When interpreters are predisposed toward human authority, they have too strong a tendency to defer to the judgment of other human beings. This human authority could be an influential church leader, a secular teacher, or even a parent or friend. Or it may take the form of traditional or ecclesiastical views of the Bible’s ethical teachings. Now, it’s important to remember that all these human authorities can play positive roles in the interpretive process. Nevertheless, these human traditions and communities are fallible, so believers must never blindly submit to such authorities.

Recall once again the illustration of the house where the wilderness represents those things that are clearly forbidden, the house represents those things that are clearly permitted, and the yard represents those things that are somewhat unclear in Scripture. Christians who follow a strategy of human authority do not decide for themselves where to put the fence. Instead, they put the fence wherever the authority figures instruct them to put it.

For all practical purposes, when people entirely submit to the judgments of human authorities, they reject the Bible as their ultimate revealed norm. For example, in the Gospels, Jesus encountered many Pharisees who rejected the supreme authority of Scripture in favor of traditional interpretations. Listen to Jesus’ words to the Pharisees in Matthew 15:4-6:

For God commanded, “Honor your father and your mother” … But you say, “If anyone tells his father or his mother, ‘What you would have gained from me is given to God,’ he need not honor his father.” So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.

The Pharisees did not reject Scripture. On the contrary, they held Scripture in very high regard. But they valued their traditional interpretations of Scripture too highly by comparison. The Pharisees accepted interpretations that did not align with the facts, goals, and means of Scripture. And so, Jesus condemned them.

A problem that is related to revering human decisions more highly than the authority of Scripture is the endorsement of false interpretations. This is particularly problematic when the church itself advocates false interpretations. For example, at the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325, the church officially, and rightly, refuted the heresy of Arianism. Arianism denied the doctrine of the Trinity. However, at the Second Council of Sirmium in A.D. 351, the church changed its position and affirmed Arianism. And several local councils confirmed this change in subsequent years. During this time, Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, was repeatedly exiled for opposing Arianism. At the time, he was considered a heretic for holding to views of the Trinity that we now consider to be orthodox.

The corrective for this strategy is fairly simple: We must always maintain the supremacy of Scripture as our ultimate revealed norm. Practically speaking, this means that we should measure every human judgment against Scripture. Rather than being satisfied simply to accept fallible human judgments — even the church’s judgments — we must search the Scriptures to see if the things these authorities say are true.