Skip to content


November 17, 2009

photo from "Ken's Blog"

By Dr. Gary S. Day

How did Jesus View the Authority and Inerrancy of the Bible?


How Jesus Christ looked at the Old Testament provides insights into important questions concerning Scriptural inerrancy and authority. Not surprisingly, our Lord used historical incidents in the Old Testament in a manner which evidenced His total confidence in their factual historicity.   He believed in them.  For instance:

In Matt. 19:3-5; Mark 10:6-8 Jesus acknowledged that Adam and Eve were created by God, that they were two real living human beings, not merely symbols of humankind, and that they acted in specific ways (ate from the forbidden tree, etc.).

He also verified as being historical, events connected with the flood in Noah’s day; namely, that there was an ark and that the flood destroyed everyone who was not in that ark (Matt. 24:38- 39; Luke 17:26-27)

On two different occasions, Jesus authenticated God’s destruction of Sodom and the historicity of Lot and his wife (Matt. 10:15; Luke 17:28-29). 

He accepted as true the story of Jonah and the great fish (Matt. 12:40) and acknowledged the historicity of Isaiah (Matt. 12:17), Elijah (Matt.17:11-12), Daniel (Matt. 24:15), Abel (Matt. 23:35), Zechariah (Matt. 23:35), Abiathar (Mark 2:26), David (Matt. 22:45), Moses and his writings (Matt. 8:4; John 5:46), plus, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Matt. 8:11; John 8:39).

Christ did not allude to these as mere moral stories, but He authenticated the events in them as factual history to be completely trusted. These events include many of the passages of the Old Testament, against which many have raised controversies over, such as the Creation, the Flood and major miracles including Jonah and the giant sea-monster.

Obviously, our Lord felt that He had a reliable Bible, historically true, with every word being trustworthy.

Consider this; if we find that Jesus used or taught only in a general way about the Bible, we must conclude that He believed in its reliability only generally. On the other hand, if we find that He relied on the minutest point of the Bible as being accurate, then we must conclude that He believed the Scriptures to be inerrant down to its minutest details. 

Let’s look at the Biblical evidence in this regard…

I.  Concrete Biblical Evidences of Christ’s View on Biblical Inerrancy and Authority


The account of the temptation of our Lord reveals some important matters concerning Jesus’ view of the Bible.

First, Jesus accepted the full and complete, or plenary, inspiration of the Bible.

When first approached by the devil who tempted Jesus to turn stones into bread, our Lord replied that man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God (Matt. 4:4 quoting Deut. 8:3). He did not say “some words” but “EVERY word”.

If Scripture is breathed out from God as 2 Tim. 3:16 tells us, then all Scripture must be included in what sustains mankind. Not merely certain parts of Scripture, but all of it.

Second, Jesus’ response to Satan’s attacks negates every view of Scriptural error. He said, “It is written” (Matt. 4:4,7,10). He did not say, “It witnesses”.   He relied on statements from the Bible to convey truth in and to convey it accurately.  “It is written” also conveys the words as authoritative.


“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law until all is accomplished”.

The verse is not only a statement of fact, but also a promise about the Bible made by the Lord Jesus Himself.  Several things should be noticed:

First, ask yourself, “What is the promise?”

It is that the Law and the Prophets will NOT be abolished, but be fulfilled. Christ is guaranteeing that the all the guarantees and statements of the Bible shall surely be fulfilled.

We can trust the Word of God.

Second, ask, “What all is included in this promise?”

The “Law and the Prophets” included all of the Old Testament, which was our Lord’s Bible. “Law” in verse 18 means the same thing (compare the use of “Law” in John 10:34 where it includes more than the Mosaic Law).

Third, “In what detail will all the promises of the Old Testament be fulfilled? The Lord said we can count on all the Old Testament promises being fulfilled down to the very jots and tittles (KJV).

An explanation of “jot and tittle” would be helpful to the non-Hebrew readers.

A) THE JOT: The jot is the Hebrew letter titled YODH (y). It is the smallest of all the letters in the Hebrew alphabet. It would occupy proportionately about the same amount of space that an English apostrophe takes up in a line of English type. Actually, the Hebrew letter looks very much like an English apostrophe. Though it is the smallest of the Hebrew letters it is as important as any other letter, for letters spell words and words compose sentences and sentences make promises. If we spell a word one way, it is that word; if we change only a single letter, it is a different word.

For example, “Tough” means strong. One letter changed spells as “touch”. One letter added makes it “though”.  Single letters are enough to change words. Thus our Lord promised that not one jot, or letter, would fail.  What that means to us is that every promise will be fulfilled exactly as it has been spelled out.

1) Many people (influenced by the radical theologians) believe and teach that Biblical writers were inspired only with ‘concepts’ and that inspiration did not extend to the words used by the Biblical writers.

We must observe here that Christ does not start with concepts and then allow for optional words to be used to convey those concepts.  This is contrary to what proponents of “concepts-inspiration” teach.  Jesus begins the other way around. The promises are based on the words as spelled out in the Holy Bible and those words can be relied on fully and in detail.

2) Neither did our Lord say that the promises would be fulfilled provided they were culturally relevant at the time of fulfillment.

In some theological circles today it has become fashionable to say that promises and commands of the Bible are to be culturally reinterpreted. This is a subtle attempt to invalidate the original promises as spelled out in the Old Testament.

B) THE TITTLE: A “tittle” is even minuter than a Jot.

1) Whereas a Jot is a whole Hebrew letter, a “tittle” is only a part of a letter. The presence of a tittle helps form a certain Hebrew letter, but its absence causes that letter to become a different one.

For example, the Hebrew letter BETH (b) and KAPH (k) look very similar. The only difference between the two letters is that the bottom horizontal line on the BETH extends slightly to the right of the vertical line, whereas no extension appears on the KAPH.

That extension (not the entire bottom horizontal line but only the part of it that extends to the right of the vertical line) is a tittle. If it is present then the letter is a BETH; if it is absent, it is a KAPH. And whether you use a BETH or a KAPH will decide what word it would ultimately be.

According to the Lord, even such tiny differences were there by God’s ordinance.

There are many places where the presence or absence of the tittle makes a difference.

While it is easy for an ordinary copyist to overlook the presence of the tittle, the Lord made it very clear that it is an important part of the inspired scriptures.

In doing this, the Lord’s affirmation was that all of the promises of the Old Testament will be fulfilled precisely as they were spelled out, in their minutest details.

2) In English we might illustrate a tittle this way.

Suppose I invite you to my house to have some “Fun”. You might rightly wonder what I consider fun. If I put a tittle or small stroke on the F, then you might conclude that I like to “Pun”. Punning is fun to me.

But you may not enjoy making puns, so I’ll put another tittle on the letter. Now I have spelled “Run.”  To run is fun for some, but not to me.  So I’ll add another tittle and now I am inviting you over to have a “Bun.”    Everybody likes eating cinnamon buns!

The difference between Fun, Pun, Run and Bun is just the addition of a tittle in each case. But four entirely different words result, and with them, four different invitations.


A) Often minute things do make a difference. Towards the end of His earthly ministry the Lord again reaffirmed His total confidence in the reliability of the minutest elements of the Scripture. At the temple celebration of the Feast of Dedication, or Hanukkah (instituted in 165 B.C to commemorate the cleansing and reopening of the temple after its desecration by Antiochus Epiphanus in 167 BC), the Jews asked Jesus to tell them plainly if He is the Messiah (John 10:24).

His answer was, “I and the Father are One.” The words “one” is neuter, “one thing”, not “one person”. In other words, He did not assert that He and the Father are identical but that He and the Father possess essential unity together, that He enjoys perfect unity of nature and of actions with His Father.

The Jews had asked if He were the Messiah. His answer was more than they had bargained for, for in it He claimed also to be equal with God. This was certainly the way they understood His claim, for immediately they prepared to stone the Lord for what they considered to be blasphemy.

In order to restrain them the Lord appealed to Psalm 82. He called this portion of the Old Testament “the Law” (John 10:34), as He did on two other occasions (John 12:34 and 15:25). In that Law, He said the judges of Israel, that is to say human beings, were called “gods” by virtue of their high and God-given office.

Then, He concluded, if that Psalm can apply the term “gods” to human beings, then certainly the term “Son of God” may be rightly applied to the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world. In other words, if the title Elohim is applied to men, how much more appropriate it is to apply it to Himself, since He does possess essential unity with the Father.

B) Though this argument is highly sophisticated, certain claims Christ made here about the

Bible can clearly be deduced:

First, the Bible is verbally inspired: Jesus pointed the Jews to what had been written. God’s Word came in written prepositional statements, not merely in concepts, thoughts, or oral tradition.

Second, it is the written record that was inspired and that can be relied on.

The Bible is inspired even in what looks as minor statements: Psalm 82 is not what would be considered a major Old Testament passage. It is not a psalm of David, nor a messianic


This is not said to demean the psalm in any way for, of course, it is equally inspired with all other parts of the Bible, but it is to emphasize that the Lord did not pick up an outstanding passage on which to base His argument. Indeed one might say, without being disrespectful, that He chose a rather ordinary, run-of-the-mill passage. Of course, He could not have done so if He did not believe that even such passages are God’s inerrant and inspired Word.

Furthermore, from that ordinary passage He focused on a single word, “gods”.

He could not have done so unless He believed in the verbal inspiration of the minutest part of the Bible and also on any word in any part of the statement.

In other words, the Bible is authoritatively inspired.  

B) In the midst of His sophisticated arguing the Lord threw in almost incidentally the statement: “and the Scripture cannot be broken”. What does this mean ?

Simply pit it means that the Scripture cannot be emptied of its authority. The only way it could fail to have complete authority would be if it were erroneous, but Christ said here that it is both authoritative and inerrant.  Christ was staking His life on the reliability, accuracy, and authority of just one word of Scripture when His enemies were about to stone Him.


A) Just as in John 10:34, in the present passage Jesus also based His argument on the written Word: not upon general concepts, but upon specific written words.

Specifically, He based His case on how God identified Himself to Moses at the burning bush: “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (Matt. 22:32).

That proves, the Lord went on to say, that God is the God of the living, which means that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were still alive though they had died long before.

How does that identification prove the doctrine of life after death?  Simply by the use of the present tense, “I am”.

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had died several hundred years before God spoke this way to Moses. Yet, God said that He was still their God when He spoke to Moses. This would not have been possible if Abraham, Isaac and Jacob ceased to exist upon their death.

It was only possible if death does not end it all, contrary to the Sadducees’ doctrine.

The difference between “I am” and “I was” is only a matter of verb tense. This argument was based on a present tense to support the doctrine of resurrection. The difference is only in the tense of the verb used, similar to we had or we have, or, I was their God or I am their God.

B) This interpretation of Christ has many ramifications.  Let us observe carefully some of them here:

 1-He assumed as true the historicity of God’s appearance to Moses.

2-He assumed that God’s revelation came in prepositional statements and not merely through non-verbal ideas.

3-He assumed that every word of that statement could be trusted to be precisely accurate.

4-He assumed that doctrinal truth has to be based on historical accuracy. The Bible cannot be inaccurate in matters of history, and yet be accurate in doctrine.

5-He assumed that one could use even seemingly insignificant passages of Bible and trust their accuracy.


A) Later that same day, when the Pharisees had joined the crowd of antagonists, the Lord became the aggressor, asking a straight-forward question to them: “About the Christ, whose son is He, (Matt. 22:24).

Theirs was an immediate answer: “The Son of David”. The answer was correct but incomplete. Christ is the son of David as far as His humanity is concerned, but He also is the Son of God, and the Lord wanted the Pharisees to acknowledge this as well.

So He asked them, “Then how does David address Him as Lord.”

Jesus quoted Psalm 110:1. It reads thusly, “The Lord (that is, the Father) said to my Lord (the Messiah who was David’s Lord): ‘Sit at My right hand (the Father’s) until I (the Father) put Thine (the Messiah’s) enemies beneath thy feet’.

How could David call Messiah his Lord if Messiah were only David’s son?

The only answer is: because Messiah was also David’s God. In other words the Messiah had to be both God and man. As man He was David’s son; as God, David’s Lord.

The pronoun “my” links David to his Messiah-Lord.

Natural procreation links Messiah to David as David’s descendant. The pronoun “my”: in

Psalm 110:1 links Messiah to David as David’s Lord God. And the pronoun “my” is simply a YODH (y) that smallest of Hebrew letters, attached to the word “Lord” (yno.07Oda).

B) We learn several things about the Scriptures from our Lord’s attitude toward the Bible:

1-The spelling of words can be trusted completely, and not one promise will be fulfilled in

any way different from how it was spelled out.

2-The only way the Scripture can lose its authority is if it contains errors, but Christ taught that the Scripture cannot be broken. Thus He must have believed it did not contain errors.

3-The Lord built sophisticated arguments on single words and even the tense of a verb.

Who can say he fully follows the Lord without accepting His teaching concerning the authority and inerrancy of the Scriptures?


The word of God is not only alive and powerful, but is also infallible and inerrant. Thus in the original writings produced by the forty writers, even the words used were there because of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. God’s Inspiration gave such integrity to the original text that even the smallest jot and tittle was there by God’s guidance.  Doctrines of inerrancy and infallibility apply only to the original autographs of the Bible.  Using tens of thousands of manuscripts that archaeologists have discovered, scholars have been able to get very close to the original autographs of the Bible, 99.999% of the original writings.   

Can we trust the Word of God??  YES!

Do you trust the Word of God??   I hope it is as much as Christ Jesus Himself trusted the Word of God.

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: