Establishing Authority [2]
 

Last week, we considered the matter of establishing authority, particularly noting the two categories in which all commands may be found [generic and specific]. Before we move on, we must have a clear understanding of these two realms of authority, for everything must be understood in its proper place in order to determine what is right and acceptable in the sight of God; this is not just a matter of personal opinion, but a matter of knowing what God has commanded, and what we must do or not do. We cannot arbitrarily dismiss this study as "legalism" either, for the Lord Himself taught and disputed with the religious leaders of His day based on these lines of reasoning. It is in our best interest, spiritually- speaking, to understand how to properly discern the basis of our authority, and how it may be established. Understanding and accepting this, let us now move on to the different ways we may find the will of God revealed to us in the Bible [direct commands or statements, divinely-approved examples, and necessary inferences]. Each one is different, but no less important than another. However God's will is revealed, we are bound by it and will be judged by it (cf. John 12:47, 48) - no matter how much effort must be put forth to properly understand it. All is not just a matter of reading a "Thou shalt not"; sometimes, we must dig a little deeper to properly understand what God would have us do, or to know what is prohibited. Mental laziness will not be an acceptable excuse in the final judgment.
 

Each of these three forms of teaching were used in the New Testament, so it should not be surprising to find that we should learn God's will by properly discovering the teachings He has given us through these means. I am wary of those who are crying for a "new hermeneutic" [method of interpretation of God's word] today, for they seem to want to simply throw out everything that is not a direct command. The only problem with this thinking is, they do not have a direct command that says that is what we must do! Their argument fails at the very beginning! Be careful of those who say we must "re-think" our old ways. Re-thinking is perfectly acceptable if you just want to ensure you are following the truth. But if you want to re-think just to re-think, keep your thoughts to yourself, please!
 

Direct Command or Statement. Commands are the easiest to find, for they are just that: direct commands. For example, in Acts 17:30 we find that God commands all men to repent; in Matt. 28:19-20, Jesus commanded the apostles to "go"; in Eph. 4:32, Paul said we must be forgiving as God in Christ forgave us; and in 1 Pet. 2:13-17, Peter said we must submit to government. Statements by those who hold authority [such as Jesus and the apostles] are also binding, though they do not directly command us. A well-known example is found in Mark 16:16, when Jesus stated that one who believes and is baptized shall be saved. Though He did not [in this particular text] directly command it, the statement has the same force by virtue of who said it.
 

Let us be careful here, however, to make sure we do not take liberties with the commands or statements that have been made. When considering these commands or statements, we must then determine whether it is a specific or generic command, and not bind where God has not bound or loosen where God has not loosened. Men have caused much confusion through the centuries when they have taken direct commands and statements and have tried to either expand its meaning or redefine the meaning altogether. As an example, we understand the need to go out and preach the gospel to every nation, but some have tried to redefine the word "evangelism" to include offerings of food, fun, and entertainment as "methods" of evangelism. While there is no Scripture to be found that would define "evangelism" in this way, this has not stopped men from doing what God did not authorize, and they berate any who oppose such "methods" as being mean-spirited "antis" who want to bind where God has not bound. The fact is, they have loosened where God did not loosen. Don't be fooled! Unless and until one Scripture can be shown to define "evangelism" by offerings of food, fun, and entertainment, we cannot be so presumptuous as to declare it to be approved of God. God did not define it as such, and we have no authority - no right - to arbitrarily change its meaning for our own self-serving purposes.
 

Divinely-Approved Example. For those who herald this "new hermeneutic" and reject anything that is not a direct command, what will they do with Paul's words in Philippians 3:17? In this passage Paul commands that the brethren should follow his example, and others "who so walk." We are commanded to follow examples! Not just any example is binding, though - just those approved by God and shown to be so by the context. Most of the things the apostles did were approved of God [teaching, miracles, etc.] but not all was approved by God [Peter's denial of Jesus, Matt. 26, and his hypocrisy in Antioch, Gal. 2]. Make sure the things they are doing are approved of God before saying it is binding.
 

One important thing we do based on this is the matter of the Lord's Supper. In Acts 20:7, The disciples came together on the first day of the week to break bread [the Lord's Supper]. This is the only place in the New Testament stating when it was done, so we follow this example. In the matter of elders, we find in Acts 14:23 that elders were appointed in every church. This example is the pattern for having elders in every church.

[We are later given the qualifications for those men, 1 Tim. 3.]
 

Necessary Inference. This is one of the most difficult means of establishing authority, but it is not  altogether impossible to establish, however. And, it should be understood that not all inferences are necessary inferences. If a different conclusion could be logically drawn, then it is not a necessary inference. [For example, the matter of where to meet, as we discussed last week.] But Jesus did use necessary inference as a method of teaching, so this type of teaching should not be seen as non-binding. In Matthew 19:1-6, Jesus was asked by the Pharisees, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?" (v. 3) When He responded, He quoted Genesis 2:24 and then said, "So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." (v. 6) Nowhere in Genesis 2:24 does it say anything about not separating, but Jesus saw it necessarily inferred such and taught so.
 

On another occasion, Jesus was asked by the Sadducees [who did not believe in the resurrection] about a woman who had married and her husband died, then married his brother [who then died] and so on, marrying seven times in all. Their question to Him was, "Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her." (Matt. 22:28) Jesus pointed out, first of all, that they were in error, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God (v. 29). Then He reminded them of a statement of God that said He was "the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" and saw that this necessarily inferred "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." (v. 32) What this illustration points out is that the Sadducees tried to infer one conclusion, but they were in error. The right conclusion was what Jesus taught. Be careful as you seek to draw necessary inference from a text; make sure it is not just one of several conclusions that may be drawn. A necessary inference is present only if there can be no other correct conclusion.
 

These means of establishing authority were all used by Jesus and the apostles in the New Testament, and they are legitimate means of establishing authority today. But what about the times when God says nothing?

What do we do when God is silent? We'll answer that next week.

-- Steven Harper