THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE. An important foundation that is being shaken

THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE An important foundation that is being shaken

Definition Canon of scripture: List of all books that belong in the Bible Why is this important for us today? The Bible no longer is culturally accepted as important/relevant The Bible is increasingly either under attack or disregarded There are false ideas about the canon that are out there. We need to be well-grounded in our understanding of the canon of scripture, for ourselves, those we evangelize, and future generations

Outline Old Testament Canon The Apocrypha NT Canon The status quo of understanding the canon (not all good!) Definitions of canon Were the NT authors unaware of their own authority? Other reasons to believe the books were considered scripture from the beginning What makes a book canonical Is the canon closed?

Not Directly Covering Inerrancy of Scripture Sufficiency of Scripture Infallibility of Scripture Verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture (God s superintendence of the writing of scripture carries down to the choice of words, not just ideas) Detailed history of the formation of the Biblical canon

Primary References

Old Testament Canon The beginning of a canon the idea that the people of Israel should preserve the written words of God when? The 10 commandments Ex 31:18 The collection of authoritative writings then grew Moses recorded the law (Deut 31:24-26) Pentateuch generally attributed to Moses Many other additions: 1 Sam 10:25, 1 Chron 29:29, 2 Chron 20:34 cf. 1 Kings 16:7, 2 Chron 26:22, 2 Chron 32:32, Jer 30:2 After Malachi (435 BC), there were no further additions to the OT canon At the time of Jesus, there was no dispute between Jesus and the Jews on the extent of the OT canon (and it matches what we have today, although organized a little differently) Common understanding that the prophetic writings had ceased after Malachi

The Apocrypha Set of books from the intertestamental period (between Malachi and Jesus) Were never accepted by the Jews as scripture The early church was mixed some treated as scripture, but many treated as less than scripture Jerome said they were not books of the canon but merely books of the church Jesus and the NT authors quote OT scriptures as authoritative over 295 times, but not once do they cite the Apocrypha as authoritative

The Apocrypha (cont d) The Roman Catholic church put the Apocrypha on par with the rest of Scripture at the Council of Trent in 1546 Council of Trent was a response to Martin Luther/the reformation Books of the Apocrypha provide support for catholic teachings of praying for the dead and justification by faith plus works Reasons we don t consider Apocrypha scripture (Grudem): 1. They don t claim for themselves the same kind of authority as OT writings 2. They weren t regarded as God s words by the Jewish people from whom they originated 3. They weren t considered Scripture by Jesus or the NT authors 4. They contain teachings inconsistent with the rest of the Bible

Scholarly Challenges to the Integrity of the New Testament Historically, many of the challenges to NT authority have been in regards to the problem of boundaries: How do we know we have the right books? Why these books and not others? In recent years, a more foundational question has come into the forefront, that of the canon s existence: Why is there a New Testament at all? Is there really any valid distinction between canonical books and other books or writings?

Two Models of Canon Formation Extrinsic Model Imposed from the outside Increasingly Predominant View The canon was created by the church The issue of canonicity came up later (1-3 centuries after documents written) The texts themselves are not inherently canonical Canonicity was imposed on the text by others The NT was pulled into being by forces of the church and society largely external to the texts themselves Intrinsic Model Inherent to the texts The idea of canon was not imposed from the outside It was something that developed organically from within early Christianity itself The texts are inherently canonical The NT was pushed into being from elements inherent with itself or its Jewish origins

Definitions of Canon Exclusive: A fixed, final, and closed list of books Currently, a very popular way to define canon Problem: Not true across all of Christendom Also, overemphasizes the late role of the church in defining canon Functional: What the church used There was widespread agreement about the core canonical books, but some disagreement about peripheral books was inevitable Problem: What about books that the church used at some point but were not ultimately included in the canon? Ontological: What was intended by God The canon is the authoritative books that God gave His corporate church Books do not become canonical they are canonical because they are the book God has provided his church

Which Definition of Canon Should We Use? All three, together Exclusive: A fixed, final, and closed list of books Reminds us that the canon did not fall in place overnight it took several centuries to define the edges Functional: What the church used Reminds us that prior to the determination of the final shape of the canon, there was a core collection of books that functioned with supreme authority in early Christian communities Ontological: What was intended by God Reminds us that books are authoritative by virtue of what they are books given by God. Note that these definitions capture the flow of canonical history: 1. The canonical books are written with divine authority 2. They were recognized and used as Scripture by early Christians 3. The Church reaches a consensus around these books

Did the NT Authors Know They Were Writing Scripture? This is the crux of the matter Many would say that the authors were just writing histories or letters to various churches as simply a way to address them, and that only later did people place scriptural authority on them I am going to attempt to refute this claim primarily using Scripture itself

Paul Was Aware of his Scriptural Authority Gal 1:1, 11-12 Leaves the Galatian readers with the unmistakable impression that Paul s letter comes to them with the authority of Christ himself and is designed to correct their false thinking about the gospel message. (Kruger) 1 Cor 14:37-38 Paul is equating the things that he is writing with the very words of God 2 Thess 3:6, 14 Paul calls for his commands to be obeyed, to the point of excommunication for those who don t

Paul Was Aware of His Scriptural Authority (continued) 1 Thess 2:13 Paul states that his Apostolic teaching was the word of God Is it possible that his teaching was authoritative, but the writing was not? Three reasons this isn t the case; In 1 Thess 4:2-8, Paul expressly states that he is reiterating his apostolic teaching about personal holiness that he previously delivered to them teaching that came through the Lord Jesus and therefore could be regarded as the will of God Thus, 1 Thessalonians, a written letter, clearly presents itself as containing divine instruction. So much so that, after Paul finishes his instructions about holiness, he warns the Thessalonians that whoever disregards this instruction, disregards not man but God (Kruger) In 2 Thess 2:15, Paul acknowledges that the mode of delivery is secondary In 1 Thess 5:27, Paul ends by telling the Thessalonians to make sure that the letter was read publicly to the church

The Gospel Writers Were Aware of Their Scriptural Authority Overall, they were writing about what Jesus said and did, so they carry with them the authority of Jesus Matthew Appears to be following pattern of OT books (e.g., Matt 1:1, which speaks of the records of the new genesis in Jesus). Written by an Apostle Mark Mark 1:1: The term gospel was not originally used among early Christians to refer to written texts, but rather was a reference to the authoritative message of the apostolic preaching. (Kruger) Mark appears to be heavily based on teachings of Peter Luke Luke 1:1-4: Luke explicitly states that he is basing what he writes on the teachings of those who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word (i.e., apostles) 1 Tim 5:17-18: Like is called scripture by Paul. John John 21:24: Apostle John is the author John 20:30-31: Purpose

Other NT Writers Were Aware of Their Scriptural Authority Hebrews Heb 2:3-4: Author is says that the great salvaton was attested by the apostles (i.e., those who heard) Peter 2 Peter 3:2: The apostles were considered on par with OT prophets 2 Peter 3:15-16: Peter refers to Paul s letters as being scripture John 1 John 1:1-5: Vivid, eyewitness language. Doesn t just testify, but proclaim (v. 2 and v. 3) Revelation 1:1-3: Calls it the revelation of Jesus Christ and calls it the word of God

Other Reasons to Believe that NT Books Were Considered Canonical from the Beginning Early Christianity would have been expecting new scripture to be written 2 nd Temple Jews considered the OT incomplete and in need of a proper conclusion OT pattern of redemption being followed by revelation (especially the exodus) Unlike some popular thought, early Christians were not adverse to written documents Historical evidence that the NT books were considered canonical long before the end of the 3 rd century Example: Iraneus (late 2 nd century) writings quote from many NT books and assume that the readers are familiar with them.

What Makes a Book Canonical? Fundamental question: What writings are God s own words? Likely used a variety of factors Apostolic endorsement Consistency with the rest of scripture Perception of the book as God-breathed by the overwhelming majority of believers While the books were God s word from the beginning, it took a little time for the exact list to settle in Much of the discussion/debate was about a few books on the edges most books were quickly considered scripture by the vast majority

How Do We Know the Right Books are Included? Ultimately, our confidence is based on the faithfulness of God God s revelation is an integral part of the redemption of his people (we see this in both the OT and the NT) It doesn t make sense for God, who is sovereign over all history, to allow the church to be deprived of something necessary for our spiritual lives. Note: this same concept would apply to the preservation of scripture Two other factors Holy Spirit convincing us as we read scriptures for ourselves Historical data that we have available Important note: There are no strong candidates for addition to the canon There are no strong objections to any book in the canon

Reasons the Canon is Closed Christ s redemptive work is the focal point of all history. Once the revelation concerning Christ was complete, there was no further need for revelation Scripture teaches of Christ as being the ultimate and greatest prophet (as both fully God and fully man) The next event to happen will be Christ s return. The NT books all come with apostolic authority, and after the last apostle died, this authority to write as the words of God also was completed. Heb 1:1-2: Indicates that Jesus is the focus of revelation Rev 22:18-19 Primarily refers to book of Revelation Secondarily applies to the whole of scripture (since Revelation would clearly be the last book)

What We Covered Old Testament Canon The Apocrypha NT Canon The status quo of understanding the canon (not all good!) Definitions of canon Were the NT authors unaware of their own authority? Other reasons to believe the books were considered scripture from the beginning What makes a book canonical Is the canon closed?