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.
- “New Insights into Acts 14 and 15: Encouragement.” ↩︎
- https://defendinginerrancy.com/chicago-statements/ ↩︎
- R. C. Sproul and Normal L. Geisler, Explaining Biblical Inerrancy: The Chicago Statements on Biblical Inerrancy, Hermeneutics, and Application with Official ICBI Commentary (Arlington, TX: Bastion Books, 2013). ↩︎
- Gregory K. Beale and Donald A. Carson, eds., Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007).. ↩︎
- Gene L. Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), 102. ↩︎
- I. Howard Marshall, Acts: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1980), 300. ↩︎
- Marshall, Acts, 300 ↩︎
