God's Use of Non-Biblical Events and People in Scripture
Scripture records a selective account of God's work in history, not an exhaustive chronicle of every divine action or human event. The Gospel of John explicitly acknowledges this principle: "Therefore Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book" [1]. John Gill elaborates that this refers specifically to "signs, and wonders, and miraculous operations" performed by Jesus that remain unrecorded in any Gospel, noting that if every act were documented with all its circumstances, "even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written" [2]. This admission establishes a fundamental hermeneutical reality: the biblical text is a curated selection from a vastly larger field of divine activity.
The Principle of Selective Recording
The biblical authors operated under divine inspiration to record what served God's redemptive purposes, not to compile comprehensive historical archives. This selectivity means that God's providential governance extended far beyond what Scripture documents. The flood narrative illustrates this pattern: Peter references how "God did not spare the ancient world at the time of Noah," destroying "all human life apart from Noah and his family" [5]. Yet Genesis provides only the barest outline of this global catastrophe, leaving countless details of God's judgment and preservation unrecorded.
This selective principle applies equally to quotations and references within Scripture itself. The author of Hebrews introduces Psalm 8 with the phrase "one testified," described as "the usual way of quoting Scripture to readers familiar with it" [9]. The casualness of this citation method assumes a community already immersed in the sacred texts, requiring no elaborate attribution. The focus remains on the theological point—that God has subjected the world to man, not angels, a dignity lost in Adam but restored in Christ—rather than on documentary completeness.
Anthropomorphic Language and Divine Action
When Scripture does describe God's involvement in events, it frequently employs anthropomorphic language that accommodates human understanding. Deuteronomy 32:36 speaks of God "changing his mind," yet this represents how "God's actions appear to humans" rather than literal divine psychology [3]. The commentary explains that "human beings cannot understand God's mind," so Scripture uses "human language and gives himself human physical characteristics and feelings" [3]. Similarly, Genesis 11:5 describes the Lord "coming down" to see the tower of Babel, which Abraham Ibn Ezra interprets not as literal spatial movement but as a way of expressing that "all things on earth below are dependent upon the powers on high; all actions are arranged from heaven" [4].
This accommodated language means that biblical descriptions of God's interaction with non-biblical events necessarily simplify complex realities. When Lamentations asks, "Who is it that can effect by a word anything, without the will of God?" [6], the text affirms God's sovereign governance over all events, whether recorded in Scripture or not. The rhetorical question assumes that nothing occurs outside divine providence, yet Scripture records only those instances that serve its revelatory purposes.
Non-Biblical Events as Theological Illustration
Scripture occasionally references events or traditions not otherwise documented in the biblical canon, using them to establish theological points. The author of Hebrews, for instance, demonstrates a distinctive literary style that differs markedly from Paul's epistolary conventions. Chrysostom notes that Hebrews "has more the character of a treatise than of a personal epistle," with the author "not disposed to bring forward the personality of either himself or his hearers" [8]. This treatise-like quality allows the author to range widely across Israel's history, selecting examples that serve the argument for Christ's superiority without being constrained to events explicitly detailed elsewhere in Scripture.
The use of such examples assumes a shared cultural and religious knowledge base. When biblical authors invoke figures or events familiar to their audiences but not elaborated in the canonical text, they demonstrate that God's work in history extends beyond what Scripture exhaustively documents. The prophets regularly condemned worship practices that followed "the precept of men" rather than "the precepts of God, given by His prophets" [7], distinguishing between human tradition and divine revelation. Yet this very distinction acknowledges that human history contains countless events and teachings that, while not divinely inspired, form the context within which God's redemptive work unfolds.
The Sufficiency of Scripture Within Its Purpose
The selective nature of biblical recording does not compromise Scripture's sufficiency for its intended purpose. The principle articulated in John 20:30 appears precisely because the Gospel writer wants readers to understand that what has been recorded suffices for faith: the signs documented are "written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." The unrecorded signs, however numerous, add nothing essential to this revelatory purpose.
This understanding resolves apparent tensions between divine sovereignty and biblical selectivity. God governs all events, biblical and non-biblical alike, yet chooses to inscripturate only those accounts necessary for revealing his character and redemptive plan. The flood destroyed countless individuals whose stories remain untold; Jesus performed innumerable miracles that no evangelist recorded; prophets confronted situations that never entered the canonical record. Yet in each case, what Scripture does preserve suffices for its theological and pastoral purposes.
The biblical authors themselves recognized this dynamic. Their frequent use of summary statements—"many other things," "all human life," "the ancient world"—indicates awareness that they were providing representative samples rather than exhaustive catalogs. The inspired text thus functions as a window into God's activity, not a comprehensive ledger of every divine action in history.
Sources
- John “Therefore Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book; -- John 20:30”
- John (Baptist/Reformed) “John Gill on John 21:25: And there are also many other things which Jesus did,.... Which refer not to his doctrines and discourses, his sermons and prayers, and the conversation he had with his disciples, and others, on different accounts; but to the signs, and wonders, and miraculous operations, which were done by him, that are neither recorded in this, nor in any of the evangelists: the which, if they should be written everyone; with all the particular circumstances relating to them: I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. The Arabic versi”
- Deuteronomy (Protestant academic) “Tyndale House on Deuteronomy 32:36: 32:36 will change his mind about: When speaking of God, the Old Testament frequently uses figurative language (see study note on 8:2). Human beings cannot understand God’s mind (Isa 55:8), so God uses human language and gives himself human physical characteristics and feelings. Although the Bible frequently speaks of God’s eyes, arms, hands, and feet, he is invisible and has no body; these metaphors describe his activity. Similarly, when the Bible says that God fears (Deut 32:27) or changes his mind, it expresses how God’s actions appear to humans.”
- Sefaria (Jewish (Rationalist)) “Abraham Ibn Ezra on Genesis 11:5: [AND THE LORD CAME DOWN.] The Bible states this because all things on earth below are dependent upon the powers on high; all actions are arranged from heaven. Therefore God is referred to as the One Who rideth upon the heaven (Deut. 33:26) and the One who is enthroned in the heavens (Ps. 123:1). 23 “God cannot come into contact with the material and changeable” (Husik, p. 191). He rules the lower world via the heavenly beings. “Ibn Ezra holds that the events of the sublunar world are governed by the positions and motions of the heavenly bodies, which in turn a”
- 2 Peter (Protestant academic) “Tyndale House on 2 Peter 2:5: 2:5 The second example of judgment is that God did not spare the ancient world at the time of Noah. In the flood, God destroyed all human life apart from Noah and his family (see Gen 6–8).”
- Lamentations (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on Lamentations 3:37: Who is it that can (as God, Psa 33:9) effect by a word anything, without the will of God?”
- Isaiah (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on Isaiah 29:13: precept of men--instead of the precepts of God, given by His prophets; also worship external, and by rule, not heartfelt as God requires (Joh 4:24). Compare Christ's quotation of this verse from the Septuagint.”
- CCEL/NPNF (Eastern Orthodox) “John Chrysostom, Homilies on John & Hebrews: and an explanation offered on the ground that the work has more the character of a treatise than of a personal epistle; but this explains too much, since these personal pronouns, though relatively infrequent, are still very common in our epistle. The author was not disposed to bring forward the personality of either himself or his hearers. St. Paul, on the contrary, used these pronouns more than twice as often as our author, and indeed far more frequently than any other New Testament writer. The case of the third person of the pronoun is peculiar, s”
- Hebrews (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on Hebrews 2:6: But--It is not to angels the Gospel kingdom is subject, BUT . . . one . . . testified--the usual way of quoting Scripture to readers familiar with it. Psa 8:5-7 praises Jehovah for exalting MAN, so as to subject all the works of God on earth to him: this dignity having been lost by the first Adam, is realized only in Christ the Son of man, the Representative Man and Head of our redeemed race. Thus Paul proves that it is to MAN, not to angels, that God has subjected the "world to come." In Heb 2:6-8, MAN is spoken of in general ("him . . . him . . . h”