Maybe you find yourself slightly surprised at this question. Of course what the gospel says about our Saviour is true! After all, is not the Bible the book of the Holy Spirit? Does God himself not stand behind it with his authority? Still, in this article I wish to point out more precisely the trustworthiness of what the evangelists write about Jesus.

From Mohammed we have a personal piece of writing. Even from Plato and Aristotle we have written legacies. But the Lord Jesus did not leave even a snippet of a written word behind. Christianity seems to fall short in this regard. Hence the question, whether we can trust the evangelists, is not so strange. In comparison to Plato, Aristotle and Mohammed, there is a distance with regard to our Saviour. We cannot go back to what Jesus himself wrote, but must rely on what his contemporaries said about him.

Many Witnesses⤒🔗

Even as we must acknowledge that we can only approach the words and deeds of Jesus via others, God ensures that we can believe what they tell about him and that we need not make do with “cleverly invented stories” (2Pe. 1:16). From the moment of his public appearance, the Lord Jesus surrounded himself with people who were eye- and ear-witnesses of all that he said and did. Firstly here we must think of the apostles who “have stood by me in my trials” (Luke 22:28). When the vacancy of Judas needs to be filled, Peter makes it a requirement that it must be “one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John’s baptism…” (Acts 1:21-22). The apostles formed the core group of all who experienced Jesus. They were also especially designated by the Lord to “be my witnesses” (Acts 1:8). Through their testimony they were allowed to be the foundation upon which Christ’s church would be built (Eph. 2:20). And therein they are unique.¹

But there were more witnesses! The New Testament refers to the seventy(-two) who must proclaim that the kingdom of God in Jesus Christ has reached the people (Luke 10:1ff). We also encounter “the elders” in Jerusalem who are mentioned separately (Acts 11:30; 15:2, 3, 22) and who apparently held a special position. We may think of these “elders” as witnesses of the first hour, who therefore had authority in the congregation of Jerusalem.²They could still speak about all that they themselves had experienced of Jesus.

We also hear of “many” in Jerusalem to whom the saints who had already died, appeared at Jesus’ death (Matt. 27:53), who also would have conveyed the necessary. And we should not forget mother Mary, who around the time of Jesus’ birth “treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart” (Luke 2:19). Furthermore there are the brothers of the Lord, who after their initial unbelief (John 7:5) we later find, together with Mary, in the circle of the apostles (Acts 1:14), and of whom James and Jude even belong to the letter-writers of the New Testament.

Stephen and Philip were also witnesses in the apostolic church. How great the number of witnesses was, we discover when Paul writes that the Risen One appeared ‘to more than five hundred of the brothers [and sisters]³at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep” (1Co. 15:6). And then there are still the women who followed Jesus from Galilee (Mark 15:41); and not to forget Mary Magdalene, who personally met the Risen One (John 20:16).

We can conclude that besides the witnesses whom Christ himself appointed — the apostles — there were still many more eye- and ear-witnesses in the apostolic church who could tell their story and from whom the evangelists could get first-hand information. And we must not forget that Matthew and John even belonged to the select group which the Lord Jesus had authorized especially to be his witnesses (John 15:27; Acts 1:8)!

The Tradition Established←⤒🔗

Initially the great story about Jesus Christ was passed on by word of mouth. We hear how Paul calls the church to hold on to “the teachings we passed on to you” (2Thes. 2:15, 1951 [Dutch] translation) and praises the church when it keeps “the teachings, just as I passed them on to you” (1Co. 11:2, 1951 [Dutch] translation). Paul passes on what he himself received (1Co. 15:3). There is a “doctrine” that must be watched and persevered in (1Tim. 4:16) and that must be continued (2 John : 9). It is “the teaching about God” (Titus 2:10) or “the teaching of Christ” (2 John : 9). Therein “the apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42) would have been fundamental. We may accept that already in the apostolic church, there originated an oral passing on of what needed to be proclaimed about Jesus Christ as a firm whole, which people had to keep to in preaching and teaching. No “false doctrines” could be brought forward (1Tim. 1:3) and disciplining needed to be done on the grounds of “sound doctrine” (Titus 1:9, 1951 [Dutch] translation). It is surprising to discover how quickly this passing on of the teaching or doctrine began to be written down. Luke notes that “many” already undertook to write “an account” regarding the events that were fulfilled “among us” (Luke 1:1). We perceive that process of capturing [the message] when Paul warns the Thessalonians: “hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter” (2Thes. 2:15).

In this development we may see the mercy of the Holy Spirit, who took care that what the witnesses could tell about Jesus’ life and work was preserved for times to come and was protected from all “cleverly invented stories” (see 2 Peter 1:16).

The Work of the First Hour←⤒🔗

Indeed, Jesus did not leave behind a document of his own. We have not even a snippet of parchment from him. For the story of his life on earth, we must make do with the four Gospels. Are those trustworthy? Can we, via the evangelists, truly get at what he said and did?

This is a question today’s New Testament scholars are very busy with. A prevailing opinion is that there is much to be doubted regarding the historical trustworthiness. The evangelists provide their vision concerning Jesus, a vision that reflects what the young church all thought and found regarding Jesus. Thereby is all too easily forgotten that the evangelists themselves show that they initially had a very different view of Jesus; and that they came to see the true light only after Easter. They wrote their books only after their minds (see Luke 24:45) and eyes were opened (see Luke 24:31). With that opened mind and those enlightened eyes they took up the pen to write down the passing on of the teaching.

In the four Gospels we are dealing with the work of people of the first hour; of people who in each case belonged to the followers of the ear- and eyewitnesses. As apostles, Matthew and John were themselves present at all that Jesus said and did. Their witnessing is thus first-hand. And what counts for Mark is that he was “translator” of Peter’s preaching and we, in his gospel, thus have before us Peter’s witness as apostle. In the Gospel of Luke we are not dealing with an apostle. But as Paul’s travel companion (see the “‘we” and “us” in Acts), it can be suggested that he also was closely associated with the witnesses of the first hour. Via the apostle Paul he had immediate access to “the passing on of the teaching”.

Now, the third Gospel writer made good use of that “passing on”! Theophilus, to whom he entrusts his Gospel, has already been taught orally regarding the teachings. But Luke still wants to confirm even more for Theophilus, through now providing a written report “in orderly form” of the story of Jesus and his performance. Apparently that was still lacking. The other evangelists still needed to write their books. Many told the story, but Luke wrote! To convince Theophilus of the certainty of the things he had been taught (Luke 1:4).

We do not know much about Luke. But what is important here is his declaration that he has “carefully investigated everything from the beginning” (Luke 1:3).⁴Luke, a Christian from the heathens [i.e. not from the Jews],⁵can confirm the teaching that Theophilus received from his own experience, and he does this through a written account that he verified through his own research (Luke 1:3). We may say that following careful investigation, the “outsider” Luke is the first one to confirm the oral passing on and the personal reporting through an orderly account concerning the events of Jesus’ life on earth, witnessed also by him.

Unanimous Testimony←⤒🔗

We may see the Gospels as the testimony of a unanimous and honourable tradition, originating from the circle of the eye- and ear-witnesses of the first hour. The four evangelists are truly four crown witnesses of what Jesus said and did during his life on earth.

It may have remained three Gospels should John not have felt it necessary, due to emerging heresies, to emphasize once more that Jesus is truly the Son of God (see John 20:31). You might call the Gospel of John a book of compliance that binds upon our hearts that in Jesus, we are encountering God himself.

The four Gospels are not identical in the details. We cannot bring everything in harmony with each other. Personally I always find this positive point in regards to the trustworthiness of the evangelists. If the New Testament was a forgery, the evangelists would have taken care that there was not even a single variation in their testimony. There are differences though, and it is not easy to harmonize them. But only small differences are at stake. The heart of the matter is perfectly clear; the content of the gospel is unmistakable. In the testimony regarding Jesus as our Saviour and the Son of God, all the evangelists are unanimous and clear. The four crown witnesses let there be no misunderstanding that Jesus of Nazareth is the Way, the Truth and the Life!

Recognition of the Canon←⤒🔗

Still the thought prevails that the old church itself decided, at a council, which books needed to be taken up in the New Testament canon, and that in this way the four Gospels ended up in the Bible as authoritative testimony. However, things unfolded very differently. J. van Bruggen has rightly pointed out that we must not look back at the Bible books via today’s canon, but must look at the canon, which came later, via the period before the Bible books.⁶

In regards to the New Testament, that means that we then discover that the Saviour Himself mandated people of the first hour to be his witnesses, and to pass on what he said and did with authority (John 15:26-27; Acts 1:8).That implies that later books, lack that authorization. The testimony of the men called by the Lord himself became the foundation upon which his church is built (Eph. 2:20). What was in accordance with that testimony, was acknowledged as the holy book by the young Christian church.

Thereby it is striking that not everything of the testimony (all the testimonies were) was preserved for us. To give a prime example: we are missing Paul’s letter to the Laodiceans (see Col. 4:16). It appears that the Holy Spirit did not consider that letter important for us. The Gospels also do not tell the full story. John himself says that Jesus “did many other things as well” which he did not write down (see John 21:25). But that which the Gospel writers do pass on is broad enough to know who Jesus was and what he as our Saviour said and did.

It is widely recognized nowadays that in the books of the New Testament, we are dealing with scriptures of the first century. It is fortunate that greater unanimity has been reached regarding the time of origination. But concerning the acknowledgement of the authoritative scriptures as one closed-off whole, there is certainly no consensus. Was that acknowledgement not made customary by the later old church?

Unfortunately the first century sheds little light on this matter. The scriptures of Christian writers from that time do not make statements regarding what was authoritative in the young church. Only around the year 200 does more become known regarding this point. But the silence of the first century may not bring us to the conclusion that there was not yet an authoritative bundle at that point! You can also conclude from this silence that the issue of what was or was not authoritative, was not as yet a controversial issue.

That there already very early existed a bundle of authoritative books becomes apparent when the heretic Marcion (+/- 150) makes himself known. His opponents criticize him because he “modified the evangelical and apostolic writings”. This shows that there was a clear authoritative whole that Marcion wanted to maim, not only through textual interventions, but especially also by way of omitting whole books and letters. Hence J. van Bruggen also concludes that “the idea of a closed off New Testament revelation, with a specified number of books and letters, must go back to the time before Marcion sought to break it apart”.⁷Hence Tertullian also refers to Marcion as a mouse gnawing at the Gospels!

The idea that a council decided which writings would be authoritative in the end, goes back especially to what the Synod of Hippo Regius (393) declared and what was confirmed at that of Carthage (397). But the Acts of these synods make clear that the matter under consideration was not a delimitation of the authoritative books, but the agreement that only the canonical books would be read in the meetings of the church from then on. These books turn out to be of a well-known number already, and to have authority in the churches.

The decision of Carthage receives an incorrect assessment in the history of the canon. It was not focused on the delimitation or sealing thereof. It was a decision that concerned the liturgy.

Our conclusion may be that the authority of the four Gospels does not rest on a ruling of the church, but on Christ’s authorization of the witnesses of the first hour, which in the Christian church was recognized from the beginning. That is why their writings are authoritative. As Article 5 of the Belgic Confession puts it so aptly: “We receive all these books…as holy and canonical…’. That is precisely how it is. We receive… not because the church authorized them, but because they were given us through the Holy Spirit and we follow in the footsteps of the first Christians, who knew of Christ’s authorization of the witnesses of the first hour!

The Paraclete Testifies←⤒🔗

The church received the writings of the New Testament from the hand of her Lord. He took care of her salvation; he also took care of the trustworthy message regarding that salvation. The authority of the canon is not ecclesiological in nature, but Christological!⁸

It is Christ who builds his church on the apostolic testimony (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 2:20) and who through his Spirit enabled people to be his witnesses.

In this context the words regarding the Paraclete, as we find them in John 14-16, must always again be brought to mind.⁹The NBV [New Dutch Bible translation of 2004] translates the Greek term paraklètosas “advocate” — certainly a better rendering than the too-old “Comforter”. As Paraclete the Holy Spirit is the one who comes to the aid of the intended witnesses and ensures that they can fulfill their task in regards to the church of all ages.

After all, he shall “teach [the disciples] all things” (John 14:26), shall “guide [them] into all truth” (John 16:13), shall “remind [them] of everything I have said to you” (John 14:26).

There was much ignorance and misunderstanding amongst the disciples (see John 2:22; 12:16). There were also things that were yet beyond their understanding (see John 16:12). But Christ promises a heavenly Teacher who will end all of that and will make the disciples into trustworthy witnesses for their Lord (Acts 1:8). Their testimony will be his testimony (John 15:26-27). What is typical is that the apostles declare: “We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him” (Acts 5:32).

What counts for the Old Testament Scripture is also true of the four Gospels: “For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2Pe. 1:21).¹⁰

Trustworthy Meeting←⤒🔗

No, we do not have a text written by Jesus himself. But he took care that we can still always meet him in the Gospels, in a reliable way. The distance between his life on earth and ourselves is bridged through the witnesses he himself sanctioned. They proclaim to us what they “have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched — this we proclaim concerning the Word of life” (1 John 1:1). That is how we have fellowship with them. And having fellowship “with us”, writes John, is having fellowship “with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3).

That is the miracle of the Advocate who is the Spirit of Jesus Christ!