CANONIZATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT— #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11 — END

 

The Canonization of the New Testament

It Started in the 60s A.D. with the Jewish/Roman War

From the 1984 book "The Original Bible Restored" by the late Ernest L. Martin PhD THE JEWISH/ROMAN WAR AND CANONIZATION Chapter 11 ......At Pentecost in A.D.66, however, the sign of God's abandonment of the Temple at Jerusalem was given to the 24 chief priests who ministered in the inner sanctuary: "We are leaving from here." This was a signal to Peter (and to the remaining Christians in Jerusalem) to flee the city. And they did! Most retired to Pella about 60 miles northeast of Jerusalem, from where they probably were quickly transported by their Greek neighbors into safer areas. In some regions east of the Jordan the Gentiles "escorted to the frontiers any who chose to emigrate" of those Jews "who showed no revolutionary designs" (War, L480). The apostle Peter may have been with these last remnants of Christians to leave Judaea. But he did not remain in Pella, or any area of the Middle East. He had an important mission to perform before he died. The apostle Paul was at that time in prison at Rome. And since it was then apparent that Christ was not returning in that generation (in the life time of Paul and Peter is more like it - Keith Hunt) it became imperative to bring together a set of standard books (like those of the Old Testament) which would have the authority of the apostles behind them. The maintenance of purity within Christian doctrine required a diligent effort of the leading apostles to provide a canon of New Testament Scriptures which would last "until the day dawn" (2 Pet.1:19). Thus, it appears that Peter in the summer of A.D.66 journeyed, via Ephesus, to Rome to see the apostle Paul about this very matter! Indeed, there would have been no other reason for Peter to have gone to the capital city of the Empire, other than to consult with Paul before his death concerning the canonization of the New Testament - the most important endeavor that the apostles could leave for future generations. There can really be no doubt that Peter finally went to Rome and that he and Paul conversed together shortly before their deaths. About A.D.170 Dionysius, who was the minister in charge of the Corinthian church, mentioned that both apostles "taught together in Italy and were martyred about the same time" (Eusebius, Eccl.Hist 11.25.8). Irenaeus also said that the church of Rome was established and founded "by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul" (Against Heresies,111,3.1-3). Then there was Gains, a Roman elder who lived near the end of the second century. He said that it was possible to point to the very tombs of the apostles Peter and Paul in the vicinity of Rome. These were the tombs "of those who founded this church [the church at Rome]" (Eusebius, ibid. IV.22.3). Really, there is hardly a scholar today who would not say that the historical evidence for both Peter and Paul to have been in Rome in the last years of Nero's reign is very strong indeed. True enough, when Paul wrote his last epistle to Timothy, Peter was not yet in Rome (nor is there any solid evidence that he had ever been there before), but there is every reason to believe that Peter finally went to Rome just before Paul's execution, and that he met the same sentence a short time later. The fact that Peter went to Rome is important because he must have gone there FOR A PURPOSE. What was the reason that he went so far away from his Palestinian home to go to Italy? The historical evidence suggests that Peter went to Rome in A.D.66. Since there was no longer any need for him (or other Christiana) to remain in Jerusalem after the final Pentecost sign in A.D.66, the summer of that year would have been the most logical time for his trip. Jerusalem and Judaea were thus deserted by the Christians in the early summer of A.D.66. Then by late summer, Peter found himself in Rome in conference with the apostle Paul. They had only one reason to be together, and both of them were intent on performing the responsibility that lay before them. After being in Rome a few weeks before the martyrdom of Paul (and recognizing that his own execution was near), Peter wrote his second epistle to those in Asia Minor - the former area assigned to Paul and where the apostle John was then in residence! It was in that epistle that he spoke about the canonization of the New Testament, but he also prophesied of the coming war between the Jews and the Romans! The whole of Peter's second chapter describes an apostasy from the truth, and it was to be a widespread lapse of former Christians into a rebellion against God and against all constituted authorities no matter who they were. He even warned that the revolt would eventually occur among the readers of his second epistle and it would result in the many (not the few) turning away from the true teachings of Christ into a state of utter depravity and rebellion to God and their abandonment of human authority. It should be noted, however, that Peter's prophecy of what was to happen, had not yet occurred when he wrote his second epistle. He told his readers that he was giving them "advanced knowledge" of the sedition so that those who were true to Christ would be on guard against the coming errors (2 Pet.3:17). By early Autumn of A.D.66 the major problems had not yet surfaced, but they would! Peter said there "will be false teachers" (2 Pet.2:1); who "will bring in destructive sects" (v.1); and that many (not the few, but the many) "will follow their acts of loose conduct" (v.3); and that "they will make their way into your midst" (v.3); and that people "will be corrupted" (v.12). Note that all of Peter's references were for the future!. Though Peter was aware that such depravity was forthcoming, it was not yet a fullgrown reality when he wrote his second epistle in the Autumn of A.D.66. But the case was different when Jude, the brother of James (and also of Jesus), wrote his letter to those who had received Peter's second epistle. If one will read Jude's short letter carefully, it reveals that he was starting to write to his readers about the common salvation which all people had in Christ, when all of a sudden a disaster had begun to happen which caused him to postpone that particular instruction. Something just erupted which rendered it urgent to communicate with them about the immediate situation. What had happened? The answer is simple. Jude followed closely what Peter had predicted. Here was Peter saying what will occur, but Jude was now saying it is presently erupting.! It was nothing less than the outbreak of the Jewish war against the Romans. He was making a hurried appeal that his readers not be caught up in the error! "Beloved one, though I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I found it of urgent necessity to write you encouraging you to put up a hard fight for the faith which was once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). While Peter was fully aware that such a condition of insurrection and debauchery would develop among many of the Christians to whom he wrote, Jude put the actions into the present tense. Note how he said they had now begun to occur. People were now "denying Jesus Christ" (v.4); they "are defiling the flesh," they "are disregarding high offices," and they "are blaspheming the ones of glory" (v.8); they "are blaspheming things that they know not" (v.10); they "are unreasoning animals" (v.10) and "are corrupting themselves" (v.10). They are also the ones who "are in your love feasts" and are shepherds who "are feeding themselves without fear" (v.12). They "are murmerers, complainers about their lot in life" and they "are admiring people for their own gain" (v.16). How could such evil be connected with God-fearing Christians? It almost seems like a contradiction. Why were so many of Peter's and Jude's readers involved? How could these filthy dreamers, corrupters of human rights, despisers of people in authority, and denying Christ and even counteracting the heavenly powers themselves find a lodging within the Christian community? And worse yet these reprobates were even participating with Christians in their love feasts (2 Pet.2:13; Jude 12). This rank and file rebellion seems so counter to the first principles of belonging to the Christian faith that hardly anyone imagines that such a thing could happen in a regular Christian environment. And this is true. In no way could such a widespread upheaval of insubordination take place in a Christian church today, and especially for the church members to allow such reprobates to continue feasting with them in their religious ceremonies! What in the world was happening? Why did the revolt occur so suddenly (yet it was prophesied by Peter that it would develop)? The answer is clear if Bible students today will only realize what Peter and Jude were talking about. It was nothing less than the revolt against the Romans in Palestine, and the potential for insurrection was beginning to spread, at first, even among the Jews in other provinces! It was Peter and Jude warning the true Christians not to take part in the national revolt against the Roman Empire. But Peter prophesied that such warning would fall on deaf ears as far as the majority were concerned! Peter said that it would be the many (not the few) who would relinquish their faith in Christ and begin to participate in the war against Rome (2 Pet.2:1). And Jude was now saying that the defiance had started! The very things that Jude said were beginning to occur were what Josephus said that many of the Jews in Palestine adopted in their rebellion to Rome (War, IV.238-365). The reason the revolutionaries had denied Christ (as Peter said they would) is because they were saying that Christ was not coming back to earth. "Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation" (2 Pet.3:4). When it is realized that Peter was foretelling the revolt against Rome and that many (again, it should be noted, NOT THE FEW, but the many) would abandon their faith in Christ and participate in the war effort against Rome, the description of Peter makes sense. This is the only reasonable explanation which can account for true Christians having to put up with reprobates sharing a part in their festivals without being excommunicated from their midst! Such feasts were the national festivals ordained by Moses which all Jews everywhere participated in. There would have been no way for a few Jewish Christians to prevent a great number of people within any predominantely Jewish community from observing the national feasts. No one can rationally explain how true Christians could let rebels of the nature mentioned by Peter engage in a celebration of their festivals unless they were the national feasts of Moses that were being discussed. All Jews shared in such festivities, and these would have been celebrated by all even in times of civil or national wars. Observe that in the American Civil War it was common for soldiers of both the Union and the Confederacy to keep the same Christmas and the same Easter. And even if some of the soldiers had no personal religious convictions of their own, it would still have been common for all of them to share in any Christmas dinners (if they were able to have them). In times of war it is even normal for the participants to forget temporarily their sectarian differences and to join hands to overcome the common enemy. The Jewish people who fought the Romans (though they were in various political camps) shared one Temple, singular religious festivities, and were (so they thought) defending the common traditions of them all! It is interesting that Josephus said that throughout most of the war, and even among the different political divisions, the various groups in Jerusalem allowed worshippers of all camps to have free passage into the Temple to offer their religious devotions to God (War.V.15,98,99). Certainly, the whole nation kept the feasts ordained by Moses in Jerusalem and throughout all Judaism. Jewish Christians observed these days as well, and Peter along with Jude told true Christians to beware of those denying Christ who were participating in the ceremonies of the holydays and yet advocating war against the Romans. The cry of the revolutionaries was "come over to the cause of liberty" (War,IV.282); fight for the "defense of liberty" (IV.273); become "the champions of liberty" (IV.272). This is exactly what Peter said the rebels described in his epistle would tell the people. They were also "promising them liberty" (2 Pet.2:19). While the quest for liberty may have seemed a noble gesture in itself, the men who were saying such things were anything but noble. The very things that Peter said would take place, and that Jude said were then occurring, were what Josephus said happened in Jerusalem once the war got under full sway! Jude said that the rebels "are setting at nought dominions, and rail at dignitaries" (Jude 8). Josephus records: "Every law of man was trampled underfoot, every requirement of religion was ridiculed by those who scoffed at the oracles of the prophets as rogue's stories" (War,IV.386). They thought nothing of the sanctity of the Temple or the priests who conducted the services therein. They "railed dignitaries." Josephus: "These men converted the Temple of God into their stronghold and refuge from popular upheavals, and made the Holy Place the center for their tyranny. To these horrors was added a vein of ironic pretense more galling than the actions themselves. For, to test the complete subservience of the people, and to show their own power, they dared to appoint high priests by lot.... to them this sacrilege was a subject for jests and ribald mirth, but the other priests watching this mockery of their law from a distance burst into tears and bemoaned the degradation of their ceremonies" (War, IV.151-153,157). "These dregs and the scum of the whole country have squandered their own property and perpetrated their lunacy first upon the towns and villages around, and finally have poured in a stealthy stream into the holy city, these scoundrels are so utterly impious that they have desecrated even holy ground. They can be seen, shamelessly getting drunk in the Temple and spending what they have stolen from their victims to satisfy their insatiable appetite" (War, IV.241-242). Jude said they "are murmers, complainers, walking after their own lusts and their mouths speaking great swelling words" (Jude 16). Josephua echoed the same things as occurring in Jerusalem during the war. "Here are native born Jews, brought up according to our customs and called Jews, strut where they like over the inner sanctuary itself, with hands still reeking with the blood of their countrymen" (War,IV.183). "Setting aside the families from which the high priests had always been drawn, they appointed to that office base persons of no family, in order to gain partners in crime" (War,IV.148). Peter was well aware that many Jewish Christiana would be tempted to join these "fighters for liberty." There were tens of thousands of believing Jews in Judaea in A.D.56 (Acts 21:20) and many of these did not migrate out of Palestine with the others from A.D.62 to A.D.64. And only very few went to Pella after the Pentecost sign of AD.66. The majority gave up the type of Christianity that the apostles were teaching and stayed behind in Palestine to war with the Romans. There were also many Palestinian Jews who were among the Jews (and Christians) of the Dispersion. It was these people that Peter and Jude were writing about. They were warning the Jewish Christians in Asia Minor, and elsewhere, not to follow in the rebellious ways of most of the nation because they were going to come to a "swift destruction" (2 Pet.2:1) and a "judgment of desolation" (v.3). He said their cities would be turned into ashes just like the ruin of Sodom and Gomorrah (2 Pet.2:6). And this is exactly what happened! Their going to war in defense of what they considered their traditional religion didn't save them! Not only did they lose their capital city of Jerusalem and their holy Temple, but even their national existence came to an end. When it is realized that Peter and Jude were describing the ravages of the Jewish/Roman War of A.D.66 to A.D.70, we can then date those epistles pretty closely. Since Peter was giving "advance knowledge" of what would happen to the Jews, we can date his epistle to about Autumn A.D.66, and since Jude said the conflict Peter talked about had now begun, then sometime after the period of Tabernacles (when the Roman General Cestius retreated from besieging Jerusalem which caused the war effort to begin in earnest) must be the time Jude wrote. Both epistles were mainly designed to warn true Christians not to take part in a war with Rome because it would lead to utter destruction. And, it did! ....... The signs that preceded the war and the start of the rebellion itself had a profound effect upon Peter, John, Jude and the other Jewish apostles. They came to believe that God had deserted the city of Jerusalem and the Temple. And the Jews who put up a physical defense to maintain their traditional system of religion, brought nothing but utter disaster to those in Palestine. All the apostles were finally able to understand that the teaching which Christ had granted to the apostle Paul was indeed the correct one and that no longer was the outward physical worship of the Temple the Christian way to righteousness. In the next chapter we will see that the destruction of a physical government centered at Jerusalem required that a canonical edition of Christian doctrine be developed (like the Old Testament Scriptures) in order that Christians would have a proper standard for reference which would last them "until day dawn" - until the time that Christ would actually return from heaven. To that task Peter, Paul and John placed their efforts and it resulted in a set of 27 books being bound together to form what we call today The New Testament. It is most important to realize that the New Testament itself records information about the formation of this holy Scripture for the Christian church. Hardly anyone today pays attention to what the apostles said about this canonization, but we feel it is time to put the matter into proper perspective. It was the apostles themselves who put together the New Testament books - not some unknown church effort of the second and/or third centuries! The next chapter will explain. .................. TO BE CONTINUED  The Canonization of the New Testament #2 Peter Inspired and Authorized to Canonize NT Scripture by the late Ernest L. Martin PhD The Canonization by Peter The apostle Paul could survey the historical environment within the Christian community of late A.D.66 and what he saw disturbed him very much! It was nothing like the relatively stable condition that existed up to the time of James' death in AD.62. Not only was it apparent that Christ was not returning to earth in that generation (Paul and Peter's life time would be more accurate - Keith Hunt) but the Christian church was now being bombarded from within by many people teaching a variety of false doctrines. These ranged the gamut from being actively rebellious against all constituted authority (both religious and secular) that Peter prophesied about in 2 Peter 2, to the statements of the apostle John that many antichrists had arisen among Christians who were changing the fabric of Christian teachings about the nature and mission of Christ. The apostle Paul appraised the chaotic situation that had come on the scene since the death of James in A.D.62. "All the men of Asia have turned away from me" (2 Tim.1:15). The prospects for the future were no brighter. "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils. Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron" (I Tim.4:1,2). "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching aura; and they shall turn away their ears, from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables" (2 Tim.4:3,4). There was by A.D.66 a corruption of the Christian faith occurring on all sides and the immediate and future out-look was even more dismal! At least, this is what the apostles thought. And worse yet, Peter knew by the time he wrote his second epistle that he was soon to die, that Paul's fate was already set, and that an insurrection against apostolic authority was underway on a large scale, and still there were many years (even centuries) ahead for the Christian church! With such a prospect in front of him, it became essential to provide that future church with the purity of the truth of Jesus Christ as Peter and the rest of the original apostles understood it. It would seem a dereliction of duty for the apostles to abandon any attempt to secure the true teaching which they had the responsibility to preach. Some standard reference document or book (or a canon of Scripture) was needed that could be reckoned by all as an official statement of the real truth of Christianity. This was especially important for the future, for if the original apostles themselves could not stem the tide of false doctrine and rebellion to Christ while they were yet alive, what would happen in the generations ahead without them? Would it not seem reasonable to any rational person that some document of an official character be produced by the apostles before their deaths so that later people could have in their midst the basic (and pure) truth of Christ if they wanted it? The apostles were well aware by A.D.66 at the latest, that Christ was not returning to earth in their generation (The NT does not say this specifically and John did not mention that he did not think Jesus was not going to return in his life time. John lived to very near the end of the century - Keith Hunt). Does it seem sensible that the apostles would simply die and let others (whom they knew nothing about) formulate an official set of standard scriptures? If they couldn't trust the doctrines of many (probably most) in their midst, how could they depend on those of later times whom they didn't know at all - and with the prophecies informing them that heretical teachings were going to get more out of hand? "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived" (2 Tim.3:13). Clearly, the apostles were aware of the situation and they were not going to be negligent in answering the need. Indeed, the last few months of Peter and Paul's lives were devoted to the very project of leaving to those of the future (which includes you and me) an official standard of written works which would secure, for all who wanted it, the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. In short, it was the apostles themselves who saw the need for a New Testament canon of Scriptures, and it was they who produced it! When Christians finally came to the realization that Christ was not returning to earth in the first century (They never said or wrote that they did not believe Christ was not returning in the first century, but they knew it was not going to be in the lifetime of many of them, like Paul and Peter, who about to die for the faith - Keith Hunt) they began to write accounts of Christ's life and his teachings for posterity, and they were doing it in the manner they thought best. Luke referred to this and said that "many" were composing such Gospels (Luke 1:1). While this might appear a good thing at first sight, it must be remembered that these written Gospels were being produced within an environment of religious and political insurrection. How could one be certain they were presenting an accurate account? This is when Peter and John began to show concern about the matter. If any was fully aware of what Christ did and taught, and if anyone was able to sanction the accuracy of any written history of Christ's life, it was the apostles. Something had to be done to provide a shining light of truth to those of the future. It was within this background that Peter wrote what we call today his second epistle. Let us see what Peter did to secure for those of the succeeding centuries the purity of Christian teaching! The principle subject of Peter's second epistle was "the precious and exceeding great promises" of Christ (2 Peter 1:12). To preserve these for posterity he explained what he was about to do. "Wherefore, I shell be ready, always, to remind you of these things [the promises of Christ], though you know and were firmly fixed in the present truth [the truth that Peter was presently giving them]. And I think it right, as long as I am in this tabernacle [this mortal body], to stir you up by reminder, knowing the putting off of my tabernacle cometh swiftly, even as our Jesus Christ showed has shown me. But I will also give diligence that at each time [notice this phrase 'at each time'] you may be able after my death to recall these things to remembrance. For not by following cunningly devised fables, made we known to you the power and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitness to His majesty. For He received from God the Father honor glory, when such a voice was borne to Him by the Majestic Glory, 'This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.' And this voice we heard home out of heaven, when we were together Him in the Holy Mount. And we [who were with him on the mount of Transfiguration] have the prophetic word more confirmed [than these fablers[; whereunto you do well to take heed [to our sayings], as to a lamp shining in a murky place, until which time the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts. Knowing first that no prophecy of scripture is of its own evolvement. For no prophecy was ever borne by man's will; but men spake from God, being borne on by the Holy Spirit" (2 Pet.1:12-21). It is important to realize that Peter was aware of his impending death (John 21:18,19). But even though death was imminent he assured his readers that "I shall be ready, always, to remind you of these great and precious promises." How was it possible for such ready reminders to always be in their midst if he was going to die in a matter of days or weeks? Any verbal type of admonition that he might give them would perish with him at death! But Peter said he would make sure that Christians would always have the truth with them. The only way this could rationally be accomplished is for Peter to leave them with some authorized written record. "But I will also give diligence that at each time you may be able after my death to recall these things to remembrance." The phrase "at each time" gives us an interesting bit of information. It means that his readers could return again and again to consult the document after his death in order to be assured of what those great and precious promises of christ really were. Clearly, he is speaking about a written document. The "Expositor's greek Testament" says that Peter is about to leave "some systematic body of instruction" (vol.V.p.129). The "International Critical Commentary" is even more specific in its realization that written records were being left! "It seems clear that what is promised is a document, to which his disciples would be able to turn and confirm their belief.... The apostle does not say that the document of which he is speaking should be written after his death, but that it should be written so to be of use after his death" (vol. "Peter" p.265). "The whole clause signifies that there shall be left behind, when Peter is dead, some record to which at each occasion, when the need arises, they may appeal for a reminder of his lessons, which they would probably not have always in remembrance" (The "Speaker's Commentary," NT vol.IV.pp.244,245). We have in this account of Peter a record of his task in canonizing some part (or parts) of the New Testament. The "Speaker's Commentary" continues: "I will not be wanting on my part says Peter, to supply you with the means for your guidance and encouragement when I am taken from you" (p.245). Peter, moreover, was not the only one involved in this canonization. When one reads Peter's account carefully, it says "we" (plural) will not be leaving you "fables" (plural) but the truth inspired by God's Holy Spirit. The description of this document as given by Peter shows that it would contain not just one "count, but that "we" would not be giving the church cunningly devised "fables" (plural). It is important to recognize that it was not only Peter who was leaving these documents to serve as a standard for Christian teaching! Someone else was behind the effort. The person was the apostle John! Peter makes this clear in the context of Second Peter. "For by following cunningly devised fables, made WE known to you the power and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, but WE were eyewitnesses of his majesty.... And the voice WE heard borne out of heaven, when WE were together with him in the Holy Mount. And WE have the prophetic word more confirmed." There were three human beings with Christ on the Mount Transfiguration. They were Peter and the two sons of Zebedee (John and his brother James). James, however, was the first of the apostle to be killed (Acts 12:1,2). When Peter wrote his second epistle, only John and he were the remaining apostles who had been given the opportunity of being in the Mount of Transfiguration and to hear the voice of God Himself. To Peter, this unique and majestic experience was proof positive that he and John had been given the word of prophecy in a "more confirmed" While many persons might have taken it in hand to write several accounts of Christ's life and teachings, Peter was making it clear that only he and John had the proper authority to do so in an inspired way! This is why he reminded his readers that "we [Peter and John] have the prophetic word more confirmed" - more than any others who might write Gospels in the future or who had written them in the past! Indeed, they were the ones who had been graced with the power of the Holy Spirit to do such things: "no prophecy was ever borne by man's will; but men spake from God, being borne on by the Holy Spirit." Peter did not believe that this kind of prophetic responsibility originated within the mind of man. "Knowing this first that no prophecy of scripture is of its own evolvement [or, private origination]." Notice the phrase "prophecy of Scripture." Peter had just said that both John and he were commissioned with a more confirmed "word of prophecy." He then interpreted what this signified by equating it with the "prophecy of SCRIPTURE" which was not of man's origination! In a word, Peter is saying that the documents he and John were leaving to the church were to be considered like any "prophecy of Scripture." The use of the word "Scripture" brings the matter of inspired writing into the picture! In simple language, Peter was saying that the two remaining apostles to the Transfiguration were collecting a set of official works which would have their apostolic approbation and that these documents were to be considered by Christians as "more confirmed" than any others in circulation! And besides that, they were to remain in their presence to be consulted "at each time" they had occasion in order to learn the truth of "the great and precious promises" of Christ! These were to last until the second advent of Christ and esteemed as being on an equal basis with the Old Testament Scriptures. "I stir up your sincere mind by reminder; that you remember the words spoken before by the Holy Prophets, AND the commandment of the Lord and Savior THROUGH YOUR APOSTLES" (2 Peter 3:1,2). PETER CANONIZED PAUL'S WRITINGS Peter was aware that there were many people during his time (especially conservative Jewish Christians) who were highly suspect of Paul and his teachings. It seems that even Peter himself may have raised his eyebrows on occasion. But by A.D.66, things had changed! In the Spring of that year the miraculous signs associated with the Temple at Jerusalem had taken place (with sure evidence that God had abandoned the Temple) so the teachings of Paul began to be understood by the outer apostles in a better light. This is one of the main reasons, if not the only one, why Peter journeyed to Rome in the Summer of A.D.66 to see the apostle Paul before he met his death as a martyr. The discussions between the two apostles were no doubt very productive, because we have Peter informing his readers that Paul had also provided some basic spiritual information on what the Gospel of Jesus Christ really was. Peter and John finally sanctioned the insertion of Paul's letters into the body of divine literature to last until the second advent of Christ. Peter felt it was necessary to mention that Paul's epistles were also inspired. Peter knew that some people of his time were doubting inspiration of Paul's teachings, and that in the future some might even moreso question their legitimate standing. For one thing, he was not an original apostle of Christ. This prompted Peter, who knew when he wrote Second Peter that he was soon to be executed, that many years of history yet remained before the return of Christ, to be reminding his readers that Paul's letters were also reckoned as divine Scripture. Peter informed them: "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given him wrote you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of things hard to understand which the unlearned and unsteadfast wrest, as also THE OTHER SCRIPTURES, unto their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:15,16). This reference of Peter is a clear indication that he recognized the letters of Paul (no doubt a particular set of letters) as being as inspired as the Scriptures of the Old Testament. the "Expositor's greek Testament" was assured that an equal rank was being accorded: "The examination of the whole passage [of Peter) ... leads to the conclusion that the Epistles St.Paul are regarded as in the same rank with the Old Testament Scriptures" (vol.V, p.101). It seems as if the apostle Paul was then dead when Peter wrote his second epistle. Note that Peter referred to Paul's activity as being in the past. "Paul ... wrote you, as in all his letters" (2 Pet.3:15). Furthermore, the fact that Paul's letters were being twisted out of context indicates that Paul was no longer alive to counter the charges or to write additional letters clarifying the difficulties that Peter and the others found hard to understand. "The reference to Paul, to be found in the Second Epistle of Peter, is favourable to the supposition that the apostle of the Gentiles was now dead; as, had he been still living to correct such misinterpretations, it would scarcely have been said that in all his epistles were things 'hard to be understood' which 'the unlearned end unstable' wrested 'unto their own destruction'" (Killen, "The Ancient Church," p.159). The second epistle of Peter is actually the key to the first canonization of the New Testament. It is an official statement to show how he and John (not long before Peter's death) gathered together some written records which the apostles themselves either wrote, had authorized to be written, or sanctioned already existing works into a position of canonicity. If one would simply believe what Peter said about this matter, it would have to be reckoned that Peter's second epistle was written, among other things, for the express purpose of showing that the apostle John and himself were the ones ordained of God to leave Christians with the canon of the New Testament. This means that it is not the later church who, in some unknown and haphazard way, collected the 27 books of the New Testament to be attached to the 22 of the Old and formed what we call the Holy Bible. I no way! The Biblical evidence points solidly to the apostles themselves as the ones who canonized the New Testament books. It was they who saw in their own generation the urgency, just before their deaths, of securing such a canon. With false doctrines and rebellion (even to apostolic authority) on all sides, and with future prospects looking even worse, they completed their task of preaching the Gospel to the world by starting and finishing the canonization of the New Testament. I have not the slightest doubt that this is the case. The next chapters of this book will help to show the rationality of this belief. ................... TO BE CONTINUED The Canonization of the New Testament #3 Apostles inspired to write Scripture! by the late Ernest L. Martin PhD The Authority to Canonize the New Testament The apostles of the first century had in their midst the complete and final Old Testament scriptures. This canon, with its various books and divisions, served as a model for any further canonization involving New Testament books. The environmental background inherently governing the outlook of the Jewish people of the first century was created on account of the social and religious standards which were established at the time the Old Testament was canonized. Though there were some differences, of course, the basic framework of society was retained from this earlier time. This common religious heritage allowed the New Testament to develop along similar lines to the Old. Prof.Souter said: "The idea of a canon, or exclusive selection of sacred books for use in public worship, is ultimately derived by the Church from Judaism, and some account of the formation of the Jewish Canon of the Old Testament seems necessary as a model on which, consciously or unconsciously, the later New Testament Canon was formed" (The Text and Canon of the New Testament, p.149). This belief was also shared by the eminent textual critic Prof.Gregory (Canon and Text of the New Testament, p.13). If this is the case, then we should look for some high-ranking priests or a prophet with the rank of Moses having a hand in the creation of the New Testament, because this is certainly the manner in which the Old Testament came into existence. Some historians would have people believe that the church of the early second century probably formulated the final New Testament. There has always been a problem with this appraisal because there is not a sliver of evidence that such a thing took place. The truth is, when the early church fathers began to talk about the canon of the New Testament near the end of the second century, it is assumed that it was already in their midst. The first recorded discussion among Catholic scholars about the books of the New Testament only concerned whether certain books in the canon were of lesser rank, not which books were needed to form the official canon (Eusebius, Eccl.Hist, 111.25). "What is particularly important to notice is that the New Testament canon was not demarcated by the arbitrary of any Church Council. When at last a Council - the Synod of Carthage in A.D.397 - listed the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, it did not confer upon them any authority which they did not already possess, but simply recorded their previously established canonicity. As Dr.Foakes-Jackson puts it: "The Church assuredly did not make the New Testament" (Bruce, "The Books and the Parchments," p.111). Actually, if one will read Second Peter carefully and analyze it for what it says (as we did in the last chapter), it shows that it was the apostles Peter and John who officially canonized the New Testament books! And those two apostles possessed the authority of Christ himself as well as the testimony of the Old Testament to accomplish this important task. Christ even informed his disciples that he was going to complete the revealed word of God to mankind. Look at Matthew 5:17: "Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." This verse should be noticed carefully. Though Christ assured the disciples that the Old Testament would remain steadfast in its sanctity, he did say he would fulfill the Law and the Prophets. What does the world "fulfill" actually mean? Charles B. Williams, in his translation of the New Testament, provides a footnote to this verse which reflects its intention. He said that the word signified "the picture of Old Testament teaching as an unfilled cup, but filled by Jesus" (footnote g). Williams provides the accurate meaning of this word. "To fulfill" signified to bring things to the brim - to the very top! It is like having a glass half-full of wine. By adding more wine, one could fill the glass to the top! Thomas Newberry, the editor of the Englishman's Bible, shows Matthew 5:17 as meaning: think not that I am come to unbind the Law, or the Prophets: I am not come to unbind, but to fill up" ("Footsteps of Truth," New Series, XI.p.281). It simply means that Christ thought of himself as responsible for bringing the revelation of God to its complete fulfillment - to the very brim! In effect, his adding to the Law and the Prophets was an authority for attaching his written messages to those of the Old Testament! Jewish scholars have long understood this to be the meaning of Christ. In the Talmud they regarded Matthew 5:17 as reading. "I came not to destroy the Law of Moses, but to add to the Law of Moses" (Shabbath 1166; cf. A.Edersheim, "Life and Times," p.537,n.2). Christ did not mean that he would personally add to the Law and the Prophets by composing books of his own. A reading in the Old Testament itself revealed to the apostles that it was they who were to be responsible for the writing and selecting of documents which would comprise the New Testament. In a section of Isaiah which the apostles understood as applying directly to the life of Christ on earth, they found a prophetic responsibility also given to them. It was written in the long prophecy of Isaiah chapter 7 to chapter 12, and the section pertaining to the apostles themselves was in 8:13-17. "Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. And he shall be to you for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both houses of Israel, for a sign and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken. Bind up the testimony, seal the Law AMONG MY DISCIPLES. And I will wait upon the Lord that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him" (Isaiah 8:13-17). Though the above message was written in the eighth century before Christ, the apostles interpreted it as having a contemporary reference to them! There can be no doubt of this because both Peter and Paul referred to Isaiah 8:14 as having an application to their times. Peter Taught that Christ had become the chief corner stone, but to the disobedient of Peter's day, he had become "a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence" (I Pet.2:6-8). Paul, speaking of the Jews' rejection of Christ, wrote: "As it is written, behold, I lay in Sion a stumbling stone and a rock of offence" (Rom.9:33). Understanding that the apostles thought that Christ fulfilled Isaiah 8:13-17 in their time, they were able to learn a great deal about their own responsibilities. Isaiah told his readers that this "stone" and "rock" would "bind the testimony and seal the Law among my disciples" (Isa.8:16). The actual "binding" and "sealing" which could once have been accomplished by Isaiah's disciples in that time was no doubt interpreted by the apostles as typical of what the Rock of Israel (Christ) was to do through his own disciples (verse 18). What do the words "bind" and "seal" signify? The Hebrew for the word "bind" means "to close, to seal up." The word "seal" means practically the same - "to cap off, to enclose." This is exactly what the apostles did with the message which the "Stone" and "Rock" gave them! They were to complete it! Bind it up! Close it shut! The authority to perform such an important job may have been reflected in Christ's teaching that the apostles had power "to bind on earth" (Matt.16:19). The word "to bind" has the significance of authorization or giving judgment, just as the word "to unbind" means "not to receive or accept." Recall again the intention of Matthew 5:17: "I am not come to unbind the Law or the Prophets." Christ did not wish to undo the Old Testament, but his disciples were commissioned to add to and complete the Bible. In a word, they were to bind, seal, authorize and canonize the Law and Testimony of Christ. More Evidence When one reads through the New Testement, it is possible to observe a number of important statements which indicate that further scriptures beyond the Old Testament were destined to emerge. Just before his crucifixion, Christ gave his disciples some instructions regarding their role in receiving new and significant messages from God. "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you" (John 16:12-15). The above scripture has Christ telling the disciples that the Spirit would "show you things to come" (verse 13). This indicates that the understanding of prophecy would be afforded them. Was this a reference to the Book of Revelation? That book is wholly devoted to prophecy - to "things to come" (Rev.1:1). In the next chapter we will show information that will demonstrate that Revelation was prophesied by Christ to be written by the apostle John. There is another point about the section of scripture transcribed above. Christ said that all the truth was going to be given to the apostles back in the first century. In John 16:13 the text actually says that the Holy Spirit "will guide you into all THE truth." The definite article indicates that the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth would be dispatched to them! This is an important point because it shows that the Christian church did not have to wait until the third or fourth centuries before all the truth could be given. This is quite different than is usually taught today. It is normally assumed that the canon of the New Testament came into existence sometime in the early or middle second century, and was finalized in the fourth century. This is patently not true! Augustine, one of the most ardent supporters of the organized church of the fourth and fifth centuries believed that the New Testament canon came into existence in the time of the apostles themselves! He stated: "Distinguished from the books of later authors is the excellence of the canonical authority of the Old and New Testaments; which, having been established in the time of the apostles, hath through the succession of overseers and propagators of churches been set as it were in a lofty tribunal, demanding the obedience of every faithful and pious understanding" (Contra Fausturn Man. 11.5). How different from what is generally accepted today! In our present age, it is common to hear that the second, third, or fourth century church canonized the New Testament in some of its church councils. This is in no way true. "The striking fact that the early councils had othing whatever to do with forming the Canon of the New Testament, has been so emphasized by a number of writers that one is astonished that it is not more widely known" (Urquhart "The Bible," p.37). Christ, however, made it clear that the disciples would receive "all the truth" back in the first century. This truth was then written down and finally canonized by Peter and John. "We have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.... We also have a more confirmed word of prophecy" (2 Pet.1:16,19). The apostles had the word of prophecy more confirmed. What does the word "prophecy" mean in the context in which Peter used it? Most people would automatically assume that it means they could foretell the future. But in the way Peter meant it, it did not have that meaning in the above reference. All Jews of the first century understood the word "prophecy" in a much broader sense. There were three different ways of looking at it. It certainly signified the classical meaning of being able to tell the future, and the person able to do this was customarily called "a prophet" But the apostle Paul also used the word as meaning one who spoke forth the word of God no matter if the message was about the future, the present, or the past (I Cor.14:5,24,25). This latter usage simply signified one who preaches the Gospel! Yet there was a third meaning, and this is what Peter had in mind when he said that he and John had "the word of prophecy more confirmed." This usage meant that the people who could be called such "prophets" were those under the prophetic spirit and able to write inspired scripture! Josephus, the Jewish historian, was well acquainted with this type of usage for the word "prophet" or "prophecy." He said that no succession of prophets had come on the scene within Judaism from the time of the Persian king Artaxerxes (the fifth century B.C.) - at the close of the Old Testament canon - until and including the first century (Contra Apion, I.8). In a word, Joeephus thought that "the spirit of prophecy" had ceased with Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Great Assembly who canonized the Old Testament. The fact is, all the writers of Holy Scripture were called prophets even if they did not possess the prophetic office as did Elijah, Isaiah, Malachi, etc. For example, David, Solomon and Asaph the psalmist were called prophets though their writings were not in the Prophets' Division of the Old Testament (Matt.27:35; Acts 2:30; 7:48; Matt.13:35). Indeed, the use of prophecy by holy men of God reached back to the very beginning of history. Abel, the son of Adam, was called a prophet (Luke 11:50). And in Acts 3:21 and Hebrews 1:1 we are told that the practice of prophecy extended back to all past time, to the very beginning of the world! The Jews in Christ's time simply believed that all holy men of God were prophets and that all their writings were prophecies. This, of course, did not mean that they all foretold future events (cf. John 4:19; Acts 11:27; 13:1; 15:32; I Cor.12:28,29, 37; Eph.2:20; 4:11; Tit.1:12). And, most significantly to our present study, any holy man of God who wrote any part of Holy Scripture was called a prophet. Prof.Lee remarks that it was an "invariable rule that all witnesses of the Old Testament should be prophets" (Inspiration of the Holy Scripture, p.60). Whitaker also recognized that any writer of Scripture was thought to be a prophet and to possess the prophetic spirit (Disputation, pp.49,50). This indication was followed throughout the New Testament. When Christ said: "Abraham saith unto him, they have Moses and the Prophets" (Luke 16:29), he was not referring to the Prophets' (i.e. the Second Division of the Old Testament). He meant all the writers of Scripture who followed Moses. Luke noted this: "Having begun from Moses and all the prophets, he [Christ[ expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself" (Luke 24:37). When Paul reasoned with the Jews out of the Law and the Prophets (Acts 28:23) he was teaching from the whole Old Testament. And these prophets of the Old Testament ceased their activities when the canon was completed. Like Josephus, Jews were well aware that "prophecy ceased" when the canon was finally established (cf. Ecclesiasticus 36:15; I Macc.4:44-46; 9:27). Peter, however, said the prophetic word was restored with him and John. This clearly shows that he and John were informing their readers that they were going to present them with a new batch of inspired scriptures to accompany the books of the Old Testament. (For a further demonstration of this use of the words "prophet" and "prophecy" in the first century, see Lee pages 53-60 and Whitaker pages 49-52.) The Prophetic Spirit Restored With the Apostles When one reads Second Peter in the proper way, it shows that he was telling his readers that the prophetic spirit had been revived and that the apostles had the authority to use it for the production of inspired scriptures. That is what he and John were going to leave to the Christian church before they died. The reason for writing Second Peter was to tell Christians of this fact! Their writings (and the other documents which they sanctioned) were not going to be like the fables of others because Peter and John had "the word of prophecy more confirmed." The books they were selecting were God-ordained and as inspired as the Old Testament. "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" (2 Pet.1:20). The word interpretation in the King James' Version actually means "origination" or "evolvement." Peter was indicating that the prophetic scriptures which he and John were giving to the church were not their own private ideas and words. They were nothing less than the direct teachings of God! This dogmatism of Peter is reflected also in his evaluation of the apostle Paul's epistles which he mentioned as being on an equal par with "the other Scriptures" of the Old Testament (2 Pet.3:15,16). Certainly, if Paul's letters were in A.D.66 being reckoned as Scripture, the letters of James, Jude, Peter, and John were as well. The apostles were assured by A.D.66 that "the prophetic spirit" had returned to earth in the persons of Peter, John, and Paul. This was a signal that more Holy Scriptures would be written to present the final messages of God to the world. As anyone can see, I have emphasized (and re-emphasized almost to ad nauseam) the matter that Second Peter records the power of Peter and John to canonize the New Testament, but I do not apologize for it. This is simply because most people, even scholars, have failed to see the point of what Peter was saying that the matter has to be accentuated! Peter was plainly trying to show that he and John were given "the word of prophecy more confirmed" in order to canonize more writings into the sacred library of books, as had Ezra and Nehemiah in their day. Peter was simply exercising his authority to write, collect, assemble, and design a New Testament canon. This official group of books was expected to remain in an authoritative way "until the day dawn" - until the second advent of Christ back to this earth! That is exactly what the epistle of Second Peter states and I see no reason why Christians today should not accept it! Paul Recognized His Part in Canonization At the end of the Book of Romans is an interesting section of scripture which relates to the matter of canonization. Not only did Peter consider that he and John were endowed with the word of prophecy in a confirmed and official way, the apostle Paul also admitted that he was graced with the same authority. Paul said that his writings concerning the message of Christ were to be acknowledged as "the Prophetic Scriptures." This meant that Paul thought he was writing sacred Scriptures! Note the context of Paul's belief. "Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my Gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest, and by the Prophetic Scriptures, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known unto all nations for the obedience of faith" (Rom.16:25,26 see original Greek for "the Prophetic Scriptures," italics mine). Paul did not mean in the above statement that the knowledge of the mystery was to be found in the earlier prophets of the Old Testament, as the King James' Version would lead one to believe. He expressly stated that the teaching given to him had remained a secret until Christ came, and that it was now being divulged to the world through Paul and the other apostles. This fulness of the teaching of Christ was what Paul called "my Gospel" (verse 26). The spiritual information came to Paul through a torrent of revelations. Paul explains: "And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure" (2 Cor.12:7). Paul was referring to the operation of the Holy Spirit in leading him, as it did the other apostles, into what Christ called "all the truth" Christ said that the apostles would finally receive the complete truth from him (John 16:13). Paul made mention of this fulness of the Gospel in his Ephesian epistle. "How that by revelation was made known unto me the mystery; which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit" (Eph.3:3,5). This is pretty plain. The mature teaching of the mystery was that part of the Gospel which Christ knew his disciples could not bear before they received the Holy Spirit after the resurrection of Christ. And Paul was now given his apostolic commission to present new prophetic scriptures to people in the world. Paul even realized that he was the one responsible for preaching the full and final teachings of God. "Wherefore I am made e minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfill (that is, the same word used by Christ in Matthew 5:17 - "to fill to the top") the word of God. Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now [in the middle 60's AD.] is made manifest to his saints" (Col.1:25,26). This is an important statement relative to the canonization of the New Testament. It tells us in no uncertain terms that Paul knew he had been given a special commission to help fulfill (that is, to "fill to the top") the word of God. This is why Paul had little reluctance in telling people about the high calling that he had. The teachings he recorded represented the very commandments of God. "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I write unto you are the commandments of God" (I Cor.14:37). These are strong and authoritative words! No man could make such assertions unless he was convinced in his own mind that he had the prophetic office to write inspired scripture. Notice also: "Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Spirit teacheth" (I Cor.2:12,13). "We thank God without ceasing, because, when ye received the Word of God which ye heard from us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the Word of God" (I Thes.2:13). When one comprehends that Paul himself was aware of his role in completing the full message of God to this world, then the statements of Peter in his second epistle can begin to make sense. Peter readily acknowledged that the apostle Paul was given an equal commission along with himself and John to write "prophetic scriptures." This is exactly what Paul called his own writings in Romans 16:25,26 and the apostle Peter boldly ranked those writings of the apostle Paul alongside the writings of the prophets in the Old Testament (2 Pet.3:15,16). It is no wonder that Peter, after the miraculous signs concerning the Temple in Jerusalem which happened in the Spring of AD.66, made his way to Rome. His journey would have been for only one purpose: to see Paul before the martyrdom of them both. It was to discuss and to formulate a number of letters and writings which would comprise a sacred canon of New Testament books. The meeting was successful! Peter then wrote his second epistle to those throughout the region of Asia Minor about this canonization. This last letter of Peter was written especially to inform Christians about the conclusion of this important task. Peter, Paul, and John were giving to the world the final revelation of God in written form. It was new sacred scripture, written under the prophetic spirit, which would last the Christian church until the return of Christ to this earth! Just when, and by whom, the finishing touches of the New Testament came into final form will be discussed in the next chapter. ................. TO BE CONTINUED The Apostle John and Canonization of NT The Last living Apostle CANONIZATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT #4 (published 1984) by the late Ernest Martin PhD The Apostle John and Canonization The apostle Peter was in Rome when he wrote his second (and last) epistle. Paul was then dead, and Peter himself had only a short time to live. This is why he told his readers in Asia Minor that he was leaving them some official documents (which included the epistles of Paul) that would keep them informed of the truth until the return of Christ to the earth. The authority to perform such a task was essentially in the hands of the three apostles who had been with Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration: Peter and the Sons of Zebedee (James and John). And since Peter said that "we have the word of prophecy more confirmed" (2 Pet.1:19) it strongly implies that the apostle John was still alive and some way involved with Peter in this canonization. And indeed he was alive! Christ had given John the promise that he would live beyond the martyrdom of Peter, even to remain alive "until I come," or as Christ expressed it in the Greek, "until I am coming" (John 21:22,23). The beliefs of the early church were just as strong that John was in Asia Minor (notably in Ephesus) from the middle 60's A.D. until his death, as they were that Peter died in Rome about A.D.66 or A.D.67. There is little reason to doubt the truth of these beliefs! This would mean that the apostle John was among the people in Asia Minor to whom the apostle Peter wrote in his second epistle. In effect, the epistle was telling John what he and Paul had done in Rome concerning the canonization of the New Testament Scriptures. It informed people that Peter was putting in the hands of the apostle John the final job of sanctioning and completing an ordained body of inspired Scriptures for the Christian church. To Peter, John was the only other person who had the prophetic spirit to accomplish such a task, since he was the only person left alive who had been given that commission on the Mount of Transfiguration. This special authority of John can be seen in a number of verses within the New Testament revelation. For one, it should be noted that the three men who witnessed the Transfiguration were the only men of the original apostles who were given specific titles by Christ. There was Simon (whom he titled Peter, a stone) and James and John (whom he called "The Sons of Thunder"). See Mark 3:16,17. These are the original apostles who were given distinctive titles by Christ in order to convey some special assignments that they were expected to complete. Peter was to be associated with Christ (the Rock himself) in the creation of the Christian church. This was accomplished in its initiation phases with Peter on the Day of Pentecost some 50 days after the resurrection of Christ (Acts 2). Peter was also given the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). These were to allow him the power to open "the doors of the kingdom" to those who would hear the Gospel. It even entailed an authority to bind or to loose people regarding their entrance into that kingdom. (This power was later extended to all the apostles, John 20:23). And it appears certain that one of the main methods by which Peter would be able to exercise the power of the "keys" was to be in charge of the canonization of the New Testament. The information in the canon would "open the doors" to all people who would read and heed the written messages therein. (That is Martin's understanding of Peter having the "keys" to the Kingdom, there is a much different way of looking at what Jesus told Peter, covered in my series of studies on "Church Government" - Keith Hunt) The other two apostles who received specific titles were the sons of Zebedee - James and John. They were reckoned by Christ as being The Sons of Thunder. This title has proved a little mysterious to many interpreters of the Bible because it gives one the impression that the two brothers were headstrong, impetuous, intolerant and authoritarian. And, this is true! But when it comes to analyzing the letters of John he appears to sanction a conciliation among peoples (especially those who claim the common Christian faith) and that love and harmony ought to exist in Christian relationships (I John 2:9-11). John was also the one that Christ had a natural fondness for than the other apostles (John 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7,20). But when one looks at the Biblical account about the actions of these two brothers, they do appear to be stern and uncompromising in their attitudes to evil. They were the ones who asked Christ if fire should come down on the heads of the Samaritans (Luke 9:54), and (with their mother) their ambitions were so high that they asked Christ for positions of supreme leadership alongside him (Matt.20:20-24). They were certainly not mild-tempered! They were to be men of "Thunder." In Hebrew "thunder" (kol) meant the "Voice of God" (Exo.9:23; Psa.29:3; Jer.10:13; etc.). The title could signify that they were to speak like God Himself - personal spokesmen for God! This title gave them a special rank of authority and, along with Peter, they were the only apostles to witness the Transfiguration and to hear the voice of God the Father Himself (and in vision to see Moses and Elijah) (Matt.17:1-9). (If indeed any human did ever hear the voice of God the Father, it could well have been an angel speaking in the first person tense, on behalf of God the Father. The question is open for debate for sure - Keith Hunt) This experience rendered the jurisdiction of those three men as superior to the other apostles and it singled them out for a special purpose. Peter was to be in charge of church affairs (Matt.16:17-19), but James and John were to have the distinction of being "The Sons of Thunder" - to thunder forth His words to the people as did Moses! And though James died early without being able to show that authority in a lasting way, his brother John was responsible for writing every word of the Book of Revelation! This was Jesus Christ using John to be his spokesman - to be the Voice of God to the people of the world. He was "the Thunderer" to the world of God's message of judgment. "And I saw another strong angel ... his face as the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire ... and when he cried, the seven thunders spake their VOICES. And when the seven thunders spoke, I was about to write, and I heard a voice from heaven saying, Seal what things the seven thunders SPOKE" (Rev.10:1-5). The apostle John was specifically commissioned to write what the Voice of God (like the Thunder) would relate to him. This is why he wrote his Gospel and the Book of Revelation to be included in the canon of the New Testament. Such a task shows that John was more specially selected to produce a canon of Scriptures which would proclaim the official Voice of God than even Peter or Paul! This is no doubt the reason that Peter sent his second epistle (with the canonization that he and Paul had accomplished in Rome) directly to John in Ephesus. It was recognized that he was the actual one in charge of authorizing the final Scriptural books. This is why Peter emphasized the experience that he and John had witnessed on the Mount of Transfiguration with Christ (2 Pet.1:16-19). The fact that this display of Christ's authority was given only to Peter and the Sons of Thunder showed their high rank among the apostles and the Christian church. It even got them into trouble, temporarily, with Christ when their mother (who understood the special relationship of her two sons to Christ) asked that both of them sit on either side of Him when He came into His kingdom (Matt.20:20-23). Christ could not give them that authority since that was only within the power of the Father, but John did sit by Him and recline in His bosom at the Last Supper (John 13:23). This may indicate the special relationship after all. (It is possible John was selected, called or chosen in advance to live to the end of the first century A.D. and certainly to write the book of Revelation, but Martin I believe puts way too much into thinking Peter, James and John, were some kind of "special" high ranking THREE MUSKETEERS in the Church of God. Paul in Galatians says he was not one wit behind the so-called "chiefest apostle" and very bluntly said, "But of these who SEEMED to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it makes no matter to me, God accepteth no man's person); for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference, added nothing to me" Gal.2:6. The context of Paul in those verses of Galatians shows NO "ranking" of ministers. There are FUNCTIONS, each with gifts of the Spirit, and God used each apostle according to His will. It is ceratin that the canon of the New Testament was recognized as being formed by the time Paul and Peter were to face death. Ceratinly John was recognized as a true apostle of the Lord by those within the true Church of God - Keith Hunt) There may be more concerning the rank of John than meets the eye. It is usually not understood, but the mother of James and John was none other than Salome (Matt.27:56 with Mark 15:40) who was the sister of Mary, the mother of Christ (Hastings, Dict. of Christ and the Gospels, vol.I.p.846). This means that Christ and John were first cousins! James, the head of the church at Jerusalem (No do not think so as, James was a "pillar" but "head of" is way too strong a phrase when you understand the truth on the subject of Church Government - Keith Hunt) and Jude (the writer of the short epistle) were also his first cousins! Unlike Peter or Paul, the apostle John would have been acquainted with Christ from childhood! No wonder he had been close to Christ! It seems that a "family tie" to Christ was important in an authority sense. The first cousin status of John to Christ may account, in one way, why he and his brother were afforded such a high position of rank. Along with Peter, the two Sons of Thunder were prominent in the history of the Christian church both before and after the resurrection of Christ. Note some indications which show this. (Again, Martin puts way too much emphasis on trying to make out these three had some "high ranking position" for some high ranking work, within the Church of God. They may have been called and chosen to have "special" work per se, but Paul, in his "work" and in his "calling" to preach and teach and write 14 books of the New Testament, as we have seen from Galatians 2, had no thoughts of being "higher ranked" than anyone, no matter where they stood with Christ on the physical level when Jesus lived as a human person - Keith Hunt). Besides having been specially selected to witness the Transfiguration and hear the voice of the Father himself, Peter, James and John were with Christ when He raised Jairus' daughter (Mark 5:37). They were a part of the limited group who heard the Olivet Prophecy of Christ (Mark 13:3). Peter and John (note that Peter's name is placed first) were the two apostles who were sent to make ready the Passover (Luke 22:8). In the Garden of Gethsemane it was Peter, James, and John who were especially near Christ (note, again, the positioning of their names, Peter first and John last) (Mark 14:33; Matt.26:37). In the record about the appearance of Christ after His resurrection at the Sea of Galilee, Peter and the Sons of Thunder have special mention (John 21:2-7). And when it came time to be sent on assignments by Christ note that John is the prominent one with Peter doing most of the executive work. Indeed, when the two are mentioned together, it is always "Peter and John" (Acts 3:1,11; 4:13; 8:14). And in the last discourse that we have in the Gospel of John, it is Christ first talking to Peter to tell him that he would die a martyr's death for his faith, but that John would continue to live "until I am coming" (John 21:15-23). (All of this by Martin is still fancy ideas based on a scene of shifting sand, based on what men may guess and add to a context of human lives around Christ, for reasons that were never meant to teach you that some individuals had pre-eminense in "rank" or "favorit-ism" with Christ or God the Father. Paul BLOWS AWAY in his letter to the Galatians chapter one and two, any notions such as Martin puts forth. Whatever God allows or dis-allows when working with human beings is entirely His will, but He has no respect of persons, nor is He giving them the green light to some "ranking position" in the Church of Christ - Keith Hunt) The association of Peter and John together in crucial times for preaching the Gospel, or in receiving important doctrinal teachings from Christ was no accident! And even the fact that Peter's name appears before that of John's (when they are mentioned together) shows a rank of authority. It is significant that in the manuscript order of the New Testament books, Peter's two epistles among the seven General Epistles are positioned before the three of John. This arrangement of names is according to the rank of authority of the men. (Not so, if it was so, then Paul "out-ranked" Peter and John, as his letters come before Peter and John. Hummmm .... with this reasoning of Martin, then Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, out- ranked Paul, Peter, James, and John, as they come first in the New Testament. This thinking is all topsy-turvy, and just rediculous to get into. Paul blows it all away into the dust by his teaching in Galations 2. There was NO "RANK" of authority in the Christian church of God. There were FUNCTIONS - ones chosen by God to do certain things that God, wanted done, when He wanted them done - Keith Hunt) One more thing about John should be mentioned. Not only were his mother and Christ's mother sisters (and this gave John some preeminence) but we find that Mary (and obviously her sister, Salome) were in some way connected with priestly ancestry. How this occurs is not easy to determine because the New Testament makes it clear that Mary (and Salome) were of the house of David (Luke 1:32,69). But for some strange reason, Mary was a kinswoman of Elizabeth, the wife of Zechariah and the mother of John the Baptist. There can be no doubt that Zechariah and John the Baptist were legitimate priests of the lineage of Aaron. Obviously, the laws of the Old Testament demanded that the wife of a priest, as Zechariah was, also had to be of priestly ancestry. So, in some way, John the Baptist, the Sons of Thunder (James and John), and Christ Jesus were all kin to one another through their mothers! Does this mean that there was some priestly blood in them as well? It seems almost impossible for this to be so, but there are a few indications that this may in fact have been the case, though how this is possible no one is presently aware! For example, it is interesting that the apostle John, of all the apostles, was the one who was acquainted with the High Priest at the time of Christ's trial (John 18:16). There was an early tradition that John was of priestly ancestry. Polycrates in the late second century said that "John, who leant back on the Lord's breast, became a sacrificing priest wearing the mitre, a martyr and a teacher; he too sleeps in Ephesus" (Eusebius, Eccl.Hist. 111.31). Interestingly, Hegesippus who belonged to the first generation after the apostles said that James, who was the first cousin of John, wore priestly garments and was able to enter the Holy Place in the Temple at Jerusalem (ibid. II.23). Epiphanius a little later also recorded that James, the Lord's brother, was a priest (Haer. XXVII.14). Whatever all of these indications mean is not sufficiently understood by us moderns, but it does show that the kinsmen of Christ (John the Baptist, James of the Jerusalem church, and the Sons of Thunder) were recognized in early times as having high ranks among the Jews because of noble births, Davidic and perhaps priestly! (Interesting maybe, to a point. God does use at times people of the same general family. We had Moses and Aaron. Abraham and Lot. Joseph and his 11 brothers to form the nation of Israel. But God uses INDIVIDUALS many times, with no relation to any other that He uses before, after, or at the same time. Paul had no relationship in the physical blood line with Jesus or any other of the apostles as far as we know. How much greater can any man have been used in the first century A.D. (other than when Jesus was physical man) than Paul, who was inspired to write 14 books of the New Testament. Ernest Martin is here trying to build a house or argument on sand. It is surfice to know that the apostles of the first century KNEW from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit WHAT was to be canonized as NEW Testament Scripture. The Holy Spirit worked in many a POWERFUL and MIGHTY way during the lives of the first apostles. John was one of them, and so he would have been inspired to pass on to the NT church exactly what the canon of Scriptures were to be for the New Testament till the return of Christ - Keith Hunt) What has all this, however, to do with the canonization of the New Testament? The blood relationship of these men to Christ gave them a decided advantage over all the other apostles. (Not so, or only so, if you take away the INSPIRATION of the Holy Spirit. God does not need "blood lines" or "physical relationship lines" to do His work. Paul, Peter, John, etc. were quite capable of being INSPIRED to KNOW exactly what God wanted as inspired canon Scripture of the New Testament - Keith Hunt) The Sons of Thunder would no doubt have grown up around Christ in Galilee. They would have known Him very well! This is why John (with Peter) had "the word of prophecy more confirmed." (Not so as such, he had the word of prophecy more confirmed simply because God chose it to be so - Keith Hunt) This special rank is no doubt the reason Peter handed the material that he had collected and arranged in Rome to John in Ephesus for the final canonization of the New Testament. (Really no such proof exists of this happening, in or out of the Bible - only conjecture from Martin - Keith Hunt) He was a "Son of God's Voice" and eminently qualified to do the job. The title that Christ gave him points to that authority, and the fact that he witnessed the Transfiguration was another proof. (It does not prove anything as to what Martin wants it to prove - he's "reading into" the texts something of his own imagination - Keith Hunt) John, then, became the final "Thunder (Voice) of God" to the Christian church. He became the official spokesman for the truth. This role seems reflected in the introduction of his first epistle. He represented many of the original apostles when he wrote First John. Note how clear this fact is in John's prologue. "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the word of the life (and the life was manifested, and we have seen and witness, and declare to you the life, the eternal, which was with the Father, and was manifested to us); what we have seen and heard declare we to you also, that you also may have fellowship with us, yes and our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ, and these things WE WRITE that our joy may be full. And this message which we have heard from him and announce to you, that God is light and in him is no darkness at all" (I John 1:1-6). (True John was writing with inspired authority on the things he was going to reveal in his book - Keith Hunt) John makes it plain that when he wrote his first epistle, many of the original apostles and others must have still been alive. They were now associated with him as witnesses to the truth of what John was saying. But then, beginning with chapter two, John ceases to mention the "WE" and starts a singular pronoun: "My little children, I write unto you" (I John 2:1). His reference to the first person singular continues throughout the rest of the first epistle, and is only abandoned in one verse (I John 4:14) where he reverts to the "WE." The point is, the role of John in the writing of that epistle shows him being a Spokesman for a body of witnesses who saw Christ in the flesh! This is John exercising his commission as being a Spokesman for others which was given to him by Christ. (Well he was inspired of Christ, and as John lived to old age, outliving in one way or another, the other apostles, he was the spokesman of apostolic inspiration - Keith Hunt) John's Final Canonization The Gospel of John must have been written for the generality of the Christian church as a final summing-up of the teachings of Christ. It has seemed reasonable to most people that John had the other three Gospels in front of him when he wrote his account, and that his Gospel was an attempt to round-off and complete the message which Christ had given in the flesh. Everything points to it as being the latest of the Gospels to be written. Not only is it squeezed into a position between the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts (which normally should be in tandem to one another), but it records events which people of a later time would find relevance. For example, the raising of Lazarus from the dead is one of the most outstanding miracles in the Bible, but it has been a headscratcher why the other three Gospels said not one word about it. But if the other Gospels were written sometime earlier (when Lazarus was still alive) and they recorded the occurrence of that miracle, it stands to reason that such publicity would have made it impossible for Lazarus to carry on any kind of normal life. He would have been deluged with questions from his admirers, and his enemies would have wanted to silence his testimony to the extraordinary power which was manifested by Christ. But by the time John wrote his Gospel, Lazarus could have been dead and the account of his miraculous resurrection could be given without personal injury to Lazarus. This explanation is as good as any as to why that glorious miracle was not recorded in the earlier Gospels. It can also show that John's Gospel was not written early. (Again, this is just deductions from the mind of Martin. Lazarus he says, "could have been dead" - notice the words "could have" - Lazarus could also have been in Britain as some histories record. John did not need the other Gospels in front of him either, maybe could have had them, but could have not as well, for John was inspired to write what he wrote, and the Holy Spirit of inspiration does not have to have help from the physical world of pen, parchment, and humans. When we believe God inspires as He wills, we need not try to figure out the "could have been" this or that in the physical world - Keith Hunt) The Gospel appears to be a late composition because there is a fully developed theological position presented on every major event in the life and teachings of Christ. In fact, John's account is a thorough-going interpretation of Christ's life rather than a simple historical narrative. It is decidedly contrary to the materialistic concepts that were often associated with the Messianic beliefs in ordinary Jewish theology. John gives a "spiritual" twist to almost all the various teachings of Christ. His concepts show that a good deal of long and well-thought-out principles had been determined as representing Christianity, and they were very distinct from Judaism. (Inspiration is the simple answer to such human thoughts of trying to figure the nuts and bolts of it all - Keith Hunt) The general feeling that one gets in reading John's Gospel is that it was written to supplement and to round-out the information supplied by the first three Synoptic Gospels. John emphasized the fact that "all the truth" was then in one's grasp through the agency of the Holy Spirit, and that all future events which were important for the Christian church to know were then completely available. (Of course, inspiration from God in the Lord's own time frame can have John writing with inspiration, HOW, and WHEN, and WHY - Keith Hunt) Note once again the teachings of Christ in John 16:12,13. "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he shall guide you into ALL the truth, for he shall not speak from himself; but whatsoever things he heareth, these shall he speak, and he will declare unto you the things to come." It is significant that John insists that the Holy Spirit will deliver "all the truth," that it will come through divine inspiration, and that it would involve the understanding of future (prophetic) events! These two verses given by John are powerful vindications that the Christian message was complete when John wrote his Gospel. John's final comments in his Gospel reflect this same conclusion. "And many other things did Jesus also do, the which if they be written every one, I suppose that not even the world itself would in the future find a place to contain the books written" (John 21:25, Greek expanded). These concluding remarks by John make one feel that John thought any further Gospels were redundant. In paraphrase, John was saying "Thousands of Gospels could be written in the future about Christ, but these four are enough! So be content and don't be desirous of obtaining more information about Christ and his teachings other than that which I have given you!" (I can accept what Martin says here, for now he is using inspired Scripture. John was the last of the apostles to live, he lived the longest of all the apostles, to near the very end of the first century, hence indeed he would, being inspired, KNOW exactly which writings God wanted as the New Testament canon - Keith Hunt) When Was the Book of Revelation Written? It is important to date the times of composition of the various New Testament books because this is the first step in providing a benchmark to help determine when the final canonization took place. The Book of Revelation is cardinal to the whole issue. Since there is strong tradition that the apostle John lived till the end of the first century and that Revelation was written by him near his death, this would seem to date the completion of the canon to about A.D.96 to 98. There have been, however, a good number of scholars over the past hundred and fifty years who have leaned heavily towards the early or mid-60's A.D. for its composition simply because the historical indications within the book point directly to that time. And true enough, if John was recording historical events contemporary with the writing of the book, then the composition must be dated to about A.D.60. Let us look at some of the reasons for this. It will be recalled in previous chapters that the apostles, and many Jews and Gentiles, were expecting the soon appearing of the Messianic kingdom on earth. The critical date for the apostles appears to have been the sabbatical year of A.D.62 to A.D.63. Up to that time the apostle Paul was emphasizing the nearness of the second advent, (Not fully so, for Paul KNEW certain events HAD TO COME TO PASS before Jesus could return, as he wrote about in the letters to the Thessalonians [see 1 Thes.5 and 2 Thes.2] and those letters are by most scholars, recognized as his FIRST letters of all that he wrote to various churches and people, about 50/51 A.D. - Keith Hunt) but by A.D.63 or A.D.64 he had adopted a completely different attitude to the matter. (No, his attitude had not changed, certain events had to come to pass, as he already knew that fact before 63 A.D.; and so there was never any change of theology by the time of 63 A.D. and after - Keith Hunt) The apostles Peter and John may have waited until after the miraculous events in the Spring of A.D.66 concerning the Temple before they decided for certain that Christ was not returning in that generation, but whatever the case, the period before A.D.62 was alive with expectation. (Not one single word backs up Martin's statement here - there is not one word in the entire New Testament to prove what Ernest Martin has just said - Keith Hunt) This fact brings us to the first reason why the Book of Revelation could have been written around A.D.60 (if there is a historical basis to its contents). This is because the book presents, in a profound way, the nearness of the second advent. (And it still does today, for it is an ever living book, in the main for the last 42 months of this age, before Jesus comes again - Keith Hunt) "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things that must shortly come to pass ... for the time is at hand" (Rev.1:1,3). "The Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to show unto his servants the things which must shortly be done. Behold, I come quickly ... for the time is at hand ... And, behold, I come quickly ... Surely, I come quickly. Amen. Even so come, Lord Jesus" (Rev.22:6,7,10,12,20). This appeal to the soon advent of Christ is also found in the messages to the Seven Churches of chapters two and three. "I will come unto thee quickly ... Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly ... hold fast till I come ... thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee ... Behold, I come quickly ... Behold, I stand at the door and knock" (Rev.2:5,16,25; 3:3,11,20). Coupled with these verses about the imminence of the second advent, there was John's reference that some of the people who actually pierced Christ at his crucifixion would seemingly be alive at his return (Rev.1:7). (This could just mean, the "Jews" - they, or the race of people who in effect crucified Jesus. It does not have to refer to the actual physical people who nailed Him to the cross - Keith Hunt) Further, John describes the Temple at Jerusalem as being very much in existence in Revelation 11:1,2 and this would demand a pre-A.D.70 period before the Temple was destroyed. John's indication that Jerusalem had a population of about 70,000 persons (Rev.11:13) could only apply to the time before the war. In fact, the Tenth Legion occupied the central area of Jerusalem after A.D.70 and in no way could the population be then about 70,000! (This prophecy has nothing to do with the THEN Jerusalem of before 70 A.D. Where Martin gets the number 70,000 from is beyond me, for verse 13 says "seven thousand" and nowhere in the entire chapter is 70,000 mentioned. This is an end time prophecy of the two witnesses and contains a period of 42 months, verse 2. No such period is recorded in history concerning Titus' armies destroying Jerusalem in 70 A.D. - Keith Hunt) Another point that shows an early date of composition are two statements made by John in which he indicated that to be reckoned as Jewish was, in that time, an honorable and desirable thing. The two references concern the desire of some people in the church to be Jewish, though in actual fact they were not Jews (Rev.2:9; 3:9). These two statements indicate an early writing of Revelation because after the Jewish/Roman War of A.D.66 to 74, there was hardly a heretical Christian (or any Gentile Christian) who wanted to be identified with the Jewish people. During and after the war the Jewish people were held in disdain throughout the Roman Empire because of the war and (what Gentiles considered) their anti-social behavior. But before A.D.66 it was quite popular among Christians to be "Jewish." (The phrase "which say they are Jews and are not" can just as easily be applied to "spiritual Jews" - as Paul wrote a "Jew" is really one that is one inwardly (Romans 2:28,29), and may have nothing at all to do with what Martin has just stated - Keith Hunt) The biggest problem that Paul had to cope with among his Gentile converts was their persistent hankering to become Jews or to adopt Jewish ways. Paul even found them wishing to be supervised by Jewish/Christian authorities (2 Cor.ll & 12). But this desire of Christians to identify with the Jews stopped forthwithly by the end of the Jewish/Roman War. Indeed, the "Book of Barnabas" which was written near the end of the first century by a Jewish/Christian was decidedly anti-Jewish in its themes. It is well recognized that even the Gospel of John, from beginning to end, is never flattering to the Jews. So the references in Revelation that people were still desiring to be identified with Jews is evidence against a post-A.D.70 period for its composition. (No, simply because the phrase in Revelation may have nothing to do with anything just stated by Martin. It may well be just a way of saying that some people called themselves "spiritual" Jews, inward Jews, as Paul said a true Jew was, but God knew they were not true Christians or "spiritual Jews" at all - Keith Hunt) Another reason for suggesting an early writing is the mention that some heretics were calling themselves "apostles" (Rev.2:2). To imagine that one could be an apostle like the original ones selected by Christ was seldom, if ever, imposed upon the Christian church after A.D.70. This is because there were special New Testament requirements to become an apostle that later people had no hope of meeting. For one, it was essential that each apostle had to have "seen" Christ (I Cor.9:1) and there had to be many miraculous signs associated with their ministries (2 Cor.12:12). It is noteworthy that the later church, after A.D.70, had no quarrel over who was or was not an apostle. But in pre-A.D.70 times, this was a major problem (2 Cor.11:13-15). So, the reference to false apostles of Revelation 2:2 would tend to place the writing of the book before the fall of Jerusalem if a historical basis is what John intended. (No again, I say, for the word "apostle" mearly means "one sent forth" - so within a certain "context" such as Revelation being written much later than 70 A.D. the word "apostle" means some people were saying God had sent them forth with His truth to preach it, but were in fact "false prophets" and "false teachers" and were not sent forth by God, inspired by God, or had any true connection with God at all - Keith Hunt) There are other reasons to suspect a pre-A.D.70 date for the writing of the Book of Revelation. If one will observe closely the historical features that seem to be found in the book, one has to look within the emperorship of Nero or the rule of Agrippa the Second to find such occurrences. For example, when John wrote the book he mentioned that five rulers had already seased to have power and that a sixth was then having the sovereignty (Rev.17:10). All realize that at the time John wrote the Book of Revelation the principal world empire was Rome. If John had in mind the Roman emperors when he spoke of the sixth ruler, then the composition of Revelation was in the time of Nero (A.D.54 to A.D.68). Though Nero was actually the fifth emperor, but in a prophetical sense the Jews reckoned Julius Caesar as the first emperor (cf. Antiq.XVIH.33,225). The second was Augustus; the third, Tiberius; fourth, Gaius; fifth, Claudius; and the sixth was Nero. (As Martin says "if John had in mind" - but John did not have in mind. John was in vision in "the Lord's day" - the prophectic time mentioned in many prophecies in the Old Testament. As Martin will later say, this prophecy for Revelation was NOT for the time of the Roman Empire of the first century - Keith Hunt) Or, if one thinks John was talking about the rulers of Jerusalem rather than Rome (since it is clear that John's "Mystery Babylon" was Jerusalem), it could reasonably be suggested that Herod the Great was the first king of the prophecy and that Agrippa the Second was the "sixth." [Eusebius quoted an early prophetic belief that once the Jews ceased having native kings, the Messiah would then be able to arrive on earth (Eccl. Hist. I.6). The prophecy was interpreted as starting with Herod.] So, if Herod, the non-Jew, were reckoned as being the first king, the second would have been his son Archelaus, the third the Roman government which controlled Judaea until the rule of Agrippa the First (who would have been the fourth) (A.D.37-45). The fifth was again the Roman government (A.D.45-56), and the sixth king (if Jerusalem, not Rome, is made the center of John's prophecy) would have been Agrippa the Second (A.D.56 to 70). (It is all to no avail this idea, for the book of Revelation is clearly in the most part for the "Lord's day" or "Day of the Lord" or "the great day of His wrath has come, and who shall be able to stand" [Rev.6:17]. It has nothing to do with the first century A.D. - Keith Hunt) Whether one looks at Rome or Jerusalem as the political power being discussed, we find the historical indications are almost parallel to the years of Nero's rule. Thus (if a contemporary historical basis is found in the Book of Revelation), the date for its writing was somewhere in the period A.D.54 to A.D.68. But there is a further factor that could help pinpoint the time even closer. (Once more, the fact of the book itself and its prophecy is for the END TIME - the last 42 months, 1260, a time, times, and dividing of a time, as mentioned in the book itself - for then the last 42 months of this age - Keith Hunt) In Revelation there is given a clear reference to the city of Laodicea as being rich and prosperous (Rev.3:17,18). But in A.D.60/61 Laodicea suffered a devastating earthquake (Tacitus, Ann. 14.27). It is hardly possible that Laodicea could have been rebuilt and once more rich and prosperous by the beginning of the Jewish/Roman War in A.D.66 - or even before the death of Nero (A.D.68). Thus a date around A.D.60 for the composition of the book could make good sense. And, as stated earlier, A.D.60 is just before the critical sabbatical year of A.D.62 to A.D.63 which was expected to usher in the major events leading up to the second advent of Christ. (No! The NT is silent on the dates of 62 and 63 A.D. They are NOT mentioned anywhere. Nor is the idea that the apostles were looking to those years as some BIG mile-stone in a prophetic time table. Laodicea could well have been once more re-built and prosperous by the near end of the first century, as that is the most recognized time for John to have written Revelation. Many have said, using an historical base that it could apply to the time of Domitian [A.D.81-96] - Keith Hunt) The Book of Revelation was certainly emphasizing the soon appearing of Christ's return from heaven! From all of this, it seems reasonable that Revelation could have been written about A.D.60, just before the end-time events were expected to occur. (The "soon appear" of Christ in the context of the last 42 months and "day of God's wrath" on this age, proves Jesus will soon appear WHEN those last 42 months of this age are upon us. It is a living prophecy still for the future - Keith Hunt) This, however, is just the problem with the early date for its composition. Since the information within the Book of Revelation is reported to have come from Jesus Christ Himself, and not John (Rev.1:1), this seems to indicate that even Christ, some 30 years after His resurrection and ascension to heaven, was confident of His return to earth very quickly. He was persistent in the book that "I come quickly." But Christ, of course, did not come back as depicted in the Book of Revelation or the other New Testament books. It would be daft indeed to imagine that Christ actually did come back to earth between A.D.63 and A.D.70. Yet, strange as it may seem, there appears to have been a few people who insisted that he did! By the year A.D.65 Paul was reporting the errors of some people who believed that a resurrection from the dead had already occurred (2 Tim.2:18). Since the apostles taught that Christ's second advent would be accompanied by the resurrection from the dead, there must have been some who taught that Christ had somehow "returned" - perhaps in a mystic or secret manner! Paul, however, assured Timothy that this in no way had happened! (Those teaching the resurrection had already come, may not have been trying to tie it up with Jesus having also then come. It is not explained to us by Paul, the "theology" behind such a teaching that the resurrection had already come. Guessing at the theology behind it is just that - guessing - Keith Hunt) The fact is, Christ did not return "quickly" in the decade of the 60's A.D. This is one of the many reasons why the book cannot have a contemporary historical basis to it! If it does, the book records that Christ's predictions of "I come quickly" were a failure and no self-respecting Christian would want to perpetuate in a canon of official books (or any other serious library) such a book of falsehood. On the other hand, if the contents of the book apply to the period of the endtime, all can then make reasonable sense! THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER (Now Ernest Martin begins to start getting into the truth of the matter, where I can agree - Keith Hunt) As for me, the answer seems clear. The Book of Revelation has no chronological or historical relevance in its message as far as the first century is concerned. (Amen!! Keith Hunt) It is describing a special time in the future called the Day of the Lord in which all end-time events will take place. The text simply says that John "came to be in the Spirit in the Lord's Day" (Rev.1:10), that is, he was transported in vision into the Day of the Lord. Even his "seeing" the visions in the Isle of Patmos had a visionary aspect to them because, again, the text says: "I came to be in the isle called Patmos." It was a spiritual, or visionary, experience that took him to Patmos, not something literal! Indeed, the whole book is made up of symbolic and allegorical teachings which must be carefully interpreted to understand their literal applications. The allegorical illustrations throughout the book were intended to describe events at the end of the age, not those of the first century!! We find that John was witnessing in vision the crucial events leading up to the Day of the Lord, those that incorporated it, and those concerning the outcome of the "Day" (Rev.1:19). Thus, when Christ said throughout the book that His return from heaven was to occur very quickly, those statements have to be interpreted within the time period near the Day of the Lord. If this is the way Revelation is to be understood, then the events must be reckoned as allegorical and prophetic without reference to any past historical events or chronological time periods. When was Revelation written? If one looks at the traditional evidence that comes to us from the middle second century and shortly afterward, one has to date the composition of the Book of Revelation to the LAST DECADE of the FIRST century (Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 5.3 0.3). There is little doubt in my mind that this period is the correct one!! The main evidence that persuades me of this is in the Bible itself. In the last chapter of the Gospel of John we find Christ telling the apostle Peter that he would die an old man by martyrdom (John 21:18,19). But Christ also had something to say about the apostle John (the one who wrote the Gospel and the Book of Revelation). Twice he said: "I am willing that he be remaining until I am coming" (John 21:22,23). This statement by Christ has been an enigma to many for generations. Just what did he mean that John would live beyond the death of Peter "until I am coming"? Even in the first century there was confusion over the prophecy. Some people thought it meant that John would continue to live until the second advent (verse 23). John, however, assured his readers that Christ did not mean that. Indeed, he couldn't have intended that meaning because Christ had earlier prophesied that John and his brother James would both undergo martyrdom (Matt.20:23). The New Testament said that his brother James was killed by Agrippa the First (Acts 12:2), and other early records relate that John was also martyred for his faith in his later years of life (Eusebius, Eccl.Hist.III.31). What then, did Christ mean when he said John would live to an old age beyond Peter's death "until I am coming"? The answer is simple if one will let examples within the Biblical Revelation be the guide. A similar statement was made by Christ in Matthew 16:27,28. Let us quote it in full. "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and then He shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." In Luke's Gospel the parallel account says that the fulfillment of that very prophecy happened just eight days later (Luke 9:28). And true enough, some of those apostles (namely Peter, James and John) did see or observe Christ "coming" in the glory of his Father. That occurred when they were taken to the Mount of the Transfiguration and Christ was glorified in their presence. It was like a "second advent" because Moses and Elijah were also seen with him, and that type of experience would only be actually seen at the resurrection of the dead which was to happen at the exact time of His second advent (I Cor.15:50-55; I Thess.4:13-18). And most importantly, it should be noted that the glorious event of the Transfiguration was not an actual "second advent." The whole affair was a vision (Matt.17:9). This prophecy of Christ, that some would not die before they would see him coming in His kingdom, did in fact take place 6 days later (or 8 days later inclusively). That is when the vision of Christ's second advent took place! With this example in mind, look once again at what Christ told Peter in John 21:22,23. Peter was to be martyred in old age (which happened to the apostle about A.D.67), but John would remain on earth "until I am coming." This is what transpired. Christ had told the disciples that the Holy Spirit would inspire the apostles into a knowledge of "all the truth" and also "declare to you the coming things" (John 16:13). They were to be given an understanding of prophecy, of future events! And in John 21:22,23 Christ was informing Peter who it would be who would remain "until I am coming," to see "those things." It was to be the apostle John. Christ's statement in John 21:22,23 was nothing more than a prophecy that the apostle John would remain on earth beyond Peter's death to see Christ's coming in vision - like the vision on the Mount of Transfiguration. In short, he was giving him a prophecy about the message in the Book of Revelation which would be shown to John after Peter's death! And remarkably, we are told four different times in Revelation that John was taken in spirit (which means in vision) into a period of time or locations to see the prophesied end-time events (Rev.1:10; 4:1,2; 17:3; 21:10). All of this concerned the "coming" of the Lord back to earth. But more than that, the exact Greek word which described the time unto which John would live was "erchomai," - "I am coming" (John 21:22,23). And note what is found in the Book of Revelation itself. In Revelation 2:5 we find the same word "erchomai" - and it occurs throughout the book (Rev.2:16; 3:31; 16:15; 22:7,12,20). These occurrences of the same word as found in John 21:22,23 represent a link-up of John's Gospel with the Book of Revelation. All of this shows that Christ was telling the apostle John that he would live long after the death of the apostle Peter to witness the second advent of Christ (and the events associated with it) in the visions of the Book of Revelation. This is the main reason why it seems appropriate to date its composition LONG AFTER the 60's A.D. It is more compatible with the teaching of Scripture and the early traditions that the book was written in the LAST DECADE of the first century. This also has the virtue of relieving Christ Jesus of making statements that His second advent would occur very quickly in the time of Nero (A.D.54 to A.D.68). The upshot of this matter means that the final canonization by John must have taken place long after Peter and Paul were dead. Things will make far better overall sense when this is accepted as nearest to the truth. (I fully agree with Martin's last deduction of this chapter - Keith Hunt). In a later chapter we will show why this understanding becomes important in evaluating the proper manuscript order of the New Testament books. It means that the complete number of 27 books was sanctioned by the apostle John (and his helpers). Those writings were placed in their various divisions and in a particular order so that the Christian church, from the close of the first century, would have a divinely inspired set of books which would dovetail with the 22 Old Testament books to form the complete Bible. It is now time to look at the divisions and order of those New Testament books which were canonized by John. The next chapter begins with a survey of the Gospels and the Book of Acts. ................... To be continued Canonization of the New Testament #5 The New Testament Pentateuch by the late Ernest Martin PhD (1984) The New Testament Pentateuch There are five books in the New Testament which represent the basic teachings of Christ within a historical framework. They are called (to identify them in a literary sense) the four Gospels and the Book of Acts. The first four books account for the period when Christ taught in the flesh (both before and after His resurrection) and the fifth occupies the period from the conclusion of His earthly teaching (Acts 1:4-11) and continues with the progression of that teaching (now directed from heaven) until it reached the city of Rome! There is a unity of purpose and design within these five historical books! Indeed, the Book of Acts is as much a "Gospel" as the first four, though it is common to designate only Matthew, Mark, Luke and John by the literary term "Gospels." This is because the fifth book is simply a continuation of Luke's Gospel. It would be perfectly proper to designate Luke's first composition "The First Gospel of Luke," and the Book of Acts "The Second Gospel of Luke." The internal evidence shows that both are truly "Gospels" in the strict sense of the word. This means there are really five Gospels in the New Testament, not four! This fact has been recognized by scholars. While Luke's first Gospel deals with the teachings of Christ while he was in the flesh, the second is the Gospel of the Holy Spirit directed by Christ from heaven. Note the appraisal of Ehrhardt. "The whole purpose of the Book of Acts ... is no less than to be the Gospel of the Holy Spirit" (The Construction and Purpose of the Acts of the Apostles, StTh, XII, 1958, p.55). Professor Guthrie also agrees with this conclusion. "Since Luke-Acts must be considered as a whole, and since the first part possesses the character of a Gospel, the second part must be viewed in the light of this fact" (New Testament Introduction, p.350 ). Indeed, Luke himself links the two books together in a literary and structural manner. He said his first work was written to describe what Jesus began to do and teach (Acts l:l) and that he was simply continuing the narrative in his second work! Professor van Unnik also expressed the view that Acts was a confirmation and continuation of the Gospel message of Luke for those who had no personal acquaintance with Christ while he was in the flesh (Nov. Test., IV. 1960, pp.26-59). In simple terms, the Book of Acts must also be acknowledged as a "Gospel." This means, again, there are five Gospels in the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, First Luke, John, and Second Luke! It is important that these five books be reckoned as a unit - which could be called the Pentateuch of the New Testament! These books were placed in a first rank position within the New Testament canon for a purpose. They were not intended to be biographies of Christ's life. Their main emphasis was to show the progression of the teaching of the Gospel from its beginning in Galilee (Acts 10:37) to Jerusalem, then from Jerusalem (the capital of the Jewish world) to Rome (the capital of the Gentile world). All five books when reckoned together provide people with the historical proof that the Gospel was indeed preached to "all the world" as a fulfillment of Christ's commission to the apostles (Rom.16:26; Col.l:23; I Tim.3:16; 2 Tim.4:17). With this as one of the bases for their inclusion in the canon, it can be seen that the 22 books following the "New Testament Pentateuch" present the rest of the doctrinal teachings which make the Christian message complete and universal. That message was designed to reach out and embrace all nations of the world, not just the Jews! Thus, this Christian Pentateuch was written and placed in first position within the New Testament canon to represent the Christian "Torah" (the central "Law") of the whole Bible. Why a New Testament Pentateuch? The Jews of the first century acknowledged the profound authority of the Law of Moses above all other writings. There was nothing that could remotely compare with that Law in matters of importance or prestige. That Law was found in the first five books of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. When it came time to canonize the New Testament, it must have occurred to the apostles that the New Testament "Law" would most naturally be composed of five books. There would have been nothing odd about this because many parts of the Old Testament were constructed around the symbolic number five. It was the number of "Law." For example, the 150 psalms which made up the Book of Psalms were arranged by the Old Testament canonizers into five divisions, and they paralleled the five books of the Law! (See Appendix I for proof.) Even the basic law itself, the Ten Commandments, was reckoned in the Jewish manner as being five laws relating to God (the first five, including the fifth dealing with parents) and the remaining five having to do with human affairs. The number five in relation to Law is found in another way. It should be remembered that the Old Testament laws were symbolically required to be inscribed on the hand and in the forehead (Exo.19:9, 16). The "head" represented the intellect (with its five senses) and the hand symbolized work (with its five digits) which indicated the performance of the Law in an active and physical way. The number "five" was also associated with Old Testament canonization in another way. The Festival Scroll (known as the Megilloth) was made up of five books (Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther) which were ordained to be read at the five Jewish festivals (Passover, Pentecost, 10th of Ab, Tabernacles, Purim). As a further significance to the number, the middle book of the Megilloth (Lamentations) was also divided into five distinct sections. Even in the New Testament itself, scholars have found that the Gospel of Matthew has a fivefold arrangement. "It has been suggested that Matthew's fivefold scheme was patterned on the fivefold character of the books of the Law, the idea being that the author was attempting to provide a 'Pentateuch', as the new law for the community of the new Israel, that is, the Christian Church" (Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, p.31). Whatever the case, the fivefold symbolic characteristic associated with matters of Old Testament Law is well known by biblical scholars, and the apostles could not have been unaware of its unique numerical significance. And with the "historical" books of the New Testament (that is, the Gospels and the Book of Acts) being five in number, and that they provide a logical and consecutive narration on the progress of Christian teaching from Nazareth, to Jerusalem, and then to Rome, the arrangement of these books into a fivefold unit by the canonizers must be reckoned as not a matter of chance. There was a deliberate design intended by using this procedure. (The number FIVE is more correct to understand GRACE. See the studies on this Website under "The Numbers of God" - "grace" or "forgiveness" is the "key stone" of the New Testament, we are saved by grace through faith in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The books of Moses - five in number - can indeed refer to "law" while the five books of the NT Pentateuch refer to "grace" - hence the salvation plan of God is NOT law OR grace, it is law AND grace - Keith Hunt) Why the Gospel Arrangement? While the orthodox Christians recognized the first four Gospels as canonical, there were some of the third and fourth centuries who proposed a change in the manuscript order. Because John and Matthew were original apostles of Christ (while Mark and Luke were not), a minority were prone to place the Gospel of John right after Matthew because of apostolic rank. This was, however, only an academic suggestion which found no permanent approval. There was no reason for such a change because it can be shown that Mark and Luke were simply the secretaries for two apostles: Peter and Paul. It was common in the first century for men of authority to have amanuenses (official secretaries) to write their letters or books for them. Paul used such people on many occasions. His writing of the Book of Romans is an example. "I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord" (Rom.16:22). Most, if not all, of Paul's epistles were actually written by amanuenses whom he maintained on his staff of transcribers. Since Luke was a companion of Paul, it is perfectly proper to assume that Luke's Gospel and the Book of Acts were actually the historical record which Paul called "my Gospel" in Second Timothy 2:8. As for the Gospel of Mark, it has long been known that John Mark was recognized as the secretary, or amanuensis, of the apostle Peter. Indeed, in the Gospel of Mark the great humility of Peter is conspicuous in all parts of it. Where anything is related which might show Peter's weakness, we find it recorded in detail whereas the other Gospels often show Peter's strengths. In Mark there is scarcely an action by Christ in which Peter is not mentioned as being a close observer or communicant. All of this affords a reasonable deduction that the writer of the Gospel of Mark was an eyewitness and close observer of the events recorded about Christ's life from the baptism of John to his crucifixion in Jerusalem. The ancient testimony of Papias, in the early second century, that Mark was the secretary of the apostle Peter (and not the actual eyewitness himself) has such good credentials, and the internal evidence of the Gospel itself is so compatible to this view, that it seems evident the Gospel of Mark is really the Gospel of Peter! The Order of the Four Gospels The first Gospel in the canonical order is that of Matthew. Why should his Gospel come first in order? Though Matthew was certainly of lesser rank ("FUNCTION" is the better way to view it - Keith Hunt) within the Christian authority dispensed by Christ than Peter and John, there is another side of the story. The actual name of Matthew was Levi (Luke 5:27-29). This shows that he was of Levitical descent, and in an Old Testament order of priority this would have accorded him a first position among ordinary Jews! Besides that, it can be easily seen that his Gospel was oriented to Jewish people, not to the Gentile world. His reference to the "kingdom of heaven" rather than the "kingdom of God" is a sure sign of this. In the Jewish world of the first century, it was illegal to utter the divine name of Yahweh in public. Only the High Priest was able to say it on the Day of Atonement (or in private when no one would hear the sound of the august name). Matthew abides with this belief by adhering to the custom. There is even traditional evidence that the Gospel was first written in Hebrew (or Aramaic) which the Jews of Palestine found more suitable to use in their holy writings. (It may be a tradition of some sort, but the fact is NOT ONE single MSS or portion of a MSS has been preserved - the Greek is the preserved MSS God saw fit to hand down to us - Keith Hunt) Matthew was also the ideal person to bridge the gap from the Old to the New Testament because the preservation of the earlier revelation had been committed to the priests (Deut.31:9) and Matthew was both a Levite and an apostle! The Gospel of Matthew is a perfectly good account of the life and works of Jesus which was designed to satisfy the queries of those with strong Jewish persuasions! It may be that Matthew (Levi) was the amanuensis of James, the brother of Christ, and leader of all Jewish Christians when the Christian church was established in Jerusalem. If this is the case, it was important that Matthew was a Levite. To Jews this gave him a precedence in rank over Peter (responsible for the Gospel of Mark) who was only a Galilean Jew of ordinary stock. (Hummmm, I don't think God was much concerned about "Jewish" thoughts of "rank" or "Jewishness" per se when inspiring Matthew to write his Gospel. The Lord did inspire much to be written about "no rank of authority" in His NT church; see all my studies on "Church Government" to prove that point - Keith Hunt) But there is one other point why Matthew's Gospel must be accorded a position of first rank among the Gospels. The apostle Paul made it abundantly clear that Christ's teachings were designed to go to the Jewish people first (Rom.2:9,10). Paul, when speaking to the Jews in Galatia, said: "It was necessary that the Word of God should first have been spoken to you" (Acts 13:46). This principle is consistently followed by Paul and the other apostles in their preaching of the Gospel to those throughout the world. Paul was keenly aware of this need. This is just another reason why the "Jewish" Gospel of Matthew had to appear first in the divine library of the New Testament. And, of course, that is exactly where we find it in the manuscripts. (No, do not think so. No Hebrew MSS exists of Matthew, the Greek MSS do, many of them. Greek was the common language of the Roman Empire. Writing is NOT preaching in the person to people as such. What a person does and who he first goes to, is one thing, but the written word does not follow the same path. Yes, the Gospel was first preached in person to the Jews, but the written parchment can go to anyone at anytime and anywhere. Ernest Martin here postulates on the Gospel of Matthew, and draws a conclution that is based upon a different set of priorities - physical persons going to talk to physical people - which the written word does not follow - Keith Hunt) It should be easy to understand why the next Gospel should be that of Peter (Mark) followed by that of Paul (Luke). Peter was the apostle to the Jews (though with Gentile connections), while Paul was the one to go primarily to the Gentiles. (Again, purely speculative thinking by Martin. There is no proof anywhere as to the thoughts he gives here - Keith Hunt) What then, about the Gospel of John? Why is it last, and intervening between the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts which were written by Luke (for Paul) and are clearly two books that should normally be placed in parallel to each other? The fact is, John was the last to write his Gospel. His work is more of a summing-up of events that the others skimmed over or did not feel important to relate. And even the fact that John's Gospel separates Luke's Gospel from the Book of Acts is a sure sign that his Gospel was written last. It also helps to show that the final canonization of the New Testament was accomplished by the apostle John. It will be later shown that John's Gospel and the Book of Revelation (and perhaps his three epistles) were written and put into final form at the close of the first century. This late date could help explain why John's Gospel seems to be "wedged" between Luke's Gospel (First Luke) and the Book of Acts (Second Luke). (The best way to explain John's Gospel is to simply see that John, writing at the end of the first century, was presenting Jesus Christ is a completely different way than Matthew, Mark, and Luke. It would be fitting and correct to have John's Gospel after the other three writers of Christ's life, and certainly before Acts, as that book is the Gospel of the Holy Spirit as it led the Church of God on the path of evangelization after the earthly ministry of Christ was completed - Keith Hunt) In summation, let us look once again at the New Testament "Pentateuch." First priority of position is accorded to the Gospel of Matthew who wrote primarily to the Jewish people. He was a Levite whom the Jews would respect as one with Old Testament authority to write the truth of God to Israel. Second comes the Gospel of Mark, which is actually Peter's Gospel. It has both a Jewish and Gentile emphasis. Recall that Peter started out in his Christian experience by preaching only to Jews and other circumcised peoples closely akin to the Jews, but it was he whom Christ directed to go first to the Gentiles. At the end of his life, Peter was finally in Rome (with the apostle Paul) and the Gentile emphasis to the preaching of the Gospel was also recognized. Thirdly comes the Gospel of Luke. It was by a Gentile (the physician Luke) on behalf of the Gentile apostle, Paul. This is the reason it is in third rank in the official positioning of the Gospels. In fact, in the first canonization made by Peter and Paul in Rome somewhere near the end of A.D.66, it may well be the case that the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts were positioned in tandem to one another. But this was not the end of the story. The apostle Peter sent the canonical books which he and Paul had arranged to the apostle John in Ephesus! That is when John wrote his Gospel. Then John, at a later date, simply moved aside the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts (which normally should be placed directly next to each other) and wedged his Gospel between them. Since it was the last official Gospel written, it was also accorded last place. (All of this is purely the speculation of Ernest Martin. It is more likely that John, the last of the apostles, arranged the order of the books at the end of the first century, after he wrote his Gospel, and hence the order of the books had nothing to do with Paul or Peter per se, as they had died about 3 decades before John wrote his books and letters and Revelation - Keith Hunt) There is another reason for this placement. John's Gospel is thoroughly Gentile (or Samaritan) in its environment. Though the Jews are often mentioned, the descriptions of them are always unflattering. Whereas the Gospel of Matthew is so careful not to offend Jewish sensitivities in matters of religion, (I think Martin must have forgotten about Matthew 23 - if that would not offend Jewish leaders I do not know what would - Keith Hunt) the other Gospels progressively become less Jewish in their orientation and the Gospel of John abandons any desire to please a Jewish audience! (Again, thoughts of Martin here. There is MUCH in all gospels to offend "Jewishness" of false religion. Jesus at times in ALL Gospels, pulled no punches to denounce false traditions of Jewishness religion - Keith Hunt) Nevertheless, it is plain to see that the principle "to the Jew first" is adhered to in the arrangement of the first four Gospels. It went from the thoroughly Jewish emphasis (Matthew) in a progressive way to the thoroughly non-Jewish (John). (No, do not think so. The Gospels were written for the WHOLE world, Jew or Gentile. You take them as they come, and there is much in all of them to CORRECT (even offend) people of all nations and false religious practices and beliefs - Keith Hunt) With John's Gospel added to the other three Gospels, plus Luke's Book of Acts, there became a fivefold canon of books which amounted to a New Testament Pentateuch - just like Moses had given his fivefold Pentateuch in the Old Testament! This allowed 22 Old Testament books to be flanked on one side of the New Testament Pentateuch and 22 New Testament books to be flanked on the other. This made a perfect balance of books on either side. Thus, the fivefold books of the New Testament Pentateuch became the center section - the divine fulcrum for all the books of the Bible. Those five historical books present to mankind a divine account of how the Gospel started from a town in Galilee called Nazareth. How it finally went to Jerusalem. And from Jerusalem, it reached out to the center of the Gentile world - to Rome itself. (Yes, I agree this is the overview of the Lord giving 5 books as a form of NT Pentateuch, as the Lord had given 5 books to Moses for the OT Pentateuch - Keith Hunt) From there, Peter and Paul sent the divine books which they canonized back to the apostle John in Ephesus where he added his own works. (Peter and Paul coming in here, is Ernest Martin's speculation as he reasoned it. There is NO proof that it was so, as far as the writings of the NT are concerned - Keith Hunt) John continued living some 30 years longer within the region of Ephesus awaiting the prophesied vision about Christ's second advent (the Book of Revelation) and finally writing his Gospel to complete the canon. All of this occurred about A.D.96, and not long afterward he died a martyr as predicted by Christ (Matt.20:22,23). But before his death, John finalized the writing, arranging and editing of the New Testament canon and presented it to the Christian elders who lived in the area of Ephesus. It was thus at Ephesus near the end of the first century (not Jerusalem or Rome) where the canonization was completed. (I would certainly agree that the canonization of the NT was finished by the apostle John before he died. The inspiration and leading of the Holy Spirit would certainly NOT leave it to human men of the second, third, fourth, centuries .... the Roman Catholic Church, to decide the canon of the New testament - Keith Hunt) Since that time the world has had the 49 sacred books (7 times 7) which make up the Holy Bible. And the divine focal point of that revelation is the New Testament Pentateuch! There is a most important principle which must constantly be remembered relative to the canonization of the Christian Pentateuch and the other New Testament books (and I do not apologize for repeating it): The Gospel must always go first to the Jews and lastly to the Gentiles. This factor of preeminence is found in the positioning of the books of the Christian Pentateuch and in all contexts of the New Testament! Everywhere the apostles Peter and Paul preached, they went to the Jewish people first (Acts 11:19; 13:14, 14:1; 17:1,10; 18:4; 19:8; 28:17). "It was necessary that the Word of God should first have been spoken to you" (Acts 13:46). (That was ONLY for the very first years of the NT church. The Gospel did need to go first to the Jews, and it did! After it was introduced to the Gentiles, that first law of God (shall we say) was no longer in effect. Once the Jews had had enough time to have the Gospel preached to them, in the time frame God was allowing, then that was the end of the matter. After that time frame it was OPEN SEASON we shall say, to the WHOLE world. Putting the Jews first was no longer required. It is only common sense to put the books of the "Life of Christ" FIRST - He is the focal point of the New Testament, nay the whole Bible - Keith Hunt) This is why, as we will see in the next chapter, the seven General "Jewish" Epistles (James, I and 2 Peter, I, 2 and 3 John, and Jude) must precede the fourteen of the apostle Paul in the New Testament canon. This is the exact arrangement maintained in the early manuscript order of the New Testament books, and the one that should be followed today. (I believe those books should be read and studied FIRST, after the Gospels, by new converts to Christianity. The letters of Paul can, as Peter said, "some things hard to understand" and "which the unlearned wrest to their own destruction." The foundation should be established FIRST (Gospels, Acts, James, Peter, John [except Revelation]) and then with that foundation you can tattle and understand the books of Paul - Keith Hunt) .................... To be continued The Canonization of the New Testament #6 The General Epistles after the Gospels and Acts by the late Ernest Martin (published in 1984) PhD The SEVEN GENERAL EPISTLES In the earliest and best manuscripts the seven epistles of James, I and 2 Peter, I, 2, and 3 John, and Jude are placed before the fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul. And this is where they belong! Prof.Scrivener, after More scholarly evidence to support the propriety of these conclusions was given in the first chapter of this book. As Professor Gregory pointed out, scholars and laity should not view this matter with indifference. He felt it was important that the manuscript order should be retained in modern versions and translations (Canon and Text of the New Testament, pp.467-469). As one of the giants in the field of New Testament textual criticism, we feel that his admonition should be heeded and that our present versions should be corrected to accord with the manuscripts! But there is more evidence for this even outside the manuscripts! It comes from the Bible itself! There are seven biblical reasons which indicate why the General Epistles must precede those of Paul in the order of the New Testament books. Let us look at them. The Biblical Evidence One of the cardinal rules of logic is that discussions on any subject should proceed from the general to the particular. And these seven epistles are called "General" for several reasons. (1) Each of the books was written to general areas where Jews (Israelites - Keith Hunt) were and not to a specific church like those of the apostle Paul. James, for example, directed his epistle to the "twelve tribes scattered abroad" - in all areas where Israelites were. Peter, on the other hand, became a little more specialized regarding the geographical areas in which his readers lived, but still, his two epistles were directed in a general way to those "scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia" (I Pet.1:1; 2 Pet.3:1). John and Jude were so "general" regarding the geographical locations of their readers that they gave no territorial identifications at all! The decided impression that one gets when reading these seven epistles is that they were intended to be read by a large body of people, notably people of Jewish (Israelite - Keith Hunt) extraction in various regions of the world. Paul's letters, on the other hand (with the exception of one) were written to specific churches or individuals. And it is normal that the "general" should precede the "particular." (2) These epistles contain only general teachings. Notice that there are no discourses on what baptism means, how to observe the Lord's Supper, how to conduct oneself in the liturgies of the church, etc. Really, the only instructions that we find in these seven epistles are quite general and basic. James even spoke of his readers as going to war with one another: "Whence come wars among you" (James 4:1). He also wrote of the rich among them as severely oppressing the poor (5:1). These statements have led some to wonder if he was speaking to converted people at all. The theme of the epistle of James seems to be giving an overview (or an introduction) to the basic concepts of Christianity. Indeed, there are only two short references to Christ (1:1 and 2:1) and if they were dropped from the text, the whole epistle could easily have been called a simple Jewish exposition on Old Testament values and theology (cf.Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, p.756). This Old Testament theme presents no problem if one understands that the work was intended simply to be a Christian introduction of a general nature to people representing the twelve tribes of Israel. It would have been quite ridiculous to tell "the twelve tribes" in an introductory letter how they were to act in the Christian church, and in what order the Christian ministers should preach, etc. In fact, the people to whom James wrote were not attending any Christian church - they were still members of various synagogues (Jam.2:2, Greek). James was speaking to Jews who were just beginning to learn what the first principles of Christianity really were! This is why his book is positioned directly after the Book of Acts. It was intended to provide some preliminary teachings of Christianity without involving the readers in major doctrinal issues. The epistles following James were meant to set forth more completely the Gospel of Christ (and positioned so as to present in a progressive manner the maturer doctrines of Christianity). We find the same thing in Peter's epistles, though the geographical destination is more defined than James and his doctrinal matters are a little stronger! Yet Peter is still giving general teaching. "As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby" (I Pet.2:2). Peter was followed by the three letters of John. They focus on the general need for love to be expressed among brethren and that people should pay attention to the first principles of Christian teaching - adhering to the primitive and basic doctrines which were given "from the beginning" (I John 2:7,13; 3:8,11; 2 John 5). And though Jude homes in on a specific problem that was facing the Christian community when he wrote, his emphasis is still "that ye should earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). Jude then described a condition happening within the Christian church that some people have thought incompatible with the strict moral and doctrinal disciplines in the churches which Paul supervised. True enough. But the seven General Epistles were not designed to give theological or ecclesiastical information. These were general letters dealing with large groups of people (mostly Jewish) who were still adhering, in many cases, to the national concepts of Judaism. This is why these epistles were placed before those of Paul. They present teachings for an "infant" stage to the understanding of Christian doctrines and church discipline. (3) These seven epistles were also written by men who were commissioned to preach the Gospel to the Jewish people, and the messages (as we have seen) show that they were primarily intended for Jews. (Israelites - Keith Hunt) The apostle Paul recognized this special commission, and how it differed from his. "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we [Paul and Barnabas] should go unto the Gentiles, and they [James, Peter and John] unto the circumcised" (Gal.2:9). The role of these three "pillar" apostles was very prestigious in the Christian community, and they were given charge over the Jewish people in the church. This gave them a position of priority. Even Paul admitted it. "I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek" (Rom.1:16; 2:9,10). (That is more FUNCTION than priority - it was God's intent and function to have the Gospel go first to the Jews, but ONLY for the first while. Once it was opened up to the Gentiles, it was a whole new ball game, and there was no position of priority to the Jews or Israelites - Keith Hunt) As we have been showing throughout this book, it was essential that the Gospel be given to the Jewish people first. Christ was adamant that this be done and He set the example by refusing to preach to outright Gentiles (Matt.15:21-28). And even in the first period after Christ's resurrection, the apostles spoke only to Jews about Christ (Acts 11:19). When it finally became permissible to grant Gentiles an opportunity to hear the Gospel, Paul still gave the Jewish people the priority of hearing. "It was necessary that the Word of God should first have been spoken to you [to you Jews]" (Acts 13:46). Paul always went to the Jews first wherever he wished to preach (Acts 11:19; 13:14; 14:1; 17:1,10; 18:4; 19:8; 28:17). (Only at the first, what Martin seems to forget is that Paul finally turned his back in the main, on the Jews, and consentrated on preaching to the Gentiles. It was the function of people like James and Peter and John to preach to the Jews, it was not the overall function for Paul and others as Paul admitted in the book of Galatians - Keith Hunt) This principle alone would make it necessary to place these seven "Jewish" epistles written by the prime "Jewish" apostles to front rank ahead of the fourteen epistles of Paul to the Gentiles! (No there is no "rank" per se. All of God's Word is inspired and all just as important, yet there is "function" as to which should be read first by NEW converts, a one, two, three, steps of spiritual growth and learning; you learn to float and swim in the shallow end before diving in at the deep end - Keith Hunt) (4) These seven epistles have first position because their authors had seniority over Paul. This is made clear by Paul himself. He referred to these "pillar" authorities at Jerusalem as being "apostles before me" (Gal.1:17). Philastrius, in the fourth century, observed that the seven General Epistles must have priority over Paul for this one reason alone (Moffatt, Introduction, p.13). And why not? Throughout the whole of the Bible the superiority of eldership is recognized. Even Christ pointed out the special position of seniority that the original Jewish apostles had: "And ye shall also bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning" (John 15:27). We should remember that when Matthias was elected to be numbered among the apostles in the place of Judas, it was acknowledged that a prime requirement for apostleship necessitated that men "companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning with the baptism of John" (Acts 1:21,22). This recognition of eldership was accorded those apostles who preceded Paul. In Romans 16:7 he said: "Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who were also in Christ before me." These examples are enough to show that a preeminence was given to the "pillar" apostles even by Paul and had he the opportunity to position the various books within a New Testament canon, there can be no doubt that Paul would have given a superior position to the "Jewish" apostles who wrote to the "Jewish" people. And significantly, this is exactly the disposition which the manuscripts maintain! (The manuscripts may give position to the "general" epistles before the letters or books of Paul, BUT NOT for the reason Martin wants to proclaim. While Paul gave honor to the 12 apostles in certain ways as Martin quotes above, Paul did NOT believe he was "under them in rank" or "influence" or any other position of priority. Once more Martin forgets the very strong words given by Paul concerning any "rank" idea among the apostles of Christ, see once more Gal.1:11-24; 2:1-10; note especially verse 6. It made no impression on Paul that certain ones "seemed to be somewhat" in the church at Jerusalem. The General epistles should be read first before Paul for the NEW convert, but they are NOT positioned before Paul for any "rank" of apostleship that Martin wants to proclaim. This is an example of taking only certain verses and hence as people say, in mocking Christians, "You can prove anything from the Bible." And it is so, IF you only take certain verses on any Bible subject - Keith Hunt) (5) Not only did the Jerusalem apostles have seniority over Paul, they also had greater administrative authority. Paul said that James, Peter and John (the main writers of the General Epistles) were the pillars of the church (Gal.2:9). It was to them that Paul had to go in order to settle the question of circumcision among the Gentiles. He went "to them of reputation [that is, to them of recognized authority], lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain" (Gal.2:2). (No, Paul said, "SEEMED to be pillars" and it mattered not to him, it made no difference to him what they SEEMED to be, which means he was really not that sure what they were as such within the church at Jerusalem. He only went to Jerusalem once after his conversion, to see Peter and also James for a very short while, then he was not in Jerusalem for 14 years; see Gal.1:11-22; 2:1- 2. As for circumcision. Paul already KNEW the TRUTH on that matter, and needed not the 12 apostles verdict, it became a "church matter" and so Paul and others went to Jerusalem to give weight to the truth (Acts 15) not to get the 12 apostles to agree with them, or get their approval on the truth they already knew - Keith Hunt) This scripture tells us much. In no uncertain terms Paul said that had he not cleared his teaching concerning the non-need for Gentiles to be circumcised with the pillar apostles in Jerusalem, all his preaching would have been in vain. But when the three pillar apostles heard the whole story of what God was doing through Paul among the Gentiles, they "gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision" (Gal.2:9). (Ernest Martin is reading right passed verses in Galatians and Acts and Paul's other epistled that would demolish any such idea that Paul had to get "sanctioned" or the "okay" from the Jerusalem aposles about ANYTHING he taught. 14 years is a long time to be teaching and preaching the Gospel that Jesus Christ taught him personally [Gal.1:12] and still feel he had to get the approval of those at Jerusalem. Martin's case here is shredded to pieces by the context of the whole subject from all of the New Testament - Keith Hunt) This rank of authority was demonstrated by James at the Jerusalem conference. It was James who gave the final decision on what the Gentiles could and could not do (Acts 15:19). (No again, James gave his "judgment" after all had spoken, and it was the WHOLE church who approved the matter and what would be said to the Gentiles on the subject - Acts 15:19,22-28 - Keith Hunt) In matters of rank, Paul was well aware that he was the "least" of the apostles. Speaking of his later call to the apostleship, he said: "And last of all, he [Christ] was seen of me also, as one born out of due time. For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God" (I Cor.15:8,9). (There is a large difference in looking at yourself as to what you had done to the Church of God at one time - Paul persecuted the church very vigorously - and being humbled by it all, and calling yourself the "least" is one thing. On the other hand when it came to being taught directly by Christ Himself, preaching the Gospel, and teaching the very truths of God, Paul as we have seen in Galatians 1 and 2, did NOT back down in thinking and saying he was not one wit behind the chiefest apostle (as he said elsewhere) as to those who "seemed to be somewhat" as pillars in the church at Jerusalem - Keith Hunt) Throughout the Bible the principle of those in the greatest authority having supremacy over lesser ones is maintained. (No, NOT in the New Testament it is not - Martin has forgetton what Jesus said, to His disciples, about "authority" over each other, as recorded in the Gospels. Those that "would like to be" over others had to be the "servant" to the others. It is all fully expanded on in my studies on "Church Government" - it is obvious Martin did not study that subject deeply or fully - Keith Hunt) In the first portion of the Book of Acts, we find the name of Barnabas placed before that of Paul, but later (when Paul was given more administrative authority) the placement is reversed. Barnabas was a Christian prior to Paul and he was a Levite (Acts 4:36). This at first gave him a rank above Paul in the eyes of the Jews. This was finally changed (Acts 15:2) and only temporarily reversed when they were once again within a Jewish environment at Jerusalem (Acts 15:12). (All a bunch of trying to make a "technical" case for "word and name" placements in the NT. The simple truth of the matter is that their is NO "RANK" positions in the NT Church of God, there is FUNCTION and RESPECT, but no "rank" among God's NT servants - Keith Hunt) All of this shows why, in the New Testament canon, the General Epistles of the "pillar" apostles are placed first to accord with the Jewish positioning of superiority. Modern scholars have recognized this. Prof. Ernest F. Scott of Columbia University says: "In our English New Testament, the General Epistles are placed near the end of the volume, just before the Book of Revelation. The Greek manuscripts put them as a rule, immediately after the Gospels and Acts, and before the writings of Paul. This was no doubt in recognition of the fact that they bore the names of the Apostles who were directly associated with Jesus, and whose authority, therefore, might be considered superior to that of Paul. In keeping with this principle, the first place of all was accorded to the Epistle of James. Its author was assumed to be no other than James, the Lord's own brother" (The Literature of the New Testament, pp.209,210). (False assumptions by Martin and Scott. Paul never thought himself one wit behind any other apostle as far as the Gospel and truths of the Lord went. Paul said James and others at Jerusalem "seemed to be somewhat" "seemed to be pillars" but he actually could have cared less if they were whatever they were, or whatever they "seemed" to be. Paul was not impressed by any who "seemed" to be something. He knew the truth and had been preaching it for over a dozen years before going to Jerusalem. He RESPECTED others working in the Gospel, but he sure did not need their "approval" on anything. He had been taught directly by Christ - Gal.1:11,12. The "general epistles" are placed before those of Paul in the MSS, NOT because of any "rank" position over Paul that those apostles had, but BECAUSE they give simple overall Christian teaching that should naturally follow after the foundational stones of truth by the life of Jesus in the Gospels and the book of Acts - Keith Hunt) (6) The General Epistles must also precede Paul's because they give the proper approach to the understanding of Paul's doctrinal letters. (Ah .... NOW we are getting to the MAIN CORRECT reason, finally Martin has found it, the simple logical reason - Keith Hunt) It was Peter who told his readers that Paul's teachings were "hard to be understood" and that one should be careful in interpreting them (2 Pet.3:16). Now, where would a person expect to find such a warning? In our present order of biblical books, Peter's caution has been placed after one would have already studied Paul's fourteen epistles! What an odd place for such an admonition! Would it not be better to find Peter's statement in a section of Scripture which was intended, in the first place, to be an introduction to the doctrinal dissertations of Paul? That is where it is found if one leaves the books in the order sanctioned by the early manuscripts! There are even more reasons for placing the "Jewish" apostles before Paul. Doctrinal matters can be given a better understanding if the books are left in the proper order. For example, Paul said that Abraham was justified by faith (Rom.4:2) while James said by works (James 2:21). There is really no contradiction. If one will first read the practical application of faith as rendered by James, before the more philosophical aspect as encountered in Paul, the two concepts can be harmonized very well. For James, a faith expressed without works is no faith at all, even though a faith based solidly on works, that Paul spoke of, was equally not proper. Similarly, in trying to comprehend the full teaching of other doctrinal matters, if people would tackle Paul's epistles after having absorbed the introductory and basic instruction within the General Epistles, a much easier task would await them in comprehending the fulness of the Gospel. It seems odd that people would want to enter "College" (Paul's Epistles) without first mastering "High School" (the General Epistles). (Yes, I fully AGREE!! Wow, logical truth at last!! Keith Hunt) (7) The seventh reason why Paul's epistles belong after the seven General Epistles concerns the canonization of the New Testament itself. Since there had been a great deal of doubt among some first century people, especially Jewish Christians, regarding the validity of Paul's teaching and the inspiration of the letters he wrote, Peter thought it necessary to inform his readers that Paul's letters were indeed as inspired as the Old Testament (2 Pet.3:15,16). Since Peter knew it was the responsibility of himself and John to perform the actual canonization of the New Testament according to the command of Chirst (2 Pet.1:12-20), it was seen to be essential that they sanction the body of Paul's letters which had been selected to be included in that canon. Obviously, it would have been the normal thing to inform people that Paul's epistles were inspired before people would begin to study them! (Martin jumps to a conclusion of Peter and John being the formating engeneers of the canon of the NT. It could be possible, but as far as the NT itself goes and any recorded history, there is no proof that it was so. Yes, Peter was obviously inspired to state that Paul's writings were "Scripture" and no doubt before the end of the first century the books we have today in the NT were sanctioned by all apostles (John being the last and longest to live) as the Scriptures of the New Testament - Keith Hunt) Note that Peter (in his second epistle concerning canonization) referred to the inspiration of Paul's epistles at the last moment of his writing. This again indicates that the authority of Peter and of John superseded that of Paul. (No that authority idea belongs to Martin and is not proved by any writings of the New Testament - Keith Hunt) The apostle Paul was not only mentioned last by Peter, but his fourteen epistles were also placed in last position. And, indeed, they had to be. The teaching in them was of a highly sophisticated nature and represented the meat of the word of God. (I agree, Paul's letters are "meat" and need to come AFTER the general epistles - Keith Hunt) If the Christian Pentateuch (the Gospels and Acts) could be reckoned the basic "Elementary School" for Christian development, then the seven General Epistles would be the "High School," and the fourteen epistles of Paul would be the "College." And, to conclude the illustration, it would mean that the Book of Revelation, which occurs last of all in the manuscripts, would be the "Post-Graduate Studies." The Order of the General Epistles The principle of rank and subject matter is the reason that the epistle of James must precede that of Peter, and Peter those of John and Jude. Professor Scott, quoted above, shows this. "In keeping with this principle [of superior rank], the first place of all was accorded to the epistle of James." This is true enough. Even Paul recognized the rank of the pillar apostles in this fashion. "And when James, Cephas [Peter], and John, who seemed to be pillars..." (Gal.2:9). The order of mention is exactly in conformity to the principle of rank. It is no wonder that the General Epistles follow this exact order in the New Testament canon. This is a clear sign that the authority concept was being followed precisely. (Rank is not the issue at all. Rank of authority is not a part of the NT Church of God. Respect for all is. Function is the important issue. James lays a basic foundation of true salvation, Peter gives important Christian principles, John blows away the false teaching that was entering the Church of God, that the commandments of God were "done away" and Jude is one step behind John to encourage a striving for the original faith once delivered to the saints. The FUNCTION of the placement of the general epistles is the key and foundation to their order of reading. We have the original truth of the Gospel in the FOUR GOSPELS AND BOOK OF ACTS, then we have the simple back-up general epistles to drive home the basic truths and foundation of the Gospels and Acts. All easy to understand, especially for the NEW converts to Christianity - Keith Hunt) The Concluding Evidence There is a final point that should be mentioned which shows a major difference between the seven General Epistles and the fourteen of Paul, and it is significant enough to warrant the epistles of the "Jewish" apostles preceding those of Paul. Notice once again the authors of the seven General Epistles. James and Jude were legal brothers of Christ while John was his first cousin! This made each of them not only members of the Tribe of Judah, but they were of royal Davidic stock! As for Peter, he appears to have been of ordinary Jewish extraction, though with his name being Simon, it might indicate he was from the Tribe of Simeon. At any rate, Peter was clearly the top apostle who governed the Christian church. (Fancy foot-stepping by Martin. The Bible is not really concerned with physical blood. Sure God uses at times, brothers, and cousins, relatives, but then at other times He does not. To try and base things on the physical is like trying to run on sand, it is bound to throw you down, if you run fast enough for a long enough time - Keith Hunt) Only when James (the brother of Christ) became prominent after the church was established, do we find him in any inferior position. It could be said without fear of contradiction that the four men who wrote the General Epistles were the chief representatives of the Tribe of Judah (and the Davidic dynasty) within the Christian church. (No, once more, you look at what Paul said about his "Jewish" Pharisee qualifications and honors in Galatians, and such weak ideas as Martin here throws out, need to be discarded and forgotten about. They add little to the equation, they are fluffy ideas with no proof of anything, not when you are dealing with a God that can raise up stones to preach the Gospel if He dcesires, as Jesus once said - Keith Hunt) With the apostle Paul, it was different! Though he was a Jew by religion and upbringing, Paul was a descendant of the Tribe of Benjamin. This may appear at first to be an insignificant distinction but to first century Jews, among whom genealogical matters were of utmost importance (I Tim.1:4; Titus 3:9), it had a bearing on authority and prestige. The fact is, Benjamin was the last born of Jacob's twelve sons. There was no tribe in Israel on a lower rung of authority by reason of birth. Even in the list of the twelve tribes recorded in the Book of Revelation, Judah is placed first (Rev.7:5) and Benjamin last (verse 8). As a matter of fact, because of the wickedness of the tribe in the period of the Judges, the other eleven tribes were on the verge of killing every descendant of Benjamin (Judges 20 and 21). This was avoided at the last moment when the remaining 600 men of Benjamin were able to marry women of their brother tribe Manasseh. Some years later the first king of aunited Israel was Saul, a Benjaminite! The Bible shows, however, that this ascendancy of the least born tribe was not to last. Judah finally took its prophesied lead (Gen.49:8-12) and David was installed as the first legitimate king of Israel. (All more fancy ideas from Martin, that bear no proof of anything. It was God who chose Saul, if you read the whole context. Paul would have laughed at Martin trying to bolster up his case with such thoughts about tribes and names and events. Again, using such matters you can prove just about anything, if you "need" to try and prove a point, that really does not need to have such imaginations to help it - Keith Hunt) Benjamin, moreover, was not totally rejected in this rise to power of Judah. When the Temple was built by Solomon, it was placed inside the Tribe of Benjamin right on its southern border with Judah, on Mount Moriah in the city of Jerusalem! It was predicted that God would "dwell" between the shoulders of Benjamin (Deut.33:12). It was thought that by placing the Temple within the precincts of the least born tribe, the other eleven tribes would not be squabbling over who was the most powerful with God. This stratagem worked, up to a point. But when the northern ten tribes of Israel revolted from the rule of the Davidic dynasty after the death of Solomon, Benjamin remained firmly devoted to Judah. After all, Jerusalem and God's true Temple were in their territory! From then on, the fortunes of Benjamin were connected with those of Judah. There was even a special relationship established, in a religious sense, between Benjamin and Judah, and the Bible recognized it. Unlike their early wickedness, the tribe seems to have become (as a whole) the "righteous" anchor that Judah needed to prevent it from being swallowed up by the Assyrians when northern Israel was taken captive. Though the Tribe of Judah is quite often rebuked for their ways, the Tribe of Benjamin after the time of Solomon is always spoken of by the Chronicler and the prophets in mild and often laudatory terms. Indeed, the prophet Jeremiah (who was a priest from the area of Benjamin) offered the Benjaminites safety from the Babylonian holocaust that was coming upon Jerusalem in his day (Jer.6:1), and so certain was Jeremiah that Benjamin would find shelter once again in their own land that he bought some property in Benjamin and sealed the deed in ajar to be evidence for possession after the Babylonian Captivity (Jer.32:8-44). (All nice history per se to know, but has nothing to do with anything on the canon of the inspired Scriptures of the New Testament - Keith Hunt) The descendants of Benjamin became especially important to Judah after the Babylonian Captivity. When Haman the Agagite maneuvered to have the whole of the Jewish race murdered by the edicts of the Persian emperor, Queen Esther, the wife of the emperor, managed to prevent this from happening. Esther was a Benjaminitess (Esther 2:5,6) and her uncle Mordecai (the prime minister of Persia) were instrumental in saving the whole of the Jewish people from destruction. It was "Benjamin" interceding the Gentile ruler to save "Judah." This contact of Benjamin between Judah and the Gentiles was not to end with Esther and Mordecai. One of the most important Benjaminites of all time was the apostle Paul (Acts 13:21; Rom.11:1; Phil.3:5). Here was a member of the least born tribe of Israel playing a profound role as a mediator, once again, between Judah and the Gentile world. It was the Gentiles under Paul's supervision that sent the Jews of Palestine much material help in the time of famine (Acts 11:28-30; Rom.15:26). But more than that, the apostle Paul was responsible for preaching the Gospel of reconciliation between the Jews and all peoples of the Gentile world (Eph.2:11-22). Here was "Benjamin" coming to rescue Judah once again to make people in the world love and honor them, but it was also "Judah" coming to the rescue (through Christ) for the salvation of the whole world (2 Cor.5:18,19). And Paul was a mediator between the two groups. (Nice history, but when God can use "stones" to preach the Gospel if He desires, it bears nothing on anything to do with the canon of the Scriptures of the NT - Keith Hunt) It is ironic that the Bible records the least born of Israel giving the most spiritual teaching to those with more birthright authority. And though Judah possessed the kingship of David and the seat of Moses, and because of this they should be accorded first rank, yet it was the least ranked tribe (Benjamin) that provided the most spiritual truth to Judah and the world. It seems that this is the way the Bible says God works. It is interesting that Abraham (the father of the faithful) was the youngest son of Terah (compare Genesis 11:26 and 12:1 with Acts 7:4). Jacob was the youngest son of Isaac yet he got the blessing and the birthright. Ephraim was the youngest son of Joseph yet he obtained birthright status. Moses was younger than Aaron yet he assumed supreme power over Aaron (God's High Priest) and over all Israel. David was the youngest of Jesse's children yet he became heir to the grandest royal dynasty ever afforded mankind. And it doesn't stop there! The first Gentile to receive the Gospel of Christ was an Ethiopian black man (far removed from the race of Israel) and a eunuch to boot - both conditions would render the man unable to enter the Temple of God. And the first uncircumcised Gentile to receive the Gospel was Cornelius, a Roman centurion of the hated occupation forces within Palestine. From this, it seems as though the least born or those most unfavored to receive customary honors and prestige are the very ones who are picked to bring the most spiritual blessings to the world. Christ taught that "many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first" (Matt.19:30). (Hummmm .... it just shows that God can do anything with anyone, at any time, as He sees fit. Not all that God uses are the lowest and poorest and last as such. Job was far from being all of those things. Yes, God had to take it away from him, bring him low for a while, but he was on TOP of everything from the beginning it would seem from what is written of him. Abraham had a nice physical life with much physical "stuff" when God called him to go where He wanted him to go. He left with "substance" and "servants" [Gen.12:1-5]. So Martin's argument is weak to say the least - Keith Hunt) This is the way it was with the apostle Paul! Though he was in an inferior position from all the social and religious ranks within Judah which had to do with birth, he was the one whom God graced with fourteen epistles in the New Testament. This makes Paul the most prolific writer of books in the Bible, and yet he was least born in rank! (Only if you view Martin's "birth rank" ideas with 100% proof, which cannot be done or is foolish to try and do as proving anything - Keith Hunt) Of course, this does not mean that we should exalt Paul's epistles to first position ahead of the kinsmen of Christ (who were of Judah and of royal Davidic ancestry and the ones taught by Christ himself), but it does mean the Bible can honor any person to a high position of esteem no matter if he or she is on the lowest pedestal of social, religious or political rank. As for Paul, his own estimation of his position of rank is well recorded: "And last of all he was seen of me also, as one born out of due time (without any birthright status]. For I am the least of the apostles, that am not fit 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 on me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me" (I Cor.15:8-10). Though Paul was the least of all New Testament leaders, his abundant labor gained him the right to have his name indelibly stamped on most books within the Biblical canon. (He was only "least" in that he, Paul, had persecuted the church, which no other apostle had done. He was humbled by it, but as for what God could and did do through him, Paul said he was not one wit behind the chiefest apostle. It depends on the CONTEXT when you read what Paul said about himself. In another context he had to compare himself [for the sake of his readers] to the "false apostles" they were smooching up to, and then he waxed strong in his birth, religious up-bringing, and other human talents he had. When it came to "leading" the Church and working in the Gospel, Paul did not take a back seat to anyone, including Peter, whom Paul publicly corrected at one time. See the book of Galatians once more. Martin has made some serious errors in this chapter over a matter that is not very difficult to understand. The general epistles should come before the epistles of Paul, but for ONLY ONE reason, they are foundational and easy truths to get you on the solid rock of salvation, before trying to fully understand all that the apostle Paul wrote about - Keith Hunt) In conclusion It should be recognized that the seven General Epistles truly belong in first rank position right after the New Testament Pentateuch (and ahead of Paul), but God has a way of making the "last" to be "first" - first in spiritual values. It was Paul's devotion and his abundance of work for the cause of the Gospel that allowed him to have first honor in the amount of books in the Bible (2 Cor.11:18-28). In spite of this fact, the world has no authority to reposition Paul's epistles in advance of the General Epistles. ................. To be continued NOTE: Once more let me repeat the basic truth. Put aside all the fancy ideas and thoughts and postulations of Ernest Martin. He has come to see, and so should you, that it is common logic to have the GENERAL epistles come before the epistles of Paul, as they are part of the foundational first principles of the Gospel and Salvation. The teachings of the Gospels and Acts and the General epistles, are the "grade school" basic fundamentals of correct Christianity. You then add to your faith the meat of the epistles of Paul and finally the book of Revelation - Keith Hunt Canonization of the New Testament #7 The Epistles of Paul - their Order! by the late Ernest Martin PhD (published in 1984) The EPISTLES of PAUL The proper manuscript order has the fourteen epistles of Paul following the seven General Epistles. There is, however, a major variation that differs from the present arrangement of the King James' Version (and maintained by virtually every other version since the invention of the printing press). Modern editions have placed the Book of Hebrews at the very end of the Pauline collection of books. This is what some church officials of the Western Church (Carthage and Rome) did in the late fourth century contrary to the best manuscripts and the opinions of most officials in the Eastern Church. The proper positioning of the Book of Hebrews is right after Second Thessalonians - just before First Timothy. Nearly all the best manuscript evidence supports this. Scrivener writes: "In the Pauline epistles, that to the Hebrews immediately follows the second to the Thessalonians in the four great codices Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Ephraemi" (Introduction, Vol.l,p.74). In the margin of his work, Prof. Scrivener lists some of the many manuscripts which position the Book of Hebrews in this fashion. The evidence for this arrangement is so strong that one wonders why Hebrews was moved out of its manuscript order and placed at the back of Paul's works? The reason is not difficult to discover. Scrivener mentions a major purpose why the Western Church relegated Hebrews to last position. It was - "an arrangement which at first, no doubt, originated in the early scruples prevailing in the Western Church, with respect to the authorship and canonical authority of that divine epistle." The Latin section of the church found it difficult to believe that the epistle was even from the pen of Paul and because of this many refused to accept it as belonging in the New Testament. Most easterners had no major reservations about the book. Jerome, the great, western scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate version (a translation from the Hebrew and Greek into the Latin language), shows the differences of opinions among the Eastern and Western sections of the church regarding the Book of Hebrews. In his letter to Dardanus, Jerome wrote: "To our own people [Christians], we must say that this Epistle, which is inscribed 'To the Hebrews,' is received as the Apostle Paul's, not only in the churches of the East, but by all the ecclesiastical writers of former times. But the Latins do not receive it among the canonical scriptures" (Whytehead, "A Handbook to the Canon and Inspiration to the Scriptures," p.131). There was a belief that Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, had no reason to be writing to the Jews. This, of course, is not a proper evaluation. When the apostle Paul was commissioned by Christ on the road to Damascus, he was told to preach to Israelites as well as Gentiles (Acts 9:15), and throughout the history of Paul's ministry he always went to the Jews first. Indeed, he understood that it was absolutely essential to do this. Paul said: "It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you [the Jews]" (Acts 13:46). Paul's motto was: "The Jew first, and also the Greek (Gentile)" (Rom.1:9,10). There was every reason for Paul, the finest Christian intellect of the time who was thoroughly trained in Jewish law and customs (Acts 22:3), to have written a treatise to Jewish people (or those with strong Judaistic tendencies) about the typical nature of the Temple services ordained by Moses. The New Testament canon would have suffered from a prime deficiency had not such a work been included! And the Book of Hebrews fits this to a tee! Most Christians of the East simply accepted it as Paul's (or written by a secretary of Paul). It certainly had "Pauline" characteristics associated with it, especially since the majority of manuscripts placed it in the interior of Paul's collection of canonical letters. And another point. If Hebrews is not Paul's, then there are 13 epistles of Paul, whereas 14 (2 times 7) has a canonical symmetry to it, 7 (or its multiples) being the symbolic number of completion and finality. Prof. Bacon comments: "The anonymous epistle anciently superscribed 'To the Hebrews,' was connected in the East with the letters of Paul. Even in the West, where the statements of all the Fathers down to the fourth century are opposed to Pauline authorship, its position in the Canon, when admitted, was next to those of Paul" (Introduction to the New Testament, p.140). Moffatt, the translator of the Bible, said, regarding the manuscript location of Hebrews: "The position of Hebrews within the Pauline body of letters is usually between the ecclesiastical and private epistles (Eastern Church) or after the latter (Western Church)" (Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, p.17). The ecclesiastical letters to which Moffatt had reference are: Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Thessalonians. The Easterners and the best manuscripts placed the Book of Hebrews immediately after his letters to those seven churches, and just before Paul's pastoral epistles: those to Timothy, Titus and Philemon! The Design of Paul's Epistles The fourteen epistles of Paul are arranged into three parts in the New Testament canon. The First Section consists of nine epistles to seven church congregations: (1) Romans, (2) Corinthians, (3) Galatians, (4) Ephesians, (5) Philippians, (6) Colossians, (7) Thessalonians. The Second Section is composed of one general letter, the Book of Hebrews. The Third Section is called in modern circles the Pastoral Epistles, the private letters to individual pastors: Timothy, Titus and Philemon. Look at the first section, which, from ancient times, has been technically named "Paul's Letters to Seven Churches." In the Muratorian Canon (written about A.D.180), there is a general reference to this first section: "The apostle Paul himself, following the example of John [in the Book of Revelation], wrote by name to Seven Churches. True, he wrote twice to the Corinthians and Thessalonians for their correction, but he shows thereby the unity of the Church; for John also in Revelation, though he writes to seven churches only, yet speaks to all" (cf. Bacon, p.52). Victorinus, who wrote about A.D.290, also gave an interesting comment about Paul's seven churches. After observing that God rested from all his labors on the seventh day, Victorinus continued to mention the symbolic use of the number seven in Biblical matters. In the course of his discussion, he stated: "That in the whole world there are Seven Churches; and that those churches called seven are one general church as Paul has taught; and that he might keep to it, he did not exceed the number of Seven Churches, but wrote to the Romans, to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians. Afterwards, he wrote to particular persons, that he might not exceed the measure of Seven Churches: and contracting his doctrine into a little compass, he says to Timothy: 'That thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the Church of the living God' " (Lardner, Credibility, vol.III,p.177). Cyprian of Carthage (c. A.D.250) also recognized the symbolic teaching behind the fact that Paul wrote only to Seven Churches. In the first book of his Testimonies, having quoted the words of Hannah "the barren has born seven, and she that has many sons is waxed feeble," he continued by saying, "the seven sons represent Seven Churches; for which reason Paul wrote to Seven Churches; and the Revelation has Seven Churches, that the number seven may be preserved" (Lardner, vol.III.p.41). In another book, after having mentioned the seven golden lampstands in the Book of Revelation and the seven pillars in Solomon's Proverbs upon which Wisdom built her home, Cyprian added: "And the Apostle Paul, who was mindful of this authorized and well-known number, writes to Seven Churches; and in the Revelation our Lord sends his divine and heavenly instructions and commands to Seven Churches and their angels" (ibid.). Many other ancients took note of the significant number of churches to which Paul wrote. Among them were Jerome (about A.D.400) (Horne, Introduction, vol.I,p.75) and Isidore of Seville (near A.D.600) (Lardner, vo1.V,p.137). More recently, Dr. E.W.Bullinger made some pertinent remarks showing the symbolic reasons why Paul wrote to Seven Churches (The Church Epistles, p.85). "Seven Churches [by Paul] were addressed as such by the Holy Spirit. Seven being the number of spiritual and final perfection. Is it not remarkable that the Holy Spirit addressed Seven Churches and no more: exactly the same number as the Lord himself addressed later from glory [in the Book of Revelation]?" This is a proper evaluation! In Paul's epistles to his Seven Churches there is to be found the main New Testament teaching concerning doctrinal matters to be taught in the Christian church. This is why the subjects of repentance, faith, baptisms, the Holy Spirit, etc. are discussed at length in the letters to these Seven Churches. It can be no accident that the number was seven, and no more! The number, as the ancients mentioned, was also followed by the apostle John when he wrote the Book of Revelation. Frank W. Beare, Professor of New Testament Studies at Trinity College, Toronto, goes so far as to say that John in Revelation followed the example of Paul. "The device of introducing an apocalypse by a sequence of letters to seven churches but issued together under cover of a general letter ... can only be explained as indicating that the author [of Revelation] had before him a corpus of Pauline letters similarly constructed" ("Canon of the New Testament," The Interpreter's Bible„ vo1.I,p.522). This appraisal makes perfectly good sense. The number seven was universally acknowledged in the Biblical world as signifying completion and perfection, and with many features of the Old and New Testaments being typically dominated by this number, it would have been odd for Paul not to have used it in some capacity. There was a definite reason why the General Epistles were seven in number; why Paul's came to fourteen in number (but written to Seven Churches); and why the Old and New Testaments together amount to seven divisions with 49 (7 times 7) books in the original enumeration. The Order of Paul's Epistles It is well recognized by scholars that Paul's letters are not arranged in any chronological order. "It is notorious that the order of epistles in the book of the New Testament is not their real, or chronological order" (Davies, "Paul," Dictionary of the Bible„ p.744). Indeed, the earliest book was no doubt Galatians but it appears in third position after his epistles to the Romans and Corinthians which were written some 5 or 6 years afterwards. The seventh church of Paul was represented by the Thessalonians, but those two epistles were composed about 14 years before Ephesians and Colossians which were positioned before Thessalonians. This shows that they could not have been arranged with any chronological factors in mind. Some have thought they were placed to indicate the authority of the various churches since the Book of Romans appears first in the Pauline corpus of books. But there are problems with this theory. While it would be easy to infer that the first two areas of Rome and Corinth might fit this reason, it is not quite the same with the next epistle, that to the Galatians (unless it could be maintained that it appears next because Paul was writing to a number of cities, and not just one). Ephesians however is a definite difficulty. It wouldn't be a problem if it could be shown that the epistle was indeed written to the church at Ephesus. But Biblical (and other) evidence makes it almost certain that another city was in Paul's mind, and the one with the best credentials is Laodicea. In no way could that city have any preeminence over Philippi (a colony city) or Thessalonica which was the most populous city in Macedonia and the most significant in the province (which included Philippi). But Thessalonica is in seventh position (after Philippi) though it was the provincial capital and a free city which gave it a high independent rank among Roman cities. It is a lame theory that Paul's Seven Churches were arranged according to a "rank-of-the-cities" order. The real reason for Paul's allocation of the letters to his Seven Churches is based on the principle of progressive teaching. In any book for teaching a subject, one starts with the simple and general instruction first and then proceeds in a step-by-step manner until the advanced and sophisticated teachings are reached. As stated in the last chapter, the five books of the Christian Pentateuch give the "Elementary School" of divine instruction, the seven General Epistles proceed to "High School," and the Epistles of Paul present the "College." But even here, Paul starts out with the "Freshman Year" first, the "Sophomore" second, etc. All books of instruction even in our modern world arrange their material in this fashion. It would be absurd to do otherwise. How could one perceive how to perform calculus without first knowing simple arithmetic, then algebra, etc.? And so it is with the various divisions and books of the New Testament. The elementary teachings are given first and the more advanced come later. This is the manner in which the epistles of Paul are arranged. Early Christians were quite aware that this was the reason for the disposition of the New Testament books. Euthalius (c.A.D.450) mentioned Paul's epistles in the proper manuscript order and then proceeded to explain why they were positioned that way. He said the order was according to the Christian growth that the readers had to whom they were sent, beginning with the least mature and proceeding to the more advanced. To Euthalius, in his comments from the epistle to the Ephesians, he said this was evident from several points. For one, the epistle to the Romans was placed first because it contained instructions for those who had just learned the first principles of the Gospel. But after Ephesians came Philippians. That epistle was written to the faithful who had made progress and had brought forth much fruit. And at the end of his enumeration of Paul's fourteen epistles, Euthalius expressly said that they were arranged according to the maturity of the readers (Lardner, vo1.V.p.71). This same opinion was stated by another Church Father, Theodoret. "The Epistle to the Romans has been placed first, as containing the most full and exact representation of Christian doctrine in all its branches" (ibid.). It comprised the ABC's of Christian doctrinal discussion, especially to show the basic teachings of repentance, faith, etc. The Book of Hebrews Illustrates the First Principles The best appraisal showing why the books of the New Testament canon are arranged the way they are comes from the apostles themselves. Since they wrote the books, they ought to be better equipped to explain why they placed them in the order they did. The Book of Hebrews contains information on what the apostles considered were the step-by-step doctrinal subjects for Christian growth and understanding. They are found in Hebrews 6:1,2. Paul gave seven steps that lead to a full maturity in the knowledge of Christ. He called them the principles of the doctrines of Christ. They are: (1) repentance from dead works, (2) faith toward God, (3) the doctrine of baptisms, (4) the laying on of hands for the reception of the Holy Spirit and its gifts, (5) the resurrection of the dead, (6) the judgment of the future, and then (7) perfection! Paul began his discourse in the Book of Hebrews on these steps by mentioning perfection first, and then he gave the six progressive factors which would lead a Christian to the attainment of that seventh and final phase. Remarkably, this is the exact order of doctrinal teaching which people must master and perform in order to be mature Christians in Christ (at least, this was the method utilized in the early history of the church). People were first required to repent, then express faith, be baptized, obtain the Holy Spirit. This made it possible for them to share in the resurrection at Christ's return, be able to receive their rewards in judgment, and finally reach a perfection in Christ! The apostle Paul called those seven doctrines the first principles of the Christian faith. The Book of Romans and the First Principles The teaching of those seven doctrinal principles as found in Hebrews 6:1,2 are progressively followed in Paul's writings and in the order of his epistles. Notice Paul's instructions in the Book of Romans. In the first two chapters Paul talked of turning from sin. He was instructing people to repent of their ways, and he concluded his first doctrinal discourse by saying: "The goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance" (Rom.2:4). The next three chapters (3,4 and 5) concern the doctrine of faith just as the Book of Hebrews mentioned the second principle as also being faith. Paul summed up this doctrinal teaching in Romans with his classic statement: "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: by whom also we have access by faith unto His grace wherein we stand" (Rom.5:1,2). The third principle of the Christian doctrines in Hebrews was baptism. In Romans chapter 6 Paul follows his subject of faith with a discussion on baptism. "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death" (Rom.6:3). Paul was being guided by the step-by-step principles which he later wrote in the Book of Hebrews. The next topic in Hebrews was the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit. And, true to form, chapters 7 and 8 of Romans follow the progressive pattern with Paul's discussion on the need and the work of the Holy Spirit. "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.... But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you" (Rom.8:9,10). The fifth and sixth principles mentioned in the Book of Hebrews were the resurrection and the judgment. And chapters 9, 10 and 11 of Romans give a discussion on how God will bless all Israel and the Gentiles with a resurrection and a righteous judgment. [The Biblical judgment is not always a punishment for sin. It can mean, and often does, a judgment to receive righteous rewards. See Psalm 98.] The seventh principle in the Book of Hebrews was perfection. And the doctrinal portion of Romans ends with Paul's teachings that a full redemption will come to all Israel and mankind. Man will become just like God in perfection. "For of Him, and through Him, and to Him are all things: to whom be glory forever" (Rom.11:36). The Book of Romans, then, provides the Christian with an introduction to the essential doctrines of Christianity! And Paul gave them in the perfect order of the first principles that he recorded in Hebrews 6:1,2. First Corinthians The same formula of progressive doctrinal teaching is found in First Corinthians. While the first three principles of Christian doctrines (repentance, faith and baptism) were discussed more extensively in the Book of Romans in a technical sense, the practical side of those subjects is found in the first eleven chapters of First Corinthians. But more sophisticated matters dealing with the Holy Spirit and the resurrection are more fully discussed in First Corinthians. Three chapters (12 to 14) are devoted to the gifts and operations of the Holy Spirit, and a whole chapter (15) is given to the subject of the resurrection from the dead. That First Corinthians is also a basic doctrinal book (like Romans) illustrating the "first principles," is made clear by Paul himself. He told those in Corinth because of their newness in Christ that they were only able to receive the "milk of the word." "And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not meat: for hitherto you were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able" (I Cor.3:1,2). The above assessment of Paul shows that he, himself, considered his teachings to the Corinthians to be for spiritual infants. While the Book of Romans was written to people he had never met before (and those who needed the ABC's of his essential doctrinal teachings), the Corinthians received more personal attention (and correction) yet his instructions to them were still intended for children in the faith. The Corinthians received teachings which were slightly more advanced than those to the Romans. Recall that he had never met the Romans face to face when he wrote them (Rom.1:11; 15:16,20), but he had already spent some 18 months among the Corinthians before he composed his two letters to them (Acts 18:11). In spite of that length of time in personally ministering to them, they still needed the firrstfruit teachings of Christ. He appealed to them not to be children any longer (I Cor.14:20), but they still were. In his second epistle, written just a few months later, he was still reminding them: "I speak unto you as children" (2 Cor.6:13). The next book of Paul in the canonical order is that to the Galatians. The Galatian churches had been graced with much more personal teachings of Paul (than those in Rome or Corinth) when he wrote them - perhaps as much as four or five years! But they had become so far removed from the true Christian faith that Paul reprimanded them for returning to the "schoolmaster" (the Law of Moses) (Gal.3:24); they had reverted to being a child once again (Ga1.4:1-6). Notice the progression of teaching within the epistles of these first three churches of Paul. He had never seen the Romans and presented them with the ABC's of Christian doctrines. The Corinthians had learned a little more having had Paul in their midst for 18 months, and the Galatians had been given even more teaching with four or five years of instruction - but all three churches were still children in the faith! Hardly any of them was spiritually mature. But it became a far different story with the next three churches. Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians When one reaches these three epistles in the canonical order of the New Testament books the childhood phase of Christian teaching has finished. The people receiving these teachings were those who progressed into a mature stage of Christian development. In those epistles the apostle Paul no longer instructed them in the basic principles. Nowhere does he discuss in detail anything about repentance, faith, baptisms, the Holy Spirit, the resurrection or judgment. His main interest now is perfection. In the highest sense Paul tells these readers that they are now "joint heirs, joint bodied, and joint partakers of Christ in glory." The mature phase had arrived for those who had advanced to the "Ephesian message" and such people were expected to act like children no more! Paul stated that God's spiritual gifts had been given "for the perfecting [maturing] of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect [mature] man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: that we henceforth be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine" (Eph.4:12-14). The doctrines being discussed in these later epistles represent the fulness of the Gospel of Christ. Paul even said that such teachings were the full Gospel message. "Wherefore I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given me to fulfill [that is, to fill to the top] the word of God; even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now [with the writing of Colossians] is made manifest to his saints" (Col.l:25,26). The three epistles of Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians provide mature teachings. If people satisfactorily reach the capabilities of mastering the information in these epistles, then they have gone beyond the "milk stage" and into the "meat." Romans, Corinthians and Galatians could be reckoned the "Freshman and Sophomore" stage of "College," while Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians are the "Junior and Senior" phase. The Epistles to the Thessalonians The Seven Churches of the apostle Paul end with the two to the Thessalonians. As the number seven symbolically means completion and finality, so there were two books of instruction written to this seventh church which deal, primarily, with end-time events. In both, the theme is the coming of the Man of Sin (also called the Wicked One or the Son of Perdition), the Second Advent of Christ, and the resurrection from the dead for the righteous saints. In a word, the seventh church speaks of the conclusion of the age! And what a fitting place to discuss such issues! If Christians would progress in their development through the milk (or children) phase of their spiritual growth (shown in the First, Second and Third churches) and then succeed in their advancement through their meat (or mature) phase (shown in the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth churches), then they would be expected to obtain their rewards which are described in the two epistles to the Seventh Church. The reason the epistles to the Thessalonians are positioned in seventh place (though they are two of the earliest epistles written) is that no one can procure the rewards of the first resurrection associated with Christ's return unless the person has mastered the teachings recorded in the previous six churches! It is interesting that the Mosaic holyday which typified the arrival of the Kingdom of God on earth and the resurrection from the dead, was the Day of Trumpets. This was a festival which ushered in the seventh Hebrew month in which the final Mosaic holydays occurred. There were seven such holydays, and the last four were ordained to happen in the seventh month (Lev.23). The Day of Trumpets which commenced this final, seventh month of the festival year was introduced by the blowing of trumpets, hence the name "The Day of Trumpets." Indeed, each month was proclaimed with the blowing of a trumpet (Num.10:10). Since the Mosaic festival year was seven months long, the blowing of the trumpet at the beginning of the seventh month was, in calendar and prophetic significance, "the last trump." And when the seventh trumpet sounds in the Book of Revelation, the kingdoms of this world become the Kingdoms of Christ and He then begins to reign (Rev.11:15). And what do we find in Paul's teaching to his seventh church (Thessalonians)? We find that its central theme concerns this end-time event. "For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first" (I Thess.4:16). There could be no better position to place the two epistles which focus on the time of Christ's advent than in the seventh station of Paul's letters to the churches. And in the manuscripts this is precisely where they are found! It was no happenchance affair that this was the case! The Book of Hebrews In the proper manuscript order of the New Testament books, Hebrews comes immediately on the heels of the Seventh Church! This treatise gives very advanced teaching! In fact, Paul made the explicit statement in Hebrews 6:1-3 that he would not speak of the first principles in the Book of Hebrews. He devoted the entire book to mature doctrinal matters on the typical meanings behind the Temple services. It was essential for such subjects to be covered, and who better to do it than the apostle Paul (who was trained at the feet of the great rabbi Gamaliel)? Though the Book of Hebrews, by Paul's own definition, is very mature instruction, why does it follow the Seventh Church (Thessalonians)? Why couldn't it, after all, be allotted its modern position at the very end of Paul's epistles? An analysis of the contents can show why it should be retained in its proper order as found in the early manuscripts. Let us look at the matter closely. It is important to note that the first two chapters are devoted to showing the superiority of Christ over all angels. This was important for Paul to demonstrate because it was well recognized in the first century by the Jewish authorities that the Mosaic law had been given to Israel through the agency of angels - and Paul mentions this fact in Hebrews 2:2. Indeed, this present age (until the second advent of Christ) was reckoned as being in the charge of angels, both good and bad (Dan.10:13-21; Matt.4:8-10). But Paul, in the Book of Hebrews, was not going to discuss the kingdoms of this world during the time angels are in a limited control. He was going to give some advanced spiritual teaching about the role of the Temple, the priesthood, the festivals, and the ceremonies in the future millennial Kingdom of God once Christ Jesus would be back on earth. Paul, then, introduces the reason for writing the Book of Hebrews in chapter 2, verse 5. "For it is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, ABOUT WHICH WE ARE SPEAKING." This is the real title to the book! Paul's theme of which he was speaking was the world to come - the "Sabbath-rest to the people of God" (4:9). Paul's subject was about the "Millennial rest," and the whole section from 3:7 to 4:12 is about that "rest." Paul shows the meaning of the Day of Atonement rituals which are symbolic introductions to a Millennium theme. Chapter 8 concerns the marriage of the Lamb after Christ's return. In 9:11 and 10:1 he states that Christ is the High Priest "of good things to come." And there is the eleventh chapter. This is about the promises which will finally (at the "better resurrection") be given to the Old Testament saints. He mentions that the New Jerusalem will be a reality during this future time (11:16). Thus, the whole Book of Hebrews is symbolic teaching about rewards to the millennial saints after Christ returns. This is why the book must be positioned after Paul's two epistles to the Seventh Church (Thessalonians) which speak about the events associated with Christ's second advent. And this is exactly where the best manuscripts position Hebrews! That is where it should remain. The apostle Peter may have referred to this epistle of Paul in his last letter (2 Pet.3:15,16). He mentioned that the people of Asia Minor had received a technical letter from Paul. Peter said the writing of Paul concerned matters relating to the time of the end and the Day of the Lord (as Peter himself was discussing in his third chapter). It could well be that it was the Book of Hebrews that Peter had in mind. Recall that Paul had been commissioned to preach to Israelites as well as Gentiles (Acts 9:15) and this treatise about the real meaning behind the Temple services (both those of the past and that one to occur in the future) is probably the book Peter was referring to. From all this, there is a logic to the manuscript order in which we find the Book of Hebrews. Its major subjects pertain to the fulfillment of the promises which Christ said he would perform once he returns to earth as depicted in Paul's Seventh Church! The Pastoral Epistles of Paul The remainder of Paul's letters were personal communications which he wrote to ministers of churches. The four epistles of Timothy, Titus and Philemon contain matters on church government and discipline. They were written from one professional minister to other ministers! It should be self-evident that instructions intended solely for practicing ministers would concern very mature matters. This is why they appear in last position among Paul's writings. These were letters to those who had already gone through "College" and had "graduated from a Theological Seminary"! Within their contexts there is not a shred of instruction on what the first principles of Christian doctrine represent. The reason for this is because those doctrinal principles had adequately been covered in the previous books positioned in the canonical order of Paul's writings. On the other hand, the Pastoral Epistles have information on how to maintain a proper government, a pure doctrine, and a correct discipline in established church congregations! It would have been daft indeed to position such books at the beginning of (or distribute them among) the former epistles of Paul. This is why they must be left in their position (following the Book of Hebrews) as shown in the early manuscripts. But there is more! Why do we find the four Pastoral Epistles in the order that we do? There can be little question here. Just as James, Peter, John and Jude were positioned in their order of rank within the seven General Epistles, so it is with these three men. Timothy had the superior distinction (and given two epistles) because he was the minister in charge of the churches under Paul in Western Asia Minor. Titus was in the lesser responsibility of managing the churches in the island of Crete, a smaller and less significant area. As to Philemon, we are not told in what region he ministered (or even if he was a fullfledged minister), though it seems that he was a resident of the eastern part of the province of Asia. Surely, the greater responibility of Timothy gave him first position, and it must be the same of Titus over Philemon. We might even recognize a degree of prominence among these three men by the length of Paul's letters to them. Timothy was given two epistles in ten chapters. Titus one epistle in three chapters. And Philemon received only a very short letter from Paul. On this point, the scholar Lardner, who spent considerable time surveying the literature of early Christian writers in the first centuries of Christianity, came to this conclusion: "Among these epistles to particular persons those to Timothy have the precedence, as he was the favorite disciple of Paul, and those epistles are the largest and the fullest. The epistle to Titus comes next, as he was an evangelist. And that to Philemon is last, as he was supposed by many to be only a private Christian. Undoubtedly Titus was a person of greater eminence, and in a higher station than Philemon. Moreover, by many, the design of that epistle was thought to be of no importance" (Credibility, vol.VI,pp.338,339). There may even be a nationality order maintained in the four Pastoral Epistles. Paul always held to the concept that the Gospel should go to the Jew first, and then to the Gentiles. It is well known that Timothy was half Jewish (Acts 16:1), which rendered him a "full Jew" in the eyes of the Jewish people because his mother was Jewish! We know that Titus was a Greek (Gal.2:3) and since Philemon follows him, this no doubt indicates he was also a Gentile. From the foregoing discussion, we have seen some clear internal evidence from Paul's epistles why the early manuscript order of his books must be retained in all versions of the New Testament. The theological and social teachings found in the New Testament which dominated the pyschological thinking patterns of the apostles demand that the manuscript arrangement of the books be maintained. And though we later find a few manuscripts which show some differences of arrangement, these can be recognized as exceptions to the rule. And indeed, these exceptions (which can normally be explained as sectarian variations) help to prove the rule rather than the establishment of another. Thus, even the Sinaiticus manuscript which places Paul's letters between the Gospels and Acts (an oddity if there ever was one) would not encourage anyone to believe that its order of books should be preferred over the vast majority of other manuscripts. (I guess not as the Sinaiticus MSS was found by Tristendorf in a Roman Catholic monestary in the GARBAGE basket, to be thrown out as rubbish - even the Catholic monks thought it to be rubbish - Keith Hunt) There are other variations in a few isolated manuscripts. The order of the Gospels or that of the General Epistles are on rare occasions different from the normal manuscripts, and the Book of Hebrews has been rarely found next to Galatians (no doubt because Hebrews was thought in some circles to have been written to the people in the Galatian area). Again, these are clear exceptions to the rule and could never be seriously considered as having apostolic approbation. The prime difference in the arrangement of the Biblical books (which has dominated all modern versions of the Bible) is that which Jerome established in the fifth century when he produced his Latin Vulgate version. The influence of Jerome (the theological dispositions and opinions of one man) has been the main reason that all modern versions of the Bible have been so topsy-turvey in their order of books. But Prof.Gregory (the great textual scholar) has made it clear that the Greek manuscript order should be retained in all Bibles. It "is the order to which we should hold" (CTNT p.469). .................... To be continued NOTE: The order that Martin says Paul's 14 letters should be in, makes good logical correctness from the point he makes about the one, two, three, of Christian learning from Grade school basic theology, to High school theology, as Paul went through the first stage of REPENTANCE and FAITH to the FINAL eternity in the Kingdom of God at the second advent of Christ. Then for the mature Christian leader we have at the end the letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. So far we have seen the Gospels and Acts should be first read by the NEW Christian, then James, Peter, and the letters of John. after that the Epistles of Paul in the order Ernest Martin writes about, with the letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, coming last. The book of Revelation will be discussed in another chapter to follow. Keith Hunt Canonization of Paul's Epistles Paul's request to Timothy by the late Ernest Martin PhD The Canonization of PAUL'S EPISTLES There was a common goal which dominated the last few months of the lives of Peter, John and Paul. If one will read their final works, when each was well aware that his death was on the immediate horizon, it can be seen what their desires were. It was most essential that a canon of divine New Testament Scriptures be created which would last the world as a standard for Christian teaching until the Second Advent of Christ. The apostles came to realize that Christ was not returning in their generation, and that a day in prophetic interpretation was a thousand years (2 Pet.3:3-13). (Ya, but the verse also says a thousnads years as a day, which a lot of people neglect to say or read - Keith Hunt) This meant that many hundreds of years remained in human history before the symbolic "Sabbath" called the Millennium (Heb.4:11) could arrive. (There was no way the apostles could have known that hundreds of years, even a few thousand, would go by till Jesus returned - Keith Hunt) And with the great apostasies mentioned by Peter and John in full swing (2 Peter 2 and I John 2:18,19; 4:1); with vast numbers having rejected Paul (2 Tim.1:15); and with ministers abandoning the authority of John (3 John 9,10), and especially with future prospects for retaining the purity of the Christian Gospel being more ominous (2 Tim.3:1-7; 4:2-4; 2 Pet.3:3), the apostles had to take matters in hand to preserve the truths of Christianity! They would have been remiss in their duties had they simply died and left the world without a standard of righteousness to rely on. This is why Peter came to the conclusion that he and John must leave the Christian church with writings inspired by the Holy Spirit to last them "until the day dawn" (2 Pet. 1:19). Thus, the two prime apostles, who were eye-itnesses to the Transfiguration of Christ and who heard the very voice of the Father Himself, set about their task. In doing so, Peter mentioned that not only did he and John possess the word of prophecy in a more confirmed way than others (2 Pet. 1:19), but that Paul's epistles (the ones being left with the church) were also as inspired as the Old Testament Scriptures (2 Pet.3:15,16). Since it is clear that the apostles Peter and John reckoned Paul's epistles as being a part of the sacred writings, we need to ask ourselves if Paul felt the same way about his written documents? Did he see a need to collect some of his own writings to be part of the New Testament canon? Was it he who decided to select fourteen of his letters for this purpose, and did he edit them for inclusion in the canon? These are interesting questions, and surprisingly, we can go a long way in satisfactorily answering them! The truth is, Paul was quite aware of his role in helping Peter and John to canonize the New Testament and just before his death his main activity was to accomplish this task! Let us look at the evidence. (Certainly, with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, these apostles would have been able to know that a New Testament canon was desireable for future Christians - Keith Hunt) Paul had long realized that the words that he was writing to the people had the approbation of God and that they often represented the very commandments of God. "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of God" (I Cor.14:37). Even more than that, Paul proclaimed to the Colossians that he had been commissioned by Christ to fulfill (or to bring to the top, to the very brim) the teachings of God. He knew he had the job of helping to complete the word of God for mankind! "Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to complete the word of God; even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints" (Col.1: 25,26). It is interesting that this reference of Paul about completing the word of God appears in the text to the Sixth Church within the Pauline body of Scriptures. The next book in the canonical collection was the Seventh Church (Thessalonians) which had as its message the main New Testament teaching about end-time events. In other words, in Paul's last doctrinal discourse to the Christian church he said the Word of God was now complete and that the next event to occur in the history of the church would be that mentioned in his message to the Seventh Church - Christ's return and the resurrection from the dead! With Paul's discourse to the Sixth Church, the complete doctrinal teachings for the Christian church had been given. Paul's Last Responsibility Paul's final appeal to Timothy was that he remain steadfast in teaching the true doctrines of Christ because the outlook for the future was going to be that of teaching fables. "I charge thee before God and Christ Jesus, who by his appearing and Kingdom shall judge the living and the dead. Preach the word; be urgent at favorable times or unfavorable ones; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For a time will come when they will not endure the sound teaching; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables. But be sober in all things, suffer hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fully bear the responsibility of your ministry. For I am already being poured out as a drink offering and the time of my departure is come. The good fight I have fought, the course I have finished, the faith I have kept. One thing remains: The crown of righteousness which is laid up for me, the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day; and not only to me, but also to all those who have loved his appearing" (2 Tim.4:1-8). The main desire of Paul was that sound doctrine be continually preached after his death because there was going to be a great falling away from the truth and people would begin to believe fables. These fables were also a major concern of Peter and John. This is why Peter said that in the documents he and John were leaving the Christian church, they were not going to be like the fables that were beginning to be published and taught. Knowing also that his own death (like Paul's) was imminent, Peter said: "And I think it right as long as I am in this tabernacle [this mortal body], to stir you up by reminder; knowing that the putting off of my tabernacle cometh swiftly, even as our Lord Jesus Christ also showed me. But I will also give diligence that at each time ye be able after my decease to call these things to remembrance. For not by following cunningly devised FABLES, made we known to you the power and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we [Peter and John] were eye-witnesses of his majesty" (2 Pet.l:13-16). It was the circulation of fables, and the prospect of more being published, that convinced Peter, John and Paul (in the last months of their lives) to do something about the preservation of the true doctrines of Christ. With this in mind, let us now look at what the apostle Paul did to play a part in this respons- ibility. Paul's Canonization Realizing that his death was very near, Paul asked Timothy, his faithful worker in Christ, to urgently meet him in Rome. Paul considered Timothy's journey to be of utmost importance and he was urged to expedite it as soon as possible. "With speed come to me quickly" (2 Tim.4:9). Paul was in immediate need of assistance, and this was especially so since most of his colleagues had either abandoned him or had journeyed to other regions of the Empire. He was practically left alone in Rome. "Only Luke is with me" (verse 11). With this pressing situation in mind, notice the two requests that Paul instructed Timothy to accomplish. For one, he wanted John Mark (the one who wrote the Gospel of Mark) to come with Timothy to Rome because he had a service [a particular ministry] that he wanted him to perform. And secondly, Paul desired Timothy to "bring the cloak I left at Troas with Carpus, and the scrolls, especially the parchments" (verse 13). These two requests were very important to the canonization of Paul's epistles. Note carefully that Paul urgently needed John Mark and some important documents that Timothy knew about. Let us first look at the reason he wanted John Mark to accompany Timothy to Rome. John Mark was a very prominent person in the early history of Christianity. And in the matter of canonization, he significantly appears at a crucial time. We are told he was a cousin of Barnabas (Col.4:10), which may indicate he was a Jew with Levitical prestige (Acts 4:36). At any rate, he occupied a prime social position in the Jerusalem church and his mother's home was the place where it was common for the apostles to meet (Acts 12:12-17). And though there was a disagreement between Paul and Mark in their early careers (Acts 15:36-41), this was not a permanent thing and Paul later called John Mark his "fellow- laborer" (Co1.4:10,11). And Paul's appeal to Timothy was for John Mark to accompany him to Rome so that he could perform a special service (ministry) for Paul. What was this service? This is where the apostle Peter enters the picture. Though John Mark was often an associate of the apostle Paul in his ministry among the Gentiles, history and tradition attest to his closer relationship with the apostle Peter. In his first epistle, Peter refers to Mark as "my son" (I Pet.5:13). Peter must have been a frequent visitor to the home of John Mark in Jerusalem (that is, his mother's home). Peter no doubt took Mark under his wing while he was a young man and he became a close assistant of Peter. Papias of the late first century said that John Mark was Peter's "interpreter" or his official secretary and the writer of the Second Gospel. As we have pointed out in a previous chapter, the Gospel of Mark really has the earmarks of being the Gospel of Peter. And indeed, it was! This means that John Mark was the one who helped Peter in his literary efforts and other ministerial duties. We find him with Peter in "Babylon" (a cipher for Jerusalem, not Rome or the Babylon on the Euphrates) (I Pet.5:13). (No, not a cipher of anything. Peter was in the old ancient and literal Babylon - Keith Hunt) But we also find him in attendance with the apostle Paul just a little earlier in time (Co1.4:10,11). These indications may show that John Mark was a type of liaison between Peter and Paul - one time he was with Peter and the other with Paul. And just before his death, Paul makes his urgent request for Timothy to bring John Mark with him to Rome. He also wanted Timothy to bring along some important items that Paul called "the cloak, the books, and especially the parchments." In effect, Paul was asking for Peter's right hand man to come immediately to Rome for a special service! Though Paul did not ask for Peter himself to journey to the capital of the Empire, the fact that he was asking for John Mark was practically tantamount to the same thing! Paul knew that only the apostles Peter and John were the remaining witnesses to the Trans- figuration, and this gave them a special commission for the preservation of divine truth which would last the church through the spiritual corruptions which were prophesied to take place in the future. The Cloak, The Scrolls and The Parchments Timothy and John Mark were asked by Paul to fetch three important items and bring them to Rome. "When you come, bring the cloak [Greek: phelonen] I left with Carpus, and the scrolls, especially the parchments" (2 Tim.4:13). It is interesting that the phelonen, usually considered to be a heavy outer garment, is mentioned alongside the paper scrolls (actually scrolls made from the papyrus plant) and the parchments (these were animal skins on which permanent documents were normally written). It seems odd that a heavy coat would be mentioned along with literary documents. Most scholars, however, point out that Paul wanted Timothy and Mark to hurry to Rome before winter (verse 21) and that he probably wanted the phelonen which he left with Carpus in order to keep himself warm when the cold would set in. This may be the case, but there are some difficulties with this interpretation. The truth is, the word 'phelonen' had another meaning in the Greek world at the time, and it is one that is intimately connected with scrolls and parchments! Vincent, in his "Word Studies in the New Testament," has this to say about the word phelonen. "Hesychius explains it as originally a case for keeping the mouthpieces of wind-instruments; thence, generally, a box. Phrynicus, a Greek sophist of the second half of the third century, defines it as 'a receptacle for books, clothes, silver, or anything else.' Phelonen was a wrapper of parchments, and was translated figuratively in Latin by toga or paenula 'a cloak,' sometimes of leather; also the wrapping which a shopkeeper put round fish or olives; also the parchment cover for papyrus rolls. Accordingly it is claimed that Timothy in 4:13 is bidden to bring, not a cloak, but a roll-case. So the Syriac Version" (p.326). The fact is, the word 'phelonen' can mean either a cloak (and it is used that way time and again in Greek literature) or it could mean a receptacle for the placement of scrolls and parchments. It is the context which must determine what the apostle Paul meant by the use of 'phelonen' in 2 Timothy 4:13. Since the word is found right next to scrolls and parchments, the immediate context would suggest a "book cover" a "book case" or "book slip" into which scrolls or pages of books were placed. As Vincent stated, the Syriac Version of the New Testament understood it in that manner. Chrysostom, in the fourth century, commented on this very reference of Paul's and stated that some thought Paul meant a "book case" - a receptacle for books (Hom. in loc. vol.XI, p.780, ed. Gaume). Even Jerome mentioned this point (Epist.36, ad Damasum). What is meant can only be determined by the context, because the word can signify either a heavy outer coat, a book case or some outer cover for books! Even in our modern times we have problems in interpreting similar words unless a proper context is provided. Let me give two illustrations to show the difficulty. In these examples we will consider the modern words jacket, wrap and cover. Suppose a letter were found in which a woman college student wrote her mother. She said that she wanted her mother to "go to the closet and get out my heavy jacket and send it to me. It will provide the cover I need from the cold. I am now using the wrap you gave me for my birthday and it is not warm enough." If such a letter were found, the context makes it clear that the girl is talking about outer garments in all instances. But what if the following letter were found. "Go to the bookstore and buy the latest fiction book you wrote me about. Take the jacket off, because dust wraps on the books annoy me. Make sure, however, that the book has a hard cover because I don't like paperbacks." Though these two illustrations use exactly the same words they signify opposite things. Obviously, no one would get confused over what was intended in either case, because the contexts are plain as to what was meant. But let us return to our word 'phelonen' in 2 Timothy 4:13. It could mean either a book case, a book wrapper, a book jacket, a book cover, or it could mean a heavy outer garment. Vincent in his Word Studies had no objection to it being an ordinary cloak because, like many other modern translators, he noted that Paul asked Timothy and John Mark to come to Rome before winter (verse 21). To many scholars this provides the context in which to interpret 'phelonen,' though admittedly the reference to winter is eight verses away from the use of the word. On the other hand, the word 'phelonen' is found in the very verse which mentions the scrolls and parchments that Paul needed! Contextually, it would seem more logical to think of 'phelonen' as being associated with literary documents. Indeed, it is even better to consider it that way because Luke was still with Paul in Rome and surely he could have secured for Paul any protective garment to keep away the cold during the approaching winter. Would it be necessary to fetch one all the way from Troas to keep Paul covered for the short time he was to remain alive? The fact is, Paul's reference to winter (verse 21) is by context too far away for the 'phelonen' to mean an actual cloak. But with the word intimately connected with the literary documents which Paul was urgently requesting Timothy and John Mark to bring with them, it seems more probable that the interpretation of the Syriac Version, along with the suggestions found in Chrsysostom and Jerome, happen to be correct. It appears that Paul wanted his important book case (his receptacle for carrying books) to be brought at once to Rome - and the request was one of pressing necessity! What Was In The Book Case? It is unreasonable to assume that the book case contained papyrus scrolls or parchments of the Old Testament Scriptures. There were always a large group of people with Paul wherever he travelled, and their baggage would no doubt have contained a copy (or copies) of the Old Testament. Besides, Paul could refer to the earlier Scriptures by reading them in the various synagogues in the areas he visited. Of course, Paul was in prison when he wrote Timothy and could not attend the synagogues to consult the Scriptures. Yet, Luke was with him. Could not Luke have done this for him, or even to have brought the Old Testament to him in prison from the baggage they had? And besides, what would Paul need with the Old Testament in an urgent way just before he was to be killed? Had he not memorized almost all of it over his 35 years of ministry? But it was of utmost priority that he obtain "the book case, the papyrus scrolls, and especially the animal skin volumes." Note the definite articles in front of each of the three items! Since Paul gave no further description about them, it appears that Timothy and John Mark knew exactly the specific things Paul meant, and they realized that it was important that they be brought immediately to Rome! There is no doubt in my mind that some particular scrolls and parchment documents were being kept safely by Paul in a specially constructed carrying case or book cover. It also makes sense that they were his own writings which he had brought together and left in Asia Minor with Carpus. Paul now needed them dispatched to Rome immediately! This must be the reason why Paul requested John Mark to accompany Timothy. The Role of John Mark John Mark was Peter's assistant, his right hand man! He was also his secretary and the one who wrote literary documents for Peter. The service that Paul wanted John Mark to perform may have concerned the disposition of some of Paul's writings. This is as good a reason as any why Paul wanted John Mark in Rome! If it was not to take Paul's letters to Peter, then it was to talk over the matter of the letters and have Peter come to Paul in Rome. Since it seems that Paul wrote Second Timothy in the late Summer or Autumn of A.D.65, John Mark's journey to Rome, then back to Jerusalem where Peter probably was, could have been accomplished by late Spring of A.D.66. And with the miraculous events concerning the Temple starting to happen just before Passover, A.D.66 and continued until Pentecost, A.D.66 (when God abandoned the Temple at Jerusalem), it would have been possible for Peter to have reached Rome by the late Summer of A.D.66. If this is the case, Peter's only reason for going to Rome was to see the apostle Paul relative to the matter of the New Testament canonization. This could have been the main reason that John Mark was involved in the issue since he was the literary assistant to Peter. And recall, Paul was urgently admonishing Timothy to bring the written documents with John Mark! The historical scenario that is provided by Paul's last chapter of Second Timothy demands that something of a highly important literary activity was under way! With both Peter and Paul in Rome in the final weeks of A.D.66 or in early A.D.67, they could have selected and canonized the New Testament Scriptures which they had in their possession. It seems certain that Paul even edited his own letters for inclusion into the sacred canon of the New Testament. An example of this are the last three verses of Romans in our present versions. These verses are very close to the writing style of Ephesians and Colossians, and they contain a reference that Paul's teachings were then being called "the prophetic Scriptures" (verse 26, Greek). Such a use of the phrase "prophetic Scriptures" is a sure sign that Paul's letters were then being considered as sacred and as inspired as were the Scriptures of the Old Testament. Recall that Peter and John considered themselves as having "the prophetic word more confirmed" (2 Pet.1:18) and this was a reference to their written works as being inspired of God (2 Pet.1:20). And now we have Paul saying the same thing about his own writings. They were "the prophetic Scriptures" (Rom.16:26). Paul wrote this editorial remark at the end of Romans long after he had composed the actual letter back in A.D.56. This is because he made it clear in the editorial footnote that "all the nations" had now received the teaching of his Gospel (verse 26). This could only have been stated after he had returned from Spain in about A.D.62. This reference dovetails precisely with that which Paul made in the Book of Colossians (written about A.D.64) that the Gospel had now been "preached in all creation that is under heaven" (Col.1:23). These indications are enough to show that Paul edited the Book of Romans. Since this was done to the ABC book of his collection, he may have done it to others. But what is the purpose for such editing? It is clearly to provide something for a later or different audience, and to bring the earlier documents up-to-date in the teaching of the Gospel. It is sensible that Paul, wanting to make the Book of Romans of universal application, added his brief reference to the advanced teaching of "the Mystery," which he later revealed in Ephesians and Colossians. And importantly, he was now saying that his writings were a part of "the prophetic Scriptures" (Rom.16:26). Paul was simply preparing his epistles for canonization! (There is indeed strong evidence I believe to support Martin in his conclusions of the noted verses he mentions. And with the mighty power and inspiration of the Holy Spirit that all the apostles had in the first century, there is really no doubt these important apostles [Paul, Peter, John] would have been inspired to prepare and establish a New Testament canon of Scripture - Keith Hunt) The Final Act of Peter Just before Paul was martyred, the fourteen epistles of Paul were placed in their proper order. Along with these were arranged other New Testament works in the hands of Peter and Paul. It was at this time, no doubt, that John Mark wrote his Gospel copying down the words of Peter as he dictated them to him. Peter then wrote his second epistle which mentioned this preliminary canonization and that he and the apostle John were commissioned by God to fill up the books of the sacred canon. Peter then sent by the hand of John Mark his second epistle (along with the books that were collected and arranged by himself and Paul) to the apostle John in Western Asia Minor. This was the particular service that Paul wanted John Mark to accomplish (2 Tim.4:11). A short while later (probably in A.D.67) Peter himself was martyred in Rome. Tradition has it that he was crucified upsidedown, and there is no reason to dispute the possibility of this. But now, the preliminary books were in the hands of the apostle John in Ephesus to complete his prophesied role of finalizing the canon of the New Testament. The formation of the canon remained within the responsibility of the apostle John. Not for another 30 years or so would it reach its final and complete status to be positioned alongside the Old Testament to represent the full revelation of God to man. In the next chapter we will show how the apostle John fulfilled his prophesied commission. ................. To be continued The Canonization of the New Testament #9 John and his Helpers complete the Canon by the late Ernest Martin PhD Published 1984 THE COMPLETION OF THE CANON The apostle Peter said there were two people who had the authority from Christ to canonize the New Testament. They were himself and the apostle John. They were the only ones remaining alive who had witnessed the Transfiguration of Christ. Peter, in his second epistle, said this majestic event gave them a special authorization to receive and to record inspired teachings from God. They had "the word of prophecy more confirmed" (2 Pet. 1:19). This gave them the right to compose or to select any documents they saw fit in order to leave the Christian church with official documents which would last them "until the day dawn" (2 Pet.1:19). This, in summary, was the teaching of Peter in the first chapter of his second epistle. The one who carried Peter's selected documents to the apostle John was probably John Mark. When he left Rome, Paul was dead and Peter was near death, if not already dead. Certainly, by late A.D.67, John was the only apostle remaining who had witnessed the Transfiguration. The responsibility for putting the finishing touches to the canon of the New Testament fell to him. This was in accord with Christ's prophecy that Peter was to die a martyr but that John would continue to live "until I am coming" (John 21:22,23). This did not mean that John himself would not die, as some began to imagine, because Christ made it clear that the two Sons of Thunder (John and his brother James) would be killed for their faith (Matt.20:23). John's brother was the first of the apostles to be slain (Acts 12:1,2), and history informs us that John also met his death through martyrdom (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist.IV.31). John, however, was to tarry on earth until the coming of Christ. As explained in a previous chapter, this was a reference to John being shown in a series of visions the Book of Revelation! That book was among the last of the canon to be written and its essential theme was that of the second advent of Christ. The historical evidence is very good that Revelation was written sometime in the last decade of the first century. Irenaeus who was a native of Asia Minor and one who knew Polycarp, who in turn was a personal acquaintance of the apostle John, said that the Book of Revelation "was seen no such long time ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian" (Adv. haer.5.30.3). This reference is powerful evidence that John received those visions while he was a very old man. Indeed, Irenaeus said that John lived in the city of Ephesus until the time of the emperor Trajan (A.D.98-117) (ibid. 2.22). According to Papias, who was Bishop of Hierapolis near Ephesus and a contemporary of John, he was martyred by the Jews. The fact that John had a long history of living and working in the region of Ephesus is well attested and need not be seriously doubted. Irenaeus also stated that John composed his Gospel while at Ephesus (ibid. 3.1.1.). And since the Book of Revelation was written late in his life, and directed to seven churches in Western Asia Minor, it can be reasonably believed that the center of apostolic activity and authority gravitated to this region of the world. In A.D.70 Jerusalem was gone as a headquarters area (indeed, for Christians, Jerusalem ceased to be important even as early as the death of James in A.D.62, and certainly after the Pentecost sign of A.D.66 which indicated to Jewish people that even God himself was "leaving" the Temple). Rome was peripherally important in matters of authority, but after A.D.67 Rome was left destitute of the two great apostles, Peter and Paul. As far as can be determined, only the apostle John remained alive of the original apostles for the full period from A.D.67 to A.D.98 - and John lived in and around Ephesus, not at Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, or Rome! Without doubt, Ephesus (and the adjacent regions in Western Asia Minor) had become the center of apostolic Christianity! And this is the very region in which the New Testament canon arose! (Yes, undoubtedly Asia Minor did become the center of true Christianity. Polycarp of the seconf century was a disciple of John, and after him there was Polycrates in the latter half of the second century, both men travelled to Rome to debate the truths of God with the Roman Bishop, especially concerning the observance of Passover and not Easter [for remembering the death of Christ] as was now the custom in the Roman church. Polycarp and Polycrates represented the Church of God in the East, and especially Asia Minor - Keith Hunt) Asia Minor and the New Testament Books The final New Testament did not have its origin in Jerusalem or in Rome! History makes it clear that it had its formation where the apostle John made his abode for the last 35 years of his life. It came directly out of Ephesus! In the first place, well over 80 percent of the writings which make up the New Testament were either directed to an area within 500 miles of Ephesus or written from that region. When James wrote his epistle to the twelve tribes in the dispersion, it must be recognized that he was not directing his message to the Jews in Palestine, or even to the multitudes in Mesopotamia. In the first century the Palestine/Mesopotamian Jews were acknowledged as a part of the "homeland" of the Jews. James was writing primarily to Jews scattered around the Roman Empire, and the greatest concentration of Jews outside Syria and Egypt was in Asia Minor (Philo, Embassy to Gaius, 245,256,281,282). The apostle Peter was even more specific and wrote his two epistles to the resident aliens throughout Asia Minor (I Pet.1;1; 2 Pet.3:1). Jude covered the same subject as Peter, so it is sensible that he directed his epistle to the same people. John, of course, wrote his five books in the canon either to or from the region around Ephesus. And look at Paul. Other than the Book of Romans (which Paul wrote from Corinth which was within the 500 mile radius of Ephesus), the letters to the Corinthians were written from Ephesus and Macedonia (also within the 500 mile zone). The churches of Galatia were located east of Ephesus and well within the radius mentioned above. The prison books of Ephesians, Colossians and Philemon were written from Ephesus and to regions around Ephesus. Those to Philippi and Thessalonica were also within the 500 mile area. The Book of Hebrews went to the same people to whom Peter wrote and its actual destination was no doubt Galatia. In fact, in a few manuscripts, Hebrews is placed (erroneously) next to the Book of Galatians. Though this is not proper to do in the actual manuscript order of the books, it does show that some Christians recognized that the Book of Hebrews was written to people in the central area of Asia Minor - again within the 500 mile zone of Ephesus. The epistles of Paul to Timothy have long been understood to have been written to Timothy while he was in or near Ephesus. Titus got his letter while he was in the island of Crete, again within the central region. But what about the Gospels? That of the apostle John was written from Ephesus. Luke was the close assistant of Paul and the main area for Paul's ministry in the latter years of his life was Ephesus. John Mark wrote his Gospel under Peter's direction, and since Peter wrote his epistle concerning the canonization to those in Asia Minor (1 Pet.l:l; 2 Pet.3:1), it is reasonable to suppose that John Mark transcribed Peter's Gospel and took it to the apostle John in Ephesus for final canonization. The only book in the entirety of the New Testament that does not seem to have any connection with Ephesus (or the 500 mile radius around it) was the Gospel of Matthew. That Gospel seems to have been written to the Jews in Jerusalem and Palestine. However, the principle "to the Jew first" makes it reasonable that such a Gospel (and notably the first one) had to go to the Jews of Judaea. Yet with all other books in the New Testament, the focus is directly upon Ephesus, or within the Ephesian zone. We feel it was no accident that the apostle John decided to spend the final 35 years of his life in that region. Scholars have seen the importance of this centralized area around Ephesus for the history of the New Testament church at the conclusion of the first century. Professor Thiersch said: "The Church's centre of gravity was no longer at Jerusalem; it was not yet at Rome; it was at Ephesus" (quoted by Godet, Com. on John, vol.I, p.45). And indeed, Ephesus was the new center of Christianity! It is to that region that one must look regarding all matters of authority and canonization within the Christian church between the years A.D.67 and A.D.98! There is no doubt that this is proper. The Canonization by the Apostle John John did not create the New Testament on his own. He had helpers. If one will read the writings of John carefully, these assistants can be recognized, and they played a very important part in the overall canonization. References to them are found from time to time cropping up within the contexts of John's compositions. The best place to start in order to observe this circle of John's helpers is at the very end of John's Gospel. Throughout his twenty-one chapters we find the apostle recording what Christ taught along with the apostle's own comments. But when one reaches John 21:24 (just before the end of the Gospel) there is a remark in the text that interjects what others besides John had to say about the Gospel of John. Notice the verse. "This is the disciple [John] who bears witness about these things (and WE know that the witness he gives is true)." Notice the abrupt change from the third person singular to the first person plural. The last part of this verse is introducing further witnesses, other than John (identified only by the pronoun "WE"). Who were these men? In the Gospel they are not identified, but it can reasonably be assumed that the first readers of John's Gospel must have been aware of their identities. They must have represented an officially recognized body of men since they boldly gave their witness to John's written word! "And WE know that the witness he [John] gives is true." But there is more! The "WE" passages don't stop with the single verse at the end of John's Gospel. They occur elsewhere in John's writings. Notice the short epistle called Third John. John began to speak to a man called Gaius in the first person singular: "I pray that in all things you may be prospering and having good health" (verse 2). Then we find a long string of "I rejoiced" (verse 3), "I am thankful" (verse 4), "I wrote" (verse 9), and "I will call to remembrance" (verse 10). But then, and out of the blue, John introduces a plural intrusion into the text. It says: "In fact, WE also are bearing witness, and you know that the witness WE give is true" (verse 12). Then immediately the context of Third John returns to: "I had many things to write you, yet I do not wish to go on writing you with ink and pen. But I am hoping to see you directly" (verses 13,14). It is clear that a body of men, other than John himself, were telling the readers of John's third epistle that they too were able to witness to the truth that John was stating. These assistants or editors of John must have been well known to John's readers. All they say is "you know that the witness WE GIVE is true." Certainly, these men could reasonably be considered a group of John's right-hand men, known by all, because the editors said "you know our witness is true." There is even more! In John's first epistle we find the insertion of another "WE section." Notice I John 4:11. After John told his readers that "I am writing" (I John 2:1), followed by further references to "I am writing" or "I write" in verses 7, 8, 12,13 (three times), 14 (twice) as well as "I write" in verses 21 and 26, there is then interjected into the context: "In addition, WE ourselves have beheld and are bearing witness that the Father has sent forth his Son as Savior of the world" (I John 4:14). This shows, once again, an intrusion into the text. This was a deliberate attempt to interpose the witness of a body of men other than the apostle John! And after these men had their chance to include, once again, their witness we find John returning to his "I write you" motif (I John 5:13). These references indicate that there were other men, no doubt known by the original readers of John's Gospel and his first and third epistles, who wanted to make sure that they also were giving their testimonies to the truth of what John was saying. Who Were These Other Witnesses? Thankfully, it is possible to identify these men in a general way, but we have not been told their names. Since the "WE sections" in John's Gospel and his first and third epistles are very similar in content and purpose, it can be reasonably believed that they all represented the same group of men who were assistants (or editors) of John. If this is the case, then we can know more about them because in the first chapter of John's first epistle these men are further identified. In fact, the whole of the first chapter gives a rundown of the authority that they had, along with John, in the Christian church. They must have been associated with John during his Ephesian sojourn sometime between the years of A.D.67 and A.D.98. Note carefully the first chapter of First John so that the authority of these men can come into better view. The whole of the chapter needs to be mentioned. "That which was from the beginning, which WE have heard, which WE have seen with OUR eyes, which WE have viewed and OUR hands felt, concerning the word of life (and the life was made manifest, and WE have seen and are bearing witness and reporting to you the everlasting life which was with the Father and was made manifest to US), that which WE have seen and heard WE are reporting unto you, that you may be sharing with US. Furthermore, this sharing of OURS is with the Father and with his son Jesus Christ. And so WE are writing these things that OUR joy may be in full measure" (I John 1:1-4). The "WE section" continues on through the first chapter of First John. But, abruptly, in chapter two, there is a change to the first person singular: "My little children, I write unto you" (verse 1). This continues until 4:14 is reached, and then there is the single verse which again records a "WE section." Once their final witness is recorded, John closes with the usual: "I write you these things" (5:13). Whoever these men were, they figured very prominently in the writing of John's three epistles. But more than that, they were men from Palestine who had been personal acquaintances of Christ and they were witnesses of his resurrection from the dead! This put them into a relatively high position of authority. After all, how many people in the first century could claim such distinction? Even the apostle Paul knew of only about 500 who were so honored. And these men were a part of that group. They may even have been of more esteem in the eyes of Christians at the time. Indeed, if one will look at the very beginning of the Gospel of John, these same men gave their own witness (along with John) to the glory of Christ which they had seen with their own eyes! In John's first chapter there is a prominent (and even glaring) "WE section." But strangely, most people pass right over it as though it is not even there! It is time that people begin to pay attention to what the text actually says, rather than hurrying over it in a haphazard fashion to get to the next section. If people would slow down and read what John says, many would be in for some real surprises! Notice an important "WE section" at the very start of John's Gospel. "And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us (and WE beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth" (John 1:14). Scholars are aware that this interjection is the separate witness of John's assistants or editors (Hastings, Dict. of Christ and the Gospels, vol.I, pp.880,881), but the vast majority of readers of the New Testament simply pass over this reference so quickly that they don't even notice the relevance of it! People today are prone to thoroughly avoid the witness that these men gave. It is time to restore their testimony to its proper place - because it is important to do so! Who were these men who interposed their own testimonies at crucial points in the texts of John? One thing is assured. They were almost certainly Jewish because they were witnesses of Christ in the flesh before His crucifixion and after His resurrection as well. Both the references in John 1:14 and I John 1:1-4 reveal this. The apostle Paul said that more than 500 people saw Christ after His resurrection (I Cor.15:6), and we can be certain that the majority of them (if not all) were of Jewish ancestry! Were some of these witnesses with the apostle John near the end of the first century? An early Christian called Quadratus wrote a short letter to the Emperor Hadrian in A.D.117 saying that he (no doubt in his youth) had talked to some people whom Christ had raised from the dead (Eusebius, Eccl.Hist IV. 3). This would mean that about the 90's A.D. there were still some witnesses of Christ's ministry in the flesh still living. They may well have been in Ephesus with John and helping him in the writing of his Gospel and his three epistles. They may even have added a few remarks to John's works after John's death (if they thought it was necessary to do so). After all, the official scribes of the Jews even added genealogical matters to the Temple scrolls down to the time of Alexander the Great (some 100 years after the close of the Old Testament canon). There would be nothing wrong in adding a few editorial remarks to the divine library of New Testament books if the "Elders" who supported the apostle John were still alive after John's death! These suggestions can make sense. The fact is, there appear to be a number of editorial remarks in John's Gospel, either in relation to the "WE sections" or distinct from them. The King James Version shows some of them by placing their occurrences within parentheses. For example, John 3:13 states: "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven (even the Son of man which is in heaven)." Obviously, the italicized words represent a later editorial remark because Christ was certainly on earth when He uttered the first part of the verse, but only after His resurrection was He actually in heaven. There is John 4:2.3. Christ said to the Samaritan woman: "But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth." Christ was telling her that the Temple at Jerusalem, which was the official place in the Old Covenant period where people ought to assemble at special times to worship God, was no longer to be important. Of course, at the time Christ mentioned His teaching to the Samaritan woman the Temple was still the proper site for assembly. But the editors (at the time the Gospel was canonized) put in the reference "and now is" to show that what Christ had predicted had come true! Another is John 5:25. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming (and now is) when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live." The italicized words are a later insertion which could only have been stating the truth after the resurrection of Lazarus and those who were made alive after Christ's resurrection (John 11:1-46; Matt.27:52,53). Another verse is John 13:3: "Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God (and went to God)." The italicized words, again, are a later editorial remark. There is also John 17:3. Jesus was talking and said: "And this is life eternal, that they may know thee the only true God (and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent)." And lastly, let us note John 19:35: "And he that saw it bare record (and his record is true and he knoweth that he saith is true, that ye might believe)." The Assistants of John The one thing that becomes evident about the "WE sections" of John is that most of the men who composed that special and select group around John had been Christians from the very beginning! Their remarks in the Gospel indicate that they had seen the glory of Christ firsthand (John 1:14) and in John's first epistle they emphasized their seeing, their handling and their hearing Christ (I John 1:1-4). This may mean that some of them were other apostles or certainly a part of the 500 who witnessed Christ alive after his resurrection (I Cor.15:6). It can almost be certain that they were all Jews. and that they later lived near John in Ephesus. It is essential that it be kept in mind that Ephesus and the area of the province of Asia was, from A.D.67 to A.D.98, the headquarters for apostolic authority within the Christian church. Professor Bartlet, in "Hasting's Dict. of Christ and the Gospels," summed up the historical evidences for this: "There is little doubt that after the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple in A.D.70, if not before, the Roman province of Asia was the chief centre of Christian tradition outside Palestine. The foundation for this had been laid by Paul, with Ephesus as a base of influence; and hither were attracted not a few of the leading personal disciples of Jesus, including, perhaps, several of the original Apostles. Chief of all, we must reckon John, the son of Zebedee, whose presence at Ephesus for a period of years cannot be explained away by any confusion with another John" (vol.II, p.309). With the deaths of Peter and Paul in Rome, and Jerusalem in ruins after A.D.70, the principal region for all significant developments within the Christian church was that around Ephesus. Many Jews, as we have shown in a previous chapter, had already gravitated to the region after the death of James in A.D.62 and before the Jewish/ Roman War. It became the new "Jerusalem" for Christians, especially Jewish Christians! This can account for the reason that John gathered around him a body of men from Palestine who helped him preach the Gospel and write his works. A further record of these men is found in the writings of Papias, the Bishop of Hierapolis, who lived in the end of the first century and the beginning of the second. Irenaeus spoke of him as "a hearer of John and a comrade of Polycarp." Apollinaris, a Bishop of the same city as Papias, but about 50 years after his time, called Papias "the disciple of John." The city of Hierapolis was east of Ephesus but located in the same Roman province of Asia. If Papias was one who personally talked with John (though some later Christian writers thought Papias only saw the immediate disciples of John), then it makes his testimony a valuable one in evaluating what was happening in Ephesus during and just after the 30 years' transition period from the deaths of Peter and Paul to that of John. Papias makes an interesting comment about the Elders who were the disciples of John and who succeeded him at Ephesus. Since Papias was in contact with these Elders and was interested in their testimonies concerning the early truths taught by Christ and the apostles, his comments are valuable. Note what he said. "But I shall not hesitate also to put down for you along with my interpretations whatsoever things I have at any time learned from the Elders and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that speak the truth; not in those that relate strange commandments, but in those that deliver the commandments given by the Lord to faith and springing from the truth itself. If, then, anyone came who had been a follower of the Elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the Elders - what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Ariston and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice." This account makes it clear that the apostles were dead by the time Papias made this remark about A.D.115. But, there was still a body of Elders in Western Asia Minor that had firsthand knowledge of what many of the apostles had taught. Papias said he even preferred to speak with them about the teachings they presented about Christ than to resort "to the books" which also recorded such things. This seems to make it clear that there already was, within a very few years of the apostle John's death, a set of books which were regularly being consulted concerning the teachings of Christ and the apostles. Indeed, at the same time Papias was making his statements, Polycarp (a disciple of the apostle John who had certainly heard him speak) was collecting the seven letters of Ignatius which Ignatius wrote while on his way to Rome to be martyred (To the Philippians 13:1,2). If the seven letters of Ignatius were so important and precious to Polycarp (and to be preserved for posterity and distributed to other churches), then it would seem odd that Polycarp did not possess a complete canon of New Testament books which he would have considered infinitely more sacred. Indeed, Polycarp said in the same letter that the Philippians were "well trained in the sacred writings" (which he called "the Scriptures") and then he quoted from Paul's letter to the Ephesians ("To the Philippians" 12:1). The "Elders" that Papias referred to as being alive just after the death of John might have been the ones who helped John in the final canonization of the New Testament. Were they part of John's select group mentioned in the "WE sections" of John's writings? This seems to be the case! And indeed, some of them may have been a few of the very apostles themselves (and other Palestinian Christians) who came to Ephesus to be with John after the fall of Jerusalem in A.D.70. After all, the first chapter of First John says that those designated by the pronoun "WE" were those who had seen and handled Christ as well as being witnesses of his resurrection. The Importance of John's Elders There is another historical reference to the Elders who helped John write his Gospel and his three epistles. It is what we today call the Muratorian Canon named after L.A.Muratori who discovered the document in A.D.1740. It is an account of how some of the books of the New Testament came to be. Though it is written in barbarous Latin, and scholars have argued about its intrinsic worth for years, there are some interesting matters mentioned by the document that refer to the "WE" passages of the apostle John's writings. And because it can be dated very early (to about A.D.180), it provides a reasonable witness of what people believed about the origin of the Gospel of John, and other books, in the last part of the second century. It will pay us to quote an extensive part of the Muratorian Canon. In the section we will transcribe, the main topic was the Gospel of John. "The fourth Gospel is by John, one of the disciples. When his fellow-disciples and overseers of the churches exhorted him he said: 'Today fast with me for three days, and let us recount to each other whatever may be revealed to each of us.' That same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that John should write down all things in John's name, as they ALL RECALLED THEM TO MIND (or could certify to John). So although various points are taught in the several books of the gospels, yet it makes no difference to the faith of believers, since all things in them are declared by one supreme Spirit, concerning [Christ's] nativity, His sufferings, His resurrection, His talking with His disciples, and His double advent (i.e. His two separate advents), the first in despised lowliness, which has taken place, and the second glorious with the power of a king, which is yet to come. What wonder then if John so boldly presents each point, saying of himself in his epistle, 'What we have seen with our eyes and heard with our ears, and our hands have handled, these things have we written?' For so he swears as a witness not only one who saw Christ and a hearer of him, but he was also a writer of all the wonderful works of the Lord in order" (emphasis mine). There can be no doubt that the writer of this early work believed that the Gospel of John, though written under the name of the "beloved disciple" (John), was really a cooperative effort in which several of the apostles took part! And in effect, this is exactly what the "WE" sections of the Gospel of John and John's epistles demand! This makes "the Elders" of John take on an importance that many people have not realized. It indicates that John became the writer for the remaining witnesses of Christ who were still alive at the end of the first century. John's circle of friends included some of the most illustrious luminaries who accompanied Christ in His preaching tours of Galilee and Judaea! These "Elders" of John were also mentioned by Clement of Alexandria (early third century) when he discussed the method that John used in writing his Gospel. He said: "But last of all, John, perceiving that the observable facts had been made plain in the Gospel [those formerly written], being urged on by friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel" (quoted by Eusebius, Eccl.Hist VI.14.7). This means that sometime between A.D.70 and his death about A.D.98 (or thereabouts, since John lived to the time of the emperor Trajan), John was asked by his friends to write a spiritual Gospel, and in this case they were those who had, with him, seen and heard Christ and had been witnesses of Christ's resurrection. John accomplished the task! And, as it proved to be, it was not the work of John alone but a cooperative effort involving the remaining witnesses who had personally observed Christ and His teachings. Though Peter and Paul had died in Rome (and they had made the first preliminary canonization of the New Testament), it remained for John and his eyewitness "Elders" to complete the final written testimony to the teachings of Christ. And this was accomplished in the last decade of the first century. There are many reasons to show that the Gospel of John was written last of all the Gospels, and that it was no doubt composed just before John's death. One of the main things to show this is John's appeal that the Holy Spirit that Christ had promised would recall to mind all the essential teachings of Christ. "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, AND BRING TO REMEMBRANCE, whatsoever things I have said unto you" (John 14:26). Since John was a very old man when his Gospel was written, there were people who were accusing him of not being able to remember the real teachings of Christ. This is why John invoked the witness of the Holy Spirit to counter this. But John was also, in his Gospel and epistles, constantly appealing to the truth provided by competent witnesses from Palestine! In his Gospel alone, John stressed the word "witness" (or its cognates) 47 times! This was a most unusual emphasis! Why did John resort to such an appeal? No other writer of the New Testament had to constantly remind his readers that he had many kinds of "witnesses" to the truth of what he was writing! But no other writer was being accused of being too old to remember the truths of earlier times. The fact is, when John wrote his Gospel, there were many people in the world who began to question the accuracy of it, and of the competence of John himself. This is one of the main reasons that John emphasized the fact that the Holy Spirit was promised by Christ to bring back a remembrance of "all the truth" to His apostles (John 16:13), and if that were not enough, John also called on a group of his select friends who were also eyewitnesses to all that he was saying, and they also vouched for the truth of his statements! It should be recalled that there were many "Gospels" of Christ already circulating by the time John wrote his works (Luke 1:1), and that both Peter and Paul had warned of the fables that were destined to be put forth as the truth (2 Pet.1:16; 2 Tim.4:4). John (even in his old age) felt that it was incumbent upon him to clear the air with the truth. He thus asked the witnesses of Christ's earthly life who were still living to cooperate with him in the production of the final Gospel. This was accomplished just before John's death (about the time he wrote the Book of Revelation). It is for this reason that many features of John's Gospel can be satisfactorily explained. This is why he could record the incident of Lazarus being resurrected from the dead while the other three Gospel accounts did not wish to do so. Since Lazarus was now dead, and this would prevent any harassment from his admirers or his foes, John could tell the story in detail. But John left out things too! There is no mention of Christ's prophecies about the destruction of Jerusalem, to which the other three Gospels paid considerable attention. It would have been unwise to mention matters that had already taken place (and record them as "future" prophecies). And, after all, the Olivet Prophecies had already been adequately covered by the other three Gospels written before the destruction of Jerusalem. John was simply giving a summary of doctrinal and spiritual matters taught by Christ that the other apostles had left out or did not feel necessary to record! The Transition Period The time between the deaths of Peter and Paul (which happened about A.D.67 in Rome) and that of John (soon after A.D.98 in Ephesus) was most significant in the history of the canonization. Some of the differences in the contents of later manuscripts can be attributed to this 30 year period. For example, it must be acknowledged that Peter and Paul left with the church at Rome a partial canon of New Testament Scriptures, though Peter directed the actual (and final) canonization to his readers in Asia Minor, and most particularly to the apostle John himself. The whole of Peter's second epistle is devoted to this subject. It was to Asia Minor and the apostle John that one must look (according to Peter) for the final canonization, and not to Jerusalem (which was soon to be destroyed), and not to Antioch in Syria, not to Alexandria, not to Carthage, not to Athens, and not even to Rome! This did not mean that the church at Rome was not important. The Christians there needed the Gospel in its purity as much as any other Christians. This is why it is reasonable to suppose that Peter and Paul left a partial canon with them (the same one they sent to John) which would last them until John would include his own books and complete the divine library. Since John's Gospel, his three epistles and the Book of Revelation were not canonized for almost another 30 years or so, it meant that the Christian church did not have in its possession a complete New Testament until the last decade of the first century. This period when no full canon was yet available can explain a great deal of the minor (and even major) differences that arose in a few of the early manuscripts. For instance, the original Gospel of Mark which Peter dictated to John Mark in Rome (and that Mark left with the Roman church) probably did not contain the long conclusion (16:9-20) or even a short conclusion of one verse which followed Mark 16:8. Thus, for a 30 or 35 year period some manuscripts were circulating without the long conclusion. Yet when John and his assistants finally canonized the New Testament, twelve verses were added to the Gospel of Mark in order to complete it. Even the Book of Acts has come down to us in two distinct types of manuscript versions - one which is more replete with historical and geographical information adding about 10 percent more material to the text. The additions to Acts could also have been made when the final canon was published in Ephesus at the end of the century. There is also the question of the exact times John wrote his Gospel and three epistles. They were certainly composed during John's residence at Ephesus, but at the beginning, the middle or at the very end? The Gospel seems to be a late production, though John's mention of five porches as seemingly in existence in Jerusalem (5:3) and the reference that Peter "will" be martyred (21:19) might indicate the basic writing of the Gospel was early, even before the destruction of Jerusalem. Prof. J. A. T. Robinson, in his excellent book, "The Redating of the New Testament," thought this to be the case. John's mention that it was the "last hour" (I John 2:18) would tend to put the original writing quite early - before the apostles came to see that Christ was not coming back in that generation. While all of this may show an early "first draft" to John's Gospel and epistles, the inclusion of the "WE sections" into their texts makes it probable that their final positioning among the canonical books only became a reality when the Book of Revelation was given to the apostle John not long before his death. Actually, the "WE sections" seem to be editorial remarks which were added by John's assistants (either to buttress the reliability of what John was writing in his old age or to support John's testimony after his death). From our present state of knowledge we cannot know what part of that 30 or 35 years when John was near Ephesus that his Gospel and the three epistles were first written. Certainly, though, they were not canonized as official parts of the New Testament until the last book (Revelation) was composed near the end of John's life. Conclusion It is sometimes thought that because the New Testament has come down to us in Greek, that the Gentiles from Greek speaking areas were the ones who had authority to preserve the new canon. There is no Scriptural warrant to sustain this belief. Indeed, of the apostles themselves only Peter and John had "the prophetic word more confirmed" (2 Pet.1:19). These two apostles along with James the Lord's brother were the "pillar" apostles in the Christian church and even the apostle Paul found it necessary to gain an approbation from them for his work among the Gentiles (Gal.2:1-10). (No, Paul did not have to get any approbation from any human man, the context of Galatians 2 does not suggest what Martin here suggests. Paul was taught directly by Christ [Gal.1] and needed no approbation from fleshly men - Keith Hunt) In a particular sense, they were the only apostles specifically commissioned to go to the circumcised (Gal.2:7-9). As far as holy Scripture was concerned, it was a well known principle among the Jews that it was they who had been authorized to preserve and protect (and to teach) the Word of God. Paul acknowledged this. "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because unto them were committed the oracles of God" (Rom.3:1,2). The word "committed" signifies an entrustment - an official commission. The apostle Paul reckoned that his own ministry among the Gentiles was the same type of authority, and the same word was used in Greek to describe it (I Cor.9:17; Gal.2:7; I Tim.1:11; Titus 1:3). Since the Old Testament had been placed into the hands of the Temple priests for its teaching and preservation (Deut.31:9-11), the apostles must have looked on safeguarding the New Testament in a similar way. There were even early beliefs that the apostle John and his brother James were of priestly descent (Eusebius, Eccl.Hist. V.24; Epiphanius, Haer. XXVII.14), but how this could be is not known. (It matters not. The apostles new they were inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit, which was manifested mightily in the lives of many of the apostles, with signs and miracles. They needed no "Jewish" anything to establish an inspired canon of New Testament writings - Keith Hunt) At any rate, Peter told the Jewish exiles in Asia Minor that he and John were going to leave them with a New Testament canon and that only these two apostles had "the word of prophecy more confirmed" (2 Pet. 1:19). To accomplish his role in canonization, the apostle John gathered around him in Ephesus a body of Jewish elders who helped him in writing (and no doubt preserving) that canon. No one knows how long the original group of men assisted John, but at the time John wrote his Gospel and his three epistles, those men were still giving witness to the accuracy of John's teaching. The point that needs to be emphasized is that the center of canonization for the 30 odd years after A.D.67 was Ephesus, and the people who performed the task of completing the canon were Jewish Christians under the direction of the apostle John! It is certain that the New Testament did not have its origin in Jerusalem, in Antioch of Syria, in Alexandria, in Greece, in Carthage, or in Italy! Those areas had to be supplied with the final New Testament (when the Book of Revelation came into existence) from the central area of Ephesus! It is from this area that we should look for the original New Testament! In the next chapter we will see how the Christians at Rome and other areas came to look on the authority of this region of Asia Minor. .................. To be continued NOTE: It is indeed true, from recorded "church history" that after 70 A.D. Asia Minor was the center of TRUE apostolic Christianity. It was from Asia Minor, the "churches of the East" as so called in church history of the second century, that Polycarp and Polycrates came from, travelling to Rome, to debate certain truths of the Gospel of Christ with the Bishops of Rome. The church in the West (Rome) was starting to adopt customs and practices and teachings that the churches of the East thought were erronious and contrary to sound apostolic teaching. It is also worth noting that at this time in the second century, the churches of the East still looked upon the churches of the West as "brothers in Christ" which answers the question from some as to why Polycarp and Polycrates would bother to debate doctrine with the Bishops of Rome. It took some time and effort to travel from Asia Minor to the city of Rome, there were no cars, trains, or planes in those days. Keith Hunt The Canonization of the New Testament #10 Why the Rejection of the Apostle John CANONIZATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (published in 1984) by Ernest Martin PhD THE REJECTION OF THE APOSTLE JOHN The modern Christian finds it almost impossible to believe that Christians of the latter half of the first century would renounce the apostle John's position of authority within the Christian church, but they did! The evidence of this is found in John's own writings as well as historical documents written by Christians who lived within a hundred or so years after John's death. What is so uncanny about this denial is the fact that John was an apostle from the very beginning of Christ's ministry, was specially selected to be a witness with Peter and his brother James to the Transfiguration (which Peter thought so important), was a personal observer of Christ after His resurrection from the dead, was among the select group of apostles who received private teachings and instructions from Christ during the 40 days after His resurrection, was ordered by Christ to take care of his aunt until her death (none other than Mary, the mother of Christ), that he was the one (with Peter) who was instrumental in establishing the Christian church throughout Palestine, was reckoned by Paul as one of the three "pillar" apostles to whom Paul had to submit his teachings for administrative and doctrinal approval, (no, Paul had to submit his teaching to no one - Christ had personally taught him - Gal 1 - Keith Hunt), was one so distinguished by Christ that he produced for the church a written Gospel plus three epistles (which are the four Biblical books emphasizing love), and was permitted by Christ to live beyond Peter's death to write the concluding prophetic message to the world (the Book of Revelation), but in spite of this, his authority and teachings were rejected by many Christians during the last 30 to 35 years of his life! People today find it difficult to comprehend why such a state of affairs could have existed while John was alive. But it happened! This situation has a bearing on the development and acceptance of the New Testament canon. If John's authority to direct the Christian church was being rebuffed at the very time the canon was being formed, it should not be surprising that John's canon itself might be suspect. This is the reason why John's New Testament did not meet with universal approval at first. But John's canon did prevail, at least for the first three centuries among orthodox Christians. This is because of the great influence of people like Polycarp and Irenaeus (in the middle and late second century) who maintained John's authority in essential matters of faith. Both these men were from Asia Minor, and both were governed by the teachings and authority of John. If it would not have been for these men (and others who shared their views), the shift of authority within the Christian church would have gravitated very early away from Ephesus. And, as time went on, the authority did leave the region where the New Testament canon had its origin. Since Rome was the center of political activity, it soon became necessary (so many people thought) that Christian authority should also be moved to Rome. This became an accomplished fact in the fourth century when Constantine assumed the emperorship. Indeed, Constantine created two "Romes." One was the original city in Italy (which finally came to govern Christian affairs in the western part of Europe) and the other was new Rome on the Bosphorus (which governed most Christians in the eastern parts of Europe and Asia). What region was left in the lurch when the Empire was married to the Church? It was that which the apostle John had established as the center of Christianity from the fall of Jerusalem until his death about A.D.98. Christians ceased to look towards the region that John made his residence and where the New Testament was canonized. And the rejection began to happen very early in the history of the Christian church. A Strange Set of Circumstances! We must now refer to some historical evidences which moderns find hard, if not impossible, to believe, but what they state actually happened! There remains a genuine letter of Clement, Bishop of Rome, written to the church at Corinth about A.D.95, which contains excellent moral and ethical teachings reflecting the doctrinal standards of the New Testament, yet the letter fails to mention the apostle John even once, or that he had any authority to deal with matters then affecting the Corinthian church! The interesting point that moderns find baffling is the fact that, in all probability, the apostle John was still alive and about to write his Book of Revelation when Clement composed his letter to Corinth! This is an astonishing set of circumstances which has puzzled later Christians. Indeed, when one surveys the words within the 65 chapters that Clement wrote to the Corinthians, one would not believe that the apostle John was even in existence or had ever existed! Strange, isn't it, that Christ's first cousin and one of the founding apostles of the Christian church was not consulted in matters concerning the Church at Corinth (about 300 miles away) while the Corinthians were receiving instructions from Rome (some 700 miles distant). Look at a hypothetical example of a similar situation using a modern illustration. Suppose the Catholic community of Lyons, France wrote to other Christians at Florence, Italy (some 700 miles away) about straightening up their Christian lives and taking 65 chapters to do it, but not once mentioning the Pope at Rome (who lived only 300 miles away) as having any authority to decide the matter! Such a situation would seem almost absurd today. But that is very similar to what we find in A.D.95 when Clement of Rome wrote the Church at Corinth. No one considered John's authority at all! Even more intriguing is the fact that the problems affecting the church at Corinth about A.D.95 were the same ones that John himself encountered around Ephesus within his 30 years' experience in that area. Professor Marsh in "Hasting's Dict. of the Apostolic Church" summarizes the problems in Corinth. "The Epistle of Clement itself supplies complete information as to the circumstances under which it was written. Dissension had arisen within the Christian community at Corinth, and the church was torn asunder. The original ground of contention is not mentioned, but the course of the strife is clearly indicated. A small party of malcontents (1:1; 47:6) had used their influence to secure the deposition of certain presbyters, men duly appointed according to apostolic regulations, who were, moreover, of blameless reputation and unfailing zeal in the performance of their duties (44:3). A fierce controversy was raging, and the Corinthian Church, hitherto renowned for its virtues, especially such as are the outcome of brotherly love, had become a stumbling-block instead of an example to the world (47:7). Once before, the Church at Corinth had shown the same spirit of faction (I Cor.1:10,12). History was now repeating itself, but the latter case was much worse than the former. Then, the contending parties had at least claimed to be following the lead of apostolic men, but now the main body of the Church was following 'one or two' contumacious persons in rebellion against their lawful rulers (chapter 47)" (vol.I, p.216). What a state of affairs! Clement and the Church at Rome thought they had to do something about this dissension. But one thing is conspicuous for its absence! There is no appeal to the apostle John to help the Corinthians in this matter - either to John's writings or to his personal authority! The matter even goes deeper than that! The very things for which Clement was criticizing the Corinthians were the things the apostle John talked about the most in his epistles! Here was Clement complaining about "one or two" taking the preeminence in the church over the constituted authorities, and that very thing is what the apostle John emphasized was going on concerning his authority in Asia Minor. John said: "I wrote something to the congregation but Diotrephes, who likes to have first place among them does not receive anything from us with respect ... He goes on chattering about us with wicked words. Also, not being satisfied with these things, neither does he himself receive the brothers [a group of John's representatives], and those who are wanting to receive them he tries to hinder and to throw out of the church" (3 John 9,10). Why does Clement fail to mention anything of John's experience in Asia Minor? If a similar situation of rebellion developed in any modern church congregation which uses the Bible as its guide, the first section of Scripture that a minister would refer to is the one just cited from Third John! After all, it gives (in the plainest of language) a Biblical authority to put down such people who want the supremacy against official authorities in the church. But Clement not only did not refer to this section of John, he avoided all the writings of John which impinged upon the very problems being faced in Corinth. In Clement's chapters 42 to 47 (inclusively) his emphasis rehearsed the rebellions recorded in the Old Testament and how God dealt with them. Clement also referred to the early schismatics in the Corinthian church whom Paul had to deal with. But not once does Clement mention John! Then, beginning in the middle of chapter 47, Clement recorded a major section about the merits of brotherly love (which subject occupies the whole of Clement's chapters 47 to 51 inclusively), yet there still is no reference to John or his writings! What is strange is the fact that the very subject of brotherly love is that with which the apostle John is most famous in the Biblical canon - there are a total of 42 references to "love" in his Gospel, and on 46 occasions John emphasizes "love" in his three short epistles. Of course, it could be said that Clement may not have had John's Gospel or three epistles in his possession when he wrote First Clement. This may be, but it does not relieve the problem as far as John's authority is concerned. Since John was no doubt still living when Clement wrote [or just recently died, since Clement apparently said that the "pillar" apostles were then dead (5:2), but this may only have meant James and Peter], it is still surprising that Clement made no reference to John or his writings when he was only 300 miles away from Corinth! One thing Clement does underscore, however, is that the apostles Peter and Paul (who had been intimate with the churches at Corinth and Rome) were the "good" apostles (5:3). This statement implies that John, and the others, were not as "good" (whatever Clement meant by the term) as were Peter and Paul. Clement also called Paul and Peter "distinguished apostles" (47:1-4), but he did not grace the apostle John with such distinction! It is not to be imagined that Clement was repudiating John's apostleship (he could have done that easily had he desired). In the case of the Corinthian problems Clement simply felt it not necessary to convoke that authority. He only called attention to the teachings of Peter and Paul. To the Corinthians both of them were the "good" and the "distinguished" apostles. Still, why did Clement avoid any mention of John when he was no doubt alive and no more than 300 miles away? The matter does not stop there! About 20 years later, Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch, was taken as a prisoner to Rome where he was finally martyred in the capital city. He passed by the churches of western Asia Minor and wrote seven letters from or to them. These are valuable documents to show what was happening in the Christian church at the time. But note this! Again, there is not one reference to the apostle John! This silence is as conspicuous as it was in Clement's letter, but it is even more difficult to explain because Ignatius composed letters not only to the Christians at Ephesus (where John had spent some 30 or 35 years of his final ministry and where he wrote his Gospel, three epistles, and the Book of Revelation), but he wrote to Polycarp whom we know to have been an intimate disciple of John. Yet there is not a single mention of John or his authority in any matter of discussion! And certainly, by the time of Ignatius' trip to Rome (c. A.D.115) John's writings were then published! About 20 or so years later (between A.D.140 and A.D.160) Justin Martyr also wrote some major works on the value of Christian teaching yet he only referred to John's works once (and even that may have been a common oral statement that was circulating among Christians) (Justin's First Apology, ch.61 referenced to John 3:5). Though many scholars feel that Justin must have been aware of John's Gospel, he does not seem to place any major authority upon it as a witness. This tendency to avoid John in some quarters presents the historian with some intriguing problems. It should not be thought, however, that everyone avoided a mention of John. There was Polycarp who was his intimate friend. Polycarp wrote a short letter to the Philippians (about A.D.115 since it shows Ignatius still alive, 13:2). In it he quoted from John's canonical letters. Polycarp stated: "For everyone who does not confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh is antichrist" (To The Philippians 7:1). This is a reference to I John 4:2,3 and 2 John 7. Polycarp even taught that Christians ought to "return to the word handed on to us from the beginning" (Philip.7:3) which was what the apostle John demanded in his epistles. Polycarp also recalled the words of Christ in John's Gospel and his epistles: "He that raised Him from the dead will raise us also, if we do His will and walk in His commandments, and love the things which He loved" (cf.John 7:17; 14:15; I John 2:6,17; 5:1,2). This witness of Polycarp is essential. He was the Bishop of the Church at Smyrna (located a short distance north of Ephesus) and was one who personally heard John speak. Indeed, Polycarp had been ordained, according to Irenaeus, by the apostles themselves (Eusebius, Eccl.Hist. IV.14). Since Irenaeus as a youth had heard Polycarp speak about his conversations with the apostle John (Eusebius, ibid., V.20), this is powerful evidence that Polycarp was one who had a deep respect for John and his authority. With this in mind, we should remember an event in the history of the Christian church which might give us some information on why the authority of John was not acknowledged by many within the church. In the year A.D.154, Polycarp made a journey to Rome in order to talk with Anicetus who was Bishop of the city. Though the meeting was friendly, there was one major doctrinal matter that needed to be solved (among a number of minor ones). It concerned the time for completing a short fast period before the celebration of the Eucharist. Polycarp stated most emphatically that he, and the other Bishops of Asia Minor, had been taught by the apostle John to observe the time of the Eucharist on the fourteenth day of the first Jewish month - on the day before the Passover of the Jews. This meant that the time for celebration could fall out to any day of the week. With the Romans, however, they had started, about A.D.140, to keep the Eucharist on a Sunday following the Passover week. Though John had set the example of following Jewish calendar indications in this matter, Polycarp was unable to persuade the Bishop of Rome to abandon the new method of observance adopted by the Romans. This is a clear example of Roman authorities expressing a superiority over the opinions of the apostle John. There was a reason for doing this, and the change seemed a logical one. Before the Jews in Palestine went to war with the Romans in A.D.132 (which ended in the complete destruction of Jewish power in Judaea by A.D.135), it was common for the beginning of all Jewish years (and consequently their months and holydays) to be determined by the Sanhedrin that had been set up at Jamnia, in the coastal region west of Jerusalem. But when the Emperor Hadrian so disrupted Jewish influence in Judaea after A.D.135, no more official announcements for determining the beginning of the calendar year were permitted the Jews. This put their calendar into confusion. Consequently, the times for the Jewish annual holydays began to slip out of their normal seasons for observance. (Not true at all - the Jews always retained a Sanhedrin and never lost the maintaining of a calendar - Keith Hunt) The Jewish year was a Lunar-Solar one. The normal Lunar Year is about 11 days shorter than the Solar and about every three years an extra (thirteenth) Lunar month had to be added to the calendar in order to keep it abreast with Solar time. In a period of 19 years, there were seven extra months added to the calendar in order to maintain the Jewish festivals in their proper seasons of the Solar Year. This was not done haphazardly. In fact, it required an official body of Jewish elders in Jerusalem (when the Sanhedrin was there) and then Jamnia (after A.D.70) in order to accomplish this task. The Jewish community throughout the world was then informed, usually a year or so in advance, when the proper years and months could begin. But after the disastrous war of A.D.132 to A.D.135, the Sanhedrin which had been located at Jamnia was prevented from functioning and Jews throughout the world were denied any official sanction for the beginnings of their years and months. Chaos resulted over the Jewish calendar! It meant that no Leap Months (the thirteenth months) were being utilized! Progressively, the Jewish festivals began to be celebrated eleven days earlier each year: Without the addition of the "Leap Months," by A.D.142 (a short seven years after the Jewish/ Roman War) the Passover was beginning to be observed as early as January (Louis Finkelstein, Akiba, pp.236-239, 274). If it was so it was only for a relatively few short years, and I question if it really happened at all - Keith Hunt) This was an intolerable situation and something had to be done about it. It was accomplished by the establishment of a new Sanhedrin in Usha of Galilee about A.D.142. (So, just as I said, only a few short years, if there was any 'loss' in the first place - Keith Hunt) From then on the Jews were once again provided with official pronouncements concerning the times of the beginnings of their years and months. This new calendar was, unlike the former ones, based primarily on calculations rather than on actual observations of the Moon. This is because the emperor Hadrian forbade any Jew from approaching the city of Jerusalem, and his decree remained in force for another 200 years! (What Martin does not tell you is that the Jews ALWAYS used 'calculation' as well as 'observance of the moon' hence finally moving to calculation was not a strange thing - Keith Hunt) This presented a problem to Christians because the new calendar had one feature about it which was offensive to many Christians. In the 17th year of the Jewish calendar cycle the Passover was observed two days before the Vernal Equinox. This was contrary to all tradition of earlier times. In the past it had become a cardinal rule that Passover had to be celebrated after the start of Spring! (Not so at all - Martin is here leading far off into left field. The Passover observance never took into account the so-called 'Spring Equinox.' There are studies on this Website dealing in- depth with the calendar as well as the 'equinox' - Keith Hunt) Anatolius, an early Christian scholar, called attention to the fact that all previous Jewish authorities vouched that in the time of Christ the Passover was always held after the Vernal Equinox. He said: "This may be learned from what is said by Philo, Josephus, and Musaeus; and not only by them, but also by those yet more ancient, the two Agathobuli, sirnamed 'Masters,' and the famous Aristobulus, who was chosen by among the seventy interpreters for the sacred and divine Hebrew Scriptures.... These writers, explaining questions in regard to the Exodus, say that all alike should sacrifice the passover offerings after the Vernal Equinox in the first month" (Eusebius, Eccl.Hist VII. 32:14-19). (The traditions of men, and un-Scriptural at that. No where in the Bible is the Passover declared that it must be AFTER the so- called Spring Equinox. You can search in vain throughout the Bible and you will never find anything about the Spring Equinox in regards to anything - Keith Hunt) And, in the very year that Polycarp went to Rome to inform Anicetus that the Eucharist should be celebrated according to the calendar of the Jews, that year was the 17th of the Jewish Metonic cycle. (And it means nothing. Polycarp went to Rome because the apostle John had clearly taught the Passover for Christians was to be on the 14th day of the first month in the Jewish calendar year - Keith Hunt) Anicetus would have none of it! As a matter of fact, when the Jewish calendar began to be in disarray at the end of the Jewish/Roman War (A.D.135), many Christian authorities took it upon themselves to calculate their own Full Moon for the Eucharist ceremonies. And some, notably those at Rome, simply abandoned an association of the Eucharist with the Full Moon and decided to observe it on a Sunday (the day of Christ's resurrection) after the Full Moon of Spring had occurred. (True to a point, clearly man made traditions coming into effect. But it was also because Rome was ADOPTING pagan customs, and also because they wanted to move away from anything 'Jewish' so they would not come under persecution from the secular Roman government. All this is proved in Dr.Samuele Bacchiocchi's book "Anti-Judaism and the Origin of Sunday" which is found on this Website - Keith Hunt) Polycarp, however, felt it better to remain with the Jewish calendar determinations on this matter. (And so it was for a number of centuries, known in Church History as the "Quarterdecimin Controversy" - "The 14th Controversy" - also found in detail on this Website - Keith Hunt) Polycarp was not able to convince Anicetus that the Jews should have authority on this issue. He and Anicetus simply observed their own respective Eucharists and parted in a friendly manner. This shows that there were no other major doctrinal differences between the two church communities in A.D.154. But it does indicate that the opinions which came from those who followed directly in the footsteps of the apostle John in Asia Minor had no influence upon the clerics at Rome. (There were many DIFFERENCES arising between the "churches" of the West and those of the East [Asia Minor]; including the Sabbath/Sunday issue, but history only seems to have recorded the disagreement with the West and East churches, over the Passover observance - Keith Hunt) The parting of Polycarp and Anicetus in a friendly way was not the end of the story. About the year A.D.190 another controversy came up over this same matter. This time, Victor, the Bishop of Rome, was not at all pleased with the people in Asia Minor who continued to follow the disciples of John. He brazenly excommunicated those who looked to Ephesus as the center of Christian authority. Irenaeus, who sided with the Roman way of calculating the time for the Eucharist, rebuked the Bishop of Rome for such a unilateral decision (Eusebius, Eccl.Hist V.24). Again it must be recognized that there is no hint that there were other major doctrinal differences between the two church regions. For what it's worth, the Jewish convert to Christianity, Hegesippus, mentioned that on a trip from the East to Rome in the middle of the second century he consulted with a number of Bishops about their doctrinal positions and found them all in general agreement (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., IV.22). And, when one surveys the letters of Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp and Justin it seems that this opinion of Hegesippus' was in the main correct for the orthodox churches. The churches around Ephesus would have been little different from those in Rome on the basic Christian doctrines except in the matter of celebrating the Eucharist! (Sunday/Sabbath had not yet taken on a major doctrinal difference, for many Christians practiced observing BOTH days. It was a gradual moving away from anything "Jewish" and had not become that great of a matter in the 2nd century, but Passover/Easter HAD become a dividing difference between the West and East churches - Keith Hunt) There was, however, a distinct desire for some Bishops to exercise administrative power over others. Irenaeus considered this wrong. This is why he felt compelled to admonish Victor of Rome not to be so rash in his dealings with the churches of Asia Minor where John's disciples remained! Nevertheless, Rome was slowly beginning to exercise a position of leadership among most Christian congregations. (Yes, it was a GRADUAL movement towards Rome dominating the Christian world, with its new adoptive practices in certain areas, it was slow at first, taking about 3 centuries to gain the upper hand. It was Constantine in the 3rd century, who becoming Emperor of Rome, gave the final weight to establishing Rome's Christian theology over the Roman Empire. Many will be surprised to know that Rome for centuries practiced FULL water baptism, and it was only over many centuries that "infant" baptism was finally adopted - Keith Hunt) It was Cyprian the Bishop of Carthage, about A.D.250, who finally stated that Rome had inherited the Petrine authority of primacy (the "keys" being given by Christ to Peter), but even then Cyprian did not think this gave supreme authority to Rome in all doctrinal and administrative matters (Turner, Catholic and Apostolic, p.228). In fact, Cyprian even disputed with the Roman Bishop on numerous issues and quoted the statement of Christ (John 20:21ff.) that "all the apostles" had been given a type of equal authority (Cyprian, Unity of the Church, p.4). It was not until the Council of Chalcedon in A.D.451 that the Petrine theory of supremacy for the Roman Bishop was finally made "official" in the Empire, and that is when Christ's reference of the "keys" being given to Peter was introduced to prove that leadership (Bruce, The Spreading Flame, p.341). Why Was John Rejected? The witness of Polycarp and others from Asia Minor make it clear that there were no major doctrinal differences between the churches which had been under John's control and those in Greece and Italy. Also, in Clement's letter to the Corinthians there were no major doctrinal divergences between the Church at Rome and that at Corinth. Even the dissensions occurring at Corinth did not involve doctrinal issues! And with Igantius' seven epistles he revealed a doctrinal unanimity between the churches of Asia and Rome. As a matter of fact, Ignatius was warning the churches about the same Gnostic beliefs that John himself was worried about (believing that Christ had not come in the flesh). (Overall this is true. The East [Asia Minor churches] still held the churches of the West [Rome etc.] as BROTHERS in Christ, that is why Polycarp and Polycrates were willing to go to the effort of going to Rome to debate the issue of the Passover/Easter observance - Keith Hunt) Since the doctrinal positions were reasonably stable, why, then, was there a non-recognition of John's opinions by these men in the late first century and up to the last part of the second? One might imagine that John may have wanted to heed Jewish ways more than those in Greece and Rome (because the controversy over the time for celebrating the Eucharist was whether the church should observe it according to the calendar of the Jews or a new Christian one). True, John may have expressed more attachment to Jewish ways, but anyone who reads his Gospel is fully aware that John had no sympathy, with the actual observance of the Jewish Sabbath or their holydays! To John, the Mosaic holydays had become "the Jews' holydays" and he made a plain statement that Christ had cancelled the weekly Sabbath for Christians (John 5:18 see Greek). He even showed Christ's lack of attention to the Mosaic Passover period of the Jews because he records that Christ was feeding the five thousand in Galilee (John 6:1-15) when the Law expressly taught that all able-bodied males should be in Jerusalem for the festival (Exo.23:17; Deut.16:16). Christ also failed to arrive at the Feast of Tabernacles on time though that was required too (John 7:1-17). The fact is, Christians believed Christ to be "the Prophet" of Deuteronomy 18:15-19 and this gave Him power to do as he pleased! (This is all "garabage" from the pen of Martin. This is not the place to prove the statements above by Martin concerning John and Christ, about the Sabbath and Festivals, are WRONG and are the typical responses from the Catholics and Protestant churches. Martin at one time, as a scholar and minister, in the Worldwide Church of God, taught and observed the 7th day weekly Sabbath and the Festivals of the Lord. Many studies on this Website as well as a number of books by Dr.Samuele Bacchiocchi DISPROVE the arguments of Martin and others concerning the weekly Sabbath and Feasts of the Lord - Keith Hunt) And though John emphasized getting back to the Christianity that was given "from the beginning," John was not speaking of keeping the rituals of Judaism. He was making an appeal to return to the teaching which he was presenting in his Gospel. John gave a thoroughly spiritual interpretation to the teachings of Christ and they had nothing to do with the physical performance of keeping Sabbaths, Feast Days, or observing Temple ceremonies. (The weekly 7th day Sabbath, the FOURTH commandment of the great Ten, and the Festivals of the Lord, are NOT "rituals" or "temple ceremonies" of Judaism, as fully proved by my other studies on this Website - Keith Hunt) John's teaching was far from Judaism. It was to his Gospel that John was referring when he told his readers that they ought to get back to the teachings of Christ which were given "from the beginning." He did not mean that his readers ought to return to the teachings of Moses! Indeed, John accepted the writings of Paul (which he helped to canonize) and they also made it clear that observing the food and drink laws of the Old Testament and the Mosaic holydays were not required in the Christian dispensation (Gal.4:10; Col.2:16,17). (Once more, complete NONSENSE and very bad theology understanding from Martin, who once observed, for many years, the teachings he now wanted to "do away with." The answer to his arguments and many others like him, on the subject of Sabbath, Feasts, and clean and un-clean foods, are found in detail, on this Website - Keith Hunt) Actually, when one analyzes the teachings of John in his Gospel and epistles, it becomes evident that he could not have been teaching too much out of the mainstream of Christian doctrines which were then being preached in the world. This includes what was being taught at Rome and Corinth. If one will look at the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians and the seven letters of Ignatius, there is hardly a syllable of doctrinal teaching that varies from that of Paul and Peter - and even that of John himself! (Now that is only agreed upon when you KNOW the TRUE truths of what those apostles taught and practiced - Keith Hunt) This is an extraordinary thing! Why is it that the main doctrinal positions seem to be the same (or the differences were of no major consequence) and yet the authorities of Greece and Italy (from the records we have available) pay no attention to the apostle John or his authority? (Again, this is all "conjecture" by Martin, as to true Christianity between the East and the West, and what Paul and Peter taught. During the 2nd century there was MUCH in common with the East and the West, but DIFFERENCES were slowly arising, and some from the West were moving away from what some were calling "Judaism." John holding true to apostolic Christianity, as also taught by Peter and Paul, was not looked upon with favor by people coming along like Clement and Ignatius - Keith Hunt) The answer may come from the writings of John himself. In his Third Epistle John said that a certain Diotrephes was one who liked to have first place among those in the church (3 John 9). Diotrephes was not accepting John's authority, and he was casting out of the church those who wanted to rely on the apostle John! It seems almost impossible for some of us moderns to believe that someone like Diotrephes could continue to call himself a Christian while rejecting the authority of the apostle John to his face! But John records that such a thing was happening. And note this. At no time does John accuse Diotrephes of preaching false doctrines! He may have been, but John says nothing about such a deviation! It seems that Diotrephes simply wanted to have the first place of rulership within the Christian church. This was the same thing that was happening in the Corinthian church when Clement wrote to them. There were no doctrinal issues at stake-only matters involving who was to govern! But why did Diotrephes turn against the authority of John? Why didn't Clement and Ignatius mention John? (What Martin again does not tell you is that John wrote that even THEN in his day, there were many "anti-christs" out there. So false doctrines WERE creeping into the Churches of God [1 John 2:18,19] - the commandments of God were being "done away with" and those who did not want to live as Christ lived, were entering AND teaching people to depart from such fundamental Christianity [1 John 2:1-6] - Keith Hunt) We may have an answer to this if we can first recognize a little about the temperament of John! Of all the apostles, he is the one least understood by most modern interpreters. Most have considered him to have been a wishy-washy individual that could only talk about conciliation between peoples and especially a brotherly love among all Christians. True, those things he emphasized but his attitude was far from that of being weak and non-resolute. Just the opposite was the case! Christ gave John and his brother James (who were both his first cousins) the title "Sons of Thunder" (Mark 3:17). Giving this title signified that they were to be the very spokesmen of God, it meant they would speak the words of God in the manner in which thunder would roar from the heavens! This typified the brashness of their attitudes! A good example of showing this was the incident of the Samaritans who rebuked Christ. "And when the disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elijah did?" (Luke 9:54). Though Christ had to reprove the two brothers for their harshness, this does show the bold temperament that the brothers possessed! With this in mind, it seems to be no accident that it was John who wrote the Book of Revelation. Its theme could well have suited John's personality in the basic sense. It is a book of judgment, of "blood and guts," of punishment for all wrong-doers. Indeed, there is no mercy extended within its pages for those deserving retribution. It describes God's dealing with sin - forthwithly! Was the apostle John selected to record these final judgments against unrighteousness because his attitude blended in with their manner of delivery? The two Sons of Thunder were also highly ambitious (along with their mother) in petitioning Christ for seats of authority on either side of him (Matt.20:20). The other apostles became angry with these two brothers for their audacious attitudes in wanting to rule over everyone else! There is another illustration which expresses John's nature. He seemed to be one who would not "give and take" on matters which he considered important. Things had to go exactly the way he thought proper, and he was not considerate of those who would show a deviation from his opinions. Indeed, if anyone taught anything different from John or his assistants, John allowed no one leeway in dealing with such an individual. In his Second Epistle he taught that if any man would come to a person's home and not bring the exact teachings that John was relating then no one was permitted to speak with him (2 John 10,11). While such a trait is admirable when matters of essential doctrinal truths are at stake, it may appear a very severe attitude if the opinions involve insignificant social customs or traditions. And this may be the very thing that caused some Christians to have reservations about being in the company of John and his assistants. Scholars have long recognized this. Professor Riggs, in the "Dict. of Christ and the Gospels," relates: "It is commonly thought that John was of a gentle, contemplative nature, and almost effeminate in character. Contemplative he was, and the Gospel is but an expression of his profound meditation upon the character and work of his Master, but a moment's reflexion upon some of the scenes of the Gospels (see Matthew 20:20-24, Luke 9:49,54), in correspondence with which are some of the legends regarding his later life, will show that this Apostle was, at least in earlier life, impetuous, intolerant, and ambitious. Doubtless he was effectively moulded by the Spirit of Christ during his long discipleship, but he was always stern and uncompromising in his hatred of evil and in his defense of truth" (vol.I, p.869). This temperamental trait of John may well be the answer why many Christians around the world (who wished a more conciliatory approach to Christian ethics and doctrines) found an uneasiness around John and his assistants! Of course, this may not be the answer. There could be several (unknown) reasons why John was shunned by people even while alive. But recognizing the nature of John's personality affords a rational reason why people found him hard to get along with. At no time, however, would true Christians question his apostolic authority in critical matters involving major doctrinal subjects. But in other situations it was different. We are certain that Clement and Ignatius avoided all mention of John (or of his authority) though they no doubt agreed with him on most of his doctrinal points. This general "agreement" must have been the case because Polycarp was certainly a personal hearer of John and he did not censure Anicetus of the Roman church (in A.D.154) about any major doctrinal deviations other than the matter of not celebrating the Eucharist at the Full Moon with the Jews! (Yes, at this time in the second century, the churches of the East still recognized the churches of the West as brothers in Christ, there was no doubt MORE IN COMMON between themselves than there was in differences. The point John makes in his letters is very clear, the teachings of departing from the commandments of God WAS APPEARING in and among the Christian world. After the second century these false teachings really started to get a foot-hold. The Roman Catholic church as it is today, was not like it was in the second century. Yet, Jude saw the tide turning in the first century and told his readers to strive for the faith once delivered to the saints - Keith Hunt) As for me, it looks like the main problem within the orthodox body of church believers (not of course the tangential ones of the Gnostics, the extreme Jewish Christians, etc.) was the temperament of the leaders more than anything else. Yet there must have been some decisions of John reflecting his traits which were offensive to some Christians, especially those in Corinth and Rome. We may have available an answer around which the difficulties can be resolved. (It was NOT JUST his temperament or traits. It was also what he taught. The letters of John make it abundantly clear the commandments of God are not "done away with" - Keith Hunt) It may appear an odd thing to say, but it seems that John and his assistants seemed to show a lack of hospitality with certain groups within the church, even though John emphasized "brotherly love" more than anyone else! This especially looks like the case in John's dealings with Gentile Christians in Western Asia Minor. He made the definite statement to men under his jurisdiction who were his travelling evangelists not to take any hospitality from any of the Gentiles whom they met on their journeys! He told his friend Gaius that he gave his assistants specific instructions that "It was in the name [of Christ] that they went forth receiving NOTHING from the Gentile peoples" (3 John 7). In a word, John expected his travelling evangelists only to reside with and to take support from Christians who were not Gentiles! John could hardly have meant "unconverted heathen" because such people would not have given his evangelists support anyway! At first glance one might be tempted to believe that John was a Jewish type of Christian who still adhered to the Mosaic Law and avoided all contact with Gentiles, even Gentile Christians! In no way could this be true! While very early in the history of the church, Paul had to confront Peter (when some came to Antioch from James) when he and Barnabas withdrew from fellowshipping with Gentiles (Gal.2:11-16). But that anti-social attitude was only expressed by the main body of Jewish Christians in the period before A.D.70. And though John insisted that the Eucharist among his followers should be celebrated on the day prior to the Jewish Passover, it is inconceivable that John was a strict "Jewish Christian," especially when one reads his polemics against Jewish rituals and festivals in his Gospel! And besides, Polycarp, who was clearly a close personal friend of John and his disciple, wrote letters to and received them from Ignatius in A.D.115 (not 20 years of John's death) and they were in unanimity that Christians should not take up the ceremonies of Judaism. "Do not be deceived by strange doctrines or by antiquated myths, since they are useless. For if we are still living in conformity to Judaism, we acknowledge that we have not received grace" (To the Magnesians, 8:1). Another verse: "If, then, those who lived in antiquated customs came to newness of hope, no longer keeping the Sabbath but living in accordance with the Lord" (9:1). And to the very people of the Church at Philadelphia to whom John himself wrote not 20 years before, Ignatius taught: "If anyone interprets Judaism to you, do not listen to him. For it is better to hear Christianity from a man who has received circumcision [a converted Jew] than Judaism from one who has not [a Gentile teaching the Law]" (To the Philadelphians, 6:1). (There is a great DIFFERENCE between "Judaism" [the traditions of the Jews - as Jesus also noted - Mark 7] and what are truths from God - Keith Hunt) Some might think that both Polycarp and Ignatius were going contrary to the teachings of John by referring to the customs of the Law in this manner, but this cannot be so. John, himself, was as adamant in his Gospel on the issue as Polycarp in his agreement with Ignatius. Recall again that Polycarp also went to Rome in A.D.154 and discussed matters of doctrine with Anicetus. If the basic teachings of the Mosaic Law had been kept by John (and the others in Asia Minor), why didn't Polycarp also tell Anicetus that the Romans ought to start keeping the Sabbath, the holydays of the Jews, and the food laws of Moses? After all, Polycarp was a personal disciple of the apostle John! No such discussions came up, nor would they, because John, himself, did not keep such "Jewish" ceremonies by the end of the first century! And besides, the apostle Paul had already made it abundantly clear that Christians were not required to perform such observances (Gal.4:10; Col.2:16,17). (Once more false and erroneous theology by Martin. Church History shows that overall "Christianity" had not FULLY departed from observing the 7th day weekly Sabbath and Festivals of the Lord during the second century. Some no doubt had, but in the same manner, some, as in Rome, had adopted Easter in place of the Passover on the 14th. As Polycarp and Polycrates were willing to debate the matter with the bishops of Rome in their day, this would have also been the same for the weekly Sabbath, clean and un-clean foods etc. Just because history does not tell us that Polycarp and Polycrates did not debate the weekly Sabbath topic etc. does not prove they never did. As Polycarp and Polycrates were willing to still hold the Roman church as brothers in Christ, even with the Passover/Easter difference, they were willing no doubt to be just as "brotherly" with the Sabbath, Festivals, and other issues - Keith Hunt) Since it could not be possible that John was demanding his travelling evangelists to refrain from obtaining hospitality from Gentiles because John was practicing the Old Testament laws of separation, why then did he refrain from support by Gentile Christians? If we look closely at the history of what was happening in the Christian church at this time, we may get close to the answer. The problem appears to rest in the custom of "eating and not eating" certain types of food. Specifically, it concerned the meats which were being bought in the meat markets! While the matter would seem of little importance to us today (because the problem has long been solved), at the close of the first century and even throughout the second, there was a major argument going on concerning meats which had been sacrificed to idols! And John was in the thick of it! (No such "issue" is presented in the New Testament as such, but it could have been possible John was in such an issue in certain parts of his evangelical travels - Keith Hunt) This explanation at first may seem absurd. Was it possible that such an emphasis was placed on this matter as late as the last decade of the first century? Absolutely, and the matter was brought up by the apostle John himself! At the very time that Clement was writing to the Corinthians (without once mentioning John), John was writing to two churches in Western Asia Minor - churches which he believed to be true churches of Christ - but who had some errors in them that needed to be corrected. One of his main concerns was that the leaders of the churches were teaching that it was all right "to eat things sacrificed to idols" (Rev.2:14,20). To John, this was a very serious breach of conduct! It had nothing to do with the observance or non-observance of Mosaic ceremonies or food laws, but it had to do with what the apostles had decreed for Gentile believers back in A.D.49. At the Jerusalem Conference it had been determined that Gentiles were not to eat things offered to idols (Acts 15:29; 21:25). There was, however, a problem of interpretation on this matter. The apostle Paul gave his opinion that it was all right to eat things bought in the meat markets (which were normally offered originally to idols) as long as the Gentile Christians did not participate in the actual rituals of the sacrifice (I Cor.10:24-32). Indeed, Paul felt that it was even all right to consume meat in an idol's temple as long as no brother was offended by such action (I Cor.8:3-13), but he acknowledged that a weak brother might think that the Christian was partaking of an idolatrous ritual if one did, so he recommended against it. Yet people in Corinth and Rome (and in other Gentile areas) had to eat and almost all meats which could be purchased were first sacrificed to idols. They had to buy their food as other Gentiles did. As a result, they were constantly coming in contact with "meats offered to idols." No doubt John agreed with Paul's earlier opinion on the matter, but it appears that some in the Christian church were letting the interpretation get out of hand by the end of the first century, John became concerned about the situation (especially in Pergamos and Thyatira). They were going too far and he thought their conduct was now close to idolatry itself! So, John put his foot down! A reflection of John's attitude is seen in the last verse of his First Epistle. After writing five chapters on brotherly love and about staying away from false and destructive doctrines, he closed his epistle with six short words, but with a powerful emphasis! "Little children, keep yourselves from idols" (I John 5:21). This admonition could hardly have applied to "Jewish Christians," because shunning idols was one of the cardinal features of that segment of Christianity. But John was not advocating a "Mosaic Christianity." He was warning all Christians under his authority (no matter of what race they were) to flee from any appearance of idolatry. And it was his opinion that some Christians were simply going too far, and this especially applied to Gentiles. This may be the reason why John adopted a strong and strict attitude on the matter of buying meat in the shambles or eating any meat offered to idols. At least we know that he commanded his own travelling evangelists to accept no hospitality from Gentile Christians within his jurisdiction (3 John 7). (The reason that John took nothing from the Gentiles, may have been the same attitude that Paul had towards taking nothing from certain churches, so he was not indebted towards them. He often worked at his trade, took nothing from those who may have had a wrong attitude towards him, IF he had taken physical goods and money from them. What Martin suggests as John taking nothing from Gentiles, may not be the answer at all - Keith Hunt) It was surely something they were doing or not doing (though they were Christians) which prompted John to command such strictures. And without doubt we can know that the matter of eating meats from the Gentile meat markets was a major issue at the time. (No, we do not know it was a major issue at this time in the life of John, and the Christian church. Nothing in the New Testament suggests that this was an issue in the church at the close of the first century - Keith Hunt) In fact, the problem continued to be brought up within the Christian church even throughout the second century. There is a Christian document known as "The Didache" ("The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles") which was written sometime between A.D.120 and A.D.180. It purports to give a synopsis of apostolic teaching which came from the written and oral words of the apostles. And in the midst of the doctrines which this work saw essential for maintaining, there is a section on refraining from meats offered to idols. "Now concerning food, observe the traditions as best you can. But be sure to refrain completely from meat which has been sacrificed before idols, for it represents the worship of dead gods" (6:3) (This writing "The Didache" is a bunch of words from the darkened minds of false teachers of Christianity, and has no bearing at all on what is the truth of the Bible - Keith Hunt) This reference shows the question we are discussing was very much alive throughout the middle part of the second century! As for the Romans and the Corinthians, they had the letters of Paul explaining that it was all right to eat such food if one's conscience was not bothered (that is, the conscience of another believer), but it was not proper if the conscience of any weak brother was injured (Rom.14:1-6; 1 Cor.8:4-13; 10:23-32). The truth is, it was difficult to know how to practice this liberty which Paul had given. It appears that the Romans and Corinthians (and some in Asia Minor) were more lenient on this matter than others, and they decided to follow the "good" and "distinguished" apostles Paul and Peter on the issue. Others felt obliged to be more strict. And in that age, it was enough to separate the Christian communities from one another. Again, this whole matter may seem absurd to us of modern times, but this was not the case in the first and second centuries! (True Christians KNEW what the truth was, and knew how to practice it. They had many years after the instruction of Paul on the matter, to understand and practice it correctly. John would have continued to teach what Paul was inspired to write on the matter. It was only an issue in the 2nd century within the false Christianity that was slowly arising from Rome and those influenced by the Roman church - Keith Hunt) As for John, he simply interdicted the practice (Rev.2:14,20) and in this he was followed by the Christians who wrote The Didache. After all, it had been commanded by the Jerusalem Conference of apostles, so why shouldn't its strict adherence be applied? John was more offended by such Gentile customs (because they smacked of idolatry) and even Paul had taught on such matters to: "Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God" (I Cor.10:32). John had little to do with Gentile Christians if they were lax over this issue, and it appears that many of them were! (Martin is grasping at straws. It is NOT at all clear from the New Testament, that this was the issue as to why John was not taking anything from Gentiles. And what was going on within the rising of false Christianity during the second century, is another matter entirely - Keith Hunt) This may be the answer to the lack of communication between John and some other Christians - notably Gentile Christians! (It is good that Martin gives "This MAY BE the answer ..." For the truth of the matter is that we do NOT know THE SPECIFICS of the answer at all. We do know for sure, as it is written in John's letters, some, many, anti-christs were there in his day, and were teaching the commandments of God were "done away" - John clearly defends the position that God's commandments are to be obeyed. And yes, John was at times, a person who pulled no punches, shot from the hip, spoke without mincing words, and did lay the cards on the table - Keith Hunt) Though their other doctrinal beliefs were basically the same (and they all recognized one another as Christians, albeit "weak ones") (Now, that is a good way for Ernest Martin to put it "weak ones" - there were many weak in the faith during the second century, many who were turning from the faith once delivered to the saints, turning to adopt pagan rites and customs such as Easter, and eventually Sunday in place of the 7th day Sabbath - Keith Hunt) there were the different social and traditional customs about which some were more strict than others. And, as everyone knows, the matter of foods (what one allows himself to eat or what he will not eat) is one of the most divisive traits imaginable. It has separated chief Christian friends (Gal.2:11-16) and even whole sections of the Christian church (Acts 15:24-29). And unfortunately, there are many modern examples of it! (There is way MORE behind the "food" issue of the New Testament than just the matter of clean and un-clean foods. Just the clean and unclean per se would not have divided the Christian community to the degree Martin would like us to believe - Keith Hunt) The Christian churches also tended to separate from one another in regard to the temperaments and desires of the various leaders. The apostles of Christ seemed to represent a variety of personality types. Thankfully, they did not express a bland type of homogeneity that would make them to be a group of men unnatural to our own experience regarding human relationships. These differences provided both some weaknesses and strengths in presenting the Gospel to the world. Some, no doubt, wanted to have their own way in the interpretation of standard doctrinal matters within the Christian church. This is how Peter, Paul and John could be different from one another in certain things, but in complete unanimity in the basic teachings of Christianity! In spite of the differences, the Gospel message triumphed in the world primarily because the first apostles saw it incumbent upon them to preserve the New Testament writings. The whole of Second Peter was written to acknowledge the canonization that Peter and John had been commissioned to complete. When one realizes that the New Testament mentions the fact of its own canonization, then it should be natural for normal Christians to accede to the authority of the two apostles who accomplished the job. It was the creation of the canon that finally stabilized a set of Christian doctrines which were to be maintained until the Second Advent. When later doctrinal and administrative problems arose within the Christian communities, there could always be the sacred canon to provide a beacon light of truth (the standard truth) for all Christians to heed. (Now that I can fully agree with - Keith Hunt) Admittedly, there may be other explanations which could better satisfy a reason why Clement and Ignatius failed to involve John in affairs concerning the churches of Corinth and Rome. But since it can be shown that there were no major doctrinal discussions between the men mentioned above, nor between Polycarp and Anicetus, nor even as late as those between Irenaeus and Victor, it appears that social customs and personality differences among the orthodox leaders were the main reasons for early separations within the Christian church. The fiery temperament of John and his uncompromising attitude towards any semblance of idolatry (even the buying of meats in the meat markets, though true Christian Gentiles would not have taken part in the rituals) were enough to separate the influence of Christian leaders in the last part of the first century. (No, it was WAY MORE than that of "meats" - it was the start of a deep apostasy from the faith once delivered to the saints. And just because Polycarp and Polycrates were still holding out the hand of fellowship to the bishop of Rome and others, even when major doctrinal difference were emerging [like Passover/Easter] does not distract away from the basic truth of John in stating many anti-christs were ALREADY in the world - Keith Hunt) These matters to us today may seem almost trivial, but this was not the case with those in the first century, and this especially applies to those who had been reared with strong, traditional Jewish beliefs. (It was not a case of "been reared with strong traditional Jewish beliefs" - it was a case of TRUE Godly religious faith, once delivered to the saints, as opposed to false Judaism [the traditions of men - Mark 7] and adoption of other false doctrines and customs. The teachings of John in his Gospel and letters was not looked upon with favor by the likes of those coming along in the second century who would be looked upon eventually as the founding fathers of the Roman Catholic church. That's the basic reason as to why John was ignored or discounted - Keith Hunt) From the third century onwards, however, the Christian church began to absorb more Gentile customs into its midst. This was no doubt a natural development (whether for ill or good). And by the fourth century the church became wedded to the state and from then on a more regimented Christianity developed which resembled the Old Testament state and church concept of religious belief - though with different holydays and customs from those of Moses! (The popular church had then completed its corruption into the Babylon Whore woman of the book of Revelation. She then was able to ride the Beast, as she will again, for one last time, at the time of the end, during the last 42 months of this age, before the glorious return of Christ. See the expounding of the book of Revelation in "The New Testament Bible Story" - Keith Hunt) But before this happened, the New Testament canon (which was finalized by John) was given to the early church as the authoritative standard for Christian doctrine and ethics. Only later, in the fourth and fifth centuries, did the Western churches depart from the early manuscript order of the New Testament books. The original order, however, should never have been tampered with. It is my belief that the time has come for the world to return to the original arrangement of the sacred canon which came from the hand of the apostle John and his assistants. When this is done, a new appreciation of the Biblical books can emerge. .................. To be continued NOTE: The basics of Ernest Martin's thesis on the canonization of the New Testament is correct. The apostles were mightily moved and inspired by the Holy Spirit during the first century A.D. It is impossible for me to think that they would not be inspired to formalize the cannon of Sacred New Testament Scripture. The "order" of the books of the New Testament makes complete sense as Martin claims most of the original MSS show. Certainly the Gospels and Acts should come first, to be read by new converts, then the General epistles of James, Peter, and John. Then the epistles of Paul, and lastly the book of Revelation. Keith Hunt Canonization of the New Testament #11 What Canonization Means and the Order of the Books CANONIZATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT by the late Ernest Martin PhD (published 1984) The Meaning of Canonization It is unreasonable to imagine that the apostle Paul (or any of the other apostles), only wrote the letters which we find in the New Testament canon. Paul stated that he had the condition of the various churches constantly in mind (2 Cor.11:28). Since he was not able to appear personally to answer their questions and give them spiritual guidance, the only way he could have fulfilled their needs was through correspondence. This could have been done by sending emissaries and/or by writing letters. Paul, and the others, must have written numerous letters. He tells us of at least one other to the Corinthians (I Cor.5:9). And when one considers that most apostles had at least 30 or 35 year ministries, it would not be unreasonable to believe that several scores of letters were written to various churches or individuals. The point we need to ask is this: What happened to all those letters? Also, what happened to the original autographs of the works that appear in our New Testament? The truth is, not a fragment of the originals or of other letters has come down to us today! Why is there no record of them? This is what we must consider as a concluding thought. The answer to these questions involves an important point regarding the canonization affected by Peter and finally by John. Consider this. Both apostles had the authority to form the canon of the New Testament. This meant that they were able to refuse or to accept any writing that they wished! Obviously, if an apostle had the power to select a book for canonization, it must necessarily follow that he also had authority to reject books. And this is what occurred when Peter and, finally, John canonized the New Testament. The Codex Form of Book It is now recognized that the modern form of a book (with leaves attached to a spine and positioned between two covers) had its origin in the last part of the first century. Indeed, the earliest known form of such a book (called a codex, plural codices) is a part of the New Testament. It could be said that it was the creation of the New Testament itself that brought about the modern codex form of book. Previous to the invention of the codex the world's literature was mainly written on papyrus or leather scrolls. But when it became necessary to preserve the canon of the New Testament the codex was adopted. This had definite advantages to it. One Gospel (say Luke's) could be written on one scroll about 30 feet long (and there would have been up to ten such scrolls to contain the whole of the New Testament), but the use of the codex allowed the whole of the New Testament to be written on both sides of the leaves and placed between the covers of one book! Not only did this have the convenience of compactness, it also kept the various books in a proper order! Whereas ten or more scrolls could hardly be kept in a consistent order (unless, like the Old Testament, they were in the control of priests in the Temple who maintained the correct arrangement), but if a codex was used, then each book could follow the next and always remain in the same order. With such positioning it would be easy to spot when pages were missing or if extra (and unauthorized) pages might be somehow inserted. It wasn't even necessary to number the pages (though this could be, and was, done on occasion) because it would have been easy to follow the text since the account simply went on from one page to the next. In the earliest codices the Greek words were written in capital letters and there were no spaces between the words. Not only did this economize on space but it was a deterrent for inclusion of unauthorized words or phrases. A further hedge in keeping the New Testament books in order was the fact that each composition was able to end in the middle of a page and the next book could simply continue on the bottom half of the page. And though it must be admitted that no procedure could safeguard the purity of the New Testament text in an absolute sense, the combination of the factors we have mentioned (plus the fact that the apostle John must have seen to it that there was a distribution of the official codices among several of the churches) is a reasonable guarantee that the canonized Scriptures which were authorized by Peter and John would be properly maintained. This must have been the manner in which many of the Christian churches received their standard New Testaments. The canon was finally created in the region of Ephesus where the apostle John spent his last days. And, from the historical evidences we presently have available it seems that the codex form of book had its origin (or at least its practical use) with the formation of the New Testament in the region of Ephesus. Inventing the codex was an outstanding accomplishment of the highest order! The next step in mass communications took place a little over 1300 years later when the printing press was invented. And while it appears that the first codex was the New Testament, the first printed book was the Bible! It is not unreasonable to suspect that the apostles who saw the need for the New Testament to be canonized (and realizing that they had no official priesthood in a Temple to preserve it properly) resorted to the codex as the method for preservation! It may have been the apostle Paul himself who thought of the idea. Recall that he asked Timothy and John Mark to bring with them to Rome "the book case, the scrolls, and the parchments" (2 Tim.4:13). Paul had left these items with Carpus at Troas. The residence of Carpus may be important to the matter. He lived at the port city of Troas (the place for sailing to Europe) and right next door to Pergamus, the center of the "book trade" in the first century (an area just north of Ephesus). It may have been no accident that Paul's "book case" was in the hands of Carpus. Using such an item may have been the first step in the production of the codex form of book. Imagine Paul using a type of folio case as a protection for single leaves of papyrus or vellum on which he had written important teachings! If there were twenty, forty, or a hundred such separate leaves placed alongside one another in the folio case, and with easy access from an opening on one of the narrow sides, it would have taken but little imagination to see how easy it would be to sew the leaves together at the back, then secure them with hard covers on either side and bind them into a common bond at the back. True, no one can know (at least at the present) if this is what Paul's "book case" was, but still there is no reason to refute the suggestion. Since it is certain that Christians in various parts of the world began to use the codex form of book from near the end of the first century, its creation has to be assigned to the period of the apostles! It is my personal belief that the codex was indeed invented for the express purpose of producing the New Testament for easy distribution and for a more reliable preservation! The Autographs There has always been the question of the original autographs. Where were they kept? Or, what happened to them? Certainly, there was only one autograph of each Gospel or epistle (or, perhaps, several copies prepared by the writers). Doubtless each of the books and epistles, when originally written, was in scroll form. It would have been impractical to place such autographs into a codex form in which the New Testament was canonized. The use of the codex, in the first place, was to make it possible to re-produce a number of copies in a convenient form in order to send them to various churches. This is why Peter and John simply had the originals copied (as the early Jews copied scrolls under Ezra when the Old Testament was canonized). The books were copied into codices and sent to several churches for reading and reference. In actual fact, there was no reason for maintaining the originals once the apostle John put his final authority on the contents of the codices. This procedure also had the effect of telling the Christian church which letters of the apostles were selected to be a part of the divine canon and which ones were not. If, for example, a church or an individual had a genuine letter of an apostle, that letter would in no case be considered as divinely inspired if it had not been selected by Peter and John for inclusion in the New Testament. And indeed, if such a genuine epistle might be found today (which is highly unlikely), it could not be considered sacred literature (no matter how interesting its contents might be) because it was not canonized by the apostles in the first place. On the other hand, if Peter and John had felt it proper to include the story of "Little Red Riding Hood" (assuming such a story existed at the time, and no matter if there was not an ounce of what we call religious teaching in it), it should be accepted today as divine Scripture if one recognizes the authority of Peter and John! Actually, this is exactly what Ezra did when he canonized the "Song of Solomon" in the Old Testament! There is not a shred of religious information in that document and the name of God, or its derivatives, is not found once within its pages. More than that, the "Song of Solomon" seems to have, on the surface, an erotic theme that still offends the moral standards of some sensitive religious people! Of course, Peter and John did not include any "Little Red Riding Hood" in their New Testament canon, but they had the authority to do so (according to Second Peter 1:12-21) had they thought it proper. This right of theirs also extended to the placement of documents within the canon that quoted non-canonical works after the close of the Old Testament period. Jude thought it perfectly proper to cite a section from the Book of Enoch (Jude 14,15), but this did not sanction the totality of "Enoch." The apostle Paul quoted from the Greek classics. The proverb "evil communications corrupt good manners" found in I Corinthians 15:33 is from Menander's "Thais," ultimately derived from a lost play of Euripides. Then there is "the prophet" of the Cretans (Titus 1:12) who was Epimenides, and Paul's quote is from his work called "Minos." There are, in fact, numerous illusions throughout Paul's writings to Jewish and Greek works which were circulating in the Mediterranean world at the time. The Book of James has a quote from a source that is totally unknown (4:5), and James referred to it as "Scripture." Yet, it is my personal belief that this quote from a lost work only becomes "Scripture" to Christians because it is now found in the canon of the New Testament! The apostle Paul also quoted a text from a Greek inscription devoted to "the Unknown God" (Acts 17:23), but it is not to be imagined that Paul agreed with the rest of the text (if it had any) or the theological implications surrounding the use of the inscription. Really, the inspiration of the New Testament compositions is not so much in the writing of the words themselves (though that was important), but the holiness of the documents comes from the authority of Peter and John to canonize them! The same principle applies to the canon of the Old Testament. We have records of many inspired men of the Old Testament period who taught the Israelites either orally or through writing (and many of them are mentioned in the Book of Chronicles), but the only divine writings which represent the canon for Jews (and Christians) are those selected by Ezra the priest with the help of the Great Assembly. If this principle regarding the authorization for canonizing the Scripture would be recognized in today's theological world, many of the problems involving the current "infallibility" debate could be resolved, at least in my view. The fact is, many scholars today are more concerned with the details which they find within the canonical books (whether they are scientifically and historically accurate) rather than whether the books themselves are infallible by virtue of being in the canon. To me, Ezra, Peter and John had an infallible commission to produce a canon of Scripture by the infallible Yahweh Elohim (though they of themselves were fallible men). And it is the books of the canon that allow the details within the books to be holy, and not the details themselves! The present arguments are similar to those of the Scribes and Pharisees who were more interested in details of a matter rather than "the matter" itself. Christ upbraided them for saying the gold of the Temple (that is, a detail of the Temple) was more important than the Temple which made the gold holy. The gift on the Altar (a detail of the Altar) was more significant than the Altar which made the gift holy (Matt.23:16-22). And so it is with the canon. It is the canon itself which makes every jot and tittle within the books of the canon to be holy, no matter how mankind may judge the merits of the details. There is a main Scriptural example which, to me, shows this principle. Christ referred to the stone which honest and godly men had rejected from becoming a part of the holy Temple of God (Psa.118: 22; Matt.21:42, Eph.2:20; esp. I Pet.2:4-7). The masterbuilders could observe, without doubt, that the external condition of the stone was "imperfect" and disqualified from entering the "perfect" Sanctuary of God. But strange as it may seem, that is the very stone which God Himself selected to become the chief cornerstone of the whole Temple. Indeed, that particular stone was what imparted holiness to the Temple itself! Yet even proper priestly authorities (who were ordained to build the Temple with as "perfect" stones as they could meticulously observe) had to cast that stone aside as "imperfect" and unable to become a part of the Temple. But God looked at things differently. That stone became the head of the corner. Thus, all canonical books are holy regardless of their "imperfections." Epilogue There will be some major criticisms leveled at the conclusions reached in this book. The main ones will revolve around my belief that Ezra, Peter and John were the three men commissioned to form the Old and the New Testaments. It is normally assumed by most scholars that the books of the Bible in some way simply "came together" without any rhyme or reason and that no person was in charge of the process. I find this difficult to believe if the Holy Bible is truly "Holy" and that it is the authoritative "Word of God." Admittedly, all belief in the holiness of the Bible must eventually rest on faith! I have no hesitancy in acknowledging this fact. But in view of the evidences presented in this book, I also see a literary and historical basis for that faith. To me, the factors go a long way in showing that the 49 books of the biblical revelation are truly divine! I will now briefly answer four of the main criticisms that may be given. Criticism One: Martin, are you so naive as to believe that the apostle Peter actually wrote First and Second Peter and that the apostle John was the one who wrote John's Gospel, the three epistles of John and the Book of Revelation? Don't you realize that top university scholars are in dispute over these matters and that you are at odds with them? Surely you can't believe that the apostles actually wrote the New Testament books bearing their names? Answer: I see no reason not to believe it! There is not a particle of historical evidence that proves otherwise! Prof. John A.T. Robinson of Trinity College Cambridge, England (who died in late 1983 I am sad to say) provided excellent evidence to show that all the New Testament books, as far as historical and documentary evidence is concerned, could have been written before A.D.70. And he was right! Although it appears to me that the Book of Revelation and the Gospel of John were written (at least in their final form) in the last decade of the first century, Prof. Robinson's evidence vindicates the fact that all the New Testament books could have been composed within the lifetimes of the apostles. Since the books bearing the apostles' names were written to a wide community of Christians (and buttressed by the testimonies of many eye-witnesses), I see no reason for not accepting their authenticity, and there is not a scholar in the world who can prove this appraisal wrong! Criticism Two: Martin, virtually every New Testament scholar who has studied the development of the New Testament canon feels that the canon was only created gradually and that the 27 New Testament books could not have formed a complete body of books until the late second century at the earliest and early fourth century at the latest. Answer: Yes, that is what most scholars attest, and this is exactly where they are wrong! The first chapter of Second Peter makes it abundantly clear from the writings of the apostle Peter himself that he and the apostle John were the responsible ones to canonize the New Testament. They also inform us that a body of Paul's letters were as inspired as are the Old Testament Scriptures. To me, it appears utterly absurd that Peter, John and Paul (knowing that they were soon to die and that Christ was not returning in the first century) would have simply died and left it to some unknown church members to form a New Testament canon in a gradual and haphazard fashion some 50, 100, or 200 years after the apostles' deaths! This would have been a dereliction of duty of the highest order! Thankfully, we have the Second Epistle of Peter which describes in detail that Peter and John were the authorized ones to canonize the New Testament and I have complete confidence that they did. It is my conviction that scholars should start with what Peter said as the truth and then proceed from that point forward in history in order to find out how the church came to use the canon of the New Testament, not how the church supposedly brought the books together themselves in some unknown and arbitrary way a hundred or so years later. In my view it has been a major mistake for scholars to begin their investigations on the development of the New Testament with the fourth century (when everyone knows the church had the complete canon), and work backwards from that time in trying to discover how the books entered the canon. Just the opposite should be done! We should start with what the apostles themselves said about their roles in establishing the New Testament and then look for the historical reasons why the early Christian fathers until the fourth century failed to mention a few of the canonized books! Criticism Three: Martin, the scholars who presently work with the texts of the New Testament do not seem to be overly concerned about the disposition of the books. Their interest is primarily in restoring (if at all possible) the actual words written by the New Testament writers by comparing the various manuscripts. Having the proper words is far more important than presenting the manuscript order of the biblical books. Answer: True, in the scholarly and ecclesiastical worlds today there is little enthusiasm expressed (certainly in a public sense) for a return to the manuscript arrangement of the Biblical books, but this does not make the apathy right. And while textual scholars must be commended for their indefatigable efforts to restore as best as possible the original "words" of the apostles, it should also be recognized by them that those "words" require a proper context to be adequately understood. Such contexts are not only found in sentences and paragraphs but the relationship of books one to another! Since textual scholars so carefully adhere to the manuscripts in their judgments on what "words" probably made up the original autographs, it is astonishing that an apparent blind eye has (essentially) been turned to the early order of the very manuscripts with which they work. Yet it is easily recognized what the manuscripts show. When the pioneers in the field of textual criticism (Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort) published their resultant editions for scholars, they were united in showing the proper manuscript order (the one we are advocating in this book). Indeed, even more important to the issue was the appeal by Professor Caspar Rene Gregory in the early part of this century (who is still recognized as an outstanding authority in textual criticism) that all New Testament versions today should be published in the original Greek manuscript order ("Canon and Text of the New Testament," pp.467-469). But to this day his plea has gone unheeded (as well as the clear evidences for the manuscript order provided by the textual critics mentioned above). The general public know none of these facts. (The only New Testament translation of which I am aware that followed the proper order of the books was that of Ivan Panin in 1935. But I know of no complete Bible of the Old and New Testaments which follows the manuscripts in its arrangement of books.) But I feel the time is long overdue to correct this obvious oversight. Many scholars and laity would no doubt agree that the time has come for a change. The present apathy which apparently prevails among present publishers of Bibles needs to be changed into one of enthusiasm for a return to the original Bible of the manuscripts. Let them publish their new translations, but in the proper order! The traditional arrangement devised by Jerome in the fifth century with the publication of his Latin Vulgate Version needs to be set aside for the one maintained by the early Greek manuscripts. Such a restoration would have the effect of presenting to the Christian world the kind of Bible that the first Christians were used to. It might also help people understand the Biblical messages in a much better way. The rewards would be great indeed. Criticism Four: Martin, you are exaggerating the worth of such a restoration. The world has got along quite well with Jerome's fifth century arrangement of the Biblical books and there is no need to change the situation now. Answer: The truth is, there is no better time to return to the original Bible! Just because people have been used to the wrong order for the past 1600 years is no excuse for continuing the error. This is especially so because it is now evident (as shown in this book) that the internal evidence from all parts of the Bible supports a manuscript order of both the Old and New Testaments. The present arrangement is clearly sectarian and provincial and is late in origin. It follows the Egyptian order of the Old Testament books and the "Western" advancement of Paul's Gentile epistles over the Jewish epistles of the early Greek manuscripts. This should not be. But most importantly, look at this. The original manuscript order of the Biblical books places the five books of the Christian Pentateuch (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts) - which are the only books describing the life and times of Jesus Christ, both on earth and in heaven - as the CENTRAL part of the whole Bible. This "Torah" of the New Testament in a natural and non-artificial manner becomes the fulcrum of all the Biblical books as shown by the arrangement provided by the manuscripts. Thus, the Word of God (Christ) is the central part in the Word of God (the Bible). To show this important and essential truth the world needs "The Original Bible Restored." ..................