Can the Gospels be Trusted?
Codex Sinaiaticus
In a recent conversation a student expressed a deep concern,
“I really admire the teaching of Jesus and his church but I still have a nagging concern, ‘Is this whole story really true?”
So much depends on the reliability of the four gospel writers. They are like four witnesses in a court of law. Their evidence concerns Jesus, a man who has changed the world and continues to do so. Consequently, it is vital to answer this question. Are the gospels still reliable, can we believe what they say? This question can be sub-divided into,
a. Authorship – are they first-hand accounts originating from the apostles?
b. Believable – are they accurate accounts of what Jesus said and did?
c. Copying – have they been reliably passed on?
d. Divine - are they the word of God for today?
For Jesus to claim to be the incarnation of God, his one and only Son, to have performed such extraordinary miracles such as healing paralysed and blind people and raising the dead, to say that he would also rise to life after being put to death and then to do so is so outside our normal experience that such claims need to be substantiated. There is very strong external evidence from documents and artefacts outside the Bible and internal evidence within the writings themselves to confirm that these witnesses were telling the truth. Furthermore, there is subjective evidence that we can experience for ourselves as to how these books, that claim to be the Word of God, have helped to change people from being selfish individuals into becoming more fulfilled, purposeful and godly team members.
Let us start by investigating the early manuscripts, looking at the evidence for their authorship and whether there is good evidence that they accurately described the life and sayings of Jesus. This case for the trustworthiness of the New Testament is often contrasted with other important ancient, classical Greek and Roman writings, which, although they do not exhibit the same wealth of substantiating data of early documents are still considered to be genuine records of events.
Earliest Manuscripts
Although we do not have any of the original documents, we do have copies made less than a hundred years later. The picture above is of a portion of Mark’s gospel copied during the first century AD. There is a small manuscript in the Rylands Library in Manchester that contains just 4 verses from John’s gospel. This is dated around 150AD. In the Bodmer Library in Geneva, there is a manuscript containing most of John’s gospel that was also written around 150AD. There are also over 30 papyrus codices, or books as opposed to scrolls, that were copied in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries. In the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin there is a papyrus codex of the four gospels and the book of Acts which is dated as being early third century. The Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus originally contained both Old and New Testaments and are dated around 350AD.
The early Church Fathers quoted extensively from the gospels, apostolic letters and the Old Testament. Irenaeus wrote in the middle of the second century and he often quotes from Old and New Testaments. Even earlier, 1 Clement is a letter which was written by Clement (died 99AD) from Rome to the church in Corinth during the first century AD. Some have dated it as early as the later 60s AD though most consider it to be late first century. The point is that Clement quotes from the New Testament considerably and many of the basic doctrines of the Christian faith are clearly taught, including the divinity of Christ, justification, and a reliance upon inerrant Scriptures. The church in Rome at around that time was using at least Matthew and Luke and several Pauline epistles including 1 Corinthians, Romans and Hebrews and they considered these apostolic writings to be authoritative. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, wrote a letter before his martyrdom in Rome in A.D. 115, quoting all the four gospels and other New Testament letters. Polycarp wrote to the Philippians in A.D. 120 and quoted from the gospels and New Testament letters. Justin Martyr (A.D. 150) quotes John 3. Church fathers of the early second century were familiar with the apostles’ writings and quoted them as inspired Scripture.
The striking finding across all these early manuscripts is that there is relatively little variation between them, and even when they have been translated into different languages, the meaning and doctrines remain the same.
Dating of the original gospels
In any study it is important to remain impartial when assessing the evidence. There is now very strong evidence that all four gospels were written during the first century. The public ministry of Jesus was between 27-30AD. The distinguished New Testament scholar, Prof. F.F. Bruce, gives strong evidence that the New Testament was completed by 100AD. Most of the twenty-seven writings in the New Testament were completed twenty to forty years before this. Traditionally Mark is thought to be the first gospel to be written, around 60AD. Matthew and Luke follow, being written between 60-70AD; John is the final gospel, written between 90-100AD. The liberal scholar, John Robinson thinks that all four gospels were written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD and is strongly argued in his book ‘Redating the New Testament’. He said,
“The wealth of manuscripts and above all the narrow interval of time between the writing and the earliest extant copies, make it by far the best attested of any ancient writing in the world.”
There is considerable internal evidence to support these early dates. The first three gospels prophesied the fall of the Jerusalem temple which occurred in 70AD, (see Matthew 24:1-25, Mark 13:1-4, 18-23, and Luke 21:5-7). However, none of them give even a hint that this destruction had happened. The most plausible explanation for this omission is that it had not yet occurred when these synoptic gospels were written.
Luke wrote the book of Acts as a follow on to his gospel. Similarly, the book of Acts repeatedly mentions the temple being in use in Jerusalem and yet again there is no hint that it no longer existed. There is no mention in the book of Acts or the gospels of the Jewish rebellion against Rome that started in 66AD. Luke describes Paul’s house arrest in Rome but stops at that point. He does not mention his subsequent fourth missionary journey or the deaths of either Peter or Paul that probably occurred in 64AD. Putting this evidence together suggests that the book of Acts was written in 60AD and the gospel of Luke was written slightly earlier.
The books in the New Testament were written and circulating so soon after the events recorded that there was no time for these written teachings to have been edited by the early Church. Sir Frederic G. Kenyon was the director of the British Museum (1889-1919), and in his book, ‘The Bible and Archaeology,’ he made the following statement about the existing Greek manuscripts of the New Testament:
“The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.”
Historian Christopher Blake speaks of the overlapping agreement of the early records, that together describe the truth, the “very considerable part of history which is acceptable to the community of professional historians.”
Dating of Early Christian Doctrines
The earliest Christian documents are thought to be the apostolic epistles we have in the New Testament. These contain the same message as the gospels about the divinity of Jesus and of what the Kingdom of God consists. A famous example is the list of Jesus’ resurrection appearances supplied by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. Most critical scholars think that Paul received the material, on which this early creedal statement is based, to be in the 30s AD.
Another argument for the authenticity of the gospels is the originality and unique teaching of Jesus. It was in many ways so different to that of the Jewish teachers of the time and brought a new way of understanding the Jewish Scriptures, our Old Testament. For example, Jesus introduced the term ‘Abba’ for God the Father which had not been previously used in Jewish writings. Where did this new teaching come from if not from Jesus?
Idiosyncrasies and Self-criticisms
One feature of the gospels is the way the apostles are criticised and even criticise themselves. The denial of Jesus by Peter and the later criticisms over his early association with the circumcision party (Galatians 2:11-13), bear all the hallmarks of being early accounts, as he later became one of the first leaders of the church. Then James, Jesus’ own brother, did not believe in Jesus’ divinity prior to the crucifixion (Mark 3:20-25; John 7:5) but he later became the leader of the early church who was martyred by stoning in the 60s AD. Why did the gospel writers say that Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene and other women when a woman’s evidence was considered doubtful - if that did not actually happen? The difficulty the disciples had in accepting the resurrection similarly has ‘the ring of truth’ about it. Such arguments are the reasons why the majority of recent critical scholars believe that these are authentic first hand reports.
Names and Grammar in the Gospels
If the gospels are authentic first century writings then textual criticism can support or disprove this. A person writing in a later time period or from a different geographical area would inevitably get place names and other details wrong. Yet latest scholarship has supported that the wording used is contemporary with both excellent local geographical knowledge and word usage. Historian David Hackett Fischer dubs this “the rule of immediacy” and terms it “the best relevant evidence.”
Individual’s names also vary between different countries and times. Some fascinating research has compared the names that occur commonly in the New Testament with those of Jews living in Israel and surrounding countries at different times. In the New Testament, the two most common names are Simon and Joseph, 18.2 per cent of men mentioned in Acts and the Gospels having these names. In first-century Israel the figure is very similar, 15.6 per cent having those names. Further analysis of other names shows a remarkable coherence between the other New Testament names of both men and women and first century Israel. These differ markedly from the names of Jews living in Egypt during the first century.
When this comparison of names is made between the names used in the New Testament, and the apocryphal gospels, which are dated later, there is much less similarity. This gives further internal evidence that the gospels were indeed accurate first century writings.
Another strong argument of textual critics is the vocabulary, spelling and grammar used. The textual critic G. D. Kilpatrick has noted that,
“No one has so far shown that the New Testament is contaminated with the grammar or orthography (spelling) of a later period.”
Did the Gospels originate from the apostles and are they factual accounts?
There are many details given in the gospels that demand that these are first-hand accounts. Specific names, dates and places are given and these have all been substantiated as being accurate. John described the healing of a paralysed man at the pool of Bethesda which he described as being,
“ . . . surrounded by five covered colonnades.” John 5:2
That pool was destroyed and covered with rubble when the Romans ransacked Jerusalem in 70AD. It was only excavated in the late 19th century. It has been found to consist of two adjacent pools that were surrounded on four sides by colonnades and an additional colonnade separated the two pools. Only someone who had visited the site prior to 70AD could have known this.
The apostles used to remind the crowds that they already knew many of the facts about Jesus. At Peter’s first sermon, at Pentecost, given just seven weeks after the crucifixion of Jesus he appealed to what they knew,
“Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders sand signs which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.” Acts 2:22
At Paul’s trial before King Agrippa and Festus, Paul was able to say,
“What I am saying is true and reasonable. The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner.” Acts 26:25-26
If there were any exaggerations or lies being told about Christ, contemporary witnesses could and would have discredited the apostles’ accounts. They began preaching in the same cities as Jesus had taught in and during the lifetimes of many who had seen Jesus. When the early apostolic documents were circulating, there were many antagonists who would have picked on any errors in them with great glee. It was therefore essential that the gospel writers were very accurate in what they said. Those early Christians faced much opposition but there is no suggestion that any questioned the reliability of these documents.
The apostles and early Christians were widely known for their exemplary lifestyles and honesty. They faced incredible hardships for what they taught, they were beaten, ostracised, imprisoned, and many were killed because of their conviction that what they were taught about Jesus was true. They had no personal motives for lying or misrepresenting the teachings of Jesus. The major emphasis in their teaching was always on remaining truthful (such as Acts 5:3; Ephesians 4:25; Colossians 3:9; Revelation 22:15). The following are some examples of what the apostles taught concerning the reliability of what they have written:
Luke, the doctor and companion of Paul, who wrote the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts said,
“Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. Luke 1:1-4
The apostle John wrote,
“The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.” John 19:35
The apostle Peter wrote,
“We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” 2 Peter 1:16
Remember these were men of integrity who lived and died for what they all taught. It is inconceivable that they were all liars and frauds. It is notable that no scholar in the last 80 years has doubted the sincerity of the early apostles. Christians alive at the time of the apostles would have checked what was said and subsequent generations of Christian leaders claimed that they had passed on these teachings of the apostles accurately. Paul writing to Timothy, then leading the church in Ephesus, emphasised the need for keeping this chain of accurate teaching of God’s truths to others continuing.
“And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others. Endure hardship with us . . .” 2 Timothy 2:2-3
There is good evidence that this is how the early church leaders continued to behave. They were assiduous in checking that any documents presented to them were genuine apostolic writings before teaching from them. All these inspired writings were therefore early and carried certain apostolic authority.
Papias was born around. 65 AD and died 135 AD. It is thought that he knew the apostle John. He became the bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor. He wrote a five-volume work, around 130AD, called ‘Expositions of the Sayings of the Lord’ but only fragments of this work are known today and this is only because of quotes by later writers.
The early church historian, Eusebius was born in 265 AD and became bishop of Caesarea from 315-340 AD. He quotes Papias as having said,
“I will not hesitate to set down for you, along with my interpretations, everything I carefully learned then from the elders and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth....
And the Elder (either the apostle John or another leader in the early Church whose name was also John) used to say this: ‘Mark, having become Peter's interpreter, wrote down accurately everything he remembered, though not in order, of the things either said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, followed Peter, who adapted his teachings as needed but had no intention of giving an ordered account of the Lord's sayings. Consequently, Mark did nothing wrong in writing down some things as he remembered them, for he made it his one concern not to omit anything which he heard or to make any false statement in them.’ ”
“So, Matthew composed the oracles in the Hebrew language....”
Polycarp was born around 69 AD and he faithfully passed on the apostolic teachings. He was a student of the apostle John and became bishop of Smyrna in Asia Minor. He was martyred for his faith. His student Irenaeus said significantly about him that
“He always taught what he learned from the apostles, which the Church continues to hand on, and which are the only truths.”
Irenaeus continued the tradition. Irenaeus (ca. 135-200) had also known Polycarp and later became bishop of Lyon in 177. He wrote the book ‘Against Heresies’ in which he wrote,
“For we learned the plan of our salvation from no others than from those through whom the gospel came to us (the apostles). They first preached it abroad, and then later by the will of God handed it down to us in Writings, to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. ... So Matthew among the Hebrews issued a Writing of the gospel in their own tongue, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel at Rome and founding the Church. After their decease Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what Peter had preached. Then Luke, the follower of Paul, recorded in a book the gospel as it was preached by him. Finally John, the disciple of the Lord...himself published the gospel....” Against Heresies 3.1.1
In ‘Against Heresies’ Irenaeus is primarily concerned with heretical gnostic teachings. Whilst Gnostics held a diversity of beliefs, in general they taught that they possessed secret traditions passed down from the apostles themselves, which they called ‘apostolic tradition’. To counter this idea, Irenaeus appealed to the genuine ‘apostolic tradition’, the teachings written down in the New Testament and publicly taught by the apostles. ‘Tradition’, for Irenaus, meant the correct teaching and interpretation of Scripture, that contained the teachings that Jesus had passed on to his apostles. They, in turn, faithfully transmitted these to their students. This is the only genuine ‘apostolic succession’. Irenaeus is saying that true doctrine is what Christ taught his disciples and that they taught their students (such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Papias of Hierapolis, Polycarp of Smyrna), and that they taught subsequent generations. In refuting gnostic teachings, Irenaeus then refers to ‘The Writings’ or what we would now call ‘the Scriptures,’
“But when they are refuted from the Writings they turn around and attack the Writings themselves, saying that they are not correct, or authoritative, and that the truth cannot be found from them by those who are not acquainted with the tradition [the secret gnostic teachings]. For this, they say, was not handed down in writing, but orally.…” Against Heresies 3.2.1
“But when we appeal again to that tradition which has come down from the apostles and is guarded by the successions of elders in the churches, they oppose the tradition, saying they are wiser not only than the elders, but even than the apostles, and have found the genuine truth.” Against Heresies 3.2.2
“The tradition of the apostles, made clear in all the world, can be clearly seen in every church by those who wish to behold the truth. We can enumerate those who were established by the apostles as bishops in the churches, and their successors down to our time, none of whom taught or thought of anything like their mad ideas.” Against Heresies 3.3.1
The authority of the church has always been the apostles and no sect or authority can change or add to this. It was very costly for these early church leaders to remain true to the faith as taught by the apostles and there is no evidence at all that new, non-apostolic teaching should ever be accepted. This was the central issue in the days of the Reformation, and the reformers such as Wyclif, Huss Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingli, Calvin, Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer, all insisted that the church must continue to teach just what the apostles taught, nothing more and nothing less.
In a court of law, a witness is deemed to be reliable unless there is evidence to the contrary. When multiple witnesses affirm similar accounts, particularly when there are minor variations that help exclude collusion, the case for veracity can be confidently made. This is further strengthened when the witnesses have much to lose by persisting with their story.
The Gospels were referred to as being authoritative in other early respected Christian writings whose authorship is uncertain, such as “The Epistle of Barnabas,” “The Shepherd of Hermas” and “The Didache.” This is further evidence that the early church held the apostolic writings as definitive in matters of faith and doctrine.
Textual Variants
There are inevitably minor variations in the vast number (over 5,000) of early manuscripts but these do not give rise to any doctrinal differences. In discussing the issue of variant readings, the scholar John Wenham has concluded that overall the latest Greek text used for translating the New Testament is 99.99 per cent pure, without any differences affecting doctrine. He said,
“The interesting and important thing about the late-second-century text is this: at that early date there was already a wide diversity of variants. These variants were of course mostly quite minor in character, but they show that there had been no recent systematic editing of the documents to make them conform to some standard version.”
Furthermore, Wenham believes that many of these variants go back to the first century and argues,
“Thus the very existence of variants is itself powerful evidence against a systematic, tendentious alteration of the manuscripts in the very early stages of the history of the text.”
Wenham concludes,
“Thus, from the minutely detailed study of the grammar and vocabulary of the early Greek texts of the New Testament there is no evidence to support the claims that the biblical text was tampered with by the early Church. The objectively verifiable evidence says just the opposite.”
Non-Christian Writers
There are over eighteen non-biblical references to Jesus of Nazareth. Tacitus, when describing the Great Fire of Rome in 64AD, is clearly a hostile witness to the Christians yet inadvertently he confirms many central facts about Jesus and the rapid growth of the early church. It was widely felt that Nero had arranged for this fire but in order to divert attention from himself he blamed the Christians.
“But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order (i.e. from Nero). Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians, by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.”
There were clearly large numbers of Christians in Rome just 34 years after the execution of Jesus and a contemporary historian is supporting the facts behind the Christian message even though he scorns it!
Pliny the Younger was the Roman governor of Bithynia and Pontus (now in modern Turkey). He wrote a letter to his friend Emperor Trajan, around AD 112, and asked for advice on how to deal with the Christian community there. Pliny conducted trials of suspected Christians who appeared before him as a result of anonymous accusations, and asks for the Emperor's guidance on how they should be treated.
Neither Pliny nor Trajan mentions any crimes that Christians had committed, except for being followers of Jesus Christ and refusing to worship the Roman gods.
Pliny’s practice was that if Christians refused to recant three times, they were executed. Pliny stated that his investigations had revealed nothing on the Christians' part but harmless practices and “depraved, excessive superstition.” However, Pliny seems concerned about the rapid spread of this “superstition”.
Pliny explains how the problems for the Christians started.
“An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and also cursed Christ – none of which those who are really Christians can, it is said, be forced to do — these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ. They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to do some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food — but ordinary and innocent food.”
If some claimed they had been Christians twenty-five years before, that would bring us back to 87AD. The beliefs of this early church were the same as those of the apostles. They believed that Jesus was God and recognised that to become a Christian meant a commitment to be holy, set apart for him.
Composition of the Synoptic gospels
It does not take long to realise that there are many similarities between the first three gospels, because many verses are the same. Some have attributed this to an ‘oral tradition’. People certainly did memorise long tracts of books and what people said but it does seem likely that people took notes of what Jesus had taught at the time and that the gospel writers used such notes. Some scholars have suggested that these were brought together in a script or many scripts called ‘Q’ which preceded the gospels. This would explain how Mark’s gospel has 661 verses, 637 of which are reproduced in Matthew and/or Luke. Matthew and Luke share a further approximately 200 verses, which are not taken from Mark: these are thought to have come from the ‘Q’ source.
Each of the gospel writers is writing for a different audience but their essential message is the same.
Further Corroborating Evidence
There is no doubt that a major factor that made people take note of Jesus was his claim to be the Son of God, the Messiah, combined with his ability to perform miracles. The Old Testament foresaw that the Messiah would perform miracles. For example, Isaiah foresaw that ‘your God will come’ -
“Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped. Then will the lame leap like a deer, and the mute tongue shout for joy.” Isaiah 35:5-6
The four gospels all emphasise the miracles that Jesus performed and it is impossible to rewrite them without this element. That these miracles really happened was widely recognised. The miracles of Jesus helped Nicodemus recognise that Jesus came from God,
“Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who came from God. For no-one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him.” John 3:2
During the trials of Jesus, Pilate transferred him to see Herod.
“When Herod saw Jesus he was greatly pleased, because for a long time he had been wanting to meet him. From what he had heard about him, he hoped to see him perform some miracle.” Luke 23:8
In the early days of the church, the apostles demonstrated their authority by performing some miracles. It appears that this authenticating power to perform miracles was limited to the apostles.
“The things that mark an apostle – signs, wonders and miracles – were done among you with great perseverance.” 2 Corinthians 11:12
It is significant that, except for the early epistle to the Corinthian church, miracles are not mentioned at all in subsequent apostolic letters. The letter to the Hebrews says that miracles were in the past.
“This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.” Hebrews 2:3-4
Early on, the significance of authenticating miracles was being minimalised, even by the time of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (around 55AD).
“Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom but we preach Christ crucified.” 1 Corinthians 1:22-23
It was the historical Christ, with his death and crucifixion, that the apostles emphasised.
It was by teaching this that the church grew. Ever since the beginning this was their emphasis.
“Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ.” Acts 5:42
What the apostles taught about the historic Jesus was what the Old Testament Scriptures foresaw. It is significant that Paul substantiated what he taught about Jesus by showing that this is precisely what the Old Testament taught. When Paul first visited Thessalonica his way to support the claims of the first hand witnesses was an appeal to the evidence of Scripture.
“ . . . he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead.” Acts 17:2-3
The ‘noble’ Berean Christians carefully checked what Paul had said to them,
“ . . . for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” Acts 17:11
A friend of mine was blown away when he first read about the death and resurrection of Jesus as it is foretold in Isaiah 53:4-12, written 700 years before the Messiah entered this world. The death of the Messiah by crucifixion is described in gruesome detail in Psalm 22, even giving the detail of having his ‘hands and feet pierced.’ There are over 330 prophecies about the Messiah in the Old Testament that have been fulfilled by Jesus and these can still be checked today. The gospels describe how these prophecies were fulfilled by Jesus.
The Jewish Scriptures also describe in detail the heritage of God’s Messiah. He would be a Jew, a descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He would also be a descendant of Jesse and King David (Jeremiah 33:15). This is why the genealogy of Jesus given at the beginning of Matthew’s gospel and in Luke chapter 3 give further corroborating evidence that what the gospels say about Jesus is really true.
The gospels cannot be disassociated from the Old Testament. Both talk about a supernatural historical Messiah, a real person who will reign for eternity, and both emphasise the moral implications of being admitted into God’s kingdom, to be his chosen people.
Effect the Scriptures have on People
Our godly instincts
A very strong further argument for the reliability of the gospels is that they speak of things that we inherently know to be true. The values that Jesus extols, honesty kindness, love and his hatred of sin, such as pride, lust and coveting resonate with all people who value integrity. Integrity is the basis for all relationships. The opposite of ‘integrity’, which is doing what is right before God, is ‘dis-integrity’, or ‘disintegration.’ When individuals cease to value and act with integrity, their own lives begin to disintegrate, then their family, then their society and eventually their nation.
Our obedience
The followers of Jesus sometimes risked their lives because of the promises and instructions made in the Bible. One example is given above in the way Pliny treated Christians. This heroic cost was paid by men, women and even children who considered obedience to God to be their absolute priority. Christians were persuaded to obey these apostolic writings, knowing that the adherence to their contents could bring persecution or martyrdom. Jewish converts would never have placed any doubtful documents on equal standing with the authoritative books of the Old Testament if they were not convinced that they were also the word of God (see Matthew 5:17-19; Romans 3:2; 15:4; 1 Corinthians 10:1-11). Gentile converts, many well educated, would similarly have quickly rejected any documents whose dependability was uncertain when the stakes were so high. The Gospels made strict moral demands and intelligent people would have devoted little attention to any literature that was suspect. The churches would never have allowed dubious compositions to circulate as God’s Word as these were records upon which believers lived their lives and staked their eternal salvation.
When you look at how many peoples’ lives today change for the better when they submit to the authority of God, there is clearly a power that is still made available through the Scriptures. The same Spirit of God, who inspired the apostles to write the New Testament is at work in each of God’s people to enable us to live as our Lord wants.
A Roman Catholic priest in Belgium rebuked a young woman and her brother for reading that ‘bad book,’ pointing to the Bible. She replied,
“Mr Priest, a little while ago my brother was an idler, a gambler, a drunkard and made such a noise in the house that no-one could stay in it. Since he began to read the Bible he works with industry, goes no longer to the pub, no longer touches cards, brings home money to his poor old mother and our life at home is quiet and peaceful. How comes it, Mr Priest, that a bad book produces such good fruits?”
The evidence that the gospels are indeed the ‘Word of God’ is very strong, both from objective (external)and subjective (internal) evidence. It therefore behoves all of us to take careful note of what Jesus teaches, as our eternal destiny is at stake. For these gospels teach us,
“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.” John 3:36
This ‘belief’ that saves is more than just intellectual, it must involve a personal submission to Jesus Christ as my Lord and my Saviour. Becoming a Christian is like entering a permanent marriage, a marriage that will last through eternity.
The Apostle John’s Assertion
What better way can there be to finish an article, such as this, than to read what the apostle John wrote in his old age about the Jesus he had known so well? John had committed his life to sharing the news about Jesus with the world, as he considered it to be so important. This opening paragraph to his first letter has the ring of honesty associated with urgency.
“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. We write this to make our joy complete. This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.” 1 John 1:1-5
BVP
