In Genesis 32:24, who was the “man” with whom Jacob wrestled?

In “Who wrestled with Jacob” written by Fred Blumenthal, his final consensus is that Jacob wrestled not with a man but with two symbolic voices within his own head. According to Blumenthal one voice advocates his entitlement to entry into the Promised Land of his forefathers. The other voice advocates prosperity in the face of retreating from his brother Esau. Blumenthal mentions other interpretations regarding who the man might be. He states that author Naomi Rosenblatt believes the man is Jacob’s father Isaac “the enmity of his brother Esau.” Maimonides in The Guide for the Perplexed, Blumenthal writes, believes the match was not real but rather a “prophetic vision” on Maimonides apparently did not elaborate on.

In “The struggle for a blessing: Reflections on Genesis 32:24-3” written by Athanasios Hatzopoulos, the author provides varying perspectives from other noted authors as to the identity of the man Jacob wrestles with. The first is from Gregory the Great who believes Jacob is wrestling with God, but not as a onetime incident but rather as an invitation to human nature to be part of “divine reality.” Claus Westermann sees the man as a demonic figure that wraps around the traditional view about the “perils of the ford of the Jabbok.”  Hatzopoulos maintains the stance that the man was a divine figure and not at all a demonic force.

            In “Studies in the Life of Jacob Part 2: Jacob at the Jabbok, Israel at Peniel” written by Alan P. Ross, the author surmises various interpretations of who the man is. One is the idea that Jacob’s adversary is none other than a dream as expressed by Josephus. Clement of Alexandria accepts the narrative as an allegory and that the struggle is between Jacob and the Logos. Jerome sees the wrestling as the “long and earnest prayer,” alluding to the combatant as God Himself. According to Ross, Jewish literature accepts the text as literal and claims the man as “the prince or angel of Esau.” The author agrees with a literal “fight” and provides a wonderful commentary in the final analysis as to what the passage means for the contemporary biblical audience.

            I have always considered this epic struggle between Jacob and the man as Jacob fighting with God. Although, as I read further and really considered the details of the account, I wonder now. There is no doubt in my mind that the man is of divine nature and that God was looking to accomplish something through Jacob that would translate for us today. In fact I see a bit of this struggle going on in my own life as I cry out to God, “I won’t let go until you bless me.” But I have to ask, if it was God, why did He have to leave by dawn? How come he could not get away from Jacob’s grip? So many questions that undoubtedly require further study, one well worth it I imagine.

Bibliography

Hatzopoulos, Athanasios. 1996. "The Struggle for a Blessing: Reflections on Genesis 32:24-31." The Ecumenical Review. 507, http://search.proquest.com/docview/228636348?accountid=12085 (accessed September 10, 2012).

Blumenthal, Fred. 2010. "Who wrestled with Jacob?" Jewish Bible Quarterly 38.2:119, http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/ps/i.do?action=interpret&id=GALE|A225793260&v=2.1&u=vic_liberty&it=r&p=ITOF&sw=w&authCount=1 (accessed September 10, 2012).

Allen P. Ross. 1980. “Studies in the Life of Jacob Part 2: Jacob at the Jabbok, Israel at Peniel”  Bibliotheca Sacra 137:223-40, http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Ross_JacobPeniel_BSac.pdf (accessed September 10, 2012). 

Genesis 3:15 Is this verse really the “Protevangelium”?

August Dillmann in his work, Genesis critically and exegetically expounded… concedes that Genesis 3:15 is not the protevangelium. His main argument is that the language regarding the serpent bruising the heel, and the man crushing its head is not conducive to God indicating victory. He feels this is more of man and beast throughout the ages being at war with each other or with sin, rather than a prediction of Christ’s defeat of Satan at the Cross. He goes on to say if the serpent bites at the man’s heel it will actually kill him and not bruise.

Marten H. Woudstra in Recent Translations of Genesis 3:15 brings to light three views with regards to how words are translated to come to the conclusion that, Genesis 3:15, is the protevangelium. The author seeks to identify how certain words used in conjunction with the serpent (zera), seed (hu), and what happens to the serpent (shaph) to bring clarification as to whether or not this passage is referring to a future victory of Christ on the Cross over satan. Outlined are varying rationales in grammar that appease the many views regarding these words, but it is the word shaph which is usually translated “crush” that is considered most. The author presents the idea that for all intents and purposes the word should be translated to “strike at.” That being said, if the man is to strike at the head of the serpent it is an indication of an ongoing enmity rather than a clear cut end to it at Christ’s death. He defeated satan’s ability to steal life form man if he chooses to receive Christ, but it doesn’t mean the devil is out for the count. Still, it is deemed the protevangelium because God is establishing truth of Christ.  

A short article called The Protoevangelium of Salvation makes very clear that, Genesis 3:15, is the protevangelium. The article cites many verses of Scripture from the New Testament that lead back to the passage in question, and much of what it states is true. The one point I believe that is used to drive the whole piece home is “this will be the victory bought at the price of the sacrifice of the cross ("and you shall bruise his heel.").” the article goes on to state that in this verse is found the first mention of Christ as “the new Adam.” Much is gleaned from this verse and used to promulgate God’s goodness and foretelling of His great plan of redemption very early on in Scripture.

To the first source, I can understand his point but I believe he is placing too much on the literal in his thought processing. To say that a serpent can kill a man is not incorrect but the fact is not all snakes have poison. To the second source, I can see how translating a word a certain way changes the entire dynamic of a passage and so context is truly important. It is true that although Christ defeated what Satan can do to man, if man makes a decision for Him, but to say that Satan is completely defeated at the time of the Cross is out of sorts. Satan has and will have still, a great deal of power to cause major havoc in this world. To the last source, although almost everything stated I agree with, I cannot wrap my head around the idea that because the serpent bruised the heel of her offspring that it means Christ death on the Cross. To equate the bruised heel of a man to what Christ endured on the Cross is almost insulting. I believe the verse is indicative of the enmity between man and sin throughout the ages. It is a part of a list of consequences man has to endure due to the fall.

Bibliography

Dillmann, August. Genesis critically and exegetically expounded…vol.1:158-162, http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015060452490;view=1up;seq=178;q1=protevangelium;start=1;size=10;page=search;61;72;num=162 (accessed October 8, 2012).

Woudstra, H. Marten. 1971. Recent Translations of Genesis 3:15, Calvin Theological Journal 6:194-203, http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Woudstra_Gen3_15_CTJ.pdf (accessed October 8, 2012).

The Protoevangelium of Salvation. General Audience — December 17, 1986, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19861217en.html (accessed October 8, 2012).

Was Melchizedek a historical character or “something” other?

Melchizedek, king and priest: An ecumenical paradigm?

Thomas, T K, The Ecumenical Review52. 3 (Jul 2000): 403-409.

Author TK Thomas does a good job at presenting a brief history of Melchizedek as outlined in his appearances in the Bible. Thomas states that not much is known about Melchizedek but what is known makes it clear that he is not some “shadowy figure” that can quickly be forgotten. He, rather, “is part of a living tradition which has historical and theological significance.” There is this idea that Melchizedek is not part of the Levitical or Aaronic line of priests. So the question begs, who is he? We know his name means “king of righteousness” and that Salem, where he ruled as king, means peace – so he was a king of righteousness and peace.” The author does not specifically state he is Jesus incarnate, he actually thinks he was a pagan king, moved by God to become who he was, nonetheless it is clear the author believes Melchizedek to be a real historical person.

The Apocryphal Story of Melchizedek ,

Robinson, S. E., Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period, 18 (1987) p.26

            In The Apocryphal Story of Melchizedek, author S.E. Robinson expresses a position that the apocryphal telling of Melchizedek (a great fiction describing the background and typology of the priest-king) had to have been taken from Jewish sources. Robinson speaks of there being two distinct episodes in the apocryphal and that evidence is clearly on the side of Jewish tradition being the source for some of the narrative. The debate amongst scholars is the question of why was the apocryphal written? It is said that Christians created the apocryphal to throw off the Jewish held position that Abraham was in fact the king-priest and that it was he that met, fed, and blessed Melchizedek. There then is garnered the idea that because Abraham cleaned Melchizedek up, he must have been a like to John the Baptist. And a type of Jesus is seen in his being offered up as a sacrifice. It seems the apocryphal was used to make one camp (Jewish) appear greater than another (Christian); in the end, not really sure who Melchizedek is.

Who Was Melchizedek?--A Suggested Emendation of Gen. 14:18

Charles Edo Anderson, The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Apr., 1903), pp. 176-177

Author C.E. Anderson would have his reader believe that Melchizedek is the king of Sodom and not the king of Salem by exchanging sibilants and removing a part of the Hebrew phrase which reads, Melchizedek, king of Salem. His case is built on the idea that the exchange between Melchizedek and Abraham seems out of sorts. The mention of Melchizedek seems to interrupt the flow of the narrative; he also states that Melchizedek was not part of the kings at war and that, a relative nobody would not be included in the event. He goes so far as to say the writer of Hebrews also found something strange in the inclusion of Melchizedek into the narrative. Anderson deems Melchizedek a disinterested party serving a disinterested God, and so finds the king of Sodom would be a better person to celebrate with Abraham the victories over the kings. Anderson also believes Sodom was a “victim” when it was destroyed by God. This speaks volumes to where Anderson’s thinking is regarding God.

In the first article we find the author accepting that Melchizedek is a historically real figure with great historical significance. He believes him to be a pagan priest and not a priest of the Levitical or Aaronic line. Deeming Melchizedek the king of righteousness and peace may indicate his belief that he was a type or Jesus, but since he did not specifically state it, I cannot assume it so. The second author speaks to the dissension between the Jews and Christians and how desperately they each attempted to make Abraham and Melchizedek seem other than what they were according to Scripture. There was no real consensus by the author as to who Melchizedek really was. And the last author had great issue with Melchizedek being a “good guy” if you will. He tried to paint him in a negative light and made him out to have no significance at all. I cannot accept this view at all.

All three articles shed some light on who Melchizedek may have been. They presented quite a few different options and from what I gathered, he was a real and historical figure; one that loved God and was used by Him to bless Abraham. The writer of Hebrew makes mention of him a few times, even saying God himself says in another place (referring to Psalms 110) Jesus will be in the order of Melchizedek. Why would God mention Jesus and the king of Sodom as being alike? There are however very many assumptions, is he a type of Christ, or John the Baptist? What I know is, he blessed the Father of Nations, and Jesus is likened to his order, he must have done something right.

THE RISE OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC PAPACY

“And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”[1] These words spoken by Jesus to Peter allege the foundation of the Roman Catholic Papacy. Although there is not concrete evidence to this fact, it has nonetheless been deemed so by early Bishops of Rome and used, along with John 21:15-16[2], as the rationale for the authority and leadership of the church.

That Peter exists is not the issue, that Jesus said these words is not the issue; the issue is whether or not such credence can be given to these words to the extent that they would provide “permission” to rule spiritually, totally and unequivocally. A series of events would give such credence to the church to take the helm in the space of power in Rome or else true devastation would be imminent, but did it need to be the church? And was what Jesus said to Peter proof enough to warrant total authority?

            The power of the papacy was instituted gradually. As mentioned in the introduction, the spiritual aspect of the papacy, that which is believed to give the position its God given authority, is its ties to apostolic lineage. The church at Rome believed that the words to Paul from Jesus in Matthew 16:18 and John 21:15-16 were what allowed it to be involved more readily than it had been previously giving it authority to impose its views and direction on churches in areas other than where the western see was situated. There are varying views to this thinking. Some scholars believe the church at Rome was continuing the work of Paul as the example of “shepherd-pastor,” while others do not accept the “Roman Catholic belief that the papacy is an absolutely essential element of the church.”[3]

Rome was the capital of the empire and it was uniquely positioned in that it held the only see in the West. Men such as Ignatius and Irenaeus gave Rome a posture of loftiness because they claimed it to be “imposing” and “presiding in love.”[4] This afforded the bishopric in Rome a certain clout, Richard Bennett writes, “The respect enjoyed by the various Christian elders in the second century was roughly proportionate to the rank of the city in which they resided. At that time, Rome was the largest, richest, most powerful city in the world, the queen of the Imperial Roman Empire.”[5]

With that said, bishops such as Clement I (c. 90–99), Victor I (c. 189–198) and Stephen I (c. 254–257) sought to involve the church in the affairs of other churches performing acts such as settling disputes, forcing the requirement of celebratory customs (Easter), and reinstating deposed bishops; Carthage bishop Cyprian (d. 258) was not in agreement with some of these actions but he did consider Rome to be the “principal church” and believed bishops needed to have spiritual union with Rome to be genuine.[6]

In 313 the Edict of Milan allowed Christians more freedoms and ceased persecutions, this in turn gave way to more and more Christians coming to Rome and would eventually lead to “the institutional development of the papacy.”[7] Constantine’s decision to make Constantinople the hub of his empire allows for greater notoriety for the church in the West. By 381 Christianity is now the official religion of Rome and the papacy is already seen as “primatial authority.” It is between the time of Damasus I and Leo I that “the popes explicitly claimed that the bishop of Rome was the head of the entire church…”[8]

            According to Justo L. Gonzalez, Germanic invasions are what caused an “upsurge” in papal authority.[9] He goes on to say that the church of the West had become the “guardian of what was left of ancient civilization, as well as order and justice.” Richard Cavendish says, “In the fourth century ad…what Pliny the Elder had called the 'immense majesty of the Roman peace' was menaced by invasions of Germanic peoples from beyond the frontiers of the Rhine and the Danube.”[10] The invasions on Rome allowed her more notable bishops to exact authority and make decisions that would propel the papal position to new heights.

Leo I led the charge in changing how the bishop of Rome was to be viewed, and through a series of circumstances he was able to attain “great authority in the city of Rome.”;[11] situations such as leaving Rome to meet with Attila the Hun who had sights on Constantinople but was convinced with gold to go west. Rome was an easy target because there was no real army to stop them. The emperor of the West was unable to establish a military stance due to lack of character and resources. Allegedly Leo was quite the formidable spiritual opponent, Gonzalez states, “legend has it that Attila saw Saints Peter and Paul marching with the pope, and threatening the Hun.”[12] Literature on the Papacy by The Columbia Encyclopedia says, “He was also effective as a statesman and met (c. 452) Attila the Hun to persuade him not to invade Rome.”[13] And he did just that.

Pope Simplicius (c. 476) would see a Western emperor deposed, tensions between popes and emperors regarding issues of theology, and the eventual schism that took a great deal of time to mend; a schism made more difficult because of the Ostrogoth invasions, which led to two competing popes, one on the side of the Arian Ostrogoths, and one in Constantinople.[14] The schism would finally come to an end but not without Rome suffering terrible violence. Hormisdas (c. 514) was able to end the division with Constantinople and during this time hope was prevailing under the new emperor Justinian, but another invasion, this time by Belisarius. This was not good for the church in Rome. The emperor enacted policy similar to the Eastern church which was basically run by the secular leadership and so the popes held no real power during Justinian rule.[15] By 565 things were not faring well in Constantinople, once again she found herself with a weak army and simply could not defend itself. In come the Lombards.

By this time the popes were almost entirely in charge of making certain the city of Rome was safe from Lombard threat. After Pelagius II buys the Lombards off, he seeks assistance from the Franks. They would become the papacy’s most important source of aid.[16] Pope Gregory I would now enter the picture and become what Gonzalez calls, “one of the ablest men to ever occupy that position.”[17] At the time Gregory came in to his position, there were so many issues to contend with including plague and famine. Notwithstanding, he made many advances to the papacy, including turning to the Germanic invaders who now ruled in Rome even though he strongly believed he was amongst a “Christian commonwealth led the Byzantine emperor.”[18] A series of unfortunate events would see the papacy lose much of its authority. Not until 756, after Pope Stephen II crowned Pippin III (Carolingian king) was the papal authority restored. It was then that the papacy received from the king the “Donation of Pippin” giving the papacy “Papal States”[19] In 800, the papacy received some security in crowning Charlemagne as Roman emperor, but in doing so they gave up a great deal of their independence.[20] In the 10^th and 11^th centuries, the office of the papacy found itself amidst competition for the papal throne, corruption, and weak political conditions, the seat still remained the “focus of devotion and pilgrimage as the city of Peter and of the martyrs and saints.”[21]

The papacy form its beginnings to just before the Reformation has seen good times and bad. Papal authority, controversy, dissension, confusion, and the like caused the office to ponder a variety of spiritual and political thought processes. There is no doubt that the office of the papacy had its moments, it saved Rome from being completely burned down by barbarians. It saw the likes of Gregory I preaching the message of commitment to the church and God. But it also saw complete wrecks that allowed corruption and a loss of good will from the people. The position of Pope as it stands today is shrouded in mystery with talk of conspiracy theories and claims of world domination, but then, the office of the President of the United States has been given the same royal treatment.

---

[1] Holy Bible. King James Version. YouVersion.com, http://www.youversion.com/bible/matt.16.kjv (accessed September 26, 2012). 

[2] “So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.” KJV.

[3]Patrick Granfield. 2005. Papacy, Encyclopedia of Religion. Ed. Lindsay Jones. vol. 10. 2^nd ed:6965-6976, http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/ps/i.do?action=interpret&id=GALE%7CCX3424502367&v=2.1&u=vic_liberty&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&authCount=1 (accessed September 25, 2012).

[4] Granfield, Encyclopedia of Religion.

[5] Richard Bennett. An Overview of the History of the Papacy, http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/An_Overview_of_the_History_of_the_Papacy.pdf (accessed September 25, 2012).

[6] Granfield, Encyclopedia of Religion.

[7] Granfield, Encyclopedia of Religion.

[8] Granfield, Encyclopedia of Religion.

[9] Justo L. Gonzalez. The Story of Christianity, Vol. 1: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation (New York: Harper Collins Publishing, 2010), 282.

[10] Richard Cavendish. 2010. The Visigoths Attack Rome. History Today. Vol. 60, no. 8:8, http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/docview/741578968 (accessed September 26, 2012).

[11] Gonzalez, 283.

[12] Gonzalez, 283.

[13] The Columbia Encyclopedia, s.v. "Leo I, Saint, pope," http://www.liberty.edu:2048/login?url=http://www.credoreference.com/entry/columency/leo_i_saint_pope (accessed September 27, 2012).

[14] Gonzalez, 283.

[15] Gonzalez, 284.

[16] Gonzalez, 285.

[17] Gonzalez, 285

[18] Frank J. Coppa. Papacy. Encyclopædia Britannica Online s.v., http://www.britannica.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/EBchecked/topic/441722/papacy (accessed September 27, 2012).

[19] Papal States, also called Republic of Saint Peter or Church States, Italian Stati Pontifici or Stati della Chiesa, territories of central Italy over which the pope had sovereignty from 756 to 1870. Included were the modern Italian regions of Lazio (Latium), Umbria, and Marche and part of Emilia-Romagna, though the extent of the territory, along with the degree of papal control, varied over the centuries. Encyclopædia Britannica Online, s.v. “Papal States, http://www.britannica.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/EBchecked/topic/441848/Papal-States (accessed September 27, 2012).

[20] Coppa, Encyclopædia Britannica Online.

[21] Coppa, Encyclopædia Britannica Online.

Bibliography

Holy Bible. King James Version. YouVersion.com, http://www.youversion.com/bible/matt.16.kjv.

Granfield,  Patrick. 2005. Papacy, Encyclopedia of Religion. Ed. Lindsay Jones. vol. 10. 2^nd ed:6965-6976, http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/ps/i.do?action=interpret&id=GALE%7CCX3424502367&v=2.1&u=vic_liberty&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&authCount=1.

Bennett, Richard. An Overview of the History of the Papacy, http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/An_Overview_of_the_History_of_the_Papacy.pdf.

Gonzalez, Justo L.. The Story of Christianity, Vol. 1: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation (New York: Harper Collins Publishing, 2010).

Cavendish, Richard. 2010. The Visigoths Attack Rome. History Today. Vol. 60, no. 8:8, http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/docview/741578968.

The Columbia Encyclopedia, s.v. "Leo I, Saint, pope," http://www.liberty.edu:2048/login?url=http://www.credoreference.com/entry/columency/leo_i_saint_pope

Coppa,  Frank J. Papacy. Encyclopædia Britannica Online s.v., http://www.britannica.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/EBchecked/topic/441722/papacy

THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON

Introduction

            Today every believer enjoys a Bible that fills the soul with hope and joy because of Father God’s faithfulness in teaching His children all about Himself. Believers are given first hand insight into the history, persecution, and triumph of Jesus Christ in the greatest story ever told; all with a very clear purpose, to teach His little ones how to live and love now and forevermore. Unbelievers alike are granted access to the Bible’s unending drama, comedy, love, and genuine kindness as expressed through a myriad of unforgettable characters that are truly breathtaking – if of course one takes the time to delve into its many marvelous anecdotes.

The New Testament provides an account of Christ’s glorious redemptive work on the Cross, methods for living the Christian life, and teaches most of all about love. Not only is it the greatest story ever told, by far it is the greatest love story ever told. But let us for a moment imagine what life would be like without the luxury of having such uncomplicated access to God’s New Testament. God’s providence and His Holy Spirit, has made it so that people all around the world can receive His word unadulterated. It was however, a series of events throughout the annals of Church history and the use of godly people that has made what we have today in the way of the New Testament possible. It was not without its challenges, and it certainly was due to necessity that we have the canon.

Formation of the New Testament Canon

            So what is the New Testament canon? It is a compilation of twenty-seven books to include gospels, epistles, Acts, and a book of revelation. These were written by Jesus Christ’s apostles and half brothers, with one book written by an unknown author (maybe Paul); this collection of books was established to be canonical (in the fourth century by an Alexandrian Bishop named Athanasius) meaning they are the “rule or standard” of Scripture.[1] These books were chosen in order that they might convey to the Church the teachings of Jesus Christ, and how to live the Christian life in accordance to God’s will.

According to Donald W. Riddle, we should not think of the New Testament when approaching the completed work as having been a “steady, progressive selection of books until the final number contained in “the” New Testament was attained.” [2] Rather, the end result was compiled from a series of “New Testaments” taken from collections of writings[3] from authority figures such as Ignatius, who “wrote seven letters that are among the most valuable documents informing our knowledge of early Christianity.”[4] There were other works written considered New Testaments as well, for example, the Didache (c AD 70)[5], 1 Clement (c. 96) and the Epistle of Barnabas (c. 100).[6] The point here is that, apparently the New Testament had already been written; it would be a matter of defense that would cause the final compilation to take root.

This list of course is not exhaustive, there were more written works considered valuable and necessary for Church growth and instruction; authors and Scholars such as Irenaeus of Lyons a Pastor whose main purpose was “leading his flock in Christian life and faith”;[7] Clement of Alexandria, “main Christian instructor in Alexandria”; [8] Tertullian of Carthage, defender of “the faith against pagans, and defender of orthodoxy against various heresies”; [9] and Origen of Alexandria, “whose genius was exceptional” and “literary output was enormous.”[10] And yet none of the works by any these influential men were added to the final canon, which is interesting when we consider “some of these books were prized even more highly than those which eventually found an entrance into the authoritative collection.”[11] Why?

            Before we consider why the works of some of the most influential leaders of early Church history was not included in the New Testament canon, let us consider why there needed to be a canon in the first place. Was it not enough for the Old Testament canon to meet the needs of the early Church? It was in there that most, if not all, of the early writers got their knowledge base. The Septuagint (LXX)[12] was the most widely used reference of the early Church, and the New Testament or New Covenant was believed to be the fulfillment of the Old Testament “promises of salvation that were continued for the new Israel, the church, through the Holy Spirit, which had come through Christ, upon the whole people of God.”[13] The Church believed they were on the cusp of the “age to come” and set out to establish the New Testament as “qualitatively different” from the Old Testament because of it.[14]

            The need then to establish a work that corresponds to this new age in the form of Scripture comes not only from its advent but also because of other factors; factors such as the lack of reliability of oral traditions. In the post-apostolic age, many of the witnesses to Jesus and the Apostles work had passed away and much of the tradition was being marred in its translation.[15] The translation then of the oral tradition was, by its very nature, able to be manipulated so much so, that even the words of Jesus Christ could be taken and molded to conform to what the Church needed instead of being used for what Christ meant. At this point gospels were also being written but some of these writings which were claiming to be the teachings of Christ were deemed heretical by the Church. This is one of the reasons they felt the need to found the canon.[16] According to Homer A. Kent Jr.:

As the Christian era progressed it was inevitable that a variety of literature would soon appear. Much of this Christian writing was entirely orthodox. But some was issued to promote special interests of heretical groups. Many of these documents were well-intentioned but factually inaccurate.[17]

In order to guard against such things discussion of a canon takes place.

Heretical text was fast becoming one of the main reasons for a New Testament canon. Many writings deemed heretical by the Church were vying for the Christians attention and subsequently the Church was making moves to protect itself. Gnosticism was a religious faction that leaned toward “speculation” and basically got rid of “historical revelation.”[18] This faction attempted to use the Gospel of Truth[19] and the Gospel of Thomas as instruments of influence but the Church quickly judged these heretical. Montanism was another heresy as deemed by the Church that caused a move toward a canon. This was “an ecstatic enthusiastic movement claiming special revelation and stressing “the age of the spirit.”[20] And lastly, and probably the most defining of the heresies to cause a move toward canonicity was Marcion and his version of a canon that “repudiated the Old Testament and anything Jewish.”[21] Without a doubt, the Church considered this to be the most damaging heresy and necessitated a decisive action before things got so out of hand, they may never regain momentum. Marcion attempted to rewrite Christian history by excluding books such as Hebrews and I and II Timothy. He omitted anything Jewish from the Pauline letters. He wanted nothing more than to get rid of true Old Testament Scripture to change the face of orthodox Christianity. This, in essence, forced the Church to compile Testaments to refute Marcion’s canon.

Many New Testaments were considered before Athanasius decided on the final version of the canon. He got involved to squelch division between the East and West ends of Christianity. In the fourth century, Athanasius decided that the twenty-seven books of the New Testament to include Revelation and Hebrews would be the final canon.

Conclusion

            Without question the New Testament has undergone an amazing journey into being. Many issues and concerns raised the question of need for a canon. Many defensive postures were taken in defense of true orthodoxy, and ultimately, God’s providence won the day by establishing a inerrant Word that feeds many millions of Christians around the world. There is one issue that I would be remiss not to mention, and that is the glorious power of Holy Spirit at work in the formation of the New Testament Canon. He helped write the Word, He would help establish it.

---

[1] Encyclopædia Britannica Online, s. v. "New Testament," http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/412114/New-Testament (accessed September 09, 2012).

[2] Riddle, Donald W. 1939. Factors in the Formation of the New Testament Canon. The Journal of Religion, Vol. 19, no. 4:330-345, http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/stable/1198364?seq=2 (accessed September 09, 2012).

[3] Riddle, 331.

[4] Justo L. Gonzalez. The Story of Christianity, Vol. 1: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation (New York: Harper Collins Publishing, 2010), 51.

[5] The Didache is a collection of writings given by Jesus through the twelve Apostles for the instruction of Gentile converts prior to Baptism. It is important literature in that in provides a first look into the life of the early Jewish Christian community and its leadership structure.  Draper, Jonathan. 2006. The Apostolic Fathers: The Didache. The Expository Times, Vol. 117, no. 5:177-181, http://ext.sagepub.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/content/117/5/177.full.pdf+html (accessed September 10, 2012). 

[6] Hahn, Paul. 1995. Development Of The Biblical Canon: Development of the New Testament Canon, http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/canon.html (accessed September 10, 2012).

[7] Justo L. Gonzalez. The Story of Christianity, Vol. 1: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation (New York: Harper Collins Publishing, 2010), 84.

[8] Gonzalez, 86.

[9] Gonzalez, 88.

[10] Gonzalez, 92.

[11] George Hooper, The Formation of the New Testament (Philadelphia: Griffith & Rowland press, 1907), http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=yale.39002051123975;page=root;view=image;size=100;seq=19;num=15 (accessed September 10, 2012).

[12] “a Greek version of the Jewish Scriptures redacted in the third and second centuries b.c. by Jewish scholars and adopted by Greek-speaking Christians.” Miriam-Webster Online Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/septuagint (accessed September 10, 2012).

[13] Encyclopædia Britannica Online, s. v. "New Testament,",

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/412114/New-Testament (accessed September 09, 2012).

[14] Encyclopædia Britannica Online.

[15] Encyclopædia Britannica Online.

[16] Encyclopædia Britannica Online.

[17] Kent Jr., Homer A. 1967. How We got Our New Testament. Grace Theological Journal 8.2:22-26, http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/GTJ-NT/Kent-HowNT-GTJ-67.pdf (accessed September 10, 2012).

[18] Encyclopædia Britannica Online, s. v. "New Testament,",

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/412114/New-Testament (accessed September 09, 2012).

[19] The text of the Gospel of Thomas is understood to be a rolling corpus, or aggregate of sayings that represent different moments in the life and history of the early Thomasine community. Deconick, April D. 2007. The Gospel of Thomas. The Expository Times, Vol. 118 no. 10 469-479, http://ext.sagepub.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/content/118/10/469, (accessed September 10, 2012).

[20] Encyclopædia Britannica Online, s. v. "New Testament,",

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/412114/New-Testament (accessed September 09, 2012).

[21] Encyclopædia Britannica Online.

Bibliography

Encyclopædia Britannica Online, s. v. "New Testament,"

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/412114/New-Testament.

Donald W. Riddle, 1939. Factors in the Formation of the New Testament Canon. The Journal of Religion, Vol. 19, no. 4:330-345, http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/stable/1198364?seq=2.

Justo L. Gonzalez. The Story of Christianity, Vol. 1: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation (New York: Harper Collins Publishing, 2010).

Jonathan Draper. 2006. The Apostolic Fathers: The Didache. The Expository Times, Vol. 117, no. 5:177-181, http://ext.sagepub.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/content/117/5/177.full.pdf+html.

Paul Hahn. 1995. Development Of The Biblical Canon: Development of the New Testament Canon, http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/canon.html.

George Hooper. The Formation of the New Testament (Philadelphia: Griffith & Rowland press, 1907), http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=yale.39002051123975;page=root;view=image;size=100;seq=19;num=15.

Miriam-Webster Online Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/septuagint.

Homer A Kent Jr. 1967. How We got Our New Testament. Grace Theological Journal 8.2:22-26, http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/GTJ-NT/Kent-HowNT-GTJ-67.pdf.

April D. Deconick. 2007. The Gospel of Thomas. The Expository Times, Vol. 118 no. 10 469-479, http://ext.sagepub.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/content/118/10/469.