How The Bible Came to Us - Part 3

 HOW THE BIBLE CAME TO US – PART 3

Blog Post Date:  2-24-2021

The beginnings of the New Testament canon came about toward the end of the life of Paul and Peter, both of whom were martyred in Rome in 67 A.D. This was not Paul’s first trip to Rome, which is recorded in Acts 28:14. Paul had won his case (with the help of Seneca, Nero’s tutor) after waiting two years (62-64) for his hearing. Paul then went to Spain and Britain to preach the gospel, returning later by the land route through Gaul (France) and Helvetia (Switzerland) to Macedonia. In 67 he was arrested, along with Peter and his wife, and they were brought to Rome for trial and execution about the same time.

Of the three apostles who had witnessed Jesus’ transfiguration, only two remained. James had been dead for over 20 years already (Acts 12:2). Only Peter and John remained, along with Paul, who saw the glorified Christ last.

Timothy’s Urgent Mission

In 67 A.D., John was not arrested. But Peter and Paul both knew that they were soon to be executed by Nero. Paul had accepted this as a fact when he wrote his second letter to Timothy from Rome. 2 Timothy 4:6-8 says,

⁶ For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. ⁷ I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; ⁸ in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing.

Peter, too, knew of his impending death. 2 Peter 1:14 says,

¹⁴ knowing that the laying aside of my earthly dwelling is imminent, as also our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. ¹⁵ And I will also be diligent that at any time after my departure you may be able to call these things to mind.

In both letters we find a certain urgent task that they felt compelled to complete before they died. In verse 15 above, Peter was hinting to his readers that he would be leaving them some written material to read after his departure, so that they would be able to remember his teaching.

Paul, in turn, was writing to Timothy, asking him to come to Rome immediately. “Make every effort to come to me soon” (2 Timothy 4:9). Paul had a little time yet before his execution—enough time to write to Timothy in Ephesus and time for him to make the trip to Rome. They did not have a modern postal system in those days, nor did they have speedy transportation. It is not likely that Timothy could have arrived in Rome before at least a month or two had passed.

¹³ When you come, bring the cloak which I left at Troas with Carpus, and the books, especially the parchments.

It is not likely that Paul needed to obtain an overcoat all the way from Troas. After all, the Pudens senatorial family was residing in Rome, and they were wealthy enough to give Paul an overcoat if he needed one for the coming winter (2 Timothy 4:21). It is more likely that the Greek word phelonen, “cloak,” was being used in its secondary meaning. In Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament, we read,

“Phelonen was a wrapper of parchments, and was translated figuratively in Latin by toga or paenula, ‘a cloak,’ sometimes of leather.” [quoted from Restoring the Original Bible, by Dr. Ernest Martin]

It is certain that Paul was asking for copies of his own letters, which he had left in Troas with his trusted friend, Carpus. These were carefully protected by a phelonen, some sort of leather carrying case.

Of greater interest to us is the reason why Paul needed those books and parchments. Did he simply need material to pass the time in prison? Or did he have a much more urgent motive? He could have obtained reading material in Rome, but Paul needed THE books and THE parchments. They were obviously specific writings that were important to complete his task before his death.

The Apostasy

Peter and Paul were in the process of canonizing their portions of what would become the New Testament. They wanted to be sure that the churches had their authoritative writings, in view of the coming apostasy, which, in fact, appears to have already occurred. Many of the Jewish Christians were being caught up in the great Revolt against Rome that had already begun at the Feast of Tabernacles in 66 A.D.

The Jews had just completed the last remaining work on the temple in 64 A.D., as Josephus tells us in Antiquities of the Jews, XX, ix, 7,

“And now it was that the temple was finished.”

This was widely viewed as a sign of the soon-coming Messiah, for it was believed that he would only come after His dwelling place had been finished. So the completion of the work on the temple encouraged the people to prepare for revolt, for the way was then prepared for the great military messiah to come and help them throw off the yoke of Rome.

Christian Jews, who had maintained close ties to the temple in Jerusalem and had continued sacrificing animals according to the Old Covenant, finally became disillusioned that Jesus had not yet returned. Many were swept up in the spirit of revolt, and many joined the “freedom fighters.”

For this reason, Peter and Paul both warned that “the day of the Lord” would not come until the “apostacy” (lit., the casting out) had taken place (2 Thessalonians 2:3). The word apostasia does not mean to “fall away” passively, but rather to “cast out, cast away.” I believe that Paul was speaking of the casting out of the bondwoman (Jerusalem) and her son (Galatians 4:30).

In other words, Paul was saying that the day of the Lord (the resurrection and the coming of Christ) would not come until Hagar-Jerusalem had been cast out. This was an event that was shortly to take place in 70 A.D., then again in 135 A.D. And because Jerusalem has again been reclaimed by the Zionists with the support of Christian Zionists, it is necessary to cast it out again, because the children of the flesh cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.

As in Paul’s day, this casting out of Hagar was accompanied by Christians who had rejected the teaching of Jesus in order to join with the unbelieving Jews in their fight for “freedom” led by a militant messiah. Peter himself stated this in 2 Peter 2:19-22,

¹⁹ Promising them freedom while they themselves are slaves of corruption, for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved. ²⁰ For if after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse than the first. ²¹ For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment delivered to them. ²² It has happened to them according to the true proverb, ‘A dog returns to its own vomit,’ and ‘A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire’.”

These Jewish Christians had returned to Judaism, and by joining the revolt, they had betrayed Jesus in favor of a militant messiah who was expected to deliver them from Rome. They became the Judas of their day, claiming to be Jesus’ friends, but joining with those who had usurped His throne in the temple of God.

Peter, Apostle to the Jews

Peter’s ministry to the Jews had been difficult. Paul had to rebuke him for his failure to take a stand against the Jewish view that made Jews and Greeks unequal (Galatians 2:11). Paul was resented and even hated for opposing this long-established tradition that was constantly reinforced by the dividing wall in the temple (Ephesians 2:14). But in the end, Peter joined with Paul in opposing the impending Jewish revolt and the return of so many Christian Jews to Judaism.

Thus, Paul and Peter felt it necessary to warn the people. The specific ministries of Paul and Peter finally reached their zenith in full unity, in view of the disastrous result of the Christian stubborn resistance to leave the old temple and its religious system.

But since both Peter and Paul knew they were about to die, it was urgent that they leave behind an established body of writings for future generations. And so, Timothy and Mark brought the books and parchments to the Roman prison, where Paul and Peter could decide which to include in the New Testament canon—and in what order.

Paul chose 14 epistles, including (I believe) his Book of Hebrews, which was extremely important at that time, as it gave the New Covenant reasons for not joining the Jewish revolt against Rome. No doubt Paul prayed for guidance, made whatever changes necessary, and then sent them to John in Ephesus to complete the final canonization by the end of the first century.

It is probable that Paul’s final alterations, inspired by the Holy Spirit, accounts for some of the variations in the early manuscripts. After all, Paul’s letters had already been copied and were circulating among the churches. Here is where Ivan Panin’s study of gematria is very helpful, for it establishes the inspired text in a way that resolves the difficulties that Bible scholars normally face.

With the death of Peter, the second of the witnesses of Jesus’ transfiguration passed from the scene. Only John was left to complete this very important work.

The Gospels

Scholars usually claim that Mark was the first gospel to be written, probably about 37 A.D. They base this on the fact that Mark’s gospel is the simplest. But to me, simplicity is merely the writing style of the author. There is better evidence that Matthew’s gospel was the earliest and that it was commonly used as the first New Testament Scripture among Jewish Christians, especially in Judea. It was also circulated in the Hebrew language.

Mark’s was Peter’s gospel, which was written specifically for the Roman believers some time after Peter’s trip to Rome in 45 A.D. The second-century Bishop Irenaeus tells us that it was written after the deaths of Peter and Paul (Eccl. Hist., Vol. II, Book V, viii).

Luke’s gospel, as we will show later, was written about 74 A.D. Though it was written after the death of Paul, the gospel of Luke reflected Paul’s teachings, since Luke was Paul’s missionary companion (and scribe) for many years.

John’s gospel was written over a period of decades. Hence, it has three endings, the final edition being completed before he died in the year 100 A.D. Meanwhile, John had also written three epistles (undated) and the book of Revelation (96 A.D.). These, along with the book of James and Jude’s epistle, rounded out the canon of the New Testament.

 

Isaiah: Part 3

ISAIAH, PROPHET OF SALVATION: PART 3

By Dr. Stephen Jones:  3-5-2020

Blog Post Date:  3-30-2020

Isaiah 1:3 says,

³ “An ox knows its owner, and a donkey its master’s manger, but Israel does not know, My people do not understand.”

God called Israel “My firstborn son,” but Israel soon ceased to recognize his Father. Israel had become senile before his time. The problem was that Israel had refused to recognize that they were “one nation under God.” Having displaced God from His throne, they set themselves up as the highest authority in the land and were ruled by the traditions of men.

Incorrigible Sons

Isaiah 1:4 gives us the prophet’s lamentation,

⁴ Alas, sinful nation, people weighed down with iniquity, offspring of evildoers, sons who act corruptly! They have abandoned the Lord, they have despised the Holy One of Israel, they have turned away from Him.

Israel was turned from being sons of God to “offspring of evildoers.” Natural sons are unable to change fathers, but spiritual sons may easily change fathers, because it is a legal change, not a biological change. The same law by which these sons of God were turned into sons of evildoers has the power to turn us back into the sons of God.

Isaiah 1:5, 6 says,

⁵ Where will you be stricken again, as you continue in your rebellion? The whole head is sick, and the whole heart is faint, ⁶ from the sole of the foot even to the head there is nothing sound in it, only bruises, welts, and raw wounds, not pressed out or bandaged, nor softened with oil.

The prophet says that God had disciplined them so much already that His son was full of bruises, welts, and raw wounds from head to toe, yet no amount of discipline could turn their hearts. God had brought Israel into six distinct captivities prior to the time of Israel’s monarchy, and in Isaiah’s day the Assyrians were soon coming to put them into a lengthy iron-yoke captivity.

Not much had changed since the days of Moses, when the people wanted to stone him. Since all previous disciplinary action had not produced repentance, except in the remnant, the time was drawing near for the law of the stubborn son to be enforced.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 says,

¹⁸ If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, ¹⁹ then his father and mother shall seize him and bring him out to the elders of the city at the gateway of his hometown. ²⁰ They shall say to the elders of his city, “this son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.” ²¹ Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel will hear of it and fear.

This is one of the laws by which God put the nation of Israel to death. National death does not mean every individual was killed, but rather that the national entity had been destroyed. In other words, the nation of Israel no longer existed. The people were deported to Assyria, where one large group was settled in the land of Gamir and were known as Gamira, a name derived from Gomer, the wife of Hosea who was a type of Israel. Gomer, in turn, was the old spelling of Omri, the king of Israel whose son was Ahab.

Two centuries later, Assyria fell to Babylon, and many of these Gamira (also called Khumri, i.e., the Celts) immigrated into Europe. As time passed, they formed many different nations, but God did not allow any of them to take the name Israel. Hence, Israel as a nation was dead, having been stoned for persistently stubborn rebellion.

The modern state called Israel is a Jewish state, not an Israelite nation. God allowed them to take the name Israel for other reasons which I covered thoroughly in my book, The Struggle for the Birthright. The modern Israeli state is not what most Christians think it is, yet it is certainly in the divine plan. By understanding the divine law, we may see its purpose clearly.

The Surviving Remnant

Isaiah 1:8, 9 says,

⁸ The daughter of Zion is left like a shelter in a vineyard, like a watchman’s hut in a cucumber field, like a besieged city. ⁹ Unless the Lord of hosts had left us a few survivors [sariyd], we would be like Sodom, we would be like Gomorrah.

Isaiah paints a scene of isolation like a tiny fortress in the midst of a siege. In other words, only a few people are left—in this case, a righteous remnant in a nation full of iniquity. The prophet calls them “survivors,” using the word sariyd. This is similar to she’ar, “remnant,” except that sariyd pictures a few survivors arriving as refugees after a massacre.

The prophet then compares Israel to Sodom and Gomorrah, not only in moral character but also insofar as divine judgment is concerned. He says that the only reason Israel was not treated like Sodom and Gomorrah (i.e., destroyed completely, never to arise again) is because “the Lord had left us a few survivors.”

In other words, the presence of the remnant stayed the hand of God, whereas in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, God removed Lot and his family from the city so that He could destroy it. The angel told Lot in Genesis 19:20-24,

²⁰ Now behold this town is near enough to flee to, and it is small. Please, let me escape there (is it not small?) that my life may be saved… ²² Hurry, escape there, for I cannot do anything until you arrive there. Therefore the name of the town was called Zoar [“little, small, insignificant”]. ²³ The sun had risen over the earth when Lot came to Zoar. ²⁴ Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven.

Lot was the “remnant” in his day. His presence preserved Sodom and Gomorrah for as long as he remained there. But the day came when God removed him so that judgment could come upon these wicked cities.

In the case of Israel, the nation was just as wicked as Sodom and Gomorrah. It too was being preserved as long as there was a righteous remnant in the land. As we will see later, Isaiah had a son named She-ar jashub, “the remnant will return.”

It appears that Isaiah’s son served as a prophetic type of the remnant being removed from Israel in order to allow the Assyrians to destroy the nation. That is why Isaiah and his sons were in Jerusalem, the capital of Judah. Yet when Isaiah wrote the first chapter of his book, it appears that he was living in Israel and felt isolated in a sea of wickedness. For this reason, he would write as if the remnant was still present in Israel, preventing the nation’s final destruction.

The implication is that once Isaiah and his children moved out of Israel into Judah, the signal was given to the Assyrians to destroy the nation.

Israel Becomes Sodom

Isaiah 1:10 says,

¹⁰ Hear the word of the Lord, you rulers of Sodom; give ear to the instruction of our God, you people of Gomorrah.

The people and their leaders were lawless. In particular, the story in Genesis 19 shows that Sodom and Gomorrah were known for their toleration of the homosexual lifestyle. In fact, this is the particular sin that confirmed the wickedness of the city when the two angels arrived to investigate (Genesis 19:5-8).

Such immorality had become an accepted way of life in Sodom. With Israel, too, Isaiah 3:9 says, “they display their sin like Sodom; they do not even conceal it.” In other words, homosexual relations had been legalized and had come “out of the closet.” Israel had rejected the law of God, in particular, Leviticus 20:13,

¹³ If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

Of note is the fact that Sodom and Gomorrah had not been given the law of God, for its citizens were not present at Mount Horeb to hear the law. Nonetheless, they were held liable for their violation of the law, perhaps because homosexual behavior is not “natural.” Paul used this argument in Romans 1:20, applying it in part to homosexual behavior in Romans 1:26, 27,

²⁶ For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, ²⁷ and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

From God’s perspective, once men began to worship creatures rather than the Creator, they quickly degenerated into immorality and did things which nature itself show to be “unnatural.” Ultimately, “God gave them over to a depraved mind to do those things which were not proper” (Romans 1:28).

There are some who argue that only Israelites are responsible to keep the law of God, since they were the ones who received the law at Mount Horeb. Jews today claim that non-Jews were only given the so-called “Noahide laws” in Genesis 9:1-7. However, these “Noahide laws” say nothing about homosexual behavior, so if this had been the only standard given for non-Jews, then how could God hold Sodom and Gomorrah liable?

God held Sodom and Gomorrah liable for their wickedness (i.e., violation of His law). That example proves conclusively that the law was not just given to Jews or Israelites but to all men. It is the righteous standard reflecting the nature of God Himself, and so it reflects what all of mankind will be in the restoration of all things.

I should also add that insofar as the earthly application of the law is concerned, the law does not judge homosexuality itself but only homosexual acts. The law is weak in that it cannot judge thought crimes. The law regulates behavior only, for it lacks the ability to change the heart, i.e., one’s nature. Only the Holy Spirit can change one’s heart, and so a Christian homosexual ought to appeal to the Holy Spirit while, in the meanwhile, refraining from overt acts that violate the law and nature of God.

If anyone is offended by this, keep in mind that my commission is to teach the word of God, not to reinterpret it to suit the world's view of morality.