1

After the Gospels, the Greek scriptures contain many instances of application, clarification, and detail about Christian doctrine.

For instance:

  • The Book of Revelation certainly gives many specifics about the end times, as revealed by Jesus to John in a vision.
  • In Acts, Peter was shown by God that he "should not call any man common or unclean".

But these are not newly introduced doctrines or concepts:

  • Jesus talked about the Tribulation and about the Kingdom of God, and the latter prophets talked about the resurrection of the dead and the day of the Lord.
  • Jesus told the disciples to "teach all nations, baptizing them".

Do the rest of the Greek scriptures contain any totally new Christian doctrines not already mentioned in the Gospels or Hebrew scriptures?

2
  • I'm not really sure how this should be answered. Most Christians would say yes, but seeing as they disagree greatly on what doctrines are taught in the rest of the NT, their answers will all be totally different.
    – curiousdannii
    Commented Mar 22 at 3:43
  • 1
    It could be argued that 'reconciliation' katallasso/apokatallasso is not elsewhere introduced, the matter of restoring what had never been before i.e. a new humanity under new Headship. But as @curiousdannii states, not everyone will agree as to what, exactly, that doctrine conveys.
    – Nigel J
    Commented Mar 22 at 4:58

2 Answers 2

2

Paul wrote a great deal of the body of Scripture being asked after. In recounting Paul's journeys Luke commended the Jews of Berea above those in Thessolanica for they received the word (from Paul) eagerly and searched the Scriptures daily to confirm what they were hearing. Many of them, having received and confirmed the word, believed:

The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men. - Acts 17:10-12 

I would conclude that nothing new in doctrine was introduced but rather newness in comprehension was ocurring ... leading to belief unto salvation.

7
  • 1
    This answer is even stronger than what I was asking for; that even Jesus in the Gospels doesn't add any new doctrines, only a better or amplified way of understanding what had already been taught. Commented Mar 23 at 23:08
  • @RayButterworth He is Lord of the Sabbath. Commented Mar 24 at 20:21
  • True, Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath. "God blessed the seventh day" in Genesis 2:3. How is that relevant? (Before answering, remember that even the Roman Catholic Church teaches that "the Sabbath" is the seventh day of the week, as opposed to "The Lord's Day" on Sunday.) Commented Mar 24 at 21:29
  • 1
    @RayButterworth on the 7th Day God rested from all his labors and that is the rest that we're supposed to enter into. In that sense Jesus is our Sabbath. It's a rest from our labors unto righteousness and a trusting in his. Commented Mar 24 at 22:07
  • 1
    @RayButterworth That's why it's so critical that modern day 'revelations' be rejected if they go beyond what is already written. I don't think there's a catch 22 unless you allow the possibility of contradictory information to begin with. LDS says the new stuff is true and they know it's true because the new stuff says so. Commented Mar 25 at 14:41
0

Three examples to answer the OP come to mind.

OP: Do the rest of the Greek scriptures contain any totally new Christian doctrines not already mentioned in the Gospels or Hebrew scriptures?

The application or identification of the priesthood of Melchizedek is introduced after the Gospel accounts.

We know of Melchizedek priesthood from Gen 14:18 and Psalm 110:4, but the application to Christ is revealed in the book of Hebrews.

Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec. Heb 5:10

This doctrine is explained further in Hebrews. And of course, it also leads to the priesthood of all believers, which is another new doctrine, as opposed to a blood or other lineage requirement. Here's Peter.

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 1 Peter 2:9

Another new doctrine is "absent from the body, present with the Lord". Before Christ's ascension, the idea of a "holding tank" aka Abraham's bosom was prevalent. Some continue to believe in purgatory to fulfill the pre-Christ view.

We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. 2 Cor 5:8

After Christ, believers are present with Christ.

Lastly, at least for this post, is the doctrine of being righteous without having done something to earn it.

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8

Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Eph 2:5, 8

So, Christ made these new doctrines of a believer's priesthood, a believer's status in death, and a believer's status in life possible.

6
  • 2
    Your 1st example: the interpretation of the priesthood of Melchizedek is based on the OT, in light of the resurrected Christ. Hebrews shows why the old blood/lineage understanding for priesthood had to end. Is a clearer understanding of an OT matter a new doctrine? Your 2nd example: Being present with the Lord at death is what Jesus said would happen (Lk.23:42-44 & Jn.14:2-3). Your 3rd example: Being righteous without doing anything to deserve it is in the OT, e.g. Noah, Abraham (Gen.6:8, before he built the Ark, & Gen.12:1-3; 15:6; Isa.64:6).
    – Anne
    Commented Mar 24 at 9:02
  • "Abraham's bosom" was an idea at the time, inherited from paganism, not existing doctrine. And 2Cor 5:8 is preceded by 5:4 (NLT), "While we live in these earthly bodies, we groan and sigh, but it’s not that we want to die and get rid of these bodies that clothe us. Rather, we want to put on our new bodies so that these dying bodies will be swallowed up by life.", which indicates an instantaneous transition ("in the blink of an eye") from physical to spiritual body, not a "holding tank" or "purgatory". Commented Mar 24 at 14:15
  • @Anne #1 The Melchizedek priesthood was never mentioned as applying to Christ, until Hebrews was written. #2 paradise was a euphemism for the "good" part of hades, like Abraham's bosom. Christ descended to open those gates. Only after ascension is the application of the promise "apart from the body, present with the Lord". #3 Good point.
    – SLM
    Commented Mar 24 at 17:00
  • @RayButterworth I'd agree that the "holding tank" or "paradise" or "Abraham's bosom" or "purgatory" parts of hades/hell were OT concepts. In Christ, the "absent from body, present with the Lord" is the new doctrine. There is no holding tank for a believer in Christ atonement.
    – SLM
    Commented Mar 24 at 17:02
  • 1
    @SLM #1 OT priesthood was given a huge blow in 586/7BC when the temple was destroyed at the final siege of Jerusalem. No temple, no practicing priesthood. Yes, that resumed with the rebuild. But Jesus warned of Jerusalem’s coming destruction when “Your house is left unto you desolate” – house meaning temple (‘forsaken’ RSV). It was razed AD70 and the priesthood equally crushed. Mat.24:37-39. To say a literal priesthood of a few resumed with a spiritual temple is to give a new doctrine. # 2 Lots of things only became clear after Christ’s resurrection but had all been foretold in the OT. #3 t.y.
    – Anne
    Commented Mar 25 at 9:58

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .