The order of the New Testament is
probably in proper-enough order, but
I think there could be a healthy change of the order presented in Bibles today.
The New Testament starts with the gospels which is highly appropriate, because
if the New Testament were in, say, chronological order, then some of Paul’s
letters would be first, because they were written before the gospels, which
might not make much sense in a New Testament only such as a Gideon’s New
Testament or vest pocket. In any case, it is in appropriate order for the
gospels to be first because they introduce the material for the rest of the NT
to build on. I do, however, have an issue with the order of the gospels
presented in Bibles, mainly, the 4th gospel.
The gospel of John, in my opinion, should be the first book in the New Testament for at least three reasons:
1. John begins his gospel with, “In the beginning…”
Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning, God created the heaven
and the earth” (Emphasis mine). If you haven’t made the connection yet, the
beginning of John 1:1 is a direct reference to Genesis chapter one, verse one. John
1:1 says, “In the beginning was the Word.” John clearly had the beginning of Genesis
in mind when he was penning the 4th gospel, because he wanted to
show his readers right of the bat that Jesus is God (more specifically, the Son
of God. See John 20:31). The way that the gospel of John begins would be in
parallel order with the beginning of the Old Testament if the Johannine text
would be placed first in the New Testament.
2. Because it would place Luke’s gospel and the Acts of the Apostles next to each other.
The gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke
and John (in that order) are followed by Acts, which was written by Luke, who
is also the author of the 3rd gospel. So here we have on a
bookshelf, per se, four authors, and five books. Luke, having two historical
volumes is separated seemingly randomly by the 4th gospel, breaking
up the flow of the historical accounts of Luke’s gospel and the Acts of the
Apostles.
“Many have undertaken to draw up an
account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were
handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of
the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated
everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for
you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the
certainty of the things you have been taught.” – Luke 1: 1-4 (NIV. Emphasis mine).
“Most excellent” was generally a
title for someone in a political position of sort, and Theophilus in Greek,
broken down means, “lover of God.” Some people believe that Theophilus was not
a real person, but that Luke was writing metaphorically to someone who simply
loves God. The “Most Excellent” title
suggests otherwise.
“In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus
began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving
instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. After his
suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he
was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the
kingdom of God.” – Acts 1:1-3 (NIV. Emphasis mine).
It seems to be a bit awkward to
separate these two volumes from this one author. If you are reading this and
you did not know that Luke wrote the book of acts (or at least the same author
wrote the two books), it is probably due to the 4th gospel
separating the two volumes.
3. Because many Bible scholars, encourage new readers of the Bible to start with the gospel of John before reading any other book in the New Testament.
The reason for this is because
John’s gospel is pretty simply laid out, and seems to be richer in theological
explanation than the synoptic gospels (take the first chapter, for instance).
The gospel of John seems to set the stage for the reading of the other gospels.
I am not saying that the 4th gospel has more value than the other
books of the New Testament. I am just saying that it seems more appropriate to
have the 4th gospel be the first book presented in the New
Testament.
These are not the only reasons,
but they are the big ones. Another reason from a different facet might be that
the synoptic gospels would still remain side by side. On top of all of this, all
of Paul’s letters are one right after the other. We know beyond a reasonable
doubt that Paul wrote 13 of the New Testament books, and possibly (but not
probably) even 14. All 14 of these books are one right after the other, without
any other book written by another author separating them.
If there are any questions
concerning the order for which I am arguing, it is: John, Matthew, Mark, Luke,
The Acts, etc. In any event, I hope that readers consider this information and
think about the impact on future readers of the New Testament.
Written by Nace Howell through the grace of the Lord Jesus
© Nace Howell, 2018
Comments
Post a Comment