The Sense of Scripture: Studies in Interpretation . . .

FALLACIES RELATED TO
"THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE" 

Since the Scriptures nowhere make an emphatic claim for themselves as authoritative, it is odd that we have made so much of "the authority of the Bible." While I definitely believe in the authority of the Bible, it is an authority that is derived from a higher authority and is always subject to that higher authority, which is God himself. The Bible always points to the authority of God rather than to its own authority. The doctrine of the authority of the Bible is therefore more of a deduction than an explicit teaching. Moreover, there is an ambiguity about it, for some things in the Bible are more authoritative than other things, if by "authority" we refer to laws and principles to five by. We all are far more impelled by the Golden Rule than by the dietary laws of Leviticus, and far more by the 23rd Psalm than by many other Psalms. 

While I was preparing this essay I had occasion while visiting a class at a Baptist church to learn more about what people mean by authority. I was in conversation with the man who sat beside me, who had told me about the devotionals he and his wife had on a daily basis. He was obviously a sincere and devoted Christian, a working man. I noticed that his Bible was well-worn from years of use. "You consider the Bible authoritative, I presume," I said to him, and when he responded with an emphatic and yet humble yes, I asked him what he meant by that. I wanted him to use some term beside authority so as to ascertain just what he meant. He thoughtfully replied, "When it tells me how to live and how not to live." The profoundest theologian could hardly beat that! While this man was a fundamentalist Christian, he conceded that there were numerous things in Scripture, such as the endless genealogies and all the "begets," that did not tell him how to live and how not to live and therefore not authoritative. He agreed that things in the Bible can be inspired (or given of God) without being authoritative for him, for much of it was given to a particular people in a particular circumstance and not universally applicable. 

That humble man stated in very simple terms part of what I want to say in this article, and his wisdom could deliver us from numerous fallacies related to "the authority of the Bible," one of which is the presumption that we have "the gospel truth" simply by quoting the Bible. The Bible is a book that is to be properly interpreted and meaningfully applied to our lives. Until it is it cannot be authoritative to us, for no one is responsible for what he does not understand or for what he sees as irrelevant to his life. But this does not excuse willful neglect. We are always obligated to search after truth, for there may be many things in Scripture that we do not yet understand that are vital to our wellbeing. There is a vast difference between an ignorance that one cannot help and the ignorance of an insincere heart, just as there is an important difference between unbelief and disbelief. It is always the disbeliever that is condemned in Scripture. It is noteworthy that Paul could refer to his earlier life in such terms as, "I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief" (1 Tim. 13). His was unbelief, not disbelief, for according to Acts 23:1 Paul was always sincere before God. But it is nonetheless true that nothing can be authoritative to us except as we come to understand it and find it relative to our lives.

Paul had little to say about authority, but he gives us one pungent line in Rom. 13:1, "There is no authority except from God." We can only conclude that if he thought of Scripture as authoritative (He did have what we call the Old Testament), it would only be in an indirect way. And when our Lord referred to the subject he said, "All authority has been given unto me in heaven and on earth," which should cause us to think more in terms of the authority of Christ. Whatever authority we see in Scripture it must be subjected to the Lordship of Christ.

I propose this thesis for your consideration: the Bible is authoritative to us to the extent that it reveals the will of God for our lives today, especially as this is made evident in our Living Pattern, the Lord Jesus Christ. This means that it is Jesus Christ that is our authority, and to the degree that the Scriptures point us to him they are authoritative. He is our Pattern for "How we are to live and not to live," as my Baptist friend put it. The thesis also recognizes the will of God (or the word of God) as our authority, and it is important to distinguish between the Bible and the will or word of God. While it is true that God speaks to us through the Bible, it is not true that everything in the Bible is God speaking. Is it not also true that God has spoken other than through the Bible?

Some people suppose that that great line in Ps. 119:105, "Thy word is a lamp to my feet, and a light to my path," refers to the Bible, including that verse! The word of God came to David in various ways, but however it came it was his authority, if that is the word to use. And whenever the will of God speaks to us through Scripture, it is of course the rule of life for us.

One way for us to see what was authoritative to the early Christians is to project ourselves into their time frame. If you were a member of the church in Antioch of Syria in 40 A.D., what would have been authoritative to you? Your only "Bible" would be what we call the Old Testament, and since you would probably be a Gentile, being in that first Gentile church, your main interest in those ancient Scriptures would be in what they reveal by way of prophecy concerning the One you have accepted as the Savior of the world. You would have some acquaintance with the apostle Paul since he visited your church now and again, and since he was a chosen envoy of Jesus Christ, duly called to be an apostle, he would be an authority to you. But would not "authority" in this context mean that since Paul had  seen Christ and had received revelations from him as an apostle that he was able (or had power, which is what authority means) to disclose to you things about Jesus Christ? In short, Jesus Christ would be your only authority in that he would be your only Savior. Those whom he called to be apostles (and subsequently their writings) would be authoritative only in an indirect way, in that they were "the first to trust in Christ" (Eph. 1:12), and were especially chosen to hear witness of him.

One thing is certain, the New Testament as such would not be your authority since it did not then exist. Surely you would have insisted that in having Jesus Christ you had all you needed. Moreover, you would have the leading of the Holy Spirit, and an insatiable hunger to know more about Christ and to become more like him. Anything that would bring you closer to Christ, such as a letter from Paul or Peter, you would consider authoritative, and for that reason.

All this should mean at least this: that we be more conscious of the authority of Christ in our lives. Whatever we make of "the authority of the Bible" it must stand in judgment of the authority of Christ. If Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath he is also the Lord of the Scriptures. If the Pharisees, who fastidiously believed in the authority of the Bible, could doggedly "search the Scriptures" and yet miss the Christ who was revealed therein, then we too might miss the Lordship of Christ in our lives through a view of Scripture that comes close to being bibliolatry.

 Another fallacy related to the authority of Scripture was recognized by Shakespeare when he had one of his characters to complain: 

What damned error, but some sober brow
Will bless it and approve it with a text. 

There may be something to the old saw that "You can prove anything by the Bible" if the Bible is made into a proof-texting source of authority. But if what we make the Bible to mean has to pass the test of truth that is evident in the spirit of Jesus Christ, then we can't prove anything by the Bible. We can always bring judgment upon others by quoting Scripture, whether the divorced or those "not of us," just as we can find approval for what we want approved, whether war or apartheid or growing rich. But the verdict may well be different when laid at the feet of Him whom God has given "All authority in heaven and on earth" (Mt. 28:19).

But someone will ask how we can know about Christ except from what the Bible tells us. That is what makes  the Bible authoritative, that it tells us about Christ. But it is not a matter of cold words upon a page. There is the leading of the Spirit, and he or it is our teacher even with the Bible in hand. And "beyond the sacred page" (Remember, we sing that!) there emanates the spirit of Christ. While "the gentleness and meekness of Christ" is rooted in the Bible it reaches beyond the Bible into our hearts, and "We know" because the truth of Christ bears witness to our inner mind. Otherwise Paul would never have written to a young church, "May the eyes of your understanding be enlightened so that you may know" (Eph. 1:18). There is more to knowing than simply reading and quoting the Bible

So, I am saying that it is truth that is our authority, truth as revealed by God himself in the Person of Jesus Christ. And truth is always an event concerning a person, not a document or a book. A book may record the truth or tell about it, but is not the truth itself. An example of this is a newspaper. "The Daily News" is really not the news at all, but only a chronicle of the news, whether an earthquake in Chile or the election of a President. The newspaper is only paper and ink, not news, for the news is the events it tells about. The truth is in the events themselves.

The Bible is like that. It is not itself the good news or the truth, but the events it relates. The event of Jesus Christ in human history is the greatest of all truth, that he was indeed the Son of God and that through his life, death and resurrection we have hope of eternal life. The event of Jesus Christ is centered in certain established facts, which is what truth always is, facts. And we are not to theorize about facts, only believe them and act upon them. This brings us to the greatest fallacy of all, and that is to equate our theories and deductions with the authority of the Bible.

We do this when we presume that anyone who does not accept our theory or deduction does not really believe in the authority of the Bible, for if he did he would agree with us! Only those of us who are "right" really believe in the authority of the Bible! Editors are often afflicted by this fallacy. One editor insists in his columns that the real difference between the Christian Church and the Church of Christ is not instrumental music, but "a difference in attitude toward the authority of the Bible." And this is not in reference to the facts of Scripture, which is where authority lies, but a mere opinion concerning which the Bible says nothing. And yet this is deemed to be so important that it calls for a breach of fellowship.

There is a second editor that I read who makes such cooperative endeavors as Herald of Truth a test of fellowship. He agrees with editor no.1 that the Christian Church brother should not be fellowshiped, but neither will he fellowship editor no 1. And the real issue, he insists, is the authority of the Bible!

Editor no.3 is a gentle soul who finds no authority for "classes" in the teaching of the Bible. He joins editor no.1 in opposing instrumental music and editor no 2 in opposing both instruments and agencies, but he fellowships neither no 1 or no.2 since they have Sunday School. And what is this all about? The authority of the Bible!

Editor no.4 is a dear brother that I love with all my heart, and I understand where he is coming from when he objects to individual communion cups. After all, Jesus took "the cup," so why have all those plastic cups? He agrees with editor no.1 on instrumental music, with editor no 2 on instrumental music and agencies, with editor no 3 on instruments/agencies/classes. But he disfellowships all three because they have cups. He believes that he is accepting "the authority of the Bible" while they are not.

There are other editors that I do not always read. Editor no.5 draws the line on instruments/agencies/classes/cups, but also on unfermented grape juice. He will not fellowship any of the others, not even his fellow "one cup" brother because he does not use wine like the Bible clearly "authorizes."

I am not poking fun. These are all my brothers whom I love in the Lord, and their positions are all understandable. But it is obvious that something is dreadfully wrong when each one argues that he is respecting the authority of Scripture and the others are not, and so they have no fellowship with each other. With "the authority of the Bible" on our lips we divide umpteen different ways. I am convinced that there is an answer to this ghastly situation.

The answer is not to debate the differences, which never settles anything, but to accept each other in spite of the differences, and to recognize the validity of each position, even if we do not personally agree. We can disagree agreeably. And we can honor the fact that each one is loyal to "the authority" over us all, Jesus Christ our Lord. And that we all respect the authority of Scripture. We simply interpret it differently, not in regard to basic truth, but in theories, opinions, and deductions of our own. We do not have to see or practice all these things alike, but we do have to love and accept each other even as Christ loves and accepts all of us, warts and all. If we do not we can hardly claim the Lordship of Christ over our lives, even if we can quote a string of prooftexts proving we are right and all others wrong.

Paul gives us the answer in 2 Cor. 1:20 when he says that all the promises of God are Yes in Christ. The next verse notes that it is in Christ that God establishes us, and in verse 22 he tells how God has sealed us through the Holy Spirit as a guarantee that all the promises in Christ will be realized.

There is our authority. If we always say yes to Christ, we will have no problem accepting each other. And when the Holy Spirit dwells in your heart and in my heart that is what makes us one, not conformity to a lot of prooftexts. And the presence of the Holy Spirit in our hearts serves as a guarantee that all God's promises in Christ will be ours for sure. How could we have a greater motivation for "How to live and how not to live" than that? - the Editor

______________________________

There should be in the life of the Christian a certain calm. A worried Christian is a contradiction in terms. A Christian is by definition a person who has that inner strength which enables him to cope with anything that life can do to him or bring to him. - William Barclay