The Belgic Confession, Article IV: Canonical Books of the Holy Scripture
We believe that the Holy Scriptures are contained in two books, namely, the Old and the New Testament, which are canonical, against which nothing can be alleged. These are thus named in the Church of God.The books of the Old Testament are the five books of Moses, to wit: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; the book of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the two books of Samuel, the two of the Kings, two books of the Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther; Job, the Psalms, the three books of Solomon, namely, the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; the four great prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah (Lamentations), Ezekiel, and Daniel; and the twelve lesser prophets, namely, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.
Those of the New Testament are the four evangelists, to wit: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles; the thirteen epistles of the apostle Paul, namely, one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, one to Philemon; Hebrews; the seven epistles of the other apostles, namely, one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude; and the Revelation of the apostle John. (BC, Article IV)
In our last look at the Belgic Confession (Article III), we demonstrated that God spoke through the apostles and prophets in order to communicate to his people. We observed that Christianity is a revealed faith, in that God revealed himself to us through his spoken and written word. This begs the question if God spoke to us through his word, how do we know that we have the ‘right word’ from God? One of the arguments that has been leveled against the Bible and Christianity is how do we know what we have in the Bible is what God intended for us to know. Additionally, how do we know that what we have in the Bible is everything that God intended for us to know? Essentially the questions boil down to this: What makes these books of the Bible the written word of God?
These questions will be answered by the next few articles of the Confession (articles IV, V, VI & VII). We will first deal with the issue of canonicity that is addressed in article IV. According to the writers of the Belgic Confession, the following is an article of the Christian faith: We believe that the Holy Scriptures are contained in two books, namely, the Old and the New Testament, which are canonical, against which nothing can be alleged. These are thus named in the Church of God. The Confession then goes on to enumerate the 66 books (39 in the OT and 27 in the NT) that make up the Protestant Bible. I say ‘Protestant Bible’ because it should be plainly clear that the Bible Protestants use differs from the Bible that Roman Catholics use; the differences being the addition (or subtraction depending on which side of the fence you reside) of the seven books of the Apocrypha. Now the Confession deals with the Apocrypha in article VI. For now we’re only going to deal with the canonical books.
Let’s look at this article phrase by phrase. The first phrase states that the holy Scriptures are contained in two books; namely the Old Testament and New Testament. Why is the Bible broken down in this manner? The division of the Bible into old and new testament corresponds roughly with the covenant structure found within the Scriptures. God is a covenant making and covenant keeping God, and he associates with mankind on the basis of covenant. It begins all the way back in the Garden of Eden, when God establishes the original covenant of works with Adam and Eve. When Adam failed in keeping the covenant of works, he plunged the whole human race into sin and death — the consequences of failing to live up to the covenant of works. The covenant of works comes up again as God redeems his people from 400 years of slavery in Egypt and sets them up in the Promised Land. The Mosaic Covenant is another manifestation of the covenant of works as blessing is promised for obedience and punishment for disobedience. As the OT chronicles, the Israelites are unable to keep the Mosaic Covenant and they ultimately face the punishment detailed in the covenant curses of Deuteronomy 28.
At this point, one wonders why God continues to tolerate his chosen people? The reason for this is because of the covenant of grace that God establishes with his people. The covenant of grace was put into place the moment Adam and Eve failed to live up to the covenant of works. The covenant of grace is the primary covenantal vehicle by which redemption is brought to the world. It’s introduced in Genesis 3:15 with the proto-evangel, and it’s formally established with Abraham in Genesis 12. It’s important to note that the covenant of grace undergirds all of God’s further dealings with mankind, even in the Mosaic Covenant (ever notice why God doesn’t just obliterate Israel for their continual failures? God’s stays his punishment on the basis of his covenant with Abraham). However, the bulk of the OT is the story of God’s covenant with Israel (a covenant of works) and their failure to live up to its stipulations (much like Adam failed to live up to the covenant of works in the Garden).
Within the OT narrative though are hints at a new and better covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34); a covenant in which the law will no longer be external and written on stone, but internal and written on the hearts of God’s people. This new covenant, which is the fulfillment of the covenant of grace promised in Genesis 3:15 and ratified in Genesis 12 & 15, is the covenant enacted and ratified with the coming of Messiah. It is clear from the gospels that Jesus came to ratify a new covenant (Matthew 26:28) and that those who accept Jesus by faith are participants in this new covenant. The writer of the book of Hebrews goes to great pains to distinguish between the two covenants (Hebrews 8:1-13). In that passage, the new covenant in Jesus’ blood is compared and contrasted with the old Mosaic covenant. The new covenant is better than the old covenant because it is enacted on better promises. The New Testament (NT) chronicles the establishment of the new covenant and what it means to be new covenant people partaking of the benefits of the new covenant.
The next phrase in article IV says these two books are canonical. We often hear the phrase ‘canon of Scripture’ tossed around in evangelical circles; perhaps it is profitable to define what we mean by that phrase. The word ‘canon’ comes from a Latin root word which basically means “a general law, rule, principle, or criterion by which something is judged.” When modified by the word ‘Scripture,’ we are talking about the books contained in the Jewish and Christian Bible which are considered to be the divinely inspired word of God, and therefore authoritative in matters of faith and doctrine.
So when we say that the OT & NT are canonical, we are saying that these two books serve as the measuring stick for what is considered Scripture. These 66 books obtain their canonical status by their own virtue, not because some church council ruled in favor of these books over against others. This is a common tactic by those who wish to obscure the authority of Scripture and seek to introduce other documents into the canon. These critics will claim that other books were discriminated against by the biases of the members of these church councils in order to preserve some patriarchal structure within the church (or some other concocted reason). By saying these books are canonical, it is to be understood that these 66 books have within themselves the qualities that make them uniquely the word of God and the church councils that determined the canon of Scripture merely recognized their canonicity rather than establishing it.
The third phrase to examine is this: Against which nothing can be alleged. Because these 66 books are recognized as the canonical books of Scripture, they stand as the singular rule of faith and practice for all Christians. The Scriptures serve as the foundation for all Christian doctrine and ethics. The Apostle Paul states in his letter to the Ephesian church: “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone” (Ephesians 2:19-20). Paul is clearly saying that the church (“household of God”) is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Jesus being the ‘chief cornerstone.’ The teachings of the Jesus, the apostles and the prophets is contained in the Scriptures, and therefore it becomes our standard.
Finally we have this: These are thus named in the Church of God. This attests to the universal quality of the Scriptures within the church. Theoretically, one should be able to walk into any church in the world and ‘speak’ the same Biblical language because the Bible is the rule of faith and practice for all Christians. The universality of the Scriptures is what helps keep the church unified as Jesus prayed it would (John 17:21). Now it should be plainly obvious that even in churches that claim to follow the Bible as their rule of faith and practice that there are differences amongst churches as to what they believe. How is this so since we all follow the same Bible? A short answer (since a long answer is outside the scope of this article) is that despite having God’s divine word in written form in the Bible, we’re all still human beings and we are prone to error and misinterpretation. We should all keep in mind several things:
- We’re all fallible and where differences of interpretation occur, we should approach such differences with humility
- Despite the differences in interpretation, there is general agreement on what are considered the essentials of the Christian faith
- The doctrinal differences that exist between denominations in no way invalidates the universality of Scripture or its authority. The problem is with us, not the Bible
So in closing, how do we know that we have the ‘right’ word from God in the Bible? We know because the story of redemption — from beginning to end (paradise, paradise lost, paradise regained) — is found within the pages of Scripture. We know because the covenant structure of the Bible shows the futility of the covenant of works to redeem and the necessity of the covenant of grace (fulfilled in the new covenant). We know because the books of the Bible are canonical and together form the basis by which Scripture is judged and the foundation for Christian doctrine and ethics. In our next look at the Belgic Confession, we will look a little more closely at how the Scriptures derive their authority. Until then…
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam!!!
Great article. It’s been helpful to get a better understanding of this Synod through your articles and I’m eager to read how you tackle the next few.
Can you elaborate further on the “qualities [within the canonical books] that make [them] uniquely the word of God”? I’m not aware of any Scripture passages which outline these qualities, nor give a list of the authoritative canon.
What was wrong with the canon that had been used for the prior millennia that moved the Synod to define this new canon? Is it fair to say that the Dutch might have another Synod in another couple hundred years creating yet another canon based on new knowledge or theologies?
Ryan,
Let me answer your last question first. The Belgic Confession wasn’t so much a synod as it was a statement of faith. It’s similar to the Westminster Confession of Fatih, even though it pre-dates it by about 28 years. It was a document created to govern the doctrine of the European reformed churches in the early 17th century. Combined with the Heidelberg Catechism (a teaching tool used to indoctrinate children in the Christian faith) and the Canons of Dordt (which was a synod convened to re-affirm the so-called “five points” of Calvinism) they form the what is called the Three Forms of Unity. Many reformed churches in North America and Europe still adhere to these documents as their summary of Biblical doctrine (other reformed congregations, such as the Presbyterian Church in America, use the Westminster Standards, which are very similar in scope and doctrine). Anyway, the canon of Scripture was already established long before this by the 4th or 5th century. The Belgic Confession is simply saying that for churches who adhere to this confession, this is the accepted canonical books of Scripture. The only point of contention would be with accepted Roman Catholic teaching which accepts the Apocrypha as canonical (according to the Council of Trent). However, the status of these books has continually been in dispute.
As to your first question, the qualities or criteria of Scripture has generally been boiled down to the following:
1. First and foremost, priority was given to extant writings that can unequivocally attributed to one of the twelve apostles or close associates of the apostles (which is why many of the NT apocryphal writings use apostolic pseudonyms)
2. The writings had to speak with ‘divine authority’
3. The writings had to have wide acceptance in the various churches as Scripture
4. The writings cannot contradict anything that has already been recognized as Scripture
Of the 27 NT books that make up the canon, only Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, Revelation were late (i.e., 4th century) additions to the NT canon. In each case, the primary reason was spurious authorship.
Well said. Thanks for clarifying. Out of all of the confessions at the time I probably have the most respect for the Belgic as well. It is far more charitable than its Westminster counterpart, for instance.
But if “the canon of Scripture was already established long before this by the 4th or 5th century” (typically narrowed down to the councils at Rome 382, Hippo 393 & Carthage 397), by what authority do the Dutch claim that those councils were “right” about the New Testament, but wrong about the Old Testament (all of them had 46 books in the OT)? It seems to me that you’d have to reject the whole list if you thought the council was in error. And if the 4th century councils were in error, what makes the Belgic canon without error? Is it simply because it agrees with their particular theology?
Is it fair to assume that the collective Church just got the canon wrong until the Dutch (with some German help) got it right some thousand years later?
How different is this from the Mormons, who like Protestants claim that the historical Christian Church went astray and fell away from orthodox faith, only to be rekindled by a faithful man thousands of years later?
St. Irenaeus (d. 200) writes of similar claims from the Gnostics…
If the Church erred in so many doctrines and practices, then we have no basis for believing that the Church got the canon right. It would be ad hoc to trust that the Church got the canon right while believing that the Church got so many other things wrong during that same period of time.
Without the historical Christian Church, the Dutchmen of the Reformation (along with all Protestants today), are left to establish the inerrancy and infallibility of the canon through critical scholarship. And as you correctly point out, such a method (however impractical) would certainly not result in even the 27 books of the New Testament, let alone the 39 (or 46) from the Old Testament.
I suppose one is left with taking the canon decision by the Belgic Confession on faith. Which, practically speaking (as opposed to theologically speaking), is not too unlike the Mormons, who also base their theology on reviving orthodoxy from an apostate historical Church.
And lastly, you mention that the 7 books missing from the Protestant canon were always disputed. While there are always dissenters (Christ Himself had one out of twelve), the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT scriptures in a 46 book canon) was clearly the canon of choice for Jesus and His apostles – as evidenced by quoting the LXX in their OT references. If the 46 book OT canon was good enough for the Son of Man, His apostles, the Church fathers and the historical Christian Church for over a thousand years before the Belgic Confession, then the burden of proof is really on the new revelation that the Dutch Reformers must have received. Which begs the question, did they have an angel from heaven too?