By Fr. James
Bernstein
As a Jewish
convert to Christ via evangelical Protestantism, I naturally wanted to know God
better through the reading of the Scriptures. In fact, it had been through
reading the Gospels in the "forbidden book" called the New Testament,
at age sixteen, that I had come to believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God
and our promised Messiah. In my early years as a Christian, much of my
religious education came from private Bible reading. By the time I entered
college, I had a pocket-sized version of the whole Bible that was my constant
companion. I would commit favorite passages from the Scriptures to memory, and
often quote them to myself in times of temptation-or to others as I sought to
convince them of Christ. The Bible became for me-as it is to this day-the most
important book in print. I can say from my heart with Saint Paul the Apostle,
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2
Timothy 3:16).
That's the good
news!
The bad news is
that often I would decide for myself what the Scriptures meant. For example, I
became so enthusiastic about knowing Jesus as my close and personal friend that
I thought my own awareness of Him was all I needed. So I would mark verses about
Jesus with my yellow highlighter, but pass over passages concerning God the
Father, or the Church, or baptism. I saw the Bible as a heavenly instruction
manual. I didn't think I needed the Church, except as a good place to make
friends or to leans more about the Bible so I could be a better do-it-yourself
Christian. I came to think that I could build my life, and the Church, by the
Book. I mean, I took sola scriptura ("only the Bible")
seriously! Salvation history was clear to me: God sent His Son, together they
sent the Holy Spirit, then came the New Testament to explain salvation, and
finally the Church developed.
Close, maybe,
but not close enough.
Let me hasten
to say that the Bible is all God intends it to be. No problem with the Bible.
The problem lay in the way I individualized it, subjecting it to my own
personal interpretations-some not so bad, others not so good.
A Struggle for
Understanding
It was not long
after my conversion to Christianity that I found myself getting swept up in the
tide of religious sectarianism, in which Christians would part ways over one
issue after another. It seemed, for instance, that there were as many opinions
on the Second Coming as there were people in the discussion. So we'd all appeal
to the Scriptures. "I believe in the Bible. If it's not in the Bible I
don't believe it," became my war cry. What I did not realize was that
everyone else was saying the same thing! It was not the Bible, but each one's
private interpretation of it, that became our ultimate authority. In an age
which highly exalts independence of thought and self-reliance, I was becoming
my own pope! The guidelines I used in interpreting Scripture seemed simple
enough: When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other
sense. I believed that those who were truly faithful and honest in following
this principle would achieve Christian unity. To my surprise, this "common
sense" approach led not to increased Christian clarity and unity, but
rather to a spiritual free-for-all! Those who most strongly adhered to
believing "only the Bible" tended to become the, most factious,
divisive, and combative of Christians-perhaps unintentionally. In fact, it
seemed to me that the more one held to the Bible as the only source of
spiritual authority, the more factious and sectarian one became. We would even
argue heatedly over verses on love! Within my circle of Bible-believing
friends, I witnessed a mini-explosion of sects and schismatic movements, each
claiming to be "true to the Bible" and each in bitter conflict with
the others. Serious conflict arose over every issue imaginable: charismatic
gifts, interpretation of prophecy, the proper way to worship, communion, Church
government, discipleship, discipline in the Church, morality, accountability,
evangelism, social action, the relationship of faith and works, the role of
women, and ecumenism.
The Bible of
the Apostles
My initial
attitude was that whatever was good enough for the Apostles would be good
enough for me. This is where I got my first surprise. As I mentioned
previously, I knew that the Apostle Paul regarded Scripture as being inspired
by God (2 Timothy 3:16). But I had always assumed that the "Scripture"
spoken of in this passage was the whole Bible-both the Old and New Testaments.
In reality, there was no "New Testament" when this statement was
made. Even the Old Testament was still in the process of formulation, for the
Jews did not decide upon a definitive list or canon of Old Testament books
until after the rise of Christianity. As I studied further, I discovered that
the early Christians used a Greek translation of the Old Testament called the
Septuagint. This translation, which was begun in Alexandria, Egypt, in the
third century B.C., contained an expanded canon which included a number of the
so-called "deuterocanonical" (or "apocryphal") books.
Although there was some initial debate over these books, they were eventually received
by Christians into the Old Testament canon. In reaction to the rise of
Christianity, the Jews narrowed their canons and eventually excluded the
deuterocanonical books-although they still regarded them as sacred. The modern
Jewish canon was not rigidly fixed until the third century A.D. Interestingly,
it is this later version of the Jewish canon of the Old Testament, rather than
the canon of early Christianity, that is followed by most modern Protestants
today. When the Apostles lived and wrote, there was no New Testament and no
finalized Old Testament. The concept of "Scripture" was much less
well-defined than I had envisioned.
Early Christian
Writings
The second big
surprise came when I realized that the first complete listing of New Testament
books as we have them today did not appear until over 300 years after the death
and resurrection of Christ. (The first complete listing was given by St.
Athanasius in his Paschal Letter in A.D. 367.) Imagine it! If the writing of
the New Testament had been begun at the same time as the U.S. Constitution, we
wouldn't see a final product until the year 2076! The four Gospels were written
from thirty to sixty years after Jesus' death and resurrection. In the interim,
the Church relied on oral tradition-the accounts of eyewitnesses-as well as
scattered pre-gospel documents (such as those quoted in 1 Timothy 3:16 and 2
Timothy 2:11-13) and written tradition. Most churches only had parts of what
was to become the New Testament. As the eyewitnesses of Christ's life and
teachings began to die, the Apostles wrote as they were guided by the Holy
Spirit, in order to preserve and solidify the scattered written and oral
tradition. Because the Apostles expected Christ to return soon, it seems they
did not have in mind that these gospel accounts and apostolic letters would in
time be collected into a new Bible. During the first four centuries A.D. there
was substantial disagreement over which books should be included in the canon
of Scripture. The first person on record who tried to establish a New Testament
canon was the second-century heretic, Marcion. He wanted the Church to reject
its Jewish heritage, and therefore he dispensed with the Old Testament
entirely. Marcion's canon included only one gospel, which he himself edited,
and ten of Paul's epistles. Sad but true, the first attempted New Testament was
heretical. Many scholars believe that it was partly in reaction to this distorted
canon of Marcion that the early Church determined to create a clearly defined
canon of its own. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, the breakup of the
Jewish-Christian community there, and the threatened loss of continuity in the
oral tradition probably also contributed to the sense of the urgent need for
the Church to standardize the list of books Christians could rely on. During
this period of the canon's evolution, as previously noted, most churches had
only a few, if any, of the apostolic writings available to them. The books of
the Bible had to be painstakingly copied by hand, at great expense of time and
effort. Also, because most people were illiterate, they could only be read by a
privileged few. The exposure of most Christians to the Scriptures was confined
to what they heard in the churches-the Law and Prophets, the Psalms, and some
of the Apostles' memoirs. The persecution of Christians by the Roman Empire and
the existence of many documents of non-apostolic origin further complicated the
matter. This was my third surprise. Somehow I had naively envisioned every home
and parish having a complete Old and New Testament from the very inception of
the Church! It was difficult for me to imagine a church surviving and
prospering without a complete New Testament. Yet unquestionably they did. This
may have been my first clue that there was more to the total life of the Church
than just the written Word.
The Gospel
According to Whom?
Other
Controversial Books
My favorite New
Testament book, the Epistle to the Hebrews, was clearly excluded in the Western
Church in a number of listings from the second, third, and fourth centuries.
Primarily due to the influence of Augustine upon certain North African
councils, the Epistle to the Hebrews was finally accepted in the West by the
end of the fourth century. On the other hand, the Book of Revelation, also
known as the Apocalypse, written by the Apostle John, was not accepted in the
Eastern Church for several centuries. Among Eastern authorities who rejected
this book were Dionysius of Alexandria (third century), Eusebius (third
century), Cyril of Jerusalem (fourth century), the Council of Laodicea (fourth
century), John Chrysostom (fourth century), Theodore of Mopsuesta (fourth
century), and Theodoret (fifth century). In addition, the original Syriac and
Armenian versions of the New Testament omitted this book. Many Greek New
Testament manuscripts written before the ninth century do not contain the
Apocalypse, and it is not used liturgically in the Eastern Church to this day.
Athanasius supported the inclusion of the Apocalypse, and it is due primarily
to his influence that it was eventually received into the New Testament canon
in the East.
The early Church actually seems to have made an internal
compromise on the Apocalypse and Hebrews. The East would have excluded the
Apocalypse from the canon, while the West would have done without Hebrews.
Simply put, each side agreed to accept the disputed book of the other.
Interestingly, the sixteenth-century father of the Protestant Reformation,
Martin Luther, held that the New Testament books should be "graded"
and that some were more inspired than others (that there is a canon within the
canon). Luther gave secondary rank to Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation,
placing them at the end of his translation of the New Testament. Imagine-the
man who gave us sola scriptura assumed the authority to edit the written Word
of God!
The New
Testament Matures
I was
particularly interested in finding the oldest legitimate list of New Testament
books. Some believe that the Muratorian Canon is the oldest, dating from the
late second century. This canon excludes Hebrews, James, and the two Epistles
of Peter, but includes the Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon. It is
not until A.D. 200-about 170 years after the death and resurrection of
Christ-that we first see the term "New Testament" used, by
Tertullian. Origen, who lived in the third century, is often considered to be
the first systematic theologian (though he was often systematically wrong). He
questioned the authenticity of 2 Peter and 2 John. He also tells us, based on
his extensive travels, that there were churches which refused to use 2 Timothy
because the epistle speaks of a "secret" writing-the Book of Jannes
and Jambres, derived from Jewish oral tradition (see 2 Timothy 3:8). The Book
of Jude was also considered suspect by some because it includes a quotation
from the apocryphal book, The Assumption of Moses, also derived from Jewish
oral tradition (see Jude 9). Moving into the fourth century, I discovered that
Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea and the "Father of Church History,"
lists as disputed books James, Jude, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John. The Revelation
of John he totally rejects. Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest complete New Testament
manuscript we have today, was discovered in the Orthodox Christian monastery of
Saint Catherine on Mount Sinai. It is dated as being from the fourth century
and it contains all of the books we have in the modern New Testament, but also
includes Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas. During the fourth century,
Emperor Constantine was frustrated by the controversy between Christians and
Arians concerning the divinity of Christ. Because the New Testament had not yet
been clearly defined, he pressed for a clearer defining and closing of the New
Testament canon, in order to help resolve the conflict and bring religious
unity to his divided Empire. However, as late as the fifth century the Codex
Alexandrinus included 1 and 2 Clement, indicating that the disputes over the
canon were still not everywhere firmly resolved.
Who Decided?
With the
passage of time the Church discerned which writings were truly apostolic and
which were not. It was a prolonged struggle, taking place over several
centuries. As part of the process of discernment, the Church met together several
times in council. These various Church councils confronted a variety of issues,
among which was the canon of Scripture. It is important to note that the
purpose of these councils was to discern and confirm what was already generally
accepted within the Church at large. The councils did not legislate the canon
so much as set forth what had become self-evident truth and practice within the
churches of God. The councils sought to proclaim the common mind of the Church
and to reflect the unanimity of faith, practice, and tradition as it already
existed in the local churches represented. The councils provide us with
specific records in which the Church spoke clearly and in unison as to what
constitutes Scripture. Among the many councils that met during the first four
centuries, two are particularly important in this context:
1.
The Council of Laodicea met in Asia
Minor about A.D. 363. This is the first council which clearly listed the
canonical books of the present Old and New Testaments, with the exception of
the Apocalypse of Saint John. The Laodicean council stated that only the
canonical books it listed should be read in church. Its decisions were widely accepted in
the Eastern Church.
2. The third
Council of Carthage met in North
Africa about A.D. 397. This council, attended by Augustine, provided a full
list of the canonical books of both the Old and New Testaments. The
twenty-seven books of the present-day New Testament were accepted as canonical.
The council also held that these books should be read in the church as Divine
Scripture to the exclusion of all others. This Council was widely accepted as
authoritative in the West.
The Bubble
Bursts
As I delved
deeper into my study of the history of the New Testament, I saw my previous
misconceptions being demolished one by one. I understood now what should have
been obvious all along: that the New Testament consisted of twenty-seven
separate documents which, while certainly inspired by God nothing could shake
me in that conviction-had been written and compiled by human beings. It was
also clear that this work had not been accomplished by individuals working in
isolation, but by the collective effort of all Christians everywhere-the Body
of Christ, the Church. This realization forced me to deal with two more issues
that my earlier prejudices had led me to avoid: (1) the propriety and necessity
of human involvement in the writing of Scripture; and (2) the authority of the
Church.
Human and
Divine
Deeply
committed, like many evangelicals, to belief in the inspiration of Scripture, I
had understood the New Testament to be God's Word only, and not man's. I
supposed the Apostles were told by God exactly what to write, much as a
secretary takes down what is being dictated, without providing any personal
contribution. Ultimately, my understanding of the inspiration of Scripture was
clarified by the teaching of the Church regarding the Person of Christ. The
Incarnate Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, is not only God but also man.
Christ is a single Person with two natures-divine and human. To de-emphasize
Christ's humanity leads to heresy. The ancient Church taught that the Incarnate
Word was fully human-in fact, as human as it is possible to be-and yet without
sin. In His humanity, the Incarnate Word was born, grew, and matured into
manhood. I came to realize that this view of the Incarnate Word of God, the
Logos, Jesus Christ, paralleled the early Christian view of the written Word of
God, the Bible. The written Word of God reflects not only the divine thought,
but a human contribution as well. The Word of God conveys truth to us as written by men, conveying the thoughts,
personalities, and even limitations and weaknesses of the writers-inspired by
God, to be sure. This means that the human element in the Bible is not overwhelmed
so as to be lost in the ocean of the divine. It became clearer to me that as
Christ Himself was born, grew, and matured, so also did the written Word of
God, the Bible. It did not come down whole-plop-from heaven, but was of human
origin as well as divine. The Apostles did not merely inscribe the Scriptures
as would a robot or a zombie, but freely cooperated with the will of God
through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
A Question of
Authority
The Church of
the New Testament
In the view of
the earliest Christians, God spoke His Word not only to but through His Body, the Church. It was within His Body, the Church, that the
Word was confirmed and established. Without question, the Scriptures were
looked upon by early Christians as God's active revelation of Himself to the
world. At the same time, the Church was understood as the household of God,
"having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus
Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being
fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord" (Ephesians 2:20,
21). God has His Word, but He also has His Body. The New Testament says: (1)
"Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually" (1
Corinthians 12:27; compare Romans 12:5). (2) "He [Christ] is the head of
the body, the church" (Colossians 1:18). (3) "And He [the Father] put
all things under His [the Son's] feet, and gave Him to be head overall things
to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in
all" (Ephesians 1:22, 23). In early times there was no organic separation
between Bible and Church, as we so often find today. The Body without the Word
is without message, but the Word without the Body is without foundation. As
Paul writes, the Body is "the church of the living God, the pillar and
ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15). The Church is the Living Body of
the Incarnate Lord. The Apostle does not say that the New Testament is the pillar and ground of the
truth. The Church is the pillar and foundation of
the truth because the New Testament was built upon her life in God. In short,
she wrote it! She is an integral part of the gospel message, and it is within
the Church that the New Testament was written and preserved.
The Word of God
in Oral Tradition
The Apostle
Paul exhorts us, "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions
which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle" (2 Thessalonians
2:15). This verse was one that I had not highlighted because it used two
phrases I didn't like: "hold the traditions" and "by word [of
mouth]." These two phrases conflicted with my understanding of biblical
authority. But then I began to understand: the same God who speaks to us
through His written Word, the Bible, spoke also through the Apostles of Christ
as they taught and preached in person. The Scriptures themselves teach in this
passage (and others) that this oral tradition is what we are to keep! Written
and oral tradition are not in conflict, but are parts of one whole. This
explains why the Fathers teach that he who does not have the Church as his
Mother does not have God as his Father. In coming to this realization, I
concluded that I had grossly overreacted in rejecting oral Holy Tradition. In
my hostility toward Jewish oral tradition, which rejected Christ, I had
rejected Christian oral Holy Tradition, which expresses the life of the Holy
Spirit in the Church. And I had rejected the idea that this Tradition enables
us properly and fully to understand the Bible. Let me illustrate this point with
an experience I had recently. I decided to build a shed behind my house. In
preparation, I studied a book on carpentry that has "everything" in
it. It's full of pictures and diagrams, enough so that "even a kid could
follow its instructions." It explains itself, I was told. But, simple as
it claimed to be, the more I read it, the more questions I had and the more
confused I became. Disgusted at not being able to understand something that
seemed so simple, I came to the conclusion that the book needed interpretation.
Without help, I just couldn't put it into practice. What I needed was someone
with expertise who could explain the manual to me. Fortunately, I had a friend
who was able to show me how the project should be completed. He knows because
of oral tradition. An experienced carpenter taught him, and he in turn taught
me. Written and oral tradition together got the job done.
Which Came
First?
What confronted
me at this point was the bottom line question: Which came first, the Church or
the New Testament? I knew that the Incarnate Word of God, Jesus Christ, had
called the Apostles, who in turn formed the nucleus of the Christian Church. I
knew that the Eternal Word of God therefore preceded the Church and gave birth
to the Church. When the Church heard the Incarnate Word of God and committed
His Word to writing, she thereby participated with God in giving birth to the
written Word, the New Testament. Thus it was the Church which gave birth to and
preceded the New Testament. To the question, "Which came first, the Church
or the New Testament?" the answer, both biblically and historically, is
crystal clear. Someone might protest, "Does it really make any difference
which came first? After all, the Bible contains everything that we need for
salvation." The Bible is adequate for salvation in the sense that it
contains the foundational material needed to establish us on the correct path.
On the other hand, it is wrong to consider the Bible as being self-sufficient
and self-interpreting. The Bible is meant to be read and understood by the
illumination of God's Holy Spirit within the life of the Church. Did not the
Lord Himself tell His disciples, just prior to His crucifixion, "When He,
the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not
speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will
tell you things to come" (John 16:13)? He also said, "I will build My
church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it" (Matthew
16:18). Our Lord did not leave us with only a book to guide us. He left us with
His Church. The Holy Spirit within the Church teaches us, and His teaching
complements Scripture. How foolish to believe that God's full illumination
ceased after the New Testament books were written and did not resume until the
Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century, or-to take this argument to
its logical conclusion-until the very moment when 1, myself, started reading
the Bible. Either the Holy Spirit was in the Church throughout the centuries
following the New Testament period, leading, teaching, and illuminating her in
her understanding of the gospel message, or the Church has been left a
spiritual orphan, with individual Christians independently interpreting-and
often "authoritatively" teaching the same Scripture in radically
different ways. Such chaos cannot be the will of God, "for God is not the
author of confusion but of peace" (1 Corinthians 14:33).
A Time to Decide
At this point
in my studies, I felt I had to make a decision. If the Church was not just a
tangent or a sidelight to the Scripture, but rather an active participant in
its development and preservation, then it was time to reconcile my differences
with her and abandon my prejudices. Rather than trying to judge the Church
according to my modem preconceptions about what the Bible was saying, I needed
to humble myself and come into union with the Church that produced the New
Testament, and let her guide me into a proper understanding of Holy Scripture.
After carefully exploring various church bodies, I finally realized that,
contrary to the beliefs of many modern Christians, the Church which produced
the Bible is not dead. The Orthodox Church today has direct and clear
historical continuity with the Church of the Apostles, and it preserves intact
both the Scriptures and the Holy Tradition which enables us to interpret them
properly. Once I understood this, I converted to Orthodoxy and began to
experience the fullness of Christianity in a way I never had before. Though he
may have coined the slogan, the fact is that Luther himself did not practice
sola scriptura. If he had, he'd have tossed out the Creeds and spent less time
writing commentaries. The phrase came about as a result of the reformers'
struggles against the added human traditions of Romanism. Understandably, they
wanted to be sure their faith was accurate according to New Testament
standards. But to isolate the Scriptures from the Church, to deny 1500 years of
history, is something the slogan sola scriptura and the Protestant Reformers-Luther,
Calvin, and later Wesley-never intended to do. To those who try to stand
dogmatically on sola scriptura, in the process rejecting the Church which not
only produced the New Testament, but also, through the guidance of the Holy
Spirit, identified those books which compose the New Testament, I would say
this: Study the history of the early Church and the development of the New
Testament canon. Use source documents where possible. (It is amazing how some
of the most "conservative" Bible scholars of the evangelical
community turn into cynical and rationalistic liberals when discussing early
Church history!) Examine for yourself what happened to God's people after the
twenty-eighth chapter of the Book of Acts. You will find a list of helpful
sources at the end of this booklet. If you examine the data and look with
objectivity at what occurred in those early days, I think you will discover
what I discovered. The life and work of God's Church did not grind to a halt
after the first century and start up again in the sixteenth. If it had, we
would not possess the New Testament books which are so dear to every Christian
believer. The separation of Church and Bible which is so prevalent in much of
today's Christian world is a modern phenomenon. Early Christians made no such
artificial distinctions. Once you have examined the data, I would encourage you
to find out more about the historic Church which produced the New Testament,
preserved it, and selected those books which would be part of its canon. Every
Christian owes it to himself or herself to discover the Orthodox Christian
Church and to understand its vital role in proclaiming God's Word to our own
generation.
CONVERSATION