Home » Academics » Lecture Hall

WWJD: Jesus and the Bible, Part 2 - Defending Jesus' View of Scripture

Recap

In part one of this article, I talked about Jesus' high view of Scripture. But how do we combat counterarguments to this view? That's what part two is for.

Responding to a Counterargument

It has been argued that Jesus did not hold to verbal inspiration because He often quoted from the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament produced more than two centuries before Christ) and not the Hebrew Old Testament, thus, disregarding Hebrew morphemes and specific word choices. However, as we saw in part one, (Jesus' conviction that since inspiration obtains down to the level of choice of words, He could base an entire argument on the tense of a verb or the choice of a single word), this claim flies in the face of Jesus' own statements and practices.

And there is a better explanation for Jesus' frequent use of the Septuagint: It was a text with which the public was familiar, and Jesus clearly assumed that the Septuagint preserved the inspired meaning of the Hebrew Old Testament in a way adequate for the purposes of His quotation.

When a person quotes a source, that person has a purpose, an intention for his own communication that he uses the quote to realize. Many times, what matters is not the detailed word-for-word accuracy of the quotation per se, but the accuracy of the quotation at a level appropriate for the specific purposes of the quoter's own utterance.

If I paraphrase the President's recent speech to give a friend an accurate sense of his general strategy for the economy, it doesn't matter if I don't cite him accurately word-for-word since my purpose is appropriately accomplished by a paraphrase. The paraphrase must accurately reflect the President's views in keeping with the general, not detailed or specific point I am making.

Thus, each gospel writer paraphrases Jesus' speeches a bit differently for different purposes and audiences. The New Testament often paraphrases citations of Old Testament texts that are not word-for-word, and Jesus' use of the Septuagint follows this pattern. All that matters is that the quote is an accurate representation of the original for the purposes of the citation. After all, not every detail of the original source is relevant for the speaker's purposes, and he is free to paraphrase in such cases.

Thus, in all three cases — the Gospel writers and Jesus' original speeches, New Testament quotations of Old Testament texts, and Jesus use of the Septuagint — the use of a citation that does not match the original word-for-word does not undermine the fact that the one citing the earlier source believed in its word-for-word inspiration.

A Non-Circular Defense of the View

How would I defend this doctrine against skeptics so as to avoid arguing in a circle by assuming inspiration to prove inspiration? Briefly, I would use historical evidence to establish the high probability of the general historical reliability of the New Testament manuscripts. I would argue that on this basis we can justifiably believe two things: 1) Jesus was God Incarnate who rose from the dead and, as God, speaks truth and only truth; 2) Jesus held a view on the nature of Scripture that is now called verbal plenary inspiration.

Note three things.

First, the case is inductive and the conclusions are rationally justified to the degree the evidence warrants. In an inductive argument, the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Rather, the truth of the premises supports the truth of the conclusion to some degree or other depending on the strength of the evidence they provide.

Second, while I cannot go into detail here, I believe the historical evidence (e.g., for the Resurrection, the early dating of the gospels, for their reliable transmission in an oral culture, etc.) strongly supports both of these beliefs — that Jesus was God and speaks the truth, and that Jesus taught verbal plenary inspiration regarding Scripture.

Third, nowhere have I assumed the inspiration of Scripture in my argument. On the basis of these two beliefs, we are justified in believing verbal, plenary inspiration. We believe this because Jesus did. This is established by premises that do not include this view of inspiration to avoid arguing in a circle by assuming the thing we are trying to justify — verbal, plenary inspiration — in the premises used to justify it. In other words, we do not assume inspiration to assure us that Jesus' views are true, then conclude that the Bible is inspired because Jesus taught it. This is a bad argument because it argues in a circle, (i.e., it assumes (inspiration) the very thing one is trying to prove (inspiration) as a premise in the proof!)

C O F F E E  S H O P

---

How do you think Dr. Moreland's suggestions hold up?

Join the discussion!

We do not believe in Jesus' divinity and truthfulness because we already accept the inspiration of Scripture. On the basis of solid, highly probable historical grounds, we are reasonable to believe that the New Testament documents are generally reliable historical sources of the deeds, person and beliefs of Jesus. We also learn that He believed in the inspiration of Scripture.

Inspirational!

Finally, we are justified in believing He did miracles, rose from the dead and was, therefore, the Son of God who speaks the truth. We then conclude that the Bible is indeed inspired.