How do we know which books comprise the Old Testament?

The following letter is a response to a great question I received recently. If the author gives me permission, I'll reprint his note here. Until then, here's my response on his question about whether the canon of the Old Testament is established upon Church teaching authority, or on the basis that the Jews received it and discerned it before the birth of Jesus...

_________________________


Hi, M,

Thank You for Your thoughtful letter! You raised a really interesting question. Here are a few thoughts in response…

Let me try to summarize Your line of thinking: The Church has authority to identify the canon of the New Testament, which God entrusted to the Church. But God entrusted the Old Testament to the Jews, and with it the authority to distinguish its canon. Therefore we must look to the Jews for a definition of the Old Testament canon. In this note, I’ll refer to this idea as the “Jewish canon theory”.

At first glance the theory certainly does make some sense. But let’s see whether some of its implications make sense.

If God gave the Church authority to discern the canon of the New Testament, it is because He gave the Church the mission and authority to interpret its contents. After all, You can’t reliably interpret a document if You’re unsure of the text it contains. Christians have differences of opinion on how the authority to interpret that text ultimately is exercised. Some will say that the individual believer, guided by the Holy Spirit, is his own final authority in interpreting Scripture. Others say they recognize yet another level of higher authority: the bishops and pope, guided by the Holy Spirit. But in any case, most if not all Christians agree that God gave the Church authority to interpret the New Testament, and that this implies the Church also has the power to declare which books authentically belong in the New Testament.

This authority to interpret the New Testament is necessary for the Church to carry out her mission to proclaim accurately what God has revealed. But God has revealed Himself not only through the New Testament but also the Old. For example, to preach about Christ, the Church must be able to preach about the Law and the Prophets. It must be able to interpret the Ten Commandments; the significance of circumcision and the Sabbath and how they apply to our lives today; and much more. If the Church lacks this power to interpret and preach the Old Testament, it can not have the ability to interpret and preach the New.

If it lacks this authority to interpret the Old, then the Church has only two plausible alternatives: to claim that nobody at all can interpret the Old Testament; or, to accept as definitive Jewish tradition, which offers guidance on the canon but also denies that Jesus is the Christ. Neither of these options really is plausible, as they both imply the Church –and all Christians- are ultimately unable to interpret the revelation of God, and unable to know or claim that Jesus is the Messiah.

But according to the argument You suggested, M… what if we say that the Church DOES have the authority to interpret the Old Testament, but that its canon –its list of constituent books- depend not on Church authority, but on the fact that the canon was determined prior to the foundation of the Church? That would recognize that Christians have authority to interpret all of Scripture, without having to depend on the Church to tell us which books belong to the Old Testament canon. Well, that only takes us full circle to the beginning of the discussion, and there’s no sense repeating the same things said above. In a nutshell, if the Church has authority to interpret Scripture, it must have the authority to determine the canon of Scripture: all of Scripture. It’s all or nothing.

Besides, there are other thorny problems posed by the “Jewish canon” theory. Here are a few examples:

The theory relies on Your claim that the “Canon of the OT was settled in Jesus' day already”. Yet it wasn’t. In around the year 95 A.D., a rabbinical synod convened at Jamnia in an attempt to definitively clarify the canon of the Jewish Scriptures. The rabbis were deeply concerned that Christians were using various New and Old Testament scriptures to defend and promote their belief in Jesus Christ. Many Christians and Palestinian Jews at the time were widely using the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, which had been in circulation for more than a century before Jesus was born. This translation included some writings that prompted controversy among the rabbis partly because of their use by early Christian apologists, and partly because of disputes about the language, time, or place of origin of the writings. The rabbis at Jamnia adopted certain criteria for determining the canonicity of the Scriptures, including these requirements:

1) conformance to the Pentateuch;
2) authorship no later than the time of Esdras;
3) language must be Hebrew;
4) place of composition must be Palestine.

As You can see, these criteria are arguably arbitrary, and in any case depend on the authority of Jewish teachers who were reacting to the perceived threat of a spreading Christianity, and rest on the presumption that there in fact is no “New Testament”. Historical evidence clearly shows, in fact:

• there was no universal agreement on the Old Testament canon at the time Jesus founded His Church;
  
• the Septuagint contains all the Old Testament texts that have always been recognized as canonical by the Catholic Church;
  
• the “Jamnia criteria” for determining the canonicity of Scripture doesn’t exclude only the deuterocanonical books recognized by the Catholic Church. It also excludes the entire New Testament! The Jewish teaching on the canon deliberately excludes the New Testament.
  
• You mentioned Josephus. Did You know that he “ascribed divine inspiration to the Jewish translators” of the Septuagint? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint).
  
• Did You know that approximately two-thirds of the New Testament’s quotations from the Old Testament come from the Septuagint, and that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint? (http://www.scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html)

M, my friend, You have to consider whether, in the age of the Church, You as a Christian can attribute binding teaching authority to Jewish doctrine on the canon when that doctrine is at odds with Christian doctrine. If Jesus gave to Peter and his successors the absolute power to “bind and loose”, how can the Jews possibly have retained authority over the canon of Scripture? I do not mean to minimize in any way the teaching authority the Jews had prior to the Church. But with the founding of the Church that authority has passed into different hands.

Even in our time, there is not universal agreement among Christians on the canon of Scripture. Ultimately, You have to take someone’s word for it, because God did not directly reveal what the canon includes. From my point of view, the Catholic teaching on the canon is the most trustworthy, largely because it has not changed for 20 centuries, and because the Church has been unwavering in its claim that it received from Jesus through the apostles the authority to make that determination. Who are You going to believe?

I’d welcome Your thoughts on this!

God bless You!

Cheers,
John Robin.

The Catholic Church's "big lie"

I just received a challenging email:

Dear John.
Allow me to express my thoughts about the Catholic Church's claim to be the one founded by Jesus Christ.  I would say, it is a big lie.  If it is the one founded by Jesus Christ, then why so many of them (priests, bishops, cardinals) from the middle ages to now did not live their lives according to Jesus Christ's teachings or of the lives of the Apostles. I don't have to mention the details because its very obvious. Just look around. I don't need to cite scriptures to to prove what l am saying because its very obvious. Thank you. God bless.
C-

Here's my reply...

Hi, C,
Thank You for writing to me with Your question. It’s a very good question and I’ll try to provide some answer.

It seems to me that essentially You are asking why there are sinners in the Church. You are implying that if Jesus founded a church, its members would be holy; they would live according to Jesus Christ’s teachings; they would not sin. And if we find a church whose history has many examples among its members and leaders who sinned badly, certainly that is evidence that this church was not founded by Jesus. Right?

Well, no, actually. Look at the first apostles. James, John –and their mother- wanted special places of honor above the others in Jesus’ kingdom (Matthew 20:21). Peter denied Jesus three times. Judas stole money from Jesus and the others, and later betrayed Jesus. At Jesus’ arrest all the apostles (except John) ran away. Peter acted hypocritically toward the Jews and gentiles and received the rebuke of Paul. You can be sure there were many other sad failings among the apostles and other disciples that were not recorded in the Gospels. And the other New Testament writings are full of evidence that the early Christians were sinners who struggled with divisions, factions, controversies, and scandals. Not just among the apostles and priests, but among the lay members as well. Are these facts proof that Jesus did not found a Church, or that His Church was ruined by sin? Did Jesus' plan to build a Church ultimately fail?

No. To think so is to misunderstand the Church Jesus founded. The Church has the Son of God as its head and cornerstone, but very human apostles as its foundation. Its walls are built of living stones which are very much redeemed sinners still struggling to imitate Christ despite many failings. It has the Holy Spirit to guide its members on their path through life, but has human members who have not lost their ability to sin. Christ is the vine, and we are the branches, but we branches have the ability to choose to do God’s will, or to turn away and prefer our own will.

You mention the sinfulness of bishops and cardinals. But what about Your own sinfulness, and mine? Has Your life been blameless? Mine has not.

C, if You believe that “true” Christians don’t sin, then You don’t know Your Bible any better than You know human nature. If You believe there is a church –perhaps Your own- that has as its leaders and members people who never sin, then I will use Your own words: “it is a big lie”. The possibility of sin will not be completely erased from the lives of the saved until all the saved have been gathered into Heaven.

Until then we remain at war. The Holy Spirit equips us to do battle against temptations to turn away from the will of God. With God’s help it is very possible to resist sin, and to grow stronger so that we can live more and more holy lives. But in this life we always have the possibility of rejecting God, and Christians sometimes fall into sin. When we see a fellow believer stumble and fall into sin, it is a terrible thing… just as when it happens in our own lives. But it does not mean that we are not believers, or that we are not members of Jesus’ Church.

C, the Church is like a hospital, a hospital for sinners. The hospital does not kick out patients (or the doctors) because they are sick, or because they fall ill more than once. The fact that they are sick does not prove that the hospital is not a hospital.

So, C my friend, I say to You that You are using the wrong measuring stick to identify the Church. You won’t find the Church Jesus founded by searching for a church with no sinners. You will find it by asking God to help You find it, and then by studying what the Bible teaches about the Church. There are several simple things the Bible clearly teaches about the Church:
1) It is One. Jesus found a Church, and He didn’t found two, three, or ten thousand of them. He founded one.
2) It is holy. It contains everything that we need to grow in holiness: holy teachings; the holy sacraments; holy fellowship; the example of countless thousands of saints –a “great cloud of witnesses”- whose lives reflect the light of Christ and inspire us to imitate Him. It not only helps people become holy, it in fact does produce many people who achieve great holiness.
3) It is “catholic”, meaning universal. It is a church for the whole world, for all peoples and times. It is a reflection and foretaste of Heaven, where all Christ’s followers are united in one faith, one Lord, one baptism.
4) It is apostolic. It was founded upon apostles personally selected by Jesus, and who had the authority to pick other men to share that role with them and after them. For the past twenty centuries that apostolic authority has continued among those who have received it from the apostles and their successors. Nothing in the Bible indicates that this apostolic foundation was ever to be abandoned.

The Catholic Church has the four key characteristics. Does Yours?

Finally, I think it's dangerous to pass judgement on the hearts of other persons, especially Christians who lived many centuries ago. People we might be tempted to think were really big sinners might have lived lives more pleasing to God than our own. Humility and a healthy respect for God's justice should make us guard against passing negative judgement on others.

C, I would love to hear Your thoughts about these important things!

Thank You again for writing to me.

God bless You,

John Robin.

Getting it right

Hi, Ian!

You wrote,

hi John,
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I'm not a student of theology and am not able to interpret why you feel that what is written here is evidence of apostolic authority. This directive seems kind of harsh and the date suggests it is the word of men

The Creed of the Council of Toledo, A.D. 400, 447: (14)
"The rule of the Catholic faith against all heresies...
12. If anyone either believes that any scriptures, except those which the Catholic Church has received, ought to be held in authority or venerates them, let him be anathema."

We all believe in the same new testament and it changed everything, so why then is there this strife, why does the Holy Spirit dwell in people of all denominations, how does someone like Heidi Baker do miracles, by the glory of God which is working though her. Her ministry is non-denominational. I suggest that it's not what church you go to, that's not it at all, but how you well you follow Jesus's instructions about humbling yourself etc..so that Christ dwells in you, Ep 3:17 I started my walk with God just over a year ago and am a bit disappointed that more believer's aren't tuned into what God says we can do, Mark 16 : 17 & 18 or John 14: 13 & 14 according to the word, we should really be able to make a big difference. We need more of the kind of teaching about what we can do if we get it right [emphasis added]

-Ian K., letter of June 24, 2010 (reprinted with permission)

Ian, congratulations to You for just recently starting to walk with God!  That's wonderful and exciting, and with God's grace You'll continue to grow in faith, hope and love, persevering to the end. 

You're right to say that the Holy Spirit moves in the hearts of Christians in many denominations. But there's more to it.  If we want to gain everything the Spirit has to offer, we need to cooperate.  If God offers us many of His gifts through the ministry of the Church He founded, can we expect to receive them all if we are not united to His Church? You can't be truly united to Jesus without being united to His Church. Pride might try to seduce us into doing it all on our own, but don't be fooled! Jesus knew what He was doing when He founded His Church, and it's for our blessing.

If You had to go on a dangerous combat mission You would want to be trained, equipped, and accompanied by the best military officers.  You'd want to survive Your mission.  You'd want to have every possible advantage, and You'd want to get it right.

The Christian life is no less important!  It's dangerous because we still have defects and easily fall into sin.  Living by faith does not mean "winging it" without the many helps the Holy Spirit provides through the Church.  Does God provide graces and assistance to Christians who belong to many denominations?  Certainly.  But does He provide ALL His assistance in this manner?  No.

Living by faith is both a spiritual and a practical matter.  We must trust God, but we must trust Him enough to do what He says and unite ourselves to His Church.  There we find the 'big guns' of the spiritual life: the Sacraments which Jesus instituted, fellowship, apostolic teaching, and many other blessings too.  It simply makes sense to equip ourselves with the best that God offers us. It's not enough just to do good works. We need to be securely founded on the truth which Jesus entrusted to the apostles.

This is how we can really get it right.


Now, a response to Your quotation from the Council of Toledo... You raise two objections against it.

• First: You say it sounds "harsh", but I say it's merely an uncompromising statement about which writings belong in the Bible. It's very similar to Paul's statement to the Galatians to safeguard the preaching they had received from apostolic sources:
  
  

  "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed."

  Galatians 1:8 RSV

  
  Is Paul's statement harsh? Perhaps. But we should be more concerned with whether it's true, and whether it applies to us. There are lots of statements in Scripture which may seem a little harsh. The apostles sometimes used pretty tough talk, and Christians today probably need a bit of that, just like in the first century. Shouldn't the Church proclaim the truth with whatever words best fit the situation?
• Second: You imply that since the Creed of the Council of Toledo occurred in the fifth century A.D. that therefore its teachings are "the word of men".
  
  I dealt with this issue in my previous letter, and I don't want to waste Your time by repeating my explanation in detail. But in a nutshell, Scripture teaches clearly that the apostles' legitimate successors today have the same authority to teach that the apostles had in the first century. When they do so they are not teaching the "words of men" but the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If we reject them we reject Christ.

You said You're "not a student of theology", and didn't respond to my biblical defense of the importance of the Church. But You're a Christian now, and Christians have to be committed to following the Gospel truth wherever it leads. Call it theology if You want, but it's really just the Good News of Jesus Christ.  And Scripture shows that if we want the fullness of that Gospel truth, our best option is faithful unity with the apostles and their successors.  

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."

2 Thessalonians 2:15 RSV

Arguing that we don't need the apostles or Church -"the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15)- is like telling God that we don't need exactly what He has revealed we do need.

The truth about this is too important to gloss over. As a Christian You have a right to know the truth, and a duty to respond to it.

Ian, good talking with You! I hope You'll write back with Your thoughts.

Cheers,
John Robin.

Is the Bible the pillar of truth?

Yesterday I received a letter from a fellow who’s got some pointed questions (and misgivings) about the Catholic Church. Below I take up one of Ian K's issues, and hope we'll have an opportunity to discuss them all… (I'm reprinting Ian's name and most of his letter with his kind permission.)
______________________

hi- the pope claims that the only true church is catholic. How can a statement like this be made? I belong to a non-denominational church who's only doctrine is what is written in the bible. The catholic church clearly worship idols, all the statues of different saints or the virgin Mary, who was only a woman not a deity. The catholics are responsible for more negative PR than the devil. How come you could only eat fish on Fridays and then suddenly it becomes ok to eat meat. I have yet to come across either in the scriptures. This however, is only a small point but it shows the catholic doctrines are from man and not from the word of God. You say yourselves "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" -Mark 2:7 RSV yet confess to priests and they forgive you. That alone should be the end of the discussion. But there's so much more. What's with all the priests getting away with pedophilia and the many examples of the churches being a huge, magnificent structure in the middle of a slum. This is missing the whole point (wasn't it share the wealth?) and, at the same time, driving people away from God...

-Ian K., letter of June 5, 2010

______________________


Hi, Ian, nice to hear from You. You’ve got lots of good questions, but too many to try answer all at once. I’d like to try to focus on one point at a time, and then see where it takes us, okay?

What does the Bible say about it?

Perhaps the most basic issue You raise is about where Christian doctrine comes from. You wrote,

“I belong to a non-denominational church who's only doctrine is what is written in the bible.”

Well, You’ve got lots of fellow Protestants who likewise believe that Scripture and Scripture alone is the sole rule of faith and morals. You probably know that this doctrine is called sola scriptura, and of course it’s one of the pillars of Protestantism.

However sola scriptura is not taught by Scripture. It’s not even compatible with Scripture. In fact, Scripture teaches against it clearly, repeatedly, and emphatically. Yet many people believe the doctrine because, well, they love Scripture as the inspired Word of God (which of course it is), they’ve been taught by their family or their church to accept this doctrine, and they assume it's true.

But if we love Scripture, we must love the truth and desire to know more clearly whether Scripture really teaches what we've been told it does. So what does the Bible say about it?

Scripture does not teach that Jesus delivered His saving message by simply dropping a book from the clouds and leaving us to figure it out on our own. Instead, He picked disciples and personally taught them His message through words, deeds, miracles... His whole life, death and resurrection. He appointed some of them to be apostles with the mission to carry His message to the ends of the earth. He gave them the protection of the Holy Spirit to guard the purity of the message. And He gave Peter, and the others in union with him, the authority to interpret it definitively and preach it without error.

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

-Matthew 16:18-19 RSV

"He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

-Luke 10:16 RSV

And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

-Matthew 28:18-20 RSV

This apostolic ministry is at the very foundation of the Church Jesus founded, and it’s something the Church can’t do without in the twenty-first century any more than it could in the first century. That’s why from the very beginning the apostles used their authority to appoint other men to share in their apostolic ministry. In the book of Acts we see Matthias appointed the first successor to the apostolic ministry. (cf. Acts 1:15-26)

No other foundation

"And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."

-Revelation 21:14 RSV

"You form a building which rises on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone."

-Ephesians 2:20 RSV

"...and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house..."

-1 Peter 2 RSV

This is the way Jesus built His Church: He’s the cornerstone; His apostles are the foundation; we are the living stones which are built upon that foundation. We're not free to change the way Jesus built His Church. In any case, can the bricks of a building remain secure if they leave their foundation?

So Scripture describes the Church as a "spiritual house", a building with a permanent cornerstone, a permanent foundation, and living stones connected to each other and united to Christ through that foundation.

Where's the Gospel?

Now, it wasn't until years after Jesus ascended to Heaven –even decades later, in some cases- that some of these men wrote the books of the New Testament under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Where was the Gospel to be found during these years before the New Testament ever existed? How was it preserved, interpreted, and taught before any of it was written down? The same way that Jesus delivered it: through the oral preaching and living example of the apostles and their successors. And did the apostles stop their preaching once the books of the New Testament were completed? Of course not. They wrote these books to supplement and reinforce their ongoing teaching, not to replace it.

“But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder...”

-Romans 15:15

The apostolic preaching continued, carried on through the centuries by those appointed by the apostles and their successors.

The apostle’s writings are authoritative not because they are written, but because they are of apostolic authority. It is through apostolic authority that we know which books belong in the Bible, and it is through this same authority that we are helped to discover their authentic meaning.

From the hands of the apostles

My point is not to deny the importance of Scripture, but rather to insist that it’s of utmost importance to interpret and understand Scripture correctly, according to the mind of Jesus and His apostles. For this we must use the means that Jesus has provided His Church. And Jesus gave His Church apostles with the authority to interpret and teach. Should we study Scripture privately and prayerfully? Certainly. But always we must listen to the apostles and their successors and embrace their teaching. Scripture repeatedly warns us against accepting doctrines that contradict the apostolic tradition.

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."

-2 Thessalonians 2:15 RSV

"Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, by which you are saved, if you hold it fast -- unless you believed in vain."

-1 Corinthians 15:1-2 RSV

"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. --As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed."

-Galatians 1: 8-9 RSV

"And we [the apostles] have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,"

-2 Peter 1:19-20 RSV

If we cut ourselves off from the apostolic preaching, claiming that “we don’t need apostles because we have the Holy Spirit”, we delude ourselves.  The apostolic tradition is a most precious safeguard of the Gospel truth.  Separate ourselves from this, and we separate ourselves from God's appointed safeguards of the Gospel.

"There are some things in them [Paul's letters] hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures."

-2 Peter 3:16 RSV

Rejecting apostolic succession and the Church's teaching authority, Christian denominations have arisen, split over doctrinal disputes, multiplied, and split, again without ceasing. One need only browse the internet or the phone book to see the resulting disunity: tens of thousands of Christian churches with thousands of different creeds: a pathetic tower of Babel where the world needs to see one, shining city on a hill.

Standing on the pillar of truth

"And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers."

-Acts 2:42 RSV

The protection of the Holy Spirit which Christians enjoy has several forms, but primarily we receive it through remaining faithful to what we’ve received from the teachers God has sent us. But this does not permit us to pick teachers according to our own liking. Rather, the pattern of Scripture urges us to seek out those who truly have apostolic authority, those who, like Mathias, were picked and appointed by those who themselves received this authority.

Paul wrote that the Church is:

"...the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth."

-1 Timothy 3:15 RSV

It is this Church which Jesus gave the power to interpret and explain His message, and many gifts to help us live that message in a way pleasing to Him and helpful to our salvation and sanctification. If we wish to be united with Him, should we not seek direction from those whom He sent to guide us?

Again, according to Scripture, what is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth”? The Church. The Church is our guarantee of receiving the truth of the Bible intact. Doctrines which contradict what the Church teaches therefore contradict the apostolic preaching and should be rejected, no matter how pleasing they may sound.

Ian, most Christian churches deny that they have the apostolic authority I have described above. The Roman Catholic Church claims to have this authority, and this claim is supported by 2000 years of history showing an unbroken chain of apostolic succession.

Some Christians deny this history exists, deny that the apostolic ministry is a permanent part of the Church, deny even that it even existed past the first century. But to deny these things one must deny Scripture. And this we can’t and mustn’t do.

Ian, I propose to You that sola scriptura -the belief that all Christian doctrine should or could be based purely on Scripture- is actually a doctrine of men, not of God. It’s not a doctrine taught by Jesus in the 1st century, and it didn’t gain traction until it was promoted by certain European men in the 16th century. It’s a pillar of Protestantism, but it’s not a pillar of Scripture, and certainly not a pillar of truth.

So, Ian, I ask You: what do You think of the biblical fact of apostolic authority which I've tried to outline above? Do You agree that we should take it seriously?

Thank You for writing to me, Ian, and for Your great questions. Perhaps once we finish up with sola scriptura and apostolic authority we could talk about Your other questions.

Please do send Your thoughts!

Cheers,
John Robin.