Comments are temporarily disabled.
- Publication Assumptions Impact Buswell’s Interpretation of the Olivet Discourse
Who are the elect in the Olivet discourse?
For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. (Matthew 24:21–24 ESV)
“Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. (Matthew 24:29–31 ESV)
Of course, there are a variety of approaches to this passage, depending on one’s approach to eschatology.
What I want to highlight in this blog post is that one’s assumptions regarding the publication date of Matthew can impact how one interprets the teachings of Jesus. Contrary to what some theologians claim, the date is not a merely esoteric concern.
Was Matthew published before or after Paul’s teachings which refer to Christians as the elect (e.g., Rom. 8:33)? For J. Oliver Buswell (1895-1977), president of Wheaton college from 1926 to 1940, his understanding of Matthew’s publication date was an essential part of his argument that “the elect” in the Olivet discourse refer to Christians rather than to Jews and therefore the gathering of the elect must refer to the rapture:
There is a very considerable group of Bible students who hold that the words, “the elect,” in the Olivet discourse refer only to the Jews. This opinion seems to me wholly unsupported. On the contrary I should urge (1) that the gospels of Matthew and Mark were written at a date subsequent to the principal epistles of the Apostle Paul, and that if the Lord in the Olivet discourse had meant by “the elect” anything other than what is meant in such passages as Romans 8:33, both Matthew and Mark would have given some indication, for Paul’s vocabulary must have been quite familiar throughout the church by the time these Gospels were written and put into circulation. (2) It is evident that Christ was answering the questions put to Him by the apostles, not for the apostles only, but for the entire church throughout the present age. … 1
Buswell was a premillennialist who affirmed that there was an eschatological future for national Israel, yet he differed from other contemporary premillennialists on the timing of the rapture, the identification of the elect in the Olivet discourse, etc.2
It is not my interest here to debate eschatology. Rather, to merely demonstrate that our assumptions regarding the publication date of Matthew can impact how we hear and understand what our Lord said, so this should motivate us to get this right.
- The Law: “Write These Words”
In this posting, I want to remind us of how intentional God has always been in wanting His people to have a written record, memorial, or testimony of what He has said and done. That written record is then to be copied, taught, and memorized. Moses left behind a body of writing, as commanded by the LORD.
Jesus, a prophet greater than Moses, would likewise have been expected to leave behind a written record, a memorial, a testimony.
My point being that the early church would have fully expected for the disciples to quickly produce something like a Gospel.
From Exodus:
- Then the LORD said to Moses, “Write this as a memorial in a book and recite it in the ears of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.” (17:14 ESV)
- The tablets were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, engraved on the tablets. (32:16)
- And the LORD said to Moses, “Write these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” (34:27)
From Deuteronomy:
- “And when he [the future king] sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. (17:18)
- Now Moses and the elders of Israel commanded the people, saying, “Keep the whole commandment that I command you today. And on the day you cross over the Jordan to the land that the LORD your God is giving you, you shall set up large stones and plaster them with plaster. And you shall write on them all the words of this law, when you cross over to enter the land that the LORD your God is giving you, a land flowing with milk and honey, as the LORD, the God of your fathers, has promised you. … And you shall write on the stones all the words of this law very plainly.” (27:1–3, 8)
- “Now therefore write this song and teach it to the people of Israel. Put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for me against the people of Israel. (31:19)
- When Moses had finished writing the words of this law in a book to the very end, Moses commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, “Take this Book of the Law and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against you. (31:24–26)
- Warfield and the Early Recognition of the NT Writings as Scripture
I have asserted that the writings of the apostles were immediately recognized as Scripture (e.g., 1 Tim. 5:18; 2 Pet. 3:15–16; 2 Tim. 3:16). And further, that Galatians refers to something like Matthew’s Gospel, which was “previously written” prior to Paul’s first visit to Galatia.
Here is my translation of Galatians 3:1:
“O foolish Galatians! . . . What was previously written (proegraphē) concerning Jesus Christ’s crucifixion was presented before your eyes.”1
In this context, I was delighted to recently encounter similar arguments from B. B. Warfield, that the apostolic writings were immediately recognized by the early church as Scripture. Originally published in 1892, Warfield claimed the following:
But the Old Testament books were not the only ones which the apostles … imposed upon the infant churches, as their authoritative rule of faith and practice. No more authority dwelt in the prophets of the old covenant than in themselves … Their own commands were, therefore, of divine authority (1 Thess. 4:2), and their writings were the depository of these commands (2 Thess. 2:15). … Inevitably, such writings … were received by the infant churches as of a quality equal to that of the old “Bible”; placed alongside of its older books as an additional part of the one law of God; and read as such in their meetings for worship—a practice which moreover was required by the apostles (1 Thess. 5:27; Col. 4:16; Rev. 1:3). In the apprehension [or view], therefore, of the earliest churches, the “Scriptures” were not a closed but an increasing “canon.” Such [Scripture] they had been from the beginning, as they gradually grew in number from Moses to Malachi; and such they were to continue as long as there should remain among the churches “men of God who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”2
I do appreciate the way in which Warfield conceives of Scripture—not as a rigid OT canon which was well formed and finalized prior to the apostolic era, but as an ever growing collection of writings, of Scripture, to which the NT writings were gladly added by the infant churches.
The earliest Christians did not, then, first form a rival “canon” of “new books” which came only gradually to be accounted as of equal divinity and authority with the “old books”; they received new book after new book from the apostolical circle, as equally “Scripture” with the old books, and added them one by one to the collection of old books as additional Scriptures, until at length the new books thus added were numerous enough to be looked upon as another section of the Scriptures.3
Only in passing does Warfield touch on the date of Matthew’s Gospel, as he defends the inspiration and integrity of Scripture against contemporary critics:
We ask nothing in declaring that modern biblical criticism has not disproved the authenticity of a single book of our New Testament. … Who does not know, for example, of the sustained attempts made to pack the witness box against the Christian Scriptures?—the wild denials of evidence the most undeniable,—the wilder dragging into court of evidence the most palpably manufactured? Who does not remember the remarkable attempt to set aside the evidence arising from Barnabas’ quotation of Matthew as Scripture, on the ground that the part of the epistle which contained it was extant only in an otherwise confessedly accurate Latin version; and when Tischendorf dragged an ancient Greek copy out of an Eastern monastery and vindicated the reading, who does not remember the astounding efforts then made to deny that the quotation was from Matthew or throw doubt on the early date of the epistle itself? Who does not know the disgraceful attempt made to manufacture,—yes simply to manufacture,—evidence against John’s gospel. (etc.)4
Despite the mere passing reference, I’ll happily claim that Warfield’s “early date” falls in-line with my early Gospel proposition!
Again, I must express a sense of wonder at being able to read from the writings of the stalwarts of the faith. In this case, my thanks to archive.org for access to copies of Warfield’s writings.
- New Insights into Acts 18 and 19: Apollos, the Baptism of John, and the mighty Word of the Lord
In Acts 18 and 19, we continue to highlight the essential role which Matthew’s Gospel played in Paul’s evangelistic endeavors. But first, let’s recap some of our prior observations and assertions:
- Matthew was published coincident with the events of Acts 10–11 and Mark shortly thereafter.1
- These texts were immediately accepted as authoritative Scripture, as having been published by apostles or approved by them.2
- Paul followed the same method in his ministry, as he would later encourage Timothy to pursue in 1 Timothy 4:13: grounding his exhortation (encouraging, strengthening) and teaching in the public reading of Scripture, including Matthew’s Gospel.3
- References in Acts to encouraging, strengthening, teaching, reasoning from or examining the Scriptures (per Paul’s common practice in the synagogues), should all be understood as leveraging Matthew’s Gospel.4
- Phrases like “the word,” “received the word,” or “the word of the Lord,” particularly when used in the context of “Scripture” (e.g., Acts 17:10) or the above activities, suggest that Matthew’s Gospel is at least partially in view.5
Paul in Corinth (Acts 18:1–17)
In Corinth, Paul could once again be found every Sabbath reasoning in the synagogue and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks (Acts 18:1–4). As before, we can visualize Paul as speaking from both the OT and Matthew’s Gospel. Since the passage goes on to note that “Paul was occupied with the word (tō logō), testifying to the Jews that the Christ was Jesus” (18:5, ESV), there is again an implication that the word in view refers not only to the spoken word, but also to the written word.
Paul in Ephesus, Antioch, and on to the Third Missionary Journey (Acts 18:18–23)
From Corinth, Paul sets sail for Syria. As his travels take him through Ephesus he enters the synagogue and returns to his favorite activity, reasoning with the Jews. Ultimately, he arrives at Caesarea Maritima, makes a quick visit to Jerusalem, and then returns to Antioch.
After a short time, he departs on his third missionary journey, traveling through Galatia and Phrygia, going “from one place to the next … strengthening all the disciples.” Per our earlier observations and assertions, we can again visualize Paul as employing Matthew’s Gospel as he strengthens the churches.
Apollos (Acts 18:24–28)
Shifting away from Paul, the focus of the story now turns to Apollos, as he arrives in Ephesus from Alexandria. The narrative reports that he was “competent in the Scriptures” (18:24) which, of course, should immediately lead us to question whether the author has in view the OT (akin to Acts 1:16; 8:32, 35) or Matthew’s Gospel, or both. So which is it? I believe that the following verse clarifies such:
He had been instructed in the way of the Lord … and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John (18:25)
Does this not align with what we find in Matthew? On the premise of an early Matthew, this passage provides insight into the spread of Matthew’s Gospel within the decade after the resurrection, as Matthew was apparently in circulation in Alexandria by the late AD 40s or early AD 50s.
Given that Matthew’s Gospel does not tell the story of Pentecost, Apollos evidently knew only of the baptist of John; therefore, Priscilla and Aquila pulled Apollo aside and explained “the way of God more accurately.” This side-story then concludes with Apollos refuting the Jews, showing them “by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus” (18:28), akin to Paul’s practice.
The Baptism of Jesus Prevails over the Baptism of John (Acts 19:1–10)
After Apollos moves on to Corinth, Paul arrives in Ephesus. There he finds twelve disciples who knew only of John’s baptism; although, whether they were disciples of Jesus or of John the Baptist is debated.6 However, given that Christians had been actively at work in Ephesus for some time, I find it hard to believe that the twelve were merely followers of John. If they were indeed disciples of Jesus who had an inadequate understanding of the resurrection and no familiarity with Pentecost, then this would suggest that they were only familiar with the teachings within Matthew’s Gospel, akin to Apollos’ prior situation. Paul proceeds to baptize them in the name of Jesus and they are filled with the Spirit. They begin speaking in tongues and prophesying, thereby demonstrating that the baptism of Jesus surpasses the baptism of John. We will return to this theme of superiority shortly.
For three months Paul is able to reason in the synagogue concerning the kingdom of God, but eventually he shifts to reasoning daily in the hall of Tyrannus—this “continued for two years, so that all the residents of Asia heard the word of the Lord” (19:10). Here again we find “the word of the Lord” referenced in close proximity with Paul’s ministry of reasoning, which we already argued included the reading and studying of Matthew’s Gospel. Hence, we should understand that everyone (hyperbolically) across the region heard the preaching which leveraged Matthew’s Gospel. Hence, not only does the NT report the spread of word of the Lord—presumably including Matthew’s Gospel—within Alexandria, the capital of the Roman province of Egypt (as suggested by Acts 18:24–26 above), and across the Roman provinces of Macedonia and Achaia (per 1 Thess. 1:5–8)7, but also now across the Roman province of Asia.
The Word of the Lord Prevails over Books of Magic (Acts 19:11–20)
As Paul’s ministry in Ephesus continues, the sick are being healed and evil spirits are being exorcised. Not to be left out, the seven sons of Sceva attempt to invoke the name of Jesus to exorcise evil spirits for themselves. Unfortunately, this doesn’t go well for them and they end up fleeing naked and wounded from a possessed man. But through this event, the name of the Lord Jesus is exalted and many of those who are now believers bring their magic books and publicly burned them, which all leads to the author’s summary, that “the word of the Lord continued to increase and prevail mightily” (19:20).
There is a delightful irony in this story. If we accept that “the word of the Lord” has in view Matthew’s Gospel, then the author has drawn a rich contrast between magic books and the Spirit inspired written record of the Son of God. In other words, the written word has just done battle with a stack of now charred books. Indeed, just as the baptism of Jesus has prevailed over the baptism of John, so the word of the Lord has prevailed over these books of magic.
Summary
We began this blog post by recapping some of our prior observations and assertions. Within the pages of Acts 18–19, we’ve also now seen:
- Additional instances in which Paul is encouraging, strengthening, teaching, and reasoning from or else examining the Scriptures, all of which involve Matthew’s Gospel.
- Additional instances in which “the word” and “the word of the Lord,” are used in the context of “Scripture” or the above activities, which suggest that Matthew’s Gospel is at least partially in view with these references.
- An indication that Apollos had been trained in Matthew’s Gospel while in Alexandria.
- A statement that the “word of the Lord,” which presumably included written copies of Matthew’s Gospel, had now spread across the Roman province of Asia.
- An ironic characterization of the word of the Lord, embodied by Matthew’s Gospel, as having defeated books of magic.
In the next post in this series, we will consider Paul’s admonition to the Ephesian elders, as our final reflection within Acts.
- New Insights into Acts 16 and 17: Reasoning with God-fearers, Jews, and pagan philosophers
I have argued that during his first missionary journey, Paul grounded his ministry in the use of a published Gospel—whether he was preaching and teaching or strengthening and encouraging the churches.1 Now, in this blog post, we consider three encounters between Paul and those in Macedonia and Achaia during his second missionary journey: (1) with Lydia in Philippi; (2) with the Jews in Thessalonica and Berea; and (3) with the philosophers in Athens. As before, I want to encourage us to visualize Paul’s use of a published Gospel in these encounters.
The Legitimacy of Viewing the NT through the Lens of an Early Matthew
But first, let us consider: Is it legitimate to approach the biblical text with a preconceived notion that a Gospel was available? In my book, I have made the case for an early Gospel on the basis that
- the proposition of an early Gospel is reasonable, in that there was means, motive, and opportunity for the publication of such;
- the church fathers can be understood as affirming on early Matthew (and early Mark)
- the ancients were concerned about the reliability of aging memories and would therefore give more credibility to a Gospel published early
- etc.
atrustworthygospel.com gets into some of this. Further, I have argued that the proegraphē of Galatians 3:1 refers to a Gospel, and that there is explanatory power inherent in the premise of an early Gospel; nevertheless, my early Matthew argument is largely extra-biblical. So again, is viewing Scripture through the lens of an early Gospel a legitimate interpretive approach?
I believe that it is. Accordingly, let us turn to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy:
Article XVIII. WE AFFIRM that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture. WE DENY the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.2
This grammatico-historical concept is further elaborated by R. C. Sproul and Norman Geisler in their commentary on the Chicago Statement:
Grammatico-historical is a technical term that refers to the process by which we take the structures and time periods of the written texts seriously as we interpret them. Biblical interpreters are not given the license to spiritualize or allegorize a text against the grammatical structure and form of the text itself. The Bible is not to be reinterpreted to be brought into conformity with contemporary philosophies but is to be understood in its intended meaning and word usage as it was written at the time it was composed. To hold to grammatico-historical exegesis is to disallow the Bible to be shaped and reshaped according to modern conventions of thought.3
Hence, in postulating the availability of a Gospel, I am providing the presumed historical context within which other portions of the NT were written. Indeed, what I am presupposing is akin to the premise that the OT was also fully available when the NT books were written. Based on this perspective, it is entirely appropriate to consider how the OT (or a prior Gospel) might have influenced the NT writings. This is exactly the premise of works such as Beale and Carson’s masterful Commentary on the New Testament User of the Old Testament.4
Paul’s Encounter with God-Fearing Lydia (Acts 16:11–15, 40)
Paul and his companions arrived in Philippi and remained there for several days. On the Sabbath he went outside the city to a place of prayer and spoke with the women who had gathered there.
14 One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. (Acts 16:14 ESV)
Can we envision that Paul employed a written Gospel in this encounter? Perhaps, but in an indirect sense. The focus in the text is certainly on what Paul said, rather than on what Paul read. However, there is an interesting connection in how Lydia’s conversion is characterized by the author and how conversions are characterized in another work by the same author.
Luke records that following the resurrection, Jesus appeared to the disciples. And although he showed them his hands and feet, “they still disbelieved” (Luke 24:41).
44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, (Luke 24:44–46 ESV)
Jesus had little need to lay out copies of the OT Scriptures before the disciples in order to lead them into understanding these Scriptures. Surely, they were already quite familiar with the pertinent teachings of the OT, given their time with Jesus. And yet, even though Jesus likely didn’t lay out the OT Scriptures before them, his speech was grounded in these Scriptures, as he opened their minds.
In the same way, I suggest that Paul’s speech was likewise grounded in the published life and teachings of the Lord, as recorded in Matthew, as the Lord opened Lydia’s heart. She may not have had Matthew’s Gospel spread before her, but I contend that its presence overshadowed their first encounter alongside the river, even as the Gospel of John might overshadow a contemporary presentation of the gospel.
However, by the end of the chapter, Lydia was to be exposed to the document itself. After Paul and Silas are imprisoned for casting the spirit out of the servant girl and after the Philippian jailer and his family are saved, Acts records that Paul and Silas visited Lydia (going into her home), where they saw the brothers and “encouraged them,” before departing the city (Acts 16:40). As per my blog post for Acts 14–15, we should understand that this encouragement likely included the reading of a Gospel.
Paul’s Encounter with the Jews in Thessalonica and Berea (Acts 17:1–15)
On arriving in Thessalonica, Paul went into the Jewish synagogue over the course of three Sabbath days and “reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and rise from the dead” (Acts 17:2). On the premise that an early Matthew was recognized as Scripture by the early church—given that it was authored by a disciple of Jesus and sanctioned by the Jerusalem elders—we can envision that the Scriptures used in Thessalonica were inclusive of Matthew’s account of the life and teachings of Jesus. Furthermore, we can assume that Paul followed the admonition which he laid on others, that one should public read Scripture when exhorting and teaching (1 Tim. 4:13). Given this context, Matthew’s Gospel was central to Paul’s evangelistic ministry with the Thessalonians. For those who were persuaded, we can anticipate that they would be eager to obtain their own copy of the Gospel; and this may well explain why Timothy remained behind in Thessalonica, after Paul and Silas slipped away by night.
In Berea, Paul and Silas again went into the synagogue, where the Jews “received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so” (17:10–11). In this passage, we find that “the word” (ton logon) is closely associated with “the Scriptures.” Hence, we should be alert to other instances in which “the word” or “the word of the Lord” is received or examined.
For example, in one of the earliest epistles, Paul, Silas, and Timothy remind the Thessalonians that “our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power” and that “you became imitators of us and the Lord, for you received the word (ton logon) in much affliction, with the joy of the Holy Spirit, so that you became an example to all the believers.” For, “the word of the Lord sounded forth from you in Macedonia and Achaia” (1 Thess. 1:5–8).
This passage in 1 Thessalonians is fascinating, if we accept that the “received word” in this context indeed refers to not only the Thessalonian’s reception of Paul’s “reasoning,” but of Matthew’s Gospel itself, and that Timothy remained behind in Thessalonica to oversee the duplication of this Gospel. What then should we understand of Paul’s compliment that they imitated him and his companions, with respect to the word which they received and the word of the Lord which sounded forth from them into other regions? Surely this suggests that they likewise rooted their proclamation of the gospel in the dissemination of the written Gospel.
Green points out that Thessalonica was the capital city over the province of Macedonia and that they had enormous influence in all spheres—political, economic, and religious.5 Accordingly, the church there would have had ready access to the materials and literary skills necessary for replicating and distributing Matthew as part of their evangelistic campaign.
Paul’s Encounter with Pagan Philosophers (Acts 17:16–34)
Paul encountered both Epicurean and Stoic philosophers in Athens. Marshall explains that the Epicureans followed the teachings of Epicurus (341–270 BC), and that they “tended to be materialistic in outlook. For them the gods did not exist, or they were so far removed from the world as to exercise no influence on its affairs. … in their ethics they stressed the importance of pleasure and tranquility,” while scorning sensuality or hedonism.6 On the other hand, the Stoics followed Zeno (340–265), and “took their name from the stoa or colonnade where he taught. They stressed the importance of Reason as the principle which was inherent in the structuring of the universe and by which men ought to live. They had a pantheistic conception of God as the world-soul, and their ethics stressed individual self-sufficiency and obedience to the dictates of duty.”7
I belabor these philosophies in order to make the point that both Epicurus and Zeno wrote extensively and that their writings were highly valued by their disciples. Over the centuries, works were also published by their followers, which further developed their philosophies. Accordingly, I contend that this type of cultural context—in which noteworthy philosophical (or religious) movements deferred to earlier writings—would have been one of the motivators for the disciples to have published a Gospel(s) at an early date. Indeed, Paul himself would have gained more credibility were he to make known that he likewise followed the published teachings of his master. One could well imagine Paul standing in the Areopagus, elaborating on the resurrection with Matthew’s Gospel in-hand, akin to how both ancient philosophers and contemporary orators of Paul’s era are frequently pictured in statuaries.
Summary
This blog post aspired to make several points. First, that it is legitimate to interpret Scripture through a historical lens which is sensitive to which biblical literature was available at the time the Scriptures were being written. Second, that Paul’s conversations with Lydia were grounded in what could be found in Matthew’s Gospel, as the Lord opened Lydia’s heart to the truth of Paul’s message. Third, that Paul employed a copy of Matthew’s Gospel as he taught in the synagogues in Thessalonica and Berea. And further, that when Paul later applauded the Thessalonians for spreading the word of the Lord throughout the region, this included the dissemination of copies of Matthew’s Gospel. Lastly, that Paul would have gained more credibility before the philosophers in Athens if he made known the fact that he carried a document which conveyed the teachings of his master, akin to the documents which the philosophers treasured from their masters. As I’ve asserted elsewhere, an early Gospel premise makes a tangible difference in our reading of the NT texts.