For your consideration and potential enjoyment:
THE USE OF JOHN 10:35 TOGETHER WITH MARK 12:24 AS SUPPORT FOR A WORKING DEFINITION OF SCRIPTURAL INERRANCY
The use of the texts from John10:35 and Mark 12:24 to present the view Jesus held on the authority of the scripture requires evaluation. When Jesus said “and the scripture cannot be broken” [1] was He explicitly affirming inerrancy in His teaching? Does this teaching extend to the New Testament writings? Can an argument within a text that the text is inerrant truly be considered valid and reliable? These are some of the questions that surround the debate over inerrancy within the Christian community. While the Bible does explicitly state that all scripture is “given by inspiration of God” [2] it has been said that the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is not explicitly affirmed or taught in the Bible. [3] In contradiction to this assertion Jesus does ask “Do ye not therefor err?” [4] as He speaks of the deficiency of man in comparison to the Scriptures.
This paper will attempt to show that the combined use of John 10:35 along with Mark 12:24 does explicitly define and teach a doctrine of inerrancy. It will begin by attempting to establish a working definition of inerrancy. It will then look at the verses in John and Mark themselves and discuss their meaning. Next it will examine the position regarding the original manuscripts against transcripts in light of the discussion on inerrancy to demonstrate that errors in transcription do not negate the doctrine of inerrancy. It will consider other passages to support that Jesus Himself viewed the Scriptures are inerrant and then bring together the explanation of the verses in John 10:35 and Mark 12:24 with the working definition of inerrancy to demonstrate the explicit teaching of the doctrine of inerrancy within the Scriptures.
Definition of Inerrancy
Inerrancy is a rather recent term, the scrutiny of which has caused the need for further clarification of the doctrine itself. While it is evident that the authors of scripture themselves, when referring to scripture, held a view that implies the truthfulness of the Bible [5] there are those within evangelical circles that claim inerrancy is “an awful doctrine to teach in our days when biblical criticism has the field,” and argued that “no more dangerous doctrine has ever come from the pen of men.” [6]
It is imperative then to build the foundation of the argument for inerrancy of the Scriptures with a solid working definition of the term and teaching itself. Three proposed definitions that will be considered in this paper are first, that “the inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact.” [7] Second, “Inerrancy is the view that when all the facts become known, they will demonstrate that the Bible in its original autographs and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms, whether that relates to doctrine or ethics of to social, physical, or life sciences.” [8] And third, that “the Bible, when correctly interpreted in light of the level to which culture and the means of communication had developed at the time it was written, and in view of the purposes for which it was given, is fully truthful in all that it affirms: [9] The most important aspect of these definitions is, as Elwell rightly suggests, their definition of inerrancy in terms of truth and falsity rather than in terms of error.” [10] This distinction is one that itself causes argument, and can be seen as a way to skirt the earlier opposition that focused on the concept of “mistakes” in the manuscripts. Many held that the strongest argument for the “no mistake” interpretation of the term inerrancy rested in the futile efforts over the centuries for people to find errors in the Bible. They asserted then that the presumption was exceedingly strong that the original writers did not make any mistake. [11] Any errors or contradictions in the texts that were discovered were seen to most likely to have originated in the transcripts. [12] Geisler in “Who Made God?” states as support for this idea that “no original manuscript has ever been found with an error in it.” [13] The question again focused not on whether or not the Bible contained human transcription mistakes, but whether or not the Scriptures themselves are trustworthy. Where mistakes are unintentional in action, errors are wrong by intention. It is to the Scriptures we now turn for further discussion.
The Scriptural teaching of Inerrancy
While the term “inerrancy” is not explicitly found in the Scriptures, the concept of errancy, to err, is. As well, when the concept of errancy is referenced, as we will see, it is in a comparison of man’s ability against the authority of the Scriptures. “And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the Scriptures, neither the power of God?” [14] If there is any question of doubt as to the answer He provides it three verses later with a definitive “ye therefore do greatly err.” [15] What then does it mean to err?
The word used in the text is planaō. [16] It conveys the concept of leading astray or to deceive. So then, Christ’s admonition is that those He was talking to were guilty of planaō. It is the following clause in the verse that gives us the reason for this “because ye know not the Scriptures.” [17] Here we see that, through direct comparison, Jesus is stating that man errs in contradiction to the Scriptures, which do not. If they had known the Scriptures they would not be deceived or led astray, nor would they deceive or lead others astray. We see again in John 10:35, “and the Scriptures cannot be broken” that Jesus affirms the authority and trustworthiness of the Scriptures. The focus now will be on the use of the word “broken”, lyō. [18] Richards states that to break can be translated as “to invalidate”. [19] Therefore, we can read the text as a statement regarding the truthfulness of scripture. The Scriptures cannot be invalidated. What they state is affirmable and cannot be shown to be contradictory. Elwell renders an interpretation that the phrase means that the Scriptures are “absolutely binding” [20] meaning that it cannot be caused to not be in force. Since the text does not say “have not been broken” but rather “cannot be” this statement is one of an ongoing state of being in force. They cannot be proven to not be applicable. Let us consider the term “broken” as it is defined by Richards and Elwell along with the concept of “being rendered useless.” When the ship was broken, where the same word lyō is used, in Acts 27 it was no longer capable of being used for its purpose. Therefore we can take these concepts together and say that when Jesus was saying that the Scriptures cannot be broken the picture He was painting was that the Scriptures (a) cannot be invalidated, (b) cannot be proven to not be applicable, and (c) have not been rendered useless. That use is “for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” [21] The Scriptures are true, applicable, and useful for these purposes. The Scriptures do not “err”. They do not lead astray. Therefore the working definitions of inerrancy that were referenced continue to be supported in so much as inerrancy is about truthfulness rather than containing errors.
The Wheel, the Hub, and the Spokes
Two of the definitions discussed in this paper for inerrancy make direct reference to the “original manuscripts” or “original autographs.” Further they assert that “when all the facts become known” the Bible will have been proven to be true in all that it affirms. We have taken time to separate the ideas of error and errancy. Bible manuscripts do show minor mistakes in transcription. [22] What is of importance then to the doctrine of inerrancy, as we have developed it, is not whether these mistakes occur in the originals but rather whether they cause the Scriptures themselves to be (a) invalid, (b) not applicable, and (c) rendered useless. If in fact the copyist mistakes do this, the Bible would then not be inerrant.
We turn now to the analogy of wheel. The purpose of the wheel is to act along with the axle in order to move from one place to another. At its center is the hub. The hub serves the purposes of connecting the wheel to the axle as well as connecting the spokes to the rim of the wheel. Without the hub, the wheel is rendered useless for its purpose since it cannot connect to the axle. However, so long as there are a sufficient amount of spokes in place, some can be missing or damaged and not cause the wheel to be rendered useless. Also, were a spoke missing or damaged, we would be able to recognize this because of the presence of many more undamaged spokes. The copyist errors or mistakes found in the manuscripts resemble the spokes in this analogy. We can recognize them because of the presence of manuscripts free from mistakes[23] and from other statements within the same manuscripts. [24] However, these copyist errors in no way render the Scriptures invalid, not applicable, or useless for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, or for instruction in righteousness. Whether Solomon had four or forty thousand horse stalls[25] has no effect on my ability to follow the commandments of scripture. Nor does it cast down on the question as to whether Solomon had horses. In the same way, a potential contradiction in timeline of events leading to the passion of Christ does not negate the reality of the event itself having happened.
It is here where we must considered that scripture is to be interpreted, not merely read. [26] “Hermenutics is the science of biblical interpretation. It is necessary to interpret a text properly, to know its correct meaning before asserting that what a texts says is false.” [27] Again, we are speaking here not of copyist mistakes, but of truth and falsity. We must look at what the passage is trying to convey, what the meaning behind the text is in order to determine if it is both truthful and applicable. So long as the message is discernable in the text, minor copyist mistake do not qualify as error. Geisler gives an excellent example of this when he suggests that were you to receive a message from Western Union that read “Y#o have won 20 million dollars” that no doubt you would quickly pick up your money. [28] He continues to demonstrate that with the increase of copies of that telegram with various mistakes, you would become more certain of the message as you would be able to piece together the entire message from what was there. For example, “Yo# have won 20 million dollars,” “You #ave won 20 million dollars,” and “You h#ve won 20 million dollars” together would leave no doubt that the text in the original, before the Western Union employee hit the wrong key, was “You have won 20 million dollars.” So then, regardless of the small number of spokes missing, the wheel remains intact.
Did Jesus believe the Scriptures were inerrant
Few would argue that Jesus Himself believed the Scriptures to be inerrant. He often began His teaching with “it is written” or “have ye not read” referencing the Scriptures themselves as authority. [29] Where will turn our attention now is to the examination of one verse, Mark 11:17, in comparison to the verse Jesus was referencing, Isaiah 56:7 to demonstrate that Jesus’ assertion for inerrancy is in agreement with that which this paper proposes. In Mark 11:17 we read that Jesus said, “Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer?” The text He is referencing is Isaiah 56:7 where we read, “for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.” It is clear that “My house shall be called… house of prayer.” However, does the difference between “of all nations” and “for all people” make Jesus’ statement err? Clearly not. We see this type of reference to the Old Testament Scriptures often and can assert from the relaxed method of quotation along with the “cannot be broken” phrase, that the purpose, the intent of the scripture does not nor can it err.
It is now that we will apply the passage from Mark 12:24 along with that of John 10:35 and what we have seen through the example of Jesus’ treatment of quoting scripture to determine the best working definition of inerrancy. When we take the concepts that; the Scriptures cannot be invalidated, cannot be proven to not be applicable, and have not been rendered useless; and that the use of the Scriptures is “for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; and that man errs (deceives, leads astray) in contraction to the Scriptures; and that the Scripture is to be interpreted not merely read we can formulate a definition of the Doctrine of Inerrancy that is taught by the Bible itself. The Doctrine of Inerrancy is the teaching that the Bible when interpreted correctly cannot lead anyone away from righteousness.
Conclusion
In conclusion and contrary to common assertion, the Bible does explicitly define and teach a doctrine of inerrancy when specific verses such as John 10:35 and Mark 12:24, specific terms such as planaō and lyō, and the New Testament treatment of quoting the Old Testament are considered.
[1]John 10:35 KJV
[2]2 Tim 3:16 KJV
[3]Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 2 ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 1998), 255
[4]Mark 12:24
[5]Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 2 ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 1998), 255
[6]Satta, Ronald F. “The Case of Professor Charles A. Briggs: Inerrancy Affirmed.” Trinity Journal (Spring 2005) 26,1. p.71
[7]Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1994), 67
[8]Elwell, Walter A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Baker Reference Library). 2 ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001), 156
.
[9]Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 2 ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 1998), 259
[10]Elwell, Walter A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Baker Reference Library). 2 ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001), 157
[11]Satta, Ronald F. “The Case of Professor Charles A. Briggs: Inerrancy Affirmed.” Trinity Journal (Spring 2005) 26,1. p.72
[12]Ibid.,
[13]Zacharias, Ravi, and Norman Geisler, eds. Who Made God?: And Answers to Over 100 Other Tough Questions of Faith. Edited by Ravi Zacharias and Norman L. Geisler. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003), 121
[14]Mark 12:24 KJV
[15]Mark 12:27 KJV
[16]Blue Letter Bible. "Dictionary and Word Search for planaō (Strong's 4105)". Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2011. 7 May 2011. < http:// ww.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm? Strongs=G4105&t=KJV >
[17]Mark 12:24
[18]Blue Letter Bible. "Dictionary and Word Search for lyō (Strong's 3089)". Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2011. 7 May 2011. < http:// www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3089&t=KJV >
[19]Richards, Lawrence O. Encyclopedia of Bible Words. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1991), 141
[20]Elwell, Walter A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Baker Reference Library). 2 ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001), 157
[21]2 Tim 3:16
[22]Zacharias, Ravi, and Norman Geisler, eds. Who Made God?: And Answers to Over 100 Other Tough Questions of Faith. Edited by Ravi Zacharias and Norman L. Geisler. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003), 120
[23]Ibid., 121
[24]Ibid., 120
[25]Ibid.,
[26]Read Nehemiah 8:8 where the book of the law was found and read, but not until it was made to be understood did it have an impact on the people of Israel.
[27]Elwell, Walter A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Baker Reference Library). 2 ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001), 157
[28]Zacharias, Ravi, and Norman Geisler, eds. Who Made God?: And Answers to Over 100 Other Tough Questions of Faith. Edited by Ravi Zacharias and Norman L. Geisler. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003), 121
[29]See Mark 11:17; 12:10,26; John 10:34; Matt 4:4,7,10; 11:10; 12:3; 19:4, 22:31; 26:24
