[Reposted due to being lost in the computer crash.]
Charles,
The closed canon theory is admittedly hard to prove from the Bible. There are usually two arguments made:
1. Cessationism, that is, miraculous gifts, include the gifts of prophecy, died out a generation after the apostles.
2. Dispensationalism, that is, the New Testament repealed the Old Testament laws and adopted new laws, and this is the last dispensation before Jesus returns. Hence, why would there be new laws?
We’ve considered Cessationism here several times, and I reject it, both because the arguments made from scripture (such as 1 Cor 13) don’t hold water and because the history of the early church evidences no end of miracles at the time the theory requires.
Dispensationalism is just plain wrong — despite having been part of the Jule Miller filmstrips and thus deeply embedded in the Church of Christ psyche. We’ve covered a better approach to the Old Testament here several times.
To the contrary, I would point out that the completion of the Torah did not mean the end of inspired, written books! If God’s prophets were not silent after the Torah, why be silent after the New Testament?
Indeed, a Jewish view of prophecy would suggest that prophecy remains a possibility but not a necessity. The Jews didn’t always have prophets of the caliber of a Jeremiah.
But post-New Testament prophecy would not repeal any part of the New Testament. It would read more like the Psalms, Lamentations, or Esther than Deuteronomy. There’s a wide range of inspired writing styles!
Thus, conceding the theoretical possibility that the canon might be open does not open us up to the Book of Mormon, for example, because dispensational theory is wrong and there will be no repeal of prior revelation — and the kingdom will always be the kingdom. No new system will be invented, because Jesus is the system.
One could argue that the New Testament makes additional prophecy unnecessary, and perhaps so, but that’s God’s call, not ours. The Torah didn’t make Joshua and Malachi unnecessary.
Now, the Old Testament points forward in time to Jesus, and any new prophecy would necessarily point backward to Jesus — as does the entire New Testament (backward, of course, but also forward to the Second Coming, the real point being that inspiration is toward Jesus).
And who knows? Perhaps shortly before the Second Coming, God will send the next John the Baptist to prepare the way, to make one last desperate call for people to enter the kingdom? God could do it. Who am I to say otherwise?
But I don’t think God has sent prophets of that level since the New Testament was completed. Not yet.
As D. A. Carson explains in Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians, 12-14
Therefore, we should not read Joel as requiring only one generation of prophecy.
(Joe 2:28 ESV) 28 “And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions.”
After all, compare –
(Isa 44:3 ESV) 3 For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour my Spirit upon your offspring, and my blessing on your descendants.
And so, yes, we cannot insist on a closed canon or an open canon. But in allowing for the possibility of additional inspired revelation, we don’t open ourselves up to a radical change in Christianity. The church will be the church and the New Testament will be the New Testament until Jesus returns.
So why, then, has God not inspired later prophets after the order of Isaiah? Or is it possible he already has but the church does not recognize the voice of prophecy?
It seems unlikely that we’ve overlooked genuine prophecy. After all, many branches of Christianity continue to be open to prophecy. Even the Catholic Church and Orthodox hold that the decisions of ecumenical councils are infallible. The Catholics say the same of the Pope. It’s not as though the entirety of Christianity has always been unwilling to accept an active Spirit, capable of inspiring new scripture.
And while the Jews famously persecuted the prophets, later generations inevitably came to accept scripture as scripture. The inspiration of the prophets proved itself through the ages — by the working of the Spirit, I’m sure. And that’s not happened since the New Testament was completed. And that fact is very significant.
In short, I’m confident there are no inspired books we should add to the 27. The Spirit can be counted on to make certain we have the correct scriptures.
But if God were to raise up a new prophet after the order of Isaiah or John the Baptist, it wouldn’t hurt my feelings. In fact, we could probably use one about now.
And if a new prophet were to arise, he wouldn’t own a Rolex. In fact, he’d probably be found in prison somewhere. And that narrows the field considerably.
Having said all that, I want to be crystal clear for the sake of my conservative friends. I’m not remotely suggesting that any part of progressive theology has been or should be built on anything other than the 66 canonical books. I utterly reject and abhor any approach to theology that builds doctrine on any alleged authority outside the 66 canonical books.
But if God were to one day inspire the next book of Proverbs, it would not change a single conclusion that we gain from the 66 books we have. You see, Isaiah didn’t repeal or amend the Torah. Rather than changing the Torah, Isaiah deepened and enriched the Jews’ understanding of Torah.
Therefore, if we reflect seriously about the canon, with minds freed from legalism and Dispensational error, the idea of an open canon should not be threatening. Neither does it change much of anything — until God decides to send the next great prophet, if ever.
But it’s fun to talk about.
Of course, Deuteronomy spoke of a coming prophet like Moses (Deuteronomy 18), and there were “tests” of a prophet suggested in the Torah.
First, a prophet must speak in the name of the LORD. But not all who spoke in His name were true prophets.
Second, if a prophet predicted the future, it must come to pass. Yet, even this (apparently) sometimes happened with false prophets.
Third, a prophet’s message must be consistent with the message of earlier, known prophets.
We still apply these tests to teachers today. Applying them to so-called “prophets” will not be difficult, except for one thing. We many times mistake our “received conclusions” as the true teaching of the Word of God – and would reject any prophet who dared to correct us.
That about says it…
Miracles still happen, so they haven’t ceased…
Various Gifts of the Holy Spirit do indeed still exist, as the Holy Spirit is still very active…
And yes there is still many phony prophets.
The 66 books that have been “certified” as “canonical” are the standard by which all apparent new prophecy and manifestations of the Holy Spirit must be measured against.
Anything “new” that adds to, or subtracts from the authoritative 66 books must be rejected as “heresy” for the authoritative 66 books do not contain contradiction AND lest we not forget the warnings from Jesus Himself and as recorded by John especially in Revelation:
Rev 22:18 ¶ I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;
Rev 22:19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.
NASB
66 books … 27 NT and 39 OT
If you look at the history how and when the chuirch decided on these books, you#d be very surprized …
It took about 4 centuries to agree on the 27 books ofthe NT: Other books that were for some time viewed as acnonical were:
1st and 2nd Clement (both very spiritual works)
Barnabas (a little exaggerated typology)
Hermas (Only John Bunyan#s “Pilgrim’s Progress” comes close to it)
Didache (a 1st century “church manual”)
If you look at the AT, you’d be surprized that the Septuagint was the OT of all churches of christ until Jerome decided otherwise (5th century); yet he still kept the books we refer to a s apocrypha. It was not until the 1500s that the Protestants kicked out the apocrypha and the Catholics labeled them as “deutrocanonical” (2nd canon – or “secondary”). One ofthe bif differences between Catholics/Orthodix and Protestants is how we view these disputed books. Starngely we (Protestants) follow the apostate Jews in rejectong these books (which they did after the destruction of the temple).
History is messy, I admit. But we have to deal with this mess and clean it up best as possible.
Alexander
Good article and study. As for the ceasation of the miraculous…. I do not see the power of prayer without accepting that god will answer. Of course the answer is up to him, but He answers. If the answer includes a miracle, I doubt any would refuse to accept it. I was raised with the idea that miracles ceased with the completion of the Scriptures, but have come to believe that this is not a viable argument. Paul in I Cor 13 seems to be referring more to Love being that which is perfect. In the situation in corinth, this was their problem. They did not love each other. The spin off of this is obvious as one studies the book. The importance of gifts that edify are always more important…. even today. So I am not going to limit the working of God in Christian’s lives, I would simply encourage that all gifts exercised, but used with love and the real intention of their use. Besides, Paul in Galatians taught that “all that matters is love working through faith”. God bless the grand body of Christ as it grows and reaches the lost.