What did the believers living in the first century, more precisely between the time of Jesus' death and the first written gospel, have to know about Jesus and to believe in him?
Basically, how did the believers hear about Jesus and start to believe in him? If there were no written gospels in the first 20 years or so between the Lord's death and the first written account of him, then the gospels must have been orally transmitted. If we read the book of Acts as the evidence of what was told to non-believers, both Jewish or Greeks, then we will see a variety of flavors on how Jesus is being presented to audience of different context, both cultural and geographical. Sometimes, if not most of the times, the evangelists would face persecutions or troubles. Yet, strangely, people were drawn to the message and believed. This could be attributed to the accompanying miracles performed by some of them. And some of these evangelists or apostles were actual eyewitnesses of events and words spoken by Jesus.
So, what did they have? The first century believers from 33 A.D. to approximately 60 A.D. did not have what we call the written New Testament. They most probably did not have a written Old Testament as well because most ordinary believers might not be literate or have enough money to own one.
What they had was the oral account which they heard from the apostles or other disciples coming from Jerusalem or Palestine. They had seen the accompanying miracles performed by some of time which cemented their faith. And they could have continued to encourage other another in small house meetings by retelling the stories told to them by the apostles and the first disciples. They could have sang songs of remembrance and worship concerning the stories of Jesus. Coupled with praying and having communion together, and the memory of their baptism, these were the essential mediums or repertoires they had to learn, know and remember the Lord before the written gospels and letters from Paul.
So what does this tell us? Two current concerns cross my mind. One, those, especially brethren from the charismatic and word of faith movement, who claim that all we need is the word of God and walk in it without thinking much about it, as if the shear utterance of the verses in the bible would invoke some sort of magical mechanism that would oblige God to do what we have claimed in our utterance, need to rethink what the word of God means, especially the often quoted verse in Romans concerning faith that arises from the hearing of the word. Paul was definitely not referring to the written gospels or his letters. He was most likely referring to what he or other witnesses had said about Jesus to other churches which he had planted elsewhere in the Mediterranean. So, the word of God is more nuance than how we understand and apply today.
Second, for those who denies the workings of the Holy Spirit today, claiming a dispensation model where the perfect bible has excluded the need of the gifts from the Spirit, need to evaluate what the word of God was to the believers in the first twenty over years or as a matter of fact, in the subsequent centuries before the canonization of the bible. If the oral proclamation of the word of God was affirmed by God through the workings of the Spirit in the Lord's name, then why would it be considered peculiar or abnormal that the preaching of the word of God from the written Scriptures not be confirmed with the same workings of the Spirit from God if he so please to honor the name of his Son, our Lord?
Basically, how did the believers hear about Jesus and start to believe in him? If there were no written gospels in the first 20 years or so between the Lord's death and the first written account of him, then the gospels must have been orally transmitted. If we read the book of Acts as the evidence of what was told to non-believers, both Jewish or Greeks, then we will see a variety of flavors on how Jesus is being presented to audience of different context, both cultural and geographical. Sometimes, if not most of the times, the evangelists would face persecutions or troubles. Yet, strangely, people were drawn to the message and believed. This could be attributed to the accompanying miracles performed by some of them. And some of these evangelists or apostles were actual eyewitnesses of events and words spoken by Jesus.
So, what did they have? The first century believers from 33 A.D. to approximately 60 A.D. did not have what we call the written New Testament. They most probably did not have a written Old Testament as well because most ordinary believers might not be literate or have enough money to own one.
What they had was the oral account which they heard from the apostles or other disciples coming from Jerusalem or Palestine. They had seen the accompanying miracles performed by some of time which cemented their faith. And they could have continued to encourage other another in small house meetings by retelling the stories told to them by the apostles and the first disciples. They could have sang songs of remembrance and worship concerning the stories of Jesus. Coupled with praying and having communion together, and the memory of their baptism, these were the essential mediums or repertoires they had to learn, know and remember the Lord before the written gospels and letters from Paul.
So what does this tell us? Two current concerns cross my mind. One, those, especially brethren from the charismatic and word of faith movement, who claim that all we need is the word of God and walk in it without thinking much about it, as if the shear utterance of the verses in the bible would invoke some sort of magical mechanism that would oblige God to do what we have claimed in our utterance, need to rethink what the word of God means, especially the often quoted verse in Romans concerning faith that arises from the hearing of the word. Paul was definitely not referring to the written gospels or his letters. He was most likely referring to what he or other witnesses had said about Jesus to other churches which he had planted elsewhere in the Mediterranean. So, the word of God is more nuance than how we understand and apply today.
Second, for those who denies the workings of the Holy Spirit today, claiming a dispensation model where the perfect bible has excluded the need of the gifts from the Spirit, need to evaluate what the word of God was to the believers in the first twenty over years or as a matter of fact, in the subsequent centuries before the canonization of the bible. If the oral proclamation of the word of God was affirmed by God through the workings of the Spirit in the Lord's name, then why would it be considered peculiar or abnormal that the preaching of the word of God from the written Scriptures not be confirmed with the same workings of the Spirit from God if he so please to honor the name of his Son, our Lord?
Comments