The Reason for Canon

Believe it or not there are scholars today who say that the New Testament was imposed on the church to oppress a certain sect of Christianity. How do we defend against that kind of thinking we continue our look at the New Testament canon next on Renewing Your Mind.

Talk about the New Testament canon were not referring to an 18th-century artillery weapon will referring to is the trusted list of books the Christians through the centuries of agreed are inspired by God. Unfortunately, scholars opposed to the historic Christian faith argue that we can't trust the New Testament Canon, but at the canon comes in the question the gospel. Those books teach comes to the question as well.

This week on Renewing Your Mind. Dr. Michael programs with us to strengthen our understanding of the origin New Testament to begin our next session with a rather simple but unexpected question for you answer question.

I'm not sure many of us never really thought about before, and that is why we have a New Testament at all. One dial back our conversation I New Testament canon by asking this question because I get to the heart of this whole discussion of New Testament canon one has to question the session. What in the New Testament Canon really come into existence in the first place why we have the New Testament.

Should we had a New Testament now asked that question. It seems like one of those questions that nobody really asked because for us it is Bible believing evangelical Christians is a bit of a given right that we would have a New Testament but you should know that in the scholarship is not at all given that early Christians should have had a New Testament or would of had a New Testament in fact what were seen emerges that unique challenge. Some are now beginning to challenge whether even should be a New Testament are beginning argue that the idea of the New Testament was the furthest thing from the mind of the earliest Christians that they didn't want one. Then think there was gonna be one. They were even thinking about one.

It was only later, years later, centuries later, the church decided to have a Canon in one sense impose this idea of a collection of written books on a church that never really wanted it in the first place.

Now, to be sure the books themselves were written in the first century right, but the argument goes that yeah but they were sort of hijacked later and made to serve a purpose. They were never intended to serve to become Scripture and advocating that the church never really ever foresaw wanted were desired. Now that will idea then suggest that the killing was not innate early Christianity was true foisted upon her from the outside that idea then suggest that this whole idea came from an extrinsic phenomenon right so late after the fact idea, pushed on Christianity when she really didn't ever wanted or expected answers to late development now that idea out is laid out for you. Believe it or not, is a dominant framework today and conical studies and this session is devoted to it for a couple reasons. One reason they were devoting our time of this is because even know that a lot of scholars that you read out there a lot of people you hear about on the Internet and so on actually redoing their investigation of the whole framework in their head there convinced that Ken was not innate or natural with early Christianity was a late after-the-fact development and therefore that colors the whole way I see this from Blevins they don't expect there to be a king, I think, by definition, a Canon is laid idea and it's a sort of awkwardly out of sync with what Canon was designed to do is another reason though. I think that we need to understand this particular model out there push back against it because if we can push back against it. We can actually show that Canaan was innate and natural to the early Christian faith fact that's what I want to do in the session together with the own argue great evidence for this that Canaan was not a late after-the-fact idea, but I think would've grown naturally out of the early Christian world and so this is really discussion in the session of two completely different paradigms and one paradigm says cannons and after-the-fact idea of the church was always an oral tradition. Anyway, I didn't want books and they really were interested in making an authoritative can books and that was something. By later church. In contrast, argue for different paradigm altogether argue that no there is reason to think that Canaan would've emerged very innately. Naturally there are even say organically from within early Christianity and to some extent therefore was inevitable. That's what I want now if I can argue that housing and help us here zones can help us fight and argue that it's going to give us a framework for expecting an early Canon in a candidate would've popped up rather quickly and the questions would include quite willing to receive out of the gate and I can really help our case that Christianity had a authoritative Canaan in a very early point I want to do in the session. I want to make an argument that Canaan was innate and organically develop within early Christianity hears someone to do it. I would argue that early Christians had three different doctrinal convictions. Three different beliefs that they held him a look of those three beliefs together to suggest use it creates the perfect soil out of which a Canon could sprout and emerge. These three doctrinal beliefs when looked at as a collective whole treated the perfect environment the right temperature the right soil the right moisture for this little planet we call the canon to sprout up as a ceiling out of the soil and start to grow. So think about two models are not always saying they had the perfect soil of the early Christianity pursuing sprout and grow in the other model say no there was no interest in Canon early Christianity but someone dug a big hole took a plan from somewhere else and slammed it back in there and force it on the church or an exterior insertion if you will notice a group naturally or the other view says no was for implanted forcibly in a soil that never held to start with ribbons of artificial transplant from some other place. So those are two different perspectives and on are you here that we actually very good reasons to think Canaan would've been an early innate thing. Based on these three convictions. The Christians have so let's walk through those three convictions in this session now and let us look at them one at a time and talk about how each of them gives us expectations of Christians would've expected and wanted to a new collection of books.

Okay, was the first of those three beliefs the first of those three beliefs as early Christians believed that Jesus finished the Old Testament story. Early Christians believe that Jesus finished the Old Testament story. Now we cannot talk that way and here's what we we don't talk that way is because we tend to his Christians.

I include myself in this think of the story of Jesus is a new story that assist new story that we want to tell people how the first Christians. First, Christians being Jews right being born within Judaism grown up as Jews. They do not see the story of Jesus is a new story based on the story of Jesus as the completion of an old story towards what they saw happening in the work in the life and the ministry in the deeds and the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth was they saw that as finishing what God had started generations before.

To put it another way, people were the earliest followers of Jesus looked at the Old Testament is a story that was incomplete and is exactly what was about the whole Old Testament narrative for moment in the story of we can't rehearse at all here, but it's basically a story of God making promises and he makes them initially to Abraham and repeats those promises to Israel and he preaches promises not just Moses, but through day been one of those promises unredeemed people.

For myself I'm gonna save them and forgive their sins, ushering the kingdom. I want to do this all through my Messiah you agencies as gonna break in the world in an amazing way to transport unredeemed. I want to save it's gonna happen in the Old Testament ends and was like well what what is is a story and what our synagogue makes all these promises you. You have all the sense that it's gonna happen in the Old Testament is stops finishing. We look in the first century, particularly in the days of Jesus. What we see is a great sense of anticipation that God at some point soon was going to finish that story to be look at the gospel authors of the New Testament writers always talk about people being in this posture of warming on the edge of their seats, waiting is God now doing what he said he would do in this incomplete story recall the Old Testament to finally get a break in the world and save us like he promised.

This is all over the place look at the New Testament we read in John 141. The people were looking for the Messiah. Arena Luke 238 that they were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem.

We read in Luke 225 that they were longing for the consolation of Israel, acts 16 tells us there waiting for God to restore the kingdom to Israel. There was a sense that people in the first century were just waiting on the edge of the seas for God to do what he said he was due to the Old Testament story was never done about Jesus is very first sermon in Mark just pops and harnesses got good news for you, the kingdom of God is at hand repent and believe the gospel that united everything I was at me with the Jews. What that meant when he says the kingdom of God is at hand. What he saying is God's gonna finish his story. The story sorely Old Testament. Here's the point I want to see is it in the first century situation Jews being the Old Testament as a store without an imaginal in the bookstore and buying your favorite novel, not knowing your courser.

11 you reading your exciting in the last chapter is not there like right when he is a story without an ending this all wraps up you still like there has to be some ending to the story the scholar into right. Put it this way. I think he's right.

He said this the great story of the Hebrew Scriptures was therefore inevitably read in this time.

As a story in search of a conclusion is all can want to go with this is very important.

Earliest Christians were Jews believe that God did finish the story and they believe that it was finished and the work in the teachings in the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. The story had its proper conclusion. If in fact they believe that God had finished the story in Jesus of Nazareth. It is all the more reasonable think that that story might've actually been written to put it another way is all the more reasonable think that someone might've actually tends that last chapter. Otherwise, you have a plate with no final act right by going to go to Michigan about the play doesn't. You know it's got something to say that the questions that were not to let that happen.

We got a reason that we think that story has reached its proper conclusion in Jesus of Nazareth and the New Testament books would've been back conclusion within them finishing the Old Testament story effect this finds confirmation and the fact that we look into some of the New Testament writings we can see evidence that they think they're finishing the story. You never noticed this before. A good example of this is the gospel of Matthew also matches the very first book in the New Testament in your thinking.

Well, anybody would portray himself as finishing the Old Testament story by golly, we might expect Matthew to do that right.

The very first book in the New Testament Canon. In effect, Matthew does do that. But in the way we often miss you know why because we don't like genealogies. Matthew's gospel as we all know stars the genealogy and I know what you do when you get to it because do the same thing I do the genealogy like oh my gosh genealogy is so tedious are so boring kinda skip this and get to the real part of Matthew when she realizes it. Matthew Shorty with the genealogy was a very Jewish way of placing the story of Jesus with in the larger story of Israel genealogies were not just names in a list. Genealogies were a story of God's dealings with his people and Mattie was saying Jesus finishes the Old Testament story, which is one since Matthew saying I am writing the completion of the Old Testament story.

They may not realize this but the last book in the Old Testament came in in the days of Jesus was probably not Malachi. We don't know for sure exactly the order of the books in the Old Testament canon in the days of Jesus, but the best that we can conclude this probably chronicles that sounds odd, but what would you with chronicles, but the best evidence we have is that the last booking Old Testament cameras probably chronicles in the days of Jesus. Now with chronicles adjustment starts with genealogy is also genealogy about who David and what is Matthew start with the first book in the New Testament Canon genealogy. What is it about the son of David, what you have here is the last book of the Old Testament canon in the first book of the New Testament Canon linking together on what point, namely that Matthews himself is writing the last chapter, what you see from this first theological points. Very simple is in there would've been an actual reason for Christians dependent last chapter in light of the fact that they didn't want field testing story to be left with no ending abrupt without a conclusion – is one of three doctrinal beliefs, the early Christians out. I think would've led to a cane. Also, the second one.

This is also very important. Christians not only believe. First of all, the Jesus finish the Old Testament story. Secondly, Christians believe that Jesus inaugurated a new covenant, inaugurated a new covenant. This is a machine move early Christians. They didn't just see Jesus as just saving Israel or saving them from their sins.

They saw the work of Jesus in a particular theological category right the category of covenant after a Jew in the first century. This was a pretty well-known category right is a Jew in the first century would've been well-versed in the common language of the Old Testament God America Abraham and Moses were David and so on. They would've understood this covenant language quite well and when they looked at the ministry of Jesus. They saw that is God extending a new covenant a new arrangement with his people to save them from their sins. Now covenant was all kinds of different definitions, but for our purposes here is think about a covenant, like a like a treaty right like a contract between two parties, and even a well-known entity in ancient world because different nations of different kings often have treaties and they would call these covenants and God made it treaty if you will a covenant with his people to save them from their sins in the person of Jesus only look in the New Testament writings we see is that they interpreted the work of Jesus in covenant language. Examples of this, the Last Supper, what is Jesus said this carport for you is the new covenant in my blood. Jesus himself says that what I'm doing for you is inaugurating new covenant, John the Baptist father Zachariah when think about the coming of Christ said that this is God remembering his holy covenant to Israel. Luke 172 example Paul in second Corinthians 36 refers to himself. Listen to this language passing.

He refers to himself as a minister of the new covenant a new covenant agent if you will, in the course of the book of Hebrews is you want to pack with all kinds of statements about Jesus being the guarantor of a new covenant, and how we have a new covenant were as believers in the blood of the covenant, and so on. Now all that makes it clear that when early Christians saw all the work of Jesus. They said this is the beginning of a new covenant was a matter for Canon though.

Anything that we can. Here's the trick is what's interesting is that in the ancient Jewish world there was a tight link between covenants and written documents. This is an important thing to recognize. In fact, this was true in the Old Testament.

If you have a covenant. You have a written manifestation of that covenant. If you have a covenant. You have the terms that covenant what written down in a book to put it another way, when God makes covenants he gives books to his people that tell the terms of the covenant, the layout the stipulations a layout the blessings lay out the terms of their redemption. So what God did in the old and you would expect in the new.

In fact, so tight was the link between covenants written text that covenants more often just use books to say you had a comment was to say you had a book receives from the Old Testament was in a few these examples. Exodus 24 seven. Then he took the book of the covenant and read it second Kings 23 verse two and he read in their hearing all the words of the book of the covenant. Deuteronomy 413, he declared he was covenant that is the 10 Commandments, and he wrote them on two tablets. Exodus 34, 28, he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant. Deuteronomy 29. 21.

The covenant written in this book was Astellas's tells us in the minds of Jews. Covenants were written books. You have a covenant in a written books and pack them so tightly related.

You can cite this is the covenant that God is made with his people.

If that's true, here's the payoff. Christians believe that Jesus is started new covenant and Jesus started in covenant they would expect of what a new deposit of books that layout the terms of that covenant. What that means, that is if you were to go to early Christian and say hey we have new writings now their authoritative guide for the church, a Christian would not of said what. How bizarre is that I wouldn't expect that to happen will of course waiting for that.

Why, because God made a new covenant with us in one God makes a covenant were waiting for his written manifestation of that covenant in books. This meant that a written Canon would've been an early natural ideal within the early Christian faith elements in 1/3 theological belief here as we come out of the final one was missing about his theological beliefs is they don't even actually have to be true for there have been a Canon that emerge on early Christianity now because we believe is theologically true right or convincing torture was a magical single argument are not even true. That is really not affect as the early Christian literature and therefore expected a Canon emerge quite naturally, regardless. So argument is not dependent on whether these beliefs were in fact true. Even though we were convinced they are of course right, but they still would've led to an early cam and what's the third belief that the thoroughly Christians held was that God had given through Christ special authority to his apostles. Early Christians believed in the authority of the apostles… Quite obvious throughout the pages of the New Testament that Christ had appointed himself special representatives that we call apostles to speak for him to act on his behalf to be his mouthpiece to bear his authority is apostles only could do miracles and do amazing acts, but when they spoke, Christ spoke when active. Christ acted they were his emissaries. There was representatives and in so much so that the words of an apostle in their office of an apostle would've been viewed as authoritative as the words of Christ, that we see this all throughout the New Testament writings and so this is why the apostles went to deliver their message right you should receive what we say because we speak for Jesus, we have his authority. We have his commission. Now when the apostles first deliver their message in the earliest days of the first century would've been orally right, it would've gone around and preached and outed and received as the authoritative words of Jesus bless asked this question for moment what apostle had taken his message and put it on paper only he would've said it verbally. What if he took his message and wrote it down how the earliest Christians have viewed that document where's we see this amazing is that they would appear that document with the absolute authority of the apostle which was equal to the authority of Christ, the apostles was spokesman for him.

This is interesting because Paul makes it clear in his own writings as an example of this that they should listen to his letter just like it was in. Listen to this language in second Thessalonians 215 Paul says this stand firm and hold to the traditions you were taught by us. Listen to this phrase either by our spoken word or buyer letters was Paul saying what I said you verbally as an apostle.

When I write down my letters apostle bear the absolute same authority, namely the authority of Christ. Paul says elsewhere. This in second Thessalonians 314 if anyone does not obey what we say in this letter. Take note of that person and have nothing to do with Paul saying my letters bear the absolute authority of Christ. Someone rejects that in there to be rejected really come back to that whole thing a little bit later in another session. For now, I simply note that these books as soon as they were written would've borne the authority of the apostles and people to recognize that from the very start.

Now if that's the case then you don't need to wait to hundred 300 years to have an interest McKinnon because you have books written with the authority apostle, even in the first century the people with known board that apostles authority and therefore you would have books with the authority of Christ from the very get-go someone summons comes along and says, oh, Christians can ever conceived of a new collection of authoritative books look at myself but what about the books the apostles wrote been seen as a new collection of authoritative books and you would have to wait for church Council tell you that we have to wait for someone to tell you that. Wait 40 years to know that you know that the very moment that Paul wrote his letter and send it to you and Paul even acknowledges you better listen to my letter to the authority of Christ.

These books have been inherently viewed as camp in the very get-go that was, I mean that we tie all three of these theological beliefs together these three sort of form a package deal number one of our years they create this perfect soil right out of which the candy can grow Christians thought that the Old Testament store was incomplete. Jesus and completed it, we would expect that last chapter to be written, so to speak.

Christians believe that he started new covenant, as always, written documents in the thoroughly Christian's believe in the authority of apostles and authority. Apostles was manifest in written documents even in the 50s of the first century, not the 40s. So for someone to come along and say Christians could never anticipated in a test we can was the furthest thing from their mind, suggesting that it was not the furthest thing from Mark.

I was suggesting that was built into the DNA of Christianity from the very start. I was suggesting that Karen was put in the soil Christianity like a little seed was always there. Took some time for to grow within water but it grew up. The Canon is not transplanting a plant from somewhere else. Digging a big hole and slamming it out and are going okay. Here's a Canon 40 that was always there from the start.

Here's the payoff for that. That's true that's can affect the way we view this terrible evidence. Now we don't have to wonder well is it for century or for century know there's something built into Christianity about the authority of these books and the inherent something organically natural from the restorer Christians will expect these books have authority so we talk about Christians having a Canon and having a reliable care have to speculate about what they would've thought 300 years later, we can think and see that they would've understood there to be a collection of books as authoritative from the very beginning.

And if that's true.

We have much more reason to think that what got it right as I didn't have to think three years later about the women standing right there looking upon the face and they would have very resistant books books the Christ that builds such confidences were thankful for Dr. Michael Kruger's teaching this week on Renewing Your Mind this series the New Testament canon provides us with some reasons to believe that the New Testament is the authentic crew and inspired word of God. Unfortunately, arguments against the Canon are becoming more prevalent in our culture and it's important for us to be able to counter them. To that end, would like to send you this six part series for your donation of any amount to leader ministries you can give your gift online@renewingyourmind.org or you can call us at 800-435-4343 and again the title of the series is the New Testament canon by Dr. Michael Kruger were grateful that you joined us today. We never outgrow the basic truths of the Christian faith. What it means to be born again to follow Christ and belong to his church in order to keep growing. We need these core truths to master us again and again. That's why were grateful for your financial support Christians around the world are hearing the timeless truths of God's word because of your donations to better understand how we arrived at the 27 books in the New Testament it's helpful to look at the timeline. Historical evidence takes us back. We have a natural assumption that the candle would arrive early and we can see that we have expectations in a very early and awful collection. Here's a question for we go in the first century family reasons I think that in the first century. Books already being used in Scripture. Even then, Dr. Kruger will look at the date of the Canon and we hope you'll join us tomorrow for Renewing Your Mind