The Significance of the Canon of Scripture
I am preparing to write a paper on the canonization of Scripture. I want to deal with the method of canonization, but most importantly, I think, I want to deal with the meaning of the canon of Scripture. That is to say, what does the canon of scripture mean for my life?In my studies I have come across a puzzling phenomenon among some Christians, and I want to hear your thoughts on the matter. Perhaps this will aid me in achieving my intended goal of receiving an A on the paper, a job well done.
It is interesting to me that when we discuss events in Bible history (like the Creation of the universe, or the calling of Abraham, or the Exodus of the Israelites, or the coming of the Messiah, or the death and resurrection of the Messiah, or the supernatural works of the apostles and the beginning of the church), we think of these events as real events which took place in real time. However, when we discuss these events, often times we look beyond the event itself and we look to its significance in God’s overall plan of redemption. For instance, when we discuss the Exodus we tend to focus, rightly, I think, on the significance of that event rather than the fact of that event. That the Passover lamb represents the Messiah, and the Exodus itself represented God’s redemption of mankind from sin (this is not to say that the fact of the event is not important).
However, when we discuss the canonization of Scripture we talk about it as an event, a rather long event, in history, but we never take the time to look at its significance in God’s overall plan of redemption. We think that it merely contains a record of God’s plan of redemption, but we never think that it is part of the plan itself. That God, in His sovereignty, by the Holy Spirit through His chosen people, rightly assembled and preserved those writings which are His intended and complete revelation to mankind. This has a huge impact, I think, on God’s overall plan of redemption and should not merely be examined as a historical event.
Often time’s people question the canon and wonder if the canon of Scripture that we now possess contains the books that rightly belong in it. I think that this is a failure to trust in the faithfulness of God, and a failure to see how the canon of Scripture rightly fits (i.e. is part of) into God’s overall and complete plan of redemption. Furthermore, if God is faithful to lead His people out of bondage would He not be faithful in making sure that His people have all of His words which He intended them to have? What if God missed some writings? Is it right to assume that this same God would allow His people to miss some of His intended words for over 2,000 years?
Just some preliminary thoughts…what do you think?
posted by Anonymous | 8:29 AM
5 Comments:
Aaron,
You raise several issues that are interesting to bat around. For tonight, I'll restrict my comments to one of them. I've been dividing my time between the NBA finals (I guess you'd say the Mavs are “our team” since Big D is just up the road from us) and editing the raw recordings of four brave men singing two psalms to six different chants in four part harmony. I'm not sure which world of sensory experience is the real one right now. Hopefully this won't sound like a missive from Lala Land.
You ask, “... if God is faithful to lead His people out of bondage would He not be faithful in making sure that His people have all of His words which He intended them to have?”
A question prior to this one is the relationship of Scripture to revelation. They are not coextensive. John, for example, notes that Jesus did (and, without doubt, said) many things which were never written down. Yet, every time Jesus spoke, fresh revelation was being given, so long as we understand revelation to be knowledge from God to his people.
So, Scripture is that thing which preserves some of God's revelation for those who do not receive it directly, as Israel did at Mount Sinai, for example. It would appear that not all revelation is preserved in Scripture. Or, perhaps, most revelation is not preserved in Scripture. There is Paul's letter to the Laodecians, for example (Col. 4:16). We do not have it. Or the Book of Jasher. I don't know for sure about Jasher, but from one of Paul's comments, I'd have to say that the Epistle to the Laodecians was Scripture (cf. 1 Cor. 14:37). But, it has passed out of our hands.
Can we conceive that Scripture which was necessary for us to have has, nevertheless, passed out of history? Asking the question this way suggests “no” for an answer, if we rely on God's goodness and sovereign providence in history. But, then, over such a span of time, do we know of situations where Scripture, having passed out of history for a time, was restored to it?
I can think of two such occurances.
The first such event relates to the very first Scripture, namely the Ten Commandments. As revelation, they enter history audibly as Israel is gathered around the foot of Sinai. The become Scripture when God writes on the Stone Table that Moses brings down the mountain.
Of course, you know what happened to them. The first Scripture – note, carefully here, the only copy in existence – is smashed by Moses. Scripture into history and out of history within the span of an hour or so. And, you know what God did about this: he created a new copy, in stone no less.
The next time something like this happened was when Jeremiah dictated an oracle against Judah to Baruch. The scroll Baruch created eventually came into Jehoiakim's hands, who cut it in pieces and burned it in his fireplace as it was read (read the whole interesting episode in Jeremiah 36). Again, God commanded Jeremiah to create a second scroll.
There was one other occasion where Scripture was unavailable for a long period, but came to light during the reign of king Josiah (cf. 2 King 22). I don't consider this situation precisely parallel to the previous two, because in this case Scripture was not actually destroyed.
What to conclude (if anything) from this? It would seem in the case of the Ten Commandments and the scroll Jehoiakim destroyed that God was not willing that the inscripturated revelation they preserved should be lost. And, so he caused both of them to be replaced. Evidently, he did not do so with the Book of Jasher (which we don't know for sure was Scripture anyway) or with Paul's letter to the Laodecians (which would certainly have been Scripture).
So, on the basis of the above, I'd answer the question you posed with a “yes.”
bq
To follow a rabbit trail for a second:
What do you think about EPhesians being the lost Letter to the Laodecians?
When I was lecturing in a Bible College in a foreign land where there were no tigers, but significant other fearfully dreadful beasts, from mosquitoes to cassowaries, I gave my mostly semi-literate students a test.
I asked them to pair off, and gave the left half of the pair a piece of paper with words written on it. I asked the sinister students to convey the message on the piece of paper to the dexter students. But there were rules.
1. No talking
2. No showing
Each sinister student had a phrase from the prologue to John on his/her scrap of paper.
There was much gesticulating, and not a little grimacing, eyebrow raising and lowering -- and I suspect a little tooth gnashing among the weeping and wailing -- as good Christian brethren (whose grandfathers had eaten missionaries) struggled to relate "and the Word was God" without speaking.
All good things come to an end, though, and I, the great white hope, showed them how I would pass the message on. I selected a dexter student at random and beckoned him to follow me to the blackboard, where, with chalk, I wrote, "and the Word was God", and mentioned to him to regard the words.
I then said to them, "and that's why God gave us the Bible".
Of course I haven't really addressed the issue, I just think it's a darn good story about one of the few times I did something that my students actually remembered.
Dear Anonymous,
I apologize for tardiness in responding to your question. I've conducted a seminar on men at worship this past weekend, and I've been exclusively focused on that.
As to Ephesians being the "lost" letter to the Laodiceans ...
I'm not sure why that (or a couple of other explanations for Paul's reference here) would even arise, except to escape the fact that some work of Scripture had passed out of history. But, there can be no dispute that what we call 1 and 2 Corinthians are actually 2 and 3 Corinthians! (cf. 1 Cor. 5:9).
Again, John insists that what he preserved in his gospel is a mere sliver of what could have been preserved. Clearly, at some times in history, there was more revelation available to those living than there is now. So, what, exactly, is the problem with acknowledging that at some times in history, there was more Scripture than there is presently?
The problem, as I see it, boils down to this: the fear that what we know to be missing Scripture would materially alter our understanding of the Scripture we do retain. As a t heoretical issue, it is worth considering. As a practical issue, it is near to irrelevant as far as the pastoral practice of centuries will show.
Consider ... what if the entirety of the Old Testament were to pass from history? Fromm one perspective, this would be an incalculable loss. It would render much of the New Testament murky and obscure. On the other hand, the utter absence of the Old Testament is the practical state of affairs for generations of pastors whose ministries are taken from the New Testament alone, with virtually no recourse to the Old Testament context.
bq
" If, of course, you are ok with this?"
Well, of course I'm okay with it! It is so obvious a point that I think it would appear pedantic, even silly, for you to credit it. If your prof has never heard of what amounts to NT-Only Christianity, ... well, he's hopeless. But, I don't think you'd be so hopeless as to enroll in such a course.
So, go for it. And, don't credit me. From the perspective of most modern evangelicals, I'm so far off the reservation that to cite me would be to discredit the idea!
When you get around to gelling your ideas on canonicity -- distinguishing the concept from revelation and Scripture -- I'm interested to hear how you formulate the issues and their answers.
bq
Post a Comment
<< Home