Red-Letters and the Ranking of Scripture

Not too long ago I got a new Bible. I began paging through and I noticed something different from my previous ESV Bible: the words of Christ were not in red.

At first I thought nothing of it. I read my new Bible and was quite content. However, recently I have been thinking about it. And I have questions.

In 1899, a man by the name of Lous Klopsch decided that a red-letter Bible would be a good idea.

Modern Christianity is striving zealously to draw nearer to the great Founder of the Faith. Setting aside mere human doctrines and theories regarding Him, it presses close to the Divine Presence, to gather from His own lips the definition of His mission to the world and His own revelation of the Father… The Red Letter Bible has been prepared and issued in the full conviction that it will meet the needs of the student, the worker, and the searchers after truth everywhere (Red Letter Origin, ESV.org).

But is the red-letter Bible really a good idea?

I am not sure that I have the correct answer or a complete answer, but after much thought I am in definite opposition to a red-letter Bible. And here is why.

First, Paul tells Timothy that "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (2 Tim 3:16). He does not say, "Only Jesus' words are breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." Or, "Most importantly Jesus' words are breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." No. Paul says "all Scripture."

Second, Paul says to the elders at the church in Ephesus, "I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27). He did not say, "I did not shrink from declaring to you the words of Christ."

Third, the author of Hebrews tells us that "the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12). The "word of God," not only the words of Christ. Sure, the words of Christ pierce divisions of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, but I do not see here that they are a more effective "two-edged sword."

Forth, the Gospel of John clearly tells us that Jesus is the Word. And John tells us that the "Word became flesh" (John 1:14). If Christ is the Word, and was with God in the beginning, and is God, why would we focus on only the words Jesus spoke in the flesh? And in that case I would hope that all of the words in my Bible would be red because they are all spoken by the preeminent Christ, where "all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell" (Col 1:19).

Fifth, I believe that Scripture interprets itself. Sometimes I use Paul's letters to understand the words of Christ. Sometimes I use the words of Christ to understand the prophets. Sometimes I use the poetic books to understand Paul. Elevating the words of Christ may diminish the symbiotic relationship Scripture has with itself.

Overall, I think that we must consider that all Scripture is equally as important. It is hard to place any of the words "breathed out" by an all-knowing, all-powerful, ever-present, infinite God on a hierarchical scale.

Doing away with red-letter Bibles may not be the proper reaction to these thoughts; however, being aware that the red-letters do not necessary mean "more important" and understanding that all Scripture is equally beneficial is, at the least, an important conclusion to draw.