The question in the back of the minds of many non-Christians concerning the Bible frequently is, 'How can we be sure that we have an accurate copy of the original writings?' Sadly, many have been told that the Bible has been hopelessly corrupted. Some have been persuaded that the New Testament, including the books that focus upon the life of Christ (Matthew-John), were written long after Jesus lived and hence their account of His life is probably flawed or embellished with many fables or myths about Him that arose in the mean time.

I. The Promises of Jesus to His Apostles:

While Jesus was upon this earth He personally promised that Divine guidance would be given them into all truth. We should note some specific statements in these promises: (1) They wouldn't be left to their own fallible memories to reconstruct and record the events of His life. (John 14:26 '..and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.') (2) They would be His "witnesses" (John 15:27 ' and you will bear witness also' (i.e. of Him). At this point we must pause to consider an important thought. Some say that the gospels were written long after Jesus lived, and that they were written by others instead of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. In addition, they tell us that myth and fable have crept into the accounts. The problem with this view is that it makes Jesus look incredibly incompetent. So is this what happened: After so carefully recording all the events in the O.T., God comes to earth personally in the body of a man, teaches the greatest sermons ever known, works unheard of wonders, dies upon the cross for the sins of the world, and is resurrected, appears to His disciples and then ascends into heaven to sit at the right hand of God, BUT OOPS, He forgot to have somebody record the most valuable information of all! In this wonderful and great plan of God thought out from eternity, the questions concerning: 'How are others going to know what God did for them, besides the eyewitnesses? Who is going to tell people the meaning of Jesus' death upon the cross? How are people going to know what to do to receive the benefits of His death?' All these questions were never addressed or considered? Jesus would live the perfect life and then die upon the cross for the sins of the world and be resurrected, and yet no thought was ever given to, 'how do we let people know about this?' Is that what happened? (3) If you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, then you MUST BELIEVE than an accurate record of His life would be left for future generations! (4) They would be guided into "all truth" (John 16:13) This implies that there are no "lost teachings of Jesus". (5) Another point needs to be considered. Jesus said concerning the Spirit, 'for He will not speak on His own initiative' (16:13). He said the same thing concerning Himself. (John 5:19,30; 14:24) Neither Jesus nor the Holy Spirit could add a single word to the revelation from the Father. But the apostles did? But mere mortals were allowed to embellish the account of His life? Mere men were allowed to improvise upon and tinker with God's truth? I don't think so!

II. Inspiration Must Apply To Their Writings:

Jesus promised inspiration to His disciples (Matthew 10:19-20 'for it shall be given you in that hour what you are to speak. For it is not you who speak..'; Luke 10:16 'The one who listens to you listens to Me.') "In passing we should notice that the attempt of some scholars to 'go back to the original Jesus' and by-pass the teaching of the apostles is shown by our Lord Himself to be misguided." (NICNT John. Leon Morris p. 700) I'll strengthen that last quote. It's not only misguided, it's a manifestation of unbelief! Jesus didn't give us a choice on this one. Either He is the Son of God and the words of His disciples are a true and accurate presentation of His will for man, or the New Testament is corrupted and Jesus was a liar. Here's another point to consider. The Mormons consider the New Testament to have been corrupted. And yet where does that leave them? If the God of heaven was unable to preserve an accurate account of the life of His Son, then what guarantee do we have that any "other" revelation from Him could be spared from corruption also? You see, once you admit that God was unable ensure an accurate expression of His will, all OTHER claimed expressions of His will are immediately SUSPECT! Especially when you consider that the Son of God promised that His will would survive.

MATTHEW 24:35 'HEAVEN AND EARTH WILL PASS AWAY, BUT MY WORDS SHALL NOT PASS AWAY.' But His "oral teaching" did. What I mean is, once Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount, those "oral" sounds were gone! The speech was over! That sermon isn't still lingering in the air over the Sea of Galilee. The promise and those that follow must apply to the WORD OF GOD IN WRITTEN FORM. As one writer said, "The words of Jesus which are in this manner revealed (in a written manner) remain forever." (John 12:48; 1 Peter 1:23-25) "Now there is no more reason to believe that the guidance of the Holy Spirit was limited to their verbal teaching than there is to believe that the Old Testament prophets were Spirit-directed only in what they spoke." (A General Introduction To The Bible. Geisler/Nix p. 90)

III. The Apostles Understood Their Task:

Lest somebody claim that we have placed too much importance upon the writings of the Apostles. Many places in their own writings they reveal the truth that they fully understood the fact, that their writings constituted the word of God. And were as authoritative and binding as the audible voice of God Himself from heaven. (1 Corinthians 14:37 '..that the things which I write to your are the Lord's commandment'; 2 Cor. 2:9; Ephesians 3:3-5; 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6,14 'if anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter..do not associate with him..'; Revelation 1:9-11,19; 2:1-5; 22:18-19.)

IV. The Development Of The N.T.:

Even within the N.T. itself and before the end of the First Century we find a flurry of activity concerning the development, writing, collecting and "Scripture status" of New Testament books:

A. N.T. Books Were Considered "Scripture":

Even before the end of the First Century various New Testament books were considered "Scripture" by Christians.

2 PETER 3:15-16 'as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in ALL his letters..as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.' Points to note: (1) Paul had written letters to the Christians that Peter now addresses (1 Peter 1:1). Letters such as Ephesians, Colossians, and Galatians. (2) Apparently Peter had a copy of not merely one of Paul's letters, but many of them. (3) Peter places Paul's writings in the category of "Scripture". (4) Paul's letters had been in existence for some time, because certain individuals had read his letters and were now twisting and perverting what Paul had written.

1 TIMOTHY 5:18 'For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing."' That quotation is from Deut. 25:4. But note, Paul adds, 'and' "The laborer is worthy of his wages." The only place where the last quotation is found, is Luke 10:7. And Paul places this passage in Luke under the heading of "For the Scripture says." Consider this quote: "If the writings of Luke, who was not an apostle, were quoted as "Scripture" and Peter, who incidently was rebuked by Paul (Gal. 2:11), considered Paul's books to be "Scripture", then it's not difficult to conceive how the New Testament as a whole would be considered to be "Scripture"." (Geisler/Nix p. 93)

B. N.T. Books Were Being Circulated:

"One final consideration that manifests the high regard for New Testament writings by the first century church is the fact that the books were COMMANDED to be circulated, read in the churches and collected. It is obvious that Peter had a collection of Paul's books. (2 Peter 3:15-16), and Paul distinctly enjoined the Colossians to read and circulate their epistle (Colossians 4:16) (and read one that was heading their way). The Thessalonians, too, were charged to read their epistle (1 Thess. 5:27). Such regard shows that the books had for them not only a spiritual value but a divine origin." (Geisler/Nix p. 94)

C. Viewed As Authoritative For Other Congregations:

"This is a crucial passage (Colossians 4:16), since it indicates that the authority of one epistle included a larger audience than just the one to which it was written. Thus, as the book of Revelation was circulated throughout the churches (Revelation 1:3), so other epistles were to be exchanged, and prophetic messages were to be read with all authority." (Geisler/Nix p. 185) Other passages teach the same truth. (1 Cor. 4:17 ..'just as I teach everywhere in every church.'; 7:17 'And thus I direct in all the churches'; 11:16; 14:33 'as in all the churches of the saints.') Therefore, the true church today would be the church that is still taking seriously the writings of the apostles and views them as the final authority in all religious matters. With this view of the writings of the apostles, and seeing that commands were given to circulate them, making copies for reading (1 Tim. 4:13) and collecting the various letters would be more than natural, it would be demanded.

D. The Selecting And Sorting Process:

When Luke wrote his account of the Life of Christ, other written accounts were already in existence. (Luke 1:1) Indicating an abundance of oral and written material was already in existence to draw from and arrange in order. (1:3) These verses in Luke flatly contradict the following ideas: (1) That He wrote long after the events had taken place (like 100 years) (1:2) (2) That he added to the record or embellished some of the events or that myth and fable crept in. (1:3-4 'so that you might know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.') (John 20:30-31; 21:25)

E. The Testimony Of Those That Lived After The Apostles:

"What has been said of the development of the New Testament canon, as seen in the inspired writings of the New Testament itself, is even more apparent in the writings of the younger contemporaries, the Apostolic Fathers. A sample survey will suffice to show that by the middle of the second century every book of the New Testament was referred to.." (Geisler/Nix p. 186) Matthew was quoted by the Epistle of Pseudo-Barnabas (c. 70-79 A.D.), so is Mark. The Muratorian Fragment (c. 170-80 A.D.) refers to Luke as the third gospel and follows with John, Acts, etc. Clement of Rome cited John 17:3 in his Epistle to the Corinthians (c. 95 A.D.). Acts is quoted by Polycarp, the disciple of John (69-155 A.D.) Romans is frequently cited by Clement of Rome.."In summary, the first hundred years of the existence of the 27 books of the N.T. reveal that virtually every one of them was quoted as authoritative and recognized as canonical by men who were themselves the younger contemporaries of the Apostolic Age." (Geisler/Nix p. 190) "The dates of the New Testament documents indicate that they were written within the lifetime of contemporaries of Christ. People were still alive who could remember the things he said and did." (Know Why You Believe. Paul Little p. 78) Therefore, for these books to be accepted, they first had to be accepted by the people who had lived through those events. When Paul wrote Romans, there existed people who had been Christians longer than he. (Romans 16:7) When he wrote 1 Corinthians, many of the people who had seen the resurrected Jesus were still alive. (1 Cor. 15:6) Yet it was exactly this first generation of Christians, the contemporaries of Christ who embraced and accepted as truth, the writings of the apostles. Shouldn't that tell us something?