I.  Introduction

A. The Author

There are three pieces of evidence to consider if we are to arrive at any conclusion about the authorship of the first gospel: (1) the title, (2) external evidence, and (3) internal evidence. As will soon become apparent, not all of these categories bear equal weight.

1. The Title

The titles of NT books were not part of the autograph, but were added later on the basis of tradition. Still, the tradition in this case is universal: every MS which contains Matthew has some sort of ascription to Matthew.¹ Some scholars suggest that this title was added as early as 125 CE.² The fact that every inscription to this gospel affirms that Matthew was the author coupled with the fact that nowhere does the author identify himself makes the tradition quite strong, but still short of proof.

2. External Evidence

The earliest statement that Matthew wrote something is by Papias: “Instead [of writing in Greek], Matthew arranged the oracles in the Hebrew dialect, and each man interpreted them as he was able.”³ We have already discussed some of the possibilities of what Papias referred to in this statement.⁴ It may be helpful, in this place, to outline the general views: (1) “the oracles” (τὰ λογία) = the Gospel of Matthew; (2) “the oracles” = a sayings source  (like Q); (3) Papias is not speaking about the Hebrew dialect, but he uses διαλέκτος to mean “literary fashion”; thus, Matthew arranged his Gospel along Jewish-Christian lines; (4) Papias was wrong.

Although it is quite impossible to decide conclusively what Papias meant since we are wholly dependent on Eusebius for any excerpts from this early second century writer, some general considerations are in order: (1) Papias probably was not referring to the Gospel, since we have no trace of it in Hebrew or Aramaic until the medieval ages (all of which are clearly translations of the Greek, at least as far as most scholars are concerned). This view, therefore, is shipwrecked on early textual evidence. Further, Matthew does not show strong evidence of being translation Greek. (2) Some have suggested therefore (as an expedient to salvage the first view) that Papias was referring to Matthew’s literary method, rather than linguistics, but such is by no means a natural interpretation of διαλέκτος. (3) Although Papias could have been wrong—and he was a man of meager intelligence (according to Eusebius)!—he is sufficiently early and well-connected with apostolic Christianity that he ought to be given the benefit of the doubt. (4) The best option, in our view, is that Papias was referring to a sayings source which Matthew wrote. If so, then Matthew in all probability incorporated this source into his gospel, after rearranging it.⁵ As we suggested in our section on the Synoptic Problem, this sayings source may well have constituted a portion of Q.⁶ In any event, the great probability is that Papias is referring to the apostle Matthew as an author of material on the life of Jesus. Whether this is proto-Matthew, Q, or Matthew, Matthean authorship of the first gospel is either directly or indirectly supported by the statement.

After Papias, Irenaeus wrote: “Now Matthew published also a book of the Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the Church.”⁷ It is obvious that Irenaeus got the gist of this information from Papias (since he was acquainted with his work), though he does add two interesting points: (1) the audience of Matthew’s work was the Jews (or Jewish Christians); (2) the time when this work was written was during Peter and Paul’s tenure in Rome. In light of Irenaeus’ dependence on Papias (as well as his interpretation of his statement), this part of the tradition does not receive an independent testimony.⁸ But Irenaeus adds the interesting point that the time when Matthew wrote this was when Peter and Paul were in Rome. This may be no more than a guess, for other information in the statement seems false.⁹ On the other hand, since Peter and Paul were not in Rome together until the early 60s, this may well help us to fix a date for Matthew’s Gospel, provided that this tradition has other corroborative evidence.

Still later, Origen assumed that Matthew penned his Gospel originally in Hebrew. However, Origen adds nothing to what Papias has said, and may well have assumed that Papias was speaking about the Gospel rather than a sayings source. After Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, Augustine and others echoed the opinion of Matthean authorship.

The early external testimony is universal on two points: (1) Matthew wrote something related to the life of Jesus Christ; and (2) Matthew wrote in a Semitic tongue. Little, if any, independent testimony exists however for the supposition that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew/Aramaic. Nevertheless, the attachment of the name of Matthew to the first gospel may well indicate that it ultimately goes back to him, even if completed by a later compiler.

Added to this explicit testimony are the quotations of Matthew’s Gospel in the early patristic writers. It is quoted as early as 110 CE (by Ignatius), with a steady stream of patristic citations afterward. In fact, Matthew’s Gospel was quoted (and copied) far more often than either Mark or Luke. From earliest times, then, it was treated as canonical and authoritative on the life of Jesus Christ, regardless of authorship.

One final comment about external evidence should be added. Although there is always the possibility of a vested interest on the part of patristic writers to seek apostolic authorship for the anonymous books of the NT, this does not explain why Matthew and no other apostle was ever suggested for the first gospel. Indeed, not only was Matthew by no means the most prominent of the apostles, but he also would not seem to be as qualified as some others to write to Jewish Christians, in light of his former occupation. Would not Andrew or Philip or Bartholomew have been more likely candidates if an apostolic author were merely a figment of the early church? None of them had the stigma of having been in league with the Romans, and all figured more prominently in the gospel narratives. What is especially impressive is that Matthew and Matthew alone was suggested as the author of the first gospel.

3. Internal Evidence

The following are seven pieces of internal evidence which suggest, first, that the author was a Jew, and second, that he was Matthew.¹⁰

a. Familiarity with the Nation

The author was familiar with geography (2:23), Jewish customs (cf. 1:18-19), Jewish history (he calls Herod Antipas “tetrarch” instead of “king”). He displays a concern for the OT law (5:17-20) and puts an emphasis on the evangelistic mission to the Jewish nation as well (ch. 10). The evidence is quite strong for authorship by a Jew.¹¹

b. Hints of Semitisms in his Language

There are relatively few Semitic traces in Matthew, though one might note the heavy use of  τότε (89 times), as compared with Mark (6) and Luke (15), perhaps harking back to the Hebrew אז.¹² Beyond this, there is the occasional asyndeton¹³ (a mark of Aramaic influence), use of the indefinite plural (1:23; 7:16), etc. Although Matthew’s Greek is less Semitic than Mark’s, it does betray traces of Semitisms at times—even where none exists in the Markan parallel. If Matthew did write this gospel, one might not expect many Semitisms since Matthew was a tax-collector and would therefore have to be conversant in Greek as well as Hebrew/Aramaic. But the fact of some Semitisms suggests either that the writer was a Jew or that his sources were Semitic. Yet, some of these are so much a part of the fabric of his gospel (e.g., τότε) that it is more reasonable to suppose that the author was himself a Jew.

c. His Use of Scripture

Gundry has ably pointed out how the author used the OT, especially in his formula quotations. Although there are many OT citations which correspond to the LXX rendering, his own introductory formulae (which are not found in either Mark or Luke) all seem to be free translations of the Hebrew.¹⁴ If so, then the author most probably is a Jew. Further, he shows great familiarity with contemporary Jewish exegesis in how he uses the scriptures.¹⁵

d. Attack on Pharisees

Matthew’s Gospel attacks the Pharisees and other Jewish leaders more than Mark or Luke do (cf. 3:7 16:6, 11, 12; ch. 23). Perhaps the reason for this was, in part, due to how hard these religious leaders were on the tax-collectors (they associated them with sinners and Gentiles). Not much can be made of this however.

e. Frequent Use of Numbers

The author’s frequent use of numbers would be natural for a tax-collector. He divides things into three parts: the genealogy, the trilogies of miracles in chapters 8-9; five parts: five great sermons of Jesus, all with the same closing formula (7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1); six corrections on the misuse of the Law (in chapter 5); seven woes, parables (ch. 13); etc. Again, not much can be made of this argument, else one would have to say that a tax-collector wrote the Apocalypse! But at least it is consistent with who Matthew was.

f. His Mention of Money

A more weighty argument is the author’s frequent reference to money—more frequent than the other gospel writers in fact. He uses unique monetary terms (drachma in 17:24; stater in 17:25; talent in 18:24, 25); he alone of the synoptists speaks of gold and silver; Matthew contains the only two parables on talents (chs. 18, 25); and he uses tax-collector-type terminology (“debts” in 6:12 where the Lukan parallel has “sins”); “bankers” (25:27), etc. Especially when one compares the synoptic parallels, Matthew’s use of monetary terms seems significant. The most reasonable hypothesis for this is that the author was quite familiar with money.

g. The Calling of Levi

Both Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27-28 speak of the calling of “Levi” while Matthew 9:9 calls him “Matthew.” But all the lists of the apostles refer to him as Matthew (Matt 10, Mark 3, Luke 6, Acts 1).¹⁶ Yet, what is remarkable is that only in the first gospel is Matthew called “the tax-collector” in the list of apostles. It may well be that the author is showing humility in this reference. In the least, however, Matthew’s Gospel is the only one which identifies the tax-collector whom Jesus called with Matthew the apostle. The most logical reason that the writer felt such liberty with his Markan source was because he knew of the identification personally.

Thus he could either be Matthew himself or an associate who later compiled the work. Against the compiler theory is Matt 9:9, which records the calling of Matthew: “it is significant that it is more self-deprecating than Luke’s account, which says that Matthew ‘left everything’ and followed Jesus”¹⁷ while Matthew simply says that he got up and followed Jesus. If the first gospel were not by Matthew, one would be at a loss to explain why the author seemed to deprecate Matthew in such subtle ways. A later compiler who knew and respected Matthew (probably a disciple of his), or worse, a “school of St. Matthew,” simply does not fit the bill.¹⁸

In sum, each piece of evidence is hardly weighty on its own. But taken together, there is a cumulative impression made on the reader that a bilingual Palestinian Jew, well acquainted with money, wrote this gospel. External testimony has already suggested Matthew as the author; the internal evidence does nothing to shake this impression. There is, therefore, little reason to doubt Matthean authorship.

4. Objections to Matthean Authorship

There are three primary objections to Matthean authorship, listed in descending order of value: (1) the improbable use of Mark by an apostle; (2) the high quality of the Greek of the gospel; and (3) the nonbiographical structure of the book.

(1) Assuming Markan priority, would an apostle use a gospel written by a non-apostle, or even any written source? This is not as weighty an argument as it appears, for “if Matthew thought Mark’s account reliable and generally suited to his purposes (and he may have known that Peter stood behind it), there can be no objection to the view that an apostle depended on a nonapostolic document.”¹⁹

This is analogous to the Revised Version translators (1881) using the King James Version. They intentionally supported the tradition of the KJV, and in fact wanted to emulate its translation wherever possible. However, they deviated from it in three distinct ways: (a) they wanted the new work to be based on more ancient MSS; (b) they had a better grasp of the Greek than did the KJV translators and sought to make a more accurate translation even where the textual basis was identical; (c) they wanted to remove archaisms which were no longer clearly understood. The motivation behind the RV was “to make a good thing better.” What is most significant for our purposes is the fact that even though the RV translators knew Greek much better than did the KJV translators and had earlier MSS to work with, they still wanted to keep in line with the KJV tradition as much as possible. The analogy with Matthew and Mark is obvious: even though Matthew was an eyewitness, he wanted to use Mark’s Gospel as much as possible, both to affirm its reliability and as a ready framework for the sermons of Jesus; but he also wanted to correct its grammar in places, and supplement it with pertinent information in other places.²⁰

(2) Kümmel adds three other arguments: “the systematic and therefore nonbiographical form of the structure of Mt, the late-apostolic theological position, and the Greek language of Mt make this proposal completely impossible.”²¹ Of these, only the first and third are really weighty, for the lateness of the theology is so intertwined with the supposedly late dates of other NT books and assumptions of uniformly linear development that it carries little conviction.²² Of the other two considerations, one will be dealt with here and the other will take up our last point.

The high quality of the Greek is hardly an argument against Matthean authorship, for Matthew would have to have known both Aramaic and Greek in order to collect taxes from the Jews and work for the Romans.²³ Further, there is a growing consensus that Galilee of the first century was thoroughly bilingual—so much so that Greek was probably the native tongue of most Jews. ²⁴

(3) “The systematic and nonbiographical” structure of Matthew²⁵ does not preclude Matthean authorship. Such is a non sequitur because “(1) a topically ordered account can yield biographical facts as easily as a strictly chronological account, and (2) Kümmel wrongly supposes that apostolicity is for some reason incapable of choosing anything other than a chronological framework.”²⁶

5. Conclusion on Authorship

Although there are some difficulties with Matthean authorship, none of them presents major obstacles, in spite of some scholars calling Matthean authorship “impossible.” On the positive side, the universal external evidence which seems to lack motivation for the choice of Matthew (as opposed to any other apostle), coupled with the subtle internal evidence, makes the traditional view still the most plausible one.²⁷

B. Date

A number of factors and presuppositions affect the date of this book. Among the most important are: (1) authorship; (2) the solution to the synoptic problem; (3) the date of Acts; (4) whether the Olivet Discourse was truly prophetic or a vaticinium ex eventu; (5) the theological development, especially related to ecclesiology; and (6) the significance of the Jewish nature of the work, especially its anti-Sadducean approach. Though most scholars date the book c. 80-90, our conclusion is that it should be dated substantially earlier.

(1) On the assumption of apostolic authorship, one cannot date this book too late. However, since we know next to nothing about how long Matthew lived, or even how he died,²⁸ the most that can be made of this point is that it was certainly written in the first century CE (a fact already confirmed by its use in Ignatius, Didache, Hermas, etc.).

(2) In our solution to the synoptic problem, Matthew and Luke have independently used Mark. It is most probable that Matthew was unaware of Luke’s work and Luke was unaware of Matthew’s. If so, then both were probably written at around the same time. If Luke is dated c. 61-62 CE (see the next section), then Matthew in all probability should be dated similarly.

Curiously, one of the arguments against Markan priority is that the patristic testimony is universal for apostolic authorship of the first gospel, and hence, scholars often contend that an apostle would not use a nonapostolic gospel. This argument has seemed so powerful that, on the other side, some Markan prioritists employ it to say that Matthew, indeed, did not write the gospel which bears his name! We have already dealt with this particular issue. However, what has not fully been addressed is the patristic testimony. If we take at face value the patristic testimony regarding Matthew and Mark (especially from Papias and Irenaeus), then three conclusions must be drawn: (1) Matthew wrote Matthew; (2) Mark wrote his gospel during the lifetime of Peter and based on Peter’s messages; (3) Matthew wrote his gospel when both Peter and Paul were in Rome (so Irenaeus). Is all of this impossible of harmonization? On the assumption of Matthean priority it is, for Mark would have gotten his gospel from Matthew and Luke, not from Peter!²⁹ But on the assumption of Markan priority, everything fits: (1) Mark wrote down Peter’s messages (probably sometime in the 50s, certainly sometime during Peter’s lifetime); (2) Matthew used Mark’s Gospel as a framework to write his own work; (3) Matthew wrote his Gospel in the early 60s (the only time when both Peter and Paul were in Rome together).

(3) The date of Acts looms larger for the date of Luke and Mark than it does for Matthew. But suffice it to say here that if Acts is to be dated no later than 62 CE (a view we will defend in out introduction to that book), then Luke and Mark must precede that date (assuming Markan priority). And since Matthew is apparently unaware of Luke’s literary efforts, it is reasonable to conclude that his work was published at about the same time as Luke (for the later we date Matthew, the less likely it is that he was unaware of Luke's gospel).

(4) Was the Olivet Discourse a vaticinium ex eventu (a prophecy after the fact)? It is safe to say that the assumption that it was is the single most important reason for overturning an early date (pre-70) for Matthew. However, two considerations argue against this supposition.

(a) Most importantly, only if one categorically denies the possibility of genuine prophecy on the lips of Jesus would the date of Matthew have to be later than 70 CE. But if Jesus spoke predictive prophecy, then there would be no necessity in placing the synoptic gospels so late.

(b) Robinson has pointed out that the specifics of the Olivet Discourse do not altogether match what we know of the Jewish War. He states, for example, that “‘the abomination of desolation’ cannot itself refer to the destruction of the sanctuary in August 70 or to its desecration by Titus’ soldiers in sacrificing to their standards. [Furthermore,] By that time it was far too late for anyone in Judaea to take to the hills, which had been in enemy hands since the end of 67.”³⁰ He adds that “if Matthew intended the reader to ‘understand’ in the prediction events lying by then in the past he has certainly given him no help.”³¹ And, most significantly, that “it is significant therefore that in 24.29, ‘the distress of those days’ (i.e., on the assumption of ex eventu prophecy, the Judaean war) is to be followed ‘immediately’ (εὐθέως) by the coming of the Son of Man . . . This makes it extraordinarily difficult to believe that Matthew could deliberately be writing during the interval between the Jewish war and the parousia.”³² Finally, Robinson concludes, “I fail to see any motive for preserving, let alone inventing, prophecies long after the dust had settled in Judaea, unless it be to present Jesus as prognosticator of uncanny accuracy (in which case the evangelists have defeated the exercise by including palpably unfulfilled predictions).”³³

In other words, since this prophecy is not altogether accurate, it most certainly cannot be a prophecy ex eventu. I find Robinson’s argument quite compelling at this point, with one quibble: the prophecy was completely accurate, but it has not yet been completely fulfilled. Just as the separation in time between the Lord’s first and second comings was unforeseen by the OT prophets, so also the separation in time between the destruction of Jerusalem and Jesus’ return were unforeseen by Jesus himself (cf. Matt 24:36). Robinson’s argument is a tour de force for a pre-66 date of the synoptic gospels, and, inadvertently, for an “earnest” fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse (in which the ultimate fulfillment still lay ahead).

(5) The theological, especially ecclesiological, development found in Matthew, is often used for a late date of this gospel. In particular, the mention of “church” (found only in Matthew of the four gospels) seems to reflect a later development, when issues of church order were of concern. But such a view is not at all necessary: there is no tight ecclesiastical organization seen in 16:17-20 or 18:17-18, “but only of broad principles appropriate to the earliest stages of Christianity.”³⁴ Hence, this really cannot be used to argue for a date c. 80-90. Moreover, there is much against such a late date: “the period of composition commonly assigned to both Matthew and Luke (80-90) was, as far as we know, marked by no crisis for the church that would reawaken the relevance of apocalyptic.”³⁵

(6) Finally, there is the anti-Sadducean sentiment which permeates this gospel. “Significantly Matthew records more warnings against the Sadducees than all other NT writers combined, and after A.D. 70 the Sadducees no longer existed as a center of authority.”³⁶ Indeed, such anti-Sadducean sentiment is very difficult to explain if the temple had been destroyed and the Sadducees were effectively wiped out! Only a date before 70 would give this motif any rationale.

In conclusion, the following points can be made: (1) Matthew depends on Mark and therefore probably should not be dated earlier than the 50s CE. (2) Luke neither knew of Matthew’s work, nor Matthew of Luke’s. If Luke is dated c. 62, then Matthew was probably written within two or three years of Luke (60-65). Thus, regardless of when Mark was written, the independence of Matthew and Luke argues for a date of close proximity to the other. (3) Matthew was written before the start of the Jewish War because his appeal to the reader to flee from Jerusalem is too  late in 67 CE since the Romans had shut off that possibility at that time. The best guess as to date would therefore be the early 60s (i.e. 60-65). And for what it is worth, this is confirmed by Irenaeus’ statement that Matthew composed his work when both Peter and Paul were in Rome (c. 60-64).

C. Place of Composition and Destination

Almost certainly Matthew’s Gospel was produced in Palestine or Syria, and the majority of NT scholars agree with this view. As well, its destination was presumably (virtually) the same as its place of origin. The reasons for a Palestinian/Syrian origin/ destination are as follows.

1. The earliest quotations of Matthew are by Ignatius, bishop of Antioch of Syria, implying that it was well known in that region from earliest times.

2. Papias’ statement that Matthew wrote in a Semitic tongue would seem to demand this, unless Papias is referring to something other than the gospel itself.

3. In spite of the gospel being in Greek, this does not deny a Palestinian-Syrian origin or destination, for Palestine was quite bilingual in the first century.³⁷ Still, if we see in Papias’ statement a sayings source which Matthew had compiled some time before he wrote the gospel, there must be a reason why one was in Aramaic and the other in Greek. The most logical explanation is that the first was for a narrower audience (Palestinian?) and the other for a wider one (Syrian?).

4. The Jewish flavor of the gospel—in particular the fact that the author takes for granted his audience’s comprehension of Jewish customs and places—argues strongly for a Palestinian/Syrian destination.³⁸ This also, of course, argues that the audience is racially Jewish in make-up.³⁹

5. The key issues and tensions in the gospel suggest that Judaism is in tension with Christianity—and in fact that the Christians are probably in the minority. “A community in which the sabbath is still strictly kept or at least was kept for a long time, where the question of the law plays such an important role, and in which the Pharisees constitute the main discussion partners . . . must be living in an area in which Judaism is dominant. That suggests at once Palestine or neighboring Syria. Egypt or even Babylon are not serious contenders, on the grounds that the existence of a largish Christian group alongside a Pharisaic scribal group is doubtful there.”⁴⁰

In sum, the above considerations suggest that Palestine may well have been the origin of the Aramaic sayings source by Matthew, but Syria would have been the destination of the completed gospel. Beyond this, little can be said.⁴¹

D. Occasion and Purpose

Before looking at Matthew’s specific occasion for writing his gospel, it might be beneficial to survey why the gospels were written at all. Several reasons come to mind: (1) the delay of Christ’s coming prompted the writing of the gospels, for otherwise how would second-generation Christians recognize the signs of his return?⁴² Thus, the Olivet Discourse would naturally figure prominently in a gospel, regardless of when it was penned. (2) The apostles and other eye-witnesses were aging. There was thus a need for the preservation of the material into a codified or catechetical form. (3) There was the need for a wide distribution of the material, since not every church had its own apostle.⁴³ (4) There was a natural interest in the life of the historical Jesus on the part of new believers.⁴⁴ (5) The new believers needed edification. When Peter says that they should “follow in his footsteps” (1 Peter 2:21) this would naturally presuppose that some knowledge of the life of the Lord should be known.⁴⁵ (6) Christians who were suffering persecution needed to know the anchor of their souls better that they might be strong in stormy times. (7) There seem to have been apologetic purposes as well: to distinguish Christianity from Judaism, to correct misconceptions about Christ during the early and rapid influx of heresies, to evangelize and strengthen converts, etc.

Regarding the specific occasion for Matthew’s Gospel, two possibilities exist. First, Matthew’s congregation(s) already had the sayings of Jesus which Matthew had produced in Aramaic years earlier. His secondary audience had them, too, for they were translated into Greek relatively soon after their production.⁴⁶ Once Mark’s Gospel was published, however, there was a felt need among Matthew’s congregations to have a framework for the dominical sayings. His audience wanted more than quotations; they wanted the life of Jesus of Nazareth, too. Since Mark’s Gospel was at hand, it supplied a ready framework for the dominical material. Matthew, then, reshaped the dominical material into various topics and used Mark as the narrative framework. In other words, Matthew’s Gospel may well have been produced because Mark’s Gospel was the catalyst. It served, then, an edifying function for believers.

Second, Matthew’s Gospel was, in all probability, produced because his Jewish-Christian audience was undergoing persecution by their Jewish neighbors. This is evident from the themes and motifs in this gospel: emphasis on blessing for the persecuted and hostility toward those who bring the gospel; condemnation of the religious leaders of the day for their blindness and hypocrisy; and, quite diplomatically, an apologetic for keeping the Law: keeping the Law better than the religious leaders did was the criterion for entrance into the kingdom (5:17-20).⁴⁷ As we will see, this occasion melts into the purpose of the gospel quite naturally.

The purposes of this gospel are certainly manifold.⁴⁸ Nevertheless, there do seem to be three main objectives. First, this gospel was written to demonstrate that Jesus was the Messiah. This can be seen especially in the genealogy (which would have meaning for a Jewish audience that required proof of Jesus’ lineage), the miracles of Jesus (which would affirm Jesus’ authority not only as a spokesman for God, but as one who was ushering in a new age), and the OT quotations (which, with their unique introductory formula, are designed to show that Jesus is the fulfillment of the hope of Israel).⁴⁹

Second, the book was written to give an answer to the question, “If Jesus is the Messiah, why did he fail to establish his kingdom?”⁵⁰ The answer, in a nutshell, is that Jesus did not fail; the nation did. Yet, the kingdom has been inaugurated for those who fully embrace him as Messiah, and it will be consummated at the end of the age.⁵¹ Hence, in answering this question there is both an apologetic purpose and an evangelistic one: the Jewish Christians needed to have a defense before their Jewish non-believing neighbors and they also needed to understand the rationale for bringing the good news to Gentiles, viz., while the nation was in a state of rejecting God’s Messiah, a new program had been instituted⁵² in which Gentiles were accepted into the fold.⁵³ It is also possible to detect in this gospel perhaps a sense that not all of Matthew’s audience had truly embraced Jesus as the Messiah. If so, then the apologetic purpose was directed toward them as well as to their neighbors. In other words, Matthew was writing to professing believers who were Jewish, though many of them had nagging doubts about the person of Christ and his program.

Third, the gospel was written to confirm the legitimacy of the Gentile mission. The culmination of the Gospel is the Great Commission in which the Gentile missionary endeavor is given its full support, in light of the failure of the nation to embrace Jesus as Messiah. Some have even argued, on the basis of the Great Commission, that the author was a Gentile! This, of course, is unnecessary and reductionistic, but it does illustrate the significance of the Great Commission as the crescendo of this Gospel.

In sum, Matthew first proves that Jesus was the Messiah. Second, he shows that Jesus did not fail to establish the kingdom (the failure was the nation’s—and the kingdom was inaugurated, though not consummated in the coming of the Messiah). Finally, he wishes to show that because the nation failed to respond, the gospel was now open to Gentiles. But even in this final point Matthew walks a tightrope between giving his audience a rationale for the Gentile mission and making sure that they do not offend their Jewish neighbors by abandoning the Law. In this respect, 5:17-20 and 28:16-20 stand out as the theological cornerstones of this book, and they stand in some tension.⁵⁴

E. Theme

All four gospels emphasize a different facet of Jesus Christ, though Matthew’s emphasis is easily the clearest to perceive. He presents Jesus as Messiah, Son of David, King of the Jews.

II. Argument

Matthew begins his gospel by demonstrating the qualifications of Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah (1:1–4:11). He starts with a genealogy which is essential to establishing Jesus’ earthly right to the throne (1:1-17). The opening verse declares that “Jesus Christ [is] the son of David, the son of Abraham”—the reverse of the chronological order which he will employ in the genealogy proper. This is a pattern Matthew will develop throughout his gospel: Jesus came first as the son of David, as fulfiller of the Davidic covenant (2 Sam 7:12-16), then as the son of Abraham, as fulfiller of the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 12:1-3). That is to say, Jesus first  ministered to the Jews and then, when rejected by them, he opened up the gospel to Gentiles as well.

The genealogy is broken down into three groups: from Abraham to David (1:2-6), from David to the Babylonian captivity (1:6-11), and from the Babylonian captivity to the birth of Jesus (1:11-16) (cf. 1:17). “In David the family rose to royal power . . . At the captivity it lost it again. In Christ it regained it.”⁵⁵ Not only this, but during each of these three periods a major covenant is given: Abrahamic, Davidic, and New. Thus Matthew skillfully weaves together both proof of Jesus’ royal lineage and anticipation of fulfillment of the Messianic role.

A second proof of Jesus’ right to the throne focuses on his heavenly origin (1:18-25). Although he was legally in Joseph’s line, Joseph was not his true father, for he was conceived of a virgin. This miraculous birth was in fulfillment of prophecy (1:22-23; cf. Isa 7:14).

In chapter 2 Matthew paints a cameo of the early childhood of Jesus, culminating each of four sections with a quotation/allusion of the OT as part of a fulfillment formula. Each OT passage has major interpretive difficulties attached to it—that is, in terms of Matthew’s use. Yet, once it is seen that this entire chapter is intended as a fourfold foreshadowing of later aspects of Jesus’ ministry, Matthew’s use of the OT becomes clear: his tendency is to pick passages which are not fully prophetic, but which are typico-prophetic—just as this very chapter is typico-prophetic. In 2:1-12 the magi from the east come to Jerusalem (2:15) in search of him who has been born king of the Jews (2:2; a subtle snub on Herod the Great). The scribes rehearsed the prophecy of Micah 5:2, with a significant alteration: the addition of “by no means.” With the birth of the king, Bethlehem was no longer least of the rules of Judah. The magi’s worship of Jesus foreshadowed Gentile response and a universal gospel. In 2:13-15 Jesus escapes to Egypt because of the hostility of Herod. This, too, was a fulfillment of a typico-prophetic passage (Hosea 11:1) in which the one who deserves the name “God’s Son” has duplicated the trek which the nation, as God’s son, took many years before. This withdrawal foreshadowed Jesus’ later withdrawals—especially since they, too, were initiated by another Herod (Antipas) in his killing of an innocent one (John the Baptist). In 2:16-18 the slaughter of the babes of Bethlehem fulfilled the typico-prophecy of Jer 31:15 and foreshadowed the death of Christ. Finally, in 2:19-23 Jesus returns to Palestine and settles down in Nazareth, only to be scorned by his fellow-countrymen. That he would be called a Nazarene is both a fulfillment and foreshadowing: he would be despised (a play on words with Nazarene) because of his lowly beginnings. Thus as well-qualified as Jesus was, both in earthly and in heavenly terms, to be the king of the Jews, his early childhood set the stage for later Jewish rejection and Gentile reception.

Chapter 3 opens the second portion of this first major section: the preparation of the king. Even before he began his public ministry, he was acknowledged (by forerunner, Father, and foe) to be the heir to the throne, the elect one of God, the Son of God. Jesus is prepared for his ministry as Messiah by the preaching of John, his forerunner (3:1-12), by Jesus’ baptism in which he identified with the righteous remnant (3:15) and in which the heavenly voice acknowledged Jesus as Son of God (3:17), and by a demonstration of his mettle by withstanding the temptation of the devil (4:1-11) in the wilderness.

It is to be observed that there is a thread running through the early chapters of Matthew which subtly confirms that Jesus has the right to the throne. In the life of this one we see a duplication of the early life of the nation—with one difference: where the nation failed, Jesus succeeded. Thus, (1) both had a miraculous beginning, (2) both were brought down to Egypt, (3) both were brought out of Egypt and had to pass through the waters, (4) both were tested in the wilderness for a period of forty years/days, etc. Indeed, in the next section (4:12–7:29), the major emphasis is on the Sermon on the Mount—and Matthew intentionally links this to the giving of the Law by Moses. The response is the same in each case: the nation failed to believe and obey.

The second major section lays out  the principles of the king (4:12–7:29). This section is developed in two distinct parts (a typical pattern of Matthew’s): narrative and discourse. The narrative section (4:12-25) tells of the beginnings of Jesus’ ministry, in light of his adequate preparation (1:1–4:11). The beginning of Jesus’ ministry was the imprisonment of John by Herod (4:12) which prompted Jesus to continue the same message of John: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near” (4:17). At the same time, he changed his domicile from Nazareth to Capernaum (4:13-16) in fulfillment of prophecy (Isa 9:1-2). After declaring that his message was the same as John’s, he called his first disciples, at least one of whom (Andrew) had been a disciple of John’s (cf. John 1:35-42). Matthew summarizes Jesus’ ministry with the statement that he healed the sick and preached the kingdom (4:23-25)—a twin theme he will develop in chiastic order in chapters 5 through 9.

Matthew links the summary statement with the second portion of this section by an emphasis on the crowds: he healed and preached to crowds (4:25—“large crowds”) and “when he saw the crowds” in 5:1. An emphasis seen in all the gospels is on Jesus’ being moved by sheer numbers of needy people. The Sermon on the Mount (5:1–7:29) is a declaration of the principles of the king. As this sermon is the single largest piece of Jesus’ teaching contained in scripture, it has naturally received much attention. Generally speaking, the hermeneutical approaches to the Sermon on the Mount fall into five categories: (1) soteriological, (2) sociological, (3) penitential, (4) ecclesiastical, and (5) eschatological. A critique of each is necessary before we discuss the sermon directly.

(1) The soteriological view states that salvation is offered in this sermon: simply obey the principles and one will get saved. But this view hardly comports with the analogia fidei—even Matthew’s Gospel shows the necessity of Christ’s substitutionary death (20:28), an element wholly missing in the Sermon on the Mount.

(2) The sociological view is virtually the same as the soteriological one, except that the focus is on the salvation of society (corporate salvation) rather than of individuals. Although society would certainly be better off if it heeded the commands of this sermon (as it would for heeding all of scripture!), “this view fails for the simple reason that it has no relevance to the context.”⁵⁶ Not only this, but it suffers the same criticism that the soteriological view suffers.

(3) The penitential approach looks at the sermon “as a body of law which makes one conscious of his sin and thereby drives him to God.”⁵⁷ There is much merit to this view, especially in that it picks up the motif of repentance already seen in the kernel of Jesus’ preaching (4:17). But it fails at two decisive points: (a) it is backwards looking only, viewing the sermon as the culmination of the Law, with no connection to the kingdom (cf. 4:17!); and (b) it does not take into account the fact that Jesus—at least initially—is addressing his disciples, not the multitudes (cf. 5:2, 13, 14; 6:1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 14, 18, 26; 7:11; but against this, cf. 7:13-23, 26, 28-29).

(4) The most popular approach—the ecclesiastical view—sees the sermon as directly for the church today. This view is held by scholars of all theological stripes. Essentially, the Sermon on the Mount gives rules for life in the present dispensation.⁵⁸ Again, there is much to commend in this view, especially the fact that the evangelist included it in his gospel—written (for the most part) to the church.⁵⁹ But there are problems with the ecclesiastical approach as well: (a) it ignores the kerygmatic summary of 4:17 (which is in the section that introduces the Sermon on the Mount) with its emphasis on the nearness of the kingdom; (b) it assumes too much overlap between the Church and Israel (that is, it assumes that identical principles equal identical peoples); (c) in the only gospel to mention “church”—thus the one gospel that makes an explicit distinction between Israel and the Church—the ecclesiastical view blurs this distinction without warrant and when, in fact, all the contextual clues show Jesus still ministering under the old covenant.⁶⁰

(5) The eschatological approach sees the sermon as essentially related to the kingdom of God and is a view usually associated with dispensational premillennialism. It takes two forms: (a) the rule of life which will obtain during the millennial kingdom; (b) an interim ethic which true disciples should abide by in anticipation of the coming kingdom. Although there are strengths in the eschatological approach (especially in that it takes seriously the historical context and the progress of revelation, emulating a religionsgeschichtliche approach), it also has several weaknesses.

(a) The weakness of the first view is that millennial conditions seem to be wholly lacking in the Sermon on the Mount (cf. 5:10-11, 23, 32, 44;  6:2, 16; 7:15)—in fact, more than once it is assumed that the hearers are not in the kingdom (5:20; 6:10, 33; 7:21).

(b) The interim ethic view also has it weaknesses (though it is by far the most satisfactory view in the light of the context and analogia fidei, etc.). [a] It is unclear whether this “interim” is still taking place in the present age, or only lasted until the birth of the Church. If the former, then the sermon seems to contradict Paul’s view that “Christ is the end of the law (Rom 10:4; cf. Matt 5:17-20). Further, it suffers all the criticisms that can be leveled against the ecclesiastical view. If the latter, why would Matthew include so much didactic material if it were no longer directly relevant to his audience? [b] This view—as the others—does not take into account the different Sitze im Leben: Is Jesus’ purpose the same as Matthew’s? Although this view handles best what Jesus’ purpose was, it virtually ignores Matthew’s use of the sermon. Since—according to this view—both were addressing different audiences, how can one audience be ignored in the reconstruction of meaning? It is distinctly possible that Jesus was giving requirements for entrance into the (millennial?) kingdom (it is quite difficult to read the central message, 5:17-20, in any other way), while Matthew employs the sermon as both condemnation on the nation for not heeding Jesus’ instructions and for pointing to the need of salvation by grace as the only way to enter the present form of the kingdom. [c] Concordant with the above, the interim view typically denies the possibility of the kingdom’s inauguration in the death of Christ, arguing instead that the kingdom is wholly future. Although beyond the scope of this paper, the “already—not yet” view has strong credentials which at least need to be addressed by “interim ethicists.” [d] Finally, this view tacitly denies the validity of both form and redaction criticism when it comes to the composition of the Sermon on the Mount, while accepting many results of both disciplines when applied to other areas of gospel exegesis. Specifically, the interim view does not wrestle with whether the Sermon on the Mount was a single sermon or a patchwork of dominical sayings which Matthew himself wove into a single tapestry (it simply assumes the former).

In light of these weaknesses, it is our approach that the Sermon on the Mount is multivalenced: (1) It is an exposition of the intent of the OT Law, delivered in the best style of the OT prophets; (2) it gives entrance requirements (in Jesus’ original intent) for the (millennial?) kingdom which the nation rejected, thus postponing the earthly kingdom; (3) it sets up a perfect standard as entrance requirements into the present form of the kingdom (i.e., salvation) (in Matthew’s use) which points the audience to their need of Christ’s substitutionary death. Thus its ethic is for today in a secondary way (the legal requirements need adjustments), and the offer of the kingdom (now, the “already” aspect) is still good and can still be acted upon.

Matthew begins his recasting of the Sermon on the Mount with a comment as to whom Jesus intended to address, namely, the disciples (5:1-2). Toward the end of the sermon it will become obvious that the crowds were also included in the audience at some point (cf. 7:28-29). The Lord’s discourse proper involves three main sections: the subjects of the kingdom (5:3-16), the truth about the kingdom (5:17–7:12), and the way to enter the kingdom (7:13-27).

Every kingdom eventually has subjects and Jesus begins his sermon by painting a picture of the kind of people who would populate the kingdom (5:3-16). Before he lists any responsibilities for them, however, he first motivates his audience to see the wealth of character (as opposed to the wealth of material possessions), heading the list with those who are “poor in spirit” (5:3). Essentially those who live for God are blessed (5:3-12). They also have a responsibility to let their “salt” and “light” have their impact on society (5:13-16).

After this brief exposition about the members of the kingdom, the Lord now gives several truths about the nature of the kingdom itself (5:17–7:12). These again focus on character development, with a strong emphasis on internal righteousness in an externally ugly world. This is the major section of the sermon and it is no accident that Jesus begins by linking his views with those of the OT prophets—that is, by giving an exposition of the intent of the OT law (5:17-48). Arguably the core of the entire Sermon on the Mount is at the front-end of this exposition, for Jesus affirms that the principles of the OT law are inviolable (5:17-20). Then, in six masterful strokes he declares “you have heard . . but I say”—not so much as a denial of the validity of the law as an explanation of what the law was really trying to get at (5:21-48) regarding hatred (5:21-26), lust (5:27-30), fidelity in marriage (5:31-32), simple honesty vs. presumptuous and unnecessary oaths (5:33-37), the lex talionis vs. giving up one’s rights (5:38-42), and love for one’s enemies (5:43-48).

Chapter six opens with a lesson on real righteousness, the kind that is not done for show (6:1-18), for only a righteousness exercised toward God has an eternal reward.  This naturally leads to an examination of the intentions and attitudes of the heart (6:19–7:11) in which a truly righteous man invests in heaven (6:19-24) without worrying about his provisions on earth (6:25-34). Further, he must not have a critical spirit, especially toward believers (7:1-5), but at the same time he must exercise discernment toward outsiders (7:6).  How must one obtain such balance?  Where is he to find such wisdom, as well as know that his physical needs will be met?  He must turn—and often—to the Lord (7:7-11).  The intent of the OT law is then summarized in the “golden rule”: “in everything do to others what you would have them do to you.”  Thus 7:12 forms a tidy inclusio with 5:17-20.

The final portion of Jesus’ discourse sets up a dichotomy and gives the audience a choice (7:13-27).  If they would choose to enter the kingdom, they must choose the narrow gate (7:13-14), they must be like trees that bear good fruit (7:15-23), and they must build their house on the rock (7:24-27).  The imagery all points in one direction: the kingdom will be populated by those who live for an audience of One.

The sermon—as well as the second section of the Gospel (“when Jesus finished these words”)—then concludes with a note about the crowds responding to Jesus in a way which they never did to the scribes (7:28-29).

The third major section (8:1–11:1) opens with several miracles of Jesus (8:1–9:34). In light of both Jesus’ authoritative teaching as well as of his offer of the kingdom, something needed to back up his words.  The miracles do just that.  But these miracles do not function merely to vindicate Jesus’ authority as king; both the message and the power are also delegated to the disciples as they receive their commission as the king’s ambassadors (9:35–11:1).

The miracles themselves include three groups of three with two statements about discipleship wedged in between.  The first group of miracles (leprosy, paralysis, and fever are cured) emphasize compassion (8:1-17), perhaps to show that the king takes care of his subjects.  Then a statement concerning the cost of discipleship is uttered (8:18-22).

The second group of miracles emphasize Jesus’ authority (8:23–9:8) in the realm of nature (calming the storm, 8:23-27), in the realm of the supernatural (the healing of the two Gadarene demoniacs, 8:28-34), and even in the realm of the spiritual (healing of a paralytic along with the forgiveness of his sins, 9:1-8). The extent of the king’s authority is seen to be immense and his kingdom to be more than physical.  Then, the nature of true discipleship receives a brief discourse: it is not the well who are called, but the sick—such as Matthew the tax-collector (9:9-13); further, Jesus’ disciples must be radically committed to the new work he is doing (9:14-17).

The last group of miracles speaks of Jesus’ own radical commitment and courage (9:18-34)—necessary prerequisites to be king.  He gives life to the daughter of a synagogue ruler whose own people were scorning him for his trust in Jesus (9:18-26), sight to the blind (9:27-31), and speech to a demon-possessed mute (9:32-34)—an act which caused the Pharisees to accuse him of being empowered by Satan himself (9:34).

The cycle begins again when Jesus sees the crowds: his compassion on the multitudes led him first to heal a leper (8:1-4), and now to heal all kinds of sicknesses (9:35-38).  And just as his healing of a leper was a demonstration of his authority over sickness, now he delegates his authority to his disciples as a result of the expansion of his compassion (9:36-38).  The twelve disciples (10:2-4) are granted the authority both to heal the sick and to proclaim the coming of the kingdom, but only to Israel (10:5-8).  They are further to depend on those who respond to the gospel for their support (10:9-15), and to continue preaching in spite of persecution (10:16-31), with the hope of heaven and the priority of commitment to Christ always motivating them (10:32-39).

What is significant about this first commission to the disciples is that many of the principles taught in the Sermon on the Mount are now expected to be followed by the disciples.  For example, they should not be concerned about their physical needs (10:8b-10; cf. 6:25-34); they are worth more to God than many sparrows (10:29; cf. 6:26); etc.  In the least, this ought to indicate that part of the interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount must relate to the disciples’ commission to proclaim the coming of the kingdom to the nation Israel.

The commission is then concluded with the refrain, “after Jesus had finished instructing . . . ” (11:1).

With Jesus’ authority fully demonstrated by his own miracles as well as by his ability to delegate such power to his ambassadors, the stage is set for the opposition to the king (11:2–13:53).⁶¹  Over the next two chapters it grows until it hits a climax in 12:22-37, where the Pharisees accuse Jesus of being empowered by Beelzebul.  At this juncture Jesus began to speak in parables to hide the truth from unbelievers and reveal it to believers (13:1-53).

The first signs of opposition to the king come mildly: first, John the Baptist, Jesus’ forerunner, doubts whether Jesus was the Messiah (11:2-6).  This was quite natural since he was imprisoned by another “king” at the time! Not only did Jesus commend John for his role in proclaiming the nearness of the kingdom (11:7-15), he also pointed out the hypocrisy of the multitudes who could not make up their mind about John or Jesus (11:16-19). This led to an outright condemnation of the towns where Jesus had performed many of his miracles, yet the citizens still did not repent (11:20-24).  At the end of this first round of opposition, Jesus extends an invitation to the weary to turn to him and find rest for their souls (11:25-30).

The second signs of opposition were much more frontal (12:1-45): not just doubt, nor even unbelief, but open attack by the religious leaders on Jesus’ authority over the Sabbath (12:1-21) and his source of supernatural power (12:22-37).  Immediately after Jesus’ strong rebuke for thinking that he was empowered by the devil (12:25-37, especially 31-32), the Pharisees ironically ask for more proof of what his spiritual source was (12:38).  But enough miracles had been done—the sign of Jonah was all that was needed now (12:39-45).

Perhaps as an ironic twist Matthew then records that Jesus’ mother and brothers wished to speak with him (12:46-47): Were they, like John, doubting him too?  At this stage Jesus makes another invitation to the crowd: whoever obeys God is related to God’s Son (12:48-50).

With this invitation in the background, Matthew points out that “that same day” (13:1) Jesus elaborated on his invitation to enter the kingdom.  Although the multitudes were always with him, he must now focus his attention on the believing remnant.  Hence, he speaks in parables which are designed to shut out the unrepentant and cause understanding for the true believers (13:10-17). The first group in his discourse deals with the responsibility of his hearers (13:3-23): as seed that is sown, they are to grow and be productive (13:3-9; 13:18-23), though not all who hear will really listen and heed (13:10-17).

Then, six parables about the nature of the kingdom are given in rapid succession (13:24-50). Twin themes are intertwined in these seven parables: (1) the kingdom will grow from humble beginnings, in spite of opposition (wheat and weeds in 13:24-30, 36-43; mustard seed in 13:31-32; leaven in 13:33; dragnet in 13:46-50); and (2) the kingdom has inestimable value and should be entered at all costs (hidden treasure in 13:44; pearl in 13:45).  This first group of parables seems to indicate that the kingdom, in some sense, was not going to make a dynamic, cataclysmic entrance; instead, it would grow from very small roots. Wherever the king was, there his kingdom was, too.  It began in the hearts of his disciples (cf. the parable of the sower) and would grow until the end of the age (13:39). Consequently, all who hear the message should take all necessary steps to enter the kingdom now, for nothing could compare to its worth.

The section on parables is concluded with a charge to those who not only heard, but also understood: reveal the good news to others (13:51-52). Then Matthew’s customary editorial comment “when Jesus had finished these parables” (13:53) concludes the fourth main section of the book.

After such heavy opposition—seen even in the dullness of response when Jesus taught them about the kingdom (cf. 13:10-17)—Jesus began to withdraw from the crowds and from danger (13:54–16:20). He went, symbolically and in reality, farther and farther away from Jerusalem. The catalyst for Jesus’ withdrawals was twofold: (1) widespread unbelief in his own hometown of Nazareth (13:54-58)—so much so that he did not perform many miracles there; and (2) the beheading of John by Herod (14:1-12).

Five successive withdrawals are recorded by Matthew: (1) to a “deserted place” in which he still performed miracles (feeding the five thousand [14:13-21], walking on the water [14:22-33], and healing the sick at Gennesaret [14:34-36]), and could not get away from the Pharisees (15:1-20); (2) to Phoenicia in which he healed a Gentile woman’s daughter (15:21-28)—giving further evidence that the kingdom was opening up to Gentiles; (3) to the Sea of Galilee where he again fed the multitudes (15:29-38); (4) to Magadan where he instructed his disciples about the “fluff” in the Pharisees’ teaching (15:39; 16:5-12); and finally, (5) to Caesarea Philippi, where he made it known to his disciples that he was the Christ (16:13-20).

It is possible to detect in these withdrawals both a testing of his followers (as he moved farther and farther away from Jerusalem, who would believe that he was king of the Jews?), and a refinement in their impression as to what constituted the kingdom and its Messiah. That Peter acknowledged Jesus to be the Christ in Caesarea Philippi—when all evidence suggested otherwise—marked the beginning of his understanding of what Jesus’ kingdom was all about. Further, it is possible to see in these withdrawals a last-ditch effort by Jesus to salvage the nation for the kingdom. Once it became quite clear to him that the nation would not repent, he altered his tactics in three ways: (1) a harsh condemnation of the nation for its impenitence (cf. especially ch. 23); (2) a narrowing focus on honing his disciples for their ministry (cf. chs. 18-20); and (3) a widening of the invitation to now include Gentiles into the kingdom.

Now that his disciples showed some inkling of understanding just who Jesus really was, it was time to reveal to them the full story: the Messiah must suffer and die in Jerusalem, and then rise again (16:21-28). Only when they had grasped that his kingdom was of a different sort than the crowds had wanted could Jesus take the risk of revealing this to the disciples. Even then, their response was rejection (16:22-23). Nevertheless, the march back to Jerusalem must begin. What would be interpreted by the multitudes as a military king’s march to power was in reality a proleptic funeral dirge.

To encourage his disciples in the face of his return to Jerusalem, he took three aside and revealed his future glory (17:1-13) via transfiguration. Then the instructions began (17:14–18:35). It is unclear as to why Jesus, according to Matthew, decided at this juncture to spend so much time instructing his disciples.⁶² Perhaps it was because they needed his sense of compassion for the lost, or because they needed to see the expanding commission to include Gentiles, or perhaps they simply needed more training. Probably it is all these reasons and more—namely, that he would not physically be with his disciples forever (although Matthew does not make nearly as strong a point of this as do either Luke or John).

On the way to Jerusalem, Jesus instructed his disciples concerning faith (17:14-21), tribute and the proper role of those in authority (17:24-27), humility and childlikeness (18:1-4), salvation (18:5-14), discipline in the new assembly (18:15-20), and forgiveness (using a parable about an unmerciful servant, 18:21-35).

“When Jesus had finished saying these things he left Galilee” (19:1).

The last section which culminates with a major discourse deals with Jesus’ presentation of himself to Jerusalem, then the consequent rejection (19:3–26:1). But this section begins where the last one left off: with Jesus instructing his disciples—only this time, they are in Judea (19:3–20:34). Arguably, the focus of the teaching is now even more strongly related to the kingdom than before. And once again, there are reminiscences of the Sermon on the Mount in the instruction given. The instruction deals with: (1) fidelity to one’s spouse and the option of total dedication to God’s kingdom without marital entanglements (19:3-12); (2) childlike faith as a prerequisite for entrance into the kingdom (19:13-15); (3) finding one’s security and reward in Christ, rather than in one’s physical possessions (19:16–20:16); (4) a well-placed third mention of his death and resurrection (20:17-19), followed up by (5) a discussion—prompted by James’ and John’s request, and exemplified by Jesus’ own actions of healing two blind men—of what it really means to be great in the kingdom (20:20-34).

This last miracle—the healing of two blind men (20:29-34)—is an appropriate hinge leading into the formal presentation of the king to the nation (21:1-17). For only with the eyes of faith could these blind men see that Jesus was the “Son of David” (20:30, 31), yet the nation was truly blind for not perceiving this upon Jesus’ arrival in Jerusalem.

Jesus presented himself formally with his so-called “Triumphal Entry” into Jerusalem (21:1-11). But rather than coming as a military king (though he seems to have been hailed as such), Jesus was offering himself as the ultimate paschal lamb—on the very day in which the lambs were selected for the Passover celebration (Nisan 10). Appropriately enough, he went right for the temple (21:12-17). There he proved his own unblemished state by cleansing the temple (21:12-13) and by healing the sick (21:14). It is evident that although the religious leaders did not accept him (21:15), many of the populace did (21:16-17): Jesus’ remark about the children accepting and praising him as a fulfillment of Psalm 8:2 became a final object-lesson to his disciples about the necessity of childlike faith (cf. 18:1-4; 19:13-15).

Even though Jesus was the perfect, unblemished lamb he was rejected by the nation (21:18–22:46). The nation simply failed to accept him as king, Messiah, and Son of Man—as he defined the terms. This segment begins with a foreshadowing of the nation’s rejection by God in that a fig tree was cursed and withered up because it did not bear fruit (21:18-22; cf. 7:19 and John 15:1-8). Then, there is foreshadowing of conflict with the religious leaders when Jesus’ authority is once again questioned (21:23-27).

These two foreshadowings frame the narrative for three parables (21:28–22:14) and four confrontations (22:15-46). In the parables of the two sons (21:28-32), the wicked tenants (21:33-46), and the wedding banquet (22:1-14), Jesus aims three carefully chosen volleys at the vital organs of the religious leaders. All three show God’s simultaneous rejection of the nation and welcoming of “sinners” and Gentiles into the kingdom.

The final confrontation in which the nation’s rejection of its king is sealed comes in four rounds (22:15-46). First, the Pharisees and Herodians attempt to unmask Jesus as an impostor to the throne in the question of paying taxes to a foreign king, Caesar (22:15-22). Then, the Sadducees attempt to discredit all possibility of a spiritual kingdom with their question about Levirate marriage in the resurrected state (22:23-33). The final question of the day came from a scribe who wished to reveal Jesus’ lack of rabbinic training: What sort of commandment is great in the Law, he asked (22:34-40). Jesus’ responses to these confrontational questions, in effect, turned each question on its head and made the questioners look foolish. Then, he turned the tables by asking them a question: Whose son in the Christ? (22:41-46). His own response, that Christ the son is David’s Lord and would reign forever (quoting from Psalm 110), caused all questioning to stop (22:46). It was futile for the religious leaders to win a war of words; they must try another way.

After the rejection of the king by the nation, now the king unveiled his rejection of the nation because of its impenitence (23:1-39). First, he instructed his own about how to relate to the Pharisees (23:1-12), then he uttered seven woes upon the Pharisees (23:13-36), culminating in an outright condemnation of them (23:33) for their rejection of past and future spokesmen for God (23:34-36). This very severe discourse was not prompted by malice, however, but by pity over the unrepentant leadership, typified in “Jerusalem” (23:37-39). Even to the end, Jesus had compassion on the lost, but to those who did not recognize their own lost state the words had to be severe.

The ultimate proof that the nation had been rejected by God would, of course, be the demise of its religious infrastructure.  Thus Jesus led his disciples out of the temple—in symbolic rejection of it (24:1-2)—and brought them to the Mount of Olives (24:3). There he revealed not only signs of the end of the Jewish cult (24:2, 15), but also of the consummation of the kingdom as seen in the king’s return in glory (24:26-45). Speaking as a human prophet—rather than as the omniscient God (24:36)—Jesus not only did not know when his own return would be. He also did not know that the (initial) destruction of Jerusalem would take place at least two thousand years before his return.⁶³ One thing is for sure: Jesus saw the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse, in some sense, taking place within a few years (24:34).⁶⁴

The Olivet Discourse then concludes with three analogies—all of which are designed to strengthen the disciples’ resolve for perseverance and preparedness⁶⁵ (25:1-46). The parable of the ten virgins addresses preparedness (25:1-13), the parable of the talents addresses faithfulness and perseverance (25:14-30), and the analogy of the sheep and goats addresses judgment and reward at the end of the age (25:31-46).⁶⁶

The Olivet Discourse concludes with the now familiar refrain, “When Jesus had finished saying all these things” (26:1). Thus ends the final major discourse of the king.

With the future judgment of the nation on his mind, Jesus now returns to the reason for that future judgment, the nation’s rejection of its king (26:2). He predicts his death for the fourth time, but this time does not mention the resurrection (most likely to emphasize the reasons for God’s rejection of the nation rather than the hope of the disciples). Chapters 26 and 27 are occupied with the crucifixion of the king; chapter 28, with his resurrection.

Jesus’ enemies were busy with preparing for his death (26:3-5, 14-16) just as he was, too (26:6-13). His final preparation for death came in two strokes: (1) celebration of the sacrificial lamb of the Passover with his disciples—at which time he proclaimed the inauguration (but not consummation) of the kingdom (26:17-30; cf. 26:28-29), (2) followed by his time alone with the Father in the garden of Gethsemane (26:36-46).

The rejection by his nation reaches its height with the betrayal by Judas at his arrest (26:47-56) and even the triple denial by Peter (26:68-75; cf. 26:31-35)—the very one to whom Jesus’ Messiahship had first been revealed at Caesarea Philippi. Jesus is then tried before the religious leadership of the nation (26:57-67), and before the political power of Rome (27:11-26). In an ironic twist of history, the Jewish Sanhedrin finds him guilty and Pilate, who represents Roman might, is powerless to prevent his execution.

The king is crucified between two thieves (27:32-44). Thus he left the world as he came into it—in humility and degradation. The nature of his kingdom is seen in his death, for the sign posted on his cross stated in three languages that “This is Jesus, King of the Jews” (27:37). Entrance into the kingdom had to be through the cross. At his death the curtain in the temple tore from top to bottom (27:51), symbolizing the end of the Jewish cult and free access to God through a new mediator. There were further signs that his death was not merely the death of a righteous man, but the death of God’s own Son (27:51b-53). The irony of these signs is that a lone Gentile, a centurion, interpreted them correctly and believed (27:54).

Jesus was then hurriedly buried in a rich man’s tomb (27:57-61) and guarded by dispatched sentries (27:62-66). Matthew is at pains to show that Jesus was truly dead and that he could not escape from the grave (27:59).

On the day after the Sabbath, on the first day of the week, the two Marys visited the tomb (28:1). But the stone had been rolled away (28:2). An angel spoke to the women and told them to go to Galilee where the resurrected Christ would be (28:5-7). On the way to the disciples they meet Jesus (28:8-10).

Meanwhile, the guards were bribed to give a false report about Jesus’ disciples stealing the body (28:11-15). “And this story has been widely circulated among he Jews to this very day” (28:15). Clearly, Matthew is employing his best apologetic skills in defense of the resurrection, for it is final proof that Jesus was the king of the Jews.

The Gospel concludes with the eleven disciples going to Galilee to receive their final commission from Jesus (28:16-20). This commission is contrasted with the one in chapter 10, for there they were sent only to Israel; here, they are sent to “all nations.” The expansion of the gospel’s net to include Gentiles is thus seen against the backdrop of the nation’s rejection of its king. The motifs of national rejection and Gentile reception of the king—foreshadowed in chapter 2—now reach their culmination. And with this culmination, Matthew has skillfully answered the question about Jesus’ “failure” to establish the kingdom: he did not fail; the nation did. And all who now embrace him as king enter into relation with the king (and hence, the kingdom is beginning to grow—cf. ch. 13). The Immanuel, “God with us” (1:22), is truly with his disciples until the end of the age (28:20b).

III. Outline

I. The Incarnation and Preparation of the King (1:1–4:11)⁶⁷

A. The Incarnation of the King (1:1–2:23)

1. The Genealogy of the King (1:1-17)

2. The Birth of the King (1:18-25)

a. The Betrothal to the Virgin (1:18-19)

b. The Angelic Visit to Joseph (1:20-21)

c. The Fulfillment of Prophecy (1:22-23)

d. The Birth of Jesus (1:24-25)

3. The Childhood of the King: Foreshadowing Events to Come (2:1-23)

a. The Worship of the Magi: Foreshadowing of Gentile Worship (2:1-12)

1) Magi Coming to Jerusalem (2:1-5)

2) The Fulfillment of Prophecy (2:6)

3) Magi Worshipping the King (2:7-12)

b. The Escape to Egypt: Foreshadowing of Jesus’ Withdrawals (2:13-15)

1) The Escape to Egypt (2:13-14)

2) The Fulfillment of Prophecy (2:15)

c. The Slaughter of the Innocent Ones: Foreshadowing of Death of Christ (2:16-18)

1) Herod’s Slaughter of the Babes (2:16)

2) The Fulfillment of Prophecy (2:17-18)

d. The Return to Nazareth: Foreshadowing of Jewish Rejection of Jesus (2:19-23)

1) The Return to Nazareth (2:19-22)

2) The Fulfillment of Prophecy (2:23)

B. The Preparation of the King (3:1–4:11)

1. The Preparation for the Kingdom by John the Baptist’s Preaching (3:1-12)

2. The Inauguration of Ministry by John’s Baptism of Jesus (3:13-17)

3. The Demonstration of Worthiness by the Devil’s Temptation of Jesus (4:1-11)

II. The Declaration of the Principles of the King (4:12–7:29)

A. The King’s Ministry Begun (4:12-25)

1. The Occasion: John’s Imprisonment (4:12-16)

2. The Message: The Nearness of the Kingdom (4:17)

3. The Calling of the First Disciples (4:18-22)

4. Summary of the King’s Ministry (4:23-25)

a. Proclamation (4:23a)

b. Proof (4:23b-25)

B. The King’s Message Declared (5:1–7:29)

1. The Setting (5:1-2)

2. The Subjects of the Kingdom (5:3-16)

a. Blessings by God (5:3-12)

b. Responsibilities before Men (5:13-16)

3. The Truth about the Kingdom (5:17–7:12)

a. Exposition of the Intent of the Law (5:17-48)

1) The Law’s Principles Affirmed (5:17-20)

2) The Law’s Intentions Explained (5:21-48)

a) Regarding Hatred and Murder (5:21-26)

b) Regarding Lust and Adultery (5:27-30)

c) Regarding Commitment and Divorce (5:31-32)

d) Regarding Honesty and Oaths (5:33-37)

e) Regarding Rights and Retaliation (5:38-42)

f)  Regarding Love and Hatred (5:43-48)

b. Exhortation toward Internal Righteousness (6:1-18)

1) Summary: External Vs. Internal Righteousness (6:1)

2) Specifics: The Rewards of External and Internal Righteousness (6:2-18)

a) The Rewards for Almsgiving (6:2-4)

b) The Rewards for Praying (6:5-15)

c) The Rewards for Fasting (6:16-18)

c. Examination of the Intentions of the Heart (6:19–7:11)

1) Regarding Investments (6:19-24)

2) Regarding Worry (6:25-34)

3) Regarding a Critical Spirit toward Believers (7:1-5)

4) Regarding Discernment toward Unbelievers (7:6)

5) Regarding Petitions toward God (7:7-11)

d. Summary on the Intent of the Law (7:12)

4. The Way to Enter the Kingdom (7:13-27)

a. The Two Gates (7:13-14)

b. The Two Trees (7:15-23)

c. The Two Houses (7:24-27)

5. Conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount: Response of the Multitudes (7:28-29)

III. The Commission of the Messengers of the King (8:1–11:1)

A. The Power of the King Demonstrated (8:1–9:34)

1. Compassionate Miracles (8:1-17)

a. Leprosy (8:1-4)

b. Paralysis (8:5-13)

c.  Fever and Demons (8:14-17)

2. The Cost of Discipleship (8:18-22)

3. Authoritative Miracles (8:23–9:8)

a. In the Realm of Nature (8:23-27)

b. In the Realm of the Supernatural (8:28-34)

c. In the Realm of the Spiritual (9:1-8)

4. The Nature of Discipleship (9:9-17)

a. The Calling of Matthew (9:9-13)

b. The Question about Fasting (9:14-17)

5. Courageous Miracles (9:18-34)

a. Life (9:18-26)

b. Sight (9:27-31)

c. Speech (9:32-34)

B. The Proclamation of the King Delegated (9:35–11:1)

1. The Compassion of Jesus (9:35-38)

2. The Commission of the Twelve (10:1-42)

a. The Delegation of Authority (10:1-4)

1) The Nature of the Authority (10:1)

2) The Names of the Apostles (10:2-4)

b. The Directions to the Apostles (10:5-42)

1) The Sphere and Nature of their Work (10:5-8)

2) The Provisions for their Work (10:9-15)

3) Their Perseverance in the Work (10:16-31)

a) In Spite of Persecution (10:16-23)

b) In Light of the Rejection of their Master (10:24-25)

c) In Response to God’s Sovereignty (10:26-31)

d) In the Hope of Heavenly Acknowledgment (10:32-33)

e) In Recognition of the Claims Jesus Makes on them (10:34-39)

4) The Reward for Hospitality (10:40-42)

3. Conclusion of Commission, Continuation of Ministry (11:1)

IV. The Opposition to the King (11:2–13:53)

A. The Antagonism of the Jews (11:2–12:50)

1. Commendation of John in spite of his Doubts (11:2-19)

a. The Doubts by John (11:2-6)

b. The Commendation by Jesus (11:7-15)

c. The Capriciousness of the Multitudes (11:16-19)

2. Condemnation of the Cities because of their Unbelief (11:20-24)

3. Invitation to the Weary to Find Rest (11:25-30)

4. Confrontation with the Pharisees in Light of their Mounting Hostility (12:1-45)

a. Concerning  Jesus’ Authority over the Sabbath (12:1-21)

1) Plucking Grain (12:1-8)

2) Doing Good (12:9-14)

3) Foreshadowing: Prediction of Gentile Reception (12:15-21)

b. Concerning Jesus’ Power over the Supernatural (12:22-37)

c. Concerning Jesus’ Proof of Spiritual Source (12:38-45)

5. Invitation to the Willing to Become God’s Children (12:46-50)

B. The Parables of Jesus (13:1-53)

1. The Setting (13:1-2)

2. The Responsibility of those who Hear (13:3-23)

a. The Parable of the Sower (13:3-9)

b. The Purpose of the Parables (13:10-17)

c. The Parable of the Sower Explained (13:18-23)

3. The Parables of the Kingdom (13:24-50)

a. The Parable of the Wheat and Weeds (13:24-30)

b. The Parable of the Mustard Seed (13:31-32)

c. The Parable of the Leaven (13:33)

d. Fulfillment of Prophecy (13:34-35)

e. The Parable of the Wheat and Weeds Explained (13:36-43)

f. The Parable of the Hidden Treasure (13:44)

g. The Parable of the Pearl (13:45)

h. The Parable of the Net (13:46-50)

4. The Responsibility of those who Understand the Parable of the Householder (13:51-52)

5. Conclusion to the Parables, Continuation of Ministry (13:53)

V. The Reaction of the King (13:54–19:2)

A. The Withdrawals from the Antagonists because of Rejection (13:54–16:20)

1. The Catalyst (13:54–14:12)

a. Unbelief in Hometown of Nazareth (13:54-58)

b. Beheading of John by Herod (14:1-12)

2. The Withdrawals (14:13–16:20)

a. To a Deserted Place (14:13–15:20)

1) Miracles Performed (14:13-36)

a) Feeding of the Five Thousand (14:13-21)

b) Walking on the Water (14:22-33)

c) Healings at Gennesaret (14:34-36)

2) Pharisees Confronted: Clean Vs. Unclean (15:1-20)

a) Confrontation with the Pharisees (15:1-9)

b) Declaration to the Crowd (15:10-11)

c) Instruction of the Disciples (15:12-20)

b. To the Region of Phoenicia: The Healing of the Canaanite Woman’s Daughter (15:21-28)

c. To the Sea of Galilee: The Feeding of the Four Thousand (15:29-38)

d. To Magadan (15:39–16:12)

1) The Withdrawal to Magadan (15:39)

2) The Pharisees’ and Sadducees’ Demand for a Sign (16:1-4)

3) The Pharisees’ and Sadducees’ Teaching Warned Against (16:5-12)

e. To Caesarea Philippi: The Revelation of Jesus’ Person (16:13-20)

B. The Return to Judea in spite of Rejection (16:21–19:2)

1. The Catalyst: The Prediction of Jesus’ Death and Resurrection (16:21-28)

2. The Comfort: The Transfiguration (17:1-13)

3. The Instruction of the Disciples in Galilee (17:14–18:35)

a. Concerning Faith (17:14-21)

1) The Healing of a Demon-Possessed Boy (17:14-18)

2) The Challenge to the Disciples (17:19-21)

b. Concerning His Death and Resurrection: Second Mention (17:22-23)

c. Concerning Tribute (17:24-27)

d. Concerning Humility (18:1-4)

e. Concerning Salvation (18:5-14)

1) Warning against Stumbling Blocks (18:5-9)

2) Searching for Lost Sheep (18:10-14)

f. Concerning Discipline (18:15-20)

g. Concerning Forgiveness (18:21-35)

4. Conclusion of Instruction, Continuation of Journey (19:1-2)

VI. The Presentation and Rejection of the King (19:3–26:1)

A. The Instruction of the Disciples in Judea (19:3–20:34)

1. Concerning Divorce, Marriage, and the Kingdom (19:3-12)

a. Confrontation about Divorce (19:3-9)

b. Celibacy and the Kingdom (19:10-12)

2. Concerning Childlikeness and the Kingdom (19:13-15)

3. Concerning Wealth and the Kingdom (19:16–20:16)

a. The Rich Young Man: Security in Riches (19:16-26)

b. The Disciples: Security in Christ (19:27-30)

c. The Parable of the Vineyard: Rewards in the Kingdom (20:1-16)

4. Concerning His Death and Resurrection: Third Mention (20:17-19)

5. Concerning Servant-Leadership and the Kingdom (20:20-34)

a. John’s and James’ Request (20:20-23)

b. Jesus’ Response (20:24-28)

c. Jesus’ Example: Healing of Two Blind Men (20:29-34)

B. The Presentation of the King (21:1-17)

1. The Preparation for the King’s Coming (21:1-7)

2. The Entrance into Jerusalem (21:8-11)

3. The Entrance into the Temple (21:12-17)

C. The Rejection of the King by the Nation (21:18–22:46)

1. The Withering Fig Tree: Foreshadowing of the Judgment of the Nation (21:18-22)

2. Jesus’ Authority Questioned: Foreshadowing of Conflict (21:23-27)

3. Three Parables: Stimulus for Confrontation (21:28–22:14)

a. The Parable of the Two Sons (21:28-32)

b. The Parable of the Wicked Tenants (21:33-46)

c. The Parable of the Wedding Banquet (22:1-14)

4. Four Confrontations: Evidence of Rejection (22:15-46)

a. By the Pharisees and Herodians: Paying Taxes to Caesar (22:15-22)

b. By the Sadducees: Marriage at the Resurrection (22:23-33)

c. By the Pharisees: The Great Commandment (22:34-40)

d. Against the Pharisees: Whose Son is the Christ? (22:41-46)

D. The Rejection of the Nation by the King (23:1-39)

1. Instructions to the Crowd and Disciples concerning the Pharisees (23:1-12)

2. Warnings to the Pharisees concerning Themselves: The Seven Woes (23:13-36)

a. First Woe: Shut out of the Kingdom (23:13-14)

b. Second Woe: Swearing (23:15-22)

c. Third Woe: Straining out a Gnat (23:23-24)

d. Fourth Woe: Cleaning the Cup (23:25-26)

e. Fifth Woe: Whitewashed Tombs (23:27-28)

f. Sixth Woe: Murdering the Prophets (23:29-32)

g. Seventh Woe: Pronouncement of Judgment (23:33-36)

3. Lamentation over Jerusalem (23:37-39)

E. The Predictions of the King concerning the Judgment of the Nation and the Consummation of the Kingdom (24:1–26:1)

1. The Setting in the Temple (24:1-2)

2. The Discourse on the Mount of Olives (24:3–25:46)

a. Signs of the End of the Age (24:3-35)

b. The Day and Hour Unknown (24:36-51)

c. The Parable of the Ten Virgins (25:1-13)

d. The Parable of the Talents (25:14-30)

e. The Sheep and the Goats (25:31-46)

3. The Conclusion of the Olivet Discourse (26:1)

VII. The Crucifixion and Resurrection of the King (26:2–28:20)

A. The Crucifixion of the King (26:2–27:66)

1. The Prediction of His Death: Fourth Mention (26:2)

2. The Plot to Kill Jesus (26:3-5)

3. The Preparation for His Death (26:6-46)

a. The Anointing at Bethany (26:6-13)

b. Judas’ Agreement to Betrayal (26:14-16)

c. The Last Passover (26:17-30)

d. The Prediction of Peter’s Denials (26:31-35)

e. Gethsemane (26:36-46)

4. The Arrest of Jesus (26:47-56)

5. The Trials of Jesus (26:57–27:26)

a. The Trial Before the Sanhedrin (26:57-67)

b. Two Disciples’ Responses (26:68–27:10)

1) Peter Denies Jesus (26:68-75)

2) Judas Hangs Himself (27:1-10)

c. The Trial Before Pilate (27:11-26)

6. The Crucifixion of Jesus (27:27-56)

a. The Mocking of the Soldiers (27:27-31)

b. The Actual Crucifixion of Jesus (27:32-44)

c. The Death of Jesus (27:45-56)

7. The Burial of Jesus (27:57-66)

a. Joseph’s Tomb (27:57-61)

b. Pilate’s Guard (27:62-66)

B. The Resurrection of the King (28:1-20)

1. The Empty Tomb (28:1-10)

2. The Guards’ Report (28:11-15)

3. The Great Commission (28:16-20)

---

¹The simplest inscription is κατὰ Μαθθαίον, found in Aleph B (“according to Matthew”). As time progressed this became more elaborate: in the fifth century the title was customarily εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μαθθαίον (D W [“The Gospel according to Matthew”), while still later it was called ἅγιον εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μαθθαίον (Byzantine MSS and others [“the Holy Gospel according to Matthew”).

²So Guthrie, 43.

³Fragments of Papias 2:16 (my translation).

⁴Cf. our discussion under the “Synoptic Problem” (which has been previously posted).

⁵This rearrangement suggests that the Matthean sermons may not have been literary units originally. Such indeed seems to be the case except for the Olivet Discourse. This is due to two factors: (1) The Olivet Discourse is found in Mark intact, suggesting that it at least circulated as a unit in the oral period (and further that it is not due to Matthew’s rearranging of material); (2) on the analogy of the Gospel of Thomas, there would be little interest in prophecy in a sayings source (probably because prophecy cannot be laid out easily in isolated aphorisms). Hence, in spite of critical scholarship’s dissecting of the Olivet Discourse into separate pericopae which melted into one literary unit before the gospels were written, this sermon at least has all the earmarks of going back to the historical Jesus en toto, in situ. (Incidentally, this view of the Olivet Discourse finds indirect confirmation in a recent work on Q. Ronald A. Piper, Wisdom in the Q-Traditions: The Aphoristic Teaching of Jesus [SNTSMS 61, 1989] points out that “collections of aphoristic sayings . . . [are] relatively free of domination by strongly eschatological motifs” [9]. Thus the Olivet Discourse probably did not circulate as isolated sayings.)

⁶One substantial problem for this view is that in the earlier fragment (2:15) Papias speaks of Mark recording Peter’s sermons on τὰ λογία κυριακῶν. But the context clearly indicates that both the Lord’s deeds and words are in view. If so, this would seem to make λογία in 2:16 (Papias’ comment on Matthew’s literary endeavors) also refer to the Lord’s words and deeds, precluding the meaning of a sayings source like Q. However, Papias could be using the genitive objectively in 2:15 and subjectively in 2:16, and λογία would retain the same meaning each time: “the sayings about the Lord” (which Peter spoke), “the sayings by the Lord” (which Matthew recorded).

⁷Eusebius, HE 5.8.2.

⁸However, it should be stressed again that Irenaeus’ words ought not necessarily be taken to mean that Matthew wrote a Gospel in a Semitic tongue, for Irenaeus says that he wrote a “book about the gospel,” or perhaps, “a book about the good news,” In light of this, Irenaeus may well mean that Matthew wrote something other than a gospel in Hebrew (Aramaic).

⁹Specifically, Peter and Paul did not “found” the church in Rome.

¹⁰For the most part, this material is taken from class notes on the NT course “The Gospel of Matthew,” taught by Dr. Harold Hoehner, fall 1977. It should be noted, however, that Hoehner most likely gathered most of his material from Stanley D. Toussaint’s dissertation, “The Argument of Matthew,” (Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Seminary, 1957), 10-13.

¹¹So strong is this evidence that even Ernst von Dobschütz, who disputed Matthean authorship, felt that the work was written by a Rabbi! Cf. his article in ZNW 27 (1928) 338-48, later translated (“Matthew as Rabbi and Catechest”) and incorporated into The Interpretation of Matthew, ed. G. Stanton (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), pp. 19-29.

¹²H. C. Thiessen, Introduction to the New Testament (139), however makes way too much of this when he suggests that Matthew was thinking in a Semitic tongue, though writing in Greek. Such a view could be cogently argued for the Apocalypse, but hardly for Matthew (indeed, most scholars find very few Semitisms in Matthew).

¹³“There are still 21 instances of asyndeta in Matthew’s Markan sections where Mark has no asyndeton,” N. Turner, Style, 31.

¹⁴Cf. R. H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament by St. Matthew.

¹⁵Cf. R. N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. Against Longenecker, cf. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament by St. Matthew (although Gundry would say that Matthew did not get his hermeneutics from rabbinic circles, he still argues cogently that Matthew learned it from the Lord Jesus himself).

¹⁶Guthrie (52) queries, “Could it be that for the author of this gospel the name Matthew came to have greater significance than the name Levi, from the time of his dramatic call to follow Jesus? It is not impossible that this is a conscious personal touch.” It is further possible that Matthew used this name, rather than Levi, just as Paul referred to himself as “Paul” rather than “Saul,” even though both names are used of him in Acts. Hagner adds a helpful insight here as well: “It is virtually certain that the Gospel of Matthew is dependent on Mark in this passage [9:9]. Mark and Luke, had they been dependent upon Matthew, would hardly have felt free to substitute the name of an otherwise unknown person, Levi, for the name of an apostle. It is thus very probable that the author of the Gospel of Matthew changed the name Levi to Matthew in this passage. Also, as though to alert the readers to the intended equation of the two names, when in the next chapter (10:3) the Evangelist lists the Twelve, he alone adds ‘the tax collector’ to Matthew’s name. But why did the Evangelist change the name Levi to Matthew? The most natural conclusion is that the tax collector Levi came to be called Matthew (a name so appropriate to the situation) after his conversion, and that this new name, now the name of an apostle, was significant to the author of the Gospel—a Gospel that, according to tradition, derived from that very Matthew” (D. A. Hagner, “Matthew,” in ISBE 3:280).

¹⁷D. A. Carson, Matthew (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8), 224.

¹⁸This is not analogous to Mark’s explicit and overt virtual belittling of Peter in his gospel, for he got the substance of his gospel from Peter’s own sermons in which Peter no doubt had said these self-deprecating remarks. There is absolutely no ancient testimony which suggests that Matthew was written by disciples of Matthew, however, rendering the compiler view improbable.

¹⁹Carson, Matthew, 18.

²⁰We could add further that the ancient world did not have the same view of plagiarism as does the modern (western) world. Thus, 2 Peter could utilize Jude (or Jude, 2 Peter) without giving any credit. Not only this, but in spite of F. C. Baur’s protests, the early Christian community probably had greater harmony on the top levels than we have been led to believe in the last 150+ years. If so, then Matthew may well have intended to write his gospel, in part, to affirm Mark’s reliability.

²¹Kümmel, 121.

²²Indeed, some scholars who are not predisposed toward Markan priority would date Matthew as early as the 40s (so Hoehner, perhaps Reicke; even Robinson entertains this idea). Carson, who is predisposed toward Markan priority, still can say, “the alleged lateness of the theological position may be disputed at every point” (Matthew, 18).

²³Cf. Gundry, Use of the Old Testament by St. Matthew, 178-85.

²⁴See our extended discussion of the bilingualism of first century Palestine in Exegetical Syntax.

²⁵Part and parcel to this is the less vivid style of Matthew (as opposed to Mark). Cf. Turner, Style, 40-41. This, however, may well be a matter of one’s personality: Peter was well-known as giving stirring messages (and Mark apparently based his gospel on Peter’s messages), while we know next to nothing about Matthew’s style. However, if modern analogies are worth anything, accountants and tax-collectors are usually detail-oriented people, not given to exaggeration nor excessive emotion (indeed, most of the ones I know are fairly boring!). This less vivid, more systematic style, may well be in keeping with Matthew’s personality—and in fact might be an argument in favor of Matthean authorship!

²⁶Carson, Matthew, 18.

²⁷For perhaps the best defense of Matthean authorship of this gospel, cf. Gundry’s Matthew, 609-622.

²⁸The patristic testimony is minimal and contradictory.

²⁹On this score it is certainly inconsistent for Matthean prioritists to bank so much on patristic evidence, when the same fathers argue that Mark’s source was Peter. Those of the Griesbach school are not dealing fairly with the evidence, it would seem.

³⁰Robinson, 16.

³¹Ibid., 23.

³²Ibid., 23-24.

³³Ibid., 25 (italics mine).

³⁴Carson,  Matthew, 20.

³⁵Robinson, 25.

³⁶Carson, Matthew, 20-21.

³⁷See our discussion of this in our introduction to James as well as in Exegetical Syntax.

³⁸Guthrie (citing Schniewind) points out that “Matthew takes for granted his readers’ knowledge of Jewish customs, such as the allusion (left unexplained) to whitewashed tombs (Mt. 23:27), to the Jewish garment of Jesus (9:20) and to the practice of presenting gifts at the altar (5:23). While these allusions would not, of course, have been unintelligible to Jews elsewhere, they would have been most meaningful to Palestinian Jews whose scruples were stricter than those of the Dispersion” (38, n. 3).

³⁹Cf. S. D. Toussaint, Behold the King: A Study of Matthew, 15-18, for additional arguments of the Jewish character of both the book and the audience.

⁴⁰Eduard Schweizer, “Matthew’s Church,” in The Interpretation of Matthew, ed. by G. Stanton, 129.

⁴¹Quite popular is the view that Antioch of Syria was the place of destination. This however is doubtful for two reasons: (1) the church there was mixed between Jews and Gentiles, yet Matthew’s Gospel has such a Jewish hue to it (especially with its emphasis on keeping the law—cf. 5:17-20) that a mixed audience is practically out of the question; (2) since Antioch was Paul’s base of operations for his missionary journeys, one might expect a more friendly attitude toward Pauline theology in this book. (Some scholars have gone so far as to characterize Matthew’s Gospel as a “Jewish-Christian reaction against ‘Paulinism’” [Carson, Matthew, 7]). Further, one might question why Matthew would intrude on Paul’s domain, especially if his intentions did not altogether appear sympathetic. If one has to hazard a guess, Damascus is a more likely destination.

⁴²Without getting into a detailed explanation, this statement should not be taken as a denial of pretribulationism.

⁴³On this score it is interesting to note that the Pauline letters are rather sparse in their allusions to the life of Jesus since Paul was an apostle “untimely born.” Hence, even Paul’s churches would have a need for a gospel.

⁴⁴In some ways this interest can be measured by the yardstick of textual criticism: the gospels were far and away copied more often than any other portion of the NT, outranking even Paul’s letters by almost three to one!

⁴⁵Perhaps also when Paul instructs husbands to “love your wives just as Christ loved the Church,” (Eph. 5:25) though he may be speaking here of degree rather than manner.

⁴⁶Although there is of course no proof for this, there is an apt analogy (which may, in fact, be saying exactly the same thing!): the oral tradition of dominical sayings shared by Matthew and Luke was so similar in its Greek form that one is led to believe either that Jesus spoke mostly in Greek or else the oral tradition took on a Hellenistic hue very early in the life of the Church. The reminiscences of Aramaic expressions on the lips of Jesus suggest that he did not, at least, always speak in Greek, though he may have done so frequently.

⁴⁷This dominical saying would have value for Matthew’s audience before 70 CE, when their Jewish neighbors might be accusing them of abandoning the Law on account of Jesus. Further, one might sense a polemic against the antinomianism which had crept into the nascent Church via extremists on the fringes of Paul’s churches who had misunderstood the apostle to the Gentiles. Thus, even in Matthew, there seems to be dialogue and tension with Paul, though  in a tertiary manner. Cf. B. L. Martin, “Matthew and Paul on Christ and the Law: Compatible or Incompatible Theologies?” (Ph.D. dissertation, McMaster University, 1977); C. Jones, “Messianic Law: A Study of the ‘the Law of Christ’ in the Writings of Matthew and Paul, Against its Judaic Background” (M.A. thesis, University of Sheffield, 1971).

⁴⁸See Carson, Matthew, 22-25, for a sober critique of “reductionistic and improbable” views which extrapolate a rather narrowly defined purpose. Nevertheless, Carson himself goes too far in the opposite direction by arguing that because Matthew does not explicitly tell us his purpose(s), we can not speak in very definite terms. This is a large book (as NT books go), and certain patterns and themes develop which show Matthew’s redactional purposes at least.

⁴⁹The use of the OT can be seen in a more overtly typological fashion as well. One of the interesting things to note about Matthew’s Gospel is how he lays out the first several chapters: there is sort of a deja vu effect in that Jesus undergoes the same trials and events that the nation/Moses underwent. Thus, both went down into Egypt; both were brought out after the death of their opponents; both went through water before going into the promised land/before beginning the public ministry; both were in the wilderness for a period of 40 days/years; both (Moses and Jesus) went up to a mountain in connection with the giving/reinterpreting of the Law; both (Moses and Jesus) had twelve assistants. The parallels are so incredible, in fact, that some have argued that the five great sermons in Matthew are intended to be a new Pentateuch! This is doubtful, however, since they do not correspond thematically at all with the Pentateuch. However, one thing does seem to be certain: where the nation failed, Jesus succeeded. Thus he has the right to rule since he himself is, in some sense, the new Israel, the beloved Son of God.

⁵⁰I was delighted to see that Toussaint, Behold the King (18-20), saw the same two purposes. See his helpful discussion for more information.

⁵¹At this stage I disagree with Toussaint to some degree, for he sees the kingdom completely postponed, whereas I see at least an earnest fulfillment of it in the present age, of which the Church constitutes its citizenry. This cannot be developed in this paper, but passages such as Matt 12:28 (“the kingdom of God has come upon you”) and 26:28 (where the new covenant is established in the death of Christ) seem to suggest that the kingdom was not altogether postponed, though its full manifestation surely was.

⁵²“New,” that is, as far as the OT prophets understood; it was not new, of course, in the mind and purpose of God.

⁵³This can be seen most readily by the two diametrically opposed commissions of the disciples (chs. 10, 28): the first commission excluded Gentiles, while the second commission not only included them, but also emphasized them.

⁵⁴Such is Matthew’s style! He creates several tensions in his gospel which, to the modern reader, may strike one as outright contradictions. Thus the first commission is only to Israel, while the second is to the whole world; Jesus says “Do not call your brother a fool,” (ch. 5) though he himself calls the religious leaders “fools” (ch. 23); Matthew takes pains to give Jesus’ genealogy through Joseph, even though Joseph is not his natural father; his use of the OT in ch. 2 seems bizarre, until one realizes that both the chapter and the OT passages quoted are typico-prophetic; etc.

⁵⁵W. C. Allen, A Critical and Exegetical commentary on the Gospel according to S. Matthew (ICC), 2.

⁵⁶Toussaint, Behold the King, 87.

⁵⁷Ibid.

⁵⁸In general, this view takes one of two forms: (1) liberal: most of this sermon was created by the Christian community (the third Sitz im Leben) and does not go back to the historical Jesus—hence, it would obviously relate directly to the church; (2) conservative: since the church is the “new Israel” all commands and promises given to Israel are taken over by the Church.

⁵⁹Dispensationalists typically ignore Matthew’s purposes in recording (and organizing) this sermon while focusing on Jesus’ purpose in giving it. However, it is rather doubtful that the longest dominical message recorded in scripture simply had the function of revealing the failure of the nation (in effect, a three-chapter “I told you so!”)! It is difficult not to see some edificatory/ecclesiastical purpose on the part of the evangelist, even if this takes a secondary role.

⁶⁰Cf. 5:17-20, 23-24, etc.

⁶¹It is significant that the only miracle disputed in the gospels is the miracle of Christ’s resurrection (the final attestation of his authority).  Otherwise, the religious leaders could not contest the fact of Jesus’ miracles, just their source.  Having established the fact of Jesus’ miracles, Matthew now reveals the disputes over their source.

⁶²If this were John’s Gospel, the answer would be easy: Jesus was going away (John 14:1-3 and passim).

⁶³Thus any attempts to outline the Olivet Discourse into two or three parts based on 24:3 (destruction of Jerusalem, signs of Jesus’ coming/end of the age)—even though most commentators are wont to do this—do not take into account the “prophetic telescoping” (or, mingling of events yet future) which occurs in this chapter. Further, if Matthew wrote his Gospel before 70 CE, he too could not have organized this material into two (or three) distinct segments. We prefer a view which sees the entire discourse related to the end of the age and Jesus’ return, with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE as an earnest fulfillment of the tribulation period.

⁶⁴In retrospect, we can see this as the earnest fulfillment in 70 CE.

⁶⁵It is quite clear that no pretribulational rapture is here being revealed, for there are signs to watch for, even though the ultimate day of Christ’s return is unknown. It is quite doubtful that John 14:1-3 is a revelation of the pretribulation rapture as well (contra J. F. Walvoord), for such a revelation would have taken place only twenty-four hours later! That text is most likely merely a Johannine summary of the Olivet Discourse (with John's characteristic realized eschatological twist).

⁶⁶Further evidence that Jesus was unaware of certain eschatological distinctions, besides the timing of his own return (24:36), is seen in this final pericope. In 25:34 entrance into the consummated kingdom is offered to the sheep, while in 25:46 these sheep are said to enter “eternal life” (while the unrighteous enter “eternal punishment”). At this stage in revelation history, there is no distinction between the eternal state and the millennium. (This is true of biblical prophecy until Rev 20 where it all gets sorted out. Isaiah 65 is a classic example of such confusion, for there is an intermingling of absolute perfection with an imperfect, but still excellent kingdom throughout the chapter.)

As well, in our view, the “Judgment of the Nations” (25:32) is a prophetic telescoping of two events: a judgment at the end of the tribulation period and a judgment at the end of the millennial age (= “the Great White Throne Judgment”). if so, this opens up another possibility: what we typically call “The Tribulation” refers to at least three periods: (1) the fall of Jerusalem (66-70 CE), (2) Daniel’s 70th week (just before the millennial kingdom begins), and (3) the final rebellion at the end of the millennial age. If there is confusion over which one is in view in the prophetic literature of the Bible it is precisely because the prophets had no idea that they were predicting more than one event—just as they had no idea that the Messiah would come twice (cf. Isa. 61:1-2!).

⁶⁷ This outline is a modification of Toussaint’s (Behold the King, 25-32). Although not all NT scholars see the five great sermons in Matthew as a major structural clue, in our reconstruction of the evangelist’s method of composition, these five become crucial. In general, the narrative material not only serves in a supporting role to the sermons, it also is derived from Mark’s Gospel after Matthew had written up the discourse material. The addition of a prologue and epilogue, though not part of the initial discourse material, has become intrinsic to the argument of this gospel. Thus, Toussaint’s outline yields the most satisfactory approach to the book in light of our reconstruction.

I. Introduction

A. The Author

There are three pieces of evidence to consider: title, external evidence, and internal evidence.

1. The Title

As with Matthew’s Gospel, no manuscripts  which contain Mark affirm authorship by anyone other than Mark.¹ As with Matthew, this is short of proof of Markan authorship, but the unbroken stream suggests recognition of Markan authorship as early as the first quarter of the second century.

2. External Evidence

“So strong was the early Christian testimony that Mark was the author of this gospel that we need do little more than mention this attestation.”² It is cited by Papias, Irenaeus, the Muratorian Canon (most likely), Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and Jerome. Further, this testimony is universal in connecting this gospel with Peter. Papias, for example, writes:³

And the elder said this: “Mark became an interpreter of Peter; as many things as he remembered he wrote down accurately (though certainly not in order⁴) the things said or done by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but he came later—as he said with reference to Peter who taught whenever the need arose,⁵ but he did not [teach] according to the arrangement of the oracles of the Lord,⁶ with the result that Mark did not err⁷ when he thus wrote certain things as he recalled them. For he planned out one goal ahead of time,⁸ namely, to leave out nothing which he heard and not to falsify any [of the words of Peter].”⁹

What is most remarkable about this external testimony is that Mark was by no means a major player in the NT. It is doubtful, therefore, that his name was picked out of thin air as it were. If this were the case, there would certainly be less than universal attestation. Further, as strong as the desire was to attach this gospel to an apostle, the patristic writers refrained from saying that this was Peter’s Gospel. Such restraint speaks volumes for the rest of the NT where they do affirm apostolic authorship.¹⁰ One simply cannot say that because these patristic writers surely wanted apostolic authorship they therefore invented such at their own convenience. Mark’s gospel flies in the face of that supposition.

3. Internal Evidence

There is not much evidence within either Mark or the rest of the NT to connect him with this gospel. Still, there is nothing against this supposition. And further, there is some evidence of Mark’s connection with Peter. The evidence is as follows.¹¹

(1) John Mark had contact with Peter from no later than the mid-40s (cf. Acts 12:12). That the early church apparently frequented his mother’s house also indicates that Mark had been exposed to Peter’s teaching about Jesus of Nazareth. Not only this, but the Acts reference is so incidental that it implies that Peter and the early church had already spent some time at Mark’s residence. There is therefore the likelihood that the church met there from the mid-30s on.

(2) After joining Paul and Barnabas on the first missionary journey (Acts 13:4), Mark turned back to Jerusalem before the completion of the trip (13:13). He may have stayed in Jerusalem until the famous Council at Jerusalem met to decide the status of Gentile converts. He may then have gone with Barnabas and Paul to Antioch whence Barnabas took him along to return to Cyprus (Acts 15:37-39).¹² If so, then once again, he would have gained more exposure to Peter’s teaching.

(3) Acts is silent about the relation of Peter to Mark after this point, thought there is of course some likelihood that the two had continued contact, especially since both were connected with both Antioch and Jerusalem.

(4) Paul dispatched Mark from Rome to the Colossian church and to Philemon in c. 60-62. Hence, if Peter was in Rome during that time, once again Mark would certainly have had contact with him.

(5) In 2 Tim. 4:11 Paul instructs Timothy to bring Mark with him from Ephesus to Rome (c. 64). He may have been out of the capitol city since his departure in c. 62, though this cannot be said with any certainty.

(6) Mark is again with Peter in Rome in c. 65 CE (1 Peter 5:13). One certainly gets the impression that Mark returned to Rome at Paul’s request (64), and was still there when Peter penned his first letter. However, there is more. The fact that Peter calls him “my son” indicates that their relationship had not been hit-or-miss, but was an ongoing one for some time.

(7) The outline of Mark’s gospel corresponds to the Petrine kerygma recorded in Acts 10:36-41.¹³ The salient features are: (1) John the Baptist heralds the coming of the Messiah; (2) Jesus is baptized by John; (3) Jesus performs miracles, showing that his authority was from God; (4) he went to Jerusalem; (5) he was crucified; (6) he was raised from the dead on the third day. This suggests not only that Mark may have gotten the individual stories about Jesus from Peter, but that he also got a framework for the life and ministry of Jesus from Peter.

(8) Further, Peter takes it on the chin in this gospel. Not only does Jesus rebuke him for wanting a Messiah without the cross, but if the gospel ends at 16:8, Peter does not see the resurrected Christ. These two points belong together, but for now suffice it to say that either Mark’s gospel is actually hostile to Peter and the other disciples,¹⁴ or else it picks up the self-effacing attitude of Peter himself. The latter has fewer problems with it—and in fact argues implicitly that Mark not only got much of his message from Peter, but that he recorded it faithfully.

In sum, Mark had an ongoing and close relationship with Peter for at least ten or twenty years before he penned his gospel. At the same time, he had an ongoing and close relationship with Paul and Barnabas. This double association placed him in a unique position for writing a gospel to Gentiles (motivated by Paul’s mission) based on the teaching of Peter.

Besides this connection with Peter, there is some other internal evidence which may suggest Markan authorship. William L. Lane makes the interesting observation that Mark is called an “assistant” (ὑπηρέτης ) in Acts 13:5. “Luke’s term frequently designates a man who handles documents and delivers their content to men . . .”¹⁵ He mentions Acts 26:16 where Paul is appointed as a ὑπηρέτης and witness to the truth, and Luke 1:1-2 where “the evangelist links the servants [ὑπηρέτης] of the word with those who were the eyewitnesses and guarantors of apostolic tradition.” The connection of ὑπηρέτης with both Mark and Luke’s sources suggests that Mark’s Gospel may well have been one of those sources which Luke used to compile his gospel. In other words, Luke may be subtly indicating that John Mark wrote something about the life of Jesus and that Luke himself used this writing.¹⁶

4. Summary

In conclusion, there is no reason to doubt that John Mark, companion of both Peter and Paul, wrote the gospel which bears the name Mark. The MSS and patristic testimony are unanimous, and the internal evidence certainly corroborates this, even if only in subtle ways. When we examine the issue of date, we will look more carefully at some of the evidence, but for now Markan authorship, at least, is assumed.

B. Date

The issue of the date of this gospel also revolves around external and internal evidence.

1. External Evidence

Not only does the early patristic evidence argue for Markan authorship, but it also makes a connection between Mark and Peter. As we have seen, Papias was the first to make this connection, and it is important to note certain features of his report. (1) He claimed to have received his information from “the elder.” In the preceding context (Fragments of Papias 2:4) the only individual called “the elder” in the singular is John. Whether this is John the apostle or a disciple of his is quite debatable; but suffice it to say that Papias’ source of information was at most one generation removed from the apostles themselves. (2) Papias also says that Mark recorded Peter’s sermons while Peter was still alive.

Clement of Alexandria confirms Papias’ statement that Mark wrote his gospel during Peter’s lifetime, but adds that he wrote it for Christians in Rome. This suggests at least that even if Clement borrowed some of his information from Papias, he also had other sources which stated the same thing, for Papias did not mention a Roman destination. Thus Clement’s statement might be regarded as independent testimony to Papias’ concerning when Mark wrote.

Irenaeus, however, states that “after the death of [Peter and Paul] Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing the things preached by Peter.”¹⁷ As Guthrie points out, “Most scholars prefer Irenaeus to Clement, but it should be observed that Irenaeus had just previously stated that Matthew was produced while Peter and Paul were still preaching, i.e., before Mark.”¹⁸ When we looked at Matthew, we noticed that Irenaeus’ information about Matthew’s Gospel was not entirely derived from Papias. However, here it seems that he wishes to refute Papias, for to him it was important that the first gospel be written by an apostle. Although most scholars believe that Irenaeus is correct about Mark being written after the death of Peter and Paul, they reject his testimony about Matthew being written during their lifetimes. Thus they want to have their cake and eat it too. There is another way of looking at the data, however.

The early external evidence can be summed up this way: (1) there is universal testimony that Mark got his material for a gospel from Peter; (2) there is conflicting evidence as to when he compiled this gospel, either before or after Peter’s death. The earliest testimony (Papias) suggests that Peter was still alive—and Papias claims an earlier source for this as well. This is confirmed by Clement of Alexandria who adds other information (Roman destination), showing some independence from Papias. Irenaeus, on the other hand, although he shows some independent knowledge about the formation of Matthew’s Gospel, states nothing new about Mark’s—except that it was written after Peter’s death. But this is not new information, but contradictory information. If, on other grounds, Mark’s Gospel can be dated within the lifetime of Peter, this element of Irenaeus’ statement ought to be discounted, for he also felt that Matthew wrote the first gospel. There is a built-in apostolic bias on Irenaeus’ part then. Moreover, he is further removed from the apostles than was Papias. Our conclusion from the external evidence is that Mark wrote his gospel while Peter was still alive, sometime before Matthew wrote his gospel (based on our conclusion about the synoptic problem). We will see that other considerations corroborate this.

2. Internal Evidence

There are several strands of internal evidence to be considered regarding the date. In some respects, the most important is outside of Mark, though within the NT. Much of this was covered earlier (Synoptic Problem, Matthew), and only needs a brief review here.

(1) Our solution to the synoptic problem argues that Mark should be dated before Matthew and Luke, since Matthew and Luke used Mark to write their gospels.

(2) The Olivet Discourse in the synoptic gospels was not entirely fulfilled in the Jewish War. hence, it is doubtful that for any of them it could be a vaticinium ex eventu. Most scholars hold to Markan priority and that Mark was written at the beginning of the Jewish War. If we could treat Mark in isolation of the other gospels, this might make sense.¹⁹ But this approach fails to explain both the vagueness and unfilled predictions in Matthew's and Luke’s Olivet Discourse. Hence, if Matthew and Luke are dated before 66 CE, Mark must precede them by some time. As Guthrie notes, “the key item in the internal evidence is the reference in Mark 13:14 to the ‘abomination that causes desolation.’ . . . If it be admitted that Jesus himself predicted the event, Mark 13:14 would cease to be a crux . . . The phrase used to describe the event is of such vagueness . . . that it is even more reasonable to assume that it belongs to a time well before the actual happenings.”²⁰

(3) If Acts is dated c. 62 CE, then Luke—and hence, Mark—must be dated before then.²¹ It should be readily apparent that in solving the chronological issues of the synoptic gospels, the Olivet Discourse is pitted against the ending of Acts. For some scholars, the level of specificity in the Olivet Discourse, often coupled with a denial of Jesus’ predictive ability, render the date of Mark no earlier than 66 (the other gospels coming in the 80-90 range). But if Jesus could predict the future, and if the Olivet Discourse neither has all the earmarks of vaticinium ex eventu nor was indeed completely fulfilled in 66-70, then there should be every reason for dating all three synoptics before the fall of Jerusalem. If this is the case, then the ending of Acts may well give us a terminus ad quem of c. 62 for (Matthew and) Luke, with Mark coming a few years earlier.

(4) The biggest problem for this early date—apart from the Olivet Discourse—is the theme of suffering in Mark. Several scholars make mush of this, arguing that the only Sitz im Leben which fits this gospel well is sometime after the Neronic persecutions of 64 CE began.²² Mark does indeed seem to indicate that his audience was undergoing suffering and persecution (cf. 8:34-38; 10:30; 13:1-13). But does this mean that it all started with Nero? The evidence within the gospel is insufficient to indicate this. And further, there is a good deal of evidence that Nero’s pogrom was simply the crystallization and government sanction of popular sentiment toward Christians.²³ Even in Nero’s first years of reign (54-59), the Christians were labeled as misanthropes because of their refusal to join in pagan festivals. Tacitus, for example, in his description of why Nero blamed the Christians for the great fire in 64 CE, spoke of “the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called) . . .”²⁴ Further, he stated that “despite their guilt as Christians, and the ruthless punishment it deserved, the victims were pitied. For it was felt that they were being sacrificed to one man’s brutality rather than to the national interest.”²⁵ What Tacitus’ comments show is that the Christians in Rome had been persecuted for some time before the official persecution of 64 CE. Just because it was not a governmentally-sanctioned persecution did not make it less painful to the Christians involved.²⁶ In light of this, it is absolutely unnecessary to see the Neronic persecution as prior to the writing of Mark.

(5) Finally, as Lane argues, “the production of the Gospel of Mark must have an effective cause.”²⁷ He finds this cause, as do most scholars, in the Neronic persecutions. But even though suffering and persecution are definite themes in this gospel, they are not the only ones—nor, indeed, the most predominant ones. One could argue equally well that the focus is on Christ as the fulfillment of the Law, thus rendering it null and void for Gentile believers. Further, no gospel was produced for only one purpose, or had merely one occasion in its background. When we come to occasion and purpose, we will see that a multivalenced approach accounts for all the particulars better.

In sum, Mark should be dated before the production of Luke’s gospel which we date no later than 62 CE. Sometime in the mid-50s is most probable.²⁸

C. Destination and Recipients

There is good evidence that Mark wrote to mostly Gentile Christians living in Rome. In all likelihood, he lived there too.²⁹ Not only is the external testimony strong,³⁰ but the internal evidence is also suggestive: (1) Mark explains Palestinian customs (cf. 7:3-4); (2) some of the retained Aramaic expressions are translated (in a gloss/midrashic fashion) into Greek (cf. 3:17; 5:41; 10:46); and (3) there are many Latinisms in Mark. Although some scholars do not think the Latinisms carry much weight,³¹ others see them as quite significant. Lane, for example, points out that “it is particularly significant that twice common Greek expressions in the Gospel are explained by Latin ones (Ch. 12:42, ‘two copper coins [lepta], which make a quadrans’; Ch. 15:16, ‘the palace, that is the praetorium’). The first of these examples is particularly instructive, for the quadrans was not in circulation in the east.”³²

Hence, the evidence is quite strong for both a Roman destination and Gentile Christians as the recipients.

D. Occasion and Purpose

As we have suggested before, all the gospels had more than one reason for their production. Further, one of the strange features of this gospel is that its purpose is especially enigmatic. Guthrie lists the following options that scholars have seen: catechetical, liturgical, apologetic, conflict with the Twelve, Christological, ecclesiastical, pastoral, and editorial.³³ His conclusion is that “Mark had several purposes in writing his gospel.”³⁴ Though certainly true, Guthrie curiously omits the occasion for its production.

The occasion, if not found in the Neronic persecutions, must also be multivalenced. One of the factors hardly ever taken into account however is the fact that Mark is writing to Gentiles, though he got his material from Peter, the apostle to the Jews. Further, what is neglected is the fact that Mark had a strong connection with Paul—and that at one point was out of sorts with Paul.

Bringing these data to bear on the issue, we would like to propose the following tentative hypothesis: Mark wrote his gospel as a prelude to Paul’s intended visit to Rome. The evidence, though quite speculative in places, is as follows.

1. The church at Rome was established before the Jerusalem Council met in c. 50 CE. Seutonius’ statement that Claudius banned Jews from Rome in 49 because they rioted in reaction to “Chrestus” probably refers to the Jews’ reactions to Christians in that city.

2. The church was probably established shortly after Pentecost, since proselytes and Jews came from Rome (Acts 2:10). The church would have been quite immature since these converts had very little information about Jesus on which to base their lives. Still, it could have been founded by them.

3. Even though Peter and Paul ended up in Rome in the early-mid 60s, we have no record of either of them getting there in the 50s. It is very doubtful that any apostle founded the church (cf. Rom. 15:20).

4. The combined evidence from Acts and the epistles³⁵ suggests that although Mark was not in Paul’s good graces in c. 50 CE (at the time of the Council meeting of Acts 15), he was so in 60-62 (when Paul dispatched him to the Colossians/Philemon from Rome). Thus, sometime in the 50s Mark certainly proved himself worthy of Paul’s confidence once again. The fact that he is in Rome when Paul commends him may be no accident.

5. In Acts 19:21 Paul expresses his intention to visit Rome for strategic missionary work. Though it is impossible to date this precisely, it must have occurred in the early 50s. Further, this may not have been the first time Paul expressed such an intention, even though it is the first mention by Luke. Surely Paul’s planned itinerary would be known to interested Christians in Jerusalem and Antioch.

6. One of the reasons why Paul wanted to get to Rome would have been the lack of apostolic guidance in that church. If the church was begun by proselytes returning from Pentecost in 33 CE, it would have had only hit-or-miss instruction about the faith for some time.³⁶

7. There is some evidence that even though Paul did not found the church at Rome, it already had a distinctive Pauline flavor to it.³⁷

8. Putting all this together, we see that there is a good bit of circumstantial evidence which suggests that someone from Paul’s circles had penetrated Rome with the gospel before he wrote Romans. Further, there is independent evidence that Mark wrote his gospel in the mid-50s. When considering the raison d’être for the production of this gospel, it is easy to see why Mark would be so highly motivated to get back into Paul’s good graces and precede Paul to Rome. All the data fit the supposition that Mark went to Rome in the early to mid-50s, with Peter’s sermons and Paul’s mission in the back of his mind. He then composed the gospel for the Roman Christians.³⁸ In this light, it is no wonder that Mark’s gospel looks so Pauline in respect to the OT Law—even though he got it from Peter in large measure.

E. The Ending of Mark

Although not intending to belittle this issue, there is excellent evidence both that the last twelve verses are not original (16:9-20) and that Mark intended to end his gospel at 16:8. Rather than get into the reasons why, our approach to the outline and argument will simply assume this.

F. Theme

Although Mark is ostensibly interested in the teaching of Jesus, he is most concerned with Jesus’ actions. The lack of a genealogy and the lack of much teaching material, coupled with the frequent use of “immediately” have been seen as sufficient indicators that Mark’s Gospel presents Jesus preeminently as the Servant. We might modify this slightly: the heart of this gospel can be seen in 8:27-33 where Peter wants to affirm that Jesus is the Christ without the necessity of the cross. In his stern rebuke of Peter, the servant-attitude of Jesus is thus seen to be intrinsically related to his own suffering. The verse which capsulizes this is 10:45 (“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many”): Jesus is portrayed then as “The Suffering Servant.”³⁹

II. Argument

Mark dramatically opens his Gospel with prophecies from Malachi and Isaiah (Mal. 3:1 and Isa. 40:3) about Jesus’ forerunner, John the Baptizer. Thus what is found in Matthew 3 and Luke 3 is placed up front in Mark’s Gospel. There is no genealogy, for the credentials of a servant are his actions.⁴⁰ After a brief introduction to the work of John (1:1-8), Mark tells us about the beginning (cf. 1:1) of Jesus’ ministry: he is baptized by John (1:9-11) and tempted by Satan (1:12-13). The baptism was intended to show that the servant was authenticated by heaven, and the temptation was intended to show that God’s opinion of the servant was not mere “talk” (note that the Spirit “drove him into the desert,” 1:12): it was vindicated by Jesus’ successful stand against the devil.

In some ways, the book divides neatly into two halves: Jesus’ ministry in Galilee (1:1–8:21) and Jesus’ journey to and ministry in Judea (8:22–16:8). Clearly Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi is the turning point, regardless of whether the Gospel has two halves or seven parts. Up until 8:21 it is clear that Jesus’ ministry is as the servant of the Lord, while after 8:21 it is more focused: he is the suffering servant of the Lord. In our approach, the geography plays an important role: hence, there are six major sections (seven, if the opening section is included).

The first major section reveals Jesus’ work in Galilee (1:14–6:6a). As well, there are two distinct cycles involved, both of which start with a summary of Jesus’ activity, include a calling/appointment of disciples and a major confrontation with the religious leaders, and conclude with a rejection of the message and the man.

The first cycle of Jesus’ work in Galilee (1:4–3:6) reveals him proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom once John is put in prison (1:14-15). He then calls four fishermen near the Sea of Galilee to become his disciples (at least one of whom was already a disciple of John according to John 1:35-40). The servant’s authority over demons and disease is then demonstrated (1:21-45), with a subtle interjection as to the source of his authority: he relies on God (1:35-39). This sets the stage for both rounds of confrontations with the religious leaders (2:1–3:5; 3:20-30) who accuse him of relying on Satan instead (3:20-30).

In spite of this powerful demonstration of his authority, the religious leaders reveal their animosity toward him (2:1–3:5). In Capernaum, the city which Jesus made his home as an adult (2:1), he healed a paralytic and forgave his sins as well (2:1-12). In this miracle we see a glimpse, a foreshadowing, of the suffering servant, for the canceling of a debt can only come through a payment and the forgiveness of sins requires a substitutionary death. Further confrontations with the Pharisees occur over Jesus’ calling of Levi, a tax-collector, to be one of his disciples (2:13-17), and concerning regulations such as fasting (2:18-22) and the Sabbath (2:23–3:5). In these confrontations Jesus reveals three other aspects of his role as servant: (1) he came to serve the needy and the sick (2:17), and (2) the servant serves people (3:4), not the Sabbath—in fact, (3) the servant is Lord of the Sabbath (2:27). There is no contradiction in Mark’s presentation of Jesus as both servant and Lord, for Jesus himself said that the one who would be great in the kingdom must be servant of all. This first cycle ends with a statement about the Pharisees’ absolute rejection of Jesus, so much so that they plotted to kill him (3:6).

The second cycle of Jesus’ ministry in Galilee (3:7–6:6a) repeats and expands on much of the same material found in the first cycle. It begins with a summary of his ministry (3:7-12; cf. 1:14-15), with an emphasis on his healing more than on his preaching this time.⁴¹ It continues with his appointment of the twelve (3:13-19; cf. 1:16-20) and a confrontation with the Pharisees (3:20-30; cf. 2:1–3:5)—a confrontation so great that the Pharisees charged Jesus with being empowered by Beelzebub. Rather than ending the second cycle at this point, however, Mark shows Jesus turning to the crowds with his message (3:31–4:34). he begins with an invitation to join his family by simply pleasing God (3:31-35), foreshadowing a time when those who had no blood relationship to God’s chosen people could still become his children. This invitation leads into a second invitation: to enter the kingdom (4:1-34).

In chapter four Mark treats us to his second largest section of didactic material (chapter 13, the Olivet Discourse, being the first). The parables were given in a context of both hostility (from the religious leaders) and enormous popularity (from the crowd). Ironically, the religious leaders had a better grasp as to who Jesus really was—better than the crowd’s, better than Jesus’ own disciples. Their rejection of him, therefore, is all the more damnable.

In Mark’s version, only five parables are given. The first group deals with the responsibility of the hearers (4:3-25). This includes two parables, as well as an aside to the disciples about the purpose of the parables. In the parable of the sower/seeds Jesus argues that his hearers are like seed that is sown; they are to grow and be productive (4:3-9; 4:13-20), though not all who hear will really listen and heed (4:10-12). The parable of the lamp (and measure) is given to show how those who hear should grow: by faithfulness (4:24-25) and courage of conviction (4:21-23). Then two parables about the nature of the kingdom are given (4:26-32). Both of these emphasize the growth of the kingdom from humble beginnings (especially the mustard seed [4:30-32]), as well as the inevitable, unstoppable nature of such growth (especially the parable of the growing seed [4:26-29]). A somber note concludes the parables’ segment: “He did not say anything to [the crowds] without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything” (4:34, NIV). This shows how the purpose of the parables (4:10-12) was carried out by Jesus.

Mark continues this second cycle with several miracles of Jesus (4:35–5:43), all designed to show that Jesus’ words were backed up by his actions. It must be remembered that he was primarily the servant of YHWH, and as his servant he was his ambassador. Thus Jesus could offer the kingdom as God’s spokesman; and to authenticate his message, he performed miracles. It is interesting that all of the miracles listed here (calming a storm [4:35-41], healing a Gerasene demoniac [5:1-20], and raising a little girl from the dead [5:21-43]) were done especially for the sake of the disciples (cf. especially 5:40).⁴² These miracles conclude with the familiar refrain of Jesus forbidding witnesses from telling others about what he did (5:43; cf. 1:44; 7:36; 8:26). The reason seems to be both that his popularity would be for the wrong reasons and such popularity would restrict his movement and alter his agenda.

This second cycle is concluded with Jesus’ rejection at Nazareth (6:1-6a; cf. 3:6), with Mark’s somber note that Jesus was unable to perform many miracles because of their unbelief (6:5).

The second major section, coming on the heels of this hometown rejection, shows Jesus withdrawing from Galilee (6:6b–8:21). But the catalyst for the withdrawals, in Mark’s presentation, is the very popularity of Jesus (6:6b-29)—which, as we have seen, affected Jesus’ mission and agenda. His popularity grew because of his own ministry (6:6b), as well as the delegated ministry of his disciples (6:7-13). News of Jesus went as far as Herod who thought that John had come back to life (6:14-29).

Mark then shows how Jesus withdrew successively to five different places (6:30–8:21): (1) to “a deserted place” (6:30–7:23) in which he still performed miracles (feeding the five thousand [6:30-44] and walking on the water [6:45-56]), and continued to have confrontations with the Pharisees (this time, over regulations of cleanliness [7:1-23]; here Mark adds that Jesus’ pronouncements “declared all foods clean” [7:23], again foreshadowing the opening of the gospel to Gentiles); (2) to the vicinity of Tyre in which he healed a Gentile woman’s daughter (7:24-30)—giving further evidence that the gospel was opening up to Gentiles; (3) to the region of Decapolis where he healed a deaf-mute (7:31-37); (4) to the Sea of Galilee where he again fed the multitudes (8:1-9); and (5) to Dalmanutha (= Matthew’s Magadan) where he instructed his disciples about the “fluff” in the Pharisees’ teaching (8:10-21).

It is significant that in the withdrawals of Jesus he never stopped serving, healing, or teaching. His disciples learned that a true servant does not quit in the face of opposition. And they were beginning to see that Jesus was more than a servant, too. They will soon learn another dimension to Jesus’ servant role.

The hinge, or turning point, in this Gospel is found in 8:22-38 (which comprises the third major section), for there Jesus reveals the true nature of his servanthood. Mark exploits this motif throughout the rest of the book to reveal the true nature of discipleship. As Jesus and his disciples continue their withdrawal, they come to Bethsaida, where Jesus performs a two-stage healing of a blind man (8:22-26). Jesus led the blind man out of the town (8:23) both as a witness against Bethsaida (cf. Mark 8:11-13; Matt. 11:20-22) and as a specific object lesson for his disciples to see and ponder. The lesson was in the healing process: Jesus took two steps to heal the man.

This sets the stage for Peter’s confession (8:27-30), for at Caesarea Philippi the disciples come to embrace Jesus as the Christ (first stage), but they want him without the cross (second stage). Caesarea Philippi was twenty-five miles north of Bethsaida, better than a day’s journey. There is great rationale in Jesus bringing his disciples so far north to this town: Not only was it far removed from Jerusalem (thus testing his disciples’ allegiance to him without the normal concomitant evidence of his linkage with the holy city), but it was built by Herod to honor Caesar. By way of contrast, Jesus there revealed that he was the Messiah (8:27-30). Immediately after he revealed this, he commanded his disciples to be silent about his identity (8:30). Why? Because they, like the crowds, did not fully understand who he really was. They were still half-blind! Their concept of the Messiah was shaped by their literature and national hopes. They could not conceive of the Messiah as suffering.

Immediately, after the revelation of his identity, he unveiled the nature of this Messiahship: he must suffer and die, but he would rise from the dead (8:31). Peter, who had made the great confession, now rebuked Jesus for this statement (8:32), for in his view of the Messiah, there was no room for suffering. Jesus’ counter-rebuke of Peter (8:33) revealed that Peter still did not grasp completely who Jesus was. He knew that Jesus was the Christ, but he did not know what that entailed. He needed the second stage of healing. Jesus follows up the rebuke with a lesson on true discipleship (8:34-38): true discipleship means that suffering must precede glory. It is this way with Christ and it is this way with us.

From this point on, Mark shows Jesus as the suffering servant, marching to Jerusalem to die. Throughout the rest of the book, he subtly beckons his readers to embrace Jesus as the true Messiah—one who had to suffer the pain of the cross before he could reign in glory—and to follow in his steps.

The fourth major section, then, details Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem (9:1–10:52). All along the way, the emphasis is on his instructions of the disciples on true discipleship. The lessons take on a more somber tone in light of where they are headed, and why.

First, Jesus ministers to his disciples in Galilee (9:1-50). To encourage them in the face of his return to Jerusalem, he took three aside and revealed his future glory (9:1-13) via transfiguration. Then the instructions began (9:14-50). Jesus instructed his disciples concerning deep faith as a prerequisite to a healing ministry (9:14-30). Then he again predicted his own death and resurrection (9:31-32). This contrasted with an argument that broke out among the disciples as to who was the greatest disciple (9:33-37). As well, he taught them about allegiance to himself (9:38-41) and the gravity of causing others to sin (9:42-48).

When they reached Judea and Perea, more lessons were given (10:1-52). Again, in Mark’s presentation, these related especially to the nature of true discipleship. The instruction in Perea (10:1-31) dealt with: (1) fidelity to one’s spouse (10:3-10); (2) childlike faith as a prerequisite for entrance into the kingdom (10:11-16); and (3) finding one’s security and reward in Christ, rather than in one’s physical possessions (10:17-31).

In Judea, as they were approaching Jerusalem (10:32-52), Jesus predicted his death and resurrection for a third time (10:32-34), as a reminder of why they were headed to the holy city. This was followed up by a discussion—prompted by James’ and John’s request, and exemplified by Jesus’ own actions of healing a blind man—of what it really means to be great in the kingdom (10:35-52).

This last miracle—the healing of blind Bartimaeus (10:46-52)—placed in sharp relief the difference between the disciples’ view of greatness and Jesus’ view. Further, this episode functions as a crucial hinge both for what precedes and what follows. First, the scene of the healing is Jericho. Mark gives the impression that the discussion over greatness had just concluded before they entered the city. The NT Jericho was a winter palace built by Herod the Great near the ruins of the OT site. Surely the disciples would have gotten the visual object lesson: greatness according to the world’s standards always ends in ruins (cf. 10:42!), while greatness according to God’s standards results in true sight (10:51-52). Second, Blind Bartimaeus was healed because he recognized Jesus (10:47) before he ever received his sight. For only with the eyes of faith could this blind man see that Jesus was the “Son of David”, while the nation was truly blind for not perceiving this upon Jesus’ arrival in Jerusalem (11:1-11). And the disciples? Were they still half-blind or could they perceive fully who Jesus was yet?⁴³

The fifth major section in Mark displays the suffering servant ministering in the holy city (11:1–13:37). He comes to Jerusalem on an unbroken colt (11:1-6) and is recognized as the Messiah in his so-called “triumphal entry” (11:7-10). But the nature of his Messianic office was not perceived. He came not as a military king (cf. 11:10), but as the ultimate paschal lamb—on the very day in which the lambs were selected for the Passover celebration (Nisan 10). The suffering servant was about to give his life as a ransom for many (cf. 10:45).

In a proleptic gesture, he investigated the temple (11:11), only to cleanse it the next day (11:15-17). Mark brackets this with two other symbolic acts: the cursing/withering of the fig tree (11:12-14, 20-26) and the religious leaders’ plot to kill their Messiah (11:18-19). He will develop both themes in the next few chapters (in the Olivet Discourse and the passion narrative).

The “justification” for killing Jesus is further found in 11:27–12:44: Not only could the religious leaders not win any verbal battles with the servant of YHWH, they also were exposed for the hypocrisy of their own leadership. Thus taking his life is the only way to protect their “greatness.” The conflict begins when Jesus authority is once again questioned by these religious leaders (11:27-33). Jesus responds with the parable of the wicked tenants (12:1-12)—aimed at the vital organs of the religious leaders. Because they had defaulted on their stewardship before God—by killing his prophets and even his own son—the vineyard would be handed over to other tenants. This was again a foreshadowing of God’s simultaneous rejection of the nation and welcoming of “sinners” and Gentiles into the kingdom.

The final confrontation in which these religious leaders reject Jesus’ brand of Messiahship comes in four rounds (12:13-37a). First, the Pharisees and Herodians attempt to unmask Jesus as an impostor to the throne in the question of paying taxes to a foreign king, Caesar (12:13-17). Then, the Sadducees attempt to discredit all possibility of a spiritual kingdom with their question about Levirate marriage in the resurrected state (12:18-27). The final question of the day came from a scribe who wished to reveal Jesus’ lack of rabbinic training: Which is the greatest commandment in the Law, he asked (12:28-34). Jesus’ responses to these confrontational questions, in effect, turned each question on its head and made the questioners look foolish (although the last interrogator was beginning to see the light and hence “was not far from the kingdom of God” [12:34]). Then, he turned the tables by asking the crowd a question: Whose son is the Christ? (12:35-37a)—specifically, if he is David’s son how can he also be his Lord? (This picks up the theme found in 10:43, viz., whoever wants to be greatest must be servant of all).

At this juncture Jesus finished his instruction of the multitudes by making rather pointed remarks about the religious leaders (12:37b-44), contrasting them with true greatness (seen in the humble widow). It was futile for the religious leaders to win a war of words; they must try another way.

To complete his ministry in Jerusalem, Jesus takes his disciples to the Mount of Olives and gives them final instructions (13:1-37). But the Olivet Discourse—the longest dominical message recorded by Mark—was prompted by a question from one of the disciples who still did not grasp what true greatness was. For the third time a key event takes place with a monument erected by Herod as the background (cf. 13:1). But, like Jericho, this temple too would fall (13:3-37), though the day and hour of its final doom which would occur simultaneous to the glorious advent of the Son of Man (13:26) were a heavenly secret (13:32-37).⁴⁴

The sixth and final major section of this Gospel fully unveils a different kind of greatness in the death and resurrection of the suffering servant (14:1–16:8). There are three parts to it: preparation, crucifixion, and resurrection. First, the preparations for Jesus’ death are seen in 14:1-52. Ironically, at Bethany there are three who are preparing for his death: a woman who anoints him (14:1-5), Jesus himself who recognizes what she is doing and predicts her memorial (14:6-9), and Judas who betrays him (14:10-11). After their final Passover celebration together—the very meal which symbolized what Jesus was about to do as suffering servant (14:12-26)—Jesus predicts that Peter would deny him thrice (14:27-31). Then, to complete the cycle, Jesus prays three times in the garden of Gethsemane (14:32-52) just before his arrest (14:43-52).

Second, the account of the death of the servant occurs in 14:53–15:47. He is first tried in a kangaroo court before the religious leaders, the Sanhedrin (14:53-65). And for the first time in his public ministry he acknowledges that he is the Christ (14:62). In this acknowledgment he speaks of his power and glory, not his servanthood—at the very moment when he was powerless to effect such a Messianic reign. To the end, he affirmed that the last shall be first.

While court was in session Peter, the very one to whom Jesus’ Messiahship had first been revealed at Caesarea Philippi, denied knowing Jesus three times (14:62-72). Meanwhile, the Sanhedrin had decided his guilt but needed the stamp of Rome to effect his death. He was brought to Pilate where once again he affirmed that he was king of the Jews (15:1-15). His kingdom was plainly seen as not belonging to this world. In an ironic twist of history, this Pilate, who represents Roman might, is powerless to prevent his execution. True greatness and power were being redefined in the passion of Jesus.

Jesus is then crucified between two thieves (15:16-41). The nature of his kingdom—and the foolishness of the gospel—is seen in his death, for the sign posted on his cross stated in three languages that he was “King of the Jews” (15:26). Entrance into the kingdom had to be through the cross. In his cry of anguish in which he quoted Psalm 22:1—the only time he addressed his Father as “God” (15:34)—Mark is indicating that the suffering servant of YHWH suffered at the hands of YHWH. But he is telling us more: The response of the crowd was a misunderstanding of Jesus’ words (15:35-36) as a final proof that they never understood him. At his death the curtain in the temple tore from top to bottom (15:38), symbolizing the end of the Jewish cult and free access to God through a new mediator. The irony of the entire narrative is that a lone Gentile, a centurion, interpreted the data correctly, recognizing that Jesus was the Son of God (15:39).

Jesus was then hurriedly buried in a rich man’s tomb (15:42-47), for the next day was the Sabbath. There is great irony here: the Lord of the Sabbath in his life had no power over it in his death.⁴⁵

Finally, the Gospel closes very briefly with a truncated account of Jesus’ resurrection (16:1-8). On the day after the Sabbath, on the first day of the week, three women visit the tomb to anoint the body (16:1-2). As they travel, they wonder who would roll away the stone (16:3). But the stone had been rolled away (16:4)! An angel spoke to the women and told them to tell Peter and the disciples to go to Galilee where the resurrected Christ would meet them (16:5-7). The gospel ends with a statement about them leaving in fear and telling no one (16:8). Thus the irony is completed: when Jesus asked people not to reveal his identity they did so; when they were asked to do so, they failed. Surely the reason the Gospel ends without any resurrection appearances is because Mark wants to draw his audience into the action. They have been subtly and skillfully invited all along to embrace Christ in his suffering. Since Peter failed to do so he becomes an example of those who are still “half-blind.” Would Mark’s Roman audience—an audience that knew well the shame and degradation of crucifixion—do the same? Or would they recognize that one cannot have Christ without the cross, that there must be suffering before glory? By ending his Gospel with such incredible abruptness, he forces the audience to put themselves in the shoes of the original disciples. Although his audience surely knew that the (eleven) disciples all saw Jesus in his resurrection body—and all, ultimately, embraced him fully—by ending his Gospel immediately he subtly invites his audience to make the same decision.

III. Outline⁴⁶

I. The Beginning of the Servant’s Ministry (1:1-13)

A. His Forerunner (1:1-8)

B. His Baptism (1:9-11)

C. His Temptation (1:12-13)

II. The Servant’s Ministry in Galilee (1:14–6:6a)

A. Cycle One: Jesus’ Early Galilean Ministry (1:14–3:6)

1. Introductory Summary: Jesus’ Message in Galilee (1:14-15)

2. A Call to Four Fishermen (1:16-20)

3. Authority over Demons and Disease (1:21-45)

a. An Exorcism in the Synagogue (1:21-28)

b. The Healing of Simon’s Mother-in-Law (1:29-34)

c. A Solitary Prayer (1:35-39)

d. The Cleansing of a Leper (1:40-45)

4. Confrontations with Religious Leaders (2:1–3:5)

a. Concerning the Healing and Forgiveness of a Paralyzed Man (2:1-12)

b. Concerning the Calling of a Tax-Collector (2:13-17)

c. Concerning Fasting (2:18-22)

d. Concerning  Jesus’ Authority over the Sabbath (2:23–3:5)

1) Plucking Grain on the Sabbath (2:23-28)

2) Healing on the Sabbath (3:1-5)

5. Conclusion: Jesus’ Rejection by the Pharisees (3:6)

B. Cycle Two: Jesus’ Later Galilean Ministry (3:7–6:6a)

1. Introductory Summary: Jesus’ Activity in Galilee (3:7-12)

2. Appointment of the Twelve Disciples (3:13-19)

3. Accusation regarding Beelzebub, the Prince of Demons (3:20-30)

4. Invitation to Join Jesus’ Family (3:31-35)

5. Invitation to Enter the Kingdom (Parables) (4:1-34)

a. The Setting (4:1-2)

b. The Responsibility of the Hearers (4:3-25)

1) The Parable of the Sower (4:3-9)

2) The Purpose of the Parables (4:10-12)

3) The Parable of the Sower Explained (4:13-20)

4) The Parable of the Lamp (4:21-25)

c. The Parables of the Character of the Kingdom (4:26-32)

1) The Parable of the Growing Seed (4:26-29)

2) The Parable of the Mustard Seed (4:30-32)

d. Conclusion (4:33-34)

6. Miraculous Demonstration of Jesus’ Authority (4:35–5:43)

a. The Calming of a Storm (4:35-41)

b. The Healing of a Gerasene Demoniac (5:1-20)

c. The Raising of Jairus’ Daughter and the Healing of a Hemorrhaging Woman (5:21-43)

7. Conclusion: Jesus’ Rejection in his Hometown (6:1-6a)

III. The Servant’s Withdrawals from Galilee (6:6b–8:21)

A. The Catalyst: The News about Jesus Spreading (6:6b-29)

1. By Jesus’ Activities (6:6b)

2. By Jesus’ Disciples (6:7-13)

3. As far as Herod (6:14-29)

a. The Report to Herod (6:14-16)

b. The Beheading of John (6:17-29)

B. The Withdrawals (6:30–8:21)

1. To a Deserted place (6:30–7:23)

a. Miracles Performed (6:30-56)

1) Feeding of the Five Thousand (6:30-44)

2) Walking on the Water (6:45-56)

b. Pharisees Confronted: Clean Vs. Unclean (7:1-23)

1) Confrontation with the Pharisees (7:1-13)

2) Declaration to the Crowd (7:14-15)

3) Instruction of the Disciples (7:17-23)

2. To the Vicinity of Tyre: The Healing of the Syrophoenician Woman’s Daughter (7:24-30)

3. To the Region of Decapolis: The Healing of a Deaf-Mute (7:31-37)

4. To the Sea of Galilee: The Feeding of the Four Thousand (8:1-9)

5. To Dalmanutha (= Magadan) (8:10-21)

a. The Withdrawal to Dalmanutha (8:10)

b. The Pharisees’ Demand for a Sign (8:11-13)

c. The Pharisees’ Teaching Warned Against (8:14-21)

IV. Revelation of the Servant’s Suffering at Caesarea Philippi (8:22-38)

A. Introductory Object Lesson: The Two-Stage Healing of a Blind Man at Bethsaida (8:22-26)

B. Peter’s Confession: Jesus is the Christ (8:27-30)

C. Jesus’ Disclosure: Death and Resurrection (8:31-38)

1. The Statement by Jesus (8:31)

2. Resistance by Peter (8:32-33)

3. The Principle: Suffering before Glory (8:34-38)

V. The Suffering Servant’s Journey to Jerusalem (9:1–10:52)

A. Lessons in Galilee (9:1-50)

1. The Transfiguration (9:1-13)

2. The Healing of a Demon-Possessed Boy (9:14-30)

3. Prediction of Death and Resurrection: Second Mention (9:31-32)

4. The Greatest Disciple (9:33-37)

5. Doing Good in Jesus’ Name (9:38-41)

6. Stumbling Blocks (9:42-48)

7. Worthless Salt (9:49-50)

B. Lessons in Perea and Judea (10:1-52)

1. In Perea (10:1-31)

a. Divorce (10:1-12)

b. Childlikeness (10:13-16)

c. Riches (10:17-31)

1) The Rich Young Man: Security in Riches (10:17-22)

2) The Disciples: Security in Christ (10:23-31)

2. In Judea (10:32-52)

a. Prediction Death and Resurrection: Third Mention (10:32-34)

b. True Leadership (10:35-52)

1) John’s and James’ Request (10:35-37)

2) Jesus’ Response (10:38-45)

3) Jesus’ Example: Healing of Blind Bartimaeus (10:46-52)

VI. The Suffering Servant’s Ministry in Jerusalem (11:1–13:37)

A. The Presentation of the Suffering Servant: Entrance into Jerusalem (11:1-11)

1. Preparation: The Unbroken Colt (11:1-6)

2. Coronation: The Recognition of Jesus’ Messiahship (11:7-10)

3. Prolepsis: Investigation of the Temple (11:11)

B. The Judgment of the Nation in Symbols (11:12-26)

1. The Entrance into the Temple (11:12-19)

a. Proleptic Rejection of the Nation: Cursing of the Fig Tree (11:12-14)

b. The Cleansing of the Temple (11:15-17)

c. Proleptic Rejection of the Messiah: The Plot to Kill Jesus (11:18-19)

2. The Withered Fig Tree (11:20-26)

C. Confrontations with Religious Leaders (11:27–12:44)

1. The Authority of Jesus Questioned (11:27-33)

2. The Parable of the Wicked Tenants (12:1-12)

3. Paying Taxes to Caesar (12:13-17)

4. Marriage at the Resurrection (12:18-27)

5. The Greatest Commandment (12:28-34)

6. Whose Son is the Christ? (12:35-37a)

7. The Hypocrisy of the Religious Leaders (12:37b-44)

a. Condemnation of Hypocrisy (12:37b-40)

b. Commendation of the Widow’s Sincerity (12:41-44)

D. The Judgment of the Nation in Prophecy (13:1-37)

1. The Setting in the Temple (13:1-2)

2. The Discourse on the Mount of Olives (13:3-37)

a. Signs of the End of the Age (13:3-31)

b. The Day and Hour Unknown (13:32-37)

VII. The Culmination of the Suffering Servant’s Ministry: Death and Resurrection (14:1–16:8)

A. The Preparation for Death (14:1-52)

1. The Anointing at Bethany (14:1-11)

a. Anointing of Jesus by a Woman (14:1-5)

b. Prediction of her Memorial by Jesus (14:6-9)

c. Agreement to Betrayal by Judas (14:10-11)

2. The Last Passover (14:12-26)

3. The Prediction of Peter’s Denials (14:27-31)

4. Gethsemane (14:32-42)

5. The Arrest of Jesus (14:43-52)

B. The Death of Jesus (14:53–15:47)

1. The Trials of Jesus (14:53–15:15)

a. The Trial Before the Sanhedrin (14:53-65)

b. Peter Denies Jesus (14:66-72)

c. The Trial Before Pilate (15:1-15)

2. The Crucifixion of Jesus (15:16-41)

a. The Mocking of the Soldiers (15:16-20)

b. The Actual Crucifixion of Jesus (15:21-32)

c. The Death of Jesus (15:33-41)

3. The Burial of Jesus (15:42-47)

C. The Resurrection of Jesus (16:1-8)

1. The Empty Tomb (16:1-5)

2. The Angel's Announcement (16:6-7)

3. The Open Ending (16:8)

---

¹The simplest inscription is κατὰ Μάρκον, found in Aleph B (“according to Mark”). As time progressed this became more elaborate: in the fifth century the title was customarily εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μάρκον (A D W [“The Gospel according to Mark”), while still later it was called τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον ἅγιον εὐαγγέλιον (209 and others [“the Holy Gospel according to Mark”).

²Guthrie, 81.

³My translation of Fragments of Papias 2:15 (also recorded in Eusebius, HE 3.39.15).

⁴τάξει could refer to the chronological order of the events in the Lord’s life (which seems most likely), to the arrangement which Peter made of the tradition, or perhaps even to a topical order (cf. 2:3).

⁵ὃς πρὸς τὰς χρείας ἐποιεῖτο τὰς διδασκαλίας—lit., ‘who used to do the teachings for the needs.’ Two implications might be drawn from this comment: (1) The statement sounds as if the passing on of the traditions about Jesus was a sacred duty which only a few (e.g., eye-witnesses?) were normally engaged in. (2) ‘For the needs’ indicates that the passing on of the traditions about Jesus were not done simply out of historical concerns to ‘preserve’ his life, but for the sake of paranetic concerns within the community. In other words, there is validity with looking at the third Sitz im Leben as we think through the meaning, purpose and occasion of the canonical gospels.

⁶σύνταξιν τῶν κυριακῶν ποιούμενος λογίων—Although most would see λόγιον here as broader than ‘oracles’ (in light of the context), it is just possible that Papias meant something like ‘Peter did not arrange the oral traditions (λογίων) about the Lord (κυριακῶν) according to their chronological order.’ If so, then the meaning of ‘oracles’ or ‘sayings’ for λογίων would be preserved, though such sayings would not be by the Lord, but about the Lord. Again, if so, this opens up a certain possibility in 2:16 about Matthew’s evangelistic endeavors.

⁷ἥμαρτεν—Perhaps Papias does mean ‘sin’ here; either way, apostolic sanction seemed a high priority to him in the Überlieferung of the gospel. Further, Papias seemed to have a very high view of scripture—one might even say that he viewed it as inerrant.

⁸ἑνὸς γὰρ ἐποιήσατο πρόνοιαν—lit., ‘for he did the foresight of one thing.’

⁹τι ἐν αὐτοῖς—lit., ‘anything in them.’

¹⁰Among other things, it renders (Stendahl’s view of the first gospel as being produced by a) “school of St. Matthew” (or any compilation theory for Matthew) as highly improbable, for otherwise the patristic writers would not have claimed direct authorship by Matthew.

¹¹This is on the assumption that John Mark is the same as Mark. He is called John Mark three times (Acts 12:12, 25; 15:37) and simply Mark at least five times (Acts 15:39; Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11; Philemon 24; 1 Peter 5:13). In Col. 4:10 he is called Barnabas’ cousin “which clearly equates him with the John Mark of Acts” (Guthrie, 82). Further, the mention of Mark by Peter (1 Peter 5:13), just after Peter mentioned Silas (5:12), shows that this is the same Mark who had earlier been associated with Paul, just as Silas had been.

¹²It is equally possible that Mark left for Antioch shortly after returning on his own to Jerusalem.

¹³Cf. W. L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark (NICNT), 9-11, for a helpful layout. C. H. Dodd was the most instrumental in promoting the view that form criticism does not answer all the questions about the make-up of the gospels. He argued cogently that not only individual pericopae, but a certain chronological framework was circulating in the oral period—and that it was part and parcel of the apostolic kerygma.

¹⁴So T. J. Weeden, Mark: Traditions in Conflict.

¹⁵Lane, Mark, 22.

¹⁶Further, there seems to be the implication that although Luke may not have been satisfied with all his sources, he apparently endorses Mark’s Gospel.

¹⁷Eusebius, HE 5.8.2-4, citing Against Heresies 3.1.2.

¹⁸Guthrie, 85.

¹⁹Indeed, this may well be the most difficult problem to face for one positing a date in the mid-50s—specifically, why does Mark include the Olivet Discourse with its strong eschatological urgency if there were no particular occasion (such as the start of the Jewish War) to provoke it? In response, two things should be noted: (1) the theme of suffering was not out of place in the 50s (as we will show in our fourth point under internal evidence) and eschatological urgency is quite frequently, if not normally, found in the context of suffering; and (2) if Mark truly derived his gospel in large measure from Peter, then the tone of eschatological urgency should hardly be surprising, regardless of when this gospel was written. In Peter’s Pentecost address, the core of the message may be viewed as essentially that of eschatological urgency (Acts 2:14-39; cf. especially his use of Joel 2); in his first epistle, too, there is such a tone (1 Peter 1:5, 11, 13, 20; 2:12; 4:5, 7, 12-19; 5:4); and especially in 2 Peter do we see this (2 Peter 3:1-13). It would hardly be an overstatement in fact to speak of Peter as belonging to an apocalyptic-type of Christianity since the twin themes of suffering and eschatological urgency go hand in glove throughout his sermons and letters, stretching from 33 CE to 65 CE. Yet, if Peter wrote the two letters that bear his name, he must have done so before the Jewish War began. Thus what may first appear as a difficulty for a mid-50s date for Mark turns out to be very much for this view, provided that Peter stands behind the gospel.

²⁰Guthrie, 86-87.

²¹We will discuss the date of Acts more fully when we come to that book.

²²Cf. Lane, Mark, 12-17.

²³In this respect, it was not much different than Hitler’s plot against the Jews, for they were already a despised people.

²⁴Cf. Tacitus, Annals 15.44.

²⁵Ibid.

²⁶An apt analogy might be the non-official persecution of black Americans in the South, especially in the ’50s and ’60s.

²⁷Lane, Mark, 17.

²⁸Our reasons for dating it at this time rather than earlier, will become evident when we discuss occasion and purpose.

²⁹In particular, Mark 15:21 mentions Rufus incidentally, as though he were well known to the readers. In Rom. 16:13 a certain Rufus (who lived in Rome) was greeted by Paul. The subtle connection to make is that Mark was probably in the same place as Rufus when he wrote, and since Rufus was in Rome in the late 50s, Mark was too. This is further supported by the NT references to Mark in Col. 4:10 and 1 Peter 5:13, which place him in Rome in the early-mid 60s.

³⁰Though not unanimous: Chrysostom speaks of an Egyptian destination. But he is alone, and quite late.

³¹So Guthrie, 72.

³²Lane, Mark, 24.

³³See Guthrie, 65-71, for a complete discussion.

³⁴Ibid., 71.

³⁵See references and discussion under authorship of Mark.

³⁶Even though Acts 18 records Priscilla and Aquila’s departure from Rome under Claudius’ edict, the distinct impression in this chapter is that they do not become Christians until after some exposure to Paul. Further, if Claudius was sending away Jews because they were against “Chrestus” (Christ), then Aquila and Priscilla would surely not have been believers when they were in Rome.

³⁷Cf. F. J. A. Hort, Prolegomena to St. Paul’s Epistles to the Romans and Ephesians, 15-18.

³⁸In this reconstruction we do not wish to suggest that Mark’s motives for such a monumental task were as petty as it might sound. Surely he wanted to get in good with Paul once again—and surely he wanted to prove himself worthy of the Gentile mission. But more than that, he wanted to serve his Lord Jesus Christ in the mission at which he had earlier failed. That this coincided with Paul’s mission is no accident, but Mark’s calling would have been higher than mere allegiance to the apostle.

³⁹To put this bluntly, Mark is saying, “You cannot have Christ without the cross.” The open ending of this gospel at 16:8 is confirmatory of this view, for the disciples do not ever see the risen Lord, but they are invited to go to him. The dramatic and sudden end then functions as a direct invitation to the reader: What will you do with Jesus?

⁴⁰This would, of course, relate well to the Gentile audience to whom Mark was writing, for Jewish genealogies were of no concern to them. Similarly, Luke gives a genealogy which links Jesus to all mankind and ultimately to God himself.

⁴¹This reveals a motif in Mark which is the opposite of Matthew: whereas Matthew uses the narrative as a framework of the didactic material, Mark uses the didactic material as a framework for the action sequences.

⁴²Matthew’s parallel section (chapters 8-9) is different in two ways: (1) the miracles come immediately after the Sermon on the Mount rather than after the message on parables, and (2) there are more miracles, done in the presence of Pharisees, etc. Jesus’ authority in Mark, at this juncture, is very much focused on how the disciples perceived Jesus—far more than on the crowds or the Pharisees. The reason for this shift in emphasis is that Matthew’s concern is to reveal Jewish rejection of Jesus as an apologetic for his gospel of the kingdom, whereas Mark is more concerned with Roman Gentiles’ perception of someone who was nailed to a Roman cross. If they wish to follow Jesus they must follow him all the way. Hence, the group that the readers would identify with in Matthew is the Jews, while the group that the readers of Mark should identify with is the disciples.

⁴³There may be some significance to the fact that the two crucial episodes in Jesus’ ministry both took place in towns which Herod had built (to contrast with the world’s idea of greatness), both were juxtaposed (or involved) a healing of a blind man, both dealt with Jesus’ ministry as suffering servant, and both involved a confession as to who Christ was.

⁴⁴For more information on the Olivet Discourse, see our argument of Matthew (for his didactic material is the longest of any of the Gospels’).

⁴⁵Although it hardly becomes explicit throughout the Gospel, this suffering servant motif is really the drama of Isa. 53 acted out in real life. This becomes one more subtle argument that Mark got his Gospel from Peter, for 1 Peter, in many ways, builds on the same passage. Further, the twin theme of Jesus as the suffering servant and our response to him to pick up our cross daily and follow him is also seen very strongly in 1 Peter.

⁴⁶Although there is a definite chronological framework to Mark’s Gospel, much of the action is cyclical in nature. For example, the early Galilean ministry parallels the later Galilean ministry, confrontations with religious Jewish leaders, Jesus’ initiation toward the disciples, etc., all occur repeatedly. The main points of our outline will follow a chronological scheme, though the subpoints will pick up on the repeated themes and motifs. Further, we have borrowed heavily from J. D. Grassmick, Mark (BKC), 101-102 (and passim) as his insights into the structure of Mark are more convincing than other presentations (though we have not been fully convinced; hence, there are major differences between our approach and Grassmick’s).

I. Introduction

A. The Author

There are three pieces of evidence to consider: title, external evidence, and internal evidence.

1. The Title

As with the other gospels, no MSS which contain Luke affirm authorship by anyone other than Luke.¹ Once again, as with the others, this is short of proof of Lukan authorship, but the unbroken stream suggests recognition of Lukan authorship as early as the first quarter of the second century.

2. External Evidence

Attestation of Lukan authorship is found in the Muratorian Canon, the anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Eusebius, and Jerome. These all not only affirm authorship of the gospel by Luke, but Lukan authorship for the book of Acts, too. Thus the external evidence is both unanimous and early. “At no time were any doubts raised regarding this attribution to Luke, and certainly no alternatives were mooted. The tradition could hardly be stronger . . .”² As with Mark, this unanimous tradition is all the more surprising if it were not true since Luke was not an apostle, nor even closely associated with one of the twelve. Caird makes the interesting observation:

Not all the traditions of the early Church are to be accepted at their face value, but there are good reasons for accepting this one. . . . a book which was meant for publication must have borne its author’s name from the start. In this respect the literary conventions of the first century were stricter than ours, which allow an author to hide behind a pen-name. Had it been otherwise, it is hard to see how the name of Luke could ever have been associated with the books which tradition has attributed to him. Luke can scarcely be described as a prominent figure in the annals of first-century Christianity.³

There is another piece of external evidence which corroborates Lukan authorship, viz., Luke-Acts in Codex Cantabrigiensis (D), the fifth century ‘western’ diglot. Studies done on the singular readings of D (by G. E. Rice, E. J. Epp, etc.) show that it had certain theological tendencies. Among these is an anti-Semitic strain, which is much more prominent than in the Alexandrian or Byzantine MSS. But in particular, the anti-Semitic strain of D is found almost exclusively in Luke-Acts. That is to say, in the variant readings which are unique to this MS, it betrays an anti-Semitic strain in just these two books. What is to account for this? Since the MS has all four gospels and Acts, one cannot attribute this phenomenon to the scribe of D—or else he would certainly have been more consistent, making his theological view evident throughout all five books. Nor can we attribute this to Luke himself, for the Western text is decidedly inferior and secondary to the Alexandrian, in spite of its antiquity.⁴ If the theological slant of D in Luke-Acts is not due to Luke himself, nor to the scribe(s) of D, it most likely was created by an earlier scribe who copied only Luke and Acts and did not have the other gospels under the same cover. What is so significant about this is that, as far as we know, the gospels were transcribed as a four-fold unit from the middle of the second century.⁵ This would mean that the ancestor of D who copied Luke and Acts in all probability did so before 150 CE. Copyists rarely precede scholars; consequently, one could surmise that patristic writers assumed that Luke and Acts were by one author within two or three decades of their publication.⁶

3. Internal Evidence

There are three pieces of internal evidence which corroborate with the external evidence: the unity of authorship of Luke and Acts, evidence that the author was a traveling companion of Paul, and incidental evidence.⁷

a. Unity of Authorship of Luke and Acts⁸

There are five arguments which Guthrie uses to show common authorship:

(1) Both books are dedicated to the same man, Theophilus; (2) Acts refers to the first treatise, which is most naturally understood as the gospel; (3) the books contain strong similarities of language and style; (4) both contain common interests; (5) Acts naturally follows on from Luke’s gospel . . . It may safely be concluded that the evidence is very strong for linking the two books as the work of one man, a conclusion which few modern scholars would dispute.⁹

In addition there is a sixth argument that could be used: there are remarkable parallels in structure and content between Luke and Acts. To take but one example, “not only is Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem parallel to that of Paul, but also the events that take place when the two men reach the city, and after, are similar.”¹⁰ Talbert’s conclusion (which assumes unity of authorship) is that “the conclusion seems irresistible. This architectonic pattern which has Gospel and Acts correspond in content and in sequence at many points is due to deliberate editorial activity by the author of Luke-Acts.”¹¹ The point is that the architectonic structure of Luke-Acts is so beautifully executed that to deny common authorship is to attribute as much genius to a second, anonymous writer (of Acts) as one should of the first writer (who wrote the gospel).¹²

b. Evidence that the Author was a Companion of Paul

The “we” passages in Acts (16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1–28:16), prima facie, suggest a companion of Paul. On this supposition, this particular companion

(1) first joins Paul at Philippi [sic: Troas]; (2) reappears on Paul’s return visit to Philippi; (3) accompanies the apostle on the journey towards Jerusalem and stays with Philip at Caesarea, and (4) after Paul’s two years’ imprisonment at Caesarea, during which time there are no definite data regarding the author’s whereabouts, accompanies Paul to Rome and experiences shipwreck with him. It would also mean that the author could not be any of those companions of Paul who are mentioned by name in these sections (Silas, Timothy, Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius, Tychicus, Trophimus).¹³

c. Indirect Evidence in Support of Lukan Authorship

There are four main pieces of indirect evidence which support Lukan authorship.

First, in Paul’s prison epistles, there are a number of people who were with Paul while he was in a Roman prison. There is a definite probability that the author of Luke-Acts was one of them. Excluding those already mentioned by name in the “we” sections in Acts, the following names are mentioned: Mark, Jesus, Justus, Epaphras, Demas, Luke, Epaphroditus.

Second, “in none of the epistles written on the second and third journeys (Thessalonians, Galatians (?), Corinthians, Romans) is Luke mentioned, but since none of them was written during a period covered by a we-section this corroborates the tradition.”¹⁴

Third, according to Col. 4:10 and Philemon 24, Luke and Mark were in close contact with one another. Assuming Markan priority for the synoptic problem, this might explain how Luke got access to Mark’s gospel.¹⁵ But there is more: Acts also betrays a ‘Markan flavor’ in the first few chapters.

Fourth, Col. 4:14 calls Luke ‘the beloved physician.’ In 1882 W. K. Hobart wrote his celebrated The Medical Language of St. Luke in which he argued that where Matthew and Mark use common, everyday terms, Luke often used medical terms in describing Jesus’ healings. This, however, was challenged by H. J. Cadbury three decades later (1920),¹⁶ who pointed out that Luke’s language was no different than that of any educated person. As Caird quips, if we should now appeal to Hobart’s tome, “this would make doctors of almost all the writers of antiquity . . .”¹⁷ Nevertheless, one should admit that Luke’s terminology is compatible with an educated person, and that a physician would fit this picture well. Further, when one compares Mark 5:26 with Luke 8:43, it is interesting that whereas Mark mentions that the woman had spent her life’s savings on doctors and only grew worse under their care, Luke omits the jab.

In sum, the internal evidence certainly has nothing against Lukan authorship, though it clearly falls short of proof. This is all the more reason to accept Lukan authorship, for this is the unanimous testimony from the fathers: “Granted that an ancient scholar might have deduced from the prologue to the Gospel that the author was not an apostle and from the ‘we’ sections of Acts that he was a companion of Paul, he still would have had no means of putting a name to the author if there had not been a valid tradition connecting the books with the name of Luke.”¹⁸

Assuming that Luke penned the gospel which bears his name, what do we know about him (apart from his occupation)? First, he was probably a Gentile since he is mentioned separately from the “men of the circumcision” in Colossians 4.¹⁹ Second, he may have been from Troas for the ‘we’ sections in Acts begin there.²⁰ Beyond this there is very little information within the NT. However, the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke (found not infrequently attached to Latin MSS of the gospel) adds some interesting information: (1) Luke was a native of Antioch, (2) he wrote the gospel in Achaea, (3) never married, (4) and died at age 84 in Boetia. Since the same source adds other, extremely doubtful information, all of the above is suspect as well.²¹

4. Arguments against Lukan Authorship

There are principally three arguments against Lukan authorship.

a. Historical Discrepancies

Many have pointed out apparent discrepancies between Paul’s biographical notes in his Hauptbriefe and other secure epistles with the information about Paul given in Acts. Three alleged discrepancies are particularly striking: (1) the number of visits Paul made to Jerusalem given in Acts and that given in Galatians;²² (2) the make-up of the converts in Thessalonica;²³ and (3) Paul’s attitude toward the OT Law.

Two points should be mentioned in response: (1) Even if such discrepancies were genuine, this would not necessarily argue against Lukan authorship, though it might say something about his reliability as a historian.²⁴ (2) All of the alleged discrepancies are capable of alternative explanations, thus rendering them “an insecure basis for rejecting the tradition.”²⁵

b. Different Interpretations of the “We”’ Sections

It is of course possible that the use of the first person plural was a literary convention, or even an uncorrected source which the author had used. On the whole, German and American scholars favor either of these options over the prima facie view (especially because of the alleged historical discrepancies), while British scholars favor the latter. Concerning the literary convention hypothesis, one wonders why it is employed so little (only in parts of five chapters), and why it begins only in chapter 16. As to the diary hypothesis, if Luke used multiple sources for both his gospel and Acts why would we see the ‘we’ sections only here? Surely he received many first person reports (both written and oral) for the composition of both books.²⁶ This view suggests that he was careful to change the first person plural all the way through both Luke and Acts until Acts 16! Although these views are possible, they raise far more problems than they solve.

c. Theological Difficulties

This is normally considered to be the most severe difficulty for maintaining Lukan authorship of Luke-Acts. There are two main difficulties to be dealt with: (1) Paul’s solution to the problem of the OT Law; and (2) the speeches attributed to Paul in Acts.²⁷ Rather than deal with these twice, however, we will simply defer the reader to the introduction to Acts. Suffice it to say here that these difficulties are more apparent than real.

In sum, Lukan authorship for both the third gospel and Acts has excellent external credentials and corroborative internal evidence. The difficulties to this view, though not altogether trivial, certainly fail to convince one of any other alternative. Indeed, it is precisely because there are theological and historical difficulties between Acts and Paul that the argument for Lukan authorship is the most plausible: what later writer (for those who deny Lukan authorship all put Luke-Acts late), who had access to Paul’s letters, would create so many discrepancies in the portrait of his hero, the apostle Paul?²⁸

B. Date

A number of factors and presuppositions affect the date of this book. Among the most important are: (1) authorship; (2) the solution to the synoptic problem; (3) whether the Olivet Discourse was truly prophetic or a vaticinium ex eventu; and especially (4) the date of Acts. Though most scholars date the book c. 80-90, our conclusion is that it should be dated substantially earlier.

(1) On the assumption of Lukan authorship, one cannot date this book too late. That is to say, since Luke was certainly an adult when he joined Paul in his second missionary journey,²⁹ he would have probably thirty to fifty years to have written this work. However, apart from F. C. Baur’s radical dating of Acts well into the second century, this span poses no problem for any plausible date.

(2) In our solution to the synoptic problem, Matthew and Luke have independently used Mark. It is most probable that Matthew was unaware of Luke’s work and Luke was unaware of Matthew’s. If so, then both were probably written at around the same time. If Matthew is dated c. 60-65 CE, then Luke in all probability should be dated similarly.³⁰

(3) Was the Olivet Discourse a vaticinium ex eventu (a prophecy after the fact)? It is safe to say that the assumption that it was is the single most important reason for overturning an early date (pre-70) for Luke (as it was for Matthew and Mark). We have dealt with this in our discussion of Matthew’s date and simply need to summarize our two points here: (a) only a denial of the possibility of predictive prophecy on the lips of Jesus would necessitate a late date; (b) the synoptic gospels are both vague and imprecise in their prophecies assuming that those prophecies were fulfilled in the Jewish War; but if there is more to come, and if the Olivet Discourse was given before 66 CE, then the discourse makes sense.

(4) The date of Acts is of course the most significant piece of evidence in dating Luke, for the gospel must precede Acts. We will deal with the date of Acts in some detail in our introduction to that book, but one point can be made here. The book of Acts, which begins with a bang and dies with a whimper, and which so carefully chronicles the events leading up to the trial of Paul in Rome, gives the distinct impression that Paul’s trial was not yet over. In other words, it is very doubtful that this book was written after 62 CE. If so, then Luke was not written after 62 CE.

At the same time, one has to ask how much earlier the gospel was than Acts. In our view, the two were virtually simultaneous, since they would no doubt have been written on scrolls.³¹ Customarily, the longest usable scroll was about thirty-five feet. Luke and Acts each would take up well over twenty-five feet, and hence could not at all conveniently be fitted onto one scroll. This fact, coupled with the internal continuity between the two books,³² strongly suggests that they were meant to be read virtually as a single document, written at almost the same time, bearing the same purpose(s).³³

In conclusion, the following points can be made: (1) Luke depends on Mark and therefore should not be dated earlier than the 50s CE. The date of Mark, then, provides the terminu a quo for the date of Luke. (2) Luke neither knew of Matthew’s work, nor Matthew of Luke’s. If Matthew is dated c. 60-65, then Luke was probably written within the same time frame. (3) Luke was written before the start of the Jewish War because his Olivet Discourse includes vague and not-yet-fulfilled material. (4) If Acts is dated c. 62 CE, then Luke must precede it, though since both are really two halves of the same work, it is doubtful that it precedes it by much. Our conclusion is that Luke was written just before the end of Paul’s first Roman imprisonment, c. 61-62 CE.

C. Sources and Method of Composition³⁴

On the assumption of Markan priority, there is still a matter to be solved regarding Luke’s method of composition. There are two hypotheses in vogue: the Markan hypothesis and the proto-Luke hypothesis.

The proponents of the Marcan Hypothesis tell us that Luke, like Matthew, used Mark’s outline as the framework of his Gospel, into which he inserted the material from his other sources. They claim that after the first two chapters the non-Marcan material comprises four passages of very unequal length (51-11, 620–83, 951–1814, 191-27), together with some editorial insertions in 31–430 and 2214–2453 these passages being essentially Marcan; and that this material owes such semblance of continuity as it displays wholly to the Marcan framework in which it has been set. The advocates of the Proto-Luke Hypothesis assert that, up to the Passion narrative, the Gospel consists of alternate strips of Mark (431-44, 512–619, 84–950, 1815-43, 1928–2213) and of Q and L combined (11–430, 51-11, 620–83, 951–1814, 191-27), that in the Passion narrative there is a non-Marcan framework with Marcan insertions, and that the only reasonable explanation of this pattern is that Luke had already woven his Q and L material into a first draft of a Gospel before he became acquainted with Mark, so that this Proto-Luke provided the outline into which blocks of Mark were incorporated.

. . . the crux of the problem lies in two passages (31–430 and 2214–2453), since there is little difference of opinion about the rest of the Gospel. . . . This controversy might appear at first sight to be of merely academic interest, but the verdict we give here will make a considerable difference to our estimate of the historical value of the Gospel. For the Marcan Hypothesis involves the corollary that Luke used wide editorial freedom in rewriting his sources. It is therefore well worth while to study the evidence in some detail.

1. The first point to notice is that Luke’s Gospel contains eleven doublets—sayings which occur twice in different contexts. . . . In ten out of eleven cases the reason for the doublet is that Luke has included one version of a saying from Mark and another version from one of his other sources. It follows from this that Luke’s three sources occasionally overlap, so that, if a passage in Luke has a Marcan parallel, this does not necessarily mean that he derived it from Mark . . . [Thus in Luke 3:1–4:13,] Luke is mainly dependent on Q and has used Mark, if at all, only in a supplementary way.

2. Where Luke is demonstrably using Mark, he normally follows Mark’s order . . . . But there are seventeen places where he diverges from the order of Mark . . . [After showing the tables, together with triple tradition in which Luke and Matthew are more dependent on Q than on Mark, Caird points out that] in a number of cases where Mark and Q overlapped, Luke has used the Q version to the exclusion of the Marcan one. . . . where Luke appears to diverge from Mark’s order he is actually following another source.

3. In Luke 2214–2453, out of a total of 163 verses, there are 87 verses which have some counterpart in Mark, but only 20 in which there is the sort of verbal similarity which is normally regarded as evidence of dependence. When Luke is indisputably following Mark, he uses 53 per cent of Mark’s words, but here he uses only 27 percent, and many of the words which he shares with Mark are words without which the Passion story could not have been told at all. . . . we are bound to conclude either that Luke has here drastically departed from his ordinary methods of composition or that he was relying principally on a non-Marcan source to which he made occasional additions from Mark. . . .

4. In 431–2213 Luke has regularly combined Q and L material in a composite narrative and has left the Marcan material in separate blocks. There are two possible explanations of this phenomenon. Either Luke valued Mark so highly above his other sources that he determined to keep it distinct from them, or he had already combined Q and L before he knew anything about Mark. It is not hard to make a choice between these alternatives. . . .  Two-thirds of his Gospel is drawn from other sources; he omitted nearly half the contents of Mark, including the so-called ‘Great Omission’ (Mark 645–826); and, where his sources overlapped, we have seen that he frequently preferred Q and L to Mark.

5. Matthew and Mark never refer to Jesus as ‘the Lord’ in narrative. Luke does so fourteen times. The usage is clearly editorial, for it occurs in both Q and L passages; but, as it never occurs when Luke is editing Mark, it cannot be regarded as characteristic of the final redaction of the Gospel. . . . This is intelligible if Luke composed his Gospel in two stages.

6. Luke’s Gospel contains two mission charges, one addressed to the twelve and drawn from Mark, the other addressed to the seventy and drawn from Q and L (93-9, 102-12). But when Jesus later reminds the twelve that they had gone out with no purse or bag or sandals (2235), he is echoing the charge given to the seventy. This editorial lapse is readily understandable if, when Luke first wrote the account of the Last Supper, he had only one mission charge to refer to.

7. There are several indications that 31-2 was originally intended to be the opening of the Gospel. . . . But if the birth stories were not included in the earliest plan of the Gospel, this is further evidence that the book went through two stages of composition.

These seven considerations together may not constitute a proof of the soundness of the Proto-Luke theory, but they do reveal the total inadequacy of its rival. As a working hypothesis for our present study, then, we shall assume that Luke began his literary undertaking by collecting information about Jesus from eyewitnesses and others, probably during the years when Paul was imprisoned at Caesarea. At the same time, or shortly afterwards, he combined the material he had accumulated with the teaching tradition of Q, so as to form the first draft of a gospel. Subsequently, when a copy of Mark came into his hands, he augmented his original document with Marcan insertions. He then added the infancy stories and the prologue to bring his work into its final form. And perhaps it is not out of place to add that in every stage of composition he left the imprint of his own peculiar artistry and charm.

Of these seven arguments, I find the second and fourth the most convincing, and the sixth the least convincing (in fact, of dubious value). Thus, where Luke is indisputably using Mark, he follows Mark’s order; otherwise he has already used prior sources and now simply weaves Mark’s material into the narrative. But for the most part, material taken from Mark is left intact precisely because Luke came across Mark at virtually the last stage of composition. This quite adequately explains the “Great Omission” (Mark 6:45–8:26), a feature which students in the Griesbach school have often used as an argument against Markan priority. If Luke came across Mark after he had already composed a rough draft of his gospel,³⁵  realizing both that time was short³⁶ and that his space was limited,³⁷ certain editorial choices had to be made. And since Mark 6:45–8:26 did not materially help out the structure of Luke’s “travel narrative” (9:51–18:14) in which he “arranges his material in such a way as to focus attention on Jerusalem as a preparation for the passion narratives,”³⁸ it most naturally would get the ax.

The significance of Luke’s method of composition is that it indicates that he was quite faithful to his sources. In other words, “Luke has made good his claim to be a trustworthy historian, provided that we do not make the blunder of judging him by the canons of modern, scientific historiography. His three sources, Mark, Q, and L, represent, in all probability, the traditions guaranteed by the three influential centers of Rome, Antioch, and Caesarea. The picture of Jesus which he gives is thus established ‘at the mouth of two or three witnesses’ . . . ”³⁹

D. Destination

The gospel is addressed to one Theophilus. He is called “most excellent” (κράτιστε), a term usually indicating some sort of government official, or at least high social rank.⁴⁰ It is possible to view the name as symbolic (“lover of God,” or “loved by God”), as if the real addressee needed to be incognito for some reason. But since this name was well attested up to three centuries before Luke wrote, it may well have been his real name. If Theophilus was a Roman official, then he certainly was a Gentile, and the contents of this gospel, as well as the Acts, bear eloquent testimony of a Gentile readership.⁴¹ As we shall see in our discussion of the purpose of Acts, Theophilus was not only a Roman official (in all likelihood), but also was in Rome.

Although Luke-Acts is addressed to Theophilus, something must be said for the probability that Luke intended to have this work published and consequently envisioned an audience broader in scope than one man. His prologue to both the gospel and Acts emulates so much the ancient historians’ prefaces that it is quite evident that he wanted the work published. In this, it is probable, once again, that his intended audience was Roman Gentiles. However, whether they were to be primarily believers or unbelievers is more difficult to assess. In fact, whether Theophilus was a believer or not is difficult to assess!⁴² The key issue is the meaning of κατηχήθης (“of what you have been informed” or “of what you have been taught”; from κατηχέω) in Luke 1:4. The term can refer either to Christian instruction (Acts 18:25; Gal. 6:6) or simply information, even a negative report (Acts 21:21, 24). Thus, even in the key term there is an impasse. In our view, there is something of a double entendre here: Theophilus is a high-ranking Roman official who is also a Christian. If his name is symbolic, then this is almost certainly the case.⁴³ But since he seems to be a government official, then he has been “informed” about Christianity. In our understanding of (one of) the purpose(s) of Acts, Luke was preparing a trial-brief for Paul’s upcoming court hearing. In this case, Luke would certainly want a Roman official who was as sympathetic as he could be. κατηχήθης, then, seems to indicate that Luke wanted to set the record straight about the origins of Christianity (thus, information) while “Theophilus” suggests that this particular recipient had been more than informed—he had believed.⁴⁴

E. Occasion and Purpose

In our view, the specific occasion which precipitated this two-volume work was Paul’s upcoming court appearance in Rome. We will deal with that in our introduction to Acts, without any defense of it here.

Regarding the purpose, this ties in quite closely with the occasion. However, it does seem that all of the gospels have more than one purpose. Guthrie well cautions us:

Whereas an author specifically states his own intentions, that must always be given more weight than any scholarly conjectures. Fortunately, Luke obliges us in his preface. . . . In short, Luke meant to write a historical account. [Yet,] in discussion of Luke’s purpose . . . it is impossible to treat this gospel apart from its sequel, the book of Acts. It may be reasonably supposed that any motives which become clearly apparent in Acts had their origin in the design of the gospel, and if this supposition is correct it is at least possible that the double work had an apologetic purpose. . . . Yet there is a sense in which the gospel is complete in itself.⁴⁵

In our understanding of both the gospel and Acts, there is this twin purpose interwoven throughout: history and apologetic. The time at which Luke decided to publish this work strongly suggests an apologetic tone;⁴⁶ but the explicit statement of his purpose indicates that he also intended to write an accurate account of the beginnings of Christianity. Suffice it to say here that the twin purpose of this two-volume work will be examined in greater detail in our discussion of Acts.⁴⁷

F. Theme

Luke presents Jesus as the Son of Man, rejected by Israel, offered to the Gentiles. In this presentation, Jesus is seen as a universal Savior. This theme dovetails nicely with the purpose and theme of Acts, for in Acts Luke is especially concerned with Paul, the missionary to the Gentiles.

II. Argument

The Gospel of Luke opens with a dedication of the work to Theophilus in which the author explains that he has carefully researched the data on the life of Jesus by consulting eyewitnesses and using the sources judiciously (1:1-4).

Luke then gives the most detailed description of the childhood of Jesus found in the canonical gospels (1:5–2:52). He presents Jesus’ infancy in a series of doublets—a motif which, we will see, is thoroughly Lukan throughout both Luke and Acts.

First, two births are prophesied (1:5-56), John the Baptist’s (1:5-25) and Jesus’ (1:26-38). There are many parallels between these two pericopes (e.g., announcement by an angel [1:11-17; 1:29-33], disbelief or doubt on the part of the recipient [1:18-22; 1:34-37], and response on the part of the mother-to-be [1:23-25; 1:38]). But there are three significant differences: (1) the angel comes to the father-to-be of John, while he comes to the mother-to-be of Jesus, and (2) though both births would be miraculous, the birth of Jesus would be unique, for he would be conceived by a virgin; (3) Zechariah’s questioning was met with the discipline of dumbness, while Mary’s question was answered positively. Whatever else this tells us, Jesus is already seen to be more significant than his forerunner.

Mary then visits Elizabeth (1:39-56) where a foreshadowing of Jesus’ greatness is seen in that the baby in Elizabeth’s womb leaped for joy (1:40, 42) and she exclaimed to Mary, “Blessed are you among women!” (1:42). The difference between the two is further seen in the difference between Elizabeth’s blessing of Mary (1:42-45) and Mary’s song to the Lord (1:46-55).

The second part of this first major section details the births of John and Jesus (1:57–2:52). Once again, there are parallels and, once again, these parallels show Jesus to be greater. John’s birth and infancy (1:57-80) parallel Jesus’ birth and infancy (2:1-52) in the following manner: first is the mention of the birth, then the circumcision, then Zechariah’s/Simeon’s song, and finally the growth of the child. But there is contrast too: Jesus’ birth is announced by angels to shepherds in a nearby field (2:8-20); at his circumcision, Anna prophesies along with Simeon’s song (2:25-38); and the growth of Jesus is detailed more completely (2:41-52). In Luke’s explanation of Jesus’ growth, there is an emphasis on wisdom (seen in the boy Jesus’ discussions of theology with the religious leaders in the temple [2:41-50] and in an explicit statement [2:51-52]), perhaps because “Greeks look for wisdom” (1 Cor. 1:22) and this Gospel is written for a Gentile audience.

The second major section, on the preparation of the Son of Man for public ministry (3:1–4:13), paves the way for Jesus’ Galilee ministry (4:14–9:50). Jesus’ preparation for public ministry is fourfold: (1) his forerunner prepares the hearts of the people, ultimately getting imprisoned for his efforts (3:1-20); (2) John baptizes Jesus in the Jordan River (3:21-22); (3) Jesus’ genealogy is inserted into the narrative to show that he is both Jew (son of Abraham, son of David) and man (son of Adam) (3:23-38); and (4) he is tempted by Satan (4:1-13) thus revealing his true humanity—and yet that he was not like other men.

All of this, in some sense, is prefatory. The rest of the Gospel is concerned with Jesus’ ministry in Galilee (4:14–9:50), his journey to Jerusalem (9:51–19:27), and his ministry and passion in Jerusalem (19:28–24:53). Thus the rest of the Gospel follows a geographical plan. As in Mark, Jesus’ turn toward Jerusalem (9:51) is the major transition in the Gospel.⁴⁸

The third major section deals with Jesus’ Galilean ministry (4:14–9:50). His ministry starts afresh with a change in domicile from Nazareth to Capernaum, because of rejection at Nazareth (4:14-30) and acceptance at Capernaum (4:31-44). Because of the rejection at Nazareth, it was necessary for Jesus to authenticate his ministry in Galilee (5:1–6:16). He does this by calling four fishermen to become “fishers of men,” backing up his appeal with giving them a miraculous catch of fish (5:1-11). Then he heals a leper (5:12-16) as an example of catching men for the kingdom.

There are then several confrontations with the Pharisees (5:17–6:16) over Jesus’ authority over sin (5:17-26), his acceptance of sinners (5:27-32), and his authority over religious regulations (fasting in 5:33-39, the Sabbath in 6:1-11). What the Nazareth rejection foreshadowed has come true. But Jesus’ authority is vindicated every time. Hence, he selects twelve trainees to be his assistants (6:12-16).

An example of Jesus’ teaching is found next. In Luke’s presentation of the “Sermon on the Plain” (6:17-49), there is no emphasis on the OT law as there is in Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount. This fits in well with Luke’s purpose and audience. This form of the sermon is given to the disciples (cf. 6:20) to show them both the blessings of those who would inherit the kingdom of God (6:17-23) and the kinds of choices one must make if he is to follow Jesus completely (6:24-49).

Luke then skillfully shows that Jesus’ ministry was intended for all people, Jew and Gentile alike (7:1–8:18). This is seen especially in his healing of the centurion’s servant in Capernaum (7:1-10), his raising the widow’s son in Nain (7:11-17), and his anointing by a sinful woman at a Pharisee’s house (7:36-50).

Having established the widening scope and nature of Jesus’ ministry, Luke concludes his section on the Galilean ministry with a progressive revelation of Jesus’ true identity (8:19–9:50). The transition into this section (8:19-21) emphasizes that relationship to Jesus is accomplished by willingness to please God, not by blood-lines (8:19-21). The question of his identity is then heightened by his calming a storm (8:22-25): his disciples ask the question which governs the whole section: “Who is this? He commands even the winds and the water, and they obey him” (8:25, NIV).

The Son of Man progressively answers this question by healing a demoniac (8:26-39), raising a girl from the dead (8:40-56), granting his disciples the power and authority to duplicate his feats (9:1-9), and feeding the five thousand (9:10-17). Because of such object lessons, the disciples are able to perceive better who Jesus is, as seen in Peter’s confession (9:18-20), followed by Jesus’ further revelations about his death and resurrection (9:21-27).⁴⁹ Then, a few days later, another object lesson is given to a select few, viz., the Transfiguration (9:28-36). This event naturally caused the disciples to begin thinking about the kingdom and its glory. This is further highlighted by the healing of a demon-possessed boy (9:37-45) concerning which incident the crowds “were all amazed at the greatness of God” (9:43). The section concludes with the disciples arguing about who would be the greatest in the kingdom (9:46-50), revealing an obvious misunderstanding on their part as to what constitutes genuine greatness (9:48).

The fourth major section, the longest of the book, details Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem (9:51–19:27). In his Galilean ministry, Jesus emphasized especially his identity. Now, as he moves toward Jerusalem, his mission (more than his person) becomes the focus.

The section begins with Jesus’ continued instruction in discipleship in light of his mission (9:51–11:13). Once the resolve to go to Jerusalem is disclosed (9:51), opposition to the Son of Man increases and is intertwined with his instruction to the disciples. The Samaritan opposition to him (9:52-56) is juxtaposed to a lesson on the cost of discipleship (9:57-62) and followed by the sending of the seventy-two (10:1-24)—no doubt so that they can get a better sense of what true discipleship entails (cf. 10:20). This first segment on Jesus’ instruction concludes with three more illustrations (the parable of the good Samaritan, Martha’s and Mary’s response, and Jesus’ teaching on prayer) of the cost of discipleship: (1) a true disciple loves without regard for race (10:25-37); (2) a true disciple places Jesus first (10:38-42); and (3) a true disciple is persistent in prayer (11:1-13).

The second part of the travel narrative involves the first cycle of major confrontations with the Pharisees (11:14-54). The Pharisees are so hard-hearted that they attribute Jesus’ miracles to the prince of demons (11:14-28) and demand more miracles as proof otherwise (11:29-32)! For this, Jesus pronounces six woes on them (11:37-52). Their response is to plot against him (11:53-54).

In light of the Pharisees’ rejection of Jesus, more instruction is given to Jesus’ disciples (12:1–19:27), punctuated only by a second cycle of confrontations with the Pharisees (14:1-24). The material in this section is somewhat randomly organized. There are several miscellaneous dominical sayings which seem to be given to impress Luke’s Gentile audience of the wisdom of the Son of Man.

The first set of instructions (12:1–13:35) has three parts: (1) a sermon concerning the proper attitude of a disciple, especially in the light of coming judgment (12:1–13:9), culminating in a parable which is effectively an appeal to recognize God’s gracious patience which is designed to lead one to repentance (13:1-9; cf. Rom. 2:4); (2) the healing of a crippled woman on the Sabbath in which the religious leaders’ rejection of Jesus is seen in sharp relief to the proper attitude of God’s elect (13:10-17); and (3) instructions on the nature of discipleship in the light of Jesus’ imminent death and the coming kingdom (13:18-35).

Then the second cycle of confrontations with the Pharisees (14:1-24) is staged at a Pharisee’s home. Rather than focusing on Jesus’ authority, however, this cycle emphasized the breadth of the gospel’s net to include sinners (14:15-24). This sets the stage for the final group of instructions.

The journey to Jerusalem concludes with instructions in discipleship in the light of Jesus’ impending death (14:25–19:27). Here especially we see miscellaneous dominical sayings, covering such diverse topics as the cost of discipleship (14:25-35), the value Jesus placed on sinners (15:1-32), a proper attitude toward money (16:1-15), a proper attitude toward the presence and coming of the kingdom (17:20-37), the necessity of reliance on God (18:15–19:10), and the like. Though Luke’s arrangement may be difficult to discern, his purpose is not. He wanted to give Theophilus (and his secondary audience, later Gentile readers) both examples of the wisdom of Jesus and reasons for seeing that Jewish hostility toward him was unfounded.⁵⁰

Finally, Luke concludes his Gospel with Jesus’ ministry and passion in Jerusalem (19:28–24:53). The fifth major section reveals Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem and subsequent heated debates with the religious leaders (19:28–21:38), followed by his death and resurrection (22:1–24:53).

Once again, Luke contrasts Jesus’ positive ministry with the rising opposition to him. He makes his so-called triumphal into Jerusalem (19:28-44) only to lament over the city’s lack of awareness of what this presentation really meant (19:41-44). Apparently, when he says, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace . . . ” (19:41), Jesus has in mind Daniel’s seventy week prophecy (Dan. 9:24-27), for after the end of the sixty-ninth week the nation would have no assurance that the Messiah would still be alive (“After the [seven plus] sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be cut off” [Dan. 9:26a]).⁵¹ It is indeed his death which would ultimately bring the nation peace.

After this dramatic entry into the city, Jesus provides the catalyst for his own death by immediately cleansing the temple (19:45-46) and confronting the religious leaders in the temple (19:47–21:4). The emphasis throughout 19:45–21:38 is on opposition in the temple, culminating in the prediction of the temple’s fate (21:5-36). Luke is setting up a subtle contrast: if God’s true children do not need to be physically related to Israel, then true worshippers do not need to worship at the temple in Jerusalem. Its final destruction will signal, once and for all, free access to God through another way. Luke concludes this major section by subtly contrasting the temple with the Mount of Olives (21:37-38), which hints at the difference between the old covenant with the new.⁵²

The last major section of the Gospel focuses on the death and resurrection of the Son of Man (22:1–24:53). Preparations for Jesus’ death (22:1-53) are made by Judas (22:1-6), Jesus in relation to his disciples (22:7-38), and Jesus in relation to the Father (22:39-46). These preparations hit their climax in Jesus’ arrest (22:47-53).

The narrative now shifts to Jesus’ death (22:54–23:56) with an emphasis especially on the culpability of the Jewish leaders. But it begins with the sad note of Peter’s failure in his triple denial of Jesus (22:54-62), which the Lord had earlier predicted during their last Passover together (22:31-34). The men, probably Jewish (since they were dispatched by the Sanhedrin), guarding Jesus mock him (22:63-65). Jesus is then tried before the Sanhedrin (22:66-71) who needed permission from the Roman governor to kill him. So they took him to Pilate (23:1-5) who diplomatically handed him over to Herod Antipas since Jesus was from Galilee (23:6-11a). Herod sent him back to Pilate who attempted his release (since he recognized his innocence [23:22]), but needed to pacify the Jews (23:11b-25)—hence, he granted the mob’s demand for crucifixion.

The Son of Man was then crucified (23:26-49). The emphasis here is especially on Jesus’ innocence. This is seen especially in two vignettes: (1) Luke alone records that one of the criminals crucified with Jesus responded positively to him (23:40-43); and (2) the centurion’s exclamation that “Surely this was a righteous man” (23:47) is theologically softer than the parallel found in both Matthew and Mark (“This was the Son of God” [Matt. 27:54; Mark 15:39]).⁵³ The passage is then concluded with Jesus’ burial (23:50-56) in the tomb of Joseph—“a member of the Council, a good and upright man” (23:50, NIV).

The final section of Luke’s first volume displays the resurrection of Christ in greater detail than is found in the synoptic parallels. Besides recounting the pericope of the empty tomb (24:1-12)—found in all the Gospels—Luke emphasizes Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances. He appears on the road to Emmaus to two of his disciples (24:13-35), and then to the disciples in Jerusalem (24:36-43). In his final commission (24:44-49) the emphasis is placed on the Gentile mission. Luke concludes with Christ’s ascension into heaven (24:50-53), which overlaps with the beginning of his second volume, the book of Acts.

III. Outline⁵⁴

I. Prologue (1:1-4)

II. The Infancy of the Son of Man (1:5–2:52)

A. Two Pregnancies predicted (1:5-56)

1. The Prediction of John’s Birth (1:5-25)

a. The Setting (1:5-10)

b. The Announcement of the Angel (1:11-17)

c. The Doubt of Zechariah (1:18-22)

d. The Response of Elizabeth (1:23-25)

2. The Prediction of Jesus’ Birth (1:26-38)

a. The Setting (1:26-28)

b. The Announcement of the Angel (1:29-33)

c. The Doubt of Mary (1:34-37)

d. The Response of Mary (1:38)

3. The Visit of Mary with Elizabeth (1:39-56)

a. The Setting (1:39-41)

b. Elizabeth’s Blessing (1:42-45)

c. Mary’s Song (1:46-55)

d. Summary (1:56)

B. Two Sons Born (1:57–2:52)

1. The Birth and Infancy of John (1:57-80)

a. The Birth of John (1:57-58)

b. The Circumcision and Maturation of John (1:59-80)

1) The Circumcision (1:59-66)

2) Zechariah’s Song (1:67-79)

3) The Growth of John (1:80)

2. The Birth and Infancy of Jesus (2:1-52)

a. The Birth of Jesus (2:1-20)

1) The Historical Setting (2:1-3)

2) The Birth in Bethlehem (2:4-7)

3) The Witnesses of the Birth (2:8-20)

a) The Announcement by Angels (2:8-14)

b) The Visit by Shepherds (2:15-20)

b. The Circumcision and Maturation of Jesus (2:21-52)

1) The Circumcision (2:21-24)

2) Simeon’s Song and Anna’s Prophecy (2:25-38)

3) The Growth of Jesus (2:39-52)

a) Statement: Growth in Wisdom (2:39-40)

b) Example of Growth in Wisdom: The Boy Jesus at the Temple (2:41-50)

c) Statement: Growth in Wisdom and Stature (2:51-52)

III. The Preparation of the Son of Man for Public Ministry (3:1–4:13)

A. Preparation by John the Baptist (3:1-20)

1. Setting (3:1-6)

a. Historical (3:1-3)

b. Prophetic (3:4-6)

2. The Preaching of John (3:7-18)

3. The Imprisonment of John (3:19-20)

B. Preparation by Jesus’ Baptism (3:21-22)

C. Preparation by Jesus’ Pedigree (Genealogy) (3:23-38)

D. Preparation by Jesus’ Temptation (4:1-13)

IV. The Son of Man’s Galilean Ministry (4:14–9:50)

A. The New Base of Operations (4:14-44)

1. Rejection at Nazareth (4:14-30)

2. Reception at Capernaum (4:31-44)

a. In the Synagogue (4:31-37)

b. At Simon’s House (4:38-41)

c. In a Solitary Place (4:42-44)

B. The Authentication of Jesus’ Ministry (5:1–6:16)

1. The Calling of the First Disciples (5:1-11)

2. The Healing of a Leper (5:12-16)

3. Confrontations with the Pharisees (5:17–6:16)

a. The Healing of a Paralytic (5:17-26)

b. The Calling of a Tax Collector (5:27-32)

c. Questions about Fasting (5:33-39)

d. Jesus’ Authority over the Sabbath (6:1-11)

1) Plucking Grain (6:1-5)

2) Healing a Man’s Hand (6:6-11)

4. The Election of the Twelve Disciples (6:12-16)

C. The Principles of Jesus’ Ministry: The Sermon on the Plain (6:17-49)

1. Blessings and Woes (6:17-26)

2. Love for Enemies (6:27-36)

3. Judging Others (6:37-42)

4. Two Kinds of Trees (6:43-45)

5. Two Kinds of Builders (6:46-49)

D. The Scope and Nature of Jesus’ Ministry (7:1–8:18)

1. A Centurion’s Faith (7:1-10)

2. A Widow’s Son is Raised in Nain (7:11-17)

3. Jesus’ Commendation of John (7:18-35)

a. The Doubts by John (7:18-23)

b. The Commendation by Jesus (7:24-30)

c. The Capriciousness of the Multitudes (7:31-35)

4. Anointed by a Sinful Woman (7:36-50)

5. The Women who Helped Jesus’ Ministry (8:1-3)

6. Parable of the Sower (8:4-15)

7. Parable of Lamp (8:16-18)

E. The Identity of Jesus Progressively Revealed (8:19–9:50)

1. Jesus’ True Mother and Brothers (8:19-21)

2. Calming of the Storm (8:22-25)

3. Healing of a Demoniac (8:26-39)

4. A Dead Girl and a Sick Woman (8:40-56)

5. The Sending of the Twelve (9:1-9)

6. Feeding the Five Thousand (9:10-17)

7. Peter’s Confession (9:18-27)

8. The Transfiguration (9:28-36)

9. Healing a Demon-Possessed Boy (9:37-45)

10. Greatest in the Kingdom (9:46-50)

V. The Son of Man’s Journey to Jerusalem (9:51–19:27)

A. Instruction in Discipleship in the Light of Jesus’ Mission (9:51–11:13)

1. Summary: Jesus’ Resolve to go to Jerusalem (9:51)

2. Samaritan Opposition (9:52-56)

3. The Cost of Discipleship (9:57-62)

4. The Sending of the Seventy-Two (10:1-24)

a. Jesus’ Message on Departure (10:1-16)

b. The Disciples’ Joy on Return (10:17)

c. Jesus’ Response on their Return (10:18-24)

1) To the Disciples: On Rejoicing (10:18-20)

2) To the Father (10:21-22)

3) To the Disciples: On Blessing (10:23-24)

5. The Parable of the Good Samaritan (10:25-37)

6. Martha’s and Mary’s Responses (10:38-42)

7. Jesus’ Teaching on Prayer (11:1-13)

a. The Lord’s Prayer (11:1-4)

b. Persistence in Prayer (11:5-13)

1) The Response of a Friend (11:5-10)

2) The Goodness of God (11:6-13)

B. Confrontation with the Pharisees: First Cycle (11:14-54)

1. Jesus and Beelzebub (11:14-28)

2. The Sign of Jonah (11:29-32)

3. Parable: The Lamp of the Body (11:33-36)

4. Six Woes (11:37-52)

5. The Plot of the Pharisees (11:53-54)

C. Instructions in Discipleship in the Light of the Religious Leaders’ Rejection (12:1–13:35)

1. A Sermon on the Attitude of a Disciple: In the Light of Coming Judgment (12:1–13:9)

a. Setting (12:1a)

b. Leaven of the Pharisees (12:1b)

c. Fearless Confession in Light of God’s Sovereignty (12:2-12)

d. Attitude toward Riches (12:13-34)

1) Parable of the Rich Fool (12:13-21)

2) Worry and Treasures (12:22-34)

e. Vigilance and Watchfulness (12:35-48)

f. Not Peace but Division (12:49-53)

g. The Signs of the Times (12:54-56)

h. Agreement with your Opponent (12:57-59)

i. On Repentance (13:1-9)

1) Repent or Perish (13:1-5)

2) Parable of the Fig Tree (13:6-9)

2. Healing a Crippled Woman on the Sabbath (13:10-17)

3. Instruction on the Nature of Discipleship: In the Light of the Coming Kingdom (13:18-35)

a. Parable of the Mustard Seed (13:18-19)

b. Parable of the Leaven (13:20-21)

c. The Narrow Door (13:22-30)

d. Prediction of Jesus’ Death: Second Mention (13:31-33)

e. Lament over Jerusalem (13:34-35)

D. Confrontation with the Pharisees: Second Cycle (14:1-24)

1. Eating at a Pharisee’s House (14:1-14)

a. Healing a Man on the Sabbath (14:1-6)

b. Places of Honor (14:7-11)

c. Invited Guests (14:12-14)

2. The Parable of the Great Banquet (14:15-24)

E. Instruction in Discipleship in the Light of Jesus’ Impending Death (14:25–19:27)

1. The Cost of Discipleship (14:25-35)

a. Hating Family (14:25-27)

b. The cost of Building (14:28-30)

c. The Cost of War (14:31-33)

d. The Purpose of Salt (14:34-35)

2. Teaching in Parables (15:1–16:31)

a. The Value of Sinners (15:1-32)

1) Parable of the Lost Sheep (15:1-7)

2) Parable of the Lost Coin (15:8-10)

3) Parable of the Lost Son (15:11-32)

b. Financial Stewardship (16:1-15)

1) Parable of the Shrewd Manager (16:1-9)

2) Faithfulness in Little (16:10-12)

3) Serving Two Masters (16:13-15)

c. Additional Instruction (16:16-18)

d. Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (16:19-31)

3. Instruction on the Attitude of a Disciple: in the Light of the Coming Kingdom (17:1–19:27)

a. Sin, Faith, Duty (17:1-10)

b. Gratitude: Ten Lepers Healed (17:11-19)

c. Expectation: The Presence and Coming of the Kingdom (17:20-37)

1) The Presence of the Kingdom (17:20-21)

2) The Coming of the Kingdom (17:22-37)

d. Persistence: The Parable of the Dishonest Judge (18:1-8)

e. Self-Righteousness: The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (18:9-14)

f. Simple Faith Vs. Self-Reliance (18:15–19:10)

1) Illustration of Simple Faith: Childlikeness and the Kingdom (18:15-17)

2) Example of Self-Reliance: The Rich Ruler (18:18-30)

3) Prediction of Death and Resurrection: Third Mention (18:31-34)

4) Example of Simple (and Persistent) Faith: The Healing of a Blind Man at Jericho (18:35-43)

5) Repentance from Self-Reliance: The Response of Zachaeus, the Tax Collector (19:1-10)

g. Faithfulness: The Parable of the Ten Minas (19:11-27)

VI. The Son of Man’s Jerusalem Ministry (19:28–21:38)

A. The Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem (19:28-44)

1. Preparation: The Unbroken Colt: (19:28-35)

2. Coronation: The Recognition of Jesus’ Messiahship (19:36-40)

3. Lament over Jerusalem (19:41-44)

B. Religious Opposition in the Temple (19:45–21:38)

1. The Cleansing of the Temple in Jerusalem (19:45-46)

2. Confrontation with the Religious Leaders (19:47–21:4)

a. The Plot to Kill Jesus (19:47-48)

b. The Authority of Jesus Questioned (20:1-8)

c. The Parable of the Wicked Tenants (20:9-19)

d. Paying Taxes to Caesar (20:20-26)

e. Marriage at the Resurrection (20:27-40)

f. Whose Son is the Christ? (20:41-44)

g. The Hypocrisy of the Religious Leaders (20:45–21:4)

1) Condemnation of Hypocrisy (20:45-47)

2) Commendation of the Widow’s Sincerity (21:1-4)

3. The Fate of the Temple and Jerusalem (21:5-36)

a. The Fate of the temple (21:5-6)

b. The End of the Age (21:7-36)

1) Signs of the End of the Age (21:7-11)

2) The Coming Persecution (21:12-19)

3) The Destruction of Jerusalem (21:20-24)

4) The Coming of the Son of Man (21:25-28)

5) The Parable of the Fig Tree (21:29-33)

6) Watch and Pray (21:34-36)

4. Summary: Jesus’ Ministry in Jerusalem (21:37-38)

VII. The Death and Resurrection of the Son of Man (22:1–24:53)

A. The Preparation for Death (22:1-53)

1. Agreement to Betrayal by Judas (22:1-6)

2. The Last Passover (22:7-38)

a. Preparations for the Meal (22:7-13)

b. The Last Supper (22:14-20)

c. Prediction of Judas’ Betrayal (22:21-23)

d. Greatness in the Kingdom (22:24-30)

e. Prediction of Peter’s Denials (22:31-34)

f. Preparations for Ministry after Jesus’ Death (22:35-38)

3. Praying in the Mount of Olives (Gethsemane) (22:39-46)

4. The Arrest of Jesus (22:47-53)

B. The Death of Jesus (22:54–23:56)

1. Peter’s Denials of Jesus (22:54-62)

2. The Mocking of the Soldiers (22:63-65)

3. The Trials of Jesus (22:66–23:25)

a. The Trial Before the Sanhedrin (22:66-71)

b. The First Trial Before Pilate (23:1-5)

c. The Trial Before Herod (23:6-11a)

d. The Second Trial Before Pilate (23:11b-25)

4. The Crucifixion of Jesus (23:26-49)

a. The Road to the Cross (23:26-31)

b. The Actual Crucifixion of Jesus (23:32-43)

c. The Death of Jesus (23:44-49)

5. The Burial of Jesus (23:50-56)

C. The Resurrection of Jesus (24:1-53)

1. The Empty Tomb (24:1-12)

a. The Women at the Tomb (24:1-8)

b. Peter at the Tomb (24:9-12)

2. Jesus Appears on the Road to Emmaus (24:13-35)

3. Jesus Appears to the Disciples in Jerusalem (24:36-43)

4. The Final Commission (24:44-49)

5. The Ascension (24:50-53)

---

¹The simplest inscription is κατὰ Λούκαν, found in a B (“according to Luke”). As time progressed this became more elaborate: in the fifth century the title was customarily εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Λούκαν (D W [“The Gospel according to Luke”]), while still later it was called τὸ κατὰ Λούκαν ἅγιον εὐαγγέλιον (209 and others [“the Holy Gospel according to Luke”]), and even ἀρχὴ τοῦ κατὰ Λούκαν ἁγίου εὐαγγελίου (1241 [“The Beginning of the Holy Gospel according to Luke”]).

²Guthrie, 114.

³G. B. Caird, Saint Luke, 16-17.

⁴Cf. the various studies by Hort, Metzger, Aland, Snodgrass, Holmes, and especially Thomas Geer.

⁵So B. M. Metzger, personal conversation (March 1989); cf. also his The Canon of the New Testament and The Text of the New Testament.

⁶Although ancillary to this paper, this conclusion also helps to establish the Western text as very early—going back deep into the second century (contra Aland-Aland, Text of the New Testament).

⁷See Guthrie for an expanded treatment, 115-19. This section is merely a distillation of Guthrie’s arguments.

⁸For an additional piece of (external) evidence for common authorship, cf. the last paragraph in our discussion of external evidence.

⁹Guthrie, 115-16.

¹⁰C. H. Talbert, Literary Patterns, Theological Themes and the Genre of Luke-Acts, 17. Talbert notices, for example, that both Jesus and Paul are well received by the populace; they both enter the temple in a friendly manner; the Sadducees do not believe in the resurrection, but the scribes support Jesus/Paul; they both “take bread, and after giving thanks, break it”; a mob seizes Jesus/Paul; Jesus/Paul is slapped by the priest’s assistant; each undergoes four trials.

¹¹Ibid., 23. Although we would affirm this statement of Talbert, there is one caveat: Talbert goes on to suggest that Luke created much of his material, while we would argue instead that he selected and arranged it. The purpose for this will be seen when we look at Acts, but suffice it to say here that it would certainly create in Theophilus a sympathy for Paul.

¹²This can be further seen in that the gospel itself displays an incredible internal structure, as does Acts. Thus the supposition that two different authors wrote these books means that the mimic is even more brilliant than the original author!

¹³Guthrie, 116.

¹⁴Ibid., 117.

¹⁵This is doubtful, however, since only in c. 60 would Luke have met Mark, if Mark had been in Rome since the mid-50s. Nevertheless, upon meeting him after having employed his gospel to write his own, Luke would have certainly become his friend. Luke’s favorable attitude toward Mark—not just personally but as a reliable source on the life of Jesus—might be implied in his calling Mark an “assistant” (ὑπηρέτης) in Acts 13:5. “Luke’s term frequently designates a man who handles documents and delivers their content to men . . .” (Lane, Mark, 22). Lane goes onto mention Acts 26:16 where Paul is appointed as a ὑπηρέτης and witness to the truth, and Luke 1:1-2 where “the evangelist links the servants [ὑπηρέτης] of the word with those who were the eyewitnesses and guarantors of apostolic tradition.” The connection of ὑπηρέτης with both Mark and Luke’s sources suggests that Mark’s Gospel may well have been one of those sources which Luke used to compile his gospel—and one which he himself deeply appreciated.

¹⁶Style and Literary Method of Luke.

¹⁷Caird, Luke, 17.

¹⁸Ibid.

¹⁹There is another subtle indicator of Luke’s race. In Acts 16, after the beginning of the first “we” section (16:11-17), Luke mentions that he was with Paul in Philippi up to the time that Paul cast out the evil spirit from the servant girl (v. 17—“she followed Paul and us”). Then, in 16:19, the person changes from first to third (“her owners . . . seized Paul and Silas”). In vv. 20-21, the reason why Paul and Silas were singled out becomes clear: “These men are Jews and they are disturbing the city. They advocate customs which it is not lawful for us Romans to accept or practice.” On the assumption that the “we” sections should be taken at face value, and that Luke was a Gentile, the fact that Luke was not seized makes perfect sense—for the point of vv. 20-21 has its sting in the fact that Paul and Silas are Jews. (What may further confirm this is that Timothy was a half-Jew.) In the least, if one wants to deny that Luke was a Gentile, he must explain why the first person plural is used in 16:17, but is immediately switched to third person when the Philippians make their accusation against the missionaries on the basis of their race.

²⁰Guthrie mistakenly says that Luke was possibly from Philippi, supposing that the ‘we’ sections start there (118-19).

²¹However, more than one church father thought that Luke came from Antioch. Even codex D suggests this, for it begins the ‘we’ material at Acts 11:28!

²²We will deal with this issue in our introduction to Galatians.

²³We will deal with this issue in our introduction to 1 Thessalonians.

²⁴The customary approach in critical circles when faced with such discrepancies is to give the benefit of the doubt to Paul, since his material is autobiographical. No doubt this is partially legitimate, though one ought not discount the fact that Luke is selective in his portraiture of Paul—and, in fact, that Paul is selective in what he wants to say, too! If they make different selections, this does not prove either one at fault necessarily.

²⁵Guthrie, 120.

²⁶One thinks in particular of Luke 2:19 (“Mary kept all these things in her heart”), in which Luke probably used the mother of Jesus as his source for the early life of the Messiah. (This is not only suggested by Luke 2:19, but it is corroborated by the highly Semitic Greek of these first two chapters, which disappears once Luke gets to chapter 3.)

²⁷There is another discrepancy (or silence) between Paul and Luke-Acts that has been bantered about at SBL meetings in recent years: the lack of a substitutionary atonement in Luke-Acts (note in particular Luke’s omitting of Mark 10:45), while Paul is quite strong on this point. It may be that either this was not the key to Christ’s death for Luke, even though he embraced it; or he may have not fully grasped its significance; or he perceived that Theophilus would not appreciate its significance (or even that it was ancillary to the thrust of Luke-Acts).

²⁸I have not seen this argument in print, though I believe it bears quite a bit of force. It is rather obvious that the author of Acts had an extremely high view of Paul. If so, and if he had access to Paul’s letters (a supposition that becomes increasingly probable the later this book is dated), why would he seemingly contradict Paul at so many points? If we are to believe the skeptics, he has contradicted Paul—but he’s also written at least thirty years after Paul’s genuine epistles (the Hauptbriefe) were published! This is a blatantly self-contradictory supposition. Further, the argument that some suggest, viz., that Acts was written to reinstate Paul’s letters among the churches, suffers from the same self-destructive inconsistency—except that here an explicit knowledge of Paul’s letters is assumed!

²⁹It is certainly doubtful that he became a physician afterwards!

³⁰This is not nearly as weighty an argument as the converse, viz., that Matthew should be dated near to the time of Luke. Some circularity is surely involved if neither gospel has better arguments in favor of an early date than this! In our view, however, the date of Acts becomes the single most important factor in the dating of the synoptic gospels. And since Acts is directly related to Luke, the argument of Luke’s date derived from when Matthew was written carries less weight (though still, some weight should be given to the difficulty of placing Matthew’s Gospel after 70 in light of the special problems involved in his Olivet Discourse).

³¹The codex form was not invented until the middle of the first century. Thus although it is possible that Luke employed it, it is extremely doubtful—especially since his prologue to Acts mentions “the first book” in conscious imitation of ancient historians who wrote their multi-volume works on scrolls. Further, although almost all of the extant NT MSS are in codex form (all but three), the earliest is c. 100-150 (P52), giving no help to first century practices. Finally, the vast bulk of extant second century (secular) writings is in scroll form, indicating that even though the codex might have been invented in the first century, it really did not “catch on” until the second or third. (Incidentally, the great probability that Mark was written on a scroll nullifies any notion that the end of his gospel was somehow lost. He meant to end it at 16:8.)

³²The Gospel ends with the ascension and Acts virtually begins with it.

³³In fact, there is really no substantial reason to deny that Luke and Acts might have been sent to Theophilus at exactly the same time. That there is some transition between Luke and Acts (the repetition of the ascension) would be only natural if Luke expected the work to be copied onto two scrolls; but this repetition does not need to suggest any gap in date any more than a modern author’s initial paragraph at the beginning of, say, chapter four summarizing the conclusion of chapter three implies any interval.

³⁴I have found Caird’s treatment (Luke, 23-27) of this to be amazingly succinct and quite convincing. I shall simply quote excerpts from his discussion, with a final summary of our own.

³⁵Unlike Matthew who used Mark as the narrative framework for his gospel.

³⁶See the purpose of Acts.

³⁷Due to the length of the scroll.

³⁸Guthrie, 111.

³⁹Caird, Luke, 27-28. Caird goes on to give a decent discussion on Luke’s accuracy as a historian (27-31). Incidentally, our only quibble over Caird’s “three influential centres” is that instead of Antioch and Caesarea we should think of Jerusalem (instead of Caesarea) and somewhere in Syria (not Antioch).

⁴⁰Cf. its use in Acts 23:26; 24:3; and 26:25 of the Roman governors Felix and Festus.

⁴¹In particular, the exoneration at almost every turn of the Romans and the heavy blame on the Jews throughout both works, coupled with a quite universal outlook (culminating in the legitimacy of the Gentile mission of Paul), render this judgment certain.

⁴²Cf. the helpful discussion in Caird, Luke, 44.

⁴³Although Theophilus could mean “loved by God,” since the NT nowhere speaks of God having φιλέω toward unbelievers, to call this man “loved by God” probably implies that he was a believer. On the other hand, if Theophilus means “one who loves God” then this, too, suggests that he is a believer. That Luke plays on names in his second volume (cf. Talbert’s work, and classnotes of student in Zane Hodges’ “Acts” [Dallas Seminary, 1978]) suggests that the name here is symbolic, too.

⁴⁴This issue is quite complicated and cannot be divorced from a carefully nuanced view of the multiple purposes of both Luke and Acts. One of the issues which seems to have been neglected is the amount of time Luke spends on Peter in Acts, and then parallels this with events in the life of Paul. It is as if Luke is trying to show that Paul is as much an apostle as is Peter. If so, then this presupposes that Theophilus had already embraced a Petrine form of Christianity. We will discuss this in our look at Acts, but suffice it to say here that Theophilus is in all probability a believer, though he had had doubts about Paul.

⁴⁵Guthrie, 107-108.

⁴⁶This is related both to our hypothesis of a trial-brief for Paul and to the larger issue of vindication of Christianity before the State.

⁴⁷At the same time, one criticism should be mentioned here: If Acts is really intended (in part) to be a trial-brief for Paul, then how does Luke fit into this picture? Since both works really belong together, the purpose of Acts is seemingly the purpose of Luke-Acts. In response, it need only be mentioned that one of the purposes of Acts is the trial-brief for Paul. It is true that Luke does not neatly fit into this purpose, though it does fit into the broader picture of apologetic of Christianity before the Roman government. The occasion for Acts necessitated the publication of Luke, but it did not thereby dictate the purpose of Luke.

⁴⁸In Mark, however, the revelation at Caesarea Philippi is more central, while in Luke, Jesus’ resolve to go to Jerusalem, mentioned after Peter’s confession, seems to be more central.

⁴⁹What is found in the other accounts, but missing in Luke’s account is (1) the location (Caesarea Philippi), (2) Jesus’ admission of the source of Peter’s confession, and (3) Peter’s rebuke of Jesus for the prediction about his own death. Clearly, this confession does not play as big a role in Luke as it does in Matthew or Mark. Further, the disciples do not function as a foil for Luke (as they do in Mark), for the emphasis is on the fault of the Jews for killing Jesus, more than on the proper response of the disciples in following Jesus.

⁵⁰This ties in well with Luke’s purpose in Acts, for he lays a clear stress on the fact that the Gentile mission was conceived by Jesus, not Paul.

⁵¹I find Hoehner’s analysis (in Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ) convincing: the prophetic clock began ticking on March 1, 444 BCE, when the decree to rebuild the walls was issued. Then, it continued successively for 69 weeks of prophetic years (= 360 day years), that is, for 173,880 days. The end of the 69th week was March 30, 33 CE—the very day Jesus made his “triumphal entry” into Jerusalem (on Palm Monday). What confirms this view is that in Jesus’ lament he speaks of eschatological judgment (which, in our hindsight, includes both the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE and Daniel’s 70th week—that is, the tribulation) as does Daniel (Luke 19:43-44; Dan. 9:26-27).

⁵²Luke’s presentation of material is almost exactly like Mark’s, most of which is duplicated in Matthew as well. For a more detailed look at the individual pericopae, one should consult those two Gospels.

⁵³Regardless of which view one adopts for the synoptic problem, Luke must have altered what was in his source (whether Matthew or Mark). There seems to be a twofold reason for it: (1) to establish Jesus’ innocence before he emphasized his deity; and (2) to present in progressive fashion throughout two volumes evidence for the deity of Christ. It is too early for Luke to say much on this theme in the first volume.

⁵⁴Outlining Luke is particularly difficult, for although one can readily see the macro-structure centering on geography, the micro-structure is not so easy to detect. It is as if Luke has given vignettes of Jesus’ teaching and actions, grouped in no particular order. Still, some sense can be made out of them, even though Talbert’s architectonic scheme overstates the case. We echo Fitzmyer’s sentiment, even though our outline is even more tightly organized than his: “At times some of the sub-divisions may seem arbitrary, and it is not easy to justify them” (J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke [Anchor Bible], 1:135).

I. Introduction

A. The Author

There are three pieces of evidence to consider: title, external evidence, and internal evidence.

1. The Title

As with the other gospels, no MSS which contain John’s Gospel¹ affirm authorship by anyone other than John.² Once again, as with the others, this is short of proof of Johannine authorship, but the unbroken stream suggests recognition (or at least acknowledgment) of Johannine authorship as early as the first quarter of the second century. Indeed, John’s Gospel is unique among the evangelists for two early papyri (P66 and P75, dated c. 200) attest to Johannine authorship. Since these two MSS were not closely related to each other, this common tradition must precede them by at least three or four generations of copying. Further, although B and P75 are closely related, textual studies have demonstrated that P75 is not the ancestor of B—in fact, B’s ancestor was, in many respects, more primitive than P75.³ Hence, the combined testimony of B and P75 on Johannine authorship points to a textual tradition which must be at least two generations earlier than P75. All of this is to say that from the beginning of the second century, the fourth gospel was strongly attached to the apostle John.

2. External Evidence

Attestation of Johannine authorship is found as early as Irenaeus. Eusebius reports that Irenaeus received his information from Polycarp, who in turn received it from the apostles directly. Although Irenaeus’ testimony has been assailed on critical grounds (since he received the information as a child, and may have been mistaken as to which John wrote the gospel), since all patristic writers after Irenaeus do not question apostolic authorship, criticism must give way to historical probability. The list of fathers include Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, etc. Further, the Muratorian Canon suggests that John was given the commission to write this gospel after Andrew received a vision indicating that he would do so. If one were to sift out the possible accretions in this statement, the bare fact of Johannine authorship is not disturbed. Finally, the anti-Marcionite Prologue also affirms Johannine authorship.

In countering this external evidence are two considerations. (1) There would be a strong motivation on the part of patristic writers to suggest authorship by an apostle. Further, the internal evidence, when compared with the synoptics, strongly suggests John as the leading candidate. But this is off-set by the remarkably early documentary testimony of Johannine authorship⁴ as well as early patristic hints (Ignatius, Justin, Tatian). Further, P52—the earliest fragment for any NT book—contains portions of John 18:31-33 and 37-38 and is to be dated as early as 100 CE⁵; and the Papyrus Egerton 2, which is to be dated at about the same time, draws on both John and synoptics for its material.⁶ Although the early patristic hints and the early papyri do not explicitly affirm Johannine authorship, they do illustrate its early and widespread use, an implicit testimony to its acceptance by the church. Indeed, there seems never to have been a time when this gospel bore any name other than John’s.

(2) There is some evidence of an early martyrdom for John (based on Mark 10:39) which, assuming a late date for the production of this gospel, would preclude Johannine authorship. However, the earliest patristic evidence for this supposition is from the fifth century (Philip of Side and the Syrian martyrology of 411 CE), from sources which show themselves to be unreliable as historical guides in other matters. Further, in our dating of John’s Gospel, even an early martyrdom would not preclude Johannine authorship, though it would preclude Johannine authorship of the Apocalypse.

In conclusion, the external evidence is quite strong for Johannine authorship, being widely diffused and early.

3. Internal Evidence

Two sets of internal evidence will be examined: (1) Westcott’s famous “Concentric Proofs”⁷ and (2) other incidental pieces of evidence in support of Johannine authorship. We will reserve internal evidence against Johannine authorship for the next section.

a. Concentric Proofs

(1) The Author was a Jew

He quotes occasionally from the Hebrew text (cf. 12:40; 13:18; 19:37); he was acquainted with the Jewish feasts such as the Passover (2:13; [5:1]; 6:4; 11:55), Tabernacles (7:37), and Dedication/Hanukkah (10:22); he was acquainted with Jewish customs such as the arranging of water pots (ch. 2) and burial customs (11:38-44).

(2) The Author was a Jew in Palestine

He knows that Jacob’s well is deep (4:11); he states that there is a descent from Canaan to Capernaum; and he distinguishes between Bethany and Bethany beyond the Jordan; in short, he is intimately acquainted with Palestinian topography.⁸

(3) The Author was an Eyewitness of What he Wrote

He stated that he had beheld Christ’s glory (1:14) using a verb (θεάομαι) which in NT Greek always bears the meaning of at least physical examination (cf. BAGD); there are incidental comments about his being there (Judas slipped out at night [13:16] 4:6 [the sixth hour], etc.).

(4) The Author was an Apostle

He has an intimate knowledge of what happened among the disciples—cf. 2:11; 4:27; 6:19, etc.

(5) The Author was the Apostle John

He is exact in mentioning names of characters in the book. If he is so careful, why does he omit the name of John unless he is John? Further, his mention of John the Baptist merely as “John” (1:6) implies that if he is to show up in the narrative another name must be given him—such as “the beloved disciple”—or else confusion would result.

b. Incidental Evidence

Beyond the concentric proofs of Westcott, there are other pieces of incidental evidence.

(1) The author uses the historical present more than any other gospel writer (161 times) and in such a way as to indicate vividness of portrayal. One should note the especially heavy use in chapter 4 and the passion narrative. This suggests the vivid recollections of an eyewitness.

(2) In 19:35 and 21:24-25 the most natural reading of the text suggests that an eyewitness wrote the gospel. But this has been debated: “advocates of theories of authorship which deny an eyewitness author treat the clear testimony of this verse [21:24] as a redactional device.… By such a method any embarrassing evidence can be disposed of.”⁹

(3) The beloved disciple shows up with Peter on several occasions; belongs to a group of seven in 21:2 (Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, the sons of Zebedee, and two others)—and here, he must be one of the last four unnamed disciples; and nowhere in this gospel does John the disciple appear by name (even though he is named twenty times in the synoptics). This strongly infers either that the author of this work was absolutely unaware of John the disciple—a possibility which seems quite remote—or he was John the disciple.

(4) Independence from the synoptic tradition coupled with early and widespread acceptance by the church. The fact that over 90% of the material in this gospel is unique to itself, coupled with its early acceptance by the church, argues very strongly that it was authored by some authority. This, coupled with the further fact that John was widely employed in early gnostic circles yet was not thereby abandoned by the orthodox, argues quite compellingly that all quarters recognized its authority. A work not done by an apostle would hardly have met such a reception.

All in all, there are many excellent reasons—both external and internal—for acceptance of the fourth gospel as having been authored by John the apostle.

4. Arguments against Johannine Authorship

There are principally three internal arguments against Johannine authorship.¹⁰ (1) the identification of the “beloved disciple,” (2) apparent contradictions with the synoptic material, and (3) the hue of Hellenistic thought which pervades the work.¹¹

a. The Beloved Disciple

Although the identification of the beloved disciple with the apostle John has been alleged as a proof of Johannine authorship, one problem plagues this certitude: would any writer be so arrogant as to identify himself in such a manner? However, not only is ἀγαπάω rather than φιλέω used in this designation (suggesting more of a commendation of the subject than the object), ¹² but John, in his old age, might well have adopted an affectionate term given to him by others in this self-description. “Far from it being an evidence of arrogance, as is so often suggested, it may perhaps be regarded as a sign of modesty.”¹³ Thus, even though the rich young ruler, Lazarus, and even Nathanael have been suggested as the beloved disciple, the evidence for such is not only hardly more than speculation, but rests on a faulty assumption that the phrase “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is a note of arrogance.

There is one other possibility which might well be called the standard critical view today: the beloved disciple is symbolic, a figure, and not a real historical personage. In this view the beloved disciple represents any person who embraces Christ as his Redeemer. Although there is a certain attraction to this view in light of the inroads that literary criticism is making on NT interpretation, it suffers from three problems, the last of which seems decisive: (1) “the almost incidental allusions to the beloved disciple in the gospel do not read like symbolic allusions”;¹⁴ (2) it lacks parallels with other ancient literature which would clue us in that the beloved disciple should be taken as non-historical; and (3) the glaring omission of John the apostle from this gospel is unaccounted for on this hypothesis.

b. Contradictions with the Synoptic Material

Where John and the synoptics do overlap (only 8-10% of the time), there seem to be inherent contradictions, especially in three areas: the cleansing of the temple, the presentation of dominical sayings, and the chronology of the Lord’s supper. In response, we should note the following.

(1) Although John places the temple cleansing early in Jesus’ ministry, there is no necessary chronological indicator in John 2. Thus, John may have moved it forward for theological/motif reasons. Further, there is a good possibility that Jesus cleansed the temple twice.¹⁵

(2) Although the Johannine Jesus speaks with a different voice than the synoptic Jesus, only if we assume both that (a) only ipsissima verba constitute authentic dominical sayings and (b) Jesus must speak the same way, regardless of his audience or locale (Galilee in the synoptics, Judea in John especially), does this criticism hold water. In our view, John has indeed hellenized the voice of Jesus for the sake of his largely Gentile audience. But this is not to deny his accuracy, for he basically gives us the ipsissima vox, not the ipsissima verba of Jesus.¹⁶

(3) The Lord’s Supper in John does pose major historical difficulties with the presentation in the first three gospels. But suffice it to say here that there are solutions available which, in the final analysis, may indeed show independence, but not contradiction.¹⁷

c. Hellenistic Thought

All the vogue until the discovery of the Qumran MSS, the attribution of hellenistic thought to the writer of the fourth gospel seemed to nail the coffin shut on Johannine authorship. However, with the absolute dualism found in Qumran which parallels both Hellenism and John, scholarly opinion has swung very far in the other direction: this gospel is very Jewish! Still, full weight must be given to F. C. Grant’s warning that the relative amount of parallels with Qumran vs. “the vast array of parallels” with Hellenism cannot be used to deny a strong hellenistic influence.¹⁸ The real issue, therefore, is simple: Would a Galilean fisherman ever be able to gain such an acquaintance with Hellenism? In response, it need only be mentioned that (a) hellenistic thought pervaded Galilee in the first century; (b) John , as son of a fishing magnate, would probably have received a decent education, exposing him to much Hellenism;¹⁹ (c) the targeted audience, being Gentiles, might well have prompted the author to shape his material with a hellenistic strain which they could comprehend and appreciate; and (d) John could well have employed an amanuensis (as early patristic writers seem to hint at) for the writing of this gospel—a person who could have easily packaged the material with a hellenistic hue at John’s beckoning.²⁰ Thus, though I am not nearly as optimistic as many today who want to pour all of John’s dualism into a first-century Jewish mold, neither would I argue that a hellenistic coloring denies Johannine authorship. Indeed, the hellenistic overtones, in my view, argue strongly for Johannine authorship, when coupled  with date and occasion of writing.

5. Alternative Suggestions

Guthrie lists three basic alternatives to authorship by John the apostle: (1) John of Jerusalem, (2) John the elder, and (3) non-Johannine theories.

(1) Regarding John of Jerusalem, the only evidence which might support this would be the fact that the author had entrance into the high priest’s house. But apart from no shred of external evidence to support this, there is no reason not to attribute such access to the high priest’s quarters to the apostle himself. Indeed, there is some evidence (chiefly related to the Lord’s Supper account as well as the author’s emphasis on Jerusalem) that John the apostle may well have been distantly related to the high priest.

(2) Non-Johannine theories abound. Most such theories maintain pseudonymity. However, if so, this is a singularly poor job, because the author nowhere identifies himself as John. Others argue for a “school of St. John”—an equally unpalpable view since we have zero evidence that communities ever wrote a single document. Individuals write single documents. A more plausible view is that a later redactor took over some primitive material which the apostle had begun, reshaped it, and published it. Raymond Brown’s well-known five-stage theory of composition is the pinnacle of this approach. However, two fundamental problems with this approach are: (a) it only becomes necessary if a date for the gospel outside the lifespan of the apostle is true; and (b) only the final form would have been published because, as the Alands have recently argued, any editions, rearranging, revisions, etc. which this gospel underwent would have to have taken place before the first published form because the textual evidence is more solid for John’s Gospel than for any other book of the NT.²¹

(3) “John the elder” is a very popular view, based on a certain reading of Papias’ famous quotation. But not only does Papias not speak of “John the elder” (rather he speaks of “the elder John”), he never says that such a person ever wrote the Fourth Gospel. The Papias fragment will be discussed more carefully in our introduction to the Apocalypse, but suffice it to say here that this postulate is by no means necessary—contradicting especially the external evidence—even if such a person ever existed.

In conclusion, although John’s Gospel is, as one author put it, “a maverick gospel,”²² the traditional view of Johannine authorship is still the most reasonable hypothesis. The four strongest reasons, it seems, are (1) the strong external evidence, (2) the most plausible identification of the beloved disciple (coupled with the absence of John’s name in this gospel), (3) the authoritative independence from the synoptic tradition, and (4) the amazing pre-70 topographical accuracy. Perhaps the reasons for fighting so hard against authenticity have to do with the theological import that must be wrestled with if this gospel is indeed a historically reliable document.

B. Date

Most scholars date this gospel c. 90s-100.²³ There is a growing number of scholars, however, who place it sometime before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE.²⁴ Apart from J. A. T. Robinson’s radical redating of John to the fifth decade of the first century²⁵ (a view which, to my knowledge, almost no scholar has found palatable), the vast bulk of NT scholars can be put into two camps: 90s or 60s.

1. A Late Date (90s)

Arguments for a late date are as follows:

(1) Patristic writers normally date this gospel after the synoptics.

(2) The reference to the Jews as the enemy of Jesus suggests a late date—i.e., a time when the Jews had become the confirmed enemies of the church.

(3) Assuming that John used the synoptic gospels, and assuming that Luke and Matthew were written in the 80s, John must be dated no earlier than the 90s.

(4) The lack of reference to Jerusalem’s destruction points to a date either before 66 or quite a bit after 70.

(5) The theology of John is highly advanced, especially its Christology. It is assumed that this cannot be true of a work written in the 60s.

(6) The affinities with 1 John, in which nascent gnosticism seems to be fought against, argues for a late first century date.

(7) John’s ecclesiology (water baptism in John 3, the Lord’s Supper in John 6) point to a late date.

(8) The reference in 9:22 to the formerly blind man getting booted out of the synagogue is a cryptic allusion to Jewish excommunication of Christians, which did not happen until the 80s.

Of these eight arguments, numbers 5, 6 and 8 are normally considered to be the weightiest. In any view, number 5 is quite strong, since this gospel not only has a high Christology, but also is far more reflective and penetrating on the salvific work of Christ than are the synoptic gospels.

Against these arguments, however, are the following considerations.

(1) Patristic citations on dating of NT books are notoriously faulty. They are far more reliable on issues of who than of when or why. Further, in our view, John still would be the last gospel penned, even though it would not have been written until c. 65.

(2) The reference to the Jews as the enemies of the church could easily be a pre-70 statement, especially if the audience lived outside of Palestine. Further, John almost always uses “the Jews” in reference to the Jewish leaders, not the populace in general.

(3) The assumption that John used the synoptic gospels is not at all proven. In fact, both P. Gardner-Smith and C. H. Dodd have argued (and cogently, I think) that John was completely independent of the synoptic gospels. In our view, the idea that the fourth evangelist used any of the synoptic gospels runs into insurmountable difficulties, for it not only has surface contradictions (e.g., the time of the cleansing of the temple, the nature of the Lord’s Supper, etc.), but there is also much material which would have been beneficial to put in this gospel had the author had ready access to it.²⁶ Nevertheless, even if John had employed the synoptics, in our view, this does not militate against a date before 65 CE. Unless one is prepared to argue that the Olivet Discourse must be a vaticinium ex eventu, there is no strong reason to date any of the synoptics after 70.

(4) The lack of reference to Jerusalem’s destruction is much more in favor of an early date than a late one, especially since this is the one gospel which focuses on Jesus’ Judean ministry.²⁷

(5) Although John’s theology is highly advanced, it is so only when one measures it against the historical benchmark of the synoptic gospels.²⁸ But once it is seen that John’s gospel has a more decidedly theological thrust to it (giving an inner and reflective picture of Christ, rather than an external and action-packed picture of Christ), there is no reason why such a gospel could not be produced in the 60s. When one compares the theology of John with the theology of, say, Romans (written in the late 50s), or Philippians (c. 62 CE), its Christological development is very much in keeping with Paul. To be sure, certain points do seem advanced (e.g., the use of “Savior” to refer to Jesus,²⁹ or the explicit affirmation of Christ’s deity in 1:1),³⁰ but no more so than what is found in the Pastorals or Hebrews. If those books are pre-70 documents,³¹ then there is no theological reason to deny this to John. and even if the Pastorals and Hebrews are not pre-70 letters, the theological development seen in John fits quite nicely on a trajectory ten years beyond Romans and four or so years beyond Philippians.³²

(6) The affinities with 1 John, and the anti-gnosticism and anti-docetism of that letter, are parallels which do not compel a late date. That is to say, we are quite uncertain about the origins of docetism/gnosticism. Surely there was incipient gnosticism taking root in the last third of the first century. Further, the anti-docetic theology of 1 John is no stronger than that of Colossians—a book which many scholars who hold to a late date for John would regard as authentic.

(7) John’s ecclesiology is so subtle in chapters 3 and 6 that commentators are still not decided as to whether any ecclesiological implication can be made from these chapters. Further, even if we assume a sacramental interpretation on these chapters, what is to say that this could not go back to the historical Jesus? Although the church continued the practice of baptism and communion, they did not invent either one. Only if the criteria of authenticity (specifically, the criterion of dissimilarity with Jewish or Christian practices) could be legitimately used in a negative way could we say that John put dominical sayings on the lips of Jesus. But even here, there is no reason to posit a late first century date, for the sacraments are mentioned already in 1 Corinthians (late 50s)!

(8) Finally, the reference in 9:22 as an allusion to the third Sitz im Leben of the community, although repeated so often in commentaries as fact, is quite ambiguous. Only on the assumption that the blind man would certainly not have been kicked out of the synagogue, could one read the excommunication of the 80s into this verse.³³ Analogously, in light of Jesus’ treatment at Capernaum, and Paul’s treatment in the synagogue of Thessalonika (to name but two examples), the verse reads as a simple piece of unembellished narrative.

2. An Early Date (60s)

There are a number of data which strongly suggest a date in the 60s, chief among them are the following.

(1) The destruction of Jerusalem is not mentioned. This fits extremely well with a date before 66 CE.

(2) The topographical accuracy of pre-70 Palestine argues that at least some of the material embedded in the gospel comes from before the Jewish War.

(3) There is much primitive terminology used in this gospel. E.g., Jesus’ followers are called “disciples” in John, not apostles.

(4) The conceptual and verbal parallels with Qumran argue strongly for an overtly Jewish document which fits well within the first century milieu.

(5) The date of P52 at c. 100-150, coupled with the date of Papyrus Egerton 2 at about the same time—a document which employed both John and the synoptics—is almost inconceivable if John is to be dated in the 90s.³⁴

(6) John’s literary independence from and apparent lack of awareness of the synoptic gospels argue quite strongly for an early date. Indeed, this independence/ignorance argues that all the gospels were written within a relatively short period of time, with Matthew and Luke having the good fortune of seeing and using Mark in their composition.

(7) Finally, there is a strong piece of internal evidence for an early date. In John 5:2 the author says that “there is in Jerusalem, by the sheep-gate, a pool (the one called Bethesda in Hebrew) which has five porticoes.” Without discussing all the interpretations possible for this verse suffice it to say that (a) the verb “is” (ἐστιν) cannot be a historical present, and (b) the pool was destroyed in 70 CE.³⁵ By far the most plausible conclusion is that this gospel was written before 70 CE.

In sum, we believe that a pre-70 date for the Fourth Gospel is the most probable one. Further, we believe that this gospel should be dated late in 65 or even in 66, for the following two reasons: (a) it is doubtful that it should be dated after 66, because otherwise the lack of an Olivet Discourse in which many of the prophecies were at that time coming true, is inexplicable; (b) the gospel should perhaps be dated after Peter’s death, as we shall see when we examine the purpose.

C. Destination

Early external testimony places the publication of this gospel in Ephesus (so Irenaeus and the anti-Marcionite Prologue). There is also some testimony that John the apostle lived out his later years in Ephesus. In the least, it is by far the most plausible locale.³⁶

If Ephesus was the destination, two questions arise: (1) Was John in Ephesus when this gospel was published, or did he go there later? (2) What was the make-up of the recipients?

It is our contention that John finished the bulk of his gospel while in Palestine, adding only chapter 21 and perhaps some finishing touches to the rest of the work when he arrived in Ephesus in the latter part of 65 CE. The reasons for this contention will become clearer in our discussion of the occasion, but one piece of internal evidence may be worth noting here. In 21:24 there is ostensibly a commendation by a group that the author’s testimony is true. Tradition suggests that this is the Ephesian elders putting their stamp of approval on John’s work.³⁷

The recipients of this gospel are largely Gentile. This can be seen by the reference to “the Jews” (passim) as the enemies of Christ, as well as the many explanations, interpretations, and asides which would be unnecessary if the audience were Jewish (cf., e.g., 1:38, 41, 42; 5:2, etc.). Some recent scholars have argued that this gospel was written to Jews—but this is based on the incidental Jewishness of the work itself (Qumran dualism, primitiveness regarding Messianic expectations, etc.), not on the intentional statements of the author toward the audience.³⁸

D. Occasion and Purpose

1. Purpose

Regarding the purpose, the author states it in 20:31: “But these things have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that, by believing, you might have life in his name.” The twofold ἵνα-clause neatly delineates the purpose: that the audience embrace Christ and that they receive life because of this. One question remains, however: the main verb, “believe” has a textual glitch. It is either πιστεύσητε (aorist) or πιστεύητε (present). If the former, it might be construed (though by no means necessarily) to mean “come to saving faith.” If present, the idea probably would be “continue to believe.” At issue is whether the audience is principally believers or non-believers, whether this gospel is principally evangelistic or confirmatory. Although my own text-critical preference is for the present tense,³⁹ not much should be made of this either way. Further, even if this document is seen as principally evangelistic, by analogy, would this suggest that the Roman congregation which Paul addresses is also principally unbelievers, on the basis of his statement in 1:15 (as well as the content of the whole book)?! Thus, the purpose of the book is to confirm or strengthen Gentile believers in their faith.

In addition to this specific statement of the purpose, how John intended to go about it is a significant question. Clement of Alexandria represented an ancient tradition when he wrote that “Last of all John, perceiving that the external facts had been set forth in the Gospels, at the insistence of his disciples and with the inspiration of the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.”⁴⁰ As we have suggested earlier, although the patristic writers can be relied upon largely for the who, they are filled with contradictory evidence when it comes to the why. This is a case in point. Clement is guessing—as were his predecessors—based on the radically different style and content of the fourth gospel. As we examine the occasion for this gospel, perhaps some of this will be cleared up.

2. Occasion (and Method of Composition)

As for the occasion, the catalyst for this gospel must be seen in chapter 21. The likelihood (though disputed by some) that this book already tidily ends with 20:31, only to be resumed again in chapter 21, should be a major signal: John had finished the work, but felt compelled to add a final chapter before publication. We believe that the gospel went through at least three stages of composition: primitive diary which John made while with Jesus;⁴¹ a virtually finished version which lacked the prologue (1:1-18) and the epilogue (ch. 21) as well as, perhaps, other incidental comments; and the final edition, in which chapter 21 was appended. This major seam indicates the urgency with which this gospel was manufactured in its present form. Chapter 21 is occupied with one principal concern: the death of Peter.

Without elaborating in too great a detail, our hypothesis is that after the death of Paul (summer of 64), the remaining apostles felt it necessary to communicate to Paul’s churches in order to make sure that they knew how they felt about Paul’s gospel. Peter wrote one letter, then another. John was putting on the finishing touches of his gospel for Paul’s churches (since the churches of Asia Minor had none and since Paul did not know Christ according to the flesh) when Peter was arrested. John had intended merely to end the gospel at chapter 20, as seems obvious. What made him add the final chapter? We believe that 2 Peter 1:15 gives the clue: “Now I am eager that each of you have a memorial of these things after my departure.” This cryptic verse has been interpreted in many ways, but whatever it refers to it is fairly clear that some sort of posthumous document written by other than Peter is in mind. The immediate antecedent is v. 14 where Peter refers to his own impending death—a death which was even revealed by Christ. Is it possible that the memorial of “these things” is John 21—an appendix which Peter (knowing that John was writing a gospel to Paul’s churches in Asia Minor) requested John at the last minute to “work in” to his gospel? The reason for such would be obvious: these churches had just lost Paul and now were going to lose their apostle-in-writing, Peter. Why shouldn’t they give up the faith? Because even Peter’s death was within the sovereignty of God, having been predicted by the Lord Jesus himself. That is why John couches his own longevity in such careful terms: he simply does not know how long he will live and does not want his audience to base their hope on his life.⁴²

In short, John wanted to give Paul’s churches the gospel because Paul died. He wrote the last chapter in haste, and as the final catalyst to his efforts, because Peter died. What is remarkable affirmation of this view are several pieces of independent data: (1) entirely apart from the consideration of Peter’s death is our conclusion about the date of this book at c. 65 CE; (2) the early tradition of John’s residence in Ephesus (the main locale where Paul’s stamp was felt) needed some sort of catalyst, though none is provided in patristic literature; (3) John’s departure from Jerusalem in 65 is also somewhat attested in patristic literature; (4) the Gentile audience and the strongly hellenized flavor to this gospel⁴³ need some kind of rationale since John was not commissioned as an apostle to the Gentiles; (5) the strong influence of Paul,⁴⁴ which has actually been an argument against Johannine authorship, is to be accounted for by John’s intentional deja vu connection with Paul.⁴⁵

In conclusion, once an early date for this gospel is allowed, the explanation of John 21 as the catalyst for this gospel comes into sharp relief. Paul had died and Peter died, too. John not only wanted to make the literary connection with Paul’s churches that Peter had done—he went the extra mile and took up residence in Ephesus himself. As we stated in our preface, the Gentile mission and the Gentiles’ missionary are what drive the literary endeavors of the NT writers. John has certainly put his stamp of approval on Paul’s gospel and efforts!⁴⁶

E. Theme

John’s Gospel places an emphasis on the deity of Christ more explicitly than any other gospel. It begins with the evangelist’s declaration (1:1) and concludes with doubting Thomas’ expression of faith (20:28). Clearly this gospel presents Jesus as the Son of God. But it does more than that. It also expects a response from the audience—a response of belief (πιστεύω occurs 98 times; the noun, πίστις, not once). Further, John lacks certain key features found in the Synoptic Gospels—such as the journey to Jerusalem, Olivet Discourse, Sermon on the Mount, Transfiguration, parables, etc. Jesus’ death is viewed as his glory and an eschatological judgment is suppressed. In sum, John presents Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, who is to be believed in order that one might right now pass from death to life.

II. Argument

In that over 90% of the material in John’s Gospel is unique, not found in the other gospels, the question of sources and how John is using them becomes prominent. It is our contention that John’s Gospel was written at about the same time as Matthew and Luke, for the evangelist shows virtually no awareness of the material found in the other gospels (typically common oral traditions being an exception). But if John did not get his material from these other sources, where did he get it from and why do they not employ it in their gospels? In particular, how is it possible that Luke, who spent two years in Palestine doing research for his Gospel, did not gain access to John’s pre-publication draft?⁴⁷ It seems either that John’s circle was quite small—hence, the oral traditions generating from him made little impact on the mainstream of the gospel compilers; or else John drastically altered the shape of the material, packaging it for the hellenized audience of Asia Minor. We believe that the truth involves both of these possibilities.⁴⁸ Our argument will accordingly be shaped by this consideration.

The Gospel of John has four major sections to it: prologue (1:1-18), the Son of God’s manifestation to the nation (or, the “Book of Signs”) (1:19–12:50), the Son of God’s ministry to his disciples (13:1–17:26), and the Son of God’s suffering and glory (18:1–20:31). An epilogue about the death of Peter is added almost as an afterthought (21:1-25). The two largest sections (public manifestation and private ministry) contrast sharply with one another in many ways, not the least of which is in chronological progression (three or four years vs. one night!).

The Gospel opens with a prologue (1:1-18) in which, like Mark, there is no genealogy and no birth narrative. But the reason for this in the Fourth Gospel is that the Son of God has always existed and, in fact, has created all things (1:1-5). His incarnation is mentioned from the divine perspective of why he came to earth (1:6-18; cf. especially vv. 9, 12-13, 17-18), rather than from the human perspective of those who first beheld a newborn babe and wondered what he would become. From the outset, then, John’s Gospel presents Jesus as God’s Son—in fact, as God in the flesh.

After this brief prologue, the largest section of the Gospel, the “Book of Signs,” begins (1:19–12:50). In this section the Son of God performs seven “signs” (John never uses the term “miracle”) as a witness to his authority and identity. In a real sense, this gospel is a legal document, designed especially to prove Christ’s deity. There are witnesses, testimonies, evidence, and signs. At the end of John’s presentation, he turns to the jury with the appeal to believe his evidence (20:30-31. We see this legal argumentation in this second major section especially.

The Book of Signs, though disclosing seven miracles, is best organized geographically. There are eight locales for the manifestation of the Son of God seen here. As Jesus enters a new locale, the twin themes of Gentile response and Jewish hostility to him increase.

Jesus’ ministry begins in Perea and Galilee (1:19–2:11). There John gives his testimony as to Christ’s identity (1:19-34): he is the elect one of God.⁴⁹ John’s testimony can be trusted because even his own disciples (at least one of them, Andrew, as well as his friends) follow Jesus (1:35-51). And in Cana of Galilee Jesus performs his first sign: changing the water into wine at a wedding (2:1-11). Although this was his first sign, only a handful of people (including his disciples) knew about it. He used the purification jars to perform the act. The significance of this was that there was a new order on the horizon, replacing the old. And whereas the old was related to the law (regulations about purification), the new order was related to the Spirit.

Then, Jesus went up from Galilee to Jerusalem for the Passover (2:12–3:36) and cleanses the temple (2:12-22). There he predicts another sign: he would raise up the temple (of his body) after the Jews destroyed it (2:19-21). While in Jerusalem, it became obvious that people were putting faith in him for the wrong reasons (2:23-25). The signs he was performing were not seen by the crowds as witnessing to Jesus’ true identity, but as a means to an end for their sake: they embraced him as Healer, but not as Savior. One such example was Nicodemus (3:1-12), to whom Jesus makes a self-disclosure (3:13-21).

After the pseudo-reception in Jerusalem, Jesus traveled back to Galilee, going through Samaria en route (4:1-42). There we see the account of Jesus’ conversation with and conversation of the woman at the well. In Samaria, Jesus performed no “sign,” although he did prove himself to be a prophet. Yet, the citizens of Sychar embraced him as “the Savior of the world” (4:42). Several key motifs are seen in this episode, including Gentile (and a sinful woman’s) response to the gospel, “thirst” in a spiritual sense (4:10-14), free access to God without the necessity of the Jewish cult (4:21-24), and the concept of “abiding” (4:40; cf. 15:1-8).

Jesus then returns to Galilee where a second sign is performed, the healing of a royal official’s son (4:43-54). Yet the sign is performed within the context of the Galileans hearing about his feats in Jerusalem. Hence, there was misunderstanding on their part in that, once again, they only wanted Jesus as Healer (4:48), not as Savior.

In Jesus’ second visit to Jerusalem for “a feast of the Jews” (5:1) he gets involved in a Sabbath controversy (5:1-47). It is caused by his healing of a lame man (his third sign) by the pool of Bethesda (5:1-15). Because he performs such an act on the Sabbath, the Jews plot to kill him (5:16-18), which elicits his taking the witness stand (5:31-47). In his defense, he basically argues that work of a redemptive nature is allowed on the Sabbath (5:17, 19-30) and that the Father testifies that Jesus has come for this very purpose (5:31-47).

Chapter six, once again, finds Jesus in Galilee for a third cycle (6:1-71). This time two signs are given: the feeding of the five thousand—a sign given to the public (6:1-15) and Jesus walking on the water—a sign given to Jesus’ disciples (6:16-24). Both signs reveal much about who Jesus is, though the crowds simply wanted to get fed (6:25-27) without recognizing that Jesus was the “Bread of Life” (6:35) who satisfies all spiritual hunger (6:28-40). When he stated the very principle of the substitutionary atonement (“This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world,” 6:51; and “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you,” 6:53) their animosity grew. Even several of his own disciples left him, not understanding his meaning (6:60-71).

The hostility toward Jesus met its climax when Jesus returned to Judea and Jerusalem for a third time (7:1–11:57)—this time for the Feast of Tabernacles (7:1-11). Although the material here could be organized internally on a geographical scheme, the repetition of the theme of Jewish unbelief after each round of demonstrations of Jesus’ Messiahship, seems to reveal the evangelist’s theology more clearly. There are three distinct cycles in this segment.

The first cycle addresses Jewish unbelief in spite of Jesus’ teaching (7:1–8:59). Because the Jews were plotting to take Jesus’ life, he went to the Feast of Tabernacles secretly (7:1, 11). Then, half-way through the feast, he began teaching publicly in the temple (7:14). The emphasis of his instruction was, again, on a defense that he was from God (7:15-36) and that he was, in fact, God’s Son (8:12-59). He again used metaphors (living water in 7:37-44, light of the world in 8:12) to describe the offer of salvation. In spite of all this, the Jews refused to believe (7:45-52; 8:59).

The second cycle addresses Jewish unbelief in spite of Jesus’ healing of a blind man (9:1–10:39). This again was a healing on the Sabbath (9:13-16), and for this very reason the Jews refused to believe that Jesus was sent from God (9:16). Further, when he declared that he was the “Good Shepherd” (using the metaphor of protection to indicate his role as Savior) (10:1-21)—and that “I and the Father are one” (10:30), they attempted to stone him on the spot (10:31-39).

The third cycle solidified their plot against Jesus’ life. For in this last confrontation, Jesus raises a man from the dead (the seventh sign) (10:40–11:44), causing many Jews finally to believe in him (11:45). The Sanhedrin consequently planned to take his life, out of political and religious expediency (11:48). Unwittingly, the high priest gives the clearest statement of substitutionary atonement found in John’s Gospel (11:50), which John capitalizes on (11:51).

Jesus’ final manifestation to the nation came in his fourth visit to the holy city (12:1-50). He prepared for this manifestation by his anointing at Bethany by Mary (12:1-11). Then he entered Jerusalem, being proclaimed “King of Israel” in fulfillment of prophecy (12:13-16). As a twin foreshadowing of events to come, John depicts the Jews’ rejection because of his last sign (the raising of Lazarus), and Gentile response apart from any miraculous catalyst (12:17-22). The Book of Signs then concludes with Jesus’ own somber prediction of his death (12:23-36) followed by John’s record of Isaiah’s prediction (Isa. 6:10) of Jewish rejection (12:37-41) and cowardice (12:42-43).

The Gospel now makes a sudden turn inward. No longer is Jesus presenting himself to the nation year after year. The third major section of the Gospel shows him ministering to his disciples on the night before his death (13:1–17:26). This ministry is in light of the rejection by the nation and involves two aspects: instruction of the disciples (13:1–16:33) and praying for the disciples (17:1-26).

In his final instructions of the disciples Jesus used both object lessons and verbal instructions. In the upper room he washed their feet (13:1-17) as a demonstration of true greatness—and true love. His command to love one another (13:31-35) is wedged between two predictions, one of betrayal (13:18-30), one of denial (13:36-38). He then comforted his disciples with instructions about the Godhead’s eschatological role in their lives (14:1-31a). It is here that John seems to place the Olivet Discourse (14:1-4). In his Gospel it is much abbreviated because he suppresses future judgment (thus all statements about Jerusalem’s demise are evacuated), and especially in this section of the book emphasizes only Jesus’ role to the disciples.

On the way to Gethsemane Jesus offers concluding remarks (14:31b–16:33). He speaks about the necessity of abiding in him as evidence of genuine life (15:1-17). The pericope of the vine and branches must be seen against the backdrop of Judas’ betrayal, for Judas was one who did not abide (cf. also 1 John 2:19 where the author picks up this theme once again). Then he prepares his disciples for the hatred by the world (15:18–16:4), reminding them that the Holy Spirit would comfort them (16:5-16).

With words of present comfort (16:17-33), he goes to the garden and prays for his followers (17:1-26). In Gethsemane, with the prediction of the disciples’ grief still on his mind, he focuses on his future glory with the Father (17:1-5) and protection and oneness of his disciples (17:6-19). His prayer concludes with a petition that the future converts of the disciples would also be united in love and mission (17:20-26).

After Jesus’ high priestly prayer, the fourth major section of the Gospel begins (18:1–20:31). The true high priest would soon become the slain lamb. He is arrested, being betrayed by Judas (18:1-11), tried before Annas and Caiaphas (18:12-27) and then Pilate (18:28-40). After Peter denies him three times (18:25-27) Pilate pronounces Jesus innocent of all charges (18:28-40; cf. v. 38). But the crowd, reminding Pilate of his duty (19:12) and their alleged loyalty to Caesar (19:15), forced his hand.

Jesus was then brought to Golgotha and crucified there between two others (19:17-42). In John’s account of the crucifixion, there is an emphasis on his completed work (“It is finished” in 19:30) as one who has now taken the place of the sinner, for he now is the one who is thirsty (19:28).⁵⁰ There is also an emphasis on the fulfillment of the scripture which typologically pointed to Jesus as the Passover lamb (19:31-37, especially v. 36 [cf. Exod 12:46]). Thus the lamb of God, about whom John testified, truly came to take away the sin of the world.

John gives a detailed account of the resurrection of Christ (20:1-31). His narrative of the empty tomb includes Mary Magdalene’s shock of seeing the stone rolled away, without mention of the announcement by an angel (20:1-2). She tells Peter what she saw and Peter and “the beloved disciple” actually enter the tomb (the only record of anyone doing so in the gospels [20:3-9]). The “beloved disciple” alone of all the disciples is said to believe without first seeing Jesus (20:9). He thus becomes an example for his audience to follow, an archetype for faith apart from a demand for signs (contra Thomas [20:29]). Then, after John and Peter depart, Jesus appears to Mary (20:10-17) who promptly reports this to the disciples (20:18). Further proof of Jesus’ resurrection comes in his appearance to most of the disciples (20:19-23) and finally to Thomas (20:24-29), who exclaims “My Lord and my God!” (20:28), bringing the testimony of others to a close. An appeal is then made to the Gentile readers to confirm their faith in Christ (20:30-31), keeping in mind that even though they did not have the benefit of seeing Jesus in the flesh, they are more blessed than those who, like Thomas, believed because of seeing him (20:29).

In the epilogue to the Gospel (21:1-25), written after the Gospel had been completed but before publication, the whole focus is on Jesus’ relation to Peter. When the Lord comes to the Sea of Tiberias (21:1), he found Peter and the other disciples fishing (21:2-5). After instructing them where to cast the net, which resulted in a miraculous catch of fish (21:6), John noticed that it was the Lord (21:7). Peter responded enthusiastically by swimming ashore to Jesus (21:8). John’s account of this showed that Peter’s denial of Jesus was neither permanent nor mentioned because of any animosity John might have toward Peter. In fact, Jesus reinstates Peter three times (21:15-17), for Peter had denied the Lord three times. This all sets the stage for the prediction which John wanted his audience to know about in greater detail than Peter had revealed (cf. 2 Peter 1:14-15). Jesus predicted Peter’s death as a martyr, pointing out that it was entirely within God’s sovereign plan, for it would ultimately glorify God (21:18-19). This was immediately followed by an ambiguous statement about John’s longevity (21:20-23), no doubt mentioned by John to keep his audience from having false hopes about his continued ministry to them. The Gospel makes its (second) conclusion by recording the commendation of the Ephesian elders on John’s testimony (21:24-25).

III. Outline⁵¹

I. Prologue: The Logos as God and Man (1:1-18)

A. The Deity of the Logos (1:1-5)

B. The Humanity of the Logos (1:6-18)

1. The Witness of John (1:6-8)

2. The Light: Rejected and Received (1:9-13)

3. The Incarnation of the Logos (1:14-18)

II. The Son of God’s Manifestation to the Nation: The Book of Signs (1:19–12:50)

A. In (Perea and) Galilee: First Cycle/Initial Ministry (1:19–2:12)

1. The Forerunner’s Testimony (1:19-34)

a. John’s Self-Denial of Being the Christ (1:19-28)

b. John’s Affirmation of Jesus as Elect One of God (1:29-34)

2. The First Disciples (1:35-51)

a. Andrew and Peter (1:35-42)

b. Philip and Nathanael (1:43-51)

3. The First Sign: Water to Wine (2:1-11)

B. In Jerusalem and Judea: First Cycle/Seeking a Sign (2:12–3:36)

1. Cleansing the Temple (2:12-22)

a. The Setting at Passover (2:12-14)

b. The Temple Cleansing (2:15-22)

2. Faith in Man, Faith in Christ (2:23–3:36)

a. Untrusting “Believers” (2:23–3:12)

1) The Statement (2:23-25)

2) The Example: Nicodemus (3:1-12)

b. Faith in Christ: Jesus’ Self-Disclosure (3:13-21)

c. Faith in Christ: John’s Testimony (3:22-36)

C. In Samaria: Gentile Response (4:1-42)

1. The Setting (4:1-3)

2. The Woman at the Well (4:4-38)

a. The Meeting of Jesus and the Woman (4:4-26)

b. The Return of the Disciples (4:27-38)

3. The Response of the Samaritans (4:39-42)

D. In Galilee: Second Cycle/Healing the Official’s Son (Second Sign) (4:43-54)

E. In Jerusalem and Judea: Second Cycle/Sabbath Controversy (5:1-47)

1. The Setting at the Feast (5:1)

2. Healing at the Pool of Bethesda on the Sabbath: Third Sign (5:2-15)

3. The Plot of the Jews (5:16-18)

4. The Response of Jesus (5:19-47)

a. The Giving of Life (5:19-30)

b. The Testimony of the Father (5:31-47)

F. In Galilee: Third Cycle/Signs Given (6:1-71)

1. Two Signs Given (6:1-24)

a. The Feeding of the Five Thousand: A Sign to the Crowds (Fourth Sign) (6:1-15)

b. Walking on the Water: A Sign to the Disciples (Fifth Sign) (6:16-24)

2. The Bread of Life (6:25-59)

a. The Setting (6:25-31)

b. “I Am the Bread of Life” (6:32-59)

1) Comparison with Manna (6:32-51)

2) The Flesh and Blood of the Son of Man (6:52-59)

3. The Desertion of Many Disciples (6:60-71)

G. Ministry in Jerusalem and Judea: Third Cycle/Hostility Peaks (7:1–11:57)⁵²

1. Cycle One: Teaching and Unbelief (7:1–8:59)

a. Transition: Feast of Tabernacles and Plot of the Jews (7:1-9)

b. Teaching in the Temple during the Feast: Round One (7:10-44)

1) The Setting (7:10-14)

2) The Source of Jesus’ Teaching (7:15-36)

a) Instruction by Jesus (7:15-24)

b) Reaction by the Crowd (7:25-36)

3) Offer of Living Water (7:37-44)

a) Instruction by Jesus (7:37-39)

b) Reaction by the Crowd (7:40-44)

c. Unbelief of Jewish Leaders in spite of Teaching (7:45-52)⁵³

d. Teaching in the Temple during the Feast: Round Two (8:12-59)

1) The Validity of Jesus’ Claims: Sent from the Father (8:12-30)

2) Paternity Disputes (8:31-47)

a) Children of Abraham (8:31-41)

b) Children of the Devil (8:42-47)

3) The Nature of Jesus’ Claims (8:48-59)

a) The Promise of Life (8:48-53)

b) The Preexistence of Christ (8:54-59)

2. Cycle Two: Healings and Unbelief (9:1–10:42)

a. Healing a Man Blind from Birth: Sixth Sign (9:1-41)

1) Healing of the Man (9:1-7)

2) Reaction by the Crowd (9:8-12)

3) Investigation by the Pharisees (9:13-34)

a) Theological Argument: Healing on the Sabbath (9:13-16)

b) Testimony of the Formerly Blind Man (9:17-34)

4) Response of Jesus (9:35-41)

b. Teaching: The Good Shepherd (10:1-21)

1) Instruction by Jesus (10:1-18)

2) Reaction by the Jews (10:19-21)

c. Unbelief of Jewish Leaders in spite of Miracles (10:22-39)

1) Setting: Feast of Dedication (10:22-24)

2) Confrontation because of Miracles and Self-Witness (10:25-39)

3. Cycle Three: Raising of Lazarus and Unbelief (10:40–12:50)

a. The Death of Lazarus (10:40–11:37)

1) The Setting (10:40–11:3)

2) Jesus’ Delay and Lazarus’ Death (11:4-16)

3) Inculcating Faith in Mary and Martha (11:17-37)

b. The Raising of Lazarus: Seventh Sign (11:38-44)

c. The Plot to Kill Jesus (11:45-57)

1) The Plot of the Sanhedrin (11:45-53)

2) The Withdrawal of Jesus to Ephraim (11:54-57)

H. In Jerusalem: The Final Manifestation (12:1-50)

1. Preparation: The Anointing at Bethany (12:1-11)

2. The Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem (12:12-19)

a. The Response of the Crowd (12:12-15)

b. The Confusion of the Disciples (12:16)

c. The Catalyst of Lazarus’ Resurrection (12:17-19)

3. The Request of the Greeks to See Jesus (12:20-22)

4. Jesus’ Prediction of his Death (12:23-36)

5. Unbelief of the Jewish Leaders Culminated (12:37-50)

III. The Son of God’s Ministry to His Disciples (13:1–17:26)

A. Jesus Ministering to His Disciples (13:1–16:33)

1. In the Upper Room (13:1–14:31a)

a. The Washing of the Disciples’ Feet (13:1-17)

b. The Prediction of Judas’ Betrayal (13:18-30)

c. The Command to Love One Another (13:31-35)

d. The Prediction of Peter’s Denials (13:36-38)

e. Comfort and Instruction (14:1-31a)

1) The Return of the Son (14:1-4)

2) The Way to the Father (14:5-14)

3) The Sending of the Spirit (14:15-31a)

2. On the Way to Gethsemane: Final Instructions (14:31b–16:33)

a. The Vine and the Branches (15:1-17)

b. The Hatred of the World (15:18–16:4)

c. The Work of the Holy Spirit (16:5-16)

d. The Grief of the Disciples (16:17-33)

B. Jesus Praying for His Disciples (In Gethsemane) (17:1-26)

1. Prayer for Himself: Glory (17:1-5)

2. Prayer for His Disciples: Safety and Unity (17:6-19)

3. Prayer for All Believers: Unity (17:20-26)

IV. The Son of God’s Suffering and Glory (18:1–20:31)

A. The Suffering (18:1–19:42)

1. The Arrest of Jesus (18:1-11)

2. The Trials of Jesus (18:12–19:16)

a. Before the High Priest(s) (18:12-27)

1) Brought to Annas (18:12-14)

2) Peter’s First Denial (18:15-18)

3) Before Annas (18:19-23)

4) Brought to Caiaphas (18:24)

5) Peter’s Second and Third Denials (18:25-27)

b. Before Pilate (18:28–19:16)

1) Innocence of Jesus Affirmed by Pilate (18:28-40)

2) Insistence of Crucifixion by the Crowd (19:1-16)

3. The Death of Jesus (19:17-42)

a. The Crucifixion of Jesus (19:17-27)

b. The Actual Death of Jesus (19:28-37)

1) “It is Finished” (19:28-30)

2) It is Fulfilled (19:31-37)

c. The Burial of Jesus (19:38-42)

D. The Glory (20:1-31)

1. The Empty Tomb (20:1-9)

2. Post-Resurrection Appearances (20:10-29)

a. To Mary Magdalene (20:10-18)

b. To His Disciples (20:19-23)

c. To Thomas (20:24-29)

3. Purpose of the Gospel (20:30-31)

V. Epilogue: The Death of the Apostle Peter (21:1-25)

A. Jesus’ Appearance by the Lake of Tiberias (21:1-14)

B. Jesus’ Reinstatement of Peter (21:15-23)

1. The Threefold Commission of Peter (21:15-17)

2. The Prediction of Peter’s Death (21:18-19)

3. The Ambiguity about John’s Longevity (21:20-23)

C. Commendation of the Gospel by the Ephesian Elders (21:24-25)

---

¹I.e., which contain John either in its entirety or at least which have the first few verses, permitting them to reveal their inscription. It should be added here that P52, which is to be dated c. 100-150, only contains portions of five verses from John 18.

²The simplest inscription is κατὰ ᾿Ιωάννην, found in א B (“according to John”). As time progressed this became more elaborate: in the fifth century the title was customarily εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ ᾿Ιωάννην ([A] C D L W et al. [“The Gospel according to John”]), while still later it was called ἅγιον εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ  ᾿Ιωάννην (28 and others [“the Holy Gospel according to John”]). Curiously, the two earliest MSS (P66 and P75) have εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ  ᾿Ιωάννην, a fact which suggests that this gospel—even more than the synoptics—was already well accepted in the early part of the second century, for such accretions were usually associated with books which had a long-standing history of acceptance with the church. This further illustrates that even though these two papyri are our earliest (fairly) complete witnesses to John, the great codices of the fourth century may, at times, be more reliable guides to the wording of the original text.

³See preceding footnote for a case in point.

⁴See discussion under “Title.”

⁵For a survey of the dating of this MS, cf. D. B. Wallace, “John 5,2 and the Date of the Fourth Gospel,” Biblica 71 (1990) 177-78 (n. 6).

⁶Cf. C. H. Dodd, BJRL 20 (1936) 56-92.

⁷Cf. B. F. Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John, 1:v-xxv.

⁸Cf. Robinson, 278 (n. 122) for a succinct yet helpful bibliography on John’s accuracy about the topography of Palestine before 70 CE.

⁹Guthrie, 255.

¹⁰There are other arguments which also address the issue of the date of this work and will be dealt with there.

¹¹We could add a fourth argument, which in my mind is actually the largest stumbling block to Johannine authorship: the utter uniqueness of this gospel which neither impacted the synoptics nor was impacted by them, or even by most of the oral tradition found in them. This seems to suggest a secondary source for the Fourth Gospel, yet one that was unaware of the synoptics. But the problem with that is that such a secondary source would have to be late, yet the author’s unawareness of the synoptics argues in the other direction. Both the arguments against Johannine authorship (and thus for a late date) and the possibility of Johannine independence of the synoptics (and thus for an early date) tend to cancel each other out.

¹²I am not here suggesting that the former means “unconditional love” while the latter means “friendly love,” but that where there is a difference, ἀγαπάω tends toward a volitional love (= “commit to”) while φιλέω tends toward an emotional or reciprocal love. This can be seen in the NT in general in that never is God or Christ said to have φιλία/φιλέω for an unbeliever, though ἀγάπη/ἀγαπάω is often used this way, even in John.

¹³Guthrie, 359.

¹⁴Guthrie, 269.

¹⁵That the synoptics would not deal with this first cleansing would be due to their geographical concerns: in their presentation, Jesus does not even come to Jerusalem until the week before his death. John, on the other hand, gives a fuller chronology, showing that Jesus repeatedly went up to Jerusalem for the feasts during his earthly ministry.

¹⁶Though, to be sure, there are traces of the latter in John: in particular, note that only in John’s gospel does Jesus begin some of his aphorisms with a double “amen.” This is unattested in any other literature (Jewish or Christian), though the synoptics do have the single “amen” prefixed to the front of some dominical sayings (which also is otherwise unattested). The criteria of authenticity would seem to demand that there is at least a hint of the real wording of the historical Jesus in these sayings. Incidentally, the Jesus Seminar (in which scholars have voted for what the real Jesus actually said) were quite confused on the point of “very words” vs. “very voice”: when some member voted to reject all “red letters” from the Johannine Jesus’ lips, they only meant that the words were not Jesus’, but the thought went back to him, while other members denied both (learned through personal conversation with one of the members of the committee; the preface to the Five Gospels also indicates that there was something of a postmodern interpretation of the four colors rather than a set definition).

¹⁷Cf. especially H. W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, 76-90; and I. H. Marshall, Last Supper and Lord’s Supper, 30-56.

¹⁸F. C. Grant, The Gospels, their Origin and Growth, 175.

¹⁹See our discussion of this probability under our introduction to James.

²⁰For the role of amanuenses in the NT, see our introductory discussion of James.

²¹K. and B. Aland, The Text of the New Testament, 292. Cf. also Wallace, “John 5,2 and the Date of the Fourth Gospel,” 196-97.

²² So Robert Kysar; see his book by that title.

²³See Wallace, “John 5,2 and the Date of the Fourth Gospel,” 177-78, n. 6, for a survey of suggested dates (ranging from the 40s to 170!).

²⁴For a list of names see Robinson, 307-308, n. 218 and Wallace, “John 5,2,” 179, n. 10.

²⁵See his The Priority of John, a book published posthumously.

²⁶In particular, one should note that in John 1, Andrew reveals to Peter that Jesus is the Christ, while the synoptic witness is agreed that “flesh and blood have not revealed this” to Peter. John’s emphasis on the role of the Spirit in his gospel would certainly be aided by this tradition—and the surface contradiction certainly serves no good purpose for John. On the other hand, the parable of Lazarus in Luke 16 contrasts with the raising of a Lazarus in John 11: if the synoptic gospels were known to John would the author be so blatantly midrashic as to turn the suggestion of resurrection (in Luke) into a reality, just to prove that Jesus was right when he declared that even if Lazarus were raised form the dead, no one would believe?

²⁷See Wallace, “John 5, 2” for a detailed discussion.

²⁸Yet even here, one detects elements of primitivity: e.g., John refers to Jesus as “Messiah” (4:25), and even has the Pharisees ask John the Baptist, in rapid succession, whether he was the Christ or whether he was the prophet (1:19-21). The two would be kept distinct only from the Jews’ perspective, not from the Christians’.

²⁹In Paul, except for one reference in Philippians (3:20) and one in Ephesians (5:23), this is found only in the Pastorals (there, ten times).

³⁰Bultmann was right when he argued that only about half dozen passages in the NT, all of them in the later writings, explicitly claim that Jesus is “God.” In the Pauline corpus, Romans 9:5 might fit this (though there is a major punctuation problem), while Titus 2:13 certainly does. Outside of Paul, 2 Peter 1:1 and Heb 1:8 are the best references.

³¹Of course, these too have been questioned.

³²Further, as D. A. Carson has ardently pointed out, it is a myth to suppose that the nascent church went down a completely linear doctrinal development line. Surely certain pockets of Christianity—then, as today—could have made insights and broken new ground in their understanding of Christ and salvation which were distinct from the insights of other pockets of Christianity existing at the same time.

³³Recently, E. E. Ellis has come out very strongly for a reading of this verse in its historical context. Cf. his “Dating the New Testament,” NTS 26 (1979-80) 488-502.

³⁴Cf. Wallace, “John 5,2” 177-78.

³⁵For an exhaustive treatment of this piece of evidence, cf. Wallace, “John 5,2” 177-205.

³⁶Cf. Guthrie, 274-75 and F. F. Bruce, “St. John at Ephesus,” BJRL 60 (1978) 339-61.

³⁷As a sidenote, this is very much in keeping with John’s personality: while Peter lifts Paul up to his status (2 Peter 3:15-16), John submits himself to the authority of the men appointed by Paul! (One other point is worth mentioning here: although Tenney wants to read οἶδα μέν for οἴδαμεν in John 21:24, not only do no MSS divide the letters this way [though the early MSS made no word divisions at all], but the idiom of οἶδα followed immediately by μέν is unparalleled in the NT.)

³⁸ Though D. A. Carson seeks proof in his translation of John 20:31 that this gospel was written to Jews, viz., “that you may believe that the Christ is Jesus” (instead of “that Jesus is the Christ”). Cf. D. B. Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 46-47, for a critique of this view on grammatical grounds.

³⁹(1) Externally, the three earliest witnesses read this; (2) internally, (a) the participle in the second ἵνα-clause is present (πιστεύοντες), though it obviously has as its antecedent this verb (and since John shows almost a pedantic care for his verb tenses [cf., e.g., the antithetical parallel in 4:13-14], this strengthens the case for the present tense); and (b) a careful reading of this gospel reveals that πιστεύω in the aorist tense is often less than saving faith (cf. 2:23; 4:48), while πιστεύω in the present, or imperfect, or perfect tense almost always, if not always, involves saving faith (cf. 1:12; 3:15, 16, 18, 36; 5:24; 6:35, 47; but cf. 20:29 [aorist] which immediately precedes this verse).

⁴⁰Hypotyposes, cited in Eusebius, HE 6.14.7.

⁴¹A view more and more scholars are contending for. Cf. a decent bibliography in D. A. Carson, “Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel: After Dodd, What?”, in Gospel Perspectives: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels 2:113, 141-142.

⁴²This reading of 2 Peter 1:15 makes such perfectly good sense to me that one might wonder why NT scholarship has not picked it up. Perhaps the reason is that only in recent years has an early date for John been found as a viable option—and further, only among the most conservative scholars (i.e., those who would hold to authenticity of 2 Peter) could this possibility even be seen. It must be stressed that this is not crucial to my understanding of the occasion of this gospel, for I have held to this view of the occasion for several years, but only recently “stumbled upon” this reading of 2 Peter 1:15.

⁴³See especially Dodd’s The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel for hellenistic parallels.

⁴⁴See especially E. F. Scott, The Fourth Gospel, its Purpose and Theology.

⁴⁵Most likely, the means by which John was able to be so steeped in Pauline thought was through an amanuensis who had some associations with Paul. This, too, is in keeping with patristic testimony, for there is a stream of tradition which suggests that John dictated this gospel, or employed the assistance of others in its composition.

⁴⁶One of the possible objections to this scenario is the probability that Timothy was already in Ephesus as an apostolic delegate. However, not only would this be no hindrance to an apostle coming to take charge, but Timothy was no longer in Ephesus in 65 CE, as seems to be implied in Heb 13:23 (a book which I date c. 65-66), for Timothy is about to be released from his Roman imprisonment at this time.

⁴⁷Actually, there are remarkable parallels between Luke and John, especially in the passion and resurrection narratives. But it is not sufficient to argue for direct literary dependence on the part of either author, though there is the strong possibility that Luke was privy to “snippets” of the Johannine material prior to publication. For the gospels as a whole, however, Mark has the closest parallels to John.

⁴⁸It would be too much to say that John entirely rewrote his Gospel with his Gentile audience in mind, for there is much in the Gospel which seems to have come from a primitive diary. As well, there are many “uncorrected” Semitic-like phrases and expressions which certainly speak of historical authenticity, but would do nothing for the audience ultimately targeted for this work. On the other hand, it is quite possible that John’s circle was small, even though he was an apostle. The emphasis in his Gospel, more than in any other gospel, is on the development of certain key characters. He draws out stories which are either skipped or severely truncated by others. He leaves out material which lacks “human interest.” This may well indicate how John normally conducted his ministry, viz., in small groups (cf. two of his epistles—to individuals). If so, then the Johannine circle would necessarily be small by design and would not in any way reflect on the apostle’s popularity or effectiveness.

More could be said about the likelihood of John’s mentoring methods. Our hypothesis is that he was not a major verbal influence in the early church, though he was certainly well-respected (so Gal 2:1-10). Further, his influence would have been felt deeply, but not widely; and he would have likewise not have been influenced significantly by other church leaders after a certain period, at least concerning the formation of the euangelion (the last time he appears in Acts is in chapter 15, c. AD 49, several years before any gospel was produced). Analogies abound to show that this is not at all un unreasonable hypothesis—e.g., well-respected faculty members whose views do not influence colleagues but who have their own following. The evidence for this reading of John is largely inferential, but the cumulative force of it is fairly strong:

• Within John’s Gospel, the evangelist focuses on human interest and deep character development of just a few individuals.
• “The disciple whom Jesus loved” illustrates a one-on-one mentoring relationship that may have served as a model for the rest of his life.
• At least two out of three of John’s letters are written either to individuals or to very small congregations. This percentage is unparalleled in relation to the rest of the NT letters, or even of early patristic letters.
• That 2 John and 3 John took some time to gain acceptance into the canon suggests that the scope of John’s ministry was not normally very wide. Although the argument that they were not initially accepted because of their size is very popular, parallels with Philemon show that this in itself is an insufficient base. Parallels with Jude would be better, except for the fact that Jude was not nearly as prominent as either John or Paul in nascent Christianity. What best accounts for John’s letters as not being quickly accepted is that the author is both the apostle himself and the apostle John did not often have a wide scope to his ministry.
• John apparently never speaks on his own in either the gospels or in Acts; he is always accompanied by Peter or James.
• The early church records may hint at John’s mentoring skills in that a linear descent is traced from John through Polycarp to Irenaeus. It is interesting that this record is so particularized—and equally that it is relatively unparalleled for the rest of the apostles.

⁴⁹We adopt the textual variant at 1:34 as original.

⁵⁰In the synoptic accounts, just before Jesus is brought wine and then dies, he cries out the words of Psalm 22:1. But in John’s account, he says, “I am thirsty.” In our view, these are both the same utterance, John merely packaging it differently to fit his motif of spiritual thirst. The one who thirsts in this gospel is the one who is in need of salvation, one who is devoide of the Spirit, one who is a sinner and under the judgment of God. Although the synoptics are certainly closer to the ipsissima verba of Jesus, both the words of Psalm 22:1 and “I am thirsty” mean the same thing, because for Jesus to address the Father as “My God” is to refer to him as his Judge, and to say “I thirst” is to say (in Johannine terms) “I stand in the place of the sinner.”

⁵¹Although one of the two major sections of this gospel (“the book of signs”—1:19–12:50) involves seven miracles, it is doubtful that John intended to outline his book around them (since there are two groups of two which are virtually juxtaposed: 4:46-54 with 5:1-18; and 6:5-14 with 6:16-21). There are three other, equally good groupings possible: (1) theologically: around the seven “I AM” sayings (yet two of these occur in the upper room discourse [14:6; 15:1]); (2) chronologically: each year of ministry, as seen in the references to the Passover (2:13; 5:1?; 6:4; 11:55); the problem with this is the oblique reference in 5:1 (if this really is a flag, why is the evangelist not more explicit?); and (3) geographically. In our approach, as with Mark and Luke, a geographical outline yields the most satisfactory results, though once again there are a number of problems with this approach. One of the problems with outlining ancient documents is our modern and western way of viewing things—especially in our deductive layout. Another problem is that themes and motifs are repeated throughout so that there are several concentric circles of ideas overlapping with one another throughout a book, giving a tremendous literary impression coupled with an amorphous organization. A third problem is that the author is both using sources and is tied to history which governs, to a large extent, how he shapes his material. All of these factors contribute to difficulty in outlining.

⁵²It is possible to organize this section completely on a geographical basis, but the repetition of the theme of Jewish unbelief, after each round of demonstrations of Jesus’ Messiahship, seems to reveal the evangelist’s theological aims more clearly.

⁵³The next pericope, 7:53–8:11 is not original to the gospel of John and seriously disrupts the flow of argument (cf. D. B. Wallace, “Reconsidering ‘The Story of the Woman Taken in Adultery Reconsidered,’” New Testament Studies  39 [1993] 290-96, for internal arguments on the inappropriateness of this pericope here).

I. Introduction

A. The Title

The inscription “The Acts of the Apostles” probably reaches back to the beginning of the second century CE, since it is found in virtually every MS which contains this book, as well as the anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke (c. 150-80 CE). Although it has been suggested that the wholly anarthrous title Πράξεις ᾿Αποστόλων could be read “Some of the Acts of Some of the Apostles,” this is really quite artificial to the Greek sense.¹ Suffice it to say, the title is only partially accurate, for only Peter and Paul figure predominantly in this book for reasons which should become clear when we consider the purpose/occasion of writing.

B. The Author

2. External Evidence

Attestation of Lukan authorship is found in the Muratorian Canon, the anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Eusebius, and Jerome. These all not only affirm authorship of the Acts by Luke, but Lukan authorship for the book which bears his name, too. Thus the external evidence is both unanimous and early. “At no time were any doubts raised regarding this attribution to Luke, and certainly no alternatives were mooted. The tradition could hardly be stronger . . .”² As with Mark, this unanimous tradition is all the more surprising if it were not true since Luke was not an apostle, nor even closely associated with one of the twelve. Caird makes the interesting observation:

Not all the traditions of the early Church are to be accepted at their face value, but there are good reasons for accepting this one. . . . a book which was meant for publication must have borne its author’s name from the start. In this respect the literary conventions of the first century were stricter than ours, which allow an author to hide behind a pen-name. Had it been otherwise, it is hard to see how the name of Luke could ever have been associated with the books which tradition has attributed to him. Luke can scarcely be described as a prominent figure in the annals of first-century Christianity.³

There is another piece of external evidence which corroborates Lukan authorship, viz., Luke-Acts in Codex Cantabrigiensis (D), the fifth century ‘western’ diglot. Studies done on the singular readings of D (by G. E. Rice, E. J. Epp, etc.) show that it had certain theological tendencies. Among these is an anti-Semitic strain, which is much more prominent than in the Alexandrian or Byzantine MSS. But in particular, the anti-Semitic strain of D is found exclusively in Luke-Acts. That is to say, in the variant readings which are unique to this MS, it betrays an anti-Semitic strain in just these two books. What is to account for this? Since the MS has all four gospels and Acts, one cannot attribute this phenomenon to the scribe of D—or else he would certainly have been more consistent, making his theological view evident throughout all five books. Nor can we attribute this to Luke himself, for the western text is decidedly inferior and secondary to the Alexandrian, in spite of its antiquity.⁴ If the theological slant of D in Luke-acts is not due to Luke himself, nor to the scribe(s) of D, it most likely was created by an earlier scribe who copied only Luke and Acts and did not have the other gospels under the same cover. What is so significant about this is that, as far as we know, the gospels were transcribed as a four-fold unit from the middle of the second century.⁵ This would mean that the ancestor of D who copied Luke and Acts in all probability did so before 150 CE. Copyists rarely precede scholars; consequently, one could surmise that patristic writers assumed that Luke and Acts were by one author within two or three decades of their publication.⁶

3. Internal Evidence

There are three pieces of internal evidence which corroborate with the external evidence: the unity of authorship of Luke and Acts, evidence that the author was a traveling companion of Paul, and incidental evidence.⁷

a. Unity of Authorship of Luke and Acts⁸

There are five arguments which Guthrie uses to show common authorship:

(1) Both books are dedicated to the same man, Theophilus; (2) Acts refers to the first treatise, which is most naturally understood as the gospel; (3) the books contain strong similarities of language and style; (4) both contain common interests; (5) Acts naturally follows on from Luke’s gospel . . . It may safely be concluded that the evidence is very strong for linking the two books as the work of one man, a conclusion which few modern scholars would dispute.⁹

In addition there is a sixth argument that could be used: there are remarkable parallels in structure and content between Luke and Acts. To take but one example, “not only is Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem parallel to that of Paul, but also the events that take place when the two men reach the city, and after, are similar.”¹⁰ Talbert’s conclusion (which assumes unity of authorship) is that “the conclusion seems irresistible. This architectonic pattern which has Gospel and Acts correspond in content and in sequence at many points is due to deliberate editorial activity by the author of Luke-Acts.”¹¹ The point is that the architectonic structure of Luke-Acts is so beautifully executed that to deny common authorship is to attribute as much genius to a second, anonymous writer (of Acts) as one should of the first writer (who wrote the gospel).¹²

b. Evidence that the Author was a Companion of Paul

The “we” passages in Acts (16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1–28:16), prima facie, suggest a companion of Paul. On this supposition, this particular companion

(1) first joins Paul at Philippi [sic: Troas]; (2) reappears on Paul’s return visit to Philippi; (3) accompanies the apostle on the journey towards Jerusalem and stays with Philip at Caesarea, and (4) after Paul’s two years’ imprisonment at Caesarea, during which time there are no definite data regarding the author’s whereabouts, accompanies Paul to Rome and experiences shipwreck with him. It would also mean that the author could not be any of those companions of Paul who are mentioned by name in these sections (Silas, Timothy, Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius, Tychicus, Trophimus).¹³

c. Indirect Evidence in Support of Lukan Authorship

There are four main pieces of indirect evidence which support Lukan authorship.

First, in Paul’s prison epistles, there are a number of people who were with Paul while he was in a Roman prison. There is a definite probability that the author of Luke-Acts was one of them. Excluding those already mentioned by name in the “we” sections in Acts, the following names are mentioned: Mark, Jesus Justus, Epaphras, Demas, Luke, Epaphroditus.

Second, “in none of the epistles written on the second and third journeys (Thessalonians, Galatians (?), Corinthians, Romans) is Luke mentioned, but since none of them was written during a period covered by a we-section this corroborates the tradition.”¹⁴

Third, according to Col. 4:10 and Philemon 24, Luke and Mark were in close contact with one another. Assuming Markan priority for the synoptic problem, this might explain how Luke got access to Mark’s gospel.¹⁵ But there is more: Acts also betrays a ‘Markan flavor’ in the first few chapters.

Fourth, Col. 4:14 calls Luke ‘the beloved physician.’ In 1882 W. K. Hobart wrote his celebrated The Medical Language of St. Luke in which he argued that where Matthew and Mark use common, everyday terms, Luke often used medical terms in describing Jesus’ healings. This, however, was challenged by H. J. Cadbury almost four decades later (1920),¹⁶ who pointed out that Luke’s language was no different than that of any educated person.¹⁷ As Caird quips, if we should now appeal to Hobart’s tome, “this would make doctors of almost all the writers of antiquity . . . ”¹⁸ Nevertheless, one should admit that Luke’s terminology is compatible with an educated person, and that a physician would fit this picture well. Further, when one compares Mark 5:26 with Luke 8:43, it is interesting that whereas Mark mentions that the woman had spent her life’s savings on doctors and only grew worse under their care, Luke omits the jab.

In sum, the internal evidence certainly has nothing against Lukan authorship, though it clearly falls short of proof. This is all the more reason to accept Lukan authorship, for this is the unanimous testimony from the fathers: “Granted that an ancient scholar might have deduced from the prologue to the Gospel that the author was not an apostle and from the ‘we’ sections of Acts that he was a companion of Paul, he still would have had no means of putting a name to the author if there had not been a valid tradition connecting the books with the name of Luke.”¹⁹

Assuming that Luke penned the gospel which bears his name, and the book of Acts, what do we know about him (apart from his occupation)? First, he was probably a Gentile since he is mentioned separately from the “men of the circumcision” in Colossians 4.²⁰ Second, he may have been from Troas for the ‘we’ sections in Acts begin there.²¹ Beyond this there is very little information within the NT. However, the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke (found not infrequently attached to Latin MSS of the gospel) adds some interesting information: (1) Luke was a native of Antioch, (2) he wrote the gospel in Achaea, (3) never married, (4) and died at age 84 in Boetia. since the same source adds other, extremely doubtful information, all of the above is suspect as well.²²

4. Arguments against Lukan Authorship

There are principally three arguments against Lukan authorship.

a. Historical Discrepancies

Many have pointed out apparent discrepancies between Paul’s biographical notes in his Hauptbriefe and other secure epistles with the information about Paul given in Acts. Three alleged discrepancies are particularly striking: (1) the number of visits Paul made to Jerusalem given in Acts and that given in Galatians,²³ (2) the make-up of the converts in Thessalonica,²⁴ and (3) Paul’s attitude toward the OT Law.

Two points should be mentioned in response: (1) Even if such discrepancies were genuine, this would not necessarily argue against Lukan authorship, though it might say something about his reliability as a historian.²⁵ (2) All of the alleged discrepancies are capable of alternative explanations, thus rendering them “an insecure basis for rejecting the tradition.”²⁶

b. Different Interpretations of the “We” Sections

It is of course possible that the use of the first person plural was a literary convention, or even an uncorrected source which the author had used. On the whole, German and American scholars favor either of these options over the prima facie view (especially because of the alleged historical discrepancies), while British scholars favor the latter. Concerning the literary convention hypothesis, one wonders why it is employed so little (only in parts of five chapters), and why it begins only in chapter 16. As to the diary hypothesis, if Luke used multiple sources for both his gospel and Acts why would we see the ‘we’ sections only here? Surely he received many first person reports (both written and oral) for the composition of both books.²⁷ This view suggests that he was careful to change the first person plural all the way through both Luke and Acts until Acts 16! Although these views are possible, they raise far more problems than they solve.

c. Theological Difficulties

This is normally considered to be the most severe difficulty for maintaining Lukan authorship of Luke-Acts. There are two main difficulties to be dealt with: (1) Paul’s solution to the problem of the OT law;²⁸ and (2) the speeches attributed to Paul in Acts.²⁹

(1) A superficial reading of Acts suggests that the Paul of Acts is different from the Paul of the epistles in his handling of the OT law. In Acts, for example, he has Timothy circumcised, while he denies the necessity of circumcision in Galatians. But two pieces of data must be kept in mind here: (a) the reason for Timothy’s circumcision in Acts was related to evangelistic opportunity, while in Galatians he is opposed to circumcision for those who wish to rest on it as essential for salvation. Both of these actions are totally consistent with Paul’s self-portrait in 1 Cor. 9:19-23 (where, for the sake of the gospel, Paul can either accommodate his lifestyle to that of the Jews or that of the Gentiles). (b) The purpose of Acts is different than the purpose of the epistles. Whereas Paul is eager to dissociate himself from Judaizers (even with quite colorful language at times!), Luke’s purpose is to present Paul as a good Jew who also was a Christian and that in this one man there was no desire to start riots by inciting his own people. Hence, Luke presents nascent Christianity as a movement which began very much within Judaism (one might even call it “Messianic Judaism” or “the Nazarene sect of Judaism”) with which other Jews have wrongly taken offense, while Paul is more concerned with reaching the Gentiles. This different perspective/purpose is nicely spelled out by Longenecker:³⁰

Undoubtedly there are differences between the Paul of his own letters and the Paul of his “biographer,” and undoubtedly Pauline Christianity and early Jewish Christianity were distinguishable entities. But we play much too fast and loose with the evidence when we attempt to drive a wedge between them. Paul writes as an evangelist and pastor to his converts, affirming the essentials of his message within a context of personal humility, whereas Luke writes as an historian and admirer of the apostle, with a sense for the historical unfolding of the gospel and a desire to highlight the heroic. While we must ask for a body of agreement in the respective portrayals, we cannot reasonably call for identity in details or uniformity in viewpoints.³¹

(2) Paul’s speeches in Acts do not sound like his letters. Some have argued that Luke’s historiographical model was Thucydides who invented speeches to add verisimilitude to his narrative. However, this assertion neither does justice to Thucydides nor to Luke. A careful reading of Thucydides’ statement³² reveals that he did not invent speeches ex nihilo, but occasionally summarized or put in his own words what was said on specific occasions. Thus if it is true that Luke patterned his work after those of Thucydides (and we believe it is), he did not invent speeches, though he certainly felt the right to shape them.³³ Still, what is remarkable is that several of the speeches, especially those of Peter and James, have strong verbal parallels with the epistles alleged to be by the same authors (1-2 Peter and James).³⁴ Further, although most of Paul’s speeches in Acts show little resemblance to his epistles, the one speech given to believers (in Acts 20) does.³⁵

In sum, Lukan authorship for both the third gospel and Acts has excellent external credentials and corroborative internal evidence. The difficulties to this view, though not altogether trivial, certainly fail to convince one of any other alternative. Indeed, it is precisely because there are theological and historical difficulties between Acts and Paul that the argument for Lukan authorship is the most plausible: what later writer (for those who deny Lukan authorship all put Luke-Acts late), who had access to Paul’s letters, would create so many discrepancies in the portrait of his hero, the apostle Paul?³⁶

C. Date

A number of factors and presuppositions affect the date of this book. Among the most important are: (1) authorship; (2) the solution to the synoptic problem; (3) whether the Olivet Discourse was truly prophetic or a vaticinium ex eventu; and especially (4) evidence internal to the book of Acts (i.e., not related to the gospel per se). Though most scholars date the book c. 80-90, our conclusion is that it should be dated substantially earlier.

(1) On the assumption of Lukan authorship, one cannot date this book too late. That is to say, since Luke was certainly an adult when he joined Paul in his second missionary journey,³⁷ he would have probably thirty to fifty years to have written this work. However, apart from F. C. Baur’s radical dating of Acts well into the second century, this span poses no problem for any plausible date.

(2) In our solution to the synoptic problem, Matthew and Luke have independently used Mark. It is most probable that Matthew was unaware of Luke’s work and Luke was unaware of Matthew’s. If so, then both were probably written at around the same time. If Matthew is dated c. 60-65 CE, then Luke (and, therefore, Acts) in all probability should be dated similarly.³⁸

(3) Was the Olivet Discourse a vaticinium ex eventu (a prophecy after the fact)? It is safe to say that the assumption that it was is the single most important reason for overturning an early date (pre-70) for Luke-Acts (as it was for Matthew and Mark). We have dealt with this in our discussion of Matthew’s date and simply need to summarize our two points here: (a) only a denial of the possibility of predictive prophecy on the lips of Jesus would necessitate a late date; (b) the synoptic gospels are both vague and imprecise in their prophecies assuming that those prophecies were fulfilled in the Jewish War, but if there is more to come, and if the Olivet Discourse was given before 66 CE, then the discourse makes sense.

(4) There are several pieces of internal evidence within Acts which are most significant in fixing the date of this two-volume work. Guthrie lists six,³⁹ of which the last is the most significant.

(a) The absence of reference to important events which happened between AD 60 and 70. The fall of Jerusalem (66-70), the persecution of Christians by Nero (64), and the death of James by the Sanhedrin (62) are not mentioned. On this last point, it is a significant silence, for “no incident could have served Luke’s apologetic purpose better, that it was the Jews not the Romans who were the real enemies of the gospel.”⁴⁰

(b) The primitive character of the subject-matter. In particular, “the Jewish-Gentile controversy is dominant and all other evidence apart from Acts suggests that this was a vital issue only in the period before the fall of Jerusalem.”⁴¹

(c) The primitive nature of the theology. Terms such as “the Christ,” “disciples,” “the Way,” and the reference to the first day of the week for the time when Christian met together to break bread, all imply primitiveness.

(d) The attitude of the state towards the church. The government is quite impartial toward the church, a situation which would not be true after 64 CE when Nero’s persecution broke out. It is significant that Luke ends this book by saying that the gospel was able to spread “unhindered” (ἀκωλύτως).

(e) The  relation of Acts to the Pauline epistles. Luke shows no awareness of Paul’s literary endeavors. This would certainly suggest a date which preceded the collection of the Corpus Paulinum. Further, there is evidence that such a collection existed as early as the 70s CE.⁴² In the least, this suggests that the purpose of Acts was not to reinstate Paul’s letters, as some have suggested.

(f) The absence of reference to the death of Paul. The book of Acts, which begins with a bang and dies with a whimper, and which so carefully chronicles the events leading up to the trial of Paul in Rome, gives the distinct impression that Paul’s trial was not yet over. In other words, it is very doubtful that this book was written after 62 CE. Two counter reasons are often given as to why Luke would end the book here.

[1] He did not want to mention the trial’s outcome. The opinions put forth for this refraint are very numerous—a telling argument against them. Some argue that it would put too much emphasis on the man rather than on his mission; that it would hint at a parallel with the death of Christ, which would be inappropriate; that the readers knew the rest of the story and hence Luke did not need to go on; etc. As Guthrie remarks, “It is not sufficient, on the other hand, to propose a theory of the author’s intention without supplying an adequate motive for the intention, and it may be questioned whether this condition has been fulfilled.”⁴³

[2] Luke intended to write a third volume. This was the view of Spitta, Zahn, Ramsey, and W. L. Knox. It is based on the use of πρῶτος in Acts 1:1—a word which, in classical Greek, indicated “first of at least three.” That it does not do so in hellenistic Greek is quite evident from the data supplied in BAGD; further that Luke does not use the superlative as a true superlative is evident from his discussion of the first census of Quirinius in Luke 2:2: scholars have had enough trouble trying to locate two censuses of Quirinius, let alone three! Further, even if Luke did use πρῶτος as a true superlative on occasion, why would he break his three-volume work here? This explanation seems a quite desperate expedient.⁴⁴

All in all, that Acts ends where it does is a great embarrassment to those who do not maintain a pre-64 date. Robinson, who bases much of his Redating the New Testament on an early (62) date of Acts, argues ably for this view.⁴⁵ In particular, he points out that Adolph von Harnack, “whose massive scholarship and objectivity of judgment contrast with so many who have come after him,” is still worth quoting precisely because “on this subject he was forced slowly and painfully to change his mind.”⁴⁶ Two snippets from Harnack’s The Date of Acts⁴⁷ will have to suffice: “Throughout eight whole chapters St. Luke keeps his readers intensely interested in the progress of the trial of St. Paul, simply that he may in the end completely disappoint them—they learn nothing of the final result of the trial!” “The more clearly we see that the trial of St. Paul, and above all his appeal to Caesar, is the chief subject of the last quarter of Acts, the more hopeless does it appear that we can explain why the narrative breaks off as it does, otherwise than by assuming that the trial had actually not yet reached its close. It is no use to struggle against this conclusion.”

At the same time, one has to ask how much later Acts was than the gospel. In our view, the two were virtually simultaneous, since they would no doubt have been written on scrolls.⁴⁸ Customarily, the longest usable scroll was about thirty-five feet. Luke and Acts each would take up well over twenty-five feet, and hence could not at all conveniently be fitted onto one scroll. This fact, coupled with the internal continuity between the two books,⁴⁹ strongly suggests that they were meant to be read virtually as a single document, written at almost the same time, bearing the same purpose(s).⁵⁰

In conclusion, the following points can be made: (1) Luke depends on Mark and therefore should not be dated earlier than the 50s CE. The date of Mark, then, provides the terminu a quo for the date of Luke-Acts. (2) Luke neither knew of Matthew’s work, nor Matthew’s of Luke’s. If Matthew is dated c. 60-65, then Luke-Acts was probably written within the same time frame. (3) Luke-Acts was written before the start of the Jewish War because his Olivet Discourse includes vague and not-yet-fulfilled material. (4) Acts is to be dated c. 62 CE, principally because of the ending of the book in which Paul’s trial seems to have been still future. Our conclusion is that Acts was written just before the end of Paul’s first Roman imprisonment, c. 61-62 CE.

D. Destination

Both the gospel and Acts are addressed to one Theophilus. He is called “most excellent” (κράτιστε), a term usually indicating some sort of government official, or at least high social rank.⁵¹ It is possible to view the name as symbolic (“lover of God,” or “loved by God”), as if the real addressee needed to be incognito for some reason. But since this name was well attested up to three centuries before Luke wrote, it may well have been his real name. If Theophilus was a Roman official, then he certainly was a Gentile, and the contents of this gospel, as well as the Acts, bear eloquent testimony of a Gentile readership.⁵² As we shall see in our discussion of the purpose of Acts, Theophilus was not only a Roman official (in all likelihood), but also was in Rome.

Although Luke-Acts is addressed to Theophilus, something must be said for the probability that Luke intended to  have this work published and consequently envisioned an audience broader in scope than one man. His prologue to both the gospel and Acts emulates so much the ancient historians’ prefaces that it is quite evident that he wanted the work published. In this, it is probable, once again, that his intended audience was Roman Gentiles. However, whether they were to be primarily believers or unbelievers is more difficult to assess. In fact, whether Theophilus was a believer or not is difficult to assess!⁵³ The key issue is the meaning of κατηχήθης (“of what you have been informed” or “of what you have been taught”; from κατηχέω) in Luke 1:4. The term can refer either to Christian instruction (Acts 18:25; Gal. 6:6) or simply information, even a negative report (Acts 21:21, 24). Thus, even in the key term there is an impasse. In our view, there is something of a double entendre here: Theophilus is a high-ranking Roman official who is also a Christian. If his name is symbolic, then this is almost certainly the case.⁵⁴ But since he seems to be a government official, then he has been “informed” about Christianity. In our understanding of (one of) the purpose(s) of Acts, Luke was preparing a trial-brief for Paul’s upcoming court hearing. In this case, Luke would certainly want a Roman official who was as sympathetic as he could be, κατηχήθης, then, seems to indicate that Luke wanted to set the record straight about the origins of Christianity (thus, information) while “Theophilus” suggests that this particular recipient had been more than informed—he had believed.⁵⁵

E. Occasion and Purpose

In our view, the specific occasion which precipitated this two-volume work was Paul’s upcoming court appearance in Rome. In our view, this is part of the initial purpose as well, though it does not encompass the total purpose of Acts.

Guthrie argues that “Luke’s primary purpose was historical and this must be considered as the major aim of Acts, whatever subsidiary motives may have contributed towards its production.”⁵⁶ Yet, Guthrie quickly adds five alternatives to the purpose of Acts (a narrative of history, a gospel of the Spirit, an apology, a defense for Paul’s trial, and a theological document [either written to address the triumph of Christianity or the delay of the parousia]).⁵⁷

Yet not all would even agree with Guthrie’s basic premise that the primary purpose was historical in a general sense, the real tension concerning the purpose of this work is between history and apologetic. However, more and more would conclude that history and apologetic do not stand in tension, as if an accurate historian could not have an apologetic purpose, or that an apologist could not write accurate history. It has long been recognized that the historical positivism of Ernst Troeltsch of last century is passé—that is, that no history was ever written from an unbiased motive. If this is the case, then to charge Luke with an apologetic motive is not to deny his being an accurate historiographer.

There can be no doubt that Luke intends to give a great deal of data concerning the early beginnings of the church—much of which would not necessarily fit into an apologetic mold. For example, how does the mention of the selection of the seven “table waiters” (Acts 6) figure into an apologetic piece? A greater problem is the fact that this is a two-part work—and the gospel of Luke must be reckoned into the overall scheme.

Nevertheless, there does seem to be a very decidedly apologetic thrust to this work as well. Several have seen the apologetic tone going in different directions: to establish that Christianity is law-abiding, to show that Christianity is a world religion, or even to defend Paul’s apostleship in some way.

It is our contention that Acts is both historical and apologetic, that Luke wrote the work both for Theophilus (as an apologetic piece) and for secondary readers (both for apologetic and historical reasons). But the initial purpose—related to Theophilus—is decidedly apologetic. Specifically—and initially⁵⁸—Acts was written to be a trial brief for Paul. The evidence is as follows:

1. The beginning of Luke, in which Theophilus is addressed as “excellent” (κράτιστε). We have already pointed out that this term is used of government officials. But there is more: the vocative is used almost universally in the papyri only in petitions, as far as my own cursory research reveals (an examination of the first two volumes on the papyri in LCL). If this is the case here, then a petition is implied in Luke-Acts, even though none is stated.

2. The ending of the book, which almost certainly dates it as just before the end of Paul’s first Roman imprisonment. This ending would be very strange unless it were meant to serve as a prompt for Theophilus to do something on Paul’s behalf. The date of Acts and the reasons for the book ending here are the most compelling reasons to see this work as in some sense a trial brief for Paul. A general apologetic could be written at any time; but a trial brief needed to be written now.

3. The mention of Paul being under house arrest for “two years” in Acts 28:30. Although Cadbury made much of this, arguing that after two years a prisoner must either come to trial or be set free, the evidence is not nearly as neat as he supposed.⁵⁹ Nevertheless, one could appeal to the Roman law of a “speedy trial.” The point may be that Luke is reminding Theophilus that Paul’s case is about to be heard and that his defense needs to be prepared. Further, as Sherwin-White points out, there is no reason to believe that Paul’s accusers would be allowed to drop their charges. They had to prepare the best case they could. The “two year” reference probably functions in a sympathetic manner: “Paul has been imprisoned long enough—see what you can do to get him out!”

4. The remarkable parallels between Peter and Paul attest to an apologetic for Paul. Even Guthrie admits that “the history before the narrative of Paul’s life and work is somewhat scrappy and gives the impression that the author’s purpose is to get to Paul as soon as possible.”⁶⁰ C. H. Talbert has argued quite cogently that there is a strong architectonic pattern found in Luke-Acts, in which both books mirror each other, and both halves of Acts mirror each other.⁶¹ The reason for this seems to be that Peter was already accepted by Theolophilus as a legitimate apostle while Paul needed credentials. Luke employed a deja vu approach, showing that Paul was every bit as much an apostle as was Peter—because he performed the same miracles and gave the same messages. Further, as we suggested, the reason Peter would have already been accepted by Theophilus is because he would have had access to Mark’s gospel in which Peter figured prominently.

5. Coupled with the remarkable parallels between these two great apostles is the fact that the last comment about Peter (apart from his message in Acts 15) is his release from certain death in Acts 12 (the narrative then picks up on Paul’s missionary journeys). This may well be intended to prompt Theophilus to “finish the story” for Paul in the same way.

6. Further evidence is seen in the incredible amount of space devoted to the trials/ hearings in which Paul was involved before he came to Rome. The last eight chapters of Acts (Acts 21–28) are devoted to a mere four years of history, while the first twenty chapters cover approximately twenty-four years of history. The material is more than twice as compact because it now focuses on Paul’s trials and material which would be useful in proving his innocence.

7. The use of πρῶτον in Acts 1:1 might be a literary device similar to the ending of Mark (at 16:8), making the work open-ended. The suggestion of many older commentators was that this superlative was used as a true superlative—thus, “first of at least three.” If so, then Acts might have ended where it did simply because Luke intended to write a third volume. We have already discussed this view and found it wanting. However, a modification of it has some attractiveness to it: Could it be that Luke intended Theophilus to “write the third volume”—that is, do what he could to see that Paul’s ministry continued? Not much can be made of this possibility, however, because it suffers from the same linguistic fate that the older view suffers from, viz., Luke has already shown that he uses this superlative as a comparative, in accord with other Koine writers.

8. Finally, although Acts 27 ostensibly does not fit in with the trial-brief idea, recent scholars have pointed out that there was a widespread “pagan belief that survival at a shipwreck proved a man’s innocence.”⁶²

Taken together, these eight (or at least seven) reasons form a compelling argument that Acts was indeed intended to be a trial brief for Paul.

At the same time, one criticism should be mentioned here: If Acts is really intended (in part) to be a trial brief for Paul, then how does Luke fit into this picture? Since both works really belong together, the purpose of Acts is seemingly the purpose of Luke-Acts. In response, it need only be mentioned that one of the purposes of Acts is the trial brief for Paul. It is true that Luke does not neatly fit into this purpose, though it does fit into the broader picture of apologetic of Christianity before the Roman government. The occasion for Acts necessitated the publication of Luke, but it did not thereby dictate the purpose of Luke.

F. Theme

The theme of Acts is intrinsically bound up with its purpose. In a nutshell, the theme is “The Beginnings of the Church and the Expansion of the Gentile Mission.”

II. Argument

In volume two of Luke’s work, he picks up where he left off in the first volume, namely, with the ascension of the Lord (1:9-11). But he begins with a prologue (1:1-2) similar to that in the first volume. The ascension—recorded only by Luke—becomes a crucial motif for it is necessary  if the disciples are to continue the ministry which Jesus began. That is why Luke refers to volume one as detailing what “Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up into heaven” (1:1-2a).

After this brief prologue, the body of the work commences. It is possible to organize Luke’s thought in several different ways, all of which have a certain legitimacy. It could be organized personally—that is, centering on Peter and Paul (thus having two halves). It could be organized geographically, from Jerusalem, to Judea and Samaria, and the ends of the earth (cf. 1:8) (thus having three sections). Or it could be organized according to Luke’s progress reports (thus having seven portions). The reason for this variety has to do with Luke’s varied purposes. His work is both historical and apologetic. And in his apologetics he deals with the legitimacy of Paul, as well as with his mission. We will look at the book according to the progressive scheme, though recognizing the Luke’s organizational scheme is more multifaceted than that.

In the progressive approach, there are seven units of thought, or “books.” In Book One, Luke touches on the birth of the Church in Jerusalem (1:1–2:47). Immediately, he gives us a glimpse of one of his organizational schemes, for the birth of the Church parallels the birth of Christ. This can further be seen in that at Jesus’ baptism, while he is praying, the Spirit descends in a physical form and while the disciples are praying, the Spirit again descends in a physical form. Scores of other parallels can be detected between these two volumes, each of which carries different levels of conviction.⁶³ although these are significant sub-motifs, in our view they are not the overarching control. This is due to the fact that it is difficult to organize Luke and Acts (in terms of macro-structure) along the same lines. Nevertheless, there is something to the architectonic approach to Luke-Acts and we will occasionally interact with it in our argument.

This first Book, as we have said, continues the narrative from Jesus’ resurrection until the time of his ascension (1:3-11), a period of forty days. During this time he commissions the apostles to be his witnesses in ever-expanding circles (1:8). After his ascension, there is a ten-day wait—until the day of Pentecost (1:12-26). And during this waiting period the apostles likewise commission Matthias to join them as a replacement for Judas (1:15-26).

When the day of Pentecost came the apostles were all together (2:1). The Spirit descends on them (2:1-13) like individual flames of fire (2:2-3). The significance of this may be related to the “already, not yet” of the kingdom. When the Spirit descended on Jesus at his baptism, coupled with the heavenly voice declaring him to be God’s Son, this seemed to be an enthronement of sorts (similar to the use of the enthronement Psalms in the OT [cf. especially Psalm 2:7!] and the motif of the Spirit abiding on the king [cf. Psalm 51]), thus inaugurating the kingdom. Before Jesus’ ascent into heaven, the question heaviest on the apostles’ minds was, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” (1:6). Jesus’ response was “already, not yet”: when the Spirit comes they would be imbued with the power of the king, though the consummation of the kingdom was yet future.

God was surely doing a new work on the day of Pentecost. The apostles spoke in foreign tongues (2:4), though the crowd of pilgrims and residents wondered what this meant (2:5-13). Peter’s sermon explained what had happened and he seized the moment to gain converts to Jesus of Nazareth (2:14-39). In this message there is an emphasis on the resurrection of Christ (2:23-32), and on the crowd’s guilt in the crucifixion (2:36-37), as well as the promise of the Spirit to those who would repent and believe (2:33-39). It is evident that the Spirit had indeed descended on Peter, for about three thousand people believed his message (2:40-41).

Book One concludes with the first progress report, after summarizing the unity and growth of the nascent Church (2:42-47a): “And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved” (2:47b).

Book Two now deals with the expansion of the Church in Jerusalem (3:1–6:7). Luke arranges the material in an A B A B pattern. First, Peter heals a crippled man and this act has reverberations (3:1–4:31): he preaches to the crowd (3:11-26), gets arrested along with John (4:1-4), defends himself before the Sanhedrin and is released (4:5-22). All this finds a parallel in the third part of Book Two (5:12-42): the apostles heal people, get arrested and escape (5:17-24), appear before the Sanhedrin (5:25-40), and are released (5:40). Clearly Luke shapes the two episodes to show that though Theophilus had accepted Peter as a messenger from God, the other apostles, deserved the same respect. Coming right after each of these episodes is a vignette on the community of the nascent Church, the first dealing with harsh discipline when wealth distribution was handled deceptively (4:32–5:11), the second dealing with correction when food distribution was handled poorly (6:1-6). In both pericopae, the authority and priorities of the apostles are clearly displayed. Book Two concludes with the summary statement, “So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith” (6:7). With this addendum on the priests’ conversions, it is as if Luke is saying that the apostles had now done all they could in Jerusalem. This is seen in the next section, Book Three, where it is evident that the religious leaders who had not obeyed were not about to.

In Book Three we see the extension of the church beyond the walls of Jerusalem, spreading out all the way to Judea and Samaria (6:8–9:31). This book focuses on three non-apostles: Stephen, Philip, and Saul. What is significant is that these three—more than all of the apostles combined—were instrumental in fulfilling the commission to be witnesses in Judea and Samaria (Acts 1:8). Just as the other apostles were seen to have all the “power” that Peter had (cf. Acts 1:8a), so these non-apostles were seen to be “witnesses” (cf. Acts 1:8b) every bit as much as the twelve. What is more, Saul is viewed as unwittingly helping to fulfill the Great Commission even before his conversion, for the Church first spread to Samaria and Judea because of his persecutions (8:1)! This Book’s purpose, then, is to foreshadow both the full apostolic status of Paul and his superiority over all the rest of the original apostles in carrying out the mandate of Acts 1:8.

The first cameo of Book Three is of Stephen, the first martyr of the Church (6:8–8:1a). Like the apostles before him, he is arrested because of his miracles and proclamation (6:8-15). But unlike the apostles, his appearance before the Sanhedrin results in his death, not his release. In his defense (7:2-53) he outlines the nation’s history (with a focus on the patriarchs, Moses and David) up until their murder of “the Righteous One” (7:52), thus paralleling Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost. Although Stephen was thus every bit as much a witness as was Peter,⁶⁴ the response to him was different. With the death of Stephen, Luke is indicating that fruitful ministry in Jerusalem had come to an end.

The transition to the second cameo, that of Philip (8:1b-40), is via Saul (8:1): because of his role in Stephen’s death and subsequent role in persecuting the Church, Philip and others “were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria” (8:1). Philip, like Stephen, performed miracles and proclaimed Christ (8:4-8). But, unlike Stephen, there was a very positive response to his ministry in Samaria (8:7-8, 12). But not every response was positive. Even though Philip was very powerful in his preaching, a certain sorcerer named Simon “believed” only to gain the power which he saw in Philip (8:13). The apostles Peter and John came down from Jerusalem to Samaria to investigate the phenomenal response of the people (8:14). They laid hands on them, causing them to receive the Spirit (8:15-17). Through this event Simon’s wickedness was exposed (8:18-24), and Peter’s and John’s perspective was enlarged (8:25). Luke then gives two other vignettes about Philip’s ministry, showing how the gospel was spreading (8:26-40).

Saul’s conversion concludes this third Book (9:1-30). Luke spends much time telling his audience about Saul’s conversion (it is rehearsed three times in the book of Acts), with a special emphasis on the revelation of the risen Lord to Saul (9:4-5) as well as the Lord’s disclosure to Ananias that Saul had truly converted and would be the “chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles” (9:10-15). Thus Saul is seen not only to have a remarkable conversion experience, but also from the first to be the one who would exemplify the mandate of Acts 1:8.

Book Three, which began with an expanding church because of persecution now concludes with the words, “Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria enjoyed a time of peace. It was strengthened and encouraged by the Holy spirit and it grew in numbers, living in the fear of the Lord” (9:31).

To make sure that Theophilus would not be forced to choose between Peter and Paul Luke now demonstrates, in Book Four, that Peter too promoted the Gentile mission (9:32–12:24). But it was not just Peter who promoted this; it was the Lord himself. Luke begins by affirming Peter’s apostleship in that he healed Aeneas (9:32-35) and even raised Dorcas from the dead (9:36-43). While in Joppa (where Dorcas had been raised), Peter saw a vision of unclean animals descending from heaven accompanied by a voice which bid him to kill and eat (10:8-23a). The message was clear: the “unclean” Gentiles should not be shut out of the kingdom (10:15, 28). Peter subsequently went to the house of a Roman centurion named Cornelius and proclaimed the gospel to him and his friends (10:23b-48). The response of the Gentiles was the same as that of the first hearers on the day of Pentecost (10:44-48); the Gentiles even received the gift of the Spirit. Peter was thus convinced that the Gentile mission was from God.

Not only did Peter have to be prepared for the Gentile mission; the Jerusalem church did, too (11:1-18). Since Peter was recognized by all as a legitimate spokesman for God, his recounting of what happened at Cornelius’ house was enough to convince the Jewish believers.

Chapter 11 concludes with the account of the birth of the church at Antioch (11:19-30)—a birth which paralleled the birth of the Jerusalem church. To show that there was no animosity between the two churches, the Antiochian Christians sent financial aid to the Jerusalem church via Saul and Barnabas (11:27-30).

Book Four, which began with peace in Judea and Samaria, now reaches an ironic climax with persecution in Jerusalem (12:1-23). This time, rather than Saul, Herod is the one persecuting the church. First, he executes James (12:1-2), then arrests Peter (12:3-19). But Peter miraculously escapes (12:6-11) and Herod dies (12:20-23). This is the last we see of Peter in his evangelistic efforts.⁶⁵ The stage is thus set for the comparison and contrast with Paul, the man with whom the rest of Acts is concerned. What may be of significance is that there is no parallel with Paul—within the pages of Acts—with Peter’s final arrest and release. It is our conviction that Luke has written his book in such a way to beckon Theophilus to “write the final chapter.”

Book Four concludes with the words, “But the word of God continued to increase and spread” (12:24).

The Fifth Book addresses the extension of the Church to Asia Minor, but might just as properly be called “The Book of the Establishment of Paul’s Apostleship” (12:25–16:5). Here we begin to see the deja vu pattern emerge once again. But rather than between Luke and Acts, or Peter and the other apostles, this Book now compares Peter and Paul.

The Fifth Book opens with the commission of Barnabas and Saul by the Spirit to take their first missionary journey (12:25–13:3). Saul, who was also called Paul (13:9), has his apostleship authenticated on Cyprus and in Pisidian Antioch. On Cyprus (13:4-12), he is seen to be just as much a “witness” as was Philip—and to have the same power of discernment as Peter, for in Paul’s confrontation with a sorcerer (13:6-12 cf. 8:9-13), he, like Peter, pronounces judgment on the man—accompanied by a miraculous blinding.

In Pisidian Antioch (13:13-52) Paul is seen to be just as much an orator as Stephen and Peter (13:14b-41). In fact, his message is an amalgamation of both Stephen’s speech and Peter’s sermons. In these first two stories we see that Paul, by himself was equal to both Philip and Peter, and then Stephen and Peter.

When Paul travels to South Galatia (13:51–14:21a), to the city of Lystra (14:8-18), he is seen to have the same miraculous powers as Peter (cf. 3:1–4:31). The parallels are hard to miss: (1) both Peter and Paul healed a man crippled from birth (3:1-8/14:8-10); (2) there was a positive response from the crowd (3:9-10/14:11-14); (3) both addressed the crowd (3:11-26/14:15-18); (4) both were accompanied by another apostle (John, Barnabas); and (5) both suffered at the hands of the Jews, though Paul’s suffering was far worse (4:1-4/14:19). Clearly, Paul was just as much an apostle as was Peter.⁶⁶

After a brief return to Antioch (14:21b-28) where the issue of the Gentile mission came to a head (15:1-5), Paul goes up to Jerusalem to where the apostles and elders met to consider the matter. Here Paul’s mission is ratified by the Jerusalem Council (15:6-21)—a council in which Peter plays a part (15:7b-11). Paul and Barnabas are selected as letter-bearers (15:22), and are to bring the good news of the Council’s decision back to Antioch and elsewhere. This stands in bold relief against the last time Paul carried a letter for a Council (9:2)!

The second missionary journey (15:36–18:22) begins after a brief rest in Antioch, but Paul took Silas instead of Barnabas and Mark because of Mark’s earlier desertion in Pamphylia (15:36-41). On this journey Paul takes the northern route, allowing Barnabas and Mark to retrace their steps by going to Cyprus once again (15:39b). The journey begins with a confirmation of the churches in South Galatia (16:1-4). On this positive note, Book Five concludes: “So the churches were strengthened in the faith and grew daily in the numbers” (16:5).

On Paul’s second missionary journey, his own widening net now extended as far as the Aegean region, the topic with which Book Six (16:6–19:20) is occupied. Having established that Paul was an authentic apostle and that his message was ratified by Peter himself, Luke now concentrates especially on the historical side to his tome. There is no dichotomy between the history and apologetic of Luke, but the emphasis now is on the former, while through Book Five it was on the latter. Still, there are parallels to be seen between Paul and Peter even here (cf. e.g., Paul’s vision to come to Macedonia [16:8b-10] with Peter’s vision of accepting “unclean” Gentiles [10:8-23]; the twelve disciples of John in Ephesus speaking in tongues when they receive the Spirit [19:1-7] with the twelve apostles speaking in tongues on the day of Pentecost when they receive the Spirit [2:1-4]; etc.).

Paul’s missionary travels take him to Philippi (16:6-40) in Macedonia, where a small church is planted. Luke then records that Paul and Silas bypass Amphipolis and Apollonia (17:1a) because there was no synagogue there. This becomes a motif throughout the rest of Acts: Paul consistently went to the Jews first and then the Gentiles, even till the very end (28:17-28). Yet, equal to this motif, is Jewish hostility wherever the apostle went.

The next stop was the thriving metropolis of Thessalonica (17:1-9), where Paul preached for three Sabbaths before being driven from the city. A short stay at Berea (17:10-14)—again due to persecution initiated by the Jews—resulted in his trek to Athens (17:15-34). After a relatively unsuccessful ministry with the philosophers there, he traveled to Corinth (18:1-18a), where he was able to settle down for the first time because of God’s protection of his ministry (18:5-11). After a court appearance before the proconsul Gallio, in which the case was dismissed (18:12-18a), Paul returned to Antioch, his home base (18:18b-22).

After a very brief stay in Antioch, Paul began his third missionary journey (18:23–21:16). He had left Priscilla and Aquila, two of his co-workers, in Ephesus on his return trip to Antioch. Now he returned to Ephesus, by way of the South Galatian region (18:23). Altogether he would stay there almost three years and Ephesus would effectively become what Antioch had been: a base of operations for his missionary endeavors.

Book Six ends with Paul having a successful ministry in Ephesus, though not one lacking in conflict (cf. 19:8-9a, 11-19). but because of a final victory over one opponent, namely, the occult, “the word of the Lord spread widely and grew in power” (19:20).

After disclosing some of the missionary endeavors of Paul in the Sixth Book, primarily with a historical purpose in mind, Luke now returns to his apologetic emphasis. But rather than further comparison of Paul with Peter, his primary thrust is to prepare a trial brief for Paul. Since Theophilus was apparently an influential Roman official, and one who had had at least a sympathetic ear toward Christianity, especially in its Petrine forms,⁶⁷ he needed to have as much information at his disposal which would be helpful in court.

Book Seven (19:21–28:31) provides just such information. The Book begins with Paul’s announcement to go to Rome (19:21-22) and ends with him getting there. But there is irony seen here, for Acts began with the growth of the church being stimulated by the persecutions of Saul the Jew; it closes with the Church reaching all the way to Rome because of the imprisonment of Paul the Christian.

A riot at Ephesus over the adverse impact Paul’s gospel was having on idolatry (19:22-41) provides the catalyst for Paul to move on. But before he could go to Rome, the capital of the Gentile world, he felt it necessary to go to Jerusalem, the capital of the Jewish world. Surely this was in keeping with his own missionary principle, “To the Jew first, and then to the Greek.”

The journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16) involves a circuitous route in which Paul comforted his converts along the way. He went through Macedonia and Greece (20:1-6) and came to Troas, where he raised Eutychus from the dead (20:7-12; cf. 9:36-43). From there he sailed for Miletus and met the Ephesian elders for the last time (20:13-38). From Miletus Paul traveled to Tyre (21:1-6) and then to Caesarea (21:7-14). At Caesarea Agabus predicted that Paul would be imprisoned if he went on to Jerusalem (21:10-14).

Agabus’ prophecy came true. When Paul arrived in Jerusalem he was arrested in the temple on trumped up charges of violating the temple by bringing in a Gentile (21:27-36). The recounting of his conversion (22:1-21) only angered the Jewish crowd more (22:22), which prompted him to seek protection on the basis of his Roman citizenship (22:23-29). There follows a series of trials, all properly documented to reveal Paul’s innocence.

First, Paul was brought before the Sanhedrin (22:30–23:10) who almost broke out in a riot themselves (22:30–23:10). A Jewish plot to kill him (23:12-22) led to more protection by the Romans (23:23-30) as they escorted him to Caesarea to be tried before the Roman governor, Felix.

Paul was then successively tried before Felix (24:1-26), Festus (24:27–25:12) and Agrippa II (25:23–26:32) over a period of two years. Ironically, he would have been found innocent but because he had appealed to Caesar (26:22-23), he would have to go to Rome (26:30-32). Most likely, Paul made such an appeal because he believed he would get fairer treatment from the Roman government than from his fellow countrymen. Throughout Acts, in fact, Luke seems to embrace the same position.

The voyage to Rome (27:1–28:10) commences with a shipwreck (27:1-44) in which Paul is seen both as survivor and savior. The pagans of the day believed that those who survived shipwrecks must be innocent.⁶⁸ Whether or not Theophilus held to this superstition, it could certainly come in handy in the trial.

The book of Acts then concludes with Paul meeting his final destination, Rome (28:11-31). Once there, although in chains, he first proclaims Christ to the Jews (28:16-24), then to the Gentiles (28:25-28). Book Seven ends with Paul imprisoned for two years (28:30), though “Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ” (28:31). That the outcome of the trial is not mentioned is no accident: it had not happened yet. But like Peter’s angel in chapter 12, Luke wants Theophilus to do what he can to get Paul out of prison that the gospel might continue to spread. After all, the Gentiles “will listen” (28:28).

Thus in a masterful series of Seven Books, Luke has not only shown how the Church grew from its humble beginnings, but he has also vindicated both Paul’s apostleship and his innocence. His literary labors to get Paul free were successful: the apostle to the Gentiles was released; he ministered for three more years and wrote three more epistles before his beheading by Nero in the summer of 64 CE.

III. Outline⁶⁹

I. Book One: The Birth of the Church in Jerusalem (1:1–2:47)

A. Prologue (1:1-2)

B. Anticipation: From Resurrection to Pentecost (1:3-26)

1. From Resurrection to ascension: Christ’s Forty Day Ministry (1:3-11)

a. The Apostles’ Commission (1:3-8)

b. The Ascension (1:9-11)

2. From Ascension to Pentecost: The Apostles’ Ten Day Wait (1:12-26)

a. Praying in the Upper Room (1:12-14)

b. Selecting a Replacement for Judas (1:15-26)

C. Realization: The Day of Pentecost (2:1-41)

1. The Descent of the Spirit (2:1-13)

a. The Response of the Apostles: Speaking in Tongues (2:1-4)

b. The Reaction of the Crowd (2:5-13)

2. The Proclamation of Peter (2:14-39)

a. Introduction: Fulfillment of Prophecy (2:14-21)

b. Body: Jesus Is the Messiah (2:22-39)

1) Proof: Miracles (2:22-32)

a) During His Life (2:22)

b) After His Death: Resurrection (2:23-32)

2) Promise: Holy Spirit (2:33-39)

3. The Response of the Crowd (2:40-41)

D. Conclusion of Book One (2:42-47)

II. Book Two: The Expansion of the Church in Jerusalem (3:1–6:7)

A. A Healing by Peter and Its Consequences (3:1–4:31)

1. The Healing of a Man Crippled from Birth (3:1-8)

2. The Response of the Crowd (3:9-10)

3. The Message of Peter (3:11-26)

4. The Arrest of Peter and John (4:1-4)

5. Peter and John before the Sanhedrin (4:5-22)

a. Peter’s Defense (4:5-12)

b. The Debate in the Sanhedrin (4:13-17)

c. The Release of Peter and John (4:18-22)

6. The Thanksgiving of the Saints (4:23-31)

B. Community and Discipline (4:32–5:11)

1. The Sharing of All Possessions (4:32-37)

2. The Deception of Ananias and Sapphira (5:1-11)

C. Healings by the Apostles and their Consequences (5:12-42)

1. Healings of the Apostles, Responses of the Crowds (5:12-16)

2. The Arrest and Escape (5:17-24)

3. The Apostles before the Sanhedrin (5:25-40)

a. The Sanhedrin’s Rebuke (5:25-28)

b. The Apostles’ Defense (5:29-32)

c. The Debate in the Sanhedrin (5:33-39)

d. The Release of the Apostles (5:40)

4. The Rejoicing of the Apostles (5:41-42)

D. Community: Distribution and Administration (6:1-6)

E. Conclusion of Book Two (6:7)

III. Book Three: The Extension of the Church to Judea and Samaria (6:8–9:31)

A. Stephen’s Martyrdom (6:8–8:1a)

1. His Arrest (6:8-15)

2. His Defense (7:1-53)

a. The High Priest’s Question (7:1)

b. Stephen’s Response (7:2-53)

1) The Patriarchal Age (7:2-8)

2) The Nation in Egypt (7:9-19)

3) The Rejection of Moses by the Nation (7:20-39)

a) Moses’ Early Years (7:20-29)

b) Moses’ Call by God (7:30-34)

c) The Nation’s Rejection in the Wilderness (7:35-39)

4) The Rejection of the Nation by God (7:40-43)

5) The Tabernacle and the Temple (7:44-50)

6) The Rejection of Christ by the Nation (7:51-53)

3. His Death (7:54–8:1a)

B. Philip’s Ministry (8:1b-40)

1. Setting: the Persecution by Saul (8:1b-3)

2. Philip in Samaria (8:4-25)

a. The Activities of Philip (8:4-8)

b. The Response of Simon (8:9-13)

c. The Coming of Peter and John (8:14-25)

1) The Reception of the Spirit by the Crowd (8:14-17)

2) The Wickedness of Simon the Sorcerer Revealed (8:18-24)

3) The Return of the Apostles to Jerusalem (8:25)

3. Philip and the Ethiopian on the Road to Gaza (8:26-39)

4. Philip on the Coast of Palestine (8:40)

C. Saul’s Conversion (9:1-30)

1. Setting: On the Road to Damascus (9:1-2)

2. The Conversion of Saul on the Road (9:1-9)

3. The Coming of Ananias in Damascus (9:10-19)

4. The Confrontations with the Jews in Damascus (9:20-25)

5. The Coming of Saul to Jerusalem (9:26-30)

D. Conclusion of Book Three (9:31)

IV. Book Four: The Extension of the Church to Antioch (9:32–12:24)

A. The Preparation of Peter for the Gentile Mission (9:32–10:48)

1. Peter in Western Judea: With Aeneas and Dorcas (9:32-43)

a. In Lydda: The Healing of Aeneas (9:32-35)

b. In Joppa: The Raising of Dorcas (9:36-43)

2. Peter in Caesarea: With Cornelius (10:1-48)

a. Cornelius’ Vision: Send for Peter (10:1-7)

b. Peter’s Vision: Receive the Gentiles (10:8-23a)

c. Peter at Cornelius’ House (10:23b-48)

1) Setting (10:23b-27)

2) Recounting of Peter’s Vision (10:28-29a)

3) Recounting of Cornelius’ Vision (10:29b-33)

4) Peter’s Message (10:34-43)

5) The Gentiles’ Response (10:44-48)

a) Gift of the Spirit (10:44-46)

b) Water Baptism (10:47-48a)

c) Fellowship (10:48b)

B. The Preparation of the Leaders of the Jerusalem Church for the Gentile Mission (11:1-18)

1. The Accusation of the Jewish Believers (11:1-3)

2. The Explanation of Peter (11:4-17)

a. Recounting of Peter’s Vision in Joppa (11:4-10)

b. Recounting of Peter’s Visit to Cornelius in Caesarea (11:11-16)

c. Recognition of the Legitimacy of the Gentile Mission by Peter (11:17)

d. Response of the Jewish Believers (11:18)

C. The Preparation of the Church at Antioch for the Gentile Mission (11:19-30)

1. The Birth of the Church in Antioch (11:19-21)

2. The Response of Jerusalem to Antioch: The Sending of Barnabas (11:22-24)

3. Barnabas and Saul at Antioch (11:25-26)

4. The Response of Antioch to Jerusalem: The Sending of Barnabas and Saul (11:27-30)

a. The prophecy of Agabus: Worldwide Famine (11:27-28)

b. The Poverty of the Judean Churches: A Collection Taken (11:29-30)

D. Herod’s Persecution of the Church at Jerusalem (12:1-23)

1. The Martyrdom of James by Herod (12:1-2)

2. The Arrest of Peter by Herod (12:3-19)

a. The Arrest and Imprisonment (12:3-5)

b. The Angel and Escape (12:6-11)

c. The Response of the Church (12:12-16)

d. The Withdrawal of Peter (12:17)

e. The Reaction of Herod (12:18-19)

3. The Death of Herod (12:20-23)

E. Conclusion of Book Four (12:24)

V. Book Five: The Extension of the Church to Asia Minor (12:25–16:5)

A. The Commission of Barnabas and Saul at Antioch (12:25–13:3)
[Paul’s First Missionary Journey (13:4–14:28)]

B. The Mission of Barnabas and Paul In Asia Minor (13:4–14:28)

1. Cyprus (13:4-12)⁷⁰

a. From Antioch to Seleucia to Cyprus (13:4)

b. On the Island of Cyprus (13:5-12)

1) At the Synagogue in Salamis (13:5)

2) At Paphos: Confrontation with Bar-Jesus the Sorcerer (13:6-12)

2. Pisidian Antioch (13:13-52)

a. From Paphos to Perga in Pamphylia: John Mark’s Departure (13:13)

b. From Perga to Pisidian Antioch (13:14a)

c. In Pisidian Antioch (13:14b-52)

1) Paul’s Message on the Sabbath (13:14b-41)

a) Setting (13:14b-15)

b) Introduction (13:16)

c) Body (13:17-37)

1] Preparation for Christ in the OT (13:17-22)

2] Proclamation of Christ to the Hearers (13:23-37)

d) Application (13:38-41)

2) Initial Jewish Response to Paul’s Message (13:42-43)

3) Later Gentile Response and Jewish Opposition to Paul’s Gospel (13:44-50)

3. South Galatia: Iconium, Lystra, Derbe (13:51–14:21a)

a. In Iconium: Jewish and Gentile Response (13:51–14:5)

b. In Lystra and Derbe (14:6-21a)

1) From Iconium to Lystra and Derbe (14:6-7)

2)  A Healing in Lystra (14:6-18)

a) The Healing of a Man Crippled from Birth (14:8-10)

b) The Response of the Crowd (14:11-14)

c) The Message of Paul and Barnabas (14:15-18)

d) The Stoning of Paul (14:19)

3) Escape to Derbe (14:20-21a)

4. Return to Antioch (14:21b-28)

C. The Council at Jerusalem Concerning the Gentile Mission (15:1-35)

1. The Occasion: Judaizers in Antioch (15:1-5)

2. The Meeting of the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem (15:6-21)

a. The Setting (15:6-7a)

b. Peter’s Message (15:7b-11)

c. Barnabas’ and Paul’s Testimony (15:12)

d. James’ Concluding Thoughts (15:13-21)

3. The Council’s Letter to Gentile Believers (15:22-35)

a. The Selection of Barnabas and Paul as Letter-Bearers (15:22)

b. The Contents of the Letter (15:23-29)

c. The Response in Antioch (15:30-35)

D. The Confirmation of the Churches in Asia Minor (15:36–16:4)
[Paul’s Second Missionary Journey [15:36–18:22]

1. The Dispute between Paul and Barnabas over John Mark (15:36-41)

a. The Desire to Return (15:36)

b. The Discussion over John Mark (15:37-39a)

c. Barnabas and Mark Depart for Cyprus (15:39b)

d. Paul and Silas Depart for Tarsus (15:40-41)

2. In South Galatia (Derbe, Lystra): Timothy Joins Paul and Silas (16:1-4)

E. Conclusion of Book Five (16:5)

VI. Book Six: The Extension of the Church to the Aegean Area (16:6–19:20)

A. Philippi (16:6-40)

1. Throughout the Phrygian-Galatian Region (16:6)

2. To Troas in Mysia (16:7-8a)

3. Paul’s Vision: Come to Macedonia (16:8b-10)

4. Troas to Samothrace to Neapolis to Philippi (16:11)

5. In Philippi (16:12-40)

a. The Conversion of Lydia (16:12-15)

b. The Exorcism of a Slave Girl (16:16-18)

c. The Conversion of a Philippian Jailer (16:19-34)

1) Paul and Silas Arrested (16:19-24)

2) An Earthquake: Shackles Released (16:25-28)

3) The Response of the Jailer (16:29-34)

d. The Release of Paul and Silas (16:35-40)

B. Thessalonica (17:1-9)

1. Through Amphipolis and Apollonia (17:1a)

2. In Thessalonica (17:1b-9)

a. Paul’s Proclamation in the Synagogue (17:1b-3)

b. The Conversion of Some Jews and Greeks (17:4)

c. The Hostility of other Jews (17:5-9)

C. Berea (17:10-14)

D. Athens (17:15-34)

1. Discussion in the Agora (17:15-18)

2. Dispute on the Areopagus (17:19-34)

a. Paul’s Message (17:19-31)

b. The Athenians’ Reaction (17:32-34)

E. Corinth (18:1-18a)

1. With Aquila and Priscilla: Tentmaking and Preaching (18:1-4)

2. With Silas and Timothy: Eighteen Months of Ministry (18:5-11)

3. Before Gallio (18:12-18a)

F. Return to Antioch (18:18b-22)

1. From Cenchrea to Ephesus to Caesarea (18:18b-22a)

2. Arrival in Antioch (18:22b)

G. Ephesus (18:23–19:19)  [Paul’s Third Missionary Journey (18:23–21:16)]

1. Return to the Galatian-Phrygian Region (18:23)

2. Apollos in Ephesus: Forerunner to Paul (18:24-28)

a. Apollos’ Arrival in Ephesus (18:24)

b. Apollos’ Instruction by Aquila and Priscilla (18:25-26)

c. Apollos’ Departure for Corinth (18:27-28)

3. In Ephesus (19:1-19)

a. With Twelve Disciples of John (19:1-7)

b. In the Synagogue of the Jews (19:8-9a)

c. In the Lecture Hall of Tyrannus (19:9b-10)

d. In Conflict with the Occult (19:11-19)

H. Conclusion of Book Six (19:20)

VII. Book Seven: The Extension of the Church to Rome (19:21–28:31)

A. The Plan Announced (19:21-22)

B. The Riot in Ephesus (19:22-41)

1. The Accusations by the Silversmiths (19:22-27)

2. The Demonstration in the Theater (19:28-34)

3. The Quieting of the Mob by the Town Clerk (19:35-41)

C. The Journey to Jerusalem (20:1–21:16)

1. Through Macedonia and Greece (20:1-6)

2. In Troas: The Raising of Eutychus (20:7-12)

3. From Troas to Miletus (20:13-17)

4. In Miletus: Farewell Message to the Ephesian Elders (20:18-38)

a. Paul’s Message (20:18-35)

b. The Elders’ Response (20:36-38)

5. From Miletus to Tyre (21:1-6)

6. From Tyre to Caesarea (21:7-14)

a. Staying with Philip (21:7-9)

b. The Prediction of Agabus (21:10-14)

7. Arrival at Jerusalem (21:15-16)

D. Paul In Jerusalem (21:17–23:30)

1. The Meeting  with James and the Elders (21:17-26)

2. The Arrest of Paul in the Temple (21:27-36)

3. The Address of Paul to the Crowd (21:37–22:21)

a. The Request to Speak (21:37-40)

b. Recounting His Conversion (22:1-11)

c. Recounting His Call (22:12-21)

4. The Disclosure of Paul’s Roman Citizenship (22:22-29)

5. Paul before the Sanhedrin (22:30–23:10)

a. Confrontation with the High Priest (22:30–23:5)

b. Dispute over the Resurrection (23:6-10)

6. Night Vision of the Lord (23:11)

7. The Plot to Kill Paul (23:12-22)

a. The Plot by the Jews (23:12-15)

b. The Revelation to the Romans (23:16-22)

8. The Protection of the Romans (23:23-30)

a. Protection provided (23:23-24)

b. Cover-Letter Written (23:25-30)

E. Paul in Caesarea (23:31–26:32)

1. A Roman Escort to Caesarea (23:31-35)

2. The Trial before Felix (24:1-26)

a. Accusations of the Jews (24:1-9)

b. Defense of Paul (24:10-21)

c. Adjournment by Felix (24:22-23)

d. Intermittent Interviews by Felix (24:24-26)

3. The Trial before Festus (24:27–25:12)

a. Felix Replaced by Festus (24:27)

b. Arrival of Festus in Jerusalem (25:1-5)

c. Paul before Festus: Appeal to Caesar (25:6-12)

4. Consultation of Festus with Agrippa II (25:13-22)

5. Paul before Agrippa (25:23–26:32)

a. The Briefing by Festus (25:23-27)

b. The Defense by Paul (26:1-23)

1) Introduction (26:1-3)

2) The Jewish Hope of Resurrection (26:4-8)

3) Paul’s Persecution of Christians (26:9-11)

4) Paul’s Conversion (26:12-18)

5) Paul’s Commission to the Gentiles (26:19-20)

6) Paul’s Arrest in Jerusalem (26:21)

7) Concluding Appeal (26:22-23)

c. Interchange between Festus, Paul and Agrippa (26:24-29)

d. Paul’s Innocence and the Irony of his Appeal to Caesar (26:30-32)

F. The Voyage to Rome (27:1–28:10)

1. The Shipwreck (27:1-44)

a. Setting (27:1-12)

1) From Caesarea to Myra (27:1-5)

2) From Myra to Fair Havens in Crete (27:6-8)

b. Warnings of Imminent Shipwreck (27:9-26)

1) The Season: After the Day of Atonement (27:9a)

2) Paul’s Warning (27:9b-12)

3) The Storm (27:13-20)

4) Paul’s Vision (27:21-26)

c. The Shipwreck on Malta (27:27-44)

1) A Foiled Escape by the Sailors (27:27-32)

2) A Last Meal on Board (27:33-38)

3) The Ship Runs Aground (27:39-41)

4) All Safe Ashore (27:42-44)

2. On Malta (28:1-10)

a. Paul’s Snake Bite (28:1-6)

b. Paul’s Miracles (28:7-10)

G.  Paul In Rome (28:11-31)

1. Arrival at Rome (28:11-16)

2. Paul’s Proclamation to the Jews (28:16-24)

3. Paul’s Proclamation to the Gentiles (28:25-28)

H. Conclusion of Book Seven (28:30-31)

---

¹In particular, Apollonius’ Canon and its corollary suggest that (1) in Greek, normally both the nomen regens and the nomen rectum either have the article or lack it; and (2) when both lack it, the sense is still usually definite for both (hence, “The Acts of the Apostles”).

²Guthrie, 114. For more arguments on Lukan authorship based on external evidence, cf. our discussion of Luke.

³G. B. Caird, Saint Luke, 16-17.

⁴Cf. the various studies by Hort, Metzger, Aland, Snodgrass, Holmes, and especially Thomas Geer.

⁵So B. M. Metzger, personal conversation (March 1989); cf. also his The Canon of the New Testament and The Text of the New Testament.

⁶Although ancillary to this paper, this conclusion also helps to establish the Western text as very early—going back deep into the second century (contra Aland-Aland, Text of the New Testament).

⁷See Guthrie for an expanded treatment, 115-19. This section is merely a distillation of Guthrie’s arguments.

⁸For an additional piece of (external) evidence for common authorship, cf. the last paragraph in our discussion of external evidence.

⁹Guthrie, 115-16.

¹⁰C. H. Talbert, Literary Patterns, Theological Themes and the Genre of Luke-Acts, 17. Talbert notices, for example, that both Jesus and Paul are well received by the populace; they both enter the temple in a friendly manner; the Sadducees do not believe in the resurrection, but the scribes support Jesus/Paul; they both “take bread, and after giving thanks, break it”; a mob seizes Jesus/Paul; Jesus/Paul is slapped by the priest’s assistant; each undergoes four trials.

¹¹Ibid., 23. Although we would affirm this statement of Talbert, there is one caveat: Talbert goes on to suggest that Luke created much of his material, while we would argue instead that he selected and arranged it. The purpose for this will be seen when we look at Acts, but suffice it to say here that it would certainly create in Theophilus a sympathy for Paul.

¹²This can be further seen in that the gospel itself displays an incredible internal structure, as does Acts. Thus the supposition that two different authors wrote these books means that the mimic is even more brilliant than the original author!

¹³Guthrie, 116.

¹⁴Ibid., 117.

¹⁵This is doubtful, however, since only in c. 60 would Luke have met Mark, if Mark had been in Rome since the mid-50s. Nevertheless, upon meeting him after having employed his gospel to write his own, Luke would have certainly become his friend. Luke’s favorable attitude toward Mark—not just personally but as a reliable source on the life of Jesus—might be implied in his calling Mark an “assistant” (ὑπηρέτης) in Acts 13:5. “Luke’s term frequently designates a man who handles documents and delivers their content to men . . .” (Lane, Mark, 22). Lane goes on to mention Acts 26:16 where Paul is appointed as a ὑπηρέτης and witness to the truth, and Luke 1:1-2 where “the evangelist links the servants [ὑπηρέτης] of the word with those who were the eyewitnesses and guarantors of apostolic tradition.” The connection of ὑπηρέτης with both Mark and Luke’s sources suggests that Mark’s Gospel may well have been one of those sources which Luke used to compile his gospel—and one which he himself deeply appreciated.

¹⁶Style and Literary Method of Luke.

¹⁷It has been frequently quipped that Cadbury earned his doctorate by taking away Luke’s!

¹⁸Caird, Luke, 17.

¹⁹Ibid.

²⁰There is another subtle indicator of Luke’s race. In Acts 16, after the beginning of the first “we” section (16:11-17), Luke mentions that he was with Paul in Philippi up to the time that Paul cast out the evil spirit from the servant girl (v. 17—“she followed Paul and us”). Then, in 16:19, the person changes from first to third (“her owners . . . seized Paul and Silas”). In vv. 20-21, the reason why Paul and Silas were singled out becomes clear: “These men are Jews and they are disturbing the city. They advocate customs which it is not lawful for us Romans to accept or practice.” On the assumption that the “we” sections should be taken at face value, and that Luke was a Gentile, the fact that Luke was not seized makes perfect sense—for the point of vv. 20-21 has its sting in the fact that Paul and Silas are Jews. (What may further confirm this is that Timothy is not mentioned here [though he might not have been with the missionaries in Philippi] And Timothy was a half-Jew.) In the least, if one wants to deny that Luke was a Gentile, he must explain why the first person plural is used in 16:17, but is immediately switched to third person when the Philippians make their accusation against the missionaries on the basis of their race.

²¹Guthrie mistakenly says that Luke was possibly from Philippi, supposing that the ‘we’ sections start there (118-19).

²²However, more than one church father thought that Luke came from Antioch. Even codex D suggests this, for it begins the ‘we’ material at Acts 11:28!

²³We will deal with this issue in our introduction to Galatians.

²⁴We will deal with this issue in our introduction to 1 Thessalonians.

²⁵The customary approach in critical circles when faced with such discrepancies is to give the benefit of the doubt to Paul, since his material is autobiographical. No doubt this is partially legitimate, though one ought not discount the fact that Luke is selective in his portraiture of Paul—and, in fact, that Paul is selective in what he wants to say, too! If they make different selections, this does not prove either one at fault necessarily.

²⁶Guthrie, 120.

²⁷One thinks in particular of Luke 2:19 (“Mary kept all these things in her heart”), in which Luke probably used the mother of Jesus as his source for the early life of the Messiah. (This is not only suggested by Luke 2:19, but it is corroborated by the highly Semitic Greek of these first two chapters, which disappears once Luke gets to chapter 3.)

²⁸This also is a historical problem, as we saw earlier, though it is sufficiently difficult to warrant a discussion here.

²⁹There is another discrepancy (or silence) between Paul and Luke-Acts that has been bantered about at SBL meetings in recent years: the lack of a substitutionary atonement in Luke-Acts (note in particular Luke’s omitting of Mark 10:45), while Paul is quite strong on this point. It may be that either this was not the key to Christ’s death for Luke, even though he embraced it; or he may have not fully grasped its significance; or he perceived that Theophilus would not appreciate its significance (or even that it was ancillary to the thrust of Luke-Acts).

³⁰R. N. Longenecker, The Acts of the Apostles, in vol. 9 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 226. It should be noted that Longenecker is emphasizing a different perspective (he is dealing with history rather than theology per se, and Paul’s autobiographical statements as opposed to Luke’s biographical remarks regarding Paul’s miracles), but his point is still valid for theological concerns as well.

³¹Longenecker adds a helpful analogy: “The situation is somewhat comparable to Plutarch’s treatment of the members of the Roman family Gracchus in his Parallel  Lives and Appian’s depiction of these same leaders in his Civil Wars. While both wrote in the second century A.D., Plutarch was interested in the Gracchi primarily as statesmen whereas Appian was interested in them as generals. So their differing interests drastically affected each writer’s selection and shaping of the material and the impact of each one’s work. Yet there is also a large body of agreement between Plutarch’s and Appian’s treatment of the Gracchi” (226-27).

³²Thucydides I.22:1-4 is the relevant text (my translation follows): “And concerning whatever each of these men actually said, either when they were about to engage in battle or when they were already in it, the precise accuracy of what was said has proved itself difficult to remember—both for me, of what I myself heard, and regarding those things which were reported to me from other locales. But as it seemed to me that since each of these men had something especially fitting to say concerning the ever-present circumstances, by adhering as closely as possible to the general intent of what was truly said, [the speeches] were thus recorded.”

Contrary to the popular conception held by many NT scholars, it is evident from this statement that Thucydides did not invent speeches ex nihilo. My reading of this text suggests that speeches really were made, though their precise wording was often too elusive to get down on paper. Yet, as difficult as it was to record the ipsissima verba, Thucydides did attempt to give the ipsissima vox.

³³Plutarch is another parallel of one who sought to give the ipsissima vox, though not necessarily the ipsissima verba. Cf. Plutarch’s Lives: Alexander 1.1-3 (my translation follows): “In this book we are writing about the life of Alexander the king and that of Caesar, [the latter] by whom Pompey was destroyed. Because of the vast number of acts which are to be set forth, we will say nothing beforehand other than that we ask the readers not to criticize [our efforts] if we do not report everything in precise detail of their well-known deeds, but abridge most of them. For we are not writing histories but biographies. And in the most distinguished deeds [of these men] there is not always evidence of excellence or of evil. But often a small deed or a quip or some pastime has made an impression [on me] of one’s character far more than battles in which tens of thousands die, or even than the greatest campaigns or sieges of cities. Therefore, in the same way that those who paint the likenesses of one’s face and of facial features—by which one’s character is revealed—draw their picture reflecting minimally on the remaining parts [of the body]; so also one must allow us to penetrate the windows of the soul and, through these windows, to portray each life, leaving the highs and lows [of these individuals] to others.” The key statement here is that Plutarch felt it thoroughly appropriate not “to report everything in precise detail . . . but [to] abridge most of them.”

³⁴See our discussion of some of the linguistic similarities in the introduction to those books.

³⁵Guthrie writes: “The only Acts speech which bears any analogy to the situation behind the Pauline epistles is Paul’s address to the Ephesian elders at Miletus. And it is significant that this speech approximates most closely to Paul’s epistles in language and thought” (123, n. 5).

³⁶I have not seen this argument in print, though I believe it bears quite a bit of force. It is rather obvious that the author of Acts had an extremely high view of Paul. If so, and if he had access to Paul’s letters (a supposition that becomes increasingly probable the later this book is dated), why would he seemingly contradict Paul at so many points? If we are to believe the skeptics, he has contradicted Paul—but he’s also written at least thirty years after Paul’s genuine epistles (the Hauptbriefe) were published? This is a blatantly self-contradictory supposition. Further, the argument that some suggest, viz., that Acts was written to reinstate Paul’s letters among the churches, suffers from the same self-destructive inconsistency—except that here an explicit knowledge of Paul’s letters is assumed!

³⁷It is certainly doubtful that he became a physician afterwards!

³⁸This is not nearly as weighty an argument as the converse, viz., that Matthew should be dated near to the time of Luke. Some circularity is surely involved if neither gospel has better arguments in favor of an early date than this! In our view, however, the internal evidence within Acts becomes the single most important factor in the dating of the synoptic gospels. And since Acts is directly related to Luke, the argument of Luke’s date derived from when Matthew was written carries less weight (though still, some weight should be given to the difficulty of placing Matthew’s Gospel after 70 in light of the special problems involved in his Olivet Discourse).

³⁹Guthrie, 355-61.

⁴⁰Robinson, 89.

⁴¹Ibid., 359.

⁴²See our discussion of the authorship of 2 Peter for data.

⁴³Guthrie, 358.

⁴⁴There may be some merit to the suggestion, however. Luke might have intended πρῶτος to indicate a third volume—rhetorically, not literally. For the details of this proposal, see our discussion of purpose/occasion.

⁴⁵Robinson, 89ff.

⁴⁶Robinson, 90.

⁴⁷As quoted by Robinson, 89-90.

⁴⁸The codex form was not invented until the middle of the first century. Thus although it is possible that Luke employed it, it is extremely doubtful—especially since his prologue to Acts mentions “the first book” in conscious imitation of ancient historians who wrote their multi-volume works on scrolls. Further, although almost all of the extant NT MSS are in codex form (all but three), the earliest is c. 100-150 (P52), giving no help to first century practices. Finally, the vast bulk of extant second century (secular) writings is in scroll form, indicating that even though the codex might have been invented in the first century, it really did not “catch on” until the second or third. (Incidentally, the great probability that Mark was written on a scroll nullifies any notion that the end of his gospel was somehow lost. He meant to end it at 16:8.)

⁴⁹The Gospel ends with the ascension and the Acts virtually begins with it.

⁵⁰In fact, there is really no substantial reason to deny that Luke and Acts might have been sent to Theophilus at exactly the same time. That there is some transition between Luke and Acts (the repetition of the ascension) would be only natural if Luke expected the work to be copied onto two scrolls; but this repetition does not need to suggest any gap in date any more than a modern author’s initial paragraph at the beginning of , say, chapter four summarizing the conclusion of chapter three implies any interval.

⁵¹Cf. its use in Acts 23:26; 24:3; and 26:25 of the Roman governors Felix and Festus.

⁵²In particular, the exoneration at almost every turn of the Romans and the heavy blame on the Jews throughout both works, coupled with a quite universal outlook (culminating in the legitimacy of the Gentile mission of Paul—especially after repeated attempts to bring the gospel in each town first to the Jews), render this judgment certain.

⁵³Cf. the helpful discussion in Caird, Luke, 44.

⁵⁴Although Theophilus could mean “loved by God,” since the NT nowhere speaks of God having φιλέω, φιλία toward unbelievers, to call this man “loved by God” probably implies that he was a believer. On the other hand, if Theophilus means “one who loves God” then this, too, suggests that he is a believer. That Luke plays on names in his second volume (cf. Talbert’s work, and classnotes of student in Zane Hodges’ “Acts” [Dallas Seminary, 1978]) suggests that the name here is symbolic, too.

⁵⁵The issue is quite complicated and cannot be divorced from a carefully nuanced view of the multiple purposes of both Luke and Acts. One of the issues which seems to have been neglected is the amount of time Luke spends on Peter in Acts, and then parallels this with events in the life of Paul. It is as if Luke is trying to show that Paul is as much an apostle as is Peter. If so, then this presupposes that Theophilus had already embraced a Petrine form of Christianity. We will discuss this in our look at the purpose of Acts, but suffice it to say here that Theophilus is in all probability a believer, though he had had doubts about Paul.

⁵⁶Guthrie, 365.

⁵⁷See Longenecker’s treatment for an expanded list of options.

⁵⁸Again, this does not deny a more long-range perspective on the part of Luke which included a more general apologetic as well as a historical aim. Our contention, however, that the catalyst for the writing of Acts was the upcoming trial of Paul.

⁵⁹See especially A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, 108-19.

⁶⁰Guthrie, 365.

⁶¹C. H. Talbert, Literary Patterns, Theological Themes and the Genre of Luke-Acts.

⁶²Guthrie, 373. Guthrie cites D. Ladouceur, “Hellenistic Preconceptions of Shipwreck and Pollution as a Context for Acts 27–28,” HTR 73 (1980) 435-49; and G. B. Miles and G. Trompf, “Luke and Antiphon: The Theology of Acts 27–28 in the Light of Pagan Beliefs about Divine Retribution, Pollution and Shipwreck,” HTR 69 (1976) 259-67.

⁶³For the best treatment on this subject, cf. C. H. Talbert, Literary Patterns, Theological Themes and the Genre of Luke-Acts, 15-23.

⁶⁴It seems to be Luke’s intention to draw out the parallel. At the conclusion of each message, the author tells us that “they were cut to the heart” (2:37; 7:54, though a different verb is used each time). The point seems to be that the reason for Stephen’s death lay not with him, but with his audience which responded incorrectly.

⁶⁵His appearance in Acts 15 is for the purpose of sanctioning the Gentile mission. He is not there functioning as a “witness.”

⁶⁶That this reading of Acts is derived from the author’s intention can be seen by his establishment of this very motif in Acts 10–11: since the Gentiles had experienced the same thing as the Jewish believers, their faith must be just as genuine. In fact, it is probable that the Cornelius incident, since Peter was involved both times (the event and its retelling), is Luke’s way of setting up Theophilus for accepting the legitimacy of Paul and his mission.

⁶⁷See introduction for a more detailed discussion of our views.

⁶⁸See our introduction (under “Purpose”) for discussion and bibliography.

⁶⁹There are several different ways to outline Acts, all of which yield satisfactory results: (1) personally: centered on the two main apostles, Peter and Paul; (2) geographically: from Jerusalem, to Judea, to Samaria, to the ends of the earth; (3) progressively: centering on Luke’s seven “progress reports.” Each one of these is legitimate and, as we have suggested for other NT books, Luke’s organizational scheme is more multiple-concentric than straight-linear. That is to say, Luke is developing three distinct motifs all at once: the role of Peter and Paul (thus, two main sections can be detected), the expansion of Christianity according to the outline seen in Acts 1:8, and progression at certain climactic moments. The ideal way to outline this book—as with so much of ancient literature—would be to draw three overlapping circles, each of which expands concentrically as the book unfolds. Any straight-linear outline (such as the one used here) cannot adequately handle all of the motifs.

⁷⁰The outline from this point on will be geographical, focusing on Paul’s missionary journeys. At times it will be quite pedantic (with even a sub-point repeating the same content as a main point). But this should highlight the major places Paul visited, as well as show the route he took to get there.

The following material addresses issues of historical importance for Paul’s letter to the Romans. This letter is arguably the most important document of the Christian faith; it stands behind virtually all great movements of God in the last 1900 years.

I. Introduction

A. The Author

Although there is no dispute about Pauline authorship, it may be helpful to rehearse, in brief, why that is the case.

1. External Evidence

The ancient writers regularly included Romans in their list of authentic documents. Marcion, the Muratorian fragment, and a steady stream of patristic writers beginning with Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus all assume its Pauline authorship without defense.

2. Internal Evidence

“From the postapostolic church to the present, with almost no exception, the Epistle has been credited to Paul. If the claim of the apostle to have written the Galatian and Corinthian letters is accepted, there is no reasonable basis for denying that he wrote Romans, since it echoes much of what is in the earlier writings, yet not slavishly.”¹

In other words, once we adopt some letter claiming Paul as its author (on grounds which are unassailable), then we have a standard of comparison. The Corinthian letters and Galatians have been just such benchmarks of authenticity. And Romans fits in with their style and theological viewpoint; further, it poses no historical or other (e.g., ecclesiological) problems for Pauline authorship.

B. Date and Place of Origin

This epistle can be dated with relative certainty. It was written between 56 and 57 CE. Paul states in 15:26-28 that he has just completed the raising of funds for the poor believers in Jerusalem after visiting the believers in Macedonia and Achaia. This corresponds to Acts 20:1-2, identifying the time of composition as the year after Paul left Ephesus on his third missionary journey. Harrison states succinctly:

Fixed dates for the span of Paul’s labors are few, but one of them is the summer of A.D. 51, when Gallio arrived in Corinth to serve as proconsul of Achaia. After this the apostle stayed in the city “some time” (Acts 18:18). Possibly in the spring of 52 he went to Caesarea and Jerusalem, stopping at Antioch on the way back and probably spending the winter of 52 there. Presumably, his return to Ephesus was in the spring of 53, marking the beginning of a three-year ministry there (Acts 20:31). At the end of 56 he spent three months in Corinth (Acts 20:3), starting his final trip to Jerusalem in the spring of 57. When he wrote Romans the fund of the Jerusalem church seems to have been finally completed (Rom. 15:26ff.). This may indicate a date in early 57 rather than late 56 for the writing of the letter. (The fund was incomplete when Paul, on the way from Ephesus to Corinth, wrote 2 Cor. 8–9.)²

Paul was in Greece when he wrote the letter, most likely in Corinth. This is seen in two incidental comments: (1) Phoebe of neighboring Cenchrea was apparently the letter-bearer (16:1-2) and (2) Gaius, who is Paul’s host (16:23), was a prominent Christian leader at Corinth (1 Cor. 1:14).

C. Destination/Audience

Romans 1:7, 15 identify this letter as being sent to the Christians at Rome. They were predominantly Gentile believers as is evidenced by Paul’s statements to that effect in 1:5, 12-14 and 11:13. But there was probably a strong Jewish element as well because (1) the heavy use of the OT suggests this and (2) since Paul did not found this church, most likely the Jewish element would be stronger than in one of his congregations.

D. Occasion and Purpose³

The occasion and purpose are so intertwined for this epistle that they must be treated as one. Paul expressed his desire to go west all the way to Spain (15:22-24, 28). Since he had already proclaimed the gospel in the major centers in the east, it now seemed good to him to go west. But as was his custom, he needed an “emotional home,” a base of operations. Antioch had provided that in the east and Ephesus had in Asia Minor; Paul was hoping that Rome would in the west. Consequently, he wrote this letter, explaining his gospel carefully and fully, in the hopes that the Roman Christians would embrace him and it completely. Further, since his life had already been in much danger from the Jews (Acts 17:5, 13; 20:3), Paul may have sensed the need to pen his thoughts about the gospel in a systematic way, rather than due to occasional circumstances.⁴

All of the above explain why Paul wrote what he wrote to whom he wrote—except for chapters 9–11. Baur suggested that this was the heart of the epistle, while most today do not know what to do with it. Recently, Paul B. Fowler, formerly of Reformed Seminary, argued that “Paul’s primary purpose in writing Romans was to dispel anti-Semitism”⁵ He based his argument on (1) many internal clues (11:13ff., etc., where Gentile pride has cropped up; cf. the whole thrust of chs. 9–11); (2) one main external clue (the expulsion of the Jews from Rome by Claudius a few years earlier—which would certainly continue to have rippling effects, even within the church); and (3) a chiastic pattern unfolding some of the structure of the book (viz., in chapter 3 Paul asks five questions which are unfolded in reverse order throughout chapters 3–11). What is intriguing is that, concerning this last point (the chiastic structure), although Paul answers in brief the question of 3:1 (“What advantage has the Jew?”) in the next verse, he really expands on it in chapters 9–11. Although Fowler goes too far in seeing a response to anti-Semitism as the primary purpose of Romans, I think he is right that this forms part of the purpose. Perhaps, in fact, it may be precisely because Paul’s treatment of Israel’s future occupies his mind so much in this letter that he leaves out other eschatological issues found in his other Hauptbriefe.

In sum, Paul’s occasion-purpose for writing Romans is threefold: (1) he was going west and needed to have a base of operations in a church that shared both his vision and his theology; (2) he knew that his life was in danger and wanted to give something of a more balanced, systematic presentation of his gospel, to leave as a memorial; and (3) he detected anti-Semitism arising in the Roman church through the influence of Claudius’ edict and wanted to give a theologically-based correction to this attitude.

E. Special Problems

1. The Origin of the Church

In light of Rom 15:20, there is no doubt that the church at Rome was not founded by an apostle. This suggests that Peter was not yet in Rome. Most likely, the church came into existence through the converts who returned to Rome form Jerusalem after the feast of Pentecost in 33 CE (Acts 2:10).⁶ But this church would not have been very well indoctrinated. As we suggested in our introduction to Mark, Mark may well have gone to Rome in the early 50s both to precede Paul’s coming and to shore up any doctrinal holes in the converts.⁷

2. Unity of the Epistle

There are good internal and external arguments which seem to indicate that Romans ended at chapter 15 (or 14) rather than at chapter 16. These need to be weighed carefully.

(1) Even though Paul had never visited Rome, chapter 16 is filled with personal greetings. This may indicate that chapter 16 was part of a letter originally sent to Ephesus (where Paul had ministered for three years).

(2) Paul greets Priscilla and Aquila (16:3), who shortly before Romans was written were in Ephesus (1 Cor 16:19). Further, when Paul wrote to Timothy, they are again in Ephesus (2 Tim 4:19).

(3) In 16:5 Paul greets Epaenetus, “the first convert in Asia.” This would be a natural greeting if Epaenetus were still in Asia.

(4) Rom 15:33 seems to be a fitting conclusion to a letter (“The God of peace be with you all. Amen.”).

(5) The earliest Pauline MS, P46, places the doxology of Rom 16:25-27 after 15:33. Further, though normally dated at c. 200 CE, Yung Kyu Kim in 1988 argued, on palaeographical grounds, that this papyrus should be dated before the reign of Domitian (c. 70s CE)!⁸ Not only this, but the doxology is found in other MSS at the end of chapter 14 (especially L and Ψ).⁹

(6) Marcion’s text apparently did not contain chapters 15 and 16.¹⁰

These data can be variously interpreted. Some suggest that a letter to Ephesus has been appended to a letter to the Romans. Hence, the laundry list of names in chapter 16. Although this is possible, one wonders why the husk (greetings-list) of a letter (sent to Ephesus) would be preserved while its grain (the doctrinal and ethical core) was not. Further, the only other letter in which Paul greets many people by name is Colossians—sent to a church he had not visited. Further, even though P46 places the doxology at the end of chapter 15, it still has chapter 16. In fact, no extant MS lacks these last two chapters.

Others have suggested, primarily on the various locations of the doxology, that two editions of Romans had been published by Paul—the longer one sent to the Romans, the shorter one sent out as a circular letter. Hort went so far as to suggest that the shorter edition was created by a later writer for liturgical (lectionary reading) purposes. Again, although this is possible, it falls shipwreck on the rocks of textual evidence. Every known MS has all 16 chapters of Romans.

Something, however, must account for the migrations of the doxology. As we have said, there is evidence that Marcion’s text did not contain these last two chapters. Further, Marcion was wont to excise any material which did not suit his theological leanings—and there is plenty of material in chapters 15-16 which would bring on Marcion’s scalpel.¹¹ If any copies of his mutilated Romans survived, his fingerprints would not be nearly as detectable as his other mutilations, for the epistle could easily end at chapter 14 or chapter 15. Consequently, in the earliest period, scribes copying Romans might not be fully cognizant of Marcion’s work. As time progressed, the last two chapters (or last chapter) were added to these short editions, but without the concomitant replacement of the doxology.

F. Theme

As the most systematic of all Paul’s letters, Romans addresses in detail the Pauline kerygma. Romans 1:16-17, which concludes the salutation/introduction, best articulates the theme of the whole book: “the righteous revelation of God in the gospel.”

II. Argument

Paul opens his epistle to the Romans with the longest introduction of any of his canonical works (1:1-17). Here he greets the saints (1:1-7) whom he had never met, and expresses both thanks for them (1:8-10) and a deep desire to visit them (1:11-15). The theme of the epistle (dealing with the righteousness of God), at the end of this introduction (1:16-17), serves as a bridge into the body of the book.

The transition is especially seen in comparing vv. 17 and 18: in both something from God is revealed. In v. 17 it is God’s righteousness; in v. 18, in order to establish the need for this righteousness, God’s wrath is revealed. This second section of the epistle (1:18–5:11), whose theme is the imputation of righteousness (i.e., forensic justification) essentially deals with two issues: sinners and salvation. Paul first elaborates on the sinfulness of humanity (1:18–3:20), demonstrating the universal need of righteousness. He begins by picking the most obvious example: the guilt of the Gentiles (1:18-32). The reasons for this guilt are first mentioned: they have suppressed the knowledge of God (1:18-23). The result of such suppression is God’s releasing them to the consequences of their sins (1:24-32). But lest the Jews think that they are any less guilty, Paul addresses their sin (2:1–3:8). In fact, he argues that, if anything, they are more guilty than the Gentiles because they have revelation from God and are his privileged people (3:1-8), yet they are hypocritical about true, internal righteousness (2:17-29). Paul concludes the first half of this major section with proof from scripture that “Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin” (3:9-20).

Now that Paul has established the need for righteousness for all people, he demonstrates its provision (3:21–5:11). First, it has been revealed through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, being granted to all who put their trust in him (3:21-26). Second, the terms for bestowal of this righteousness (namely, faith) are the same for all, because God is One (3:27-31). Third, Paul backs up this astounding  assertion with proof from the life of Abraham (4:1-25). In essence, Abraham is seen to be father both of the Jews and of the Greeks—that is, he is a type of those who are saved by faith. This is illustrated by evidence that Abraham was not justified by works (4:1-8), nor by circumcision (4:9-12), but exclusively by faith in the promises of God (4:18-25). So too his spiritual offspring are justified by faith rather than by law (4:13-17, 23-25). Thus Abraham is seen to be the universal forefather of all believers, whether Jew or Greek.

Paul transitions the faith of Abraham to our faith in Christ (4:23-25), then concludes the section on justification with the implications of this justification (5:1-11). But the “therefore” in 5:1 reaches back behind the illustration of Abraham. In many ways, 3:21–4:25 is an apologetic with 5:1-11 being the application. Since all are sinners and since there is no partiality with God (3:22-23), both Jews and Gentiles must obtain this righteousness in the same way and the same God must be God of all (3:27-31). This new revelation of God’s righteousness is affirmed by the OT (3:21) and illustrated by Abraham’s example (4:1-25). There is no getting around it: if a man has Christ, he has peace with God right now—and the Law adds nothing to his salvation (5:1-2). Consequently, he exults in the hope of the glory of God (5:1-5). This salvation is truly marvelous, for sinners qua sinners were completely unable to deal with their sin. But Christ came at the right time and died for such (5:6-8). The eschatological result of this will be escape from God’s wrath (5:9-11).

Having established the basis of God’s pleasure in us, viz., the imputation of righteousness (or forensic justification), Paul now discusses the impartation of righteousness, or sanctification (5:12–8:39). This is the third major section of the epistle. In some ways there is a neat trilogy found in these first eight chapters. The apostle first discusses justification which is salvation from the penalty of sin (3:21–5:11). Then he deals with sanctification or salvation from the power of sin (5:12–8:17). Finally, he addresses glorification which is salvation from the presence of sin (8:18-39).¹²

Paul lays out his views on sanctification using the twin themes of reigning and slavery. He begins by contrasting the reign of grace with the reign of sin (5:12-21). Although many NT students would place 5:12-21 under the second major section (i.e., under “Justification”), “the words ‘just,’ ‘justice’ and ‘faith’ coming from the first part of the quotation [Hab 2:4 in Rom 1:17] as given by Paul, are of very frequent occurrence from 1:17 to 5:11, and almost entirely absent thereafter. On the other hand, the terms signifying ‘life’ (and ‘death’) occur regularly in chapters 5:12 to 7:1.”¹³ Thus the apostle seems to be signaling that he is now picking up a new topic.

In 5:12-21 Paul moves beyond the legal issue of justification. What is essential to get here is that imputed righteousness addresses the condemnation of the law while imparted righteousness addresses the inability of the flesh. That is to say, justification is forensic, stating emphatically that our position before God is one of righteousness. But justification, like the Law, can do nothing against the flesh. That is why Paul now turns to imparted righteousness and gives the basis as our union with Christ. Our union with Christ is more than forensic; it is organic.¹⁴ As Adam was our representative in sin, bringing death to all (5:12), so also Christ is our representative in righteousness, bringing life to all (5:18).¹⁵

Since believers are in Christ—and therefore they are assured of their salvation, why should they not continue sinning? Paul answers this in the second portion of this section (6:1-23). First, they should not continue (ἐπιμένωμεν) in sin because of their union with Christ—union in his death and his life (6:1-14). Second, they should not sin at all (ἁμαρτήσωμεν) because such an act leads to enslavement to sin (6:15-23). This is especially heinous because our release from sin’s slavery means redemption for the service of God (6:22), since we have been bought with a price.

Having established the reasons why we should not sin, Paul now turns to the issue of how not to sin (7:1–8:17). Negatively, neither our flesh nor the Law can do anything for us in this endeavor (7:1-25). Positively, we are sanctified through the ministry of the Spirit (8:1-17).

Chapter seven in notoriously difficult to interpret. Is Paul speaking here (using “I”) in an autobiographical sense? If so, is he speaking about his former life as an unbeliever or his present life as a Christian? (Can both chapters seven and eight be true of him at the same time?). Or is he speaking figuratively—either of believers in general or unbelievers in general?

In my understanding Paul is primarily dealing with the issue of how one deals with the problem of present sin—regardless of whether he is a believer or unbeliever. This is seen in the following way. The most consistent exegesis of this pericope sees the “I” as the same person throughout 7:7-25.¹⁶ If so, then he is the unbeliever before the Law was ever given (v. 9: “once I was alive apart from the law”; cf. 5:13)—And therefore not a Jewish unbeliever. But he is also the unbelieving Jew: “We know that the Law is spiritual; I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin” (7:14). Further, Paul had just gotten done saying that believers are not under the Law (7:5). But he is also the believer (v. 25: “I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law”; v. 18: “I have the desire to do what is good”; cf. also vv. 21-22; contra 3:12).¹⁷ In light of this evidence it seems that Paul is not arguing chronologically in 3:20–8:17 (as if to say, “after salvation, we will deal with sanctification”). Rather, he is dealing with two distinct, though intertwined issues: the imputation of righteousness and the impartation of righteousness. Chapter seven is supremely, then, dealing with the issue of how one fights indwelling sin—and how one attempts to please God. It has its application for all people who attempt to fight sin/please God by subjecting the flesh to external commands, as if this will accomplish anything.

The apostle begins chapter seven, however, with a reminder to believers: we are dead to the Law (7:1-6). Since this is so, we do not have to attempt to please God by knuckling under to its commands. But does this mean that the Law is bad? No, it is simply powerless over sin (7:7-13). The Law may be likened to a sterile spoon dipped into a glass of water with sediment on the bottom (which represents our flesh). When the spoon stirs up the sediment it does not produce sin; rather, it merely reveals it (7:13). But at the same time, it is powerless to clean out the sediment.¹⁸

As good as the Law is, the flesh is equally bad (7:14-25). And it, too, is powerless to obey the Law. The point of 7:7-25 is that regardless of who attempts to fight sin—whether he is a believer or unbeliever—if his method is to subject the flesh to the Law he will fail. Focusing on the Law, an objective, cold standard, necessitates subjecting the flesh to it, because the Law is the handmaiden of the flesh. But since believers are dead to the Law, they are able to gain victory over the flesh (7:6, 24-25).¹⁹

Now comes the good news: those who are organically connected with Christ are not only not condemned (8:1), but also are set free from the law which could only produce sin and death (8:2). How is this accomplished? By the Spirit of God who enables believers to gain progressive victory over sin (8:1-8), death (8:9-11), and slavery (8:12-17). The Spirit is not an external, objective, cold standard, but a warm, internal witness to our hearts that God is our Father (8:14-17)—proving that we are organically connected to God the Father, not just judiciously excused by God the Judge.²⁰

Finally, Paul concludes this section by discussing the goal of sanctification (8:18-39), which is our future glory—based, as it is, both on forensic justification and organic union with Christ (8:28-30). This glory needs to be kept in mind especially during the present sufferings we face simply because the world is not a perfect place (8:18-27). But lest anyone give up, thinking that his participation in glory is in jeopardy, Paul concludes with a hymn of assurance (8:31-39).

The fourth major section now turns to an issue which would have been in the back of his readers’ minds: If God is so righteous, how could he give Israel so many privileges (including unconditional promises) and then reject his chosen people? Chapters 9–11 deal with this issue (note especially 9:6—“It is not as though God’s word has failed”), the vindication of God’s righteousness in relationship to Israel.

Although Paul’s primary concern is to vindicate God’s righteousness, he prefaces his remarks by expressing his own deep sorrow over Israel’s unrepentant state (9:1-5). Then he details how God has dealt with the nation in the past (9:6-33). In essence, God’s choice was completely sovereign and gracious (9:1-29), as can be seen in Israel’s very history (9:6-13), as well as on the basis of the principle of God’s sovereignty (9:14-29). Further, they have rejected their Messiah by clinging to the Law (9:30-33).

God’s present dealings with Israel, then, can only be interpreted on the basis of the past (10:1-21). Once again, Paul prefaces his remarks by expressing his desire for Israel’s salvation (10:1). For the present time, Jew and Gentile have equal access to God (10:1-13). Yet the nation is still unrepentant even though they repeatedly heard the message (10:14-21).

This still does not answer the question of God’s unconditional covenants with his chosen people. Will Israel persist in their disobedience, or will there come a time when they will repent? Paul answers this in chapter 11. He points out, first, that God’s rejection of the nation is not complete, for God still has his remnant in the nation (11:1-10). Further, the rejection is not final (11:11-32). Indeed, the present “grafting in” of Gentiles not only functions to bring salvation to Gentiles, but also should arouse the jealousy of the Jews, hopefully even spurring them on to seek Christ (11:11-24). Once the number of Gentiles is full, then Israel will turn back to God (11:25-32). For this, all believers should be grateful, since the open window of salvation will not last forever. And God is to be praised for his infinite wisdom in how he deals with both Jews and Gentiles (11:33-36).

What remains to be said about God’s righteousness? Only the very pragmatic matter of how it should be applied by believers (12:1–15:13). First, it should be applied among fellow believers (12:1-21). This is accomplished by a consecration of our lives to God, in light of all that he has done for us (12:1-2). Once we have committed ourselves to him, we can begin to serve others. This service should be done by the employment of spiritual gifts for the benefit of the body (12:3-8), and with an attitude of sincere love—both for believers and unbelievers (12:9-21).

Second, the righteousness of God should be applied in the state (13:1-14). We demonstrate God’s righteousness by submitting even to pagan authorities (13:1-7), and by loving our neighbors (13:8-10). The urgency for such action is due to the fact that “our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed” (13:11)—that is, because of our hope of the Lord’s return (13:11-14).

Third, those believers whose faith is strong and who have a good grasp on their death to the Law should not be judgmental on weaker brothers (14:1–15:13). Neither the weak nor strong brother should condemn the other, but instead should recognize the freedom that all have in Christ (14:1-12). But his freedom should not become a stumbling block to the weak: liberty must give way to love (14:13-23). That is to say, one believer’s freedoms should not cause another brother to sin by the latter’s imbibing in something against his conscience (14:23). Ultimately, the strong believer (as well as the weak) should imitate Christ in his selflessness (15:1-13), rather than using liberty as a means to please oneself.

Paul concludes his epistle (15:14–16:27) with a brief explanation of his mission, both in general (15:17-21) and specifically with reference to the Romans (15:22-33), followed by final greetings (16:1-27).

III. Outline²¹

I. Introduction: The Revelation of Righteousness (1:1-17)

A. Salutation (1:1-7)

B. Thanksgiving and Longing (1:8-15)

1. Paul’s Prayer of Thanks for the Romans (1:8-10)

2. Paul’s Desire to Visit the Romans (1:11-15)

C. The Theme of the Epistle (1:16-17)

II. Justification: The Imputation of Righteousness (1:18–5:11)

A. Condemnation: The Universal Need of Righteousness (1:18–3:20)

1. The Guilt of the Gentiles (1:18-32)

a. The Basis of Gentile Guilt (1:18-23)

b. The Results of Gentile Guilt (1:24-32)

2. The Guilt of the Jews (2:1–3:8)

a. The Stubbornness of the Jews (2:1-16)

b. The Hypocrisy of the Jews (2:17-29)

c. The Privilege of the Jews (3:1-8)

3. The Proof of Universal Guilt (3:9-20)

B. Salvation: The Universal Provision of Righteousness (3:21–5:11)

1. Manifestation of the Universal Provision of Righteousness (3:21-26)

2. Unification: The Universal God of Righteousness (3:27-31)

3. Justification of Universal Justification: Proof from the Life of Abraham (4:1-25)

a. Abraham Justified by Faith, not Works (4:1-8)

b. Abraham Justified by Faith, not Circumcision (4:9-12)

c. Abraham’s Seed Justified by Faith, not Law (4:13-17)

d. Abraham Justified by Faith in the Promise (4:18-25)

1) Explanation of the Hope of Abraham (4:18-22)

2) Application: Faith in Christ (4:23-25)

4. Exultation because of the Certainty of Justification (5:1-11)

a. Present: Peace with God (5:1-5)

b. Past: Powerlessness of Sinners (5:6-8)

c. Future: Escape from God’s Wrath (5:9-11)

III. Sanctification: The Impartation of Righteousness (5:12–8:39)

A. The Reign of Grace Vs. the Reign of Sin (5:12-21)

B. The Rationale for Sanctification (6:1-23)

1. Union with Christ (6:1-14)

a. The Divine Reckoning (6:1-10)

b. The Believer’s Reckoning (6:11)

c. The Believer’s Responsibility (6:12-14)

2. Enslavement to Righteousness (6:15-23)

C. The Inability of the Flesh and the Law to Sanctify (7:1-25)

1. The Believer’s Relationship to the Law (7:1-6)

2. The Law is Good but Sterile (7:7-13)

3. The Flesh is Bad and Powerless (7:14-25)

D. The Power of the Spirit to Sanctify (8:1-17)

1. Over Sin (8:1-8)

2. Over Death (8:9-11)

3. Over Slavery (8:12-17)

E. The Goal of Sanctification (8:18-39)

1. Present Sufferings (8:18-27)

2. Future Glory (8:28-30)

3. Hymn of Assurance (8:31-39)

IV. Vindication of God’s Righteousness in His Relationship to Israel (9:1–11:36)

A. God’s Past Dealings with Israel (9:1-33)

1. Preface: Paul’s Deep Sorrow because of Israel’s Great Privileges (9:1-5)

2. The Grace of God’s Election (9:6-29)

a. Seen in Israel’s History (9:6-13)

b. Seen in Principle (9:14-29)

3. The Nation’s Rejection of the Messiah via Legalism (9:30-33)

B. God’s Present Dealings with Israel (10:1-21)

1. Equality with the Gentiles (10:1-13)

2. Obstinance of the Jews (10:14-21)

C. God’s Future Dealings with Israel (11:1-33)

1. The Rejection is not Complete (11:1-10)

2. The Rejection is not Final (11:11-32)

a. The Present “Grafting” of Gentiles (11:11-24)

b. The Future Salvation of Israel (11:25-32)

3. Doxology: In Praise of God’s Wisdom (11:33-36)

V. Application: God’s Righteousness at Work (12:1–15:13)

A. In the Assembly (12:1-21)

1. The Consecrated Life (12:1-2)

2. The Use of Spiritual Gifts (12:3-8)

3. The Sincerity of Love (12:9-21)

B. In the State (13:1-14)

1. In Relation to Authorities (13:1-7)

2. In Relation to Neighbors (13:8-10)

3. Because of our Eschatological Hope (13:11-14)

C. In Relation to Weak Believers (14:1–15:13)

1. Judging and the Principle of Liberty (14:1-12)

2. Stumbling Blocks and the Principle of Love (14:13-23)

3. Selfishness and the Imitation of Christ (15:1-13)

VI. Conclusion: Paul’s Purpose, Plans and Praise in Connection with the Dissemination of Righteousness (15:14–16:27)

A. Paul’s Mission Explained (15:14-33)

1. His Reason for Writing (15:14-16)

2. His Work among the Gentiles (15:17-21)

3. His Plan to Visit Rome (15:22-33)

B. Final Greetings (16:1-27)

1. Greetings to Believers in Rome (16:1-16)

2. Warnings about Divisive Brothers (16:17-20)

3. Greetings from Believers with Paul (16:21-24)

4. Final Benediction (16:25-27)

 

---

¹ E. F. Harrison, Romans in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 3-4.

² Harrison, Romans, 4. Although we would disagree with some of Harrison’s dates by as much as one year (probably late 55 or early 56 is the date for Romans), one simply cannot be more precise and dogmatic in this chronology.

³ For a fuller treatment which comports with this view to a large extent, see Harrison, Romans, 5-6.

⁴ If one only had 1-2 Corinthians, he might conclude that Paul was a legalist; if he only had Galatians, he might conclude that Paul was licentious. Romans is the balance between the other Hauptbriefe, and it is so precisely because there was not a hot need for its production.

⁵ P. 1 of a paper entitled “Paul’s Letter to the Romans—A New Approach,” read at the 1977 meeting of the Southwestern Regional Section of the Evangelical Theological Society, held in March at Dallas Seminary.

⁶ This early date is confirmed by Suetonius’ statement that Claudius’ edict of 49 CE to expel the Jews was because of “disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus” (Claudius 25), in which the Latin probably garbled Χριστός. In other words, Jews in Rome were causing problems because of the spread of Christianity to that city by 49 CE.

⁷ See Mark’s introduction for a fuller elaboration on this hypothesis.

⁸ See our discussion of this article in the introduction to 2 Peter (in our treatment of 2 Peter 3:15-16).

⁹ The benediction (“the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all”) is also variously placed in chapter 16 by different MSS: after 16:20, after 16:24, or after 16:27, though this does not materially affect the main argument of shorter vs. longer editions of Romans.

¹⁰ See Guthrie for a nice summary of the evidence, 418.

¹¹ Cf. Guthrie, 421-22, for a decent discussion.

¹² In our outline, we have put these last two segments together, for glorification is seen as the goal of sanctification and is very much tied to it in chapter 8.

¹³ M. Black, Romans (New Century Bible Commentary), 26.

¹⁴ This is not to say that 5:12-21 favors the seminal headship view, because the route to our organic union with Christ is still through justification (so 5:18: “the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men” [NIV]).

¹⁵ One proof that Paul is addressing the inadequacy of the flesh more than the condemnation of the law is the fact that he is contrasting Christ with Adam—one whose act applies even to those “who did not sin by breaking a commandment” (5:14), precisely because “before the law was given, sin was in the world” (5:13).

¹⁶ As judicious an exegete as C. E. B. Cranfield is, he stumbles at this point (as do most), by attempting to divorce 7:7-13 from 7:14-25—even though the first person singular is used throughout.

¹⁷ The argument that is often used by those who maintain the autobiographical unbeliever view (i.e., Paul before his conversion) is that the present tense verbs are historical presents (so recently, Douglas Moo, Romans [Wycliffe], loc. cit.). But this view is virtually impossible for two reasons: (1) Paul would be the lone exception to his condemnation of mankind in that, as an unbeliever he desired to do good and was a slave to God’s law (7:18, 21-22, 25); and (2) historical presents are always in the third person (see my “John 5,2 and the Date of the Fourth Gospel,” Biblica 71 [1990] 177-205).

¹⁸ Credit is due to S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., for this illustration.

¹⁹ Those who wish to have their cake and eat it, too—namely, by subjecting the believer to the Law though with the aid of the Spirit—seem to contradict the very strong statement in 7:6 (“But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the Law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the letter”). Paul spends some time on this point because of the Judaizers who insisted that Gentiles be under the Law, too.

²⁰ Paul here seems to be subtly indicating that the new covenant is now operative in believers, for we each know God through his Spirit. Thus the kingdom has been inaugurated in the present age. Further, in 8:16 συμμαρτυρέω is used to describe the Spirit bearing witness to our spirit that we are God’s children. Although συν- prefixed verbs often carry the connotation of association, this particular verb is merely a strengthened form of μαρτυρέω (so BAGD), indicating that we, not God, are the recipients of his testimony (for further help, see my essay on Romans 8:16 and the Witness of the Spirit).

²¹ This outline is an adaptation and modification of the works of Matthew Black, A. Feuillet, and especially S. Lewis Johnson, Jr.

I. Introduction

A. The Author

Although there is no dispute nowadays about Pauline authorship, it may be helpful to rehearse, in brief, why that is the case. “Both the external and the internal evidence for the Pauline authorship are so strong that those who attempt to show that the apostle was not the writer succeed chiefly in proving their own incompetence as critics.”¹

1.              External Evidence

The external evidence for the authenticity of 1 Corinthians is impregnable. Clement of Rome (c. 95 CE)² states explicitly that it is by Paul and by so doing grants to 1 Corinthians the distinction of being the earliest NT book in which an extra-biblical writer attaches a name. The Didache and Barnabas seem quite familiar with it; Ignatius and Polycarp know it intimately, collectively alluding to it scores of times; Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Basilides all refer to it—some, hundreds of times. This epistle even made Marcion’s short list! These data are nothing less than overwhelming on behalf of authenticity.

2.              Internal Evidence

The internal evidence is equally strong. Even F. C. Baur, that Hegelian-minded critic of the Tübingen school over one hundred and fifty years ago, said of the Pauline Hauptbriefe (Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians), “they bear so incontestably the character of Pauline originality, that there is no conceivable ground for the assertion of critical doubts in their case.”³

The internal grounds for asserting authenticity are four: (1) the letter is “the product of a strong and original mind, and is altogether worthy of an Apostle”;⁴ (2) there are several coincidences (conceptual, verbal, historical, etc.) with what we know of Paul from Acts and other Pauline letters which are so unobtrusive as to be undesigned that they bear the stamp of genuineness; (3) there is controversy in the letter; Paul defends himself and his gospel as though both were doubted; later forgeries hardly recognize the tension and instead put Paul on a pedestal; (4) there is nothing negative in the epistle (historical discrepancies, language, theological development, etc.) to cast any doubts on authenticity.

These two considerations, external and internal evidence, taken together provide not only an unassailable fortress of authenticity, but also a benchmark by which other would-be Pauline epistles can be measured.⁵

B. Date and Place of Origin

Paul had visited the Corinthians on his second missionary journey, and, because of the lack of troubles (Acts 18:10), he was able to stay there eighteen months (Acts 18:11). This was in 50-51 CE—i.e., up until some months after Gallio began his proconsulship.⁶ Most likely, Paul left Corinth in the fall of 51 CE. After concluding his second missionary journey, Paul returned again to Asia on his third journey (c. fall, 52 CE). This time he settled down in Ephesus for almost three years (Acts 19:10; 20:31)—i.e., from the fall of 52 until the spring of 55 CE. While in Ephesus there must have been contact between Corinth and Paul, for he speaks of the Corinthians misunderstanding his “previous letter” in 1 Cor. 5:9. The apostle had to clear up the misunderstanding, as well as address other issues—hence, “first” Corinthians was written.

Paul wrote this epistle from Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:8, 9, 19) while on his third missionary journey. It was probably written in the spring of 54 CE as is evident from the following data: (1) The letter was written some years after Paul’s first visit, since Apollos had ministered there (Acts 18:26-27; 1 Cor. 1:12) and Timothy had also been sent there (Acts 19:22; 1 Cor. 4:17). (2) This letter was written sometime after his first letter (cf. 1 Cor. 5:9) and probably not in the last year of his ministry in Ephesus. He mentions that he intends to spend the next winter with the Corinthians (1 Cor. 16:6), a visit which, nevertheless, is not to be identified with the three-month stay of Acts 20:3. This latter visit (Acts 20:3) reads as though it were at the end of Paul’s Ephesian ministry, while it is doubtful that 1 Corinthians was written at the end because otherwise the chronology does not fit with data in 2 Corinthians. (3) This letter was written in the spring because Pentecost is just around the corner (1 Cor. 16:8).⁷

C. Destination/Audience

The letter was written to the relatively new converts at Corinth (1:2). The church at Corinth was composed of both Jews and Greeks (Acts 18:4), though it must have been predominantly Gentile since it was while Paul was in Corinth that he reiterated the proclamation which was to define his ministry, “From now on I will go to the Gentiles” (Acts 18:6; cf. 13:46).⁸ Further, he made this announcement very early on in his stay there (perhaps in the first few weeks), for the vision that he would not get harmed came later (Acts 18:9-10), prompting Paul to stay for eighteen months (Acts 18:11).

D. Occasion and Method of Composition

What occasioned the writing of 1 Corinthians was apparently three things.

(1) Paul had written a previous letter (1 Cor. 5:9) which was misunderstood by the Corinthians. In that letter he told them not to associate with immoral persons and they took this to mean all immoral persons, while he only meant immoral professing believers (5:10-13). The matter needed to be cleared up.⁹

(2) The apostle also got news from members of Chloe’s house that there were divisions arising among the Corinthian believers (1:11). Presumably the report included other problems such as attitudes toward the apostles (4:1-21), incestuous behavior (5:1-5), and lawsuits between Christians (6:1-11).

(3) Chapter 7 begins “now concerning the matters about which you wrote . . . ,” indicating that Paul was also responding to issues raised by the entire congregation. Apparently a delegation of believers (including Stephanas, Fortunatas, and Achaicus [16:17]) came with these questions in the form of a letter. First Corinthians 7:1 begins περὶ δέ, which is repeated in 7:25; 8:1; 12:1; 15:1 (simply δέ here), and 16:1. This sounds very much as though Paul is merely responding, in a very business-like manner, to questions which may or may not be intrinsically related to the preceding section.

The occasion for the writing of this letter then gives us a great deal of help in deciphering the method of compilation: the first six chapters are written as a response to the report from Chloe (including both the correction of the Corinthians’ misreading of Paul’s first letter and specific problems raised by Chloe’s people); chapters 7-16 are written as a response to the questions raised by the congregation itself in their letter to Paul brought by Stephanas and friends.

E. Special Problems: The Opponents of Paul at Corinth

If we could fully grasp the nature of the opposition to Paul’s ministry in Corinth, we might have a better feel for Paul’s relationship to the Corinthians. Over the years, some scholars have proposed that the basic opponents were Jewish (so F. C. Baur, etc.). But this is extremely doubtful because the letter is concerned with the licentiousness of the Corinthians. Would Jews promote immorality (cf. the Judaizers in Galatians!)? Schmithals argued that the opponents were Jewish Gnostics, a view which suffers from the previous criticism as well as the lack of evidence supporting Gnosticism as a fully developed system in the first century CE. Some argue that the opponents held to a kind of realized eschatology.

The problem of the identification of the opponents is that they were no doubt a mixed bag, an amorphous entity of several factions. This can be seen by the very nature of Corinth itself, a rather cosmopolitan city which was constantly having an influx of new ideas. The church at Corinth is analogous to any church in southern California in the 1960s/1970s: the “land of fruits and nuts” involved such a diverse influx of ideas, fads, and avant garde heresies that to pin down any unified group as the opponent of the church would be like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall!¹⁰ In other words, Paul’s opponents at Corinth were Jews, proto-Gnostics, libertines, ascetics, ecstatics, realized eschatologists,¹¹ anti-resurrectionists, and more! It may be an overstatement to call all of these “opponents,” but it is obvious that several factions existed in Corinth (cf. 1:10-17) and the problems needed to be dealt with seriatim.¹²

F. Theme

Basically 1 Corinthians deals with abuses of liberty (just as Galatians deals with the stifling of the Spirit because of legalism). The correction Paul gives is not to question their salvation, but to challenge them in their sanctification. Although the apostle is dealing with several different issues, the general theme of the epistle is “the practical implications of progressive sanctification in the context of the Christian community.”

II. Argument

Paul begins his letter to the Corinthians in customary fashion, viz., with a greeting (from the apostle and “our brother Sosthenes”) (1:1-3), followed by a thanksgiving offered to God (1:4-9). In the thanksgiving, however, we see the first glimpse of troubles brewing, for the apostle is primarily thankful for what God has done for them rather than for their response to him.

Following quickly on the heels of this salutation, Paul addresses the issues raised by Chloe’s people (cf. 1:11)—namely, divisions in the church (1:10–4:21) and disorders in church life (5:1–6:20).

First, Paul addresses the divisiveness in the church (1:10–4:21). The divisiveness had to do with loyalty to a personality rather than fidelity to a doctrine (1:10-17). Its root causes were due to seeing the Christian ministry through very Greek eyes (1:18–4:13).

On the other hand, the Corinthians had a wrong perception of the Christian message (1:18–3:4) in terms of “wisdom.” Their pagan background had negatively shaped their understanding of wisdom (due, no doubt, to the influence of Greek philosophy [cf. 1:20]). The message of salvation from sins which involved a dead Jew on a Roman cross was foolishness to the pagans (1:18-31), though it was central to Paul’s proclamation (2:1-5). But true wisdom—the wisdom which comes from God—can be known only by believers (2:6-10), and fully grasped only by mature believers (2:11-16). The unbeliever, because of his volition, is not at all able to grasp the wisdom of God (2:14). The fact of divisions among the Corinthians proves that they are still fleshly, however, and not mature enough to grasp all that could be theirs in Christ (3:1-4). Thus with few words the apostle Paul has been able to turn the tables on what constitutes true wisdom by showing that true wisdom comes by way of revelation, not reason.

On the other had, the Corinthians had a wrong perception of the importance of the messengers of the Christian message (3:5–4:5). Divisions are inevitable if the messengers  are put on a pedestal (3:5, 21; 4:1). Paul uses two analogies to get his point across (3:6-17). Paul and Apollos are merely farmers, but only God cause the growth (3:6-9).¹³  And, by God’s grace, they are builders (3:10-15), and what they erect is mature Christians, a “temple” of God (3:16-17). The implication seems to be that if the Corinthians choose sides, they prove that Apollos and Paul have not done a good job! Consequently, they should “stop boasting about men! All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos . . . ” (3:21). Finally, Paul appeals to them to regard him and Apollos as mere servants of Christ (4:1-5).

To put all this in perspective, Paul reminds them of the irrationality of pride over things given to them by God (4:6-13). He uses irony and sarcasm here to show that their very arrogance strips them of the riches they claim to have.

To solve the problem of divisiveness, Paul essentially gives two commands: imitate the apostle, for his lifestyle is in accord with his instructions (4:14-17), and stop being arrogant (4:18-21).

In the second major section Paul addresses a second group of issues raised by Chloe’s people (5:1–6:20), viz., disorders in the life of the church. All of these disorders are due either to the Corinthians’ faulty view of wisdom (6:1-11) and/or their misunderstanding of grace (5:1-13; 6:12-21).

First, the Corinthians failed to discipline a man who was committing adultery with his father’s wife (5:1-13). Paul commands them to hand the man over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh (5:5), noting that boasting about their freedom in Christ has turned grace into license and is ruining them (5:6-8).

Second, the Corinthians failed to solve their personal disputes among themselves and instead went to secular courts (6:1-11). Clearly, this was due to their faulty perception of wisdom, for they assumed that pagan judges were wiser than they in solving their disputes (6:1, 5). But if Christians are going to judge the world, surely they should be able to judge trivial matters among themselves (6:2).

Third, they failed to exercise sexual purity (6:12-21), once again thinking that their freedom in Christ meant license to sin (6:12). But since they had been bought at great cost and since their bodies were the temple of the Holy Spirit, they ought not to go beyond the bounds of true grace.

This issue of license with the flesh probably also grew out of their pagan background, and, in part, Greek philosophy (for both Stoicism and Hedonism divorced the soul from the body¹⁴). Thus, if there is any unity in the issues raised by Chloe’s people, it is found in misunderstandings of the Christian life due to pagan philosophy, focusing on the twin themes of wisdom and license.

Paul now turns to issues raised by the entire congregation as represented by a delegation of believers (see 16:17). These issues focused on two areas: (1) practical difficulties in the church (7:1–14:40), especially concerning marriage (7:1-40), Christian liberty (8:1–11:1), and worship (11:2–14:40); and (2) the negative influence of some of Paul’s opponents concerning the resurrection (15:1-58).

Paul dealt with pragmatic difficulties in the church (7:1–14:40) in the third major (and by far the largest) section of the epistle. First, he had much practical advice to give about marriage (7:1-40). The problem of facing one’s conjugal duties if one is married, coupled with the necessity of abstinence if one is not married, was addressed first (7:1-9). No doubt again the reason this was a problem was due to the Corinthians’ pagan background.¹⁵ Then, Paul discussed the painful issue of divorce, though in a very matter-of-fact manner (7:10-24). Essentially his advice was that two believers must not get divorced (7:10-11), but that if an unbeliever leaves a believing spouse, the believer is not bound to the partner with the implication being that he/she may, in fact pursue remarriage (7:12-16).

Nevertheless, the best policy is to remain as one is (especially in light of the “present distress” [7:26]), trusting God’s sovereignty to reign in his life (7:17-24). Finally, Paul gives advice concerning the prioritizing of marriage (which involves commitment to one’s spouse) and ministry (which involves a higher commitment to one’s Lord) (7:25-38). In many ways, Paul’s advice in this chapter seems opposed to what he will say in the pastoral epistles. But 7:26 seems to govern much of what Paul has to say here: “Because of the present distress, I think it is good for you to remain as you are.” Whether this refers to persecutions against believers at Corinth, or the possibility of Christ’s imminent return, or the fact that some of them had died (cf. 11:30) by the hand of the Lord, we cannot be sure.¹⁶

Second, he addressed at some length the issue of exercising Christian liberty, especially in relation to eating meat offered to idols (8:1–11:1). He points out although the Corinthians know that idols are nothing (8:4-6), such knowledge can inadvertently destroy the weaker brother. Knowledge without love produces pride (8:1-3), while love for the weaker brother builds him up in the faith (8:7-13).

Paul illustrates this by using himself as an example (9:1-27). Although he is an apostle and has certain rights (9:1-14), he has restricted those rights for the sake of others (9:15-27). His own liberty is bound by his love for the lost. The ironic thing is that this actually produces greater liberty, because for the sake of the lost he has become all things to all men (9:21-22).

The nation of Israel then serves as a negative example (10:1-13). Although they did not have the same freedoms that Christians now have, they did serve the same God (10:2) and they did have certain privileges. He fed them in the wilderness, taking care of their needs (10:3-4). But they still disobeyed and went after idols, resulting in their deaths (10:5-10). This is applied in an ambiguous way to believers (10:1-13), though Paul clears up his meaning in the next section.

The warning to believers seems to be that if they take their privileges and freedoms for granted, they can slip into idolatry (10:14-22). On the one hand, although eating meat offered to idols may be permissible (cf. 8:8; 10:23), if it is done in the temple (10:18-21) one has overstepped even the bounds of liberty. Finally, Paul gives the basic principle once again: love takes precedence over liberty (10:23–11:1).

Third, the apostle devotes much ink to issues related to diversity in worship (11:2–14:40). The ironic thing to note in these four chapters is that the Corinthians sought unity (and identity) precisely where they needed diversity, and diversity where they should have unity.

There should be diversity in the worship roles between the sexes, Paul first declares (11:2-16). Women should wear head-coverings when they pray or prophesy, both for several theological reasons (11:2-10), as well as for obvious cultural ones (11:11-15). Besides, this is what has been handed down in all the churches (11:16) as right—thus the Corinthians are not being singled out in this matter.

But there should not be diversity in how the various social classes worship (11:17-34). That is to say, the rich are filled and drunk at the love feasts and the poor go home hungry (11:17-22). Paul’s rebuke in this matter cannot be taken lightly, for there are even some who have died because of partaking the Lord’s Supper unworthily (11:23-32). Once again, the basic principle is that love takes precedence over liberty (11:33-34).

There should also be diversity in the use of spiritual gifts (12:1–14:40), for this very diversity promotes unity. That diversity of gifts is necessary (12:1-31a) can be seen by the analogy of the Godhead (12:4-11) and human anatomy (12:12-26). Apparently the Corinthians were not seeking such diversity in the use of gifts, but instead were seeking primarily to speak in tongues. So Paul concludes with prioritizing the gifts (12:27-31a), tactfully placing tongues and interpretation of tongues in last place.

But there is another priority—that of love over the gifts (12:31b–13:13). This is because relationship has higher priority than experience—even of experiences which prove that one is spiritual (13:1-3). Love has priority over the gifts because, by its very nature, love cares for others (13:4-7)—while the exercise of the gifts could be done in a vacuum (13:1-3)—and love is permanent (13:8-13).

In this context, prophecy is seen to have priority over tongues (14:1-40), because it can more readily be exercised with love as the motive. For one thing, prophecy edifies others, while tongues—at least as practiced at Corinth—does not (14:1-5).¹⁷ Further, prophecy is immediately understandable—without the use of an interpreter (14:6-19). It also has a built-in purpose for the believing community, while tongues was given to convict unbelieving Jews (14:20-25). Finally, one overarching principle of worship is that it must be done in an orderly fashion (14:26-40)—­and “all of these must be done for the strengthening of the church” (14:26).

In the last major section, Paul corrects the church’s thinking about the resurrection (15:1-58). Apparently some in the church had their doubts both about the necessity of the resurrection and its reality. This state most likely was brought about, in part, by the influence of their pagan friends (cf. 15:33). If the flesh is inherently evil—as some philosophers taught (and as incipient Gnosticism was teaching)—then its resurrection is both unnecessary and foolish. Hence, Paul spends some time proving both the necessity of the resurrection as well as evidence for it.

The evidence for the resurrection of Christ is twofold (15:1-11): the testimony of the OT and the testimony of eyewitnesses. It is necessary (15:12-28) because otherwise we are all dead in our sins (15:12-19) and, further, Christ would not then have any future reign (15:20-28).¹⁸ Further, believers’ resurrection is proven (15:29-34) both by the fact that some are being baptized for the dead (15:29)¹⁹ and by the fact that Paul is endangering his life daily (15:30-32).

In response to a hypothetical objection (which was probably being asked by outsiders) about the nature of the believer’s resurrection body (15:35-49)—as if the mere question might prove resurrection false—Paul demonstrates both its continuity with the body that has died (15:35-41), as well as its likeness to Christ’s resurrection body, for he is the last Adam, head of a new race of people (15:42-49).

Paul concludes the discussion on resurrection by giving assurances of our eschatological hope, coupled with the argument that if we are ever to live in God’s presence we must have an imperishable, resurrection body (15:50-58).

The conclusion of this epistle finally deals with issues that Paul raises, though they are decidedly of a more mundane character (16:1-24). He reminds the Corinthians about the collection for the poor believers in Jerusalem (16:1-11), brings news about Apollos’ coming visit (16:12), and concludes with final exhortations (16:13-18) and greetings (16:19-24).

III. Outline²⁰

I. Salutation (1:1-9)

A. Greetings (1:1-3)

B. Thanksgiving (1:4-9)

II. Divisions in the Church (1:10–4:21)

A. The Fact of Divisions (1:10-17)

B. The Causes of Division (1:18–4:13)

1. Faulty View of the Christian Message (1:18–3:4)

a. False Wisdom Vs. the Gospel of Christ (1:18–2:5)

1) The Foolishness of the Cross to Gentiles (1:18-31)

2) The Centrality of the Cross to Paul’s Kerygma (2:1-5)

b. True Wisdom and the Spirit of God (2:6–3:4)

1) The Maturity of the Spiritual Man (2:6-16)

2) The Immaturity of the Carnal Man (3:1-4)

2. Faulty View of Christian Ministry and Ministers (3:5–4:5)

a. Analogy One: Farmers and the Field (3:6-9)

b. Analogy Two: Builders and the Temple (3:10-17)

1) The Builders (3:10-15)

2) The Temple (3:16-17)

c. Warning about Self-Deception regarding the Ministers (3:18-23)

d. Paul’s Reflections on his own Ministry (4:1-5)

3. Faulty View of the Christian’s Blessings (4:6-13)

C. The Cure for Divisions (4:14-21)

1. Imitation of Paul (4:14-17)

2. Rebuke of Arrogance (4:18-21)

III. Disorders in the Church (5:1–6:20)

A. Failure to Discipline an Immoral Brother (5:1-13)

B. Failure to Resolve Personal Disputes (6:1-11)

C. Failure to Exercise Sexual Purity (6:12-21)

IV. Difficulties in the Church (7:1–14:40)

A. Concerning Marriage (7:1-40)

1. Conjugal Duties and Celibacy (7:1-9)

2. Divorce (7:10-24)

a. Between Believers (7:10-11)

b. Between Believer and Unbeliever (7:12-16)

c. The Principle of Satisfaction with God’s Sovereignty (7:17-24)

3. Marriage and Ministry (7:25-38)

B. Concerning Christian Liberty (8:1–11:1)

1. Eating Meat Offered to Idols (8:1-13)

a. Knowledge Vs. Love (8:1-3)

b. Knowledge about Idols (8:4-6)

c. Love for Weaker Brothers (8:7-13)

2. Paul’s Personal Example: Restricting his Rights (9:1-27)

a. The Rights of an Apostle Defended (9:1-14)

b. The Reason for Restricting Paul’s own Rights (9:15-27)

3. Israel’s Failure as an Example to Believers (10:1-13)

a. God’s Discipline Resulted in their Death (10:1-10)

b. Application to Christians (10:11-13)

4. Eating Meat in Pagan Temples (10:14-22)

5. The Principles Applied (10:23–11:1)

C. Concerning Worship (11:2–14:40)

1. Diversity in Worship Roles between the Sexes (11:2-16)

a. Theological Argument (11:2-10)

b. Cultural Argument (11:11-15)

c. Summary (11:16)

2. Diversity in Worship Roles between the Classes (11:17-34)

a. The Love Feast and Rich Vs. Poor (11:17-22)

b. The Lord’s Supper and Discipline from the Lord (11:24-32)

c. Summary (11:33-34)

3. Diversity in Worship Roles because of Spiritual Gifts (12:1–14:40)

a. The Necessity of Diversity of Gifts (12:1-31a)

1) Transition: From Worship of Idols to Worship of Christ (12:1-3)

2) Analogous Arguments for Diversity within Unity (12:4-26)

a) Diversity in the Godhead, Diversity of Gifts (12:4-11)

b) Diversity of Body Parts, Diversity of Gifts (12:12-26)

3) The Priority in the Gifts (12:27-31a)

b. The Priority of Love over the Gifts (12:31b–13:13)

1) The Necessity of Love (13:1-3)

2) The Character of Love (13:4-7)

3) The Permanence of Love (13:8-13)

c. The Priority of Prophecy over Tongues (14:1-40)

1) Edification (14:1-5)

2) Intelligibility (14:6-19)

3) Christian Community (14:20-25)

4) Orderliness (14:26-40)

V. Doctrinal Correction of the Church Regarding the Resurrection (15:1-58)

A. The Evidence for Christ’s Resurrection (15:1-11)

B. The Necessity of Christ’s Resurrection (15:12-28)

1. Past Forgiveness (15:12-19)

2. Future Reign (15:20-28)

C. The Proof of Believers’ Resurrection (15:29-34)

D. The Nature of the Resurrection Body (15:35-49)

E. The Assurance of Resurrection (15:50-58)

VI. Conclusion (16:1-24)

A. About the Collection (16:1-11)

1. Instructions on Giving (16:1-4)

2. The Travel Plans of Paul and Timothy (16:5-11)

B. News about Apollos (16:12)

C. Final Exhortations (16:13-18)

D. Final Greetings (16:19-24)

---

¹Robertson and Plummer, I Corinthians (ICC), xvi.

²Recently this date has been challenged; some are now suggesting a date in the 60s CE! This, of course, would render Clement’s opinion even more significant.

³Cited in Robertson-Plummer, xvii.

⁴Robertson-Plummer, xviii.

⁵What is important to understand is that criticism has to start with some benchmark of authenticity. The Corinthian letters provide that for the corpus Paulinum. However, many factors besides linguistic compatibility need to be factored into the equation—especially since even in Paul’s Hauptbriefe he used amanuenses—before a final decision can be reached on the authenticity of the Pauline antilegomena.

⁶Probably July 1, 51 CE, though recently Dixon Slingerland has challenged the certainty of this date (Dixon Slingerland, “Acts 18:1-18, the Gallio Inscription, and Absolute Pauline Chronology,” JBL 110 [1991] 439-49). Although Slingerland is right to show that other historical reconstructions are possible, I do not think that he has shown that they are nearly as probable as the traditional certainty about Pauline chronology founded on the Gallio inscription.

⁷For further information on the Acts chronology of this period, see the introduction to Romans.

⁸We are not implying that Paul had no concern for a Gentile mission (cf. Gal. 2:2, 7-8), but that it seemed to be his pattern in every city to preach to the Jews first. Normally, he approached the Gentiles outside the synagogue only after strong Jewish hostility to his message. The statement in Acts 18:6 (as well as 13:46) does not, then, reflect a program shift, but a circumstantial one, as is obvious from his next stop in Ephesus where he first engages the Jews in discussion (Acts 18:19).

⁹As a theological sidenote, it should be noted that the doctrine of the perspicuity of scripture does not entail the notion that everything in the Bible is crystal clear. This is a case in point. Further, there is an implicit apologetic for the need of careful, primary language, exegesis found in 1 Cor. 5:9-13: if the Corinthians, who knew Paul intimately (since he had lived among them for a year and a half), and who spoke the same language as did he, could misunderstand his meaning, how much greater is the danger for us if we share even less than this with the apostle? We not only should do all we can to bridge the communication gap with the writers of scripture, but we also, in the end, need to be humble about our exegetical conclusions. Finally, if one wants to charge the Corinthians with immaturity and claim that this is what caused them to misunderstand Paul’s meaning, then how will we deal with Peter’s statement that Paul writes things that are “hard to understand” (2 Peter 3:16)? Actually, the Corinthians were in a better position to understand Paul than was even Peter: Paul did not write to him. Interpreting the epistles for us is like listening to one half of a telephone conversation. Great humility, coupled with extreme diligence, is the only way to grasp the details of what is being said.

¹⁰The analogy is really quite apt because both in Corinth and in California in the 60s-70s there was incredible wealth and affluence coupled with a very loose lifestyle and a trend-making society. The wealth produced independence, loss of community, and the crossroads atmosphere cultivated new ideas.

¹¹If any case could be made for one primary enemy, it would have to be made for the realized eschatologists. Their view that they were already completely in the kingdom affected their view of the resurrection as well as morality and perhaps even ecstatic experience.

¹²Ultimately, this illustrates a biblical principle: there is no unity in sin. Sin fractures, splinters, destroys, does not cooperate, does not think of the common good, is selfish and proud, etc. If biblical scholarship had been more prone to interpret the Bible psychologically (i.e., truly addressing human nature) rather than academically, perhaps the theories of a united opposition would never have come up.

¹³In this context Paul’s statement that “we are God’s fellow-workers” (3:9) surely must mean that Paul and Apollos are fellow-workers with each other, both belonging to God. It is sometimes argued that this meaning is impossible in the Greek, but there are other instances of συν- nouns followed by a genitive in which the genitive is not associative (cf., e.g., Eph. 3:6).

¹⁴There are a number of remarkable parallels in thought between the Stoics and the NT, although the NT writers did not share the Stoic view of the ascetic life. In Paul's Corinthian correspondence, he sounds very much like a Stoic philosopher. On the other hand, there is very little similarity with Hedonism, although in his letter to the Galatians the apostle does stress the freedom we have in Christ.

¹⁵R. J. Rushdoony, in his booklet, Flight from Humanity, has a nice section discussing this problem as rooted in a faulty view of human nature. It is the “nature vs. grace” syndrome.

¹⁶I suspect that there may be another view, but which picks up on the “death” view: the Corinthians were palpably immature. Such immaturity produced the present crisis in the church at Corinth. And any good marriage counselor will say that two immature people ought not to get married. Paul may well have veiled his own meaning, hoping that the audience would ponder the seriousness of marriage in the context of progressive sanctification.

¹⁷I take it that this is something of a sarcastic note. Paul is not here legitimizing tongues for self-edification, for this would go counter to everything he has been saying in this whole epistle! Charismatics who see self-edifying (e.g., praying by oneself) tongues as an apostolically endorsed use of the gift have missed Paul’s point in 14:4.

¹⁸Although many premillennialists see hints of the millennial kingdom in 15:24-25, for it seems as if Paul is saying that the kingdom will have two stages to it. This, however, ignores 15:27 (quoting Psalm 8:6) in which Paul clearly says that the first stage is taking place right now. In our view, the kingdom is inaugurated, but not consummated (“already, not yet”) and, further, there is no hint in the NT of a two-stage future kingdom until Rev 20:1-6.

¹⁹An enigmatic verse whose meaning has eluded all NT students.

²⁰Although 1 Corinthians could be organized according to the sources of information Paul received (so Robertson and Plummer, I Corinthians [ICC], xxvi-xxvii) (thus, chapters 1–6 would be issues raised by Chloe’s people, chapters 7–16 would be responses to the questions brought by a delegation), the very sources were not united. That is to say, the questions brought by the delegation were not necessarily related to each other, just as Chloe’s issues were not necessarily related to one another. Although the use of περὶ δέ in the epistle can give some clues as to when the next question is raised, such a marker will not help in the macro-structure.

I. Introduction

A. The Author

In general, the external and internal evidence for Pauline authorship of 2 Corinthians are the same as for 1 Corinthians. The arguments and evidence discussed there do not need to be repeated in full. However, three brief comments should be made here.

(1) The external evidence is quite strong for 2 Corinthians, though not as strong as for 1 Corinthians. It is not quoted by Clement, but it is quoted by Polycarp, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian. Further, it is listed in Marcion’s Apostolicon and the Muratorian Canon.

(2) Internally, using 1 Corinthians as a benchmark of authenticity, this epistle easily passes the test. The literary style and form of argumentation are the same.

(3) There is another significant piece of internal evidence which, though present in traces in 1 Corinthians, is found in spades here: “a pious imitator would be unlikely to portray Paul as an apostle in danger of losing his authority at Corinth or an apostle struggling to preserve the Corinthians from apostasy.”¹

B. Date, Occasion, and Place of Origin

It may be helpful here to rehearse the contacts and correspondence between Paul and the Corinthians in toto.²

(1) Paul arrived in Corinth in the spring of 50 CE and stayed there one and one-half years (Acts 18:11).

(2) In the fall of 51 CE he sailed for Ephesus with Priscilla and Aquila. Priscilla and Aquila stayed in Ephesus while Paul returned to Antioch (Acts 18:18-22). While in Ephesus, Aquila and Priscilla met and trained Apollos, sending him back to Corinth to minister in Paul’s absence (Acts 18:24–19:1).

(3) A year later, in the summer/fall of 52 CE, Paul returned to Ephesus (after passing through the Phrygian-Galatian region) on his third missionary journey, and ministered there almost three years (Acts 20:31). Probably in the first year of his ministry in Ephesus, Paul wrote a letter to the Corinthians—a letter which is now lost (cf. 1 Cor 5:9).

(4) When Paul learned of other problems from Chloe (1 Cor 1:11) and the delegation of Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus (1 Cor 16:17), he wrote 1 Corinthians. This was probably in the second year of his ministry at Ephesus, in the spring of 54 CE (for reasons which will become evident below).

(5) He then visited the Corinthians in the summer/fall of 54, as he had indicated he would (1 Cor 16:6), but he was not able to spend the winter with them. Most likely, he was forewarned from Timothy that the Corinthians had not fully appreciated even his second letter (cf. 1 Cor 16:10). Hence, what was originally planned as a positive time ended up being Paul’s “painful visit” (2 Cor 2:1). It was painful because of a particular man who was acting immorally (2:5-11; cf. 7:12)—and was, indeed, creating doubts among the congregation about Paul’s apostolic authority. It was also painful because it was done in haste (he went directly to Corinth, bypassing Macedonia) and was much shorter than planned.

(6) After the painful visit, Paul returned to Ephesus (fall, 54). Because of his humiliation at Corinth, Paul wrote a “severe letter” (2 Cor 2:3-4; 7:8), which was apparently carried by Titus (cf. 2 Cor 7:5-8). We tentatively suggest a date of spring 55 for this severe letter.³

(7) Paul left Ephesus in the spring of 55 CE for Macedonia, probably Philippi (Acts 20:1). On the way he stopped at Troas, intending to meet Titus there on his way back from Corinth. But he could not find Titus and sailed for Macedonia without him (2 Cor 2:12-13), hoping to meet him there.

(8) Paul met Titus in Macedonia, learned from him that the Corinthians are getting straightened out (2 Cor 7:6-16), and while in Macedonia he writes 2 Corinthians. Most likely, it was written in the fall of 55 CE.

(9) Finally, in the winter of 55-56 CE Paul again visits the Corinthians (Acts 20:3; cf. 2 Cor 12:14).⁴

If this reconstruction is correct, Paul visited Corinth three times and wrote four letters to the Corinthians, the second and fourth of which have been preserved.

C. Special Problem: The Unity of the Epistle and the “Sorrowful Letter”

There are three possibilities for the identification of the “sorrowful/severe letter” (2 Cor 2:3-4; 7:8). First, it could be 1 Corinthians. Second, it might have become incorporated into 2 Corinthians (probably early in the second century). Third, it may be lost.

1. The “Sorrowful Letter” is 1 Corinthians

The evidence for this view is as follows: (1) No other interpretation existed in church history until comparatively recent times; (2) it is quite possible that the offenders of 1 Corinthians 5 and 2 Corinthians 2 are the same person, which would effectively equate the letter in 2 Cor 2:3-4 with 1 Corinthians; and (3) some argue that no letter the apostle ever wrote could have been lost or else inspiration/preservation is no longer true.

In response, it should be noted that in many respects the third argument has driven the other two. That is to say, once the possibility is accepted that Paul could have written letters which are now lost, there is no necessary reason for supposing that the severe letter is 1 Corinthians. We have argued elsewhere that inspiration does not at all guarantee that everything an apostle writes, nor everything that Jesus said, would be preserved.⁵ For example, in 2 Thess 3:17 Paul implies that he had written several letters, though the only canonical Pauline letters which antedate this are Galatians and 1 Thessalonians. Consequently, we need to examine afresh whether there is internal evidence for a letter between 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians—and if so, then the connection between 1 Corinthians 5 and 2 Corinthians 2 should be abandoned.

Perhaps the greatest evidence that the sorrowful letter was not 1 Corinthians is the high improbability that “the terms ‘great distress,’ ‘anguish of heart’ and ‘many tears’ could have described Paul’s state of mind when writing 1 Corinthians. The language suggests a time of intense emotional strain which does not appear very evident in that epistle.”⁶ Not only this, but “2 Corinthians 7:8 makes clear that the letter under review not only made the readers sorry but made the apostle regret ever sending it. It is difficult to believe that he had any such regrets over the sending of 1 Corinthians . . .”⁷

In light of this, the offender in 1 Corinthians 5 is most likely not the same as the offender in 2 Corinthians 2. This is corroborated by a careful exegesis of the two passages: the first offender sinned against the church (1 Cor 5:2); the second, against Paul (2 Cor 2:5, 10); the first was to suffer extreme discipline—resulting in his death (“deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh” [1 Cor 5:5]),⁸ while the second who was apparently reprimanded by the church was now to be accepted back into the fold (2 Cor 2:6-7).

2. The “Sorrowful Letter” is (partially) Preserved in 2 Corinthians 10–13⁹

Perhaps the majority view today is that the sorrowful letter has been partially preserved in 2 Corinthians 10–13. There are three basic arguments for this. Essentially, however, this view entails a later editor piecing together the main portion of this sorrowful letter with Paul’s fourth letter (2 Cor 1–9).

(1) The tone changes dramatically between chs. 1–9 and 10–13. In the first half of the letter, Paul expresses relief over the changed attitude of the Corinthians, while in chs. 10–13 his attitude seems to change dramatically. He is defensive and scolding.

(2) The references to Paul’s visits between the two portions suggest a patchwork effort. Three couplets suggest that events described in chs. 10–13 as yet future are now referred to in the past in chs. 1–9.

(a) 10:6 with 2:9 (“once your obedience is complete”; “I wrote you to see if you would be obedient in everything”);

(b) 13:2 with 1:23 (“on my return I will not spare them”; “it was in order to spare you that I did not return to Corinth”);

(c) 13:10 with 2:3 (“This is why I write these things when I am absent, that when I come I may not have to be harsh”; “I wrote as I did so that when I came I should not be distressed”).

(3) The attitude towards self-commendation between the two halves is different. In chs. 1–9 Paul squelches any thought of self-commendation (3:1; 5:12)—and each time he does so with the implication that he had commended himself in writing before¹⁰; while in chs. 10–13 the main thrust of these four chapters is Paul’s self-commendation. This is a most compelling argument for the patchwork view.

In response, however, are a number of considerations.

(1) The change in tone is not as drastic as is often assumed. In the first nine chapters there are still hints of opposition to Paul (1:17-24; 2:17; 4:2-5; 5:12, 13). If these texts were laid side-by-side with even some of the strongest statements in chs. 10–13, one would be hard-pressed to see a difference in tone.

(2) The second argument can be dismissed because not only is it overly subtle, but the same themes of encouraging obedience and scolding in absence are found throughout Paul’s letters.  In essence, all these references simply articulate Paul’s general principles of pastoral care as applied to his writing and personal ministries.

(3) The third argument is quite strong and cannot easily be overturned. However, there may be an indication that the self-commendation which Paul condemns in 3:1 and 5:12 is a self-condemnation via letters of commendation only. In 3:2-4 Paul explicitly states, “You yourselves are our letter of recommendation . . .” If 5:12 is picking up the same motif (though not explicitly),¹¹ then what Paul is doing in chs. 10–13 is not necessarily the kind of self-commendation he refutes in 3:1 and 5:12. Nevertheless, the problem with this view is that self-commendation is the same as commendation by others (but can a person write his own letter of commendation?). In 3:1 Paul seems to make a distinction between the two.

There is another point to consider, however. Nowhere does Paul promise that he would not engage in self-commendation, just that in chs. 3 and 5 he is not there doing it. A number of circumstances could have led him to alter his course by the time he got to the end of the epistle (not the least of which is the possibility of more information coming from Corinth that the believers were waffling on Paul’s authority once again).¹² Beyond this, however, are other considerations which may tip the scale in favor of unity.

(4) In 2 Cor 12:18 Paul refers to a visit by Titus to Corinth. But this visit could not be the same one in which he brought the severe letter, unless chs. 10–13 are not that letter. It has been suggested that the aorists here are epistolary, but as Guthrie rightly points out, “the question, ‘Titus did not exploit you, did he?’ cannot very intelligently be understood in this way.”¹³ This one piece of evidence, in fact, is so strong that by itself it virtually overturns all arguments on behalf of the patchwork theory.

(5) In 2 Cor 12:14 Paul says that he is about to make a third visit. In our reconstruction of the relationship between Paul and Corinth, this would be the visit mentioned in Acts 20:3 (which we argued earlier occurred shortly after Paul wrote this letter from Philippi). But if the patchwork theory were correct, this reference is wrong: Paul is about to make his second visit (viz., the “painful visit”).

(6) The patchwork view falls shipwreck on the rocks of textual criticism. No MSS, or patristic writers, of any kind even hint at two separate documents. What is most significant about this is that Ì46, which has recently been redated at c. 70s CE,¹⁴ has 2 Corinthians intact. If that dating is correct,¹⁵ the patchwork view cannot be true.

(7) Finally, related to the text-critical argument above: On the analogy of the “previous letter” mentioned in 1 Cor 5:9 being lost because of the embarrassment it caused both Paul and the Corinthians, why would his more severe letter be preserved? It is quite probable that the Corinthians did not circulate that previous letter to other churches. Instead, they probably filed it somewhere inaccessible. Would they somehow reverse their policy, or become more clumsy, with Paul’s stronger, more severe letter? And if so, who would have pieced it together with the canonical 2 Corinthians? And why? Unless some probable hypotheses surface, we must regard the patchwork view as highly suspect.

In conclusion, although the arguments for the patchwork view on the surface seem quite compelling, when all the data are taken into consideration this view has more problems than it solves.

3. The “Sorrowful Letter” is Lost

If these other views are unsatisfactory, then the only alternative is that 2 Corinthians is a unity as it stands and the severe letter is now lost. Even though 2 Corinthians is digressive, this can be no more an argument against its unity than the digressive nature of 1 Corinthians is against that epistle’s unity.

D. Theme

In contrast with the self-interest of the false apostles is the self-effacement of Paul. As he both answers his critics and affirms his own apostleship, we see God’s glory shine through Paul’s sufferings. If there is in fact a theme verse it is 12:9: “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.”

II. Argument

Paul begins his second (canonical) letter to the Corinthians with a customary greeting (1:1-2), followed by a customary thanksgiving (1:3-11). But the thanksgiving this time is not for the church’s progress in the faith (as is usual in Paul’s salutations), but for God’s comfort of him in the midst of great hardships (1:3-11).

This note on God’s comfort in affliction is a natural bridge to the body of the epistle, for 2 Corinthians is supremely about God’s glory in the midst of suffering. There are three main sections to this epistle: (1) defense of Paul’s apostleship in the light of his critics’ charges (1:12–7:16), (2) exhortation of the Corinthians to give to the collection for the poor believers in Jerusalem (8:1–9:15), and (3) final affirmation of Paul’s apostolic authority (10:1–13:10). It will be seen that the first and third major sections are dealing with the same issue, though with a different tone (causing some scholars to argue that chapters 10–13 comprised a different letter, the “severe letter” [cf. 2:3-4; 7:8]). There are further differences: (1) in the first section Paul defends his altered plans to visit, while in the third section he again mentions his desire to visit; (2) the first section boasts of the Lord, while the third section boasts of Paul. In many ways this letter heats up toward the end, with the second section (dealing with the collection) functioning as a calm before the final storm!

First, Paul defends his apostleship in the light of his critics’ charges (1:12–7:16). In his defense, Paul uses two basic arguments: he defends his own conduct and character (1:12–2:13), then he discusses the nature of what a true apostleship really involves (2:14–7:16).

His critics were apparently charging that Paul was fickle, for he had altered his plans to visit the Corinthians (1:12–2:4). But Paul’s conscience is clear before God (1:12-14), for although he had planned a positive visit, one which would be a blessing to the Corinthians (1:15-22), he canceled his plans when it became obvious that such a visit would be another painful one (1:23–2:4, especially 2:1).

Paul’s critics may also have misunderstood (as the church certainly did) the apostle’s intentions, communicated in his “severe” letter (2:3-4, 9) regarding an offending brother (2:5-11). Paul now clears the air about him: forgiveness and restoration are in order (2:7-8). If the issue of the offending brother was not raised by his critics, at least there is a link with Paul’s non-visit, for both have caused grief (2:4-5).

Finally, the apostle mentions that he did not make contact with Titus in Troas (2:12-13) who would have informed Paul at the time about the Corinthian church. Although this seems an insignificant point, Titus plays a role in all three of the major sections of this epistle, serving as sort of a literary hinge.

For the rest of Paul’s defense, he focuses on the nature of a true apostleship (2:14–7:16). He begins by pointing out the grandeur of a genuine apostolic ministry (2:14–4:6), displaying evidence for it in the successful leading of the apostles by Christ (2:14-17) and the successful result of this ministry found in the lives of believers (who are a living letter of commendation) (3:1-3). The success of a true apostleship is due to the superiority of the new covenant (3:4-18) which far surpasses the glory of the old, giving light to those who believe (4:1-6), while the rest of the world still lives in darkness (4:4).

As glorious as this ministry is, the ministers of the new covenant themselves are equally frail (4:7–5:10). Paul thus skillfully contrasts the glory of the truth of grace with his own weakness, while his opponents no doubt held to a defective gospel though they themselves were strong. True ministers are mere clay vessels who have myriad trials (4:8-15), though they carry in their bodies the treasures of the gospel (4:7). They press on, knowing that their present afflictions do not compare to the eternal weight of glory which awaits them (4:6-18)—a fact which gives them a great deal of confidence in the face of death (5:1-10).

After outlining both the glory of the new covenant ministry, and the weakness of its ministers, Paul now is in a position to articulate more clearly what his message is (5:11–6:10), in essence: “Be reconciled to God” (5:16–6:2, especially 5:20). Such an appeal is truly based on the love of Christ (5:11-15), and its purity is seen by the hardships which Paul himself has suffered for the sake of the gospel (6:3-10).

The Corinthians not only should be reconciled to God; they also should be reconciled to Paul (6:11–7:4), by returning his affection (6:11-13; 7:2-4). And they should be reconciled to each other—that is, they should only be equally yoked with believers, for an unequal yoke can never produce a mutual response (6:14–7:1).

Paul concludes this second line of his defense with a positive note about meeting Titus in Macedonia (7:5-16), just as he concluded his first line about missing him in Troas (2:12-13).¹⁶

The second major section of the epistle is an appeal to give to the collection for poor believers in Jerusalem (8:1–9:15). This appeal seems to be wedged in here for one (or more) of three reasons: (1) it serves as a literary buffer zone between the two halves on Paul’s defense of his apostleship; (2) the defense of his apostleship is a necessary preface to his request for money (since otherwise he would be perceived by his critics as a peddler for profit); (3) regardless of how the Corinthians feel about him at the moment, there is still the business at hand which must be attended.¹⁷

Although Paul does not wish to command the Corinthians to give (8:8), he does show how important such an act is (8:1-15, especially 8:13). In his argument he uses both the example of the Macedonians—presumably especially the Philippians (8:1-5)—coupled with a reminder of how the Corinthians had performed in this duty in the past (8:6-15).

In the middle of this second major section is, once again, a statement about Titus (8:16–9:1-5). Titus’ character and desire are first commended (8:16-24)—perhaps as a preemptive strike against the critics’ attacks. Since Titus is coming, the Corinthians should be ready to give (9:1-5).

Having established the need to give, and the imminence of Titus’ coming to collect, Paul now can address the benefits of such giving (9:6-15)—benefits which are both for the giver himself (9:6-11) and are an offering of praise to God (9:12-15).

In the last major section Paul returns to the issue of his own apostolic authority (10:1–13:10)—this time, with a vengeance. Once again, he points out how God’s glory is displayed through his weakness (10:1-11; cf. 4:7-15)—a weakness which his opponents had been exploiting. The Corinthians had had a history of confusing true greatness with oratorical and physical power (cf. 10:3-4, 7 and 1 Cor 1:18–4:5). He then not-so-politely tells these “super apostles” to get out of his territory, for Corinth is his domain, assigned to him by God (10:12-18, especially v. 13). They have bragged about their accomplishments in Corinth, when they have really trespassed on Paul’s territory.

This leads to a counter-point in which the apostle finds himself fighting fire with fire—that is, foolish boasting with foolish boasting (11:1–12:13). He does this to vindicate his apostleship for the Corinthians who had apparently come to accept the self-commendation of Paul’s opponents as a good thing (cf. 11:18). It is evident that had the Corinthians been more mature, Paul would never have had to stoop to the level of his opponents in order to win back the church (cf. 11:5; 12:11). He first calls for their discernment as his labors vs. those of the “super apostles” (11:1-15). What is at stake is their pure devotion to Christ (11:3), since these “super apostles” are no apostles at all, but ministers of Satan (11:13-15; cf. 4-5).

Then he boasts (11:16–12:10). He boasts of his sufferings (11:16-33), which functions as a reminder that a true apostle suffers hardship (4:7-15). He also boasts about his own revelations (12:1-6),¹⁸ and the glory of God which shines through his own weaknesses (12:7-10), “for when I am weak, then I am strong” (12:10). Finally, as a coup de grâce, he reminds the Corinthians of the signs of a true apostle: authenticating miracles (12:12-13).

Paul concludes this polemical defense by speaking of his plans for a third visit (12:14–13:10). Although he promises not to be a burden financially (12:14-18), he does expect the church to shape up spiritually (12:19–13:10). His fears about unrepentant sinners (12:19-21) lead him to warn of his own severe discipline of such people (13:1-4). Having established that he is truly an apostle—and can therefore exercise the most extreme discipline as a minister of a holy God (cf. 12:13; 1 Cor 5:5 and 11:30), the Corinthians should take this matter to heart and examine themselves before Paul ever arrives (13:5-10). Although they are professing believers, such profession is not, in every case, genuine (13:5). On this ominous note, the body of the epistle ends.

Paul concludes his letter with final exhortations and greetings (13:11-14).

III. Outline

I.. Salutation (1:1-11)

A. Greeting (1:1-2)

B. Thanksgiving for the Comfort of God in Affliction (1:3-11)

1. The Comfort of God (1:3-7)

2. Deliverance from Death (1:8-11)

II. Apologetic/Defense of Apostleship: Answering the Critics’ Charges (1:12–7:16)

A. The Defense of Paul’s Conduct (1:12–2:13)

1. Explanation of Altered Plans (1:12–2:4)

a. A Clear Conscience Claimed (1:12-14)

b. A Planned Profitable Visit (1:15-22)

c. A Canceled Painful Visit (1:23–2:4)

2. The Forgiveness of the Offending Brother (2:5-11)

3. Missing Titus in Troas (2:12-13)

B. The Nature of a True Apostleship (2:14–7:16)

1. The Glory of the Ministry (2:14–4:6)

a. The Triumph of Christ (2:14-17)

b. The Product of the Ministry (3:1-3)

c. The Superiority of the New Covenant (3:4-18)

d. The Light of the Gospel (4:1-6)

2. The Frailty of the Ministers (4:7–5:10)

a. Vessels of Clay: The Trials of the Ministers (4:7-15)

b. Unseen Glory: The Hope of the Ministers (4:16-18)

c. Earthly Tent: Confidence in the Face of Death (5:1-10)

3. The Message of Reconciliation (5:11–6:10)

a. Motivation: The Love of Christ (5:11-15)

b. Message: Be Reconciled to God (5:16–6:2)

c. Commendation: The Hardship of the Apostleship (6:3-10)

4. Paul’s Appeal to the Corinthians (6:11–7:4)

a. Mutual Affection Requested (6:11-13)

b. Equal Yoke (6:14–7:1)

c. Mutual Affection Repeated (7:2-4)

5. Meeting Titus in Macedonia (7:5-16)

III. Exhortation to Give: Collection for the Believers in Jerusalem (8:1–9:15)

A. The Necessity for Generosity (8:1-15)

1. The Example of the Macedonians (8:1-5)

2. The Exhortation to the Corinthians (8:6-15)

B. The Mission of Titus to Corinth (8:16–9:5)

1. The Commendation of Titus (8:16-24)

2. The Need for Readiness (9:1-5)

C. The Results of Generosity (9:6-15)

1. The Benefit to the Giver (9:6-11)

2. The Praise to God (9:12-15)

IV. Polemics: Affirmation of Apostolic Authority (10:1–13:10)

A. In Spite of an Unimpressive Appearance (10:1-11)

B. Invasion of False Apostles into Paul’s Territory (10:12-18)

C. Vindication of Authenticity of Paul’s Apostleship (11:1–12:13)

1. Justification of Paul’s Labors in Corinth (11:1-15)

2. The Bragging Rights of a True Apostle (11:16–12:10)

a. Boasting about Paul’s Sufferings (11:16-33)

b. Boasting about Paul’s Revelations (12:1-6)

c. Boasting about Paul’s Weaknesses (12:7-10)

d. Summary: The Proof of a True Apostle (12:11-13)

D. The Planned Third Visit (12:14–13:10)

1. Promise not to be a Burden (12:14-18)

2. Fears about the Unrepentant (12:19-21)

3. Warning of Discipline from Paul (13:1-4)

4. Expectation of Self-Examination (13:5-10)

V. Final Exhortation and Greetings (13:11-14)

---

¹M. J. Harris, 2 Corinthians in Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 306.

²All the dates mentioned here are somewhat flexible (by as much as a year or two), though I am in agreement with the majority of scholars, who date Paul’s initial visit to Corinth in 50 CE and the beginning of Gallio’s proconsulship in 51 CE. Further, the number of visits is complicated by several factors, including lack of data in Acts, change of plans in 1-2 Corinthians, etc. Our reconstruction is essentially that of R. P. Martin’s in his 2 Corinthians (WBC), xxxiv, with several notable differences.

³If Paul arrived back in Ephesus in the fall, it would perhaps be too late for convenient travel if he were to dispatch Titus just before winter. Although the Mediterranean climate is quite mild, in the least it was not Paul’s practice to travel (especially by sea) during the winter months, nor, most likely, to send others on missions during this time.

⁴It was during this winter stay in Corinth that Paul wrote Romans, most likely during the end of the stay after things had settled down in Corinth and Paul could resolve to move westward with the gospel.

⁵Cf. D. B. Wallace, “Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism,” in New Testament Essays in Honor of Homer A. Kent, Jr., 69-102 (especially 83-87, 100-102).

⁶Guthrie, 443.

⁷Ibid. Significant corroborative evidence can also be found in the fact that 1 Corinthians is heavily quoted in patristic literature, showing that it was copied early on and frequently. Psychologically, there is excellent reason to suppose that a letter which both Paul and his audience regretted would hardly have such widespread appeal.

⁸See David K. Lowery, “1 Corinthians,” in BKCNT, 514, for a decent summary of this interpretation.

⁹For a more complete treatment, cf. Guthrie, 444-51.

¹⁰In both verses he uses πάλιν.

¹¹Still, in 5:12-16 there does seem to be a general motif of denial of external symbols as bearing much weight.

¹²Against this, however, is the fact that there is no clue that Paul is responding to any letter or report in 10:1. If we can draw an analogy from his style in 1 Corinthians, this would be surprising if he were responding to a report.

¹³Guthrie, 449.

¹⁴See our discussion of this in our introduction to 2 Peter.

¹⁵ This, however, is rather doubtful. The former date of this papyrus, c. 200 CE, is almost surely correct.

¹⁶Craig Blomberg, “The Structure of 2 Corinthians 1–7,” CTR 4 (1990) 3-20, sees a chiastic structure in the first seven chapters of 2 Corinthians (see especially 8–9). Although there are many intriguing parallels, especially the refrain about Titus, the chiasmus probably exists more in his mind than in Paul’s.

¹⁷In many ways, the first seven chapters are dealing with the Corinthians’ subjective apprehension of Paul’s apostleship, while chapters 8–9 address the objective reality of the Jerusalem believers’ needs. Although overdrawn, this may be likened to a physician who hones his bedside manners because he has to perform surgery. In the least, we should recognize that Paul never neglected his sacred duty to the poor in Jerusalem—in spite of the great risk at which he put himself with some of his own churches.

¹⁸Although in v. 5 Paul says that he “will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself,” he quickly adds that a thorn in his flesh was given to him “to keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations” (12:7, NIV).

I. Introduction

A. The Author

Galatians is without a doubt the most secure of all Paul’s letters and perhaps of all books of the NT. Even F. C. Baur, the father of the Tübingen school accepted its authenticity. Still, it may be helpful to examine in brief the reasons that have been given for such acceptance.

1. External Evidence

Galatians is quoted or alluded to in 1 Peter, Barnabas, 1 Clement, Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. Both Marcion’s and the Muratorian canon list it.

2. Internal Evidence

The internal grounds for asserting authenticity are four: (1) “Paul, as author, is mentioned by name not only at the beginning (1:1) but also toward the end of the letter (5:2), and the whole from beginning to end breathes such an intensely personal and unconsciously autobiographical note that only a genuine historical situation involving the true founder of the Gentile mission within the church accounts for it.”¹ (2) There are several coincidences (conceptual, verbal, historical, etc.) with what we know of Paul from Acts and other Pauline letters which are so unobtrusive as to be undesigned that they bear the stamp of genuineness. (3) There is controversy in the letter: Paul defends himself and his gospel as though both were doubted; further, he says some rather unflattering things to his audience which would be difficult for a later writer to get away with. And the nature of the controversy is something that hardly existed after 70 CE. A later writer would not only not be able to pass off this work as genuine, but he would have virtually no motive for writing it. (4) There is nothing negative in the epistle regarding authorship (historical discrepancies, language, theological development, etc.) to cast any doubts on authenticity.

B. Destination/Audience

The key introductory issue in Galatians is the destination. Until comparatively recent times, biblical scholars assumed that this epistle was sent to the churches in the geographical region known as Galatia, in north central Asia Minor. Thus, Paul would have visited the region on his second missionary journey (cf. Acts 16:6; 18:23) and his visit to Jerusalem (recorded in Gal. 2) would correspond to Acts 15. The epistle would then be sent sometime on Paul’s third missionary journey, perhaps from Corinth (Acts 20:3), in 55/56 CE. This view is known as the “North Galatian Theory” since the churches would be in the geographical Galatia, which was in the north.

But in fairly recent times, largely due to the archeological efforts of Sir William Ramsey, a new theory has been proposed—the “South Galatian Theory.” Not only Ramsey, but the majority of NT scholars today, would hold that Paul wrote this letter to the churches in the political province of Galatia—i.e., an area which the Roman government designated as Galatia. This province included cities substantially to the south of the geographical region of Galatia, including Lystra, Derbe, and Iconium. Paul had visited these cities on his first missionary journey. If the south Galatian theory is true, then there is no need to identify Gal. 2 with Acts 15, for the events described in Gal. 2 may well have happened on an earlier visit to Jerusalem. The letter would then have been written sometime before the events of Acts 15. The date of Galatians could then be as early as 47-49 CE, depending on when the Council at Jerusalem in Acts 15 is to be dated.

What is at stake here is both the date of this epistle and the interpretation of Gal. 2:1-10 (in terms of its historical setting). Less directly, the historical value of Acts is involved, as well as how to evaluate the theological development in the mind of Paul between the writing of Galatians and Romans. Finally, if Galatians is dated early (a la the south Galatian theory), then this letter becomes the first canonical Pauline epistle.² A brief examination of the chief reasons for each view is in order.

1. North Galatian Theory

There are four primary arguments for the north Galatian theory.

a. No other view existed until comparatively recent times. This, of course, does not make the view correct, but it does place the burden of proof on the more recent theory.

b. The natural meaning of “Galatia,” “Galatians” (Gal. 1:2; 3:1) would be to a geographical region in north central Asia Minor. This was the referent as used by the inhabitants (the Gauls, who originated the name). Further, this seems to be Luke’s usage (i.e., he describes places according to geographical region rather than according to political province). In Acts 13:13; 13:14; and 14:6, Luke speaks of Pamphylia, Pisidia, and Lycaonia respectively, all of which are geographical terms. This indicates that he probably used the term “Phrygian and Galatian region” in 16:6 as a geographical term, too.³

c. Paul most likely visited the north Galatian districts, as Acts 16:6 and 18:23 seem to indicate. If so, then he must have visited this area twice, and there is a strong presumption that he established churches there.

d. Galatians 2:1-10 naturally refers to the Council visit in Acts 15. This can especially be seen in opposition to the south Galatian theory. If Gal. 2:1-10 refers to a previous visit of Paul to Jerusalem, which one? Only two prior visits are recorded, in Acts 9:26 and 11:30. Acts 9:26 is ruled out because that is Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem as a believer: in Gal. 2:1 he says he “again” went up to Jerusalem. Acts 11:30 seems to be ruled out because Acts records nothing of Paul’s visit with any of the apostles—only that they visited the “elders” with the relief fund in hand.

2. South Galatian Theory⁴

In my view, the chief battles which the north Galatian theorists have chosen to fight are really non-essential to the south Galatian theory. These battles will be listed as the first argument. North Galatian theorists argue against them not because of their intrinsic value for the south Galatian theory, but because, if true, the north Galatian theory is falsified. In other words, if any or all of the arguments listed in this first point were untrue, this would not damage the south Galatian theory. But if any of them were true, this would damage (or destroy!) the north Galatian theory.

a. Negative (and Non-Essential) Arguments

There is no hard evidence in Acts that Paul ever visited the north Galatian district. If he had, this would of course not prove the south Galatian theory wrong,⁵ on the other hand, if he did not, it would prove the north Galatian theory wrong. There are essentially three sub-points in defense of this supposition:

(1) Acts 16:6 and 18:23 are taken to mean, respectively, “the Phrygian-Galatian region” and “the [Roman] province of Galatia and Phrygia.” In the first instance, Φρυγίαν is taken (rightfully) as an adjective,⁶ and thus indicates that Luke is here using a political (rather than an ethnic/geographical) term. This opens up the distinct possibility—even though it may be against his normal practice—that he does the same thing in Acts 18:23. If so, in neither verse does Luke affirm that Paul visited the geographical region of Galatia.⁷

(2) Even if Paul penetrated the northern region, Luke does not mention that he established any churches there, while Luke does say that Paul established churches in the south. This argument from silence bears considerable weight since, on the north Galatian hypothesis, “it is strange that so little is said about churches where such an important controversy arose as is reflected in the Galatian epistle.”⁸ Of these three “non-essential” arguments, this seems to be the strongest. Even such a staunch supporter of the north Galatian view as Moffatt admitted, “Luke devotes far more attention to South Galatian churches, and [therefore] Galatians is more likely to have been addressed to them than to Christians in an out-of-the-way, unimportant district like North Galatia.”⁹

(3) The collection delegation contained no representative from north Galatia. The reference to Paul’s companions in Acts 20:4, who were apparently part of this delegation, includes Sopater (of Berea), Aristarchus and Secundus (from Thessalonica), Gaius (from Derbe), Timothy (from Lystra), etc. The churches of Galatia are explicitly mentioned as participating in this good will gesture in 1 Cor. 16:1. On the south Galatian theory, Timothy and Gaius would be the delegates; on the north Galatian theory, no one is mentioned. This silence is difficult to explain.¹⁰

b. The Isolation of the North Galatian District

According to Gal. 4:13, Paul was suffering from some illness in Galatia when he visited the region the first time. Indeed, he came there to recover. “But this would be highly improbable in the northern area, which was not only off the beaten track but necessitated a journey over difficult country.”¹¹

c. Paul’s Use of (Roman) Provincial Titles

Although Luke’s (normal) practice may well have been to describe regions according to their geographical/ethnic names, Paul’s practice seems to be different—indeed, uniformly so. He writes “of the churches of Macedonia (2 Cor. 8:1), Asia (1 Cor. 16:19), and Achaia (2 Cor. 1:1). He also speaks of Judea, Syria, and Cilicia, but never of Lycaonia, Pisidia, Mysia, and Lydia (which are not Roman names). The presumption that he is also using the Roman title in speaking of Galatia is therefore strong.”¹² I personally find this argument to be quite compelling.

d. The Mention of Barnabas

Barnabas is thrice mentioned in Gal. 2 (vv. 1, 9, 13)—each time as though he were familiar to the audience. (In the least, it is significant that he is mentioned in this epistle more than in any other.) This would only be true if these churches were founded on the first missionary journey, for Barnabas and Paul split up before the second journey began. It is usually objected that Barnabas is also mentioned in 1 Cor. 9:6—again without introduction, yet he was apparently unknown to the Corinthians. In response, (1) Barnabas may well have become known to the Corinthians, though not via journeying with Paul; (2) more importantly, Gal. 2:13 implies that Barnabas’ character was known to the Galatians (while in 1 Cor. 9:6 no such implication is made).¹³

e. Gal. 2:1-10 Must Precede Acts 15

In essence, it is extremely surprising that Paul would make no mention of the Council’s decision, since it would substantially support his case and discredit the Judaizers, if Gal. 2 has the same referent as Acts 15. Further, whereas Gal. 2 records a private conversation, Acts 15 speaks of a public meeting.

f. The Number of Visits to Jerusalem

Galatians 2:1 says that Paul visited Jerusalem “again,” and the narrative gives the distinct impression that this is only Paul’s second visit. If so, it would then correspond to his visit in Acts 11:30, for Acts records only one visit prior to this (9:26). Even though Luke might not mention all of Paul’s visits to Jerusalem, this works decidedly against the north Galatian theory, for if that were the case here, Acts 15 would be Paul’s fourth (or later!) visit. This seems to be a virtually decisive piece of evidence.¹⁴

g. Theological Development between Galatians and Romans

Lightfoot argued that since there is obvious theological development between Galatians and Romans, Romans must come later. But, because he held to the north Galatian theory (in fact, was the major north Galatian proponent), he was compelled to see Galatians written during Paul’s short stay in Corinth (Acts 20:3). In our reconstruction (as well as that of the majority of NT scholars), Romans was written during this three-month period. That would mean that Galatians and Romans were written at virtually the same time (perhaps Galatians even came after Romans by a month or two), yet Galatians seems to be less mature than Romans. Because Lightfoot is almost surely right that there is theological development between these two epistles,¹⁵ it is difficult to imagine such development taking place in the space of a month or two. Rather, a few years would normally be needed. If Galatians is dated c. 48-49 CE, and Romans, 56 CE, the time gap is quite sufficient.

In sum, the south Galatian theory, though not unassailable, seems by far the most satisfactory. In particular, the arguments that seem most compelling on its behalf are: (1) the number of visits implied in Gal. 2:1 and mentioned in Acts; (2) Paul’s proven use of Roman provincial terms to describe what Luke would normally describe with geographical/ethnic terms; and (3) the absence of any mention of the decree in Gal. 2:1-10 which would so dramatically serve Paul’s purposes and prove, once and for all, that the Judaizers were not really representative of James or apostolic/Jerusalem Christianity.

C. Date

According to the south Galatian theory (i.e., in its most popular form), the terminus ad quem of this epistle must be before the Council of Acts 15 and the terminus a quo must be after Paul’s visit to Jerusalem in Acts 11:30. In other words, Galatians must have been written between autumn, 46 CE and autumn, 48 CE.¹⁶

There is a significant problem for this dating, however, because of a couple chronological notes within Galatians itself. In Gal. 1:18 Paul speaks of going to Jerusalem “after three years”—i.e., after three years since his conversion. This Jerusalem visit corresponds to the one mentioned in Acts 9:26. In Gal. 2:1 he gives a second chronological note: “Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me.” This corresponds to the visit mentioned in Acts 11:30. If these seventeen years—from Paul’s conversion until the Jerusalem visit in Acts 11:30 (autumn, 46 CE)—are seventeen complete years, then this would make Paul’s conversion occur in 29 CE—that is, on any reasonable reckoning, before the death of Christ! Further, in our understanding, the death of our Lord occurred in 33 CE, and Paul’s conversion in 34 CE. There are three ways to deal with this problem from a south Galatian position.

(1) It is possible to reckon the years as inclusive years (a very natural form of expression in ancient times)¹⁷—i.e., to recognize that the fourteen years means twelve full years and portions of two others; the three years means one full year and portions of two others. If so, then the formula for this is as follows: “after three years” = A + 1 year + B; “after fourteen years” = C + 12 years + D. “Thus, taking a, b, c and d as unknown number of months, the total could be approximately 14 years.”¹⁸ This would be true even if each unknown quantity equaled, on average, three months. If so, Paul’s conversion could have been in 32 CE if the famine visit was as early as 46 CE. In fact, if the death of Jesus occurred in 30 CE, Paul’s conversion could be as early as 31, allowing as much as six months for the unknown quantities. This is quite possible, provided that one is amenable to a 30 CE crucifixion date.

(2) It is possible to treat the three years as occurring within the fourteen years, rather than as occurring before the fourteen years. In other words, Gal. 2:1 might be read: “Then, fourteen years [after my conversion], I went up . . .” It is often objected that this is special pleading, and well it might be. However, the real basis of the argument is often missed. The fact that ἔπειτα is used in 1:18, 21, and 2:1 is often seen as crucial: in 1:18 and 1:21 there is obviously chronological succession and hence we should see this in 2:1 as well. However, there is a difference: in 1:18 μετά is used to indicate the time element (“after three years”), while in 2:1 διά is used. This may mean “within fourteen years.”¹⁹ But this does not seem to make an advance over our original understanding of inclusive years. It is quite possible, however, to treat the ἔπειτα in 2:1 as resumptive of the ἔπειτα of 1:18, rather than as sequential to it. Although 1:21 suggests sequence, no years are mentioned; consequently, both in 1:18 and 2:1 Paul may well be marking time from his conversion.²⁰ If this is the case, then fourteen years (i.e., 12 + A + B) could easily fit a conversion in (spring?) 34 CE and a Jerusalem visit in (fall) 46 CE.

(3) It is possible to combine either of the above approaches with a famine visit date of 47 CE (instead of 46 CE). If so, there is more latitude on the front end as well (i.e., the dates of Christ’s death and the conversion of Paul).

In sum, Paul’s chronological notes in Gal. 1:18 and 2:1 do not really pose any real problem for the south Galatian theory, even if one were to hold to a 33 CE crucifixion date for Christ.

As the date of this epistle, this can be more precisely determined as we look at the occasion. Suffice it to say here, it seems that this letter was written shortly before the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15—that is, in late summer/fall of 48 CE (or 49 CE).

D. Occasion/Purpose

Bruce has a nice summary:

When, as we are told in Acts 15:1, Judaean visitors came to Syrian Antioch and started to teach the Christians there that those who were not circumcised in accordance with the law of Moses could not be saved, it is antecedently probable that others who wished to press the same line visited the recently formed daughter-churches of Antioch, not only in Syria and Cilicia, as the apostolic letter indicates (Acts 15:23), but also in South Galatia. If so, then the letter to the Galatians was written as soon as Paul got news of what was afoot, on the even of the Jerusalem meeting described in Acts 15:6ff. This, it is suggested, would yield the most satisfactory correlation of the data of Galatians and Acts and the most satisfactory dating of Galatians. It must be conceded that, if this is so, Galatians is the earliest among the extant letters of Paul.²¹

The purpose of this letter was obviously, then, to refute the Judaizers’ false gospel—a gospel in which these Jewish Christians felt that circumcision was essential to salvation—and to remind the Galatians of the real basis of their salvation. It was the urgency of the situation which moved Paul to write even before the Jerusalem Council convened, for the churches of Galatia were at stake.²²

E. Theme

Galatians has been called “the Magna Carta of the Reformation” and Luther’s “Katie von Bora.” It is the book on which the Protestant Reformation was founded. The key to this epistle is seen in 2:16: “Know that a man is not justified on the basis of the works of the Law, but on the basis of the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified on the basis of Christ’s faithfulness, and not on the basis of the works of the Law—for no flesh will be justified on the basis of the works of the Law.” Paul thus links Christ’s complete faithfulness to the old covenant as grounds for the abolition of the old covenant and as the basis for our salvation. In a nutshell, we are justified by faith in Christ because Christ was faithful.

II. Argument

Paul begins his letter to the Galatians in a manner different from all his other canonical epistles: although there is a short greeting (1:1-5), there is no thanksgiving to God for the Galatians. Instead, what follows is a denunciation of the Galatians for having deserted the grace of Christ and following after a false gospel (1:6-10).

The body of the epistle deals with three things: (1) a defense of Paul’s apostleship (1:11–2:21), since the very message of his gospel was at stake; (2) a defense of what that message entails in terms of justification by faith (3:1–4:31), since the Galatians’s standing before God is at stake; and (3) a defense of Christian liberty—which grows out of justification by faith (5:1–6:10), since the Galatians’ walk with God is at stake.

In the first section (1:11–2:21) Paul defends his apostleship in two ways. First, it was received by revelation (1:11-12). Thus its source was divine, not human. Second, it was independent of the Jerusalem apostles (1:13–2:21)—again, stressing its divine roots. Paul elaborates on this second point by taking pains to show that he never even consulted with any other apostles in the first three years after his conversion (1:13-17), and even when he did first visit Jerusalem, the visit was brief and only included time logged with Peter (1:18-24). Finally, when Paul did consult with the apostles (2:1-10) they both required nothing of Titus as to circumcision (2:1-5) and gave hearty approval to Paul’s gospel (2:6-10).

So strong was this approval, in fact, that Paul later felt the freedom to rebuke the chief of the Jerusalem apostles, Peter himself, when the two were in Antioch (2:11-21). The recording of such a rebuke²³ should prove that truth was on Paul’s side, and hence his gospel was from God. (Most likely, the Judaizers had given a biased report of this incident to the Galatians, using it in support of their “gospel”.) Paul’s rebuke was not concerning Peter’s gospel, but concerning his inconsistent behavior with it, for out of fear Peter himself had tacitly agreed with the position of the Judaizers, to the harm of Gentile converts (2:11-13). For this hypocrisy, Paul rebuked Peter (2:14). The basis for the rebuke is then given (though it is unclear whether Paul is quoting himself when he confronted Peter or is now turning to the readers)²⁴ (2:15-21): in essence, to add law to grace is to destroy grace and to make a mockery of the cross (cf. 2:21).

The second major section (3:1–4:31) is really the heart of this epistle, for Paul clearly sets forth what justification by faith really meant and why it was true. He begins with a justification of justification (3:1-18). The basic gist of his argument was that (1) the Spirit was received by faith, not by works of the Law (3:1-5); (2) the example of Abraham illustrates that one is justified by faith, not by works of the Law (3:6-14); and (3) the Law, which came 430 years after God’s covenant with Abraham, cannot invalidate the promise (3:15-18).

But such vindication of justification by faith raises a problem: why then was the Law given (3:19)? If the same God gave the promise, why would he add the Law? Paul answers this question (3:19–4:6) with two responses: (1) it was temporary in nature, given to remind/warn the nation of Israel that a works-righteousness was thoroughly inadequate, though its standard of perfection anticipated the coming of the Messiah (3:19-25); and (2) it had an inferior status, effectively enslaving those who would be sons (3:26–4:7). Thus the Law had its place, viz., to point out to the nation of Israel its need for Christ.

The apostle now turns to his readers with a direct appeal (4:8-31). Having just demonstrated that the Law enslaved, he points out that the Galatians, too, had experienced slavery as pagans worshipping false gods (4:8-9). By accepting the Judaizers’ message, they would simply replace one kind of slavery with another (4:10-11)! Not only this, but the effect that the Judaizers’ message was having on the Galatians (4:12-20) was not only to alienate them from Paul (4:17), but also to rob them of their joy in Christ (4:15). Paul concludes his appeal employing Hagar and Sarah as an allegory for law and grace (4:21-31).

Having argued his case for the truth of justification by faith, Paul launches into his final major section of the epistle in which he shows how it should work out in one’s life (5:1–6:10). At stake especially is Christian liberty, for as Paul has repeatedly shown, the Law enslaves. Consequently, the apostle begins with this very issue, the enslavement of the Law (5:1-12), and argues that the Law harms liberty in five ways: (1) it enslaves the believer (5:1-2); (2) it turns the believer into a debtor (5:3); (3) it alienates the believer from Christ, causing him to fall from grace (5:4-6); (4) it hinders the progressive sanctification of the Christian (5:7-10); and (5) it removes the stigma of the cross, making Christ’s death unnecessary (5:11-12).

On the other hand, Christian liberty does not give one license to do whatever he wants (5:13-26). Paul writes preemptively to the Galatians about the effects of license (5:13-21), in hopes that they would heed his message but not go beyond the bounds of grace. In essence, the liberty of justification is the liberty to live for God, not the liberty to sin. Paul then shows how one should live for God as well as the result of living for God (5:22-26): by the Spirit, resulting in character qualities “against which there is no law” (5:23).

The value of liberty is not only in relation to ourselves (character development) and God. It also has value for others. True liberty is liberty to love and to serve others (6:1-10). The spiritual should serve by gently rebuking the weak and modeling responsibility for the corporate body of Christ (6:1-5). The congregation should exercise its liberty by loving all people, but especially other believers (6:10).

Paul closes his epistle (6:11-18) by unmasking the true motives of the Judaizers (6:12-13) as compared with his own motives (6:14-17), followed by his customary benediction (6:18).

III. Outline²⁵

I. Introduction (1:1-10)

A. Salutation (1:1-5)

B. Denunciation (1:6-10)

II. Personal: Defense of Paul’s Apostleship (1:11–2:21)

A. Received by Revelation (1:11-12)

B. Independent of Jerusalem Apostles (1:13–2:21)

1. Demonstrated by Paul’s Conversion and Early Years as a Christian (1:13-17)

2. Demonstrated by Paul’s First Post-Conversion Visit to Jerusalem (1:18-24)

3. Confirmed by the Jerusalem Apostles (2:1-10)

a. The Treatment of Titus (2:1-5)

b. The Approval of Paul (2:6-10)

4. Illustrated by Paul’s Rebuke of Peter (2:11-21)

a. Peter’s Hypocrisy (2:11-13)

b. Paul’s Rebuke (2:14)

c. The Principle Involved (2:15-21)

III. Doctrinal: Defense of Justification by Faith (3:1–4:31)

A. Vindication of Justification by Faith (3:1-18)

1. The Experience of the Galatians (3:1-5)

2. The Example of Abraham (3:6-14)

a. The Faith of Abraham (3:6-9)

b. The Curse of the Law (3:10-12)

c. The Curse on Christ (3:13)

d. The Blessing of Abraham (3:14)

3. The Permanence of the Promise (3:15-18)

a. The Promise Given to Abraham’s Seed, Christ (3:15-16)

b. The Law’s Irrelevance for the Promise (3:17-18)

B. Purpose of the Law (3:19–4:7)

1. Its Temporary Nature (3:19-25)

2. Its Inferior Status (3:26–4:7)

a. Equality in the Body of Christ (3:26-29)

b. Slaves Vs. Sons (4:1-7)

C. Appeal Concerning Justification by Faith (4:8-31)

1. Paul’s Concern for the Galatians (4:8-20)

a. Because of their Return to Bondage (4:8-11)

b. Because of their Loss of Joy (4:12-20)

2. An Appeal from Allegory (4:21-31)

IV. Practical: Defense of Christian Liberty (5:1–6:10)

A. Liberty Vs. Law (5:1-12)

1. The Law Enslaves the Believer (5:1-2)

2. The Law Obligates the Believer (5:3)

3. The Law Alienates Christ (5:4-6)

4. The Law Hinders Growth (5:7-10)

5. The Law Removes the Offense of the Cross (5:11-12)

B. Liberty Vs. License (5:13-26)

1. The Fruit of License (5:13-21)

2. The Fruit of the Spirit (5:22-26)

C. Liberty to Love (6:1-10)

1. Responsibility toward the Weak and Sinful (6:1-5)

2. Responsibility toward the Leaders (6:6-9)

3. Responsibility toward All People (6:10)

V. Conclusion (6:11-18)

A. Authentication of the Epistle (6:11)

B. Condemnation of the Judaizers (6:12-16)

1. The Motives of the Judaizers (6:12-13)

2. The Motives of Paul (6:14-17)

C. Benediction (6:18)

---

¹J. M. Boice, Galatians (EBC), 420.

²One other item may be at stake, though this issue has not seen any published assessment. If Galatians is to be dated c. 48-49, then it precedes 1 Thessalonians by no more than two years (and 1 Thessalonians would then be Paul’s second canonical letter). As different as these two epistles seem on the surface, there may be a very strong connecting thread: Paul’s view of the Law, interpreted Christologically. In Galatians, he addresses the fact that with the first coming of the Messiah, we are no longer under the Law. First Thessalonians, with its emphasis on eschatology, seems to suggest that Christians will be raptured before the day of judgment begins—a day which, in part, is a day of God’s wrath poured out on the nation for rejecting his Messiah. In other words, the doctrine of the rapture before the day of God’s wrath is an extension of the doctrine of Christ being the end of the Law. Indeed, there is even an inclusio in the pretribulational scheme: the present dispensation is bracketed by two revelational events, both of which are witnessed only by believers: the resurrection of Christ and the rapture of believers. Unfortunately, the relation of Galatians to 1-2 Thessalonians cannot be developed in this paper, but suffice it to say that there is a thematic connection between them which is more understandable if both were written at about the same time.

³Further, when describing the cities in these regions (viz., Antioch, Lystra, Derbe), he adds the genitives “of Pisidia” (13:14) and “of Lycaonia” (14:6), “which shows that the geographical district was used for purposes of identification in preference to the Roman provincial title” (Guthrie, 466).

⁴By no means are all the arguments in behalf of the south Galatian theory put forth. Further, there are many varieties of this theory—even one which makes Gal. 2 = Acts 15! I will set forth only the most popular variety of the south Galatian theory in this section.

⁵On the south Galatian theory, Paul would have written before he ever went on his second missionary journey. Hence, there would be no confusion in his mind of calling his audience “Galatians.”

⁶Cf. C. J. Hemer, “The Adjective ‘Phrygia,’” JTS 27 (1976) 122-26.

⁷One of the arguments used by north Galatianists is that in Act 16:6 the aorist participle κωλυθέντες refers to action antecedent to the time of the main verb, διῆλθον, in keeping with normal grammar. If so, then the verse reads: “Since they were forbidden by the Holy Spirit from speaking the word in Asia, they went through the Phrygian and Galatian region.” This would imply that Paul and Silas had to go north, since Asia Minor is south of the Galatian region. If so, then they did indeed travel through this region and perhaps even establish churches there (as διῆλθον seems to imply in 18:23). If this view is correct, it still does not nullify the south Galatian theory; but if it is false, it does do a great deal of damage to the north Galatian theory.

In order to falsify this view, however, κωλυθέντες has to be taken as an aorist participle of subsequent action (Acts 16:6 would then read: “They went through the Phrygian-Galatian region, but were then forbidden by the Holy Spirit from speaking the word in Asia”). This usage of the participle, admittedly, is quite rare—so rare in fact that Chase’s comment is oft-quoted by north Galatianists: the south Galatian theory “is shipwrecked on the rock of Greek grammar” (a rather incautious overstatement; it would be more accurate to say, “proof of the falsity of the north Galatian theory is shipwrecked, as far as Acts 16:6 is concerned, on the rocks of Greek grammar”). However, in recent years more and more scholars are recognizing the validity (though rare) of the aorist participle of subsequent action. In particular, G. M. Lee has produced several examples of this phenomenon, in both Koine Greek (some even in Acts!) and classical Greek (“The Aorist Participle of Subsequent Action (Acts 16,6)?”, Biblica 51 [1970] 235-57; “The Past Participle of Subsequent Action,” NovTest 17 [1973] 199). Further, this seems to make good sense in the context: after passing through the Phrygian-Galatian district, Paul and Silas attempted to preach in Asia, but were prohibited. So they came close to Mysia and attempted to go north into Bithynia, but were again prohibited (Acts 16:7). So they went to the coast, to Troas, and there got the vision of the man from Macedonia who said, “Come over to Macedonia and help us” (16:8-9).

⁸Guthrie, 468.

⁹J. Moffatt, An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 96. He admits further that “this is one of the most plausible pleas which are advanced by the South Galatian theorists, but is inconclusive.”

¹⁰The response is usually to note that no delegates from Corinth or Philippi are mentioned either. However, as Guthrie points out (471, n. 2): “It could, of course, be maintained that Titus, although not mentioned in Acts, represented the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 16:3; 2 Cor. 8:16ff.) and that Luke was a delegate from Philippi (a ‘we’ passage commences at 20:5 when Paul is at Philippi).”

¹¹Guthrie, 469.

¹²Boice, Galatians, 414-15. Ramsey added a further note to this: if Paul was indeed using political rather than geographical names, then no other name besides “Galatia” would cover the churches in Lystra, Derbe, Iconium, etc. One criticism of this approach is that in Gal. 1:21 Paul refers to Syria and Cilicia, which together formed one Roman province. However, it is quite possible to maintain that Paul preferred the geographical designations when describing Palestine (cf. Rom. 15:31; 2 Cor. 1:16; Gal. 1:22; 1 Thess. 2:14)—since he was a Jew and was quite a bit more familiar with the history of the nation—while in describing churches on his missionary journeys he used Roman provincial titles. This seems quite natural.

¹³In Gal. 2:13 Paul says that “even Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity.” The grammar (ὥστε plus indicative mood, found elsewhere in the NT only in John 3:16) indicates “actual result” rather then “natural result” (which ὥστε plus the infinitive more normally indicates); further, the ὥστε clause follows an ascensive καί, which in itself expresses some surprise. The implication seems to be that the audience knew that such insincerity was against Barnabas’ normal character.

¹⁴North Galatianists usually counter in one of three ways: (1) Acts 11:30 is unhistorical. But Luke has a proven track record as a historian; this view therefore seems to be motivated out of expedience rather than careful exegesis. (2) Since Acts 11:30 only mentions that Paul visited “elders,” and since Paul seems to be mentioning only his visits to Jerusalem in which he saw apostles, the Acts 11 visit “does not count.” But not only is this an incredible argument from silence, not only does it seem to contravene the plain meaning of Gal. 1–2 (where all visits count), but it also assumes that “elder” cannot include “apostle” in its referent. But this is almost surely not the case (cf. Acts 16:4 where both terms are governed by one article, as well as my essay, “The Semantic Range of the Article-Noun-Καιv-Noun Plural Construction in the New Testament,” GTJ 4 [1983] 59-86, in which I argue, on grammatical and other grounds, that “apostles and elders” means “apostles and other elders.” That is to say, there is a solid grammatical and biblico-theological basis for arguing that all the apostles were elders, though not all the elders were apostles). (3) Rather than suggesting that Luke omits one or more Jerusalem visits, it is sometimes suggested that Paul does. Much is often made of πάλιν (“again”) in Gal. 2:1: “palin means ‘again’ much more than it means ‘a second time.’ The verse does not [therefore] rule out the possibility that the famine visit of Acts 11 intruded between the two visits mentioned in this letter” (Boice, Galatians, 441). If Gal. 2:1 could be stripped of its context, this argument might have some validity. But the entire narrative, from 1:11 to 2:14, has the feel of a legal defense (cf. 1:20) in which the apostle would be careful especially about how many visits he had made to Jerusalem and when he had visited.

¹⁵See my essay, “Galatians 3:19: A Crux Interpretum for Paul’s View of the Law,” WTJ 52 (1990) 225-45.

¹⁶This chronology is based on a modification of H. W. Hoehner, “Chronology of the Apostolic Age” (Th.D. Dissertation, Dallas Seminary, 1965), 382. Hoehner holds to a date one year later than this (autumn, 47-autumn, 48 CE), but his scheme is based on Gallio’s proconsulship beginning in 52 CE, while most NT scholars date it in 51 CE.

¹⁷Cf. J. G. Machen, The Origin of Paul’s Religion, 79.

¹⁸R. G. Hoerber, “Galatians 2:1-10 and the Acts of the Apostles,” CTM 31 (August, 1960) 489.

¹⁹Cf. BAGD, s.v. διαv, 2.1.b, 180; cf. Matt. 26:61; Mark 14:58.

²⁰So G. Ogg, The Chronology of the Life of Paul, 56-57. Although this may be a bit unusual language, it must be remembered that (1) Paul not infrequently uses a resumptive conjunction after a digression, such as is found in 1:22-24 (cf., e.g., the resumptive o{ti in Eph. 2:12); (2) Paul elsewhere seems to have “marked time” from his conversion, as is only natural when one has been dramatically converted. There are hints of this in Phil. 3:7-8, 13-14; 2 Cor. 5:17, etc. Indeed, this may well have been almost subconscious in Gal. 2:1.

²¹F. F. Bruce, Commentary on Galatians (NIGNT), 55.

²²Although several sequences are mentioned in Acts 15:1-2, the specific time when Paul wrote this letter is not. It is quite possible (in our view, probable) to see the following sequence of events: (1) Judaizers arrive in Antioch and begin teaching their doctrines (Acts 15:1); (2) Paul and Barnabas get into heated debates with them over the nature of the gospel (Acts 15:2); (3) Paul gets word that the Judaizers had infiltrated into the Galatian churches; (4) Paul writes the Galatians—while the debate is going on in Antioch; (5) the Antioch church appoints Paul and Barnabas to go up to Jerusalem to settle the issue officially. This sequence of events is psychologically satisfactory in that Paul would write as soon as he hears about the troubles in Galatia—and he would write while the debates in Antioch were taking place. This certainly fits the tone of the epistle. As well, it is psychologically satisfactory in another direction: it alleviates the potential problem of Paul writing to the Galatians after he had been appointed to get the official word from the apostles in Jerusalem, for otherwise this epistle sounds as if Paul is unsure of himself and/or unsure of the outcome of the Jerusalem Council. Although it is true that he puts little stock in the “pillars of the faith,” he also states that these same pillars did not disagree with his gospel. Thus, if he knew that he would soon be going to Jerusalem for an official word on the gospel, one would think that he would either wait for that official word if he believed it would agree with his views or else write preemptively if he felt it might disagree with his views. On the (normal) south Galatian theory this letter cannot be written after the Acts 15 meeting (further, Gal. 2:1-10 certainly does not read as though Paul is parading an official announcement—which, in this reconstruction, would be the only reason for him to wait to write). Not only this, but it cannot be written before it as a “preemptive strike”—for, again, Paul shows no doubt that the Jerusalem apostles agree with him. Thus, our conclusion is that Paul wrote Galatians before he was appointed to go to Jerusalem, though after the Judaizers came to Antioch and engaged in debate with him.

²³Although some call this “Paul’s dispute with Peter” there is no evidence whatever that Peter debated with Paul over what he had done. Clearly, this is an instance of reproof over conduct, not dispute over doctrine.

²⁴Probably it is the former because in this section Paul is more concerned with his apostolic authority than with the defense of his message.

²⁵There is widespread agreement about both the macro-structure and micro-structure of Galatians (cf., e.g., the works of Mounce, Campbell, Boice, Guthrie, and Burton, though Bruce, Schlier, and Betz deviate from the norm). Our approach will therefore look very similar—both in wording and structure—to this standard approach.

I. Introduction

A. The Author

Except for the pastorals, Ephesians has the worst credentials for authenticity, in critical circles, among all of Paul’s epistles. The argument against Ephesians’ authenticity, however, rests exclusively on internal evidence, for as even Kümmel admits, “without question Ephesians was extraordinarily well attested in the early Church.”¹

1. External Evidence

Ephesians is found in the two earliest canons, Marcion’s (who gives it the title “Laodiceans”) and the Muratorian canon. Clement of Rome, Hermas, Barnabas, Ignatius, and Polycarp all allude to it. Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen all quote from it. Further, it is found in ¸46, the earliest Pauline MS, normally dated at c. 200 CE (though recently one scholar has dated this papyrus in the 70s CE!²).

2. Internal Evidence

Our discussion will follow (roughly) the lines of Wood’s essay: traditional arguments for authenticity, arguments against Pauline authorship, and responses to the critical assessment.³

a. Traditional Arguments for Authenticity

There are three traditional internal arguments used for authenticity.

1) Explicit Statements

“In the introduction the author identifies himself and then proceeds in typically Pauline fashion to ascribe his apostolic authority to the will of God (Eph 1:1; cf. 2 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:1; Col 1:1). Paul’s name reappears later (3:1) as in his undisputed letters (2 Cor 10:1; Gal 5:2; Col 1:23; 1 Thess 2:18).”⁴ This, of course, is not to say that the letter must be by Paul, but it is to argue that without such internal testimony, no such claim could be made.⁵

2) Literary Affinities

Both in terms of structure and vocabulary, Ephesians “smells” Pauline. Structurally, we see the same sequence of salutation, thanksgiving, doctrinal exposition, moral appeal, final courtesies, and benediction. This outline, of course, represents the usual practice in letter-writing in Paul’s day, but a comparison with the non-Pauline documents underlines his distinctive approach, particularly in his treatment of ethics as an extension of theology.⁶

In terms of vocabulary, “many words not found elsewhere in the NT occur both in Ephesians and in the rest of Paul’s letters. . . . [Indeed,] the vocabulary approximates more closely to that of the earlier Pauline correspondence than does that of Colossians, the authenticity of which is scarcely questioned.”⁷

3) Theological Consistency

This epistle is thoroughly consistent with Paul’s undisputed letters in its theology. Yet, this consistency is not wooden: the language is different, sometimes a new angle on an old theme is developed, there is a detachment involved (as seen by the lack of personal references). Even Mitton, the great champion of inauthenticity in this century, starts his argument with the remarkable concession, “Pauline authorship can rightly be assumed until it is disproved.”⁸

b. Arguments Against Pauline Authorship

The arguments against authenticity can be grouped into three large categories: historical, linguistic/literary, theological.

1) Historical Arguments

There are two historical arguments: (1) assuming the salutation “to the saints in Ephesus” in 1:1 to be genuine, Paul could not have written this letter because he betrays no personal acquaintance with his audience (cf. 1:15); (2) the author’s personal references are forced and artificial (cf. 3:4 where he speaks of the “holy apostles” which, since it includes him, seems pretentious).

2) Linguistic/Literary Arguments

There are three linguistic/literary arguments: (1) the vocabulary is not as Pauline as it could be, there being thirty-five (35) words which Paul never uses elsewhere, though some of these occur in early patristic writings; (2) the style “is thought to be much more complex and cumbersome than Paul’s usual lively presentation”⁹; and (3) Ephesians displays a demonstrable dependence on Paul’s undisputed letters, particularly Colossians (as many as 73 verses are virtually identical), yet many of the terms are not used in the same way (e.g., “head,” “mystery,” “fullness,” etc.).

3) Theological Discrepancies

The theology of Ephesians seems quite advanced beyond Paul’s undisputed writings: the church is now universal; there is a refined Christology; “in Christ” is now instrumental rather than mystical (some might call this a regression); etc. Further, some of this seems at odds with the undisputed letters (especially the “in Christ” formula). Finally, there is an absence of some of the typically Pauline themes: justification by faith is not mentioned in those terms; there is little emphasis on eschatology; etc.

In sum, these three arguments have been sufficient to convince perhaps the majority of NT scholars that Ephesians is not authentic. Many scholars argue that Ephesians was the product of a disciple of Paul who produced this epistle as sort of an introduction to the corpus Paulinum.

c. Responses to the Denial of Pauline Authorship

1) Historical Arguments

This is admittedly the weakest argument against Pauline authorship. First, the salutation in 1:1 (“in Ephesus”) is not found in the best MSS, prompting at least the probability that this letter was originally intended to be a circular epistle (see later discussion under “destination”). Second, that the author called the apostles “holy” (ἅγιοι) in 3:4 is not different in kind than his addressing the audience as “saints” (ἅγιοι).

Further, there is an interesting self-deprecating note which is fully consonant with Pauline authorship. In 3:8 the author says that his is “less than the least of the saints.” Not only is this in the context of the “holy apostles” (which necessarily rules out pretension in 3:4), but it makes an advance over the apostle’s similar statement in 1 Cor 15:9 (“I am the least of the apostles”). This is a subtle, yet powerful, piece of internal evidence on behalf of authenticity, for not only does Paul not merely mimic his earlier self-assessment (as a forger might be prone to do), but he evidences development in his own Christian walk. Although some regard this self-deprecation as theatrical, a careful reading of the later pseudepigraphical literature never reveals any forger following the same track. In other words, if this is the work of a later writer, he is the only one of the scores of apostolic would-be copyists to have done this. Almost universally, later pseudepigraphists (as well as early patristic writers) elevate the apostles, placing them on untouchable pedestals. Unless parallels to Eph 3:8 could be produced in the later writings, the most objective reading of this verse is as an authentic statement of the apostle to the Gentiles.¹⁰

2) Linguistic/Literary Arguments

a) Vocabulary. Although it is true that the author employs thirty-five words not found elsewhere in the Pauline corpus, this is comparable to Galatians (31) and Philippians (40), two undisputed books! Not only this, but Ephesians is longer than either Galatians or Philippians, making it proportionately better off than either of them. We might add here that although some of the unique terms in Ephesians show up only in patristic literature (e.g., “in the heavenlies”), this may well be due to the fathers borrowing from Ephesians, rather than the other way around.

b) Style (and the Role of an Amanuensis). Much more serious than mere lexical stock is the issue of style. It is undeniable that Ephesians is not nearly as lively, but is in fact more reflective in its style. Part of this must surely be explained on the basis of the occasion: Ephesians betrays no pressing battles, no occasion which has gotten under Paul’s skin. As Wood remarks, “He could afford to be more reflective. The style of Ephesians matches Paul’s mood.”¹¹

If we were to stop here, we would do a great injustice to the evidence. To be sure, the style is more reflective. But there is more; the syntax simply does not seem to be Paul’s. In particular, the opening salutation (1:3-14) is one long, cumbersome sentence. One scholar called it “ein Monstrosität!” Although Paul is known for anacolutha, these occur almost exclusively when his emotions get the better of him (especially in Galatians and 2 Corinthians). Such is hardly the case here. Further, there are several constructions in this letter which are unparalleled in the undisputed books.

In response, the possibility of an amanuensis being responsible for some of the wording is not at all unlikely. Longenecker (among several others) has shown that the nonliterary papyri display several different kinds of amanuenses at work—sometimes they wrote by dictation, other times, with greater freedom. His application to the Pauline epistles is illuminating:

Just how closely the apostle supervised his various amanuenses in each particular instance is, of course, impossible to say. The nonliterary Greek papyri suggest that the responsibilities of an ancient secretary could be quite varied, ranging all the way from taking dictation verbatim to “fleshing out” with appropriate language a general outline of thought. Paul’s own practice probably varied with the special circumstances of the case and with the particular companion whom he employed at the time. More time might be left to the discretion of Silas and Timothy (cf. 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1) or to Timothy alone (cf. 2 Cor 1:1; Col 1:1; Philem 1; Phil 1:1) than to Sosthenes (cf. 1 Cor 1:1) or Tertius (cf. Rom 16:22)—and perhaps much more to Luke, who alone was with Paul during his final imprisonment (cf. 2 Tim 4:11).¹²

There are two other factors to consider in this issue of an amanuensis: (1) the occasion for the writing of this letter (including the method of composition), and (2) the fact that this is one of Paul’s later writings. We will address the compositional issue later, but for now it should be observed that the most disputed letters in the Pauline corpus are those which were written toward the end of his life. Apart from 2 Thessalonians (which is sometimes disputed), all of the disputed letters, if authentic, would be dated in the 60s. The significance of this may be that as time progressed, and as Paul dictated more and more letters (most of them now lost), his long-time companions could be trusted more and more to work from an annotated outline, rather than copy down a verbally dictated letter. If so, then any arguments from vocabulary or stylistic considerations which do not take sufficient account of an amanuensis at work are immediately suspect.¹³ Still, the final product would be Paul’s responsibility, and since he customarily appended a personal note at the end of each of his letters (cf. 2 Thess 3:17), there is ample evidence that he read over the letter carefully before it was sent.¹⁴

c) Dependence on Colossians. There are four arguments we can use on behalf of authenticity in light of the dependence upon Colossians.

1) The verbal proximity between these two letters is exactly what we might expect, given the historical reconstruction that these were both sent to Asia Minor at the same time (cf. Eph 6:21-22/Col 4:7-8). This is a pattern already established in the Corinthian correspondence, as well as the Thessalonian letters. Indeed, one might even argue that Paul’s style is quite amorphous, though its fluidity is in somewhat of a fixed state for a short period of time. (Hence, the reason the pastorals are so similar is, again, because they were sent at about the same time to the same general vicinity).

2) “On the other hand, would an imitator have dealt so freely with the text of Colossians? Is it not probable that he would have adhered more slavishly to the script? It is when an author borrows from himself that he can take liberties with what is after all his own material.”¹⁵

3) Upon close analysis, what is most remarkable is that there is only one verse which is identical in both Ephesians and Colossians: Eph 6:22/Col 4:8.¹⁶ Yet this verse is quite mundane with respect to the great theological truths found in these two letters, for it simply details the reasons why Paul is sending Tychicus! For Eph 6:21-22/Col 4:7-8, there are 32 words in sequence; in the rest of the parallels, at most only seven or eight-word parallels occur. This poses a major problem for the forgery view: How could a forger parallel the thought of Colossians so closely, without, save one verse, quoting verbatim from it for more than a few words? What forger would be so careful with Colossians all the way through, only to stumble over Tychicus? But there is a further problem with the forgery view.

4) In my examination of the pseudepigrapha, the duplication between Ephesians and Colossians is unparalleled. The pseudepigraphical letter to the Laodiceans, for example, is an unimaginative patchwork from four of Paul’s letters. The leading characteristics of forgeries is that they are unimaginative, make no new theological advances (except in the area of ecclesiastical hierarchy), and they borrow excessively from more than one authentic epistle. In this respect, Ephesians is unique: it is highly original, develops Pauline theology to a higher level, and borrows excessively only from Colossians (though there are, to be sure, hints from other epistles). Not only this, but the pseudepigrapha usually borrow from the main epistles of Paul; Ephesians is borrowing from one of Paul’s less popular letters. These are weighty considerations against the imitation theory.

3) Theological Discrepancies

Although it is certainly true that theological formulation in Ephesians is, at times, different than Paul’s earlier letters (which may be no more than a function of the amanuensis), and further, that it does seem to be more developed theologically, “mere differences of doctrine cannot be accepted as evidence of dissimilar authorship unless a genuine lack of harmony is proved.”¹⁷ The case is quite similar to the relation of Galatians to Romans: the first, an occasional letter, is less developed theologically; the second, a more reflective letter, is more developed. Both the time when written and the reason for writing shape Paul’s style and theological statements. “That the theology of the Epistle [of Ephesians] is more fully developed than in any of its predecessors is so far from being inimical to the presupposition of a Pauline origin that it actually befriends it.”¹⁸

By way of conclusion, although the internal arguments against authorship are weighty, once regard for the role of an amanuensis, genuine theological development in Paul, and the reason for the writing of this letter are taken into account, these arguments are not as impressive. Apostolic authorship must still be given the palm, especially since the external evidence is so clear and early.

B. Place of Origin

The traditional view that this letter was written while Paul was in a Roman prison has been assailed from two corners: some claim Ephesus is a better starting point, others suggest Caesarea. Before deciding on this issue, it must first be recognized that, on the assumption of authenticity, where Paul was when he wrote Ephesians is where he was when he wrote Colossians and Philemon. This can be seen by several pieces of evidence: (1) the commendation of Tychicus, as the bearer of the letter, found in exactly the same form in both Eph 6:21-22 and Col 4:7-8, surely indicates that he was sent with both epistles at the same time; (2) the strong verbal overlap between Colossians and Ephesians must, if authentic, indicate that the two were written at the same time; (3) Colossians is inseparable from Philemon¹⁹—that is, they must both have been sent at the same time. Hence, all three letters were written and sent at the same time. Consequently, if there is anything in either Colossians or Philemon which helps to narrow down where Paul was imprisoned at the time of writing, such would equally apply to Ephesians.

1. Caesarea

A Caesarean imprisonment is improbable for two reasons: (1) Onesimus, the runaway slave, would hardly have gone to Caesarea. Not only would he not have escaped notice as easily, but he would most likely not have had very good access to Paul. In Rome, however, Paul was under house arrest and had relatively free mobility.²⁰ (2) In Phile 22 Paul requests Philemon to prepare lodging for him, in anticipation of his release. This would hardly be the case in Caesarea, however, for Paul appealed to Caesar, prolonging his imprisonment by more than two more years.

2. Ephesus

On behalf of Ephesus are two arguments (both negative in character): (2) the great distance between Rome and Colossae (1200 miles) suggests that Onesimus would hardly have made the journey; it would be easier for him to travel to a nearby city; (2) in Phile 22 Paul asks Philemon to prepare him lodging, suggesting that he intended on returning to Asia Minor after his release. But he had written the Romans a few years earlier of his plan on going westward, even to Spain (cf. Rom 1:10ff; 15:19ff.). It should be noted that both of these arguments only help an Ephesian imprisonment, not a Caesarean (because Caesarea is far from Asia Minor and because Asia Minor would conceivably be en route to Rome and Spain from Caesarea).

In response: (1) There is just as much likelihood that Onesimus would want to travel to Rome, because it was far away as to Ephesus because it was close by—especially since he robbed Philemon, giving himself travel funds.²¹ Not only this, but he would surely have been detected in Ephesus by other Christians, perhaps even by some of Paul’s traveling companions. But whether he would have been able to visit Paul before being detected is doubtful. (2) Paul could easily have changed his mind about going to Spain, or he might have wished to visit his friends in Asia Minor before journeying westward—especially to gain emotional strength after having suffered imprisonment for several years.

Not only this, but an Ephesian imprisonment is improbable: (1) We have no positive evidence that Paul was ever imprisoned in Ephesus. (2) If the “in Ephesus” in Eph 1:1 is original, then this view is almost impossible; even if not original, there is the strong possibility that Ephesians was sent to the churches in Asia Minor (with Ephesus being the port of entry, giving cause for the traditional view). And if so, then Paul most likely was elsewhere when all three letters were sent.

3. Rome

Both because of Paul’s known imprisonment in Rome, and because of the tradition of a Roman imprisonment for these letters,²² the burden of proof must rest with a non-Roman origin. As we have seen, the arguments against the Roman theory are not convincing. On behalf of Rome, however, is an important internal clue: Luke is with Paul during his imprisonment (Col 4:14; Phile 24). Luke’s presence with Paul is supported by Acts while Paul was in Rome, “whereas the Ephesian ministry of Paul does not occur in a ‘we’ section and it may reasonably be doubted whether Luke was with Paul during this period.”²³

In conclusion, the traditional view that Paul was in Rome when he wrote Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon, is still the most reasonable view.

C. Date

This letter was sent while Paul was in prison in Rome (59-61 CE). Since the apostle gives no indication that he will be released soon (contra Philippians), it is likely that this was written before the end of his imprisonment. Further, it is obvious that it was sent along with the letter to the Colossians and the letter to Philemon. Once the occasion for the writing of Colossians/Philemon is established,²⁴ it can be reasonably supposed that all three letters were written sometime during the middle of Paul’s imprisonment—hence, c. 60 CE. But more than that can be said here.

Philemon 22 seems merely to be an expression of the hope of release from prison, without giving any indication as to when. If this is read as an expression of imminent release, then the relative dating of Ephesians-Colossians-Philemon in relation to Philippians may need some revision. But other considerations certainly suggest that Philippians is the last of the so-called prison epistles: (1) Phile 22 may be a somewhat exaggerated statement (intended to reflect Paul’s positive attitude more than the reality of imminence), for if Paul was in Rome, it would take him several weeks to travel to Asia Minor; (2) Epaphras is mentioned in Phile 23, as someone known to Philemon (cf. also Col 4:12), without any mention of his illness (cf. Phil 2:25ff.)—even though news of his illness was known to Christians outside of Rome (ibid.); (3) Only Timothy is with Paul when he wrote Philippians (Phil 2:19-21), while Luke, Demas, Aristarchus, Mark and Epaphras are with him when he wrote Colossians-Ephesians-Philemon (cf. Col 4:10-14; Phile 23-24). Whatever else this indicates, it is evident that Philippians cannot be dated at the same time as the other three epistles; (4) the final proof is that Paul sends Epaphroditus to the Philippians (Phil 2:25-30) with the epistle, while he is still with Paul when the apostle wrote the other three letters. All of this evidence points to Philippians being written not only at a different time than the other three prison epistles, but at a later time. Hence, a date of c. 60 CE is most appropriate for Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon.

D. Destination

1. Ephesus

Traditionally, the letter has been assumed as having been sent to the church at Ephesus. However, in 1:1 the words “in Ephesus” (ἐν  ᾿Εφέσω) are not found in the oldest and best MSS (¸46 א* B* et al.), as well as MSS mentioned by Basil and the text of Origen. Not only this, but Marcion refers to the letter as having been sent to the Laodiceans, and Tertullian and Ephraim do not show awareness of the traditional designation.

In addition, there is good internal evidence to suggest that Ephesus was not the exclusive addressee: (1) the author evidences no direct knowledge of the recipients (cf. especially 1:15; 3:2 and 4:21 are also sometimes taken to indicate this); (2) the author deals with no personal problems, nor gives any personal greetings. What are we to make of this evidence?

2. An Introduction to the Pauline Corpus

Some regard it as conclusive that this letter was not sent to any particular church, but was instead intended to serve as an introduction to the corpus Paulinum. There are problems with this view, however. (1) Those same scholars also deny apostolic authorship to this epistle. If apostolic authorship is affirmed, this view is denied. (2) There is no evidence whatever that Ephesians ever headed the list of Pauline letters—either among the MSS or among the early canon lists. (3) The mention of Tychicus as the bearer of this letter is meaningless if this is intended as a preface to Paul’s letters: “There is no adequate occasion for adding so personal and direct a reference to Tychicus when the other parts of the epistle are allegedly so impersonal.”²⁵ (3) “The major difficulty is the literary problem. As an introduction to the whole Pauline corpus it is inconceivable that the writer would have given such preponderance to Colossians.”²⁶

3. Laodicea

On the basis of (1) Marcion’s title and (2) the reference in Col 4:16 to an epistle coming from Laodicea, some have concluded that this letter was originally sent to Laodicea. Although there is some plausibility to this view (and a modified form of it is indeed what we will adopt), the basic problem is that there is no MS evidence for “in Laodicea.” As weak as “in Ephesus” is, “in Laodicea” is weaker still.

4. Circular Letter

In light of the textual uncertainty about “in Ephesus,” as well as the lack of personal names and controversy, a widely held view is that this letter is a circular letter sent to the churches of Asia Minor. This almost has to be the case if the epistle is authentic, for (1) Eph 1:15 negates Ephesus as the exclusive recipient (since Paul spent three years in Ephesus and this statement could not therefore be made of them), and (2) Eph 6:21-22 ties the sending of this letter to the sending of Colossians (cf. Col 4:7-8).

Beyond this are two subsidiary points. (1) The textual problem in 1:1 is solved by the circular letter theory. In this case, the letter would have been carried by Tychicus and he would have sailed from Rome for Ephesus, the port of entry into Asia Minor. There probably was a blank space in Paul’s letter as to location and Tychicus was to instruct each church in Asia Minor to fill in the blank. Since Ephesus had by far the largest church in Asia Minor, it is natural that “in Ephesus” would end up in most copies. Further, Tychicus immediately left Ephesus and went directly to Colossae (cf. Col 4:7-8) while the letter took on a life of its own. This brings us to our second argument. (2) Going counter-clockwise in Asia Minor, starting at Ephesus, Laodicea is the most natural stop between Colossae and Ephesus. The reference in Col 4:16 to the letter coming from Laodicea can quite naturally refer to a copy of Ephesians. That Marcion refers to Ephesians by that name (“to the Laodiceans”) may well be due to ancient MS testimony to which he was privy. Once Tychicus had gone to Colossae, he would then return to Rome or go elsewhere in Asia Minor, but his letter-bearing responsibilities would be over once he got to Colossae.²⁷ It is quite possible either that the instructions about filling in the blank space in Paul’s circular letter had gotten garbled or that they were carried out only orally as the letter was read in the various churches. If this were the case, the textual history of Eph 1:1 makes sense.²⁸

E. Occasion/Purpose and Method of Composition

1. Occasion/Method of Composition

While Paul was sitting in prison, contemplating his upcoming trial and potential work in the west, he began formulating some parting comments to make to the churches of Asia Minor. As he dialogued with his amanuensis over its contents, a rough draft of Ephesians was probably put together in outline form. The amanuensis then began to fill in the details.

Then, startling news from the east came: there was a new heresy in Colossae which was infecting the church there. At about the same time, Onesimus appeared before Paul with his confession of abandoning and robbing his owner, Philemon.²⁹

At this juncture, Paul decided several things: (1) write to the Colossians with appropriate warnings, though taking the material mostly from a letter which already addressed some of the very same issues in a larger perspective; (2) write to Philemon, urging him to take Onesimus back, as a freeman—and even to prepare a room for the apostle himself; (3) finish the letter to all the churches in Asia Minor and have it sent with the other two letters.

If this reconstruction is correct, it fits several pieces of the puzzle: (1) the reason Ephesians looks so much like Colossians is because one letter was intentionally used as the basis for the other, with some necessary modifications made to fit the occasion. (2) The reason Ephesians does not look like the rest of Paul’s letters (except Colossians) in style or vocabulary is because (in part) it was done as a contemplative piece, originally intending to be something of a swan song, summing up Paul’s theology for the churches in Asia. (3) Since Colossians is an occasional letter, written with some urgency, the only way for a contemplative letter like Ephesians to have been sent at the same time is for Ephesians to have been written (at least in draft form) prior to Colossians. (4) When Paul learned of the new influx of heresy he changed his plans of going westward and decided to visit Asia one more time. This would not alter the fact that Ephesians was intended to be a reflective summary of his theology, but the initial occasion for the writing of Ephesians was a short-lived one which evaporated with news from Colossae.

2. Purpose

Originally, before Paul heard the news of heresy in Colossae, he intended to write to the churches in Asia Minor about Christ and the church. This was intended to be a summary of his theology in its most practical form. Since the churches had been grounded in the doctrines of individual (and vertical) reconciliation (justification by faith especially), they now needed to get along with one another (corporate and horizontal reconciliation). There was unity in their position in Christ; there needed to be unity in their practice in the church, too.

Ephesians, then, is similar to Romans and, at the same time, dissimilar: both epistles are contemplative, summing up key theological themes of the apostle to the Gentiles; but as Romans is an introductory letter, designed to establish a base for his ministry in the west, Ephesians is a parting note, intended on getting Christians to grow in unity and love with one another. There may be another similarity between the two letters: ever since Claudius’ expulsion of Jews from Rome, there may well have been tension between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians in the churches. Both Romans and Ephesians seem to betray this uneasiness and, in fact, both seem to address an attitude of Gentile superiority as an undercurrent adversely affecting the life of the church.

F. Theme

The theme of Ephesians is “the Church, the Body of Christ.” Put in a sentence, the theme is found in Eph 4:1-3—“The Church is to maintain the unity in practice which Christ has brought about positionally.” Pragmatically stated, “Christians, get along with each other!”

II.  Argument

The apostle Paul opens this “Queen of his Epistles” with a greeting to the “saints who are faithful” (1:1-2).

Immediately he launches into praise for God as a theological preface to the body of his letter (1:3-14): God is blessed and is to be praised because (1) the Father elected us in eternity past (1:3-6), the Son redeemed us in the historical past (1:7-12), and the Spirit sealed us in our personal and individual pasts (1:13-14). Thus Paul begins this letter with a reminder of the great things God has done for believers individually.

With this as a backdrop he prays that his readers will understand what God has done for them corporately (1:15-23). Essentially, the prayer is a prayer for understanding the contents of the next two chapters (1:16-19). The reason Paul prays for them is because he is confident that they are true believers (1:15). The reason he is confident that God is able to answer his prayer is that the same power which raised Christ from the dead is available to these saints (1:20-23).

Now Paul once again reminds his audience of the great things God has done (2:1-22). He begins by detailing individual reconciliation (2:1-10). First, he paints a dark picture of our former state: we were controlled by Satan and destined for hell (2:1-3). Then, Paul shows how we were delivered from this fate: God in his mercy saved us (2:4-10). Not only did he save us, but he also proleptically caused us to reign with Christ (2:5-6). Further, we are now to be a monument to him by doing good words (2:10).

But God has not just done a work of individual reconciliation. He has also reconciled Jew and Gentile to each other by creating a new spiritual community (2:11-22). First, Paul outlines the Gentiles’ former state. Individually, they were under Satan’s control (2:1-3); corporately, they were isolated from God’s people (2:11-13). But when God saved them individually this had corporate ramifications as well: both Jews and Gentiles now constituted a new spiritual community, the Church (2:14-18). The same apostles who brought the good news of individual reconciliation of man to God also brought the good news of corporate reconciliation of Jew to Gentile. Indeed, these apostles were foundational to this new spiritual community and Christ was the cornerstone (2:20-22). The reason Paul stresses this corporate reconciliation, this organic unity, this new spiritual community, seems to be due to the Gentiles’ arrogance in the face of the Jewish roots of Christianity. A reminder—which composes the theological core of this epistle—that Gentiles are neither saved only as individuals (2:1-10), nor at all as those who supplant the Jews (2:11-12), was necessary in light of the historical circumstances of the letter.

To make sure that the Gentile audience did not see Paul as replacing the apostles—and they themselves as replacing the Jews—he explains that his gospel is new in the sense that it was not revealed in the OT, but not in the sense that it was different in kind from that of the other apostles (3:1-7). Further, the content of the new, previously unrevealed, spiritual community is now made explicit: Jew and Gentile are fellow heirs, fellow body-members, and fellow partakers of the promise (3:5-6). Jew and Gentile thus were on equal footing in this new body. Not only could these Gentiles not claim superiority to Jews (and vice versa), Paul himself could not claim superiority to any Christian (3:8). But the Gentiles have been incorporated into the body of Christ not for their sake only, but even for the sake of angelic beings (3:10).

Having completed his major treatment on the “indicatives of the faith,” Paul prays once again for his audience (3:14-21). As with the first prayer, this one is a hinge between two sections. Paul’s prayer now is for their application. This is a fitting introduction to the last three chapters in which he turns these indicatives into imperatives. He concludes the prayer with a recognition once again of God’s ability to answer (3:20-21).

The second major section of the letter begins with the applicational heart of the epistle: “maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (4:3). Then Paul gives a theological example of how unity and diversity hold hands: in the Godhead there is harmony, yet each member has distinct tasks (4:4-6), and no member is unimportant! If the members of the Trinity—the perfect example of unity—could have diverse functions, then all arguments that diversity causes divisiveness are futile.

This leads Paul to develop his argument in relation to the gifted leadership of the church (4:7-16). Not all members have the same gifts, but all are to grow together in unity.

Now Paul deals with more individual issues—specifically, morality. He reminds his readers what they used to be before Christ (4:17-19), and how they have put off the “old man” and put on the “new man” (4:20-24). Since they are new creatures in Christ they ought to act like it; further, since they are organically connected (i.e., members of one another) they ought not to go back to the old ways (4:25-32).

How then, should they relate to unbelievers? Paul answers this in 5:1-14. First, do not conform to their sinful ways (5:1-7). Second, do confront them with their sin and the truth of the gospel (5:8-14).

And how should Christians relate to one another? Paul answers this first by giving the positive basis: be filled by the Spirit (5:15-21). Then he shows in what realm Spirit-filling is tested: in the home (5:22–6:9). How does a woman demonstrate that she is Spirit-filled? She must submit to her husband (5:22-24). How does a husband demonstrate that he is Spirit-filled? He must love his wife (5:25-33). What about other family, and extended-family members? How do they demonstrate that they are filled by the Spirit? Children are to obey their parents (6:1-3), fathers are to raise their children in the discipline and admonition of the Lord (6:4), slaves are to obey their masters (6:5-8), and masters are to do good to their slaves (6:9). These are the real marks of Spirit-filling.

Paul concludes the body of his epistle with a treatise on spiritual warfare (6:10-20). In many respects this seems entirely out of place in this letter. In reality, it is a perfect capstone to the queen of the epistles. This section addresses a question which has been implicit since 2:2, viz, what is the believer’s present relation to Satan? But the answer is not intended just to satisfy our curiosity. Rather, the answer relates intrinsically to the heart of this letter: Satan is presently attacking the unity of the church and we ought therefore to stand and show that we are together. Seen in this light, our “struggle [which] is not against flesh and blood” means simply, “Christians, get along with each other! Maintain the unity practically which Christ has effected positionally by his death.”

Paul concludes the epistle with a commendation of Tychicus (6:21-22) and a benediction (6:23-24).

III. Outline

I. Salutation (1:1-2)

II. The Unity of the Church Positionally (1:3–3:21)

A. Theological Preface: Why God is Blessed and Should be Praised (1:3-14)

1. The Father Elected Believers in Eternity Past (1:3-6)

2. The Son Redeemed Believers in the Historical Past (1:7-12)

3. The Spirit Sealed Believers in their Personal Past (1:13-14)

B. Prayer for Knowledge: To Understand the Church’s Positional Unity (1:15-23)

1. The Content of the Prayer (1:15-19)

2. The Immensity of God’s Resources (1:20-23)

C. Vertical (Man to God) and Individual Reconciliation (2:1-10)

1. The Individual Believer’s Former State (2:1-3)

2. The Individual Believer’s Present State (2:4-10)

D. Horizontal (Jew to Gentile) and Corporate Reconciliation (2:11-22)

1. The Gentiles’ Former State: Isolation (2:11-13)

2. The Gentile Believers’ Present State: Incorporation into a New Spiritual Community (2:14-22)

a. The Peace which Christ Accomplished in His Death (2:14-18)

b. The Foundation which Christ Laid through His Apostles (2:19-22)

E. Paul’s Relation to the Mystery of this New Spiritual Community (3:1-13)

1. The Content of the Mystery Revealed to Paul (3:1-7)

2. The Wisdom of the Mystery Revealed to Angelic Beings (3:8-13)

F. Prayer for Love: To Maintain the Church’s Practical Unity (3:14-21)

1. The Content of the Prayer (3:14-19)

2. The Immensity of God’s Resources (3:20-21)

III. The Unity of the Church Practically (4:1–6:20)

A. Maintaining Unity through Diversity (4:1-16)

1. Maintaining the Unity (4:1-6)

2. The Diversity of Spiritual Gifts in Contributing toward Unity (4:7-16)

B. Morality and Members of Each Other (4:17-32)

1. Morality and the Former Lifestyle (4:17-24)

a. Negative Example: Pagans (4:17-19)

b. Positive Basis: Death of the “Old Man” (4:20-24)

2. Morality and the Present Life in Christ (4:25-32)

C. The Believer’s Relation to Unbelievers (5:1-14)

1. Do Not Conform to their Sinfulness (5:1-7)

2. Confront them with the Gospel (5:8-14)

D. The Believer’s Relation to the Spirit (5:15-6:9)

1. The Admonition for Spirit-Filling (5:15-21)

2. The Test of Spirit-Filling: The Believer’s Relation to the Extended Family (5:22–6:9)

a. Wives and Husbands (5:22-33)

b. Children and Parents (6:1-4)

c. Slaves and Masters (6:5-9)

F. The Believer’s Present Relation to Satan: Spiritual Warfare (6:10-20)

IV. Final Greetings (6:21-24)

A. The Commendation of Tychicus (6:21-22)

B. The Benediction (6:23-24)

---

¹Kümmel, 251.

²Cf. Young Kyu Kim’s article in Biblica (1988) and our discussion of his essay in the introduction to 2 Peter. If Kim’s dating is correct, then the discussion as to authenticity is over. I have discussed Kim’s article with most of the recognized English-speaking NT textual critics, including Bruce Metzger, J. K. Elliott, Eldon Epp, Gordon Fee, Michael Holmes, and Bart Ehrman. Yet, none of them gave any substantive objections to Kim’s evidence. At the same time, none of these scholars works primarily in paleography. Mr. Bruce Griffin of Oxford Unversity however showed that Kim’s argumentation had many flaws to it (at the annual SBL meeting in the mid-90s); his judgment was that the traditional date of c. 200 is secure.

³Cf. A. S. Wood, Ephesians (EBC), 3-9. Our argumentation, at several points, however, will be quite different than Wood’s.

⁴Wood, Ephesians, 3.

⁵By analogy, cf. the anonymity of Hebrews.

⁶Wood, Ephesians, 4.

⁷Ibid.

⁸C. L. Mitton, The Epistle to the Ephesians, 7.

⁹Wood, Ephesians, 5.

¹⁰When one compares 1 Tim 1:15 to these other two texts, the case for authenticity of both Ephesians and 1 Timothy is heightened, for in 1 Timothy the author now widens the circle of which he is at the bottom: “foremost of all sinners.” This is a threefold cord: not only is development seen in Paul’s self-awareness as a sinner (from 1 Corinthians to Ephesians to 1 Timothy), but the way in which he states his self-deprecatory remark is different each time; finally, forgers always went in the opposite direction, elevating the men whose names they took.

¹¹Wood, Ephesians, 7.

¹²“Amanuenses,” 294. Earlier in the essay Longenecker established the probability (via parallels with the papyri) of Paul using an amanuensis for virtually every letter except perhaps Philemon.

¹³By way of analogy, when I joined the faculty of Dallas Seminary in 1988, the NT secretary would need me to write out every word for letters that she would later type up. Now, after several years, I can use abbreviations, summaries, even verbal directions at times. The difference is due to the fact that the same secretary has been in the department the entire time and is now more used to my style. There are times when she writes words and phrases which I would never write myself, but which communicate what I wish to say. When I sign my name, I take responsibility for what was written, but this does not imply that everything must have been stated exactly in the way I would  normally state things, just that the content is what I intend to communicate. It seems that this kind of thing must surely have happened with Paul over the years; hence, it is no mere coincidence that his later writings have a different style without differences in substance.

¹⁴An interesting sidelight to this is seen in textual criticism. Bruce Metzger is representative of some scholars, for example, when he suggests that Tertius heard Paul incorrectly when the apostle dictated Rom 5:1: Tertius wrote down the subjunctive ἔχωμενwhen Paul meant the indicative ἔχομεν. Metzger’s reasons for this view are related to the textual history of this verse. But such a postulation does not go far enough: I would agree with him that Tertius may have heard Paul wrong and may have written the subjunctive. But Paul would certainly have corrected it before the letter was sent! The reason, then for the poor external attestation for the indicative may well be due to a misunderstanding as to who corrected the subjunctive.

There is other evidence for this kind of activity as well. As is well known, although 1 Cor 14:34-35 are contained in every known MS, these verses are found in two locations: at this place and at the end of the chapter (in the Western tradition). Although Gordon Fee has recently mounted the strongest campaign for their inauthenticity, the suggestion made by E. E. Ellis and others that Paul added the words in the margin before the original document was sent makes better sense: later scribes were unsure where the words belonged, though they recognized that they were meant to be part of the book. Further, the well known problem of ἤπιοι/νήπιοι in 1 Thess 2:7 may well have come about due to the amanuensis’ hearing error (especially since the previous word ends with nu).

In essence, what we are arguing is this: textual criticism needs to pay more attention to the role of an amanuensis in creating some of the problems of the text, especially those generated by hearing error. But since the author would certainly look over his letter before it was sent, the original text would most likely have corrections in it.

¹⁵Wood, Ephesians, 8.

¹⁶The NA26 marginal note is curious at this point, for though the parallel is noted there is no exclamation point (a sign indicating high degree of verbal assonance).

¹⁷Wood, Ephesians, 9.

¹⁸Ibid. We might add further that a decent case could be made that Ephesians is not quite as developed theologically as is Philippians in terms of its Christology. In our dating, Philippians was written one year after Ephesians.

¹⁹See introduction to Colossians for arguments.

²⁰Cf. Guthrie, 577.

²¹Cf. Guthrie, 578.

²²Marcion’s Prologue places Paul in Ephesus for the writing of Colossians, but it places him in Rome for the writing of Philemon. Yet, since both of these must surely have been written at the same time, Marcion can only be half right. The rest of the external testimony puts Paul in Rome for the writing of these epistles.

²³Guthrie, 579.

²⁴See introduction to those two letters for the occasion.

²⁵Guthrie, 533.

²⁶Ibid.

²⁷Tychicus also probably brought the letter to Philemon, but it seems evident that Philemon was a member of the church at Colossae (cf. Col 4:9).

²⁸Guthrie objects to the blank space view, saying that (1) “The theory of a blank would be more intelligible if the ἐν had not also been omitted” and (2) “If the original text did not possess the words ‘in Ephesus’ it may be taken as addressed in a very general way ‘to the saints . . . , the faithful in Christ Jesus,’ which would well fit a general circular theory” (Guthrie, 531).

In response, (1) it is indeed likely that the ἐν would have dropped out in any MSS which omitted the location, otherwise there is extreme nonsense; and (2) even though the verse can be read “to the saints who are faithful” the Greek expression is quite unPauline (in every salutation in which τοῖς οὔσιν is found, the location is always given next; and, further, if this participial expression were dropped the meaning would not be changed). One can readily see, then, why scribes would change the text and yet, at the same time, how the text without a location mentioned is not only unPauline but is also poor grammar (an unnecessary redundancy results). Further, Guthrie’s view simply cannot explain why the earliest and best MSS omit the “in Ephesus.” Thus, on both internal (transcriptional and intrinsic) and external grounds, the blank space view is really the only one which properly handles all the data.

²⁹It is even possible that Onesimus was the one who brought the news of the heresy, though it is just as likely that Epaphroditus brought news from the east and the two arrived in Rome at about the same time.

I. Introduction

A. The Author

As with the Hauptbriefe, Philippians has enjoyed virtually full acceptance. Apart from F. C. Baur’s skepticism and a few scholars who followed in his train in the nineteenth century,¹ Philippians has been unassailed. The external evidence is quite strong, beginning with Polycarp (in his letter to the Philippians) and Ignatius (who alludes to 4:13 and other places). Irenaeus quotes from every chapter and calls it Pauline. Marcion puts it on his short list.

Baur’s critique may be worth mentioning. Essentially he found two elements which were unPauline: (1) the opening verse in which two classes of church leaders (“bishops and deacons” ) are mentioned, suggesting a period later than Paul’s day in terms of ecclesiastical development; and (2) the kenosis passage, or Carmen Christi (Phil. 2:6-11), which seemed to have a developed Christology. But this is Hegelianism gone awry. It was typical of Baur to superimpose a philosophical framework on top of the evidence—or rather, to replace real evidence with such a framework! Denial of authenticity simply cannot stand up to the external evidence. But even internally, the evidence to support authenticity is overwhelming. As Zahn points out, “One would suppose that the inimitable freshness of feeling[,] betrayed in every line of this letter, the naturalness, even carelessness of its style . . . , the large number of facts hard to invent, regarding which the readers are not definitely informed, but which are touched upon and elucidated in a conversational way under the presupposition that they are already known, together with the strong external evidence, particularly the evidence of the Philippian letter of Polycarp, a disciple of one of the apostles—might have safeguarded Philippians more even than the other Epistles of Paul against the suspicion of being the product of a later period.”²

What should we make of 1:1 and 2:6-11, then? If all else points to authenticity, then 1:1 seems to indicate that bishops and deacons were already a part of church order when Paul penned this letter. There is so little real information to go on regarding ecclesiastical offices in the nascent period that arguments of this sort simply beg the question. As for the Carmen Christi, there is quite a bit of debate as to the Pauline authorship of this hymn. However, denial of Pauline authorship is not necessarily denial either of authenticity of the whole epistle or of Paul’s inclusion of this hymn in his letter. We will address this issue in our discussion of interpolations (under “Unity of the Letter”).

In sum, Philippians has as great a claim to authenticity as do the Hauptbriefe. Externally and internally it is unassailable.

B. Place of Origin

Paul was in prison when this letter was penned (cf. 1:7, 13, 16), but where? Until modern times, a Roman imprisonment was almost universally accepted. But in the last two centuries, Ephesus and Caesarea have become rivals to the traditional view. A valid principle of historical reconstruction is to “go with the external evidence if internal considerations are at least compatible with it. (To put it differently, we should not dismiss external attestation unless the internal evidence against it is very clear and persuasive.)”³ Nevertheless, the external evidence for a Roman imprisonment might well be due to early harmonizations with Acts. All three views,⁴ therefore, need to be given a hearing.

1. Ephesus

Although Guthrie lists seven different arguments which favor Ephesus as the place of origin,⁵ the most substantive argument is the geographical proximity of Ephesus to Philippi. In other words, the argument for Ephesus revolves around the issue of distance.

Since there were apparently several communiqués between Paul and the Philippians while he was is prison, and since Rome was so far away, it is argued that there would not be enough time for such correspondence on the assumption of a Roman imprisonment. If Paul were in prison in Ephesus, there would be no problem with the number of communications.

However, in one rather plausible reconstruction, only two or three communiqués actually took place:

[1] The Philippians hear that Paul is imprisoned in Rome. (It may well be, however, that the Philippians became aware of the circumstances even before Paul actually reached Rome.)

[2] Paul receives a gift through Epaphroditus.

[3] The Philippians receive news that Epaphroditus has fallen ill. (However, if this incident took place during the journey, the distance involved would be reduced considerably.)⁶

It has been estimated that if a courier were to travel from Rome to Philippi—assuming that he went by sea across the Adriatic and then traveled on foot—it would take between 39 and 52 days. However, if the courier were to go by carriage when on land, the total time could be cut in half.⁷

Thus, three trips between Rome and Philippi would take at least two months and at most five months. But even if time is allowed for extended visits, unforeseen circumstances, etc., far less than a year is required. And in the reconstruction of most scholars, Paul had been in prison for some time. In our reconstruction, he had been imprisoned for almost two years when this letter was penned. In the least, “nothing in the data requires us to say that less than a year must have elapsed from Paul’s arrival in Rome to his writing of Philippians.”⁸ Consequently, since this is the strongest piece of evidence for the Ephesian view, “the only clear argument against the traditional view disappears. In other words, all other available internal evidence is at the very least compatible with a Roman imprisonment as the context for Philippians.”⁹

It should also be noted that there are two arguments against Ephesus as the point of origin. (1) Acts records no Ephesian imprisonment. Many scholars consider the silence of Acts to be decisive against this view,¹⁰ but it must be admitted that Luke is selective and, further, that Paul must have been imprisoned more times than Luke records (cf. 2 Cor. 6:5; 11:23). (2) There is no proof of a praetorian guard in Ephesus during Paul’s day (cf. Phil. 1:13). It must be concluded that although Ephesus is possible, any theory which turns possibility into likelihood must remain suspect.

2. Caesarea

A Caesarean imprisonment has been proposed by some scholars—especially in light of the weaknesses of the Ephesian hypothesis. Of course, this theory cannot claim geographical proximity in its behalf—any more than a Roman theory can—but it does have two other things going for it. (1) There was an imperial palace at Caesarea, and the mention of the praetorium guard in Phil. 1:13 may be referring to this. (2) Acts records Paul as in prison in Caesarea for two years.

Still, there is nothing to commend this view over the traditional one. And there is quite a bit against it. (1) Philippians gives indication that Paul’s trial is going on. Further, his life hangs in the balance: the outcome will be either life or death (Phil. 1:19-26). “If this is a correct assumption it could apply only to a trial from which no appeal could be made. This could certainly not apply to the Caesarean imprisonment during which Paul appealed to Caesar.”¹¹ (2) The trial seems to be nearing its completion; further, Paul expects to be set free: he expresses strong conviction that he “shall remain and continue with you all” (1:25; cf. also 2:24). This can only refer to the Roman imprisonment, for Acts shows that toward the end of Paul’s Caesarean imprisonment, Paul appealed to Caesar (Acts 25:11), prompting Agrippa to say to Festus, “This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar” (Acts 26:32). Either Paul did not share Agrippa’s confidence—in which case he could hardly have penned Phil. 1:25 at this time, or else he intentionally appealed to Caesar for the sake of the gospel, knowing that it might cost him his life—in which case he would have even less reason to be confident of his release. These two reasons seem decisive against a Caesarean imprisonment.¹²

3. Rome

Not only is there no substantial evidence against the Roman theory, but the evidence against both Ephesus (silence of Acts) and Caesarea (life or death as the outcome of the trial) virtually demand Rome. Since the internal evidence can harmonize with Rome as well as any place else, this tradition must still be given preference.

C. Date

Since we have placed the writing of this epistle within Paul’s (first) Roman imprisonment, it must be dated during his two-year tenure. If the imprisonment was from 59 to 61 CE,¹³ this would have to be dated somewhere within that period. However, since there had already been some correspondence between Paul and the Philippians, there is the possibility that this letter was written at least half way through his imprisonment. What is more, since Paul expresses confidence of his imminent release (Phil. 1:25; 2:24), the letter must almost surely have been written toward the end of his stay. Therefore, a date in 61 CE seems most reasonable.

D. Destination

As the opening verse makes abundantly clear, this letter was written to the church which Paul founded at Philippi—the first (Pauline) church of Europe. Although there was a Jewish element, it was very much in the minority (cf. Acts 16:13-14);¹⁴ most of the congregation was Gentile.

E. Occasion and Purpose

1. Paul’s Contacts with the Philippians¹⁵

(1) In 49 CE,¹⁶ on Paul’s second missionary journey, the apostle sailed for Europe, along with his companions, Luke, Timothy, and Silas. This was in response to a vision (Acts 16:1-15). While in Philippi, Paul met with Jewish and God-fearing women. A few other folks were converted. He and Silas were imprisoned because of an exorcism which robbed the income of the ones who owned and exploited the demon-possessed girl (Acts 16:16-24). While in prison, they were beaten without a charge being filed, in spite of their Roman citizenship. The authorities, upon hearing of their citizenship, released them and asked them to leave the city. Paul left Luke in charge of the work in Philippi, perhaps with Timothy as his assistant.¹⁷

(2) While in Thessalonica for the space of “three Sabbaths”¹⁸ the Philippians sent Paul funds more than once (Phil. 4:15-16). Turmoil and opposition (this time, Jewish) again forced him to leave town, and he traveled through Berea, Athens, and finally, Corinth, where he received a divine promise of protection, allowing him to settle down for eighteen months (50-51 CE). During his stay at Corinth, the Philippian church again sent him aid (cf. 2 Cor. 11:7-9).¹⁹

(3) In the spring of 52 CE,²⁰ Paul began his third missionary journey. This journey involved more than church-planting or follow-up; it also involved raising money for the Jerusalem congregations (cf. Acts 18:23; Rom. 15:25-26; 1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 9:1-2, 12-23). “There was a theological as well as practical reason behind this effort. Paul’s emphasis on the gospel of grace entailed accepting Christian Gentiles without their being required to fulfill any Jewish ceremonies (cf. Gal. 5:2-6). This approach raised a few eyebrows in some Jewish circles, created serious tensions even among moderate groups, and provoked furious opposition elsewhere (cf. Acts 15:1-5; Gal. 2:1-16).”²¹

This “furious opposition” was in the form of the Judaizers, who mounted a campaign of their own—one which was intent on destroying the credibility of Paul and his gospel. They had already infected the churches of Galatia. And, as the Acts record shows, they hounded Paul wherever he went. Not only this, but the evidence from Paul’s letters shows that they had infiltrated—or were about to infiltrate—several of his churches (cf. 1 Thess. 2:13-16; Phil. 3:1; etc.). Consequently, it is reasonable to suppose that—in an act of true love—Paul warned the churches of the Judaizers, while trying to raise money for the Jewish Christians in Judea!

(4) After almost three years in Ephesus, Paul resumed his fund-raising trek to Jerusalem. He came to Macedonia in the spring of 55 CE. Since the Philippians had given so much to Paul’s ministry, he asked nothing of them for this Jerusalem project. But they insisted, even though they themselves were poor (cf. 2 Cor. 8:1-5).

(5) Paul finally brought the money to Jerusalem (cf. Acts 21:17-19). Shortly after the visit, he was arrested and spent two years in prison in Caesarea (spring, 56 CE–summer, 58 CE). During this imprisonment, the Philippians were both uncertain as to Paul’s fate, and lacked funds to help him (Phil. 4:10).

(6) When Paul appealed to Caesar in the summer of 58 CE, he sailed for Rome for trial (Acts 25:10-12; 27:1). News of his appeal would certainly have spread to his churches. The Philippians would have wanted a share in his expenses (Phil. 4:10).

(7) They dispatched Epaphroditus to Rome with their gift (Phil. 4:18). But Epaphroditus came with more than money: he also had questions for the apostle about the church’s opponents, and the members’ own poverty (cf. Phil. 3:2, 18-19; 4:6, 19). As well, the church was hoping that Paul would retain Epaphroditus as his assistant and send Timothy back to them (Phil. 2:19-30).

(8) Paul, however, was unable to send Timothy until he found out more about his own circumstances. Instead, he decided to send Epaphroditus back (Phil. 2:25-30). “Aware that the Philippians would be deeply disappointed to see Epaphroditus rather than Timothy return, Paul was faced with a serious challenge. How would he cushion the inevitable disappointment?”²²

(9) Paul dispatched Epaphroditus with his letter to the Philippians. “The very difficulty of the task that was before the apostle would draw from him, under divine inspiration, a message full of comfort and joy, rebuke and encouragement, doctrine and exhortation. Quite beyond Paul’s own powers of anticipation, the letter he was about to dictate would speak to the hearts of countless believers for many centuries to come.”²³

2. Occasion /Purpose

As we can see, the occasion for this letter, if the above historical reconstruction is correct, is multifaceted: (1) it is a “thank you” note to the Philippians for their most recent gift, with a reminder that God will take care of Paul and them; (2) it is a response to the various questions and problems raised by Epaphroditus, including issues of poverty, quarrelsomeness, selfishness, as well as outside opposition to Paul’s gospel; (3) finally, the letter is a diplomatic reintroduction of Epaphroditus in light of the Philippians’ hope that Timothy would be sent.²⁴

F. Paul’s Opponents Mentioned in the Letter

Paul’s opponents are mentioned in 1:15-17; 1:27-28; 3:2; and 3:18-19. Although some would like to see all these texts referring to the same group of opponents,²⁵ others see four distinct groups. One of the overlooked items in this discussion is the location of the opponents: some are in Rome, others are in Philippi.

It seems quite clear the group in 1:15-17 is true believers in Rome who are merely jealous of Paul’s success, for he does not condemn the message, just their motives. In the other passages (except, perhaps, 3:18-19), the enemies are all in Philippi. In 1:27-28, Paul is responding to opponents in Philippi, though the referent is quite vague. They are certainly outsiders, but could be Gentiles or Jews. Further, there is no hint as to whether they ever were part of the church or are now attempting to infiltrate it. Very little more than this can be said. In 3:2 Judaizers are in view, while in 3:18-19 it seems that Gentiles (antinomians?) are clearly in view²⁶—that is, those who had been part of the church but had defected.

In short, there is at least one group in Philippi (Judaizers) which are attacking (or about to attack) the church. As well, there may well be another group, antinomians, who have defected from the church (though these could be in Rome). It is quite possible that a third group, pure pagans, are also persecuting the church, though this is not necessary. Beyond this, we cannot definitely say.

G. Unity of the Epistle

1. The Problem of Chapter Three

Many commentators regard 3:1 as a fragment from a different letter sent to the Philippians. Thus, although the entire epistle is genuine, it is not a literary unity. Four arguments are advanced for this fragmentary view: (1) the tone of chapter 3 is quite different from what precedes it; (2) 3:1 begins with “finally,” but Paul goes on for two chapters; (3) why would Paul wait until the end of his letter (4:10-20) to thank the Philippians? and (4) Polycarp speaks of Paul’s letters (plural) to the Philippians, not letter (singular).

In response, none of these arguments seem very weighty: (1) Paul’s tone frequently changes in his letters; (2) “finally” could refer easily to the final question that Epaphroditus raised, viz., how to deal with the Judaizers; (3) Paul certainly alludes to the Philippians’ gift in 1:5-7, and in any event, to finish the letter with a warm note of thanks would be literarily appropriate; (4) as to Polycarp’s use of the plural, Guthrie suggests that “Polycarp, Ad Phil. xi, 3, appears to be a citation from 2 Thess. 1:4, used as if the Philippians were addressed in that epistle. This would support the suggestion that in Polycarp’s collection the Macedonian epistles were united.”²⁷ It is equally possible that Polycarp is referring to a lost letter sent to the Philippians along with the canonical epistle.

Furthermore, there is a great deal against this fragmentary theory. (1) There is zero textual evidence in support of it. In particular, P46 (c. 200 CE)—our earliest MS of the Pauline corpus—has Philippians intact. Indeed, it has recently been dated by one scholar as belonging to the first century!²⁸ (2) There is a lack of discernible motive for uniting these two letters. (3) There are striking verbal and conceptual parallels between the two halves of this epistle (cf. 2:6-11 with 3:7-11).²⁹ In sum, the fragmentary theory, as ingenious as it is, fails to convince.

2. Carmen Christi (Phil. 2:6-11)

The composition of the hymn to Christ in Phil. 2:6-11 has been viewed in three ways: (1) Paul is the author; (2) Paul is quoting a hymn already in existence; or (3) the hymn is nonPauline and a later interpolation. Without getting into any detailed analysis, it is our tentative position that the second view is substantially correct. Neither the terms nor the theological formulation fits nicely into a view of authorship by Paul. However, what is interesting is that two lines in the hymn disrupt the meter—and it is precisely these two lines which do fit Pauline forms of expression. Our suggestion is that Paul incorporated this hymn, with some modifications, into his letter to the Philippians.³⁰

H. Theme

Philippians is essentially a “thank you” letter for the sacrificial giving that the Philippians had made on Paul’s behalf. But because their own sacrifice was so great they began to doubt God’s continued provision. Thus the themes of (1) thanksgiving for God’s provision, (2) regarding one another as more important than oneself, (3) rejoicing over their salvation in the face of opposition, and (4) trusting God for his care are all found in this occasional letter. To reduce the theme to one item is to ignore its very occasional character.

II. Argument

Paul and Timothy greet the saints together with their leaders at Philippi (1:1-2). Paul continues with his customary opening thanksgiving and prayer (1:3-11). First, he thanks God for their participation in the gospel (1:3-5) and expresses confidence of their continued perseverance in the faith since God is at work in their hearts (1:6-8). Then he prays that they will grow in a discerning love (perhaps as a foreshadowing of his discussion of the opponents in chapter 3) (1:9-10), capping the prayer with an expression of confidence of their continued growth until the return of Christ (1:11). Thus Paul’s prefatory remarks are both a thanks for the Philippians’ involvement in the gospel—a sure sign that they are true believers—and a confident assertion that God will bring them safely home. The perseverance of the saints and the perseverance of God are thus plainly seen in this opening section.

The apostle now turns to his own circumstances, which the Philippians had been desperate to learn about (1:12-26). First, without so much as really giving any details so as to invoke sympathy, Paul boldly states that his circumstances have advanced the gospel (1:12). He is obviously more concerned about the gospel than about his own life and thus begins to detail the effect that the gospel has had: (1) the praetorian guard has heard the good news (1:13) and many have responded (cf. 4:22), and (2) other evangelists have been emboldened by Paul’s imprisonment (1:14). But some brothers have gained courage in their preaching for the wrong reasons, viz., namely to make Paul jealous (1:15, 17), while others are properly courageous (1:15, 16).

What is Paul’s attitude toward all this? First, toward the evangelists: he is pleased that the gospel is being proclaimed regardless of the motive (1:18). Second, toward Christ: he longs to be with him since Christ is his whole reason for living (1:19-23). Third, toward the Philippians: because he can still impact their lives he knows that he will be joined to them again (1:19-26).

By concluding the section on his own circumstances with a note about his continued ministry to the Philippians, he now, appropriately enough, continues his ministry to the Philippians! The real heart of the epistle is seen in 1:27–2:30 where Paul instructs the church in matters of sanctification. First, Paul draws on the political background of Philippi (viz., it is a free city) and encourages the believers to live boldly as citizens of heaven (1:27-30). Such bold living, in the face of (imminent?) opposition will be a sign to their opponents that God is both with the Christians and against their enemies.

Second, the apostle exhorts them to live humbly as servants of Christ (2:1-11). He appeals to them on the basis of membership in the body of Christ (2:1-4), reminding them that selfishness hurts everyone. Then he weaves an early Christian hymn (which they probably had sung many times) into the fabric of his argument. The Carmen Christi (2:6-11) functions as a reminder for them to follow in the steps of Christ: if he who was in the “form of God” could humble himself, what right do believers have to refrain from doing the same thing? Further, after Christ “emptied himself” (by adding humanity, 2:6-8) God exalted him (2:9-11). The implication, if this is part of Paul’s argument, is that God will exalt believers who also humble themselves. (Of course, believers’ exaltation cannot compare to Christ’s since, in part, believers’ humiliation does not compare to Christ’s.)

This principle of self-emptying, other-exalting is then skillfully woven into 2:12-30. In 2:12-18 Paul exhorts the believers to live obediently as children of God. He first articulates the available resources—“God is at work in you” (2:12-13), then the effect such resources should have on believers—they should become blameless and pure (2:14-18). In this section Paul has encouraged them to obey and not to complain or grumble (2:12). Then he shocks them with the news that Timothy cannot return, but Epaphroditus can (2:19-30). The section on obedience interposed between the Carmen Christi and the news about Timothy and Epaphroditus is therefore no accident: Paul does not want them to grumble about Epaphroditus’ return (and Timothy’s retention), but to recognize that both men are following Christ’s example of humble service. A further implication seems to be that just as God has highly exalted Christ, so also the Philippians should exalt Epaphroditus (“honor men like him” [2:29]). Thus Paul concludes the section on sanctification with the offer of Epaphroditus even though they had hoped for Timothy, hoping that his audience will not be selfish, nor grumble, but will instead exalt and honor Epaphroditus.

Now Paul launches into a diatribe against the Judaizers, since he had gotten wind of their increased activity (3:1–4:1). Perhaps Epaphroditus had brought news of the Judaizers, or else Paul was simply writing a preemptive warning. What is interesting about the structure is that just as in 1:12-26 Paul first chronicled his own attitude, then the work of his opponents; now in the body of the epistle (1:27–4:1) he first deals with the Philippians’ attitude, then their opponents.

First, Paul articulates the basis that the Judaizers were resting on: the works of the flesh (3:1-2). He then points out that he would have a greater claim to boast in the flesh than they since he had the proper Jewish credentials (3:3-6). Yet Paul does not boast; in fact, he very graphically explains that the only thing the flesh can produce is dung (3:7-11; especially v. 8). The basis of his righteousness, therefore, is the faithfulness of Christ (3:9) and the goal is Christ’s resurrection power (3:10-11).

Then, so as to thwart any syncretistic tendencies among the Philippians which might have arisen (viz., the idea that they could be saved by faith but sanctified by the flesh), Paul explains that the flesh is still with the believer. Those who might claim perfection are warned that although that is the goal, one cannot attain it in this life (3:12-16). In this section (3:1-16) Paul has effectively condemned both the Judaizers’ view of salvation and their doctrine of sanctification.

To finish his doctrinal polemics, Paul offers himself as an example (3:17–4:1). Once again he speaks first of his own conduct, then that of his opponents (a pattern already seen in 1:12-26 and 1:27–4:1). The order seems important: our attitude and conduct before God should concern us more than the doctrine and behavior of our opponents. Although the Christian life is often portrayed as a fight, it first must be conceived as an act of worship.

Paul now concludes the letter with three exhortations, a note of thanks, and final greetings (4:2-23). He exhorts them (Euodia and Syntuche especially) to get along with each other (4:2-3), to rejoice over God’s provision without being anxious (4:4-7), and to think and act purely (4:8-9). Then he thanks them once again for their sacrificial help (4:10-20). In this note of thanks Paul expresses his own contentment in God’s provisions (4:10-13), tactfully releasing them from further obligation (4:14-18) since the giving had apparently caused so much hardship. Then to relieve their consciences as to God’s provision—especially if they were to stop helping Paul—Paul gives them the assurance that God provides for all his children (4:19-20).

The apostle closes the letter with final greetings and a benediction (4:21-23).

III. Outline

I. Preface (1:1-11)

A. Salutation (1:1-2)

B. Thanksgiving for the Philippians’ Participation in the Gospel (1:3-8)

C. Prayer for the Philippians’ Discerning Love to Increase until the Day of Christ (1:9-11)

II. Paul’s Present Circumstances (1:12-26)

A. Paul’s Imprisonment (1:12-13)

B. The Brothers’ Response (1:14-17)

C. Paul’s Attitude (1:18-26)

III. Practical Instructions in Sanctification (1:27–2:30)

A. Living Boldly as Citizens of Heaven (1:27–2:30)

B. Living Humbly as Servants of Christ (2:1-11)

1. The Motivation to Live Humbly (2:1-4)

2. The Model of Living Humbly (2:5-11)

a. Christ’s Emptying (2:5-8)

b. Christ’s Exaltation (2:9-11)

C. Living Obediently as Children of God (2:12-18)

1. The Energizing of God (2:12-13)

2. The Effect on the Saints (2:14-18)

D. Examples of Humble Servants (2:19-30)

1. The Example of Timothy (2:19-24)

2. The Example of Epaphroditus (2:25-30)

IV. Polemical Doctrinal Issues (3:1–4:1)

A. The Judaizers Basis: The Flesh (3:1-6)

B. Paul’s Goal: The Resurrection (3:7-11)

C. Perfection and Humility (3:12-16)

D. Paul as an Example of Conduct and Watchfulness (3:17–4:1)

V. Postlude (4:2-23)

A. Exhortations (4:2-9)

1. Being United (4:2-3)

2. Rejoicing without Anxiety (4:4-7)

3. Thinking and Acting Purely (4:8-9)

B. A Note of Thanks (4:10-20)

1. Paul’s Contentment (4:10-13)

2. The Philippians’ Gift (4:14-18)

3. God’s Provision (4:19-20)

C. Final Greetings (4:21-23)

---

¹Today denial of authenticity is virtually non-existent.

²T. Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, 2:556.

³M. Silva, Philippians (Wycliffe), 6.

⁴Corinth may be cited as a fouth possible location, but few have given this any serious attention.

⁵Guthrie, 550-55.

⁶Silva, Philippians, 7.

⁷See Silva, Philippians, 6 (n. 4) for a nice summary of Ramsay’s evidence.

⁸Ibid.

⁹Ibid.

¹⁰So A. S. Wood, Ephesians (EBC), 14.

¹¹Guthrie, 547.

¹²One wonders if the Caesarean/Ephesian imprisonment theories arose precisely because of Phil. 1:19-25. That is to say, since Paul expresses such incredible confidence of his release, but since (according to the majority of scholars) he was not released from prison in Rome, but was instead beheaded, this note must refer to a previous imprisonment. In response, we have already shown the inadequacy of the Ephesian hypothesis; and regarding the Caesarean view, Paul was in fact not released from prison because he appealed to Caesar. If the Roman imprisonment is correct, then, Phil. 1:19-25 becomes some of the strongest support of a second imprisonment view. This, in turn, allows at least a couple of years for the production of the pastoal epistles to have been composed and explains how they would not have fit within the chronology of Acts.

¹³Some argue for a date of 60-62 CE (based, in part, on Gallio’s proconsulship beginning in 52 instead of 51); others argue for a 62-64 CE date, supposing this to be the only Roman imprisonment. Our view is based on a 51 CE date for Gallio’s proconsulship to begin, the supposition of two Roman imprisonments (which even Philippians supports), and, among other things, a short stay (three sabbaths) of Paul in Thessalonica.

¹⁴When Paul looked for a synagogue, all he found were women praying. Further, Lydia was apparently one of the first converts, yet she herself was not Jewish (as Luke’s non-technical generic phrase for Gentile worshiper, “worshiper of God” implies). (Incidentally, what is most interesting is the role of women in the Philippian church—from Lydia to Euodia and Syntuche. Perhaps all three were part of that original women’s prayer meeting.) Finally, Paul left Philippi not because of Jewish hostility, but because of Gentile hostility—a fact which comports with the view that the church only had a minimal Jewish element to begin with.

¹⁵This outline is essentially Silva’s (pp. 2-5).

¹⁶Hoehner dates this visit during the late summer of 50; Silva puts it in 51 CE.

¹⁷It is evident that Luke was left behind since the “we” section does not continue when Paul resumes his travels to Thessalonica. In our reconstruction of the writing of 1-2 Thessalonians, Timothy also was left behind temporarily.

¹⁸That is, between fifteen and twenty-seven days (cf. Acts 17:2).

¹⁹Phil. 4:15-16 seems to imply this as well, for though Paul explicitly mentions only Thessalonica as the place where he received aid, he seems to suggest that the Philippians helped him more than that, Thessalonica being an example of their sacrifice.

²⁰Hoehner says 53 CE.

²¹Silva, Philippians, 3.

²²Silva, Philippians, 5.

²³Ibid.

²⁴It should be noted that occasional character of this epistle not only makes it difficult to outline, but also gives one of the strongest arguments for its authenticity.

²⁵Silva comes very close to this view (9-10).

²⁶Silva tries to make a case for Judaizers in both 3:2 and 3:18-19, but I find his exegesis strained.

²⁷Guthrie, 557, n. 2.

²⁸Cf. Kim’s article in Biblica (1988) and our discussion in our introduction to 2 Peter.

²⁹See Silva, Philippians, 14-16, for a decent discussion (also Guthrie, 555-58). Silva cites D. E. Garland’s article, “The Composition and Literary Unity of Philippians: Some Neglected Factors,” NovT (1985) 141-73 as “the most important contribution in this field,” with the accolade that Garland’s article “has, in my opinion, changed the complexion of the contemporary debate.”

³⁰Cf. R. P. Martin’s Carmen Christi, second edition.

I. Introduction

A. The Author

Most NT scholars accept the genuineness of Colossians, though it has been assailed on critical grounds from some circles. Beginning with T. Mayerhoff (1838) and F. C. Baur (1845) and the Tübingen school, Colossians has found itself outside the pale of undisputed Pauline books.

1. External Evidence

Ignatius has several reminiscences from Colossians, though no explicit quotations. Polycarp and Barnabas also seem to allude to it. Justin Martyr’s allusions are stronger still, and Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen explicitly call it Paul’s letter. Both Marcion’s canon and the Muratorian canon list it, and it is found in ∏46, the earliest MS containing any of the corpus Paulinum. Normally dated at c. 200 CE, this papyrus has been recently reassessed: Young Kyu Kim gives it a date of sometime before the reign of Domitian (70s CE).¹ Although the external evidence for the authenticity of Colossians is not as good as for 1 Corinthians or Galatians, it is nevertheless quite strong. “In fact, the external testimony for it is so ancient and consistent as to obviate any doubts regarding its authenticity.”²

2. Internal Evidence

a. Arguments Against Pauline Authorship

There are two primary arguments against Pauline authorship, linguistic/literary and theological. As C. F. D. Moule stated the issue, “A decision turns largely on whether or not one can imagine the type of error implied by Colossians having appeared already in St. Paul’s lifetime, and can conceive of St. Paul dealing with it in this way and in these words.”³

1) Linguistic/Literary

a) Linguistic. Colossians betrays a different style, and a different vocabulary stock than the undisputed Pauline books. The style “is more laboured, with many more subsidiary clauses than in Paul’s earlier letters . . . ”⁴ Not only this, but the genitive, preposition, and participle uses are somewhat different from the undisputed books. “The general impression left by the Greek style of Colossians is that it is very ragged.”⁵

As for vocabulary, a number of terms are used which are not found in Paul’s undisputed letters. Further, the author leaves out major motifs which are found in the Hauptbriefe (e.g., justification by faith).

b) Literary. Mayerhoff argued that Colossians is dependent on Ephesians. Most today would argue the reverse however. But if Mayerhoff is right, then the arguments used against Ephesians’ authenticity on the basis of its dependence on Colossians could now be used against Colossians’ genuineness.

2) Theological

The basic doctrinal problem is the apparent presence of gnosticism in the Colossian church. This doctrinal problem was the main argument in Baur’s rejection of Colossians. The discussions in the letter on wisdom, philosophy, fullness, perfection, and the insistence on the incarnation of the theanthropic person all suggest that the author was fighting full-blown gnosticism.

b. Arguments for Pauline Authorship

1) Counter-Arguments

a) Linguistic/Literary.

(1) Stylistically, this epistle is indeed somewhat different from Paul’s undisputed books. But as we suggested for Ephesians, (a) a different amanuensis would account for many of the differences; and (b) if Paul wrote Ephesians first (as we suggested earlier)—at least in draft form—with its contemplative and reflective mood, employing the same kind of “more laboured” style for Colossians is what we would expect. That is to say, even though Colossians is addressed to a specific situation, the amanuensis borrowed from a draft he had been working on for some time (Ephesians), retooling the language to fit the occasion. The net result is that even though Colossians is addressed to a crisis in the church, its language looks contemplative, labored, reflective. Rather than arguing against authenticity, this actually argues for authenticity—for both Ephesians and Colossians.

(2) Regarding vocabulary, not only would a different amanuensis account for many of the differences, but also the new situation certainly would. The heresy needed to be addressed—and in terms which drove home their point. Besides this, as Thompson has rightly pointed out,

…the occurrence of new words and phrases can be a very insecure guide in deciding whether a work is written by a particular author. For example, it is difficult to judge from the amount of Paul’s writing that has survived how rich and wide his vocabulary might be. The range of a writer’s vocabulary can also be extended by his own widening experience, and new words may be brought into use in new situations.⁶

(3) Concerning the hypothesis of literary dependence on Ephesians—a view which most would not adopt today⁷—either Colossians is dependent on Ephesians or Ephesians is dependent on Colossians. Regardless of which came first, as we pointed out in our introduction to Ephesians, such literary dependence does not at all argue against authenticity (especially since it is so free most of the time, without much exact agreement).⁸

b) Theological. Most scholars today would regard the theological argument (originally articulated by Baur) as bearing the real force in the argument against authenticity. In our discussion of the heresy at Colossae we will see that the most that can be said about the heresy is that it is incipient gnosticism. That is to say, what Paul is opposing is not the full-blown gnosticism of the second century. As Guthrie rightly points out,

Too much early criticism proceeded on the unreal assumption that similar language implied identical meaning. Consequently if similar terms were found in New Testament writings and Gnostic heresies, the New Testament content was assumed to be identical with the Gnostic and those parts containing it removed to the second century. But the most important question, whether the respective authors intended them to be used in a similar sense, was bypassed . . .⁹

2) Positive Arguments for Authenticity

a) The Relation of Colossians to Ephesians. First, if Ephesians is genuine, then Colossians must also be genuine, in spite of the protests of Synge and Mayerhoff. Scholars who reject Ephesians almost always do so because they accept Colossians. And the vast bulk of scholars, if they are to reject one, reject Ephesians. Yet, if Ephesians is genuine (admittedly our arguments are more labored for its authenticity), then Colossians must be too. Second, even on the assumption that Ephesians is not genuine, this is a strong argument for authenticity for Colossians. For if Ephesians were written by c. 90 CE (as the critical assessment suggests), and if it used Colossians by far more than any other Pauline letter, Colossians must have existed some time before this date. Yet, if so, if Colossians were not genuine, then we would have the completely unparalleled situation of a pseudepigraphist using another pseudepigraphist’s work—which he himself believed was genuine—in order to pass off his work as genuine.¹⁰ In that case, Colossians must have been regarded as genuine well before 90 CE.

b) The Relation of Colossians to Philemon. “The strongest arguments in support of its authenticity are the indisputable nature of the external evidence and the inseparable connection of the epistle with Philemon.”¹¹ Guthrie summarizes the relationship nicely:

1. Both contain Timothy’s name with Paul’s in the opening greeting (Col 1:1; Phm 1).

2. Greetings are sent in both letters from Aristarchus, Mark, Epaphras, Luke and Demas, who are all clearly with Paul at the time (Col 4:10-14; Phm 23-24).

3. In Phm 2 Archippus is called a ‘fellow-soldier,’ and in Col 4:17 he is directed to fulfill his ministry.

4. Onesimus, the slave concerning whom the letter to Philemon is written, is mentioned in Col 4:9 as being sent with Tychicus and is described as ‘one of you.’

In the light of these data it is impossible to imagine that the two epistles were sent at different times, and since the authenticity of Philemon is generally unquestioned it carries with it the high probability that Colossians is a genuine work of Paul.¹²

In sum, there is no good reason to doubt the authenticity of Colossians. Precisely because of this, most NT scholars accept it as genuine.

B. Place of Origin

The traditional view that this letter was written while Paul was in a Roman prison has been assailed from two corners: some claim Ephesus is a better starting point, others suggest Caesarea. Before deciding on this issue, it must first be recognized that, on the assumption of authenticity, where Paul was when he wrote Ephesians is where he was when he wrote Colossians and Philemon. This can be seen by several pieces of evidence: (1) the commendation of Tychicus, as the bearer of the letter, found in exactly the same form in both Eph 6:21-22 and Col 4:7-8, surely indicates that he was sent with both epistles at the same time; (2) the strong verbal overlap between Colossians and Ephesians must, if authentic, indicate that the two were written at the same time; (3) Colossians is inseparable from Philemon—that is, they must both have been sent at the same time. Hence, all three letters were written and sent at the same time. Consequently, if there is anything in either Colossians or Philemon which helps to narrow down where Paul was imprisoned at the time of writing, such would equally apply to Ephesians.

1. Caesarea

A Caesarean imprisonment is improbable for two reasons: (1) Onesimus, the runaway slave, would hardly have gone to Caesarea. Not only would he not have escaped notice as easily, but he would most likely not have had very good access to Paul. In Rome, however, Paul was under house arrest and had relatively free mobility.¹³ (2) In Phm 22 Paul requests Philemon to prepare lodging for him, in anticipation of his release. This would hardly be the case in Caesarea, however, for Paul appealed to Caesar, prolonging his imprisonment by more than two more years.

2. Ephesus

On behalf of Ephesus are two arguments (both negative in character): (1) the great distance between Rome and Colossae (1200 miles each way) suggests that Onesimus would hardly have made the journey; it would be easier for him to travel to a nearby city; (2) in Phm 22 Paul asks Philemon to prepare him lodging, suggesting that he intended on returning to Asia Minor after his release. But he had written the Romans a few years earlier of his plan on going westward, even to Spain (cf. Rom 1:10ff; 15:19ff.). It should be noted that both of these arguments only help an Ephesian imprisonment, not a Caesarean (because Caesarea is far from Asia Minor and because Asia Minor would conceivably be en route to Rome and Spain from Caesarea).

In response: (1) There is just as much likelihood that Onesimus would want to travel to Rome, because it was far away as Ephesus because it was close by—especially since he robbed Philemon, giving himself travel funds.¹⁴ Not only this, but he would surely have been detected in Ephesus by other Christians, perhaps even by some of Paul’s traveling companions. But whether he would have been able to visit Paul before being detected is doubtful. (2) Paul could easily have changed his mind about going to Spain, or he might have wished to visit his friends in Asia Minor before journeying westward—especially to gain emotional strength after having suffered imprisonment for several years.

Not only this, but an Ephesian imprisonment is improbable: (1) We have no positive evidence that Paul was ever imprisoned in Ephesus. (2) If the “in Ephesus” in Eph 1:1 is original, then this view is almost impossible; even if not original, there is the strong possibility that Ephesians was sent to the churches in Asia Minor (with Ephesus being the port of entry, giving cause for the traditional view). And if so, then Paul most likely was elsewhere when all three letters were sent.

3. Rome

Both because of Paul’s known imprisonment in Rome, and because of the tradition of a Roman imprisonment for these letters,¹⁵ the burden of proof must rest with a non-Roman origin. As we have seen, the arguments against the Roman theory are not convincing. On behalf of Rome, however, is an important internal clue: Luke is with Paul during his imprisonment (Col 4:14; Phm 24). Luke’s presence with Paul is supported by Acts while Paul was in Rome, “whereas the Ephesian ministry of Paul does not occur in a ‘we’ section and it may reasonably be doubted whether Luke was with Paul during this period.”¹⁶

In conclusion, the traditional view that Paul was in Rome when he wrote Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon, is still the most reasonable view.

C. Date

This letter was sent while Paul was in prison in Rome (59-61 CE). Since the apostle gives no indication that he will be released soon (contra Philippians), it is likely that this was written before the end of his imprisonment. Further, it is obvious that it was sent along with the letter to the Ephesians and the letter to Philemon. Once the occasion for the writing of Colossians/ Philemon is established, it can be reasonably supposed that all three letters were written sometime during the middle of Paul’s imprisonment—hence, c. 60 CE. But more than that can be said here.

Philemon 22 seems merely to be an expression of the hope of release from prison, without giving any indication as to when. If this is read as an expression of imminent release, then the relative dating of Ephesians-Colossians-Philemon in relation to Philippians may need some revision. But other considerations certainly suggest that Philippians is the last of the so-called prison epistles: (1) Phm 22 may be a somewhat exaggerated statement (intended to reflect Paul’s positive attitude more than the reality of imminence), for if Paul was in Rome, it would take him several weeks to travel to Asia Minor; (2) Epaphras is mentioned in Phm 23, as someone known to Philemon (cf. also Col 4:12), without any mention of his illness (cf. Phil 2:25ff.)—even though news of his illness was know to Christians outside of Rome (ibid.); (3) Only Timothy is with Paul when he wrote Philippians (Phil 2:19-21), while Luke, Demas, Aristarchus, Mark, and Epaphras are with him when he wrote Colossians-Ephesians-Philemon (cf. Col 4:10-14; Phm 23-24). Whatever else this indicates, it is evident that Philippians cannot be dated at the same time as the other three epistles; (4) the final proof is that Paul sends Epaphroditus to the Philippians (Phil 2:25-30) with the epistle, while he is still with Paul when the apostle wrote the other three letters. All of this evidence points to Philippians being written not only at a different time than the other three prison epistles, but at a later time. Hence, a date of c. 60 CE is most appropriate for Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon.

D. Destination

Paul addressed this epistle to the church at Colossae, a church which was one hundred miles inland from Ephesus, in the heart of the Lycus Valley. The apostle had never visited the church (1:4; 2:1). Most likely, the church was founded by Epaphras (cf. 1:7; 4:12-13) who was, in turn, converted by Paul when Paul was at Ephesus (cf. Acts 19:10).

E. Occasion and Purpose

1. Historical Reconstruction

Assuming that Epaphras and Epaphroditus are one and the same,¹⁷ we can begin to get a picture as to the occasion. In our introduction to Philippians, we suggested the following reconstruction.

(1) When Paul appealed to Caesar in the summer of 58 CE (after having been imprisoned in Caesarea for over two years), he sailed for Rome for trial (Acts 25:10-12; 27:1). News of his appeal would certainly have spread to his churches. The Philippians would have wanted a share in his expenses (Phil 4:10).

(2) They dispatched Epaphroditus to Rome with their gift (Phil 4:18). But Epaphroditus came with more than money: he also had questions for the apostle about the church’s opponents, and the members’ own poverty (cf. Phil 3:2, 18-19; 4:6, 19).

Now, as we intersect these date with Colossians a fuller picture emerges:

(3) Epaphroditus apparently did not go directly to Rome, but went back to Colossae, his home church.¹⁸ He would have wanted to check on this church which he founded, and if there were any issues at stake, he would seek out Paul for advice. When he arrived at Colossae he discovered that a new heresy had arisen. Consequently, he went post haste to Rome.

(4) Once he arrived in Rome, he reported to Paul the news of the Colossian heresy and of the Philippians’ desire to have Timothy come back to them.

(5) At about the same time Onesimus arrived, seeking refuge.¹⁹

(6) Paul could not spare Timothy, but was apparently able to dispatch other assistants as needed.²⁰

(7) The apostle could send Tychicus to Asia Minor, with letters to Philemon (about Onesimus), the Colossians, and the circular letter (known as “Ephesians”) which he had been preparing for some time.

(8) Hence, because of the long and exhausting journey, Paul could not send Epaphroditus back to Philippi until he had rested up. Further, the situation in Philippi, though important to address, was not as urgent as the situation in Colossae.²¹

(9) After Paul dispatched Tychicus, and after his other assistants had been dispatched or had abandoned him for whatever reasons (cf. Phil 2:19ff.), Paul intended to send Epaphroditus back to the Philippians. Unfortunately, he became ill—even to the point of death.²² Paul could not send him until he was well, and this presumably took several months (for the Philippians knew of his sickness).

2. Method of Composition

While Paul was sitting in prison, contemplating his upcoming trial and potential work in the west, he began formulating some parting comments to make to the churches of Asia Minor. As he dialogued with his amanuensis over its contents, a rough draft of Ephesians was probably put together in outline form. The amanuensis then began to fill in the details.

Then, startling news from the east came: there was a new heresy in Colossae which was infecting the church there. At about the same time, Onesimus appeared before Paul with his confession of abandoning and robbing his owner, Philemon.

At this juncture, Paul decided several things: (1) write to the Colossians with appropriate warnings, though taking the material mostly from a letter which already addressed some of the very same issues in a larger perspective; (2) write to Philemon, urging him to take Onesimus back, as a freeman—and even to prepare a room for the apostle himself; (3) finish the letter to all the churches in Asia Minor and have it sent with the other two letters.

If this reconstruction is correct, it fits several pieces of the puzzle: (1) the reason Ephesians looks so much like Colossians is because one letter was intentionally used as the basis for the other, with some necessary modifications made to fit the occasion. (2) The reason Ephesians does not look like the rest of Paul’s letters (except Colossians) in style or vocabulary is because (in part) it was done as a contemplative piece, originally intending to be something of a swan song, summing up Paul’s theology for the churches in Asia. (3) Since Colossians is an occasional letter, written with some urgency, the only way for a contemplative letter like Ephesians to have been sent at the same time is for Ephesians to have been written (at least in draft form) prior to Colossians. (4) When Paul learned of the new influx of heresy he changed his plans of going westward and decided to visit Asia one more time. This would not alter the fact that Ephesians was intended to be a reflective summary of his theology, but the initial occasion for the writing of Ephesians was a short-lived one which evaporated with news from Colossae.

3. Occasion/Purpose

Colossians was written explicitly to combat the heresy that had arisen in Colossae and was threatening the life of the church. It was occasioned, as we have argued, by news brought by Epaphroditus. But rather than sending Epaphroditus back, a fresh courier, Tychicus, was dispatched. He took along with him Onesimus and, after visiting Ephesus and depositing Paul’s circular letter there, he went straight to Colossae.

F. The Opponents in Colossae

One of the difficulties in trying to reconstruct the heresy which plagued the Colossian church is that we only have Paul’s response to it; that is, we do not have a record of Epaphroditus’ report. The difficulty in determining what the heresy looked like is akin to listening to one half of a telephone conversation—or worse, reading someone else’s mail when that person is writing a response. Consequently, any reconstruction must be quite tentative—and for this reason to deny apostolic authorship on the basis of what the heresy must have looked like is going far beyond the data.

In spite of this, we can see traces of several tenets of this heresy in Paul’s response: (1) a defective Christology, especially in denying his humanity (a docetic tendency) (cf. 2:9), but apparently not subscribing to his full deity either (cf. 1:15ff.); (2) its philosophic character (“fullness,” “knowledge” etc. are terms which seem to be used in Colossians as buzz words—i.e., to reveal its nature) (cf. 1:19; 2:3); (3) its Jewishness, with an emphasis on circumcision (2:11; 3:11) and traditions (2:8); (4) its asceticism (2:21-23).

All of these data suggest that “the heresy was of [a] syncretistic Jewish-Gnosticizing type.”²³ From this it certainly cannot be concluded that the heresy was full-blown gnosticism, such as is found in the second century.²⁴ Further, in light of its strong Jewish element (which is not surprising given the large Jewish population in the Lycus Valley), “it seems undeniable that the heresy in question is closer to Essenism than to developed second-century Gnosticism”²⁵—or, in the least, some form of Jewish asceticism wedded to Greek (Stoic?) philosophy.

G. The Letter from Laodicea

Although not commonly held nowadays, we have already argued that the letter referred to in Col 4:16 is not lost, but may well be the letter to the Ephesians.²⁶

H. Theme

The letter’s theme, seen in the light of the rising heresy, is the sufficiency of Christ.

II. Argument

The apostle Paul, with Timothy, begins the letter with a greeting to the saints at Colossae (1:1-2).

The body of the letter begins at 1:3.²⁷ Paul begins on a positive note in which he outlines the sufficiency of Christ (1:3–2:7). He follows this with a negative statement in which he argues against the views of the heretics at Colossae, who especially imbibe in christological heresy (2:3–3:4). The body is concluded with a call to live the Christian life in light of Christ’s sufficiency (3:5–4:6).

The first major section, on the positive presentation of the sufficiency of Christ, involves four parts. (1) Paul’s thanksgiving for the Colossians because of their positive response to the gospel (1:3-8), coupled with a prayer for them to grow in knowledge and productivity (1:9-14). This prayer deals, though very subtly, with the heart of the epistle: the heretics claim to have a superior knowledge, yet their very philosophy chokes out any productivity for God (cf. 2:20-23). (2) Without so much as an “Amen” to the prayer, Paul continues with a recital of an early Christian hymn in which Christ is magnified as Deity in the flesh, the Creator incarnate (1:15-20). (3) The hymn, which ends with a note on Christ as reconciler of “all things,” serves as a bridge to Paul’s next theme: Christ has reconciled the Colossians to God—a ministry of reconciliation which Paul has proclaimed (1:21-23). (4) Finally, Paul addresses his own ministry in greater detail: (a) he has been commissioned with proclaiming “the mystery” (again, borrowing terms of his opponents)—“Christ in you, the hope of glory” (1:27)—so that “we may present everyone perfect in Christ” (1:24-29); (b) he is presently concerned about the believers in the Lycus Valley, especially that they might not be “deceived by fine-sounding arguments” (2:4) which deny the sufficiency of Christ (2:1-7).

After having established both the sufficiency of Christ and Paul’s commission and concern, he now must turn, in this major section, to the heart of the matter: Heretics in Colossae have denied the sufficiency of Christ and this heresy has already affected the believers in the church (2:8–3:4). In essence, Paul’s argument is not to make an exclusively frontal attack, but to intertwine this attack with a subtle table-turning technique. That is, he uses the language of the heretics to affirm his gospel, showing that their view is insufficient, and that Christ is sufficient. Paul develops three primary points: (1) He restates the sufficiency of Christ (2:8-15)—in the light of the heretics’ wrong views (2:8), addressing three issues: (a) as the theanthropic person (“in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” [2:9]), he has ultimate authority (2:9-10); (b) the power which raised Christ from the dead is available to believers (2:11-12); and (c) the death of Christ is not defeat, but triumph—over our heart (2:13), over the law (2:14), and over “powers and authorities” (2:15).

He now turns to the influence that the heretics have had on the Colossians (2:16–3:4). This can be viewed in two ways (hence, our second and third points). (2) The heretics’ combination of Jewish legalism and mysticism (2:16-19) is a denial of the sufficiency of Christ, for such a heretic “has lost connection with the Head” (2:19). (3) Since believers have died (2:20-23) and risen with Christ (3:1-4), their return to human regulations (2:20-23) and lack of real appreciation for the true mystery, Christ himself (3:1-4), are a contradiction of their corporate life in Christ.

In the third and last major section, Paul addresses paraenetic concerns (3:5–4:6). But these are not to be disconnected with the preceding discussion in any way. Rather, Paul’s concern now is to show that Christ is sufficient not only for salvation, but also for sanctification. This third section, in effect, becomes a preemptive handling of the heretics’ charges concerning the pragmatics of Paul’s gospel. For although these heretics emphasized the inadequacy of Christ coupled with the adequacy of knowledge, they also put a premium on living a holy life (cf. 2:20-23, etc.). This syncretistic Jewish-Greek heresy needed response then at both levels: philosophically and pragmatically.

Paul outlines three areas in which Christ’s sufficiency does enable and should motivate believers to grow in grace. Although Paul packages this entire section with imperatives, beneath the surface is the fact of Christ’s sufficiency for sanctification (or else the commands would be irrelevant). (1) His sufficiency enables believers to grow individually—that is, in relation to the flesh (3:5-17). This is because believers have already put off the old man (3:5-11; cf. 3:9) and have put on the new man (3:12-17; cf. 3:10). Thus, their battle against sin is rooted in their changed nature—a direct result of the sufficiency of Christ applied. (2) Christ’s sufficiency enables believers to act responsibly in the extended home (3:18–4:1). Wives should submit to their husbands (3:18) and husbands should love their wives (3:19); children should obey their parents (3:20) and fathers must not embitter their children (3:21); slaves should obey their masters (3:22-25) and masters should take care of their slaves properly (4:1). (3) Christ’s sufficiency enables believers to focus on the needs of others (4:2-6). Thus, they are required to be devoted to prayer for Paul and his companions—especially that they might gain opportunity in their evangelistic efforts (4:2-4); and believers should themselves make the most of their opportunities in sharing their faith (4:5-6).

The epistle closes with final greetings in which the letter-bearer, Tychicus, is commended (4:7-9), and Paul’s co-laborers (4:10-14) and Paul himself (4:15-18) send their greetings.

III. Outline

I. Salutation (1:1-2)

II. Orthodoxy: The Sufficiency of Christ Explained (1:3–2:7)

A. Thanksgiving and Prayer for the Colossians (1:3-14)

1. Thanksgiving  for the Colossians’ Faith (1:3-8)

2. Prayer for the Colossians’ Knowledge and Growth (1:9-14)

B. Hymn to Christ the Lord (1:15-20)

C. Affirmation of Christ the Reconciler (1:21-23)

D. Paul’s Commission concerning the Mystery of Christ (1:24–2:7)

1. Paul’s Past Labors Aimed at Perfection in Christ (1:24-29)

2. Paul’s Present Concern regarding Defection from Christ (2:1-7)

III. Heterodoxy: The Sufficiency of Christ Denied (2:8–3:4)

A. The Sufficiency of Christ Restated (2:8-15)

1. Statement against Heretics (2:8)

2. Restatement of Christ’s Sufficiency (2:9-15)

a. Christ our Authority (2:9-10)

b. Christ our Power (2:11-12)

c. Christ our Victor (2:13-15)

B. The Colossians’ Practices as a Denial of the Sufficiency of Christ (2:16-19)

C. The Colossians’ Practices as a Contradiction of their Corporate Life in Christ (2:20–3:4)

1. Death with Christ Means Death to Human Regulations (2:20-23)

2. Resurrection with Christ Means New Perspective (3:1-4)

IV. Orthopraxy: The Sufficiency of Christ Experienced (3:5–4:6)

A. Experienced Individually (3:5-17)

1. Negative: Putting off the Old Man (3:5-11)

2. Positive: Putting on the New Man (3:12-17)

B. Experienced in the Home (3:18–4:1)

1. Wives and Husbands (3:18-19)

2. Children and Parents (3:20-21)

3. Slaves and Masters (3:22–4:1)

C. Experienced in Relation to Others (4:2-6)

1. In Relation to Paul (4:2-4)

2. In Relation to Unbelievers (4:5-6)

V. Final Greetings (4:7-18)

A. Commendation of Tychicus (4:7-9)

B. Greetings from Paul’s Co-Workers (4:10-14)

C. Greetings from Paul (4:15-18)

---

¹See our discussion in the introduction to 2 Peter for discussion of this article.

²C. Vaughan, Colossians (EBC), 164.

³C. F. D. Moule, Colossians and Philemon, 13.

⁴Guthrie, 574-75.

⁵G. H. P. Thompson, Colossians (Cambridge Bible Commentary), 106.

⁶Thompson, Colossians, 105.

⁷But cf. F. C. Synge, Philippians and Colossians, 51-57.

⁸For detailed argumentation, see our introduction to Ephesians. What may be of interest to note is that in our reconstruction Ephesians actually did come first (at least in draft form), and to this extent Synge’s criticism that Colossians is but a pale reflection of Ephesians has some warrant. But if Colossians can be established on other grounds, this equally argues that Ephesians is authentic, too.

⁹Guthrie, 575, n. 4.

¹⁰Though I have not seen this argument in print, I find it quite compelling. The author of Ephesians becomes the first one to use Colossians and must therefore be added to the external testimony. Not only this, but all the external testimony on behalf of Ephesians can now, indirectly, be used on behalf of Colossians. And to suppose that the author of Ephesians can now, indirectly, be used on behalf of Colossians. And to suppose that the author of Ephesians did not think that Colossians was authentic is to ruin the entire raison d’être for his letter—viz., to pass it off as authentic. Further, to argue that the church later canonized Colossians because of its similarity to Ephesians finds no parallel in the early church: this would be similar to saying that Jude was written by Peter since (as it has been assumed) Jude is used by 2 Peter—yet the authorship of Jude has never been questioned on that score.

In the mid-80s Prof. Ernest Best came to Dallas Seminary and addressed the NT doctoral students. His message was an exegesis  of Ephesians 2:1-10 (as part of his then forthcoming commentary) in which he argued, among other things, that on the basis of stylistic considerations and dependence on Colossians, Paul could not have written Ephesians. In the discussion afterward it was pointed out that if Ephesians is a forgery, it is unparalleled in that it relies almost exclusively on one Pauline epistle—and a not-too-well-known one at that. To this, Prof. Best replied that Colossians may well be a forgery as well. It would seem that our cirticism above would nullify Prof. Best’s views to a large degree, for he wants to have his cake and eat it too.

¹¹Guthrie, 576.

¹²Guthrie, 576-77.

¹³Cf. Guthrie, 577.

¹⁴Cf. Guthrie, 578.

¹⁵Marcion’s Prologue places Paul in Ephesus for the writing of Colossians, but it places him in Rome for the writing of Philemon. Yet, since both of these must surely have been written at the same time, Marcion can only be half right. The rest of the external testimony puts Paul in Rome for the writing of these epistles.

¹⁶Guthrie, 579.

¹⁷Analogous to Silas/Silvanus, Simeon/Simon, etc. Cf. BAGD, 283-84.

¹⁸It is of course equally possible that Epaphroditus began his journey from Colossae and, en route, went to Philippi. That the Philippians do not seem to know him as well—nor to desire him (for they wanted Timothy to return)—seems obvious from Phil 2. All this would argue that he began his journey in Colossae. Further, to go to Colossae from Philippi is to go away from Rome. Yet, two points argue that Epaphroditus began the trip to Rome in Philippi: (1) The problem in Philippi, though important, was not nearly as urgent as the heresy sprouting in Colossae. If Epaphroditus began in Colossae, would he linger in Philippi, with such a pressing need in Colossae? (2) In Phil 2:25ff. Paul is clearly sending Epaphroditus back to Philippi. The text does not sound as if he is merely a messenger, but that he is to take up (or resume) ministerial duties in Philippi. Most likely, then, though Epaphroditus established the church at Colossae, he, like several assistants of Paul, took on the role of itinerant pastor and simply plugged the gap where necessary.

¹⁹More than likely, Onesimus arrived some time before Epaphroditus did, for he was able to return to Colossae as soon as Paul penned his letters. Presumably, one would normally have to rest for a few weeks after such a long and arduous journey.

²⁰Phil 2:19-20 suggests both that Timothy was needed in Paul’s dark hour and that several of his friends had deserted him. It is doubtful that Luke had deserted him (since he seems to be in Rome at the end of Paul’s imprisonment according to the Acts record), though he may have been involved in the trial preparations too much to spend time with Paul. But Demas apparently had deserted Paul, unless this desertion came later (cf. 2 Tim. 4:10).

²¹This is not to say that the heretics mentioned in 3:2 were not an urgent matter. Rather, a careful reading of Philippians suggests that these heretics had not yet infiltrated the church. Paul, then, is writing a preemptive warning in Philippians, while in Colossians he is addressing a heresy which had already taken root.

²²That his illness occurred after Colossians and Philemon had been sent is obvious from the fact that no mention of it is made in those letters, even though he is mentioned.

²³Guthrie, 569.

²⁴R. McL. Wilson argues that “a considerable leap of faith is involved in the assumption that these pre-Christian ideas already carried with them the full implicaitons of the alleged Gnostic Redeemer-myth” (cited in Guthrie, 569, n. 2).

²⁵Guthrie, 570.

²⁶Cf. our introduction to Ephesians for discussion.

²⁷It is equally possible to begin the body of this epistle at 1:15, since 1:3-14 involve Paul’s usual thanksgiving and prayer. However, since this section is so integral to the theme of this epistle, it was considered more appropriate to begin the body at 1:3.

I. Introduction

A. Thessalonica, the City

1. Location

Hiebert gives a nice summary as to the strategic location of Thessalonica:

The city of Thessalonica enjoyed the advantages of a strategic location. The famous Via Egnatia (Egnatian Way), spanning Macedonia from east to west, passed through the walls of the city. This important Roman highway facilitated brisk travel and commerce and put Thessalonica into ready contact with the important inland districts on either side of it. It was the principal artery of communication between Rome and her eastern provinces.

Due to its location, Thessalonica might well be called “the key to the whole of Macedonia.” The dictum of Meletius concerning it was, “So long as nature does not change, Thessalonica will remain wealthy and fortunate.”¹ One of its native poets proudly called it the “mother of all Macedon.”²

2. Inhabitants

Thessalonica was the largest city of Macedonia. It has been estimated that during Paul’s time its population may have been as high as 200,000. The majority of the inhabitants were Greeks, but there was also a mixture of other ethnic groups, including Jews (according to Acts 17:1-10). Today about half of Salonica is Jewish. Several scholars (especially those of the nineteenth century such as Lightfoot) argued that this is proof that the synagogue was thriving and kept on thriving after Paul’s ministry there. But “a visit to Salonica would have saved him [Lightfoot] from this error. The Jews of Salonica speak Spanish as their language, and are descended from Spanish Jews, expelled by Ferdinand and Isabella . . . ”³ Indeed, the only ancient evidence of Jews in Thessalonica is the record of Acts 17, making it impossible to surmise how large the Jewish population was.

As to their moral standards, the Thessalonians were hardly any different from the citizens of any other large Greek city. Presumably, most were idolaters, though it is certain that some were seeking a different kind of religious experience than polytheism could provide; hence, they attached themselves (loosely) to the local synagogue.

3. History

In c. 315 BCE Cassander, the son-in-law of Philip of Macedon (who fathered Alexander the Great) gathered and organized the area villages into a new metropolis, Thessalonica. He gave the city its name in honor of his wife, the half-sister of Alexander.

Thessalonica remained in Greek hands until 168 BCE, when the Romans took possession after winning the battle of Pydna. At that time:

…the Romans divided the conquered territory into four districts, Thessalonica [being] named the capital of the second district. In 146 B.C. Macedonia was united into one Roman province with Thessalonica as the natural choice for its capital. In 42 B.C. Thessalonica was made a “free city” by Anthony and Octavian, the future Augustus, as a reward for the help given in the struggle against Brutus and Cassius.

The Roman proconsul, the governor of Macedonia, had his residence in Thessalonica, but because it was a “free city” he did not control its internal affairs. No Roman garrison was stationed there, and in spirit and atmosphere it was a Greek rather than a Roman city. Enjoying local autonomy, the city was apparently governed by a board of magistrates…

Furthermore, according to Acts 17, the city also had a senate and a public assembly.

B. The Author

First Thessalonians is accepted by virtually all NT scholars. The radical criticism of the Tübingen and Dutch schools of last century is now considered passé (A. Q. Morton and his flawed computer-based linguistic analysis being an anomaly). Still, it is helpful to rehearse the reasons why it is so well accepted.

1. External Evidence

Not only is 1 Thessalonians found in Marcion’s canon and the Muratorian canon, but it is also quoted by name by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian. Perhaps even Polycarp alludes to it when he speaks of Paul’s letters to the Philippians.⁴ Further, it is found in the most ancient MSS (including the old Latin, old Syriac, and ¸46), suggesting its full acceptance from a very early period. Although not as strong as the evidence for the Hauptbriefe (in terms of frequency of citation), 1 Thessalonians has nevertheless enjoyed universal acceptance.

2. Internal Evidence

a. Arguments Against Pauline Authorship

There are essentially two arguments that are sometimes used against authenticity: historical problems and a literary problem.

1) Historical Problems. Essentially there are two historical problems, both related to the record in Acts 17: (1) in Acts 17:2 Paul’s stay in Thessalonica is said to be “three sabbaths,” but the impression given in 1 Thessalonians is that he must have stayed much longer; (2) Acts 17:4 seems to indicate that the make-up of the church was primarily Jews and “God-fearers,” while 1 Thess 1:9 indicates that most had come out of paganism. These discrepancies have caused some scholars to doubt the authenticity of 1 Thessalonians, though the majority, if they are to question anything, usually doubt the historical accuracy of the Acts record.

In response, see our later discussions on the historical reconstruction and the make-up of the recipients. Suffice it to say here that these historical problems are by no means insurmountable: in the least, if Luke is giving a selective account (as is his custom for much of his narrative), it is quite possible to suppose that Paul had stayed in Thessalonica much longer than three weeks and that, therefore, the make-up of the church was altered as more and more Gentiles joined the ranks.⁵

2) Literary Problem: An Alleged Interpolation. In 1 Thess. 2:13-16 the apostle engages in an anti-Jewish polemic. Several scholars have argued that Paul could not have written such a diatribe. However, not only is there no MS evidence that this was ever not a part of this letter, but 2:13-16 seems to form an inclusio with 1:2-10, finishing off that section in a literarily tight fashion.⁶ Further, even if this were an interpolation, this would not deny authenticity for the rest of the epistle.

In sum, these arguments are not very convincing against authenticity. Even if we were to grant a discrepancy between Acts and 1 Thessalonians, as well as an interpolation for 2:13-16, neither of these arguments could overthrow Pauline authorship: most scholars value Paul’s autobiographical remarks above the more detached comments mentioned in Acts, and an interpolation of four verses does not negate authorship of the rest of the letter. But, as we have seen, there is probably no discrepancy between Acts and this letter, and there is almost certainly no interpolation of 2:13-16.

b. Arguments for Authenticity

Although hardly necessary even to mention any positive arguments,⁷ three stand out as especially significant.

1) Ecclesiology. The church structure is obviously primitive, since in 5:12 the apostle calls the leaders merely “those who are over you.”

2) Eschatology. “The language and style are certainly Pauline, while the subject-matter would be inconceivable after Paul’s death. No one would have thought of representing the apostle as expecting to be alive at the parousia when it was known that he was already dead.”⁸

3) Motive. Especially in light of the above consideration (viz., the author’s personalized eschatological hope), it is difficult to conceive of a forger writing this epistle for any reason other than to discredit Paul. Thus, Guthrie can say, “even if these obstacles to a forgery theory were not considered insuperable, it would be wrecked by the fact that no adequate motive for such a production has ever been suggested.”⁹

In sum, on all counts 1 Thessalonians must be regarded as genuine: it has good external credentials, and virtually impregnable internal arguments in its behalf.

C. Date

It is most likely that 1 Thessalonians was written shortly after Paul’s arrival in Corinth, for he would be eager to correspond with the new church as soon as possible (for details of the specific catalyst behind the writing of this letter, see “occasion”). In our chronological scheme, this would be spring of 50 CE. Thus, 1 Thessalonians is the second canonical book penned by the apostle Paul, written within two years after Galatians.

D. Destination/Recipients

In 1:1 the apostle addresses “the church of the Thessalonians,” though some questions have arisen as to the make-up of that church. Specifically, was it primarily Jewish or Gentile? And if primarily Gentile, were these Gentiles former proselytes of the Jewish synagogue or were they simply former pagans? First Thess. 1:9-10 and Acts 17:1-10 have quite a bit of bearing on this question. It is our conviction that the main leadership of the church was Jewish, though the majority of the membership was of Gentile origin, many of whom were loosely attached to the synagogue.¹⁰

E. Occasion and Purpose

1. Historical Reconstruction

(1) Paul and Silas had visited Thessalonica in the autumn of 49 CE, on Paul’s second missionary journey, having passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, since there was no synagogue in either town (Acts 17:1).

(2) The apostle preached for “three Sabbaths”—i.e., somewhere between fifteen and twenty-seven days (Acts 17:2). As was the custom of first century Judaism, the synagogue would have meetings on Mondays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. “Three Sabbaths” then would mean that Paul was probably able to preach at least eight or nine times.

(3) The make-up of those who believed was (1) a minority of Jews, (2) a majority of “God-fearers,” and (3) some leading women, presumably Gentile (Acts 17:4; cf. 17:12).

(4) After Paul began his sermon on the third Sabbath, the Jews started a riot (Acts 17:5). These Jews were jealous of the many converts Paul was making, so they gathered a mob and started a riot by claiming that Paul and Silas were claiming that there was another king besides Caesar (Acts 17:7).¹¹ The reason the city got worked up over this was because it was a free city: if the populace were to become convinced of another king, Thessalonica would be in danger of losing its free status.

(5) The narrative of Acts 17 reads as though Paul had just preached about Jesus as king when the Jews took action. If so, he must have been preaching about Jesus’ coming kingdom—a theme he customarily did not get to until his death and resurrection had been sufficiently covered.¹² Thus, it seems that Paul only touched on eschatology, getting cut off before he could give all the necessary details about Christ’s coming.¹³

(6) The city authorities apparently took bail money from Jason (Acts 17:9),¹⁴ at least as a security measure to keep the peace, though in effect having the force of keeping Paul out of town.¹⁵

2. Duration of Stay in Thessalonica

According to the reconstruction above, Paul and Silas stayed in Thessalonica from two to four weeks. There are several scholars who argue that the stay should be measured in months instead of weeks however. The point has some bearing on how developed the eschatology of the Thessalonians was, for the longer Paul stayed the less likely is a misunderstanding on their part.

a. Arguments for a Longer Stay

There are principally four arguments for a longer stay.

1) Paul’s autobiographical note seems to contradict Acts 17:2, for the apostle seems to have an acquaintance with the Thessalonians which would have gone beyond three weeks.

2) The Thessalonians’ understanding of doctrine—even such an insignificant doctrine as eschatology—argues for a longer stay.

3) The make-up of the church as detailed in 1 Thess 9–10 seems to be former pagans—a factor which argues against Luke telling the whole story in Acts 17.

4) Philippians 4:16 must surely be read: “even in Thessalonica you sent me help again and again”—that is, several times.¹⁶

b. Arguments for a Shorter Stay

There are five key arguments for the short stay view.

1) This is the prima facie meaning of Acts 17:2—that is, that Paul stayed in the city for only two to four weeks. Although Luke is not exhaustive in his historical reporting, when he gives chronological notes there should be little reason to quibble with them.

2) Whether the finer points of eschatology are insignificant or not is hardly an objectively verifiable question when one is considering the complex mind of Paul the apostle as well as the occasional nature of the letter he has written.

3) Our reconstruction of Paul’s visit to Thessalonica (see above) suggests that eschatology became an issue within a matter of weeks. Further, it was Paul’s normal pattern to go to the synagogue in a city first (cf. Acts 17:11), then to the Gentiles. It is difficult to see the Jews starting a riot against Paul after he had taken up residence for six months to a year, and, in fact, had not bothered the synagogue for most of that time. Further, it is probable that the Jews would have asked Paul why Jesus did not set up his kingdom as an attempt to trap Paul. Thus once Paul declared the Jesus would reign fully some day, they started a riot.

4) As far as integrating 1 Thess 1:9-10 with the short stay hypothesis, three possibilities exist: (1) Paul may have visited the Gentiles during the week (but if so, why did not Luke mention that most of the converts were simply pagan converts?). (2) When Paul said in 1 Thess 1:9 that his audience had turned to a living and true God from idolatry, he may have been referring in part to their past beliefs long before he knew them—beliefs which they abandoned when they came to the synagogue to worship.¹⁷ (3) The “God-fearers” of Acts 17:4 may simply have been pagans who were at the time sampling Judaism. They had a smorgasbord of religions in Thessalonica and Judaism was one of them. Luke does not say God-fearers with reference to these Gentiles (they are simply σεβομένων, not τὸν θεὸν σεβομένων). Thus there may be no disharmony at all between Luke and Paul on the identity of these new converts.¹⁸

5) Finally, Phil. 4:16 can be handled quite nicely within the short stay view. There are two ways to deal with this. (1) Morris suggests that Phil. 4:16 should be translated, “Once in Thessalonica and again (while in other places) . . . ” Thus he posits an ellipsis. He has some good evidence for the “once and again” idea (“repeatedly” is the force, not necessarily indicating only twice), but the ellipsis seems to do damage to the plain meaning of this verse, just as a longer stay view seems to do damage to Acts 17:2. One would certainly not come up with Morris’ suggestion if he were not familiar with the book of Acts. (2) Philippians 4:16 involves an ascensive καί (“for even while I was in Thessalonica . . .”). Paul is therefore expressing surprise that the Philippians would have sent him funds more than once while in Thessalonica. Commentators often point out that for the Philippians to send Paul money twice (or more) within the span of a few weeks would be highly unlikely. Paul, too, expresses the same surprise.¹⁹

In conclusion, if we take Luke’s account at face value, Paul preached in Thessalonica for three Sabbaths (as well as on Thursday and Monday, as was the custom of the synagogue). Although there are difficulties with this view (most notably those found in 1 Thess 1:9 and Phil 4:16), a close inspection of the evidence reveals a greater harmony if the “short stay” view is accepted.

2. Occasion

Paul certainly would have wanted to write to the Thessalonians after his brief stay in the city, if for no other reason than for encouraging the saints he had been cut off from. But the catalyst was a return visit from Timothy in which he reported several issues which needed clearing up (cf. 1 Thess 3:1-5).²⁰ Since Timothy’s name is absent from Acts 16:6 to 17:13 and since the pledge which Jason had to make to keep peace seems to have prevented Paul and Silas from returning, it is our view that Timothy was not with them on their visit to the city. To be able to send Timothy back to them when neither Silas nor Paul could return is in perfect harmony with this supposition.

3. Purpose

This epistle essentially has a fourfold purpose: (1) to express Paul’s joy that the church is growing and doing well; (2) to vindicate Paul’s ministry and the Thessalonians’ conversion; (3) to correct some misunderstanding about eschatology both because Paul’s message on that topic was “cut short” and, in the meantime, some of the Thessalonians had died (leaving nagging questions as to when they would be reunited with living believers); and (4) to correct some other, moral and practical, matters (which were not unrelated either to the vindication of Paul’s ministry or to eschatological issues).

F. Theme

The Thessalonian epistles, more than any other of Paul’s letters, emphasize the Lord’s return. The theme of 1 Thessalonians can be summed up as “the resurrection of the saints and the rapture of the Church.”

II. Argument

Paul opens his letter with a customary salutation (1:1), written to the Thessalonian believers.

He then spends the next three chapters setting forth his relation to the Thessalonians (1:2–3:13). He does this apparently because Jews from the synagogue in Thessalonica were trying to discredit Paul, arguing that he was no different than those who peddled their philosophy for profit on naïve audiences. The opponents attacked Paul on three grounds: (1) the Thessalonians’ conversion was not genuine—hence, Paul’s message could not be from God; (2) Paul was a peddler for profit; and (3) the proof that Paul was not interested in the Thessalonians is that he has not even bothered to visit them again. To these charges Paul now responds.

First, the apostle expresses thanks to God for the confirmation of the Thessalonians’ salvation as seen in their spiritual growth (1:2-10). He commends them to God because of their spiritual productivity which is motivated by their focus on salvation, their present walk with the Lord, and their hope of glorification (1:3). The apostle now reveals the evidence of their salvation (which is the reason he knows that they are saved): (1) his gospel was proclaimed with full conviction in the power of the Holy Spirit (1:4-5); (2) the Thessalonians accepted the gospel and followed Paul’s pattern in words and works (1:6-8); and (3) the Thessalonian believers remained steadfast in the apostolic kerygma (1:9-10).

The second reason Paul sets forth his relationship to the Thessalonian believers is to defend/confirm the genuineness of his apostleship and their conversion (2:1-16). Here Paul first presents positive (and objective) evidence (2:1-12), followed by negative (and subjective) evidence (2:13-16). Positively, the first reason that Paul’s apostleship (i.e., that he was sent from God) and, consequently, the Thessalonians’ conversion should be accepted as genuine is because (1) Paul’s message was from God (2:3-4), (2) his motives were pure (2:5-8), and (3) his method was characterized by sacrificial service and hard work among the Thessalonians (2:9-12). These points are all stated in 2:1-2, then elaborated on in 2:3-12.

Then the negative evidence is presented: The second reason Paul’s apostleship and the Thessalonians’ conversion should be accepted as genuine is because (1) the Thessalonians accepted Paul’s message as from God (2:13-14a), and (2) those who maligned the Thessalonians’ faith belong to the class of men who reject the truth and will be rejected by God (2:14b-16). In this second point Paul reminds the Thessalonians that they have suffered at the hands of their (Jewish) countrymen who are just like the Jews in Judea in their rejection of the truth. The wrath of God will certainly come (ἔφθασεν is a proleptic aorist) on them because of this.

The third reason Paul sets forth his relationship to the Thessalonian believers is to express his deep desire to visit them again (2:17–3:10). He begins with a negative argument, offers a “Plan B,” and shows the result of this second plan. The negative argument is that Paul and Silas have not returned to Thessalonica because Satan has prevented them (2:17-20)—an oblique reference, we believe, to the security taken from Jason. The “Plan B” then goes into effect: Timothy, who had not visited Thessalonica the first time, was sent to them to strengthen their faith in the midst of forewarned persecutions (3:1-5). The result of Timothy’s visit is that Paul now has a renewed desire to visit the Thessalonians as well as much encouragement about their faith (3:6-10).

At this stage the first major section of the epistle concludes with a transitional benediction. The content of Paul’s prayer (in light of the fact that the genuineness of his ministry, his message, and their faith stand vindicated) is that the Lord would (1) bring the apostles back to the Thessalonians, (2) continue to sanctify these believers, and (3) perfectly sanctify them at the time of the second coming of Christ (3:11-13).

Having vindicated himself and their conversion, Paul now can get to the heart of the epistle (4:1–5:22). Since this section contains prophecy as well as authoritative exhortations, Paul necessarily had to establish that he was a spokesman for God before proceeding. Hence, as long as the first three chapters are, they function basically as backdrop to chapters 4 and 5. In essence, these last chapters are an argument for proper relations within the body of Christ in the light of the imminent return of Christ. There are three basic parts: (1) an emphasis on proper conduct with other Christians in the body (4:1-12), (2) encouragement about the Lord’s return with some specific eschatological details (4:13–5:11), and (3) exhortations concerning proper attitudes toward authorities within the body (5:12-22). The middle position of the eschatological paragraph is no accident: it governs the other two sections in terms of rationale. That is to say, the reason believers should have proper horizontal relations (in terms of authority) within the body and proper hierarchical relations within the body is because  the Lord’s return for the saints is imminent.

First (since his authority is from God), Paul argues that the manner of the believers’ lifestyle should be characterized by proper horizontal relations within the body (4:1-12). In 4:1-2 he summarizes this by stating that the Thessalonians’ lifestyle should be characterized by continually pleasing God (4:1-2). Then he gives specifics (4:3-12): (1) negatively, the believers’ lifestyle should be characterized by the absence of irresponsible lust (4:3-8); (2) positively, the believers’ lifestyle should be characterized by a mutual edification (extending beyond the local body) and an individual work ethic (affecting the non-believer’s view of the church) (4:9-12).

Second (in light of the fact that Paul’s message is from God), Paul now encourages the Thessalonians with reference both to living and dead Christians on the basis that all will be resurrected/raptured imminently—before the day of the Lord begins (4:13–5:11). This section really has two distinct parts as seen by the περὶ δέ in 5:1. In the first part Paul encourages the saints with some positive news about their destiny and that of their dead. In the second part Paul encourages the saints by denying negative news (the wrath of God).

In 4:13-18 the apostle essentially encourages the believers about the status of Christians who have died (4:13). In essence, his argument is that he has received a prophecy (“word of the Lord” in 4:15) that both living and dead saints will be together with the Lord imminently in their translated bodies at the rapture (rather than the dead saints having to wait seven years) (4:14-17).

In 5:1-11 Paul exhorts the saints to be alert (5:6-8) since they are sons of light (5:4-5) and since the day of the Lord will come suddenly (5:1-3). This alertness has to do with proper Christian conduct, rather than watchfulness for signs of the Lord’s return, as is evident by the abrupt unexpectedness of the Lord’s return. Paul follows this challenge with a promise: just as the non-elect are destined for the time of God’s wrath (cf. 2:16), God’s children are destined for escape from it (5:9). This wrath almost certainly carries a double entendre force to it: both the tribulation period and final wrath (namely, hell). Believers are not destined for either. This promise extends even to those believers who are not alert (5:10). A state of non-alertness affects present sanctification, but has no impact on the time of future glorification. Paul concludes this eschatological section with a final encouragement (5:11) which appropriately forms an inclusio with the encouragement in 4:18.

Third, the manner of lifestyle believers should have in relation to intrachurch authority (in light of the imminence of the rapture) is respect for leaders (5:12-13), responsibility toward imperfect saints (5:14-15), reverence for God (5:16-18), and critical receptiveness toward prophecy (5:19-22).

The epistle concludes with a benediction and final greetings (5:23-28).

III. Outline

I. Salutation (1:1)

II. Paul’s Relation to the Thessalonians (1:2–3:13)

A. Thanks for the Thessalonians (1:2-10)

1. The Commendation of the Thessalonians before God (1:2-3)

2. The Evidence of the Thessalonians’ Salvation before Men (1:4-10)

a. Proclamation in Power (1:4-5)

b. Reception of the Gospel (1:6-8)

c. Faithfulness to the Kerygma (1:9-10)

B. Defense of Paul’s Apostleship and the Thessalonians’ Conversion (2:1-16)

1. Positive and Objective Defense (2:1-12)

a. Statement (2:1-2)

b. Defense (2:3-12)

1) The Source of Paul’s Kerygma (2:3-4)

2) The Internal Motive (2:5-8)

3) The External Method (2:9-12)

2. Negative and Subjective Defense (2:13-16)

a. The Thessalonians’ Reception of the Gospel (2:13-14a)

b. Their Opponents’ Rejection of the Gospel (2:14b-16)

C. Paul’s Desire to Visit (2:17–3:10)

1. The Hindrance of Satan (2:17-20)

2. The Sending of Timothy (3:1-5)

3. The News from Timothy (3:6-10)

D. Transitional Benediction (3:11-13)

III. The Lord’s Return as a Motive for Sanctification (4:1–5:24)

A. Proper Horizontal Relations within the Body (4:1-12)

1. Statement: Pleasing God (4:1-2)

2. Specific Entreaties: (4:3-12)

a. Negative: Do Not Lust (4:3-8)

b. Positive: Edification and Work Ethic (4:9-12)

B. The Imminent Return of the Lord (4:13–5:11)

1. Rapture and Resurrection (4:13-18)

a. Negative Statement: No Cause for Grief (4:13)

b. Argument Proper: Resurrection and Rapture are (Virtually) Simultaneous (4:14-18)

1) First Evidence: The Resurrection of Christ (4:14)

2) Second Evidence: New Revelation given to Paul (4:15a)

3) Specific Content (4:15b-17)

a) Resurrection Precedes Rapture (4:15b)

b) Succession of Eschatological Events (4:16-17a)

c) Results: Forever with Christ (4:17b-c)

c. Positive Statement: Encouragement of the Saints (4:18)

2. Deliverance from God’s Wrath (5:1-11)

a. The Suddenness of the Lord’s Return (5:1-3)

b. The Vigilance of the Saints (5:4-8)

1) Description of the Saints: Sons of Light (5:4-5)

2) Responsibility of the Saints: Be Alert (5:6-8)

c. The Promise of God (5:9-10)

1) Escape from Wrath (5:9)

2) Rapture for All Believers (5:10)

d. Final Eschatological Encouragement (5:11)

C. Proper Hierarchical Relations within the Body (5:12-22)

1. Recognition and Regard for Leaders (5:12-13)

a. Recognition of Leaders’ Office (5:12)

b. Regard for Leaders’ Work (5:13)

2. Responsible Action toward “Imperfect” Saints (5:14-15)

3. Reverence toward God (5:16-18)

4. Critical Receptiveness of Prophecy (5:19-22)

IV. Concluding Remarks (5:23-28)

A. Benediction (5:23-24)

B. Final Greetings (5:25-28)

---

¹Apparently Meletius was a prophet, for his statement has proven true. Thessalonica, today known as Salonica, is still a thriving city with almost 300,000 inhabitants.

²J. Hiebert, The Thessalonian Epistles, 11.

³W. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen, 236.

⁴See discussion in our introduction to Philippians.

⁵Although this is not the view we adopt, it is quite plausible and does justice both to Acts and 1 Thessalonians.

⁶Note the themes in both sections: (1) thanksgiving to God (1:2/2:13) that (2) the Thessalonians received the word as from God (1:5/2:13); (3) this word is powerful (1:5/2:13); (4) the Thessalonians became imitators (1:6/2:14); (5) the believers suffered while they were imitating their role models (1:6/2:14); (6) the Gentiles are getting saved because of the Thessalonians’ testimony (1:7-9), not from Paul’s ministry which has been hindered (2:15-16); (7) the Gentile believers will be saved from the coming wrath (1:9-10), while the Jewish unbelievers have not been able to escape the wrath (2:16). These parallels are quite remarkable, especially in that once they depart fromthe same motif (points 6 and 7), their exact opposites are picked up—e.g., Gentile salvation vs. Jewish unbelief, etc.

⁷Bruce pointed out that “The absence of anything in this epistle that criticism can easily lay hold of has been for most critics a powerful argument for its authenticity. Baur, however, saw in this ‘a criterion adverse to a Pauline origin.’ (The authentic Paul, it is implied, provides no lack of material for criticism to lay hold of—which is true in one sense)” (F. F. Bruce, “St. Paul in Macedonia: 2. The Thessalonian Correspondence,” BJRL 62 [1980] 330).

⁸Guthrie, 589. Indeed, this is such a strong argument for authenticity that some have even argued that 1 Thess 4:15 (“we who are liave, who are left until the coming of the Lord”) demonstrates that Paul was a false prophet (so J. G. Davies, “The Genesis of the Belief in an Imminent Parousia,” JTS 14 [1963] 103-04)!

⁹Guthrie, 589.

¹⁰We will examine this in some detail in our discussion of the occasion/historical reconstruction.

¹¹One of the ironies in this passage is that the Jews appear to be joalous for Caesar’s honor (Acts 17:7)—a posture hardly conceivable for orthodox Jewry. However, within the pages of the NT, the Jews took on this posture once before, when Pilate confronted them with Jesus’ kingship; “we have no king but Caesar” was their response (John 19:15).

¹²Cf. Acts 13:26-41; 17:18, 31; 23:6; 25:17-19 (in which the only charge brought by the Jews against Paul is that he was proclaiming the resurrection of Christ); 26:4-9, 23 (a summary of Paul’s gospel); 1 Thess 1:9-10 seems also to represent the apostolic kerygma—especially as it was preached at Thessalonica.

¹³One intriguing question is why Paul even bring up Jesus’ second coming in the first place? Though this seems quite normative to us, the Acts accounts of Paul’s trials leaves this topic completely out. That is to say, Paul was apparently not charged with claiming that there was another king besides Caesar, just that he had been raised form the dead (cf. references in previous footnote). It is quite likely that, in engaging in debates with the Jews, they would have argued that Jesus was not the Messiah because he did not usher in the kingdom. Paul would have responded that he will usher it in in its full blossom some day—and that the reason it had not yet been consummated was because of Israel’s rejection. Thus, the charge that Paul was proclaiming another king now had some basis—and the net result was his expulsion from the city.

¹⁴Cf. Moulton-Milligan on iJkanovn.

¹⁵Although in 1 Thess. 2:18 the apostle says that he wanted to return to Thessalonica “again and again,” it is not necessary to suppose that he actually made the attempt. Indeed, the hindering by Satan could well be the reminder of the potential financial ruin of Jason if paul were to return and a riot were to ensue.

¹⁶Cf. L. Morris, Thessalonians (TNT), 17 and his article in NovT 1 (1956) 205-08 in which he proves his point. (Incidentally, Guthrie has misread Morris’ argument, reversing what Morris has in fact said! Cf. Guthrie, 590, n. 2.)

¹⁷It is admitted that Acts is a transitional book, marking the end of one dispensation and the beginning of the next. One of the interesting things to note in Acts is how often certain folks are called “devout” or “righteous” or “worshiper of God” before they are confronted with the claims of Christ (cf. Acts 10:2, 7, 22; 13:16, 26; 16:14; 18:7). Partly because news of the Christ-event had not yet reached much of Judaism outside of Palestine it is important to regard the ministry of the sunagogue (between 33 CE and 70 CE) as often-times within God’s will. This is not to say that Jews who had never heard the name of Christ in, say, 63 CE, would be saved; but it is to say that Paul did not see the synagogue as necessarily in opposition to his mission. He consistently went to the synagogue first in each city not to disrupt them (although this frequently happened), but to bring them the great news that the Messiah had come. The synagogues, then, performed a service for Paul: they prepared folks for the gospel. And for Gentiles this was especially valuable, for the synagogue marked perhaps the first step in a two-step process of spiritual birth: turning to a true God from idols.

¹⁸To see “God-fearers” as less than a technical title (for a Noachide monotheist) is very much a minority opinion nowadays (cf. BAGD, s.v. σέβω, 746; Foerster, TDNT 7.172). Although it is unquestioned that these Gentiles were uncircumcised (otherwise they would be called by the rather technical name “proselyte”—cf. the Mishnah, Pesachim 8.8), I question whether all who were called by the name σεβόμενος were, in fact, monotheists. The evidence is as follows. (1) In Acts: (a) earlier references to “God-fearers” in Acts use a different verb (φοβέομαι) and make the object explicit (cf. 10:2, 22; 13:16, 26), while it is not stated in Acts 17:4; (b) in Acts 19:27 Luke uses σέβομαι, but this time with reference to those who worship Artemis (are we to suppose that these pagans worshipped only Artemis?); (c) whatever distinctions Rabbinic Judaism made, Luke seems to be unaware of: in Acts 13:43, he speaks of “[God-]fearing proselytes” (σεβομένων προσηλύτων) using two terms which, in Rabbinic writings, would refer to two distinct groups (the first being uncircumscised Gentile monotheists, the second being circumcised full-fledged converts to Judaism).

(2) In Josephus: (a) Antiquities 14.110 is often used in support of the monotheistic view (so BAGD: “σεβόμενοι τὸν θεόν God-fearers, worshippers of God is a term applied to pagans who accepted the ethical monotheism of Judaism”). But in that text Josephus says, “But no one need wonder that there was so much wealth in our temple, for all the Jews throughout the habitable world, and those who worshipped God, even those from Asia and Europe, had been contributing to it for a very ong time.” There is nothing explicit in this text to suggest that these Gentiles were strict monotheists (in fact, the closest parallel to this passage—found in the Mishnah—suggests just the opposite). (b) Although some scholars have argued that Josephus never uses σέβομαι in reference to idol-worship (citing such passages as Antiquities 9.99, 4.130, 137), they overlook Antiquities 9.205 where Jeroboam is said to worship idols.

(3) In Rabbinic material: (a) the Mishnah distinguishes three classes of Gentiles: proselytes (circumcised), half-proselytes (uncircumcised follower of the seven Noachide laws), and non-Jews (also known as Gentiles or idolaters). In Shekalim 7.6 we read of a non-Jew sending his burnt-offering to the temple from a country beyond the sea—paralleling Josephus, Antiquities 14.110 and showing the faulty assumptions that usually accompany the interpretation of the latter text. (b) At best, only in a later period of Jewish literature did “fearers of heaven” take on anything of a technical meaning (two references in the Talmud are often cited, yet they have their own inconsistencies). The phrase does not occur in the Mishnah, and yet by the middle of the third century there was confusion once again (cf. Kuhn, TDNT 6.741-42). The evidence in fact is so slim that it is probable that there never was a technical nuance for the term.

From all these data, there is no solid ground for assuming that “God-fearers” ever took on a technical sense, and even if it did, since Luke omits the object and uses the weaker of two verbs in Acts 17:4, it is doubtful that he means strict monotheists by the term there.

¹⁹The 95 mile trip on the Via Egnatia would take five days, round trip. If Paul stayed in Thessalonica twenty-seven days, the Philippians could have sent him funds five times! (Since many of them would have gotten paid daily, they may have wanted to help on a regular basis until he got situated better.)

²⁰Chalmer E. Faw, “On the Writing of First Thessalonians,” JBL 71 (1952) 217-25, makes too much of the evidence when he suggests tha tthe first three chapters are responses to Timothy’s oral report back to Paul, while chapters four and five are Paul’s response to the questions which the Thessalonians had raised themselves. Still, he has correctly detected the (περὶ) δέ structure as showing shifts in topics (analogous to the situaiton in 1 Corinthians), though all of them could have been included in Timothy’s report to Paul.

I. Introduction

A. The Author

Second Thessalonians does not have nearly as widespread acceptance as does 1 Thessalonians. After the pastoral epistles and Ephesians, in fact, 2 Thessalonians is the most doubted book in the corpus Paulinum.¹ The reasons for this doubt, as well as the reasons why many NT scholars accept the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians need to be examined.

1. External Evidence

Not only is 2 Thessalonians found in Marcion’s canon and the Muratorian canon, but it is also quoted by name by Irenaeus, and was apparently known to Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Polycarp. Further, it is found in the most ancient MSS (including the old Latin, old Syriac, and ¸46), suggesting its full acceptance from a very early period. Although not as strong as the evidence for the Hauptbriefe (in terms of frequency of citation), 2 Thessalonians has nevertheless enjoyed universal acceptance. In fact, the external testimony for 2 Thessalonians is equally as strong as, if not stronger than, that of 1 Thessalonians.

2. Internal Evidence

a. Arguments Against Pauline Authorship

There are essentially five arguments that are often used against authenticity—arguments which, proponents say, overturn the external testimony.

1) Eschatology. In a nutshell, the Lord’s return seems less imminent in the second letter as opposed to the first. This is seen in two ways: (1) certain signs seem to precede the Lord’s return here, while none did in 1 Thessalonians; (2) Paul does not include himself in the group of living saints who anticipate the Lord’s return, while he did in the first letter.

2) Linguistic Features. Some would argue that the linguistic features of this letter show too much deviation from Paul’s normal style. In particular, a few years back Daryl D. Schmidt of Texas Christian University read a paper on the linguistic features of 2 Thessalonians at a Society of Biblical Literature meeting, arguing this very point. His conclusion was that this letter was not genuine.

3) Change of Tone. This letter seems more formal than 1 Thessalonians and the author seems more distant (cf. 1 Thess 1:2 with 2 Thess 1:3; 2:13; cf. also 2 Thess 3:6, 12).

4) Readers. The readers of this letter are assumed to have a greater knowledge of the OT than what would be expected of Gentiles, and clearly more than what is expected of the audience in the first letter.

5) Similarities. There are so many similarities with the first letter (e.g., eschatological theme, linguistic features, and probable date) that the question presents itself: Why would Paul write twice to the same audience within a short span of time about the same topic?

In sum, these arguments may impress some minds more than others. In our view, they are not very convincing. In our case for authenticity we will attempt to show their weaknesses.

b. Arguments for Authenticity

Our approach here will simply be to answer the five charges made against Pauline authorship.

1) Eschatology. If the Lord’s return does not seem as imminent in the second letter as it does in the first, there is good reason: the enemies of Paul had turned the hope of the Thessalonians into dread (cf. 2:1-3). Paul now wanted to calm their fears and help them to focus on other aspects related to the eschaton. Nevertheless, a careful distinction needs to be made between the imminence of the day of the Lord with reference to unbelievers in 1 Thess 5 and its imminence with reference to believers in 2 Thess 2. With reference to unbelievers, it will come “suddenly,” without warning. With reference to believers, there is strong basis for arguing that the rapture will take place first. The language of 2 Thess 2:1-12 suggests that (1) the day of the Lord will not come until the man of lawlessness is first revealed (2:3); and (2) he will not be revealed until “the restrainer” is first removed. The language is necessarily cryptic because Paul wants to remind his audience of things he taught them when in Thessalonica without his enemies being privy to the contents of that teaching (cf. “you know” in 2:6; “do you not remember” in 2:5).² But if the “restrainer” is a reference to the Holy Spirit, then this cryptic language may well mean, simply, the day of the Lord will not begin until the rapture first takes place. That Paul did not come out and say this explicitly is understandable given the circumstances of why he had to write this letter.³

Further, it is not altogether true that Paul does not place himself with those “who are alive and remain at the Lord’s coming” for he does mention that God will “grant rest to you with us” (2 Thess 1:7), and he does mention “our gathering together with him” (2:1). Although these are not major emphases, there is nothing here which suggests that Paul would not be among the living at the time of the rapture. This was still his hope.

2) Linguistic Features. Although Schmidt has recently argued for linguistic dissimilarity, most NT scholars see almost too much similarity with 1 Thessalonians! In the least, this criterion should be called into question on four grounds: (1) the amount of material (three short chapters) is not sufficient to make dogmatic statements about linguistic patterns;⁴ (2) the altered tone certainly has an impact on writing style; (3) the cryptic nature of the “little apocalypse” (2:1-12; cf. also 1:3-12)—necessary due to the occasion of the letter—has a tremendous impact on vocabulary stock and the like; and (4) all such linguistic conclusions are largely irrelevant if the amanuensis for 2 Thessalonians were either different than the one for the first letter or had greater freedom than he did in the first letter.

3) Change of Tone. The change of tone is certainly due to (1) the shock on Paul’s part that his audience had become “so quickly shaken” from their joyous position concerning the Lord’s return; and (2) the necessarily cryptic nature of the letter in which the enemies could be kept at arm’s length. In short, the circumstances for writing are different and Paul’s mood is different. Further, the detection of tonal alterations is overly pedestrian and hardly worth mentioning in the first place.

4) Readers. Although the readers of this letter are assumed to have a better acquaintance with the OT (i.e., especially with its eschatological portions), (1) there are no allusions which Gentiles who had frequented the synagogue (cf. Acts 17:1-10) could not appreciate; (2) Paul must now use eschatological terms and imagery both because he had taught them these things (cf. 2:5, 6) and because he wanted to keep his enemies at bay (see discussion above); and (3) it must be remembered that even the OT allusions could be grasped by the leaders of this congregation since they were, most likely, Jews themselves.⁵

5) Similarities. That there are similarities in content and date is hardly an argument against authenticity (linguistic similarity, in fact, supports authenticity). This can be seen by the simple fact that a particular occasion arose in which Paul needed to address the Thessalonians very soon after his first letter—on the very topic which his enemies had distorted. Further, similarities in date and content are seen in other Pauline letters, though not all are extant. For example, between 1 and 2 Corinthians there was another letter written—one which deals with roughly the same content as is found in the canonical letters (viz., the basis of Paul’s authority and his relation to the audience).⁶ That 2 Thessalonians—as a letter so soon written after 1 Thessalonians—has been preserved for us is a fortuitous and unique situation; but that Paul might write something to the same audience on the same topic within a very short period of time (although no longer extant) is hardly out of character.

In sum, on all counts 2 Thessalonians must be regarded as genuine: it has good external credentials, and the internal arguments against its authenticity carry little conviction.

B. Date

The date of this letter is related to its occasion. It must certainly be dated very shortly after 1 Thessalonians, for the content and style are so similar. Further, there is some urgency in the writing (cf. 2:1-3). If our historical reconstruction is correct (see below), we believe that Paul periodically sent friends to Thessalonica to check on their progress in the faith (he would need to do this for the Thessalonians more than for other churches since he spent such little time with them). But this letter could not have been written until an intermediate letter (between 1-2 Thessalonians) had been written—a letter alleging to be from Paul. Since Paul was likely in Corinth when 1 Thessalonians was written (in fact, he had just come to Corinth), it is probable that 2 Thessalonians was written within the first six months of his stay in Corinth. We suggest, therefore, a date of spring-summer of 50 CE.

C. Occasion and Purpose

1. Occasion

In 1 Thess 3:1-6, Paul tells his audience that the sending of Timothy was what prompted a letter to the Thessalonians. When Timothy returned to Paul, the apostle’s heart was warmed and he penned his first letter to the believers at Thessalonica.

The second letter was occasioned by an entirely different set of circumstances. In 2 Thess 2:2 Paul states, “Do not be quickly shaken from your settled state, nor be disturbed by a spirit, nor by a message, nor by a letter as though from us.” This verse seems to indicate the occasion for the writing of this letter. It would be unusual for Paul to mention a forged letter as a possibility unless it really had happened. Hence, in light of this verse (as well as data gleaned from Acts and 1 Thessalonians), we would like to propose the following historical reconstruction.

(1) Timothy, unknown to the Thessalonian believers by sight, is sent by Paul to confirm their faith.⁷

(2) Paul then sends 1 Thessalonians to the young flock—probably by way of another messenger (note that Timothy’s name is mentioned in the salutation, indicating that he was probably not the letter-bearer)—so as not to raise the suspicions too much of Paul’s enemies in Thessalonica. He would want to send unknown people to the believers because of the sensitive political situation at Thessalonica—a situation which could cause Jason incredible financial loss.

(3) The enemies of Paul, probably from the synagogue in Thessalonica, infiltrate the church and take note of Paul’s modus operandi—viz., sending someone unknown to check on the church periodically. They take note of the contents of the letter.

(4) Perhaps these enemies report this activity to the local government officials. If so, communication from Paul would be harmless enough. Or perhaps a messenger from Paul would not be enough to incite another riot. The enemies needed to have a different plan if they were to squash the popularity of Christianity in their midst.

(5) They forge a letter as though from Paul which includes a message which subtly discredits Paul’s eschatology, hoping to dislodge the faith of the Thessalonians (and thus, perhaps, bring them back to the synagogue).

(6) They send the letter by someone unknown by sight to the believers.

(7) Paul sends someone⁸ to check up on the Thessalonians and he finds out the present despair.

(8) Paul writes the second letter.⁹

2. Purpose

Primarily, (1) the purpose was to correct the doctrinal error that the forgery had created about the day of the Lord. But since Paul’s ambassador had gone to Thessalonica originally just to check up on them, the letter reveals two other purposes as well.

(2) Positive: To commend them and encourage them in their perseverance in the faith;

(3) Negative: To rebuke those who, because of their eschatological self-deception (viz., they believed that since the day of the Lord had come the Lord’s return must take place soon), had abused this doctrine to their own gain and were sponging off the whole church.

D. Theme

The theme of 2 Thessalonians is the coming of the Lord and our gathering together with him.

II. Argument

Paul, Silas and Timothy greet the church at Thessalonica (1:1-2). Paul continues with his customary thanksgiving for the believers (1:3-4), though the thanksgiving is mixed with a note of comfort as well as a concluding prayer. In rapid succession Paul gives three substantive reasons as to why he can offer comfort: (1) God is perfecting these believers as seen in their perseverance through persecutions (1:3-4); (2) God will vindicate these believers by repaying the enemies of Christ with eternal destruction (1:5-10); and (3) God is preparing these believers for the kingdom, making them worthy of his calling (1:11-12).

After the comfort has been offered, Paul now gets to the heart of the letter, viz., eschatological correction (2:1-12). The purpose of this correction is to strengthen their faith in the Pauline kerygma and in the sovereign grace and justice of God. The need for it arises, most likely, from a letter written by Paul’s opponents, though purportedly written by Paul, to the effect that the day of the Lord had dawned and these believers had missed the rapture (2:1-2). Paul then gives two reasons why the Thessalonians should not be anxious about their share in eschatological glory: (1) the signs of the arrival of the day of the Lord had not appeared yet (2:3-5) (hence, the rapture was still future), (2) the antichrist (“man of lawlessness”) had not been unveiled yet (2:6-12). Paul then discusses some details about this man of lawlessness: (1) he is presently being restrained (2:6-7); (2) his career will be brief, cut off by Christ himself (2:8-9); and (3) those who follow him will face judgment (2:10-12).

Having repeated the refrain of the destiny of the wicked (1:5-12; 2:10-12), Paul now repeats the refrain of the destiny of the righteous (1:11-12; 2:13-17). His letter thus involves an inclusio contrasting the destinies of the wicked to the righteous (and is thus similar to 1 Thessalonians in this respect—a point which argues for authenticity). This reminder is in the form of a prayer and a benediction: a prayer that they stand firm in light of their destiny (2:13-15), and a benediction invoking God to encourage their hearts to so stand firm (2:16-17).

Paul concludes the body of the letter with exhortations related to evangelism and eschatology (3:1-15). First, he requests that they pray for the spread of the gospel through the agency of Paul (3:1-5). Then, he rebukes the idle (3:6-15), expanding on a rebuke he initiated in 1 Thess 5:14a. The expansion of the warning is due to Timothy’s report that the problem was increasing (3:11). The reason for the increased idleness seems to be an improper attitude toward eschatology: if the rapture will happen soon, why work? Paul takes this to its logical conclusion: if there is no need to work, then there is no need to eat (3:10)! Finally, Paul concludes the exhortation with a note on church discipline: ostracize the disobedient so that they will be ashamed and repent (3:14-15).

The apostle concludes the letter with a final greeting in which he reminds the Thessalonians of a built-in safeguard: he writes a note in all his letters (3:17; cf. 2:1-3). This note is bracketed by two benedictions, both of which invoke the Lord’s presence for the believers as a further comfort to them (3:16, 18).

III. Outline

I. Salutation (1:1-2)

II. Comfort in Affliction (1:3-12)

A. Perseverance in the Midst of Persecutions (1:3-10)

1. The Perseverance of the Saints (1:3-4)

2. The Vindication of God’s Righteousness (1:5-10)

B. Preparation of the Saints for the Kingdom (1:11-12)

III. Correction Concerning the Day of the Lord (2:1-12)

A. Summary: Doctrinal Correction (2:1-2)

B. Day of the Lord Yet Future (2:3-5)

C. The Unveiling of the Antichrist (2:6-12)

IV. Reminder Concerning their Destiny (2:13-17)

A. Standing Firm in Light of this Destiny (2:13-15)

B. Benediction: Encouraged Hearts (2:16-17)

V. Exhortations Concerning Practical Matters (3:1-15)

A. Request for Prayer (3:1-5)

B. Rebuke of the Idle (3:6-15)

VI. Final Greetings (3:16-18)

---

¹The order of acceptance vs. rejection for the Pauline corpus could be put on a graph:

10 = accepted by all

9 = accepted by virtually all

7 = accepted by most

5 = doubted by many (or most)

3 = rejected by most

1 = rejected by almost all

On this scale the Pauline corpus looks like this:

10 = Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians (the Hauptbriefe)

9 = Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon

7 = Colossians

5 = 2 Thessalonians

3 = Ephesians

1 = 1-2 Timothy, Titus

²This is analogous to a guarded press release on a not-yet-apprehended criminal by a police department: they often hold back some information from the public to weed out the counterfeit criminals and to ensnare the real one. In the same way, Paul is apparently sharing some “inside” information with the Thessalonians—information which, although baffling to interpreters, was designed primarily to arm the Thessalonians against further impostors, who claimed to be from Paul.

³Although posttribulationists often criticize pretribulationists for seeing the Holy Spirit as the restrainer (a view not all pretribulationists hold, but probably the most popular view in such circles), their counter-exegesis lacks conviction and seems to involve too many biblico-theological contradictions. One of their arguments is simply, If Paul meant to say that the rapture would come first, why did he not just come out and say it? In response, it should be noted that Paul did not just come out and speak clearly about eschatology in 2:1-12 at all! As William Neil has pointed out, “This section, dealing with the indications which may be expected to herald the end of the world, provides us with the weirdest piece of writing in all the epistles and that has never been satisfactorily explained” (“St. Paul’s Epistles to the Thessalonians,” Torch Bible Commentary, 132). This pericope is “weird” for two reasons: (1) it is apocalyptic in genre, and (2) it is cryptic language because Paul wants to guard against the Thessalonians’ acceptance of another forgery.

At the same time, all must concede that this text is difficult. Our views must be held humbly and tentatively, regardless of which side of the fence we are on.

⁴If one were to pick several other two-to-four chapter sections of the undisputed Paul (e.g., Rom 1-2, 2 Cor 10–13) there would most certainly be wider linguistic deviations than what are found in 2 Thessalonians.

⁵This is based on three considerations: (1) Paul had established leaders in the church (cf. 1 Thess 5:12ff.); (2) Acts 17:1-10 reveals that some Jews from the synagogue believed; and (3) certainly if new converts are, on occasion, going to be chosen to lead the church (contra 1 Tim 3:6), they must be the kind of men who have demonstrated some faithfulness to God already. Only those who had embraced the God of the OT would qualify.

⁶One might also note 3 John’s reference to a now lost letter which must have been sent only weeks before the canonical letter was sent.

⁷See our discussion of this possibility in the introduction to 1 Thessalonians.

⁸Perhaps he may have sent Aquila and Priscilla on one of the trips, but this can only be conjecture.

⁹One confirmation of this general scenario is 2 Thess 3:17 in which Paul makes a point of his own handwriting as a means of detecting authenticity. Would such a point be necessary if Paul sent his letters via known messengers?

We might add further that the essential problem of the Thessalonians was their gullibility toward prophetic utterances—that is, they believed too much. This is seen in (1) Acts 17:11, where Luke is apparently showing a contrast between the attitude of the Thessalonians and that of the Bereans; (2) 1 Thess 5:18-22 is an admonition toward critical receptiveness of the truth (“do not despise prophetic utterances, but test everything”), which most likely related to the gullibility of the Thessalonians; and (3) 2 Thess 2:1-3 shows that they did not “test everything” but instead believed the forgery.

I. Introduction

A. The Author

The authorship of the so-called “pastoral epistles” (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus) is more questionable than any other letters in the corpus Paulinum. A brief examination of the arguments on both sides, therefore, needs to be given. Rather than repeat the evidence for each book—since most scholars either accept or reject all of them as a group—the data concerning authorship will be presented only for 1 Timothy.

1. External Evidence

Although sometimes disputed,¹ “the external evidence for the Pauline authorship of the PE [pastoral epistles] is as good as for any other of his letters except Romans and 1 Corinthians.”² Irenaeus is the first explicitly to cite them as Pauline, though there are virtually definite quotations from them in Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Heracleon, and perhaps 1 Clement. Even though they are missing from Marcion’s Canon, “Tertullian says Marcion rejected them, which is no wonder, since the content of 1 Timothy 4:1-5 is completely antithetical to Marcionism.”³

Interestingly, in P46 (the oldest MS of the Pauline corpus, dated c. 200 CE), although only the pastorals are missing, there were originally five leaves at the end of the codex. It has been estimated that the pastorals would have taken ten leaves. Since codices were bound before being written in, it is possible that the scribe simply found himself in the embarrassing situation of having run out of room for the three pastoral epistles (which the scribe, with good reason, treated as a unit, hence leaving all of them out). And even if the scribe were unaware of the pastorals’ existence, this could be accounted for on two bases: (1) these letters were the only Pauline letters sent to apostolic delegates (and would thus probably have minimal circulation); and/or (2) there is the possibility that P46 should be dated in the 70s CE, rather than 130 years later, as one recent scholar has argued.⁴ Nevertheless, “by the end of the second century they [the pastoral epistles] are firmly fixed in every Christian canon in every part of the empire and are never doubted by anyone until the nineteenth century.”⁵

2. Internal Evidence

The internal evidence is where the real issue of authenticity lay. Basically, there are three problems for authenticity: (1) historical, (2) theological, and (3) linguistic.

a. The Historical Problem. The first problem is the fact that the historical evidences suggested within the pastoral epistles do not seem to fit in with any of the data supplied by Acts. The pastorals indicate the following: (1) Paul had left Timothy in Ephesus, while Paul moved on to Macedonia (1 Tim 1:3); (2) Paul likewise left Titus in Crete, after having spent some time with Titus on the island evangelizing the natives (Titus 1:5); (3) he is once again a prisoner in Rome when he writes 2 Timothy (2 Tim 1:8, 16-17; 4:16).

In response to the historical difficulty, there remain but two options for those who favor authenticity: either these letters should somehow fit into the Acts’ chronology, or else they were written after Acts.

(1) J. A. T. Robinson attempted to place such events within the chronological framework of Acts,⁶ though his views have gained few adherents.

(2) The view that they were written by Paul after Acts was published was first mentioned by Eusebius and has had a steady stream of followers since. There is a double difficulty with this view, however. First, it presupposes a second Roman imprisonment. Of course, since we only have Acts as a primary record of any of Paul’s imprisonments (apart from his own letters), this cannot be ruled out.

Second, “it is argued that Paul had intended to travel west from Rome, not east (Rom 15:23-29), that Luke could hardly have been silent about such an event, and that in any case it would have been highly unlikely for Paul to be either released from a Roman detention or, if released, re-arrested.”⁷

However, there is good evidence that Paul was indeed released from his first Roman imprisonment, as he seems to indicate would be the case in his last canonical letter written while in prison (cf. Phil 1:18-19, 24-26; 2:24). And there is evidence that he changed his mind about going west (cf. the same references and Philem 22).⁸ Further, as we have argued at some length, Luke ended his tome precisely at the point where he did because Paul was about to go on trial and because part of the purpose of Acts was as a trial brief for Paul. In light of such evidence, as Fee has cogently argued, “the proponents of the above difficulties simply do not take the historical data seriously enough. . . . Furthermore, it seems highly unlikely that a pseudepigrapher, writing thirty to forty years later, would have tried to palm off such traditions as Paul’s evangelizing Crete, the near capitulation to heresy of the Ephesian church, or a release and second imprisonment of Paul if in fact they had never happened.”⁹

b. The Theological Problems. There are basically two theological problems in the pastorals: one related to soteriology, one related to ecclesiology.¹⁰ There are other theological problems, to be sure (such as eschatological and ethical), but these are the most important. Overall, “The [theological] problem lies not so much with their [the pastoral epistles’] being non-Pauline in theology—indeed Pauline elements are recognized everywhere—as it does with so much in them that seems un-Pauline, that is, unlike his characteristic way of thinking and speaking as reflected in the earlier letters.”¹¹

(1) Soteriology. Although the author is concerned with the doctrine of salvation—indeed, this seems to be the driving force behind the writing of these letters (cf. especially 1 Tim 1:11)—the way in which the author speaks of this doctrine is decidedly un-Pauline. Essentially, there is a creedalism, an objective air to the pastorals with regard to soteriology that is largely lacking in the homolegomena. The emphasis is more one of “belief that” than “trust in” (cf. 1 Tim 3:9; 6:20; Titus 1:13; 2:1; 2 Tim 1:14; 4:7; etc. where terms such as “the faith,” “sound teaching,” and “the deposit” are used).

In response to this problem it should be noted that

The basic reason for this kind of “objective” reference to the gospel, however, lies in the nature of these letters in contrast with the others. The other letters (excepting Philemon, of course) were written to churches, to be read aloud and apparently to function as authority as though Paul himself were there. Therefore, it was necessary for him to reiterate the truth that was to correct or stand over against their waywardness. In this case, however, the letters are written to those who themselves both know fully the content of Paul’s gospel and are personally to take the place of authority in these churches that his letter had earlier done. This latter phenomenon is totally overlooked in scholarship. It is almost as if the real objection were that Paul should write such letters at all.¹²

(2) Ecclesiology. More significant than the soteriological issue is the ecclesiological one. The reason that the pastorals have been questioned on such grounds is that they seem to reflect a period in church history which is later than Paul’s lifetime. In particular, they seem to reflect the early second century (cf. Ignatius’ writings) in which a single bishop had elders and deacons. Furthermore, the strong emphasis in the pastorals on the leaders’ qualifications, regulations concerning church life, etc., seem decidedly un-Pauline. Not only this, but the function of the church leadership is especially to pass on a fixed tradition of the truth, an emphasis lacking in the earlier Pauline epistles.

Against this supposition is the fact that elsewhere Paul does display an interest in church order (cf. Phil 1:1; 1 Thess 5:12; Rom 12:8; cf. Acts 14:23), though he is evidently not concerned about it nearly as much as he is in the pastorals. But there is a twofold reason for his concern here: (1) In all three letters, Paul is writing to an apostolic delegate—in effect, an intermediary between himself and the leadership of the church. Thus what he normally communicated in person as to church order (as he evidently must have in light of such casual references as Phil 1:1; 1 Thess 5:12, etc.), he now must put in writing. (2) In each one of the letters there are extenuating circumstances which would bring about an emphasis on church order and creedalism: (a) in 1 Timothy, the church had been infected by heretical and immoral leaders; hence, moral qualifications especially needed to be established; (b) in Titus, the church was newly planted; hence, some guidelines for selecting leaders needed to be given; (c) in 2 Timothy, Paul’s death is imminent; hence, an emphasis on a fixed tradition was in order.

Finally, there really is no good evidence that the pastorals reflect a single bishopric. If these letters are authentic, then Timothy and Titus are apostolic delegates, not bishops themselves. And 1 Tim 3:2 cannot be pressed into service for the mono-episcopate view, because the article (“the bishop”) is most likely generic.¹³

c. The Linguistic Problems. The last and easily most significant difficulty is linguistic in nature: “For most scholars it is the objection based on language which has tended to tip the balance against the Pauline authorship of the pastorals.”¹⁴ This, admittedly, has caused me the most problems with accepting the pastorals as well. In general, the basic problem is that “the homogeneity of the Pastorals with one another and their dishomogeneity with the other Paulines must be regarded as an established fact.”¹⁵ This can be seen in three ways.

(1) New Vocabulary. There is quite a bit of new vocabulary found in the pastorals—according to one scholar, over one hundred and seventy words (170) found in the pastorals are not found in other Pauline letters—nor even in the rest of the NT¹⁶

(2) Lack of Key Theological Terms. But there is also a dearth in typical Pauline terms—terms in which his key theological ideas are normally expressed. For example, δικαιοσύνη “appears only in the sense of ‘uprightness’ and is a virtue to be pursued (1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:22), not a gift of right-standing with God.”¹⁷

(3) Stylistic Differences. Finally, even in non-content “function” words such as conjunctions, prepositions, and pronouns, the vocabulary is radically different from Paul’s other letters. Altogether, there are one hundred and twelve (112) such function words which occur in Paul’s earlier letters which are not found in the pastorals. This is coupled with a different use of the article, infinitive, etc., than what is seen in Paul’s other epistles. Such a stylistic difference cannot be brushed aside on the basis of a different occasion, for grammatical minutiae are intrinsic to the way an author thinks, regardless of what he is thinking about. The are part of the warp and woof of his presentation and cannot be dismissed on the basis of audience or content shifts.

Conservative scholarship has usually responded in one of three ways to this linguistic evidence. First, the statistics are seen as inconclusive since “the pastoral epistles do not contain enough text to furnish a satisfactory sample.”¹⁸

Second, “the main weakness of all attempts to calculate style statistically is that they cannot take sufficient account of differences of subject-matter, circumstances or addressees, all of which may be responsible for the introduction of new words.”¹⁹

It will be seen that these first two points really only deal with the issue of vocabulary (both new vocabulary and lack of key theological terms), but they do not address the issue of grammatical minutiae.²⁰ If this were all that conservative scholarship had in response, my own doubts about Pauline authorship would still remain. But there is another piece of the pie to consider.

Third, there is the distinct possibility that Paul used an amanuensis to whom he gave great freedom in the writing of these letters.²¹ Longenecker (among several others) has shown that the nonliterary papyri display several different kinds of amanuenses at work—sometimes they wrote by dictation, other times, with greater freedom. His application to the Pauline epistles is illuminating:

Just how closely the apostle supervised his various amanuenses in each particular instance is, of course, impossible to say. The nonliterary Greek papyri suggest that the responsibilities of an ancient secretary could be quite varied, ranging all the way from taking dictation verbatim to “fleshing out” with appropriate language a general outline of thought. Paul’s own practice probably varied with the special circumstances of the case and with the particular companion whom he employed at the time. More time might be left to the discretion of Silas and Timothy (cf. 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1) or to Timothy alone (cf. 2 Cor. 1:1; Col. 1:1; Philem. 1; Phil. 1:1) than to Sosthenes (cf. 1 Cor. 1:1) or Tertius (cf. Rom. 16:22)—and perhaps much more to Luke, who alone was with Paul during his final imprisonment (cf. 2 Tim. 4:11).²²

There are two other factors to consider in this issue of an amanuensis: (1) the occasion for the writing of these letters (including the fact that Paul is in prison when he wrote 2 Timothy—with his freedoms apparently greatly restricted over his first Roman imprisonment²³), and (2) the fact that these are Paul’s last writings. On this second point it should be observed that the most disputed letters in the Pauline corpus are those which were written toward the end of his life. Apart from 2 Thessalonians (which is sometimes disputed), all of the disputed letters, if authentic, would be dated in the 60s. The significance of this may be that as time progressed, and as Paul dictated more and more letters (most of them now lost), his long-time companions could be trusted more and more to work from an annotated outline, rather than copy down a verbally dictated letter. If so, then any arguments from vocabulary or stylistic considerations which do not take sufficient account of an amanuensis at work are immediately suspect.²⁴ Still, the final product would be Paul’s responsibility, and since he customarily appended a personal note at the end of each of his letters (cf. 2 Thess 3:17), there is ample evidence that he read over the letter carefully before it was sent.²⁵

The case for an amanuensis with the pastorals takes an interesting turn in that in 2 Tim 4:11 the writer flatly states, “Luke alone is with me.” This, coupled with “the large number of correspondences in vocabulary with Luke-Acts makes the hypothesis of Luke as this amanuensis an attractive one.”²⁶

We have seen so far that the three basic problems for Pauline authorship seem to be adequately answered. But the tables can be turned as well. That is, there are major problems with the pseudepigraphical views. Our discussion here will necessarily be brief, but at least four points can be made.

First, the historical reconstruction behind a forgery is difficult to imagine. Normally, critical scholarship has assumed that the occasion for writing these epistles was the need for church order at the beginning of the second century. Although just such an occasion is possible for 1 Timothy and Titus, it thoroughly fails to handle 2 Timothy, as advocates of this view admit: “2 Tim poses a special problem, for a motive underlying its composition is not readily apparent…”²⁷

Second, if these letters are a forgery, why are there three of them? As Fee has pointed out, “If one can make a good case for [the occasion of] 1 Timothy [outside the lifetime of Paul], it is equally difficult to understand why then the author also wrote Titus, and above all why, given the alleged reasons for 1 Timothy, [he wrote] 2 Timothy—it simply does not fit those reasons…”²⁸

Third, when one compares the Christology of Ignatius with the Christology of the pastoral epistles, it is evident that Ignatius’ view is more advanced. In Titus 2:13 the author speaks of τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν  ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (“of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ”). This construction fits what is known as the Granville Sharp rule which simply indicates that both “God” and “Savior” refer to one person. Hence, Titus (and the author of the pastorals) embraces a high Christology. In making such an explicit identification of Christ with God, it certainly belongs to the later books of the New Testament. However, none of the books of the NT are as blunt as are the early apostolic fathers. For example, Ignatius, writing in c. 110 CE, reversed the order, tightening the apposition between “Christ” and “God”: “our Savior and God, Jesus Christ” was a not infrequent phrase in his writings. On a trajectory of christological development (if it developed linearly), one would have to place the pastorals some time before Ignatius or even Clement (c. 96 CE). Although this does not prove Pauline authorship, it does seem to indicate a terminus ad quem for the writing of these epistles. And if the date of the pastorals must be before, say, the 90s CE, then the occasion assigned to these letters by those rejecting authenticity has to be completely reworked.

Fourth, in 1 Tim 1:15 the author claims to be “the chief of sinners.” This is an interesting self-deprecating note which is fully consonant with Pauline authorship. In 1 Cor 15:9 (a letter written c. 54 CE), Paul states, “I am the least of the apostles.” Then, in Eph 3:8 (written c. 59-61 CE) the author says that he is “less than the least of the saints.” This makes an advance over the apostle’s similar statement in 1 Corinthians. When one compares 1 Tim 1:15 to these other two texts, the case for authenticity of both Ephesians and 1 Timothy is heightened, for in 1 Timothy the author now widens the circle of which he is at the bottom: “chief of all sinners.” This is a threefold cord: (1) not only is development seen in Paul’s self-awareness as a sinner (from 1 Corinthians to Ephesians to 1 Timothy), (2) but the way in which he states his self-deprecatory remark is different each time; (3) finally, forgers always went in the opposite direction, elevating the men whose names they took. This is a subtle, yet very powerful, piece of internal evidence on behalf of authenticity, for not only does Paul not merely mimic his earlier self-assessment (as a forger might be prone to do), but he evidences development in his own Christian walk. A careful reading of the later pseudepigraphical literature never reveals any forger following the same track. In other words, if this is the work of a later writer, he is the only one of the scores of apostolic would-be copyists to have done this. Almost universally, later pseudepigraphists (as well as early patristic writers) elevate the apostles, placing them on untouchable pedestals. Unless parallels to Eph 3:8 and 1 Tim 1:15 could be produced in the later writings, the most objective reading of this verse is as an authentic statement of the apostle to the Gentiles.²⁹

In sum, although the evidence against the authenticity of the pastorals is as strong as any evidence against the authenticity of any NT book (save 2 Peter), it still cannot overthrow the traditional view. The traditional view, however, must be modified by the substantial linguistic evidence against authenticity: an amanuensis (possibly Luke) had great freedom in writing these letters for the apostle Paul.

B. Date

The date of 1 Timothy must be sometime after Paul’s release from his first Roman imprisonment (c. 61 CE) and, in all probability, shortly before his re-arrest and final imprisonment. Further, some time must be allowed for him to return to Asia Minor, evangelize with Titus on Crete, and perhaps winter in Nicopolis (Titus 3:12). Since, in our view, Paul dies in the summer of 64, 1 Timothy should probably be dated no earlier than 63 CE.

C. Occasion and Purpose

1. Timothy, one of Paul’s longtime companions, who joined the apostle on his second missionary journey (Acts 16:2), had been with Paul toward the end of the apostle’s first Roman imprisonment (cf. Phil 2:19-24).

2. When Paul was released, he took Timothy and Titus with him back to Asia Minor, after they left Titus on Crete.

3. They went by way of Ephesus en route to Macedonia. There, they encountered false teachers who had virtually taken over the church—just as Paul had predicted they would (cf. Acts 20:29-30). Two of them, Hymenaeus and Alexander, were excommunicated by Paul (1 Tim 1:19-20).

4. Paul had to press on to Macedonia (cf. Phil 2:24), but the situation at Ephesus needed help. He left Timothy in charge of the church, giving him instructions to deal with the heretics who had become leaders in the church (cf. 1 Tim 1:3-4).

5. In light of this, 1 Tim 1:3 seems to contain the purpose of this epistle: “As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer…” As Fee has recently argued, “In contrast to that approach [which sees 1 Timothy primarily as a manual on church order], this commentary assumes that everything in the letter has to do with 1:3 . . . , and that this expresses both the occasion and the purpose of 1 Timothy.”³⁰ At this tentative stage in our thinking about this epistle, we are prepared to accept his thesis, though there is substantial difference in how we see this worked out in the exegesis of the epistle.³¹

D. Theme

The theme of 1 Timothy is closely tied to its purpose (cf. 1:3, 18-19; 6:11-12, 20). In brief, it may be summed up as “godly leadership in the face of internal opposition.” Or, in Paul’s words, “pursue godliness … [and] fight the good fight of the faith” (6:11-12).

II. Argument

After a brief salutation to Timothy (1:1-2), Paul immediately gets into the body of his epistle (1:3–6:21). This letter contains three major sections: negative instructions in relation to the false teachers who had infiltrated the church at Ephesus (1:3-20), positive instructions to the church at Ephesus (2:1–6:10), and personal instructions to Timothy (6:11-20). Although the last two sections have the church life and its leadership in the foreground, the problem of the false teachers is always in the background (explicitly in 4:1-5; 5:20-25; 6:3-10, 20-21; implicitly permeating the rest of the epistle).

The first major section is a reminder of why Timothy was left behind in Ephesus, viz., to stop the false teachers (1:3-20). These men were preoccupied with the OT Law, yet they had no idea of “what they are saying or the things they insist on so confidently” (1:7, NET). Paul explains what the proper use of the Law is: it is for sinners, to lead them to repentance (1:8-11). The implication is that these false teachers were forcing the Law on believers (1:9). Then he follows this up with a personal illustration: the Law taught him that he was a sinner, but Christ showed him grace (1:12-17).

Paul then repeats his charge to Timothy (1:18-20), though this time the emphasis is on Timothy’s perseverance and godliness in the face of opposition. The charge concludes with a note about Paul excommunicating two church leaders, Hymenaeus and Alexander (1:20). On this note, Paul now addresses the situation in the church directly.

The second major section (2:1–6:10) cannot be divorced from the purpose of Timothy’s stay in Ephesus. These false teachers had wreaked havoc on the church in many areas. They had destroyed the atmosphere of public worship (cf. 2:1-7) and had stolen from the coffers of the church (6:3-10). They had especially influenced some of the women in the church—in particular the unmarried and young widows (5:11-15; cf. 2 Tim. 3:1-7). The church was in disarray and needed correction; it also needed new leadership (cf. 3:1!).

Three broad areas of concern must be addressed if the church at Ephesus is to be repaired. First, the conduct of the church needed to be restored (2:1–3:16). This involved two aspects: worship and leadership.

(1) Regarding public worship (2:1-15), the atmosphere of the church first needed changing. The doctrinal controversies promoted by the false teachers (cf. 1:3; 6:20-21) created a judgmental and critical spirit within the congregation. The purpose of the Christian walk was lost in the shuffle. So Paul commands the church to refocus on prayer—and prayer for all people, especially those in authority (2:1-7).

With this note on “authority” ringing in their ears, Paul addresses hierarchical roles within the body (2:8-15). The false teachers had especially persuaded women to follow them (cf. 5:11-15: 2 Tim 3:1-7). What is interesting to note is that “Satan” is mentioned in this epistle only in connection with the false teachers (1:20) and young widows (5:15). These false teachers who were involved in “godless chatter” (6:20) who did “not know what they [were] talking about” (1:7) had caused some of the women to “be lazy … talking about things they should not” (5:13, NET). Thus in 2:8-15 the apostle reminds especially the women of the proper hierarchical order in worship. It is no coincidence that he mentions Eve’s deception in the garden of Eden (2:14), causing her to teach Adam, for this is exactly what had happened at Ephesus: women were following these false teachers and were becoming teachers themselves. Thus although Satan is not explicitly mentioned in this context, he is very much in the back of Paul’s mind. Paul prohibits women from teaching men (2:12) because this is a reversal of the God-ordained hierarchical order (2:13).³²

(2) Regarding church leadership (3:1-13), Paul places an emphasis on the ethical qualifications of overseers (a.k.a. bishops, elders) (3:1-7) and deacons (3:8-13), with a special appeal for some of the men to desire the office of overseer (3:1). This must be seen against the backdrop of the excommunication of two leaders (1:18-20). The church had been rocked and needed new guides. Against this background qualifications such as “able to teach” (3:2; cf. 1:7), “not quarrelsome” (3:3; cf. 1:4; 6:20-21), “not a lover of money” (3:3; cf. 6:3-10); “good reputation with outsiders” (3:7; cf. 5:20-25); and the references to the snare and judgment of the devil (3:6, 7; cf. 1:20; 5:15) make perfectly good sense.

Paul then summarizes this segment on the conduct of the church (3:14-15), followed by a hymn to Christ (3:16), reminding Timothy that proper conduct cannot be divorced from the worship of Christ.

Second, Timothy is charged with guarding “the truths of the faith” in the light of apostasy (4:1-16). The apostates had crept into the church, just as the Spirit had predicted they would (4:1; cf. Acts 20:29-30). Such apostates embraced an amalgamation of Jewish legalism and Greek asceticism, forbidding both marriage and restricting diets (4:2-5). Because of such men, Timothy is charged to warn the church to stay away from them (4:6-7). Further, to prove that legalism-asceticism is not the route to godliness, Paul urges Timothy to “train yourself to be godly” (4:7) and to set forth the true gospel of Jesus Christ (4:13) before the congregation. He summarizes the twin theme of 4:6-16 (and, indeed, of the whole book) by concluding: “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them…” (4:16).

Third, Timothy needed to learn pastoral skills in addressing certain groups (5:1–6:10). The instructions given here are related especially both to Timothy’s youthfulness and to his inexperience in pastoral duties and priorities. As a young man, he needed guidance in how to address the various age and gender groups of the church (5:1-2).

Because of the greed of the false teachers (cf. 6:3-10 and passim) the church coffers were probably quite low. Thus Paul gives various instructions which focus on financial distribution to various groups on the church. Timothy needed to place a priority on the widows (5:3-16), especially regarding the church’s provisions for them (5:5, 9), though certain qualifications had to be met: in particular, young, able-bodied women and those whose children could take care of them should not be helped out by the church (5:4, 7, 11-16).

Next in line should be the elders (5:17-25). Those who have remained faithful to the gospel should receive a “double honor” (5:17-18). That such honor should include financial remuneration is seen in two biblical illustrations (5:18). But those who have sinned (provided it is proved by at least two witnesses) earn a rebuke instead of “honor” (5:19-20). Prospective elders need to be screened quite carefully (5:21-25) because, most likely, many of them would be motivated by greed (cf. 6:3-10).

Slaves are mentioned last (6:1-2). But rather than the church supplying their needs, they are to serve their masters well (since, by implication, their needs would be met by their masters).

Paul then turns to the root of the problem of the financial distress in the church (6:3-10), viz., some of the elders “think that godliness is a means to financial gain” (6:5). Greed was what motivated the false teachers and had caused not only them but others to wander from the faith (6:10).

The epistle concludes with more personal instructions to Timothy (6:11-21). He is to “pursue godliness … [and] fight the good fight of the faith” (6:11-12), a theme repeated throughout this epistle. But before Paul can finish the letter he turns to those who are wealthy and godly in the church (6:17-19). His warnings about the greed of the false teachers (6:3-10) might be taken incorrectly by some of the rich who had been quite faithful to the gospel (cf. 6:10). Paul corrects this impression by pointing out that wealth in itself is not evil (it is the love of money that is evil [6:10]), though those who are wealthy ought to be rich in good deeds, too (6:18), and thus lay up treasures for themselves in heaven (6:19). The epistle closes with a reminder to Timothy to guard the gospel in the lives of the Ephesians, for this has been entrusted to him (6:20-21).

III. Outline

I. Salutation (1:1-2)

II. Negative Instructions: Stop the False Teachers (1:3-20)

A. Warning against False Teachers (1:3-11)

1. The Charge to Timothy Stated (1:3)

2. Their Wrong Use of the Law (1:4-7)

3. The Right Use of the Law (1:8-11)

B. Paul’s Experience of Grace (1:12-17)

C. The Charge to Timothy Repeated (1:18-20)

III. Positive Instructions: Repair the Church (2:1–6:10)

A. Restoring the Conduct of the Church (2:1–3:16)

1. Instructions on Public Worship (2:1-15)

a. Concerning Prayer (2:1-7)

b. Concerning the Role of Men and Women (2:8-15)

1) Men: Pray in a Holy Manner (2:8)

2) Women: Quiet Conduct (2:9-15)

2. Instructions on Church Leadership (3:1-13)

a. Qualifications of Overseers (3:1-7)

b. Qualifications of Deacons (3:8-13)

3. Summary (3:14-16)

a. Conduct of the Church (3:14-15)

b. Hymn to Christ (3:16)

B. Guarding the Truth in the Church (4:1-16)

1. In the Face of Apostasy (4:1-5)

2. Timothy’s Personal Responsibilities (4:6-16)

C. Dealing with Groups in the Church (5:1–6:10)

1. Men and Women, Young and Old (5:1-2)

2. Widows (5:3-16)

a. Older Widows (5:3-10)

b. Younger Widows (5:11-16)

3. Elders (5:17-25)

a. The Reward of Elders (5:17-18)

b. The Reputation of Elders (5:19-20)

1) The Reputation of Elders Protected (5:19)

2) The Sins of Elders Publicly Rebuked (5:20)

c. The Recognition of Prospective Elders (5:21-25)

4. Slaves (6:1-2)

5. False Teachers (6:3-10)

IV. Personal Instructions: Pursue Godliness (6:11-21)

A. Fight the Good Fight (6:11-16)

B. A Final Word to the Wealthy (6:17-19)

C. Guard What has been Entrusted (6:20-21)

---

¹Cf. M. Dibelius and M. Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles (Hermeneia), who argue that “the testimony of the early Church . . . is not very strong” (1).

²G. D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (in New International Biblical Commentary), 23.

³Ibid.

⁴See discussion of Young Kyu Kim’s article in Biblica in our introduction to 2 Peter. This has now been refuted however by Bruce Griffin.

⁵Fee, ibid.

⁶Redating the New Testament, 79-85.

⁷Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 4.

⁸It should be noted that Paul was prone to change his mind about his travel plans (cf. 2 Cor 1:12–2:4).

⁹Ibid.

¹⁰Technically, the ecclesiological problem is also a historical one, for it entails seeing the ecclesiological situation of the pastorals as occurring at a date later than Paul’s lifetime. But as the essential problem of ecclesiology is related to the author’s directives (thus propositional in nature), we felt it better to include it under our discussion of theological problems.

¹¹Fee, ibid., 14.

¹²Fee, ibid., 16.

¹³See D. B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the new Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996) 229. Cf. also idem, “Who Should Run the Church? A Case for the Plurality of Elders,” available at www.bible.org in the Prof’s Soapbox.

¹⁴Guthrie, 633.

¹⁵Fee, ibid., 24, citing J. N. D. Kelly.

¹⁶Julius Holtzmann, cited by Dibelius and Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, 3.

¹⁷Fee, ibid., 24.

¹⁸Guthrie, 633. Cf. also B. M. Metzger’s excellent (and brief) critique of using word-statistics to solve problems of authorship (“A Reconsideration of Certain Arguments Against the Pauline Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles,” ExpT 70 (1958) 91-94.

¹⁹Guthrie, ibid.

²⁰Guthrie initially admits this difficulty (“many writers who are prepared to concede the possibility of changes in Paul’s vocabulary are reluctant to do so for Paul’s style” [635]), but he immediately downplays its thrust, not fully grasping its weight.

²¹The following material is taken in toto from our introduction to Ephesians, but is duplicated here for the benefit of the reader.

²²“Amanuenses,” 294. Earlier in the essay Longenecker established the probability (via parallels with the papyri) of Paul using an amanuensis for virtually every letter except perhaps Philemon.

²³Cf. 2 Tim. 1:16; 2:9; 4:13 (where the request for the cloak is due, most likely, to his being in a cold dungeon).

²⁴By way of analogy, when I joined the faculty of Dallas Seminary in 1988, the NT secretary (Pamela Bingham) would need me to write out every word for letters that she would later type up. Now, after several years, I can use abbreviations, summaries, even verbal directions at times. The difference is due to the fact that the same secretary has been in the department the entire time and is now more used to my style. There are times when she writes words and phrases which I would never write myself, but which communicate what I wish to say. When I sign my name, I take responsibility for what was written, but this does not imply that everything must have been stated exactly in the way I would normally state things, just that the content is what I intend to communicate. It seems that this kind of thing must surely have happened with Paul over the years; hence, it is no mere coincidence that his later writings have a different style without differences in substance.

²⁵An interesting sidelight to this is seen in textual criticism. Bruce Metzger is representative of some scholars, for example, when he suggests that Tertius heard Paul incorrectly when the apostle dictated Rom 5:1: Tertius wrote down the subjunctive ἔχωμεν when Paul meant the indicative ἔχομεν. Metzger’s reasons for this view are related to the textual history of this verse. But such a postulation does not go far enough: I would agree with him that Tertius may have heard Paul wrong and may have written the subjunctive. But Paul would certainly have corrected it before the letter was sent! The reason, then, for the poor external attestation for the indicative may well be due to a misunderstanding as to who corrected the subjunctive.

There is other evidence for this kind of activity as well. As is well known, although 1 Cor 14:34-35 are contained in every known MS, these verses are found in two locations: at this place and at the end of the chapter (in the Western tradition). Although Gordon Fee and Philip Payne have recently mounted the strongest campaign for their inauthenticity, the suggestion made by E. E. Ellis and others that Paul added the words in the margin before the original document was sent makes better sense: later scribes were unsure where the words belonged, though they recognized that they were meant to be part of the book. Further, the well-known problem of ἤπιοι/νήπιοι in 1 Thess 2:7 may well have come about due to the amanuensis’ hearing error (especially since the previous word ends with nu).

In essence, what we are arguing is this: textual criticism needs to pay more attention to the role of an amanuensis in creating some of the problems of the text, especially those generated by hearing error. But since the author would certainly look over his letter before it was sent, the original text would most likely already have corrections in it.

²⁶Fee, ibid., 26. See especially C. F. D. Moule, “The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles: A Reappraisal,” BJRL 47 (1965) 430-52, for the evidence.

²⁷Dibelius and Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, 1.

²⁸Fee, ibid., 25. Elsewhere Fee elaborates: “Why three letters? For example, why write Titus or 1 Timothy, given one or the other, and why from such a considerably different perspective and historical context? And why 2 Timothy at all, since it fails so badly to fit the proposed reconstruction?” (6; cf. also n. 14 on p. 28).

²⁹There is also a fifth argument, though it may presuppose too much. Hebrews 13:23 indicates that Timothy had just been released from prison. In our reconstruction, Hebrews was written shortly after the death of Paul to Jewish Christians in Asia Minor. Further, it was written from Rome (13:24 is naturally read this way). Thus, Timothy, in c. 65 CE, was improsoned in Rome. Incidental corroborative evidence is found in 2 Tim 4:9-13, 21, which indicate that Paul had dispatched Timothy to come to him at Rome. With the instructions, “Do your best to get here before winter” (4:21), coupled with the early external evidence (especially Clement’s testimony), it is doubtful that Timothy got to Rome before Paul died (for Paul would have died within weeks of the writing of 2 Timothy, since he would not have written such a comment in the spring, and he probably died in the summer). His release from prison a few months after arrival (spring, 65 CE) would be most likely, since no real charges could have been brought against him. Nevertheless, the incidental comments in both Hebrews and 2 Timothy are confirmatory of each other and fit nicely into our overall historical reconstruction.

³⁰Fee, ibid., 7.

³¹Fee especially uses the very occasional nature of this letter to argue that the directive about women not teaching men (2:12) is due to the present crisis. Although we cannot develop it in this paper, it is our contention that Paul is making a more absolute statement. Further, the instructions about church order have been given primarily for two reasons: (1) the church is in disarray after the invasion of the heretical teachers; and (2) morally qualified leaders needed to be found to take the place of the defective elders and deacons. Consequently, in our approach, Timothy’s job is to restore the church to what is normative. The crisis does not call for extreme, temporary measures, as some would have it, but for putting the church back in order. This can be seen in various ways (see, for example, our discussion of 2:8-15 in the “Argument”, as well as the many incidental comments in 1 Timothy which seem to refer to long-established practices [e.g., 5:9]).

³²In disagreement with Fee, I see the restrictions here as absolute, for Paul links them to creation (note the “for” [γάρ] in 2:13. “I do not permit” (ἐπιτρέπω, 2:12) is almost certainly a gnomic present since generic nouns are used (see B. M. Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek, 208-17). Further, Fee is quite wrong that αὐθεντέω (2:12) “has the connotation of ‘to domineer’” (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 73), for such a meaning is almost completely unattested until the fourth century CE and is not widely used until the ninth century! (Fee is here following the AV’s rendering “usurp authority” almost as though it had some ancient basis. In reality, the AV translators knew Latin better than they knew Greek and the bilingual text they used to prepare the NT was essentially Erasmus’ text [Beza’s edition]. Erasmus published the first Greek NT [Novum Instrumentum, 1516; later called Textus Receptus] in order to defend his revised Latin translation. And since the meaning of αὐθεντέω had changed after Jerome translated the Vulgate, Erasmus used a different Latin verb to communicate the idea of “usurp authority.”)

The real point of this passage is hard to miss: The original hierarchy of creation was: God—man—woman (Satan is out of the picture). But in Ephesus this order had become reversed: Satan—woman—man (God is out of the picture). The creation motif does, however, seem to have one restriction: it regards the exercise of authority and teaching in spiritual things, though whether this is restricted to a church setting would be difficult to prove since there were no parachurch organizations in the first century. Furthermore, since the hierarchical order is connected to the creation order and possibly constitutional differences between men and women (the “for” in 2:13 makes such a connection), to restrict this just to the public worship of the church is to fly in the face of the context. (Incidentlly, Fee makes a quite unwarranted assumption when he sees the “for” of 2:13 as reaching back to 2:9 and referring to a woman’s modest dress. He does not explain why vv. 11-12 should be skipped over. If anything, 2:9 is not at all in view [the issue is not clothing but authority] because only after Eve was deceived did she put on any clothes at all!)