the bible is trustworthy

8/9/2019 The Bible is Trustworthy

1/6

Dixon 1

It has come to my attention that you have come across some information on the internet that has

brought a great tension to your faith in God and your trust of the Bible. I understand what you're going

through, as I was answering these questions for myself not so long ago. I want to do my best to address

your questions and share with you the answers that I have found. I will begin with discussing the Bible in

general, and then try to address some of the specific things you found on the website.

The Bible, as any text, has more than one layer to it. The outer layer is the actual words that we

find on the pages of the Bible. The inner layer is the meaning of these words. I know that many of your

concerns come from the differing content of the Bible (the inner layer) but I would like to first assure you

that that actual text which we hold in our hands (the outer layer) is, in fact, reliable and trustworthy.

Many people have a difficult time trusting the Bible because, as I'm sure you know, it did not just

fall from the sky in a nice leather-bound, shiny-edged-page format. The book which we call the Bible is

actually sixty-six books, written over the course of a few thousand years by various authors in various

languages.1 Scholars do not have any original copies of the books in the Bible, instead they have various

manuscripts and copies of the books. All of this may be unsettling, but compared with other ancient texts

there is actually much greater evidence for confidence in the Biblical text.

Though we do not have the original copies, there are a couple of qualities of the manuscripts that

give us confidence in their content. First, the existing manuscripts of the Bible come remarkably close in

time to their sources. For instance, some New Testament manuscripts have been dated at less than a

hundred years from the time of writing of the original they represent.2 The small time gap between the

original writings and the manuscripts that we have attest to the fact that the manuscripts are likely quite

accurate. Not only do we have old manuscripts, but we also have many manuscripts, especially in the

case of the New Testament, for which there are probably over five thousand Greek manuscripts alone.3

1 Paul S. Karleen, The Handbook to Bible Study : With a Guide to the Scofield Study System (New York: Oxford

University Press, 1987), 13.


University Press, 1987), 17.3 Paul S. Karleen, The Handbook to Bible Study : With a Guide to the Scofield Study System (New York: Oxford

University Press, 1987), 17.


2/6

Dixon 2

Having all of these manuscripts allows scholars to compare and contrast them and determine what was

likely the original. Considering the fact that the copying of these manuscripts was completely done by

hand it is amazing that there are as few errors as there are.4

Aside from the qualities of the manuscripts that can build our confidence in the Biblical text, I

think the presence of controversial material, such as the content which the website you have found

pointed out, speaks to the genuine nature of the text we have. If the Bible were a fabricated document,

wouldn't the authors who made it up wish to write consistently? Surely the presence of such 'problem

material' witnesses less to the creative activity of the early church than to its faithful transmission of

sacred tradition.5 I know that this does not solve the problem of these supposed contradictions, but it

should, I hope, give confidence in the genuineness of the words of the Bible.

Since the text of the Bible can be trusted, I would now like to discuss whether we can trust what

the text is saying to us. This question is less factual in nature and has a more philosophical and

theological scope. This question is one of how to read the Bible. It is important that we approach the

ancient texts of the Bible for what they are and not for what we expect them to be. When reading the

Bible we often project our twenty-first century expectations of literature onto it, expecting the Bible to be

an all-encompassing history or biography, or theological essay. The Bible, however, is not encyclopedic.

John Piper, when discussing the differences among the Gospels, says that they are not photographs, but

rather they're like portraits. Two artists can draw the same person, but the two who drew the portraits

drew them very differently.6This is the way that much ancient literature functions. It is true of portions

of the Old Testament such as Genesis 1 and 2 which portray two very different stories of creation and

pictures of God. The Gospels are not photographs taken by a reporter, but rather portraits drawn by an


University Press, 1987), 16.5 Robert H. Stein, Synoptic Gospels: origin and interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 196.

6 John Piper,"Ask Pastor John: 'How does an intellectually struggling Christian deal with the seeming concrete

differences between the Synoptic Gospels?'"; available from

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/AskPastorJohn/ByDate/4546_How_does_an_intellectually_struggling_Christian_deal_with_the_seeming_concrete_differences_between_the_Synoptic_Gospels/; Internet;

accessed 28 March 2010.


3/6

Dixon 3

artist. If that is the case, then when reading them we should not be asking the question What happened?

but rather What is the author saying about what happened? This approach does not discount the

historical truth of the Gospels, but does leave open the possibility of variations in the details.

Something else to consider about how one should read the Bible is what God asks of us. Our God

is a God who asks us to trust him. He asks for faith which will lead us to encounters, not faith that stems

only from that which we have encountered. Take Peter for example: Without first having the faith to step

out of the boat, he would never have had the experience of walking on water, even if just for a moment.

Abraham is another example: When God first came to him and told him simply to get up and move to a

foreign land Abraham had the choice to either trust in the Lord and go, or not. If he had not, then

Abraham would not have experienced anything that the Lord had for him and our Bible would end there

and humanity would have no hope.

Faith is powerful and the Lord asks for you to trust him as you read his word. Ultimately, the

Bible is trustworthy because our God is trustworthy. Read the Bible and live out your faith with the same

attitude as the man who asked Jesus to heal his son with the words, I believe; help my unbelief! (Mark

9:24) That morsel of faith will lead you to feasting through the Scriptures.

Now to answer some of the specific concerns resulting from the website. After taking a look at

the website it seems that none of the arguments they put forth hold much weight. It seems that the creators

of this website consider the different Gospel accounts to be contradictory because they are not carbon

copies of one another. Most of the contradictions which they point out are clearly seen not to be

contradictions at all with a simple elementary reading of the text. However, I will address some of the

contradictions which have been brought up, specifically those concerning Jesus on the way to and upon

the cross because this scene is the fundamental of everything that we believe.

The first contradiction the website tries to point out is the carrying of the cross to the place

where Jesus would be crucified. The website states that Matthew, Mark, and Luke tell of Simon the

Cyrene carrying Jesus' cross, which is true, and then asserts that John tells of Jesus carrying his cross the


4/6

Dixon 4

whole way, which is not true. Traditionally these are not viewed as contradictions, but that Jesus carried

his cross for a distance and then Simon was called upon to help. It is not a contradiction in John, but

rather a simple omission. One may ask why John tells this part of the story differently. The reason, I

believe, is because John is constantly emphasizing that Jesus is God incarnate. The other Gospels also

show this to be true, but none so clearly as John. With this being a theme of John, Simon is left out

because the writer is describing that God bears the entire load in the character of Jesus. Remember, do not

ask What happened? but rather What is the author saying about what happened?

The second contradiction pointed out by the website is not a contradiction at all. The website

claims that the variance of the specific wording on the sign posted above Jesus' cross is a contradiction.

Perhaps not all Gospels record the same exact wording, but all have recorded an identical message: that

this man was the King of the Jews. I think this attests to the fact that all four Gospels, though different,

are united with one another.

A third contradiction this website claims is a historical contradiction. The website states that

while the Bible describes the men hanging next to Jesus as robbers, Romans would never have crucified

someone who had merely committed robbery. This may be true, but it is unlikely that robbing was the

only crime of these men. While Matthew and Mark describe these men as robbers, Luke calls them

criminals (Luke 23:32). Also, the same word used to describe the men in Matthew and Mark is used to

describe Barabbas, the prisoner set free in exchange for Jesus, in John (John 18:40). However, we know

that Barabbas was more than simply a robber and that he also had committed murder from the description

of him in Luke (Luke 23:19). Therefore, these men were also likely more than robbers and may have even

been a part of the same band of criminals Barabbas led and were scheduled to be crucified with Barabbas

for the same reason as him, but he was exchanged with Jesus and therefore escaped his execution.

A fourth contradiction observed by the website is the recording of what Jesus drank during this

scene and whether or not he drank it. The scriptures referenced on the website seem to form a convincing

argument, but a careful reading of the texts will show that there is actually no contradiction at all.


5/6

Dixon 5

The first part of this contradiction, asserted by the website, is that some Gospel accounts describe

the drink as wine and others describe it as vinegar. The truth is all the accounts have the same description.

Throughout the Gospels there are three descriptions of the drink Jesus was offered: Matthew describes it

as wine mixed with gall (Matthew 27:34). Mark gives a more specific description of wine mixed with

myrrh (Mark 15:23). Luke and John both give a more generic description, sour wine (Luke 23:36,

John 19:29-30), which is rendered as vinegar in some translations. Regardless of English translation,

the Greek word used to describe this sour wine is the same word. In all of the accounts the drink offered

to Jesus was some kind of wine that had been made sour (with some kind of gall, i.e. myrrh).

The second part of this contradiction is whether or not Jesus drank the drink which was offered to

him. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke Jesus is offered the wine. He does not accept it in Matthew or Mark,

and Luke does not say whether or not he accepted it, I assume he did not. In John, however, Jesus cries

out I thirst! and is then given the drink. It is in this account that he accepts it. This is a different instance

of drinking than that which is described in the other three Gospels. Once again we must ask, What is the

author saying about what happened? In order to answer this question, we must know more about what is

going on in this scene. The Bible Knowledge Commentary offers some helpful information:

According to Rabbinic tradition certain Jerusalem women provided sedative drinks for those

about to be crucified, to decrease their pain (cf. Prov. 31:6-7). On arrival at Golgotha, they,

presumably the Roman soldiers, offered (lit., were attempting to give) Jesus such a

drink...But after He had tasted it (cf. Matt. 27:34) He refused it, choosing rather to face

suffering and death in full control of all His faculties.7

In Matthew and Mark Jesus' refusing of the drink serves to the purpose of their portrait of Jesus:

Matthew depicts Jesus as a kingly martyr who refuses the drink so as to remain strong for his people.

Mark emphasizes the relationship between suffering and serving and Jesus is depicted as God's servant

perfectly carrying out his duty. The Gospel of Luke does not say whether Jesus drank, but rather uses the

7 John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck and Dallas Theological Seminary, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An

Exposition of the Scriptures (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983-), Mk 15:2324.


6/6

Dixon 6

sour drink as yet another way the Roman officials mocked Jesus.

John tells of a different event for a different purpose. While Jesus is on the cross and about to die,

John writes that Jesus cries out I thirst! John actually states his purpose for including this by saying to

fulfill the Scripture (19:28). Matthew Henry observes that this cry of Jesus' indicates the respect Jesus

had for the prophecies concerning his death.8 In addition to the theme in John of Jesus being God, there is

Jesus' constant submission to his father. In crying out I thirst! the prophecy which had been set forth by

his father through the psalmist hundreds of years earlier would be fulfilled. In doing so, Jesus has

perfectly submitted to his father and perfectly shown that he is the one the scriptures testify about.

I'm sure that was more than you wanted to know about those supposed contradictions, but I

hope that these few explanations have shed some light to your concerns. I encourage you, in the words of

the Psalms, to:

Trust in the Lord, and do good;

dwell in the land and befriend faithfulness.

Commit your way to the Lord;

trust in him, and he will act. (Psalm 37:3, 5a)

Please let me know if there is anything else you would like to discuss. May the grace and peace of God be

with you.

8 Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible : Complete and Unabridged in One Volume

(Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996), Jn 19:1930.

the bible is trustworthy

Documents