ASCERTAINING BIBLE AUTHORITY George F. Beals

Transcription

1 ASCERTAINING BIBLE AUTHORITY Brother Beals has served churches of Christ as an evangelist and Bible teacher in Texas, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Massachusetts. He received his formal education from Northeastern University (associate in electronic engineering technology), University of New Hampshire (BA in ancient Greek and Latin), University of Michigan (MA in Near Eastern studies), and Preston Road School of Preaching (1971 graduate). He has directed the Michigan Bible Lectureship since its inception and is the cofounder, codirector, and an instructor of the Michigan Bible School. He has been a technical writer for over thirty years. He has authored several publications, including How Implication Binds and Silence Forbids. He and his wife, Marion, have one daughter and one grandson. Much of this presentation is from or based on material found in my book on hermeneutics titled, How Implication Binds and Silence Forbids, and, in some cases, elsewhere print and oral. For expansion of some of what I say here, see that book. Note too that I have been considering adding a chapter or so to the end of that book, God willing, now that it has been in print for about eleven years. Among that added information is some of the material I present below. I am pleased to include this here also, for your study and use. Introduction It is said that in the seventeenth century, the German Lutheran, Peter Meiderlin ( ), first formulated the motto: In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty, and in both, charity. This is sometimes called the peace saying. 1

2 Ascertaining Bible Authority Later in that century, the English Puritan, Richard Baxter ( ) said it like this: Unity in things necessary, and liberty in things unnecessary, and charity in all. In the nineteenth-century American Restoration Movement, Isaac Errett put it this way: In faith, unity; in opinions, liberty; in all things, charity. Later in the American Restoration Movement, from , the masthead on Garrison s and Johnson s journal, The Christian Evangelist, expressed it in this form: In faith, unity; in opinions and methods, liberty; in all things, charity (as stated in Rollmann). We do not agree with all that people intend by this motto. It would be interesting, and I believe helpful, in studying hermeneutics, to examine, with an open Bible, its various intended meanings. It also would be interesting and helpful to examine, with an open Bible, the various intended meanings of the second motto in Restoration History that we often hear: We speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where the Bible is silent. Such studies, however, we would have to pursue elsewhere. (See Chapter 23 in How Implication Binds and Silence Forbids for a discussion of the second motto.) Recently, I read some correspondence between Hugo McCord and Thomas B. Warren regarding the first motto. Brother Hugo had heard brother Tom suggest an improvement, and wanted to re-hear it. Tom wrote back and said, In matters of obligation, unity. In matters of option, liberty. In all matters, love. We do find these categories in the Bible. There are obligations, negative and positive: Biblical prohibitions and Biblical requirements. There are Biblical options. Much of Bible study is the practice of determining in which of these categories the Bible places the human action in question. 2

3 The Bible does speak of itself as being from God in at least the following ways: (1) it is inspired (2 Tim. 3:16); (2) holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21, NKJ); it contains the oracles of God (Rom. 3:2); and God said So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth...it shall accomplish what I please (Isa. 55:11). The Bible does speak of Jesus as the Lord Jesus (that is, the Master): look up Lord in an exhaustive concordance and notice the pages of occurrences. In fact, the Bible speaks of Him as the Lord of lords and King of kings (Rev. 19:16). We wonder what we subjects are to do with the Bible, if not go to it as thinking people, trying to determine God s will for our lives. The Bible is the book of God s authority. So we want to respect it, study it and follow it, and try to persuade others to do the same. Accordingly, in this study, we want to think about ascertaining (determining) Bible authority. We shall so do, following these main headings: We Must Have Biblical Authority for Everything We Do; Some Ways the Bible Teaches That an Action Is a Prohibition; Some Ways the Bible Teaches That an Action Is a Requirement; and Some Ways the Bible Teaches That an Action Is an Option. We Must Have Biblical Authority For Everything We Do The we in the title above is not limited to Christians. It is mankind. Among proofs of this is Matthew 28:18, which teaches that Jesus has all authority everywhere: And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. We are not talking about 3

4 Ascertaining Bible Authority whether or not people do seek and live by Bible authority, but that we should. There are several Bible passages or passage combinations that teach that we must have God s authority for everything we do, and that such authority is found in the Bible. Consider the following. Second Corinthians 5:7 With Roman 10:17 These read, For we walk by faith, not by sight (2 Cor. 5:7). So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Rom. 10:17). Since we walk (live our lives) by faith (2 Cor. 5:7); and faith is based on the word of God (Rom. 10:17); then we are to go to the word of God so we can have such faith. This reads, Matthew 21:23-27 Now when He came into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people confronted Him as He was teaching, and said, By what authority are You doing these things? And who 24 gave You this authority? But Jesus answered and said to them, I also will ask you one thing, which if you tell Me, I likewise will tell you by 25 what authority I do these things: The baptism of John where was it from? From heaven or from men? And they reasoned among themselves, saying, If we say, From heaven, He will say to 26 us, Why then did you not believe him? But if we say, From men, we fear the multitude, for all 27 count John as a prophet. So they answered Jesus and said, We do not know. And He said to 4

5 them, Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things. Notice that Jesus conceives of two sources of such authority: heaven and men. The passage endorses heaven over men. Since it can be shown that heaven s authority is in the Scriptures (Mt. 28:18; Jn. 14:13-14 with Lk. 24:44-49; Acts 1:8; 2:33; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; Heb. 1:1), then to them we must go for our authority. Second Timothy 3:16-17 With First Thessalonians 5:21 These read, All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for 17 correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. Test all things; hold fast what is good. Since (1) good works and evil works exhaust all categories of works (Rom. 9:11; 1Thes. 5:21-22); and (2) we are to do good works and avoid evil works (1Thes. 5:21-22; Rom. 2:9); and (3) God equips us unto every good work in the Bible, which is for our teaching (2 Tim. 3:16-17); then it follows that we are to have Bible authority for everything we do. Some might object by saying that Second Timothy 3:15-17 is talking about the Old Testament, not the New Testament. In reply, verse 15, I believe, is talking about only the Old Testament Scriptures, but verses broaden out 5

6 Ascertaining Bible Authority to refer to all Scriptures, thus Old and New Testament combined. Verse 17 proves this. The verse reads, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. This statement is not true of only a part of Scripture. For example, the Old Testament did not thoroughly equip anyone for every good work when Paul wrote Second Timothy. Consider the eating of pork, the teaching and practicing of the Lord s Supper, the practice of teaching that Jesus Christ had lived and had been raised from the dead. The Old Testament was not able to teach Timothy that these practices were good when Paul wrote this letter, nor is the Old Testament alone able to teach us so today. Verse 17 is true only of the whole of Scripture, and thus the passage must be talking about all Scripture, not just the Old Testament, or any other part. Others might object by claiming that saying the Scriptures equip us for every good work is not the same as saying that all good works are in the Scriptures. In reply, it is true that the following two statements are not the same: (1) Scriptures equip us for every good work; and (2) All good works are in the Scriptures. That is, they are different explicitly, but (1) implies (2). Ponder this: how can the Bible equip us unto every good work if it does not contain every good work? How can it so equip us unto every good work, if it does not contain enough instruction to allow us to tell whether or not any work is good? It cannot. So (1) is an explicit Bible teaching and (2) is an implicit Bible teaching. Thus, Second Timothy 3:16-17 teaches both, the difference is merely that it teaches the first explicitly and the second implicitly. Colossians 3:17 6

7 This reads, And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him. Note: The publisher of the New Kings James is mistaken in italicizing whatever in this passage, which claims there is no Greek behind it. Actually, there is a term ( ôé, whatever thing ) in the witnesses (textual evidences). I informed the publisher of this several years ago. It can be observed that there are other English versions that correctly do not italicize whatever here. Notice the range of this passage. It is talking about every possible action in which we could engage. It tells us this three times: (1) Whatever you do, (2) in word or in deed, (3) do all. Next, the expression in the name of means by the authority of. The term Lord in the passage identifies Jesus as the authority. The Bible teaches that he made salvation possible (Jn. 3:16) and is the Lord of lords and King of kings (Rev. 17:14). Putting all of this together shows that Colossians 3:17 is teaching that we must have Jesus authority for every action we do. Since the Bible also teaches that his word is found in the Bible, this is the same as saying we must have Biblical authority for everything we do (Jn. 14:13-14 with Lk. 24:44-49; Acts 1:8; 2:33; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; Heb. 1:1). Before leaving Colossians 3:17, we also observe that, since the passage refers to the whole Biblical system, it takes into account the facts that (1) we can be heaven-bound without being sinlessly perfect (Phil. 3:13-14; 1 Jn.1:7-8); (2) God allows for growth in Christ (2 Pet. 3:18); (3) we can know the truth (Jn. 8:32); (4) there are consequences to unforgiven sin (Heb. 10:26); and (5) we can pray and repent (1 Thes. 5:17; 2 Pet. 3:9; Rom. 2:4; Acts 8:22). Some might object by saying we are applying this passage too broadly. They would say it does not apply to 7

8 Ascertaining Bible Authority everything we do but to certain actions like worship actions or religious actions, not to all of life. They might ask, Where is the passage authorizing me to exercise on a Schwinn Airdyne, to work on a Dell computer, to take a nap, to cut the grass, to take a break and get away for a while? There are at least three ways to answer this objection. First, where is the qualifier in Colossians 3:17? What term in the text itself or in the remote Biblical context justifies such a limited application of the passage? The text is unqualified: Whatever you do, in word or in deed, do all. This means what it says. Second, there needs to be more confidence in the allsufficiency of the Scriptures. Regarding this objection, among other things, there is a need to know how generic requirements work, implying authority what I call umbrella authority or the downward vertical (see pages 207f and 256f in How Implication Binds and Silence Forbids). It is true that the Bible gives us instruction about worship actions, but it also gives us instructions about non-worship actions, in daily living. The Bible authorizes lots of options for us. From God s book of nature, we can deduce authority for or against some daily-living actions. For example, we see legs and we know we walk with them. We compare the sexual anatomies of the human male and female and see that the Designer intends heterosexual behavior, not homosexual behavior. We can also tell that he expects moral decision-making from humans, not animals. However, we cannot determine every good work from God s book of nature, just some. The Bible, on the other hand, does identify, either explicitly or implicitly, every good work. To help show this all-sufficiency of the Scriptures, notice these. First Timothy 4:8 authorizes exercising on a 8

9 Schwinn Airdyne. First Timothy 5:8 authorizes working on a Dell computer. Ephesians 5:29 authorizes taking a nap. On cutting the grass, I would go to passages on ownership and the rights that follow from this: Acts 5:4, While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? For taking a break, notice the approved example in Mark 6:31, And He said to them, Come aside by yourselves to a deserted place and rest a while. For there were many coming and going, and they did not even have time to eat. Third, do not confuse how-to with authorization. The Bible does not tell us that it gives how-to instructions for all that we do, but it does tell us that it identifies all good actions (2 Tim. 3:16-17). So I cannot find instructions in the Bible on how to repair a computer, but I can expect to find, I do have instructions, like implications from generics, that tell me whether or not such behavior is authorized (righteous). This, of course, requires some degree of Bible study. Another might object by saying some works are neither good nor bad, like eating meat in Romans 14. They might say, So where do neutral works fit in? They are not matters of doctrine. In reply, eating of meats is not neither righteous nor unrighteous. It is righteous behavior. Since the Bible is the word of an all-righteous being, then all Biblical requirements and Biblical options are righteous actions. When we go to the Bible and show that it teaches an action is an option, we are thereby demonstrating that it is a Bible doctrine (teaching) that this is an option. Options are not no law. The Romans 14 legislation, for example, on options, is not nothing. Obviously, there is something there. Further, the objection errs in that it is denying one of the laws of thought, one of the bases of rational thought; 9

10 Ascertaining Bible Authority namely, the law of excluded middle. The truth is that no human action is neither good nor bad. No human action is neither righteous nor unrighteous, neither Scriptural nor unscriptural. There is no middle ground between a statement and its negation. Anything plus its negation exhausts all possibilities. Either the Bible doctrine is that the eating of meats, for example, is righteous or it is not. Baptizing someone is either authorized or it is not. Teaching that idolatry is prohibited either is teaching truth or not truth. Celebrating one s birthday either is righteous or not (see the generic terms implying authority for this as an option in Rom. 14:5-6.) There is no such thing as so-called amoral actions. Every action either is moral or not (that is, immoral). Im in immoral means not. Romans 14 teaches that the eating of meat is a righteous action. Righteous actions are either Biblical requirements or Biblical options (permissions). Eating meat is a Biblical option according to Romans 14. A Biblical option is Biblical legislation, not no legislation. It is doctrine. This is proved by the fact that we go to Romans 14 to show that it is teaching that the action is optional. This is the Biblical legislation on the matter. We are not going to no man s land when we find a passage that teaches, explicitly or implicitly, that an action is permitted. We go to a Biblical text which we have found. This is not nothing, but something; namely, in this case, Biblical legislation that teaches the doctrine that the eating of meats is authorized it is an option (see this discussed further on page 138 in How Implication Binds and Silence Forbids). Another may object by asking why do we take in the name of in Colossians 3:17 to mean by the authority of? One might claim there is not basis for it, and ask, Can you 1 0

11 show parallel passages with this meaning? In reply, consider two truths. First, if one replaces a term in a sentence with another term that has the same meaning, he does not change the meaning of the overall sentence. In fact, is this not the exchange we do in our minds when we look up a word in a dictionary? We are saying that Open up in the name of the law is equivalent to Open up by the authority of the law. All we are doing here is replacing the in the name of part with its equivalent by the authority of. In your mind, replace in the name of with by the authority of in the following passages, and see if it fits (all emphases added, GFB). Then, as He was now drawing near the descent of the Mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works they had seen, 38 saying: Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the LORD! Peace in heaven and glory in the highest! (Lk. 19:37-38) The next day a great multitude that had come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming 13 to Jerusalem, took branches of palm trees and went out to meet Him, and cried out: Hosanna! Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD! The King of Israel! (Jn. 12:13) I have come in My Father s name [literally, in the name of the Father of me, GFB], and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive. (Jn. 5:43) 1 1

12 Ascertaining Bible Authority And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days. (Acts 10:48) In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (1 Cor. 5:4) My brethren, take the prophets, who spoke in the name of the Lord, as an example of suffering and patience. (Jas. 5:10) Second, read Ephesians 1:20-23 and Acts 4:8-12, and notice how name and authority can be interchanged without affecting meaning. In the next section, we explain some of the ways that the Bible identifies an action as a prohibition, a requirement or an option. Can you think of more ways in your own study? Some Ways The Bible Teaches That An Action Is A Prohibition As pointed out, Biblical prohibition and Bibleunauthorized action mean the same. Another term for this is sin. There are two kinds of Bible-unauthorized actions: Bibleaddressed prohibitions and Bible-silent actions. Addressed As Negative Command One way the Bible categorizes an action as a sin is to address it by using a negative command: Do not be 1 2

13 conformed to this world (Rom. 12:2). Do not become idolaters (1 Cor. 10:7). Addressed As Negative Consequence Another way is to address it by specifying the negative consequence of doing the action. Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, 10 nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6:9-10) Not Addressed Another way the Bible prohibits an action is not to address the action at all. There is nothing on it at all nothing explicitly or implicitly. That is, there is not one thing on it in the Bible. The Bible is silent about it. When this happens, then, clearly, we are without Biblical authority for it. So, if we do it anyway, we would not be able to do what Colossians 3:17 requires us to do, and thus we would sin. On this basis, for example, we must not use a third element in the Lord s Supper, like white chocolate to represent Christ s bones. Some Ways The Bible Teaches That An Action Is A Requirement Positive Command It does so by commands: Repent and be baptized (Acts 2:38). Walk in the Spirit (Gal. 5:16). 1 3

14 Ascertaining Bible Authority Consequence It does so by specifying the positive consequence of doing the action followed by the negative consequence of not doing that action: Then the King will say to those on His right hand, Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of 35 the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was 36 a stranger and you took Me in; 'I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I 37 was in prison and you came to Me. Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty 38 and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe 39 You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, 40 and come to You? And the King will answer and say to them, Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these 41 My brethren, you did it to Me. Then He will also say to those on the left hand, Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared 42 for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave 43 Me no drink; 'I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick 44 and in prison and you did not visit Me. Then they also will answer Him, saying, Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to 45 You? Then He will answer them, saying, Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not 1 4

15 do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me. (Mt. 25:34-45) Some Ways The Bible Teaches That An Action Is An Option Calls It Liberty Sometimes it does so explicitly. First Corinthians 7:39 reads, A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. By the use of the term liberty, the passage is saying this woman has the option of marrying or not, as specified. Doing And Not Doing Okay Another way the Bible identifies an action as optional is by giving us approved examples of doing the action and not doing the action. Circumcision is not done, with approval, in the case of Titus in Galatians 2:3-5, but it is done with approval in the case of Timothy in Acts 16:1-3. So the Bible is informing us hereby that circumcision is a matter of judgment. The Bible never gives us approved examples of doing and not doing a requirement or a prohibition. The next two sections are from my presentation in the 2008 Florida School of Preaching Lectureship book, Do You Understand the Biblical View of Man? Generic Requirement (Umbrella Authority) Another way the Bible identifies an action as optional 1 5

16 Ascertaining Bible Authority is by giving us a generic requirement. This way authorizes judgment calls. Here is the principle, precisely worded, that we establish by reasoning with the Scriptures: a generic requirement authorizes all specifics that carry it out, except any that the Bible forbids. Generic here is referring to the fact that there are specifics under it that are necessary to carry out the requirement. The point is that there is no way to do the requirement without doing one of these specific actions (for a more detailed discussion of this, see Chapter 22 and Discussion Item 55 in my book, How Implication Binds and Silence Forbids). I sometimes call this principle the downward vertical, or umbrella authority. For example, we correctly talk about the Great Commission in Matthew 28:18-20 and Mark 16: This requires us to go into all the world and preach the gospel, but it leaves the method of going unspecified. So we are allowed to use our own judgment as to how to go, as long as we do not violate a Biblical prohibition, like stealing a car. The following sound argument establishes this hermeneutical principle: 1. Either all specifics under a required generic are required or forbidden or permitted. 2. All specifics cannot be required. This would make the generic requirement impossible to follow. 3. All specifics cannot be forbidden. This would forbid the generic requirement itself. 4. Therefore, the truth must be that all specifics under a generic are permitted. That is, they are 1 6

17 optional, judgment calls. Note that all specifics under a generic are permitted is qualified with except any that the Bible forbids (Beals, Brotherly Love 91-92). God s Delegated Authorities And The Nature Of Judgments It is important to understand whose option it is. For example, Smith is given the option of deciding what time his children must be home, not his next door neighbor, Jones. This involves us with directly delegated authorities and jurisdictions. (Indirectly delegated authority, that is, a Biblically delegated authority himself or herself delegating that authority to another, is a separate study.) Every legitimate authority has been delegated by God: in home, society, church, and personal jurisdictions. The Bible delegates to elders the decision-making authority, that is, judgment calls, regarding all optional church actions having to do with the local congregation where they are the overseers (1 Tim. 5:17). We are to obey them (Heb. 13:17). No judgment call is made regarding actions God s word requires or forbids. God has already decided these. So the delegated authorities only make judgment calls regarding real Biblical options and only within their Biblically delegated jurisdiction. Since the implementation of correction in the church involves judgment (cf. 2 Cor. 1:23; 13:2; 2 Tim. 4:2; 2 Pet. 3:9), we should respect the elders when they choose a wise method or timing of doing this, even if we disagree on the details. The elders decisions, however, must not violate a Biblical prohibition. (Beals, Brotherly Love 93). Before we conclude, there is one more item to note 1 7

18 Ascertaining Bible Authority when studying how to determine whether or not we have Biblical authority for an action in which we might engage today. We should be aware that some Biblical actions are temporary and others permanent. If we do not rightly divide these (2 Tim. 2:15), we could make the mistake of finding authority for us today when it was intended only for the past. This involves a study beyond our scope here as to its details. It would involve us in recognizing that Old Testament legislation was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14-17; Rom. 7:1-4; et al.); a study of the miraculous gifts (Acts 8:14-18; 1 Cor ); an examination of Holy Spirit baptism (Acts 2:1-4; 10:44-48; 11:13-18; 15:8-9; Eph 4:5); instruction or information that applied uniquely to Christ (Isa. 53:5-6); and more. Conclusion And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him (Col. 3:17). Works Cited All Bible quotations are taken from the New King James Version unless otherwise indicated. Beals, George F. How Implication Binds and Silence Forbids. Ann Arbor, MI: P. C. Publications, The Biblical View of Brotherly Love. Do You Understand the Biblical View of Man? Ed. Brian R. Kenyon. Lakeland, FL: Florida School of Preaching, Rollman, Hans. In Essentials, Unity: The Pre-History of a Restoration Movement Slogan. Restoration Quarterly 39.3 (1997). 25 June 2009 < 1 8

19 sponsored/restoration_quarterly/archives/1990s/vol_39_ no_3_contents/rollmann.html>. 1 9