Listen to this Article
Subscribe to Theology Unplugged in iTunes.

[smart_track_player url=”″ title=”Jesus Viewed Scripture as Inerrant: A Reply to Kyle Roberts” artist=”Dr. Robert Bowman” image=”” color=”8DB547″ social=”true” social_twitter=”true” social_facebook=”true” social_gplus=”true” ]

Kyle Roberts has recently responded to my critique of his arguments against belief in inerrancy. His response focuses on the first point of my critique, which was that we should accept the inerrancy of Scripture because Jesus held to inerrancy.

Since rebutting that point is the focus of his response, Roberts comments on both my shorter treatment of the issue in my Credo House blog article, “7 Problems with Christian Opposition to Inerrancy,”[1] and my much longer article on IRR’s website, “Jesus and the Inerrancy of Scripture.”[2] (Except where otherwise noted, references to my article in what follows pertain to the IRR website article.) Roberts argues that Jesus did not hold to inerrancy.[3]

Scripture as Inerrant but Inspired?

Jesus, Inerrancy, and Circular Reasoning

Roberts begins with the following comment:

Let’s set aside an initial observation, which is the circularity implied in Bowman’s demand. If you assume the inerrancy of the Bible, you can then confidently go to the Bible to see whether what Jesus is (inerrantly) reported as having said about it supports the doctrine of inerrancy.

Kyle “sets aside” this observation without actually denying it. He gives three reasons for setting it aside after bringing it up. Oddly enough, his three reasons do not include the fact that I specifically set forth a method that did not fall guilty to such circularity! I quite clearly explained that the method of determining what Jesus said about Scripture did not depend on the assumption that the Gospels reported his teachings inerrantly, but rather approached the Gospels as historical source documents. In my article, I explained the method as follows:

In order to avoid both question-begging and self-defeating arguments, I propose an historical approach that seeks to determine what Jesus taught about the nature of Scripture from the most historically reliable sources of information about the teachings of Jesus. Notice that I am now considering documents as historical sources, not as scriptural texts (though they may be both). (This is the same method I use to show that Jesus rose from the dead.) In order to make the argument doubly relevant for critics of scriptural inerrancy, I will also focus on documents that both evangelicals and non-evangelicals revere highly as essential sources of information about the teachings of Jesus. Thus, although my argument is primarily historical, it is also theologically relevant in this context.

There’s more, but the above quotation from my article is sufficient to show that Roberts’s throw-away comment is an attempt at poisoning the well with a criticism that I had already anticipated and refuted. Like a wily lawyer who makes a comment to the jury knowing that the other lawyer will rightly object, Roberts makes his comment about circularity and then withdraws it, leaving it to do mischief in the reader’s mind.

Jesus, Judaism, and Every Jot and Tittle

Roberts then attempts to address the evidence I adduced from the Gospels as to Jesus’ view of Scripture. With regard to Matthew 5:17–18, Roberts makes the following comment:

It does suggest, as Bowman points out, that Jesus had a ‘high view of Scripture,’ consistent with the dominant Rabbinic understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures.

This is not an accurate statement of what I had pointed out. A “high view of Scripture” has become, in some circles, code for “high but not that high.” Affirming a respectful-sounding “high view” of Scripture is unfortunately so nebulous as to be virtually meaningless.

What Roberts fails to address is the point, carefully documented in my article, that “the dominant Rabbinic understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures” was that the Scriptures were inerrant. Ancient Jews did not hold merely to a hazy “high view” of Scripture, but to a very specific view of Scripture as without error. I gave examples of this view from the writings of Philo and Josephus and backed up the point with quotations from respected non-evangelical scholar James Kugel. And if Jesus’ view of Scripture was consistent with the dominant Jewish view, as Roberts concedes, then Jesus viewed Scripture as inerrant.

Roberts continues his response as follows:

But what Matthew seems to want the reader to understand here is that Jesus was indeed the Jewish Messiah and that his Messianic reign would be consistent with–not in contradiction to–Jewish religious life and its authoritative texts.

I agree, but this point (which he elaborates for another few sentences) merely confirms that Jesus, according to Matthew, affirmed the conventional Jewish view of Scripture. By the way, as I pointed out in my article, a similar statement appears also in Luke 16:17, so Matthew was not alone in representing Jesus as holding this view.

Some background to Jesus’ saying may be helpful here. The words “jot” (Matthew 5:18) and “tittle” (Matt. 5:18; Luke 16:17) in the KJV translate the Greek iōta and keraia. Iōta clearly is a transliteration of the Hebrew word yodh, the name of the smallest Hebrew letter. Keraia, meaning “horn,” refers to the smallest strokes of Hebrew letters at the time of Jesus, comparable to what we would call a serif. Those strokes could differentiate one letter from another and thus could make a difference in the meaning of the text.[4] Jesus’ language here alludes to stories told by Jewish teachers and later recorded in Jewish midrashic texts and the Talmud regarding the sacred preservation of yodh. In the best known of these stories, the rabbis, as Craig Keener reports, “said that when Sarai’s name was changed to Sarah, the yodh removed from her name cried out from one generation to another, protesting its removal from Scripture, and finally, when Moses changed Oshea’s name to Joshua, the yodh was returned to Scripture.”[5]

We see, then, that Jesus expressed a stance toward the text of Scripture consistent with the conventional Jewish belief that every letter of Scripture was divinely inspired. As already explained, one of the corollaries of this view among Jews in Jesus’ day—and I might also mention in Orthodox Judaism even to this day—was that Scripture is inerrant.

Did Jesus Make Adjustments to the Torah?

According to Roberts, Jesus’ statement in Matthew 5:17–18 cannot be understood to affirm inerrancy because of what Jesus said next. Roberts comments as follows:

It’s worth noting, though, that immediately following this passage (5:21–48), Jesus makes a few adjustments to the Torah. These are the “you have heard it said…but I say unto you” texts. And they are not insignificant adjustments. Jesus intensifies the Torah teachings on lust/adultery, marriage/divorce, retaliation/generosity and loving the enemy.

At this point I began to wonder how much of my article Roberts had actually bothered to read. In his defense, my article is pretty long. In any case, I had already anticipated and explicitly answered his objection:

The one passage sometimes cited against Jesus having a traditional view of Scripture is the passage of six “antitheses” in Matthew 5:21–48. Many people have supposed that in these antitheses Jesus was contrasting his teaching with that of Moses or the Torah. However, as many recent studies have borne out, the antitheses actually contrast Jesus’ teaching with that of the scribes and Pharisees, not with that of Moses. Thus, Jesus specifically denies that he is advocating breaking any of the commandments of the Torah, and tells his disciples that their righteousness must surpass that of the scribes and Pharisees, not that of the Mosaic Law (Matt. 5:19–20). The whole point of Jesus’ saying about not abolishing the Torah or the Prophets (Matt. 5:17–18) is to safeguard against the misunderstanding that he was criticizing the Torah. If Matthew 5:21–48 are read in the light of the programmatic statements in 5:17–20, as they surely must be, then we will not misunderstand Jesus to be disagreeing with Moses.

Craig Keener has paraphrased Jesus’ meaning in these six “antitheses” as follows: “You understand the Bible to mean only this, but I offer a fuller interpretation.”[6] In each case Jesus is not disagreeing with the Scripture itself, but rather, as Craig Evans puts it, “counters (‘but I say to you’) a scribal or Pharisaic interpretation of a given passage of legal scripture.”[7]

Infallible, Except When Immoral?

Roberts thinks that the last of Jesus’ six “adjustments” to the Torah, regarding loving one’s enemies (Matt. 5:43–47), is especially problematic for inerrancy:

How should one understand so much of the Old Testament, so much of which seems to provide divine approval of violence against enemies? Jesus’ teachings appear as a dramatic update or even disapproval of the “divine genocide” or “holy war” texts in the Old Testament.

Roberts’ comment here illustrates one of the other points I made in my Credo House blog article responding to his criticisms of inerrancy, which is that Roberts’s own view is incoherent. Notice that Roberts apparently thinks that Jesus could hold a “high view of Scripture” while impugning “so much of the Old Testament.” Evidently what Roberts means is that Jesus held a high view of Scripture, except for much of the Old Testament! Later, he asserts that Jesus’ view of Scripture accorded it as authoritative in “religious and ethical matters” but not in matters of history or science. What—divine genocide and holy war are not religious or ethical matters? If much of the Old Testament teaches “divine genocide” and “holy war,” and if Jesus disapproved of those teachings, then he did not regard the Old Testament as authoritative in “religious and ethical matters.”

Frankly, I find it very difficult to understand how Roberts could question the morality of “so much of the Old Testament” and then in the same article make statements such as the following:

With each example, Bowman is insisting that Jesus affirmed the authority of the Old Testament and appealed to its authority to make points about morality, justice, or salvation. I don’t dispute any of that.

Actually, he does, and he does so explicitly again later in the article:

But if we’re going to be honest about so much that the Bible contains, we need to be willing to say that it is not flawless, perfect, without problems, or without in [The use of “in” here is probably a typo.] need of complementary knowledge–i.e. updating. Going beyond Bloesch, I would say these problems include not just matters of historical details or scientific worldview, but morality as well. [Bold type has been changed for emphasis.]

The incoherence of the progressive “infallible but not inerrant” position is here on full display. In one brief article, Roberts acknowledges that Jesus held the Old Testament Scriptures to be authoritative in morality, yet Roberts later in the same article finds much of those Old Testament Scriptures to be problematic in morality. In short, Roberts does not appear to accept Jesus’ view of Scripture with any coherence or consistency.

For the record, Jesus was not criticizing the Old Testament. He was criticizing the way some Jews in his day interpreted the Old Testament. As is well known, the words “and hate your enemy” (Matt. 5:43) are not in Leviticus 19:18 or in any other Old Testament text. An example of the kind of interpretation Jesus was opposing appears in the later Jewish text called the Sifra on Leviticus 19:17b–18. The Sifra says, “You shall not take revenge on nor be hateful to the sons of thy people. You may take revenge on and be hateful to other men. And you shall love your neighbor as yourself.”[8] The Sifra as a complete and settled text cannot be definitively dated, but much of its content dates from the third century A.D. and earlier. In this instance, the direct conjunction of Leviticus 19:18 with the permission to hate other people is sufficient to conclude that this later text reflected the sort of teaching Jesus had been criticizing in Matthew 5:43–47.

Inerrancy: The Words versus the Living Word?

Next, Roberts cites John 5:36–40, which he says “Bowman omits to discuss,” as “counter-evidence” to my contention that Jesus believed in inerrancy. On the contrary, I did discuss that passage, albeit briefly. I commented that Jesus emphasized there that “the Jews claimed ownership of Scripture as God’s chosen people, yet many of them failed to recognize that Scripture testified to him (cf. John 5:39–40, 45–47).” Roberts did not mention the latter part of that passage, where Jesus has this to say:

“If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But if you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?” (John 5:46–47).

With regard to this text, I had made the following comment:

Jesus’ argument here presupposes, of course, that the Jews ought to have believed what Moses wrote.

Nowhere in the verses Roberts quotes does Jesus rebuke the Pharisees for holding to the inerrancy of Scripture. Here is the part of the passage that refers to the Scriptures:

“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life” (John 5:39–40 ESV).

It is difficult to extract from this statement any implication that Jesus viewed Scripture as less than inerrant. Here is the best that Roberts can do:

Jesus rebukes their undue emphasis on the written words of the Scriptures as being sufficiently life-giving of themselves. These words testify to Jesus–and that’s important. But Jesus warns them not to substitute the words which testify for the reality (or person, rather) to which they point. It’s the Word, not the words, that ultimately matter.

Roberts hastens to say that he is not suggesting that “Bowman himself is guilty of replacing Jesus with the Bible as the object of his devotion” (thanks for that). Given that caveat, it is difficult then to see how this text undermines my rather conventional understanding of the inerrancy of Scripture. Roberts seems to be confusing two different categories or issues, namely, the truthfulness of Scripture and the redemptive purpose of Scripture. Eternal life comes from Christ as revealed in the Scriptures. We do not get eternal life by simply reading the Bible, but by putting our faith in Jesus Christ whose person and redeeming work on our behalf are revealed in the Bible. This distinction is extremely important and clearly valid, but it is not relevant to the question of inerrancy. Hypothetically speaking, either of the following scenarios might be imagined:

  1. Scripture is inerrant and reveals Jesus Christ as the source of eternal life.
  2. Scripture is not inerrant and reveals Jesus Christ as the source of eternal life.

Both statements appear to be consistent with John 5:39–40. Roberts has given no reason for preferring the second statement over the first.

Conclusion: Jesus and Modern Views of Scripture

It is, of course, true that the Gospels do not report Jesus discussing the coherence of Genesis with Greek astronomy (let alone with modern evolutionary theories), the historicity of the Tower of Babel, apparent numerical discrepancies in Kings and Chronicles, or other such matters that commonly come up in modern debates over the inerrancy of Scripture. No doubt Jesus had bigger fish to fry. To infer from such silence in the Gospels that, had such questions come up, Jesus would not have affirmed the truth of Scripture in all such matters is, however, fallacious. As explained earlier, the fact is that Jesus affirmed the truth of Scripture down to the “jot and tittle” (the smallest letter and stroke), a conventional Jewish way of asserting the divine inspiration of every word of Scripture (Matt. 5:17–20; Luke 16:17).

We are therefore on solid ground in concluding that Jesus viewed Scripture as inerrant in all it affirmed. Certainly Jesus would not have endorsed the idea that Scripture was somehow “infallible” yet permeated with morally dubious teachings. That notion is simply indefensible.

Textual Criticism

  1. Robert M. Bowman Jr., “7 Problems with Christian Opposition to Inerrancy,” Credo House (blog), Aug. 26, 2015, accessed Sept. 1, 2015, ↩
  2. Idem., “Jesus and the Inerrancy of Scripture,” Institute for Religious Research, 2015, accessed Sept. 1, 2015, ↩
  3. Kyle Roberts, “Did Jesus Believe that Scripture Is Inerrant?” Patheos: Unsystematic Theology (blog), Aug. 28, 2015, accessed Sept. 1, 2015, ↩
  4. See the helpful discussion in Charles Quarles, Sermon on the Mount: Restoring Christ’s Message to the Modern Church, NAC Studies in Bible & Theology (Nashville: B&H, 2011), 94, as well as just about any other exegetical commentary. ↩
  5. Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 178. ↩
  6. Ibid., 182. ↩
  7. Craig Evans, Matthew, New Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 120. ↩
  8. Berndt Schaller, “The Character and Function of the Antitheses in Matt 5:21–48 in the Light of Rabbinical Exegetic Disputes,” in The Sermon on the Mount and Its Jewish Setting, ed. Hans-Jürgen Becker and Serge Ruzer, Cahiers de la Revue biblique 60 (Paris: J. Gabalda, 2005), 87. ↩

Robert Bowman
Robert Bowman

Robert M. Bowman Jr. (born 1957) is an American Evangelical Christian theologian specializing in the study of apologetics.

    11 replies to "Jesus Viewed Scripture as Inerrant: A Reply to Kyle Roberts"

    • Internet users all over the world can easily distinguish between an article written for humans and write-ups that are produced for the benefit of search engines. There are many SEO companies that offer SEO packages after analyzing the needs and requirements of the clients. An SEO will also provide ongoing monitoring, rank reports and up to date recommendations.

    • Kevin Simonson

      Rob, correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be saying two things. (1) Jews at the time of Jesus believed in inerrancy of their scriptures, and therefore Jesus probably believed in inerrancy of those scriptures. (2) The best way to find out Jesus’ attitude toward the scriptures is to look at the best historical documents we have on what Jesus said, namely the New Testament. There’s a certain amount of persuasiveness to (1), but it’s hardly decisive. As for (2), I have a window open right now on webpage “” that states that “Gilgamesh is generally seen by scholars as a historical figure, since inscriptions have been found which confirm the existence of other figures associated with him in the epic.” I think it’s safe to say that we have no documents that are more historically accurate on the life of Gilgamesh than the mentioned epic. Can we then draw conclusions on what Gilgamesh thought and did based on what the Epic of Gilgamesh said?

      • Robert Bowman

        Hi Kevin. Thanks for your comments. I’ll use the same numbers for my reply. (1) It’s not decisive, but it places the burden of proof on anyone claiming the contrary position that Jesus did not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. (2) Read the rest of the article. The Epic of Gilgamesh was epic poetry that evolved gradually over a period of a millennium or more and did not attain written form until some 1300 to 1600 years after Gilgamesh would have lived. Thus, the Epic of Gilgamesh is a very different genre of literature than the Gospels, which are written in the form of classical Greco-Roman biographies, and the gap between the historical individual and the texts is dramatically different: 1300-1600 years for Gilgamesh, 30-60 years for the Gospels! Thus, we can reasonably take the Gospels as good evidence for Jesus’ views on Scripture without being committed to taking the Epic of Gilgamesh as good evidence for the views of the historical king Gilgamesh.

    • Christopher

      With respect, what Jesus affirmed regarding the last jot and ttitle was the authority of the law, not scripture. Fred Clark of Slacktavist on Patheos explains it better on the second half of this blog post –

      As a matter of fact to say scripture = law would be reading scripture via a legalistic interpretation, which I’m pretty sure is frowned upon in most circles. And I’d say that Jesus spoke out against Old Testement Law, and not merely the interpretation. Case in point the famous story of the women in adultery. The Old Testament law, specifically Leviticus 20:10, gives us the death penalty for the crime of Adultery. Ain’t a matter of interpretation, that’s what the scripture said, it’s as simple as that. Jesus however stopped the execution in defiance of that law, and even when the authority was given to him, he did not carry out the execution. Even if you where to say that he reinterpretated the law with the line about he who is “without sin cast the first stone”, that wasn’t somthing in the law, it was something he added.

      Now regarding the statement that the Bible being errant puts a dent in its message, most defenders of inerrancy I see would claim that if the Bible got one thing wrong it, it got all things wrong, reminds me of back in the day when I was an inerrantist that inerrancy was used as something of a saftey net; something to keep our world view together. Another common argument is that if the Bible isn’t inerrant, then what is our authority in interpretation ? Theologian Professor Kieth Ward says in his lecture about fundamentalism, in which inerrancy is the first thing he covers – see here – is that the Bible not being inerrant, especially in the New Testament is on itself Devine revelation, as it means differing views and interpretations are part of Orthadox Christianity.

      Lastly, it’s not just Progressive Christians who adere to the idea of “Infallible but not Inerrant”, but evangelicals as well such as Roger Olson –

      • Robert Bowman

        Hi Christopher.

        You stated that Jesus affirmed the authority of every jot and tittle of the Law, not of Scripture. So let me understand your point. Are you agreeing that the Law — that is, the Torah, the five books of Moses, from Genesis through Deuteronomy — are inerrant, but not the rest of Scripture?

        Ironically, the story of Jesus forgiving the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11 KJV) is regarded by nearly all biblical scholars as a late addition to the Gospel of John. Supposing for the sake of argument that the story is true, Leviticus 20:10, which you cited, states explicitly that “both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death,” but in the story only the adulteress is being threatened with death. There has clearly been some sort of violation of due process here, which was also part of the Law (Deut. 17:16; 19:5), a principle that Jesus upheld (Matt. 18:16). So one could argue that Jesus opposed the execution of the woman on that basis. Again, though, the story is not part of the original Gospel of John.

        The rest of your comment criticizes an argument I didn’t make. I don’t think that if the Bible gets one thing wrong it gets everything wrong. Nor do I claim that only progressive Christians adhere to the idea of infallibility but not inerrancy. As I said in my article, it is inconsistent and meaningless to claim to affirm that Scripture is “infallible” while at the same time denying that it is morally or theologically infallible.

    • Christopher

      Let me reiterate; he is saying the law, but not all scripture IS the law. While there is certainly laws writing down, the entire Old Testement is not a rule book. What Jesus is saying in that particular context is that the law = the rules still apply. It wasn’t necessrilly an affirmation of scripture, but the laws within it. This of course gets a little awkward for those who differentiate between moral/cerimonial/civil law (which I don’t but that’s a different debate all togehther) as it technically mean that ALL the Old Testement laws still apply until the Heaven and Earth pass away. Scripture in on itself is not about rules, but the stories of God’s people, not necessrilly the same as the law, which is what Jesus was affirmig. Saying the rules still apply is not the same as saying scripture is inerrant.

    • ajb


      Re Matthew 5:17-18, what exactly do you think Jesus was referring to by ‘the Law’?

      • Robert Bowman

        Anthony, I understand Jesus to have been using the term “the Law” to refer specifically to the Pentateuch, what Jews call the Torah. However, he also speaks of “the Law and the Prophets,” which was one way of referring to the whole of Scripture as it existed at that time (what Christians call the Old Testament).

        • ajb

          Thanks for this. And what do you think he means by “until everything is accomplished”? (Can you give a paraphrase of what he’s claiming in Matthew 5:17-18?)

        • Robert Bowman

          Anthony, I understand Jesus to have been affirming the truth and authority of all Scripture. What would be “accomplished” (literally, “until all will come to be”) was everything affirmed, stated, or commanded in “the Law” (broadly referring to Scripture, more specifically the Mosaic Law). You might want to read my full article on “Jesus and the Inerrancy of Scripture,” to which this blog article was a follow-up. I discuss the passage somewhat more fully there.

          It sounds like you have a point you wish to make. Please feel free to do so.

        • ajb

          Yes, I’ve read that. I’m simply trying to get clear on your views about this passage, since it’s important for your argument, and there are multiple common interpretations of what Jesus is saying.

          You have a general argument – that rabbis typically took the Torah as inerrant, and therefore the onus is on people to show Jesus didn’t. I think this would be a stronger argument if Jesus didn’t say things like ‘I am the bread of life’, or ‘Before Abraham, I am’. Jesus wasn’t a typical rabbi, so the argument from what rabbis tended to believe at that time becomes problematic.

          The gist of this passage, as far as I can tell, is to set up what comes almost immediately after. The series of ‘It has been said to you … but I say to so’ passages. Jesus is setting the stage for those, including why he focuses on the ‘least’ of the laws – seemingly so, such as our thoughts or emotions. What seemed least, an emotion of anger, or thinking contemptuously about someone, actually is what leads to murder, and so on, and so in a sense is more important than it. A reasonably interpretation of this passage seems to me “The little rules in the Torah aren’t as little as you think.”

          Regardless, what’s clear is that Jesus viewed the Torah as insufficient as it was operating at the time, and that it required radical re-emphasis. This wasn’t to abolish the messages in it but to fulfill them – to work out their divine logic.

          The larger issue working in the background when it comes to interpretation, though, is what to make of parts of the Torah that suggest God working genocide, or slaughtering innocents. To me, this is the motivation for doubting Jesus held an inerrant view of the Torah. So, how do you view incidents such as God slaughtering innocent Egyptian children, and so on – do you think they accurately capture what happened, and if so, how do you reconcile that with Jesus’ messages of non-violence, forgiveness, and so on?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.