What does "the Scripture cannot be broken" imply about biblical inerrancy? Text of John 10:35 “… If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— ” Immediate Context in John’s Gospel Jesus cites Psalm 82:6 to rebut a charge of blasphemy. His argument stands or falls on a single word (“gods”) from a psalm. By staking the legitimacy of His own messianic claim on the flawless precision of that one term, He elevates every jot and tittle (cf. Matthew 5:18) to the level of divine authority. If even a relatively obscure psalmic clause is indefectible, the entirety of Scripture is. Intertextual Echoes and Jewish Hermeneutics In Second-Temple Judaism, the Hebrew Scripture was regarded as “the living oracles” (Acts 7:38). Rabbinic sources (e.g., m. Abot 3:2) echo the conviction that no letter of Torah can fail. Jesus affirms this mainstream Jewish view yet extends it: not only Torah but the whole inspired corpus is unbreakable. Testimony of Jesus to Scriptural Authority • Matthew 4:4 “Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” • John 17:17 “Your word is truth.” Jesus treats Scripture as the direct utterance of God, hence necessarily true (Numbers 23:19; Titus 1:2). Theological Implications for Inerrancy 1. Divine Authorship—If God’s nature is truth (Isaiah 65:16; Hebrews 6:18), His word must be without error. 2. Organic Inspiration—Human writers (2 Peter 1:21) penned Scripture, yet the Spirit superintended the process so that the product is exactly what God intended, down to verbal detail. 3. Canonical Unity—Because the same God speaks throughout, Scripture “cannot be broken” internally; apparent contradictions must be reconciled by sound exegesis. 4. Epistemic Foundation—Inerrancy provides the immovable reference point for theology, ethics, and worldview (Psalm 119:160). Historical Reception in the Church From Irenaeus’ “all Scripture is perfectly harmonious” (Against Heresies 2.28.2) to Augustine’s “the canonical Scriptures are free from all error” (Letter 82.3), the mainstream confessional stance has mirrored John 10:35. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) codifies this in modern evangelicalism. Archaeological Corroborations • Tel Dan Stele (c. 9th c. BC) confirms a “House of David,” supporting the historicity of the monarchy presupposed in Psalms. • Ketef Hinnom silver scrolls (7th c. BC) quote Numbers 6:24-26, predating the exile and showing early textual stability. Physical finds verify the antiquity and integrity of the very texts Jesus deemed unbreakable. Philosophical Coherence & Logical Necessity If an omniscient, omnipotent, morally perfect God purposes to communicate saving truth, He would ensure its accurate transmission. A deity who allows His definitive revelation to mislead would be self-contradictory. Thus, biblical inerrancy is not a mere ecclesial dogma but a logical entailment of classical theism. Answering Common Objections 1. Scientific Discrepancies—Alleged conflicts (e.g., Genesis chronology) often stem from methodological naturalism rather than data. Polystrate fossils, carbon-14 in diamonds, and preserved soft tissue in dinosaur remains fit a young-earth paradigm consistent with Genesis. 2. Moral Difficulties—Progressive revelation and covenantal context resolve issues like imprecatory psalms; the unbroken nature of Scripture demands holistic synthesis, not selective dismissal. 3. Copyist Errors—Inerrancy pertains to autographs; textual criticism recovers the original wording with ≥99% certainty. Conclusion “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35) supplies a direct Christological endorsement of biblical inerrancy. Because the flawless character of God stands behind every inspired word, the canon is entirely trustworthy in all it affirms—historically, doctrinally, scientifically, and morally. |
    |