The four gospels confirm that Jesus did a lot of teaching (Mt 4:23; Mk 4:1; Lk 4:15; Jn 7:16, 28). The gospels devote most of their contents to the teaching of Jesus (Hagner 2012:110). A reading of the gospels shows that Jesus taught a variety of people: he taught individuals and crowds (Mt 5:1–2, 7:28–29, 19:16–22; Mk 4:1–8; Lk 7:40–47, 10:25–37; Jn 3:1–15, 4:7–26, 6:22–59); not only in synagogues (Mt 4:23; Mk 1:21; Lk 4:15; Jn 6:59), the temple (Mt 21:23; Mk 11:15, 17; Lk 19:47; Jn 7:14) and open spaces (Mt 5:1–2; Mk 6:31, 34; Lk 6:17, 18, 20; Jn 18:2), but also in private homes (Mt 9:10–13; Mk 14:3–9; Lk 14:1–24; Jn 12:1–11) and along the way (Mt 12:1–9a, 16:5–12; Mk 8:27–33; Lk 9:57–62; Jn 4:6–26) as he travelled throughout the areas he ministered (eds. Bimson et al. 1985:75; Craig 1965:123). The gospels also indicate that a large part of the teaching of Jesus was directed at his own disciples (Mt 10:5–42; Mk 7:17–23; Lk 11:1–13; Jn 13–16). Mark 4:34 tells us that Jesus made it a point that he explained further to them even the things he taught in public. Hagner (2012:111) helpfully notes that Jesus taught his apostles with the intention of making them the custodians of the accounts about his whole life. The disciples were to be his witnesses who also had the task of laying the foundation on which his church continues to be built (Ac 2:42; Eph 2:20). They were to teach others what Jesus taught them (Mt 28:19). In the process of turning the disciples into such custodians, Jesus did many signs before them but he appears to have also focused much of his attention on teaching them how to read the Scriptures. Jesus did this in both his pre-resurrection and post-resurrection teaching. What was the place and role of the Scriptures in the teaching of Jesus in general? What are some of the details that the gospels and Acts preserve to confirm that the way the apostles viewed and handled the Scriptures was to a large extent because of the teaching that Jesus gave them? This article discusses matters pertaining to these questions by looking at the gospels and Acts to highlight that the source of the reading of the Old Testament Scriptures in which Christ is recognised as the fulfilment thereof is Jesus, and that it occupied a critical and prominent role in both the teaching ministries of Jesus and his apostles. The article then argues that reformed biblical theology has to be appreciated not only as the fruit of such a reading of the Bible but also as embodying presuppositions that enhance a reading of the Scriptures which follows Christ and his apostles.

The article aims to achieve its goal by (1) explaining its methodological approach; (2) exploring what New Testament scholars say about the portrait of Jesus as teacher in the gospels; (3) summing up what others have observed about the place of the Scriptures in the teaching of Jesus; (4) drawing attention to some important ways in which Jesus used the Scriptures in his self-disclosure; (5) discussing how Jesus transformed the way that his disciples read the Scriptures; (6) presenting indications from Acts to show that the apostles focused their teaching on Jesus as being the Saviour that the Old Testament promised; (7) indicating how reformed biblical theology relate to the reading of the Bible that the gospels and Acts are advancing and (8) offering some concluding remarks.

The approach followed in this article is primarily informed by what the gospels and Acts say about themselves or their self-witness. In this case, the gospels and Acts present themselves as historical narratives and are recognised as such by many scholars (Boda 2017:127; Hagner 2012:61; Kaiser & Silva 2007:123). This article also follows many scholars in approaching the gospels and Acts as being part of the great biblical narrative that begins with Genesis and ends with Revelation (Boda 2012:135; Kaiser & Silva 2007:69; Provan 2012:275). This also flows from their being part of the one Bible.

The article further approaches the gospels and Acts as being both historical and theological. This is also something that is generally affirmed by many (Kaiser & Silva 2007:157, 161; Longman III 2012:120). This article accordingly views the contents of the gospels and Acts as concerning things that took place whilst also recognising that they are part of books that are telling the story with an agenda or certain purposes. The gospels and Acts are transparent about the fact that they are communicating a particular message and that selection of material was involved in their composition (Lk 1:1–4; Jn 20:30–31; Ac 1:1–2).

What is stated above implies that it is possible to identify a particular theological theme or an aspect of the message and explore its significance in terms of how it fits into the total message of this part of the Bible as well as how it relates to the rest of the Bible. In the use of comments from literature about specific Bible passages, due regard was therefore taken to make sure that those sources have adequately taken into consideration their immediate contexts, comparing them with their parallels when such exist, and how they also place them within the context of Old Testament teaching as well as that of the rest of the New Testament. Smuts (2013:xxii) helpfully refers to this as a downward–sideways–backward–forward reading of such passages. It is also the method that is commonly associated with biblical theology (Beale 2011:9; Johnson 2007:7; Keller 2015:47, 48).

The prominence of preaching and teaching in the ministry of Jesus according to the gospels indicates that the portrait of Jesus as ‘a teacher’ or ‘prophet’ is one of the most important that we have to use when attempting to comprehend his role on earth. It is true that the title ‘teacher’ or ‘prophet’ is in the gospels one that Jesus sparingly used to refer to himself (Cullmann 1963:30). In his survey of the Christological titles that are found in the gospel of Matthew, Viljoen (2011:12) also confirms that there are very few instances in which the title ‘teacher’ is used by Jesus to refer to himself. The point, however, is that when one looks beyond the titles that Jesus and his followers use to refer to him, one finds the gospels constantly pointing to the work that Jesus did to reveal, teach and preach. Mark 1:37–38, for instance, introduces the preaching tour of Jesus in Galilee by words that suggests that Jesus wanted his disciples to understand that teaching and preaching was an integral part of his mission when he said to them, ‘Let us go somewhere else – to the nearby villages – so I can preach there also. That is why I have come’. Commentators observe that this passage draws attention to the priority of preaching in the ministry of Jesus (Boring 2006:69; Hendriksen 1975:73; Stein 2008:102).

The portrait of Jesus as ‘teacher’ in the gospels is therefore inescapable. The gospels make it clear that the titles that Jesus and his disciples use for him in the gospels must be understood in such a way that they incorporate a multiplicity of roles, and that the various functions have to include that of a ‘teacher’ to form a balanced understanding of his identity and work.

What the gospels say about the role of Jesus in teaching and preaching prompted scholars to use many figures associated with Old Testament encouraged hopes to understand and explain his identity. Schreiner (2008:173–179) briefly surveys the three figures of Jesus as the New Moses, and Jesus as True Wisdom and Jesus as a Prophet. We note that these three somehow also parallel the three broad categories into which the Old Testament books are classified. These are the Law of Moses, the Writings (including the Psalms) and the Prophets (Dempster 2012:167; VanDerKam 2001:213).

Regarding Jesus as the New Moses, Schreiner finds many allusions that support such a conception of Jesus. He also refers to Deuteronomy 18:15–22 as the basis of the conception (Schreiner 2008:174). Schreiner (2008:175) then concludes his survey in this regard by saying that the conception helps to indicate that all of God’s promises are fulfilled in Jesus, and that the prophet predicted by Moses is none other than him.

Schreiner (2008:175, 176) also discusses the role of Jesus as true Wisdom and then points out that it serves to indicate that those who come to Jesus or who positively respond to his invitation find rest, life and wisdom. He points out that according to passages such as Matthew (12:41–42) and Luke (11:31–32), Jesus offered wisdom far greater than even Solomon (Schreiner 2008:177).

The conception of Jesus as a Prophet is also one that Schreiner (2008:177, 178, 179) finds many allusions for in the gospels. He helpfully indicates that it draws attention to the authority of Jesus as God’s final prophet, who in the parable of the vineyard (Mt 21:33–44 par.) is the son of the vineyard owner.

It is therefore clear that the gospels are, in this regard, indicating that in his work as ‘Teacher’, Jesus was not only bringing God’s revelation in the Law of Moses, the Writings and the Prophets to a climax, but he was also showing his close association with it as the one who fulfilled it, and also as the one who was the embodiment of what that revelation as a whole was about. He was in terms of John’s gospel ‘the truth’ (Jn 1:17, 14:6). It is important to also explore what the gospels say about the place of the Scriptures in his teaching ministry.

The gospels show that the Scriptures occupied a central place in the ministry of Jesus. The so-called fulfilment sayings in Matthew make this point (Schreiner 2008:170). Jesus did not only fulfil the Scriptures of the Old Testament in his life and works generally. He also did it in his use of the Old Testament Scriptures. Dever (2005:46) notes this prominence of the Word of God in Matthew (4:14, 8:17, 12:17). Jesus did not therefore take people away from the Scriptures but actually brought them closer to them. In Matthew 5:17, Jesus actually claimed to have fulfilled ‘the law and the prophets’. Dever (2005:46) then points out that ‘in Matthews, Jesus presents himself as the key to understanding the Old Testament Scriptures’. The business of Jesus during his earthly ministry included that of teaching this matter. The gospels are therefore saying that Jesus explained his identity to people at large and to his disciples by means of the Old Testament Scriptures.

This means that the ministry of Jesus was according to the gospels one that involved a widespread usage of the Scriptures. Reymond (2008:159, 160, 161) aptly indicates that Jesus also appealed to the Scriptures and considered them as reliable, inspired of God and authoritative. It is important to point out here that Jesus also used the Scriptures in controversies between him and the Jewish leaders of his times (Mt 9:10–13; Mk 10:2–9; Lk 20:41–44; Jn 10:31–39). In some of the controversies, he introduced his references to the Scriptures by the phrase, ‘have you never read’ (Mt 12:3, 21:16; Mk:12:10) – a mode of speaking that not only made the audience think, but also suggests that he was at the same time dealing with a possible neglect of certain parts of the Scriptures amongst his audience. Reymond (2008:159, 160) also draws attention to several instances which show that Jesus viewed the history that is presented in the Old Testament ‘as unimpeachable’. This matter concerns the historicity of the Old Testament. Longman III (2012:99) aptly draws attention to the fact that those that reject the historical nature of the Old Testament are by implication unable to maintain the historical trustworthiness of the New Testament. Part of the reason why this is the case is because such a stance would be contrary to the attitude that the gospels ascribe to Jesus regarding the matter, and the rest of the New Testament happens to follow his attitude. DeYoung (2014:32) briefly but aptly discusses this matter and then states that from its very beginning, Christianity like the Jewish faith from whose bosom it arose made historical claims.

The gospels also refer to instances when those that listened to Jesus were amazed by the difference between his teaching and that of their scribes (Mt 7:28–29; Mk 1:21–22; Lk 4:22; Jn 7:45–46). Kaiser and Silva (2007:167f) and Hagner (2012:110) point out that the difference was not only in style but also primarily in something to do with the content of the teaching of Jesus. It is important to recognise here that the gospels also indicate that this matter was often part of the reason why the Jewish leaders accused him of blasphemy (Jn 10:33; Mk 2:7). The accusation reached its climax when the Jewish council found Jesus guilty of blasphemy (Mt 26:65; Mk 14:63–64; Lk 22:70–71). The point we are making here is that this is a crucial matter that the gospels are emphasising about how Jesus read the Scriptures. The matter is also apparent in what the gospels say on how Jesus used the Scriptures in his self-disclosure.

The gospels are indicating that the promise of Jesus to make the disciples fishers of human eventually became true. The disciples were to play a significant role in the future of what Jesus had come to do. Bauckham (2006:95) helpfully suggests that the 12 had to be qualified for the mission of continuing ‘the mission of Jesus’. The process, which amounts to a great transformation, also involved how they read the Scriptures.

The teaching that Jesus gave to his apostles was a critical means to achieve their transformation in this regard. The gospels show that Jesus gave them special teachings over and above what they learned by being always around him. Mark 9:30–31a even reports an occasion in which the primary motivation for Jesus to not disclose his whereabouts was his need of time to teach them. Many commentators share this observation (Boring 2006:276; Stein 2008:439).

His life and signs contributed as well. John 2:11 accordingly draws attention to this when it reports that with the changing of water into wine, they saw his glory and ‘believed in him’ (Selvaggio 2010:22). They learned from his allusions to the Old Testament whenever he presented himself as the antitype of institutions, persons, events and even services associated with the Old Testament (Johnson 2007:118; Kaiser & Silva 2007:103, 104).

Mention must also be made of the love, grace and patience that Jesus had to exercise towards the disciples. The gospels show many instances in which they misunderstood him and in certain cases had to be corrected. Hagner (2012:179) mentions some of the weaknesses of the disciples that are reported in Mark. The disciples found it difficult to grasp that the humiliation and sufferings that Jesus was going through were what he had to endure as the Messiah in terms of the Scriptures. The gospels indicate that Jesus had to repeatedly teach them about the matter. Peter even had the audacity to ‘rebuke’ Jesus when he taught them about it even after he had confessed that Jesus was the Christ (Mk 8:32).

The death and resurrection of Jesus as well as his ascension and coming of the Spirit were events that were pivotal to help complete their learning process in this regard. John 16:12–15 shows that Jesus was aware that the understanding of the disciples was to achieve the required level or depth only after these redemptive events had also taken place. This is a matter that had to do with progression in redemptive acts and the accompanying revelation (Hendriksen 1973:327–328). This implies that before the resurrection of Jesus, it was difficult for the disciples to properly connect all the dots to Jesus even though those linkages were there in the Scriptures. Boda (2017) alludes to this when he expresses himself as follows:

The post-resurrection teaching of Jesus was accordingly essential and critical to ensure that their transformation was complete. It is clear in the gospels that when Jesus met with the disciples after his resurrection, he primarily taught them. This post-resurrection teaching of Jesus did refer to what he taught them before his crucifixion on the hand of the Scriptures. Luke 24 therefore shows Christ doing this to two of his disciples who were going to Emmaus (Lloyd-Jones 2013:80). Gaffin (2008:65) correctly points out that Luke 24:44–47 is referring to the teaching activity that Jesus gave over the 40 day period that is mentioned in Acts 1:3. Gaffin (2008) then helpfully states that the 40 day period:

Jesus is said to have done this by means of the Scriptures. The things he taught before now made far greater sense to them after his resurrection.

It is apparent that Acts was intended to be read together with the gospel of Luke. Both were written by Luke (Schreiner 2008:289). Acts 1:1–5 encourages such a view by the way it refers to Luke. Hill (2008:237) aptly describes this relationship when he writes that Acts is the continuation of what Jesus did and taught, but now through ‘the apostles whom he had chosen’. Acts presupposes the contents of Luke (Hagner 2012:307). The scope of that continuation extends to what Jesus taught them about the reading of the Scriptures.

Acts is accordingly viewed here as a powerful narrative that tells us that the ministry and victory of Christ was not in vain; the apostles were able to lay the foundation of a growing worldwide church as Jesus commissioned them. It is a narrative that, amongst others, is saying that what God promised, in the Old Testament and confirmed in the teaching of Christ, happened through the foundation laying witness of his apostles. Hagner (2012:310) accordingly points out that the fulfilment of Scripture is an important theme in Acts. That the theme of fulfilment of the Scriptures in Christ was at the core of the gospel proclamation by the apostles in Acts is to be viewed as because of the ministry of Jesus. Many passages and cases in Acts point in this direction. Some of these are featured in this section of the article.

The gospels and Acts are not the only books that preserve what Jesus entrusted to his apostles when he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures (Lk 24:45). Their total witness about Jesus and his unique place in the Scriptures ultimately found its full expression in all the books that were written as part of their ministry in the early church; the books which together form the New Testament (Ridderbos 1978:21; Hill 2008:253).

The early church therefore started reading the Old Testament Scriptures together with the books of the New Testament which were written to preserve the witness of the apostles to Jesus. Following Jesus and his apostles meant that all the books of both the Old and New Testaments are united by Jesus, and were as such read together; Jesus as the focus of their message (Johnson 2007:163).

The oneness that the apostles established between their witness, which is through the Scriptures of the New Testament and the Old Testament Scriptures, was so strong that it could not be destroyed by the Jewish persecutions in the early decades of the first century; it survived the destruction of the Jewish temple around 70 AD as well as several waves of persecutions by the Roman Empire; and even withstood threats from within the churches when false teachers who did not appreciate it arose in the 2nd century (Trueman 2012:83). The threats helped to push the churches of the 2nd century to make formal pronouncements about this oneness and thereby hastened the process that confirmed their status in the Christian canon as we have it today (Cairns 1981:118; Trueman 2012:83). The principle of apostolicity played a critical role in that process (Cairns 1981:118; Sproul 2005:47, 48). The doctrinal challenges that the church had later to resolve in the ecumenical councils from the 4th century onwards solidified this oneness as appeal to both the two Testaments was made (Cairns 1981:131; Trueman 2012:104). Catechetical, and Liturgical as well as Confessional materials associated with the life and witness of the early church also strengthened the same oneness as many of it affirmed that the Old and New Testaments belong together also in the way that these two parts of the Scriptures were utilised in such tools.

The 16th century reformation rediscovered the Bible and emphasised the way its two parts are to be used together. The 16th century reformers were often quick to point out that what they were maintaining was apostolic and to a large extent also the legacy of the early churches of the apostles and of the church fathers (Trueman 2012:17, 122, 123). They therefore embraced many confessional standards of the early ecumenical councils. Many of the confessional standards that were made during the 16th century reformation even have explicit articles which show that these were the result or fruit of a biblical theological reading of the whole Bible wherein Jesus is the focus of all the Scriptures. One of the most popular of these reformed confessions in Africa is the Heidelberg Catechism. Its Sunday6 discusses Jesus Christ as the only mediator. It then formulates its Question 19 and the accompanying answer as follows (Williamson 1993):

The passages listed in support of the answer come from both the Testaments. The following instructive comments by Spykman (1984) on this answer of the Heidelberg Catechism are worth pondering:

Statements such as the one found in answer to Question 19 of the Heidelberg Catechism are properly appreciated when they are recognised as the fruit of reading the whole Bible that is composed of books that are diverse and were written at different times in history but still show a unity. The gospels and Acts promote such a reading. Such statements that embody reformed biblical theology can, in turn, further guide towards a proper reading of the Bible when they are not shunned as part of presuppositions that are affirmed when reading the Bible. Silva (2007:88) helpfully indicates that the ‘very possibility of understanding anything depends on our prior framework of interpretation’.

The following are some of the insights that this exploration of how the gospels and Acts relate the reading of the Scriptures by the apostles to Jesus yields: