Theology in the Raw - Why the Canonical Context of the New Testament Matters: Dr. Miguel Echevarria

Episode Date: July 11, 2024

Dr. Miguel G. Echevarría (PhD, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) is associate professor of New Testament and Greek at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is the author of The Future Inheritance of Land in the Pauline Epistles, 40 Questions about the Apostle Paul, and Engaging the New Testament: A Short Introduction for Students and Ministers. In this conversation, we talk about the importance of the canonical context of the arrangement of the NT books.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Make your nights unforgettable with American Express. Unmissable show coming up? Good news. We've got access to pre-sale tickets so you don't miss it. Meeting with friends before the show? We can book your reservation. And when you get to the main event, skip to the good bit using the card member entrance. Let's go seize the night. That's the powerful backing of American Express. Visit mx.ca slash ymx. Let's go seize the night. That's the powerful backing of American Express. Visit amex.ca slash yamx.

Benefits vary by card, other conditions apply. Hey friends, welcome back to another episode of Theology in the Realm. Our guest today is Dr. Miguel Echavarria, who has a PhD from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He serves as Associate Professor of New Testament and Greek at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest. And he's the author of several books, including The Future Inheritance of Land in the Pauline Epistles, 40 Questions about the Apostle Paul, and his most recently released book,

Engaging the New Testament, a Short Introduction for Students and Ministers, which is the topic of our conversation. So, Miguel emphasizes the canonical context of the arrangement of the New Testament and teases out why the canonical context of these books is actually important for understanding their message. The fact that Matthew is placed first in the fourfold Gospels is important. The fact that it's Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians is important. Hebrews coming at the end of the Pauline letters is important anyway. That's the topic of our very fascinating conversation. So crack open your New Testament, folks, and get ready for a deep dive and welcome to the show for the first time, the one and only Dr. Miguel Echevadia.

All right, Miguel, thanks so much for being a guest on theology in the raw. Tell us, I guess, first, how did you get interested and really passionate about the new test? Well, biblical studies as a whole, but the New Testament in particular. Yeah, actually. So during my master's degree, I studied at Dallas Seminary. We had a really good faculty there in New Testament. People like Beus Fanning, J. Smith, Dan Wallace, just developed a love for studying the New Testament in the original languages. We took lots of Greek, lots of Hebrew there.

So the more I took these classes in New Testament with these scholars, the more I enjoyed writing about the New Testament, studying the New Testament. I even enjoyed writing Greek exegetical papers. So the more I did it, the more I was in the text, the more I enjoyed the New Testament and the nuances of reading the text in the original language. It really wasn't until later when I got into my PhD program that I began thinking, okay, I've got these particular historical readings, if you will, in certain contexts, and how do these fit in kind of the larger scope of the New Testament and the larger scope of scripture. But really, my master's degree, and it really was the

first time I began studying the Bible in earnest. I had to become a Christian until I was 17, you know, born and raised in Miami. I cared more about, you know, the beach and playing baseball than actually studying Scripture. So it came later, but once I got into it, it's like I couldn't stop and really enjoy studying text. And later on, kind of in their larger canonical or theological context. Yeah. I didn't know you're a baseball player. Did you play through high school or? I did. So I played uh high school. I played college baseball as well. Right on. Um I played at a division two school in Louisville, Kentucky uh which is now division one.

When I was there there was a NCAA division two. What position did you play? I played college too. Played first base. First base. Okay. So I played first base, not lefty, I'm righty, but back then I was a lot stronger and I could hit the ball farther than I can today. Today if I play, you know, church league softball, I'm lucky if I get a hit over the infield and I don't injure myself. So anyway, everything from my arm to my leg, it's all, it's all going. So the resurrection is coming soon. So you're, you're a, you're a power hitter for the first baseman. You gotta be. I hit the balls in the gaps, um, quite a bit every now and then I would hit it, um, over

the fence. Um, it was, it was nice when I did, I never got past second base. I wasn't very fast. So once I hit second, I sort of stopped. I didn't keep going, because I knew what would happen if I kept going. I would do a fall or probably get thrown out at third. But yeah, gaps every now and then, you know, over the fence. But you know, I rode that wave as long as I could, but you know, now I'm a seminary professor when growing up, I wanted to be a major league baseball player. Oh Oh man. Things change too, man. My two of my best years of

my life were just after becoming Christian at 19. And then I just absolutely fell in love with stud. I was, I mean, I baseball was absolute life to me. I mean, it was, it was more than, and not just like, Oh, I like to play. It was like, I mean, I was the guy that showed up two hours early for practice and just hit off a tee for two hours and stay three hours after hitting the cage. I just, it was just every Saturday morning to wake up. And it wasn't like, if I was going to go out and hit it's like what field and for how long, you know? So I, and then, but when I, when I became a Christian at 19, that same passion for baseball transferred to kind of theological studies, but I still play baseball. So there's like a two year

period where I was at a Christian school playing baseball and Bible major. And I was like, I don't, this is heaven on earth. I'm doing everything I love to do right now. So yeah. What was your PhD research? What did you do your PhD? I mean, as a New Testament, right? But what was your dissertation topic? Yeah. So I focused on Paul,

in particular the idea of land in Paul. I realized like Paul doesn't actually talk about- I was gonna say, is that a concern in Paul? Romans eight, I guess. And I was hoping to sell a lot of copies of my dissertation. I don't think that's actually resulted in many, in many sales, but anyway, for a dissertation. But I began coming up across passages in Galatians and Romans

where Paul talks about inheritance language and the commentaries are sort of all over the place. Oh, it's it's life in Christ. You know, it's life in Christ, it's righteousness, it's eternal life. And no one sort of agreed except when they would talk about the Old Testament background for the term. They're like, you know, this term is grounded in the idea of a land inheritance. The land inheritance, which later gets expanded to include the entire cosmos by the time we get to the prophets and second temple literature. And I said, well, why does Paul think any

differently? And I argue that he doesn't. That when Paul talks about inheritance, that term really encapsulates that entire tradition, developed tradition, where the land becomes the entire earth that people who are in Christ will receive. So Paul doesn't have to unpack it. He's assuming and really drawing on a context that would have been the context for his readers, who would have had the Greek Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, who when they heard the term inheritance, klaironomi, or epongalia, promise, would have imagined the idea that in Christ, I am the heir of the entire world when God raises me and others from the dead. So that's basically what, what I argued that Paul doesn't have to say it because this entire echo field, if you will, was to come to mind when those

terms like promise and inheritance would, would come to mind. So in second, in second temple literature, that, that expansion of these promises to include all of creation that that was pretty widespread, right? Or yeah Yeah. So like, for like, um, fourth Ezra, I, you know, Serac where the land really becomes, it's the entire, the entire earth. So Israel's an exile. Um, so I agree with people like, like right here, for example. Um, but the return of exile, it's not going to be a return to a particular piece of territory. Uh, but the return they envision really is a, is a cosmic is a cosmic return to this worldwide recreated or Edenic land, if you will, which I think actually fits what Paul says in other more

explicit places like in Romans 4.13, where Paul says Abraham is an heir of the world. Where does that come from? I think Paul's following this developed tradition of the land inheritance, which is no longer just Canaan, but it's the entire literally cosmos, as Paul says. And I think he elaborates on what the cosmos is in Romans 8, which was the sons and daughters of God are resurrected, the creation is liberated from the curse, and things return to an Edenic state, if you will, upon the resurrection. It's the resurrection of everything, right? Stuff, people in the new creation. Yeah, the restoration.

Yeah, that's good. Without having thought about it too deeply, I mean, that's been the framework that I've, on a broader biblical, theological level, seen happen. Especially like the way the book of Revelation interacts with the book of Ezekiel was one kind of deep dive. I did how like the latter parts of revelation interpret Ezekiel 40 to 48, well, 37 to 48. Um, that it has, that it has that kind of like what Ezekiel was imagining a bit more land territory focused. The book of revelation sort of expands out. And I wonder if probably, well, I mean, book as you know, revelation and for Ezra so similar in so many ways, if it's, you know, revelations kind of just participating in that kind of apocalyptic expansion of everything

to include all of creation. So let's go back to the new Testament. So you were, you wrote this book, engage in the new Testament, a short introduction for students and ministers. So there's been a lot written on the new Testament. There's been a lot of introductions written. How is this one maybe different? Like, why did you feel the need to write this given how much is, is out there? That sounds almost like a confrontive question. I don't mean it that way, but I'm sure you, I'm sure that came to your mind. Like they're, you know, like, what's different about your approach? Yeah.

I remember just going back, you know, many great things about my own seminary experience and even, you know, taking exams and taking classes. But I wonder when I actually took a New Testament introduction class, why we spent like 80% of the time, you know, talking about, you know, synoptic problem, you know, sources for the Gospels, you know, how much John is aware of the synoptics, authorship of the Pauline epistles, especially like the pastorals. I mean, all important things, but we spent more time on the background to the text, like how we got the text, than actually the text itself. So like, and you look at these New Testament intro books,

you know, I haven't done an exact percentage, but like 70, 80% or so is on all this background information sources where they're oral and written, authorship for certain texts. And then once you take the class, it's over. Pastors and Christians, whether you go to seminary or not, you don't really consult these texts. So I try to sort of flip that paradigm the other way, if you will, turn it on its head, and that is spend little time, just enough time on these issues of how we got the text, and the majority of time on

how we, on the actual text of Scripture. And not just the actual text, but these particular texts like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and Paul in Epistles, Catholic Epistles, Revelation, Acts, they have particular locations within the Canada Scripture that Christians throughout the centuries have wrestled about where to position These these texts and I would argue that the wrestling and these different orders are actually evidence of how these texts best fit within the overarching canonical story of of scripture the most consistent of those, the New Testament being the Gospels and Revelation is kind of the book ends. What's in between can appear in various different orders, but the most consistent being the Gospels and Revelation. Yeah. Interesting. Yeah, I do appreciate, like,

you spend the first maybe 40 pages on background stuff, but then the other 160 pages roughly is, is going through book by book, by book, by book. Um, you do at the beginning, you do talk about the canonical context for the new Testament that there is a certain meaning that happens for like a better terms when the, when the books are arranged in a certain order for my lay audience, let's just say who, you know, who doesn't, maybe hasn't really heard of the term canonical theology, canonical theory, or even, even would care like, well, how much does it matter? The arrangement can, can you help unpack what, why, how the, the canonical arrangement contributes to how we even understand these, these books?

Yeah. I just to go, just to go back a little bit to kind of answer your question. I think we can be so, so historically focused again, just think of the, the arrangement of these new tests, test of introductions. And we spend time on one of a couple things, either looking at where a particular place is, let's say Jesus sat on a mountain, where's that mountain? Does that mountain actually exist to justify the truthfulness of that text or Jesus really did exist, he really did teach here. But that's really not what New Testament authors

are trying to actually convey, right? I think they assume that Jesus really sat on a mountain, for example, so we'll spend all kinds of time on this historical background information. Much of it is helpful. I would argue a lot of it just is overkill perhaps. It doesn't really help us understand what authors are actually trying to communicate

in these texts. And when we spend time on the text, we can be so focused on the minutia of a particular text like grammar and syntax. Again, that's important, but we miss the big picture for the sake of the trees, right? But there is a larger forest. Now, why is that important? So when Paul's writing, for example, or Peter or John, who are they? They're Jews. And what's the Bible for the Jews as it was for first century Christians? It was the Old Testament. The Old Testament translated into Greek. So

before even reading the New Testament, there's this assumption that they have a Bible already, and this Bible is also the Christian Bible. So as they're thinking of how now to arrange these books, you know, second century and beyond for other Christian audiences, it's, okay, how are these books now going to best continue the story of the Old Testament? So Israel is in exile, they're expecting a cosmic return and this return will include, you think of Isaiah, also Gentiles. This will be done through one who suffers, gives his life to bring about this cosmic kingdom. You think of Isaiah, for example. So that brings us now to the New Testament. So when we read the New Testament, we have to realize that we're not just coming to the New Testament or we shouldn't just

come to the New Testament without a knowledge of the Old Testament. And when you think of old, it kind of has a negative connotation for some folks like old or passe, the idea really is more is like, this is the established testament, right? This becomes the basis for what now New Testament authors are going to argue showing that these promises are fulfilled in Jesus Christ. So it does make a difference. When we're reading James, for example, not to read James necessarily chronologically, right? Because that's not what the early organizers of the canon put emphasis on, even though James may have been the first letter written and said, what do you have first? It's Matthew. And why would early canonicalers, if you will, have organized Matthew first and not

James first? Although they're both probably drawing off some similar tradition like servant of the Mount tradition. For example, you see a Matthew five through seven, which James appeals to a whole lot and likely earlier than Matthew does. But instead we should realize that we're reading Matthew, not necessarily written first, but at the front of the canon for a reason. We should keep that in mind because what's Matthew doing? Matthew is connecting the Old Testament to now these new covenant promises being fulfilled in Jesus the Messiah, I would argue, unlike any other author in the New Testament.

So even though Mark was likely written first, Mark is not organized first. It's Matthew. And Matthew is found at the beginning, at the very beginning in the very first verse, you perhaps have the most consequential verse in the entire New Testament, possibly the Bible, and that is Jesus is the son of Abraham and the son of David, son of Abraham. That is, he is the seed of Abraham, the one who fulfills promise of bringing blessing to the nations. He is the one who establishes this Davidic kingdom over all the nations of the earth. And then Matthew's gospel is then basically showing how Jesus is that person. And I would argue beyond that if you read canonically, it shows how that's

the case not only in Matthew, but the rest of the New Testament shows that Jesus is that promised Davidic son, the son of Abraham, who brings blessing to the nations, a promise you see fulfilled in Revelation 19 through 22. So it makes a difference that we not just read, for example, Matthew 1-1 or Matthew 1 by itself, but we think in light of the canon, its position in relation to the Old Testament and the rest of the New Testament. And I have other examples as well, but again, we could be so historically minded that we miss the big picture that I think these early organizers of the canon are trying to convey and teaching us how to both listen to the story well and even find our place in the story as well and how they

organize these books and also larger corpuses like Gospels, Paul, Catholic Epistles and Revelation. Yeah. This episode is sponsored by the Pore Over Podcast. Oh my word. I love the Pore Over Podcast. It is a trustworthy news resource guiding people toward eternal hope. It's not Republican, it's not Democrat, it's not conservative, it's not liberal. Instead, it is a Christ-centered summary of the major events going on in politics and in culture. Like most of you, I am so tired of news outlets that are so clearly biased toward the right

or to the left. I want to stay informed with what's going on, but I hate how traditional news outlets shape my heart and try to win me to a certain side. I mean, if you don't believe me, just ask yourself this question. After listening to, say, I don't know, CNN or Fox News for like 30 minutes, am I less or more or more motivated to love my neighbor and my enemy? If the answer is less, then Houston, we have a huge problem, a discipleship problem. This is why I'm so excited about the Pour Over Podcast. Each episode is only about seven minutes long and they just tell you about what's

going on in the world. They don't tell you how to interpret the various events or how you should feel about what's going on. Instead, they just let you know about the facts of what's going on while reminding listeners that our ultimate identity and hope is in Jesus Christ. I've even met some of the people at the Pour Over, and they are super awesome. They're not some like closeted liberal

or closeted conservative think tank. Like they're truly genuinely just trying to keep us informed while staying focused on Christ. So don't let traditional media outlets steal your affection away from loving people who might vote differently than you. Instead, check out and subscribe to the Pore Over podcast in your favorite podcast app. So to summarize, because I was going to ask this question. I'm glad you're, you're already kind of answered it that, that, that Matthew is placed first and not because of, because it was written first. In fact, Matthew is one of the later books in the new Testament.

Right. And I, you know, it's like, well, it talks about Jesus and we need to begin at Jesus. Well, there's three other books to talk about Jesus. So why Matthew among the other three gospels. And you're saying it's because of its deep, clear connection to the old Testament promises to David. Especially, I mean, you have like the Moses imagery, a lot of just like deep old Testament stuff there that is, is there in the other gospels, but not, not, not to the same extent. Right. I mean, you don't have as many direct and extensive quotations of the old Testament as we do anywhere else outside of Matthew. Right. Mark certainly doesn't have, Luke has a lot of illusions.

It's kind of subtle weaving the story into the old Testament, but not these kind of direct, you know, so it may be fulfilled kind of statements. That's right. Why? And Luke is like in the mouth of characters as well. Yeah. What's the logic there? So let's just say, okay, it makes sense that Matthew would be first. Why then Mark, Luke and John. And is that always the order within our ancient manuscripts? Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Yeah, there's the Western tradition, which I'm sure you're familiar with, which puts Matthew and John first and then Luke and Mark after. But that's probably the minority in the tradition.

The overarching tradition, that is the majority of manuscripts, would have Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. And it's interesting, when you actually read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. And it's interesting when you actually read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in that order, whether it was intended this way or not, we can have a different conversation about, you know, canonical intention and what that looks like. But you get Matthew, right? Jesus, the Messiah, and this Messiah, you know, calls us to make disciples of all nations. It ends on this triumphant note, right? And then you get Mark. And then Mark sort of disabuses us of the idea of glory without any

thought of suffering. Because when Jesus spent much time both teaching and exemplifying for his followers and Mark is that you must be willing to suffer as I am going and as Jesus actually suffers in the Gospel of Mark. So much so that many would argue that Mark 16, 9 through 20 aren't original, because it actually fits the actual overarching message of Mark. It ends with the idea of fear and trembling, right? So Matthew, your triumphant, go make disciples, end of Mark, it's like, hey, before you consider following Jesus

and making disciples of all nations, do so with fear and trembling, knowing that you too are called to suffer as Jesus suffered. That Mark's reliever's like, oh man, what do I do? Do I follow Jesus? I'm to suffer as Jesus suffered. That marks the relievers like, oh man, what do I do? Do I follow Jesus? I'm going to suffer like Jesus? Yeah, you are. And what does Luke do, right? Luke shows, hey, this kingdom is for, not just going back to Abraham like Matthew shows us, but it goes all the way back to Adam and ultimately God. The people of God include

all the people of the earth. And Luke includes the marginalized, includes people like women, tax collectors, those who are typically outside the boundaries of what's considered a member of the covenant in Israel, those who be traditionally considered people who are worthy of salvation, showing that, you know what? We should be willing to suffer for this King who really is drawing all nations, including those who have historically been considered outside the boundaries of the covenant.

So Luke really broadens the extent of salvation. It really is a universal salvation, if you will, that all nations, all people are worthy of following the Messiah. And then you get John, right? And what does John do? John takes those boundaries and expands them even further than Luke, I think rightly being placed at the end because it shows that Jesus, at the very beginning of John, and then throughout, that Jesus doesn't just come and deliver our souls into heaven, but Jesus really is the Word, the one who spoke all things into existence, the one who made all things, who has come to redeem all

that which he made, both people and the entire creation, right? He really did come to deliver us from the darkness of the present age and into the light of the coming ones, showing the really the holistic sense of salvation you get from the entire Gospels. And that is that Jesus comes and deliver all people, salvation is for all people, into a new creation where all people and all things will again be made whole, if you will. And in that, we get a broader picture of the Gospel that's more than just Jesus forgives my sins, which he does, but through Jesus, we have forgiveness, and we are made worthy to dwell in a new creation where people from all nations will one day dwell with, with King Jesus. So the very title itself of the gospels should

cause us to think, Hey, this is the larger gospel message that we sometimes miss, if you will. So this is, I mean, that's fascinating the way way you articulate these broad themes and emphases in each gospel. They're not just slightly different retellings of the same story. There's obviously a lot of overlap, but when you highlight the differences that distinguish each gospel from the other, you end up getting a different, a different emphasee. Again, not completely different story, but different themes kind of are more pronounced and that there's a logic, a logical connection between each one and the, and the current layout. I I'm curious. I mean, is this the, the early

church fathers that decided which books would go where, like, are they thinking everything you're saying? Or do you think that's what's going on in their minds? Or do you think that there is kind of a more spiritual undercurrent that that God was kind of almost working through these human, you know, arrangers, canonical arrangers without them even really knowing why to put these books where they are, or is it, or is it a both? I mean, it's not, you know, Good question. I get that. I get that question sometimes in class, um, from students, you know, so is the order inspired, you know, and I would say, you know, I would say the final forms of the texts are, are inspired, right. Uh, and are, you know, without error in these original final forms, these

autographs, if you will. But then you have where they stand next to each other. Those are, if you will, paratextual order. That is, you know, the books that are, you know, next to other books or between other books, etc. And I would argue there, you know, God was working through these human beings, these early organizers of the canon in such a way where they were trying to discern what was the best place for these books in light of the Old Testament and how Jesus now fulfills these Old Covenant promises in the New Testament. So I would make a distinction between text and then paratext, those texts that stand

around, but the same way God works through us now in different ways. You know, God certainly worked through earlier organizers of the canon as they wrestled with how God was perhaps leading them to best organize the canon of scripture in a way that would most benefit the church. Otherwise, you just have random orders or not much cohesion, but there is quite like the pawn epistles go together. They're fairly stable, except for, for Hebrews. You can bring that up later if you want, um, the, uh, the Catholic epistles, uh, you know, that's a very stable order. Um, so there's too much going on in common to say this is half hazard or random,

but you know, God was leading them, not like original authors of scripture, but perhaps in a way to best convey this overarching message of scripture. So I would differ texts from paratex perhaps. It makes sense that acts would occur next. I mean, it's kind of like, you know, part two of the mission, you know, you have part one, the four gospels part two, you know, but why is acts in the, in the, in the early arrangement, is it ever connected to Luke? Because part of me kind of like, doesn't like the separation between Luke and acts since it's part one and part two of a two volume, you know, series.

Yeah. Here, here's been ever since, you know, the rise of modernity, it's like, what really drives us? It's it's history, right? You know, you know, history drives us. You pick up like New Testament theologies, and rearranging the order of the way we cover these texts based upon the historical composition of these texts, which could be so fickle depending on the dating of these documents. But again, with Luke and Acts, it's like we're trying to look behind the text

to look at their original composition. I would agree, you know, they were likely originally two volumes of the same work, both bound, I would argue, by the idea they're in a theophilus and also the Ascension, which ends Luke and you have the similar same theme again in Axe, in Axe one as two binding features for uh, for those. But when you look at the manuscript tradition, it's simply the binding of those two books together. It's not there.

Really? Uh, so they're, they, they weren't, I mean, apart from the original, maybe when Luke sent it out, but when it started to be copied and recopied and recopied, they weren't kept together. They were no, as far as I'm aware from my experience, looking at that, looking at the, the Canon lists and manuscripts and codices like Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and so many others, um, they're never together. Like even in the Western order where you don't have Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,

you have Matthew, John, Luke and Mark, right? Luke is still separated from Acts. Wow. If you're going to have Luke and Mark, you might as well just have Mark, Luke, and then Acts. But you're saying they don't actually do that. Yeah. So, again, when we study New Testament introduction and seminary, or we pick up books in the New Testament, we often talk about these together, right? This is part one and part two of the same volume, the gospel, spreading of the gospel, you know, Spirit arrives on Jesus, Spirit, you know, moves in the people of God to spread the kingdom of God acts. But the reality is, we don't see that the early church, we don't see early canon lists or codices

or manuscripts place those two side by side as texts we should actually read together. Whereas when we study the New Testament, we're so, again, historically minded what's behind the text that we put those two together and we want to see them together. And there's value in that, and like, you know, what's a Lucan theology, for example, you know, might be helpful to do that. But we're actually looking at Scripture and perhaps even how the early Christians want us to understand the overarching story of Scripture or this narrative, if you will. They don't want us to read Luke and Acts together. They want us to read Luke within the fourfold gospel corpus and then

Acts after the gospels. I would argue they best go with the Pauline epistles as this proper connection transition, if you will, between gospels and then the, the epistles. So everything I was taught was wrong. No, I'm kidding. No, but I preach like if you're, if you're wanting to develop, what is a Luke in theology of something, you know, or even like if you're studying Luke to understand Luke, it might help to also consult acts. Like if, especially if you're looking at a certain word, you know, or a certain theme, it's like, well, how does this theme play out an ax that might shed light in Luke's because of the common authorship. But you're just saying that there's also perhaps even a greater benefit to leaving them in the, in the, in the received canonical order, because that

actually contributes to how we understand these books, how they're, you know, participating in the books that are both on the right and the left. What do you think about gospel harmonizations? You know, where we try to like make it all fit together. I mean, I have an opinion about this, but I would love to hear your opinion first. Maybe explain what it is too, just in case somebody was like, I'm not sure what that even means. I'll promise with this. There's a reason why Taetians deates around just didn't make it. It just sort of, it faded. He was the first one to harmonize, try to harmonize all the gospels. Right. Yeah.

Yeah. Maybe it's just, maybe it's part of a problem we have as Christians. You know, we, you know, how do we, how do we balance, you know, unity and diversity, diversity and unity. You know, we like, we like sameness, we like, we like cohesion. You know, and that's what the deatess, the deatessera tries to do. It tries to harmonize these gospel accounts into, into one, one progressive gospel account, if you will. But if you, throughout history, I think it's by the sixth century or so, account, if you will. But throughout history, I think it's by the sixth century or so, the deiteseron, you know, fates. And what we have left is, it's unity in diversity, not four gospel authors saying the same thing, then why would you need four gospels, right? But it's

each gospel author making his own contribution, his own perspective, if you will, on the one gospel of Jesus Christ, and then taking those together, giving us a fuller picture in all their diversity, but yet also in their unity as well. And that diversity and unity, I think, is a beautiful thing that I think Christians have preserved throughout the centuries. I think we can, we can model well even today as, as Christians taking our cues from the, our cue from the, the gospels themselves. Yeah. I think for me, the biggest problem is each pericope, each retelling of different episodes

in Jesus's life that are part of this grand story contained with each individual gospel. Once you take the episode out and try to rework it into some kind of like composite picture of this episode, using this passage from Matthew, this patches from Mark and bring it in this passage from John, like you are now ripping out those individual passages from their overarching narrative context. It would be similar. This is an analogy off the top of my head. I just thought of this, see if it works. This isn't the first time with the old geralver. I do that.

Take all the, you know, the, the, the, you know, the last four different Batman movies, you know, going all the way back to like Danny DeVito in the Joker, you know, the last four different Batman movies, you know, going all the way back to like Danny DeVito in the joker, you know? And then some more recent way, you know, Michael Keaton being Batman. And then I forget, but like each, like, let's just make one. Let's just take all the bits and pieces and form one Batman movie. It's like, well, wait a minute. Like you, you can't take this scene out of this, this particular retelling of the Batman story and, and, and think it like, once you rip it out of that context, it loses its certain meaning, the way it contributes to the narrative around

it. So even though it's, it's the same overarching story, the different retellings of that have intrinsic meaning in and of itself. Is that not, is that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good

point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a gooduration. I think he's aware of Mark. I think he's aware of Matthew. He knows what they're saying. And Luke adds a unique word you don't find in Matthew and Mark. So when Jesus is having this conversation, he adds the word exodus. Exactly. So what's he talking about? In most translations, it's his departure. No, he's talking about the exodus,? This new Exodus he's accomplishing. And I think so Luke is adding something, you

know, for theophilus, you know, whoever the artist firmly knows theophilus was, or whether it's just, you know, simply represents a God fear or a God lover, you know, or a patriot, you know, whoever. I think he wants his readers to understand something that you don't see in Matthew and Mark. In some ways he's improving in a good way on what you don't see in Matthew and Mark, because Jesus was talking about the Exodus, the new Exodus he now accomplishes.

There was death and resurrection. Yeah. Luke 9.31, it was Moses and Elijah talking about Jesus is the Greek word, Exodus, whatever. I saw that Luke is, I mean, Lou, I hate to say pick out favorites. Okay. Um, but Luke is my favorite gospel. I just hit the way he so like creatively, not imaginatively, but creatively, like artistically weaves together the subtle illusions, not quotes. You know, Matthew has these direct quotes as Isaiah said, and you know, quote, Luke rarely, I don't know if Luke ever does that. Maybe it does, but it's,

it's usually these little like snippets, these, you know, phrases, these like this, like, like using a Greek word, Exodus and, and, and, and then, yeah. And then he, and then he looked at the overarching kind of like X exile or not. Sorry. X, uh, the kind of an Exodus theology from like Isaiah and other passages and you know, um, that there's going to be another Exodus like event. And then this is kind of like, L L Luka's kind of alerting us to, and when he says looking forward to his Exodus, it's like his cross, the cross. So the cross, the death, resurrection, ascension of Jesus will be this new Exodus that Isaiah 40 to 55 kind of anticipated. It's like, gosh, you insert one word into that particular passage, and it just adds so much color and meaning, but it's subtle. It's like if you could, if you're reading

too quickly, you're just not going to catch it at all. Like you really have to sit there and drink the narrative more deeply. And I'll try and show this to my students in class and okay, look at the word Exodus being used here. Look where it's used elsewhere in The subterranean. What does it mean? It's the Exodus. Exodus. Okay. Let's switch from our English translation and look at what Luke's actually doing in Greek. He uses that same word. What do you think he's trying to cause us to imagine, if you will? Because we should imagine things when we read scripture and larger stories, larger pictures. He wants us to think about the Exodus. He sort of just drops it in there and we're

supposed to get it because we're supposed to be so familiar. And even if his early audiences weren't necessarily, you can argue like Richard Hayes, he is teaching them how to read the Old Testament, rightly, and seeing the Exodus as a paradigm for this new, new Exodus, this original act of salvation, looking forward to a greater act of salvation and in Jesus Christ. So he's teaching us how to read the old test. So I would argue with the hazes right there. Richard Hayes wrote one of the more fundamental books in new Testament scholarship called the echoes of scripture and the letters of Paul, where he gosh, it's been two decades since I read it now, but it was just a game changer. It's hard to even study the new Testament without reading. Yeah. You know, but, but kind of

develop this kind of hermeneutic of the difference between like a quotation, an illusion, and then an echo where it might be just a subtle word that conjures up a whole narrative that is brought to bear and how this one word is functioning in different stories. And, and he points out that all throughout Paul's letters in particular, that you see this, just the powerful function that these echoes have. I mean, it's fascinating. Let's get, it was a game changer for me. Yeah. Yeah. It's brilliant, but not even that long. It's, it's, it's a, I mean, he's obviously a top notch scholar, but the book was very readable too. Like even if you're not a scholar at that, I think it, you know, you'd benefit from the book. So Paul's 13 letters are, are these, are these simply arranged and taught in terms of length?

Isn't that, aren't they just from the longest to shortest or is there more going on there? And I would say yes. And in the end, what is it? Okay, it matters. They were arranged maybe length, shortest, you know, or communities, individuals, then you have Hebrews at the end, you can ask about that if you want. I'll leave that one dangling out there. Whether it was intentional, intentional or not, I would argue it was. But still, these books are going to exert a certain hermeneutical pressure on those around them, whether it's intentional or not. I would argue, though, that it's likely intentional that Romans is at the beginning of the Poline

Corpus, not because it's the longest, certainly it's one of the longer ones, but I don't think that's necessarily the main intention for why Romans is at the beginning. I think Romans is the clearest introduction of Paul's theology. Paul actually believes about justification, salvation, eschatology, the future of Israel and the plan of God, right? Paul sort of lays it out in Romans. And then you get in Galatians, which I think follows pretty well in line with Romans only in in Neus and a lot more emotional, you know, Paul tells a guy to go emasculate himself, you know, he's a little more emotional there. But you have theological

instruction and then about what Paul believes in ethical exhortation, Romans 11 through 15 has ethical exhortation after theological instruction, Galatians does something similar in one through four and then five through six as well. And then what do you have in the middle? You've got first and second Corinthians. Why would those be located there? I think we're to understand first and second Corinthians in light of Romans and Galatians that bookend first and second Corinthians. That is, who are the Corinthians? They are people, they are God's people. They are righteous, who are not living out the expectations of the covenant, which you find in Romans

11, sorry, 12 through 15, I'm sorry, and Galatians 5 through 6, right there, they're covenant breakers, if you will. So, they're called to repent and walk in light of how they are to walk, as God's people have always been called to walk and that is holy and reading Robins and Galatians as the bookends for reading first and second Corinthians helps understand a little, a little better. Perhaps Paul may be getting at and the earliest compilers of these texts wanted us to understand about the Corinthian letters. Could a case not be made? Cause a lot of Protestants, especially assume Romans is kind of like, if you're going to take one compendium of Pauline theology, obviously you want all 13 letters, but Romans is kind of like the best one book kind of summary of Paul's thought.

Could a case not be made that Ephesians is because it's the only letter that is not nearly as situational. I mean, some people say it's not situational at all. Whereas, you know, with Romans, Paul's addressing a specific situation, obviously Corinthians. I mean, all the letters are except for Ephesians. Ephesians is a one that if you had Paul in a vacuum, not quite, but you know, sitting back in his easy chair saying, all right, let's just talk about, let's just talk about the sweep of Christian theology without, without addressing a particular church situation that I need to correct. You know, if he just is the one letter that we have, that is, you know, it's circular. It's not really addressing,

I think there's some situational stuff going on, but not nearly as pronounced as all the other letters. Is that fair? I had a buddy that did his PhD on, on Ephesians. And he says, we need to swap our mind, our mindset about Romans. We need to swap the Ephesians. That is a good case. You know, what, what, what's the name of the dissertation? If you don't mind me asking, it was Tim Gombis. The, the, I forget that dissertation, something about triumph. Yeah. Yeah. Anyway, he wrote a popular level book on, on it. Yeah. Maybe, maybe I will, I will say this. I think, you know, and Ephesians, where do you have the idea that we are, you know, first half or one new humanity, second half, how do we live out that one humanity?

And I would argue they're struggling with living out that one new humanity, the idea of Jew and Gentile living as those who mutually accept one another and Gentiles as those who are also beneficiaries of the covenant and the promises. So I think Romans would still provide a larger theological base, for lack of a better term, for understanding what it means for Jesus to make us all heirs of the promises, both Jew and Gentile. And I think we see that worked out a little more clearly in Romans 9 through 11. There's hope for not just Gentile, but also Jew in the plan of God, and we're to live as those who have been reconciled. We are the one people

of God. Something I think that whoever Paul's writing to, I would say, I would argue was written to the Ephesians, but always meant to be circulated among the churches are struggling with living out that idea of being one covenant people, both Jew and Gentile, those for whom the dividing wall of partition has really been torn down and have really been called, as we all are, to live as one reconciled new humanity. So I would even say that the positioning of Romans in relation to Ephesians still helps us understand that in a way where if Ephesians were first and Romans were later, we perhaps wouldn't get the same picture of her, perhaps a little different picture. Yeah. Yeah. That's it. I mean, and yeah. So the, the concern over Jew Gentile, which occupies, it's not just a lot of part of Ephesians two, it's, it is that, but it's also Ephesians three.

And then I would argue even carries over into Ephesians four, this, when it talks about the big, you know, the big unity passage and diversity of gifts to foster the unity of the church. I don't think he's left behind the ethnic importance of, of unity and diversity there. So a good chunk of the book is for lack of better terms about ethnic reconciliation. But to your point, Romans lays a thick foundation for that. Like Paul is able to go where he goes in Ephesians because of the thick foundation laid in, in all throughout. I mean, Romans, gosh, I mean, it's not just chapter four. It's really, I would say one through 11. Really? I mean,

totally. I would even say that because of that, I think there was a, a conscious, um, understanding that Romans does lay a better foundation for what Paul later addresses in Ephesians, right? Because there is this, there are these historical contexts for these letters, but once they're inserted into the canon, what they show is they not just speak historically to these communities Paul was writing to, but they now speak to all communities throughout history. So it really is a move from history to how they speak theologically to all believers throughout history. And when you think of, okay, how are Christians throughout history going to understand what's going on in Ephesians better? That understanding would come, I would argue more properly from understanding Romans

first as the proper theological base for understanding Paul's theology and then reading Ephesians thereafter. Yeah. So you're, to succinctly summarize kind of the point you keep coming back to, that while there has been a focus on understanding the historical context of each individual book in the new Testament, it's equally, if not more important to understand the canonical context of where these books are placed. Will that be an accurate? I would go a little beyond you.

Okay. Yeah, go for it. I would say it's more important to understand. Okay. Wow. Yeah. say it's more important to understand. I would say in a sense, we do violence to the text when we either rearrange the text chronologically, or we misunderstand what Paul may be arguing or when we don't understand these texts in a way in which they're situated in the corpuses in which they are situated and the order in which they're, they're situated as well. Talk to us about Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians. I always years ago, somebody said to, to, to under, to memorize the order of which one comes first, just say Gentiles

eat pork chops. I never forgot it. And neither will you Gentiles eat pork chops, Philippians Colossians. Because even here Colossians and Ephesians have a lot of resonance, but they're separated by Philippians. What's the canonical context of these four letters that that matters why they are situated the way they are. Yeah. Again, here I would, I would see a conscious organization. I would see, I'm going to backtrack a little bit so we can figure out what's going on in the other letters. So Romans and Galatians are the bookends to an initial Pauline grouping in which what you have is theological instruction followed by ethical exhortation. And then you get Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians,

you get those three letters, and those three letters all follow the pattern of theological instruction followed by ethical exhortation that was initially centered on the initial Pauline grouping of Romans and Galatians, theological instruction, ethical exhortation, you see that in letters of Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians as well. So they follow that pattern. Ephesians, we are one new humanity, theological instruction followed by second part, ethical exhortation, we're called to live out that one new humanity. So Colossus, the exalted Christ, and we're called to live as we're actually under the lordship of the exalted Christ. So those three letters will

follow in the pattern of Romans and Galatians. And that's why they're situated where they actually are. Yeah. The pastoral is makes sense. Right? Yeah. That's, that's probably the most obvious one. Right? I mean, it's an, and even is there a logic? So first Timothy, second Timothy and Titus, even though he's writing Titus, I could, to your point, it's a different historical situation. You know, first, second Timothy is writing to, you know, the church at Ephesus, specifically Timothy in leadership there, whereas Titus has written the Crete, which there there's, I don't know enough about the historical context there to know Crete and Ephesus. Are there a lot of similarities or not? But I think you would probably say that's maybe not as

important as, as seeing the, the, the canonical. So the connection here between all three of these letters, um, would you say that all three of these letters are mutually interpretive? Like if you're going to study Titus, you should also be interacting with first and second Timothy because there's going to be themes that are sort of interacting with each other. I would, I would even say that that's, um, we see evidence of that in the way these letters are always grouped together. They're like, um, like a mini corpus within a larger corpus. The same with the Johannine epistles. They're always grouped together. They become these. So, understanding the Johannine epistles, I think it's helpful when you see the common themes to help you understand how those similar

themes are used in other parts of the letter as well. Same thing with the corpus, with the mini corpus, if you will. The same thing for the past orals. Like what is Paul arguing? I think it's helpful when you not just read Timothy Pied's self, where you see, for example, the same thing in Titus, for example. And even just take where the past orals are located, right? So you got, you know, Romans and Galatians,

they set the initial polion grouping, you get the next three letters in the corpus that set the follow along, which is ethical, I'm sorry, theological instruction and ethical exhortation. Then you get first and second Thessalonians thereafter, which now give you a strongly eschatological tone for how you are to live as God's people in light of the future return of Jesus Christ. And I would argue that that ethical exhortation in light of the return of Christ is still carried over into the pastorals just by mere proximity. That is, we are to conduct ourselves in the household of God knowing that Jesus Christ is returning

soon. And that overarching theme of eschatology is still present, I would argue reinforced as well in certain places in the pastoral. So we conduct ourselves in the household of God in light of Jesus Christ who is returning soon and then you get in Hebrews, which I would argue it. Good. I do want to get the Hebrews. You keep chumming the waters with this. But wait, wait. So what you just said would confront at least an assumption within scholarly circles that when Paul wrote the pastoral he is writing from a new perspective that Jesus is not coming back soon. His return

isn't that imminent. We might be in here for a while. So let's hunker down. Let's organize a church. We're getting more church structure. We need some more leadership. Whereas when you read first Corinthians seven and the Corinthians as a whole, it's kind of like, he could be coming back tomorrow. So if you're not married, don't get married. If you're married, don't, you know, don't just, if even like, if you're a slave, don't seek to be released, you get these kind of like jarring statements. But if you think Jesus is coming back next week, you can maybe understand the logic behind that. So, but you're saying that the X, the, the imminent return of Jesus, that this focus on eschatology that's, that's really unpacked at first, second Thessalonians kind of lingers

over kind of hovers over the, the, the themes of the pastoral. So would you agree that that kind of traditional scholarly assumption about the historical context of the pastoral is actually neglecting its canonical situation? I would say, yeah, it takes the emphasis off how we should be reading the pastoral. And that is whether Paul assumed that he was coming during his lifetime, whether Paul was sort of resetting, you know, during the latter years of his life and saying, hey, maybe he's not coming when I thought he was, so let me make sure the church is prepared and properly ordered in light of his coming, which could happen at any moment. I think those

are good questions, but I think they still take our eyes of what we should be focusing on that we are the church and Jesus is returning and we are to conduct ourselves in the household of God, um, in a way that is honorable and pleasing to him knowing that he is returning and he could return at any moment. Interesting. So I would say helpful discussions, but again, it's sort of, it just, it takes our eyes off the way. I think these early canonical are teaching us how to read scripture, not individualistic or separated from, from,

from texts, but holistically, if you will. So we just have a few more minutes here. We've got to get to Hebrews. Are you, are you going to say Paul wrote Hebrews? Is that where you're going with this? I think he wrote it. You know, I know, I know origin, you know, say whoever, whoever wrote it, you know, God only knows there's been doubt, but here's the thing. Hebrews is never found in the Catholic epistles, Corpus. It's always, It's always included, always with Paul, right? And it could be after, you know, between Romans and first Corinthians. Oh really?

Yeah, it could be the most common place that we have it today is at the end of the Pauline corpus. It's sort of, it settles there. And I think it's a good place for it because what does it teach us? I think, you know, the one who is returning, whom we are to live honorably in light of, is the one we should continue following so that we might receive that which all these Old Testament saints long to receive in Hebrews 11, and that is this lasting city, if you will. It's the new creation, the new

this lasting city, if you will. It's the new creation, the new heavens and new earth. Same place, just what you use with different language, depending on the author. His readers aren't in danger of going back to Judaism as if first century Christians would have separated themselves. It's the idea that, hey, don't focus on the types and shadows. We have the one to whom the types and the shadows now point and find their fulfillment. So continue following him, continue growing in maturity so that you might receive this place that Paul talks about earlier on his letters, the place that the old Testament's like saints long for it's the city without foundations, the, the new creation.

What do you do with, so I guess, and I'm going back 30 years in my memory here. I think two of the pushbacks against Pauline authorship, number one, in all of Paul's letters, he mentions his name, Hebrews. He doesn't. And number two, the, the, just the length, the, the language is very different. Doesn't feel Pauline. I mean, it's, you know, yeah. How do you address those two? Although it does feel kind of looking, doesn't it? And Luke and Paul were associates. If you read Luke, Luke access, I'm sure you've done, it does feel similar in some ways to

Luke and X, but the theology feels very, very Pauline, especially that you have like copy and shadow. Like you find in Colossians, for example, I take Colossians to be to be Pauline. With that, my theory is that this was likely a Pauline sermon that Luke then composes. Oh, so it has Pauline authority. So it's included in the in the in the Pauline corpus, but it was probably composed by either Luke or someone, someone like Luke who would have been a close associate of, of Paul would have been familiar with the sermon and Paul's,

Paul's theology that he now works into a letter, which is included into the Pauline corpus. So here's what I'd say, whether Paul actually wrote it with his pen or not, doesn't matter. Well, he didn't write hardly any letters with his own pen. That's right. He was dictating them. Even in Romans, right? Tertius, right? He's the one who actually wrote Romans. So these differences and arguments that we make based upon like syntax and vocabulary, I think a lot of it's just, it's overdone because Paul would have used scribes to compose his letters and Luke wouldn't have been any different potentially

if you wrote, Speaker 0.(1h 10m 20s): And if you assume Paul wrote all 13 of the letters accredited him already, you have differences. I mean, do we, you read like first second, Timothy, the language there is feels very different than Romans Galatians, Corinthians, which is why, you know, a lot of scholars say, Paul obviously didn't write feel the pastoral is because the language is so different. And he, it seems pretty accepted that Hebrews is a sermon or like it's, it's a, it's a speech written down. Whereas the letters are just letters. Like it's, you know, he's writing

a letter, but, but Hebrews certainly has a sermonic feel that that's pretty established. Right? I mean, a lot of people think Paula, it was like a sermon from a Paulist or something, you know? Okay. Well, you know, we're, we're out of time. I had some more questions, but yeah, this will give us enough to chew on, man. This is a, this is a fascinating conversation, man. I didn't even, I mean, I thought I was going to just like spend a couple of minutes talking about the canonical context and the new test. But you took us for a wild ride. This is really interesting, man. Thank you for your work

and for this book. I'm really, yeah. I hope people pick it up. It's, it's a very, I mean, I just barely started it, but yeah, extremely readable. I mean, you say you're addressing it for students and ministers, not scholars. And it very much comes through. Thanks Miguel. Appreciate it. I enjoy being on the show. Thanks for having me. This show is part of the Converge Podcast Network.