What the Church Means by the Canon

“And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.”
—Galatians 6:16

Before asking how the Church knows the canon, we must determine what the Church means by the word canon. Otherwise, an argument may proceed under the appearance of agreement while its participants speak of fundamentally different things.

One scholar may say that the canon existed in the first century because the apostolic books possessed divine authority as soon as they were written. Another may say that the canon arose in the second century because Christians were then reading collections of apostolic writings as Scripture. A third may insist that the canon did not exist until the fourth century, when the Church reached widespread agreement concerning its precise boundaries.

These statements appear contradictory, but much of the contradiction arises from differing definitions. The first scholar speaks of the canon as divinely constituted. The second speaks of the canon functioning in the Church. The third speaks of the canon as a generally recognized and closed collection.

The three historical observations may be distinguished without being divided. God gave the books; the books functioned as Scripture; the Church came to confess their complete boundary with general unanimity. These are not three competing canons, and they do not identify three sources of canonical authority. They are aspects of one providential history.

The thesis of this article is that the canon is the complete and closed collection of writings God gave through his prophets and apostles as the permanent, sufficient, and infallible rule of his covenant people; its ecclesiastical reception recognizes rather than creates that divine reality.

From a Reed to a Rule

The word canon comes from the Greek κανών, a term associated with a straight reed, rod, measuring line, or rule. A straight rod could reveal whether another object conformed to the required measure. The word therefore came naturally to signify a governing standard, prescribed boundary, or authoritative rule.

Paul employs it in this sense when he writes, “And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them” (Galatians 6:16). He also speaks of the “measure of the rule” God assigned to his apostolic labor (2 Corinthians 10:13–16). The underlying thought is a determined measure governing what belongs within its proper sphere.

The biblical concept does not depend upon the presence of this particular Greek noun. Scripture speaks of “the book of the covenant” (Exodus 24:7), “the book of the law” (Deuteronomy 31:26), “the oracles of God” (Romans 3:2), “the holy scriptures” (2 Timothy 3:15), “the form of sound words” (2 Timothy 1:13), “that good thing which was committed” to Timothy (2 Timothy 1:14), and “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3).

The technical vocabulary developed historically, but the theological reality preceded the vocabulary. God’s people possessed authoritative writings, distinguished them from merely human books, preserved them as a sacred deposit, and submitted to them as the rule of faith before later theologians formally developed every element of canonical terminology.

It is therefore a word-concept fallacy to argue that the earliest Church could not possess a canon because Christians did not immediately employ canon in its later technical sense. The Church confessed Christ before every later term of Christology was coined, and it possessed apostolic Scripture before every aspect of the doctrine of the canon was formally stated.

Gaussen observes that early Christian use of canon could refer to the whole body of Christian doctrine, to the sacred volume as the rule of faith, or to the list of writings composing that rule.¹ These uses disclose three closely related aspects: the canon is a rule, a collection, and a boundary.

The Canon as Rule

The most fundamental meaning is normative. Scripture is canonical because it is the supreme written rule by which the Church’s doctrine, worship, government, and life must be examined.

A rule does not merely provide information. It possesses authority to measure and correct. Scripture exposes what is crooked because it is itself the straight rule. It does not stand beside tradition, ecclesiastical custom, private revelation, scholarly consensus, or human reason as one coordinate authority among several. It judges them all.

Isaiah therefore directs the people away from false spiritual authorities: “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isaiah 8:20). The law and testimony are not judged by the competing speaker. The speaker is judged by the law and testimony. That which conforms is received; that which contradicts is rejected.

Christ employs Scripture in the same manner. Against Satan he answers, “It is written.” Against corrupt tradition he declares, “Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition” (Matthew 15:6). Against the Sadducees he says, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures” (Matthew 22:29). He does not submit Scripture to another tribunal. Scripture is the tribunal.

To call a book canonical is therefore to say more than that it is ancient, orthodox, edifying, or apostolic in subject matter. It means that the book has the right to govern faith. Its declarations bind the conscience because God speaks through it.

John Cosin accordingly calls the canonical Scriptures the infallible rule of faith and the perfect square of Christian action.² Creeds and confessions may summarize this rule. Ministers may expound it. Councils may defend it. Theologians may draw good and necessary consequences from it. None becomes the canon. Every subordinate standard remains subject to the original and supreme rule.

The Canon as Collection

The word canon also designates the body of writings that together constitute this rule. The Bible is not one continuous document written at one time by one human author. It is a collection produced through many centuries, in different places, through numerous prophets and apostles, and in several literary forms. Nevertheless, it is one canon.

Its unity does not arise from later binding. Genesis and Revelation do not become one canon because a printer places them between two covers. Paul’s epistles did not first become canonical when a scribe copied them into one codex. The scrolls of the Hebrew Scriptures constituted one sacred deposit before they were physically joined in a single volume.

The unity of the canon arises from the unity of its divine author, redemptive purpose, covenantal structure, and doctrinal message. The Scriptures are many books and one Word. Christ can speak of “the scriptures” as a unified witness to himself (John 5:39). Following his resurrection, he can expound “in all the scriptures the things concerning himself,” beginning with Moses and proceeding through the prophets (Luke 24:27). Peter can place Paul’s epistles beside “the other scriptures” (2 Peter 3:16).

This collection is not a miscellany of religious classics. It possesses an organic redemptive-historical unity. The Law prepares for Christ. The Prophets promise Christ. The Gospels reveal Christ. The apostolic writings declare the meaning and consequences of his finished work. The unity is not imposed by the reader; it is the outworking of one divine counsel.

The collection is also complete. It contains all those writings—and only those writings—that God intended to serve as the permanent written foundation of his people. The divine collection is not identical with everything a prophet or apostle may ever have said or written. Nor does it include every ancient work containing truthful religious instruction. It consists of the writings God gave as the abiding covenantal rule.

The canon is therefore not first a human collection of divine books. It is a divine collection subsequently gathered, received, and transmitted by human stewards.

The Canon as Boundary

Every canon necessarily includes a boundary.

If certain writings belong to the rule, others do not. If Isaiah is canonical, Enoch does not become canonical because Jude uses a tradition also associated with that name. If John’s Gospel belongs to the canon, the Gospel of Thomas does not. If Romans possesses divine authority, First Clement cannot be placed beside it merely because Clement was an early and respected Christian writer.

A canon without a boundary is not a canon in the full sense. An indefinitely expanding collection cannot function as a completed rule. Neither can a collection whose contents remain perpetually open to addition or subtraction provide a settled foundation for the Church’s faith.

The canonical boundary therefore makes both a positive and a negative confession. Positively, the Church says, “These books are the Word of God.” Negatively, she says, “No other books possess this canonical authority.” The Belgic Confession expresses both sides when it receives “all these books, and these only” as holy and canonical.³

This boundary does not mean every noncanonical book is false or useless. Some ecclesiastical writings possess great historical, theological, and devotional value. Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, and other early authors may be read profitably. Their antiquity and usefulness do not make them canonical.

A book may be useful without being infallible. It may repeat apostolic doctrine without possessing apostolic authority. It may even be read publicly without becoming the rule of the Church. The distinction is not between canonical books and writings wholly devoid of truth. It is between writings that must themselves be measured and the divine writings by which all others are measured.

Canonical Authority Comes from God

Cosin’s opening definition brings together the central aspects of canonicity. The books possess their “prime and sovereign authority” from God, by whose will and inspiration they were written; they were preserved and delivered to posterity by providence; and they have been received by the Church as the infallible rule of faith and conduct.⁴

The order matters.

First, the books possess authority from God himself. Divine authorship is the fountain of canonical authority.

Second, they were written by divine will and inspiration through appointed human instruments. Their origin lies in the work of the Holy Ghost through prophets and apostles.

Third, they were delivered to posterity. The canon was not given merely to its first recipients and left to the hazards of history.

Fourth, they were received by the Church. Ecclesiastical recognition follows divine constitution and providential delivery.

Fifth, they function as the infallible rule of faith and obedience.

These are not unrelated tests by which the Church awards a canonical score. They describe one integrated divine work. Inspiration concerns origin; delivery concerns permanent purpose; preservation concerns historical continuance; reception concerns providential recognition; rule concerns authority over the people of God. The Church does not assemble these qualities and confer canonicity upon books that meet enough criteria. The books bear these qualities because of what God has made them and purposed through them.

Reception is therefore an effect and evidence of canonicity, not its efficient cause.

Ontological, Functional, and Exclusive Canon

A useful modern distinction describes the canon from three perspectives: ontological, functional, and exclusive.⁵

The ontological definition asks what the canon is in itself. From this perspective, the canon consists of the authoritative writings God gave as the permanent foundation of his Church. The Gospel of John was canonical when it was given. Its canonicity did not wait for a fourth-century catalogue.

The functional definition considers the books in operation among God’s people. A writing functions canonically when it is read as Scripture, used to regulate doctrine and worship, and received as possessing divine authority. Paul commanded his letters to be read publicly and circulated among churches. They performed a canonical office from their first reception even though every congregation did not yet possess every apostolic book.

The exclusive definition emphasizes the canon as a definite and closed collection. It asks when the Church reached settled and widespread recognition that these books—and no others—constituted the New Testament. From this perspective, the fourth century possesses considerable historical importance because it supplies several complete catalogues and manifests broad agreement concerning all twenty-seven books.

The three perspectives answer different questions. When did God give a book? When did it begin functioning as Scripture? When did the Church attain widespread recognition of the completed boundary? Confusing these questions produces unnecessary controversy. Fourth-century agreement did not create first-century authority. First-century canonical function did not require that every later boundary question had already been answered everywhere.

God’s act, the books’ function, and the Church’s recognition belong to one providential history, but God’s act remains foundational.

The Canon as Covenant Deposit

The canon is not only a rule and collection; it is a covenantal deposit. Under the old covenant, the book of the law was placed beside the ark “for a witness” (Deuteronomy 31:26). The written Word recorded God’s acts, declared his commandments, testified against disobedience, and preserved his promises for succeeding generations.

Paul employs the language of deposit when he tells Timothy to “hold fast the form of sound words” and to keep “that good thing which was committed” to him by the Holy Ghost (2 Timothy 1:13–14). Timothy did not receive authority to develop the deposit according to later religious consciousness. He was commanded to guard it. Jude likewise describes “the faith” as something “once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3).

Calling the canon a covenantal deposit identifies both purpose and custody. God gave these writings to constitute and govern his covenant people. He then appointed that people as ministerial guardians. Israel possessed “the oracles of God” as a trust (Romans 3:2). The Christian Church possesses the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures as her foundation. In neither case does custody imply authorship. A steward guards a treasure belonging to another.

What the Canon Is Not

Several exclusions protect the definition.

The canon is not merely the books preferred by the Church. Preference cannot produce divine authority.

It is not merely a list promulgated by a council. A council may bear valuable public testimony, but it cannot inspire a book retroactively.

It is not merely the books that survived. Survival alone proves nothing; many noncanonical writings also survived.

It is not merely the books used in worship. Ecclesiastical writings have sometimes been read publicly without being received as the infallible rule.

It is not merely a physical codex. The canon existed while its writings circulated in separate scrolls and among geographically scattered churches.

It is not a canon within the canon, in which a theologian acknowledges the formal collection but treats only favored books or themes as genuinely authoritative. Romans is not more canonical than Esther. John is not more inspired than Jude. Books differ in subject, length, clarity, historical prominence, and usefulness for proving a particular doctrine; they do not possess degrees of divine authority.

The canon is not the product of the reader’s experience. A spiritual response does not make a book canonical. The Spirit enables believers to recognize divine qualities already present; he does not transform ordinary writings into Scripture by using them devotionally.

Finally, the canon is not identical with the textual form of a particular translation. The question of canon asks which inspired writings God gave. The related question of text asks what words belong to those writings. Faithful translations communicate the canonical Word with derivative authority, but they do not constitute new canons in other languages.

The Strongest Objection

The strongest objection claims that defining canon by divine intention makes canonicity historically invisible. We cannot look directly into the divine decree. Must we not therefore define canon only by observable ecclesiastical reception?

The answer is that divine acts are known through their revealed effects and testimony. We do not see inspiration as a physical property under a microscope, yet Scripture tells us what inspiration is and gives objective evidence of its divine origin. Likewise, the books’ prophetic and apostolic provenance, divine qualities, covenantal function, preservation, and corporate reception manifest what God has done.

An observable effect must not be turned into the cause that produced it. The Church’s reception is real evidence, but it is evidence of a prior canonical authority. The goldsmith recognizes gold by true properties; his recognition does not make the metal gold. Whitaker and Ussher both used the image of lawful coin: instruction may direct an ignorant person to the king’s money, but the king’s stamp—not the instructor’s declaration—makes it current.⁶

A Working Definition

We may therefore state the definition in full:

The canon is the complete and closed collection of those writings which God, by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost through his prophets and apostles, gave to his covenant people as their permanent, sufficient, and infallible rule of faith and obedience; which he preserved by his providence, manifested by their divine qualities, and caused his Church corporately to receive and confess.

---

1. Louis Gaussen, The Canon of the Holy Scriptures from the Double Point of View of Science and of Faith, 3rd English ed. (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1867), propositions 5–7. ↩
2. John Cosin, A Scholastical History of the Canon of the Holy Scripture, in The Works of the Right Reverend Father in God John Cosin, vol. 3 (Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1849), chapter 1. ↩
3. Belgic Confession, article 5. ↩
4. Cosin, Scholastical History, chapter 1, sections 1–8. ↩
5. Michael J. Kruger, The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament Debate (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013), chapter 1; see also Kruger, Canon Revisited, chapter 3. ↩
6. William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, trans. and ed. William Fitzgerald (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1849), First Controversy, Question 3, chapter 2; James Ussher, A Body of Divinity (London, 1645), discussion of Scripture and tradition. ↩

Every phrase serves a purpose. It is a collection, complete and closed. It is given by God through prophets and apostles. It is a public covenantal deposit, permanent rather than temporary, sufficient rather than supplementary, and infallible rather than merely useful. It is the rule of faith and obedience. It is preserved, self-evidencing, and corporately received.

None of these affirmations makes the Church sovereign over the canon. Together they confess God’s sovereign action in giving, authenticating, preserving, and delivering his Word.

When the Church calls a book canonical, she therefore makes a comprehensive confession. God speaks in it. It belongs to the one body of Holy Scripture. Its doctrine binds the conscience. No man or council may remove it. No merely human writing may be placed beside it as possessing equal authority. God gave it to be preserved, heard, believed, obeyed, and transmitted until Christ returns.

The word canon contains far more than a catalogue. It declares the relation between God, his Word, and his Church. God is the author; Scripture is the rule; the Church is the believing recipient and obedient servant.

Notes and Further Reading