The Adventures of the Early Church …

WHAT WAS THEIR AUTHORITY?

This article will contend that the authority of the early church was both a who and a what, both a Person and a thing. The Person was Jesus Christ, whom they exalted as the Lord of glory; the thing was a collection of documents, the Holy Scriptures, primarily what we call the Old Testament, but finally the New Testament as well, which slowly and gradually became a part of the life of the church. But if we think of the earliest church, the first century Christians, their Scriptures would be restricted to the Old Testament.

Even the Scriptures found their authority in their relation to Jesus Christ. This would have to be, for no scroll, parchment, or book is authoritative in and of itself, for these are but words upon a page. The first Christians were Jews who before Christ believed in the authority of the Scriptures (Old Testament), not as a book or books, but because the Word of God spoke through them. Just as Isaiah and other prophets were seen as authoritative, but only because the Word of God spoke through them. This is the only reason any book can be authoritative: God speaks in it and through it.

So with Jesus Christ, except that he was more than any prophet or document could ever be. He was a prophet, indeed the prophet, through whom God spoke. But he was more, and herein we have the essence of the authority of the early church. Jesus was in himself the Word of God become flesh. He was the Son of God, the Anointed-One of God, or the Messiah. He was in himself their authority in that he was their absolute, and it was not as much what he taught, for other rabbis taught much of what Jesus taught, as what he was. They could at last write “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Heb. 13:8), which points to their authority. Jesus is! It is what he was (and is) and what they believed he was (and is) that changed their lives. Words on paper, whether in the form of the Old Testament or the New Testament, would have little authority to them except as they in some way reflected the Person of the Christ.

We see this particularly in our Lord’s words to his apostles following his resurrection: “These are my words which 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” (Lk. 24:44). He had taught them that the Scriptures were about him, and this is what brought the Bible alive to them. But they needed help, for mere words never accomplish God’s purpose. The next verse says, “Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, and said to them, ‘Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead.’”

He (the authority) opened their minds to understand the Scriptures (the indirect authority). He proceeded to tell them what the Scriptures said about him, and yet no scripture says precisely what Jesus “quoted,” to the effect that the Christ would die and be raised on the third day. Jesus had told them that now and again, words that seemed incomprehensible to them, but not the Old Testament, not in those words at least. This is Jesus’ way of assuring them that the drama that was going on before their very eyes was what the Scriptures were all about. Jesus was the Lord of the Scriptures. They meant what he said they meant. They were about him! Earlier in their confusion over what was going on, he had said to them, “O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!” (v. 25) He was saying to them Why can’t you see that the Bible is about me?

If the Scriptures did not mention crucifixion and a resurrection on the third day in precise terms, Jesus did, and he was the interpreter of Scripture, yea, even the fulfillment of Scripture. He was in a sense the Scriptures personified. Jesus said something like that in bringing the Pharisees to judgment: “You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me” (Jn. 5:39). While the Pharisees searched the Scriptures, turning over every stone, they missed the point of the Scriptures.

This is why the Bible is to be judged by Jesus Christ and not Jesus Christ by the Bible. This means the Scriptures are authoritative to us as they reflect, exemplify, and explain the spirit of Christ. And so we really judge the Bible in this way, which is why we all have our “Bible digest” or those selections that mean much more to us than other parts. The powerful 23rd Psalm means more to most believers than all the books of Numbers and Leviticus combined, and the Gospel of John means far more than 2 Peter or Jude. When we make such judgments, and we all do, what is the standard by which we judge? Jesus Christ!

This is why I can judge some Scriptures, such as Ps. 139:22 (“I hate the wicked with a perfect hatred”), as not measuring up to my authority, Jesus Christ, who prayed for, loved, and died for the wicked. I accept Psa. 139:22 as Scripture, and I can understand it (sort of) in the light of the circumstance in which it was written. But I do not have to justify it, for it is not my authority. Jesus is my authority and I measure all Scripture by him, not the other way around.

This is why (and I make myself vulnerable here) I have a problem with the incident of Jesus cursing a fig tree. Jesus, who was always pointing to the beauty of nature, cursing a tree for not having fruit when it was not even the season for fruit? I accept that story as Scripture and conclude that something must have happened about Jesus and a fig tree. Perhaps he told a parable about Israel being like a barren fig tree. But I cannot see Jesus Christ, who blessed the lilies of the field, cursing a tree. So, I judge the story by the spirit of Christ, which is clearly set forth in the Scriptures generally, and conclude that there is something about the account that is skewed. I do not reject the account per se but put it on hold until I have more light. This illustrates what I am saying: the Bible must meet the test of Jesus Christ, who is the authority. When the Bible meets this test, which it almost always does, then it is authoritative in an indirect way.

If this is a problem to you, I will have to insist that this is what the church has done through the centuries, including the earliest Christians, and it is what we all do (or should do): judge Scripture (or presumed Scripture) by the spirit of Christ and by apostolic tradition. It was, after all, the church that produced the Bible (the Jews the OT and the Christians the NT) and not the Bible that produced the church. It was the church that decided what was Scripture and what was not. Some books were borderline, such as Barnabas and Hermas, worthy of devotional reading but not on the same level as Scripture. What was the test? Not that a book was inspired. The early church believed the Shepherd of Hermas and Epistle of Barnabas were inspired. Inspiration was not enough. The tradition and background of the book had to be very close to Jesus and the apostles. Paul to the Corinthians was accepted as Scripture; Clement to the Corinthians was not. Who decided? The church.

We all accept the last line of the Lord’s Prayer as Scripture: “For thine is the kingdom, and the power and the glory, forever. Amen,” but it is almost certainly a line the church (some resourceful scribe) added along the way. You will notice that it is relegated to a footnote or discarded completely in various versions. It is not considered a part of Jesus’ original prayer. Do I accept it as Scripture and do I include it when I say the Lord’s Prayer. Yes, because it conforms to the Scriptures as a whole, being drawn from the Old Testament, and especially because it conforms to the spirit of Christ. The dear brother scribe was right: it is a fitting conclusion to the Lord’s Prayer. And so the church around the world, especially Protestants, include that line in the Lord’s Prayer, even if Roman Catholics have always reminded us that it is not really Scripture. But that is my point. It is Scripture. The church has made it Scripture. There is no Scripture but what the church has made!

Especially for Church of Christ folk is the confession of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 (“I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God”), which they will not readily give up. It too will be absent in most of your versions or in a footnote. Even our own J. W. McGarvey, a champion for the integrity of the Bible if ever there was one, conceded that Acts 8:37 (There is no verse 37 in many versions!) is an “emendation, but a justifiable one.” Emendation means a correction. It was absent from the original text, or an ancient text, with which a scribe was working. The scribe added the eunuch’s confession. He corrected the Bible! Brother McGarvey says he was right in doing so. I agree with brother McGarvey. But where does this put us in reference to “the authority of the Bible?”

We have mixed feelings about another questionable text, the ending of Mark. We want to keep Mk. 16:16, which is a proof text for baptism, but we are less enthusiastic about the next two verses that refer to speaking in tongues, handling serpents, and drinking deadly poison. Is this Scripture or is it not, is it authoritative or not? In the final analysis you make that decision for yourself. Your own conscience, enlightened we hope by the Holy Spirit, is the supreme court within you. And by what standard do you judge? Jesus Christ! That is why you are a Christian.

And you are in good company. The earliest Christians had no Scriptures at all, except the Old Testament, and still they had a beautiful fellowship with each other and they had a faith for which they would die. And they were united in one heart and one soul. All without the New Testament! This shows that the Bible was not the basis of their unity and fellowship. Some lived and died, some as martyrs for their faith, without ever seeing a single book of the New Testament. Their authority was a Who, not a thing, and thousands of thousands in heaven and on earth affirm it loudly: “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power, and wealth and might and honor and glory and blessing!” (Rev. 5:12) The earliest church would not have praised any book like that!

This is why we cannot meaningfully refer to a unity based upon the Bible. No book can unite anybody, however precious be that book. Communicative literature has no such power (authority) to make “all nations, tongues, tribes, and peoples” (the Bible’s way of referring to all mankind) into one spiritual Body. But Jesus Christ has! This is why we can differ in our understanding of “the Book” and still be united in Christ.

That is why “Book unity” is like trusting in a broken tooth. When the agreement ends the unity ends. No one can change her mind about anything lest she no longer be fellowshipped! You are loved and accepted only so long as you conform! But not so with unity in Christ. We love and accept each other because Jesus first loved and accepted us. If he is the only one who is able to break the seals and open the Book, then it is he and not the Book that empowers us to accept one another as sisters and brothers, warts and all.

This means that Jesus Christ was the great adventure of the early church and that he was their authority in heaven and on earth. —the Editor