Christ’s Testimony to the Old Testament Canon: A Model for the Church
Article 3 (Series 1)
Introduction
From the earliest centuries of Christianity, believers have found comfort and confidence in the fact that Christ Himself treated the Old Testament (OT) as sacred Scripture. Jesus’ repeated references to “the Law and the Prophets,” His appeal to individual passages, and His overarching affirmation of the Hebrew Scriptures together form a compelling witness that the OT canon was neither fluid nor open-ended in His day. In a world where numerous texts circulated among different Jewish sects and where some have speculated that an “official” canon took shape only in late antiquity, Christ’s own approach provides crucial clarity. Christians who seek to emulate their Lord’s reverence for Scripture must grapple with what He considered canonical, how He cited it, and what that implies for the Church’s understanding of biblical authority today.
This article explores the Old Testament canon in the time of Christ, emphasizing that Jesus, by word and example, ratified a particular set of Hebrew Scriptures. The discussion begins with the threefold division of the Hebrew Bible and Jesus’ confirmation of that division, proceeds to survey the historical setting that shaped the OT canon, and then analyzes Christ’s use of the OT. We will see that there is minimal indication that Jesus ever treated Apocryphal or Deuterocanonical writings as authoritative in the same sense as the Law, Prophets, and Writings. Along the way, we will incorporate reflections from Louis Gaussen, who underscores the role of faith in receiving what Jesus Himself received, and William Whitaker, who vigorously contended against later ecclesiastical expansions of the OT canon.
The upshot is that Christ’s testimony offers a template, or model, for the Church: that the Church’s authority is derived not from its power to define Scripture but from its faithful reception of the Word already given and authenticated by God. In a modern context, this vantage point also resists attempts to identify “lost” or additional ancient texts as equal in authority to the recognized Scriptures. By reflecting on how Christ handled the Hebrew Bible, believers today can reclaim a robust sense of continuity between the covenant community of Israel and the Church—a unity centered upon the same set of holy books that our Lord Himself commended.
I. The Threefold Division of the Hebrew Bible
A foundational aspect of Jesus’ testimony to the OT canon is His acknowledgment of the Hebrew Scriptures as traditionally grouped into three segments: Law, Prophets, and Writings. While the earliest external mentions of this division vary, Luke 24:44 provides an explicit New Testament reference that underscores Jesus’ recognition of these categories.
Luke 24:44 and the Law, Prophets, and Psalms
In Luke 24:44, following His resurrection, Jesus speaks to His disciples: “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Many scholars interpret “Psalms” here as a reference to the entire third division of the Hebrew Bible (often called the Writings), since the Book of Psalms is the largest and first book in that section. By naming these three components together, Jesus highlights a widely known arrangement among first-century Jews, thus aligning Himself with the prevailing Jewish consensus regarding which books constituted the Scriptures.Historical Evidence of the Threefold Division
Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, alludes to a defined set of Hebrew books in Against Apion (1.37–43), wherein he speaks of twenty-two authoritative writings—likely corresponding to the thirty-nine books recognized today, but enumerated differently due to combined books (e.g., the Twelve Minor Prophets counted as one). Moreover, Philo of Alexandria presupposes a recognized set of Law and Prophets, though less explicit about the Writings. These historical traces cohere well with Jesus’ statement in Luke 24:44, reinforcing that the lines were already drawn around a corpus revered as divinely authoritative.
Christ’s reference to “the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms” thus legitimizes the tri-part structure. Rather than seeing the OT as a nebulous set of varied religious writings, Jesus cites it as a cohesive testimony that, in His words, “must be fulfilled,” thereby rooting its authority in God’s revealed plan.
II. Historical Setting: Post-Exilic Period and Intertestamental Developments
While Jesus’ direct affirmation matters supremely for Christians, it is equally important to sketch the broader historical context that shaped the OT canon prior to and during the intertestamental period. This context helps explain why Christ’s acceptance of these Scriptures was not an innovation but rather a continuation of centuries of Jewish practice.
Post-Exilic Period (c. 539–400 BC)
After the return from exile, a profound emphasis on preserving Israel’s sacred writings emerged. Texts such as Ezra-Nehemiah depict leaders like Ezra reading the Law publicly (Nehemiah 8:1–8), emphasizing communal renewal through Scripture. This heightened reverence involved collecting and carefully transmitting the Torah, the prophets, and the earliest writings that commented on or expanded the covenant tradition.By this time, the Pentateuch (“Law of Moses”) was established as foundational Scripture. Prophets like Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi added oracles that came to be recognized as authoritative. Concurrently, older prophetic scrolls (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel) were preserved and read with equal gravity. Even then, an increasing reliance on scribal traditions shows that the post-exilic community regarded their sacred texts as vital to national identity and spiritual fidelity.
Intertestamental Period (c. 400 BC–AD 1)
In the centuries leading up to Christ’s birth, Jewish communities, whether in Palestine or the diaspora, continued copying and studying these Scriptures. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran further demonstrates the fervor with which certain Jewish sects preserved biblical texts. Although the Qumran community produced additional sectarian writings, there is no compelling evidence that such internal documents were treated as equal to the Law or the recognized prophets.The Septuagint (LXX), a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures produced in stages between the third and second centuries BC, enjoyed widespread use, especially among Hellenistic Jews. Over time, extra books (commonly called the Apocrypha or Deuterocanon) appeared within certain Greek manuscripts of the LXX. However, these additions never gained universal acceptance. By the first century, Palestinian Jews primarily used the Hebrew canon corresponding to Law, Prophets, and Writings—precisely what Josephus enumerates and Christ references.
When Jesus began His public ministry, He entered an environment in which devout Jews shared a deep commitment to a closed textual heritage. While interpretive schools (e.g., Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes) disagreed on theological nuances, they nonetheless converged upon a stable set of books derived from Moses, the Prophets, and other sacred writings.
III. Christ’s Use of the Old Testament
Having established that a threefold division likely undergirded first-century Jewish Scripture, we observe how Jesus employs this same body of writings. His recurrent refrain, “It is written,” signals the highest level of authority. For Christ, to cite Scripture is to cite God’s own pronouncement, binding on the conscience of all who hear.
Jesus’ Quotations from the Law and the Prophets
In the Synoptic accounts of His temptation in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1–11; Luke 4:1–13), Jesus resists the devil’s enticements by citing verses from Deuteronomy, each prefaced by “It is written.” This practice demonstrates not only His reliance on a stable textual source but also underscores His conviction that these writings hold decisive force in spiritual and moral warfare. He does not treat them as flexible or uncertain documents subject to ongoing addition or subtraction; He treats them as the definitively authoritative voice of God.Similarly, in passages like Matthew 22:41–46, where Jesus confronts the Pharisees on the identity of the Messiah, He quotes Psalm 110:1 (“The LORD said to my Lord…”). The entire argument depends on the Davidic authorship and canonical authority of the Psalm. Jesus assumes His interlocutors agree that Psalm 110 is divinely inspired and that its theological logic is binding.
Citations from the Writings
Beyond the Book of Psalms, Jesus repeatedly references OT historical and wisdom texts, always as binding for life and doctrine. For instance, in Luke 11:51, He speaks of “the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah,” encompassing narrative events from Genesis to 2 Chronicles (the final book in the Hebrew arrangement). By citing these references, Jesus implicitly endorses the corpus stretching from the beginning of Genesis through the last major historical writing recognized in the Hebrew canon.Moreover, parables and sermons in the Gospels contain multiple allusions to the historical narratives that appear in the so-called “Writings” section. Jesus’ references to Jonah, the Queen of Sheba, or the tragedies in Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 12:39–42; Luke 17:28–32) illustrate that He treated these accounts as factual and instructive, thus presuming their canonical status.
Absence of Apocryphal References as Scripture
Notably, the Gospels contain no clear quotation from the Apocryphal or Deuterocanonical books recognized much later by the Council of Trent. While New Testament authors occasionally allude to or echo broader Jewish traditions, they refrain from labeling Apocryphal texts with the same “It is written” formula used for canonical Scripture. This silence, although not an absolute disproof, strongly suggests that Jesus did not treat those Greek additions or expansions as part of the core testimony of the Hebrew Scriptures.
IV. Implications for Canonicity
From Jesus’ perspective, the OT was neither an open canon nor an evolving scriptural continuum. Rather, it was a completed deposit, richly testifying to God’s redemptive plan, culminating in His own life, death, and resurrection.
No Evidence of a Fluid Old Testament Canon
Jesus’ usage of Scripture does not indicate that He toggled between multiple canons or wavered about which books held authority. Unlike certain modern academic theories suggesting that the Hebrew canon was not finalized until AD 90 at the Council of Jamnia (a somewhat tenuous hypothesis in itself), the Gospels portray Jesus moving seamlessly within a recognized textual framework.Indeed, Luke 24:44 and Matthew 23:35—where Jesus speaks of “the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah”—strongly indicate His recognition of a body of Scripture beginning with Genesis and ending with Chronicles (the final writing in the Hebrew arrangement). While some second-temple Jewish communities might have read additional works, there is little to no textual or historical data indicating that Christ or the mainstream synagogue tradition regarded these as on par with the Law, Prophets, and Writings.
Apocrypha’s Exclusion
The absence of Christ’s quoting the Apocrypha as authoritative underscores that these extra books, though possibly valued by some Hellenistic Jews, were not received as the normative canon in Jesus’ immediate context. This has ramifications for how Christians post-Resurrection have evaluated the Apocrypha’s status. While certain churches, primarily the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions, came to embrace the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books centuries later, the Reformation perspective—championed by thinkers like William Whitaker—hearkens back to the Savior’s example. Christ’s attitude aligns with the Hebrew tradition that contained 39 books (by modern accounting), thereby giving the Protestant Old Testament a scriptural rationale.
V. Gaussen and Whitaker on the Authority of Christ’s Canonical Stance
Both Louis Gaussen and William Whitaker deploy Christ’s use of Scripture as a linchpin in their arguments about canonicity. Gaussen, emphasizing the vantage point of faith, sees in Christ’s acceptance of a defined OT a model of fidelity for believers, while Whitaker, emphasizing polemical clarity, draws a bright line between the recognized Hebrew canon and later ecclesiastical expansions.
Gaussen’s Emphasis on Christ’s Example
Gaussen articulates that the final court of appeal for Christians is Jesus’ stance on the Scriptures. If the incarnate Word received and quoted a certain body of texts as God’s Word, believers by faith are compelled to do likewise. Gaussen insists this is not merely a matter of historical consensus but of spiritual obedience: to follow Christ is to follow Him in His regard for the Old Testament. Hence, any rationalistic or “scientific” approach to the canon must be reinterpreted through Christ’s own relationship with the Law, Prophets, and Writings—since the supreme authority in Christian theology is Christ Himself.Whitaker’s Refutation of Roman Claims
William Whitaker, in A Disputation on Holy Scripture, confronts the Roman Catholic stance that the Church’s declarations (e.g., Council of Trent, 1546) conferred canonical status on the Apocrypha. He points out that, logically, if Christ had accepted these extra books, we would expect explicit or implicit evidence in the Gospels. Since such evidence is absent, the Roman argument that the Apocrypha belongs to the OT lacks direct scriptural validation. Whitaker underscores that the Church’s duty is to submit to the canonical boundaries attested by Christ, not to extend them retroactively in ways unsupported by the very Lord whose name the Church invokes.
Notably, Whitaker uses Jesus’ references to “Abel to Zechariah” to show that the older Hebrew order began with Genesis and ended with Chronicles, thereby covering the entire scope of recognized books—none of which included the Apocrypha. Whitaker’s logic is deeply Reformation-rooted, seeking to ground the Church’s biblical canon in the scriptural teaching of Christ and His apostles rather than in later conciliar edicts.
VI. Conclusion
The Old Testament canon in the time of Christ was neither an undefined expanse nor a mere ecclesiastical construct; it was a well-established textual deposit, which Jesus unequivocally endorsed as the Word of God. By explicitly referring to the Law, Prophets, and Writings, Jesus testified that the content revered by first-century Palestinian Judaism was truly Scripture. Moreover, in His controversies with religious leaders, He consistently treated these Scriptures as possessing ultimate divine authority, applying them to ethical, theological, and eschatological questions without ever hinting that their scope was malleable or incomplete.
For Christians, Christ’s witness to the OT provides both a theological foundation and a practical paradigm. It teaches us to treasure the same writings He treasured, neither subtracting from nor adding to them. In the face of historical-critical suggestions that the OT canon was unsettled until the late first century, the Gospels suggest a more stable reality. Meanwhile, when confronted by modern claims that the Apocrypha should be placed on par with the rest of the OT, the testimony of Christ’s usage is a decisive reference point: He does not cite those books with a “Thus says the Lord,” nor incorporate them into the narrative of redemptive history in the way He does the recognized Law, Prophets, and Writings.
Ultimately, as Gaussen observes, believers’ faith in Christ’s example overrides purely academic reconstructions that attempt to separate Jesus from the Jewish scriptural tradition as it was widely accepted. William Whitaker’s robust critique of later ecclesial expansions draws from this vantage point, maintaining that the canon is not a matter of ongoing ecclesiastical fiat but rather the recognition of God’s Word that Christ Himself honored. If the Church is to walk in the footsteps of its Lord, it must hold in reverence precisely those books that He treated as sacred Scripture. This cannot be a peripheral issue: the identity of the canon shapes preaching, teaching, doctrinal formulation, and daily discipleship.
Hence, Christ’s testimony to the Old Testament canon stands as a model for the Church. He never displayed uncertainty about which books carried divine weight, and He never muddied the waters by granting the same status to additional writings. His words and ministry confirm that, for Christians who profess Him as the ultimate revelation of God, the Old Testament should likewise be understood as that corpus which, as He said, “testifies” of Him (John 5:39). It is no accident, then, that those same ancient books have shaped the Church’s worship, theology, and piety for nearly two millennia. They remain the abiding testimony to God’s redemptive plan, now fully realized in Jesus Christ, yet still instructive, convicting, and life-giving for the Church today.
