Note: From, Reading the Later New Testament as Christian Scripture (Baker, 2026). Reprinted by permission of the publisher. Citations have been omitted.
All Scripture is God- breathed (2 Tim. 3:16), though in some contexts we might get the impression that some Scriptures are more God- breathed than others. But how could that possibly be true? This book is a detailed introduction to some of the texts that have been neglected in the history of Christian interpretation – texts that seem to be treated as though they are less God-breathed. These texts are Hebrews through Revelation – the “third act” of our New Testament canon – and they are some of our (i.e., your authors’) favorites. This chapter sets the stage for our exploration of these texts, explaining some terminology, some history of attitudes and approaches toward these texts, and how this book will proceed. Let’s begin with a discussion of our title.
Later New Testament?
The Later New Testament? When it comes to studying the New Testament, some groups of books are easy to categorize (e.g., the Gospels or “Paul”), and others are not. What do we call the non-Gospel, non-Pauline texts? This book opts for a common label: the “Later New Testament.” We consider this preferable to lumping these texts together as the “General Letters” or “Catholic Letters”; after all, neither Hebrews nor Revelation fits these labels well. And while some refer to these texts even more generically as something like the “rest of the New Testament” or the “other New Testament texts,” such titles make these books sound like the leftovers of the New Testament. (A noteworthy New Testament scholar once told me [Madison] that he’d fallen in love with Hebrews during a course at Oxford with a title very near to these!)
We prefer “Later New Testament” despite the fact that “later” does not do these powerful texts justice. One could interpret the label “later” to mean that these books are “secondary” or “derivative.” But what else could we call these books? What do they have in common? The most straightforward characteristic that they share is their placement in the canon. The books from Hebrews through Revelation stand together, and they are indeed at the end of or “later” in the modern Protestant canon. (For more on their arrangement, see chapter 4.) Additionally, some understand these letters, generally, to have been written later than the other texts of the New Testament. This is an ongoing and contentious debate but offers another reason why some may prefer to describe these texts in this way. So, although we, two scholars who have dedicated most of our careers to these letters, may have wished for something a bit more compelling for the name of this collection (e.g., “The Best of the New Testament”), we recognize the value of having a shorthand way to refer to these books as well as the value of this particular label.
What is Scripture?
Scripture is of the utmost importance to the authors discussed in this book. Their writings, from our perspective, are often little more than interpretations of Jewish Scripture for their contemporary audiences – and Scripture is of the utmost importance to us too, continuing to shape our theology and ethics. But what do we mean by “Scripture” and “Jewish Scripture”?
Throughout this book we refer to the “Old Testament” and the “New Testament” together as “Scripture,” and also, wherever possible, rather than using “Old Testament,” we use “Scripture” or sometimes “Jewish Scripture(s)” – the latter to specify that the New Testament is not in view. We make this choice for three reasons. First, “Scripture” more accurately represents the Later New Testament authors’ terminology for and posture toward these texts; to them, these texts were sacred and authoritative. Second, by extension, since the authors’ engagement with Scripture often included engagement with these texts in Greek and not Hebrew, we do not use the term “Hebrew Bible” either. Third, many with and without a knowledge of the history of the usage of “Old Testament” hear this term and get a negative impression about the texts it represents and/or our relationship with those texts, though we recognize that within the Christian tradition the use of “Old Testament” (usually) is not intended to be pejorative and instead represents the reality of a two- Testament canon. Even so, we opt for what we consider more inclusive terminology and hope that it shapes the way our readers think about Scripture.
Often Forgotten
Throughout Christian history, most of these texts from the Later New Testament have been “later” not only in the canon (i.e., at the end) but also in consideration when constructing Christian teaching. In other words, they have often been an afterthought. Indeed, some of these books, such as 1–2 Peter, even have been referred to by scholars as “neglected stepchildren” due to the much weightier consideration given to the Gospels and Paul. After all, when one opens a “theology of the New Testament,” the summaries of what the New Testament teaches rarely draw upon this set of books and thus really don’t represent the New Testament as a whole, only its two most prominent collections. In most of these theologies, the bulk of the Scripture references is to the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles, and while some references may occasionally occur to our selected books throughout these works, the categories and questions that organize the material still often derive from the Gospels and Paul, which are different texts with different frameworks. This means that some of the distinctive emphases of these texts, such as Christ’s work as our high priest (as in Hebrews), are not represented well and are not considered sufficiently when the New Testament’s presentation of the work of Jesus is summarized.
As we will see, some of this relative neglect in the modern day reflects the reception of these books from early on. Some of these texts were not as widely known, and some were not as highly regarded. (And the difference between the two is important.) The little letters that we have come to know as 2 John and 3 John are not referenced as consistently as the Gospel of John, for example, but this makes sense given their length and the more specific nature of their subject matter. Nevertheless, at the Reformation the status of these texts was considered again, and Martin Luther, in the prefaces to his translation of the Bible, not only had some less- than- flattering things to say about some of these texts (e.g., referring to James as the “epistle of straw”) but also separated them out from those he deemed more useful. The books from Matthew’s Gospel to 2 Timothy, as well as the Epistles of Peter and John, were numbered in the table of contents; Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation were not.
Still, this book does not desire to rewrite history and to put forth a narrative in which the Johannine Epistles or Jude secretly shaped our modern conception of some important topic. Instead, we want to elevate these texts and encourage readers to consider in what ways their own theologies and practices might be deficient because these noteworthy books have not been taken seriously.
Often Confusing
Other forms of neglect can occur downstream from preliminary perceptions of our own more or less conscious judgments (not unlike Luther’s) about the value of these texts. For example, when I (Madison) read Revelation as a teenager and couldn’t understand what was going on, I decided to avoid it for as long as I possibly could. This reality –this sort of avoidance – brings us to another thing that these books have in common: Many Christian readers often consider them confusing. Many of these books contain materials that have caused problems for both students and scholars alike. It is in these books that we encounter a focus on a mysterious priest- king named Melchizedek (Hebrews), Jesus preaching to the spirits (1 Peter), fallen angels kept in chains awaiting judgment (2 Peter, Jude), and dragons, beasts, and plagues (Revelation). All this is to say, “We get it!” These are difficult books, and at times, in our efforts to take challenging texts seriously, we leave them for the “professionals” – our pastors and professors (or, for some of us, other pastors and professors).
Even so, these various confusions aren’t unrelated to the fact that these texts have been ignored or neglected. We submit that although these books do contain some confusing things, this phenomenon is not isolated to the Later New Testament. All of our New Testament texts contain surprising things, from the parables to the Sarah- Hagar allegory to the various ways we might understand terms such as “law” and “Israel” in Paul’s letters.
The difference is this: For those more prominent texts, we probably have received more guidance; we’ve heard sermons and lectures or read books relating to those difficult topics. But when it comes to the Later New Testament, oftentimes we’ve been on our own. This book, admittedly, won’t be able to address all of your questions, but the hope is that in this resource you’ll find a reliable guide for getting started and for exploring some of the fascinating stories and teachings found in the Later New Testament. Along the way, we do our best to address some of the most common confusions and the most useful contributions of these texts, but we’ve also provided some additional resources in acknowledgment that far more remains to be said.
Excerpted with permission from Reading the Later New Testament as Christian Scripture by Ruth Anne Reese & Madison Pierce. Copyright 2026, Baker Academic.
Ruth Anne Reese, professor of New Testament, Asbury Theological Seminary ; Madison Pierce, lecturer in New Testament and early Christianity, the University of St. Andrews
