Biblical Criticism and the Betrayal of the Gospels

We are a product of our culture, and we tend to underestimate this fact. Ironically, this is perhaps even more true of those of us with advanced degrees. After all, we have spent more time conforming to societal/professional expectations and seeking the approval of our colleagues.

This seems to be especially true in the world of biblical/textual scholarship, where we spend our efforts trying to understand the Bible from a scholarly perspective. Sadly, our cultural conformity often escapes our awareness and leads us in an unbiblical direction.

For example, the skeptics, noting the verbal similarities among the Synoptic Gospels – Matthew, Mark and Luke – charge that they are not independent accounts of the life of Jesus, but reflect the fact that these Gospels have borrowed from each other. (Actually, Luke admits that his Gospel is the result of his investigations of various eyewitness accounts.)

The more conservative scholars have countered that the Gospels represent the corporate oral traditions of a vast body of eyewitnesses, and this would account for their many verbal similarities.

However, both of these groups overwhelmingly fail to reason from the fact that the Gospels are not just the word of man but also the Word of God (1 Thess. 2:13). In other words, while the Bible-believing scholars believe that the Bible is the Word of God, this truth is often absent from their defense of the Gospels. Instead, they seem to exclusively treat the Bible as the word of man.

Jesus’ commission of His Apostles stands in direct opposition to this misguided emphasis. He informed them that their teaching ministry – at first oral and then written – would be the product of the Spirit, who would reveal all things to them:

• “But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” (John 14:26)
• “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.” (John 15:26-27)
• “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you.” (John 16:12-14)

In view of these teachings, the word of the Apostles – and they had been eyewitnesses from the beginning – was not primarily their own word (1 Peter 1:9-11; 2 Peter 1:19-21) but the Word of the Spirit. He would teach them all truth and remind them of everything.

Our research methods determine research results. If we start with methods that only take into account the humanity of the Bible, the findings will only reflect a human Bible. Although Scripture is partially amenable to human analysis, it also comes from above. As such, it is not amenable to further analysis. Instead, when we analyze it as if it is merely man’s word, we betray the teachings of Jesus and our faith.

The Gospels are the Word of God

How can we know that the four canonical Gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John – are the Word of God? They don’t explicitly claim that they are Scripture. When Jesus proclaimed that “not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished” (Mat. 5:18), the Gospels hadn’t yet been penned, and so this claim didn’t pertain to them. And when Paul insisted that all Scripture is “God-breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16), certainly the OT Scriptures

would have come to mind.

However, Paul does quote the Gospel of Luke as “Scripture”:

• For Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain” (Deut. 25:4), and “The worker deserves his wages (Luke 10:7).”

He regarded his own writings as Scripture:

• For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe. (1 Thess. 2:13)

Paul could not have been claiming this honor for only his own writings (Eph.2:19-20; 3:4-5). He also seemed to suggest that there was additional written and authoritative testimony – “the preaching of Jesus Christ” - apart from “my gospel”:

•  Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began. (Rom. 16:25)

It seems likely that his reference to “the preaching of Jesus Christ” was not in reference to the preaching he had heard but the preaching of the apostles found in the Gospels. Peter also testified that Paul’s writings were Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16), and suggests that the Words of the apostles are on par with the canonical words of the “holy prophets”:

•  [“I write this second epistle”] that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior. (2 Peter 3:2)

Although Peter doesn’t explicitly mention the Gospels, there is no reason to suppose that “the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior” wouldn’t also include the apostolic Gospels. Paul testified in a similar manner (Eph. 3:3-5). Besides this testimony, Jesus claimed:

• “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.” (Mark 13:31)

How has His words been made to “never pass away?” Through the canonical Gospels! Interestingly, these four were held in such high regard that no question had ever been raised by the church regarding their canonicity. They had such extensive historical support that even the agnostic Bible-skeptic, Bart Ehrman, concedes:

• The oldest and best sources we have for knowing about the life of Jesus…are the four Gospels of the NT…This is not simply the view of Christian historians who have a high opinion of the NT and in its historical worth; it is the view of all serious historians of antiquity…it is the conclusion that has been reached by every one of the hundreds (thousands, even) of scholars. (Truth and Fiction in the DaVinci Code, p. 102)

Jesus also attests to the future teachings and writings of the apostles in this way:

• “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.” (John 15:26-27)

• “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.” (John 16:12-13)

Jesus not only provided authoritative testimony about prior Scripture, but in these verses, He gave testimony to what would be written. The Holy Spirit would guide the apostles into “all truth.” And this, they would both teach and write.

Jesus did not simply commission the apostles. God also made it plain that their Word – oral or written – was authoritative:

•  For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty, how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, God also testifying with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will. (Hebrews 2:2-4)

With such miraculous attestations, it would be reasonable to accept the apostolic writings – the Gospels included – as Scripture. It was because of miraculous attestation (2 Cor. 12:11-12) that the early church readily and universally received all of Paul’s 13 epistles as Scripture. It is therefore likely that this same attestation accompanied  the Gospels, explaining they too had been universally accepted as the Word of God.

Consequently, the early church devoted “themselves to the apostles' teaching”: 

• They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles. (Acts 2:42-43)

There is no reason to suspect that such devotion wouldn’t also include the apostolic writings – the Gospels. How else are we to understand the universal and unequivocal acceptance of the Gospels as Scripture within the contentious early church!

The Arrest and Trial of Jesus and how it Reveals the Hand of God

Each Gospel presents a slightly different perspective on Jesus’ arrest and trial. Consequently, to some, they seem to contradict one another in certain places. One atheist wrote:

• These irreconcilable problems with the arrest and trial of Jesus show that the Gospel accounts cannot be trusted with the truth of the matter. With the mystique and misunderstanding surrounding Jesus' arrest, coupled with the legend and myth attached to the accounts at later times, the truth may never be fully known. (James Still)

While we can attempt to reconcile the “irreconcilable problems,” as many have ably done, I’d instead like to point out some amazing commonalities among the Gospel accounts – the obvious fact that the Jewish authorities so badly bungled this affair and, therefore, needed Jesus’ assistance in order to secure the “conviction.”

It is remarkable that my highly educated Jewish people had violated every one of their own legal principles in regards to Jesus’ arrest and trial. The arrest had resulted from a bribe (to Judas) – something forbidden by Jewish law. (I am deriving this information about Jewish legal procedure from a teaching given by Arnold Fruchtenbaum.) 

Perhaps because it was dark, the arresting party seemed to be confused about which one in the garden was Jesus. He therefore helped them by declaring “I am He” (John 18:5, 8). At some point, Judas kissed Him to identify that He was truly the one they sought.

In order to maintain neutrality, judges and members of the Sanhedrin were not allowed to participate in an arrest. However, in this case, they were clearly part of the arrest battalion:

• Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him, "Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs? Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour--when darkness reigns." (Luke 22:52-53)

Instead of making a defense for Himself, Jesus consistently provoked his accusers, inciting them to even greater anger.

Because public trials lesson the possibility of conspiracy, Jewish law forbade secret trials. Besides, they were not supposed to take place after sunset – something that might contribute to foul-play. However, at night He was brought before Annas who questioned Him (John 18:20-21).

The NIV Study Bible notes add:

• “Not legal, since witnesses were supposed to be brought in first to establish guilt. The accused was not required to prove his innocence.”

In order to enable public viewing, the Sanhedrin trials could only be held in the hall of Judgment of the Temple. After Annas, they brought Jesus to a closed session of the high priest Caiaphas (John 18:24; Luke 22:54).

Everything had to be established by two or three witnesses (Deut. 19:15). The defendant had to have an advocate, and the defense had to precede the prosecution. However, none of these things happened. The Jewish authorities hastily attempted to produce witnesses – any witnesses, but they contradicted one another:

• The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward. Finally two came forward and declared, "This fellow said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.' " (Matthew 26:59-61)

Finally agreement! However, this charge must have been laughable. Clearly, Jesus must have been talking figuratively. Certainly He couldn’t destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three days. Besides, no one would even have allowed Him to remove one of its stones! Therefore, in exasperation and desperation, Caiaphas asked Jesus to testify against Himself:

• Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?" "He is worthy of death," they answered. (Matthew 26:62-66)

The leadership was desperate, and so Jesus helped them to bring about His own conviction. He not only admitted that He was the Messiah, He also quoted two messianic verses (Dan., 7:13-14; Psalm 110:1-2), claiming that He would fulfill them!

For the leadership, this was enough! However, this wasn’t enough to satisfy Jewish legal procedure! For one thing, the accusation of “blasphemy” was valid only if the name of God was pronounced, and Jesus didn’t mention God’s name here.

For another thing, the accused might be suicidal or protecting another. Therefore, he couldn’t testify against himself. The defendant couldn’t be condemned on the basis of his words alone.

The High Priest had to be dispassionate and neutral. This meant that he was forbidden to rent his clothing and that the charges could not originate with him or the judges. They could only investigate charges brought to them. However, these guidelines were also violated.

In order to avoid the possibility of a hasty judgment, the verdict couldn’t be announced at night. In the case of capital punishment, in order too allow time for evidence to surface that might favor the accused, the trial and the guilty verdict could not occur at the same time, but had to be separated by at least 24 hours. All of these were disregarded in regards to Jesus.

The high priest then wanted to close the deal:

• "You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?" They all condemned him as worthy of death. Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, "Prophesy!" And the guards took him and beat him. (Mark 14:64-65; )

However, to further protect the convicted, the sentence could only be announced after three days of the guilty verdict. A person condemned to death wasn’t to be beaten or scourged beforehand. Besides, no trials were allowed on the eve of the Sabbath or on a feast day. However, in the case of Jesus, all of these regulations were forgotten.

It seems that, most of the time, according to the four Gospels, Jesus remained silent. And when He spoke, it was never to defend Himself but to aid in His conviction. The four Gospels provide a consistent portrait of Jesus. He was a Man with a mission – to live sinlessly and to die a sinner for sinners!

However, the religious leadership is more perplexing. How is it that such highly educated and legalistic people could behave in such an illegal manner? Scripture is entirely consistent in this matter.

The leadership had definite plans for the arrest and trial of Jesus. However, this would have to take place after the Passover:

• Now the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were only two days away, and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some sly way to arrest Jesus and kill him. "But not during the Feast," they said, "or the people may riot." (Mark 14:1-2; Mat. 26:5; Luke 22:2)

Why then did they have Jesus crucified at the precise time that He had intended and not when they had intended? Jesus was in control!

• Jesus answered, "It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish." Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon. As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him. "What you are about to do, do quickly," Jesus told him, but no one at the meal understood why Jesus said this to him. (John 13:26-28; Mat. 26:21-23; Luke 22:21; Mark 14:18).

Although the Apostles were blinded to the fact that Judas would betray Jesus, Judas now understood that his cover was blown. He could no longer return to his former brethren. He was therefore coerced by this exposure to go to the high priest and explain that if he was going to betray Jesus, it would have to be now!

Evidently, the leadership decided to go forward despite their plan to wait until Passover was over. Everything was transacted in haste. Consequently, the pre-arrest and the trial preparations could no longer be put in place. A proper arresting party could not be constituted, the witnesses wouldn’t be vetted – nothing would be conducted lawfully. However, they wanted their man and pressed forward.

What we see here is an amazing display of Divine providence. Jesus would soon become the Crucified – the Passover Lamb – according to a plan set in eternity:

• So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, "Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him. Say to the owner of the house he enters, 'The Teacher asks: Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?' He will show you a large upper room, furnished and ready. Make preparations for us there." (Mark 14:13-15; Mat. 26:17-30; Luke 22:7-23)

Jesus demonstrated that He was providentially in control of all the details. He timed His arrival and prayer in the garden of Gethsemane to coincide perfectly with the arrival of His captors.

The four Gospels don’t toot their horns about this, but they all show us that when Jesus was at His most vulnerable, broken and humiliated, He was also in His glory. Clearly, it was Jesus giving His life and not the nations taking it from Him. It was His moment of glory (John 7:39; 12:23; 13:31; 17:1-4), although it seemed to a life ending in dishonor. He was fulfilling all righteousness – the very climax of all history, bringing love and righteousness to kiss together. The moment of the greatest darkness and sin became the moment of the greatest expression of love and the greatest victory.

The contrasts were never so severe. As the religious leadership was driven by hate, sin and jealousy, Jesus was stirred by a vision that they could barely imagine. While the leadership broke all of their laws, Jesus kept every one of them, even to the end. The “victors” would ultimately go to their death and destruction and the Victimized would earn life for the world. Praise be His Name for ever and ever!

Jesus and His “Errant” Prophecies

On several occasions, Jesus seemed to prophesy His speedy return. When He sent His disciples out on their first evangelistic outing, He promised them:

• “When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.” (Matthew 10:23)

Regarding this perplexing prophecy, Albert Schweitzer claimed that Jesus had wrongly believed that He would return and set up His everlasting kingdom prior to the return of His disciples:

• He tells them in plain words…that He does not expect to see them back in the present age.

However, was this really what Jesus had communicated? It seems highly unlikely. The preceding verses reveal that His return would be preceded by many global events:

• "Be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the local councils and flog you in their synagogues. On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles…Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.” (Matthew 10:17-22)

Instead, it seems that Jesus was preparing His disciples for both a long wait and possibly their martyrdom. What them did Jesus intend to convey when He stated that “you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes” (Matthew 10:23)?

I think that Jesus, so thoroughly imbued as He was with the prophecies of the Hebrew Scriptures, spoke in a way that mimicked them. Often, these prophecies would begin with the immediate in view but would then jump years into the future in the same breath. Here’s a familiar example – the prophecy to Abraham:

• "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you." (Genesis 12:1-3)

Although this prophecy had some immediate applications, the blessing to “all the peoples of the earth” would come much later.

Similarly, it seems that Jesus’ prophecy to His disciple would also be realized by later generations.

He delivered a similar prophecy to the high priest:

• But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." (Matthew 26:63-64)

This shouldn’t be interpreted to mean that the high priest himself would see this take place. However, in harmony with the character of Hebrew prophecy, He was probably suggesting that the Jewish people would observe His return.

It is interesting to note that the liberal skeptics claim that the Gospels were written by the early church (70-100 AD) to justify their evolved understanding of Jesus as God. In other words, instead of the Gospels containing the very words of Jesus, spoken 27-30 AD, they largely represent the “pious” invention of the early church.

For an extreme example, New Testament critic Bart Ehrman claims:

• The idea that Jesus was divine was a later Christian invention, one found, among our Gospels, only in John. (Jesus Interrupted, 249)

Ehrman believes that the last Gospel, John’s, would have the most to say about the deity of Christ, because, at this point, the church had fully evolved into this belief. Meanwhile, Ehrman claims that the earliest Gospel, Mark’s Gospel according to him, had the least to say about Christ’s deity, because the church had not yet evolved to the point of worshiping Jesus as God. In this regard, Ehrman makes an extravagantly erroneous claim:

• There is not one word in this Gospel about Jesus actually being God. (247) 

However, if the Gospels were a later Christian invention, it would be impossible to explain why the early church would have invented prophecies that seemed to indicate that Jesus had been mistaken! By 70-100 AD, Jesus hadn’t yet returned, and an early return was no longer possible. Why then invent or include prophecies that would make Jesus appear wrong! These clearly are not prophecies that the early church would invent 70-100 AD.

Perhaps the most fought-over prophecy about Jesus’ return comes from Matthew 24:34, after Jesus had described the signs preceding His return:

• “I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.” (Matthew 24:34; also Mark 13:30-31 and Luke 21:32-33)

“This generation” seems to take away any ambiguity about His return. Specifically, it would be during “this generation!” However, there is some controversy what “this generation” really refers to. As we found in Matthew 10, here too we find that Jesus clearly doesn’t believe that the end is near:

• You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains. Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death [Evidently, the Apostles will not be living at the time of His return!], and you will be hated by all nations because of me. At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold…And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. (Matthew 24:6-14)

Many things must first take place – martyrdom, apostasy, and worldwide evangelism - prior to Jesus’ return. Therefore, “this generation” shouldn’t be interpreted literally.

It is therefore more likely that “this generation” should be understood as “this Jewish people.” In other words, Jesus seems to be saying that the Jewish people will still exist when He returns.

However, while the Greek word for “generation” (“genea”) can be understood in certain verses in this sense (Luke 11:50-51; Mat. 12:39), only in the Hebrew Scriptures can we find the corresponding term (“dor”), usually rendered at “generation,” used unequivocally in this manner:

• There they are, overwhelmed with dread, for God is present in the company [“dor”] of the righteous. (Psalm 14:5)

• By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants [“dor”]? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken. (Isaiah 53:8) 

In both of these cases, “dor” cannot be understood as “generation” – a typical human lifespan. In Isaiah, “dor” can only be understood as the many generations, “descendents,” or people who didn’t come forth from the Messiah, because He died for the sins of the people.

Therefore, was Jesus mistaken about the time of His return? Well, if we choose to understand His words as indicating an early return, then it does seem that He was mistaken. However, if we don’t dismiss entire context of His remarks, then it is not possible to construe His words as prophesying an early return.