New Testament Books in Chronological Order

 1. 1 Thessalonians


”The  first document in this chronological New Testament is Paul’s letter to a Christ-community in Thessalonica, the capital city of Macedonia, a province in northern Greece. It was written around the year 50, possibly a year or two earlier. Somewhat surprisingly, given the movement’s origin among Jews in the Jewish homeland, the earliest Christian document is written to a community in Europe, which was largely Gentile.”

2. Galatians


“Whether this letter should be second in a chronological New Testament is a toss-up. The other serious candidate is Paul’s first letter to Corinth, customarily dated around 54. Because some scholars date Galatians as early as 50 and many others in the first half of the 50s, I have decided to put it before 1 Corinthians.”

3. 1 Corinthians


”First  Corinthians is the second longest of Paul’s letters. Only Romans is longer, and thus this letter comes right after Romans in the canonical New Testament. But in this chronological New Testament, it comes after 1 Thessalonians and Galatians. According to Acts, Paul created a Christ-community in Corinth in southern Greece around the year 50.”

4. Philemon


“In the canonical New Testament, Philemon is the last of the 13 letters attributed to Paul because it is the shortest, only 25 verses long, so brief it is not even divided into chapters. But in this chronological New Testament, it comes early, in the middle of the seven letters universally accepted as by Paul himself. Philemon is one of Paul’s ‘prison letters. From details in the letter, we know that it was a Roman prison. Some scholars think it was in the city of Rome and thus date Philemon to Paul’s imprisonment there in the early 60s. But there were Roman prisons throughout the empire, especially in provincial capitals such as Ephesus in Asia Minor. A majority think these two letters were written during an imprisonment in Ephesus in the mid-50s. Because they were written near each other in time, it is arbitrary to place one ahead of the other. For didactic rather than historical reasons, I have put Philemon before Philippians.”

5. Philippians


”Philippians  is the most consistently affectionate of Paul’s letters. Philippi was the capital of ancient Macedonia, in northern Greece. According to Acts 16, it was the first city in Europe in which Paul founded a Christ-community after leaving Asia Minor in the late 40s. We do not know if he had visited it in the years since, though it seems likely, given his visits to Macedonia. In any case, his relationship to the community seems to have been uncomplicated. The tone of the letter is not only affectionate, but filled with gratitude. It also contains important and extraordinary passages. Like Philemon, Philippians was written from a Roman prison, probably from the same imprisonment in Ephesus in the mid-50s. Unlike in the closing of Philemon, in which Paul writes that he hopes to be freed, in his letter he is uncertain about whether his imprisonment might end in execution.”

6. 2 Corinthians


”Second  Corinthians is not a single letter, but a combination of at least three letters from Paul to the Christ-community in Corinth. Though there is consensus within modern scholarship about its composite character, there is no unanimity about the extent of each letter. The most common divisions are chapters 1-7, 8-9, and 10-13, though probably not in that sequence. The community in Corinth preserved these letters and later combined them into one letter as 2 Corinthians. That this letter combines several letters is important not only for reading and interpreting it, but also because it provides a vivid glimpse of Paul’s continuing relationship to one of his communities. Recall that Paul founded the community in Corinth around the year 50 and spent a year or two there. Recall also that 1 Corinthians refers to a previous letter that he had written to the Corinthians and also to a letter he had received from them. Second Corinthians adds to this correspondence.”

7. Romans


”Paul’s  letter to the Christ-communities in Rome is distinctive in many ways. It is his longest letter. Only 1 Corinthians is a serious rival. It is the only letter he wrote to people he didn’t know; Paul had never been to Rome. Unlike his other letters, it does not deal with highly specific issues like whether it’s acceptable to eat meat sacrificed to idols, for women to prophesy with their heads uncovered, for male Gentile converts to remain uncircumcised, or for a Christian master to have a Christian slave. Except for a brief section near the end on ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ within the community, Romans has none of this specificity. It is probably his last letter. Though a small minority of scholars think that the ‘prison letters’ — Philippians, Philemon and Colossians — are later, most think Romans is the last of the universally agreed upon seven genuine letters of Paul. He wrote it from Corinth around the year 58, just before he began what became his final journey to Jerusalem, arrest, imprisonment, and eventual execution in Rome itself.”

8. Mark


“Around the year 70, an early Christian put the story of Jesus into written form for the first time. Though the location is uncertain, the best guess is a Christ-community near the northern border of Galilee in the Jewish homeland. We call the document ‘Mark,’ though it is not certain that somebody named ‘Mark’ wrote it. The gospel does not name the author; he did not write ‘The Gospel According to Mark’ at the top of the first page. So also the authors of Matthew, Luke, and John do not name themselves. Names were assigned only in the second century when the existence of several gospels required a way of distinguishing among them. Perhaps somebody named ‘Mark’ wrote the earliest gospel, and perhaps not. It really doesn’t matter; its value doesn’t depend upon who wrote it. But we will call him and his gospel ‘Mark.’

9. James


”The  dating and authority of James are inextricably intertwined. The author identifies himself as ‘James’ (1.1). For centuries, Christian tradition took it for granted that the author was James, the brother of Jesus. According to Acts and Paul, James was the ‘leader’ or ‘head’ of the Christian community in Jerusalem. He was executed in the early 60s. If by this James, the letter must have been written before the early 60s, thus making it earlier than any of the gospels. Indeed, some scholars argue that it could have been written in the 40s or 50s, which could make it as early or even earlier than the letters of Paul — perhaps the earliest document in the New Testament. But the majority of mainstream scholars do not think the author was the brother of Jesus. The author does not say so, but describes himself simply as ‘James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ.’ Moreover, his use of Greek language and grammar is quite sophisticated — not impossible for a brother of Jesus from the peasant class who native language was Aramaic, but at least somewhat unlikely. If the author was not the brother of Jesus, then its date becomes wide open. There is no scholarly consensus. Estimates range the 70s or 80s to as late as the early 100s. I have decided to place it in the 70s or 80s, later than Mark, but before Matthew, because much of James seems like early tradition.”

10. Colossians


”Colossians  is almost certainly the earliest of the letters attributed to Paul but not actually written by him. Its strongest literary connections are to Ephesians, whose author most likely knew Colossians. Ephesians was most likely written no later than around the year 90, and thus Colossians must have been written earlier, probably in the 80s.”

11. Matthew


“Matthew was written a decade or two after Mark, in the 80s or perhaps early 90s. Along with John, it is one of two gospels named after a disciple of Jesus. According to 9.9, Matthew was a tax collector before Jesus called him to be a disciple. Mark and Luke tell the same story, but name the tax collector ‘Levi.’ They could be different names for the same person. The name Matthew also appears in all the lists of the 12 disciples in the gospels and Acts. For centuries, it has been taken for granted that this gospel was written by this Matthew, and thus by an eyewitness to the historical life of Jesus. And not just any eyewitness, but one of the inner circle of 12.”

12. Hebrews


“The document we know as ‘the letter to the Hebrews’ is exceptionally rich. Its central and best-known metaphor presents Jesus as the ‘great high priest’ who offers himself as the ‘once for all’ sacrifice. Its chapters on faith is one of the most famous in the New Testament. Its creative use of texts from the Jewish Bible, especially from Psalms and the prophets, is powerful. We do not know who wrote it. In the 200s, an early Christian theologian named Origen said that its author ‘was known only to God.’ In the centuries since, there have been guesses, Around the year 400, Augustine and Jerome suggested it was written by Paul, and thus it has sometimes been called the 14th letter of Paul. But there is no reason to think Paul wrote it, and many reasons to think he did not. Other guesses have included Barnabas, Apollos, and Priscilla. None is persuasive, and modern scholarship agrees with Origen: God only knows who wrote it.”

13. John


”Mainline  scholars commonly date John around the year 90. Most also think that John has earlier and later layers. The clearest example is that the gospel seems to end twice — once at the end of chapter 20 and again at the end of chapter 21. The most plausible explanation is that John 21 was added to a ‘first edition’ that ended with John 20. Scholars have also argued that the author may have had what is commonly called a ‘signs source.’ Despite uncertainty about what might be earlier and what is likely later, there is a strong consensus that the form in which we have John came from the decade of the 90s. It tells us how Jesus was spoken of in a Christian community near the end of the first century. It does not tell us very much about how Jesus himself spoke.”

14. Ephesians


”Like  Colossians, Ephesians is one of the ‘disputed’ letters of Paul. A minority of modern scholars argue that it was written by Paul, but a majority have concluded that it was written by a generation or so after Paul’s death. Though it has the typical forms of a Pauline letter and echoes some important themes from the seven genuine letters of Paul, it also differs in a number of ways. The framework for dating it is created by its close parallels to parts of Colossians that indicate that Colossians is earlier; and it seems to have been known by the Christian author Ignatius around the year 100. The suggests a date around 90.”

15. Revelation


“Because Revelation refers to persecution, it has been commonly dated either in the mid to late 60s, shortly after Nero’s persecution, or in the mid-90s near the end of the reign of the emperor Dormitian (c. 96 CE). But Nero’s persecution of Christians was confined to the city of Rome and did not affect Asia Minor, and the historical evidence for official Roman persecution under Dormitian is very weak. Moreover, the document itself does not indicate that large-scale persecution was already under way. The letter to Smyrna warns that suffering is imminent, but has not yet begun: “Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Beware, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison so that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have affliction. Be faithful until death” (2.10). The letter to Pergamum names one Christian who has already been killed (2.13). One of the visions refers to ‘those who had been slaughtered for the word of God and for the testimony they had given’ and to future persecution of ‘their brothers and sisters, who were soon to be killed’ (6.9-11). But the massive persecution of which it warns is still future from its point in time. Thus most contemporary scholars affirm that the persecutions in Revelation were unofficial, local, sporadic, and not official Roman persecution. With the link to Roman persecution severed, the primary reason for dating it in the 60s or the 90s is gone. Along with most scholars, I date it no earlier than the 90s, in part because its criticism of Christians in the seven communities sounds as though it is directed to second- or third- generation followers of Jesus who have begun to accommodate to the norms and values of the dominant culture. But it is also possible that it was written in the early decades of the second century.”

16. Jude


“Jude is perhaps the strangest document in the New Testament. It is one of the shortest, about a page long,and is the most enigmatic. Its authorship, the community to which it was addressed, and its date involve more ‘guesswork’ than any other document. The author identifies himself as ‘Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James’ (v.1). Jude (Judas) was a common name in New Testament times. According to Mark 6.3, one of Jesus’s brothers was named Jude. Because the author of this letter also identifies himself as ‘brother of James,’ another brother of Jesus and leader of the Christ-community in Jerusalem, it was taken for granted until recently that the author was also a brother of Jesus. If so, that would make Jude one of the earliest documents in the New Testament. But modern mainline scholars have concluded that it was written much later. The precision is impossible, most date it around 100. It contains nothing that suggests the location of either the author or its recipients.” 

17. 1 John, 2 John and 3 John


‘Three letters are attributed to ‘John’ in the New Testament. The first is the most substantial and important. Five chapters long, it emphasizes love as much as any document in the New Testament. The other two are less than a page long and are among the shortest documents in Christian scripture. Dating these letters is difficult. There is a consensus that they are later than the gospel of John, most likely written around 100. But there is no way of knowing whether all were written at about the same time or whether they might be separated by a decade or more. I have decided to keep them together without any particularly good reason to do so, just as there is no particularly good reason to do so, just as there is no particularly good reason to separate them chronologically.”

18. 2 John


As mentioned in the previous slide, this letter was most likely written around 100. 


19. 3 John


As mentioned in the previous slide, this letter was most likely written around 100. 


20. Luke


”The  gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles belong together. For about a century, the conventional wisdom of mainline scholarship has dated Luke and Acts to the late 80s or 90s. But in the last decade, a growing number of scholars have dated them significantly later, in the first decade or two of the second century. Thus there is no consensus about their dating, though probably at least a slight majority still favor the 80s to 90s. They see Luke, like Matthew, as written a decade or two after Mark and thus as a voice from a generation or so later. In this view, there is no compelling reason to date Matthew earlier than Luke or vice versa. Thus Luke and Acts would belong in the first half of the New Testament chronologically — not long after Mark, roughly contemporary with Matthew, and before John, Revelation, and several letters. Dating them later, as I do, is the exception to the rule that I have sought to follow, which is to reflect consensus conclusion when possible, and, when there is no consensus, to follow majority opinion. The growing movement to date Luke and Acts in the early second century has more than one foundation. Some scholars argue that the author knew passages from the works of Josephus, a Jewish historian who wrote in the 90s, thus making Luke-Acts later than that. Though the evidence that the author dd know the writings of Josephus is not completely persuasive, there is another reason for a date a decade or two later than Matthew, namely, both Luke and Acts emphasize the constant rejection of Jesus by ‘the Jews.'”

21. Acts


As mentioned in the previous slide, this letter is dated to the first decade or two of the second century.


22. 2 Thessalonians


“Paul’s first letter to the Christ-community in Thessalonica in northern Greece is the earliest document in the New Testament, but 2 Thessalonians is one of the disputed letters of Paul. The majority of mainstream scholars do not think it was written by Paul, but by someone writing in his name some three to four decades after his martyrdom in the 60s.” 


23. 1 Peter


“Two letters in the New Testament are attributed to Peter, the most important of Jesus’ male disciples, who was executed in Rome around the year 64. But the majority of mainstream scholars do not think that either one was written by Peter. The letters reflect a later historical context. Moreover, they were not written by the same person. Second Peter is significantly later than 1 Peter. There is no unanimity about [1 Peter’s] date. Some mainline scholars date it to around 90 or as early as 80s. The reason is that some think that the author of 1 Clement, an early Christian letter not in the New Testament but dated by some to around the year 96, knew of 1 Peter. If so, 95 or so is the latest possible date for 1 Peter. But is is not clear that 1 Clement was written that early. Moreover, because both 1 Clement and 1 Peter were most likely written in Rome, their authors might well have known each other. Given that, similarity of language need not mean literary dependence. Some of its themes, especially its endorsement of Roman authority and imperial conventions about slavery, suggest a date early in the second century.”

24. 1 Timothy


”In  the canonical New Testament, 1 Timothy is the first of three letters known as the ‘pastoral letters’ or ‘pastoral epistles.’ The other two are 2 Timothy and Titus. They are called ‘pastoral’ in part because they are addressed to two early Christian ‘pastors,’ Timothy and Titus. ‘Pastor’ did not yet refer to an official institutional role, but had its ancient meaning of shepherd, leader of the flock. Their themes are also pastoral, providing practical advice for ordering the community’s life. Though all three letters claim to be written by Paul, most modern scholars see them as written long after his death in the first decades of the second century. There is a consensus that they were all written by teh same person. But was that person Paul? For more than one reason, authorship by Paul has been rejected.”

25. 2 Timothy


As mentioned in the previous slide, along with 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy was composed in the first decades of the second century. 

26. Titus


As mentioned in previous slides, along with 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy, it this letter is believed to have been composed in the first decades of the second century.

27. 2 Peter


”There  is a strong scholarly consensus that 2 Peter is the last New Testament document to be written. Some date it as late as 150, and most date it between 120 and 150. Among the reasons for its late dating are its references to 1 Peter (3.1), its mention of the letters of Paul (3.15-16), and its use of phrases from the letter of Jude. In addition, it offers an explanation for the delay of the second coming of Jesus (3.3-10).”

Snakes (Serpents) are not talking ???

Do we understand the Scripture (Bible) literally?
If Yes, how do we deal with the first story were a Serpent talks?

Genesis 3:1/

Now the “serpent” was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made.

Does the writer talks about the serpent as a reptile or as satan? How do we want to answer something if we are not able to answer this simple one? Lets say we go with the story what the most people believe is true. The serpent was satan. The meaning of satan is accuser.

Genesis 3:14 /

The Lord God said to the serpent,

“Because you have done this,

cursed are you above all livestock

and above all beasts of the field;

on your belly you shall go,

and fdust you shall eat

all the days of your life.

Again, to whom is God talking here, satan or the animal a snake? If it is an animal that would mean that animals have desires and are able to think. Do we really believe this?

Genesis 3:15 /

I will put enmity between you and the woman,

and between your offspring and gher offspring;

he shall bruise your head,

and you shall bruise his heel.”

The most Christians today believe the serpent was satan. But it looks like that God is cursing the serpent instead of satan (Gen 3:14). If satan temped Eve why is not he getting cursed? If this passage is literally where do we see further in the Bible that the offspring of the woman bruises the head of the serpent? Many believe that this is a prophecy about Jesus destroying satan. It looks like that many part of this passage are a “metaphor”. If yes? Could it be possible and right that the serpent never talked audible? Could be a metaphor that Eve had a conversation with satan in her mind like we have many times a day? What if the writer was trying to tell a story what was really happened in the beginning? Is the story he wants to transmit that they got tempted by a someone who hated Gods plan? He never tried to claim to be literally? We did? The first reader of this story did they understand it literally? What if a lot of story’s a about the meaning and not about to understood literally?

How Does “Dying For Our Sins” Work?

by Brian Zahnd

When we say “Jesus died for our sins,” what does that mean? It’s undeniably an essential confession of Christian faith, but how does it work? This much I’m sure of, it’s not reducible to just one thing. I’ve just finished preaching eight sermons on “The Crucified God” and I know I’ve barely scratched the surface of what the cross means. To try to reduce the death of Jesus to a single meaning is an impoverished approach to the mystery of the cross. I’m especially talking about those tidy explanations of the cross known as “atonement theories.” I find most of them inadequate; others I find repellent. Particularly abhorrent are those theories that portray the Father of Jesus as a pagan deity who can only be placated by the barbarism of child sacrifice. The god who is mollified by throwing a virgin into a volcano or by nailing his son to a tree is not the Abba of Jesus!

Neither is the death of Jesus a kind of quid pro quo by which God gains the necessary capital to forgive sinners. No! Jesus does not save us from God; Jesus reveals God! Jesus does not provide God with the capacity to forgive; Jesus reveals God as forgiving love. An “economic model” of the cross just won’t work. It’s not as if God is saying, “Look, I’d love to forgive you, but I’ve got to pay off Justice first, and, you know how she is, she’s a tough goddess, she requires due payment.” This understanding of the cross begs the question of who exactly is in charge — the Father of Jesus or some abstract ideal called “Justice”?

When we confess with Paul that “Christ died for our sins,” we don’t mean that God required the vicious murder of his Son in order to forgive. How would that work anyway? Did God have some scale of torture that once met would “satisfy his wrath?” Think it through and you’ll see the problem. Was death not enough to satisfy this god? Did it have to be death by crucifixion? Did torture have to be part of the equation? And how does that work? Was there a minimum number of lashes required in the scourging? Did the thorny crown have to have a certain number of thorns in order for this god to call the scales balanced?

Are you squirming yet? Do you want to say, “Well, some of the abuse Jesus suffered was gratuitous torture by the hands of cruel men.” But if that’s the case, how does this division of labor work? How much was necessary to “satisfy God” and how much was just for the sport of it? No, this approach to understanding Jesus dying for our sins clearly won’t work.

So what do we do? Let’s begin here: Before the cross is anything else, it is a catastrophe. It is the unjust lynching of an innocent man. This is precisely how the Apostles spoke of the crucifixion of Jesus in the book of Acts.

“This Jesus…you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.” –Acts 2:23

“You killed the author of life, whom God raised from the dead.” –Acts 3:15

“God raised up Jesus whom you killed by hanging him on a tree.” –Acts 5:30

“The Righteous One you have now betrayed and murdered.” –Acts 7:52

The Bible is clear, God did not kill Jesus. Jesus was offered as a sacrifice in that the Father was willing to send his Son into our sinful system in order to expose it as utterly sinful and provide us with another way. The death of Jesus was a sacrifice in that sense. But it was not a sacrifice to appease a wrathful deity or to provide payment for a penultimate god subordinate to Justice.

Let me suggest that when we say Jesus died for our sins, we mean something like this: We violently sinned our sins into Jesus, and Jesus revealed the heart of God by forgiving us. When Jesus prayed, “Father, forgive them,” he was not asking God to act contrary to his nature. When Jesus prayed, “Father, forgive them,” he was, as always, revealing the very heart of God!

At the cross we violently sinned our sins into Jesus, and Jesus absorbed them, died because of them, carried them into death, and rose on the third day to speak the first world of the new world: “Peace be with you.”

When I say “we” violently sinned our sins into Jesus, I mean that all of us are more or less implicated by our explicit or tacit support of the systems of violent power that frame our world. These are the very political and religious systems that executed Jesus. At the cross we see where Adam and Eve’s penchant for blame and Cain’s capacity for killing have led us — to the murder of God! At Golgotha human sin is seen as utterly sinful. God did not require the death of Jesus — but we did!

So let’s be clear, the cross is not about the appeasement of a monster god. The cross is about the revelation of a merciful God. At the cross we discover a God who would rather die than kill his enemies. The cross is where God in Christ absorbs sin and recycles it into forgiveness. The cross is not what God inflicts upon Christ in order to forgive. The cross is what God endures in Christ as he forgives. Once we understand this, we know what we are seeing when we look at the cross: We are seeing the lengths to which a God of love will go in forgiving sin.

The cross is both ugly and beautiful. It’s as ugly as human sin and as beautiful as divine love. But in the end, love and beauty win.

Jesus Trumps Biblicism: A Tale of Sticks and Stones

by Brian Zahnd

This morning I was reading Scripture. From the Old Testament I was reading Numbers and in the New Testament I was reading John. In Numbers chapter 15 we find this story…

An Israelite guy was gathering sticks on the Sabbath. This was forbidden. The guy got caught and was taken into custody. Moses inquired of Yahweh what should be done. Yahweh told Moses that the guy had to be killed. So the stick-gathering Sabbath-breaker was taken outside the camp and stoned to death by the congregation of Israel. Sticks and stones. (Number 15:32–36)

Next I read from the Gospel of John chapter 5. This is what happens…

Jesus meets a guy who has been paralyzed for 38 years. Jesus tells the guy to take up his bed and walk. The man is healed, takes up his bed, and heads for home. But this was the Sabbath. And the guy gets busted for breaking the Sabbath. When the Judean Torah enthusiasts find out that it was Jesus who was behind all this Sabbath breaking, they are prepared to kill Jesus. (Like Moses did in the Bible.) John concludes the story like this…

“This is why the Judeans were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. But Jesus answered them, ‘My Father is working until now, and I am working.’ This is why the Judeans were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.” (John 5:16–18)

Look at what we have here. In Numbers a guy gets caught picking up sticks on a Saturday and is stoned to death. The text tells us that Yahweh instructed Moses to do this. This is the Moses who spoke to God face to face. (Exodus 33:11)

But in the prologue to his gospel John says this…

“The Torah was given by Moses. Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God. The only begotten God who is near the Father’s heart, he has made him known.” (John 1:17–18)

We want to say, wait a minute, John! What do you mean no one has ever seen God?! Abraham saw God under the oaks of Mamre. Jacob saw God at Bethel. Moses saw God on Sinai. Isaiah saw God in the Temple. Ezekiel saw God by the river Chebar. To which John says something like this: “I know, I know, I know. But no matter what dreams, visions, revelations, epiphanies, theophanies, christophanies people had in the past, compared to the revelation of God that we now have in Jesus Christ, no one has ever seen God!” John stands his ground on this point.

Moses says God told him to kill the Sabbath-breaker.

Jesus says (in the context of killing Sabbath breakers) that he only does what he sees his Father doing, and that “the Father raises the dead and gives them life.” (John 5:19–21) According to Jesus, his Father doesn’t kill, his Father gives life.

Do you feel the tension? I’m not inventing this tension. It’s right there in the Biblical text! It was right there in my Bible reading this morning! I just happened to read Numbers 15 and John 5 back-to-back. It’s actually an excellent exercise.

In Numbers a guy is stoned to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath.

In John Jesus heals a guy and tells him to carry his bed on the Sabbath.

Those most committed to Torah wanted to kill Jesus.

Just like Moses killed the Sabbath-breaker.

Do you see the problem? Of course you do!

Except it doesn’t have to be a problem. It shouldn’t be a problem. It’s only a problem if you confuse Biblicism with Christianity. The Bible is not the full revelation of God. Jesus is! This is what John means when he dares to say that no one has seen God. It’s Jesus who reveals God. Jesus makes a clear distinction between Biblicism and what we will come to call Christianity, when he says…

“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you will not come to me that you may have life.” (John 5:39–40)

Jesus trumps Biblicism.

So if we’re going to talk about what stance Christians should take on the death penalty, we can’t just cite the Torah. The Torah endorses stoning Sabbath breakers. Jesus did not! The Torah endorses stoning adulterers. Jesus did not! Moses thought God wants us to kill Sabbath-breakers. Jesus said his Father gives life to the dead. The Torah came by Moses. Grace and truth came though Jesus Christ.

Jesus is the full revelation of the Father.
Jesus is what God has to say.
Jesus is God’s Truth.

Does this mean we pitch the Old Testament? Does this mean I’m a Marcionite? (Google it.) Of course not! God forbid! No way, José! The Hebrew Scriptures are inspired. They are the inspired telling of Israel coming to know the living God…but the story doesn’t stop until we get to Jesus! I read the Old Testament devotionally every day. (That’s what I was doing this morning.) I pray the Psalms every day. I receive the Hebrew Scriptures as the Bible of Jesus. But I follow Jesus! I don’t have to pretend that Jesus endorsed every depiction of God found in the Old Testament. Because Jesus did not!

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you…”

Something new!

If we could ask Jesus if he thinks God told Moses to kill people who pick up sticks on the Sabbath, I think Jesus would say something like this: “I only do what I see my Father doing. My Father gives life to the dead.”

Jesus trumps Biblicism.

And I’m glad!

Don’t Quote Jesus’ Words About Hell — He Doesn’t Believe in It ///Mick Mooney

I think it’s safe to say that the vast majority of Christians believe we are saved by belief in Jesus, and rejecting that belief in Jesus inevitably leads to separation from God, “outside in the darkness, with gnashing of teeth,” as Jesus often put it.

But there is something really significant about every time Jesus talked about this kind of graphic picture of separation, this darkness and gnashing of teeth, or the separating of goats and sheep: it was always about a lack of works, not a lack of faith. When Jesus talked about separation, he was talking in regards to the works of man, and it was those who failed this test of works in his stories that were not included into the Kingdom of Heaven. In these examples, time after time, Jesus did not talk about one’s lack of faith, but a lack of one’s own good works.

Now, we know this is not the gospel, right? We know the gospel is about belief. We know our works are not what get us in or out of heaven, right?

Well, perhaps someone should explain that to Jesus? Or, perhaps, we are the ones who misunderstand Jesus’ reasons for giving those examples? What do you think: is Jesus mistaken, or are we? I’d put my money on Jesus being right.

So, then, why does Jesus give so many examples with these graphic examples about a torturous kind of endless separation?

Firstly, to see things in context we should ask who he is giving these examples to? Take a look, and we find it is always to the Pharisees, and never to the Sadducees. This is really significant. Why? Because the Sadducees didn’t believe in an afterlife of heaven or hell, but the Pharisees did.

Now, you would think if Jesus was trying to teach the reality about the afterlife, he would be preaching it to those who rejected the idea, wouldn’t he? But he doesn’t do that. Instead, he preaches a scary afterlife to the group who devoutly believed in it. That is, they believed it was for everyone else, not them; because they were believers they were confident that they were safe, while eternal separation was the fate for all those pesky unbelievers.

So what did Jesus do? He preached a message they themselves preached, a painful, dark separation, but instead of putting unbelievers in there, in his message, the Pharisees were the ones who ended up in there. Oh, they didn’t like that! And I imagine modern day Pharisees wouldn’t like it much, either.

Perhaps that was the point Jesus was aiming for? Perhaps his intention was not to preach a correct theology, but to get the Pharisees to question their own wrong theology? Because it is easy to hold a brutal end times theology that relates to other people, but when it suddenly includes you in the receiving end, it just might be a wake up call to rethink that theology?

When Jesus shared his parable of the prodigal son there was no bad ending, no separation, no gnashing of the teeth; rather, there was an abundance of grace, forgiveness and redemption. It is here we see Jesus presenting a graphic picture within his parable that aligns with our true belief regarding the gospel of grace.

What gospel do we believe in? A gospel of works, or a gospel of grace? Do we get into heaven because of what we do, or because of what Christ did on our behalf?

What we believe about the gospel should align with how we interpret the parables, stories, and the rebukes to the Pharisees that Jesus spoke. If we believe we are saved by grace, none of us can squeeze those words of separation and gnashing of teeth Jesus spoke of into a theology that relates to unbelievers. That’s not being honest to scripture or Jesus’ original intentions for sharing those examples.

So what was Jesus’ original intention of all those eternal separation and gnashing of teeth examples?

I think it was to give the Pharisees a taste of their own bad theology. To offend them so much that they might actually take the time to think about just how opposite to God’s loving nature such a theology is. Perhaps he wanted them to come to realize their God was far more graceful and embracing towards all mankind than any of them believed? Maybe, just maybe, the graceful ending of the prodigal son parable is the real end times theology he wanted them to come to believe in?