by Richard Barcellos | Dec 17, 2010 | New Testament
Be prepared, I hold to the compositional priority of Matthew, thanks to David Alan Black and various early fathers of the church. 🙂
Each Gospel served a practical, evangelistic need connected to an Apostle at the time in which it was written. As the message of the Gospel went from Jerusalem finally to Europe, practical needs arose that necessitated authoritative, apostolic commentary. Here’s a theory about how and why each gospel came about.
1. Consider Acts 1:8 and the subsequent account given to us by Luke in Acts: The story-line in the Book of Acts goes from Jerusalem (1-7) to Judea and Samaria (8-12), to Gentile lands or “the remotest part of the earth” (13-28; Paul’s missionary journeys to Asia Minor and Europe). So needs arose as the Gospel went forth.
2. Consider the needs of the early church:
1) Jerusalem and its surrounding areas at the time of Acts 1-12. The audience was mainly Jewish and in need of knowing for sure the facts about Jesus life, death, and resurrection. Matthew, who was a Jewish Apostle, writes his Gospel to serve the needs of Jewish evangelism some time in the 40s.
2) In Acts 13-28, we are told that the Gospel spreads to Gentile lands.
a) We know from 1 Peter that Peter was in Rome with Mark just prior to his death (1 Peter 5:13). Mark writes his Gospel on behalf of Peter, around the time of his death, in Rome.
b) We know from the Book of Acts that Luke traveled with Paul (Acts 16:10ff.). Luke writes his Gospel for Pauline, Gentile ministry while traveling with Paul.
3) By all accounts, the Gospel of John was written last.
a) It was written by the Apostle John to combat heretical teaching about the Person of Christ, thus it starts out very different than the other Gospels.
b) Whereas the other Gospels start with the birth and early ministry of Christ, John starts with one of the grandest statements of the pre-existence of Jesus in the entire Bible – the Word who was with God before the creation of all things (Jn. 1:1ff.) was God, the creator of all things!
3. Consider the testimony of the early church: There is evidence in the writings of early Christians that seem to support the theory above.
1) Whenever the Gospels are mentioned by early church writers, Matthew always heads up the list.[1]
2) Second century prologue to Luke: “There were already gospels in existence, that according to Matthew, written down in Judea, and that according to Mark in Italy.”[2]
3) Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 150-215): “Mark, the follower of Peter, while Peter was publically preaching the gospel at Rome in the presence of some of Caesar’s knights and uttering many testimonies about Christ, on their asking him to let them have a record of the things that had been said, wrote the Gospel that is called the Gospel of Mark from the things said by Peter,…”[3]
4) Origen (c. A.D. 185-254) says, “The first written was that according to the one-time tax collector but later apostle of Jesus Christ, Matthew, who published it for the believers from Judaism…”[4]
5) Augustine (c. A.D. 354-430) says, “Therefore these four evangelists, well known to the whole world, four in number, …are said to have been written in this order: first Matthew, then Mark, third Luke, last John…”[5]
Conclusion: Each Gospel served a practical, evangelistic need connected to an Apostle at the time in which it was written. That’s why we have four Gospels. And the reason they are in the order they occur in our Bibles is probably due to the order in which they were written.
[1] David Alan Black, Why Four Gospels?, 43.
[2] Black, Why Four Gospels?, 39.
[3] Black, Why Four Gospels?, 38.
[4] Black, Why Four Gospels?, 41.
[5] Black, Why Four Gospels?, 42.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
by Richard Barcellos | Dec 16, 2010 | Biblical Theology, Hermeneutics, New Testament, Old Testament
Psalm 119:1-8 in biblical-theological perspective, by Pastor Jim Brooks
I know Pastor Brooks via the net alone. We have “known” each other for several years. Below is a piece he sent me on Ps. 119:1-8. With his permission, I am posting it for your enjoyment. I really like how he connects the Psalm to Christ!
Psalm 119:1-8 Aleph. How blessed are those whose way is blameless, Who walk in the law of the LORD. 2 How blessed are those who observe His testimonies, Who seek Him with all their heart. 3 They also do no unrighteousness; They walk in His ways. 4 You have ordained Your precepts, That we should keep them diligently. 5 Oh that my ways may be established To keep Your statutes! 6 Then I shall not be ashamed When I look upon all Your commandments. 7 I shall give thanks to You with uprightness of heart, When I learn Your righteous judgments. 8 I shall keep Your statutes; Do not forsake me utterly! Beth.
Jesus is the fulfillment of the blessed man of this section of Psalm 119. It is significant that the first synonym used in this Psalm referring to God’s Word is torah (law). Torah is a term that broadly refers to the Mosaic Law which was handed down to Moses on Mt. Sinai. Jesus is greater than Moses (Heb. 3:3) and came to fulfill Torah (Matt. 5:17). The word used for blameless in verse 1 was also used to describe the sacrifices God required of sinners (e.g. Lev. 1:10), animals that were spotless and without blemish. Jesus, who satisfied all the OT sacrifices, was spotless and without blemish (1 Pet. 1:19). As such, the Father was well-pleased with His Son (Matt. 3:16-17). Jesus asked His accusers, “Which one of you convicts me of sin?” (Jn. 8:46). There was no reply and no charges made because He perfectly walked in the law, kept the testimonies, and did no wrong. God commanded His precepts to be kept and obeyed. Jesus spoke of His commandments which are to be obeyed (Jn. 14:15, 21; 15:10, 12).
Although deity in the flesh, Jesus was still flesh and tempted as we are (Heb. 4:15). Thus verses 5-6 would have been a prayer on Jesus’ lips as He battled temptation and Satan. Now, as our great High Priest, He intercedes for us and prays for the sanctification of those whom He has redeemed (Jn. 17:15-17). Even though He was God’s Son, Jesus learned obedience through His suffering (Heb. 5:8).
Through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, the redeemed are blameless before the Father (Rom. 8:1; Eph. 1:4). Through Jesus we are able to walk in the ways of the Lord because He is The Way (Jn. 14:6). All those who are in Christ will not be put to shame for we are clothed with the righteousness of Christ (Rom. 3:21-22). Because Christ inaugurated the New Covenant (Lk. 22:20), we have the Law of God written on our hearts (Jer. 31:33; Ezek. 36:27) so that, through the indwelling ministry of the Holy Spirit, we can keep His Word. We have the confidence that Jesus will never forsake us (Matt. 28:20; Jn. 14:18-23).
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
by Richard Barcellos | Dec 16, 2010 | Biblical Theology, Historical Theology, New Testament, Old Testament, Systematic Theology
Part I: The Perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant in Owen and Others
Part II: Matthew 5:17 and the Perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant in Owen and Others
Part III: The Multi-functional Utility of the Decalogue in Owen and Others
Part IV: The Idea of Abrogation in Owen and Others
1. John Owen. Owen teaches that the whole law of Moses (even the moral element) has been abrogated. Commenting on Hebrews 7:18, 19, Owen says:
I have proved before that “the commandment” in this verse [Heb. 7:18] is of equal extent and signification with “the law” in the next. And “the law” there doth evidently intend the whole law, in both the parts of it, moral and ceremonial, as it was given by Moses unto the church of Israel [emphasis added].[1]
Commenting on Hebrews 7:12, Owen says:
It was the whole “law of commandments contained in ordinances,” or the whole law of Moses, so far as it was the rule of worship and obedience unto the church; for that law it is that followeth the fates of the priesthood [emphasis added].[2]
Wherefore the whole law of Moses, as given unto the Jews, whether as used or abused by them, was repugnant unto and inconsistent with the gospel, and the mediation of Christ, especially his priestly office, therein declared; neither did God either design, appoint, or direct that they should be co-existent [emphasis added].[3]
Owen, of course, carefully qualifies what he means by the whole law and its abrogation. Commenting again on Hebrews 7:18, 19, he says:
Nor is it the whole ceremonial law only that is intended by “the command” in this place, but the moral law also [emphasis his], so far as it was compacted with the other into one body of precepts for the same end [emphasis added]; for with respect unto the efficacy of the whole law of Moses, as unto our drawing nigh unto God, it is here considered.[4]
Again, Owen says:
By all these ways was the church of the Hebrews forewarned that the time would come when the whole Mosaical law, as to its legal or covenant efficacy, should be disannulled, unto the unspeakable advantage of the church [emphasis added].[5]
This comes in a section in which Owen is showing how “the whole law may be considered …absolutely in itself” or “with respect …unto the end for which it was given” or “unto the persons unto whom it was given.”[6] He calls the law “the whole system of Mosaical ordinances, as it was the covenant which God made with the people of Horeb. For the apostle takes ‘the commandment,’ and ‘the law’ for the same in this chapter; and ‘the covenant,’ in the next, for the same in them both.”[7] Owen is concentrating on the whole Mosaic law, i.e., it is the law in its totality as it related to God’s Old Covenant people that has been abrogated. Thus the abrogation of the law in Owen refers to the whole law as it functioned in Old Covenant Israel.[8]
2. John Calvin. This understanding of abrogation is found in Calvin also. Calvin taught that the abrogation of the law under the New Covenant in no way abrogates the Decalogue in every sense of the word. Commenting on Rom. 7:2, Calvin says:
…but we must remember, that Paul refers here only to that office of the law which was peculiar to Moses; for as far as God has in the ten commandments taught what is just and right, and given directions for guiding our life, no abrogation of the law is to be dreamt of; for the will of God must stand the same forever. We ought carefully to remember that this is not a release from the righteousness which is taught in the law, but from its rigid requirements, and from the curse which thence follows. The law, then, as a rule of life, is not abrogated; but what belongs to it as opposed to the liberty obtained through Christ, that is, as it requires absolute perfection [emphasis added].[9]
It is important to note that “the term ‘law’ for Calvin may mean (1) the whole religion of Moses…; (2) the special revelation of the moral law to the chosen people, i.e., chiefly the Decalogue and Jesus’ summary…; or (3) various bodies of civil, judicial, and ceremonial statutes.”[10] Calvin says, “I understand by the word ‘law’ not only the Ten Commandments, which set forth a godly and righteous rule of living, but the form of religion handed down by God through Moses.”[11] Calvin views the law in various ways. So when he speaks of abrogation, he does not intend absolute abrogation, but relative abrogation in terms of the law considered not in itself, but in its redemptive-historically conditioned use. Commenting on the concept of abrogation in Calvin, one Calvin scholar said, “the Law was not in itself abrogated by the Christ, but only the slavery and malediction attaching to it under the ancient Covenant.”[12] According to Calvin, therefore, the Moral Law has not been abrogated, as such. What has been abrogated or fulfilled in Christ for believers is its function as a curse. “The law itself is not abolished for the believer, but only the maledictio legis… [F]or Calvin the law is related above all to believers for whom, however, the maledictio is removed.”[13]
3. Zacharias Ursinus. In his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, while discussing the extent that Christ abrogated the law and the extent that it is still in force, Zacharias Ursinus says:
The ordinary and correct answer to this question is, that the ceremonial and judicial law, as given by Moses, has been abrogated in as far as it relates to obedience; and that the moral law has also been abrogated as it respects the curse, but not as it respects obedience [emphasis added].[14]
The moral law has, as it respects one part, been abrogated by Christ; and as it respects another, it has not [emphasis added].[15]
But the moral law, or Decalogue, has not been abrogated in as far as obedience to it is concerned. God continually, no less now than formerly, requires both the regenerate and the unregenerate to render obedience to his law [emphasis added].[16]
4. Francis Turretin. A similar understanding of abrogation is found in Francis Turretin. In volume 2 of his Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Turretin entitles chapter XXIII as follows:
THE ABROGATION OF THE MORAL LAW
XXIII. Whether the moral law is abrogated entirely under the New Testament. Or whether in a certain respect it still pertains to Christians. The former we deny; the latter we affirm against the Antinomians.[17]
Notice Turretin’s careful qualifications (i.e., “entirely” and “in a certain respect”). While discussing the abrogation of the moral law, he says, “In order to apprehend properly the state of the question, we must ascertain in what sense the law may be said to have been abrogated and in what sense not.”[18] Then, after listing three senses in which the law has been abrogated, he says, “But the question only concerns its directive use–whether we are now freed from the direction and observance of the law. This the adversaries maintain; we deny.”[19]
Turretin does what we have seen in others. He has a view of abrogation which both includes the Decalogue and does not include the Decalogue. This is because the law can be viewed from different theological and redemptive-historical vantage points.
5. Protestant Scholasticism. Finally, concerning the lex Mosaica [law of Moses], which, representing the view of Protestant Scholasticism, he defines as the moral law as given to Israel by God in a special revelation to Moses on Mount Sinai, Richard Muller says, “As a norm of obedience belonging to the [covenant of grace], the law remains in force under the economy of the New Testament.”[20] Muller recognizes the fact that Protestant Scholastics considered the law in different ways. Therefore, when we examine their statements about abrogation, we must take this into consideration. If we do not, we may take their statements on the abrogation of the law in an absolute manner and make them mean something they did not.
We have seen that Owen’s view of abrogation was similar to Calvin’s, Ursinus’, Turretin’s, and Protestant Scholasticism’s. With them, he carefully and repeatedly qualifies what he means by abrogation. He stands clearly within Reformed orthodoxy at this point. His view of abrogation neither necessarily demands the elimination of the Decalogue as a unit in all senses under the New Covenant, nor is it contradicted by the inclusion of the Decalogue as a unit under the New Covenant. Though with his own nuances and emphases, Owen’s view is substantially that of others in his day. It was Calvin’s, Ursinus’s, Turretin’s, Protestant Scholasticism’s, as well as that of the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Savoy Declaration, and the 2nd LCF.[21]
From the evidence presented, Owen must be understood to view abrogation as both including and not including the Decalogue, depending on how it is viewed. If this is the case, his understanding of abrogation, though with its own nuances and emphases, has clear and ample precedent in Calvin, Ursinus, Turretin, and Protestant Scholasticism.
[1] Owen, Works, XXI:464.
[2] Owen, Works, XXI:428.
[3] Owen, Works, XXI:429.
[4] Owen, Works, XXI:458.
[5] Owen, Works, XXI:469.
[6] Owen, Works, XXI:466.
[7] Owen, Works, XXI:471.
[8] I defended this view of abrogation in my IDOTD. “Hearty agreement must be given when New Covenant theologians argue for the abolition of the Old Covenant. This is clearly the teaching of the Old and New Testaments (see Jeremiah 31:31-32; Second Corinthians 3; Galatians 3, 4; Ephesians 2:14-15; Hebrews 8-10). The whole law of Moses, as it functioned under the Old Covenant, has been abolished, including the Ten Commandments. Not one jot or tittle of the law of Moses functions as Old Covenant law anymore and to act as if it does constitutes redemptive-historical retreat and neo-Judaizing. However, to acknowledge that the law of Moses no longer functions as Old Covenant law is not to accept that it no longer functions; it simply no longer functions as Old Covenant law. This can be seen by the fact that the New Testament teaches both the abrogation of the law of the Old Covenant and its abiding moral validity under the New Covenant.” See Barcellos, IDOTD, 61.
[9] John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, re. 1984), IXX:246.
[10] Calvin, Institutes, II.vii, n. 1.
[11] Calvin, Institutes, II.vii.1.
[12] Hesselink, Calvin’s Concept, 203.
[13] Hesselink, Calvin’s Concept, 256.
[14] Ursinus, Commentary, 492.
[15] Ursinus, Commentary, 495.
[16] Ursinus, Commentary, 496.
[17] Turretin, Institutes, II:ix.
[18] Turretin, Institutes, II:141.
[19] Turretin, Institutes, II:141, 42.
[20] Muller, Dictionary, 174.
[21] See chapters 4 and 19 of these Confessions.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
by Richard Barcellos | Dec 13, 2010 | Biblical Theology, Hermeneutics, New Testament, Old Testament
Previous posts in this series:
Canonical Structure and Hermeneutics: Intro.
Canonical Structure of the OT – 1
Canonical Structure of the OT – 2 (the Hebrew Bible)
Canonical Structure of the NT
Hermeneutical Implications of Canonical Structure
1. Both Testaments are similar in that the Pentateuch and the Gospels function as historical and theological foundations for subsequent books. This is so obvious in light of previous posts that it needs no further comment.
2. Both Testaments are similar in that subsequent books depend on previous revelation and are theologically continuous of that revelation. Since this is the case, we should not be surprised if subsequent revelation includes some explanation of antecedent revelation. And when this occurs, it is God commenting on what he has done or said in the past and its relevance for the present. Subsequent revelation often makes explicit what was only implicit in antecedent revelation.
3. Both Testaments have similar canonical shapes which seem to have been deliberately formed. What Dempster says of the New Testament Gospels can be said of the Old Testament’s Pentateuch. “…the Gospels…have a hermeneutical and theological priority by virtue of their initial position in the canon.”[1] The New Testament is clearly centered on Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of Old Testament messianic promise. Its canonical shape seems to reflect its theological content (the coming of Christ [the Gospels] is followed by the implications of his coming [Acts-Revelation]). If it is indeed the case that canonical shape was theologically deliberate, then it would seem at least to suggest that the following words of James Hamilton with reference to the Old Testament are worthy of serious consideration. Hamilton says, “…from start to finish, the OT is a messianic document, written from a messianic perspective, to sustain a messianic hope.”[2] He goes on to offer two caveats to this claim.
First, I wish to make plain the inductive steps that led to this hypothesis. We inductively observe that there is much messianic speculation in second temple Judaism (both in the NT and the intertestamental literature). We add to this the observation that this speculation is anchored in the OT. We then set aside the possibility that ancient people were stupid, which seems to be an implicit assumption of a good deal of modern scholarship, and we seek a hypothesis that explains the data. Since the authors of these texts are presumably seeking to be persuasive to their contemporaries (see, e.g., John 20:31), it seems to me unlikely that their contemporaries would grant the imposition of new meanings onto these texts. One hypothesis that explains the fact that “Early Christians, rabbinic sources, and the sectarians at Qumran cite the same biblical texts in their portrayals of the royal messiah” (J. J. M. Roberts, “The Old Testament’s Contribution to Messianic Expectations,” in The Messiah [ed. J. H. Charlesworth; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992], 41 n. 2) is that the OT is a messianic document, written from a messianic perspective, to sustain a messianic hope. This would mean that these disparate groups are not imposing a messianic interpretation on these texts but rightly interpreting them. This is not the only available hypothesis, but it seems to me to be the most convincing. I agree with John Sailhamer, who writes, “I believe the messianic thrust of the OT was the whole reason the books of the Hebrew Bible were written. In other words, the Hebrew Bible was not written as the national literature of Israel. It probably also was not written to the nation of Israel as such. It was rather written, in my opinion, as the expression of the deep-seated messianic hope of a small group of faithful prophets
and their followers” (“The Messiah and the Hebrew Bible,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44 [2001]: 23). The variations in messianic expectation show that the developing portrait of the coming Messiah was not crystal clear, but the pervasive expectation supports the hypothesis.
My second caveat is that though I am calling this “messianic,” I do recognize that this term seems not to receive a technical meaning until the second temple period. But as Rose has written, “It is a matter of confusing language and thought . . . to conclude on this basis that one can speak of messianic expectations properly only after a particular word was used to refer to the person at the center of these expectations” (W. H. Rose, “Messiah,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch [Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003], 566). Cf. also John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 11–12.[3]
[1] Dempster, Dominion and dynasty, 42.
[2] James Hamilton, “The Skull Crushing Seed of the Woman: Inner-Biblical Interpretation of Genesis 3:15,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 10.2 (2006), 30.
[3] Hamilton, “The Skull Crushing Seed of the Woman,” SBJT 10.2 (2006), 44, n.5.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
