26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.
26 But [moreover]
Jesus now drew a distinction and not a contrast between His own teaching during His public ministry and that of the Spirit during the dispensation of the church (Ac 2:33).
the Helper,
The Greek idea of the Helper is Advocate. The coming of the Spirit would cushion the blow of Jesus’ departure from the apostles by interceding for them.
the Holy Spirit,
This is the only time the name “Holy Spirit” is found in the farewell discourse. The Greek says, “the Spirit, the holy one.” This puts stress on the idea that the Spirit is uniquely set apart. It is important to understand the distinctiveness of His person and character.
whom the Father will send in My name,
The Holy Spirit would come in Jesus’ name or in His authority. The Father, also, sent the Spirit (Jn 15:26). The Father and Son cooperated in the sending of the Spirit during the age of the church. He is the emissary of both the Father and Son. This is called in theology the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and Son.
“In My name” indicates that the Spirit was the officially designated representative of Jesus after His departure. He would act on Jesus’ behalf during the church age as the Advocate to both the Father and Son.
He will teach you [the apostles] all things,
The special ministry of the Holy Spirit to the apostles was to “teach.” The apostles had not understood much of what Jesus taught before the resurrection. They would grasp it more fully after the Holy Spirit came.
“All things” here means all things about Christ’s person and work. The role of the Holy Spirit was as an instructor who would enable the apostles to write Scripture and have the necessary information to establish the church. The teaching here also included things that Jesus did not teach during His public ministry. This is how the apostles would come to an accurate and complete understanding of truth so that they could write Scripture. The Spirit would complete the revelation brought by Jesus.
and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.
It is one thing to be taught but another to remember what we have learned. That was true of the apostles. They needed divine enablement to remember what Jesus taught them during His three years with them. This was crucial for the writing of the New Testament.
Jesus knew that the 11 had not completely grasped what He had taught. They needed a guarantee of the continuity of the content that He taught them by means of the Holy Spirit.
PRINCIPLE:
The Holy Spirit guaranteed to the apostles both previous and further revelation and its clarity.
APPLICATION:
The Spirit teaches from within. He would enable the apostles to recall both the words and concepts of Jesus. He would impress upon them crucial principles and prompt personal response to His teaching.
The Holy Spirit guarantees that we will receive the New Testament accurately and clearly. He gives continuity of revelation. The apostles were subject to the frailties of human beings. They forgot much of what Jesus taught and would need help writing the New Testament.
There is a tendency among believers to forget about Jesus’ love for us. Another issue is that, even if we have learned principles of life from God’s Word, we have a proclivity to grow stale in our appreciation for their value.
The Holy Spirit does not directly reveal new things to believers today; He brings to remembrance old things. He also rivets them in our mind if we open ourselves to His doing that. When we forget His teaching, the Spirit stirs up the vague memories and moves them into living reality. Then He rivets them into our memory.
We live in a day when evangelicals do not believe that they need to be taught. They want to live by their bootstraps, their experience, and not by clearly laid-out principles in God’s Word.
So the Holy Spirit is not revealing new things to us like He did with the apostles. Was Luke, Timothy, Titus and others apostles of Jesus Christ? Is the Holy Spirit still teaching us today through the means of scripture or just giving us divine enablement to remember things of old?
JROCK,
God is not revealing new truth; He illumines truth already extant or manifests Himself in creation (Ro 1), for example. The canon was closed so we do not have either new revelation or new Scripture.
Jesus spoke to only apostles in the upper room in John 14. The phraseology by Jesus speaking directly to those in the upper room clearly indicates this. Luke was an apostle based on the norms of Scripture but Titus and Timothy were not.
Apostles or prophets were the only authorized receptors of the canon. Acts indications only a person who has personally seen Jesus is an apostle.
See Geisler and Nix:
SOME COMMENTS ON NEW TESTAMENT CANONICITY
THE AUTHORS WERE APOSTLES OR PROPHETS
The same principle applies to the New Testament: propheticity determines canonicity. The church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:20). Apostles, by their very office, were accredited spokesmen for God. It was they whom Jesus promised:” The Holy Spirit … will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you “(John 14:26) and the Spirit of truth … will guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13). It was the “apostles’ teaching” in which the early church continued (Acts 2:42) and it was the apostles who were given special signs (miracles) to confirm their message (Heb. 2:3–4). Those confirmatory signs were given to other apostles than the twelve, such as the apostle Paul, who had “the signs of a true apostle” (2 Cor. 12:12). There was also the gift of prophecy (1 Cor. 12:10). Some “prophets,” such as Agabus, even gave messages from God to apostles (Acts 11:27–28). John the apostle considered himself one of “the prophets” (Rev. 22:9). So, in the New Testament as well as the Old, the determining factor in whether a book was canonical was its propheticity.
Every New Testament book was written by an apostle or prophet. Thus each book has either apostolic authorship or apostolic teaching. And in either case it possesses apostolic authority. Matthew was an apostle. Mark is considered by many to be “Peter’s gospel,” because Mark was closely associated with the apostle Peter (1 Pet. 5:13). That relationship notwithstanding, Mark had his own God-given ministry (Acts 12:25; 2 Tim. 4:11). The author of Luke was an associate of the apostle Paul (Col. 4:14; Philem. 24). Luke also wrote Acts (1:1). John was an apostle. He wrote John, three epistles bearing his name, and Revelation (Rev. 1:4, 9). Paul wrote at least the thirteen epistles that bear his name (Romans-Philemon). The author of Hebrews is not known for sure. But whoever its author was, he received revelation from God (Heb. 1:1), the truth of which was confirmed by the twelve apostles (Heb. 2:3–4). James was a half brother of Jesus (James 1:1; Gal. 1:19) and a leader in the apostolic church in Jerusalem (Acts 15:13; Gal. 2:9). The apostle Peter authored two epistles (see 1 Pet. 1:1; 2 Pet. 2:1), although he used Silvanus as a scribe to pen the first one (1 Pet. 5:12). This leaves only Jude, who was also a half brother of Jesus (Jude 1:1; cf. Matt. 13:55), and he too spoke with prophetic authority (vs. 3, 5, 20ff.).
There is good evidence that all twenty-seven books of the New Testament come from the apostles and their associates. Indeed, even some liberal scholars are now insisting on a very early apostolic date for the New Testament books. Bishop John A. T. Robinson, father of the so-called “Death of God” movement, has more recently concluded that “all the various types of the early church’s literature … were coming into being more or less concurrently in the period between 40 and 70.”21 The renowned archaeologist William F. Albright came to the same conclusion, declaring that “every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and the eighties of the first century A.D. (very probably sometime between A.D. 50 and 75).”22 Jesus died in A.D. 33,23 so the New Testament was written during the lifetime of the apostles and eyewitnesses (see Luke 1:1–4; 1 Cor. 15:6).
Ample evidence confirms that all the books of the New Testament are apostolic or prophetic. The question that remains is whether all the apostolic books are in the New Testament. Two books in particular have been called into question: the so-called Epistle of the Laodiceans (Col. 4:16) and a Corinthian epistle some believe was written before 1 Corinthians (see 1 Cor. 5:9). These books pose a problem concerning canonicity because they were both prophetic and yet are allegedly not in the canon. If propheticity is the key to canonicity, how is it that some prophetic (or apostolic) books are not in the canon? There are two basic responses to this question.
First, it is possible that these books were not prophetic, for in addition to their divinely authoritative writings, the prophets and apostles had private or personal correspondence. They may even have had grocery lists, travel itineraries, or the like. Such items were not inspired. Shemaiah the prophet and Iddo the seer had some “records” (2 Chron. 12:15) that were probably not inspired. There seem to be two keys as to whether or not a writing by a person (who was a prophet) was prophetic. First, it had to be a public, not strictly a private writing. That is, it had to be offered to the people of God and not merely a private record. For example, of Solomon’s 3,000 proverbs and 1,005 songs only those publicly presented by Solomon were immediately recognized as authoritative (see chap. 13 discussion). Second, it had to be teaching something to the people of God. In short, it had to be a word from God for the people of God. Even Paul’s so-called private epistles (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon) fit these criteria, as do 2 and 3 John, which many believe were written to individuals. All of these books contain instructions written to leaders of churches, and the books were obviously circulated and collected by the churches. Otherwise they would not have been part of the Bible through the centuries. The Bible does not guarantee that everything a prophet says or writes is from God but only that what he teaches as a truth from God is really from God. In short, a prophet is not infallible in his private utterance but only in his prophetic utterances. Hence it is possible that the prophets wrote other things which were not prophetic.
Second, it is possible that a book could be prophetic but still not canonic. For although all canonic writings are prophetic, it is possible that not all prophetic writings are canonic. That is, perhaps God did not intend that all prophetic books would be preserved for posterity but only those select few He deemed necessary for the believer’s faith and practice. If that be so, then propheticity is only a necessary condition of canonicity but not a sufficient condition. In that case there would be another condition for canonicity. The most likely candidate for such a further condition would be acceptance by the people of God of the books they deemed of value to the broader Christian community. But this view would mean that there are (or could be) books that are inspired words of God but not part of the Inspired Word of God. This is not only highly unlikely but is also unnecessary.
Here is information on the closing of the canon.
THE CANON IS CLOSED
This statement raises an interesting question: What if a truly prophetic or apostolic book were found today: would it belong in the canon? Of course, the question is only hypothetical, and so the answer is only hypothetical, too. But it is an interesting question, and it does focus an important issue not yet stressed: the providence of God. It seems highly unlikely that God would have inspired a book He did not preserve. Why should He give a revelation for the church but not provide for the preservation of it? It is understandable that God might give special guidance to certain individuals, which He did not deem necessary to do for the broader body of believers. But to provide instruction in the Christian faith by way of a revelation He did not preserve for others is another matter altogether. Perhaps the question could be rephrased this way: Is the biblical canon closed? To this one should respond that the canon is closed theologically and historically, and is open only hypothetically.
Theologically the canon is closed. God has inspired only so many books and they were all completed by the end of the apostolic period (first century A.D.). God used to speak through the prophets of the Old Testament, but in the “last days” he spoke through Christ (Heb. 1:1) and the apostles whom He empowered with special signs “(miracles). But because the apostolic age ended with the death of the apostles (Acts 1:22), and because no one since apostolic times has had the signs of a true apostle” (2 Cor. 12:12) whereby they can raise the dead (Acts 20:10–12) and perform other unique supernatural events (Acts 3:1–10; 28:8–9), it may be concluded that God’s “last day” revelation is complete (see Acts 2:16–18). This does not mean that God’s visitations are over, because there are many other things yet to be fulfilled (see Acts 2:19–20). Nor does it mean that there will be no new understanding of God’s truth after the first century. It simply means that there is no new revelation for the church. Indeed, this does not necessarily imply that there have been no miracles since the first century. Supernatural acts will be possible as long as there is a Supernatural Being (God). It is not the fact of miracles that ceased with the apostles but the special gift of miracles possessed by a prophet or apostle who could claim, like Moses, Elijah, Peter, or Paul, to have a new revelation from God. Such a prophet or apostle could back up his claim by dividing a sea, bringing down fire from heaven, or raising the dead. These were special gifts bestowed on prophets (apostles), and they are not possessed by those who are not the recipients of new revelation (Acts 2:22; Heb. 2:3–4).
Historically the canon is closed. For there is no evidence that any such special gift of miracles has existed since the death of the apostles. The immediate successors of the apostles did not claim new revelation, nor did they claim these special confirmatory gifts. In fact, they looked on the apostolic revelation as full and final (see chaps. 6, 16, and 17). When new cults have arisen since the time of the apostles, their leaders have claimed to be apostles in order that their books could gain recognition. Historically, the canon is closed with the twenty-seven books written in the apostolic period. They alone are and have been the books of the canon through all the intervening centuries. No other non-apostolic books have been accepted since the earliest centuries, and no new books written by the apostles have come to light. In His providence, God has guided the church in the preservation of all the canonical books.
The canonical books are those necessary for faith and practice of believers of all generations. It seems highly unlikely that God would inspire a book in the first century that is necessary for faith and practice and then allow it to be lost for nearly two thousand years. From a providential and historical stand-point the canon has been closed for nearly two thousand years.
Geisler, N. L., & Nix, W. E. (1986). A General Introduction to the Bible (Rev. and expanded., pp. 217–218). Chicago: Moody Press.
What’s the meaning of Canon?
Does it have same foundation as the as the Roman Catholics canon laws/ rules
Alice, thanks for your post.
The Canon is the collection of inspired books that belong to the Bible. The word “canon” means standard. Certain books of the Bible meet the standards of books that belong to the Bible. Other books claiming to belong to the Bible do not meet the standards of canonicity, such as the “false writings” (pseudepigrapha) in the first few centuries. Those books of the Bible are not inspired.