ST 502 The Word

Dr. Samuel Waldron

 SYLLABUS FOR

PROLEGOMENA TO SYSTEMATIC T LOGY 2

[DOCTRINE OF THE WORD]

LECTURE OUTLINE:

- PART 1: REVELATION IN GENERAL

SECTION 1: THE CONCEPT OF REVELATION

SECTION 2: THE CATEGORIES OF REVELATION

PART 2: REDEMPTIVE REVELATION

SECTION 1: ITS INTRODUCTION

SECTION 2: ITS RELATIONS
SECTION 3: ITS IMPARTATION

PART 3: INSCRIPTURATED REDEMPTIVE REVELATION

-

SECTION 1: THE ATTRIBUTES OF SCRIPTURE

SECTION 2: THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE

EXAMINATIONS:

THERE WILL BE A BRIEF QUIZ AT THE BEGINNING OFIEACH DAY’S LECTURES. IT WILL
COVER ONLY THE PREVIOUS DAY’S LECTURES. THUS, UR1NG THE COURSE THERE WILL
BE SIX QUIZZES. THE QUIZZES WILL YIELD A TOTAL 0! 114 POINTS. 14 OF THESE POINTS
ARE EXTRA CREDIT. QUIZZES WILL BE THE BASIS FOR 0 % OF YOUR GRADE.

AT THE COMPLETION OF THE LECTURES THERE WILL A TAKE-HOME FINAL EXAM. ALL
QUESTIONS ON THIS FINAL EXAM WILL BE DRAWN ROM THE QUIZZES. THIS EXAM
WILL BE FOR THE OTHER 50% OF YOUR GRADE.

READINGS:

- FORPART1:
INERRANCY, ED. BY NORM GEISLER, CH. 7,11
REVELATIONAND THE BIBLE, ED. BY CARL F. H. HENRY, CH. 1
- FORPART2:
REVELATIONAND THE BIBLE, CH. 3,4,5,6
FOR PART 3:
INERRANCY, CH. 1,2,3,4,6,8, 12, 13, 14
REVELATIONAND THE BIBLE, CH. 9, 19,20,21,22

- THE READING IS APPROXIMATELY 500 PP.

S

PART 1: REVELATION IN GENERAL

SECTION 1: THE CONCEPT OF REVELATION

I. Revelation Is Principial Fundamental, Foundational

Principial is the adjective derived from the noun, principium, s4iich means a first principle. In
Introduction to Systematic Theology a more extended definitio4 is given. See the Greek word,
arch

A. Revelation assumes and implies the three principipl. of principium of theology:

1 the God who speaks; 2 the man who is his image; 3 the W$td which He speaks. Revelation
is, therefore, God speaking to man. Each of these principiunj are vital links in the chain of
revelation. Each is necessary if man is to have any knowledge of

THE THREE PRINCIPIA OF THEOLOGY

God
Principium Essendi

Revelation
Principium Cognoscendi Externu$

Man
Principium Cognoscendi Intemuxi

Subjective
knowledge
of God in Man
Theology

1. The God who speaks

The God ofthe Bible is the God who speaks. Revelation is a distilotive characteristic ofthe God of
the Bible Psa. 115:5-7cf. Gen. 1:3; Ezek. 12:25; Heb. 1:1,2; 124$.

2. The man who is His Image

The fact of revelation assumes that man is able to know God. Thi: ability to know God is grounded

1
 S

in the analogy which exists between God and Man because of Man’s being the image of God. -

Since it was by God’s creation that man became theimage of God, it follows that man was adapted
by God in creation to be a recipient ofrevelation. God made man to be his image, he made him to
receive revelation. Man’s essence is that he is God’s image. This means that his essence is to know -

and respond to God. He is a covenant being--made to know God.

Man did not come into being indifferent as to the manner how, and only afterwards -

revelation was added to him as an auxiliary and was therefore adapted to his need.... on the
contrary.... our human race was in its creation entirely adapted to this revelation.’
-

A necessary distinction must here be made. As God’s image, there is a "two-fold office of man in
revelation." First, as image of God he is himself one great part of God’s revelation. God manifests
himself in human nature. Man is image, that is to say visible representation and reflection, of God
Gen. 1:26-28; Rom. 2:14,15. It is not this that we are focusing our attention upon now. It is the
second office of man in revelation. This is simply that man as image of God is not only himself a
revelation of God, but he possesses the ability, capacity, faculty to perceive that revelation. -

External creation reveals God but does not perceive that revelation. Man both reveals God and
perceives that revelation.2 Berkhof and Kuyper before him entitle this faculty faith.3 -

Difficult questions arise here, but the main point is that the faculty by which man comes to know
God is not reason in the sense ofhis ability to follow a process of reasoning. It is not reason in the
sense of logical action. This would imply that man’s reason enables him to move from a state of
not knowing God to a state of knowing God. To the contrary, man always knows God by an
immediate perception, with immediate certainty. Man is was from the beginning in every
moment of his existence immediately confronted with God.

The word ‘faith’ has a far more profound meaning, however. It is frequently used to denote
the positive knowledge that does not rest on external evidence nor on logical demonstration,
but on an immediate and direct insight.4

3. The Word which He speaks.

Revelation assumes the Word which God speaks. All revelation flows from this Word. The
revelation in creation and the revelation embodied in the Scriptures exist because God spoke Psa.
147:15-20 with Gen. 1:3f Heb. 1:1. Only through this Word which God has spoken can we know
God. -

1Abraham Kuyper, Principles of Sacred Theology Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980, 263.

2Kuyper, Principles ofSacred Theology, 264.

3Kuyper, Principles ofSacred Theology, 265f Berkhof, Introduction to Systematic -

Theology Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979, 181f.

4Berkhof, Introduction to Systematic Theology, 181. -

2
 B. Revelation is the sole and necessary means of knoir God.

Geerhardus Vos remarks, "All personal life remains a closed myery to us as long as he whose life
this is does not disclose it to us." The key text here is 1 Cor. 2:1

The corollary of this fact is that theology which has for its priijipium revelation is distinct and
unique as over against every other science in its method of acqu4iig the knowledge it pursues. In
all other sciences man is active in taking knowledge from a pive object of study. He stands
above the object and by his reason thaws out knowledge from be object. In theology however,
man is dependent and is given knowledge through the humility f faith. Here the object of study,
God, imparts knowledge to the man who now occupies the comp4utively passive position.2

C. Revelation is foundational to both religion and the$ogy.

Revelation and religion are inseparable, but there is clear order precedence. Revelation always
demands the response of religion, but religion is impossible in tljo absence of and is based upon
revelation. Revelation demands a response. Religion is that respcse 2 Pet. 3:11-14.

Even more clearly theology is founded upon, grounded in revelaon. What is theology? Kuyper
properly distinguishes three factors of what he calls innate theogy the theology Adam would
have possessed before the fall.

1. Revelation of God through Adam’s nature d the external world.

2. Faith by which Adam would have perceiv4 that revelation.

3. Logical action reason by which this evelation could be reduced to

knowledge of God, in other words, theology.

Theology is, thus, the knowledge of God which results when logpal action reason transposes the
revelation perceived by faith into a body of knowledge whi4 it understands intellectually.3
Revelation is therefore the reference point by which the validity 4f both theology and religion is to
be verified. It is the principium from which they spring. Ramm omewhere says, "Theology must
arise from a knowledge of God, be controlled by a knowledge ol God, and be referable back to a
knowledge of God." Divine revelation is the reference point by wüch any theology or religion is to
be verified. This raises another question: What is the reference point by which revelation is to be
verified?

D. Revelation is externally unverifiable.

‘Kuyper, Princzples of Sacred Theology, 248; cf. Geerhars Vos, Biblical Theology
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948 11, 12.

2Kuyper, Principles ofSacred Theology, 248, 341-343.

3Kuyper, Principles ofSacred Theology, 268-270.

3
 __

Certain facts of revelation are verifiable. Aspects are provable. But revelation as an entity, in its -
entirety is not subject to verification by means of a higher authority. The question here is: By what
standard shall I test the validity of revelation? To be more specific, how shall I veri& that what I
accept as revelation is revelation? To approach the same issue somewhat differently, Why should I
accept the Bible’s claim to be revelation? In this class, the question will be, What does the Bible
teach about the Bible? On what basis, however, do I believe to be truth what the Bible says about 5

the Bible? How can it be proper simply to believe what the Bible teaches about itself? How shall I
veri& revelation? More concretely, how shall I verify the Bible as divine revelation?
S

These questions are answered in detail in Apologetics. Here a brief summary of that answer will be
delineated simply to refresh our memories.’
a
1. Verification is not possible. "Even verification is here absolutely excluded.
When a man reveals something of himself to me, I can verify this, and if necessary pass criticism
upon it. But when the theologian stands in the presence of God, and God gives him some -
explanation of his existence as God, every idea of testing this self-communication of God by
something else is absurd; hence, in the absence of such a touch stone, there can be no verification,
and consequently no room for criticism."2 Revelation is itself the principium of our knowledge of
God. To verify revelation would require another principium of higher authority. In turn, this
higher principium would need verification by a still higher--ad infinitum. The result is infinite
regression. The case is precisely analogous to that of creation. God made the world. But who
made God? No one, God is the principium of all being. A principium may have no principium.
Precisely similar to this is the case in the question of revelation. As God is the principium ofbeing,
so His revelation is the principium of knowledge. To seek to verify revelation is to ask the -
epistemological equivalent of the question, Who made God? As principium, revelation is
unverifiable.
S

This may be put in another way. Verification in the nature of the case must come from a source
that exceeds in certainty that which is to be verified. Since revelation and the Bible as its
5
embodiment is the Word of God, no such source exists. The Word of God itself is the most certain
source of knowledge. Verification may be likened to an appeal to a higher court for the verification
ofthe decision of a lower court. The Supreme Court is the principium of legal interpretation in the -
U.S.A. There is no appeal from a decision of the Supreme court. God’s Word is the supreme court
ofknowledge.

2. Verification is not permissible. If the Bible is God’s Word, to seek further -

verification beyond its own witness is, at the least, impertinence. It is to ask God for his driver’s
license. -

3. Verification is not necessary. The goal of verification can only be to achieve

‘Berkhof has a similar approach, Introduction to Systematic Theology, 1 24f.

2Kuyper, Principles of Sacred Theology, 251. -

4
 certainty regarding the identity of the Bible as the Word of Go4. This assumes the existence of
doubt. No such doubt exists!

a. The Word of God is self-authentic$irg. It attests itself as the Word

of God by an inmiediate appeal to the deepest realities of man’*:.existence. If man can deny, he
- cannot forget His Maker’s voice. The Word of God is self-atte$ing, self-verifying and, thus, all
other verification is superfluous.

- b. The Testimony of the Spirit is the only influence which can remove
the quasi-doubt, the unbelief, which exists in the hearts of sin ers. As all other attempts to
convince the depraved man of the Bible’s identity will fail, so tis testimony will alone produce
divine certainty and faith. In the hearts of all believers a ver4kation exists which exceeds all
others. The real need ofthe unconverted is not intellectual verificttion but ethical renovation.

This treatment of the fact that revelation is unverifiable should grc$nd and explain the methodology
of this course. We will extract our doctrine of the Scriptures fro4i the Scriptures themselves. Our
methodology will be precisely what it is in the other loci of Systeiatic Theology.

One other qualification is, perhaps, necessary. Though revel Uon itself is not verifiable, our
doctrine of revelation, our doctrine of the Word of God is. Our petrine of revelation is verifiable
by the standard of revelation itself Not only so, our unde $tanding of that revelation--our
theology--will necessarily and properly influence our understandii ofthe doctrine ofrevelation.

THE MUTUAL RELATIONS OF REVELATION, THE DTRINE OF REVELATION,

AND THE OTHER LOCI OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY

S
 S

II. Revelation is Intentional -

The comment that our doctrine of revelation will be influenced or pervaded by the rest of our
theology becomes important when we discuss the fact that revelation is intentional. This assertion -

is warranted and demanded by the Reformed and biblical doctrine of God.

A. Revelation is Intentional in the sense that it was not necessary for God to reveal
Himself Revelation is an act of gratuitous, divine initiative.

1. Foundation -

The assertion that revelation was not necessary, but gratuitous is grounded in the attribute of God
known as the divine aseity or self-sufficiency.’ God is independent, self-sufficient, complete in -

Himself If God had not revealed himself, He would have remained to all eternity infmitely,
perfectly happy in Himself He is the blessed and only sovereign.

2. Qualification

This assertion is not to be understood as though once God had created the world and man in the -

way He did that revelation was still optional. This assertion does not mean that God could have
elected not to reveal after choosing to create in the way He did. The choice to create while free and
unnecessary was a choice to reveal Himself. For the creation of the world and man was a revelation -

of himself which itself implied further revelation. The Westminster Confession of Faith and the
1689 Baptist Confession both read at chapter 4, paragraph 1: "It pleased God the Father, Son, and -
Holy Ghost for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness to ...

create the world."

...

3. Application -

Our response to a revelation by such a being of Himself to us should be marked by a humble -

gratitude. God did not need to, but he was pleased to reveal Himself to us.

B. Revelation is intentional in the sense that it is the essential means to the highest -

intention, the ultimate motivation for all things.

1. Foundation -

This assertion is founded in the divine supremacy sovereignty. The ultimate goal of all creation is
to bring glory to God. This is the only proper goal for, "He is the blessed and only sovereign the -
King of Kings and Lord of Lords" 1 Tim. 6:15. No lesser motivation is fitting for the Most High
God.
S

‘Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, -
1976, 9.

6
S
 2. Explanation.

The revelation of Himself and His perfections is the essential meajfls to the end of the glory of God.
Thus, the Confession quoted above finds the rationale for creatil$i in the revelation of the divine
perfections. Creation was for revelation.1 The goal ofrevelation not ultimately soteriological or
anthropological. It is theological and doxological.

3. Application.

Thus all proper interaction with the Word of God is to produce th worship and praise ofthat God.
Interaction with the Word of God that deviates from this purpose iillegitimate.

C. Revelation is intentional and therefore never unco1cious or casual.

1. Foundation

This assertion is grounded in the divine omniscience--the infinitØ wisdom of God. The glory of
God’s wisdom is not that he knows all about his creation. This kiwledge, though incredibly vast,
is not infinite-for creation is not infinite. The glory of divineflOmniscience is that God knows
Himself--the infinite reaches ofhis own being and deeds-perfectl: completely, exhaustively.

2. Explanation

Revelation, therefore, can never be unconscious. God knows afltliat He himself does, has done,
will do. Kuyper says, "The casual dropping of a remark does notftoccur with respect to the Eternal
being, since the casual and unconscious doing of a thing is not p*dicable of God."2 Revelation is
always fully conscious on the part of God. The corollary to thiis that revelation does not have
God for its object. God is not revealing himself to himself "...,tltiere is no involuntary revelation.
This refutes the idea that God could be more or less unconsciou.. of Himself, or that he could be
seen by us in his works without his willing or knowing it.... All representations of this sort,
therefore, which have crept more and more into theology, must b4:banished as impious, since they
start out essentially from the exaltation of man above God."3 This may seem foolish even to
contemplate, but much of liberal and process theology invol$s precisely this conception of
revelation and perhaps Open Theism?.4 An important hennenutical implication of this is that
God understood and intended all the good and necessary inference contained in biblical revelation.
Thus, all the necessary implications of revelation are revelation.

‘Kuyper notes this, Principles ofSacred Theology, 258-

- 2Kuyper, Principles of Sacred Theology, 250.

3Kuyper, Principles ofSacred Theology, 253, 254.

4Cf Berkhof, Introduction to Systematic Theology, 119, Kuyper, Principles ofSacred

Theology, 314ff Note also Berkhofs discussion ofthe biblical ofrevelation, 133.
S

7
 S

3. Application -

The conscious, purposeful character of revelation rebukes two errors concerning revelation. The
purposeful character of revelation rebukes a presumptuous curiosity to know more than God has
revealed. It also rebukes a squeamish timidity to know all God has revealed. Either attitude calls
into question the wisdom of the divine purpose. Here are Thornwell’s perceptive comments on this
issue:

Whatsoever the Scriptures contain was designed by the Holy Spirit for our careful study and
devout meditation, and we are required to search them habitually and prayerfully, since they -

contain the "words of eternal life." The doctrines of the Bible cannot prove hurtful unless
they are perverted by ignorance or wrested by abuse. In examining, however, the more
mysterious features of revealed truth, there are two extremes widely different, but perhaps -

equally dangerous, into which there is hazard of running--presumptuous curiosity on the

one hand, and squeamish timidity on the other. Men of inquisitive and speculative minds
are apt to forget that there are limits set to human investigation and research, beyond which -
it is impossible to pass with safety or satisfaction. To intrude with confidence into the
unrevealed secrets of God’s wisdom and purpose manifests an arrogance and haughtiness of
intellect which cannot fail to incur the marked disapprobation of Heaven, and should always -

meet the prompt reprobation of the pious. Whatsoever is useful to be known God has
kindly and graciously revealed, and it argues no less ingratitude than presumption to
attempt to be "wise above what is written." Theology has already suffered greatly from the
pride of human intellect. Men, anxious to know more than God has thought proper to
communicate, or secretly dissatisfied with the form in which statements of Divine truth are
made in the Bible, have recurred to philosophy and science to improve or to explain the
doctrines of revelation. Sometimes the Scriptures stop too short, and then metaphysics and
logic must be called in to trace theft disclosures to the secret recesses of the eternal mind.
Sometimes the Scriptures and philosophy, "falsely so called," come into collision, and then -

the former must go through an exegetical transformation, so as to wear the shape which the
latter would impress on them. All this is a wide departure from that simplicity of faith with -
which the Word of God should always be received. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of
God," and to quarrel with it, or to attempt to push our investigations beyond it, is just to
quarrel with the wisdom and goodness of the Deity Himself It is tacitly charging the Holy -

Spirit with keeping back from men what it is important to their happiness to know. A deep
conviction of the fullness and sufficiency of the Scriptures, combined with a hearty regard
for their disclosures, is the only effectual check to this presumptuous pride of intellect. -

But while some thus madly attempt to overleap the boundaries which God has set to their
knowledge, others, through excessive caution, are afraid to know what the Lord has actually -

revealed. This squeamish timidity is no less dishonoring to God, as it supposes that He has
communicated some truths, in a moment of unlucky forgetfulness, which it would have
been better to conceal, and flatly and palpably contradicts the assertion of Paul that all -

Scripture is "profitable." If we suffer ourselves to be deterred from a fearless exposition of

Divine truth by the cavils and perversions of profane minds, we may just surrender all that
constitutes the Gospel a peculiar system, and make up our minds to be content with the
flimsy disclosures of Deism or the cheerless darkness of Atheism. The doctrines of the

S
S
S

Trinity, of the incarnation ofthe Son, ofthe covenants, oijmputation, etc., are all made the
scoff of the impudent and the jest of the vain. Paul’s dtrines were perverted to unholy
purposes by the false apostles, but all their defamation a$ reproach could not make Paul
ashamed ofthe truth, nor afraid to preach it. "One hoof c4Eivine truth," says the venerable
Erskine, "is not to be kept back, though a whole reproba world should break their necks
on it." "The Scripture," says Calvin, "is the school of theHo1y Spirit, in which, as nothing
useful or necessary to be known is omitted, so nothing is ught which it is not beneficial to
know." While, then, a presumptuous curiosity, on the c$e hand, may not be allowed to
carry us beyond the Scriptures, let not a sickly timidity, or$the other, induce us to fall below
them. "Let the Christian man," as Calvin again says, "op4p his heart and his ears to all the
discourses addressed to him by God, only with this mo4àration, that as soon as the Lord
closes His sacred mouth he also shall desist from furth inquiry. This will be the best
barrier of sobriety, if in learning we not only follow the jdings of God, but as soon as He
ceases to teach we give up our desire of learning. It is a ebrated observation of Solomon,
‘that it is the glory of God to conceal a thing.’ But as bo piety and common sense suggest
that this is not to be understood generally of everythix we must seek for the proper
distinction, lest we content ourselves with brutish ignora pe under the pretext of modesty
and sobriety. Now, this distinction is clearly expressed in a few words by Moses: ‘The
secret things belong unto the Lord our God, but those thinE which are revealed belong unto
us and to our children, that we may do all the words of tl i law.’ Deut. 29:29. For we see
how he enforces on the people attention to the doctrine f the law, only by the celestial
decree, because it pleased God to promulgate it; and restr &ns the same people within those
limits with this single reason, that it is not lawful for mol als to intrude into the secrets of
God."

III. Revelation is Analogical

This assertion is grounded in the biblical doctrine of man. 4gain, therefore, our doctrine of
revelation is influenced by our theology. The Bible teaches that man was created by God as the
image of God. This doctrine profoundly controls our doctrine of kevelation. As God’s image, man
is the ectype of which God is the archetype. God is the origina’. of which man is the copy. Put
another way, we could say that there is certain analogy or likene$ which God has created between
God and man. Two things must be said by way of exposition of the biblical concept ofthe analogy
between God and man.

First, it is true analogy. There is a bonafide similarity. Second it is only analogy. There is no
point of identity. Man is like God in one sense, but it is the heigl$t of depravity for him to attempt
to be like God in another sense. "Man can never in any sense, out$row his creaturehood. This puts
a definite connotation into the expression that man is like God. He is like God, to be sure, but
always on a creaturely scale."2 Man does not participate in the diffine essence or existence. There
are and remain two kinds of being, two kinds of existence: infinitelbeing and finite being.

‘James Henley Thornwell, The Collected Writings of... Elinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust,
1974 2:105-108.

2Van Til, Defense ofthe Faith, 13-14.

9
 S

All ofthis is crucial for our understanding of revelation. Since the relation between God and man
in general is that of analogy, when the issue of God’s revelation to man and man’s consequent
knowledge is discussed, analogy must be a dominant consideration. Revelation must be thought of -

as analogical. Thus our knowledge of God is ectypal. God’s knowledge of God is archetypal. Our
knowledge of God is a copy of God’s knowledge. The terminology, accommodation, is often used
here. The terminology is unwise. It tends to the idea that some distortion ofthe knowledge ofGod -

was inevitable in revelation. It must be remembered that God created the subject to whom He
wanted to reveal himself with the intention of so doing. Man was adapted by creation to know
God. "He does not follow a way of communication, that happens accidentally to be present, but
that He Himself lays out the way ofcommunication in keeping with His purpose."

1 Man’s knowledge of God is, therefore, true knowledge. It is an accurate picture of God. -
Kuyper even calls it a whole picture, "In the self-knowledge of God there are not ten parts, six of
which he has decided to reveal unto us.... the whole image has been reflected to us in Revelation."2 -

2 Man’s knowledge of God is not identical with God’s knowledge. Man does not know God
as God knows God. His knowledge is not comprehensive. His knowledge is anthropomorphic. He
knows God only by means of the divinely created analogies of divine existence which pervade -

human existence. He knows God not by immediate intuition as God knows himself, but only by
the media of the analogies of human existence. All revelation is in this sense mediate. Man’s
knowledge is only a finite copy of God’s knowledge of God.

‘Kuyper, Principles ofSacred Theology, 257.

2Kuyper, Principles ofSacred Theology, 256.

10

S
S IL.

DIVINE REVELATION ACCURj.TE

AND
ANALOGICAL

- 1 Two Kinds ofBeing and Knowledge 2 TheiFoute of Revelation in General

GOD = Infinite Being and Knowledge God

Creation = Finite Being and Knowledge cre ion

"V

revelation

3 The Route ofRevelation Explained 4 The .oute of Revelation Illustrated

GOD = DIVI [B REALITY GOD TH..SONDIVINE LOVE

Creation Cr ated Analogy sonship human love

-
hum?

S Revelation Revelatory Concept

- Jesus iS God’s Son God is Love

NOTES:

1 The finite revelatory concept is only analogical of God’s knowledge of the DIVINE
REALITY. It is not identical with it. Note the absence of capita!S below the line of transcendence
- are intended to illustrate this.

2 Revelation always proceeds through the created analogy from the DIVINE REALITY.
This guarantees its accuracy. The Divine creative purpose adpted creation to be a means for
revelation that would not distort that revelation. God accommolaled man and creation to himself
before He accommodated His revelation to man.
-

11
 S

SECTION 2: THE CATEGORIES OF REVELATION

I. The Historical Background ofthe Two Kinds ofRevelation

S

A. In the Apologists

The distinction between two types of revelation was seen early in the history of the Christian
thought. Perhaps the first conscious reflection on it is to be found in the Apologists of the Second
century. In particular, the writings of Justin Martyr are important. Seeberg tells us, "The apologists
undertook.... to set forth Christianity in forms intelligible to the cultured classes of their age." In -

this endeavor the Apologists were the first to consciously reflect on Christian truth in relation to the
surrounding heathenism. To them, therefore, may be traced, as Seeberg suggests, the beginnings of
Christian theology.

The Apologists attempted to communicate Christianity to theft generation by adapting for Christian
purposes the Logos speculation of the Greek philosophers. The Greek philosophers had developed -
the concept of the Logos as a way of mediating the supreme being to the world. This was to
profoundly influence Trinitarian thought in succeeding centuries--not always positively. The
connection ofthe Apologists’ thinking on revelation with this conception should arouse our caution. -

The distinction between two categories of revelation was also motivated in the Apologists by an
excessive respect for the Greek philosophers. Heraclitus and Socrates, as well as Abraham, were
thought to be Christians before Christ.2 Notwithstanding these cautionary considerations, the -

Apologists’ thinking deserves study. It was the Apostle John with full knowledge of its secular
meaning who affirmed that Jesus was the Logos John 1:1-18. It was the Apostle Paul who 5
affirmed that all men possess a certain revelation of God Rom. 1:18-20.

Justin Martyr’s doctrine in this regard is the most clearly elaborated of the Apologists. Justin
distinguishes 1 a human teaching avOpcoiaoç ötöacicaXta derived through the operation of the
divine logos, and 2 a Christian teaching far superior derived from the actual incarnation of the
divine logos.3 Says Kelly, "His starting-point was the current maxim that reason the germinal
logos = ?oyoç oncptanicoç was what united men to God and gave them knowledge of Him."4 The
light that all men have is implanted by the divine reason, the Logos of God, who is universally
active and present in the highest goodness and intelligence wherever they may be found. Like the -

Sower the Logos had sown seeds aitcppa tot Xo’you of truth among the Greek philosophers.
They "had, thus, been enabled to arrive at fragmentary facets of truth.5 Justin, an eclectic, found

1Reinhold Seeberg, History ofDoctrines, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978, 1:110. -

2W. Walker, A History ofthe Christian Church, New York: Chalres Scribner’s Sons, 1970 4.

3Seeberg, History of Doctrines, 1:111 f. -

4J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, New York: Harper & Row, 1978 96.

5Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 96. -

12
S
 truth in the different schools of Greek philosophers.’ The teachijg of Christianity excelled that of
the Greeks because its teaching was derived not from seeds sown by the Logos, but by the
incarnation and teaching of the entire Logos to Xoyucou tot oA.mj.

- JUSTIN MARTYR’S DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS

Laos
Sperniatikos

p
Greek Philosophers 4*brist
Incair

- Human Teaching Christian Tbaching

partial, fallible complete, i4’allible

B. In the Scholastics.

1. Augustine

Any treatment ofthe Scholastics and the medieval period must begin with Augustine. In Augustine
the distinction between two kinds of revelation becomes a distijction between faith and reason.
- While there is some tendency to ascribe to reason an excessive inportance, Augustine believes in a
rational proof for God’s existence, his basic position is oppose4 to this. Augustine’s, "Credo ut
intelligam," summarizes his position. All knowledge begins in faith.2
S

2. Anselm

Anselm, an Augustinian, adopted Augustine’s motto, but he wen4 on to accentuate and enlarge the
place and ability of reason. One came to know by faith Christian t*tth, but one could then prove by
reason Christian truth. In this conviction he embodied key attitu4s ofthe later high Scholasticism
- of Aquinas and others. Reason is consistent with faith and conetent not only to understand its

- ‘W. Walker, A History ofthe Christian Church, 46.

2G. H. Clark, Thales to Dewey, 225-226.

13
doctrines, but to prove them.’ -

3. Aquinas
5

Iii Aquinas the classic, scholastic synthesis of faith and reason was reached. The same optimistic
view of reason is present, but Aquinas has a more carefully worked out view ofthe relation of faith
and reason. -

In one sense, Aquinas limits the place of reason in a way that Anselm did not. Certain truths of
theology cannot be proven by reason. The Trinity is a truth of faith not reason. Reason may show -

that this truth is not irrational, but it cannot demonstrate its reality. On the other hand, Aquinas
definitely disagrees with Augustine’s motto, "I believe in order to understand." To believe a truth
and to know it by reason at the same time is impossible. If one knows it, he can no longer believe
it.2 Understanding completes and puts an end to faith. Again, Aquinas disagrees with Augustine’s
contention that the existence of God is self-evident.3

This is significant for Aquinas’ theology. Natural theology which is the knowledge of God which
may be derived by reason from natural revelation becomes the connecting link between philosophy
the product of reason and theology the product of faith. Certain truths are both revealed and
rational, i.e., the existence of God. Natural theology is thus the foundation and apology oftheology
proper.4

‘Clark, Thales to Dewey, 253-254.

2Clark, Thales to Dewey, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1957 271, 272.

3Clark, Thales to Dewey, 272f.

4Clark, Thales to Dewey, 272. -

14

S
 THE PATH OF INTELLECTUAL P1OGRESS
ACCORDING TO AQUINAt

ILLUSTRATION #1: THE OVERLAPPING CIRCLES

S

Reason and Faith and

Philosophy Theology
Natural
The Realm Theology The Realm
of Rational of Divine
Demonstration Mystery

ILLUSTRATION # 2: THE SOIL OF PHILOSOPHY, THE HILL OF NATURAL

THEOLOGY AND THE HOUSE OF FAITH

-2&TURAL THEOLOGT-.

L PHILOSOPHY

In Aquinas’ view a dichotomy was, thus, erected between kowledge and faith, reason and
authority, and natural and supernatural revelation.

4. The Late Scholastics John Duns Scotus afl4 William ofOccam

In the later scholastics, the key attitudes that governed scholastiism were superceded. Both the
optimism with respect to the abilities of reason and the optimisth with respect to the compatibility
of faith and reason were questioned. This wedge between faitl and reason would result in the
denial of the faith in Renaissance Humanism and the subordi$tion of reason in Reformation
Christianity.’

C. In the Reformation. H

‘G. H. Clark, Thales to Dewey, 296-297

15
 S

Both Luther and Calvin disliked and rejected the medieval emphasis on reason and philosophy in
favor of the sola scrjptura.’ They maintained the distinction between natural and supematural
revelation. God spoke both via nature and the Scriptures. At this point an important distinction
must be noted which set the Reformers off from Rome and produced a radically different treatment
of these two categories of revelation. Rome assumed that human reason, at least, was unfallen;
while the Reformers taught the total depravity of man. -

This means that while there is natural revelation, there can be no natural theology. Man in his
depravity never allows natural revelation to reach its goal. Rather, he suppresses, perverts, and -
distorts it so that no effective knowledge of God results. Scripture alone as applied by the Spirit
can now be the means of bringing us to a true knowledge of God. It was, therefore, the sola
scriptura and the solo gratia with its attendant doctrine of sin which molded the Reformation -

doctrine ofnatural and supernatural revelation.

Calvin’s treatment of this subject is the classic elaboration of it. It will be useful to summarize it -

here. The relevant chapters of the Institutes are Book 1:3-7.

a The human mind naturally and indelibly is endued with the sense of deity 1:3:1,3. There
is no need ofthe proofs of schools 1:3:3, cf. 1:5:9.

b Human depravity prevents the sense of deity sensus deitatis and the attendant seeds of -

religion semen religionis in the human heart from producing true knowledge of God 1:4:1,4.

c God’s revelation of Himself in creation both ofthe external world and of man himself and
in providence is clear and conspicuous 1:5:1, 2, 11, 15; 6:1, 6:2, but because of the depravity of
men is inadequate to impart a clear knowledge of God 1:5,11,14,1 52 -

d Scripture is, therefore, necessary for the obtaining of a true knowledge not only of salvation
but of God the creator 0:6:1,3; 1:6:2.

e The testimony of the Spirit is necessary for the acknowledgement of the authority of
Scripture 1:7:4, 1:7:5.

Thus, if men are to profit from natural revelation they need first the spectacles ofthe Scriptures and
the eyes ofregeneration.3 Moreover, one’s understanding of nature because of remaining depravity -

will always have to be double-checked with the Bible.4

‘For Luther see Seeberg, History ofDoctrines, 2;224, 299.

2Contra Berkhof, Introduction to Systematic Theology, 127.

3Cf. Van Til in The Infallible Word, Philipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1978, 281.

4Cf. Van Til in The Infallible Word, 282. -

16

S
 D. In Later Protestantism

Several positions have been defended in Later Protestantism. Thep may be quickly traced.

1. English Deism and Liberalism were captu4d by the thinking ofRenaissance

- humanism. They denied all special revelation and made re4son with natural revelation the
principium of all knowledge.

2. Much of conservative Protestantism inclu4irg some of its Reformed wing

under the influence of Descartes reverted to a dichotomy akin tqi. that of Aquinas. They stressed
reason, natural revelation, and natural theology as the preamble thith. An apologetics was built
on the use of reason and natural revelation.

3. Neo-orthodoxy reacted to Liberalism wØnt beyond Calvin and denied

general revelation. There is only special revelation.

4. A segment of the Reformed Protestan4sm understood and developed

Calvin’s views. These taught that special revelation while presuosing natural revelation was the
sole principle of theology and the principium unicum.’
S

A COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT EWS

OF REVELATION AND NATURAL T}*OLOGY

General Revelation Special Revel*ion Natural Theology

Liberalism & Deism Yes No Yes

Neo-Orthodoxy No Yes No

Armiianism and Yes Yes Yes

Princeton Calvinism
Butler, Warfield

Amsterdam Yes Yes No

Calvin, Van Til

II. The Biblical Basis for the Two Kinds of Revelation

A. Psalm 19
S

There are two passages which are very helpful in establishing tij biblical basis for a distinction
between two kinds of revelation and understanding the significa, of this distinction. They are
S

‘Cf Ed Klooster in his unpublished Introduction to Systematic Thology, 194.

17
 S

Psalm 19 and Romans 1:18-3:20.

On the surface of Psalm 19 lies the fact that there are two great sources of the knowledge of God.
In other words, God reveals Himself to men in two distinct ways. The significance of this
distinction can be best understood and viewed by means of a graph comparing the revelation of
verses 1-6 with the revelation of verses 7-14.
S

TWO KINDS OF REVELATION IN PSALM 19

S

THE REVELATION OF VV. 1-6 THE REVELATION OF VV. 7-14

SOURCE God’s Creation The Written Law

[Note especially vv. 1 and 2.] [Note v. 7 and the synonyms for the
lawusedinvv.7-ll.] -

CONTENT The Glory ofGod as Creator Jehovah, the Redeemer

[Note especially vv. 1 and 4.] [Note the absence of this name in vv. -

1-6, its 7-fold use in vv. 7-14, and v.

14.]

SCOPE Universal Limited

[Note vv. 3-6.] [Cf Psa. 147:19,20 and note the term,
servant in v. 11 and Jehovah’s titles in
v. 14.]

CLAffiTY Clear Clear

[Notevv. 1,2.] [Notevv. 7, 8.]

EFFECT Effective for the Production of

Covenant L?fe
[Note vv.7-9, 114

B. Romansl:18-3:20

Romans 1:18-3:20 in many details follows Psalm 19. This is not surprising because a close -
examination of Paul’s reasoning in the passage shows that he was thinking of Psalm 19 when he
wrote it. Many contextual indications suggest that boundary line between the two kinds of
revelation discussed in this passage is to be drawn after 2:16.

1 1:16 speaks of Jews and Greeks. There is no narrowing of the scope in v. 18 where those
considered are called men, i.e., men in general. -

2 1:18-32 is not concerned with Gentiles only. Verse 23 alludes to Ps. 106:20 and Jer. 2:11
which speak directly of Jews. -

18
 3 There is nothing to indicate a change of scope in 2:1. The language is universal "every
man of you who passes judgment." The language is consequenal having to do with the results
of something already said. "Therefore," connects this with *e foregoing. The language, of
passing judgment while appropriate to Jews, is also applicable t Gentiles 2:15.

4 Both Jews and Greeks are considered in the body of 2:146. Cf especially 2:6-15. How
inappropriate to put these verses in a passage which is supposed:io be dealing with Jews only!

5 Note the occurrence of the term, men av8pwiroç in beth 1:18 and 2:16. Its occurrence
brackets the section and suggests that in its entirety it deals withznen in general

6 The transition or shift to Paul’s treatment of Jews in paricWar is clearly marked. Note v.
17. Throughout 1:18-3:8 this is the only clear transition or shift lb the scope of reference.

- Again a chart will help us to place its teaching about the two kinds or categories of revelation
clearly before us.

19
S
 S

TWO KINDS OF REVELATION IN ROMANS 1:18-3:20

THE REVELATION OF 1:18-2:16 THE REVELATION OF 2:17-3:20

SOURCE God’s Creation The Written Law

[external creation, 1:19,20] [Note 2:17-20; 3:2.]
[internal creation, 2:14, 15]

CONTENT God as Creator and Judge God as Creator, Judge, and -

[including His law, wrath, power, Redeemer

wisdom, and goodness 1:18, 20, 21, [Note 3:1,2,9-20.]
32; 2:4, 14, 15]

SCOPE Universal Limited

[Men in general 1:18-2:16] [The Jews primarily in the Old
Testament 2:17-20; 3:1, 2]

CLARITY Clear Clear

[Making men to know God and leaving [The embodiment of knowledge and
men without excuse 1:19-21] truth, the law enables men to know
God’s will 2:18, 20.]

EFFECT Condemnation Covenant Blessing and Cursing

[Revealing God’s wrath and leaving [Note 3:1, 2.]
men without excuse 1:18-20]

C. Other Biblical Considerations

Both in Psalm 19 and in Romans 1:18-3:20 the basic distinction between two kinds ofrevelation is -

the same. There is God’s revelation in creation. There is God’s revelation in the written law of
God. The written law of God is the means ofthe redemption of God’s people. Therefore, the New
Testament that is both written and the means of redemption must be viewed as part of the second
category or kind ofrevelation.

The boundary line between the two categories of revelation is, therefore, becoming clear. Yet -
confusion may still exist with reference to some questions raised. One key question has to do with
what category the revelation of Gen. 2:4-25 should be placed in. Kuyper thinks because it is
before the fall that it is part of the natural principium. This would imply that it is part of general -

revelation. Others only distinguish between redemptive and non-redemptive revelation. Because
the fall has not yet occurred in Gen. 2:4-25, it cannot be redemptive revelation. This would also
mean that it is general revelation. -

Contrary to such reasoning, this revelation must be seen, like the revelation of Psalm 19:7-14 and
Romans 2:171, as special or positive revelation. There are the following considerations:

20
S
 reveals

1 The source of the revelation of Psa. 19:1-6 and Rom. 1: l-2: 16 is creation. The revelation
of Ps. 19:7-14 and Rom. 2:17f had its source in part at lea* in the physical appearance or
theophany of God at Mount Sinai. The revelation of Gen. 24f. definitely fits into the latter
category.

2 This view of Gen. 2:4-25 is confirmed by an interestin parallel between Psalm 19 and
Genesis I and 2. Jehovah, we know, is God’s covenant title. Botl in Gen. 1:1-2:3 and in Psa. 19:1-
6 this title is absent with the title, ElohiIn, used without exception1 time in Ps. 19:1-6, 29 times in
Gen. 1:1-2:3. In both Gen. 2:4 and Ps. 19:7 there is a stnkm commencement of the use of the
title, Jehovah. 11 times Jehovah God is mentioned in Gen. 2 :4-5. 7 times Jehovah is mentioned
in Ps. 19:7-14. In these passages the use of Elohim by itself is abslnt.

3 The objections to this view can be answered. For instanc$, some say that the revelation of
Gen. 2:4-25 is not redemptive, while that of Ps. 19:7-14 and Rdfr. 2:17f is. The solution to this
difficulty lies in the remembering that there is a pre-fall and postfall phase in both "general" and
"special" revelation. Romans 1:1 8f. definitely teaches that after 4 fall God’s wrath is revealed via
- creation, but this could not have been the case before the fall wh there was no sin in creation. In
the same way the goodness of God originally revealed in creatn now after the fall becomes a
revelation of common grace: God’s goodness to sinful men. Th$, after the fall general revelation
God’s wrath and common grace, things it did not reveal b4fore the fall. Likewise, that kind
of revelation which we now know as redemptive existed in a diz’ent phase before the fall. If we
call this covenant revelation we may say that the Scriptures the present form of covenant
- revelation are redemptive because they are post-fall covenant rAelation. Even pre-fall covenant
revelation had the same ultimate goal as redemptive revelation:j: the confirmation of man in an
eternal life ofhappiness and holiness.

It appears that the Bible teaches that there has always been two k!Øds of revelation. Yet both these
categories of revelation were modified at the fall of man. Ther4. have always been two kinds of
- revelation, but these two kinds of revelation were both modified $b important ways by the fall and
redemption. We must conclude, therefore, that Geerhardus Vos d Van Til following him were
precisely biblical in regard to this matter. Let me remind you agin of the diagram by which their
position on this matter was summarized. It summarizes the biblica1 view as well.

21
 S

THE CATEGORIES OF REVELATION S

THE VIEW OF VOS AND VAN TIL}

S

Pre-Fall General Revelation Post-Fall General Revelation

S

Pre-Fall Special Revelation Redemptive Special Revelation

III. The Proper Terminology for the Two Kinds of Revelation

A. The Historical Options

Though historical theology informs us of a general distinction between two categories of revelation,
much confusion has arisen through the cloudiness of the exact line of demarcation between the -

categories. The different terminology used by theologians indicates this problem. This distinction
has been articulated in terms ofNatural and Supernatural Revelation. Yet we may ask the question,
Is not natural revelation supernatural in origin? It has been stated in terms of General and Special
revelation. But still we may ask, Is all revelation that is general i.e. common to mankind to be
distinguished from special revelation? Is the so-called "covenant of works" and the Noahic
covenant general revelation? Another terminology is Pre-lapsarian and Post-lapsarian revelation.
Again, however, the question may be raised of the legitimacy of seeing the revelation of Gen. 2:4f
as the same as the revelation through creation, rather than substantially identical with the revelation
finally contained in the Bible. Theologians have also spoken of Natural and Soteriological
Revelation. But still it may be asked, Is all non-natural revelation soteriological? What about Gen.
2:4f?

This survey ofthe terminology used emphasizes the confbsion and focuses our attention on two key
complicating factors. On which side of the line does the revelation of Gen. 2:4f fall? More deeply,
by what principle should the two categories of revelation be distinguished? -

B. The Detailed Discussion

-

All the terminological distinctions mentioned above fall short of being satisfactory. Pre-lapsarian
and Post-lapsarian, as well as, natural and soteriological miss the ftindamental distinction. General
and special might be adequate if properly defined, but historically general revelation has been made
to include aspects of covenant revelation.’ This terminology also fails to grasp the tbndamental
distinction or difference between the two kinds of revelation. Natural and supernatural revelation
has often been properly applied to the demarcation between the two kinds of revelation. When -

properly understood not as defining the source but the means of revelation, it embodies an
important difference between the two categories. Of the historic terminology it is most to be
preferred. -

‘Cf. Berkhof, Introduction to Systematic Theology, 128, Kuyper, Principles of Sacred Theology, -
379.
S

22
S
 The terminology of creation and covenant revelation may be sugcsted. The terminology, creation
- revelation, used by KJooster suggests at once the scope, content, means and source of natural
revelation. The term, covenant revelation, suggests the content scope, source, and the directly
personal character of its impartation. Two criticisms may be lodged against the terminology,
covenant revelation. Some might argue that the dealings of God Fwith Adam were not covenantal.
It has, indeed, been debated by theologians whether it is proper to apply term, covenant, to the
Adamic Administration. I would make no attempt to solve this difficulty. I would observe,
- however, that it seems proper to me to describe God’s dealing with Adam in a general sense as
covenantal. Another objection is that all revelation is covenant$L While valid, this objection may
be mitigated by the consideration that creation revelation is imply the context of covenant
revelation. It is, thus, only indirectly covenantal. Supernatural Irevelation is directly covenantal,
revealing the stipulations and promises at the heart of God’s de4jngs with man. James On says,
- "Supposing man to gain all that he could by general revelation, t still could not produce a living
friendship."

This criticism suggests an alternative terminology, natural nd positive revelation. This

terminology notes that nature is the source of natural revelation. Supernatural revelation is always
a plus to nature. It is never a "given" of creation, but somethingadditional to it, not derived from
- the natural order. It always involves divine intervention in the ceated order. Thus, it is properly
called positive revelation. This terminology avoids the objectior to the terminology, supernatural
revelation, which notes that all revelation is supernatural. A011 revelation is supernatural in its
source, but it is not all something in addition to nature.

IV. The Critical Comparison of the Two Kinds of Revelation

The proper comparison of Creation and covenant revelation must remember that they exist side-by-
side in two states: The original and the fallen state. Note the followirg diagram.
S

TWO KINDS OF REVELATION IN TWQ STATES

Original State Fallen State

Creation Revelation

is Covenant

‘Cf. the Westminster Confession of Faith 7:1 for this

Spoken, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1979, 50, 54,
Revétion

Cf. also J. I. Packer’s God Has

23
 S

A. The contrasts between creation and covenant revelation

Content:

Means:
1. In the Original State

Creation or Natural Revelation

The Creator God--Elohim

Creation or Nature
Covenant or Positive Revelation

The Covenant God--Yahweh

Theophany involving verbal

S
-

--external creation the heavens and earth communication. Not all that is -

--internal creation the soul of man utilized in covenant revelation is

himself supernatural, but it is only
--ordinary providence controlling revelational because of its
creation association with the supernatural.
Cf., for instance, the tree of life. -

Character: Indirect or Mediate impersonal Direct or Immediate personal and

covenantal

2. In the Fallen State

While the distinction between creation and covenant revelation was present, before the fall, it was
accentuated by the fall. It became possible to possess the creation revelation without the covenant
revelation. This was an unnatural separation. -

24
S
 Creation or Natural Revelation Covennt or Positive Revelation

Content: God as Creator and Judge Under the 1 Gc$i as Creator and Judge
curse creation now reveals the wrath of Beca* ofMan’s depravity, covenant
God. The original revelation ofthe revela*n must now re-publish the

-
goodness of God becomes, therefore, a conten$ of creation revelation. 2
revelation of common grace. God as Redeemer
S

Means: Creation or Nature The Supernatural Verbal

--external creation the heavens and
earth--the cosmos
--internal creation the soul of man
himself--the anthropos
- --ordinary providence as it controls
creation
conimijication between God and His
peopleuay come through theophany,
prophepy, or inspiration, but it is
alwaysflsupernatural in its means. Not
all thats utilized in covenant
reveladon is supernatural, but it is only
revelatjnal because of its association
with th$ supernatural.

Character: Indirect or Mediate impersonal Direct çz Immediate personal and

5 coventtal The personal encounter
betwe* God and His people is
climaxd in the Incarnation.

Recipients All Men in General The cornant people with certain

necessry qualifications--This is in
contra$ with the pre-fall covenant
revelalon which came to all men in
genera
- H
Effect: Nothing--Man’s depravity perverts this True k4cwledge of God in the elect
revelation and derives no true or saving
knowledge ofGod from it.

B. The similarities between creation and covenant revelation

Both in the original and fallen states creation and covenant revelation possess the attributes of
necessity, authority, perspicuity, and sufficiency.’

1. Necessity

Creation revelation even before the fall was the necessary conte4. and presupposition of covenant
revelation. The subjection of creation to the curse--a cursed crea4n--was the necessary context of
redemption. . H

Cf. Van Til, Infallible Word, 263f.

25
_________________
S

2. Authority

Both covenant and creation revelation are self-authenticating. They lay claim on man in the -

deepest realities of his existence.’ Both are divine and, therefore, speak with absolute authority
their message. -

3. Perspicuity

Creation revelation is clear. It is constant and abundant Psa. 19:1, 2; Rom. 1:19, 20. The mystery -

that must be expected in any revelation of the self-sufficient God to man does not negate the clarity
of His revelation. Mystery and clarity are necessary corrolaries of human knowledge either in
nature or Scripture.

4. Sufficiency -

Creation revelation was never intended to thnction independently. In that sense, it is insufficient.
Creation revelation is not sufficient to penetrate human depravity and impart an effective -

knowledge of God. It was sufficient and is sufficient for the purpose God intends for it: to be the
context ofcovenant revelation. It is sufficient to render man without excuse for his sin.

Concluding Note: -

This distinction between the categories of revelation enables us to reconcile two thoughts of -
Scripture. On the one hand, fallen men are without God in the world. On the other, in Him they
live and move and exist Eph. 2:12, Acts 14:15-17, Acts 17:28 Having creation revelation within
and without men are always near to God. This revelation is indirect, impersonal, non-covenantal. -

As fallen men, men are without covenant revelation. This is an unnatural condition. They have no
personal, covenantal contact with God. As such they are far from God, without God in the world:
lost, run-aways, orphans. Thus man is cast away from God and has no personal relation with him
in his covenantal favor, while he is always confronted with God in His creation revelation.

C. The relationship between the categories ofrevelation -

1. In the Original State

S

In Genesis 2 it is obvious that man was confronted with both creation and covenant revelation from
early in his existence. The impression is even given that the first moments of his existence
combined both natural and positive revelation. This shows that far from any contradiction between
the two forms of revelation an original unity and mutual dependence is present. Both have the
same author, God; the same recipient, man; and the same purpose the bringing of creation and its
head, man, to the goal oftheir existence.

‘Van Til in The Infallible Word, 274f.

26
S
a

2. In the Fallen State

It has already been noted that the separation and even, in cer*in respects, differences between
creation and covenant revelation is the product of the unnaturaleonditions produced by the fall.
Kuyper says, "Both principia are one in God, and the beam of this light is only broken when the
soundness ofour human heart is broken by sin."

a. The dependence of covenant revel$tion on creation revelation. The

fall cannot change or alter the necessary unity of the two fonjs of revelation. Thus, covenant
revelation which has now become redemptive revelation still pre$upposes the existence of creation
revelation. That is to say, it presupposes that man is created cap*le of knowing God and that he is
at every moment confronted with the revelation of God in himseliland the cosmos.2

b. The priority ofcovenant revelatioito creation revelation.3 All this is

not to say that covenant revelation is dependent on the natural en’s reaction to or use of creation
revelation. This reaction is one of truth-suppression Rom. 1:1 81and unalloyed wickedness Rom.
1:21-32. It is, thus, to creation revelation and not to natural teology that covenant redemptive
revelation now looks.4 To grant any priority to creation revelatio*Ias understood by the sinner over
covenant revelation is ipso facto to sentence covenant revelatiØn to death. This is done when
natural theology is set side-by-side with special theology or worse yet when it is made the
apologetic foundation of special theology.5

It is for this reason that with Calvin, Kuyper, and Van Til th primacy and priority of special
revelation covenant revelation or the Scriptures must be malntned. Not only is this redemptive
revelation the sole means by which God corrects the ethical disjsition which causes man to be a
truth-suppressor, but in the Scriptures the content of creatiot revelation is republished as a
necessary aspect of this redemptive revelation. The Scriptur are not a mere supplement to
creation revelation, but include a republication of its salient poin46

‘Abraham Kuyper, Principles of Sacred Theology, 378.

2Cf. Kuyper, Principles of Sacred Theology, 374; 375

3Van Til in The Doctrine ofScripture, 123, 124.

4Cf. Van Til, The Infallible Word, 280, 281. Cf Kuyper, Prinqiples of Sacred Theology, p.376;
377; 378.

5Kuyper, Principles ofSacred Theology, 382.

6Contra Warfield, Collected Writings, vol. 1, Revelation and I4$iration Grand Rapids: Baker,
- 1981, 6,45 Note Rom. 1:18-3:20; Cf Van Til, Infallible Wor4 282.

27
 S

PART 2: REDEMPTIVE REVELATION

SECTION 1: ITS INTRODUCTION--THE BIBLICAL TERMINOLOGY

S

Introduction:

Any introduction to the biblical terminology must begin by noting that there is a vast bulk of matter -

to be treated. This should not be surprising to us. The very subject-matter of the Bible is
redemptive revelation. Hence, there are an abundance of terms used with reference to revelation.
S

I. Overview of the Biblical Terminology

A. Old Testament -

Notwithstanding what has been said above, in the Old Testament there is only one major word to be
studied. It is the root, GALAH rI.

1. The Basic Meanings: Uncover, Remove, Reveal

This word is used of the removal of Israel into captivity Amos 1:5; 5:5; of the uncovering the
nakedness of someone Lev. 18:6-19; ofthe uncovering the ear or eye of someone in other words -

making something known or revealing something to them 1 Sam. 20:2, 12, 13; Num. 24:4, 16;
and ofthe revelation per se without the above figure of speech Isaiah 40:5; 53:1.

2. The Relevant Meaning: Reveal

GALAH means to reveal something in the sense of uncovering, unveiling, or displaying it. Cf -

these texts as illustrations Jer. 32:11,14; Isa. 49:9; 1 Sam. 14:8.

3. The DifferentUses -

It is used of man revealing something to man Prov. 18:2; God revealing something to man Job.
12:22 and man revealing something to God Jer. 11:20; 20:12. -

4. The Prominent Texts with respect to Divine Revelation

S

Note Amos 3:7; 1 Sam. 2:27; 3:21; Job 33:16; 12:22; Isa. 22:14; Isa. 40:5; Isa. 53:1, 56:1; Psa.
98:2; Jer. 33:6; Psa. 119:18; Dan. 10:1. Note also in the Chaldee, Dan. 2:19,22,28,29,30.

B. New Testament

1. APOKALUPTOO amoicaXuirro and APOKALUPSIS wtoKaXDtç -

This root is the major translation ofGALAH in the LXX.

a. Basic Meaning
S

28

S
__

1 Verb: Uncover, Reveal

a
2 Noun: Revelation, Discloswe

b. Significant Uses

1 It is used ofthe public disclosure of the thoughts and actions

ofmen 1 Cor. 3:13; Luke 2:35, 12:2, Mat. 10:26.

2 It is used of the actualizatiqn and historical manifestation of

events surrounding the second coming.

a Of the second comi4g itself Luke 17:30; 1 Cor. 1:7.

a
b Of the glory oftheSons of God Rom. 8:18, 19; 1
Pet. 5:1.

c Of the judgment Rm. 2:5 cf 1 Cor. 3:13.

d Of the apostasy and the antichrist 2 Thess. 2:3, 6, 8.

3 Of the historical actu4zation and manifestation of

a redemption.

a In events ofredempon Rom. 16:25, 26; Gal. 3:23.

b In revelations to Apqstles Gal. 1:16; Eph. 3:3, 5.

a c In epochal preachiig of the gospel to all nations

Rom. 1:17 cf 16:25.

d In the actual ilIumfiation of individuals John 12:38;

Phil. 3:15; Luke 2:32; Eph. 1:17; 1 Cor. 2:10.

e In the special gifts Qf the Spirit 1 Cor. 14:26, 30; 2

Cor. 12:1, 7; Gal. 2:2; 1 Cor. 2:10?.

4 Of the revelation of the wrath of God in natural revelation

Rom. 1:18, 19
a
2. PHANER000 pavcpoco; PHANEROQ’SIS pcivcpcooi; PHANEROS
qavspoç

This word is an infrequent translation of GALAH in the LXX.

a a. Basic Meanings

29
 S

1 Verb: Reveal, make known, show

2 Noun: Disclosure, Announcement

3 Adjective: Visible, Clear, Open, Plain, Evident, Known, the

open, public notice. -

b. Significant Uses

1 It is used of the manifestation of the thoughts, actions, and

characters ofmen1 Cor. 3:13; 11:19; 1 John2:19; 3:10; John3:21; Mk. 4:22,2 Cor. 5:10, 11.
S

2 It is used of the manifestation of the Creator in natural

revelation Rom. 1:19.
S

3 It is used of the resurrection appearances of Jesus Mk.

16:12, l4;John2l:1, 14.

4 It is used of the disclosures surrounding the second coming

of Christ 1 Cot 4:5; Col. 3:4; 1 Peter 5:4; I John 2:28, 3:2; Rev. 15:4.

5 It is used ofthe disclosure of redemption in Christ--

a By its events John 1:31, 2:11; Romans 3:21, 16:26; -

Col. 1:26; 1 Tim. 3:16; 2 Tim. 1:10; Heb. 9:26; 1 Peter 1:20; 1 John 1:2; 3:5,8,4:9.

b By its preaching 2 Cor. 2:14; 4:10,11; Col. 4:4; -

Titus 1:3; II Cor. 4:2.

6 It is used of the special disclosures of the Spirit which are or

ground the gifts ofthe Spirit 1 Cor. 12:7.

3. GNOORIDZOO yvwpo -

a. Basic Meanings: 5

1 Make known, reveal

2 Know Phil. 1:21

b. Significant Uses

1 Of Jesus making known the Father to the disciples John

15:15, 17:26, cf qxzvcpoco in John 17:6

30
S
a

2 Of God’s making known the mystery of Christ to men Rom.

16:26; Eph. 1:9, 3:3,5, 6:19; Col. 1:27.

3 Of God’s determination to 4ake known His power and wrath

a
and His riches of grace Rom. 9:22, 23.

4 Of God through angels making known the incarnation Luke

a
2:15.

4. Other New Testament Terminology

a
a. PHAINOO qxnvco means to shine or appear Mat. 24:27,30; John
5:35; Phil. 2:15; 2 Pet. 1:19; 1 John 2:8.
a

b. EPIPHAINOO cltupatvw whichi means to show, appear Luke

1:79; Titus 2:11, Titus 3:4.

c. EPIPHANEIA cinqxzvcta whfrh means an appearing or

appearance. In the New Testament this word is always used of th* second advent.

d. DEIKNUMI öcucvitt which mans 1 point out, show, make

known; 2 explain, prove.
a

e. DEIL000 &riXoco which mean to reveal, make clear, show 1

Cor. 3:13; Heb. 9:8; 12:27; 1 Peter 1:11, 14.

f EXEIGEOMAI ciyysoj.tat whic1 means to explain, interpret, tell,

report, describe John 1:18.
a

g. CI-IREIMATIDZOO ypisan4o :w’1i1i means 1 when used of

God: to impart a revelation; 2 to bear a name, be called or name4 Man. 2:12, 22; Luke 2:26; Acts
a
10:22; Heb. 8:5, 11:7, 12:25. H

h. CHREIMATISMOS ypjsanaç which means a Divine

statement or answer Romans 11:4.

i. ENDEIKNUMI evôcucvujn whiq means to show or demonstrate

Rom. 2:15; 9:17, 22; Eph. 2:7;! Tim. 1:16.

j. ENDEIXIS cvbcuctç which meafls proof or perhaps demonstration

Romans 3:25, 26.

k. EMPHANIDZOO cpfpavdco’ 4ch means to reveal or make

‘PHAINOO, EPIPHAINOO, EPIPFJANEIA AND EMPIi$NTDZOO are all derived from

the root stem pa from the Indo-european.
a

31 I
 S

known John 14:21, 22. -

1. PHOOS p@c which means light.

1 JesusisthelightJohnl:4,5,7,8,93:l9,2o,2l;8:129:5
11:9, 10; 12:35, 36, 46; 1 John 1:5,7; 2:8,9, 10; Eph. 5:8. -

2 God is light James 1:17; 1 John 1:5.

3 Disciples are lights Matt. 5:14, 16; Eph. 5:8.

4 Salvation is light Luke. 2:32; Mat. 4:16; 1 Pet 2:9; Acts

13:47, 26:13, 23.

m. PHOOSTEIR pcoç’rip which means a light in other words a light-

giving body or star Phil. 2:15. -

n. PHOOSPHOROS pcnçpopoc which means bearing or giving light

and also refers to the morning-star 2 Pet. 1:19. -

o. PHOOTIDZOO pcon4co which means to enlighten or illuminate

John 1:9;lCor.4:5; Eph. 1:18; Eph. 3:19;2Tim. 1:10; Heb. 6:4, 10:32. -

p. PHOOTISMOS pwttai.toc which means illumination,

enlightenment, light 2 Cor. 4:4, 6.

II. Observations on the Biblical Terminology S

A. Divine revelation has for its matter or content things known to God, but unknown to
men, e.g. secrets or mysteries Dan. 2:22, 28, 29, 47. No pantheistic ideas are present.

B. Divine revelation includes the simple, verbal conmiunication of information. Note

especially the use ofyvcoptçw in Luke 2:15 and Eph. 3:3-5 and uitoicaXuirrco Rom. 1:17, 16:25. -

C. Divine revelation is not merely verbal communication, but involves the historical
actualization and manifestation of the realities which form its content.’ In support of this note -
certain of the key biblical vocabulary: GALAH, APOKALUPTOO, AND PHANER000 and
some of the key biblical texts Isa. 56:1; Psa. 98:2; Jer. 33:6. Several implications of the above
assertion must be here considered. -

1 This underscores the inseparability in biblical thought of revelation and redemption. Not
only does revelation attend redemption, redemption is revelation Gal. 3:23; Rom. 16:25?; Rom. -

3:21; 1 Pet. 1:20; 1 John 1:2; 3:5, 8. Jesus coming to deal with sin is his appearing, manifestation.

‘The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 13:573, 582f, 591.

32
5
a

Cf. Also Rom. 9:22,23; Titus 2:11; 3:4? Not merely the prooiamation of redemption, but its
actualization in the redemptive events is revelation.

2 This leads to the idea that revelation consists in a word-ded complex. The Scriptures are
a not merely a law-code, or a catechism of doctrines, but a recgrd of and interpretation of the
redemptive acts of God. Revelation is both word and act.

3 The concept of revelation as historical actualization and manifestation means that the
redemptive revelation in Christ pre-existed in the divine counsel, ip the prophetic Scriptures, and in
the pre-existent Logos ofGod. For its pre-existence in the divine qounsel and prophetic Scriptures
a see Rom. 16:25f; 1 Cor. 2:6-10; Col. 1:26, 27; 2 Tim. 1:10; Titu4 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:20; Eph. 1:9, 3:5.
These two ideas are not antithetical, but complementary--each implying the other. It is not
surprising that the eternal purpose of God was hinted at in the prophetic Scriptures. This close
connection explains and alleviates the difficulty in some cases of deciding whether the eternal
counsel or the prophetic Scriptures are in view.

a The concept of revelation as historical actualization and manifestation is tied to the pre-existence of
the Logos as the sum ofGod’s revelation to man. Note especially l John 1:2; 1 Tim. 3:16; Cf John
1:14-18; Heb. 9:26; 1 Peter 1:20; 1 John 3:5,8.
a

D. Divine redemptive revelation is not restricted to the redemptive words or acts of

God in Christ’s first or second advent. Divine revelation includesjthe saving revelation ofChrist to
a
individuals. The spectrum of revelation extends through the wor4c of Christ, the enlightenment of
the Apostles for their special work, the world-wide preaching of the gospel [This preaching
becomes epochal in itself Rom. 16:25; Titus 1:3; Mat. 24:14; Juke 24:47.], the impartation of
special gifts to the church, and does not terminate short of thi. saving revelation of Christ to
individuals. Cf. John 12:38; Phil. 3:15; Luke 2:32; 1:79; Eph. j:17; 1 Cor. 2:10; 2 Cor. 4:2-6.
Revelation terminates on the saving revelation of Christ to menl This is so, of course, because
a
revelation is the issue of God’s gracious purpose to save 2 Tim. 4:9-10; Eph. 1:9. This salvation
is, of course, unto the further end of the revelation of the glory bf God to all the universe Eph.
3:10. This controlling purpose of redemptive revelation dema4ds the functional availability of
a
revelation till the end of the age.’

E. God’s definitive revelation in Christ results in !he public manifestation of the

a
thoughts, hearts, actions, and characters of men. This resultant revelation of men is consummated
at the second advent 1 Cor. 3:13; 2 Cor. 5:10. It, however, $as begun at Christ’s first advent
Luke 2:35, cf 2:32; Luke 12:2 and continues in the ongoing wàrk of the gospel 1 Cor. 11:19; 1
John2:19;3:10;John3:21,cf.v. 19. Cf. iTim. 5:24, 25.

‘The fact that no distinction is made in the biblical termifllogy between what we call, on
the one hand, objective or direct revelation and what we call, on he other hand, subjective
illumination both being described by the biblical terminology fq revelation is problematic with
regard to the defense of Cessationism. Theological distinctions $ the Bible are, however, not
always made by the terminology used, but the concepts conveye4, Note the use ofthe biblical
word, call, to refer to both the general call of the gospel Mat. 2t14 and effectual calling 1
Cor. 1:9, 24.

33
 S

F. Divine revelation is mediated through and embodied in Jesus Christ. Cf. the use of -

pwç in John, and 2 Cor. 4:4-6. John, if a certain exegesis of John 1:4 and 9 is correct, teaches that
the Logos is also the source of the light or revelation of creation. All revelation would, thus, fmd
its mediator in the Son of God. -

34
S
a

SECTION 2: ITS RELATIONS

a
I. Its Relation to Revelation in General

The use of the term, redemptive revelation, demands some explan4tion ofthe relation ofredemptive
revelation to revelation in general. As to the concept of rev4lation, all that was said of the
principial, intentional, and analogical character of revelation remains true of redemptive revelation
in all its phases and fonns. The revelation contained in the ib1e, for instance, is principial,
intentional, and analogical. As to the categories of revelation, a somewhat longer explanation is
necessary. Redemptive revelation is the equivalent of covenant i4elation after the fall.

THE CATEGORIES OF REVELATION

Pre-Fall Creation Revelation Post-Fall reation Revelation

Pre-Fall Covenant Revelation ¶Covenant Revelation

a

The use of a special and distinguishing term for post-fall covenan! revelation is vindicated by three
a considerations. 1 The only form in which we authoritatively $ssess covenant revelation now
after the fall is in the form ofredemptive revelation. The only rec4d of pre-fall covenant revelation
is in that redemptive revelation. 2 Creation revelation also is nounchanged by the fall. It is now
a the revelation also of God’s wrath and common grace and as s4ch is the context of redemptive
revelation Rom. 1:18; 2:4; Acts 14:15-17. 3 Redemptive, revelation, though the post-fall
continuation of covenant revelation, assumes a prominence an4 embodies elements not true of
a covenant revelation before the fall. There are four thoughts which underscore this. First,
redemptive revelation is now the initial, primary and regulati$’e source of true and effective
knowledge of God. Second, redemptive revelation re-publi$es the main lines of creation
a
revelation which pre-fall, covenant revelation would simply assu$e. Third, redemptive revelation,
in distinction from pre-fall covenant revelation, now reveals rede4ption and the way of restoration
for fallen men.’ There is, of course, a certain parallel betwten pre- and post-fall covenant
a
revelation. Both were intended as the means for the bringing of n$n and the world to their destined
teXoç and perfection. Fourth, redemptive revelation demands a flew form, inscripturation.2 The
general abandonment of man by God with the corollary of declased contact between man and
God, death, the sinfulness of the human mind, and the curse-all :PT0duct5 of the fall-demand the
preservation of redemptive revelation through inscripturation. Redemptive revelation as a title,
thus, embodies the uniqueness of post-fall covenant revelation.

‘Vos, Biblical Theology, 29

2Vos, Biblical Theology, 30.

a 35
 _
S

II. Its Relation to Redemption -

Having entitled this part of the course redemptive revelation, we have examined the relation of
redemptive revelation to revelation in general as expounded in Part I of the course. It is now S

necessary to discuss its relation to redemption. It is, of course, only in relation to the broader idea
of redemption that redemptive revelation can be properly understood. Many false ideas arise from
a misconception of this relation. A proper understanding of this relation will tend to establish the -

orthodox doctrine ofthe Word of God.

A. Its Relation to the Purpose ofRedemption

1. The Nature ofthis Relation

The redemptive revelation given in Christ finds its origin in the mysteries of God’s eternal being
and counsel. Its truths pre-exist in the counsel of God Rom. l6:25f; 1 Cor. 2:7-10; Col. l:26f.; 2 -

Tim. 1:9, 10; Titus 1:2, 3; 1 Pet 1:20; Eph. 1:9; 3:5. There is a richness and variety in the
references to God’s decretive will which amazingly confirms the assertion that redemptive
revelation originates in God’s eternal purpose. Cf. the use of ein’rayqv in Rom. 16:26; irpowpacv
in 1 Cor. 2:7; i0cXiasv in Col. 1:27; mpoOsatv in 2 Tim. 1:9; sityyciiXcito in Titus 1:2;
mpoc’yvcocYp.zvol in 1 Peter 1:20; suSoctav and irpoc0c’ro in Eph. 1:9. The Redeemer Himself, of
course, pre-exists in the being of God John 1:1-3.

Redemptive revelation is, therefore, the expression of God’s eternal and electing purpose and is the
instrument of that purpose. The goal of God’s purpose and, hence, of redemptive revelation
embraces or involves the actual saving enlightenment of the elect John 12:38; Phil. 3:15; Eph.
1:17; Luke 2:32, 1:79; 2 Cor. 4:2-6, and 1 Cor. 2:10.
S

2. The Significance ofthis Relation

The relation of redemptive revelation to the divine redemptive purpose suggests immediately the
fact of its preservation and provides several crucial perspectives on the preservation of redemptive
revelation. Since the preservation of redemptive revelation is achieved through its inscripturation,
we may assert that inscripturated redemptive revelation-the Scriptures-must be viewed against
the backdrop ofredemptive purpose, if they are to be properly understood.

a. The Certainty ofits Preservation S

It must never be forgotten that the redemptive purpose from which redemptive revelation flows is
sovereign and irresistible purpose. From a Reformed perspective the idea that God would impart
redemptive revelation as the expression of His eternal purpose and then fail to preserve it is simply
unthinkable. If it is to become the instrument of that purpose, then it is necessary that it should be
preserved. Since that purpose is sovereign and irresistible, it will be preserved. If redemptive -

revelation is the expression and instrument of divine purpose, it will certainly accomplish that
purpose and, thus, certainly be preserved. Sovereign, redemptive purpose demands the preservation
S
of redemptive revelation.

36
S
a

Often in popular discussion one meets with the opinion which coqedes that God may have spoken
in the past, but that somewhere in the transmission of that messa4e in its preservation its content
has been garbled and is now hopelessly obscured. The questk$1 is asked, "How can we be so
dogmatic now when such garbling has occurred?" Such opinio4 are hopelessly inconsistent. In
reality they are a denial that redemptive revelation is the expession of sovereign redemptive
a
purpose. Such a denial is really a rejection of any divine revelatio whatever, since a god who is so
fickle or powerless as to give but fail to preserve redemptive revel$tion is really no god at all.

b. The Importance ofits Preservation

The opinion is often present in discussions of the doctrine of Scripture, either explicitly or
implicitly, that one’s view of the Scriptures is secondary. It is felt hat if one acknowledges a divine
revelation by word and deed, one’s view of the Bible is of mu lesser importance. Too much
a
concern about’ the inerrancy of a book will make one guilty-to *e Harnack’s words-of chasing
the Spirit into a book. Our religion, it is asserted, will become d4ctrinaire and bookish. One will
have descended from the pinnacles of divine revelation to gro1 in the dust of theological nit-
picking.

These feelings or opinions must not for a moment be entert$ned. When the impartation of
redemptive revelation is viewed against the backdrop of di$e purpose, there may be no
depreciation of its preservation and inscripturation. The preservatin and, thus, the inscripturation
of that redemptive revelation is an equally crucial link in the hain of the divine, redemptive
a purpose. Precision in our understanding of the nature of the pservation and inscripturation of
redemptive revelation is, then, seen to be crucial. Kuyper puts thi4svell when he says:

But however strongly we emphasize that the real insp on of the Scripture must be
carefully distinguished from the inspiration of the revelatjn as entirely dissimilar, yet this
may never be taken as though the one action of the Spirit *ood in no organic relation to the
a other. Both, indeed, are expressions of the one will of Gc4 to grant to our race, lost in sin,
a central revelation, and to bring this central Revelation vithin the reach of all ages and
people.’

Berkhof also comments on the importance of the inscripturation oZ redemptive revelation.

It was of the utmost importance for the special revelation f God that it should be embodied
in writing, because it was given in the course of many cnturies and comprises deeds and
events that are not repeated, but belong to the past, so th$ the knowledge of them would
soon be lost in oblivion, if they were not recorded and th* preserved for posterity. And it
was important that this knowledge should not be lost, si*e the divine revelation contains
eternal truths, that are pregnant with meaning for all timts, for all peoples, and under all
circumstances. Therefore, God provided for its inscriptuation, so that His revelation now
comes to us, not in the form of deeds and events, but as a description of these. In order to
guard it against volatilization, corruption, and falsificatioj, He gave it permanent form in
a

‘Kuyper, Principles of Sacred Theology, 363.

a 37
 S

writing. From this it follows that there is a very close connection between special revelation
and Scripture.1

c. The Nature ofits Preservation -

Not only do we gain crucial perspectives concerning the certainty and importance of the
preservation of redemptive revelation from its being the expression of God’s sovereign, redemptive -

purpose, but there is also a crucial perspective given us regarding the precise nature of its
preservation and inscripturation. Redemptive revelation was intended to be the instrument of
redemptive purpose. The purpose of its preservation and inscripturation was just "to bring this
central revelation within the reach of all ages and people," to use the words of Kuyper. The
question really at stake in the doctrine of Scripture and the discussions of inerrancy is whether the
preservation and inscripturation of the original redemptive revelation really makes available to us -

that revelation in its native glory and authority; or, whether that revelation is dimmed and diluted in
the process of inscripturation.

To this question the following reply must be given. It is not consistent with the character of God to
think that he would be so careless in the preservation of the Scriptures. It is inconsistent with the
entire purpose for which redemptive revelation was given to entertain the idea that it could be -

dimmed in the process of preservation. In the words of Kuyper, "This central instrument of
revelation is not placed in the midst of the world, in order that God may look on and see what man
will do with it," but that God’s sovereign purposes may be achieved by it.

It is not only the perfections of God, but also the depravity ofman which demands this view of the -

preservation and inscripturation of redemptive revelation. Just because it is a redemptive

revelation, it is addressed to men in their sinfulness, rebellion, pride, and perversity. The
redemptive revelation, therefore, must necessarily address them in an absolutely authoritative form. -
In any other form fallen human reason becomes the arbiter of what is and what is not redemptive
revelation. Man remains the final authority. Redemptive purpose is frustrated at an essential point.

The doctrine of inerrancy is simply the logical consequent of the preservation of redemptive -

revelation. It is simply the assertion that we possess redemptive revelation in its undimmed glory
and native authority.

B. Its Relation to the Activity of Redemption

S

We are accustomed to speak of redemption and revelation as two different entities with little
realization of the intimate, inseparable, and multi-faceted connection between them. Some
conception of this intimate connection and of the inseparable relation between them is of great
importance for a proper understanding of redemptive revelation. The following considerations
highiight this relation.

1. Redemption Includes Revelation.

‘Berkhof, Introduction to Systematic Theology, 141.

38
S
a

a. Its Demonstration

Redemptive revelation is a part of the redemptive work of c$xl. Revelation is one facet of
a
redemption. The category of redemption is broader than rede#ptive revelation. For instance,
while revelation is solely for the purpose of altering man’s *bjective condition, redemption
includes also the satisfaction ofdivine justice. Vos says:

Of course we should never forget that, wherever revelatioj and the redemptive acts of God
coincide, the latter frequently have an ulterior purpose ifrtending beyond the sphere of
a revelation. The crucifixion and resurrection of Christ wez+: acts not exclusively intended to
reveal something to man, but primarily intended to serve Øme definite purpose in reference
to God. In so far as they satisfied the divine justice it wuld be inaccurate to view them
a under the aspect of revelation primarily or exclusively.’

Redemption has both a Godward and manward reference while 4evelation is exclusively directed
toward man.

b. Its Implication

The implication of the above is that redemptive revelatio4 is not a mere attendant or
accompaniment of redemption. It is itself a redemptive act ofGoth Warfield comments:
a

Revelation thus appears, however, not as the mere reflectjn of the redeeming acts of God
in the minds of men, but as a factor in the redeeming worl of God, a component part ofthe
series of His redeeming acts, without which that series frould be incomplete and so far
inoperative for its maln end. Thus the Scriptures represtt it, not confounding revelation
with the series of the redemptive acts of God, but placing it among the redemptive acts of
a God and giving it a function as a substantive element in the operations by which the
merciful God saves sinful men. It is therefore no4 made even a mere constant
accompaniment of the redemptive acts of God, giving tl$ir explanation that they may be
a
understood. It occupies a far more independent place among them than this, and as
frequently precedes them to prepare their way as it accompthes or follows them to interpret
their meaning. It is, in one word, itself a redemptive act 4f God and by no means the least
important in the series of His redemptive acts.2

It is an interesting fact that the means by which God determined bring men into participation in
the accomplished redemption was by revealing that redemptive wrk to them. Also, the means by
which he determined to effect the redemption and renewal of mai’s internal condition was via the
revelation to man of the redemptive work of God. As an intellgent being the salvation of man
a
necessarily involved the impartation of such a knowledge of God. [Warfield emphasizes this;

‘Vos, Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation, 9.

2Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration, 12ff

- 39
 _
S

One of the most grievous of the effects of sin is the deformation of the image of God
reflected in the human mind, and there can be no recovery from sin which does not bring
with it the correction of this deformation and the reflection in the soul of man ofthe whole -

glory ofthe Lord God Almighty. Man is an intelligent being; his superiority over the brute
is found among other things, precisely in the direction of all his life by his intelligence; and
his blessedness is rooted in the true knowledge of his God-- for this is life eternal, that we
should know the only true God and Him whom He has sent. Dealing with man as an
intelligent being, God the Lord has saved him by means of a revelation, by which he has
S
been brought into an ever more and more adequate knowledge of God, and been led ever
more and more to do his part in working out his own salvation with fear and trembling as he
perceived with ever more and more clearness how God is working it out for him through S
mighty deeds of grace.’

The words of John Murray are classic and form a fitting conclusion to this first consideration.
Speaking of redemptive revelation, he says: "The revelation involved is always redemptively
conditioned, redemptively revelatory, and revelationally redemptive."2

2. Redemption is Revelation.

The redemptive acts of God are in the Scriptures often identified as revelation. Vos remarks:

The process of revelation is not only concomitant with history, but it becomes incarnate in
history. The facts of history themselves acquire a revealing significance. The crucifixion
and resurrection of Christ are examples ofthis. We must place act-revelation by the side of
word-revelation. This applies, of course, to the great outstanding acts of redemption. In
such cases redemption and revelation coincide.3 -

Redemption, then, not only includes revelation, redemption is revelation. As Vos says in another
place: S

We now must add that in not a few cases revelation is ident/Ied with history. Besides
malthig use of words, God has also employed acts to reveal great principles of truth. It is -

not so much the prophetic visions or miracles in the narrower sense that we think of in this
connection. We refer more specially to those great, supernatural, history-making acts of
which we have examples in the redemption of the covenant-people from Egypt, or in the -

crucifixion and resuirection of Christ. In these cases the history itself forms a part of
revelation. There is a self-disclosure of God in such acts. They would speak even if left to
speak for themselves.4 -

‘Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration, 13.

2John Murray, Collected Writings, Edinburgh: Banner ofTruth, 1976, 1:24.

3Vos, Biblical Theology, 15. -

4Geerhardus Vos, Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation Philipsburg, NJ:

S

40
a

God’s acts are words Isa. 56:1;Psa. 98:2; Jer. 33:6; 1 John 1:2; 3:[5; 3:8; Rom. 3:21. God’s words
are acts Psa. 107:20, 147:18; Psa. 33:6; Psa. 148:8; Isa. 55:11; d cf. Gen. l:3ff. Revelation is
the historical actualization of redemption. Note the fact that th Hebrew, DAVAR, rbd may
designate an act or event, as well as a word.

3. Redemption is accompanied by Revelation.

a. Stated

It must not be thought that God’s redemptive acts are the exelusi’e content of revelation. Berkhof
remarks, "Barth is equally wrong when he speaks as if the revel*on of God is factual rather than
verbal, and consists in redemptive acts rather than in a comn4nication of knowledge."’ This
misinterpretation of the idea that redemption is revelation is frequntly the mistake of neo-orthodox
thinkers who define revelation in terms of acts, event, and encoun*r. Warfield comments:

So express is its relation to the development of the kingdç rn of God itself, or rather to that
great series of Divine operations which are directed to tlj building up of the kingdom of
God in the world, that it is sometimes confounded with t1 rn, or thought of as simply their
reflection in the contemplating mind ofman. Thus it is nol infrequently said that revelation,
meaning this special redemptive revelation, has been com unicated in deeds, not in words;
and it is occasionally elaborately argued that the sole mi flner in which God has revealed
Himself as the Saviour of sinners is just by performing tli se mighty acts by which sinners
are saved. This is not, however, the Biblical representatiot :2

Thus, it is necessary also to assert that redemption is accompani4l by revelation. The redemptive
acts by which God opens a way for Himself to be favorable 4o men are not only a word of
revelation to men, but are always attended with explanatory word to men. Since these explanatory
words are necessary aspects of the redemptive process, they
redemptive acts of God. Vos argues:
4 themselves in a broader sense

we must remember that the revealing acts of God neverappear separated from His verbal
communications of truth. Word and act always accotpany each other, and in their
interdependence strikingly illustrate our former stateme4 to the effect that revelation is
organically connected with the introduction of a new ordeç ofthings into this sinful world.
Revelation is the light of this new world which God has e$lled into being. The light needs
the reality and the reality needs the light to produce the ‘vfision of the beautiful creation of
His grace. To apply the Kantian phraseology to a highç subject, without God’s acts the

Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980, 9.

a
‘Berkhof, Introduction to Systematic Theology, 137.

- 2Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration, 11, 12.

41
 S

words would be empty, without His words the acts would be blind.’

b. Demonstrated
S

The point being made is patent in the Scriptures, but note especially the use of yvcopgco in Rom.
16:26; John 15:15, 17:26. Cf. also John 17:14; Titus 1:3; Eph. 1:17ff. In the Old Testament note
especially Amos 3:7. Very instructive is the record of the redemptive act of God in saving the -

Israelites in the Red Sea crossing. Note the explanatory word accompanying it both before and
afterthe event, Cf. Exod. 14:13-18 and Exod. 15:1-21. Warfield argues:
S

According to the biblical representations, the fundamental element in revelation is not the
objective process of redemptive acts, but the revealing operations of the Spirit of God,
which run through the whole series of modes of communication proper to Spirit, -

culminating in communications by the objective word. The characteristic element in the

Bible idea of revelation in its highest sense is that the organs of revelation are not creatively
concerned in the revelations made through them, but occupy a receptive attitude. The -

contents of their messages are not something thought out, inferred, hoped, or feared by
them, but something conveyed to them, often forced upon them by the irresistible might of
S
the revealing Spirit. No conception can do justice to the Bible idea of revelation which
neglects these facts. Nor is justice done even to the rational idea of revelation when they
are neglected. Here, too, we must interpret by the highest category in our reach. "Can man
commune with man," it has been eloquently asked, "through the high gift of language, and -

is the Infinite mind not to express itself, or is it to do so but faintly or uncertainly, through
dumb material symbols, never by blessed speech?" W. Morrison, "Footprints of the
Revealer," p. 52.2 -

c. Improved

From the foregoing we may conclude that redemptive revelation may be defmed as the chronicle
and commentary of redemptive event. It is not merely a chronicle of redemptive event as some -

believe. This theory forgets not only the transcendence of God and his acts, but especially the very
darkness of the human mind which redemption is intended to remedy. The native darkness of the
fallen mind is such that it is not sufficient for the Bible merely to chronicle redemptive event and -
leave its interpretation to fallible and fallen men. The Bible must include a commentary on the
meaning ofredemptive event also.

On the other hand, many orthodox Christians have forgotten that the redemptive revelation as we -

have it in the Bible is primarily the chronicle and commentary of redemptive event. Berkhof
properly asserts that revelation is not merely the communication of doctrine.3 The Bible is neither a -

‘Vos, Redemptive History, 9f.

S

2Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration, pp. 44,45.

‘Berkhof, Introduction to Systematic Theology, 137. Note Kuyper also in Principles..., 363.

42
-
a

catechism, systematic theology, or legal code. Though it may inc4g1e or form the basis for all these
things, it is primarily the documentation of a part of human 1ff;: Kuyper well says: "The Holy
Bible is, therefore, neither a law-book nor a catechism, but the 4scumentation of a part of human
lfe, and in that human life ofa divine process."t

4. Redemption controls Revelation.

Introduction:

The assertions that 1 redemption includes revelation, 2 that redmption is revelation, and 3 that
redemption is accompanied by revelation ground a fourth assSion concerning the relation of
redemption and revelation: redemption controls revelation. What do I mean by this assertion?
What I am saying is that the intimate connection between redempion and revelation means that the
structure of redemptive revelation is governed by the unfolding jfedemptive activity of God. The
organization and architecture of revelation is the reflection of t$ redemptive process. Warfield
states emphatically that revelation’s "progressive unfolding stancl4 in a very express relation to the
of God’s redmptive work."2 The control exercised by tedemption upon the structureprogres of
redemptive revelation becomes visible in three ways:

a a. In its Organic and Progressive De4lopment.

b. In its Creative and Continuative Di4inction.
c. In its Objective and Subjective Divttion.

a. In its Organic and Progressive Dev4Lopment.

1 Its Derivation

Redemption is organic and progressive in its development. Th$ revelation must be organic and
progressive in its development. Vos says;

Although the knowledge of God has received material increase through the ages, this
increase nowhere shows the features of external accretin, but throughout appears as an
internal expansion, an organic unfolding from within. The elements oftruth, far from being
mechanically added one to the other in lifeless successij, are seen to grow out of each
other, each richer and fuller disclosure of the knowledge :Pf God having been prepared for
by what preceded, and being in its turn preparatory for 4at follows. That this is actually
so, follows from the soteriological purpose which revelation in the fir St instance is intended
to serve. At times, from the very first to the last, reve$led truth has been kept in close
contact with the wants and emergencies of the living genration. And these human needs,
notwithstanding all variations of outward circumstance, eing essentially the same in all
periods, it follows that the heart of divine truth, that by $ijch men live, must have been

a
‘Kuyper, Principles..., 377.

2Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration, 46.

a 43
 S

present from the outset, and that each subsequent increase consisted in the unfolding of -

what was germinally contained in the beginning of revelation. The Gospel of Paradise is
such a germ in which the Gospel of Paul is potentially present; and the Gospel of Abraham,
of Moses, of David, of Isaiah and Jeremiah, are all expansions of this original message of -

salvation, each pointing forward to the next stage of growth, and bringing the Gospel idea
one step nearer to its full realization. In this Gospel of Paradise we already discern the
essential features of a covenant-relation, though the formal notion of a covenant does not
attach to it. And in the covenant-promises given to Abraham these very features reappear,
assume greater distinctness, and are seen to grow together, to crystallize as it were, into the
formal covenant.’ -

2 Its Explanation

"Every increase is progressive, but not every increase bears an organic character."2 These
perceptive words of Vos point to the necessity and importance of understanding the words "organic -

and progressive." The idea of organic progression is of utmost significance.

Organic progress has a twofold significance:

a Organic progress indicates that there is no initial

imperfection in that which is increased. -

It is necessary to use the adjective, organic, to avoid the idea of the initial imperfection of
progressive revelation. This would contradict its divine perfection. Progressive revelation is not
progress from the false to the true or from, the worse to the better. Organic progression involves
neither ofthese. It is the progress of growth: that of baby to adult, acorn to oak, or bud to flower.3
Only this kind of progression allows for "the soteric sufficiency"4 of redemptive revelation from the
beginning. Since revelation is only given as the issue of redemptive purpose, we must affirm that
the revelation given to Adam and Eve after the fall was possessed of "soteric sufficiency." In other
words it was sufficient to mediate salvation to Adam and Eve if they believed it.

This raises the question, What is necessary to be known to exercise saving faith? The following
texts shedlightonthis importantissue Luke 1:6, 2:25, 2:38, 7:18-23; Man. 11:11; Luke 23:51. It
is clear from these texts that some acquaintance with the promises, grace, and Savior ofredemptive
revelation is necessary.
S

This idea of organic progression as opposed to initial imperfection enables us to maintain a

balanced view when extremists degrade or exalt the Old Testament revelation. It is particularly

‘Vos, Redemptive History..., 111; Berkhof, Introduction to Systematic Theology, 1361

2Vos, Biblical Theology, 15.

3Vos, Redemptive History..., 10ff.

4Vos, Biblical Theology, 15.

44
S
a

those tinged with liberalism who degrade Old Testament revelation. They believe that progressive
revelation equals the imperfection of revelation at least in its i4tial stages. However, we would
not say that a baby is imperfect because it is not a man.’ Redemptive revelation is perfect at every
stage ofits progress because its progress is that of organic growthfrom acorn to sapling to oak.

On the other hand conservative believers ofien are guilty of over-’tfr ating the detailed knowledge
of redemption possessed by Old Testament believers. Withot4 previous knowledge one could
never deduce the exalted oak from the lowly acorn. Progress is oui$nic. but it is still progress.

b Organic progress lso indicates that there is no

external accretion in that which is increased.

The idea of organic progress shields us from the idea that tAe increase to be discovered in
- redemptive revelation comes by way of external accretion. ¶e difference between external
accretion and organic progress may be illustrated by way of the d*’erence between the opening ofa
flower, and the growth of a baby, on the one hand, and the st$ldng of blocks or bullding of a
house. The different covenants are the gradual unfolding of the ud of the original promise Eph.
2:12; 2 Cor. 1:20.

a This opposition between organic progression and external accröton warns against systems where
progress is artificial and external. Dispensationalism with its dis$jnction between two purposes of
God in history two peoples of God, with different destinies, dfferent laws, and even to some
degree different ways of salvation illustrates such artificial and e$ternal progress. Its dispensations
are stacked one on the other with little connection between the piceding and succeeding and great
parentheses separating dispensations that are similar. Paedobjtism and its form of covenant
theology tends to a static uniformity with progress limited to e1nges in its external sacramental
administration. The contrast between the Westminster and the 1 89 Baptist Confessions treatment
of the subject of God’s covenant is very illustrative here. Note Ctapter 7 of both documents.2 The
1689 emphasizes the gradual unfolding of the covenant of gra& The Westminster’s treatment is
marked by an artificial, simplistic, and superficial contrast betweqi. the time ofthe law and the time
of the gospel in which the development appears to be mainly tht it was administered in different
ordinances. In an organic system features may be temporary, appearing only to later fall away.
Note the illustrations of baby teeth, the change of caterpillar to $ztterfly, the transition of trunk to
branches. This fact is, however, logically unacceptable to such a. system as paedobaptist covenant
theology because it is intent on maintaining a maximum of unirnñty in every era and reducing
any development that could undermine its polemic for paedobaptim.

a
. b. In its Creative and Continuative Distinction

The thought that redemption controls revelation involves the ditinction between its creative and
continuative periods. If revelation is the chronicle and comment4iy of redemptive events, if it is a

‘Vos, Biblical Theology, 15.

2Cf. Sam Waidron’s A Modern Exposition of the 1689 $4Ptist Confession ofFaith
Darlington, England: Evangelical Press, 1999, 111-114.

a 45
 S

word-deed complex, it is not surprising that revelation accumulates around the crucial junctures of -

redemptive history. Its creative periods parallel the creative periods of God’s redemptive acts.
Speaking ofredemption, Vos helpfully remarks: -

The latter being organically progressive, the former had to partake of the same nature.
Where redemption takes slow steps, or becomes quiescent, revelation proceeds accordingly.
But redemption, as is well known, is eminently organic in its progress. It does not proceed
with uniform motion, but rather is "epochal" in its onward stride. We can observe that
where great epoch-making redemptive acts accumulate, there the movement ofrevelation is
correspondingly accelerated and its volume increased. Still further, from the organic
character of revelation we can explain its increasing multiformity, the latter being
everywhere a symptom of the development of organic life. There is more of this
multiformity observable in the New Testament than in the Old, more in the period of the
prophets than in the time ofMoses.’

A quick review of biblical revelation corroborates this point. Note how revelation accumulates
around the following periods and thins out between them. While in creative periods the forces of
revelation are acting at their maximum, during continuative periods the Spirit is active but mainly 5

on the basis ofwhat has already been revealed as a preparation to a new advance.

THE CREATIVE PERIODS OF REDEMPTIVE REVELATION -

Date NameAproximate Princpal Figures

4000 B.C. The Primitive Period Adam and Eve -

2400 B.C. The Noahic Period Noah
2000 B.C. The Patriarchal Period Abraham Joseph
- -

1500 B.C. The Mosaic Period Moses, Aaron, Joshua

1000 B.C. The Davidic Period Samuel, David, Solomon
800-400 B.C. The Exilic Period Pre and Post-exilic prophets
A.D. 0-100 The Messianic Period John the Baptist, Christ, Apostles

Note the large gaps of time between the creative periods. -

The creative periods correspond to times of divine covenants. The two exceptions prove this point.
The primitive period contains the mother promise unfolded in the successive covenants. It is
perhaps covenantal itself The exilic period records the breaking of the Old and the promise of the
New Covenant.2
S

‘Vos, Biblical Theology, 16, 106 and Redemptive History..., 121

2This creative-eontinuative contrast may also be illustrated in the patriarchs. The -

lifetimes of Abraham and Jacob were creative periods. Isaac’s lifetime was comparatively
passive and continuative in character. The divine act of creation followed by the continuative
period of conservation also illustrates the point.

46
S
a

- This distinction between the creative and continuative periods o redemptive revelation raises an
important question. Do any creative periods remain in redempti4 history in which we can expect
further revelation? Our study of the biblical terminology constr$tis us to answer this question in
the affirmative.1 The second coming of Christ is His revelation zd appearing and the time when
he makes all things new. This redemptive event will be and will e4tail revelation 1 John 3:1-3.

A crucial qualification must, however, be remembered. The seco!$l advent consummates the work
of redemption and in so doing supercedes that state of affairs wIeh first necessitated redemptive
revelation. God, once again, dwells with men as he did before tl*. fall Rev. 21:3; 1 Cor. 15:28.
a While redemptive revelation has its unending fruit in this eternal $tEte and the knowledge given by
it is retained, as to its form it is superseded. The picture of Christ is superceded by his presence-
the oracles of God by the vision of God.2 The second advent of Christ consummates redemptive
- revelation only to abolish its necessity in the sense described abovie.

Thus, the New Testament insists on the finality of the revelation $ven in the first advent of Christ.
- Vos argues:

Every organic development serves to embody an idea; ar$ as soon as this idea has found
full and adequate expression, the organism receives the stanp of perfection and develops no
further. Because the New Testament times brought th* final realization of the divine
counsel of redemption as to its objective and central acts, therefore New Testament
revelation brought the full-grown Word of God, in whicii the New-born world, which is
complete in Christ, mirrors itself. In this final stage ofievelation the deepest depths of
eternity are opened up to the eye of Apostle and Seer. Heice, the frequent recurrence of the
expression, ‘before the foundation ofthe world." We feeljat every point that the last veil is
drawn aside and that we stand face to face with the discl$ure of the great mystery which
was hidden in the divine purpose through the ages. All sa$lvation, all truth in regard to man,
has its eternal foundation in the triune God Himself It is jiis triune God who here reveals
Himself as the everlasting reality, from whom all truth proeeds, whom all truth reflects, be
it the little streamlet of Paradise or the broad river of the t’ew Testament losing itself again
in the ocean of eternity. After this nothing higher can come.3

The epistle to the Hebrews bears eloquent witness to the finality qf the revelation in Christ in Heb.
a
1:1-2. Note the aorist tense ofv. 2. The prophets have given wa$’ to the Son, the Old to the New,
the earthly to the heavenly, the weak to the mighty, the tempqrary to the eternal. No further
a
revelation, no higher stage is conceivable before the actual consun$mation ofall things.

c. Its Objective and Subjective Divisidn

‘Vos, Biblical Theology, 15.

2Kuyper, Principles ..., 369ff.

3Vos, Redemptive History ..., 13.

a 47
 a

The inseparable connection between redemptive activity and redemptive revelation yields a third -

significant insight into the structure of revelation. Vos distinguishes between objective-central acts
of redemption and subjective-individual acts. The crucifixion and resurrection are objective and
central, regeneration and justification are subjective and individual.1 Vos’ point is well taken, but -

the parallel must be extended. Just as redemption must be distinguished into its ‘objective-central
acts" on the one hand and it subjective individual acts on the other so also must revelation. The
biblical terminology for revelation as for redemption does not stop short of individual saving
enlightenment. This does not negate the possibility of distinguishing between objective-central and
subjective-individual revelation. No more than the use of the same terminology negates the
distinction between redemption accomplished and applied. While the Bible does not make this
distinction in its terminology, it does make it in its conceptions. The fmality of the revelation in
Christ Heb. 1 :2,2 and the distinctive authority of the Apostles as witnesses of Christ Heb. 2:3, 4
demands that we distinguish between objective-central revelation and subjective-individual -

revelation.3

It is interesting to note that according to Heb. 2:3, 4 miracles are associated with the ministry of the -

apostles, "those who heard". Miracles are the distinctive accompaniments, vehicles, and
attestations ofobjective revelation.

This distinction, well grounded in redemptive history, is crucial in our dealing with and approach to
the charismatic movement. The distinctions between creative and continuative periods of
revelation and between objective and subjective revelation draw the line of demarcation between
the apostolic church and the present church which is crucial to resisting the argument of
Charismatics that the phenomena of that period are present in the same way today. Miraculous
phenomena are peculiarly present in creative periods ofobjective revelation and that kind of period -

was peculiar to the first advent of Christ and ceased with the passing of the Apostolic witnesses to
Christ. To expect the continuance of miraculous phenomena throughout the gospel age is contrary
to this feature of biblical revelation. To expect it to re-occur just prior to the second coming of -
Christ is to expect something for which we have no justification in the Bible. As we have seen, the
next period of objective revelation in redemptive history commences with the second advent of
Christ.

‘Note Vos, Biblical Theology, p.14 and Redemptive History ..., Sf. -

2Calvin comments as follows on Heb. 1:1 and 2: "And when he speaks of the last times, he
intimates that there is no longer any reason to expect any new revelation; for it was not a word in
part that Christ brought, but the fmal conclusion."

3The distinctive authority ofthe apostles as over against the rest ofthe church will be
opened in great detail in the treatment ofPart 3, Section 2 on the Canon of Scripture.

48
S
 C. Its Relation to the Redeemer Himself

One might also entitle this its relation to the Mediator ofRedempon, or the Christ of Redemption.
As with the sections on the purpose and activity of redemption, j :j5 our purpose to emphasize the
intimate and inseparable connection between redemptive revela$On and the Redeemer Himself
Our points will concern its relation to the Redeemer Himself:

1. As the Source ofRevelation

2. As the Theme ofRevelation
3. As the Culmination ofRevelation

I. As the Source of Revelation

As the Mediator of Creation, as well as redemption, Christ is 4$ source of all, even general or
creation, revelation John 1:1-3; Col. 1:16. It is, however, witifi redemptive revelation we now
have to do. The Son of God is the source of all redemptive retelation Matt. 11:27. The Old
a Testament prophets received their revelations from Him 1 Peteit 1:11; and perhaps Rev. 19:10.
The New Testament apostles were also the mouth pieces of Christ*:l Cor. 14:37; 2 Cor. 13:3; Rom.
10:14; Eph. 2:17; Acts 1:1.

2. As the Theme of Revelation H

The close relation between revelation and Christ is evinced in 4be fact that He is the theme of
revelation. This may be an implication of both 1 Peter 1:11 nd Rev. 19:10. The following
passages are most significant with reference to the theme of the Old Testament Scriptures: Luke
24:27 asserts that Jesus explained "the things concerning HimseSin "Moses and all the prophets"
and "in all the Scriptures." Luke 24:44 records Jesus saying that ‘iI things which are written about
Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must b fulfilled." The explicit reference
to all three parts ofthe Old Testament and the parallel reference inyerse 45 to "the Scriptures" as an
organic whole witnesses to the idea that Jesus is the theme of remptive revelation. John 1:45
records the Nathanael saying, "We have found Him of WhomHMoses in the Law and also the
Prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth." It is as if, almost, they had w4tten of nothing else. Notice also
Acts 3:18; 10:43; 13:27; 13:22; and cf. 2 Cor. 1:20f. 1 Cor. 2:2 t*es up this theme and enunciates
it for the New Testament Scripture. Cf also I Tim. 3:16.

The major epochs of revelation are defined by the progressive mrrowing of the designation of
Messiah. Vos says:

If, then, this supernatural process of transformation proceçds on organic principles, and if,
as we have shown, revelation is but the light accompanyii4 it in its course, the reflection of
its divine realities in the sphere of knowledge, we eannot escape from the conclusion that
revelation itself must exhibit a similar organic progress. n point of fact, we find that the
actual working of Old Testament redemption toward the pming of christ in the flesh, and
the advance of revealed knowledge concerning Christ, kp equal pace everywhere. The
various stages in the gradual concentration of Messiani prophecy, as when the human
nature of our Saviour is successively designated as the eed of the woman, the seed of

49
 S

Abraham, the seed of Judah, the seed of David, His figure assuming more distinct features
at each narrowing of the circle--what are they but disclosures of the divine counsel
corresponding in each case to new realities and new conditions created by His redeeming
power? And as in the history ofredemption there are critical stages in which the great acts
of God as it were accumulate, so we find that at such junctures the process of revelation is
correspondingly accelerated, and that a few years show, perhaps, more rapid growth and
greater expansion than centuries that lie between. For, although the development ofthe root -

may be slow and the stem and leaves may grow almost imperceptibly, there comes a time
when the bud emerges in a day and the flower expands in an hour to our wondering sight.’
Such epochs of quickened revelation were the times of Abraham, of Moses, of David, and
especially the days ofthe Son of man.2

seed of woman Primitive Period

-

seed of Abraham Patriarchal Period

-

seed of David Davidic Period

-

Even the Mosaic covenant can be seen as a foil against which the true seed of Abraham may stand
out against the national failure of the corporate seed. Perhaps the easiest way to point out the
thematic centrality of Christ is by seeing the Scriptures as a whole in terms of a great word-deed -

complex. Redemptive events are accompanied by explanatory words. Often both before and after
their occurrence, there is explanation.

Word ---> Deed <--- Word

The Christ event is the central theme of the Bible. The Old Testament Scripture may be seen as its
prophetic pre-interpretation and the New Testament Scripture as its apostolic post-interpretation.

PROPHETS ---> CHRIST <--- APOSTLES -

One way ofviewing this is to see Christ as revealed between the testaments. Like the Trinity, He is
foreseen in the Old Testament and assumed in the New Testament.3 This christocentric character of
revelation must not be taken in a woodenly narrow or restricted fashion. To preach Christ only
demands the preaching of the demands, example, and laws of Christ. Note 1 Tim. 4:11, cf v.6; 1 -
Tim. 5:7; 1 Tim. 6:2, 17ff.; and Acts 24:24,25.

3. As the Culmination ofRevelation

a. He is the supreme instance of the principle that redemption is

‘Cf T. D. Bernard, The Progress ofDoctrine in the New Testament, p. 44. -

2Vos, Redemptive History..., 12.

3Vos has a slightly different perspective in his Biblical Theology, 15. He puts the gospels at
the center with the Old Testament as the prior word and the rest ofthe New Testament as the -

subsequent word.

50
S
revelation. The Redeemer is the Word of God John 1:14-18; Rev. 19:11.

b. He is the supreme instance of the principle of analogical revelation.

We know God only in terms of human analogies. In Christ qod has become a man to reveal
himself to men in terms oftheir experience.

c. He is the consummation of the process of redemptive revelation

Heb. l:1-2a.

In Heb. 1:1 -2a the culmination of redemptive revelation in Chrjt is taught by way of a contrast
between the first speaking of God and the second speaking ofGo4.’ The contrast:

THE CONTRASTS OF HEBREWS!I:1-2A

Old Revelation The New Ràvelation

The

Its Time: "Long Ago" "In these last days"

Its Recipients: "The Fathers: "us"
Its Messenger: "in the prophets" "in Son"Q
Its Modes: "in many ways"2 "in Son"l
Its Completeness: "in many portions" "in Son"O

Notes:

1 The anarthrous Son emphasizes the quality and character of the noun. "In one who is Son."

2 The many modalities of Old Covenant revelation are contrasted with the modality of the
Incarnation.2

Not simply discontinuity, but aspects of continuity are stressed in this passage.

The Old Revelation The New Revelation

Its Speaker: God God

Its Condition: Completed Aorist Participle Completed Aorist Indicative

Three points conspire to emphasize the finality of the New reveation: 1 The aorist tense 2
The contrast between "successive portions" and the speaking in; Son"3 3 The contrast between
"long ago" and "in these last days".4

1B. F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews Grand Rapid Eerdmans, 1977, 3ff.

2Westcott, Hebrews, 5.

3Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, Hebrews Grand Rapids: Eerans, 1977, 36.

4F. F. Bruce, Hebrews, 3.

51
 -

Application of this point must be made along three lines: -

1 The finality of God’s speaking in Son creates a viewpoint on redemptive history -

inhospitable to the Charismatic movement.’

2 There can be no separation ofChrist and revelation and in particular no separation ofChrist -

and inscripturated revelation. Our possession of Christ. and revelation is simultaneous because
Christ is revelation and is known only through revelation.2

3 The final speaking of God in His Son is mediated to the church in the Apostolic witness.
Only in fellowship with the Apostolic witness to and the prophetic vision of Christ do we find
fellowship with Christ and God 1 John 1:1-3; Heb. 2:1-4. Only through reception of the
Apostolic message do we encounter Jesus Christ. Only in the fellowship of the Apostles as the
authoritative messengers of Christ do we have fellowship with Christ.
S

‘This speaking of God in His Son assumes its Apostolic mediation to the church Heb. 2:3,
4. Also the finality ofthis speaking assumes the uniqueness and cessation ofthe Apostolic office.

2Cornelius Van Til, Doctrine of Scripture, 61.

52
SECTION 3: ITS IMPARTATION--THE VARIOUS MODES OF REDEMPTIVE
REVELATION

Introduction:

Hebrews 1: 1-2a contrasts the variety of God’s speaking in the Olt Testament period with the unity
of his climactic speaking in His Son. Many were the messenge4 prophets is plural; many were
the portions moXuppcoç; many were the modes itokinpomwç by which God spoke of old. This
last point is our present interest. The word, itoXutpoitwç, point4 up the complexity which exists
with reference to the modes or modalities of redemptive revelation..

Many different methods of organizing these modalities have ben suggested. Some attempt no
organization and simply list.’

The complexity increases as one attempts to include the Incarnatibn as a mode of revelation. Heb.
1 :2a with its anarthrous "in Son" cv uuo seems to contrast the;pany modes of revelation in the
Old Testament period with the mode of revelation in Son. Speald woXutpoitoç is set over against
speaking cv two. The uniqueness of the Incarnation argues ag$flst its being collated with other
modes ofrevelation. Warfield remarks:

All, that is, except the culminating revelation, not throug$, but in, Jesus Christ. As in His
person, in which dwells all the fullness of the Godl*ad bodily, He rises above all
classification and is sui generis; so the revelation accumul$ted in Him stands outside all the
divers portions and divers manners in which otherwise re$lation has been given and sums
up in itself all that has been or can be made known of Go4and ofHis redemption. He does
not so much make a revelation of God as Himself is thØ revelation of God; He does not
merely disclose God’s purpose of redemption, He is 4nto us wisdom from God, and
righteousness and sanctification and redemption. The thecphanies are but faint shadows in
comparison with His manifestation of God in the flesh. Ibe prophets could prophesy only
as the Spirit of Christ which was in them testified, reve4iig to them as to servants one or
another of the secrets of the Lord Jehovah; from Him as His Son, Jehovah has no secrets,
but whatsoever the Father knows that the Son knows als*. Whatever truth men have been
made partakers of by the Spirit oftruth is His for all thixis whatsoever the Father hath are
His and is taken by the Spirit of truth and declared t6 men that He may be glorified.
Nevertheless, though all revelation is thus summed up i4 Him, we should not fall to note
very carefblly that it would also be all sealed up in Him--ho little is revelation conveyed by
fact alone, without the word--had it not been thus taken 1y the Spirit of truth and declared
unto men. The entirety of the New Testament is but the explanatory word accompanying
and giving its effect to the fact of Christ. And when thiS fact was in all its meaning made
the possession of men, revelation was completed and in bat sense ceased. Jesus Christ is
no less the end of revelation than He is the end of the LaW

‘Klooster, Introduction to Systematic Theology, unpublis syllabus, 67.

2Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration, 28.

53
 -
With Klooster, I adopt Warfield’s organization of the modes ofrevelation as follows:

External Manifestations especially Theophany -

II. Internal Suggestion especially Prophecy

III. Concursive Operation especially Inspiration

This division and sequence may reflect the successive domination of revelation by these modes in -

three major periods in the history ofrevelation.

Three distinct steps in revelation have been discriminated from this point of view. They are
distinguished precisely by the increasing independence of revelation of the deeds
constituting the series ofthe redemptive acts ofGod, in which, nevertheless, all revelation is
a substantial element. Discriminations like this must not be taken too absolutely; and in the
present instance the chronological sequence cannot be pressed. But, with much interlacing,
three generally successive stages of revelation may be recognized, producing periods at
least characteristically of what we may somewhat conventionally call theophany, prophecy
and inspiration. What may be somewhat indefinitely marked off as the Patriarchal age is
characteristically "the period of Outward Manifestations, and Symbols, and Theophanies": -

during it "God spoke to men through their senses, in physical phenomena, as the burning
bush, the cloudy pillar, or in sensuous forms, as men, angels, etc.. . In the Prophetic age,
.

on the contrary, the prevailing mode of revelation was by means of inward prophetic -

inspiration": God spoke to men characteristically by the movements of the Holy Spirit in
their hearts. "Prevailingly, at any rate from Samuel downwards, the supernatural revelation
was a revelation in the hearts of the foremost thinkers of the people, or as we call it,
prophetic inspiration, without the aid of external sensuous symbols of God" A. B.
Davidson, OT Prophecy, 1903, p. 148; cf. pp. 12-14, 145ff.. This internal method of
revelation reaches its culmination in the New Testament period, which is preeminently the -

age of the Spirit. What is especially characteristic of this age is revelation through the
medium of the written word, what may be called apostolic as distinguished from prophetic
inspiration. The revealing Spirit speaks through chosen men as His organs, but through -
these organs in such a fashion that the most intimate processes of their souls become the
instruments by means of which He speaks His mind. Thus at all events there are brought -

clearly before us three well-marked modes of revelation, which we may perhaps designate
respectively, nQt with perfect discrimination, it is true, but not misleadingly, 1 external
manifestations, 2 internal suggestion, and 3 concursive operation.’

This order is also suggestive of an increasing intimacy in the operations ofthe revealing God in the
immediate human recipients ofthat revelation. It suggests an increasing union between the divine -

and human in these successive modes ofrevelation.2

‘Warfield, Revelation & Inspiration, 14-15.

2Warfleld, Revelation and Inspiration, 15ff.

54
S
 I. External Manifestations

Introduction:

The simplest enumeration and division of the external manifestations is as follows: 1 Personal
Manifestations including angelophany, theophany, and, if included under this head, Incarnation and
Christophany. 2 Impersonal Manifestations including miracles, the lot, and the Urim and
Thuinmim. Theophany is the highest and typical form of external manifestation. Warfield says:

Theophany may be taken as the typical form of "external nanifestation"; but by its side may
be ranged all of those mighty works by which God nakes Himself known, including
express miracles, no doubt, but along with them every supernatural intervention in the
affairs of men, by means of which a better understanding communicated of what God is
or what are His purposes of grace to a sinful race.’

The following outline will be, therefore, a convenient way of dea1$g with this subject.
a

A. Non-theopanic External Manifestations

B. Theophany

A. Non-theophanic external manifestations

1. TheLot

a. Its Uses

The lot was used on several occasions in the Old Testament:

1 On the day of atonement it was used to choose the scapegoat Qev. 1 6:8ff..
2 During the division of the land it was used to decide the inherttances ofthe tribes Josh. 14:2.
3 Duringthe division of the land it was used to choose the eitidof the Levites Josh. 21:4
4 During criminal investigation it was used to isolate the guijity man Josh. 7; 1 Sam. 14:42;
Jonah 1:7.
5 During the allotment of Assignments it was used to distribute 4uties 1 Chron. 24:5; Luke 1:9.

b. Its Character

The character of the lot is epitomized in two passages in Proverbs Prov. 16:33; 18:18. It was the
Lord who stood behind the lot as the true revealer Prov. l6:.33. The lot was used to avoid
contention in difficult situations Prov. 18:18. These facts prespppose the lack of any previous
revelation by which to decide these situations. This in turn sggests that the lot will be used
decreasingly as the light of revelation increases. This, in fact, oe4r. As prophecy is unfolded the
lot retires into the background. The approving mention of the loti in Proverbs and the use of lot by

‘Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration, 15.

55
 S

the Apostles in Acts 1 causes one to draw back from affirming the lot to be completely obsolete.’
On the other hand, the fullness of revelation in Christ suggests that the present use is minimal and
only appropriate in cases where it is certain no appropriate revelation exists upon the basis ofwhich
to decide an issue.

2. The Urim and Thummim

The urim and thummim are mentioned in Exod. 28:30; Lev. 8:8; Num. 27:21; Deut. 33:8; 1
Sam. 28:6; Ezra 2:63; and Neh. 7:65. These Hebrew words mean literally "lights" and
"perfections." ISBE says:

these two words.... stand for two objects.... one denoting yes or its equivalent, and the
other no. Whichever the high priest took from his ephod was believed to be the answer to
the question asked."2

Connected as it was with the Levitical priestly office, no ground exists for its present use. Its
disappearance as a means of revelation is implied in Ezra 2:63 and Neh. 7:65.

3. Miracles

a. The Biblical Tenninology

1 Works

The Hebrew words for this may be transliterated ma’shim and ‘aliloth. The Greek word is
spya which when used in a technical sense refers to a miracle means a divine act.

2 Wonders -

The Hebrew words for this may be transliterated pele’, niphla’oth, mophthim. The Greek word is
tspa’ra which means an unusual or extraordinary occurrence which fills us with amazement. -

3 Powers

The Hebrew word is gebhuroth. The Greek is 6uvapnç which refers to the divine power displayed
in the occurrence.

4 Signs

‘There was, however, a unique reason for the use ofthe lot in Acts 1. Apostles could only
be chosen by the Lord Christ Himself and could not be chosen by the suffiage ofthe disciples.
Thus, the lot was used to reveal the mind of Christ in this matter.

2The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Wilmington, DE: Associated Publishers

and Authors, n.d., 5:86 1ff.

56
 The Hebrew word may be transliterated ‘oth. The Greek cnuscw designates the revelatory value of
the occurrence as embodying or attesting truth.

It is to be noted that strictly speaking there is no single, biblic$ word precisely identical to the
English word, miracle. The four words used in the Greek testament are, however, used alone and
frequently used in combination to refer to what we call miracles.

b. The Proper Definition:

The definition which will here be defended is as follows: A miracle is an extraordinary,

redemptive, external manifestation of the power of God which poducing astonishment in men is
redemptively revelatory.

This definition is derived from and embodies the three specific conceptions ofmiracles given in the
biblical terminology. They are:
1 works or powers. [In other words, they are "an extraordiniy manifestation of the power of
God."
2 wonders [In other words, they are things "producing astonishnwnt in men."]
3 signs [They are things which are "revelatory of redemption."

c. The Foundational Distinction

This definition embodies a specific conception of the distinctiop necessary to any definition of
miracle. But before the proper distinction is defended, severa improper distinctions must be
a mentioned.

1 Improper Distinctions

a Miracle vs. Nature

Berkouwer and Kuyper have assailed the conception of miracle as an act of God against nature
contra naturam. They have properly judged that the idea of ithiiacle as against nature often is
constructed along deistic lines. Kuyper well says:
a

Are we now justified in saying that miracle antagonize$ nature, violates natural law, or
transcends nature? We take it, that all these representations are deistic and take no account
of the ethical element. If you take the cosmos as a j*oduct wrought by God, which
henceforth stands outside of Him, has become disordered, and now is being restored by
Him from without, with such a mechanical-deistical repreentation you must make mention
of something that is against or above nature; but at th penalty of never understanding
miracle. This is the way the watchmaker does, who m*es the watch and winds it, and,
when it is out of order, repairs it with his instruments; but pch is not the method pursued in
the re-creation. God does not stand deistically over ag$$bst the word, but by immanent
power He bears and holds it in existence. That which yt gall natural power or natural law
is nothing but the immanent power of God and the will otGod immanently upholding this

57
 power, while both of these depend upon His transcendent counsel.’

b Mediate vs. Immediate Power

Theologians sensitive to this difficulty have reverted to a distinction between the immediate and
mediate power of God. The immediate power of God is then viewed as interrupting the mediate
power of God operating in nature through second causes. Difficulties exist with this distinction.
This distinction, for instance, removes the crossing of the Red Sea from the category of miracle
since the second cause of an east wind was involved Exod. 14:21. When created media are
eliminated as means ofmiracle, many things commonly thought ofas miracles cease to be so. Note
Isa. 37:36 and also all the angelic interventions in history. No stress is laid on such a distinction or
the absence of means in the biblical accounts.

Nowhere do we notice a tendency to preserve the miraculous by eliminating agents or

instruments from Divine activity. It is calmly reported that the wind divided the waters of
the Red Sea Ex. 14:21. But the miracle of the Red Sea is robbed of none of its
miraculousness by the use of this means. Neither does Scripture ascribe miracles
exclusively to God, without man having a role in them. We read that God sent Moses to do
signs and miracles

c Psychically ordinary vs. psychically novel

The rejection of such conceptions may seem to reduce a miracle to any surprising or novel event.
Since miracle may not be defined in terms of a distinction in the power of God, it is then defined in
terms of a distinction in the human psyche. This would be equally wrong. The naming of
miraculous events not oniy as wonders, but powers, asserts that some distinction in the operation of
God’s power is necessary in their definition.

2 Proper distinction

a Its Statement -

A distinction between mediate and immediate operations of divine power is not stressed with
reference to miracles. Nevertheless, another distinction is: the distinction between God’s
operations as creator and his operations as redeemer. Note the definition "an extraordinary
redemptive manifestation of the power of God." A miracle proceeds-to use Kuyper’s
terminology-from the special, and not the natural, principium in God.3 Note the other uses of the
Biblical tenninology with reference to God’s works of creation.

b Its Relevance for the Nature ofMiracles

‘Kuyper, Principles ofSacred Theology, 425

2Berkouwer, The Providence of God, 206ff

3Kuyper, Principles ofSacred Theology, 425

58
 This means, first of all, that miracles are not directed against n4ue contra naturam but against
sin contra peccatum. Berkouwer remarks: H

This is why the miraculous power ofthe kingdom is not 4@tected contra naturam but contra
peccatum and against the horrible consequences of sin. 3od and nature do not collide in
miracles; the kingdom and guilt, the kingdom of God an4 the kingdom of darkness clash.
The devils are cast out by the Holy Ghost with the comig of the kingdom Man. 12:28.
Unbelief absolutizes the world, making it autonomous afl* cut off from its origin. In faith
man again sees the world as in the hand of God andis made a communicant in His
redeeming activity.’

Miracles are directed, then, against a wrong absolutizing of the siifiul world order by the sinner.

This does not, however, yet give us a distinction in the powe of God, but only in the human
psyche. Thus, secondly, while miracles are not contra naturam, bey are supra naturam. Creation
cannot save itself through its inherent potency. Miracles are not $ainst nature, but above nature.
Nature, here, of course, is defined in terms of God’s pervasive immanence and not deistically.
James On remarks, "The whole system ofnature, in its reciprocal[$lations, is a unity, and all, in the
last resort, depends on God, whose will, guided by his wisdom, s the ultimate law--the law of all
laws and cause of all causes."2

The Bible speaks of a creation icnai and a nature totç wlpch have predictable and limited
potency. This natural principium of God’s power is a predictab order. The Bible assumes that
man has a common knowledge of the limits of the created or4r. The potency of this natural
- principium cannot enable nature, the old creation, to reach its goat or redeem itself There is, thus,
the necessity of a new, special, operation if the creation is to be 4eemed and reach its goal. This
new, redemptive operation of God is different from His old cr$tive work. Not only as contra
peccatum, but as supra naturam, a miracle occasions wonder by it external manifestations.

d. The Revelatory Significance

1 Stated

This connection of miracle with God’s redemptive activity neceitates its indissoluble connection
with redemptive revelation. The operations of God’s power in citation were productive of natural
revelation Rom. 1:20. The operations of God’s power in redemj$ion are productive ofredemptive
revelation. This insight prevents the over-estimation of rnira4e as revelation. Miracle is not
uniquely revelatory. Every created reality witnesses to God. The uniqueness of miracle as
revelatory is that it is redemptively revelatory. It is ofparticulariterest to note in this connection
that the biblical terminology of miracle: power, sign, wonder, often occurs with reference to

‘Berkouwer, The Providence of God, 211.

2Orr as quoted by Warfield in Revelation and Inspiration, 4 12.

59
the revelation of God in the works of the old creation. This exegetical phenomenon confirms that -

the crucial distinction necessary to understand miracle is the distinction between the external
manifestation of God’s power in old creation and in new creation.

This definition embodies the indissoluble connection of miracle with redemption and redemptive
revelation. Note especially Acts 3:11-16; 4:29, 30; Heb. 2:4; Acts 6:8-10, 14:3; Rom. 15:19; 2 Cot
12:12. It is necessary to note two different distinctions here.

The first distinction is a distinction that must be made between miracles that stand in a typical
relation to the new creation and those which stand in a substantial relation to the new creation. In
other words, some miracles typify the new creation. Others are actually part of it.

If both these kinds of miracles, however strongly contrasted with each other, bear one and
the same character at heart, it is entirely different with the real miracles, which do not take
place as ensamples tvzucwç, but invade the world of reality. Only think of the birth if
Isaac, of the birth of Christ, of his resurrection, of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, etc.
The motive of these miracles, which form an entire class by themselves, lies elsewhere,
even in this, that the re-creation of our race could not be wrought simply by the individual
regeneration and illumination of the several elect, but must take place in the centrum of the
organism of humanity. And since this organism in its centrum also does not exist
psychically only, but at the same time physically, the re-creation of this centrum could not
be effected, except by the working being both psychical and physical, which is most vividly
felt in the mystery of the incarnation. The incarnation is the centrum of this entire central
action, and all miracles which belong to this category tend to inaugurate this incarnation, or
are immediate results of it, like the resurrection. All clearness in our view of the miracles
must be lost, if one neglects to distinguish between this category ofthe real-central miracles
and the category ofthe typical miracles in the periphery; or if it be lost from sight, that both
these real as well as these typical miracles stand in immediate connection with the all-
embracing miracle that shall sometime make an end ofthis existing order ofthings.1

The second distinctionis this: A distinction must be made with reference to the threefold relation
miracles sustain to redemptive revelation. Miracles embody redemptive revelation. Redemptive
acts are inherently revelatory. Notice the healings of the gospel. They reveal that redemption
extends to the material realm. Kuyper well says:

The very order, which is founded in the nature of our race, brings it to pass, that the re- -

creation of the body and of the cosmos tarries till the end. If thus the miracle as such, in
that special sense in which we here consider it, had not appeared until the parousia, the
saving power would have brought about none other but a spiritual effect. There would have
been regeneration, i.e. palingenesis of the psyche; but no more. A power would have
become manifest capable of breaking psychically the dominion of sin; but that the same
power would be able to abolish the misery, which is the result of sin, would have been
promised in the word, but would never have been manifested in the deed, and as an

‘Kuyper, Revelation and Inspiration, 424.

60
S
 unknown x would have been a stone of offence upon wI$ch faith would have stumbled.
The entire domain of the Christian hope would have xSained lying outside of us as
incapable of assimilation. This is only prevented by the fact, that already in this present
dispensation, by way of model or sample, the power of $lingenesis is shown within the
domain of matter. In that sense they are called "signs". AS such we are shown that there is
a power able to check every result of sin in the material world. Hence the rebuke of the
elements, the feeding without labor, the healing of the $ck, the raising of the dead, etc.;
altogether manifestation of power, which were not exh*isted in the effort at that given
moment to save those individuals for this all ratio suffici4ns was wanting; but which once
having taken place, were perpetuated by the tradition of the Scripture for all people and
every generation, in order to furnish a permanent foundatic%n to the hope of all generations.’

Miracles attest redemptive revelation. They verify the authentiity of the messengers’ of God.
Two further comments are necessary here. 1 Miracles do nqt create faith automatically.2 In
themselves they are no more capable of creating faith than th& Word of God they attest. Note
particularly Luke 16:29-31. 2 In another sense, redemptive revólation attests miracles. The mere
fact of a seeming miracle does not validate a message or a mesenger unless his message is also
consistent with previous revelation. Notice Deut. 13:1. There ate miracles which accompany the
appearance ofthe man of sin 2 Thess. 2:9. Says Berkouwer:

- It is remarkable that Scripture speaks in connection withthe future, of signs and miracles
which the anti-Christ will perform. We hear ofa future p4ousia of Satan, of his working in
power, in "signs and lying wonders, and with all deceit o$unrighteousness" II Thess. 2:9,
10. We hear of "spirits of demons, working signs; whith go forth unto the kings of the
whole world" Rev. 16:14. Great miracles are foretold:;:fire comes down out of heaven
upon the earth in the sight of men" Rev. 13:13. We alsotead that men will be deceived by
these miracles Rev. 13:14.

Finally, miracles typjfy redemptive revelation Heb. 6:5. "Mirac!es then become a sample of what
will happen when God’s power is fully expressed and when his rule becomes total."4

2 Applied:

If anything becomes clear in a study of miracles, it is the Correlation between redemption,

revelation, and miracle. The connection is multi-faceted and ilidissoluble. The occurrence of
miracles in history is, thus, governed by the structure of rØdemption and revelation. The
distinctions between creative and continuative periods in red*mptive revelation and between
objective redemptive revelation and subjective redemptive revelation also govern the occurrence of

‘Kuyper, Princzples ofSacred Theology, 422.

2Berkouwer, The Providence ofGod, 215, 225.

3Berkouwer, The Providence ofGod, p229ff.

4A. B. Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bible, GraND Rapids:Fjerdmans, 1966 9.

61
miracles. Miracles are connected with great epochs and persons of redemptive history. The
cessation of objective redemptive revelation with the close of the apostolic period creates the
presumption of the general cessation of miracles with the close of that period.

The close relation between redemption, revelation, and miraculous occurrence provides us with the
tool by which to thaw a line of demarcation between the apostolic period and the period succeeding
it till the end of the age.

4. Angelophany

Under this head we move from impersonal to personal external manifestations. My purpose is to
collate many of the most important texts where angels play a part in redemptive revelation.
Remember that the appearances of angels involve their taking for themselves a visible form.

a. Old Testament

The following passages are relevant: Gen. 18-19, 28:12, 32:1,2; Deut. 33:2; Job. 33:23; 1 Kings
13:18; Dan. 8:13, 9:11, 10:5; Zech. l:7f. The New Testament associates angels with the
preparatory period of redemptive revelation Heb. 1-2 and especially with the giving of the law of
Moses Acts 7:53; Gal. 3:19. The presence of angels manifested both its glory and its inferiority
as contrasted with the New Testament revelation Through the Son Heb. 2:2, 3.

b. New Testament

The activity ofangels in the New Testament may be analyzed as follows:

1 In the Life ofChrist they are associated with His

a Birth: Mart. 1:20,2:13,19; Luke 1:11, 2:9

b Ministry: Mart. 4:16
c Suffering: Matt. 26:53; Luke 22:43
d Resurrection and Ascension: Matt. 28:2,5; Luke
24:23; John 20:12; Acts 1:10
e Retutn: Mart. 16:27, 25:31; Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26; I
Thess. 3:l3f

2 In the Ministry ofthe Apostles they are also frequently active

NoticeActs5:19;8:26; 10:3, 11-13; l2:7;23:9;27:23;Rev.22:6, 16.

B. Theophany

1. Its Defmition

The term, theophany, is derived from Oco and 9atvw. Thus it means an appearance of God. The

62
term designates a manifestation of God to our natural senses, e49aeially to our eyes, in a visible
form. Theophany is to be distinguished from other external manistations of a revelatory character
whether impersonal miracles or personal angels. It is a direct personal, external manifestation
of God. On the other hand, theophany as an external manifestatin of God must be distinguished
from internal manifestations of God through visions or dreams. The visions and dreams of Gen.
15:1-21, 20:3-7, 37:5f, 46:2 are in striking contrast to the theoph4iic manifestations by which they
are surrounded in Genesis. By way ofillustration notice Gen. 1:2.; 2:16; 3:8-24; 4:6-7, 9-16; 5:24;
6:13-7:5; 8:15, 16; 9:1-17; 12:1-3; 12:7; 13:14-18 contrast lS:l-21k

2. Its Forms

Several different forms or kinds oftheophany may be distinguished.

a. There are anthropomorphic appearnces Genesis 12:7; l8:2f l7:1f

26:2f; 32:24t 35:91.

b. There are non-anthropic appearazies Exod. 3:2- 4:17; 13:21,22;

19:18-20; Mark 1:10.

c. There is direct speech without a isible appearance 1 Sam. 3:11;

Mark 1:11; 9:7; John 12:28, 29.

d. There are the appearances of"the angel of the Lord."

The following passages are relevant on this subject: Gen. 16:7$ 18:2f; 22:llf; 24:7, 40; 31:llf;
32:24f 48:1511; Exod. 3; 13:21; 14:19; Exod. 23:2011, 32:34-33i7; Num. 20:16; Josh. 5:13-6:2;
Judges 2:1-5; 6-llfl 13:2-23; Isa. 63:8,9.

Mystery and complexity pervade the subject of "The angel of the Lord." This being appears as a
divine messenger distinct from God. Notice Exod. 23:20; Isa. 3 :8,9. He is often identified as
God. Compare Exod. 23:21; Gen. 16:13; Exod. 3:2-7; Judges 6:jlf; 13:2-23. He is definitely not
an angel in the ordinary sense of the term. Notice Exod. 32:34-3:17 with 23:20ff; Gen. 48:l5f.
Oehler describes the most acceptable view of this angel. He say that He is "a self-presentation of
Jehovah entering into the sphere of the creature and is one in esse*$e with Jehovah; and is yet again
different from Him."1 Notice also the citation of Davidson in ISBE. "In the angel of the Lord he
Jehovah is fully present as the covenant God of his people to redèm them."2

e There is the incarnation.

Notice John 1:14, 18; Col. 1:15,19. The Christian unavoidably ffiinks in the direction of the pre

‘Gustav Friedrich Oehler, Theology ofthe Old Testament $inieapolis: Kiock & Kiock,
1978, 133.

2lnternational Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1:34.

63
incarnate Logos when terminology and concepts are brought before him such as those above. The
incarnation may properly be seen as the cuhninating form of theophany.

3. Its Occurrence

A survey of the theophanic and prophetic modes of revelation in the Old Testament thoroughiy
justifies the assertion that Moses culminates the primitive, theophanic period and that revelation in
the post-Mosaic period ofthe Old Testament is given through the prophetic mode. Not, of course,
that the contrast is absolute, but it is nonetheless striking to note the preponderance of theophany in
the Pentateuch giving way to the preponderance of prophecy in the rest of the Old Testament. Cf
the illustration given above of this in Genesis. A consideration of Deut. 18:15f and Num. l2:6f
where the institution and nature of the prophetic office are described might have wamed of this
transition. Notice also Deut. 34:10 in this regard.

Characteristic as it is of the beginning of human history, the prophets speak of an eschatological

theophany which will consummate history. Cf Psa. 50:3; 96:13; Isa. 2:21; 30:27, 40:3-11; Mic.
1:3; 4:7; Zeph. 3:8; Joel 3:17; Zech. 2:lOf, 14:9; Mal. 3:1. This will be the definitive revelation of
God for salvation and judgment which the Old Testament theophany did not provide.

This predicted theophany arrives in the person of Jesus, the Jehovah of the Old Testament, the
Incarnate God. In the New Testament there are no anthropomorphic appearances of God. No
appearances of the angel of the Lord confront us. Acts 12:7 is notably anarthrous. These have
reached their fulfillment in the Incarnate Son, the voice of the Father bearing witness to the Son,
Mark 1:11, 9:7; John 12:28, and the Spirit as a dove resting on the Son. The ultimate theophany
comes on the day of the Lord, originally the day of Jehovah, now the day of the Lord Jesus when
He comes in His glory 2 Peter 3:8-10, 12, 18; Mart. 25:31.

4. Its Significance

a. Theophany underscores the unavoidably super-natural character of

revelation. Says Warfield:

The completely supernatural character of revelations given in theophanies is obvious. He

who will not allow that God speaks to man, to make known His gracious purposes toward
him, has no other recourse here than to pronounce the stories legendary. The objectivity of
the mode of communication which is adopted is intense, and it is thrown up to observation
with the greatest emphasis. Into the natural life of man God intrudes in a purely
supernatural manner, bearing a purely supernatural communication. In these
communications we are given accordingly just a series of "naked messages of God.tt

b. Theophany as a mode of revelation is possessed of a certain

superiority as to dignity, favor, and privilege bestowed on its recipients. This dignity is partly to be
derived from its being the primitive mode by which God spoke at the beginning of the world and to

‘Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration, plo, 17.

64
a

the Patriarchs.. More especially it is to be explained on the basis of the physical proximity to God
which it implied, that is to say the personal, direct, and intimate dó$ings with God it conferred. Cf
Num. 12:6f Warfield remarks: H
The circumstance that God spoke to Moses, not by dreatni or vision but mouth to mouth, is
indeed, adverted to Num. xii. 8 as a proof of the peculiat favor shown to Moses and even
of the superior dignity of Moses above other organs of revelation: God admitted him to an
intimacy of intercourse which He did not accord to otheis. But though Moses was thus
distinguished above all others in the dealings of God Wfth him, no distinction is drawn
between the revelations given through him and those given through other organs of
revelation in point either ofDivinity or of authority. And $yond this we have no Scriptural
warrant to go on in contrasting one mode ofrevelation witI another.’

II. Internal Suggestion: Prophecy

A. Its Biblical Terminology

1. Prophet Nabhi’

The etymology of this word is unclear. Its usage in the Old Tesl$xient must, therefore, dictate its
meaning. With B.B. Warfield and E.J. Young, its meaning muit be seen to be that of a "divine
spokesman" or a "spokesman for God.’ Warfield says:

The fundamental passage which brings the central fact before us in the most vivid manner
is, no doubt, the account of the commissioning ofMoses $ztd Aaron given in Ex. iv. 10-17;
vii. 1-7. Here, in the most express words, Jehovah dec1aie s that He who made the mouth
can be with it to teach it what to speak, and announces th .precise function of a prophet to
be that he is "a mouth of God," who speaks not his own butt God’s words. Accordingly, the
Hebrew name for "prophet" nabhi’, whatever may be its etymology, means throughout the
Scriptures just "spokesman," though not "spokesman" in jneral, but spokesman by way of
eminence, that is, God’s spokesman; and the characterisl1é formula by which a prophetic
declaration is announced is: "The word of Jehovah cme to me," or the brief "saith
Jehovah".2

The meaning of "nabhi" is made clear in Exodus 4:10-17 and 7:1-7. This is confirmed by the
implications of the important usage in Deut. 18:15-22, especialiy v. 18b. The meaning is also
confirmed by the clear implications of Jeremiah’s call to the proplictic office in Jeremiah 1:5, 6, 17
and 15:15-19.

2. Prophesy Nabhah

‘Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration, 15, 16.

2Warfleld, Revelation and Inspiration, 19. Cf Young in At Servants The Prophets, 60.

65
Young believes that this is a denominative verb derived from the noun, prophet. It means,
therefore, to act as a prophet.’ Cf Amos 7:10-17; Ezek. 37:4-7. To prophesy, therefore, is to
declare the Word of God. However, in certain contexts another connotation dominates the meaning
of the verb. To act as a prophet sometimes means to act in abnormal and bizarre ways that prophets
sometimes acted. This meaning informs us that in some cases ecstatic behavior characterized
prophets. Cf. 1 Sam. 10:5f; 1 Sam. 18:10; 19:18-24; 1 Kings 18:29; Jer. 29:26.2

3. Seer Ro’eh, Hozeh

These words designated the prophet of God and were basically synonymous with Nabhi’. Cf 1
Sam. 9:9; Isa. 30:9, 10. The latter passage as well as the etymology ofthese terms suggest a further
bit of information. These terms stress the method of receiving revelations which characterized the
prophetic institution. These men saw ‘visions’. It is, therefore, legitimate to say that nabhi’ stresses
the prophefs relation to the people; ro’eh stresses his relation to God. Ro’eh stresses the reception
ofthe message, Nabhi’ the deliverance ofa message.3

B. Its Prevalent Period

In the treatment of theophany, a striking though not absolute contrast has been noted between the -

modes of revelation culminating in Moses and those succeeding Moses. While the prophetic mode
ofrevelation through visions and dreams occurs before Moses Gen. 15:lf, 20:3-7, 37:5f, 46:2f
it becomes prevalent in the theocratic period. This striking contrast is explalned by the theocratic,
prophetic institution established by the Word of God in Deuteronomy 18:9-22.

This passage begins by forbidding different abominations by which the nations of Canaan sought
supernatural revelation. In this context, note the connection between verses 14 and 15 God
promises to raise up a prophet for Israel. This points to the fact that there was necessity for
continuing revelation to Israel. Thus God will raise up a prophet to meet his people’s needs.4

The crucial question with which this passage confronts us is that of the identity of the prophet.
Who is the prophet of vs. 15, 19? Several clear, biblical considerations demand a Messianic
reference for this passage.

1 The singular noun implies this.

2 The comparative "like me" implies this. Note Deut. 34:10.

3 The traditional interpretation of the Jews favors this. Cf John 6:14; 4:25; 1:20, 21. This

‘Young, My Servants the Prophets, 66-68.

2Cf. Young’s conclusion in My Servants the Prophets, 75

3Young, My Servants the Prophets, 64-66.

4Young, My Servants the Prophets, 27.

66
 traditional interpretation was individualistic and eschatological, if not messianic, John 7:40, 41.

- 4 The direct evidence of the New Testament demands this. Cf John 5:45-47, John 5:43 cf.
.

Deut. 18:19; Acts 3:23.

Other considerations point to a reference to the prophetic institution, the line of prophets in Israel.

1 The connection with the preceding context points to the prophetic institution. Note vv. 9-
14. What good would a remote Messiah-prophet do this people?

- 2 The wider context of Deuteronomy points to the prophetic institution.’

3 This reference is necessary to explain the existence ofthe prophetic institution.2

4 The reference ofLuke 11:50, 51 to Deut. 18:19 points to t1 conclusion. Cf Acts 3:23.

5 The reference to the test in verses 20-22 points this way.

At first glance this twofold reference may seem contradictory. In fact, the New Testament teaches
that it was the Spirit of Christ that spoke in all the prophets. Cf Acts 3:21 b-24 and I Pet. 1:11.
Note that the ref to "Samuel and his successors onward" as cqptiposing "all the prophets: is a
specific reference to the theocratic, prophetic institution. This 4erence in such proximity to the
- citation of Deut. 18:18, 19 is most interesting.3 This two-fold re$ence is an instance of germinate
fulfillment and then complete fulfillment.

Deut. 18:15, 18 raises the question ofthe relation between Moses and the prophets.4 This question
receives a definitive answer in the second maj or passage with refrence to the theocratic, prophetic
institution Num. 12:1-8. Several points ofimportance may be u$erscored from this passage.

1 There is no question ofthe legitimacy ofprophets as comppred to Moses. Cf Num. 11:29.

2 Moses occupies a place of superior intimacy with God andt authority in the people ofGod as
compared with prophets Num. 12:7, 8.

3 The superiority of Moses is epitomized in the different mo$es by which God communicates
with Moses as compared with the prophets. Moses obtains reveltion via theophany, the prophets
via visions, dreams. The difference between these media is chara4terized as the difference between
speaking "openly" and not in "dark sayings." Thus, a superidr clarity is attributed to Moses

1Young, My Servants the Prophets, 30.

2Young, My Servants the Prophets, 3 Of

3Young, My Servants the Prophets, 35.

4Young, My Servants the Prophets, 38.

a 67
revelation.

Two conclusions may be deduced from these points.

1 The theocratic, prophetic institution was subordinate to the Mosaic revelation and, thus,
supportive of it.

2 The common method of revelation to the prophets was that of internal suggestion visions
and dreams.’

C. Its Necessary Distinctions

There is a threefold distinction with reference to prophets and prophetism which the data already
examined presses upon us. In the broadest sense prophets are God’s spokesman, one through whom
God sends revelation to his people. In a more restricted sense, prophets are seers of visions.
Prophets here designate one who received a particular form of revelation. In the most restricted
sense, prophets are representatives of the theocratic prophetic institution raised up for Israel in the
land of Palestine.

PROPHECY

AN INSTITUTION:
Theocratic Messengers
to Israel
A MODE:
Seers of
Visions
A FUNCTION:
Spokesmen for
God

Notes:

1 Moses was according to the Scriptures a prophet Acts 7:52 cf vs. 20-44 only in the -

broadest sense. Cf Deut. 34:10, Deut. 18:15

2 This chart explains Acts 3:18-24 as contrasted with Luke 11:50-51.

D. Its Specific Defmition

As a mode of revelation, prophecy is to be distinguished from theophany in that the divine

‘Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration, 20, 21.

68
 communication is not mediated through the external world, but is communicated internally. It is to
be distinguished from inspiration because in prophecy the human jind is passivein the production
- ofthe message. There is the suspension of normal consciousness apd the presentation ofthe divine
message. Inspiration involves the active employment of the human mind in the production of the
message.1

E. Its Authoritative Character

Several questions are raised by the data already surveyed with refesence to the absolute authority of
the prophetic message. Notice especially Num. 12:1-8. H

- 1. Does the superiority ofMoses to the prophets imply the inferior authority of
theft message? No. There is no contrast at this point.

But though Moses was thus distinguished above all othersin the dealings of God with him,
no distinction is drawn between the revelations given thrc44gh him and those given through
- other organs of revelation in point either of Divinity or ott authority. And beyond this we
have no Scriptural warrant to go on in contrasting one mo4Ø ofrevelation with another In ....

whatever diversity of forms, by means of whatever yariety of modes, in whatever

a distinguishable stages it is given, it is ever the revelation f the One God, and it is ever the
one consistently developing redemptive revelation ofGod?

2. Does the identification of prophecy with e media of dreams and visions

imply that they were left to their bwn powers in communicating till message received?

- No. The prophetic mode of revelation involves both the receptiol$ and deliverance ofthe message.
Note the significance of the twofold terminology nabhi and ro’ehf The first word emphasized the
deliverance, the second the reception ofthe message.

The process of revelation through the prophets was a process by which Jehovah put His
words in the mouths of the prophets, and the prophets s$ke precisely these words and no
- others. So the prophets themselves ever asserted. "Thexi Jehovah put forth his hand, and
touched my mouth," explains Jeremiah in his account of how he received his prophecies,
"and Jehovah said unto me, Behold, I have put my words itt thy mouth" Jer. i. 9; cf v. 14;
- Isa. li. 16; lix. 21; Num. xxii. 35; xxiii. 5.12.16. Accordi4gly, the words "with which" they
spoke were not their own but the Lord’s: "And he said unto me," records Ezekiel, "Son of
man, go, get thee unto the house ofIsrael, and speak with ijoy words unto them" Ezk. iii. 4.
a
It is a process of nothing other than "dictation" which is thus described 2S. xiv. 3.19,
though, of course, the question may remain open of the exact processes by which this
- dictation is accomplished.3

‘Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration, 22.

2Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration, 15, 16, 18.

3Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration, 18ff. Cf Klooster1 Introduction to Systematic

- 69
 a

Compare in confirmation of the above assertions these passages: Deut. 18:18, 19, 20, 21, 22; Jer.
1:9,5:14;Isa.51:16;Num.22:35;23:5,l2,16;Ezek.3:4;Exod. 4:10-17.

3. Does the fact that the prophetic mode of revelation involves both the
reception and delivery of a message imply a mechanical control of the prophet and suspension of
his humanity? No. God’s control of the prophet is organic, not mechanical. God accommodated
the prophet to the prophecy, before accommodating the prophecy to the prophet. That is to say,
God uses his instruments in accordance with theft natures and forms those natures with his
purposes in mind. It is no contradiction of the full divinity and authority of the prophetic word,
therefore, that it is pervaded with the marks ofIsaiah’s or Amos’ personality.1

Excursus: New Testament Prophecy

Introduction:

With the increasing prevalence ofthe Charismatic and Pentecostalist movements in the last century,
the meaning of prophecy in the New Covenant has taken on a new importance. One familiar with
the Puritans will have noticed that they often assumed that prophesying was generally equivalent to -

what we normally call preaching.2 On the other hand, Charismatics have attempted to distance
New Testament prophecy from Old Testament prophecy in order to deliver it from having to meet
the strict standards laid down for Old Testament prophecy in Deuteronomy 1 8. Is it possible to
distinguish New Testament prophecy from Old Testament prophecy in such a way as to allow for
something less than infallibility in its deliverances?

1. The Bible never explicitly or overtly distinguishes New Testament prophets

or prophecy from Old Testament prophecy.

The Bible never explicitly or overtly distinguishes New Testament prophets or prophecy from Old
Testament prophecy. This is the simple fact, and it is a fact that is by itself conclusive for the
question at hand. We must not forget that, when prophecy and prophets are mentioned in the
church after Pentecost, these words and the institution they represented were well-known to the
Jews. Old Testament prophecy was by common knowledge inspired and infallible in its
pronouncements Deut. 18:15-22. IfNew Testament prophecy in distinction were not infallible in
its pronouncements, this would have constituted an absolutely fundamental contrast in the New
Testament institution. To suppose that a difference as important as this would be passed over

Theology, 73, 75.

‘Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration, p25f

2Compare, for instance, John Cotton on the Churches ofNew England, ed. by Larzer Ziff
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968, 78.

3Note, for example, the comments of C. Samuel Storms in Are Miraculous Gifis for -

Today: Four Views, ed. by Wayne Grudem Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, 207-209.

70
-

without explicit comment is unthinkable.

- Charismatics have, of course, attempted to vindicate from the Bible such a distinction for New
Testament prophecy. They have cited various biblical data in Uj.. attempt to make their case. The
arguments they attempt do not approach the kind of explicitnes the situation requires. There is
certainly no overt testimony to such a distinction as they wish.

They attempt to imply the fallibility of New Testament propheciby showing that New Testament
prophets was to be evaluated 1 Cor. 14:29; 1 Thess. 5:19-21 on the basis of Scripture. The
problem is that Old Testament prophecy was also evaluated o$the basis of Scripture previous
- revelation. Deuteronomy 13:1-5 makes this patent. Clearly, this fact did not mean that true, Old
Testament prophecy was less than infallible.

Similarly, Charismatics note that the prophets were subordi$te to the Apostles in the New
Testament, as if this implies their fallibility It is certamly true that the New Testament prophets
were inferior in rank to the Apostles. This is shown by the csistent New Testament order in
- which apostles are mentioned first and prophets second 1 Cor. Z2:29; Eph. 2:20; 3:5; 4:11. This
subordinate position does not, however, imply their falliblity. AWwe have seen, the prophets were
distinctly inferior to Moses in the place they held in the natiofl of Israel Num. 12:1-8. This,
- however, did not imply their fallibility. :1

Third, it might be argued that the New Testament prophets were of a different order than the
Theocratic prophets designated by the phrase, "Samuel and alt the prophets" Acts 3:24; 13:20;
Heb. 11:32. But then so also were Abel, Enoch, Moses, a41 Jesus-all of whom the Bible
describes as infallible prophets Luke 11:51; Jude 1:14; Acts S:20-23. Not just the theocratic
prophets, but all other true, biblical prophets were regarded as i$fallible in theft pronouncements.
Indeed, as we have seen, such infallibility was a necessary qu4ftflcation of being a true prophet
Deut. 18:15-22.
S

Fourth, Charismatics argue that Agabus whom all must admit wis a true, New Testament prophet
erred in his prophecy regarding Paul in Acts 21:10-11.’ Only by applying the most wooden and
stringent principles of interpretation to Agabus’ prophecy are Chfrismatics able to suggest that the
prophecy ofAgabus was tinged by error. Gaffin argues against such an interpretation ofAgabus by
saying, "In general, this attempt suffers from the demand lot pedantic precision imposed on
- Agabus."2 A simple reading of the prophecy shows, in fact, th4t what Agabus predicted actually
and literally happened.3 It is to be feared that such an appma1 to the rest of the Bible would
uncover errors in many places where Charismatics would not likó to find them. More importantly,

- ‘Are Miraculous Gjfts for Today: Four Views, 50-51.

2Rihcard B. Gaffin Jr. in Are Miraculous Gflsfor Today; Four Views, 49.

- 3We must, of course distinguish Agabus’ prophecy frozn$he attempts of Paul’s friends to
dissuade him from going to Jerusalem. The infallibility of the bphecy does not imply that their
interpretation of its practical application was correct. FL

- 71
neither Luke nor the rest of the Bible adversely criticizes Agabus’ prophecy.’ In fact, the view that
tinges Agabus’ prophecy with error neglects the important hermeneutical principle of authorial
intention. We must ask, in other words, why Luke included the prophecy of Agabus in his
narrative. When we ask this question and examine the Book of Acts for an answer, it becomes
clear that Luke is developing the theme of Paul’s courage in the face ofthe certain persecution that
awaited him in Jerusalem. Agabus has already been identified as a true prophet in Acts 11:28 where
it is explicitly stated that his prophecy of famine in Jerusalem came to pass. In Acts 20:23 Paul is
quoted as saying that "the Holy Spirit solemnly testifies to me in every city, saying that bonds and
afflictions await me." Acts 21:11-14 continues this theme. To introduce the idea that Agabus erred
into this theme is to ignore and to undo the authorial intention ofLuke.2 -

None ofthe attempts to find a distinction between Old and New Testament prophecy are viable. It
is undeniable that the key distinction at which the Charismatic apologist is aiming is simply absent
from the New Testament. Charismatics argue that prophecy in the New Testament is divinely
revealed to the prophet, but unlike Old Testament prophecy the Spirit does not assure that this
prophecy is uttered infallibly. There is no indication at all that this distinction is made in the New -

Testament. Indeed, in light of the overall teaching of the Bible on the nature of prophecy the idea is
absurd. No distinction is visible in terms ofwhat made prophecy essentially prophecy.

2. The New Testament in many ways encourages us to equate the authority of

Old and New Testament prophecy.

The New Testament in many ways encourages us to equate the authority of Old and New
Testament prophecy. In the first place, there is no terminological distinction between Old and New
Testament prophecy. The identical terms are used to describe both in the New Testaments. In the
second place, indiscriminate references to Old and New Testament prophecy using this identical
terminology lie side by side repeatedly in the Book of Acts. Old Testament prophets and prophecy
are mentioned in Acts 2:16; 3:24, 25; 10:43; 13:27, 40; 15:15; 24:14; 26:22, 27; and 28:23.
Mentions of New Testament prophets and prophecy are interspersed without comment or
distinction Acts 2:17-18; 7:37; 11:27, 28; 13:1; 15:32; 21:9-11. In the third place, the pivotal -

prophecy Acts 2:16-21 clearly equates Old and New Testament prophecy. It tells us that the Old
Testament prophet Joel prophesied that in the New Covenant "your sons and daughters shall
prophesy" with young men seeing visions and old men having dreams. In the fourth place, The
Book of Revelation is described as a prophecy. Plainly, it is a New Testament prophecy. Its
prophetic status, however, assures its infallibility as written and brings down upon its violators the
divine curse Rev. 1:3; 22:7, 10, 18, 19. In the fifth place, the emphasis ofthe New Testament is
that the New Covenant is a better covenant and superior to the Old Hebrews 8:1-13; 2 Cor. 3:1-6.
This places in a strange light the Charismatic contention that New Testament prophecy is in the
most significant respect inferior to the Old. In the sixth place, we must not forget that the New
Testament prophet par excellence is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Acts 3:22-23 emphasizes that
whatever he speaks is to be obeyed. His words, therefore, are, of course, infallible. Charismatics

‘In The Infallible Word page 11 John Murray argues this very point with regard to the
instances of error that the adversaries ofinerrancy find in the Scriptures.

2lbid.

72
 may argue that it is unfair to bring up the example of the Lord Jesus. They probably will contend
that the Messiah’s pronouncements are infallible and that there is no comparison between the
Messiah and other New Testament prophets. This cannot disguisp the fact, however, that Jesus was
a New Testament prophet and that He was infallible. This does njhing to encourage the thesis that
New Testament prophecy is inferior in point of infallibility to tha* of the Old Testament.

Conclusion:

Three crucial conclusions must be drawn from the proceeding discussion of New Testament
prophecy.

First, there is no reason to think and every reason not to think that New Testament prophecy lacks
the infallibility of all other biblical prophecy. The distinction so*ght by the Charismatics is not to
be found in Scripture and contradicts or ignores the deliverances Of Scripture at many points.

Second, this means that all professed prophecy must be held to the standard of Deuteronomy 18:15-
22. It must be prepared to pass the test of absolute infallibility. Ifa prophet cannot pass this test, he
or she must repent of and renounce the claim to prophetic status. As a practical matter, this would
eliminate most claims to the gift of prophecy today.
a

Third, the Charismatic must face the canonical implications of thq claim to prophecy today. As we
shall see, the very structure or form of the Old Testament ca*ön included the writings of true
prophets. The Old Testament is "the law and the prophets." There is also reason to think that New
Testament prophets shared in the canonical status of the apostles of Christ. They are closely related
to the apostles and ranked second to them in many passages. They share with the apostles the
status of being the "foundation" upon which the church is built Eph. 2:20. As we have proven,
there is no distinction at the point of infallibility between New $id Old Testament prophets. The
conclusion is inevitable that the deliverances of a true prophet today would necessarily have to be
treated as canonical and in substance a supplement or addition: to the Scriptures. Only when
Charismatics are prepared to take this step should they accept the idea that true prophets exist
today. I

Fourth, a study of the biblical data regarding prophecy shows how misguided is the assumption that
biblical prophesying at least in the New Testament is eqi1valent to our Spirit-anointed
preaching. New Testament prophecy must not be distinguished in its essential character from Old
Testament prophecy. This means that the provisions of Deuteronomy 18:15-22 are normative for
all biblical prophecy. There is not a single passage in the New Testament where the biblical
terminology related to prophecy and prophesying refers to anything but the inspired reception and
utterance of direct revelation. We can certainly appreciate the view of preaching which led the
Puritans to speak of it as prophesying. Such a high view of prCaching is certainly needed in our
day. This accommodation and misuse of the biblical word was no doubt a little thing in the day of
the Puritans. We remember, however, a statement made by one of the church fathers with regard to
the development of the doctrine of the Trinity: What was a lifrie thing then is a little thing no
longer! F

III. Concursive Operation: Inspiration

73
 -
A. Its Prevalent Period

Klooster asserts: "This mode ofrevelation is most prevalent in the post- Pentecost New Testament -

period. By this means the apostles engage in their preaching and teaching, and especially produce
their epistles."

Its dominance in this period may point to the fact that it is the most advanced method ofrevelation.
In theophany, God confronts man in the external world. In prophecy, in the internal world. In
inspiration, the divine operation and human operation are united.

B. Its Necessary Distinction

Inspiration as a mode of revelation and inspiration as the method of inseripturation must be

distinguished. Inspiration is the mode of only part of divine revelation. It is the method of the
entirety of inscripturation. Kuyper remarks: -

In the study of the factors of inspiration proper we begin with a sharp distinction between
inspiration as a means of revelation and inspiration ofthe Holy Scripture. If, for instance, I
take the fiffieth Psalm, the questions may be asked how, in what way, and on what occasion
the singer was inspired with the content ofthis song, and what the relation is between what
he himself sang and what God sang in and through him; but these are entirely different from
the question by what action of the. Holy Spirit this ancient song, in just this form, was
adopted into the holy codex, by which it became a word of God to His whole church.2

Note in confirmation ofthe above assertions that some inspired literature or speeches may not have
been included in inspired Scripture Col. 4:16. -

C. Its Specific Definition

This mode of revelation differs from prophecy precisely because in it God makes use of the total
personality of the organ of revelation as a factor. Compare Luke 1:4 and Gal. 1:6 also.

‘Klooster, Introduction to Systematic Theology, 79.

2Kuyper, Principles ofSacred Theology, 504.

74
a

PART 3: INSCRJPTURATED REDEMPTIVE REVELATION

a
General Introduction:

I. Its Movement

In keeping with my general methodology in this course of moving from the general to the more
specific, I have come to the conclusion that inscripturated redemptive revelation is a third major
a
heading or division in the treatment ofRevelation. Note the diag:

- THE STRUCTURE OF THIS COflISE

In the movement from the broader to the more specific concçrns one also moves from the
peripheral to the central, practical issues. In coming to the subject of Inscripturated Redemptive
Revelation, the heart of the Doctrine of the Word is approached.

- II. Its Matter

When one takes up the subject of the Scriptures, a broad field qf inquiry is entered. One might
a
conceivably deal with their "Identification" or Canon, their "jiterpretation" or Hermeneutics
their "translation," their "Attestation" or How do we know *em to be the Scriptures with
certainty?, and their "Attributes."

Each ofthese areas deserve treatment. Many of them are dealt w$i in other appropriate places in a
good, theological curriculum. The Interpretation of the Scriptiàs is dealt with, for instance, in

75
Hermeneutics. The Translation of the Scriptures deserves treatment somewhere. Attestation of the
Scriptures is dealt with in Apologetics.

The proper subject matter of this course and this part of the course on the doctrine of revelation is
first the attributes of Scripture and secondly the canon of Scripture.

SECTION 1: THE ATTRIBUTES OF SCRIPTURE

SECTION 2: THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE
SECTION 1: THE ATTRIBUTES OF SCRIPTURE

I. Its Necessity

Introduction:

The first question which forces itself upon us when we speak of the inscripturated redemptive
revelation concerns its necessity. Why is inscripturated redemptive revelation necessary? Why
was it necessary for redemptive revelation to be written down? The Westminster Confession Faith
in the first words of its first chapter addresses itself to this issue.’ We may crystallize our thinking
around its statements.

Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence, do so far manifest
the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet they are not
sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and ofhis will, which is necessary unto salvation:
therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and
to declare that his will unto his Church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and
propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church
against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the
same wholly unto writing; which maketh the holy scripture to be most necessary; those
former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.

This statement may be analyzed as follows. First, the statement deals with the necessity of
redemptive revelation in general. Second, the statement deals with the necessity of inscripturated -

redemptive revelation in particular. The contents of this statement for our purposes may be treated
under four heads:

A. The Ground ofits Necessity

B. The Presupposition of its Necessity
C. The Reasons for its Necessity
D. The Implication of its Necessity

‘The 1689 Confession contains the same words as quoted here, but prefixes to them the clause,
"The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith,
and obedience.’

76
__

A. The Ground of its Necessity

The Confession reminds us that the necessity of the Scripturçs is rooted in the necessity of
redemptive revelation itself. The "light of nature" etc. is "not sufficient to give that knowledge"
"which is necessary unto salvation." Hence redemptive revelaioii is necessary for salvation. Both
in Apologetics and in the section dealing with the categories of revelation the clear, biblical
evidence for this important assertion is treated Rom. 2: l2a; Psalxü19; Rom. 1:18-3:20.

The absolute necessity of redemptive revelation for salvation., both qualifies and requires the
necessity of the Scriptures. Men may be, men have been saved Without the Scriptures proper, but
- they have never been saved without the redemptive revelation ooptained in the Scriptures.’ This
means that one cannot speak unqualifiedly of the necessity of the Scriptures. They are not
absolutely necessary like redemptive revelation. This was, of cou$e, recognized by the Reformers.
It is implicit in the Westminster Confession of Faith. The languae is comparative: "better" "more
sure." Turretin says that the Scriptures are not absolutely, but h1$thetically necessary.2 Berkhof
remarks:

When the Reformers defended the necessity of Scripture over against Rome and the
Anabaptists, they did not deny that the Church existed bekre Moses’ day, nor that the New
Testament Church was in existence long before there wa a canon of the New Testament.
Neither did they defend the position that Scripture was absolutely necessary, in the sense
that God could not have made man acquainted with the way of salvation in some other way.
They considered Scripture to be necessary in virtue of th good pleasure of God to make
the Word the seed ofthe Church. Even before the time otr$ oses the unwritten word served
that purpose. And the New Testament did not come in*existence apart from the spoken
word of Jesus and the apostles. As long as these witnessds of the facts of redemption lived,
there was little need of a written word, but when they fel1 away, this changed at once. The
historical character of God’s revelation, the history of redirption, and the redemptive facts
which did not admit of repetition, and were yet of the g$átest significance for all coming
generations, made it necessary to commit God’s special evelation to writing. From that
point of view Scripture remains necessary to the very end Of time.3

At the same time, the absolute necessity of redemptive revel$ion requires the qualified and
derivative necessity of the Scriptures. The Confession reminds us that the redemptive revelation is
made for a redemptive purpose. Note the lectures on the relation of redemptive revelation to the
purpose of redemption. Redemptive revelation is the means ofiedemption and men must come
into contact with it for it to accomplish its end. As the necessary means to this necessary end the
Scriptures are themselves necessary. Remember the reference of 2 Tim. 3:15 to "the wisdom that
leads to salvation". This wisdom according to that passage is give$i via the Sacred writings.

‘This statement leaves out of consideration the difficult qgstions related to infants and the
mentally incompetent. .H:

a
2Francis Turretin, The Doctrine ofScripture, 28.

3Berkhof Introduction to Systematic Theology, 166.

77
 B. The Presupposition of this Necessity

The assertion that inscripturation is the necessary means for bringing men into contact with
redemptive revelation presupposes something that the Confession makes explicit. It presupposes
that "those former ways of God’s revealing His will are now ceased." If the Christ were still
among us or His inspired apostles still walked the earth then the Scriptures would not be so
necessary. It is in fact the denial that God’s former ways of revealing himself had ceased which
elicited the Reformation insistence on the necessity of Scripture. Both the Catholics with theft
infallible Pope and Church and some of the Radical Reformers with theft claim to present
revelations from the Spirit denied or at least down-graded the necessity of the Scriptures.

With regard to the cessation of revelation the lecture material on how redemption controls -
revelation and particularly the comments on Heb. 1:1 -2a are important to be remembered here.
Remember that in Heb. l:l-2a there are many contrasts between God’s two speakings, but at least
one point of continuity. Both are completed. Also the material yet to be covered in the section on
the Canon with regard to the cessation of the Old Testament prophetic office and the cessation of
the New Testament apostolate is crucial if the biblical support for the statement of the Confession is
to be understood.

C. The Reasons for this Necessity

Ultimately it is the very existence of the Bible that speaks most forcibly to us of the cessation of
God’s former ways of speaking to His people. It is God, after all who gave us the Scriptures. They
are a divine work. God does not engage in divine busy-work. If inspired organs of the Spirit were
still in existence to give us continuing revelation and to maintain the accuracy of oral tradition,
what purpose does the Bible serve? What real necessity does it possess? As Ridderbos points out,
the existence ofthe canon itself witnesses against the viability oforal tradition and the continuation
of inspired and/or apostolic authority in the church. It marks the boundary or the line of
demarcation between redemptive history and church history, between what is normative for the
church and what is not.

The first of the purposes or reasons for the Scripture’s necessity now to be enumerated is, thus, the
most crucial.

1. Preservation

The preservation of redemptive revelation brings us back to the redemptive purpose in redemptive
revelation and is unto that purpose. The salvation ofmen depends on theft being in possession ofa
trustworthy record of redemptive revelation. The Confession in the statement already quoted says
that "the truth" "which is necessary unto salvation" was committed unto writing" "for the better
preserving of the truth" with the further end of being "for the more sure establishment and comfort
of the church against the corruption ofthe flesh and the malice of Satan and of the world."

It was, thus, for the preservation of truth from the corruption ofthe flesh--human weakness--and the
malice of Satan and the world--human wickedness--that God authored the Scriptures. We have
a

78
a

indications of this purpose in the Scriptures themselves. Certainty about the content of the divine
revelation was the purpose of the writing of the Scriptures. Writing was necessary for certainty
because ofthe weakness and wickedness of a fallen world.

The key passage here may be Luke 1:1-4. Here in v. 4 Luke ‘ays he wrote so that Theophilus
might know the arnpaXctav [the exact truth NASB, the certajhty NIV, the certainty or truth
BAGJ of what he had been taught. The word here strongly dànotes security. Notice the use of
this term and its relatives in the New Testament Acts 5:23; 1 The. 5:3; Phil. 3:1; 1-leb. 6:19; Mat.
27:64, 65, 66; Acts 16:24; Mark 14:44; Acts 2:36; 16:23, especially Acts 21:34; 22:30; 25:26 [This
is complete list.] We must not miss here the implicit contrastwith oral tradition. Putting it in
terms ofthis passage, oral tradition is not as secure as Luke’s written gospel.

Other passages also speak to the need of inscripturation for tJ*: purpose of the preservation of
redemptive revelation. Notice 2 Peter 1:12-15, 3:1 in the New Teitament and in the Old Testament
Deut. l7:18f.; 31:9f., 19

In the above references there is little or no indication of malice. flae preservation is rather from the
corrupting effects of human weakness. In the following referencs, the commitment to writing is a
preventive measure necessitated by human and Satanic wickedsss. In 1 Cor. 15:1 Paul makes
known the doctrine of the resurrection he had already preached the Corinthians in written form
because ofthe wickedness of certain heretics. He emphasizes in the phrase, nvt Xoyw, the necessity
of holding it fast in the words, i.e., the very same content with. which he had preached it.’ Such
wickedness in the corrupting of redemptive revelation is also gu4utded against in 2 Thes. 2:1, 2, 5;
3:17. Again the means taken is the inscripturation of the message.

2. Publication

The Confession also mentions "the better propagating of the tnflh." Inspired apostles even when
...

they were alive could not be present everywhere at once. Henc; they wrote in order to the better
publication of the truth they taught. Notice 1 Tim. 3:1 4f. The feirv or of the Epistle to the Galatians
assuredly indicates that Paul would have liked to personally visit them. Notice Gal. 4:20. This was
apparently impossible so Paul wrote them inscribing his letter with the marks of his distinctive
handwriting 6:11. Notice also in this regard the prison EpistlO which were obviously written
because Paul was confined in prison. The Epistle to the Romans: also bears witness to this purpose
Rom. 1:8-15. Finally, notice the inseripturation of the Revelatitn of Jesus Christ to John 1:3, 9,
19, 2:1, etc.

Probably most of the literature ofthe New Testament was written for the better? publication ofthe
truth by geographically confined apostles 1 Tim. 3:14-15. ‘Since the church is now God’s
instrument in the world-wide dissemination of the gospel Man.: 8:l9 it has been entrusted with
the Word written."2

‘Grosheide, Commentary, 348; Ridderbos, Canon ofthe Testament, 194.

2Klooster, Introduction to Systematic Theology, 97.

79
 a

3. Selection

It is well to collate here a third purpose of inscripturation which is not mentioned in the Confession. -

Klooster notes, "One observes that inscripturation served the purpose of the Holy Spirit in
selecting from the abundant original special revelation just that which served God’s purpose in
inscripturation. Inscripturation provided an inspired selection ..." Note the following references:
John 20:30, 31; 21:25; Col. 4:16; 1 Cor. 5:9f.

Someone might regard the Confession as contradicting this when it says that the divine redemptive a

revelation God was pleased "to commit wholly unto writing." The scholarship of the
...

Westminster divines was such and the clarity ofthe biblical evidence is such that they certainly did
not intend to teach that all redemptive revelation was committed to writing. They undoubtedly
meant to say that the selection of redemptive revelation contained in the Bible is an accurate and
sufficient epitome, summary, and representation ofthat original redemptive revelation.

D. The Implication ofits Necessity

The necessity of the Scriptures has a further implication. That is to say, the necessity of the -

inscripturation of redemptive revelation if that redemptive revelation is to be preserved in a fallen

world, when viewed in conjunction with the purpose of redemptive revelation, implies a further
a
special act of God in relation to the Scriptures. If God’s sovereign purpose is to save men via the
redemptive revelation He has given and if this redemptive revelation must be inscripturated to be
preserved in a fallen world, then it may also be assumed that this same sovereign redemptive a
purpose will insure that these Scriptures as Chapter One, paragraph eight of the Confession asserts
"being immediately inspired of God" will also be "by his singular care and Providence, kept pure in
all ages." By the strictest necessity of the divine purpose the redemptive revelation once -
inscripturated will be guarded from cormption by the special providence of God.

To those who understand and embrace this perspective, it comes as no surprise that an actual
examination ofthe history ofthe text of the Bible and the study of textual criticism reveals that the
text of the Bible is unquestionably the best preserved of all the classical works. Nor is it surprising
that no single truth ofthe message of Scripture hangs in the balance of textual-critical studies. Nor a
yet is it surprising to discover that the science of textual criticism fairly and believingly used can
resolve the vast majority of and eventually, perhaps, all? textual difficulties with a high degree of
certainty.

There remains, of course, the problem, when all this has been said, that a certain small and
periph&al ambigulty must be admitted in regard to the exact identity of the text of Scripture at
certain points. Unbelieving minds will view this as a telling objection to the preservation of
Scripture. Even a believing mind, however, may find it troubling to explain with precision and
completeness how the inerrant Word of God is preserved to us through marginally imperfect -

‘Klooster, Introduction to Systematic Theology, 96. -

80
a
 i1tJ.

copies. The student is referred to the treatments of orthodox theqçgians.1 Several statements may
be given at this point which will, I hope, alleviate the difficulty which the reality under
consideration poses. First, it must be remembered that the pz*servation of the Scriptures was
motivated by thoroughly practical necessities. Its purpose Was,: the eminently practical one of
preserving the redemptive revelation as the instrument of sovereign redemptive purpose. Now it is
beyond question that whatever textual ambiguities exist in the Scriptures they do not negate or
dilute the ability ofthose Scriptures to perform their redemptive p!1rpose. Neither the authority nor
the identity of the redemptive revelation is mitigated by such textual ambiguities. Surely, the
Septuagint is in many respects a distinctly inferior translation ofthe Old Testament. Yet, the New
Testament frequently uses it as conveying adequately the inerrant Word of God. If the LXX is so
treated by the New Testament, we should not be concerned by the! slight ambiguities of our modem
textual tradition and English translations. Second, the perfect, jotiand-tiffle, preservation of the text
was not only unnecessary in terms of its purpose, it would also have been thoroughly
uncharacteristic of God’s way of dealing with a fallen race. Stch a preservation would have
required a perpetual miracle of such vast age-spanning proportions that it must have negated the
great reality that now we walk by faith and not by sight. Surely die Bible makes clear that it is not
God’s present purpose to perform perpetual miracles for an unbefteving world. The third statement
is related to this idea. The fact is that God may allow such textual ambiguities for the distinct
purpose of veiling the glory of truth from "the wise and pru4nt." Such ambiguities may be
intended to serve the purpose ofreprobation.

The student may wonder, after all this is said, What then is the necessity of inerrant autographs? If
God’s purpose of redemption did not require inerrant translations md textual traditions, why should
it require inerrant autographs? I believe that the crucial considerition here is again the purpose for
which God gave redemptive revelation. The practical purpose *1 redemptive revelation was to
bring a saving revelation to men. The fact of slight ambiguity in the textual tradition ofthe Bible
creates no uncertainty about any truth in that revelation. The hypothesis of errant uninspired
autographs, however, injects an element of uncertainty into retemptive revelation incompatible
with our need for certainty concerning the gospel. With the textual tradition avallable to us, we can
attain certainty with regard to the gospel revelation. But upon the hypothesis of uninspired
autographs the possibility is raised of radically conflicting views of the gospel contained in the
textual tradition. The idea of such conflicting viewpoints within the Bible has one of two results.
There are only two possibilities. The first possibility is this. If the Bible remains the final
authority, no solution is possible. The result must be un-resolve-able confusion and the
impossibility of that saving faith which involves the conviction :f the truth of the gospel. The
second possibility is that the Bible cease to be our highest authorit, Appeal must, then, be made to
a higher authority in order to resolve the internal conflict of the: :flible. If we take this avenue to
resolve the conflict itherent in the Bible, we have plainly renounced our right to be Bible-believers
and even our right to be called Christians. Pastor Mark Cbanski once illustrated the slight
ambiguity in the textual tradition ofthe Bible as a slight film of’vs4ater on a bridge. A slight film of

1Note the article by Greg Bahnsen in Inerrancy, Zonderyan, Grand Rapids, 1980, edited
by N. Geisler, 150-193. Also note the article B. B. Warfield repri4ted in the Seicted Shorter
Writings ofBenjamin B. Warfield, vol. 2, ed. John E. Meeter Nuley, NJ, Presbyterian and
Reformed, 1973, 580-594.

81
water on the Mackinac Bridge may, strictly speaking, keep the tires of your car from ever touching -

the pavement. Yet you may cross the bridge safely because ofthe structural integrity of the bridge.
If the structural integrity of the bridge is faulty, however, the result may be catastrophe. The slight
film of water on the inerrant autographs creates the need for textual or lower criticism. But textual
criticism does not create any hazard for the soul of the Christian. Questioning or denying the
inerrancy of the autographa, however, is equivalent to questioning the structural integrity of the
bridge itself. It does pose a great danger for the souls ofmen.

II. Its Authority

-

Introduction:

1. The Definition ofits Authority

When the authority of the inscripturated redemptive revelation is spoken of, what I have in mind is
the divine and therefore absolute authority of the writings we call the Bible. This has often been
called the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible. Verbal, plenary inspiration is the teaching that
the words of the Bible, all of the words of the Bible, are the products of a direct, supernatural
influence ofthe Spirit on the men who were his organs or instruments. The Bible is, thus, in detail
divinely and absolutely authoritative. This is what I mean by the authority of Scripture. Yet I have
not chosen to utilize the category of inspiration to treat this subject. Many Reformed theologians
do so.’ Other reputable theologians, however, criticize the term.2 The term, inspiration, does
indicate the divine-human character of the Bible. In so doing it hints at the organic way in which
the divine Spirit used the human instruments to communicate His Word. Several things, however,
indicate the problematic character of the term, inspiration, when used as the category to treat this
subject.

1 Inspiration focuses attention on the process by which the Bible was given. The focus of our
interest is not in the process, but in the product. Questions like, How did God inspire the Bible?
What was the state or process of inspiration like?, are secondary and even in important respects
superfluous. Inspiration misdirects the focus of attention from the authority of the product to the
nature ofthe process.

2 Inspiration lends itself to a misconception of the doctrine. Though, historically, this

misconception was not the result in Christian theologians, inspiration literally signifies a "breathing
into" the Scriptures. This is, however, not the biblical notion of the divine operation which
produced the Scriptures. The key description of inspiration is found in 2 Tim. 3:16,17 which says
as the NASV translates it "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. The word used here,
Ocoirvcuaroç, does not indicate the breathing into by the divine Spirit of an already existing book.
It does not indicate the heightening from human to divine of an already existing piece of literature.

‘C. Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 1, 1 53f Berkhof, Introduction to Systematic

Theology, 1 44f.

2E J. Young, Thy Word Is Truth, 21.

82
 This leads us to a third objection.

3 Inspiration is a mistranslation of Ocoirvcuoroç the closest biblical word for inspiration. In 2

Tim. 3:16 what is expressed by its use is not that God breathed lit an already existing book divine
qualities. It is not that certain men were inspired in the popular setse ofthe term. It is that a certain
book was breathed- by God. That book is the product ofthe dkine creative activity ofthe Spirit
ofGod. Warfield states:

The result of our investigation would seem thus, certainly, to discredit the new
interpretation of Ocouvcuo’to; offered by Ewald and Crejjr. From all points of approach
alike we appear to be conducted to the conclusion that it is primarily expressive of the
origination of Scripture, not of its nature and much less of ts effects. What is Ocolrvclatoç
is "God-breathed," produced by the creative breath of the 4hnighty. And Scripture is called
Ocoirvcuatoç in order to designate it as "God-breathed," the product of Divine spiration, the
creation of that Spirit who is in all spheres of the Divinectivity the executive of the God
head. The traditional translation of the word by the Latin inspiratus a Deo is no doubt also
discredited, if we are to take it at the foot of the letter. It :doe5 not express a breathing into
the Scriptures by God. But the ordinary conception aftached to it, whether among the
Fathers or the Dogmaticians, is in general vindicated. What it affirms is that the Scriptures
owe their origin to an activity of God the Holy Ghost andare in the highest and truest sense
His creation. It is on this foundation of Divine origin thati ill the high attributes of Scripture
are
a

2. The Evidence for its Authority

a. There is no negative evidence.

The Bible does not adversely criticize itself 2 What is in view in saying this is the assertions of the
Scriptures, not its phenomena. In other words, the Bible nowhert asserts of another assertion ofthe
Bible that it is in error. This statement is so selfevident: th it needs no real defense or
corroboration to one acquainted with the Scriptures. The phenofltena of Scripture which to some
minds contradict one another or result in discrepancies are not relevant here. Such phenomena are
not scriptural assertions to the effect that another part of the Bible is false. Murray deals with the
tenuous arguments against it.3

Phenomena found in the Bible which appears to result in contradictions will be treated under the
heading of "Specific Objections" to the authority of the Scriptures,

b. The most direct evidence is for theOld Testament.

‘Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration, 280.

2John Murray, Infallible Word, 10-17.

3The Infallible Word, "The Attestation ofScripture," Johni4urray, 14.

83
In the nature of the case the clearest evidence is for the divine, absolute authority of the Old
Testament. Three classes of evidence for the authority of the Bible may be enumerated: 1 The
evidence ofthe Old Testament to the Old Testament. 2 The evidence ofthe New Testament to the
Old Testament. 3 The evidence ofthe New Testament to the New Testament. Classes 1 and 3 -

by themselves are both fragmentary or incomplete. Neither can bear witness to the inspiration and
authority of the Old Testament and the New Testament respectively as an organic whole. This is
because neither was a completed, organic whole at the time the respective witness was given. This
is not to minimize either the witness ofthe Old Testament to the Old Testament, or that ofthe New
Testament to the New Testament. Both bear witness to the authority oftheir message hundreds and
even thousands of times. This witness is, indeed, integral to the biblical argument for biblical
authority. However, the witness of the New Testament to the Old Testament makes its verbal,
plenary authority as a completed corpus explicit. This witness provides the pattern for the authority
of the New Testament as a completed canon. The argument for the authority of the Bible begins, -

therefore, with its doctrine ofthe authority of the Old Testament found in the New Testament. This
doctrine is, then, on the basis of other New Testament considerations applied by extension to the
New Testament canon.1

c. The evidence is conclusive and pervasive. -

Both Kuyper and Warfield consider the biblical evidence for the absolute, divine, authority of the
Scriptures to be conclusive and pervasive.2 In their time it was also a matter of universal settled,
scholarly opinion. It is important to understand that even to cite the evidence for our doctrine is in -

a certain sense superfluous or unnecessary. Warfield’s article has several pages which because of
their relevance at this point are summarized here.3 -

Warfield’s point is that it is unnecessary to engage in a detailed proof of the church-doctrine of

inspiration. This is so for three reasons: 1 It is not necessary to prove it to ourselves pp. 60, 61.
2 It is not necessary to prove it to modem biblical scholarship pp. 61, 62. 3 It is not necessary
to prove it to those who deny it for by implication they admit it pp. 62-64. Warfield concludes
this part ofhis article by commenting on the futility of trying to explain away the biblical evidence. -

Here Warfield’s graphic words must be quoted pp. 65, 66.

The effort to explain away the Bible’s witness to its plenary inspiration reminds one of a
man standing safely in his laboratory and elaborately expounding--possibly by the aid of
diagrams and mathematical formulae--how every stone in an avalanche has a defined
pathway and may easily be dodged by one of some presence ofmind. We may fancy such
an elaborate trifler’s triumph as he would analyze the avalanche into its constituent stones,
and demonstrate of stone after stone that its pathway is definite, limited, and may easily be
avoided. But avalanches, unfortunately, do not come upon us, stone by stone, one at a time, -

courteously leaving us opportunity to withdraw from the pathway of each in turn: but all at

‘Kuyper, Principles ofSacred Theology, 460, 461. -

2Kuyper, Principles ofSacred Theology, 453f,; Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration, 60f.

‘Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration, 60-67. -

84
 once, in a roaring mass of destruction. Just so we may explain away a text or two which
teach plenary inspiration, to our own closet satisfactions dealing with them each without
reference to its relation to the others: but these texts of ours, again, unfortunately do not
come upon us in this artificial isolation; neither are they *w in number. There are scores,
hundreds, of them: and they come bursting upon us in one solid mass. Explain them away?
We should have to explain away the whole New Testapent. What a pity it is that we
cannot see and feel the avalanche of texts beneath which we may lie hopelessly buried, as
clearly as we may see and feel an avalanche of stones!1

3. The Objections to Its Authority

a. From the Humanity of the Bible:

The objection under discussion here may be stated as follows: The Bible is written by men. Men
are free, finite, and errant. Bible must contain error. Murray enlarges:

This plain and undisputed fact has led many students of the Bible to the conclusion that the
Bible cannot be in itself the infallible and inerrant Word of God. Putting the matter very
bluntly, they have said that God had to use the material he had at his disposal and, since the
material he had was men, he was under the necesity of giving us his word in a form
that is marred by the defects arising from human fallibilitj’. In the words of Dr. J. Monro
Gibson:
- It is important at the outset to remember that the most consummate artist is
limited by the nature of his material. He may ,‘thoughts and inspirations
far above and beyond what he can express in biadandwhite or in colours,
a in marble or in bronze, in speech or in song; but however perfect his idea
may be, it must, in finding expression, share the imperfections of the forms
in which he works. If this very obvious fact IS only been kept in mine,
most of the difficulties which beset the subject of inspiration need never
have arisen." 2
And then Dr. Gibson proceeds to enumerate some ofthe limitations with which God had to
deal, the limitations of human agency, human language and literary forms.

It is by plausible argument of this sort that students ofthe Bible have too rashly come to the
a
conclusion that the human factor or, as we should prefer to call it, human instrumentality
settles this question and that the Bible, though God’s Wo±d, must at the same time be errant
and fallible, at least in scientific and historical detail, simply because it came to us through
the ministry of men. Dr. Gibson is very jealous that we ibould follow the facts and let the
Bible Speak for itself rather than approach the Bible wit a preconceived notion of divine
infallibility. It is, however, just because we are jealous th$ the Bible should speak for itself

‘Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration, 65, 66.

a

2John Monro Gibson: The Inspiration and Authority of H4y Scripture New York, nd.,
146; cf. Emil Brunner: Revelation andReason, E. T. Philade1phi 1946, 1281

85
 a

that we must not take it for granted that human authorship necessitates errancy and
fallibility.’

Three considerations show the fallacy ofthis objection:

1 The General Orthodox and Reformed View of the Relation

ofthe Divine and Human

In general the orthodox and Reformed theological tradition of the church does see the divine and
human as inconsistent with one another. The orthodox doctrine of the Person of Christ sees no
difficulty in declaring that Jesus Christ is both very God and fully man. Nor does it regard the
humanity of Christ as logically requiring that his sinfulness. Christ’s humanity does not mitigate or
negate His full deity with all its implications. The Reformed doctrine of Divine Providence also
illustrates this point. The full humanity and freedom of a creature’s act does not negate or mitigate
its divinely decreed character.

2 The Specific Reformed Doctrine of Organic Inspiration

The doctrine of organic inspiration is rooted in the above views: The doctrines of the person of
Christ and divine providence. It denies any mechanical or dictation view of inspiration in which
the humanity of the human writer is suspended. It teaches the full humanity of the Bible i.e., that
the human writers’ own personalities and free agency were fully operational. It teaches the
complete and detailed divinity of the Bible, i.e., it is precisely God speaking without human
distortion. God made these men’s mouths, through His general providence and special grace
creating the precise instrument desired.

3 The Logical Necessity of Other Positions which deny the

Reformed Doctrine of Divine and Human Freedom

a Liberal deniers of the doctrine of full inspiration

forfeit infallibility of any kind. Murray argues:

Those who thus contend should, however, be aware ofthe implications of their position. If
human fallibility precludes an infallible Scripture, then by resistless logic it must be
maintained that we cannot have any Scripture that is infallible and inerrant. All of Scripture
comes to us through human instrumentality. If such instrumentality involves fallibility,
then such fallibility must attach to the whole of Scripture. For by what warrant can an
immunity from error be maintained in the matter of "spiritual content" and not in the matter
of historical or scientific fact? Is human fallibility suspended when "spiritual truth" is
asserted but not suspended in other less important matters?2

‘The Infallible Word, 3.

2The phrase "spiritual flth" is used here by way of accommodation to the views ofthose
who in the discussion of this question stress the distinction between the outward form ofthe Bible
and the religious content of which the Bible is the vehicle. Cf., e.g., W. Sanday: The Oracles of

86
 Furthermore, if infallibility can attach to the "spiritual truth" enunciated by the Biblical
writers, then it is obvious that some extraordinary divine, influence must have intervened
and become operative so as to prevent human fa11ibi1it :.from leaving its mark upon the
truth expressed. If divine influence could thus intrude itself at certain points, why should
not this same preserving power exercise itself at every point in the writing of Scripture?
Again, surely human fallibility is just as liable to beat work in connection with the
enunciation of transcendent truth as it is when it dejils with the details of historical
occurrence.

b For Arminian defenders of doctrine of full

inspiration. One of the following three results must eventuate. First, they may maintain a dictation
theory of inspiration and ignore the biblical evidence against this. So massive is the biblical
evidence for the full humanity of the Bible that this must be a very unstable position. Thus, they
will probably move on to one ofthe next two alternatives. Thus, ond, there will be the denial of
verbal plenary inspiration and inerrancy. This is illustrated by CIrk Pinnock whose Arminianism
eventually forced him to give up the doctrine of inerrancy.2 Thethird possibility is that Arminians
will give up their Arminianism when they realize that the choice either the Reformed view or the
.

adoption of a liberal view of Scripture. These logical tendencies Will come out.

Conclusions warranted by the above assessment are two: 1 Inerrancy implies divine sovereignty.
2 All doctrine is inter-related.

b. From the New Testament’s use ofthe Old Testament

Cf. Roger Nicole’s "New Testament Use of the Old Testament," Revelation and the Bible, edited by
C. F. H. Henry.

c. From the History of the Church

Some argue that the doctrine of inerrancy and the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures is a
modem invention of Fundamentalists. Against this it may be argued that verbal, plenary

God London, 1892, 291; R.H. Maiden: The Inspiration of the Bible London, 1935, Sf. Karl
a Barth is consistent in this respect. Fallibility, he claims, applies to the religious and theological as
well as to the historical and scientific. Referring to the witness to revelation "as fallible, erring men
like ourselves" he says: "We can read and try to assess their word.as a purely human word. It can
be subjected to all kinds of immanent criticism, not only in respect ofits philosophical, historical
and ethical content, but even of its religious and theological" Church Dogmatics, E. T., Vol, 1,2
Edingurgh, 1956, 507; cf. also, 509. Barth can do this compatiblj,with his position, because he
does not equate Scripture with the revelatory Word; Scripture onl’ witnesses to revelation.

‘The Infallible Word, 4-5.

2Cf. the account of Clark Pinnock’s movement on the dot4jiie of Scripture given in The
Banner of Truth issue # 277, 27.

a 87
Inspiration is and always has been the doctrine of the Church. Any seeming denial of this by great -

theologians may be accounted for in two ways. First, our misunderstanding may account for it.
For example, the criticism of copyists has sometimes been misunderstood for criticism of the
original autographs. Second, the imprecision of the theologian his careless modes of statement
because of the relative historical immaturity ofthe writer may account for it. Murray remarks:

We need not doubt that it was this distinction between the demands of pedantic precision, -

on the one hand, and adequate statement, that is, statement adequate to the situation and
intent, on the other, that Calvin had in mend when he said that "the apostles were not so
punctilious as not to accommodate themselves to the unlearned." We are not necessarily -

granting that Calvin’s remarks are the best suited to the solution ofthe questions that arise in
connection with Acts 7:14 and Heb. 11:21. We may even grant that the language used by
Calvin in these connections is ill-advised and not in accord with Calvin’s usual caution -

when reflecting on the divine origin and character of Scripture. But, if so, we should not be
surprised if such a prolific writer as Calvin should on occasion drop remarks or even
express positions inconsistent with the pervasive and governing tenor of his thinking and -

teaching. In Calvin we have a mass of perspicuous statement and of lengthened argument

to the effect that Scripture is impregnable and inviolable, and it would be the resort of
desperation to take a few random comments, wrench them from the total effect of Calvin’s -

teaching, and build upon them a thesis which would run counter to his own repeated
assertions respecting the inviolable character of Scripture as the oracles of God and as
having nothing human mixed with it.’

Because inerrancy wasn’t a matter ofcontroversy, imprecise modes ofspeech were used.2 -

d. From the Absence of the Autographs

Cf what was said above under the necessity of Scripture and also the treatments noted in the -

footnote.3

e. From Objections to Specific Assertions.

See standard, orthodox commentaries and also note Alexander Haley’s Alleged Discrepancies of the -

Bible.

‘John Murray, Calvin on Scripture and Divine Sovereignty, 30f.

2Cf. the following treatments ofthis subject: John Murray, Calvin on Scripture and Divine -

Sovereignty, 30; J. I. Packer’s review of Rogers and McKim in Beyondthe Battle for the Bible,
146; B. B. Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration, 51; H. Lindsell, Battle for the Bible, 4lf.;
Inerrancy, edited by N. L. Geisler, 357-4 12.

3B. B. Warfield, Selected Shorter Writings II, 580-594; Inerrancy, ed. by N. Geisler, Greg -

Bahnsen’s article on "The Inerrancy ofthe Autographs".

88
 A. The Authority ofthe Old Testament

a
Introduction:

The evidence for the authority of the Old Testament in the New Testament is so vast and pervasive
that any attempt to present it is almost certainly doomed to faU*iort of sufficiently indicating its
conclusiveness, As has been indicated above, we are interested .bLthe evidence for the authority of
the Old Testament as an organic whole or unity. The use oftihe singular, h grafh’ often is
collective and a reference to the entirety ofthe Old Testament Jàz 10:35; Acts 8::12; Rom. 11:2; I
Peter 2:6.1 The use of the plural, ai grafai’ often designates not1veral passages of Scripture, but
the Old Testament as a whole Matt. 21:42; 22:29; 26:54. Alsc’áte the use of law as a reference
to the unitary legal authority of the Old Testament as a whole Fqn 10:34; 15:25. Our interest in
the Scriptures as an organic whole restricts our perspective on d vidence by eliminating the vast
array of places where the data of the Old Testament is assumed ited as authoritative for history,
doctrine, and ethics.2 The following presentation of the evidenó s, then, not exhaustive. As well
as often proving that the Scriptures are an organic whole, the e$ts cited show that this organic
whole is viewed as completely and in detail divinely authoritativ4k’.

1. The Old Testament is sacred ieroj 2 T. 3:15 and holy agjoj Rom.
1:2. Like the temple Note the relation of both words to It11 temple. the Old Testament is
distinctively and peculiarly associated with and related to God. The Old Testament writings are
God writings. This is, of course, the connotation of agioj w!4ch refers peculiarly separated to
God’s
or divine.

2. The Old Testament writings are the oracie of God Rom. 3:2. As Warfleld
has shown in detail, ?.oytov designates a divine utterance.3 This is its distinct and universal
meaning. The reference in Rom. 3:2 is to the written en4odiment of these oracles as its
"entrustment" to Israel indicates. Notice also Acts 7:38 and Heb. 5:12 in support ofthis meaning.

3. God is the ultimate, determinative speake and author of the Old Testament
Acts 2:16; 4:25; Matt. 13:35.

4. For this reason the phrases, "God sqs," and, "Scripture says," are
equivalent. Notice Rom. 9:17 and Gal. 3:8 where what God saittb the Old Testament is attributed
to the Scripture. Notice also Man. 19:4, 5 where what Scrip$te said in the Old Testament is
attributed to God. This "holy confusion" can only be explained the supposition that Scripture is
%‘

viewed as God speaking. Warfield remarks:

a

‘See Warfield’s listing in Revelation and Inspiration on 1 9 of 19 refs.

2Note John W. Wenham’s treatment, in Christ and the Bibfr, 1 2f, 1 6f, 84f.

3Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration, 33Sf.

89
 S

It would be difficult to invent methods of showing profound reverence for the text of
Scripture as the very Word of God, which will not be found to be characteristic of the
writers of the New Testament in dealing with the Old. Among the rich variety of the
indications of their estimate of the written words of the Old Testament as direct utterances
of Jehovah, there are in particular two classes of passages, each of which, when taken
separately, throws into the clearest light their habitual appeal to the Old Testament text as to
God Himself speaking, while, together, they make an irresistible impression of the absolute
identification by their writers of the Scriptures in their hands with the living voice of God.
In one of these classes of passages the Scriptures are spoken of as if they were God; in the
other, God is spoken of as if He were the Scriptures: in the two together, God and the
Scriptures are brought into such conjunction as to show that in point of directness of
authority no distinction was made between them.’

5. Since God is the true writer ofthe Scriptures it can be and is written with the
distant thture in mind Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:11. Note the side implication of the plenary
inspiration ofthe Old Testament in Rom. 15:4.

6. Not only is the Scripture as authored by God invested with plenary

authority, it is also authoritative in detail. Arguments are built on single words. Notice Man. 22:32
where the tense ofverb is crucial; Luke 16:17 where the tiny stroke which distinguished two similar
letters is divine; Matt. 22:41f. where a single word is stressed; John 10:35 where again a single
word is crucial; and Gal. 3:16 where the singular as opposed to the plural is the key point.

7. Since Scripture is divine, it is, so to speak, the transcript of God’s divine

decree. A divine necessity demands its flulfihiment Acts 1:16; 2:24f.; 13:34, 35; John 19:34-36, 24;
Luke 22:37; Matt. 26:54; John 13:18.

The following five, concluding points are expositions of what might be called the five classic
passages which enunciate the divine authority ofthe Old Testament.

8. 2 Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for

teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness." -

a. The Preceding Context

a

Paul has set before his eyes in verses 1-9 of chapter 3 the terrifying times that will beset the church
during the last days. Godlessness and apostasy from the truth will be its hallmarks. Inverses 10-17
he turns to Timothy and endeavors to entrench him even more firmly in his certainty and
persuasion of the truth so that he may be able to stand against the tide of error. These verses are
divided into two sections. Both of these begin with cu 55, "you, however." In verses 10-13 Paul
appeals to the apologetic value ofhis own life and ministry in order to reassure Timothy ofthe truth -

of his gospel. Inverses 14- 17 Paul appeals to the apologetic value of the lives of Lois and Eunice.

‘Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration, 283.

90
 nvwv is plural and certainly includes these two women 2 Tin4i:$; 3:15. Their lives and Paul’s
ministry irresistibly demonstrated the validity of their teaching. 4nthy was intimately acquainted
with these living "proofs" ofthe gospel. In v. 15 Paul swiftly 4*+es from women who had taught
Timothy to the Scriptures which they taught him. These "sa4 writings" are the authoritative
source of what Timothy had become convinced of. Their auth4$i4ty is the reason that he can and
should continue in those things.

Verses 16 and 17 are an expansion and confirmation of verse i This occurs in several ways.
The general mention of the "sacred writings" is expanded 840 confirmed in the more explicit
statement that "all Scripture is God-breathed. The general abilit, of the Scriptures "to make wise
a unto salvation" is expanded and confirmed in the more explicit st$ernent of all that the Scripture is
"profitable for" vv. 16, 17. The more restricted scope of this ab4ty in v. 15, Timothy viewed as a
child, is expanded m v 17 and confirmed in the more general de*nation "the man of God"
-

b. The Pressing Issues

There are several minor translational problems in v. 16. Is naq ypap every or all Scripture?
‘Where is the copula the "is" to be inserted, before or after God4$thed? These two questions are
unimportant except insofar as they are related to two more pressj’ issues.

1 Is Ocoitvcia’roç relation to iraaa ypwp attributive or r$icative? Is Paul asserting that

God-breathed Scripture is profitable the attributive positioni Or is Paul asserting that all
Scripture being God-breathed is also profitable or that a14L Sbipture is God-breathed and
profitable. Grammatically, both are possible.2 However, the 4flowing considerations constrain
the predicative interpretation of Osotvsua’roç. First, this is thek .$tost natural understanding of the
clause. The iccn seems to tie 0coazoç to oxpcXijsoç. To trai$te one attributively and the other
predicatively is forced. Second, Hendriksen says, "Moreover, ifØod-breathed is attributive, icat in
the sense of also would be superfluous: "All Scripture god-breafld is useful," etc. would suffice."3
Third, the context with its call to continue in the things he ha41loarned calls for a clear assertion
that all Scripture is God-breathed, not a mere assumption thS i is. Fourth, it seems trite and
unnecessary to assert that God-breathed Scripture is useful. toever would think it was not?
Fifth, here as in every other of its 50 uses in the New Testament pwpi means Scnpture not a mere
writing Paul is, thus, not distinguishing between God-breat11i4 writings and human writings
Sixth, if ypwp means Scripture, then Paul cannot mean to dItjnguish between God-breathed
Scripture and other parts of the Old Testament--Scripture--whicii*’ i’e not. This idea is utterly absent
from Paul and the New Testament There is no analysis of th Old Testament into inspired and
uninspired portions. All Scripture is equivalent to the sacred s*4. gs of v. 15. Can Paul mean to
distinguish between sacred i.e. divine writings and God-bre*thed writings? The thought is
ludicrous.

‘Note the comments of William Hendriksen on this passai, Commentary, 301.

2See Machen, New Testament Greekfor Beginners, 37 74L

3Flendriksen, Commentary en bc., 301.

91
 S

2 Does Ocoitvcua’roç mean God-breathed? Some commentators opt for the meaning "God-
breathing", in other words, filled with God’s Spirit."1 Here one can do no better than to refer to
Warfield’s exhaustive 51 page article on the meaning of Osoirvsuatoç. The upshot of Warfield’s
treatment is to confirm the well nigh universal and historic meaning attributed to the term and to
overturn the few, recent, liberal attempts to establish another meaning. Warfield starts his article by
affirming:

Its form, its subsequent usage, the implications of its parallel terms and of the analogy of
faith have combined with the suggestions of context to assign to it a meaning which has
been constantly attributed to it from the first records of Christian interpretation until
yesterday.2

He concludes, "What is Osoirveuatoç is "God-breathed what it affirms is that the Scriptures

...."

owe their origin to an activity of God the Holy Ghost and are in the highest and truest sense his
creation."3 Young’s remarks on its meaning are also useful.
S

What, however, can such a strange designation mean? Why did Paul thus speak of the
Scriptures? He thus spoke, we believe, because he wished to make as clear as possible the
fact that the Scriptures did not find their origin in man but in God. It was God the Holy
Ghost who breathed them forth; they owed their origin to Him; they were the product ofthe
creative breath of God Himself. It is a strong figure, this expression "breathed out by God."
A strong figure, however, is needed, in order that Timothy may realize that he is being -

asked to place his confidence not in writings which merely express the hopes and
aspirations ofthe best of men, but rather in writings which are themselves actually breathed
out by God, and consequently of absolute authority. -

A strange expression indeed, but the idea set forth by it is not without former Biblical
a
precedent. In the Old Testament the "mouth" of God was regarded as the source from
which the Divine message came. "The word is gone out of my mouth," said the Lord, when
asserting the steadfastness of His promises of salvation. Likewise, when the tempter came -
to Him our Lord rebuked him with the words of the Scripture, "Man shall not live by bread
alone, but by every word that proceedeth out ofthe mouth of God." It is not a new idea that
Paul here sets forth, even though the particular Greek word which he employs has not yet -
been attested earlier than his time. Paul is in line with what both the Old Testament and our
Lord had said, namely that God had spoken, and that words had come from His mouth.
Paul, be it noted, goes a step fl.irther, and says not merely that one word or more words had -
come from the mouth of God, but indeed that the Scriptures--all, in fact, that might be
designated as Scripture--has come from the mouth of God, had been breathed out by God.
a
The Scriptures therefore are writings which found their origin in God; they are the very

tCf. Alford’s Greek Testament en bc. -

2Warfleld, Revelation and Inspiration, 229.

3Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration, 280.

92
 product of His creative breath. It is this, then, that ,ç mean when we speak of the
inspiration ofthe Bible’ I

c. The Proper Conclusions

1 The Apostle Paul here teaches the divine origin of the Si4rlptures. Specifically, he teaches
the verbal plenary inspiration of the Scriptures. Verbal inspitation is taught because it is the
writings ypwp that are God-breathed. Plenary inspiration is $ught because all or every 7taucz
Scripture is God- breathed.

a 2 The Apostle Paul here teaches the divine authority of the! ripWres. Because they are God-
breathed, they are profitable for all those things mentioned and IüQthy owes them continuance in
what they have taught him.

9. 2Peterl:19-2b

a. The Setting ofthis Passage

The larger context of these verses is verses 16-21. They are Peqifs reminder to his readers of the
certainty ortruthfiilness of the gospel they have believed 1:1, 54i15. To establish this certainty
Peter appeals to: 1 The Apostolic Eyewitness and 2 the Pphetic Word. Note again the
apologetic or epistemological setting of a passage which concen44ispiration
-

b. The Sense of the Passage

1 Verse 19: "And so we have the prophetic word made sure, to which you do webb to
pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day iwns and the morning star arises
in your hearts."

The connection with the preceding context must first be exa4ffiled. Is the simple jccxt to be
translated "and" NTV or "and so" NASB? Either is possib$ Probably "and so" is the proper
meaning because ofthe emphasis on the fact that the prophetic i’4has been made "more certain."
This beads to a second comment.

II afiatotcpov isin the predicative position. Peter asserts thaØe. prophetic word has been made
more certain. Note the comparative. Commentators chase t!’fr tails asking how the inspired
Scriptures can be made more certain. Lenski states the simp solution, "By its fulfillment the
fulfilled prophecy is naturally made more sure that it was while! !t:was still awaiting fulfillment."2
John Brown adds that "by being fulfilled, more confirmed--they were made to appear more
manifestly sure and steadfast than they could previously to their acdmplishment."3

‘E. J. Young, Thy Word Is Truth, 20,21.

2Brown, Commentary, en bc, 293.

3Brown, Commentary, en bc, 189.

a 93
‘coy itpocpirrpcov Xoyov is a clear reference to the entire Old Testament as pointing forward to
Christ. Parallel to this is Luke 24:25, 27, 44 with v. 32 and v. 45 and the succeeding mention of
"every prophecy of Scripture." This prophetic word which has become more manifestly certain by
its fulfillment in the events witnessed by the Apostles is for Peter’s readers a source of light,
certainty, in a dark and uncertain world.

2 Verse 20: "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s
own interpretation."
a

Verses 20 and 21 confirm the certainty and stability of the Scriptures by affirming their divine
origin and determination. Note on the first three words Brown’s comments: Knowing this first’ is
"

just equivalent to ‘seeing you are aware that what I am about to state respecting prophecy is a first
principle, a primary and important truth."

Verse 20 asserts that "no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation" iSuzç -

ciuluascoç ot ytverat. This phrase is of real difficulty. sinXuacwç and the verb sinlixo have
for their normal meaning, interpretation and interpret. The context seems to demand, however, an
emphasis on the origination rather than the interpretation of prophecy. Note the confirmation that -

this clause has to do with origin from ytvstcu which means to "occur from" or "become." Brown
following Calvin and others attributes the meaning "disclosure" or "utterance" to sinXuocwç. The
clause then means, ‘Every prophecy of Scripture never came about from the prophet’s own -

disclosure’. Lenski with the support of most interpreters keeps the meaning "interpretation."2 The
MV translates, "no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation." I
believe this is the best interpretation. -

itaaa itpoqrjtsia ypwpç is taken by some as a reference to Scripture in its entirety. In this case
Peter affirms explicitly that Scripture did not originate with men and so is trustworthy. Others -

regard the reference as more or less restricted to the specific prophecies contained in the Old
Testament. Even so, there is an implication of the authority of the Scriptures. This is so for two
reasons. First, Pete?s assertion of the divine origin ofprophecy is carefully qualified as true only of
scriptural prophecy. The implication is that Peter believed the prophecies to be trustworthy and
divine because they were scriptural. The Scripture’s inspiration is by implication the basis for
Peter’s certainty for the inspiration of those prophecies contained in Scripture. The Scriptures bend
their divine trustwortltess to their prophecies. Second, in this passage v. 19 and in the rest ofthe
New Testament Luke 24:250 the prophetic element is seen as characteristic of the Old Testament
as a whole. It would be manifestly wrong in such a context to restrict the divine origin and
determination predicated of prophecy to only those specifically prophetic parts of the Old
Testament. -

‘Brown, Commentary, en bc, 209. -

2Cf. the Greek lexicon, Bauer Arndt & Gingrich, and also the translations of the NIV, -

NASB, AV.

94
 3 Verse 21: "for no prophecy was ever made by an act ofi$nan will, but men moved by
the Holy Spirit spoke from God."

Prophecy had a divine origin. This is asserted emphatically 14$t aegatively, "no prophecy was
ever made by an act of human will," then positively, "but meñ moved by the Holy Spirit spoke
from God."

a Prophecy had a divine determination. The phrase of interest hre is aXXci tim mv&uI.xatoc aytot
ipcpojscvot. Warfield’s comment here is precisely accurate.

a The term here used is a very specific one. It is not tqbc confounded with guiding, or
directing, or controlling, or even beading in the full senkf that word. It goes beyond all
such terms, in assigning the effect produced speciflca4’ to the active agent. what is
a "borne" is taken up by the "bearer", and conveyed by th’liearer’s" power, not its own, to
the "bearer’s" goal, not its own. The men who spoke froc* 9d are here declared, therefore,
to have been taken up by the Holy Spirit and brought y His power to the goal of His
choosing The things which they spoke under this operat of the Spirit were therefore His
things, not theirs.’

Prophecy had not only a divine origin, but also a divine destin4nd The divine goal was attained
without dilution or diversion because men were borne to that goafly the Hoby Spirit.

Prophecy had a human medium Though men did not dilute je divine message or divert the
inspiring Spirit from His goal, they did speak Thus, in a certain epse they were active, though in a
very important sense they were passive.

The apostle Peter, however, though not by any means ft$bng us with a full definition of
the mode of inspiration, does go farther than does Patit lh 2 Timothy 3:16 in stating the
relation that obtained between the Holy Spirit and the inpired human witnesses. "No
prophecy of Scnpture," he writes, "is of pnvate interprçton For not by the will of man
was prophecy brought aforetime, but as borne by the 11I4 Spirit men spake from God" 2
Pet. 1:10, 21. That Peter’s statement here bears upon th agency of the Holy Spirit in the
giving of Scripture is obvious from the phrase, "prophecy 4J scnpture"

Peter’s teaching in this passage is both negative and posie. Negatively, he denies that the
prophecy of Scripture owes its origin to human initiativØ, vobition, or determination. It is
not the product of individual reflection or imagination. Psitively, human instrumentality is
asserted. "Men pake from God." False inferences that tight be drawn from the absolute
terms of the preceding negations are obviated by the rç. gnition of human agency. But
a
while men spake, they spake from God, and it is this *um that harmonizes the fact of
human agency with the negations of private interpretatic and the will of man They spake
from God because they were borne along or borne up 1$’! the Holy Spirit.2 Here there is

‘Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration, 83.

2Cf. B.B. Warfield: op cit., respectively, 82 and 13Sf.

a 95
 plainly the conjunction of human and divine agency. But the divine character of the
prophecy is insured by the peculiar character of the Spirit’s agency. He took up the human
agents in such a way that they spoke God’s Word, not their own.’

This passage is relevant then in the discussion ofthe organic nature ofinspiration.

10. Matthew 5:17, 18: "17 Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the -

Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth
pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is
accomplished."

No detailed exegesis of this passage is necessary to perceive its significance. Several comments
will suffice.

a. The words, "law or the prophets" in v. 17 and "law" in v. 18, in all

probability both designate the entire Old Testament. Certainly the phrase of v. 17 does so. In a
dozen different places in the New Testament it designates the entirety ofthe Old Testament. Since
the statement is grounded iii and explained by v. 18 note the yap, the term law probably
designates the same entity. In any case Murray’s comment is accurate. "It would be wholly
arbitrary, indeed casuistic and contrary to all of the evidence to suppose that there is the least hint
that other parts ofthe Old Testament are in a different category in respect of authority."2

b. In these verses Jesus states his conviction that at barge and in the
smallest detail these writings possess inviolable authority. Note Murray’s comment on the
a
connection of verses 17 and 18. "The jot is the smallest better of the Hebrew alphabet and the
"tittle" is the minute hom or projection that distinguishes consonants of similar form from one
another."3 The only proper conclusion is that Jesus taught the verbal, plenary inspiration ofthe Old
Testament. "By the most stringent necessity there is but one conclusion, namely, that the law is -
infallible and inerrant."4

11. John 10:34-36: "34 Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your
Law, ‘I SAID, YOU ARE GODS’? 35 "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came
and the Scripture cannot be broken, 36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent
into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?"

‘John Murray in The Infallible Word, 31, 32. -

2John Murray in The Infabbible Word, 20.

the Infallible Word, 21f. Note his following comment on 22.

4Murray in The Infallible Word 23. Note also Murray’s footnote.

96
a
 a. The Difficulty ofthe Testimony

As is webb-known, the nature of Jesus’ reply to the Pharisees is 4qubt and abstruse. The question
concerns how Jesus’ reference to Psa. 82:6 relates to his claim th4, He was God in the highest sense
a of the word and not merely in the figurative sense of that passag. Warfield surmises that Jesus is
simply defending his verbal use of the phrase, Son of God, it reference to Flirnsebf and has no
intention in this argument of defending His full deity.’ The fact i Itowever, that this does not at all
obscure its testimony for our purposes.

b. The Basis of the Testimony

The backbone of Jesus’ reply to the Pharisees on any under$ ding of it is his appeal to the
Scriptures, specifically Psalm 82:6. This appeal is irrefutably a$ $o4itative as Jesus points out in v.
35. The Scripture cannot be broken. Warfield says:
The movement ofthought is to the effect that, because it btpossibbe for the Scripture--the
term is perfectly general and witnesses to the unitary ch frr of Scripture it is all, for the
purpose in hand, of a piece--to be withstood, therefor his particular Scripture which is
cited must be taken as of irrefragable authority.! Wh e have here is, therefore, the
strongest possible assertion of the indefectibbe authority .4 Scripture; precisely what is true
of Scripture is that it "cannot be broken." Now, what is articubar thing in Scripture, for
the confirmation of which the indefectibbe authority of S ture is thus invoked? It is one
of its most casual clauses--more than that, the very form. its expression in one of its most
casual clauses. This means, of course, that in the Savia view the indefectibbe authority
of Scripture attaches to the very form of expression of itS cist casual clauses. It belongs to
Scripture through and through, down to its most minute ittjculars, that it is of indefectibbe
authority.2

c. The Extent ofthe Testimony

What makes this passage so striking and important is that no 44p5t can be entertained as to the
identity ofthose writings to which divine authority is attributed, Aruabby, some doubt is possible
in 2 Peter 1 :19f., even less in Matt. 5:17f., but none at all is possi$ó In John 10:34f.

The term, law, in v 34 is a reference to the entire Old TestamenL the citing of Psalm 82 6 makes
i$

clear This means by the way that the Old Testament its ent1*ty was understood by Jesus to be
in

a
divine law--possessed, in other words, of absobute authority. ‘heterm, Scripture, in v. 35 is if
anything even more clearly a designation of the entirety of th Rd Testament. The syllogism
implied in Jesus’ argument is this:
a
Major Premise: Scripture cannot be broken.

‘Warfiebd, Revelation and Inspiration, 84.

2Warfiebd, Revelation and Inspiration, 85

97
 a

Minor Premise: Psa. 82:6 is Scripture. -

Conclusion: Psa. 82:6 cannot be broken.

This syllogism surely implies that the term, Scripture, in this passage is a reference to the entirety of
the Old Testament.

d. The Objection to the Testimony

So clear and irrefutable is this understanding of John 10:34-36 that its opponents have had to take
refuge in the claim that Jesus’ argument is "ad hominem." In other words, they assert that Jesus
said that Scripture cannot be broken only because that is what His Jewish opponents believed. It is
without doubt true that in John there is an irony in references to the Jew’s law. Cf. John 15:25,
7:51, 8:17, 18:31, 19:7. There is no evidence, however, that this implies Jesus personal rejection of
the law. In fact, there is the opposite indication. Cf. John 5:39f. Outside of John there are appeals
to the authority of the Old Testament by Jesus which niake the appeal to a supposed ad hominem
argument ludicrous. The striking example of such passages is found in Mall. 4:1-11 where Jesus to
refute the Devil appeals to the Scriptures.

12. Matthew4:l-ll -

Three times in this passage Jesus appeals to the Old Testament via the formula, ysyparrat, "it is" or
"it stands written." Cf. vv. 4, 7, 10. This mode of citing the Old Testament is frequent ebsewhere in
the New Testament.1 The unadorned ycypait’rat with the assumed prepositional phrase "in the
Scriptures" cites the Scriptures as final authority and witnesses to the authority of what is written
a
just because it is written. No more clear testimony to verbal, plenary inspiration could be wished.
Says Warfield:

The bare "It is written" was the decisive adduction of the indefectibbe authority of the
Scriptures of God, cbothed as such, in all their parts and in all their declarations, with His
authority. We could scarcely imagine a usage which would more illuminatingly exhibit the -

estimate put upon Scripture as the expressed mind of God or the rooted sense of its unity
and its equal authoritativeness in all its parts.

We should not pass lightly over this high implication of the employment of absolute -
ysypaittat to adduce the Scriptural word, and especially the suggestions of its relative
frequency. No better index could be afforded of the sense of the unitary authority of the
document so cited which dominated the minds of the writers of the New Testament and of
our Lord as reported by them. The consciousness ofthe human authors, through whom the
Scriptures were committed to writing, retires into the background; though it is absorbed in
the contemplation of the divine authority which lies behind them and expresses itself
through them.2

‘Note the comments of Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration, 146.

2Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration, 147. -

98
a
 Conclusion:

One observation is both warranted and demanded at this point. !j$ that Scripture itself teaches the
doctrine ofthe verbal, plenary inspiration and the consequent in tc of the Old Testament. This
means that there can be no such thing as "limited inerrancy" or Iñerrancy in matters of faith and
life but not for science and history" or "infallibility but not inen Udy." If any error is admitted in
the Old Testament, then not only is that passage errant, but thej ervasive doctrinal teaching of the
New Testament that the Old Testament is inerrant is itself erraiI j 1/t the admission of one error
in the Old Testament the doctrinal authority of the Bible is shói Øred. All half-measures are thus
excluded. The issue is errancy or inerrancy, human fallibility or *Hne infallibility human opinions
or divine authority.

B. The Authority of the New Testament

Introduction:

a. The Thrust

The point of this section is not to prove exhaustively the al4Ø4ty of each book of our New
Testament canon. That subject is addressed in the Doctrine of tJ$ Canon. All it is necessary to do
here is to establish that in principle the New Testament popesses the same God-breathed
authority as the Obd.

b. The Method

How will the inspiration of the New Testament be proved?’ The presupposition and primary
ground for the extension of the authority ofthe Old Testament t 1iie New Testament is the specific
.
rebationship of organic unity which exists between them.

While we do not have the same mass of testimony to the inspiration of the New Testament
as to the Old, and while the circumstances were such t$$ we could not expect the same
kind of inclusive charactenzation, it does not follow thØ e have no evidence upon which
to maintain the divine origin and character of the Ne% Tóstament. We have sufficient
evidence, and to such we now turn our attention

The organic unity of both Testaments is the presuppositiq{n of the appeal to the authority of
the Old Testament and of allusion to it in which the Ne* testament abounds. This fact of
organic unity bears very directly upon the question ofth:jspiration of the New Testament.

1Very important here are 33-42 ofMurray’s excellent arti4 qn the subject in The Infallible
Word and an excellent treatment of the same subject by A Kuyp 6 Principles ofSacred
Theology, 460-473. Note especially his remarks on 461 to the eftöct that authorization is not
necessary for the authority ofNew Testament.

a 99
 a

For if, as we have found, the authoritative witness of the New Testament bears out the -

unbreakable and inerrant character of the Old, how could that which forms an organic unit
with the Old be of an entirely different character as regards the nature of its inspiration?
When the implications of organic unity are fully appreciated, it becomes impossible to a
believe that the divinity ofthe New Testament can be on a lower plane than that of the Old.
Surely then, if the Old Testament, according to the testimony that in this matter has the
greatest relevance or authority, is inerrant, the New Testament must also be. -

This argument from organic unity has peculiar force when we properly understand the
implications of progressive revelation. The New Testament stands to the Old in the relation a
ofconsummation to preparation; it embodies a ftibber and more glorious disclosure of God’s
character and will. This is signalized by the fact that in these last days God hath spoken
unto us by his Son who is the brightness of his glory and the express image of his being
Heb. 1:1-3. In Paul’s language the glory of the New Testament is the glory that excels 2
Cor. 3:10,11. The New Testament Scripture enshrines and conveys to us the content of
that new and better covenant, established upon better promises. Is it at all consonant with -

the compbetory nature of the New Testament, with the more excellent glory inherent in the
New Testament and with the finality attaching to the revelation of God’s own Son to
suppose that the Scripture of such an economy should be backing in that inerrancy which the
authoritative witnesses--our Lord and his apostles--predicate of the Old Testament? It
would be contrary to all sound analogy and reason to entertain such a supposition.’ -

Note also the insightfUl comments ofKuyper:

The Scripture of the New Testament is not so directly covered by the authority of Christ and
His apostles as that of the Old Covenant. The Law and the Prophets formed a Scripture
which already existed, and concerning which, therefore, Jesus’ verdict and use can give a
final explanation; but the New Testament did not yet exist, and therefore could not be -

subjected to judgment in the circle of Jesus. The absolute and immediate authority which
the Bishop of Rome claims as vicar of Christ and head of the Church lacks the Divine seal,
which it needs in order to impress the Divine stamp upon the Scripture of the New
Testament. The absolute authority necessary for such a sealing, outside of us, is here
wanting. Our fixed point of departure, therefore, does not lie in the New, but in the Old a
Testament. The Old Testament is to us the fixed point of support, and the New cannot
legitimate itself other than as the complement and crown of the Old, postulated by the Old,
assumed and prophesied by Christ, actually come, and by the continuity of faith accepted in -
the Church of Christ. A certain parallel with the standing of the authority of the Old
Testament before Jesus’ appearance is here not to be denied. Even though Jesus’ decisive
witness concerning the Scripture then in existence bays for us the firmest objective a
foundation on which its authority rests, it may nevertheless not be lost from sight that
respect for this authority did not originate first by means of Jesus’ coming, but was abready
prevalent before He was manifest in the flesh. Christ had merely to connect Himself with
what existed, and put His seal to an authority that was universally recognized. The

‘Murray, Revelation and Inspiration, 34. -

100
a
a

authority of the Scripture of the Old Covenant arose itself even as that of the New
Testament.

It was, as Jesus found it, the result of organic factors whj41 had worked in upon the people
of God in the Old Dispensation; an authority which buly graduabby had been firmly
established, and did not maintain itself in an absolute except through conflict and
strife, over against the pretension of the Apocrypha an4 other influential writings, but at
a
length prevailed universally within a sharply bounded d*in. As a parabbeb to the rise of
the authority of the New Testament this is of value to ts, because it shows that such an
authority can establish itself gradually by psychical fac$s and in organic connection with
the life of the people of God, and in such a way that ratifies it afterwards as an
entirely lawful and valid authority. From this the possi1ty! also is evident that in a proper
way, without outward legitimation, such an authority ma$l, imposed as of itself, and that
afterwards it can appear to have been entirely lawfully .ialished. Thus there is nothing
strange in it, that in a similarly unmarked way the Script4Hcf the New Testament gradually
acquired the authority which it has since exercised. Fr*44t!ie psychological point of view
the process of the rise of this authority, both with the I14$ çnd with the Old Testament, is
one The description ofthis process is the task ofthe sciefr4eofCanomcs, and therefore lies
outside of our scope. But the inner necessity needs to be indicated with which the Old
!

called for the New Testament, and how this necessity has $en universally realized.’

The prophetic character of the Old Testament called for a Ne*J Testament. The New Testament
proclaims itself to be that fulfillment. It, therefore, in the orgar4 upfolding of redemptive history
exists on the same or even a superior plane as compared with the 14. This fact, thus, demands that
an equal authority and inspiration be attributed to the writin of the New Testament. The
following New Testament data evidence the organic unity an ‘qnsequent equality of the New
I!
Covenant with the Old Covenant.

I. The Classic Passages Which Teach Orga! Unity

a. Hebrews 1:l,2a

Both are God’s speaking. The New is even in certain respects sup?lior.

b. 2 Corinthians 3:10,11

Both Old and New possess a divine glory. To the New however bongs the glory that excels. The
connection between this fact and Scripture’s authority is made! $*icit in this context where the
reading of the Old Covenant is mentioned, vs. 14-16. If the NOW is also inscripturated possessing
as it does the excelling divine glory wilb it not be equally God-brddhed and authoritative?

2 The Specific Passages Which Teach Equalthonty

‘Kuyper, Principles ofSacred Theology, 460, 461.

101
 a

a The equal authority of the personal authorities of the -

New Covenant Rom. 16:25f 2 Peter 1:16-21, 1 Cor. 15:3-11,2 Peter 3:1,2; John 2:22

b The equal authority of the written authorities of the

New Covenant John 20:30, 31; 21:24, 25 [The technical term for the citing of Scripture is used
here.];2Peter3:16; 1 Tim. 5:18’
a

III. The Perfection ofScripture

Introduction:

Under this heading both the attributes of sufficiency and clarity wilb be dealt with. Though
distinguishable conceptually and often dealt with separately, these attributes of Scripture are also
inseparable and integrally related. Furthermore, since their practical significance depends on their
joint confession, it is helpful to deal with them together. The outline wilb be:
a

A. The Sufficiency of Scripture

B. The Clarity of Scripture
a
C. Cautions
D. Conclusions

A. The Sufficiency of Scripture -

1. Its Definition
a

It is most helpfUl at the outset of this exposition of the meaning of the sufficiency of Scripture to
remind ourselves ofthe classic articulation of this attribute of Scripture in almost identical language
a
in both the 1689 Baptist and the Westminster Confession of Faith. The key statement is found in
chapter 1, paragraph 6a: "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own
glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and
necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be
added, whether by new revelations ofthe Spirit or traditions of men."2

a. Stated Negatively -

Note first of all what is not asserted in this definition--what the sufficiency of Scripture does not
mean. Clearly, the sufficiency of Scripture does not mean, in the first place, that all we need to
know about the subjects described in the Westminster definition is stated either explicitly, in
Scripture or, we may add, literalby. Turretin enlarges on this: "The question is not whether all must

‘The authority ofthe Apostobate and their verbal inspiration, also important in this matter, -

are dealt with adequately by Murray, Kuyper, and in the doctrine ofthe Canon.

2The 1689 Baptist Confession is identical except that it replaces the words, "by good and
necessary consequence may be deduced from", with the words, "necessarily contained in".

102
a
be stated in literal terms or directly and explicitly, in Scriptu$ sce admit that many things are
properly deduced from Scnpture by logical reasomng, and then rar4ed as the Word ofGod "

It is evident, secondly, from this above definition that the sufficie$of Scripture does not imply its
"omni-sufficiency." Sufficiency is always to be defined with re lC4ce to some purpose. The first
question in this matter must always be: Sufficient for what? W1jte the issue of the exact nature of
the purpose for which the Scriptures are sufficient will be enl ed upon later in this lecture, it
ought to be clear that the sufficiency of Scripture is very carefl4 tated and thus limited in the
above definition. The Bible is not alt-sufficient for every concei’ $Ie purpose. The Scriptures, for
instance, are not sufficient as a textbook in math, biology, or $nish. The sufficiency of the
Scriptures is not a sufficiency with reference to the purpose of frxing geometry or algebra. The
Westminster divines confessed their faith in the sufficiency. not the omni-sufficiency of
Scripture.

b. Stated Positively

What more exactly, then, is the purpose for which the Scriptp$ are sufficient? A moment’s
reflection on the course already traveled in this exposition of thØ 4O4trine of revelation must surely
inform us that the sufficiency of the Scriptures is nothing ni$. Or bess than its sufficiency to
achieve the purposes of redemptive revelation. Surely this is c1à4 om the delimiting statement of
the Confession, "all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salt4tkn, faith and life"

The theologians speaking theological shorthand often tell u ‘tl$t Scriptures are sufficient for
in

showing us the way of salvation. This is liable to be mi4rstood today because of the
"minimizing mentality" abroad which is intent on reducing way of salvation to its barest
elements. It surely must be clear that such an understanding , 1ie sufficiency of Scripture is a
deviation from the historic, Reformation understanding articulatl i4 the Westminster Confession.
"All things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith, 41 life" is far more than the "Four
Spiritual Laws" It is nothing less than sufficiency for the rederption of the church in the whole
ethico-religious sphere oflife that is asserted. I

The terminology just used the thobe ethico-religious spheii. may be opaque or technical
sounding. Therefore, several considerations must be stated whih 4pen it up. First, the Scripture
must be sufficient to make known to men the plan ofsalvation 2flih. 3:15. Second, the Scripture
must be sufficient to make known to the Christian the full exte4 o’ his duty toward God 2 Tim
3:17. Third, the Scripture must be sufficient to enable the m4of God to order the corporate or
institutional life of the people of God 1 Tim. 3:15; 2 Tim. 3: 1$. tT’he regulative principle of the
church is encompassed the sufficiency of the Scnptures It at least these things which are
in

involved in the Scriptures being sufficient for redemption in t$ whole ethico-rebigious sphere of
man’s life.

We must reflect on the breadth of this assertion. When we rç 4iiqmber that the ethico-rebigious
sphere is the supreme sphere of human life and knowledge, we Iécome increasingly aware of the

‘Turretin, The Doctrine ofScripture, ??.

103
 a

magnitude and value of the confession of the sufficiency of the Scriptures. Though it is not a a

confession ofthe omni- sufficiency ofthe Scriptures, it is a confession of that which is sufficient to
be the basis and starting point for every other scientific endeavor. The Scriptures are not a textbook
of biology, but they sufficiently provide those ethico-religious perspectives basic to any proper -

science of biology. The Bible is not sufficient for all we do, but it does speak to all we do
sufficiently as to the glory of God, the way of salvation, the path of duty.
a

We may take by way of illustration a typical Tuesday in the life of Chris College, a university
student majoring in engineering. His Bible is insufficient as a textbook for his classes in Calculus,
Biology, and French; but it does show him the path of duty throughout such a typical Tuesday. It a

teaches him to pray and read his Bible in the morning, to be diligent and discerning in his studies,
and to avert his eyes when the college temptress walks through the library when he is studying.
a
Thus, while the ethico-religious sphere of human knowledge is distinct from other spheres, it is
basic to them all.
a
One further point must be underscored with reference to the sufficiency of the Scriptures. It is,
historically spealdng, the most basic. The sufficiency of the Bible means its sole sufficiency. It is
sufficient to achieve the purposes of redemptive revelation without supplementation by "new
revelations" claimed by some Anabaptists and others or "traditions of men" bike those extra- -

biblical traditions claimed by the Roman Catholic church. Turretin states the question with his
usual precision. "It is not a question whether divine and apostolic traditions, that is, all teachings
which were handed down by Christ or the Apostles, are to be accepted; everyone readily grants this.
The question is whether any such traditions are given except in Scripture."1

It is this and no other view of the sufficiency of the Scriptures that the following discussion will
attempt to demonstrate as warranted by divine revelation.

2. Its Demonstration -

a. The Theological Argument a

It has already been argued in the previous lectures that the purpose of redemptive revelation
required the preservation of that redemptive revelation. That God should give a redemptive a
revelation for the purpose of saving the elect and then fail to preserve that revelation is simply
unthinkable when we remember the sovereignty of God. It has also been argued, when the
necessity of the Scriptures came under discussion, that the inscripturation of that revelation is a

necessary to its preservation. The two arguments just mentioned have as their necessary corollary
the sufficiency of the inscripturated redemptive revelation. The connection is as follows. The
redemptive revelation originally given by God must surely be regarded as sufficient. for the -

purposes for which it was given. To think anything else is to impugn the wisdom of God. As
Heppe remarks, " ...upon the divineness of Scripture rests its perfection."2 The divinity of
a

‘Turretin, The Doctrine of Scripture, 169.

2Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, 28. -

104
a
redemptive revelation necessitates its sufficiency. It is untbnnóie, however, that this sufficient
redemptive revelation should be lost and, therefore, God l$ipturated it. The process of
inscripturation was the necessary means to the preservation of rpdemptive revelation. That any
necessary part of this sufficiency of revelation should be left u#hjcripturated is untenable. This
would be a denial of the biblical teaching with regard to S iessity of inscripturation. The
purpose of redemptive revelation when coupled with the necØsity of its inscripturation for its
preservation simply demands the sufficiency of the Scriptures.

To this theological argument must be added the specific data o1 prpture which clearly asserts that
in the mscnpturated redemptive revelation we possess a sufficieflevelation of the will of God

b. The Classic Passage

Not surprisingly, the classic assertion of the sufficiency of tshsriptures is found in a passage
crucial to other attributes of the Scriptures, particularly its aut1$$t’ That passage is II Timothy
3:15-17. There are three assertions in this passage important wit1 zieterence to the question at hand.

There is the assertion ofverse 1 5b, "the sacred writings which ar Øle to give you the wisdom that
beads to salvation ..." Here is the explicit assertion that the !sies contain all the wisdom
necessary for our salvation.

There is the assertion of verse 16, "All Scripture ...is profitfle for teaching, for reproof, for
correction, for training in righteousness." The term translated ‘ptfliabbe’ in the NASV w’paXtj.ioç
means useful, beneficial, advantageous. The fourfold useflulnessO K the Scriptures enumerated here
by the Apostle surely implies that the Scriptures are a sufflC*t handbook for young, Pastor
Timothy.’ Young Pastor Timothy thces a bewildering array of in Ephesus which demanded
in turn many kinds of ministry. He must have asked himseltØn, "How am I to meet these
multiple challenges?" Paul’s assertion is to the effect that the S$ires are able to outfit Timothy
for every ministry he was called upon to give.

There is the assertion of verse 17, "that the man of God may be I44equate, equipped for every good
work." This assertion assures us that the Scriptures are not mere1t noderately useful to the man of
God, but thoroughly sufficient for all his needs as a man of bØ. First, Paul asserts that the
Scriptures are adequate ap’noç. According to the Greek içiçon BAG this word means
complete, capable, proficient-abbe to meet all the demands 4ed upon it. Second, Paul
emphasizes this completeness by usmg a word from the same ro4{t çpttapvoç which means to
equip or furnish. The prefix makes the idea emphatic, i.e. compey furnished, totally equipped.
Third, Paul underscores the adequacy or sufficiency ofthe ScrijØs by distinctly adding that this
equipping power, this adequacy is "for every good work" icpoç $‘V pyov aya8ov

Two further remarks are necessary to round out this treatment of *e classic passage on the subject
ofthe sufficiency of the Scriptures.

First, it must be asserted and admitted that Paul’s primary e44sis is that the Scriptures are
sufficient for "the man of God." As will be argued later under 4iscussion of the clarity of the
Scnptures, this phrase is not a designation of all Chnstians, but of the one charged with
ttharlY

105
 __

the proclamation of the Word of God. This fact does not impair the witness of this passage to the -

sufficiency ofthe Scriptures for Christians in general. It rather enhances it. Surely if the Scriptures
are sufficient for the multifaceted duties of the man of God, they must be sufficient to show the
ordinary Christian his path of duty. Further, the Pastoral Epistles abound with evidence that the a

ordinary Christian is sufficiently supplied to perform every good work 1 Timothy 5:10; 2 Timothy
2:21;Titus 1:16, 2:14, 3:1.

Second, it must be noted that the designations, "sacred writings" and "Scriptures," may not merely
refer to the Old Testament Scriptures. 1 Timothy 5:17 appears to cite the saying ofJesus found in
Luke 10:7 as Scripture. 2 Peter 3:16, it may be added, appears to give the same sacred designation -

to the epistles of Paul. Thus, the distinct possibility, if not the certainty, exists that both the New
Testament and the Old Testament are in principle designated in 2 Timothy 3:15-17. Even if this is
not the case, the witness of the passage to the sufficiency of the Scriptures is not impaired. Ifthe -

Old Testament alone is sufficient, then surely when the witness of the New Testament is added to
it, there will be a super-sufficiency in the Scriptures as we now have them.1

3. The Supplementary Evidence

a
Many other texts of Scripture bear witness to the sufficiency of inscripturated redemptive revelation
Deut. 4:2; Acts 20:20, 27; Psalm 19:7, 119:6,9, 104, 128.

B. The Clarity of Scripture

The Confession of Faith again provides the classic formulation of this attribute of Scripture in
Chapter One, paragraph seven: "All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike
clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for
salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only a
the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient
understanding of them." This definition may be expounded by use of three simple assertions.

1. The Bible is clear

a. The Arguments for the Clarity of Scripture

1 The cbarity of Scripture is part of its sufficiency 2 Timothy

3:16, 17. It is ridiculous to say that the Scriptures are adequate to equip the man of God for every
good work, if they are not clear enough for him to understand. Such writings would be sufficient
for nothing at all. If someone were given a better of directions to a certain destination which
contained all the necessary information to guide one to that destination, but the better’s handwriting a

was so illegible or its grammar so awkward that it could not be understood, it would be simple
deception to speak of its sufficiency. The case would be precisely the same with the Scriptures. In
a

‘Subsequent to formulating this exegetical understanding ofthe classic passage, I

discovered that Turretin had preceded me in each of its several details. Cf. The Doctrine of a
Scripture, 170, 171.

106
a
this matter a sufficiency which does not include clarity is no su1$iieicy at all.

2 The clarity of Scripture. s presupposed in its ability to

produce conviction 2 Timothy 3:14. The verb translated, "b4te convinced of," in the NASV
cntcrw8ç means to feel confident, be convinced. It is clear the connection with v. 15 that
the Scnptures are the source of this conviction The pomt, $2efl, is just this One is never
convinced of anything until it is clearly seen to be true Even tt$th if presented obscurely, darkly,
or foggily will not produce conviction and confidence. Since $riture had produced not merely
notions but convictions in Timothy, its clarity is evinced.

3 The clanty or perspicuity of Scripture is affirmed in many

places beside the classic passage, 2 Timothy 3:16, 17. Cf. Pfl*j 9:7, 8, 119:105; 2 Peter 1:19;
Prov 622,23,Deut 30 11-14

b. The Objection to the Clarity of Se3ptvre

1 Corinthians 13:12 "For now we see in a mirror dimly" is sonnlmes urged as an objection to the
clanty of Scripture This understandmg of 1 Connthians 13 12 k$rtngby identifies the "mirror" as
Scripture. It also misconceives the entire point of this chapter. Cf the exposition of this passage
given in Prolegomena to Systematic Theology I. H
c. The Extent of the Clarity of Scripe,

The Confession speaks of the extent of the clarity of Scripturj as those things necessary to be
known, believed, and observed for salvation. Again, it must be$Ai$itained that this is not intended
to limit the clarity of Scripture to a few simple gospel truths. tj4h a minimizing mentality was
foreign to the Westminster theologians. Rather, the evidence cI$d above shows that the clarity of
Scripture is not to be in this manner severely limited. Those t$$ig necessary for salvation in the
minds of the Westminster theologians must surely have inc1ud4 , beast the central duties of the
Christian life and good works. Such duties are the way Matthe’44j7: 13, 14 of salvation.

2. The Bible is not alike clear in all its parts.

Certainly the classic passage relevant to this point is 2 Peter 3 ‘6 Here Peter who wrote a few
things that are hard to understand himself asserts that in Pau1 writings there are things hard to
understand. It must be noted this assertion is carefully quabifie4 by Peter. Only some things are
hard to understand. Only the untaught and the unstable distort tl$ things to their own destruction.
Then Peter adds by way of further qualification that such peo$é bngage in such distortion with
reference to the rest of the Scriptures as webb. This, of course, däetscores the idea that the fault in
such distortion does not lie in the Pauline obscurities, but in the $fláught and unstable. Clearly the
presence of such difficulties does not negate the practical sufflci4cy and clarity of the Word for its
redemptive purpose.

3. The Bible is not alike clear to all.

Again at this point 2 Timothy 3 15-17 very suggestively illust!I4s this point It makes two clear

107
statements about the sufficiency and thus the clarity of Scripture as it impinges upon two different a

phases of human existence.

a. Verse 15 asserts that the Scriptures are clear enough to give the a

wisdom that leads to salvation to a child. This is the implication of Paul’s statement that ‘tfrom an
infant" literally Timothy had known the sacred writings that were abbe to give him the wisdom
that leads to salvation. This is, of course, hyperbole. Infants know nothing about any writings
whatever, bet alone the sacred writings. Paul means to say, however, that as soon as Timothy knew
anything, he knew the Scriptures and he knew them precisely as that body of writings which are
able to make wise unto salvation even one who was a child bike Timothy.

b. Verse 17 asserts that the Scriptures are clear enough to equip for
a
every good work the man of God. There may be an intentional contrast between the child of verse
15 and the man of God in verse 17. At any rate it is instructive to observe what Paul mentions with
regardtothemanofGod.
a

We are immediately confronted here with the question, Who is the man of God? The evidence
identifies the man of God not as any believer, but rather as one with an official position of ministit
among the people of God. The man of God is the man entrusted with a special position of -

leadership in the church by God himself. It is the man among the people of God who is in some
special way associated with God or identified with God. Three lines ofthought converge to justif’ a
this conclusion.

1 There is the Old Testament usage. Hendriksen properly -

asserts, "In the old dispensation this was a designation of the person who by God had been
entrusted with a high office." He goes on to note that this designation is applied to Moses, David,
Elijah, and the prophets. It must be noted that Hendriksen regards the proper application of this a
designation in the New Covenant as all believers. "Every believer is viewed as a prophet, priest,
...

and king the description is used of every believer." Hendriksen, however, is wrong in this. It is
...

clear that even in the Old Testament this designation was not used of all godly Israelites but -

reserved for those who bed them.

2 There is the usage of 1 Timothy 6:11. It seems clear that in -

this entire context Paul is thinking of Timothy in his official ministerial capacity. Cf. 5:17- 25, 6:2,
14, 17f, 20f. and also 1 Tim. 1:18.
a

3 There is the context of 2 Timothy 3:17. In the preceding

verse Paul is definitely thinking of ministry. The Scriptures are profitable as translated by the
NIV for teaching, rebuking, correction, and tramin different facets of ministry of Timothy and a

every true pastor. In the succeeding verses the emphasis continues to be upon the ministry. Cf. 4:1 -
5.
a

This evidence constrains the conclusion that the man of God may not be equated with every true

‘Hendriksen, Commentary en bc, 202.

108
a
S

believer. Hence, it may be right to see in 2 Timothy 3:15-17 a ftFction by Paul on the idea that
the Bible is not alike clear to all. It is clear enough to enligifl n even a child as to the way of
salvation. It is clear enough to enlighten the man of God with r* nce to his multifaceted duties.
It must be added, however, by way of qualification that, if the i4 is clear enough for the man of
God with his extraordinary duties, it is certainly reasonable to $ Ø that it is clear enough for the
ordinary Christian with the ordinary duties ofthe Christian life.

C. Cautions

Having demonstrated the perfection sufficiency and clarity c *1* Scriptures, it is important to
issue several cautions so that false inferences are not drawnd fi it. In the opinion of your
instructor, these cautions are particularly necessary in our day of1 4htened individualism.

1. The perfection of Scripture does not nege, tJle necessity of the individual’s
diligence. This doctrine is no excuse for mental laziness. ThCónfession 1:7 emphasizes the
importance of the "due use of the ordinary means Cf Prov 2 4
"

2. The perfection of Scripture does not ix the necessity of the Spirit’s

teaching. This doctrine is not excuse for intellectual pride. t criptures are not sufficient or
clear subjectively to the one devoid of the Spirit. The Cond 4on asserts, "Nevertheless, we
acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God ó be necessary for the saving
understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word ...
1:6 1 Corinthians 2:14.

3. The perfection of Scripture does not 4 the necessity of sanctified

common sense. Natural reason is assumed in those to whom criptures are addressed. Such
reason is, itself, the creation of the Logos of God. The Con$ $èicin does not address this point
directly. It does assume and imply it when it qualifies the suffli näy of Scripture as the regulative
principle of the church. In 1:6 it acknowledges "that there are i4 circumstances concerning the
worship of God, and the government of the Church, common to 4tan actions and societies, which
are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, cbding to the general rubes ofthe
Word, which are always to be observed."

4. The perfection of Scripture does not nejtd the necessity of the church’s
ministry. In the opinion of your instructor this caution is one ofl* nost needed in our day. Thus,
this point will be expanded upon especially. The expositio4 bf the necessity of the church’s
mimstry in the life of the people of God may be mtroduced hera y teminding ourselves that in the
classic passage regarding the sufficiency and clarity of Scrip to, it is the sufficiency of the
Scripture for the work ofthe pastor-teacher that is specifically enth4sized. This fact alone ought to
refute any smug independence from the ministry of the chur&4Jk1duced from the sufficiency of
Scripture.

a. The Biblical Data

Besides the emphasis of 2 Timothy 3:17 on the sufficiency oftbcipture precisely for the man of
God, the following passages teach the! importance and from a 4t4n perspective the necessity of
S the church’s ministry.

109
 a

1 Ephesians 4:11-13 clearly asserts that the divine means for

the maturation and consequent fruitfulness of the church is the gift of the pastor-teacher to it.
Unless this gift of Christ is superfluous, an opinion tantamount to despising the gift of God, such a
gift must be regarded as a necessary link in the divine purpose for the church’s maturation.

2 Acts 17:11 clearly implies the supreme authority of

Scripture. There is no thought in Scripture of setting an infallible ministry over the Word.
Nonetheless the passage also emphasizes that it was the teachable attitude of those Bereans toward
a
the ministry of Paul and Silas that accounted for the greater blessing they experienced as compared
with the Jews of Thessalonica. It must be noted that far from such a teachable attitude making
them neglect the Scriptures, it enhanced their diligence in searching them.
a

3 Acts 8:30, 31 contains the sentiments of the Ethiopian

eunuch with respect to the importance of the ministry of the pastor-teacher. Again there is the
clearest indication ofthe sole authority ofthe Scriptures. The minister, in this case Philip exercises
no independent authority. The eunuch is reading the Scripture at the outset. Philip’s sole function
is to instruct him in the Scripture. Yet this function was not despised by the eunuch. Rather, he is
honest enough to say in response to Philip’s question as to whether he was understanding the
Scripture, "Well, how can I, unless someone guided me?" So along with the sole authority and
necessity of Scripture, there is expressed the felt need of a guide oSijytioct. Cf. for the meaning of -

this term Luke 6:39; Acts 1:16; Romans 2:19; Rev. 7:17.

b. The Necessary Conclusions -

The following doctrinal conclusions are warranted by the above data.

1 The above passages clearly underscore the sole and supreme -

authority of Scripture. There is no priestly authority invested in the ministry which makes them
qualitatively different from other Christians. -

2 These passages also teach the practical necessity of the man

of God in the life of the people of God. Though one cannot assert that the ministry ofthe church is
absolutely crucial in the conversion of each individual, yet such ministry is often the means of such
conversions. More importantly, the pastor-teacher is crucial to the ongoing life of the church. One
may speak of a general practical necessity of the teaching ministry, a

3 Finally, these truths taken together clearly teach the

complementary function ofthe Word of God and the Man of God. The Scriptures do not permit us -

to despise or neglect either.

c. The Practical Implications -

1 This is not Popish Hierarchalism. There is no priestly

a
authority, no infallible interpreter, and no qualitative difference between priest and people.

110
a
 2 We must reject modem i4 Mduabism. We need guides in
the Scripture. In the abstract we may think that spiritual guides ii unnecessary, but as a matter of
practical reality they are very necessary in general. By way of 1i 4iration we may think of a child
learning to read. How many children would learn to read withodli itacher?

3 We must maintain teae$&Je, humble attitudes to our

instructors in the faith. We must receive their instruction and seth the Scriptures--not to disprove
them--but to see if the things they are teaching are so.

4 One should not expect c private devotions to be an

adequate source of spiritual nourishment. They are important, i necessary, but are intended
to profit us sufficiently only in conjunction with the public miniSt k 4f the Word.

5 Don’t permit anything ui$etøssariby to lessen your benefit

from the public ministry ofthe Word.

6 One life-priority of every 4Mstian must be putting oneself

and one’s family under a faithful ministry of the Word.

D Conclusions I

Several practical conclusions of great significance follow from perfection, that is to say, the
sufficiency and clarity, ofthe Scriptures.

1. The Centrality ofthe Scriptures in Christij Guidance

The Scriptures provide the "key" or "secret" to the discovery of od’s will for our lives." They are
"

abbe to do this because they are a sufficient and clear guide to th etirety of God’s preceptive will
for us. The wisdom clearly and completely contained in the Scrj uths enables us to order our lives
in a wise and God-pleasing fashion. In the light of the Scripturó aid its wisdom even such knotty
decisions as those concerning which college, which vocation, an Which mate are made clear. I can
bear personal testimony to the fact that I have never made any t4 personal decision without the
confidence that the light and wisdom of Scripture had made my 4 Ut and my path clear. It is to the
Scriptures, therefore, that we must point those in need of the 4 vine guidance promised in those
same Scriptures. Cf Psalm 25.

2. The Falsity of all Cynicism or Skept4is regarding the Meaning of

Scripture

The perfection of Scripture obliterates all cynicism or skepticism ith respect to the meaning or the
proper interpretation of the Scriptures. Men -even professing !*ritians - have so many ways of
squinning out from under the authority of Scripture when it is1 toght to bear upon them. They
say, "Great men of God have differed so how can I expect to be ett*in of the meaning of Scripture
.

at this point?" How often the objection is ralsed "That’s only yo 4terpretation!" Such objections
presuppose and imply the insufficiency and obscurity of the $i Øt.ires. They are a denial of the
perfection of Scripture. They are an assertion that when God poke he muttered or stuttered or

ill
 a

stumbled. Such ideas are clearly rooted in rebellion against the God of Scripture. They are -

contradicted by the sufficiency and clarity the Bible asserts itself We must say to the objector,
"Don’t tell me that’s only my interpretation. If this isn’t what the Bible says, what does it mean?
The Scriptures are clear and sufficient."

3. The Causality of Error in Matters of Faith and Life is Human Sinfulness

a

The perfection of the Scriptures means that the source of error in matters of faith and life is sin.
This is not to say that every error is solely or equally caused by sin. It is to say that unfallen men
would not be guilty of sins of ignorance with regard to what they believed or practiced. When the a

objection is raised that great men of God have differed, the answer must be given that they were
sinners nonetheless, and sinners with blind spots caused by their remaining sin.
a

4. The Ability of Scripture to Resolve All Issues of Faith and Life with which
we are Confronted
a

The sufficiency and clarity of Scripture must be the presupposition of our confrontation with every
issue of falth and life. It is our duty and our privilege to expect our duty on any issue offaith and
life to be sufficiently and clearly revealed in the Scripture. My approach to the practical study of -

the Bible not rooted in such a perspective is improper and must tend to be ineffective because it
grieves the Spirit who breathed out the Scriptures. Issues like the Christian Sabbath, Believer’s
a
Baptism, and others-perplexing as they can sometimes appear and various as the opinions among
Christians have been about them-must not be regarded as insoluble. Since they are clearly
matters ofduty, we must regard the Scriptures as sufficient and clear enough to resolve them. a

112
a
 SECTION TWO: THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE

I. The Approach to the Canon

A. The Meaning of the Term

1. In General

The Greek word, icavcov, is a word borrowed from the Semi4i bØnguages. One such Semitic
language, Hebrew, uses the word, 1, which means a reed. Bcst Hebrew and Greek it came to
mean a measuring rod or ruler. One scholar traces the devel6 tie$it of its meaning further. He
says, "From the sense of literal measurement naturally follow tle metaphorical use of icavwv
whether in Ethics or in Art or in language
... ... The tern c*non, over the process of time
came to mean, therefore, the standard or measure by which th4 tr%lth or perfection or beauty of
something was judged.

It is important to fix the meaning of the Greek term in our mind the following illustrations may
serve this purpose. The Classic Greek authors were as a whob ic4vov, the absolute standard of
pure language, the perfect model of composition.2 The Epic 4rs used icuvcov with a specific
philosophical meaning. Canonics was the task of seeking to fi $ lasis or a standard by which to
know what is true or false, what was worth seeking and wh slould be avoided. Logic and
method, according to Epicurus, composed this area of study. Ep *eus, the slave philosopher, used
icavcovcç of the logical criteria, rules, or standards by which onçl ‘Wy judge the truth or value of a
thing. Finding the canon was the first step in philosophy. icavcot, r4s also used ofmathematical or
astronomical lists or tables because they were the standards acci4 t4iig to which the these sciences
did their work.

2. In the Early Church

The general idea of something being a norm or standard is borne oqt in the biblical occurrences of
icavcov Gab. 6:16, Phil. 3:16 TV, and 2 Cor. 10:13-16. The Bibj }owever, does not use icavwv in
the sense in which we will be using it in this study. This specifie Mile or use developed later in the
history ofthe Christian church. Very early icavcov was used of was genuinely Christian. The
Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians 7:2 speaks of "the gboriod øiid majestic rule of the tradition
by which the Christian should live." The early creeds were "the 4 4t4n of truth" or "the canon of the
faith." Since this canon is really divine in origin, to canonize so tbing was to recognize it as part
of this canon: divine, sacred, holy, unconditionally reliable and i thdritative.

Later still the word was used specifically of the collection of acted writings or the list of such
a sacred writings. Here are some examples of this usage. The Co zeil ofLaodicea in Phrygia around

‘B. F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of ,Thnon of the New Testament,
Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980 504. ‘H
2ibid.

113
 a

around the year A. D. 360 declared, "Private psalms must not be said in the church, neither non- a

canonical books, but the canonical books of the Old and New Covenants." Athanasius in the
"Decrees ofthe Council ofNicea" said, "The Shepherd of Hermas is not out ofthe canon In other
words, its origin is not canonical. It has no place in the canon." Athanasius in 367 in the 13th a

Festal epistle specifies our 27 New Testament books alone as the canon as opposed to all the other
writings which some wanted to include in the New Testament.
a

The idea of an authoritative list or collection of sacred books is much older, however, than the
application of the word, canon, to this idea. Prior to the 4th century the idea of an authoritative list
ofbooks was expressed by means of the phrase, "the Old or New Covenant." God’s covenant was
the final authority. Thus, to say that a book was part of the New Covenant was to assign to it
supreme authority. Later, canon was applied to the decisions of the Councils which formed the
a
basis of’canon’ law.

B. The Significance of the Idea

a

The summary I have just given you of the meaning of the term raises the question, Is the idea of a
canon, a list of sacred writings which are looked at as possessing divine authority, itself biblical? In a
other words, Does the Bible teach the idea of a canon? This question is even more urgent to answer
in light of the fact that the term canon, is never used of a list of writings possessing final authority
in the Bible.

While the term, canon, is never used of a list of sacred writings in the pages of Holy Scripture, the
idea it represents is present everywhere in the New Testament. This is another case where church a
history has properly given us a word to describe a biblical idea. Similarly, the term, Trinity, is not
itself biblical, but it brings out and summarizes a biblical idea. The idea of a canon, an official
collection of sacred writings, is logically implied in any view of Scripture which regards Scripture a
as possessing unique, one-of-a-kind authority. This view is especially suggested by any view of
Scripture which regards the Holy Scriptures as divine, infallible, and inerrant.

This kind of view is, however, the Scripture’s own view of itself. The New Testament everywhere -

views the Old Testament not only as having unique authority, but as divine, infallible, and inerrant.
This view of the Old Testament requires by the strictest logical necessity the idea of canon. The a
reason for this is that this view requires a clear distinction, an emphatic boundary between what is
and what is not Scripture. A boundary line ofthis character is drawn by means ofthe canon, the list
of those books which are different than all others in that they are divine and inerrant. Such a a
distinction-such a boundary line-can be provided only by the idea of canon.

This may be illustrated from one of the classic New Testament statements of Old Testament a

authority, John 10:35. Here the assertion is made that "the Scripture cannot be broken." Other
literature may be broken, may, in other words, err. To mean anything, this statement must suggest
the idea of a clear boundary line between what is and what is not Scripture. Unless we know which a

books cannot be broken, it will be of no practical benefit to us to know that Scripture cannot be
broken. This biblical doctrine of Scripture is of no help to us without a clearly understood
boundary line between what is Scripture and what is not. This boundary line is drawn in the a

Doctrine of the Canon.

114

a
The Doctrine of the Canon of Scripture is, therefore, a key j$r of the orthodox doctrine of
Scripture. The applications of this are many. Let me mentioTh$1eral of them here. First, the
Doctrine of the Canon is foundational for orthodox theology There is no more foundational
doctrine than that of the Scriptures. The Canon is an essential 0±4in our Doctrine of Scripture.
We may not, therefore, think of the study ofthe Canon as a hob f4r impractical scholars and old
people who have nothing better to do. Second, orthodox theolcy is required to give a reasoned
defense of its conclusions as to what constitutes the Canon. W 4s the students, preachers, and
defenders of such theology are required to know what that det44 is. Third, the Scriptures are
adequate to direct us to such a defense. We may approach the $4 of Canon with the confident
expectation that no matter how thorny the problems which confrÔW,s in it are, the diligent study of
Scripture will provide us with satisfactory solutions. This is :!e iecessary deduction from the
doctrine of the sufficiency of the Scriptures 2 Tim. 3:16, 17. ‘Øurth, those who approach the
study of Canon without an orthodox doctrine of Scripture will wI4cit doubt pervert this doctrine.
The study of the Canon of Scripture is inseparable from the id4 4 divine authority. Those who
have perverted the Christian idea of divine authority unavoidab1jJike mistakes in their approach
to the Canon. One way in which they often make a mistake is t1i4 Ø4ey wrongly define the purpose
of the study of the canon. They will tell you that their purpqj i to discover how the Church
constituted certain books as its final authority or canon. Such S tment of purpose starts out by
denying the very idea of the Christian Canon. One may rec je divine authority. One may
accept the claims of God in Scripture. But one by the very na* ,f the case cannot make those
claims have authority. Ridderbos well says: ‘I

At the same time, it should be stated that this concept o Canon cannot be harmonized
with the idea that the Canon of the Church can be si] ted to the so-called "spiritual
criticism" of the Church. It must be emphasized that Church does not control the
Canon, but the Canon controls the Church. The Chure inot "make" or "lay down" its
own standard. All that the Church can bay down is this,.i it has received the Canon as a
standard and rule for faith and life, handed down to it wll solute authority.’

We will see that many or most of the problems we face in the dcx e ofthe canon are solved ifwe
are consistent with the biblical idea of the canon. This is esp aly true with regard to how we
know that the canon ofScripture is the true canon. The biblical b canon demands the idea that
the canon of Scripture must be in the final analysis self-attesting.

C. The Steps in the Study

A thorough overview of the doctrine of the Canon requires us e;pbore broad areas of Christian
9
theology. The outline of our study of the Canon makes this elear We have begun by giving

I. The Approach to the Canon

II. The Debate over the Canon

1Revelat,on and the Bible, ed by Carl F H Henry, "Ufr Canon of the New Testament",
Herman Ridderbos, Baker, Grand Rapids, 1958 196.

115
III. The Attestation ofthe Canon a

IV. The Form of the Canon

V. The Acceptance of the Canon
a

Let me say a word or two about this outline before we come to Roman Numeral Two of it.

I. really deals with several matters of introduction. I have been introducing you to the term and a

the idea suggested by it. II. takes us into the area ofhistorical theology or the history ofdoctrine.
In II. my intention is to lay out all the different positions which have grown up and been stated
clearly in the history ofthe church. This is intended to set before us the various choices and options a

that have been explored in the history of doctrines. Hopefully, this will help us make wise and
informed choices as we begin to draw our conclusions in the next parts ofthe study.
a

In III. ofour studies we come to the area of Systematic Theology. Here we will directly deal with
the subject of how we know that the Canon is the Canon. In other words, we will ask the
foundational and epistemobogical question, How do we know that the orthodox and Reformed view
of the limits ofthe canon is correct? How do we know that sacred Scripture consists of only the 39
Old Testament books and the 27 New Testament books commonly recognized by believers in the
Evangelical and Reformed trailition? These questions raise the issue of the ‘attestation’ or -

‘authentication’ of Scripture. Attestation refers to how something is attested or proven to be true.

Authentication refers to how we know that something is authentic or proven to be what it claims to
be. As you probably are assuming, the answer to these questions is closely related to the study of -

Apologetics.

In TV. of our studies we examine some fundamental issues related to redemptive history or
exegetical theology. Having answered the question about how we know that our canon is the right
canon, we come in this part of our studies to ask in what form or by what means God gave us the
biblical canon in history. The question here is, What is the relationship or connection between the -

redemptive-historical events recorded in the Bible and the Bible itself? How do we link the Old
Testament Scriptures with God’s dealing with Israel? How do we link the person and work of Jesus
Christ with the New Testament? To be specific, we will be answering the challenge to the Bible
which says that there is no connection between its message and the form in which that message has
come to us in Scripture. Is Sripture itself scriptural? Is the Bible biblical? Does the Old
Testament come to us with the seal of divine authority upon it? Does the New Testament come to
us with the approval of Jesus Christ? Is the actual character of the Old and New Testaments
consistent with the teaching of the Bible? Is there internal consistency between the message and -
the present form of the Bible?

V. of our studies brings us to the area of church history. Here we tibl study the process by which
the church accepted and received more and more officially the canon of Scripture. We will deal
with the acceptance of the Old Testament canon and examine the issue ofthe Apocrypha. We will
deal with the acceptance of the New Testament canon. Here the major issue is not, as I said before,
to see how the people of God made these writings have authority. It is rather to see how the people
of God more or less officially and formally accepted these writings for what they were, divinely
inspired writings already having authority. The challenge being answered in this part of our studies
is to see whether there is external harmony between what the Bible teaches about the canon and the

116

a
 actual acceptance of that canon by the church. If the canon is 4at the Bible says, then we should
expect church history to display certain features. We will exan*e church history to see if there is
harmony between the expectations raised by the Bible and the aólevents of church history.

This survey of where we are going in this study shows that in tM$1Stdy I am primarily interested in
a single issue. That issue is the importance ofthe Christian’s k$ g that the Canon he holds and
believes is truly the right canon. My intention is to show the CJt1$ian the firm basis of his faith.
a
In this way I hope to make solid and sure his confidence in the: phodox, evangelical, Reformed,
and biblical view of the canon. To do this, I introduce the st4IJ44 in I.. I show the historical
options in II.. I make clear the only right and intellectually $L4 way of attesting the canon in
a
ITT.. In TV. I show that the biblical view ofthe canon meets standard ofinternal consistency.
What I mean by this is that the message and the form of the are consistent. I show finally
that the biblical view ofthe canon meets the standard of externâii 4x$mony in V.. What we would
a
expect to happen in church history, if the the biblical view 4 tle canon is true, actually does
happen The biblical teaching is consistent with what we in the history ofthe church
actualI!4d

117
 a

II. The Debate over the Canon

A. The Views Expressed at the Time ofthe Reformation

a

With many doctrines, the positions clearly and carefully stated during the Reformation period have
great significance. This is also true for the doctrine of the Canon of Scripture. Therefore we will
begin by surveying the basic positions of the Reformation period. All of these positions were built a

on the unique divinity of the Bible. Then, we will examine the developments within the historico
critical school. The theories propounded by this school have as their common starting point the
denial ofthe unique infallibility ofthe Bible. They represent distortions ofthe different positions of
the Reformation period.

1. The Humanist View

This school is represented by such various scholars as Erasmus, Cardinal Cajetan of Rome, and
Grotius the Arminian. Its common bond was its confidence in and appeal to the external evidence -

uncovered by historical criticism as the principle by which the true canon was to be authenticated.
B.F. Westcott, though of a much later period, favors this view and embodies it when he says,
a
"extemal evidence is the proper proof both of the authenticity and authority of the New
Testament...."

These humanist scholars, being so different, came to no consensus or uniform view about the true
extent of the canon. Erasmus with his characteristic caution and cynicism never dares to deny the
canonicity of any book of the New Testament. Nevertheless, he plants doubts plentifully with
a
reference to the seven so-called "Antilegomena" of the New Testament.2 In particular, he seems to
put the Revelation of John in the lower order or rank of a ‘second canon’ Cardinal Caj etan carried
.

Erasmus’ doubts further consigning Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, Jude and perhaps the Revelation of
John to a so-called second canon.4 Zwingli was not untouched by Humanism and declared the -

Revelation of John non-canonical. Cirotius, the Arminian scholar, notes and discusses the ancient
doubts about the "Antilegomena" and implies that some are less than hilly canonical.5 -

‘B. F. Westcott, A General Survey ofthe History ofthe Canon ofthe New Testament, 502. -

2The antilegomena were literally ‘those spoken against’. The word refers to those seven
New Testament books about which some doubts were raised in the early church period. They were -
Hebrews, Revelation, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude.

3Westcott, A General Survey ofthe History of the Canon of the New Testament, 473. The
technical terminology for this illogical placing of a book in a second canon is giving it deutero
canonical status.

4Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, 474. -

5Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, 496. The -

books he questioned were 2 and 3 John, Jude, and 2 Peter.

118
a
a

2. The Catholic View

The view of the Roman Catholic Church was formally state4 officially proclaimed at the
Council of Trent in 1546. In its decree it recognized the 27 cs of the New Testament, the
Hebrew canon of the Old Testament variously counted as 39, r 24 books, and 6 of the Old
Testament Apocrypha as canonical.1 In addition it received asL nical "traditions pertaining to
faith and conduct..., with an equal feeling of devotion and rel nce." As is well known, the
a principle by which Rome authenticated the true canon of the Bitl4 *as the authority of the church.
The Roman church did make a distinction between the authoritPf he canon viewed in itself and
the authority of the canon as it concerns us3, the governing i44 ras that the recognition of the
Canon rested upon the authority ofthe church.4

3. The Lutheran View

a

One scholar summarizes Luther’s position as follows: "Luther t k he radical step ofreplacing the
Church’s authority with an acknowledgement ofthe Word ofG4 sflnal authority for doctrine and
life i.e., as canon in the fullest sense of the term." "He alsô 4iscovered the key to the right
-

understanding of the Bible.... justification by faith."5 This becrn4 ftø $he principle by which the true
canon was to be authenticated. What proclaims Christ and conó jiates on Him is canonical. The
effect this had for Luther on the extent of the canon is well kno’w : Ie questioned the canonicity of
James, "the right strawy epistle," as he called it.6 While Luthj lla4er weakened his opposition to
James somewhat, it is clear that at least at one time he assign4 I Idur of the "Antilegomena" to a
- questionable status. These were Hebrews, James, Jude, and Resi

The later Lutheran theologians and creeds abandoned Luther’s 4 tts as to these four books. Yet
a
Luther’s ‘canon within the canon’ would have far reaching effectS

4. The Reformed View

Calvin and Reformed theology after him received the Hebrew tion of the Old Testament and

‘Westcott, A General Survey ofthe History ofthe Canon 4ft4ze New Testament, 477.

2TheLatinisquoadse.

3The Latin is quo ad nos.

4Ridderbos, Redemptive History and the New Testame4 Striptures of the History of the
Canon ofthe New Testament, 190.

5Dutoit, A.B.; Roberts, J.H. Guide to the New Testame4 tjans. by D.R. Briggs Pretoria,
1979, 259.

6Westcott, A General Survey ofthe History ofthe Canon, New Testament, 482.

a
7Westcott, A General Survey of the History ofthe Canon tte New Testament, 48 1-483.

119
 a

rejected all the Old Testament Apocrypha. They also received without distinction the 27 books of
the New Testament defending, the canonicity ofthe "Antilegomena."

The principle by which this canon was authenticated was twofold. It had an objective or rational
and subjective or spiritual side. For its objective or rational authentication, Calvin appealed to the
self-authenticating2 witness of the Scripture to itself. For its subjective or spiritual authentication,
Calvin appealed to the testimony of the Holy Spirit.3 This testimony actually opens our eyes and
subdues our wills to the divine authority of Scripture. In Calvin’s great work the Institutes these
twin principles of authentication are clearly seen against the background of the Roman Catholic
view that the Church authenticates the Scriptures.4

B. The Theories Promoted with the Rise of Historical Criticism

Historical criticism exalted reason above the Bible and believed that the Bible could be criticized
and corrected by means of a careful, rational study of historical evidence. This kind of biblical
a
criticism is founded, therefore, in a denial of the unique infallibility of the Bible. It is also known
as Higher Criticism, Liberalism, and Modernism. Since the orthodox view ofthe canon is logically
close to and a result of the doctrine of the infallibility of the Bible, the Doctrine of the Canon is
a
profoundly affected by historical criticism ofthis sort.

1. The Initial Destruction ofthe Canon in Historical Criticism

In the German circles where historical criticism had its origin J.S. Semler was regarded as the
founder of the historical investigation of the Bible. It is his book entitled, Treatise on the Free
Investigation of the Canon, which lays in large part the foundation of historical or the higher -

criticism ofthe Bible. This is very interesting because it illustrates how foundational and important
the subject of the canon of Scripture is. The book which sounded the trumpet call to start the attack -

on the Bible by Modernism was a treatment ofthe canon. This is where Liberalism began its attack
on the Bible. This confirms how important it is for us to have a clear understanding ofthis issue as
defenders of God’s Word. It shows how fundamental this doctrine is. It shows that one’s views of
the canon of Scripture will be directly and immediately twisted by a denial of the doctrine of the
full inspiration of Scripture.
a
What was Semler’s method of investigating the canon? By means of an historical study of the
Canon which laid all the emphasis on "the uncertainty, the conflict, the human strategy,
ecclesiastical policy and tactics, which accompanied the assembling of the 27 books"5, Semler a

1Dutoit, Guide to the New Testament, 263.

2The technical word for this self-authentication is autopistia. As the word itself suggests, it
refers to the fact that the Bible attests or proves itself to be true without outside evidence.
a

3The technical Latin name for this is the testimonium Spiritus Sanctus.

4NotethefollowingreferencesinCalvin’slnstitutes: 1:7:1,1:7:2,1:7:4,1:7:5,3:2:34. a

5Herman Ridderbos, Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures, Presbyterian

120
a
 denied the authority of the received canon. He taught that 1soial faith is not subject to any
external authority. It owes faith to nothing outside of itself, but 0 b4sed on the original evidence of
true religious and morn! knowledge. This innate knowledge i ntified with the witness of the
Spirit. It enables the Christian to identi’ the Word of God % it comes to expression in the
Scripture.1 Semler’s theory has for its real result the destruction!4 ttIie Canon.2 Semler’s position is
basically that of the older Liberalism.

2. The Attempted Restoration of the Canon i i-!istorical Criticism

The complete destruction of the biblical canon was the logic rsult of Semler’s work. This
bothered even some theologians who accepted the idea that rea ni could criticize and correct the
Bible. Therefore without forsaking or giving up Semler’s ra$ rt$ism and its denial of biblical
authority many of those who favored historical criticism attempt t, restore some kind ofcanon to
the Christian church.

a. The Attempt of Those Who Di$*rtd Luther’s ‘Canon within the

Canon’

A Lutheran theologian named Zahn reacted against the destruç jon of the Canon which Semler’s
theories involved. Though Zahn did not abandon the way in w Io$ historical criticism put reason
above the Bible, he appealed to Luther’s canon within the t*n. The German motto they
borrowed from Luther was was Christum treibet which means ‘ ia preaches or promotes Christ’.
Zahfl attempted to restore an objective external, rational, wit canon to the Church as over
against the total individualism and subjectivism of the older Libe! 4im.

Yet Zahn’s appeal to this principle is far more radical than Luth.s Later scholars, like Kummel,
also appealing to Luther, taught that the books of the Bible are ca4iomcal only to the degree that
they bring us into relation with the historical revelation of Jesu4 C1rist. This exists in the central
proclamation which must be established by a critical comparisoj o’ the various writings. Finding
this core of truth in the New Testament, however, was still the ta4 off a human reason not subject to
the authority of the Scriptures. It is clear that ZaIm and his suq sors have not avoided the very
subj ectivism making truth a matter of one’s personal feelings oi o$nions which troubled them in
Semler’s work.

b. The Attempt of Those Who Di.r4ed Calvin’s Testimony of the

Spirit

There was another group of higher critics who disagreed wE Ut Zahn and his friends. They
completely rejected any attempt to find an objective, clear, ratio and written canon within the

and Reformed, 19881.

‘Dutoit, Guide to the New Testament, 266.

2Ridderbos, Redemptive History..., 2.

a

121
canon of Scripture. These theologians emphasized experience. The Bible is God’s Word when it -

speaks to us. It is God’s Word when we hear or experience God speaking to us through it.’ This
view is, ofcourse, known as Neo-orthodoxy. It appealed to and distorted the Reformed Doctrine of
the Testimony of the Holy Spirit. The Bible is not the Word of God in this view. Rather it -

becomes the Word of God only when we hear God speaking to us through it "here and now"
"straight down from above".2 Clearly, this position also does not avoid either individualism
making truth a matter one’s personal opinion or subjectivism making truth a matter of one’s own -

experience and feelings.

1Herman Ridderbos summarizes this point of view when he says, "Another group of -
scholars, who in principle hold to the same standpoint with respect to the canon, will not hear of
such an objective canon within the canon. Instead they seek the canonicity of the canon in the fact a
that we repeatedly encounter the Word of God in it as an actual event." Redemptive History ..., 6.

21n his summary of Kasemann’s position Ridderbos says, "As it lies before us in its naked -

objectivity, the canon is not the Word of God, nor is it identical with the gospel. It is rather the
Word of God only insofar as it is and repeatedly becomes the gospel. The question as to what the
gospel is cannot be answered by the historian. It can be decided solely by the believer who has a

been convinced by the Spirit and who has ears to hear." Redemptive History.... 8.

122

a
III. The Attestation of the Canon

Introduction:

It has already been made clear that the idea, of a canon is bibjt1 It is a necessary conclusion
which must be drawn from the unique and absolute authority ass$gnd to the Old Testament by the
New Testament. But there is also a broader sense in which the’!da of a canon or of an absolute
standard is Christian. At the heart of Christianity are the id$s f divine authority and divine
revelation. God is the absolute standard for His people. Mo$i pifecise!y, God’s speaking is the
canon of truth. Thus, the idea of canon corresponds to and gr444’ ‘ut of divine authority, divine
revelation, and divine speaking. The authority ofthe Canon is, Ifrrfore, essential to the authority
of divine revelation.

In dealing with this issue of the authority of divine revelatj ve are, however, asking and
answering two somewhat distinct questions. The two question* j: Why does the Bible possess
special authority? and, How do I know it possesses such autli bt’? Christians in general have
agreed that the Bible possesses innate authority because it is tl Vk’ord of the living God. But a
slightly different question may be asked, How do I come to kn w and recognize that authority?
How is that authority attested to me? When this question is l, different answers have been
given to it by those who believe that the Scriptures are the War or
God. It is this question with
which we are now concerned: How is the Bible attested to me as n*? In other words, How do we
know that the message contained in the Scriptures is divine? Wlfii r $ve have answered this question
properly, we will be able to give a basic answer to the question ót$t how we know that our canon
is the orthodox canon.

When the question of canonical authority is defined in this it is evident that we are dealing
with the subject of Christian epistemology. As such the stu4$ p the recognition of canonical
4
authority necessarily involves applying one’s view of Christian pclogetics. Any approach to the
Canon which fails to appreciate the great importance and found o4al character of Apologetics for
the study of the Canon is rightly viewed as shallow or superfi4 1. When writers simply assume
without further thought that the study of‘the Canon is simply a je of historical investigation and
evidence, great theological ignorance and shallowness is dl pyed. The fact is that one’s
evaluation of the historical evidence will be profoundly affected y the presuppositions one brings
to it from one’s Apologetics.

The question is, How do we know that our canon is the right c4$pt This question is the question
answered when we speak of the authentication of the ScnptuØs Authentication refers to that
which proves the Bible to be the Word of God. When we tell how we know the Bible is the
Word of God, we are authenticating the Scriptures. We will diOs this issue under three sections
ofthought.

A. The Attempted but Wrong Answers .‘

B. The Biblical and Reformed Solution

C. The Necessary and Important Deductions H

A. The Attempted but Wrong Answers

123 ‘‘i"
 a

a
1. Man attests the Canon.

This is the position of Semler and Liberalism. Among scholars in this tradition there were many -

variations of this position. Always, however, man’s innate religious, emotional, moral, or
intellectual instincts and abilities were made the rule ofwhat was considered to be canon.
a

Among the many objections which may be brought against this position, one is most pointed and
primary. It ignores man’s fallen-ness. More precisely, it ignores or denies the noetic or intellectual
effects ofhuman depravity. The fact is that the religious, moral, and intellectual abilities which this a

position appeals to are not themselves infallible. Rather they are fallen in sin. The appeal to man to
authenticate the canon can never be successful. A canon is by definition an infallible standard. A
fallible man can never give us an infallible standard. Even worse, a fallen mind will never be -

satisfied to accept God’s Word. The intellectual impulses of such a mind will always and forever
twist Gods standard if we allow it to stand in judgment ofthe Canon. -

2. History attests the Canon.

There are those who appeal to the study of history in order to show that the Bible is the Word of
God. This was the position of the Reformation Humanists like Erasmus. Many have followed
them in more recent times. This view asserts that evidence outside or external to the Bible provided
a
by historical investigation will attest to us the apostolic authorship and authenticity of the biblical
canon.’ B. F. Westcott favors this view and summarizes it when he says, "external evidence is the
proper proof both ofthe authenticity and authority ofthe New Testament "

I certainly do not wish to deny that the evidence provided by historical investigation supports the
idea that the Bible is historically genuine. However, several objections may be raised against this a
position.

1 It is contrary to the experience of most Christians. Few or none come to believe that the
Bible is the Word of God through a study of the historical evidence. Such a study has very little to
do with the faith ofmost Christians. Does this mean that the faith of most Christians is defective or
improper? Of course not!

2 It is beyond the reach of most Christians. Many Christians do not have the intellectual
capability of evaluating the thorny, historical questions regarding the scriptures. Most do not have a
the time to read, let alone to understand, for example, Westcott’s weighty General Survey....

3 It is insufficient for any Christian. What is Biblical faith? It is the conviction, the inner -

certainly, the confident knowledge that the message of the Bible is true Heb. 11:1. The fact is that

‘R. Laird Harris, The Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, -

1957, 194.

2Westcott, General Survey..., 502.

124

a
 the historical evidence while important, helpful, and support*4 neither clear, nor complete
enough to ground true faith.’ At point after point judgmen$ rust be made on the basis of
incomplete evidence. In support of this assertion I can only 1enge the doubter to read for
himself even such a sympathetic and masterful treatment of vidence as that presented by
Westcott.
a

4 It is contrary to the nature of true faith. Ridderbos asse,;, "‘n historical judgment cannot
be the final and sole ground for the acceptance ofthe New Testaj$t To do so [accept the New
...
-
Testament on such a basis--SW] would mean that the church Wc$C base its faith on the results of
historical investigation."2 This would mean that for most Chri4s their faith, in reality, would be
in the expert, the historical investigator himself This would be c ear contradiction of a passage
like 1 Cor. 2:4,5.

3. The Church attests the Canon

Many appeal to the witness of the church in order to show th tl4e Bible is the Word of God.
Roman Catholicism is the key example of this position. It affi* .hat the Church is able to give
the Christian an infallible authentication of the Canon. In other Roman Catholicism claims
that the church is alone able to tell us for certain and with autl$ that the Bible is the Word of
God. Of course, any view which gives to the Church any infa1U Ic uthority must be unacceptable
to Protestants. Furthermore, Rome contradicts the biblical: jhing that "the canon is not
established by the church, but the latter is established by the can4 ‘Thus Rome’s position involves
‘

"a reversal of the redemptive-historical, order."3 Compare the inent of Paul in Eph. 2:20 that
the church is built on the foundation ofthe apostles and propheti
4
- 4. General Objections

With the exception of the biblical and Reformed answer which ifrill study later, all the possible
positions with regard to the attestation of the canon are variations bthe positions we have laid out.
For instance, the appeal to a canon within the canon to the degr$ tlt it differs from the Reformed
position is a combination of man and history attesting the canth !t is, of course, not denied that
each of the attempted answers mentioned above contain elemei .o truth. The point is that none
are the whole of the truth. Each lacks the decisive perspectiv n4cessary to supply a satisfying
intellectual solution to the problem. Two convincing objectic4 vhich apply to the humanistic
appeal the appeal to man, the historical appeal the appeal tó hitory, and to the ecclesiastical
appeal the appeal to the church must now be considered. se objections not only refute the
insufficient ways of attesting the biblical canon mentioned abO y but they also make plain the
direction we must go in order to find a satisfying solution to the ‘obilem.

a
‘John Owen, The Works ..., Banner of Truth Trust, vol. .4 2óf.

2Ridderbos, Authority ofthe New Testament, 36.

3H. Ridderbos, Redemptive History and the New Testame Spriptures of the History of the
Canon of the New Testament, 36. Cf. Calvin at 1:7:2 of the Ins at.

a 125
 __
__

1 An objection which applies to both the positions mentioned above is that to which we a

appeal in order to attest the Bible tends to replade the Bible as one’s practical authority. In other
words, that to which we appeal in order to prove the Bible becomes the real authority of those who
appeal to it. This lessens or weakens both the theoretical and practical authority of the Bible. a

This problem is plainly revealed in Roman Catholicism. Roman’s Catholicism’s appeal to

ecclesiastical authority to prove the Bible is associated with a tendency to destroy the practical
authority of the Bible for Roman Catholics. This is so because in its appeal to the church to prove
the Bible the Bible ceases to be the absolute tandard. Similarly, historical criticism’s appeal to
a
man and history resulted in making man’s interpretation of history the final authority. The Bible
was then subjected to this final authority. The Bible ceased to be canon except as man permitted it
to be.

In each of the choices given above the Bible is to be attested by means of an appeal to a higher
standard. Thus each ofthe attempted answers is virtually a denial of the authority of the Bible. To
a
appeal to any external authority to prove the Bible is to make something else have more authority
than the Bible. To make anything else have more authority than the Bible is a denial of the
supreme authority of the Bible. Though it is helpful to make a distinction, logically, between the a
authority ofthe Scriptures for us and its authority in itself,’ it should always be remembered that its
authority in itself and with us is from a single cause and for a single reason. It is the Word ofGod.
a
2 The entire effort to discover some external verification for the Bible in order to prove it to
be God’s Word is misguided. This is the case for two reasons. First, since God has spoken and the
Bible is itself the living Word of God, the highest possible authentication is the Bible’s own witness
to itself. Second, if we think that some further verification is needed, then the highest conceivable
such verification would be a consequent divine revelation. Thus, a revelation following the original
giving of the Bible is necessary in order to confirm it as God’s Word. But if we take this
alternative, there is no place to stop. This second revelation would require a third revelation to
confirm it as God’s Word and so on without end. We are doomed to the problem of infinite
regression. If the Bible as God’s voice or word from heaven does not attest itself, no amount of a

voices or words from heaven will ever be sufficient to attest it. Stonehouse has well said:

The only concrete form in which that authentication can come, if it is not to be derived from
another objective revelation from the Lord of heaven, must be nothing other than the voice
of Scripture itself.2

B. The Biblical and Reformed Solution

The Reformed view of the self-authentication of the Scriptures must now be systematically stated -

and exegetically defended. The Reformed view has often been misunderstood as a subjectivistic
feeling-related appeal to the internal testimony of the Spirit. This misconception occurs when the

‘The Latin is quoad nos and quoad se.

a

2Stonehouse in The Infallible Word, 105.

126
a
 testimony of the Holy Spirit’ is divorced from the Reformed of the self-authentication2 of
divine revelation. The doctrine of the Testimony of the jj Spirit can only be properly
understood as one of a trilogy or series of three Reformed doe concerning the authentication
of divine revelation. Furthermore, a deep appreciation of the vncing character of the biblical
evidence for the Reformed solution to the problem of the a hntication of Scripture is only
a
obtained by viewing this series of three doctrines together.

1. The Self-Authenticating Character of Genca Revelation

No one has more forcefully stated the significance of the self-a$içiticating character of natural or
creation revelation than Cornelius Van Til where he said:

The most depraved of men cannot wholly escape th vice of God. Their greatest
wickedness is meaningless except upon the assumptioir J$ they have sinned against the
a
authority of God. Thoughts and deeds ofutmost pervers $e themselves revelational, that
is, in their very abnormality. The natural man accuses op lsö excuses himself only because
his own utterly depraved consciousness continues to p4 bck to the original natural state
of affairs. The prodigal son can never forget the fathers: kdce. It is the albatross [a large
sea bird-SW] forever about his neck.3

According to the biblical view of creation revelation man is immediately confronted with
divine revelation. God in His revelation is ceaselessly authenti himself to man. The creature
can never escape the Creator. Natural or general revelation is uthenticating because it is the
-

revelation of the Creator to the creature made in His image. dl biblical evidence for this has
already been presented. It will be merely summarized here. 19 asserts that creation has a
voice. It was created by the Word of God. Now it speaks a wor en. With its voice it declares
loudly, clearly, abundantly, ceaselessly, and universally the glor f e living God. Romans 1:1 8f.
reflects on this Psalm. It goes on to assert that such revelation s men without excuse because
it actually imparts to them a certain knowledge of God. By it:! which is known about God is
made evident in them and to them. His eternal power and nature are clearly seen and
understood by men. Thus, in a certain sense, the Apostle can as that men know God, the law of
God, and the ordinance of God that those who break His laws zn 1ie. Though they suppress the
truth, they do possess the truth. This view of things is clearly : lrmed by the rest of Scripture
which steadfastly refuses to utilize rational argumentation to pr ‘e $he existence of God. Even in
Acts 17 where Paul faces complete pagans the existence and at$ are rather asserted, assumed,
and declared than proven or argued. When Paul cites heathen pcx i support of his testimony, it is
clear that he assumes that even those barren of the light of red ‘H ve revelation possess a certain
suppressed knowledge of God that comes to distorted expression ¶eir systematic thought.

Let it be clear what the force ofthe testimony of Scripture is. It is no that men may know God; nor

‘The frequently used Latin phrase is testimonium Spiritu4 ctus.

2The frequently used Latin phrase is autopistia.

3Van Til in The Infallible Word, 274, 275

a-
127
 a

that they potentially know God and will come to know Him if they will use their reason aright. It is -

not that men by natural revelation have a certain vague notion of some undefmed deity. It is rather
that men are immediately confronted with a clear and unavoidable revelation of the true and living
God. a

This distinct view of Scripture has been clearly asserted by the great teachers ofthe Reformed faith.
Calvin frequently asserted just this in the opening pages of the Institutes 1:3:1, 2, 3; 1:4:1,2; a

1:5:1,2,4, 11,15; 1:6:1,2. The statement of 1:5:4 is typical: "They perceive how wonderfully God
works within them, and experience teaches them what a variety of blessings they receive from his
liberality. They are constrained to know, whether willingly or not, that these are proofs of his a

divinity: yet they suppress this knowledge in their hearts." Owen has made the point even more
clear. After citing Romans 1:19 and 2:14, 15, he says: "And thus the mind doth assent unto the
a
principles of God’s being and authority, antecedently unto any actual exercise of the discursive
faculty [the capacity of men to engage in a line of reasoning-SW] or reason, or other testimony
whatever."
a

The self-authenticating character of Scripture has for its significant setting the self-authenticating
character of general revelation. The evidence for the self-authentication of Scripture is never given
its proper weight divorced from this backdrop. John Murray has seen this relationship. "If the
heavens declare the glory of God and therefore bear witness to their divine Creator, the Scripture as
God’s handiwork must also bear the imprints ofhis authorship."2 This argument may, however, be a
put even more emphatically. It may be said that if general revelation is self-authenticating, how
much more must special revelation as it is written down in the Bible be self-authenticating. The
fact is that the great difference between general and special revelation is that special revelation has a a
far more direct and personal character than general revelation. In general revelation creation speaks
to us of God. In special revelation God ‘himself approaches us directly and personally speaking
words to us. J. I. Packer teaches that the purpose of God’s speaking to men is to make friends with a
them. He then goes on to speak ofthe fact that general revelation is insufficient for this end.

As against those who hold that general revelation, and ‘natural religion’ based on it, can -
suffice for man without the Bible, we must observe that Paul’s analysis shows up the
insufficiency of general revelation. It shows us, first, that general revelation is inadequate
as a basis for religion, for it yields nothing about God’s purpose of friendship with man, nor -
does it fully disclose His will for human life. Even Adam in Eden needed direct divine
speech, over and above general revelation to make known to him all God’s will.3
-

If the comparatively indirect and impersonal general revelation authenticated itself to men as divine
revelation, how much more will direct and personal speaking by God to men in special revelation
constrain recognition by its self-authentication. Owen makes this very point: a

‘John Owen, 84, 87, 88, ofvol. 4 ofhis Works, a

2Murray on 46 of The Infallible Word.

3J. I. Packer, God Has Spoken, 54, 55

128
a

We need no other arguments to prove that God made t$ ttrld but itself It carrieth in it
and upon it the infallible tokens of its original Now,
.... are greater and more evident
a
impressions ofdivine excellencies left on the written wq the infinite wisdom of the
Author of it, than any that are communicated unto the 4 of God, of what sort so ever.
a
Hence David, comparing the works of God, as to their ifl4 fr4tive efficacy in declaring God
and his glory, although he ascribes much unto the workè $1’ freation, yet doth he prefer the
word incomparably before them, Ps. xix. 1-3, 7-9, cxvlviii etc., 19, 20.’
a
Let me illustrate how our knowledge of general revelation bums the essential context for
appreciating the self-authenticating character of Scriptures. R4 eltion is like a jigsaw puzzle.
a
General revelation like that we studied in Rom. 1:18-23 gives uft borders ofthat puzzle, but the
crucial inner pieces necessary to complete the puzzle are missiü From the border pieces you can
tell generally what color and shape those pieces must be, but cannot see the picture clearly
a because the crucial pieces are missing. Suppose a mother and 14i!d were putting together such a
jigsaw puzzle and realized when they were almost done that sd al crucial pieces were missing.
They look all over the house for those missing pieces and finally a cushion on the couch they
a find several jigsaw puzzle pieces. When they place them in th h4zle, they fit perfectly, they are
the right color, and they complete the picture perfectly. Now s4 when the father comes home,
he questioned them and asked how they knew for sure that the nd the right pieces. Would he
a be able to convince them that they had the wrong pieces? No! at could they do to convince the
father that they had the right pieces? All they could do would b’show him the puzzle and hope
that he had not had such a bad day at work that he would not see e fbvious fit.
a-

It is precisely the same with the special revelation contained 4te Bible. It fits with general
revelation. First, it reveals the same God which men know by i$. Second, it reveals the same
wicked situation which men know by nature. It teaches that i ‘re wicked sinners doomed to
death by a just God. Men, according to Rom. 1:18-2:16 kno’1. li$ by nature. Third, it explains
why a just God continues to show common grace to such wic1 $nners. According to the Bible
men are aware of the fact that God continues to show goodne$4 them despite their wickedness
and despite His holiness. The Bible explains that mystery by r pilng the purpose of God to save
sinners. Fourth, the Bible reveals the only way in which wicked’ ói4ers under the wrath of God can
be justified by a holy God. Even though its doctrine of the Son Cid coming to suffer the penalty
which His people deserved is too wonderful ever to have bee* h<ught of by natural reason, yet
when it is considered it is obvious thai only through such a can sinners be saved. These
pieces, you see, fit the puzzle of general revelation perfectly. fl4s is the reason why when the
Spirit opens sjnners eyes, the gospel is immediately received. Itf Wvine truthfulness is obvious. It
fits the suppressed truth which the sinner already knows.
a

2. The Self-Authenticating Character of the ‘çtitures

a
We have seen to some extent the background of why the Script4j 4uthenticate themselves to men.
Now we need to see that the Scriptures indeed teach the self-ai4i4tication of Scripture. Here we
come to the true heart of the Reformed solution to the
Pra!$ of the authentication of the

‘John Owen, Works, 91.

a

a 129
 a

Scriptures. Holy Scripture may not be attested finally by man, history, or the church, it must be a

self-attested. The Scriptures are self-authenticating.

1 The Bible everywhere asserts that the Scriptures are never to be viewed as a dead letter, but -

as the living Word of God Jer. 23:28, 29; Luke 16:27-31’; John 6:63; Acts 7:38,1 Peter 1:23-25,
and Heb. 4:12, 13.2 As the living Word of God, the Bible confronts men with the voice of the one
they know to be their Creator. Thus, the Scriptures in and of themselves demand to be believed and a

oblige all to whom they are ministered to believe.

‘Note Owen’s comment on Luke 16:27-3 1 in vol.4 ofhis Works, 75, 76. Here are Owen’s
remarks: "But is it ofthis authority and efficacy [power-SW] in itself? See Luke 16:27-3 1,
"Then he said" the rich man in hell, "I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him: a

Lazarus, who was dead "to my father’s house: for I have five brethren; that he may testify unto
them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses
and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them a

from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, Ifthey hear not Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." The question here between
Abraham and the rich man in this parable,-indeed between the wisdom of God and the -
superstitious contrivances [devices-SW] ofmen,-is about the way and means ofbringing those
who are unbelievers and impenitent unto faith and repentance. He who was in hell apprehended
that nothing would make them believe but a miracle, one rising from the dead and speaking unto -

them; which, or the like marvelous operations, many at this day think would have mighty power
and influence upon them to settle their minds and change their lives. Should they see one "rise
a
from the dead," and come and converse with them, this would convince them ofthe immortality of
the soul, of future rewards and punishments, as giving them sufficient evidence thereof, so that they
would assuredly repent and change their lives; but as things are stated, they have no sufficient
evidence ofthese things, so that they doubt so far about them as that they are not really influenced
by them. Give them but one real miracle, and you shall have them forever. This, I say, was the
opinion and judgment ofhim who was represented as in hell, as it is of many who are posting a
thither apace [hastening there speedily-SW]. He who was in heaven thought otherwise; wherein
we have the immediate judgment ofJesus Christ given in this matter, determining this controversy.
The question is about sufficient evidence and efficacy to cause us to believe things divine and -

supematural; and this he determines to be in the written word, "Moses and the prophets." Ifhe that
will not, on the single evidence of the written word, believe [it] to be from God, or a divine
revelation ofhis will, will never believe upon the evidence ofmiracles nor any other motives, then a
that written word contains in itself the entire formal reason of faith, or all that evidence ofthe
authority and truth of God in it which faith divine and supernatural rests upon; that is, it is to be
believed for its own sake. But saith our Lord Jesus Christ himself, "If men will not hear," that is,
believe, "Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead,"
and come and preach unto them,-a greater miracle than which they could not desire. Now, this
could not be spoken if the Scripture did not contain in itselfthe whole entire formal reason of
believing; for if it have not this, something necessary unto believing would be wanting, though that
were enjoyed. And this is directly affirmed,-"
a
2Note Owen’s comment on Luke 16:27-31 in vol. 4 ofhis Works, 75, 76.

130
a
a

a-

2 Without closely reasoned lengthy arguments about then xtemal evidence being added
a
to them, the Scriptures are sufficient to warrant the infallibi nfldence in their truthfulness
required for saving faith Deut. 31:11-13; John 20:31; Gal. 1:8, 9 irk 16:15, 16.
a
3 If one does not assign to the Scriptures the ability to cc’ç l belief in and of themselves,
one raises serious questions about the doctrine ofthe sufficiency :4 hi e Scriptures 2 Tim. 3:16, 17.
a If the Scriptures are not sufficient for this most fundamental of itual issues, are they sufficient
for anything? If they need to be supplemented by lists of evider$ then why should we deny that
they need to be supplemented by works on worship and psycholØ tc.
a
Calvin’s historically important statement ofthe self-authenticati4 Scripture is found in 1:7:2 and
1:7:5 of the Institutes. Parts of it deserve quotation here: "But h regard to the question, How
a shall we be persuaded of its divine original, unless we have re$ e to the decree of the church?
This is just as if anyone should inquire, How shall we learn t4 tinguish light from darkness,
white from black, sweet from bitter? For the Scripture exhibi$j clear evidence of its truth, as
white and black things do of their color, or sweet and bitter thin. heir taste.ttl

The Scripture, then, is self-authenticating. This means that the vay show that it true is simply
to preach and teach its message boldly. Spurgeon somewhere p’s that he was sometimes asked
how he defended the Scriptures. He responds that he does n lieve that he needs to defend
Scripture. Scripture is like a lion, says Spurgeon. If we let it f its cage, it will defend itself
a well enough. Another interesting testimony to the self-authep ng power of Scripture comes
from the pen of Archibald Alexander. This testimony is 4$ ularly interesting when it is
remembered that Alexander was the father of a school of etics which did not properly
understand the self-authentication ofthe Scriptures.

While spending a summer in Germantown, near PhiladelO I was sent for to visit a young
man whom I had often seen. He did not belong to my ch4 but two pious ladies who did,
were his friends, and had come out of the city to nurseb He had a hemorrhage of the
lungs, which left little room to hope for recovery. As lii a mild and moral man, I did
not know but that he might be a professor of religion upon asking him a question
respecting his hope, he franldy told me that he had been tical for many years, and had
not belief that the Gospel was divine. I never felt more ss. The man was too weak to
attend to argument, and if I could by reasoning convincó of his error, it would not be a
saving faith, and he must die before this process could one through. I found that his
infidelity afforded him no comfort in a dying hour, and he wished he could believe in
Christ. It occurred to me that the Word of God containej t and energy in itself, and that
if he could not attend to the external evidences, the beafl truth might shine in upon his
soul, and thus generate a saving faith by the efficient alc the Spirit. After pointing out
the probable sources ofhis skepticism, I requested the j who were attending on him to
read certain portions of the Gospel to him, as he could b r it-for he was very low. This

‘Edwards echoes the thoughts of Calvin and Owen, voL 6, of the two volume set ofhis
works.
a

a 131
 a

was done; and next day, when I came to see him, he declared that his doubts were all a

scattered, and that he had hope in Christ. Afterwards, he was never able to converse; but as
far as is known he died in hope.’
a

3. The Testimony ofthe Holy Spirit to the Scriptures

a. The Basis ofthe Testimony of the Holy Spirit

It is now possible to understand the true meaning of the Reformed doctrine called the testimony of
the Holy Spirit. It has a objective, rational basis in the self-authentication of Scripture. Calvin saw -

this clearly: "Let it be considered then as an undeniable truth, that they who have been inwardly
taught by the Spirit, feel an entire acqulescence [submission-SW] in the Scripture, and that it is
self-authenticated, carrying with it its own evidence, and ought not to be made the subject of -

demonstration and arguments from reason; but it obtains the credit which it deserves with us by the
testimony ofthe Spirit."2 -

The question may arise, however, If the Scriptures are self-authenticating what is the need of
additional testimony? Further, if they are self-authenticating, how do we explain the unbelief and
a
denial by which they are met by so many? This brings us to discuss the necessity of the testimony
of the Holy Spirit.
a
b. The Necessity of the Testimony ofthe Holy Spirit

The cause or necessity of the testimony is in one word, sin. Human depravity has its noetic or a
intellectual effects. It perverts human intellectual endeavor. It causes men to suppress the truth and
so spiritually blinds them to the light of divine revelation Rom. 1:21; Eph. 4:17-21; 2 Cor. 4:3, 4.

A conclusion may be drawn from what has just been said about what makes the testimony of the
Holy Spirit necessary. There is nothing wrong with the self-attesting Scriptures. There is nothing
wrong with man’s mental capacity to respond to the Scriptures properly. The problem is with man’s -
heart. His heart makes his intellect suppress the truth of the Scriptures in unrighteousness. The
testimony of the Holy Spirit is, therefore, simply the removal of that evil heart. He takes away the
evil ethical disposition which makes men suppress the truth and, thus, blinds men to the light of a
divine revelation. The testimony results in an ethical transformation and not merely an intellectual
operation. It does something to men’s hearts before it does something to their minds. But this
brings us to ... a

c. The Demonstration ofthe Testimony of the Holy Spirit

a
The reality ofthe testimony of the Spirit to the Scriptures may be demonstrated along two lines of
biblical argument.
a

‘A. Alexander, Thoughts on Religious Experience, 233.

a
21:7:5 of the Institutes

132
 1 From the Ethical Startin pint of All Proper Thinking
including Our Thinking about Scripture

The Bible teaches that if man is to think right, he must be righti ally. The following passages
teach that the ability to think nght and by that means see tI$1 if-evidencing light of special
revelation is dependent on a proper ethical disposition: Ps. 1 i1io Prov. 9:10, 1:7, 15:33; John
3:19-21, 7:16, 17; II Tim. 2:25; II Tim. 3:7; John 10:26, 27 aith, fear, doing God’s will,
repentance, all these are spiritual and moral qualities without wfrh we cannot think right. These
qualities are necessary to make the sinner stop suppressing the:*t1 of God and stop being blind
spiritually to the light of divine revelation. The Bible teaches t$34 ti ey are produced in sinners by
means of the regenerating work ofthe Holy Spirit. All those es, therefore, which bear upon
the regenerating work of the Spirit demonstrate or prove indire4lt e doctrine of the testimony.
The passages supporting the Spirit’s saving work are well knowi need not be cited here.

2 From the Direct Statement I cripture

As I just stated all those passages which teach that the Spirit chajts a man’s heart and imparts to it
those ethical qualities necessary to think right indirectly support 4e octrine of the testimony of the
Holy Spirit. Some passages dealing with the work of the Spiri4 i ever, plainly mention how by
His testimony He imparts the light oftruth to men. The fo1iowii ji sages make clear that it is the
Spirit that creates faith in the Scriptures through his attesting wdlt the soul of man through the
Scriptures Matt. 16:17; 1 Cor. 2:14f; John 3:3; 1 Cor. 2:4, 5; j ss. 1:5; 2:13, 1 John 2:20, 21,
27.’

C. The Necessary and Important Deductions

1. Common Misunderstandings Cleared AWfr

a The Misunderstanding of Subjectr

What do I mean by the misconception of subjectivism? Thf4 vho reject the doctrine of the
testimony ofthe Holy Spirit to the authenticity of the Scriptures #ifloften object to it by saying that
it is completely subjective. They think that we are saying that rl4now that the Bible is the Word
of God because we feel it to be so in our hearts. They often go $ 4 ask, What kind of argument is
it that is based on a feeling or a personal opinion resulting froxl s4mething the Spirit tells you in
your heart? They also ask the Reformed if it is not arrogant a poud to say that the Holy Spirit
has told them the truth, but not other Christians.2

Cf. John Murray’s exposition ofthese passages 47-54 $ flhjh Infallible Word.

2Ridderbos, Redemptive History 9, 10. Ridderbos ably ‘in nmarizes the objections of
...

Zahn who represents this view: "Zahn accuses those who are *1 ned of pretending to have an

infallible criterion ofcanonicity in their hearts, in the witness of Eloly Spirit, on the basis of
which they believe they can state in their confessions which boØ ‘4 o, and which do not belong in
the canon. Zahn states further that such an appeal to the witness ft he Holy Spirit is a denial of the

133
 a

Two answers may be given to this objection:

1 This objection does not take into account the basis of the testimony of the Holy Spirit. This a

is the objective, self-authenticating character of the Scriptures as the Word of God.’ It must be
remembered that the self-authentication of the Scriptures is not to be divorced or withdrawn from
the actual quality of the Scriptures. The self-authentication of the Scriptures is rooted in the divine a

perfections of Scripture, its claims, content, and attributes. C. W. Hodge summarizes its objective
character when he says:
a

"The Witness of the Holy Spirit to the Bible, then, is not objective in the sense of being the
mystical conmiunication to the mind of a truth or proposition, nor is it a subjective
inference from Christian experience. It is simply the saving work ofthe Holy Spirit on the
heart removing the spiritual blindness produced by sin, so that the marks of God’s hand in
the Bible can be clearly seen and appreciated.. Those who are born of the Spirit have their
minds enlightened so that they are enabled and persuaded to accept the objective testimony a

which God gives the Bible, and to recognize immediately or behold intuitively the marks of
God’s hand in the Scripture."2

Our Confession also makes plain that the self-authentication of Scripture is closely related to the
actual quality of Scripture. Notice how the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith treats these qualities
a
in Chapter 1,paragraphs4 and 5:

4 The authority ofthe Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, dependeth not
upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God who is truth itself, the -

author thereof; therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.

5 We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church of God to an high
and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy
of the doctrine, and the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the
whole which is to give all glory to God, the fill discovery it makes of the only way of
man’s salvation, and many other incomparable excellencies, and entire perfections thereof,
are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet a
notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine
authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with
the Word in our hearts.

Plainly, the Confession sees the excellencies of Scripture as the way in which it abundantly

uncertain-ties that have arisen in the history of the canon. Not only does it appear to make the Holy
Spirit the exclusive possession ofthe Reformed, but also conflicts with the character of the witness
ofthe Holy Spirit as described in the New Testament." a

‘Cf. the statement of Calvin cited above from Institutes 17:5

a
2lnfallible Word, 170.

134
a
evidences itself to be the Word of God. All the Holy Spirit is to enable us to accept this
evidence. Notice how paragraph 5 ends by saying that this or witness is borne to our
hearts "by and with the Word".

2 This objection does not take into account the unique n of God and his Word. We
cannot and may not argue for the genuine-ness of the Bible, GØ!s Word, in the same way as we
would for other historical events. To assume that we should qd can is to commit the religious
blunder of thinking God is altogether such a one as we are. Th jtn owledge of God which general
revelation imparts is of the same character. It cannot be provei: we prove other things. Those
who charge the doctrine of the testimony of the Holy Sir1 ith subjectivism are guilty of
rationalism, attaching too much importance to human reason

b. The Misunderstanding ofNew Re

Both the friends and enemies of this doctrine sometimes spea1[ if the testimony provides men
with new revelation in addition to the revelation given in the ures. But the testimony of the
Holy Spirit is not a new revelation. It does not add to the rd s of Scripture. We must not
conceive of this testimony as a new revelation to the effect th! i’tI le Bible is the Word of God."
Kuyper comments:

It has often, however, been wrongly represented that vitness was meant in a magic
sense of certain "ecstasy" or "enthusiasm," [spiritual e tpt uent-SW] and that it consisted
of a super-natural communication from the side of Go4 in which it was said to us, "This
Scripture is my Word." Thus it has been represented by: e who were less well informed,
but never by our theologians.1

This view has never been the teaching’ of the Bible or Reformet th ology. For example, the 1689
Baptist Confession of Faith clearly speaks of the "inward work f I he Holy Spirit bearing witness
by and with the word." 1:5 The texts cited in support of this me clearly distinguish between
the gospel and the power by which men were persuaded to ac i s claims 1 Thess. 1:5, 2:13; 1
.

John 2:20, 21, 27. Admittedly, it may seem strange to speak testimony of the Spirit to the
Scriptures which adds no words to it. This does not mean that testimony is word-less, but as
was noted above, it comes in the very words of Scripture.

Here it will help us to remember that the testimony of the Spirj primarily an ethical change He
brings about in our hearts. When we remember that the testit x is primarily an ethical, rather
than an intellectual operation, then it becomes clear that the tes$ y does not consist in any new
revelation. It is simply the removal ofthe evil ethical attitude wW hinders the proper reception of
divine revelation. The testimony does not impart new light to th ir ncr, but new eyes.

c. The Misunderstanding ofthe Wa$ fFth

The testimony of the Holy Spirit is not the basis of faith. Nor .i our final authority. We must

‘Kuyper, Principles of Sacred Theology, 557.

135
 a

always make a distinction between the basis of faith and the source of faith. The basis of faith is a
the self-authenticating Word of God. The source of faith is the testimony of the Holy Spirit.
Before the theologians who wrote the Westminster Confession ever came to deal with the witness
of the Spirit as that by which faith is produced in the heart of sinners 1:5, they made it very clear -

that the reason the Bible is to be believed is "because it is the Word of God." 1:4 The Bible
distinguishes clearly between the basis and source of faith 1 Thess. 1:5; 2:13.
a
It is very important to have this distinction well understood because the inspiration ofthe Scriptures
by which they are constituted the Word of God is also a work of the Holy Spirit. It is a different
work, however, than the testimony of the Holy Spirit. Thus, this distinction between the basis and a
source of faith is really a distinction between two different phases of the Spirit’s work. Inspiration
is the work of the Spirit Eph. 6:17; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet 1:21. It is this phase of the Spirit’s work
that may be in mind when the Confession speaks of the "Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures." a
1:10

It is crucial to keep this distinction between two different phases ofthe Spirit’s work clearly in mind a

in the context of modem theology.’ For many modem theologians the Bible is merely the fallible
witness to the Word of God. It becomes the Word of God when God speaks to them through it
experientially. The problem is that such people if consistent will never obey the Word of God until a

they feel like it. Their authority is their own experience or feelings. Such a response to the Word
of God is not the peculiar possession of those infected with Neo-orthodoxy. Often Evangelicals
wait till they have a feeling before obeying the Word, rather than obeying it upon its own innate -

authority as the Word of God.

2. Crucial Deductions Put Forward a

a. The Question ofthe Tests of Canonicity

The perspectives being discussed provide us with the proper approach to the question of tests of
canonicity.2 In other words, the biblical and Reformed doctrine of the self-authentication of
a
Scripture tows us how we should think about whether there are tests by which both the early
church and even the church today can determine if a book should be part of the canon. The self
attesting character of the Canon means that no external tests or evidence may be allowed. On the
a

‘John Frame, Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon, ed by D. A. Carson and John D.

a
Woodbridge, Grand Rapids: zondervan, 1986 222 and 223. Frame remarks: "In modem
theologians 111cc Barth, however, this distinction loses its sharpness. For them, first, inspiration in
the orthodox sense does not exist; God does not place His words on paper Thus, in modem
...
a
theology the internal testimony replaces the traditional concept ofinspiration. It was the internal
testimony, not inspiration, in this view, that motivated the original writing of Scripture, and it is the
internal testimony presently occurring, as we read and hear, not inspiration, that grounds our faith
in Scripture."

2What I am calling the tests of canonicity are often referred to in Latin as the criteria a
canonicitas, the notae eanonicitatis, or the principia canonicitatis.

136

a
S

other hand, internal tests or evidence are simply part of its selx henticating witness. There is
evidence that tests taught by the Scripture itself were used by thurch in some fashion in the
‘
recognition of the Canon.’ Some of these internal tests and e: ices will come to light in our
study ofthe form ofthe canon.

External standards ofcanonieity are not to be made the foundatiQ4øf our faith in the biblical canon.
It is, however, certainly to be expected that both the voice h story and the church will be
consistent with the principles of the authority of the Canon. T$e 1 he voice of history and of the
church would be insufficient to ground an infallible faith in the q4ic n. Yet when approached with
the guidance of the self-authenticating Word of God, the voi :0 f history and the church will
confirm the faith founded upon the rock of Scripture. Furtherm4ó, it will do this increasingly the
more closely and accurately those voices are understood.

b. The Correctness of the Presuposi4n of Faith

The faith imparted by the Spirit of God and founded on the self1jth enticating witness of Scripture
gives us the right to presuppose or accept without other evidenc$lie truthfulness of the message of
Scnpture m everything Thus, it is nght to presuppose the trutl$t Ets message in our approach to
the subject ofits canon.

One foundational and essential truth of Christianity is found in 16:18. This passage contains
the promise of Christ that He would certainly build His church dØh rock of the Apostolic witness
to himself. Such a promise is certainly a vital and essential asjfr Df even the most basic faith in
the message of Scripture. We are not, then, dependent on thej ionieity of Matthew when we
assume its truthfulness. Even the most generalized faith in Chr4 èi itails the belief that His church
would be built on the authentic apostolic witness to himself. Vffr ut this assumption Christianity
of any kind is impossible. The necessary deduction from sucJ4 romise is that Christ’s church
would not fail to recognize the authentic witness to Himself wh4i was written down in books and
letters. This assures us that the church would receive the gent$ canon. The promise of Christ
thus creates the presumption that the books of the orthodox an4 ived canon are authentic. It is
in light of this basic presumption that the historical evidence for $t canonicity of each book of the
Bible must be weighed. Simply stated, the historical evidence never be evaluated outside of
this presumption. When evaluated in light of it, the historicali 1frki ence supports, and in no case
overthrows, each ofthe canonical books.

The reasoning behind the above paragraph needs to be clearly 4tiei stood. The self-authenticating
character of the Scripture and the testimony ofthe Holy Spirit dØol immediately or by themselves
settle the problem of the canon or answer every question relatecj iø i t. This is recognized by many
Reformed theologians, even by many who hold firmly and Ly to the importance of these
doctrines for the subject ofthe canon. Abraham Kuyper, for inst4cc remarks,

From the nature of this witness of the Holy Spirit, it foliq$s at the same time, that it begins
with binding us simply to the Holy Scnpture in its cetu n [the central part or body as

‘Dutoit, Guide to the New Testament, 144ff.

a 137
 a

opposed to the limbs-SW]. How far the authority, which from this spiritual centrum
...

obtains its hold on us, extends itself later to those things in the Scripture that lie on the
periphery [border or margin-SW], is a question at first devoid of all spiritual significance.
Gradually, however, an ever more vitally organic relation begins to reveal itself between -

the eentrum of the Scripture and its periphery, between its fundamental and derivative
[something derived or obtained from something else-SW] thoughts, and between its
utterances and the facts it communicates.’ a

E. J. Young also admits that the doctrine of the testimony of the Holy Spirit of Scripture does not
immediately and without further thought solve every problem related to the issue ofthe canon. a

This doctrine is one which has been much abused and it is indeed a very mysterious
doctrine. It does not mean that this inward testimony can be used as a criterion [measuring a

stick or standard-SW] to determine the eanonieity of a certain verse or chapter or even

book.2
a

Yet it cannot be denied that the self-authentication of the Scripture and the testimony of the Holy
Spirit are the beginning point for any satisfying intellectual resolution of canonical questions.
Young says, "It does mean, however, that the believer possesses a conviction that the Scriptures
are God’s Word, and that this conviction is a conviction which has been implanted in his mind by
the Third Person of the Trinity."3 Kuyper explains in some detail how this general and central
confidence in the message of Scripture imparted by the Holy Spirit powerfully and eventually leads a

to accepting the whole canon.4 Thus, the seed of faith in Christ planted by the Holy Spirit grows
into a deep faith in the whole of the received canon of Scripture. There are several features of this
a
growth or process that will help us to understand why it happens.

First, as Christians grow in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, they see more and
a
more the unity of the Scriptures. The confession calls this the "consent of all the parts" of
Scripture. Kuyper says:
a
We feel ourselves more and more captivated by a power whose centrum cannot be accepted
without demanding and then compelling all unobservedly [without notice-SW] an ever
more general consent for its entire appearance, and all its utterances. Thus it ends as a
Scripture by imposing sacred obligations upon us, as Holy Book by exercising over us
moral compulsion and spiritual power. And in the end the connection between its form and
content appears so inseparable, that even the exceptional parts of its form appeal to us, and,
in form and content both, the Scripture comes to stand before us an authority from God.5

‘Abraham Kuyper, Principles of Sacred Theology, 560.

2E. J. Young, Introduction to the Old Testament, 32.

a
3ibid.

4Kuyper, Principles ofSacred Theology, 560-563.

a

5Kuyper, Principles ofSacred Theology, 560, 561.

a

138
a
 j
The path from basic faith in Christ to full faith in all the Scri may be illustrated in several
ways. The testimony ofthe Spirit gives us eyes to .see the light gospel of the glory ofChrist.
He gives us eyes to see the difference between truth and err’, adually if we ever had any
doubt we will be able see that light shining in all the pages ipture. Also, an intellectual
necessity will compel us on in this journey from faith in Christ I faith in the Scriptures. Even
the most undefined and basic faith in Christ assumes and ac that in Scripture we have an
authentic and true testimony about Him. Faith in Christ fund p ly requires the idea that God
would not allow the truth about Christ to be lost or hopelessly ,
i d. Rather, any faith in Christ
must believe that God will preserve the truth about Christ so th p ople may be saved. Any faith
in Christ carries in its heart the assurance which is stated in Mat 1:6 18 that Christ would build His
church on the truth about Himself. Thus, the most basic faith st will find itself opposed to
skepticism and cynicism about the canon. It will find itself inc o accept the received canon of
Scripture.

But at this point we must come to a second class of ideas whi w rk to confirm and hasten this
process. Coming to faith in Christ is not an event which happ4 ñ isolation to any individual.
More or less consciously every saved person increasingly undø$ ta ids that he has been separated
from the world and joined to the body of Christ, the church. }$ will be inclined, therefore, as he
grows in grace to accept the testimony ofthose he sees as true iIians and reject the views ofthe
world. This will make him especially ready to accept the testirn4y of the church about an issue as
basic as the content of the Scriptures. Thus, the testimony of$e church will confirm what his
renewed heart and mmd are already tellmg him’ He will be mçIn d to accept the received canon
ofthe church. This is the element oftruth in the appeal of many:,a t he church in order to prove the
biblical canon.

The Christian’s own renewed and spiritual heart and mind is, th o nfirmed by the witness of the
church. The inner certainty thus created in the Christian’s 4d creates in his mind a belief,
presumption, or presupposition that the Scriptures are the Wor4 t Jod. He approaches the study

‘Kuyper, Principles ofSacred Theology, 561, 562. Here* e1 Cuyper’s words with regard to
this process ofaccepting the witness of the church to the receive4 ton; "With this conviction,
which is now his own for good and always, he, who has been set: from the veil darkly hung
between, does not stand alone, but feels himself assimilated by tA ill uminated consciousness which
in the communion ofthe saints is distinguished from the natural ç ciousness ofthe world. This
assimilation becomes stronger, according to the greater vitality d, child of God in him, by which
he is evermore being changed into the image of the Son ofGod. s there originates a
communion ofconsciousness not merely with those round about’ s, 1 ut also with the generation of
the saints of former ages, affinity of life with the saints that have:j pm before, unity of soul-
conceptions with the martyrs, with the fathers of the Church, witt4 apostles, and so at length
with Christ Himself and with the faithful of the Old Covenant. I be life-consciousness of that
sacred circle the positive conviction prevails, that we have a grap fly inspired Scripture, on
which we lean and by which we live; and that this is not contingi tor accidental, but necessary.
This faith in the Scripture is found as an indispensable and an enji natural component part in the
life-consciousness of this circle."

a 139
 a

of the historical evidence with this faith. He evaluates the historical criticisms of the received a

canon of the church on the basis of this conviction. He finds-approaching the historical evidence
with this presupposition-that it is consistent with his faith in the Scripture. There is nothing in the
historical evidence which of necessity contradicts his faith. There is much which positively
confirms it. The historical evidence, then, is not clear or sufficient enough to be the basis of his
faith. Yet is clear and sufficient enough to confirm and strengthen it. This is the element of truth in
the appeal to the historical evidence to prove the canon. Without fear of contradiction, it may be a

asserted that not one of the canonical books of the received canon of Protestants can be called into
question by any existing historical evidence. This line of argument for the received canon may be
diagrammed as follows: a

THE ARGUMENT FOR THE RECEIVED CANON

FROM THE SELF-AUTHENTICATION OF,
AND THE TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT TO,
THE SCRIPTURES
a

THE TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN AND TO SCRIPTURE

V
a
v
FAITH IN THE CHRIST OF SCRIPTURE
V
a
v
EYES TO SEE THE TRUTH OF CHRIST IN ALL SCRIPTURES
V
V -

MIND TO SEE THAT THE CHURCH IS BUILT ON THE TRUTH OF CHRIST

V a
v
THE CHURCH CONFIRMS THE CHRISTIAN’S FAITH
V
V -
THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE CONFIRMS HIS FAITH
V
V -

THE RECEIVED CANON IS AUTHENTIC AND GENUINE

To sum up, if even the most basic and simple faith in Christ may be founded on the self-attestation
of Scripture, then we have a right to a starting-point, presupposition, or presumption which is of
great importance in the study ofthe canon. Truly, even the most general presupposition of faith in
Christ creates a presumption in favor of the orthodox and received canon.

c. The Superiority of the Books of Scripture -

The self-authenticating character of Scripture assures us that there will be a gulf separating
canonical writings from all others. Those writings marked by the self-authenticating divine a

perfections of Scripture will be radically different than other writings, especially those falsely

140
a
posing as Scripture. There will be a plain distinction for any have eyes to see it between the
least of the canonical Scriptures and the best of those writings : etnding to be scriptural. Owen,
thus, says, "On these suppositions I fear not to affirm that thej ae on every individual book of
Scripture.... those divine characters and criteria which are su jelt to difference them from all
other writings whatever, and to testify their divine authority I the minds and consciences of
believers."

‘jo Owen, Works, 4:107.

141
 a

IV. The Form of the Canon

Introduction:

When God speaks, he speaks seif-authenticatingly. It is the self-authentication of the Scriptures

which is the basis and source of our confidence that we have the genuine, biblical canon. In this
division of our studies we come to ask different questions, How has God spoken? In what -

historical form has he spoken? It is still necessary to ask these questions. Though they do not tell
us the primary basis or source of our confidence in the Scriptures, they do in several ways tend to
increase our understanding of, confirm our faith in, and defend our view of the canon of Scripture. -

Let me open up the importance of studying the form of the canon so that you will appreciate the
value and necessity of the extended study which we are now about to begin.
a

First, studying the form of the biblical canon will help us to understand more clearly the teaching of
Scripture itself. Giving to His people a written revelation of His Word was a vital part of God’s
working in redemptive history. The record of this is an important feature of the Bible itself, a

Without a clear knowledge of the prophets of the Old Testament and the apostles of the New
Testament, our understanding of the Scriptures as a whole will be seriously weakened. Thus, by
a
understanding the prophetic and apostolic form in which God gave to His people the revelation of
His will our insight into the Scriptures will be deepened.

Second, Christians sometimes ask the important question, How did we receive our Bibles? Others -

may challenge Christians by asking what the connection is between the message ofthe Bible and its
present form. They may suggest that the Bible is a disorganized, random, and confused collection
of books. They may say that the biblical canon is itself not biblical. They may assert that our -

loyalty should be God and Jesus not to a set of books. They may call our Christianity, ‘bookish,
letterish, and legalistic,’ because we reverence the biblical canon. Only an understanding of the
form of the biblical canon will enable the Christian to answer these challenging questions by
showing the unbreakable connection between salvation and the Bible, redemption and revelation.

Three, an understanding of the form of the biblical canon will help us see why some books can -

make no claim to being a part ofthe biblical canon. Even if understanding the form of the biblical
canon did not help us prove that the biblical books are canonical, it would help us show that some
books are not. This will be an important point to remember as we study the Apocrypha’s claim to -

be part of the Old Testament. It will also help us in seeing why some books can make no claim to
being a part ofthe New Testament.

Before we come to our study of the form of the canon, I must make plain something that is only
stated indirectly in the preceding paragraphs. We do not come to study the prophetic and apostolic
form of the biblical canon to put ourselves in a position to prove the biblical canon. Many good
men have attempted to show that the New Testament is the true and authentic Word of God by
proving its apostolic authorship.’ The apostolic form of the New Testament is important for -

understanding and defending the New Testament canon. We have in the preceding paragraphs

a
‘R. Laird Harris is an example in his Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible, 219ff.

142
a
a

briefly stated why that is the case. Yet the apostolic form of N4ew Testament canon and the
prophetic form of the Old Testament canon can never hemselves answer the basic
epistemological questions related to the authentication of Scrip$ ró. The evidence is not complete
enough to do this. Furthermore, it is not the kind of evidence ne to do this.
F

With all this said by way of introduction, we come now to the ions related to the form of the
biblical canon. We shall deal with them in three sections of thot

A. Canon, Covenant and Community-The Form oflb !ical Canonicity

B. Moses and the Prophets-The Form ofthe Old T4:4a nent Canon
C. Jesus and the Apostles-- The Form ofthe New T4 2ent Canon

A. Canon, Covenant and Community-The Form ofiF heal Canonicity

1. AHelpifil Idea

Meredith Kline’s name has become almost synonymous with ii lea that the biblical covenants
fmd their formal origin, their secular model, in the ancient eastern suzerain treaties.’ A
suzerain was an overlord or king who conquered and ruled ot c ther peoples. Kline describes
such treaties as follows, "In these treaties an overlord addres$4: 1 is vassals [servants of a high
king--SW], sovereignly regulating theft relations with him, witi bi: other vassals, and with other
nations ,i2

Kline has attempted to establish this theory at length in his bookfl e Treaty ofthe Great King and
By Oath Consigned. I do not follow Kline in all the applications9fj makes of this thesis. Yet I see
no reason to deny his basic idea. Rather, I see good reasons : approve Kline’s basic thesis.
Several striking parallels with biblical canonicity show the betness of Kline’s thesis and
manifest its significance for canonical study.

1 There is a great and varied emphasis in these treaties ont nscripturation or writing down
of theft provisions and the central role of this writing in the ad’iii stration of the treaty.3 This is
strikingly parallel to the emphasis of the Pentateuch on the wril4 md depositing of the covenant
in a sacred place.4 Notice Exod. 24:4-7, 12, 13; 25:16; 34:27, 28O: 20; Deut. 31:24-26.

1For the bulk ofthe material of this section, I acknowle4á I ny debt to Meredith 0. Kline’s
a
book, The Structure of Biblical Authority. Part I of this b is extremely suggestive with
reference to the subject of the canon. Part 2 cannot be commend because of the ethical theories
set forth in chapter 3 ofPart 2 are completely misguided.

2Kline, The Structure ofBiblical Authority, 27.

3Kline, The Structure ofBiblical Authority, 27f.

4Kline, The Structure of Bib! ical Authority, 35ff.

a 143
 a

2 There is the specific presence of what Kline calls the "inscriptional curse." This is again a

strikingly parallel to the biblical curses on those who would alter the Scriptures.2 Notice Deut. 4:2;
12:32; 5:22; Rev. 22:18,19.
a

3 There is also a striking parallel between the period in which such treaties flourished and the
formative era of the Old Testament canon. The documents Kline refers to flourished in the 14th to
7th centuries B.C. This is, of course, almost precisely the period in which the Old Testament canon a

was formed.3

2. Its Significant Applications a

a. For the Origins ofCanonical Scriptures

a

Kline’s idea destroys the higher critical view of the Old Testament canon. Kline summarizes the
views of Fohrer. His views may be taken as summarizing the higher critical tradition. He asserts
that the Old Testament canon was formed between 100 B. C. and A. D. ioo. The presence of a

suzerain treaties in the 14th century B.C. with their essential emphasis on writings which possessed
authority as the standard of life certainly weakens the higher critical assigning of the begiinings of
a
the Old Testament canon to the 7th century B. C. and even later.5

b. For the Equivalence of Canon and Covenant -

Not only does Kline’s thesis establish early historical evidence for the idea of canonical writings,
but it teaches that the origin of a written canon is found in the biblical idea or concept of the a
covenant. A written canon is essentially related to the biblical presentation of the Mosaic
Covenant. It is also essentially related to the historical background of the Mosaic Covenant. We
may, therefore, speak of the equivalence of Canon and covenant. The covenant is the standard or a
rule or canon of the life of the people of God. The biblical idea of the covenant as well as its
historical background in the suzerain treaties contains the idea of formal, legal, or binding
relationship. Hence covenantal writings have authority by nature, formally and legally. They are in a
other words canonical Scripture.

The close association of canon and covenant should not surprise us. Our traditional designations of
the Bible as Old and New Testament Covenant point to this association. They were more proper

‘Kline, The Structure ofBiblical Authority, 29f.

2Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority, 36ff’. a

‘Kline, The Structure ofBiblical Authority, 34.

4Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority, 21f. Cf. F. J. Young in Revelation and the
Bible, ed. by Carl F. H. Henry, 157f.
a
5Kline, The Structure ofBiblicalAuthority, 43, 38.

144
a
than we realized.’ This traditional language reflects the langna $f the early church. It used the
term, covenantal, to describe what was canonical before the t1! canonical became customary.
Prior to the 4th century the idea of an authoritative list of boo$ s expressed by the phrase, the
Old and New Covenants testaments.2 Before this Paul hims4oken of the reading of a divine
covenant 2 Cor. 3:14, 15. In this passage the Old Covenant ü4ls the Old Testament Scripture
as a whole.

The reference of Paul above points up the accuracy of Kl idea that the Old Testament
Scriptures as a whole are simply expansions of the different a$jc s of the original covenant with
Israel. The frequent references to the whole Old Testament as ly "the law" also confirms this
idea.3

c. For the Association of Canon an4 nmunity

The relationship between canon and covenant must be compi by noticing the association of
canon, covenant and community. Perhaps the best way to duce this point is to ask the
following question. Why do the canonical Scriptures have theit inning in the Mosaic covenant
and not in the earlier covenants mentioned in God’s Word? TheiI*ct is that while the Bible contains
the records of God’s earlier covenantal dealings its beginnings a$t be traced to Moses and the Old
Covenant. Why?

The answer to this question is that it was the appearance of a ial covenant community which
necessitated the canonical Scriptures. In the time of Abraha4 te covenant community was a
family under the personal leadership of Abraham. A written br the ruling of the community
was not necessary for it to be governed. Soon, however, the n. ant people became too large to
be governed by the direct leadership of one man. When the eov people became a nation, there
was no longer a single father to govern the whole nation. Then ten code or canon was needed.
Only by a public, written rule could the corporate life of the unity be effectively governed.
This was the reason for a written canon. It has several importan4t Ilications.

1 The covenantal canon is the authoritative rule for the cp umty imposed by its covenant
lord. As such it in no sense derives its authority from the comnfl nil y. This contradicts the Roman
Catholic doctrine or idea of the church authenticating the canon.

2 The covenantal canon assumes and presupposes the eon nity ordered by it and existing
under its authority. "Canonical authority is not derived from thj amunity, but covenantal canon
connotes [intimates or suggests or implies-SW] covenantal 04 rnnity."4 This means that the
covenantal canon is always given to the covenant community an4 ognized by it.

‘Kline, The Structure ofBiblical Authority, 74f.

2Kline, The Structure ofBiblical Authority, 75.

‘Kline, The Structure ofBiblical Authority, 45, 46.

4Kline, The Structure ofBiblical Authority, 108.

145
 a

One ofthe marks or necessary conditions of canonicity must be the recognition of a writing by the
covenant community to whom it was originally given. The idea of writings only gradually gaining
canonical status centuries after theft writing is foreign and alien to Christianity. If any writing only -

gained such authority centuries after its being written, this would clearly prove that it was not
canonical.
a

This is an element of truth in the Roman Catholic idea that the church attests the canon. It is true
that no book could be considered canonical which was not historically recognized as such by the
covenant community. This means that Old Testament books must have been accepted as canonical a

by the Jews, and New Testament books must have been accepted as canonical by the church.

3 The distinctive and peculiar purpose ofthe canon is to order the life of God’s people. It is to a

formally structure and officially order the corporate life of the people of God that the canon is
given. Such is the whole reason for the existence of canon. This rebukes those who wish to regard
the doctrine ofthe church as of little importance or as a matter of indifference. The Bible was given a

precisely because the church is to be a formally and legally ordered community. The Bible is the
constitution of the visible church. Contempt for the visible church or its ordering and government
is contempt for the canon itself. The Bible is given to be the ‘regulative principle’ ofthe church. a

4 We are about to turn to the actual historical means or forms in or through which God spoke
a
to His people. The previous emphasis on the self-attesting character ofthe Word of God raises this
question, Why did God bother to set up the prophetic institution in the Old Testament period and
the apostolic institution in the New Testament period? Could He not have spoken randomly to
a
whomever He sovereignly pleased? Since His Word is self-attesting, why is the existence of
clearly defined historical institutions through which He would speak to his people necessary? Here
the covenantal character of canon helps us. Because His purpose was to govern His people, He
a
confirmed and completed the self-attesting power of His Word by giving it through institutions
which were publicly ktown. These previously constituted institutions confirmed the authority of
His Word for His people, decreased the ability of sinful men to deny His Word, and left men
a
without excuse,

- a

146

a
 B. Moses and the Prophets--The Form of the Old T, nent Canon

Preface:

For the bulk of this material I am indebted to R. Laird Harris’ bo he Inspiration and Canonicity
of the Bible, especially ch. 7, "The Determining Principle of th Canon." Though Mr. Harris
does not see clearly the importance of the testimony of the Ho4 Si ,irit in attesting the canon, he
does give clear and correct teaching about the form of the Old Te Lent canon.

1. Stated -

What historical form or structure did God use in speaking to ra d? What public, well-known
institutions did God use to communicate His covenant reveJ$ i to Israel? By what formal
q
standards did Israel recognize that word? The answer to such ns is that God spoke to Israel
through Moses and the Prophets. Israel recognized that word in! and the Prophets. God was
speaking in Moses and the Prophets. This means that not mój heir words, but their writings
would be authoritative.’ The testimony of the Old Testament is both Moses and the prophets
did write. The view I will defend here is that these writings were firmed and thus recognized as
canonical not only because of their divine perfection but also bed they were authored by Moses
and the Prophets, divinely endorsed and approved spokesmen. mere fact that a writing was
authored by Moses or the prophets in their position as God’s sp en confirmed its contents to
be canonical. This view is proven and explained in the followin4 hts.
I
2. Explained

a. Moses

The starting point of Old Testament canonicity is Moses. Mos -as accredited and endorsed to
Israel repeatedly by miraculous manifestations of redemptive Ite r Exod. 4:1-9, 27-3 1. Thus
Moses was recognized as canonical by Israel. Naturally, as l’s known spokesman Moses’
official writings would be regarded as possessing the authoriq divine revelation. The Bible
testifies that Moses wrote the first five books ofthe Old Testame rhis testimony consists of "the
claims of the books themselves, the evidence ofthe later writing j the assurances of Christ" ,2 j
is unnecessary to give this evidence in detail here. After summa g the Old Testament evidence
that Moses wrote these books and that they were received as autIi ttive, Harris concludes that the
determining principle or deciding fact for the canonieity of the P4 it euch was that Moses wrote it.’

Moses is important not only as the one through whom God begè revelation to Israel. It was

1R. Laird Harris, The Inspiration- and Canonicity of the 4l1e, Zondervan, Grand Rapids,
1957, 167.

2R. Laird Harris, Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia ofthe le Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1976, 1:711.

- ‘R. Laird Harris, Inspiration and..., 159. i: -

147
 a

also through Moses that the means or instrument of God’s continuing revelation to Israel was a

instituted and regulated. That means was the prophetic institution Deut. 18:9-22. So far as we
know, the only divinely instituted and regulated means for continuing revelation in the Old
Covenant was the prophetic institution. -

b. The Prophets
a

1 Its Institution

Deut. 18:9-22 is the key passage with regard to the institution of the prophets in Israel. Some,
however, apply this only to the person of our great prophet, Jesus Christ. E.J. Young argues at
length against this meaning. He says rather that Deut. 18:9-22 is not exclusively messianic and
argues that it forms the basis ofthe prophetic institution in the nation of Israel.’ Young admits, of -

course, that the messianic reference is not to be doubted, but simply argues that a reference to the
prophetic institution in Israel is included. The New Testament is, indeed, clear on this point. The
a
following arguments support a reference to the prophetic institution in Israel:

1 The immediate context points to this. Verses 9-13 in Deut. 18 give details about the
a
forbidden sources of supernatural information or revelation used by the nations of Canaan. Verses
14 and 15 connect with this by means of the double command "you shall not listen to the diviners,
etc.... you shall listen to God’s prophet." The connection is probably that God will supply a
a
source of continuing revelation to Israel so that the unlawful sources used by the Canaanites will
not be a strong temptation. This theme points to a reference to the prophetic institution.

2 The wider context also points to such a reference. The whole surrounding context deals
with institutions that would be a part of the life of the people of God in the promised land in the
near future. Deut. 16:18-17:13 speaks of the appointment ofjudges. Deut. 17:14-20 speaks of the
a
appointment of a king. Deut. 18:1-8 legislates for the levitical priesthood in the promised land.
Deut. 18:9-22 then speaks of the raising up ofprophets. It would be un-natural in such a context to
make this passage refer only to the distant arrival of Christ. a

3 The reference to the prophetic institution is necessary to explain the existence of the
prophetic institution. This institution is so prominent in the later history of Israel that we expect
some explanation ofit. If Deut. 18:911 is not this explanation, there is none in the Old Testament.2

4 The test of verses 20-22 points this way. The giving of a test in these verses suggests that
the Israelites would often have to evaluate the claims of a man to be a prophet of the true God. It
seems un-natural in light ofthis test to think that there would be only one true prophet, the Messiah.
One difficulty with this interpretation would be that many ofthe Old Testament prophets did pass
this test. If this passage is speaking of a test for the one, true prophet, the Messiah, then their
passing the test would make each ofthem this prophet-Messiah. This, of course, cannot be true.
a

‘E. J. Young, My Servants The Prophets, 29ff.

2CF. Young’s comments in My Servants ..., 30.

148
a
S

5 The evident reference of Luke 11:50, 51 to Deut. 18: l[ ints to this conclusion. There
seems to be a reference in the words literally, "may be requh f this generation," to the threat
against those who reject a true prophet in Deut. 18:19, "I will El ire it of him." If this reference
is, indeed, present then Jesus in Luke 11 is interpreting Deut. 18 reference to "all the prophets"
S
Luke 11:50.

6 The words of I Peter 1:11 state that it was the Spirit of C] who spoke in the prophets. It
S
is possible that Peter is consciously blending together the two mretations of Deut. 18 we are
discussing. If this is true, it supports the position. We have, thq 1 Pet. 1:11 a biblical harmony
ofthese two interpretations. Even if this is not so, it enables usil rmonize a double reference to
the Messiah and the theocratic prophetic institution.’

2 Its Regulation

The regulation of the prophetic institution is, then, spoken aboá dn verses 20-22 of Deuteronomy
18. The words of the prophet of God are to be obeyed on f divine judgment. The false
prophet is to be put to death. Now at this point in the passage ‘iii portant canonical question is
raised. "How shall we know the word which the Lord has not ?" Only one answer is given
in this passage, but a comparison of a parallel makes plain liii 4- ere are two answers to this
important question: 1 The first mark of a false prophet is at his predictions are inaccurate
Deut. 18:22. 2 The second mark of a false prophet is that h hing is inconsistent with the
Mosaic covenant Deut. 13:1-6. This passage makes clear thatik tests must be passed if one is
to be considered a canonical prophet. This second test implie S t the prophets were distinctly
secondary to Moses in their canonical role and dignity. Nun 12:5-8 which confirms this.
This, however, does not lessen the absolute authority of their me Deuteronomy 18:15, 18, 19
makes this clear. -F

3. Confirmed

Several things confirm all that has been said about Moses
through which God spoke His Word to Israel. 4 4e Prophets being the means

a. If this prophetic institution was ti e sole source and test of the

canonical ‘writings of the Old Testament, the simple fact is that i44 di not know what the source of
any further revelation would be.2 There is no other revealed m*s of continuing revelation from
God in the Old Testament. There is no other canonical mechanist hi nted at.

‘Harris, Inspiration ..., 160.

2It is interesting to see E.J. Young admitting this in his in Revelation and the Bible,
168. What makes this admission so interesting is that Young 4 fri from R. Laird Harris on this
issue. He denies that the means of - God’s speaking to Israel nically was only Moses and
Prophets. Yet he is forced to admit thathe does not know what t14 rm was.

149
 a

b. The fact that the formation of the Old Testament canon was -

concluded with the prophecies of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi and the cessation of prophecy
thereafter points to this institution as the key to the form of the canon in Israel.

c. The completion of the canon with the cessation of prophecy was

understood by the Jews. During the period between the Old and New Testaments it was understood
that the canon was completed when the spirit of prophecy departed from Israel. Harris cites four
witnesses:

That this was the view of the inter-Testamental period is witnessed not only by I a

Maccabees, in which the defiled stones ofthe Temple are commanded to be put aside "until
a prophet should arise" I Macc. 4:46; cf. 9:27; 14:41, but also now by the Dead Sea
manual of Discipline, which looks forward to the time of the "coming of a Prophet and the a

anointed ones of Aaron and Israel." In the meantime, the Torah and the previously
mentioned words of the prophets and the rule of the community shall obtain. Much the
same idea is expressed somewhat later by the statements of Josephus, who declared that a

"the prophets wrote from the days of Moses to Artaxerxes very particularly but that later
writers hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers,
because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time." Similar is the
Talmudic reference, "After the latter prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the Holy
Spirit departed from israel." -

d. The terminology of the New Testament and the Judaism which

existed in the period between the Old and New Testaments points to the prophetic institution as the
sole source of Old Testament canonical Scripture after Moses.

1 Inter-testamental Judaism regarded all ofthe books outside the law as the prophets.2
a

2 The New Testament most commonly designates the Old Testament as having two parts the
law or Moses and the prophets.3 Notice Mart. 5:17; 7:12; 11:13; Luke 16:16; John. 1:45; Acts
a
13:15; 24:14; 28:23; Rom. 3:21; Luke 16:29, 31;24:27; Acts 26:22.

3 The New Testament designates the Old Testament simply as the prophets. Notice Mart.
26:56; Luke 1:7011 Note the quotation of the Psalms.; Luke 18:31; 24:25f; Acts 2:30; 3:21; 7:52
There is a possible reference to Moses here. 2 Peter 1:20, 21 According to Warfield this is a
reference to the whole Old Testament..

e. There is the explicit testimony ofthe Old Testament that most of its
books were in fact written by prophets. There is no evidence that any of the books beside the five

‘Harris, The Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible, 169 a

2Harris, The Inspiration and Canonicity ofthe Bible, 171,172.

3Harris, The Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible, 171. -

150

a
 pla44l

books of Moses were written by anyone who was not a prop - - The Psalms and Daniel are
frequently classed among the writings rather than the prophets. ‘
there is biblical testimony that
Daniel Mart. 24:15, David Acts 2:30 and Asaph 2 Chron. 29 -- were prophets.2

4. Cleared - H

a. An objection to this view of the f44th of the Old Testament canon is

often raised on the basis of the common threefold division of11 Old Testament canon.3 The
ancient Jews often divided the Old Testament into the Law, S phets, and the Writings. Why
the third division usual among the Jews, it may be asked, if re prophets? Several answers
may be given to this objection. -

1 The threefold division rests on the assumption that tl* b oks falling into the division
known as the writings were not written by prophets. There is n-fr! .dence for this. In fact there is
much evidence against it. The threefold division rests on a distii$ip i between the office ofprophet
and the gift of prophecy. For, instance, E. J. Young makes ]Jli distinction in defending the
threefold division and denies that David, Solomon, and Daniel w* i ,rophets.4 Yet, as we have just
shown, David, Daniel, Asaph are called prophets in the Bible. t$i ualifications for the prophetic
office laid down in Deuteronomy 18 were possessed by each of * biblical authors and Solomon
as well.5

2 Harris argues that the threefold division of the canon is n4h e oldest one.6 Furthermore, its
boundaries are fluid and very vague in the earliest evidence Ar various times Daniel, Ruth,
Lamentations, I and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah were in the prophets rather than the
writings. Josephus places only four books among the writing These were probably Psalms,
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs.

3 The only possible biblical testimony to this division is L 4:44 where the reference is to
the "law ofMoses, and.... the prophets, and ....the Psalms." Wh4 s single reference is compared

‘Harris, The Inspiration and Canonicity ofthe Bible, 1 74.F -

2Hanis, The Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible, l74H arris argues that Solomon, the
writer of several other ofthe books ofthe Old Testament canon classed as non-prophetic, was
also a prophet. iI: -
3E. J. Young, Revelation and the Bible, 165, 166.

4Young, in Revelation and the Bible, 166, says: "What - e said about the books which

belong to the third division7 It goes without saying that these]wr iters were acknowledged to be
inspired men. But were they prophets? Surely it would be -4fti cult to show that David and
Solomon occupied the status of a prophet."

5Harris, The Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bibles 170

6Harris, The Inspiration and Canonicity ofthe Bible, I 70.,

151
 a

with the numerous references to a twofold division made in the New Testament, and the -

acknowledged prophetic status of several of the authors of the Psalms in the Bible, there is no
reason to be impressed that this single reference is proof of a threefold division of the Old
Testament. The Psalms may be singled out in this passage for many other reasons. This verse may -

only be a recognition of their distinctive character as hymns or psalms. Perhaps the specific
mention of the Psalms is due to the fact that they are peculiarly prophetic of Christ and His work.
This interpretation would make sense in light of the theme of the passage.

b. Another objection against this view of the structure and divisions of

the Old Testament is that it implies that certain men were canonical and infallible. This is an
objection or problem which also confronts us in our treatment of the Apostolate. It is important,
therefore, to discuss it.

It must be remembered in the first place that this objection would destroy almost everything the
Bible teaches about prophets and apostles being the spokesmen of God. It is clear that these men
claimed for their words the authority of God Deut. 18:18-22; 1 Cor. 14:37. Any theory which a

destroys this authority or our ability to confidently trust any of theft statements as certainly true
must be wrong. Thus, any biblical view must assign canonicity and infallibility in some sense to
these men.

It is not maintained that the canonical men of the Old Testament were sinless or infallible in all they
did or said. Some oftheft words and actions were private and personal. IfMoses wrote a shopping -

list, it would not be canonical. Some of theft words and actions were clearly sink!. Moses sinned
even in his public ministry. Solomon followed other gods. We hear of a prophet who lied and of
prophets who disobeyed.

These things do not contradict the canonicity and infallibility of these men in their official ministry
and teaching of God’s Word.’ This distinction between these men considered privately and these
men considered officially is indicated in Deut. 18. There the prophet’s infallibility is limited to
what he spoke in Jehovah ‘is’ name. Notice especially vv. 19, 20, 22. This distinction is also implied
in Mart. 16: 18 and Eph. 2:20 where the church is said to be built on Peter and his fellow apostles. -

The church is not built on the apostles personally and privately, but on them in terms oftheft public
ministry and official teaching about Christ. a

God carefully guards His Word so that it is not misrepresented by the sins of His servants. Neither
Moses nor Peter claimed divine authority for their sins. Neither did they verbally lie about what
God had revealed to them. They simply acted in a way inconsistent with God’s Word. Even when
this happened, God publicly rebuked them and they confessed their sin. We may assume, then,
unless the official words and actions ofthese men are contradicted by sufficient authority, that they
are canonical and infallible. Canonical men are, thus, infallible in their official ministry.

a
‘Harris, The Inspiration and Canonicity ofthe Bible, 178.

152
 C. Jesus and the Apostles-The Form of the New T ment Canon

Preface:

Of much help here to me was Herman Ridderbos’ book, jØ&

mptive History and the New
Testament Scrzptures.’ Part I is excellent. Part 2 is scarred concession that there may be
error in the Scriptures. This admission seems inconsistent with ijan things that Ridderbos teaches
in this book and elsewhere. Also very helpffil is his article in 4 elation and the Bible entitled,
"The Canon ofthe New Testament".2
:_ -
Introduction:

a. The Question: What has Chrisd tb do with the New Testament

canon?

Christ or the gospel of Jesus Christ is the way in which God 4e to us in order to give us the
New Testament canon. Mark 1:1 speaks of "the gospel of Jesus1l*ist". Heb. 1:1, 2a asserts, "He
has spoken to us in His Son." Dutoit says, "Jesus Christ is, ie canon, both as the one who
proclaims and as the one who is proclaimed We must state q4e ategorical1y that in the case of
....

the New Testament canon we are concerned first and foremost 4* ith a book, but with a person -
Jesus Christ."3 No golden tablets have fallen from heaven to bôir authority. Our canon is the
God-man, Jesus Christ.

Jesus is our canon, Yet He wrote no books. It is this fact which4pins Ridderbos’ statement that,
"Any interpretation that seeks to connect the history of redeqitkn and the canon of the New
Testament at first sight can appear to be forced."4 How, therefó 4all we come into contact with
the gospel of Jesus Christ? How do we bridge the gap from Jes qhrist-his birth, life, ministry,
teaching, death, resurrection, and out-pouring of the Spirit44. the book we call the New
Testament?

b. The Answer: The answer is the a - - late.5

‘Herman Ridderbos, Redemptive History and the New T4tc4nent Scrzptures, Presbyterian
and Reformed, 1988.

2Revelation and the Bible, ed. by Carl F. H. Henry, Bakàcok House, 1958, "The Canon
of the New Testament" by Herman Ridderbos, 189-201. -!

3Dutoit, A Guide to the New Testament, 92. Dutoit :rmarks in that place, "He is
normative subjectively and objectively."

4Ridderbos, Redemptive History ..., 13.

5The apostolate is a reference to the Apostles ofChrist in ei combined identity. Together

the Apostles ofChrist form the apostohte. -

153
The apostolate came into being with and by Jesus Christ. It occupied an important and clear place a

in redemptive history.

1 The apostolate came into being with Jesus Christ. Matthew, a

Mark, and Luke give the account of its origin great prominence in theft gospels. All record the
appointment ofthe 12 and give a listing oftheir exact names.

2 The apostolate occupied an important place in redemptive -

history. For instance, Jesus likens theft sending to His own John 20:21. The sending of Jesus by
the Father is, however, a redemptive-historical event frequently reflected upon in John’s gospel -

John 3:17, 34; 5:36; 5:38; 6:29; 6:57; 7:29; 8:42; 10:36; 11:42; 17:3,8, 18, 21,23,25. Just as the
sending of the Son of God was a once for all redemptive event, so also is the sending of the
Apostles! Thus, "the apostles were taken up into the redemptive act of It is this apostolate -

which bridges the gap between Jesus and the New Testament canon.

JESUS
{APOSTLES}NT. CANON

c. The Difficulty: When this solution is stated, a difficulty

immediately confronts us. Who made up this apostolate ofredemptive history? This question must
be asked because the term apostle is used in several ways in the New Testament, sometimes not -

strictly in the sense we are using it. It will be necessary, then, to examine the identity of the
apostolate in the first place and secondly, to take up the authority ofthe apostolate. -

1. The Identity of the Apostolate

a. The Original Apostolate

Any examination of the apostolate and its identity must surely begin with the twelve. The identity
a
ofthis apostolate is most easily approached by asking the question, What were the qualifications for
being included in this apostolate? These qualifications no place come more clearly in view than in
Acts 1 and2. a

As we come to Acts 1, it may be necessary to refUte the interpretation that sees Peter and the
apostolic company as acting improperly in appointing a twelfth apostle. This interpretation is
usually brought forward in the interest of the Pauline apostolate. Paul, some say, was really the
twelfth apostle. The misdirected character of this interpretation will come out increasingly in our
examination of the passage. Two objections to this interpretation may, however, be raised here.
First, it must be noted that the apostolic position of Peter and the other ten apostles in itself
validates their action. It is to be noted that the Spirit had already been given them John 20:21 and
that they had already been appointed to this responsible position. Second, divine authority a

confirms theft action on the day of Pentecost. The Spirit comes upon Matthias, as well as the

‘These are the words of Don Garlington. Cf. also Ridderbos, Redemptive History..., 1 6f.

a
154
a

original 11 Acts 2:1-4, 14, 37; 6:2

1 The first qualification for

- Driginal Apostolate is stated in
verses 21 and 22. One must have been a disciple of the Lor; Se sus from the beginning of the
gospel, the baptism of John, up to and including witnessing tje resurrection of Christ. This
S
qualification is mentioned often Mark 3:14; John 15:27 For :erm beginning compare Mark
4
1:lf, Luke 1:2.; Acts 10:39; Man. 10:1; Luke 6:13; Acts l3:3i I John 1:1. It is not peculiar to
Peter or Acts 1. It is intimately related to the official function Apostolate stated in Acts 1:22
and Acts 10:39-41. The term, witness, always denotes in the N$j stament an eye or ear witness
and carries legal connotations. An apostle of the Twelve must
Jesus Christ from John’s baptism through the Resurrection. t.
been a witness in this sense of

It must, therefore, be clearly stated that the Apostle Paul :4i’ not possess the necessary
qualifications to be one of the Twelve. Whether he had knoW fist after the flesh or not, he
certainly did not have the lengthy and intimate acquaintance d ded in verses 21 and 22. The
language implies discipleship which, of course, during this time $ did not possess.

2 The second qualification iS:.’ in4lerscored in verses 23 through

26. One becomes an Apostle only through direct appointment sas Christ. This qualification is
emphatically declared throughout the New Testament Acts 1:2; 4c3:14; Luke 6:13; Acts 10:39-
-

41. It is underscored in Acts 1. Two equally qualified men ar4 t1apart but only one is chosen.
-

The use of the lot emphasizes the idea of direct, divine appoh int. Notice Prov. 16:33. The
movement from Jehovah of Proverbs to the Lord Christ of Acts :24 points to the deity of Christ.
- -

The use of the lot is perfectly consistent with its scriptural intet$ ttion and the necessities of the
situation.

3 The third qualification is; LI mated in Acts 1:5 and 8. A

supernatural grant of the Spirit was standard equipment for an - -
tle. This meant the ability to
confirm his mission by miraculous signs. Notice 2 Cor. 12:12; ‘
10:1; John 14:12; Mark 3:15.
This gift, however, is especially connected with their official - - ss to Christ John 20:21 and
John 14-16. The promises ofthe Spirit in John 14-16 are to be icted to the Apostolate. John
14:26 is connected with the statement of v. 25 which has Apostolic significance. The
interpretation of John 14:25, 26 contrcls the promise of 14:16, fl trhe connection of John 15:26
with verse 27 restricts its significance to the Apostolate. John j4 is, thus, also to be restricted
to the Apostolate. Internal indications as well as the context m4 ied before point to this. Note
the mention of their world-mission in v. 8, the descriptiori the Spirit’s ministry as the
continuation of Jesus’ speaking to them in v. 12, the promise of
the promise of being shown things to come, v. 13. The witnes I7l led into all truth in v. 13, and
e Apostles will be, thus, not
only a Spirit-taught witness, but the very witness ofthe Spirit hi to Christ. A witness, the very
words of which are taught by the Spirit 1 Cor. 2:13. This un4 ding of John 14-16 does not
mean that a secondary application through the Apostles to the wljc hurch is wrong.

4 This treatment of the origi postolate clearly points to the

historically unique and unrepeatable character of the Apostol* - I places clearly before us the
special position and power of the 12 Apostles. The New Te t, however, mentions other
Apostolates. Their relation to the apostolate ofthe Twelve must - -
fr e considered.

155
 a

b. The Pauline Apostolate -

1 The Claims He Makes -

Paul insistently claims an apostolate of the most exalted character for himself. He is in his own
opinion on a par or more than on a par with the most eminent apostles 2 Cor. 11:5; 12:11, 12; 1
Cor. 15:7-10; Gal. 2:6-10. Both in Ephesians and 1 Corinthians he reflects on the supremacy of
the Apostolic office Eph. 4:11, 2:20, 1 Cor. 12:28. Yet in these same letters he has classed
himself as an Apostle I Cor. 1:1; Eph. 1:1. Thus, we might be surprised to learn that this claim
expressed in these terms was recognized by the original apostolate Gal. 2:9, Acts 15:25, 2 Peter
3:15.
S

2 The Question He Raises

a The Question of His Relation to the Original a

Apo sto late

Paul was not one of the twelve. Nor was he strictly qualified to be. Nor did he claim to be. Yet -

Peter seems clearly to attach some sort of literal significance to the number, 12, in Acts 1. Under
such circumstances how can Paul claim to be an apostle equal in stature to the 12? Several
responses to this question are needed. -

1 We must never forget that God is sovereign in the instruments He chooses. The apostolate
a
of Paul is a standing reminder of the sovereignty of God in the distribution of His gifts and the
impartation ofHis revelation to men 1 Cor. 12:11.

2 We must remind ourselves that Paul’s claim was recognized by the twelve Gal. 2:9; Acts -

15:25; 2 Peter 3:15. When we remember that the exalted terms in which he made this claim could
not have been hidden from the original 12 Apostles, theft acceptance of His Apostolate is very
a
significant.

3 Paul also possessed almost all the qualifications for the original apostolate. Of course, first
one had to be a witness of the words and deeds of Jesus Christ from the baptism of John through -

the time of Christ’s resurrection. It is to be noted, however, that even in Acts 1:21, 22 the stress is
on being an eye-witness of the resurrection of Christ. This Paul, of course, possessed. Notice
especially 1 Cor. 9:1-5. Second, direct appointment by Christ to the office was necessary. This
Pauline qualification is emphasized in the accounts ofhis conversion in the book of Acts and many
other places Acts 22:15; 26:16; Gal. 1:1,15,16; 1 Tim. 1:1. Third, a supernatural grant of the -

Spirit was crucial to being an Apostle. Paul regarded such a grant as vital to apostolicity, and he
claimed it 2 Cor. 12:12 with 1 Cor. 2:4, 10, 13; 7:40. His commands and speaking were,
therefore, the very words of Christ 1 Cor. 14:37; 2 Cor. 13:3-5. Thus, Paul lacked only a -

secondary aspect of one of the qualifications for the original apostolate.

4 Paul claimed a special apostolate to the Gentiles. Notice Eph. 3:1-6. While the apostolate
of the twelve certainly had a world-wide mission Notice Acts 1:8., it is clear that it also possessed

156
S
a Jewish focus Acts 13:3 1; Gal. 2:7-10. It may be for this rea4 hat Peter insisted on replacing
Judas with one who was a disciple from the days of John the t. Also, the fact that Paul did
not witness Christ from the beginning of the gospel, but only a 41 is resurrection could be related
to his position as the Apostle to the Gentiles. The pre-resunectiq ys of Jesus had a Jewish focus
Notice Mat. 15:24., while Jesus’ resurrection indicated the befl ni ag of the world mission Matt.
28:18-20; Luke 24:44-49; Acts 1:8. It seems peculiarly fitting 4 he Apostle to the Gentiles had
seen the risen Lord and was a witness of the resurrection, but w lb t a disciple during the days in
which his mission was restricted to the Jewish nation.

b The Question of tessation or Termination of

the Apostolate

Some believe that the apostolate of Paul may be used to justi 4 dea of continuing-even 20th
century apostolates. Some might even claim to be an eyewitne the risen Christ. If Christ can
appear to Paul, after His ascension, may he not appear to some lsein 1994 or 2001? Several
replies may be given to this question:

1 An appearance in A.D. 34 puts Paul’s eye-witness in lj p1 ical proximity to the time of

Christ’s resurrection. This is clearly different than claiming suchi ppearance in the 20th century.

2 Paul’s eye-witness occurred during the apostolic period,, the historical lifetimes of the
original apostles, and was recognized by them. No possibi1it, r such recognition of a new
apostolate now exists. -

3 Paul regards Christ’s appearance to him as his last apj *ance and one that is clearly
abnormal. What would he have thought of a 20th century appeai14 ? Notice 1 Cor. 15:8. It is an
interesting confirmation of this that Paul encourages the CoHnt to seek the best and highest
spiritual gifts, but never thinks of the Apostolate as a possibilitj as something to which they
should aspire. Notice 1 Corinthians 12:31 and 14:1. The signj ce is clear. Prophecy is the
highest gift available. The Apostolate is closed.

4 The Apostles are the foundation ofthe church Matt. 16: Jj ph. 2:20. The analogy is one
ofa house with foundations upon which is built a building. C1e this restricts the apostolate to
the foundational period ofthe church. This excludes the existenè$ such apostles after the period
of the church’s historical founding. Paul’s apostolate occurred ng this foundational period.
Later clalms do not.

c. The Other Apostolates

I The word, apostle, was us refer to some who were not

apostles in the same sense as Paul and the Twelve.

BAG, the Greek Lexicon, asserts that apostle may refer to a egate, envoy, messenger, or,
perhaps, a missionary. According to its root words, the wot4 mply means, "a sent one."
Obviously, such a word could have a broad range of applicatio4 [t seems quite possible that it
could be used of those who were not apostles in the narrow, o technical sense in which the

157
 S

twelve and Paul were. Cf. by way of illustration the broader and narrower meanings elder, -

overseer, and deacon. All have other meanings or applications than to the office which they
specifically designate in the church. The biblical usage of apostle shows that it was not restricted to
what we may call "Big A-apostles". -

a Sometimes the term is used to designate the apostles

of the churches. That is, the official messengers, delegates, or envoys of certain, local churches -

Phil. 2:25; 2 Cor. 8:23. This usage may explain some or all of the other uses of the term when it
does not refer to "Big A-apostles." We might say that these apostles were apostles of the churches
not apostles of Christ. That is, they were sent with the authority of the churches and not with the
authority ofChrist Himself.

b Sometimes the term is used of missionaries. That is

to say, those sent out from churches to be gospel pioneers in other places. Notice Acts 13:3; 14:26;
15:40, though only the idea and not the term is present in these passages. It is probably in this
sense that men like the following are called apostles. Barnabas is called an apostle Acts 14:4, but -

he is not a "Big A-apostle" Acts 4:361. Timothy is termed an apostle 1 Thess. 1:1; 2:6, but he is
not a "Big A-apostle" Acts 16:lf.. Silas also is called an apostle 1 Thess. 1:1; 2:6, but it is not
likely that he was a "Big A-apostle," Acts 15:32. Apollos may be called an apostle 1 Cor. 4:9;
3:22; 4:17, but he is certainly not an apostle in the strict sense Acts 18 :24f.. If Andronicus and
Junias are designated apostles in Rom. 16:17 ‘This is uncertain., it would be in this lower sense.
S

It is possible that such men were termed apostles because of their association with Paul in his
apostolate to the Gentiles. This association gave to them, so to speak, a derivative authority.
Notice especially 1 Thess. 1:1, 2:6. Certainly, Timothy and Titus were apostolic representatives
and thus shared in measure extraordinary authority ofPaul Titus 1:5, I Tim. 1:3; 5:17-20.

2 It is also possible that this term is used to designate others -

who were apostles in the sense of the Twelve and Paul "Big A-apostles."

The references to James, the Lord’s brother, may assign a "Big A-apostolate" to him. Notice Gal.
l:19;2:9; 1 Cor.9:5;Acts 12:17; 15:6-13; 1 Cor. 15:7. Iamassumingthatallthesereferencesare
to the half-brother of our Lord. I believe this to be the most likely interpretation of these passages. -

One may easily interpret such verses as ascribing to James an apostolate parallel to that of Paul.
He had seen the resurrected Lord--perhaps like Paul he had been converted by the sight. Perhaps at
that time he was appointed to a special apostolate to the Jews like that of Paul to the Gentiles. The
reference in 1 Cor. 9:5 to "the brothers of the Lord" may mean that a similar apostolate was given
to Joseph, Simon and Judas. Notice Mat. l2:46f John 7:5; Mark 13:21; Man. l2:46f; 13:55, and
Acts 1:14. -

d. Conclusions

1 This survey of the usage of the term enables us to make a

distinction between a broader and narrower usage of the term in the New Testament. This
distinction is clearly demanded by the unique qualifications of Paul, the Twelve, and perhaps S

James. It may be difficult in every case to decide in which sense an individual is designated an

158
S
S

apostle as the cases of Apollos, Barnabas, James, Jude, and Si1t sI iow. Yet this difficulty ought
not to cloud the basic clarity of this distinction. That there is * hiie between big A and small a
apostles is clear. We simply do not have enough information tdde :cide on which side of the line
some apostles fall. -

2 It cannot be denied that t13ie is some flexibility with regard

even to the Big A-apostles. The apostolate is not rigidly resl*te d to the Twelve alone.’ The
instances ofPaul and James establish this.

3 We must, however, insh n a strictly limited Big A

Apostolate. The qualifications of being an eye-witness of the $ ection of Christ; direct, divine
appointment; and supernatural powers are absolute necessities to ‘V
rn an apostolate like that ofthe
Twelve and Paul. These unique qualities point us to the uniqu4 repeatable, historically limited
identity of the Apostolate. The idealized or symbolic referen the New Testament to the
Apostolate Mat. 16:17; 19:28; Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:14 likewisi Øu gest, the closed character or
the limited identity ofthe Apostolate.

2. The Authority ofthe Apostolate

a. Its Nature

The evidence shows that the Apostles possessed for their wordsi the authority of Christ
himself.

1 The Jewish Background -

The Jewish background of the word, apostle, is very import to understand its meaning.
Ridderbos notes, "Recent research has shown that the formal s* re of the apostolate is derived
from the Jewish legal system in which a person may be given the eg l power to represent another.
The one who has such power of attorney is called a Sj aliach tle. The uniqueness of this
relationship is pregnantly expressed by the notion that the Sjaliao] Dostle of a man, is as the man
himself"2

2 The New Testament Prese4ttin

This same idea that the apostle of a man is as the man himself is j4atedly manifested in the New
Testament itself. Jesus Christ was his Father’s Apostle. Thus wl* J4sus said His Father said John
14:6-10. In a similar way, the Twelve are His Apostles. Noti4.Jhn 20:21. To receive Christ’s
apostle is to receive him. Notice Matt. 10:40; John 13:20. Pau haticall claims to having his

‘The "certain fluidity" which Ridderbos mentions with r t to the narrower apostolate is
a fact. Dutoit also mentions a "certain elasticity" in this regard Guide to the New Testament,
104.

2Ridderbos, Redemptive History..., 15.

159
 __
_

commands be thought as equal with the Lord’s. Notice 1 Cor. 14:37. Several comments on this last
passage are important and related.

1 Verse 37 strikingly underscores the idea of the apostle being as the man himself, because 5

Paul has just completed a whole series of commands never spoken by the Lord. Notice the
preceding context, especially vv. 26-36.
S

2 Verse 38 powerfully emphasizes the extent and significance of this claim. The translation
of this verse by the MV is weak. That of the NASB and RSV is better. The idea is clearly that
refusal to recognize and submit to apostolic authority in the person of Paul exposes one’s claims to -

be a prophet or spiritual as false. Note v. 37, "if anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual..." But
more than this is implied. Such a false prophet cannot be a saved man. Grosheide rightly
comments, "If anybody does not observe these ordinances then he will not be recognized, he -

belongs to the perishing 1:18. Not to be recognized is the opposite of "to be known by Him" 1
Corinthians 8:3 and 13:12.’ Notice also Matthew 7:23. -

Also meaningful of the reality and the extent of apostolic authority is the passage 1 John 1:1-3.
The recurrent "we" ofthese verses is clearly a reference by John to the original apostolate. Note the
reference to the eye, ear, hand witness of the "we". This insistence on the genuine-ness and -

authenticity of John and the other apostles proclamation of Christ is to be understood in light of the
Gnostic counterfeit Christianity which John is battling everywhere in this letter. As over against
the counterfeit gospel of the Gnostics, John demands acceptance of the Apostolic gospel as the test
or standard of true Christianity. Notice also 1 John 4:4-6.

b. Its Features

As the personal representatives of Christ himself and as supported by the supernatural grant of the
Spirit to guide their speech Notice John 15:26, 27., the authority of the apostles had several
features or parts.

1 They were the deliverers ofthe Christian Revelation.

They were the guardians of the deposit.2 This deposit was the official and trustworthy record of the
person, work, and words of Jesus Christ. Notice 1 Tim. 6:20; 2 Tim. 1:13, 14. Jude speaks of "the
faith once-for-all delivered to the saints" Jude 4. These words clearly convey the idea of uniquely
important and completed historical occurrences that possess authority. The apostles are equipped to
safeguard the purity and accuracy ofthis treasure because oftheir character as eyewitnesses to those
occurrences and their special grant of the Spirit. The word used by Jude, "delivered," connotes the
idea of passing on a tradition. It is the idea of being the communicators of a tradition that
sumnarizes this feature or aspect of the apostle’s authority. Several points by way of explanation
ofthis Christian tradition are necessary.
S

‘Grosheide, 1 Corinthians, 344ff.

2The often used Latin phrase for this was the custodi depositum. -

160
S
S

The Christian tradition is formally parallel to the conception ot Jews of their tradition. The
S

terminology used is the same. itapa&Swgt is used of the Jewish;’r lition in Mark 7:13 and of the
Christian tradition in 2 Peter 2:21 and Jude 3. mczpa&ornç is usd4 the Jewish traditions in Mat.
15:2-6 and Mark 7:3-13 and of the Christian tradition in 1 C4 1:2 and 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:6.
mapcOnj43avw is used ofthe Jewish tradition in Mark 7:4 and oEi he Christian tradition in 2 Thess.
3:6. Noticealso Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:8.

It is the apostles who are the deliverers of this tradition. Notice 1:2; Jude 3 cf. v. 17; 2 Peter
2:21 cf. 3:2; 1 Cor. 11:2, etc. Hi
S

The tradition possesses a kind of authority. Its clear authority is evident from the nature of the
Apostolate. Historical occurrences were witnessed by men an4I tnessed to in oral and written
words. These occurrences, these men, and these words are regØ I as possessed of nothing less
than divine authority in the New Testament. This objective auth 1W of the New Testament Canon
refutes the idea of the canon maintained by Neo-OrthodoxL peaking of Neo-orthodoxy,
Ridderbos remarks, "Such a point of view simply reduces the cm 1 t of the canon and the gospel
to what the church and individual believer understands." It is no er, then, an Apostolic canon.
We must remember that the witness of the Holy Spirit exists fii all, in the objective words of
the Apostles John 15:26, 27-not in the hearts ofbelievers.

The objective authority of the New Testament canon also show wrong-ness of any "spiritual
S criticism" of the canon. Erasmus, Zahn, and others appeal to J 16:13;, 1 John 2:27; 1 Thess.
5 :20f., and 1 Cor. 14:29 to support the idea that the church shoul4 [may criticize the Apostles by
means ofthe Spirit. Never, however, does the New Testament it or teach the propriety of the
church criticizing the Apostles of Christ,2

The vagueness and lack of precision which we associate with 4e of tradition is not present in
- regard to the Christian tradition in the New Testament.3 In supp f this Ridderbos mentions the
following thoughts. First, the Christian idea of tradition ongly determined by the
corresponding Jewish concept oftradition. According to them a thority of tradition is derived
- from the very nature of the transmitted material and from the offl the teachers ofthe law. The
content of this tradition was before everything else constituted h It] e holy God-given Torah and
those learned in the law enjoyed their authority because they in Moses’ seat Mt. 23:2.
Second, the passing on of this tradition is a mater of apostolic ority and thus its accuracy is
guaranteed.5 Third, the tradition is a synonym for the doctrine, t ospel and the Word of God.

‘Ridderbos, Redemptive History ..., 31f. -

S
2Ridderbos, Redemptive History and the New Testament ‘tires, 29f.

3Ridderbos, Redemptive History and the New Testament t4,Nres, 18.

4Ridderbos, Redemptive History and the New Testament ures, 18f.

5Ridderbos, Redemptive History and the New Testament tures, l9f.

161
 S

Thus, it possesses authority.’ Finally, behind the tradition guaranteeing its genuine-ness is the risen
Lord.

This overview of tradition is important precisely because the New Testament writings are "the -

remains and fixation" of this tradition, The character of the tradition and especially the written
tradition is the character ofthe New Testament.
S

2 They were the completers of the Christian Revelation

The authority of the apostles must not be rigidly limited to an exact copying of the words and
works of God in Christ. Of course, this tradition governed their authority and could not be
contradicted by them, but it did not exhaust their authority. By means of their extraordinary grant
with the Spirit, they were also the means ofnew revelation John 16:12, 13; 17:20. They were not -

only official and accredited eye-witnesses of Christ, but also the personal, Spirit-equipped
instruments of new revelation from Christ. Notice 1 Cor. 15:51; 1 Thess. 4:15; Rev. 1:1.
S

3 They were the appliers ofthe Christian Revelation.

As the foundation or founders of the church, they were responsible to organize it-applying the -

Word in many ways and to many circumstances never directly spoken about by Christ. Notice 1
Cor. 14:37; 7:10, 12,25; 11:23, 33, 34; Phil. 3:17; 4:9; 2 Thess. 3:14.
S

While these aspects of apostolic authority are distinct, they are not always easy to separate or even
able to be separated in the apostolic writings. They merge in the official authority of the Apostle in
his whole ministry. -

Dutoit makes the comment that "None of this means, of course, that the New Testament apostle
was infallible."2 I believe, however, that this is precisely what it means. If it does not mean this, -
we are at once confronted with the overwhelming problem of making a distinction between what
aspects of the Apostle’s words and what are not a standard for us. In their official ministries the
Apostles were the standard not only in their teaching, but in their practices and examples. As we -

have seen, some raise Gal. 2:11 as an objection at this point. It may be questioned, however, if
Peter’s actions were official in Gal. 2:11. At any rate, they were directly rebuked by Paul himself -

and publicly renounced by Peter.

c. Its Inseripturation

The New Testament itself witnesses to the writing down in a permanent way of the Apostolic
tradition. It teaches that it is in this form that the church would in the future be bound to the word
ofthe apostles.3

‘Ridderbos, Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures, 20. -

2Dutoit, Guide to the New Testament, 107.

3Ridderbos, Redemptive Thstory and the New Testament Scriptures of the History of the

162
__
S

1 The written reporting of t3’ adition is associated with the

idea of increased certainty with regard to its precise content. N Luke 1:1-4 and ef. also 1 Cor.
15:1-3. Because of the heretical errors of some at Corinth, Paulk ats in written form the gospel
he preached to put the matter beyond doubt. He says in v. 2 that will be saved by that gospel if
they hold it fast in the very words which he proclalmed. T hrase is difficult, but almost
certainly emphasizes Paul’s concern that they retain his gospel1 ie precise words in which he
preached it. It may be translated "by what word I preached it to y .1.’

2 The permanent writing of &postolic witness is regarded

as possessing authority from its start. It is to be read publicly ii Ii church as the Old Testament
was in the Synagogue. Notice Acts 13:15; 15:21; Luke 4:lóf., ss. 5:27; Col. 4:16; Rev. 1:3.
John’s witness is a written one and in that form is true, John 21 wd intended as the ground or
- basis of saving faith John 20:30, 31. The phrase, "these things ,ritten," parallels the technical
terminology by which John repeatedly cites the Old Testament ures. Notice John 2:17; 6:31,
45; 10:34; 12:14; 15:25. The written tradition must be held fast 2
p
ss. 2:15 with 3:14.

3 The writings ofthe Apost1 r made equal with those of the

Old Testament canon. Given what we have seen about the at’
surprising. Notice 2 Peter 3:2, I Peteri: 12. Several passages m
the Old Testament canon. In 2 Peter 3:15, 16 Paul’s writings a’
and in 1 Tim. 5:18 Luke 10:7 is cited as Scripture. Rev. 22:18"
the Old Testament.
ty of the apostles, this is not
- ieir writings equal to those of
to be described as Scripture,
- ie is similar to those found in

d. Its Implications

1 The idea of the New Te$ nt Canon is consistent with

redemptive history. The church in recognizing the canon has act jr accordance with an important
feature of redemptive history: the commission of and giving of rity to the Apostles by Christ
-

Himself.’

2 The closed nature or com$teA limits of the New Testament

Canon is taught by the New Testament. Says Ridderbos, "TI I directly deducible from the
unique and exclusive nature of the authority the apostles derived fttr Christ."2

3 The written character of tht j, :w Testament Canon is taught

by the New Testament. The heretical threat of Gnosticism alre4y mentioned made it necessary
already in New Testament times to guard the deposit against perssi nO Tim.6:20;2Tim. 1:14.

Canon of the New Testament, 22f.

‘Ridderbos, Redemptive History and the New Testamen: ‘iptures of the History of the
Canon of the New Testament, 27.

2Ridderbos, Redemptive History and the New Testame,4 ttures of the History of the
Canon of the New Testament, 27f.

163
 S

down of the
Already in the New Testament the meeting of this threat by means of the writing
-

authentic traditioncanbe seen. Notice 1 Cor. 15:1,2; Luke 1:1-4; 2 Thess. 2:2 cf. 3:17; Gal. 6:11.
All this means that the eventual acceptance of a written canon was necessary because ofthe danger
of the distortion of the Christian tradition by heresy. This teaches the generally untrustworthy -

character of the oral tradition as human wickedness and weakness increasingly distorted it.’
Maintaining that there is a canonical oral tradition possessing authority in the church is inconsistent
with the very rationale for a written canon. -

4 The objective authority of the New Testament Canon is

plainly taught by what we have seen. As mentioned above, the objective authority of the Apostles’ -

words both spoken and written refutes the idea that the Canon is only a standard when it speaks to

-
me. This idea, advocated by Neo-orthodoxy, is false and contradicts the plainest teaching of the
New Testament about itself.

5 The apostolic authorship of the New Testament Canon is

taught by what we have seen. Here the point is simply that the actual New Testament Canon -

received by the Church is consistent with what the New Testament teaches regarding the identity of
the Apostolate. The New Testament Canon’s authority is Apostolic in form. It was written by
those who, if they were not Apostles themselves, came out of the Apostolic circle. Any who are -

not apostles may lay claim to the approval of the Apostles for their writings. Most of its books
were written by Apostles. The others, Mark, 1 Peter 5:13, Luke, Hebrews cf. ch. 13 were
written by their intimate associates and with their implied authority. As we have seen, the New -

Testament does not rigidly limit the identity ofthe Apostolate. It speaks of prophets in association
with the Apostles. Yet in all of this a clear and defined authority is assigned to the Apostles of
Christ. It is their authority given them by Jesus Christ that endorses the New Testament. Whether
its books were actually written by Apostles, or by prophets working under their authority and with
their approval, the New Testament is apostolic in its contents. -

‘Ridderbos, Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures of the History of the
Canon of the New Testament, 28 -

164
V. The Acceptance of the Canon H

Introduction: The Approach to the Historical Evidence -

Our study thus far and the conclusions reached in it is fou4’ onal for our approach to this
examination ofthe historical evidence regarding the acceptance ó Canon by the people of God.
It is important at the beginning of this study of the historical evi - e to remind ourselves of what
these conclusions mean for the presupposition, the goal, and th Dectations of this study of the
acceptance of the Canon.

1. The Presupposition of This Study

As to the presupposition of these studies in church history, I s resuppose in these lectures on

the acceptance of the canon the same perspective which shoul - presupposed in dealing with
every other development in the history of the church. I will take - standpoint or presupposition
faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. In other words, I assume that - as spoken His final word of
revelation to our race in the person and work of the Lord Jesus IH st. Theologically, this means
that I will approach this subject from what may be called ormed and pre-suppositional
viewpoint. Rather than attempting to hide, disguise, or minimiz4 - effect of this presupposition, I
franldy admit it. I do this because I am convinced that any other oath is simply wrong-headed.
Any other approach will distort the historical data and sabo -‘ in Christ. This is the case
because any other approach must and will approach the subje -. - th some other presupposition
than faith in Christ. Thus, the only alternative to a believ -- proach to this subject is an
unbelieving approach. Thus, the only alternative to the ±1 - resupposition is the wrong
presupposition or, perhaps, an attempt to combine the right and ong presupposition.

Too often treatments of the subject of the history of the canon failed to appreciate that this
study unavoidably and pointedly confronts the student with th4 ject of epistemology. In my
opinion even such fair and fine treatments of the subject as thatl F F. Bruce and B. F. Westcott
fail at this point.’ The canon is, first of all, the supreme rule or s - rd of faith. The very idea ofa
supreme rule or final standard necessarily raises epistemological -tions. The study of the canon
cannot, therefore, be merely historical. It must also be mological, apologetical, and
theological. Because they do not emphasize this aspect of the s - 4’ but rather appear to treat the
subject as mainly or finally a matter of historical investigati the treatments of Bruce and
Westcott are ultimately unsatisfactory to the believing heart. A - ving heart knows that faith in
Christ is well-grounded and desires to see how this is so.

The presupposition offaith in Christ has several, crucial ideas lo$ psi’ Ly connected with it which are
crucial for the study of the subject of the canon. It involves thó cessary idea that God having
spoken in Christ would by a special providence secure the,. ervation of that redemptive
revelation so that it might be the supreme standard or canon of th* irch. This is an implication of

‘F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, Inter-Varsity Pr Downers Grove, 1988; B. F.

Westcott, A General Survey ofthe History of the Canon of the N4! stament, sixth edition, Baker
Book House, Grand Rapids, 1889 reprinted 1980. -

165
 S

the work of Christ stated by Chnst Himself when He declares in response to Peter’s confession of
the true identity of Jesus Christ, "you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the
gates ofHades shall not overpower it" Man. 16:18.

This presupposition also involves the idea that revelation is supremely authoritative. This is the -

foundational concept at stake in the Reformed doctrine of the self-authentication of Scripture. The
1689 Baptist Confession echoing the Westminster Confession of Faith states this doctrine in -

paragraphs 4 and 5 ofits first chapter:

4 The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, dependeth not -

upon the testimony of any man or church,’ but wholly upon God who is truth itself, the
author thereof; therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God.2
S

5 We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church of God to an high
and reverent esteem ofthe Holy Scriptures;’ and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy
of the doctrine, and the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the -

whole which is to give all glory to God, the full discovery it makes of the only way of
man’s salvation, and many other incomparable excellencies, and entire perfections thereof,
are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God;2 yet -

notwithstanding, our fhll persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine
authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with
the Word in our hearts.3

Assuming that God has spoken in Jesus Christ, such a revelation cannot be and must not be made to
be dependent on anything else for its final attestation. It must be as revelation self-attesting. It is -

the divine message, the actual content, the natural truthfulness of the books of the canon that is the
true and final reason for their acceptance as canonical by the church. Historical genuine-ness,
ecclesiastical testimony, general apostolicity, and recognized orthodoxy may all in some sense be -

marks or tests of canonicity, but all such marks are themselves dependent upon the self-attestation
of Scripture.

2. The Goal of This Study

The goal of this study of the historical evidence may be stated first negatively and then positively.
Negatively, it may be said that the goal of this examination is not to infallibly demonstrate by the
historical evidence the authority of the received canon. The external, historical evidence for the
genuine-ness of the Canon is insufficient by itself to ground an infallible faith in the Canon.
Positively, it may be said that the goal of this examination is the confirmation of our faith by
showing that the historical evidence is consistent with our faith.

3. The Expectations of This Study

S

The expectations with which this examination of the historical evidence is approached must also be
stated. Our previous study would lead us to expect, first of all, general agreement among the
people of God on the extent of the Canon. Christ’s promise mentioned above suggests this -

expectation. Secondly, we should expect to discover that the canonical books possessed original

166
S
authority among God’s people. The prophetic-apostolic forti - f the Canon means that the
canonical books had immediate authority with God’s people. W4 4 not expect to find books once
universally thought of as non-canonical coming to possess J authority through a long
historical process. We do not expect to find the church cano books in the sense of making
them canonical by its own authority. Thirdly, we must expe find some remaining, minor
disagreement on the extent of the Canon. The self-authentieati u ority of the Scripture and the
promise of Christ sealed to the heart of the believer by the tes I
- of the Holy Spirit assures us
that there will be general agreement on the Canon by Christ’s -
-
ople. Nevertheless it must be
remembered that in this life the people of God are yet imperfect - individually and corporately.
Their faith, therefore, will be imperfect. Their remaining sin m -. o scure to them the testimony of
the Spirit temporarily and partially. On a matter so basic and ceii - as that of the Canon we would
not expect the resultant disagreement to be great, yet some H ences of opinion are to be
expected. We would expect that major differences on the- pi ject of the canon would be
accompanied by other major departures from Christian truth. ki’ stated these expectations, we
may anticipate the following examination by saying that the e d nce abundantly confirms just
these expectations. -

A. The Acceptance of the Old Testament Canon

1. The Critical Construction

Harris helpfully summarizes the historical critical view ofthe Ol lie tament canon.

For many years critical scholars have built upon the it fold division of the present
. -

Hebrew Bible and have held that it represents a three s evelopment

4 The claim in
brief is that there were three stages of canonization e Old Testament. First the -

Pentateuch was canonized about 400 B.C. This date is b upon traditional higher critical
-

theory ....The Prophets, however, were not canoni H til about 200 B.C. By the
- I:
"Prophets" all these authors understand the eight bo all "Prophets" in the present
Hebrew Bible, the Talmud, and Jerome, namely the b s of Joshua, Judges, Samuel,
Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor: hets. These books apparently -

were not written in this final form in time to get into on of the Pentateuch That ....

the "Prophets" were canonized by 200 B.C. is clear beà 4 of two special landmarks. In
-

Ecclesiastieus written about 190-180 B.C., there is r ference to the twelve minor
prophets already collected as a unit. If this collection omplete, surely the rest of the
- -
I
books had also been completed. Secondly this canon e "Prophets" did not include
Daniel. It is, of course, a cardinal point of criticism th I el was written at about 168
B.C. as a tract to bolster morale in the Maccabean strugg4 e claim is that if Daniel was -

written before 200 B.C. it would surely have been amO e prophets. If the canon of
Prophets had been completed after 168 B.C. it would re y have included Daniel. The
only way to explain Daniel’s absence from the Prophets lace the close of the prophetic
canon about 200 B.C. before the writing of Daniel e third stage of canonization
according to critical thought is the closing of the cano the Writings at the Synod of -

Jamnia in A.D. 90. Eissfeldt refers to the "synod held in t A.D. 100 in Jamnia Jabne,
some twelve miles south of Ja54 .... now what had o being as a result of gradual
growth was formally declared binding and for this p e was also undergirded with

167
 dogmatic theory" ...‘

2. The Historical Evidence

Our present purpose is not to engage in a detailed answer of the critical construction. The writers -

cited above along with ES. Young2 have prosecuted this task efficiently. We will merely sketch the
evidence for the following statement: All the historical evidence outside ofthe Old Testament back S

to the earliest information available points to a completed Old Testament Canon. All the evidence
is, therefore, consistent with the expectation that the Old Testament Canon was closed at the time
when its latest books were written. This time was, according to the witness of Scripture, S

approximately 400 B.C. The evidence supporting this assertion will be organized under the
following five headings:
S

a. The Evidence from Inter-testamental Judaism

The division ofthe Old Testament into three divisions may tend to conceal its prophetic authorship -

and form in some minds. Yet, it is true to say that the early threefold division presupposes a
recognized, completed Old Testament Canon. According to Young, such a threefold division ofthe
Old Testament with its implication of a completed Old Testament Canon is "attested as early as the
Prologue of Ecclesiasticus. Since the writer of the Prologue states that his grandfather the author
of Ecclesiasticus, Jesus ben Sirach, around 190 B.C. gave himself largely to the reading of"the law
and the prophets and the other books of the fathers," we may assume that this threefold division -

was as old as the beginning ofthe second century B.C."3

The Dead Sea Scrolls support the evidence of Eeclesiasticus for a completed canon of the Old
Testament in the second century B.C. Harris says:

This entire imposing structure of the development of the Old Testament canon, supported -

by the most highly esteemed critical scholars, must now be seen to fall under the weight of
evidence, some new and some old. The most impressive new evidence comes from the
Qumran fmd. In the second century B.C. there was evidently no difference in reverence -

accorded to books of the various divisions of the canon. Deuteronomy was loved and
copied and regarded as authoritative, as were Isaiah, the Psalms, and Proverbs. According
to the theory, the Psalms, if highiy esteemed in 200 B.C., should have been found in the
canon of the Prophets. Although, so far, copies ofthe Psalms are not claimed to date from
200 B.C., yet a portion of Ecclesiastes one of the lesser books in the third division of the -

Writings is declared to date from 150 B.C. Indeed, its publisher concludes that the
discovery of the copy argues that the book must have originated some time sooner-

‘R. Laird Harris, Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, 723ff. Cf. also Harris,
Inspiration and Canonicity, 138ff. and John W. Wethan, Christ and the Bible, 134 for descriptions
and examinations ofthe critical construction ofthe recognition ofthe Old Testament canon.

2Revelation and the Bible, 157ff; Infallible Word, 73ff.

3Young, Revelation and the Bible, 164ff.; Harris, Inspiration ..., 145. -

168
 perhaps, he says, in the mid-third century or the late fourt C. If Ecclesiastes was copied
-and evidently copied because treasured-in the mid-si 1 century, the canonization of
the Writings must have come close upon the heels of i1 -anonization of the Prophets.
Indeed, they must have been almost synchronous if the I hets were not canonized until
200 B.C.’

b. Evidence from First Century A.D. 4th iism

Two witnesses may be cited here. The first, Philo, the Alexahkja iJew, died ca. A.D. 40. The
second, Josephus, died ca. A.D. 100. Their evidence comes, thd4i 1 om the same time as the New
I
Testament
I

As to Philo, Harris says: -

The evidence from his writings as to the extent of the in comes from his quotations
from the Old Testament and His comments upon various -t of it. Green refers to detailed
-

studies by Eichom which show -that Philo refers to or us i authoritative all the books of
the Jewish canon except Esther, Ezekiel, Daniel, Eccleste s, and the Song of Solomon.
Again, these few books are not denied but simply neglE I, for lack of occasion to use
-!
them.2

This statement makes clear that Philo utilized each of the t LI three divisions of the Old
Testament Canon a great deal. -

Josephus’ witness is even more clear.

Josephus’ catalog lists the five books of the law, then ti4 n books of the Prophets, then
four books containing hymns to God and counsels to meij the conduct of life. This gives
the total of twenty-two, which is evidently reached by ciating Ruth with Judges and
Lamentation with Jeremiah. The four books in the t classification unquestionably
include Psalms and Proverbs; and Ecciesiastes and Sonj
taken as the other two.3
r Solomon are most naturally

The total of22 Old Testament books is the typical Jewish numbeç 8. and is the same as our English
count of 39. Josephus thus testifies to a completed Old TestamSfi tnon in the first century which
was the same as ours. -

c. Later Evidence

Harris supplies us with the later lists of those who still at a V early time numbered the Old

‘Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity, 139, 140.

2lbid

3lbid.

169
Testament books as 22 or 24. Since both of these numbers are simply the result of different ways -

of numbering the 39 books which make up our Protestant Old Testament, each of those listed
supports a completed Old Testament Canon the same as our own. "Eusebius, of 400 A.D., says that
there are 22 Hebrew books. Jerome says 24. Origen, of 250 B.C. says 22. Tertullian, of 220 A.D., -

says 24. Melito, of 170 A.D., enumerates 24 The Talmud figure is 24.

d. New Testament Evidence -

The most obvious feature of the New Testament evidence is that there is a complete absence ofany
discussion of canonical questions in the New Testament. Though the New Testament does not
hesitate to level cutting condemnation at many parts of first century Judaism, there is not a hint of
criticism of its received canon. On the contrary, in the many places where the Old Testament is
cited as absolute authority by the New Testament the Jewish canon is assumed to be authentic
without discussion. There is every reason to conclude that Jesus and His apostles were in perfect
agreement with first century Judaism on the extent of the Canon. This means that they recognized
the 39 books of our Old Testaments. When Paul said, "All Scripture is God-breathed," he meant
every Scripture or all Scripture contained in those 39 books Mart. 4:1-11; 2 Tim. 3:16.

All of this is confirmed by the fact that the New Testament uses most, if not all, of.the Old
Testament books. Roger Nicole says:

If we limit ourselves to the specific quotations and direct allusions which form the basis of
our previous reckoning, we shall note that 278 different Old Testament verses are cited in
the New Testament: 94 from the Pentateuch, 99 from the Prophets, and 85 from the
Writings. Out of the 22 books in the Hebrew reckoning of the Canon only six Judges- -

Ruth, Song of Solomon, Ecciesiastes, Esther, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles are not explicitly
referred to. The more extensive lists of Dittmar and Huehn show passages reminiscent of
all Old Testament books without exception."2 -

e. The Academy ofJamnia -

The words of Eissfeldt, cited above as representative of the higher critical construction of the
Canon, give the impression that an official synod was held at Jamnia which formally canonized at
least the third division ofthe Old Testament Canon, the Writings. Such a picture of what happened -

at Jamnia is misleading, without support, and simply false at crucial points. Young’s words help to
clear away some of the mist from Jamnia. -

It has sometimes been held that a Jewish Synod was held at Jamnia in Palestine and that this
synod made pronouncements concerning the extent of the canon. After Titus and his armies
had destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Rabbi Johana be Zakkai settled in Jamnia and carried
on his literary activity there. Jamnia did become a center of biblical study and the
S

‘Harris, Inspiration ..., 142, 143.

S

2Revelation and the Bible, 138.

170

S
 canonicity of certain books was discussed...."

There was an academy at Jamnia, but it is extremely doubtful that le re was a synod or council held
there. There were discussions about the canonicity of eertai 1k eks. The question was not,
however, as to whether they should be- included in the Canon. E41 ie , the issue was whether books
already in the Canon had a right to be there. Young proceeds,

and, in particular, it would seem, whether these bo $ should be excluded from the
-

canon. But that there was a Synod which discussed - her certain books were to be
included in the Canon is very questionable. Professor H. tiP .owley has written very wisely
concerning Jamnia: "It is indeed, doubtful, how far it *1 ect to speak of the Council of
Jamnia. We know of discussions that took place amon ti ie Rabbis, but we know of no
formal or binding decisions that were made, and it is ible that the discussions were
-

informal...."2 -

The facts concerning Jamnia are an inadequate foundation for the ‘,hty, theoretical superstructure
or building erected on them by the higher critical scholars. i!:-

3. The Apocryphal Addition -

a. The Source ofits Addition

In old manuscripts of the LXX3 some 14 or 15 books besidà ;e in the Hebrew canon were
p
occasionally included. One scholar says, "Since 1546 the Roin$ atholic Church has considered
certain ofthese books to be inspired and on a par with the Old I sta ment. These are, specifically,
-

Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiastieus, Baruch, I and II Maccabeó-i ‘iii some supplements to Esther
-

and Daniel."4 The year, 1546, is, of course, the year of the C 1 of Trent. The decree of the
Council of Trent reveals the doctrinal biases of the Roman C’ li -c Church and also a growing
tradition of the Middle Ages rooted iri certain statements e 41 rurch councils dominated by
Augustine of Hippo. Prior to Augustine these writings had been isionally cited in a way similar
to Scripture by some church fathers. As mentioned previo I
- they were also occasionally
associated with the Hebrew canonical books in the Greek transla In bfthe Old Testament.

b. The Falsity of its Addition

The recognition ofthese books as canonical by Roman Catho1ici as wrong.

This is shown by the following arguments. -

The Infallible Word, 73.

S
2lbid. Cf. also Harris, Inspiration, 155, Wenham, Christ 4 he Bible, 138

3LXX is an abbreviation for the Septuagint. This wS ie Greek translation of the Old
Testament in common use at the time ofthe writing of the New ment.

4G. D. Young in Revelation and the Bible, 171.

171
 S

1 In previous studies it was shown that the form of the Old Testament Canon was that it was
given through Moses and the Prophets. It is universally acknowledged that the Spirit of prophecy
departed from Israel after Malachi. It is also universally acknowledged that the Apocryphal books
were written no sooner than the second century B. C. Therefore, it is clear that the Apocryphal
books cannot be canonical. Indeed, one of the best of these apocryphal works itself teaches the
absence of the Spirit of prophecy at the time when it was written. Notice 1 Maccabees 4:46; 9:27;
14:41.

2 We have also seen previously that canonical books would be received as canonical
immediately. One reason for this was their prophetic or apostolic authorship. Mother reason why
this would be so is that God gave the books to serve as rule-books for His people. Thus, He would
insure that they were accepted by them when he gave them. There is no evidence that these books
were recognized as canonical by the Jews at any time and no evidence that they were recognized as
canonical by the church until about the time of Augustine. This was 500 years after their
composition. Harris says, "The single voice of antiquity in favor of the Apocrypha is that of
Augustine and the Councils of Hippo A.D. 393 and Carthage 397, which he dominated."1
Neither the Zadokite fragments, nor Philo, nor Josephus, nor the New Testament ever cite the
Apocrypha as Scripture.2 On the contrary, as we have earlier seen, the Apocrypha are excluded in
every early counting or listing ofthe Old Testament canon until Augustine.3

3 The promise of Christ that He would build His church on the authentic, prophetic and
apostolic witness to himself assures us of the idea that broad and general agreement would be
typical of the church’s recognition of canonical books. Great agreement exists among orthodox
Christians with regard to both the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament. But
general agreement simply does not exist regarding the Apocrypha. The history of the Apocrypha is
the history of doubts, division and rejection. Neither the Jews, nor the early church till Augustine,
nor the Greek church, nor the Protestant church received the Apocrypha as canonical. Even
Augustine had his doubts later on.4 The very council at which these books gained unquestionable
canonical status for the Roman Catholic Church was the Council of Trent. It was that council in
which from a Protestant point of view the Roman Catholic Church became officially apostate. -
Thus, departure on the subject ofthe canon by Roman Catholicism was accompanied by the official
proclamation of serious, doctrinal error.

4 Earlier it has been shown that the self-authentication of Scripture is rooted in its innate
divine perfections, its claims, its content, its attributes. The Apoerypha does not possess such
perfections. Harris is able to assert, "They were written after prophecy had been withdrawn from

‘Harris, Inspiration ..., 190.

2Harris, The Inspiration and Canonicity ofthe Bible, 182-185.

3Harris, The Inspiration and Canonicity ofthe Bible, 142, 143.

4Harris, The Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible, 1901’; Charles, in Zondervan Pictorial
Encyclopedia ofthe Bible, vol. 1,205.

172
S
a

Israel. Their authors are conscious of that fact and speak accord$ They claim no divinity
Thus, they do not claim to be the Word of God. Also they do ;play as to their content divine
perfections. One divine perfection which they do not display is tq L,J ‘ulness. Harris remarks:

The scenes of Tobit and Judith are laid in the days U he Assyrian and Babylonian
captivities and thus lie within the time of the writing p ph ets. But as Green says, "The
Books of Tobit and Judith abound in geographical, chro ic gical, and historical mistakes,
so as not only to vitiate the truth of the narratives w they contain, but to make it
doubtful whether they even rest upon a basis of fact." It $8 id, for example, that in Tobit’s
youth the ten tribes revolted under Jeroboam 1:4,5, wI4i 1 vas in about 925 B.C., but that
-

-
he was alive after the captivity of the ten tribes, which t4 ,lace in 725 B.C. Yet he died
when he was 158 years old 14:11. Judith speaks $ ebuehadnezzar as reigning in
Nineveh instead of Babylon 1:1 and contains many o i nternal problems. The books
-

neither claim to be the work of prophets nor could be defended as such. The
description "false prophets" would better characterize the thors.2
-

5 It may seem subjective, but it is still true to say thflif Apocryphal books lack the
testimony of the Holy Spirit. To any who would be inclined t ‘hi zbt the value of this remark, it
can only be replied, let the believer reaz1 the Apocrypha and con% ‘I.e it with Holy Scripture. Listen
to the personal testimony and experience of one such believer:

The author was once asked by an earnest Christian woA* r why Protestants do not receive
the Apocrypha. He gave in outline the argument presejj e above-that the Jews did not
receive it, that Christ and the apostles did not receivet hat the Early Church did not
receive it, and that the Roman- Catholics adopted it only -- eformation times in reaction to
Protestantism and to bolster their shaky position with - ct to certain dogmas. It was
evident that the inquirer appreciated the argument, but s not in a position readily to
receive or judge the evidence. Finally, he advised her home and read the Apocrypha
for herself. He predicted that she would enjoy portio it, but would be struck by its
inconsistencies when compared with the canonical Scri :s and by its evident legendary
and unnatural material. Months later she returned declared that she was fully
convinced--she had read it! More Christians should re Apocrypha as interesting old
history. To do so would settle many questions regarding nicity.3

1Harris, The Inspiration qnd Canon icizy of the Bible, 194t

2Harris, The Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible, 1814

3Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity, 193

173
 S

B. The Acceptance ofthe New Testament Canon 5

Introduction:

This study ofthe acceptance of the New Testament canon forces us to grapple with important and -

practical issues at the foundation ofour Christian faith.

S

1. The Serious Questions Raised

The basic facts with regard to the recognition of the canon are such as to raise thoughtftil questions
and even troubling doubts in the serious Christian’s mind. The easiest way to sense the problem
with which the Christian is here confronted is by citing the well-known historical fact that the first
person that we know of to list all the 27 books of our New Testament as the only genuine New
Testament canonical books was Athanasius in the year 367. F. F. Bruce says: "Athanasius is the
first writer known to us who listed exactly the twenty-seven books which traditionally make up the
New Testament in catholic and orthodox Christianity, without making any distinction in status
among them." The serious-minded Christian, if not shaken by such an assertion, is at least filled
with questions. He is accustomed to regard the New Testament as the unquestioned foundation of
his faith. Yet now he hears that its very contents were subject to dispute for almost 300 years after
its books were completely written. He probably wonders how to account for this surprising fact.

2. The Preliminary Responses Presented

There are five important facts which may assist the serious Christian in approaching this subject.
These facts will help him answer any doubts with which he is tempted. The surprising fact just
mentioned may be less shocking if he remembers the following things.

First, the well-known distinction between the homologoumena and the antilegomena must be
understood. In the New Testament only seven books called the antilegomena making up less than
20% of its contents were sometimes doubted. The four gospels, Acts, the 13 letters of Paul, 1 Peter
and 1 John were, however, never seriously questioned in the early church. These books are known -
as the homologoumena. As soon as the post-apostolic church becomes visible in the early second
century, it emerges treating these books as possessing authority. -

Second, the Christian must take into account the difficulties of communication in the early church.
It is not surprising that some books took a period of time to gain acceptance in sections of the early -

church which were a long ways from those to whom they were first written. Westcott argues this
point persuasively:

The common meeting-point of Christians was destroyed by the fall of Jerusalem, and from
that time national Churches grew up around their separate centres, enjoying in a great
measure the freedom of individual development, and exhibiting, often in exaggerated forms, S

peculiar tendencies of doctrine or ritual. As a natural consequence, the circulation of some

‘F. F. Bruce, The Canon ofScripture, Inter-Varsity Press, Downers Grove, 1988, 209. -

174
 books of the New Testament for a while depended, or less, on their supposed
connexion with specific forms of Christianity; and the- e of other books was limited
-i

either by their original destination or by nature oftheir k4ts.’

Third, it must be remembered that what is under discussion is 4iversai acceptance of the New
-

Testament. There is evidence that all of the books of the v’ Testament were regarded as
-

possessing authority in some sections ofthe church almost from e eginning.

- --

ra
Fourth, it must be remembered that early Christians surrounded i - living oral tradition created by
the original, apostolic preachers ofthe gospel did not feel thenc ity for a written canon that we
a
now feel. The need for written canon may seem obvious to - but it did not seem obvious to
-

them at first. We must remember also that many early Chris lived in the hope of Christ’s
imminent return. Thus, they did not see or sense the nece It3 of a New Testament canon
immediately. Westcott well writes:

It cannot however be denied that the idea of the Inspiraçr1 of the New Testament, in the
sense in which it is maintained now, was the growth ofl $in e. When St Paul spoke of the
Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament as able to make e unto salvation through faith
which is in Christ Jesus, he expressed what was the praciq liefofthe first century ofthe
Christian Church. The Old Testament was for two or generations a complete Bible
both doctrinally and historically when interpreted in the t of the Gospel. Many of the
most farsighted teachers, we may believe, prepared the r the formation of a collection
of Apostolic Writings co-ordinate with the writings of tb P1 ophets, but the result to which
they looked forward was achieved gradually, even as th 10] Testament was itself formed
by slow degrees. Distance is a necessary condition if wi to estimate rightly any object
ofvast proportions. The history of any period will flirni il ustrations of the truth; and the
-

teaching of God through man appears to be always subj ti o the common laws of human
life and thought. If it be true that a prophet is not receii ii his own country, it is equally
-
-

true that he is not received in his own age. The sense of wer is vague even when it is
deepest. Years must elapse before we can feel that the s-i s of one who talked with men
-

were indeed the words of God.2

-

The study of the recognition of the canon is in many respi a classic case study in the
development of doctrine in the church. We shall notice first the .irch’s original, basic, untested,
and unrefined ideas in the period of the Apostolic Fathers. Thc4 N shall notice how twisted and
heretical movements made clear these raw convictions. We ill also notice that the orthodox
response to these heresies provided a timely and, indeed, provide impulse for carefully defining
- -

and explaining the subject of the canon. Finally, we will notice’ PS a solid, public, and universal
harmony was reached by the orthodox church in the Fourth Cen 4ry Thus, we will deal with this -.

‘Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Can4 the New Testament, Baker
Book House, Grand Rapids, 1980, 4, 5.

2Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canó the New Testament, Baker
Book House, Grand Rapids, 1980, 55, 56. -

175
 S

subject in three points: -

The Apostolic Fathers

2. The Early Heresies
3. The Later Agreement

176

S
 1. THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS -

a. The Apostolic Fathers and the Patt f the Old Testament Canon

The Apostolic Fathers were Christian writers who lived and wro ;t after the Apostles. They did
not consciously intend to move even one step beyond the views Ô Christ and His Apostles. We
cannot, therefore, consider their views without reminding oursi I of canonical ideas that were

already clear in the New Testament itself.

In the New Testament the Old Testament canon stands as a coz II e whole possessing authority.
The completeness and detailed authority of the Old Testam ermeates the New Testament
witness as a whole. It is assumed in the major passages whiô itness to the view of the Old
Testament assumed by Christ and His Apostles Matt. 4:1-11 7, 18; John 10:34-36; 2 Tim.
3:15-l7;2 Pet. 1:19-21.

It is, therefore, no surprise that the Apostolic Fathers in the earliq I i ost-apostolic writings assume
this same view ofthe Old Testament. They view the Old Test4 as a completed whole. They
assume that its boundaries are well-known. Furthermore, th a sign to it the same detailed
inspiration which is assigned to it in the writings ofthe New Tes 4e nt. Kelly though probably no
friend ofthe idea that the Bible is completely and in detail insPirt ii forced to admit:

From Judaism Christianity inherited the conception o th e divine inspiration of Holy

Scripture. Whenever our Lord and His Apostles quotedH I’ Old Testament, it is plain that
they regarded it as the word of -God. This comes to lig *1 eatedly in the new Testament
It goes without saying thatrecords
the fathers en4 d the whole of the Bible as
inspired. It was not a collection of disparate segments, 5 e of divine origin and others of
merely human fabrication.’

Not oniy is the Old Testament a book possessing divine authori r the Apostolic Fathers, it is a
thoroughly Christian book. They viewit as a Christian book prM ving in great detail the person,
life, and work of Christ. Kelly remarks:

The importance of the Old Testament as a doctrinal norni he primitive Church cannot be
the doctrinal authority exaggerated ascribed to as based on the apparently
unquestioning assumption that, correctly interpreted, it i Christian book, and that the

prophets in particular were really testifying to Christ and lory.2

The importance of the recognized authority of the Old Testame a whole, in other words as a
canon, for the church cannot be over-estimated. Its influená i the acceptance of the New
Testament canon was great. Both in the New Testament and in .postolic Fathers the idea ofan
Old Testament canon within a Christian framework naturally a ertainly suggested that a New

‘Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 60 and 61.

2Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 32.

177
 _

Testament canon should be set along side of it. The only thing that was necessary to the
development of such a canon was a sufficient period of time to pass for the apostles to die and the
living oral tradition they left to fade. The church would then fmd itself called to be faithful to the
Lord in a period marked by the absence of the apostles and the delay in the return of the Lord.
Thus, it would naturally find it necessary and natural to safeguard its purity by following the
precedent of Old Testament Israel and accepting "the memoirs of the Apostles" as Justin Martyr
called them as a kind of New Testament canon. Only one danger, but an important and real one, -

towered over the church. It was that the church might be so content in the fading glow of the oral,
apostolic tradition that it might be unconscious of the increasing departures from its first purity
which it would certainly come to contain. The church might eventually awaken to its danger. The
question was, Would it awaken in time historically to ascertain those documents that genuinely
descended from and enshrined the apostolic preaching of Christ? This danger providence
prevented by swiftly loosing on the church in the first and second century perverted and heretical -

forms of professing Christianity which soon awakened and aroused her to the necessity of making
clear her understanding of the New Testament canon.
S

How the idea of the Old Testament canon within a Christian framework naturally and certainly
gave birth to the idea of a New Testament canon may be illustrated first from the New Testament.
2 Cor. 3:14 speaks of "the reading of the old covenant" in a context in which the Old and New -

Covenants are repeatedly contrasted. Note the explicit mention of the New Covenant in verse 6 and
the contrasts ofvv. 6-11. The "reading of the old covenant" is, of course, a reference to the reading
of the writings of the entire Old Testament as this was carried on every sabbath in the synagogue -

Acts 13:15; 15:21. When the widespread habit of the New Testament to put Christ and His
apostles on a plane of authority equal or even superior to that of Moses and the prophets is properly
weighed, the certainty that their writings would come to be considered a new canon is plain. The
following passages display this habit Rom. 16:25f; Heb. 1:1, 2a; II Peter 1:16-21, I Cor. 15:3-Il, II
Peter 3:1,2; John 2:22.

The Apostolic Fathers manifest, of course, this same tendency to make New Testament apostles
equal or superior to the Old Testament prophets. Kelly illustrates this tendency in the Apostolic
Fathers for us: -

The generations stretching from the apostolic age to the middle ofthe second century have a
special interest for our inquiry. This springs from the fact that, although the new Testament -

books were already in existence, there was a yet no officially sanctioned New Testament
canon. Whence then did the Church draw her teaching, and how did she assess its
soundness? For an answer we naturally look to the writings of the so-called Apostolic
Fathers For all these Christianity seems to have implied a complex ofbelief and practice
....

which in the final resort went back to Christ Himself But if He was the supreme
teacher, the immediately accessible authorities both for the facts about His Person and for
His message were a the prophets, who had foreseen every detail of His ministry, and b
the apostles, who had worked with Him and whom He had commissioned. This two-fold
appeal to the united witness of the Old Testament and the apostles was characteristic of the
age; it is aptly illustrated by Polycarp’s summons to the Philippians to accept as their
standard Christ Himself along with ‘the apostles who preached the gospel to us and the -

178
 prophets who announced our Lord’s coming in advance."

How naturally this suggests the coming of a New Testament ca4 of apostolic writings to match
the Old Testament canon ofprophetic writings is obvious and diagrammed as follows:

[OLD TESTAMENT CANON=] PROPHETS-->CHRIST44 I ‘OSTLES [?? CANON ??]

Only one fbrther item needs to be added to complete our un anding of how forcefully the
example of the Old Testament canon sMggested the addition of a v Testament canon. In at least
two passages in our New Testaments apostolic writings seem ly to be described as actually
Scripture. In 1 Tim. 5:18 Paul cites the exact words ofa saying- - Luke 10:7 which is not found
in the Old Testament. He couples it with a saying derived from - - 25:4 under the caption, "For
the Scripture says." In 2 Pet. 3:16 Peter mentions his beloved ter Paul and refers not only to
the letter Paul had directed specifically to his readers, but to "alE etters". He then comments as
follows: "In which are some things ha±d to understand, which - taught and unstable distort, as
they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction’ t e reference to the rest of the
Scriptures seems plainly to class the letters of Paul-here pt d as a group of letters well-
known to the church-as Scripture. Thus, not merely equal a - with Scripture, but the very
name of Scripture is already assigned to the letters of the A
- Paul and the gospel of Luke
within the pages of the New Testament. With this suggestive - t in our minds, we may now
come to the consideration ofthe anticipation ofthe New Testam on in the Apostolic Fathers.

Canon
b. The Apostolic Fathers and the 4 ii pation of the New Testament

1 The Clear Immaturity 4 [‘heir Witness to the New

Testament Canon

The clear immaturity of the witness given by the Apostolic Fat$ 1s- to the New Testament Canon
may be simply summarized. The Apostolic Fathers knew ofno Testament canon in the sense
of a list of books that it officially accepted as canonical. Fuzit! ¶1 nore, no exact boundary was
drawn between those books considered canonical and those not Jered canonical. Its testimony
to the New Testament canon is not technical or official; nor is it ugh or detailed.
-

a The witness of tb4 ftpostolic Fathers to the New

Testament is not techmcal or official I

Here I mean to say that they do not cite the writings of the Ne4T$tament by means of formula
which would identify them as scriptural or possessing divine aut144i4y. There seems to be no clear
reference in the Apostolic Fathers to the New Testament writrng4s t’Scnpte" 2 The Scripture is
a

‘Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 31. - - -

2This statement requires the qualification that the Epistle amabas may cite Matt. 22:14
with the introductory formula, ‘as it is written’. Westcott in J Veneral Survey considers this
possibility p 51 and remarks, "this quotation from St Matth$ ifmdeed it us a quotation, is the

179
 S

everywhere ratherthe Old Testament. Furthennore, while sayings from each of the four gospels are -

clearly quoted, there is never any clear reference to the written gospels as we know them. That Paul
wrote a number of letters is specifically and frequently mentioned,’ but there is no clear mention of
either a written gospel or of a collection of four gospels.2

This state of affairs creates a special difficulty in the Apostolic Fathers. The New Testament
writings are often not cited with any introductory formula suggesting that they have special
authority. Thus, when other writings are used by them, there is no certain way to make a
distinction between the use of non-canonical writings and the New Testament canonical writings.
Occasionally the Apostolic Fathers use the books of the Apocrypha. Clement utilizes language S

from the Wisdom of Solomon and actually mentions Judith by way of holy example.3 Of more
relevance to our theme is Polycarp’s frequent reference to I Clement. Richardson is on good
ground when he states: "He makes much use of I Clement."4 Our problem is that the references to
Clement are often not distinct from his references to New Testament writings. Thus, though it is
impossible to say certainly one way or another, the impression is given to some that Polycarp
regarded 1 Clement as inspired or canonical. Against this, of course, much could be maintained. -

For example, Polycarp refers to Ignatius’ letters. It would be far-fetched to take this as evidence
that he regarded those letters as having special authority. It also must be noted that in comparison
with their references to canonical Scripture the use which the Apostolic Fathers make ofapocryphal
or non-canonical writings is very small.

Westcott notes the testimony of the Apostolic Fathers to the genuineness of the Apostolic writings. S

Yet at the same times he sees this characteristic of the Apostolic Fathers. He theorizes as follows
on its reason:

The testimony to the Apostolic Fathers is not however confined to the recognition of the
several types of Christianity which are preserved in the Canonical Scriptures: they confirm
the genuineness and authority of the books themselves. That they do not appeal to the -

earliest direct example ofa use of a book ofthe New Testament as Holy Scripture."

‘Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians, 47:1; Ignatius’ Epistle to the Ephesians, 12:2;
Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians, 3:2.

2This statement must be qualified in two ways. First, the Didache cites the Gospel of
Matthew so frequently and pervasively that it is difficult to believe that its author did not have
Matthew’s Gospel in written form before him. Second, in Ignatius’ Epistle to the Philadelphians
5:1 the following statement could very easily imply the existence of a written gospel or gospels
known by Ignatius: "Yet your prayers to God will make me perfect so that I may gain that fate
which have mercifully been allotted, by taking refuge in the "Gospel," as in Jesus’ flesh, and in the
"Apostles," as in the presbytery of the Church. And the "Prophets," let us love them too ..."As
translated by Cyril C. Richardson in Early Christian Fathers. S

3Note Clement 3:4; 7:5; and 55:4.

4Cf. for example Polycarp ‘s Epistle to the Philippians at 7:2.

180
S
 Apostolic writings more frequently and more distinctly s s from the very nature oftheir
position. Those who had heard the living voice of Apos4 were unlikely to appeal to their
written words. We have an instinct that always makes fer any personal connexion to
the more remote relationship of books. Thus Papias tel$ s that he sought to leam from
every quarter the traditions of -those who had converse4 ,th the elders, thinking that he
should not profit so much by the narratives of books as: he living and abiding voice of
the Lord’s disciples. And still Papias affirmed the exact racy of the Gospel of St. Mark,
and quoted testimonies paptupiat from the Catholic Epi of St Peter and St John.’

Westcott is right to think that there are good reasons why the te ,ny of the Apostolic Fathers to
the New Testament writings would be neither technical, nØ Ificial. Other considerations
explaining this potentially confusing character of their witness ziii be added. Now, however, we
must notice a second thing which manifests the clear immatu f their testimony to the New
Testament canon.

2 Their witness was neither

Here we mean to say that there is no reference to the New Testa as a complete whole. But we
also want to say that there is within the Apostolic Fathers certai49 clear references only to about
-

23 of the 27 New Testament books.2 Of special interest in thisi1i1 ulation is the fact that there is
clear use made ofthe Epistle to the Hebrews, the Revelation ofJ I,i and to a lesser extent of James
in these writings.3 This is an important fuct for the history of thJ eptanee of the New Testament
canon because these three books are the three largest and most tr ant of the seven books known
as the Antilegomena. --

These things must be said by way of qualification and caution i regard to the witness of the
Apostolic Fathers. Yet there are key facts which must be brou li-ward to indicate the positive
value of their witness. While their testimony to the New Te’ ent canon is not technical or
official, nor comprehensive or detailed, it is solid and widespreax us brings us to

‘Westcott, General Survey . .., 47.

2The books to which no or only uncertain reference is re 2 Peter, Jude, 2 and 3 John.
Note the comments of Westcott, General Survey 48. WestC notes that there are no certain
...,

references to the Epistles to the Thessalonians, Colossians, Phi n and Titus. I disagree with
him with regard to Titus on the basis of the allusion made to 1 3:1 by Clement in 2:7 of his
epistle to the Corinthians. Additionally, the use made of 1 and 2 iothy is undoubted. This puts
beyond doubt that the Pastoral Epistles were known and attribute to Paul and corroborates the idea
that the Apostolic Fathers knew of Paul’s Epistle to Titus. Ther furthermore, no serious doubt
regarding the authenticity ofthe Thessalonians Epistles, Colossiq .nd Philemon especially when
all Paul’s other letters are utilized. -

3Clement makes pervasive use of Hebrews 17:1; 27:2; 3 HI while Papias and the author
,

of the Shepherd ofHermas plainly knew of John’s Apocalypse restcott, General Survey 77 ...,

and 201.

181
 S

b. The Specific Content ofTheir Witness to the New Testament Canon

Their specific and positive testimony comes from their widespread use of the writings of the New
Testament. Westeott, speaking ofthis, remarks:

It is true that these incidental references are with one exception anonymous. The words of
Scripture are inwrought into the texture of the books, and not parcelled out into formal -

quotations. They are not arranged with argumentative effect, but used as natural
expressions of Christian truths. Now this use ofthe Holy Scriptures shews at least that they
were even then widely known, and therefore guarded by a host of witnesses; that their
language was transferred into the common dialect; that it was as familiar to those first
Christians as to us who use it as unconsciously as they did in writing or in conversation.’

Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians, Ignatius’ seven Epistles, the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas
are all marked by their widespread use of New Testament writings. Most impressive of all is,
however, Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians. Richardson remarks on this feature of his letter:
"He is not versed, as he himself admitted, in the Scriptures, i. e., the Old Testament. But he had
meditated much on Christian writings; his letter is a veritable mosaic of quotation and allusion to
them. Modem critics are fond of calling him "unoriginal."2 Richardson elaborates on the mosaic of
New Testament writings crammed into Polycarp’s Epistle:

Polycarp was acquainted with the Synoptic Gospels and The Acts. But his citations of
sayings of Jesus are often rather freely made. His conflation of quotations may be due, of
course, to his citing them from memory. He is well versed in the Pauline Epistles, and his
references include Hebrews and the Pastorals. His special favorite, however, is I Peter; and
ofthe other catholic epistles he knows James and I and II John.3

We must not pass from this consideration of the widespread use of New Testament writings in the
Apostolic Fathers without due consideration of its significance and implications. We must admit
that there is no clear witness in them that the New Testament writings were viewed openly as
canonical Scripture. We must also admit that there is no clear testimony to a collection of New -

Testament writings. Yet there is nonetheless plain witness to just the kind of treatment and respect
that one would expect canonical Scripture to be given. The writings of the apostles and their
immediate associates were treasured and respected. Deep attention was paid to them. Their very
terminology has woven itself so deeply into the minds of these men that it flows out of their pens
and mouths naturally and without citation in most cases. This is without doubt important and
significant testimony to the dominance which these writings were slowly attaining in the earliest
post-apostolic churches.

All of what we have said with regard to the solid and widespread testimony to the canon in the

‘Westcott, A General Survey.., 49.

2C. C. Richardson, Early Christian Fathers, Philadelphia, Westminster Press, 123.

3Richardson, Early Christian Fathers., 125.

182
S
-

Apostolic Fathers is strengthened by Ihe fact that in their the basic insight and formal
principle at stake in the New Testament canon is clearly embracej

c. The Fundamental Insight of - - ritness to the New Testament

Canon

This basic insight is their constant exaltation of the apostles and r authority in comparison with
themselves. There is, in other words, an awareness of their en$ tnc xs insignificance compared to
the Apostles. This awareness permeates their writings.’ Samç4 ,stimonies to this sense of the
greater authority of Apostles as opposed to Apostolic Father hit ay be drawn from the major
writings. Clement, for instance, says this: -

The apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Christ; Jesus, the Christ, was
sent from God and the apostles from Christ. Thus Chris4 fjvm God and the apostles from
-
!- -
Christ. They preached in country and city, and appoir4
... eir first converts, after testing
them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of ftz lievers. Now our apostles, ...

thanks to our Lord Jesus Christ, knew that there was - -to be strife over the title of
bishop. It was for this reason and because they had b yen an accurate knowledge of
- - -

the future, that they appointed the officers we have me: i1 Pick up the letter of the
blessed apostle Paul. To be sure, under the Spirit’S L!iI ance, he wrote to you about
...

himself and Cephas and Apollos, because even then you r*4 formed cliques.2

From these statements it is clear that the apostles possessed a d *1 y to which Clement makes no
claim. It is also clear that Clement ascribed supernatural gifts U’ apostles to which he made no
claim. They knew the future. They wrote under the Spirit’s gui, He did not.
-

Ignatius also clearly attests his own sense of inferiority to the Ap - s:

May I ever share in these, so thut I may be numbered wi - e Ephesian Christians who, by
the might of Jesus Christ, have aJways been of one min4: h the very apostles. Make a
...

real effort, then, to stand firmly by the orders of: Lord and the apostles
Correspondingly, everyone mw;t show the deacons res - They represent Jesus Christ,
just as the bishop has the role of the Father, and the pres: s are like God’s council and an
apostolic band. Since, too, I am a convict, I have ii
... - ught it my place to give you
orders like an apostle. I do not give you orders like Pe
... td Paul. They were apostles: I
am a convict. Yet your prayers to God will make mt
... - - et so that I may gain that fate
which I have been mercifully allotted, by taking refuge e "Gospel," as in Jesus’ flesh,
and in the "Apostles," as in the presbytery of the Chure - nd the "Prophets," let us love

‘Cf. the if. references ClemenCs Epistle to the CorinthiaSj42 :1; 44:1; 47:1; Ignatius’Seven
Epistles: Ephesians 11:2; 12:2; Magnesians 13:1; Trallia*. 3:2: 4:3; 7:1; Romans 4:3;
Philadelphians 5:1; 9:1; Smyrnaeans 8:1; Polycarp’s Epistle to 4* ‘hilippians 3:2; 9:1; Didache
Introduction. - -

2Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians, 42:1; 44:1; 47:1.

183
 _
_

them too. Flee from schism as the source of mischief. You should all follow the bishop
...

as Jesus Christ did the Father. Follow, too, the presbytery as you would the apostles.’

There are confusing things in certain of these statements of Ignatius. Yet, the fact that apostles
occupy a place of authority and dignity in the church next oniy to the Lord Jesus Christ is clear.
Furthermore, despite Ignatius’ clear tendency to exalt the office of bishop, it is plain that apostles
are exalted above even the single bishop as he was presented in the writings of Ignatius. -

Polycarp also makes the qualitative superiority and distinction of the Apostles plain:

Certainly, neither I nor anyone like me can follow the wisdom of the blessed and glorious
Paul who, when he was present among you face to face with the generation of his time,
taught you accurately and firmly "the word oftruth." Also when absent he wrote you letters S

that will enable you, if you study them carefully, to grow in the faith

The Didache bears on its very face the exalted reverence with which the apostolate was viewed. Its
first line reads: "The Lord’s Teaching to the Heathen by the Twelve Apostles."

The testimony of Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, and the Didache show very clearly that the principle
and power which led to the acceptance of the New Testament canon was understood by the
Apostolic Fathers. The whole point and purpose of the New Testament canon was to bind the
church unchangeably to the authentic, apostolic preaching ofthe gospel. The canonical character of
the Apostles was plalnly understood and recognized in the earliest writings which succeeded the
New Testament. Westcott testifies to this reality: -

The successors of the apostles did not, we admit, recognize that the written histories of the
Lord and the scattered epistles of His first disciples would form a sure and sufficient source
and test of doctrine when the current tradition had grown indistinct or corrupt. Conscious S

of a life in the Christian body, and realizing the power of its Head, in a way impossible
now, they did not feel that the Apostles were providentially charged to express once for all
in their writings the essential form of Christianity, even as the Prophets had foreshadowed -
them. The position which they held did not command that comprehensive view of the
nature and fortunes of the Christian church by which the idea is suggested and confirmed.
S
But they had certainly an indistinct perception that their work was essentially different from
that of their predecessors. They declined to perpetuate their title, though they may have
retained their office. They attributed to them power and wisdom to which they themselves
made no claim. Without having any exact sense of the completeness of the Christian
Scriptures, they still drew a line between them and their own writings. As if by some
providential instinct, each one of those teachers who stood nearest to the writers ofthe New
Testament contrasted his writings with theirs, and defmitely place himself on a lower level.

‘Ignatius Letters to the Ephesians 11:2; Magnesians 13:1; Trallians 3:2, 3; Romans 4:3;
Philadelphians 5:1; Smyrnaeans 8:1.

2Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians 3:2.

184
S
S

The fact is most significant; for it shows in what way the ation of the canon was an act
of the intuition of the Church, derived from no reasonin t realized in the course of its
natural growth as one ofthe first results of its self-conscio,

Westcott, A General Survey ,56, 57 ‘I

185
 S

2. The Early Heresies -

Three early heresies assisted the church in putting together its official understanding and list of the
canonical books. Repeatedly in church history God has over-ruled heresy for the purpose of
making clear important doctrinal matters for His church. This is especially true with regard to the
decisive doctrine of the canon. The church’s native canonical instinct, its faith that God had
revealed Himself with authority through certait specific men and their writings, attained doctrinal -

clarity in response to Gnosticism, Marcionism, and Montanism. Gnosticism especially in its

earlier forms tended to claim a direct revelation from Christ which bypassed or minimized the
apostles. In response the church became aware of the importance of stressing the apostolic and -

written character of its authority. The fact of the canon became clear through Gnosticism.
Marcionism, a later and modified form of Gnosticism, accepted parts of the New Testament, but
rejected the Old Testament and any parts of the New Testament too clearly influenced by it. -

Marcionism made the church aware of the danger of diminishing the canon. The need to maintain
the full extent of the canon became clear through Marcionism. Montanism claimed prophetic
revelations in the late second century. In response the church thought about the limits of the
biblical canon. The closing or limitation of the canon became clear through Montanism.

Richardson is simply giving a statement which almost all church historians agree about when he -

remarks on this subject: "The dominant interest of the second century Church was the ordering of
its life and teaching. To preserve the apostolic witness against Gnostic perversions and Montanist
extravagances, the episcopate, the canon, and the creed were developed." Our interest is in the
way in which these heresies forced the church to make clear and carefully state its canon. We begin
with Gnosticism.
S

a. Gnosticism

1 Historical Origins

Gnosticism, it is now commoniy granted, was a professedly Christian manifestation of an

intellectual movement already flowing through the Hellenistic world when the Messiah was born. -
Richardson remarks:
S
Gnosticism is older than Christianity. It represents the fusion of Oriental and Greek ideas
into various elaborate systems whose aim is to acquire "gnosis" or knowledge ofthe divine.
Ancient mythological material is blended with philosophic and religious ideas. Sometimes
the dominating interest is the philosophic one-the problem of the one and the many. At
other times the religious element is primary, and salvation is sought from the insecurity and
evil ofthe natural world. Popular magical notions also enter in; and the vast movement of
Gnosis had manifold forms throughout the Hellenistic world. Gnosis is knowledge based
on revelation, but it is not intellectual knowledge. It is saving knowledge, enabling the soul
to escape the flux and change of life and to fmd the assurance of immortality. By the true
gnosis the soul is freed from the evil prison house of the body into which it has fallen, and

‘Richardson, Early Christian Fathers, 26.

186
S
 empowered to ascend to its original home in the spiritual

Though it preceded Christianity, it soon came into contact with it. In Acts 8 the New
Testament records the professed conversion, wicked ambition, rejection of Simon Magus.
Harold 0. J. Brown comments:

Gnostic motifs were already felt in Christian circles in Age of the Apostles. Early
church tradition attributes the rise of Gnosticism to Sit Magus, briefly mentioned in
Acts 8:9-24. Later traditions tell us that he went to
... where he competed with the
Apostle Peter and founded a gnostic sect.2

We also clearly meet the reply to Gnostic tendencies in the Episl nd perhaps also the Gospel of
John. We will turn to those writings during the course of our di thon of Christian Gnosticism.
Early tradition records a long list of Gnostic teachers who c14 I themselves in the robes of
Christianity. We know of Cerinthus who lived in Ephesus at tli4 me time as the Apostle John.
Also worthy ofmention are Saturninus, .Rasilides, Valentinus, anj of course, Marcion.
2 Typical Features

Brown in summarizing the features ofthe system of Saturninus a known as Saturnilus provides
us with a helpful summary ofthe typical features ofmost Gnostic p tems:

In the vision of reality developed by Saturnilus, three thi stand out: 1 the notion of a
descending chain of intermediate, more or less corrupt spiritual powers between the
unknowable Father and the world; these are called "al from a Greek word usually
translated "ages," but here having the special meaning ol like spiritual entity. The God
of the Jews and his angels are degenerate, base aeons, Chr good one. 2 Superimposed
on this chain is a dualism between the spiritual world ar e material world; the spiritual
entities], the aeons, may be good or evil, but the materia Id is the product of evil aeons
and is itself evil. 3 The specically gnostic idea of sal ii involves the liberation of the
embodied human spirits from their prisons of flesh and fix eturn to the Father.3

Clearly, we have here a system embodying the two Hellenisti a of emanation by which the
infinite god is mediated to the finite world and the idea ofa spiM/ Ii dualism in which the flesh is
-
innately evil and the spirit viewed as innately good.

The way in which this idea was worked out in the Gnostic syster nvolved fantastic, mythic, and
complex pantheons. Says Brown again: "According to Val us, Christ is the offspring of
Sophia, the last of the thirty highest aeons who make up the plet or fullness, of the aeons. He
reveals the Father to those who have spiritual natures and lea em to salvation by a path of

‘Richardson, Early Christian Fathers, 24.

2Harold 0. J. Brown, Heresies, Doubleday, Garden 50.

3Brown, Heresies, 57, 58

187
 S

enlightenment."

Such a system, of course, suffered the self-inflicted fate of attempting to reconcile the un
reconcilable. If spirit and flesh are really total and infinite opposites then no number ofemanations
from the infinite god can span the gulf between them. Brown comments:

Nevertheless, if one begins with the presupposition that the spiritual can have nothing to do
with the material, it is difficult to see how increasing the number of intermediate beings
really makes the leap from spirit to matter easier or more plausible. Irenaeus lampoons the
system ofValentinus in a satire in which the utterly spiritual aeon, Only Begotten, produces
another spiritual aeon, Utternothingness, which in turn produces an aeon called Gourd-
palpable, edible, and utterly delicious. Gourd in turn produces Cucumber, and these four
then generate all the other "delirious melons of Valentinus."2 S

3 Distinguishing Marks
S

When such premises were made the starting-point of a re-interpretation of Christianity, it is not
surprising that they wrought havoc and generated heresy. The Epistle of 1 John is now commonly
understood to be directed against Gnosticism. This Cnosticism displayed itself as a kind of super-
Christianity. John Stott comments:

This has led a majority of commentators to discover the heretics in the ranks of the gnostics -

whose preoccupation was with deliverance from the ‘flesh’, which they regarded as the
soul’s material imprisonment. ‘Gnosticism is a broad term embracing various pagan,
Jewish and semi-Christian systems. Plummer sums up its two main principles as ‘the
...

impurity of matter’ and ‘the supremacy ofknowledge’ .

1 John reveals at least three deviant tendencies of the Christianized Gnosticism troubling the
churches to which John was writing.

a Christologieal Docetism

The most foundational and distinctive of the heresies which Gnosticism begat in its rape of
Christianity was a docetic view of the person of Christ. Docetism derived from the Greek verb,
Soicce, meaning to think or seem was the view which denied the real humanity and the material
reality ofthe Christ. Specifically, these teachers taught that the heavenly Christ was not the earthiy
Jesus, but descended on him at baptism leaving Jesus before he died 1 John 2:22; 4:2, 3, 15, 5:1.
It is this view which makes intelligible the somewhat mysterious language of 1 John 5:5-11 cf.
Mark 1:9-il. Doeetism was, of course, the natural result of the spirit/flesh dichotomy of Gnostic
thought. Wherever it later influenced Christianity it almost inevitably begat Docetism. Marcion,

Brown, Heresies, 59.

2ibid.

3John R. W. Stott, The Epistles ofJohn, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1983, 45.

188

S
S

the classic example of Christianized Gnosticism almost a 0 later, also had a Docetic
Christology. Kelly remarks: "Marcion’s Christology, too, wa$ any rate as regards the
Lord’s body."

b Arrogant Elitism

I am using elitism here of the viewpoint of those that think of t selves as by inherent right the
chosen few and despises those who are: not. Gnosticism was it through and through. Brown
remarks:

The gnostic movement has two salient features that appei countless minds in every age,
i. e. the claim to present a secret lore, explalning otherwi comprehensible mysteries, and
the assertion that its secrets are accessible only to the eli hus by implication defining as
elite all who take an active interest in them.2

A detailed, threefold ranking of men and explanation of the of these divisions was often
provided in Gnostic theory. Speaking of the Christianized stlcism of Valentinus Kelly
remarks:

When he made man, he first made ‘the earthy man’, a ten breathed his own psychic
substance into him; but without his knowledge Achamol lanted pneuma, or spirit, born
from herself, in the souls of Certain men. This spiri} element yearns for God and
salvation consists in its liberation from the lower eleme* H ‘ith which it is united. This is
the task which the Savior Jesus accomplishes. Acco4 to their constitution, there are
:
three classes of men-the carnal or material, the psychic the pneumatic. Those who are
carnal cannot in any case be saved, while in order to 1 i. demption the pneumatic only
need to apprehend the teaching of Jesus. The psychi a can be saved, though with
difficulty, through the knowledgo and imitation ofJesus .

The spiritual class of men were sometimes identified by means ç bi blical terminology as elect. It
is also probable that the distinction between the psychic and thó umatic class of men was also
used to distinguish between ordinary, unenlightened Christians at fl e Gnostic super-Christians.

In 1 John this arrogant elitism appears 1:0 be visible at a number, 1 laces 1 John 2:19,20 and cf.
2:9-11, 4:20, 21. The Gnostic elitism:may provide a clue to 11$ *1 phatic universalism of 1 John
2:2 where Christ is said to be "the propitiation for our sins; and i i I r ours only, but also for those
of the whole world." Arminians have often urged this text again4 tb e Calviistic view of election.
It is better understood as addressed against a Gnostic and elitist p rsion of election in which the
elect as naturally and by creation different from the rest of men.

‘Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 142.

2Brown, Heresies, 44.

3Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 24.

189
 S

As we have suggested, this elitism is closely related to the claims of the Gnostics that they have 5

been perfected through their secret knowledge. It may be such claims of special knowledge and
perfection that John is piercingly confronting when he claims for all Christians perfection and
knowledge 1 John 2:5, 20, 27.

c Moral Indifferentism
S

The Gnostic idea that there is an absolute contrast between the spirit and the flesh could lead as
historians commonly note to two widely and seemingly different moral results: asceticism the
view that sees moral value in denying the body legitimate pleasures and needs or libertinism the
view that sees nothing wrong with indulging every desire ofthe body. Bruce remarks:

In its practical consequences for daily life, Gnosticism was usually associated with a strict -

asceticism. This tendency appears as early as the incipient Gnosticism attacked in the
Epistle to the Colossians, where the tendency ofthis teaching is summarized in the words,
"Touch not, taste not, handle not." There is some evidence, indeed, for a Gnosticism which S

drew directly opposite corollaries from the doctrine of the inherent worthlessness ofmater;
the body, it was argued, is material and therefore morally indifferent, and its desires may be
indulged at will without any harmful consequences to the true life of the spirit. But this
outlook was not characteristic of the main Gnostic schools.’

At first glance it seems to be this latter tendency which characterized the Christianized Gnosticism S

attacked by John in his first epistle 1 John 2:3, 4; 3:7-9. It is perhaps possible that the despising
of law by the Gnostics assumed in these passages reflects not so much libertinism as a sense of
moral superiority which put them above and beyond the laws and rules which bound ordinary
Christians 1 John 1:6-10. Bruce remarks, "On the practical level these new teachers claimed to
have reached such an advanced stage in spiritual experience that they were ‘beyond good and evil’ 2
Clearly, such a view was almost always a prophecy of moral disaster. Thus, we may rightly
describe it as moral indifferentism.

We must now examine how these claims directly effected the subject of revelation and the canon. S

4 Revelatory Claims

The name, Gnosticism, is derived from the claim of these sects to a special divine revelation or
knowledge, a gnosis yvcomç. Brown comments on how this name indeed specifies a distinctive
feature of Gnosticism.

The gnostic movement has two salient features that appeal to countless minds in every age,
i. e. the claim to present a secret lore], explaining otherwise incomprehensible mysteries,
and the assertion that its secrets are accessible only to the elite thus by implication
S

‘F. F. Bruce, The Spreading Flame, 249.

2Bruce, The Epistles ofJohn, 26.

190

S
 defining as elite all who take an active interest in them.’

- Part ofthe subtlety and appeal ofthis claim to gnosis is that Chrl ty itself did in its own sense
make a claim to possess a special knowledge of God not possess the unspiritual Matt. 13:11;
1 Cor. 2:6-16. It is this that explains the tendency of some or less orthodox, Christian
- theologians like Clement and Origen of Alexandria to present li stianity as a gnosis for the
*2
spiritual and to describe mature and wel:t-taught Christians as gut ic Because of this superficial
- and verbal similarity between Christianity and gnostic modes à ught. it is not surprising that
gnostic teachers might easily pass themselves off as Christian a erhaps, even think that they
were.

- The obstacle in the way of this gnostic reinterpretation of ç rn ;tianity was the fundamental
difference between the view of the universe held by Gnosticism hat held by Christianity. Both
- could speak of a special revelation and i savior, but these supe4 similarities were grounded in
completely different views of the univetse. The Gnostics presuj a fundamental and ultimate
distinction between the spirit and the fl4:, resolved all ethical tions into it, and attempted to
- span the gap between the spirit and the flesh by a comple*: xy of personal emanations.
Christianity in contrast saw the fundamental distinction as that bâ rn Creator and creature, taught
that the material world was a good creation of God, and taught 1 sin was an ethical rather than
- ontological related to being matter. Thus, it was at the point o e assessment of the flesh as it
came to expression in the vital Christian doctrines ofthe resurre4fr * of the body and the person of
Christ that clear and irreconcilable differences were evident l en authentic and gnosticized
- Christianity. So important and strategic were these doctrines tàl stianity that it was impossible
to disguise the differences between GnQstieism and Christianity !t ten the most simple of minds.
We find, therefore, even so non-theological a soul as Ignatius tab issue with Gnostic tendencies
- inhislettersatjustthesepoints:

For it was for our sakes that he suffered all this, to save And he genuinely suffered, as
even he genuinely raised himself. It is not as some unbe! ers say, that his Passion was a
sham. It’s they who are a sham! Yes, and their fate will ih eir fancies--they will be ghosts
and apparitions.

For myself, I am convinced and believe that even after tl surrection he was in the flesh.
Indeed, when he came to Peter and his friends he said to 411 i, "Take hold of me, touch me
4
and see that I am not a bodiless:ghost." And they at onci ót ched him and were convinced,
clutching his body and his very breath. For this reas4 t iey despised death itself, and
proved its victors. Moreover, after the resurrection he 114 0* md drank with them as a real
human being, although in spirit he was united with the F$ let 3

Because ofthis emphasis on the reality of Christ’s flesh Ignatius th: hasizes the necessity of being

‘Brown, Heresies, 44.

2Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 27.

3lgnatius, To the Smyrnaeans, chapters 2 and 3.

191
 S

committed to Christ "in body and soul" and also stresses that the Lord’s Supper "is the flesh of our
Saviour Jesus Christ"2.

The obvious contrast between Apostolic Christianity and gnosticized Christianity forced the earliest
Gnostic heretics to claim a revelation from Christ which bypassed, overruled, or generally
overshadowed the gospel preached by the Apostles. Hence it is in 1 John that the Apostle lays such
emphatic stress on the eyewitness authority of his preaching 1 John 1:1-3. The use of the first S

person, plural pronoun in this opening statement of 1 John is a clear reference in this context to the
joint eyewitness ofthe appointed apostles ofChrist. According to Acts 1:22 one technical name for
the apostles was a "witness". This gives a pointed emphasis to the statement of 1 John 4:4-6 ef.
also 4:13, 14 in which John explicitly contrasts "you", "they", and "we". "You are from God" he
says to the true Christians. "They are from the world" he says of the gnostic false teachers. "We
are from God" he asserts of the Apostles and goes on to make this startling and emphatic claim,
"he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know
the spirit of truth and the spirit of error." Here John declares that the standard by which true
Christianity and false Christianity is to be discerned is the standard of the Apostolic proclamation S

ofthe gospel. There is no other, further, or secret gospel which bypasses the public proclamation of
the Apostles of Christ. This is the point of the emphasis in 1 John 2 on the fact that they all know
1 John 2:20, 27.

After the Apostles died, it was no longer necessary to claim a revelation which bypassed them.
Several other alternatives could be utilized by the Gnostics to give their teaching an appearance of
authority. At this point it was only necessary to pen counterfeit gospels and letters which were
ascribed to apostles; or they could also by means of a way of interpreting which used allegory thaw
S
their theories from the genuinely apostolic documents.3 Finally, they could claim that the apostles
themselves reserved a secret gnosis for those Christians worthy of it. Says Kelly of Tertullian who
was refuting the Gnostics of this later period, "He was emphatic that no secret tradition existed,
and that it was incredible that the apostles did not know or failed to pass on, the revelation in its -

entirety."4

The claims of Gnosticism to a secret revelation, thus, very early forced the church to self-
consciously reflect on its sources and authorities. The response of the church to Gnosticism
emphasized two important features of its canon or standard of faith and life. It was an apostolic
standard. It was a public-not a secret-standard. The public nature of this standard caused the
church to emphasize the Apostolic office, that is to say, the presumed orthodoxy of churches
founded by Apostles and led in direct succession by men descended from the elders first appointed
by the apostles. It also led the church to emphasize the Apostles’ Creed, that is to say a written

‘Ignatius, To the Ephesians, 10:3; To the Magnesians 13:2.

2lgnatius, To the Smyrnaeans, chapter 7.

3Encyclopedia ofReligion and Ethics, ed. by James Hastings Charles Scribners Sons, New
York, 1922, 6:232.

4Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 40.

192
S
S

sunmary of the Apostolic faith based upon the baptismal vows: n by every Christian. Finally,
and most importantly it led the church to emphasize, colleI id discriminate the genuinely
Apostolic writings from writings falsely claiming apostolic a’ rship and especially heretical
writings.

b. MarcionjLsm

1 The Description of Marciol

What we know for certain of the heretic, Marcion is well suni9 *zed by the article in The New
Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia:

The facts of the early career of Mareion are difficult stablish partly because of the
tendency of ecclesiastical write:rs, from whom informatiq f him is gained, to believe and
report damaging stories concerning heretics. The p4 il sources for his life are the
writings of Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Ephj us, and Tertullian, and these
writers are not in entire accord,. His birthplace is given Sinope, in Paphlagonia, on the
Euxine, and he is described as a shipmaster of Pontus. ullian tells of his coming from
III

Pontus c. 140 and joining the Christian community 4 C ‘me, in the first warmth of his
faith making them a present of 200,000 sestertii .... aks of his differences with the
Roman community, of his excommunication, of the rett4 f his gift, and of his attaching
himself afterward to the Gnóitic teacher Cerdo .... ting to the same authority the
Marcionites dated the time of their master’s separation : n the Church the autumn of
....

144. Justin in his first apology written about 150 ... the great activity of Marcion.
Irenaeus speaks of Mareion’s flourishing [under the
... pate of Anicetus 154-165 and
tells how Polycarp met Marcion and addressed him as t1t4 st-bom of Satan These give ....

the few certain facts in regard to marcion’s life, his sep on from the church in 144, his
study of Gnosticism, and his foundation of a separate C1 m conununity.’

The author of this article omits some facts he considers doubt t is rumored in early traditions
that he was the son ofthe Bishop of Siliope and thus raised in a *stian home. It is supposed that
by means of this upbringing he becamc especially enamored of writings of Paul. It is also said
that his own father excommunicated him for ‘corrupting a vfrgi or reasons already given in the
above quoted article particularly thi last piece of informt nay need to be treated with
suspicion.

2 The Relation to Gnosticis

It is plain from the information already given that Marcion wa ‘,hly influenced by Gnosticism,
P1
particularly the Gnostic teacher, Cerdo. With Gnosticism l istinguished between the Old
Testament god and the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ4 ft also taught docetism, the view
that Christ only seemd to be a true man, at least in a modified rI n--denying that the Christ was

‘The New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, ed. nuel MaCauley Jackson Funk
& Wagnalls, New York, 1910, 7:172.

193
 __

born of Mary and teaching rather that he descended from heaven. His ‘purified’ gospel begins with
the words: "In the fifteenth year of the Emperor Tiberius God came down to Capernaum and
taught on the sabbath days".’

Marcion also inculcated asceticism. The members of his rival church were expected be celibate,
abstaining from sex and marriage, and engage in other ascetic practices. Thus, we may
undoubtedly class Marcionism as a form of Gnosticism. S

Nevertheless, it is proper to see several distinctions which show that Marcionism was distinct from
Gnosticism. Primary among these distinctions must be noted a real though perverted interest in the
doctrine ofgrace. Marcion’s major original work was the Antitheses. According to the article cited
above, this "was a semi-dogmatic treatise contrasting contradictory sentences from the law and the
Gospel."2 The same writer goes on to remark: -

For him Paul alone was the true apostle; yet he disregarded the Jewish elements in
Pauliism. The favorite Pauline antitheses between the law and the Gospel, anger and
grace, works and faith, flesh and spirit, sin and righteousness, death and life, were congenial
to his thought and germane to his method. In Marcion’s system the Gospel of the free grace
of God in Jesus Christ is given so much weight that it caused him to view the Church
conception ofthe Gospel as an unpermissible falsification.3

Another feature which emphasizes the supremacy of this interest in law and grace of Marcion and
makes him different from other Gnostics is his failure to develop the complex pantheon of
emanations the complicated understanding of all the different gods coming from the first god
presented by other Gnostic teachers of his own era like Valentinus and Basilides. Says the same
author just quoted:

Mareion’s teaching is particularly remarkable for its lack of interest in metaphysical

questions. It is certain, however, that he did not regard the Cosmos as the creation of the
supreme God; it was the production of a demiurge Marcion differs entirely from
....

Valentinus in failing to discuss eons. Marcion’s thought concerns itself entirely with the
religious records ofthe Jews and the Christians.4

Marcionism differed from Gnosticism, then, in being less fantastic, more restrained and practical,
and more interested in questions of a genuinely Christian character.
S

3 The Contribution to Canon

‘The New Schaff-Herzog ...,7:173.

2lbid. -

3TheNewSchaff-Herzog..., 7:173.

4TheNewSchaff-Herzog...,7:172.

194

S
 The relevance of Marcion to the subject ofthe New Testament c is indisputable. In the words
ofF. F. Bruce, "Marcion is the first person know to us who publi La fixed collection ofwhat we
should call New Testament books. Others may have done fore him; if so, we have no
knowledge ofthem."

Marcion’s canon was, however, significantly different than the e we know today. Says Kelly:

His dualism, however, led him to reject the Old Testamen id it was natural that he should
seek to canonize an alternative set of Scriptures for!: in his church. St. Paul, so
outspokenly hostile to the Law1, was his hero, and he ro Led such Christian writings as
-
seemed infected with a Jewish outlook as suspect. Hen list he drafted consisted of St.
Luke’s Gospel, ‘with all seemingly Judaizing passages e I, and ten Pauline epistles all,
in fact, except the Pastorals siSiiiarly expurgated.2

Because of the facts given above, Marcion has sometimes be C calted into the position of the
creator ofthe idea ofthe New Testament canon.3 The facts seen re consistent with the idea that,
far from being a creator, he was a mutilator ofthe Christian can :elly perceptively remarks:

The significance of Mareion’s action should not be misu stood. He has sometimes been
acclaimed e. g. by the great German scholar Harnacl$j the originator of the Catholic
canon, but this is an extravagant point of view. The Ch*
collection, or to be more precise collections, of Christii
was beginning to treat as Scripture.4
t already had its roughiy defined
oks which, as we have seen, it

With this limiting of the importance of Marcion in mind, we vi ret allow that Marcion’s heresy
was of great significance to the church. and its acceptance of ion by the reaction it created.
Kelly ftirther remarks:

Nevertheless, if the idea of a specifically Christian cano s deeply rooted in the Church’s
own convictions and practice, Marcion played an impo ‘It part in the practical emergence
of one. What none of the great ecclesiastical centres, f r as we know, had done, and
what his initiative seems to have provoked them t& was to delimit their lists of
I?,
authorized Christian books in a public, official way.5

At more length Orr shrewdly summarizes the significance he Marcionite heresy for the

‘Bruce, The Canon ofScripture, 134.

2Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 57.

3Note Richardson’s comment 1:o this effect, Early Chr4 Fathers, 22, "The Catholic
canon was doubtless framed with marc.ion’s in view

4Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 57, 58.

5Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 58.

195
 _

acceptance ofthe New Testament canon.

The first important gain to the Church from the controversy in which it had been plunged,
was the collection of a body of New Testament Scr:ptures, or the formation of a New
Testament canon. It is not that the Church did not know itself before this time possessed of
inspired and authoritative writings. The Gospels in particular had long been in use in the
churches, and collections had early been made of Paul’s Epistles. Such collections, 5

however, grew up naturally, informally, with a view to purposes of edification, and with no
idea consciously present of forming what we mean by a Canon of Scripture. We have only
to recall how near the Church ofsecond century stood to the Apostolic Age, and what stress -

was still laid on living Apostolic tradition, to see how far it would lie from men’s minds to
erect these writings of Apostles and Apostolic men into a permanent rule of faith and
practice for the whole Church. Now under pressure of the Gnostic controversy, when the
Church was faced with the mutilated Canon of the Marcion, and saw its borders overrun by
pseudonymous and apocryphal productions, it was inevitable that it should be impelled to
set about in right earnest making a collection of the books which it did regard as Apostolic--
which it knew from their history and long-established use to be so--and that these should be
definitely separated from the floating mass and raised to a position of exclusive authority.’
S

Thus, if Gnosticism taught the church by its errors the necessity of an apostolic and public canon,
the further phase of Gnosticism known as Marcionism made plain the danger of a mutilated canon.
Thus, it impressed upon the church the necessity of maintaining the canon in its full extent without S

being diminished.

e. Montanism S

Introduction:
S

As is often the case with movements which were finally rejected by the mainstream church in its
earlier history, it is difficult to know how much ofwhat the orthodox writers say about Montanism
to regard as believable. Two things, however, at least tend make our information about the
Montanists more believable. First, at a number of points we have statements by made by the
Montanists themselves which tend to confirm the general view taken of them by the orthodox
writers. Second, the opposition offered to the Montanists was more mixed. Thus, we have
information from more orthodox writers which tends to be more sympathetic toward Montanism.
The classic example of such sympathy is no one less than Tertullian himself who is often as to his
later ministry identified as a Montanist. For these reasons we may be fairly confident that we have
the facts about the Montanists right.

Church historians have frequently noted that Montanism represents an opposite reaction in the
Second Century to Gnosticism and Montanism. Marcionism and Gnosticism are seen as
movements of a speculative and intellectual character, while Montanism is seen as more subjective

‘James On, Progress ofDogma, 64, 65.

196

S
S

or experiential and practical in character.’ In this case the pra tl, subjective extreme appears
somewhat less heretical than the theoretical, intellectual one. p ct the application of the term,
I:

heresy, in its strict sense to Montanisin is not right because 4 egard to basic content of the
orthodox faith in the second half of the second century it was ortt x. Lawlor remarks:

Montanus, it is true, did not consciously deviate from e iastical dogma. His opponents
bear witness that he accepted the canonical Scriptures an ‘as orthodox with regard to the
resurrection of the dead and the doctrine of the Tth jf>t But in another sphere his
innovations were considerable.2

This statement of Lawlor must be taken with some measure ialiflcation since neither with
regard to the Canon, nor the Trinity was the doctrine of the chi ‘4
very defined in the late Second
Century. Yet it is certainly true that Montanism’s novelties wh1 151 thous were not as foundational
as those of Gnosticism in their character. The deviations iepartures of Gnosticism and
Montanism were quite dissimilar. Richardson says, "At the opj i1 e pole to Gnosticism stands the
Montanist movement . . This dratic difference in the
. "
eviations served, however, to
underscore two distinct concerns with regard to the subject ott New Testament canon. Bruce
asserts:

The Montanist challenge from one direction, like the! rcionite and gnostic challenges
from other directions, made it the more important that* rnits of holy scripture should be
clearly defined. Holy scripture, properly defined, wd rovide a check on uncontrolled
prophecy as it did on a undisciplined speculation.4

It is the significance of Montanism for the New Testament ca$ hat leads us to take it up in the
present connection. We will consider it under five headings:

1 Historical Origin
2 Distinctive Identity
3 Ecclesiastical OppositioA
4 Later Development
5 Canonical Sign fricance

1 Historical Origin

Lawlor provides us with the major facts connected with the rtory of Montanism:
eari!hi
‘Note the graph by Robert C. Walton, in Chronologicatth iBackground Charts of Church
History, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1986, # 78.

2Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. by James :ings, Charles Scribner’s Sons,
New York, 1922, 8:829.

‘Richardson, Early Christian Fathers, 25.

4F. F. Bruce, The Canon ofScripture, 168.

197
 S

The movement now generally known, from the name of its founder, as Montanism had its
birth at a village called Ardabau in the part of Mysia adjoining Phrygia, probably not far
from Philadelphia. There, as it seems, about A. D. 156, Montanus, a recent convert, who
...

had been a pagan priest, began to prophesy. His prophesyings were accompanied by
strange phenomena resembling those associated with demonical possession After a
time--as seems to be implied, a considerable time--Montanus was joined by two women,
Maximilla and Priscilla, or Prisca, who with his sanction deserted their husbands, and who
also claimed to possess the prophetic charisma. Their utterances were similar in matter and
in manner to those oftheir leader We are not surprised to learn that this sudden outburst -

of prophecy, and the claims that were made for its leaders, provoked much opposition.
Many of those who heard Montanus and his companions would have silenced them. Two
Phrygian bishops made an ineffectual attempt to ‘prove and refute’ the spirit that spoke in
Maximilla; another who had come from Anehiale in Thrace, attempted to exorcize Priscilla.
At first, we are told, the movement advanced slowly: ‘but few of the Phrygians were
deceived.’ But after a tim, it seems, the majority of the Phrygian Christians became -
adherents of Montanus. Thus only can we account for the fact that at an early period his
followers were commonly spoken as ‘the Phrygians,’ and their teaching as ‘the heresy ofthe
Phrygians’ Not long after the beginning of the prophesying Montanus crossed the Phrygian -

border and established himself with his followers in the city of Pepuza Pepuza, with the
...

neighboring village of Tymion, he named Jerusalem. To this settlement, which was

thenceforward the centre and holy city of Eastern Montanism, he endeavored to gather
adherents from all quarters. these facts coupled with the lavish promises made by the
prophets to theft adherents and certain predictions of Maximilla apart from a more
...

explicit oracle attributed to another prophetess would lead us to the conclusion that the
...

‘new prophecy’ taught men to expect in the near future, at Pepuza, the final Parousia of the
Lord ....The primitive Montanists, in fact, held the doctrine of chiliasm, but chiliasm of a S
new kind. It was this hope ofthe Parousia at their Jerusalem that gained for them the name
of Pepuzians ....It is not necessary to pursue the history of Eastern Montanism in detail.
For some years after the death of Maximilla, the last of the original trio, in 179-180, there
were no prophets, and the church and the world enjoyed peace--facts which, as anti
Montanistic writers pointed out, disproved the claims ofthe first prophets.’

To this basic account there needs to be added oniy two additional comments. First, the reason that
the death of Maximilla tended to disprove the Montanist prophecy is that she had associated her
death with the end of the age.2 Second, it is important to note that Phrygia was noted for a national 5

tendency to ecstatic forms of religion. This is a kind of religion that claims direct revelation from
God which causes its recipients to behave wildly. Says Bonwetsch, "Montanus, but recently
become a Christian, appeared in a village of Phrygia as such a prophet. He is said by Jerome to
have been formerly a priest of Cybele, and the ‘new prophecy’ was doubtless influenced by the wild

‘Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, bc. cit., 828,829.

2The New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, vol. VII, 485.

198
S
S

enthusiasm ofthe Phrygian religious nature."

2 Distinctive Identity

Introduction:

We have already noted that in substance the Montanist tended tot11 port Second Century Christian
orthodoxy, especially as over against the Gnostic heretics. ertheless, theft deviations or
departures were serious enough eventtiEllly to thaw down upon eads the ecclesiastical censure
or official rebuke of the ‘Old Catholic Church’. We must brief borate four of their distinctive
:
peculiarities. 1

a Theft Ne phetism

The orthodox writers are filled with polemic against the novel which the Montanist prophecy
took. It seems to safe to assume that the ‘new prophecy’ was Jifferent from that to which the
church was accustomed or used to in its remembered experienc in its sacred writings. Lawlor
remarks:

In what way his exercise of i:he prophetic charisma regarded by his opponents as
differing from that of the genuine prophets we have vaSt ints from nearly contemporary
documents: he spoke while he: was actually in a state of tasy; the true prophets received
their message in ecstasy, but* did not deliver it till th faculties returned to a normal
condition. Moreover, the ‘ecstasy’ ofMontanus was ki$3 [‘madness deliberately induced,
whereas prophets, acknowledged as such by the Churd Ii yen when in a state of ecstasy,
S were of sound mind; ....In agreement with these stateft4 an oracle of Montanus declares
that the prophet is as a lyre played upon by the divine p1.4 un; and the form in which most
of his extant utterances are cast implies that he was a n14 assive instrument, and that the
phrases which fell from his lips were actually the z$ i$3 ima verba of the Deity. His
opponents reminded him of ‘the style of the ancienç 9r1 phets, who as human agents
proclaimed the will ofGod-’ Thus saith the Lord.’2

The Montanist reply to the orthodox contrasts between the hetic form of Montanism and
biblical prophecy acknowledged that the contrast was real, bit I *alned it on the grounds of its
finality and supremacy of their prophecies.

There can be no doubt that Montanus maintained t14 us ‘new prophesying’ differed
essentially from all preceding prophecy. Thus the nove C fits form was to be explained.
It was the fhlfiblment-so it ‘was alleged-of the Lq4 * promise of the coming of the
Paraclete John 14:12-18. The apostles had not the $ * ton of the holy Spirit 1 Cor.
13:8-10; this was reserved for the new prophets, of ‘Christ spoke in Matt. 23:34.

‘Ibid.

2Encyclopedia ofReligion and Ethics, 8:828.

199
 S

This is stated to be the Montanist doctrine by many writers, and it is the basis of the
exaggerated assertion of Eusebius that Montanus claimed that he himself was the
...

Paraclete.’

This view ofthemselves and the new prophecy inevitably, though perhaps not intentionally, tended
to the idea that it overruled all previous revelation. Says Lawlor again:

It is evident that the acceptance of the ‘new prophecy’ as embodying the final teaching of
the Paraclete, and as in some sense superseding earlier revelation, was the cardinal principle
ofMontanism. This is made manifest by the very phrase ‘new prophecy’ constantly used by
its adherents; by the title irvsuj.tatucot which they arrogated to themselves, as distinguishing
them from other Christians ‘qmucoi and by the polemics of anti-Montanist writers,
...

whose argument is mainly directed to proving that this’ so-called prophecy’ was in truth a
false prophecy proceeding from the spirit of evil.2

The implicit canonical claims of such a view of its prophecies cannot be avoided. In some sense
Montanist prophecy claimed to bring to completion previous revelation. This seems to mean that it
claimed a relation to the New Testament writings somewhat similar to that which the new
Testament writings claim to the Old Testament. Bonwetsch agrees:

The Montanists appealed in support of their own form of prophecy to the examples of
ecstasy recorded in the Bible, yet at the same time claimed that theft mode was a proof of
the magnitude of the new revelation. It was, indeed, the completion of the law of Christ,
and in it the promised Paraebete had appeared, since the time of full maturity had now
replaced childhood 1 Cor. 13:11. The new prophecy, therefore, not only was a protest
against suppression, but also claimed the right, in view ofthe approaching end of all things,
to regulate life in the Church.3

b Their Peculiar Chiliasm

The peculiar form of Premillenialism held by the Montanists has already been noted. Their
extremes had the marked tendency to bring disrepute upon Premillenialism in the early church and
may have contributed to its gradual demise. It also tended to have a specific influence on canonical
matters. This happened because some reacting against Montanism began to reject the writings of
John to which Montanism made such frequent reference. F. F. Bruce describes this reaction as
follows: S

One interesting by-product of the Montanist movement was the suspicion which it
engendered in some people’s minds against the Johannine literature of the New Testament,
to which Montanists so confidently appealed. Their doctrine of the second advent was

‘Ibid.

2lbid

3The New Schaff-Herzog ..., 7:486.

200

S
 based on a literal interpretation, ofthe millenium mentio4 in the book of Revelation, and
there were those who found it impossible to reject thi 4c ntanist doctrine without at the
same time rejecting the book of Revelation. One of tlj who rejected the book was a
Roman presbyter named Galus author a of Dialogue in h he maintained a debate with
Proclus, leader of the MontarMts in his day e. 200. Ar ax ently Galus attributed the book
to Cerinthus, a heretic who flourished about the end of II rst century. But there is reason

to believe that Galus also rejected the apostolic authoritj he Fourth Gospel, from which,
of course, the Montanists drew aclete
their doctrine of the "I Gaius had no great
following in his view of the Fourth Gospel, howeve small group of people who
maintained a view similar to his, but like him were ,odox in all other respects, are
referred to by a fourth-century wiiter as the Alogoi.’

c Their Anq it Feminism

Montanism, because of the early proninence of the prophet 4s Priscilla and Maximilla, was
characterized by a feminism inconsistebt was the views ofthe ch rbl i in its day. Lawlor recounts:

the association with Montaixus of two prophetesses in ied the recognition that women
might hold high office in the Church. Maximilla ‘4 Priscilla seem to have made
independent contributions to Montanist teaching an4. v were probably in the habit of
...

prophesying in the congregation There is evidence

... at any rate in later times, other
women followed their example or even outdid i C r we read of a prophetess in
...,

Cappadocia in the 3rd cent., perhaps a Montanist, baptized and celebrated the
Eucharist of female bishopi and priests, and of vir*: who regularly officiated in the
...

congregation at Pepuza

d Their Ethj 4 Rigorism

The ethical rigorism or strictness of Montanism and its tende4 to asceticism was related to its
imminent or soon expectation of the eS of the world. Says Boii1 sch:

The entire purpose, in fact, of the new prophecy was ration for the approaching end,
and expectation of this great event should determine the re life of the Christian. Yet the
new prophecy was seldom introduced by new forms; wj$ I ad hitherto been voluntary now
became duty. Thus, if the: Church approved Only t marriage and virginity, the
Montamsts regarded second nwnages as impure and e4 [IC led those who contracted them.
Sexual punty was a necessary ondition for receiving rej tions, and the voluntary fasts on
the "station days" were extended from three to six in thöV. rnoon and made obligatory].
Again, wherever the Church permitted a distinction be$ a a laxer and a stricter rule, the
Montanists invariably allowed only the latter, so that Ior imple, flight in persecution was
forbidden and martyrdom was encouraged. All the* te quirements were made by the

‘F. F. Bruce, The Spreading Flame, 220.

2Encyclopedia ofReligion and Ethics, 8:829.

201
 __

Paraclete because the last day was nigh, and the marriage should no longer be contracted. S

Because ofthe shortness of the time, the Paraclete could annul the words of Paul as Christ
had abrogated those ofMoses.’

Concluding Observations:

Montanism presents us with a remarkable combination of traits which anticipate later movements
in the church. The intense, eschatologieal expectation; the claims to prophecy, the neglect of the
created boundaries between men and women, and even the ethical rigorism have re-emerged or
come out again in varying combinations again and again. One need only think of certain
Anabaptist groups, the older Pentecostalist groups, and even the Charismatics of our own day. The
re-emergence again and again of such groups with their unique combination of traits constrains us
to ask what response and evaluation the earliest church gave to Montanism. Its response cannot but
be ofintense interest for us.

3 Ecclesiastical Opposition -

Montanism did not long exist before it began to meet with the formal opposition of the bishops.
Says Lawlor:

While the movement was still in its infancy, Claudius Apollinarius, bishop of Hierapolis,
wrote a treatise against it, to which were appended the signatures of many bishops, at least -

one of whom came from Thrace. Other confutations of the new teaching followed it
Many synods met in Asia and excommunicated its adherents It is impossible to
determine with accuracy the date of the inevitable crisis; but it is certain that in Phrygia -

before the year 177 the Montanists were excluded from the Catholic Church

Swift and firm as this response appears, Montanism was not everywhere met with as unqualified S

and absolute disapproval. The Christians of Gaul, while opposing the Montanists, wrote to Rome
pleading for moderation with regard to some of their views.3 Even more sympathetic to the
Montanist was the great African bishop, Tertullian, whom we must now consider.

4 Later Development

Despite its condemnation by catholic bishops, Montanism spread to many parts of the Roman
Empire. Its spread cost it, however, both its unity and many of its distinctive features. Noting that
the early Montanists were productive writers, and that among the Montanists theft writings tended
to be regarded as in some sense canonical, Lawlor goes on to comment:

A necessary result of this was the tendency to division. The Montanists must have regarded -

‘TheNewSchaff-Herzog...,7:486. 5

2Encyclopedia ofReligion and Ethics, 8:828.

Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, 8:83 0.

202
S
 the writings of their own prophets as of at least equa4 lue with the Scriptures: they
constituted in fact, if not in intention, an enlargement of Canon. It was inevitable that
they should be used, like the canonical Scriptures, as au$ D tative expositions of dogmatic
Christianity, and that, like them they should be variously. rpreted. By the end of the 2nd
cent. there were two parties ofthe Montanists, who took Li. [brent sides in the Monarchian
controversy, and both of them appealed to the oracles It’ he prophets as well as to the
Scriptures ... Thus the authority ascribed to the writli of the prophets produced a
tendency to the formation of parties differing from other in matters of faith, and
probably also in matters of discipline. l’his tendency w4 1d * be greater if, as seems likely,
such writings were not collectedL into a Corpus. Each co$ xt nity would follow the teaching
of the teaching of such books as they happened to ss, without the obligation of
S

harmonizing it with that ofthe books possessed by other[, tIl munities.’

The certain or inevitable result of this kind of division was the4 king of Montanism into many
different parties in different regions. Lawlor confirms: "It is ps scarcely correct to speak of
Montanism as a sect. In its later stagös it was rather a conge ;I f sects somewhat loosely held
together by an acknowledgment ofthe manifestation ofthe Para in Montanus."2

It is this that forms the necessary starting-point for the ission of Tertullian’s alleged
S Montanism. Most of the time they somehow limit their statem Yet, writers often assert quite
emphatically that Tertullian was a Mlontanist. Richardson, fi stance, writes: "...it passed
eventually to North Africa, where it Won for its cause the veheiW Tertullian, in whose writings it
takes on a severely puritanical note."3’ If Tertullian is to be caØ a Montanist at all, it should be
only with the most severe limitations ür qualification. The fact at the Montanism he embraced
was significantly different than that which raged in Phrygia in ite second century. Bonwetsch
writes, "Montanism spread to the West with a suppression of ij static features and emphasis on
its ethical requirements."4 Lawlor confirms this, but gives his ó 1 on that Tertullian was unaware
of the extent of the differences: "Montanism, as it appears it l$e pages of Tertullian, differs so
much, and withal is so little conscious of difference, from theh atanism of Phrygia that we are
compelled to suppose that his acquaintance with the teaching of rophets was imperfect."5

Lawlor catalogs a number ofthe differences between Tertullian4 1. the original Montanism. There
is no hint of the strange phenomena which accompanied $ gian prophecy in Tertullian.
Tertullian affirms against the Phiygiati Montanism that the ajj’. s possessed the fullness of the
Spirit. Tertullian never mentions Pepuza. Tertullian refiisedi,, [ 2 *llow a woman to speak in the
church, or to teach, baptize, administer the Lord’s Table, or "to 1 me any function which belongs

‘Encyclopedia ofReligion and Ethics, 8:830.

2lbid.

3Richardson, Early Christian Fathers, 25.

4The New Schaff-Herzog ..., be. cit., 487.

5Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, bc. cit., 831.

203
 S

to a man".’

5 Canonical Significance

The above exposition of Montanism fUlly justifies the multitude of witness among church
historians who confirm the important, canonical significance of the Montanist movement. Their
significance was, of course, wholly negative. In other words, the early church saw in them the S

catastrophe which awaited if the stop sign or red light signalling the close ofthe canon was ignored.
Richardson is, then, perfectly correct when he asserts:
S

The Catholic opposition to Montanism rested on the conviction that the Christian revelation
was complete. Nothing new in principle could be added to the apostolic deposit ofthe faith.
The Church, too, was cautious about ecstasies in which the prophet lost the use of his
reason and identified himself with God. "I am come neither as an angel, nor as an
ambassador, but as God the Father," said Montanus. Against such extravagant claims, the
Church insisted on the sufficiency ofthe apostolic tradition.2

3. The Later Agreement

Introduction:

The sum of the preceding discussion of the Apostolic Fathers and the early heresies has been to -

emphasize and make clear the idea ofapostolic authority. The post-apostolic church comes into our
view with a clear grasp on the distinct difference between its leaders and teachers and the authority
of apostles. Its emerges into view with a clear practical commitment to their writings, especially
the four Gospels and the Epistles of Paul.

This original grasp on apostolic authority is strengthened by the early heresies which Providence
arranged to attack the church in the second century. Gnosticism’s claim to a secret and direct
revelation emphasized the public witness ofthe Apostles especially as crystallized in their writings. 5

Marcionism’s mutilation of the Apostolic tradition alerted the church to the danger of a one-sided
and biased limitation of the Apostolic tradition. Thus, a sign was given emphasizing the
importance of maintaining the full extent of the New Testament canon. Montanism came, 5

however, just in time to keep the church from wrongly enlarging the canon of Scripture. Its
excesses and extravagances clearly underscored the dangers associated with any failure to limit the
canon to the Apostolic age and writings.

his in the light ofthis making clear and careful stating of the significance of the Apostolic canon of
the church that we may accept and amen the words of Brown as he summarizes the result of the -

controversies of the second century:

‘ibid.

2Richardson, Early Christian Fathers, 26.

204
S
 We may consider that the New Testament canon was e4 ively complete by A. D. 200,
V

although a few books remained controversial until into

the canon was of tremendous importance, because it
$ourth century. The closing of
r Lt that from then on theological
disputes could no longer affect the source of doctrine, thi of Scripture itself. From this
virtual closing ofthe New Testament canon in about 204 V till take two and one half more
centuries for Christianity to reath agreement on two of ii r S st fundamental doctrines: the
doctrine ofthe Trinity and the doctrine ofthe one person 4 3 two natures of Christ.’

The carefully qualified words of Brown may be accepted as an rate account of the situation at
the close ofthe Second century. He is right to see that in the cl’$ mtion of the idea of the public
nature, the full extent, and the closed character of the Apostolic i, the question and character of
S

the New Testament canon was effectively closed by A. D. 200J must, however, now come to
consider the evidence for Brown’s assertion and how these c64 ling and specific perspectives
S came to final and formal expression in the official acceptance of New Testament canon in the
Old Catholic Church. We will do this by utilizing the acca$ listinction implied in Browns
words between the books of the New testament known as the H robogoumena and those known
as the Antilegomena.

a. The Universal and Early Accepta4 f the Homobogoumena

1 The Canon of Muratori

As if to underscore the significance of the early heresies we hay ticed for the acceptance of the
New Testament canon, the Canon of Muratori which may bc a ted "at the end of the second
century"2 provides us with the first orthodox listing ofthe books ‘Il he New Testament canon. The
S document in which this canon comes down to us is in a fra itary condition. It begins, for
instance, with the words, "the third book of the gospel; accot to Luke"3. As this illustrates,
some of the problems created by the fragmentary character he document can be solved.
Obviously, the canon commenced with Matthew and Mark. iming that the list began with
Matthew and Mark, twenty-two of tho books which we have ‘U red in our New Testaments are
listed in this canon as acceptable. The ones missing are Heb 3 John, James, 1 Peter, and 2
Peter.

Two books were included in this canon which are not in o, N ew Testaments. They are the
Wisdom of Solomon and the Apocalypse of Peter.4 Ther& a note, however, that Peter’s

‘Brown, Heresies, 74.

2Bruce, The Canon ofScripture, 158.

3Bruce, The Canon 159. Bruce provides a translati4 C f what he calls the Muratorian
...,

fragment on pages 159 through 161 ofthis book.

4Zahn conjecturally emended the reference to "the Apocä’ se of John we also receive, and
that of Peter, which some will not have read in church" to "the alypse of John, we also receive
and Peter’s [epistle. There is also anç’ther of Epistle of Peter4 41i ich some will not have read in
church". Cf. Bruce, The Canon 165 ...,

205
 S

Apocalypse is not regarded as canonical by some. The reference to the Wisdom of Solomon is odd
because it is part of the Old Testament Apocrypha. The Shepherd of Hermas is mentioned
favorably, but denied canonical status because "the Shepherd was written by Hernias in the city of
Rome quite recently, in our own times, when his brother Pius occupied the bishop’s chair in the
church of the city of Rome; and therefore it may be read indeed, but cannot be given out to the
people in church either among the prophets, since theft number is complete, or among the apostles
at the end ofthe times." -

More interesting for our purposes is the mention of a number of Marcionite and Gnostic writings
which are completely rejected. The fragment first mentions Marcionite forgeries: "There is said to
be another letter in Paul’s name to the Laodiceans, and another to the Alexandrines, forged in
accordance with Marcion’s heresy, and many others which cannot be received into the catholic
church, since it is not fitting that poison should be mixed with honey." Later the fragment mentions -

other Gnostic productions: "But none of the writings of Arsinous or Valentinus or Miltiades do we
receive at all. They have also composed a new book of psalms for Marcion; [these we reject]
together with Basilides [and] the Asian founder of the Cataphrygians ‘. . . -

In these two parts of the Muratorian canon there is, then, explicit reference to and replies to the
three distinct heresies we have dealt with above. Plainly, the existence and forgeries of these -

heresies was one of the factors which led to the writing of this the first, orthodox listing of the
canonical books of the New Testament which we possess. This is explicit proof for the significance
ofthese heresies in the formulation ofthe New Testament canon. -

2 Irenaeus -

Irenaeus also stands just at the close of the period of the early heresies we have discussed. We
know that he was elected bishop of Lyons shortly after the year 177. Significantly for our thesis S
Irenaeus’ main written work was a response to the gnostic heresies which he entitled, An Exposure
and Refutation of the Knowledge that is Falsely So Called. [This work is commonly known from
its Latin title as Against Heresies.] Bruce properly remarks, therefore, "Irenaeus is the principal
spokesman of the catholic response to Gnosticism and other second-century deviations."

It is most significant, therefore, that obvious progress has been made in the making clear of the
New Testament canon in the mind ofIrenaeus. Bruce further remarks:

In all Irenaeus’s argument, moreover, scripture plays a dominant part. It is the abiding -

witness to the one living and true God, ‘whom the law announces, whom the prophets
proclaim, whom Christ reveals, whom the apostles teach, whom the church believes’.
Irenaeus is well able to distinguish ‘the writings of truth’ from ‘the multitude of apocryphal -

and spurious writings’. As for the New Testament, Hans von Campenhausen describes
...

‘the critical period between Marcion and Irenaeus’ as ‘the period in which the "New
Testament" as such emerged’. Irenaeus nowhere in his extant writings sets down a list of
New Testament books, but it is evident that he had a clear notion of their identity. He

The Canon ..., 171.

206
S
 makes free use ofthe phraseology about ‘old covenant’ an rew covenant’, but does not yet
use the latter expression to denote the collection of authq Live writings thrown up by the
new covenant, as Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian sage were soon to do. The
collection itself, however, was a reality to him. In using: scriptures to expose and refute
subversive teaching, it was important to know which : tures might effectively be so
used, and he knew them, and usjd them.1

Irenaeus’ New Testament canon is remarkably close to that a: Canon of Muratori. Bruce
remarks:

Irenaeus, in fact, recognized and appealed to the same ction of Christian writings as
listed in the Muratorian fragment, except that he include Peter, which is not mentioned
there. If the Muratorian list is of Roman origin, it may been during one of his earlier
visits to Rome that Irenaeus became acquainted with th ntents of the ‘New Testament’
scriptures acknowledged in the church ofthe capital. Pez s we should be warned against
calling it a ‘closed’ canon by the very fact that it was lat4 ded to; but it was envisaged as
a coherent corpus, comprising twenty-two books--all th1 ks of the final New Testament,
indeed, except Hebrews, James 2 Peter, 3 John, and Judâ

The Old and New Testaments together provided Ir us with a broad and secure
foundation not only for the npgative purpose of refl4 Sresy but even more for the
positive exposition of what has been called ‘the biblical logy of St Irenaeus’. From his
time on, the whole church in east and west has acknow1 the New Testament collection
as making up, together with the Old Testament, the CMI Bible.2

3 Tertullian

Tertullian’s writings belong to the period AD 196-212. It is ii! L5 writings that we first find the
designation ‘New Testament’ for the second part of the Christi4 B] ble.3 He did not use the word,
canon, but approved ofthe idea it later came to express.4 Tertt4 L’s canon certainly included the
homologoumena plus Revelation and. Jude. He knows arni es Hebrews and compares it
r’]
favorably to the book he called ‘the Shepherd of the Adulterersil ough it had not come down to
him in North Africa as canonical, he regarded it as the work oi iabas and worthy to be ranked
with the apostolic writings.5 Thus, we see again a stable New I hment canon of 23 or 24 books

‘Bruce, The Canon ..., 173.

2Bruce, The Canon 177. Several other interesting J

..., about Irenaeus’ canon which
seem to closely associate it with the Muratorian fragment at ILL at he seems once to cite the
Shepherd of Hermas as Scripture and also the Wisdom of 50 In on. He does not mention the
Apocalypse ofPeter. There are also possible references to Hebre md James.

3Bruce, The Canon ..., 180.

4Bruce, The Canon, 182.

5Bruce, The Canon, 183.

207
similar to that of the Canon of Muratori and Irenaeus. -

4 Clement ofAlexandria

This Clement was a contemporary of Tertullian from Alexandria in Egypt. In some respects he
echoes Tertullian. Bruce remarks, "In reference to Christian writings Clement’s catholicity is
equally evident. He speaks of the two parts of the Christian Bible as the Old Testament and New -

Testament."1 In other respects, however, reflects the looser and more carefree attitude of
Alexandria with regard to the canon. This means that he cites in addition to the canonical books a
number ofbooks not found in our New Testaments.2 -

5 Origen

Origen also sets a New Testament collection ofbooks beside the Old Testament. Bruce comments:

That Origen did recognize a New Testament collection alongside the Old Testament is -
certain, although he expresses himself as if the use of the word ‘Testament’ in this sense
...

were fairly new in his circle: he speaks of ‘what we believe to be the divine scriptures both
ofthe Old Testament, as people say, and ofthe New {Testament}, as it is called.’3 -

Origen also advances the discussion of the New Testament canon by mentioning all the books of
our New Testament and classing them as either undisputed or disputed. Undisputed are the
homologoumena and Revelation. Disputed are Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James and Jude.
Among the disputed he also places some books which in the end did not qualify for the New
Testament canon. These included the Epistle ofBarnabas and the Didache. -

6 The Early Versions

Westcott places not a little importance on the testimony of two early versions to the acceptance of
the New Testament canon, the old Syriac version known as the Peshitta and the old Latin version of
North Africa known as the Itala.4 He begins, however, by admitting that enormous difficulties -

beset any inquiry into or study of these early versions. Thus, some measure of caution is necessary
with regard to their contents. It does appear, however, that in Syria and North Africa even as early
as around the middle of the Second century versions of the New Testament were used which -

confirm the early and universal acceptance of the homologoumena. Westcott concludes that the
early Peshitta included a canon of 22 books and omitted only 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, the Epistle of
St. Jude, and the Apocalypse of John.5 The canon of the Itala according to Westcott also witnesses

1Bruce, The Canon,, 188.

2Bruce, The Canon, 188f.

3 Bruce, -
The Canon, 192.

4Westcott, A General Survey..., 235ff. -

5Westcott, A General Survey.., 244.

S

208
S
 to the acceptance ofthe homologoumena. It certainiy contained ooks, may also have contained
Hebrews, and omitted oniy James and 2 Peter.

Westcott argues that the canon of the Eastern churches sugges ly the Peshitta and that of the
Western churches represented by the ISa should be combined.

To obtain a complete idea ofthe judgment of the Church ‘ ust combine the two Canons;
and then it will be found that ofthe books which we receti ne only, the second Epistle of
4
Peter, wants the earliest public sanction of ecclesiastical an Apostolic work. In other
words, by eniarging our view so as to comprehend the I of Christendom and unite the
different lines of Apostolic tradition, we obtain witJ e exception a perfect New
Testament, without the admixture of any foreign element.*

Conclusion:

Westcott contends for an almost perfrct canon by the middle oI ê Second Century. But even if
we do not agree with him, there are a multitude ofwitnesses coil! a that the homologoumena were
the assured canonical possession ofthe Christian church by the o the Second century.

b. The Universal and Later Acceptariç the Antilegomena

1 An Explanation of the De14

At this point a factor which accounts fer the delay in the univer ceptance of the Antilegomena
must be mentioned. The question may be raised: If canonical h S possessed original authority
with the church because of their apostblic authorship, why me so seriously questioned
before being universally accepted? Unlike the Old Testament le of God, the church was of
vast geographical extent. Uniike the OI.d Testament people of t had no center like Jerusalem
to promote with authority the recogmze4 canomcal books. Jemsa was destroyed and the mother
church there scattered while the New Testament was still being n. We must, therefore, take
into account the hindrances of geographical limitation and ppç H mmunication in delaying the
acceptance of certain books universkIy.2 Because of such some writings which had
complete acceptance in the region of the church where they riginated were questioned in
another region.
-

2 An Explanation of their Ac eptance

Why and how did the Antilegomena gain acceptance? Two facM ;eem to have been vital. First,
the growing unity of the church in the Roman Empire ren$ questions about some books
because theft complete acceptance by the rest of the church becM cnown. Second, the character,
the actual self-authenticating truth and content, of the genuine bo4 exercised a great influence.

‘Westcott, A General Survey..., 268.

2Westcott, A General Survey‘3-5.

209
 S

3 An Explanation of the Difficulties -

Here we shall show that the reasons the different books of the Antilegomena were questioned are -

consistent with their original authority and authentic canonicity.

a Hebrews and Revelation

These two of the seven Antilegomena contain over 75% of their content. For this reason the fact
that they were questioned may raise the most severe problems in some minds. There is good
reason, however, to conclude that the difficulties raised over them came up later. Herman
Ridderbos properly remarks:
S

Uncertainty about some of those writings, it should be noted, only arose later, as a result of
certain actions that occurred within or against the church. That is the case, for example, for
two of the most widespread instances of uncertainty: doubt about canonicity of Hebrews in -

the West and about the Book of Revelation in the East. Opposition to the Book of
Revelation in the East, as is well known, was late in origin and was the result of dogmatic,
antichiliastic considerations. Apparently, objections to the canonicity of Hebrews were not -

"original" nor did they occur primarily because its Pauline authorship was doubted. Rather,
those objections were late and arose because of the Montanist appeal to Hebrews 6:4.
Indeed, the Book of Hebrews was already in use sometime between A. D. 90 and 100 by
Clement of Rome and later was also cited by Tertullian. Moreover, as Van Unnik has
recently demonstrated between A. D. 140 and 150 in Rome all sorts of expressions from
Hebrews were a part of the language of the church in the same manner as phraseology from S

other writings that were never contested in the West. Thus here, too, it appears that only
later reflection damaged the authority a document had from the beginning and destroyed the
original certainty ofthe church.’ -

b 2and3JohnandJude -

Though there is good historical evidence for these books, it may be of less extent than that which
supports the Homologoumena. The probable reason for this is simply their brevity. This made it
easy for them to be overlooked and improbable that they should be quoted as extensively as the
larger books ofthe New Testament.
S

c James

There is early historical evidence for the canonicity of James. "Clement of Rome uses the Epistle -

of James, as does Hermas. It is included in the Peshitto version."2 The questions over the

‘Herman Ridderbos, Redemptive History and the New Testament Scrzptures, Baker, Grand -

Rapids, 1988, 44.

2R. Laird Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity, 262.

210
S
 canonicity of James, according to Harris, may have arisen due S 4fusion over the exact identity
of the James which authored it, since there are at least three J ke in the New Testament with
apostolic claims.

d’ 2 Peter

The external, historical evidence for 2 Peter is the most limi c4f any of the New Testament
canonical books. Origen is the first lo mention the book by’1 j4ie and seems to regard it as
canonical, though he mentions that some Christians had doub .ot$ this matter. Guthrie cites a
number of very early Christian writings which may manifest. ndence on 2 Peter and thus
a-
provide some support of an apostolic source for the epistle.’ oM such books are Clement of
Alexandria’s Hypotoposes. Others who may allude to 2 Peter are ophilus of Antioch,, Aristides,
Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr. The pseudepigraphicdl’ 4calypse of Peter which dates
from the first half of the second century alludes repeatedly to 2 fl 1 Some have argued, however,
that the dependence is in an opposite direction. Guthrie concl l4js survey with these remarks,
"It would seem a fair conclusion to this survey of external e e4ce to submit that there is no
H
evidence from any part of the early Church that this Epistle wasi 4r rejected as spurious, in spite
of the hesitance which existed over its reception."2 In light of tli$ i$versa1 reception of this letter
as canonical during the fourth century, the historical evidence .
pars to be consistent with the
canonicity of 2 Peter.

Several reasons may be assigned which. explain the origin ofthe a; $ions regarding 2 Peter. There
was a large corpus ofpseudepigraphical literature bearing the nm4 orPeter. This may have cast its
shadow on 2 Peter. There were certain obvious differences in 14 ae style between 1 Peter and 2
Peter. This may have caused some to look with suspicion on 2 PC Such differences in style may
be explained in a number of different ways which have been suj 4ted by interpreters. Probably
the best explanation is that Silas helped Peter write 1 Peter ani bóaned up his Greek. Notice 1
Pet. 5:12. 2 Peter’s rough style of Greek may indicate that Peter s4 that letter without help.

Culminating Observations:

The final movement of the church to agreement on the New Te4 puint canon may be sketched by
brief reference to two men that summarize the process that was dig place throughout the church
in the Roman Empire.

Eusebius, the Bishop of Caesarea, marks the transition from tIi P4ite-Nicene to the Post-Nicene
Fathers. He provides us with a representative sample of the stató $f4piion with regard to the New
Testament canon at the close of the era of persecution and at! he opening of the Constantinian
period. His statements are explicit, although not without some ettainties. He divides the books
making a claim to New Testament canonicity into three categorie Iacknowledged, the disputed

‘Donald Guthrie, New Testament introduction, Inter-Vap Downers Grove, 1979, 815-
819.

2lbid.

211
 S

questioned, and the spurious false. The acknowledged are exactly equivalent to the
homologoumena. Also within this category he places John’s Apocalypse adding the words, -

"should it seem right". The disputed are exactly equivalent to the remaining six books of the
antilegomena. Of them he says that they are disputed, "but recognized by the majority." The
spurious books include the Apocalypse of Peter, the Shepherd, Barnabas, and the Didache and also
John’s Apocalypse of which he again says, "should it seem right". Why Eusebius places the
Apocalypse of John among the acknowledged and also the spurious books, but not among the -

disputed is a difficult question, but the explanation is probably connected with Eusebius dislike of
its apparent Premillenarianism.’ In Eusebius we see how swiffly the church was moving to
bonsensus on the New Testament.

As Eusebius represents the next to last stage of canonical development, so Athanasius represents
the last stage. Bruce tells us, "Athanasius is the first writer known to us who listed exactly the -

twenty-seven books which traditionally make up the New Testament in catholic and orthodox
Christianity, without making any distinction of status among them."2 This occurred in AD 367.
S

‘Bruce, The Canon..., 197-199.

2ibid., 209. -

212