Regarding the Divide Between the Christ of Faith and the Jesus of History

On June 17, 2017October 15, 2023 By Jovan PayesIn 2017, Christian Apologetics, Freed-Hardeman University, Graduate Work, Jesus Studies, New Testament, Research Papers, Technical Studies, Theology1 Comment

There is a long-standing view that an impassible divide exists between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. This paper is about crossing this epistemic divide centered on what can be known about Jesus. Many scholars believe this divide cannot be bridged, but this paper argues that it can. This challenge reminds me of two cautionary tales.

Growing up in San Francisco, I was surrounded by bridges. Traveling northbound from the San Francisco peninsula, one crosses the Golden Gate Straight by virtue of the world-famous Golden Gate Bridge. Traveling eastbound, out of “the city,” there is the less famous double-stacked Oakland Bay Bridge, which is the workhorse among the Bay Area bridges. There are two events connected to these bridges that have taught me two relevant lessons.

First, few know that many said the Golden Gate straight could not be bridged. In fact, engineering experts said a bridge would never be built because the straight was too long, the winds were too strong, the waters would be a nightmare for construction, and the fog would further hamper the process. Yet, four years of construction (1933-1937) later, the impossible expanse was built. Sometimes, the naysayers give you the planks upon which to build your bridge.

Second, during the 6.9m 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, a large section of the top-level (outbound) of the Bay Bridge collapsed. I watched, on a small battery-powered radio/tv, a news report of a vehicle attempting to jump the divide, only to fail tragically. The vehicle had no ability to jump the gap. I learned that day that hope is not enough to cross a wide gap. We must evaluate the evidence to “look before we leap.”

Christianity and the Impassable Divide

These anecdotes inspire me to challenge the so-called “impassable” ditch at hand. It is not a small challenge, for the claim has been made by some of the sharpest minds in “thinking” history. It is, nevertheless, part of the calling of every Christian to be “prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Pet 3:15 ESV).[1] Peter was aware that Christians will be called upon to explain the connection between their behavior and their conviction in Jesus as Lord (1 Pet 4:1-5). Life and faith converge in Jesus. What some would argue is an impassable gulf -reality and value/significance- was the connective tissues of a Christian ethical apologetic. It may be argued, then, that first-century Christians were already crossing the “impassable” bridge between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith.

Peter anticipated no epistemic difficulty -no crisis- explaining how “Jesus as Lord” connects with significance to the everyday issues of his life and his future. Accordingly, this early text assumes that the full identity of Jesus held an immediate significance to the lives of struggling Christians. It is the result of both his historic existence and his spiritual Lordship viewed as one tightly interwoven reality. This “interwoven reality” is not, however, the view of many within the academic circles of biblical and philosophical criticism.

This issue at hand is multifaceted and complicated, but it is not insurmountable nor impassable. One must evaluate the evidence and acknowledge the complexity of the problem at hand in order to offer a solution. For instance, there is a large time-gap between today and the first-century. This raises a lot of genuine historical questions all by itself concerning sources which provide any measure of access to Jesus. Further, those ancient sources must be evaluated to test their genuineness to weigh their authenticity and accuracy to verify if they are primary or secondary sources, literary or non-literary sources. These and many other questions are used to evaluate ancient sources that allow the historian to reconstruct a probable and revisable picture of the ancient past. If the current matter were simply an issue regarding sources, then there are numerous literary sources from the first-century which point to Jesus, the events and personalities surrounding his ministry, his death, and the belief and practices of early Christians. Many have discussed and debated these sources,[2] but the tension at hand focuses on a level a bit “deeper” than literary sources (though they will be considered).

At its core, the problem at hand is epistemic; that is, it centers on “how” knowledge is obtained, how knowledge connects the self “within” (internal) to the world “without” (external).[3] David Lipe briefly summarizes it as, “the study of the origin, nature, extent and reliability of knowledge.”[4] Vergilius Ferm points out that epistemology seeks to answer the following questions:

What is the source of human knowledge? What are its limitations? How do we come by our knowledge of the external world, of ourselves, of others? How can we trust our ideas as valid?[5]
“Epistemology,” in Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, ed. Lefferts A. Loetscher (Baker Books, 1955)

Schools of thought, such as empiricism and rationalism, and the debates which they create have formed the basis of the dichotomy that pits the “historical Jesus” against the Christ faith-claim. In particular, with rationalism (Decartes, Spinoza, Leibniz), mind (a priori) is regarded as being given authority/primacy over the senses (a posteriori); that is, a priori knowledge is superior to a posteriori knowledge. Conclusions drawn would be deductively reasoned knowledge such as Aristotle’s “laws of thought.” On the other hand, empiricism (Locke, Berkeley, Hume) approaches knowledge from the other direction -the senses/experience; that is, a posteriori knowledge is regarded superior to a priori knowledge. This would be inductively experienced knowledge grounded in life.[6]

Enter Immanuel Kan (1724-1804). In the late eighteenth century, Kant would attempt to split the difference by attempting to synthesize and hold both in tension. That is, we can know “how” we know something, but the knowledge is completely subjective. Knowledge is only a perception, a “representation,” and not actually real to life (the thing in-itself).[7] Kant develops the thought this way:

all our intuition is nothing but the representation of appearance; that the things that we intuit are not in themselves what we intuit them to be, nor are their relations so constituted in themselves as they appear to us; and that if we remove our own subject or even only the subjective constitution of the senses in general, then all constitution, all relations of objects in space and time, indeed space and time themselves would disappear, and as appearances they cannot exist in themselves, but only in us. What may be the case with objects in themselves and abstracted from all this receptivity of our sensibility remains entirely unknown to us.[8]
Michael Rohlf, “Immanuel Kant,” https://plato.stanford.edu/index.html

Yet, as Norman Geisler points out, Kant’s epistemology results into a self-defeating “philosophical agnosticism.”[9] Attempts like these to explain how we obtain knowledge is at the core of the so-called impassable gulf between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith.

The Contours of the Impassable Divide

This debate fundamentally represents the struggle between connecting the tangible to the intangible, life and significance, the historic and the historical. In addition to a number of certain epistemic concerns, the divide is infused with an anti-supernatural bias which has manifested in at least five forms.[10] They are summarized briefly here, with the danger of oversimplification:

Gotthold E. Lessing (1729-1781) argued that there is an “ugly ditch” between historical contingent truths and the eternal necessary truths. His “ugly ditch” language has essentially framed the whole conversation.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) argued that there is a gulf between facts (contingent truths) and values (experience/reasons) that cannot be bridged but by faith (not knowledge).
Martin Kähler (1835-1912) expressed his concern for a reconstructed (historical) Jesus that must be mediated by the trained hands of critical scholarship. Kähler affirmed an impassable divide between the historical (reconstructed) Jesus and the historic (real) Jesus that cannot be cross unless by faith evoked by the historic Jesus.
Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) viewed that the “historical” has no connection to the eternal, so real history is immaterial to the “leap of faith” toward the spiritual/eternal.
Rudolph Bultmann (1884-1976), argued that Jesus —as built on untrustworthy sources (Christian testimony, myths, and legends)— is not relevant for faith nor spiritual truth claims. It is the symbolism that matters at an existential level, that is, the meaning intended by such “sources.”

These all reflect a gap, a ditch, a divide, for which it is claimed that they cannot be bridged. It will be, then, the approach of this paper to first briefly critique the arguments for this impassable gap. Then, attention will be given to ancient sources, both within the New Testament canon and outside the New Testament canon to demonstrate that history and value claims must be intertwined to make sense of evidence. From this, provisional conclusions will be made that are reasonable and consistent with this evidence.

Critique of the Impassable Gap of the Historical Quest

The problem with the arguments used to articulate the dichotomy of the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith are typically self-defeating and beg the question at the methodological level. The “gap” issue significantly touches on the crux of the quest for historical Jesus. Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965) points to Lessing’s publication of Herman S. Reimarus’ Fragments in which Reimarus separates what the apostles said about Jesus from what Jesus said about himself.[11] Since Schweitzer, the publication of Fragments has been viewed as the early stages of the quest for the historical Jesus.

Gotthold E. Lessing

Reimarus influenced Lessing, and who in turn, affirmed a tension between the relationship of history and revelation. Lessing states this as “the ugly broad ditch”; namely, “accidental truths of history can never become the proof of necessary truths of reason [and revelation].”[12] For Lessing, a Spinozan pantheistic deist, there is no supernaturalism in the world. So, events are fortuitous (accidental) and have no meaning/significance of themselves. Why, because like Spinoza, Lessing argues that since God is immanent and extends throughout creation, he naturally governs the world with its unbreakable natural law. Accordingly, supernatural activity (miracles, providence, etc) is impossible because to do so would violate his own nature as expressed in natural law. Thus, miracles are impossible and God does not reveal himself in history. Thus, Jesus the real-person (a posteriori) is not associated with the faith-truth as the Christ (a priori) by definition. In fact, no religious claim can be absolutely true.

Lessing’s argument, however, presumes that “natural law” is inflexible. A further problem in Lessing’s epistemology is its self-defeating agnosticism that not only arbitrarily forces a divide between history and truth. For, in order to make the observation (a posteriori) that history and value (a priori) are detached from one another, Lessing must make an absolute value statement based on how history and value relate to each other historically. So, Lessing is doing what his thesis says is impossible to do: to intertwine history and evaluative judgments.

Immanuel Kant

This is essentially the same fundamental flaw in Immanuel Kant’s agnosticism (that he knows that one can perceive but not know a thing in itself). Again, Kant says,

We are acquainted with nothing except our way of perceiving them, which is peculiar to us, and which therefore does not necessarily pertain to every being, though to be sure it pertains to every human being.[13]
Quoted in Rohlf, “Immanuel Kant.”

People only know what they think they know, and what they know is not necessarily true “in itself.” This is the tension of his contradictions (“antinomies”) which, therefore, force him to reject a priori (and ontologically) arguments for believing a thing to be true in itself. For example, what is logically necessary, is not actually necessary.[14] Consequently, the Bible is not the result of God adapting to human finiteness (which is logically necessary) but is instead a book of mythology. It is not actually necessary that the Bible be from God, and such a truth claim is only a perception. Instead, what has more logical value and tangible significance to Kant is one’s duty to their neighbor.[15] Thus, the events of Jesus portrayed in the Gospels, then, is a subjective statement of a spiritual truth-claim that Jesus is the Christ of faith.

In order for Kant to make this claim (that we only know perceptions, no what is real in-itself), he is must make an absolute truth (a priori) claim in a world that he has argued can only be perceived in a subjective manner. Kant self-defeats himself by crossing the divine he denies is possible cross. Would not the argument, “I know for certain that it is impossible to know a thing in itself” argue that Kant knows this as a historical truth claim in itself? Kant derails himself.

Søren Kierkegaard

Kierkegaard argued for a dichotomy which “real history” is unimportant to faith, or rather, that it is impossible to move from the historical toward the spiritual. Kierkegaard finds no causation between a historical event and meaning (its value, or truth). In fact, this is his great paradox when it comes to truth claims since human knowledge is unable to have certainty about meaning and significance. Thus, for example, spiritual truth is beyond human rationality. For Kierkegaard seeking how to explain or understand the nature of God, one enters a paradox/contradiction. The act to explain the nature of God, is in effect, to limit a full understanding of God. To be certain about something is to limit what can be known about something.

In this sense faith —in particular, Christian faith— is a different beast altogether, for it carries within it a built-in certainty to its truth claims. In Kierkegaard’s view, it is purely nonsense that by understanding what happens in history (Jesus of history), one can obtain knowledge of the contradiction — the non-historical (Jesus of faith). Therefore, fact and history are not as important to Kierkegaard as the “leap of faith.” The problem is, as Geisler sums up, “while the historical as such does not bring one into contact wth the eternal, neither can the eternal be divorced from real history.”[16] Yet, Kiekergaard’s case proves too much on this point, for “the shift in emphasis from fact to value leads to the denial of fact and its support of faith.” It is not that all of his observations are to be dismissed, but he undermines the role of fact to understand value-claims.

Martin Kähler

Martin Kähler, who builds on Kant, also voiced his concern that the “real Christ” is not the Christ of Faith. This point is easily misunderstood. Kähler rightly argued that historical research should inform faith, so he was loved by liberals but hated by conservatives. Kähler also rejected attempts to separate the Jesus of history from the Christ of faith and was loved by conservatives and hated by liberals. He served, therefore, as a middle ground historical critic, who was “loved” and “hated” by conservative and liberals but for different reasons. Kähler coined the phrases “historical Jesus” (historische) and “historic Jesus” (geschichtliche), yet what he meant by the terms is not how most employ the term today. The “historical Jesus,” according to Kähler is a reconstructed Jesus based on scholarship which may, or may not correspond to the “historic Jesus” — that is, the real-life Jesus. Kähler took issue with equation the two.[17]

It came down to two problems. First, there is limited knowledge, or the lack thereof, to sufficiently “reconstruct” Jesus. Second, believers are at the mercy of the “fluid results” of scholarly reconstructions about Jesus. Jesus was, therefore, mediated by the elite scholars. For this reason, Kähler declares, “the real Christ, that is, the influential Christ, with whom millions in history have had fellowship in a childlike faith… is the preached Christ.”[18] The proclaimed Christ solved this problem. For this reason, Kähler made a distinction between the “historical Jesus” from the “historic Jesus.”

The line he draws on this point, between the two, is too strong and undermines the fact that the New Testament builds its case upon sources which are built on eyewitness accounts (Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1-3). Even if one were to argue that there is a minimal amount of authentic evidential sources about Jesus, then to that degree a faithful reconstruction of the historic Jesus can be made and understood. Which in many respects is the case for everything that could be said about Jesus of Nazareth has not been recorded (John 20:30; 21:25).

Rudolf Bultmann

One of the most significant contributors to the dichotomy of the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith is Bultmann. Bultmann’s significance for New Testament criticism and theology are, according to Ricard N. Soulen and R. Kendall Soulen, equaled by few and excelled by none in the areas of form-criticism and the practice of demythologizing the New Testament.[19] Working on his form-critical methodology, Bultmann differentiated between the sayings of Jesus and the deeds of Jesus (e.g. Reimarus), between the pre-scientific worldview of Jesus’ day and today, and the fact that to accept this worldview would be to sacrifice one’s intellect. Thus, he argued for a non-historical symbolism based upon kerygmatic (proclamation) themes.

What matters from the New Testament point of view, he argued, are the transcendent truths of faith (existential meaning). Thus, the resurrection “myth” did not happen, but what matters is the transcendent truth the “resurrection” is suppose to provide.[20] However, form-criticism, when properly applied is about finding genres and even sub-genres of types of literature within a text(s). It is not inherently anti-supernatural as Bultmann wielded it. In one way, it is a tool for genre classification. In another, it provides the framework for what tools an exegete may require for interpretation.[21]

Yet, Bultmann infused his approach with a naturalism which rejects the supernatural by definition. Consequently, at the methodological level, Bultmann begs the question that miracles are not possible and builds an interpretive framework in which miracles do not make sense. However, if one employs a theistic worldview that leaves the possibility open that miracles are possible,[22] then Bultmann’s approach would not have created his mythological approach to understanding Jesus, which his student Ernst Kasemann viewed as docetic.

Ancient Sources on Jesus of Nazareth

Turning now to consider sources within the New Testament canon and those outside the New Testament canon. The New Testament documents clearly emphasize a concern for and establish the historical underpinnings of the gospel message. It is the presentation of Jesus as a historic, and not mythic, figure which leads Edward M. Blaiklock to affirm that “Christianity triumphed over its most serious opponent, the soldiers’ worship of the soldierly Mithras, largely because Christianity could oppose to the legendary Mithras the historical reality of Christ.”[23]

Canonical Christian Sources

Broadly, though, there are three tests of historicity, according to James P. Moreland, that establish that New Testament documents are “as reliable as, superior to, most other ancient documents.”[24] These general tests are: bibliographical tests, internal tests, and external tests.

First, is the bibliographical test, which establishes the number of extant manuscripts and how far removed they are from the originals. In the case of the New Testament documents, the extant Greek manuscript copies exceed 5,000 (not including quotations, ancient translation, lectionaries), in fragmentary or complete form, many of which are from the second-century. In this regard, the New Testament is the most attested document of the ancient world.[25]

Second, the internal tests evaluate any claims of representing eyewitness history. The Gospel accounts and Acts reflect eyewitness testimony (Luke 1:1-4; 3:1-2; ). Luke tells us explicitly that his Gospel is in keeping with three aspects of early Christian testimony: preexisting accounts, earliest eyewitness testimony, and those who served to deliver the Word to the world. Moreover, Luke chronicles his involvement as a collaborator with Paul (Acts 16:10-17, 20:5-15, 21:1-18, 27:1-38, 28:1-10). The letters reflect personal encounters with Jesus (1 John 1:1-4; 2 Pet 1:16-17; 1 Cor 9:1; 15:1-11), or with those close to first-generation disciples of Jesus (Gal 1:18-19; 2:1-14).

Third, the external test verifies if there is material evidence to confirm the reliability of the document. Edwin M. Yamauchi demonstrates that despite a long-standing skepticism against the historicity of New Testament, there are numerous significant and “insignificant” confirmation of the social, political, and geographical background of the New Testament and demonstrates the literary source to be reliable.[26] One instance may illustrate these observations. In Acts 18:12-17, Paul stands before the tribunal of the governor (proconsul) of Greece (Achaia), one L. Junius Gallio. There is an inscription was found from Delphi with Gallio’s name on it. Most likely it refers to his proconsulship during July 51 to July 52, which means Paul’s year-and-a-half stay began a year or so before this time (ca. 50-51).[27]

Non-Christian Sources

The other side of this issue is ancient testimony outside of the New Testament. Rudolf Bultmann belief that the quest for the historical Jesus lacked non-Christian sources. He ignored Christian sources specifically because they eyewitness documents which he believed inserted legendary and mythological elements, and therefore, cannot be trusted. While the extant sources are not all the kinds which a historian might like (legal documentation, birth records, etc.), what is available serve as independent literary reinforcement of that Jesus of History and Christ of faith are one interwoven as one figure.

E. M. Blaiklock surveys the sort of extant ancient sources available from the first-century. The majority of which are not focused on the region of Judea nor on history. In fact, he writes, “Bookends set a foot apart on this desk where I write would enclose the works from those significant years. Curiously, much of it comes from Spanish emigrants in Rome.”[28] Yet, what is available impressively corroborates with the historical framework of the New Testament and the significance they assert for Jesus of Nazareth.

Non-Christian sources, moreover, may be grouped into six categories of various weight and detail.[29] There are ancient historians (Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, Thallus), government official correspondence between (Pliny the Younger, Emperor Trajan, Emperor Hadrian), Jewish sources (Talmudic references to Jesus, Toledoth Jesu document), other Gentile sources which do not speak favorably of Christianity (Lucian, Mara Bar-Serapion), and gnostic sources (Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, Treatise on Resurrection). The latter certainly have their theological slants, but they to point to Jesus as a historical figure.

Of these non-Christian sources, two sources will receive particular attention: first-century references to Jesus in the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus (ca. AD 56-121) and Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (ca. AD 37-100).

Cornelius Tacitus

Tacitus was a Friend of Pliny and Suetonius. He began writing history in AD 98 with a volume about his father-in-law, Argicola, and another about Germany, Germania. Then early in the second-century, Tacitus published two more volumes, Histories (ca. AD 100-109) and Annals (ca. AD 109-116).[30] The Histories focus on the political troubles of Rome during A.D. 69-96, including the destruction of Jerusalem (Histories 5). The Annals chronicle the reign of Augustus to Nero (AD 14-68). In describing the depravity of the Caesars, Tacitus digresses with a note about the burning of Rome:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.[31]
(Annals 15.44)

Robert L. Wilken explains the usage of the term “superstition” (Lat. superstitio) in its common and familiar sense, “the term superstition referred to beliefs and practices that were foreign and strange to the Romans… that had penetrated the Roman world from surrounding lands.”[32] This is how Tacitus and other Romans felt about such groups.

More to the point, Tacitus is a Roman historian with no interest in proving Jesus existed; however, he knew the basic facts of his death as he “suffered the extreme penalty” and during the proper time frame and location while Pilate was procurator in Judea (AD 26–36).

Flavius Josephus

Flavius Josephus is a self-described first-century Pharisee and Jewish rebel during the early Jewish rebellion against Rome, who surrendered to Rome.[33] He wrote of the Jewish and Roman dynamics of the Jewish War provides a retelling of Jewish history in Antiquities of the Jews, an autobiography (Vita), and a defense of Judaism (Against Apion). There are three references in his works which are of interest, Antiquities 18:63-64, 18.116-119 and 20.200. The latter two are rather straightforward as they reference John the Baptist and James the brother of Jesus.

The first reference is Antiquities 18.116–117, in which John the Baptist is mentioned:

Now, some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist; for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.

The reference is strikingly similar to the way the Gospel accounts outline the fate of John the Baptist (Mark 6:14-29).

The second reference is Antiquities 20.200, in which the Christian leader, James, is mentioned in passing as a digression to Josephus’s discussion of Ananus’s ambition to exercise his authority. Josephus mentions him as “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ… James”:

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was put upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and, when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.

Jesus is James’s “famous” brother. The Gospel accounts describe Jesus as having siblings (Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3; John 6:42) and the apostle Paul acknowledged James as “the Lord’s brother” (Gal 1:19). Interestingly, Origen (ca. 184-253) comments on this reference, “though he [Josephus] did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great” (Comm in Matt 10.17).[34]

The third reference, known as the Testimonium Flavianum (18:63-64), is complicated by Josephus’ favorable description of Jesus. The passage includes such descriptions of that question whether one should call Jesus “a man,” “he was [the] Christ,” “a doer of wonderful works,” “for he appeared to them [the disciples] alive again the third day,” and “as the divine prophets had foretold.” The textual strength of the passage is strong, but it appears to be out of balance with what is know about Josephus’s belief about Jesus (Origen above).

Origen, who appears knowledgeable of this material in Josephus, curiously does not seize upon the passage as it stands today. Eusebius appears to be the first ancient author to cite the testimonium in its present form (Ecclesiastical History 1.11).[35] James South argues, along with many scholars, that this passages is evidence of a tampering with the passage, the “culprit” most likely being an unknown Christian scribe.[36] The general approach, then, is to redact the passage to eliminate the positive language from the passage.[37] Like the following redaction of William Whiston’s translation:

Now, there was about this time, Jesus a wise man. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Nevertheless, historical scholarship agrees that Josephus said something about Jesus here. What is clear, though, is that Josephus, a premier historian of first-century Judea is fully aware of Jesus, as he is aware of Pilate, Herod, John the Baptist, and James.

Concluding Thoughts

A study like this needs to come to a sense of balance with regards to objectivity. Norman Geisler reminds that “if objective means, ‘a fair but revisable presentation that reasonable men and women should accept,’ then the door is open to the possibility of objectivity.”[38] The goal has been to cross the impassable epistemic gulf believed to exist between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. It is believed that the goal has been reached. There are just a few general observations which should be made in conclusion. First, E. P. Sanders makes an important point and warning about sifting through the available sources concerning Jesus:

Ancient history is difficult. It requires above all common sense and a good feel for sources. Our sources contain information about Jesus, but we cannot get at it by dogmatically deciding that some sentences are completely accurate and some are fiction. The truth will usually lie somewhere in between. As I have already said more than once, and may repeat several more times, we have very good knowledge of Jesus at a somewhat general level. With regard to chronology, we know that he was active during some part of the period 26-36 C.E. It is wrongheaded to try to turn the gospels – and, for that matter, Josephus – into modern encyclopaedia [sic] articles, or to suppose that one sentence is dead right, and the others are completely wrong.[39]

Only when we seek to establish by the ancient evidence what can be established historically, then we are in the position to intertwine reliable history (a posteriori) and the significance (a priori) of the life of Jesus of Nazareth. The impossible bridge, then has been made. Second, despite the complexity of historic inquiry, a worldview and framework can be articulated that is objective and not be anti-supernatural.

Third, both Christian and non-Christian sources do provide evidence and information that is objective and informative regarding what was believed to have occurred by eyewitnesses and historians. Finally, at minimum here, it can be affirmed that historical evidence points to Jesus as a “wise man” who “drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles,” died under the proconsulship of “Pilate” who was influenced by the “principal men” among the Jews to condemned Jesus “to the cross;” nevertheless, Jesus had disciples “that loved him at the first who did not forsake” and they are may thought of as “tribe of Christians… so named from him… [and] … are not extinct at this day.” Bridge toll paid.

Endnotes

Unless otherwise stated all quotations are taken from the English Standard Version of The Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001).
Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996), 187–228; F. F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974); Edward M. Blaiklock, Jesus Christ: Man or Myth? (1974; repr. Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1984),19–31; Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1987), 190–233; Graham N. Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (Oxford: Oxford University, 1989), 139–49.
C. Stephen Evans, Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics and Philosophy of Religion (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002), 39–40.
David L. Lipe, Values in Thought and Action (Henderson, TN: Hester Publications, 2001), 7.
Vergilius Ferm, “Epistemology,” in Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, ed. Lefferts A. Loetscher (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1955), 1:385.
Ferm, “Epistemology,” 386.
Michael Rohlf, “Immanuel Kant,” https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/#TraIde.
Rohlf, “Immanuel Kant.”
Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapid, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 401–05.
Geisler, Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 141–42.
Geisler, Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 385–86
Ricard N. Soulen and R. Kendall Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, 3rd ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 102.
Rohlf, “Immanuel Kant.”
Geisler, Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 402.
Lipe, Values, 78.
Geisler, Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 409.
Soulen and Soulen, Biblical Criticism, 92.
Martin Kähler, “Martin Kähler on the Historical Jesus,” in The Christian Theology Reader, 2d ed., ed. Alister E. McGrath (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2001), 294.
Soulen and Soulen, Biblical Criticism, 28, Evans, Apologetics and Philosophy, 18–19.
Geisler, Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 517–18; Colin Brown, “Quest of Historical Jesus,” DJG 334–35.
Stephen H. Travis, “Form Criticism,” in New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods, ed. I. Howard Marshall (1977; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979), 153–64.
Geisler, Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 320–30.
Blaiklock, Jesus Christ, 11.
James P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity (1987; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1988), 133–57.
Moreland, Scaling the Secular City, 135-37; Philip W. Comfort, Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography and Textual Criticism (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2005), 103–98.
Edwin Yamauchi, “Archaeology and the New Testament,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gæbelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 1:647–69.
Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 545-86; Mark Cartwright, “Corinth,” http://www.ancient.eu/corinth/.
Blaiklock, Jesus Christ, 11-12; see, Wayne Jackson, “Jesus Christ: Myth or Genuine History,” https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1061-jesus-christ-myth-or-genuine-history.
Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 187–228; Geisler, Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 381–85; James T. South, Just Jesus: The Evidence of History, Kindle ed. (Chillicothe, OH: DeWard Publications, 2012), loc. 237–555.
Albert A. Bell, Exploring the New Testament World (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1998), 289.
Tacitus, Annals 15.44. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=urn:cts:latinLit:phi1351.phi005.perseus-eng1:15.44.
Robert L. Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1984), 50.
Bell, New Testament World, 289.
Origen, “Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew Book 10.” http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101610.htm.
Ken Olsen, “Eusebius Reading of the Testimonium Flavianum,” http://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/5871.
South writes, “What we have here is likely a legitimate text from Josephus, in which he mentioned Jesus, but which has been re-worked by a Christian editor” (Just Jesus, loc. 318); Charles K. Barrett, New Testament Background: Selected Documents (1956; repr., New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1961), 198.
Olsen, “Eusebius Reading of the Testimonium Flavianum”; Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins, 39.
Geisler, Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 320–30.
E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (repr. London: Penguin Books, 1995), 55–56.

Bibliography

Barrett, Charles K. New Testament Background: Selected Documents.1956. Repr., New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1961.

Bell, Albert A. Exploring the New Testament World. Nashville: Nelson, 1998.

Blackburn, Simon. Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. 2d edition. Oxford: Oxford University, 2005.

Blaiklock, Edward M. Jesus Christ: Man or Myth? 1974. Repr., Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1984.

Blomberg, Craig. The Historical Reliability of the Gospel. Downers Grove, IL: InverVarsity, 1987.

Brown, Colin. “Quest of Historical Jesus.” DJG 326–41.

Bruce, Frederick F. Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1974. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974.

Bultmann, Rudolf. History of the Synoptic Tradition. Translated by John Marsh. Revised edition. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, n.d.

Comfort, Philip W. Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography and Textual Criticism. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2005.

Craig, William Lane. “‘Noli Me Tangere’: Why John Meier Won’t Touch the Risen Lord.” http://www.reasonablefaith.org/noli-me-tangere-why-john-meier-wont-touch-the-risen-lord.

Evans, C. Stephen. Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics and Philosophy of Religion. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002.

Evans, Craig A. “Do the New Testament Gospels Present a Reliable Portrait of the Historical Jesus?” CTR n.s. 13.2 (Spring 2016): 17–26.

Farnell, F. David. “Three Searches for the ‘Historical Jesus’ but no Biblical Christ: The Rise of the Searches (Part 1).” Master’s Seminary Journal 23.1 (Spring 2012): 7–42.

Farnell, F. David. “Three Searches for the ‘Historical Jesus’ but no Biblical Christ (Part 2): Evangelical Participation in the Search for the ‘Historical Jesus.’” Master’s Seminary Journal 24.1 (Spring 2013): 25–67.

Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. 3rd edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003.

Ferm, Vergilius. “Epistemology.” Pages 385-87 in vol. 1 of Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. Edited by Lefferts A. Loetscher. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1955.

Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Baker Reference Library. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999.

Habermas, Gary R. The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996.

Habermas, Gary R. “The Minimal Facts Approach to the Resurrection of Jesus: The Role of Methodology as a Crucial Component in Establishing Historicity.” Southeastern Theological Review 3.1 (Sum 2012): 15–26. Repr., http://www.garyhabermas.com.

Jackson, Wayne. “Jesus Christ: Myth or Genuine.” https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1061-jesus-christ-myth-or-genuine-history.

Jackson, Wayne. “The Nature of History.” https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1332-nature-of-history-the.

Kähler, Martin. “Martin Kähler on the Historical Jesus.” Pages 292-95 in The Christian Theology Reader. 2d edition. Edited by Alister E. McGrath. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2001.

Lipe, David L. Values in Thought and Action. Henderson, TN: Hester Publications, 2001.

Moreland, James P. Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity. 1987. Repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1988.

Olsen, Ken. “Eusebius Reading of the Testimonium Flavianum.” http://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/5871.

Rohlf, Michael. “Immanuel Kant.” https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant.

Sanders, E. P. The Historical Figure of Jesus. New York, NY: Penguin Books, 1993.

Soulen, Richard N., and R. Kendall Soulen. Handbook of Biblical Criticism. 3rd edition. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001.

South, James T. Just Jesus: The Evidence of History. Kindle edition. Chillicothe, OH: DeWard Publishing, 2012.

Stanton, Graham N. The Gospel and Jesus. Oxford Bible Series. Edited by Peter R. Ackroyd and Graham N. Stanton. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.

Travis, Stephen H. “Form Criticism.” Pages 153-64 in New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods. Edited by I. Howard Marshall. 1977. Repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979.

Wilken, Robert L. The Christians as the Romans Saw Them. New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1984.

Yamauchi, Edwin M. “Archaeology and the New Testament.” Pages 647–69 in vol. 1 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Frank Gæbelein. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979.

Defining Gospel: A New Testament Glance

On April 20, 2017January 31, 2023 By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Bible Study, Glendale Gleaner, Gospel, New Testament, Publications, Published, Theology

Words are strange creatures. Often, they mean what we want them to mean. It has been said that words are the patterns by which people think. Since words frame our thinking world, it is really important that we correctly shape our ideas with properly defined words. In the case at hand, understanding the meaning of the Christian word gospel depends on understanding how the word gospel is presented in the New Testament.[1]

The English word Gospel most likely derives from the Old English word gōd spell, which meant “good story” or “good message.” William Deal points out that gōd spell meant a good mystery, doctrine, or secret, something hidden which was being brought out.[2] And the gospel is definitely a mystery revealed (Ephesians 3:1-14). The words translated gospel is, however, roughly the result of the combination of two Greek words: eu (good) and angelia (message, news). It roughly approximates “a good message,” but even this is not enough to tell us how the word is shaped by the New Testament.

Within the 27 New Testament volumes, the gospel is connected to three focuses: (1) “the gospel” as a message (euangelion), (2) the action of “preaching/bearing the gospel” (euangelizo), and (3) those individuals who proclaim the gospel (euangelistes). These words have a combined total of 133 instances, scattered over 20 of the 27 New Testament books.[3] The only books that do not use these words are the Gospel of John and his three Letters, and James, 2 Peter, and Jude. These books tend to use other words which emphasize the same ideas (cf. truth, proclaiming, hope, light, the message, etc.).

Let us consider a few lines of thought that will help us define and shape an accurate understanding of the gospel message.

How do you Define Gospel?

First, the gospel is not the result of religious evolution and philosophical development. In the ancient world, a number of religions and beliefs often blend into each other or break out into their own religions. For example, the far eastern religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism resulted from a philosophical and religious reaction to their view of social order (the caste system) and how to become one with the ultimate reality of the universe. This development of ideas is not along parallel lines with how the gospel message is defined in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

Second, the gospel is not the result of social progress. One of the modern concerns in the industrial world is that of social concern for equality. These social concerns tug at our values, and our ethics. Equality is the hallmark (gospel) of the modern social order, and because of it, we are seeking ways to save everything. Yet, as the late atheist and satirical comedian George Carlin quips against this elevation of self-importance:

Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. […. explicit deleted] Save the planet[?], we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet […][4]

I would argue that here inlays the problem of a socially derived “good news”; The gospel must be defined by other means. Humanity needs help from the Creator.

Third, the gospel is the result of divine revelation (Galatians 1:11-17). The authors of the Bible in general and the New Testament in particular assume and argue that their religious instruction is not the result of human philosophy or development. For example, Paul affirms his source is Jesus Christ:

For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ. (1:11–12).[5]

The contrast between “not after man” and “through revelation of Jesus” is clear. The gospel of the New Testament is, by definition, from God and not from the insights of humanity (1 Corinthians 2:1-16).

The New Testament Gospel

But how should we understand the word gospel? In its basic sense, the word gospel is focused on something positive being announced (military victory, news, etc). This meaning is older than in New Testament times but it is found in a few verses. For example, Paul writes to the Christians in Thessalonica about the good feelings they felt for him and his ministry, he writes,

when Timothy came even now unto us from you, and brought us glad tidings [euangelisamenou] of your faith and love, and that ye have good remembrance of us always, longing to see us, even as we also to see you. (1 Thessalonians 3:6).

The report of Timothy was positive, a good report, an enjoyable announcement (cf. Galatians 3:8, proeuangelizomai).

More significantly, when the Gospel of Mark —a biography of Jesus’s ministry— opens we read, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1). This tells us something about the story of Jesus. It starts out by anticipating a message to embrace as a celebration and victory (Matthew 11:5). The content of the gospel not only includes the ministry and message of Jesus, but also his rejection, crucifixion, resurrection, and glorification of Jesus.

The four Gospel Accounts (Matthew-John) are so named because they provide the “building blocks” of what is to be proclaimed as the message of the gospel (Mark 1:14-15), by those whose role it is to proclaim it and bear it to the world (Acts 21:8; Ephesians 4:11; 2 Timothy 4:5; Mark 16:15). At the beginning, Jesus proclaimed a message based upon the kingdom of God, repentance, his role as the son of God, and the gospel’s role to change people’s lives (Matthew 4:23; 9:35). Later, after the resurrection of Jesus, the gospel is to be proclaimed on behalf of Jesus throughout the world (Matthew 24:14, 26:13; Colossians 1:23).

It is not surprising, then, to see the apostle Paul in Athens described by onlookers as one who “preached Jesus and the resurrection” (Acts 17:18). Paul made it a ministry goal to “to preach the gospel, not where Christ was already named, that I might not build upon another man’s foundation” (Romans 15:16, 19-20). Indeed, he explains his “aim” as a sense of indebtedness to mankind to share this message (Romans 1:14-15). For this reason, he affirms clearly:

I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (Romans 1:16-17)

Paul would seek to pass along this conviction to his protégé Timothy (2 Timothy 1:8-10). It is the responsibility of every Christian to boldly share this victorious good news (2:2).

The Earliest Gospel “Statement”

Among the New Testament writers, the earliest statement of the content of the preaching of the gospel is found in Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11. Paul’s activity in ancient Corinth is around the early fifties of the first century AD, and this letter is dated to this timeframe no later than AD 55.[6]

In this letter, Paul presents a lengthy discussion —and definition— of the gospel message that he preached. The passage of 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 can be outlined based upon key elements of the gospel message:

(1) the preaching of the gospel word provides salvation to the believer (15:1-2),

Now I make known unto you brethren, the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye received, wherein also ye stand, by which also ye are saved, if ye hold fast the word which I preached unto you, except ye believed in vain.

(2) the compelling force of the gospel is from the foretelling of events fulfilled in Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection (15:3-4),

For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures;

(3) the gospel is based on the eyewitness testimony of those who witnessed Jesus, resurrected bodily from the dead (15:5-8), and

and that he appeared to Cephas; then to the twelve; then he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep; then he appeared to James; then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to the child untimely born, he appeared to me also.

(4) the gospel is based upon God’s offer of unearned grace and humanity’s response of faith (9-11).

For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not found vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. Whether then it be I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

The passage is significant, first, because Paul has an early and authentic message. Paul even “checked in” with Peter in Jerusalem and at some point compared notes regarding the gospel (Galatians 1:18). Second, the outline of this passage is significant because of its point-by-point details. Thirdly, it shows that the gospel bridges the gap between earth’s history and God. The victory message of the gospel is based upon the supernatural events firmly established in the historical life, ministry, death, resurrection, and exaltation as Lord and God (John 20:24-29).

Concluding Thoughts

In short, to understand the gospel one must understand Jesus, the purpose of his teaching and his ministry, the death-burial-and-resurrection of Jesus, and the life-changing message of the kingdom of God. It is not insignificant to point out that gospel obedience is described as an imitation of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection in baptism. In this way, the gospel is lived out in the Christian life manifested in obedience (Romans 6:1-10; Colossians 3:1-3).

Endnotes

See, Doug Burleson, “Gospel,” in One Word Study Guide, eds. Chad Landman, et al. (Mt. Juliet, TN: Mt. Juliet church of Christ, 2016), 134-36. Burleson provides a perfect snapshot of “good news” in the Hebrew Bible (besorah) and the New Testament (euangelion).
William S. Deal, Pictorial Introduction to the Bible, 3rd ed. (1982; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997), 246.
Figures worked out based upon calculations from the Logos Bible platform’s “Bible Word Study” for euangelion (76), euangelizo (54), euangelistes (3).
George Carlin, “The Planet is Fine” routine in the 1992 HBO George Carlin: Jammin’ in New York Comedy Special (Cable Stuff Productions).
All Scripture references are from the American Standard Version unless otherwise noted.
This is argued on the basis of two points:
First, the Book of Acts recounts his trip to Corinth (18:12-17), during which time he stands for religious accusations before the tribunal of the governor (proconsul) of Greece (Achaia), one L. Junius Gallio. Because this was a matter of Jewish religion and not Roman law, Gallio lets Paul go.
Second, an inscription was found from Delphi with Gallio’s name on it. Most likely it refers to his proconsulship from July 51 to July 52, which means Paul’s year-and-a-half stay began a year or so before this time (ca. 50-51). This is often regarded as one of the surest historical points of New Testament chronology. A few years later, Paul writes to the Corinthians. This would be no later than 55 AD. See, Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 545-86. For an online source see Mark Cartwright, “Corinth,” Ancient History Encyclopedia.

**This is a reformatted and expanded version of the article originally published in The Glendale Gleaner (Newbern, TN: Glendale church of Christ).**

Little Did They Know: The Prose Sections of Job (1:1-2:13; 42:7-17)

On August 3, 2016August 5, 2017 By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Biblical Criticism, FHU, Freed-Hardeman University, Graduate Work, Old Testament, Spiritual Formation, Spiritual Growth, Theology, Wisdom Literature

college papers

The prose section of the book of Job receives a variety of approaches, but the most consistent approach is to treat it as a separate folk-tale which existed independently than the present canonical form. This “campfire” tale, or this moral free legend, had grown sufficient credibility to take on a permanent form within a community. Then an unknown poet emerges who takes the folk-tale[1] and formalizes it with a series of poetic discourses and creates an extended edition, the present form of the book of Job. As such, questions emerge as to the continuity between the prose sections (1:1-2:13; 42:7-17) and the poetic sections (3:1-42:6). This source critical approach makes an assumption that the book of Job is the result of significant editorial activity, suggesting that the book has undergone considerable layering and updating. Robert Fyall argues that such a possibility does not “in itself” deny divine inspiration but it only makes poor sense in Job’s connection to the biblical canon.[2] As such, “the question of the relationship of the prologue (chs. 1-2) and the epilogue (42:10-17) to the poetic dialogue must be explored.”[3]

Nevertheless, despite the reticence among some scholars to see a significant degree of continuity vital to understanding the tensions, themes, and argument of the present form of the book of Job, it is argued here that a proper understanding of Job does not rely upon the theoretical pre-canonical form of the two independent traditions.[4] Instead, there is a “logical coherence” between the prologue, the poetic discourses, and the epilogue.[5] It is argued here that the prose sections play an integral part to understanding the canonical form of the book of Job. The style and vocabulary purposely represents an ANE setting apart of Israelite religion in the tradition of the dramatic epic, and sets the wisdom and theodicy debate in a historical context like that of the Hebrew patriarchs (Abraham, Moses). The prose sections place a large emphasis upon the heavenly court which anchors the theology and drama of the poetic discourses.

The Integral Nature of the Prose Sections

First, the prose sections play an integral part to understanding the canonical form of the book of Job. In proportion to the bulk of the book this may seem to overstate the weight of the prose sections in Job. As Bernhard Anderson argues, “if we are to understand the viewpoint of the author of Job we must rely primarily on the poems rather than on the prologue and epilogue.”[6] Nevertheless, Anderson concedes that the poems are only effective because they are “framed within the context of the folk story.”[7] The book of Job is framed by “the life-situation that occasions the poetic meditations.”[8] In general, the framework of narrative transitions are, as Robert Alter observes, an act of conscious narration “in order to reveal the imperative truth of God’s works in history.”[9] The function of the prologue and the epilogue, then, is to bracket in the core discussion of Job and this is accomplished by setting the plot, the tensions, and the characters which will enter the fray of the poetic discourses in Job 3:1-42:6.

The limits of the prose sections of Job are substantially agreed upon.[10] The usual limits of the prologue of Job are from 1:1-2:13. First, the prologue has natural and literary limits. A reading of the first chapters of Job lends its to a natural outline of a narrative that transitions to a series of discourses, but as James Patrick observes there are a series of “speech ascriptions” which provides a literary limit to the prologue in particular and the speech cycles in general (“Job opened his mouth… Job said”[11]).[12] This marks the closing limit of the prologue, which as “the frame-story of Job”[13] will find its themes continued in the poetic body of the Jobine discourses (3:3-42:6).[14] Second, the prologue, then, introduces the tension of the worthiness of God to be served, the sincerity of Job’s faith, the heavenly court and the “wager” (so Anderson), the earthly trials and suffering of a pious and prosperous patriarch, and the interaction among the heavenly realms (Yahweh, The Satan, Heavenly Court) and the earthly realm (skeptic wife, the three friends, Job the hurting) where the narrative will transition to the core discussions of the book.

The epilogue, on the other hand, is generally considered to begin in Job 42:7 and ends in 42:17.[15] First, reading the closing chapters of Job, the transition from discourse (“I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes”) to the actions agrees with the usual outline of Job. There are however literary markers to distinguish between 42:6 and 7. John Hartley’s observation gives a semantic starting point to the epilogue with words from the Lord in favor of Job reminiscent of 1:7, and concludes in verse 42:17.[16] Although 42:7 may be viewed as a potential ascription by the narrator before a statement, it lacks the same verb phrase (וַיַּ֖עַן) used to introduce the Lord’s speeches (38:1, 40:1) and Job’s response (42:1). Second, the epilogue, then transitions from the repentance of Job and the demonstration of the wisdom of God and serves as a narrative of resolution. The epilogue the humility and restoration of Job, the tensions removed, and Yahweh honoring Job and dishonoring the three friends who “have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has” (Job 42:7).

Robert H. Pfeiffer, however, nuances the prose sections (“prose folk tale”) by trimming the traditional prologue to 1:1-2:10 and the epilogue as 42:10b-17. Pfeiffer takes 2:11-13 as the introduction to the entire dialogue exchange; meanwhile, 42:7-10a as a part of the dialogue structure of Job.[17] That there is an obvious shift between 2:10 to 2:11 and 42:10a to 42:10b in content is readily conceded. Pfeiffer’s discussion of the structure of Job demonstrates the quality of his imagination to reconstruct the literary development of the book, but it fails to appreciate these verses in the prose sections as transitions within the same narrative event respectively. It is here that a significant warning finds validity: “Dissecting the book of Job into its component parts actually may diminish one’s understanding of its message.”[18] Instead, it is best to appreciate the “harmony and dissonance” between the prose and poetic discourses which force a critical rereading of the themes presented in Job.[19] The prose sections then are a vital part for understanding Job.

The Genre and Hebrew of the Book of Job

Second, the genre and vocabulary of Job represents an Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) setting apart of Israelite religion, set forth in the tradition of the dramatic epic, and sets then the discourses on the wisdom and theodicy in a historical context like that of the Hebrew patriarchs (Abraham, Moses). Epic literature centers upon episodes in the life of a known figure from history, conveying “didactic instruction concerning the gods and their relations with humanity.”[20] This area of study which has some implications for the dating and setting of Job, an area which has as many dates as interpreters. Dates range from late pre-exilic, a period between Jeremiah and Isaiah, or anywhere from the eighth century to the fourth-century B.C.E.[21] Nevertheless, another warning is called to the student of Job: “it is a mistake to infer the age of the writer from the circumstances of the hero of the book.”[22]

The Genre. Craig Broyles reminds that “the Bible must be read literarily before it can be read literally. If we think of Scripture as light (cf. Psa 119:5), exegesis acts like a prism revealing its colors.”[23] The style of the prologue and epilogue show marks of the dramatic narrative genre of the epic placed in the historical setting of reminiscent of the biblical patriarchs. Many scholars concede the point that Job defies specific genre classification (sui generis “self genre”), but on a macro-level it falls generally into the wisdom literature genre which has parallels in Babylon and Egypt.[24] The prose sections, however, seem to have points of contact with the epic elements of Genesis and Ugaritic literature suggesting that the author was either influenced by preexistence literary genre of the epic, or by specific examples.[25] In keeping with epic narratives in Genesis, Job is painted as a patriarch. His wealth is measured by his cattle and servants (1:3; 42:12), he is the head of his family in both paternal and religious aspects (1:5), and his life-span is comparable to known biblical patriarchs (42:16). Also, the Sabeans and the Chaldeans are in the land of Uz (1:15, 17). In general, then, the internal evidence portrays Job “as a Bedouin sheikh, living in the land of Uz, in northwest Arabia.”[26] It is not clear that Job is directly connected to Hebrew family; aside his connection to Uz, which may imply he is an Edomite, not much can be said of his ethnicity.[27] Most likely, Job is not an Israelite and probably predates the Abrahamic covenant.[28]

The epic genre[29] is further seen in the literary structure of the prose sections fit the literary type of epic, which are directed to an “audience” rather than “reading” public. Elements such as repetition and reiteration are symmetrically constructed throughout these sections following the “epic archetype.” These elements are seen in the celestial council (1:6-12, 2:1-7), in detailing the character of Job (1:1, 8, 22, 2:3, 10), and the three successive blows with “formulaic introduction” and “concluding refrain.” Also, the significant use of numbers within the prose sections (1:2, 42:13) is a Near Eastern literary feature, supported externally in Ugaritic epics. Furthermore, the mythology represented by the celestial beings in 1:6 and 1:21 also is a feature of epic drama. Such a concept of an assembly of celestial beings (“the assembly of the gods”) “are well attested,” according to Sarna, “in the Northwest Semitic literary sphere.” There is also the “prominence of women in epic literature” as seen in the daughters of Job. The naming of the daughters in contrast to the sons is inexplicable aside from its parallel use with Baal’s daughters over his seven named sons and other Ugaritic parallels. Moreover, in Mosaic law daughters receive an inheritance in the absence of sons (Num 27:8), Job’s daughters, however, receive theirs along with their brothers (42:15). This particular point details “quite a different social milieu” like that of Ugaritic epics. Internally, Job is placed in an ancient setting which may reflect the truth about his antiquity but may not have sufficient weight in its determining date.

The Vocabulary and Hebrew. Also, the vocabulary and type of Hebrew employed in the prose covers a significant amount of syntactical and semantic ground in the philological history of the Hebrew language and its connection to the Hebrew canon. Avi Hurvitz, however, disputes this assertion. In fact, he developed criteria to inform the Old Testament exegete whether the Hebrew volume under consideration is composed in Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH), as opposed to Early Biblical Hebrew (EBH). After Hurvitz evaluates seven terms and phrases he concludes are LBH in the prologue and epilogue, argues that “in spite of his efforts to write pure classical Hebrew and to mark his story with ‘Patriarchal colouring’, [sic] the author of the Prose Tale could not avoid certain phrases which are unmistakably characteristic of post-exilic Hebrew, thus betraying his actual late date.”[30]

Ian Young reassesses[31] this study by the criterion Hurvitz developed. In order for there to be identifiable LBH the terms must meet the following: linguistic distribution, linguistic contrast, extra-biblical attestations, and accumulation of the evidence.[32] Young’s own assessment of Hurvitz’s work was both negative and reaffirming. Young dismisses three of Hurvitz’s submissions and supplements three additional phrases as LBH. The total numbered tallied by Young is seven between these two scholars. Young questions whether or not this is sufficient accumulation to establish a LBH imprint on the prose sections of Job to warrant a late date for them and for the book as a whole.[33] To put the matter into perspective, Young places literature known for its LBH with a 500 word sample in a comparative chart to find the astonishing finding that does not line up with post-exilic LBH core books; instead, it is situated low and close to Genesis. Young then concludes, “according to Hurvitz’s own criterion of accumulation, the Prose Tale of Job is not in LBH.”[34]

This is not to say that this is evidence for an early date of the prose sections of Job. Instead, Young argues that LBH and EBH are overlapping styles of Hebrew, rather than EBH being a chronological precursor to LBH. “EBH and LBH would thus turn out to be two styles of post-exilic Hebrew.”[35] Whether Young is correct regarding overlapping styles of Hebrew, it has not been established. It would not seem outside the realm of possibility; yet, in terms of a written language a developmental Hebrew from earlier to later seems legitimate along with the fact that oral developments tend to have their history, nuances, and trajectories.[36] At this point, though Young’s suggestion is inviting, it may be best to accept that EBH and LBH are post-exilic writings styles as tentative until more information arises. As Derek Kidner observes in the face of the “inconclusiveness” of the linguistic evidence, “Happily, this open question is academic, in every sense of the word. This book is no prisoner of time.”[37]

Little Did They Know: Elements of the Prologue and Epilogue

The prose sections place a large emphasis upon the heavenly court which anchors the theology and drama of the poetic discourses.[38] This emphasis is seen in several aspects which arch over the thematic issues addressed in the poetic discourses of Job. This emphasis is more pertinent to the reader than it is to hero Job.

First, there is the setting of the heavenly court (1:6; 2:1). The heavenly court introduced in the prologue recalls to the reader that “there are powers in the universe other than God and that they exercise great influence on the course of events.”[39] The heavenly court motif in Job echoes Canaanite mythology of a council of the gods,[40] or, as Alter describes it, a “celestrial entourage” as in Psa 82:1 (1b “in the midst of the gods he holds judgment”). In the prologue, the heavenly court scene appears twice where a defense of Job’s honest fidelity to God is made to rebut “the Adversary” (“the Satan”); however, in the epilogue, it is the Lord who descends upon the early court apart from the entourage and heavenly Adversary and restore’s Job’s faith and standing.

Second, this leads to a discussion of the main characters of the prose sections which are uniquely bound to each other in Job; namely, the Lord (יְהוָ֑ה), Job, and the Satan (הַשָּׂטָ֖ן). The interaction between God and the Satan place a wager upon Job’s life that he is fully unaware of; in fact, Job is never told in epilogue. The heavenly court is the stage where the celestial adversary emerges, “the Satan” (1:6-9, 12; 2:1-4, 6-7). While it is thought by some that the articular “Satan” suggests a proper name,[41] Alter argues that the use of the definite article (הַשָּׂטָ֖ן) “indicates a function, not a proper name.”[42] Hartley also agrees, this use “functions as a title rather than as a personal name.”[43] This adversary (“the Satan”), then, functions as a celestial prosecutor against Job in response to the Lord (יהוה) proposal that Job is a unique human specimen of spiritual fidelity. This brings two particular elements into play which arch over the discourse cycles.

The drama is set, on the one hand, when Job becomes the subject of a “wager” that has his genuine devotion to the Lord questioned.[44] On the other hand, in the face of Job’s ignorance of the impending hard knocks which will challenge his faith, the Lord’s “justice is on the line and everything depends on the final verdict. God must act to vindicate not only Job but himself.”[45] This places the burden of the outcome upon God rather than Job. The Satan accuses, in essence, that positive rewards yield religious/pious service; hence, is not the person of God but instead a combination of divine bribery and human egocentric desire for these rewards which had motivated Job’s fidelity. It appears that the ideology of retribution builds upon these metrics.

In the epilogue, this theme is returned to after the series of discourses and a showing of Job’s penitence but the adversary is nowhere to be seen; instead, the Lord reinforces the righteousness and faithfulness of Job. It is the friends who have been arguing for the form of retribution the Satan argues for in the prologue, and now that they have been approaching it from the opposite angle. Job is indeed suffering. So, is Job suffering for no reason? The friends argue it is a response (Job 3:23) to Job’s hidden wickedness, so in order to return the hedge of rewards the patriarch must repent (5:17-27). But appeasing God in a religious transaction (repentance, sacrifice, etc.), or by piety, is not a foolproof plan to escape the hardships of life. Job, then, is not convicted to repent but holds to his integrity (Job 27:4-6). In the epilogue, though Job is not truly the victor of the debates, the friends have not changed their words and maintain Satan’s argument. Hence, in the friends the Satan’s accusation is proven inadequate and a great offense to the relationship God actually maintains with humanity.

Third, there is a level of “dramatic irony” which is shaped in the prologue and hangs through the discourses and ultimately returns in the epilogue. One the one hand, Job is completely unaware of what is about to happen to him; whereas the reader is fully knowledgeable of the perils which have been agreed to which are now coming upon Job. Yet, despite this lack of information, Job senses that there is a divine court to plead his case when his faith comes under scrutiny and serious questions about God and justice. This, however, is his longing and a position he is ultimately led to since the court of his contemporaries is already quite hostile and prejudicial towards him due to their conventional wisdom based upon their retributive theology.

On the other hand, the narrator establishes the irony of the story and its theological questions by granting permission to the intended audience of Job.[46] Job and the reader have completely different motivations as the discourses develop. Job’s questions emerge as seeking a better answer to his questions. The reader knows these are the wrong questions. For Job, the man, it is God who has hand picked Job (though this is true) to tear him down (this is not true). In fact, it is the Satan who has touched Job (though by God’s permission), to prove that humanity symbolized in Job will reject God faced with this unjust treatment (which Job refuses to do because of his own sense of integrity). It is Job who finds and exposes the inconsistencies of the conventional wisdom of retribution. In the midst of Job’s sense of indignity for his suffering as a senseless act of God, the reader knows the conversation is all wrong because God champions for Job.Job’s ignorance is the reader’s understanding of reality are carried from the prologue, hang during the poetic discussions, and returns in the epilogue.

It is Job’s ignorance which informs the reader’s understanding of reality. The world is not a tidy place, the good sometimes suffer despite being good, and the bad sometimes enjoy more good they do not “deserve.” The reader is carried along with this tension in mind from the prologue, as it hangs during the poetic discourse cycles, and returns in the epilogue only to be met with the knowledge that humanity does not have the depth of wisdom, the power of control, nor the skill to balance the wild and domesticated world. The epilogue benefits from Job’s confessions of his “smallness” in comparison to what he was critiquing (40:3-5) and that he spoke out of considerable ignorance (42:1-6). This is staggering since the reader supposes that in order to resolve the tension of the book, God would explain to Job why he is suffering. But that is not how the book ends. The resolution is found in the fact that instead of judgment upon Job and his friends for what they “deserve,” God forgives them all. This shows that God relates to humanity in terms of grace, but grace in a real world with hardships that are not always connected to, nor demonstrative of, their relationship with God.

Fourth, there is some foreshadowing in the prologue of the final verdict for Job reflected in the epilogue.[47] In Job 1:22 and 2:10 the narrator demonstrates the fortitude of Job’s faithfulness to God in the face of tragedy. After the first challenge to Job’s genuine devotion to God, the narrator observes, “In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong” (1:22); furthermore, after the second challenge, the narrator writes again, “In all this Job did not sin with his lips” (2:10). These foreshadows are realized when the Lord himself validates Job’s words, “or you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has” (42:7). It is not that Job is sinless, but that Job committed —albeit off and on — that God was not mechanical in his wrath as his friends had been arguing in their dialogues. This is the underlying argument of the three friends, asserting an unbalanced doctrine of retribution, a “doctrine of rewards and punishments that was widespread in the wisdom literature of antiquity.”[48] In the shorthand, their view amounted to two principles: virtue is rewarded and sin is punished. The prologue reveals heaven’s sabotage of this doctrine with, as Clines observes, “a most shocking infringement.”[49]

The poetic discourses did not center on the premise that “If you sin, then you will suffer,” instead the three friends “reversed the cause and effect to reach the belief that: If you suffer, then you have sinned.”[50] This theological failure on the part of the three friends demonstrates that although they claimed to “understand the meaning of life in terms of this doctrine of retribution,”[51] they lacked wisdom. In fact, they share the same problem as Job in that they are woefully ignorant of reality and are attempting to explain it with impoverished wisdom. This speaks to why Job laments his friends, “miserable comforters are you all” (Job 16:2), and why, in the epilogue, the Lord rebukes them and asks Job to intercede on their behalf (Job 42:8-9). Although the doctrine of retribution does not feature in the prose section, nor are there the explicit answer to why humans suffer, the events in the prologue create a series of events which allow the book to “disabuse one common belief, the so-called doctrine of retribution.”[52] In the end, the verdict on Job’s disparaged piety is seen in his response to the Lord in 42:5-6, “I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.” Job’s piety is maintained and his wisdom is asserted for now he sees the Lord who provides at the cosmic level down to the human earthly level and acknowledges his relationship is based upon the charitable and gracious hand of God.

Concluding Thoughts

It has been said that Job is “the greatest monument of wisdom literature in the Old Testament.”[53] Yet, for such an epithet Job requires a demanding reservoir of critical skills to grapple with its structured tensions. The prose sections of Job require tremendous skill and patience to evaluate their contribution. There is a “logical coherence” between the prologue, the poetic discourses, and the epilogue. The prose sections play an integral part in understanding the canonical form of the book of Job. The epic genre and vocabulary places the wisdom and theodicy debate in a historical context like that of the Hebrew patriarchs. Finally, they place a large emphasis upon the heavenly court which anchors the theology and drama of the poetic discourses.

Endnotes

The prologue is often considered the “oldest” element of Job, originally existing as a “simple folk tale” then forming the basis of the current story. See Raymond B. Dillard and Tremper Longman, III, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 202.
Robert S. Fyall, Now My Eyes Have Seen You: Images of Creation and Evil in the Book of Job, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 19.
Fyall, Now My Eyes Have Seen You, 19.
This does not disregard the fact that there are a variety of serious critical questions which must be considered; however, since even the consensus view as to the pre-literary origin of the prose-discourse-prose format of Job is theoretical and limited, it seems best to treat Job in its canonical form.
Dillard and Longman, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 202.
Bernhard W. Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 4th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1986), 590.
Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 590. Irving F. Wood disagrees. Arguing from a source-critical point of view, the poetic discourses “displace the heart of the story” of Job found in the prologue and the epilogue. See his “Folk-Tales in Old Testament Narrative,” JBL 28.1 (1909): 39-40.
Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 590.
Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1981), 46.
Due to space and the complexity of the issues, the prose elements which attend to the introduction of Elihu (Job 32:1-5) and his discourses will not be discussed in this essay. Milo L. Chapman, “Job,” in vol. 3 of Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1967), 101. Chapman sees this section as “part of the prose introduction of Elihu’s speeches.” See also, Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament, 665, and John E. Hartley, The Book of Job (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988), 429.
Unless otherwise stated all Scripture citations are from the English Standard Version of The Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001).
James E. Patrick, “The Fourfold Structure of Job: Variations on a Theme,” VT 55.2 (2005): 186. Patrick demonstrates the use of “regular speech ascriptions” throughout Job (4:1, 6:1, 8:1, 9:1, 11:1, 12:1, 15:1, 16:1, 18:1, 19:1, 20:1, 21:1, 22:1, 23:1, 25:1, etc).
Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 74.
These themes are principally found in the lengthy arguments made by The Satan against Job (1:9-11, 2:4-5).
There are some variations on the epilogue but in general this is how many outline the epilogue.
Hartley, The Book of Job, 539. “Whereas Yahweh has accused Job of darkening knowledge (38:2), his charge against the friends is much stronger. Job has been genuinely groping for the truth, but the friends have spoken falsely in their attempt to defend God.”
Robert H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament (New York, NY: Harper & Brothers, 1941; repr., New York, NY: Harper & Brothers, 1948), 660.
William S. LaSor, David A. Hubbard, and Frederic W. Bush, Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 474.
Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 590-91.
John H. Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context: A Survey of Parallels Between Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Texts (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1989), 46.
Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 593; Dillard and Longman, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 200.
Avi Hurvitz, “Date of the Prose-Tale of Job Linguistically Reconsidered,” HTR 67.1 (Jan. 1974): 31-32.
Craig C. Broyles, “Interpreting the Old Testament,” in Interpreting the Old Testament: A Guide for Exegesis, ed. Craig C. Broyles (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 28.
Fyall argues that “we cannot force the book into a straightjacket. The nature of the book is such that into one form can cover the variety of situations, emotions, questions, protests and characters that it introduces” (Now My Eyes Have Seen You, 23). Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 573; Walton places Job along side many ANE parallel wisdom texts in Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context, 169-87.
See LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush, Old Testament Survey, 472. “Our prologue and epilogue contain a considerable amount of epic substratum and that our prose version would seem to be directly derived from an ancient epic of Job.” See Nahum M. Sarna, “Epic Substratum in the Prose of Job,” JBL 76.1 (March 1957): 15. Leland Ryken, however, does not list these prologues as examples of the epic in How to Read the Bible as Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Academic Books, 1984), 78-81.
Frederick F. The Wisdom Literature of the Bible: The Book of Job,” The Bible Student 23.2 (April 1952): 58.
Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 592.
Tremper and Longman, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 200-01. Still, Job as a historical figure is known to Ezekiel and his reputation is comparable to that of Daniel (Ezek 14:14, 20).
Sarna, “Epic Substratum in the Prose of Job,” 15-24. Many other features and parallels of epic literature are discussed in Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context, 58-63.
Hurvitz, “Date of the Prose-Tale of Job Linguistically Reconsidered,” 18.
Ian Is the Prose Tale of Job in Late Biblical Hebrew,” VT 59.4 (2009): 606-29.
Young, “Is the Prose Tale of Job in Late Biblical Hebrew,” 608.
Young, “Is the Prose Tale of Job in Late Biblical Hebrew,” 621-26.
Young, “Is the Prose Tale of Job in Late Biblical Hebrew,” 626.
Young, “Is the Prose Tale of Job in Late Biblical Hebrew,” 626.
A. Jeffery, “Hebrew Language,” IBD 2:555-56.
Derek Kidner, The Wisdom of Proverbs, Job and Ecclesiastes: An Introduction to Wisdom Literature (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 76. Indeed, Tremper Longman, III, argues that it best to remain “agnostic about the date of composition” because “fortunately the answer to this question does not bear on its interpretation,” “Poetic Books,” in The IVP Introduction to the Bible, ed. Philip S. Johnston (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 98.
The following discussion follows the lead of Fyall, Now My Eyes Have Seen You, 34-38.
Fyall, Now My Eyes Have Seen You, 34.
Fyall, Now My Eyes Have Seen You, 34.
Wayne Jackson, The Book of Job: Analyzed and Applied (Abilene, TX: Quality Publications, 1983), 20. He connects the goings of “the Satan” with 1 Pet 5:8 and argues for the Devil; in fact, Jackson opposes the view taken here that “the Satan” is a celestial member of the heavenly court describing it as “baseless.” Fyall likewise takes “the Satan” as the personal Devil (Now My Eyes Have Seen You, 36). Outside of Job, but within the Hebrew canon, the articular “the Satan” only appears in Zechariah (3:1-2). Both contexts are legal in setting which gives weight for a legal/courtroom Adversary – the prosecutor.
Robert Alter, The Wisdom Books: Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes — A Translation with Commentary (New York, NY: Norton & Co., 2010), 12.
Hartley, The Book of Job, 71.
Fyall, Now My Eyes Have Seen You, 35.
Fyall, Now My Eyes Have Seen You, 35.
Fyall, Now My Eyes Have Seen You, 37-38.
Fyall, Now My Eyes Have Seen You, 38.
Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 595.
David J. A. Clines, “A Brief Explanation of Job 1-3,” in Sitting with Job: Selected Studies on the Book of Job, ed. Roy B. Zuck (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1992), 250.
Dillard and Longman, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 209.
Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 595.
Dillard and Longman, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 209.
Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 588.

The Value of Godly Women to the Church

On May 7, 2016April 16, 2022 By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Book of Acts, Christian Ethics, Christian Leadership, Church Leadership, Discipleship, Glendale Gleaner, Leadership Ethics, Published, Theology, Women Studies

Define value. Dictionary definitions notwithstanding, John Keats (1795-1821) begins his poem, “Endymion,” with the words, “a thing of beauty is a joy forever.” Keats speaks to the power that people —their character and actions— have in retrospect. “That, whether there be shine or gloom o’ercast, They always must be with us, or we die.” The Scriptures show, however, what is “a joy forever”; in a word: godliness. Paul writes, “for bodily exercise is profitable for a little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life which now is, and of that which is to come” (1 Tim 4:8). [All Scripture references are from the American Standard Version unless otherwise noted.]

Nothing is more valuable and potent in this world than “godly seed” (i.e., offspring; Mal 2:15). Humanity, after all, was made to bear the image of God on the earth (Gen 1:26-31): “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” While there is tremendous learning to be gained from understanding the binary nature of humanity (“male and female”), we wish to pursue a study on the value of godly women to the cause of God as it is manifested in the NT church in the past and today.

Godliness is a Matter of Character

Godliness is reflected in the content of a person’s character and conduct. The church is an amazing place full of potential when it reflects the character of its godly women. There is no greater influence in the Lord’s church than godly women. For example, David once said,

know that Jehovah hath set apart for himself [she] that is godly: Jehovah will hear when I call unto [her]. Stand in awe, and sin not: Commune with your own heart upon your bed, and be still.[1] (Psalm 4:3-4, ASV edited)

The Hebrew word (hāsîd) for “godly” (holy) one implies a “kindness” that extends grace toward others because they have at one point received grace.[2] The word is used with great regularity in the Psalms. Godliness is seen, then, as a matter of character, of piety.

Godliness is fundamental to Christian conduct (2 Pet 1:6-7, 10-11). Paul writes that Christian women are to profess godliness through good works:

that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefastness and sobriety; not with braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment; but (which becometh women professing godliness) through good works. (1 Timothy 2:9-10)

The Greek word (theosébeia) for “godliness” speaks to a reverence for God manifested in a set of beliefs and practices.[2] Christian women are to ground their value in their character and reverence for God (1 Tim 4:7-8; 6:11; 2 Tim 3:12; Tit 1:1, 2:12; eusébeia).[3]

Godly women of such character are of inestimable worth to the church. They leave an indelible mark upon everyone they touch. When they show divine kindness to their neighbor when they extend grace to others because they have experienced it as well, and when godly women focus on the content of their character and faithfulness to God, then the world will understand the value of godly women to the cause of Christ. Any home, company, and the church know the powerful influence of such godly women for they cast a beautiful shadow of faith and devotion, service and evangelism, determination and selflessness. This value is seen at the end of Proverbs 31 (10-31), “a woman that feareth Jehovah, she shall be praised. Give her of the fruit of her hands; And let her works praise her in the gates” (30-31).

Examples of Godly Women in New Testament

Let us consider a few examples of the value women have to the church. Women disciples have always been a part of Jesus’ ministry (Matt 27:55; Mark 15:41; Luke 10:38-42; John 4:1-26).

Financiers

Luke’s Gospel Account provides a note on some of the financial supporters and companions of Jesus as he and the twelve went throughout cities and villages “preaching and bringing the good tidings of the kingdom of God” (Luke 8:1-3).

Soon afterward he went on through cities and villages, proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. And the twelve were with him, and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s household manager, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their means. (Luke 8:1–3)

Among these many women were named three in particular: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Susanna. They served Jesus and the twelve from their own possessions and property (“their substance”). After being healed from infirmities and evil spirits, they served as continuous financial supporters of Jesus presumably to bring the same “good tidings” into the lives of others.

Disciples

The Gospel accounts reveal that the women disciples of Jesus were the first to witness and share the resurrection event of Jesus with the disciples. Matthew recounts the encounter of Mary Magdalene and the “other” Mary who came to Jesus sepulcher and were greeted by the angel who had rolled back the stone of the tomb (28:1-10). Mark adds that the “other” Mary is the mother of James and that a third woman was them – Salome (16:1-8). Luke adds that there was a second angelic man, and several other women including Joanna that were greeted with, “Why seek ye the living among the dead?” (24:1-12). John’s Gospel shows Mary Magdalene confused over the empty tomb, comforted by Jesus himself, and told to say that Jesus would ascend to the Father (20:1-18). At a time when the prevailing cultural theory was that a woman’s testimony was inferior to a man’s, the earliest witnesses to the empty tomb of Jesus are the women disciples of Jesus.

Message Sharing

Luke continues to demonstrate the value and influence of women in the early church. The Acts of the Apostles demonstrates at every turn the value of godly women to the church. Women (including Mary, Jesus’ mother) were among the disciples in the upper room as they waited for the coming of the Holy Spirit promised by Jesus (1:14), and Peter declares the prophetic words of Joel (2:28ff) that “your daughters shall prophesy… and on my handmaidens… will I pour forth of my Spirit” (2:17-18).

And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy. (Acts 2:17–18)

Paul himself would abide with Philip the evangelist who “had four virgin daughters, who prophesied” (21:8-9; 1 Cor 11:5).

Doing Good

Luke, by the Spirit, give ample attention to a disciple named Tabitha who “was full of good works and alms deeds” who had fallen ill and died (9:36-37). Peter would be summoned by the church to be with them during this time. Her good works and influence were demonstrated by those who grieved at her death because “all the widows stood by him weeping, and showing the coats and garments” she made “while she was with them” (9:39). Caring for others —particularly widows— has always been an important demonstration of pure religion before God (Jas 1:27). Paul would instruct on the importance of the church and women of faith to care of widows (1 Tim 5:1-17; Acts 6:1-7).

All Encompassing

As the Hebrew writer says (11:32), “for the time will fail me” to continue tell of Christian women who were patrons, fellow workers for the truth, founding members of congregations and “house church” hostesses (Acts 16:11-15). They corrected false teachers (Acts 18:24-28). They raise up godly men to be evangelists (2 Tim 1:3-8, 3:12-17). They loved their husbands and children and demonstrated administrative skill in their homes (1 Tim 5:14; 1 Pet 3:1-6). Finally, Romans 16:1-16 demonstrates that many sisters served in the Lord as servants of God, evangelistic collaborators, teachers and financiers. Christian women ministered the gospel to the first-century world without hindrance.

Godly Women in the Church Today

The Lord-God envisioned an invaluable and elevated place for women in the world. These divine truths hold true today despite the ongoing debate over social gender expectation of men and women. Godly women have tremendous value to the church today, because their roles are still as invaluable as ever. Godly women continue to manage their homes, whether they are a full time stay-at-home wife/mother, work from home, or go to the office. They embrace their domestic role in the home as wife and mother (1 Tim 2:15).

Single women, however, bring a singleness of zeal to the church. Paul says they are “careful for the things of the Lord” (1 Cor 7:34). The breadth of their valuable influence is tremendous. They lead ladies’ Bible classes and workshops, are congregational Bible class teachers, write books and blogs, and contribute to academia. They mentor other disciples.

Our sisters minister to the widows and widowers in senior/assisted living homes, and they comfort the sick in hospitals —some even being/training to be hospital chaplains. Some with a medical background participate in medical-evangelistic campaigns. Others enter the world of missions, focusing their energies on evangelistic pursuits. Many have been brought to Christ due to the teaching efforts of godly women who teach overseas through Bible teaching correspondence courses.

Concluding Thoughts

May the church always embrace the ministries women have in the kingdom of God. This being said I am struck with the climate which often arises in the necessary discussion concerning the ministry of women in the church. I often feel the discussion is filled with much angst and the second guessing of motives when it comes to the reconsideration of my beloved’s sisters’ role in the world. Unfortunately, I think some roadblocks also lie in gender expectations which are culturally driven (“perceived” roles) rather than biblically driven (“biblical” roles). Nevertheless, this brief essay is about extolling the influence of godly women to the church and I believe it has succeeded to reach our goal.

Endnotes

I have replaced the masculine for the feminine in brackets [] simply to express the point of this essay, which is to emphasize the godliness of women.
William Wilson, Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies (repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, n.d.), 196; R. Laird Harris, “hsd,” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, eds. R. Laird Harris, et al. (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1980), TWOT 1:305-07.
“theosébeia,” BDAG 452.
“eusébeia,” BDAG 412.

This is a reformatted and slightly expanded version of the article which was originally published in The Glendale Gleaner (Newbern, TN: Glendale church of Christ).

Is Jesus a Poached Egg?

On December 29, 2015October 15, 2023 By Jovan PayesIn Articles, C.S. Lewis, Christian Apologetics, Christology, Essays, Glendale Gleaner, Jesus Studies, New Testament, Published, Theology

Weird question, I know. Let me explain. This phrase is from C. S. Lewis’s classic book Mere Christianity.[1] Lewis journeyed from atheism to a believer in Jesus as the Christ. In Mere Christianity, he articulated an argument in support of the deity of Jesus commonly styled the trilemma.

Actually, Lewis’ classic argument emerges from his desire to disabuse his readers who are tempted to accept Jesus of Nazareth “as a great moral teacher” and yet reject his claims “to be God.” Lewis is very adamant, “That is the one thing we must not say.”[2] Why? The reason is simple. Jesus made claims to have divine privileges, claims to be divine, and exercised the rights of God by forgiving others of their sins.

How could we rationalize Jesus being a “great moral teacher,” Lewis argues, when he makes such claims to which places him beyond humanity? We are forced to make a decision: accept all that Jesus teaches or attempt to separate this claim to divinity from his teachings.

Decisions, We Have to Make One

At this point, the question about Jesus of Nazareth could be reduced to a dilemma. Professor Maurice Stanley explains that the “dilemma is among the most powerful forms of argument. Like the horns of a charging bull, its alternatives seem to leave you with no escape.”[3]

For example, we may argue that either Jesus is the Christ or He is just “a great moral teacher.”

If Jesus is the Christ, then his teaching is absolutely true.

If Jesus is just a great moral teacher, then his teaching is subjective.

Consequently, you are left with two alternatives: either what Jesus taught (1) is absolutely true, or (2) it is decidedly subjective (we may pick and choose).

As a dilemma, there is no both-and. If you accept one, you deny the other conclusion.

Lewis knew, however, there was a third element regarding the case of Jesus of Nazareth. It simply is not that Jesus is either the Christ or a great moral teacher. Jesus made too many claims to divinity recorded in the Gospel Accounts to leave it at those two options.

Lewis goes to see that Jesus is either one of three things.[4] Jesus is either (1) a lunatic (Lewis’s “a poached egg”), (2) a devil, or (3) the Son of God. This is the trilemma where there is no both-and-and. If you accept one, you deny the other two conclusions.

If you accept that Jesus is a lunatic, then he is the sort of man “who says he is a poached egg” — i.e, a madman.

No madman is a “great moral teacher.” Is Charlie Manson a great moral teacher? What about Jim Jones? Or, David Koresh? Hardly. These are the questions readers of the New Testament need to ask. Interestingly, we find that these questions were raised as well during the ministry of Jesus himself.

They Said, “Jesus is Beside Himself”

In Mark 3:20-21, the family of Jesus had heard that he was home in Capernaum (2:1). They rushed “to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.” [All Scripture references are from the American Standard Version unless otherwise noted.]

The language is very vivid. Jesus’ own family was so concerned about what people were saying about Jesus that they rushed to take him into their “protective” custody. However, certain Jerusalem scribes had already come and dismissed the exorcisms of Jesus as the work and influence of Beelzebul and “the prince of the demons” (3:22).

The text forces the question concerning Jesus: He is either (1) “out of his mind” (i.e., “a poached egg”) or (2) in cooperation with evil spirits (“a demon”). In the latter point, no one disputed the supernatural elements of the exorcisms.

In this text, Jesus responds with a third option (Mark 3:22-27). He argues that He is not cooperating with Satan, nor is Satan in a civil war against himself since his kingdom would fall apart. Instead, Jesus demonstrates his power and authority over Satan by subduing him in his own home. Jesus, then, logically argues for his superiority over the demonic and satanic world.

This passage then, which questions his sanity, demonstrates that he possesses all his mental faculties (he is not crazy) and that he is no emissary of Satan (he is no deceiver). But true to his power and authority, he is in the company and presence of the Holy Spirit (he is from God). Mark presents Jesus as mentally stable and confident in his power over evil spiritual forces.

Did Jesus Go Crazy Later?

George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), an Irish playwright, once claimed that Jesus began his teaching ministry as a sane Rabbi but later after being exalted by the masses as Christ lost his mind.[5] This is not, however, the testimony of the Gospel Accounts which are of such authenticity that they could arguably be “admissible as evidence in a court of law” as true ancient eyewitness documents.[6] This is significant since the only authentic evidence for the existence of Jesus, his teaching, and his ministry are the first-century documents of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

But still, if a person claims to be God today, we would say they are insane. The Gospel Accounts, however, are united in their presentation that Jesus claimed both the power and the nature of God. In Mark 2:1-12, Jesus demonstrates that he not only has supernatural powers to heal a disabled man but also the prerogative and power of God to forgive sins (2:7). He then affirms, “that ye may know that the Son of man hath authority on earth to forgive sins” he heals the man (2:10).

Jesus not only taught that he had this divine privilege, but he also claimed to be God in the flesh (John 1:14, 10:29-33). Furthermore, he accepted worship — a significant acceptance of an act only due to God (Matt 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; 20:20; Mark 5:6-7; John 9:35-38).

When pressed about Jesus’ “I am God” claim as a demonstration that he was insane, psychologist Dr. Gary R. Collins responded that it is important to remember that “psychologists don’t just look at what a person says. They’ll go much deeper than that.”[7]

Dr. Collins sets forth four particular problems “disturbed individuals frequently show” that Jesus does not demonstrate, namely:

(1) Emotional instability.

(2) Out of touch with reality (misperceptions, paranoia, etc).

(3) Thinking disorders (e.g. cannot think logically)

(4) Demonstration of unsuitable behavior.[8]

Instead, Collins praises the emotional and mental stability of Jesus, giving his “diagnosis” as follows: “All in all, I just don’t see signs that Jesus was suffering from any known mental illness… He was much healthier than anyone else I know —including me!”[9]

The Significance of Jesus and His Resurrection

Ultimately, the Gospel Accounts emphasize the story of Jesus and his significance. This is summed up in the word “gospel” (Grk. euangelion) which means “a good tiding” or “a tiding of joy” (Matt 4:23; Mark 1:1; Luke 1:19, 4:18; John 1:11-13). Surely, the authors would not attempt to establish their gospel message upon a delusional Rabbi from a backwater city like Nazareth (John 1:46). Yet their story hangs on such an individual.

The only thing that makes Jesus’ claim to divinity (“I and the Father are one”) credible is the resurrection from the dead (Rom 1:3-5). While Lewis would ask us to choose between the three options based upon the logic of the Gospel Accounts, the real evidence lies in the resurrection of Jesus.

The strongest evidence for the empty tomb of Jesus is seen in the various conversions of those who did not believe in Jesus (James the brother of Jesus) and those who persecuted Christianity (like Saul-Paul the apostle), who was moved from being unbelievers to significant leaders of the primitive Christian faith (1 Cor 15:1-11).

Gary Habermas reminds us that the earliest belief “that they had actually seen Jesus after his death led to a radical transformation in their lives, even to the point of being willing to die for their faith.”[10] Their conversion and capacity to endure sufferings as eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus are unexplainable otherwise.

Concluding Thoughts

Similar arguments can be made from various other texts, but the present discussion should be helpful to demonstrate that Jesus is no “poached egg,” nor is he a liar. We are then led to the only true credible conclusion that Jesus is the son of God.

What will you decide based upon the evidence and testimony of the Gospel Accounts (John 20:30–31; 21:25)? As Lewis reminds us:

let us not come with any patronising [sic] nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.[11]

Endnotes

Clive S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (NY: Macmillan, 1952).
Lewis, Mere Christianity, 56.
Maurice F. Stanely, Logic and Controversy (Boston, MA: Wadsworth, 2002), 192.
N.T. Wright critiques Lewis’ “lunatic, liar, Lord” trilemma argument, or as he rephrases it “bad or mad or God,” by observing that the argument does not take into account the pre-existing “incarnational model” of Israel in the Scriptures and consequently “drastically short-circuits the argument” (“Simply Lewis: Reflections on a Master Apologist After 60 Years,” TouchstoneMag.com). That criticism acknowledged, Lewis does provide the basic contours of the question by forcing his readers to decide if Jesus was a lunatic, a liar, or Lord.
Wayne Jackson calls attention to Shaw’s point of view in Jackson, Eric Lyons, and Kyle Butt, Surveying the Evidence (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, 2008), 175.
Pamela Binnings Ewen, Faith on Trial: An Attorney Analyzes the Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus (Nashville, TN: B&H, 1999). It has been reprinted with slight variation to the title, Faith on Trial: Analyze the Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus (Nashville, TN: B&H, 2013). The purpose of the volume is to demonstrate the credibility of the Gospel Accounts to have the internal evidence to stand up in a court of law as eyewitness documents. Ewen argues forcefully that they do. See also Simon Greenleaf, Faith on Trial: Analyze the Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus (1874; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1995).
Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 146.
Strobel, The Case for Christ, 146-47.
Strobel, The Case for Christ, 147.
G. Habermas, To Everyone an Answer: A Case for the Christian Worldview, eds. Francis J. Beckwith, William Lane Craig, James P. Moreland (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 189.
Lewis, Mere Christianity, 56.

This is a reformatted and slightly expanded version of the article which originally published in The Glendale Gleaner (Newbern, TN: Glendale church of Christ).

Church: A Preliminary Survey

On March 25, 2010October 6, 2022 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

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).
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).
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).
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).
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.
McCord, The Everlasting Gospel, 696.
Peter T. O’Brien, “Church,” DPHL, 123.
O’Brien, “Church,” 124; TDNT 3:527; BDAG, 303.
O’Brien, “Church,” 124.
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.

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

On May 20, 2008October 15, 2023 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]).

SYSTEM	1ST Sovereign	2ND Sovereign	3RD Sovereign	4TH Sovereign
Babylonian	Year of Ascension	1^st Year of Reign	2^nd Year of Reign	3^rd Year of Reign
Palestinian	1^st Year of Reign	2^nd Year of Reign	3^rd Year of Reign	4^th 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

Jon Meacham, “Who Killed Jesus?,” Newsweek.com (Accessed: 16 Feb. 2004), par. 6.
Robert T. Boyd, World’s Bible Handbook (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1996), 309.
Jason Jackson, “How Can the Church be the Fulfillment of Daniel 2:44?,” ChristianCourier.com (Accessed: 28 Sept. 2005).
Wayne Jackson, Biblical Studies in the Light of Archaeology (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, 1982), 46.
James M. Boice, Acts: An Expositional Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1997), 14.
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.
Bruce K. Waltke, “The Date of the Book of Daniel,” BSac 133 (1976): 326.