Articles
"Sound On Authority"
From what you know about the Pharisees, would you say they were “sound on authority?” Edersheim describes the twofold purpose of their association as follows: 1) to observe in the strictest manner, and according to traditional law, all ordinances concerning Levitical purity, and 2) to be extremely punctilious in all connected with religious dues.” (Life & Times of Jesus, p. 311) Throughout His ministry they implicitly challenged Jesus’ authority to do the things He did, most notably in the temple when they asked, “By what authority do you do these things (Mt. 21:23)?” If you had asked them, they would have told you: “You bet we’re sound! If we’re not, then no one is.”
But, how would Jesus have responded to my initial question? Maybe with Jn. 7:19ff—”Did not Moses give you the law, yet none of you keeps the law? Why do you seek to kill Me?” In actuality, the Pharisees were “soft” on Bible authority, and seem to have no credibility concerning the commands, examples, and necessary inferences of God’s Word. They ignored the direct statement (or command) of the eighth of Moses’ commandments: “You shall not commit murder.” In John 8:38, Jesus showed that they did not follow the approved example of their father Abraham either—“If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham. But, you seek to kill Me, a Man who told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this.” Returning to Jn. 7, we see their failing to live up to the princi-ple of necessary inferences—”I did one work, and you all marvel. Moses therefore gave you circumcision “not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath. If a man receives cir-cumcision on the Sabbath, so that the law of Moses should not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made a man completely well on the Sab-bath (7:21-23)?” If they had a good grasp of authority they would’ve never condemned Jesus for healing on the Sabbath, plucking grain on the Sab-bath (Mt. 12), or for eating with sinners.
So, what’s the point? It is one thing to have a reputation for being “sound on authority,” but it is quite another to actually be sound on authority. How does one earn a reputation for soundness without actually being sound? Consider again the Pharisees example. They were stern, unbend-ing, staunchly convicted, and with great attention to detail (punctilious) - which is not bad when it actually pertains to the details of God’s law (Mt. 23:23). But, when that stern, censorial, unyielding demeanor is applied to other matters about which God has not specified, then, we are just being pushy. It’s the difference between soundness on authority and an affinity for authoritativeness.
Proper authority (in the human realm) will be just as concerned about not binding what God has not bound, as it is in not loosing what He has bound (Matt. 16:19). The Pharisees demonstrated a much greater propensity to-wards binding the unbound, than they did in loosing what God had bound. This may succinctly summarize the difference between a “liberal” and a “conservative.” As a result, we conservatives should be particularly on guard against binding what hasn’t been bound.
A quote from our men’s leadership class workbook reads: “Leaders Wel-come Change: One characteristic of great leaders is that they are always curious...learning...growing, and therefore changing...This is not ‘change’ in the sense of drifting from the divine pattern.” I mention that because an-other quality that can be misconstrued as soundness on authority is an unwillingness to change. It is a posture that resembles being “set” for the defense of the gospel (Phil. 1:17), only, if the divine pattern isn’t actually at stake, it really is simply being “set” in our ways. In the past, members of non-institutional churches of Christ have been called “antis.” Concerning institu-tionalism, it is a pejorative that should be worn proudly. But, do not confuse the tendency towards being “anti” any new or different method with sound-ness on authority. The Pharisees were anti: healing on the Sabbath, eating with unwashed hands, eating with sinners, abstaining from fasting, etc… Ironically, their anti-ism exposed how ‘liberal’ they were with God’s Word!
There were some in the N.T. church who were “anti” eating certain meats. I’m sure that if this were an issue today, those opposed to eating would re-gard themselves as the strong conservatives, while those who ate were weak liberals. But, who did the Holy Spirit say were the strong (14:2)? Therefore, it is not always the brother who is opposed to a practice as a matter of convic-tion who ought to be considered the strong brother with a healthy respect for Bible authority. It has been eye-opening in life to meet brethren who had a reputation for soundness, yet whose conscience was surprisingly weak with regard to various options of general authority.
There are many unsound objections that are made to many different issues or methods which do not exemplify soundness on authority. I could cite many, but won’t for fear that I might be understood as campaigning for any of them. Speaking generically, when we reject a proposal or method on the grounds that it is different than what we’ve always done, or because no oth-er faithful church I know of does that, or because I know of an apostate church that does do it that way, or because someone down the line could take that scripturally permitted practice and abuse it, we are not employing sound principles of Bible authority. In that moment, we need to just admit that we would simply prefer not to do something, rather than trying to turn our personal preference into a matter of authority.
Bottom line, sound on Bible authority means having the knowledge and discretion to differentiate between specific requirements and the array of op-tions that God’s general statements allow. It means knowing the difference between an acceptable expedient, and an unauthorized aid, and might I add, the courage to see it done.
