Introduction

Jesus had promised that His apostles would be His witnesses in the power of the Spirit. They will have divine authority in their proclamation. Their witness will constitute the foundation of the church. That is the sense in which the little stone Peter (you are Cephas, little stone) is massive foundation rock upon which the church will be built until the end of the age (Matt. 16:18; 28:19-20). Therefore, implied in the abiding nature of this foundation/witness is the promise of a written form of that witness. The promise of Christ of an authorized witness to Himself that will abide to the end of the age implies that it will be preserved like the OT, preserved in writing as an authoritative written expression of the very words of God.

Such is the nature of His promise. Now let's consider the fulfillment of His promise. It comes to realization in stages by proclamation, inspiration, and collection. Last time on this subject we considered the stage of proclamation. This time we will consider the writing and recognizing of the apostolic testimony. Thus we will cover inspiration and canonicity followed by some applications.

1A. First, consider the writing of the apostolic testimony

The apostolic testimony grew into an oral tradition passed on by word of mouth from person to person. That oral tradition included the word of God given through those with the gift of prophecy and prophetic tongue speech. Gradually, this oral tradition was written down in all its essentials (or better it was crystallized in a summary form). Thus the link between Christ and the NT is the apostolic testimony. A number of things show this linkage that results in the authority of the written new covenant.

1) The witness Jesus promised included writing

John makes this connection by interfacing testifying with writing (Jn. 21:24, the one who testifies…wrote…the testimony is true).

2) There is an overlap for a time between oral and written testimony

Significant here is the fact that both the oral and written aspects are what Jesus promised. They are the same testimony in different forms. They are both expressions of the witness to Christ and the foundation of the church that Jesus promised to give through His chosen apostles.

Note how the issue of obedience to the oral tradition is equal to the call to obedience to the written form of that tradition in the Thessalonian letters. When it is said that God calls sinners to Himself by Paul's gospel (2 Thess. 2:14), it means that what Paul preached and what Paul wrote is the very word of God that commands faith and obedience (2 Thess. 2:15, stand firm and hold to the tradition we passed on to you whether by word or by letter; 2 Thess. 3:4, 6, "do…the things we command"). Peter in writing to stimulate wholesome thinking wants the church to recall the words and command given by the Lord through the apostles (2 Pet. 3:1-2).

3) The written testimony is put on a par with OT Scripture

A connection is thus established between the oral witness of the apostles, their writings and the Old Testament. All have equal authority as the very word of God (cf. 2 Pet. 3:16 where the writings of the apostle Paul are equal in authority with the Old Testament Scriptures; Paul quotes the writing of Luke on an equal par with the Hebrew Scriptures in 1 Tim. 5:18).

Being Scripture means that this testimony is divinely inspired.

Inspiration means that the words written down are the very words of God, the product of His creative breath (2 Tim. 3:16, God breathed refers to what He utters. Scripture is the product of His speaking just as the heavens and earth are the product of His speaking, cf. Ps. 33:6). Hence, the words of the apostles written are what God intended written; these human words are the very words of God. Now in the era of fulfillment, we have the inspired word of God in the written apostolic testimony (added to the OT). Now we can call this written new covenant the New Testament Scriptures (accenting that they too are Scripture, God's word written). What is the authority for all of this? It is the authorization of the apostolic witness by Christ that underpins their view of each other's writings; what they say has His imprimatur (including what they say about each others sayings).

4) The driving force for writing is the need of preservation

This is demanded by the uniqueness of the apostolic witness as eyewitness. Their witness went on for a limited time. They had to look to future generations to build on the foundation they were giving. Peter does this in continually reminding the church of the doctrines of grace (here by writing) so that after his departure they will "always be able to remember these things" (2 Pet. 1:10-15). So the tradition was written to remind the church of what was preached (1 Cor. 15:1). The point of certitude and clarity is part and parcel of Luke's investigation of oral testimony and then penning it for Theophilus (Lk. 1:1-3).

5) Ultimately the tradition (both oral and written) is rooted in Christ

Paul says, for example, that what he received by tradition from the other apostles and that he passed on to the Corinthians in authoritative writing was received from the Lord (1 Cor. 11:23). These directives are written to govern the people of God; they come from the Lord Jesus through His witnessing apostles to the church.

Before leaving this section, consider the relation of temporary oral tradition to the permanent foundation. The oral tradition is like a template in building an arch that serves as a foundation. The template is temporary. It gives structure to the permanent brick work build upon it. At first the template is the only thing present. Then brick by brick the permanent elements are put in place. For a time both the temporary and the permanent function as the foundation of the building placed upon it. Eventually the point is reached when the template is pulled away and the foundation that it shaped and fashioned abides as a permanent expression of the template.

The template represents oral tradition that gave shape and structure to the foundation. Then precept by precept the permanent witness was put in place. For a time, while the apostles were alive, both the temporary and the permanent witness functioned as the foundation of the church. Eventually, the point was reached when the template of oral tradition was pulled away and the foundation that it shaped and fashioned was established as a permanent expression of the template of oral tradition (the preaching of the apostles with prophets under the apostolic umbrella).

Hence the NT is "the written expression of previous oral tradition" (Ridderbos, Redemptive History and NT Scriptures, 16, italics mine). The coming of the kingdom and laying down the foundation of the church is not limited the person and work of Christ. Rather, it extends to the preaching of the apostles who were chosen and empowered by Christ. But it is not limited to their oral testimony but extends to the written form of that very witness authorized by Christ (thus apostles are foundation with Christ as head of the corner, Eph. 2:20).

2A. Second, consider the collecting of this written apostolic testimony

1B. What is the problem?

It is at least twofold. On one hand, the collecting of the written testimony is somewhat difficult because of the subjective side of the equation. We are speaking here of the recognition by the church of the written testimony to Christ that was given by the inspiration of God through the Spirit. There is a process of recognition that went on until the 4^th century when a somewhat fluid canon became fixed to a collection of the twenty-seven books of our NT.

On the other hand, we cannot (we must not) think of the church as canonizing the NT. This recognition process ended with a closed canon of twenty-seven books but this must not be thought of as a process in which the church created, established, or determined what the canon would be. The canon was there when penned. As the oral witness (preaching) of the apostles decreased the written witness increased. The foundation was there with the template of oral tradition present and it was there when that temporary template was removed giving way to the permanent foundation. The church was built on that foundation in both modes (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 2:20). The foundation gave rise to the church not vice versa.

2B. Does the notion of a paradox apply to the collection process?

Yes. We need to think in terms of paradox at bottom in this area like so many other areas. That is, we need to think of two lines of truth that appear to be contradictory but are united in the mind of God. a) Applied to the canon this means that the canon is the product of the church as a closed unit of books. At a point in history the church finally came to the recognition of the exact twenty-seven NT books in addition to the exact thirty-nine OT books as her foundation to the end of the age. This was a gradual process. The canon was somewhat fluid until the 4^th century when it was given the fixed form that we now have. b) But it must also be said, and most importantly said, that the canon is the product of Christ as Sabbath King and head of the church. That is the short answer to the question, "how do we know that we have the exact foundation that we ought to have?" The very collection of books is part of the work of Christ in heaven after the accomplishment of redemption.

3B. Why do we exclude the church's authority?

There is no basis that we can find that pinpoints the ground on which the church came to recognize the canon. The church came to recognize the whole NT by the 4^th century but there is no measuring stick in the hand of the church that was used to judge and decide what her canon would be. Such a measuring stick is impossible because the canon is the measuring stick. It is the old question again of how do you measure a ruler? The NT (with the OT) is the ruler. So in principle there can be no way to measure it.

This distinctiveness of the NT becomes clearer (even if more difficult for the autonomous mind to accept) when we consider some failed attempts at developing a rule by which to decide the ruler.

Some have tried apostolic authorship. But this does not work for books like Luke and Hebrews. Actually, this criterion shows the errors of the church for all to see. Here is why. The book of Hebrews was for a time excluded from the canon before the 4^th century. But it was excluded for the wrong reason, namely, because the church used the criterion of apostolic authorship. Such a basis would have excluded other books like Luke. On the other hand, the book of Hebrews was eventually accepted as part of the canon but it was accepted for the wrong reason, namely, because of the criterion of apostolic authorship. Here the church did the right thing for the wrong reason (since the author cannot be identified as an apostle so the church was mistaken). Either way we have evidence that the church is not infallible and does not give us the canon as is mistakenly claimed by Roman Catholic theology.

Some have tried inspiration. But this does not work either because some inspired books are not in our canon. A letter to the Corinthians that is prior to our First Corinthians (the first First Corinthians) is not in the canon but it was inspired. It was an authoritative written testimony of the apostle Paul (1 Cor. 5:9, to be obeyed on a par with what Paul "now" writes, v. 11). Also, a letter to the Laodiceans is put on a par with Colossians as authoritative apostolic testimony to be read in the churches (Col. 4:16) and it is not part of our canon.

Think circles for a minute. Inspiration is a larger circle than canonicity just as tradition is a larger circle than inspiration. There are more inspired writings than what we have in our canon. This point alone is remarkable and should cause us to dig a little deeper.

4B. If church recognition did not determine the canon what did?

Church recognition is a means by which Christ gave the church her foundation even in the sense of a collected whole.

5B. How do we know that we have exactly what we should have, no more and no less?

To begin, let's restate this question in light of the fact of the eye and ear witness-bearing function of the apostolate. The implication is that beyond the historical time frame of the apostles, we have no one to give authoritative and authorized testimony to the risen Christ. Thus, we have no books in the canon that arose after the apostolic age. All twenty-seven are from that period.

Here is a restatement of the question. If we grant that the church must receive her foundation from the apostolic age and none from any source after that time, how are we assured that these twenty-seven books from that period are the correct books? Hebrews, for example, is from that period but was one time out and another time in. Another example is the Shepherd of Hermas (for short, Shepherd). This book from the time of the apostles was sometimes included in the canon before the 4^th century and it is obviously not part of the NT.

The answer is found in the combination of God's self-attestation with the promise of Christ of an authorized witness to Himself. This can be unpacked in steps.

1) If God is the ultimate norm and the New Testament is His self-attestation, then there is no standard or criteria that stands above it to judge and measure it. If there were, then this would be normative instead of God through His word. The only criterion that we can have for the canon must be God himself. All attempts to find criteria for canonicity have failed. The Scriptures emerge by the fourth century as a collection of thirty-nine and twenty-seven books. They are not made to stand but instead they "stand on their own two feet."

2) We must view the developments up to the fourth century as unfolding the plan of God. Canon is the historical phenomena by which God asserts himself as the ultimate and autonomous standard of truth and life for fallen man who stands in need of a redemptive revelation from God in words.

3) It is God in Christ who determined which inspired books would finally be collected into the canon for the present age. God's self-revelation is placed within the stream of history and God is at work there in a stage by stage way. It is by His providence that He brought the church to the recognition of the twenty-seven books of the NT. We cannot establish a determinative basis by which certain books were left out and others brought in. Apostolic authorship does not work because an apostle is not the author of each book of the NT. Inspiration does not qualify because there are inspired books left out (as there is more authoritative oral testimony than what is preserved in writing so there is more authoritative written testimony than what is preserved in the canon). Church tradition does not qualify since the church has made mistakes along the way in the process of recognition of the canon (cf. Hebrews versus Shepherd of Hermas). Despite the particular failures of the church, which show the fallibility of church tradition, the church came to the recognition of the precise books of the NT canon by the work of Christ from heaven.

The bottom line

Thus, our question includes the fallibility of church tradition: given the failures of the post-apostolic church and our inability to find any historical basis that is determinative of the canon, what assures us that we have what we should have? We should connect the canon to God's self-attestation (it is His word giving His self-revelation). We should also connect it with the apostolate as his authorized foundation in accord with the promise of Christ. Based on these connections, it is inconceivable that the Lord has failed to give the church a full and complete foundation for these centuries since the time of Christ. The church must have exactly what God intended as her foundation. She has all that He has to say to her in the time between the advents of Christ. The church has all that is needed for faith and life in the twenty-seven books of the NT collected together with the thirty-nine books of the OT. This is her foundation and upon this massive rock she rests secure.

Applications

1) We might wish that we had access to the larger tradition or to the larger body of inspired texts. It may be thought, perhaps, that such access would remove many if not all of the thorny differences of theology that divide Christians. Maybe we would get resolution to the Calvinism/Arminianism debate or to the millennium debate. Perhaps, some questions that we ask today and have great difficulty answering were asked and answered in the exchanges of oral tradition.

However, in the very nature of the case we do not have direct access to all the details of the apostolic tradition. That tradition is a larger circle than inspired writing and inspired writing is a larger circle than the canon by the providential working of our risen Lord.

But the canon is apostolic tradition and it is inspired writing. Resting on the promise of Christ, we have direct access to all that is essential for faith and practice. It is a matter of His sovereign rule as Sabbath king to determine the exact nature of the foundation for the church for the ages. After listing the sixty-six books of Scripture as "the word of God written," the Westminster Confession goes on to say that "All …are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life" (Chap. 1, sec. 2). Thus, "all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life" is given to us by God in Scripture (1, sec. 6).

2) This is a call to study the Scriptures. It is a call to read both the OT and the NT. On the authority and promise of Christ we are to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God as we have it in the 39 books of the OT and the 27 books of the NT. The church did not give us the canon for it has come to us through a process including many mistakes on the part of the church. Jesus gave us the canon. In honor to the Lord Jesus, we are to be people of the Book and of the whole Book.

Since we typically fail to read the OT, I have a suggestion of a practical nature that can help in this regard. Some time after we end the Edwards Sunday afternoon readings, I would like to go through the OT book by book. I will give you a two to three page overview of each book at least a week ahead of time and we can all read and discuss (in many respects these overviews are digests of Dillard's Introduction to the OT). This will be a way to read selectively and purposefully in the OT. We might do the same for the NT sometime down the road.

3) Why do we "keep on keeping on" in the endeavor of learning the Scriptures? It is to know God better through the blessing of the Spirit. This is the appointed means. It is to follow Paul's apologetical instruction to continue to live under the Lordship of Christ rooted and built up in Him (Col. 2:6). Reading here and meditating there extends our knowledge of God's word. This is like a plant that puts down a root here and one there while a branch goes up one here and one there. Eventually, there is a virtual tree below the ground made up of large limbs and numerous branches trailing off smaller and smaller in size. We can stand tall when we continue to root ourselves in the Lordship of Christ by penetrating deeper and deeper into "the faith" (Col. 2:7) given to us in the Scriptures of the OT thirty-nine books and NT twenty-seven books.