WHEN THE PERFECT COMES

"But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." (1 Corinthians 13:10)

Devotion 5 of 17

THE COMPLETION OF THE CANON?

A traditional view held by several, is that First Corinthians 13:10 is referring to the annulling of miraculous gifts upon the completion of the Scriptural canon. This position considers the "tongues," "prophecies," and "knowledge" as fragmentary parts of a whole. Thus, according to this postulate, when the Bible was completed the prophetic fragments ceased to be given.

The question here is whether the words of inspired men were fragments of a whole (not yet completed), or a limited perspective to a restricted constituency. To put it another way, did holy men of God deliver parts of a puzzle, or did they deliver the complete Word of God bearing upon the situations they addressed? Was the restriction in their message, or in the condition of their hearers and the nature of life in this world? Did any of the Apostles preach a defective or incomplete Gospel?

Again, this position, altogether too common among several students of Scripture, represents the "perfect" as the completion of the Scriptural canon, or the full Bible. This view clashes sharply with several statements of Scripture. Paul, for example, declared "the whole counsel of God" to the people (Acts 20:27). He also "kept nothing" that was "profitable" from them (Acts 20:21). Paul said he had been "entrusted with the Gospel," not a fragment of it (1 Thess 2:4).

What Peter preached at Pentecost is nowhere represented as incomplete or fragmentary. Nor, indeed were Paul's synagogue proclamations deficient, requiring the perspective of Peter, or some other Apostle, to make them complete. What is more, the "spiritual gifts" of prophecy and knowledge are not represented as declaring parts of a whole to later be completed. They were a means of building up the people of God, not merely informing them of relevant facts.

The Basic Element

The basic element of information in the New Covenant is the Gospel of Christ--the proclamation of what the Lord has done. It is a message, not a directive. The information itself is neither voluminous nor complicated. If it is not comprehended, it is not because too few pieces of the puzzle are in possession. We are plainly told if the Gospel "is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God" (2 Cor 4:3- 4, NASB).

What Edification Is There?

What edification would occur by pointing the Corinthians to the canonization of all sixty-six books of the Bible? The very suggestion would make provision for unbelief and doubt, not faith and confidence!

The reference to the cessation of "tongues," "prophecy," and "knowledge" was calculated to accentuate the foolishness of boasting in them. They were a means to an end, not an end of themselves.

Where is this phenomenon (the completion of the canon) ever clearly and meaningfully addressed in Scripture? Remember, there is the matter of the canonization of Moses and the Prophets that would, from this viewpoint, be highly
relevant during the days from John the Baptist through the ministry of the Apostles. I do not question the reality of such a thing--i.e., the completion of the Scriptural canon. That completion, however, is more owing to Divine providence than to the accumulation of segmented and partial prophecies.

If we choose to rule out the providence of God in the compilation of Scripture, our faith will be dashed upon the rocks of fickle human opinion! Further, to base a doctrine upon such "canonicity" appears to me to be the height of human folly. Such an approach is wholly without any element of revealed Divine support.

Jesus is the "Beginning and the End," the "First and the Last," the "Alpha and Omega," and the "Author and Finisher of our faith" (Rev 1:11; 21:6; Heb 12:2). We do well to associate these aspects of His remedial role with the inspiration and compilation of what is commonly called the "New Testament." The existence of Scripture confirms this to be the case, for the world has often attempted to destroy it.

What Would The Corinthians Have Gained?

What would the Corinthians have gained when the "canon" was completed, that they did not have at the time of this epistle? What was there about the Word of God which they received that was not adequate? In what sense can it be said that they had a "partial" word, "partial" revelation, of even an incomplete Gospel? Is it ever suggested their spiritual lives were confined to a sort of ad hoc procedure, where bits and pieces of Divine direction were given at "sundry times and divers manners?" I suggest to you that no such thought is contained in Scripture.

The Vagueness of Canonicity

The following thoughts on the canonicity of Scripture are offered for your consideration. Any standard Bible encyclopedia provides this information.

"Among the Apostolic Fathers (about A.D. 96-150) there is no formulated doctrine of Scripture or canonization. In the middle of the second century Marcion of Sinope proposed the first canonical list. His canon rejected the Old Testament in its entirety and accepted ten Pauline Epistles and an edited version of Luke. A similar picture is given by the Muratorian Canon, which probably originated in Rome about A.D. 200 or earlier. It recognizes the canonicity of all our present twenty-seven books except Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 3 John. In addition it accepts the Apocalypse of Peter and (strangely) the Wisdom of Solomon. Little further movement occurs in succeeding years. The majority of the books of the New Testament are clearly recognized and accepted; questions remain about a few. A century or more later Eusebius of Caesarea (about 260 to about 340) describes the canon under a threefold classification: (1) the recognized books the four Gospels, Acts, the Pauline Epistles (including Hebrews), 1 Peter, 1 John, and (perhaps) Revelation; (2) the disputed books: those generally accepted James, Jude, 2 and 3 John and those that are not genuine The Acts of Paul, The Shepherd of Hermas, The Apocalypse of Peter, The Epistle of Barnabas, The Teachings of the Apostles, and (perhaps) Revelation; (3) heretical writings; pseudo gospels or acts of some apostle.

In the latter part of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth centuries the majority of the church came to a consensus on the content of the New Testament. The first witness to specify the present twenty-seven books of the New Testament as alone canonical was Athanasias' Easter letter of A.D. 367. At the close of the century the Third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) prescribed the same list. This was confirmed again at Carthage in 419. During the fifth century the present canon became the general consensus of the church. The exceptions are the native (as distinct from the Greek-speaking) Syrian church, which acknowledges only twenty-two books (omitting 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation). The Ethiopian church accepts the usual twenty-seven but includes another eight books that deal primarily with church order."

PRAYER POINT: Father, thank You through Jesus for a Word so powerful and so effectual it needs no confirmation. Faith is itself the substance and evidence of its verity.

-- Tomorrow: THE COMPARISON IS WITH LOVE, NOT WORDS --