Welcome come back to number four of sixty or so of these studies that will add a couple of years onto our lives. We come tonight to a topic that is a little bit more exciting. We have to do (just as you are building a house) foundation work. And it is all very necessary, if the house is going to survive. And that is basically what we have been doing the last three weeks, dealing in particular with modern philosophical views and post-modern views as to the nature of language and the nature of revelation, and particularly with the enlightenment of Immanuel Kant and others. But tonight we come to deal with the topic of Scripture, the inspiration of Scripture and the authority of Scripture. And this will lead us next week to talk about the infallibility of Scripture and the inerrancy of Scripture, and some of the debates that surround that particular topic.

(Transcription of audio file from 01:12 to 02:38 omitted.)

Now there are two texts here that we are going to refer to, and you may want to flip back and forth to these texts as we allude to them later in this lecture. 2 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness.” And then 2 Peter 1:19-21, and especially the final clause: “Men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” And we are going to look first of all at something that we call “inscripturation.” This is the doctrine, the viewpoint, of how the self-disclosure of God—God’s special revelation in various forms, in various periods of history—eventually gets written down, and gets written down in the form of sixty-six books which comprise the canon of Scripture.

Inscripturation⤒🔗

Now the Westminster Confession in the first chapter speaks in this way: that “it pleased the Lord…to reveal himself…and afterwards…to commit the same wholly unto writing.” And that is inscripturation. God revealed himself to the patriarchs and to the prophets and to the apostles. He did so in the form of dreams and revelations and visions and appearances (and we were looking at those last week). And then he commits that to writing. So there is a distinction then between revelation—God revealing himself—and then there is something more that God does in addition to revealing himself, disclosing himself, perforating into space and time: he commits that to writing. He uses particular individuals to do that.

Now, we talk about the necessity. Why is inscripturation absolutely necessary? And the Westminster Divines answer that by saying no, it is not absolutely necessary, but it is for the “better preserving and propagating of the truth.” God preserved his truth before there was a New Testament canon. Before there were Gospels, and before there were letters, the words of Jesus were preserved in the early church. There was a tradition, a body of truth that was handed on from one person to another, from one community to another. But for the “better preservation and propagating of the truth,” God commits it to writing, “for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church.” And then (as we were looking just at the close of last week’s lecture) because the former ways of God’s revealing his will to his people have now ceased. That is the view of the Westminster’s Divines—that those early temporary means by which God reveals himself have now ceased, and God reveals himself in the Scriptures, in the Word of God.

Now, we do need to do some ground clearing before we can address the issue of the inspiration of Scripture, because critics abound and we have those who have questioned whether words—nouns and verbs and sentences and clauses and subordinate clauses—are adequate enough to contain God-language. This is liberal and radical thinkers from the past hundred years coming from various traditions, and I have mentioned some of them here: Schleiermacher from the nineteenth century, and in our own time, Bultmann and Paul Tillich. Just after I was converted (within a week of being converted), a minister put into my hands a book by Paul Tillich. (As I look back on it, it was in fact an act of Satan trying to rob, trying to take away, the seed that had been sown.) I read it; I actually did not understand a word of what Paul Tillich was saying, mercifully it was as though God had put a veil across my mind.

But liberals of various stripes and various traditions have said things like: “The Bible is just a collection of culturally conditioned myths; symbols of non-verbal pressure. God uses them; he evokes in the human spirit some kind of a mystical emotional response,” and so on. And there have been philosophers who have insisted that language is inadequate, and that language is just an evolutionary development of grunts and groans. Sociologists have studied language and the way language develops, and say that language isn’t a precise tool, that it means different things to different people. And in our own time playwrights like Beckett—some of you might have seen Waiting for God. Or for example, some of you might have been immersed in Ludwig Wittgenstein’s philosophy (well, you were at university; if you weren’t, well get on your knees and thank the Lord for that). But certainly some of your children or grandchildren at university are going to be taught by university professors who have imbibed that view, that philosophy that language is an uncertain tool; it is an imprecise tool. It morphs and changes, and is inadequate to contain true truth. And so doubt has been sown as to the ability of language (whether it is Greek language, or Hebrew language, or Americanese in particular, or the English language, or Latin) is adequate to contain true truth revealed by God.

Now, the answer to all of that is Jesus. I don’t mean to be simplistic about it, but the answer to it is Jesus. Jesus is God manifest in the flesh. Now of course, these liberals don’t believe that Jesus is God, so it does not answer it to them. But to us it answers this question: can God speak using human language and actually convey true truth? Well, he did so in Jesus. Jesus is God, and he spoke (presumably Aramaic) a human language and conveyed true truth by speaking. Now, some of you may want to follow that a little further. I am going to pass over that, but you need to be aware that there’s a huge skepticism in the world today about the sociology of language and whether the Bible as the inerrant Word of God is even possible. And my answer to it is Jesus. Jesus is God incarnate, and when he spoke God spoke. When he uttered words it was God uttering words. Intelligible words.

Accommodation←⤒🔗

Now to be sure, the next subheading here is “accommodation.” When God reveals himself using language, he accommodates himself. And I have some quotations here, one from C.S. Lewis and one from Calvin. Look at Calvin’s short sentence: that God condescends to talk to us in “homespun language with a contemptible meanness of words.” He uses ordinary words. He uses ordinary thought forms. He condescends to our ignorance. When God prattles to us in Scripture in a rough and popular style, let us know that this is done on account of the love which he bears to us. This afternoon I was in my office, and it is just across from Dr. Ferguson’s office, and he had some families visiting today with children who are going to be baptized this coming Lord’s Day. And you should hear him talking to a baby of three or four months. “Prattles” is about the right word for it. And God “prattles”; God condescends. He gets down on his hands and knees and talks to us in a way that we can understand. If God were to speak in language which only he could understand—you know, “The secret things belong unto the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children.” And God uses our thought forms, and he accommodates his revelation to suit our needs.

So, for example, what kinds of things is Calvin thinking about when he uses the language of accommodation? You know, Paul seems to be forgetful. He says in 1 Corinthians 1:16: “I did baptize also the household of Stephanus; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.” It is as though Paul is saying, “You know, I can’t remember.” And God uses that very common homespun kind of language. We use (well, those of us over fifty) that kind of language all too often! And God accommodates himself to Paul here. Or Galatians 5:12, where Paul says, “I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves.” That is a pretty coarse sort of statement! And God accommodates him! Did the Galatians understand what he meant? Oh yes, they understood what he meant.

Inspiration←⤒🔗

So let’s move on to inspiration. Let’s look at the New Testament basis for inspiration. 2 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” All Scripture is inspired. It isn’t (as one translation of the twentieth century rendered it) “all inspired Scripture,” meaning there are some bits of Scripture that are inspired and there are some bits of Scripture that are not inspired. But what Paul is saying here, he is attributing inspiration (or he is attributing breathed-out-ness) to the entirety of Scripture. So that what Scripture says, God says. Scripture is the product of God breathing out. Like on a cold day, you breathe out when you are out walking or running or something, and you can see the breath in front of you; it vaporizes in front of you. God breathes out. And what have you got? Scripture! You have got Genesis through Revelation. It is God speaking. You want to hear God speaking? Just open your Bibles and read it. God is speaking.

Scripture does not become God’s Word. You know, it does not become God’s Word because you feel a warm glow in your heart when you read this passage. That just may be indigestion. That may be lack of sleep. It is God’s Word whether you feel it to be God’s Word or not. It is always God’s Word. It is God’s Word even if you reject it. It is God’s Word if you despise it. It is because of its inspired-ness; it is because of its breathed-out-ness that it is profitable for doctrine and reproof and correction and instruction in the way of righteousness.

And then Peter in 2 Peter 1:19-21: “We have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophesy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation.” Now, Roman Catholics used to interpret that as meaning that you should not interpret the Scripture by yourself; you should let the Church let interpret Scripture for you—that is not what Peter is saying. Peter is saying that no Scripture comes merely because it is of human origin. Men wrote as they were borne along, as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. Men wrote, but they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. There is this duality, that Scripture is on one level the product of men writing (men like Moses, or David, or Ezekiel, or John, or Paul, or Peter), but at the same time, concurrent with men writing, God was carrying them along. So that what they wrote was exactly what God intended.

John 10:35 then is another New Testament text of great importance here. And actually, this is just a side remark of Jesus. He is actually talking about something else, and he is quoting from the Old Testament a certain passage to prove a certain point that we need not go into. But as a kind of side remark about the passage (it is a Psalm that he is quoting), he says, “Scripture cannot be broken.” He uses a form of the verb “to break apart.” It cannot be broken apart; you can’t tear it apart. You can’t take Scripture and say, “Well, this bit is human and that bit is Divine. This bit is inspired and that bit is not inspired.”

Now, strictly speaking, all three of these texts (2 Timothy 3:16, the Peter passage, and John 10:35) are referring to the Old Testament. They are not actually at this point referring to the New Testament. They are talking about the Old Testament. We will come to the New Testament in a minute.

Organic Inspiration←↰⤒🔗

Then we need to talk about something called “organic inspiration.” By organic we mean that Scripture (as the text in Peter is making so very clear) is the product of two authors. There is a human author, and there is a Divine author. The Divine authorship so superintends the human authorship that everything that the human writes is exactly what God intends. That is what Peter is saying. Men wrote as they were carried along, borne along, by the Holy Spirit. There is this dual authorship of human and Divine. The basic thought here is, God’s words in men’s mouths. That is the basic thought here. God is ensuring that his words are actually coming out of men’s mouths, or coming off men’s quills, or whatever scribal tool they were employing.

Now, look at some of these passages here. Jeremiah 1:9: “Then the Lord put out his hand and touched my mouth. And the Lord said to me, ‘Behold, I have put my words in your mouth.’” Here is Jeremiah saying, “God put words into my mouth.” Now, it is not explaining how he did that. It is not giving us the psychology of that. It is just saying that when Jeremiah spoke, it was the Word of God. It was God’s words that he spoke. Or in Acts 4:25, Peter: “Who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit, ‘Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples plot in vain?’” On one level it is what David said; on another level it is what the Holy Spirit intended. David wrote, but it was what the Holy Spirit intended. Or look further down, Hebrews 10:15: “And the Holy Spirit also bear witness to us.” He is actually citing Jeremiah 31:31, a very important passage about the promise of the new covenant. He is quoting Jeremiah, but he says, “And the Holy Spirit bears witness.” So “Jeremiah says” means, “The Holy Spirit says.” So the New Testament here views Scripture as both a product of human origin and a product of divine origin. And the divine origin ensures that what the human being contributes is precisely what God intends.

Now, there are some qualifications, and I’ve mention some of them. Let me go for the jugular here. At times the message is given by dictation. Now, this is a word that (especially in liberal circles) gets people all fired up. Sometimes the view is put forth that an evangelical doctrine of inspiration is a doctrine of dictation, and that is not (as we shall see in a minute) an evangelical view of the doctrine of inspiration. But sometimes, sometimes, God dictates. When he wrote the Ten Commandments, he said to Moses, “Take this down. And take it down word for word; don’t add to it. Don’t change it in any way. Do exactly, write exactly, what I say.” God dictates the Ten Commandments. Or the seven letters in Revelation 2 and 3. These are letters from Jesus to the seven churches in Asia Minor. John is taking dictation. Just like a secretary, he takes dictation. He hears the voice of Jesus and he writes down exactly what Jesus says. Now, it was not always like that. But sometimes it is by dictation. Sometimes liberals sort of scoff at that in a kind of a snooty way, and talk about it as the typewriter-view of inspiration, and that is meant to get us all apoplectic.

The next thing: at times, Bible writers wrote beyond their own understanding. (Now, I have read enough seminary papers to know that human beings can write beyond their own understanding.) Did Isaiah understand fully when he spoke of the suffering servant in four songs that he wrote seven centuries before the coming of Jesus? Did he understand fully the significance of what he was talking about? Probably not! Did Jeremiah, when he wrote about the new covenant, understand fully the implications of what he was saying? Probably not! You know, Peter says about Paul, “There are some things in Paul that are hard to be understood.” Which is true! At times Bible writers wrote beyond their own understanding. And then another caveat here: we can’t parcel out inspired bits and non-inspired bits.

Now, what are the characteristics of organic inspiration?

Differences of style. Because on one level, the Bible is written by human-beings. On one level. That is one side of the coin. And that human contribution can be seen. So if you are to give me a chapter at random from the Old Testament and you said, “This is one of the major prophets,” and the expression “the Holy One of God” occurs several times in the quotation, I would say, “Well, that is Isaiah. That is not Ezekiel; it is not Jeremiah. That is Isaiah, because he has a thing about the holiness of God.” Because he saw the holiness of God in Isaiah 6, and for the rest of the book he is always talking about God as “the Holy One.” Jeremiah seems to engage in a kind of introspective self-analysis in a way that Isaiah certainly does not. It is one of the endearing things about Jeremiah that he talks about himself. He cites in Jeremiah 19 and 20—that dark, dark, dark chapter when he wishes he had never been born; when he wishes that he had died in his mother’s womb, so that his mother would forever be his grave—those are dark thoughts, and he shows us a little about himself.

Or John, when he begins his Gospel: “En archē ēn ho Lógos, kaì ho Lógos.” You know, you only need to study Greek for thirty minutes and you could read the first verse of John’s Gospel. I mean, it is simple. It is very simple. Just basic simple words, simple grammar. It is ABC, and yet you could spend the rest of your life trying to fathom exactly what it is that John is saying. And that is a characteristic of John. John’s fascination with numbers: the way John’s Gospel is written and the way Revelation is written shows a fascination with numbers. Paul: Paul can get so excited that his grammar can go out the window. He writes a sentence in Ephesians that just never stops. An editor would say, “You have got to chop that up. There are four sentences here, Paul.” But he is so excited, he can’t stop. And that’s Paul, passionate man that he was! And you see it in his letters—his passion. You can see in Galatians the passion of a young man. And then you turn to the Pastoral Epistles and you see a mature man, a grown-up man.

Dependence on ordinary sources. How are these books put together? The books of Samuel; the books of 1 and 2 Chronicles. They talk about research that was done in chronicles of history—books called The Book of Nathan the Seer or Samuel the Seer. These were history books, books of chronology; books that were kept in the archives. And they were consulted in order to put 1 and 2 Samuel and Chronicles together. Luke: that almost pedantic way that Luke begins his Gospel. He is giving this very flowery preface to Theophilus, and he is saying, “I have done research. I have gone to libraries. I have talked to eye-witnesses. I recorded exactly what they have said.” That is the introduction of Luke. He is a historian! There are things in the Bible that look remarkably similar to documents and styles that exist in the ancient Near East. So when covenants are spoken of in the Bible—covenants with Abraham, or covenants with Moses, or covenants with David—the pattern of those covenants reflect the way legal covenants were done in the Ancient Near East. So they are bringing forms and expressions from the world outside of the Bible into the Bible. There are secular and religious styles that are reflected in the Bible.

Revelation is not flat. Then again, revelation is not flat. By which I mean, It has peaks; there are mountain peaks. When you read Isaiah, for example, it seems as though this is a heightened awareness now of the coming of the Messiah. Hosea, in his understanding of the covenant love of God. Or Ezekiel’s understanding of the glory of God. Or Paul on justification. These are heights, these are like alpine peaks, in the Bible. So revelation is not flat. There may even be development within an individual writer. I think it is fair to talk about a young Paul and an older Paul. You know, that talk about emasculating is the young Paul. It is Galatians. And then when you read the Pastoral Epistles, you read language that is more conducive of somebody who is older and more mature and perhaps a little more patient. Even in Acts: you see at the very beginning of Acts this almost experiment-like thing that the church holds it property in common possession. A voluntary thing that they do. Right at the beginning of Acts! But it sort of disappears. So you see growth and you see development, even within books itself. And all of that is evidence of the human side of the Bible.

But all of it—every jot and tittle of it—is superintended by God. Men spoke, but as they were borne along, carried along by the Holy Spirit. But the Bible does not lose the human quality, i.e., Mark. Mark is always in a hurry. He is the guy who ran naked from a scene, remember. He uses a little expression in Greek, “kai euthus” (meaning, “immediately”)—he is breathless! And Luke is like a historian. Everything sort of slows down when you read Luke; it is like watching the history channel, and you are sort of propping your eyes open, because this is Luke the historian. Very meticulous, very precise!

Plenary Inspiration←↰⤒🔗

Now, plenary inspiration. Plenus, as you all know from your Latin, means full. Organic inspiration is that the Bible is both human and Divine. It is 100% human, 100% Divine. Plenary inspiration is the quality that all of Scripture is inspired, not just bits of the Scripture, or parts of the Scripture. All Scripture! 2 Timothy 3:16. Whatever is Scripture is inspired, from Genesis to Revelation. Every single Scripture is human and divinely breathed out. Now technically speaking, this is an attribution given to the original autographs. This is not saying that the King James Version is inspired by God or the New International Version is inspired by God. The English Standard Version is not inspired by God. Technically, this is an attribution of the original autographs. The Confession of Faith puts it like this: “The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old) and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar tongue of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.”

Now, let me make another caveat here: the writers were not always inspired or preserved from error or kept from sin. Paul, for example, wrote a letter (maybe two; some say three, but probably two) to Corinth in addition to 1 and 2 Corinthians. He mentions in 2 Corinthians a letter that is not 1 Corinthians, but a letter that is written in between 1 and 2 Corinthians, for example, that we don’t have. And one presumes, therefore, that that letter was not inspired. It was not breathed out by God, and it was not kept in the providence of God. We don’t have that letter. David: David is an instrument of God in the writing of Scripture, but at the same time David was a man full of sin. And we won’t talk about Solomon. So just because they were used as instruments in the writing of the Bible, doesn’t mean there weren’t periods in their life when they didn’t sin. Or that they didn’t write shopping-lists—that was not inspired! That wasn’t part of Scripture! There was a deliberate act of God when that which they were writing was to be Scripture.

Now, the denial of plenary inspiration—full inspiration of the totality of Scripture—comes from the view (and it is a point of view, it is a world-view) that says, “To err is human and to forgive is divine” (I know not who said that, but Alexander Pope may have been the first person to have said that. Though I think one of your former presidents has also said it and it is sometimes attributed to him). “To err is human.” Now, what is the problem with that? “To err is human.” Well, that is true. Apart from Jesus, that is true of every single human being that has ever been in the world. But it overlooks what Peter is saying. Because Peter says, God superintended and oversaw, in his Sovereign providence, that when these erring humans wrote, they wrote in such a manner that what they wrote was precisely what God intended them to write. Men wrote (and they were sinful human beings that wrote) as they were carried along, borne along, by the Holy Spirit. It also proves too much, because if “to err is human,” well, the entire Bible is human! There is not a verse in Scripture that is not of human origin. All of it is human. So therefore, on that score, there could not be any part of the Bible that is inspired. So that proves too much. And the denial of plenary inspiration also comes from those who point to the phenomena of the Bible, and the fact that the Bible employs various literary forms, and so on.

Attestation←⤒🔗

Now, what about the attestation of Scripture? “The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.” The Bible is the Word of God because it is the Word of God. Allow me to say that again. The Bible is the Word of God because it is the Word of God. Now that sounds circular, but when you are dealing with ultimate propositions, what higher authority than God can you have to verify that this is from God? The Bible claims that it comes from God. There is no higher authority than God. So of the very nature of the case, it is the Word of God because it is the Word of God.

The fact is that, in God’s providence, the Bible has proven to be verifiable and dependable and trustworthy for 2000 years—it is not the ultimate reason why I believe the Bible to be the Word of God. You know, when I was converted in 1971 - I had never read the Bible. I didn’t possess a copy. I had never opened the Bible in my entire life –when I first read a Bible, I knew immediately it was the Word of God. It read differently; it had a quality that was entirely different from anything else. It testified to me—actually, it was the testimony of the Holy Spirit.

Now, the self-attestation of Scripture. Scripture witnesses to its own authority. Scripture claims for itself that it is the Word of God. And over and above that, there is the testimony of the Holy Spirit—the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. And I have got several quotations for the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, including one from Sinclair B. Ferguson in a chapter that he wrote, How Does the Bible Look at Itself?: “If one objects that any sophisticated reasoning or preunderstanding would bar the ordinary Christian from reaching the conviction that Scripture claims to be the Word of God, the answer is at hand: We are ultimately persuaded of the inspiration and authority of Scripture not on the basis of coherent arguments in textbooks of doctrine, but through the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. It is by reading Scripture under the Spirit’s influence, rather than by skill of logic, that trust in God’s Word is born.” That is an incredibly pastoral insight. How can you know that the Bible is the Word of God? Read it. Read it prayerfully. Read it open to the blessing and guidance and illumination of the Holy Spirit. And it will testify to you that it is the Word of God.

There are some examples of the inward work of the Spirit in Scripture. In Lydia: the Lord opened her heart. Paul in 1 Corinthians saying that “the natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him. He is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” And then he writes to the Thessalonians and he says, “Our gospel came to you not in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and in full conviction.” And when you read the Bible with the blessing of the Holy Spirit, with the illumination and the testimony of the Holy Spirit, it is the most powerful thing in the universe. It can change lives 180 degrees. It can bring life out of death. It can make someone who is dead in trespasses and in sins alive in Jesus Christ. The Bible in the hands of the Holy Spirit and read by someone whose eyes are open in faith is the most powerful thing in all the world.

Canon←⤒🔗

Now, a quick note about canon. This is probably the most difficult area of the doctrine of Scripture– canon, the 66 books of the Bible. We have already seen how the New Testament views the Old Testament. 2 Timothy 3:16, the passage in Peter, John 10—these are all statements, of course, about the Old Testament. Why do I believe that the Old Testament is the word of God, infallible and inerrant? Because Jesus did. It is always wise to be on the side of Jesus, and always unwise to be on the wrong side of Jesus. And actually, the Old Testament is much more difficult to accept as the Word of God than the New Testament is. But Jesus believed. Jesus. You can’t worship Jesus, you can’t call him Lord, you can’t say, “He is the Creator of the universe; he is my Lord and Savior,” but say he was wrong about the Old Testament Scriptures. You know, “He was a man of his day,” or something of that kind. “He was just a Rabbi, a man of his day. I mean, he is my Lord, he is my Savior, but he was just wrong.” How can you do that? If Jesus was wrong about anything, he is not my Savior! And he believed the Old Testament to be the infallible and inerrant Word of God. It cannot be torn apart.

But what about the New Testament? Look at these things that I have for you here. Note the way the Old Testament quotations are introduced by “it is written.” I love this phrase from Herman Ridderbos: it is a phrase which “in the New Testament puts an end to all contradiction.” You want to end all contradiction? You just say, “It is written.” That’s it. There is no debate. It is finished. Note the way John rounds off his own Gospel with the words, “These are written,” using the same words here. Isn’t that interesting? That John is putting his own Gospel on a par with the Old Testament Scriptures that he quotes “It is written.” Notice, Paul viewed his teaching as the Word of God: “When you received the Word of God, which you heard from us.” When Paul wrote, it was the Word of God. Disobedience to the teaching in these letters could lead to excommunication. “If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note that that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed.” Now, you have got to be pretty self-confident, bordering on the arrogant, unless you actually are an apostle of Jesus Christ, so that when you actually write something, if you disobey it you are to be shunned.

The apostolic letters are read alongside Old Testament Scripture. Colossians 3 and 4: “When this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans.” They had a practice of reading the Old Testament, and now they are reading letters by Paul. Or at the end of Revelation, the end of the Bible: “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophesy of this book, if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophesy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.” What a solemn warning, isn’t it, at the end of the Bible! What a solemn warning at the end of the Bible, that if you add or take away… And there have been those certainly who want to take away. You know, you see “inspired bits.” Actually (now I am going to get you all bent out of shape), red-letter Bibles can sometimes do that. You know, because “these are more inspired bits,” you see. I mean, why would you have red-letter Bibles? Because all Scripture is breathed out by God—not just the red-letter bits! All Scripture. The chronology, the list of names, in Ezra—that is as inspired as John 13 or 14 or 15. It is still the Word of God.

Note the way 1 Timothy 5:18 cites both Old and New Testament books. It cites from Deuteronomy and Luke 10:7 with the words “For the Scripture says.” So there is already a provenance of Luke’s Gospel in the Church that is being viewed as Scripture. It is not that the Church puts its stamp of approval on certain books. That is not the way it happened. These books came into being and testified as to their own nature that they were the Word of God. They were recognized by the Church as being the Word of God. So there is a consciousness of canonical status to the twenty-seven books of the Bible already in the early New Testament church.

If you want to chase that a little further, a very, very, very good book has just been published by a friend and colleague of mine, Michael Kruger, who teaches at Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, Canon Revisited. I think he is one of the world’s scholars at this point in history on the issue of canon. If you are wondering or want to do some more reading at a deeper level about the issue of canonicity—how did the twenty-seven books of the New Testament become the canon?, and that that canon was closed, and issues about Hebrews, or the authorship of 2 Peter, or the provenance of Ephesians (whether it was written by Paul), and so on. All these things have been challenged over the years.