Since the Serpent asked Eve, “Did God actually say…?” in Genesis 3:1, evil has perpetually sought to undermine the interpretation of God’s words, of His Word. From the philosophy of Origen to the vagaries of Higher Criticism, men have assailed the Bible’s authority not just by disputing its technical truth but by undermining man’s God-given means of understanding its meaning (North, 9-10; Talbot, Lecture 5, 36:45-37:45). A thousand angles have been tried, each seeking to pry yet one more soul away from heaven, and among these thousand angles, one in particular is a favorite of modernity: the assertion that the meaning of the words is subjective, not objective. Often, the replacement of the author as the origin of the word’s meaning underlies these attacks, making the reader, not the writer, the determinant (Talbot, Lecture 8, 35-36:15; North, 30-31; White, 6:50). Regardless of man’s mumblings, however, a sound Sacra Hermeneutica must assume that the meaning of Scripture derives from its Author, both by and through its human authors, not from any other source of meaning.

In total, six distinct options exist for the ultimate origin of meaning in Scripture’s words (which may be assumed to have one single origin, unless two prove equally cogent). First, the words could be meaningless. Second, the meaning (assumed to exist now that meaningless words are set aside) may be sourceless. Third, having set aside negation of meaning and of meaning’s source, the four remaining options are found in the relationship of the work with the persons around it, in the author-word-recipient triad, each of which is another possible source, accompanied by the silent partner, an external entity neither author nor audience. Impersonal objects, including other words, may be eliminated out of the last category (words being, apart from their capacity for meaning, not relevantly different from any other impersonal thing), because to make such the source for another impersonal thing’s meaning would be to engender an infinite, recursive chain, given the provider’s own requirement for meaning (meaninglessness being the foundation for meaning would bring the chain back to rest on the second or third hypothesis). These six possibilities- meaninglessness, sourceless meaning, inherent meaning, meaning from the recipient, meaning from the author, and meaning from the eternal entity- thus derived, the work of determining by what criteria to judge them by can begin.

The goal here is not to find the correct origin of Scriptural meaning and build a hermeneutic out of it. While such an endeavor could be profitable, the Bible has already provided man with a hermeneutic worthy of trust. The point, therefore, is to compare each possible source with truth already known to be infallible, discard the five which prove inconsistent with these, and integrate the remaining possibility as the assured truth, trusting it as a consequent necessity of Biblical truth, of the analogy of Scripture, and assuming, as is proper, the Bible’s absolute truth (Talbot Lecture 12, 27:45-28:30, Berkhof, 51-52, 157-160). With this goal in mind, the standard which any source of meaning must remain consistent with is this: the Bible is authoritative, objective, infallible and sufficient communication from man’s Creator God. Each element of this list can be proven integral to Christianity; an integral element of it is violated by each of the five false origins; its entirety is upheld by the author-origin hypothesis.

The authority of the Bible and of its Author must be upheld. The relationship between these two is clear: because God inspired Scripture, its authority is ultimate, being the “Word of the one living and true God” which “receives its authority from heaven” (Reymond 73). This authorship, the Bible teaches it, grants the Bible over man’s lives final authority; should any, even an angel from heaven, come and teach contrary to it, as per Galatians 1:6-9 and Acts 17:11, man is to utterly abhor him. The Bible, in summary, “is the standard for life, faith, and practice” (Talbot, Lecture 3, 19:00-19:15). Without this doctrine, Christianity collapses, lacking any justification greater than ‘looks nice’.

The immutability and omniscience of God, upon which the objectivity of the Bible rests, must be defended. Many verses, including Number 23:19, 1 Samuel 15:29, and 2 Timothy 2:13, provide a strong basis for immutability, for the assertion that “God, ontologically and decretally speaking, does not and cannot change” (Reymond 177). The second, meanwhile, includes not only God’s necessarily perfect knowledge of all that He created and maintains, but also His perfect self-knowledge (Rushdoony 6). Only such a God could be He by whom “actions are weighed” (1 Samuel 2:3). Together, these two principles assure man that the truth in the Bible is perfect, incapable of being disproved by any part of reality, and consistent, never altering or changing forms with time or place, being an expression of the character of an immutable and all-knowing God.

The unique infallibility of God and His Word must be maintained. As Rushdoony explains, “The concept of infallibility, when denied to God and His word, does not disappear; instead, it is transferred to another area” (8). Humans will ultimately base their lives on some final presupposition. For the Christian, this final presupposition must be in the truth, unbroken and unbreakable, of the Bible and of its Author, whose un-lying nature is, through inspiration, responsible for the truth of His Word (Num. 23:19; Reymond 70). This resultant truth is corroborated nowhere more fervently than in Psalm 119, where the Psalmist explicitly reiterates the surety and truth of God’s Word- and by implication of God Himself- no less than six times (86,138,142,144,151,160). God’s Word is true, and by definition no ‘truth’ may supersede it.

The sufficiency of God’s Word must not be compromised. The principle of Sola Scriptura, which the Reformers died for and that in righteousness, must guide interpretation: no authority besides God’s Word may rule it. Indeed, all interpretation, translation, and reproduction of it has authority only by correspondence to the original (Carson 25, 68-74). Furthermore, as the Word of God, when it proclaims itself sufficient to equip man for every good work, the Bible speaks not idly but in truth (Madrid & White, 8:14-27:18; 2 Timothy 3:16-17). Thus, the Word of God will, as later appears, provide the tools necessary for its own interpretation. Further, if any possible source cannot assure the reader of sufficiency for the Christian life, it must be abandoned.

The nature of God’s Word as communication- transfer of meaning from person A to person B- must not be abandoned. This principle is fundamental to Christianity and lies beneath hermeneutical principles like univocality (Talbot, Lecture 3, 1:00-3:00, Lecture 4, 2:30-3:00). If God’s Word is not communication from God to man, then its nature as His Word is actually irrelevant, as if it lacks communication, no matter how much of His truth is bound up in it, man has no surety of being able to extract, understand, and interact with the truth (even apparent success being likely illusory). Such a Bible might as well be written in an uncrackable code for all the authoritative meaning it could carry. To deny the communicative aspect of the Bible, indeed, is to deny that it can equip man at all, to aver that David, when he said, “Send out Your light and Your truth; let them lead me; let them bring me to Your holy hill and to Your dwelling!” was relying upon futility, upon a truth impossible to see (2 Timothy 3:16-17; Ps. 43:3), and would be clear heresy.

The singular, unique, and complete role of God as Creator of all which both exists and is not Him (evil being, according to Augustine, a negative and not a positive existence) must be preserved (90). Genesis 1:1, the first verse of the first book of the Bible, declares, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” God’s creation is total, and His creation of His Word no less total. Furthermore, in a manner obscured in general creation, God created special revelation, His Word, and the means by which it was created, man and this world; this truth cannot be sacrificed without sacrificing the whole edifice (Talbot, Lecture 2, 1:00-7:00).

Check back next week for Part Two!

Sources:

Augustine. Augustine: Confessions. Translated and edited by Albert Outler. University of Pennsylvania, 2023, <https://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/hum100/augustinconf.pdf>.

Berkhof, L. Principles of Biblical Interpretation. Baker Book House, 1990.

Carson, D.A. The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism. Baker Books, 1979.

Lindsay, James. “The Dialectal Faith of Leftism.” Youtube, uploaded by Sovereign Nations, 5 August 2022, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqj-MKG9Sn>.

Madrid, Patrick & White, James. “EPIC Debate on Sola Scriptura w/ Patrick Madrid & James White.” Youtube, uploaded by Pints with Aquinas, 15 June 2020, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlLlzDBHhhA>.

North, Gary. The Hoax of Higher Criticism. Institute for Christian Economics, 1989.

Potter, Colson. Implication of Anathema: On Baptismal Symbolism (Full). Creational Story, 2023, <https://creationalstory.com/implication-of-anathema-on-baptismal-symbolism-full/>.

Reymond, Robert L. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. Second edition, Zondervan Academic, 1998.

Rushdoony, Rousas John. Infallibility: An Inescapable Concept. Ross House Books, 1978.

Stirner, Max. “Max Stirner: from The Ego and His Own.” The Anarchist Handbook. Edited by Michael Malice, 2021.

Talbot, K. BBL101-Lectures. Whitefield College, 2023.

White, James. “The Confusion Between Sola Scriptura and Exegesis.” Youtube, uploaded by Dividing Lines Higlights, 27 July 2020, <youtu.be/o5xLZ1M3Pqw>.