|
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0
transitional//en">
The Canon of Scripture
2
Timothy 3:10-17
I We Can't Quarrel With
the Canon of Scripture
We
all know that the Bible was written by human beings. The human authors
wrote human words with human pens in their own individual vocabulary,
grammar, and style. None of the human authors were omniscient. Yet these
human writings claim to be more than mere human opinions. Jeremiah did
not preface his prophetic utterances by saying, "I think," or
"It is my opinion that," or "I consider." He prefaces
his declaration by saying, "This is what the Lord says." In our
text from 2 Timothy, Paul sums this up by saying, "All Scripture is
God-breathed."
We
usually use this text to say that Scripture is inspired. To inspire
something means "to breathe into it." "All Scripture is
God-breathed." In other words, "All Scripture is from
God." God is the source.
The
source of the Bible is not an unimpeachable, reliable, and trustworthy
human — for there is no such human. Rather, the source of Scripture
is the all-knowing, all-seeing, omniscient God.
I
am sure you realize what this means. The Belgic Confession says this
means that with the Bible, the canon of Scripture, "there can be no
quarrel at all." We can't quarrel with the Bible, we can't disagree
with it, because its source is God. This means that the Bible, like God,
is infallible. We learned last time that to say Scripture is infallible
is to say 3 things:
1. Scripture does not deceive; it does not tell us one thing and mean
another; it does not stretch the truth, twist the truth, or falsify the
truth.
2. Scripture is inerrant; it does not contain mistakes and errors;
it is not wrong on any fact or figure.
3. Scripture is non-failing; we can rely on it; we can trust it;
we can stake our lives upon it.
Many
scholars within the church no longer believe that the Bible is infallible
or inerrant. They have come to the conclusion, for instance, that Genesis
is wrong. They say God did not form man from the dust of the ground and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; rather, man evolved from a
sub-human species. They say there was no flood which covered all the high
mountains and killed every living thing on the face of the earth.
Many
scholars within the church do not believe in an infallible, inerrant Word
of God. Called into question are not only the events of Genesis, but also
the miracles of Christ, the virgin birth, the resurrection, and anything
else which seems impossible or incredible by human standards. These
scholars believe that one must go through Scripture and pick out all that
is unreliable and inaccurate and unbelievable and throw them out. These
scholars are forgetting something: if the Bible errs, then it is not and
can not be the Word of the omniscient God; and, if the Bible is the Word
of God, then the Bible does not err and with it we cannot quarrel!
II The Formation of the
Canon
A "All Scripture is God-breathed." God is its source.
Therefore, with it "there can be no quarrel at all."
Having
said that, the Confession looks at the canon of Scripture. What books
properly belong in Scripture? What books are part of the holy, inspired,
expired Word of God? What are the "canonical books with which there
can be no quarrel at all"? This was a burning issue at the time de
Brés wrote the Belgic Confession. The term "canon" comes from a
Greek word. Its literal meaning is "any straight rod or bar,
especially to keep a thing straight." To use everyday language, it
means a "measure," "rule," or "norm."
The
canon of Scripture, then, is a collection or list of writings recognized
as the measure, rule, or norm by which the faith and practice of the
church is to be judged and kept straight. We know that norm or canon as
the 66 books of the Bible.
Article
4 makes a point of saying that the canon of Scripture is found in two
volumes: the Old and New Testaments. That was and is of importance
against the teachings of those who minimize the value of the Old
Testament. In other words, God's authoritative Word for today is not to
be found just in the New Testament.
How
did we end up with the Bible that we have today? The history of the Old
Testament canon is somewhat vague. According to Jewish tradition, it was
Ezra who first compiled the whole Old Testament canon. We don't know
whether or not this is true. But we do know that the formation of the Old
Testament canon involved a process that stretched out over a number of
centuries. During that time there was some dispute as to the canonicity
of Ezekiel, Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Esther. However,
by the time the Old Testament was translated into the Greek in the second
century B.C., every book which we recognize as part of the Old Testament
canon was included. The Old Testament Scriptures used by Jesus and His
disciples is exactly the same as ours. The books were grouped, numbered,
and arranged differently, but the writings are the same. It is clear from
the New Testament itself that the early church regarded the 39 Old
Testament books as the Word of God. They are repeatedly quoted in the New
Testament as authoritative.
Most
of the 27 books of the New Testament canon were written within forty
years of the death of Jesus, and all of them within seventy years, but it
was not until A.D. 397 that the canon was finally agreed upon. The four
Gospels and the 13 letters of St. Paul were the first to be
accepted, and placed on the same footing as the Old Testament. Doubts
persisted, however, in the case of Hebrews, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3
John, and Revelation. On the other hand, certain writings, such as the
Shepherd of Hermas or First Clement, were admitted by individual
churches, though rejected by the majority. A Council held in Rome in 382 gave a complete list
of the canonical books of both the Old and New Testaments, which —
except for the inclusion of the apocryphal books listed in Article 6
— is identical to our list.
In
regards to the New Testament canon, two rules of thumb were followed. First,
every book in the New Testament canon had to be written by an apostle or
a close associate of one of the apostles. Second, every book in the New
Testament canon had to be widely used and accepted by the churches as
being the authoritative Word of God.
Heresies
and false teachers played an important part in the formation of the New
Testament canon. One of the earliest controversies concerned Marcion. A
wealthy shipowner and church leader in Rome, Marcion had become deeply
impressed by the Apostle Paul's teaching that the coming of Christ had
marked the end of Jewish law. Marcion misinterpreted this to mean the
elimination and rejection of the Old Testament canon. So he sought to
replace the Hebrew Bible with a group of Christian writings. His canon included
his revision of 10 of Paul's letters and his own revised version of
Luke's Gospel. Marcion caused the church to seriously think about what
was and was not part of the canon.
Another
heresy which hastened the formation of the New Testament canon was
Montanism which claimed new revelation from the Spirit over and above
that given by Scripture. To stop such claims the church had to settle the
question of what belonged and what did not belong in the Bible.
The
infiltration of Gnosticism further hastened the need to establish the
canon. The Gnostics taught, among other things, that Jesus was not fully
human and that He had not been crucified in the flesh. What's more,
heretical gnostic writings to support this position began to circulate
among the churches. Some of the writings — the Gospel of Thomas and
the Gospel of Philip, for instance — claimed falsely to be the
works of Apostles in order to gain acceptance for the gnostic teachings
among the early Christians. Again, these heresies raised the question of
what was and was not part of the authoritative, inspired, expired, Word
of God.
III The Canon Itself
Article 4 lists for us the authoritative canon. Permit me a few comments
about this list. Some of you may have noticed that Lamentations is
missing; probably, it is included under Jeremiah — who was long
thought to be Lamentations' author. Article 4 speaks of the Psalms of
David, but we know that some of the psalms are not David's. Similarly, we
know that Paul did not write Hebrews and that Ecclesiastes contains the
teachings of Solomon but was not written by him. Furthermore, in
confessing Moses as the author of the first five books, we do not claim
that he actually wrote the last chapter which records his death. Who
wrote that remains an unanswered mystery.
While
acknowledging these problems with Article 4 we realize its purpose is not
to bind us on the question of human authorship. Rather, its purpose is to
define the canon for us. Article 4 speaks loud and clear about the canon.
"There can be no quarrel at all" over what is and what is not
in the canon.
At
the same time, if we accept the Bible as the holy and divine Scriptures,
then we also have to accept what it says about its human authorship. Did
you know, in the New Testament there are 85 references to Moses and what
he wrote and said? The Bible itself views Moses as the author of the
first five books.
Although
we recognize a human element in the long process of canonization, we have
to confess that God was active in guiding the church. This we believe was
a special ministry of the Holy Spirit. He not only inspired the writers
but also preserved their writings. He directed the gradual spread of
these writings throughout the churches. He enabled the church to discern
by faith that these writings constituted God's Word. This gracious
activity of the Spirit enabled the church to preserve and spread the Holy
Word throughout the ages.
Conclusion
In Article 4 Guido de Brés says, "We include in the Holy Scripture
the two volumes of the Old and New Testaments. They are canonical books
with which there can be no quarrel at all."
The
story is told of a minister who took a seat in a dining car on a train
traveling along the Hudson River. Opposite him was an
atheist who, seeing his clerical collar, started a discussion. "I
see you are a clergyman." "Yes," came the reply. "I
am a minister of the gospel." "I suppose you believe the
Bible." The clergyman, orthodox in his views, responded, "I
certainly do believe the Bible to be the Word of God." "But
aren't there things in the Bible you can't explain?" With humility
the minister answered, "Yes, there are places in the Bible too hard
for me to understand." With an air of triumph as though he had cornered
the preacher, the atheist said, "Well, what do you do then?"
Unruffled, the clergyman went on eating his dinner--which happened to be Hudson shad, a tasty fish but
noted for its bony structure. Looking up, he said, "Sir, I do just
the same as when eating this shad. When I come to the bones, I put them
to the side of the plate and go on enjoying my lunch."
This
minister had the right approach. Yes, there are things in the Bible that
are hard to understand. Yet, when it comes to the Bible and what it says
we must remember one thing: with it "there can be no quarrel at
all."
Return to First
Baptist Sermon page.
|
