OBST830: Discussion Board
Angelology
Anthropology
Apologetics
Bibliology
Christology
Ecclesiology
Eschatology
Ethics
Hamartiology
History
Homilie
OBST830: Prophets I
Pneumatology
Soteriology
Theology Proper

NBST800 NT Backgrounds: Phd Discussion Boards

December 10, 2024

[Paul Whitehorn]

'Week 1 Discussion:

Initial Reflections
Were I a Jew during the Second Temple period, my perspective on those who resisted Hellenization would likely mirror how I view the Amish today.1 Their refusal to engage with American culture and technological advancements comes from a deep commitment to tradition. This is admirable, but it also limits their ability to adapt to the changing world around them. Many Christians today, unlike the Amish, believe they can stay true to their faith while being immersed in secular culture. They don’t view living in a secular society, using its money, embracing its modern architecture, government, or conveniences like tupperware and movies as inherently wrong, any more than Jews thought that Greek ideas were inherently evil. Virtually none of the Jews, even Judas Maccabeus, sought complete separation from the benefits that the Greek world offered.
In fact, Judas utilized Greek tactics in his guerrilla warfare, catching the enemy “ἔν τε ταῖς εὐναῖς ἔτι” (still in their beds), a strategy that echoes techniques found in Thucydides’ writings on the Peloponnesian War.2 Furthermore, in larger battles, Judas adopted Greek formations, such as the tight infantry line. In 1 Maccabees 4:1-25, he outflanks and ambushes his enemy, employing classical Greek strategies of deception and encirclement. Am I suggesting that Judas read Thucydides and learned guerrilla warfare from him? No. However, Judas was familiar with his enemy and embraced Greek combat strategies in battle. As Josephus noted in Antiquities of the Jews, Book 12, Chapter 7, he was a great tactician.3 Every great tactician uses whatever methods are effective, and Judas had to admire, accept, and learn from Greek strategies to stand a chance against one of the most powerful armies of that era. His success depended on understanding and using the most effective techniques available, making him more Hellenized in warfare than any Jew before him.4
In short, there was a degree of compatibility between Greek culture and Jewish traditions. Some aspects of Greek culture, such as language, warfare, literature, and philosophy, could be adopted without necessarily compromising Jewish religious beliefs. The Wisdom of Solomon, for instance, blends Jewish teachings with Hellenistic rhetorical styles, demonstrating how some Jews synthesized Greek intellectual traditions with their faith.5 However, other aspects of Greek culture, such as pagan sacrifices, participation in gymnasiums, and the removal of circumcision, were seen as fundamentally incompatible with Jewish practices. Many Jews, particularly the Hasidim, viewed embracing these aspects as abandoning their covenant with God.6 Similarly, even among the most zealous Jews, such as Saul of Tarsus’s family, who provided him with "a strict Pharisaic upbringing," there were significant Hellenistic influences in Palestine, even within conservative rabbinic circles.7 What I’m saying is that, rather than rejecting all Hellenistic and Greek customs and ideas, Jewish resistance was focused on preserving the integrity of their covenant with God, opposing syncretism, and rejecting the imposition of foreign religious practices. In essence, they sought the freedom to worship God as they chose, a principle that reflected the religious tolerance Alexander the Great practiced in building his empire, rather than a rejection of Greek ideas.8
Hellenization initially spread through the conquests of Alexander the Great and further expanded under Seleucid rule from 312 B.C. onward.9 However, while Alexander had been accommodating to different cultures and religions, some of his successors were not. This was especially true during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, whose heavy-handed and reckless policies led directly to the Maccabean revolt. During the Second Temple period, many Jews witnessed firsthand the true threat of hellenization and the dangers it posed. High priests like Jason of Cyrene and Menelaus, who bribed their way into office and "championed the Greek way of life," were clear examples of the threat this posed to Jewish traditions.10 God’s word stood in opposition to many of the actions taken by this hellenized priesthood, particularly with Jason’s establishment of gymnasiums in Jerusalem. The author of 2 Maccabees described the ire many Jews felt towards the actions taken by Jason:
He took delight in establishing a gymnasium right under the citadel, and he induced the noblest of the young men to wear the Greek hat. There was such an extreme of Hellenization and increase in the adoption of foreign ways because of the surpassing wickedness of Jason, who was ungodly and no true high priest, that the priests were no longer intent upon their service at the altar. Despising the sanctuary and neglecting the sacrifices, they hurried to take part in the unlawful proceedings in the wrestling arena after the signal for the discus-throwing, disdaining the honors prized by their ancestors and putting the highest value upon Greek forms of prestige.⁠ (1 Maccabees. 4:12-15)11
Activities like exercising naked, which took place there, were a direct violation of the prohibition against לְגַלּוֹת עֶרְוָה (uncovering nakedness) as stated in Leviticus 18. This behavior was rightly viewed by many Jews as directly undermining God's clear mandate for modesty throughout the Torah (e.g., Gen. 9:20-27, Deut. 23:14). Even so, the reaction to Hellenization was not monolithic, with differing levels of acceptance depending on the individual, and some Jewish communities were more receptive to Greek cultural influence. Jews living in the diaspora, especially in Hellenistic cities like Alexandria, were more likely to adopt certain aspects of Greek culture while retaining parts of their Jewish identity.12 Conversely, groups like the Hasidim and rural populations resisted Hellenization, seeing it as a direct threat to their religious and cultural identity.13
Reasons for embracing or resisting Hellenization: Rabbi Haqqaneh, in the Mishnah, taught that embracing the Torah relieves the burdens of worldly obligations, stating, "From whoever accepts upon himself the yoke of Torah do they remove the yoke of the state and the yoke of hard labor." Conversely, neglecting the study of the Torah would result in greater burdens from the state.14 Therefore, to the rural communities of Judea, the Greek world would have appeared both foreign and advanced, representing a yoke imposed by the state. This perception of Greek advancement as God's punishment would have further deepened the cultural divide between Hellenism and traditional Jewish life. It wouldn't be too dissimilar to the Blackfoot tribes of the Northern Plains when they first encountered Lewis and Clark; they would have viewed advancements in clothing, pottery, architecture, science, and technology as significant leaps forward. Thus, those in a position to observe these obvious cultural advancements, particularly the upper priestly class and aristocracy, groups that would later be associated with the Sadducees, were inclined to embrace Hellenization, recognizing its broader benefits for all Jews. On the other hand, many Jews, particularly the more conservative and rural factions, strongly resisted Hellenization, as it threatened what I like to call in jest “the King James Only movement.” These conservative groups would eventually develop into what would later become the Pharisees.
One might wonder if, had Antiochus IV Epiphanes allowed the Jews to remain indifferent and not forced drastic changes, Jewish culture would have gradually been Hellenized. However, much like Hitler's inability to resist invading Poland, Antiochus couldn't refrain from pushing too far, igniting resistance that ultimately preserved Jewish identity. According to Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 12, Chapter 5, Section 4, Antiochus' holocaust of the Jews included plundering the temple of its treasures, forbidding daily sacrifices, killing or enslaving ten thousand inhabitants, burning buildings, destroying city walls, building a citadel, erecting an idol altar and sacrificing swine upon it, forcing Jews to forsake their worship and adopt idol worship, forbidding circumcision under threat of punishment, appointing overseers to enforce his commands, whipping, tearing, crucifying Jews alive, strangling women and their circumcised sons, hanging their sons around their necks on crosses, and destroying any found sacred books of the law, killing those with whom they were found.14 Cue in the Operation Market Garden and the Maccabean Revolt!
The Maccabean Revolt was sparked by more than just the imposition of Greek customs that violated Jewish law, like the profaning of the Sabbath or the outlawing of circumcision. It was a deeper, more passionate response to the cultural and spiritual oppression that threatened the very identity of the Jewish people. It was also fueled by the brutal crimes against humanity committed by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, atrocities that any sane and free people would seek to resist if given the chance. Every society has a breaking point where they would rather die free than live as slaves (1 Macc. 2:67). The revolt led by Mattathias and his sons, ultimately led to the rededication of the Temple in 164 BC and the establishment of the Hasmonean dynasty.

____________________
1. Steven Gertz, “Outsider’s Guide to America’s Anabaptists,”
Links to an external site.
Christian History Magazine-Issue 84: Pilgrims & Exiles: Amish, Mennonites, & Brethren (Carol Stream, IL: Christianity Today, 2004).
2. Thucydides, “Thucydides: History of the Peloponnesian War, Books III and IV: Greek Text,”
Links to an external site.
ed. E. Capps, T. E. Page, and W. H. D. Rouse, The Loeb Classical Library: Greek (London; New York: William Heinemann; G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1920), 268.
3. Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged
Links to an external site.
(Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987), 326
4. Jonathan A. Goldstein, I Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary
Links to an external site.
, vol. 41, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 257.
5. Daniel M. Gurtner, “Noncanonical Jewish Writings,”
Links to an external site.
in The World of the New Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts, ed. Joel B. Green and Lee Martin McDonald (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 293–294.
6. Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity
Links to an external site.
, Third Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 429.
7. Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity
Links to an external site.
, Third Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 398.
8. Plutarch, “Plutarch’s Lives: Demosthenes and Cicero, Alexander and Caesar,”
Links to an external site.
ed. E. H. Warmington, The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA; London: Harvard University Press; William Heinemann Ltd, 1919), 302.
9. Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity
Links to an external site.
, Third Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 17–18.
10. Larry R. Helyer, “The Hasmoneans and the Hasmonean Era,”
Links to an external site.
in The World of the New Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts, ed. Joel B. Green and Lee Martin McDonald (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 48.
11. The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version
Links to an external site.
(Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), 2 Mac 4:12–15.
12. Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity
Links to an external site.
, Third Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 429.
13. Joel B. Green and Lee Martin McDonald, “Introduction,”
Links to an external site.
in The World of the New Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts, ed. Joel B. Green and Lee Martin McDonald (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 4-5.
14. Jacob Neusner, The Mishnah : A New Translation
Links to an external site.
(New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1988), 679.
15. Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged
Links to an external site.
(Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987), 323–324.

Week 2

Paul Whitehorn

Oct 28 2:35pm
| Last reply Nov 3 11:11pm

Reply from Paul Whitehorn
1. Messianic Expectations of First-Century Jews
     The readings reveal five main movements with distinct messianic expectations: the Zealots, Essenes, Pharisees, Diaspora Jews, and, last but not least, the Samaritans. To view these groups in our current context, the best parallels would be as follows: the Zealots' militant Messiah mirrors activist Islam’s Mahdi; the Essenes’ spiritual Messiah aligns with Buddhist and Hindu mysticism; the Pharisees’ law-centered Messiah parallels Orthodox Judaism; the Diaspora Jews’ unifying Messiah resonates with the Baha’i vision of global harmony; and the Samaritans’ Messiah reflects the distinct identity sought by Jehovah's Witnesses. Of course, these are not one-to-one comparisons, but they help me explain to myself and internalize who these groups were as it relates to what I already know.
     To answer the prompt's question more specifically, the first group were the Zealots, who sought a Messianic figure to lead a violent rebellion against Rome. Ferguson explains this perspective through Josephus, who describes their ideology as part of the "Fourth Philosophy" and traces its origins to Judas of Galilee A.D. 6, who led a tax revolt.[1]Secondly, the Essenes, described in Josephus’s War of the Jews 2.160[2] and often associated with the Qumran community, are frequently noted for their close parallels to the teachings of Jesus and John the Baptist. (e.g. 1QS 8.13-14)[3] However, scholars like Charlesworth challenge this idea by comparing Jesus’ teachings with the various Essene texts discovered at Qumran, showing significant differences that dispel the notion of direct influence or association.[4] Evidence suggests that Essene expectations partially mirrored Jesus' vision of the Messiah: one who would purify and renew Israel, emphasize spiritual renewal over political action, and fulfill both priestly and kingly functions.[5] The Pharisees, in the third group, anticipated a Messiah who would reinforce and purify the Law, leading to spiritual renewal and national restoration. Rather than favoring rebellion, they believed that devotion to the Torah would ready the people for the kingdom.[6] Fourthly, Jews in the Diaspora, living outside Judea, held diverse views on the Messiah.[7] Influenced by Hellenistic cultures, some expected a Messiah who would unite Israel and restore its glory, while others anticipated a spiritual savior who would transcend earthly kingdoms.[8] Lastly, the Samaritans. Our readings alluded to[9] but ultimatly overlooked the Samaritan view of their messianic figure, the Taheb, or תָּהֵב, which is surprising, especially since it sheds light on Pontius Pilate’s character and his ironic end: being removed from office for going too far instead of not far enough. (John 19:12)[10] Upon his arrival, the Taheb was expected to dwell among his people for 110 years. His death would then signal the beginning of resurrection and final judgment. The righteous would enter Eden, while the wicked would face fire. He was awaited not as a king or warrior but as "the Restorer." By his very presence, he was expected to bring Israel back into divine favor, restoring Solomons temple on Mount Gerizim.[11] In this vision of the Taheb, we glimpse a Messiah unlike most others; one who restored rather than conquered, and purified rather than politicized. Historically, this is relevant because Josephus, in Antiquities 18.84–108, records that Pilate was removed from his position as governor of Judea due to his excessive use of force against a gathering focused on a supposed Taheb figure. The Samaritans accused Pilate of unjust violence, stating, “they did not go to Tirathaba in order to revolt from the Romans, but to escape the violence of Pilate.” (88)[12] Therefore, Pilate’s brutal nature makes his merciful statement, “I find no grounds for charges in the case of this man,” even more remarkable, emphasizing Jesus’ radical innocence when viewed against the backdrop of Pilate’s life. (Luke 23:4)

2. Consensus or Differences of Opinion on the Messiah's Characteristics and Mission
     There was no general consensus among the Jews on the basic characteristics of the coming Messiah; as I already outlined in the first reponse. Some saw the Messiah as a political and military figure, others as a prophetic or priestly figure. For instance, the Zealots were more inclined to view the Messiah as a revolutionary who would overthrow Roman rule (e.g. Ferguson, 532). While, the Essenes, a more isolated community, awaited a Messiah who would establish a new covenant and bring spiritual renewal.[13] Moreover, within the Jewish Diaspora, there were differences based on cultural and geographical influences, with Jews in Alexandria, for example, being more Hellenized and thus having different expectations compared to those in Palestine.[14] These varied views show that Messianic expectations were far from uniform.

3. What Accounts for These Differences?
     These varying accounts developed from a lack of unity within the people of God. As a result, Paul, fully aware of the splintering effect these divisions could wreak, constantly called for unity (1 Cor. 1:10, Eph. 4:3-6, Phil. 2:2). Paul was in good company; the other apostles, and Jesus himself, also called for unity (John 17:21-23, 1 Pet. 3:8, 1 John 1:7). In short, isolation from a core orthodoxy, whether due to physical separation by choice, as with the Essenes; by force, as with the Diaspora; or through religious racism, as seen in the discrimination faced by Samaritan Jews, drove a wedge between the communities. In my opinion, the differing expectations for the Messiah trace back, chiefly, to this fundamental lack of unity; political and social divides were merely branches sprouting from that root division.
     I haven’t watched too many episodes of CSI Miami, but I’ll speculate as to how these political and social divides developed. For the Zealots, living under direct Roman occupation fueled a desire for a Messiah who would act as a military leader and liberator. Their social and political oppression led them to see the Messiah as a revolutionary figure, capable of overthrowing Rome and restoring Jewish sovereignty. In contrast, the Essenes’ withdrawal from mainstream society meant they were less focused on political liberation and more on spiritual purity. Isolated in the desert and separated from the political struggles of Judea, they expected a Messiah who would restore holiness rather than political power, envisioning a figure who would purify Israel and establish a new covenant. Diaspora Jews, spread across the Hellenistic world, lived in relatively diverse societies where they adapted to different cultures and political settings. Their social integration led many to see the Messiah less as a political figure and more as a spiritual or unifying presence who would bring Jews together across nations. For Jews in places like Alexandria, Hellenistic influences led them to blend messianic expectations with cultural ideals, focusing on a Messiah who could transcend earthly kingdoms and bring unity beyond geographical boundaries. In the end, each community’s social and political environment helped shape a unique vision of the Messiah, aligning their expectations with the conditions they faced, whether it was militaristic resistance, spiritual renewal, or cultural integration.

_______________
*English Translations Are Derived From: New American Standard Bible
Links to an external site.
(La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 2020)
[1] Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity
Links to an external site.
, Third Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 532.
[2] Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged
Links to an external site.
(Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987), 607.
[3] Florentino Garcı́a Martı́nez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, “The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (translations)”
Links to an external site.
(Leiden; New York: Brill, 1997–1998), 89.
[4] James H. Charlesworth, Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls: With Internationally Renowned Experts
Links to an external site.
(New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1992), 11.
[5] Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity
Links to an external site.
, Third Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 533.
[6] Lidija Novakovic, “Jews and Samaritans,”
Links to an external site.
in The World of the New Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts, ed. Joel B. Green and Lee Martin McDonald (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 221.
[7] David A. Desilva, “Jews in the Diaspora,”
Links to an external site.
in The World of the New Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts, ed. Joel B. Green and Lee Martin McDonald (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 272.
[8] Florentino Garcı́a Martı́nez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, “The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (translations)”
Links to an external site.
(Leiden; New York: Brill, 1997–1998), 1099.
[9] Derek S. Dodson and Katherine E. Smith, eds., Exploring Biblical Backgrounds: A Reader in Historical and Literary Contexts
Links to an external site.
(Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2018), 181.
[10] Isidore Singer, ed., The Jewish Encyclopedia: A Descriptive Record of the History, Religion, Literature, and Customs of the Jewish People from the Earliest Times to the Present Day, 12 Volumes
Links to an external site.
(New York; London: Funk & Wagnalls, 1901–1906), 674.
[11] W. J. Heard and K. Yamazaki-Ransom, “Revolutionary Movements,”
Links to an external site.
ed. Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Second Edition (Downers Grove, IL; Nottingham, England: IVP Academic; IVP, 2013), 792.
[12] Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged
Links to an external site.
(Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987), 482.
[13] Philip R. Davies, The Damascus Covenant: An Interpretation of the “Damascus Document” (Translation)
Links to an external site.
, vol. 25, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1982), 257.
[14] Nicholas Perrin, “Exile,”
Links to an external site.
in The World of the New Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts, ed. Joel B. Green and Lee Martin McDonald (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 25.

Week 3

Paul Whitehorn

Nov 2 9:29pm
| Last reply Nov 7 7:13pm

Reply from Paul Whitehorn
1. After reading the primary sources pertaining to the first-century Jewish groups, provide your perspective on this conclusion.
The Post-Judaism movement thats described by Sanders and N.T. Wright has about as much in common with the Judaism in the first century as a stalk of wheat has to do with a Fruit Loop. I and Ferguson agree with Bozung when he wrote, “not only is the assertion of a monolithic covenant nomism in Second Temple Judaism false, it also is a wholly inadequate alternative for the merit theology that the NPP contends did not characterize Second Temple Judaism.1,2 So, let us not overcomplicate a very straightforward fact: the Judaism encountered in the New Testament holds that salvation can be achieved through legalistic means.(Matt. 23, Ro. 3:20, Gal. 2:16, Phil. 3:9) So I ask you, should we abandon the Apostles' teaching about the Judaizers, which says, "For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God”? (Romans 10:3-4)? Perhaps we should simply rewrite Romans 10:3-4 to say "they never tried to establish their own righteousness?” Or we could cherry pick a few writings that were produced centuries after Christianity, that were authored by the very individuals who initially sought to suppress the movement? Yes, we could place the Pharisees, Sadducees, or even the Qumran texts as the final authority on the subject, as Sanders and Wright suggest! Any perspective on first-century Judaism that fails to see it as a strictly legalistic and self-righteous religion invites heresy of the most dangerous kind. Or are we to presume that Saul of Tarsus didnt know Judaism in his letters to the Romans and Galatians? Or are we to assume that our Lord, was mistaken or had built straw men arguments in Matthew 23?
Preachable notes: There is only one source document from any of these periods that I consider dominant, and that is the record found in the Bible. The Church doesn't care what sources like Josephus, the Mishnah from around 200 AD, the Tosefta from 250 AD, the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds from the 4th to 6th centuries AD, or the Qumran texts from roughly 200AD have to say. Even if an alien were to descend from the heavens, hand the president a video recording of the period on live TV, it wouldn’t change the anything. As fascinating as these sources are, and as many doctorates and theological insights have been dedicated to studying them, they must all bow to writings that coincide with the Spirit we have received from the Father of lights. We do not do this blindly, nor should we reject reason or logic; on the contrary, we have a far greater confidence in these writings because our family who penned it encountered the same holy fire from heaven that we have received.

2. Do these sources generally support or contradict their conclusion?
Although the Pharisees and the Qumran community tend to both demonstrate beliefs in law-based righteousness, the Pharisees emphasize strict adherence to both written and oral traditions for communal purity.3 According to our readings, the Qumran community stresses rigorous obedience to community rules as a means to achieve righteousness, though they also emphasize divine election.4 The Sadducees, by contrast, focused only on the written law for their understanding of societal order, and they didn't see it as a path to salvation. In short, our readings support the conclusion that there were a variety of different beliefs during first-century Judaism. Yet, even within these groups, there were contradictory teachings. For example, we did cover 1QS Col. xi:1-20 from Qumran, which points to a reliance on God’s mercy rather than law as a means of salvation. According to verses 7 and 8, “God has selected he has given them as everlasting possession,"5 indicating that God is the primary mover in salvation, rather than the work of man's hands. Sounds good, doesn't it? It even speaks of divine election and a divine partnership. Yet, for every passage like this one in the Qumran texts, we can find 10 more that preach a works based righteousness. For example, 1QS Col. iii:5-7:
5 Defiled, defiled shall he be all the days he spurns the decrees
6 of God, without allowing himself to be taught by the Community of his counsel. For it is by the spirit of the true counsel of God that are atoned the paths of man, all
7 his iniquities, so that he can look at the light of life.6
These passages reveal a model of righteousness that depends on adherence to divine decrees and communal instruction for salvation. They believed in works as righteousness. That is, this passage teaches that a person remains "defiled" as long as he disregards God's commandments and refuses guidance from his little gang. Atonement and spiritual purity,hinge upon accepting and walking in "the spirit of the true counsel of God," and only through this rigid path is a person able to receive salvation. It also says that experiencing the "light of life" is a reward for this obedience, which indicates that righteousness is attainable only through strict conformity to this gangs prescribed practices and teachings.

3. In addition to these sources, interact with at least two modern scholars who have offered their opinion on this subject.
Some heresies like to hide in large books and complex words, so let's expose this one for what it truly says. N.T. Wright's heresy states that God doesn't save individuals; he saves covenant people groups.7 He teaches that Paul’s idea of justification doesn’t refer to individual salvation, where a sinner is declared righteous by faith in Christ; instead, it’sabout whether someone belongs to the covenant family.8 While, I hold a great deal of respect for E.P. Sanders, and I believe his 1964 work Paul and Palestinian Judaism is both well-written and well-worn for good reason in my library, his conclusions are wrong. Why? Simple, because his Judaism does not reflect the Judaism encountered by Jesus, Paul, or the Apostles. His error is simple. He tried to examine the American laws from the 1920s, then wrote a book on America from the perspective of the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act, which banned alcohol.9 However, he never set foot in a speakeasy.

________________________
1. Douglas C. Bozung, “The New Perspective on Paul: A Survey and Critique Part II,”
Links to an external site.
Journal of Ministry and Theology Volume 10 10, no. 1 (2006): 26.
2. Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity
Links to an external site.
, Third Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 513.
3.Lidija Novakovic, “Jews and Samaritans,”
Links to an external site.
in The World of the New Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts, ed. Joel B. Green and Lee Martin McDonald (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 218-223.
4. ibid.
5. Florentino Garcı́a Martı́nez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, “The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (translations)”
Links to an external site.
(Leiden; New York: Brill, 1997–1998), 97.
6. Florentino Garcı́a Martı́nez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, “The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (translations)”
Links to an external site.
(Leiden; New York: Brill, 1997–1998), 75.
7. N. T. Wright, Paul and His Recent Interpreters: Some Contemporary Debates
Links to an external site.
(Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2015), 261.
8. Got Questions Ministries, Got Questions? Bible Questions Answered
Links to an external site.
(Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2002–2013).
9. Daniel G. Reid et al., Dictionary of Christianity in America
Links to an external site.
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990).

Week 4

Paul Whitehorn

Nov 21 7:14pm
| Last reply Dec 2 12:26am

Reply from Paul Whitehorn

Preface:
My honest hope is that we discover in heaven that every book in the Bible originated from a homeless dude with one tooth living in a cave; this would reveal how little we truly comprehend God’s ways and demonstrate His power to weave His will flawlessly through time, like a perfect ribbon, for His glory…not for the gratification of our intellect. In a more serious tone, before addressing this week’s question, I wish to affirm my belief in the sensus plenior inspiration of Scripture. I firmly hold that the Protestant canon is authoritative and serves as God’s faithful message to humanity, transcending both space and time. However, like Eusebius of Caesarea, I regard the books of Revelation, Enoch, and James as more apocryphal in nature and elevate Sirach to a higher level of authority (Eus., Hist. eccl. 3.25).1 I believe the Holy Spirit within us is the guiding force behind the sitz im leben of the authors. I believe their vocabularies, writing styles, and grammatical decisions were entirely their own. Yet, through God's eternal purpose, free choices were woven together by him to reveal His perfect message to humanity. Through this radical way of communicating, God, who dwells in unapproachable light, reflects His holy glory while protecting Himself in the most perfect way to a fallen and imperfect people. I believe this method of communication is in itself a message to humanity, demonstrating how God transforms the ordinary into the holy.
Furthermore, God revealed Himself to us with boldness and clarity, not so that we might merely have faith, but so that we might know; for like Thomas, we have seen and are called to answer the questions others cannot. Even the most studious among us, without the Spirit, will fail. This is evident in the words of Bart Ehrman, who admits, “The more I studied the evangelical truth claims about Christianity, especially claims about the Bible, the more I realized that the ‘truth’ was taking me somewhere I very much did not want to go.”2 Where he ended up going was down a path of skepticism, ultimately rejecting the faith after encountering topics such as pseudepigraphy. Despite his extensive study of Scripture, Ehrman’s journey illustrates that intellectual effort alone, without the guidance of the Spirit, can lead to misunderstanding and even disbelief. This underscores why God calls individuals equipped not only with knowledge but also with the Spirit’s wisdom to be in the same mindset of those who wrote scripture. My response to this week's discussion is shaped by this spirit.
#1: Fakebook?
Clarke's Third Law states that “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic,” emphasizing that when we encounter systems or mechanisms beyond our comprehension, they appear miraculous, not because they defy reason, but because they operate on principles or levels of complexity that we have yet to grasp. Similarly, the process by which the Holy Spirit elevates humans to write Scripture is not truly a mystery but a divine science. This science is freely open to all, and it's not a hidden secret. (1Cor. 2:10, John 14:26, 1 John 2:20) Tragically, however, many treat the Bible as an idol, venerating it without ever engaging with its pages, the very ones holding pitchforks if they feel it's threatened. In truth, every bit of Scripture is pseudepigraphical in the sense that God used human authors' lives, names, and everything else about them to produce a narrative across time. Of course, this isn’t the pseudepigraphical concept that McDonald is referring to, but still, it raises the question. For me, it doesn’t matter if Paul wrote 1 and 2 Timothy, because the author of both of these books is one of us. That is, they, too, received the same Spirit as we have, and the halo that rests upon us physically was also familiar to them. That is, the same ὑπερεπλεόνασεν, “overabundance or surpassing grace,” that flowed to these authors is the same one we received (1 Tim. 1:14). However, like Thomas Oden defends if the book wasn't written by Paul, it was written by a follower of Paul, who had also received the Spirit and was "thoroughly steeped in Paul’s language and spirit."3 Regardless, this familiar content, is a big neon sign screaming to us that we are not alone and that God has been working this way from the beginning. For example, Jesus' promise came true to them even as it has come true to us: “And behold, I am sending the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.” (Luke 24:49) This serves as a historical anchor, affirming to the Church that Luke’s account is true. This is not because Luke was an apostle but because he documented something 2000 years ago that happened again last weekend at a cookout in Maine. What we have experienced is not the work of aliens, arbitrary forces, or idols. Rather, it is the God of Abraham who has invaded us with the mind of Christ. In His boundless wisdom and love, He has allowed a few books to leak through that reveal we are not alone. These books are like our little sisters in the faith, for we, as their elders, can build upon what they have written to further what God is doing in the present. Whether they were written by an angel or a peasant shepherd boy like David who was both a murderer and a liar, or someone falsely claiming another identity, it does not matter in the slightest. Warning: Many who see themselves as faithful disregard intellectual inquiry about textual criticism. They blindly accept what they have been taught as the “Bible” and dismiss with disdain anyone who challenges even the smallest aspect of its composition. Even though this is a moral grey area, we should encourage this ignorance. Let me repeat myself for clarity: even if none of the Gospels were written by the Apostles yet their message leads people to salvation and the reception of the Holy Spirit, then their authorship becomes a non-issue. The 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament are sufficient for the Church to save souls and nothing else matters. If through these books souls are saved, God’s message is faithfully conveyed, and the Church finds unity, then they have fulfilled their purpose.

#2 Authority?
While Christians may be deeply committed to Scripture, as Hurtado observes, we do not worship a book.4 If certain works of the Bible were written by scoundrels of the worst kind, including the wisest Solomon who worshiped idols (1 Kings 11:4), Jacob who lied to his father and stole from his brother (Gen. 27:18), Noah who got drunk and acted foolishly with his own daughters (Gen. 9:20), or Matthew who betrayed his own people for money as a tax collector (Matt. 9:9), then perhaps that would make them less authoritative? Nay, it makes them more relatable, reminding us not to worship the text itself but to recognize God’s radical approach in choosing to communicate with us both individually and collectively. It would be unwise, and I dare say unchristian, to accept any book solely based on who authored it. Even Peter wrote an apocalypse that proved to be a failure, and Paul himself penned letters that were ultimately lost to history, probably for good reason. Furthermore, we cannot place our trust solely in councils or men, as the Council of Trent demonstrates that even councils can affirm heresy. Nor can we rely entirely on history or the consensus of the early Church, for even there, we find books that conflict with the teachings of Christ. Instead, we must take a practical approach: retaining books that advance our mission while setting aside those that do not, even when the authors, such as James and Paul, do not always seem to align. (e.g Ro. 3:28, James 2:24) In fact, it is wise to encourage the Church to assume harmony between these writings and to develop thorough and compelling arguments to demonstrate their consistency where possible, so as not to confuse or mislead the ignorant. That is, we must carefully select the books that we can use to encourage people toward God and best lead them to salvation. This practical approach is reflected in the thinking of theologians throughout history. Origen and Eusebius of Caesarea acknowledged the need for discernment in recognizing which books aligned with apostolic teaching and were most edifying for the faith. Martin Luther, though he cotified today's protestant canon, also famously questioned the value of certain books. John Calvin highlighted the self-authenticating nature of Scripture, focusing on its ability to point believers to Christ. In the same vein and in full agreement with my own stance, Karl Barth emphasized that the authority of the canon lies in its role as a witness to God’s revelation, guiding people to encounter the living Spirit in the Word. Furthermore, Barth in Church Dogmatics correctly emphasizes that Scripture is not a passive object of study but a living, active subject that continually speaks and declares God’s truth across all ages and contexts:
The fact is—and it does not make the slightest difference whether it is recognised or not—that in all ages Scripture has been the subject of its own history, the guiding, teaching, ruling subject, not under men but over men, over all the men who in so many ways, and with such continual oddities and contradictions, have applied themselves to its exposition5
Regardless, these theologians along with Barth illustrates the importance of prioritizing the writings that best serve the mission of Christ and the salvation of souls. With this in mind, if we can encourage others to accept these 39 books in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament as authoritative, we will have served the mission of Christ well. We are no longer mere children but heirs; and if heirs, sons; and if sons, beloved. If we are beloved, then we are made capable of seeing and discerning the truth. This conviction is evident in Martin Luther’s decision to exclude the Deuterocanonical books, which had been part of the Christian canon for over 1,600 years by his time. These books include Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, First and Second Maccabees, as well as the additions to Esther and Daniel, such as the Prayer of Azariah, the Song of the Three Holy Children, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon. At the time, it would have been like someone tearing out a few Gospels and a psalm or two. However, because this happened long ago these books have been largely forgotten. Many Christians today are unaware they ever existed.

Preaching Notes:
I have stood in the small town of Wittenberg many times, gazing at the places where Martin Luther lived and worked, including the very desk where he made his decisions. I assure you, he was just a man, filled with the same flaws and errors all saints share. His decisions were his own, and while he is entitled to his opinions, some of them, like those in his work On the Jews and Their Lies, are deeply troubling. In this work, he called for all their synagogues and schools to be set on fire, their homes to be demolished, their writings to be confiscated, and for them to be driven from Germany like mad dogs and subjected to forced labor.
I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses, letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen. 3[:19]). For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and [BAD WORD REMOVED] and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians because of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants.6
Such rhetoric not only fueled centuries of antisemitism but also served as a precursor to the Holocaust, implicating Luther in ideological crimes that far surpasses even those of Hitler. Yet, like King David and other flawed individuals whom God has used, we acknowledge that Luther, despite his influence, was just a man: an imperfect vessel who made grievous misjudgments. Is this the man who solidified the New Testament canon in its current form? Yes, and for this reason, we cannot and must not place blind faith in him or any single individual to determine the canon of Scripture. He was neither fit nor worthy to bear such authority, and the responsibility for discerning God’s Word must remain rooted in the broader witness of the Church and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

_________________________
* All English Translations of the Bible into English are derived from the New American Standard Bible
Links to an external site.
(La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 2020).
1. Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, Books 1–5
Links to an external site.
, ed. Roy Joseph Deferrari, trans. Roy Joseph Deferrari, vol. 19, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1953), 178–179.
2. Bart D. Ehrman, Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are (New York: HarperOne, 2011), 4.
3. Thomas C. Oden, First and Second Timothy and Titus
Links to an external site.
, Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville, KY: J. Knox Press, 1989), 15.
4. Larry W. Hurtado, Destroyer of the Gods: Early Christian Distinctiveness in the Roman World
Links to an external site.
(Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016), 105.
5. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics
Links to an external site.
, ed. Geoffrey William Bromiley, trans. Geoffrey William Bromiley, First American edition. (London; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 79.
6. Hans J. Hillerbrand, “About the Jews and Their Lies,”
Links to an external site.
in Christian Life in the World, ed. Hans J. Hillerbrand, Kirsi I. Stjerna, and Timothy J. Wengert, vol. 5, The Annotated Luther (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1543), 576.

Week 5
Paul Whitehorn

Nov 29 4:55pm
| Last reply Dec 8 4:07pm

Reply from Paul Whitehorn
#1 Slaves, women, and children

Slaves
Many people express frustration that the New Testament (NT) does not explicitly condemn slavery, but I believe this criticism misses the larger point. Make no mistake: slavery persists even in modern forms, manifesting as indentured servitude to systems of power in numerous forms today (Such servitude has rewarded many students at Liberty University with the G.I. Bill.). Instead of rejecting this system wholesale, the NT engages with the realities of its time, providing principles that go beyond simply calling for a legal abolition. The apostolic teaching does something far greater, it dismantles the core of what was truly wrong with the practice. (Eph. 6:5-9) That is, by teaching that a master must view his slave as family in Christ, it eliminates the foundation for exploitation and harm. Obviously, this is a two-way street. In some cases, kicking a slave out of service could be just as bad as mistreating him.1
The ethics that we see in the NT is different from that of the Greco-Roman world, especially as it deals with slaves, women, and children. Bartchy describes slavery in the Roman world as a kind of "social death," where enslaved individuals were entirely subjected to the authority of their masters.2 This absolute power extended to the normalization of physical violence, which was widely regarded as a legitimate and acceptable means for owners to control their slaves.3 When we approach letters like Ephesians and Philemon, we encounter a society that is completely surrounded by these norms, which helps us understand their context. Paul’s letter to Philemon is a particularly striking example. Though Paul does not overtly denounce the institution of slavery, he makes a heartfelt plea for Philemon to accept Onesimus οὐκέτι ὡς δοῦλον ἀλλʼ ὑπὲρ δοῦλον, ἀδελφὸν ἀγαπητόν. (Phil. 16) In the Greek, this phrase carries seismic implications: Onesimus is no longer merely a slave, bound to serve and identified by his position. Instead, Paul elevates him as a beloved brother, someone to be valued and honored, not only as family in the faith but as a peer. This was not a total redefinition of Roman slavery, as there were many instances where slaves were more intelligent than their owners, many held positions of honor, and not all slaves were at the bottom of the social caste system.4 However, we must not also overlook the fact that Paul’s teaching was not entirely countercultural in a legal sense: Roman slaves had protections on paper, much like the rights claimed under Jim Crow laws in the South.5 Yet, the concept of embracing a slave as a brother was a radical departure from general Roman thought.
Women
First, let me note that the prohibition against women preaching was not a cultural anomaly of the first century. This apostolic teaching reflects a timeless theological principle rooted in the order of creation rather than cultural conditions. Despite the frustration of many who wish otherwise, 1 Timothy 2:12-13 directly ties its instruction to God’s order for humanity: Adam was formed first, then Eve, and the fall is also cited, which undermines any attempt to reinterpret it away. Simply put, by pointing back to Genesis, Paul illustrates that this teaching is not bound by cultural conventions but is grounded in God's created order: "ὁ ἀθετῶν οὐκ ἄνθρωπον ἀθετεῖ ἀλλὰ τὸν θεὸν" (1 Thess. 4:8). Secondly, this is not an issue we can simply override to suit our preferences or contemporary views; instead, it calls us to trust and submit to God's wisdom, even when it challenges modern sensibilitiesMuch like our culture today, the Roman world was predominantly patriarchal, though "materfamilias" influences were present in certain areas.6 Women were generally relegated to the private sphere of home life, as societal norms discouraged their participation in public events or speaking, which were traditionally and still often considered part of the male domain. (1 Cor. 14:34-35) This division was not intended to demean women but reflected the societal structure of the time, as it often does today, which valued distinct roles for men and women within their respective spheres. (Titus 2:3-5) Also, while educated to some degree, this education would have been limited, which is why we see admonitions like “learn quietly.” (1 Tim. 2:11) According to Cohick, women had some empowerment but with limited autonomy or decision-making.7 Much like the NT’s admonitions, women were expected to be modest and faithful while managing household affairs; they also held jobs that were needed in society such as, “women worked in market shops, hired out as wet nurses, studied philosophy, and served as patronesses of trade guilds.” (2 Tim 2:9) In the same vein, women like Phoebe, a deacon, and Priscilla, a teacher alongside her husband Aquila, had positions within the church. (Ro. 16:1-2; Acts 18:26) These examples suggest that the NT wasn't that far off from what was already the norm in Roman society, with women working as equals in positions of influence and power within the Church. (Gal. 3:28)
Children
In Roman society, children were largely treated as "little adults."8 According to Ferguson, it was normal and quite common for infants to be exposed or abandoned, often leading to enslavement or sale into prostitution. Children were frequently put to work in their teenage years, and harsh, violent treatment was not unusual.9 The NT, however, places a surprising emphasis on the dignity and spiritual worth of children. Jesus’s declaration, “Let the little children come to me… for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these,” contrasts sharply with prevailing cultural attitudes. (Matt. 19:14) However, Christianity was not very far off from what Jews taught about Children and women and slaves.

#2 Countercultural?
Christianity appears to have functioned more as a reform movement within existing cultural frameworks rather than as a direct challenge to those frameworks. It would be incorrect to view the NT authors as purely countercultural figures. Instead, they were very much influenced by the Jewish and Roman environments they were part of. Christianity’steachings regarding children, women, and slaves largely adhered to the existing norms of the time. (See readings op. cit.)  The instruction given in Colossians 3:18-25, for example, emphasizes traditional household roles in a way that aligns with the broader Roman and Jewish expectations. Christianity should be understood as a synthesis of Jewish heritage and Roman influence, rather than a movement completely opposed to its cultural context. To put it more simply, the idea that Christianity was entirely countercultural is an oversimplification. While early Christians certainly differed from Roman society in some significant ways, they were also shaped by the broader culture in which they lived. Much of what they believed and practiced was influenced by their Jewish heritage, and they absorbed various aspects of Roman customs and ethics. (Cf. 81) Like any society, there were diverse views and practices among early Christians, and they were not as radically distinct from the surrounding world as we might be tempted to hope. For example, Romans 13:1-7 shows an alignment with civil obedience, and Matthew 5:17 demonstrates continuity with Jewish law rather than a complete break. In short, the ethical teachings of early Christians aligned closely with both Roman societal norms and Jewish customs; they were no more countercultural in the first-century than they are today.

________________________
*All English Translations in this post are mine, and for the Greek text, I relied on Kurt Aland et al., Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th Edition. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012).
1. S. Scott Bartchy, “Slaves and Slavery in the Roman World,”
Links to an external site.
in The World of the New Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts, ed. Joel B. Green and Lee Martin McDonald (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 174.
2. ibid, 169.
3. ibid, 171.
4. ibid, 173-174.
5. ibid, 175.
6. ibid, 180.
7. ibid, 181.
8. Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity
Links to an external site.
, Third Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 80.
9. Lynn H. Cohick, “Women, Children, and Families in the Greco-Roman World,”
Links to an external site.
in The World of the New Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts, ed. Joel B. Green and Lee Martin McDonald (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 185.

Chaplain WHITEHORN
I'm honored to serve as the State Prison Chaplain at Avon Park Correctional Institution. My journey into ministry was deeply shaped by my military experience as a Combat Veteran Sergeant and later as an Officer in the U.S. Army. Alongside my military career, I've pursued a lifelong passion for theology and scholarship, beginning with a Bachelor’s Degree in Biblical Studies from Crichton College. I continued advanced studies at Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, earned a Master of Divinity from Liberty University, and I'm currently completing my Ph.D., driven by a desire to understand and faithfully communicate God’s Word.

3/16/26

NBST800 NT Backgrounds: Phd Discussion Boards

About me

Support This Ministry

Developing A Trinitarian Open Theism