How did we get the 27 books that are in the New Testament today? How were they determined to be the inspired Word of God? These are not only important questions that every Christian should be able to answer, but they are topics that come up in current popular culture.
Like the idea that the apostles made up the story of the resurrection of Jesus Christ in order to gain power and riches, so also, the idea that Emperor Constantine created the New Testament Canon flies in the face of all available historical evidence as well as common sense. With regard to the Apostles, all of them were persecuted for their beliefs and none of then became rich or powerful in this world. In regard to the New Testament Canon, historical evidence shows that the New Testament books were in common usage long before Constantine and the Council of Constantinople (381 AD). It also shows two other important facts. First, the Catholic Church was the only major body that officially declared what was New Testament Canon, and that wasn’t until the Council of Trent in 1546. Second, no records indicate that the Council of Constantinople even debated a declaration of the contents of New Testament Canon.
Essentially, the canon of the New Testament was determined by what the early Church concluded about the apostolic authorship and authenticity of the books in circulation in the second century AD. This took place without any authoritarian body or council deciding it. The books were then divided into 2 classes for discussion purposes: those all the churches agreed upon and those about which some people (churches) weren’t using because they still had some doubts.
The result was that 20 books were agreed upon: the four Gospels, Acts, the 13 epistles of Paul, 1st Peter, and 1st John. Then there were the ones about which some people (churches) hadn’t used because of some objections of authorship or doctrinal consistency: Hebrews, James, 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, Jude, and Revelation.
After Luther’s observations regarding the canonicity of the New Testament in the early 1520s, prominent Lutheran theologians after him wanted to be sure that they could say, “This is the Word of the Lord” when they quote from a New Testament book. Thus, they continued to honor the historic homolegoumena (agreed upon) antilegomena (disputed) distinction.1
Johannes Brenz (1499-1570) was a prominent Lutheran theologian. In 1551, he was assigned 10 Lutheran theologians to formulate and author the document Confessio Wurtembergica. Article XXVII of the document states: “Concerning the Holy Scriptures, we call only those books of the Old and New Testaments canonical, whose authority has never been doubted in the church.”2
Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586), who helped developed the Formula of Concord (1577), contended that “the church does not have such power (to declare the New Testament’s seven antilegomena books to be canonical), that it can make true writings out of false, false out of true, out of doubtful and uncertain, certain, canonical and legitimate, without any certain and firm proofs which, as we have said above, are required for this matter”.3
Chemnitz says a book is canonical, not because the church declares it so, but because “God chose certain definite persons that they should write and adorned them with many miracles and divine testimonies that there should no doubt that what they wrote was divinely inspired”. Neither individuals nor councils created the canon; instead they came to recognize and acknowledge the self-authenticating quality of these writings, which imposed themselves as canonical upon the church.
Matthias Hafenreffer (1561-1619), a professor at University of Tubingen, taught that the New Testament’s seven antilegomena books were permissible for Christians to read but not to be used as dogmatic authority. Even the Gustavus Adolphus Bible, published in Sweden (1618), reflected Luther’s view that Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation were non-canonical.4
The Formula of Concord, Epitome, Summary 1-2 says: We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written: Psalm 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul writes in Galatians 1:8: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed.
Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.
To early Lutherans, the homolegoumena- antilegomena distinction was highly relevant to the doctrine of sola Scriptura. But in more modern times, Lutherans have tacitly accepted the Council of Trent’s dictate that all 27 New Testament books be accepted as canonical. However, no confessional Lutheran documents contain a list of, or specify which books comprise the New Testament Canon. Theoretically, if two of St. Paul’s lost epistles were found and authenticated, they could be accepted into New Testament canon.
A. W. Roebbelen (1817-1866) was a pastor who wrote a series of articles on the Book of Revelation for the synod’s periodical, Der Luteraner. In it he stated that he, like the Early Church and many Church Fathers, could not in good conscience accept Revelation as canonical. C. F. W. Walther (1811-1887) defended Roebbelen by quoting Chemnitz and other Lutheran theologians. He stated that a faithful pastor could rightly see Revelation as non-canonical and not be guilty of false doctrine or heresy. Furthermore, if a pastor was held to be guilty of false doctrine for denying the canonicity of an antilegomena book, it would be un-Lutheran. Walther says that the distinction between antilegomena and homolegoumena does not indicate a liberal or negative view of the Bible and its canonicity, but rather the opposite.5
When Missouri Synod Lutheran Churches ordain pastors, they ask them, “Do you accept the canonical books of the New Testament?” The Lutheran Church has never listed which books are canonical. Therefore, it has left room for inductees to say “yes” to the question with a clear conscience, while still doubting the books of the antilegomena. To contend that church councils do not determine the canonicity of books in the Bible is a distinctively Lutheran doctrine.6
1 Schmidt, Alvin J. Hallmarks of Lutheran Identity, St. Louis, Concordia Publishing House, 2017.
2 Ibid
3 Ibid
4 Ibid
5 Ibid
6 Ibid