What Did Jesus Believe about the Bible?[1]

Bridegroom coming at midnight, for whom the Virgins look.

Wherever I open my Bible, I find my Lord in the Book.

Matthew 5:18

While Matthew 5:17 affirms a promise-fulfillment understanding of Jesus’s view of Scripture, not a promise-abolish paradigm, verse 18 provides the Christological and theological rationale. “For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or one stroke of a letter will pass away from the law until all things are accomplished.” Jesus introduces verse 18 with a note of personal authority that transcended the authority of all other teachers. The Greek word amen, variously trans­lated as “assuredly,” “truly,” “I tell you the truth,” or “for I assure you,” alerts us that the words that will follow are of paramount importance and authority. R. T. France calls this “Jesus’ own signature” since we know of no other teacher using it (Gospel, 114). The phrase “until heaven and earth pass away” occurs thirty-one times in Matthew’s Gospel and means “until the end of the age, as long as the present world order persists.” “The smallest letter” or jot (iôta) is a reference to the Hebrew letter yod, the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet. The yod is similar in shape to our apostrophe. One “stroke of a letter” or “tittle” (keraia) is the smallest projection or part of a Hebrew letter, similar to that which distinguishes our “C” from a “G,” or “O” from a “Q.” The phrase “will by no means” (ou me) is a double negative. It is used to emphasize that God’s law will never pass away until all is fulfilled. In the Lukan parallel we read, “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter in the law to drop out” (Luke 16:17).

Jesus affirms the reliability and truthfulness of the Scriptures with the strongest possible language. He is not saying that the Old Testament contains only some truth or that it becomes truth when men and women have a significant encounter with it. As he affirms in John 10:35, “The Scripture cannot be broken.” Again, as he proclaims in his high priestly prayer to the Father in John 17:17, “Your word is truth.” New Testament scholar, H. C. G. Moule says it well:

[Jesus] absolutely trusted the Bible; and though there are in it things inexplicable and intricate that have puzzled me so much, I am going, not in a blind sense, but reverently, to trust the Book because of Him. (Quoted in Pache, Inspiration and Authority, 223)

I am no fan of liberal/antisupernatural theology or destructive biblical criticism. I am unimpressed with its worldview, biases, and skewed methodologies. Still, we can learn even from those with whom we disagree, and sometimes a breath of schol­arly fresh air and honesty blows our way from this camp. When it comes to what Jesus and the church believed about the Bible, some moderates and liberals would do well to listen to some of their heroes. For example, Rudolf Bultmann writes,

Jesus agreed always with the scribes of his time in accepting without question the authority of (Old Testament) Law Jesus and the Word, 61, 63; emphasis original)

Likewise, Emil Brunner says, “The doctrine of Verbal Inspiration was already known to pre-Christian Judaism and was probably also taken over by Paul and the rest of the Apostles” (Christian Doctrine, 107). Kirsopp Lake went even further:

It is a mistake often made by educated persons who happen to have but little knowledge of historical theology to suppose that fundamentalism is a new and strange form of thought. It is nothing of the kind; it is the partial and uneducated survival of a theology which was once universally held by all Christians: How many were there, for instance, in Christian churches in the eighteenth century who doubted the infallible inspiration of the Scripture? A few perhaps, but very few. No, the fundamentalist may be wrong; I think that he is. But it is we who have departed from the tradition, not he; and I am sorry for anyone who tries to argue with a fundamentalist on the basis of authority. The Biblecorpus theologicum of the Church are on the fundamentalist side. (Religion, 61; emphasis original)

Four notable examples are cited elsewhere by another author:

H. J. Cadbury, Harvard professor and one of the more extreme New Testament critics of the last generation, once declared that he was far more sure as a mere historical fact that Jesus held to the common Jewish view of an infallible Bible than that Jesus believed in His own messiahship. Adolf Harnack, the greatest church historian of modern times, insists that Christ was one with His apostles, the Jews, and the entire early Church in complete commitment to the infallible authority of the Bible. John Knox, author of what is perhaps the most highly regarded recent life of Christ, states that there can be no question that this view of the Bible was taught by our Lord Himself. The liberal critic, F. C. Grant, concludes that in the New Testament, “It is everywhere taken for granted that Scripture is trustworthy, infallible, and inerrant.” (Kantzer, “Christ and Scripture,” 16–20)

When we survey our Lord’s teaching in the Gospels, we discover that the judgments of these scholars are confirmed. John Wenham points out, in some detail, that Jesus consistently treated the historical narratives of the Old Testament as straightforward records of fact (Christ and the Bible, 17). He referred to Abel (Luke 11:51), Noah (Matt 24:37-39), Abraham (John 8:56), Sodom and Gomorrah (Matt 10:15; 11:23-24), Lot (Luke 17:28-32), Isaac and Jacob (Matt 8:11), the manna (John 6:31), the wilderness serpent (John 3:14), David (Matt 22:43), Solomon (Matt 6:29; 12:42), Elijah (Luke 4:25-26), Elisha (Luke 4:27), Jonah (Matt 12:39-41), Moses (Matt 8:4), and many others (ibid., 17–18). Nowhere is there the slightest hint that he questioned the historicity or accuracy of these or any other accounts.

Jesus often chose as the basis of his teaching those stories that many modern skeptics find unacceptable (e.g., Adam and Eve, Noah’s flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, and Jonah). For Jesus, Scripture was the final court of appeal in his disputes with the Pharisees and Sadducees. In his battle against Satan in the wilderness, Jesus cited scriptural statements as arguments against which no further argument was possible (Matt 4:1-11). Jesus might set aside or reject the rabbinic or pharisaical interpretation of the Old Testament (cf. Matt 5:21-48), but he never questioned its authority or truthfulness.^[2]

Again, the early Pinnock saw this clearly when he wrote,

Jesus’ doctrine of inspiration receives expression in the Sermon on the Mount. Before setting forth his ethical instructions, Jesus explained his intention. “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Mt. 5:17). Evidently he does not want us to think that the thrust of his teach­ing is to violate or even to devalue Old Testament revelation. The say­ing which is also contained in Luke (16:17) has an entirely genuine ring to it. Jesus’ enemies were eager to pin an “antinomian” label on him if they could. Therefore, Jesus made it clear that the object of his criticisms was not the Bible, but the traditions which the Rabbis had built as a fence around it, traditions which in practice enjoyed an authority actually higher than the written Word. He assures us that his confidence in the divine character of Scripture does not stop short even of its smallest elements. “Not an iota, not a dot, will pass” (Mt. 5:18). He issues a stern warning: “Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (v. 19). (“Inspiration,” 205)

Therefore, liberal scholar James Barr is incorrect when he writes,

Jesus took Jewish scripture as it was, as his contemporaries did, and he used it as they did in this respect, as a source through which authoritative intimations of divine truth had been given. Thus if Jesus refers to a passage in Exodus or in Deuteronomy with the words “Moses said,” it is quite mistaken to read this as if he was placing his own full messianic and divine authority behind the assertion that these books were actually written by the historical Moses. No such question entered his head and there is nothing in the Gospels that suggests that his teaching was intended to cope with it. Historical questions interested him little. (Beyond Fundamentalism, 11)

Jesus, however, said, “Not a jot or tittle . . .”

Professor Alan Culpepper is wrong when he says,

Jesus had remarkably little to say about the nature of Scripture. . . . Jesus demands [in the Sermon on the Mount] a standard of righteousness higher than that set by the Hebrew Scriptures and the traditions of the Pharisees. (“Jesus’ View,” 26–27)

Culpepper is right when he speaks about the traditions of the Pharisees but not the Hebrew Scriptures. Our Lord said, “Not a jot or tittle . . .”

Professor Frank Stagg is also off course when he says,

Those who say the Bible is inerrant are lying . . . [and] inerrancy misses the point. If we follow Christ we recognize variant perspectives; we see competing perspectives. You can’t go north and south at the same time and Jesus didn’t try to. He affirmed much but He rejected much. (Hargus, “Retired Seminary Professor,” 8)

The Savior, however, said, “Not a jot or a tittle . . .”

Another professor, Henlee Barnette, is wrong when he makes these four claims: (1) The Bible is errant with many self-contradictions; (2) the Bible has errors in the field of science; (3) the Bible is not historically accurate; and (4) the Bible is errant as to cosmology (“Heresy of Inerrancy,” 16). Again, our Lord Jesus Christ said, “Not a jot or a tittle . . .”

Matthew 5:19

A completely true and trustworthy Bible should be treated with the utmost care. It should impact how we obey it and also how we teach it. Jesus has told us in verse 18 that the authority of Scripture will not pass away until “God fulfilled every promise and prediction in its pages” (Quarles, Sermon, 99). Now, in verse 19, he tells us that this authority applies and is relevant to the smallest details, “the least of these commands” (see, for example, Deut 22:6-7 and a commandment about a bird’s nest!). To break even a little commandment, and to teach others to do the same, has serious consequences. To teach others that portions of God’s Word are no big deal is a very big deal. The consequence, according to verse 19, is that you “will be called least in the kingdom of heaven.” James 3:1 reminds us, “Not many should become teachers, my brothers, because you know that we will receive a stricter judgment.”

The Bible teaches degrees of punishment in hell (Matt 11:20-24), and it also affirms, as here, degrees of position and reward in heaven (Matt 25:14-20). Obeying God’s Word and teaching others to do the same is no trifling matter. Listen to the words of the Savior and the Scriptures:

If you love me, you will keep my commands. (John 14:15)

If you keep my commands you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love. (John 15:10)

This is how we know that we know him: if we keep his commands. (1 John 2:3)

The one who keeps his commands remains in him, and he in him. And the way we know that he remains in us is from the Spirit he has given us. (1 John 3:24)

For this is what love for God is: to keep his commands. And his commands are not a burden. (1 John 5:3)

Like rails for a train, Scripture provides the tracks that guide the Christian life. Love for Christ and the indwelling Holy Spirit provide the energy to power the engine and move us forward. Spurgeon encapsulates verse 19 in a simple prayer:

Lord, make me of this thy kingdom a right loyal subject, and may I both do and teach Exposition, 25; emphasis original)

Matthew 5:20

The scribes and Pharisees were admired and highly respected in Jesus’s day. His words in verse 20 would have been shocking. They would have taken people’s breath away. This fact is not hard to understand with a little historical homework. Charles Quarles provides a helpful summary of these two groups:

The “scribes” (5:20) were highly trained experts in the interpretation and application of the law. They normally began their training as children and continued their studies until formal ordination at age 40. The scribes were greatly respected by most Jews of the day. When scribes walked down the streets in their distinctive robes, others would stand in their honor, greeting them with titles like “rabbi,” “father,” or “master.” Hosts typically offered the scribes the seat of honor at banquets (23:6).

The “Pharisees” were members of a movement in Judaism that was committed to meticulous observance of the law. They particularly emphasized matters such as tithing, ritual purity, and Sabbath observance. Scribes and Pharisees belonged to two distinct groups. Serving as a scribe was a profession. The Pharisees, on the other hand, were a Jewish sect. Some scribes were Pharisees, and the Pharisees likely chose their leaders from among the scribes. The scribes and Pharisees shared in common a commitment to the study and observance of the law. (Sermon, 100–101)

So what did Jesus mean when he said our righteousness must exceed the scribes’ and Pharisees’ for entrance into the kingdom of heaven? In many ways the antitheses of verses 21-48 tell us (especially the call to “be perfect” in verse 48). With their 248 regulations and 365 prohibitions to fence and protect the law, their righteousness was only skin deep. It was outward and external. If verse 19 warns us about the danger of lawlessness, verse 20 warns us about the deadly danger of legalism. A Christian’s righteousness, however, is not skin deep. It goes to the heart. It is internal and spiritual. It is seeking first, from the heart, the kingdom of God and his righteousness (6:33). Quarles is again helpful here. He shows us, in all its beauty, what surpassing righteousness is and what it looks like:

The Gospel of Matthew and the [Sermon on the Mount] in particular offer several descriptions of this surpassing righteousness. First, superior righteousness focuses on the spirit of the law rather than merely the letter (15:1-6). Jesus’ disciples would not interpret the law permissively, in a manner that sought loopholes which might permit behavior God clearly intended to prohibit or left optional behavior He clearly intended to command. Second, superior righteousness focuses on internal matters rather than external matters (15:10-20; 23:25-28). Jesus’ disciples were more concerned about the moral purity of their hearts than about the ritual purity of their hands. Third, superior righteousness focuses on more important matters of the law rather than minor points of the law (23:23). Jesus’ disciples were more concerned about matters such as justice, mercy, and faith than about tithing the tiny herbs of their gardens. Fourth, superior righteousness focuses upon character rather than merely keeping divine commands (5:9, 45, esp. 48). Jesus’ disciples would not attain righteousness merely through efforts to keep God’s commands. As His children, they would naturally and spontaneously exhibit the character of their Father and give him glory through good works that reflected His holiness (5:16).

France rightly claimed, “Jesus is not talking about beating the scribes and Pharisees at their own game, but about a different level or concept of righteousness altogether.” (Quarles, Sermon, 103; emphasis original)

Quarles shows that Jesus teaches about a righteousness that goes beyond following mere external regulations. Man can achieve the external himself. Jesus requires a surpassing righteousness that permeates the whole person and is tied to a personal relationship with God.

My initial theology was heavily influenced and formed by Clark Pinnock. Few lament his theological disintegration more than I. Earlier in his life he articulated the crux of the matter concerning the relationship between Jesus and the Bible with crystal clarity:

Shall we follow Jesus in his view of Scripture? In the light of this evidence the question calls for another. How can a Christian even consider view of the Bible on the basis of the massive fact of our Lord’s doctrine of inspiration. (“Inspiration,” 205; emphasis original)

One day, during my early days at Southern Seminary as a dean (1996), I ate lunch with a New Testament professor. Even though we held significantly different theologies, he was always gracious and supportive of me, and I enjoyed the time of fellowship with him. As we sat down to eat, he looked at me and said, “I want to ask you a question, and I mean no offense.” I replied that he could ask me anything he wished. His question was this: “How did you turn out theologically the way that you are? I mean, why do you think theologically like you do?” I told him I was not offended by the question at all, but I did not think that my answer would be satisfying. I shared that when I was a little boy, I trusted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. As I grew in the faith, I came to understand that to be a Christian meant to live under the lordship of Jesus Christ and that his lordship should permeate every area of our lives. His lordship included what I should think and believe when it comes to matters of theology, including the Bible. I told him that as I had studied Jesus’s view of the Bible, I concluded that I could do nothing other than hold to its complete truthfulness and reliability as he (Jesus) himself had done. To do anything other than that would be to set aside the lordship of Jesus Christ. That professor simply responded by saying, “I have never thought of it like that before, but it does make a lot of sense.”

L. R. Scarborough was a great Texas Baptist who succeeded his hero B. H. Carroll as president at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. In his book Gospel Message Scarborough records in moving and memorable words the death of this Texas Titan:

B. H. Carroll, the greatest man I ever knew, as he was about to die, a few days before he died, expecting me, as he wanted me, to succeed him as president of the seminary, I was in his room one day and he pulled himself up by my chair with his hands and looked me in the face. There were times when he looked like he was forty feet high. And he looked into my face and said, “My boy, on this Hill orthodoxy, the old truth, is making one of its last stands and I want to deliver to you a charge and I do it in the blood of Jesus Christ.” He said, “You will be elected president of this seminary. I want you, if there ever comes heresy in your faculty, to take it to your faculty. If they won’t hear you, take it to the trustees. If they won’t hear you take it to the conventions that appointed them. If they won’t hear you, take it to the common Baptists. They will hear you. And,” he said, “I charge you in the name of Jesus Christ to keep it lashed to the old Gospel of Jesus Christ.” As long as I have influence in that institution, by the grace of God I will stand by the old Book. (227–28)

This is a great statement. It is also a great place to stand. It is an even better place to live. It is the best place to die. Jesus believed the Bible. That is good enough for me. I hope and pray it is good enough for you.