The GospelsA Study of the Evangelists and Their

Writings

St. Andrew’s Anglican Church

Lewis Center, Ohio

Fr. Ed Steele

Summer 2017

A Study of the Gospels

Introduction to Studying the Gospels

When trying to properly interpret any writing in the New Testament of the Bible, one needs to rely on hermeneutics. Hermeneutics consists of the accepted principles and techniques used in interpretation (exegesis). Most of the techniques used originated in historical and literary schools of thought, but have been applied in more theological ways.

These techniques used for exegesis are known as Biblical Criticisms, and they are called criticisms in that they are critical in an analytical fashion. That is, they help us to analyze and interpret the authors’ original meanings. So please do not confuse the term “Biblical Criticism” as being altogether negative, such as critical remarks we may hear about politicians, relatives or the IRS. Rather, think of criticism in the same light as what a restaurant or movie critic does when evaluating a new eating establishment or the latest blockbuster.

Some Historical Critical Methods Utilized to Interpret the Bible (Exegesis)

Text Criticism

Since we only have copies of the Gospels, the first thing a text critic does is make sure any copy studied is reliable. In other words, does the examined copy accurately compare to other known copies that may exist of that particular writing. Granted, since all of us probably have well known translations, we don’t really have to worry about that. However, this does come up when someone uses a Bible translation that is not commonly accepted, or when a previously unknown copy “miraculously” shows up in a hidden chamber of a forgotten monastery.

Source Criticism

A source critic’s task is to determine what source a copyist utilized to write the manuscript being examined. For example, was the source used one that is known and accepted as valid? Or, is the copy from a primary or secondary source? Source critics also try to determine the origin of the original writing. For example, does it appear the author used a written source (i.e. the Hebrew Scriptures) or an oral source (i.e. one of the disciples)? This is especially important when reading and interpreting the earliest manuscripts of the gospels. We will be looking closer at this particular method when we read the first three gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke).

Form Criticism

A form critic looks at the manuscript being studied, and determines the form or genre used in the writing. For example, the gospels are narratives of Jesus’ life and not biographies. Therefore we don’t have detailed information telling us what day he was born, or exactly what year he was crucified. Instead, we have stories about his miracles and healings, as well as his teachings and sayings which (as we will see) differ depending on what focus the author had on who Jesus really is. Form can also help determine the cultural and social background of the author.

Redaction Criticism

Redaction means editing, and therefore the task of the redaction criticism is to determine how the author edited the story he wrote, and why. This is used primarily in exegetical analysis of the gospels, because each author edited the stories of Jesus to convey a particular point about Jesus and his mission. This is similar to how different news stations may report on the same event. While they each may talk about the same event, what they focus on may be quite different.

Social Science Criticism

This is simply using the knowledge of other fields of study such as anthropology, sociology, history, and archeology to better understand what the original author’s intention was in the given writing.

Israel’s Story of Salvation

The idea of salvation in Jewish thought is directly tied to the idea of covenant. One cannot understand one without the other. In the case of the story of the People of Israel, the Covenant (with a capital “C”) is the foundation for understanding their faith.

In the third chapter of Exodus, we have the story of Moses going up on the mountain and seeing a burning bush. God calls Moses to return to Egypt to free the people of Israel, the Hebrews, from bondage. This release from bondage and slavery is the first part of the Covenant. God called the Hebrew people to be his chosen people; the nation through which he would send his message to all nations. In return, the people were to remain obedient to the laws of God – the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. These laws were and are the Commandments of God, given to Moses on Mt. Sinai during the wanderings after the Hebrews were taken out of Egypt. This is why the first commandment, as well as most of the writings of the prophets in the Old Testament begin with the phrase, “I am the Lord you God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.”

This idea of freedom from bondage, whether it is a physical or spiritual bondage, is what salvation is all about from a Jewish point of view. That is why in the New Testament we read so much about being freed from the bondage of sin and freedom to live as people of God. This is why the idea of the Messiah – the chosen one of God – is center to the idea of salvation for Israel. For it is through the Messiah that the ultimate freedom, and Kingdom of God, will come. It is through the Messiah, that the Covenant with God will come to its final conclusion.

The Messiah

In the Old Testament, beginning with a king by the name of Saul, all the kings of Judah and Israel were anointed with oil by a prophet. The word “messiah” means anointed, so in affect all the kings of Israel and Judah were messiahs. However, as time went on, and particularly after the Babylonian captivity (597 – 539 B.C.) the idea of an ultimate Messiah, an ultimate king, began to cultivate. This Messiah, it was believed, would be the one who would bring about the Kingdom of God; a kingdom in which the pure law of God would be lived out, and all other nations would bow down and worship the Messiah of Israel. Furthermore, by the time of Jesus, it was believed that this Messiah would come and overthrow the power of Rome, freeing the people of Israel from Roman rule, and establish Israel as the nation above all nations.

Sadducees, Pharisees, and the Kingdom of God

Since Sadducees were the priests of the Temple, and believed only in the Torah as sacred scripture, they most likely did not accept the messianic vision. After all, the idea of a “Lord of Hosts” or even Kingdom of God, is not something that is discussed in the Torah. Those concepts, along with such ideas as resurrection, are found in the writings and prophets which the Sadducees did not accept as part of God’s law. Therefore, for the Sadducees, salvation could only come from complete obedience to the Law of God which meant active obedience. They were more concerned with actions than intentions. Furthermore, their idea of salvation was not a concept of the afterlife. For them, if one lived according to the law of God, then one would have a good life now. Any good that came after death was in how others would remember you.

The Pharisees on the other hand, accepted all the writings of the Hebrew Scriptures, and did look forward to the coming of the Messiah. However for them, the Messiah would be a mighty warrior for God. He would bring about God’s kingdom and punish the wicked who did not believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Additionally, they believed in an afterlife that included resurrection in the final days when the earthly Kingdom of God would come about.

So we will see that the Kingdom of God that Jesus taught about in the gospels did not fit the plan of either the Sadducees or the Pharisees, which is why there were problems throughout Jesus’ ministry.

The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament

Hellenization is the term used to describe the Greek culture brought about by the conquests of Alexander the Great around 330 B.C., and this culture included language, architecture, philosophy, religion, and politics. However, by the time Alexander died in 323 B.C., the Roman Republic began to expand and within a century (because of wars among Alexander’s generals after his death) Rome became a major power. Although it was replacing Greece as the major power however, the ruling class in Rome spoke Greek, adopted Greek religion (though they gave the Greek gods different names), and they used a form of Greek politics. Therefore, as the Roman Republic grew in power, it simply continued the Hellenistic culture. This is why the timeframe of the New Testament is called the Greco-Roman period.

However, the age of the Roman Republic came to an end after more than 200 years of existence. In 49 B.C., after success in the Gallic Wars, a general by the name of Gaius Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon and entered Rome with his legions. This was illegal under Roman law, because generals returning from a war were to disband their army before entering Italy. In Caesar’s case, although he had been ordered to give up his army and return home, he crossed the river into Italy, entered the city of Rome, took power of the Senate, and had himself named “Dictator for Life”. One of those who backed him in his conquest was a man from Idumea, named Antipater, who used his political clout to gain Caesar allies outside of Rome. For his efforts, Caesar granted Antipater citizenship and a nice administrative position. Antipater in turn, appointed his son, Herod, to be the governor of Galilee.

However, a mere five years after becoming “Dictator for Life”, Gaius Julius Caesar was assassinated by members of the Roman Senate – March 15, 44 B.C. The old Roman Republic was gone; but the true Roman Empire had not yet begun. After Caesar’s death, there was more civil war (mainly between those who killed Caesar and those who wanted to take his place) and Antipater wisely sided with those

who wanted to take Caesar’s place in Rome. So much so, that at his request, his son Herod was promoted by the Roman Senate in 40 B.C. to be “King of Israel”. By the way, Gaius Octavian (aka Augustus) - Caesar’s nephew and heir – won the civil war and in 27 B.C. was declared Emperor of Rome, and the Roman Empire was officially created. King Herod the Great, meanwhile, had most of his own family assassinated, levied enormous taxes, built three massive fortresses along with a new temple, and had a nice shiny Roman eagle mounted on the top of the temple gate (lest anyone forget where the real power was).

When Herod died, his three sons were all given parts of Palestine to rule, and Galilee (where Jesus grew up) came under Herod Antipas, whom we read about in the gospels. Herod Archelaus was given rule over Judea, Samaria, and Idumea, but was later removed by Rome. Archelaus was replaced by direct rule of the Roman Emperor as represented by his Prefect, Pontius Pilate. Pilate was a Roman general whose mission was to maintain order at all costs, and most historians agree he hated both his assignment and the Jewish people.

It was into this Greco-Roman world, this Hellenistic culture, that Jesus of Nazareth was born. Furthermore, it was in this world and culture that the good news of Jesus as Messiah was announced by the four evangelists whom we know as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Their writings form the basis of what we know about who Jesus was, is, and forever will be.

The Gospel of Jesus the Christ, According to Mark

The Synoptic Problem

Concerning when this gospel may have been written, there is a case for dating the Gospel According to Mark fairly early. That argument is based on what scholars call “the synoptic problem”. Now this is not a problem in the sense of being something difficult, but rather in the sense of being something to be solved – like a math problem.

The word synoptic means, “with the same eyes”, and it is used when referring to the first three gospels. Most Bible scholars believe that the Gospel According to Mark was written first, based on the amount of information from this gospel that also appears in Matthew and Luke. Although both Matthew and Luke also contain other information not found in Mark – or in each other. In fact, the diagram below is an illustration of the relationship between the synoptic gospels according to most scholars.

You may notice that according to this theory, Mark appears to be a source for both Matthew and Luke, but there is also another source simply identified as “Q”. The Q document (from the German word, quelle) is a theoretical document, no longer in existence, that is believed to have been a collection of sayings, teachings and stories about Jesus that are in Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark.

Date and Authorship

Anyway, the idea here is that Mark was written before Matthew and Luke. But, if Luke and The Acts of the Apostles were both written by the same author at about the same time (as most scholars agree), and Acts does not mention Paul’s death which took place in 64AD, then one theory is that Mark had to have been written before 64AD. If that is the case, then this gospel could have been written as early as the late 50’s thereby placing the “best guess” dating somewhere between 59 and 62AD at the earliest. Of course there are others who claim the Gospel According to Mark was written a decade or two later, due to this gospel’s strong affinity with those who are suffering. The later date is based on the thought that this gospel could have been written for those early Christian martyrs who were being persecuted and killed for the faith following the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD.

As for authorship, like all the gospels there is no signature, nor does the author state who he is. In other words, who the Church has believed the author to be is based mostly (if not totally) on church tradition. But at least in the case of the Gospel According to Mark, there are some pretty convincing statements made by early Christians attributing this gospel to Mark, a companion of Peter’s.

“Matthew composed his gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul proclaimed the gospel in Rome and founded the community. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, handed on his preaching to us in written form” Irenaeus (130-200 AD)

“And so great a joy of light shone upon the minds of the hearers of Peter that they were not satisfied with merely a single hearing or with the unwritten teaching of the divine gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, who was a follower of Peter and whose gospel is extant, to leave behind with them in writing a record of the teaching passed on to them orally; and they did not cease until they had prevailed upon the man and so became responsible for the Scripture for reading in the churches.” Clement of Alexandria (150-215 AD)

“It is said that he [Jesus] changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and it is written in his memoirs that he changed the names of others, two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means ‘sons of thunder’….” Justin Martyr (150 AD)

But again, please understand that we really do not know who wrote this, or any of the gospels. That is not to say the tradition is wrong; it simply means what we have is really only based on tradition.

Mark’s gospel is often symbolized by a winged lion. This is because although Jesus tells those he heals to keep quiet about the healings (this is called the Messianic Secret), he is crucified under a sign that says “King of the Jews”, the soldiers mock him by calling him “King”, and a Roman soldier finally does state that Jesus is the Son of God. So Mark’s gospel, since early times, has been seen as one that deals primarily with Jesus’ role as the king who would bring about the Kingdom of God on earth; and since the lion is identified with royalty, the winged lion became the symbol for this gospel.

General Overview

One of the first items of note when looking at the Gospel According to Mark is how it begins. There is nothing about Jesus' birth or childhood; in fact there is really nothing about Jesus until the 9th verse. Up until that time, the information we are given is all about John, a prophet who was doing baptisms in the Jordan River.

Note however, who is quoted at the beginning of the gospel. Mark opens his account of Jesus' life by quoting Isaiah. This is one of the ways that scholars are able to begin to see what Mark's focus is. By

quoting Isaiah early on, Mark is telling his readers that the life of Jesus is a fulfillment of what was promised by the prophets of old. So before we even read beyond the first chapter of this gospel, we are being guided into thinking that this Jesus is someone special; someone who was promised by God through the prophet Isaiah. We will talk more about the Isaiah connection in a bit.

Furthermore, the author records that as soon as Jesus began teaching in the synagogues, he was seen as one who taught with authority unlike the scribes (Mark 1:21-22). That is, he taught in a way that made folks take notice and want to listen to him. In other words, Jesus (according to Mark) is the true teacher; the true “Word of God” when it comes to understanding the Covenant Israel made with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

The Messianic Secret

If Jesus came with such authority and power however, why would he insist on secrecy after he healed the leper (1:43-44) or forbid the unclean spirits to make him known (3:7-12)? Why did he tell Jairus that no one was to know he had raised his daughter from the dead (5:35-43)? Dr. Robert Imperato in his book, Portraits of Jesus (2008), suggests that it was so no one would confuse Jesus with the charlatans and those who did cheap magic. It was so people would see Jesus as the true Messiah: one who selflessly gave to others, who provided the love and mercy of God as no one else could. Yet rather than selfishly take any credit, or have people think that his power is his alone, Jesus always points back to the Father.

This is why scholars feel that the focus of this gospel is that of Jesus as Servant. However, the servant aspect is in the way by which Jesus himself obediently carries out the divine plan. It is servanthood broken down into three sub-categories: conquering servant, suffering servant, and triumphant servant.

Jesus the conquering servant is displayed in the all the miracles Jesus performed in the Gospel of Mark, as well as in the way he taught about the Law of Moses – the Torah. The author tells these stories as proof of Jesus’ divine authority (1:21-29, 2:1-12, 2:23-28, 3:1-6, 11:27-33, 12:18-34).

Jesus the suffering servant comes from the portrayal of God’s servant in Isaiah (52:13 – 53:12). Although one must keep in mind that the Jewish understanding of this chapter of Isaiah is that it refers to the Jewish people as the chosen people of the God of Israel. Early Gentile believers in Jesus are most likely the ones who first made a connection between the writings of Isaiah and the suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

Jesus the triumphant servant is the view of Jesus who overcame death through his resurrection (16:1-8). Although, the full story of Jesus’ resurrection (16:9 – 20) seems to be a later addition to the gospel.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ, According to Matthew

Regarding the identification of the author, he is anonymous (pretty much everyone agrees on this). There aren’t too many scholars who feel that the apostle Matthew wrote this gospel, though I’m sure there are some. As for the timeframe, it is thought by some to have been written in the second half of the first century, perhaps as late as 75-80 AD. This is based on a belief that it was written at a time when the Jewish people were suffering from the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, as well as the city itself. This would help explain why the author of the gospel was seemingly trying to encourage his readers to remain faithful during a time of suffering and trial.

However, the political climate in Jerusalem throughout Jesus’ life was largely influenced by the Roman occupation of the region. It wasn’t only after the destruction of the Temple. As the Jewish Virtual Library, in an online article entitled Ancient Jewish History: Roman Rule (63 BCE – 313 BCE) states:

“Ten years after Herod's death (in 4 BC), Judea came under direct Roman administration. Growing anger against increased Roman suppression of Jewish life resulted in sporadic violence which escalated into a full-scale revolt in 66 CE. Superior Roman forces led by Titus were finally victorious, razing Jerusalem to the ground (70 CE) and defeating the last Jewish outpost at Masada (73 CE). The total destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple was catastrophic for the Jewish people. According to the contemporary historian Josephus Flavius, hundreds of thousands of Jews perished in the siege of Jerusalem and elsewhere in the country, and many thousands more were sold into slavery.” (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Romans.html.)

So the suffering that is apparently part of Matthew’s concern could have been the result of earlier Roman oppression, and not just the fall of Jerusalem. Besides, looking back at our notes from the Gospel According to Mark, we do have the quote from Irenaeus who stated:

“Matthew composed his gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul proclaimed the gospel in Rome and founded the community. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, handed on his preaching to us in written form”

This would indicate that “Matthew” was written prior to 64 AD, much earlier than the destruction of the Temple, though it still does not really identify who “Matthew” was. Therefore all we can really be sure of is that this gospel was written after Mark’s gospel, because the author used much of Mark for his own telling about Jesus. Of course as we discussed in our last class, the author of the Gospel According to Matthew also used sayings from what is now called the “Q” document, as well as other information.

The writer of Matthew’s gospel often used Hebrew scripture, through direct quotations, to show how the events of Jesus’ life fulfilled the prophecies of scripture. This tactic, along with the genealogies in the first chapter, was used to help establish the argument that Jesus was the long awaited Jewish Messiah sent from God.

Major Themes in Matthew:

1. Jesus as Teacher: Jesus taught with great authority, often using short sayings and storytelling to get the message across. The Beatitudes in chapter 5 are Jesus’ way of trying to help his hearers understand the depth of his teachings. By giving examples of what is truly pleasing to God, Jesus told his followers how to live. However, all that God required was summarized by Jesus as “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it; you shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depends all the law and the prophets.” (Mt. 22:37-40; Ex. 20:1-6; Lev. 19:17-18).

Likewise, a very common method Jesus used was parables. Parables are an important part of Jesus’ teaching, because they not only tell a story, but usually point to a deeper meaning than the story itself may indicate. Mostly they would be a means of teaching about true righteousness and the Kingdom of God. Additionally, Jesus often used two or more parables to convey the same message, because not everyone would catch the meaning of each parable.

2. Jesus as Lawgiver: Jesus provided deeper understanding of Mosaic Law than what was taught by the Sadducees and Pharisees. He often referred to how the Jewish religious leaders failed to live righteous lives, even though they followed the Law of Moses (the Torah). This is most evident in the twenty-third chapter.

3. Jesus as the Messiah for all mankind; not just the Jews. The author of this gospel used various stories to emphasize this, for example, the story of the Magi (2:1-23), the story of the Canaanite woman (15:21-28), and the Great Commission (28:16-20). The author wanted his readers to understand that the covenant God made with Israel was really for all creation; anyone who lived out the true meaning of the Law of Moses would be part of the Kingdom of God.

At the same time, the writer of Matthew was trying to convince his fellow Jews that the only way to eternal righteousness and reconciliation with God was through Jesus. In other words, Jesus was/is the fulfillment of the Covenant. This fulfillment/reconciliation was required, because of the sin of Adam (and Eve) in submitting to the idea that they could be like God (Gen. 3:1-6). Up until the time of Jesus, it was believed that the only way to reconcile with God was to live out the Law of Moses (Ex. 19:3-6; 20:1-17)). This, many believed, meant DOING the acts of the Law, whether or not one really had godly intentions. Therefore, many of the religious leaders were challenged by Jesus, because they acted good on the outside while not really caring on the inside. It’s kind of like handing money to a homeless person, while telling her or him that they are lazy, worthless, and should get a job. Sure, an act of charity is taking place – but with an unloving heart.

Furthermore, in this gospel Jesus does not ever abolish a law. In fact, he tends to be tougher than the religious authorities in the real understanding. So he was telling his disciples (as well as the religious authorities) that there was a big difference between just doing what was required, and doing what was good and righteous.

This teaching authority that is displayed in the way the gospel writer tells the story of Jesus is also hinted at in other (though less obvious) ways, as there seems to be a purposeful connection between the story of Moses and that of Jesus. For example:

Both were physically threatened by the ruling pharaoh/king and hidden until it was safe. (Ex. 1:15-2:10/Mt. 2:1-20)

Both spent part of their early lives in Egypt. (Ex. 2:1-15/Mt. 2:13-21 Both were cast out into the wilderness until their ministry begins. (Ex. 2:11-3:12/Mt. 4:1-17) Both were rejected by their own people. (Ex. 14:10-12, 32:1-34/Mt. 27:15-26) Both were sent by God to be deliverers of his people. (Ex. 3:12-4:17/Mt. 1:18-25, 3:13-17)

Such a comparison, along with the many quotations from the scriptures in Matthew, really do show how much the author was set on convincing his fellow Jewish believers that Jesus was the promised Jewish Messiah; the true hope of Israel. Moreover, it was the writer’s way of showing that Jesus held more authority than even Moses – something the Sadducees probably had a big issue with.

Furthermore, in contrast to what the Sadducees and Pharisees taught, all that God required of his people was summarized by Jesus as “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it; you

shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.” (Mt. 22:37-40; Ex. 20:1-6; Lev. 19:17-18).

Therefore, many of the religious leaders felt challenged by Jesus, because they only showed love to God and others they approved of; they acted good on the outside while not really caring on the inside. If you look at a breakdown of the ways Jesus taught the Law, you will see that Jesus does not ever abolish a law, in fact he tends to be tougher in the real understanding. So he was telling his disciples (as well as the religious authorities) that there was a big difference between just doing what was required, and doing what was good and righteous.

Even Jesus’ death is told by Matthew, in a way that would have led his Jewish readers to recall the 37 th chapter of the book of Ezekiel (Ez. 37:1-14). In Ezekiel’s vision, he is led to a valley of dried up human bones – yet as he speaks to them, they rise up and become fully human and ALIVE! The promise in Ezekiel is that God will open the graves of those who have died, and raise the dead so that they can once again live in the land that had been given to them, as a sign of their final restoration as God’s Chosen People. In Matthew’s gospel, this rising up takes place during the crucifixion which connects Jesus’ death to the fulfillment of the prophecy of the restoration of Israel. So he was telling his readers that the day of restoration/reconciliation had come through the sacrificial death of Jesus.

Ezekiel 37:1-14 (ESV)

37 The hand of the LORD was upon me, and he brought me out in the Spirit of the LORD and set me down

in the middle of the valley; it was full of bones. 2 And he led me around among them, and behold, there

were very many on the surface of the valley, and behold, they were very dry. 3 And he said to me, “Son

of man, can these bones live?” And I answered, “O Lord GOD, you know.” 4 Then he said to

me, “Prophesy over these bones, and say to them, O dry bones, hear the word of the LORD. 5 Thus says

the Lord GOD to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. 6 And I will lay

sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you,

and you shall live, and you shall know that I am the LORD.”

7 So I prophesied as I was commanded. And as I prophesied, there was a sound, and behold, a

rattling, and the bones came together, bone to its bone. 8 And I looked, and behold, there were sinews

on them, and flesh had come upon them, and skin had covered them. But there was no breath in

them. 9 Then he said to me, “Prophesy to the breath; prophesy, son of man, and say to the breath, Thus

says the Lord GOD: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe on these slain, that they may

live.” 10 So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived and stood

on their feet, an exceedingly great army.

11 Then he said to me, “Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. Behold, they say, ‘Our

bones are dried up, and our hope is lost; we are indeed cut off.’ 12 Therefore prophesy, and say to

them, Thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will open your graves and raise you from your graves, O my

people. And I will bring you into the land of Israel. 13 And you shall know that I am the LORD, when I

open your graves, and raise you from your graves, O my people. 14 And I will put my Spirit within you,

and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land. Then you shall know that I am the LORD; I

have spoken, and I will do it, declares the LORD.”

The Gospel of Jesus Christ, According to Luke

Luke’s gospel account of Jesus’ life is a little different from Mark and Matthew, in that it is more refined in its writing style. Most scholars agree that the writer had a classical education, utilized the Greek translation (the Septuagint) of the Hebrew Scriptures, and based his writing on stories he received from both tradition and eyewitnesses.

As for the author, because the Luke that traditionally is given credit was a friend of Paul and not one of the 12 apostles, there really would not have been a good reason for anyone to use his name for authorship. In other words, most scholars agree his name would not have carried enough authority to be used by anyone else – so it probably was written by Luke, the friend of Paul’s. Additionally, the fact that his writing indicates a classical education lends credence to him being a physician, as tradition suggests.

Regarding the dating, the book seems to have been written after Mark and probably even Matthew – so it was most likely written after 75 AD at least. The big debate however, is not about the authorship or dating, but whether Luke was Jewish or a Gentile. If he were a Gentile, did he convert to Judaism or simply become a Christian – that is a follower of Jesus – without first becoming a Jew? The question is an important one for historical reasons, but whether or not Luke was ever a Jew (convert or otherwise) does not take away from the gospel itself.

The gospel is written from the viewpoint that Jesus came into the world to be the Savior – the Divine Son of God. This is clear from the very beginning of the gospel and carries all the way through the writing. In fact, that focus is even found in Luke’s written account of the years immediately following Jesus’ death and resurrection – the Book of the Acts of the Apostles. There is very little, if any doubt that the writer of the Gospel According to Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were written by the same man, and probably fairly close to one another in time.

Luke begins his gospel account, by explaining why he wrote it. Basically, it was written for a person we know only as Theophilus, whom Luke refers to as “most excellent”. This title could mean that the person referred to as Theophilus (whose name means “lover of God”) was someone who was of high stature whom Luke was protecting because he was a believer the Hebrew God, or it may well be his name actually was Theophilus – no one seems to really know for sure.

The beginning of this gospel opens with the story of Jesus’ birth, which is much more detailed than the one we have in Matthew. This could be simply because Luke was trying to make a point of who Jesus was (as the promised Savior) or it could be because the other writers didn’t have the same information. However, there is some coincidental material that causes some scholars to view much of Luke’s birth narrative as theological literature and not historical fact (for example the similarity between Luke 1:46-55 and 1 Samuel 2:1-10). On the other hand, there is a lot of detail about the events leading up to Jesus’ birth, and the birth itself, that we only have in Luke. Such events beg the question of the source of

Luke’s information. Could Luke have received some of this information from Mary, the mother of Jesus? Though such a theory is possible, there is no real way to be certain.

The order of events in Luke is certainly different from the order we have in Matthew. However, this could be due to Matthew’s gospel being a non-chronological grouping of stories about Jesus, which would certainly explain Luke’s comment that it seemed to him that there needed to be “an orderly account” (Lk. 1:3) of the stories that had been passed down from those before. Or it could have been that Luke was putting the stories in an order that develops his argument that Jesus truly was the Savior of Mankind – just as Jesus himself declared early in his ministry (Lk. 4:14-32). The declaration is told early in this account of Jesus’ life, and then the rest of the gospel helps to support that claim.

There are other differences however. Luke also stresses the mercy of God as a teaching of Jesus, more than either Mark or Matthew. This emphasis on mercy appears to be used by Luke to stress Jesus’ role as one who is like the prophets of old, but at the same time much greater than any of them. Greater, because Jesus doesn’t just promise God’s mercy – he himself bestows it through physical and spiritual healing.

However, one of the major differences is the Lord’s Prayer as it is written in Matthew, and as it appears in Luke. Some scholars think this could have been because we are dealing with two different stories – one including Jesus’ teaching during the Sermon on the Mount to a vast crowd (Matthew) and the other being an answer to an individual request by one of his followers (Luke). This could explain why the two versions are different.

In Luke’s version (Lk. 11:1-14) Jesus says, “When you pray, say…” whereas in Matthew (Mt. 6:5-15), Jesus is recorded as saying, “Pray then LIKE this…” Furthermore, in Luke the teaching is about making requests of God, whereas in Matthew the teaching is about not being like “the Gentiles”. However, both contain the same elements, and both are like many other Jewish prayers; which makes perfect sense in that Jesus and his followers were all practicing Jews.

Other Differences in the gospels of Matthew and Luke

The Garden Prayer, Arrest, Trial, Crucifixion, and Resurrection – Matthew 26:30-28:20 and Luke 22:39-24:53

In Matthew 26:30-46, Jesus prays about his upcoming death three times whereas in Luke 22:39-46 it is only mentioned once. Likewise, the disciples are caught sleeping three times in Matthew, rather than once as in Luke.

In Matthew 26:47-48, the “great crowd” coming to arrest Jesus has swords and clubs – Luke doesn’t mention that. Though he alludes to it when Jesus addresses the leaders (22:53).

In Matthew 26:49-50, Judas kisses Jesus to identify him, who in turns asks, “Friend, why are you here?” But in Luke 22:47-48, Jesus stops Judas before he kisses him, and knows that Judas has come to betray him.

In both accounts, a disciple cuts off the ear of a slave of the high priest. Matthew records Jesus as chastising the disciples and explaining it had to be so (26:52-54), but Luke 22:51 only records Jesus telling them to “stop” and then heals the slave.

When Jesus is taken into custody, Matthew 26:56 says all the disciples fled, but Luke doesn’t mention that. Both do say however, that Peter followed at a distance.

Matthew’s timeline (26:57-75) indicates that Jesus was tried by the high priest, Caiaphas, some scribes and other elders. Then he was beaten a bit (by the elders?) and after all that came

Peter’s denial. However, in Luke 22:54-71, Peter’s denial is mentioned first and afterward Jesus is beaten and tried by the council.

Matthew’s account tells about Judas’ repentance and suicide (27:3-10) – Luke doesn’t say anything about it until Acts (1:18).

In Matthew 27:11-26, Jesus is taken before Pilate who agrees to release Barabbas and crucify Jesus. Luke 23:1-25, has Jesus before Pilate, then Herod Antipas, and then back to Pilate (who then finally agrees to release Barabbas and crucify Jesus).

Matthew 27:44 says both criminals crucified with Jesus “reviled” him, along with the crowd. Luke’s gospel is the only one that mentions one of the two thieves asking for, and receiving, forgiveness (23:39-43).

Both accounts say the Temple curtain was torn when Jesus died, but only Matthew 27:52-53 mentions the open graves.

Matthew 27:54 records the Centurion saying “Truly this was the Son of God”, as did Mark. Luke 23:47 records him saying, “Certainly this man was innocent.”

Both stories state that Joseph of Arimathea asked for the body of Jesus, though Luke added Joseph was a member of the Council.

Matthew 27:62-66 has a discussion as to why the tomb was sealed – Luke does not. The morning of the Resurrection – Matthew 28:1-6 says there was one angel of the Lord who

rolled away the stone seal, whereas Luke there were two “men in dazzling apparel” and the stone was already moved.

Matthew 28:8-10 says Jesus then also appeared to the women while they were on their way to tell the others – Luke does not. However, Luke 24:10-11 says the disciples thought the women were lying, or at least telling an unbelievable story.

Luke 24:13-32 includes the story of Jesus appearing to two other disciples on the road to Emmaus; Matthew does not. But Matthew 28:11-15 has a story about the chief priests bribing the soldiers who guarded the tomb. Luke doesn’t.

Matthew’s gospel ends rather suddenly, with the “great commission” (28:16-20) but Luke 24:36-53 tells of Jesus appearing, eating with the disciples, and finally ascending back to Heaven.

All that said, do these differences cause any harm to the larger gospel? That is what must be decided.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ, According to John

To say that the fourth gospel is much different than the other three we have in the New Testament is an understatement. There are stories that do not appear in the synoptic gospels as well as other various details not found in Matthew, Mark, or Luke. The timeline is different – actions that take place toward the end of the synoptic gospels appear early in the fourth gospel, while the parables that make up so much of the first three gospels are non-existent in the fourth. Nor does the fourth gospel have the Beatitudes or the Lord’s Prayer. Rather, the author of the Gospel According to John focuses on Jesus the Messiah, who was, is, and will always be. It is the story of the Christ; the resurrected king of all creation.

This is why The Gospel According to John has always been viewed as totally different from the others. It just does not gel with the others; it has a different focus and a more spiritual feel. However, one of the major questions about this gospel is who was “John”?

The writer of the gospel alludes to being an eyewitness, so some in the early church associated the gospel with the apostle John – son of Zebedee – one of the Sons of Thunder. But others in the early

church said it was a different John – a Christian leader from Ephesus, who by medieval times was known as Presbyter John. However, the gospel itself doesn’t give the writer a name; he simply calls himself ‘’the beloved disciple” or “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, which has led to all kinds of ideas as to who may have written the gospel. For example, there has been modern speculation that the “beloved disciple” could even have been Lazarus – the brother of Mary and Martha, whom Jesus raised from the dead; a story which, by the way, only appears in the gospel according to John. This theory is based largely on the question Peter presents to Jesus late in the gospel (Jn. 21:20-24). However, the most commonly held theory is that the gospel and letters attributed to “John” were written by members of a community that was started by the apostle John. In the end, however, there is no definitive answer regarding the authorship of the fourth gospel.

The date of the writing is definitely late first century however. This is made apparent by the use of the term “the Jews”, which the writer seemingly uses to identify all those who have not accepted Jesus as the Messiah (particularly the religious authorities). Though the style of writing and details about Jewish feasts and the geographical surroundings indicate the author was a Jewish follower of Jesus, there are passages that indicate there was real trouble between the group with whom the author belonged and those Jews who did not believe Jesus was the Messiah. Therefore, many theologians believe the gospel was written in the later part of the first century when Jesus’ followers began to break away from those who did not believe the Messiah had come.

Three Major and Unique Ideas in the Gospel According to John

Three particular ideas found in the fourth gospel are very different from the other three, and I want to examine those closely.

First of all, there is what is called The Prologue. The prologue is very important because of the literary style that is used. Unlike the other gospels that talk about Jesus’ humanity and birth, the fourth gospel begins with Jesus’ obvious divinity. Additionally, it is written to clearly state that Jesus is a part of God; Jesus is not just sent by God – he IS God.

The wording in the prologue is directly related to the wording that is used in the creation story of Genesis. It echoes the majesty and glory of God as Creator, and humanity as the created. It also uses the ideals of bringing order from chaos, and separating light and darkness.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. And God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. (Gen. 1:1-4)

In the beginning was the Word, and Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. (Jn. 1:1-5)

This is much different from any of the synoptic gospels in that it doesn’t mention Jesus’ human birth, but it presents his existence as being from the very beginning of time. There is no human genealogy or nativity story. In fact, the fourth gospel makes it a point to clarify that Jesus was not created at all like other humans, or even the angels, but was the means through which all creation came into being. God the Father spoke the Word, and through that Word (Jesus) all things came into existence.

Secondly, the fourth gospel has much more information about John the Baptizer than do the other three, though he is only presented as the prophet that reveals the Messiah to Israel. Notice, for example, the fourth gospel does not have the story of Jesus being baptized by John in the same way as the synoptic gospels. In the fourth gospel John points Jesus out to his own followers, telling them that Jesus is the promised Lamb of God, and that he witnessed the Spirit of God descend upon Jesus. John even tells them to go and follow Jesus – being a clear indication by this author, that John is always the lesser of the two of them. In fact, there is no story of Jesus going to John the Baptist to begin his ministry, or any idea of submission by Jesus to John – even as a gesture to do what is right and good. Rather, Jesus is presented outright as the Messiah by the writer of the fourth gospel. The third part that is very different is found in chapters 13 – 17. In these five chapters, which take place during the Last Supper (which is not the Passover meal in John, though it is presented as such in the other gospels) Jesus prays for his followers and for the whole future of the movement. Furthermore, the role that the Holy Spirit is to have in the church is explained much more than in the other gospels. The other gospels have very little of what Jesus tells his apostles during the Last Supper, although the synoptic gospels do contain the institution of the Eucharist (Mt. 26:26-29; Mk. 14:22-25; Lk. 22:14-20) which the fourth gospel does not have.

However in the fourth gospel, the author records teaching about how the followers of Jesus are to relate to one another; how they are to wait for the coming of the Holy Spirit; how they will be persecuted in the future; and the relationship Jesus has with the Father – what is known as the economy of the Trinity. John’s gospel also has the washing of the disciples’ feet by Jesus, which is not in the other three gospels.

Jesus as the Personification of Wisdom

Jesus as the Word and Wisdom of God, has been a matter of study for hundreds of years. Unfortunately, modern Christians on the Protestant side don’t really hear much about Jesus and the idea of wisdom in the Old Testament, because most of what we have is found in two books of the Apocrypha: The Wisdom of Solomon and the book of Sirach. These are two of the books that were part of Hebrew scripture in the time of Jesus, however when the Protestant Reformation came along and many of the reformers used a different canon of the Hebrew Scriptures as a basis of the Old Testament, the Apocrypha was not included. That is why the Apocrypha is noted as worthy of teaching, but not considered canonical in Anglicanism.

There are two problems with placing an emphasis on Jesus as the personification of Wisdom, even though the Greek word Logos has been translated as such.

1. Wisdom in the Old Testament is almost always described as being female. Now such use of gender is fine, except that if Wisdom is female then how can “she” be the same as Jesus – the Messiah and Son of God (according to Christian teaching). Throughout the New Testament, Jesus is also called the bridegroom (clearly male) whereas the church (Christians in general) are called the bride (female). So although Wisdom is considered to the be the light of God, and understood to have existed from the beginning of time, I think comparing Jesus and Old Testament ideas of Wisdom must be done carefully.

2. According to Sirach 1:4, 9, Wisdom was created: “Wisdom was created before all things, and prudent understanding from eternity. The Lord himself created wisdom, he saw here and apportioned her, he

poured her out upon all works.” Also in Proverbs 8:22-23: “The Lord created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old. Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth.”

So unlike Jesus who always was a part of God, wisdom was created by God. Furthermore, wisdom was poured out upon the works of God, whereas the works of God were created through the Son of God.

So while it is true that many modern scholars have associated the wisdom of the Old Testament with Jesus (and vice versa) – it is not as cut and dry as it may seem.

The “I AM” sayings of Jesus.

In Exodus 3:13-15, Moses asked God who he should say sent him to free Israel. God said, “I AM who I AM”. “…say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”

I am the bread of lifeI am the living waterI am the light of the worldI am the door of the sheepI am the good shepherdI am the resurrection and the lifeI am why, the truth, and the lifeI am the true vine

So the writer of John recorded Jesus as identifying himself as God by using a familiar phrase that came right out of the second book of the Torah. Furthermore, many of the images Jesus associates himself with such as the bread of life, living water, light, the good shepherd – all of these were well known symbols to the Hebrews because of their associate with stories about the exodus from Egypt.

Therefore, Jesus is seen as the embodiment of God, as well as the new deliverer who would free God’s people from the bondage (physical and spiritual).

The Promise of the Holy Spirit

Jesus promised his disciples that although he was leaving, they would not be alone. He would send to them “the Counselor, the Holy Spirit” who would teach them and remind them of all the Jesus had taught them (14:25-26). The Holy Spirit will also “convince the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment” (16:7-11). This is the basis of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit as the sustaining force in the Christian faith.

John 14:25-26; 16:7-11 (NIV) All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: about sin, because people do not believe in me; about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.

Jesus’ Prayer for All Believers

In chapter 17, the writer recorded a prayer in which Jesus prays for all his disciples as well as “those who believe…through their word”. This prayer is one that is used by many Christian groups as the basis for what is known as ecumenism, or the ecumenical movement. This simply means a movement of trying to unify all Christian denominations and groups. However, the big problem is trying to decide what true unity involves, and under what or whose authority it ought to be held. Is the unity a physical one, or simply one based on a common spiritual understanding of the faith?

One thought is that all Christian denominations are already unified, as long as they profess the articles found in the historic creeds (Nicene and Apostles). But another thought is that in order to be unified, each church or denomination must recognize the full ministry of one another. For example, the Roman Catholic Church would have to accept the full ministry (and ordinations) of the Protestant churches such as the Lutheran, Methodist, and Episcopalian. But in that these three all ordain women (something the Roman Catholic Church has stated it cannot do) such recognition is impossible.

Furthermore, there is the question of who would be in charge? In the Roman Catholic Church, the Bishop of Rome (aka the Pope) is the head of the church on earth. None of the Protestant denominations have that type of governance. Not only that, but in the Eastern Orthodox churches, each group (i.e. Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Coptic, Turkish, etc.) each group has a Patriarch who is the head of the church in the same way the Pope is the head of the Roman Catholic Church.

Of course in the time that the fourth gospel was written, it may have been seen more as a plea for unity between the Jewish and Gentile believers in Jesus as Messiah; which would make much more sense given the context of the prayer.

The Four Gospels: A Summary

I have attempted in this study, to present the historical and theological background of the gospels, as well as done a quick overview of each gospel. So now let us look at a summary of how all this came together and was made part of Holy Scripture.

First, it is important to remember that from the time of Jesus to the earliest written gospel was at least a generation. So there is a time gap that needs to be recognized and appreciated for what it is. Secondly, there is also a language gap since Jesus spoke in Aramaic, but the gospels were written in Greek. Therefore, there is a matter of translation that needs to be understood. On the other hand, we have the assurance that the Holy Spirit has and does continue to ensure that the Word of God is just as God intended it to be. Thus it is that the Christian tradition has deemed the Gospels According to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are each unique – while also being divinely inspired and inerrant in all matters pertaining to salvation.

Now we know that some of Jesus’ teachings were being passed on as early as the late 50’s and early 60’s, because Paul, who died in 64 A.D., wrote that he had been taught some of the teachings of Jesus (i.e. the Lord’s Supper in 1 Cor. 11:23-25). So how did these four particular and different writings come about?

The Three Stages of Gospel Formation (Per Raymond E. Brown’s, An Introduction to the New Testament)

Stage 1: Jesus’ Public Ministry (the first third of the 1 st century A.D.) Remembered by his closest followers in relation to his proclamation of the Kingdom of God. Remembered as his teachings pertained to the Judaism of his day. Remembered in relation to first century Hellenistic Culture.

Stage 2: The Apostolic Preaching About Jesus (the second third of the 1 st century) Recollections enhanced by Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances; not journalistic reporting. “Preaching” includes liturgical formulas and worship practices.

Stage 3: The Written Gospels (the last third of the 1 st century) All four were thought to be written between 65 and 100 A.D. Most scholars feel that none of the writers were eyewitnesses, but had to rely on intermediate

sources. Chronology and some details are bound to be different, as each author set out to tell their

particular story of the Jesus event.

Therefore, with all this in mind, it is wise to remember that the gospels are not biographies of an ordinary Galilean Jew named Jesus, nor were they intended as such. Rather, they are divinely inspired narratives on the life and teachings of Jesus the Messiah as understood by the four evangelists, based on the stories passed down from the apostles.

The Gospels as Part of the Christian Canon of Scripture

It is one thing to understand how the gospels came to be written, but how did they come to be viewed as Holy Scripture?

As early as 95AD, Clement of Rome alluded to Matthew, however the earliest list we have that mentions all four gospels as authentic is the Muratorian Canon, which is dated at about 170 A.D. Later, an anonymous document entitled Synodicon Vetus recorded that the New Testament canon was decided at the Council of Nicea (see below) in 325 A.D., though some modern scholars question the validity of Synodicon Vetus. Regardless, we know that the four gospels as we have them, along with 23 other books, were accepted by 367 A.D. as “canonized” – that is, accepted.

This is known because in his Easter Letter of 367 A.D., Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, wrote:

Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John. (FROM LETTER XXXIX.—(For 367.) Of the particular books and their number, which are accepted by the Church. From the thirty-ninth Letter of Holy Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, on the Paschal festival; wherein he defines canonically what are the divine books which are accepted by the Church. www.ccel.org)

Regarding the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.)…

Besides establishing the foundation of what would later be known as the Nicene Creed (the final version being written during the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D.), here are a few of the canons decided at Nicea.

Canon 2 Forasmuch as, either from necessity, or through the urgency of individuals, many things have been done contrary to the Ecclesiastical canon, so that men just converted from heathenism to the faith, and who have been instructed but a little while, are straightway brought to the spiritual laver, and as soon as they have been baptized, are advanced to the episcopate or the presbyterate, it has seemed right to us that for the time to come no such thing shall be done. For to the catechumen himself there is need of time and of a longer trial after baptism. For the apostolical saying is clear, “Not a novice; lest, being lifted up with pride, he fall into condemnation and the snare of the devil.” But if, as time goes on, any sensual sin should be found out about the person, and he should be convicted by two or three witnesses, let him cease from the clerical office. And whoso shall transgress these [enactments] will imperil his own clerical position, as a person who presumes to disobey the great Synod.

Canon 3 The great Synod has stringently forbidden any bishop, presbyter, deacon, or any one of the clergy whatever, to have a subintroducta dwelling with him, except only a mother, or sister, or aunt, or such persons only as are beyond all suspicion.

Canon 4 It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent [bishops] also being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place. But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan.

Canon 5 Concerning those, whether of the clergy or of the laity, who have been excommunicated in the several provinces, let the provision of the canon be observed by the bishops which provides that persons cast out by some be not readmitted by others. Nevertheless, inquiry should be made whether they have been excommunicated through captiousness, or contentiousness, or any such like ungracious disposition in the bishop. And, that this matter may have due investigation, it is decreed that in every province synods shall be held twice a year, in order that when all the bishops of the province are assembled together, such questions may by them be thoroughly examined, that so those who have confessedly offended against their bishop, may be seen by all to be for just cause excommunicated, until it shall seem fit to a general meeting of the bishops to pronounce a milder sentence upon them. And let these synods be held, the one before Lent, (that the pure Gift may be offered to God after all bitterness has been put away), and let the second be held about autumn.

Canon 9 If any presbyters have been advanced without examination, or if upon examination they have made confession of crime, and men acting in violation of the canon have laid hands upon them,

notwithstanding their confession, such the canon does not admit; for the Catholic Church requires that [only] which is blameless.

Canon 10 If any who have lapsed have been ordained through the ignorance, or even with the previous knowledge of the ordainers, this shall not prejudice the canon of the Church; for when they are discovered they shall be deposed.

Canon 11 Concerning those who have fallen without compulsion, without the spoiling of their property, without danger or the like, as happened during the tyranny of Licinius, the Synod declares that, though they have deserved no clemency, they shall be dealt with mercifully. As many as were communicants, if they heartily repent, shall pass three years among the hearers; for seven years they shall be prostrators; and for two years they shall communicate with the people in prayers, but without oblation.

Canon 13 Concerning the departing, the ancient canonical law is still to be maintained, to wit, that, if any man be at the point of death, he must not be deprived of the last and most indispensable Viaticum. But, if any one should be restored to health again who has received the communion when his life was despaired of, let him remain among those who communicate in prayers only. But in general, and in the case of any dying person whatsoever asking to receive the Eucharist, let the Bishop, after examination made, give it him.

Canon 14 Concerning catechumens who have lapsed, the holy and great Synod has decreed that, after they have passed three years only as hearers, they shall pray with the catechumens.

Canon 15 On account of the great disturbance and discords that occur, it is decreed that the custom prevailing in certain places contrary to the Canon, must wholly be done away; so that neither bishop, presbyter, nor deacon shall pass from city to city. And if any one, after this decree of the holy and great Synod, shall attempt any such thing, or continue in any such course, his proceedings shall be utterly void, and he shall be restored to the Church for which he was ordained bishop or presbyter.

Canon 16 Neither presbyters, nor deacons, nor any others enrolled among the clergy, who, not having the fear of God before their eyes, nor regarding the ecclesiastical Canon, shall recklessly remove from their own church, ought by any means to be received by another church; but every constraint should be applied to restore them to their own parishes; and, if they will not go, they must be excommunicated. And if anyone shall dare surreptitiously to carry off and in his own Church ordain a man belonging to another, without the consent of his own proper bishop, from whom although he was enrolled in the clergy list he has seceded, let the ordination be void.

Canon 18 It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great Synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters, whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer. And this also has been made known, that certain deacons now touch the Eucharist even before the bishops. Let all such practices be

utterly done away, and let the deacons remain within their own bounds, knowing that they are the ministers of the bishop and the inferiors of the presbyters. Let them receive the Eucharist according to their order, after the presbyters, and let either the bishop or the presbyter administer to them. Furthermore, let not the deacons sit among the presbyters, for that is contrary to canon and order. And if, after this decree, any one shall refuse to obey, let him be deposed from the diaconate.

I decided to go ahead and include the “final exam” with the notes, so that if you wish to use it with friends or family, you may do so. Have fun!

Multiple Choice

1. Two of the styles of criticism used by Bible scholars are:a. Redaction and Reductionb. Redaction and Textualc. Textual and Enigmaticd. Textual and Residual

2. The Synoptic Gospels include: a. Mark and Matthewb. Mark and Lukec. Matthew and Luked. All of the above

3. The Gospel according to Mark is:a. Traditionally believed to be written by a companion of Peterb. Traditionally believed to be written by a companion of Lukec. Traditionally believed to be written by a companion of Jesusd. Traditionally believed to be written by a companion of Matthew

4. The magi appear in the Gospel according to:a. Matthewb. Markc. Luked. All of the above

5. It is certain that The Gospel According to John was written by:a. John the Son of Zebedeeb. John the Baptizerc. Papa Johnd. None of the above

6. The Messianic Secret is found in:a. The Gospel according to Matthewb. The Gospel according to Markc. The Gospel according to Luked. The Acts of the Apostles

7. The idea of the “Suffering Servant” is found in which Old Testament book?a. Ezekielb. Jonahc. Isaiahd. Hosea

8. Which Herod was alive when Jesus was born?a. Herod Agrippab. Herod Antipasc. Herod the Greatd. Herod Tetrarch

9. Jesus’ use of “I am” sayings as recorded in the fourth gospel was his way of:a. Saying he and God are one.b. Using poetic characteristics in his teaching.c. Establishing his authority in the synagogue.d. Just sounding important.

10. Which angel is said to have visited Mary to tell her she would become pregnant?a. Michaelb. Gabrielc. Raphaeld. Uriel

11. How many magi visited Bethlehem the night Jesus was born?

a. 5b. 3c. unknownd. none

12. The opening to the Gospel According to John alludes to the Old Testament:a. Story of the flood.b. Story of creation.c. Story of the Exodusd. None of the above.

13. The use of the symbols of light and darkness in the gospels refer to:a. Order and chaosb. Good and evilc. Day and Nightd. All of the above

14. Exegesis is the act of _____________ biblical texts.a. Translatingb. Interpretingc. Paraphrasingd. Transcribing

15. The Gospel According to Luke was written in a refined form of:

a. Greekb. Aramaicc. Hebrewd. Latin

True or False

1. The “Q” document is currently on display at the British Museum. T or F

2. The Sadducees were the Temple Priests at the time of Jesus. T or F

3. The Beloved Disciple was undoubtedly the Apostle John. T or F

4. Jesus was said to have taught with great authority. T or F

5. After his arrest, Jesus was sent to Caesar Augustus because he was a Galilean. T or F

6. Jesus said that he had come to destroy the Law of Moses. T or F

7. The meaning of a parable usually points to a deeper meaning. T or F

8. The apostle Peter is said to have denied Jesus 7 times the night he was arrested. T or F

9. The Gospel according to Mark comes first in the Bible because it is the oldest. T or F

10. The earliest followers of Jesus were all Jewish. T or F

11. Pontius Pilate was appointed King of Judea. T or F

12. The Gospel According to John is one of the synoptic gospels. T or F

13. The writer of the fourth gospel obviously used material from the “Q” document. T or F

14. The scholarly discipline of determining the origin of a story is known as text criticism. T or F

15. The two major religious parties in Jesus’ time were the Jews and Christians. T or F