6. Die gesag van die Bybel
As ons geloof op die openbaring van God in die Bybel berus, dan moet ons wel een of ander versekering hê dat die Bybel outentiek en geldig is. Hoe weet ons dat dit nie ‘n versameling mites is wat van geslag tot geslag oorgedra is nie?
Eerstens en baie belangrik, net soos wat vertroue die vernaamste element van ons geloof in God is, is vertroue in die egtheid van die Bybel die vernaamste element van ons aanvaarding van die gesag daarvan. Hierdie vertroue word deur die Heilige Gees in ons harte bewerk. Maar daar is ook sterk aardse getuienis oor die egtheid van die Bybel.
Ons lees in die Bybel dat God deur sy Woord sy openbaring aan die mens oordra. En die Bybel dra self ook sekere merktekens van die egtheid van hierdie openbaring. Ons sien dit in Ou-Testamentiese profesieë wat reeds vervul is wanneer die Nuwe Testament geskryf word. Byvoorbeeld, Jesaja 53 is ongeveer 600 jaar vC geskryf maar dit vertel die toekomstige verhaal van Jesus se lyding en sy verlossing van die mensdom, soos wat dit dan daarna in die Nuwe Testament beskryf word.
Die verskillende Bybelgeskrifte is deur ‘n hele klomp skrywers van verskillende kulture, tale en omstandighede geskryf. Tog vertoon dit ‘n merkwaardige eenheid. Nie ‘n duplikasie soos wat mens sou verwag as dit die produk van ‘n sameswering of blote kopiëring of mites was nie, maar ‘n wesenlike eenheid in die verloop van die hooftrekke van die openbarings en verlossingsplan van God. En tog op verskillende wyses en beklemtonings deur verskillende mense verwoord.
Die Evangelies van die Nuwe Testament dra die merktekens van egtheid. Dit is binne ‘n geslag of twee na die geboorte van Jesus geskryf. Legendes aan die ander kant neem heelwat langer om werklik beslag te kry en dan word dit in die proses gesaniteer van alles wat vraagtekens kan veroorsaak.
Al die Evangelies is dit byvoorbeeld eens dat dit vroue was wat Jesus eerste gesien het na sy opstanding. As ons in ag neem dat vrouens se getuienis in daardie era as onbetroubaar beskou is en nie in ‘n hof toegelaat is nie, dan wonder mens hoekom hierdie feit so pertinent in die Evangelies weergegee is. As die Evangelies net legendes was, sou die verhaal dan nie ‘n meer “polities korrekte” lyn gevolg het om op die getuienis van mans staat te gemaak het nie?
Die Bybel openbaar en verklaar nie vir ons die totale historiese verloop van dinge nie. Ons kry ook net ‘n basiese begrip van bepaalde gebeurtenisse. Ons weet min van die wanneer en die hoe van die skepping van die hemelwesens en die “Eerste Sondeval” toe die Satan as invloedryke engel saam met sy volgelinge teen God in opstand gekom het. As die Bybel werklik mities van aard was en legendes weergegee het, sou hierdie “sensasionele gebeurtenisse” dan nie ‘n baie meer prominente rol gespeel het nie?
Hierdie argumente gaan waarskynlik nie sommer iemand wat reeds ‘n ongeloofsbestemming gekies het, oortuig nie. Maar dit is nie asof so ‘n persoon oor meer oortuigende getuienis tot die teendeel beskik nie. Die gelowige aanvaar die getuienis onder die leiding van die Heilige Gees, terwyl die ongelowige dit bloot verwerp.
6. The authority of the Bible
If our faith rests on the revelation of God in the Bible, then we must have some assurance that the Bible is authentic and valid. How do we know that it is not a collection of myths passed down from generation to generation?
First and very importantly, just as trust is the chief element of our faith in God, trust in the genuineness of the Bible is the chief element of our acceptance of its authority. This trust is wrought in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. But there is also strong earthly evidence for the genuineness of the Bible.
We read in the Bible that God conveys his revelation to humanity through his Word. And the Bible itself bears certain hallmarks of the authenticity of this revelation. We see this in Old Testament prophecies that had already been fulfilled by the time the New Testament was written. For example, Isaiah 53 was written approximately 600 years BC, yet it tells the future story of Jesus’ suffering and his redemption of humanity, as it is then described in the New Testament.
The various biblical writings were written by a great many authors from different cultures, languages, and circumstances. Yet they display a remarkable unity. Not a duplication such as one would expect if it were the product of a conspiracy or mere copying or myths, but an essential unity in the course of the main features of God’s plan of revelation and redemption. And yet expressed in different ways and with different emphases by different people.
The Gospels of the New Testament bear the hallmarks of authenticity. They were written within a generation or two after the birth of Jesus. Legends, on the other hand, take considerably longer to truly take shape, and in the process they are sanitised of everything that might raise questions.
All the Gospels agree, for example, that it was women who first saw Jesus after his resurrection. If we consider that women’s testimony in that era was regarded as unreliable and was not admitted in court, then one wonders why this fact is so pointedly recorded in the Gospels. If the Gospels were merely legends, would the story not have followed a more “politically correct” line by relying on the testimony of men?
The Bible does not reveal and explain to us the complete historical course of events. We also receive only a basic understanding of certain events. We know little of the when and the how of the creation of heavenly beings and the “First Fall” when Satan as an influential angel, together with his followers, rebelled against God. If the Bible were truly mythical in nature and recorded legends, would these “sensational events” not have played a far more prominent role?
These arguments will probably not easily convince someone who has already chosen a destination of unbelief. But it is not as if such a person possesses more convincing evidence to the contrary. The believer accepts the evidence under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, while the unbeliever simply rejects it.