P1 The relevance of canonicity and how we got our New Testament

Introduction:

     Today's post considers a subject that is vital in any discussion about the Bible - namely the issue of canonicity. Let's note two Biblical texts that set the tone for today's post.  Proverbs 30:6 "Do not add to His words or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar." Revelation 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."

    When we talk about the "canon of scripture", we're not talking about armaments used in physical warfare (i.e. "cannon"). Strictly speaking, the term "canon" comes from a word meaning "standard", "measuring rod" or "measuring stick". To say that the Bible is composed of "canonical writings" simply means that the 66 books and no other set constitute the "standard" or "measuring rod" of God's truth. 

    The practicality of the question of canon touches upon the daily Christian life and the life of the local church. If I do not know which books are to be believed, preached, and heeded as God's authoritative Divine revelation, living the Christian life or even proclaiming the Gospel will be jeopardized. Furthermore, Christians ought to know reasons how they can know that the books in our Bibles today are the right books, as well as knowing how they came to be revealed, inspired, recognized, used, and publicly endorsed as God's collection of authoritative Divine revelation. 

People who tried to "add" to God's Word or replace it

    The practicalities of the subject of the canon of Scripture have their historical illustrations in church history. As early as the days of the apostles, Paul wrote in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2 of a group who were forging his letters: 

"Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, 2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come."

    Throughout the history of the church there have been groups inside the church, as well as outside, who attempted to "add" to the 27 books of the New Testament canon. One group, called the "Gnostics", lived and taught in the 2nd and 3rd centuries (100-200 years after Jesus and the Apostles). We won't go into all the details surrounding what the Gnostics taught but suffice it to say, they combined elements of pagan thought, Jewish mysticism, a smattering of Greek philosophy, and vestiges of Christianity in their worldview. 

    Awareness of the Gnostics' attempts to attack early Christianity and the New Testament Scriptures (as well as the Old Testament) is an important piece to the fascinating story behind the canon of scripture. To spread their heresies, the Gnostics used a method that was popular in the ancient world of attaching famous names to documents (called "pseudepigraphy). 

    Sometimes such a practice would reflect whatever theological portion of Scripture the writer relied in conveying their work (for example, the Old Testament Apocryphal letter of Baruch, which tried to reflect the canonical book of Jeremiah). 

    The Gnostics decided that in order to get their works to circulate, they would  attach names of apostles or prophets to their writings and thus pass them off as genuine writings (books such as "The Gospel of Peter", "The Gospel of Thomas" and others). 

    The rise of Gnosticism forced the early church to publicly clarify what they had already understood among themselves regarding the revelation, inspiration, and authority of the books comprising the New Testament. 

The truth about the development of the New Testament Canon

    So, did the early church wait nearly 300 years to pick its own books for the New Testament to the exclusion of the Gnostic gospels? When we read history and the Bible, we discover that canonicity was not something that the church decided to make up to suit its own political interests. Norman Geisler, a late evangelical scholar wrote in his book (co-edited with William Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible):

Inspiration determines canonicity. If a book was authoritative, it was so because God breathed it and made it so. How a book receives authority, then, is determined by God. How men recognize that authority is another matter altogether (see discussion in chap.13 ). As J. I. Packer notes, 'The Church no more gave us the New Testament canon than Sir Isaac Newton gave us the force of gravity. God gave us gravity, by His work of creation, and similarly He gave us the New Testament canon, by inspiring the individual books that make it up.' [1]

    Since the New Testament books were immediately recognized by God’s people within or shortly after the apostolic age, then from a historical standpoint, the early church was already using many of the Books of the Bible even before the apostles died out. 

More next time....

Endnotes:

[1] Geisler, N. L., & Nix, W. E. 1996, 1989. A General Introduction to the Bible. Includes a short-title checklist of English translations of the Bible

Can there ever be any such thing as a lost book of the Bible?

Introduction: What is canon?

    Whenever we study the subject of Biblical canonicity, we are exploring the following:

1. Which books were revealed by God through a prophet or apostle. 

2. Recognition and use by God's people as God's authoritative words. 

3. Such books functioning as a closed collection of authoritative, divine revelation for all time. 

    Theologian Wayne Grudem notes of what we mean by a book of the Bible being canonical on page 1502 of the second edition of his "Systematic Theology":

"A term describing the preserved writings that are deemed to have divine authorship and therefore which are to be included in the canon of Scripture as God's authoritative words in written form."

    The term "canon" itself derives from a Hebrew noun "qaneh" and a similar sounding Greek noun "kanon" meaning "measuring rod". The term came into use by Jews and Christians as they recognized which books were Divinely inspired and considered Divinely authoritative. 

    The canon in the formal sense came into existence as soon as each book was revealed and written down under Divine inspiration. The designation, use, and recognition of the books as a collection came over a period of time, with almost immediate recognition in virtually all cases as soon as the book or books were revealed by God through a given prophet (Old Testament, example Joshua 8:32-35) or apostle (New Testament, example 1 Thessalonians 2:12-13).  

    Even in our secular culture this term "canon" is used when determining whether a given scene or character in a movie is "canon", following the sequence and storyline in whatever book the movie was based. For the sake of this post, I'll use the definition of "canon" set forth in John MacArthur's and Richard Mayhue's "A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth - Biblical Doctrine", page 926:

"Canon. The collection of books accepted by the church as authoritative".

An interesting set of verses that mention books that never made it into our Old or New Testament canons.

    Readers may find it interesting that through the Bible there are quotations or allusions to at least seven or eight books that we do not find in our Bibles. 

1. The Book of the Wars of the Lord. Numbers 21:14

2. The Book of Jasher. Joshua 10:13; 2 Samuel 1:18

3. The Book of Enoch. Jude 1:14-15

4. Jude 1:9 makes reference to Satan and Michael the Archangel disputing over the body of Moses, which derived likely from the Pseudepigraphical "Assumption of Moses".

5. Paul three times cites various secular philosophers (Epimenedes in Titus 1:12; Aratus' work "Phaenomena" in Acts 17:28; and Menander's Thais 218 in 1 Corinthians 15:33). 

    There are other places in the Bible that make references to what sound like non-canonical books or records composed by a prophet or apostle, yet would quite likely using different titles to refer to books already in our Bibles. Take for example "The Book of the Acts of Solomon" mentioned in 1 Kings 11:41. This is likely referring to the canonical account of Solomon's reign we read in 1 Kings 1-11. Other examples we find seem to refer to material already found in the books of Samuel, Kings, or Chronicles (1 Kings 14:29; 1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29; 12:15; 13:22; 20:34; and 24:27). 

    As I read the verses I listed above, it got me to thinking about a book I remember seeing as a young man entitled "The Lost Books of the Bible". Over the years various volumes have been published bearing similar titles. Depending on which of those sorts of books one reads, some contain what Protestants would call "The Apocryphal books" found in Roman Catholic Bibles but not found in Protestant ones, such as the Book of Judith. Other sorts of these so-called "lost books" volumes included what are called by scholars today "Second Temple literature" or "Pseudepigrapha", with the book of 1 Enoch being the most popular example. Still others include the Gnostic literature of the second century A.D. which allege various infancy narratives about Jesus (example the protoevangelium of James), assorted gospels (such as The Gospel of Phillip), alleged activities of the Apostles (Acts of Paul and Thecla, for example), and apocalyptic literature imitating John's Apocalypse, such as the "Apocalypse of Peter". 

Why this question about so-called lost books is important.

    Recently as I have been preaching a series on "How We Got Our Bibles" I have begun preparing a message which will deal with the Apocryphal books (or what Roman Catholics call "The Deuterocanonical Books". It got me to thinking about whether there can ever be such a thing as "a lost book of the Bible"? Take for instance 1 Corinthians 5:9 "I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people." Much discussion has ensued over whether Paul had written a letter prior to 1 Corinthians that is now "lost" to us; or whether perhaps that prior letter is perhaps embedded in the last few chapters of 2 Corinthians (particularly chapters 10-13). For reasons I won't get into now, the grammar of 1 Corinthians 5:9 would suggest that Paul's letter in 1 Corinthians 5:9 is actually the very letter He was writing at that moment - 1 Corinthians. Such questions are far beyond just intriguing inquiries, since if there are really "lost books of the Bible" that were "lost" for a period of time and then resurfaced or are re-revealed (such as the claims of the Book of Mormon), then it would cause us to question God's providence in preserving His Word.

Eight categories or possible scenarios that involve books, prophets/apostles, and the question of canon. Showing why there cannot be any genuine lost books of the Bible.

    As I've thought through this question, "can there ever be any such thing as a lost book of the Bible?", I came up with eight combinations that involve three components relevant to the discussion of canon: books, prophets/apostles, and canon/non-canonical. Let's be reminded of our definition of canon we said we would use for this post: "Canon. The collection of books accepted by the church as authoritative". 

1. Books revealed through a prophet or apostle and canonical. Example: The Book of Isaiah.

2. Books not revealed and not written by a prophet or apostle, and thus are non-canonical. Example: Gospel of Thomas.

3. Books not revealed, written by a prophet or apostle and mentioned in a canonical book. Example: Some would say 1 Corinthians 5:9 and "Paul's prior letter" is an example of this third category.

4. Books not revealed to a prophet or claimed to be a prophet or apostle and non-canonical, mentioned in the Canon. Example: Assumption of Moses cited in Jude 1:9

5. Books that recorded accurate history in conjunction with a canonical book, not written by a prophet, and not part of our canon. Example: The Book of Jasher cited in Joshua 10:13; 2 Samuel 1:18.

6. Books never considered for the canon: Example: The Gospel of Judas.

7. Books temporarily considered canonical by individuals (such as church fathers) which were then later seen as non-inspired, non-canonical, and yet never were in serious consideration by the Church at large. Example: Shepherd of Hermas.

8. Finally, books considered canonical by segments of the church during a portion of church history and yet were never considered canonical by the Jews nor by the church as a whole in the early centuries of church history. Example: The Ethiopic Tawedo Orthodox Church regards 1 Enoch as part of its canon, however no other branch of Christendom regarded this book as canonical.  

Conclusions:

    As I sift through the above eight possibilities of books, prophets / apostles, and canonical / non-canonical, there is no scenario in the literature, church history, or in the theological consideration of Biblical canonicity that would allow for a "lost book" of the Bible. If we think about it, such a book would need to have been revealed to a prophet/apostle, used and recognized by God's people as such, and to have had public and formal recognition in a canon list or historical reference. Again, this is an important point, since otherwise organizations such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints can claim their "Book of Mormon" is simply a re-revelation of a collection of revealed books lost for centuries. Such a category would undermine the authority of the Bible, not to mention spawn heretical teachings that run contrary to the uniform revelation of the sixty-six books of the canon.

    The Westminster Confession of Faith, Article I, section 6, remarks on the importance of noting the completion and closure of the canon of the sixty-six books:

"The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men."

    In short, there can be no so-called "lost books of the Bible" that could otherwise be brought forth and added to our Bibles. Four times the Scripture itself expresses this principle of not adding nor deleting from the words of God (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:6; Revelation 22:18-19). Let us rest assured that there are no lost books of the Bible. All the sixty-six books in our Bibles are the books God intended for every generation of God's people and by His Spirit, to bring to salvation lost sinners in need of the Savior. 

Why I Affirm The 2026 SBC Resolution "On the Office and Function of Pastor/Elder/Overseer"

Introduction:

    In my last post I wrote about what Scripture teaches on male headship and the equality of men and women here Growing Christian Resources: What Does Scripture Teach On Male Headship and Equality of Men and Women? 

    In this post I want to narrow down the overall Biblical worldview I presented last time to one singular subject: the affirmation of Biblical teaching about male-only Pastors and Elders at the recent 2026 SBC in Orlando, Florida. I then will summarize why I hold to that position. 

The recent discussion and debate about the offices of pastor /elder and men and women in the SBC

    We travel back to the 2022 SBC convention in Anaheim, California, where discussion ensued over whether women ought to be ordained as staff pastors. A proposal to censure Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church was discussed over his May 2021 ordination of three women on his staff. After much discussion, the issue was tabled until the 2023 convention. Consequently, Saddleback (along with a handful of SBC churches) were expelled by the Convention, however the discussion was far from over.

    We fast forward to this year's Southern Baptist Convention, wherein Al Mohler presented what he called "The Truth and Unity Amendment" here Truth and Unity Amendment - AlbertMohler.com. 

    The goal was to add the amendment to the constitution of the SBC. Its addition would reinforce the convention's position on the matter as spelled out in the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. Further, the amendment would give a mechanism for holding churches accountable that ordain or appoint women to the office of pastor / elder or any ordained staff positions. 

    The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 in Article VI on "The Church" states the following on this subject:

"Its two scriptural offices are that of pastor/elder/overseer and deacon. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to men as qualified by Scripture."

    With these things in mind, the convention convened last week in Orlando Florida, approving Mohler's proposal. According to convention by-laws, anytime a change to the constitution is proposed, passage requires two successive convention meetings to make it permanent. 

    Consequently, from that discussion came forth a resolution which spells out the details about male-only pastors / elders here On the Office and Function of Pastor/Elder/Overseer - SBC.net  I would encourage readers to read over the resolution. According to the SBC, a resolution "has traditionally been defined as an expression of opinion or concern, as compared to a motion, which calls for action. A resolution is not used to direct an entity of the Southern Baptist Convention to specific action other than to communicate the opinion or concern expressed." This resolution on male-only pastors and elders, coupled with Mohler's "Truth and Unity Amendment" brought forth this year clearly states where Southern Baptists land on this subject. 

    The resolution as I read it is clear, concise, and provides a good summary of what I would affirm myself as an SBC pastor holding to this Biblical position.

Why I advocate male-only pastoral leadership

    Over the years I've tried to read books and journal articles by those who promote men and women equally serving in the roles of pastors and elders. In reading the literature, the basis for both genders serving in pastoral / eldership roles (called “egalitarianism”) arises from pragmatic, rather than theological considerations. 

    When I say “pragmatic”, I mean churches that avow female pastoral leadership for sake of perceived beneficial outcomes for the church and for women. Pragmaticism as an approach to church ministry suffers from the weakness of “the ends justifying the means”, rather than starting out with sound, Biblical principles. 

Those who argue for the Biblical and historic case for male-only pastoral/eldership are called “complementarians”. This position states that men and women are equal in God's sight as His image bearers while having distinct roles assigned to achieve God-ordained functions in the family and church. I’ll list four reasons below why I affirm this view as it relates to male-only Pastors/Elders.

1. Pastors/elders are men because the pattern in creation involved male headship. Genesis 1:26-28.

2. Pastors /elders are men because the pattern of redemption involved Christ becoming the second Adam.  Romans 5:12-21; 1 Corinthians 15:45-47. 

3. Pastor/elders are men because the pattern of the church involves Christ’s Lordship over the church. Ephesians 5:22-33.

4. Pastor/elders are men because the pattern of the new heavens and earth will involve Christ as head of His kingdom. 1 Corinthians 15:20-28; Revelation 21-22.

The above reasons fit along similar lines I argued for in the last post. There are four key doctrines represented by the above four points represent: creation, redemption, church, kingdom. These four key doctrines are expressed by the complementarity and biologically-based binary genders and the specific way Scripture lays out men as the only office holders of the ordained positions of pastor and elder.

    Observe also that male-only pastoral leadership stems from Divinely ordained “patterns” we see in these doctrines, rather than human preferences or pragmatic reasons. When we blur the truth, whether purposefully or unwittingly, the net effect is the same – decline. 

    We note how this pattern of equality of dignity and distinctiveness of position is revealed by God through Jesus Christ. With reference to His position of authority as Lord over His Church, Jesus Christ as God-in-the-flesh exercises authority by His Word and Spirit to nourish, love, preserve, and unify His Church (Ephesians 5:22-33). The Lord revealed that men are to occupy the Pastoral office to remind themselves and the church body of Christ's Lordship (Ephesians 5:22-26; 1 Timothy 2:11-15; 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9).

     Simultaneously, with respect to equality of dignity shared by men and women, the church is a coheir with Jesus Christ in union with His humanity. She as His bride, composed of those adopted and regenerated in saving faith (Romans 8:14-17, 28-29; Galatians 4:4-6; Ephesians 2:8-9) will reign alongside Christ in His Kingdom (Revelation 20:1-3) and for eternity (Revelation 21-22). 

    This second principle of "equality of dignity" reminds each local church of the invaluable way God has gifted women to serve in the church (with the exception of the pastoral and elder offices, along with the office of Deacon, with which I take 1 Timothy 3:8-13 to speaking of "deacon's wives" rather than "deaconesses). In all, the complementarian understanding of male leadership is grounded in the God of the Bible revealed in Christ, for His church. 

Final thought: What I hope will happen at the 2027 SBC Convention

    As I close this post, my affirmation of male-only pastoral / elder leadership is meant to express my desire to see the SBC Convention approve once and for all the measure set forth by Dr. Mohler and expressed in the above linked resolution. As an SBC pastor, it is vital for churches to hold to the pattern clearly set forth by Scripture for the sake of fidelity to the Gospel and the Biblical teaching on the office of the Pastor / Elder in the local church.  

What Does Scripture Teach On Male Headship and Equality of Men and Women?

Introduction:

    Last week (June 7-13, 2026), The Southern Baptist Convention held its annual meeting in Orlando, Florida. In such meetings there are proposals voted upon and resolutions made that express Southern Baptist opinions and concerns on current issues. One such matter, which has been a major discussion for years in SBC life had to do with whether men alone ought to be Senior Pastors, ordained pastoral staff, and Elders. , Bishops, as well as Pastoral staff; or whether such offices ought to include women as well. 

    The resolution put forward by Al Mohler Jr. and passed by a 75% affirmative vote on June 13, 2026. Readers may access the entire resolution here On the Office and Function of Pastor/Elder/Overseer - SBC.net. What I want to is outline why I whole heartily agreed with this amendment. 

    To the point: what does the Scripture teach on male headship and equality of men and women? Is male headship in head-on collision with maintaining equal dignity of men and women? To answer such questions, we need to keep before us four lenses when discussing a Christian worldview of gender roles in marriage and the local church: Biological lens, Theological lens, Ecclesiological lens, and an Eschatological lens. 

Biological lens to define "maleness" and "femaleness".

    Genesis 1:26 states: "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." We could define gender as follows: a God-given property (i.e. characteristic which makes a thing what it is) in the biological design, nature, and purpose of humanity. Gender makes possible relationships, marriage, reproduction, creativity, and illustration of God’s purposes revealed in Jesus. The Biblical understanding of gender is expressed as God’s gift in the BFM 2000: “The gift of gender is thus part of the goodness of God’s creation.” 

    Masculinity and femininity points to the creative expression of God Himself (see Genesis 1:26-28). For humans, the terms "assigned gender" and "gender identity" are not two independent categories as secularists contend. Rather, they are mutually dependent. Gender’s basis is biological. Even the secular American Psychological Association (APA) recognizes this point by its definition of gender: “gender refers to the attitudes, feelings and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person's biological sex.” 

    Gender expression refers to how culture views what is appropriate to each gender. The SBC ERLC (Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission) notes: 

"So, on the one hand, our gender is given (Gen. 1). And, on the other hand, the particular expression it takes varies culturally and relationally." 1

    It is this first lens that Christians use to affirm that men and women are equal in God's sight as it pertains to bearing His image as individuals and as a collective species (Genesis 5:1; 9:5-6).2 

Theological lensing reveals the complementary roles of men and women while maintaining their equality of dignity.

    Biology and the image of God showed the equal dignity men and women have before God. To say "theological lensing" means to draw together the relevant Biblical passages and doctrinal development into a coherent systematic expression of doctrines that flesh out details on a given subject (like what we're currently discussing). 

    When we apply the theological lensing of Scripture, we begin to not only see this continued equality of men and women on the one hand, but also their distinct roles on the other hand. The doctrine of creation revealed that Adam was to transmit God's revelation of Himself and commands on how to live in the Garden to His wife (Genesis 2:16-17). This headship of Adam was a covenant headship, meaning he bore the responsibility to love, cherish, and lead his wife in godliness while clinging to her in preference over his parents (Genesis 2:24-25; 1 Timothy 2:14-15). 

    The spiritual headship of the man over his wife was not to be a tyrannical headship, but a protective, cherishing, and nurturing one where he and her would exercise dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:26-28; Matthew 19:4-6). 

    From the doctrine of creation we come next to the doctrine of redemption. God's relationship with His people, whether Old Testament Israel or the New Testament church, was to be illustrated by the husband and wife relationship. God the Father redeemed the Israelite people to be as a wife unto Him (Ezekiel 16; Hosea 2). He redeemed them (Exodus 12-15), provided for them (Deuteronomy 8), loved them (Deuteronomy 7:7-8), and pledged His covenant love to them (Genesis 12:1-7; 2 Samuel 7:13-16; Jeremiah 31:31-34). 

    In the New Testament, we find that the Father had a bride in mind, the church, as a love gift to the Son from all eternity (John 17:6; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2; Revelation 9:7-10). The headship of Christ over His church is asserted in the metaphor of marriage (Ephesians 5:22-33). Christ as the head of the church is in His humanity a co-heir with His church (Romans 8:14-17; Revelation 20:6; Revelation 21:2, 22-27; 22:17). Thus, we see the headship of the husband and the equality of husbands and wives expressed by this theological lensing.

Ecclesiological lensing of men and women in the local church.

    Ecclesiology is that area of Bible doctrine that studies the nature, offices, and life of the local church and the church the world-over. Without those first two lenses (biological and theological lensing), the whole matter of male headship in the pastoral office would appear as it does to uninformed people: arbitrary, bigoted, and random.3 The equal dignity of each gender and the complementary roles each have is necessary to maintain the overall Biblical understanding of leadership and life in the local church. 

    When Christ came to redeem men and women, He recovered the equality of dignity and complementarity of the genders as Divinely envisioned. His incarnation as a man affirmed the Divine desire to redeem men who with Adam were responsible for the entry of sin into the world and on the human species (Romans 5:12-21). 

    Christ as the Second Adam in earthly ministry elevated  women to their original equality of dignity with men, treating them with respect, honor, love, and giving to them areas of service (Luke 10:38-42; Mark 10:9). Outside of the pastoral and elder offices in the local church, women can serve as missionaries and in any non-ordained office in the church. Although women are not allowed to exercise authority of Biblical teaching over men (1 Timothy 2:15), they nonetheless can exercise their gifts and teach God's Word to women who need uplifted and discipled (Titus 2:3-4).

    The foregoing Scriptural teaching stands behind why in the local church, the leadership of Pastors, Elders, and ordained staff is to be men (1 Timothy 2:12; 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). This is not bigotry, but rather God's original plan to convey the Lordship of Christ over His church and God's authority over creation.4  This same pattern holds what is true of Christ and the church (Ephesians 5:22-33).  

    The dignity of women in the church and congregation is also asserted by the Bible's teaching on women in the local church. In the resolution I mentioned earlier "On the Office and Function of Pastor/Elder/Overseer", one of its "whereas" statements summarizes well this point with prooftexts:

"WHEREAS, Scripture teaches that women are equally created in the image of God, gifted by the Holy Spirit for meaningful service, and valuable in the work of the church (Genesis 1:27; Acts 2:17-18; 1 Corinthians 11:5, 12; Titus 2:3-5)."

Eschatological lensing points to where redeemed men and women will spend eternity with the Lord Jesus Christ.

    Eschatology is the Biblical, doctrinal study of "last things", which includes life after death, Heaven and Hell, Christ's return to earth, His Kingdom, final judgment, and the New Heavens and New Earth. Popularly called "Bible Prophecy", eschatology reminds us that the Gospel not only deals with the past and sin, but it also holds the promise of what God will accomplish in bringing about His redemption of the cosmos and the completion of the salvation of all who have trusted in Christ by faith (1 Corinthians 15:23-28; 1 Thessalonians 5; 2 Peter 3; Revelation 4-20). 

    Passages such as Revelation 19:7-10 reveal Christ's return to earth with Christians as His "Bride", for whom He had already rewarded for their faithfulness to Him in this life (see also Romans 14:10; 1 Corinthians 3:10-15; 2 Corinthians 5:10). The "Bride of Christ" theme is as much a redemptive truth pictured by marriage (Ephesians 5:22-33) as it is an eschatological reality in the ages to come (Revelation 21:1-2).5 

Closing thoughts:

    In today's post I aimed to give four lenses through which we can grasp the Biblical teaching on male headship and equality of men and women. These two ideas are not contradictory but complementary truths. Biologically, God had from creation made men and women equal in dignity. Theologically, we saw through the doctrines of creation, redemption, and Christ's incarnation that the genders are equal image bearers and distinctly assigned roles that fulfill God's original design for creation and salvation. The ecclesiological lens or "church-wise" view of things reminded us that male-only pastoral leadership and that of Elders model the foundational truths of our biological and theological understandings of humanity from the Bible. Then eschatologically, we're reminded of how such teaching telegraphs God's ultimate plan to bring about the New Heavens and New Earth for His redeemed people. This, I hope, has clearly conveyed the Biblical teaching on male headship and equality of men and women. 

Endnotes:

1. God's image refers to the spiritual, rational, and relational properties that uniquely makes a human being human, created and endowed by their Maker, who imprinted such uniqueness into the biology and psychology of each human being.

2. To blur the distinctions between biological gender and the expressions of it leads to the confusing psychological condition known as “gender dysphoria”. Since gender is a biological property, a person cannot choose their gender, since it is inherent to who they are as a person. Put another way, it is invalid to say that gender is somehow obtained by psychologically identifying with a different gender, since it blurs “what kind of human being one is” versus “what they would feel better in being”.  

2. I have noticed over the decades that those who argue for an "egalitarian" model of church leadership, which asserts that the pastoral office is serviceable by women as well as men, typically do not devote attention to those first two lenses.

4. Binary patterns such as these safeguard God's people against the tendency of secular and paganized systems to erase such patterns. This pattern of male spiritual leadership in the church returns us to the creational pattern of male spiritual leadership originally in the Garden and in marriage.

5. The male headship of Christian marriage and male pastoral leadership in the local church telegraph this potent eschatological / prophetic reality. When Christ came, He introduced the forthcoming Kingdom of God in preview form (Mark 1:15). Each local church is to function as an embassy of Christ's coming kingdom, composed of born-again ambassadors (2 Corinthians 5:18-21). The equal dignity of men and women who are co-sharers of the vision of God through Christ in the New Heavens and New Earth is also to be conveyed in marriage and the local church. 

Post #38 1700 Years Of The Nicene Creed - "who spoke by the prophets" - Jesus' Teaching And Resurrection Affirms A High View Of Scripture

Introduction:

    In the last couple of posts in our series on "1700 years of the Nicene Creed, we have looked at the phrase in the Nicene Creed: "who spoke by the prophets". We are currently looking at the doctrine of the Holy Spirit as He relates to the Divine inspiration of the Scripture. I've noted three important points are needed where approaching this clause "who spoke by the prophets".  

1. First, what was going through the minds of those who attended the Council of Constantinople when they agreed upon this part of the Creed? I answered this in part #36 of our series here: Growing Christian Resources: Post #36 1700 Years Of The Nicene Creed - "who spoke by the prophets" - What View Of Scripture Was Present At The Council Of Constantinople?

2. The second point about the confession of the Spirit's role in the Divine revelation of the Scripture was this: did the Council of Constantinople, and thus their update to the original Creed of Nicaea in 325 reflect the prevailing view of the early church's stance on the Scripture? Did their position of the nature of Scripture match that of Jesus and the Apostles? I dealt with these questions in #37 of our overall series here Growing Christian Resources: Post #37 1700 Years Of The Nicene Creed - "who spoke by the prophets" - Is Biblical Inerrancy A Modern Invention Of Conservatives?

3. Today's post will deal with the third consideration which sets the tone for the prior two considerations: what did Jesus and the Apostles teach about the Divine inspiration of Scripture and thus, what ought to be the Church's view today?  

Defining what is meant by Biblical inerrancy and its relationship to Divine inspiration.

   When we speak of Biblical inerrancy, we mean that the writings of the Old and New Testaments contained no errors as originally written by the prophets and apostles under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. To state the doctrine positively: 

The original documents of the Old and New Testaments are totally true in every subject, even to their very wording, as revealed by God through the words written by the Biblical authors. 

    Since we no longer have the original documents (also called "the autographs), we have to rely upon the thousands of copies and ancients translations to reconstruct the wording of the original text. 

    The "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy", the premier definitive statement on the subject defines inerrancy as follows in its "Summary Statement", number four:

"Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives."

    We've noted the high view of Scripture the church fathers had during the time of the Council of Constantinople that did the update to the Nicene Creed in 381 A.D. We also discovered the the wider context of the first three centuries of church history also held to the Scriptures as inspired an inerrant. Was this the view of Jesus and the Apostles? 

Let's note the following.

1. Jesus taught that the scripture is inspired, inerrant, and revealed by God.

    In Jesus' day, the Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible, the Tanak, as it is sometimes referred) was the only Bible known. There were no New Testament books, since Jesus had not yet died, raised and ascended.1 

    There were of course copies of the Hebrew text, however, very few Jewish people knew the Hebrew. Despite various translations of the Old Testament in circulation by Jesus' day, His view of the Divine authority carried by such translations did not alter. Several key phrases that Jesus used to describe the scriptures attest to His views, which ought to inform us as to how to view our translations of the Old and by extension, the New Testament. 

a. "It is written" 

    Jesus would sometimes use the phrase "it is written" to assert the Divine authority of the Old Testament. 2 At least 16 times in the Old Testament do we find this phrase used to refer to the words of other Old Testament books as being God's word.

b. "Scripture"

    Jesus used another closely associated term, "scripture", to describe the Old Testament.3 In these instances, Jesus describes the scriptures as fulfilled, having Divine authority, without error or "inerrant" (Matthew 22:29) and incapable of failure or "infallible" (John 10:35).

c. "It is fulfilled"

    The third term used by Jesus in His teaching on scripture is His often used phrased it is fulfilled. 4  Jesus' teaching about scripture's ability to accurately predict the future spoke to it's prophetic function. He saw himself as the basis of fulfillment. Fulfilled prophecy is the most unique mark of  divine revelation - with the Old and New Testament books uniquely possessing such a property among any other religious text.

d. "Truly, Truly, I say to you"

    The fourth set of phrases that Jesus used to teach about the Bible was where he would either say "but I say" or "truly truly". These particular statements refer to Jesus's own self understanding of his Divine Authority as delivering the very words of God. He would often contrast himself with the Jewish traditions as found in the teachings of the Pharisees and Scribes. Jesus used the phrase "truly truly" 25x in John's Gospel, for example. 5 
    We then find Jesus using the phrase "I say" with reference to his own Divine authority in Matthew and Luke's Gospel.6 As Jesus proclaimed His own self understanding, He claimed the ability to forgive sins (Luke 7:47; 12:8) which is something the Old Testament taught that Yahweh alone could do (see Isaiah 43:10,11; Jonah 2:9-10). Finally, we this phrase "but I say" used in John 1:51 and in Matthew 5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44 / Luke 6:27 / John 5:34.

e. "Word of God" 

    The final major term that Jesus used to describe the scriptures was the phrase "the Word of God". Whenever we use the phrase "word of God" to describe either the writings of the Old and New Testament or Jesus Himself, we are describing something or someone who speaks in God's place. Thus, Jesus used this phrase "word of God" in all four Gospels.7 

2. Jesus' resurrection validated everything He taught and accomplished (including His views of scripture).

    Having looked at Jesus's teaching on the character scripture,  we finally turn our attention to Jesus' resurrection from the dead. In making the historical case for Jesus resurrection, scholars refer to "facts" or details which they conclude are fundamental to verifying any historical event and it's meaning. There are four main facts that virtually all New Testament historians (whether believing or unbelieving practitioner) have arrived at as a consensus regarding Jesus's life and death. 

a. Jesus died by crucifixion. 

    In almost a dozen sources outside the New Testament as well as the multiple attestation of his death in the four gospels and throughout the New Testament Epistles as well as Acts of the Apostles, hardly no one disputes that Jesus death by crucifixion occurred.8 

b. The second fact that is agreed upon by the majority of New Testament historians is the discovery of Jesus's empty tomb three days following his crucifixion. 

    Whenever one reads all four gospel accounts in Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20, all four counts record that Jesus is empty tomb was discovered by his closest women followers. The testimony of women in the ancient world was viewed as inadmissible in a court of law. Yet, the fact that women are recorded as first-hand eyewitnesses attest to the genuineness of the accounts (referred to by historians as the "criterion of embarrassment). 

c. The third fact surrounding the events of Jesus resurrection are his post-resurrection appearances. 

    Forty days following his resurrection from the dead, Jesus appeared on a dozen occasions to various groups, from believers to unbelievers, to individuals to all twelve of the Apostles and to even 500 Witnesses at one time.9 

d. The fourth fact concerns the sudden change from skepticism to faith among those who were eyewitnesses of Jesus's post-resurrection. 

    We see for example the disciples who were hiding in fear at the end of all four gospels suddenly becoming robust evangelists of his resurrection in Acts of the Apostles. Jesus's own half-brother per Jesus' humanity, James, was converted to the belief that Jesus had raised from the dead (see 1 Corinthians 15). The persecutor of the early church, Saul of Tarsus, had a profound encounter with the Risen Christ and Acts chapter 9, and our accounts such in Acts 22, and 26.

    The best explanation of these facts derives not from naturalistic theories (such as someone stole the body, or that Jesus's appearances were just hallucinations, or that the disciples somehow mistook the location of the tomb, or that it was a mass hoax). 

    Instead, research has borne out in the last 200 years that the explanation: "God raised Jesus from the dead", has shown itself to be the most consistent explanation of all the facts just mentioned. And what does this have to do with the teaching of biblical inerrancy? 

    As we've already seen, Jesus taught that the scriptures are inerrantly the Word of God. He also taught that God, being perfect and thus incapable of lying, was the scripture's main Author (along with the human authors). Inerrancy follows from God's character (see Numbers 23:19; Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18). 10

    When we consider this foundation in addition to statements the Old Testament New Testaments makes about themselves make with reference to their inerrancy and historically verified fulfilled prophecy, we find  a two-fold foundation for stating the inerrancy of scripture: namely, what the scripture says about itself as well as Jesus's on teaching and resurrection. These twin pillars provide for us proper justification for firming the inerrancy of scripture. 

Conclusion:

    By seeing what Jesus taught about the scriptures, God, as well as his resurrection from the dead, we can confidently say that the doctrine of inerrancy was taught by Jesus and the Apostles, which in turn continued to be "the view" of the early church. This high view of Scripture fittingly sets the tone for right understanding what is meant by the Nicene Creed's statement: "who spoke by the prophets" regarding the Holy Spirit's act of Divinely inspiring the Scriptures. 

Endnotes:

1. The Old Testament books were revealed by God through the prophets in Hebrew (98% of the Old Testament text) and some Aramaic (2% of the Old Testament text). By the first century, almost every Jewish person in Israel spoke Aramaic, which meant that the copies of the scriptures read in the synagogues were Aramaic (called "Targums", meaning, "to interpret"). Other Jews throughout the rest of the Greco-Roman world had access to Greek copies of the Old Testament associated with the Septuagint Greek Old Testament (so-named due to the tradition that the project was translated by seventy Jewish scribes, symbolized by the Roman numeral LXX). The Septuagint (LXX) was translated over a period of a century, beginning in 275 b.c. It is likely that Jesus and the Apostles had familiarity with either the Aramaic Targums or Greek Septuagint. 

2. Matthew 4:4, 6, 7, 10; 11:10; 21:13;  26:24, 31 /  Mark 1:2, 7:6, 9:12, 13; 11:17; 14:21, 27 / Luke 4:4, 8, 10, 17, 7:27; 10:26; 18:31; 19.46; 20.17, 22, 22:37; 24.44, 46 / John 6:31,45; 8:17; 10:34; 12:14, 16; 15:25; 19:19, 20, 22.

3. Matthew 21:42, 22:29, 26:54, 56/ Mark 12:24, 14:49 / Luke 24:27, 32, 45, John 5:39. 

4. Matthew 4:14; 5:17; 8:17; 12:1; 13:14,35; 21:4; 26:54, 56 / Mark 1:15; 14:49 / Luke 4:21; 21:22, 24 / John 12:38; 13:18, 25; 17:12). In John 17:12, Jesus uses the phrase: "scripture is fulfilled". In John 18:9 and 19:28, reference is made to scripture "being fulfilled".

5. In John 1:51; 3:3, 5, 11; 5:19, 24, 25; 6:26, 32, 47, 53; 8:34, 51, 58; 10:1, 7; 12:24; 13:16, 20, 21, 38; 14:12; 16:20, 23 and 21:18. 

6. Matthew 5:18, 22, 22, 26, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44; 6:2, 5, 16, 25, 29, 8.10, 11; 10:15, 23, 29; 11:23, 24; 12:43; 13:30, 37: 14:9, 14, 18, 25, 30 / Luke 4:24 and Luke 5:24. In Luke 6:25, Jesus would use the phrase "but I say" to contrast himself to the Jewish traditions, as seen in Luke 7.9, 14, 26, 28, 47.10:12; 11:8, 9, 51; 12:5, 22, 27, 37, 44. 

7. Such as Matthew 4:4; 15:6 / Mark 7:13 / Luke 8:11, 21; 11:28 / John 3:34; 8:47 / John 10:35.  In John 10:35, Jesus uses the particular phrase: "the word of God cannot be broken" to refer to scripture's infallibility (that is, it's incapability of ever being wrong or ever failing to be right).

8. Passages such as Deuteronomy 21:22 and Galatians 3:10-13 signify that Christ's death on the cross was viewed as a curse. On almost 10 occasions throughout his earthly ministry, Jesus predicted that he would be handed over to both the Jews and the Romans to be tried, falsely accused, and crucified.

9. These eyewitnesses claim encounters the risen Christ despite there being no Jewish teaching of resurrections occurring before the end of the world. Virtually all New Testament historians count these claims by the eyewitnesses as a fact of historical investigation. 

10. As we've seen in the foregoing historical argument for Jesus's resurrection from the dead, Jesus resurrection validated everything that He taught and lived. Therefore, by basing the doctrine of inerrancy on Jesus' teaching and resurrection, we have a firm foundation for the inerrancy scripture itself. 

P2 How To Spiritually Prepare For The Lord's Supper

Introduction:

    In my last post I began to offer a suggestion for spiritually preparing to partake of the Lord's Supper. The church where I pastor will observe communion this coming Sunday. I know for my own sake, having a practical way to get ready for the Lord's Table can help Christians throughout the week leading up to it. In the last post I noted the first way: considering the cost of following Jesus. 

    In today's post we will look at two other steps. As we did in the last post, I'll have us reflect once again on a portion of Matthew's account of the Lord's Supper.

Matthew 26:16-19 "Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus and asked, 'Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?' 18 And He said, 'Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, ‘The Teacher says, 'My time is near; I am to keep the Passover at your house with My disciples.' 19 The disciples did as Jesus had directed them; and they prepared the Passover."

    In our last post we began to think about how one may prepare their heart and mind for the reception of the Lord's table. We noted how we first need to consider the privilege of the cost of following Jesus. The Gospels record Jesus' final meal with His disciples. Prior to that meal was a the time devoted to preparation for it. 

    If only we would take the time to prepare our hearts and minds in our daily walk with God; we would then avoid the tragedy of "going through the motions" that so much characterizes modern day Christianity. In today's post we will conclude with two other considerations of how one may prepare their heart and mind for the reception of the Lord's Table. 

Consider the provisions by Christ for the details of your life.

(Matthew 26:18-19; Mark 14:12-16; Luke 22:10-13). 

    One remarkable feature of all four Gospel accounts on the time proceeding the Lord's supper with His disciples regards His meticulous knowledge of certain details leading up to that event. The first three Gospels lay stress upon Jesus' detailed instructions to His disciples regarding their preparation for the celebration of the Passover. An example is found in Matthew's record in Matthew 26:18-19 - 

"And He said, “Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, ‘The Teacher says, “My time is near; I am to keep the Passover at your house with My disciples.”’” 19 The disciples did as Jesus had directed them; and they prepared the Passover."

    The other three Gospel accounts record similar instructions. Jesus knew details such as the particular room in which the New Covenant meal would take place and the individual whom the disciples would connect to make the arrangements. These observations serve to remind us that the Lord not only orchestrates time in general, but also the details in which He carried out His will in the lives of His people.

    Throughout the narrative of the events leading up to our Lord's crucifixion, we primarily witness the actions of the man Jesus of Nazareth. However, it must also be recollected that He who ate the bread and drank the cup with His disciples was and ever remained truly God. Christ's meticulous knowledge of such incidental details (i.e. omniscience) points to the truth conveyed in the New Testament about Him as One Person that is truly God and truly man (see John 1:14; Philippians 2:5-11; Colossians 2:9).

    Understanding Jesus Christ as truly God and truly man causes the Christian to realize why Jesus is able to supply every need in their life. It is healthy to reflect back on how much the Lord has taken care of the Christian. Jesus promises to take care of physical needs (Luke 6:46); emotional needs (Matthew 11:28-30) and of course spiritual needs (John 10).

    I find it helpful to reflect on how Jesus has taken care of every aspect of my own life between those times I celebrate the Lord's supper. The New Covenant meal centers around the taking in of the staples of nourishment (bread, fruit of the vine). Whenever the Christian partakes of these elements, the Holy Spirit impresses upon the believer just how much everything in life derives from the hand of Christ.

    Thus, preparing for the Lord's Supper not only should include considering the privilege of the cost of following Jesus, but also how He provides for every need in life. Then one more step to preparing for the Lord's Table.

Confess your sins and praise Jesus for what He did for you.

    Confession of sin is a major part of this covenant meal. Whenever Jesus and His disciples were getting underway in the institution of that inaugural meal, we find an interesting detail in Mark's account in Mark 14:17-19 -  

"When it was evening He came with the twelve. 18 As they were reclining at the table and eating, Jesus said, 'Truly I say to you that one of you will betray Me—one who is eating with Me.' 19 They began to be grieved and to say to Him one by one, 'Surely not I?'”

    The heightened awareness of one's deficiencies in their spiritual walk is made acute at the Lord's Table. The time of Communion points us to Christ, reminding the Christian that Christ's righteousness not only covered their spiritual nakedness at conversion, but ever dons their imperfect practical righteousness in post-conversion. 

    Anytime God's people gather together to celebrate the Lord's table, consideration of unconfessed sin or disruption of fellowship between believers over such things is crucial. Why? The Table of the Lord is not only a place of celebration for the church, but also of healing.

    The disciples grieved over the prospect that one of them could betray Jesus. How often does the Christian exchange their love for Jesus for that momentary indulgence of personal sin? I have found that nothing brings to light my own personal need to confess my sin than when time approaches for the celebration of the Lord's supper (see 1 Corinthians 11:27-32). Thankfully, whenever Jesus had revealed these words, we find Him then blessing the bread and then the fruit of the vine.

    The provision for our forgiveness was already to go before the betrayal of sin. The Lord's supper portrays the provision for forgiveness, as well as the healing of the soul. There might be times I come to the table with the shame of sins I committed since the last time I partook of those elements. However, the Lord's promise to forgive me of such sins at the instant I confess them is rooted in the finished work of the cross emblemized by the bread and the fruit of the vine (see 1 John 1:9; 2:1-2).

    Confession of sin ought to be a daily, if not moment-by-moment practice of every Christian. The Lord's table serves to reinforce the provision of God's forgiveness in Jesus Christ. The table of fellowship is predicated upon the restoration of such fellowship that is immediately granted upon confession of sins to the Bishop and Overseer of our souls - the Lord Jesus Christ (see 1 Timothy 2:5; 1 Peter 2:25). 

Closing thoughts

    In these last two posts, we aimed to offer three ways one can prepare their heart and mind for the partaking of the Lord's supper. We noted how there was ample preparation in the Gospel portrayals of Jesus' celebration of the New Covenant meal with His disciples. The following three suggestions were made:

1. Consider the privilege of the cost of following Jesus.

2. Consider the provisions by Christ for the details of your life.

3. Confess your sins and praise Jesus for what He did for you.