Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures by Herman N. Ridderbos
Essentials in Biblical Theology Series
Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures by Herman N. Ridderbos[1]
In Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures, Herman Ridderbos argues that the authority and canonicity of Scripture can only be understood within the framework of redemptive history (RH) and by affirming the self-authenticating character of Scripture (viii). The objective of the book is to elucidate the relationship between the historia salutis and Scripture.
Chapter 1 begins by describing the corrupting influence of post-Enlightenment biblical criticism on the church’s understanding of the nature and authority of Scripture. One leading scholar who rejected the idea of Scripture as canon was Johann Salomo Semler. His investigation proceeded on the basis of a presupposed dichotomy between theological and historical perspectives. He states, “the canon was a matter of ecclesiastical discipline, not a personal faith” (2).
In contrast to historical critics like Semler, Luther viewed Scripture as the sole source of special revelation. However, he set forth his own criterion for canon, that which “preaches and urges Christ” (4). This resulted in the questioning of certain NT books like James, Jude, and Revelation. Consequently, the idea of a fixed canon was replaced by “a canon within canon.” Canonicity became dependent upon a particular “norm” that leads to Christ (6). Ridderbos identifies a problem in placing the final decision regarding the canonicity of biblical books upon either the church or the individual. He warns that such an approach risks reducing Scripture to a merely subjective and existential perspective (7), and ultimately “diminishes the significance of the Scripture as canon” (8).
The Reformed view of the canon begins with God. Ridderbos describes this foundational principle as “God as canon” (12), emphasizing that the authority of Scripture is grounded not in ecclesiastical decision or individual judgment but in God himself. Contrary to Luther, Reformed theologians accept the twenty-seven books as canon. The basis of canonicity is not the individual’s experience nor the church’s recognition, but the witness of the Spirit (testimonium Spiritus Sancti) and the self-attestation of Scripture (9).
Ridderbos, consistent with Abraham Kuyper’s understanding of the canon, regards redemptive history as the primary context for explaining both the authority and the canonicity of Scripture. This redemptive-historical consideration challenges the view that the canon is merely a “phenomenon that belongs to church history” (12). While Ridderbos agrees with this phenomenon in principle, he asserts that the material authority of the New Testament (NT) is grounded in the Resurrection (13). Jesus is God’s own canon, revealed in the flesh. To ensure the transmission of this revelation, Jesus Himself established a formal authority structure (13), which highlights the central role of the apostles within the framework of redemptive history. Here, Ridderbos explains how the NT unites the central events of redemption with their authoritative proclamation by the apostles (15).
Apostolic authority was communicated through both oral and written traditions. It refers to the doctrine or apostolic gospel (Rom. 6:17; Gal. 1:12–14), and it is inextricably linked with Christ (1 Cor. 11:23; 1 Thes. 4:15). Ridderbos underscores that both the oral and written traditions are equally authoritative (18). Thus, he claims that the redemptive-historical foundation of the NT can be found in that “apostolic authority and tradition” (24). From this discussion, Ridderbos presents three positive perspectives: (1) by accepting an objective canon, the church acted in accordance with RH; (2) the canon is considered closed; and (3) the canon exists exclusively in written form. Conversely, he outlines three negative perspectives: (1) there are no principles beyond apostolic authority; (2) there is no notion of a canon within a canon; and (3) there is no actualistic view of the canon, that is, no attempt to redefine the canon on the basis of contemporary experience or relevance (24–30).
Ridderbos now turns to the recognition of the canon, and he asserts that the canonicity of a given book does not rest on the church’s decision or on the means by which such a decision might hypothetically be made whether through “historical investigation or in a posteriori fashion” (33). In a straightforward way, he states, “the canon is not established by the church but the church by the canon” (33). He interacts here with the Roman Catholic view of infallibility and questions its claims. He contends that the recognition of canon lies “solely in the a priori canon itself,” the redemptive-historical reality—“the reality that precedes faith, church and the history of the canon” (36–37).
Ridderbos further states that the canon is not formed in response to false teachings and teachers. Why four Gospels? Why twenty-seven books? Ridderbos answers that the church has simply recognized these Gospels and epistles. He maintains that Christ is the “content of the canon and its great presupposition” (43). In relation to the closing of the canon, Ridderbos - states the NT canon is not a result of “ecclesiastical survey” and that there are no formal criteria of canonicity (46). He argues, Sacra Scriptura sui ipsius interpres, which translates to “Holy Scripture is its own interpreter” (47).
In Chapter 2, Ridderbos explicates the nature, content, and authority of the written canon using redemptive-historical categories. He begins by emphasizing the inadequacy of historical-critical exegesis with regard to establishing the canon’s authority, since this method abandons the revelatory character of tradition (49).
Kerygma (proclamation of redemption) is used only once in the Gospels (Mark). Ridderbos states that this is the “typical designation of the character of the content of the NT” (50). The verb form is used predominantly in the NT (Mark 1:4; Matt. 3:1; Mark 1:38; Luke 4:18–19). The noun and verb forms connote a proclamation of something new (decisive event), and they refer to the content of NT revelation (51). Ridderbos explains that the “Gospel characterizes the content of NT revelation in the same way that kerygma does, that is, as the message of God’s great reversal, as the redemptive intrusion of God into history” (51). The kerygma, which refers to the proclamation of salvation, can be found in its original form in the Gospels (Mark 1:1). It emphasizes not only the “message” but also the “event,” highlighting the historical occurrence of the proclamation. However, critical scholars question the historicity of this message. Critical scholars express skepticism about the information that can be known regarding Jesus. For instance, Martin Kähler argues that the kerygma does not provide historical descriptions. Ridderbos challenges these arguments and stresses that the kerygma holds significance only when grounded in the factual reality of the historical event of redemption (56). He proposes that the kerygma is both “revelatory” and a component of RH (57).
Marturia (witness to redemption) “designates the content of the gospel in its original historically visible and audible form” (58). It carries a juridical connotation, referring to someone who has been divinely appointed by Christ to bear authoritative testimony to His redemptive work. Its relationship with kerygma reveals the character of the gospel (59). The word is used primarily to describe the ministry of the apostles (Paul, Acts 22:14ff; John, 15:27; Peter, 1 Pet 5:1). Ridderbos explains that the main idea here is that marturia is “not only a witness to revelation but is itself a part of this revelation” (60). Moreover, marturia is concerned with the meaning of facts, not merely their perception (factual content) or proclamation (redemptive significance, 68).
Didachê, which teaches about redemption, explains other New Testament books and is built upon kerygma and marturia. While the kerygma and marturia focus on laying the foundation for the church through proclamation and witness, the didachê refers to the protection and nurture of the sheep (68–69). Teaching goes hand in hand with kerygma (Matt. 4:23) and is distinguished from kerygma more by its form than its content (70). What is emphasized is that the proclamation of the message of salvation also appears in the form of teaching (70).
Ridderbos concludes, “the nature of authority cannot be expressed in one word. Rather, the NT bears that authority as the one gospel whose authority derives from one central point—the activity of God that encompasses the world and history in the coming and the work of his son, Jesus Christ” (76).
Ridderbos holds a lofty view of Scripture, viewing God as the ultimate canon. When this truth is fully grasped, it leads to a proper understanding of both the doctrine of Scripture and the doctrine of the church (40). This conviction reflects the Reformed tradition’s insistence that Scripture is not merely a witness to revelation but revelation itself, the living voice of God. By rooting the canon in God Himself, Ridderbos avoids both ecclesiastical subjectivism and individual existentialism, insisting that the canon is objective, self-authenticating, and grounded in redemptive history. As Geerhardus Vos reminds us, “Revelation is not an isolated datum but is organically connected with the great acts of redemption,”[2] a statement that underscores Ridderbos’ claim that the canon is inseparable from the historia salutis.
Ridderbos’ explanation of apostolic tradition is valuable because it clarifies Roman Catholic misconceptions regarding this concept. His insights about the nature of apostolic witness are particularly impressive, especially as they relate to the Synoptic Gospels. While Matthew was written by an apostle, the others were not directly authored by apostles themselves. Despite this, these Gospels reflect the essence of apostolic tradition and the gospel message which centers on the person and work of Christ. By grounding the canonicity of the NT in the redemptive-historical framework, Ridderbos highlights its unique character and absolute authority. This emphasis resonates with Herman Bavinck’s conviction that “Holy Scripture is not a dead letter but the living voice of God’s Spirit,”[3] showing that the canon’s authority lies not in ecclesiastical decree but in the Spirit’s self-attestation.[4]
One limitation is the brevity of the book. More scholarly readers may wish Ridderbos to explain his redemptive categories—kerygma, marturia, and didachê—in greater detail, to explore their relationship with one another, or to clarify their connection to an important OT background. How does Ridderbos’ kerygma differ from that of other scholars who also use the term (e.g., Bultmann), and can we really draw a fine line between kerygma and didachê? A more extended treatment would have enriched the discussion and provided greater clarity for readers navigating the complexities of NT authority.
Overall, the strength of this volume–and its chief contribution to NT scholarship–lies in its sound and coherent argument for the canonicity and authority of the NT, as well as its arguments against historical-critical and existential approaches to the NT. In the book, Ridderbos argues against (1) the inadequacy of various approaches to explain the Scripture’s authority and (2) their implausibility because they are subjective (focusing on man) and reductive (maintaining a low view of the Scripture). His work stands firmly within the Reformed tradition, echoing Bavinck’s insistence that Scripture is self-attesting and G.K. Beale’s Christocentric hermeneutic that sees Christ as the climax of redemptive history. Beale notes, “The New Testament authors understood Christ as the climax of redemptive history, fulfilling the Old Testament,”[5] a perspective that dovetails with Ridderbos’ claim that Christ is the content and presupposition of the canon.
Ridderbos’ work has significant implications for the study of biblical theology (BT). First, it demonstrates that canon cannot be abstracted from historia salutis. The authority of Scripture is inseparable from God’s saving acts. Second, it reinforces the principle that Scripture interprets itself, providing a hermeneutical safeguard against both critical reductionism and ecclesiastical overreach. Third, it highlights the Christocentric nature of canon, showing that Christ is both the presupposition and fulfillment of revelation. Finally, it affirms that BT must be attentive to the categories of proclamation (kerygma), witness (marturia), and teaching (didachê), which together form the redemptive-historical foundation of NT authority.
Jerome D. David
Bible Church International (December 2025)
TL;DR
Ridderbos argues that Scripture’s authority and canonicity are inseparable from redemptive history (historia salutis).
He critiques Enlightenment criticism, Luther’s “canon within a canon,” and the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical authority.
He argues that the canon begins with God Himself, is grounded in the resurrection, and is recognized by the church.
He posits that apostolic authority, both oral and written, is equally binding and foundational to NT authority.
Finally, Ridderbos defends the view that the canon is self-authenticating, closed, and centered on Christ as its content and presupposition.
[1] Herman N. Ridderbos, Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures, trans. H. De Jongste, rev. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1988).
[2] Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1975), 5.
[3] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 1, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 442.
[4] For a robust understanding of the self‑attesting character of Scripture, see John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol. 1 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1976), 35–44.
[5] G.K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 22.
