The Cessation of Special Revelation: A Humble Argument for the Cessation of NT Prophecy and Tongues, Part 2
Posted by deangonzales on March 4, 2009
In Part 1 of this series, we noted that many believers today debate the question of whether God is continuing to confer on the NT church the the gifts of prophecy and tongues. Some say, “Yes” (continuationists). Others respond, “No” (cessationists). And a third group cautiously answer, “Maybe” (open-but-cautious). While I believe providing Scriptural support for one’s answer to this question is not simple but complex, I presently believe the weight of evidence tips the scales in favor of the cessationist position. Since there are godly believers representing each position, I want to advance the case for the cessationist position with grace and humility.
I’d like to frame my argument for the cessation of tongues and prophecy in the form of a syllogism:
Major Premise: All pre-parousia divinely authoritative special revelation has been completed and has, therefore, ceased.
Minor Premise: NT prophecy and tongues are forms of pre-parousia divinely authoritative special revelation.
Conclusion: Therefore, tongues and prophecy have ceased.
In this segment of our series, we’ll begin to develop the major premise, namely, that all pre-parousia divinely authoritative special revelation has been completed and has, therefore, ceased. This assertion calls for immediate clarification. After all, does not God still reveal Himself to men? And if so, is it really biblical to speak of the cessation of special revelation? I believe it is biblical and even necessary to speak of the cessation of special revelation provided that we clarity what is meant.
Negatively, the “cessation of special revelation” does not mean God has ceased to reveal Himself to men. Not only does God continue to reveal Himself to men through creation, providence, and conscience, but He also continues to reveal himself through Scripture (Ps. 19:7; Heb. 4:12). And so, God still reveals Himself through special revelation. In what way, then, has special revelation ceased? Positively, by the “cessation of special revelation,” we are arguing that the process whereby God imparts new revelation has ceased. In other words, God has said everything He needs to say for the salvation of sinners and for the good of the church, and therefore, we should not expect any new revelations from God until Jesus Christ returns. That’s what we mean be “pre-parousia” special revelation. Stated as a formal proposition, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the final form and goal of pre-parousia redemptive revelation. Therefore, with the completion of Scripture pre-parousia special revelation has ceased.
In the remainder of this post, we’ll have to identity and establish the boundaries of that corpora of inspired literature known as the Old Testament. Along the way, we’ll briefly lists some reasons why we don’t include the Jewish apocryphal books as part of the Old Testament canon. Then, in Part 3, we’ll identify the NT canon. The NT canon brings special redemptive revelation to its final form and historical goal, we’ll argue in Part 4, which will establish our first major premise.
The Meaning of “Canon”
The term “canon” comes from a Greek word (kanon), which referred to a rod used for measurement.[1] As far as we know, the first church father to apply the term to Scripture was Athanasius, the great Trinitarian theologian. Athanasius, as a pastor, became concerned that certain heretics were including some non-inspired books among the books of Holy Scripture. Therefore, in the year A.D. 367, he wrote a letter to his fellow bishops, in which he said:
It seemed good to me also, having been stimulated thereto by true brethren, to set forth in order the books which are included in the canon and have been delivered to us with accreditation that they are divine.[2]
Following this statement, Athanasius identifies those books which constitute the Hebrew Old Testament and those books which constitute the Greek New Testament.[3] “These,” he says, “are the fountains of salvation …. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these.”[4] After this, Athanasius identifies certain apocryphal books, which should not be included in the canon. Concerning these, he says,
They are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple.[5]
Some of us are pastors of Christian churches, and we share Athanasius’ concern. We want our people to drink from the “fountains of salvation,” not from the poisonous writings of false teachers and heretics. Therefore, it is important for us to identify those sacred writings which constitute the inspired revelation of the one true God—the canon of Holy Scripture.
I have two propositions to demonstrate. First, I want to demonstrate that the 39 books of the Old Testament as an organic body of writings are inspired of God and are, therefore, canonical. Second, I want to demonstrate that the 27 books of the New Testament as an organic body of writings are inspired by God, and are, therefore, canonical. By referring to the Old and New Testaments as “an organic body of writings,” I’m highlighting two basic characteristics of our Bible. The term “organic” conveys the two ideas of development and relationship. The books of the Bible did not fall out of heaven all at once in completed form. There was, rather, a process of development and growth that took place over a long period of time. First came the Law of Moses, the Pentateuch, the Prophets, the Psalms and other OT writings. Then, came the NT writings. The Bible, as a body of writings, is characterized by the process of growth and development. Furthermore, the books of the Bible are all closely related to one another. These are not 66 unrelated books. Although they were written over several hundred years, they all contribute to the same basic theme: God’s redemption of mankind. And though they were written by many different human authors, they ultimately have the same author. The Holy Spirit is the ultimate author of all Scripture. In this sense, the writings of the Old and New Testaments are “an organic body of writings.”[6]
The Inspired Canon of the Old Testament
Proposition: the 39 books of the Old Testament as an organic body of writings are inspired of God and are, therefore, canonical.[7]
The Old Testament canon in its inception and development
As you know, our Bible comes in two parts: the Old Testament and the New Testament. And these two parts or segments of our Bible reflect two great events in redemptive history. Israel’s redemption from Egypt was the first great redemptive event. With great might and power, Yahweh delivered His people from bondage to slavery. And having gathered them under the shadow of Mt. Sinai, He initiated a covenant with them. And at the heart of this covenant, were the Ten Commandments which God inscribed upon two tablets of stone with His own finger (Exod. 20:1-17). These Divinely written words became the beginning of an Old Testament canon. And in conjunction with these Ten Commandments, God revealed the provisions of His covenant relationship with Israel, which He commanded Moses to write down (Exod. 24:4). Moses then ratified these documents by sprinkling blood upon them (Exod. 24:6-8). Later, God commanded Moses to place the Ten Commandments in the Ark of the Covenant and to set the rest of the covenant documents next to the Ark (Deut. 10:1-5; 31:24-26).
But the Old Testament canon did not end at that point. In Deuteronomy 18, God assures His people through Moses that He would raise up a succession of prophets after Moses:
I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 19 ‘It shall come about that whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him (Deut. 18:18, NAS).
Although this reference ultimately refers to Christ (Acts 3:22), I believe it also refers to a divinely appointed succession of prophets whom God would raise up after Moses. These prophets would serve as God’s spokesmen, and their words would be canonical, just like the words of Moses. And as we move from the Pentateuch to the rest of our Old Testament, we find this is precisely what God did. God continued to mediate His word through men like Joshua, Samuel, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the other prophets. In the book of Daniel chapter nine, we find a reference both to the writings of Moses, as well as to the writings of the prophets after him (Dan 9:1-2, 9-13):
In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of Median descent, who was made king over the kingdom of the Chaldeans –in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, observed in the books the number of the years which was revealed as the word of the LORD to Jeremiah the prophet for the completion of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years…. “To the Lord our God belong compassion and forgiveness, for we have rebelled against Him; nor have we obeyed the voice of the LORD our God, to walk in His teachings which He set before us through His servants the prophets. “Indeed all Israel has transgressed Your law and turned aside, not obeying Your voice; so the curse has been poured out on us, along with the oath which is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, for we have sinned against Him. “Thus He has confirmed His words which He had spoken against us and against our rulers who ruled us, to bring on us great calamity; for under the whole heaven there has not been done anything like what was done to Jerusalem. “As it is written in the law of Moses, all this calamity has come on us; yet we have not sought the favor of the LORD our God by turning from our iniquity and giving attention to Your truth (Dan. 9:1-13, NAS).
According to verse one, Daniel made these comments during the first year of Darius, which was probably 539 or 538 B.C. So by Daniel’s day, a little less than 1000 years after Moses, there was a recognized body of covenant literature made up of the Law of Moses and the teachings of the prophets (in particular, the writings of Jeremiah). Within another hundred years or so, the last books of the Old Testament would be completed.[8]
The Old Testament canon recognized as completely developed
By the time of Christ, the Jewish canon consisted of the very same books that make up our Old Testament today. The Jews counted the number of the books differently and put them in a different order.[9] Nevertheless, the content of the Jewish canon is the same as ours. For example, a preface to a second century B.C. apocryphal book alludes to the Jewish canon as “the law, the prophets, and the rest of the books of our ancestors.”[10] Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian who lived just after the time of Christ (A.D. 37-95), also refers to this Jewish Canon:
For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them, five belong to Moses,…but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes, kind of Persia,…the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books.[11] The remaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life.[12] It is true our history hath been written since Artaxerxes…,[13] but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time.[14]
According the NT record, the Lord Jesus Christ agreed with the Jewish canon. This is very significant! You may recall that for the most part, Jesus did not like the way the Jews handled the Scriptures. He condemned them for not knowing the Scriptures (Matt 22:29), for invalidating the Scripture with their own tradition (Matt 15:3-6; Mk 7:6-13), and for refusing to submit to the Scripture (John 5:45-47; 8:40ff). However, Jesus never condemned the predominant Jewish assessment of the OT canon. He never accused them of either adding to or subtracting from the Scripture. To the contrary, Jesus recognized and used the same Jewish canon of OT writings. Let’s consider some passages that confirm this:
1. Matthew 5:17-18
Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished (Matt. 5:17, NAS).
The term translated, “Law,” by itself, or the phrase, “the Law or the Prophets,” were common ways to refer to the Old Testament Scriptures in Jesus’ day (cf. Matt 7:12; 11:13; 22:40; Luke 16:16; John 1:45; Acts 13:15; 24:14; 28:23; Rom 3:21).[15] In His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus emphatically denies any intention of contradicting or invalidating this canon of Scripture. He affirms the authority of every jot and every tittle.[16]
2. Matthew 23:34-35
Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar (Matt. 23:34-35, NAS).
Jesus does not explicitly refer to the OT canon in this passage. However, a number of commentators and scholars believe that there may be an implicit reference to the canon here.[17] The reference to “the blood of righteous Abel” is found in the first book of the OT—the Book of Genesis. The reference to “the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah” is found in the last book of the Jewish Old Testament—the Book of Chronicles. Thus we have an allusion to the OT canon of Jesus’ day, an inspired Old Testament history from “A to Z.”
3. Luke 24:25-27, 32, 44-45
And He said to them, “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 “Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?” Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures…. Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures (Luke 24:25-27, 32, 44-45, NAS).
In this passage, Jesus divides this OT canon is divided into three sections: the “Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms” (44). This three-fold division would correspond to the traditional Jewish three-fold division, the “Psalms” being the first book in section called, “the Writings.” Notice also that the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms” are collectively referred to in verses 27, 32, and 45 as “the Scriptures.” Furthermore, Christ clearly indicates here and in our earlier text (Matt 5:17) that the OT canon has reached its fulfillment in Him.
Since Christ views Himself as the fulfillment of the OT promises, and since He has come to inaugurate a New Covenant, then we may conclude that the Old Covenant canon at the time of Christ was complete. The Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms constitute the completed OT canon.
Now before we move on it’s important to underscore the fact that Jesus and the Jews did not view these writings as mere religious folklore or human tradition. The Apostle Paul, who was well versed in Jewish custom and tradition, refers to these sacred writings as “the oracles of God” (Rom 3:1). In other words, they viewed these writings as ‘divine utterances.’ That leads me to my third point:
The Old Testament canon acknowledged to be inspired revelation
Writes the apostle Paul to Timothy,
You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:14-16).
Paul identifies the “sacred writings,” which Timothy knew from early childhood as “Scripture.” Since the NT canon was not extant when Timothy was a child, Paul probably had the OT Scriptures primarily in view.[18] Paul asserts that this OT canon in its entirety is “inspired by God,” that is, “breathed out by God.”[19] In other words, Paul sees God Himself as the ultimate author and source of the sacred writings of our OT canon.
In summary, God revealed His covenant to Israel through Moses, whom He commanded to inscripturate that revelation. Following Moses, God raised up other prophets and many of their writings were also added to the Old Covenant Scriptures. By the NT period, the Jews possessed a fixed body of sacred writings, which they sometimes referred to as “the Law,” sometimes as “the Law and the Prophets,” and sometimes as “the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms.”[20] Jesus and the other NT writers place their imprimatur upon this Jewish canon of Scripture as inspired revelation from God. That’s the identity of the Old Covenant canon of Scripture.
Excursus: What about the Apocrypha?
Before we move on to consider the canon of the New Testament, we need to address the question of the Apocrypha. The Greek Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, and many later versions of the Bible add a number of books to the Old Testament. These would include such books as Tobit, Judith, Baruch, 1 & 2 Maccabees, the Book of Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus.[21] The Jews called them “apocryphal,” meaning “hidden,” because the Jews judged some of their contents unorthodox and therefore unsuitable for public reading.
While Protestants followed the Jews in rejecting these books as canonical, the Roman Catholic Church and Greek Orthodox Church eventually included them in the canon. Thus if we open the table of contents to a Catholic Bible, we would find these books listed along with the OT books of Scripture. That leads us to ask an important question: Why have Protestants traditionally rejected the Apocryphal books as Scripture? Here are some of the reasons:
The Jews have not recognized the Apocryphal books as part of the Old Covenant canon.
As we have seen, the Jewish historian Josephus limits the OT canonical writings to those composed during or before the reign of Artaxerxes. This would exclude the Apocryrphal books. And Josephus’ testimony is confirmed by the later Jewish rabbis,[22] including Philo of Alexandria.[23] Even the late second century B.C. apocryphal book of 1 Maccabees acknowledges the prior disappearance of prophecy among the Jews. For example, in 9:27 of that book, we read, “A terrible oppression began in Israel; there had been nothing like it since the disappearance of prophecy among them” (Jerusalem Bible). The implication of that statement is that the writer of Maccabees does not consider his own work to be prophetic.[24]
It’s worth noting that Jesus and the apostles appear to have supported the prevailing Jewish view of the canon (i.e., that of the Pharisees) and never faulted that viewpoint for “subtracting” books from the canon.
The prevailing Jewish view of the OT canon in Jesus day was represented by the Pharisees, and it affirmed the three-fold division of the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings, refered to be Jewish tradition as the Tanakh.[25] As I noted earlier, Jesus did not like the way the Jews handled the Scriptures. He condemned them for not knowing the Scriptures (Matt 22:29), for invalidating the Scripture with their own tradition (Matt 15:3-6; Mk 7:6-13), and for refusing to submit to the Scripture (John 5:45-47; 8:40ff). However, Jesus never condemned the predominant Jewish assessment of the OT canon. He never accused them of subtracting from the Scripture by failing to include the Apocrypha. Furthermore, we find Jesus and the disciples citing and alluding to nearly every book of the traditional OT canon.[26] But there is no evidence that Jesus or the Apostles ever regarded any of the Apocrpyhal books as canonical.[27] Thus, Jesus’ endorsement of the prevailing Jewish view of the canon (Matt. 5:17; 23:34-35; Luke 24:25-27, 32, 44-45) together with the lack of his criticizing this veiw and the absence of His endorsement of the apocryphal books weighs against the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the canon.[28]
While the Christian church as a whole has agreed upon the Jewish OT canon and the Greek NT canon, it has not unequivocally recognized the canonicity of the Apocrypha.
It is true that some of the early church fathers quoted the Apocrypha in a manner similar to their quoting of Scripture. But it is not until Augustine that we find a clear statement in favor of its canonicity.[29] Yet even Augustine’s high view of the Apocrypha is later contradicted when he accords it a kind of secondary-canonical status.[30] The Western Catholic Church and eventually the Eastern Orthodox Church followed Augustine in according the Apocrypha a kind of “deutero-canonical” status.[31] However, the 16th century Protestant Reformers rejected this distinction between a secondary and primary canon, and as a result, they refused to accord the Apocryphal books canonical status. Thus the testimony of the church as a whole is unanimous in favor of the Jewish canon but divided over the Apocrypha books. To use the words of Sam Waldron, “The history of the Apocrypha is the history of doubts, division and rejection.”[32] For this reason, we do better to follow the example of the Jews, the Apostles, and Jesus Himself.
Most importantly, the Apocrypha lacks the self-authenticating quality of Scripture as the infallible and inerrant word of God.
Scripture possesses certain innate qualities that commend it to man’s conscience as the voice of God. Not only does the Apocrypha abound in historical, geographical, chronological, and doctrinal errors,[33] but it lacks that inherent quality of perfect, coherent and authoritative divine speech. Thus, one of the best ways to disprove the canonicity of the Apocrypha is to read it. The OT scholar Laird Harris makes this point when he writes, “More Christians should read the Apocrypha as interesting old history. To do so would settle many questions regarding canonicity.”[34]
Stay tuned for our next installment where we’ll identify the canon of the New Testament.
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
[1] The Greek was probably derived from the Hebrew term qnh (‘reed’), and it gave rise to the Latin canna and English “cane.”
[2] St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, vol. 4 of The “Thirty-ninth Festal Letter” in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Albany, Oregon: AGES Software, 1997), second series, IV, p. 1275 (Festal Letter 39:3). Hereafter abbreviated as NPCF.
[3] NPCF, second series, IV, pp. 1275-76. Athanasius lists all the Old and New Testament books in our present canon except the book of Esther, which he includes with Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Judith and Tobit as books worthy of esteem, but not canonical status.
[4] Ibid., 1276.
[5] Ibid., 1276.
[6] The organic unity of Scripture and its importance for the doctrine of the canon of Scripture is further developed by Samuel Waldron, Prolegomena to Systematic Theology 2: Doctrine of the Word (unpublished manuscript), 105-13. Waldron draws from both Abraham Kuyper, Principles of Sacred Theology (Eerdmans, 1954), 48-51, 460-73, and also John Murray, “The Attestation of Scripture,” The Infallible Word, 2nd ed. (Presbyterian & Reformed, 1969), 33-42.
[7] My method is primarily theological or biblical, rather than historical. In other words, I do not want to base my case primarily upon the testimony of the Jewish Rabbis or the early church Fathers. There are a number of good books on that subjection which you may read. E.g., Edward J. Young, “The Canon of the Old Testament,” Revelation and the Bible, ed. Carl F. H. Henry (Baker, 1958), 153-68; R. Laird Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible: An Historical and Exegetical Study (Zondervan, 1969); Andrew F. Walls, “The Canon of the New Testament” in vol. 1 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Zondervan, 1979), 631-643; and especially, F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (InterVarsity, 1988).
[8] These would include Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.
[9] The Jews traditionally count the Old Testament books as twenty-four in number. Our Bible lists thirty-nine books because it divides Samuel, Kings, Chronicles into two books each, and divides the Minor Prophets into twelve separate books. The Jewish Bible is arranged in three sections: The Law of Moses comprises the first section. The Prophets is the second section, comprised of the Former Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings), the Latter Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve). The Writings comprise the third section and includes eleven books: the Psalms, Proverbs, Job, the Megillilot (Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther), Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and finally Chronicles.
[10] In the preface to Ecclesiasticus, which was written by the great grandson of its author, Jesus ben Sirach.
[11] According to Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, Josephus may have appended Ruth to Judges and Lamentations to Jeremiah, and he may have included Job, Esther, Daniel, Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah among the Prophets, 33.
[12] Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon.
[13] A reference to the apocryphal books.
[14] Flavius Josephus, The Complete Work of Flavius Josephus, trans. William Whiston (Kregel Publications, 1960), 609 (Against Apion 1.8).
[15] Craig Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Eerdmans, 1999), lists several Rabbinal references in a footnote, 177.
[16] The “jot” (yod) was the smallest Hebrew letter, and the “tittle” (lit., ‘horn’) referred to the serif-like strokes, which distinguished similar consonants.
[17]A few would include Alfred Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew (1915; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982), 322; R. T. France, Matthew, vol. 1 in Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Leichester: InterVarsity; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 330-31; William Hendricksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1973), 838; Craig Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 556.
[18] Of course, Paul was aware that the NT canon was under development and could even equate a saying recording in Luke’s Gospel (Luke 10:7) as “Scripture” (1 Tim. 5:18). So it’s possible that he had the OT canon in view in verse 15 but broadened that horizon to include the developing NT canon in verse 16. Whatever the case, the divine origin and quality that Paul ascribes to the OT also by way of extension applies to the NT (see Part 3). Thanks to my friend Keith Throop for pointing this out.
[19] The Greek term is theopneustos, literally, “God-breathed.”
[20] Waldron, Prolegomena 2, 172, following R. Laird Harris, does not believe the three-fold division is a biblical way to view the OT canon and prefers not to see Christ endorsing it. But Christ may refer to the three-fold arrangement of the Jewish canon without necessarily endorsing that arrangement.
[21] The full list includes the following: 1 & 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the additions to Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah, additions to the book of Daniel (Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Hebrew Children, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon), the Prayer of Manasseh, 1 & 2 Maccabees. For a fuller description and history of the Apocrapha, see R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), pp. 1175-1278.
[22] In particular, the Babylonian Talmud (A.D. 70—200) identifies twenty-four books as inspired (our thirty-nine) and discusses their order. Shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, the rabbis at Jamnia discussed the canon, but there is currently no evidence that an official counsel took place to set the limits of the canon. Cf. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, 34-36.
[23] If any Jew might regard the Apocryphal books as inspired, it would be Philo. He was an Alexandrian Jew who used the Septuagint translation, which included the Apocryphal books. Yet, Philo only acknowledge those books to be inspired that were part of the traditional Hebrew text according to Bruce, 46.
[24] See also the disclaimer in 2 Maccabees 15:38: “If [my own account] is well written and to the point, that is what I wanted; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the best I could do” (NAB).
[25] The word “Tanakh” is an acronym for the “Law” (torah), the Prophets” (neba’im), and the “Writings” (khethubim).
[26] According to B. F. Westcott, The Bible and the Church (MacMillan, 1901), 43-44, twenty-eight of the thirty-nine books are cited.
[27] Jude alludes to an OT incident which is recorded in the Pseudapigraphal book, the Assumption of Moses. John Calvin, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, vol. 3 (Eerdmans, 1972), 329, believes Jude and the writer of the Assumption may have drawn their story from a common oral tradition. Even if Jude drew from the apocryphal work, we can be sure the Spirit of God guided his selection, as He did Paul’s use of heathen poets (Acts 17:28).
[28] It must be admitted that the absence of a censure from Christ and the apostles regarding the Jewish exclusion of the apocryphal books is an argument from silence. Moreover, Joseph seems to indicate that the Sadducees, unlike the Pharisees, only treated the law of Moses as canonical (Antiquities, 13, sec. 297; 18, sec. 17). The fact that neither Jesus nor the apostles ever criticize the Sadducees for their exclusion of the Prophets and Writings would seem, then, to invalidate our argument. On the other hand, it is not absolutely clear from Josephus or from other sources of Jewish tradition that the Sadducees completely rejected the Prophets and Writings in their entirety as religious tradition. For one, there is NT evidence (along with Jewish tradition) that implicates the Sadducees as anti-supernaturalists (see Matt. 22:23-28; Mark 12:18-23; Luke 20:27-33; Acts 23:6-8), the ancient equivalent of contemporary “modernists.” Furthermore, according to one source of Jewish tradition, the Sadducees are excluded from “the students of Moses” (b. Yoma 4a). Hence, the Sadducees seemed to have a lower view of inspiration than the Pharisees–even with respect to the law of Moses. And though Jesus does not explicitly condemn them for their view of the canon, alleged deficient by Josephus, he does rebuke their anti-supernaturalism and sides with the Pharisees’s view of the resurrection (Matt. 22:29-33; Mark 12:24-27; Luke 20:34-40) and of the canon (Matt. 5:17; 23:34-35; Luke 24:25-27, 32, 44-45).
[29] NPCF, first series, II, p. 1125-26 (On Christian Doctrine, 2.13).
[30] R. Laird Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity, 190-91, cites two passages from Augustine’s De Civitate Dei (the City of God), xviii, 26, 36, in which Augustine seems to acknowledge a kind of “deuterocanonical” status for the Apocryphal books. G. Douglas Young, “The Apocrypha,” Revelation and the Bible, 176, alludes to another passage in Augustine’s writings where this distinction is implied, but I have not been able to locate that passage.
[31] The Roman Catholic Church officially pronounced the apocryphal books as canonical in 1546. The Eastern Orthodox Church followed suit in 1642. F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, pp. 82, 104-05.
[32] Waldron, Prolegomena 2, 196-97.
[33] For example, Tobit 1:2 portrays Shalmaneser as the Assyrian king who carried away Naphtali into captivity, but according to 2 Kings 15:29, it was actually Tiglath-Pilesar. According to Tobit 1:15, Sennacherib is the son of Shalmaneser (1:15), when in fact he was the son of Sargon; neither of which descended from Shalmaneser. Nebuchadnezzar and Ahasuerus as the conqueror’s of Ninevah (14:15). But in reality, it was their predessors, Nabopolassar and Cyaxeres, who destroyed the city. Second Maccabees speaks of prayers and sacrifices for the dead, the doctrine of purgatory (12:43-46), and the intercession of the saints in heaven (15:11ff.). Not surprisingly the Roman Catholic Church cites these passages to support their teaching. And though 2 Maccabees 7:11-14 supports the resurrection of the body; the Book of Wisdom follows Greek philosophy and speaks only of the immortality of the soul—the human body being a prison of the soul (3:1ff.; 8:19f.; 9:15). For other examples, see Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity, 181ff.
[34] Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity, p. 193.
March 4th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
I hate to say it, but your minor premise is flawed. I’m not saying I disagree with your conclusion, I’m saying that your argument doesn’t work.
Minor Premise: NT prophecy and tongues are forms of divinely authoritative (canonical) special revelation.
When you add the word “canonical” to this premise you invalidate is simply because there are numerous instances of prophecy and tongue described in the NT, but not recorded. And if its not recorded, then it cannot be canonical.
Based on the way your word your premise, the only prophecy of Agabus in Acts 21 that is divinely authoritative is the one he gives to Paul in verse 11. Everything else he said, by your definition, cannot be authoritative. But this would nullify the authorial intent of Luke, who describes him already as a prophet, that is, Luke (and thus also the Holy Spirit) considered other things he said to have also been authoritative and prophetic.
Again, I’m not saying I disgaree with your conclusion. I just think you need to fix your minor premise.
March 4th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
*Based on the way you word your premise.
typo
March 4th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Mike,
Thanks for the input. Actually, I was using the term “canonical” equivocally, that is, to refer to two different but related concepts. The term is most commonly used to delimit those writings considered to be inspired by God, i.e., Scripture, which is one form of special revelation. The term may also be used more broadly to refer to special revelation itself as opposed to general revelation. For example, when Paul writes, “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter” (2 Thess. 2:15), he expected these believers to treat his teaching whether oral or written as “canonical,” that is, divinely authoritative and normative for the covenant community. I intend this latter sense in both the major and minor premises. I intend the former sense when speaking of the corpora of the Old and New Testaments. Nevertheless, to avoid confusion, I have reworded my premises above. Thanks for pointing out the ambiguity.
Your servant,
Bob Gonzales
P.S. I’ll be addressing the Agabus prophecy latter in this series.
March 4th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Post: It’s significant that neither Jesus nor the Apostles ever faulted the Jews for “subtracting” books from the canon.
My response: I would simply like to point out that neither Jesus nor the Apostles faulted the Sadducees for subtracting the books that they subtracted from their canon, as they only held to the first 5 books of the OT. Therefore i wouldn’t think of that the fact that they didn’t fault them for it would be proof that they approved of it.
The apocrypha certainly does not belong in the canon, but i think we need to keep our arguments for it above board.
March 5th, 2009 at 9:06 am
Larry,
Thanks for pointing out the weakness in the way I stated that proposition above. As a result of your observation, I have revised it to read, “It’s worth noting that Jesus and the apostles appear to have supported the prevailing Jewish view of the canon (i.e., that of the Pharisees) and never faulted that viewpoint for “subtracting” books from the canon.” It must be admitted that the absence of a censure from Christ and the apostles regarding the Jewish exclusion of the apocryphal books is an argument from silence. Moreover, Josephus seems to indicate that the Sadducees, unlike the Pharisees, only treated the law of Moses as canonical (Antiquities, 13, sec. 297; 18, sec. 17). The fact that neither Jesus nor the apostles ever criticize the Sadducees for their exclusion of the Prophets and Writings would seem, then, to invalidate the argument. On the other hand, it is not absolutely clear from Josephus or from other sources of Jewish tradition that the Sadducees completely rejected the Prophets and Writings in their entirety as religious tradition. For one, there is NT evidence (along with Jewish tradition) that implicates the Sadducees as anti-supernaturalists (see Matt. 22:23-28; Mark 12:18-23; Luke 20:27-33; Acts 23:6-8), the ancient equivalent of contemporary “modernists.” Furthermore, according to one source of Jewish tradition, the Sadducees are excluded from “the students of Moses” (b. Yoma 4a). Hence, the Sadducees seemed to have a lower view of inspiration than the Pharisees–even with respect to the law of Moses. And though Jesus does not explicitly condemn them for their view of the canon, alleged deficient by Josephus, he does rebuke their anti-supernaturalism and sides with the Pharisees’s view of the resurrection (Matt. 22:29-33; Mark 12:24-27; Luke 20:34-40) and of the canon (Matt. 5:17; 23:34-35; Luke 24:25-27, 32, 44-45).
In any case, thanks for your helpful input: “as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another” (Prov. 27:17).
Bob Gonzales
March 5th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Bob,
You’re quite welcome.
I am really enjoying these posts.
Keep up the good work!
March 5th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Bob, I have a few questions that have arisen due to these statements:
“Paul identifies the ’sacred writings’ (15) as ‘all Scripture’ (16). Timothy knew these writings from early childhood (15). Since the NT was not then extant, Paul must be referring specifically to the OT Scriptures. Paul asserts that this OT canon in its entirety is ‘inspired by God.’”
Of course Paul’s reference in verse 15 to the Scriptures as having been known by Timothy “from childhood” would have to be a reference to the Old Testament in particular. But would this require that the statement in verse 16 refer only to the Old Testament? For example, what about Paul’s likely reference to Luke 10:7 alongside Deuteronomy 25:4 in his first epistle to Timothy (5:18)? Doesn’t he include the Gospel of Luke as part of Scripture? If so, could we say that — although Paul definitely does have in mind at least the Old Testament Scriptures in 2 Tim. 3:16 — he may not be thinking only of the Old Testament Scriptures when he asserts that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God”?
I don’t doubt that verse 16 can be applied by extension to the other writings that were inspired as well (i.e. the New Testament), but I am just curious about what we must regard as Paul’s specific intent here. What do you think?
Just thinking out loud again.
Keith
March 5th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Dear Keith,
Good point. I’ve reworded my argument above to allow for the possibility that though Paul likely had the OT canon in view when speaking of the “sacred writings” (since Timothy had known this corpora as a child), he may have broadened his horizon when transitioning from verse 15 to 16 to include the developing NT canon. See footnote 18 where I acknowledge your input. Also, I fixed your italics above. Thanks for thinking out loud. That’s what “Tabletalk” is all about!
Bob G.
March 5th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
[...] of whether God is continuing to confer on the NT church the the gifts of prophecy and tongues. In Part 2, we began to develop an argument in favor of “cessationism,” the view that the gifts of [...]
March 7th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
[...] with the completion of the canon of Scripture, pre-parousia special revelation has ceased. In Part 2, we identified a completed OT canon. In Part 3, we identified the parameters of a NT canon. We must [...]
March 9th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
[...] but cautious). We side with the cessationists though we acknowledge good men in the other camps. In Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4, we sought to establish our major premise, namely, that all pre-parousia [...]
March 17th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
[...] divinely authoritative special revelation has been completed and has, therefore, ceased (Part 2, Part 3, Part 4). This point is affirmed by most continuationists like Grudem (Part [...]
March 25th, 2009 at 9:05 am
Mike, the first comment, is correct. No continuist that I know of categorizes tongues and prophesy (as described in 1 Cor. 12-14) as canocial special revelation. I interviewed Jack Deere, a published defender of continuism, who explicitly and forcefully denounced such a position. He, and probably all over series continuist would agree with the statement (above): “God has said everything He needs to say for the salvation of sinners and for the good of the church, and therefore, we should not expect any new revelations from God until Jesus Christ returns.”
March 25th, 2009 at 10:43 am
[...] “A Humble Argument for the Cessation of NT Prophecy and Tongues (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8), we have tried to demonstrate from the Scriptures [...]
April 7th, 2009 at 8:53 am
[...] authoritative special revelation has been completed and has, therefore, ceased (see Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5). If it can be demonstrated that the revelation of tongues and prophecy [...]
April 7th, 2009 at 9:09 am
[...] of humility, acknowledging that there are good men representing each of these positions.[9] In Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4 of this series, I’ll argue for the cessation of Scripture quality [...]
October 25th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
“Major Premise: All pre-parousia divinely authoritative special revelation has been completed and has, therefore, ceased.
Minor Premise: NT prophecy and tongues are forms of pre-parousia divinely authoritative special revelation.
Conclusion: Therefore, tongues and prophecy have ceased.”
—
I think the conclusion is wrong, regardless of how the argument works out. Simply because God says in His Word (if it is really authoritative) not to despise prophecies, not to forbid speaking in tongues, to earnestly desire spiritual gifts, to pray for the gift of interpretation, to prophecy according to the measure of one’s faith. He says that the prayer of faith will heal the sick, He says that nothing is impossible for him who believes, He says to pray and believe and He will grant it, and many others. I think it is better to let clear biblical text determine one’s theology and not let theology remove words from God’s Word.
October 25th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
If cessationism is true then every time I see a promise, or example of God’s supernatural rescue in the bible… I would have to read lots of theological books so I would know which ones God is actually willing to do for me.
If cessationism is true, and one really believes it, it will kill prayer and worship, because God is really not willing to have a personal relationship with anyone. Furthermore it would mean God is unwilling to exercise His supernatural power to answer any prayer.
If cessationism is true, then all the godly bible-believing christians I personally know who have experienced God’s supernatural gifts are just deceived, and in fact the bible is outright misleading, giving clear commands and promises (that do work) but actually leading people into satan’s power (logical conclusion if cessationism is true). It would even seem that satan has more power than God in this church age if he can do miracles and talk to people while God cannot.
October 29th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Major Premise: All pre-parousia divinely authoritative special revelation has been completed and has, therefore, ceased.
Minor Premise: preaching (e.g. Ecclesiastes), evangelism (e.g. John 20:31), teaching (e.g. Proverbs), songs (e.g. Psalms), history (e.g.Luke), personal letters (e.g. Philemon), weeping (Lamentation), comments (Mark 13:14), greetings (e.g.Romans 16:22) are forms of pre-parousia divinely authoritative special revelation.
Conclusion : Therefore, preaching, evangelism, teaching, songs, history, personal letters, weeping, comments, greetings have ceased.
Application : the church should forbid preaching, evangelism, teaching, writing new worship songs, recording church history, letter writing, weeping, making comments and greetings because they compromise the authority of the bible.
The logic doesn’t hold.
October 29th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Avielh,
Thanks for your constructive criticism. On the surface, my major premise may appear ambiguous though I think I clarify it in my overall argument. The point is not the special revelation is no longer available or accessible. The argument, rather, is that God is no longer imparting new Scripture-quality revelation. Most continuationists I know would agree with this (major) premise. (They would take issue with the minor premise.) For example, consider the comments of Wayne Grudem:
You’ll find the above citation in part 5 of this study. Hope this helps. Thanks for prompting me to clarify my intent.
Your servant,
Bob Gonzales
November 3rd, 2009 at 10:26 am
I don’t think any serious advocate of spiritual gifts today is advocating that there are new revelations to be added to the Bible. That’s just a straw man. I think that’s been pointed out before but you don’t seem to be listening. A truly “humble” argument is one that actually listens, not just avoiding heated rhetoric.
As for NT prophets taking the place of OT prophets, Peter, in 2 Peter equates OT prophets with NT teachers, not prophets.
Your argument is self-contradictory: If you really believed in the sufficiency of scripture, you wouldn’t spend so much time arguing for something the Bible doesn’t. If scripture is sufficient, then why do you labor so much to add an argument to it that it no where contains?
November 7th, 2009 at 12:37 am
sir deangonzales, I just realized you are using a syllogism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism) – which makes me wonder why my example makes it fail.
I think you have 2 problems, not just the minor premise. You also have to make the major premise say that all the forms of which special revelation makes use of have ceased. Because it is possible for scriptures to ceased, but the form themselves in which they take do not (worship songs are still here, history, godly instructions, godly biographies, etc.).
If you just say :
Major Premise: All pre-parousia divinely authoritative special revelation has been completed and has, therefore, ceased.
Minor Premise: NT prophecy and tongues are forms of pre-parousia divinely authoritative special revelation.
… the forms themselves are not part of the divinely authoritative special revelation group. You cannot make the syllogism work if that’s the major premise.
November 7th, 2009 at 12:54 am
… or make the minor premise say that all NT prophecy and tongues are pre-parousia divinely authoritative special revelation.
… but I think its clear from the bible that not all NT prophecy and tongues belong in the divinely authoritative special revelation group (not all are written in the bible).