THE LITERARY WONDER OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
To read the New Testament as literature is to read the Bible in ways that literature in general is read. A literary reading does not diminish the understanding of Scripture, but rather enhances the meaning that is in the text.
—J. L. RESSEGUIE1
Recognizing the Bible’s literary qualities will deepen our understanding and enhance our reading experience, as the writer of the Old Testament Book of Ecclesiastes—probably Solomon—attests: “Besides being wise, the Preacher also taught the people knowledge, weighing and studying and arranging many proverbs with great care. The Preacher sought to find words of delight, and uprightly he wrote words of truth” (12:9–10).
The Bible is not simply a glorified rulebook on ethical conduct. It certainly teaches how we should live and prioritize our lives, but it does so in various narrative and historical contexts. In fact, people encountering the Bible for the first time may be intimidated when they come across several different types of literature.2 But Leland Ryken, a scholar on the Bible as literature, argues this is one of the things that makes the Bible unique.
Ryken identifies three main types of writing in the Bible, which are often intermingled:3
• Theological writing conveys propositional truths.
• Historical writing imparts information—facts about what actually occurred, though the writers often willingly share their moral interpretations of the events.
• Literary writing recreates the scenes or events in enough detail that we can experience them imaginatively. Whereas theological sections often express theological arguments directly, literary sections incorporate such messages in examples. Literary writing can be seen in the Bible’s stories, poetry, proverbs, and visionary writing, including both prophetic and apocalyptic writing.4
These different types of writing, however, often overlap. In the story of Adam and Eve, for instance, we understand the serpent is subtle and deceitful because Moses explicitly says so, but he also illustrates it through the serpent’s words and actions in the narrative. In this example, the story contains at least two of the three types of writing. It is a historical account of the events, and it is literary because it recreates the scene in sufficient detail to inspire our imaginary experience of what occurred. These three types of writing are seen throughout the Bible, and one usually dominates a passage, though one or both of the others are also often evident.5
The Old and New Testaments both have immense literary merit, but Australian pastor J. Sidlow Baxter argues that the latter is in a class of its own. “The New Testament is the most vital book in the world,” he insists. “Its supreme subject is the Lord Jesus Christ. Its supreme object is the salvation of human beings. . . . He who figures in the Old as the Christ of prophecy now emerges in the New as the Christ of history. He who is the super-hope of the Old is the super-fact of the New. Expectancy in the Old has become experience in the New. Prevision has become provision. That which was latent has now become patent. The long-predicted is the now-presented.”6
THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS AND GENRE
The twenty-seven books of the New Testament aren’t ordered chronologically but according to literary type, or genre. The books are divided into four main classifications: the Gospels; History (the Book of Acts); the Epistles (letters written by the Apostle Paul and others); and Apocalypse (the Book of Revelation).
Appearing in narrative form, the Gospels and Acts contain much historical information, with the former focusing on Christ’s life and works, and the latter on the origins and early development of the Church. The twenty-one New Testament epistles interpret the person and work of Christ and apply His teachings. Paul wrote at least thirteen of these, while the others were written by Peter, John, Jesus’ brother James, and His half-brother Jude. The exception is the Book of Hebrews, whose writer is unknown.
The Book of Revelation, as noted, is considered a prophetic and apocalyptic book. Apocalyptic literature, according to S. W. Crawford, is “a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an other-worldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal . . . (and which) involves another, supernatural world.”7 Apocalyptic writing includes visions, symbolism, human seers, otherworldly mediators, an emphasis on cosmic events rather than those in the earthly, human realm, and often features angels and demons.8
Norman Geisler helpfully summarizes the Christ-centeredness of the various sections of the New Testament as follows: “The Gospels . . . record the historical manifestation of Christ, the Acts relate the propagation of Christ, the Epistles give the interpretation of Him, and in Revelation is found the consummation of all things in Christ.”9
Some scholars see parallel structures in the two testaments. Old Testament professor Jason DeRouchie observes that each testament begins with a narrative section, is followed by commentary on the narrative, and closes with another narrative section.10 “The Epistles are to the Gospels what the Prophets were to the Law,” writes Dr. Norman Geisler. “The latter in each case is the structure built on the foundation of the former.”11
Another proposed parallel is that the New Testament begins with the four Gospels, which are somewhat biographical accounts of Jesus’ life, just as the first five books of the Old Testament (the Law) revolve around Moses.12 Others note that the Old Testament books of the Law provide the fundamental revelation of the Old Testament, and the Gospels provide the fundamental revelation of the New Testament.13 Acts is a book of history that records the experiences of the early Church, which is comparable to the Old Testament historical books. The New Testament epistles are instructive and theological, generally interpreting the Gospel message, just as the Old Testament’s prophetic books interpret the books of Moses and other Old Testament scriptures. Revelation is an apocalyptic book that some compare to the Book of Daniel in the Old Testament. No New Testament book is comparable to Psalms, though psalms and hymns are sprinkled throughout New Testament writings. Nor does the New Testament have any wisdom books resembling the Old Testament books of Proverbs, Job, etc., though some believe the Book of James constitutes wisdom literature.14
Let’s explore the four main New Testament classifications we’ve identified: Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse.
THE GOSPELS
The Gospels represent a unique genre blending history, biography, and theology. The word “gospel” is derived from the Greek “evangelion,” which means “good news.” The Greeks and Romans used the term in announcing news such as the accession of a new emperor.15 Paul uses the word throughout his letters to mean the coming, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus (e.g. Romans 1:1–4, 16; 1 Cor. 15:1; 2 Cor. 2:12).16
Old Testament writers used the concept of good news to announce the coming of Yahweh (God) to save His people.17 Isaiah writes, “Go on up to a high mountain, O Zion, herald of good news; lift up your voice with strength, O Jerusalem, herald of good news; lift it up, fear not; say to the cities of Judah, Behold your God!” (Isaiah 40:9). He repeats the concept twelve chapters later: “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news, who publishes peace, who brings good news of happiness, who publishes salvation, who says to Zion, ‘Your God reigns’” (Isaiah 52:7). Isaiah reiterates the idea in chapters 60 and 61, the latter of which Jesus quotes when he opens a scroll to preach in Nazareth. “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor,” declares Jesus. “He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” (Luke 4:18).
Though the Jews had different messianic expectations, they did anticipate the Messiah’s coming would be “good news,” and readers of the New Testament could later see the connection between those passages in Isaiah and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. When Jesus inaugurates His public ministry in Nazareth, He proclaims that the good news has arrived and is embodied in His person. Accordingly, the early Church comes to identify the message of good news with the messenger Himself—Jesus, the promised Messiah, is the good news.18 Mark underscores this idea when he begins his Gospel, “The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1). It followed that all four written accounts of Jesus’ life and salvation message would come to be called the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, respectively.19
Recognizing the genre of the New Testament books clarifies their messages and helps us to imagine how their initial readers received these works. Scholars, however, wrestle with pinpointing the genre or combination of genres in the Gospels. Many have compared them with various types of ancient literature, most notably the works of Plutarch, Suetonius, Philostratus, and Diogenes.20 The main one of these was Plutarch (46–120 AD), a Greek who wrote parallel biographies of famous Romans and Greeks. In his work on Alexander the Great, Plutarch proclaims,
It being my purpose to write the lives of Alexander the king, and of Cæsar, by whom Pompey was destroyed, the multitude of their great actions affords so large a field that I were to blame if I should not by way of apology forewarn my reader that I have chosen rather to epitomise the most celebrated parts of their story, than to insist at large on every particular circumstance of it. It must be borne in mind that my design is not to write histories, but lives. And the most glorious exploits do not always furnish us with the clearest discoveries of virtue or vice in men; sometimes a matter of less moment, an expression or a jest, informs us better of their characters and inclinations, than the most famous sieges, the greatest armaments, or the bloodiest battles whatsoever. Therefore, as portrait-painters are more exact in the lines and features of the face, in which the character is seen, than in the other parts of the body, so I must be allowed to give my more particular attention to the marks and indications of the souls of men, and while I endeavour by these to portray their lives, may be free to leave more weighty matters and great battles to be treated of by others.21
Evidently, Plutarch intended to write biographies focusing on the lives of great people and not as much on events, which are the province of historical writings. Steve Walton and David Wenham observe that scholars used to argue that the Gospels are not biographies, mainly because they were comparing them to today’s biographies, which treat the subject’s life more comprehensively from birth to death.22 But these ancient biographies were different, and the Gospels resemble them in being incomplete accounts. The Gospels barely cover Jesus’ early years and, apart from His birth and a short section on events occurring when He was twelve years old, they focus almost exclusively on the three years of His public ministry, especially His final week. The Gospel writers, then, described Christ’s life in a literary form familiar to a wide readership in the Mediterranean basin.23
But significant differences exist between the Gospels and the ancient biographies. Walton and Wenham explain that Jesus was not merely remembered by the early Christians—they “experienced Him as alive and present with them by the Spirit.”24 The Gospels, they argue, “are the church’s testimony about Jesus rather than biography.”25 The Gospels are also unique because they emphasize Jesus’ last days, His death, and His resurrection, especially in Mark, in which those subjects take up half the book. While these books bear some resemblance to ancient biographies and contain vital historical facts, they are like no other literature ever written because they uniformly proclaim the “good news” from God that is manifested in the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ.26
The Gospels are also grounded in history. If the Gospel writers didn’t believe the events they recorded actually occurred, they wouldn’t have written their accounts, much less risked their lives to share the good news. If they hadn’t lived with Jesus and either witnessed His miracles, death, resurrection, and ascension themselves or learned about these events directly from witnesses, they wouldn’t have preserved and told their story. They were adamant about reporting exactly what happened and Jesus’ precise words because His actions and teachings affect our eternal destiny. As we saw in Chapter 2, the New Testament writers paid strict attention to detail in the research, assimilation, and recording of their messages, and they believed it was crucial that we trust their sincerity and historical reliability. Luke, for example, wants us to “know the certainty of the things” he is writing (Luke 1:4).
The Gospels are theological as well. They would not have been written but for the authors’ inspired determination to present Jesus Christ as the good news of God’s salvation. They report the climax of God’s salvation history—the culmination of Scripture’s narrative of redemption. Despite the theological implications of the Gospels, however, the Gospel writers’ theological restraint is also noteworthy. Rarely do they explain the theological significance of the historical events they record, though John does so more than the others. They faithfully report the historical events and mostly leave the implications of the history to the epistles. This lends historical credence to the writings because had they been forgers, they would have written advocacy pieces.27
Finally, the Gospels include apologetic elements, especially the Book of John, as evidenced by John’s assertion, “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (20:30–31).
Though scholars lack consensus on the genre of the Gospels, most agree they combine various genres. Professor William Klein maintains we should consider them portraits of Jesus’ life and ministry: “They are not pure history, though they do report what actually happened. They’re not pure biography, but . . . a good news account of Jesus’ life . . . written to demonstrate Jesus’ authority and significance for the story of God’s plan to redeem lost humanity. A Gospel is, therefore, theological biography.”28 Similarly, Robert Guelich writes, “Formally, a gospel is a narrative account concerning the public life and teaching of a significant person that is composed of discreet traditional units placed in the context of Scriptures. . . . Materially, the genre consists of the message that God was at work in Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection effecting his promises found in the Scriptures.”29
The Gospels are a unique genre not just because they contain elements of various major genres, but also because they record a unique event—the Son of God’s entrance into human history.
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Luke wrote the Book of Acts, a history of the early Church following Christ’s resurrection, which is part two of his two-volume work that begins with his Gospel. He begins Acts by testifying, “In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen” (1:1–2). He implies he will proceed to the rest of the story, which he does.30
Acts covers a period of transition from Judaism under the Old Covenant to the Church age under the New Covenant.31 It shows the new Christians struggling with how Christian religious practice should overlay onto Jewish practice and what parts of the latter should remain. While Acts is considered primarily a historical book, it is not merely a history. Ben Witherington maintains it is unlike other ancient historical books, which focus on political or military history. Instead, it relates “the social and religious history of a particular group or subculture within the Roman Empire.”32 Though it is a history of the early Church, it is not a complete history of the Church’s growth, but documents only those events Luke was familiar with personally or through his investigation. Spiros Zodhiates and Warren Baker note, for example, that Luke “does not record how the gospel spread to the east and south of Palestine, or why there were already believers in Damascus before Paul arrived.” But he includes enough information from the lives and ministries of prominent evangelists, and especially his hero Paul,33 to “sufficiently demonstrate the shift of the evangelical concerns of Christianity from Jews to Gentiles.”34
Acts’ partial history ends abruptly, reporting that Paul continued to preach boldly and without hindrance as he remained under house arrest for two years (28:30–31).35 Pastor Ray Stedman contends the book is intentionally unfinished because the Holy Spirit intended it to be. Why? Because it “is still being written. . . . Jesus isn’t finished yet. He began His ministry in His human body, as recorded in the Gospels. He continued in His body, the church, through the book of Acts. He continues His ministry today through you and me and every other believer on the planet.” But it will be completed someday, and we must ask ourselves what our part will be in that great story.36
Acts includes biographical information on Paul and others. But as much as Luke revered Paul and his work, he was more determined to trace the progress of the Church and its message than to complete a character study of Paul or relate the full story of his missions.37 Even in the ending chapters of the book, Luke is more concerned with Paul’s continuing proclamation of “the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ” than with Paul’s ultimate fate. “Acts 28,” writes David Peterson, “is a significant indicator of Luke’s purpose in writing, and it suggests that his interest is historical and theological rather than strictly biographical.”38
Like the Gospels, Acts is not strictly one genre but a hybrid. It relates history not for its own sake, says William Klein, but contains a profound theological message. Jesus began His work in person, as recorded in the Gospels, and Acts records His continued work through the Holy Spirit, mainly through Paul and Peter as human agents. Whereas the Gospels can be classified as theological biographies, Acts can be seen as theological history.39 Luke also wrote the book as an apologetic—to convince people of the truthfulness of the Gospel message that they might respond in faith.
A logical progression flows from the Gospels to Acts. The Gospels show Christ in all His humiliation and suffering on our behalf, whereas Acts presents the work of the exalted Christ, Who has defeated death and begun, through the Holy Spirit, to build His Church and spread the good news.40 In the Gospels Jesus comes to earth and takes a human body; in Acts, the Holy Spirit takes a different kind of human body, the Church.41 Acts is the bridge between the Gospels and the epistles. It provides the historical background for most of Paul’s epistles and the context in which he wrote them.
THE EPISTLES
Letters were a common method of communication in the Greco-Roman world. They ranged from eloquent missives intended for wide readership to short, mundane, personal notes. The New Testament letters comprised both literary and personal elements. They were a particularly useful form of communication for the New Testament writers because they could deliver their message long distances while retaining their intimacy. The epistles enabled the apostles to serve as long-distance pastors when necessary,42 and also functioned as missionary letters to encourage the Church’s growth.43
Whereas the Gospels deal with the life of Christ, Who dwelled among men, the epistles, like Acts, speak to the following period when the Spirit of God had been poured out and Christ dwelled in the hearts of believers. The epistles repeatedly emphasize that believers and the churches are “in Christ.” Theologian Louis Berkhof declares that the epistles “clearly interpret the significance of Christ’s work for believers out of every nation and tribe, and point out that his experiences are paralleled in the life of every believer. . . . The origin of that new life, its conditions, its nature, its progressive and communal nature, and its final perfection and glory, are all clearly described in the Epistles.”44
Of the twenty-one epistles, the first thirteen (Romans through Philemon) are called Pauline epistles because most believe Paul wrote them. The following eight (Hebrews through Jude) are called general epistles, or sometimes Catholic Epistles,45 as they are written to a general or unspecified audience, as distinguished from Paul’s letters to specific individuals and churches.46 These are not strictly defined categories, as several of the general epistles, such as the second and third epistles of John, are addressed to individuals.47 Further, not all of Paul’s letters were intended only for the named addressee. Some were meant for the churches as well, such as the Book of Romans, but others were more personal, such as Paul’s letter to Philemon. As we saw in Chapter 2, this is true of many of the other epistles as well—though initially addressed to specific people, they were also intended for circulation among the churches (James 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1; Col. 4:16; Rev. 1:4).48 Perhaps this is why some scholars classify the epistles as either Pauline or non-Pauline. Regardless of the writers’ intended addressees, however, God intended all the epistles to be read across the world and throughout the ages.
The epistles usually follow a certain structure that begins with a salutation, with the sender addressing and greeting the recipient and giving thanks or blessing. The main body follows and covers doctrinal issues or gives ethical instructions, and the epistles usually end with a farewell, a blessing to God, or a doxology.49
THE BOOK OF REVELATION
The Book of Revelation is classified by itself among the New Testament books. The Greek title is Apokalypsis, translated as “disclosure,” “unveiling,” or “revelation,” implying that it reveals information that has been hidden.50 The entire Bible is about God’s redemptive plan for mankind, and Revelation relates, in big-picture terms, how God will bring about the consummation of man’s salvation from his fall described in Genesis—this explains why it is the final book in the New Testament canon.51 The book assures us our sovereign God will fulfill all His promises, and believers in Jesus Christ will live forever with Him in the new heaven and new earth.52 The Old Testament Book of Daniel, which includes apocalyptic features, provides detailed prophecies concerning the period from Daniel’s time until Christ’s first coming (His incarnation), and touches on the tribulation, Christ’s Second Coming, and His earthly rule. Revelation amplifies these prophecies, providing further details of endtime events and the completion of history.53
Revelation is a combination of at least three literary genres—apocalyptic, prophecy, and epistle54—though biblical scholars usually classify it as apocalyptic. Apocalyptic writings were familiar to readers of the New Testament era. Leland Rykin describes them as “visionary works that transport us to an alternate world from one in which we live.”55 They have numerous characteristics, all of which are present in Revelation: they have a dualistic perspective, seeing the world in terms of good and evil; they are eschatological, meaning concerned with future (mostly endtimes) events; and they are presented in an ecstatic vision of a supernatural world or one that is remote from us in time.56
Revelation focuses on the work of the Messiah, prominently features angels and demons, and utilizes animal symbolism. It includes fantastic imagery, which reminds readers that an invisible supernatural battle has continually raged between the forces of good and evil.57 The Apostle Paul alludes to this spiritual battle when he commands the Ephesians to “put on the whole armor of God” to prepare them to resist “the schemes of the devil” because “we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Eph. 6:10–12). Observing that Revelation describes itself as a prophecy (1:3; 22:6–7, 10), G. K. Beale describes apocalyptic writing as an intensification of prophecy because “it contains a heightening and more intense clustering of literary and thematic traits found in prophecy.”58 Notably, the book uses the term “apocalypse” or “revelation” in the very first verse: “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants the things that must soon take place” (1:1).
Revelation, written from John to the seven churches in Asia (1:4), takes the form of an epistle and concludes with a benediction of God’s grace (22:21). Like many of the New Testament epistles, Revelation addresses problems that had arisen in the churches. Describing the book’s genre, Beale writes, “The most preferable view is that Revelation is ‘a prophecy cast in an apocalyptic mold and written down in a letter form’ in order to motivate the audience to change their behavior in the light of the transcendent reality of the book’s message.”59 While acknowledging this combination of genres, Ramsey Michaels emphasizes the uniqueness of each within the book. “If a letter,” writes Michaels, “it is like no other early Christian letter we possess. If an apocalypse, it is like no other apocalypse. If a prophecy, it is unique among prophecies.”60
The climax of biblical revelation, the Book of Revelation describes the final chapter of world history. It is a fitting ending to the story of mankind that began with the fall, was followed by God’s promise of redemption, and finishes with his eternal salvation and presence with God in fulfillment of God’s promise.
“A WONDERFULLY CONSTRUCTED ARCHWAY”
Some believe the order of the New Testament books is providentially arranged. I don’t know if this is true, but it makes sense. William McDonald observes that the order of the books is ideally suited for the Church—it begins with Christ’s life, proceeds to the development of the Church, continues to instructions for the Church, and finally, reveals the future of the Church and the world.61
Pastor J. Sidlow Baxter compares the New Testament’s structure to a literary archway. Its twenty-seven books are “God’s wonderfully constructed archway into saving truth, into the true knowledge of Himself, into eternal blessedness.” And it makes perfect sense that as God supernaturally inspired the writing of the books and guarded them over millennia, He would also superintend their arrangement in the canon.62
The first five books—the four Gospels and Acts—provide essential historical information that is foundational to the rest of the canon. These are followed by the epistles, which break down into three groups:
1) The nine Christian Church epistles Paul writes to particular churches, which are mainly doctrinal but also instructional: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and 1 and 2 Thessalonians.
2) The four pastoral epistles Paul addresses to individuals: 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon.
3) The nine Hebrew Christian epistles: Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation, which Baxter includes as an epistle. These books are unmistakably Christian but are also “distinctively Hebrew in their primary adaptation and application.” They are not addressed to Christian churches though they deal with many doctrinal issues. Hebrews is obviously intended for the Hebrew nation, as is James, which begins, “James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes in the Dispersion” (1:1). Peter likewise addresses his first letter to “those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion” (1 Peter 1:1). John doesn’t address his first epistle, but his second and third are each addressed to Jewish individuals, and in the text he discusses certain servants of the Lord as having gone forth “taking nothing of the gentiles,” which he wouldn’t have said had he been writing to Gentiles.63
In Baxter’s archway, the Gospels and Acts are the foundation, the two nine-fold groups of epistles are the side-pillars, and the four pastoral epistles bridge the pillars from above, with its high vertex epitomized by the passage, “Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory” (1 Tim. 3:16).64
OTHER STRUCTURAL PARALLELS
Baxter sees many other parallels within the structure—designs among and within the groupings. Both groups of nine epistles begin with a doctrinal treatise—Romans for one and Hebrews for the other, and they both end with Christ’s return and a revelation of the “things to come”—1 and 2 Thessalonians and Revelation, respectively. Romans teaches salvation through Christ as the only way, while Hebrews shows salvation as the better way, in the sense of a superior sacrifice. The Thessalonian epistles describe Christ’s return relative to the Church, and Revelation shows it in relation to Israel and the nations.65
Baxter admits the archway analogy is limited because the New Testament structure is dynamic—“an orderly unfolding movement.” There is more than design; there is development, or a certain “progress of doctrine,” that involves a course of progressive instruction. The four Gospels, for example, are not chronologically arranged in relationship to one another, either by the dates they were written or in their contents—there is no consecutive narrative flowing from Matthew through John, and they were surely not written in the order they appear. The same is true of the epistles. Though there is no adherence to chronology, both groups of books display a “consistent sequence of revelational truth.”66 The books are optimally arranged to facilitate the communication of doctrine.
The first three Gospels—the synoptics—introduce the visible aspects of Christ’s person and ministry, preparing us for the “crowning presentation in John, where the inward mystery and majesty of it is interpreted to us.” Baxter argues that Matthew must be the first book because it specifically links the testaments, showing the New Testament as the fulfillment of the Old. Additionally, Matthew’s narrative is adapted to the Jews, from whom Christ came. Many agree that Matthew was first in order because it was the most Jewish of the Gospels and provided the clearest link to the Old Testament.67 Edgar Goodspeed, in his book The Formation of the New Testament, suggests that the Gospels are arranged in order from the most Jewish to the most Greek.68
Mark and Luke follow with fewer connections to Jewish life and thought than Matthew. Mark presents Christ as “commanding the present”69 rather than emphasizing His connection with the past. Luke goes further with an “[all-embracing] outlook, and a Savior so presented as to engage the Gentile mind at large.”70 He presents Christ as “the Son of Man” and dedicates his book to a Gentile convert.
The Gospels demonstrate the common humanity that the perfect Man shares with the entirety of mankind regardless of race or ethnicity. This progressive unfolding in the Gospels, “from Jewish Matthew, through Jew-Gentile Mark, to Gentile Luke,” corresponds to the expansion of the Church recorded in Acts where the Gospel is first preached to Jews, then spreads out until the message is taken to the outer reaches of the Roman Empire and to the entire Gentile world.71 The synoptics are the perfect buildup to the more theological Gospel of John,72 for what they point to less directly, John plainly declares: Jesus is the eternal Son of God. “He who is Israel’s Messiah is Himself Jehovah. He who is the world’s Savior is the world’s Maker. He not only teaches truth: He is the truth. He imparts life because He is the life.”73 Kenneth O. Gangel observes, “Following on the heels of the three synoptic Gospels in the arrangement of the New Testament books, John introduced a different way of looking at the life of Jesus with greater focus on Jesus’ message than the events of his earthly life.”74
Baxter maintains that God providentially kept John alive to write his Gospel after the synoptic Gospels had been well circulated and skeptics were beginning to hatch heresies about the person and deity of Christ. It was the perfect time to put these doubts to rest—the historical facts had been well established by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, yet not too much time had passed for John, himself an eyewitness and an apostle, to make “an authoritative endorsement and interpretation” of the first three Gospel accounts. John provided eyewitness affirmation in his Gospel of what he declared in his first epistle, “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and have touched with our hands concerning the word of life—the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us—that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:1–3). It’s as if John had held back, allowing time for the Gospel message to circulate and sink in, then vouched for those historical accounts as a fellow apostle and providentially illuminated their transcendent meaning, establishing for the Church that Jesus is the Man Who is God.
THE NEW AND OLD COVENANTS
Bible Professor Paul Benware describes the structure of the New Testament in terms of the New Covenant. The Gospels relate Christ’s sinless life, authoritative teaching, and authenticating miracles, all proving He is the Messiah and the Son of God. His sacrificial death on the cross inaugurated God’s New Covenant, which provides a means of salvation for sinners. Acts describes the activities of the early Church in spreading the news of the New Covenant. The epistles provide Christians instructions on how to live as a New Covenant people, and Revelation “tells of the final, glorious application of the New Covenant,” assuring us that God is sovereign and wholly fulfills His promises.75
What is the New Covenant? In The Emmaus Code I detailed God’s major covenants, as they provide the framework for God’s saving activities on behalf of mankind. Since we must grasp the Old Covenant to properly understand the New Covenant, it’s worthwhile here to briefly review the Old Covenant.
God enters into a covenant with Israel when He gives His divine Law to Moses on Mount Sinai, promising to make Israel His treasured possession out of all nations, a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation, provided His people obey Him fully and keep His covenant (Exodus 19:4–6).76 We refer to this as the “Old Covenant,” also known as the “Mosaic Covenant” or “Sinaitic Covenant.”77 God lays down for Israel not just the Ten Commandments but moral, civil, and ceremonial laws. Rabbis identify a total of 613 specific laws in Moses’ writings.78 The Law, however, cannot bring salvation—as Pastor John MacArthur notes about the Old Covenant, “There’s nothing in it that can save.”79 According to Paul, “If a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law” (Gal. 3:21), and Christ would have died in vain. But that is impossible. Righteousness can only come by faith (Gal. 2:21; Heb. 7:11); salvation is through faith alone (Eph. 2:8–9).
Blood sacrifice is a principal element of the Mosaic Law (Lev. 17:11). Sacrifices covered the people’s sins and restored their fellowship with God,80 but they didn’t permanently remove sins, which is why they had to be repeated continually. The writer of Hebrews says, “For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? But these sacrifices are a reminder of sins every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Heb. 10:1–4). In other words, the Old Testament sacrifices prefigure Christ’s once-and-for-all perfect sacrifice. “Christ,” writes Vern Poythress, “is the final offering to which all the animal sacrifices look forward.”81 As John the Baptist proclaimed, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29). All the Old Testament sacrifices were imperfect symbols pointing to the true and perfect Lamb, Jesus Christ (Heb. 10:11–14).
The Old Covenant was never intended to be permanent, but was to last until the coming of the Messiah, at which time the New Covenant would replace it (Gal. 3:19).82 God’s prophets promised the coming of this New Covenant.83 Jeremiah is first to announce it, declaring, “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. . . . I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. . . . I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more” (Jer. 31:31–34). Ezekiel reiterates and expands the New Covenant, affirming, “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols. I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you” (Ezek. 36:25–26).
Paul explains, “The law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith” (Gal. 3:24). The blood of Christ alone has the power to permanently remove sin. “For by a single offering,” declares the writer of Hebrews, “he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified” (Heb. 10:14). Christ “is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant” (Heb. 9:15). Jesus confirms that He fully satisfied the Law (Matt. 5:17–18).
The New Covenant is markedly different from the Old Covenant. It does not depend on Israel’s obedience—rather, it is unconditional. With this covenant, God replaces the Old Covenant and its system of sacrifices with the one perfect and permanent sacrifice, the blood of Jesus Christ. The New Covenant promises full justification and forgiveness for believers, that their hearts will be regenerated, and that the Holy Spirit will indwell them. It guarantees that God will write the Law on the hearts of believers of Jesus Christ and give them immediate access to God’s presence. Through faith in Christ, believers experience the New Covenant promise that they will receive eternal life in Him.
The Old Covenant must be understood in light of God’s Old Testament covenants that preceded it, which make clear that mankind’s salvation was never through his works, but through God’s grace alone. No sooner than God pronounces punishment upon mankind for Adam and Eve’s sin—man’s physical and spiritual death (Gen. 3:14–19)—He promises a Redeemer who will bring salvation to mankind, a promise theologians call “the Adamic Covenant.” God tells the Serpent (representing Satan), “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel” (Gen. 3:15, NIV).
The New Testament illuminates this scripture. Christ is the offspring, or seed, of the woman because He is the only person ever born to a woman alone (through the Holy Spirit), and He will crush Satan’s head (kill him), while Satan will merely strike His heel—hardly a fatal blow. Paul confirms this in identifying Christ as the offspring of the woman. “But when the fullness of time had come,” writes Paul, “God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons” (Gal. 4:4). Yes, the devil inflicts suffering on Christ, but only because Christ allows it, and more important, by this very act of suffering, Christ destroys Satan, sin, and death. Through the temptations of Satan, sin enters the world, and God imposes His death penalty on man, but He immediately promises salvation through the sacrificial death of His Son Jesus Christ for all who believe in Him.
In his first epistle, John proclaims, “The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8). Theologians refer to God’s promise of mankind’s redemption in Genesis 3:15 as the protoevangel, the first announcement of the Gospel. M. S. Mills writes, “The protoevangel (3:15) is of the utmost importance (reminding us of God’s eternal purpose of salvation through the death of Jesus Christ), manifest the very day that sin first infected the human race. Genesis clearly records the beginnings of God’s redemptive process.”84 God’s eternal grace is seen in His first promise of salvation in the face of man’s betrayal. It is this type of unmerited grace that prompts the prophet Micah to marvel, “Who is a God like you, pardoning iniquity and passing over transgression for the remnant of his inheritance? He does not retain his anger forever, because he delights in his steadfast love” (Micah 7:18).85
THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT
Long before God initiates the Old Covenant with Moses, He calls Abram (later known as Abraham) out of his country and commands him to go to the land that God would show him. He promises to make his name great, make a nation out of him, and to bless those who bless him and curse those who dishonor him. God declares, “And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen. 12:1–3). This is a pivotal moment in salvation history—the call of Abraham—in which God initiates the redemptive work He promises in Genesis 3:15 of destroying Satan through the offspring of the woman (Jesus Christ).86 In subsequent passages in Genesis (12:1–4; 13:14–17; 15:1–7; 17:1–8; 22:17–18), God formalizes the Abrahamic Covenant, reiterating the promises He makes in 12:1–3 and making additional ones—that He will give Abraham’s nation the land as an everlasting possession and that His blessings to all nations through Abraham will be accomplished through Abraham’s descendants.
God’s promise to Abraham to bless all mankind through him means He will send His Son, the Messiah, to save all those who believe in Him. Thus God’s promise in Genesis 3:15, coupled with His unconditional, eternal promises that constitute the Abrahamic Covenant, clarify for all time that God is a God of grace Who provides a means of salvation for undeserving man and that this salvation will be mediated by His Son. Just as the Abrahamic Covenant expands on the Adamic Covenant, later covenants develop and expand on the promises God makes to Abraham—His land promise, His promise of blessing, and His promise that He’ll accomplish these blessings through Abraham’s descendants.
Nothing is inconsistent between the Old Covenant and the Abrahamic Covenant. It’s not as if God was going back and forth between grace and works salvation. It was never about works. The Old Covenant, which came long after the Abrahamic Covenant, neither contradicted it nor replaced it. God’s promise of salvation, which preceded the Old Covenant, was based on His grace and not man’s works. The Old Covenant did not change that—it complemented God’s unconditional and eternal promise of salvation to mankind. The Old Covenant builds on the foundation of the Abrahamic Covenant in providing laws and guidelines to the Israelites on how to live their lives to serve as the nation of priests and mediators for the ultimate benefit of all nations. The Old Covenant was, says Paul Williamson, “the means by which the goal of the promise would be advanced in and through Abraham’s national descendants (Gen. 12:2; cf. 18:18–19).”87 Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock concur that the Old Covenant “set up an arrangement by which God would relate to the descendants of the patriarchs as a nation, distinguishing them from other nations on earth. . . . It provided the means for blessing an entire nation and, through them, all peoples on earth.”88
The Abrahamic Covenant, then, contains the seeds of God’s foundational promise that constitutes a unifying thread throughout the Bible—a promise of salvation grounded in God’s grace that will eventually be consummated in the New Covenant. The New Covenant fulfills for all nations the spiritual promises made to Abraham and his descendants.89 The New Covenant is an enlargement of the Abrahamic Covenant and specifically of God’s promise to bless all mankind through Abraham.90 That blessing would be the salvation of all believers in Jesus Christ. God’s grace through the Adamic Covenant and the Abrahamic Covenant preceded the Law God gave Israel pursuant to the Old Covenant, continued uninterrupted during that period, was reinforced and expanded with the New Covenant, and remains in full force now and forever.
GOD’S PROMISE-PLAN AND PROMISE-DOCTRINE
As I wrote in The Emmaus Code, Walter Kaiser argues that God makes many promises and covenants with Israel, but most of these are part of the larger promise to redeem mankind through a coming Messiah, which he calls God’s promise-plan.91 God makes the Old Covenant with Israel alone, but its ultimate purpose is to facilitate the Abrahamic Covenant, which is to benefit all nations. He gives the Law to Israel and makes it a kingdom of priests and a holy nation to serve as mediator between God and all the people of the earth.92 Through Israel, God brings His promise of salvation to all mankind.
In his classic The Prophets and the Promise, American theologian Willis Judson Beecher makes essentially the same argument, but he calls it the promise-doctrine.93 Beecher notes that Christianity’s distinguishing feature from other religions is its doctrine of the Messiah. Christians are taught that the Old Testament prophets made many predictions of a coming “Deliverer,” and that these were fulfilled in Jesus’ life and mission, which proves the prophets were divinely inspired and Jesus’ mission was divine.
Beecher notes that despite the diversity of God’s promises, they all converge in Christ’s fulfillment, as shown in the New Testament. Moreover, the prophecies themselves are all offshoots of a single, foundational promise, which Beecher describes as “one prediction, repeated and unfolded through successive centuries, with many specifications, and in many forms; always the same in essential character, no matter how it may vary in its outward presentation or in the illustrations through which it is presented.”94
Beecher and Kaiser agree, then, that the Bible emphasizes one promise rather than many predictions. “This is the prevailing note in both Testaments,” declares Beecher, “a multitude of specifications unfolding a single promise, the promise serving as a central religious doctrine.” He continues,
This biblical generalization of the matter may be formulated as: God gave a promise to Abraham, and through him to mankind; a promise eternally fulfilled and fulfilling in the history of Israel; and chiefly fulfilled in Jesus Christ, he being that which is principal in the history of Israel.
The most prominent thing in the New Testament is its proclamation of the kingdom and its anointed king. But it is on the basis of the divine promise that its preachers proclaim the kingdom, and when they appeal to the Old Testament in proof of Christian doctrine, they make the promise more prominent than the kingdom itself.95
As evidence that there is one central promise, Beecher cites Paul’s defense to Agrippa during his trial for blasphemy and inciting riots: “And now I stand here on trial because of my hope in the promise made by God to our fathers, to which our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly worship night and day. And for this hope I am accused by Jews, O king!” (Acts 26:6–7). Beecher argues that Paul, facing such serious consequences, would have scrupulously chosen his words. Paul’s precise words convey that he is basing his messianic hope on a single promise—and not just on any promise. Beecher explains:
He founds his appeal to Agrippa not on a good many scattered predictions, but on the one promise; and he expects Agrippa to understand him. Speaking of his hope as a Christian, he describes it as “the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers”, and he speaks of the twelvetribe Jewish nation as hoping to attain to this promise. The thing he is speaking of he calls, not prediction, but promise; not promises, but promise; not a promise but the promise. The word he uses is singular and definite. The whole essential messianic truth, as he knows it, he sums up on this one formula, “the promise made of God unto our fathers.”96
Beecher maintains that Paul not only speaks of the singular promise, but that some forty New Testament passages refer to the one promise. In addition, these passages “are the central, conspicuous passages of the New Testament. They affirm that all revelation concerning the Messiah is the unfolding of the one promise. Into this mold all the New Testament teaching on the subject may readily be cast.”97
Beecher states that the New Testament writers uniformly identify the one promise that sustains the hope of Christians: God’s promise to Abraham. “They identify it for us as the promise that was made to Abraham when God called him,” argues Beecher, “the promise that in him all the nations of the earth should be blessed.”98
The Book of Hebrews substantiates the point: “For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself, saying ‘Surely I will bless you and multiply you.’ And thus Abraham, having patiently waited, obtained the promise. . . . So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath . . . so that . . . we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us” (6:13–15, 17–18). A few chapters later, the writer of Hebrews states that Isaac and Jacob, along with Abraham, are heirs of the same promise (11:9).
Likewise, Paul writes, “For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void” (Romans 4:13–14). A few verses later Paul adds about Abraham, “No unbelief made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised” (4:20–21).
Beecher acknowledges that New Testament writers sometimes use the plural “promises.” But it is almost always accompanied by the definite article “the,” as in “the promises”—Romans 9:4 and 15:8–9 are examples. In these instances and others, the plural is only used to describe a specific group of promises—the group of promises made to Abraham. Beecher contends, “The one promise is capable of being thought of as divided into specifications, and when so thought of, the plural number is used.”99
Beecher observes that the New Testament writers treat this one promise with its subparts, or specifications, as the central theme of the entire Old Testament. They trace it from Abraham and his descendants through King David and beyond, “and regard it as having been continually fulfilled, but likewise as always moving forward to larger fulfillment.” We can see this in Stephen’s speech defending himself in the Book of Acts (7:1–60). Finally, Beecher notes that the New Testament writers adopt Old Testament terminology in their writing, especially when expounding on the promise.100
THE PROMISE AND THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE
To summarize Beecher’s argument, which is affirming for me: The Old Testament contains many messianic prophecies, but they are all subordinate to a single promise—that God would send His Son to redeem mankind—and that promise was first made to Abraham when God promised to bless him, make his name great, and bless all nations through him. The New Testament writers regard this one promise, with all its specifications, as the central theme of the Old Testament. They show this, among other ways, by adopting the terminology of the Old Testament writers. Even when they refer to “promises” in the plural, they are referring to a group of promises that together constitute one central promise.
I believe Beecher is emphasizing that there is one central promise, demonstrating the providential unity of the Bible from beginning to end. God’s revelation, from Genesis to Revelation, is grounded in His promise—His guarantee to redeem mankind. Even if the various prophecies and promises He spoke through His prophets concerned many different subjects and weren’t fully understood by those who first heard them, or sometimes even by the prophets themselves, we can see with the hindsight of the New Testament writings that they were all integrally tied together.
Almost all His promises are connected to or in service to God’s central promise to redeem mankind through His Son, and this promise was first made to Abraham, the father of the nation God established to be His holy nation and kingdom of priests. The Israelites would be the sacred guardians and mediators of this redemptive message throughout history until “the fullness of time had arrived” when God’s Son, the Messiah, would come and fulfill the promise. God reiterated, reinforced, and expanded the promise to the Jewish people throughout history, and the unfolding of the promise was delivered by God’s prophets and memorialized in His Old Testament revelation, which was sovereignly written and preserved for all mankind.
Not only was this single promise made to Abraham and then to his successive heirs, it was also fulfilled in his heirs—in King David and ultimately in Christ. Jesus was a direct descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and was heir to David’s throne—the Son of God who became a human being to die and be resurrected to conquer sin and death and offer life to all who believe in Him. He will come in glory in His Second Coming to consummate God’s triumphant kingdom on earth.
Whether you prefer Kaiser’s terminology (“God’s promise-plan”) or Beecher’s (the “promise-doctrine”), it’s clear that these two intellectual giants of their respective eras came to the same conclusion—that one central promise courses through the entire Bible. It is made, repeated, and expanded by God’s many prophets in the Old Testament, and fulfilled by Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament. God knew before He created us that we would fall into sin and need a savior, and He planned then to send His only Son to provide a means of salvation for mankind. He first announced His plan, in shadowy form, at the same time He administered judgment on mankind for His sin, formalized it in His covenantal promise to Abraham, repeated and expanded it through His Old Testament prophets, and fulfilled it in His Son, as the New Testament writers show.
It is enormously comforting that the singular promise to which we’ve referred in this chapter doesn’t apply only to God’s chosen nation, but to all nations and to all people, including you and me. The Gospel is more than good news in the abstract. It is personal, as it applies to each of us, individually. But we must act on it. It can and will change your life, if you place your trust in Jesus Christ. It is “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” both Jew and Gentile (Romans 1:16). If you haven’t done so before, I urge you to humble yourself with the innocence of a child (Matt. 18:3–4), place your saving faith in Jesus Christ and begin an everlasting relationship with Him.
Whereas in this chapter we looked at the New Testament as a whole, in the next we will provide an overview of the Gospels specifically before turning, in the remaining chapters, to an in-depth review and analysis of the Gospels themselves.