ESTABLISHING BIBLICAL AUTHORITY
Chris Pruitt

It should always be the desire of everyone to seek an understanding of what their responsibilities are to God. Clearly, God has given to us the bible by which we can know how we ought to live and maintain a right relationship with God. Through this book, God has communicated His divine will for man and has done so for the purpose of having us understand His message. Yet throughout the world, there is a real problem with people misunderstanding, misapplying and misinterpreting this vital message. Therefore it is essential that the student of the Bible have a sincere and open heart as he uses a hermeneutic approach to understand and establish biblical authority in Christianity. It is through this approach that he will be able to fully and accurately ascertain the requirements to be fulfilled for an individual to become a Christian as well as the organization, work, and worship of the local church.

THE MEANING AND NECESSITY OF PROPER HERMENEUTICS

The word "hermeneutic" is believed to have its origin from the name of the Greek god Hermes. According to Greek mythology, Hermes was a messenger for other gods and an interpreter for Jupiter. Therefore, everyone working for Hermes was considered an interpreter that inherited some mystic qualities of this god. In the book of Acts, Paul and Barnabas are called gods because of the religious beliefs of the recipients of Paul's message. Paul is referred to as Hermes because he is the chief speaker. (Acts. 14.12).

According to D.R. Dungan, in his book Hermeneutics, he states:

"Sacred Hermeneutics is the science of interpreting the Scriptures. Exegesis means to lead out. It is the application of the principles of Hermeneutics in bringing out the meaning of any writing which might otherwise be difficult to understand."

Hermeneutics is understood to require a set of rules and systematic procedures in order to come to the proper conclusions as to the meaning of the Scripture. It is also required that in applying these rules, there be a degree of flexibility. For to follow the rules rigorously would be to distort biblical truths.

The hermeneutical approach most commonly used by brethren to establish biblical authority is to determine if a passage is binding by way of direct commandment, approved example, or necessary inference.

The word "command" is used numerous times in the Bible and is defined: "an arrangement" [STRONG], "a mandate" [THAYER], "that which is imposed by decree or law." [VINE]. Thus, when we think of a commandment, we draw to mind the idea of someone in authority making a direct, binding statement as to what he expects from his subordinates. In the military, a captain may tell a private to perform a particular task. After he verbalizes his instructions, he may even describe them as binding by saying that it is an order.

If we accept the complete authority of the Scripture as we should, then a direct commandment will be accepted as binding, being limited within the context it is given. There are many examples in the Bible to which we can point. The statement in Acts. 2.38 authorizes baptism. 1 Corinthians 5.11 authorizes discipline.

The second part of the hermeneutical approach is an approved example. We understand the word example to be synonymous with the word pattern. The classic example often referred to is found in Acts 20.7 where we find disciples gathered together on the first day of the week to break bread. This is an accepted practice of the apostles and faithful Christians in the New Testament and serves as a pattern for us to follow. Thus we have authorization to partake of the Lord's Supper on the first day of the week as a church.

The third part of the hermeneutical approach is necessary inference. It is that which is not specified, but from which only one conclusion may be drawn. In Matthew 3.16, the passage says that Jesus came up out of the water. It is not mentioned that He went into the water, but that is the conclusion that is drawn.

Every day, we assimilate information and draw conclusions based on principles of interpretation and expect others to do the same. We go to the doctor and enumerate a list of symptoms. We expect that the doctor has the ability to interpret these symptoms properly and come to the correct diagnosis. It would be ludicrous to think that if we tell the doctor of a headache, he would draw the conclusion that there is a brain tumor. He is expected to use his knowledge and ability to make a proper interpretation. When we take the prescription to the pharmacist, we expect that he would be able to read the prescription, interpret it properly and fill it accordingly. When we take the medicine home and begin to use it, we are expected to have the ability to read the directions on the container and interpret them correctly.

In all areas of life we process information. We read the paper. We watch the news. We participate in a conversation. We interpret data and come the correct conclusions without even consciously being aware of it. This is because the process of interpretation is, in many aspects, automatic. It is done on a subconscience level.

When it comes the Bible, we also automatically come to conclusions as to what message is being conveyed. It must be understood at this point that we do not have a book that can only be understood by a Bible scholar. God, in His divine wisdom, has given to us a book that can be understood correctly by anyone who is willing to take the time to study and know His will. But to arrive at the correct findings of many of the biblical teachings, we need to be aware of the gaps that may hinder and even prevent us from drawing the right conclusions from Scripture.

One of the problems that create difficulties in understanding the Scripture is the historical gap. Because we are so far removed from the original writers and readers, it is necessary to become familiar with the writers, and the context under which they were writing. We might be able to draw some basic fundamental principles from the book of Hebrews, but we would be hard pressed to understand many of the principles correctly and apply them properly unless we have a good understanding of the historical background of the people whom the writer addresses. We would have to be familiar with the Judaizing teachers, who were trying to revert back to a law that is no longer in effect, to fully appreciate the impact and meaning of the writer's reference and dealings with the old law.

When the thief of the cross is brought to mind and is used as an argument to combat the essentiality of baptism, it demonstrates the failure to interpret correctly the truths of God's word. This is because of the historical gap that exists and the neglect of the interpreter to take the historical background into account.

Another problem that hinders understanding is the cultural gap that exists. There is a tremendous difference between the culture of the Jews and Greeks of the first century and that of the culture that we are familiar with today. The culture in which one dwells is a considerable factor as to how one views reality. There is a story is told of a little girl who drew a picture of an automobile with a driver in the driver's seat and two passengers in the back seat. When the mother asked what Bible story she was drawing, the little girl replied that is was God driving Adam and Eve out of the garden. This little girl had viewed the concept of driving as it is used in our culture. When we think of a wedding, funeral, eating habits, political structures, and many other things, we see them as they are in our culture. Therefore, it is needed for us to use sound hermeneutic principles to understand the intention of the individual writers.

The linguistic gap is also a source of problems in understanding God's word rightly. The original Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. These languages have their own unique structure and idioms that are much different than our own. Although we can open up our own English translations of the Bible and have some confidence to the reliability of the translators, there is still some difficulty in understanding the idioms that are used.

The final gap that we want to consider in this paper is the philosophical gap. This is a gap that exists due to the difference in mentality and way of thinking between the people of the Bible times and us today. We view capital punishment much differently. We live in a society where our moral and ethical standards are much different that they are in those days. Our approach in how to handle individual problems varies greatly the the approach of the people in the biblical setting.

As a result of these gaps, great care needs to be taken in interpreting the Scripture. It is therefore imperative that a proper hermeneutical approach be used to understand and properly apply biblical authority. For only through a proper hermeneutic can one bridge the gaps over which one must pass to properly interpret the Bible.

AUTHORITY DEFINED

In order to establish biblical authority using a proper hermeneutic, there first needs to be a proper understanding of authority. The word "authority" comes from the Greek word: exousia (e)cousi/a) which is from the impersonal verb exesti (e#cesti). It is defined as: "Power" [STRONG], "The right to exercise power. The power of rule or government. The power of one whose commands and will must be obeyed by others." [VINE]. Hence when one has authority, one has the ability and right to command and expect one's instructions to be obeyed. This word is found 104 times in the New Testament. It is used as referring to the authority of Christ. (Matt 7.29); It is used to describe civil authority. (Rom. 13.1). It refers at times to domestic authority. (1 Cor 11.10). It is used in reference to the authority of the apostles. (1 Cor. 9.18). It is used to refer to the authority one has over one's own will. (1 Cor. 7.37). Regardless of where we find it used in the New Testament, it always refers to one having power to command, or someone who is to be subject to those who are in authority.

One of the best illustrations of the concept of authority is found in the book of Matthew. In chapter eight, Jesus enters the city of Capernaum where He is greeted by a Roman centurion. The centurion tells Jesus of a sick servant and requests Jesus to heal him. When Jesus agrees to do so, the centurion answers:

"Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof. But speak a word, and my servant will be healed. For I also am a man under authority, having soldiers under me. And I say to this one, 'Go,' and he goes, and to another, 'Come,' and he comes, and to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it." (Matt 8.5-10).

Two important principles need to be considered in this account. First, this man describes very well what it means to be in authority. He understood his position to command and the obligation that his soldiers had to follow his directions. Secondly, he understood that Jesus also had similar authority. He recognized Jesus as having power over the natural realm, and that at His word, His command, the paralyzed condition of the servant would be lifted.

GENERIC AND SPECIFIC AUTHORITY.

Our grasp of authority is further refined by understanding the difference between generic and specific authority. Again, to determine whether something is authorized generically or specifically, we must use a hermeneutic approach.

Generic authority is described as including any and all methods for carrying out the thing authorized. To illustrate this, consider theses examples. In Matthew 28.18-20, Jesus tells His disciples to "Go...and Teach..." Because it does not specifically gives us directions as to how to accomplish this, it illustrates generic authority. We have the liberty to choose what method we deem necessary to fulfill this command so long as it does not violate another commandment, example, or necessary inference. We can go and teach one on one. We can go knock on doors. We can share the good news of the gospel over the radio, in the newspaper, by a television broadcast and even over the internet. Whatever way we find expedient is authorized. Another example can be drawn from the Lord's Supper in Matthew 26.26-28. While there are many specifics which will be illustrated below, there are also many things which illustrate generic authority. We are told to partake of the supper when we meet together on the first day of the week. But it would be our choice as a congregation to decide what part of the day to meet and when in the service to partake. We can use whatever containers are necessary. We can use one or many containers. All due to the fact that such things are generic.

Specific authority is just the opposite. Specific authority is that which is precisely formulated or specified. There are many things that are specifically authorized in the Bible. When we take the above example of the Lord's Supper, we see many specifics. Jesus instructs us to use unleavened bread and fruit of the vine. We cannot use any other kind of bread or drink except that which He specifically authorizes. We have by example, specific authority to only partake on the first day of the week. By necessary inference we can only conclude that it is to be done every first day of the week. When Noah was commanded by God to build an ark, God gave Noah very specific instructions as to how to do it. Noah was authorized specifically to only use gopher wood. He was only to build it according to specified dimensions. He was only to include a certain number of animals. He was only authorized to do that which was specifically commanded by God. In the book of Exodus, God gives instructions to the children of Israel on how to sacrifice. Again we have an illustration of specific authority. God commands them specifically what kind of animal to use: a lamb without blemish, male, first year. Any different kind of animal would constitute sin.

THE LAW OF EXCLUSION

We continue to expand our understanding of authority by discussing the "law of exclusion." This is a law that applies to those things that we do not find specifically excluded in the scriptures. Many come to the conclusion that if the Scripture does not specifically say that one cannot do something, then it is lawful to do. Yet, by applying the principle of necessary inference, it can be deduced that such things are not authorized by God. Again we go to the account of Noah. We understand that God commanded that Noah build an ark. According to the law of exclusion, this commandment would automatically exclude any other mode of transportation. He is only authorized to use a boat. He is told to build it out of wood gopher wood. This would exclude all other kinds of wood such as pine, oak, mahogany. When we are told to sing in our worship services, (Eph 5.19), this excludes all other kind of music such as recorded music and instrumental music. We are all told to sing which excludes a choir and a solo act. We must have authority for how one becomes a Christian and what the work and worship of the local church involves. God tells us specifically and generically what is included in these things. We must as well have respect for the silence of the Scriptures. Therefore when we use a proper hermeneutic to determine authority by means of direct command, approved example, or necessary inference, we can apply the law of exclusion soundly to determine what is not authorized.

JOHN 13.34,35: A PROPER HERMENEUTIC ILLUSTRATED

The legitimacy and soundness of the proper hermeneutic to establish scriptural authority is seen
in John 13.34,35. It is the night before Christ's betrayal. He had just finished washing the disciples feet when he identifies His betrayer as Judas. After Judas had left from among them, Jesus alludes to His coming crucifixion and gives then a new commandment..

"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."

Contained with these two verses Jesus makes a very powerful statement that illustrates very well the three aspects of the hermeneutic used to establish biblical authority. The first part of the statement is a direct statement. The second part is an example. And the final part of His statement illustrates necessary inference.

Jesus directly commands His disciples that they are to love one another. With Judas now gone from their midst they were not to harbor anger. Jesus knew that the sufferings that He has been and is about to endure will fall upon His disciples. But they were not to be discouraged, nor return evil for evil, but were to love one another. Not only was it an admirable quality for which to aim, it was an absolute direct commandment. Therefore, when we read this, we can conclude that it is authorized.

Not only does Jesus command His disciples to love one another, but He tells them how to love one another. He tells them that when they love one another, they need do so as Jesus has demonstrated. During the time that the disciples walked with Jesus, He gave them many examples as to what it meant to carry out this commandment. That very night He demonstrated His love for His disciples by showing humility in washing their feet. Then He said, "For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you." (V.15). So we have authority by a direct commandment and approved example, and when we continue on in His statement, we see the last aspect of the hermeneutic.

Finally, we see an illustration of necessary inference. When the disciples go out and begin their ministry, they carry out the commandment given to them that night. When they show love for one another, both friend and enemy, those who watch and see the love displayed will only be able to come to one conclusion: These must be the disciples of Christ. The disciples may not necessarity say that they belong to their Master. By their actions and by their love for one another, people will conclude by necessary inference that these must be His disciples. Therefore, we conclude that we have authority to love one another on the basis of direct commandment, approved example and necessary inference.

THE NEW HERMENEUTIC

Within the last one hundred years, society has demonstrated a rebellion to authority. Such rebellion has crept into the church and is now challenging the authority of the Scripture. Such efforts have been carried out under the false pretense of beginning a fresh, new exegesis. The claim has been made that, for generations, the Bible has been misinterpreted and misapplied and a new understanding is needed. The claim is expressed that old, conventional ways of interpretation have failed and new ways need to be considered. The old hermeneutic needs to be replaced with a "new hermeneutic."

Is this a valid approach to understanding God's divine will for man? As we look into this "new" approach, we find that it's roots are taken right out of denominational theology. This concept was formulated mostly by Ernst Fuchs and Gerhard Ebeling, and emerged from the theory of existentialism. Today it has largely been used to criticize the supposed failings of the old hermeneutic, particularly direct command, approved example and necessary inference. It has not been the result of honest and sincere study from a desire to understand the truth, but is the product of those who are not satisfied with the status quo. Under this new approach to understanding the Bible, (which is not really new) the claim is made that there is no such thing as a proper interpretation. The Bible, they say, can be interpreted individually depending entirely upon one's individual circumstance. What it says and means to you may not necessarily be what it means to me.. It is an approach of interpretation based upon emotionalism rather than logic. The claim is made that there are no absolutes. There is no absolute truth, only subjective truth.

To lend any validity to such an approach is to defy common sense. The claim is made that there are no absolutes, but it is in itself an absolute. By applying this kind of rationalization to Scripture, one is not able to come to conclusions on such important doctrinal matters as how one becomes a Christian, how to recognize false teachers, and what constitutes proper worship. According to Dave Miller in his book, Piloting the Strait, in reference to this new hermeneutic,

"They are dogmatic in their insistence that no one should be dogmatic. They hold as absolute and certain truth that there are no absolute truths. Therefore, they have to deny their viewpoint in order to hold their viewpoint."

One does not need to be a Bible scholar, nor does one need to consult accredited sources to see the fallacy of this approach of interpreting Scripture. One only needs to use common sense and the ability to reason. (Isa. 1.18).

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The process of this research has solidified my beliefs that the word of God needs to be handled with serious and diligent care. If we are going to honestly seek out and understand the will of God, (Eph5.17), then we cannot take lightly the task of "rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Tim. 2.15). Because of the many differences that create a gap between us and the writers and reader of the Bible, we must apply a proper hermeneutic. It is too easy to read our own opinions, preconceived ideas, and cultural bias into this invaluable book. We cannot understand what is necessary for us to become a Christian unless we find a direct commandment, approved example, or necessary inference to show us how. We cannot know what the proper design in the organization, work, worship that is done by the church unless we search it out using this hermeneutic. Therefore, I conclude that a proper hermeneutic is necessary for establishing biblical authority.