Episode Description

This episode Senior Pastor, Dr. Kurt Bjorklund, talks with Butler County Campus Pastor, Brady Randall, about how the Bible canon was created, dealing with variations in the Gospels and if they prove inaccuracy, and the sacredness of places and times.

Resources for Further Study
The Historical Reliability of the Gospels by Craig Blomberg - https://amzn.to/369Tr5n
The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel - https://amzn.to/32Z14JF
The Big Book of Bible Difficulties by Norman Geisler - https://amzn.to/2NmpE0B

Episode Transcript

Kurt Bjorklund: Hey, welcome to Ask a Pastor. Today I'm joined by Brady Randall. Brady is our campus pastor of our Butler location. And welcome, Brady, it's great to have you here today.

Brady Randall: Good to be here.

Kurt Bjorklund: And so today we're going to jump into some questions. As always, if you have questions for Ask A Pastor, you can send them to askapastor@orchardhillchurch.com, and we will be happy to address those in a coming episode.

Kurt Bjorklund: So, Brady, here's the first question. It talks about the creation of the Bible, it says, "The Bible is God's divine word to us, but how did he reveal it? How was it compiled and assembled by so many different authors to become what we know it as today?"

Brady Randall: Yeah, well that could be a whole book or dissertation, I think, but very simply, the Bible is a collection of books, that's actually what Bible means, and so there's 66 books of the Bible, somewhere around 40 different human authors. And certainly there is a divine side to scripture and a human side. And what I mean by that is, you know, you read in certain texts that, in fact, Peter, who was one of the apostles, said that men spoke as they were carried along by the Spirit, in terms of God breathing out his words. And then Paul says that all of scripture, all of the Bible, is God breathed, or it's inspired by God.

Brady Randall: And so, sometimes God spoke through direct revelation to one of God's authors or his prophets and then they would write it down. Early on it was a lot of an oral culture, so things would be said orally and then they would write them down on things like silver, stone, parchment, papyrus. And so, by the time you get to Jesus' day, in terms of what we have as the Old Testament, there was very little, if any, dispute in terms of what made up the Bible. Like even the Jews of Jesus' day said, "Okay, yeah, this is the scripture, this is the Bible that Jesus read."

Brady Randall: And then when you get into the New Testament, around 180 to 140, there began to be some people who said, "No, this book of the Bible should be included," so they had to say, "What is scripture?" And generally the principle was, was it endorsed by or written by an apostle of Jesus? And so they would gather like the Gospels, they would gather a lot of Paul's writing, they would put these together. And it wasn't that they came up with, "Oh, this should be scripture," but as one author said, that scripture in the church grew up together. It wasn't like, "Oh, we are conferring that these are the books that have authority," but rather, "These are the books who told about the life of Christ and have authority."

Brady Randall: So there's a lot of oral transmission, there's a lot of different writing. We have manuscripts, they were copies of copies of copies to be how we get the Bible today. And that may be more along what the question is asking, how did we get it today? But if you look a 1600 year history, there was a lot of authors, a lot of compilation.

Kurt Bjorklund: So let me ask you two questions that are follow ups to that. So, if somebody says, "Well, I've heard of other Gospels, like the Gospel of Thomas or something that's out there. Why isn't that in the Bible and who got to make that decision?"

Brady Randall: Yeah, that's a really good question. One of the things is that there's a thread of consistency throughout the Gospels and throughout what God has said. I think the Gospel of Thomas, maybe you can correct me, was much later. And what we have in the books were all written within a generation of Jesus' lifetime. And so, do you remember the date of when the Gospel of Thomas was?

Kurt Bjorklund: Not off hand, no.

Brady Randall: But I think that was later.

Kurt Bjorklund: Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Brady Randall: And so, there was also the apostolicity of the church, and so, was it endorsed by an apostle? And I think the Gospel of Thomas has something about Mary, something at the end of the Gospel, Thomas was just like way, way out there. What do you know about the Gospel of Thomas and its inclusion?

Kurt Bjorklund: Well, I'm asking you. Nice attempt to try to turn this around. You're the one who's got to answer the question. No, what I would say very simply is, is what happened is the canonicity of the scripture, which was what you were alluding to with the, does it have an apostle as an author or an endorsement? Is it consistent with the teaching? Was it universally recognized as being part of it? And so the Gospel of Thomas, as you alluded to, actually came later and had some things in it that did not appear to be consistent with the overall teaching of the church.

Kurt Bjorklund: And therefore, it was never even really a question. It wasn't like somebody sat around and said, "Oh, the Gospel of Thomas, no." It just was never even in the serious consideration initially. To which some people then would argue, "Well, it was a hidden Gospel or maybe we need to consider it. Maybe those teachings are significant and important."

Kurt Bjorklund: And so, at some point, you are, and this leads to my second question for you, and don't try to turn it around, at some point you have to take a step of faith to say, "Okay, I believe that this collection of books is actually God's word to me. And that it has all the books that I need, there aren't other books that I need."

Kurt Bjorklund: So, my second question to you is, what for you makes that compelling? Why is it that you ultimately say, "I take this as being actually God's word to me and I'm not concerned about having to study the Gospel of Thomas any more to figure out if it belongs. Or anything else that somebody else writes and brings along to me today." What for you is compelling?

Brady Randall: Well, one, you know, if the scripture is the word of God, you know, Jesus is the word of God who put on flesh. And if God superintended over the process of the Old Testament and Jesus and the Jews in the first century said, "This is the scripture," and there was no doubt about it in the first century that the Old Testament was considered the word of God, if God would go to such lengths to preserve for us the Old Testament, how much more so would he also preserve for us the New Testament about the teaching and the work of Jesus?

Brady Randall: And so that me is compelling, if there was no dispute about the Old Testament, how much more now that we have the finished work of Jesus and the authors who would write about what Jesus did, that to me is compelling.

Brady Randall: And then, just as you take it on face value, as you read it for yourself, that in itself is compelling. That the scriptures speak to you, that they convict you, that you meet Jesus in the word of God. And that's something that people have to try out for themselves and say, "God, if this is really your word, if this is really true," I don't want to say prove it, you don't want to test the Lord, but see for yourself. Search and see if this really has the, if you really feel like this has the divine authorship that it claims to have.

Kurt Bjorklund: Mm-hmm (affirmative). Yeah, and there's some challenges obviously to any of those kind of points. Somebody could say, "Well, it's circular reasoning to say since God is trustworthy the Bible is trustworthy, when I learn about God from the Bible." Somebody could say, "Well, if it's a kind of test it and prove it, do I test and prove the writings or the thoughts of Marianne Williamson or whoever else is out there, and if it seems true to me, then like it really speaks truth, then it must be true." That can also run into some challenges, because you're actually, as a church, and I don't mean Orchard Hill as a church, but I mean the church across time has said this is not subjectively true. It is subjectively true, but it's not true because it's subjectively true. It's true objectively, apart from whether or not I believe it's true to me.

Kurt Bjorklund: And so, there's another side to this, which does require some actual hard academic work. And what I have found in years of doing this is that a lot of times people want to pick on something that they don't like in the Bible. Usually they don't like something it teaches about their life. And so what they want to do is they want to find something to say, "Well, because this isn't true and this isn't true, these two things don't agree, the Bible can't be true." And they usually will glom on to one or two little things, not do a lot of research.

Kurt Bjorklund: And what it really does take is some real academic work to say, are these documents reliable? Do they come from a certain time and place? Are they consistent in what they teach? Can I resolve these differences, at least to a reasonable mindset to where I say, "Okay, because this says this, or it says this, doesn't mean that it's totally contradictory and wrong." But that does require some academic rigor.

Kurt Bjorklund: And then I think if you've done that and you say, "This is really possible," then that subjective truth, the reading it for yourself, comes in. But I think if you go to that too quickly, you may not have the objective side when you start to ask the subjective question. And so I think you need both. I think you need to say, "This is true in what it says about me, about life, about my experience, but it's also true even if I can't make it make sense."

Kurt Bjorklund: Because sometimes there's things that won't make sense to us as we read it. And we'll say, "That doesn't seem to square with my opinion." And I have to now decide, is my opinion higher than the scripture?

Brady Randall: Right.

Kurt Bjorklund: Or is the scripture objectively true, whether I like the opinion or not. I mean, just something simple like tithing. I don't really love the idea of tithing, I want to keep everything for myself. Subjectively that doesn't feel good or make sense necessarily. And yet you say, "Well, if the Bible is true, then that's objectively true whether I like it or not."

Kurt Bjorklund: Now, what has happened in years of practicing giving is I've come to a place where I wouldn't not want to give because I've come to see how God does provide, how God does work, and how good it is to take a first portion of income and say, "God, this is yours." But if I started with that, I would have been like, "Meh, that's just not going to happen." And so I think there has to be the both/and. Does that make sense?

Brady Randall: Yeah, I think and to your point, are the documents, especially the Gospels, reliable? And the biggest event would be the resurrection. And is what they said about Jesus dying and then apparently resurrecting, can that be true and verifiable? And I think that goes to your point, if you look at the documents, you look at other history, there are some things that aren't in dispute. That there was a man named Jesus of Nazareth, that he did have followers, that he did die on a Roman cross. And does the details of the Gospels line up with some of that digging in history work that you have to do?

Kurt Bjorklund: Right, yeah. Do you have any resources that you'd recommend? I didn't ask you that ahead of time, that would help somebody dig into this issue?

Brady Randall: Yeah, there's two books. One's the Historical Reliability of the Gospels by Craig Bloomberg, has a lot of that. And then, Case For Christ, I think really goes into some of that history. Lee Strobel was an author who tried to essentially disprove Christianity by the academic work. He was a Chicago journalist and in the process of trying to disprove the historicity and Christianity in general, that was a compelling moment where he actually came to faith. And now he's a real apologist for the Christian faith.

Brady Randall: So those would be two books that I would start with.

Kurt Bjorklund: Okay. Here is a question that's related. It says, "I've heard objections of scripture that struggle with the variations in the Gospels of Jesus' words and accounts of his life. How do we respond to criticism of the validity when people claim that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all lived with Jesus and followed him, but all quote him differently and not all of the same stories are the same."

Kurt Bjorklund: And so now we're not talking about outside of the scope, we're talking about inside the four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, how do you account for the variations and differences? Things that appear to be contrary?

Brady Randall: Yeah, this was really a crisis of faith moment for me, I'd say when I was a senior in high school, college years, and maybe first or second year of seminary. And the question I had is, if in this case the Gospels are contradictory, or you find error, things that don't line up, and I can't trust what God says in the Gospels, why should I trust anything in the scriptures? Because if you find just one detail that's either untrue or contradictory, then you're sort of asking me to throw my brain away and believe all the rest of it.

Brady Randall: And so that was big for me. And so as I began to sort of study that and look at the apparent contradictions, in this case in the Gospels, the one thing that was really helpful to me was that I often look at things through a 21st century lens. And so, writers of the first century did not have the same standards that we would today. You know, they didn't have quotation marks, they didn't have to write word for word.

Brady Randall: And what you see in the Gospels is not so much a photograph of what happened, but more of a drawing, per se. And so you have four different writers who are drawing about the life of Jesus. And so, if you take ... there's a word, inerrancy, to be without error. Now we might look at that from a 21st century view and say, "Well, if there's two things that don't line up, if this author quotes this and this author quotes this, and they're two different things, then those two things don't line up."

Brady Randall: There's a definition I think is really helpful, this is from David Docherty. He says this, "When all the facts are known in the Bible, in its original writings, properly interpreted in light of which the culture and communication means had developed by the time of its composition, it will be shown to be completely true and therefore not false in all that it affirms to the degree of precision intended by the author in all matters relating to God in his creation."

Brady Randall: Now, just to take one example, there's a lot in there, just to take one for example. Luke 14:26 and Matthew 10:37, where Jesus is talking about the cost of following him in relation to your family. In Luke 14:26, Jesus says, "If you come to me and don't hate your family," basically you can't be my disciple. And then Matthew in 10:37 says, "He who loves their family more than me is not worthy of me." Now one person says hate, the other person says who loves them more than me. And if you dig into what the word hate actually means there, it can mean to prefer more. So even though there's not the exact quote, they're really saying the same thing.

Brady Randall: And you could, for example, sometimes where there's two angels, were there two women or one person? Were there two people who were possessed by demons or one? And in some cases, there may have been two but the one author just focuses on the one.

Brady Randall: So you could go to each individual thing, but for me the most helpful thing to say is don't look at it through the 21st century lens, but rather the first century lens.

Kurt Bjorklund: Yeah, no, I think that's ... it's important too that you allow the Bible to speak in the language of its day, which is what you're saying. And even our day. So, for example, if you and your wife Susan, and my wife and I, we all went out together to dinner. And I said, "Wow, it cost us $100.00 to go out to dinner." You might leave the dinner and say, "Oh, it cost us $87.58 to go out to dinner." Well, we'd both be right in the language of our day.

Brady Randall: Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Kurt Bjorklund: I'm not misrepresenting something if I say we spent $100.00. And so sometimes our problems are like that with the text, where if we understand that they're speaking in the language of the day, or to your example of there were two people, one person, sometimes like if we were out to dinner, you might say, "Well, we had a great conversation and this happened." And then my wife might say, "Well, we talked about this and it was a little tense." That's actually, both can be true because you're speaking from two different perspectives.

Kurt Bjorklund: And the fact that God chose to use human authors, superintended by his Spirit so it can't be wrong if it's of God, but we have to allow for some of those things. And again, I think if you look at them, you can really find it. There's a book Norman Geisler put out years ago that just, and I forget the exact title of it and I didn't think of this until just now, but he actually walks through all of the things that are objectionable, like you say, "Oh, how can this be?" And gives a reasonable explanation for them. Super helpful, if you just Google his name you'll see the book. And because it gives you another way to see it when somebody says, "Here's a problem with how this goes."

Kurt Bjorklund: Go head.

Brady Randall: Well, I was going to say, oftentimes if I'm really stumped, I say, "God, how could this be?" Usually if I give some time, somebody has an explanation that, "Oh, that makes sense." I'm just curious, Kurt, if you've come across anything that you're still stumped on? And particularly in the Gospels.

Kurt Bjorklund: Not that is troubling to me as I sit here today.

Brady Randall: Okay, yeah.

Kurt Bjorklund: I'm sure if I gave that some thought I would probably have some things that I say, "I still haven't found the resolution to that."

Brady Randall: Right.

Kurt Bjorklund: Completely to my satisfaction, I mean, I could say freewill and divine sovereignty are something, it's still out there. But usually what I've found is there's at least enough of an explanation that I say, "Well, that may not totally satisfy me," but that's better in my mind than the alternative of just saying the whole thing's false.

Brady Randall: Right.

Kurt Bjorklund: And again, at some point you look at the preponderance and you say, "Okay, this is still moving in a solid direction, even if I have an objection or something that doesn't make perfect sense to me in this instance, in terms of how this and that can both be true.

Kurt Bjorklund: So here's a question, and this is specific to a book, and so you may need to give us just a really quick summary, we have just maybe three or four minutes left here. It says, "I'm reading a book by A.W. Tozer, The Pursuit of God. And in the last chapter, A.W. Tozer discusses the error of the sacredness of places and times. What are your thoughts?"

Kurt Bjorklund: So, just explain for a moment, I assume that you figured out the exact reference point here. What is the error that Tozer's referring to and then what are your thoughts?

Brady Randall: Yeah, so just reading that section of the book, I've not read the whole book, but he's talking about the difference the sacredness of place and times. And I think what he's arguing against is, now that Christ has come, he has basically fulfilled the law. And all of the holy days, the holy seasons, the holy garments, they find their fulfillment in Jesus. And I think what he is arguing against is that people today, or certain faith traditions, have sort of held on to these holy days, holy feasts, and he's saying Christ has already fulfilled that, so what are you doing still holding on to that?

Brady Randall: There's one text that I think that is really helpful. Actually two, and I'll just read very quickly, in Romans 14, this is Paul who is writing, who is Jewish, by the way. And he says this, "One person considers one day more sacred than the other, another considers every day alike, but each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind." And then similarly in Colossians 2 he says this, "Therefore, do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a new moon celebration, or a sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that are to come, the reality however is found in Christ."

Brady Randall: And so on the one hand, I appreciate what Tozer's doing, don't let things become ritualistic just for the sake of doing them. But on the other hand, I think for some people, for example, if you celebrate Advent, or you're preparing for Christmas, or Lent, as you prepare again for the death of Jesus. Those things can become ritualistic, but at the same time, if those things help draw you closer to the cross and to Jesus, then I think that can be really helpful.

Brady Randall: And then, for example, the sabbath day. The sabbath interestingly enough is, from my understanding, the one of the Ten Commandments that not repeated in the New Testament. And so some people can take the sabbath and make it very ritualistic. I'm not going to do this, I'm not going to do that. Or is it meant for our benefit? To free us, to worship, to rest.

Brady Randall: And so that would just be my quick sort of discussion on Tozer's point that I think it can be helpful, but I see his point about becoming ritualistic as well.

Kurt Bjorklund: Mm-hmm (affirmative). Well, good. We're going to leave it right there. So you got the last word on that. And Brady, thank you. And thank you for spending part of your day with this content.

Kurt Bjorklund: And if you have questions, send them to askapastor@orchardhillchurch.com and we will be happy to address them in a coming episode.