Is the Word of God Verbal or Written?
Having disposed of the issue of the origin of the canon, it is now time to deal with the specifics of the form God's word takes. The RCC makes a very strong point of the fact that inspiration is first and foremost verbal. Since it was verbal at the time of the writing of the canon, there is no a priori reason to expect that the situation is in any way different now than then.
The first book of the Bible, we see the first example of God communicating with man.
16 And the LORD God commanded the man,... Gen 2:16
God's first direction to man was not written, it was verbal. This sets a pattern that is repeated throughout the Bible, with only one exception. Each time that God communicated to man, the information was transferred without any written component. The single exception is the ten commandments. The fact that God made such a dramatic exception to His rule of non-written communication should give us pause. The ten commandments must be of singular importance to Him. All ten are absolutely sacred, and of everlasting character to receive such treatment. However, the study of the commandments is beyond the scope of our discussion.
(Some will point out the vision of a writing hand in Daniel 5 as another example of God giving His revelations in written form. We can admit this possibility, but since the message was a single sentence pronouncing judgment, it is not of the class of divine directions which constitute doctrine. Therefore, the immediately preceding statement regarding the ten commandments will stand.)
Throughout the OT, we see a repeated record of visitations and communications which are always non-verbal. Some time after God speaks, the prophet writes down the content of the message.
22 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel,
3 Then Moses came and recounted to the people all the words of the LORD and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice, and said, "All the words which the LORD has spoken we will do!"
4 And Moses wrote down all the words of the LORD. Ex 20:22a; 24:3-4a
Here we find Moses in an audience with God, and then he recounts "all" that God told him. Then he wrote down "all" that God told him. This sets a difficult example for other writers to follow. In fact, it is clear that they didn't all follow it.
1 In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon Daniel saw a dream and visions in his mind as he lay on his bed; then he wrote the dream down and related the following summary of it. Dan 7:1
Daniel wrote a "summary" of his vision. It is in fact quite reasonable to expect that this is what was written in the bulk of the canon. To include every detail of what was said, seen, or done would be impossible. We would have a world full of books, with little pertinent detail. As we move into the NT, we see that Paul specifically states that there are things which he has taught which he has taught verbally.
15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. 2 Thess 2:15
2 And the things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also. 2 Tim 2:2
We may reasonably infer (although Paul does not say so specifically) that there are some things which he did not write down. On the other hand, 2 Thess 2:15 leaves open the possibility that some of these "traditions" which were not written to the Thessalonians may very well have been conveyed in written form to others. In fact, whatever inference we may draw, we lack sufficient evidence to determine whether all of the doctrines which Paul taught were in fact written and incorporated into the canon. This is the same issue brought forward by 1 Cor 11:2. We do know that Paul taught everything that God told him.
27"For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. Acts 20:27 (NKJ)
The question outstanding is whether any of those teachings resided in purely verbal form and were then committed to authoritative teachers. Also, we must consider whether these teachings constitute essential doctrines for salvation. After all, the question of sola scriptura is not whether the scriptures are exhaustive sources of doctrinal material, but whether they are sufficient. To this end, we may consider how NT authors used tradition from OT times.
23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. Matt 2:23
Almost immediately in the NT we find a reference which can only be to tradition. Nowhere in the OT do we find the prophetic reference called on here. Matthew 23:2 contains an even more distinct reference to tradition when Jesus speaks of "Moses' seat". We find no OT source for this expression.
1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. Matt 23:1-4
Jesus is referring to the teaching office of the rabbis who would teach the Torah (the Books of Moses).
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. Acts 15:21
The RCC claims that this points out an authoritative teaching office, or magisterium. Yet it is clear from context that the proper teaching was strictly the written word of God as given to Moses, since Jesus condemns the multitude of regulations imposed by the rabbis. These regulations were not authoritative, contrary to the RCC position. Jesus took a point of tradition, and used it as a homiletic (preaching) tool, for the benefit of His listeners. The point of tradition does not become a point of doctrine, but rather an illustration.
4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ. 1 Cor 10:4
Here Paul is using a reference to the rock (Num 20:11) which Moses struck to produce water for the children of Israel in the wilderness. By rabbinical tradition, this rock followed them in their wanderings. Yet the Bible contains no such reference. Clearly, tradition is the source of the reference.
8 And just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected as regards the faith. 2 Tim 3:8
Paul is referring to Pharaoh's sorcerers by name. But the Bible contains no such reference. The sorcerers are mentioned in the story of the efforts by Moses and Aaron to secure the release of the Jews from Egypt, but not by name. The names had to come from tradition.
17 Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain; and it did not rain on the earth for three years and six months. James 5:17
1 Kings 17 makes no reference to a prayer by Elijah. Paul is again referring to a fact from tradition.
9 But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, "The Lord rebuke you." Jude 9
Here Jude makes reference to tradition regarding an event not even recorded in the OT. Tradition must again be the source.
What are we to make of this? NT writers clearly relied on facts not presented to us in scripture. We should notice the manner in which this non-canonical information is used. Not once does any writer (or speaker) use a traditional source as a point of doctrine. In every case, the fact taken from tradition is used in a strictly homiletic manner. Tradition is used for illustrations, just as every modern preacher uses everyday material to illustrate his sermons. All doctrine comes from the canon.
But this does not close the issue. NT writers made other references to tradition.
2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. 1 Cor 11:2
15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. 2 Thess 2:15
13 Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. 2 Tim 1:13
2 And the things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also. 2 Tim 2:2
Paul makes unequivocal reference to "tradition" as being a valuable part of the truth. He had taught the proper traditions in his preaching. Unfortunately, we don't know exactly what these "traditions" were. We do know (Acts 20:27) that Paul taught everything that God told him to teach. We don't know if he wrote everything down. Nowhere in the NT do we see an explicit statement that every necessary doctrine has been committed to writing.
What may we conclude?
- Virtually all scripture began as unwritten revelation from God.
- Some parts of scripture contain less than the complete revelation which was received.
- The NT makes reference to ancient tradition repeatedly, but in every case uses it as a homiletic tool. Never is tradition used to create doctrine.
- NT authors refer to tradition which was taught and should be preserved, but do not tell us that all of it is preserved in writing.
All of this leaves open the possibility that God did plan to leave us with a magisterium in which all of the remaining unwritten tradition would reside. We must now proceed to examine the claims of the two churches which claim to possess divine teaching authority: The Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.