Have you ever wondered where the NT came from or how it became the “New Testament”? There are a lot of explanations as to how the church came to “recognize” or “create” the Christian canon, and these different discussions provide explanations of various “criteria” that the early church used while confirming what was canonical and what was not. However, by and large the majority of explanations do not suggest that “inspiration” was a criterion that was involved in the process. Many students find it inconceivable that the early church did not specifically consider the doctrine of inspiration while determining the canonical status of books that inevitably were included in the New Testament (this blog will primarily discuss the NT canon since the early church readily received the Hebrew OT as authoritative and thus “canonical.” To be sure, intuitively one would expect this quality to be the most important requirement for compiling an authoritative list of literature for use in the church. It should be noted, however, that not employing the doctrine of inspiration as a test for determining the canonical status of a book is not to say that the early church did not affirm the doctrine of inspiration. Second Timothy 3.16 clearly reveals that the apostolic church believed in the doctrine of inspiration. Additionally, in First Clement 47 (ca. AD 96) the author wrote that “Truly, under the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because even then parties had been formed among you.” The NT passage the author referred to as “Spirit inspired” was 1 Corinthians 1.12. Clearly, therefore, the early church believed in this essential doctrine. The question then becomes why didn’t it employed the test of inspiration while wrestling with the issue of canonicity. The first reason is because that was precisely what the early church was making an effort to recognize: i.e., what writings were inspired and therefore should be recognized as “canonical.” That being the case, you can’t use a test of “inspiration” to determine what was “inspired.” That would be an example of employing a circular argument. The second reason is simply that the church wanted to avoid the argument that would have surely arisen over choosing who got to decide what books were inspired and what books were not. Think of it this way, what may be inspiring to you may not at all be inspiring to me. Some Christians love the Psalms, while others love Paul’s letters; so as you can see the issue of determining what is inspired and what is inspiring can be a very personal preference. And that is precisely what the early church was attempting to avoid. Such an important decision could not be determined by the subjective evaluation of a few individuals and neither by a simply majority. Therefore, in order to safely address this critical issue the church employed some more objective criteria in their decision making process. For example, there were some in the early church who believed that only Paul’s letters to the churches were authoritative for the church (as opposed to his personal letters to Timothy and Titus). Conversely, there were others who believed that First Clement was “helpful,” as well as Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermes, so why not also include these books?
These later books were not recognized as canonical precisely because they failed the other tests that were actually used by the early church. The wisdom of the early church and the value of the tests that it did use for determining canonical status of a book are revealed by the fruit it produced. As you may well know, the specific tests the early church used were apostolicity, universality, and test known as “the rule of faith.” Some also refer to a “fourth” test, which is that of “antiquity.” This, however, is rather redundant because any book that was “apostolic” (i.e., written by an apostle or the associate of an apostle) was by all qualifications “ancient.” Consequently, this blog will simply discuss the 3 qualifications of apostolicity, universality, and the rule of faith. First let’s look at the test that had the most biblical support, which was the test of apostolicity. This test has the most biblical support because it is observable by the church’s attempt to find a replacement for Judas. When seeking Judas’s replacement the remaining apostles decided that one specific qualification was more important than all the rest, which was the qualification that the new 12th apostle must have participated in the ministry of Jesus from its commencement until his resurrection and ascension (Acts 1.21-22). In other words, he must have been an associate and witness of the entire ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ. Unless he met this essential criteria he was not qualified to be an apostle since his most important function in the church would be to faithfully establish it upon the message and teachings of Jesus Christ (Matt 28.20, “. . . teaching them all that I have commanded you . . .”), and in order to do so he must have heard and been instructed by the Lord himself (this is the primary reason why Protestants do not recognize the institution of the papacy as holding the office of apostle). Secondhand witnesses would not do for the office of apostle. This is why Paul considered himself as one who was “untimely born” (1 Cor 15.8). What Paul meant was that although he did not follow the Lord during his earthly ministry he did meet him after the resurrection and was called by him to be an apostle to the Gentiles. Although he did not walk with Jesus before the resurrection, he did personally meet him in his resurrected body and was called by him specifically for the ministry that he inevitably fulfilled (cf., Acts 23.11; 1 Cor 9.1, 15.8). Consequently, the church rightly recognized his special place in the establishment of the church and its doctrines. Notwithstanding the Lord’s appointment of Paul, Acts 1.21-22 demonstrates “apostolicity” is a biblical principle for determining and protecting the orthodoxy of the church; consequently, apostolicity is the most biblically defensible test of the three criteria employed by the early church.
Next let us consider the test referred to as the rule of faith. This test makes a lot of sense because it demands that in order for a piece of literature to attain the status of canonicity it would have to explain and teach the doctrines of the Christian faith as it was received by the eyewitnesses of the resurrected Lord. This test essentially prohibited any literature from achieving canonical status that was not completely dedicated to the truthful explanation of the faith that was once for all handed down to the saints (Jude 3). In other words, Paul’s letter to his aunt Esther wishing her a happy birthday or Peter’s “things to do” list were not considered worthy of canonical status simply because their purpose was not to explain, teach, or defend the message and teachings of Jesus. This requirement also prohibited fictional works such as The Shepherd of Hermes from being recognized as canonical.
Lastly, let us consider the test of universality. This test prohibited any specific church or region of the Empire from dictating this important decision over the rest of the church. For example, it prohibited the church in Jerusalem or the church in Rome from deciding for believers everywhere what was to be recognized as authoritative in the church. This test is especially important because it provides evidence that in the earliest period of the church’s history the church in Rome was not viewed as the titular head of the universal church. If the church in Rome was the sole authority of the church or acted in such a manner, then we would have literary evidence indicating decisions based upon what the church at Rome had declared for the rest of the churches, or what the Pope had decided concerning this issue. However, documents from first 3 centuries of the early church existence reveals absolutely no historical evidence of such a state of affairs during the church’s earliest history.
One important purpose of these three tests was to restrict the pool of literature that would be recognized as the foundation of orthodox Christianity. Some believe that if was not for Spirit’s guidance these tests would have greatly expanded the pool of literature that was to be considered for canonical status. However, taken together these tests actually greatly restricted the possible pool of literature, so much so that some apostolic books were almost withheld from being recognized as canonical; e.g., Revelation (even though historically speaking it was one of the earliest books that was used in the church), 2 and 3 John, Hebrews, 2 Peter, Jude, and James. Consequently, given the task that the early church was faced with, these tests proved very successful in helping her correctly recognize what the Holy Spirit had already provided for her edification and protection. These tests greatly enabled the church to correctly recognize the books that the Spirit inspired for the purpose of teaching future generations what was the true message of the Jesus Christ, what were the correct beliefs concerning him, and what the ethical practice of Christianity truly looks like.
Monte Shanks Copyright © 2011