Category: Paul’s Letters

Changed to Serve, Living in Hope (1 Thess 1:9–10)

On By Jovan PayesIn 1 Thessalonians, Bible Study, Book of Acts, Christian Ethics, Conversion, Discipleship, Early Christianity, Greco-Roman World, New Testament, New Testament World, Paul's Letters

Christians must always be reminded of their responsibility to live out lives reflective of the high calling of God (Eph 4:1; Phil 3:14). There is a tremendous passage in 1 Thessalonians 1:9–10, which provides the Christian with the basic aspects of Christian living. Here is the passage:

For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come. (1 Thessalonians 1:9–10 English Standard Version)

Let us examine this passage, and reflect on the four aspects of this passage: (1) reception of the word, (2) conversion, (3) consecrated service and (4) hope of deliverance.

I hope to invite modern Christians to reflect on the importance of turning to God in conversion, to living a sanctified life in anticipation of the final day when Jesus comes again.

The Background

First, let us consider some background information.

After leaving the city of Philippi, Paul and Silas traveled probably on horseback some 100 miles on the Egnatian Way through Amphipolis and Apollonia only to pause their trip in Thessalonica.[1] It is highly likely this was a three-staged trek to Thessalonica: Philippi to Amphipolis (30 mi.), Amphipolis to Apollonia (27 mi.), and Apollonia to Thessalonica (35 mi.).[2] Situated on the Egnatian Way, ancient Thessalonica was at the heart of Roman travel, communication, and culture in Macedonia. So much so, that William Barclay succinctly said, “East and West converged on Thessalonica.”[3]

The Book of Acts chronicles Paul’s initial evangelistic efforts in that great city (Acts 17:1–9), as he enters the synagogue and presents various elements of the gospel message as found in the prophetic writing of the Old Testament. In fact, in Acts 17:2, Luke says Paul spent three weeks “reasoning” with the Jews on the Sabbath, the word suggesting a rigorous discussion or possibly hints at a debate style of presentation (Grk. dialegomai).

Unfortunately, in this case, Luke does not inform us which scriptures Paul uses to build his case (cf. 1 Thess 1:10; 1 Cor 15:3–5; Isa 53:2–8; Psa 22:1, 16:10; Acts 2:31). He only affirms that the suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is the embodiment of these prophetic utterings which adherents of the synagogue would have been familiar.

Luke observes the response of those that believed:

some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women. (Acts 17:4)

Unfortunately, a number of Jews responded to the missionaries with political manipulation and leveraging. These Jews, operating out of jealousy, enlisted the worst of society and orchestrated a riot, and attacked and arrested Jason who was hosting Paul and his company (Acts 17:5–6).

When presenting their case against Jason and the Christians, this mob describes them with politically subversive language. They are those “who have turned the world upside down” (Acts 17:6), “they are all acting against the decrees of Caesar” (Acts 17:7a), and “they are all… saying that there is another king, Jesus” (Acts 17:7b). Due to this charge, Jason is released to Paul and Silas on the conditions of payment of bail (“security”) and their departure (Acts 17:8–9). Paul later describes this as being “torn away” from them (1 Thess 2:17).

Reception of the Word

Sometime after leaving Thessalonica, Paul was restless and sent Timothy to Thessalonica for a report. Timothy returns with an encouraging report of their faithfulness (1 Thess 3:6). This faithfulness began when they believed Paul’s preaching in the synagogue (Acts 17:4). Luke notes that some Jews, and many devout Greeks (likely God-fearers) and leading women were “persuaded and joined Paul and Silas.” These are passive verbs, suggesting the work of the Spirit’s word compelled those with honest hearts to identify with the gospel proclaimers.

When Paul wrote to this young church, he recalls this moment. In fact, he frames their conversion as an example of the success of the gospel message received as God’s word:

And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers. (1 Thessalonians 2:13)

The “makings” of a Christian begin when the gospel is heard not as just another philosophy, or religious message. Instead, as Paul recalls, before one becomes a Christian it is imperative that the preaching is regarded as the very word of God. This is the foundation; if this is not believed spiritual failure is surely looming in the distance.

Conversion: Turned from Idols

The actual verb “turned” in 1 Thessalonians 1:9 (Grk. epistrépho) carries the idea of turning around and directing this move towards a new object or a person. In Acts, the noun is used for conversion to God (Grk. epistrephe). Together with its more common verb “to turn” they appear a total of twelve times in the Book of Acts (3:19; 9:35, 40; 11:21; 14:15; 15:3 [noun], 19, 36; 16:18; 26:18, 20; 28:27). Except for three instances (9:40, 15:36, and 16:18), the terms are exclusively used with reference to people turning to God in response to the Gospel.

Paul celebrates that as a result of accepting the word of God as authoritative and believing the gospel message, the Thessalonians turned to God after a life of serving “idols” (1 Thess 1:9). While Luke plants the conversion of the Thessalonians to those connected to the synagogue, in his letter Paul emphasizes a defection from the pagan background of the Greco-Roman converts.

This likely points to their lack of participation in the cults of their clans and tribes, temple, city, and “states” gods, which would have created a wedge between them and their neighbors. Albert Bell, Jr., notes that “the more gods a city worshiped, the better its chances of divine favor.”[4] It is known, for example, the people of Thessalonica worshipped Zeus, Asclepius, Aphrodite, and Demeter, and even the Egyptian gods Serapis and Isis. They were also given to the Samothrace cult of Cabrius.[5]

According to the Greco-Roman cultic mindset, Christians turning from the gods was not only difficult to understand but also came off as unpatriotic to the state. In their mind, it would not only have been subversive to the Spirit of Roma (Rome worshipped) and even the deified Caesar but also this behavior would have been seen as inviting divine disfavor (1 Thess 2:14). Paul celebrated their choice in doing this.

Children of God must remember their conversion was a choice. W. E. Vine insightfully comments on this conversion:

[It was] an immediate and decisive change, consequent upon a deliberate choice; a conversion is a voluntary act in response to the presentation of truth.[6] 

They chose to leave their sins behind; they did not take them along in their new life as God’s people.

Consecrated Service

Again, the Thessalonians did not bring their old life with them. Instead, they were changed “to serve the living and true God.” In fact, Paul later writes to them that “God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness” (1 Thess 4:7). Service to God is expressed in the rejection of “the passions” of the past which reflects a rejection and of God (1 Thess 4:5).

Christian service is a demonstration that the things which were important and governed the fundamentals of our pre-Christian lives no longer function in this way. Christians are not to lean upon their past; instead, they are called to “stand fast in the Lord” (1 Thess 3:8).

In other words, Christians are to live lives devoted to serving God over our own ambitions. This is the “how to” of our service to God, to accept God sanctifying his people. Notice this emphasis on a consecrated and holy life:

For you know how, like a father with his children, we exhorted each one of you and encouraged you and charged you to walk in a manner worthy of God, who calls you into his own kingdom and glory. (1 Thessalonians 2:11–12)

Now may our God and Father himself, and our Lord Jesus, direct our way to you, and may the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another and for all, as we do for you, so that he may establish your hearts blameless in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints. (1Thessalonians 3:11–13)

For you know what instructions we gave you through the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality...  For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness. (1 Thessalonians 4:2–3, 7)

Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Thessalonians 5:23)

As a result of being converted, Christians are washed, consecrated, and remade for righteous service (1 Cor 6:9–11; Eph 2:10). Contemporary Christians need to take this message of consecration to heart.

Hope of Deliverance

Christians live in the present with a living hope which anticipates the second coming of Jesus. Paul is very clear when he affirms that there is a future point of hope and deliverance for which Christians wait for (1 Thess 1:10).

For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come. (1 Thessalonians 1:9–10)

Christians anticipate the Son to come “from heaven.” This last line is heavily loaded with theological truth. The Son is further described as the one God “raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.” This is a statement of hope. The hope of the advent of Jesus (i.e., the second coming) is directly linked to God’s power demonstrated in the resurrection of Jesus. That God raised Jesus from the dead makes the claim that Jesus is returning from heaven a firm expectation.

With the certainty of the second coming of the Son “out from the heavens” (literal rendering of the Greek) established in the Christian mind, it affirmed that the Son, Jesus, will come with judgment for the unbelieving world (i.e., “the wrath to come”) but deliverance for the believer. Paul calls this “the day of the Lord,” a period of judgment and final consummation of God’s plan (1 Thess 4:13–5:11; 2 Thess 1:5–12).

Final Words

The gospel found fertile soils in the heart of early Thessalonian Christians. The congregation had a culturally and religiously diverse background, but they accepted the gospel as the word of God. Their faith in the God who raised Jesus from the dead was also at work as they followed their call to holy living as they anticipate Jesus coming to judge the living and the dead, and delivering those who are his.

Sources

  1. J. Carl Laney, Concise Bible Atlas (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998), 229.
  2. Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, ed. Conrad H. Gempf (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), “The mention of Amphipolis and of Apollonia should probably be taken to imply that these were the places where the travellers [sic] spent successive nights, dividing the journey to Thessalonica into three stages of about 30, 27 and 35 miles” (115).
  3. William Barclay, The Letters to the Philippians, Colossians and Thessalonians, revised edition (Louisville, KY: Westminster, 1975), 180.
  4. Albert A. Bell, Jr., Exploring the New Testament World (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1998), 126.
  5. Nijay K. Gupta, 1-2 Thessalonians: A New Covenant Commentary, New Covenant Commentary Series, eds. Michael F. Bird and Craig Keener (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2016), 4. Russell Morton, “Samothrace” in Lexham Bible Dictionary, Logos electronic edition, ed. John D. Berry, et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2016).
  6. W. E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, and William White, Jr., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1984), 2:647.

Devotional: Who Has the Best Seat? (Ephesians 2:6)

On By Janine TuggleIn Christology, Colossians, Devotional, Discipleship, Ephesians, Ephesians, Hymns, New Testament, Paul's Letters

“–and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” (Ephesians 2:6 NASB)

Everywhere we go we all try to find the best seat in the house. We want the best seat at a theater. Some like up close, some farther back. How about on an airplane? I like a seat by the window. Others might like an aisle seat. What about when booking a seat for a ballgame you look for a seat that’s good but in your price range. 

Growing up we each had our own seat at the kitchen table. Our dad sat at the end, the head of the table. Even at church, everyone seems to have their own seat. Don’t sit in that seat, it is Brother so-and-so’s seat. Which actually has been said many times.

We are told how the scribes and the Pharisees were being very hypocritical doing all their deeds to be seen with long fringes on their clothing… “and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues” (Matthew 23:5–6). Also, we’re told in Luke “Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the best seat in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces” (Luke 11:43).

It is sometimes important what seat we sit in. At some functions such as a wedding reception or a retirement party, there are seats for the guest of honor. 

We read that Christ is seated at the right hand of God:

“If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.” (Colossians 3:1 ESV)

We don’t want to be like the Scribes and Pharisees, who boasted about their status and position. But we can be reassured that when we have died to our sins and have been raised from the grave of baptism (Colossians 2:12), by the grace of God we will be seated in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus. 

We all will appear before the judgment seat of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:10). It is a joy to know we do have a seat reserved for us in heaven, as long as we continue to live a faithful life.

Hymn: When We All Get To Heaven

Titus 1:2: Does God Choose Not to Lie?

On By Jovan PayesIn New Testament, Paul's Letters, Theology, Titus, Translation

Recently, in discussing the character and omnipotence of God Titus 1:2 was cited to extend the argument that while God may have all power (omnipotence) to do what lends itself to being accomplished, there are certain tensions one must also accept. Namely, there are some things God cannot do or be. Despite having all power God does not tempt people to do evil (Jas 1:13), nor is it possible for God to lie (Heb 6:18). It was argued then that temptation and deception are against his nature despite all of his power.

Is Choice Implied?

There seemed to be some confusion, however, based on the translation of the phrase ho apseudēs theos, “God, who does not lie” (NIV, REB, NAB), “God, never lies” (ESV, NRSV), and the older, “God, who cannot lie” (KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASB95). These are the most common translations of two terms in Titus 1:2, the adjective apseudēs (truthful/deceitless) and God (theos).

It was suggested in a discussion that the translation of the NIV (cf. LEB, REB, NABR, TEV, NIRV, JB, NLT), could lend itself to the notion that it is possible for God to lie but He does not because He chooses not to lie. This would reframe the discussion of the nature and character of God by opening the possibility that God is good by choice rather than being good by nature.

This raises the question of whether the character of God is immutable, that is whether his holy character changes over time or not. The immutability of God means, for example, that God is holy and will always be holy.[1] On this view, there will never be a time when God is not holy. If God’s character is mutable (subject to change), however, then it is possible for God to act in an unholy manner. This view is inconsistent with the overall theme of God’s infinite holy character.

Does Titus 1:2 lend itself as evidence to this point of view? No, for three reasons. First, the term apseudēs is used in various Greek sources as a description (as an adjective) for “gods and divine things.”[2] Second, the adjective is verbless and without action. Third, the context of the letter to Titus contrasts the lying Cretans (1:12) against the truthful God (1:2).

The Adjective

First. Apseudēs is used in various Greek sources as a description (an adjective) for “gods and divine things”; however, Titus 1:2 is its only biblical use. It is also found once in Greek Jewish wisdom literature regarding the “unerring knowledge” given by God (Sirach 7:17 NRSV). Unlike the usual positive word for “truth” in the NT (alétheia), apseudēs is a negative word (non-liar) which means: “without lie and deceit, … sincere, trusty,”[3] “free from all deceit, … trustworthy,”[4] and “pertaining to not speaking falsehood — ‘truthful.’”[5]

The word is a striking description of “divine beings” and God. This use is found between the 5th century BC to the early second century AD.[6] Paul is known to quote ancient Greek sources as in the probable use of the playwright Menander in 1 Corinthians 15:33: “Bad company ruins good morals” (Thais). Paul used the infamous saying of the Cretan teacher named Epimenides (500 BC) in Titus 1:12: “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.”

Plato said, “the divine and the divinity are free from falsehood” and “that Phoebus’ divine mouth could not lie” (Republic 2.382e, 383b). Ignatius, a known disciple of John, spoke of Jesus’ mouth as “the unerring mouth” of revelation (Romans 8.2). In the Martyrdom of Polycarp, Polycarp prays to God at his death “you are the unerring and true God” (14.2). Greeks used the term to describe their gods; meanwhile, Christians used it to describe the true God.[7]

It is important to remember that Paul leans on the thought patterns of the Hebrew Bible (Rom 3:3–4, 2 Tim 2:13).[8] Balaam spoke the Lord’s word when he said, “God is not man, that he should lie” (Num 23:19), and Samuel told King Saul that “the Glory of Israel [i.e. God] will not lie…” (1 Sam 15:29). Likewise, in keeping with these verses are the inspired words, “it is impossible for God to lie” (Heb 6:18).

The Descriptive

Second. The adjective is verbless and without action. In English, adjectives often are said to describe a person, place, thing, or function. For example, “it was a fast train” and “the clock was fast.” In Greek, however, the adjective can function in two technical ways, it either (a) makes an assertion about the noun — the word is good (predicate), or (b) limits or tells what noun we are referring to — the good word (attributive). The adjective, then, “modifies a noun by ascribing a quality to it.”[9]

Here are a couple of examples of how this plays out in other passages with a similar grammatical structure as Titus 1:2:

  • “the first day” = “the day — namely the first one” (Phil 1:5)
  • “the good shepherd” = “the shepherd — namely the good one” (John 10:11)
  • “the good wine” = “the wine — namely the good one” (John 2:10)

In the same way, the adjective here describes God as deceitless, not that God chooses to not lie. He is God — namely the deceitless One. Thus, Titus 1:2 is not a statement of action, but a description of Divine character (God’s attributes). God does not lie because God is void of falseness.

The Contextual Purpose

Third. The context of the letter to Titus contrasts the lying Cretans (1:12) against the truthful God (1:2). The description of God as apseudēs (deceitless) is in contrast to the Cretans who are pseustai — liars. It is the only time both words are used in Titus. The significance of the connection is found in 1:2, speaking of the hope of eternal life established by God who is deceitless in the quality of His character (Heb 6:18). This message and hope are contrasted with the teachers on the island of Crete who are asserted to be deceivers (“liars,” 1:12).

The difference is subtle but the difference is everything.  

Interestingly, Epimenides’ infamous saying is based on the Cretan claim “to possess a tomb of Zeus, who, of course, as a god, cannot have died!”[10] It is said that even in ancient times this was criticized by Callimachus (305–240 BC) as inconceivable that the king of the gods should be dead and buried.[11] The absurdity illustrates the need to reject and silence the false teachers who are equally “liars,” opportunists, and reject the truth (Titus 1:10-16).

Titus, on the other hand, bears a message of hope and salvation, and embraces truth (1:1) because it issues from the “God, whose very nature is the absence of falsehood.”[12]

Conclusion

This short piece only reminds us that human language has limits when we engage “God talk” (i.e., theology), but we can usually find a reasonable understanding.

Does Titus 1:2 suggest that God chooses to be truthful and not lie, or is this a statement about God’s character as being deceitless, a non-liar? The above lines of reasoning suggest that the Greek phrase ho apseudēs theos is a description of God’s character, God — namely the deceitless God.

Unfortunately, to make the thought more natural in English translations supply an action verb, but this is not the sense. Still, it is perhaps best, but not perfect, to translate Titus 1:2 as: “Our God is no liar” (The Voice).

Endnotes

  1. R. C. Sproul, What Can We Know About God? (Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust, 2017), 8.
  2. Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, trans. P. Buttolph and A. Yarbro (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), 131.
  3. H. G. Liddell, Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, electronic ed. (1888; repr., Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1996), 142.
  4. BDAG 161.
  5. L&N 88.40.
  6. Dibelius and Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 131.
  7. BDAG 161
  8. George W. knight, III. Pastoral Epistles (1992; repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 284.
  9. James A. Brooks and Carolton L. Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek (1979; repr., Lanham: University Press of America, 1988), 70.
  10. Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (1988; repr., Peabody: Hendrickson, 2000), 179.
  11. Ralph P. Martin, “1, 2 Timothy, Titus,” in Harper’s Bible Commentary, ed. James L. Mays (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 1243.
  12. Homer A. Kent, Jr., The Pastoral Epistles: Studies in 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, rev. ed. (1986; repr., Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books, 2006), 210.

Sources

(BDAG) Bauer, Walter, et al. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000.

Brooks, J.A., and C.L. Winbery. Syntax of New Testament Greek. 1979. Reprint, Lanham: University Press of America, 1988.

Dibelius, M., and H. Conzelmann. Pastoral Epistles. Trans. P. Buttolph and A. Yarbro. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972.

Fee, Gordon D. 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus. 1988. Reprint, Peabody: Hendrickson, 2000.

Kent, H.A., Jr. The Pastoral Epistles: Studies in 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. Revised ed. 1986. Reprint, Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books, 2006.

Knight, George W., III. Pastoral Epistles. 1992. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013.

(L&N) Louw, J.P., and E.A. Nida. A Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domains. 2d edition. New York: United Bible Societies, 1996.

Liddell, H.G. Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon. 1888. Reprint, Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1996.

Martin, Ralph P. “1, 2 Timothy, Titus” in Harper’s Bible Commentary, edited by James L. Mays. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988.

Sproul, R. C. What Can We Know About God? Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust, 2017.

Lectures: Ephesians 4:1–3 and Christian Unity

On By Jovan PayesIn 2021, Christian Ethics, Christian Leadership, Conferences, Discipleship, Ephesians, Faithbuilders of the Northwest, Lectures, New Testament, Paul's Letters
These lectures form a series on the basis of Christian unity based on Ephesians 4:1–3 delivered at the annual Faithbuilders of the Northwest conference held in Tacoma, Washington, at the Lakeview church of Christ as a collective work of many congregations of the Pacific Northwest. The theme of the conference: “That They May All Be One” (John 17:21).

I believe that Paul’s instruction beginning in Ephesians 4 lays the responsibility of maintaining the unity Jesus died for, the Holy Spirit secures, and the Father purposed on the redeemed, on us Christians. It takes people redeemed and led by the Spirit of God in order to accomplish a unity that cannot be achieved in no other way. I pray these talks will provide you with the same hope they have given me when I was preparing them.

I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 
Ephesians 4:1–3 (English Standard Version)

1 – Unity Requires a Worthy Lifestyle (Ephesians 4:1)

Watch the lecture on YouTube.com

Description: Paul places a high priority on a Christian’s lifestyle and how it must be anchored to what God is doing in Christ as a community. Christians are not to think in terms of individuality, but about what God is doing by uniting the body of Christ. We must live worthy of this work in Christ.

2 – Unity Requires Three Attitudes (Ephesians 4:2)

Watch the lecture on YouTube.com

Description: We must develop the attitudes of humility, gentleness, and patience if we are going to contribute to the greater fullness of the unity found in Christ. We must (1) realize that in Christ, our egos have gone to die, (2) learn to embrace our shared need for acceptance, and (3) learn to take the long view of God’s grace applied to all members of the body of Christ.

3 – Unity Requires Two Behaviors (Ephesians 4:3)

Watch the lecture on YouTube.com

Description: Actions manifest our attitudes. We speak with actions. Unity is spoken clearly felt and communicated when Christians learn to endure the challenges of life in the body. We are all prickly in our own way, we must demonstrate love for each other with our endurance. This feeds into another behavior which is to trust God’s Spirit to bind us rather than our perfection. God’s organic work of unity is our goal to bring all nations together into the family of God.

Did Paul Hallucinate the Resurrection?

On By Jovan PayesIn 1 Corinthians, 2021, Biblical Criticism, Christian Apologetics, Early Christianity, Graduate Work, Jesus Studies, Paul's Letters, Research Papers, Resurrection, Theology1 Comment

[Note: This paper has been published. Go to the end of the article to download the published version.]

The historical bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is the foundation of orthodox Christianity. The apostle Paul asserts, “if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain” (1 Cor 15:14).[1] One argument skeptics, like former Catholic Priest and Jesus Seminar scholar John Dominic Crossan, use to counter the force of the historical claim of a bodily resurrection of Jesus is to say that the early Christians experienced hallucinations.

I intend to demonstrate the early Christian claim of Jesus appearing bodily after his resurrection­, as reflected in Paul, is the best explanation for the resurrection appearances of the New Testament over Crossan’s hallucination theory.

I first critique the hallucination theory of Crossan for contradicting the bodily resurrection language of the New Testament. Second, I demonstrate how Crossan’s trance mechanism for a hallucination imposes an anachronistic understanding on Paul’s words. Finally, I dispute Crossan’s denial of the falsifiable of the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

Early Christians Believed in a Bodily Resurrection

The language of the miracle claim asserts that Jesus resurrected and appeared bodily to his disciples (John 20:27; Luke 24:39). However, a secular worldview primed by naturalism demands an alternative explanation of “what really happened” to Jesus other than a bodily resurrection.[2] The horns of the dilemma were posed by David F. Strauss (1808–1874), “either Jesus was not really dead, or he did not really rise again.”[3] However, all the details of passion-week Friday, such as, scourging, dehydration, crucifixion, etc., make any interpretation Jesus did not die to be “at odds with modern medical knowledge.”[4] The category of hallucination, as an explanation theory, is a popular attempt to claim the disciples hallucinated the bodily appearances of Jesus, and mass hysteria then spread their claim. As Dale C. Allison, Jr., frames it,

it was not the empty tomb that begot the hallucinations but hallucinations that begot the empty tomb.[5]

Dale C. Allison, Jr., Resurrecting Jesus (T&T Clark, 2005)

The charge is ancient. In the third-century AD, Origen of Alexandria (d. 254) combatted Celsus’ second-century claim that the disciples suffered a “delusion.”[6]

Another pushback against the orthodox view of a bodily resurrection is that it is just a fictional myth that developed over time as a result of a personal hallucination of Paul. To establish this claim, liberal Bible critic Crossan introduces the writings of two early non-Christian historians (Josephus and Tacitus) which he believes limit “what happened both before and after Jesus’s execution.” [7] Crossan argues their religious profiles of the Christian movement lack mention of the resurrection. Additionally, the Gospel of Thomas speaks of the “living Jesus” and the Epistle of Barnabas is void of resurrection talk. Crossan believes this evidence affirms that early Christian faith did not need to believe in a post-mortem appearance of Jesus. He further claims that Paul uses his experience of Jesus appearing to him (1 Cor 15:8) to give him the gravitas to be the equal of all the apostles in a political powerplay.[8]

Crossan’s novel hallucination theory also requires that the present passive indicative verb ōphthē, translated “appeared” in most translations, actually means “revealed.” This would be a culturally conditioned “trance” where Paul experienced an “altered state of consciousness” and used this personal experience to stabilize the infighting in the Corinthian church.[9] Crossan’s theory requires the church to have completely misread Paul’s testimony by taking his personal experience for apostolic orthodoxy. Crossan’s theory offers a “growth-politics” twist to the category of the hallucination theory.

The words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3–11, however, do not support Crossan’s theory. In fact, this passage is a test-case of the united shape of the earliest Christian tradition concerning the resurrection appearances of Jesus.[10] The minimal facts theory of apologist Gary R. Habermas provides a firm critical foundation to respond to Crossan. The minimal facts theory is a critical approach that uses “the minimal, best-established facts surrounding the appearances” of Jesus that even Bible critics grant “to determine what really happened after Jesus’ death.”[11] Habermas has established four historical facts.

First, there is very little controversy that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, as even Crossan dates the letter to AD 53–54.[12] Second, Paul’s articulation of the gospel predates him, “I delivered to you… what I also received” (1 Cor 15:3). Here Paul affirms the normative nature of what he is preaching. Third, Paul received this “tradition” anywhere between AD 32–38, less than a decade after the crucifixion.[13] Fourth, this reception of the creed occurred during Paul’s Jerusalem information gathering “visit” (cf. historéō) with Peter and James (Gal 1:18–20) and anchors his tradition to the early Jerusalem church.[14]

Bible critical scholar, A. M. Hunter (1906–1991), argues that Paul claims in this passage “a very early Christian summary” of what the united apostolic voice affirms about the gospel and Jesus resurrection appearances (15:11);[15] namely, “that Christ died for our sins… that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day… and that he appeared” (15:3–5). The bodily death and resurrection appearances of Jesus legitimizes the existence of the Christian faith, for “in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” (15:20; cf. 15:6, 14). There is no powerplay. Paul is in fact arguing from within the earliest Christian tradition and meaning of resurrection appearance. This is a substantial point since Crossan’s theory offers a reinterpretation of the early Christian tradition which cannot be sustained internally.

Ultimately, a naturalistic argument forces Crossan’s hand to redefine what is a resurrection and how one experiences it. Resurrection was not, according to N. T. Wright, a generic term for “life after death” but instead “the second stage in a two-stage process of what happens after death: the first stage being nonbodily and the second being a renewed bodily existence… Paul really did believe in the bodily resurrection” (cf. 1 Cor 9:1).[16] It is precisely this firm belief in the bodily resurrection that invalidates Crosson’s theory for Paul, and is in conformity with other the New Testament descriptions of the bodily resurrection appearances of Jesus.[17]

Beyond the evidence of Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 15:3–11 of multiple eyewitnesses there are the public resurrection expectations and appearances in the Gospels; moreover, there are the resurrection creedal statements in the sermons of Acts.[18] It points to a clear unified belief among the earliest Christians that Jesus rose bodily from the dead and appeared in a renewed bodily existence. Bodily existence is the expected concept non-believers were to understand as the Christian view of the resurrection, as Judean Procurator Festus explains to Herod Agrippa II, “a certain Jesus, who was dead, but whom Paul asserted to be alive” (Acts 25:19; Acts 17:32). The New Testament evidence affirms, then, the early Christian claim that Jesus was a live again.

No Mechanism for Hallucination

As we shall argue, there are no cause for Paul to need a hallucination. Such a theory redefines the unified Christian claim of the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Crossan, keenly aware that Paul provides the earliest creedal statement, posits that Paul is the key for all the New Testament internal evidence. For Crossan what really happened is Paul was desperate to have a trance experience of the resurrection. He theorizes the Easter tradition developed over the years into its current boundaries of the canonical New Testament. Crossan offers “apparition–which involves trance” as the alternative dissociated state in which he believes Paul experienced resurrection.[19]

Based on the work by Erika Bourguignon on “dissociational” states, Crossan affirms trance to be “a human universal” that may be a culturally trained and controlled experience by one’s social and religious expectations.[20] Crossan’s reading of Paul’s words is an eisegetical fallacy importing a modern socio-religious model of an “altered state of consciousness” into Paul’s experiences to establish his political equality with the other apostles.[21] Again Crossan claims, “Paul needs… to equate his own experience” with the apostles to establish “its validity and legitimacy but not necessarily its mode or manner.”[22] Crossan’s methodology is problematic on this point.

However, there are three major problems with Crossan’s hallucination theory. First, Crossan imports an anachronistic definition into the use ōphthē in Paul’s words. It should be noted with significance that in the Greek Old Testament ōphthē is used in appearances of God (i.e., theophanies) to Abraham, and clearly to Abraham in bodily form where he ate with the Lord (Gen 18:1).[23] Paul was quite familiar with Genesis as he makes substantial arguments about justification by faith with the stories of Abraham in Galatians and Romans. To posit a modern theory while ignoring this Old Testament tradition of the verb, “he appeared,” ignores the textual evidence. Furthermore, it calls into question the validity of Crossan’s exegetical methodology.

Second, he exchanges his own meaning for Paul’s intended meaning of the verb ōphthē.[24] Crossan’s claim puts the power of the trance in Paul’s hands, but Paul’s verbal word choice indicates the appearance was out of his hands. Greek scholar, Daniel B. Wallace, reminds in grammatical instances like this, “volition rests wholly with the subject [Jesus], while the dative noun is merely recipient [Paul].”[25] It is Jesus who “appeared.” Paul did not conjure a “revelation” of Jesus.

Third, Crossan’s portrayal of Paul as desperate for apostolic power does not agree with Paul’s own success in Judaism prior to his conversion and call. He writes,

I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely jealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. (Gal 1:13b–14)

Paul had the pedigree of a rising Jewish leader (Phil 3:4–8). There is no explainable mechanism which accounts for exchanging this advancement in Judaism for the trials of following Christ outside of an actual appearance of the resurrected Jesus which he did not initiate in a trance. Paul joins the pre-existing united voice of the apostolic witnesses, other earlier skeptical witnesses (non-believing siblings of Jesus), and the large groups seeing Jesus post-burial. Crossan’s theory do not adequately take these elements into account. Furthermore, Habermas’s minimal facts theory renders his mechanism historically implausible since its critical timetable places Paul as recipient, not creator, of the bodily resurrection confession.

Paul’s Claim was Falsifiable

This conclusion then leads to question of falsifiability. The early Christians claimed a dead man lived again. Writing about twenty years after the resurrection Paul asserts there were many eyewitnesses who could verify or falsify his claim that Jesus rose bodily. Paul wrote, “I delivered to you…what I also received” (1 Cor 15:2) and proceeds to outline six lines of eyewitness testimony evidence: Cephas, the twelve, over five hundred, James, all the apostles, and Paul. The most audacious claim is that Jesus appeared “to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep” (1 Cor 15:6). Paul’s submission invites investigation into the genuineness of the resurrection of Jesus and is essential to Paul’s argument for the validity of the gospel. Paul’s claim to have “seen the Lord” is falsifiable (1 Cor 9:1). Even Crossan understands the surface argument of this passage, and observes, “no Jesus resurrection, no general resurrection; or, no general resurrection, no Jesus resurrection.”[26] He does not however believe it.

Crossan believes that it would be impossible to falsify the traditional empty tomb and resurrection stories. When asked whether “the empty tomb” was historical, Crossan emphatically responds, “No.” Crossan expands,

“I doubt there was any tomb for Jesus in the first place. I don’t think any of Jesus’ followers even knew where he was buried–if he was buried at all.”[27]

John Dominic Crossan in Who is Jesus? Answers to Your Question About the Historical Jesus (Westminster John Knox, 1996)

From Roman sources Crossan argues the Roman expectation for the crucified was the denial of both body and burial.[28] To the point, Crossan says, the “final penalty was to lie unburied as food for carrion birds and beasts [i.e., animals that eat decaying flesh].”[29] Crucifixion meant, then, “death-without-burial” and “body-as-carrion”; consequently, there was little likelihood of Jesus’ body making it off the cross let alone into the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea (Mark 15:42; Matt 27:1–61).[30] It would likely take “bribery, mercy, or indifference” to get the Romans to release the body over to a Jew seeking to avoid violating Jewish protocols of burying the hung (Deut 21:22–23).

Such a “hope” would be the exception, for only one contemporary crucified body remains have been found where thousands have been so executed; as such, it “is not history.”[31] This clearly undermines the Gospel tradition of the empty tomb where Jesus had been buried.

Crossan’s historical reconstruction of customary expectations and practices is a strong counterargument against falsification by the presentation of the cadaver of Jesus. If there is no body which survives the cross, there is no body to be buried, and therefore the Christian claim cannot be falsified. However, Crossan cannot historically rule out that Jesus was buried as Mark affirms. He can only suggest burial would be highly unlikely. Crossan’s alternative depends on advancing a legendary basis for the burial of Jesus. Yet, William Lane Craig responds this “would ignore the specific evidence” in Jesus’ case.[32] As established by the “minimal facts” critical theory, the creedal statement in 1 Corinthians 15:3–5 is very early. Furthermore, this four-line creedal formula affirms crucifixion, burial, resurrection, and then appearance.

The burial of Jesus was essential to the creed and Mark’s reference to it is substantial corroboration. First, the “assured results” of critical scholarship considers Mark the earliest gospel as it is the most “bare bones” narrative of Jesus.[33] Second, the Passion week narrative includes Jesus’ rejection and crucifixion. Third, Mark introduces Jesus’ burial in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb from which he resurrects. Mark retains the burial tradition.[34] Crossan’s methodology is prejudicial because it rules out, beforehand (a priori), the established testimony of the earliest claim of the Christians: Christ was buried, was raised, and he appeared.

Conclusion

This paper affirms the bodily resurrection of Jesus over the challenge raised by the hallucination theory developed by Crossan. The language of the New Testament asserts that Jesus resurrected and appeared bodily to his disciples, to unbelievers, and to many others. Crossan claimed that the resurrection from the dead was not a main element of the Christian faith. However, a critical examination of the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3–11 verifies that the primary and earlier Christian creedal tradition which teaches that Jesus arose bodily and appeared. There is no other normative belief in the New Testament than Jesus resurrected from the dead.  

Second, Crossan’s trance mechanism for a hallucination imposes an anachronistic understanding on Paul’s words. The alternative theory offered by Crossan that Paul had a dissociative hallucination-trance experience to gain religious political power is based on seriously flawed exegetical methodology. There is ultimately no proper mechanism for Paul’s conversion to Christianity and his claim of seeing the resurrected Jesus, when he was living a successful Jewish life as a persecutor of the church. Paul’s claim that he saw the Lord resurrected must be taken seriously.

Finally, I asserted the early Christian claim of a bodily resurrection would have been falsifiable by the cadaver of Jesus. Crossan’s claim that Jesus’ body would likely never have survived nor made it to a burial actually is self-defeating because he cannot rule out known exceptions. In Jesus’ case, there were elements to his story that made it possible for Jesus to be taken off the cross and buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. This is in keeping with the earliest Christian claim regarding his burial.

Endnotes

  1. Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version of The Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016).
  2. Gary R. Habermas explains that a naturalist theory for the resurrection draws “from a host of philosophical backgrounds, the basic idea is to suggest an alternative explanation in place of divine causation… ‘Jesus didn’t rise from the dead. What really happened is (fill in the blank).’” Habermas, “The Late Twentieth-Century Resurgence of Naturalistic Responses to Jesus’ Resurrection,” Trinity Journal 22 (2001): 180.
  3. David F. Strauss, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, 4th edition, translated by George Eliot (London: Sonnenschein, 1902), 736. The longer form: “a dead man has returned to life, is composed of two such contradictory elements, that whenever it is attempted to maintain the one, the other threatens to disappear. If he has really returned to life, it is natural to conclude that he was not wholly dead; if he was really dead, it is difficult to believe that he has really become living” (735–36).
  4. William Edwards, Wesley J. Gabel, and Floyd E. Hosmer, “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” Journal of the American Medical Association 255.11 (1986): 1436.
  5. Dale C. Allison, Jr., Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and Its Interpreters (New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 204. Allison offers seven categories and sub-categories of resurrection appearance hypotheses each with different psychological catalysts (199–213).
  6. Origen Contra Celsum 2.60: “But Celsus, unwilling to admit any such view, will have it that some dreamed a waking dream, and, under the influence of a perverted imagination, formed to themselves such an image as they desired. Now it is not irrational to believe that a dream may take place while one is asleep; but to suppose a waking vision in the case of those who are not altogether out of their senses, and under the influence of delirium or hypochondria, is incredible. And Celsus, seeing this, called the woman half-mad,— a statement which is not made by the history recording the fact, but from which he took occasion to charge the occurrences with being untrue.”
  7. Josephus Antiquities 18.63; Tacitus Annals 15.44. cf. Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (New York: HarperCollins, 1994), 161–62. Italics added.
  8. Crossan, Jesus, 166.
  9. Ibid., 167; 87–88.
  10. The following four arguments presume the work of Gary R. Habermas, “The Resurrection Appearances of Jesus,” In Defense of Miracles, ed. R. Douglas Geivett and Gary R. Habermas (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997), 264.
  11. Habermas, “Resurrection Appearances,” 262.
  12. Possibly later, like 64. Stephen Neill and Tom Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament: 1861–1986, 2nd edition (New York: Oxford University, 1988), 308; Crossan, Jesus, 163.
  13. C. H. Dodd argues that Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem was “not more than seven years after the Crucifixion,” The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments (reprint, New York: Harper & Brothers, n.d.), 16.
  14. William R. Farmer, “Peter and Paul and the Tradition Concerning ‘The Lord Supper’ in 1 Cor 11:23–26,” Criswell Theological Review 2.1 (1987): 122–28; Habermas, “Resurrection Appearances,” 265–67.
  15. A. M. Hunter, Jesus: Lord and Saviour (reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978), 99. John Dominic Crossan argues that Paul went to great pains to validate his own apostleship, yet, it was not the voice but a competing voice among many regarding the importance of the resurrection, Jesus, 159–92.
  16. N. T. Wright and John Dominic Crossan, “The Resurrection: Historical Event or Theological Explanation? A Dialogue,” The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N. T. Wright in Dialogue, ed. Robert B. Stewart (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2006), 17.
  17. 1 John 1:1–4; John 20:1–21:24; Acts 1:1–3, 2:29–32.
  18. Expectations: Matt 28:8–20; Luke 24:13–52; John 20:10–23, 26–30, 21:1–14; Mark 16:6–7; statements: 1:1–3; 2:23–24, 32; 3:15; 4:10; 10:41; 13:30–34; 17:31; 23:6; 24:21; 26:8, 23.
  19. Crossan, Jesus, 160–61. Italics are original.
  20. Ibid., 87–89.
  21. Ibid., 166–67; Acts 9:3–4, 22:6–7, 26:13–14.
  22. Ibid., 169.
  23. Genesis 12:7; 17:1; 18:1; 26:2, 24.
  24. The following argument is based on Daniel B. Wallace’s discussion of the dative + the present passive indicative form of ōphthē in the New Testament in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 165, footnote 72; “horáo,” Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Ardnt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 719.
  25. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 165. What Wallace says for Paul applies equally to all listed in 1 Corinthians 15:5–8: Cephas and the twelve, the “more than five-hundred,” and James and the apostles. Crossan, Jesus, 164.
  26. John Dominic Crossan and Richard G. Watts, Who is Jesus? Answers to Your Question About the Historical Jesus (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 122.
  27. Suetonius, Defied Augustus 13.1–2, Tacitus, Annals 6.29.
  28. John Dominic Crossan, Who Killed Jesus? Exposing the Roots of Antisemitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus (New York: HarperCollins, 1995), 160.
  29. Crossan, Who Killed Jesus, 163. In Crossan’s perspective, Joseph of Arimathea is purely a construct of Mark’s imagination; see his discussion on Luke 23:50–54 and John 19:35–42.
  30. Crossan, Who Killed Jesus, 163–68.
  31. Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 208.
  32. Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 4th ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), 150.
  33. Strobel, Case for Christ, 209.

Click here to download the published version of this research paper. To subscribe to Sufficient Evidence click here.

Are Miracles Possible?

On By Jovan PayesIn Biola University, Christian Apologetics, Christology, Early Christianity, Essays, Miracles, New Testament, Paul's Letters, Popular Essays, Resurrection, Talbot School of Theology, Theology2 Comments

The question of whether miracles are impossible strikes at the heart of the Christian faith. Its viability hangs on one significant miracle: the resurrection of Jesus. Paul argued,

 if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. (1 Cor 15:14 ESV)

If the bodily resurrection never happened, because it is impossible, then the traditional Christian faith is catastrophically and irreparably compromised. In response, I will first argue there is evidence for a creator-God necessary for miracles to occur, then demonstrate that anomalies (like miracles) require intelligent causation. Finally, I will look at the resurrection as a case study.

The Creator-God

The evidence for the existence of God is cumulative in nature. This means there is a body of positive evidence combined to support the case that the universe is created by a personal Creator-God. Furthermore, God as creator is separate, or outside, of this creation. This Creator-creation relationship would allow, then, for the possibility of miracles:

if God exists then miracles are possible.[1]

Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks
When Skeptics Ask, rev. ed. (Baker, 2013)

Natural theology affirms that the created world is host to evidence positively supporting God’s existence and justifying belief in him. There are four broad categories of arguments from natural theology:[2]

  • Cosmological (argument from causality, from effect to cause),
  • Teleological (argument from fine-tuned and intelligence-laden design),
  • Moral (argument from the objective value of morality and ethics), and
  • Ontological arguments (argument of a necessary uncaused Being).

These arguments represent a preponderance of the evidence that justifies belief in a personal ethical Creator-God.

A strong case can be made for the existence of God with the Kalam cosmological argument.[3] The first premise may be stated as “the universe had a beginning.” The evidence from the second law of thermodynamics affirms that the universe is experiencing entropy, a running out of useable energy. This points to the finite nature of the cosmos and points to a beginning when the universe was “fully charged.” The second premise affirms, “the universe was caused to exist.” What caused it to exist? Or had it come into being out of nothing? The evidence from nature (natural theology) points to a powerful (creation), ethical (morality), and intelligent designer (DNA) which brought these phenomena into existence. The reasonable conclusion is that a supernatural being created the universe into existence, this is God.

Not all Causes are Naturally Recurring

In response to the above supernatural claim, proponents of a naturalistic worldview argue that the existence of miracles would render the scientific method impossible to practice. This is only an assumption because there are different kinds of scientific ways of understanding causation, for not all causes are natural. A difference must be made between “operational science” which studies “regular patterns in the present from which predictions can be made,” and “forensic science” which studies “past singularities.”[4] The study of photosynthesis which takes into account how sunlight, carbon dioxide, and water, are converted into food by plants (operational science) would be conducted differently than a study of a singularity like the creation of the Mt. Rushmore monument (forensic science).

Miracles would no more disrupt operational science than would the reshaping of a naturally formed mountainside into a monument bust relief at Mt. Rushmore, or the carved-out ruins of Petra Pella. The use of intelligence and power offers a different source for causation than the naturally regular patterns in the world. The question remains how to decipher in what way miracles interact with the regular patterns of nature (disrupt, break, suspend). This difficulty of understanding anomalies like miracles or “the Big Bang” is not proof that such anomalies are incompatible with known scientific theory. It suggests we still have much to learn.

The Resurrection

A religion that is consistent with the picture of God derived from natural theology should have evidence of supernatural activity (historical reliability, fulfilled prophecy, etc.).[5] As noted already, the central figure of the New Testament, Jesus Christ, is presented in the historical setting of first-century Palestine, in which his teaching ministry is substantially interwoven with supernatural activity (healings, exorcisms, telepathic and empathic actions). The most significant miracle is his post-mortem bodily resurrection from the dead following his execution by means of crucifixion. Is this just legendary material that has been added, or are these ancient documents reliable eyewitness testimony to the most important miraculous event of human history?

The study of the historical reliability of the New Testament demonstrates that it has the strongest transmission history of any work from antiquity. It has preserved the eyewitness testimony of its authors who acknowledge the supernatural resurrection of Jesus Christ. For example, Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians:

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed. (1 Cor 15:1–11 ESV)

Their ancient words have been preserved in over 5,000 Greek manuscripts.[6] These documents contain doctrinal traditions which include the Divine Lordship of Jesus, his bodily resurrection, and his miracles, so early (within less than a decade of the actual events) that there is no room for legends to displace Christianity’s core historical truths.[7]

The question “did Jesus rise from the dead?” must then be taken seriously. The death of Jesus is one of the surest known historical facts of Christianity.[8] Despite many attempts to theorize that he successfully survived the crucifixion, the medical evaluation[9] of the historical descriptions of his wounds points out that he was a “dead man” before the spear was thrust through his side (John 19:34). The belief that Jesus appeared bodily to his disciples after his execution is another known fact of Christianity, which transformed his disciples and converted unbelievers (e.g., James). The early disciples shared their witness that Jesus was raised from the dead by the power of God, many of them dying for their claim that they saw Jesus bodily raised.

Conclusion

The short version of this brief essay’s argument is, “if God exists, then the supernatural anomaly of the miraculous bodily resurrection of Jesus, as historically reported in the New Testament, is possible.” The possibility of the miraculous is, therefore, quite reasonable.

Endnotes

  1. Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2013), 71.
  2. Geisler and Brooks, When Skeptics Ask, 9–19.
  3. James P. Moreland, “Transcript: Arguments for the Existence of God” (Class lecture, Defending the Faith course of Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, CA, n.d.); Geisler and Brooks, When Skeptics Ask, 10.
  4. Geisler and Brooks, When Skeptics Ask, 74–77.
  5. James P. Moreland, “Transcript.”
  6. Geisler and Brooks, 101–05; Joe Hellerman, “Handout: Defending the Gospel Accounts of Jesus” (Class lecture, Defending the Faith course of Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, CA, n.d).
  7. Lee Strobel, “Handout: The Case for Faith” (Class lecture, Defending the Faith course of Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, CA, n.d.).
  8. Known historical facts of Christianity are taken from Craig Hazen, “Handout: Evidence for the Resurrection” (Class lecture, Defending the Faith course of Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, CA, n.d.).
  9. William D. Edwards, Wesley J. Gabel, and Floyd E. Hosmer, “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” Journal of the American Medical Association 255.11 (March 1986): 1462.

The Role of An Amanuensis in the Letters of Paul

On By Jovan PayesIn 2004, Biblical Criticism, College Work, Freed-Hardeman University, Greco-Roman World, New Testament, New Testament Background, New Testament World, Paul's Letters, Research Papers, Social Conventions

The New Testament was not dropped out of heaven in its present form. Instead, it was produced by means of human ability and human ingenuity. No disrespect is given to the dogma of plenary inspiration of Scriptures if one examines the methodologies used to produce God’s breath into written form (2 Tim 3:16).[1] It is a matter of respect when such a course of action is taken.

The literary composition of the New Testament is unbalanced in that 78% of its 27-volume anthology is comprised of epistolary literature. In other words, the Christian canon is principally made up of letters. Among these letters stand those of the Apostle Paul, 13 in all which bear his name. Among the many controversies which surround the letters of Paul, few are underestimated as the Pauline use of an amanuensis, a profession more accurately designated “secretary.”[2]

Secretarial work is one of the most pervasive labors undergirding the production of most of the New Testament;[3] it is also at times one of the most controversial issues to sift through. This is particularly highlighted in the study of the role, more accurately the influence, of the secretary in the Pauline corpus. The principle issue controverted is “the degree of freedom that a letter writer might give to his or her scribe in the choice of wording.”[4]

Although it is true that a secretary in the Greco-Roman world was given liberties in word choices when applied to Paul the letters which bear his name are authentically Pauline according to Greco-Roman standards no matter what level of secretarial influence. This is demonstrated by three lines of evidence. First, there was a wide spectrum of secretarial freedom typical of ancient letter writers which were viewed as genuine epistolary conventions. Second, irrespective of the secretarial freedom in word choice, there were genuine methods of controlling the final product by the author. Third, Paul’s emphasis on the authenticity in his letters demonstrates a high level of security precautions as a part of letter composition.

Preliminary to considering the arguments below, observe that there must be an understanding and appreciation for how a different culture works.[5] The methods of communications may differ from the present modern world, but they were authoritative in the ancient world in which these documents were originally penned. Modern standards must be placed to the side. With this one precautionary principle, the value of the present arguments will be seen clearly. Consider the following three arguments.

Secretarial Freedom

First, each level of secretarial freedom was viewed as a genuine method of letter production.

E. Randolph Richards observes that the sender “could grant to the secretary complete, much, little, or no control over the content, style, and/or form of the letter.”[6] From his extensive evaluation of ancient letters, the role of a secretary, in general, was fourfold. The secretary may have contributed to the production of a letter as a verbatim recorder, as an editor of a preliminary letter, as a co-author with an emphasis on linguistics, or as the composer free of any set verbal content.[7] Jerome Murphy-O’Connor suggests three roles, eliminating co-authorship as a viable role of a secretary and placing that as a different type of compositional endeavor, which seems appropriate.[8]

As a verbatim recorder, the only controversial issue is whether or not there was a shorthand method able to follow dictation viva voce (i.e. at the speed of speech), for syllabim dictation (at the speed of handwriting) is basically free from controversy. Alan Millard observes that there is evidence of a shorthand ability to copy viva voce for the Latin language, but that the evidence for a Greek system is questionable due to poorly preserved manuscripts.[9]

Richards, on the other hand, persuasively argues that this Latin shorthand system derived itself probably from a comparable Greek system because discussions among Latin manuscripts employ Greek words to describe their shorthand system, thus implying a dependence on a prior Greek system. Moreover, there are early second century A.D. fragmentary manuscripts of Greek shorthand available and the evidence has a very wide geographical distribution across the Mediterranean world.[10] Murphy-O’Connor extends the link earlier than the second century A.D. to the first century B.C.[11] The point is, that a secretary could potentially follow the author at the speed of their speech in shorthand, and at the very least at the speed of writing. Dictation was not a problem.

The secretary may serve as an editor of a preliminary letter. In the production of the final copy of a letter, the secretary at times, if not always, was given the responsibility to correct or adjust the grammar and syntax of a verbalized letter or a prewritten letter that was appended by the author.[12] As Robson observes:

Where he did not compose, St. Paul would dictate: this would enable him to be conversational and oratorical at will. He could deliver some portion of a missionary sermon, or answer a series of questions, or parry and thrust with an imaginary opponent in the fashion of the diatribe, at will.[13]

E. Iliff Robson, “Composition and Dictation in New Testament Books,” Journal of Theological Studies 18 (1917)

The secretary would then harmonize the quick fluctuation of argumentative paradigms Paul employs, as in the Roman letter. There is nothing ingenious about this procedure.

The secretary would likewise be given the task of composing free of any set verbal content. There were times in ancient epistolary composition when an author would request his secretary to be a substitute author.[14] In this respect, the secretary was given a considerable amount of freedom to choose the wording. Moreover, Richards observes that “a writer usually does not reveal that his letter was actually composed by a secretary.”[15] Consequently, the reader would not necessarily know it was a secretary who composed the letter. But there is adequate evidence to demonstrate that if the recipients were familiar enough with the author that they could recognize the handwriting, style, and argumentation methods and distinguish between a letter written by their friend or by their friend’s secretary.[16]

In one sense, the fact that the secretary could do this is difficult to account for in New Testament letters since there are no extant autographs. Definite factors come into play in this regard, which alleviates some of the curiosity that this point highlights in one’s mind. As Richards notes, “the letters, especially official and business letters, had a very set form, vocabulary, and style.”[17]

Consequently, certain letters already had a predetermined template to follow, similar to modern word processing computers, the only difference is that the secretary had to produce a new template each time. Moreover, this was very advantageous for the illiterate population of the Greco-Roman world.[18] Also, there is no evidence to suggest that this was extensively done within personal letters. The point which needs to be emphasized is that there were specific and genuine needs for this method. Observe the next line of reasoning for methods of controlling and authenticating the secretary’s actions.

Measures of Authorial Control

Second, there were genuine methods of controlling the activities of the secretary.

The principal controlling agent was the author who would read the final rough draft or the final draft before it was dispatched.[19] The importance of this is demonstrated by the case of Quintus, the brother of Cicero, on his first Roman appointment. Quintus employed his secretary Statius as his “chief” secretary to read the letters composed by other secretaries without Quintus’ personal attention. Cicero advises Quintus to read the letters that go out in his name because he had already suffered professionally because of his action. The implication here is irrespective of who penned the letter the author is held responsible for every word and sentiment.[20] It is very enlightening that Quintus was not discouraged from having his secretaries write documents in his name, but he was rebuked for not having read them himself before dispatching them.

A second method of demonstrating control over the content irrespective of the type of freedom given to a secretary is the subscriptions written in the author’s handwriting.[21] These subscriptions generally repeat and summarize in the author’s handwriting the main content of the letter to demonstrate that the author is fully aware of the material which is being sent in his or her name.[22] Yet, one must respect the extant evidence and note that not all letters in the Greco-Roman period had subscriptions of the exact same length.[23] Each letter must be approached on its own terms and one must not assume that all letters have this subscription.[24] Nevertheless, there were security measures available for any kind of secretarial influence and freedom.

Paul’s “Security” Precautions

Third, Paul’s emphasis on the authenticity in his letters demonstrates a high level of security precautions as a part of letter composition.

The internal evidence of the New Testament demonstrates that the Apostle Paul had a high degree of care for the churches to which he ministered. This will demonstrate what was more likely for Paul to do with regards to the type of security measures he would place in each letter. For example, in 2 Corinthians (an undisputed Pauline letter[25]) Paul demonstrates his unyielding concern for the church in Corinth to persevere to a more stable spiritual plateau by foregoing a door of evangelism providentially opened by the Lord so he could minister to them (2 Cor 2:12–13).

Again, in 1 Corinthians the Apostle Paul demonstrated his high level of concern when he sent Timothy to minister to them in his stead. He sent Timothy because he would remind them of his ways (1 Cor 4:14–17). In a sense, Timothy was a surrogate for Paul’s presence, an emphasis which is identical to the purposes of dispatching a letter,[26] allowing each party to share in each other life.[27] The point of emphasis made here is that Paul was very careful and had concerned for the well-being of the church. It is very natural to assume, then, that he would procure whatever items needed to guarantee their spiritual safety (1 Cor 8:13).

Observe an additional line of reasoning. Within the New Testament letters which bear Paul’s name, there are six letters that bear explicit marks of a collaboration with a secretary (see Fig. 1). These references demonstrate the subscription of authenticity and generally include a summary, however brief, of the content of the letter. Galatians 6:11 and Philemon 19 are somewhat problematic for they may both refer to the entire letter or the point where Paul inserts his authoritative “seal of approval” as a mark of genuineness.[28] The point that needs to be considered here is that Paul demonstrates his inclusion of security measures in his letters.

Figure 1: This illustrates the widespread use of an amanuensis in the letters of Paul. See also P.Duke.inv. 7 (AD 5/6) and P.Duke.inv. 22 (30 BC–AD 640) as papyri examples of dual handwriting styles differentiating between the secretary and the author.

Moreover, what shall be said for the letters which do not have a subscription (2 Cor, 1 Thess, Eph, Phil, and the pastorals)? In 2 Corinthians 10:1, the Apostle Paul inserts his name into what some would consider a major section of the letter. The Apostle makes an emphatic statement autos de ego Paulos parakalo humas, which literally means “and I myself (Paul) entreat you.” It is reasonable to conclude that the passage is the beginning of Paul personally writing until the end of the letter,[29] but some scholars disagree with this conclusion.[30] However, since their conclusions are just as speculative, consistency points to 2 Corinthians 10–13 as a lengthy subscription or another letter appended to a completed letter.

The Thessalonian correspondence is somewhat unique in that the second epistle has a stronger authenticating subscription (2 Thess 5:17) than that of the first letter (1 Thess 5:27–28), that is why it is treated here. However, the case is strong that both letters are collaborations between Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy (1 Thess 1:1 and 2 Thess 1:1). Paul often takes the lead in the discussion.[31] By viewing the subscription in 2 Thessalonians 5:27–28 as a final authenticating mark, 1 Thessalonian’s ”gentle” subscription receives bolstering.

The pastorals are regarded as disputed-non-Pauline works.[32] This position is based primarily upon vocabulary and style differences calculated by a computer. These differences may be harmoniously accounted for by including the use of an amanuensis.[33] However, Harry Y. Gamble has suggested that “such theories” may satisfactorily explain a divergence in vocabulary and style, but not for the “conceptual and situational differences.”[34]

Richards makes a rather compelling case demonstrating from ancient letters that because of the “use of secretaries, letters were not rejected on the basis of style analyses alone.”[35] In other words, just because the letter sounds different that is no grounds for marking it as inauthentic because a secretary may influence style. Richards also demonstrates there were special seals used to enclose a letter; consequently, had Paul not given a subscription,[36] he could have (because this was typical) closed up the letter with a seal.[37] This may account for the Philippian letter being void of a postscript. Perhaps this is why Gamble concedes that there are other things that make “Pauline letters […] even more complex than is usually assumed.”[38]

The letter to the Ephesians poses itself as a unique epistolary production in that among the writings of Paul this was probably a circular letter written for a broad multi-congregation setting.[39] Abraham Malherbe provides parallels illustrating that Ephesians served a comparatively similar purpose as the literature of contemporary philosophical schools to provide general guidance for conventional everyday needs.[40] In this light, and with its traditional connection to Colossians, and Philemon (Col 4:10–14; Philem 23–24, and Eph 6:21), it is probable they were sent together.[41] The subscriptions in Colossians 4:18 and Philemon 19 would seemingly have sufficient authenticity for the letters associated with them, assuming there were no other authenticating measures we are unaware of.

The last argument above has been the longest to formulate. What must be remembered is that the Pauline corpus employs and contains subscriptions and other authenticating items. Differences in vocabulary and style are not sufficient to dismiss any letters of Paul because, according to Greco-Romans criterion, a secretary may so influence a letter that it may sound distinct. Nevertheless, since there are security measures employed, there is an implicit understanding that Paul would be in a position to verify the letter before sending it by means of a courier. Also, he may have had confidence in the secretary’s work such as Timothy, Silas, Titus, and Tertius (Rom 16:22).

Where from Here?

The controversy will more than likely continue. The degree of influence Paul’s secretary had over the composition of the corpus may never be totally realized or understood. It must be remembered that the freedom a secretary had in word choice varied according to need, author, and document; nevertheless, the author was held accountable for every word. That may be uncomfortable for some today, but this study is not a matter of what one wants the evidence to say, it is about what was more likely–probable– to happen.

The freedom of the secretary was a genuine method of letter writing, but it was not the only kind of role they played in epistolary production. There were methods to check the work of the letter before it went forth. Finally, Paul’s character based upon the internal evidence of the New Testament letters suggests that Paul would have and did procure the security procedures of the day to secure the message.

Consequently, the letters which bear his name are authentic according to Greco-Roman standards irrespective of secretarial influence.

Endnotes

  1. Wayne Jackson, Background Bible Study, rev. ed. (Stockton, CA: Christian Courier Publications, 2000), i.
  2. E. Randolph Richards, The Secretary in the Letters of Paul (Tübingen: Mohr, 1991), 11.
  3. Richard N. Longenecker, “On the Form, Function, and Authority of the New Testament Letters,” in Scripture and Truth, ed. D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 109.
  4. D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 233–34.
  5. Stanley K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity, Library of Early Christianity 8, ed. Wayne A. Meeks (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1989), 28.
  6. Richards, Secretary, 23.
  7. Ibid., 23–24.
  8. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Paul the Letter-Writer: His World, His Options, His Skills (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1995), 8–16, 16–34.
  9. Alan Millard, Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus (Washington Square, NY: New York University Press, 2000), 175–76.
  10. Richards, Secretary, 41.
  11. Murphy-O’Connor, Paul the Letter-Writer, 11.
  12. Murphy-O’Connor, Paul the Letter-Writer, 13–14; Richards, Secretary, 44–47.
  13. E. Iliff Robson, “Composition and Dictation in New Testament Books,” JTS 18 (1917): 291.
  14. Murphy-O’Connor, Paul the Letter-Writer, 14.
  15. Richards, Secretary, 52.
  16. Gordon J. Bahr, “Paul and Letter Writing in the First Century,” CBQ 28 (1966): 466–67; cf. Richards, Secretary, 92–97.
  17. Richards, Secretary, 49.
  18. Ibid., 50.
  19. Ibid., 52.
  20. Ibid., 51.
  21. Longenecker, “Form, Function, and Authority,” 108.
  22. Gordon J. Bahr, “The Subscriptions in the Pauline Letters,” JBL 2 (1968): 28-30
  23. Richard N. Longenecker, “Ancient Amanuenses and the Pauline Epistles,” in New Dimensions in New Testament Study, ed. Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 291.
  24. Roy Bowen Ward, “How to Study the New Testament,” in The World of the New Testament, ed. Abraham J. Malherbe. Living Word Commentary 1, ed. Everett Ferguson (Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 1984), 171.
  25. See Charles B. Cousar, The Letters of Paul, Interpreting Biblical Texts (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), 89; Carson, Moo, and Morris, An Introduction, 262.
  26. Cousar, Letters of Paul, 30.
  27. Stowers, Letter Writing, 28–29.
  28. Frederick Field, Notes on the Translation of the New Testament (1899; repr., Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 191; Longenecker, “Form, Function, and Authority,” 108; Murphy-O’Connor, Paul the Letter-Writer, 28; Richards, Secretary, 179–80.
  29. Richards, Secretary, 125–26.
  30. Murphy-O’Connor, Paul the Letter-Writer, 30–31.
  31. Ibid., 19–20.
  32. Cousar, Letters of Paul, 163–64.
  33. Longenecker, “Ancient Amanuenses,” 292–94; Carson, Moo, and Morris, An Introduction, 359–62.
  34. Harry Y. Gamble, “Amanuensis,” ABD 1:72.
  35. Richards, Secretary, 97 (cf. 92–97).
  36. Longenecker, though, believes Paul did (“Ancient Amanuenses,” 292).
  37. Richards, Secretary, 93.
  38. Gamble, “Amanuensis,” 72.
  39. Carson, Moo, and Morris, An Introduction, 309–11.
  40. Abraham J. Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, A Greco-Roman Sourcebook, Library of Early Christianity 4, ed. Wayne A. Meeks (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 149–160.
  41. William Barclay, The Letters to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians, rev. ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster, 1975), 168–70. Granted, critical scholars tend to discount the authorship of Paul of Philippians, Colossians and Ephesians.

Works Cited

Bahr, Gordon J. “Paul and Letter Writing in the First Century.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 28 (1966): 465-77.

—. “The Subscriptions in the Pauline Letters.” Journal of Biblical Literature 2 (1968): 27-41.

Barclay, William. The Letters to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians. Revised ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster, 1975.

Carson, Donald A., Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Cousar, Charles B. The Letters of Paul. IBT. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996.

Field, Frederick. Notes on the Translation of the New Testament. 1899 ed. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994.

Gamble, Harry Y. “Amanuensis.” Pages 72–73 in vol. 1 of Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Longenecker, Richard N. “Ancient Amanuenses and the Pauline Epistles.” Pages 281–97 in New Dimensions in New Testament Study. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974.

—. “On the Form, Function, and Authority of the New Testament Letters.” Pages 101–14 in Scripture and Truth. Edited by Donald A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983.

Malherbe, Abraham J. Moral Exhortation, A Greco-Roman Sourcebook. LEC 4. Edited by Wayne A. Meeks. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1986.

Millard, Alan. Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus. Washington Square, NY: New York University Press, 2000.

Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. Paul the Letter-Writer: His World, His Options, His Skills. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1995.

Richards, E. Randolph. The Secretary in the Letters of Paul. Tübingen: Mohr, 1991.

Robson, E. Iliff. “Composition and Dictation in New Testament Books.” Journal of Theological Studies 18 (1917):288-301.

Stowers, Stanley K. Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity. LEC 8. Edited by Wayne A. Meeks. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1989.

Ward, Roy Bowen. “How to Study the New Testament.” The World of the New Testament. Edited by Abraham J. Malherbe. The Living Word Commentary: New Testament 1. Edited by Everett Ferguson. Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 1984.