Presented, June 25, 2006 pm
CAN WE REALLY COUNT ON THE NEW TESTAMENT?
As Christians we accept the New Testament as our standard and guide to pleasing God. But not everyone does. In fact, as time goes on, it seems that more and more are questioning the validity of the New Testament. Recent books and other forms of media (such as the Da Vinci Code) have called into question the Canon of the New Testament. Therefore it is a hot topic of discussion. Because of this, we need to be ready to give an answer to those who might not be sure and who question such things. Think about it! If you were asked to prove that the books of the Bible (both Old and New Testament) that we have are inspired and the complete word of God for us, could you do that? If someone presented you with documentation that questioned the validity of what we have or notes that there are many books that have been left out, how would you answer them? In our lesson tonight, I hope to give us a foundation to build upon in this area.
When it comes to establishing the Old Testament as gospel, there are a number of internal sources that we can turn to. Last week we examined how Jesus used scripture, thereby validating the Old Testament. In passages such as Luke 24:44 and Luke 11:15 (where Jesus mentions prophets from Abel to Zechariah) we see recognition of the Old Testament. But verifying the New Testament is not quite as simple, BECAUSE it was the LAST and FINAL law. In fact, we are frequently told that the New Testament is the final covenant and NOT to be added to or subtracted from, cf. Jude 3, Galatians 1:6-9, etc. Here is an example of where we need to appeal to external sources (those outside the Bible itself) to prove our case. After all, if you cannot get one to accept the Bible as it is, you will NOT get any further with the message it teaches. So let us notice some facts that will help us in establishing our New Testament as the word of God.
I. Concerning the New Testament
a. First, let us notice some facts as taught by Jesus.
i. Realize first that while Jesus was upon the earth, the New Testament had NOT been written. But He did note that what was to come would come from God.
ii. John 14:25-26 & 16:12-13 notes that after Jesus left the Holy Spirit would come and guide them.
iii. Thus we have inspiration
b. The process of inspiration which would result in the New Testament.
i. God spoke through Jesus and the Holy Spirit
ii. Jesus and the Holy Spirit taught the Apostles all things
iii. The apostles first spoke and then wrote it down to be circulated and read.
c. Within scripture there are many claims to inspiration.
i. Luke 1:1-3 – Luke had a perfect understanding
ii. 1 Corinthians 14:37 – Paul was inspired and called upon them to accept him as such. Note also Galatians 1:12 – his message came through “the revelation of Jesus Christ.”
iii. Ephesians 3:3-5 – by revelation, Paul had “the mystery” revealed to him and was now presenting it.
iv. 2 Peter 3:15-16 – Peter acknowledges Paul’s writings
v. 1 John 4:6 - He who knows God “hears us.”
II. How The New Testament Canon Was Determined
a. The word “canon”, according to Josh McDowell in Evidence that Demands a Verdict, is defined as a word that came to mean, a standard or measuring rod. As used here it has reference to the ‘rule of faith’ that we must follow. In other words, it is those writings which we consider to be THE inspired word of God.
b. The problem stated: There are claims that the New Testament was not established in its present form until the 3rd century, where a series of councils and meetings determined the books and order. While it is true that they were not all gathered together in one volume until that time, it is NOT true that they were NOT recognized as inspired much earlier. In fact, the details used to determine what to accept and reject was based upon multitudes of documents they had available dating back to the previous 2-3 centuries.
c. Many letters were intended for wider circulation
i. Galatians 1:1 – to the churches of Galatia
ii. Colossians 4:16 – read this letter to the church of Laodicea and read their letter.
iii. Revelation 1:11 – written to “the seven churches of Asia”
iv. Also believed that some letters (like James & 1 Peter) were written to a wider, general audience rather than specific churches, etc.
v.
It was
through copying and sharing that these letters became so well known among
churches. This fact is evident by
noting the number of early Christians and church leaders that quoted from them
frequently.
I am convinced that this was part of the reason that made the first century,
“the fullness of time.” (Gal. 4:4) There was a universal language, the trade of
the scribe had been perfected (we can see that by the way the Old Testament had
been copied and/or translated into Greek and how copies were made available),
and roads so that letters could be circulated as needed. In the next few
centuries, these abilities would become even more refined. (TATJR)
d. Why continuity was needed. There were a number of reasons.
i. Because, not many years after the establishment of the church and continuing for 2-3 centuries, a number of documents were being created, speculating about the life of Jesus and the early church. How would we determine which ones should be accepted as authentic and which ones should not?
ii.
To combat
the formulation of individual religions.
Recall that Paul warned that apostasy would come – 2 Thess. 2:3-4, 1Timothy
4:1-3, etc. Even before the N.T. was completed, false doctrines were being
formulating – such as Gnosticism, which 1 John was written to combat. Also 2
Thessalonians was written to address false concepts about the resurrection.
During the 2nd and 3rd centuries (100-300 AD) some began
to write and others began to adopt certain books that others outright rejected.
Because they were not collated (brought together), individuals could
independently pick and choose which books and doctrines to accept based upon
what they wanted. Because they were not collated how to obey God would be
subjective.
One such example of this was a man named Marcion, who around 140 A.D. developed
his own Canon which advanced his own agenda rejecting the Old Testament as
uninspired and questioning who Jesus really was. He called into question almost
every book of the New Testament, accepting only the gospel of Luke (and said it
had been corrupted) and 10 of Paul’s letters for which he demanded changes
(excluding every reference to the Old Testament).
iii. ALSO, there were edicts from a hostile Roman Empire that for a couple of hundred years outlawed Christianity and/or ordered Christian literature destroyed (i.e. A.D. 303, the Edict of Diocletian). With such severe consequences, there was a need to determine which books were from God, as those were the only ones worth dying for.
e. Early “church fathers” mention the New Testament.
i.
Who were
the “church fathers”? They were
men who as the church developed in the decades & centuries following the
completion of the apostolic writings, studied and quoted from them as they led
local congregations (and in some cases – larger regions). They can be broken
into 3 groups: the Apostolic Fathers who were contemporaries of the Apostles
themselves [thus they lived late 1st century and early 2nd
century – they included Linus ( 2 Timothy 4:21), Clement of Rome and Polycarp
{69-155 A.D.) who was a friend of John], the Ante-Nicene Fathers [Christian
leaders after the Apostolic fathers up until the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.) who
wrote correspondence about Christianity – they would include Iraneaus, Ignatius
and Justin Martyr], and the Post-Nicene Fathers [Christian leaders AFTER the
Council of Nicea – they included Augustine, Chrysostom, and Eusebius].
See:
http://www.gotquestions.org/early-church-fathers.html
ii.
Their
benefit to us is found in their
writings as they mention various books of the New Testament as the sacred
writings (from God). When their writings are put together, we have quotes from
ALL 27 books of the New Testament by the end of the 2nd century (200
B.C).
In fact, they were quoted so frequently that it has been said that if every
manuscript of the New Testament were destroyed, we could look at these letters
and documents and re-create the entire New Testament again.
For example: Ignatius of Rome who died (possibly as a martyr) in
110 A.D. wrote letters in which he quotes from Matthew, Luke, Acts, Romans, 1
Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, & 1 Thessalonians for a total of 8
letters.
For example: Polycarp, (70-155 A.D.) who died as a martyr, was an
acquaintance of John. He wrote The Letter to the Philippians, it is
believed around 110 A.D. in which he wrote to Christian leaders in Philippi who
wanted copies of the works of Ignatius. He sent them along with a cover letter
of his own. Over the next few decades his letter would be used to combat the
false doctrine of Marcion and others. This letter mentioned 3 gospels (the
synoptics), Acts and 13 epistles from Paul, Peter, John as well as Hebrews,
for a total of 17 letters, mentioning Biblical letters some 112 times
[including 12 from the Old Testament].
For example: Justin Martyr, was a pagan who converted to
Christianity around 130 A.D. In his writings he quotes from all 4 gospels
and Revelation.
For example: Irenaeus of Lyons (120/140 – 200/203 A.D.) listened
to some of the sermons of Polycarp and became a convert who was faithful
throughout his life. He wrote books in which he combated the false teachings of
Marcion and the Valentinians. In one of his writings, Adversus Haeresas
(The Refutation and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So Called) he
mentions 23 books of the New Testament (all except Philemon, 2 Peter, 3 John
and Jude).
NOTE: All of these quotes can be found at:
http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml
iii. Therefore, when one claims that the New Testament was not created until 325 A.D., it is simply not true. It is an attempt to REJECT the word of God for whatever reason. But the ultimate result is that by rejecting the New Testament, they are no longer bound by its teachings. Translation – you can do whatever you want since there is no real way of knowing what comes from God. Think about it!
f. What was necessary for a book to be included in the New Testament as inspired?
i. What did the Council of Nicea do? As already mentioned, in 325 A.D. it collated the books of the New Testament. It was at this time that the books we have were accepted and many others were rejected. But this was NOT an arbitrary process – which is what the critics would have you believe. It was based upon EVIDENCE, like that which has already been mentioned.
ii. There were CRITERIA used in determining which books to accept and which to reject. Josh McDowell in his book, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, (P.29) lists the following criteria were possibly used:
1. Is it authoritative? Does it claim to come from God? (Believe it or not, many of the rejected books NEVER claimed to be inspired)
2. It is prophetic? Written by a man of God. One who could “back it up.”
3. Is it authentic? The fathers had a policy, “if in doubt, throw it out.” They rejected anything not written by the apostles or their contemporaries (a wise decision when determining the truth of God’s word). They accepted inspiration as complete BY THE CLOSE of the 1st century.
4. Is it dynamic? How does it change one’s life?
5. Was it received, collected, read and used? For example: 2 Peter 3:16 where Peter acknowledges Paul’s writings.
iii. Thus by the early 4th century we had the entire New Testament collated based on earlier established writings.
III. Why were other books rejected?
a.
There were many books rejected, but with reasons such
as they were written in 2nd century or later, they contained clear
false doctrines (that contradicted the true Bible), etc.
NOTE: All of these writings ARE available, most for free, on the internet with a
little research. IF you have time to devote to a study of some of these books,
you will readily see WHY they were rejected as non-canonical.
b. Many were rejected because their roots could NOT be traced back to the apostles and their immediate followers.
c. Unger’s Bible Dictionary lists 4 reasons why they were excluded:
i. They abounded with historical and geographical inaccuracies
ii. They taught false doctrines
iii. Their styling was not in keeping with inspired writings (they seem artificial)
iv. They lacked distinctive elements, which gave genuine scripture its character.
IV. What About the Accuracy of the New Testament?
a. Is the Bible we have today simply a copy of a copy of a copy filled with inaccuracies passed on from generation to generation? Some would have you believe this – as they claim the Bible is unreliable (and therefore they do not need to accept it – TATJR)
b. While it is true that scribes were human and some did make mistakes, and that in some cases these mistakes were passed on, we have SO MUCH material available that we can CATCH any inaccuracies.
c. Our Bible is not put together with a handful of scrolls. Rather there are over 24,600 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament. These include 267 uncials in Greek (manuscripts dating between the 4th and 10th centuries AD. We know because they are written in all capital Greek letters). And over 2700 miniscules (Greek manuscripts written after the 10th century A.D.). Manuscripts are found in some 15 different languages which helps with its integrity. NO OTHER document of writing comes close to this. Second in availability is Homer’s the Iliad, with only 643 Manuscripts, the first one complete text dated in the 13th century A.D. (more than 1700 years after its writing) and it is accepted as is without question.
d. In a sermon presented by Buddy Payne, a gospel preacher and apologist (expert on evidences including evolution and the Canon) entitled Can We Trust our English Bibles?, he noted the following facts about the materials available in determining the accuracy of the New Testament text.
There are some 5656 Manuscripts of portions or the complete New Testament. When they are all put together:
i. 86% of the material of the New Testament has NO VARIATION whatsoever.
ii. Of the remaining 14%, 12 % of the variations are spelling errors.
iii. Of the remaining 2%, 1 ˝% involve minor variations. For example: While some texts say, “The Lord Jesus Christ” others will say, “Jesus Christ the Lord”.
iv. That leaves ˝% with significant variations. And of these there is NOT ONE DOCTRINAL issue that is compromised or affected by it.
e. Thus what we have is ACCURATE and CAN be accepted as the word of God. The same way that the Old Testament could be accepted based on its references by Jesus and other evidence.
Conclusion: Thus we have some reasons as to why we can and should accept the New Testament as we have it. While if one truly wants to reject the Bible or any portion of it, he can find a way to discredit it, what we have is there for a reason.
Another consideration that I believe applies to this discussion is the providence of God. I am fully convinced that God wanted us to have His word and had a hand in the process of determining what to keep and what to reject. Otherwise, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 would make no real sense. Are you willing to accept the New Testament as your guide to eternal life? Here is an even more probing question: ARE YOU WILLING TO REJECT the New Testament as you face God when this life is over? Think about it!