The Old Testament Canon

Posted on by
Reply

“The Bible of the Jews is the exact same content material as that which we refer to as the Old Testament in our Protestant Bibles today, the only difference being the way in which the books are numbered and gathered (the 24 Jewish books correspond exactly to our 39). It is the same content Jesus affirmed.

The Apostle Paul, as a first century Jew, was entirely familiar with the books the Hebrews recognized as holy Scripture. Rather than suggesting that “Israel got the book contents mostly right” or “there were one or two books that should have been recognized but were not” – under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit he wrote in very clear terms, “the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.” (Rom 3:2). Studies of canonicity concerning both the Old and New Testaments, rather than filling our minds with doubt and skepticism actually do the opposite. We can have great assurance that the books we have in our Bibles are the exact ones that God in His sure, guiding providence, intended us to have.” – John Samson

WHAT BOOKS MADE UP THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON?

In an excerpt from an article in Credo Magazine entitled “How did we get the Old Testament” Paul G. Wegner writes:

It is sometimes difficult for us to realize that our Bible did not come to us as one book but rather as a collection of books written over about fifteen hundred years. These books are called the TaNaK, referring to Torah (Law), Nebi?im (Prophets), and Kethubim (Writings), and are divided as follows:

LAW (Torah)

Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy

PROPHETS (Nebi’im)

The Former Prophets: Joshua Judges Samuel Kings

The Latter Prophets: Isaiah Jeremiah Ezekiel The Book of the Twelve (Minor Prophets)

WRITINGS (Kethubim)

Poetic Books: Psalms Job Proverbs

Five Scrolls (Megilloth): Ruth Song of Solomon Ecclesiastes Lamentations Esther

Historical Books: Daniel Ezra-Nehemiah Chronicles

This three-fold division of the Old Testament can be traced as far back as the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus dated to about 132 B.C. When addressing his disciples, Jesus used similar terminology for the Old Testament: “Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44). The designation “Psalms” here most likely refers to the entire third section of the Old Testament since it is the first and largest book of that part.

The Jewish nation considered only thirty-nine books to be canonical (the Protestant canon reflects this as well).

The early Christian church, whose roots were in the Jewish nation, initially used the same canon (cf. Rom. 1:2) and read it in light of Christ’s coming. Indeed, New Testament writers quote from almost every Old Testament book. Jesus seemed clear about what constituted the Old Testament canon, stating in Luke 11:49- 51:

For this reason also the wisdom of God said, “I will send unto them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and some they will persecute, so that this generation may be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation” (cf. Matt. 23:34-36)

The Jewish nation will be held responsible for killing God’s prophets and rejecting their message. But Jesus puts a limit on the revelation for which they will be held responsible, namely from the blood of righteous Abel (Gen. 4) to the blood of Zechariah (2 Chron. 24). Notice that means he does not hold them responsible for revelation past 2 Chronicles which is the last book in the Hebrew Old Testament. Thus Jesus appears to hold to the same canon, even in the same order, as the Jewish nation.

Later the New Testament books were added to the Old Testament to constitute the Christian canon. Jesus recognized the authority of the Hebrew Old Testament and taught his disciples to reverence it. Jesus often condemned the teachings of the Jewish scribes and Pharisees, and used the Old Testament to point out errors in their teaching.

Paul D. Wegner (Ph.D. Kings College, University of London) is Professor of Old Testament Studies at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary. He is the author of The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible and A Student’s Guide to Textual Criticism: Its History, Methods, and Results

What do we know about the Coptic Church?

Posted on by
2

twenty-one Egyptian Christians were brutally beheaded by Muslim radicals working for the Islamic State in Lybia. The Coptic Orthodox Church announced yesterday that the twenty-one victims will be inserted into the Coptic Synaxarium (the Oriental Church’s official list of martyrs) and commemorated in the church calendar as martyrs and saints. Christians of every denominational and doctrinal stripe have expressed outrage, sadness, and a sense of unity with their fallen brethren.

Which leads to an important question: how should we view the Coptic Orthodox Church?

This isn’t a bad question, provided we approach it in the right way. Let’s set aside the issue of what the twenty-one martyrs understood about monophysitism. That’s not unimportant, but as far as I know the information is unattainable. Besides, what is most needed at this point is prayer for the persecuted church and sympathy for the suffering. Thinking about these men who died because of their allegiance to Christ, men who belonged to one of the oldest church communions in the world, and men who called upon Jesus as they were murdered on the beach—trying to determine whether these men were actually Christians seems like remarkably poor form.

And yet, perhaps now is an appropriate time to consider more broadly and think more carefully about why some consider the Coptic Orthodox Church to be, well, unorthodox. While participating in a panel discussion at Ligonier last week, one of the first questions we were asked was about the twenty-one Coptic martyrs and the heresy of monophysitism (yes, it’s that kind of conference). So let’s step back and try to understand the history and theology behind what may be the oldest (formal) split in the church.

Two Natures, Without Division

To tell the story properly, we have to start with a man by the name of Nestorius. Nestorius was born sometime after 351 and died sometime before 451. He was the patriarch of Constantinople. His teaching was condemned by the third ecumenical council at Ephesus in 431. It’s unclear whether Nestorius was actually a Nestorian. What is clear is that Nestorius was not very careful in his theology and did not acquit himself very well when he was put on the spot to defend his views. Continue reading →

Concerning Theonomy

Posted on by
5

LondonBaptistCFThe 1689 London Baptist Confession sets forth a three-fold division of the Law

Moral

19.2. The same Law that was first written in the heart of man, (Rom. 2:14-15) continued to be a perfect rule of Righteousness after the fall; & was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in (Deut. 10.4) Ten Commandments and written in two Tables; the four first containing our duty towards God, and the other six our duty to man.

19.5. The moral Law doth for ever bind all, (Rom. 13:8-10; James 2:8, 10-12) as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof, and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the (James 2:10-11) authority of God the Creator; who gave it: Neither doth Christ in the Gospel any way dissolve, (Matt. 5:17-19; Rom. 3:31) but much strengthen this obligation.

Ceremonial

19.3. Besides this Law commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel Ceremonial Laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, (Heb. 10.1; Col. 2:17) prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly holding forth divers instructions (1 Cor. 5:7) of moral duties, all which Ceremonial Laws being appointed only to the time of reformation, are by Jesus Christ the true Messiah and only Law-giver who was furnished with power from the Father, for that end, (Col. 2:14, 16-17; Eph. 2:14, 16) abrogated and taken away.

Judicial

19.4. To them also he gave sundry judicial Laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any now by vertue of that institution; their general (1 Cor. 9:8-10) equity onely, being of moral use.

Theonomists acknowledge only a two-fold division of the Law. See Sam Waldron’s “Theonomy: A Reformed Baptist Assessment“ [3 hour 12 minute readout] . Here is a snippet:

Is the Theonomic view of the Mosaic “Judicial Law” consistent with the Reformed tradition?

This is a pressing question for Theonomists. On the one hand, in asserting “the abiding validity of the law in exhaustive detail” they appear to teach the binding obligation of the “judicial law” of Moses on society today. On the other hand, the divines of the Westminster Assembly and Calvin, their mentor, clearly teach the “expiration” of the judicial law of Moses and deny that it is as such binding on nations today. The critical statement in the Westminster Confession of Faith is found in 19:4. Having clearly distinguished the moral, ceremonial, and judicial law, the Confession states, “To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.” Calvin elaborates on this very point in his Institutes. His statements are so similar to that of the Confession that it is probable that here as in so many other places he had a formative impact on the Confession.

“I will briefly remark, however, by the way, what laws it may piously use before God, and be rightly governed by among men. And even this I would have preferred passing over in silence, if I did not know that it is a point on which many persons run into dangerous errors. For some deny that a state is well constituted, which neglects the polity of Moses, and is governed by the common laws of the nations. the dangerous and seditious nature of this opinion I leave to the examination of others; it will be sufficient for me to have evinced it to be false and foolish. Now, it is necessary to observe that common distinction, which distributes all the laws of God promulgated by Moses into moral, ceremonial, and judicial; and these different kinds of laws are to be distinctly examined, that we may ascertain what belongs to us, and what does not. . . .

What I have said will be more clearly understood, if in all laws we properly consider these two things-the constitution of the law and its equity, on the reason of which the constitution itself is founded and rests. Equity, being natural, is the same to all mankind; and consequently all laws, on every subject ought to have the same equity for their end. Particular enactments and regulations being connected with circumstances, and partly dependent upon them, may be different in different cases without any impropriety, provided they are all equally directed to the same object of equity. . . . Whatever laws shall be framed according to that rule, directed to that object, and limited to that end, there is no reason why we should censure them, however, they may differ from the Jewish law or from each other. The law of god forbids theft. What punishment was enacted for thieves, among the Jews, may be seen in the book of Exodus. The most ancient laws of other nations punished by theft by requiring a compensation of double the value. Subsequent laws made a distinction between open and secret theft. Some proceeded to banishment, some to flagellation, and some to the punishment of death. False witness was punished, among the Jews, with the same punishment as such testimony would have caused to be inflicted on the person against whom it was given; in some countries it was punished with infamy, in others with hanging, in others with crucifixion. All laws agree in punishing murder with death, though in several different forms. The punishment of adulterers in different countries have been attended with different degrees of severity. Yet we see how, amidst this diversity, they are all directed to the same end. For they all agree in denouncing punishment against those crimes which are condemned by the eternal law of God; such as murderers, thefts, adulteries, false testimonies, though there is not a uniformity in the mode of punishment; and, indeed, this is neither necessary, nor even expedient. . . . For the objection made by some, that it is an insult to the law of God given by Moses, when it is abrogated, and other laws preferred to it, is without any foundation; for neither are other laws preferred to it, when they are more approved, not on a simple comparison, but on account of the circumstances of time, place, and nation; nor do we abrogate that which was never given to us. For the Lord gave not that law by the hand of Moses to be promulgated among all nations, and to be universally binding; but after having taken the Jewish nation into his special charge, patronage, and protection, he was pleased to become, in peculiar manner, their legislator, and, as became a wise legislator, in all the laws which he gave them, he had a special regard to their peculiar circumstances.”

Also see Dr. Waldron’s three-part lecture series “Theonomy: A Reformed Baptist Assessment”

I. Introductory Considerations

II. A Critique of Theonomic Eschatology

III. A Critique of Theonomic Ethics

Dr. Sam Waldron has also put together a lengthy discourse on the subject “Theonomy, A Reformed Baptist Perspective.” He writes:

Section 1: Introductory Considerations

I. A General Description of “Theonomy”

A. Major Sources

1. Rousas J. Rushdoony

Theonomy, or as it is also called, Christian Reconstruction, has for its father R. J. Rushdoony and his prolific pen. Among his many books the ones which are most important here are first and foremost, The Institutes of Biblical Law, and his brief treatment entitled, The Meaning of Postmillennialism: God’s Plan for Victory. Rushdoony ascribes to Cornelius Van Til the greatest influence by far upon his thinking.(1) Rushdoony is the master influence in three Theonomic organs: The Chalcedon Foundation, “The Journal of Reconstruction,” and a newsletter entitled “The Chalcedon Report.”

2. Greg Bahnsen

It is probably due to Mr. Bahnsen that Christian Reconstructionism owes the name, Theonomy. His Theonomy in Christian Ethics with a foreword by Rushdoony is perhaps the single most influential and controversial of the Theonomic literature. He is also well-known for his book, Homosexuality: A Biblical View. This book illustrates what is best in the Theonomic perspective. Mr. Bahnsen is now an Orthodox Presbyterian Church minister in California. He is a graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary and formerly the Professor of Apologetics at Reformed Theological Seminary (RTS) in Jackson, Mississippi. Though a fine apologete in the presuppositional school of thought, he was dismissed from RTS in a dispute over Theonomy. The Covenant Tape Ministry distributes tapes of his teaching.

3. Gary North

Gary North was formerly editor of the “Journal of Christian Reconstruction.” He is the editor of numerous works including, The Theology of Christian Resistance, The Tactics of Christian Resistance. He is the author of a popularization of Christian Reconstruction entitled, Unconditional Surrender: God’s Program for Victory, as well as Backward Christian Soldiersand volume 1 of an economic commentary on the Bible entitled The Dominion Covenant: Genesis. He also contributed to The Failure of the American Baptist Culture edited by James B. Jordan.

Section 1: Introductory Considerations

I. A General Description of “Theonomy”

A. Major Sources

1. Rousas J. Rushdoony

Theonomy, or as it is also called, Christian Reconstruction, has for its father R. J. Rushdoony and his prolific pen. Among his many books the ones which are most important here are first and foremost, The Institutes of Biblical Law, and his brief treatment entitled, The Meaning of Postmillennialism: God’s Plan for Victory. Rushdoony ascribes to Cornelius Van Til the greatest influence by far upon his thinking.(1) Rushdoony is the master influence in three Theonomic organs: The Chalcedon Foundation, “The Journal of Reconstruction,” and a newsletter entitled “The Chalcedon Report.”

2. Greg Bahnsen

It is probably due to Mr. Bahnsen that Christian Reconstructionism owes the name, Theonomy. His Theonomy in Christian Ethics with a foreword by Rushdoony is perhaps the single most influential and controversial of the Theonomic literature. He is also well-known for his book, Homosexuality: A Biblical View. This book illustrates what is best in the Theonomic perspective. Mr. Bahnsen is now an Orthodox Presbyterian Church minister in California. He is a graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary and formerly the Professor of Apologetics at Reformed Theological Seminary (RTS) in Jackson, Mississippi. Though a fine apologete in the presuppositional school of thought, he was dismissed from RTS in a dispute over Theonomy. The Covenant Tape Ministry distributes tapes of his teaching.

3. Gary North

Gary North was formerly editor of the “Journal of Christian Reconstruction.” He is the editor of numerous works including, The Theology of Christian Resistance, The Tactics of Christian Resistance. He is the author of a popularization of Christian Reconstruction entitled, Unconditional Surrender: God’s Program for Victory, as well as Backward Christian Soldiersand volume 1 of an economic commentary on the Bible entitled The Dominion Covenant: Genesis. He also contributed to The Failure of the American Baptist Culture edited by James B. Jordan

B. Major Tenets

The Christian Reconstructionists have themselves defined the major tenets of their system. They are presuppositional apologetics, predestination, their view of the abiding validity of the law in exhaustive detail, and postmillennialism. North writes,

Mr. Clapp lists three key doctrines of the Reconstructionists: presuppositional apologetics, biblical law, and postmillennialism. He left out one crucial doctrine: predestination. These were the four that David Chilton and I listed in our essay. “Apologetics and Strategy” in Christianity and Civilization 3 (1983).(2)

As we come to a preliminary assessment of Theonomy, we will comment further on these self-confessed distinctives of Christian Reconstruction. Continue reading →