Q&R: If Jesus is THE Revelation, What's the Bible Then?

Question: Many theologians (like Karl Barth) emphasize that Christ is the revelation of God—not the Bible. But this seems circular since we only know about Jesus through the Bible. If we need Scripture to know about Jesus, how can we say Jesus, rather than Scripture, is God's revelation? What's the point of making this distinction?

Response: Picture this: you're watching video footage of the Moon landing. You're not actually witnessing humans first walk on the Moon—you're seeing a recording that testifies to that historic moment. The footage itself isn't the Moon landing, but it reliably shows us what happened.

This gets at the key distinction between revelation and testimony. The Bible serves as Spirit-inspired testimony pointing us to the actual revelation: the person of Jesus Christ. The Bible isn't trying to be the revelation—it's trying to show us where to find it.

"But wait," you might say, "isn't this just semantics? Why does this distinction matter?"

It matters tremendously for how we read Scripture. If we treat the Bible itself as THE revelation, we risk flattening it into a book of equally authoritative divine pronouncements. This leads to all sorts of interpretive gymnastics trying to reconcile apparently contradictory passages.

But if we understand Christ as THE revelation—with Scripture as inspired testimony to that revelation—we can read the Bible the way it was intended—as a collection of different voices and genres all pointing us toward God. From the Christian perspective, Jesus serves as the ultimate revelation God. This doesn't diminish Scripture's authority, but it does properly order the relationship between Christ and the Bible.

Think of John the Baptist. He testified to Jesus, pointing people toward the "Light of the World." But John himself wasn't the Light; he was the witness to the Light. In the same way, Scripture testifies to Jesus while not itself being the revelation.

This distinction actually strengthens rather than weakens our view of Scripture. It shows the Bible fulfilling its divinely appointed role: faithfully witnessing to God's ultimate self-disclosure in Christ.

So next time someone suggests this view undermines Scripture's authority, remind them: the Moon landing footage doesn't have to BE the Moon landing to reliably show us what happened there. And the Bible doesn't have to BE the revelation to perfectly show us the One who is.

What do you think? How does this distinction change how you read Scripture? Let me know in the comments!

Note: Credit to N.T. Wright for the helpful metaphor about historical footage, which I've adapted here.