Is the Bible complete? Does our Bible contain all of the religious writings that it should? Are there yet other writings that existed during and immediately after Christ that should be a part of our Bible. Let us examine these possibilities.
After almost 2000 years of church history how can Christians be sure that they have the right Bible? Can we indeed be absolutely certain that we have exactly the right books in the Bible — no more and no less? As our standard of faith and practice can we confidently appeal to the canon of Scripture as a collection of authoritative writings to which nothing can be added and from which nothing can be taken away? What if archaeology uncovered an ancient epistle of Paul or another apostolic writer? Could such a hitherto lost document be added to the canon? While we may dismiss such a question as hypothetical, there are similar questions which are only too painfully relevant in the life of the church today. Can God speak authoritatively today, and if so should such revelation be regarded as on a par with Scripture — or perhaps even be added to Scripture? In other words, is the canon closed? Moreover, whence do we have the information about which books are canonical?
These are some of the urgent questions to which a thoughtful consideration of this topic will inevitably lead. They are not only issues of abiding theological interest, but can at times also be matters of apologetic importance and even of pressing pastoral concern. Here we touch upon the very basis of our Christian faith and life, and it is vital that these foundations be secure. But how can this be established? How can we espouse a view of Scripture which cannot be proved from Scripture itself?
This immediately raises an important question. Whence is this normativity derived? What is its basis? These questions are far more difficult for the New Testament than for the Old. In the case of the Old Testament it can be convincingly demonstrated that Jesus placed his infallible seal of approval upon the canon as we now have it (Lk.24:25-27,44-45). His reference to "the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms" reflects the traditional threefold division of the Hebrew canon. On this point there was no quarrel between him and the Pharisees. While the "closedness" of the Old Testament canon at the time of Jesus has become the subject of recent theological debate, 4 it is fair to say that the traditional position has been challenged, but not shaken. Jesus and his Jewish contemporaries agreed on the limits of the Old Testament canon. In the nature of the case such a statement of divine approval is impossible for the New Testament. We have no post hoc pronouncement from Christ to the effect that these 27 books, and these only, are authoritative, inspired and canonical. So how do we proceed? On what basis do we define the canon? On what or whose authority can it be established? How can we rest assured that the right books have been included?
There are literally hundreds of what could be called religious writings in existence, but were not included in our Bible for some reason. Throughout the years certain men have determined which books were included in the canon of scripture and which books were not. Even today when reference is made to the Bible, we could ask, which Bible are you talking about? There are many Bibles used by different faiths that contain an assortment of books not included in others.
Some of the most notable and familiar of these writings are: the Gospels of Thomas, Judas, Peter, Mary Magdalene and Philip, which contain some very interesting information about the Lord Jesus and the early first century church. Although for some predetermined reason one of many groups of theologians has determined to not include these and other books in the canon of scripture.
If the question is asked as to what qualified certain books to be a part of the Bible, you would get many different answers according to whom you asked. Some would say that the authors of some New Testament books had to be an Apostle or someone closely associated with one of the Apostles. If this was a criterion, then why were the books of Thomas, Judas, Peter, Mary or Philip not included? How much closer to be associated with Jesus can you get as they were? It appears that it could have been up to the decision makers as to whether they believed what was presented in these other books which determined their acceptability or not.
As to the canon of the Old Testament collection of books, there has also existed several other books which did not become a part of the canon, but have been referenced to by those who authored the accepted writings. These books which were referenced to may very well have become lost over the generations rather than have been rejected by those who chose the accepted ones. The Old Testament authors made reference to such writings as the books of Jasher, Nathan the Prophet, Shemaiah, and Jehu.
In our New Testament canon, or collection of accepted books, mention is made of the Book of Enoch, which one would think could have become part of the Old Testament canon, but for some unknown reason was not included. Another example is with the Authorized King James Version of the Bible. When this version was written there were fourteen other books that were a part of our Bible. These are know as the Apocrypha and after the King James Version was written, these books were removed because one organized religious zealot group was against them being a part of the Bible.
For the most part the canon of accepted books included in the New Testament continues to be recognized as closed with the majority of Churches. Even so, because of the belief of a continuing revelation of God’s Word, accepting the notion that God continues to reveal new things to His Church, there are some religious groups that remain open to accepting these new revelations and including them in the established bible.
Organized religion has always been a detriment to understanding and receiving all of the truth that God would have us to receive. From the time of the genesis of Christianity to this present day, man has prevented the work that God would have us to do and man’s organized religion has taken it upon itself to determine what is or is not God’s will by making decisions on which books are inspired and spiritual and teaching their own interpretation of scripture to develop doctrine for God’s people to believe. Man has hindered the relationship that should exist between God and His people because of the decisions they have made, instead of it being what God said it would be like under the New Covenant.
The scripture teaches us that God has made a New Covenant with His people and under that New Covenant we will each have a personal relationship with Him. God’s New Covenant is stated in the scripture as follows:
‘For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.’
This promise of God was not just for the house of Israel, but for all believers. For the scripture has said: “For through him (Jesus) we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;”
This is the personal relationship that we should have with our God. Because of the interference that man has made between our God and us as individuals saying that only man can teach us, the relationship that we should have with God has been blocked and we allow ourselves to be taught by man instead of God. Again organized religion impedes our knowledge of God by teaching the doctrines of man, instead of allowing God to teach us.
As individuals we must go back to the Bible, back to the original scriptural truths that were set forth in the beginning.
No comments:
Post a Comment