One of the most challenging ideas for my own Christian journey has been that of the biblical canon, especially the New Testament. Although a variety of arguments are used these days to substantiate the documents that we call the canon, real questions can arise. Much of this is because, however we describe the church’s acceptance, recognition, or affirmation of the New Testament, there is often a lingering sense that only God (or God-in-flesh) should be able to designate what is Scripture. Only God has the authority to tell us what belongs to the collection of his words.
This article will argue in brief that Jesus does this, although not in so many words.
To begin, consider a thought experiment. Imagine for a moment that you were told that your sibling—separated from you at birth, whom you did not know existed—would be coming to your door this afternoon. Your father had sent him, and you should let him stay with you. When a knock comes in the middle of the afternoon, you open the door and see a man who looks a good deal like your father, sounds like your father, and even has some of the same mannerisms. You would immediately deduce that he is your brother, even before he says so. The recognition and welcome would be instantaneous.
However, if the same man knocked unannounced, it would take a considerable amount of fact-checking and questions before you believed that he is your brother. You might even struggle to know what criteria to use, with all the identity theft that happens these days. And why did he show up unannounced?
The parallel should be obvious. Things that show up without announcement and claim our allegiance or support can rightly be met with suspicion—especially a group of documents claiming divine sanction (cf. 2 Thess 3:17). But what if Jesus commanded that something like our New Testament would happen, completing God’s witness about his Son to humanity? What if the church was meant to expect the documents we now call the canon?
This is the argument I want to pursue in the following nine theses, suggestive rather than exhaustive.
1. Jesus and the Old Testament
Jesus recognized the Old Testament as authoritative, God-given Scripture that points toward himself. When speaking to his disciples about divine witness to his death and resurrection, he mentions “the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44), which correspond to the Torah, Prophets, and Writings in the Hebrew Bible. Moreover, the things written there “must” (Gk. dei) happen by sovereign divine plan (24:46–47). The Hebrew Bible is a divine word (“Scripture”) that is about him (cf. John 5:37–39).
2. Jesus Himself Was the Word
The climax of God’s communication was Jesus himself (John 1:1, 17–18), his life, death, and resurrection. Repeatedly, the book of Acts tells us that Jesus’ resurrection is God’s vindication of him so that the world might recognize his divine and messianic claims (Acts 10:40–43; 13:30, 37–38; 17:31). If the resurrection is true, then the words of Jesus are true and authoritative.
3. Jesus Appointed Eye-Witnesses
Jesus was careful to appoint the apostles as eye-witnesses (marturos) of his life, death, and resurrection (Mark 3:13–19; Matt 16:16–19; John 14:26; 15:26–27). Witness in the New Testament is primarily judicial in nature. Moreover, the apostles (including Paul; cf. 1 Cor 14:37–38) self-consciously understood their own role as uniquely designated in this way, as the testimony of Acts makes clear (Acts 1:21–22; 4:33; 5:32; 8:25; 13:29–31; 18:5; 26:16).
4. Jesus Sent the Spirit to Ensure the Witness
Jesus taught that the Spirit would ensure true witness about himself. The Spirit would supernaturally remind the apostles of Jesus’ words to ensure accuracy (John 14:26), testify to them in order that they too might testify (15:26), and empower them for witness (Acts 1:8).
5. The Implicit Command to Obey the Witness
When taken together, the previous two theses make it obvious that Jesus expected the apostolic witness to be the definitive testimony about himself. To fail to believe it would be to reject Jesus’ own designation of human witnesses and the Spirit’s witness.
6. Some Parts of the New Testament Affirm Themselves as This Witness
John’s Gospel is extremely significant in this regard. As seen above, it presents the apostles as appointed witnesses and promises the Spirit to ensure that their witness will be successful and truthful. But there is more: John’s Gospel closes by commending itself to the reader as the very witness Jesus prophesied. “This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true” (John 21:24). John’s Gospel is the Spirit-empowered witness as noted in thesis 4.[1]
Other New Testament writings stand close to this. Matthew’s Gospel is hard to interpret as anything other than a conscious attempt to fulfill the mission of Matthew 28:19–20 through the apostolic voice. Luke’s careful attention to apostolic testimony by the power of the Spirit (Luke 1:1–4) and his self-conscious position under apostolic authority, authorized by Jesus (Acts 1:1–4), resembles a presidential aide writing an authorized biography: it carries the president’s authority, not the aide’s. Luke–Acts, too, fits under the rubric John attributes to itself. And so it goes throughout the New Testament.
7. Jesus Prophesies the Success of the Apostolic Witness
Jesus prophesies the success of this witness. When he says, “My sheep hear my voice” (John 10:27) as a general principle, and “they will listen to my voice” (10:16) as a prediction, he affirms that those who are truly his will recognize the apostolic witness as true and believe it—even among competing voices of false shepherds (John 10:7–9). In the greater context of John’s Gospel (see theses 3, 4, 6), Jesus is saying that his sheep will recognize John’s Gospel as the Spirit-empowered witness and believe it.
Surely the voice of Jesus should not be limited to John’s Gospel. While this prediction may not itself close the canon, the closure of the New Testament is surely its fulfillment. The New Testament canon, including the exact books within it, is the success of Jesus’ sheep hearing his voice.
8. The Apostles Recognize This Witness
When the appointed eye-witnesses encounter this witness from sources other than themselves, they recognize it. Peter affirms Paul’s witness (2 Pet 3:15–16; Gal 2:9–10), and Paul casually quotes Luke (1 Tim 5:18). This is a cross-referencing of divinely sanctioned authority. The term they use is Scripture—placing these writings in the same category as the words God had previously spoken about Christ, and which Christ himself affirmed. They, as witnesses, recognize the fulfillment of Jesus’ promise.
9. No Other Witness Was Appointed
The apostolic witness ends with a kind of deafening silence. After Matthias is appointed as an authorized eye-witness (Acts 1:21–22, 26), no others are appointed, even after the death of James (Acts 12:1–4). The foundational messengers (cf. Matt 16:18–19; Eph 2:20; 3:5) had been appointed and would complete the foundational witness Jesus gave them. Though many proclaim Christ in Acts, it is the apostles who are called witnesses (the regular usage of the martus word group; cf. Matt 28:19–20).
In light of Jesus’ designated apostles and the Spirit’s ensuring their witness, who would dare place themselves among such authorities? Only the words affirmed by Jesus (the Old Testament) or the witness promised by Jesus (the New Testament) can bind our belief and practice as the word of God. All else is merely human speech.
Summary
We have seen that Jesus’ own words and authority serve as the ground for accepting both the Old and New Testament canon. As with the illustration of the returning brother, Jesus appointed eye-witnesses; by the Spirit he ensured that they would witness successfully; he prophesied the acceptance of this faithful witness; these witness-documents show signs of mutual affirmation under the authority of Jesus; and the witness ended with the last apostle. Church history shows that the church obeyed Jesus, fulfilling his prophecy and accepting the New Testament.
We often struggle to see the connection between classic Protestant views of the canon—namely, that the church recognizes the authority of the documents that created it—because, although true, such views rarely echo the words of Jesus. But unless Jesus commanded and foretold such a process among his sheep, we have no strong reason to trust it. Without Jesus’ words, the New Testament would be like the unannounced visitor at the door.
But since Jesus did give us every reason to expect what we now call the New Testament, receiving the canon is simply believing the words of Jesus. We believe that Jesus gave his life as a ransom for us (Mark 10:45) and that he will come in glory to rule (Mark 13:24–26). Should we not also believe his authoritative words—fulfilled in history—about the witness to his life, death, and resurrection? We do not need some other historical rationale for believing these doctrines; why should we need one for the apostolic witness?
This does not minimize the importance of early canon lists, patristic citations, or the church’s reception of these books. They deserve careful study, for they are the evidence of Jesus’ words coming to pass. They are not accidents of history but, like the destruction of Jerusalem (Mark 13:14–20), a fulfillment of Jesus’ sovereignty over the future. They show how the church welcomed these documents; they do not tell us why it should have. Jesus’ words must carry the final authority. He gave instructions and predictions, and the church, to return to our illustration, welcomed what it had been told to expect.
Of course, this argument will not convince those who do not believe Jesus is the Christ. They must first come to believe in his resurrection, and that is another discussion. But for those who have put faith in Christ, Jesus’ own words about the witness concerning him should be enough to give certainty (cf. Luke 1:1–3) as we approach our Christ-book, the Bible.
[1] I owe this line of reasoning to Herman Ridderbos’ Redemptive History and the New Testament.
