A brief study to define the concept of 'Scripture' and to answer the question whether there is modern day Scripture

SCRIPTURE

Introduction
Some Scriptures
   II Tim 3:16-17
   II Peter 1:20-21
   Mtw 22:29
   II Peter 3:15-16
The difference between Power and Authority
The Scriptures and the Bible
The Muratorian Fragment
New Scripture
APPENDIX - The NT occurrences of the word translated 'Scripture'

This brief discussion was put together during some email correspondence I was taking part in that was considering the possibility that ‘New Scripture’ was being written in the present day.

These short notes were an attempt to define what the Bible meant by the term ‘Scripture’ (although the definition herein will be somewhat limited to the application within the discussion we were having) and to attempt to answer the question as to whether there is ‘New Scripture’ being written that should be given an equal value to that contained within the pages of the 66 book Bible.

We begin by looking at a few passages in the New Testament that give us some understanding of what Scripture is and does before going on to a brief consideration of how the Canon of Scripture was formed (that is, which literary works were chosen for the compilation of writings that we now call ‘The Bible’) before, finally, trying to answer the question as to whether some modern day writings could be accepted as ‘New Scripture’.

I have included a very lengthy Appendix that deals with other traits that should be accepted as being what Scripture is - both in the Old and New Testaments.

Introduction

Before this short discussion is begun, the reader must know the definition of certain words used. I have taken the label ‘Scripture’ not to refer to what we now call ‘The Bible’ unlike most present day believers who unfailingly and incorrectly think the NT to be referring to ‘The Bible’ whenever it uses the term.

‘The Bible’ as a collection of inspired works came about very late in the history of the Church and care should always be taken that we don’t inflict our own meaning on Biblical concepts that aren’t correct at the time at which the writers committed their words to parchment. Present day interpretations and meanings imposed upon the text cause the Bible to become a pretence for all manner of error.

There’s no need for me to define the term ‘Scripture’ any further at this point as that’s what this discussion is attempting to do (although the Appendix contains a fuller attempt at a definition) and, then, to go on to think about what criteria we might use to decide whether post-first century writings could be accepted as ‘new’ Scripture. We just need to start from a ‘clean slate’ and not to flavour the word with any of our accepted definitions as we begin.

I have also chosen not to use any of the NT Scriptures that refer to the ‘Word of God’ as, again, present day believers wrongly take the phrase to refer to ‘The Bible’ or ‘Scripture’ with very little justification. While there’s certainly one Scripture in the NT that equates the ‘Word of God’ as being that which has been written, the vast majority of usages refer to that which is spoken (see my web page on this subject here).

I have used the term ‘The Bible’ to refer to the Protestant canon that’s the most commonly accepted compilation of writings and which omits the Apocrypha - that is, the 66 book version. This final definition is of little or no importance to the overall thrust of this brief discussion, however.

And, finally, when I have talked about the ‘Canon’ I am referring to the list of works accepted as being authoritative in the New Testament whether they are the 27 that make up ‘The Bible’ of the present day or any number and permutation that was accepted at some other point in Church history. I have also used it a couple of times to denote the entire body of accepted authoritative literature but the context gives the meaning and it should be fairly obvious.

Some Scriptures

A more detailed discussion concerning the 51 New Testament occurrences of the word ‘Scripture’ appears in the Appendix. I have concerned myself here with certain aspects that are particularly relevant to our consideration of whether there is ‘New Scripture’.

II Tim 3:16-17

‘All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work’

If for ‘All Scripture’ we were to simply translate ‘Everything that has been written’, we’d have Paul saying that all things that have been written are profitable (and so on) - but it’s hard to take him as saying that ‘The Witchcraft Follower’s Weekly’ is what he’d include in the statement even though it would be necessitated.

The Greek word translated ‘Scripture’ (Strongs Greek number 1124) can give the verse this meaning as it’s only a specialised interpretation that would cause us to accept each and every occurrence as being a reference to ‘Scripture’ in the present day sense of that word. Kittel notes the range of meaning to include such concepts as ‘writing’, ‘written characters’, ‘the art of writing’, ‘a written statement’ (such as a letter or document in various different contexts), ‘a published work’ or ‘a written law’ or ‘statute’.

The believer shouldn’t blindly accept the term ‘Scripture’ for each and every occurrence (as we shouldn’t do for other everyday Greek words. Notable here is the word group for ‘baptism’ which are normally taken to always refer to a Church rite) but, when considered as they appear in the NT, it seems that, generally, something that has been written and accepted to be ‘above the norm’ is what is meant when this Greek word is used.

So, it seems best to take Paul’s words as referring to a certain type or body of literature that he had in mind that he considered of value to the believer.

What comprised that body of literature is not defined here but the NT frequently uses the word ‘Scripture’ to refer to quotations from what we now call ‘The Old Testament’. Primarily, therefore, it must have referred to those Jewish writings - but we mustn’t fall into the trap of finding justification for swapping this translation of ‘Scripture’ by the label ‘The Old Testament’ simply because it wasn’t in existence then (that is, there was no collection of writing that was accepted as being ‘The Old Testament’ - that the individual books were in existence is not being questioned).

It’s also fairly significant that the Apocrypha is rarely quoted (although it’s not without mention).

This ‘body of literature’, therefore, obviously bears authority and has its inspiration from God - Paul doesn’t say that God wrote it (as many believers today would assert) but that it was inspired by Him. Men recorded the accepted ‘Scripture’ but it was God who was inspiring it, allowing the vessel to ‘flavour’ the message that was committed to writing.

That it also bears inherent authority is evident here for it’s accepted as being

‘...profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness...’

something that it would be unable to be used for if it was simply accepted as being ‘a good read’. Whatever ‘Scripture’ is, therefore, it’s to be used to mould the believer to become more like the Person he’s seeking to serve, so that

‘...the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work’

II Peter 1:20-21

‘First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God’

Peter says that an interpretation (a ‘prophecy of Scripture’ being taken as an explanation of what it is God’s saying through an accepted written source) is not subject to human interpretation. The reason he gives is that that which has been recorded in the first place didn’t come from man deciding to speak a word and record it but, rather, men were moved upon by the Holy Spirit and so spoke with the authority and power of God.

Therefore, to understand a ‘writing’ correctly, one must, presumably (because Peter doesn’t spit it out in as many words), be moved by God as they were when the writing was first recorded so that a proper explanation can be given.

It is, perhaps, quite off-putting to realise today that we have a great many messengers who are ‘speaking by inspiration of the Holy Spirit’ but who disagree with one another to the point of being diametrically opposed. In the early Church the same thing took place, with divisions and dissensions fairly commonplace.

However, in the first century, there was a strong, anointed leadership who could adequately correct the error in love - a clear dissimilarity between then and now. Nowadays, it’s the denominational leaderships who are often more clearly seen to be against one another through their own sect’s particular biases.

But the teaching remains in this verse that no Scripture can be interpreted correctly unless the Holy Spirit inspires the truth to be gleaned from it. That’s also a clear indication that the statement in many denominational ‘Fundamental Beliefs’ that the Bible is ‘all-sufficient’ is incorrect - without the interpreting voice of the Holy Spirit, the Bible is not just ‘insufficient’ but it will tend to be used in ways that justify a person’s heretical and erroneous belief by people who may be using it in natural ways.

It must also be stated further as an aside to this paper that I noted briefly in my notes on Leviticus (here under the heading ‘Father and daughter’) that nowhere in the Bible do we find a clear statement that a Father is forbidden to have sexual intercourse with his daughter.

There’s no doubt in my own mind that such a prohibition is necessary and a clear intention by God to protect familial relationships but it remains that the Bible is silent on the matter. Such a fact is also untenable (along with the refusal to accept the need for the Holy Spirit to interpret ‘Scripture’) with the often held fundamental belief that the Bible is ‘all-sufficient’.

Mtw 22:29

‘You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God’

I throw this in as a suggestion that Jesus’ words are proof that the Scriptures do not contain inherent power.

I accept that this Scripture does not say it directly (as no Scripture does as far as I’m aware) but it appears plausible from His words where he contrasts two items that seem to be separate from one another (‘The Scriptures’ and ‘The power of God’).

It seems to me that, had the Scriptures been believed to contain God’s power, the second phrase would have become redundant and gone unsaid.

I fully confess that this is only an inference but it’s necessary to note also that the quotations and citations in the NT use the writings as a source of authority and don’t quote them to release power. It should also be realised from the previous section that if a believer needs the interpreting voice of the Holy Spirit then it’s only as He comes to interpret the writing that power is brought along with His interpretative illumination.

A person, therefore, who reads ‘Scripture’ without the presence and activity of God’s Spirit receives neither an infallible interpretation nor divine power. How we can be certain who has received both is another matter entirely and not within the scope of this brief study.

II Peter 3:15-16

‘And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures’

It’s that final phrase that seems to be so illuminating, for Peter is definitely making the connection that Paul’s letters are writings on a par with the ‘other Scriptures’. Just what those ‘other Scriptures’ are, he doesn’t say but we’d probably not be going too far wrong if we were to understand the phrase to be a reference to the Jewish records of God’s dealings with them (that is, to a large extent, what’s contained within ‘The Old Testament’).

I can’t see a different interpretation here other than to take Peter’s assessment of Paul’s writings as being ‘Scripture’. However (and this is where it gets problematical), if Peter means simply by the Greek word translated ‘Scriptures’ the idea of ‘the writings’ referring to all sorts of documents the Church was using at that time, it doesn’t prove very much.

Personally, I don’t believe this is the case (and I’ve dealt with this matter above) and accept fully the idea that Paul’s letters were regarded as ‘Scripture’ (that is, authoritative) by a lot of the early Church and especially the apostles who had been with Jesus before the crucifixion and resurrection.

The difference between Power and Authority

I’ve stated above that ‘Scripture’ has inherent authority but not inherent power. As many believers seem to use the two words interchangeably and see no difference in them, it’s necessary to define by example the two concepts.

A policeman has the authority to walk out into the middle of the road and command a car to stop. However, the car has the power to refuse to obey his authority and, if push comes to shove, the policeman will be shown to be all authority but no power to back it up as he bounces off the car bonnet. If he has a gun, however, he would be deemed to have the power to make the car stop (if he can shoot straight) - but I’m giving an English example, not an American one. But, if the driver of the car respects the authority of the policeman, no power will need to be used by the policeman to bring about his will.

However, what about a Chieftain tank in the middle of the road commanding a car to stop? Not only does it have the authority of the land to tell the car to stop but it also has a very effective means of power to enforce the authority. If this ever happens to you, pull over. The car may stop simply because the driver’s frightened of the power plainly demonstrable in front of him and may do so regardless of any respect he has for the army’s authority.

So, too, Scripture has authority - the word is used this way in the NT and that which is cited is being appealed to on the basis of a presumed authority. But it’s never declared that Scriptures have power unless the Holy Spirit is moving upon them as He needs to to interpret them properly to us.

So, for example, the Scripture ‘You shall not commit adultery’ has the authority to tell you what’s wrong. But it doesn’t have the power to prevent you from doing it - that comes through the New Birth and the empowering of the Holy Spirit who enforces the rule of God in a person’s life through the willingness of the individual concerned. Many people are willing to accept the authority of the verse and don’t need the power of the Holy Spirit to achieve obedience - others, being weak, need to experience that power to enforce their own will. Others neither respect the authority of God’s command nor fear His power and so will continue to do whatever they please.

The present day Church (the people who reckon they ‘believe’ and who are ‘evangelical’ in outlook - though this labelling is by no means all-inclusive) believes that the Bible has inherent power and it’s frequently announced. But this isn’t correct and is certainly not Biblical (unless reference to the spoken word is used to justify the belief by pretending it’s referring to the written word - for more discussion on this matter see my notes on ‘The Word of God’) - it only has inherent authority and is used this way throughout the New Testament.

The Scriptures and the Bible

I have taken the information to compile this short overview primarily from the article ‘The Canon of the New Testament’ by D Guthrie in the five volume Zondervan’s Pictorial Encyclopaedia of the Bible.

If the reader disagrees with some of the ‘fine detail’ (they seem to change with each passing decade!), it’s of no particular importance for it’s been put together solely to show the variety of the lists of authoritative writings (or, better, the variety of ideas concerning them) that existed prior to there being a ‘fixed’ Canon. On that, we should all be able to agree.

Early towards the end of the first century, lists must have been in circulation that announced which ‘works’ were considered to be authoritative in the Church. This seems to be a logical necessity to believe as local fellowships will have needed to have known which writings were reliable.

This could, of course, have been something that was passed on by word of mouth but that the early Church preserved such a vast quantity of manuscripts shows that they had a good idea which works were important to preserve and reproduce (I have used the next section to deal with ‘The Muratorian Fragment’ that seems to bear the earliest list of ‘accepted’ and ‘trusted’ works in existence). They would have been widely different in their opinions, of course, the ‘Shepherd of Hermas’ and the ‘Didache’ would have been rejected by some and accepted fully by others, but it wasn’t until the fourth century that the ‘lists’ were ‘standardised’ and the Canon was finally decided upon.

The Church ‘fathers’ (such as Irenaeus, Origen and Tertullian - the list is fairly long) used the writings to produce their own letters and works and it’s not unreasonable to accept that they used the writings that they considered to be authoritative in their opposition to what they considered to be heretical.

It’s possible, however, that they used some writings that their opponents considered authoritative to disprove their own errant position, but the former explanation seems to be the more likely. The usage of the works, therefore, is a good witness to the way in which these were treated, having authority in the Church over which they had been set as leaders. Some (or, better, ‘much’) of the fathers’ theology, however, is suspect to say the least and one wonders just how they got some of the things they did from the writings they used!

Some three centuries of usage of manuscripts had already taken place before it was decided that a fixed set of accepted writings was to be drawn up. Eusebius himself seems to have picked and chosen which ones he was happy with (being unhappy with Jude, James, II Peter, II and III John and the Book of Revelation - but we know that other people had opposition to all, some of or more than this list and the Letter to the Hebrews was among those thought spurious).

The testimony of Eusebius is important for us to consider for it shows plainly that the Church of the early fourth century (before the Councils came to ‘fix’ the Canon) had different opinions as to which writings were regarded as being ‘Scripture’ and which were not.

The Laodicean Council of 363AD - the first Council to do so, although some dispute the list that’s attributed to them - seem to have agreed a list of canonical works that omitted the Book of Revelation.

In 367, an Easter letter written by Bishop Athanasius to his congregations lists the presently accepted 27 books of the NT (although he assigned Pauline authorship to the Letter to the Hebrews) and pronounced them as being ‘believed to be divine’.

The reason given for this letter and the list was because believers were being led astray to accept works that were heretical in nature, many of them bearing genuine apostolic names known to them (such as Peter and Thomas) so that their authority was being unquestioned, their content accepted as worthy of full acceptance.

He also lists additional books that were considered to be beneficial but not authoritative (such as some of the OT Apocrypha and other Church works such as ‘The Shepherd of Hermas’ and the ‘Didache’).

However, by the end of the fourth century, the Council of Hippo in Africa (in 393) produced a definitive list that included all 27 books of the New Testament - along with the Council held at Carthage (in 397) when Augustine was present (although there was disagreement as to the authorship of the Letter to the Hebrews).

It would appear that these standardisations of lists of ‘authorised works’ were based on either circulating lists or local church practice and decided upon by some of the most clapped-out spiritually-dead leaders of the Church the world has ever seen. If you ever need good evidence that God works in mysterious ways and brings about matters miraculously against the expected outcome, you need look no further.

The NT Canon then seems to have been generally fixed and accepted until the time of the Reformation (about which, we need not concern ourselves). However, Roman Catholicism have their own Biblical Canon (their own body of accepted authoritative Scripture) as does Protestantism.

What they both have in common, though, is that they either ignore what it says in their Canon when it disagrees with what their leaderships pronounce or they twist the contents to bear the meaning they want it to have whenever it disagrees with them.

There are a great many genuine leaders within both ‘isms’ mentioned here but, generally speaking, a denominational leader must adhere to the ‘Statement of Belief’ of the organisation he works for regardless of any Scriptural authority for that position if he’s to continue to be accepted as part of the organisation.

The Muratorian Fragment

The ‘Canon’ or ‘Fragment’ of Muratori, discovered c.1740 (this was the date of publication - it was named after it’s ‘discoverer’ Ludovico Antonio Muratori who found it in a manuscript in the Ambrosian Library in Milan) is an interesting document to consider. I have mentioned it only in passing in the previous section because it requires dealing with separately.

The manuscript in which the fragment appears is dated to the seventh century but, because of internal historical evidence, it’s generally accepted to be a translated copy (in poor Latin from a Greek original) of a work that had been first composed around 170 (there’s the mention of a leader in the Church whose rule was recent and who died c.160 - I have included the text of this statement below and drawn attention to it).

Since the work was discovered and published, smaller fragments of the work have been found in other ancient sources in Italy, indicating that it must have been regarded as important at least locally.

This fragment mentions works that the Church accepted as genuine and valuable for use in service (and lists others that were not). As this may well represent the earliest ‘list’ of authoritative works (and, therefore, ‘Scripture’), it seems beneficial to at least summarise it at this point (there are various translations on line but the one I’ve referred to can be found at here and, where quoted, this is the version I’ve used).

The fragment is incomplete - the beginning of what we have speaks of the third book of the Gospel as being the one according to Luke (the end, also, is accepted as being incomplete). It’s assumed, therefore, that books one and two should be taken as being what we presently refer to as ‘Matthew’ and ‘Mark’ and, although this is a logical inference, it can’t be accepted beyond doubt.

The fourth he names as the Gospel of John and then, after an explanation, continues to speak of the next work as ‘The Acts of the Apostles’.

As to Paul’s letters, he lists them in the order (perhaps he means us to understand by the order, the date in which they were written?) of Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Galatians, Thessalonians and, finally, Romans - but also notes that there was a further letter to both the Corinthians and Thessalonians.

After a short word of explanation in which he mentions the Revelation of John, he goes on to mention Paul’s letters to Philemon, Titus and two to Timothy, noting that they were ‘held sacred’, but continues by noting that

‘There is current also [an epistle] to the Laodiceans, [and] another to the Alexandrians, [both] forged in Paul's name to [further] the heresy of Marcion, and several others which cannot be received into the catholic Church - for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey’

Returning to accepted writings, Jude, two letters of John (notice, no letter by Peter) and the ‘Book of Wisdom’ written by friends of Solomon are mentioned and he concludes the ‘accepted’ list by stating that they believed genuine

‘...only the apocalypses of John and Peter, though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church’

Finally, he mentions other writings beginning with the ‘Shepherd of Hermas’ which, he says, was written

‘...very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the [episcopal] chair of the church of the city of Rome (this is the line that ‘dates’ the original writing). And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among the Prophets, whose number is complete, or among the Apostles, for it is after [their] time. But we accept nothing whatever of Arsinous or Valentinus or Miltiades, who also composed a new book of psalms for Marcion, together with Basilides, the Asian founder of the Cataphrygians’

Although the ‘Canon’ is somewhat different to that which is accepted in the modern day Bible, the real value of this fragment is that it shows that, even before the end of the second century, there were people within the Church who were concerned to list what was plainly accepted as being either ‘reliable’ or ‘dubious’.

Some modern commentators, because the two letters of Peter and the letter to the Hebrews go unmentioned, are very eager to insist that the poor translation into Latin may be evidence of these works being ‘dropped out’ of the text when, originally, they were included, but such a position is untenable and seems to be based more on a need of the individual to find an early date of final acceptance for them.

The one spoiler that must be mentioned is that it’s possible that the seventh century copy of the second century text may have emended certain points to bring it in line with current Church practice and so justify the fellowships to whom the work came (but, if it was, there are works here that are omitted from the list that was, by that time, widely accepted) but, at the very least, it shows that there was definitely a list circulating as early as the end of the second century that attempted to guide believers into knowing which works were to be regarded as accurate and which works were to be avoided.

New Scripture

A definition of what makes a writing to be accepted as a work that we now consider to be ‘Scripture’ is not easy to arrive at, so how much more difficult will it be for us to come to a point where we can adequately provide a framework in which we could consider other works not yet regarded as such?

Although some of the principals we’ve already laid down in our discussion above will help us to arrive at some sort of definition, the apparent arbitrariness of the decisions made (where one writing was in favour in one decade and at one location only to be rejected somewhere else or at a later date) don’t help us (the Appendix provides a fuller definition of Scripture’s characteristics with a brief discussion of the points there made).

The early Church (pre-70AD) seems to have had no problem in declaring certain writings as being ‘authoritative’ (or ‘Scripture’) - even though some ‘authoritative’ writings that were accepted at that time may have been rejected from the final list that was standardised at the end of the fourth century - later works (for example, ‘The Shepherd of Hermas’ c.150 and the ‘Didache’ c.90) were also accepted into the ‘writings’ but were ultimately rejected as being uninspired (that is, ‘non-Scripture’).

How did they decide upon their authority? It would seem that they read them, tested them as being wholly from God and then accepted them as being God-breathed and useful in the development of believers or, if ancient Jewish writings, as being also beneficial to show that Jesus Christ was the One promised who fulfilled the promises and who established the New Covenant spoken of.

This ‘testing’ of the works and letters seems necessary to be accepted because of Gal 1:8-9 that urges believers not to accept anything that didn’t conform to the Gospel that had been delivered to them and which they had believed. It would be difficult to imagine Paul telling the believers that they should believe whatever they read if it bore his name or if they were certain it had come from him - he was concerned that the Church would grow into maturity and test matters to accept only that which was ‘from God’.

However, the reason for Bishop Athanasius’ letter of 367 seems to have been more that apostolic authorship was being claimed for works and that congregations were accepting them on the basis of the origin and not on the basis of the content. This may also have been how certain writings were initially accepted in the first century but that ‘Hermas’ and the ‘Didache’ were accepted and preserved (works that did not announce apostolic authorship) is a fact against this often held belief.

True acceptance was probably a consideration based on both authorship and content - but we must still acknowledge that some of the works accepted and, therefore, preserved by the first and second century Church were later rejected.

Personally, I don’t believe that there’s ever been a time as there was in the first century amongst the early Church when the leadership and large sections of congregations were as perceptive as they were at any other time in our history. Sure, they had almost unimaginable opposition, spiritual blindness and error (just read Paul’s letters to see some of the things that were happening in the fellowships) but they seem to have left a legacy that has survived the test of time, God ‘overseeing’ the preserving of some of the writings for our own sake.

The problem with accepting anything written today as having the same ‘authority’ as the writings brought together as ‘The New Testament’ in the fourth century is that the entire international Body of believers will never be able to agree what they are! We are so at conflict with one another, how could we ever come to an agreement that we have a new ‘Scripture’ that’s ‘authoritative’? As soon as it contradicted our denominational sacred cows, it would be rejected to preserve ‘tradition’.

What I might accept, you might disagree with.

And possibly with some justification.

However, the early Church also disagreed as to the authority of certain writings - but it must be pointed out that they did not disagree to the extent that we would today.

The best that can be said on the matter is that I may regard certain writings as being ‘worthy of study’ and ‘profitable for teaching’ - they would then become ‘Scripture’ to me because I’d regard the Holy Spirit as speaking through them. But this becomes incredibly subjective because they may not be Biblical - that is, they may confute and oppose the clear testimony of the Scripture of the Bible.

The person who sits beside me in a fellowship may strongly disagree with my acceptance (and you can forget about leaderships ever arriving at an agreement! They’re more likely to tow the denominational line than to ever sit down and consider a text on its own merits).

It seems fair to say, therefore, that there can never be a foreseeable time when the Church will stand up as one and say ‘such and such’ is authoritative - that is, as authoritative as both the Old and New Testaments.

We are, as a practicality, stuck with the NT Canon as laid down at the end of the fourth century. That’s not such a bad place to be in, it has to be said, and I have no problem with accepting the authority of all the 66 books currently regarded as ‘The Bible’.

APPENDIX - The NT occurrences of the word translated 'Scripture'

1. Scripture has inherent authority
2. Scripture has a fulfilment
3. Scripture has a purpose
4. Scripture must be Open and Known
5. Scripture must be accepted for what it says
6. A New Scripture
7. It is written

I've included this section to deal more fully with the 51 places in the New Testament (Mtw 21:42, 22:29, 26:54,56, Mark 12:10,24, 14:49, Luke 4:21, 22:37, 24:27,32,45, John 2:22, 5:39, 7:38,42, 10:35, 13:18, 17:12, 19:24,28,36,37, 20:9, Acts 1:6, 8:32,35, 17:2,11, 18:24,28, Rom 1:2, 4:3, 9:17, 10:11, 11:2, 15:4, I Cor 15:3,4, Gal 3:8,22, 4:30, I Tim 4:13, 5:18, II Tim 3:16, James 2:8,23, 4:5, I Peter 2:6, II Peter 1:20, 3:16) where the word 'Scripture' occurs as a translation of Strongs Greek number 1124.

In the main article, I only used a handful of Scriptures that bore direct relevance to the argument at hand.

The Greek word translated ‘Scripture’ can give us a solely secular and unreligious meaning wherever it occurs. Its only a specialised interpretation that would cause us to accept each and every occurrence as being a reference to ‘Scripture’ in the normal sense of that word in the present day Church (although ‘normal’ is somewhat of a misnomer).

Kittel notes the range of meaning to include such concepts as ‘writing’, ‘written characters’, ‘the art of writing’, ‘a written statement’ (such as a letter or document in various different contexts), ‘a published work’ or ‘a written law’ or ‘statute’ but, as far as I can see, the word was used to refer to a special type of literature that was foundational amongst the Jews and within the Church of the first century.

It’s this ‘specialised’ sense that we’re trying to define by the following consideration of the 51 occurrences of the Greek word in the New Testament.

1. Scripture has inherent authority

The New Testament writers cited or quoted Scripture to justify the event that was taking place around them or to explain a theological principle that was being declared. In this sense, the definition of the Greek word from which we get the translation 'Scripture', closely resembles the meaning of ‘law’ or 'statute' where an authority is acknowledged that can be referred to to decide a matter that's under discussion or consideration.

Luke 24:27 - The risen Christ takes time to explain to two of His followers the things foretold about Him in the Scriptures so that they can come to an understanding that His crucifixion and resurrection were not accidental hiccups along the road but essential events brought about in the full will and purpose of God. It may be considered that this means a ‘fulfilment’ (see under point 2) but Jesus is also using the Scriptures because they have the authority that enable Him to establish His teaching.

Acts 17:2-3 - In Thessalonica, Paul met with the Jews in the synagogue and argued with them for three weeks, using the Scriptures to prove that it was necessary for Jesus to suffer and rise from the dead. The Scriptures, therefore, became the authority for his arguments but he was also using the accepted characteristic of Scripture that it can be ‘fulfilled’ when it predicts an event that still lies in the future at the time of writing.

Acts 17:11 - The Jews in Beroea examined the Scriptures to see whether the matters about which Paul was speaking were correct. They were willing to accept Paul’s words so long as the authority of the Scriptures backed it up.

Acts 18:27-28 - Apollos, arriving in Achaia, ‘powerfully confuted the Jews in Public’ by using the authority and testimony of the Scriptures. He was only able to do this because he was ‘well versed in the Scriptures’ (Acts 18:24). In between these two verses, however, it was evident that he knew only the Gospel up to some point when John the Baptist was around and he seems not to have known about the crucifixion and resurrection. Once taught, however, his already extensive knowledge became a tool to proclaim the Christ more accurately.

See also Romans 4:3, 9:17, 10:11, 11:2, Gal 3:8,22, 4:30, I Tim 5:18, James 2:8, 4:5 and I Peter 2:6. Frequently, the Scriptures are quoted not to illuminate a teaching but to prove it.

2. Scripture has a fulfilment

The New Testament writers quoted Scripture or appealed to it generally to explain why an event that was about to take place was to happen - that is, the Scripture was being ‘fulfilled’. It could also be used to show why events were in the process of taking place or had just taken place. This also means that it must have the authority (as section 1) to explain the events so that we can accept them as not being anything against the will of God.

That last phrase is somewhat misleading because events could still be foreshadowed in Scripture, be fulfilled and yet not be a part of God’s will (for example, the rejection of Jesus by the religious leaders was foreseen but not wanted. The Father wanted them to accept their Messiah but, foreknowing their hardness, could announce it beforehand).

Even Scripture that seems not to have been written prophetically (that is, never seemingly meant for a fulfilment at a future date - see, for example, John 19:23-24 as a fulfilment of Ps 22:18) or that which has already found one fulfilment in history (Mtw 2:17-18 was fulfilled in the exile from the land but it finds a second fulfilment in the murder of the infants under two years of age) can be said to be 'fulfilled' when certain events transpire. As such, it may not be going too far to say that any Scripture could, at some point in time, be regarded as being prophetic in nature and find its 'fulfilment'.

So, Jesus appeals to a Scripture to explain His own rejection by the religious leaders (Mtw 21:42, Mark 12:10) and announces that the time has come when He will be numbered along with transgressors (Luke 22:37). ‘Fulfilment’, then is not necessarily to be taken as meaning that the event is ‘over’ and completed but it can indicate that the time has come when it’s about to take place.

The betrayal and arrest of Jesus was also an event that was necessary to take place so that there might be a fulfilment of Scripture (Mtw 26:54, 56, Mark 14:49). In the synagogue at Nazareth (Luke 4:21), a prophetic utterance of Isaiah is fulfilled. Perhaps the best way to understand this is to see Jesus as saying that the verse has come to fruition in the sense that the reality of it has begun to be experienced.

The offer to drink from Jesus (John 7:37) becomes a fulfilment of a Scripture (John 7:38) that Jesus has paraphrased so bewilderingly that many commentators have no idea where in the Old Testament it comes from (but see my notes on ‘Succoth’). It needs to be noted here, therefore, that word for word perfection is not required in quotation but, rather, the true meaning of the verse or paragraph is essential to apply it correctly.

The Jews pronounce the necessary fulfilment of a Scripture concerning the Messiah to show conclusively that Jesus has not fulfilled it (John 7:42). That they got it wrong doesn’t detract from the fact that the appeal to Scripture was also an appeal to an authority that could decide upon the question of whether Jesus was the Messiah.

The betrayal of Judas Iscariot was Scripture being fulfilled (John 13:18, 17:12, Acts 1:16) along with the casting of lots for Jesus’ garment (John 19:24). Other fulfilments of Scripture on the cross are found at John 19:28,36 and 37.

In Paul’s letters, The Gospel is pronounced to have been promised by God, announced before it was declared through Jesus and the Church using the channel of the prophets and recorded in the Scriptures (Romans 1:2 and I Cor 15:3-4).

Finally, a unique Scripture as far as I’m aware is in James 2:23. It’s interesting because it declares that the Scripture (which was written after the event) was fulfilled in the action of Abraham having faith in the promises of God. Here, the prophetic fulfilment is ‘backwards in time’!

3. Scripture has a purpose

Paul writes in II Timothy 3:16 that

‘All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work’

It seems best to take Paul’s words as referring to a certain type or body of literature that he had in mind that he considered of value to the believer. What that body of literature was is not defined here but the New Testament frequently uses the word ‘Scripture’ to refer to quotations from works that are contained in what we now call ‘The Old Testament’.

Primarily, therefore, it must have referred to those Jewish writings.

But we mustn’t fall into the trap of finding justification for swapping this translation of ‘Scripture’ by the label ‘The Old Testament’ simply because it wasn’t in existence then (that is, there was no collection of writings that were accepted as being ‘The Old Testament’ - that the individual books were in existence is not being questioned).

It’s also fairly significant that the Apocrypha is rarely quoted in the pages of the New (although it’s not without mention) and, perhaps surprisingly, the Book of Esther is never quoted and yet it still finds a place within the Old Testament.

This ‘body of literature’, therefore, obviously bears authority and has its inspiration from God - Paul doesn’t say that God wrote it (as many believers today would assert) but that it was inspired by Him. Men recorded the accepted ‘Scripture’ but it was God who was inspiring it, allowing the vessel to ‘flavour’ the message that was committed to writing. Neither did they sit down and think ‘I shall now write Scripture’ but they recorded solely those things that they felt they should. It was only after the writing (and sometimes many years afterwards) that men and women pronounced it as being ‘Scripture’.

That Scripture also bears inherent authority (as we’ve already seen, this is fairly obvious from the amount of times it’s quoted in the New Testament to establish a point) is evident here for it’s accepted as being

‘...profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness...’

something that it would be unable to be used for if it was simply accepted as being ‘a good read’. We’re looking at something much more important than ‘Christian Herald’ which is here today and soaking up the rainwater tomorrow.

Whatever ‘Scripture’ is, therefore, it’s to be used to mould the believer to become more like the Person he’s seeking to serve, so that

‘...the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work’

Therefore, Paul instructs Timothy ( I Tim 4:13) to

‘...attend to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching, to teaching’

because men and women will then be able to take to heart and apply what they hear, just as Timothy himself was commanded to do. The two phrases that follow concerning ‘preaching’ and ‘teaching’ are probably best accepted as instructions to give the sense as the words are being read (Neh 8:8) and to establish systematic and foundational spiritual truth.

Similarly, Paul speaks of Scripture in Rom 15:4 as being a record designed ‘for our instruction’ (I have taken the mention of that which was written to be a reference to Scripture because the word occurs at the end of the verse) in a similar vein to the Scriptures we’ve briefly considered above, but he goes on to note that, having been instructed (my italics)

‘...by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope’

A person, therefore, who has been instructed in the Scriptures should be one whose hope (in God) overcomes anything that may seek to hinder them. In that case, when Scripture is allowed to instruct a believer, they become steadfast against adversity and encouraged to continue in their pursuit of the things of God.

From this point (and as a consequence also of point 1), comes the often included doctrine of the infallibility of Scripture (although it’s sometimes stated as Biblical infallibility which isn’t the same thing - but I agree with both positions) in the ‘Statements of Belief’ of the denominations. That which has authority and which can be used as an effective source of teaching must be perfect so as not to mislead the reader who is instructed to take the text as sufficient to become equipped for every work that God desires Him to do.

There is, quite frankly, no other conclusion that can be reached for, if Scripture is no longer accepted as being flawless, a way to determine which bits can be trusted and which can’t must be introduced (and, having seen some of these, I can assure the reader that they’re almost totally subjective and disagree with another’s attempts at doing the same thing).

What’s accepted as being ‘Scripture’ is another matter entirely but, once it’s been defined, it has to be accepted as infallible and so fully authoritative.

4. Scripture must be Open and Known

In Matthew 22:29, Jesus answers the Sadducees’ theological question by stating that they’re wrong

‘...because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God’

while Mark 12:24 puts it into the form of a rhetorical question.

It’s clear that the religious leaders did know the Scriptures in the sense that they used them to justify their own position on various matters, but they’d never really understood them. Therefore, Jesus’ pronouncement is all the more offensive and it shows that all believers (although it’s the leaders of God’s people who are being spoken against here) can read and ‘know’ the Scriptures without ever coming to grips with the principles and the truth they convey.

In the story of the disciples on the road to Emmaus after the Resurrection, the two believers say to themselves concerning Jesus’ exposition of His death and resurrection (Luke 24:32)

‘...Did not our hearts burn within us while He talked to us on the road, while He opened to us the Scriptures?’

and when the risen Christ met with the disciples (Luke 24:45), the New Testament notes that

‘...He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures’

That the Scriptures can be ‘opened’ infers that they are often ‘closed’ - the second Scripture puts the ‘opening’ needed in the recipient’s mind but the inference is there that there’s a barrier to a correct and true understanding of what can be plainly read.

Many people can read the Scriptures and not understand the real truth of what they’re saying - as we noted that the Sadducees did, and as many in Jesus’ day did. They read the writings and yet totally failed to understand and accept Jesus’ ministry in their midst.

John 5:39-40 infers this - Jesus argues with the religious leaders that they read or ‘search’ the Scriptures because they think that, in them, they have eternal life but they’ve failed to realise the fulfilment in Him. Moreover, the seeking out of eternal life in the Scriptures contrasted with the bestowal of true life from Jesus if they came to Him, shows that the former has been fruitless.

John 20:9 seems to necessitate the same sort of interpretation. The disciples had been told repeatedly that Jesus was to rise from the dead (Mark 8:31 as one example) but they’re said here not to have known the Scripture.

But they knew plainly what Jesus had said - they had simply failed to perceive what it meant and, even when the facts had presented themselves to them, they still hadn’t or couldn’t embrace the truth. The Sadducees failing to ‘know’ the Scriptures is surely the same thing as the disciples here who also didn’t ‘know’ the Scripture concerning the resurrection - although the outcome was different in both (see also Jesus’ words on the use of parables in Mtw 13:11-16).

In II Peter 1:20-21, the writer says that an interpretation (the phrase ‘prophecy of Scripture’ being taken as an explanation of what it is God’s saying through an accepted written source) is not subject to human interpretation. The reason he gives is that that which has been recorded in the first place didn’t come from man deciding to speak a word and record it but, rather, men were moved by the Holy Spirit and so spoke with the authority and power of God.

Therefore, to understand a ‘writing’ correctly, one must, presumably (because Peter doesn’t spit it out in as many words), be moved by God as they were when the writing was first recorded so that a proper explanation can be given. No Scripture, then, can be interpreted correctly unless the Holy Spirit inspires truth to be gleaned from it. It seems correct to assume, therefore, that, without the illumination of the HS, a person will be unable to adequately understand the Scriptures.

However, the story of the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:26-40) demonstrates the point that even a person who is willing to believe may be confounded in trying to understand what a Scripture means. Although the Eunuch seems to have been trying to come to grips with what the Scripture meant that he was reading, he needed a believer to explain the intent of the passage to him. It's not that the Eunuch was 'blind' and 'hardened' as the religious leaders of Jesus' day were but that he was seeking the truth and needed a human guide to instruct him.

5. Scripture must be accepted for what it says

In John 10:35, Jesus is talking to the Jews and listening to their objection that He’s proclaiming Himself to be God. Using the Scriptures that they would have accepted as authoritative, He quotes an Old Testament writing and concludes (my italics) by announcing

‘ If he called them gods to whom the Word of God came (and Scripture cannot be broken) do you say of Him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, “You are blaspheming” because I said “I am the Son of God”?’

The idea of Scripture not being able to be ‘broken’ is interpreted by Morris in his NICNT on John to be declaring that

‘...Scripture cannot be emptied of its force by being shown to be erroneous’

but there seems to be no intention on Jesus’ part to declare the Scripture quoted as being in error (if I’ve understood Morris’s words correctly).

It seems better to accept Jesus’ meaning as being that, just because some Scripture is unpalatable and doesn’t fit in with what we want to believe, we can’t remove its authority and say that it’s irrelevant. Believers are meant to face up to the full authority of the Scriptures and not duck and dive round those that don’t fit in with their own man-made framework of belief (denominationally and traditionally based believers please note). Therefore, Tasker, in his Tyndale New Testament Commentary on John’s Gospel paraphrases the text as

‘This passage of Scripture cannot be set aside as irrelevant to the matter under discussion’

so that, for him, the full body of writings accepted as being Scripture must be used on every occasion to understand the matters at hand. Carson in ‘The Gospel according to John’ (published by IVP) adds an explanation to his exposition, giving the sense

‘...it is reprehensible to set aside the authority of Scripture, the Scripture whose authority you yourselves accept, just because the text I have cited seems inconvenient to you at the moment’

In the present day, we wouldn’t be going too far wrong to say that those people who accept certain writings as being ‘Scripture’ should uphold the teachings that are found therein.

Slightly different in meaning is II Peter 3:16 (dealt with below) which speaks of ‘the ignorant and unstable’ twisting both Paul’s writings (regarded as ‘New Scripture’) and ‘the other writings’ to the end that they self-destruct. What’s in mind here is probably making a shipwreck of the faith (the phrase comes from I Timothy 1:19 but it’s used as the conclusion of a different spiritual problem).

Here, it isn’t that certain Scriptures are ignored but that they’re employed in a distorted way to uphold the doctrine that’s wanting to be believed. This leads to spiritual destruction, leading away from Christ.

Both ignoring certain Scriptures and twisting others to bear a wanted meaning are condemned in the New Testament but both are still carried out. The former by those who think that they can reject passages that don’t suit them (for them, the accepted Scriptures are not infallible), the latter by those who seek to maintain the Bible’s authority and infallibility but who a ‘text out of context as a pretext’.

6. A New Scripture

In 2 Peter 3:16, the apostle writes (my italics) that

‘There are some things in [Paul’s letters] hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures’

It’s that final phrase that’s so illuminating, for Peter is definitely making the connection that Paul’s letters are writings on a par with the ‘other Scriptures’. Just what those ‘other Scriptures’ are, he doesn’t say (it would have been nice if he’d included a list) but we’d probably not be going too far wrong if we were to understand the phrase to be a reference to the Jewish records of God’s dealings with them (that is, to a large extent, what’s contained within ‘The Old Testament’).

Peter may have in mind other writings that had been accepted into the early Church by then but, unfortunately, we have no way of knowing for sure and speculation is unsafe.

I can’t see a different interpretation here other than to take Peter’s assessment of Paul’s writings as being ‘Scripture’. However (and this is where it gets potentially problematical), if Peter means simply by the Greek word translated ‘Scriptures’ the idea of ‘the writings’ referring to all sorts of documents the Church was using at that time (and the variety of meaning that’s contained within the Greek word makes this possible), it doesn’t prove very much.

Personally, I don’t believe this is the case and accept fully the idea that Paul’s letters were regarded as ‘Scripture’ (that is, authoritative) by a lot of the early Church - especially by the apostles who’d been with Jesus before the crucifixion and resurrection. It seems unlikely that the various writers of the New Testament should use the term ‘Scripture’ to refer to ‘sacred writing’ and then, suddenly, for no apparent reason, revert back to a solely secular interpretation. The word and its meaning seems to have been well established in the Church.

7. It is written

There are 80 occurrences throughout the Bible where the phrase ‘it is written’ occurs in the AV (Joshua 8:31, II Sam 1:18, I Kings 2:3, II Kings 23:21, II Chr 23:18, 31:3, 35:12, Ezra 3:2,4, 6:18, Neh 8:15, 10:34,36, Ps 40:7, Is 65:6, Dan 9:13, Mtw 2:5, 4:4,6,7,10, 11:10, 21:13, 26:24,31, Mark 1:2, 7:6, 9:13, 14:21,27, Luke 2:23, 3:4, 4:4,8,10, 7:27, 19:46, 24:46, John 6:31,45, 8:17, 12:14, Acts 1:20, 7:42, 13:33, 15:15, 23:5, Rom 1:17, 2:24, 3:4,10, 4:17, 8:36, 9:13,33, 10:15, 11:8,26, 12:19, 14:11, 15:3,9,21, I Cor 1:19,31, 2:9, 3:19, 6:16, 9:9, 10:7, 14:21, 15:45, II Cor 8:15, 9:9, Gal 3:10,13, 4:22,27, Heb 10:7, I Peter 1:16).

We’ve already seen above that the Greek word from which we get the translation ‘Scripture’ means fundamentally ‘that which is written’ and is applied in secular Greek in a variety of ways with many different possible meanings. The phrase ‘it is written’, therefore, seems nothing less than a different way of referring to a work that’s considered to be ‘Scripture’.

In the NT, this is certainly true. Indeed, Luke 22:37 has Jesus tell His disciples

‘For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in Me, “And He was reckoned with transgressors” for what is written about Me has its fulfilment’ where both ‘this Scripture’ and ‘what is written’ is spoken of as having its ‘fulfilment’. Jesus could have used either one without the other and still made perfect sense because an appeal to that which has been written down - in religious terms - was the same as an appeal to Scripture.

The same points made above in our consideration of the word ‘Scripture’ should be accepted as applying here but the main reason to use the phrase ‘it is written’ is to cite an authority (for example, Jesus and the devil both quote Scripture to this end during the ‘Temptation’ in the wilderness - Mtw 4:1-11) or to show a fulfilment (for example, Mtw 2:1-6) and no evidence of some of the points made above will be found.

I don’t intend going through the New Testament occurrences of this phrase (the reader wanting to do this for themselves can access the list of passages provided above where the phrase ‘it is written’ occurs) - rather, we need to briefly consider the use of the phrase in the Old Testament to see whether any concepts we observed in the New were simply ‘bleed overs’ and continuations from the use of the phrase there.

I have also used some other Old Testament Scriptures where reference to that which has been written is made, although the exact phrase ‘it is written’ doesn’t exist in the English version.

That the ‘Law of Moses’ is cited many times in connection with an event is clear, but whether it’s being done to substantiate the practice by an appeal to an authority (as it is in the New Testament - Appendix point 1) isn’t.

Certainly, in II Sam 1:18 (see also Joshua 10:13 - both verses refer to the ‘Book of Jashar’ which is no longer in existence), the phrase is only used to inform the reader where the original lamentation can be found and, in this case, it’s only a form of referencing.

Referring to a work where a fuller account of a historical record could be found was also used especially when it came to the accounts of the kings in the historical books, cross-referencing what we now call ‘Kings’ and ‘Chronicles’ ( I Kings 11:41, 14:19,29, 15:7,23,31, 16:5,14,20,27, 22:39,45, II Kings 1:18, 8:23, 10:34, 12:19, 13:8, 13:12, 14:15,18,28, 15:6,11,15,21,26,31,36, 16:19, 20:20, 21:17,25, 23:28, 24:5, I Chr 9:1, II Chr 16:11, 20:34, 24:27, 25:26, 27:7, 28:26, 32:32, 35:26-27, 36:8).

But there are references to books no longer extant (as we noted above to the ‘Book of Jashar’). I Chr 29:29-30 refers to the acts of David having been recorded in

‘...the Chronicles of Samuel the seer, and in the Chronicles of Nathan the prophet, and in the Chronicles of Gad the seer...’

with the Acts of Solomon noted in II Chr 9:29 as having been further recorded in

‘...the history of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer concerning Jeroboam the son of Nebat’

More unknown works follow in the first parts of Chronicles - in II Chr 12:15 we read of Rehoboam’s life having been recorded in the ‘chronicles of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer’ and, in II Chr 13:22, additional points about Abijah’s life could be found in ‘the story of the prophet Iddo’. From this point in the narrative, however, the expected formula, cross-referencing it with ‘Kings’ turns up with a few additional works noted along the way (II Chr 32:32 - ‘the vision of Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz’, II Chr 33:19 - ‘the Chronicles of the Seers’, II Chr 35:25 - ‘the Laments’).

There’s even one reference to a work located outside the land of Israel - ‘the Book of the Chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia’ in Esther 10:2. Both Ps 40:7 and Is 65:6 also bear no appeal to an authority that has been previously recorded and the phrase ‘it is written’ seems to refer not a ‘known’ book on earth but to a spiritual and figurative one.

Many of the other references to what has been written are not appeals to make something happen or to urge a course of action upon believers but to note that something was done in accordance with what had been written down in the Law (Joshua 8:31, II Chr 31:3, 35:12, Ezra 3:2,4, 6:18, Dan 9:13) or not (II Kings 14:6, II Chr 25:4).

Therefore, the phrase is a comment to the reader that what was happening was simply an outworking of the Law that Israel had committed itself to observe. There isn’t an appeal in these cases (as there are in the ones cited below) to a recognised authority to justify something that should be done.

There are places, however, where direct speech is recorded where the individual speaking commands a course of action and then announces that it should be done ‘as it is written’ or, paraphrased, ‘in accordance with the way it’s laid down’ (I Kings 2:3, II Kings 23:21, II Chr 23:18, Neh 8:14-16, 10:34,36, 13:1-3).

Because of the way it appears, the phrase seems to be prescriptive rather than authoritative. That is, the authority of the command isn’t in question but the manner in which it’s to be carried out is simply being defined when reference is made to the Law of Moses. But it’s only because the Law of Moses is deemed to be authoritative that the command can be thought to be given - therefore, authority is tied up with the reference without the same force of a direct appeal to authority being made as it is in the New Testament.

It’s also only the Law of Moses that appears to have been appealed to in this way (certainly, the majority of places are references to the Law as I’ve yet to find one that’s to something else). We would probably be right in saying that the historical books are quoting or citing ‘Scripture’ but that, subsequently, they also came to be regarded as authoritative just like the source they used. In like manner, the works that are contained in the New Testament also began by citing and quoting what was regarded as ‘Scripture’ until, eventually, they too became regarded as having an equal authority as what they were using as being authoritative (Appendix point 6).

We have to realise, therefore, that, as far as the Old Testament historical books were concerned (at least up until the exile but also until the return under Ezra and the restoration through Nehemiah), ‘Scripture’ would have been a concept applied almost exclusively to the Law of Moses whereas, in the New, it was a term applied to at least those works that we now call ‘The Old Testament’ (although the Book of Esther seems not to have been quoted or cited) and, perhaps, may even have thought to have included other Jewish writings that never finally made it into that collection (such as what we now call ‘The Apocrypha’).

The other concepts we observed as being applicable in the New Testament can be briefly dealt with. That what was being written down was to have a fulfilment was accepted (Appendix point 2) in, for example, Jer 29:10, but the idea of a fulfilment was based upon what a prophet said as the mouthpiece of YHWH and not as the author of a collection of prophetic essays. In order to be transmitted through time, they were written down but it was what was said rather than what was written that was of importance.

Having said that, most of that which was written was looking forward to a time beyond the close of the written record. But fulfilment did take place - for example, when Joshua laid a curse upon the person who rebuilt Jericho (Joshua 6:36), it being recorded later that it took place (I Kings 16:34).

Similarly, the appendix added to II Chronicles cites the spoken words of Jeremiah as finding fulfilment in the exile into Babylon of the Israelites (II Chr 36:20-21) and in the return and restoration of the nation under Cyrus (II Chr 36:22-23), something that could only be stated with certainty if ‘fulfilment’ was an integral part of Scripture’s function (it also points towards the probability that by the time of writing, Jeremiah’s words were regarded as being authoritative and, therefore, Scripture - but this would only have taken place after the exile when his words were seen to have been fulfilled. He was rejected by the religious leaders of his day who, likewise, rejected his words).

Daniel the prophet also perceived that what had been written about the nation had been fulfilled as a response of the nation’s unwillingness to obey the Law of Moses (Dan 9:11,13).

We also noticed that Scripture (II Tim 3:16-17 - Appendix point 3) was profitable

‘...for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness...’

and, similarly, the Law of Moses was given for instruction in the Will of God that it might de done - Ex 24:12 and 34:11 as two examples of very many. The former reference speaks of YHWH writing the ten commandments on the two slabs of stone which is the only place where God could be considered to be the ‘direct’ author of Scripture. These two tablets were broken by Moses but the second pair were also written on by God Himself (Ex 34:1).

The historical books, however, are reflections of the way the people related (or didn’t) to the commands received and there are other works in the Old Testament that are not primarily historic but poetic or prophetic in content. There is a large body of literature that’s designed to show the Israelite what was both right and wrong and it was this, the Law of Moses, that was primarily the ‘Scripture’ of the Old Testament.

We observed in the New Testament that Scripture had to be ‘open’ or ‘known’ and that there needed to be an empowering for a person to correctly understand it (Appendix point 4). Moses’ Law, however, informs the Israelites (Deut 30:11-14) that

‘...the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it’

There was nothing hidden from the Jews in order to be able to fully understand and apply the commands of God. However, Paul informs his readers (II Cor 3:15-16) that

‘...whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their [the Jews’] minds; but, when a man turns to the Lord, the veil is removed’

The double-edged purpose of the Law, then, was to provide instruction but also to foreshadow the times that were to come in Christ (Heb 8:5, 10:1). The prophetic writings, also, were both easy to understand and difficult to see how they would be fulfilled.

However, as far as the ‘Law of Moses’ was concerned (that is, the body of literature that was accepted as ‘Scripture’ by the writers of the other Jewish works), there was nothing hidden that could not be plainly seen.

Finally, we noted that Scripture must be accepted for the testimony it gives and not disregarded because it doesn’t fit in with what we want to believe (Appendix point 5). So, too, the Jews were warned about prophets who would arise in their midst and who would seek to have them ignore the commandments that had been delivered to them (Deut 13:1-5).

It is, perhaps, strange to think of the ‘Law of Moses’ as being the ‘Scripture’ that was cited by the Old Testament writers but it seems that this was the case until the time when those secondary writings came to be regarded as being Scripture along with the Law (in all likelihood, it took place after the return from exile).

In conclusion, then, the use of the Law of Moses by the writers of the Old Testament is similar but not identical to the way in which the New Testament writers regarded the works that they accepted as ‘Scripture’.

GO HOME