A STUDY OF AUTHORITY IN RELIGION
It is regrettable that many people do not even think about
"authority” in the realm of religion. Perhaps that is why there is so much
disagreement among the religious groups. Even some in the Lord’s church do not
understand the difference between authority and expediency, for unscriptural
practices are defended on the basis of "expediency." However, a thing
must be authorized before the question of its expediency can even be discussed
(see 1 Corinthians 6:12). The word "authority” means, "the power of
rule or government, the power of one whose will and commands must be obeyed by
others" (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 91). The
word "expedient” means, "to be an advantage, profitable"
(Vine's, p. 402). Nothing can be
spiritually profitable, if it is not first authorized.
There are two possible sources of
authority—divine and human [please read Matthew 21:23-27]. The chief priests
and elders asked Jesus, "By what authority doest thou these things? and
who gavest thee this authority?" (v. 23). Not only did they recognize the
need for authority, but they also recognized that authority must come from the
proper source. It was not their question, therefore, but their attitude that
was wrong.
Jesus asked them if the baptism of John was
"from heaven or of men?" (vv. 25,26). They couldn't say "from
heaven" because they would look inconsistent, not having been baptized by
John. But neither could they say, "of men" because they feared the
people. Thus, they answered, "we cannot tell."
Every
religious practice is either "from heaven" or "of men."
Either God authorized it or men took it upon themselves to do it. If it is
"from heaven" the scriptures will furnish us unto it (2 Peter 1:1-3;
2 Timothy 3:16,17). Anything that is not furnished by the scriptures is
"of men" (1 Peter 4:11; 1 Corinthians 4:6).
During the present New Testament age, Jesus
has all authority both in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18-20). Thus,
He is the only one "whose will and commands must be obeyed by
others." Thus, in writing to the church at Colosse, Paul commanded,
"Whatsoever ye do, in word [teaching] or deed [practice], do all in the
name of the Lord Jesus" (Colossians 3:17). To do something "in the
name of Jesus" means to do it "in recognition of His authority."
Hence, we must recognize the authority of the Lord Jesus in everything we teach
and practice! Otherwise, He is not really our Lord. This means that authority
must come from the New Testament, not from the Old Testament (Hebrews 9:15-17;
10:1-9).
One can ill
afford to take it upon himself to do that which the Lord has not authorized.
This is well illustrated in the account of seven Jewish men to whom had not
been given the miraculous ability to cast out evil spirits (Acts 19:11-16). For
this reason, they did not have the authority to demand the demons to leave the
one whom they had possessed, but took it upon themselves to do so. The result
was disastrous. Jesus, Paul, the other apostles and some upon whom the apostles
had laid their hands, however, had such authority and were always successful.
By their very nature, commands [and other direct statements] MUST BE authoritative (Matthew 8:5-13)! Since Jesus has all authority (Matthew 28:18), His
commands MUST BE authoritative. Since those who receive/reject His apostles
receive/reject Him (Matthew 10:40), the apostles’ commands MUST ALSO BE
authoritative. Since the New Testament prophets had "the mystery of
Christ" revealed unto them (Ephesians 3:1-5), their commands MUST BE
authoritative, as well. The commands of Moses and the Old Testament prophets
are no longer authoritative (Matthew 17:1-8; Mark 9:1-8; Luke 9:28-36; Hebrews
1:1-3).
We are commanded by the apostles to recognize approved examples
as authoritative (1 Corinthians 4:16; 11:1; Philippians 3:17; 4:9). Of course,
Jesus is the ultimate example (1 Peter 2:21), and He left us an example of
using implication to establish authority (Matthew 22:23-34).
[By way of clarification, a writer or a
speaker implies and a listener or reader infers. Hence, implication is
sometimes called "necessary inference" [which means "inescapable
(logically unavoidable) conclusion"]. But a thing cannot be necessarily
inferred unless it is implied. For example, we are specifically told that
Nicodemus “came to Jesus by night” (John 3:2), but the reason he “came to Jesus
by night” is neither directly stated nor implied. Hence, one reason or another
might be inferred, but no reason can be “necessarily inferred,” for he may have
had any number of reasons for doing so “by night.”]
When questioned by the Sadducees [who
believed in neither spirits nor angels—Acts 23:8] about the resurrection, Jesus
quoted from the Pentateuch [the only part of the Old Testament they accepted]
to defend His teaching. His defense ran thus: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had been
dead for hundreds of years, when God first appeared to Moses, but God
identified Himself to Moses saying, "I am the God of Abraham, and the God
of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." In saying this, God implied [and we can
necessarily infer] that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were alive (in some sense) at
the time of Moses. To deny this is to implicitly affirm that God is "the
God of the dead." This proved that there is a part of man that survives
physical death and can be resurrected. If this is not true, why did Jesus bring
it up? This was such a forceful argument, that it "put the Sadducees to
silence" (v. 34).
If the
example of the Lord Jesus is not enough, the apostles also used implication to
establish the fact that Gentiles do not have to submit to physical circumcision
to be saved (Acts 15:1-31). Peter necessarily inferred [from his experience
with the household of Cornelius, recorded in Acts 10 & 11] that binding circumcision
on the Gentiles would be tempting God and putting a yoke on the neck of those
disciples (vv. 7-11). Barnabas and Paul necessarily inferred [from their first
missionary journey] that Gentile converts do not need physical circumcision.
They never demanded it, yet God endorsed their preaching with "miracles
and wonders" (v. 12). James stated that Peter's inference was in agreement
with the prophets. He then quoted from Amos 9:11,12, and concluded that to bind
circumcision would be to "trouble...them, which from among the Gentiles
are turned to God" (vv. 13-18). "The apostles and elders, with the
whole church" implied in their letter that physical circumcision was not
essential to salvation, by stating that those who were binding circumcision
were "subverting…souls" in so doing (vv. 22-24). Finally, the
disciples at Antioch used necessary inference when they read the letter and
“rejoice for the consolation” (vv. 30,31).
We have shown three methods of
establishing religious authority. (1) It is self-evident that commands and
other direct statements [of one who is in authority] are authoritative, (2) we
are commanded to follow the approved examples of the apostles and others and
(3) we have approved examples of Jesus and the apostles using implication, or necessary
inference. Is there a command, approved example, or necessary inference that
shows a fourth method may be used? If so, what is that fourth method? We have
also shown that Jesus used these same three methods. Did either He or His
apostles use a fourth method? If so, what was it?