"Jesus didn't give us the Bible"

Bible Brian
12 minutes ago
9 min read

In an effort to bolster their authority, Roman Catholics often assert "Jesus didn't give us a Bible, He gave us a Church, then the Church gave us the Bible". This is a rhetorically powerful point, because it gives the impression that you cannot simultaneously accept the Bible and reject the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

In spite of its rhetorical power, the argument is both historically and theologically flawed. It is historically flawed because it relies on the easily disprovable assumption that Scripture was not recognised until the Councils of Hippo (393 A.D.) and Carthage (397 A.D.). There is an abundance of indisputable proof that this claim is false.

To begin with, in his 39th Festal Letter (367 A.D.), Athanasias spoke of books "which have not indeed been put in the canon, but have been appointed by the Fathers as reading-matter". The fact that he spoke about books that have not been put into the canon means there was a canon for them to be put into. Or not, as the case may be. Interestingly, with the sole exception of the book of Esther (see interjection), Athanasias' canon is identical to the "Protestant" canon, with the Deuterocanon being listed among the books which "have been appointed by the Fathers as reading-matter". In other words, no matter which way you cut the cake, the canon of Scripture did exist before the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, and modern Rome is in direct conflict with it. At least, according to "Saint" Athanasias.

Possible interjection

Rather than proving a canon existed in his time, some Roman Catholics might argue Athanasias' rejection of Esther makes him just as much a problem for me, as it's "proof" that even if he believed in a canon, it wasn't the canon I use.

The simple pushback against this is that Esther is one of the most controversial books in the canon. Many Jews rejected it on various grounds, including the lack of direct mention of God. In spite of this, it was included in the Hebraic canon in Jesus' time. Thus, it is likely Athanasias simply held to the Hebraic canon, yet was sufficiently influenced by disputes about Esther, in particular, to reject it.

With the sole exception of his rejection of Esther, Athanasias still recognised the Hebraic canon, but more importantly, so did Jesus. This is proven in Luke 24:44, in which Jesus directly references the Tripartate division of the Hebraic canon, and Matthew 23:35, in which Jesus uses the bracketing of the Hebraic canon - from Genesis to 2 Chronicles. Jesus, of course, holds infinite measures more authority than Athanasias, making Athanasias an afterthought. Thus, Athanasias' rejection of Esther does not impact the argument that he recognised a canon - one distinct from the canon of Rome - before Rome supposedly gave us the canon.

But furthermore, there is evidence within Scripture that Scripture was recognised almost as soon as it was written. In 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul quotes Luke 10:7, calling it Scripture (and on par with Deuteronomy). Similarly, in 2 Peter 3:16, Peter says unstable people twist Paul's letters to their own destruction, as they do with "the rest of" the Scriptures, thereby categorising Paul's letters as Scripture. By referring to New Testament works as Scripture, the Apostles not only recognised their canonical status, but took it for granted that their immediate audience would likewise recognise this.

So we see that Roman Catholicism's most common, and most rhetorically powerful argument falls apart just on the historical aspect. But theologically, it gets significantly worse. We are told that "Jesus didn't give us a Bible", but in a manner of speaking, He did.

See, first of all, 2 Timothy 3:16 tells us that all Scripture is "theopneustos" (θεόπνευστος). That is, "God breathed". Already, this is problematic for Roman Catholics, because they believe - correctly, I'll add - that Jesus is God. In fact, they use this logic to defend their Marian dogma that Mary is the Mother of God. If Jesus is God, and Mary is the mother of Jesus, then Mary is the mother of God. By the same logic, if God gave us the Bible, and Jesus is God, Jesus did, in fact, give us the Bible.

This means no Church can ever claim to have given it to us. The absolute best anyone can claim is that God gave them the Bible, and it is their job to pass it on. This can be said of the Jews, and in fact, in Romans 3:1-2, Paul says this is what makes it advantageous to be a Jew (which is further evidence that we should be sticking to their canon). But notice how the privilege of the reception of God's oracles carries the responsibility of faithfulness to them. If a Jew is so foolish as to claim "we gave you the Old Testament, Jesus isn't in it!", you are quite within your rights, as a Christian, to shut both of those lies right down. How much less power does the Roman Catholic Church have, given that they have no such explicit advantage in Scripture?

I could stop here. The Roman Catholic argument is dead on two counts. It fails historically, because the canon of Scripture is proven to have existed long before the Councils Roman Catholics claim gave it to us. It fails theologically, because Jesus actually did give us the Bible, and it's blasphemous to try to take credit for His intellectual property. But I don't have to stop here. And so I will not.

A fact that will take no one by surprise is that the doctrine of the Trinity is actually very deep. In fact, it's very difficult to talk about without running into heresy. To give a comparable example, I was once accused of Nestorianism because I pointed out that Jesus never killed anyone. This statement is simultaneously true and false. Incarnate in His flesh, Jesus did not kill a single person. In His greater capacity as God, however, Jesus has quite the body count.

But Christ Himself justifies this manner of speaking when He says "My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me." (John 7:16). If we go by the logic that got me accused of Nestorianism, Jesus is a heretic, effectively saying "God's doctrine is not God's, but God's". But by distinguishing Himself from the Father, He legitimises doing so. With that in mind, when the Bible claims to be "God breathed", it is simultaneously generalised, and specific. That is, the claim that Scripture is God-breathed means it does come, quite specifically, from Jesus.

See, as I've already alluded to, during His ministry, Jesus asserted that He submitted to the Father. Let's look at some examples:

"I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me."
- John 5:30
"Jesus answered them and said, “My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me."
- John 7:16
"Then Jesus said to them, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things."
- John 8:28
"For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. 50 And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak.”"
- John 12:49-50
"Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works."
- John 14:10

From this, it is abundantly clear that the Son does not speak of His own authority, but rather, speaks what the Father gives Him. But eventually, the time approaches for Jesus to depart, and so He begins to comfort His disciples. In John 16:12-15, we read "“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. (See interjection). However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you."

Possible interjection

Some Roman Catholics claim "you cannot bear them now" refers to the teachings that would evolve later on in history, and thus are not found in the Bible, nullifying the Sufficiency of Scripture. However, it is abundantly clear from the context - keeping in mind Jesus would not even be arrested for another two chapters - that He is speaking significantly less broadly than 200 or so years in the future. He is saying He has many things to teach the disciples, and that these teachings would be delivered to them by the Spirit of truth in due time. Jude 1:3 tells us that the faith has been delivered "once for all to the saints", and encourages us to earnestly contend for it.

This is important. This whole time, Jesus has been speaking as if He has nothing of His own, but now, He declares "All things that the Father has are Mine". This, of course, includes both judgement and doctrine. So, now, Jesus claims ownership of all of these things, and it is instead the Holy Spirit who will not be speaking of His own authority. Rather, He takes from what is Christ's, and this is what He declares to the Disciples.

And this is how Scripture has always been written. "...holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1:21) (See interjection). This is why Paul claimed "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Possible interjection

It is an extremely common Roman Catholic argument that 2 Peter 1:20 says Scripture is not for "private interpretation", which they then privately interpret to mean you cannot privately interpret Scripture, and expect you to share this private interpretation of Scripture. The contradiction alone should show the flaw in this private interpretation. However, the full text of 2 Peter 1:19-21 is "And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."

We see, then, that this is actually speaking about how Scripture was written, not about how it is to be read. In fact, it seems to say the opposite of what Roman Catholics would have us believe: We have this word confirmed, and so you better heed it!

The word for "given by inspiration of God" is "theopneustos" (θεόπνευστος). That is, it is "God-breathed". And from what we've seen here, that is entirely appropriate. A doctrine begins with the Father, who gives it to the Son, who gives it to the Holy Spirit, who gives it to the holy men of God, and that, finally, becomes Scripture, which the Church receives not as the word of men, but as it really is; the word of God, which works effectively in those who believe (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

And even the Roman Catholic Church officially teaches this! In Dei Verbum, we read "...Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit...". So, if Scripture is the word of God, how can it not also be the word of Jesus? And if Scripture is the word of Jesus, how can Rome claim "Jesus didn't give us the Bible..."? The logic is non-existent!

And it always has been. See, contrary to the Roman Catholic claim to have given us the Bible towards the end of the 4th century, the Christian position has always been that we have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

But don't take my word for it. In fact, those are not my words. From the word "we" in the above paragraph, right to the very end, are the words of Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, a so-called "Doctor of the Church", whose words are not so easily dismissed by any Roman Catholic. If he believed, as he wrote in Against Heresies, that the Scriptures handed down to us from the Apostles are "the ground and pillar of our faith", what right has any Roman Catholic to subsequently dismiss those same Scriptures on the grounds that "Jesus didn't give us a Bible"?

In this article, I believe I have thoroughly refuted that claim. Jesus gave us the Bible in the sense that the Bible is a Trinitarian effort. All Scripture is Christ's, being taken from the Father, and delivered by the Holy Spirit. God gave us a Bible, and we are the least penitent of all rebels if we dare to claim to be of His Church, yet reject His Holy word.