Is The Authority Of Scripture Biblical?

Is the Authority of Scripture Biblical?

Eli Kittim

I have a high view of Scripture. But my authority is a Person, not a Book. My authority is God himself, as he reveals to me his will and purpose through spiritual communications. It’s one thing to say that the Bible is “authoritative,” in the sense that it’s reliable and truthful. But it’s quite another thing to say that it’s our highest authority. I think people mistakenly conflate the authority of Scripture with Cessationism, the Calvinist doctrine that spiritual gifts and prophecy ceased with the Apostolic Age. They often cite Jude 1:3 for support. But all that verse says is that “the faith” was revealed to us at some point in human history. It doesn’t say that the Godhead went out of business, took a Sabbatical, or died and left a will. The phrase—“the faith delivered once for all to God's people”—can be disambiguated by examining the context. The other passage cessationists love to quote is 1 Cor. 13:9-10. But all it says is that “we know in part and prophesy in part” because “when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away with.” But not before the complete comes. That’s the key! It doesn’t say that prophecy has ceased. That would be a misinterpretation. Besides, Acts 2:17 says that people in the end times will prophesy and see visions.

Many people are confusing Scripture’s inspiration, revelation, truthfulness, and inerrancy with the concept of “authority,” which the Oxford languages dictionary defines as “the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.” In short, our highest authority is not the Church, tradition, councils, committees, or even the Bible itself. Our highest authority is Jesus Christ! In Matt. 28:18 (NASB), Christ says:

“All authority in heaven and on earth has

been given to Me”

Where does 2 Tim. 3:14–16 mention the authority of Scripture? It says that “the sacred writings … are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” In other words, Scripture gives us wisdom and leads us to salvation which can only be found in Christ Jesus. The fact that Scripture is “inspired” doesn’t mean it represents the final authority. 2 Tim. 3:14–16 reads:

“continue in the things you have learned

and become convinced of, knowing from

whom you have learned them, and that

from childhood you have known the sacred

writings which are able to give you the

wisdom that leads to salvation through faith

which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is

inspired by God and beneficial for teaching,

for rebuke, for correction, for training in

righteousness.”

The fact that Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16) doesn’t mean that the Bible has the final say in all matters. The Spirit that inspired the Bible is the ultimate authority on all matters, not the Bible. Scripture itself does not claim to have all authority. Jesus does.

Moreover, the concept of the Sufficiency of Scripture implies that Scripture itself is all we need to interpret Scripture. But Scripture can be interpreted in 30,000 different ways. Just look at all the Protestant denominations that split due to interpretative differences. Thus, Scripture is neither sufficient to interpret itself, nor is it the final authority. Without the Holy Spirit to illuminate us, we will inevitably misinterpret it (Jn 16:13)!

Where does 2 Pet. 1:20–21 mention the authority of Scripture?

“But know this first of all, that no prophecy

of Scripture becomes a matter of

someone’s own interpretation, for no

prophecy was ever made by an act of

human will, but men moved by the Holy

Spirit spoke from God.”

All it says is that prophecy and its interpretation should be revealed by the Holy Spirit, not interpreted by human beings. If anything, it demonstrates the insufficiency of Scripture!

The fact that the Bible contains the Word of God doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s the final authority, or that it’s sufficient in and of itself, so that we don’t need anything else. If the Bible is entirely “sufficient” and adequate for all purposes, we wouldn’t need to be reborn. All we would need to do is read our Bibles. But Scripture cannot save anyone. Jesus does. The Spirit is what we need. We can be saved by the Spirit without the Bible. But we can’t be saved by the Bible without the Spirit.

The Bible does not attest to its own authority. Revelation of the Word does not mean ultimate Authority. The fact that God’s Word is true (Jn 17:17) doesn’t mean that the Bible is the highest authority in our lives. As Christ said, it is the Spirit that perfects us, not the Scriptures (Jn 16:13). Luke 24:49 reads:

“But remain … until you have been clothed

with power from on high”

John 3:5 says categorically and unequivocally:

“unless someone is born of … the

Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

Likewise, Romans 8:9 puts it thusly:

“But if anyone does not have the Spirit of

Christ, he does not belong to Him.”

In John 5:39-40, Jesus demonstrates the insufficiency of Scripture by saying the following:

“You examine the Scriptures because you

think that in them you have eternal life; and

it is those very Scriptures that testify about

Me; and yet you are unwilling to come to Me

so that you may have life.”

When Jesus says that all will be accomplished according to his Word (Matt. 5:18), he’s talking about prophecy, not the authority of Scripture. I’m not suggesting that Scripture errs or is contradictory. Absolutely not! But let’s not confuse the issues. The fact that the Bible contains the Word of God doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s our final authority, or that it’s entirely sufficient. That would be equivalent to Bibliolatry. The Bible is not a paper Pope. Truth and trustworthiness is one thing. Authority is another.

Biographizing the Eschaton: The Proleptic Eschatology of the Gospels

Eli Kittim

The canonical epistles strongly indicate that the narratives concerning the revelation of Jesus in the New Testament (NT) gospel literature are proleptic accounts. That is to say, the NT gospels represent the future life of Jesus as if presently accomplished. The term “prolepsis,” here, refers to the anachronistic representation of Jesus’ generation as if existing before its actual historical time. Simply put, the gospels are written before the fact. They are conveyed from a theological angle by way of a proleptic narrative, a means of biographizing the eschaton as if presently accomplished. In other words, these are accounts about events that haven’t happened yet, which are nevertheless narrated as if they have already occurred.

By contrast, the epistles demonstrate that these events will occur at the end of the age. This argument is primarily founded on the authority of the Greek NT Epistles, which affirm the centrality of the future in Christ’s only visitation! In the epistolary literature, the multiple time-references to Christ being “revealed at the end of the ages” (1 Pet. 1.20; cf. Heb. 9.26b) are clearly set in the future, including his birth, death, and resurrection (see Gal. 4.4; Eph. 1.9-10; Rev 12.5). It is as though NT history is written in advance (cf. Isa. 46.10)!

The Proleptic versus the Prophesied Jesus

The historical view is extremely problematic, involving nothing less than a proleptic interpretation of Jesus. It gives rise to numerous chronological discrepancies that cannot be easily reconciled with eschatological contexts of critical importance. What is even more troubling is that it evidently contradicts many explicit passages from both the Old and New Testaments regarding an earthly, end-time Messiah and uses bizarre gaps and anachronistic juxtapositions in chronology in order to make heterogeneous passages appear homogeneous (e.g. Job 19.25; Isa. 2.19; Dan. 12.1—2; Zeph. 1.8—9, 15—18; Zech. 12.9—10; Lk. 17.30; Acts 2.17—21; 2 Thess. 2.1—3, 7—8; Heb. 1.1—2; 9.26; 1 Pet. 1.20; Rev 12.5, 7—10).

Intertextuality in the Gospels

The canonical gospel accounts add another level of intertextual reference to the Old Testament (OT). Almost every event in Jesus’ life is borrowed from the OT and reworked as if it’s a new event. This is called “intertextuality,” meaning a heavy dependence of the NT literature on Hebrew Scripture. A few examples from the gospels serve to illustrate these points. It’s well-known among biblical scholars that the Feeding of the 5,000 (aka the miracle of the five loaves and two fish) in Jn 6.5-13 is a literary pattern that can be traced back to the OT tradition of 2 Kings 4.40-44. The magi are also taken from Ps. 72.11: “May all kings fall down before him.” The phrase “they have pierced my hands and my feet” is from Ps. 22.16; “They put gall in my food and gave me vinegar for my thirst” is from Ps. 69.21. The virgin birth comes from a Septuagint translation of Isa. 7.14. The “Calming the storm” episode is taken from Ps. 107.23-30, and so on & so forth. Is there anything real that actually happened which is not taken from the Jewish Bible? Moreover, everything about the trial of Jesus is at odds with what we know about Jewish Law and Jewish proceedings. It could not have occurred in the middle of the night during Passover, among other things.

There is only One Coming, not Two

The belief in the two comings of Christ equally contradicts a number of NT passages (e.g. 1 Cor. 15.22—26, 54—55; 2 Tim. 2.16—18; Rev 19.10; 22.7, 10, 18—19), not to mention those of the OT that do not separate the Messiah’s initial coming from his reign (e.g. Isa. 9.6—7; 61.1—2). Rather than viewing them as two separate and distinguishable historical events, Scripture sets forth a single coming and does not make that distinction (see Lk. 1.31—33). Indeed, each time the “redeeming work” of Messiah is mentioned, it is almost invariably followed or preceded by some kind of reference to judgment (e.g. “day of vengeance”), which signifies the commencement of his reign on earth (see Isa. 63.4). In 2 Thess 2, the author implores us not to be deceived by any rumors claiming that the Lord has already appeared: “to the effect that the day of the Lord is already here” (v. 2; cf. v. 1). His disclaimer insists that these conventions are divisive in view of the fact that they profess to be Biblically based, “as though from us” (v. 2), even though this is not the official message of Scripture.

Why Does the New Testament Refer to Christ’s Future Coming as a “Revelation”?

Why do the NT authors refer to Christ’s future coming as a “revelation”? The actual Greek word used is ἀποκάλυψις (apokalupsis). The English word apocalypse comes from the Greek word apokalupsis, which means “revelation.” The term revelation indicates the disclosure of something that was previously unknown. Thus, according to the meaning of the term revelation, no one knows the mystery or secret prior to its disclosure. Therefore, we cannot use the biblical term “revelation” to imply that something previously known is made known a second time. That’s not what the Greek term apokalupsis means. If it was previously revealed, then it cannot be revealed again. It’s only a revelation if it is still unknown. Thus, the word “revelation” necessarily implies a first time disclosure or an initial unveiling, appearing, or manifestation. It means that something that was previously unknown and/or unseen has finally been revealed and/or manifested. Thus, a revelation by default means “a first-time” occurrence. In other words, it’s an event that is happening for the very first time. By definition, a “revelation” is never disclosed twice.

Accordingly, the NT verses, which refer to the future revelation of Christ, never mention a second coming, a coming back, or a return, as is commonly thought. See the following verses:

1 Cor. 1.7-8; 4.5; 15.23; Phil. 1.6; 2.16; Col. 3.4; 2 Thess. 1.7; 1.10; 2.1-2; 1 Tim. 6.14; Titus 2.13; Jas. 5.7; 1 Pet. 1.13; 1 Jn. 2.28; Rev 1.1; 22.20.

In the aforementioned verses, a second coming is nowhere indicated. Conversely, Jesus’ Coming is variously referred to as an appearance, a manifestation, or a “revelation” in the last days, which seems to imply an initial coming, a first coming, and the only coming. Surprisingly, it’s not referred to as a return, a coming back, or a second coming. As N.T. Wright correctly points out, the eschatological references to Jesus in the New Testament don’t mention a second coming but rather a future appearance or manifestation. Not only do the NT writers refrain from calling Jesus’ future visitation “a second coming,” but, conversely, they further indicate that this is his first and only advent, a momentous event that will occur hapax (“once for all”) “in the end of the world” (Heb. 9.26 KJV), or “at the final point of time” (1 Peter 1.20 NJB). None of the NT authors refer to the future visitation of Christ as a second coming. It’s as though these communities expected Jesus to appear for the first time in the end of the world! The takeaway is that the NT is an apocalypse. It’s not a history.

📕 Link in bio 📕

🎓 biography 🎓

Eli Kittim is a Bible scholar and an award-winning author of the Nonfiction Book, The Little Book of Revelation: The First Coming of Jesus at the End of Days. He has published articles in numerous prestigious journals and websites, including Rapture Ready, the Journal of Higher Criticism, The American Journal of Psychoanalysis, the Aegean Review (which has published work by Jorge Luis Borges, Lawrence Durrell, Truman Capote, and Alice Bloom) , and the International Poetry Review (a literary translation journal that has published work by Philip Sherrard), among others. Eli Kittim has studied Biblical Studies at Koinonia Institute and Liberty University's John W. Rawlings School of Divinity. He was born in Athens, Greece, but now lives in New York.

💠 Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com (Christian Texts and History) 💠

On the academic website Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com, scholars are quoting Eli Kittim and exploring his thesis that the crucifixion of Christ is a future event!

Matthew 24:42

🎥 Eli Kittim on TikTok 🎥

🎓 For Bible Prophecy & Bible Exegesis, Follow Eli Kittim on TikTok 📚: