Is it possible to believe what the Bible says?
​
​
The Christian faith requires belief in the Bible. For many people this is a big stumbling block. They wonder if the Bible is historically accurate. And even if it is, can it be trusted as a reliable authority for spiritual truth or are its teachings culturally obsolete?
In regard to the historical reliability of the Bible, let’s focus particular on the four gospels which each give an account of Jesus’s life and teaching (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John). People often assume that these were written many years after the events described, and that there were also other gospels which were suppressed because they presented a different portrayal of Jesus. But Mark’s gospel can be shown to have been written around AD55, only twenty or so years after the death of Jesus, with Matthew and Luke both written by around AD65. This was within the lifetime of hundreds of people who could vouch for the accuracy of the content, and Luke begins by stating that he has researched his book carefully and thoroughly (Luke 1:1-4).
Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians was written even earlier and includes a statement that there were plenty of eye-witnesses to Jesus’s resurrection who were still alive at the time of writing (1 Corinthians 15:1-6). Not only supporters of Jesus, but plenty of his opponents would therefore have still been alive and they would have been quick to point out any inaccuracies or fiction in the gospel accounts. The story of his resurrection would never have got off the ground if the claim was being made within the lifetimes of those who were present at the time. Legends are only possible when the eyewitnesses – and their children – are no longer alive.
In contrast, the other supposed gospels were written much later. (The gospel of Thomas is likely to date from around AD175.) By AD160 the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John had long been recognised as the only authoritative eyewitness accounts. And the Jesus they portray is recognised and worshipped as Lord and God. (Matthew 16:16, John 20:28)
A further confirmation of the gospels’ reliability is those aspects of the story which would hardly have been included if they were inventions. E.g. Jesus’s death by crucifixion, followed by women as the first eye-witnesses of his resurrection. (At that time women were not permitted to give evidence in court.) Peter, the primary leader of the early church, is shown to be weak and fickle. Such details would not have been included unless they were true.
But even if the Bible is reliable historically can it be trusted culturally? When we come across a passage that jars our sensibilities it’s helpful to reflect on the different cultural perspective of the time when it was written. But there may well be texts which even when understood well still seem outrageous and regressive to some people. This is itself a culturally determined view. “To stay away from Christianity because part of the Bible’s teaching is offensive to you assumes that if there is a God he wouldn’t have any views that upset you” (Keller).
In it all, it’s important to focus on the primary teaching of the Bible, particularly about who Jesus is and what he came to do. To dismiss the Bible as unreliable because we don’t like some of the things it says is illogical. “Are you saying,” asks Keller, “that because you don’t like what the Bible says about sex that Jesus couldn’t have been raised from the dead? I’m sure you wouldn’t insist on such a non sequitur. If Jesus is the Son of God, then we have to take his teaching seriously, including his confidence in the authority of the whole Bible. If he is not who he says he is, why should we care what the Bible says about anything else.”
​
Just click on the links below.