Articles
Is the New Testament Complete?
In a recent Bible study someone asked the question, “Are we sure that we have all the books of the Bible? Wasn’t the Bible compiled hundreds of years after Jesus by the Catholic Church? How do we know that something important wasn’t left out?” These are valid questions and require some historical research into the process of canonization as well as faith in God’s providential power to accomplish His purposes.
In this article we will concentrate more on the compilation of the NT books. As for the OT, Paul notes of the Jews, “to them were committed the oracles of God” (Rom 3:2). The Jews took this responsibility gravely, even if collecting and preserving the Scriptures was self-condemning as the prophets of God railed against their unfaithfulness. Further, the meticulousness of the Masoretic copyists is legendary, and the Dead Sea Scrolls are a testament to their accuracy and completeness in safeguarding the OT text.
But is it true that early Christianity was essentially bereft of a NT until church councils formally declared a completed “canon” of our present 27 books? It is clear from the NT itself that a gradual process was underway in the decades after Jesus’ death of preaching inspired words and writing inspired documents. More specifically, Jesus didn’t personally deliver to mankind the complete corpus of truth that God wanted mankind to know (cf. Jn 14:25-26; 16:12-14). This would be supplied in days to come by the Holy Spirit’s revelations to inspired apostles and prophets (cf. Eph 2:20; 1 Cor 2:10-16). Paul was sending Timothy to Corinth “who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church” (1 Cor 4:17). In this very epistle Paul challenges the obstinate to “acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord” (14:37). Paul later noted that when the Ephesians read what he wrote, they would know what he knew (3:3-5).
But disseminating truth in epistolary form was not limited to the receiving congregation only: “Now when this epistle is read among you, see that it is read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that you likewise read the epistle from Laodicea” (Col 4:16). Thus, it was God’s will that truth be formulated by addressing real life situations in local churches (Ephesus, Philippi, Corinth, etc.), among regional congregations (Galatia) and in the lives of individuals (Timothy, Titus, Philemon, etc.). This was, like other first century church developments, a gradual process covering decades of time and a vast geographical territory.
A uniformity of doctrine revealed by inspired apostles and prophets was the product of the Holy Spirit’s work. Paul gravely warns against anyone, who would “pervert the gospel of Christ” by altering the original message (Gal 1:6-9). Other exhortations warn not to drift from what had been proclaimed (Heb 2:1), not to abandon the faith for “doctrines of demons” (1 Tim 4:1ff), not to substitute fables, profane and old wives’ fables (1 Tim 1:4; 4:7) or teach anything contrary to “wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness” (1 Tim 6:3).
“In order to know which books should be read in the churches (cf. 1 Thess. 5:27 and 1 Tim. 4:13) and which books could be definitely applied to the theological and practical problems of the Christian church (cf. 2 Tim. 3: 16-17), it became necessary to have a complete collection of the books that could provide the authoritative norm for faith and practice” (Geisler and Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible 278). The authors also note a gradual incursion of heresy over time that created a need for a uniform recognition of authoritative books. Luke suggests such a trend in the introduction to his gospel: “Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which are most surely believed among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed” (Lk 1:1-4). Again, a literary work aimed at an individual is intended for wider dissemination to establish an authoritative narrative – in this case, that of the life of Christ.
What was the criteria of accepting certain works as canonical? “The initial reason for collecting and preserving the inspired books was that they were prophetic. That is, since they were written by an apostle or prophet of God, they must be valuable, and if valuable, they should be preserved” (ibid 277). Even Peter recognized a body of Paul’s writings which he includes in the category of “scripture” (2 Pet 3:15-16). Thus the standard of acceptance was not, “Do we agree with or like what is presented in the document?” or “Is it easy to comprehend?” but rather, “Is there evidence of divine origin of the work?” Granted, this process took some time and was accompanied by some controversy, but this was because of the high standards that were being applied to the writings to ensure authenticity.
Further, “the earliest available list of New Testament books is known as the Muratorian Canon and is dated around A.D. 150. It includes the four Gospels, Acts, thirteen letters of Paul, Jude, two (perhaps all three) letters of John, and the Revelation … It claims that these were accepted by the ‘universal church’ … By A.D. 240, Origen from Alexandria was using all our 27 books as ‘Scripture,’ and no others, and referred to them as the ‘New Testament’ … But it was not until A.D. 367 that Athanasius … provided us with an actual list of New Testament books identical with ours” (Brian H. Edwards, The New Answers Book – 2 174). Beyond this there are copious quotations of the “early church fathers” that indicate which books were considered early on to be authentic.
One final point: As we were not present for such deliberations, and we do not have a detailed account of the process, we must ultimately trust in the providence of God to preserve for us the revelation He wanted us to have. It is a matter of faith that the God who went to the trouble of revealing these things in the first place – even to the degree of sending His own Son in the flesh – would oversee the process of recognition and preservation of these works into a unified, complete New Testament. There is no sensible reason to fear that some crucial writing was overlooked or that the process of canonization was so corrupt that we cannot trust the books that comprise the new testament.
