If so please EMail us with your question to jonpartin@tiscali.co.uk and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer. EMailus.

Frequently Asked Questions

1) Does the Bible Teach that we can ask Mary to intercede for us? 2) Should we kiss on our first date? 3) If I tithe does it guarantee that I will become prosperous? 4) If Christ died for all why is it necessary for us to believe? 5) What are angels and what is their function? 6) Who Wrote the Bible? 7) Who Were the Pharisees? 8) Who Decided Which Books Should Be Included In The New Testament?

1) Does the Bible Teach that We Can Ask Mary To Intercede For Us?

The idea of praying to God through Mary was unknown in the first Christian centuries. The New Testament makes clear that we are to approach the Father through Jesus, making our requests 'for His sake', or 'in His name' (Matthew 18.20; John 14.13-14). It is He who ever lives to intercede on our behalf in Heaven (Hebrews 7.25). In the Scriptures, while Mary was recognised as a good woman she was only seen as that, and at times had to be gently rebuked because of her misunderstanding (John 2.4). Jesus makes clear that her motherhood does not give her a special position in things pertaining to the Kingdom of God (Mark 3.31-35). Indeed Jesus clearly states 'my mother and my brethren are those who hear the word of God and keep it' (Luke 8.21). Nowhere is she given a position of authority or influence. She is the mother of Jesus but nowhere described as the mother of God and indeed in later centuries there was a bitter dispute over this question, and it was accepted that she should be called theotokos (God-bearer) rather than mother of God. This in recognition of the fact that the One she bore was also God, but that the divine was not conceived by her. There was no suggestion that she held a special place of influence with God. We must therefore respect her deeply as the one through whom God was pleased to bring His Son into the world, sympathise with her misunderstandings as understandable in a puzzled mother, and honour her later dedication to the Christian church. What we should not do is consider her as one who somehow has a special place in Heaven whereby she is able to confer favours. Like all of us she was saved through the blood of Christ and found forgiveness in His name. She shares with all saints (and that includes us if we are Christians) the benefits from the merits of His death and resurrection and intercession. Like us she is a supplicant and worshipper, and not a dispenser.

2) Should We Kiss On Our First Date?

Answer: The question is a tough one to deal with because in Bible days the situation under considereation was never even dreamed of. In those days only a loose woman would even have asked the question, and she would not have bothered. Throughout history women have been closely watched, except when they were so poor that they could be treated lightly as someone’s property, and dating was highly frowned upon, unless tightly chaperoned. There was of course no contraception available and to have a baby was a disaster, so such protection was vital. So the Bible does not have anything to say about the sort of dating you are thinking of. All therefore we can do is look at general principles, and we will be honest, even if you do not like what we say, for we will assume that you too are trying to do the right thing. The Bible does not look on sex as 'fun'. That is not to say that it frowns on it, just that it treats it seriously. Its teaching is quite clear that for a man and woman to 'make love' (engage in sexual intercourse) without the intention of a lifelong relationship is wrong, and that once they have 'made love' they are in God's eyes bound together for life, so that to 'make love' to anyone else would then be looked on as adultery. You will reply of course that you were not even thinking of that, and we appreciate that fact. But of course kissing is the first step towards the sexual act. It is very wise not to treat it lightly. However we do live in a day when kissing boys has become the accepted thing for young ladies, even respectable young ladies. And often just for the fun of it without any intention of it becoming too serious, although for some it is deadly serious, even if in fact the relationship soon peters out. This is all part of the culture that looks on the enjoyment of sexual relationships as a thing in itself and not just part of the larger landscape. The Bible does not look on it in that way. In the Bible the relationship of a man with a woman is part of the whole tapestry of life, and is subordinated to the larger purpose of service and obedience to God. Paul even suggests that it is better avoided as it can hinder our service to God, but he does acknowledge that some people have sexual desires that are so strong that it is better for them to marry than be subjected to unbearable temptation (see 1 Corinthians 7.1-16). And Jesus Himself stresses the seriousness of the marriage relationship (Mark 10.6-9). Thus the relationship between man and woman is considered fundamental, and not something to be indulged in lightly.

We think that if Jesus had been approached about this question He would have suggested that kissing should not be indulged in until the two people were finally committed to marriage, as it is the first stage leading up to the sexual act which binds two people together for ever in God's eyes. He would have stressed that we have far more important things to do. This is also the position taken up by many Christian groups even nowadays. If you ask us whether we think that is the correct approach, we think that it is. However, many people cannot live with that. It very much depends on how committed they are to pleasing and serving God. Should that be the case then we would say - proceed wisely. Never treat kissing lightly as a fun thing, however enjoyable. In the end it will make real kissing far more enjoyable in the true sense and worthwhile. Do not be deceived, kissing leads on to physical contact, and physical contact leads on to sex. And in many cases that is what the boy mainly has in mind (their preliminary urges are much stronger than those of a girl). Not always of course. Good Christian boys may quite genuinely intend to be chaste, but nature is strong, and one thing leads on to another. So beware. If you feel that in todays culture you must not be too restrictive, recognise that every step you take leads on to the next one, and therefore the more slowly you proceed the better. But do not then blame God if it goes wrong. We are not as strong as we like to think when nature is driving us on, and if we subject ourselves to temptation, we must not be surprised if we fall. Remember that every act of affection you offer to your present boyfriend will take away from any final relationship that you have. You may say, 'but my boyfriend is a Christian and he is pressing me'. Well, at that stage you have to look at the relationship more carefully. The Bible is quite clear that it is wrong for a Christian girl to go out with a non-Christian boyfriend - their life aims are so totally different - so I am assuming your boyfriend is a Christian. However it is equally true that if we are in a relationship which is leading us into temptation to do wrong we should avoid it, even with a Christian. It is important that on such fundamental matters we ensure our partner agrees with us on those fundamentals. So work out your own position, and then make sure anyone you go out with holds similar views. We sincerely wish you well in whatever you decide and are pleased that you are concerned enough to even want to think about it.

3) If I Tithe Does It Guarantee That I Will Become Prosperous?

Answer: The constant theme in the Old Testament is that, as a general rule, prosperity follows faithfulness to God. However this is not necessarily so. Job was righteous but he had a long period in his life when he did not prosper, although he did prosper in the end. Thus general principles do not necessarily apply to specific cases. Malachi 3.10 is such a general principle. The nation was promised that obedience to God (symbolised in this case by tithing) would bring blessing. However throughout Israel’s history the good suffered along with the bad, and often more so, as the Psalms bring out (eg Psalm 73.12-17). Often the problem seemed to be that it was the wicked who prospered. This was the constant problem of suffering which the book of Job sought to deal with. To suggest that tithing always guarantees that a man will be materially prosperous is misleading, and not borne out by the facts. What it will do, if accompanied by obedience to God in other ways too, is bring blessing from God. These may not be in material form. Jesus lived a life of poverty and He exhorted His disciples to do the same, as He did the rich young ruler (Matthew 19.16-30). Indeed, He said, because they have forsaken material possessions they will be blessed in the future life (19.29). When He saw the widow casting her mite into the Temple treasury He gave the lesson that we will not be judged by how much we give, but by how much we retain for ourselves (Luke 21.1-4). Thus prosperity lays a heavy burden on a Christian. How can a Christian live in comparative luxury when half a million people die of hunger every day? How can a Christian live lavishly when he lives among people who are homeless, or struggling to survive? Is this not the very denial of all Christ taught? If as Christians we live rightly and work hard, as we should, material prosperity may well come, but it immediately reminds us of the saying, ‘Freely you have received, freely give’.

Of course there is a balance. It may be that our position in life means that we have to maintain a certain standard of living. But this is, for a Christian, a difficult position to be in, for he can then so easily lose sight of the principles by which Christ told us to live, principles of unselfishness and self-denial. That is what Jesus meant when He said, ‘How hard it is for those who have riches to enter under the Rule of God’ (Luke 18.24). We must beware of just dismissing this simply because He then said ‘with God all things are possible’. It is possible, but very hard, and most fail therein. Probably the greatest hindrance to witness today is self-satisfied, self-indulgent professing Christians. If Christians really did begin to live Christian lives what a witness that would be. How the world would sit up and take notice. They would not be able to avoid us. We would be everywhere where there was need. If we really did say in everything we did 'what would Jesus do?' we would transform the world. But we are too complacent. We say but we do not.

Paul again was one who lived by Christian principles, and almost certainly tithed, but he too was regularly in need, and he exhorted his fellow-Christians to give as the Lord has prospered. They are to give bountifully (2 Corinthiands 9.6), without grudging. He who sows to the flesh will reap corruption (Galatians 6.8), he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap life everlasting. Thus what we do with our possessions has eternal consquences.

So we would suggest that Christian teaching is, Yes, do tithe as a beginning, not in order to obtain prosperity but in order to please God. But remember that that is only a beginning, an aid to prevent us from forgetting generosity altogether. And then remember you will be called to account for what you do with what you have left, and live reasonably, and give generously, especially considering the needs of the poor, as Jesus constantly stressed. The seeking of prosperity for its own sake is an anti-Christian principle, not to be encouraged. Its road is the road to destruction. Our aim in prosperity should always be to be able to help others.

4) If Christ Died For All Why Is It Necessary For Us To Believe?

Answer: It is true that Christ had died to take the sins of the world on Himself, but if we want to benefit we have - as it were - to plug in. Your electricity supplier can supply all he wants but if you don't plug in, it may be there, but it is no use to you. So with the death of Christ, we have to 'plug in' by a responsive faith. It should be noted that this is not just intellectual 'belief'. It involves commitment. In John 2.24 we have a good example of this. Jesus 'did not commit Himself to them' i.e. He did not trust Himself in their hands. Literally this could be translated 'He did not believe Himself to them'. So the faith that saves is a faith that commits. If you are ill all the medicine in the world will not help you unless you take it. The doctor may have the answer to your problem, but if you do not commit yourself into the doctor's hands for him to treat you, it will do you no good.. This same positive commitment is required for salvation. If we stand on one side the benefit is there on offer, but it will not benefit us.

Do not make the mistake of assuming that Christ died specifically for the sins of each individual. That is not strictly true. His death offers an over all benefit, but it is only ours when we seek participation. THEN His death becomes for our sins. But there is no forgiveness without repentance. If we are satisfied with our sin then we cannot be forgiven. We must want to be saved from it. The man who says 'I am saved so I can keep on enjoying sin' is deceiving himself. Sin may get us down again and again but it must never be treated lightly. 'The blood of Jesus Christ -- cleanses from all sin' (1 John 1.7). The cost was great, the power is great, and it provides us constantly with the solution to sin. But woe betide the man who is complacent about sin. It must be our enemy for ever. This is because, among other things, it is rebellion against God. And a man who is in constant, unceasing rebellion is not 'trusting'.

We need to recognise that sin, the falling short of God's standard of purity and goodness (Romans 3.23), has produced a morally 'diseased' world, resulting in corruption and death. The purpose of Christ's death was to deliver the world from that 'disease'. The first need was to bring man back into relationship with God. But God is totally just. He must uphold the moral standard. Thus He must punish sinners. Christ's death was a means of doing this by the Creator bearing the sins of the creation. This makes a way back to God, the way of 'atonement', making men 'at one' with God. But God is also pure. He cannot bear sin. Thus if we are to live in His presence this sin must not only be forgiven, but must also be removed. Thus once we have committed ourselves to Him He commences to 'sanctify' us, working in us to make us holy. But if we are not responsive this work cannot take place. In the end both are necessary for full salvation. This is not a work that we do, but it is a work that must be taking place within us if we are His. Thus in the end salvation is the result of responsive faith, not just academic belief.

5. Q. What Are Angels and What is Their Function?

Answer. The greek word angelos means a messenger and it is almost always as messengers that angels (greek angeloi hebrew malachim - both meaning 'messengers') appear in the Bible. When their appearance is described it is always in human form, indistinguishable from other humans. There are exceptions where they appear in glorious light as in Matthew 28.2-8 compare Luke 2.9-13, but even here it as a messenger that the angel comes, and there is no reason to doubt he was in human form.

The traditional view of angels with wings is not Biblical although partly based on the appearance of the seraphim ('burning ones') in Isaiah 6.2. But the appearance there is largely symbolic as a main reason for the wings is to hide them from the holiness of God. They are attendants of the throne and not messengers.

The cherubim are also depicted as having wings (e.g Exodus 25.18-20; and often in Exodus; 1 Kings 8.6-7; where they ‘cover’ the throne of God, the ark. 1 Chronicles 28.18 also connects this with a chariot). It is probable therefore that the living creatures in Ezekiel 1 are to be seen as the cherubim as there they bear the throne of God on a heavenly chariot, compare Ezekiel 9.3 and Ezekiel 10. 1-22 where they are explicitly cherubim. See also Revelation 4.6-8). God rides upon the cherub (Psalm 18.10; 2 Samuel 22.11), and dwells between them (Psalm 80.1; 99.1 - based on the symbolism of the ark). The Cherubim too are symbolic as the varied descriptions of them show. We should ask what message the descriptions convey rather than what they actually look like. It is clear that they are seen as bearers of God's throne and protectors of His holiness. An exception is where cherubim prevent Adam's return to the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3.24), but this connects with their role as protectors of the holiness of God. Thus it is only in a direct ministry towards God or as bearers of His throne that heavenly beings are seen as having wings. To the ancients wings would be indispensable to flying.

Angels as such are nowhere described as having wings.

As well as being regularly God's messengers to specific people angels also appear to have a caring role, watching over God's people. See Matthew 4.6,11; Mark 1.13; Luke 22.43; where they watch over Jesus, and compare with Matthew 18.10; Hebrews 1.14 (see also 2 Kings 6.17) but this is not stressed, the stress being on the fact that it is the Lord Who cares for His own, as the sparsity of references to angelic activity shows.

That the angels play a full part in God's activities comes out in the fact that they will be reapers at the time of judgment, and gatherers of the elect (Matthew 13.39-49; 24.31; Mark 13.27). They will be attendants of the coming glorious appearance of the King (Matthew 16.27; 25.31), but note this is as followers not as bearers of the throne. Jesus could if he wished call on legions of angels (Matthew 26.53). In Revelation the angels are constantly active carrying out the judgments of God and are involved in the battle with the forces of evil.

Thus while it must not be overpressed (we are dealing with symbols of heavenly things) Cherubim and Seraphim would appear to have direct duties towards God as bearers of and close attendants to His throne, whereas angels are active as soldiers of God, messengers and carers of the people of God. They are clothed in white because this was a symbol of purity (e.g. Matthew 28.3: Mark 16.5; John 20.12; Acts 1.10; Revelation 15.6; 19.14) but this should not be overpressed as in Revelation all godly persons are dressed in white. Revelation 5.11 distinguishes the attendant angels from the living creatures, the latter probably cherubim as their description (4.6-9) suggests.

The idea of guardian angels is mainly based on Matthew 18.10, compare Psalm 34.7; 2 Kings 6.17 and Hebrews 1.14. The idea is not prominent. We are better off seeing ourselves in the hands of the Shepherd rather than His sheep dogs. 6) Who Wrote the Bible?

WhoWrote the Bible?

1) The Torah (‘Instruction’) - the first five books of our Bible

Through the ages special men have had special experiences of God. Abraham was visited by God a number of times in 'pneumatic' (Spirit activated) experiences during which he received various promises from God. These were considered so important that they were recorded. (The phrase ‘these were the generations (histories) of ---’ suggest the colophons that would appear on clay tablets).

This continued through Isaac, Jacob and Joseph. The history of Joseph would have been specifically recorded on papyrus because of his important position.

Then God amazingly delivered Israel from Egypt through Moses, trained in all the wisdom of Egypt, and he had to set up systems for the tribes to live by. He also recorded details of the deliverance from Egypt. These writings, with the earlier ones, were preserved and formed into what we call the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible). The Jews called it 'the Torah' (the instruction).

(2)The Prophets

(a)The Former Prophets

Later historians passed on the accounts of the events which followed the entry into Canaan, and at some stage some godly men (e.g. Samuel?) wrote them down for preservation, and once the monarchy was established the 'recorders' of the kings maintained histories of events which took place. These writings were eventually taken by prophetic men who wrote the accounts from Joshua through to Kings which we now have. The Jews looked on these writings as God inspired and called them 'the former prophets'.

(b)The Latter Prophets

The great prophets from Isaiah onwards arose at times of Israel's need and their prophecies were kept and revered simply because what they prophesied came about. They prophesied contrary to what the popular speakers said (who promised nothing but good) and as Israel suffered, and sought to understand its suffering, it saw in the writings of the great prophets the solution to their spiritual quest. These prophets from Isaiah to Malachi (possibly excluding Daniel) were called by them 'the latter prophets'.

The Law and the Prophets

So these writings arose from men's experiences with God and were kept and revered because of their spiritual quality and because of the source from which they came. When Jesus later constantly refers to 'the Law and the Prophets' He is referring to these writings. They thus carry the seal of His approval, and He clearly regarded them as God-inspired and authoritative.

(3)The Writings

Later writings such as the collection of Psalms, gathered together for the purposes of worship, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles etc. were recognised as having unique distinctive quality and were gathered into what was called 'The Writings', and these three sections, the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings were eventually acknowledged by the great men of Judaism as being the authoritative word of God. When Jesus speaks of 'the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms' (Luke 24.44) He appears to be giving approval to this choice. The books of the Apocrypha were not accepted as canonical in this way.

(4) The Gospels

The Gospels were written by men who were either Apostles or in close touch with Apostles, and although many accounts were written about aspects of the life of Jesus (so Luke 1.1) only these were considered worthy of preservation under the seal of the early church, and although they naturally circulated separately for a time (this is why they were written), they soon began to be recognised as a fourfold Gospel, complete and authoritative, as various witnesses in the second century testify. They were recognised as the testimony of eyewitnesses.

(4) Paul’s Letters

The writings of Paul as an Apostle were valued from the beginning and circulated among the churches, and were soon being looked on as 'Scripture', equally authoritative with the Old Testament (2 Peter 3.15-16).

(5) The Other Epistles and Revelation

The writings of John, Peter, James and Jude were preserved as the writings of apostolic men and the early church soon incorporated them into the body of what was to be accepted as authoritative i.e canonical, although some of the smaller ones took a little longer than the others.. Other books were considered for inclusion (e.g. The Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas), but eventually only books recognised as having apostolic connections and lasting spiritual value were accepted. Thus the books were gathered together over a period of time and the ones we have prevailed because of their superior spirituality and their apostolic connections.

7). Who Were The Pharisees?

After the time of Ezra, who returned to Palestine from the Exile, there was a greater interest in the study of the Torah (the first five books of the Bible), and when Hellenist (Greek) influence began to infiltrate widely among the Jews in early 2nd century BC, punctuated by persecution, there were some who sought to go back to the purity of the Torah, resisting the Hellenising ideas. These people called themselves the Hasidim (loyal ones).

Issues came to a head for them when King Antiochus Epiphanes of Syria tried to force Greek religion on the Jews, persecuting them viciously and committing sacrilege in the Temple by offering swine on the altar, and the Hasidim were prominent in resisting the attempt to prevent the people maintaining Jewish beliefs. As a result they gained a great reputation among the Jews.

This group eventually split into two comprising, on the one hand, the Essenes and Qumran covenanters, who lived quietly and mainly looked for God’s apocalyptic intervention, and, on the other, the Pharisees (the separated ones). These latter went to great lengths to make the Torah understandable to the common people, as to them the keeping of the Torah was everything, and they believed it would result in God’s acting on behalf of His people. They believed that the exile of the Jews resulted from their failure to keep the Torah.

Their Scribes (scholars) established the content of the Torah in the form of 613 commandments, of which 248 were positive and 365 negative. These were then supplemented and interpreted in great detail so as to make it clear exactly what was required by the Torah. This was ‘the burden heavy to bear’ that Jesus said they had imposed on the Jews.

The Pharisees themselves sought to live by these ‘laws’ assiduously and separated themselves from the masses on the grounds that they must prevent themselves becoming ‘unclean’ by eating food that had not been tithed (they considered the tithing of everything as of prime importance), and their teaching required much use of washings to prevent ‘uncleanness’. They claimed that their teaching represented the Traditions of the Elders, secretly passed down directly from Moses. They tended to divide in support of one or other of their greatest past teachers, Shammai whose interpretation of the Torah was very strict, leaving no room for manoeuvre, and Hillel who tended to be more liberal and sought ways of making the burden easier to bear.

They had at various times considerable political influence in spite of the fact that they were not numerous (under Herod they numbered about 6,000). They believed in the resurrection of the dead, and stressed the need for individual fulflment of the Torah.

They were good-living people, but as with many such, had a tendency to judge those who fell short rather harshly. Their emphasis had become centred on their own interpretation of the Torah and they overlooked some of its wider teaching. Such attitudes can always tend towards hypocrisy and self-righteousness when they emphasise what they think is right, often without compassion, as against what others think, and Jesus rebukes them for concentrating more on minute details than on the main essentials of love and compassion also taught in the Torah. This is why He called them ‘hypocrites’.

However the ones He mainly had to deal with were the more censorious ones who followed Him about and criticised Him, and His words, and the Gospels’ teaching, about the Pharisees must be seen in this light. Indeed He exhorted that men should seek to follow their teaching, while avoiding their arrogance and failure to be compassionate. Many Pharisees, like Gamaliel and Nicodemus, would be excluded from these generalisations. Certainly much of their influence was good and they had considerable influence in the synagogues where they taught, and men could learn to read, the Torah. They were both respected by the people, and disliked because of their exclusivity.

8) Who Decided Which New Testament Books Should be Accepted as Scripture?

When Jesus taught it is clear that He did so in such a way that His words would be remembered. His preaching, and the ideas expressed, bear the marks of being in Hebrew poetic form and would be constantly repeated. This was the normal method by which teachers ensured the continuation of their teaching. Books were still an expensive luxury. Indeed Papias in early second century AD states his preference for oral teaching from those who had had first hand knowledge of the life and teaching of Jesus, to the written word of the Gospels.

Yet early on the teaching and life of Jesus were put in written form, and in the light of Old Testament parallels (the teaching of the Prophets) this was to be expected, for while Jesus endorsed the Prophets, He made clear that His teachings advanced those of the Old Testament (Matthew 5.21 etc).

Many attempts were made to record some of His life and teaching (Luke 1.1), (possibly this included Mark), and it is therefore all the more remarkable that we have no trace of these in any of the early churches. (The so-called ‘other Gospels’ that we know about were written in the second century). This suggests that the churches had carefully sifted what was available right from the beginning, and had authenticated what they felt was reliable and acceptable, dependent on their source and accuracy.

These attempts spurred on Luke to write his Gospel to ensure a factual and true record which was extensive and reliable. He was an ideal person for the job, educated, historically knowledgeable and reliable, well acquainted through his contact with Paul with those who had known Jesus personally, and able to travel to gather his information from first hand sources.

He must have known Mark personally and was probably acquainted with Mark’s own attempt to portray Jesus first hand. Indeed he used material in Mark’s Gospel widely in writing his own, while clearly having access to other probably oral sources.

Mark also, having travelled with both Paul and Peter, and especially the latter, constantly heard preaching by those who had walked with Jesus, and talked with them about His life and His teaching. Indeed it is apparent that much of the preaching was a repetition of Jesus' teaching in the context of His activity, and this can be discerned in the Gospels. His Gospel is a deliberate presentation of Jesus as the Messiah, and while he included teaching, it was what Jesus revealed Himself to be, and His final death, which was his important message.

Both Mark and Luke must have spent years in gathering their material, so that while it may be true that Mark’s Gospel was finalised around 67 AD (although it may have been earlier depending on how we take later tradition) it was the product of many years research. Luke’s comes a little later but the same applies. (Think how long it takes a researcher today to gather his material, even with all our modern facilities). It seems very probable that the churches had a great part in encouraging their efforts. Certainly when John writes his Gospel it is the church which adds its certification to its essential accuracy (John 21.24).

Matthew makes use of Mark, but adds material of his own, especially material related to the teaching of Jesus, and he presents his material in such a form as to confirm its relation to Old Testament Scripture (five long sayings passages which parallel the five books of Moses and the five books of Psalms). He also shows how Jesus’ ministry changed from a ministry to the Jews only, to a ministry to the world, with the story of the Syro-Phoenician woman as a turning point.

John’s Gospel bears many signs of an eyewitness, and is written by someone related to the high-priestly circles in Jerusalem, who also accompanied Jesus widely. He has an especial interest in theological controversy and the examples of Jesus teaching given to the more intellectual members of society, which his background clearly enabled him to appreciate. There is little real reason to doubt that it was written by the Apostle John. Certainly the church at Ephesus adds its seal to the Gospel.

It would appear probable that from the start each of these Gospels was treasured by groups of churches as accurate records, which explains why they gained their unique acceptance. Almost certainly by the mid-second century (Justin Martyr), and certainly by the late second century (Irenaeus) they were regarded as a unit as Scripture, to be read and expounded in the churches.

This acceptance of these four, and only these, confirm their reliable backgrounds, for acceptance would only be given by the whole church without controversy where the backgrounds were unquestionable. The churches did not just accept anything. The rise of heresies made them especially suspicious. When they spoke of books they did so as ‘books accepted to be read in churches’, ‘disputed’, and so on, and this was because they differentiated those which were ‘universally’ acknowledged from those which were only used by some, probably as spiritual helps without final authority. In all this they were not just reflecting their own opinions.

It is quite clear that from the start Paul intended his letters to be read in churches and to be copied and passed on (Colossians 4.16), and that he laid great stress on the words of Jesus, probably as passed down in oral tradition from the Apostles. The invention of the codex meant that his letters could be gathered as one body of texts, and it is quite clear that Clement of Rome) c 90 AD and Ignatius of Antioch (died as a martyr 110 AD) knew and used them.

It was, however, later in the second century, partly as a result of the production of Gnostic 'gospels' and 'epistles', which the Gnostics claimed came from a hidden wisdom (gnosis), and partly as a result of the work of Marcion (about 150 AD), that the churches began to publicly differentiate the various ‘books’, but this was undoubtedly based on an already generally accepted position quite familiar to the churches, otherwise there would not have been the immediate unanimity worldwide.

It is apparent from the works of Justin Martyr (Rome c150 AD) that certain writings e.g. the Gospels, were already authorised to be read in churches as Scripture in his time, and Prologues to copies of the Gospels, copied in the late second century (the so-called anti-Marcionite prologues), testify to the acceptance of the four Gospels by the churches.

Papias, who came from the early part of the second century, was a little earlier than Marcion, and he had known ‘the Elder John’ (probably the Apostle, see 2 John 1), and had also known others who knew the Apostles. He personally, testifies to the existence of Matthew and Mark, although he himself prefers the testimony of those who had personally known the Apostles as more ‘alive’. Indeed he stresses that Mark obtained much of his information from Peter, whom Mark accompanied on his preaching ministry, and took great pains to ensure the accuracy of what he wrote.

Papias is one example of how carefully the early church sifted the information they received. Oral tradion was a recognised method of preserving the teaching of the great teachers, and memories were adapted to this method so that they were far more reliable than ours would be, and he ensured that he obtained it from first hand sources.

Justin Martyr in Rome in c.150 AD refers to 'the Apostles who in their memoirs called Gospels ---' and in a later passage refers to them as being read alongside the writings of the Old Testament prophets and commented on in the homily that followed in public worship (following the pattern of the Synagogues). He thus clearly looked on them as Scripture. From his citations he almost certainly knew all four Gospels.

Tatian in c.170 AD cites John's Gospel as Scripture, and he later combined all four Gospels into one integrated whole in Syriac, (the Diatessaron), a work which the Syrian church prized and used for centuries. Thus it is clear they were regarded as Scripture by the Syrian churches and by Tatian.

The earliest known actual list of New Testament books was by the heretic Marcion (c.150 AD) and he listed Luke's Gospel and ten Pauline epistles. This was because he was combatting belief in the Old Testament which he rejected because of his particular views. But he did a service to the church in that his actions constrained others to write down the books which were accepted by the churches generally.

Irenaeus of Lyons (c180 AD) refers to the individual Gospels and speaks of 'the fourfold Gospel' and takes their acceptance by the churches for granted.

With regard to Paul’s epistles both Clement of Rome (c 90 AD) and Ignatius of Antioch (died 110 AD) knew the writings of Paul as a collection. 2 Peter 3.16 refers to them as Scripture, while both Polycarp (early 2nd century) and the writer of the epistle of Barnabas (early 2nd century) treat them in the same way.

Irenaeus (late 2nd century) shows that the churches he was involved with accepted Paul's epistles as Scripture on a level with the Old Testament prophets, but sees both as inferior to the Gospels, which demonstrates the authority now held by the Gospels. He also accepts 1 Peter and 1 & 2 John, Acts and Revelation as Scripture. Thus it is clear that there was a recognised corpus of writings which had become from the earliest times universally accepted by the churches, a position established not by one particular individual but by a concensus in the churches, and these widespread around the world. It must be remembered that these churches were not one large dogmatic body but local groups of churches in different parts of the world, thus the acceptance was general and by general agreement, mainly because of the sources from which the writings came and their acceptance from the beginning (no other explanation fits the facts of their wide acceptance, there was no centralising authorising authority).

The so-called Muratorian Fragment (named after Muratori, its discoverer) comes from the end of the second century AD. It appears to be the translation (into Latin) of an official Greek document emanating from Rome listing the books which are to be regarded as Apostolic and to be read in church. It accepts the four Gospels, Acts, 13 epistles of Paul, 1 & 2 John, Jude and Revelation. It also includes the Apocalypse of Peter, but states that many will not allow it to be read in churches. Thus it accepts there is doubt about it, underlining the fact that there is no doubt about the others. Tertullian in North Africa refers to the list of accepted books as the four Gospels, Acts, thirteen epistles of Paul, 1 John, 1 Peter, Jude and Revelation.

Clement of Alexandria (who was clearly very liberal) around the same time states the acceptance of the four Gospels, but is himself ready to accept the Gospels according to the Hebrews and the Egyptians as 'lesser works'. Again there is the distinction between authorised works and lesser works. He also accepts the four Gospels, Acts, 13 Pauline epistles, Hebrews (which he considers Pauline) , 1 Peter, 1 & 2 John, Revelation. To these he adds Clement's (of Rome) epistle, Barnabas, the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Apocalypse of Peter. So we can see from all this that while there are variations of books 'on the margins' accepted by a few, the main body is accepted by all. This demonstrates that differing areas were not directly influenced by a central body (which did not exist) so that they were acting independently, and yet that in spite of this there was a general concensus.

Origen (died 254BC), a very scholarly man although somewhat srange in his views, specifically distinguishes 'acknowledged' from 'disputed' books. The 'acknowledged' books were the four Gospels, Acts, thirteen Pauline epistles, 1 Peter, 1 John and Revelation. The 'disputed' were Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, James and Jude. He would not allow Hermas, Barnabas or the Didache to be recognised as Scripture, nor even as disputed.

Eusebius (c 325 AD) specifically refers to 'acknowledged' books, the four Gospels, Acts, thirteen Pauline epistles, 1 Peter, 1 John and Revelation (the last one being disputed by some). He accepts Hebrews as Pauline but admits Rome does not. 'Disputed but known to the majority' are James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John.

By the time of Athanasius (367 AD) all the books in our New Testament are accepted as 'acknowledged'. In the Eastern churches only, the books of Barnabas, Hermas, Clement and the Didache hover on the fringes in some areas, (but note not with Athanasius who is also Eastern) but they are finally rejected when the churches began to meet in universal councils.

So it should be noted that the acceptance of the books as Scripture is not the result of a Council statement, or of dogmatic decrees, but of a concensus among individual churches from the beginning, and that their acceptance was discriminating and not thoughtless, based on their sources and their acceptability by all through long established tradition.

Click on back button to return to previous page

IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?

If so please EMail us with your question and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer.EMailus.

FREE Scholarly verse by verse commentaries on the Bible.

THE PENTATEUCH

GENESIS ---EXODUS--- LEVITICUS 1.1-7.38 --- 8.1-11.47 --- 12.1-16.34--- 17.1-27.34--- NUMBERS 1-10--- 11-19--- 20-36--- DEUTERONOMY 1.1-4.44 --- 4.45-11.32 --- 12.1-29.1--- 29.2-34.12 --- THE BOOK OF JOSHUA --- THE BOOK OF JUDGES --- PSALMS 1-17--- ECCLESIASTES --- ISAIAH 1-5 --- 6-12 --- 13-23 --- 24-27 --- 28-35 --- 36-39 --- 40-48 --- 49-55--- 56-66--- EZEKIEL --- DANIEL 1-7 ---DANIEL 8-12 ---

NAHUM--- HABAKKUK---ZEPHANIAH ---ZECHARIAH --- THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ---THE GOSPEL OF MARK--- THE GOSPEL OF LUKE --- THE GOSPEL OF JOHN --- THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES --- 1 CORINTHIANS 1-7 --- 8-16 --- 2 CORINTHIANS 1-7 --- 8-13 -- -GALATIANS --- EPHESIANS --- COLOSSIANS --- 1 THESSALONIANS --- 2 THESSALONIANS --- 1 TIMOTHY --- 2 TIMOTHY --- TITUS --- HEBREWS 1-6 --- 7-10 --- 11-13 --- JAMES --- JOHN'S LETTERS --- REVELATION

--- THE GOSPELS

---

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page

The,Holy,Bible,divorce,faith,facts,repent,believe,forgive,
forgiveness,truth,love,atonement,baptism,Jesus,Christ,
Holy,Spirit,Creation,use,numbers,old,new,testament