What are the biblical arguments that the Bible canon is closed?

score:25

Accepted answer

The problem with this question is that the Bible is not a single book, and as such does not directly address what "other books" are considered canon.

Peter, for instance, writes that Paul's books are highly profitable for reading, "even if they are sometimes hard to understand," but there is no book anywhere that says "these books are canon, these are not."

Indeed, the "closed canon" of the NT wasn't even recorded in its entirety until A.D. 367, when Athanasius published his festal letter. This letter is merely a recommendation list, much like the NY Times best-seller list. It lists books which are "profitable" (see 2 Tim 3:16) for a Christian to read, but it merely reflects consensus, not dogma.

As such, there has only been common consensus as to what is canonical and what is not. (This is also why it is downright silly for people to talk about "suppressed" books or "hidden gospels", because frankly there is no authority on what is or is not canonical.)

That said, for the NT, one of the "marks" of canonicity has been aposotolic authorship. While scholars will tell you that Paul, for example, probably didn't write many of the "Pauline" letters (and never claimed to write Hebrews!), they were traditionally ascribed to apostles. (This is why Jude got in - apostolic claim). Because the original 12 apostles are no longer writing, this avenue of new canon is pretty much closed.

One biblical admonition that is often cited is Rev 22:19,

and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

This can't really be used for canonicity claims, however, since "this book" would only refer to Revelation itself - a completely separate work from the other 65.

Upvote:0

I do understand that Catholics include in the canon what the protestant calls the apocrypha, I do not want to make a distinction in this question. Although, there is no need to quote out of these books to answer this question.

But this actually yields one of the more satisfactory answers.

One of the arguments for exclusion of the apocrypha is that Jesus never quotes any of them. In contrast, virtually all other OT books are quoted by Jesus Himself, and at the very least His apostles or one of the sources He quotes. Based on this criteria, no further books would ever be added to the OT, as these parties are no longer walking this earth and quoting additional material.

Upvote:0

When Jesus, the Word, became flesh, He revealed to us all that can be known concerning God. Before He came, there was only dim light, but He came as the light of the world. “In many and various ways God spoke of old to the fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has begun to speak to us through his beloved Son” (Hebrews 1:1-2). God will no longer speak as He once spoke in old times through the prophets, for now the full revelation of God has come in Christ, in whom every promise of God is yea and amen. The last days spoken of in Hebrews and throughout the New Testament refer to the time starting with the earthly ministry of Christ until His return in judgment. In these last days, God speaks to us through His Son and through no other. What we have in the New Testament are the words of Christ and the words of those whom He ordained as His messengers during His time among them, and His messengers spoke of what they heard and saw from Jesus.

But what new revelation should we hope to hear from man when the Word of God has personally revealed Himself to us? We have been given “true knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ Himself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Colossians 2:2-3). However, shall we say it is impossible for Christ to appear to a man now as He once did to Paul, who was not a disciple of Christ during His earthly ministry? I will not say it is impossible, but I will say it seems highly unlikely given all that I have already mentioned. Therefore let all men be wary of anyone claiming new revelation from God.

Upvote:4

Can this be seen as an appropriate Biblical base for the closing of the Canon?

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. (Jude 3)

Also, it should be noted how the New King James Version renders the last part of this verse: Which was once for all delivered to the saints. (NKJ)

My understanding if this verse: If I were to say: "I will answer this once and for all.", it would imply that I have nothing further to say on the subject. Jude seems to state that 'the faith' in my understanding 'the Word or salvation message' was shared in the time of Jude 'once and for all', implying that there can not be any further revelation on the subject. If any other books where written after Jude (I don't know if there were) it should contain the 'same' message as the books written before Jude - there may not be any new revelation. Again, this is more a thought I ponder on than a fact I'm stating.

More post

Search Posts

Related post