In his book The Sufficiency of Scripture, Noel Weeks addresses the idea that exhaustive detail is required in order for something to be considered authoritative. Clearly the Bible is not exhaustive in all matters (one generally does not go to the Bible for physics laws and formulas), therefore, according to this proposed requirement, Scripture must not be authoritative. As a result, people seek to supplement or supplant the Bible with other “authorities.”

In the 9th century, Sa’adya Ga’on argued for the authority of the Rabbinic tradition based on an issue with the Jewish lunar year. God commanded the Jews to offer certain sacrifices at various festivals. Because a lunar year is about ten days shorter than a solar year, a problem quickly surfaced. Since God only specified which month the festival should take place, the use of the lunar month meant the specified sacrifices would not be ripe once the lunar months fell out of sync with the solar months.

Ga’on argued that the lack of Biblical detail demonstrated the need of another authority.¹ The question became: “how can the Bible be authoritative without being exhaustive?”² Responding to this question Weeks explains that throughout history authors have attempted to write authoritative works with one of two goals in mind: 1) attempting to include every last detail within the “authoritative” work or 2) attempting to summarize everything into a few general principles. Weeks shows how the Bible is a hybrid of these two extremes. The Bible provides general principles (such as the Ten Commandments) but explains them in detail where confusion or ambiguity may arise. For instance, the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy provide examples of general principles that are clarified in certain circumstances where it is unclear how the principle should be applied. Weeks then extends this functional consideration of the Bible to doctrinal passages. Weeks writes that generally speaking, more “ink” is devoted to doctrines that were controversial or disputed. Likewise, more widely accepted doctrines did not receive as much attention (cf. Philippians 2).³ The question is not if the Bible speaks in exhaustive detail on a matter, but if it speaks to it at all.⁴

Often those that hold this “necessary exhaustiveness” view draw a sharp distinction between general and special revelation. What may then be known through general revelation (typically identified as the “authoritative” findings of science) is contrasted with what may known from special revelation (namely, the Bible).⁵ Upon examination, we see that this sharp distinction does not comply with the Biblical witness. General revelation teaches us about God, not simply bare scientific facts. Psalm 19:1-6, Romans 1:18-20, and Acts 14:15-17 make clear that creation reveals the law and glory of God. We also see God’s continual involvement with creation in verses such as Jeremiah 31:35-36. These passages blur a sharp distinction between general and special revelation.

Furthermore, a sharp distinction does not provide a satisfactory epistemology. In Colossians 2:8 Paul explains that the knowledge men deduce from the cosmos is “empty deception” and “elementary.” Men are not to look to the cosmos to deduce general principles, but to Christ who is found in Scripture. Through His interrogation of Job, God proclaims that we do not know His laws (Job 38). Neither can we learn them through a study of the cosmos. We may learn about creation and see God’s hand at work in it, but we cannot understand His laws univocally. Hence, we must not expect Scripture to provide us with exhaustive detail. For humans to know anything at all, exhaustiveness must not be a requirement for authority. A Biblical epistemology does not allow for truly exhaustive knowledge, because as creatures we are incapable of it. Exhaustive knowledge belongs to the LORD who is the epistemological foundation of all knowledge.

1. Weeks, Noel. The Sufficiency of Scripture (Banner of Truth, 1998) 7.↩
2. Ibid.↩
3. Ibid, 13.↩
4. Ibid, 14.↩
5. Ibid, 15.↩