The Lord is Our Helper and Keeper (Psalm 121)

I will lift up my eyes to the mountains; from where shall my help come? My help comes from the LORD, who made heaven and earth. He will not allow your foot to slip; He who keeps you will not slumber. Behold, He who keeps Israel will neither slumber nor sleep. The LORD is your keeper; the LORD is your shade on your right hand. The sun will not smite you by day, nor the moon by night. The LORD will protect you from all evil; He will keep your soul. The LORD will guard your going out and your coming in

from this time forth and forever. Exposition of Psalm 121 Vs. 1 The psalmist begins with a question: “I will lift up my eyes to the mountains; from where shall my help come?” Commentators differ, but as far as it stands I see this as a rhetorical question; the answer is implied. It’s implied by the first part, when the psalmist says “I will lift up my eyes to the mountains.” By saying he will lift up his eyes to the mountains, he aims to communicate the kind of help and the kind of helper he has in mind. In order to understand this, you must keep in mind the literary genre of the Psalms. The Psalms are Hebrew poetry. One of the features of Hebrew poetry is that everyday things are loaded with meaning - God-given, Spirit-inspired, meaning. Literal earthly things, like mountains, hills, and rocks are treated as symbols and pointers to extra-earthly realities, especially things pertaining to God. Consider for example Psalm 125:1-2: “Those who trust in the LORD are as Mount Zion, which cannot be moved but abides forever. As the mountains surround Jerusalem, so the LORD surrounds His people from this time forth and forever.” The psalmist lifts up his eyes to the mountains, for they remind Him of God. Even as the mountains cannot be moved (by men), God cannot be moved. As the mountains abide forever (relative to other things), God abides forever. As the mountains surround Jerusalem, so God encloses, encircles, and enfolds His people. Vs. 2 In any case, rhetorical or not, the psalmist quickly answers his own question in verse two, removing all doubt: “My help comes from the LORD, Who made heaven and earth.” The confidence expressed in this psalm is not abstract; it’s personal. The psalmist does not merely say that God is able to help; he says God is His help. He does not merely suggest God’s capacity to help, he appropriates, through faith, that God is His helper. [The great Reformer Martin Luther said the Christian faith consists in pronouns. By this he meant it is not enough merely to say Christ died for sinners; to be a Christian means being able to say, Christ died for me. In relation to our psalm, the point is this: true faith means being able to say God is my helper, my keeper.] But now, what ground does the psalmist have for believing that God is his help? Very simple: God is not only the psalmist’s Creator, but the psalmist's “LORD.” The word LORD here is not just any name for God; it is Yahweh in Hebrew, God’s covenant name. The psalmist is in covenant with the Maker of heaven and earth. And just because he is in covenant with God, he is sure and certain that all is well with his soul. For God does not break His covenant, His oath. God cannot lie. He has promised to be a God to those who fear Him, the savior and protector of those who call on His name. The covenant faithfulness of God grounds the psalmist’s hope. Vs. 3-8 A significant thing happens in verse three...two things, really. First, notice how the psalmist was speaking of himself in verses one and two, but starting in verse three to the end of the psalm a shift takes place. Now in verse three he starts talking about others; namely, all those who are in covenant with God. Look at the contrast: in verses one and two he says, “I will lift up my eyes to the mountains; from where shall my help come? My help comes from the LORD, who made heaven and earth.” But starting in verse three he begins to speak to all God’s people: “He will not allow your foot to slip; He who keeps you will not slumber. Behold, He who keeps Israel will neither slumber nor sleep.” God’s covenant faithfulness is wider than the psalmist; it embraces and looks after others. God’s providential care is not just individual, it is corporate. God is not only the keeper of individuals as such, but the keeper of His people as a whole. God is my keeper à God is your keeper à God is our keeper: Israel. The psalmist is no lone ranger; he recognizes that to be in covenant with God is also to be in covenant with all those who share such confidence in God. This is instructive for us in many ways. We live in a day when people think they can love and serve God all on their own. They don’t need to gather together with the people of God, uniting their voices with others in prayer and song, corporately attending to the preaching of the word, partaking of the Lord’s Supper, fellowshipping with one another, looking after each others needs, carrying each others burdens, etc. This is far from the truth. The church, the body of Christ is one of the means God uses to help and keep us. I believe it was Ambrose (or was it Augustine?) who said, “He who does not have the church for his mother, does not have God for his Father.” He spoke truly. It is for good reason that God's people confess those words towards the end of the Apostle’s Creed: “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy universal church, the communion of saints…” Second, notice how the psalmist moves from declaring the fact that God is the keeper of His people (in verses 1-2), to explain what it means to say God is His people’s keeper (in verses 3-8). God so watches over His people that He superintends their every movement: He won’t allow them to slip, (verse 3). God’s watch over His people is without intermission: “He who keeps Israel will neither slumber nor sleep (verse 4).” He so watches over His people that he even controls the environment for their good: “The Sun will not smite you by day, nor the moon by night (verse 6).” He so watches over His people that no evil can overtake their soul and imperil their salvation: “The Lord will protect you from all evil; He will keep your soul (verse 7).” In short, the Lord so comprehensively watches over His people that He governs and directs the whole course of their lives: “The Lord will guard your going out and your coming in from this time forth and forever (verse 8).”

God leaves nothing to chance; chance is a figment of the secular imagination. God is our help; chance is helpless. Thou shalt have no other God, chance included. Our God, our help in ages past,

Our hope for years to come,

Our shelter from the stormy blast,

And our eternal home. Under the shadow of Thy throne

Thy saints have dwelt secure;

Sufficient is Thine arm alone,

And our defense is sure. Before the hills in order stood,

Or earth received her frame,

From everlasting Thou art God,

To endless years the same. Thy Word commands our flesh to dust,

“Return, ye sons of men:”

All nations rose from earth at first,

And turn to earth again. A thousand ages in Thy sight

Are like an evening gone;

Short as the watch that ends the night

Before the rising sun. The busy tribes of flesh and blood,

With all their lives and cares,

Are carried downwards by the flood,

And lost in following years. Time, like an ever rolling stream,

Bears all its sons away;

They fly, forgotten, as a dream

Dies at the opening day. Like flowery fields the nations stand

Pleased with the morning light;

The flowers beneath the mower’s hand

Lie withering ere ‘tis night. Our God, our help in ages past,

Our hope for years to come,

Be Thou our guard while troubles last,

And our eternal home.

Circumcision is Now Baptism

The sacraments of the Old Testament in regard to the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the new - WCF 27:5

What circumcision was to God's people prior to the coming of Christ, baptism is to God's people after the coming of Christ. At least three lines of evidence exist showing such equivalence or correspondence.

a. It Can Be Legitimately Deduced or Inferred From the Parallels Between How They Were Observed:

• Circumcision was administered only once, a fact that should be painfully obvious. Likewise baptism only takes place once - at the start of the Christian life. Contrast this with the Passover, which was done often (Lev. 23:5; Ex. 12:14), and the Lord's Supper which replaced it (1 Cor. 11:25-26).

• Circumcision was administered to old covenant believers and their households (Gen. 17:7-14, 27) just as new covenant believers and their households are to be baptized (Acts 10:7, 16:15, 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:16-17). Contrast this with the Levitical Passover which permitted access to mature (those capable of discerning whether they were "clean" or not) professors only, as does the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 11:28-29).

• Circumcision could be administered extemporaneously by a priest, without the whole assembly being present (Lk. 1:57-59, 2:21-39), a fact that follows easily enough from the observation that it was done eight days after a child's birth (Sabbath or not). The same is true of baptism which is performed by a minister, usually at the nearest convenient place to where conversion took place (Acts 8:12-13, 35-38, 9:17-19, 10:44-48, 16:14-15, 22-34, 18:8, 19:1-7, 22:12-16). Contrast this with Passover which only took place when God's people were gathered together at the appointed time and place (Deut 16:1-8), as also is the case with the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 11)

b. It Can Be Legitimately Inferred From the Equivalence of Meaning That Both Had/Have.

• Circumcision was a sign of inclusion or entrance into the Covenant Community (Gen. 17:10-11), thus serving as a boundary marker between those who belonged to God and those who did not (Gen. 34:1ff; Jdgs. 14:3; 1 Sam. 14:6, 17:26, 36, 31:4; 2 Sam. 1:20; Ezek. 28:10; Eph. 2:11-12). The same is true of baptism (1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:26-29).

• Circumcision was an outward sign that indicated an inward reality (Rom. 2:28-29), a reality called for of those who had been circumcised (Deut. 10:16; Jer. 4:4; Ezek. 44:7); it indicated the need for a new heart, a clean heart (Ex. 6:12; Lev. 26:41; Isa. 52:1; Acts 26:41). The same is true of baptism (Jn. 3:3ff; Tit. 3:5).

• Circumcision was a sign of repentance or of the need for repentance (Jer. 9:25), even as baptism has always been associated with repentance, from the baptism of John (Mt. 3:11; Mk. 1:4; Lk. 3:3; Acts 13:24, 19:4) to Christian baptism (Acts 2:38).

• Circumcision was a sign and seal of the forgiveness of sins and the righteousness of faith; it did not automatically save anyone but testified to God's saving grace received through faith (Rom. 4:9-12). The same is true of baptism (Acts 22:16; Pet. 3:21-22).

• Circumcision was administered on the eighth day (Gen. 17:12; Lev. 12:3; Lk. 1:59; Acts 7:8), which is the first day of a new week. In this way it indicated a new beginning and thus typified the new creation. Similarly, insofar as baptism identifies one with Christ in His death and resurrection, it indicates a new beginning, a putting off of the old in order to walk in "newness of life" (Rom. 6:4). Thus baptism is antitypical of circumcision.

c. There is Explicit Scriptural Testimony to the Effect That Baptism is New Covenant Circumcision.

"For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God who raised Him from the dead" (Col. 2:9-12).

The true circumcision, circumcision of the heart, what Paul here explains as a "removal of the body of the flesh", is equated with baptism. Just like the rite of circumcision signified the need to die to the flesh and rise to newness of life, so likewise baptism for the Christian signifies union with Christ in His death and resurrection, i.e., a dying to the old man and a rising to the new. Romans 6:1-6 makes this incontrovertible.

A Brief Account of the Authenticity and Antiquity of the New Testament Writings

By Anthony Rogers

The authenticity and antiquity of the twenty-seven New Testament writings are richly supported by the internal and external evidence.

While it is often alleged that the Gospels, because they are formally anonymous, i.e. contain no explicit mention of authorship in the body of their writings,[1] circulated anonymously, the fact is we have no evidence that this was ever the case. To the contrary, as pointed out by scholars such as Martin Hengel[2] and Simon Gathercole,[3] all our ancient manuscripts contain superscriptions and/or subscriptions that identify their authors as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and numerous other ancient witnesses—such as Papias,[4] Tertullian,[5] Irenaeus,[6] Origen,[7] Julius Africanus,[8]Clement of Alexandria,[9] Claudius Apollinaris,[10] Hippolytus,[11] Theophilus,[12] Lactantius,[13] and the Muratorian Canon[14]—agree that these were the authors of the four Gospels.[15] In fact, no other name is ever associated with these writings in the early centuries of the Church, not even by heretics or enemies of the faith.[16] It is also evident that the Gospels were written quite early, even before AD 70. For one, the Gospels make no reference to the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem in AD 70, which is an altogether unexpected omission since they all claim that Jesus fulfilled everything that the temple stood for, thereby rendering it obsolete.[17] Moreover, the Gospel of John, which is commonly recognized as the last of the canonical Gospels to have been written, speaks in the present tense as if Jerusalem was still intact at the time John wrote (John 5:2), a fact cogently argued by Greek scholar Daniel Wallace.[18] Since John’s Gospel was written before AD 70,[19] if John’s Gospel was the last canonical Gospel to be written, then the Synoptic Gospels were also written before AD 70.

Among the authors of the four Gospels, Luke and John also wrote other works that are ascribed to them in the New Testament. The book of Acts was Luke’s continuation of the Gospel he authored (Acts 1:1-8), and it consists of the early history of the apostolic spread of the Gospel from the time of Christ’s ascension and especially focuses on the ministry of the Apostle Paul (Acts 9-28). That Luke was the author of the book of Acts is likewise attested by numerous early external witnesses such as Irenaeus,[20] Tertullian,[21] Clement of Alexandria,[22] Origen,[23] the Muratorian canon,[24] and the Anti-Marcionite prologue.[25] Indeed, like the Gospels, Luke’s authorship of the book of Acts is undisputed in the early centuries of the Church, whether by friend or foe.[26] Since Acts ends with Paul’s imprisonment in Rome in AD 62 (Acts 28), it gives further support to the fact that the Gospels, as well as the book of Acts, were written before AD 70. As for the other writings ascribed to John, namely the Epistles of First, Second, and Third John and the book of Revelation, the three epistles are all written in the same style as John’s Gospel and each other,[27] and the book of Revelation explicitly says it was written by John (Revelation 1:4, 9). This is also the testimony of many early witnesses. Polycarp, a disciple of the apostle John, quoted from these epistles as Scripture,[28] and many others referred to one or another of these epistles and ascribed them to John, such as Irenaeus,[29] Clement of Alexandria,[30] Tertullian,[31]Origen,[32] and the Muratorian Canon.[33] The book of Revelation also enjoys early and widespread attestation as coming from John, including attestation from men like Justin Martyr,[34] Irenaeus,[35] Origen,[36] Tertullian,[37]Clement of Alexandria,[38] Hippolytus,[39] and the Muratorian Canon.[40] As for the date of composition, although it is popular to hear that Revelation was written in AD 96, the book itself presupposes that the temple in Jerusalem was still standing at the time of writing (q.v. Revelation 11), and even says that it was written during the reign of the sixth king (Revelation 17:10) of the city of seven hills (Revelation 17:9), which is just to say during the time of Nero of Rome, the sixth emperor after Julius Caesar. On the strength of such evidence, this is also the view held by an exceedingly large number of contemporary scholars.[41]

In addition to these, there are fourteen writings in the New Testament that constitute the Pauline Corpus. Thirteen of these writings explicitly identify Paul as their author (Romans 1:1; 1 Corinthians 1:1, 16:21; 2 Corinthians 1:1, 10:1; Galatians 1:1, 5:2; Ephesians 1:1, 3:1; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:1, 1:23, 4:18; 1 Thessalonians 1:1, 2:18; 2 Thessalonians 1:1, 3:17; 1 Timothy 1:1; 2 Timothy 1:1; Titus 1:1; Philemon 1:1, 1:9, 1:19), and the fourteenth, the book of Hebrews, though it doesn’t formally identify Paul as its author, is usually included with Paul’s writings in ancient sources and is widely held to lack a reference to Paul’s name as the author or sponsor[42] because it is a sermon or exhortation (Hebrews 13:22) rather than an epistle where a name would usually be included. The external evidence for the authoritative nature[43] and Pauline authorship for these books is quite abundant, being attested to by Tertullian,[44]Origen,[45] and some of Paul’s writings are not only well attested but are among the best attested books of antiquity, so much so that even non-conservative and skeptical scholars find it necessary to affirm that many of the most significant Pauline epistles came from Paul, including Galatians, Romans, Philippians, Philemon, the two epistles to the Thessalonians, and the two epistles to the Corinthians.[46] Not only are Paul’s writings, and the fact that Paul wrote them, abundantly attested in ancient sources, but since they came from Paul it also means that these books must have been written before AD 70 since Paul died during the Neronian persecution.[47]

This leaves four other writings that are included in the New Testament: an epistle each from Jude and James, the Lord’s half-brothers, and two epistles that are ascribed to the apostle Peter. All these books name these men as their authors (Jude 1:1; James 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1; and 2 Peter 1:1), and as far as the subject matter of these epistles, they contain nothing that is inconsistent with such ascriptions. When it comes to the external attestation: Jude is mentioned as authentic by such early authorities as Tertullian,[48] Origen,[49] Clement of Alexandria,[50] and the Muratorian Canon;[51] James is assumed to be authoritative by Clement[52] and Hermas[53] and is also witnessed to by Origen;[54] 1 Peter was accepted as authoritative by Clement of Rome,[55] Ignatius,[56] and Polycarp,[57] and it is explicitly ascribed to Peter by Irenaeus,[58] Origen,[59] Tertullian,[60] Clement of Alexandria[61] and others; and finally, 2 Peter, as cogently argued by Robert Picirilli,[62] is alluded to in 1 Clement, Pseudo Clement, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, The Martyrdom of Polycarp, Clement of Alexandria, Aristides, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus, and it is explicitly identified as authentically Petrine in the writings of Origen.[63] In the face of the evidence, some contemporary skeptical scholars have argued against the authenticity of second Peter on the grounds that it differs in style from 1 Peter. However, the stylistic differences are accounted for by the fact that Peter employed an amanuensis in writing his first epistle (1 Peter 5:12), and by the fact that the two epistles are addressing different issues. The evidence, then, points to Jude, James, and Peter as the authors of these epistles. Since the evidence points to these men as their authors, it also follows that these books were written early, especially the writings of James and Peter since James was martyred in Jerusalem in AD 62[64] and Peter was martyred in AD 64 under Nero.[65]

In conclusion, since the New Testament books were all written by the apostles of Christ, or under the auspices of Christ’s apostles, and since they were all written early, as a copious amount of internal and external evidence attests,[66] their authenticity and antiquity is well established.

[1] To say there is no explicit or formal mention of authorship in the body of the Gospels is not the same as denying that there are certain facts internal to the Gospels that comport with traditional ascriptions of authorship, nor is it even to deny that there are inferential grounds and internal reasons for concluding that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the authors of the Gospels that bear their names. [2] Martin Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel (Harrison, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000), pp. 48-53; see also Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1985), pp. 64-84. [3] Simon Gathercole, “The Titles of the Gospels in the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts,” accessible here: www.academia.edu/7968624/The_Titles_of_the_Gospels_in_the_Earliest_New_Testament_Manuscripts [4] For a collection of Papias’ fragments and an analysis of his testimony to the NT writings, see Monte A. Shanks, Papias and the New Testament (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2013), esp. pp. 261-276. [5] Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.2, 4.5, 4.34, 4.35, 4.40; On the Flesh of Christ, 3, 20, 22; Against Praxeas, 1, 12, 15, 21, 23, 25, 26; On the Prescription of Heretics, 22. [6] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.8.5, 1.9.1, 1.9.2, 1.9.3, 1.26.2, 1.27.2, 2.2.5, 2.22.5, 3.1.1, 3.8.3, 3.9.1, 3.9.2, 3.9.3, 3.10.1, 3.10.4, 3.10.5, 3.11.1, 3.11.2, 3.11.7, 3.11.8, 3.11.8, 3.11.9, 3.12.12, 3.14.3, 3.14.4, 3.15.1, 3.16.2, 3.16.3, 3.16.5, 3.21.9, 3.22.2, 3.22.3, 3.22.4, 4.2.3, 4.6.1, 4.10.1, 5.18.2, 5.21.2. See also Eusebius’s quote from Irenaeus in Ecclesiastical History, 5.8.2; The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, 43, 94. [7] Origen, Homilies on Joshua, 7.1; Homilies on the Psalms, Ps67 (Hom. 2), Ps73 (Hom. 1), Ps77 (Hom. 1); Homilies on Luke 1:1, 1.6, 4.4, 11.5, 16.3, 19.3, 21.1, 21.2, 27.2, 29.4, 29.6, 35.1, 35.2, 35.11, 39.5, ; Commentary on John, 1.22, 1.79, 1.81, 1.145, 1.149, 1.150, 6.72, 6.121, 6.123, 6.128, 6.129, 6.131, 6.132, 6.133, 6.134, 6.135, 6.136, 6.137, 6.139, 6.146, 6.149, 6.159, 6.160, 6.161, 6.162, 6.165, 6.169, 6.170, 6.179, 6.260, 6.261, 6.262, 6.263, 6.303, 10.4, 10.5, 10.6, 10.8, 10.13, 10.35, 10.50, 10.51, 10.52, 10.54, 10.55, 10.61, 10.113, 10.120, 10.121, 10.122, 10.124, 10.126, 10.127, 10.131, 10.153, 10.155, 10.156, 10.159, 10.162, 10.168, 10.190, 10.191, 10.192, 10.193, 10.195, 10.197, 10.207, 10.251, 10.252;Commentary on Romans, 1.3.5, 1.5.5, 1.6.5, 3.9.4; On First Principles, 1.1.1, 1.1.8, 1.2.3, 1.7.1, 2.5.4, 2.6.7, 2.7.1, 2.9.4, 3.5.4, 4.1.12; Contra Celsus, Preface-1, 1.34, 1.38, 1.40, 1.51, 1.60, 1.62, 1.63, 2.2, 2.16, 2.62, 2.68, 2.69, 2.70, 2.73, 5.12, 5.56, 6.5, 6.11, 6.59; Philocalia, 1.12, 15.7, 15.19, 18.9. [8] Julius Africanus, The Epistle to Aristsides, 3. [9] Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 1.6, 1.9, 2.1; Stromata, 1.21, 5.12; Who is the Rich Man that Shall be Saved?, 5. [10] Claudius Apollinaris, Concerning the Passover, here: www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/apollinaris.html [11] Hippolytus, Against the Heresy of One Noetus, 5, 12, 14, 15. [12] Theophilus, To Autolycus, 2.22. [13] Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, 4.8. [14] For the Muratorian canon, see here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html [15] Many other early authorities quote the Gospels as authoritative without mentioning the names of the authors. For example, Polycarp quoted from the Gospel of Matthew in The Letter to the Philippians 2:3; 7:2, 12:3, Mark in The Letter to the Philippians 5:2, and Luke in The Letter to the Philippians 2:3; Ignatius quoted Matthew in his Letter to the Ephesians 14.2, To the Smyrnaeans 6:1, and To Polycarp 2:2. He also quoted Luke in To the Smyrnaeans 3:1-2; Justin Martyr quoted Matthew in his Dialogue with Trypho 106.4, Mark in Dial. 106.4, Luke in Dial. 103.8, and John in First Apology 61.4. [16] The observation is often made that if the Gospels ever really circulated anonymously, then Christians would have put forward different guesses and theories of authorship, and heretics and enemies of the faith would have certainly seized upon this fact to call their authenticity and reliability into question, but no one did so. See, J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus: What the Da Vinci Code and Other Novel Speculations Don’t Tell You (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2006), pp. 135-149. An example of this is seen in the case of the heretic Marcion. Though Marcion only accepted Luke’s Gospel as authoritative, he nevertheless did not deny that Matthew, Mark, and John were the authors of the other Gospels. Marcion simply maintained that they went astray. Another example is Julian the Apostate. In spite of his apostasy, Julian did not deny the traditional ascriptions of authorship for the Gospels. See, e.g., Julian’s Letter 36: Rescript on Christian Teachers and Against the Galileans, bk. 1. [17] This point, in addition to others, is argued to great affect by John A. T. Robinson in his book, Redating the New Testament (Wipf & Stock, 2000), and the relevance of this observation is not restricted by Robinson to the four Gospels. See also John Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark & Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1992), esp. pp. 223-244. [18] Daniel Wallace, “John 5,2 and the Date of the Fourth Gospel,” Biblica, Vol. 71, No. 2 (1990), pp. 177-205. See also Wallace, “John 5:2 and the Date of the Fourth Gospel…Again,” accessible here: bible.org/article/john-52-and-date-fourth-gospel-again, and “John 5.2 One More Time: A Response to Andreas Köstenberger,” available here: https://bible.org/article/john-52-one-more-time-response-andreas-köstenberger. [19] A sizeable number of scholars hold to and provide evidence for a date of composition for John’s Gospel prior to AD 70. Robinson, Redating, gives the following examples of men who either forthrightly held to a date of writing prior to AD 70 or questioned whether John’s Gospel needed to be dated as late as many commonly propose, pp. 307-308: “Goguel, Int II, 330, quotes six quite forgotten names who put it before the fall of Jerusalem: Gebhardt, Delff, Draeseke, Kuppers, Wilms and Wuttig….From recent times, cf. V. Burch, The Structure and Message of John’s Gospel, 1928, 228 (original contents near in date to the crucifixion; final editing before 70); C. C. Torrey, Our Translated Gospels, 1937, x (no necessity for a date after 50); P. Gardner-Smith, St John and the Synoptic Gospels, Cambridge 1938, 93-6 (perhaps contemporary with Mark); A. T. Olmstead, Jesus in the Light of History, New York 1942, 159, 255 (shortly after the crucifixion); E. R. Goodenough, ‘John a Primitive Gospel’, JBL 64, 1945, 145-82 (from one of the Hellenistic synagogues of Jerusalem or by a Palestinian Jew in exile); C. C. Tarelli, ‘Clement of Rome and the Fourth Gospel’, JTS48, 1947, 208f. (pre-70?); H. E. Edwards, The Disciple who Wrote these Things, 1953, 129f. (for Jewish-Christian refugees at Pella, c. 66); S. Mendner, ‘Die Tempelreinigung’, ZNW 47, 1956, 111 (75-80?) To this list, Wallace, in his journal entry on John 5:2 in Biblica, see note 9 above, adds the following names on p. 179, fn.10: “To this list [of Robinson’s—AR] we might add the names of Bengel,….Lampe, Lardner, Ryle, Wegschneider and Wettstein to his ‘forgotten names’ list. More recently, we can add F. Blass, ‘the Origin and Character of our Gospels. III: St. John’, ExpTim 18 (1906-07) 458….; Marsh, The Gospel of St John, 25-30; F. L. Cribbs, ‘A Reassessment of the Date of Origin and the Destination of the Gospel of John”, JBL 89 (1970) 55….; and J. Finegan, The Archeology of the New Testament: The Mediterranean World of the Early Christian Apostles (Boulder 1981) 44-46. Perhaps even E. E. Ellis, ‘Dating the New Testament’, NTS 26 (1979-80) 488-492, 500-502, belongs here.” Besides the names provided by Robinson and Wallace, the following scholars may also be adduced: Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: 1995), pp. 18-22. [20] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.23.1, 3.13.3, 3.14.1, 3.14.2, 3.15.1, 3.17.2, 4.15.1. [21] Tertullian, Against Marcion, 5.1. [22] Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 5.12. [23] Origen, Homilies on Joshua, 7.1; [24] See note 7 (above). [25] See here: http://www.textexcavation.com/latinprologues.html [26] For a recent defense of the Lukan authorship of Acts, see Craig S. Keener, Acts—An Exegetical Commentary, Volume 1: Introduction and 1:1-2:47 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), pp. 402-415. [27] John R. Stott, The Epistles of John: An Introductory Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eeardmans, 1969), p. 17; Marianne Thompson, 1-3 John (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1992), p. 20. [28] q.v. Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians, 7.1 (quotes 1 John), 10.1 (quotes III John). Allusions to the Johannine Epistles can also be found in the Didache, 10, Clement of Rome’s Epistle to the Corinthians, 49-50, and The Epistle to Diognetus, 2.1, 8.11, 11.4. [29] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.16.3, 3.16.5, 3.16.8. [30] Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 3.11, 3.12; Stromata, 2.15, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 4.16; Who is the Rich Man that Shall be Saved?, 37. [31] Tertullian, Against Marcion, 3.8, 3.14, 5.16; On Baptism, 16; On Idolatry, 2; On the Soul, 15, 17; On the Resurrection of Flesh, 23; Against Praxeas, 28; On the Soldier’s Garland, 10; On Running Away from Persecution, 1.9, 1.12; On Monogamy, 3; On Fasting, Against the Materialists, 11; On Modesty, 2, 19. [32] Origen, Homilies on Leviticus, 3.7.2, 4.4.2, 4.5.5, 7.2.2, 8.10.12, 9.5.8; Homilies on Joshua, 7.1, 7.3, 9.9; Commentary on Romans, 1.7.8; On First Principles, 1.1.1, 1.2.3, 1.2.7, 1.2.11, 2.7.4, 3.6.1; Contra Celsus, 1.48, 7.34. [33] See note 7 (above). [34] Justin, Dialogue with Trypho, 81.4. [35] Irenaeus, Against Hereies, 1.26.3, 4.14.2, 4.17.6, 4.18.6, 4.20.11, 4.21.3, 4.30.4, 5.26.1, 5.28.2, 5.30.1, 5.34.2, 5.35.2, 5.36.3. [36] Origen, Homilies on Leviticus, 4.10.5; Homilies on Luke, 13.5, 23.7; Commentary on John, 1.1, 1.2, 1.32, 2.42, 2.45, 5.3, 5.6, 10.295; Commentary on Romans, 1.4.1, 1.4.3; On First Principles, 1.2.10, 4.1.10; Contra Celsus, 6.6, 6.23, 8.17; Philocalia, 1.10, 2.1, 2.2, 5.5, 5.6. [37] Tertullian, Against Marcion, 3.13, 3.25, 4.5; On Running Away from Persecution, 1.9; and On Modesty, 19, 20; Against the Jews, 9; On the Prescription of Heretics, 33; On the Soul, 8, 55; On the Resurrection of Flesh, 25. 27, 38, 58; Against Praxeas, 17; Scorpiace, 12; On the Soldier’s Garland, 13; On Monogamy, 7; An Answer to the Jews, 9. [38] Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 6.13. [39] Hippolytus, Treatise on Christ and Anti-Christ, 36, 47, 48, 50, 60, 65; The Refutation of All Heresies, 7.24; Against the Heresy of One Noetus, 6. [40] See note 7 (above). [41] For a comprehensive list of over well over 100 scholars who advocate that Revelation was written before AD 70, see Kenneth L Gentry, Jr., Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (Atlanta, GA: American Vision, 1998), pp. xviii-xix and 30-38. [42] Tertullian, On Modesty, 20; Origen, Homilies on Hebrews, 6.25.11-14. [43] Polycarp does not name the author of Hebrews, but he cites it in the Letter to the Philippians, 6:3, 12:2. [44] Tertullian, Against Marcion, 5.2-21. [45] Origen, Homilies on Joshua, 7.1. [46] The heretic Marcion is something of a precursor to these skeptical scholars, but even Marcion accepted 10 of Paul’s epistles as genuine, q.v. Tertullian, Against Marcion, 5.1-21. [47] When writing 2 Timothy, Paul knew his death was on the horizon (4:6-8). His martyrdom is attested to by Clement of Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians, ch. 1; Polycarp in his Letter to the Philippians, 9.1-2; Irenaeus in Against Heresies, 3.1.1., and Tertullian in Scorpiace, 15.5-6). Eusebius also recounts this from Dionysius of Corinth in his Ecclesiastical History, 2.25.4. [48] Tertullian, On the Apparel of Women, 1.3. [49] See Origen, Origen, Homilies on Joshua, 7.1; Commentary on Matthew, 10.17; On First Principles, 3.2.1. [50] Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 3.8; Stromata, 3.2. [51] See note 7 (above). [52] On the evidence for this, see Peter H. Davids, The Epistle of James, NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982), pp. 9-10, and especially James B. Mayor, The Epistle of James (Kregel Publications, 1990), lxix-lxxxiv. [53] See above footnote. [54] See Origen’s, Homilies on Leviticus, 2.4.5, 13.2.5; Homilies on Joshua, 7.1, 10.2; Commentary on John, 19.61. [55] Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians, 49 (cf. 1 Peter 4:8). [56] Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians, 9. [57] Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians, 1:3, 2:1, 2:2, 5:3, 7:2, 8:1, 10:2. [58] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.9.2, 4.16.5, 5.7.2, 5.24.1, [59] Origen, Homilies on Leviticus, 3.3.5, 9.1.3, 9.8.3; Homilies on Joshua, 1.5, 7.1, 8.3, 8.4; Commentary on John, 5.3, 6.175, 10.266; On First Principles, 2.5.3, 3.3.5; Contra Celsus, 8.19. [60] Tertullian, Scorpiace, 12; On Prayer, 20. [61] Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 1.6, 3.11, 3.12; Stromata, 3.11, 3.18, 4.20. [62] Robert Picirilli, “Allusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers,” JSNT 33 (1988), pp. 57-83. [63] Origen, Homilies on Joshua, 7.1; Homilies on Leviticus, 4.4; On First Principles, 2.5.3. [64] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 20.9.1; Hegesippus, Memoirs, bk. 5, as recorded in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2.23.8-18; and Clement of Alexandria, Hypotyposes, bk. 7, as recorded in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2.1.4b-5. [65] 1 Clement 5.1-4; Apocalypse of Peter 14:4-6; the Ascension of Isaiah 4:2-3. [66] For a recent case for the early dating of all the New Testament books, see Jonathan Bernier, Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament: The Evidence for Early Composition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2022).