When deciding what to believe about the Bible, who should we listen to?
That’s a rather basic question, and I suppose there are many possible answers. We could listen to our friends—maybe a roommate or a co-worker. Then there are family members, maybe our parents or siblings. Surely they would have an opinion. Or we could look to our leaders, a pastor or professor who seems to be an “expert.” And there’s always Google if we really want to know what to think!
But in the midst of all the options there is one person that, ironically, Christians (and non-Christians) overlook. Jesus.
Now, of course, Christians don’t overlook Jesus generally. He is central to about everything Christians think and do. But, strangely, he is not often the ultimate court of appeal when they are deciding what to think about the Bible. But, just a few moments of reflection suggest he should be.
First, and most obviously, Jesus’ opinion about the Bible (which in his day was the Old Testament) matters most because he wrote it. Now, obviously, he didn’t literally write it—we have no evidence that Jesus himself left any written records. But, as the incarnate Lord, as the very God of Israel enfleshed, he is the divine author of Scripture. If he is who he claims to be, then he is the one who inspired the Old Testament authors. When you hear the voice of the Old Testament Scriptures, you are hearing the voice of the Lord—the voice of Christ.
Who better to tell us what to think about the Old Testament than its author?
By way of example, imagine if someone asked what we should think about the painting, The Mona Lisa. There are a lot of opinions out there, from art historians to lay folks, about the identity of this mysterious woman. Not only have numerous female names been suggested, but others have argued the painting may even be a disguised self-portrait of da Vinci himself!
But there would be one way (perhaps the only way) to settle the matter absolutely. And that is if we were able to ask da Vinci himself about The Mona Lisa. Surely the author’s own testimony about the painting would be definitive.
Of course, at this point someone will object: How can base our opinions about the Bible on Jesus’s testimony, when that testimony comes from the Bible? Isn’t that circular reasoning?
In a sense, it is circular. But not in a problematic way. When it comes to ultimate authorities there is always an inevitable level of circularity when we authenticate them. After all, if an ultimate authority is only valid because it conforms to some lesser authority, then it would no longer be ultimate!
Put simply, we can’t account for an ultimate authority without using it.
Even so, there’s another reason why this “circularity” is not a problem. Even if a person doesn’t believe the Gospels are divinely-inspired documents, there are good reasons to think they are historically reliable in a general sense. If so, then we have good historical grounds to think Jesus actually believed these things about the Old Testament. And that is still a very helpful place to start building our doctrine of Scripture.
So, if we are correct that Jesus is the “author” of the Old Testament, then that raises an additional, and very critical, point, namely that the integrity of the Old Testament and the integrity of Jesus are inevitably intertwined. They stand or fall together. If the Old Testament is wrong, then Jesus is wrong. And if Jesus is wrong, then the Old Testament is wrong.
Here we come to a debate that has been swirling the last couple of years in evangelical circles, namely the question of whether Christians really need, or should use, the Old Testament. Most famously, mega-church pastor Andy Stanley has argued that Christians should “unhitch” themselves from the Old Testament (see my response here). After all, a person doesn’t need to believe in the OT to be saved, so let’s just take it off the table.
Stanley is partly right. People don’t have to believe the Bible to be saved (at least not all of it). Indeed, they don’t even need to know a Bible exists to be saved (imagine a missionary preaching to a tribe in the remote jungle). But we can’t forget a key distinction: While a person doesn’t have to believe the Bible is true to be saved, the Bible has to be true for them to be saved.
Why? Because Jesus said the Bible is true. And if it’s not true, then he was wrong.
Just think about this verse for a moment: “For if you believed Moses you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” (John 5:46-47)
Sure, Moses may seem like a dusty ol’ crank that is no longer relevant for the era of grace under Jesus. But, Jesus doesn’t agree. What you think about Moses—and the five books he wrote—will determine what you think about Jesus. The two go together.
So, then what exactly did Jesus believe about the Old Testament? And did he have anything to say about a future New Testament? We will answer these questions in the next post. Stay tuned!
Michael Guertin says
I’m so very grateful Michael that our Lord gave you as one of His gifts to His people to help us in these very important matters. Keep up the great work.
Yours for Him,
Guerty
PC1 says
‘Why? Because Jesus said the Bible is true. And if it’s not true, then he was wrong.’
I look forward to your next postings on this subject, as I found this article rather confusing! You seem to be equating the Bible with the Old Testament, which of course is only part of it. And in talking about ‘Scripture’, Jesus only ever was referring to the Old Testament, because at that time the New hadnt even been written yet.
I also wonder what you mean by “And if it’s not true, then he was wrong.” What do you mean by ‘true’? Literally true, as in the creation story? Many Christians do not understand it literally. Or sometimes literally true but at other times more a truth to learn from a non-historical story? ‘Truth’ means different things to different people, even among evangelicals!
I also find it interesting that in the New Testament, some of the writers seem to quote non-canonical texts as part of their argument, for example, First Enoch. So we have non-Scriptural writings now included in Scripture.
I would be interested in your thoughts,
Thanks Peter
Nemo says
Peter,
You wrote, “And in talking about ‘Scripture’, Jesus only ever was referring to the Old Testament, because at that time the New hadnt even been written yet.”
Dr. Kruger addressed this in his class last week (Jan. 12), see his post for details . I’m posting the handout (PDF) and audio (MP3) here for your convenience.
You wrote, “What do you mean by ‘true’? Literally true, as in the creation story? Many Christians do not understand it literally.”
I think, in one sense, the Bible is true just as God is true, but we’re far from comprehending the Truth. If I understand them correctly, the early Church Fathers, such as Origen and Augustine, believed the Scriptures have multiple levels/layers of meanings, literal, allegorical and spiritual, with the literal being the foundation upon which the others are built. We’re only scratching the surface of the infinite depth of the Scriptures.
PC1 says
Thanks Nemo.
I read through the handout and would take issue with a number of points, as I think many other evangelicals would.
eg ” Jesus said the Bible is true. And the words of the Bible are Jesus’ OWN words”
I think this is misleading. Jesus never said the Bible is true, so why speak as if He did? Rather He talked about ‘Scripture’ and as I said in my other post, most agree He was specifically referring to what we call the Old Testament. I am not denying that He viewed the OT as reliable and authoritative, but that is not the same as simply saying ‘the Bible is true’.
I would also take issue with the 2nd sentence. The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, are the words of the writers, albeit inspired by God. I suppose it depends how one understands ‘inspired’ but I wouldnt claim that the Bible as a whole were Jesus’ ‘own words’, even if it does obviously include some of his own words. The handout later seems to recognise this as it distinguishes between the writings of Moses and the words of Jesus, or the words of the apostles.
“A. The Old Testament Was Historical
Jesus regards the OT as a literal, straightforward account of historical events
He refers to Adam and Eve, Abel, Noah (and the flood),…”
Referring to the OT does not necessarily mean Jesus understood Adam & Eve (we treat these as named individuals when in fact the Hebrew does no such thing), Noah and the Flood etc as accounts of historical events – ie if we had been there at the time with a video camera, our recording would reflect Genesis. I dont view the story of ‘Adam & Eve’ as historical in that sense. I think the story of creation was primarily written as a polemic against other Near Eastern creation stories, which typically viewed the sun and moon as ‘gods’ etc. Genesis deliberately negates such a notion. The truths that these stories tell us do not depend on them being actual historical events. That shouldnt be confused.
I just think we need to be careful how we express our understanding of the Bible.
Peter
Nemo says
Peter,
I’m not familiar with the evangelical points of view, and I’m not sure that I can be categorized as an evangelical. Just to understand your position better, I need to ask you some questions for clarification, if you don’t mind,
You wrote, ” I suppose it depends how one understands ‘inspired’ but I wouldnt claim that the Bible as a whole were Jesus’ ‘own words’, ”
Would you agree that God speaks through Moses, the prophets and the apostles? If so, it seems to me acceptable to say that those are His own words. If you disagree, which words in the Bible do you think are His own words, and in what way are they different from the others?
The same question applies to the Genesis narrative: if you don’t think it is historical, then in what way would a historical account differ from the Biblical account? For starters, I think it would be hard to explain the detailed genealogies from Adam to Noah to Moses, and all the way down to Jesus, if the authors didn’t intend them to be understood as individuals. As far as I know, no historical works from the ancient world read like video recordings.
Nemo
Neil Simpson says
Exactly! Those who say they care about what Jesus said ignore or flatly deny most of his teachings. He completely affirmed everything in the OT and liberally (heh) quoted and referenced the most controversial parts – Adam & Eve, teachings on marriage, Sodom, Jonah, etc.
Even the “red letter Christians” (aka the “Christian” Left) fall on their faces right out of the gate, because the second set of “red letters” (direct quotes of Jesus) say that you should live on the black letters. Matthew 4:4 But he answered, “It is written, “ ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’ ”
Jesse says
Excellent article.