CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT

A. What is the NT?

The NT is many things and can be looked at from various vantage points.
It is a collection of writings of different types (genres) which were composed between
approximately 50-100 CE (common era) and were not necessarily written with the
intention of becoming sacred, "canonical" writings.

The major types of writings now in the NT are:

(1) historical narratives, intended to encourage, convince, and inform: the four
Gospels and Acts (Matthew, Mark, Luke-Acts, John);

(2) letters and essays associated with various "apostles":

Paul's letters (Romans, 1& 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians,
Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon)
The General letters (or "catholic epistles": Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter,
1-3 John, Jude);

(3) a visionary, "apocalyptic" writing (Revelation).

As a collection and as a designation, the NT dates to approximately 200-350 CE, during
which time the collection came to its present form and came to be known as the "New
Covenant." While the earliest believers had only the Hebrew Bible in Greek translation
as their "Scripture" (e.g. 1 Tim 4:11-16; 1 Cor. 14:26-27; Col 3:15-17), the story of Jesus
and the writings of the apostles were used alongside those writings for preaching,
teaching, and worship. Only after around 100 years (see below) did these newer
writings achieve a sacred status (titled as the "New Covenant", from Jer. 31:31; 2 Cor.
3:6) equal to the earlier writings (which then became known as the "Old Covenant").
The English words "New Testament" derive from "novum testamentum," an inadequate
Latin translation of "new covenant."
It is part 2 of the Christian Scriptures, the Bible, the Christian "canon." Canon is
from a Greek word (kanon) which means "ruler" and thus "standard." It refers both to
the collection of biblical writings and their authoritative status. For Christians, along
with the OT it is the authoritative guide for reflection (theology) and action (ethics).

(a) Thus the NT has a special relationship to the church, the community which
claims the Bible as constituting and witnessing to revelation from God. The Bible--
including the New Testament--is the church's book.

(b) The NT also has a special relationship to the "Old Testament" (sometimes
called the "First Testament" or simply the "Hebrew Scriptures/Bible"). From the points
of view of both historical analysis and the Christian faith, it is impossible to understand
the NT apart from the OT. For Christians, the NT is both a new story (to be understood
from the perspective of the earlier story) and in turn a framework for interpreting the
earlier story. That is, we understand Jesus via the OT, and understand the OT via Jesus.

Not only a collection of diverse writings, the NT also tells the story of faith; it
consists of "foundation documents" for the story of the revelation of God into human
history in the person of Jesus and in the experience of the church. If the OT constitutes
a kind of "preparation," the NT constitutes the "climax" of the biblical story, not the final
fulfillment, since the story of God's revelation and the presence of the Spirit is ongoing
and left open-ended in the NT. From the perspective of Christian faith, the story has not
yet reached its intended conclusion--the full and final realization of God's reign.

B. Why and How the New Testament emerged.

The NT as a collection emerged to give identity and shape to an increasingly

diverse Christian movement--to provide authoritative boundaries for the articulation of
faith and proper perspectives on the story of Jesus, the apostles, and the scriptures (in
the context of diverse interpretations of Jesus and the scriptures and of numerous
writings claiming to be apostolic). The New Testament emerged to meet the needs of
believing communities. In this sense especially, the New Testament is the church's
book.
One can identify the following stages in this development:

(1) The founding events and "signs" of revelation, the ministry of Jesus (27-30
CE) and then the apostles ("emissaries").

(2) The handing down of traditions about Jesus and the apostles, both oral
traditions--in the form of stories, sayings, songs, confessions--and later written sources
and records.
It should be observed that the oral traditions of Jesus stories persisted long after
the Gospels were written; around 150 CE Christians still knew of many oral stories not in
the four Gospels.

(3) The composition (and "press run"--publishing) of the writing of the books
now in the NT.
Paul's letters 50-56
Gospels and Acts 65-90
Remainder 60-110

In the case of some writings (Paul's letters) probably only one original copy was
made; in other cases, extra copies were published at the time of the original
composition (maybe 5-10 for Mark and Matthew, maybe 30-50 for Luke-Acts); and some
writings developed in stages (Gospel of John); it should also be noted that some
apostolic writings were lost, perhaps many of those by Paul (see e.g. 1 Cor 5:9; 2 Cor 2:4,
9; 7:8; Col 4:16); the writings of Matthew, Luke, Acts, and John represent about the
standard length of a papyrus roll, the most likely original form of these writings.

(4) The use, copying, exchanging, and sharing of these writings by various
churches.
Already at an early stage, some writings were exchanged among various
churches (Col. 4), for use in instruction. This process must have taken place informally
for many years, as churches became aware of writings in the possession of other
churches, but before they came to be treated as sacred scripture.

(5) the informal and then more formal collection, selection, and editing of these
writings.
Paul's letters 80-120
Gospels 120-150

A single papyrus "codex" ("book") would not have been able to contain more
than one of these collections. Only at a much later time (300's) did Christians start
publishing NT writings in a single book, when they began to use vellum (animal skin)
codices--a more expensive form.

(6) The formal "canonization" of the writings, the process by which the collection
became Scripture, the norm for Christian faith and life.
A core collection (Gospels, Acts, Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John) recognized as "New
Covenant" alongside the "Old Covenant":
150-200 -- debates regarding the inclusion or exclusion of the other writings:
200's and 300's--final ratification (in the west, later the Syrian church agrees) of
the complete collection of the New Testament in the form that has come down to us:
late 300's (Athanasius' pastoral letter, 367; Council of Carthage, 397)

The final stages of this process of "canonization" were complicated and at times
involved power politics among church leaders. The lists claimed by various regions
differed--some lists included other writings than are now in the NT (e.g. Clement,
Shepherd of Hermas, Gospel of Thomas), and other lists excluded writings now in the NT
(e.g. Hebrews, Revelation). Indeed, some have suggested that the making of the NT
collection involved various compromises, and the inclusion of four different Gospels has
been called the first ecumenical compromise. At minimum, the process as a whole
makes it clear that the New Testament, and the Christian Bible as a whole, is the
church's book. The New Testament is the product of the church, which existed prior to
the writings themselves and the collection. Yet, the church has chosen to puts its life
under the guidance of these writings. The NT was not plopped down on golden tablets
with a special language dictated through mere human mouthpieces. On the contrary,
the language of the New Testament is the vernacular (everyday dialect) of the common
people of the Greco-Roman world, written by human authors giving witness to the
gospel (Gk euangelion, "good news proclamation") of God's revelation in Jesus the
Messiah.
Thus while most Christians accept the Bible as the Word of God, more precisely
as the witness to God's revelation, they also recognize that the Bible is a product of
human words and intentions. The UCCP Statement of Faith from 1986 includes this
affirmation: "We believe in the Holy Bible as a faithful witness of God's self-revelation in
the history of God's people, God's inspired instrument to illumine, guide, correct and
edify the people for their faith and witness."

C. How do we get our Bibles: the transmission, textual criticism, and modern
translations of the Bible.

After the "canonization" of the NT, there was still a long process of transmitting
the text of the NT through the ages--the hand copying and recopying of manuscripts.
The process of making books in the ancient world was very painstaking. There were two
main methods: (a) the one-to- one copying of a new manuscript from a single original;
(b) the multiple copying of manuscripts by scribes listening to dictation from a single
original. It goes without saying that these procedures were not perfect--in fact, by now
no two biblical manuscripts are exactly alike in all details. Unintentional errors (from
faulty eyesight, listening, or understanding) entered into manuscripts, as did intentional
changes by scribes who hoped to improve on the grammar or content of the
manuscripts. Once NT writings achieved "canonical" status, much greater care was
made to ensure that copying was done accurately. Thus, most newly copied
manuscripts were carefully checked by correctors, but not all errors were found. Some
surviving manuscripts show handwriting of four different correctors, who left
corrections in the margins of manuscripts. Other scribes sometimes added comments,
explanations, or additions in the margins. At a later time, then, when that manuscript
was in turn the basis for another copy, when it became old and flimsy, scribes often
simply included all marginal comments into the new manuscript, even though not all
words in the margins were from the original.

With the advent of the printing press in the late 1400's, the text of the NT
became more standardized. Unfortunately, the manuscripts which were used at first
were not the most reliable. This standardized text became known as the "received
text," and was the basis for English translations such as the King James Version; verse
divisions were added in the mid-1500's.

Over time, as more manuscripts were discovered and consulted, it was found
that these earliest printed editions were based on less reliable manuscripts. Thus
emerged the discipline of "textual criticism," the science of collecting, comparing, and
evaluating manuscripts with the goal of reconstructing the original form of the writings.
It is only in the last 300 years, beginning around 1700, that this discipline has prospered,
during which time scholars were in search of lost and old manuscripts. By now, more
than 5,000 manuscripts of the NT or a part of it have been found and analyzed! Some
translations of the Bible--such as the King James Version (1611), still venerated by some
conservative Christian groups--were completed before the fruits of textual criticism
were available, and are dependent on what scholars call "corrupt manuscripts."
Modern scholars, however, are quite confident that the biblical text that has been
reconstructed through the efforts of textual criticism is very close to the original
writings, often called the "autographs," even though the earliest manuscripts of the
entire NT date to the fourth century and manuscripts of smaller portions date to the late
second and third centuries. Modern translations, like the RSV (1952), NRSV (1989), NIV
(1978), TEV (1976), JB (1966), and NAB (1970), are based on this reconstructed NT text.
It is a central idea in the history of Christianity that the message of the Bible is
translatable into any language and culture. In the history of Christianity, periods of
translation occurred in three main stages. The first stage of translation was during the
period of early Christian expansion, from the second to the sixth century, when the NT
was translated into Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Arabic, and other languages. The second stage
occurred around the time of the Reformation, from the fifteenth to sixteenth centuries,
when reformers sought to translate the NT into the common languages of the people,
since the sacred text of the Roman Catholic church--the Latin Vulgate--was no longer
understandable to the masses. Finally, the third stage corresponds to the modern
missionary movement of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, when the Bible was
translated (and still is) into languages throughout the world, following the paths of
missionaries.

Most Christians do not read the Bible in its original languages--Hebrew, Aramaic,
and Greek. We rely on translations. It is important also, therefore, to know something
abut the limits and science of translation. Suffice it to say at this point that all
translations are interpretations and that most reflect a certain theological perspective.
And there is also "something always lost in translation." Most translations are
completed by committees, others by individuals (TEV). Some provide fairly literal, word-
for-word correspondences between the original language and the receptor language
(NASB, RSV), others attempt to translate the message with "dynamic equivalences"
appropriate to the culture of the receptor language (TEV); in between on a continuum
beginning with the more literal translations are NAB, NRSV, NIV, JB, NEB. Some
translations are undertaken directly from the original languages, while other
translations (e.g. Cebuano) are largely dependent on other translations (English). What
this means is that some readers are, in a sense, numerous steps away from the language
of Jesus: he spoke in Aramaic, his words are recorded in a Greek translation in the NT,
which are in turn translated into other modern languages, and even secondarily into
others. While one should be aware of this, one should not therefore think that
translations such as the Cebuano translation are worthless and misleading. Finally, a
"paraphrase" is a re-writing of the Bible from an existing translation completely in the
idiom of a modern language and is usually very "free"--examples are the Living Bible (by
Ken Taylor), and the Message (Eugene Peterson). These should always be compared to
a more literal translation.

When reading a good modern translation (different ones are also called
"versions"),a reader will usually find two kinds of footnotes to the translation (which are
distinct from the mini- commentaries found in some "Study Bibles"). One type provides
information about the "text" based on the study of textual criticism, and usually has the
following form: "other ancient authorities [or, manuscripts]" have such and such
different word, technically called "variant readings." As examples, students might
consult the footnotes for the following passages: Mk 5:1; 16:9-20; Jn. 5:3; 1 Jn. 5:7-8; Lk
22:43-44; 1 Cor. 14:34-35; Jn. 7:53-8:11. A second type of footnote gives information
about the "translation"--either providing alternative ways to translate the Greek words
(based on the science of "lexicography," the study of the meaning of words), or
providing the literal sense of a Greek word when a "dynamic equivalent" meaning
appropriate to a modern culture is used in the translation.

D. Contexts, Aims, and Methods in the study of the NT.

The NT might be read or studied in a variety of ways, not all of which assume the
vantage point of Christian faith. For instance, one might read the Bible for the sake of
pleasure, personal interest or enrichment. One might study the Bible for purely
academic reasons, for instance for the sake of mere historical interest and analysis, in
which case it is often expected that one ought to shed any sort of faith bias as a
framework for reading and study. Others prefer approaching the Bible, including the
NT, in literary terms, studying the Bible "as literature," in terms of its inherent literary
value, or "as a literary classic," in terms of its impact on western literature.

In a theological context, one reads the New Testament from a self-consciously

Christian point of view, placing one's faith commitment at centre stage, without
thereby, however, throwing away careful scrutiny and critical analysis of evidence. One
might even benefit from historical and literary interpretations which are not presented
from an overtly faith-affirming point of view. It must also be recognized, however, that
even from a faith-perspective, one might read or study the New Testament for a variety
of purposes. One can read--as an individual or as a group--for the purposes of devotion
and meditation; the New Testament might also be used in the context of catechesis
(teaching new believers about the faith), homiletics (preaching), counseling, liturgy
(public reading), and disciplined theological study. These uses are not mutually
exclusive, although many uses assume a different sort of interpretative posture in
relation to the text and all require sensitivity in applying the meaning of the text for
today. While at seminary one's reading and study of the New Testament becomes more
disciplined and formal, it is important that the immediate and informal modes (e.g.
"devotional" mode) of appreciating the Bible are not lost.

An often neglected factor in the interpretation of the Bible has been the
recognition and evaluation of the role of the interpreters--their biases and
presuppositions, especially their social location and commitments. Most dangerous are
those interpreters who claim to be without bias, who claim to interpret on a purely
objective basis. In contrast, a more appropriate approach is to become aware of and to
acknowledge one's own biases at the start. Failure to recognize this issue can result in
"interpretive captivity," in which case we see what we expect to see, finding what we
want to find, with the result that the Bible finally loses its power. As one theologian has
put it, the goal of interpretation is not to find a "bias-free" vantage point, but to seek to
makes one's own bias come as close to that of Scriptures as possible (R. McAfee Brown,
Theology in a New Key, p. 84). This and many other issues pertaining to interpretation
will arise as one delves into the business of studying the New Testament.

Biblical Criticism. In the course of the last few hundred years, scholars have
developed various specific methods of Bible study, often called various "criticisms." In
this usage, "criticism" refers simply to "analysis" or "research" and does not imply anti-
biblical perspectives. Thus "source criticism," for instance, refers to the analysis or
research into the sources of biblical writings. We will mention a few of the "criticisms"
below.
Four Approaches to Biblical Study. As indicated above, at seminary one's study
of the Bible becomes more disciplined, analytical, and formal. In this context, one learns
to distinguish, but also to interrelate four approaches to the study and interpretation of
the Bible. They are:

(1) The Textual-Literary Approach: What do the texts say and how do they say
it?
(2) The Historical-Sociological Approach: (a) What events and people lie behind
and around the texts? (b) How do the accounts of the texts correspond to what actually
happened?
(3) The Theological-Confessional Approach: What do the writers claim or
assume about matters of faith and practice?

(4) The Contemporary Meaning Approach: What do the texts say to us today?
As indicated, these approaches can be pursued quite independently. Those who do not
claim Christian belief or commitment, for instance, might be quite interested in
approaches (1) and (2). Christian interpretation, however, ultimately moves toward
approaches (3) and (4), but ideally only on the foundation of (1) and (2).

(1) The Textual-Literary Approach. The most important questions that

interpreters raise in this approach are: (a) What is the original form of the text (textual
criticism)? What questions of translation and literal meaning are raised in a passage
(lexical-grammatical analysis)? Ability to deal with these questions requires knowledge
of the original biblical languages. Most seminarians will rely on the expertise of others
in these areas, although we are still able to compare various translations to get some
understanding of difficulties or differing interpretations regarding a specific passage. (b)
What is the literary type (also called "genre" or "form") of the passage or writing being
studied? This question is extremely important, because different types of writings
require different methods of interpretation. For instance, we must approach historical
narrative (Gospels, Acts), letter, poetry, or vision (Revelation) quite differently. Different
forms have their respective "life settings," respective purposes, and respective
techniques and methods. Thus, we categorize some writings as "prose" (a style of
written or oral composition that purports to be actual, factual, or literal, such as a
historical narrative, letters, drama, biography, autobiography, instructional material,
official records, sermon, laws, etc.) and others as "poetry" (a style of written or oral
composition which may use figurative, metaphorical, symbolic, fanciful, or
metrical/rhyming language, such as hymns, prophetic oracles [pronouncements in the
name of God], visions, and proverbial wisdom sayings). Scholars refer further to a wide
assortment of "forms" and "genres." Thus "narratives" can be subdivided, for instance,
into legend, novel, myth, or historical chronicle. Some types of writings (or passages)
are intended to be appreciated more literally (e.g., letters), others more symbolically
(poetry and vision, e.g. Revelation, written in a distinctive Jewish genre called
"apocalyptic"), and others both literally and symbolically (e.g., Gospels). Serious
mistakes in interpretation occur when the form of a writing--one of the most important
clues as to its intention--is not taken into account. (c) What is the literary structure (or
outline) of a writing or passage? What clues does this give the reader as to the meaning
of the passage or writing? (d) What specific literary methods does the author use--
repetition, irony, exaggeration, emphasis, etc.--and what clues does this give the reader
as to the author's theme and purpose. (e) In the case of historical narratives and
stories, we ask questions as to the plot (sequence of events told and its meaning),
characters and characterization (how an author develops or presents characters in a
story), settings (where in space and when in time), and themes (narrative criticism). (f)
What features of the art of persuasion (rhetoric) does the writing employ (rhetorical
criticism)?

(2) The Historical-Sociological Approach. In this approach, the following

questions are asked: (a) What events and people lie behind and around the texts? To
help us understand or reconstruct the background and context of the writings of the
Bible, a variety of academic disciplines are used--archaeology, history, geography,
sociology-anthropology, economics, and intellectual history. (b) By Whom (author), For
Whom (audience, recipients), When (date), Where (place), and Why (purpose) were the
documents written? What circumstances prompted the composition? What can we
infer about the community of the author or readers? (c) How do the accounts of the
texts correspond to what actually happened? How reliable are they historically? This
question is especially raised when we find two divergent accounts of what appears to be
a single event (e.g. in the Gospels), or when the accounts diverge from what might be
known otherwise (from non-biblical sources, archaeological or historical). (d) How did
the writing come to be? E.g., what evidence is there for sources and editing that lie
behind/underneath the composition of the writing? What sources, written or oral, did
an author use (source criticism)? Was there an oral stage of the composition and what
was its life setting (form criticism)? How were these written or oral sources edited, and
why--that is, what does this tell us about the author's social or theological intention
(composition, redaction criticism)?

All of these are important questions that help us contextualize and understand
the biblical writings. Unfortunately, in many cases there is simply not enough
information or evidence to draw complete or firm explanations in these areas. And in
those cases, our conclusions should be made tentatively, which scholars sometimes fail
to do, presenting their conclusions as "gospel truth."

(3) The Theological-Confessional Approach. This approach tries to explain the

theological and ethical perspectives of the biblical writers and writings, using findings
from approaches (1) and (2). While this approach often has the purpose of helping to
clarify Christian doctrine, it does not have to have that specific doctrinal goal to be
useful. It is important in this context to avoid using the Bible merely to proof-text or
confirm doctrines traditionally accepted; rather, the biblical message must first be
allowed to speak for itself, in its own words and categories (concepts).

(4) The Contemporary Meaning Approach. In this case the focus is on the
contemporary meaning of biblical texts, whether for an individual or for a community
(church). Approaches to finding the contemporary meaning of biblical texts are quite
varied. Theological interpretation fostered in seminary culminates in this approach,
although closely based on and related to the previous three approaches. Approaches
which overlook the previous approaches, focusing only on this one, are always in danger
of "short-circuiting" the meaning of biblical texts. Ideally, believers who try to discern
the contemporary meaning of biblical texts must (1) treat single texts within the context
of the entire biblical story and message, so as to avoid one-sided interpretations, (2)
engage the believing community in the interpretation, to avoid idiosyncratic
interpretations, and (3) take careful account of both the situation and context of the
text and the contemporary situation and context, to avoid simplistic and dangerous one-
to-one literalistic applications. Not only are biblical writings diverse, so are
contemporary situations; and both of these dimensions must be taken into account, to
avoid applying the message of one text to the wrong situation.

E. Overview of the NT story

The NT is not just a disparate set of writings. Together the entire collection tells
a single story (unity) in many voices (diversity). It is important to the Christian faith that
the Bible is cast, more or less, in story form; the Bible is not about the unfolding of an
idea. To put it another way, the point of the Bible is not to create "doctrine" (ideas
about God, Jesus, and salvation in the abstract) to which one must then intellectually
assent ("believe"). Rather the point of the Bible is to remember and to re-enliven a
"story" and to invite people to enter into the story and to let the biblical story become
their story (through committed faith and discipleship). As we noted earlier, the biblical
story is left open-ended at the close of the NT. From the perspective of Christian faith,
the story is continuing and has not yet reached its intended conclusion--the full and final
realization of God's reign.

In connection with the whole biblical story, one might approach the story
character of the New Testament from several perspectives: (1) the meta-story, the
overall divine drama of God, humanity, and creation; (2) the critical account of modern
historical reconstruction; or (3) the surface, confessional story expressed or implied by
the NT itself (see further the appendix, "The Biblical Story.") The modern distinction
between (2) and (3) is a topic that we will explore later in the course.

The meta-story. The overall meta-story of the Bible, of which the NT is part, has
the following chief cast of characters: God the protagonist, humanity (not just the
people of God, but also the entire world of humanity), creation, and the mystery of evil
("Satan"). Creation is not only a "character" (it too gives praise to God and is the object
of redemption), but the primary setting. According to biblical imagery, the drama occurs
on two levels--heavenly and earthly--and reaches toward the time when heaven and
earth merge in a concluding act of re-creation. The overall plot is one of conflict and its
resolution: its major stages are: (1) creation, (2) bondage and evil ("fall"), (3) integral
(wholistic) liberation-deliverance ("salvation"), and (4) re-creation ("consummation").
Seen in this light, it is useful to think about how the resolution (deliverance) comes--
does the Bible tell an epic drama in the way of other epics, founded on the "myth of
redemptive violence," or is there something distinctly different about how redemption
is realized (in comparison to other epic stories)?

In continuity with the OT story, the NT story is also set in space and time, world
history. In relation to the OT, however, the story of the NT is rather brief, occurring in
the space of only one century. The NT story has two foci: (1) that of Jesus, the
proclaimer; and (2) that of the church, in which Jesus is the proclaimed. These two foci
more or less correlate with the two main contexts of the story: from Jewish Palestine to
the Greco-Roman world.

The story is one of unusual growth, expansion and impact. From puny
beginnings in a backward province on the fringe of one of two competing superpowers
(Rome to the west; Parthia to the east), the movement has an impact in the corridors of
superpower politics (Roman empire) within a mere generation.
 Part I: Jesus. The story begins with Jesus, from a family of refugees, now
residing in Nazareth, a village hamlet so insignificant that it is not mentioned in any
writing prior to the Christian movement. Jesus' ministry is centered on the villages and
towns of Galilee, focusing on the rural peasantry ("sheep without a shepherd") and
religious and social outcasts ("tax collectors and sinners"); the Gospels preserve no
record of Jesus setting foot in the two Greek-style "cities" of Galilee. The basic images
with which Jesus meets the reader is as: healer, preacher and teacher, prophet and
visionary, activist, servant, and martyr. Jesus enters a world of turmoil and crisis--
political, social, and spiritual. Palestine is under foreign, military domination;
nationalist, resistance movements spring up; there is rampant poverty and hunger,
widespread indebtedness; there is spiritual uncertainty as to what God's will for the
present time is; there is internal violence in Palestine between the wealthy elite and
insurgent groups. In this context Jesus enters the scene, preaching the reign (kingdom)
of God: change your ways, the reign of God is dawning in your midst. Just before
Passover, Jesus proceeds to confront the social and religious establishment in a
prophetic act ("cleansing the temple") that costs him his life on a Roman cross (probably
April 7, 30 CE), the method and symbol of Roman imperial terror.

Part II: The Jesus movement, the church. Jesus' followers, understandably
bewildered and demoralized, are re-ignited by their experience of Jesus as once again
alive and by the empowering presence of the Spirit. Within a generation, small cells of
adherents who are committed to the way of Jesus have sprung up throughout the cities
of the Greco-Roman world and beyond. Our sources, primarily Acts, tell us only of the
march of the faith west to Rome; we know nothing about the expansion south to Egypt
and east to Syria and beyond, except that this also occurred at a very early time. These
communities proclaim Jesus as Messiah (especially meaningful for Jews) and as Lord,
Son of God and Savior (meaningful especially for Greeks). The application of these latter
titles is politically dangerous because the Roman emperors ("Caesars") also claim
allegiance of their subjects by means of these very titles. By the mid-60's this
movement has caught the attention of the social and political elite of Rome; the Caesar
Nero scapegoats these "Christians" for the social and political problems he is facing;
they are charged with the crime of "hatred of humanity." From this time on,
persecution and harassment erupts sporadically. Thus from a renewal movement
among Jews (as a reforming faction) we move toward a multi-ethnic, multi- national,
and multi-racial community, both in local areas and in broader scope. This transition is
not without its tensions. The movement goes by various names: believers, disciples,
the way, ekklesia, Christians. By approximately 80-100 this movement is perceived
externally and internally as a religion distinct from Judaism.

How were these developments perceived by others? Often with suspicion and
hostility. Two examples suffice, representing the two main contexts to the story. (1) A
Jew in Palestine or the Diaspora is rather conscious of the Jewish people as a distinctive
people expressed by observance of God's Torah given through Moses; for such a person,
there might be only be two categories of peoples--Jews and Gentiles ("nations"). This
person thus might perceive these developments, especially the welcoming of Gentiles
without requiring them to the full observance of Moses, as undermining the traditional
faith and so might resist them strongly.

(2) A wealthy Roman landowner, who also sees the world in terms of two
categories-- educated and barbarians, Romans and subject peoples--might also resist
the coming of the Christian movement. He might perceive this movement as just
another foreign, eastern religion which would threaten the traditional political, social,
and patriarchal order valued by the Roman elite. Why? Because, among other things,
the Christian community is attractive especially--though not exclusively (there are a
number of wealthy adherents) --to slaves, women, and others of questionable social
status.
Why these two examples? Because (1) the NT era closes with a painful divorce
with Judaism (ca. 80-100) and (2) the NT sets Christianity on a collision course with the
Roman empire.

(1) At first the earliest followers of Jesus are part of a diverse Jewish faith and
community; they perceive Jesus as the fulfillment, not the end of hopes for Israel. For
the earliest period, in fact, speaking of "Christians" is anachronistic; one should rather
speak of "Jesus-believing" or "Jesus-confessing Jews." Nevertheless, especially in the
wake of the cataclysmic destruction of Jerusalem in 70 and the subsequent
reorganization of Judaism by the Pharisees (rabbinic Judaism), the church becomes
increasingly Gentile in composition and Jesus-believing Jews are denounced as heretics
and expelled from synagogues. A crucial theological problem then emerges: where is
the continuity between old and new, the old people of God in the OT and the new
people of God, the church? Moreover, the Gentile church was susceptible to pervasive
Roman anti-Semitism and a hundred years later, the surviving Jewish-Christians were
expelled from the church by the Gentile-background majority as "heretics." While some
believers--Paul for instance (Rom 11) -- saw these developments on the horizon and
sought to prevent them, others at a later time were quite happy to disinherit the Jews
from their own scriptures.

(2) The character of the Christian community, its lifestyle, and especially its
refusal to grant the Roman Caesars their claim to absolute allegiance all combined to
put the church on a collision course with the Roman elite, including the imperial
government. During the time of Emperor Domitian (81-96) war is waged against the
church (Rev 13) --Christians are seen as a threat to the social order of the empire. And
in the second and third centuries, the story of persecution reaches new levels.
Nevertheless, in the year 313 the Emperor Constantine declares Christianity a legal and
official religion of the empire (Edict of Milan). The question is: who really won? For
many observers, the church lost. (a) Christianity was domesticated (made safe) by
Rome, and thereafter we have the marriage (or "unholy alliance") of church and state.
The cross becomes with Constantine a symbol of military victory and political power,
and the church is no longer an alternative, prophetic community. (b) But already in the
middle of the second century, Christianity was domesticated by Roman men and the
patriarchal order. While women were earlier included among the ranks of apostles,
leaders, and ministers, by the middle of the second century Christian women are largely
excluded from leadership and written out of the official history of the church.

F. Main features of the new people of God, the church.

About a hundred years ago a famous biblical scholar coined this dictum: "Jesus
preached the kingdom, but what came was the church." Theologians have long
attempted to define the precise relationship between the church and the kingdom. For
now, perhaps it will suffice to suggest that the church is the beachhead or vanguard of
God's reign, or alternatively as both sign and agent of God's reign. In this way, church
and kingdom are not equated, but a strong continuity is proposed.

The UCCP Statement of Faith (1986) has the following affirmations:

"We believe in the Church, the one Body of Christ, the community of those
reconciled to God through Jesus Christ and entrusted with his ministry."
 "We believe God is working to made each person a new being in Christ and the
whole world God's kingdom. The Reign of God is present where faith in Jesus is shared,
where healing is given to the sick, where food is given to the hungry, where light is given
to the blind, where liberty is given to the captive and oppressed, where love, justice and
peace prevail."

What is crucial is that the NT story is about the story of the emergence of a new
people, which both "signs" and "works to establish" God's reign. God's act in Jesus is
about the creation of a renewed people of God; it is not the story of God and the
individual. In fact, Jesus called an inner circle of twelve to symbolically illustrate the
renewing of a people. Even the notion of resurrection, which has usually been
interpreted individualistically throughout church history, is a communal notion--
resurrection in scripture is always the resurrection of a people, not the individual ascent
to heaven, not the individual immortality of the private soul.

The primary term in the NT for this renewed people is "ekklesia," which has
come down to us through the translation "church," which unfortunately is closely tied to
the idea of a distinctive building. The Greek term "ekklesia," however, is a much more
potent term--it literally signifies "that group which has been called out" and is most
commonly used in Greek contexts to describe the "called out political assembly" of a
city's citizens.

What are some of the marks of this new people, or "civic assembly," in the NT?

It is a community of the Spirit. One of its chief marks is the experience of the
outpouring of the Spirit of God in renewal and power. Jews in fact anticipated the
Kingdom of God as the age of the Spirit. Accordingly, the early church is not initially
institutionalized, but charismatic, spontaneous, flexible, and empowered.

It is an inclusive and diverse community. All peoples, regardless of race,

ethnicity, social status, nationality, are welcomed into one family of faith (e.g. Gal 3:26-
28; Rev 5:9-10). It is a people that affirms all cultures and yet is incarnated in a specific
culture. Naturally, this creates practical tensions which have to be addressed from time
to time (e.g. Acts 6; 15; John 17; Eph 2).

It is a community of worship. It is a community which acclaims Jesus as Messiah

and Lord in worship, but which also sees all of life as one of worship (Rom 12).
Community life is marked by regular gatherings and celebrations, especially in house
church contexts. At the heart of these gatherings is a festive meal, a symbolic ritual of
partnership and solidarity, of the ending of old boundaries, of unity, and of the very
presence of Jesus.

It is a community of character, a "holy" community. The biblical term "holy"

signifies being "set apart" for a special function and purpose. The community perceives
itself as a distinctive community, posing an alternative to prevailing social norms--it is a
"new humanity," a new society under God, perhaps even a counter culture (even as it is
incarnated in and affirms diverse cultures). In this sense, too, it is a "called out"
community.

It is a serving, sharing, and inviting community. The new people of God is a

community in mission, in service to the world, sharing and proclaiming and promoting
God's gift of renewal of all things. The community is not withdrawn or isolated, creating
walls and boundaries, but marked by solidarity with the poor and all creation.
APPENDIX: THE ENTIRE BIBLICAL STORY

Introduction

Although the Bible consists of two Testaments (=covenants), it contains, for

Christians, one coherent story. This is the story of our faith, the story that gave rise to
the Church, the story that continues to define and shape our identity as Christians, and
the story that impels us into service toward all of creation.

There are many ways to tell the biblical story and many levels of the biblical
story. One could focus on the "meta-story," that is the overall divine drama of God and
creation. Its primary characters are God, humanity, and creation; and its basic episodes
are: creation, bondage ("fall"), liberation ("deliverance, salvation"), and re-creation
("consummation"). Others have an interest only in the critical history of historical
reconstruction. On the other hand is the surface drama, Israel and the Church's own
confessional story (with its various biases), which will be outlined below. The following
summary is intended to provide you will a framework for the entire story and for further
study of selected sections and themes from the Bible.
Old Testament

The story begins with God, who created the world and everything in it through
the word. Human beings (Adam and Eve, male and female) receive a special place in
God's creation as God's administrators and co-regents. The human attempts to be like
God initiated the story of sin and judgment (expulsion from the Garden, Cain and Abel,
The Flood, the Tower of Babel). Nevertheless, God also showed mercy in preserving
God's creation.

God chose Abraham and Sarah and their descendants as instruments of salvation
and blessing for the world. God called them to leave behind all human securities and to
set out trusting in God alone. God would multiply their descendants and give them a
homeland (Canaan); circumcision became a physical mark of the covenant between God
and this people. After several generations (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) of wandering in
Canaan as strangers, Abraham's descendants- -now called "Israel"--were driven to Egypt
as refugees by famine (Joseph story).

In Egypt, they became a numerous people, as God had promised, but they were
eventually oppressed as building slaves of the Pharaoh. In response to their oppression,
God called Moses and used him as an instrument to confront Pharaoh with signs and
wonders (Plagues), to liberate the people out of bondage in Egypt (Crossing the Sea;
Exodus="way out"), and to lead them through the wilderness. In this act of liberation,
God was revealed to Israel by the name of Yahweh; and this event was commemorated
in the most important festival, Passover and Unleavened Bread.

In the wilderness, God provided for Israel in wonderful ways, but also punished
them when they were unfaithful. At Mount Sinai (Horeb), God appeared to Israel in an
awe-inspiring theophany, gave them the Torah (Law, Ten Commandments), and entered
into a covenant relationship with the people (commemorated in the feast of Pentecost,
Shavuoth). This covenant was to guide Israel towards a new life under God, particularly
enshrining protection for the weaker in society, in the new land God would give to them
(Promised Land). Israel proved unfaithful immediately (Golden Calf), but God provided
for a covenant renewal. After further wilderness wanderings, Israel encamped on the
plains of Moab, by the Jordan. Here Moses made a last passionate appeal to the people
to keep the covenant (Deuteronomy) before he died. Later, Israel would remember this
time both as a time of trial and as a time of special relationship with God (feast of
Booths, Succoth).

The conquest and settlement of Canaan was led by Joshua; though some
Canaanite enclaves remained, among them Jerusalem (Jebus). Israel's success was not
due to their strength, but to God's help in giving them the land promised to Abraham.
The land was understood as owned by God, on loan to the people as a gift, not to be
compromised or abused. For some two centuries, the twelve tribes of Israel lived in a
loose tribal league held together by a common faith, social structure and history. At
various times their unfaithfulness was punished by God through enemy attacks. When
Israel repented, God sent them a "judge," a spirit-filled (charismatic) leader, who
defeated the enemy (Deborah, Gideon).

In the context of political uncertainty internally and externally (especially the

mounting pressures from the Philistines), the people asked Samuel, the last judge, to
give them a king, like the other nations. Seen as a defeat for earlier ideals, Samuel
complied reluctantly, anointing Saul as king. Thus begins the Israelite monarchy. Saul
soon acted independently of God, however, so that Samuel--now as a prophet--brought
a message from God rejecting Saul. Instead, David was anointed king. His life was
marked by great gifts (e.g. Psalms attributed to him), but also by major sins (David and
Bathsheba).

A major feat of David was to conquer Jerusalem (Jebus), the last Canaanite
stronghold. With that, the land promised to Abraham was fulfilled. God, however,
through the prophet Nathan, extended a new promise to David: God would give him a
son to succeed him (an Anointed=Messiah) and would establish his kingdom for all time.
This is the beginning of the messianic expectation--hopes for the perfect
regent/liberator. David's successor, Solomon, was renowned for his wisdom and his
building projects, including the Temple. His reign was marked by peace and economic
prosperity, but also be heavy taxation and forced labour. With the monarchy begins a
restructuring of the earlier tribal-based egalitarian social structure.

After Solomon's death, the people met at Shechem to protest royal oppression.
When his son, Rehoboam, refused to yield, the ten northern tribes, under the leadership
of Jeroboam I, established a separate kingdom, called Israel (a coup d'etat). Rehoboam
retained a reduced Southern kingdom, Judah. For two centuries, these two kingdoms
existed side by side, sometimes fighting, sometimes allied to each other.

Jeroboam I established rival worship centers at Bethel and Dan (the story is told
from the southern, Jerusalem perspective). The northern kingdom was also plagued by
unstable government, violent coups, social-economic injustice, and a tendency to drift
into Baalism, the nature religion of the Canaanites. The fight for covenant loyalty to the
God of Israel was led by the prophets Elijah and Elisha, and a century later, Amos and
Hosea. Covenant breaking persisted, however. As a result, God took away the land, the
tangible sign of the covenant relationship, through the Assyrian Empire. Its army
besieged and captured Israel's capital, Samaria, led many Israelites into exile, and
incorporated territory into the Assyrian Empire.

The kingdom of Judah was governed by the Davidic dynasty for over four
centuries. Like Israel, it experienced strong trends towards covenant unfaithfulness in
form of politics heedless of God, idolatry, and the oppression of the poor by a newly
emerging upper class. As in Israel, a line of prophets kept bringing God's pleas for
faithfulness. Sometimes king and people responded. Josiah's reformation stands out.
Eventually, however, Judah also forfeited her covenant claim to the land.
 Increasingly, the prophets announced God's inevitable judgment. Prominent
among them were Isaiah and Jeremiah. God would remain faithful to the promise to
David, however. If the Davidic kings failed to establish God's rule, judgment would
follow, but a remnant would remain. Eventually God would send an Anointed (Messiah)
to bring in the Day of the Lord (the reign of God).

Judgment came when the northern kingdom was subjected by the Assyrians, and
when the southern kingdom was finally brought to an end by the Babylonians.
Jerusalem was captured and destroyed, its temple and wealth were plundered, the elite
of the population was taken into Babylonian exile, many of the population became
refugees to other parts of the world (thus begins the Dispersion, the Diaspora), and the
peasantry ("people of the land") remained impoverished in the land.

While the exile began with much suffering, the half-century in Babylonia proved
a time of revival for the remnant of Abraham's descendants. Chastened by their history,
and encouraged by the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel, they resolved afresh to be
faithful to God's will. Babylonia became of center of Jewish religion and culture. This
was the time of the emergence of Judaism, with its emphasis on the study of Scripture
(Torah) and the strict observance of the law (especially circumcision, Sabbath keeping,
and kosher food laws).

Toward the end of the exile, a great prophet (in the tradition of Isaiah, and now
called Second Isaiah because we do not know his name) promised deliverance through a
new exodus transcending the exodus from Egypt. He projected a new, inclusive vision
of the reign of God in the land. His words were fulfilled, in a limited way, when the
Persian Emperor Cyrus took Babylon and allowed the Jews (a term appropriate only
from the exile on, which literally means Judahites) to return and rebuild Jerusalem and
the Temple.

A small group returned, and eventually, against many odds, the Temple and city
were rebuilt (Haggai and Zechariah 1-8). The land, now a Persian province, was poor
and beset by enemies, however. In addition, the plight of the poor peasantry was not
improved, since the restructuring was in the hands of the returning elite, especially the
high priests and the landowners. About a century after Cyrus' decree, a turn for the
better was achieved when Nehemiah supervised the rebuilding of the city walls and
initiated economic reforms to aid the poor, and when Ezra initiated a covenant renewal
(albeit a somewhat defensive and conservative one) on the basis of the book of the law
(probably our Pentateuch). A number of the later books of the OF come from this
period and (e.g. Zechariah 9-14, Malachi, and others). Here, however, the Old
Testament's official story line breaks off, though some biblical writings probably
originated later.
The Intertestamental Period

We call the following era, up to the coming of Jesus Christ, the Intertestamental
Period (otherwise, the period of early or formative Judaism). It was marked externally
by foreign domination. The Persian Empire gave way to that of Alexander the Great and
his successors, the Ptolemies of Egypt and the Seleucids of Syria (the Greek-Hellenistic
Empires). Under the latter, Jews who remained faithful to ancestral ways by not
compromising faithfulness to the law (against the attraction of Hellenism,
accommodation to Greek culture on the part of the ruling high priests), and who
resisted Syrian-Seleucid control of the land, temple, and religion were severely
persecuted. The book of Daniel refers to this. This "Hellenistic Crisis" led to the revolt
under the Maccabee family (and the cleansing of the temple commemorated by the
festival Hanukkah), and about a century of Jewish independence, until the Romans
violently subjugated the land. During the Intertestamental period fervent expectations
of the coming Messiah and the Kingdom of God were kept alive, and an awareness of
oppressive, demonic powers allied under Satan emerged (apocalyptic eschatology). In
the wake of the "Hellenistic Crisis" the following religious/political "parties" emerged:
the Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essenes, each seeing hope for the Kingdom of God--the
new society under God--in a different direction.
The New Testament

In the context of political, economic, social, and religious turmoil, the expected
deliverer (Messiah, =Christ) came in the person the Jesus of Nazareth. His coming was
prepared by John the Baptist's preaching of repentance, in which context Jesus received
his call to mission. Jesus was born into a family of poor refugees, in Bethlehem, the city
of David. After temporary exile in Egypt (like Israel earlier, a "type" episode), Jesus grew
up in a backward, and unknown village in rural Galilee. Apart from one momentous
family pilgrimage to Jerusalem, we hear nothing of his life until he began his public
ministry focusing on the rural poor of Galilee ("sheep without a shepherd") at
approximately age 30.

At his baptism by John the Baptist, a voice from heaven proclaimed him the
beloved son of God, after which, he was led into the wilderness, where Satan tempted
him by suggesting interpretations of Jesus' Messiahship that Jesus rejected. Instead of
power and pragmatic compromise, Jesus' self-understanding emphasized Israel's own
sonship, a calling to obedience to God alone and to suffering service

During a brief ministry, perhaps up to three years, Jesus preached mainly in

Galilee and then in Judea, proclaiming that the Reign of God was at hand. Announcing
good news to the poor, encouraging the dispirited, healing the sick, especially those in
bondage to demonic forces, and welcoming the marginalized ("tax-collectors and
sinners"), he challenged prevailing notions of the Reign of God held by the ruling elite
and religious leaders. He argued that the "weightier things of the law" must be held as
central--justice, love, and mercy--not detailed observance of religious laws that hold
common people in bondage. He called the circle of followers around him to a new life
in which old rivalries and statuses were erased. Twelve of his followers formed the core
group to whom he entrusted the continuation of his ministry of renewing Israel. He also
implied that the Rule of God would eventually be manifested to all, when all anti-Godly
powers would be defeated and God's full will would reign supreme.

Opposition to Jesus and his movement grew among the elite; but facing the
conflict head on and his likely martyrdom, he proceeded to Jerusalem for Passover and
challenged the ruling powers directly in a final, prophetic act (cleansing the temple).
The threatened Roman and Jewish ruling establishments converged and brought about
his execution on a Roman cross, the primary means of political terror by imperial Rome.
This death was understood, both by Jesus himself and by the early Church, as an event
of highest significance--the culmination of the work of the powers of evil, and
paradoxically the very defeat of these powers, and thereby the fullest expression of
God's self-giving love for others.

On the third day, God raised Jesus from the dead, thereby vindicating Jesus and
his ministry and defeating the powers of death. Jesus appeared to his discouraged
disciples and commissioned them to become emissaries (apostles) and agents of the
good news (gospel) of God's gracious liberation to the whole world. After they were
empowered by the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, they proclaimed Jesus as the awaited
Messiah and gathered a large community of believers in Jerusalem. One of the key
marks of this community was the sharing of material possessions, in order to especially
assist the poor.

Persecution by the ruling establishment (Sanhedrin) as well as missionary

motivation led to the spread of the good news of Jesus. Initially, these Jesus-believing
communities were part of Judaism, but tensions over the interpretation of the Law and
over the Messiahship of Jesus kept growing, however, resulting in further persecution.
Stephen, a Greek-speaking Jewish believer, became the first martyr. The somewhat
liberal, Greek-speaking community of believers was especially targeted for persecution;
as refugees, this wing of the church was responsible for the spread of the gospel to new
areas, especially to those Gentiles ("nations," non-Jews) who had no background in
Judaism. It was in this context of Gentile believers that Jesus-confessing people were
first called "Christians."

A noted persecutor of Jesus-confessing communities was Saul, whose Greek

name was Paul. After a vision of Jesus, through he was convinced that Jesus was the
Messiah and that he was to be emissary to the Gentiles, Paul was eventually drawn into
the Christian congregation in Antioch of Syria. This congregation became the home
based for Paul's three missionary "journeys," the first one to Asia Minor and the other
two beyond it, to Greece; Paul sought to establish cells of believers in places where the
gospel had not yet reached.

Increasingly, these congregations were self-designated by the term ekklesia, a

"called out assembly" (church), which indicated their identity and mission, in distinction
from the "synagogue." The successful missionary activity of Paul and other emissaries in
the Greco-Roman world faced the church with the question of the relationship between
believers from Jewish and Gentile backgrounds. At a council in Jerusalem (Gal 2; Acts
15), it was agreed not to impose the requirements of the Jewish Law on Gentile
believers, except for a few essentials. Thus the tracks were set for the parallel existence
of Jewish and Gentile wings of the church. Ultimately, Gentile congregations became
more predominant and the church's relationship with Judaism became tenuous,
especially following the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

A significant factor in the shaping of the early church were letters written by the
apostles, most prominently by Paul, to the various churches. These became effective in
teaching not only the particular churches addressed, but others as well, in Christian
theology and ethics. At the core of this teaching stood the life and teachings of Jesus
the Messiah (Christ).

Written accounts of the ministry slowly, but eventually replaced the oral
tradition about Jesus. Four of these, our four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John)
were singled out as authoritative. They, together with the apostolic epistles, the book
of Acts and the Revelation of John, became our New Testament. This, however, was a
somewhat later process; during the first century, these writings did not hold the same
canonical status as the Scriptures (OT), but were nevertheless considered authoritative
to greater or lesser degrees.

The New Testament assumes that the story of the church is ongoing and that the
Spirit is still active. But the NT also, especially in the book of Revelation, points to the
climax of history, in which God will triumph to recreate and renew all things.