Matt 4:1-11 recounts Christ’s
temptation in the wilderness to an external, supernatural tempter, Satan (yes,
there are groups which deny this obvious exegetical fact!) Interestingly, this
has been cited in favour of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura by its
proponents.
Dublin-based Anti-Mormon, Desmond
Ferguson (a critic I have tried, many times, to debate, but he has refused as I
have soundly refuted him), in an article entitled, “Waking up the Watchtower”
said the following of this pericope:
Matthew
4:1-11 where Satan tempts Jesus three times and each temptation is rebuked with
a scriptural response. So here we have Jesus going directly to Scripture . . .
“Surely these texts”, I said, “show clearly that the
bible is sufficient unto itself and therefore logically we need no other
authority or guide in the way of salvation”?
Now, before I begin my response to
Ferguson’s rather eisegetical, illogical comment, let me state that I am not
trying to defend the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society here (the focus of the
article), but the claim that, in Matt 4:1-11, we have proof of the Protestant
doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
Perhaps it should be enough to point
out that, if Ferguson was consistent, he would have a significantly smaller
canon than he does at present as this “proof-text” proves too much. Why? If Matt
4:1-11 is “proof” of formal sufficiency of “Scripture” (defined as “the
Protestant Bible” without any meaningful evidence offered—the logical fallacy of
begging the question), then only the Old Testament would be formally
sufficient, as these were the only inspired texts Jesus employed in his lifetime,
including his temptation in the wilderness.
As I explained to Irish Church Missions (the group Ferguson worked with until his retirement) in a response I
wrote back in 2008:
I am sure that
Ferguson, as with many other Protestant apologists, such as Robert Godfrey, are
of the opinion that, as Jesus did not refer to His own divinity or the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit, or anything else, but only to Scripture, that
such "proves" Sola Scriptura (Ferguson's only offered
justification for concluding Sola Scriptura is that Jesus cited Scripture, so I
am guessing that he might have a better justification for concluding the
Protestant canon is God's sole authority beyond such blatant circular reasoning
and question-begging). The problem with such a formulation if that Matthew is
not attempting to specify the only source from which we are to make our appeal.
Granted, on many occasions, Jesus uses Scripture against the forces of evil,
and rightly so, but not on every occasion. Many times he does appeal to his
divinity, his miracles, and the Holy Spirit to fight the opposition against him
(cf. John 5:32-47; 6:32-65; 7:16-19; 8:12-58; 10:1-34; 12:44-50; 14:9-31;
16:1-33). Hence, just because Jesus calls Scripture as a witness against the
devil in Matthew 4:1-11 one cannot therefore conclude that Jesus believed in Sola
Scriptura. Would we say that the devil believed in Sola
Scriptura because he quoted verbatim to Jesus from Psalm
91:11? Of course not.
One reason Jesus may not be appealing to His divinity in His discourse with the devil is that it is precisely the identity of Jesus that the devil wishes to discover. Knowing this, it is Jesus' wish, at least in the early part of his ministry, to keep this information from the devil in order for God's plan to be accomplished (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:8; Ephesians 6:12; Matthew 8:4). Hence, in Jesus' three appeals to Scripture in Matthew 4:1-11 he does not affirm that he is the Son of God, but only that (1) man lives not by bread alone but by the word of God, (2) man should not test God, and (3) man should worship and serve God only. These three stipulations could apply to any man, not just Jesus, and from this the devil may have thought Jesus to be just a man at that time. Thus, Jesus thwarted the devil by withholding the very information the devil was trying to extract from him--his divinity.
We should also add that even in Jesus' specific appeal to Scripture, there is good evidence that he did not intend to teach or even suggest Sola Scriptura. For example, his first reference is to Deuteronomy 8:3: "Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God." Notice here the specific reference to "every word" that comes from God's mouth. Since God recorded his words not only in Scripture but also by speaking directly to the people, the term "every word" certainly cannot be limited to Scripture. Jesus is merely calling Scripture as a witness to the basic truth that all God's revelation is to be heeded, not saying that Scripture is the only source of God's word. The same applies in New Testament times: "every word" of God includes both his written and oral inspired truths (cf. Ephesians 1:13; Colossians 1:5-6; Acts 20:27; Galatians 1:12; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Thessalonians 2:15). More importantly, if Jesus was not teaching Sola Scriptura at that time, then how can these verses be interpreted as teaching Sola Scriptura today? I am guessing that Ferguson, who holds to Fundamentalist views on the Bible, accepts that the meaning of the Bible is determinate, or "fixed" (related to "Intentionalism") so the meaning of the text does not change with the passing of time, so, consistency on his behalf, in light of exegesis of this text, will lead to a conclusion that one text of Scripture cannot be re-interpreted in light of something novel or cultural relativism, etc.
Lastly, we cannot leave this passage without pointing out its implicit warning against the misuse of Scripture. It is precisely the devil's misuse of Psalm 91:11 which shows us that interpretation, when the interpreter is not under proper authority, only leads to error and apostasy.
One reason Jesus may not be appealing to His divinity in His discourse with the devil is that it is precisely the identity of Jesus that the devil wishes to discover. Knowing this, it is Jesus' wish, at least in the early part of his ministry, to keep this information from the devil in order for God's plan to be accomplished (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:8; Ephesians 6:12; Matthew 8:4). Hence, in Jesus' three appeals to Scripture in Matthew 4:1-11 he does not affirm that he is the Son of God, but only that (1) man lives not by bread alone but by the word of God, (2) man should not test God, and (3) man should worship and serve God only. These three stipulations could apply to any man, not just Jesus, and from this the devil may have thought Jesus to be just a man at that time. Thus, Jesus thwarted the devil by withholding the very information the devil was trying to extract from him--his divinity.
We should also add that even in Jesus' specific appeal to Scripture, there is good evidence that he did not intend to teach or even suggest Sola Scriptura. For example, his first reference is to Deuteronomy 8:3: "Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God." Notice here the specific reference to "every word" that comes from God's mouth. Since God recorded his words not only in Scripture but also by speaking directly to the people, the term "every word" certainly cannot be limited to Scripture. Jesus is merely calling Scripture as a witness to the basic truth that all God's revelation is to be heeded, not saying that Scripture is the only source of God's word. The same applies in New Testament times: "every word" of God includes both his written and oral inspired truths (cf. Ephesians 1:13; Colossians 1:5-6; Acts 20:27; Galatians 1:12; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Thessalonians 2:15). More importantly, if Jesus was not teaching Sola Scriptura at that time, then how can these verses be interpreted as teaching Sola Scriptura today? I am guessing that Ferguson, who holds to Fundamentalist views on the Bible, accepts that the meaning of the Bible is determinate, or "fixed" (related to "Intentionalism") so the meaning of the text does not change with the passing of time, so, consistency on his behalf, in light of exegesis of this text, will lead to a conclusion that one text of Scripture cannot be re-interpreted in light of something novel or cultural relativism, etc.
Lastly, we cannot leave this passage without pointing out its implicit warning against the misuse of Scripture. It is precisely the devil's misuse of Psalm 91:11 which shows us that interpretation, when the interpreter is not under proper authority, only leads to error and apostasy.