Implicit Authority Equal to Explicit Authority
Is implicit authority as authoritative as explicit authority in the word of God? Can we consider commands that are implicitly taught to be just as binding as explicit commands? This a running debate in the Hermeneutics class that I am presently taking. The professor provided Genesis 13:1 to show how the Bible can imply something. It says “So Abram went up from Egypt to the Negev, he and his wife and all that belonged to him; and Lot with him.” Some of the comments in class stated that the Bible implies that Lot was in Egypt with him, Lot must have went to Egypt with Abraham, and Lot traveled with Abraham to Negev. The professor stated that these are all necessary inferences that are implicitly taught in this verse. But there is a lot of assumption in these comments. Maybe Lot meet Abraham in Egypt, they did not travel there together, maybe Lot only traveled a certain time with Abraham, but did not end up in Negev, and finally, maybe he was with him in mind but not body. We do not know for sure from this text. So what the professor thought was implicitly taught, might not be the case. All we truly know is that “Lot was with him.” It seems that when we make implicit instruction on par with explicit authority, we are becoming subjective in our interpretation of the text.
Related posts:
About The Author
Matthew said, “It seems that when we make implicit instruction on par with explicit authority, we are becoming subjective in our interpretation of the text.”
Exactly the case. This is not to deny that some implicit teaching has a strong and coherent support.
I also still question who descided what is necessary with regards to inferences. What seems necessary to one person may be unnecssary to another. Those adjectives like “necessary” make the process of reformation hermeneutics much more subjective than some like to admitt.
Matthew, I would simply add that all interpretation is subjective. . . and objective. You read the text from your perspective, a perspective you can’t suspend no matter how hard you try. You are the subject appoaching the text as the object. Love is the highest form of knowledge and it’s impossible to love objectively (suspending emotions,etc.). If we think we’re purely objective, we then grow arrogant, not to mention the fact that we approach God like a math equation. I’m not passionate about 2 plus 2. I’m passionate about God and not at all ashamed about the fact that I approach Him and His word as objects from the standpoint of my own subjectivity.
The safest objectivity is simply a collection of subjectivities. But it isn’t fool-proof. That is, as a gathered people we tend to force the weird stuff out. Groupthink destroys the safeguard; it is a lock on something weird which therefore must be safeguarded by means of censorship and social pressure.
So, forgetting whether a thing is subjective or objective, never bind an implicit doctrine on another. It’s not biblical and it will rip the body of Christ apart.
Matthew,
Very interesting post.
I appreciate your blog and have addded it to my favorites.
I think “infer” is a better choice of words than “imply” because the reader’s judgment is involved. So you are really discussing the difference between a “reasonable inference” and a “necessary inference.” And in that example, the teacher is making (at best) a reasonable inference.
What God actually meant to communicate in a verse carries all the authority of the Almighty God. What a mortal man *thinks* God meant is binding on that individual only, IMO. If another person thinks God meant something different, then he must obey what he believes, rather than what someone else tells him to believe. Hope that makes sense…
You are correct, Matthew. If someone spends a couple of days with Frank Mead’s “Handbook of Denominations in the United States” you will see a pattern develop in front of your eyes. The majority of denominations declare their belief in the Bible as the very words of God. More than half were created to get closer to the Bible and obey what they found there. And they are all different because they emphasize different bits of it. Binding our inferences as if they were doctrine has a lot to do with that.
I received this quote from Bobby, I love it. It is from Thomas Campbell “”That although inferences and deductions from Scripture premises, when fairly inferred, my be truly called the doctrine of God’s holy word, yet are they not formally binding upon the consciences of Christians farther than they perceive the connection, and evidently see that they are so; for their faith must not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power and veracity of God. Therefore, no such deductions can be made terms of communion, but do properly belong to the after and progressive edification of the Church. Hence, it is evident that no such deductions or inferential truths ought to have any place in the Church’s confession.” (Declaration & Address, Proposition 6).
Just wanted to say Hello to everyone.
Much to read and learn here, I’m sure I will enjoy !