What gives a book or letter in the Bible authority over our lives? This is a basic question that both friends and foes of Christianity ask, and rightfully so.
Generally speaking, Christians do not rest their case on the authority (canonicity) of the New Testament based on an argument that the four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and twenty-two letters were written in the first century in an era of “revelation.” If such were the case, we would be forced to admit numerous other gospels and writings to the canon. It is true that the New Testament writings were written in this era, all of which evangelical scholars contend were composed before the close of the first century A.D., but their authority cannot rest solely on this fact.
But how was canonicity determined? Every major religion relies on a book or books that claim to be authoritative. What makes the New Testament different? This was a primary question for me as a teenager trying to determine if I should believe the testimony of an older brother and a few of his friends who had “found Jesus.” I was raised Roman Catholic and taught that the Bible was a source of authority, along with the Church that interpreted those authoritative words for me. But in truth, I wasn’t so sure. It is an old book, and when I tried to read it for myself it sounded archaic and, quite frankly, bizarre in places. My brother, a new believer himself, could only tell me that the books in the Bible were written by prophets and apostles. That made some sense, and certainly seemed to give weight to the writings. I had heard about the prophets of God and their power, and as a Catholic I knew about the apostles of Jesus, so it was at least a starting place for me. Little did I know then how much time and energy had been poured into this argument in the preceding 1,900 years before I was born.
It was B.B. Warfield, professor of theology at Princeton University, in his work The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, who insisted that the canon of the New Testament was determined not so much by the fact that an apostle had written a Gospel or letter, but more so the fact that the early church had accepted the books that the apostles themselves had imposed as law. Thus, the Gospel of Mark, although not written by an apostle, was still canonical based on apostolic law. God gave the nation of Israel the law through the mediation of his prophets. It held authority over the people because prophets were agents of God’s revelation, and therefore what they spoke and wrote were the very words of God. Warfield insisted that “God's authoritative agents in founding the church gave them as authoritative to the church which they founded.” In other words, Christians contend, from the earliest days of the church until today, that the New Testament is unique in its authority because God’s agents of revelation in the era of the New Testament writings either wrote them or sanctioned them.
We know historically that leaders within the early church community went to great lengths to determine whether a Gospel or letter that was being read in the churches or copied and disseminated throughout the church community bore the marks of apostolic authority. Did the Gospel or letter bear an apostle’s name? If so, was it consistent with that apostle’s other writings or with the words of his testimony remembered by eyewitnesses to his life and teachings? If the Gospel or letter did not bear his name, was it penned by a close associate who wrote under apostolic law? Did the content of the message teach a consistent doctrine and theology when held up alongside other accepted writings, and with the words of Jesus himself as related by eyewitnesses to his ministry? Was there a consensus among the churches and their leaders that these criteria had been met, and could questions concerning apostolicity be answered definitively?
These were certainly not easy questions to answer, nor did the early church take them lightly. As I mused over questions of biblical authority as a teenager, I admittedly did not know the depth nor the historicity of the questions I was asking. I was no scholar, but my questions were reasonable, and come to find out, they were questions that had been asked long before I had ever considered them.
Today, when I read the New Testament, I believe I can hear the words of God speaking to me through the voice of an apostle. I know that is a stretch for many, and sheer nonsense to some. However, there’s no sense in beating around the bush. We cannot prove apostolic law today any more than we can prove that Jesus rose from the dead, but both teachings are foundational to our faith. We believe that Jesus chose the apostles, and the apostles imposed their law on the canon of the New Testament. Thus, the words of the New Testament are God’s words. Not easy to believe - yet true - and essential to understanding biblical authority.
Grace and peace,
Pastor Jym