“You search and investigate and pore over the Scriptures diligently, because you suppose and trust that you have eternal life through them. And these [very Scriptures] testify about Me! And still you are not willing [but refuse] to come to Me, so that you might have life.” – John 5:39-40
A few months back I visited a Zen Buddhist temple and sat in for a few hours on their morning service. The people were all very nice, but it was difficult to get straight answers to questions about why they practice the way they do. Zen Buddhism does not hold to any specific authority. To put it in the simplest terms, each individual person is their own authority, deciding how the ceremonies should be practiced and what they mean. There are leaders, of course, to facilitate the service, but matters of theology are seen as personal and differ from person to person; what is true to you may not be true to me, as neither of us is in a position of authority.
Zen Buddhism is based on an entirely different set of assumptions than Christianity. One of the most significant is that truth is relative; again, the idea that what is truth is a subjective experience and and can differ from person to person. Zen Buddhism also lacks the urgency found in Christianity- salvation is a matter of inner peace, not an outward, objective experience.
I talk about this group not to disparage it, but to have a ground for comparison. Christianity makes an exclusive claim, that salvation is found only through Christ. We may differ slightly on how one comes to attain this salvation (i.e, what about people who’ve never heard the gospel?), but orthodox Christianity makes objective claims.
This is why the source or sources of authority are so necessary to understand. Christianity is based on unwavering truths. Who or what decides what those are? Historically, Christians have claimed three sources of authority. One, obviously, is the Bible. Another is the testimony of the Holy Spirit. Nearly all subgroups within Christianity accept these two. A third, more controversial source is Church History/Tradition.
While researching different theories on the nature of the Bible, one theology book (Theology of the Old Testament by Edmond Jacob) pointed me to examine the Hebrew word debar. Hebrew grammar books will almost always translate debar as “word” or “thing.” It is important to note that “word” and “thing” are not two separate phenomena described by the same set of consonants and vowels. “Word” and “thing” are the same phenomenon in the Hebrew understanding. This observation is key to understanding the biblical conception of the debar elohim, “the Word of God.”
The Divine Word of the Hebrew Bible permeates history and intervenes in physical and historical events. Israel’s exodus out of Egypt is an example of the Word of God. History reveals God’s word. The Law represents a record of God’s actions in the founding of the nation, and the Prophets (which contains the historical books in the Hebrew canon) represents God’s continued intervention into the history of the nation. Please note the word “represents.” The Word of God is the action, not the record. The record is how we know and remember, but the action is the element that brings salvation and deliverance.
Jump ahead to the New Testament, where John so famously declares that Jesus is the true Word of God. The Word of God here represents God’s ultimate act: the intrusion of his very self into history. This is the Word above all words; the Word by which all other words are understood by. In light of this ultimate Word, all Words that came before are reinterpreted, and all Words that come after are understood by this Word.
The Bible is then a record of the Word of God, first through a series of Words directed towards a particular people, and then the ultimate, end-all Word of the Incarnation. Again, notice “record.” The Bible is a record of the Word of God; Christ himself is The Word, the ultimate intrusion into physical and temporal history. Of course, given that the act is the Word and the Scriptures are recordings, we necessarily understand that the scriptures are written in the vernacular and understandings of the writers. This is where hermeneutics, the study of proper interpretation, becomes a necessity.
How do we know the Bible is a reliable record, or that the 66 (or more) books that we have collected are the only valid recordings of the Word? This is where the additional means of authority I first spoke of come into play. As I stated in my last post, the Bible cannot speak on its own authority any more than a defendant can speak definitively on his own innocence. Given the classical sources of Christian authority, we have two possible responses. We can make the claim that the Holy Spirit testifies to this particular canon of scripture (as per John Calvin and Karl Barth), or that Church Tradition has dictated this collection as authoritative and therefore it is. John Wesley, founder of the Methodist denomination, harmonized these two nicely. He claimed that God would not allow his church to be deceived to the point of false gospel, and therefore traditions held over a long period of time can be seen as proper, either because the Spirit has guided it or the church has dictated it. As my Hebrew professor says, “pay your money, take your shot.” Either way, the Bible, not the ultimate Word in itself, becomes a unique and authoritative record of the Word of God, Jesus Christ.