As a Southern Baptist, one of the most crucial battles my denomination fights is over the Bible. More specifically, one of the battles it fights is for the authority of the Bible in the life of the Christian. Wayne Grudem devotes an entire chapter to defining and defending the authority of the Bible.

So what is the authority of the Bible?

In my circles the authority of the Bible is similar to that of a court of final appeals. In ancient Israel, when a person filed suit, the case would go before a judge. The judge would render his decision either for or against the person filing suit. If dissatisfied that person could appeal to the king of Israel or Judah. But the king’s decision in the matter is final. There’s no place else in Israel/Judah to go once the king decides. When we think of the Bible’s authority we think of it as appealing to the king.

In contemporary times, it would be similar to filing a suit in the courts. If the lower-level judge rules against the person filing, there is an appeals judge that can overrule the decision. This process can go all the way up to the US Supreme Court. But once the Supreme Court rules, there’s no other court to turn to. The decision is final.

But is this right? Is the Bible a document that we turn to as that final court to vindicate one’s claims to doctrine and ethics? Is that the way the Bible has authority?

I don’t think so. I think there’s a better way that the Bible wants us to understand authority and how it is exercised in relationship to Scripture.

First, let us understand this central point. Only God has authority. All other authority is delegated by God to the individuals or institutions. Jesus tells Pilate during his trial, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above” (John 19:11 NIV). Paul writes to the church in Rome, “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God” (Romans 13:1 NIV).

Second, that authority is given to Jesus. The Messiah himself says, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Matthew 28:18 NIV). As Paul tells the Colossians in Colossians 1:15-17 NIV,

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Jesus exercises this authority in the idea of the Kingdom. In the Greek, the verbal root from which the Greek term “kingdom” is the verb that means “I reign/rule.” It speaks to a sovereign ruling over his territory and people. And thus God’s authority is synonymous to his rule or reign as king to judge and heal. It’s his reign to put sin to death and bring new life to his creation through resurrection. God’s authority, given to Jesus, is his authority to put away sin and heal his creation.

The Bible, first and foremost, is a story. It’s the story of the Triune God creating and recreating. It’s the story of God defeating sin and healing his creatures. It’s the story of God redeeming his creation through the family of Abraham and his family, climaxing in the death and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah. It’s the story of God’s exercising his authority to put sin to death and put his creation project back on track.

And in encountering this story, the Holy Spirit brings God’s authority to bear on the reader, whether the community or the individual. God speaks life to the reader in the power of the Spirit through the Bible. The Spirit works through the reading, preaching, teaching, and studying of Scripture to unleash God’s authority. And through that power new life and holiness is brought to bear on the reader/hearer.

One might compare this to the creation song of Genesis 1. The newly converted Christian is like the newly created earth, formless and void. The Spirit hovers over the dark earth, just as he indwells the new believer. God speaks to the earth, ordering and shaping it, filling it with land and trees and seas and fish and all kinds of creatures. God in a similar way speaks through the reading of the story of Scripture to produce the virtues and habits in the individuals to shape and create a community to speak to the world who the true God really is.

Thus as the narrative that is above all other narratives, the meta-narrative, it determines the doctrines and dogmas we believe. It outlines the virtues and habits of behavior the kingdom-people are to hold and follow. It creates the culture we present to the world ensnared by sin and death and darkness.

To paraphrase N. T. Wright in Scripture and the Authority of God, the authority of the Bible or Scripture is God’s authority exercised through Scripture. It’s God exercising his authority through Scripture, not the Bible having authority.

In Blackest Night, Nekron’s black light of death raises up all the dead heroes in the DC comic books and serve as his Black Lantern Corps. His intention is to destroy all life by using the emotional spectrum as his hold on life. Through his use of emotion heroes like Superman and Batman and Wonder Woman were enslaved. The only true weapon against Nekron and his lantern corps is the white light of life that created all life and from which the emotional spectrum is drawn forth, powering the other lanterns. But to properly use the white light against Nekron, one couldn’t use the light to “kill” but to bring forth life. Death was defeated by the restoration of life (in this case to the Black Hand and to the Anti-Monitor of Qward).

In the story of Israel and her covenant god, Yahweh, the great enemy is death. An to defeat this enemy God will “kill” death by restoring life to his people Israel. This life is promised and defined in Torah, but because Torah also condemns sin no one was receiving life because all sin. All through her history Israel fails to meet the conditions of life and are placed under Yahweh’s curse. But God promises to do in and for Israel what she couldn’t do herself.

Then comes Jesus, God’s divine agent. Through him Yahweh calls Israel back from the gave of exile and into life. And Jesus go to the cross, effecting atonement and carrying out in himself God’s curse. And then Jesus is raised from the grave, defeating death and unleashing God’s promised life.

Now he reigns victorious over all waiting to return and fully complete the unleashing of life by recreating the heavens and the earth. Those who are part if his kingdom will inherit this earth. And there we will live as Yahweh commanded and promised in Torah.

In Johns’ story, the good guys win because they chose life for those who were dead and could not. In Israel’s story, God wins because through Jesus he chooses life for Adam’s race who is deans and cannot choose. In the Torah we are shown what life is and commanded to live it. In the resurrection we attain that life an live it out.

N.T. Wright on Adam and Eve

N.T. Wright on How Our Worldview Impacts Our Reading of Scripture

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7

Greek Text
16 Μὴ πλανᾶσθε, ἀδελφοί μου ἀγαπητοί. 17 πᾶσα δόσις ἀγαθὴ καὶ πᾶν δώρημα τέλειον ἄνωθέν ἐστιν, καταβαῖνον ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς τῶν φώτων, παρ’ ᾧ οὐκ ἔνι παραλλαγὴ ἢ τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα. 18 βουληθεὶς ἀπεκύησεν ἡμᾶς λόγῳ ἀληθείας, εἰς τὸ εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἀπαρχήν τινα τῶν αὐτοῦ κτισμάτων. 19 Ἴστε, ἀδελφοί μου ἀγαπητοί. ἔστω δὲ πᾶς ἄνθρωπος ταχὺς εἰς τὸ ἀκοῦσαι, βραδὺς εἰς τὸ λαλῆσαι, βραδὺς εἰς ὀργήν· 20 ὀργὴ γὰρ ἀνδρὸς δικαιοσύνην θεοῦ οὐκ ἐργάζεται. 21 διὸ ἀποθέμενοι πᾶσαν ῥυπαρίαν καὶ περισσείαν κακίας ἐν πραΰτητι δέξασθε τὸν ἔμφυτον λόγον τὸν δυνάμενον σῶσαι τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν. 22 γίνεσθε δὲ ποιηταὶ λόγου καὶ μὴ μόνον ἀκροαταὶ παραλογιζόμενοι ἑαυτούς. 23 ὅτι εἴ τις ἀκροατὴς λόγου ἐστὶν καὶ οὐ ποιητής, οὗτος ἔοικεν ἀνδρὶ κατανοοῦντι τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς γενέσεως αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐσόπτρῳ· 24 κατενόησεν γὰρ ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀπελήλυθεν καὶ εὐθέως ἐπελάθετο ὁποῖος ἦν. 25 ὁ δὲ παρακύψας εἰς νόμον τέλειον τὸν τῆς ἐλευθερίας καὶ παραμείνας, οὐκ ἀκροατὴς ἐπιλησμονῆς γενόμενος ἀλλὰ ποιητὴς ἔργου, οὗτος μακάριος ἐν τῇ ποιήσει αὐτοῦ ἔσται. 26 εἴ τις δοκεῖ θρησκὸς εἶναι, μὴ χαλιναγωγῶν γλῶσσαν αὐτοῦ ἀλλὰ ἀπατῶν καρδίαν αὐτοῦ, τούτου μάταιος ἡ θρησκία. 27 θρησκία καθαρὰ καὶ ἀμίαντος παρὰ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ αὕτη ἐστίν, ἐπισκέπτεσθαι ὀρφανοὺς καὶ χήρας ἐν τῇ θλίψει αὐτῶν, ἄσπιλον ἑαυτὸν τηρεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ κόσμου.

Notes
16 As with James 1:2, ἀδελφοί does not refer to only the men in the congregation but to the whole congregation, therefore it is translated to indicate both the men and women. ἀγαπητοί is a term of endearment thus it is rendered “dear” instead of the more literal “beloved.”

17 My translation mirrors that of the NET only with some slight modification, such as dropping “slightest” from “hint of change.” Again, I’m not going out of my way to borrow from the NET I just happen to think like they did in their first edition.

18 The phrase εἰς τὸ εἶναι indicates purpose or result. Couple this with the participle βουληθεὶς at the beginning of 1:18 and we see God’s purpose in our regeneration by the gospel, to his firstfuits of the new heavens and new earth, Christ being the first firstfruit, and thus being exalted over all.

19 The two εἰς + τὸ + infinitives here are the more rare forms of the epexegetical infinitive usages. In 1:18 εἰς + τὸ + infinitve indicated purpose or result, but in this phrase they are epexegetical. This form is rare because εἰς is included where as the articular and naked infinitives more regularly convey this idea. See Wallace’s syntax (1996), page 607, for the description of the epexegetical infinitive.

20 The NET note on δικαιοσύνην θεοῦ raises some interesting questions about what is meant here and how that contrasts with man’s anger. I’m racking my brain around it. Is δικαιοσύνην θεοῦ referring to 1.) God’s righteous standard; 2.) God’s gift of righteousness; 3.) a right standing before God; 4.) God’s eschatological righteousness? Interesting.

21 Like in Matthew 28:19 the participle ἀποθέμενοι is translated as an imperative because it takes its force from the main verb, δέξασθε–which is imperative. I followed the NET in rendering περισσείαν κακίας as “evil excess.” Since τὸν δυνάμενον is referring back to λόγον I repeated “word” with the participle as my translation puts a lot of space between “word” and “is able.”

22 Even though the Greek says literally “and not only hearers” I supplied “of it” to remind the readers that James wants us to obey the word and not only hear it/read it.

27 Although the Greek reads θρησκία καθαρὰ καὶ ἀμίαντος παρὰ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ and does not contain a verb, I supplied the verb “considers” in order to bring out the force and present the phrase in an active voice.

Greek
1 Ἰάκωβος θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοῦλος ταῖς δώδεκα φυλαῖς ταῖς ἐν τῇ διασπορᾷ χαίρειν. 2 Πᾶσαν χαρὰν ἡγήσασθε, ἀδελφοί μου, ὅταν πειρασμοῖς περιπέσητε ποικίλοις, 3 γινώσκοντες ὅτι τὸ δοκίμιον ὑμῶν τῆς πίστεως κατεργάζεται ὑπομονήν· 4 ἡ δὲ ὑπομονὴ ἔργον τέλειον ἐχέτω, ἵνα ἦτε τέλειοι καὶ ὁλόκληροι, ἐν μηδενὶ λειπόμενοι. 5 εἰ δέ τις ὑμῶν λείπεται σοφίας, αἰτείτω παρὰ τοῦ διδόντος θεοῦ πᾶσιν ἁπλῶς καὶ μὴ ὀνειδίζοντος, καὶ δοθήσεται αὐτῷ. 6 αἰτείτω δὲ ἐν πίστει, μηδὲν διακρινόμενος, ὁ γὰρ διακρινόμενος ἔοικεν κλύδωνι θαλάσσης ἀνεμιζομένῳ καὶ ῥιπιζομένῳ· 7 μὴ γὰρ οἰέσθω ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος ὅτι λήμψεταί τι παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου, 8 ἀνὴρ δίψυχος, ἀκατάστατος ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ὁδοῖς αὐτοῦ. 9 Καυχάσθω δὲ ὁ ἀδελφὸς ὁ ταπεινὸς ἐν τῷ ὕψει αὐτοῦ, 10 ὁ δὲ πλούσιος ἐν τῇ ταπεινώσει αὐτοῦ, ὅτι ὡς ἄνθος χόρτου παρελεύσεται. 11 ἀνέτειλεν γὰρ ὁ ἥλιος σὺν τῷ καύσωνι καὶ ἐξήρανεν τὸν χόρτον, καὶ τὸ ἄνθος αὐτοῦ ἐξέπεσεν καὶ ἡ εὐπρέπεια τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ ἀπώλετο· οὕτως καὶ ὁ πλούσιος ἐν ταῖς πορείαις αὐτοῦ μαρανθήσεται. 12 Μακάριος ἀνὴρ ὃς ὑπομένει πειρασμόν, ὅτι δόκιμος γενόμενος λήμψεται τὸν στέφανον τῆς ζωῆς, ὃν ἐπηγγείλατο τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν. 13 μηδεὶς πειραζόμενος λεγέτω ὅτι ἀπὸ θεοῦ πειράζομαι· ὁ γὰρ θεὸς ἀπείραστός ἐστιν κακῶν, πειράζει δὲ αὐτὸς οὐδένα. 14 ἕκαστος δὲ πειράζεται ὑπὸ τῆς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας ἐξελκόμενος καὶ δελεαζόμενος· 15 εἶτα ἡ ἐπιθυμία συλλαβοῦσα τίκτει ἁμαρτίαν, ἡ δὲ ἁμαρτία ἀποτελεσθεῖσα ἀποκύει θάνατον.

Notes
1 “From James”–I included “from” in this translation even though the Greek does not include it, like the NET I felt this indicates more explicitly that James is the author and is sending this letter. Having read a good portion of the LXX, I noted that when κύριος is used in the place of YHWH, it anarthorous; but when used in the place of adonai it is articular. James does not include an article and I am wondering if this is a veiled reference to Jesus’ divinity and being the second person in the one being I AM. I also decided to translate τῇ διασπορᾷ as “the Diaspora.” It felt more natural to the text to read it this way than to try to explain τῇ διασπορᾷ in the actual text.

2 I moved “my brothers and sisters” to the beginning of the verse and included “sisters” in translating ἀδελφοί μου because this was no doubt to be heard by the women and no less applicable to them.

3 My translation here mirrors and agrees with the NET. It was not intentional but when I went back and compared, there it was. I’m rather okay with that as the NET is a great translation.

4 I translated ἵνα ἦτε as “in order that you will be” so as to show that the result of letting patience have its full effect was certain, not a mere possibility even though ἦτε is subjunctive. I translated τέλειος as “full” in 1:4a and as “perfect” in 1:4b because the English felt more natural even though it is not consistent.

5 I had trouble trying to translate ὀνειδίζοντος and I really liked the NET: reprimands.

7 Again I really agreed with the NET on this verse.

8 Here is an example of ἀνὴρ possibly being used generically and not specifically referring to a male.

10. I carried over the verb Καυχάσθω from 1:9 because the text is saying that the low should boast in their height and the high in their depths as both will pass away soon. The rich person’s money does not exalt them above the humble and poor person. I also rendered the genitive χόρτου as “in the meadow” as the genitive was describing the kind of flower by where it is found. The NET says “wildflower” but I went with a more simple “flower” for ἄνθος.

12 I supplied God as the subject to ἐπηγγείλατο because only God can give life. Plus the concluding αὐτόν does not make sense contextually if it refers to anyone else but God.

14 ἐξελκόμενος and δελεαζόμενος are passive participles but I chose to translate them as active. Thus the desires, which are part of the prepositional phrase modifying the main verb, becomes the subject of the participles and the verbs themselves become plurals instead of singulars.

While I’m on the subject of what translation to use. One thing we talked about in hermeneutics class earlier this week is where formal equivalence translations (FET) and dynamic equivalence translations (DET) come into play in the life of a Christian. In the class we talked about how a new convert may not want to read an FET like the NASB because the English is so awkward. The NLT or (T)NIV translations make much more sense for a new convert. But I think a preacher should use a FET from the pulpit for one good reason. When studying the selected text in the original language (knowledge no preacher who has a pulpit ministry should ever be without), the preacher might (almost inevitably) disagree with a DET’s choice of rendering (and even FETs), for multiple reasons that are as simple as what a certain case of noun/adjective is accomplishing. FET’s do a better job preserving the ambiguity of the original language and allowing for the manifold interpretations/translational options open without the preacher having to say the Bible the person is reading is wrong. From a pastoral and preaching standpoint, FETs work better because the preacher is not correcting the Bible, and possibly undermining the hearers’ confidence in the Bible, but can focus on merely interpreting the ambiguity.

A classic example is Romans 1:5 and the phrase ὑπακοὴν πίστεως, “obedience of faith” (ESV, NASB, HCSB) The NIV reads “the obedience that comes from faith;” NLT, “believe and obey him;” TNIV, “faith and obedience.” Even the (N)KJV reads, “obedience to the faith.” All of the above translations are perfectly acceptable renderings of ὑπακοὴν πίστεως, the ESV, NASB, and HCSB all reading the Greek in a literal fashion. But note that the NIV does not agree with the NLT, TNIV, or the (N)KJV translations. All of these translations speak of different realities. Preaching from the FETs (I told you even FET’s are 100% satisfactory as the KJV and NKJV are FETs) like the ESV allows the preacher to just explain the ambiguity and suggest maybe the NIV or the NLT/TNIV as fully giving the sense of the Greek. But the preacher is not saying that the ESV/NASB/HCSB is wrong in its translation. The preacher is just explaining the ambiguous statement, “obedience of faith.”

I really do believe that anyone wanting to fully grasp and wrestle with the Scripture needs to read a good blend and balance of DET and FET, like the ones cited above. I’d through in the NET translation for its superb translator and text critical notes that explain why the English rendering for the text was chosen. Keep that in mind when deciding whether to preach from a DET or FET. Can the preacher explain why there is disagreement with the translation in a way that doesn’t undermine the hearers’ confidence in the Scripture? An FET might make it easier to do so from the pulpit. Just some food for thought on translations.

Long debated is the question of whether Paul is speaking of a pre-convert or post-convert “I” in Romans 7. Michael Bird has posted his arguments for why he believes Paul is speaking of a pre-Christian “I.” Bird raises some interesting questions but I’m not certain where I stand on that issue. I just haven’t had time to think on it. I’d like to read some thoughts from the the other side that Bird takes before I come to any opinion.

Finally here is a video from Con Campbell about how his book on verbal aspect complements both Mounce’s and Wallace’s own Greek grammars.

And will not the physically uncircumcised man who keeps the law judge you who, despite the written code and circumcision, transgress the law?

to something like,

The physically uncircumcised man, by keeping the law, will judge you to be the transgressor of the law, even though you have the letter and circumcision!

Dan Wallace gets into some of the fun textual issues that come up in translating a text of Scripture from its original language (Greek in this case) into English. It always baffles me to see how a minute change in how one reads a single term can change the entire English translation, for example the change of a participle from adjectival (“the one who keeps”) to adverbial (“by keeping”). While the meaning doesn’t really change, I still enjoy the discussion.