Various passages inform us of the necessity of interpreting the Bible correctly in order to understand its meaning and to apply it correctly. We cannot do the second if we cannot do the first. And the first has to do with the way that we look at Scripture.
In 2 Timothy 2:15 the apostle Paul wrote to a younger gospel preacher, Timothy, “Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth” (ASV). Marshall’s The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament translates the passage, “Be eager thyself approved to present to God, a workman unashamed, cutting straight the word of truth.” The word translated “cutting straight” is “orthotomounta” which is a present participle derived from “orthotomeo” which means, according to Harper’s Greek Lexicon, “to cut straight, to direct aright; to set forth truthfully, without perversion or distortion.” As a preacher, Timothy was under obligation to handle God’s word in such a way that he did not pervert it or distort it. He was to present it as it is, in its truth. Was Timothy the only one under such obligation? Does anyone ever have the right, in teaching and preaching, to present falsehood? Is a perverted gospel as good as a pure one? The reader, if familiar with the New Testament, knows the answer to these questions.
A perverted gospel did not come from God, and it will not save a man (Gal. 1:6-10). If a lie is as good as a truth, then we do not need truth. The lie will do.
Why do Christians leave the truth for a lie? Perhaps there are various reasons. One may lose his love of truth (cf. 2 Thess. 2:10). One may seek to find a way to include within the fold of safety those presently considered lost. A man may desire to extend his spiritual fellowship beyond the bounds that his present understanding of Scripture allows. Perhaps he ceased believing that the truth was the truth (2 Thess. 2:11). After all, how could it be when by it allegedly so few people are ever saved. He perhaps, now finds more joy in an altered gospel than he once did in the pure gospel of Christ (2 Thess. 2:12). Perhaps he surrenders principle to popularity. He had rather change his convictions than have few friends (cf. John 12:42-43). Maybe he is willing to live with a little hypocrisy, still actually believing the pure gospel, but acting otherwise simply that his circle of influence becomes seemingly greater and his area of spiritual fellowship much larger. Perhaps he has lost the courage of convictions so that he will proceed with some caution holding to as many principles as he can and yet ejecting from his mind anything that prevents his having to say that any Christian claimant is not one.
Not long ago I wrote an article entitled “Nothing Is Not Silence.” I proved by Scripture that there is no such thing as a so-called “Silence Of The Scriptures.” I based the article on Hebrews 7:11-14. And when a student carefully analyzes that text, he sees that the writer shows that in order to (1) understand Scripture and then to (2) correctly apply Scripture, he must look at the text and see whether or not something is being taught by (1) direct statement, (2) approved example, or by (3) implication. In fact, he can learn that if Scripture does not teach something in one of these three ways, it does not teach it at all.
But, we have reached a time in the history of the churches of Christ in America when many, I am afraid, are not as informed as they should be on this important matter. And some preachers in our midst are so uninformed with regard to “how the Bible authorizes” anything that they have become a danger to the church because they cannot present to the church the purity of the gospel. All they can now do is to present distortion and perversion. But no man, preacher or non-preacher, can remain a sound (healthy) Christian while at the same time going beyond Bible authority (2 John 9-11).
Some, for whatever reason, now have rejected the position that one comes to know the truth of Scripture and the correct application of Scripture by the route already identified: (1) direct statement, (2) approved example, and (3) implication. Some now reject the view that the very knowledge of Scripture (as to its comprehension and application) hinges exclusively and completely on these three categories of authorization.
A gospel preacher may become confused. He may be just tired of living with the responsibility of having to prove that what he preaches is gospel! He may be tired of the fight between truth and error; he may be weary of the war between the church and the world; he may be thinking that more of the world is actually a part of the church! He may be somewhat spiritually exhausted with constantly feeling the necessity of having to “prove” the accuracy of his doctrinal positions if they are called in question. He cries for relief! There has to be a better way, a way that allows for more inclusion of people within the fold of safety. But this seems to mean that there must be a more “generous” view of looking at Scripture, that is, a way that is not the exclusive pattern of authority alleged by direct statement, approved example, and implication. So, he thinks to himself: I can advance my wishes only by getting rid of that “pattern.”
But he can only correctly (scripturally) get rid of this pattern if it is a merely human construct. That is, if it is only a man’s opinion of how one establishes Bible authority, then he can easily dismiss it, and he should! But he cannot rightly dismiss it as the route to discovery of sacred truth if it is divinely taught as the pattern of establishing Bible authority. And that is exactly what Hebrews 7:11-14 does. (See the above mentioned article, “Nothing Is Not Silence”).
Now, when someone suggests that instead of the direct statement, approved example, and implication approach to knowing Scripture, that we need another “hermeneutic,” he needs to think seriously as to what the nature of this new approach would be. Some years back, some brethren suggested that instead of looking at the Bible as a pattern, we should rather see it is a story or a narrative. But consider:
- T F 1. If the Bible is a narrative, it cannot at the same time be a pattern. [False]
- T F 2. It is impossible for a narrative to reveal within itself a pattern. [False]
- T F 3. One could discover the meaning of Scripture if looked at as narrative without borrowing anything from the “pattern” (direct statement, approved example, implication). [False] Note: This becomes clear when you realize that the narrative necessitates “direct statement” because the alleged narrative is composed of such statements! The narrative is told mostly by direct statements.
It should be clear to us that when one suggests an alternative to the “pattern” approach to Scripture, he cannot do so without having to employ the first route to discovery (i.e. direct statement). So, this suggester of a new way of looking at Scripture is himself still using at least part of the old pattern!
Now, what has our rejecter of the “old hermeneutic” done with regard to the second means of truth discovery? This is the route of discovery we have called “approved example.” What has now become of it in the new suggestion of the narrative approach? Does our friend mean to deny that there is anything in Scripture to be followed or imitated? Surely not! Consider:
- T F 1. There is in the Bible no example whatever to be followed. [False]
- T F 2. Looking at Scripture as non-pattern but rather as narrative makes it clear that there is no human obligation to any example in the narrative. [False]
- T F 3. If Scripture itself by direct statement presents “approved example” to us as a category of truth discovery, then either narration cannot by itself exclude a pattern, or narration itself if it does exclude pattern cannot be the correct way to look at Scripture. [True]
- T F 4. We do have in Scripture direct statements that inform us that “approved example” is a category of authorization. [True] (cf. 1 Peter 2:21; 1 Cor. 4:16; 11:1).
Now, we come to the third category of Bible authorization: implication. If the rejecter of the “pattern” of direct statement, approved example, and implication, really tries to reject “implication,” he cuts himself off from any obligation to the Bible whatever! In other words, when he suggests that the Bible does not authorize by implication, he is at the same time saying, that none of his own religious convictions or alleged divinely acceptable actions have been authorized by Scripture! Now how has he implied this? He implies this by admitting that his name is not found in Scripture, but he yet claims that by Scripture he knows that he needs to believe and do certain things. It is only by implication that the authority of Scripture can reach a man living today in order to obligate him to anything (or make a claim on him). When Paul said to the Athenians that God has commanded all men everywhere to repent, if our new hermeneutic man claims that he must repent, he admits the force or application of implication, because it is only by implication that the obligation connects to him personally. Consider:
- T F 1. Paul in Acts 17 told the Athenians that God commands all sinful men to repent. [True]
- T F 2. Any man living today, if a sinful man, is a man whom God commands to repent. [True]
- T F 3. Any man living today who has committed sin is under obligation to repent. [True]
- T F 4. Our “new hermeneutic” suggester is a man living today under obligation to repent. [True]
Our “new hermeneuticist” only comes under obligation to God through Scripture by implication!
So, why is he so bent on getting rid of the “pattern of authorization” in Hebrews 7:11-14? The fact is, he cannot get rid of it, any more than he cannot get rid of the “laws of thought” if he were to attack them! He would have to use them in order to try to cancel them! Furthermore, if he could get rid of the pattern, he would have nothing that he could rightfully put in its place.
Is it possible that he is, after all, trying to find a way to look at Scripture so that definite answers to our most crucial questions cannot actually be determined? Perhaps he is like the man that Jesus once met who seemingly wanted to know what to do to inherit eternal life. When Jesus gave him a definite answer, he responded by suggesting that the answer was unclear. He said that he could not know the accurate application of the obligation. Luke tells us that this man was trying to justify himself (Luke 10:25-29). Any attack on the pattern of truth discovery revealed in Hebrews 7 is an attempt, whether intentionally or unintentionally, to justify oneself in his ignorance of truth.
Biblical Notes 