What If We Found Another Letter from Paul?

    Imagine archaeologists discover a first-century letter. After years of investigation, the evidence becomes overwhelming. Paul really wrote it. He wrote it to a first-century church. The theology is orthodox. Paul even identifies himself as an apostle of Jesus Christ. Many conservative, credible scholars agree on the origin and authorship of the manuscript.

    Do we add it to the Bible? My first answer is, “Not on Tuesday.” Let’s slow down.

    The question is more complicated than asking whether Paul wrote it. The apostles certainly possessed unique authority from Christ. Paul says that he was an apostle “not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father” (Galatians 1:1). He could even say that anyone who considered himself spiritual should recognize that what Paul wrote was “a command of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 14:37).

    That is serious authority. But does everything an apostle wrote automatically become Scripture?

    Paul almost certainly wrote many things that are not collected in the Canon of Scripture. It seems reasonable that he could write a grocery list without producing inspired revelation, although that’s expensive parchment for groceries. Apostolic authorship would be enormously significant, but authorship alone would not settle the question.

    Paul mentions other letters that we do not possess. In 1 Corinthians 5:9, he refers to an earlier letter he had written to the Corinthians. Second Corinthians 2:3–4 appears to refer to another painful letter. Colossians 4:16 mentions a letter “from Laodicea” that the Colossians were supposed to read. Whatever precisely we make of those references, Paul clearly wrote more than the thirteen letters bearing his name in our New Testament. So discovering another authentic letter from Paul would not, by itself, require us to add another book to the Bible.

    This is where an important distinction helps. The church does not make something Scripture. Neither does apostolic authorship, by itself, make something Scripture. God does.

    Paul writes, “All Scripture is breathed out by God” (2 Timothy 3:16). Peter says that prophecy was not produced “by the will of man,” but that men “spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21). Scripture originates with God.

    That raises another question, however. Did God intend every instance of divine revelation to become permanent Scripture for the whole church? Again, apparently not.

    John tells us that Jesus did many things that were not written in his Gospel (John 20:30, 21:25). Acts records genuine prophets whose prophecies are not preserved for us. First Corinthians 14 describes prophetic activity in the gathered church without suggesting that every prophecy was being added to the Bible. God has spoken truly without preserving every word spoken as permanent canonical Scripture.

    So we have to distinguish several questions. Did Paul write it? Did Paul write it with apostolic authority? Was it inspired? And did God intend it to function as permanent Scripture for his church? Those questions are related, but they are not necessarily identical.

    The early church did not gather together and manufacture a Bible. The church recognized the Scriptures God had given. We can actually see that process beginning within the New Testament itself. Paul commanded that his letters be read publicly and circulated among churches. He told the Thessalonians, “I put you under oath before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers” (1 Thessalonians 5:27). He told the Colossians to have their letter read in Laodicea and to read the letter coming from Laodicea (Colossians 4:16). Even more strikingly, Peter refers to Paul’s letters alongside “the other Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:15–16). Recognition of New Testament writings as Scripture was already happening during the apostolic age.

    That recognition involved several things: apostolic authority, consistency with the apostolic gospel, reading and circulation among the churches, recognition among God’s people, the work of the Holy Spirit, and God’s providential preservation. None of those things gives the Church the power to turn an ordinary document into the Word of God. They are evidence by which the Church recognizes what God has given.

    This is where modern Christians might be tempted to move much too quickly. We like fast answers. We like the microwave more than marinade. We like a committee to meet, issue a statement, and settle the matter before lunch. Church history should make us a little more patient.

    Nicaea and its aftermath give us a way to consider the speed of decisions. The Church did not receive a difficult question on Monday, meet on Tuesday, and have every implication neatly settled by Wednesday. There were months of arguments, councils, faithful pastors, unfaithful pastors, political pressures, careful theologians, false starts, and plenty of mess. Yet through all of it, God preserved his Church.

    We see something similar, though certainly not identical, in our own day. Churches and entire denominations have spent years wrestling with questions surrounding marriage and sexuality. Some have rejected what Scripture teaches about marriage. Others have clarified and strengthened their convictions. Local churches started writing clauses into their faith statements. These things have played out over years and decades, sometimes with churches separating from denominations and institutions changing dramatically. Some churches had answers quickly, and some didn’t, but it took time for the Church to settle on more unified answers. The process is slow because churches are filled with people. We argue, misunderstand, sin, repent, study, pray, and sometimes stubbornly refuse to listen. Yet Christ has not abandoned his church. That gives me confidence when considering our hypothetical letter from Paul.

    I would not expect an archaeologist, seminary, denomination, or even a church council to announce that we now have “Second Romans” and start printing new Bibles. I would expect careful historical investigation, textual study, theological examination, and sustained consideration by faithful churches across traditions and nations. I suspect it would be bumpy. And I would be comfortable letting that process take generations.

    Ultimately, the question exposes where we place our confidence. Jesus said, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away” (Matthew 24:35). Isaiah declared, “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever” (Isaiah 40:8). Paul also understood the apostolic deposit as something to be guarded and handed down. Timothy was to “follow the pattern of the sound words” he had heard from Paul and “guard the good deposit” entrusted to him (2 Timothy 1:13–14). He was then to entrust what he had heard to faithful men who would teach others also (2 Timothy 2:2). That sounds remarkably like a God who intends to preserve what his Church needs.

    So would I add our newly discovered letter to my Bible? No. Not yet.

    I would read it. I would study it. I would ask whether apostolic authorship had truly been established. I would examine its relationship to the apostolic gospel already received. I hope I would listen carefully as faithful churches across the world wrestled with it. And then I would like to be content to wait. I can be impatient, but I know the pace is important. Maybe I would die before the question was settled. I’d like to say that’s fine too.

    My confidence in the canon does not finally rest in the brilliance of fourth-century bishops, modern archaeologists, textual scholars, denominational committees, or me. It rests in God. The Church does not create the canon. God gives his Word. And the God who gave his Word is quite capable of preserving it and caring for his church as she recognizes what he has given.