Article 6: The Old Testament Canon: Law, Prophets, and Writings
Building on the question of canonicity explored in Article 5, we now turn specifically to the Old Testament canon—its threefold division into Law, Prophets, and Writings, its historical recognition among the Jewish people, and its reception within the Reformed tradition as articulated by the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF). While subsequent debates over the Apocrypha (Article 8) hinge largely on how one defines the Old Testament boundaries, this installment focuses on the mainstream thirty-nine books that form the Hebrew Scriptures. We shall see that the Confession’s perspective (WCF 1.2–1.3) closely matches the ancient Jewish canon recognized and cited by Christ and the apostles, which excludes the additional “deuterocanonical” works affirmed much later by the Roman Church.
1. The Hebrew Canon: Torah, Prophets, and Writings
1.1. The Traditional Threefold Division
The Hebrew Bible is traditionally parsed as:
- Torah (the Law): Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy
- Nevi’im (the Prophets): Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Book of the Twelve (Minor Prophets)
- Ketuvim (the Writings): Psalms, Proverbs, Job, the “Five Megilloth” (Ruth, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther), Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles
Christ’s statement, “all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me” (Luke 24:44) is often cited to demonstrate that Jesus endorsed this tripartite canon. Indeed, “the psalms” in that context appears to serve as a metonym for the entire Writings division. By referencing the Law, Prophets, and Writings, Christ affirms the same textual corpus that became standard in post-exilic Judaism, often totaling twenty-four books (due to combining certain volumes, e.g., Samuel as one book, the Twelve Minor Prophets as one).
1.2. Canon Consciousness in Second Temple Judaism
During the Second Temple period (516 BC – AD 70), Jewish communities were remarkably consistent in their acceptance of the Pentateuch and of the subsequent historical and prophetic writings. While internal debates persisted about certain boundary books (like Esther), mainstream Rabbinic tradition—from which the Talmudic references eventually emerged—upheld the same body of texts. The notion that an official “council of Jamnia” around AD 90 closed the canon is now regarded by many scholars as an oversimplification; more accurately, the canon was already recognized well before that time, and any formal rabbinical discussions simply clarified previously embraced norms.
Key Theological Implication: By the time of Jesus and the apostles, the Hebrew Scriptures—broadly identical to our Protestant Old Testament—already held canonical status. The events described in John 5:39 or Luke 16:29–31 (where Jesus and the early church reference the Hebrew Scriptures as authoritative) further suggest that these writings were fixed in the religious consciousness of first-century Judaism.
2. Christian Reception of the Old Testament
2.1. Apostolic and Early Church Endorsement
The earliest Christians inherited this canon from their Jewish heritage. Throughout the New Testament, quotations from the Old Testament exclusively align with these recognized Hebrew books. Allusions to the Apocrypha, while occasionally found in patristic literature, do not appear in the apostolic texts as explicitly authoritative. For instance, Paul’s pronouncements—“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim. 3:16)—are typically understood to reference these 39 inspired Hebrew writings (plus the emergent New Testament) rather than a broader body that included “deuterocanonical” materials.
The Book of Hebrews, in its wide-ranging survey of Old Testament figures and ordinances, likewise treats only those individuals or events drawn from the recognized Hebrew canon. This consistency helps explain why the Protestant Reformation, codified in confessions like Westminster, would formally adopt these same 39 books, distinct from the later additions embraced by some in the Greek-speaking Diaspora or the medieval Western Church.
2.2. The Septuagint and Confusions over the Apocrypha
A source of later dispute arose from the Septuagint (LXX), a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Produced primarily in Alexandria, the LXX included additional writings that were not recognized in the Hebrew canon—namely, what Protestants call the Apocrypha. Because Greek-speaking Christians often used the LXX, certain church fathers became accustomed to quoting from these extra texts, sometimes labeling them as “scripture” in a looser sense. Yet even prominent Greek fathers like Athanasius and Cyril of Jerusalem drew sharp distinctions between the accepted Hebrew books and other works appended to the Septuagint manuscripts.
Crucial is that the confusion stems partly from the liturgical usage of these extra writings in some communities, rather than from a universal patristic consensus that they were equal in authority. Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate, famously insisted that only the 24 (or 39) Hebrew books were fully canonical, while the others were “ecclesiastical” but not conclusive for establishing doctrine. This patristic ambivalence or partial acceptance shaped medieval debates, setting the stage for the Reformation’s clear boundary—one that WCF 1.2–1.3 would ultimately reaffirm.
3. The Westminster Confession on the Old Testament Canon
3.1. Listing the Books
WCF 1.2 plainly enumerates the canonical Old Testament books, matching the 39 recognized in Protestant Bibles. The Confession does not follow the Hebrew grouping precisely, but the content is identical. For instance, it separates Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles into two books each, and enumerates the twelve minor prophets individually; the end result, however, is the same textual corpus. The Confession therefore situates itself in continuity with the earliest Jewish, apostolic, and patristic endorsements of those 39 books as inspired Scripture.
3.2. Exclusion of the Apocrypha
While the next installments (especially Article 8) address the Apocrypha in greater detail, it is important to note that the WCF’s stance arises directly from the Hebrew canon’s recognized boundaries. By calling the Apocrypha “books commonly called Apocrypha,” the Confession underscores that these writings were never part of the Jewish canon, nor cited in the New Testament as Scripture, thus carrying no binding authority for believers. It thereby stands in contrast to the Tridentine decree (1546), which advanced the broader list.
For the Westminster divines, the argument was not that these extra writings had no historical or literary value; some might be read for edification or context. Rather, they were not covenantal oracles of God, neither mandated for faith nor suitable for establishing doctrine. This position grew especially clear in the Puritan climate, where William Whitaker’s thorough research into patristic citations served as a bulwark against Roman claims of these books’ canonicity.
3.3. Confessional Bibliology: Preservation of the Hebrew Text
WCF 1.8 will later affirm that the Hebrew text of the Old Testament (alongside the Greek text of the New Testament) was kept “pure in all ages” by God’s singular providence. Contemporary confessional bibliology, championed by scholars like Garnet Howard Milne, explains that the assembly saw these original-language texts as providentially transmitted to the church through centuries of manuscript copying, ensuring that believers could reliably access the entire corpus recognized by the Jewish community, Christ, the apostles, and the historic catholic church.
This confidence in preservation bolsters the Confession’s unhesitating enumeration of the Old Testament books. If the Holy Spirit orchestrated both the composition of these canonical texts and their subsequent recognition among God’s covenant people, it follows that He likewise oversaw the textual integrity needed for their ongoing use in the new covenant era.
4. Internal Unity and Theological Coherence
4.1. The Old Testament’s Role in Redemptive History
Reformed theology views the Old Testament not as a relic overshadowed by the New but as a foundational testament containing the early revelations of God’s character, law, and covenant promises. From Genesis onward, redemptive history unfolds in patterns—types, shadows, prophecies—that find their culmination in Jesus Christ (Luke 24:27). Hence, far from being a lesser revelation, the Old Testament is integral to the singular covenant narrative that WCF 7–8 (later in the Confession) will expound at length.
Whether it is the promise to Abraham (Gen. 12, 15, 17), the Mosaic revelation of God’s holiness, or the Davidic covenant’s pointing to the future Messianic king, the Old Testament shapes the entire framework of Christian theology. By stressing the canonicity of these 39 books, the Westminster Assembly preserves the continuity of covenant theology, ensuring that the faithful read Scripture as one grand story from creation to Christ’s consummation.
4.2. Literary Diversity, Doctrinal Harmony
Within those 39 books, we find multiple genres—historical narrative, legal codes, wisdom literature, psalms, prophetic oracles. Yet they exhibit a profound unity: a consistent portrayal of the one living God, the corruption of humankind, and the gracious promise of redemption. WCF 1.5 references the “consent of all the parts” of Scripture as evidence of divine authorship. This concept covers not just the continuity between Old and New Testaments but also the internal coherence among diverse Old Testament books. The Old Testament’s unified message stands as a testament to the Holy Spirit’s superintending work across centuries of composition and editorial processes.
5. Pastoral and Theological Benefits of Affirming the 39-Book Old Testament
5.1. Christ-Centered Exegesis
A robust conviction about the Old Testament’s full canonicity encourages preachers and laity alike to mine these ancient texts for profound testimonies to Christ. The sacrificial system, the exodus narrative, the monarchy’s rise and fall, and the voices of the prophets all foreshadow the gospel. Without the clarity that these 39 books are inspired and essential, one risks neglecting large swaths of Scripture, impoverishing both doctrinal depth and devotional practice. Reformed homiletics, historically, has insisted that each Old Testament text is profitable for preaching Christ, as indeed the WCF’s teaching on the unity of Scripture implies.
5.2. Safeguard against Spurious Additions
The moment the boundaries of the Old Testament become “porous,” adding Apocryphal expansions or other texts, the door opens for doctrines lacking firm canonical basis. Roman Catholicism’s appeal to 2 Maccabees to support prayers for the dead and purgatory exemplifies how the acceptance of non-Hebrew canonical writings leads to divergent theological positions. By reaffirming the Jewish canon, the Reformed tradition maintains continuity with Christ’s own Scripture usage and avoids complicating the biblical narrative with second-temple Jewish literature that, while historically interesting, was never sanctioned as covenantal revelation.
5.3. Reinforcing Doctrinal and Ethical Instruction
The Old Testament’s legal and prophetic materials provide an essential backdrop to moral theology and ethical living in the Christian life. Without wholeheartedly accepting the moral and spiritual authority of Deuteronomy, for instance, or the wisdom gleaned from Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, the church’s ethical framework may falter. WCF 19 (on the law) and WCF 7–8 (on the covenants) heavily rely on Old Testament revelation, illustrating its indispensability in shaping a Reformed moral vision. Accepting these 39 books as canonical ensures that these doctrines rest on a sure textual footing.
6. Challenges and Clarifications
6.1. Contemporary Critical Scholarship
Modern historical-critical approaches sometimes question the unity or final shape of the Hebrew canon, proposing alternative canons or late dates for certain books. While the Reformed confessional stance does not ignore scholarly research, it remains anchored in the historical testimony that the Jewish community—and by extension, Jesus and the apostles—treated these 39 books as the authoritative Word of God.
Confessional bibliology, as developed by figures like Garnet Howard Milne, does not reject manuscript analysis or archaeological findings. Rather, it interprets such data through a lens of confidence in divine providence, trusting that scholarship may refine our understanding of historical processes but cannot overturn the fundamental fact of God’s preservation of these recognized texts.
6.2. Interdenominational Dialogues
Orthodox and conservative Protestant communities generally align with the 39-book Old Testament. However, dialogues with Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox interlocutors inevitably confront the difference over the Apocrypha or “Deuterocanonical” set. Here, the Reformed position (WCF 1.2–1.3) remains unwavering: because these books did not form part of the Hebrew canon, were never cited by Christ or the apostles as Scripture, and were not affirmed in the earliest post-apostolic consensus, they do not belong to the covenant text recognized as the Word of God.
This principle—rooted in the same historical posture that shaped the Reformation—underscores the central role of the Old Testament in Reformed dogmatics and practice, while politely but firmly declining to treat Apocryphal expansions as coequal to the Hebrew Scriptures.
Conclusion
The Old Testament canon, comprising the thirty-nine books historically arranged under the Law, Prophets, and Writings, stands at the foundation of Christian Scripture—fully authoritative, inspired, and essential to the church’s life and doctrine. The Westminster Confession of Faith, in enumerating these books (WCF 1.2) and excluding extra materials, aligns itself with Christ’s own recognition of the Hebrew canon (Luke 24:44), the apostolic practice of citing only these writings as the “Oracles of God,” and the early patristic clarity that the Apocrypha cannot carry the weight of unqualified “Scripture.”
This confessional stance is not arbitrary or reactionary but rests on centuries of Jewish and Christian usage and on the self-evidencing marks of divine authority within these books. William Whitaker’s scholarly arguments, along with subsequent treatments in confessional bibliology, confirm that the Reformed community stands in continuity with the historic testimony to these 39 books. In sum, the Old Testament canon is not merely a preludial addition to the New but an indispensable record of redemptive history, breathed out by God and preserved as the bedrock for all subsequent revelation and faith.
