by Richard Barcellos | Dec 1, 2010 | Biblical Theology, Hermeneutics, New Testament, Old Testament
Canonical structure of the English Bible
Canonical Structure of the OT – 2 (the Hebrew Bible)
Canonical structure of the New Testament
a. Gospels: The Gospels, like the Pentateuch of the Old Testament, function as foundational to the rest of the New Testament. Paul’s epistles, for example, explain the theological and practical implications of the redemptive-historical events recorded in the Gospels, even though Paul wrote some of his letters prior to the writing of the Gospels (at least prior to Mark, Luke, and John). This observation leads us to the conclusion that the theological foundation of Paul’s letters is the redemptive-historical events recorded in the Gospels. The Gospels present us with God’s indicative, historical acts; the epistles are the divine interpretation of previous acts of God. The epistles are theological reflections upon what God did in Christ and the practical implications for believers. This is similar to the foundational and paradigmatic function of the Pentateuch in the Old Testament.
b. Acts: The book of Acts functions as an immediate record of what Christ did through his disciples in application of the Great Commission after his ascension. Luke, the author of Acts, gives us a purpose statement for part two of his narrative (Luke-Acts) in the first chapter. He says, “the first account I composed [i.e., the Gospel of Luke], Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day He was taken up to heaven, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen” (Acts 1:1-2). The implication is that Acts is a continuation of what Jesus continued to do and teach upon his ascension to heaven.
c. Epistles: As noted above, the Epistles draw out the theological and practical implications of the redemptive-historical acts of God in Christ recorded in the Gospels. Though the Epistles are occasional, their foundation is the revelational data of the Gospels which is nothing less than that which the Old Testament said would happen when Messiah would come onto the scene.
d. Revelation: The book of Revelation is a book which offers both comfort for the present struggles of God’s people and hope for the future. It is full of Old Testament allusions and ends where the Bible began but with a renewed Eden and temple which cover the face of the renewed earth.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
by Richard Barcellos | Nov 27, 2010 | Biblical Theology, Hermeneutics, Old Testament
a. Caninical structure of the English Bible
b. Canonical structure of the Hebrew Bible: That the Hebrew Bible comprised the inspired Scriptures of the first century Jews seems obvious. The Hebrew Bible at the time of Christ was comprised of a three-fold division: I. The Law (Torah) – 5 books; II. The Prophets (Nebiim) – 8 books; and III. The Writings (Ketubim) – 11 books.[1] This simple three-fold division of the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible, probably compiled by the second century B.C., was recognized by Jesus in Luke 24:44, “…These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses, and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Jesus’ Hebrew audience would have understood him to be referring to the Hebrew Bible and its three-fold division.[2] In the words of Shaw:
[W]e know that the Jews arranged their sacred books into three classes, the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiography, or holy writings. …The Psalms are here [Lk. 24:44] put for the Hagiography, probably because they were the principal book, or occupied the first place in that division.[3]
Jesus ratified the contents of the Hebrew Bible as Holy Scripture. Reymond agrees with Shaw, when he says:
In New Testament times Jesus Christ–the second Person of the Godhead present with his church as its ultimate “canon”–personally validated for his church the particular Old Testament canon of first-century Palestinian Judaism, namely, the twenty-four books of the Hebrew canon (see his allusion to the tripartite canon of Palestinian Judaism in Lk. 24:44), which corresponds to the thirty-nine books of the Protestant Old Testament …[4]
This three-fold division is known as the Tanak, an acronym for
…the Torah, consisting of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy; the Nevi’im (the Prophets), comprising Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah and the Twelve; and the Ketuvim (the Writings), composed of Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Daniel, Esther, Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles.[5]
It is of interest to note Luke 24:45-47.
Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures [in context this refers to the Tanak], and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem…”
The Hebrew Bible at the time of Jesus is what he explained to his disciples. According to Jesus, the sufferings and third-day resurrection of the Messiah are contained in the Tanak. Jesus also claims that the proclamation of the forgiveness of sins in his name to all nations, starting at Jerusalem, is taught in the Tanak.
There has been much recent study on the canonical structure and theology of the Hebrew Bible. Such study has caused John H. Sailhamer to say, “…the Hebrew Bible is both text and commentary.”[6] In other words, the Hebrew Bible comments upon what it reveals and is assumed to be a single, coherent book. When the Old Testament (and the New Testament) comments upon itself, this is called inter-biblical or inter-textual interpretation/exegesis. The PDBS defines inner-biblical exegesis as:
An approach to the text that seeks to address the re-interpretation and reapplication of earlier biblical texts by later texts. …Direct quotations are the most obvious application of this method, but inner-biblical exegesis looks at glosses in a text, the arrangement of material in its present form, and the use of words, themes and tradtions in texts. For example, a scholar studying inner-biblical exegesis might examine the relationship of Isaiah 2:2-4 to Joel 3:10 and Micah 4:1-3, or the use that Hosea puts to the traditions of Genesis 32 regarding Isaac and Esau. This approach to texts shares features with interpreting “Scripture in the light of Scripture” but focuses more on the literary and historical relationships rather than the theological or spiritual ones.[7]
Sailhamer says:
When the future [from the point of the Hebrew Bible] came at a specific time and place, there were people waiting for it. There were those like Simeon and Anna, who understood it in terms of the OT prophetic vision. In other words, the prophets’s vision was such that it preserved and carried with it a people who both understood the prophets and were there waiting for the fulfillment of their vision. By falling in line with that vision, the NT writers show that they accepted the OT not only as pre-interpreted, but they also were in fundamental agreement with its interpretation. That interpretation, we can see, began long before the time of its fulfillment. Already within the OT itself we can discover clear signs of an ongoing process of inter-Biblical, or (I would prefer to say) inter-textual interpretation.[8]
Stephen Dempster, while discussing explicit signs of textual coherence in the Tanak, says:
As mentioned earlier, within the biblical text itself there was an awareness that the many books were a unity. There is an exceedingly rich intertexuality in which there are many linguistic and conceptual echoes throughout Scripture. Later biblical books consciously echo and imitate events, concepts and language found in earlier books… Creation, exile and (occasionally) return form a recurring pattern that is stitched into the biblical narrative fabric. At the beginning, there is the creation of Adam and Eve, the placing of them in the Garden of Eden and the judgment of exile and death. Cain is soon born, and experiences the judgment of exile for the murder of his brother. The growth of the nations into a great power leads to sin at Babel and to exile as they are condemned to be dispersed throughout the earth. Abram is called into being to go to a land, which he leaves at times because of a lack of faith, only to return later. His descendants experience exile in Egypt and are brought back to the land. Their descendants also undergo exile before returning. Frequently the return is described in terms that echo the original creation and the placing of the first human pair in the Garden of Eden. Creation language often is employed to signal the return.[9]
These themes are not in the Tanak (or our English Old Testament) alone. When Jesus rose from the dead, he inaugurated a new creation, thus signaling that man could now return to God from his exiled state. This new creation (presently enjoyed only by Jesus in his glory and those who are his) will one day expand into “a new heaven and a new earth” (Revelation 21:1), “in which righteousness dwells” (2 Peter 3:13). The eternal state is depicted as a return to the Edenic state, yet without the possibility of sin (Revelation 22:1ff [“the tree of life,” no longer any curse, “they will reign forever and ever”]). The end of the Bible is the end or goal of the beginning to which Adam failed to attain.
It is also of interest to observe that the Hebrew Bible begins with the Pentateuch (as does our English Old Testament) and ends with Chronicles (unlike our English Old Testament). The Pentateuch, as has been mentioned, is the foundation upon which the entire Old Testament rests. The rest of the Old Testament assumes the Pentateuch as its historical and theological foundation. The prophets apply the theology of the Pentateuch to the contingencies of Old Covenant Israel. The prophets offer both rebuke, in light of covenantal disobedience, and hope, in light of God’s Messianic promises and purpose for creation. Post-pentateuchal revelation assumes, and is based on, that which precedes it. This is inter-textual or inter-biblical exegesis. The Bible itself often builds upon (and is thus explanatory of or a commentary upon) previous revelation.
The Hebrew Bible ends with Chronicles. Stephen Dempster comments:
It begins with a creation story of humanity in the garden of Eden, continues with their exile from this place of God’s presence because of disobedience, and ends with a nation in exile as a result of disobedience yet called back to the province of Judah to engage in the task of temple restoration – the supreme symbol of God’s presence. This temple is no ordinary temple either, as it has eschatological overtones, resulting in the restoration of Eden. The rivers of Eden will flow again, this time turning even the Dead Sea into a place of teeming life.[10]
When Jesus comes on the scene, he is often depicted as a temple builder (John 1:14; 2:19-22; Ephesians 2:19-22; 1 Corinthians 3:9, 16-17; 1 Peter 2:4-6; Matthew 16:18), the end of which turns out being described with many Old Testament creation (Eden) and temple echoes and allusions (cf. Revelation 21 and 22 [new heaven and new earth, holy city, new Jerusalem, bride adorned for her husband, tabernacle of God among men, no death, he will be my son, temple language, water of life, fruit, no curse, etc.]).
This area of study can be very helpful in understanding the overall thrust of the Old Testament. Canonical content and structure reveals to us themes that reoccur in the Old Testament and end up reoccurring in the New Testament as well. This, again, witnesses to the fact that God is in the business of bringing creation to its intended goal.
[1] Cf. John H. Sailhamer, “Biblical Theology and the Composition of the Hebrew Bible” in Scott J. Hafemann, editor, Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 32ff.; Stephen G. Dempster, Dominion and dynasty: A theology of the Hebrew Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 36ff.; and Ewert, From Ancient Tablets to Modern Translations, 30-34.
[2] Sometimes the New Testament refers to the Old Testament as the law and the prophets, the law, or simply Scripture. This does not mean that the New Testament contradicts itself. It simply reflects the fact that the Old Testament can be summarized in various ways.
[3] Shaw, Westminster Confession, 43.
[4] Reymond, A New Systematic Theology, 61.
[5] Dempster, Dominion and dynasty, 36.
[6] John H. Sailhamer, “The Messiah and the Hebrew Bible,” JETS 44/1 (March 2001) 13.
[7] PDBS, 63.
[8] Sailhamer, “The Messiah and the Hebrew Bible,” 13.
[9] Dempster, Dominion and dynasty, 31-32.
[10] Dempster, Dominion and dynasty, 33. Dempster references Genesis 2:10-14; Ezekiel 47:1-12; Joel 3:18; and Zechariah 14:8.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
by Richard Barcellos | Nov 24, 2010 | Hermeneutics
Canonical structure refers to the final form of our English Bibles primarily – both order and content. This discipline is often called canonical criticism. Canonical criticism is defined as follows:
An approach that seeks to interpret the biblical books with respect to their authoritative status and theological context within the Bible. Canonical criticism thus focuses on the final form of the biblical texts rather than their earlier stages of composition or transmission (though recognition of the stages plays an integral role in some uses of this approach). Furthermore, canonical critics argue that the object of biblical interpretation is theological reflection within a community of faith. For example, Torah and the Gospels have a special function in the canon. They are set apart as first and foundational; hence the Prophets in the OT and Paul in the NT should be read in the light of the Torah and the Gospels respectively, even though the Prophets and Paul’s letters may predate the present form of the Torah and Gospels. Canonical criticism sees the Bible as “Scripture,” as authoritative writings of the community of faith,[1] and incorporates theological reflection as part of the reading of a text.[2]
Any text under consideration must be interpreted in light of its place and function within the entire canon of Scripture. Some books are theologically foundational to others and the latter must be understood in light of the former and the former is often explained by the latter.
1. Canonical structure of the Old Testament: We will consider the canonical structure of our English Bibles then the canonical structure of the ancient Hebrew Bible.
a. Canonical structure of the English Bible: Our English Bibles are comprised of 39 Old Testament books. They follow the basic order and number of the Septuagint (LXX) – Genesis – Malachi. The LXX is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, translated by “Greek-speaking Jews in Alexandria from the third to the second century B.C.”[3] LXX (Roman numeral for 70) stands for a tradition that says 72 Jewish scholars translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek in 72 days. It is an interesting phenomenon of history that the LXX changed the order of the Hebrew canon (see below) and number of books, though not the content, and added the Apocrypha. Why do our English Bibles have 39 books instead of the 24 books of the ancient Hebrew canon? The reason for this is due to the fact that the first English Bibles followed the order of the Latin Vulgate, which followed the order of the LXX[4] though Jerome translated into Latin from the Hebrew text.
Our English Old Testaments reflect a four-fold division of its 39 books considered from the standpoint of genre: I. The Law (Pentateuch) – 5 books; II. Historical Books (Joshua-Esther) – 12 books; III. Poetry (Job-Song of Solomon) – 5 books; and IV. Prophets (A. Major Prophets [Isaiah-Daniel] – 5 books; B. Minor Prophets [Hosea-Malachi] – 12 books) – 17 books.[5] The Pentateuch is the foundation for the rest of the Old Testament. The historical books trace ancient Old Covenant Israel’s history immediately subsequent to the death of Moses through the period of the judges and to the establishment of the monarchy and return from exile. The poetical books cover diverse issues related to Job, worship, and wisdom. The prophets are God’s prosecuting attorneys who both look to the past (i.e., the Pentateuch) and promise deliverance in the future.
b. Canonical structure of the Hebrew Bible (in the next post)
[1] This is important to note at this time. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were brought together by the community of faith. They are the compositional and organizational product of believers. This means that theological reasons are behind the final form of the canon.
[2] PDBS, 23.
[3] PDBS, 105.
[4] Cf. David Ewert, From Ancient Tablets to Modern Translations: A General Introduction to the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983), 34, for a brief discussion of the order of the English Bible.
[5] This analysis of the division of the English Old Testament is found in Ewert, From Ancient Tablets to Modern Translations, 34.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
by Richard Barcellos | Nov 20, 2010 | Hermeneutics, Historical Theology
The only infallible interpreter of Holy Scripture is the Holy Spirit in the Holy Scripture. This is a fundamental principle of Reformed hermeneutics. Since the Bible is inspired by God (and, therefore, infallible in all its assertions), any and every use of the Bible by itself is infallible. Granted, not all such uses are interpretive; however, many are. We ought to assume, then, that when the Bible interprets itself (inner-biblical exegesis), its interpretation is infallible. All Evangelicals, as far as I know, agree that the Bible’s interpretation of itself is infallible. But should we also assume that the Bible’s interpretation of itself is paradigmatic for all subsequent interpreters? Should the Bible’s interpretation of itself become the soil from which we garner at least some of our principles of interpretation? Before the Enlightenment the answer was yes, though with a few detractors. The hermeneutical method of the apostles, for example, is both divinely inspired and authoritatively paradigmatic for all subsequent interpreters. This position argues that Jesus taught his disciples how to interpret and apply the Old Testament while he was on earth (Luke 24:25-27; 44-49). The apostles’ subsequent interpretations and applications, therefore, were simply extensions of the principles taught to them by our Lord. This view has Patristic, Medieval, Reformation, Post-Reformation, and current adherents.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
