Reggie Weems

Several friends at Heritage have commented on an article posted in The Wall Street Journal concerning church discipline.  The article emphasizes one particular case of discipline in an effort to speak ill of the practice.  It also mentions several other instances where discipline should have or could have taken place, but it only minimizes these incidents.  Clearly, The Wall Street Journal is against church discipline but, then again, that is to be expected. 

A good response to the article was offered to The Wall Street Journal. 

Dr. Al Mohler of Southern Seminary has also commented on the subject of church discipline. 

The issue of church discipline is certainly on the rise in the American church.  Then again, the American church is the weak link in Christianity around the world.  Purity always produces power, and discipline produces a pure church. 

“For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.”  ~Hebrews 12:6

The way in which early Christians copied the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts was learned from their Jewish forefathers.  Scribes were the Xerox machines of their day but they certainly weren’t as perfect.  So, the early church did exactly what their predecessors did; they compared copies to copies and where they found differences, opted for the majority report.  Such ongoing quality control insured that the agreed-upon text remained free of errors. 

There are well over 5,000 New Testament manuscripts verifying that such a process as I’ve just described, worked wonderfully well.  (By the way, that’s an exceedingly greater number of manuscripts and evidences than any work of Plato, Socrates or Aristotle.  Shouldn’t we be questioning their authenticity?)  In fact, it was so effective that there is no indecision among biblical scholars concerning any text with regard to any major doctrinal issue.  The English translation you read from today (not a paraphrase but a translation) can be trusted to say exactly what its author intended to transmit to his audience.  Further, our trust in the inspired and inerrant texts are more dependent on our understanding of God’s sovereignty than a scribe’s ability.  Remember, God oversaw the entire process!  Since God is a God of truth, He would not allow Himself to be represented by error. 

Most unbelievers want some kind of assurance other than “I just believe” without a reason to believe. They expect Christians to know and understand how God insured His Word would be preserved.  It’s not complex to explain it to them.  After this week, you can.  Knowing how the process worked not only builds your faith but also helps you defend the faith.  It enables you to “give an answer….for the hope that you have” (I Peter 3:15). 

Remember, Christianity is well founded on documented historical facts.  Christianity is rooted in factual, undeniable, history.  Faith is built upon reason that is reasonable and reasons that are reliable.  In a world swamped with tabloid stories that prove you can’t believe everything that you read, you can believe everything you read in the Bible!               

We’ve seen why the early church included certain books into the New Testament canon.  But why were others rejected?  Anyone who’s read Dan Brown’s novel, The Davinci Code, knows that other gospels exist.  But is there validity to their claim for canonicity?

The problem with these other gospels is that even though they have names that reflect apostolic authorship, they were in fact, written long after all the apostles had died.  The Gospel fo Judas dates to around A.D. 150, long after John, the last apostle to die, had gone to the heaven he saw in the Revelation.  The Gospel of Thomas dates even later, probably around A.D. 180.  As one writer called them, the ‘fab four’ (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were included because their apostolic authenticity was proven while all other gospels were very late-comers to the gospel genre. 

There is, however, that third detail - consistency.  The Jesus presented in the other gospels is radically different from the Jesus who was born a man but evidenced divinity, who loved the Jews, was betrayed, suffered and died only to be raised from the dead.  The ‘other’ Jesus is presented as only divine without any humanity, or wholly human minus any divinity.  He appears nonJewish, dislikes His own people and is far removed from any thought of suffering, death and resurrection.  These aspects of Jesus’ life are essential to His humanity, divinity and mission.  These other gospels are missing from the canon because they were missing these necessary aspects of Jesus’ life. 

The New Testament gospels and other books all concur with the major theme of the Old Testament.  Through both Testaments, God presents a biblically consistent theology that records Jehovah’s historic redemptive acts while always anticipating God’s future work through the Messiah, Jesus Christ.  The scarlet thread of redemption that began in Genesis is completed in the very presence of the New Testament writers.  They were witnesses to God’s power and work and wrote, not to give us new information but to conclude what their Old Testament counterparts had already begun. 

So this is how the New Testament came into being.  But what about transmission?  Is the New Testament we hold today as valid as the New Testament the author’s wrote?  We’ll look at transmission tomorrow and then, on Saturday something often forgotten by the 21st century church but of equal importance to inspiration and inerrancy, the matter of suffiency.          

This collection of mini-collections of books took a noticeable shape by the end of the 2nd century.  But what gave the early church confidence to say “you’re in” to some books and “no go” to others? 

First, virtually every book was either written by an apostle (Matthew, John, Paul, Peter, James) or at an apostle’s direction (Luke, Acts and Mark).  Mark wrote at Peter’s behest and Luke/Acts were written under Paul’s direction to his travelling companion, Luke.  The only possible to this criterion is the book of Hebrews.  To answer the question of its authorship, Origen (185-254) replied, “Only God knows.”  And yet, very early in Christian history, it was placed on equal standing with the other books known to have been written by or authorized by an apostle. 

So, the book of Hebrews’ inclusion into the canon (canon means ‘rule’ and the NT is the ‘rule’ by which Christians live) lets us know that the early church looked not only for authorship but also authority.  The book of Hebrews passed the test because it was entirely consistent with every other book included in the New Testament. 

The primary two signifancant factors for inclusion were authorship and authenticity, less when a book was written.  However, the majority of the New Testament books were definately written between A.D.50 and 100 with the possible exception of James which may have been written around A.D. 40.  In addition, John’s epistles may have been written just after the first century mark.  The vast majority of the New Testament however, was written as or just after the events occured. 

Even though the churches unofficially recognized this canon prior to the end of the second century, 2 Peter, Jude and Revelation were not ‘officially’ recognized as part of the completed canon until the fourth century. So you can see that great care was taken in placing books into a canon that would truly rule church and Christians for centuries.    

Once the individual gospels, letters, etc were written, the early church began to compile them into what could be considered, mini-collections.  By the end of the first century, Clement, the Bishop of Rome was quoting Matthew and Luke as authoritative.  Early church historian, Justin Martyr, wrote that the early biographies of the Lord, the gospels, had been combined into a single collection before A.D. 150.  He wrote, “On the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the wrings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits” (The First Apology of Justin).  Thus, we have historial evidence that the biographies of Jesus Christ were recognized by the early church as authoritative. 

As Paul wrote his letters the early church also compiled them and placed them in their own mini-collections, after which, the church gathered both collections and put them together into a single collection of authoritative writings recognized as inspired by God.  All of Paul’s writings were completed by the end of the first century, less than 70 years after the Lord’s death, burial and resurrection, making them timely historical records of Paul’s life and Jesus’ teachings. 

Since many of Paul’s letters were intended to be circulated among the churches, copies were made and the churches exchanged the letters amongst themselves.  Again, these copies created their own collections before being placed alongside the gospel accounts.  Eventually however, the Pauline books were placed in compilation with the gospels, Hebrews, John’s and Peter’s writings.  These 27 books were received by the church as authoritative, inspired and intended to be received as God’s Word.  Hence, they became known as the ‘canon’ or ‘rule’ of Scripture.

So what we know as the New Testament came into being by the end of the 2nd century.  They were signed, sealed by the church and delivered to the world as the New Testament Bible.  This is certainly a very early date and completely in disagreement with what many people falsely believe simply by rumor without fact.  Case in point, what Dan Brown claimed in The Davinci Code.        

Even earlier,

As I mentioned on Sunday, for each day this week, we’ll discuss how it is that Christians may know with confidence that the Bible they hold in their hands truly is the Word of God AND, in addition, be able to share/defend (apologetics) that belief.  If we’re going to be effective witnesses, we have to be able to both explain and defend Christianity.  You can do it!   

Of course, the best and most important place to begin a discussion of the reliability of the New Testament is with its central character, Jesus Christ.  When it comes to Jesus, it’s all or nothing.  Either he was Whom he claimed to be or he was, in Lewis’ words, a liar or a lunatic.  However, (again paraphrasing Lewis) Jesus Himself did not give us the option of wondering if He was just a good man, a moral teacher, etc, or the Son of God for He claimed to be the Son of God.  Hence, if you’re running around with God incarnate for three years, it might be important to take note - and notes - of what He said.  So, what did He say? He said what?  

In fact, the apostles “sent one” were sent into the world for the express purpose of making “disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19-20) and could not have done so without a reliable sense of what Jesus commanded them.  In Judaism, an apostle was a legal representative, the term being used in secular Greek writings of the day to denote someone who had power of attorney and acted as the authoritative spokesperson for someone else.   So the apostles were not only eyewitnesses and participants to the events, they were also Christ’s authorized representatives. 

Through the Great Commission, Jesus outlined the means of transmission for divine truth in first century.  He commanded the apostles and the apostles taught others.  Since the apostles couldn’t teach what they didn’t know or couldn’t remember, it was imperative that the disciples remember.  And remember, a short pencil is better than a long memory.  Simply put, they wrote it down.  And it wasn’t as though they didn’t have divine help.  Jesus Himself encouraged them saying, “ When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth” (John 16:12-15).  Someone might claim that John is only self-authenticating his own writing.  But Peter claims that the apostles possessed the same authority as Old Testament prophets (2 Peter 1:21).  Paul made the same claim (Ephesians 3:1-5).    Even Luke (who was not an apostle and never met Jesus) claimed something else.  He wrote “ Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account….” (Luke 1:1-3).  Luke, a medical doctor by trade, claims to have compiled (1) eyewitness accounts; (2) spoken to the apostles and (3) divine inspiration.  What a triad of authenticity!    

Consider what just one eyewitness and apostle wrote.  John wrote, “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:30-31).  Later in the same book he wrote, “This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true. 25 Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written” (John 21:24-25).  In I John he wrote, “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— 2 the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— 3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:1-3).  John’s whole purpose in his gospel was nothing less, more or else than to fulfil Jesus’ commission of repeating what Jesus had done and said.

You have to remember, John lived at the same time as hundred of thousands of witnesses to Jesus’ life and ministry.  He lived when any Roman or Jew could have debated the authenticity of what he said.  Anyone could have written a counter-gospel, a ‘tell-all’ about another Jesus other than the Jesus about Whom John wrote.  The important point is that no one countered John.  No one wrote an expose’ claiming that John’s gospel was false.  Not one first century record specifically written to counter any written history of Jesus’ life, death, burial or resurrection exists at all!  Better yet, just produce a body.  After the resurrection all the Jews or Romans had to do was produce Jesus’ body and Christianity would have immediately died.  But the first written, authentic, credible record about Jesus was not debated because it could not be denied.  

See, with just a few examples (certainly nothing exhaustive so it’s not exhausting to you or to someone with whom you’re sharing) you can both understand and easily explain how the New Testament got started and how its reliability is documented.  Of course, the early churches very quickly made exact copies (we’ll talk about transmission later in the week) to pass around to the churches.  New Christians were eager to learn about the Christ Who had saved them.  They learned so well and modeled His life so authentically that they were very quickly called Christians (Acts 11:26), followers of Christ, in a country where Jesus had never been.  Talk about copies!!!  The same Holy Spirit who faithfully translated Jesus’ life into words also translated those words into life!  How great is our God!  (Go ahead, “sing with me.”)