What You Might Not Know About The Bible

The Bible is a library of 66 books that is endlessly fascinating. Throughout the centuries it has been read, studied, criticized, dissected, and revered. It has been food for the soul, direction for the confused, and comfort for the suffering. Best of all, it has pointed the way to salvation for helpless sinners seeking forgiveness and fellowship with God.

Visit the lands of the bible and you’ll discover that it’s deeply rooted in the soil of history, culture, and political and religious conflict. Archeological findings repeatedly prove the historical reliability of the Bible; hundreds of recent discoveries confirm biblical accounts can be believed with confidence. Despite the fact that the Bible has often been vilified, it is still loved and remains as a beacon of light in a dark world.

What is sometimes not known, even among believing Christians, is that the bible is not a book that can be partially believed, keeping what you like while discarding the unwanted parts. You can’t logically say, “I believe in the teachings of Jesus, but I can’t accept His miracles,” or “I believe in the gracious God of the New Testament, but reject the seemingly harsh, angry God of the Old Testament,” or “I don’t accept the teachings of Paul, but only those of Jesus.” The fact is that the Bible must be either accepted in its entirety or rejected in its entirety. There is no wiggle room here.

More than 1,500 times in the 66 books, the Bible directly or indirectly claims to be the Word of God. If we say, as some do, that the Bible is a “good book but not the Word of God,” this “good book” would contain at least 1,500 lies! Liberal scholars have attempted in numerous ways to separate the history of the Bible from its recorded miracles. One such example is their continual search for the real historical Jesus (believed to be a mere man) behind the Jesus who worked miracles in the New Testament, but each attempt has ended in failure. Slice and dice the Bible as they wish, they have never been able to break it apart except in the most arbitrary and subjective ways.

The Bible reminds me of when I was building a toy tower with our grandchildren. Pull one block from the structure and it all comes tumbling down. Every part of the Bible is so interwoven together that if you reject one part, the other parts must also be discredited. Either the Bible is the Word of God or it is the most deceptive book ever written.

There is a story about a celebrated painting by Edward Burne-Jones named Love Among the Ruins that was destroyed by a firm that was preparing it for photogravure reproduction. Though labeled as a watercolor and needing special attention, the company used the wrong liquid for a temporary varnish resulting in damage to the painting. Throughout the ages, men have tried to reduce the bright New Testament portrait of Christ to gray tints, to sponge out the miracles, to humanize His claims. So far, however, no one has found the solvent needed to neutralize the original and reduce it to a cold, dull canvas. The portrait of Jesus in the New Testament intact, immune to all attempts to find a purely human Jesus. All evidence points to Jesus as the Son of God who performed miracles to prove He is both Lord and Savior.

Despite Attacks, God’s Word Will Stand Forever: Critics try and fail to separate biblical truth from supposed fiction

Wrongly dividing Scripture—separating fact from alleged falsehood to get the gold and discard the ore—is a fool’s errand. But that’s what liberal scholars attempt.

Q: So, be specific in helping us understand why liberal scholars have been unsuccessful in sponging out the miracles of the Bible and still retaining its history.

A: Just one example is the “Jesus Seminar” studies of the last 25 or so years. Scholars sat around reading the Gospels, deciding which parts were historical and which parts were later embellishments (the miracles). Each participant would drop a colored plastic bead into a bucket. A red bead meant the voters believed that, “yes, Jesus said that;” pink meant, “that sounded like something Jesus would say;” grey meant, “Jesus didn’t say it, but it contains some of His ideas;” and the black bead meant, “Jesus didn’t say it; it came from later admirers or different traditions.” To no one’s surprise, the miracles, including the resurrection, were “blackballed” and only politically correct words and actions were deemed authentic! The radical views of these scholars were based on their personal hunches, not on any objective criteria.

Don’t miss my point: each scholar was, in effect, looking into a mirror and asking himself, “What can I believe and what can’t I believe?” and thereby was writing his own autobiography. In the end, the enterprise told us more about the scholars than it did the New Testament.

Q: The quest for the historical Jesus you have summarized has a long history. What other attacks are being made against the Bible today?

A: When I was in college and seminary back in the ’60s, the question was, “Is the Bible true?” Today, the question is, “Is the Bible socially acceptable?” The three issues most often referenced to criticize the Bible are its teaching about homosexuality, its apparent acceptance of slavery, and its so-called disparaging teachings about women.

Q: Your response?

A: It is true that both the Old and New Testaments condemn homosexual behavior; as for women, they are presented as equal in value with men but, yes, their roles are different in ways that bring glory to God. As for slavery, the New Testament clearly teaches that both masters and slaves should be treated equally in the church and the kind of cruelty that has characterized slavery in the history of the United States, as well as other countries, is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. No wonder it was Christian influence (for example, William Wilberforce in Britain) that put an end to the slave trade. The teaching that each human being is created in God’s image as has equal value before Him is the bedrock of human relationships.

Q: Some have said that we should “unhitch” the Old Testament from the New Testament. What do you think of the idea?

A: Let me begin with a positive word. Those who hold to this view, I’m sure, wish to remove every stumbling block to the Gospel. They see the teachings of the Old Testament with its harsh, immediate punishments and its ancient laws as an unnecessary impediment to preaching the Gospel of grace. They stress that the New Covenant stands in opposition to the Old Covenant.

That said, I think these teachers made a serious error. Jesus and the apostles all believed and quoted the Old Testament as the Word of God. Yes, it has parts that are difficult for us to understand, but that doesn’t invalidate its benefit to us. The unity between the two Testaments is a good reason to believe that indeed, both are the Word of God and both have relevance today. As has been said, “The New is in the Old concealed, and the Old is in the New revealed.”

Yes, let us remove all unnecessary stumbling blocks to the Gospel but not by “unhitching” the Old Testament from the New. Jesus and Paul repeatedly referenced the Old Testament to support their teachings, and so should we. The Bible is one story, one “drama of redemption,” and we need both Testaments to truly understand that drama.

If you want to read a helpful critique of this view, check out the October 22, 2018 review, “Why We Can’t Unhitch from the Old Testament” by Michael Kruger at the Gospel Coalition website, thegospelcoalition.org.

Q: What about the future of the Bible?

A: It will continue to withstand attacks, for “the word of our God will stand forever” (Isaiah 40:8, ESV).