The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture Pt 2

Our previous post looked at the inspiration of Scripture. We will now make some observations on the subject of Scripture’s Authority

The question of the Scripture’s authority is not in regard to the canonical authority, but to the authority attached to the writings that are acknowledged to be canonical Scriptures. The following point addresses itself to this issue: If the Scriptures have been proved to be divinely inspired, then their divine authority goes without saying. If they are His Word, they must be absolutely authoritative with regard to all the matters they treat. The Bible is the last word on doctrinal and ethical matters and all theological and moral disputes must be brought before the bar of the written Word. This is the orthodox Protestant position.

The Protestant holds the authority of Scripture to be exclusive in the sphere of religion. That is to say that there is no other authority in matters concerning the Church’s doctrine and practice. This has to be true unless it can be shown that God designed them to be restricted in the scope of their influence – in other words, that there is some other revelation of God’s will possessing the same authority as Scripture. Plenary inspiration must be proven then of this other revelation. There are several reasons why this cannot be proved:
• The Bible claims to address all men. It recognizes no rival revelation of God’s will.
• If the Bible is inspired this claim to worldwide authority must be true and exclusive. This exclusivity is unavoidable because each would limit and condition the other, which would be contradictory to the supremacy of either. Just as two sovereigns cannot reign in the political realm, so two sovereigns cannot reign in the spiritual realm.
• No other revelation has been established by clear and unimpeachable miracles.
• No other revelation provides for the redemption of man from guilt, depravity and destruction.
• The world needs a revelation that is characterized by unity, which is consistent with itself. The idea of several revelations that are incompatible with each other at certain points is completely absurd.

This principle of the exclusivity of authority of the Bible, known to the Reformers as sola Scriptura, is not new however to the Church. This principle is stated explicitly and implicitly by the Fathers.

The clearest proof token of the prestige enjoyed by Scripture is the fact that almost the entire theological effort of the Fathers, whether polemical or constructive, was expended upon what amounted to the exposition of the Bible.
That the Fathers were firm believers in the principle of sola Scriptura is clearly seen from the writings of Cyril of Jerusalem, the bishop of Jerusalem in the mid fourth century. He wrote what are known as the Catechetical Lectures. This is an extensive series of lectures given to catechumens expounding the principle doctrines of the faith. His teaching is thoroughly grounded in Scripture and there is not one appeal in the entirety of the Lectures to an oral Apostolic Tradition that is independent of Scripture. He states frankly that if he presented any teaching that could not be validated from Scripture, they were to reject it.

The following are some of his statements from the Lectures on the final authority of Scripture: “This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture-proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.” (The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 4.17)

“But take thou and hold that faith only as a learner and in profession, which is by the Church delivered to thee, and is established from all Scripture… For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men: but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith… Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts.” (Lecture 5.12)

Notice that Cyril says that these catechumens are receiving “Tradition” and he exhorts them to hold to these traditions. Yet these traditions are not the “oral traditions” of Roman Catholicism; they are synonymous with Scripturally based doctrine. The Teaching or Tradition or Revelation of God that was committed to the Apostles and passed on to the Church is now accessible in Scripture alone. It is also quite significant that Cyril, who is communicating the entire faith to these catechumens as a recognized authority on the subject, did not make a single appeal to an oral Tradition to support his teachings. The entirety of the faith is grounded upon Scripture and Scripture alone.

This principle is also articulated by Gregory of Nyssa. “We make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet (dogma); we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.” (On the Soul And the Resurrection).

Athanasius, while speaking on other subjects makes many indirect references to the supremacy and sufficiency of Scripture. In the first paragraph of his Contra Gentes, he declares, “the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth.”

Basil the Great, bishop of Caesarea from 370 to 379 A.D., testifies to his belief in the all-sufficient nature of the Scriptures in these words taken from a letter he wrote to a widow: “Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right.” (Letter CCLXXXIII)

These fathers are simply representative of the fathers as a whole. Cyprian, Origen, Hippolytus, Firmilian, Augustine are just a few of the fathers that could be cited as proponents of the principle of sola Scriptura, in addition to Tertullian, Irenaeus, Cyril and Gregory of Nyssa. The early Church operated on the basis of the principle of sola scriptura and it was this historical principle that the Reformers sought to restore to the Church.

The extensive use of Scripture by the fathers of the early Church from the very beginning are seen in the following facts:

• Irenaeus: He knew Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John. He lived from @ 130 to 202 A.D. He quotes from 24 of the 27 books of the New Testament. He makes over 1800 quotes from the New Testament alone.

• Clement of Alexandria: He lived from 150 to 215 A.D. He cites all the New Testament books except Philemon, James and 2 Peter. He gives 2400 citations from the New Testament.

• Tertullian: He lived from 160 to 220 A.D. He makes over 7200 New Testament citations.

• Origen: He lived from 185 to 254 A.D. he succeeded Clement of Alexandria at the Catechetical school at Alexandria. He makes nearly 18,000 New Testament citations.

By the end of the third century the entire New Testament (short of about 11 verses) could be reconstructed from the writings of the Church fathers. B.F. Westcott sums up the position of the New Testament Scriptures in the early Church with these words: "The first hundred years of the existence of the 27 books of the New Testament reveal that virtually every one of them was quoted as authoritative and recognized as canonical by men who were themselves the younger contemporaries of the apostolic age." (A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament)

Scripture has authority as all evangelical Protestants will agree because it is the Word of God. But Scripture is not the Word of God merely because the Church says so. Scripture’s authority comes from its intrinsic nature as a communication from God to man, in other words, it has an authority independent of the Church.

The basis on which Christians accept the inspiration of Scripture is the fact already argued that the Scriptures themselves make this claim. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. Paul clearly states here that all Scripture is inspired by God. He is referring specifically to the Old Testament since the New Testament canon was not complete at the time he wrote, but the New Testament must also be covered by this statement for in 2 Peter 3:16. Peter refers to Paul’s writings (including this epistle to Timothy) as Scripture. The word used for ‘inspired’ literally means ‘God-breathed’.

The first century Jewish historian, Josephus, tells us that the Hebrew canon consisted of twenty-two books and did not include the Apocrypha. Josephus categorically rejects the Apocrypha as being truly inspired. Even the Roman Catholic Church affirms the fact that the Jews did not accept the Apocrypha, in that it was not part of the Hebrew canon, and acknowledges that the Protestant Church follows the canon of the Jews. For the Old Testament, however, Protestants follow the Jewish canon; they have only the Old Testament books that are in the Hebrew Bible.

The first list of the Old Testament canon given to us by a Christian writer is from Melito of Sardis. His list is preserved in the writings of Eusebius, the Church historian. Origen also names twenty-two books in his list of the Hebrew canon. First, there is the canon of inspired Scripture of the Old and New Testaments which he enumerates. Cardinal Cajetan, the great opponent of Luther in the sixteenth century, in his Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament, dedicated to Pope Clement VII, fully supported Jerome’s teaching in separating the Apocrypha from the Hebrew canon. The books that were considered inspired and authoritative for the establishing of doctrine held a proto-canonical status.

Augustine held a kind of two-fold canonicity. Clearly, Augustine believed that the Church held the Apocrypha to be canonical in the broad sense that these writings provided a good example and an inspiration to perseverance in the faith. However, it is equally clear from Augustine’s writings that he did hold the Apocrypha to be canonical in the same sense as the canon of the Old and New Testaments.

The Councils of Hippo and Carthage did not establish the canon of the Scriptures, for their decrees on the Old Testament were unsupported by the Church’s earlier testimony and were not accepted afterwards. It was not until the mid-sixteenth century at Trent did the Roman Catholic Church approve the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament canon. St Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. He refused to translate them for his Latin Vulgate, and they were only added literally over his dead body. The situation remained unclear in the following centuries.

According to Roman Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. Here is an authoritative Roman Catholic source affirming the fact that it was not until the sixteenth century that the Roman Catholic Church established the canon of the Old Testament. The Apocrypha was not considered to be part of the Old Testament canon. But at least it is honest enough to give an accurate picture of when the Old Testament canon was truly and authoritatively determined by the Roman Church.

The Protestant Church is continually charged with upholding dogmas which first appeared very late in the history of the Church. As we have seen, it is a ruling contrary to the testimony of the Jews to the canon of Scripture, to the general patristic witness of the Church and to the overall consensus of the Church right down to the time of the Reformation. Louis Gaussen summarizes this well when he writes, “With the single exception of Theodore of Mopsuestia [c. 400]…it has been impossible to produce, in the long course of the eight first centuries of Christianity, a single doctor who has disowned the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, unless it be in the bosom of the most violent heresies that have tormented the Christian Church.” (Theopneustia pp. 139-140)

In conclusion then, we sum up all the forgoing arguments by saying that the Bible claims to be breathed by God i.e., inspired. This inspiration is plenary, in other words, full; it applies to all of Scripture. This inspiration guarantees the accuracy and inerrancy of all of the Bible’s contents. This inspiration therefore makes the Bible authoritative in all areas of our spiritual life. Every issue we face as spiritual beings is, at bottom, a theological issue and as such is addressed and regulated by Scripture. The authority of the Scripture is the authority of God Himself. In Romans 9:17, St. Paul represents Scripture as addressing Pharaoh! Surely this is a strange way of speaking? This demonstrates that in St. Paul’s mind the authority of God and the utterances of His Word are inseparable. For the Scripture to say anything is for God to say it. David says in Psalm 138:2 that God has magnified His Word above His name! However lofty God’s name is, at least for the present state of affairs (discounting what things may be like in the Eternal State), God has made His Word, the Bible, the Supreme Authority in the universe on all spiritual, doctrinal, ethical, moral and theological issues. Not only is the Bible the supreme authority, there are no subordinate authorities to which appeal may be made. It is God’s Word and it is the Final Word.

The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture Pt 1

The Bible’s Inspiration and Authority Pt 1

In this post we will look at issues pertinent to the subject of Inspiration. Tomorrow, God permitting, we will look at the Scripture's authority. It should be fairly obvious that if the Bible is inspired by God, then it is authoritative.

The first step we should take in demonstrating the authority of Scripture is the affirmation of its inspiration. Against Pantheists and Intuitionalists, we affirm the possibility of supernatural revelation. Against Deists, we affirm the necessity of supernatural revelation. Against so-called Christian rationalists, we affirm its supreme authority. And against Mystics and Roman Catholics, we affirm its completeness.

The classical Protestant position regarding supernatural revelation affirms that the Bible, and the Bible alone – comprised of the Old and New Testaments – is the source and rule of a true theology. The Protestant Confessions are replete with declarations to this effect.

Any writing that is inspired by God is, of course, of divine origin, of infallible authority and is, ipso facto, entitled to be placed as an integral part of supernatural revelation. Before discussing the Nature, Degree and Proofs of Inspiration we should first discuss the reasons for considering the subject of Inspiration in the first place.

First of all, supernatural revelation is necessary to the religious interests of mankind. It is necessary in order to correct and reinforce the doctrines of natural religion that have been marred and obscured by sin. It is necessary to disclose the facts and truths of redemption without which there would be no deliverance from the effects of the Fall.

Secondly, the Bible asserts its own inspiration. The Bible claims to deal authoritatively with all questions of religion and morality.

Thirdly, it has been the uniform testimony of the universal Church. This has been the position of Jews and Christians. Even granting that this does not provide insurmountable proof for the inspiration of Scripture, it does merit consideration. It would be redundant to show that the Divine inspiration of the Bible has been the faith of scholars, philosophers, scientific men as well as that of countless saints from all walks of life.

Fourthly, study of this question has been necessitated by the attempts made by many to represent the Bible as of coordinate value with the sacred texts of other religions.

Fifthly and lastly, assaults upon the Scriptures have not only been made by avowed infidels. Most of these attacks have come from professing Christian scholars. This is at least true of the doctrine of Plenary Inspiration. The anti-supernaturalists have wide representation even in the institutions under the care of orthodox churches.

What is the Nature of Inspiration? To answer this, the first question we must face is what is our source of information on this subject? I embrace Dr. Hodge’s answer to this question: “The nature of inspiration is to be learnt from the Scriptures; from their didactic statements, and from their phenomena.” (Systematic Theology, Volume 1 Chapter 6, § 2)

The Old Testament claims, “Thus saith the Lord,” 413 times. There are numerous direct quotations and allusions throughout by the Old Testament authors to each other. The New Testament gives its familiar “It is written,” sixty-three times. The New Testament also cites itself on many occasions. Peter classes all of Paul’s epistles with the inspired Scriptures (2 Pet. 3:15-16). Paul quotes Luke’s gospel as Scripture in 1 Timothy 5:18 (cf. Luke 10:7). Luke refers to his previous work (Acts 1:1). Jude cites 2 Peter 3:2-3 in verse 18 of his Epistle. John alludes to his own gospel. Paul mentions another letter he had written to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9). Some of these examples are not formal quotations, but they do illustrate the fact that within the New Testament there is recognition of one inspired book by another.

The clincher though is in Revelation 1:2, where the Word of God is identified with the testimony of Jesus Christ! This statement runs in both directions. Firstly, it means that the testimony of Jesus Christ in the New Testament in as fully God’s Word as the Old Testament. Secondly, it means that the Old Testament is equally the testimony of Jesus Christ.

The Prophets and Apostles claimed to be commissioned by God to declare His will, which is the same thing as to be inspired. This was no arbitrary claim either. It was not addressed to an implicit faith. They backed up such claims with extraordinary credentials. The inspiration was proven by miracles, if not by the author himself by another author who recognized the inspiration of the other’s work. These miracles were not random. Pay attention and you'll notice the consistency of focus and inherent unity of the Biblical miracles. The inspired messages were recorded; these records are the Scriptures.

I. What then, according to the Scriptures, is Inspiration? Inspiration is:
• It is an influence of the Holy Spirit affecting a human mind.
• It is an influence exerted by the Holy Spirit. (See Acts 1:16, Acts 2:4, Acts 28:25, Mark 12:35,36; 1 Peter 1:10,11)
• It is an influence either strictly revealing unknown truth to the mind or presenting to it known truth.
• It is an immediate influence. By this I mean to say that it is not exerted through any medium. It brings truth directly into contact with the mind.
• It is a supernatural influence; meaning to say that there are no naturalistic factors that can account for it. It is above and beyond all natural faculties of the human mind.
• It is an objective influence. It comes from outside the mind and communicates an external revelation of God’s will to it.
• It is an influence that is intended to produce teachers. It is not intended to produce saints. Both Balaam and Caiaphas were subjects of this influence when they spoke their extraordinary prophecies. Even among the true Prophets and Apostles, we see less-than-ideal behavior when they were not under this influence (Peter at Antioch, Paul and Barnabas, Moses striking the rock, etc).
• It is an influence that guarantees infallible teaching. The inspired writer, as long as he was inspired, could not err. Without this influence they could and did err (see previous point), but with it, they could do or say no wrong.
• It is an influence that guarantees the teaching of God’s will in regard to the spiritual interests of mankind. This is its main purpose. It is not a textbook on physics, math or politics. If it does address these issues, it does so incidentally, not as its primary concern
• It is an influence whose didactic inerrancy is not affected by the degree of emotional intensity that accompanies it.
• It is an influence whose exertion upon the mind of others is attested by miraculous proof. Either the announcements themselves were accompanied by miracles or they were vouched for by others whose inspiration was attested to by miracles.

So we must conclude that revelation as the product of inspiration is common to the Prophets and the Apostles on one hand, and to us on the other. Their specific difference is inspiration, ours is faith. They communicate the Scriptures; we receive them. Therefore, revelation does not come before inspiration.

II The next concern is the Relation of Revelation to the Scriptures. By this we mean to discuss the extent of the inspiration and coterminous nature of the words Special Revelation and Scripture.

Dr Martin Lloyd-Jones addressed this issue in this way, “There is no question at all that the falling away…in this country is the direct consequence of the Higher Criticism. The man in the street says, 'What do these Christians know?’ We all therefore have to face this ultimate and final question: Do we accept the Bible as the Word of God, as the sole authority in all matters of faith and practice, or do we not?…Do I accept Scripture as a revelation from God, or do I trust to speculation, human knowledge, human learning, human understanding and human reasons?…Do I pin my faith to, and subject all my thinking to, what I read in the Bible?…The Protestant position, as was the position of the early Church in the first centuries, is that the Bible is the Word of God. Not that it 'contains' it, but that it is the Word of God, uniquely inspired and inerrant. The Protestant Reformers believed not only that the Bible contained the revelation of God's truth to men, but that God safeguarded the truth by controlling the men who wrote it by the Holy Spirit, and that He kept them from error and from blemishes and from anything that was wrong…It is either this Book, or else it is ultimately the authority of the Church of Rome and her 'tradition'!” (From a sermon on Ephesians 6.14)

The error Dr. Lloyd-Jones is refuting is the belief that the Bible “contains” the Word of God but is not coterminous with it. But there is a further consideration to be made in this respect. I am referring to the extent of the inspiration, or put another way: Is the inspiration transferred to subsequent copies? Our reply is that the original manuscripts, also known as the autographs were inspired. Mistakes in copy and translation cannot make claim this original inspiration. A copy or translation is only authoritative inasmuch as it faithfully reproduces the autograph. The accuracy of the copies is a subject for further study, but it can be honestly said that although our 20th century translations do not possess original inspiration, they do possess a derived inspiration insofar as they are faithful to the original.

Critics have asserted that since the autographs are not extant, it cannot be held that the originals were inerrant. Our response is that Inerrancy is not an empirically known fact. It is a belief based upon what the Bible teaches regarding its own inspiration. Even though no infallible originals have been discovered, neither have any fallible originals been discovered. What we do have are very accurately copied manuscripts that have been adequately translated into other languages. Thus for all matters of doctrine and practice, toady’s Bible is an adequate representation of the authoritative word of God.

III What is the degree of inspiration?
There are four general theories with their own differing variations.

1. There is what is called the Mechanical theory. This theory claims that the inspired persons were involuntary, passive instruments. This has also sometimes been referred to as the Verbal Dictation method of inspiration.

2. There is a Differing Degrees of Inspiration theory. According to this theory, the degree of inspiration is greater or less depending upon the importance of the matter addressed.

3. There is the theory of spiritual insight. This is the theory of the rationalists and the so-called “higher critics.” The “inspiration” of this theory simply puts the writer into sympathy with the truth to be communicated. This does not guard him against liability to error in communication.

4. There is, lastly, the Dynamical theory. It asserts that both the thought and language are imparted by inspiring influence to the inspired author but in such a way as not to exclude or override the voluntary faculties of the human mind, which include the individual peculiarities of thought and language unique to the human authors.

As far as orthodox evangelical Protestants are concerned, the first and fourth theories are the only viable ones.

The biggest problem with the verbal dictation theory is that it seems a bit underhanded of God to let books be written in the names of authors who were really nothing more than photocopiers. On top of this there are the obvious characteristics of the individual writers’ styles. How is this to be accounted for without charging God with some sort of play-acting? The only verbal dictation theorist who has evaded this charge openly is John R. Rice. In his book Our God-Breathed Book – The Bible, he disclaims that this theory must necessarily be mechanical. Rice argues that God gave the dictation through the distinct personalities of authors, who God had providentially formed for this very purpose. God was then able, according to Rice, to give word-by-word dictation using the predetermined vocabularies of the different authors. This does not remove the above difficulty; it only hides it under a deeper layer. Proponents of this theory have appealed to recent phenomena like the so-called Bible Code. This is a weak appeal, in my opinion. The codes are necessarily arbitrary – as codes frequently are. This Code theory has been debunked by numerous scholars, many of whom are Jewish. Furthermore, if the fourth theory is correct, this appeal is not needed, even if the Bible Code theory were true.

On this fourth theory, A.H. Strong, in his Systematic Theology takes the view that is sometimes called conceptual inspiration. Strong means that God inspired the concepts, but not the particular literary expression. In other words, God provided the inspiration and the men of God gave it a verbal expression characteristic of their own styles. This resolves all the difficulties raised by the verbal dictation theory. It explains why the writings repeatedly tell us what, “saith the Lord,” while they claim to be the words of this or that prophet. Both are true. God is the Author of Scripture in the primary sense; but the human authors are true authors in a secondary sense. This does not violate the Divine or the human causality; both are real and are not contradictory to each other or exclusive of each other.

III Support for the Biblical Claim for Inspiration.

There are two lines of evidence to be considered on this question: the internal evidence and the external evidence. The internal evidence may be delineated as follows:
• Evidence of self-vindicating authority. This means that the Bible can vindicate its own authority once its voice is heard.
• Evidence of the testimony of the Holy Spirit. God’s Word is confirmed to His children by His Spirit.
• Evidence from the transforming ability of the Bible. It has the ability to convert the unbeliever and build up the believer in the faith
• Evidence of the unity of the Bible. Despite the fact that it was written by forty authors over the course of fifteen hundred years in several languages, it has an obvious unity of theme and exposition. Not a single point anywhere is contradicted by any other passage.

The external evidence may be listed as follows:
• Evidence from the historicity of the Bible. The Bible is historical and is therefore open to verification. This is done through archeological artifacts and written documents. Donald Wiseman writes, “The geography of Bible lands and visible remains of antiquity were gradually recorded until today (1958) more than 25,000 sites within this region and dating to Old Testament times, in their broadest sense, have been located.” (Revelation and the Bible). The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls makes an important point: there are more manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments than from any other book from antiquity.
• Evidence from the testimony of Christ. If Christ possesses any authority or integrity as a religious teacher, then the Scriptures are inspired. This can be demonstrated by His use of Scripture:

1. He knew the Scriptures thoroughly, even to words and verb tenses. He obviously had either memorized vast portions or knew it instinctively: John 7:15.
(Jesus need not verify every passage in the Canon or else we would find the whole Old Testament re-quoted in the New Testament, which is unnecessary. He verifies enough of it to assure us of complete approval of it all, including passages from all but a few books. Yet those also were in His Canon. He did not refute any of them.)

2. He believed every word of Scripture. All the prophecies concerning Himself were fulfilled, and He believed beforehand they would be.

3. He believed the Old Testament was historical fact. This is very clear, even though from the Creation (cf. Genesis 2:24 and Matthew 19:4, 5) onward. Much of what Jesus believed has long been under fire from the critics as being mere fiction. Here are some examples of historical facts from the Old Testament attested to by Jesus:
• Luke 11:51 Abel was a real individual
• Matthew. 24:37-39 Noah and the flood (Luke 17:26, 27)
• John 8:56-58 Abraham
• Matthew 10:15; 11:23, 24 (Luke 10:12) Sodom and Gomorrah
• Luke 17:28-32 Lot (and wife!)
• Matthew 8:11 Isaac and Jacob (Luke 13:28)
• John 6:31, 49, 58 Manna
• John 3:14 Serpent
• Matthew 12:39-41 Jonah (vs.42 - Sheba)
• Matthew 24:15 Daniel and Isaiah

4. He believed the books were written by the men whose names they bear:
• Moses wrote the Pentateuch (Torah): Matthew 19:7, 8; Mark 7:10, 12:26 ("Book of Moses" the Torah); Luke 5:14; 16:29, 31; 24:27, 44 ("Christ's Canon"); John 1:17; 5:45, 46; 7:19; ("The Law [Torah] was given by Moses; Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ.")
• Isaiah wrote Isaiah: Mark 7:6-13; John 12:37-41.
• Jonah wrote Jonah: Matthew 12:39-41.
• Daniel wrote Daniel: Matthew 24:15.

5. He believed the Old Testament was spoken by God Himself, or written by the Holy Spirit's inspiration, even though the pen was held by men: Matthew 19:4, 5; 22:31, 32, 43; Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37.

6. He believed Scripture was more powerful than His miracles: Luke 16:29, 31.

7. He actually quoted it in overthrowing Satan! The O.T. Scriptures were the arbiter in every dispute: Matthew 4; Luke 16:29, 31.

8. He quoted Scripture as the basis for his own teaching. His ethics were the same as what we find already written in Scripture: Matthew 7:12; 19:18, 19; 22:40; Mark 7:9, 13; 10:19; 12:24,29-31; Luke 18:20.

9. He warned against replacing it with something else, or adding or subtracting from it. The Jewish leaders in His day had added to it with their Oral Traditions: Matthew 5:17; 15:1-9; 22:29; (cf. 5:43,44); Mark. 7:1-12. (Destroying faith in the Bible as God's Word will open the door today to a "new" Tradition.)

10. He will judge all men in the last day, as Messiah and King, on the basis of His infallible Word committed to writing by fallible men, guided by the infallible Holy Spirit: Matthew 25:31; John 5:22, 27; 12:48; Romans 2:16.

11. He made provision for the New Testament by sending the Holy Spirit. We must note that He Himself never wrote one word of Scripture although He is the Word of God Himself (the living Torah in flesh and blood, see John, chapter 1). He committed the task of all writing of the Word of God to fallible men guided by the infallible Holy Spirit. The apostles' words had the same authority as Christ's: Matthew 10:14, 15; Luke 10:16; John 13:20; 14:22; 15:26, 27; 16:12-14.

12. He not only was not jealous of the attention men paid to the Bible (denounced as "bibliolatry" by some), He reviled them for their ignorance of it: Matthew 22:29; Mark 12:24.

13. Nor did Jesus worship Scripture. He honored it even though written by men.
The above leaves no room but to conclude that our Lord Jesus Christ considered the canon of Scripture as God's Word, written by the hand of men.

• Evidence from prophecy. Hundreds of prophecies, given hundreds of years in advance have literally been fulfilled.
• Evidence from the Bible’s influence. No book has been more widely disseminated or has more greatly influenced the events of world history. It has influenced more thought, inspired more art and motivated more discovery than any other book. It has been published in billions of copies. There are no close seconds as an all-time best seller.
• Evidence from the Bible’s apparent indestructibility. No book has sustained more violent attacks. As early as 303, Diocletian tried to exterminate it. The Bible remains strong as ever after every attack. Jesus said, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” (Mark 13:31)
• Evidence from the integrity of the human authors. There is no good evidence to doubt that the authors were honest and sincere men.
There are other possible arguments, but the weight of the case can rest on these.

Tomorrow we will deal with the Bible's authority.