Category: Book of Acts

Who is Claudius Lysias?

On By Jovan PayesIn Ancient History, Bible Study, Biography, Book of Acts, Early Christianity, Greco-Roman World, New Testament, New Testament Background, New Testament World, Roman EmpireLeave a comment
Reconstruction of Fort Antonia by Ehud Netzer in Biblical Archaeology Review 35.1 (Jan.-Feb. 2009).

Claudius Lysias, the Tribune

Claudius Lysias is called “the tribune” (χιλίαρχος, chilíarchos) 16 times within Acts 21-24 (21:31-33, 37; 22:24, 26-29; 23:10, 15, 17, 19, 22; 24:22); 17 times if Claudius Lysias is also included in among the “military tribunes” in the “audience hall” when Herod Agrippa II and Bernice come to hear Paul (Acts 25:23). However, such speculation is uncertain, especially considering a minimum of two years from when Claudius Lysias sent Paul to the Procurator Marcus Antonius Felix in c. AD 57/58 Acts 23:26-35, to within the first few months of the new Procurator Porcius Festus who rules from AD 60-62 (Acts 24:27-25:1-22).

The Greek term chilíarchos is said to be used to translate the Roman tribunus militum (following Polybius), and also for the phrase tribuni militares consulari potestate (Plutarch). The responsibilities of a chilíarchos were as a “commander of a thousand men”.[1] Essentially, Claudius Lysias is “a high ranking military officer in charge” of anywhere from 600 to 1,000 men,[2] and this appears to be the case for it is said that his command was over a “cohort” (σπειρα, speira) in Jerusalem which is “the tenth part of a Roman legion having about 600 men” (Acts 21:31).[3]

Tribune of a Jerusalem Cohort

Claudius Lysias’s complete description as found in the New Testament book of the Acts of the Apostles is “the tribune of the cohort” in Jerusalem, which resided in nearby “barracks” (Acts 21:34, 37; 22:24, 23:10, 16, 32). It takes six cohorts to make up a legion, and each legion had six tribunes with a thousand men (“soldiers and centurions” Acts 21:32) under his command if the cohort was full; consequently, Claudius Lysias was a part of a larger military force.

The exact numbers in his cohort may never be known, however, he had sufficient men to spare two centurions, two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen, and two hundred spearmen to accompany Paul to Caesarea Acts 23:23-24. Furthermore, when the security detail arrives before Antipatris (Acts 23:31), Claudius Lysias allows for the seventy horsemen to go on with him and Paul to Caesarea, the headquarters of the Procurator Felix (Acts 23:32-35).

The “barracks” referenced in the book of Acts (21:34, 37; 22:24; 23:10, 16, 32), in connection to Claudius Lysias and his cohort are references to the Tower of Antonia, which Herod the Great rebuilt from a previous structure and named it after Marc Antony.[4] The Antonia was added on to the northwest side of the Temple facilities, “from which stairs descend into the outer court of the temple” (Acts 21:32, 35, 22:30).[5] For this reason, the Roman Tribune could hear the commotion caused by the confusing riot over Paul’s presence in the Temple and respond with speed (Acts 21:27-32).

Claudius Lysias in the New Testament

The military tribune Claudius Lysias enters the New Testament narrative when he protects Paul of Tarsus from a hostile Jewish mob on the outside of the Temple grounds in Jerusalem (Acts 21:30-32). The Acts text does not explicitly state why the tribune arrests Paul aside from asking “who he was and what he had done” (Acts 21:33); consequently, it appears Paul is detained for investigation as reflected later in Paul’s interrogation in the Antonian barracks because he was a cause of instigation among the Jews (Acts 22:23-24).

Claudius Lysias is aware of Jewish anarchistic movements, for when Paul speaking in Greek asks permission to speak to the shouting Jewish mob, the tribune appears shocked that he speaks Greek (Acts 21:37). Paul, as a controversial Greek-speaking Hebrew, evidently met some of the criteria for Lysias to conclude he was a Jewish revolutionist. Consequently, it appears that Lysias suspects him of being “the Egyptian” who “stirred up a revolt and led the four thousand men of the Assassins [σικαρίων] out into the wilderness” (Acts 21:38).

This individual operated around A.D. 53, and this revolution amounted to amassing these four thousand men, positioning themselves upon the Mount of Olives outside Jerusalem, and anticipating the walls of Jerusalem to collapse at his command. The Romans attacked this band of men, and the Egyptian lost six hundred men, and fled into the wilderness where he disappears awaiting “further revelation.” Evidently, “the Egyptian” was still on the run, wanted by the Roman military and the tribune was going to see if Paul was this anarchist.[6]

Paul was able to persuade Lysias that he was not an agitator, and provides him with his provincial citizenship as being from Tarsus, in the province of Cilicia (Acts 21:39). This was not an “obscure city” and either this suggests his citizenship could be authenticated, or Paul distinguished himself from the obscure Egyptian. In either case, Paul’s point is clear, he is not the Egyptian; the tribune accepts Paul’s case, and grants Paul an opportunity to speak to the Jews on the steps of the Temple facilities adjoined to the Antonian fortress (Acts 22:39-40).

The Jews did not respond peaceably to Paul’s speech, and Claudius Lysias decides to take Paul into the “barracks” of Antonia and “examine” him through the process of binding him to flog him (Acts 22:22-24). On receiving a report that Paul was a Roman citizen and then making a personal inquiry, Claudius is afraid of having violated the rights of a Roman by having him bound (see “Roman Citizenship” below). Claudius desires to arrive at the truth concerning the Jewish case against Paul and commands the Sanhedrin to assemble. Dissension among the Sanhedrin towards Paul arises again and causes Claudius Lysias to order his men to take Paul to the safety of the Antonian barracks (Acts 22:30-23:10).

Upon learning of a plot to kill Paul, Claudius Lysias summoned a military convoy to leave for Caesarea Maritima. In compliance with Roman law, he also sent a statement of the case to the procurator Antonius Felix. The letter reads:

Claudius Lysias, to his Excellency the governor Felix, greetings.

This man was seized by the Jews and was about to be killed by them when I came upon them with the soldiers and rescued him, having learned that he was a Roman citizen. And desiring to know the charge for which they were accusing him, I brought him down to their council. I found that he was being accused about questions of their law, but charged with nothing deserving death or imprisonment. 

And when it was disclosed to me that there would be a plot against the man, I sent him to you at once, ordering his accusers also to state before you what they have against him. (Acts 23:26-30, English Standard Version)

The letter format is consistent with the general format in the Graeco-Roman world, of “author” to “recipient” with a “greeting” with the subsequent content of the reason for the letter.[7] This letter, however, was not altogether factual. It is an interesting “specimen” of Roman military correspondence (Acts 23:26-30).

Although acknowledging Paul’s innocence, Claudius Lysias gave the impression that he had rescued Paul because of having learned that the apostle was a Roman, whereas in reality, he had violated Paul’s citizenship rights by having him bound and even ordering that he be examined under scourgings. As to the disciple Luke’s knowledge of the letter’s contents, it may be that the letter itself was read at the time Paul’s case was heard.

Roman Citizenship

In Acts 22:23-29, a discussion between Paul and Claudius emerges on the topic of Roman citizenship. Part of Claudius’ investigation procedure to find out more information was to stretch out the detained for whips and flog them.

Before his flogging begins, Paul questions the centurion given this detail, “Is it lawful for you to flog a man who is a Roman citizen and uncondemned?” (Acts 22:25). Roman citizenship had a number of privileges, as John Polhill writes:

A Roman citizen was subject to Roman law and thus was protected from such things as being beaten without a trial, from cruel punishments like crucifixion, and from unlawful imprisonment, rights which did not belong to an ordinary provincial (peregrinus). Citizens had the right of appeal. Only a Roman citizen could legally marry another Roman citizen. Citizens were exempted from certain taxes. Beyond this, there was the considerable factor of honor and deference such a status afforded.[8]

It was such a valued honor, that some people risked the death penalty given for falsely claiming citizenship.[9] Interestingly, one could hold dual citizenship, as Paul was not only a citizen of the city of Rome but was also a citizen of the city of Tarsus from the province of Cilicia (Acts 21.39; 23.34).

Roman citizenship was conferred in a number of ways. The basic ones are as follows:

(1) The most common way was being born of two Roman citizens.

This is the claim Paul makes when asked how he obtained his citizenship (“I am a citizen by birth” Acts 22:28), which implies that both of Paul’s parents were Jewish Roman citizens (cf. #4).

(2) One could obtain citizenship as a reward for military service.

Regularly, military veterans were given citizenship upon discharge. This was the surest way to get it, taking 20 to 25 years depending on the level of ranking.

(3) Imperial conference, though heard of, was not entirely common.

Nevertheless, the emperor could confer citizenship, either on individuals or on whole communities, as in the establishment of a new colony. Often the result of doing some loyal service to Rome. Also, many times through these services, one gained an audience with the Emperor through expensive gifts to members of the inner Imperial court.

This may have been how the Tribune Claudius Lysias gained his citizenship (Acts 22:27-28). In fact, the tribune’s name provides evidence to assume the plausibility that Emperor Claudius (A.D. 41 – A.D. 54) conferred upon Lysias citizenship since those granted this honor would bear the name (the nomen) of the family or patron which conferred it; hence, Lysias gained the name of his patron Claudius. It has been noted that the emperor was quite “promiscuous” in his conference of citizenship.[10]

(4) Roman citizenship was also conferred through the emancipation of a slave from the house of a Roman citizen.

Some have suggested that Paul’s ancestors may have been freedmen from among the thousands of Jews whom Pompey took as slaves in 63 B.C.[11]

Endnotes

  1. H. G. Liddell, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon: Abridged from Liddel and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon (1888; repr.; Oak Harbor, Wash.: Logos Research Systems, 1996), 888.
  2. Barclay Newman, Jr., A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament, revised ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2010), 200.
  3. Newman, A Concise Greek-English Dictionary, 167.
  4. Josephus, Antiquities 15.293; 15.409.
  5. George A. Smith, et al., “Jerusalem,” Encyclopaedia Biblica, eds. T. K. Cheyne and J. Southerland Black (London: A & C Black, 1901), 1:2429.
  6. Robert M. Grant, The Sword and the Cross (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1955), 49.
  7. T. C. Mitchell, Biblical Archaeology: Documents from the British Museum (New York, NY: University of Cambridge, 1988), 89.
  8. John B. Polhill, “Political Background of the New Testament,” Foundations for Biblical Interpretation, eds. David S. Dockery, et al. (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 531-32.
  9. Abraham J. Malherbe, “Life in the Graeco-Roman World,” The World of the New Testament, ed. Abraham J. Malherbe (1967; repr., Abilene, Tex.: Abilene Christian University Press, 1984), 9.
  10. Polhill, “Political Background of the New Testament,” 532.
  11. John B. Polhill, “Political Background of the New Testament,” 532; Richard R. Losch, The Uttermost Part of the Earth: A Guide to Places in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 176-77.

This originally appeared as a fully edited submission to Wikipedia.org. I have posted this here in case it is revised or rewritten.

Church: A Preliminary Survey

On By Jovan PayesIn Book of Acts, Ecclesiology, Essays, General Letters, Gospel, New Testament, Paul's Letters, Peter's Letters, Revelation, Theology, Word Studies2 Comments

With so many “churches” in the religious world, people interested in visiting one are often sidelined by the inevitable question, “which church should I go to?” After all, there are as many “churches” as there are potential opinions on what a church should be like. But where should a person begin as they search for a church, should they simply jump out on a whim? Hardly.

Searching for a church should be a reverent endeavor, especially since in the New Testament the “church” is said to have been “purchased” by the very blood of Jesus Christ (Acts 20.28). Consequently, if the church was that important to Jesus and the Father, those seeking to “go to church” should realize this spiritual venture should not be taken lightly.

Where then might a person find the necessary perspective from which to begin this search? The relevant information is found in the New Testament documents, the documents which record the formative forces which began the church in the first place; moreover, the New Testament provides ample information about how people became members of the blood-bought church of Jesus, along with important church organizational references.

This piece is a primer, in a sense, on the nature of the church. There are many ways that this topic can be addressed. But, nevertheless, below are some relevant points to glean from the New Testament on the topic of the church of Christ (Rom. 16.16).

The New Testament Documents

In the New Testament, from the beginning to end, the thought and actual fact that the saved existed as a collective known as the “church” or body of Christ is clearly self-evident (Matt 16:18 and Eph 1:22, 23, 4:4; Acts 2:47). Consider a sample of the New Testament documents.

There are four accounts of the ministry of Jesus, they are called Gospels. The term “church” is found only in the Gospel of Matthew, particularly in chapters 16 and 18. In chapter 16, Jesus speaks of building His church – “my church” (16:18). He explains that death (Grk. hades – not hell, contra KJV) will be incapable of deterring his plans to bring His church into reality.[1] In chapter 18, verses 15-17 describe the disciplinarian process regarding a Christian brother living in sin, and hence, needing private correction. The final stage is to bring the sin to the public forum by telling it to the church, with the intention that it can act as a loving measure of leverage to pressure the brother to quit the sinful practice. Thus, in Matthew Jesus speaks of his church in two ways: (1) that it will be built (Matt 16:18), and (2) as the ultimate forum for maintaining moral purity among God’s people (Matt 18:15-17).

The Acts of the Apostles is the inspired historical account of the church – albeit a history with a theological focus. It is most definitely a primary source for the church, and therefore a logical document to examine in order to find the biblical church. To save space, consider what we find in only the first half of Acts (Acts 1-12). We find it was “the church”[2] that had become fearful after the Divine retribution against Ananias and Sapphira was administered by the Lord (Acts 5:11); the object of Saul of Tarsus’ brutal obsession was “the church” anywhere it assembled (Acts 8:1, 3; cf. Gal 1:13); it was “the church” at large in Samaria and Judea that enjoyed peace when the persecuting Saul became the believing Paul (Acts 9.31).

We find Barnabas and Paul (Saul) laboring in “the church,” particularly in Antioch of Syria,[3] and labeling the disciples (i.e. the individual members of the church) Christians (Acts 11:22, 26); several members of “the church” suffered persecution under the hand of King Herod (Acts 12:1, 5); “the church” in Antioch of Pisidia had prophets and inspired teachers, and sent Paul and Barnabas out to accomplish their first missionary call (Acts 13:1ff.); Paul and Barnabas had appointed elders in every “church” they established on their missionary labors (Acts 14:23), and upon their return to Antioch they recounted they travel to “the church” (Acts 14:27).

The largest sub-category of the New Testament documents is The Letter (also commonly styled, “epistle”) – 21 letters to be exact.[4] They are further divided by the prophets which God employed to pen them: Paul (13 letters), John (3), Peter (2), James (1), Jude (1), and the unknown author of the Letter to the Hebrews. This is a vast amount of literature to scan, but we can reflect on the following citations of “the church” among the letters and observe that “the church” is the redeemed body of Jesus believers. It goes without saying – at least it should be by students – that the New Testament Letters assume their audience is the redeemed body of Jesus disciples.

Ancient letter writing etiquette had the author’s name first and then the recipient’s name; thus, we read, “from me… to you.” When Paul wrote his letters, he often addressed the recipients with the nomenclature “saints” (cf. Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1; Eph 1:1; Phil 1:1; Col 1:2). The term “saint” is the general description of all members of “the church” in the respect that they have been sanctified in baptism, and this sanctification continues in obedience shown by a holy life (Matt 26:28; Acts 2:38; 1 Cor 6:11-13; 1 John 1:6-7). The “saints” are members of the church viewed from the perspective of consecration. In fact, many times the letters begin like this: to the church with the saints.

Some appear to use Jewish terminology, like James and Peter, to describe the people of God. The letter of James is written to “the twelve tribes in the Dispersion” (1:1); meanwhile, the audience for the Letters of Peter (if to the same audience) is depicted in the following way: “To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion” (1 Pet 1:1). However, in Peter’s second letter, he speaks of his audience as “those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Pet 1:1). It seems like the language applies the covenant aspect that biblical Israel had with God, and here it is applied in a new way to demonstrate that Peter’s audience is the new covenant people of God (Jer 31:31; Heb 8:13). These are members of the biblical church.

The Letter of Jude addresses his recipients with the nomenclature “called” and “beloved” (vs. 1). Their calling seems from the simple fact that they received their invitation (a clearer meaning of the term, kleitos translated “called”) to share the “common salvation”. Moreover, they received access to the love of God actuated in the redemption of their soul accomplished through Jesus Christ, thus, they are the beloved of God. What Jude emphasized that their identity was related to their Divine relationship through obedience to the Gospel. For our purposes, we are to understand that these “saints” and “beloved” ones are members of the New Testament church.

The First Letter of John, much like Hebrews, does not begin in the traditional letter format. Some describe them as tractates or some larger form of literary work sent as a letter. Nevertheless, John assumes a relationship – a fellowship between the apostolic circle, God, and themselves – that is based on obedient living and faithful confession of sin as they strive to live a disciplined life (1 John 1:1-10). They already are in this relationship, they are saved. Again, in Hebrews 2:1-4, the evidence is provided regarding the recipients. They are encouraged to remain vigilant, not neglecting their salvation which was shown to have a supernatural origin. Likewise, these recipients are members of the biblical church.

The last document in the New Testament is the Apocalypse, the Book of Revelation. The document opens up with these words: “John to the seven churches that are in Asia” (Rev 1:4). In the doxology, it is Jesus “who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father” (Rev 1:5-6). The audience, the churches, share salvation and the love of God, are part of a kingdom, and share involvement in the priesthood of God. The message of Revelation is the victory over the enemies of God as it is revealed in the inability of these satanic forces to prevent the faithful saints from entering the New Jerusalem, wherein lies the tree of life (Rev. 22.14). The brief but spiritually dense letters sent to the churches of Asia in Revelation 2 and 3 show among other things, the audience intended for the prophecies embedded into the fabric of this symbolic book. They assume that the recipients are already Christians, members of the church.

The picture should be clear that the New Testament is a collection of 27 books which speak to or about the church of Jesus Christ. Consequently, anyone looking for a church should reverently approach the prospect with the New Testament as the guiding source for determining what the church that God established should look like and be like.

The Church: A Brief Word Analysis

We may survey some of the information from the New Testament regarding the “church” and the redeemed which make up the “church”, but what does “church” mean? The term “church” is the most common, though unclear, translation for the New Testament Greek term ekklesia. Often times, “church” is thought of as solely “the building” in which a person congregates with others to worship God; however, ekklesia does not refer to a building – hence, “church” is an unclear translation if not misleading altogether. But the term is so commonplace that it need not be shelved; after all, even modern dictionaries have various nuances for the word “church.”

The English word “church” has a peculiar history that demands some attention. Hugo McCord (1911-2004) – professor, translator, and preacher – briefly summarizes the history of the word:

Historically, the English word “church” comes from the Middle English “cherche” or “chirche,” which is from the Anglo-Saxon “circe” or “cyrce,” which is from the German “Kirche,” which is from the Greek kuriakos, meaning “belonging to the Lord.” Webster says that the Greek word doma, “house,” has to be added to kuriakos to make the word “church,” that is, a “church” is “the Lord’s house.”[5]

McCord further observes that only twice does kuriakos – “the Lord’s” – appear in the New Testament (“the Lord’s supper” 1 Cor. 11.20; “the Lord’s day” Rev. 1.10), but in neither case is the phrase “the Lord’s house” ever employed.[6]

Basically, the etymology of the word translated “church” (ekklesia) derives itself from the adjoining of two words, ek and kaleo (ek-kaleo “call out”), into one verb originally “used for the summons to an army to assemble.” As a noun, ekklesia, denoted “the popular assembly of the full citizens of the polis, or Greek city state” (cf. Acts 19:32, 41).[7] This is, in a nutshell, the Greek background of the word beneath our religious word “church.”

Its existence in the Old Testament is due to the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. In the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX), ekklesia appears about one hundred times and is frequently employed to translate the Hebrew term qahal.[8] It is not so much the frequency to translate qahal which is intriguing; instead, it is the regularity of the context when ekklesia is employed which should attract contemplation. O’Brien writes:

Of particular significance are those instances of ekklesia (rendering qahal) which denote the congregation of Israel when it assembled to hear the Word of God on Mt. Sinai, or later on Mt. Zion where all Israel was required to assemble three times a year.[9]

Interestingly, the Hebrew writer similarly speaks of the redeemed in Hebrews 12:22-24. Thus, a raw translation of ekklesia may suggest the meaning to be, “the called out ones.”[10] In the biblical tradition, however, it seems better to emphasize that it carries the spiritual depiction of an assembly of God’s people prepared to hear and be led by His word in the covenantal sense.

Stephen, the first Christian martyr, recounts how Israel was an ekklesia during the forty years of wandering in the wilderness due to their rebellion and lack of faith (Acts 7:38). And it was during this time that they were taught how to depend upon the Lord. The beautiful and yet tragic relationship between the faithful God and his unbelieving nation is set forth clearly in Psalm 78 (cf. Hos 11:1-9). The Lord’s goal was to “shepherd” and “guide” them with his powerful word and through the demonstration of his presence.

With regards to the Lord’s church which Jesus promised to “build,” it is important that we consider these thoughts in our understanding of the kind of church Jesus was thinking of; as a consequence, it should guide our assessment of how “church” should behave. Individuals gathered together to hear and abide in his teaching, so that in it, they may be shepherded and guided (1 Tim 4:13). Meanwhile, leadership in the church (i.e. elders/shepherds) is to be “able to teach” and “manage” his household, and use these skills as he executes his God’s appointed office (Acts 20:28, 1 Tim 3:1-5). When the church considers this relationship and responsibility and embraces its challenge, we will be taking strong steps to finding a congregation of the Lord – a church of Christ.

Conclusion

We find in the New Testament a consciousness the early Christians held regarding the church. Jesus was to build his church, and after his death, the church began in Jerusalem and spread throughout the Roman world through Judea, Samaria, and to the furthermost extents of known Roman world (Acts 1.8ff). As the church expanded, the apostles and other inspired authors wrote to Christians regarding the ministry of Jesus and concerning Christian living.

Through these documents, important information is related to the nature of the church. Anyone searching for a “church” to attend should not settle for any church but should study the New Testament reverently identifying the nature of the church revealed in its pages.

When examining the English word “church” we find that we are not talking about a building, but instead, the emphasis should be placed upon an assembly of people. These individuals are assembled to hear the word of God, and make those Divine words translate into everyday action – everyday living. Only until we hear and practice the Word will we become the church (ekklesia) of Christ.

Endnotes

  1. The King James Version (a.k.a. the A.V.) is quite misleading here, for the Greek text reads pulai hadou – literally, “the gates of hades.” The Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament (ALT) has the following descriptive rendering of the passage,”[the] gates of the realm of the dead [Gr., hades] will not prevail against it” (ATL Matt. 16.18).
  2. Again we disagree with the A.V./KJV-Byzantine tradition in Acts 2.47, where the word “church” (ekklesia) is part of a variant reading of the text. Instead, we agree with others who find that the ending better reads epi to auto, a phrase often used to refer to the “Christian body” in a collective sense (Acts 1.15; 2.1, 47; 1 Cor 11.20; 14.23; Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2d ed. [Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001], 264-65).
  3. Antioch of Syria is not to be confused with the Antioch of Pisidia in Asia Minor. BiblePlaces.com has good images of both Antioch of Syria (link) and of Pisidia (Link).
  4. Technically, there are a few more letters in the New Testament record, but each is embedded in other books. For example, the book of Acts has two letters (a) 15.22-29, and (b) 23.23-30; and, the book of Revelation has seven letters to the church of Asia (Rev. 1-3).
  5. Hugo McCord, The Everlasting Gospel: Plus Genesis, Psalms, and Proverbs, 4th ed. (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman University, 2000), 696. This edition is known also as FHV4.
  6. McCord, The Everlasting Gospel, 696.
  7. Peter T. O’Brien, “Church,” DPHL, 123.
  8. O’Brien, “Church,” 124; TDNT 3:527; BDAG, 303.
  9. O’Brien, “Church,” 124.
  10. Etymologically, ekklesia does suggest that individuals were “called out” from their lifestyles by the Gospel (2 Thess 2:14). There is obviously a separation that occurs (2 Cor 6:17, 1 John 2:15-17). These etymological considerations corroborate with New Testament teaching on the church. However, the word has a richer heritage as is seen in its Old Testament use of the Greek language. These aspects must be appreciated in balance with each other.

Suggested Reading

  1. Wayne Jackson, “The Origin of Christianity,” ChristianCourier.com.
  2. Wayne Jackson, “The Restoration of First-Century Christianity,” ChristianCourier.com.

Jon Meacham, the Bible, and His “Problematic Source”

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Biblical Criticism, Bibliology, Book of Acts, Christian Apologetics, Daniel, Gospel, Major Prophets, New Testament, Old Testament, TheologyLeave a comment

It has been a few years since Mel Gibson’s movie, “The Passion of the Christ,” was all that the world could talk about. It was a situation bound to receive controversial media coverage – it just comes with the territory of religion in the media. A case in point was the February 16 issue of Newsweek published in anticipation of Gibson’s film. About a week before this publication hit the stands, Jon Meacham’s cover story entitled, “Who Killed Jesus?,” was published online on MSNBC.com in four internet pages – then later archived on Newsweek.com.

Meacham’s article feigned an attempt to evaluate Gibson’s new movie, and instead, assaulted the biblical text. He openly affirms, “the Bible is the product of human authors.” He further argues that these authors were producing religious propaganda for Christianity, and like any other literary work the Bible is plagued with historical inaccuracies. Concerning the Bible Meacham writes:

The Bible can be a problematic source. Though countless believers take it as the immutable word of God, Scripture is not always a faithful record of historical events; the Bible is the product of human authors who were writing in particular times and places with particular points to make and visions to advance.[1]

Jon Meacham, “Who Killed Jesus?,” Newsweek (2004)

This is just one quote from a number of similar statements found throughout the article. The editor of Newsweek couches his statement with liberal theological overtones. In other words, Scripture is regarded as human produced literature designed only to give morals, void of any direct involvement of God. We shall see that the problematic source is not the Bible, it is Meacham’s theological presumptions.

The Media’s Treatment of the Bible

Meacham’s view of the Bible articulates three ways the Bible is often misrepresented in mainstream American media: (1) the Bible is of sole human origin, (2) the Scriptures are unreliable historical records, and (3) the biblical sources are legendary that need specious sources to embellish the narrative to provide the “true story.” With a national circulation over 3 million plus, there is no doubt that the church, our neighbors (religious or otherwise) and our youth are influenced by this.

How shall we respond? Bible believers need to be able to affirm the following response. Although these erroneous views of the Bible are widespread, the Bible (i.e. Scripture) is beyond that of human production and consequently trustworthy, because the internal evidence of predictive prophecy, the uncanny historical accuracy, and the marvelous unity of the 66 books is of supernatural origin and guidance.

Predictive Prophecy

Predictive prophecy is one of the most powerful lines of evidence that the Bible is beyond that of human production. The specific foretelling of future events serves as an accurate brief definition. Moreover, there are at least three criteria: (1) it must be given separated by a significant amount of time, (2) there are specific details (not generalities) and, (3) 100% fulfillment must follow (not 95% etc.). As an example, observe the prophecy of the rise and fall of four world powers of antiquity given in Daniel 2 and its relationship to the establishment of the church in the first century.

The image of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Dan. 2:1-24) was a picture of 4 sequential kingdoms: Babylonia (605-539 B.C), Persia (539-331 B.C.), Hellenistic (331-63 B.C.), and Roman (63 B.C-A.D. 476).[2] Daniel living in the 6th century B.C. predicted the fall of Babylon and the rise of these world empires. Furthermore, in Daniel 2:44-45 the prophecy was declared that during the reign of Imperial Rome, the God of heaven would establish His kingdom for all time.

While Rome was in power Jesus was born, lived, ministered, died, and resurrected (Gal 4:4). He declared that he was going to establish His church (Matt 16:18), which in this context means His kingdom (Matt. 16:19-20; Mark 9:1). This kingdom-church would come after the Holy Spirit had come upon the 12 Apostles (Acts 1:4-8), which arrived on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). The prophecy was fulfilled as precisely as it was given centuries in advance.[3]

Precise Historical Accuracy

Historical accuracy is another line of reasoning which demonstrates that the Bible is beyond that of human production. The book of Acts is a powerful example. Luke wrote the book of Acts, which is a chronicle of the labors of Peter and Paul as the gospel goes from Jerusalem to the entire world.

The accuracy of Acts is such that no human could have been so accurate, except for the guidance of the Holy Spirit; observe:

This companion of Paul was a careful and meticulous historian. For instance, in Acts he mentions thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine Mediterranean islands. He also mentions ninety-five persons in Acts, sixty-two of which are not named elsewhere in the New Testament. He is thoroughly familiar with the geographical and political conditions of his day. And this is really amazing since the political/territorial situation was in a constant state of flux and flow in Luke’s time.[4]

Wayne Jackson, Biblical Studies in the Light of Archaeology (1982)

Accessibility to libraries was minimal due to how few or exclusive they were, and even if they had reference works, “the events Luke was trying to chronicle had taken place – at least at the beginning – in what the people of that day would have said were remote areas of the world.”[5]

There has yet to be the historical accuracy of the magnitude of Acts and the Bible recovered from antiquity to the present.

Unity of the Scriptures

A third line of argumentation is the unparalleled unity of the Scriptures. For instance, Jeremiah 25:1 and Daniel 1:1 are among a variety of passages appealed to for the claim that the Bible is not a harmonious work. Here is the argument. Jeremiah 25:1 and Daniel 1:1 refer to the same event in antiquity, the invasion of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar. 

In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. (Daniel 1:1 ESV)
The word that came to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judah, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah (that was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon)... (Jer 25:1 ESV)

However, the date of the event mentioned appears upon face value discrepant for Jeremiah says the event happened in the 4th year of Jehoiakim’s reign while Daniel says the timeframe was during the 3rd year of Jehoiakim’s rule (see “System” chart[6]).

SYSTEM1ST Sovereign2ND Sovereign3RD
Sovereign		4TH Sovereign
BabylonianYear of Ascension1st Year of Reign2nd Year of Reign3rd Year of Reign
Palestinian1st Year of Reign2nd Year of Reign3rd Year of Reign4th Year of Reign

If the two accounts cannot be harmonized then this is a historical mistake, underscoring a purely human enterprise. The answer to this riddle, however, lies in the distinct systems of dating regnal years used by Daniel and Jeremiah. Bruce K. Waltke writes:

In Babylonia the year in which the king ascended the throne was designated specifically as “the year of accession to the kingdom,” and this was followed by the first, second, and subsequent years of rule. In Palestine, on the other hand, there was no accession year as such, so that the length of rule was computed differently, with the year of accession being regarded as the first year of the king’s reign.[7]

Bruce K. Waltke, “The Date of the Book of Daniel,” Bibliotheca Sacra (1976)

Therefore, Daniel living in Babylonia used that system, while Jeremiah employed the Palestinian method. The unity spans cross-cultural methods of communication, how wonderful! The remarkable unity is so strong that even difficult passages backfire on the critic.

As so often happens, the supposed discrepancies become evidence against the critics of the Bible.

Conclusion

The Bible is not a problematic source; however, that does not mean that it has no range of complexity. The Bible is “a faithful record of historical events,” and its principles are grounded upon historical reality (e.g. creation, the Exodus, the resurrection of Jesus, etc.). The Bible comes together like pieces of a jig-saw puzzle. It is due to overwhelming evidence like this that we affirm that the Bible is beyond human production. The “problematic source” is Meacham’s liberal perspective – it is not the Bible!

Sources

  1. Jon Meacham, “Who Killed Jesus?,” Newsweek.com (Accessed: 16 Feb. 2004), par. 6.
  2. Robert T. Boyd, World’s Bible Handbook (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1996), 309.
  3. Jason Jackson, “How Can the Church be the Fulfillment of Daniel 2:44?,” ChristianCourier.com (Accessed: 28 Sept. 2005).
  4. Wayne Jackson, Biblical Studies in the Light of Archaeology (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, 1982), 46.
  5. James M. Boice, Acts: An Expositional Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1997), 14.
  6. Jovan Payes, “Ascertaining the Date of Daniel: A First Look,” BiblicalFaith.wordpress.com. This particular line of reasoning is important evidence supporting the unity of Scriptures against baseless accusations of intertextual (book to book) problems. We are not suggesting there are not difficult passages that take more depth to study, but we are asserting that this “problem” passage is an eloquent statement of intertextual unity.
  7. Bruce K. Waltke, “The Date of the Book of Daniel,” BSac 133 (1976): 326.