:48  - Reading: Gospel of LUKE, Synagogue Preaching Vignette.19:21 - Excursus: Was Jesus LITERATE?23:56 - OPENING Remarks.27:32 - Top News Story: Irenaeus Now a DOCTOR of the Church.34:55 - 1:18:26 - STRUCTURE and SOURCES  of LUKE.34:55 - PROTO-LUKE.47:18 - MARK'S Gospel.57:08 - Minor Agreements with MATTHEW.1:06:51 - BIRTH Narrative.1:18:26 - 2:18:24 - RECEPTION of Luke.1:18:26 - Paul's LETTERS.1:20:03 - IRENAEUS.1:29:46 - HIPPOLYTUS.1:33:52 - PASTORAL Letters.1:34:50 - JOHN'S Gospel.1:37:55 - Canon of MURATORI.1:40:55 - PAPIAS.1:45:58 - CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.1:49:04 - EUSEBIUS.1:49:34 - JEROME.1:54:02 - Anti-Marcionite and Monarchian PROLOGUES.1:56:51 - MARCION.2:15:28 - 2 CLEMENT; IGNATIUS.2:18:24 - TERMINUS Dates for Luke.2:23:37 - CLOSING Remarks.Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/borninthesecondcentury)

In this episode, we take a look at the basic approaches to the Book of Revelation throughout church history: Futurism, Idealism, Historicism, and Preterism. The bulk of the content of the Book of Revelation is best understood in terms of the “messianic woes,” which were a defining component of the first-century Jewish apocalyptic narrative.  Though the book has been a source of much contention and debate throughout the ages, it can be demystified and become a source of encouragement and perseverance for any disciple of Jesus.

Happy Shelter in Place Day, Friends! I find myself living in the part of Central California right now that has been essentially shut down for the next 22 days, and our Shelter in Place order just went into effect about an hour ago. These are strange, strange times! So – sometimes people ask me how it's going doing a daily podcast. I can tell you that each episode takes just a little under 3 hours from start to finish, which includes writing the episode, recording it, editing it in Audacity, and entering all of the pertinent information into a WordPress and Libsyn post. Longer episodes take longer, shorter episodes can be around 2 hours of time. Last night was one of the later nights for the show. One of my daughters wanted to watch a show with me, and I'll take just about any excuse I can to spend time with them, so we watched a show together, which began after midnight. Then I wrote a fairly long pastoral email to the congregation of the church I pastor about the coronavirus pandemic. When I say fairly long, I mean over 1800 words, so about 6 pages worth. We're in California, and on a virtual lock-down, so hopefully they had a little extra time to read. One of the problems being in a church that is pastored by somebody who fancies himself as a writer is that you can get very long emails from time to time. If you are a leader at the church I pastor, you got a 2100 word email from me AND an 1800 word email from me within the space of 4 days. I should repent in sackcloth and ashes for that, I suppose, but these are trying times we live in right now, filled with dangers like novel viruses, lack of toilet paper, and novel-length emails from pastors. ANYWAY, the point of what I was trying to say earlier before I rambled was that I didn't start WRITING the podcast until around 3AM. Fortunately, I had some great material from pastor David Platt to use, so I didn't have to write a ton of original material myself. It was, however, one of the few times since I began this daily podcast in January that I kind of just wanted to go to bed, and not spend 2 hours or so on a podcast. HOWEVER – when I got to the point of recording it, and I got to the part where I was just reading the Scriptures into the microphone, that's when I noticed something that happens practically every time I do the podcast: THE WORD OF GOD ENCOURAGED ME. It gave me HOPE. It built me up. It elevated my mood. Almost every time I record this show, I come away encouraged. Not because I like recording and editing a podcast – that can get a little tedious…but because the WORD of God is powerful, and supernatural, and it just builds me up in faith, because faith comes by HEARING THE WORD OF GOD. I just wanted to share that with you as a benefit. You can get that same benefit – without the 2-3 hours of writing, recording and editing by simply READING (or listening!) to the WORD OF GOD! If you haven't done so yet, allow me to encourage you to listen to the other half of today's episode – episode #78 – I split today's show into two parts so it wouldn't be too long. In today's reading, we encounter the story of the woman caught in adultery, known to scholars as the Pericope Adulterae. Many scholars, including many evangelical ones, consider this passage to be a later edition to the New Testament, and in most modern Bibles, this part of John is set apart to show doubt about the passage. So – what's going on here, and was this story original to John's Gospel, or was it a later edition? The Pericope Adulterae, found in John 7:53-8:11, is surrounded by more controversy and conjecture than any other New Testament Passage with the possible exception of the ending of Mark. The authorship and placement of this pericope has been hotly debated at least since the fifth century, and there are still scholars lined up on opposite sides of the issues surrounding this passage. Attempting to extract meaning and application from this passage is almost meaningless without first wrestling with the genuineness of the text and the mass of evidence for and against it. The issue is simple to grasp – if this pericope is a genuine and accurate happening in the life of Jesus, then it carries just as much weight as the rest of the New Testament. Conversely, if the passage is a later edition with no basis in fact (i.e. it never happened) then the passage is notable only for its historical value and the question of how it became inserted into many manuscripts of the New Testament. Though it will be argued that there is no way to be certain of the historicity of this passage, the preponderance of the evidence points to it being a genuine happening in the life of Jesus, and as such it does have application in the modern church and it can inform how we live and interact with each other. Summary of the Passage 7:53-8:2 The Pericope Adulterae begins with a somewhat awkward[1] transition from the previous narrative. The stage is set here; Jesus has spent the night at the Mount of Olives and dawn finds Him mingling with the crowd near the temple courts. His very presence attracts a crowd and notably (for the fourth Gospel)[2] Jesus sits down to teach them. 8:3-8:6a As Jesus is teaching the people, The scribes and Pharisees bring in a woman and stand her in front of the crowd. They explain to Jesus that the woman was caught in the act of committing adultery, and (on the surface) they present her to Jesus for judgment. The question is, should the woman be stoned in accordance with the law of Moses? The text informs us that this question is a trap for Jesus, a classic catch 22, there is no clear way that Jesus can give a verdict here without opening Himself up to some basis for accusation, either in the eyes of the Roman authorities, or the people. 8:6b-8:9 Perplexingly, Jesus doesn't answer their questions immediately, indeed, He never gives them the verdict. Instead, He leans over and writes on the ground. The accusers persist in their questioning, and Jesus finally responds with His classic retort, challenging any one of the accusers without sin to be the one that casts the first stone. Though we don't know how much time passed after Jesus' challenge, one can almost be assured of an awkward silence, punctuated by occasional stones hitting the soft earth as they fall from the hands of the accusers. Beginning with the eldest among them, the scribes and Pharisees melt away into the crowd. 8:10-8:11 Jesus and the accused woman are left as the center of attention. He initiates dialogue her, asking the obvious questions – where is everybody? Is no one left to condemn? Upon her acknowledgment that they have all left, Jesus also refuses to condemn the woman, but warns her to leave behind her life of sin. Controversy and Canonicity: Contra Johannine This Pericope is a wonderful piece of literature; very moving and dramatic. Jesus cleverly meets the challenge of the scribes and Pharisees without compromising and without falling into a trap, and the woman caught in sin is given a second chance to repent. It's a powerful story, but is it genuine? Did it really happen? If it did really happen, why is there so much evidence against it being an original part of the gospel of John? A survey of the evidence for and against genuineness is presented below. The majority of New Testament scholars are fairly adamant that the Pericope Adulterae is non-Johannine in origin. The ancient manuscript evidence is indeed stacked against this Pericope. Bruce Metzger points out that all major early Greek manuscripts omit the Pericope, including our oldest and most respected early manuscripts, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, p66 and p75.[3] Though some Old Latin manuscripts include the Pericope, many omit it as well, and the early Syriac, and Coptic manuscripts do not contain the passage[4]. Codex Bezae is the only major Greek manuscript prior to the 8th century that this pericope appears in, and Bezae is known for its many interpolations. In fact, Metzger states, "No other manuscript has so many and such remarkable variations from what is usually taken to be the New Testament Text. Codex Bezae's special characteristic is the free addition (and occasional omission) of words, sentences and even incidences."[5] Further manuscript evidence against the Johannine nature of the Pericope is the variety of places it is attached in some of the manuscripts that do contain it. In some manuscripts, it appears after John 7:36, in some after John 7:44, some as an addition at the end of John's gospel, some after Luke 21:28, and some even after Luke 24:53.[6] Though the number of manuscripts that displace this pericope is not overwhelming, the mere fact of its varied appearance in even a few manuscripts tends to cast doubt on the concreteness of its location after John 7:52. The final bit of manuscript evidence is the unusually high number of textual variants found in the manuscripts that do contain the pericope. Gary Burge points out that line per line, these twelve verses contain more textual variants across the manuscript tradition than almost any other passage of scripture. [7] There is also much patristic evidence, especially in the east, stacked against the passage. This pericope is not mentioned by any Greek Father until Euthymius Zigabenus in the 12th century and isn't found in the writings of the early Fathers in the west either. Thus, it is omitted by Origen, Clement, Cyprian, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyril and Chrysostom,[8] even in writings where it would seem to be an appropriate resource for them to use. While Zane Hodges tries to make the case that the absence of the Pericope in these church fathers constitutes an argument from silence, and thus proves nothing[9], the fact of the matter is that this is more empirical evidence stacked against the pericope, and it adds weight to the non-Johannine argument. While the manuscript evidence would seem to be the greatest evidence against the Pericope, there are also suspicious grammatical and contextual features of the text. Statistical analysis of the text has claimed to show several features which "prove" its non Johannine nature. Vern Poythress has examined the grammatical use of the conjunctions "de", "oun", "kai", and "asyndeton" in the Gospel of John, and developed some general rules that John appears to follow. Upon examination of the adulteress pericope, it would appear that there are enough variations in its use of conjunctions (compared with the rest of John) to allow Poythress to conclude that this Pericope is not written by John.[10] Further grammatical evidence focuses on the words that are used in the passage. Bryant and Krause point out that approximately nine percent, or 15 of the words used in this pericope do not occur elsewhere in the gospel, the highest percentage for a passage of this size in John[11]. The Mount of Olives, The scribes, and the phrase "early morning" are not found anywhere else in the gospel of John, but all are somewhat common in the synoptic gospels. In addition, only here in John is Jesus addressed as teacher. While some of these unique words can be explained by the nature of the story, as well as the semi-technical judicial language employed, there are still a high frequency of unique words and constructs here compared with the rest of John. Finally, there is contextual evidence that seems to indicate this pericope is out of place. Borchert[12] and many others believe that the text disrupts the flow of the Feast of Tabernacles narrative. Many point out its similarity in time and setting to Luke 21:37-38, and (as mentioned above) some manuscripts place the passage right after verse 38 because it seems to be a better fit. It is also true that the flow of the text from 7:52 to 8:12 is smooth and uninterrupted when this passage is removed, but of course, that could be said of many passages! Controversy and Canonicity: Pro Johannine Most scholars believe the evidence against the Pericope Adulterae is overwhelming, but there is much positive evidence for the ancientness of this event, and even some evidence that would seem to indicate the text is Johannine and not at all out of place. The strongest evidence for the veracity and Johannine nature of the Pericope comes from the manuscripts and church fathers of the west. Several Old Latin manuscripts do in fact contain the Pericope. Hodges argues valiantly that the absence of the passage in our earliest and most reliable manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, p66 and p75) is due to those manuscripts being of a proto-Alexandrian origin, and thus likely coming from the same (ancient) exemplar, one which had the passage intentionally excised.[13] He posits that the Pericope was removed from some texts very early (before 200), but that the passage was quite possibly in the original autograph. The Patristic evidence for the Pericope is surprisingly strong in the west. Several church fathers in the fourth and fifth century mention the text, beginning with Pacian of Barcelona, and including Ambrose, Ambrosiaster, Jerome and Augustine. Jerome and Augustine in particular add much to the pro Johannine side of the argument, providing significant ancient evidence and speculation on the passage. Jerome includes the Pericope Adulterae in his Latin Vulgate translation of the scriptures, thus cementing its future acceptance among the Catholic church. In his Dialogue against the Pelagians, Jerome makes a very intriguing reference to this passage, "In the Gospel according to John in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, is found the story of the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord."[14] This comment is very significant in considering the Pericope Adulterae, and would seem to stand as the strongest pro-Johannine evidence available. As Hodges points out[15], Jerome was well traveled, and would have had a wide exposure to both Greek and Latin texts, many of which were older than any that has survived to this day. Jerome's statement should carry much more weight with modern New Testament textual scholars than it appears it does. Augustine goes even further than Jerome does in his commentary on the passage, acknowledging the already existing controversy over the passage and offering a reason for it's removal from some manuscripts, "Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord's act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if He who said 'sin no more' had granted permission to sin." [16] While Augustine's hermeneutical approach to the passage contains a common mistake (Jesus did not specifically forgive the adulterous woman), his observation is very relevant and offers an intriguing possible explanation for the manuscript problems (and textual variances) associated with this passage. Hodges further quotes Ambrose who makes a similar suggestion to Augustine's – that the passage is a stumbling block. The contextual argument against this pericope is perhaps the easiest to answer. While many commentators have pointed out the "disruption" of the Feast of Tabernacles narrative that this pericope seems to effect, Allison Trites convincingly argues the opposite; the entire passage fits into the overall theme of controversy in John 1-12.[17] Other contextual clues could be seen to indicate the proper placement of this passage. For one, it would seem that the story is a great illustration of John 3:17, "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." (John 3:17, NIV) The Pericope can also be seen in a literary sense as a response to the question posed in John 7:26, "Here he is, speaking publicly, and they are not saying a word to him. Have the authorities really concluded that he is the Christ?" (John 7:26, NIV) While much has been made of the grammatical analysis of this pericope, specifically focusing on what is considered non Johannine grammar, there has been some grammatical work on the passage that offers different conclusions. Alan Johnson has used some of the existent grammatical statistical methods on other, non disputed passages of John, and concluded that some of those would be considered non Johannine based on the very same methodology used on the Pericope Adulterae. In addition, he also points out several grammatical features in this passage that are consistent with the rest of John, including the use of "de", "touto" and "legein" [18] My own grammatical analysis of the passage has produced some interesting results, further casting doubt on the ability of statistical grammatical analysis to effectively determine canonicity and authorship questions. The phrase "meketi amartane" (no longer sin, or stop sinning) only occurs here in the pericope and in John 5:14, where Jesus likewise instructs the paralytic to stop sinning. "ina ecosin" (that they might) is a phrase found only in verse six, and John 17:13. "Kai palin" (and again) in verse 8 is found six other times in John but only once in Luke. Finally, the phrase "eis ten gen" (in the earth) from verse 6 is found 23 times in the New Testament, 5 are in John, and 12 are in Revelation – so of the 23 times that phrase is used, 17 times it is Johannine. That analysis might be used to impress upon some a level of certainty that John did write this passage, but in fact, in the final analysis it doesn't add much to the argument one way or the other – except to possibly refute those who use statistical grammatical analysis to "prove" that this Pericope is non-Johannine. A thorough survey of the evidence reveals one thing quite clearly: the authorship and position of the Pericope Adulterae is not an easy issue to decide. It is perplexing and frustrating to see the certainty that is exhibited by many scholars on both sides of this issue. Bruce Metzger, Phillip Comfort, Kurt Aland, Raymond Brown, George Beasley-Murray, Leon Morris and many others all make absolute statements on the Pericope and point to overwhelming evidence that it is either non-canonical or non Johannine. Beasley-Murray goes so far as to write, "It is universally agreed by textual critics of the Greek NT that this passage was not part of the Fourth Gospel in its original form."[19] What an outrageous and misleading statement! On the other hand, there are a few scholars (Elmer Towns, some scholars in the King James only camp, and several Dallas Theological Seminary professors) who are equally adamant that this passage is certainly genuine, and right where it belongs in the New Testament. The fact is that the best and most irrefutable evidence against the Johannine nature of the Pericope Adulterae is its lack of attestation in many of our earliest and best surviving manuscripts. When this manuscript evidence is considered in light of Jerome's quote above on all of the Greek and Old Latin manuscripts he saw that contained the Pericope (and likely were older than most that we have now) we have a clear conundrum, one that cannot be fairly answered without new evidence coming to light. Thankfully, one thing is agreed upon by most N.T. scholars – this pericope is very old[20] and very likely to be an accurate event in the life of Jesus. Thus Metzger writes that John 7:53-8:11, "has all the earmarks of historical veracity"[21], and Raymond Brown writes, "There is nothing in the story itself, or its language that would forbid us to think of it as an early story concerning Jesus."[22] If this Pericope is in fact a genuine event in the ministry of Jesus – how is it that it is absent in so many early Biblical texts? To put the issue another way, Phillip W. Comfort offers a list of suspect passages in the Textus Receptus, including the Pericope Adulterae. He challenges those who would argue for the inclusion of these questionable passages to, "come up with good arguments as to why scribes (in the early centuries) would have purposely excised these passages."[23] Gary Burge proposes an interesting, though improvable suggestion that answers both questions: the Pericope Adulterae text was excised from some early manuscripts for theological reasons. Burge points to the unbiblical Doctrine of Penance, as articulated by early church fathers like Tertullian, Clement and Cyprian. Sexual sins in the eyes of many of the early church fathers were very grave, and in some cases unforgivable.[24] In light of that, it is conceivable that this passage was removed, under the impression that it was or too light on a sin, or in fear (As Augustine suggests above) that it would give others license to sin without fear of reprisal. It is also a possibility that the text is a real happening in the life of Jesus that never was put into the gospels because of the fear listed above (or for another reason – as John says, if everything Jesus did was written down, the world couldn't contain the books!) A Deeper Look at the Text We now turn our attention back to the text itself, and from the perspective that it is a genuine happening, and is placed in the appropriate place in the text. Examining this passage in its literary context, we see that Jesus' ministry, previously marked by amazing miracles and healings at the time of the adulterous pericope had become quite controversial. Jesus' teachings were very challenging, and He even lost some disciples because of them. In the events leading up to the encounter, Jesus brothers urge Him to go the Feast of Tabernacles, and he temporarily declined, only to come later and begin to interact with the people. As He teaches, many people believe in Him, and many don't – causing arguments and strife. The temple guards are sent to arrest Jesus, but they themselves become arrested by His words and fail to complete their job. The Pharisees and other religious leaders meet in anger, considering what to do and finding no solution. It is directly after this that the incident with the adulterous woman happens. The Old Testament, in Deuteronomy 22 states, "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die." (Deuteronomy 22:24, NIV) Leviticus 20 states similarly, "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death." (Leviticus 20:10, NIV) These were the laws of Moses referred to in vs. 5 of this passage. Curiously, there is no mention of the man that was with the woman – this has led many to conclude that the situation was a set up from the beginning, (i.e. the woman was also "trapped") The scribes and Pharisees, therefore, were wanting Jesus to rule on a case that was flawed from the beginning – they were asking Him to incompletely apply the law of Moses to this situation. This was merely another attempt by the religious leaders to put Jesus in a position where there is no good way out. A similar incident occurs in Matthew 22 (and the other Synoptics): Jesus is asked whether it is right to pay taxes to Caesar, if He answers yes, then the crowds would get angry with Him, if He answers no, then He risks making enemies of the Roman leaders. Also, Jesus uses the same technique against the religious leaders in Matthew 21 when asked who gave Him his authority, His return question, was John's Baptism from heaven or not, could not be answered in such a way as to not cause the leaders problems. In this particular instance, if Jesus were to "rule" that the woman should be stoned, He would run afoul of Roman laws against mob violence[25] and if He let the woman off the hook, then He would be countermanding the Law of Moses. The response of Jesus to this dilemma, certainly knowing the religious leader's hearts and motives, is very interesting: He merely stoops down and writes on the ground. Much ink has been wasted trying to determine what exactly it was that Jesus wrote in the ground. Beasley-Murray offers a good list of past suggestions: Was He writing out His decision in the case before verbally announcing it? Was he writing out a passage from Exodus that warns against supporting a wicked man as a malicious witness? Was He writing in the dust to remind the scribes of Jeremiah's words, "Those who turn away from you will be written in the dust, because they have forsaken the Lord, the spring of living water." (Jeremiah 17:13, NIV).[26] I prefer Raymond Brown's proposal; that Jesus was merely doodling[27], possibly to consider how to handle the situation wisely, possibly in prayer. The fact is that what Jesus wrote has not been recorded, so it clearly was only an important issue for the exact time the incident took place, if even then. By suggesting that the one who is without sin cast the first stone, Jesus brilliantly defuses the situation. It's very possible He could be referring to Deuteronomy 17, which prescribes that nobody should be put to death on the testimony of just one witness, and that the witnesses should be the first one to cast the stone. Is Jesus pointing to the possibility of the corruption of the witnesses here – understanding that the woman, though guilty, was caught in an elaborate set up, and thus invalidating the "prosecution's" case against her, or is He articulating a more basic principle – if you are sinless you can participate in her stoning? This is a difficult question to answer; Stephen James argues somewhat convincingly that what Jesus means by "without sin" in this context is that their case must be presented without evil motives, and in accordance with the law of Moses (how many witnesses to the act were there, more than one? What of the man?) The religious leaders knew their motives weren't correct, and therefore left the scene.[28] It is also important to point out here that in defusing the scene the way He did, Jesus did not abrogate the Law of Moses, nor did He completely uphold it – He chose a third, an option that leaves open the question of whether those laws were still applicable in His mind. The incident ends with Jesus challenging the woman to go and leave her life of sin. Modern and ancient preachers and commentators alike have written or preached that Jesus actually forgave the woman – this is not the case – Jesus did not explicitly forgive her as recorded in the text, He simply chose not to condemn her, and exhorted her to also stop sinning. Application If we accept the hypothesis that this Pericope is an accurate and genuine happening, then how does it apply today? Did it abolish the death penalty, as many have argued? Did it usher in an age of more leniency on sin? What sort of standard is Jesus setting for those who would be in a position to judge or pronounce punishment over another? While it is very important to not draw doctrine out of a narrative that doesn't explicitly indicate doctrinal things, this text can still go beyond being a beautiful story of the mercy and wisdom of Jesus and find application in our modern setting. The first application to consider is what this story says about the death penalty, if anything. As Stephen James points out, many (including John Howard Yoder, Dwight Erricson, Lewis Smedes, G.H. Clark, Charles H. Milligan etc) have used this passage to argue for the abolishment of the death penalty.[29] A careful reading of the text will clearly show that Jesus does not abolish the death penalty, indeed, He doesn't even address the issue. Thus, both opponents and proponents of capital punishment will need to look in other places to justify their beliefs. I believe the real modern application of this passage is found in Jesus' challenge to the religious leaders, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." (John 8:7 NIV) There seems to be a profound connection to this principle and the plank-eye principle that Jesus articulates in Luke 6 – in order to help remove the speck from your brother's eye, you must first remove the plank from your own. The principle is this, that we should judge and purify ourselves, worrying less about the bad things we see in other people – until our own issues are dealt with – then we will see clearly to help others out. The principle is not advocating merely minding your own business – it is advocating personal holiness that can lead to corporate holiness when we help and challenge each other in right heart and attitude. The Pharisees and scribes were not at all interested in the principle behind the Mosaic laws they were urging Jesus to rule on (i.e. purge the evil from among you), they were just interested in accomplishing their own agendas. The church today cries out for those who would walk in holiness and near the heart of God to the point where we can see clearly enough to help our brothers out with the specks in their eyes, and we can pass judgments rightly. Conclusion An objective look at the Pericope Adulterae, its context, its grammar and its manuscript history leads one to the conclusion that this passage has been rightly seen as controversial through the ages. There is not the kind of overwhelming evidence that is needed for dogmatic statements regarding the authorship and canonicity of John 7:53-8:11 either for or against. There is substantial evidence, however, to demonstrate that this text represents a genuine and accurate event in the life of Jesus, and as such it can inform the modern believer about the nature of Jesus and the importance of holiness in the realm of judgment. [1] Somewhat awkward, but not completely out of place – see below. [2] Some scholars point out that Jesus sitting and teaching is a common feature of the Synoptic Gospels, and cite it as further proof of the Non-Johannine authorship of the Pericope – see John 6:3, however for another instance of Jesus sitting down among the people. Borchert, Gerald The New American Commentary Volume 25A: John 1-11. (electronic edition) Logos LibrarySystem (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1996) [3] For a full list of the major Greek manuscripts that omit this pericope, see: Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Ed. (New York: Oxford, 1992.), 219-220 [4] Brown, Raymond E. John 1-11. Anchor Bible 29. Garden City: Doubleday, 1982, 335 [5] Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament – Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, Third Ed. (New York: Oxford, 1992.), 50 [6] The Text of the New Testament – Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration p. xxix [7] Burge, Gary M. "A Specific Problem In The New Testament Text And Canon: The Woman Caught In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)" (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27 no.2), 144 [8] "A Specific Problem In The New Testament Text And Canon: The Woman Caught In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)" 142 [9] Hodges, Zane C. "Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)" (Bibliotheca Sacra 136 no. 544 (October, 1979), 329 [10] Poythress, Vern S. "Testing for Johannine Authorship by Examining the Use of Conjunctions" (Westminster Theological Journal 46, no. 2 Fall 1984), 362 [11] Bryant, Beauford H. and Krause, Mark S. John. The College Press NIV Commentary. (Joplin: College Press, 1998) [12] Borchert, Gerald – John 1-11 The New American Commentary. (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1996) [13] "Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)" 323 [14] As quoted in "Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)" 330 [15] "Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)" 330 [16] As quoted in "Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)" 331 [17] Trites, Allison A. "The Woman Taken in Adultery" (Bibliotheca Sacra 131 no. 522 April, 1974) 138-144 [18] Johnson, Alan F. "A Stylistic Trait of the Fourth Gospel in the Pericope Adulterae" Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society (IX Spring, 1966) 91-96 [19] Beasley-Murray, George R. The Gospel according to John The Word Biblical Commentary. (Dallas: Word Incorporated, 1999.) [20] Raymond Brown quotes Eusebius, who in turn quotes Papias writing near the time of the Apostles about a woman who was brought before Jesus accused of many sins. Brown also mentions the 3rd century Syrian Didascalia Apostolorum, which gives clear reference to the events of the Pericope Adulterae which indicates that 2nd century Syria knew of the narrative. John 1-11, p. 335 [21] Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 220 [22] John 1-11, p. 335 [23] Comfort, Phillip W. Encountering the Manuscripts (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2005) p.99 [24] "A Specific Problem In The New Testament Text And Canon: The Woman Caught In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)" pages 146-148 [25] John 1-11 The New American Commentary [26] The Gospel according to John The Word Biblical Commentary [27] John 1-11. Anchor Bible 29 p. 334 [28] James, Stephen A. "The Adulteress And The Death Penalty." (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 22 no. 1 March, 1979) pages 49-50. [29] "The Adulteress And The Death Penalty." Pages 45-46

Happy Shelter in Place Day, Friends! I find myself living in the part of Central California right now that has been essentially shut down for the next 22 days, and our Shelter in Place order just went into effect about an hour ago. These are strange, strange times! So – sometimes people ask me how it's going doing a daily podcast. I can tell you that each episode takes just a little under 3 hours from start to finish, which includes writing the episode, recording it, editing it in Audacity, and entering all of the pertinent information into a WordPress and Libsyn post. Longer episodes take longer, shorter episodes can be around 2 hours of time. Last night was one of the later nights for the show. One of my daughters wanted to watch a show with me, and I'll take just about any excuse I can to spend time with them, so we watched a show together, which began after midnight. Then I wrote a fairly long pastoral email to the congregation of the church I pastor about the coronavirus pandemic. When I say fairly long, I mean over 1800 words, so about 6 pages worth. We're in California, and on a virtual lock-down, so hopefully they had a little extra time to read. One of the problems being in a church that is pastored by somebody who fancies himself as a writer is that you can get very long emails from time to time. If you are a leader at the church I pastor, you got a 2100 word email from me AND an 1800 word email from me within the space of 4 days. I should repent in sackcloth and ashes for that, I suppose, but these are trying times we live in right now, filled with dangers like novel viruses, lack of toilet paper, and novel-length emails from pastors. ANYWAY, the point of what I was trying to say earlier before I rambled was that I didn't start WRITING the podcast until around 3AM. Fortunately, I had some great material from pastor David Platt to use, so I didn't have to write a ton of original material myself. It was, however, one of the few times since I began this daily podcast in January that I kind of just wanted to go to bed, and not spend 2 hours or so on a podcast. HOWEVER – when I got to the point of recording it, and I got to the part where I was just reading the Scriptures into the microphone, that's when I noticed something that happens practically every time I do the podcast: THE WORD OF GOD ENCOURAGED ME. It gave me HOPE. It built me up. It elevated my mood. Almost every time I record this show, I come away encouraged. Not because I like recording and editing a podcast – that can get a little tedious…but because the WORD of God is powerful, and supernatural, and it just builds me up in faith, because faith comes by HEARING THE WORD OF GOD. I just wanted to share that with you as a benefit. You can get that same benefit – without the 2-3 hours of writing, recording and editing by simply READING (or listening!) to the WORD OF GOD! If you haven't done so yet, allow me to encourage you to listen to the other half of today's episode – episode #78 – I split today's show into two parts so it wouldn't be too long. In today's reading, we encounter the story of the woman caught in adultery, known to scholars as the Pericope Adulterae. Many scholars, including many evangelical ones, consider this passage to be a later edition to the New Testament, and in most modern Bibles, this part of John is set apart to show doubt about the passage. So – what's going on here, and was this story original to John's Gospel, or was it a later edition? The Pericope Adulterae, found in John 7:53-8:11, is surrounded by more controversy and conjecture than any other New Testament Passage with the possible exception of the ending of Mark. The authorship and placement of this pericope has been hotly debated at least since the fifth century, and there are still scholars lined up on opposite sides of the issues surrounding this passage. Attempting to extract meaning and application from this passage is almost meaningless without first wrestling with the genuineness of the text and the mass of evidence for and against it. The issue is simple to grasp – if this pericope is a genuine and accurate happening in the life of Jesus, then it carries just as much weight as the rest of the New Testament. Conversely, if the passage is a later edition with no basis in fact (i.e. it never happened) then the passage is notable only for its historical value and the question of how it became inserted into many manuscripts of the New Testament. Though it will be argued that there is no way to be certain of the historicity of this passage, the preponderance of the evidence points to it being a genuine happening in the life of Jesus, and as such it does have application in the modern church and it can inform how we live and interact with each other. Summary of the Passage 7:53-8:2 The Pericope Adulterae begins with a somewhat awkward[1] transition from the previous narrative. The stage is set here; Jesus has spent the night at the Mount of Olives and dawn finds Him mingling with the crowd near the temple courts. His very presence attracts a crowd and notably (for the fourth Gospel)[2] Jesus sits down to teach them. 8:3-8:6a As Jesus is teaching the people, The scribes and Pharisees bring in a woman and stand her in front of the crowd. They explain to Jesus that the woman was caught in the act of committing adultery, and (on the surface) they present her to Jesus for judgment. The question is, should the woman be stoned in accordance with the law of Moses? The text informs us that this question is a trap for Jesus, a classic catch 22, there is no clear way that Jesus can give a verdict here without opening Himself up to some basis for accusation, either in the eyes of the Roman authorities, or the people. 8:6b-8:9 Perplexingly, Jesus doesn't answer their questions immediately, indeed, He never gives them the verdict. Instead, He leans over and writes on the ground. The accusers persist in their questioning, and Jesus finally responds with His classic retort, challenging any one of the accusers without sin to be the one that casts the first stone. Though we don't know how much time passed after Jesus' challenge, one can almost be assured of an awkward silence, punctuated by occasional stones hitting the soft earth as they fall from the hands of the accusers. Beginning with the eldest among them, the scribes and Pharisees melt away into the crowd. 8:10-8:11 Jesus and the accused woman are left as the center of attention. He initiates dialogue her, asking the obvious questions – where is everybody? Is no one left to condemn? Upon her acknowledgment that they have all left, Jesus also refuses to condemn the woman, but warns her to leave behind her life of sin. Controversy and Canonicity: Contra Johannine This Pericope is a wonderful piece of literature; very moving and dramatic. Jesus cleverly meets the challenge of the scribes and Pharisees without compromising and without falling into a trap, and the woman caught in sin is given a second chance to repent. It's a powerful story, but is it genuine? Did it really happen? If it did really happen, why is there so much evidence against it being an original part of the gospel of John? A survey of the evidence for and against genuineness is presented below. The majority of New Testament scholars are fairly adamant that the Pericope Adulterae is non-Johannine in origin. The ancient manuscript evidence is indeed stacked against this Pericope. Bruce Metzger points out that all major early Greek manuscripts omit the Pericope, including our oldest and most respected early manuscripts, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, p66 and p75.[3] Though some Old Latin manuscripts include the Pericope, many omit it as well, and the early Syriac, and Coptic manuscripts do not contain the passage[4]. Codex Bezae is the only major Greek manuscript prior to the 8th century that this pericope appears in, and Bezae is known for its many interpolations. In fact, Metzger states, "No other manuscript has so many and such remarkable variations from what is usually taken to be the New Testament Text. Codex Bezae's special characteristic is the free addition (and occasional omission) of words, sentences and even incidences."[5] Further manuscript evidence against the Johannine nature of the Pericope is the variety of places it is attached in some of the manuscripts that do contain it. In some manuscripts, it appears after John 7:36, in some after John 7:44, some as an addition at the end of John's gospel, some after Luke 21:28, and some even after Luke 24:53.[6] Though the number of manuscripts that displace this pericope is not overwhelming, the mere fact of its varied appearance in even a few manuscripts tends to cast doubt on the concreteness of its location after John 7:52. The final bit of manuscript evidence is the unusually high number of textual variants found in the manuscripts that do contain the pericope. Gary Burge points out that line per line, these twelve verses contain more textual variants across the manuscript tradition than almost any other passage of scripture. [7] There is also much patristic evidence, especially in the east, stacked against the passage. This pericope is not mentioned by any Greek Father until Euthymius Zigabenus in the 12th century and isn't found in the writings of the early Fathers in the west either. Thus, it is omitted by Origen, Clement, Cyprian, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyril and Chrysostom,[8] even in writings where it would seem to be an appropriate resource for them to use. While Zane Hodges tries to make the case that the absence of the Pericope in these church fathers constitutes an argument from silence, and thus proves nothing[9], the fact of the matter is that this is more empirical evidence stacked against the pericope, and it adds weight to the non-Johannine argument. While the manuscript evidence would seem to be the greatest evidence against the Pericope, there are also suspicious grammatical and contextual features of the text. Statistical analysis of the text has claimed to show several features which "prove" its non Johannine nature. Vern Poythress has examined the grammatical use of the conjunctions "de", "oun", "kai", and "asyndeton" in the Gospel of John, and developed some general rules that John appears to follow. Upon examination of the adulteress pericope, it would appear that there are enough variations in its use of conjunctions (compared with the rest of John) to allow Poythress to conclude that this Pericope is not written by John.[10] Further grammatical evidence focuses on the words that are used in the passage. Bryant and Krause point out that approximately nine percent, or 15 of the words used in this pericope do not occur elsewhere in the gospel, the highest percentage for a passage of this size in John[11]. The Mount of Olives, The scribes, and the phrase "early morning" are not found anywhere else in the gospel of John, but all are somewhat common in the synoptic gospels. In addition, only here in John is Jesus addressed as teacher. While some of these unique words can be explained by the nature of the story, as well as the semi-technical judicial language employed, there are still a high frequency of unique words and constructs here compared with the rest of John. Finally, there is contextual evidence that seems to indicate this pericope is out of place. Borchert[12] and many others believe that the text disrupts the flow of the Feast of Tabernacles narrative. Many point out its similarity in time and setting to Luke 21:37-38, and (as mentioned above) some manuscripts place the passage right after verse 38 because it seems to be a better fit. It is also true that the flow of the text from 7:52 to 8:12 is smooth and uninterrupted when this passage is removed, but of course, that could be said of many passages! Controversy and Canonicity: Pro Johannine Most scholars believe the evidence against the Pericope Adulterae is overwhelming, but there is much positive evidence for the ancientness of this event, and even some evidence that would seem to indicate the text is Johannine and not at all out of place. The strongest evidence for the veracity and Johannine nature of the Pericope comes from the manuscripts and church fathers of the west. Several Old Latin manuscripts do in fact contain the Pericope. Hodges argues valiantly that the absence of the passage in our earliest and most reliable manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, p66 and p75) is due to those manuscripts being of a proto-Alexandrian origin, and thus likely coming from the same (ancient) exemplar, one which had the passage intentionally excised.[13] He posits that the Pericope was removed from some texts very early (before 200), but that the passage was quite possibly in the original autograph. The Patristic evidence for the Pericope is surprisingly strong in the west. Several church fathers in the fourth and fifth century mention the text, beginning with Pacian of Barcelona, and including Ambrose, Ambrosiaster, Jerome and Augustine. Jerome and Augustine in particular add much to the pro Johannine side of the argument, providing significant ancient evidence and speculation on the passage. Jerome includes the Pericope Adulterae in his Latin Vulgate translation of the scriptures, thus cementing its future acceptance among the Catholic church. In his Dialogue against the Pelagians, Jerome makes a very intriguing reference to this passage, "In the Gospel according to John in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, is found the story of the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord."[14] This comment is very significant in considering the Pericope Adulterae, and would seem to stand as the strongest pro-Johannine evidence available. As Hodges points out[15], Jerome was well traveled, and would have had a wide exposure to both Greek and Latin texts, many of which were older than any that has survived to this day. Jerome's statement should carry much more weight with modern New Testament textual scholars than it appears it does. Augustine goes even further than Jerome does in his commentary on the passage, acknowledging the already existing controversy over the passage and offering a reason for it's removal from some manuscripts, "Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord's act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if He who said 'sin no more' had granted permission to sin." [16] While Augustine's hermeneutical approach to the passage contains a common mistake (Jesus did not specifically forgive the adulterous woman), his observation is very relevant and offers an intriguing possible explanation for the manuscript problems (and textual variances) associated with this passage. Hodges further quotes Ambrose who makes a similar suggestion to Augustine's – that the passage is a stumbling block. The contextual argument against this pericope is perhaps the easiest to answer. While many commentators have pointed out the "disruption" of the Feast of Tabernacles narrative that this pericope seems to effect, Allison Trites convincingly argues the opposite; the entire passage fits into the overall theme of controversy in John 1-12.[17] Other contextual clues could be seen to indicate the proper placement of this passage. For one, it would seem that the story is a great illustration of John 3:17, "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." (John 3:17, NIV) The Pericope can also be seen in a literary sense as a response to the question posed in John 7:26, "Here he is, speaking publicly, and they are not saying a word to him. Have the authorities really concluded that he is the Christ?" (John 7:26, NIV) While much has been made of the grammatical analysis of this pericope, specifically focusing on what is considered non Johannine grammar, there has been some grammatical work on the passage that offers different conclusions. Alan Johnson has used some of the existent grammatical statistical methods on other, non disputed passages of John, and concluded that some of those would be considered non Johannine based on the very same methodology used on the Pericope Adulterae. In addition, he also points out several grammatical features in this passage that are consistent with the rest of John, including the use of "de", "touto" and "legein" [18] My own grammatical analysis of the passage has produced some interesting results, further casting doubt on the ability of statistical grammatical analysis to effectively determine canonicity and authorship questions. The phrase "meketi amartane" (no longer sin, or stop sinning) only occurs here in the pericope and in John 5:14, where Jesus likewise instructs the paralytic to stop sinning. "ina ecosin" (that they might) is a phrase found only in verse six, and John 17:13. "Kai palin" (and again) in verse 8 is found six other times in John but only once in Luke. Finally, the phrase "eis ten gen" (in the earth) from verse 6 is found 23 times in the New Testament, 5 are in John, and 12 are in Revelation – so of the 23 times that phrase is used, 17 times it is Johannine. That analysis might be used to impress upon some a level of certainty that John did write this passage, but in fact, in the final analysis it doesn't add much to the argument one way or the other – except to possibly refute those who use statistical grammatical analysis to "prove" that this Pericope is non-Johannine. A thorough survey of the evidence reveals one thing quite clearly: the authorship and position of the Pericope Adulterae is not an easy issue to decide. It is perplexing and frustrating to see the certainty that is exhibited by many scholars on both sides of this issue. Bruce Metzger, Phillip Comfort, Kurt Aland, Raymond Brown, George Beasley-Murray, Leon Morris and many others all make absolute statements on the Pericope and point to overwhelming evidence that it is either non-canonical or non Johannine. Beasley-Murray goes so far as to write, "It is universally agreed by textual critics of the Greek NT that this passage was not part of the Fourth Gospel in its original form."[19] What an outrageous and misleading statement! On the other hand, there are a few scholars (Elmer Towns, some scholars in the King James only camp, and several Dallas Theological Seminary professors) who are equally adamant that this passage is certainly genuine, and right where it belongs in the New Testament. The fact is that the best and most irrefutable evidence against the Johannine nature of the Pericope Adulterae is its lack of attestation in many of our earliest and best surviving manuscripts. When this manuscript evidence is considered in light of Jerome's quote above on all of the Greek and Old Latin manuscripts he saw that contained the Pericope (and likely were older than most that we have now) we have a clear conundrum, one that cannot be fairly answered without new evidence coming to light. Thankfully, one thing is agreed upon by most N.T. scholars – this pericope is very old[20] and very likely to be an accurate event in the life of Jesus. Thus Metzger writes that John 7:53-8:11, "has all the earmarks of historical veracity"[21], and Raymond Brown writes, "There is nothing in the story itself, or its language that would forbid us to think of it as an early story concerning Jesus."[22] If this Pericope is in fact a genuine event in the ministry of Jesus – how is it that it is absent in so many early Biblical texts? To put the issue another way, Phillip W. Comfort offers a list of suspect passages in the Textus Receptus, including the Pericope Adulterae. He challenges those who would argue for the inclusion of these questionable passages to, "come up with good arguments as to why scribes (in the early centuries) would have purposely excised these passages."[23] Gary Burge proposes an interesting, though improvable suggestion that answers both questions: the Pericope Adulterae text was excised from some early manuscripts for theological reasons. Burge points to the unbiblical Doctrine of Penance, as articulated by early church fathers like Tertullian, Clement and Cyprian. Sexual sins in the eyes of many of the early church fathers were very grave, and in some cases unforgivable.[24] In light of that, it is conceivable that this passage was removed, under the impression that it was or too light on a sin, or in fear (As Augustine suggests above) that it would give others license to sin without fear of reprisal. It is also a possibility that the text is a real happening in the life of Jesus that never was put into the gospels because of the fear listed above (or for another reason – as John says, if everything Jesus did was written down, the world couldn't contain the books!) A Deeper Look at the Text We now turn our attention back to the text itself, and from the perspective that it is a genuine happening, and is placed in the appropriate place in the text. Examining this passage in its literary context, we see that Jesus' ministry, previously marked by amazing miracles and healings at the time of the adulterous pericope had become quite controversial. Jesus' teachings were very challenging, and He even lost some disciples because of them. In the events leading up to the encounter, Jesus brothers urge Him to go the Feast of Tabernacles, and he temporarily declined, only to come later and begin to interact with the people. As He teaches, many people believe in Him, and many don't – causing arguments and strife. The temple guards are sent to arrest Jesus, but they themselves become arrested by His words and fail to complete their job. The Pharisees and other religious leaders meet in anger, considering what to do and finding no solution. It is directly after this that the incident with the adulterous woman happens. The Old Testament, in Deuteronomy 22 states, "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die." (Deuteronomy 22:24, NIV) Leviticus 20 states similarly, "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death." (Leviticus 20:10, NIV) These were the laws of Moses referred to in vs. 5 of this passage. Curiously, there is no mention of the man that was with the woman – this has led many to conclude that the situation was a set up from the beginning, (i.e. the woman was also "trapped") The scribes and Pharisees, therefore, were wanting Jesus to rule on a case that was flawed from the beginning – they were asking Him to incompletely apply the law of Moses to this situation. This was merely another attempt by the religious leaders to put Jesus in a position where there is no good way out. A similar incident occurs in Matthew 22 (and the other Synoptics): Jesus is asked whether it is right to pay taxes to Caesar, if He answers yes, then the crowds would get angry with Him, if He answers no, then He risks making enemies of the Roman leaders. Also, Jesus uses the same technique against the religious leaders in Matthew 21 when asked who gave Him his authority, His return question, was John's Baptism from heaven or not, could not be answered in such a way as to not cause the leaders problems. In this particular instance, if Jesus were to "rule" that the woman should be stoned, He would run afoul of Roman laws against mob violence[25] and if He let the woman off the hook, then He would be countermanding the Law of Moses. The response of Jesus to this dilemma, certainly knowing the religious leader's hearts and motives, is very interesting: He merely stoops down and writes on the ground. Much ink has been wasted trying to determine what exactly it was that Jesus wrote in the ground. Beasley-Murray offers a good list of past suggestions: Was He writing out His decision in the case before verbally announcing it? Was he writing out a passage from Exodus that warns against supporting a wicked man as a malicious witness? Was He writing in the dust to remind the scribes of Jeremiah's words, "Those who turn away from you will be written in the dust, because they have forsaken the Lord, the spring of living water." (Jeremiah 17:13, NIV).[26] I prefer Raymond Brown's proposal; that Jesus was merely doodling[27], possibly to consider how to handle the situation wisely, possibly in prayer. The fact is that what Jesus wrote has not been recorded, so it clearly was only an important issue for the exact time the incident took place, if even then. By suggesting that the one who is without sin cast the first stone, Jesus brilliantly defuses the situation. It's very possible He could be referring to Deuteronomy 17, which prescribes that nobody should be put to death on the testimony of just one witness, and that the witnesses should be the first one to cast the stone. Is Jesus pointing to the possibility of the corruption of the witnesses here – understanding that the woman, though guilty, was caught in an elaborate set up, and thus invalidating the "prosecution's" case against her, or is He articulating a more basic principle – if you are sinless you can participate in her stoning? This is a difficult question to answer; Stephen James argues somewhat convincingly that what Jesus means by "without sin" in this context is that their case must be presented without evil motives, and in accordance with the law of Moses (how many witnesses to the act were there, more than one? What of the man?) The religious leaders knew their motives weren't correct, and therefore left the scene.[28] It is also important to point out here that in defusing the scene the way He did, Jesus did not abrogate the Law of Moses, nor did He completely uphold it – He chose a third, an option that leaves open the question of whether those laws were still applicable in His mind. The incident ends with Jesus challenging the woman to go and leave her life of sin. Modern and ancient preachers and commentators alike have written or preached that Jesus actually forgave the woman – this is not the case – Jesus did not explicitly forgive her as recorded in the text, He simply chose not to condemn her, and exhorted her to also stop sinning. Application If we accept the hypothesis that this Pericope is an accurate and genuine happening, then how does it apply today? Did it abolish the death penalty, as many have argued? Did it usher in an age of more leniency on sin? What sort of standard is Jesus setting for those who would be in a position to judge or pronounce punishment over another? While it is very important to not draw doctrine out of a narrative that doesn't explicitly indicate doctrinal things, this text can still go beyond being a beautiful story of the mercy and wisdom of Jesus and find application in our modern setting. The first application to consider is what this story says about the death penalty, if anything. As Stephen James points out, many (including John Howard Yoder, Dwight Erricson, Lewis Smedes, G.H. Clark, Charles H. Milligan etc) have used this passage to argue for the abolishment of the death penalty.[29] A careful reading of the text will clearly show that Jesus does not abolish the death penalty, indeed, He doesn't even address the issue. Thus, both opponents and proponents of capital punishment will need to look in other places to justify their beliefs. I believe the real modern application of this passage is found in Jesus' challenge to the religious leaders, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." (John 8:7 NIV) There seems to be a profound connection to this principle and the plank-eye principle that Jesus articulates in Luke 6 – in order to help remove the speck from your brother's eye, you must first remove the plank from your own. The principle is this, that we should judge and purify ourselves, worrying less about the bad things we see in other people – until our own issues are dealt with – then we will see clearly to help others out. The principle is not advocating merely minding your own business – it is advocating personal holiness that can lead to corporate holiness when we help and challenge each other in right heart and attitude. The Pharisees and scribes were not at all interested in the principle behind the Mosaic laws they were urging Jesus to rule on (i.e. purge the evil from among you), they were just interested in accomplishing their own agendas. The church today cries out for those who would walk in holiness and near the heart of God to the point where we can see clearly enough to help our brothers out with the specks in their eyes, and we can pass judgments rightly. Conclusion An objective look at the Pericope Adulterae, its context, its grammar and its manuscript history leads one to the conclusion that this passage has been rightly seen as controversial through the ages. There is not the kind of overwhelming evidence that is needed for dogmatic statements regarding the authorship and canonicity of John 7:53-8:11 either for or against. There is substantial evidence, however, to demonstrate that this text represents a genuine and accurate event in the life of Jesus, and as such it can inform the modern believer about the nature of Jesus and the importance of holiness in the realm of judgment. [1] Somewhat awkward, but not completely out of place – see below. [2] Some scholars point out that Jesus sitting and teaching is a common feature of the Synoptic Gospels, and cite it as further proof of the Non-Johannine authorship of the Pericope – see John 6:3, however for another instance of Jesus sitting down among the people. Borchert, Gerald The New American Commentary Volume 25A: John 1-11. (electronic edition) Logos LibrarySystem (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1996) [3] For a full list of the major Greek manuscripts that omit this pericope, see: Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Ed. (New York: Oxford, 1992.), 219-220 [4] Brown, Raymond E. John 1-11. Anchor Bible 29. Garden City: Doubleday, 1982, 335 [5] Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament – Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, Third Ed. (New York: Oxford, 1992.), 50 [6] The Text of the New Testament – Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration p. xxix [7] Burge, Gary M. "A Specific Problem In The New Testament Text And Canon: The Woman Caught In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)" (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27 no.2), 144 [8] "A Specific Problem In The New Testament Text And Canon: The Woman Caught In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)" 142 [9] Hodges, Zane C. "Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)" (Bibliotheca Sacra 136 no. 544 (October, 1979), 329 [10] Poythress, Vern S. "Testing for Johannine Authorship by Examining the Use of Conjunctions" (Westminster Theological Journal 46, no. 2 Fall 1984), 362 [11] Bryant, Beauford H. and Krause, Mark S. John. The College Press NIV Commentary. (Joplin: College Press, 1998) [12] Borchert, Gerald – John 1-11 The New American Commentary. (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1996) [13] "Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)" 323 [14] As quoted in "Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)" 330 [15] "Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)" 330 [16] As quoted in "Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)" 331 [17] Trites, Allison A. "The Woman Taken in Adultery" (Bibliotheca Sacra 131 no. 522 April, 1974) 138-144 [18] Johnson, Alan F. "A Stylistic Trait of the Fourth Gospel in the Pericope Adulterae" Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society (IX Spring, 1966) 91-96 [19] Beasley-Murray, George R. The Gospel according to John The Word Biblical Commentary. (Dallas: Word Incorporated, 1999.) [20] Raymond Brown quotes Eusebius, who in turn quotes Papias writing near the time of the Apostles about a woman who was brought before Jesus accused of many sins. Brown also mentions the 3rd century Syrian Didascalia Apostolorum, which gives clear reference to the events of the Pericope Adulterae which indicates that 2nd century Syria knew of the narrative. John 1-11, p. 335 [21] Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 220 [22] John 1-11, p. 335 [23] Comfort, Phillip W. Encountering the Manuscripts (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2005) p.99 [24] "A Specific Problem In The New Testament Text And Canon: The Woman Caught In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)" pages 146-148 [25] John 1-11 The New American Commentary [26] The Gospel according to John The Word Biblical Commentary [27] John 1-11. Anchor Bible 29 p. 334 [28] James, Stephen A. "The Adulteress And The Death Penalty." (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 22 no. 1 March, 1979) pages 49-50. [29] "The Adulteress And The Death Penalty." Pages 45-46

“Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered, without however recording in order what was either said or done by Christ. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow Him; but afterwards, as I said, (attended) Peter, who adapted his instructions to the needs (of his hearers) but had no design of giving a connected account of the Lord's oracles. So then Mark made no mistake, while he thus wrote down some things as he remembered them; for he made it his one care not to omit anything that he heard, or to set down any false statement therein."Papias the Bishop of Hierapolis“The history on which I am entering is that of a period rich in disasters, terrible with battles, torn by civil struggles, horrible even in peace. Four emperors fell by the sword; there were three civil wars, more foreign wars, and often both at the same time. There was success in the East, misfortune in the West. Besides the manifold misfortunes that befell mankind, there were prodigies in the sky and on the earth, warnings given by thunderbolts, and prophecies of the future, both joyful and gloomy, uncertain and clear.”The Histories of Tacitus"First, then, the confessed members of the sect were arrested; next, on their disclosures, vast numbers were convicted, not so much on the count of arson as for hatred of the human race. And derision accompanied their end: they were covered with wild beasts' skins and torn to death by dogs; or they were fastened on crosses, and, when daylight failed, were burned to serve as lamps at night."Tacitus, Annals XV: XLIV, 283-85Mark 8:27-34; 15:39

Mark 1:1; 1:10Order:Mark 1:1“Augustus was sent as Savior…the birthday of the son of the god Caesar was the beginning of his good news.”Roman Inscription“Gospel refers to the story about Jesus narrated in the text. It comprises Jesus' words, deeds, death and resurrection as God's direct intervention into human history. It challenges and imperial cult propaganda that brings messages of good tidings and a new age of peace through the Roman Empire.”Robert Gundry“Mark titles his book “The Gospel” because he is gospeling in this book. What does that mean? That Mark is narrating the saving story of Jesus.”Elizabeth ShivelyEden, Israel, and RomeMark 1:10“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was uninhabitable and like a wasteland. The Spirit of God flapped his wings over the waters like a dove.”“For Mark the actual introduction of Jesus is not less momentous than the creation of the world. For in the person of Jesus, new creation is at hand.”Nt. WrightCreationDe-creationRecreationMark 1:1“Mark's gospel is an apology for a crucified Messiah and a polemic against the imperial power of Rome.”N.T. Wright, The New Testament in It's WorldAre we people of the future?Are we people of the resurrection?Are we announcing with our lives and our money and our time and our allegiances… are we announcing the good news that Jesus is Lord?Papias the Bishop of Hierapolis“The history on which I am entering is that of a period rich in disasters, terrible with battles, torn by civil struggles, horrible even in peace. Four emperors fell by the sword; there were three civil wars, more foreign wars, and often both at the same time. There was success in the East, misfortune in the West. Besides the manifold misfortunes that befell mankind, there were prodigies in the sky and on the earth, warnings given by thunderbolts, and prophecies of the future, both joyful and gloomy, uncertain and clear.”The Histories of Tacitus"First, then, the confessed members of the sect were arrested; next, on their disclosures, vast numbers were convicted, not so much on the count of arson as for hatred of the human race. And derision accompanied their end: they were covered with wild beasts' skins and torn to death by dogs; or they were fastened on crosses, and, when daylight failed, were burned to serve as lamps at night."Tacitus, Annals XV: XLIV, 283-85Mark 8:27-34; 15:39

Sometimes complicated issues can be made very simple. Here are some good reasons to think the Gospels are the preserved testimony of eye-witnesses from the 1st century. We will talk about the early second century writings of Papias, the introduction to the gospel of Luke, the riddle of names in the gospels and the issue of genre. All these elements are like arrows pointing to one big fact; the gospels contain the record of eye-witness testimony and attempts to treat them as though they are a hodgepodge of rumor which are far removed from the original sources simply fail. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses - excellent book by Richard Bauckham https://amzn.to/2TWYuzz (this is an affiliate link) If you want to support my continued work on theology and apologetics click here. https://biblethinker.org/index.php/donate

The second century of the church hasn't received much attention from historians, as it lacked what many would call “remarkable developments.” Michael Kruger disagrees. In his recent book, Christianity at the Crossroads, the RTS president fills in the gaps on how the challenges faced, decisions made, and directions taken by second century Christians were essential to the growth and future of the young church of Jesus Christ.Professor Kruger offers examples of the political and intellectual resistance Christians faced at that time, and draws helpful parallels with the present day. Join the crew, as we discover how our faith took root in the second century.Show NotesThe Collection of the Apostolic Fathers, a collection of post-apostolic writings from Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria.The Apology by Tertullian Thanks to our friends from IVP Academics, we are giving away a few copies of Christianity at the Crossroads. Register if you want the opportunity to win one!Social PostsWe think of the church now as so big and established that we forget that there was a time, from a human perspective, when it wasn't clear if it was going to make it… There were some dark times there. - M. KrugerThe Christians found themselves distinguishing their beliefs from the broader Greco-Roman polytheistic world and a lot of the things that were going on were very similar to the kind of things that are going on in our world. Christians have to say, there is only one God, and you only worship that one God, and He made everything, and his Son is the only way to salvation, and so on… - M. Kruger

Este Episodio se titula, “No Exactamente Una Disculpa.”Cualquiera que embarca en un estudio de la historia de la iglesia y comienza al principio pronto se topara con un montón de líderes de la iglesia conocidos como los Padres de la Iglesia. A menudo se dividen en los padres de Ante-Nicea y Post-Nicea; que básicamente son los líderes de la Iglesia que vivieron antes del primera gran concilio ecuménico de Nicea en el año 315 d.C., y aquellos que vivieron durante y después de el.; por lo tanto el prefijo - post.Los padres se pueden dividir en 3 grupos, basado en el enfoque principal de sus escritos. Los 3 grupos son los Padres Apostólicos, los Apologistas y los Teólogos.Aunque se cruzan algunos de los tiempos, podemos decir que en general, el periodo de los Padres Apostólicos fue desde el final del 1° siglo a mediados del 2° siglo. Como vimos en un episodio anterior, los Padres Apostólicos no fueron Apóstoles; ellos eran estudiantes y seguidores de los Apóstoles y habían tenido una cercana relación con ellos.Luego desde mediados del 2º Siglo hasta el final del 3º siglo es la época de los Apologistas. Se llaman así porque su trabajo se enfoco en la defensa de la Fe contra ataques de afuera y de adentro.Tras los apologistas fueron los Teólogos, que asumieron el liderazgo de la Iglesia desde el comienzo del 4º hasta el 6º siglo. Su trabajo fue establecer precisamente lo que los Cristianos creían con respecto a algunos de los aspectos más complejos de la Fe.En el episodio anterior consideramos al apologista Justino Mártir quien escribió dos importantes defensas de la fe y los dirigió a 2 Emperadores Romanos, Antonino Pío y Marco Aurelio.Ahora vamos a mirar a otro importante Apologista, Ireneo.Pero antes de enfocarnos en su historia, permítanme ser claro para aquellos que no están familiarizados con el término "Apologista".La palabra moderna en ingles "apology" quiere decir que queremos pedir una disculpa por haber cometido un error. Es una aceptación de culpa y una manera de tratar de restaurar la buena voluntad. Esto no era lo que los Apologistas estaban haciendo. No había nada que disculpar. La palabra que usamos viene de la palabra griega Apología - que era una defensa formal de la posición de una persona. Es un término legal. Una apología es algo un abogado prepararía para ir al tribunal. Era un intento de demostrar algo por el uso de la evidencia y razón. Es por eso que hoy la Apologética es el término utilizado para la defensa de la Fe. La tradición de la Apologética empieza en los primeros tiempos de la historia de la Iglesia cuando la fe cristiana estaba surgiendo en un mundo hostil pagano.Los Apologistas fueron los primeros Padres de la Iglesia, eran generalmente pastores de las iglesias locales, que escribieron obras formales para dárselas a los funcionarios Romanos como el Emperador o el gobernador provincial, explicando por qué la persecución era una reacción equivocada ante los seguidores de Jesús.Uno de los principales Apologistas fue también uno de los primeros teólogos, se llamaba Ireneo, Obispo de Lyon, en Francia. El enfoco su carrera combatiendo la peligrosa amenaza del Gnosticismo.Nació en Asia Menor, probablemente en la ciudad de Esmirna alrededor del año 135 d.C., fue influenciado por el Padre Apostólico y estudiante del Apóstol Juan, Policarpo. Ireneo fue profundamente afectado por su mentor, diciendo que él escribió lo que aprendio de él, no sobre papel, sino en su corazón.Después de asistir a la escuela en Roma, Ireneo salió como misionero al sur de Galicia. Él sirvió como anciano en un par de iglesias y fue testigo de una gran persecución que cayo sobre los creyentes durante el reinado de Marco Aurelio.Fue durante este tiempo que la controversia Montanista surgió. Hablamos sobre ellos en un episodio anterior. Aquí es donde descubrimos que esto era una cuestión que preocupaba a muchas iglesias. Una facción pensaba que los Montanistas debían ser declarado heréticos y sancionados. Otros encontraron su teología aberrante, pero que la calificaban como herejía. Pensaban que los Montanistas deberían ser frenados, pero no expulsados.Las iglesias al Sur de Galicia eran de la segunda opinión y en el año 178 d.C. enviaron a Ireneo Roma para expresar su opinión. Cuando Ireneo regresó a Lyon, tuvo la noticia que su obispo había muerto como mártir. Fue elegido para ocupar su lugar.Desde entonces y hasta su muerte 14 años más tarde, Ireneo fue un hombre muy ocupado. Fue un prolífico escritor e incansable pastor y misionero.Ireneo demostró ser una gran ayuda para la Iglesia a finales del 2° siglo y proporciono una base sólida para la Iglesia en los próximos 2 siglos. Mientras luchaba con el idioma nativo de Galicia, era un maestro del Griego. Él era adepto a utilizar la cultura Griega, lenguaje y formas de pensamiento en la defensa de la Fe y ayudó a establecer una base teológica y filosófica que los posteriores líderes de la iglesia usaron.Y no olvides, la conexión de Ireneo a Cristo era cercana, aunque él vivió a finales del 2º siglo. Su maestro fue el anciano Policarpo, quien había sido discípulo del anciano Juan, discípulo directo de Jesús!Esto nos ayuda a poner su énfasis en la sucesión apostólica en perspectiva. Esto se convierte en un concepto clave en sus escritos. Ireneo no argumentaba a favor de un tipo de principio dinástico en el liderazgo de la Iglesia, tanto en la idea de que la Fe misma; sus doctrinas, principios, valores y misión, venían de los Apóstoles originales, pasados a sus seguidores y luego a la siguiente generación, y así sucesivamente. Los líderes de la Iglesia obtenían la autoridad únicamente a la medida en que eran fieles a la fundamentos que los apóstoles habían establecido. Su autoridad se derivaba directamente de que siguieran lo que ya se había establecido, no originaba de ellos o simplemente por el puesto que tenían.Okay ⇒ Alerta de Comentario Personal: Lo que sigue es mi comentario personal.Los líderes de la Iglesia de hoy, harían bien en recordar esto cuando tienen la presión de hacer ajustes en la fe sobre cuestiones espirituales y morales para quedar bien con el Mundo. La autoridad de los pastores y líderes de la iglesia proviene de un lugar: Dios. No viene de algún oficio o cargo en la Iglesia. Un título no significa nada, no importa cuán grande es el sombrero que usamos o el titulo impresionante que tenemos. Dios da autoridad para cumplir SU llamado y misión para esa persona. Cuando ellos salen de ese lineamiento, ellos no poseen autoridad real. La autoridad del Ministro se deriva y es en proporción directa a su fidelidad a la Misión y al mensaje Apostólico.Eso es lo que Ireneo estaba diciendo en sus escritos. Y mientras existía una extensión de este principio al área del liderazgo de la Iglesia, Ireneo no abogaba por algún tipo de principio dinástico espiritual para el liderazgo de la Iglesia y a una jerarquía pasada de un lider al siguiente.Ireneo fue un oponente feroz del error y herejias, y el más ortodoxo de los padres de ante-Nicea. Puede ser de interés para algunos oyentes que Ireneo, junto con el Padre de la Iglesia, Papias con la mayoría de sus contemporáneos, fueron escatológicamente premileniares en sus opiniones. Esas opiniones fueron posteriormente abandonadas por la Iglesia por sus orígenes muy Judías. Mientras trabajaba arduamente para la propagación y defensa de la fe sobre la tierra, Ireneo estaba → "mirando al cielo", como los primeros discípulos, esperando ansiosamente el regreso del Señor y el establecimiento de su reino.Ireneo fue el primero de los padres de la Iglesia en usar completamente el NT. Mientras que los Gnósticos pasaban mucho tiempo refutando y queríendo dividir la Biblia, rebajandolo a apenas un puñado de textos, Ireneo refería a todos los 4 Evangelios y a casi todas las Epístolas como las Escrituras.Aunque él tenía un gran celo por la doctrina esencial, Ireneo fue tolerante con las diferencias no-esenciales. Le pidio al Obispo de Roma a no ser tan preciso en sus demandas acerca de cómo y cuándo la gente podía celebrar la Resurrección.2 grandes obras de Ireneo han sobrevivido. Contra las Herejías y La Demostración de la Predicación Apostólica.Contra las Herejías fue escrito alrededor del año 185, mientras que era obispo de Lyon. Está dirigido al error del Gnosticismo que ya hemos considerado. Contra las Herejías tiene 5 partes.Libro 1 es un bosquejo histórico de diversas sectas Gnósticas junto con una declaración de la fe Cristiana.Libro 2 es una crítica filosófica del Gnosticismo.Libro 3 es una crítica Bíblica de la misma, mientras que el…Libro 4 responde al Gnosticismo en las palabras de Cristo mismo.Termina con el Libro 5; una defensa de la Resurrección en contra de argumentos Gnósticos que lo niegan.En una cita al principio del libro, Ireneo dice, "El error nunca está establecido en su desnuda deformidad, porque siendo expuesto, seria inmediatamente detectada. Pero es astutamente vestida atractivamente, de manera que, por su forma exterior, pueda aparentar al inexperto (ridículo como la expresión puede parecer) ser más cierto que la verdad misma".Ireneo ha sido llamado "El Padre de la Dogma de la Iglesia" porque él trató de formular los principios de la Teología Cristiana y de ofrecer una exposición de las creencias de la iglesia. Esto era especialmente evidente en su otro escrito, La Demostración de la Predicación Apostólica. Allí asentó los principios de que la Fe Cristiana encuentra su Revelación y Autoridad en las Escrituras. Él hace referencia al Antiguo y Nuevo Testamento para demostrar esto y como dije anteriormente, cita de todos menos 4 de los libros del NT.Ireneo es una figura importante para el desarrollo de la teología Cristiana, porque en su batalla contra el Gnosticismo, establece el principio de recapitulación, es decir, que Jesucristo es el núcleo y la esencia de toda la verdadera teología. Él es al mismo tiempo Creador y Redentor. Lo que se perdió en Adán es recuperado en Cristo. Lo que dice acerca de Jesús, fundamentado en las Escrituras, sería utilizado más tarde por los Teólogos cuando tenían sus discusiones y debates sobre la naturaleza de Cristo.Además de estas 2 obras que sabemos que fueron escritas por Ireneo, hay varios otros fragmentos y algunas obras atribuidas a él por gente como Eusebio. No tomaremos el tiempo de examinar todas, excepto una que merece una mención. En la Epístola a Florinus, Ireneo escribe a un amigo que en un momento había servido con él en el ministerio. De hecho, habían crecido en la fe, juntos a los pies de Policarpo. Florinus se convirtió en un anciano de la Iglesia en Roma, pero fue depuesto cuando abrazó al Gnosticismo. Ireneo le recuerda su amistad y pasado. Se puede escuchar el dolor en las palabras de Ireneo de que alguien que había estado tan cerca y tan claramente en las cosas de Dios, podría tirarlo todo a un lado por una insensatez como el error de los Gnósticos. Ireneo desarrolla ese error tan hábilmente, que es difícil imaginar que alguien pudiera leer la carta y no volver a la fe de su juventud. Pero no sabemos qué paso con la vida de Florinus.Al llegar al final de este episodio, permítanme una vez más animarles a visitar la pagina de internet de sanctorum.us y la pagina de Facebook de CS para dejar un comentario. Asegúrese en decirnos en donde vive para que podamos tener una idea de donde viene la familia de CS.Si te gusta el podcast, ¿por qué no recomendarlo a tus amigos? Resulta que, la mejor manera para que la gente descubra CS - es por recomendaciones de otros.

Este Episodio se titula, “No Exactamente Una Disculpa.”Cualquiera que embarca en un estudio de la historia de la iglesia y comienza al principio pronto se topara con un montón de líderes de la iglesia conocidos como los Padres de la Iglesia. A menudo se dividen en los padres de Ante-Nicea y Post-Nicea; que básicamente son los líderes de la Iglesia que vivieron antes del primera gran concilio ecuménico de Nicea en el año 315 d.C., y aquellos que vivieron durante y después de el.; por lo tanto el prefijo - post.Los padres se pueden dividir en 3 grupos, basado en el enfoque principal de sus escritos. Los 3 grupos son los Padres Apostólicos, los Apologistas y los Teólogos.Aunque se cruzan algunos de los tiempos, podemos decir que en general, el periodo de los Padres Apostólicos fue desde el final del 1° siglo a mediados del 2° siglo. Como vimos en un episodio anterior, los Padres Apostólicos no fueron Apóstoles; ellos eran estudiantes y seguidores de los Apóstoles y habían tenido una cercana relación con ellos.Luego desde mediados del 2º Siglo hasta el final del 3º siglo es la época de los Apologistas. Se llaman así porque su trabajo se enfoco en la defensa de la Fe contra ataques de afuera y de adentro.Tras los apologistas fueron los Teólogos, que asumieron el liderazgo de la Iglesia desde el comienzo del 4º hasta el 6º siglo. Su trabajo fue establecer precisamente lo que los Cristianos creían con respecto a algunos de los aspectos más complejos de la Fe.En el episodio anterior consideramos al apologista Justino Mártir quien escribió dos importantes defensas de la fe y los dirigió a 2 Emperadores Romanos, Antonino Pío y Marco Aurelio.Ahora vamos a mirar a otro importante Apologista, Ireneo.Pero antes de enfocarnos en su historia, permítanme ser claro para aquellos que no están familiarizados con el término "Apologista".La palabra moderna en ingles "apology" quiere decir que queremos pedir una disculpa por haber cometido un error. Es una aceptación de culpa y una manera de tratar de restaurar la buena voluntad. Esto no era lo que los Apologistas estaban haciendo. No había nada que disculpar. La palabra que usamos viene de la palabra griega Apología - que era una defensa formal de la posición de una persona. Es un término legal. Una apología es algo un abogado prepararía para ir al tribunal. Era un intento de demostrar algo por el uso de la evidencia y razón. Es por eso que hoy la Apologética es el término utilizado para la defensa de la Fe. La tradición de la Apologética empieza en los primeros tiempos de la historia de la Iglesia cuando la fe cristiana estaba surgiendo en un mundo hostil pagano.Los Apologistas fueron los primeros Padres de la Iglesia, eran generalmente pastores de las iglesias locales, que escribieron obras formales para dárselas a los funcionarios Romanos como el Emperador o el gobernador provincial, explicando por qué la persecución era una reacción equivocada ante los seguidores de Jesús.Uno de los principales Apologistas fue también uno de los primeros teólogos, se llamaba Ireneo, Obispo de Lyon, en Francia. El enfoco su carrera combatiendo la peligrosa amenaza del Gnosticismo.Nació en Asia Menor, probablemente en la ciudad de Esmirna alrededor del año 135 d.C., fue influenciado por el Padre Apostólico y estudiante del Apóstol Juan, Policarpo. Ireneo fue profundamente afectado por su mentor, diciendo que él escribió lo que aprendio de él, no sobre papel, sino en su corazón.Después de asistir a la escuela en Roma, Ireneo salió como misionero al sur de Galicia. Él sirvió como anciano en un par de iglesias y fue testigo de una gran persecución que cayo sobre los creyentes durante el reinado de Marco Aurelio.Fue durante este tiempo que la controversia Montanista surgió. Hablamos sobre ellos en un episodio anterior. Aquí es donde descubrimos que esto era una cuestión que preocupaba a muchas iglesias. Una facción pensaba que los Montanistas debían ser declarado heréticos y sancionados. Otros encontraron su teología aberrante, pero que la calificaban como herejía. Pensaban que los Montanistas deberían ser frenados, pero no expulsados.Las iglesias al Sur de Galicia eran de la segunda opinión y en el año 178 d.C. enviaron a Ireneo Roma para expresar su opinión. Cuando Ireneo regresó a Lyon, tuvo la noticia que su obispo había muerto como mártir. Fue elegido para ocupar su lugar.Desde entonces y hasta su muerte 14 años más tarde, Ireneo fue un hombre muy ocupado. Fue un prolífico escritor e incansable pastor y misionero.Ireneo demostró ser una gran ayuda para la Iglesia a finales del 2° siglo y proporciono una base sólida para la Iglesia en los próximos 2 siglos. Mientras luchaba con el idioma nativo de Galicia, era un maestro del Griego. Él era adepto a utilizar la cultura Griega, lenguaje y formas de pensamiento en la defensa de la Fe y ayudó a establecer una base teológica y filosófica que los posteriores líderes de la iglesia usaron.Y no olvides, la conexión de Ireneo a Cristo era cercana, aunque él vivió a finales del 2º siglo. Su maestro fue el anciano Policarpo, quien había sido discípulo del anciano Juan, discípulo directo de Jesús!Esto nos ayuda a poner su énfasis en la sucesión apostólica en perspectiva. Esto se convierte en un concepto clave en sus escritos. Ireneo no argumentaba a favor de un tipo de principio dinástico en el liderazgo de la Iglesia, tanto en la idea de que la Fe misma; sus doctrinas, principios, valores y misión, venían de los Apóstoles originales, pasados a sus seguidores y luego a la siguiente generación, y así sucesivamente. Los líderes de la Iglesia obtenían la autoridad únicamente a la medida en que eran fieles a la fundamentos que los apóstoles habían establecido. Su autoridad se derivaba directamente de que siguieran lo que ya se había establecido, no originaba de ellos o simplemente por el puesto que tenían.Okay ⇒ Alerta de Comentario Personal: Lo que sigue es mi comentario personal.Los líderes de la Iglesia de hoy, harían bien en recordar esto cuando tienen la presión de hacer ajustes en la fe sobre cuestiones espirituales y morales para quedar bien con el Mundo. La autoridad de los pastores y líderes de la iglesia proviene de un lugar: Dios. No viene de algún oficio o cargo en la Iglesia. Un título no significa nada, no importa cuán grande es el sombrero que usamos o el titulo impresionante que tenemos. Dios da autoridad para cumplir SU llamado y misión para esa persona. Cuando ellos salen de ese lineamiento, ellos no poseen autoridad real. La autoridad del Ministro se deriva y es en proporción directa a su fidelidad a la Misión y al mensaje Apostólico.Eso es lo que Ireneo estaba diciendo en sus escritos. Y mientras existía una extensión de este principio al área del liderazgo de la Iglesia, Ireneo no abogaba por algún tipo de principio dinástico espiritual para el liderazgo de la Iglesia y a una jerarquía pasada de un lider al siguiente.Ireneo fue un oponente feroz del error y herejias, y el más ortodoxo de los padres de ante-Nicea. Puede ser de interés para algunos oyentes que Ireneo, junto con el Padre de la Iglesia, Papias con la mayoría de sus contemporáneos, fueron escatológicamente premileniares en sus opiniones. Esas opiniones fueron posteriormente abandonadas por la Iglesia por sus orígenes muy Judías. Mientras trabajaba arduamente para la propagación y defensa de la fe sobre la tierra, Ireneo estaba → "mirando al cielo", como los primeros discípulos, esperando ansiosamente el regreso del Señor y el establecimiento de su reino.Ireneo fue el primero de los padres de la Iglesia en usar completamente el NT. Mientras que los Gnósticos pasaban mucho tiempo refutando y queríendo dividir la Biblia, rebajandolo a apenas un puñado de textos, Ireneo refería a todos los 4 Evangelios y a casi todas las Epístolas como las Escrituras.Aunque él tenía un gran celo por la doctrina esencial, Ireneo fue tolerante con las diferencias no-esenciales. Le pidio al Obispo de Roma a no ser tan preciso en sus demandas acerca de cómo y cuándo la gente podía celebrar la Resurrección.2 grandes obras de Ireneo han sobrevivido. Contra las Herejías y La Demostración de la Predicación Apostólica.Contra las Herejías fue escrito alrededor del año 185, mientras que era obispo de Lyon. Está dirigido al error del Gnosticismo que ya hemos considerado. Contra las Herejías tiene 5 partes.Libro 1 es un bosquejo histórico de diversas sectas Gnósticas junto con una declaración de la fe Cristiana.Libro 2 es una crítica filosófica del Gnosticismo.Libro 3 es una crítica Bíblica de la misma, mientras que el…Libro 4 responde al Gnosticismo en las palabras de Cristo mismo.Termina con el Libro 5; una defensa de la Resurrección en contra de argumentos Gnósticos que lo niegan.En una cita al principio del libro, Ireneo dice, "El error nunca está establecido en su desnuda deformidad, porque siendo expuesto, seria inmediatamente detectada. Pero es astutamente vestida atractivamente, de manera que, por su forma exterior, pueda aparentar al inexperto (ridículo como la expresión puede parecer) ser más cierto que la verdad misma".Ireneo ha sido llamado "El Padre de la Dogma de la Iglesia" porque él trató de formular los principios de la Teología Cristiana y de ofrecer una exposición de las creencias de la iglesia. Esto era especialmente evidente en su otro escrito, La Demostración de la Predicación Apostólica. Allí asentó los principios de que la Fe Cristiana encuentra su Revelación y Autoridad en las Escrituras. Él hace referencia al Antiguo y Nuevo Testamento para demostrar esto y como dije anteriormente, cita de todos menos 4 de los libros del NT.Ireneo es una figura importante para el desarrollo de la teología Cristiana, porque en su batalla contra el Gnosticismo, establece el principio de recapitulación, es decir, que Jesucristo es el núcleo y la esencia de toda la verdadera teología. Él es al mismo tiempo Creador y Redentor. Lo que se perdió en Adán es recuperado en Cristo. Lo que dice acerca de Jesús, fundamentado en las Escrituras, sería utilizado más tarde por los Teólogos cuando tenían sus discusiones y debates sobre la naturaleza de Cristo.Además de estas 2 obras que sabemos que fueron escritas por Ireneo, hay varios otros fragmentos y algunas obras atribuidas a él por gente como Eusebio. No tomaremos el tiempo de examinar todas, excepto una que merece una mención. En la Epístola a Florinus, Ireneo escribe a un amigo que en un momento había servido con él en el ministerio. De hecho, habían crecido en la fe, juntos a los pies de Policarpo. Florinus se convirtió en un anciano de la Iglesia en Roma, pero fue depuesto cuando abrazó al Gnosticismo. Ireneo le recuerda su amistad y pasado. Se puede escuchar el dolor en las palabras de Ireneo de que alguien que había estado tan cerca y tan claramente en las cosas de Dios, podría tirarlo todo a un lado por una insensatez como el error de los Gnósticos. Ireneo desarrolla ese error tan hábilmente, que es difícil imaginar que alguien pudiera leer la carta y no volver a la fe de su juventud. Pero no sabemos qué paso con la vida de Florinus.Al llegar al final de este episodio, permítanme una vez más animarles a visitar la pagina de internet de sanctorum.us y la pagina de Facebook de CS para dejar un comentario. Asegúrese en decirnos en donde vive para que podamos tener una idea de donde viene la familia de CS.Si te gusta el podcast, ¿por qué no recomendarlo a tus amigos? Resulta que, la mejor manera para que la gente descubra CS - es por recomendaciones de otros.

The First Centuries – Part 5 // Irenæus The historical record is pretty clear that the Apostle John spent his last years in Western Asia Minor, with the City of Ephesus acting as his headquarters. It seems that during his time there, he poured himself into a cadre of capable men who went on to provide outstanding leadership for the church in the midst of difficult trials. Men like Polycarp of Smyrna, Papias & Apolinarius of Hierapolis, & Melito of Sardis. These and others were mentioned by Polycrates, the bishop of Ephesus in a letter to Victor, a bishop at Rome in about AD 190.These students of John are considered to be the last of what's called The Apostolic Age. The greatest of them was Irenæus. Though he wasn't a direct student of the Apostle, he was influenced by Polycarp, & is considered by many as one of the premier and first Church Fathers.Not much is known of Irenæus' origins. From what we can piece together from his writings, he was most likely born and raised in Smyrna around AD 120. He was instructed by Smyrna's lead pastor, Polycarp, a student of John. He says he was also directly influenced by other pupils of the Apostles, though he doesn't name them. Polycarp had the biggest impact on him, as evidenced by his comment, “What I heard from him, I didn't write on parchment, but on my heart. By God's grace, I bring it constantly to mind.” It's possible Irenæus accompanied Polycarp when he traveled to Rome and engaged Bishop Anicetus in the Easter controversy we talked about last episode.At some point while still a young man, Irenæus went to Southern Gaul as a missionary. He settled at Lugdunum where he became an elder in the church there. Lugdunum eventually became the town of Lyon, France. In 177, during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, the church in Lugdunum was hammered by fierce persecution. But Irenæus had been sent on a mission to Rome to deal with the Montanist controversy. While away, the church's elderly pastor Pothinus, was martyred. By the time he returned in 178 the persecution had spent itself and he was appointed as the new pastor.Irenæus worked tirelessly to mend the holes persecution had punched in the church in Southern Gaul. In both teaching and writing, he provided resources other church leaders could use in faithfully discharging their pastoral duties, as well as refuting the various and sundry errors challenging the new Faith. During his term as the pastor of the church at Lyon, he was able to see a majority of the population of the City converted to Christ. Dozens of missionaries were sent out to plant churches across Gaul.Then, about 190, Irenæus simply disappears with no clear account of his death. A 5th C tradition says he died a martyr in 202 in the persecution under Septimus Severus. The problem with that is that several church fathers like Eusebius, Hippolytus, & Tertullian uncharacteristically fail to mention Irenæus' martyrdom. Because martyrs achieved hero status, if Irenæus had been martyred, the Church would have marked it. SO most likely, he died of natural causes. However he died, he was buried under the altar St. John's in Lyons.Irenæus' influence far surpassed the importance of his location. The bishopric of Lyon was not considered an important seat. But Irenæus' impact on the Faith was outsized to his position. His keen intellect united a Greek education with astute philosophical analysis, and a sharp understanding of the Scriptures to produce a remarkable defense of The Gospel. That was badly needed at the time due to the inroads being forged by a new threat – Gnosticism, which we spent time describing in Season 1.Irenæus' articulation of the Faith brought about a unanimity that united the East & Western branches of the Church that had been diverging. They'd end up reverting to that divergence later, but Irenæus managed to bring about a temporary peace through his clear defense of the faith against the Gnostics.Irenæus admits he had a difficult time mastering the Celtic dialect spoken by the people where he served but his capacity in Greek, in which he composed his writings, was both elegant & eloquent without running to the merely flowery. His content shows he was familiar with the classics by authors like Homer, Hesiod, & Sophocles as well as philosophers like Pythagoras & Plato.He shows a like familiarity with earlier Christian writers such as Clement, Justin Martyr, & Tatian. But Irenæus is really only 1 generation away from Jesus and the original Apostles due to a couple long life-times; that of John, and then his pupil, Polycarp. We find their influence in Irenæus' remark impugning the appeal of Gnosticism, “The true way to God, is through love. Better to know nothing but the crucified Christ, than fall into the impiety of overly curious inquires & silly nuances.” Reading Irenæus' work on the core doctrines of the Faith reveal his wholehearted embrace of Pauline theology of the NT. Where Irenæus goes beyond John & Paul was in his handling of ecclesiology; that is, matters of the Church. Irenæus wrote on things like the proper handling of the sacraments, and how authority in the church ought to be passed on. A close reading of the 2nd C church fathers reveals that this issue was of major concern to them. It makes sense it would. Jesus had commissioned the Apostles to carry on His mission and to lay the foundation of the Faith & Church. The Apostles had done that, but in the 2nd C, the men the Apostles had raised up were themselves aging out. Church leaders were burdened with the question of how to properly pass on the Faith once for all delivered to the saints, to those who came next. What was the plan?We'll come back to that later . . .Irenæus was a staunch advocate of what we'll call Biblical theology, as opposed to a theology derived from philosophical musing, propped up by random Bible verses. He's the first of the church fathers to make liberal use of BOTH the Old & New Testaments in his writings. He uses all four Gospels and nearly all the letters of the NT in the development of his theology.His goal in it all was to establish unity among believers. He was so zealous for it because of the rising popularity of Gnosticism, a new religious fascination attractive an increasing number of Christians.Historians have come to understand that like many emergent faiths, Gnosticism was itself fractured into different flavors. The brand Irenæus dealt with was the one most popular in his region; Valentinian Gnosticism, or, Valentinianism.While several writings are attributed to Irenæus, by far his most important and famous was Against Heresies, his refutation of Gnosticism. Written sometime btwn 177 & 190, it's 5 volumes is considered by most to be the premier theological work of the ante-Nicene era. It's also the main source of knowledge for historians on Gnosticism and Christian doctrine in the Apostolic Age. It was composed in response to a request by a friend wanting a brief on how to deal with the errors of both Valentinus & Marcion. Both had taught in Rome 30 yrs earlier.  Their ideas then spread to France.The 1st of the 5 volumes is a dissection of what Valentinianism taught, and more generally how it differed from other sects of Gnosticism. It shows that Irenæus had a remarkable grasp of a belief system he utterly & categorically rejected.The 2nd book reviewed the internal inconsistencies and contradictions of Gnosticism.The last 3 volumes give a systematic refutation of Gnosticism from Scripture & tradition which Irenæus makes clear at that time were one and the same. He shows that the Gospel which was at first only oral, was subsequently committed to writing, then was faithfully taught in churches through a succession of pastors & elders. So, Irenæus says, The Apostolic Faith & tradition is embodied in Scripture, and in the right interpretation of those scriptures by pastors (AKA as bishops). And the Church ought to have confidence in those pastors' interpretations of God's Word because they've attained their office through a demonstrated succession. Of course, the succession Irenæus referred to was manifestly evident by virtue of the fact he wrote in the last quarter of the 2nd C & was himself, as we've seen, just a generation removed from the Apostle John.Irenæus set all this over against the contradictory opinions of heretics who fundamentally deviated from this well-established Faith & simply could not be included in the catholic, that is universally agreed on, faith carved out by Scripture and its orthodox interpretation by a properly sanctioned teaching office.The 5th and final volume of Against Heresies includes Irenæus' exposition of pre-millennial eschatology; that is, the study of Last things, or in modern parlance – the End Times. No doubt he does so because it stood in stark contrast with the muddled teaching of the Gnostics on this subject. It might be noted that Irenæus' pre-millennialism wasn't unique. He stood squarely with the other writers of the Apostolic & post-apostolic age.Irenæus' view of the inspiration of Scripture is early anticipation of what came to be called Verbal plenary inspiration. That is, both the writings and authors of Scripture were inspired, so that what God wanted expressed was, without turning the writers into automatons. God expressed His will through the varying personalities of the original authors. He even accounts for the variations in Paul's style across his epistles to his, at times, rapid-fire dictation & the agency of the Holy Spirit's urging at different times and in different situations.Irenæus' emphasis on both Scripture and the apostolic tradition of its interpretation has been seen as a boon to the idea of establishing an official teaching magisterium in the Church. Added to that is his remarks that the church at Rome held a special place in providing leadership for the Church as a whole. He based this on Rome being the location of the martyrdom of both Peter & Paul. While Irenæus acknowledges they did not START the church there, he reasoned they most certainly were regarded as its leaders when they were there. And there was a tradition that Peter appointed the next bishop, one Linus, to lead the Church when he was executed. While it's true Irenæus did indeed suggest Rome ought to take the lead, he said it was the CHURCH there that ought to do so; not its bishop. The point may seem minor, but it's important to note that Irenaeus himself resisted positions taken by the Bishop at Rome. In our last episode, we noted his chronicle of Polycarp's & Anicetus' disagreement over when to celebrated Easter. Anicetus' successor was Bishop Victor, who took a hardline approach with the Quartodecamins and wanted to forcefully punish them. While as the bishop of the church in Lyon, Irenaeus was ready to follow the policy of the Church at Rome, he objected to Victor's heavy-handedness and reminded him of his predecessor's more fair-minded policy.So while Irenaeus does indeed urge a role of first-place for the Church at Rome, we can't go so far as to say he establishes the principle of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. He's not an apologist for papal primacy.Nor does he advocate apostolic succession as it's come to be defined today. What Irenaeus does say is that the Scriptures have to be interpreted rightly; meaning, they have to align with that which the Apostles consistently taught, and that the people who were to be trusted to that end were those linked back to the Apostles because they'd HEARD them explain themselves.He argued this because the Gnostics claimed a secret oral tradition given them from Jesus himself. Irenaeus maintained that the pastors & elders of the Church were well-known and linked to the Apostles and had always maintained the same message that wasn't secret at all. Therefore, it was those pastors who provided the only safe interpretation of Scripture.For Irenaeus, apostolic authority was only valid so long as it actually squared with apostolic teaching, which itself was codified in the Gospels and epistles of the NT – along with what the direct students of the Apostles said they'd taught. Irenæus didn't concoct a formula for the passing of apostolic authority from one generation to the next in perpetuity.Irenaeus became a treasured authority for men like Hippolytus and Tertullian who drew freely from him. He also became a major source for establishing the canon of the NT. He regarded the entire OT as God's Word as well as most of the books our NT while excluding a large number of Gnostic pretenders. There's some evidence that before Irenaeus, believers lined up under different Gospels as their preferred accounts of the Life of Jesus. The Churches of Asia Minor preferred the Gospel of John while Matthew was the most popular overall. Irenaeus made a convincing case that all 4 Gospels were God's Word. That made him the earliest witness to the canonicity of M,M,L & J. This stood over against the accepted writings of a heretic named Marcion who only accepted portions of Luke's Gospel.Irenaeus cited passages of the NT about a thousand times, from 21 of the 27 books, including Revelation. Inferences to the other books can be found as well.Irenaeus provides a perfect bridge from the Apostles to the next phase of Church History presided over by the Fathers, of which he's considered among the first.