‍ 

Dialogue on the Ancient Bereans

 

The ancient Bereans were Jews, not Baptists, so did they believe in “Scripture alone”?

 

Gary Hoge

 

The Bereans were reading the Scripture themselves to test the truthfulness of Paul, that is, to see if it said to them what Paul taught it as saying. In other words they were testing whether or not Paul was honestly teaching truths which were in line with what the Scriptures clearly said, and so they were testing whether or not Paul was teaching things contradictory to the Scriptures.

 

So, when Paul said, “If you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all” (Gal. 5:2), which OT Scriptures do you think the Bereans would have used to prove that Paul was not “teaching things contradictory to the Scriptures”? (HINT: see Gen. 17:10-14).

 

I believe they would have examined the various Scriptures (which Paul probably referred them to) which speak of God rejecting Israel, accepting a people who were not His people, starting a new covenant, etc.

 

So, if the Bereans said, “Hey, Paul, your teaching on circumcision is not in accordance with Scripture,” Paul could reply, “Well, Scripture says there’s going to be a new covenant, and I’m telling you that the circumcision requirement is different under the New Covenant.” Is that what you’re saying? What, then, would be the point of searching the Scriptures to see if what Paul said was true, if Paul could shrug-off any discrepancies they found by saying, “That was then, this is now. Things are different now under the new covenant”?

 

The point of searching the Scriptures to see if what Paul said is true is so that in the event that Paul teaches anything contradictory to what the Scriptures say the Bereans would know not to trust his authority.

 

Well, wouldn’t Paul’s teaching on circumcision be “contradictory to what the [Old Testament] Scriptures say”? Shouldn’t the Bereans have known, then, not to trust his authority?

 

Not necessarily.

 

As I said, the Bereans were probably referred to and likely examined the Scriptures which speak of God rejecting Israel, accepting a people who were not His people, starting a new covenant, etc. It likely made sense to them that a “new” covenant would not have the same basis as the old covenant (that is, the Old Testament Law... circumcision, etc.). The new covenant would be, well... it would be “new”, and different.

 

Precisely my point. That being true, how would the Bereans search through the records of the Old Covenant to determine whether Paul’s explanation of the New Covenant was true? Obviously, there’s no way they could. According to Paul, this new covenant “was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets” (Eph. 3:4-5) So there’s no way the Bereans could have searched the OT Scriptures to verify the details of the New Covenant. Agreed?

 

Actually, I shouldn’t have said this “likely” made sense to them. This definitely made sense to them... for they examined the Scriptures, believed what Paul was telling them, and came to be believers in the new covenant under Christ.

 

I believe they looked to see if Paul was contradicting passages in the Bible. They didn’t see Paul’s teaching on circumcision as contradictory because such could very well be part of the new covenant, indeed “the Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith.” (Gal. 3:8)

 

Here’s where I don’t understand your position. Some of the New Covenant does “contradict” the Old Covenant (e.g., the abolition of circumcision, the setting-aside of the required feast days, etc.). We seem to agree on that, and you suggest that the Bereans were willing to accept these contradictions on the ground that the New Covenant was different from the Old Covenant. That being the case, what was the point of searching the Scriptures “to see if Paul was contradicting passages in the Bible”? We already know he was contradicting passages in the Bible. You seem to be saying that the Bereans’ attitude was: “We’re going to search the Scriptures to make sure this guy’s teachings aren’t contradicting the Bible, but even if they are we’ll accept his teachings anyway because we know that the New Covenant is supposed to be different from the Old Covenant.” That doesn’t make sense to me.

 

If a “sola Scriptura” mindset is one in which teachings are checked as to whether or not they contradict Scripture before such teachings are accepted, then yes, the Bereans approached their faith with such a mindset.

 

How, then, could they accept Paul’s teaching on circumcision? You seem to be saying that the Bereans wouldn’t accept Paul’s teachings until they made sure they didn’t contradict Scripture, but you also say that they did accept teachings that contradict Scripture on the ground that the New Covenant was different than the Old Covenant. Which is it?

 

If a “sola Scriptura” mindset is one in which they accepted only Scripture as true, then obviously they didn’t approach their faith with that mindset. The Bereans lived in a time when Scripture was being written, a time in which authoritative Apostles lived and breathed and the Word of God was breathed through them.

 

Let me make sure I understand. Are you saying the Bereans didn’t try to prove from Scripture that Paul’s teachings were true, they just tried to prove they weren’t false?

 

Pretty much. They displayed the truth of the teachings by showing that they were not false and by showing they were supported by what the Scriptures said.

 

But how could they do that? Some of Paul’s teachings weren’t supported by what the Scriptures said. Therefore, there’s no way the Bereans could have shown that Paul’s teachings were not false if their standard of comparison was the Old Testament Scriptures. The only way they could accept that circumcision was no longer required – and not just for Gentiles, but even for Jews – or that all foods were now “clean,” or that animal sacrifices can’t really atone for sin, or that human blood could be used for atonement, or that the holy days need not be observed any longer, etc., was to take Paul’s word for it. If they tried to prove from the Old Testament that these things “were not false,” they would have had to conclude that they were false. But if they were willing to accept them anyway, on the ground that Scripture foresaw a new covenant, what was the point of seeking support for these teachings in the Old Testament Scriptures?

 

If the Scriptures had not mentioned anything about a new covenant, had not “foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith” (Gal. 3:8) etc., then the Bereans would have rightly ignored Paul. But the Scriptures did teach of a new covenant.

 

Only that a new covenant was coming. Someday. The Old Testament didn’t teach any of the details of the new covenant, though; it just said there was one coming. Therefore, when Paul arrived in Berea and said, “Here are the teachings of the new covenant,” the Bereans would simply have had to take his word for it. Yet you say, “They displayed the truth of the teachings by showing that they were not false and by showing they were supported by what the Scriptures said.” If you really believe that, I challenge you to do likewise and prove from the Old Testament that the five new teachings I mentioned above are not false. If the best you can do is point to a verse that says a new covenant is coming, then I’ve proved my point: There’s no way the Bereans could have verified the details of the new covenant by searching the Old Testament, and they would not have tried.

 

So it was not a matter of the Bereans saying, “We need to check to see if Paul contradicts the Scriptures, but even if he does we can justify it someway I’m sure.” No. It was a matter of, “Some of this may be hard to understand... but it this whole ‘new covenant’ thing really makes sense and is supported by the Scriptures.”

 

Again, the fact that there will be a new covenant is supported by the Scriptures. But the Bereans would have had to take Paul’s word for it when he gave them the new teachings that comprised the new covenant.

 

The Bereans checked for contradictions... and the circumcision teachings were not contradictions because of the additional Scriptural prophesies of the new covenant. The Scriptures foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith.

 

But Paul also taught that the Jews were not to be circumcised anymore either. How can that not be a contradiction of Gen. 17:12-13? Circumcision was absolutely central to Jewish identity. It’s what defined them. Therefore, if the Bereans didn’t balk when Paul told them that under the new covenant Jews no longer had to be circumcised, they wouldn’t have balked at anything else he taught, either. And if the Bereans were willing to accept these things on the ground that Scripture foresaw a new covenant, then why would they have “checked for contradictions” between Paul’s New Covenant teachings and the Old Covenant? What would be the point? Clearly they were willing to accept whatever new teachings Paul gave them, whether they were consistent with the Old Covenant or not.

 

Israel would be rejected (and remember that the original covenant was made with them) and the Gentiles would be accepted. So the original covenant would not apply. This made sense to the Bereans (as it was taught by Paul) and they saw that the teachings Paul’s teachings on circumcision in fact did not contradict the Old Testament since the Scriptures foresaw the new covenant.

 

If the original covenant no longer applied, then why did the Bereans supposedly use it to “check for contradictions”? What exactly were they looking for?

 

I’ll tell you what I think they were looking for. Scripture says that when Paul arrived in Berea he went to the synagogue, as was his custom. We don’t know what he said that day, but it’s reasonable to assume he said the same things in Berea that he had said in Thessalonica. According to Scripture, “Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead” (Acts 17:2-3). The Bereans “received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11). In other words, they examined the Scriptures to see if they really foretold that the Christ “had to suffer and rise from the dead.” That’s what they were looking for in the Scriptures. When they saw that this was true, they were willing to accept Paul’s conclusion that “this Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ” (Acts 17:3). And once they were willing to do that, they could accept Paul’s authority as an apostle of the living Christ, and they could accept his teachings of the New Covenant. At that point, they would not have (indeed, could not have) continued to examine the Scriptures to see if Paul’s new covenant teachings were true. Rather, just like the Thessalonian converts, they would have received Paul’s apostolic teachings, “not as the word of men [which must be verified], but as it actually is, the word of God [which is accepted without question]” (1 Thess. 2:13).

 

The Bereans looked for support for the teaching that there was going to be a new Covenant. They looked to see if the Scriptures foresaw that the Gentiles would be accepted while the Jews would be rejected. They found the support they needed.

 

I’m not sure what the acceptance of the Gentiles has to do with anything. The Bereans were Jews and so was Paul. It seems to me – and I think you’re trying to agree with me here – that the Bereans were searching the Scriptures to see if they really did foretell that the Messiah must suffer and rise from the dead, as Paul claimed.

 

I agree that they didn’t try to prove all the details. Once they proved that God would be creating a New Covenant, then they had to make a decision... was this Jesus Christ raised from the dead, and is this Paul fellow an Apostle of the New Covenant?

 

Exactly!

 

But their decision wasn’t based solely on faith. There were eyewitnesses to the resurrection, and the Bereans also examined the Scriptures to see if what Paul as saying was true (i.e. that there would be a totally new Covenant).

 

And that the Messiah was supposed to suffer (a radical concept to them, no doubt) and rise from the dead.

 

If the Scripture had prophesied that there would never be a new covenant, then the Bereans would have recognized the falsehood of Paul’s teachings. However, the Scriptures taught that there would be a new covenant, that that the Gentiles would be accepted. Therefore, the old covenant, with its regulatory laws would be... old, and the new covenant would be, well, the new covenant.

 

So then, when you say the Bereans searched the Scriptures looking for “contradictions” in Paul’s teachings, I assume you mean they were verifying only his central teaching that the Messiah must suffer and rise from the dead, making sure that Scripture really did teach that.

 

They were looking to see if the Scriptures really did show that Christ had to come and suffer, and to see if this really was going to bring a new covenant.

 

Okay, this is good. Sounds like we’re on the same page after all.

 

They were looking for prophecy in Scriptures and testing that to what Paul was saying was its fulfillment in the events around them. If Paul had contradicted the Scriptural prophecies, then they could’ve rejected his teachings. But Paul didn’t. The details of the new covenant may have “contradicted” regulatory laws of the old covenant, but that isn’t really so much of a contradiction in the light of the fact that a new covenant is prophesied. And this prophecy is the type of things they were examining to see if what Paul said was true.

 

Right. Therefore, as I’ve said before, once the Bereans were satisfied that Jesus really was the Messiah, and that Paul was His ambassador, a specially commissioned teacher of the New Covenant, they would have accepted his teachings without question.

 

For lack of space and time I’m sure, the author of Acts does not go into every detail of how Paul “proved that Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead.” I think it is safe to assume that in the 3 days Paul reasoned he mentioned details as to why Christ had to come and suffer, when he had come and suffer, what the results of Christ coming and suffering would be, how this fits into God’s plan and prophecy concerning the new covenant, etc.

 

Perhaps so.

 

When the Bereans examined the Scriptures to see if what Paul had said was true, I think this involved through checking of Paul’s 3 days worth of teachings. Of course they couldn’t check on the details of the new covenant, but they could check to see if there would even be one. And if there was a new covenant based on the Christ, and if they could reason that Paul was an Apostle in this new covenant, then they could find reason to accept the “details” from Paul.

 

Yes! This is exactly right! I’m so pleased we’ve come to see eye-to-eye on this!