by the late Ernest L. Martin
The Canonization by Peter
The apostle Paul could survey the historical environment
within the Christian community of late A.D.66 and what he saw
disturbed him very much! It was nothing like the relatively
stable condition that existed up to the time of James' death in
AD.62. Not only was it apparent that Christ was not returning to
earth in that generation (Paul and Peter's life time would be
more accurate - Keith Hunt) but the Christian church was now
being bombarded from within by many people teaching a variety of
false doctrines. These ranged the gamut from being actively
rebellious against all constituted authority (both religious and
secular) that Peter prophesied about in 2 Peter 2, to the
statements of the apostle John that many antichrists had arisen
among Christians who were changing the fabric of Christian
teachings about the nature and mission of Christ. The apostle
Paul appraised the chaotic situation that had come on the scene
since the death of James in A.D.62. "All the men of Asia have
turned away from me" (2 Tim.1:15). The prospects for the future
were no brighter.
"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some
shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and
doctrines of devils. Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their
conscience seared with a hot iron" (I Tim.4:1,2).
"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine;
but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers,
having itching aura; and they shall turn away their ears, from
the truth, and shall be turned unto fables" (2 Tim.4:3,4).
There was by A.D.66 a corruption of the Christian faith
occurring on all sides and the immediate and future out-look was
even more dismal! At least, this is what the apostles thought.
And worse yet, Peter knew by the time he wrote his second epistle
that he was soon to die, that Paul's fate was already set, and
that an insurrection against apostolic authority was underway on
a large scale, and still there were many years (even centuries)
ahead for the Christian church!
With such a prospect in front of him, it became essential to
provide that future church with the purity of the truth of Jesus
Christ as Peter and the rest of the original apostles understood
it. It would seem a dereliction of duty for the apostles to
abandon any attempt to secure the true teaching which they had
the responsibility to preach. Some standard reference document or
book (or a canon of Scripture) was needed that could be reckoned
by all as an official statement of the real truth of
Christianity. This was especially important for the future, for
if the original apostles themselves could not stem the tide of
false doctrine and rebellion to Christ while they were yet alive,
what would happen in the generations ahead without them? Would it
not seem reasonable to any rational person that some document of
an official character be produced by the apostles before their
deaths so that later people could have in their midst the basic
(and pure) truth of Christ if they wanted it? The apostles were
well aware by A.D.66 at the latest, that Christ was not returning
to earth in their generation (The NT does not say this
specifically and John did not mention that he did not think Jesus
was not going to return in his life time. John lived to very near
the end of the century - Keith Hunt). Does it seem sensible that
the apostles would simply die and let others (whom they knew
nothing about) formulate an official set of standard scriptures?
If they couldn't trust the doctrines of many (probably most)
in their midst, how could they depend on those of later times
whom they didn't know at all - and with the prophecies informing
them that heretical teachings were going to get more out of hand?
"But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving,
and being deceived" (2 Tim.3:13).
Clearly, the apostles were aware of the situation and they
were not going to be negligent in answering the need. Indeed, the
last few months of Peter and Paul's lives were devoted to the
very project of leaving to those of the future (which includes
you and me) an official standard of written works which would
secure, for all who wanted it, the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.
In short, it was the apostles themselves who saw the need
for a New Testament canon of Scriptures, and it was they who
produced it! When Christians finally came to the realization that
Christ was not returning to earth in the first century (They
never said or wrote that they did not believe Christ was not
returning in the first century, but they knew it was not going to
be in the lifetime of many of them, like Paul and Peter, who
about to die for the faith - Keith Hunt) they began to write
accounts of Christ's life and his teachings for posterity, and
they were doing it in the manner they thought best. Luke referred
to this and said that "many" were composing such Gospels (Luke
1:1). While this might appear a good thing at first sight, it
must be remembered that these written Gospels were being produced
within an environment of religious and political insurrection.
How could one be certain they were presenting an accurate
account? This is when Peter and John began to show concern about
the matter. If any was fully aware of what Christ did and taught,
and if anyone was able to sanction the accuracy of any written
history of Christ's life, it was the apostles. Something had to
be done to provide a shining light of truth to those of the
future.
It was within this background that Peter wrote what we call
today his second epistle. Let us see what Peter did to secure for
those of the succeeding centuries the purity of Christian
teaching!
The principle subject of Peter's second epistle was "the
precious and exceeding great promises" of Christ (2 Peter 1:12).
To preserve these for posterity he explained what he was about to
do.
"Wherefore, I shell be ready, always, to remind you of these
things [the promises of Christ], though you know and were firmly
fixed in the present truth [the truth that Peter was presently
giving them]. And I think it right, as long as I am in this
tabernacle [this mortal body], to stir you up by reminder,
knowing the putting off of my tabernacle cometh swiftly, even as
our Jesus Christ showed has shown me. But I will also give
diligence that at each time [notice this phrase 'at each time']
you may be able after my death to recall these things to
remembrance. For not by following cunningly devised fables, made
we known to you the power and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ,
but we were eyewitness to His majesty. For He received from God
the Father honor glory, when such a voice was borne to Him by the
Majestic Glory, 'This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well
pleased.' And this voice we heard home out of heaven, when we
were together Him in the Holy Mount. And we [who were with him on
the mount of Transfiguration] have the prophetic word more
confirmed [than these fablers[; whereunto you do well to take
heed [to our sayings], as to a lamp shining in a murky place,
until which time the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your
hearts. Knowing first that no prophecy of scripture is of its own
evolvement. For no prophecy was ever borne by man's will; but men
spake from God, being borne on by the Holy Spirit"
(2 Pet.1:12-21).
It is important to realize that Peter was aware of his
impending death (John 21:18,19). But even though death was
imminent he assured his readers that "I shall be ready, always,
to remind you of these great and precious promises." How was it
possible for such ready reminders to always be in their midst if
he was going to die in a matter of days or weeks? Any verbal type
of admonition that he might give them would perish with him at
death! But Peter said he would make sure that Christians would
always have the truth with them. The only way this could
rationally be accomplished is for Peter to leave them with some
authorized written record. "But I will also give diligence that
at each time you may be able after my death to recall these
things to remembrance."
The phrase "at each time" gives us an interesting bit of
information. It means that his readers could return again and
again to consult the document after his death in order to be
assured of what those great and precious promises of christ
really were. Clearly, he is speaking about a written document.
The "Expositor's greek Testament" says that Peter is about to
leave "some systematic body of instruction" (vol.V.p.129). The
"International Critical Commentary" is even more specific in its
realization that written records were being left!
"It seems clear that what is promised is a document, to which his
disciples would be able to turn and confirm their belief.... The
apostle does not say that the document of which he is speaking
should be written after his death, but that it should be written
so to be of use after his death" (vol. "Peter" p.265).
"The whole clause signifies that there shall be left behind, when
Peter is dead, some record to which at each occasion, when the
need arises, they may appeal for a reminder of his lessons, which
they would probably not have always in remembrance" (The
"Speaker's Commentary," NT vol. IV. pp. 244, 245).
We have in this account of Peter a record of his task in
canonizing some part (or parts) of the New Testament.
The "Speaker's Commentary" continues:
"I will not be wanting on my part says Peter, to supply you with
the means for your guidance and encouragement when I am taken
from you" (p.245).
Peter, moreover, was not the only one involved in this
canonization. When one reads Peter's account carefully, it says
"we" (plural) will not be leaving you "fables" (plural) but the
truth inspired by God's Holy Spirit. The description of this
document as given by Peter shows that it would contain not just
one "count, but that "we" would not be giving the church
cunningly devised "fables" (plural). It is important to recognize
that it was not only Peter who was leaving these documents to
serve as a standard for Christian teaching! Someone else was
behind the effort. The person was the apostle John! Peter makes
this clear in the context of Second Peter. "For by following
cunningly devised fables, made WE known to you the power and
presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, but WE were eyewitnesses of
his majesty.... And the voice WE heard borne out of heaven, when
WE were together with him in the Holy Mount. And WE have the
prophetic word more confirmed."
There were three human beings with Christ on the Mount
Transfiguration. They were Peter and the two sons of Zebedee
(John and his brother James). James, however, was the first of
the apostle to be killed (Acts 12:1,2). When Peter wrote his
second epistle, only John and he were the remaining apostles who
had been given the opportunity of being in the Mount of
Transfiguration and to hear the voice of God Himself. To Peter,
this unique and majestic experience was proof positive that he
and John had been given the word of prophecy in a "more
confirmed" While many persons might have taken it in hand to
write several accounts of Christ's life and teachings, Peter was
making it clear that only he and John had the proper authority to
do so in an inspired way! This is why he reminded his readers
that "we [Peter and John] have the prophetic word more confirmed"
- more than any others who might write Gospels in the future or
who had written them in the past! Indeed, they were the ones who
had been graced with the power of the Holy Spirit to do such
things: "no prophecy was ever borne by man's will; but men spake
from God, being borne on by the Holy Spirit." Peter did not
believe that this kind of prophetic responsibility originated
within the mind of man. "Knowing this first that no prophecy of
scripture is of its own evolvement [or, private origination]."
Notice the phrase "prophecy of Scripture." Peter had just
said that both John and he were commissioned with a more
confirmed "word of prophecy." He then interpreted what this
signified by equating it with the "prophecy of SCRIPTURE" which
was not of man's origination! In a word, Peter is saying that the
documents he and John were leaving to the church were to be
considered like any "prophecy of Scripture." The use of the word
"Scripture" brings the matter of inspired writing into the
picture!
In simple language, Peter was saying that the two remaining
apostles to the Transfiguration were collecting a set of official
works which would have their apostolic approbation and that these
documents were to be considered by Christians as "more confirmed"
than any others in circulation! And besides that, they were to
remain in their presence to be consulted "at each time" they had
occasion in order to learn the truth of "the great and precious
promises" of Christ! These were to last until the second advent
of Christ and esteemed as being on an equal basis with the Old
Testament Scriptures.
"I stir up your sincere mind by reminder; that you remember the
words spoken before by the Holy Prophets, AND the commandment of
the Lord and Savior THROUGH YOUR APOSTLES" (2 Peter 3:1,2).
PETER CANONIZED PAUL'S WRITINGS
Peter was aware that there were many people during his time
(especially conservative Jewish Christians) who were highly
suspect of Paul and his teachings. It seems that even Peter
himself may have raised his eyebrows on occasion. But by A.D.66,
things had changed! In the Spring of that year the miraculous
signs associated with the Temple at Jerusalem had taken place
(with sure evidence that God had abandoned the Temple) so the
teachings of Paul began to be understood by the outer apostles in
a better light. This is one of the main reasons, if not the only
one, why Peter journeyed to Rome in the Summer of A.D.66 to see
the apostle Paul before he met his death as a martyr. The
discussions between the two apostles were no doubt very
productive, because we have Peter informing his readers that Paul
had also provided some basic spiritual information on what the
Gospel of Jesus Christ really was. Peter and John finally
sanctioned the insertion of Paul's letters into the body of
divine literature to last until the second advent of Christ.
Peter felt it was necessary to mention that Paul's epistles were
also inspired.
Peter knew that some people of his time were doubting
inspiration of Paul's teachings, and that in the future some
might even moreso question their legitimate standing. For one
thing, he was not an original apostle of Christ. This prompted
Peter, who knew when he wrote Second Peter that he was soon to be
executed, that many years of history yet remained before the
return of Christ, to be reminding his readers that Paul's letters
were also reckoned as divine Scripture. Peter informed them:
"And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation;
even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom
given him wrote you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them
of things hard to understand which the unlearned and unsteadfast
wrest, as also THE OTHER SCRIPTURES, unto their own destruction"
(2 Peter 3:15,16).
This reference of Peter is a clear indication that he
recognized the letters of Paul (no doubt a particular set of
letters) as being as inspired as the Scriptures of the Old
Testament. the "Expositor's greek Testament" was assured that an
equal rank was being accorded:
"The examination of the whole passage [of Peter) ... leads to the
conclusion that the Epistles St.Paul are regarded as in the same
rank with the Old Testament Scriptures" (vol.V, p.101).
It seems as if the apostle Paul was then dead when Peter
wrote his second epistle. Note that Peter referred to Paul's
activity as being in the past. "Paul ... wrote you, as in all his
letters" (2 Pet.3:15). Furthermore, the fact that Paul's letters
were being twisted out of context indicates that Paul was no
longer alive to counter the charges or to write additional
letters clarifying the difficulties that Peter and the others
found hard to understand.
"The reference to Paul, to be found in the Second Epistle of
Peter, is favourable to the supposition that the apostle of the
Gentiles was now dead; as, had he been still living to correct
such misinterpretations, it would scarcely have been said that in
all his epistles were things 'hard to be understood' which 'the
unlearned end unstable' wrested 'unto their own destruction'"
(Killen, "The Ancient Church," p.159).
The second epistle of Peter is actually the key to the first
canonization of the New Testament. It is an official statement to
show how he and John (not long before Peter's death) gathered
together some written records which the apostles themselves
either wrote, had authorized to be written, or sanctioned already
existing works into a position of canonicity.
If one would simply believe what Peter said about this
matter, it would have to be reckoned that Peter's second epistle
was written, among other things, for the express purpose of
showing that the apostle John and himself were the ones ordained
of God to leave Christians with the canon of the New Testament.
This means that it is not the later church who, in some unknown
and haphazard way, collected the 27 books of the New Testament to
be attached to the 22 of the Old and formed what we call the Holy
Bible. I no way! The Biblical evidence points solidly to the
apostles themselves as the ones who canonized the New Testament
books. It was they who saw in their own generation the urgency,
just before their deaths, of securing such a canon.
With false doctrines and rebellion (even to apostolic
authority) on all sides, and with future prospects looking even
worse, they completed their task of preaching the Gospel to the
world by starting and finishing the canonization of the New
Testament. I have not the slightest doubt that this is the case.
The next chapters of this book will help to show the rationality
of this belief.
...................
The Canonization of the New Testament Apostles inspired to write Scripture!by the late Dr. Ernest L.Martin
The Authority to Canonize the New Testament
The apostles of the first century had in their midst the
complete and final Old Testament scriptures. This canon, with its
various books and divisions, served as a model for any further
canonization involving New Testament books. The environmental
background inherently governing the outlook of the Jewish people
of the first century was created on account of the social and
religious standards which were established at the time the Old
Testament was canonized. Though there were some differences, of
course, the basic framework of society was retained from this
earlier time. This common religious heritage allowed the New
Testament to develop along similar lines to the Old. Prof.Souter
said:
"The idea of a canon, or exclusive selection of sacred books for
use in public worship, is ultimately derived by the Church from
Judaism, and some account of the formation of the Jewish Canon of
the Old Testament seems necessary as a model on which,
consciously or unconsciously, the later New Testament Canon was
formed" (The Text and Canon of the New Testament, p.149).
This belief was also shared by the eminent textual critic
Prof.Gregory (Canon and Text of the New Testament, p.13). If this
is the case, then we should look for some high-ranking priests or
a prophet with the rank of Moses having a hand in the creation of
the New Testament, because this is certainly the manner in which
the Old Testament came into existence.
Some historians would have people believe that the church of
the early second century probably formulated the final New
Testament. There has always been a problem with this appraisal
because there is not a sliver of evidence that such a thing took
place. The truth is, when the early church fathers began to talk
about the canon of the New Testament near the end of the second
century, it is assumed that it was already in their midst. The
first recorded discussion among Catholic scholars about the books
of the New Testament only concerned whether certain books in the
canon were of lesser rank, not which books were needed to form
the official canon (Eusebius, Eccl.Hist, 111.25).
"What is particularly important to notice is that the New
Testament canon was not demarcated by the arbitrary of any Church
Council. When at last a Council - the Synod of Carthage in
A.D.397 - listed the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, it
did not confer upon them any authority which they did not already
possess, but simply recorded their previously established
canonicity. As Dr.Foakes-Jackson puts it: "The Church assuredly
did not make the New Testament" (Bruce, "The Books and the
Parchments," p.111).
Actually, if one will read Second Peter carefully and
analyze it for what it says (as we did in the last chapter), it
shows that it was the apostles Peter and John who officially
canonized the New Testament books! And those two apostles
possessed the authority of Christ himself as well as the
testimony of the Old Testament to accomplish this important task.
Christ even informed his disciples that he was going to complete
the revealed word of God to mankind. Look at Matthew 5:17:
"Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets: I
am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."
This verse should be noticed carefully. Though Christ
assured the disciples that the Old Testament would remain
steadfast in its sanctity, he did say he would fulfill the Law
and the Prophets. What does the world "fulfill" actually mean?
Charles B. Williams, in his translation of the New Testament,
provides a footnote to this verse which reflects its intention.
He said that the word signified "the picture of Old Testament
teaching as an unfilled cup, but filled by Jesus" (footnote g).
Williams provides the accurate meaning of this word. "To
fulfill" signified to bring things to the brim - to the very top!
It is like having a glass half-full of wine. By adding more wine,
one could fill the glass to the top! Thomas Newberry, the editor
of the Englishman's Bible, shows Matthew 5:17 as meaning: think
not that I am come to unbind the Law, or the Prophets: I am not
come to unbind, but to fill up" ("Footsteps of Truth," New
Series, XI.p.281). It simply means that Christ thought of himself
as responsible for bringing the revelation of God to its complete
fulfillment - to the very brim! In effect, his adding to the Law
and the Prophets was an authority for attaching his written
messages to those of the Old Testament! Jewish scholars have long
understood this to be the meaning of Christ. In the Talmud they
regarded Matthew 5:17 as reading. "I came not to destroy the Law
of Moses, but to add to the Law of Moses" (Shabbath 1166; cf.
A.Edersheim, "Life and Times," p.537,n.2).
Christ did not mean that he would personally add to the Law
and the Prophets by composing books of his own. A reading in the
Old Testament itself revealed to the apostles that it was they
who were to be responsible for the writing and selecting of
documents which would comprise the New Testament. In a section of
Isaiah which the apostles understood as applying directly to the
life of Christ on earth, they found a prophetic responsibility
also given to them. It was written in the long prophecy of Isaiah
chapter 7 to chapter 12, and the section pertaining to the
apostles themselves was in 8:13-17.
"Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; and let him be your fear,
and let him be your dread. And he shall be to you for a
sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence
to both houses of Israel, for a sign and for a snare to the
inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many among them shall stumble, and
fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken. Bind up the
testimony, seal the Law AMONG MY DISCIPLES. And I will wait upon
the Lord that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will
look for him" (Isaiah 8:13-17).
Though the above message was written in the eighth century
before Christ, the apostles interpreted it as having a
contemporary reference to them! There can be no doubt of this
because both Peter and Paul referred to Isaiah 8:14 as having an
application to their times. Peter Taught that Christ had become
the chief corner stone, but to the disobedient of Peter's day, he
had become "a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence"
(I Pet.2:6-8). Paul, speaking of the Jews' rejection of Christ,
wrote: "As it is written, behold, I lay in Sion a stumbling stone
and a rock of offence" (Rom.9:33).
Understanding that the apostles thought that Christ
fulfilled Isaiah 8:13-17 in their time, they were able to learn a
great deal about their own responsibilities. Isaiah told his
readers that this "stone" and "rock" would "bind the testimony
and seal the Law among my disciples" (Isa.8:16). The actual
"binding" and "sealing" which could once have been accomplished
by Isaiah's disciples in that time was no doubt interpreted by
the apostles as typical of what the Rock of Israel (Christ) was
to do through his own disciples (verse 18).
What do the words "bind" and "seal" signify? The Hebrew for
the word "bind" means "to close, to seal up." The word "seal"
means practically the same - "to cap off, to enclose." This is
exactly what the apostles did with the message which the "Stone"
and "Rock" gave them! They were to complete it! Bind it up! Close
it shut! The authority to perform such an important job may have
been reflected in Christ's teaching that the apostles had power
"to bind on earth" (Matt.16:19). The word "to bind" has the
significance of authorization or giving judgment, just as the
word "to unbind" means "not to receive or accept." Recall again
the intention of Matthew 5:17: "I am not come to unbind the Law
or the Prophets." Christ did not wish to undo the Old Testament,
but his disciples were commissioned to add to and complete the
Bible. In a word, they were to bind, seal, authorize and canonize
the Law and Testimony of Christ.
More Evidence
When one reads through the New Testement, it is possible to
observe a number of important statements which indicate that
further scriptures beyond the Old Testament were destined to
emerge. Just before his crucifixion, Christ gave his disciples
some instructions regarding their role in receiving new and
significant messages from God.
"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them
now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide
you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but
whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show
you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of
mine, and shall show it unto you. All things that the Father hath
are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall
show it unto you" (John 16:12-15).
The above scripture has Christ telling the disciples that
the Spirit would "show you things to come" (verse 13). This
indicates that the understanding of prophecy would be afforded
them. Was this a reference to the Book of Revelation? That book
is wholly devoted to prophecy - to "things to come" (Rev.1:1). In
the next chapter we will show information that will demonstrate
that Revelation was prophesied by Christ to be written by the
apostle John.
There is another point about the section of scripture
transcribed above. Christ said that all the truth was going to be
given to the apostles back in the first century. In John 16:13
the text actually says that the Holy Spirit "will guide you into
all THE truth." The definite article indicates that the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth would be dispatched to
them! This is an important point because it shows that the
Christian church did not have to wait until the third or fourth
centuries before all the truth could be given. This is quite
different than is usually taught today. It is normally assumed
that the canon of the New Testament came into existence sometime
in the early or middle second century, and was finalized in the
fourth century. This is patently not true! Augustine, one of the
most ardent supporters of the organized church of the fourth and
fifth centuries believed that the New Testament canon came into
existence in the time of the apostles themselves! He stated:
"Distinguished from the books of later authors is the excellence
of the canonical authority of the Old and New Testaments; which,
having been established in the time of the apostles, hath through
the succession of overseers and propagators of churches been set
as it were in a lofty tribunal, demanding the obedience of every
faithful and pious understanding" (Contra Fausturn Man. 11.5).
How different from what is generally accepted today! In our
present age, it is common to hear that the second, third, or
fourth century church canonized the New Testament in some of its
church councils. This is in no way true.
"The striking fact that the early councils had othing whatever to
do with forming the Canon of the New Testament, has been so
emphasized by a number of writers that one is astonished that it
is not more widely known" (Urquhart "The Bible," p.37).
Christ, however, made it clear that the disciples would
receive "all the truth" back in the first century. This truth was
then written down and finally canonized by Peter and John.
"We have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made
known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but
were eyewitnesses of his majesty.... We also have a more
confirmed word of prophecy" (2 Pet.1:16,19).
The apostles had the word of prophecy more confirmed. What
does the word "prophecy" mean in the context in which Peter used
it? Most people would automatically assume that it means they
could foretell the future. But in the way Peter meant it, it did
not have that meaning in the above reference.
All Jews of the first century understood the word "prophecy"
in a much broader sense. There were three different ways of
looking at it. It certainly signified the classical meaning of
being able to tell the future, and the person able to do this was
customarily called "a prophet" But the apostle Paul also used the
word as meaning one who spoke forth the word of God no matter if
the message was about the future, the present, or the past
(I Cor.14:5,24,25). This latter usage simply signified one who
preaches the Gospel! Yet there was a third meaning, and this is
what Peter had in mind when he said that he and John had "the
word of prophecy more confirmed." This usage meant that the
people who could be called such "prophets" were those under the
prophetic spirit and able to write inspired scripture! Josephus,
the Jewish historian, was well acquainted with this type of usage
for the word "prophet" or "prophecy." He said that no succession
of prophets had come on the scene within Judaism from the time of
the Persian king Artaxerxes (the fifth century B.C.) - at the
close of the Old Testament canon - until and including the first
century (Contra Apion, I.8). In a word, Joeephus thought that
"the spirit of prophecy" had ceased with Ezra, Nehemiah, and the
Great Assembly who canonized the Old Testament.
The fact is, all the writers of Holy Scripture were called
prophets even if they did not possess the prophetic office as did
Elijah, Isaiah, Malachi, etc. For example, David, Solomon and
Asaph the psalmist were called prophets though their writings
were not in the Prophets' Division of the Old Testament
(Matt.27:35; Acts 2:30; 7:48; Matt.13:35). Indeed, the use of
prophecy by holy men of God reached back to the very beginning of
history. Abel, the son of Adam, was called a prophet (Luke
11:50). And in Acts 3:21 and Hebrews 1:1 we are told that the
practice of prophecy extended back to all past time, to the very
beginning of the world!
The Jews in Christ's time simply believed that all holy men
of God were prophets and that all their writings were prophecies.
This, of course, did not mean that they all foretold future
events (cf. John 4:19; Acts 11:27; 13:1; 15:32; I Cor.12:28,29,
37; Eph.2:20; 4:11; Tit.1:12). And, most significantly to our
present study, any holy man of God who wrote any part of Holy
Scripture was called a prophet. Prof.Lee remarks that it was an
"invariable rule that all witnesses of the Old Testament should
be prophets" (Inspiration of the Holy Scripture, p.60). Whitaker
also recognized that any writer of Scripture was thought to be a
prophet and to possess the prophetic spirit (Disputation,
pp.49,50). This indication was followed throughout the New
Testament. When Christ said: "Abraham saith unto him, they have
Moses and the Prophets" (Luke 16:29), he was not referring to the
Prophets' (i.e. the Second Division of the Old Testament). He
meant all the writers of Scripture who followed Moses. Luke noted
this: "Having begun from Moses and all the prophets, he [Christ[
expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning
himself" (Luke 24:37). When Paul reasoned with the Jews out of
the Law and the Prophets (Acts 28:23) he was teaching from the
whole Old Testament. And these prophets of the Old Testament
ceased their activities when the canon was completed. Like
Josephus, Jews were well aware that "prophecy ceased" when the
canon was finally established (cf. Ecclesiasticus 36:15; I
Macc.4:44-46; 9:27).
Peter, however, said the prophetic word was restored with
him and John. This clearly shows that he and John were informing
their readers that they were going to present them with a new
batch of inspired scriptures to accompany the books of the Old
Testament. (For a further demonstration of this use of the words
"prophet" and "prophecy" in the first century, see Lee pages
53-60 and Whitaker pages 49-52.)
The Prophetic Spirit Restored With the Apostles
When one reads Second Peter in the proper way, it shows that
he was telling his readers that the prophetic spirit had been
revived and that the apostles had the authority to use it for the
production of inspired scriptures. That is what he and John were
going to leave to the Christian church before they died. The
reason for writing Second Peter was to tell Christians of this
fact! Their writings (and the other documents which they
sanctioned) were not going to be like the fables of others
because Peter and John had "the word of prophecy more confirmed."
The books they were selecting were God-ordained and as inspired
as the Old Testament. "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of
the scripture is of any private interpretation" (2 Pet.1:20). The
word interpretation in the King James' Version actually means
"origination" or "evolvement." Peter was indicating that the
prophetic scriptures which he and John were giving to the church
were not their own private ideas and words. They were nothing
less than the direct teachings of God! This dogmatism of Peter is
reflected also in his evaluation of the apostle Paul's epistles
which he mentioned as being on an equal par with "the other
Scriptures" of the Old Testament (2 Pet.3:15,16). Certainly, if
Paul's letters were in A.D.66 being reckoned as Scripture, the
letters of James, Jude, Peter, and John were as well. The
apostles were assured by A.D.66 that "the prophetic spirit" had
returned to earth in the persons of Peter, John, and Paul. This
was a signal that more Holy Scriptures would be written to
present the final messages of God to the world.
As anyone can see, I have emphasized (and re-emphasized
almost to ad nauseam) the matter that Second Peter records the
power of Peter and John to canonize the New Testament, but I do
not apologize for it. This is simply because most people, even
scholars, have failed to see the point of what Peter was saying
that the matter has to be accentuated! Peter was plainly trying
to show that he and John were given "the word of prophecy more
confirmed" in order to canonize more writings into the sacred
library of books, as had Ezra and Nehemiah in their day. Peter
was simply exercising his authority to write, collect, assemble,
and design a New Testament canon. This official group of books
was expected to remain in an authoritative way "until the day
dawn" - until the second advent of Christ back to this earth!
That is exactly what the epistle of Second Peter states and
I see no reason why Christians today should not accept it!
Paul Recognized His Part in Canonization
At the end of the Book of Romans is an interesting section
of scripture which relates to the matter of canonization. Not
only did Peter consider that he and John were endowed with the
word of prophecy in a confirmed and official way, the apostle
Paul also admitted that he was graced with the same authority.
Paul said that his writings concerning the message of Christ were
to be acknowledged as "the Prophetic Scriptures." This meant that
Paul thought he was writing sacred Scriptures! Note the context
of Paul's belief.
"Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my
Gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the
revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world
began, but now is made manifest, and by the Prophetic Scriptures,
according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known
unto all nations for the obedience of faith" (Rom.16:25,26 see
original Greek for "the Prophetic Scriptures," italics mine).
Paul did not mean in the above statement that the knowledge
of the mystery was to be found in the earlier prophets of the Old
Testament, as the King James' Version would lead one to believe.
He expressly stated that the teaching given to him had remained a
secret until Christ came, and that it was now being divulged to
the world through Paul and the other apostles. This fulness of
the teaching of Christ was what Paul called "my Gospel" (verse
26). The spiritual information came to Paul through a torrent of
revelations. Paul explains:
"And lest I should be exalted above measure through the
abundance of revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the
flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be
exalted above measure" (2 Cor.12:7).
Paul was referring to the operation of the Holy Spirit in
leading him, as it did the other apostles, into what Christ
called "all the truth" Christ said that the apostles would
finally receive the complete truth from him (John 16:13).
Paul made mention of this fulness of the Gospel in his
Ephesian epistle.
"How that by revelation was made known unto me the mystery; which
in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is
now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit"
(Eph.3:3,5).
This is pretty plain. The mature teaching of the mystery was
that part of the Gospel which Christ knew his disciples could not
bear before they received the Holy Spirit after the resurrection
of Christ. And Paul was now given his apostolic commission to
present new prophetic scriptures to people in the world. Paul
even realized that he was the one responsible for preaching the
full and final teachings of God.
"Wherefore I am made e minister, according to the dispensation of
God which is given to me for you, to fulfill (that is, the same
word used by Christ in Matthew 5:17 - "to fill to the top") the
word of God. Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and
from generations, but now [in the middle 60's AD.] is made
manifest to his saints" (Col.1:25,26).
This is an important statement relative to the canonization
of the New Testament. It tells us in no uncertain terms that Paul
knew he had been given a special commission to help fulfill (that
is, to "fill to the top") the word of God. This is why Paul had
little reluctance in telling people about the high calling that
he had. The teachings he recorded represented the very
commandments of God. "If any man think himself to be a prophet,
or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things I write unto
you are the commandments of God" (I Cor.14:37). These are strong
and authoritative words! No man could make such assertions unless
he was convinced in his own mind that he had the prophetic office
to write inspired scripture. Notice also:
"Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit
which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely
given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words
which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Spirit teacheth"
(I Cor.2:12,13).
"We thank God without ceasing, because, when ye received the Word
of God which ye heard from us, ye received it not as the word of
men, but as it is in truth, the Word of God" (I Thes.2:13).
When one comprehends that Paul himself was aware of his role
in completing the full message of God to this world, then the
statements of Peter in his second epistle can begin to make
sense. Peter readily acknowledged that the apostle Paul was given
an equal commission along with himself and John to write
"prophetic scriptures." This is exactly what Paul called his own
writings in Romans 16:25,26 and the apostle Peter boldly ranked
those writings of the apostle Paul alongside the writings of the
prophets in the Old Testament (2 Pet.3:15,16).
It is no wonder that Peter, after the miraculous signs
concerning the Temple in Jerusalem which happened in the Spring
of AD.66, made his way to Rome. His journey would have been for
only one purpose: to see Paul before the martyrdom of them both.
It was to discuss and to formulate a number of letters and
writings which would comprise a sacred canon of New Testament
books.
The meeting was successful! Peter then wrote his second
epistle to those throughout the region of Asia Minor about this
canonization. This last letter of Peter was written especially to
inform Christians about the conclusion of this important task.
Peter, Paul, and John were giving to the world the final
revelation of God in written form. It was new sacred scripture,
written under the prophetic spirit, which would last the
Christian church until the return of Christ to this earth!
Just when, and by whom, the finishing touches of the New
Testament came into final form will be discussed in the next
chapter.
.................
The Apostle John and Canonization of NTThe Last living ApostleCANONIZATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
(published 1984)
by the late Dr. Ernest Martin
I GIVE MANY COMMENTS ON THIS SECTION - Keith Hunt
The Apostle John and Canonization
The apostle Peter was in Rome when he wrote his second (and
last) epistle. Paul was then dead, and Peter himself had only a
short time to live. This is why he told his readers in Asia Minor
that he was leaving them some official documents (which included
the epistles of Paul) that would keep them informed of the truth
until the return of Christ to the earth. The authority to perform
such a task was essentially in the hands of the three apostles
who had been with Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration: Peter
and the Sons of Zebedee (James and John). And since Peter said
that "we have the word of prophecy more confirmed" (2 Pet.1:19)
it strongly implies that the apostle John was still alive and
some way involved with Peter in this canonization. And indeed he
was alive! Christ had given John the promise that he would live
beyond the martyrdom of Peter, even to remain alive "until I
come," or as Christ expressed it in the Greek, "until I am
coming" (John 21:22,23).
The beliefs of the early church were just as strong that
John was in Asia Minor (notably in Ephesus) from the middle 60's
A.D. until his death, as they were that Peter died in Rome about
A.D.66 or A.D.67. There is little reason to doubt the truth of
these beliefs! This would mean that the apostle John was among
the people in Asia Minor to whom the apostle Peter wrote in his
second epistle. In effect, the epistle was telling John what he
and Paul had done in Rome concerning the canonization of the New
Testament Scriptures. It informed people that Peter was putting
in the hands of the apostle John the final job of sanctioning and
completing an ordained body of inspired Scriptures for the
Christian church. To Peter, John was the only other person who
had the prophetic spirit to accomplish such a task, since he was
the only person left alive who had been given that commission on
the Mount of Transfiguration.
This special authority of John can be seen in a number of
verses within the New Testament revelation. For one, it should be
noted that the three men who witnessed the Transfiguration were
the only men of the original apostles who were given specific
titles by Christ. There was Simon (whom he titled Peter, a stone)
and James and John (whom he called "The Sons of Thunder"). See
Mark 3:16,17. These are the original apostles who were given
distinctive titles by Christ in order to convey some special
assignments that they were expected to complete. Peter was to be
associated with Christ (the Rock himself) in the creation of the
Christian church. This was accomplished in its initiation phases
with Peter on the Day of Pentecost some 50 days after the
resurrection of Christ (Acts 2). Peter was also given the "keys
of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). These were to allow him
the power to open "the doors of the kingdom" to those who would
hear the Gospel. It even entailed an authority to bind or to
loose people regarding their entrance into that kingdom. (This
power was later extended to all the apostles, John 20:23). And it
appears certain that one of the main methods by which Peter would
be able to exercise the power of the "keys" was to be in charge
of the canonization of the New Testament. The information in the
canon would "open the doors" to all people who would read and
heed the written messages therein.
(That is Martin's understanding of Peter having the "keys" to the
Kingdom, there is a much different way of looking at what Jesus
told Peter, covered in my series of studies on "Church
Government" - Keith Hunt)
The other two apostles who received specific titles were the
sons of Zebedee - James and John. They were reckoned by Christ as
being The Sons of Thunder. This title has proved a little
mysterious to many interpreters of the Bible because it gives one
the impression that the two brothers were headstrong, impetuous,
intolerant and authoritarian. And, this is true! But when it
comes to analyzing the letters of John he appears to sanction a
conciliation among peoples (especially those who claim the common
Christian faith) and that love and harmony ought to exist in
Christian relationships (I John 2:9-11). John was also the one
that Christ had a natural fondness for than the other apostles
(John 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7,20). But when one looks at the
Biblical account about the actions of these two brothers, they do
appear to be stern and uncompromising in their attitudes to evil.
They were the ones who asked Christ if fire should come down on
the heads of the Samaritans (Luke 9:54), and (with their mother)
their ambitions were so high that they asked Christ for positions
of supreme leadership alongside him (Matt.20:20-24). They were
certainly not mild-tempered! They were to be men of "Thunder." In
Hebrew "thunder" (kol) meant the "Voice of God" (Exo.9:23;
Psa.29:3; Jer.10:13; etc.). The title could signify that they
were to speak like God Himself - personal spokesmen for God!
This title gave them a special rank of authority and, along with
Peter, they were the only apostles to witness the Transfiguration
and to hear the voice of God the Father Himself (and in vision to
see Moses and Elijah) (Matt.17:1-9).
(If indeed any human did ever hear the voice of God the Father,
it could well have been an angel speaking in the first person
tense, on behalf of God the Father. The question is open for
debate for sure - Keith Hunt)
This experience rendered the jurisdiction of those three men
as superior to the other apostles and it singled them out for a
special purpose. Peter was to be in charge of church affairs
(Matt.16:17-19), but James and John were to have the distinction
of being "The Sons of Thunder" - to thunder forth His words to
the people as did Moses! And though James died early without
being able to show that authority in a lasting way, his brother
John was responsible for writing every word of the Book of
Revelation! This was Jesus Christ using John to be his spokesman
- to be the Voice of God to the people of the world. He was "the
Thunderer" to the world of God's message of judgment.
"And I saw another strong angel ... his face as the sun, and his
feet as pillars of fire ... and when he cried, the seven thunders
spake their VOICES. And when the seven thunders spoke, I was
about to write, and I heard a voice from heaven saying, Seal what
things the seven thunders SPOKE" (Rev.10:1-5).
The apostle John was specifically commissioned to write what
the Voice of God (like the Thunder) would relate to him. This is
why he wrote his Gospel and the Book of Revelation to be included
in the canon of the New Testament. Such a task shows that John
was more specially selected to produce a canon of Scriptures
which would proclaim the official Voice of God than even Peter or
Paul! This is no doubt the reason that Peter sent his second
epistle (with the canonization that he and Paul had accomplished
in Rome) directly to John in Ephesus. It was recognized that he
was the actual one in charge of authorizing the final Scriptural
books. This is why Peter emphasized the experience that he and
John had witnessed on the Mount of Transfiguration with Christ (2
Pet.1:16-19). The fact that this display of Christ's authority
was given only to Peter and the Sons of Thunder showed their high
rank among the apostles and the Christian church. It even got
them into trouble, temporarily, with Christ when their mother
(who understood the special relationship of her two sons to
Christ) asked that both of them sit on either side of Him when He
came into His kingdom (Matt.20:20-23). Christ could not give them
that authority since that was only within the power of the
Father, but John did sit by Him and recline in His bosom at the
Last Supper (John 13:23). This may indicate the special
relationship after all.
(It is possible John was selected, called or chosen in advance to
live to the end of the first century A.D. and certainly to write
the book of Revelation, but Martin I believe puts way too much
into thinking Peter, James and John, were some kind of "special"
high ranking THREE MUSKETEERS in the Church of God. Paul in
Galatians says he was not one wit behind the so-called "chiefest
apostle" and very bluntly said, "But of these who SEEMED to be
somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it makes no matter to me, God
accepteth no man's person); for they who seemed to be somewhat in
conference, added nothing to me" Gal.2:6. The context of Paul in
those verses of Galatians shows NO "ranking" of ministers. There
are FUNCTIONS, each with gifts of the Spirit, and God used each
apostle according to His will. It is ceratin that the canon of
the New Testament was recognized as being formed by the time Paul
and Peter were to face death. Ceratinly John was recognized as a
true apostle of the Lord by those within the true Church of God -
Keith Hunt)
There may be more concerning the rank of John than meets the
eye. It is usually not understood, but the mother of James and
John was none other than Salome (Matt.27:56 with Mark 15:40) who
was the sister of Mary, the mother of Christ (Hastings, Dict. of
Christ and the Gospels, vol.I.p.846). This means that Christ and
John were first cousins! James, the head of the church at
Jerusalem (No do not think so as, James was a "pillar" but "head
of" is way too strong a phrase when you understand the truth on
the subject of Church Government - Keith Hunt) and Jude (the
writer of the short epistle) were also his first cousins! Unlike
Peter or Paul, the apostle John would have been acquainted with
Christ from childhood! No wonder he had been close to Christ! It
seems that a "family tie" to Christ was important in an authority
sense. The first cousin status of John to Christ may account, in
one way, why he and his brother were afforded such a high
position of rank. Along with Peter, the two Sons of Thunder were
prominent in the history of the Christian church both before and
after the resurrection of Christ. Note some indications which
show this.
(Again, Martin puts way too much emphasis on trying to make out
these three had some "high ranking position" for some high
ranking work, within the Church of God. They may have been called
and chosen to have "special" work per se, but Paul, in his "work"
and in his "calling" to preach and teach and write 14 books of
the New Testament, as we have seen from Galatians 2, had no
thoughts of being "higher ranked" than anyone, no matter where
they stood with Christ on the physical level when Jesus lived as
a human person - Keith Hunt).
Besides having been specially selected to witness the
Transfiguration and hear the voice of the Father himself, Peter,
James and John were with Christ when He raised Jairus' daughter
(Mark 5:37). They were a part of the limited group who heard the
Olivet Prophecy of Christ (Mark 13:3). Peter and John (note that
Peter's name is placed first) were the two apostles who were sent
to make ready the Passover (Luke 22:8). In the Garden of
Gethsemane it was Peter, James, and John who were especially near
Christ (note, again, the positioning of their names, Peter first
and John last) (Mark 14:33; Matt.26:37). In the record about the
appearance of Christ after His resurrection at the Sea of
Galilee, Peter and the Sons of Thunder have special mention (John
21:2-7). And when it came time to be sent on assignments by
Christ note that John is the prominent one with Peter doing most
of the executive work. Indeed, when the two are mentioned
together, it is always "Peter and John" (Acts 3:1,11; 4:13;
8:14). And in the last discourse that we have in the Gospel of
John, it is Christ first talking to Peter to tell him that he
would die a martyr's death for his faith, but that John would
continue to live "until I am coming" (John 21:15-23).
(All of this by Martin is still fancy ideas based on a scene of
shifting sand, based on what men may guess and add to a context
of human lives around Christ, for reasons that were never meant
to teach you that some individuals had pre-eminense in "rank" or
"favorit-ism" with Christ or God the Father. Paul BLOWS AWAY in
his letter to the Galatians chapter one and two, any notions such
as Martin puts forth. Whatever God allows or dis-allows when
working with human beings is entirely His will, but He has no
respect of persons, nor is He giving them the green light to some
"ranking position" in the Church of Christ - Keith Hunt)
The association of Peter and John together in crucial times
for preaching the Gospel, or in receiving important doctrinal
teachings from Christ was no accident! And even the fact that
Peter's name appears before that of John's (when they are
mentioned together) shows a rank of authority. It is significant
that in the manuscript order of the New Testament books, Peter's
two epistles among the seven General Epistles are positioned
before the three of John. This arrangement of names is according
to the rank of authority of the men.
(Not so, if it was so, then Paul "out-ranked" Peter and John, as
his letters come before Peter and John. Hummmm .... with this
reasoning of Martin, then Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, out-
ranked Paul, Peter, James, and John, as they come first in the
New Testament. This thinking is all topsy-turvy, and just
rediculous to get into. Paul blows it all away into the dust by
his teaching in Galations 2. There was NO "RANK" of authority in
the Christian church of God. There were FUNCTIONS - ones chosen
by God to do certain things that God, wanted done, when He wanted
them done - Keith Hunt)
One more thing about John should be mentioned. Not only were
his mother and Christ's mother sisters (and this gave John some
preeminence) but we find that Mary (and obviously her sister,
Salome) were in some way connected with priestly ancestry. How
this occurs is not easy to determine because the New Testament
makes it clear that Mary (and Salome) were of the house of David
(Luke 1:32,69). But for some strange reason, Mary was a kinswoman
of Elizabeth, the wife of Zechariah and the mother of John the
Baptist. There can be no doubt that Zechariah and John the
Baptist were legitimate priests of the lineage of Aaron.
Obviously, the laws of the Old Testament demanded that the wife
of a priest, as Zechariah was, also had to be of priestly
ancestry. So, in some way, John the Baptist, the Sons of Thunder
(James and John), and Christ Jesus were all kin to one another
through their mothers! Does this mean that there was some
priestly blood in them as well? It seems almost impossible for
this to be so, but there are a few indications that this may in
fact have been the case, though how this is possible no one is
presently aware! For example, it is interesting that the apostle
John, of all the apostles, was the one who was acquainted with
the High Priest at the time of Christ's trial (John 18:16). There
was an early tradition that John was of priestly ancestry.
Polycrates in the late second century said that "John, who leant
back on the Lord's breast, became a sacrificing priest wearing
the mitre, a martyr and a teacher; he too sleeps in Ephesus"
(Eusebius, Eccl.Hist. 111.31). Interestingly, Hegesippus who
belonged to the first generation after the apostles said that
James, who was the first cousin of John, wore priestly garments
and was able to enter the Holy Place in the Temple at Jerusalem
(ibid. II.23). Epiphanius a little later also recorded that
James, the Lord's brother, was a priest (Haer. XXVII.14).
Whatever all of these indications mean is not sufficiently
understood by us moderns, but it does show that the kinsmen of
Christ (John the Baptist, James of the Jerusalem church, and the
Sons of Thunder) were recognized in early times as having high
ranks among the Jews because of noble births, Davidic and perhaps
priestly!
(Interesting maybe, to a point. God does use at times people of
the same general family. We had Moses and Aaron. Abraham and Lot.
Joseph and his 11 brothers to form the nation of Israel. But God
uses INDIVIDUALS many times, with no relation to any other that
He uses before, after, or at the same time. Paul had no
relationship in the physical blood line with Jesus or any other
of the apostles as far as we know. How much greater can any man
have been used in the first century A.D. (other than when Jesus
was physical man) than Paul, who was inspired to write 14 books
of the New Testament. Ernest Martin is here trying to build a
house or argument on sand. It is surfice to know that the
apostles of the first century KNEW from the inspiration of the
Holy Spirit WHAT was to be canonized as NEW Testament Scripture.
The Holy Spirit worked in many a POWERFUL and MIGHTY way during
the lives of the first apostles. John was one of them, and so he
would have been inspired to pass on to the NT church exactly what
the canon of Scriptures were to be for the New Testament till the
return of Christ - Keith Hunt)
What has all this, however, to do with the canonization of
the New Testament? The blood relationship of these men to Christ
gave them a decided advantage over all the other apostles.
(Not so, or only so, if you take away the INSPIRATION of the Holy
Spirit. God does not need "blood lines" or "physical relationship
lines" to do His work. Paul, Peter, John, etc. were quite capable
of being INSPIRED to KNOW exactly what God wanted as inspired
canon Scripture of the New Testament - Keith Hunt)
The Sons of Thunder would no doubt have grown up around
Christ in Galilee. They would have known Him very well! This is
why John (with Peter) had "the word of prophecy more confirmed."
(Not so as such, he had the word of prophecy more confirmed
simply because God chose it to be so - Keith Hunt)
This special rank is no doubt the reason Peter handed the
material that he had collected and arranged in Rome to John in
Ephesus for the final canonization of the New Testament.
(Really no such proof exists of this happening, in or out of the
Bible - only conjecture from Martin - Keith Hunt)
He was a "Son of God's Voice" and eminently qualified to do
the job. The title that Christ gave him points to that authority,
and the fact that he witnessed the Transfiguration was another
proof.
(It does not prove anything as to what Martin wants it to prove -
he's "reading into" the texts something of his own imagination -
Keith Hunt)
John, then, became the final "Thunder (Voice) of God" to the
Christian church. He became the official spokesman for the truth.
This role seems reflected in the introduction of his first
epistle. He represented many of the original apostles when he
wrote First John. Note how clear this fact is in John's prologue.
"What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have
seen with our eyes, what we beheld, and our hands handled,
concerning the word of the life (and the life was manifested, and
we have seen and witness, and declare to you the life, the
eternal, which was with the Father, and was manifested to us);
what we have seen and heard declare we to you also, that you also
may have fellowship with us, yes and our fellowship is with the
Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ, and these things WE WRITE
that our joy may be full. And this message which we have heard
from him and announce to you, that God is light and in him is no
darkness at all" (I John 1:1-6).
(True John was writing with inspired authority on the things he
was going to reveal in his book - Keith Hunt)
John makes it plain that when he wrote his first epistle,
many of the original apostles and others must have still been
alive. They were now associated with him as witnesses to the
truth of what John was saying. But then, beginning with chapter
two, John ceases to mention the "WE" and starts a singular
pronoun: "My little children, I write unto you" (I John 2:1). His
reference to the first person singular continues throughout the
rest of the first epistle, and is only abandoned in one verse (I
John 4:14) where he reverts to the "WE." The point is, the role
of John in the writing of that epistle shows him being a
Spokesman for a body of witnesses who saw Christ in the flesh!
This is John exercising his commission as being a Spokesman for
others which was given to him by Christ.
(Well he was inspired of Christ, and as John lived to old age,
outliving in one way or another, the other apostles, he was the
spokesman of apostolic inspiration - Keith Hunt)
John's Final Canonization
The Gospel of John must have been written for the generality
of the Christian church as a final summing-up of the teachings of
Christ. It has seemed reasonable to most people that John had the
other three Gospels in front of him when he wrote his account,
and that his Gospel was an attempt to round-off and complete the
message which Christ had given in the flesh. Everything points to
it as being the latest of the Gospels to be written. Not only is
it squeezed into a position between the Gospel of Luke and the
Book of Acts (which normally should be in tandem to one another),
but it records events which people of a later time would find
relevance. For example, the raising of Lazarus from the dead is
one of the most outstanding miracles in the Bible, but it has
been a headscratcher why the other three Gospels said not one
word about it. But if the other Gospels were written sometime
earlier (when Lazarus was still alive) and they recorded the
occurrence of that miracle, it stands to reason that such
publicity would have made it impossible for Lazarus to carry on
any kind of normal life. He would have been deluged with
questions from his admirers, and his enemies would have wanted to
silence his testimony to the extraordinary power which was
manifested by Christ. But by the time John wrote his Gospel,
Lazarus could have been dead and the account of his miraculous
resurrection could be given without personal injury to Lazarus.
This explanation is as good as any as to why that glorious
miracle was not recorded in the earlier Gospels. It can also show
that John's Gospel was not written early.
(Again, this is just deductions from the mind of Martin. Lazarus
he says, "could have been dead" - notice the words "could have" -
Lazarus could also have been in Britain as some histories record.
John did not need the other Gospels in front of him either, maybe
could have had them, but could have not as well, for John was
inspired to write what he wrote, and the Holy Spirit of
inspiration does not have to have help from the physical world of
pen, parchment, and humans. When we believe God inspires as He
wills, we need not try to figure out the "could have been" this
or that in the physical world - Keith Hunt)
The Gospel appears to be a late composition because there is
a fully developed theological position presented on every major
event in the life and teachings of Christ. In fact, John's
account is a thorough-going interpretation of Christ's life
rather than a simple historical narrative. It is decidedly
contrary to the materialistic concepts that were often associated
with the Messianic beliefs in ordinary Jewish theology. John
gives a "spiritual" twist to almost all the various teachings of
Christ. His concepts show that a good deal of long and
well-thought-out principles had been determined as representing
Christianity, and they were very distinct from Judaism.
(Inspiration is the simple answer to such human thoughts of
trying to figure the nuts and bolts of it all - Keith Hunt)
The general feeling that one gets in reading John's Gospel
is that it was written to supplement and to round-out the
information supplied by the first three Synoptic Gospels. John
emphasized the fact that "all the truth" was then in one's grasp
through the agency of the Holy Spirit, and that all future events
which were important for the Christian church to know were then
completely available.
(Of course, inspiration from God in the Lord's own time frame can
have John writing with inspiration, HOW, and WHEN, and WHY -
Keith Hunt)
Note once again the teachings of Christ in John 16:12,13.
"I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them
now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he shall guide you
into ALL the truth, for he shall not speak from himself; but
whatsoever things he heareth, these shall he speak, and he will
declare unto you the things to come."
It is significant that John insists that the Holy Spirit
will deliver "all the truth," that it will come through divine
inspiration, and that it would involve the understanding of
future (prophetic) events! These two verses given by John are
powerful vindications that the Christian message was complete
when John wrote his Gospel. John's final comments in his Gospel
reflect this same conclusion.
"And many other things did Jesus also do, the which if they be
written every one, I suppose that not even the world itself would
in the future find a place to contain the books written" (John
21:25, Greek expanded).
These concluding remarks by John make one feel that John
thought any further Gospels were redundant. In paraphrase, John
was saying "Thousands of Gospels could be written in the future
about Christ, but these four are enough! So be content and don't
be desirous of obtaining more information about Christ and his
teachings other than that which I have given you!"
(I can accept what Martin says here, for now he is using inspired
Scripture. John was the last of the apostles to live, he lived
the longest of all the apostles, to near the very end of the
first century, hence indeed he would, being inspired, KNOW
exactly which writings God wanted as the New Testament canon -
Keith Hunt)
When Was the Book of Revelation Written?
It is important to date the times of composition of the
various New Testament books because this is the first step in
providing a benchmark to help determine when the final
canonization took place. The Book of Revelation is cardinal to
the whole issue. Since there is strong tradition that the apostle
John lived till the end of the first century and that Revelation
was written by him near his death, this would seem to date the
completion of the canon to about A.D.96 to 98.
There have been, however, a good number of scholars over the
past hundred and fifty years who have leaned heavily towards the
early or mid-60's A.D. for its composition simply because the
historical indications within the book point directly to that
time. And true enough, if John was recording historical events
contemporary with the writing of the book, then the composition
must be dated to about A.D.60. Let us look at some of the reasons
for this.
It will be recalled in previous chapters that the apostles,
and many Jews and Gentiles, were expecting the soon appearing of
the Messianic kingdom on earth. The critical date for the
apostles appears to have been the sabbatical year of A.D.62 to
A.D.63. Up to that time the apostle Paul was emphasizing the
nearness of the second advent,
(Not fully so, for Paul KNEW certain events HAD TO COME TO PASS
before Jesus could return, as he wrote about in the letters to
the Thessalonians [see 1 Thes.5 and 2 Thes.2] and those letters
are by most scholars, recognized as his FIRST letters of all that
he wrote to various churches and people, about 50/51 A.D. - Keith
Hunt)
but by A.D.63 or A.D.64 he had adopted a completely different
attitude to the matter.
(No, his attitude had not changed, certain events had to come to
pass, as he already knew that fact before 63 A.D.; and so there
was never any change of theology by the time of 63 A.D. and after
- Keith Hunt)
The apostles Peter and John may have waited until after the
miraculous events in the Spring of A.D.66 concerning the Temple
before they decided for certain that Christ was not returning in
that generation, but whatever the case, the period before A.D.62
was alive with expectation.
(Not one single word backs up Martin's statement here - there is
not one word in the entire New Testament to prove what Ernest
Martin has just said - Keith Hunt)
This fact brings us to the first reason why the Book of
Revelation could have been written around A.D.60 (if there is a
historical basis to its contents). This is because the book
presents, in a profound way, the nearness of the second advent.
(And it still does today, for it is an ever living book, in the
main for the last 42 months of this age, before Jesus comes again
- Keith Hunt)
"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show
unto his servants things that must shortly come to pass ... for
the time is at hand" (Rev.1:1,3).
"The Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to show unto
his servants the things which must shortly be done. Behold, I
come quickly ... for the time is at hand ... And, behold, I come
quickly ... Surely, I come quickly. Amen. Even so come, Lord
Jesus" (Rev.22:6,7,10,12,20).
This appeal to the soon advent of Christ is also found in
the messages to the Seven Churches of chapters two and three.
"I will come unto thee quickly ... Repent; or else I will come
unto thee quickly ... hold fast till I come ... thou shalt not
know what hour I will come upon thee ... Behold, I come quickly
... Behold, I stand at the door and knock" (Rev.2:5,16,25;
3:3,11,20).
Coupled with these verses about the imminence of the second
advent, there was John's reference that some of the people who
actually pierced Christ at his crucifixion would seemingly be
alive at his return (Rev.1:7).
(This could just mean, the "Jews" - they, or the race of people
who in effect crucified Jesus. It does not have to refer to the
actual physical people who nailed Him to the cross - Keith Hunt)
Further, John describes the Temple at Jerusalem as being
very much in existence in Revelation 11:1,2 and this would demand
a pre-A.D.70 period before the Temple was destroyed. John's
indication that Jerusalem had a population of about 70,000
persons (Rev.11:13) could only apply to the time before the war.
In fact, the Tenth Legion occupied the central area of Jerusalem
after A.D.70 and in no way could the population be then about
70,000!
(This prophecy has nothing to do with the THEN Jerusalem of
before 70 A.D. Where Martin gets the number 70,000 from is beyond
me, for verse 13 says "seven thousand" and nowhere in the entire
chapter is 70,000 mentioned. This is an end time prophecy of the
two witnesses and contains a period of 42 months, verse 2. No
such period is recorded in history concerning Titus' armies
destroying Jerusalem in 70 A.D. - Keith Hunt)
Another point that shows an early date of composition are
two statements made by John in which he indicated that to be
reckoned as Jewish was, in that time, an honorable and desirable
thing. The two references concern the desire of some people in
the church to be Jewish, though in actual fact they were not Jews
(Rev.2:9; 3:9). These two statements indicate an early writing of
Revelation because after the Jewish/Roman War of A.D.66 to 74,
there was hardly a heretical Christian (or any Gentile Christian)
who wanted to be identified with the Jewish people. During and
after the war the Jewish people were held in disdain throughout
the Roman Empire because of the war and (what Gentiles
considered) their anti-social behavior. But before A.D.66 it was
quite popular among Christians to be "Jewish."
(The phrase "which say they are Jews and are not" can just as
easily be applied to "spiritual Jews" - as Paul wrote a "Jew" is
really one that is one inwardly (Romans 2:28,29), and may have
nothing at all to do with what Martin has just stated - Keith
Hunt)
The biggest problem that Paul had to cope with among his
Gentile converts was their persistent hankering to become Jews or
to adopt Jewish ways. Paul even found them wishing to be
supervised by Jewish/Christian authorities (2 Cor.ll & 12). But
this desire of Christians to identify with the Jews stopped
forthwithly by the end of the Jewish/Roman War. Indeed, the "Book
of Barnabas" which was written near the end of the first century
by a Jewish/Christian was decidedly anti-Jewish in its themes. It
is well recognized that even the Gospel of John, from beginning
to end, is never flattering to the Jews. So the references in
Revelation that people were still desiring to be identified with
Jews is evidence against a post-A.D.70 period for its
composition.
(No, simply because the phrase in Revelation may have nothing to
do with anything just stated by Martin. It may well be just a way
of saying that some people called themselves "spiritual" Jews,
inward Jews, as Paul said a true Jew was, but God knew they were
not true Christians or "spiritual Jews" at all - Keith Hunt)
Another reason for suggesting an early writing is the
mention that some heretics were calling themselves "apostles"
(Rev.2:2). To imagine that one could be an apostle like the
original ones selected by Christ was seldom, if ever, imposed
upon the Christian church after A.D.70. This is because there
were special New Testament requirements to become an apostle that
later people had no hope of meeting. For one, it was essential
that each apostle had to have "seen" Christ (I Cor.9:1) and there
had to be many miraculous signs associated with their ministries
(2 Cor.12:12). It is noteworthy that the later church, after
A.D.70, had no quarrel over who was or was not an apostle. But in
pre-A.D.70 times, this was a major problem (2 Cor.11:13-15). So,
the reference to false apostles of Revelation 2:2 would tend to
place the writing of the book before the fall of Jerusalem if a
historical basis is what John intended.
(No again, I say, for the word "apostle" mearly means "one sent
forth" - so within a certain "context" such as Revelation being
written much later than 70 A.D. the word "apostle" means some
people were saying God had sent them forth with His truth to
preach it, but were in fact "false prophets" and "false teachers"
and were not sent forth by God, inspired by God, or had any true
connection with God at all - Keith Hunt)
There are other reasons to suspect a pre-A.D.70 date for the
writing of the Book of Revelation. If one will observe closely
the historical features that seem to be found in the book, one
has to look within the emperorship of Nero or the rule of Agrippa
the Second to find such occurrences. For example, when John wrote
the book he mentioned that five rulers had already seased to have
power and that a sixth was then having the sovereignty
(Rev.17:10). All realize that at the time John wrote the Book of
Revelation the principal world empire was Rome. If John had in
mind the Roman emperors when he spoke of the sixth ruler, then
the composition of Revelation was in the time of Nero (A.D.54 to
A.D.68). Though Nero was actually the fifth emperor, but in a
prophetical sense the Jews reckoned Julius Caesar as the first
emperor (cf. Antiq.XVIH.33,225). The second was Augustus; the
third, Tiberius; fourth, Gaius; fifth, Claudius; and the sixth
was Nero.
(As Martin says "if John had in mind" - but John did not have in
mind. John was in vision in "the Lord's day" - the prophectic
time mentioned in many prophecies in the Old Testament. As Martin
will later say, this prophecy for Revelation was NOT for the time
of the Roman Empire of the first century - Keith Hunt)
Or, if one thinks John was talking about the rulers of
Jerusalem rather than Rome (since it is clear that John's
"Mystery Babylon" was Jerusalem), it could reasonably be
suggested that Herod the Great was the first king of the prophecy
and that Agrippa the Second was the "sixth." [Eusebius quoted an
early prophetic belief that once the Jews ceased having native
kings, the Messiah would then be able to arrive on earth (Eccl.
Hist. I.6). The prophecy was interpreted as starting with Herod.]
So, if Herod, the non-Jew, were reckoned as being the first king,
the second would have been his son Archelaus, the third the Roman
government which controlled Judaea until the rule of Agrippa the
First (who would have been the fourth) (A.D.37-45). The fifth was
again the Roman government (A.D.45-56), and the sixth king (if
Jerusalem, not Rome, is made the center of John's prophecy) would
have been Agrippa the Second (A.D.56 to 70).
(It is all to no avail this idea, for the book of Revelation is
clearly in the most part for the "Lord's day" or "Day of the
Lord" or "the great day of His wrath has come, and who shall be
able to stand" [Rev.6:17]. It has nothing to do with the first
century A.D. - Keith Hunt)
Whether one looks at Rome or Jerusalem as the political
power being discussed, we find the historical indications are
almost parallel to the years of Nero's rule. Thus (if a
contemporary historical basis is found in the Book of
Revelation), the date for its writing was somewhere in the period
A.D.54 to A.D.68. But there is a further factor that could help
pinpoint the time even closer.
(Once more, the fact of the book itself and its prophecy is for
the END TIME - the last 42 months, 1260, a time, times, and
dividing of a time, as mentioned in the book itself - for then
the last 42 months of this age - Keith Hunt)
In Revelation there is given a clear reference to the city
of Laodicea as being rich and prosperous (Rev.3:17,18). But in
A.D.60/61 Laodicea suffered a devastating earthquake (Tacitus,
Ann. 14.27). It is hardly possible that Laodicea could have been
rebuilt and once more rich and prosperous by the beginning of the
Jewish/Roman War in A.D.66 - or even before the death of Nero
(A.D.68). Thus a date around A.D.60 for the composition of the
book could make good sense. And, as stated earlier, A.D.60 is
just before the critical sabbatical year of A.D.62 to A.D.63
which was expected to usher in the major events leading up to the
second advent of Christ.
(No! The NT is silent on the dates of 62 and 63 A.D. They are NOT
mentioned anywhere. Nor is the idea that the apostles were
looking to those years as some BIG mile-stone in a prophetic time
table. Laodicea could well have been once more re-built and
prosperous by the near end of the first century, as that is the
most recognized time for John to have written Revelation. Many
have said, using an historical base that it could apply to the
time of Domitian [A.D.81-96] - Keith Hunt)
The Book of Revelation was certainly emphasizing the soon
appearing of Christ's return from heaven! From all of this, it
seems reasonable that Revelation could have been written about
A.D.60, just before the end-time events were expected to occur.
(The "soon appear" of Christ in the context of the last 42 months
and "day of God's wrath" on this age, proves Jesus will soon
appear WHEN those last 42 months of this age are upon us. It is a
living prophecy still for the future - Keith Hunt)
This, however, is just the problem with the early date for
its composition. Since the information within the Book of
Revelation is reported to have come from Jesus Christ Himself,
and not John (Rev.1:1), this seems to indicate that even Christ,
some 30 years after His resurrection and ascension to heaven, was
confident of His return to earth very quickly. He was persistent
in the book that "I come quickly." But Christ, of course, did not
come back as depicted in the Book of Revelation or the other New
Testament books. It would be daft indeed to imagine that Christ
actually did come back to earth between A.D.63 and A.D.70. Yet,
strange as it may seem, there appears to have been a few people
who insisted that he did! By the year A.D.65 Paul was reporting
the errors of some people who believed that a resurrection from
the dead had already occurred (2 Tim.2:18). Since the apostles
taught that Christ's second advent would be accompanied by the
resurrection from the dead, there must have been some who taught
that Christ had somehow "returned" - perhaps in a mystic or
secret manner! Paul, however, assured Timothy that this in no way
had happened!
(Those teaching the resurrection had already come, may not have
been trying to tie it up with Jesus having also then come. It is
not explained to us by Paul, the "theology" behind such a
teaching that the resurrection had already come. Guessing at the
theology behind it is just that - guessing - Keith Hunt)
The fact is, Christ did not return "quickly" in the decade
of the 60's A.D. This is one of the many reasons why the book
cannot have a contemporary historical basis to it! If it does,
the book records that Christ's predictions of "I come quickly"
were a failure and no self-respecting Christian would want to
perpetuate in a canon of official books (or any other serious
library) such a book of falsehood. On the other hand, if the
contents of the book apply to the period of the endtime, all can
then make reasonable sense!
THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER
(Now Ernest Martin begins to start getting into the truth of the
matter, where I can agree - Keith Hunt)
As for me, the answer seems clear. The Book of Revelation
has no chronological or historical relevance in its message as
far as the first century is concerned. (Amen!! Keith Hunt)
It is describing a special time in the future called the Day
of the Lord in which all end-time events will take place. The
text simply says that John "came to be in the Spirit in the
Lord's Day" (Rev.1:10), that is, he was transported in vision
into the Day of the Lord. Even his "seeing" the visions in the
Isle of Patmos had a visionary aspect to them because, again, the
text says: "I came to be in the isle called Patmos." It was a
spiritual, or visionary, experience that took him to Patmos, not
something literal! Indeed, the whole book is made up of symbolic
and allegorical teachings which must be carefully interpreted to
understand their literal applications.
The allegorical illustrations throughout the book were
intended to describe events at the end of the age, not those of
the first century!!
We find that John was witnessing in vision the crucial
events leading up to the Day of the Lord, those that incorporated
it, and those concerning the outcome of the "Day" (Rev.1:19).
Thus, when Christ said throughout the book that His return from
heaven was to occur very quickly, those statements have to be
interpreted within the time period near the Day of the Lord. If
this is the way Revelation is to be understood, then the events
must be reckoned as allegorical and prophetic without reference
to any past historical events or chronological time periods.
When was Revelation written? If one looks at the traditional
evidence that comes to us from the middle second century and
shortly afterward, one has to date the composition of the Book of
Revelation to the LAST DECADE of the FIRST century (Irenaeus,
Adv. haer. 5.3 0.3). There is little doubt in my mind that this
period is the correct one!!
The main evidence that persuades me of this is in the Bible
itself. In the last chapter of the Gospel of John we find Christ
telling the apostle Peter that he would die an old man by
martyrdom (John 21:18,19). But Christ also had something to say
about the apostle John (the one who wrote the Gospel and the Book
of Revelation). Twice he said: "I am willing that he be remaining
until I am coming" (John 21:22,23).
This statement by Christ has been an enigma to many for
generations. Just what did he mean that John would live beyond
the death of Peter "until I am coming"? Even in the first century
there was confusion over the prophecy. Some people thought it
meant that John would continue to live until the second advent
(verse 23). John, however, assured his readers that Christ did
not mean that. Indeed, he couldn't have intended that meaning
because Christ had earlier prophesied that John and his brother
James would both undergo martyrdom (Matt.20:23). The New
Testament said that his brother James was killed by Agrippa the
First (Acts 12:2), and other early records relate that John was
also martyred for his faith in his later years of life (Eusebius,
Eccl.Hist.III.31).
What then, did Christ mean when he said John would live to
an old age beyond Peter's death "until I am coming"? The answer
is simple if one will let examples within the Biblical Revelation
be the guide. A similar statement was made by Christ in Matthew
16:27,28. Let us quote it in full.
"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of His Father with
His angels; and then He shall reward every man according to his
works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which
shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in
his kingdom."
In Luke's Gospel the parallel account says that the
fulfillment of that very prophecy happened just eight days later
(Luke 9:28). And true enough, some of those apostles (namely
Peter, James and John) did see or observe Christ "coming" in the
glory of his Father. That occurred when they were taken to the
Mount of the Transfiguration and Christ was glorified in their
presence. It was like a "second advent" because Moses and Elijah
were also seen with him, and that type of experience would only
be actually seen at the resurrection of the dead which was to
happen at the exact time of His second advent (I Cor.15:50-55; I
Thess.4:13-18). And most importantly, it should be noted that the
glorious event of the Transfiguration was not an actual "second
advent." The whole affair was a vision (Matt.17:9). This prophecy
of Christ, that some would not die before they would see him
coming in His kingdom, did in fact take place 6 days later (or 8
days later inclusively). That is when the vision of Christ's
second advent took place!
With this example in mind, look once again at what Christ
told Peter in John 21:22,23. Peter was to be martyred in old age
(which happened to the apostle about A.D.67), but John would
remain on earth "until I am coming." This is what transpired.
Christ had told the disciples that the Holy Spirit would inspire
the apostles into a knowledge of "all the truth" and also
"declare to you the coming things" (John 16:13). They were to be
given an understanding of prophecy, of future events! And in John
21:22,23 Christ was informing Peter who it would be who would
remain "until I am coming," to see "those things." It was to be
the apostle John.
Christ's statement in John 21:22,23 was nothing more than a
prophecy that the apostle John would remain on earth beyond
Peter's death to see Christ's coming in vision - like the vision
on the Mount of Transfiguration. In short, he was giving him a
prophecy about the message in the Book of Revelation which would
be shown to John after Peter's death! And remarkably, we are told
four different times in Revelation that John was taken in spirit
(which means in vision) into a period of time or locations to see
the prophesied end-time events (Rev.1:10; 4:1,2; 17:3; 21:10).
All of this concerned the "coming" of the Lord back to
earth. But more than that, the exact Greek word which described
the time unto which John would live was "erchomai," - "I am
coming" (John 21:22,23). And note what is found in the Book of
Revelation itself. In Revelation 2:5 we find the same word
"erchomai" - and it occurs throughout the book (Rev.2:16; 3:31;
16:15; 22:7,12,20). These occurrences of the same word as found
in John 21:22,23 represent a link-up of John's Gospel with the
Book of Revelation.
All of this shows that Christ was telling the apostle John
that he would live long after the death of the apostle Peter to
witness the second advent of Christ (and the events associated
with it) in the visions of the Book of Revelation. This is the
main reason why it seems appropriate to date its composition LONG
AFTER the 60's A.D. It is more compatible with the teaching of
Scripture and the early traditions that the book was written in
the LAST DECADE of the first century. This also has the virtue of
relieving Christ Jesus of making statements that His second
advent would occur very quickly in the time of Nero (A.D.54 to
A.D.68).
The upshot of this matter means that the final canonization
by John must have taken place long after Peter and Paul were
dead. Things will make far better overall sense when this is
accepted as nearest to the truth. (I fully agree with Martin's
last deduction of this chapter - Keith Hunt).
In a later chapter we will show why this understanding
becomes important in evaluating the proper manuscript order of
the New Testament books. It means that the complete number of 27
books was sanctioned by the apostle John (and his helpers). Those
writings were placed in their various divisions and in a
particular order so that the Christian church, from the close of
the first century, would have a divinely inspired set of books
which would dovetail with the 22 Old Testament books to form the
complete Bible.
It is now time to look at the divisions and order of those
New Testament books which were canonized by John. The next
chapter begins with a survey of the Gospels and the Book of Acts.
...................
To be continued
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment