The New Testament Made Harder

Until earlier this month, I have been teaching Gospel Doctrine (hereafter GD) in my small branch in Ireland. While I did find myself to be well-equipped to understand and exegete the New Testament (I know Koine Greek and am well-versed in biblical scholarship), trying to help the class move beyond the confines of the manual can be hard; let us face it—the manual can be both a cursing and a blessing—a cursing, as it is way too devotional and very, very limited, and a bane of my existence in the Church are those teaches who only repeat, often word-for-word, the contents thereof; it is a blessing in the sense that it ensures that a lot of “craziness” and speculation will be kept to a minimum. However, another difficulty GD teachers face is the scriptural lethargy; let us be even further honest and face yet another fact—most members don’t read the (often small) Scripture assignment (fact: no one read JST-Matthew in my penultimate class—just one e.g.). The reasons? I am sure there are many, including laziness, but another factor is relevancy. Often, Latter-day Saints (and all those within the broad Christian spectrum) often struggle with (1) being positively challenged by one’s Scripture study and (2) getting informed about the Scriptures, which, inevitably leads to (3) being able to properly “actualize” Scripture (“likening Scripture” to oneself).James Faulconer has written a series of books, with the name of the Scriptural text followed by the phrase, “Made Harder.” This is obviously a reference to the “made easier” series by David J. Ridges (a series one should avoid, tbh). Previously, Faulconer produced The Doctrine and Covenants Made Harder; The Book of Mormon Made Harder and The Old Testament Made Harder. In each of these volumes, the author gives a brief outline and background of the Scriptural work in question, and produces questions based on the texts in conjunction with the Gospel Doctrine texts being discussed for each week. The volume in review, The New Testament Made Harder follows the same structure.Such a volume is of huge benefit to both a Gospel Doctrine teacher for preparation of their materials, as they ask pointed, sometimes challenging and difficult questions, and forces one to critically engage a particular pericope (segment of text [of course, such is a most welcome tool for anyone in the Church, regardless of calling!]).As one example—I have long been “allergic” to some issues about eschatology (end of times), as there is so much utter nonsense from all different perspectives, in and out of the LDS Church, so I did have some apprehensions teaching lesson 24 on JST-Matthew, which is a midrash of sorts of Matt 24. However, Faulconer’s notes on pp. 235-54 were most helpful. On pp.235-46, he lays out the JST-Matthew and Matt 24 out in a parallel format, showing the differences between these two texts, allowing one to see the expansions the prophet Joseph Smith made to clear up some confusion when Christ was speaking with reference to the then-future destruction of the Second Temple and His Parousia (coming again in glory), something that has long-vexed exegetes of Matt 24; as Faulconer himself notes on p.247, “Joseph Smith’s revisions make it more clear which passages refer to the destruction of Jerusalem and which refer to the second coming.”Further, Faulconer discusses the use of the book of Daniel, an important OT text with much apocalypticism contained therein, and its relationship to the text, both explicitly and implicitly; on pp.249, 252, for instance, we read, with reference to JST-Matthew vv.12, 32:“Daniel 9:27, 11:31, and 12:11 refer to the abomination of desolation. Up to this point in time, those living in Judea had understood Daniel’s prophecy to refer to the desegregation of the temple by Antiochus IV (168 BC), when he set up an image of Zeus in the temple and is said to have sacrificed a pig on the temple altar. To what is Jesus referring in this verse? Was the previous understanding wrong? If not, how can Jesus refer to it in the future tense? . . . Does verse 32 tell us that there will be a second abomination of desolation, or it is referring to the same one referred to in verse 12? Given the meaning of that phrase when used to speak of what happened in 168 BC and then to speak of the events of AD 70, what might it refer to in the last days?”One appreciates the appeal to understanding the use of the OT in the NT, as well as its reapplication therein (cf. the use of Hos 11:1 in Matt 2:15 as one well-known example). Often, when teaching GD classes, one often finds their class struggling with this very issue, as, sadly, as with others within the broad Christian spectrum, many Latter-day Saints are “canonically challenged” vis-à-vis the Old Testament, although one has to understand the OT to properly understand and exegete the NT. Having a resource that helpfully lays out this issue as well as allows one to ask thoughtful questions like this one to a class is greatly appreciated, especially if one doesn’t want to over-complicate an already difficult text.Overall, as with the previous volumes, one found this to be a positively challenging text, and would highly recommend it to Latter-day Saints who either wish to be stimulated in their studies of the Scriptures and/or those in various teaching-related callings who wish to “bone up” on the Scriptures and have additional insights to teach.

This is a great book for digging deeper into the New Testament. It follows the LDS Gospel Doctrine teaching schedule, but is not restricted this that. The best thing I can say about this book is that it really made me think. Although the author is a Mormon, I think this book would be helpful to any student of the New Testament.

Great series to make one think and study!