We have recently been asked to consider whether there might be a fourth way to establish Bible authority. In addition to commands, examples, and necessary implications, Jack Holt believes that the law of love is another way it can be done, a way that brethren have overlooked through the years.
At first, this may appear to be an innocent question to consider. But when we begin to look a little closer and examine it line by line, we will likely have second thoughts about it. Maybe this suggestion is not as innocent as we first thought. I am for more love; aren't you? And surely all of us would want to be more caring about the needs of others. Neither do we want to be stricter than the Bible itself requires. But when I read phrases such as:
- "When we consider a command in its context we may find ourselves ... going against the letter of the law in order to keep its intent."
- "The New Testament is not, strictly speaking, a law book, and it embodies several types of literature, and I believe reducing it to, or viewing it exclusively as a law book, misses the nature of the book and cheats us of a full understanding of not only divine law, but divine grace, love, sanctity, and fellowship."
- "I believe, in fact, that our current approach to the New Testament is very much like the approach the Pharisees took to the Old Testament. They focused so strongly on the letter of the law, and law keeping, that they could not understand broad, general, and vital principles like love, forgiveness, grace, and mercy which God intended to serve as the context of the law."
- "A lawyer's approach to the Bible. We need to do more study and thinking on hermeneutics, and take less of a lawyerly approach to the Bible."
I have no doubt where our brother has been getting his food for thought these past few months as he has been searching for new light. And where is that? Directly out of Cecil Hook's writings.
It is true that our brother has not YET taken in all that Hook advocates. He says he still believes in law, and he believes that we must have authority for what we do. He also still believes that commands, examples, and necessary implications are valid ways of establishing authority. But he now thinks that the principle of love is a fourth way to do that. Does he believe that the law of love may sometimes override a specific command of God? If you read his use of the three passages he uses to make his point, I believe you will have to conclude that he does. Note the following statement from the first example he gives:
"Here (Luke 6:1-5, ww) Jesus uses an example, but he also uses a broad, general principle to provide authority for His disciples' conduct. The example he cites was of David doing something that was specifically condemned in the Old Testament, but David did it, and was authorized to do it by the principle of love - love would not stand by and allow David and his companions to perish from hunger even though the only way to prevent it was to take the bread which had been specifically authorized only for the priest and give it to David and his companions."
I am convinced our brother is reading more into this story than is actually there, and I believe he is wrong on the role the principle of love played in the story. He sounds much like Cecil Hook who contends that every command is a mere love directive, and for Hook this means we don't have to give attention to the command's details.
Jack hasn't come this far yet, but he is flirting with Hook's position on this point, and he will be there soon if he's not careful. He has already come so far that he is saying love will override a specific requirement in a command. You can tell that this is his position from the quote given earlier.
Is it true that Jesus authorized His disciples' conduct of eating grain on the Sabbath by citing David as an example of one who was authorized to act contrary to what the law required? Is Jesus saying that David did right because he acted out of love, even though the law itself condemned the act? This is our brother's argument. If he is correct, then in some cases one may use the principle of love to set aside a specific requirement of God's law. I understand why Cecil Hook needs this argument, or one similar to it. He doesn't like to be bound by arbitrary requirements, laws, or regulations. He wants freedom from all law except the law of love, which, he says, is the only law there is.
But why does Brother Holt need this new love hermeneutic that he has put forth? Whatever the reason (and we may have some hints as to why when we consider some of the other positions he has espoused), he has the same difficulty proving it that Cecil Hook has when he uses similar passages to try to establish his argument that all commands are merely love directives, and we are not to insist on their details.
In Matthew 12:4, Jesus said that David ate the showbread "which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests." I wish to quote J. W. McGarvey on this passage (his comments on vv. 3, 4), plus his comments on the other verses (vv. 5-8). His statements regarding these verses concisely answer the idea that is being presented, i.e., that Jesus, on the grounds of the law of love, defended David and the disciples as guiltless, even though they both had violated the law. I would like to see someone who disagrees with McGarvey answer him point by point on this subject. Following are his comments on Matthew 12: 1-8 (parallel to Luke 6:1-5):
"1. Through the corn. The fields of small grain called corn in our version were frequently unfenced, being protected from livestock by the vigilance of shepherds and herdsmen. The narrow roads ran through the fields, and the bending heads of the ripening grain were within reach of the passerby on either side.
2. Not lawful to do. The charge of the Pharisees was false. The law did not forbid eating or preparing food on the Sabbath.
3., 4. What David did. Jesus expressly admitted that what David did was unlawful; and some have supposed that He intended to justify it on the ground of necessity, and then to argue that His disciples, though guilty of violating the law of the Sabbath, are justifiable on the same ground. There is no doubt that on this ground, David excused himself for eating the showbread, and that the Pharisees did the same for him. But it cannot be that He who refused to turn stones into bread when tortured by the forty-day fast, and Who said, 'Whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, and teach men so, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven,' would approve a violation of law such as David was guilty of. Neither can it be that He allowed his own disciples, while under the law, to break the Sabbath. If Christians may violate law when its observance would involve hardship or suffering, then there is an end of suffering in the name of Christ, and an end of self-denial. But it is clear that the Pharisees thought David's act was excusable; otherwise, they would have retorted thus: 'Out of your own mouth we condemn you: you class your act with David's; but David sinned, and so do you.'
Jesus' real argument is this: David, when hungry, ate the showbread, which was unlawful for him to eat; yet, you justify David. My disciples pluck grain and eat it on the Sabbath, an act which the law does not forbid, and you condemn them.
5. The priests in the temple. Having silenced His opponents by the argument ad hominem, He next proved by the law itself that some work may be done on the Sabbath-day. The priests in the temple were required to offer sacrifices, trim the golden lamps, and burn incense on the Sabbath, and these acts required manual labor. In this case, the general law against labor on the Sabbath was modified by the specific law concerning the temple service. The term profane is used, not because it was a real profanation, but because, being labor, it had the appearance of profanation. The example proves that the profanation of labor on the Sabbath was not universal, and as it was not, it might not include what the disciples had just done.
6. Greater than the temple. A greater thing, not person. (See the critical note.) The disciples who ate the grain are compared to the priests in the temple; and the temple is compared with that which led the disciples to the act in question. This was the service they were rendering to Jesus--a service which sometimes prevented the usual means of attaining food. It was their obligation to serve Him that was greater than the temple; that is, greater than the priests' obligation to the temple service. If what the priests did was justifiable, much more what the disciples did.
7. Mercy, and not sacrifice. The argument is that mercy toward these hungering disciples was more acceptable to God than sacrifices at the altar and that if the Pharisees had known the meaning of the passage, they would not have condemned the guiltless.
8. Lord of the Sabbath. That Jesus was Lord of the Sabbath, demonstrated by His previous works, placed His conduct in regard to the Sabbath above criticism and actually made it a guide to the proper way to observe the Sabbath. This remark takes the question outside the range of argument, and brings it into the range of authority.
It should be observed that in this discussion, Jesus sought chiefly to expose the inconsistency of His assailants, and to assert His own divine authority. He reserved to another opportunity a more detailed argument to prove the innocence of acts of mercy on the Sabbath (see next paragraph)." (The New Testament Commentary: Vol. I, Matthew and Mark, pp. 103-105).
Brother Weaver is addressing some things which, during the past two years, have caused quite a stir in the Lord's church. Last year, Brother Holt publicly debated in defense of two propositions:
- 1. Baptism is not essential to salvation.
- 2. Instrumental music in worship is a Scriptural practice.
Sadly, Brother Holt once believed what the Bible teaches on these subjects. Brother Cecil Hook wrote a book entitled, Free in Christ. Brother F. LaGard Smith wrote a book entitled Radical Restoration. Both of these men are espousing conclusions concerning the church's worship, organization, and work that differ from what God's word teaches. It appears that these writings have caused Brother Holt (and others) to begin questioning Bible authority. Here in Southern Ohio, some have begun to openly oppose the Bible teaching regarding the worship of the Lord's church-even causing a spilt in one church in Cincinnati.
I can't find anything about God's word that has changed. Unfortunately, these brethren are compromising the truth, hoping to reach a broader base of worldly people who love the words of men more than the words of God. This is just another one of Satan's tools for causing havoc in the church. God's people need to keep their ears and their Bibles open. Satan will not relent in his efforts to destroy the kingdom by causing division among brethren. May God cause these men (and others) to see the error of their way before it is eternally too late! (KMG)