A Meeting Place for Evangelicals, Reformed, and Orthodox Christians

Author: Robert Arakaki (Page 60 of 89)

Saint Paul and the “Works of the Law”

Folks,    I often get questions about how Orthodoxy views sola fide.  Orthodoxy believes that we are justified through faith in Christ, but it denies the Protestant insistence that justification is by faith alone.  My assessment is that Martini’s article shows how the Orthodox understanding of justification is much more faithful to Scripture than Luther’s.  Let’s read it and have and have a discussion on this important issue.    Robert

Saint Paul and the “Works of the Law”

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/onbehalfofall/2012/06/23/st-paul-and-the-works-of-the-law/

Coptic priest censing the altar

A great emphasis in the protestant reformation was the doctrinal formulation of “justification by faith alone,” which many asserted to be “the doctrine upon which the Church stands or falls” (Martin Luther: “articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae”).

While this was in and of itself a complete novelty (and devoid of Patristic warrant or justification) — supposedly based upon the Scriptures alone — it is quite easy to demonstrate that not only is this concept foreign to the Scriptures but also foreign to the first century Judean mindset (not to mention the Christian mindset). To be plain, Luther and other reformers were reading their contemporary disagreements with the mainstream Latin church into the words of St Paul.

From an Orthodox perspective, there is no conflict between faith and works, and indeed the “faith vs. works” arguments never found any foothold in the Christian east. Concepts like “legalism” are a complete non sequitor for the Orthodox, as “merit” has no place in our Theology (but this is a much longer, and more intricate discussion beyond the scope of this post). Perhaps the best summary of the Orthodox viewpoint on this topic is found in Saint Mark the Ascetic (Philokalia): “Some without fulfilling the commandments think that they possess true faith. Others fulfill the commandments and then expect the Kingdom as a reward due to them. Both are mistaken.”

As Christians, we are most certainly “justified by faith” (Rom. 5:1) as the apostle clearly intimates, but this is not the same thing as being justified “by faith alone.” The only time we read “by faith alone” in the Scriptures is when the Brother of God writes: “You see, then, that one is justified by works, and not by faith alone” (St James 2:24). The person who has faith is seen as on par with the demons, but nothing more (according to St James). Our faith must be shown forth and proven by good works — by hope, love, charity, fasting, worship, etc — by coming together as the Body of Christ and offering ourselves, along with Christ, as a sacrifice for the Life of the World.

But the main issue with the novel readings of the reformers (Luther, especially) is that they imported the discussions around “faith working through love” (Gal. 5:6) into St Paul’s completely separate discussions on the “works of the law” (εργων νομου), or what could properly be translated “works of the Torah,” given the Alexandrian (Septuagint) usage of νομος.

Interestingly enough, this phrase “works of the law” is found in only three places in all of Second Temple and early Christian (apostolic) literature. Two of those references are the apostle Paul himself, in his epistles to both the Romans and the Galatians:

“… by works of the law, no flesh will be justified in his sight” (Rom. 3:20)

“Therefore, we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. Or is God the God of the Jews only? Is he not the God of the Gentiles as well?” (Rom. 3:28-29)

“… no one is justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ […] that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law.” (Gal. 2:16)

“I just want to hear this from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law or by believing what you heard? Are you that senseless that having begun in the Spirit, you now end in the flesh?” (Gal. 3:2-3)

“… those who depend on the works of the law are under a curse …” (Gal. 3:10)

Try to imagine how someone 2,000 years from now — and completely removed from our culture by time — would understand a phrase like “Honest Abe.” Without knowing the cultural significance behind a phrase like this, one would be left scratching their head. Similarly, we must listen to the Mind of the Church and the understanding of those living in Paul’s day in order to see what he’s “getting at” in both of these epistles.

 

http://fullhomelydivinity.org/salem/Articles/icons.htm

Apostle Paul

I would also be remiss if I didn’t mention here the important notion that Paul’s epistles were not doctrinal treatises “out of the blue,” but were all written to address problems in the Church. These letters are not exclusively (or even primarily) for the sake of posterity and for the establishment of “dogma,” but are rather mostly for the purpose of correcting errors in both thought and behavior in the new and burgeoning pioneer faith of the Christians.

That said, let’s take a closer look at the apostle’s statements above regarding the “works of the law.”

In the first quote from Romans (3:20), St Paul says that “no flesh” will be justified in God’s sight. He then continues to speak of the fact that “there is no distinction” (v. 22) of persons before God, speaking to the difference (or lack thereof) between Jews and Gentiles. The conclusion of the apostle’s present discussion is that the Lord is “God of the Gentiles as well” and therefore “a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law” (Rom. 3:28-29). In other words, we are not purified before God because of “Jewishness” or cultic purity (as the Pharisees and other anti-temple cults of Second Temple Judaism argued, e.g. the Essenes/Qumran community), but because of the faith of Abraham — because of faith in Jesus Christ. It is Christ that makes us pure through our union with Him (and as a result, the entire world is both purified and sanctified by the Church and Her sacrificial service).

The issue that the apostle is addressing here is not one of “faith vs. works” or even “legalism” vs. “faith alone” — the question is, does one need to “become a Jew” first in order to be a true and justified Christian? The answer is (of course) no, for Christianity is the true Judaism. There is not even a hint of the Medieval and protestant notion of “meritorious works” here, and to read such a discussion into Paul is simply anachronistic.

In the Galatian epistle, St Paul makes the same argument in relation to εργων νομου, but with even more force — even challenging the apostle Peter on this very issue in front of a large gathering of Christians (although Chrysostom seems to indicate that they planned this public outburst in advance, in order to teach a lesson).

The apostle emphasizes that he and other Hebrew Christians are “Jews by nature and not Gentile sinners” (Gal. 2:15). This statement immediately characterizes the following ones in the context of “Jews vs. Gentiles,” not “faith vs. works” as later protestant commentators would erroneously assert. The apostle then helps me not feel so bad for being redundant at times (i.e. v. 16) and reinforces that one is justified through “faith in Jesus Christ” and “not by the works of the law.” For Christians, our “cultic purity” as people of the true Temple is found through our union with Jesus Christ, not through the “traditions of men” (St Mark 7:8) that would have us continually purify ourselves by other means (more on that in a bit).

Shifting the focus to that of “receiving the Spirit” of God, the apostle asks the Galatians if this was accomplished through εργων νομου or through belief — the answer is obvious: throughbelief, and then continued through faithfulness to the Lord Jesus Christ. Furthermore, if we have “begun in the Spirit,” why would we nullify the Grace of God with the εργων νομου and purification of “the flesh?” This, again, is not a reference to “meritorious works” or “works of supererogation,” but to that of cultic purity and the excesses certain groups propagated in the later period of the Second Temple.

When we consider the old covenant Scriptures with regards to the Temple and ritual purity, we can see how the “flesh” (σάρξ or sarx) was a pivotal theme — but one that had nothing to do with “merit.” For example, in Leuitikon (Leviticus), chapters 13-14, there are various instructions on how to deal with people that contract the flesh-disease of leprousy. The fact that these people are anointed with oil is no insignificant notion, as the correspondance to Chrismation reminds us that through union with Christ (and by receiving the Holy Spirit), we are united to the true Temple (Jesus Christ) and are therefore made ritually pure in the flesh. Beyond this, we see that even buildings can contract leprousy, being defiled by the Gentiles (the foreigners) that dwelled in the land before the Hebrews:

“When you come into the land of the Chananites, which I will give you in possession, and I shall give a leprous disease in the houses in the land acquired by you […] And he[the priest] shall look at the attack in the walls of the house, hollow, greenish or reddish […] and they shall take out the stones in which is the attack and throw them into an unclean place outside the city. And they shall scrape off the inside of the house round about and pour out the soil in an unclean place outside the city.”
Leuitikon (Leviticus), 14:34,37,40-41 (LXX)

This same concern for a ritual purity “of the flesh” was paramount in the notions of both the Pharisees and the other anti-Temple/anti-Jerusalem movements of the first century — not “faith vs. works.”

http://st-takla.org/Gallery/Bible/Illustrations/The-Book-of-Books-in-Pictures/1-Old-Testament/7-Elijah-Ezra/126--Rebuilding-the-Temple-2.html

Rebuilding the Temple Ezra 3:10

Due to the fact that “the promised land” had been under constant occupation by “the Gentiles” (the Assyrians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Babylonians, etc.) — along with the continual defilement of the Temple by these impure foreigners — the feeling of ritual impurity had to have been at an all time high for those living in the first century (AD). In the minds of the Pharisees and Essenes, the entire land was defiled in the flesh with leprousy. The only hope for the Judeans, then, was the purification of their land and of their Temple (or even an abandonment of the Temple altogether, until it was under the control of “pure” hands). Without the Temple as a locus of cultic purity — in the midst of a purified land, set apart for God’s people — there was no hope for the salvation and restoration of Israel (the eschatological hope for the new covenant, the anointed one, or Messiah, etc.).

Salvation must be seen (in one sense) as a return to the Paradise of Eden, in true union and communion with God — but this can only be possible if we are cleansed of our impurities and able to dwell in the midst of a holy God (or rather to have a holy God dwell in the midst of us). The concern of the Pharisees and Essenes (for example) was certainly valid, therefore, but they were ultimately “missing the boat.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qumran

Qumran Caves

The third place where this phrase ”works of the Torah/law” is found is in one of the documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls (from Cave Four). This scroll is self-titled Miqsat Ma‘ase ha-Torah, or “Selections of the Works of the Torah” (it is also known as 4QMMT/4Q394-399 in scholarly references or as “A Sectarian Manifesto”).

 

 

The scroll opens with a statement of purpose: “These are some of our pronouncements concerning the Law of God; specifically, some of the pronouncements concerning works of the law, which we have determined . . . and all of them concern defiling mixtures and the purity of the sanctuary” (4Q394 Frags. 3-7, Cols. 1-2; with 4Q395 Frag. 1). As stated here, the very purpose of these εργων νομου are to keep the sanctuary pure and free of defilement — they are not about “meriting” salvation through “good works.”

Some of the “works of the law” that are then enumerated fall under topics such as: a ban on offerings using Gentile grain, a ban on sin offerings boiled in Gentile/copper  vessels, a ban on sacrifices by Gentiles, rulings on the purity of those who prepare the red heifer, a ban on bringing the skins of cattle/sheep into the Temple, a ban on Temple entrance after contact with skins of a carcass, a ruling on who is fit to eat of the holy gifts, a ban on the inclusion of the “unfit” into the people of Israel, a ban on the entrance of the blind/deaf into the Temple, a ruling on the cleansing of lepers, a ruling on unlawful sexual unions and marriage, and so on (cf. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, ed. Wise, Abegg & Cook, pp. 454-462). As you can tell, the predominant concerns of these “works of the law” is that of cultic/ritual purity (as related to the Temple and to the people/congregation of Israel).

But beyond this, what is the ultimate concern? As alluded to above, it is that of salvation — and not just for individuals but for the whole of Israel (the longing for its restoration and salvation in the new covenant, even).

The “people of the desert” in Qumran are warned that to ignore these rituals of purity is to invite the judgment of God: . . . because of […] the fornication, some places have been destroyed. Indeed, it is written in the book of Moses that ‘You shall not bring an abomination into your house,’ for an abomination is hated (by God).”

You can almost hear the paranoia in these words, as the Judeans looked around and were completely surrounded and “infested” throughout the land (and the Temple) by Gentiles. It is no wonder that a variety of anti-Temple movements arose in the first century (of which the Forerunner, John the Baptist, was likely a part), and one can’t help but mention the zeal shown by Christ in the cleansing of the Temple. In fact, the necessity of “separation” from the impure is next mentioned in this scroll: “We have separated from the majority of the people and from all their uncleanness and from being party to these matters or going along with them in these things. And you know that no unfaithfulness, deception, or evil are found in our hands, for we give some thought to these issues” (4Q398, Frags. 14-17, Col. 1).

The connection of this apparent apostasy and compromise in Israel is connected with an eschatology of “the Last Days,” as well: “In the book of Moses it is written […] that you ‘will turn from the path and evil will befall you.’ And it is written ‘that when all these things happen to you in the Last Days, the blessing and the curse, that you call them to mind and return to Him with all your heart and with all your soul.’ . . . at the end of the age, then you shall live . . .“ Even with some damage and incompleteness to these fragments, we can see the overall direction the author of the scroll is taking — if the defilement and cultic impurity of Jerusalem/the Temple continues, God will completely abandon Israel. The time for returning to God “with all your heart and with all your soul” has come (and arguably, this is what we see in the new covenant and in the Person of Jesus Christ and His Church).

Continuing with the eschatological theme, the Qumran community (according to this scroll) expected the restoration of Israel (the return to God) to occur in “the Last Days” when those of Israel shall return to the Law of Moses with all their heart and will never turn away again.” I believe this refers not only to the new covenant but explicitly to the ultimate anti-Temple sect: “the Way” of Jesus Christ and His blessed apostles.

The rather important conclusion to this scroll (“Selections of the Works of the Torah”) is as follows:

“Now, we have written to you some of the works of the Law, those which we determined would be beneficial for you and your people, because we have seen that you possess insight and knowledge of the Law. Understand all these things and beseech Him to set your counsel straight and so keep you away from evil thoughts and the counsel of Belial. Then you shall rejoice at the end time when you find the essence of our words to be true. And it will be reckoned to you as righteousness, in that you have done what is right and good before Him, to your own benefit and to that of Israel.”

Of note, we see that the ultimate purpose of these “works of the law” is for the sake of Israel and her salvation. For the Judeans of Qumran, this had come to mean purifying the land and the Temple from the defilement — the leprousy — of the Gentiles, and this is certainly why they found themselves in the recesses of the wilderness as a protest against the impure and compromised priests of Jerusalem.

It seems to be the case as well that the Pharisees had ultimately the same goal, leading them to push for cultic purity even outside the context and walls of the Temple (an extra-Scriptural notion), as we must keep in mind that the Pharisees were not priests, nor were they directly connected to the (Second) Temple. Rather, they were attempting a “lay” reform of the priesthood and of the people of Israel, pushing their agenda by any means necessary (as an aside, this made the “new Rabbi on the block” — Jesus — to be quite a direct affront and competitor against their efforts, and thus their attempts to discredit him and his ministry).

I also need to mention the use of the phrase “reckoned to you as righteousness” in this scroll. In the Qumran/Essene/Pharisee mindset, the ultimate personification of this being “reckoned” as righteousness is not in Abraham, but in Phinehas (and this is very clear in theDSS elsewhere). Phinehas is famous for his zeal in the book of Numbers:

“And Israel stayed in Sattim, and the people were profaned by whoring after the daughters of Moab. And they invited them to the sacrifices of their idols, and the people ate of their sacrifices and did obeisance to their idols […] And behold, a man of the sons of Israel came and brought his brother to the Medianite woman before Moyses [Moses] and before all the congregation of Israel’s sons […] And when Phinees[Phinehas] son of Eleazar son of Aaron the priest saw it, he arose from the midst of the congregation. And he took a barbed lance in his hand, and he went in after the Israelite man into the alcove and pierced both of them, both the Israelite man and the woman through her womb. And the plague stopped from Israel’s sons. And those that died in the plague were twenty-four thousand.”
Numbers 25:1-2; 6-9 (LXX)

The zeal shown here by Phinehas was that of keeping the congregation of Israel pure, and helping to stave off further spread of a plague (judgment for their “whoring” as the LXX nicely puts it). In the same way, both the Pharisees and Essenes (and presumably the community at Qumran) were zealous for the absolute purity of Israel. As a result, they associated their actions with those of Phinehas the priest. And indeed, the approval of this zeal is seen in the Psalmist’s words: “And Phinees stood and made atonement, and the breach abated. And it was reckoned to him as righteousness to generation and generation forever” (Psalm 105[106]:30-31 LXX).

 

http://orthodoxbahamas.com/?p=1808

There is no distinction in Christ

If we circle back to the words of St Paul in his two occasional epistles referenced above, everything should be much clearer (although I would argue that the Scriptural text itself stands alone to delineate against any notion of “faith vs. works” or meritology). What’s interesting, however (cf. N.T. Wright), is that St Paul extends the “works of the law” to be not only these cultic purity laws of the Temple but also that of the most basic of Judean “markers,” such as circumcision itself (e.g. Romans 2:25-29; 3:30; 4:9-13). The heart of the apostle’s arguments in both Romans and Galatians is not “faith vs. works” but rather “you don’t have to become a Jew in order to become a Christian.” Indeed, to be a Christian is to be united to Christ — and that is a promise offered to the whole world, for “there is no distinction” (Rom. 3:22) with God.

At the same time, we also see the contemporary (for the apostle) concern over cultic purity in St Paul’s letters. For example, when the apostle mentions being justified “in the flesh” in both letters (e.g. Rom. 3:20; Gal. 3:3), he is not speaking to the reformers’ notion of “faith vs. works” (i.e. “works” are “good works” done “in the flesh” and not “by the Spirit”) but rather the attempt to be ritually pure before God through the “works of the law.” This is corroborated not only by the Dead Sea Scrolls but also in Leuitikon (Leviticus, Ch. 13-14), where we see that both people and various objects (e.g. homes) can be diseased “in the flesh” with leprousy, becoming ritually impure in God’s sight.

A great promise of the new covenant in Christ — as related to this subject — is that Christ has replaced the Temple in His very Person. As a result, the Church (as the Body of Christ) is also the temple of the living God, which St Paul mentions elsewhere. With the Church now supplanting the Temple everywhere it gathers, the purity of Christ is capable of being spread throughout the world, ridding every nation of the defilement of the flesh and of every strain of leprousy.

While the Essenes and the Pharisees were both correct in wishing to purify Israel from defilement, they were also both incorrect as to how this would be accomplished.

 

Fall of Jerusalem AD 70 - painting by David Roberts (1850)

Fall of Jerusalem AD 70 – by David Roberts (1850)

With the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, the promise of Jesus to supplant that Temple in the Holy Gospel finds its ultimate realization, and the “Last Days” had truly come upon Israel.  In Christ, and in the apostolic Church, the people of God had now “returned to God,” and through union with Christ and faith in Him are now truly pure — even without circumcision and even without the “works of the law.”  In other words, even without the old Temple and even without becoming Jewish first.

 

Good News for all the world

Good News for all the world

In this sense, then, the Good News of Christ is truly Good News for the whole world — for the Jew first and also the Gentiles (the “nations”). The so-called “Great Commission” is a calling to spread the purity of Christ — the true Temple — to all the nations; and this purification begins in the purifying waters of Baptism (cf. St Matt. 28:18-20), hearkening back to the purification rituals for leprousy (using water and oil) in the books of Moses.

The debate over the “works of the law” in the first century was not one over “faith vs. works,” but rather over how one is made a Christian, and therefore how the entire world can be saved in Christ. This mission will certainly require our good works, as we cooperate with the Grace of God and work to spread the Good News and the purity of Christ to every corner of the earth through the ministry of the Church.

Vincent Martini     

On Behalf of All.org

 

 

 

 

1 Vote

Remembering the Original Santa Claus — St. Nicholas of Myra

 

On 6 December, the Orthodox Church celebrates the life of Saint Nicholas of Myra.  He lived in the fourth century in Asia Minor (modern day Turkey).

He had a reputation for secret gift giving.  One story tells how in the middle of the night he secretly threw in tiny bags of money to an impoverished family, saving the daughters from being sold into prostitution.   In recent years this story was refashioned into Santa’s gigantic bag of toys for good boys and girls.

 

St. Nicholas throwing bags of gold into the window.  By Gentile da Fabriano (1452)

Christians who are struggling against the commercialization of Christmas can gain much comfort and inspiration from the original Santa Claus.  Ancient Faith Radio has a podcast series Saint of the Day.  For 6 December it featured: “Our Father Among the Saints Nicholas the Wonderworker, Archbishop of Myra.”  Being rooted in the history and tradition of the Church will enable us to approach Christmas with a fitting Christ-centered attitude.

I’ve juxtaposed three images to show the gradual shift in perception and understanding of St. Nicholas: (1) an Orthodox icon, (2) a fifteenth century oil painting from the Roman Catholic tradition, and (3) a modern day Santa Claus.

Modern Day Santa Claus

Visitors new to the OrthodoxBridge can read my posting from 2011: “Remembering St. Nicholas, Recovering a Christian Heritage.” In it I discussed how the venerable saint became transmogrified into a fantastic character with little or no grounding in Orthodox Tradition.  I also discussed how the Orthodox in America can be countercultural while maintaining a spirit of charity and humility.

Robert Arakaki

Holy Tradition’s Importance to Canon Formation

 

Holy Tradition’s Importance to Canon Formation: A Response to Prof. Daniel Wallace

Daniel B. Wallace, Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary (perhaps the leading dispensational seminary in the world), wrote a thoughtful blog posting: “The Problem with Protestant Ecclesiology.”

He starts off by unabashedly proclaiming his Protestant convictions. Then, amazingly, he points out what he sees as Protestantism’s weakness, its ecclesiology.

Prof. Wallace notes that: (1) there is a lack of consistency in Protestant worship services,(2) many Protestant congregations are ill prepared to deal with a pastor who forsakes the historic Christian faith, and (3) recent scholarship is drawing attention to the fact that canonicity – which books belong to the Bible – cannot be understood apart from the authority of the church.  Orthodox Christians have made similar criticisms, but these are stunning admissions and observations coming from within the Protestant camp.  Protestants, whether of dispensationalist, fundamentalist, or more mainstream persuasion, should give attention to what Prof. Wallace has to say.

He closes with the suggestion that Protestants be open to learning from the more ancient branches of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.  He also recommends that Protestants listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking through the early church fathers and embrace the ancient historic forms of worship.

This blog posting has three parts: (1) my personal reactions to Prof. Wallace’s posting, (2) a discussion of the evidence that point to the role of the traditioning process in canon formation, and (3) a discussion of an Orthodox approach to canon formation.

 

1. My Reactions

As I read through Prof. Wallace’s blog posting I had a sense of déjà vu.  It reminded me of the time I had graduated from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary with an M.A. in Church History and was committed to helping to bring the United Church of Christ back to its biblical roots.  Yet unbeknownst to me at the time were the tiny cracks in my Protestant theology that would in time become major fissures that would result in a theological crisis.  The concerns voiced by Prof. Wallace are quite similar that I and others were asking when we embarked on our journey to Orthodoxy.  I was just a seminary graduate then, here we have similar critical questions being voiced by a seminary professor at a major Protestant seminary!

My studies in church history made me keenly aware of Protestantism’s theological anarchy.  My involvement in the evangelical renewal movement put me squarely in the middle of the Cold War hostilities between Evangelicals and Liberals who belonged to the same denomination.  Prof. Wallace recounted the struggle of one Protestant congregation with an apostate pastor; I had to struggle with the question of a denomination that had gone apostate.  Could I as an Evangelical belong to a denomination with historic roots in Puritan New England and yet had many pastors and theologians who had become de facto Arians?

As I wrestled with the doctrinal controversies of modern Protestantism I was at the same time haunted by voices from the early church.  It took the form of quotes from two church fathers.  Irenaeus of Lyons, a second century church father, wrote:

Having received this preaching and this faith, as I have said, the Church, although scattered in the whole world, carefully preserves it, as if living in one house.  She believes these things [everywhere] alike, as if she had but one heart and one soul, and preaches them harmoniously, teaches them, and hands them down, as if she had but one mouth.

This quote by Irenaeus described the organic connection between church unity and doctrinal orthodoxy in the early church.  What I longed for was not an impossible ideal but had existed in fact in the early church.  It caused me wonder: How did Protestant Christianity get into such a mess and how could we recover the church unity and orthodoxy of the early Church?

The other quote came from Augustine of Hippo, the towering giant of Western theology.  He is reputed to have said:

If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.

This quote by Augustine shone a spotlight on the egocentric core of the Protestant approach to doing theology.  I realized that my evangelical theology was at its core my personal interpretation of the Bible and my church identity the result of which denomination I chose to affiliate with.

Even the Reformed tradition with confessional statements like the Westminster Confession suffered from this egocentric flaw.  There were not one but a variety of confessions one could choose from.  Moreover, the authority of these confessions was contingent and provisional at best.  These confessions had no authority in themselves but were dependent on their faithfully reflecting Scripture.  Absent from the Reformed creeds were any claim to a universal binding authority on all Christians.  Among Presbyterians the conservatives view the confessions as prescriptive and binding while the liberals understand them to be historic witnesses and no longer binding.  I had no objective guarantee that this was the true Christian faith.  As a Protestant I had no external authority like the Church to fall back on.

As Prof. Wallace suggested, I started listening to what the Holy Spirit had to say through the early church fathers and the ancient liturgies.  This led me to follow in the paths of the Mercersburg theologians, John Nevins and Philip Schaff, who advocated a catholic and Reformed Christianity.  This took me to the Seven Ecumenical Councils that claimed to make decisions binding on all Christians.  But the weakness of Mercersburg theology was that the early church fathers for the most part were books on my bookshelf and most people in my former home church couldn’t care less about patristics and ancient liturgies.  Ultimately I found myself caught between a Protestantism that suffered from extensive historical amnesia and the Orthodox Church which claimed to have unbroken historic continuity going back to the original Apostles.

 

2. The Importance of the Traditioning Process to Canon Formation

Manuscript from St. Katherine at Mt. Sinai

The unexpected surprise in Prof. Wallace’s blog posting was his discussion of what Eusebius of Caesarea, the fourth century church historian, had to say about the formation of the biblical canon.  Unlike today’s bibles that have neatly printed table of contents in the front, the early church had no clear cut listing.  Even by the fourth century there were still some debate as to what books belonged to the canon, that is, were divinely inspired and authoritative Scripture.  So Eusebius needed to distinguish between homolegoumena (that which everyone agreed was Scripture), antilegomena (that which was in question or disputed), apocrypha (that which was rejected by many but accepted by some), and pseudepigrapha (that which was rejected by all) (Church History 3.3.6).  Prof. Wallace paraphrasing David Dungan observes:

What is significant is that for the ancient church, canonicity was intrinsically linked to ecclesiology.  It was the bishops rather than the congregations that gave their opinion of a book’s credentials.  Not just any bishops, but bishops of the major sees of the ancient church.

This observation points to a tension embedded in the Protestant view of Scripture; despite Protestantism’s assigning supreme authority to Scripture, Scripture itself is unavoidably a product of the Church.  It did not come into existence independently of the Church.  Moreover, the early bishops played a key role in determining which books would comprise Scripture.  One cannot understand the formation of the biblical canon without taking into account the early bishops.  To ignore the bishops is to create an artificial mental construct that has no historical basis.

For modern Christians, Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Orthodox, to grasp the nature of canon formation they must beware of inadvertently imposing their modern assumptions on the early church.  They should research the early church and try to imagine themselves in the early church service when there were no electric guitars, PowerPoint overheads, worship bulletins, or leather bound gold leaf Bibles.  Early Christians did not have personal Bibles. Scripture in the early church consisted of a limited number of copied scrolls or codices in the safekeeping of one of the clergy.  This was especially critical in times of persecution.  Back then Christians would painstakingly copy by hand whatever Scripture they could borrow from another church.  There were no denominational publishing houses back then!  Early Christians experienced the Bible in the context of the Sunday worship.  A reader would stand in the front of the assembly and read out loud the Scripture.  The bishop was responsible for deciding what would be read in the Sunday Liturgy.  This meant that he needed to identify spurious books be excluded from the Sunday worship.

What is fascinating about Book 3 of Eusebius’ Church History is his juxtaposing of accounts of canon formation with accounts of apostolic succession.  Church History 3.4 describes the immediate successors to the Apostles: Timothy was bishop of Ephesus and Titus of Crete.  Linus who was mentioned in II Timothy was Peter’s successor to the episcopacy in Rome.  We learn that the third bishop of Rome was Clement.  Church History 3.22 describes Ignatius as the second bishop of Antioch.  Thus, Eusebius provides a valuable external witness to some of the early post-apostolic writings.

In Church History 3.9-10 Eusebius draws on Josephus for a description of the Old Testament canon.  In Church History 3.25 Eusebius describes the undisputed and disputed books of the New Testament writings.

What is striking about Eusebius’ discussion of the biblical canon are his references to the traditioning process.  In Church History 3.26.6 Eusebius wrote:

But we have nevertheless felt compelled to give a catalogue of these also, distinguishing those works which according to ecclesiastical tradition are true and genuine and commonly accepted, from those others which, although not canonical but disputed, are yet at the same time known to most ecclesiastical writers…. (Emphasis added)

In Church History 6.12, Eusebius quotes from a letter by Serapion, bishop of Antioch, concerning a question about a so-called Gospel of Peter.  Serapion wrote:

For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ; but we reject intelligently the writings falsely ascribed to them, knowing that such were not handed down to us.  (Emphasis added)

Bishop Serapion’s principal criterion for determining canonicity was apostolic tradition.  The way the early Christians approached canonicity is at variance with the more recent discussion about canon formation which asume a tension between the authority of the writings and the authority of the church.  The issue of Scripture versus the Church was not a concern of the early Christians.  Instead they were more concerned about the traditioning process: Could a bishopric, a liturgical practice, or an alleged apostolic writing be shown to have apostolic origins?

Many Protestants and Evangelicals admire Athanasius the Great for his staunch defense of Christ’s divinity.  But many are not aware of his role as a bishop in the early church.  Athanasius’ Letter 39 which provides one of the earliest listing of canonical books also affirmed the traditioning process as critical to canon formation.  He wrote:

Forasmuch as some have taken in hand, to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scriptures, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine…. (Emphasis added)

Letter 39 was not an ordinary correspondence.  It was the custom for the Patriarch of Alexandria to send a letter to the churches in the diocese every Easter.  In other words this was an authoritative letter by the bishop to all those under his care.  There was a practical aspect to the letter.  Apparently there was some confusion as to which books ought to be read out loud in the Sunday Liturgy.  As bishop Athanasius sought to bring order and regularity to the congregations under his care.  What is striking here is that Athanasius did not invoke the institutional power of the church but rather he referenced the traditioning process that he was part of.  As a bishop of the early church he was obligated to safeguard the sacred deposit of Faith which included the writings of the Apostles.

Eusebius and Athanasius were bishops who lived in the fourth century.  When we look for earlier evidence we find similar evidence in the second century church father, Irenaeus of Lyons. In his defense of the four Gospels, Irenaeus made reference to the traditioning process.  He wrote:

For if what they [the heretics] had published is the Gospel of truth, and yet is totally unlike those which have been handed down to us from the apostles, any who please may learn, as is shown from the Scriptures themselves, that that which has been handed down from the apostles can no longer be reckoned the Gospel of truth.  (Against the Heretics 3.11.9, p. 429; Emphasis added)

Going back even earlier to the New Testament period we find evidence of the traditioning process.  The Apostle Paul exhorted the Christians in Thessalonica to hold fast to both the oral and written traditions (II Thessalonians 2:15).

Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. (NKJV; emphasis added)

What is striking in this verse is Paul’s use of the word “whether.”  This means that oral tradition is just as authoritative as written tradition.  We also find Paul exhorting Timothy to pass on the deposit of faith to other faithful men when ordaining the future generation of clergy (II Timothy 2:2).

And the things you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (NKJV)

The word “commit” used by Paul is similar to: “delivered,” “pass on,” and “hand down” terms used by the church fathers; they are all refer to the traditioning process.

When we consider that I and II Thessalonians were among Paul’s earliest letters and that the two letters to Timothy were written just before his death we find that the traditioning process was an integral to the Apostle Paul’s ministry. So I was shocked when I read Eusebius’ Church History and discovered that II Timothy 2:2 did not disappear into the foggy mists of church history but continued like a strong iron chain in the form detailed listings of bishops.  Eusebius’ Church History gives us long detailed lists of bishops tracing their lineage back to the Apostles!  Thus, the traditioning of Scripture was a widely known practice endorsed by both Scripture and the early church fathers. (See my article on Sola Scriptura and the Biblical Basis for the Tradition.)  

 

3. An Orthodox Approach to Canon Formation

The significance of the patristic and biblical witness to the importance of traditioning process to canon formation is that they alter the framework of debate.  The tension between an authoritative Scripture and an authoritative Church is no longer an issue.  This is because both have a common source, the Apostles who were commissioned by Christ via the Great Commission.

The dichotomy underlying the canon formation debate – an authoritative listing versus a listing of authoritative books — becomes suspect.  This tension apparently stem from the Protestant versus Catholic controversy of the 1500s.  Defining the canon as an authoritative listing of books supports the Roman Catholic view that Scripture is authoritative because it has the backing of the Church.  Defining the canon as a listing of authoritative books reflects the Protestant view that Scripture’s authority is independent of the church.

The Orthodox approach is to understand the biblical canon as an authoritative listing of authoritative books.  The apostolic writings were authoritative because they were written by the apostles and the bishops were authoritative because they were the apostles’ successors and the guardian of Scripture.  For Orthodoxy, Scripture and Church cannot be separated because they comprise one organic whole.

 

Brinks Guards

This makes for some troubling practical consequences for Protestants. Scripture can no longer be viewed as existing independently of the Church.  The Bible is the property of the Church, much like the bags of money stored in Brinks armored trucks.  The money does not belong to the guards, but are nonetheless the guards’ responsibility.  Similarly, Scripture is the word of God left in the care of the bishops.

 

The significance of the traditioning process is that it assumes that one belongs to a historic chain that goes back to the Apostles.  With the advent of the printing press many Protestants have come to view the Bible as their personal property but such an understanding is a radical departure from historic Christianity which understood Scripture to be the sacred deposit entrusted to the Church.  Where an Orthodox Christian is part of a historic chain of tradition that goes back to the original Apostles a Protestant Christian is not.  They believe in a Bible that stands independently of the church.  Professor Wallace rightly noted that the divorcing of Scripture from church has resulted in Protestantism’s weak ecclesiology.  One can even question whether all the disparities in doctrine, worship, and church governance render “Protestant ecclesiology” an oxymoron – a self-contradictory statement.

 

Thomas Jefferson’s Bible

There are problems with the Protestant approach to the biblical canon as just a list.  How should a Protestant respond to Martin Luther wanting to exclude the book of James from the New Testament or Thomas Jefferson excising passages from the Bible based upon his well informed judgment?  And how should a Protestant respond to a “prophet” like Joseph Smith who wants expand the canonical collection?  Or a university scholar who discovered a “lost gospel”?  Without being able to appeal to an authoritative listing, a Protestant will be forced to fall back on reason, scholarship, or inner conscience.  But would one have confidence in a round table of scholars like the Jesus Seminar voting by means of colored slips?  An Orthodox Christian can simply reply that to tamper with the biblical canon is to break with the historic Christian faith that goes back to the Apostles.  This is because the Church as the recipient and guardian of Scripture has the authority to draw up an authoritative listing of biblical books.

 

The Jurassic Park Experience

Movie: Jurassic Park

Professor Daniel Wallace is perceptive when he recognizes that Protestantism’s ecclesiology is its weakness.  This leaves him yearning for a church unified in worship and doctrine but he dismisses that as just a dream.  My response is that the true church is not wishful thinking but a living reality.  Professor Wallace wrote positively about his visits to the Orthodox Church.  He may not know it but every time he visits an Orthodox Liturgy he is seeing a living walking dinosaur straight from the ancient church.  The Orthodox Church today is the same church as the church described by Irenaeus of Lyons.  This is because it has not suffered a break in the traditioning process like Protestantism.  Orthodoxy’s strong ecclesiology has enabled it to maintain unity in worship and doctrinal orthodoxy for the past two millennia.

 Robert Arakaki
« Older posts Newer posts »