ON AUTHORITY

Now, you say, “However, doesn't this mean that we cannot just just take biblical commands as being authoritative JUST BECAUSE a certain person says them?”

I think you are right on this FIRST point (and I will explain why), but I would not agree with you on your second point which was to say that Jesus’ view on sexuality was Jesus giving his OWN HUMAN opinion.

First, there are different senses of authority in scripture and notions of authority apply to situations in which decisions are made, instructions are given or actions are being evaluated.  For example, there is Joshua who has authority with a view to people obeying him Num 27:20.  With Shebna, but the authority destined to be given to another Is 22:21.  There is Esther and Mordecai in enjoining the observance of Purim Esth 9:29.  The Gospels refer to authority that Jesus exercises in teaching on human behavior in the Sermon on the Mount Matt 7:29, expelling Spirits Mark 1:27, forgiving sins Mark 2:10, authority possessed by a centurion and his superiors Matt 8:9 and by other secular powers Lu 20:20.

Now, authority can be INTRINSIC TO THE PERSON, something that others will ACKKNOWLEDGE on the basis of their own recognition of the person and his or her words.  But this will not be done because they are REQUIRED TO BY EXTERNAL OR INSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINT.  And we can see this in Matt 7:29

Authority can be EXTRINSIC coming from or deriving from his or her office.  We bow to what is said even though we don’t see any intrinsic good reason for what is said.  And we see this sort of thing a lot in church liturgy as well as in Matt 8:9 in which the centurion expects for his subordinates to obey UNQUESTIONABLY.

Now, the word canon is used in different ways.  And although it is not used about scripture WITHIN scripture it would suggest that when applied to scripture is that it can be used both PROSPECTIVELY AND RETROSPECTIVELY.  That is, prospectively speaking, scripture lays down the nature of Christian discipleship and retrospectively scripture TESTS whether that is being lived up to.  And so, what this means is that scripture can be a “light to our feet” as both a believing community and as individuals.  As authority, though the word is not used in scripture of scripture though clearly scripture does show a concern for declaring what God’s authority requires of us.

Now, let’s look at something here.  Psalms 119 is the passage with scripture that expresses most systematically as A SET OF ATTITUDES to those words of God that take the form of authoritative canons for behavior—laws, precepts, statutes, decrees, commands, judgments, etc.

Now when we are given instructions, this sometimes looks like legalism to many Christians, but to the Jewish way of thinking a command is a GIFT.  Humanity is more fully human when it heeds the command and it is less human when it seeks freedom from that word.  God’s will in proclamation over Israel is not an act of BONDAGE, but rather an act of BINDING.  Israel’s election is put into effect through God’s word.  In this Psalm we have the metaphysical gap between God and man that is crossed from both sides.  That is, God’s command confronts people and people pray in RESPONSE.

Now when in the Second Temple period God’s people saw little of God’s activity, they focused more on the Torah in which God had reached out to them and which was their means of reaching out to the God of promise and exodus  WITHOUT THIS MEANING THAT COVENANT-THINKING AND COVENANT-MAKING CEASED.

While we could express this Psalm as being legalistic, what it means is that when we are clear on God reaching out to us we can focus on the appropriate response to God that we build on that foundation.  It isn’t just about acts of great redemption that God did in the past but to acts of grace that God is doing and that we can expect for him to do in the future.  What this Psalm says is that there is no tension between God who commands and God who blesses.  The Psalm is not concerned only with outward acts, it is also concerned with joy, wonder and awe such that Jewish spirituality would could say, “Torah-life is joyful…Torah living is a joyful enterprise” which basically meant that the more commands there were the more joy there was for living.  It is not so much that Torah meant REPLACING GOD, rather people RELATED to God by relating to the Torah.   Attentiveness, trust, homage intimacy and belief are terms expressed TO GOD are also expressed in this Psalm to the attitude of towards the Torah.

What this means is that our following God’s will can be joyful and (awe)ful but it can also be costly.  Which is to say that much of the commands GO AGAINST the modern culture and contemporary world.  This is one of the reasons why the believing community will delude itself regarding to what extent it must keep God’s authoritative command, however, though it is capable of doing so?  It commits itself to keeping God’s authoritative command.

Now, at this point, I know you are probably thinking to yourself, “But Brother Brandon, that doesn’t respond to my question.  How do we keep God’s command when we don’t know WHAT that command is?  How is the Bible authoritative for gender relations?”

Well, I’m getting to that.  See, the spiel above is an important precursor for what I’m about to say.

Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness will establish whether he will put the same commitment to “God’s Word” into effect.  But what does Jesus do?  He responds to each temptation by saying, “It is written…”  “It is written” is basically, “It is written and that settles it.”  This occurs in Hebrew narrative to indicate or urge compliance with regulations in the Torah or to REGRET noncompliance with them i.e. Josh 8:31, 1 Kings 2:3;2 2 Chron 23:18 30:5 Ezra 3:2, 4 Neh 8:15

What is Jesus doing here?  He is taking his stand from Deut 5-11 that describes the basic attitudes God expected of Israel as it keeps its side of the covenant relationship.  Jesus PRESUPPOSES THAT HIS LIFE IS TO BE SHAPED BY THESE IMPERATIVES EXPRESSED IN THE AUTHORITATIVE CANONS GIVEN TO ISRAEL.  One could imply that the ONE TRUE ISRAELITE takes seriously the set of principles for life given in the wilderness but NEVER PROPERLY OBSERVED by them.  Jesus knows the scriptures and he makes them his measuring line by which to live his life.  His insight into the scriptures makes it such that he is enabled to identify at each point a passage that goes to the root of the questionable attitude to God that the three suggestions involve.

Jesus is able to discern between that which is “use” and that which is “abuse” of scripture.  Satan is able to appeal to scripture like Jesus (he too has a working knowledge of the scriptures).  Which is to say that FORMAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT of authority is no indicator for SUBSTANTIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT of it.  Which is to say that a variety of theologians i.e. feminist and South African black theology admit that the Bible has been used as a tool of oppression by those who accept it’s authority but who only use it in their own favor.  scripture in this case is the supreme religious symbol and is not actually preached or read—so don’t accuse Catholics for this kind of thing.

And just as for Jesus, scripture has an objective given ness OVER and against us and at least in theory has the capacity to protect us from ourselves.  But the thing is, it can only offer us the POSSIBILITY of escape from our false matrixes or limitations from our present convictions.  It cannot stop us from self-deception if we are set on it. 

The devil’s interpretation was Christ-centered, but even here, there is room for abuse.   Maybe he should have been more God-centered as this Jesus responds to him at every point that expresses a pivotal feature of our relationship WITH GOD.

So we are to submit to God’s word, worship his name, and trust in God’s promises rather than putting God to the test.  What Jesus does here is sets the clear, direct demand of a fundamental passage in Deuteronomy against the devil’s christiological REAPPLICATION of another passage to a particular set of circumstances.

What this means is for us, the believing community for discerning the difference between the use and abuse of scripture (which it is VERY POSSIBLE to see the gender relations debate being, we don’t have to think of abuse as being outright distortion or twisting of scripture) is to test possible applications of scripture by direct assertions of scripture elsewhere.  Hence, the NEED for a broad knowledge of scripture because of the devil’s misuse of it i.e. examples cited above.

In part, the devil had, to some extent a plausible interpretation because IT WAS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT.  Psalm 91 promises protection to those who dwell in God.  This is, according to some scholars like a royal psalm promising protection to the king in particular and is thus understood messianically in the Second Temple Period.  Hence, the devil is wanting Jesus to prove that what the psalm says about the coming king it says about him. But the devil’s interpretation GOES wrong (there is a hint of truth in it).  He abuses the text toward Jesus because he has abused it exegetically.  If anything this goes to show that we need not only a broad knowledge of the scriptures but we must also take care that we interpret it (not correctly) but in a way that is faithful to it’s assertions.

Jesus was a “law-abiding Jew.”  But his controversial stance on some issues were within the parameter of first-century Judaism.  And though he was prepared to be independent and creative, he did not cast the scriptures aside.  As Bultmann said, “Jesus agreed always with the scribes of his time in accepting without question THE AUTHORITY OF THE (OLD TESTAMENT) LAW.”  Christ expected new depths and built his own teachings on the foundation of the Hebrew scriptures ASSUMING THAT THEY SPOKE WITH AUTHORITY.  The were not God’s LAST word (But I say unto you…”) but they were his FIRST word.  And so Jesus put himself under the authority of the scriptures and so put himself under God.

A Biblical Approach To Authority

So, what are we to say then concerning authority for us.  Authority and canon are not directly applied to scripture, but scripture is familiar with them.  This may mean that the Bible does not “stand on its own authority.”  While it does at times give commands without reasons (such that “It is written…” is use in this way to denote that scripture is the binding command of God”), it normally gives reasons for the actions it expects. 

But scripture is more “unauthoritarian” then people think.  It could be said that scripture reflects the character of God who is not to be found in the “centers of power—in canon, in hierarchy, in group ascendancy—but in powerlessness, not in self-assertion but in anonymity, not in grasping but in emptying.”  God is not interested in controlling people as in giving them freedom and this aspect seems to be reflected in The Book itself.

Some scholars say that there is a little grounds for recognizing the Torah as being INHERENTLY LEGALISTIC.  But when we conceptualize scripture as an AUTHORITATIVE CANON we are but a step away from making it a code that kills, 2 Cor 3:6.  James Barr in his book on Fundamentalism has said that according to Romans 7, “a body of instruction and commandment in written form which comes from God and is expressly ‘holy and just and good’ may nevertheless provide an opportunity and incitement for evil.”  And if that is true of the Torah (of which Romans 7 would refer to) it would presumably be true of scriptURE AS AUTHORITATIVE CANON as a whole.

Jesus speaks and acts with an authority that he possesses despite his lack of rabbinic credentials Mark 11:27-33 and that he manifests when he is speaking of his own authority and not when he is speaking of the scriptures.  There is a originality and freedom and freshness.  There is also something COMPELLING about them.   Occasionally, Jesus will appeal to his authority (Matt 28:18), but the kind of authority that he has is also reflected in the fact that he uses logic and appeals to reason in his teaching.  He does not simply lay down the law.  How authoritarian is that?  It isn’t the kind of authority we think of when we think of authority.

Jesus use of parable is such that he begins from what can be learned from the world that he and his audience share.  He then looks for the response, “Yes that’s true isn’t it? Never saw it that way before, but I see it now that he puts it that way.”  The controversy stories in Mark 2-3 put talk about this.  Jesus is prepared to speak with authority of the Son of Man and of scripture but in EACH OF THESE HE IS URGES PEOPLE TO THINK THINGS OUT FOR THEMSELVES.  The Sermon on the Mount is the same thing.  Here he is talking about behavior.  But here he is going to appeal to reason like any moral teacher while at the same time challenging the normal conventions and attitudes of social life with the radical claim of the reasonableness of another style of behavior.  As I said to Tom in a little MSN convo, Jesus is more like, “This is how I see it, what do you think?  Do you see it too?”  This hardly sounds like the authority we are used to.

Paul may stand on his own authority more often than Jesus especially if he is in a corner and nothing else works 1 Cor 11 and 14:13.  When he has no clear directive from the Lord—no word from the earthly Jesus and no direct revelation from the Heavenly Jesus—he expects his words to be treated with authority, though he may expect them to carry less force 1 Cor 7:12, 25, 40, which is to say that though most scholars assume that a command from the Lord and the judgments of a “trustworthy” person or one who has the Spirit of God all have the same level of authority, I would assume that this is not that plausible.  The level of authority may be the same but even referring to the Lord’s word, Paul is not laying down the law but leaving room for believers to come to their own conclusions.

Paul’s authority is NOT HIS, but comes TO HIM.  It is not from HIMSELF, but comes from having been commissioned by Christ, from his relationship to the churches and the embodiment of the gospel of crucifixion and resurrection in his own life 2 Cor 4.  Which is to say that Paul’s talk and the way he transform its significance by relating it to the cross POINT AWAY from TOO SUSPICIOUS an attitude to Paul’s talk of his authority.

There is Christ’s commission and the preaching of the Gospel (from the commissioning).  And it is through this that Paul becomes the “author” or “creator” or father of the churches.  His authority is based in not only that which is historical but comes from the Gospel which is mediated to the churches.  “Gospel” and “apostle” are correlative terms.  The churches share on EQUAL terms WITH him in the gospel and in its authority, but on the same basis.  Paul only continues to exercise authority OVER them when they fail to embody the Gospel and exercise authority for themselves.  But even here, that authority comes from his own sharing in the Gospel rather than from inhering in him.

The Pentateuch works out an authority for canons of behavior most systematically which comes closest to extrinsic and institutional authority.  This may help in understanding it as a whole as Torah which means “teaching” or “direction” in a general kind of way.  It lacks the narrower meaning of “law.”  Israel is expected to be prepared to obey the commands of Torah simply because they are commands.  But when we understand Torah as “law” it suggests legalism.  And legalism is no more characterized in the Israelite faith as than it does in the Christian faith.  Nor does it belong to Torah than it does to Psalm 119.

These commands appear in the context of narrative recalling of God’s relating to Israel’s ancestors, delivering them from oppression in Egypt.  Living in context of relationship with God required obedience.  However it was God’s initiative that established the relationship.  This is the same as it is in Christ.

In the Torah, there are two kinds of commands.  Some are categorical—“You must not steal.”  Others are like case law saying what must be done if crimes are committed.  Upon first observance, the case laws look stronger than the categorical laws because they mention explicit warnings and punishments.  But the categorical ones are the stronger and more authoritative because indicate no punishment because no disobedience is in view.  They are the firmest possible demands and prohibitions.

This would indicate that even they are capable of argument and reasoning.  Which is to say that even the Torah seeks not merely compliance but assent.  When we remove the legalistic connotations from the authoritative canons of the Torah it is easier to see the links between those canons and the authoritative canons of belief and behavior that appear in the teachings of Jesus and Paul.

The Gospels have a narrative form like that of Torah.  Jesus teaching on behavior appears in a narrative context relating what God has done for Israel and for the world.  The same with Paul’s teaching.  It appears in a narrative insofar as it is linked theologically with the Gospel.

Authority has more to do with shaping behavior in all areas of life more than belief.  This is seen in many of the past forefathers, i.e., Wyclif, Erasmus, Anabaptist theology, Puritans.  Even Fundamentalists are concerned with authority in terms of ethical normative ness.   It is concerned and mostly at home with doing what Jesus says and the Father’s will not merely calling him Lord (right belief, confession) Luke 6:46; Matt 7:21.  If we understand Christianity to be primarily about behavior (as we do with Judaism) then we would expect the category authority to be central to it in a parallel way.

If we understand it as primarily a gospel, it becomes a puzzle why the category of authoritative canons has been so important to it.   The category is actually less at home in this context.  This may be why Christians have attributed legalism to the Hebrew Bible and Judaism (which is actually a projection on to them).  Christianity is less comfortable with these categories.