Jesus accepted the Old Testament authority
and passed that same authority
on to the New Testament record.
Can you believe in Christ but not in the authority and infallibility of the Bible? You can try, but it will leave you on the horns of a very real dilemma, and here is why: If you say you believe in Christ but doubt the Bible’s truthfulness, you are being inconsistent and even irrational. Christ endorsed the Bible as true and authoritative. If you give Christ a place of honor and authority in your life, it follows that to be consistent you have to give Scripture the same honor and authority He did.
The Deity and Authority of Christ
Despite their lack of understanding at times, the twelve disciples definitely understood that their Master was God in human form and consequently that His word was authoritative. In response to others who decided to forsake Him, Christ asked the Twelve, “‘Do you also want to go away?’ But Simon Peter answered Him, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’” (John 6:67–69).
In the course of John the Baptist’s ministry around the Jordan, certain of His followers began to have questions about this prophet: “Now as the people were in expectation, and all reasoned in their hearts about John, whether he was the Christ or not” (Luke 3:15). John, not wishing any misconception of himself to be spread around, gave them an absolute reply:
I indeed baptize you with water; but One mightier than I is coming, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to loose. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather the wheat into His barn; but the chaff He will burn with unquenchable fire. (Luke 3:16, 17)
John accurately understood his ministry as both prophet and as forerunner to Christ who would possess the authority to decide the eternal destiny of each person.
God the Father directly attested to Christ’s authority through two events. One occurred at the baptism of the Lord when a voice out of heaven said of Him, “You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased” (Luke 3:22). The other was at the transfiguration where the Father spoke: “This is My beloved Son. Hear Him” (Luke 9:35).
Martyn Lloyd-Jones excellently paraphrases this latter verse:
In other words, this is the one to listen to. You are waiting for a word. You are waiting for an answer to your questions. You are seeking a solution to your problems. You have been consulting the philosophers; you have been listening; and you have been asking, “Where can we have final authority?” Here is the answer from heaven, from God: “Hear Him.” Again, you see, marking Him out, holding Him before us as the last Word, the ultimate Authority, the One to whom we are to submit, to whom we are to listen.
Jesus did not hesitate to assert His unique authority in some very definitive teachings. As part of the “I am” series, Jesus informed His listeners that He was the only bread of life (see John 6:35), the only water of life (see John 4:14; 7:37), the only light of the world (see John 8:12), the only true shepherd (see John 10:1–18), and the true vine (see John 15:6), and the way, and the truth and the life (John 14:6).
The Sermon on the Mount provides another illustration of the authority with which Jesus spoke. Lloyd-Jones writes:
We need to remember that it is this characteristic, personal emphasis which brings Him into contrast with the prophets. Those Old Testament prophets were mighty men. They were great personalities entirely apart from their being used by God and anointed by the Holy Spirit. But there is not one of them who ever used this I. They all say, “Thus saith the Lord.” But the Lord Jesus Christ does not put it like that. He says, “I say unto you.” At once He is differentiating between Himself and all others… . His whole emphasis is upon “these sayings of mine.” Here is His claim to final authority. And if it is possible to add to such a statement, He did so when He said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” There is nothing beyond that.
The results were that “the people were astonished at His teaching, for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes” (Matt. 7:28, 29; see Mark 1:22; Luke 4:32). While the multitudes were accustomed to hearing their leaders substantiate their points by referring to past teachers, Jesus relied upon His own authority. The question of the hypocrites in Matthew 21:23 indicates their recognition of His authority. From where did His authority stem? Jesus freely recognized it as coming from God His Father (see Matt. 9:6, 8) who gave Him complete authority: “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” (Matt. 28:18).
Robert Lightner adequately summarizes the origin of Christ’s authority: “The source of such authority is God, and since He was God He could speak thus. The Gospel writers make it very clear that Christ’s authority was derived from God, His Father. He had been sent by the Father to do the work of the Father and to declare the words of the Father. This commission He fulfilled through the power and authority of the Father (John 17:6–8).”
Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. — Matthew 5:17–18 —
Did Jesus Doubt the Old Testament?
What did Jesus think of the Scripture of His day, the Old Testament? Did He see it as authoritative? In Matthew 23:35 He apparently defines the Hebrew canon as the books from Genesis (Abel) to post-exilic 2 Chronicles (Zechariah), which encompass the whole Old Testament in terms of Hebrew chronology.
It is also important to note that Jesus never quoted, or alluded, to any apocryphal works. Why was this so? Bible scholar F. F. Bruce explains that the books of the Apocrypha “were not regarded as canonical by the Jews either of Palestine or of Alexandria, and that our Lord and His apostles accepted the Jewish canon and confirmed its authority by the use they made of it, whereas there is no evidence to show that they regarded the apocryphal literature (or as much of it as had appeared in their time) as similarly authoritative.”
Although this is admittedly an argument from silence, it is still significant that sixty-four times Jesus quoted or alluded to the Old Testament, while He never referred to other sources. As indicated in chapter 4, Christ put His stamp of approval on the Old Testament in several key ways.
Jesus freely acknowledged that all of Scripture pointed to Him. In John 5:39, for example, Jesus said to the Jewish leaders, “You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me.” Later Jesus explained to the two disciples on their way to Emmaus “all the Scriptures concerning Himself” (Luke 24:27). To the Eleven He said, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me” (Luke 24:44).
Christ also said He came to fulfill all Scripture. In Matthew 5:17 He assured the disciples that He did not intend to abolish the Law or the Prophets but rather to fulfill them. Evidence of this is that Jesus willingly submitted to the Old Testament teachings, and corrected those who accused Him falsely as well (see Mark 2:23–28). Also, Jesus saw Himself as fulfilling the Old Testament prophecies. In Matthew 26:24, He related that He, the Son of Man, would be betrayed “just as it is written about Him.” A few verses later Jesus acknowledged to Peter that He could instantly call down twelve legions of angels to protect Himself. This, however, would not have been according to God’s plan: “How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?” (Matt. 26:54). In other words, Jesus came to fulfill Scripture. His view of Scripture was that it was about Him, and every detail had to be fulfilled.
Jesus compared the duration of Scripture to the duration of the universe. He said, “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail” (Luke 16:17). So “all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man will be accomplished” (Luke 18:31).
Jesus also corroborated the historicity and validity of Old Testament people and events. For example, He confirmed the creation of Adam and Eve by asking, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” (Matt. 19:4, 5).
Some have attempted to call the account of the first murder, in which Cain killed Abel, an allegory—fiction that teaches a spiritual truth. But Jesus in a confrontation with the Pharisees, said, “… from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation” (Luke 11:51).
On another occasion Jesus made reference to Lot and his wife: “But on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all…. Remember Lot’s wife” (Luke 17:29, 32).
Another Old Testament character whom Jesus saw as historical was Daniel: “When you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (whoever reads, let him understand)” (Matt. 24:15).
Throughout the years some have denied the historical nature of the Flood. But Jesus believed in the Noahic flood. He declared, “But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark” (Matt. 24:37, 38).
And there are many other facts in the Book of Genesis that He substantiated, such as the call of Moses (see Mark 12:26 ). In John 6:31, 32, He talked about manna from heaven. In John 3:14, He referred to the brazen serpent lifted up in the wilderness by which Israel was healed. Over and over again, Jesus agreed to and confirmed the authority of the Old Testament record .
What About the Theory of Accommodation?
Before concluding our look at Christ’s view of Scripture we must settle one other claim made by those who challenge the authority and inerrancy of Scripture. That challenge involves the idea that perhaps Jesus made His teaching fit the beliefs current to His day. Jesus, the argument goes, accommodated His teaching so that He could communicate spiritual truths without alienating the people in Palestine, particularly the religious leaders.
According to biblical scholars Norman Geisler and William Nix:
Briefly, this theory states that Jesus, in His reference to the Old Testament, accommodates His teaching to the prejudices and erroneous views of His day. It holds that He did not actually mean that Jonah was really in the “whale.” It claims that Jesus’ purpose was not to question the historical truth, nor to establish critical theories, but to preach spiritual and moral values.
Where, in fact, did the accommodation concept originate? John M’Clintock says that the Gnostics were the first ones to hold to this. “They asserted that Christ’s doctrine could not be fully known from Scripture alone, because the writer of the New Testament condescended to the stage of culture existing at that time.” Later the accommodation theory was propagated by J. S. Sember (1725–1791), the father of German rationalism, and it became a strategic part of liberalism. Accommodation continues to be a favorite argument by liberal and neo-orthodox thinkers of our day who challenge the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture. But the theory contains several fallacies.
First, the accommodation theory allows for a subjective view of Jesus’ teaching. If any part of His words were contaminated by error, then the whole of His message is suspect. Geisler and Nix ask: “If Jesus accommodated so completely and conveniently to current ideas, how can it ever be known with certainty just what He actually believed?” The obvious answer is that no one could know. We could not trust Him, because we could never be sure when He was telling the truth or when He was doing some fast footwork for political or psychological reasons.
Second, perhaps the most serious indictment of this theory is seen in Jesus’ dealings with the scribes and Pharisees. If there were any people in His day to whom He might have accommodated His teaching it would have been these religious leaders. But Jesus repeatedly confronted the scribes and Pharisees with the literal teaching of the Old Testament.
One key example is found in Mark 7:6–13 where the traditional teaching of the scribes and Pharisees conflicted with the commandments of God. Accommodation, on the other hand, would call for Jesus to agree with their traditionalistic thinking. In Matthew 22:29, however, Jesus thoroughly rebuked the Sadducees for not knowing the Scripture. In the following chapter Jesus again spoke of the scribes and Pharisees who purported to be followers of Moses, while in reality they hypocritically imposed their traditions on others (see Matt. 23:14).
Third, another objection to the accommodation theory involves the character of Jesus. How could He knowingly speak untruth and yet claim to be “the truth” (John 14:6)? If such is the case, His integrity is impugned, and His claim to be Deity is shattered, for the New Testament claims that God cannot lie (see Titus 1:2).
A fourth objection is related to Christ’s use of the Old Testament. James I. Packer points out that the accommodation theory “assumes that Christ’s ideas about the Old Testament are unessential elements in His thought which can be jettisoned without loss to His real message or to His personal authority.” In fact, as we previously said, Christ was intimately connected to the Old Testament as He pointed out to the disciples in a post-resurrection appearance: “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me” ( Luke 24:44 ). Earlier on the road to Emmaus, Jesus had explained to Cleopas and his companion “all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself” (Luke 24:27).
The theory of accommodation must be discarded because it does not fit the evidence in the Gospel record. One cannot hold to the theory of accommodation and to the authority of Christ with intellectual honesty. On the other hand, to hold to His authority is to hold to the inerrancy of the Scriptures. The authority and authenticity of Christ and the Scriptures stand or fall together.
To Sum It Up
When examining the testimony of Jesus about the Scriptures, we have to accept one of three possibilities. The first is that there are no errors in the Old Testament, just as Jesus taught. Second, there are errors, but Jesus didn’t know about them. Third, there are errors, and Jesus knew about them, but He covered them up.
If the second is true—that the Old Testament contains errors of which Jesus was unaware—then it follows that Jesus was a fallible man, He obviously wasn’t God, and we can dismiss the whole thing. If the third alternative is true—that Jesus knew about the errors but covered them up—then He wasn’t honest, He wasn’t holy, He certainly wasn’t God, and again, the entire structure of Christianity washes away like a sand castle at high tide.
I accept the first proposition—that Jesus viewed the Old Testament as the Word of God, authoritative and without error.
The obvious conclusion here is that Jesus accepted the Old Testament authority and passed that same authority on to the New Testament record (see John 14:26; 15:26, 27; 16:12–15). He saw it as the equivalent of His own word. The fulfillment record is as authoritative as the predictive record.
Psalm 119:160 tells us that “the entirety of Your word is truth” (italics added). That can only be true if the parts are truth. Based on the authority of Christ, I believe they are. An authoritative whole demands inerrant parts.
Reason cannot be allowed to override revelation; neither can the authority of Christ be usurped by those He created. Nothing less than the nature of God is at stake.
THINK BACK
1. What was the source of Jesus’ authority in His teachings?
2. In what ways did Jesus affirm the Old Testament scriptures?
3. What is the greatest weakness of the so-called theory of accommodation?
==========================================================
MacArthur, J. (2003). Unleashing god’s word in your life (Page 67). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc.