Biblical Authority and Instrumental Music in Churches

Introduction
Those of you visiting with us today for the first time may have been struck by the absence of musical instruments. You may wonder why we don’t have them. It is not a matter of talent – we have lots of people here who play instruments very well. And you may wonder if it is just a peculiar custom or tradition. It is not, at least for me. It is a matter of principle.

However, I know that there is concern, maybe even skepticism, among some Christians about this position. I think that there are two basic beliefs which underlie some of the skepticism about opposition to instrumental music. First, the belief that God allowed them throughout the OT, which gives us reason to think they should be okay today. And second, the fact that this seems to be just a peculiar tradition of the “church of Christ.” If nothing else, today I hope to dispel those two assumptions.

What I want to do today is build on the lesson two weeks ago regarding the sufficiency of the Scriptures – sola scriptura – and the lesson last week on the authority of the Scriptures, and apply those principles to this topic.

Instruments in the Old Testament
Let’s begin with the use of instruments in the worship of Israel in the OT. I think I have always had this nebulous assumption that it was just “anything goes” when it came to instruments in OT worship. My assumption could not have been further from the truth.

The first instructions God gave Israel for instruments in worship was in Numbers 10:

1 The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2 "Make two silver trumpets. Of hammered work you shall make them, and you shall use them for summoning the congregation and for breaking camp. 3 And when both are blown, all the congregation shall gather themselves to you at the entrance of the tent of meeting. 4 But if they blow only one, then the chiefs, the heads of the tribes of Israel, shall gather themselves to you. 5 When you blow an alarm, the camps that are on the east side shall set out. 6 And when you blow an alarm the second time, the camps that are on the south side shall set out. An alarm is to be blown whenever they are to set out. 7 But when the assembly is to be gathered together, you shall blow a long blast, but you shall not sound an alarm. 8 And the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall blow the trumpets. The trumpets shall be to you for a perpetual statute throughout your generations. 9 And when you go to war in your land against the adversary who oppresses you, then you shall sound an alarm with the trumpets, that you may be remembered before the LORD your God, and you shall be saved from your enemies. 10 On the day of your gladness also, and at your appointed feasts and at the beginnings of your months, you shall blow the trumpets over your burnt offerings and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings. They shall be a reminder of you before your God: I am the LORD your God."

I wanted to read that lengthy descriptions so you could see just how specific God’s instructions were:
1. The specific instruments, two silver trumpets.
2. Who it was to use them, the sons of Aaron.
3. When and how they were to be used.

Now as you know, the Law of Moses gives us an extremely detailed account of the construction of the tabernacle, every piece of furniture, clothing of the priests, and all the different offerings. But in all of the Law, the only instruments ever recorded that God designated for Israel to use in its worship were these two silver trumpets. God gave Israel these instructions in the time of Moses, around 1440 BC. And until the time of David, four centuries later, these are the only instruments God designated for use in the public worship of the nation.

David of course is introduced to us as a skilled musician, providing soothing music to King Saul. He was the sweet singer of Israel, and he put his keen musical skills to work by inventing more instruments for use in the worship at the tabernacle.

When the Bible describes the movement of the ark into the tabernacle at Jerusalem, the text says:

1 Chron. 16:4 Then he appointed some of the Levites as ministers before the ark of the LORD, to invoke, to thank, and to praise the LORD, the God of Israel. 5 Asaph was the chief, and second to him were Zechariah, Jeiel, Shemiramoth, Jehiel, Mattithiah, Eliab, Benaiah, Obed-edom, and Jeiel, who were to play harps and lyres; Asaph was to sound the cymbals, 6 and Benaiah and Jahaziel the priests were to blow trumpets regularly before the ark of the covenant of God.

Four centuries after the last instruction was given to use instruments (the two silver trumpets), David arranged for there to be instruments used in conjunction with those trumpets at the tabernacle.

At the end of his life, David was disappointed that God did not allow him to build the temple, but he did the next best thing. He helped lay out the plans for the new sanctuary that his son and successor, King Solomon, would build. And notice what David says as he turns the reigns over to Solomon:

1 Chron. 23:1 When David was old and full of days, he made Solomon his son king over Israel. 2 David assembled all the leaders of Israel and the priests and the Levites. 3 The Levites, thirty years old and upward, were numbered, and the total was 38,000 men. 4 "Twenty-four thousand of these," David said, "shall have charge of the work in the house of the LORD, 6,000 shall be officers and judges, 54,000 gatekeepers, and 4,000 shall offer praises to the LORD with the instruments that I have made for praise."

So David specifically claims to have invented the instruments which he then planned for the priests to use. Some opponents of the use of instruments have latched on to phrases like this to make what I think is a very bad argument, that David created these instruments on his own and was wrong. In Amos 6:5 the prophet pronounces woe on those who:

5 who sing idle songs to the sound of the harp
and like David invent for themselves instruments of music

A British Methodist named Adam Clarke, who lived in the late 1700s, made this comment on that passage in Amos:

I believe that David was not authorized by the Lord to introduce that multitude of musical instruments into the Divine worship of which we read, and I am satisfied that his conduct in this respect is most solemnly reprehended by this prophet; and I farther believe that the use of such instruments of music, in the Christian Church, is without the sanction and against the will of God that they are subversive of the spirit of true devotion, and that they are sinful.

While I agree with his view of instruments for churches, I do not agree with his assessment of David’s invention of them, because of what is stated in the account of the reforms of Hezekiah:

2 Chron. 29:25 And he stationed the Levites in the house of the LORD with cymbals, harps, and lyres, according to the commandment of David and of Gad the king’s seer and of Nathan the prophet, for the commandment was from the LORD through his prophets. 26The Levites stood with the instruments of David, and the priests with the trumpets. 27Then Hezekiah commanded that the burnt offering be offered on the altar. And when the burnt offering began, the song to the LORD began also, and the trumpets, accompanied by the instruments of David king of Israel.

Here the text specifically says that the instruments of David were invented according to a commandment from the Lord. They were not just David’s idea – they were God’s idea.
Further, notice the historical context here. It is the time of Hezekiah, when the nation of climbing out of apostasy. When the king wants to put the temple back in order, his guideline is what David commanded. And if you remember your Bible chronology, Hezekiah lived 300 years after David. Once again, it wasn’t “anything goes” in the use of instruments in the OT. They used only the instruments God commanded them to.

Now, jump ahead two hundred years to the time of the return from Babylonian exile (the time of Zechariah which we are studying on Wednesday nights). Once more there is a need to restore, or actually completely rebuild the temple.

Ezra 3:10 And when the builders laid the foundation of the temple of the LORD, the priests in their vestments came forward with trumpets, and the Levites, the sons of Asaph, with cymbals, to praise the LORD, according to the directions of David king of Israel.

And then the final wave of reform, when Nehemiah led the people in rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem 80 years later:

Neh. 12: 24 And the chiefs of the Levites: Hashabiah, Sherebiah, and Jeshua the son of Kadmiel, with their brothers who stood opposite them, to praise and to give thanks, according to the commandment of David the man of God, watch by watch. I brought the leaders of Judah up onto the wall and appointed two great choirs that gave thanks. One went to the south on the wall to the Dung Gate. 32 And after them went Hoshaiah and half of the leaders of Judah, 33 and Azariah, Ezra, Meshullam, 34 Judah, Benjamin, Shemaiah, and Jeremiah, 35 and certain of the priests’ sons with trumpets: Zechariah the son of Jonathan, son of Shemaiah, son of Mattaniah, son of Micaiah, son of Zaccur, son of Asaph; 36 and his relatives, Shemaiah, Azarel, Milalai, Gilalai, Maai, Nethanel, Judah, and Hanani, with the musical instruments of David the man of God. And Ezra the scribe went before them. 45 And they performed the service of their God and the service of purification, as did the singers and the gatekeepers, according to the command of David and his son Solomon. 46 For long ago in the days of David and Asaph there were directors of the singers, and there were songs of praise and thanksgiving to God.

I have to tell you I am completely embarrassed that in all these years of study I have never noticed what is stated over and over and over again- Israel only used the instruments that God commanded them to: the two silver trumpets of Moses, and then the instruments given by David. And this was always in the context of tabernacle or temple worship.

The only exceptions I know of to this are three references to prophets using instruments (Ex. 15:20; 1 Sam. 10:5; 2 Kings 3:15). But in so far as Israel’s corporate worship was concerned, here is what we learn in from the OT:

1. Musical instruments were specifically legislated by God. Their use was not left up to the discretion of the people. Their use was commanded by God. To put it another way, why did they use instruments: because God told them to.
2. For the first four hundred years of Israel’s history all they used in tabernacle worship was the two silver trumpets. Why did they use those trumpets? Because God told them to. Why didn’t they use any other instruments? There was no word from God. If God had not commanded them to make the trumpets, they would not have used them.
3. For the next thousand years of history Israel only used what David had commanded. Why did David give them additional instruments? Because God commanded it.

With such a clear emphasis on the command of God as the reason to use instruments, the obvious question for us when we come to the New Testament is, has God given us instructions to use instruments when we assemble for worship?

Music in the New Testament
Of course, someone might assume that it doesn’t make a difference whether instruments are in the New Testament or not, since the fact that they are in the Old Testament is all we need to know we can use them today. And yet when you consider how closely instrumental music was linked to the tabernacle/temple, that is not a very good assumption.

In fact, as Jesus taught the Samaritan woman in John 4, one of the unique features of new covenant worship was that it would not be limited to one centralized location.

John 4:21 Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.

That was a radical statement for Jesus to make in light of the fact that for a millennium, since the time of David, there had been a central sanctuary at Jerusalem where the people were to worship. Jesus’ words can only mean there is a new covenant coming, with new arrangements for worship.

Further, as the Book of Hebrews teaches, through His death on the cross Jesus replaced the Mosaic system of tabernacle worship and ritual through His death on the cross.

Heb. 8:1 Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. 4 Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. 5 They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things.

And while the NT does talk a lot about the church as the temple of God, it is of course a spiritual house compromised of Christians, living stones built on the cornerstone of Jesus Christ, offering spiritual sacrifices, like singing. Notice how the end of Hebrews makes a sharp distinction between the OT tabernacle and our service as Christians:

Heb. 13:10 We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat. 11 For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy places by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. 12 So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood. 13 Therefore let us go to him outside the camp and bear the reproach he endured. 14 For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come. 15 Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name.

Since the NT emphasizes so strongly the difference between the old and new covenants, it is not enough for us to assume that just because Israel did something in response to God’s commands in the old covenant that we can do the same thing as His new covenant people.

In fact, in there is anything we should gather from the OT, it is that we should only do what God commanded, just as Israel only used the trumpets God revealed to Moses and the instruments God commanded David.

And this is the heart of the case against instruments for us. The New Testament gives us zero indication that the early Christians used instruments in their worship. There are many references to singing –

1 Cor. 14:15 I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also.

James 5:13 Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing praise.

Col. 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.

So we are to sing from the heart to glorify God and edify each other. But nowhere in the NT did God give us the kind of instructions He gave to Moses or David, to incorporate instruments into our worship.

You may be aware that there is one passage that is sometimes used to support the use of instruments in our worship.

Eph. 5:19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart.

There are two words in this verse that those who advocate the use of instruments argue support their case. First, Paul says that we are to sing “psalms.” Since many psalms mention instruments, therefore we can use them today. And indeed many psalms do:

Psalm 149:3 Let them praise his name with dancing,
making melody to him with tambourine and lyre!
4 For the LORD takes pleasure in his people;
he adorns the humble with salvation.
5 Let the godly exult in glory;
let them sing for joy on their beds.

But since the psalms were the hymnal of Israel, and Israel lived under a different covenant than us, we would expect that not everything in the psalms would be applicable to us in the same way that it was to Israel. Psalm 149 goes on to say:

6 Let the high praises of God be in their throats
and two-edged swords in their hands,
7 to execute vengeance on the nations
and punishments on the peoples,
8 to bind their kings with chains
and their nobles with fetters of iron

Does anyone here think that is church’s responsibility to take two-edged swords and slaughter the nations?

Or

18 Do good to Zion in your good pleasure;
build up the walls of Jerusalem;
19 then will you delight in right sacrifices,
in burnt offerings and whole burnt offerings;
then bulls will be offered on your altar.

as Psalm 51 suggests?

Of course not. The wide mention of instruments in the psalms is what we would expect since the psalms were predominantly sung at the temple, but that proves nothing regarding worship under the new covenant.

Back to Ephesians 5, the other word in verse 19 that sometimes is employed to justify instruments is the Greek word psallo, translated as “make melody.” It is argued that since that word means to pluck the strings of an instrument that Paul is endorsing their use. Of course, if that is what the words means, Eph. 5:19 doesn’t just permit their use – it commands their use. And I don’t know anyone who takes that position. Nor do I know of an English translation that renders it “play an instrument.” Paul tells us what the instrument is in the text: “making melody to the Lord with your heart.” We are to engage the heart as our instrument when we worship.

When I was in grad school I took classes at a school where I would have had much in common with the faculty in terms of what I believed, except for this issue. And I got teased a little bit for being “anti-piany,” as they put it. One day we had taken a break in class, and one of the students said, “Let’s debate the use of instruments. Why do you think they are wrong?” I replied that since he thought they were right he should make the case for their use. And as soon as he started to use the psallo argument our professor interrupted him (who would have agreed with him by the way on the issue) and said, “That is not what the word means, and if it did mean that it would be a command and not an expedient. The final word on this question is that the Bible is silent about it.” He’s right.

The truth is that the word psallo did at one time refer to playing an instrument, but its meaning changed over time, from playing an instrument, to playing and singing, and then just to singing. We have a word in our language that went through a similar evolution. Today “lyric” refers to the words to a song. But it comes from the word “lyre,” which was a stringed instrument. It no longer has that connotation.

As my professor said, the final word on this matter is that the Bible is silent about the use of instruments in the new covenant. Even the most cynical would have to agree that instruments are conspicuous by their absence in the NT since all of the earliest Christians were Jews who had a long heritage of their use in the temple. This omission is even more glaring when you consider that most Christians in the first century were Gentiles, and instruments were widely used in Greco-Roman culture, especially in pagan rituals.

Well, someone may argue that since their use was so common in the OT that it was just assumed that Christians would use them. There is a way to test this idea. We have historical evidence we can look at to see if there are allusions to their use outside of the NT.

The Historical Evidence
Let’s begin with the period leading up to the NT. When the temple was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BC and the Jews were dispersed around the world, worship as it had always been known was impossible. Instead, Jews in various places around the world began to assemble together for prayer and the study of the Law, meetings that came to be known as synagogue. Since this arrangement was not a substitute for the temple, the Jews did not carry over practices specific to the temple. They did not offer sacrifices in the synagogue; they did not make burnt offerings in the synagogue; and most significantly for our study, they did not use instruments in the synagogue. In fact there is some question as to whether they sang in all synagogues.

Even today Orthodox synagogues do not permit the use of instruments.

Services in orthodox synagogues are conducted entirely in Hebrew, with the exception of the sermon. Furthermore, singing is not accompanied by a choir or musical instrument. In Reform synagogues, services are carried out in a mixture of Hebrew and English and singing is sometimes accompanied by a choir or instrument such as an organ.

So what this means is that from the time of the destruction of the temple until its rebuilding a few years before the time of Christ – a period of over 500 years! - when Jews were gathering to worship in the synagogue they were not using instruments. And this information is especially telling regarding the use of instruments in churches, since everyone acknowledges that the early Christians adopted the basic format of the synagogue as the format for their worship.

Instruments are not in the NT, and they were not used in the five centuries before the NT. But what if they were used by the early Christians but just weren’t mentioned in the text. Well, again, all we have to do is read the historical evidence of early Christian practice.

And what the data shows is that not only did the early Christians not use them for the first six hundreds years of church history, but in the words of one music historian,

“The antagonism which the Fathers of the early Church displayed toward instruments has two outstanding characteristics: vehemence and uniformity.” (James McKinnon, The Temple, the Church Fathers and Early Western Chants).

At this point I could spend an hour just reading quotations from the early Christians expressing their adamant opposition to the use of instruments. But for now let me just summarize the evidence like this:
1. There is no evidence of any Christians using instruments in the worship assembly for the first six hundred years of church history – the first recorded use was in 670 in Rome.
2. Even then, they were not widely used for another 600 years. As late as the 13th century, Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas wrote: “The Church does not use musical instruments such as the harp or lyre when praising God, in case she should seem to fall back into Judaism.”
3. In the Protestant Reformation, many of the key leaders were virulently opposed to the instrument.

So here is the point of all this evidence. Instruments are not found anywhere in the pages of the NT. They are not found in the 500 years before the NT. And they are not mentioned in the 600 years after the NT. In over a thousand years of history we do not have a scintilla of evidence that God’s people were using instruments. Nada –nothing.

Someone may say, “Well history doesn’t prove anything.” Well, if you are trying to advocate the use instruments, you better hope it does, because you sure aren’t going to prove anything by the NT. Those who dismiss this evidence should ask themselves if they would feel differently if the evidence were the other way around. What if there were all kinds of references to the early Christians using instruments? Are you trying to tell me that advocates of instruments would just ignore that? Of course not. Well neither can we ignore the unanimous testimony of history that Christians did not use instruments for a period that is three times as long as the entire history of America.

That has obviously changed by our own day and time, although there are still many fellowships that do not use the instrument (the Orthodox church, Primitive Baptists, some conservative Presbyterian churches, and until recently some Mennonite churches). In fact one of the most helpful books I have ever read on this topic was written in 2005 by an Baptist.

Conclusion
And his summary of this issue is right on target:

The issue before us is nothing less than a matter of sola scriptura. Will we look to the Scriptures alone to govern our thinking in regard to musical instruments in worship, or will we look to human reasoning? Will we leave this issue where God has left it, or will we add our own thoughts to His word? (John Price, Old Light on New Worship, p. 230).

If we are to go by what is only found in the Bible, and we are not to add to Scripture, it is difficult for me to escape the conclusion that since the NT makes no reference to instruments in worship assemblies that we as a church that wants to submit to the headship of Christ should not use them.

Since most of you hear probably already agreed with the position I have taken, I feel like I need to say something that would challenge you as well, so that no one can leave here today feeling like you are off the hook. Our worship cannot be defined simply by what we are against, or what we do not do. While the outward forms have changed over time, one constant in what God has always wanted from His people is worship that comes from the heart, passionate praise from people who are completely devoted to Him.

Look at this passage in Rom. 12:

1 I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.
This simple verse speaks volumes about genuine worship:

1. It says that worship is first and foremost about what we give rather than what we get. The NASB translates the last phrase “spiritual service of worship”. We are not to come here and sit around like spectators, or like customers who want to be served. We are coming to render the service. This is not a day off – its is the day when we do our most important work of all, serving as spiritual priests in God’s holy house.
2. It also means that what we do in our public assemblies should be a reflection of the kind of people we are all week. We don’t just offer this service once, like an animal sacrifice in the old covenant. We are living sacrifices, giving our bodies to God at all times. If you are one kind of person here today and a completely different kind of person the rest of the week, your worship is a sham, and while you might be fooling some of us, you are not fooling God.
3. And most importantly, this verse says that worship is promoted by what God has done for us. Paul’s appeal for worship stems from “the mercies of God.” Our worship is a reflection of our awareness of and appreciation for what God has done for us. If you don’t think much about what God has done for you, if you don’t dwell on the many mercies of God, then your worship will be infrequent, superficial, and insincere. But if your heart is aflame with love for God for what He has done for you, then your worship will be just what God wants.

And worship should always be about what God wants.

How Do We Establish Authority? A New Look at Old Questions (Part 2)

Introduction
This past week I found one of my oldest childhood friends on Facebook. I grew up in a great neighborhood, and his family was one of the main reasons why. One of the ladies in the neighborhood, Mrs. Cawood, had a huge back yard which we used for kickball, dodgeball, and all kinds of games. We spent many summer evenings playing in her backyard. And fortunately we all got along well.

And a main reason we got a long so well is because we all agreed on the rules we used. You had to decide how many foul balls were allowed before you were out, or how many outs there would be per inning. And the worst thing that could have happened is for there to have been that one kid who just had to change the rules all the time to suit them – or they would just take their ball and go home!

Last week I started a discussion with you about the authority of Scripture, in part because of a certain cynicism I think exists among Christians my age and younger about the ways this topic is addressed. And I think one reason for this cynicism has to do with the sense that we in the “church of Christ” just made up rules of Bible authority to suit us. When I was younger I often heard preachers say things like, “There are three ways to establish biblical authority – direct statements or commands, approved examples, and necessary inferences.” Well, says who? Who came up with that formula for authority?

And, though it was drilled into me that we must have authority for everything that we do, I could see lots of things we did that were not spelled out in Scripture: we had a building, we bought space in the newspaper for articles, we had organized Bible classes. But that was explained to me on the basis of generic authority – that since the Bible says we are to assemble, but gives no other specific directive, we could use a building; and since the Bible say we are to teach the Scriptures, using a newspaper column or organized classes are authorized under the general heading of teaching. Some things God has specified (singing as opposed to singing plus instruments; the elements of the Lord’s supper), but other things God has spoken generically about and we have freedom to choose how to carry out His general commands.

Well again, that sounds great, but who made these rules up about generic and specific authority? Or are those just clever ways to justify doing what we want to do while getting around what we don’t like?

I think these are good questions, and I hope to offer some good answers to them. By the very nature of this subject, today’s sermon will require very intense concentration, so I would ask that you shut out any distractions that might make it hard to think critically and carefully as we work through these issues.

Command, Example, Inference

I’d like to ask you to turn with me to Acts 15, to a critical debate that took place in Jerusalem over the issue of Gentiles and circumcision. In the previous two chapters, Paul and Barnabas engaged in the first extensive preaching effort made in predominantly Gentile territory. This upset some of the Jewish Christians back in Jerusalem, because Paul and Barnabas did not require the Gentiles they taught to be circumcised. You can understand why this would have been a concern. All of the first Christians were Jews, which meant that they were all circumcised. It is easy to see how some Jewish Christians, particularly those from a Pharisaic background, could have concluded that all Christians must be Jews first – must be circumcised first.

Acts 15:1 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." 2 And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. 3 So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. 5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses."

To deal with this issue, Peter and James joined Paul and Barnabas in contending against those insistent upon circumcision. What I want you to see is how they reasoned in this debate.

The first speaker was Peter, which makes sense since he was the first apostle to preach to Gentiles, to the house of Cornelius in Acts 10.

15:6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7 And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. 10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."

So here is Peter’s argument:
-I went to preach to the Gentiles (uncircumcised). That’s verse 7.
-God gave the Holy Spirit to them, to these uncircumcised Gentiles, just like He did to us (meaning either the Jews in general or the apostles in particular, who of course were Jewish). That’s verses 8-9.
-What was his point in bringing this up? Isn’t Peter point that if God gave the gift of the Holy Spirit to Cornelius and his house without their being circumcised that no Gentile has to be circumcised to respond to the gospel?

Well, obviously! Peter’s argument here consists of drawing a necessary inference from the example of what happened at Cornelius’s house.

The second speakers were Paul and Barnabas, whose comments consisted of a review of the work they did on their first journey.

15:12 And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.

Once again you have an appeal made to example. God clearly approved of their ministry because the Lord enabled them to do signs and wonders among them. And since they did not insist on circumcision for these converts, and since God clearly approved of what Paul and Barnabas were doing, bearing witness in the signs and wonders, there is clear divine approval through the example of Paul and Barnabas not to circumcise Gentiles.

Paul and Barnabas, just like Peter, were deducing conclusions based on the implications of the approved example of the first missionary journey.

The final speaker was James, and his speech consisted of an appeal to a direct statement of Scripture.

15:13 After they finished speaking, James replied, "Brothers, listen to me. 14 Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,
16 "'After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins,
and I will restore it,
17 that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who are called by my name,
says the Lord, who makes these things 18 known from of old.'

The specific text James uses is Amos 9, which pictured the house of David as a fallen tent, and the restoration of the Davidic dynasty as the rebuilding of that tent. And according to Amos, when the Davidic kingdom was renewed it would be open to “the remnant of mankind.” In other words, what Simeon (Peter’s Hebrew name) experienced that day at the villa of Cornelius was nothing less than the fulfillment of a direct promise of the Old Testament, the inclusion of the Gentiles into the Messiah’s kingdom.

Here in Acts 15 in the context of a debate about the meaning of Scripture, the apostles employed arguments drawing logical inferences based on direct statements from Scripture and divinely approved examples.

Now think with me about what we can learn from Acts 15, in light of some of the common questions and criticisms of “command, example, and inference” today.

First of all, preachers in the “church of Christ” did not make up “command, example, and inference” as a means of establishing authority. No one did! "Command, example and inference" are descriptions of how all communication occurs.

Let me illustrate it like this. We all believe in the "law of gravity." Sir Isaac Newton did not wander into a clearing one day and find a stone tablet that said "what goes up must come down." The law of gravity is not a prescriptive law; no one prescribed it for us like the Ten Commandments. Rather, the law of gravity is a description of what he observed about how things work. What goes up must come down. It is a "law" in the sense that it is a helpful and accurate description of the nature of objects in motion. The fact that the law of gravity is descriptive rather than prescriptive makes it no less valid. What goes up will come down regardless of whether anyone ever used the phrase "law of gravity," because it is simply how things work.

The same is true with command, example and inference. These three methods are descriptions of how we get information, IN ANY CONTEXT. If no one ever used the terms "command, example, and necessary inference" it would not change the reality that we all reason in these ways.

As a matter of fact, I have never heard anyone take issue with “command, example, inference” without appealing to either a direct statement or command, or an example, or by drawing inferences.

For instance, a friend of mine who would be in the camp of those who dismiss the concept of “command, example and inference” wrote this on one of my blogs some time ago:

“Yes we need God's authority. But command, ex, necessary inference wouldn't hold up in a court of law. It is flawed and inconsistent in its application. I don't read my Bible with that filter. The argument for authority isn't laughable, the hermeneutic is, and yes it should be thrown out…I think that we are to be Christ followers. That being said, if Jesus did it or talked about it, then we can do it… So my means of establishing authority is simple. If the principle is found in Scripture, we have freedom to apply that principle.”

So “command, example and inference” are flawed? And yet the very first thing my friend did in this post is draw an inference- he INFERS that since we are to follow Jesus, what Jesus did or talked about we can do. THAT IS AN INFERENCE. And what Jesus did is – His EXAMPLE - or what He talked about – HIS DIRECT STATEMENTS OR COMMANDS - we can do!

In trying to repudiate “command, example and inference” my friend employed them! He wouldn’t call what he did by those terms – but it is what he did, because those concepts simply describe the way any of us think and communicate.

And as such it is not “church of Christ” dogma. Almost four hundred years ago some of the Protestant Reformers encapsulated their view of authority in very similar language:

“The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.”
-Westminster Confession of Faith 1646

More recently, a Southern Baptist writer named Mark Dever wrote:

“Everything we do in a corporate worship gathering must be clearly warranted by Scripture. Clear warrant can either take the form of an explicit biblical command, or a good and necessary implication of a text.” -Mark Dever, The Deliberate Church

People who are trying to take the Bible seriously as their guide to faith and practice will reason in these ways because that is how we are wired.

Nor is this way of thinking limited to the realm of religion. My friend said “command, example, inference” wouldn’t hold up in a court of law. What in the world does he think goes on in a trial? When the Supreme Court hears a case the lawyers argue on the basis of what is directly stated in the Constitution, or what precedents have been established by prior Courts, or by what the Constitution necessarily implies.

So I want to be clear in saying that not only are “command, example, inference” a valid way to think– there is no other valid way to think. Anyone who reads the Bible to learn what it means to be a Christian and what a local church is supposed to be will get information the same way Peter, Paul and Barnabas, and James made their case in Acts 15.

Having said that, I think that a lot of times we have made a mistake by declaring, “There are three ways to establish authority,” as if these three terms are the missing 11th, 12th and 13th commandments. Remember, they are descriptive, not prescriptive. Further, there is actually a lot of overlap between the three. Peter referred to an approved example and drew an inference. Paul and Barnabas cited an approved example and drew an inference. James quoted a Scripture, applied it to Peter’s example and then drew an inference.

When Are Examples Binding?

Since this is so clear, why do so many people object to what is frankly obvious? I think the reason is because, as my friend said, “It is flawed and inconsistent in its application.” It is the issue of consistency that is troubling.

So for instance, I believe that we are to follow the example Jesus set with the apostles and observe a memorial of His death with unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine. But according to John 13, at the same time He instituted the Lord’s Supper Jesus also washed the disciples feet, and even said:

13:14 If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. 15 For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you.

So why do I think we should take the Lord’s Supper, but not wash feet? And some people who take biblical authority very seriously think you should, and that I am wrong for not practicing it.

So, how do we decide which examples to follow and which ones not to follow? When are they binding? This is a crucial issue when you read Acts, which contains all kinds of examples of the actions of the early Christians. How do we know when what they did is what we are supposed to do?

When I was in grad school I had a seminar on the Book of Acts, in which each of us would write two papers and then defend them in class. The professor of the class wanted to have some fun, so he created awards, like “Best Defense,” “Best Question,” and “Golden Axe Award.” That was the award for the question that demolished someone’s paper.

Well, there was this guy in class who loved to bully other people and try to get the Golden Axe award. So I decided when his turn came to defend his paper I was going to exact some revenge for those he abused. It so happened he wrote a paper in which his basic thesis was that no examples in the NT are binding on us today. Since some examples were not binding, none were. So when his day came, I asked him this question-I got the idea for this questions from someone else by the way– if your point is that since some examples are not binding then none are binding; since some commands of Scripture are not binding on us, does the same logic mean that no commands are? His answer was “homina homina homina” and the victims in class rejoiced!

Not all commands are binding. After all, the commands we read in those letters were made to other people. All we really have are the examples of what the apostles commanded others. I don’t same this to be dismissive of the letters - the apostles were self-consciously setting a pattern for churches to follow. When Paul wrote 1 Corinthians he was dealing with specific questions and problems at Corinth. And yet he says:

1 Cor. 4:16 I urge you, then, be imitators of me. 17 That is why I sent you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church.

So when we read 1 Corinthians, we are reading an example of what Paul instructed Corinth. So how do we apply those commands? In fact, how do we apply any of the commands of the Bible? I think that the same principles we use to apply the commands contained in Scripture will guide how we apply the examples (since what we are reading is really the record of what the apostles commanded others).

Well of course we would begin with the basic principles of good Bible study. We would want to know what the text says (observation), to understand what the text meant to its original readers (interpretation), and to understand what the text means to us (application).

Some of the key questions we would ask as we decided how commands apply to us are:
1) Does the context limit who the command was made to? Was it a command only to Israel? To the apostles?
2) Is the command is a reflection of specific social setting? Romans 16:16 contains a command to greet one another with a holy kiss. How do I decide how that command is applied? Wouldn’t I ask, what did that mean to them? And deciding that the issue is not the kiss, but the greeting in holiness, and then apply that to the way we greet each other?
3) Is the command was qualified by other information in the text? In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul says it is better not to marry. Is that a universal command? I think the context limits that command to a specific situation, the “present distress,” and that qualification means the command is not for all people of all time.

So, when I read about what the early Christians did, wouldn’t I use these same principles to decide when their actions were normative and binding pattern?
1) Is the example specific to a particular person? In Acts, who gives people the ability to do signs and wonders? Only the apostles. Suggests that example is limited to the apostolic period.
2) Is the example a reflection of a specific social setting? The washing of feet was a cultural practice of hospitality, requiring true spirit of servanthood and humility. It had practical component in the days of dirt roads and sandals. The feet would get dirty – John 13:9 Simon Peter said to him, "Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!" 10 Jesus said to him, "The one who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but is completely clean. We live in a different social setting in which we have other ways of practicing the eternal spiritual truths of humility and servanthood.
3) Is the example qualified by other information in the text? Jesus ate the supper with the disciples in the upper room. Does that mean we have to? Well, other information in the biblical text indicates that Christians met in a variety of places.

So this means that we have to do some digging and thinking and challenging. But if we believe God’s word is important we have no choice but to give it careful attention.

Maybe one of the underlying concerns that some of my friends have is that this kind of agonizing over the text is just part of the baggage of being “church of Christ.” If that is the case, I can tell you as someone who spends a lot of time reading what people from other backgrounds have to say about the Bible that that is completely false.

One of my favorite authors is a Methodist scholar named Ben Witherington. A couple of years ago he wrote an excellent book that deals with a lot of the same issues I am in this current series. And one of those topics is how do we know when the narrative sections of the Bible, the examples of the early Christians, how do we know when that becomes a pattern we are to follow? When is it the norm? And his answer is the same as mine: “My suggestion would be that one looks for positive repeated patterns in the text.”

This issue – and that answer – are common to Bible students from a wide variety of backgrounds.

Specific and General

So far I have made the case that command, example and inference are descriptions of the way anyone would learn anything from the Bible, and that we have to use the same basic principles to decide when examples are binding for us as we do to decide when commands are binding on us.

But look around you today. You can see lots of things that are not found in Scripture – songbooks, powerpoint projector, a building. There is no command in the Bible to use a songbook or projector or building – no record of these things in the life of the early church in Acts. So on what basis can we say we try to follow the Bible and yet use these things?

What I was taught as a youngster was that there is something called specific authority and generic authority. When God specifies something, that excludes all other options. He told Noah to build an ark – that excluded building a temple. But on the other hand, God did not specifically say what tools to use. Since God did not specify what tools to use, the authority to use hammers, saws, chisels was included in the general command to build. Specific authority is exclusive; generic authority is inclusive.

Here again I think we sometimes are victims of our own terminology. We intuitively understand that all statements have specific and generic features, and when we talk with each other we make decisions about what is specified and what is not. Friday night a few of us went out to eat then over to the Shearer’s to play cards, and Max sent Andrew and the boys to get something sweet for us to snack on. “Go get us something for dessert.” That sentence is both specific and general isn’t it? It is specific with regard to what to get – “something for dessert” – as opposed to a side dish like spinach or lima beans. Anything but dessert stuff was excluded. On the other hand, there were generalities in saying, “Go get us something for dessert.” Cookies? Brownies? Candy? All kinds of dessert were included in the general statement to grab some dessert.

So when we read the Bible, we have to make decisions about how specific God is versus how general He is, and act accordingly.

In the NT we read that the early Christians assembled regularly, and specifically on the first day of the week to remember Jesus’ death. But we also see that they met in a variety of locations: the temple, homes, a school, a riverbank. From that data I draw the conclusion that God is concerned about when we meet - the first day of the week, but not concerned about where we meet.

And we have to use discernment to make these judgments as we seek to honor God and edify each other.

Conclusion
These are not strange, exotic principles only used by those connected with the church of Christ. It is a part of the wrestling with the text of the Bible everyone does who thinks it is important to follow the Bible carefully. Nor are these sophisticated principles of hermeneutics. It is the way anyone communicates and understands anything.

I do not mean to imply that everything in the Bible is as straightforward as “go build an ark.” We of course must be humble and careful as we try to apply what the Bible says, acknowledging our own ignorance and imperfections. But the fact that some questions are more difficult than others to unravel does not invalidate the principles of interpretation used to deal with the tough questions.

Book Review: The Living Word of God

My Christmas present to myself in 2007 was a new book by N.T. scholar Ben Witherington, The Living Word of God - Rethinking the Theology of the Bible. I started the book Monday morning, and literally could not go to bed until I had finished it late that night.

I grew up with a strong belief that the Bible was the word of God, and I am thankful for those who instilled reverence for Scripture in me. But with that conviction came certain assumptions about how the Bible was written, and what divine inspiration looked like in practical terms. I understood that the Bible was written by men, but I probably did not think of their contribution as consisting of much more than secretaries taking down dictation.

As I grew older, it became clear to me that the human element to the Bible was far more substantial than I had originally comprehended. Different authors had different styles of writing; different emphases in their content; different arrangement of material, and so on. This became especially clear the first time I studied the synoptic gospels in an academic fashion. And coming to the realization that the men who wrote the books of the Bible clearly contributed more than I had first imagined was troubling.

Of course, the problem was not with Scripture. It is clear that the Bible is both a divine and himan product; that different authors had different emphases (John 20:30-31 for instance), and the like. The problem was with my pre-conceived notions of how God should have inspired the text. And I fear that this sort of wooden fundamentalism is a danger to students of the Bible, because it can lead them to the same sorts of ill-conceived views about the Bible that God never intended.

The real issue is not whether there is a human element to Scripture. The real issue is, could God use men in such a way as to write books that were truthful. And of course as Witherington argues in the book, while the Bible never addresses how inspiration worked in all situations, it does very clearly teach that the end result was indeed the word of God - the living word of God.

A quick preview-

* Chapters 1 and 2 deal with what the Bible claims for itself in terms of its divine origin.
* Chapter 3 interacts with proposals made by another author that God accomodated Scripture in ways that Witherington believes (and I agree) undermines the truthfulness of Scripture.
* Chapter 4 discusses the different styles of literature found in Scripture (genres) and how to interpret each.
* Chapter 5 deals with alleged mistakes found in Scripture, and how recognizing the literary context of Scripture often dissolves these mistakes.
* Chapter 6 looks at the issue of the canon (I kept saying “AMEN” all through this chapter).
* Chapter 7 focuses on different translations.
* Chapter 8 deals with basic principles of interpretation and application (another home run chapter).
* Chapter 9 provides a critique of postmodernism and its allure to some interpreters.
* Finally, there is an appendix which contains several Q/A entries from beliefnet in which Witherington applies the principles he sets forth in this book to various questions has has dealt with on that website.

As with any author, I have some disagreements with Withering on certain specific points of theology (he is an egalitarian on women’s issues, for example). But I deeply appreciated the thoughtful conservativism he expressed regarding the nature of Scripture itself, and I am delighted to share the book with you.

The first chapter of The Living Word of God consists of a survey of passages in Scripture about “the word of God.” As Witherington points out, sometimes that phrase refers to the word presented orally (such as in sermons), while other times it refers to written Scripture. Some key passages he addresses:

* Mark 12:36 and Mark 7:13 - Jesus refers to the writings of David and Moses as coming from the Holy Spirit and God.
* 1 Thessalonians 2:13 - Paul refers to his oral proclamation of the gospel as the word of God.
* 1 Corinthians 14:36-37 - Paul says that he is writing the Lord’s command.
* 2 Timothy 3:16-17 - the classic statement on Scripture’s “God-breathed” origin.
* Various passages in Hebrews in which the OT is quoted as the word of God the Father (1:6, quoting Deut. 32:43); God the Son (2:11-12, quoting Ps. 22:22); and God the Spirit (3:7; 10:16).
* 2 Peter 1:20-21 - Peter says that the prophets of the OT were carried along, or forcefully moved, by the Spirit.

One of the most important points Witherington makes in this initial chapter is that “we are not given an explanation of how inspiration works…Rather, whatever the process, the product is God’s word, telling God’s truth” (p. 10).

Chapter 2 discusses the how of inspiration. Just exactly what do we learn from the Bible about the process of inspiration.

Witherington warns against the “mechanical dictation” theory as a model of how all inspired texts were created. The Bible teaches that some of the authors investigated sources (Ezra 7:11-26; see also Luke 1:1-4). “It would be better to suggest that perhaps God providentially guided the biblical author to choose material which, while not originally part of the inspired text, nevertheless was true” (p. 18).

Witherington also goes into a detailed discussion of 2 Peter 1:20-21, particularly regarding the “interpretation” clause of verse 20 means. I agree with his conclusion that it refers to the prophet’s own interpretation of events. Prophecy did not derive from man’s interpretation of events, but God’s objective truth.

Chapter 3 consists of an extended dialogue with a recent book by Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation. Enns’ basic argument begins with the premise that God accomodated His word to human beings and through human beings. He then builds on this premise to argue that God may have allowed the writers to say things that may not actually be true, but which communicated an important message to the original readers of the Bible.

Like Witherington, I have no problem accepting that concept of accomodation. For an infinite God to speak to finite man, accomodation is necessary. I don’t even have a problem with the biblical writers using language which we now know is not scientifically accurate (such as a geocentric language). To me this does not deny the truthfulness of the Bible anymore than a weatherman’s forecast of the time of tomorrow’s “sunrise” disqualifies him as a meterologist. The Bible was written in popular language.

However, like Witherington I am also alarmed that Enns is willing to discount so much of the biblical text as ahistorical. I once heard Enns speak at an acaemic conference in which he suggested that the narrative of Moses’ birth was not historical, but was an accomodation of typical heroic birth stories for the Israelite audience. It is one thing to say that we should not judge biblical language by modern standards of scientific or historical accuracy. “But these texts should be judged on the basis of ancient standards of historical inquiry and truth telling” (p. 38).

Another of Enn’s proposals that troubles Witherington (and me) is that the NT writers often interpreted OT texts in a manner that did not try to remain consistent with the original itent of the OT authors. While the NT is clear that sometimes the prophets of the OT spoke about subjects that were beyond their comprehension (1 Peter 1:10-12), I do not believe that the NT writers used the OT in such a haphazard fashion. Quite often the NT writers appeal to the larger contexts of the specific passages they cite. They also use typology, applying OT texts to Jesus as the fulfillment of Israel’s purpose (such as Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1 in Matt. 2:15).

Witherington’s most important critique of Enns is that so often his book comes across as “a plea to become agnostic about the importance of the historical substance of the text” (p. 48). And as you will see throughout this series on his own work, Witherington is very forthright in stating what he believes about the truthfulness of the biblical text.

Just as we use different reading strategies when looking at comic strips as opposed to the editorial page, we must also use different strategies for reading the different styles of writing found in Scripture. The matter of literary sensitivity to the different genres found in the Bible is the subject of Witherington’s fourth chapter in The Living Word of God.

Since Witherington is a NT scholar, he focuses on the various genres of the NT: ancient biographies (Matthew, Mark, John); ancient historiographies (Luke-Acts); epistles; homilies (recorded sermons, such as Hebrews); and apocalyptic (Revelation). The key point Witherington makes in this chapter is that we must judge the truth claims of these documents in light of the ancient standards those genres were held to, rather than to our “modern” notions of what biography or history should look like.

Witherington observes that ancient biographers did not intend their works to be comprehensive; they did not always follow a strictly chronological formula; they had a great deal of latitude in terms of summarizing speeches; and they often organized their biographies on a topical rather than chronological basis. In this light the gospels “conform to ancient standards of truth telling, historical reporting, and biographical writing. As such they stand up quite well when compared, say, to Plutarch…” (p. 60).

Regarding the epistles and homilies, while Witherington acknowledges the essentially ad hoc nature of these documents, he also points out that Paul equated the authority of his written word with his oral proclamation (1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Cor. 14:36-37), and that the early Christians by the time of Second Peter were already collecting and circulating his letters (2 Peter 3:16-17). Further, Witherington points out that “scholars seem to make the mistake of assuming that because something is an ad hoc document, it can only be relevant or binding on one particular audience” (p. 63).

Witherington also demolishes the irresponsible way dispensationalists use the Book of Revelation (for more of his critique of dispensationalism, check out The Problem with Evangelical Theology).

As I said in my original post on this book, there are some specific points of doctrine that I disagree with Witherington on, but his overall emphasis in this chapter on properly interpreting the text according to its genre is a must-read. And I absolutely agree with his conclusion that the Bible, properly interpreted, tells the truth!

The 5th chapter addresses common problems critics raise against the truthfulness of the New Testament. He begins by dealing with problems of a historical nature (the naming of “Abiathar” as priest in Mark 2:25-26; the differences in the birth narratives of Jesus; the census of Quirinius in LUke 2:1-4). Next, he turns to the issues raised by Bart Erhman’s Misquoting Jesus, centering on textual criticism. Finally, Witherington deals with the challenge of the household codes in the NT (Ephesians 5:22-6:9 and Colossians 3:18-4:21 especially).

Aside from Witherington’s commitment to an egalitarian view of male-female roles in the church, I think this chapter contains excellent responses, and even more importantly, an excellent model of methodology as to how to deal with such questions. And even though I disagree with him on the specific point of male leadership in the church, I completely agree with his analysis of how to interpret these codes - “The question one needs to ask about this material is threefold: How does it compare to the standard advice given in the culture about household relationships? Where is this advice heading? What would the social situation look like if all ethical advice given in and around these codes was followed faithfully?” (p. 104).

Many critics of Scripture love to latch on to passages addressing slaves and masters as evidence of a defective ethical standard in the Bible. Often, this is done with the assumption that all aspects of the American slave experience were true of slavery in the ancient world. This is clearly not the case. (As a simple illustration, some people in the NT world actually chose to be slaves- see Daniel B. Wallace’s article). Further, the way the NT instructs masters to treat their slaves is much different than, for example, the counsel of Aristotle, who thought it was absurd to imagine that anything a master did to a slave could be considered unjust. As Witherington summarizes: “Paul has not baptized the existing structures of society and simply called them good. To the contrary, he has called them to account” (p. 110).

Chapter Six addresses three separate issues: 1) further thoughts on whether there are mistakes in the Bible
2) the formation of the canon
3) a brief history of the English Bible

Regarding mistakes in the Bible, Witherington outlines several considerations that must be taken into account to fairly judge the truthfulness of the text, such as:

* recognizing that the authors of the Bible often gave generalized reports of speeches or actions rather than precise reports, as was the custom of the day
* ancient writers had the freedom to arrange, edit, and paraphrase what someone said or did
* a true contradiction must violate the law of non-contradiction, so if one gospel mentions one angel and another gospel mentions two angels, that is not a contradiction (it would be if a gospel said “one and only one”)

His conclusion: “Taking into account all contextual issues and all conventions that I know of that were operative in the day and time of the NT writers, I have yet to find a single example of a clear violation of the principle of non-contradiction anywhere in the NT” (p. 117).

Witherington’s comments regarding the canon are superb. He is absolutely that it is not true to say that “the church chose and formed the canon…No, the church recognized that these books told the apostolic truth, they spoke the word of God, and so they wished to preserve them in a collection” (p. 118). He also demonstrates that the popular notion that the canon was not finalized until many centuries after Christ is untrue. There was widespread consensus about the vast majority of the books of the NT very early on, without any kind of coercive ecclesiastical power.

The final part of this chapter is a very brief but well written summary of the history of the English Bible. It is amazing that just a few centuries ago men risked (and lost) their lives just by translating the Bible into English, and Witherington’s summary will make you feel even more respect for men like Tyndale who helped make this happen.

I will not say much about chapter seven, which focuses on translations. He does a fine job explaining the difficulty of translating one language into another in a way that is both faithful to the original language while understandable in the new language. He also deals with the issue of gender-inclusivity. While Witherington is an egalitarian on gender issues, I did not find his comments objectionable.

I will conclude with his final point in this chapter. There are many places in the world where the Bible is not available in the language or dialect of the native population. I want to urge all Christian parents to consider the value of making sure their children learn a second language, especially one where the gospel is not yet known.

Chapter 8 is an excellent summary of basic principles of biblical interpretation (hermeneutics). It begins with a list of basic “rules of the road” of biblical interpretation:

1. Sola Scriptura (pp 152-153). This principle says that the Bible alone is the final authority over the church. As such, no non-biblical tradition is immune to revision or critique. Further, this sets up a suspicion about pneumatic claims (”the Spirit told me…”).
2. Scripture is its best interpreter (pp 154-156). One of the subjects Witherington addresses in this section is the relationship between the Old and New Covenants, presenting what I believe to be the correct position that the Law is not binding on Christians, and that only those portions of the law “which are explicitly reaffirmed in the NT are binding on Christians.”
3. The Analogy of Faith (p 156). This principle suggests that there is a basic theme in Scripture (redemption), and that Scripture must be interpreted in a manner consistent with this theme.
4. Sensus Literalis vs Sensus Plenior (pp 156-158). This principle holds that the authors of the Bible may have said more than they themselves understood (as Peter says in 1 Peter 1:10-12).
5. Prediction vs Fulfillment (pp 158-160). This is a very insightful section. Witherington makes a great point that fulfillment is a much larger category than prediction. In other words, some of the fulfillment recorded in the NT is the fulfillment of types rather than predictions (the classic illustration is Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2).
6. A Quadrilateral of Authorities (pp 160-162). Though Witherington does not mention it, the four-fold view of authority is a common view held by adherents to Wesley’s theology (such as Methodists). The four legs of authority are Scripture, reason, tradition, and experience. Witherington has no problem critiquing the view of his own tradition: “But in no case and on no occasion should reason, tradition, or experience be seen as a higher authority than Scripture by which Scripture could be trumped on some issue that Scripture directly addresses” (his emphasis).

The second part of this great chapter (pp 162-170) deals with applying the word, particularly the issue of when to bind the examples of the Bible on modern practice. His solution: “My suggestion would be that one looks for positive repeated patterns in the text.”

Once again I am impressed with the thoughtful conservativism Witherington expresses.

The final chapter addresses the challenge of postmodernism to biblical interpretation. As Witherington succinctly observes, “At the heart of postmodernity is a protest against the whole concept of truth” (p. 172). This must be contested on several levels.

First, there is the “relativist paradox” (p 172) - the insistence on the truth that there is no truth! Second, postmodernism naturally leads to “skepticism about the ability to know the world or reality outside our own heads” (p 173). And third, from a Christian standpoint, it is hard to swallow postmodernism in light of the Bible’s message that “God’s revelation is able to penetrate the human cloud of unknowing” (p 174).

Witherington concludes the chapter by discussing the principles of interpretation suggested in The Art of Reading Scripture, a collection of articles by scholars from a moderate to liberal view of Scripture. The positives of this anthology are that it takes interpretation seriously, and that it does not fixate on critical issues of source and redaction criticism. However, the authors for the most part do not come to the Bible with a high view of its inspiration. And thus the meaning of Scripture must be adduced in the community of faith (that is, the “church” is the privileged institution of interpretation). The problem with this view, as Witherington makes clear, is that “the Bible is in the first instance God’s book, not the church’s book” (p 183).

In his conclusion, Witherington suggests that there are some facets of postmodernism which may be good news. “The postmodern age likes mystery, awe, wonder, and beauty, even if it does not know that these things are but vehicles and garments of God’s revelation, God’s truth. The general ignorance of the dead dogmas of the past or the exegetical missteps of previous generations of Bible interpreters is a good thing, not a bad one. And postmoderns love a good story” (p 193). But at the same time he issues a warning for those who are accepting the foundations of postmodern thinking. “My advice to those dabbling with postmodern hermeneutics or philosophy or ways of looking at the world is simply this: don’t sell your birthright for a mess of pottage” (p 194).

"Speak Where the Bible Speaks" - A New Look at Old Questions (Part 1)

Introduction
This week I passed a personal milestone in my life - I hit 20 years of fulltime ministry in the word. I realize there are many of you who preached longer than I have been alive and probably think I am still a little wet behind the years with only two decades under my belt!

But I tend to be a nostalgic person, so this week I thought a little bit about how much things have changed since I started full time work. I bought my first computer that same summer, and vividly remember the guy at the shop telling me that I would never need anything bigger than a 20 MB hard drive! The internet was non-existent, and now I can’t imagine doing research without it. There was no such thing as powerpoint – I thought using colored pens to make transparencies was high tech!

Anyone who has preached for any length of time will also tell you that the most embarrassing thing you can do is go back and look at some of your old lessons (or worse, to listen to them!). I just cringe when I think about some of the lessons I preached in those early days, and I am thankful that God has granted me time to grow and learn and mature, though I have a ways to go.

There are some things I just got flat wrong; and in some lessons I made the right point but used really flimsy arguments to bolster it; and of course there are some lessons I preached then I could still preach word for word today.

That kind of self-awareness and reevaluation is a crucial component of growth. More than that, it is a command from God-

2 Cor. 13:5 Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves.

I have lots of friends, particularly among my former students, who have been testing what they believe, and they are troubled. I realize of course that I am painting with a broad brush, but I think I have seen enough evidence of this on websites and blogs and in personal conversations that it is fair to say there is a serious re-evaluation going on among many Christians my age and younger, on key issues such as:

-is the Bible alone the basis of authority?
-is the model of establishing authority by command, example, and inference legitimate?
-is the exclusion of instruments from worship in the church a biblical matter or just a “church-of-Christ” tradition?
-is the emphasis on baptism as the time of conversion really as significant as we make it?
-isn’t the “church of Christ” really just a denomination?

I think these are good questions, questions that should be asked, and that we need to think through these issues, and that it would be just as foolish not to revisit these subjects as it would be for a guy who’s been preaching 20 years never to rethink and revise what he believes.

So let’s begin with the most basic issue of all. The phrase I heard more than any other growing up was that we should “speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent.” It wasn’t until much later in life that I heard the phrase sola scriptura, which is Latin for “scripture only,” and was one of the cardinal rallying cries of the Protestant Reformation. Both of these slogans have the same meaning: the Bible and the Bible alone is the standard for Christian faith and practice, that we should satisfy ourselves with doing only what can be found in God’s word.

But of course, neither of those phrases is found verbatim in Scripture. Does that mean the concept of sola scriptura is unbiblical?

The Biblical Basis of Sola Scriptura

I often heard the preacher in my hometown quote a phrase from 1 Peter 4:11 as proof of speaking where the Bible speaks and being silent where the Bible is silent – “if any man speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God.” But I never really actually turned to the passage to see it in context, so let’s take a look at where that phrase comes from.

1 Peter 4:10 As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace: 11 whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies—in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

The context of “speak as the oracles of God” is stewardship, as verse 10 makes explicit. We should use whatever gift God has given us as a matter of stewardship, of making the best use of the talents he has given us. And then the end of verse 11 gives us the ultimate objective of this wise stewardship – the glory of God. “In order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ.” So this is a passage bracketed by God-centeredness. It begins with God’s gifts and ends with God’s glory.

And sandwiched in between are two specific gifts that should be used for God’s glory, serving and speaking. And each of those gifts is to be exercised with God’s power. The one who serves “serves by the strength that God supplies,” and the one who speaks, “speaks oracles of God.”

We don’t use a word like “oracles” very much today, so I looked up how other translations render this phrase.

-The NIV says, “If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God.”
-The NCV says, “Anyone who speaks should speak words from God.”
-The CEV, “If you have the gift of speaking, preach God's message.”

So what Peter is saying is that just as the one who serves does so by the strength God provides, the one who speaks do so by the word God supplies, so that God will be glorified.

In other words, speak as God has given you the message of Scripture to speak, speak as the Bible speaks!

And if you only speak what is God’s word, so that only God gets the glory, then by definition you must not speak your own word. You must “be silent where the Bible is silent.”

Now I suppose that someone could object and say that Peter is talking about actual preaching, and that it would be unfair to use 1 Peter 4:11 to prove Scripture alone is our rule of faith and practice. So let’s look at another text which I think does speak directly to this issue.

2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

I love the way the ESV translates the first part of this passage – “all Scripture is breathed out by God.” That is a very literal translation of what the Greek word means. Just as when you speak you must breathe out, when God speaks, He breathes out, and the result is Scripture. So as the word of God Scripture is authoritative. And according to verse 17 it is sufficient. It equips the man of God with what he needs for “every good work” so that he is capable, competent, and complete.

And that in a nutshell is what the concept of sola scriptura, or speaking where the Bible speaks and being silent where the Bible is silent, is all about.

This does not mean…

• We will instantly understand everything in the Bible perfectly. There are many difficult subjects in the Bible, and we need to apply ourselves in study and meditation.

• We do not need to be taught by others. We need instruction from others, and an benefit from that, but it does mean that we must always compare that teaching to the final standard of authority, Scripture.

Another way to put the issue is this: the Bible plus nothing.


The Bible Plus…

But not everyone agrees with this. They believe that this is too simplistic, or that leaving each person to decide for themselves what the truth using Scripture alone is destined to cause chaos and endless division.

So if the answer is not the Bible plus nothing, then what’s the solution? And for many people, that solution is the Bible plus “Tradition.” Let me give you two illustrations of what I mean by “tradition.”

First, in Roman Catholic teaching. I want to be very clear: I have great respect for many of the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church. Its commitment to life for the unborn, its strong stand against homosexuality and feminism in the face of tremendous public pressure. Further, there are many Catholics whose personal prayer life puts mine to shame. So please understand that the criticisms that follow are not just a wholesale dismissal of anything Catholic. But there is a reason I am not a Catholic, and the primary reason is the issue of authority.

In Roman Catholicism theology, authority consists of the Bible plus tradition, a tradition that developed through what is sometimes called apostolic succession, meaning that the apostles picked men to be their successors and wield their authority. The Catechism says this:

880 When Christ instituted the Twelve, "he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them." Just as "by the Lord's institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another."

Down through the centuries these successors to the apostles handed down traditions which are authoritative though not found in the Bible.

Further, in Catholic teaching, the Pope and the bishops form an infallible teaching authority, called the Magisterium:

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office.... The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.

So then in Catholicism it is the Bible plus two other things, Tradition and the teaching authority of the church:

95 "It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls."

This is why Roman Catholic theology contains so many doctrines that are not found in Scripture, like the Immaculate Conception, or the Bodily Assumption of Mary. It’s because Scripture isn’t their only source of authority.

I have heard of a few Christians who have decided the answer is the Bible plus something, but who have turned instead to the Orthodox Church. In 1054 there was a split (called the “Great Schism”) between what we now would call Catholicism and Orthodoxy over a variety of issues. There are many differences between the Orthodox and Catholics, but both agree that the Bible alone is not sufficient. As the Orthodox Church of America website explains:

The result also was the teaching of apostolic succession in the Church, the doctrine that the genuine faith and life of Christianity is passed over from church to church, from generation to generation and from place to place, through the succession of the Holy Tradition of the Church in the consecration of bishops, whose teachings and practice is identical to each other and to that of the apostles of Jesus.

The Orthodox believe in apostolic succession just as Catholics, though they do not accept the primacy of Rome or have one supreme head.

The Orthodox also believe in Tradition as an element of authority:

Among the elements which make up the Holy Tradition of the Church, the Bible holds the first place. Next comes the Church's liturgical life and its prayer, then its dogmatic decisions and the acts of its approved churchly councils, the writings of the church fathers, the lives of the saints, the canon laws, and finally the iconographic tradition together with the other inspired forms of creative artistic expression such as music and architecture.

To be fair, Orthodoxy at least acknowledges that the Bible should have preeminence. And yet the Orthodox Church claims to be the only legitimate source of interpreting the Bible-

It is only within the living Tradition of the Church under the direct inspiration of Christ's Spirit that the proper interpretation of the Bible can be made.

Now if you just read the NT you would never find reference to apostolic succession in the sense that Catholicism and Orthodoxy practice. There were men the apostles trained to carry on the work of the gospel (like Paul’s relationship with Timothy and Titus). But that is a far cry from the assertion that the apostles intended for there to be an unbroken chain of successors acting as if they had the same authority as the apostles. So where did this idea come from?

Most historians point to a time in early church history when believers were dealing with heretics who claimed that the apostles passed on secret knowledge to them that was not found in their writings. One early believer named Irenaeus (AD 120-202) responded to these heretics by saying that he knew specific men who had been appointed by the apostles and their successors down to his own day, and that they could verify that the apostles never passed on the strange teaching of the heretics.

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. (Against Heresies III.I.I)

It is one thing of course to say that you could list the men who from the time of the apostles had served as overseers. But it is a broad jump of Olympian proportions to move from that to say as Catholics do that the Pope and his bishops in the Magisterium are unable to make mistakes! Or that as the Orthodox claim, it is only possible to interpret the Bible properly under the living tradition of the Orthodox Church.


A Response to the Bible Plus Tradition

The problem with any view of authority which looks to the Bible plus something else is that it runs counter to what Jesus Himself taught. For instance, look at this exchange that took place between an expert in the Law and Jesus.

Luke 10:25 And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" 26 He said to him, "What is written in the Law? How do you read it?" 27 And he answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself." 28 And he said to him, "You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live."

This is the setup to the parable of the Good Samaritan. But notice what Jesus says to the lawyer when he asked what to do to inherit eternal life: what is written in the law, and how do you read it? That is the concept of sola scripture in a nutshell – Jesus appeals to the Bible alone – “what is written in the law” – and infers that it was possible to read the Law and understand it. In fact, how many times does Jesus say something like “what is in the Law,” or “have you not read,” or “you do err not knowing the Scriptures or the power of God.”

In fact, Jesus specifically rebuked the Pharisees in Matthew 15 for confusing their traditions with God’s written word.

3 He answered them, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.' 5 But you say, 'If anyone tells his father or his mother, "What you would have gained from me is given to God," 6 he need not honor his father.' So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. 7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:
8 "'This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
9 in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'"

Perhaps someone would argue that this applies only to traditions that come from man, but that the traditions of apostolic succession are a different matter. Well, let’s take a look at one more passage – Paul’s farewell speech to the elders of Ephesus in Acts 20.

Acts 20:28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. 29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish everyone with tears. 32 And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.

Paul is concerned because this is the last time he is going to see these men, and he knows that trouble is ahead. That “fierce wolves” are going to infiltrate the flock and threaten it.

Think about this with me. If in fact we are to believe that in each church the apostles bequeathed authority to an official successor, then wouldn’t it have made sense for Paul in this final speech to these men to mention that? To point out who it is they were to listen to and follow? Who it was who was going to have the mantle of apostolic authority? After all, he spent more time there in Ephesus than anywhere else he preached.

But that is not at all what he does! In fact, he says that “from among your own selves” heretics would emerge, twisting the truth.

So there was no apostolic succession in the sense that some teach. But there was hope. And that hope was in God, and His word. “And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace.” The solution was not to look for authority invested in a person, but the authority invested in the word of God, out of loyalty to God!

And after all, that is what speaking where the Bible speaks is all about. We speak the message of God so that He is glorified, and it was to God and His word that Paul pointed the Ephesian elders.

Conclusion
Since I would suspect most of us here today are in agreement on this issue, I thought I would caution us abut subtle ways we can fall into the same traps others have.

1) First we must make sure we don’t trade the single Pope of Catholicism for hundreds of little popes, preachers who try to wield authority and influence beyond what the Bible teaches. Or members like Diotrephes in 3 John who are dictators who must always get their way.

2) Second, we must make sure that we do not allow what we have always done or heard to be elevated to the status of Scripture. You ever heard the expression, “If it’s true it’s not new, and if it’s new it’s not true.” I think I understand what is meant by that – if something doesn’t line up with the ancient faith of Scripture it is not true. But so many times what that becomes is, If I have never heard this before it can’t be true. I think I may have told you about a sermon I preached in another place years ago, and a lady walked out afterwards and said, “I’ve never heard that before.” That night she came back and said, “I read through over a hundred church bulletins and never read you said today.” First of all I was stunned that anyone would have a hundred bulletins lying around; but second, for her the issue was not the merits of the biblical evidence, but what had she always heard. That kind of thinking is absolute poison to the pursuit of truth!

3) And finally, it doesn’t do a whole lot of good to say that we believe the Bible is the only standard of faith and practice if we don’t do what it says. James 1:22 says, “But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.” Saying we follow only the Bible while ignoring what it says to do is the epitome of self-deception. Be doers of the word.