The Doctrine of Canonicity

We affirm that the Bible is the Word of God. This means the Scriptures communicate God's commands and promises to us. To say the Bible IS the Word of God means God not only inspired human authors in the original manuscripts (or else we could only say that the Bible was the Word of God) but God has also superintended its preservation into our own time.

Unbelievers and some post-Biblical churches (like the TEC) contend that the Bible was created by the Church and that the process by which some books were included and others excluded was akin to watching sausage being made; that is, something not very appealing. To hear some tell it, there was all kinds of wheeling and dealing among white European males that gave shape to our Bible.

So how do we know we have the right books? Are there books that shouldn't be in the Bible? Are we missing some inspired writings? How do we know a book is inspired? What about the Apocrypha? These are questions we attempt to answer as we study the doctrine of canonicity.

Let's begin this examination by looking at 1 Timothy 6:3-4.

If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.

By the time Paul writes this letter (dated in the early 60's) there is already circulating among the churches a body of teaching that claims to be authoritative but the Apostle says it does not agree with the "sound words" of the teaching of Christ. From the beginning there was a standard by which competing gospels and teachings were to be measured. The word canon means a standard unit of measure. So the doctrine of canonicity is about knowing the standards against which writings were evaluated to determine which were truly the Word of God.

The Old Testament Canon

The notion that the church created Scripture is completely false. The Christian church was born with a complete canon. When the New Testament refers to "the Scriptures," it speaks of the 39 books of the Jewish canon, what we call the Old Testament. When unbelievers and post-Biblical churches talk about the canon, they make it sound like the Bible was written or compiled like a modern anthology but a committee sitting around a table. The Old Testament was written by 30 authors across a 1,000 years. What other piece of literature spans so great a diversity of context and time?

The Old Testament canon was broken down into three divisions: the Law (Genesis through Deuteronomy), the Prophets, and the Writings, sometimes also referred to as the Psalms because Psalms came first in this section. The Writings comprised the Wisdom literature and books of history. Jesus affirmed these divisions in Luke 24:44 and so Christians consider them canonical.

Some Bibles contain a section called the Apocrypha. These were additional books written after Malachi and before the coming of John the Baptist. These books were included in the Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint. The Roman Bible based on Jerome's Latin translation of the Septuagint included the Apocrypha. However, the Apocrypha does not meet the standards for Old Testament canonical literature. The first century Jewish historian, Josephus, denied that the Apocrypha were canonical because they did not meet the test for canonicity; namely, that all Old Testament books had to be written by or attested by someone recognized by other prophets as a prophet. The Dead Sea scrolls validate Josephus's position since their Old Testament did not include the Apocryphal books. Jesus never mentions the Apocrypha or quotes from it. No New Testament writer quotes from the Apocrypha.

So, we accept the 39 books of the Old Testament as canonical by the universal consent of Jewish prophets and according to the attestation of Jesus.

The New Testament Canon

By the end of the first century it was clear that Christians would follow the example of their Jewish ancestors and create a canon of books certified as the inspired Word of God. This is a critical point to understand. Canonicity wasn't making a book into the Word of God; canonicity was recognizing that a writing was the truly inspired Word.

The list of 27 books that make up our New Testament first appears in a letter written in 327 AD. That doesn't mean it took three centuries for the church to figure out its Scriptures. This is merely the earliest surviving document that mentions all the books in the order in which we now have them. The great majority of the New Testament was well known and accepted as inspired by early in the second century.

The New Testament was written between the mid 40's and 70 AD (some scholars say the period of writing lasted until 95 AD). There were three criteria for a work to be considered inspired and therefore canonical among early Christians.

1. The book had to be written by an apostle or with the sanction of an apostle. Apostles, like the Old Testament prophets before them, had received special authority and unique gifts from Christ to bear witness to the truth. The Gospels of Matthew and John were written by the apostles directly while Mark was given the information for his Gospel from Peter and Luke received his narrative from Paul. All New Testament books were included in the canon because they were proven to be from the pen or memory of an apostle. This included the letter to the Hebrews. Hebrews does not specifically mention the name of it's author, but from earliest times it was associated with Paul. The fact that its grammar and word usage is different than his letters can be explained by the fact that it was probably written by another believer scribing the words of Paul (tradition says Barnabas).
   
   
2. The second test for inclusion in the canon was the proven antiquity of the document. In a previous post we published this link to a table of ancient church leaders who specifically mention a New Testament writing. Comparing the pseudoepigrapha ("false writings") at the bottom of the list with the 27 canonical books at the top, the evidence is quite clear that the so-called gnostic gospels of such current interest to post-Biblical believers are Johnny-come-latelies. The four Gospels, Acts, 13 letters of Paul, 1st Peter, and 1st John were accepted very early. Collections of these documents were circulating by the end of the first century.
   
   
3. The third test for canonicity was the orthodoxy of the writing; in other words, did its content agree with and was it consistent with previous revelation (including the Old Testament). A Gospel that told the story of the child Jesus killing people didn't exactly align with what the apostles knew to be the truth. New age gurus and Dan Brown's Davinci Code notwithstanding, that is why the Gospel of Thomas is not canonical.

Some books that are included in our canonical New Testament were questioned by the early church. Hebrews, as stated above, was anonymous. But over time Paul was verified as the author. James was apparently not widely circulated at first and to some, the books emphasis on " "faith without works" seemed to contradict Paul's teaching that we are "saved by faith apart from works." But the confusion was cleared up and the letter of James was accepted by the early church as inspired. Revelation had difficult symbolism, but its provenance was unmistakable. 2 Peter has become the favorite whipping boy of post-Biblical churches. The style doesn't match 1 Peter. The second letter was not as widely circulated as 1 Peter and so some bishops in the early church didn't know of it. But the style can be explained by its having been written by a secretary for Peter. Again, the chart shows its provenance was well established by the middle of the first century. The Roman church didn't like it based on the first verse in which Peter affirms that there is no difference between him and those to whom he is writing. Is it just a coincidence that the book that contains the most warnings about false teachers in the church should be omitted from the canon of the post-Biblical scholars? Second and third John had were late being recognized, again because they had probably not been circulated widely and some bishops thought they were too short.

Remember this: there was no single authority who approved what was included or excluded in the early New Testament. The canon was established long before the rise of the papacy or other centralized church hierarchy. The 27 books of the New Testament were accepted by many different churches in the East and the West because they clearly met the three tests for canonicity.

In the 16th century, the Protestant Reformers raised many questions about the acceptability of New Testament books. Luther and Calvin wanted to strip away any accretion of superstition and human tradition that was unfaithful to the Gospel. In large part they raised questions about some of the books because the Catholic Bible included the Apocrypha which they did not accept on good historical grounds. But in the end Luther and Calvin accepted the canonicity of the Old and New Testaments.

The 27 books of the New Testament are canonical by the witness of the Holy Spirit operating through many churches over more than 15 centuries as preserving the faith of the original apostles and the true Word of Jesus.

Copies of Copies

None of the original manuscripts survive. It's easy to say the Bible was perfectly inspired in the original manuscripts, but how do we know we have the original text?

The text of no other book is so well attested as the Bible. The works of Greek philosophers, even the relatively modern works of Shakespeare and Milton, have only a handful of surviving copies from which we assume the original text. Compare that to the more than 4,000 copies of Scriptural fragments and complete manuscripts that exist today. Perhaps better than any other ancient book, we know exactly what the original manuscripts said. Of course all these fragments and manuscripts are not identical. But it is amazing the degree to which these thousands and thousands of copies agree. In some cases words are misspelled. Sometimes words are put in different places and on a few occasions a different word might be used to describe an incident. But none of these inconsistencies come close to changing the meaning of a text. There is no other literary work in all of human history that can be reconstructed with such confidence as the Bible.

On-going scholarship continues to shed light on the original text. Recent discoveries have called into question Mark 16:9ff. We know that the ending about drinking poison and handling snakes was not included in the earliest copies of the Gospel now available to us. Same goes for John 7:53-8:11, the story of the woman taken in adultery. Archeologists have unearthed some manuscripts that do not contain this story. Most Bibles today acknowledge the textual variants of these passages. But the overall direction of most archeological discoveries has been to affirm the reliability of the Bible.

Conclusion

The Bible is the Word of God. The Scriptures were not only inspired by those who wrote, but preserved by the Holy Spirit over time to be the unique and reliable communication of God's commands and promises to the world.

The Development of the Canon

An interesting compilation of authorities and their opinions about the canonicity of early Christian writings. Notice that the canonical books are attested early and widely while other writings only show up later and are usually condemned by more authorities than those who accept them.

http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml

Stand to Reason: Is the New Testament Text Reliable?

Stand to Reason: Is the New Testament Text Reliable?

John MacArthur Talks About Scripture

Much of my presentation this past week came from remarks by John MacArthur at this link.

Christianity 501: Introduction

As I’ve thought about the mission of our Gathering, I come to some conclusions about the direction of our future studies. Here’s what we know.

God has called us to be a Word-centered people infiltrating our families, our work, and our churches with the Gospel of Christ.

To fulfill this mission requires that we be firmly rooted in understanding the Scriptures, and what’s more, that we be able to use them intelligently and wisely to be salt and light in the present age. I think this means getting beyond the typical superficial pabulum spooned out in most churches. Most Christians never seem to get beyond Christianity 101. Obviously, it’s important to teach new believers the catechism of the faith. Programs like the Alpha Course in the Anglican Church are essential. But at what point do we go further than Alpha to explore Beta, Gamma, and Delta?

This series is called Christianity 501 in response to God’s speaking to us in Hebrews 5:11 – 6:1.

We have much to say about this (the priesthood of Christ in the order of the ancient Melchizedek), but it is hard to explain because you have become bored with hearing. In fact, by this time, you should have become teachers yourselves, but you still need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s Word over and over again. You need milk, not solid food. Anyone who lives only on milk is a spiritual infant, inexperienced in the teaching about righteousness. Solid food is for the mature who by constant use have trained themselves to discern good from evil. Therefore let us leave the elementary lessons about Christ behind and go on to maturity.

Christianity 501 is the attempt to be skilled at such a level so as to fulfill our mission. Master’s level courses begin with 501 in college. As this Scripture says, let’s move beyond the 100-level introductory materials to mature as teachers, as Word-centered people. If we never update our Sunday school impressions of God’s word, there is no way we can fulfill our mission. Without deepening our knowledge and improving our skills we will be more changed by the world than world changers. And by “world” I mean more than just our individual spheres of influence, family, friends, and work. I also mean preparing ourselves for standing firm in an uncertain age, being confident of God’s sovereignty in the midst of the growing satanic rebellion against righteousness and good.

What are the elementary or foundational teachings Hebrews is referring to? They are spelled out in the next verse (Hebrews 6:2).

… Repentance from dead works, faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment.

Scholars debate exactly what this text is referring to because we’re not sure who is the audience being addressed. If these are Jewish Christians then the text appears to be talking about foundational principles of how we are saved (repentance and faith), how we come into the Church (baptism and confirmation), and eschatology (resurrection and judgment). If, as is suggested in verses 4-6, these are professing but unbelieving Jews, the “elementary lessons” referred to are Jewish teachings that Christ contradicts. But in any case, the truth of these words can be plainly seen in churches today who never get beyond Christian kindergarten. Partly this is due to the evangelistic function of worship in fundamentalist and revivalist traditions. Bless God for churches that focus on the new birth and coming to Christ. Unfortunately, many believers become discouraged in these churches because it’s a steady diet of repentance and baptism and avoiding hell. It’s not that they disagree with any of this, but there is a hunger for getting at the meat of doctrine – knowing what they believe and why they believe it. At some point the question arises, what am I saved for?

Other churches never get beyond the basics because they never laid the proper foundation of life in Christ in the first place. Salvation becomes a subjective experience of a burning bosom. The Gospel gets cut loose from his historic truth to be re-rooted in subjective, narcissistic anecdotes of personal spirituality or social inclusiveness. Such a hot-house plant never can flourish because it is not rooted in the Scriptures. Hence people grow bored as the writer to Hebrews said, bored with hearing doctrine (truth) because:

a) It’s just someone else’s subjective bed-time story;

b) Spiritual experience becomes addictive, requiring greater claims and more bizarre behavior to attain the high of that first revivalist response. To avoid boredom one needs new revelations and fresh signs and wonders.

In both cases, for both liberals and conservatives, the problem is the Post-Modern Captivity of the Church.

(To be continued)

The Babylonian Captivity of the Church in the West

Must read from Os Guinness:

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=12834

Flash Sideways Eternal Life

I know it's dicey to do theology from a TV show, but I've been thinking about the series finale of LOST and its view of the afterlife. The final scene in the final show of the six year series takes place in a church-like place with symbols of all major religions. So, the syncretism is off-putting to begin with, but the idea of afterlife as a "flash sideways" may have some theological merit.

In the earlier seasons of the TV show we were treated to flashbacks. Then things got more weird (if that's possible) when we were having flash forwards. In the final season we had logic-wrenching flash sideways; that is, events happening in something akin to a parallel universe. As it turns out, the flash sideways was the way the show handled the death of characters.

Although some commentators have seen allusions to purgatory in the final scene where everyone is waiting for Jack before going into the light, I think the flash-sideways notion is more radical than that and may have some support in Scripture.

Let's start with the logical understanding that heaven is outside our space and time. We can't get there in these bodies of flesh. That's a pretty orthodox view. Heaven is where God is and God has no beginning or end. So, in heaven it's always now. There is no more time. Logically then we don't go to heaven "after we die. " Heaven isn't waiting for the sequence of events to play out. Outside of time, the reign of Christ has already begun.

The New Testament clearly teaches that "eternal life" is already happening to believers. Jesus said in John 5:24, "I'm telling you the truth - whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has (present tense) eternal life." "You have already passed from death into life," John writes in 1 John 3:14. Paul says our true life is hidden with Christ in God (Colossians 3:3). During his stay in Arabia, Paul said he was caught up to the third heaven. Was he on drugs or did the Apostle actually have a vision another realm? These passages show clearly that what Jesus called eternal life is happening now.

These verses may be more literal than I ever imagined. Could it be that when our spirit was regenerated by the Holy Spirit we opened our eyes on another shore? What I saw in that final episode of LOST was the possibility of the Scriptural truth that we actually exist in this time and also in another timeless dimension to which our mortal being has almost no access. I say "almost no access," because there are moments in this world when believers are allowed to experience our life outside of time and space. One of those times is Holy Communion during during which we look back, look ahead, and exist in the present all at the same time. It is sacramental precisely because of its timelessness in our time.

So we may understand the word "spiritual" is something more than a religious-sounding sentiment, but has real content. The world of the spirit may very well be flash sideways eternal life. The life of the "flesh" is very real. I am not advocating a gnostic denial of corporeality. Suffering really hurts. But the fact is our eternal life cannot exist in this space-time continuum. So what happens when we die? Our physical bodies cease to function and the awareness of our spiritual life is revealed to us. Rather than thinking about going to heaven after we die, we might better think of afterlife as "when heaven is all there is."

What could this perspective mean for eschatology? What about the resurrection, both the Lord's and our own? Scriptures affirm that resurrection is when "death is swallowed up in victory" (1 Cor 11). Christ's victory in us could be expressed as the end of parallel time in favor of what Paul described as the"pneumatikos body" (spiritual body) that dwells in eternity. For believers, our spiritual existence is already with God.

What about praying to saints or praying to ourselves if we are already existing with God outside of time? The Scriptures clearly teach there is no inter-mediation between the eternal world and our world by anyone other than Christ (1 Timothy 2:5). This is the great fixed chasm Jesus spoke of in his parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:26).

So what might the flash sideways concept tells us about the purpose of life? In LOST this mortal sojourn was explained as the opportunity to gather friends and family. Jesus said our mission as Christians is to share the Gospel, bringing good news to those who are being born from above that their new life is hidden with Christ in God. Jesus' imperative was to preach, teach, and baptize disciples. So sharing the Gospel may not be as much about growing churches as much as it is gathering those whom God is calling to Himself and preparing us together for the wonderful life we know now only through a glass darkly, but then face to face with Christ.

I welcome comments and questions. If this is the way the world and Heaven are integrated, it gives me great peace. It affirms the faithfulness and sovereignty of God and I see so much more clearly the need to set our minds on things that are above, or perhaps, sideways.