I recently encountered this meme on facebook:
Apart from being funny, it does show the anachronism of reading back into the teachings of Jesus the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura.
While some have argued in favour of the preposterous claim that Jesus Himself taught sola scriptura, the reality is that He never did such thing.
There are many texts abused by Protestants to support the claim Jesus taught sola scriptura and they have all been discussed in detail on this blog. However, let us discuss one such example, Matt 4:1-11 (cf. Mark 1:12-13; Luke 4:1-13).
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.
That Jesus Himself did not teach sola scriptura can be seen in many passages of the New Testament. Consider, for example, the following pericope:
Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. (Matt 23:1-3)
Here, Jesus commands His followers to listen to, and accept, the authoritative (oral as well as written) teachings and interpretations of the scribes and Pharisees. As one commentary stated:
Moses’ seat . . . [is] a metaphor for teaching authority; cf. the professor’s “chair.” . . . ‘whatever they teach you’ refers to their reading of Scripture, ‘they do’ to Pharisaic doctrine and practice. (W.D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Matthew: A Shorter Commentary [London: T&T Clark, 2004], 387)
Notice the following from the Midrash Rabbah:
They made for him [Moses] a chair like that of the advocates, in which one sits and yet seems to be standing. (Exodus Rabbah 43:4)
Simply put, the "Chair of Moses" was the teaching authority of the synagogue. Note the following points:
a) On the local level, the "Chair of Moses" was held by the principal rabbi of a particular city's synagogue (e.g. Corinth or Rome).
b) On the regional level, the "Chair of Moses" was held by the principal rabbi of a particular region (e.g. Rabbi Akiba at Jamnia).
c) On the universal level, the "Chair of Moses" was actually held by the High Priest in Jerusalem. This is more than clear from John 11:49-52 and from Acts 23:2-5, where Paul backs down because the law defined the High Priest as "the ruler of thy people."
For the Jews of the Diaspora, one could not be said to be part of Israel if he rejected the rightful authority of Jerusalem. Such a position would make oneself a Samaritan. :-) Indeed, the Jewish historian Josephus says how the Hellenistic Jews before the fall of the theocracy in Palestine looked reverently toward Jerusalem and favored religious currents coming from it: "Doubts were referred there for solution" (Josephus, Contra Apion 1.30-36).
We also know that the Jews of the Dispersion turned to Jerusalem for their Scriptures (2 Maccabees 2.13-15) and for its translation [Est 11.1 [Vulgate]; 10.31 [LXX]). Such were appeals to the ultimate “Chair of Moses" (Matt 23:1-3)--the High Priest and the Sanhedrin itself.
Catholic apologist, Dave Armstrong, has a good paper on the “Chair of Moses” in response to James White, showing that Matt 23 is further proof that sola scriptura is anti-biblical.
Interestingly, many defenders of sola scriptura readily admit that Jesus, as well as the apostles and the members of the New Testament Church (e.g., Timothy, bishop of Ephesus) did not practice/teach sola scriptura. During the cross examination period of a debate between Roman Catholic (now Sedevacantist) apologist Gerry Matatics and James White on the topic of sola scriptura, the following exchange took place:
Gerry Matatics (M): Did the people in Jesus' day practice sola scriptura? The hearers of our Lord?
James White (W): I have said over, and over, and over again that sola scriptura is a doctrine that speaks to the normative condition of the Church, not to times of inscripturation.
M: So your answer is "no"?
W: That is exactly what my answer is--it is "no"
M: Did the apostles practice sola scriptura, Mr. White? Yes or no
W: No
M: Thank you; did the successors to the apostles practice sola scriptura; only believing that Timothy [in 2 Tim 3:16-17] only believed what Paul had written him?
W: Eh, what do you mean? The first generations who were alive during the time of inscripturation?
M: Titus . . .
W: Again, as you should know as a graduate of Westminster theological seminary, you are asking every question of a straw-man--it [sola scriptura] speaks of times after the inscripturation of Scripture.
M: Thank you Mr. White
W: So I am glad to affirm everything you said.
M: So, Mr. White; you admit then that Jesus didn't practice sola scriptura . . .
W: I asserted it
M: . . . His hearers do not; the apostles do not and their successors do not; and yet you want to persuade this audience that they should depart from this pattern for reasons you believe are sufficient and now adopt a different methodology . . .
This is yet another nail in the coffin of sola scriptura, as it shows that the doctrine could not have been practiced during the time of the New Testament Church and, as a result, cannot be proven from the Bible itself.
Anytime one is in a discussion with a Protestant and they make an assertion about where truth is to be found, one should ask (as I do), "Where does the Bible teach that a doctrine must come from the Bible?" If they point to a certain verse or pericope, they have trapped themselves two-fold: (1) for Protestants, everything, and I mean EVERYTHING they claim as truth on faith and morals must come from the Bible and (2) any verse of the Bible that they claim teaches that the Bible is the only source of doctrine means that the verse was teaching Sola Scriptura to the first century Christians who were alive at a time of inscripturation, forcing them to either [a] reject it as an uninspired text or [b] abandon it as a valid passage in support of sola scriptura and reject sola scriptura! They are in an unenviable position to be in. To quote one expert in refuting Sola Scriptura:
It is an accepted fact, among both Catholics and Protestants, that the apostles and prophets gave oral instruction to the first century Christians, in addition to written instruction contained in the Bible. This was no ordinary oral instruction. In 1 Thessalonians 2:13, Paul says that this oral revelation to the people was to be considered the very words of God himself. This is also why in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Paul told these same Thessalonians to preserve the oral instruction, along with the written.
Now here is the unanswerable problem, if you haven't discovered it already. How can the Bible be teaching the first century Christians that only the Bible is their inerrant source of authority, if at the same time, oral revelation was still being given to them?? You can't claim that there is only one source of authority (the Bible) while allowing two sources of authority (the Bible and oral revelation). Logically, the Bible cannot teach Sola Scriptura to the first century Christians. If it did, it would be contradicting itself, as well as the oral revelation that was still being given. This is the trap of Sola Scriptura, and it is an inescapable trap. (Robert Sungenis, Response to James R. White on the Bodily Assumption of Mary [2001])
This same author noted the following which is spot-on:
Evangelical James White admits: “Protestants do not assert that Sola Scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at the very time coming into being?” (“A Review and Rebuttal of Steve Ray's Article Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura,” 1997, on web site of Alpha and Omega Ministries). By this admission, White has unwittingly proven that Scripture does not teach Sola Scriptura, for if it cannot be a “valid concept during times of revelation,” how can Scripture teach such a doctrine since Scripture was written precisely when divine oral revelation was being produced? Scripture cannot contradict itself. Since both the 1st century Christian and the 21st century Christian cannot extract differing interpretations from the same verse, thus, whatever was true about Scripture then also be true today. If the first Christians did not, and could not extract sola scriptura from Scripture because oral revelation was still existent, then obviously those verses could not, in principle, be teaching Sola Scriptura, and thus we cannot interpret them as teaching it either. (“Does Scripture teach Sola Scriptura?” in Robert A. Sungenis, ed. Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura [2d ed: Catholic Apologetics International: 2009], pp. 101-53, here p. 118 n. 24]
Protestants are teaching a doctrine that the Lord Jesus Christ and the earliest Christians, including His Apostles never taught. Furthermore, there is no exegetically sound basis for the belief, too. As with the Korban rule, condemned in Mark 7//Matthew 15, is a tradition of man, not of God.