In the last chapter, we wrestled with some of the difficulties and dilemmas implicit in the interpretation of Scripture. Whilst
every word
of God is flawless;
he is a
shield to those who take refuge in him (Prov. 30:5)
and whilst
all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16)
we are still confronted with the question of how exactly to
understand what Scripture means – especi
It would be wonderful, would it not, if God had left us a reliable interpreter of Scripture, someone to whom we could turn for help in understanding the Bible? Well, many Christians believe that He has done so. Now read the following:
I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. (1 Tim. 3:14-15)
Notice how Paul slips in something quite unexpected here. The notion he propounds is mentioned so briefly that one can easily miss it. But it is definitely there: the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. Theologians have spent centuries trying to unpack the meaning of this verse – and we will attempt to do so as best we can as this book proceeds. But, however we read it, we cannot ignore the biblical testimony: the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.
This verse can of course be interpreted in many ways – including some which all but nullify its hard-hitting impact. But Christians right from the beginning have embraced this verse, because it chimes with so much other biblical truth. Let us now look at some of these other passages which have helped to define the early Church’s self-understanding.
Ekklesia
First, it must be recognised that Jesus’s mission did not
include writing books. All the books we have about Jesus were written by others,
after His death, resurrection and ascension. Instead He preached, He healed the
sick, He raised the dead, He worked miracles. Like the God of the Jews, He did things. And both the means and the
end of
It is no coincidence that the New Testament uses the word ekklesia to describe the Church – for this is precisely one of the words Jesus and His disciples might have used to refer to the people of Israel. Throughout the Old Testament, when reference is made to the assembled people of Israel, the Hebrew word commonly used is qahal, which means “assembly” or “congregation”; this was often translated, in the Greek-language Septuagint Bible, as ekklesia. [2] Therefore, for the early Christians, familiar with the Septuagint, ekklesia is not a word plucked out of thin air just to apply to the Christian Church: it also affirms the continuity between the people of Israel and the people of Christ.
And so it is no coincidence that the very first people Jesus “called out” of the world into his Church were twelve apostles. For any Jew, this would immediately be interpreted as representing the twelve tribes of Israel:
“I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Matt. 19:28)
He carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God… On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel… The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. (Rev. 21:10,12,14)
The New Covenant, therefore, is a continuation of the Old. If the twelve apostles of the Lamb are the successors in the New Covenant of the twelve tribes of Israel, so too is the Church of the apostles the new manifestation of the nation of Israel. As the apostle Paul explains, quoting the prophet Hosea:
“I will
call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;
and I will
call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one.” (Rom. 9:25, cf. Hos. 2:23)
Just as in the Old Covenant Abraham and his progeny were “called out” (Gen. 12:1), blessed by God, and promised a land of their own (Gen. 17:8 etc.), so too in the New Covenant are we, Jesus’s spiritual progeny, the Church, “called out”, blessed by God, and promised a new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:2). Just as Melchizedek, King of Jerusalem, brought out bread and wine and blessed Abraham (Gen. 14:18-20), so too does Jesus, King of the New Jerusalem, “priest forever in the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 5:6, cf. Ps. 110:4) bring out bread and wine to bless us (Matt. 26:26-29, Mk. 14:22-25, Lk. 22:19-20, 1 Cor. 11:23-26).
The most wonderful way in which God “c
instituted the Passover,
saved Israel from death at the
hand of the LORD (Ex. 12:12-27),
freed his people from slavery in
Egypt,
baptised them “in the cloud and
the sea” (1 Cor. 10:2; see also Ex. 14),
fed them with “spiritual food and
drink” (1 Cor. 10:3-4; cf. Ex. 16-17),
gave them the Law at Pentecost
(Ex. 19-23 etc.),
and led them through the desert
to the Promised Land.
Moses promised that “a prophet like me” (Deut. 18:15) would
one day arise in Israel; and so Jesus, the first prophet greater than Moses (Heb.
3:2-6):
institutes a new Passover (1 Cor.
5:7),
saves us from death (1 Cor. 15),
frees us from slavery to sin
(Rom. 6-8),
baptises us with water and the
Spirit (Jn. 3:5, Acts 2:38),
feeds us with the “true bread
from heaven” (Jn. 6:32),
gives us the Holy Spirit at
Pentecost (Acts 2),
and leads us to our Promised Land
in Heaven.
The parallels between Moses and Jesus are unmistakeable. The Church (ekklesia) is thus revealed by Christ to be a new holy nation like Israel, [3] the new assembly (qahal) of God’s people. Therefore, if we want to know what God has to say about His Church, we will do well to know what He has to say about His people Israel. In the words of Paul, which we looked at in the previous chapter:
You, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root… You do not support the root, but the root supports you. (Rom. 11:17-18)
The New Covenant, in other words, is dependent upon, and a continuation of, the Old. Or, as Jesus puts it:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. (Matt. 5:17)
Jesus is not here speaking of the “Law” as we often think of
it, as merely a set of rules. “The Law and the Prophets” refers to the Torah and the Nevi’im, the heart of the Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus came to fulfil
It is worth noting the immense emphasis which the Jews place
upon the communal nature of their relationship with God. Note how when God
speaks, He speaks to His whole people: “Go and tell this people…” (Is. 6:9);
“Hear the word of the LORD, O house of Jacob” (Jer. 2:4); “This is what the
Sovereign LORD says to the land of Israel” (Ezek. 7:2). He does, to be sure,
speak to individuals as well, and to smaller groups of Israelites, but every individual
lesson has a greater purpose: to forge and re-forge the holy nation of Israel.
When God makes His covenant with Abraham, He makes it not just with that one
man, but with him and
God’s covenant with Israel is quite unlike any normal human
agreement or contract. It places massive obligations upon the people, to follow
God took the initiative, when he made a covenant with Judaism; God’s grace thus precedes everything that people (specifically, Jews) do in response. The Jew keeps the law out of gratitude, as the proper response to grace. [4]
The Jews are God’s people, chosen corporately, by grace – just as we are:
Can a
mother forget the baby at her breast
and have no
compassion on the child she has borne?
Though she may
forget,
I will not
forget you!
See, I have
engraved you on the palms of my hands. (Is. 49:15-16)
Oikos [5]
Let us take a closer look at what Scripture says about the
“house of Jacob”, for that will help us to see what God wishes “God’s
household, which is the church of the living God” to be like. First, both
Israel and the Church are c
To Noah God said, “I now establish my covenant with you and
your descendants after you” (Gen. 9:9). To Abraham He said, “I will establish
my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants
after you for the generations to come” (Gen. 17:7). And so it continued
throughout the history of Israel. That is why it was so important for the Jews
to fill their Scriptures with
The Messiah was to come from the house of David, “a shoot… from the stump of Jesse” (Is. 11:1). That is why both Matthew (1:1-17) and Luke (3:23-38) include genealogies of Jesus, showing exactly this. Jesus did not deny the importance of literal blood ties, insisting, for instance: “Honour your father and your mother” (Matt. 19:19). However, He also redefined the concept of oikos in two new and radical ways. First, He defined Himself as God’s Son (Jn. 3:16, 5:17-23 etc.). Second, he said, “Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.” (Mk. 3:35)
We have already begun to look at the first of these radical ideas, when we spoke about the Trinity in Chapter One. The Father is God. The Son is God. And God is love. Therefore, in a very real sense, the Trinity is a household, God’s household (oikos). [6] Once again, we see that to be part of God’s household is to belong to the Trinity. This is a gift of grace (Eph. 1:3-14), but it is also a vocation: if we are truly to be part of God’s household, we must be as the Trinity is, relating to each other with fatherhood, sonship, and love.
Jesus’s second radical idea is developed further by Paul:
You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptised into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ… If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise… Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out “Abba, Father.”… And since you are a son, God has made you also an heir. (Gal. 3:26-27,29, 4:6-7)
Now in Christ Jesus you who were once far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ… fellow-citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household [oikeioi], built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. (Eph. 2:13,19-20)
and by the writer to the Hebrews:
Moses was faithful as a servant in all God’s house [oiko], testifying to what would be said in the future. But Christ is faithful as a son over God’s house [oikon]. And we are his house [oikos], if we hold on to our courage and the hope of which we boast. (Heb. 3:5-6)
Notice how these writers join up the Old and the New Covenant concepts of God’s household. Both physically, through the blood of Christ (our Passover – 1 Cor. 5:7), and spiritually, through the Trinity (“God sent the Spirit of his Son” – Gal. 4:6), we are members of God’s household. And if we belong to Christ, then we are also sons of Abraham. God’s household, the Church, is child of both the Old and the New Covenants.
Prophets and apostles
We have spoken a great deal already about how God’s
household is c
This emphasis on the apostles should not surprise us.
Throughout the history of God’s household, God has raised up men to be leaders
and teachers: judges, kings, prophets, apostles and so on. Some did not always
follow their c
In the New Covenant, with membership in God’s household
opened up to
Jesus is even more explicit about how these apostolic relationships work, saying to the Twelve: “As the Father has sent me, I am sending you” (Jn. 20:21), and: “He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me” (Matt. 10:40). Thus the Twelve have a special authority in God’s household, the Church, and Jesus is giving them that authority in the same way that the Father has given the Son authority. This, Jesus tells us, is how we receive God: by receiving the apostles. They are our fathers and we are their sons, just as Christ is Son of the Father. To be a Christian, therefore, is to accept apostolic authority.
To what extent, or to what degree, does Jesus pass His authority to His apostles? His next remark show just how radical His intentions are:
“Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” (Jn. 20:22-23)
What an incredible thing to say! It caused enough of a scandal when Jesus claimed for himself the authority to forgive sins (Mk. 2:5-11, Lk. 5:20-24). Now Jesus passes this divine authority to mere men, chosen for this ministry by His grace. God is, to be sure, the only one who can forgive sins Mk. 2:7, Lk. 5:21). But Jesus reveals by this statement something quite remarkable: that His apostles can share in God’s economy of forgiveness – not by usurping God’s place, but by participating in Him through receiving the Holy Spirit.
This is a theme which we will return to again and again: God sometimes allows others to exercise, on His behalf, authorities and capacities which properly only belong to God. All authority is God’s (cf. Rom. 13:1), and so in God’s Kingdom no one may assume authority which does not proceed from God. But, by the Holy Spirit, God can allow others to participate in His life. Under the Old Covenant, often the first exercisers of such divine authority were the prophets. They too often dispensed or withheld God’s forgiveness, or worked miracles – things which only God can do, but which by grace He sometimes allows others to participate in. Under the New, the apostles were the first recipients of this authority. This does not dilute the oneness of God, nor does it lead inevitably to the idolisation of men; it means merely that we are called to be “God’s fellow-workers” (1 Cor. 3:9, 2 Cor. 6:1). Those who claim the right to forgive sins out of their own authority are usurpers and scoundrels; those to whom God grants that right are participants in His life.
Inheritance, appointment and succession
Jesus, we have seen, is absolutely explicit about the importance of accepting the authority of His apostles. He who receives them receives Him. And, in the earliest days of our faith, while the apostles were still alive, that is probably about as explicit as was necessary. However, as time passed and the Twelve began to leave this world, the question had to be asked: Would anyone inherit the teaching authority of the apostles? If so, who? The answers to these questions could be found in two main places: first, the example of the Old Testament; second, the words and deeds of the apostles themselves.
Let us take a look at the Old Testament first. In the Old Covenant, authoritative roles in God’s household were usually passed down in one of two ways. The first way was by appointment, as for example from Moses to Joshua (Deut. 34:9), to his judges (Ex. 18:21-26), or to the seventy elders (Num. 11:24-25). In some of these instances, these positions of authority were passed on in a limited way, i.e. there is no evidence that they continued to be passed on to succeeding generations. So, whilst Joshua was indisputably the successor to Moses, no one person seems to have inherited his authority after his death. Through Israel’s history the consensus gradually emerged, however, that this way of doing things could be problematic. In the years after Joshua’s death God did indeed raise up judges from time to time to lead the Israelites – but generally speaking “when the judge died, the people returned to ways even more corrupt than those of their fathers” (Judg. 2:19). Scripture bemoans: “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit” (Judg. 17:6, 21:25). It is clear that this is not the ideal way to run an oikos; indeed God’s command is unequivocal: “You are not to do as we do here today, everyone as he sees fit” (Deut. 12:8)!
The second way positions of authority were passed on in the house of Israel was through blood inheritance. Here a very different attitude prevailed: a sense of ongoing succession, handed down through the generations from father to son. Ongoing succession certainly applied to the Temple priesthood, which was reserved in perpetuity for the descendants of Aaron. And ongoing succession also applied to kingship. God promised David:
“The LORD declares to you that the LORD himself will establish a house [bayit] for you... Your house and your kingdom shall endure for ever before me; your throne shall be established for ever.” (2 Sam. 7:11,16; cf. 1 Chr. 17:10,14)
Significantly, David, as well as being King, also had a priestly vocation, not as a descendant of Aaron, but “in the order of Melchizedek” (Ps. 110:4) – and this too was a vocation “for ever”! In the Old Testament, priests were those who offered the Temple sacrifices. And so David sacrificed to the LORD on the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite (2 Sam. 24:18-25, 1 Chr. 21:18-25), as did his son Solomon, on the self-same spot (1 Chr. 22:1) at the dedication of the Temple (1 Kgs. 8:62-64, 2 Chr. 7:1-7). Many of Solomon’s descendants turned away from the LORD, but that did not nullify God’s twofold promise to David: his descendants would be kings and priests “for ever”. And so, in the years after the exile, the expectation was that the Messiah, who would be both priest and king, would come from the blood line of David (2 Sam. 7:12-16; Is. 11:1-10, 16:5: Jer. 23:5-6). Both Matthew and Luke, in their genealogies (Matt. 1:1-17, Lk. 3:23-38), make it clear that Jesus is that priest-king.
Which model of succession, then, should apply to the New
Covenant: limited or ongoing? Was Jesus’s commission to the Twelve, radical and
far-reaching as it was, to cease with their deaths, or would others inherit
their office? After the death of the apostles, would everyone again do “as he saw
fit” (Judg. 17:6, 21:25)? Or could the people of the New Covenant try to avoid
some of the pitfalls of the early years of the old Israel, by imaging the
priestly-royal succession of the Old Covenant? The New Testament, of course,
gives us no clear-cut answer to this question, because most of its books were
written by the apostles themselves, or whilst they were still alive: the
challenge was yet to be faced. However, at His Last Supper Jesus had said, “As
the Father has sent me, I am sending you” (Jn. 20:21), and previously He had
said, “He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one
who sent me” (Matt. 10:40, cf. Lk.
10:16). So, the Lord had explicitly presented at least four stages in God’s
delegation of participation in His authority: First, the Father; then, the Son;
then, the apostles; then, those who receive the apostles. Might it not be that
the pattern Jesus had revealed was meant to last? Was it too much to surmise
that:
“He who receives me receives the
one who sent me...
He who receives you receives
me...”
He who receives the ones you send receives you...
He who receives the ones they send receives them...
and so on? Or, put another way:
“As the
Father has sent me, I am sending you...”
As I send you, you will send others...
As you send others, they will send
yet others...
I don’t know if these thoughts passed through the apostles’ minds as they listened to their Lord in the Upper Room. But, after His ascension, they were faced with the question of succession very early on, when one of the Twelve, Judas, died (Matt. 27:5, Acts 1:18). The apostles had no hesitation in deciding in favour of continuing succession. They applied the example of the Old Covenant to the demands of the New, combining spiritual inheritance and spiritual appointment in the first ever instance of Christian apostolic succession. Judas, though he had strayed as many of the kings of old had strayed, nevertheless demanded a rightful successor. And so Peter said to the believers:
“It is written in the Book of
Psalms…,
‘May another
take his place of leadership [episkopen].’
[Ps. 109:8]
Therefore it is necessary to
choose one of the men who have been with us… One of these must become a witness
with us of his resurrection.” So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas
(also known as Justus) and Matthias. Then they prayed, “Lord, you know
everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this
apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” Then they cast
lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
(Acts 1:20-26)
It is important to note that Matthias did not start out as an apostle; he was made an apostle solely in order to succeed Judas. He inherited an office left vacant (the word Peter uses, translated above as “place of leadership”, is episkope, literally “overseership” or “supervisorship”). Judas may well have brought his episkope into disrepute, but that did not give anyone the right to abolish it, and clearly the importance of ongoing succession was too deeply embedded in the apostles’ mindset, and in Israel’s history, for them to consider that option. In the appointment of Matthias the apostles established a pattern which the worldwide Church has used ever since. To become a Christian leader, one does not branch out and set up an independent church. The biblical practice is that one is appointed, often inheriting an office previously occupied, ideally in a line of succession leading back to the twelve apostles. This, then, is the full meaning of the term apostolicity: an ongoing line of succession from the apostles.
Presbyters and episkopoi
It took very little time for this “raw” principle of
apostolic succession to be developed into a system of Church hierarchy. This
too is not only sanctioned, but encouraged in the Bible, especi
First, the Greek diakonos (“servant” or “waiter”) became diaconus in Latin, and “deacon” in English (1 Tim. 3:8-13).
Next, the Greek word for an elder (or “old man”) is presbyteros. This became in Latin presbyter, in mediaeval French prestre, and in English “priest”. The word “priest” therefore means, in a literal sense, nothing more than an “elder”. It is important to distinguish this word from the Greek word hiereus (Latin sacerdos), which means the sort of priest who offered sacrifices to God under the Old Covenant. According to Simon Peter we are all hiereis:
You also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house [oikos] to be a royal priesthood [hierateuma], offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. (1 Pet. 2:5)
And according to the writer to the Hebrews, Christ Himself is the one “high hiereus”:
Christ did not take upon himself
the glory of becoming a high priest [archierea].
But God said to him,…
“You
are a priest [hiereus] forever
in
the order of Melchizedek.” (Heb. 5:5-6)
It is unfortunate that the English word “priest” has come to
stand for both presbyteros and hiereus – but we must not let this fact confuse
us. When the English word “priest” is used to refer to a Christian church
leader, it means that that person is a nothing more than a presbyteros. We are
Finally, the Greek word for an overseer (or supervisor) is episkopos. This word became episcopus in Latin, bisceop in Old English, and later “bishop”. Bishops are therefore supervisors in God’s household, the Church.
There seems, at the beginning, to have been some fluidity in the distinction between episkopos and presbyteros. However, we are able to see that, even at this very early stage in the development of the Church, these roles fit into the pattern of apostolic authority which we have already seen used for God’s oikos. These Church leaders are “sent” by the apostles; therefore they are sent by Christ (Matt. 10:40), and by the Father (Jn. 20:21). Paul is explicit about this, saying to the presbyteroi of Ephesus:
Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers [episkopous]. Be shepherds of the church [ekklesian] of God, which he bought with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)
In other words, the fact that those first episkopoi were appointed by the apostles means nothing less than that they were appointed by the Holy Spirit – by God Himself. He who receives them receives God Himself (cf. Matt. 10:40).
The episkopoi have
a particular c
must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that [they] can encourage [parakalein] others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. (Tit. 1:9)
Because these leaders are sent by Christ, Christians are told to
respect those who work hard among you, who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you. Hold them in the highest regard in love. (1 Thess. 5:12-13)
Clearly it matters little what we call these church leadership roles. Whether you call someone a bishop or an overseer or a supervisor, or whether you call someone a priest or a presbyter or an elder, does not ensure that he necessarily exercises his authority in accordance with God’s will. What matters is that these offices fit into the pattern established by Christ. The episkopoi are appointed to their “overseerships”, just as Matthias was, by the apostles (Tit. 1:5, Acts 14:23). Their appointment is therefore by divine grace, and this appointment gives them both apostolic authority and apostolic responsibility, to receive and pass on the faith, and to share and inherit the apostles’ authoritative roles as leaders of the Church.
The Holy Spirit
Let us now see what else Scripture has to say about how this apostolic authority works, particularly as regards the interpretation of the Bible. For Jesus also made yet more amazing promises to His apostles:
“I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counsellor to be with you for ever – the Spirit of truth… You know him, for he lives with you and will be in you… The Counsellor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” (Jn. 14:16-18,26)
“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking what is mine and making it known to you.” (Jn. 16:12-14)
As we have already seen from Paul (1 Cor. 2:10), it is the
Holy Spirit who reveals to us the meaning of His word. And as we have seen from
John (Jn. 21:25), there is much more that could be said about Jesus than is contained
in the Bible. And here Jesus explains why: there is so much more He wants to
tell us, more than we can bear in one
go. And so, Jesus explains, He will reveal the fullness of His truth to us not
in one single instalment, but gradually, over time. Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit will teach His apostles (and
therefore their rightful successors) all things, remind them of everything He
has said, and guide them into
Through Holy Scripture, the church’s foundational authority, the Lord who possesses all authority authorizes the church to build on that foundation… Scripture is a means to the end of church tradition… [9]
The Bible gives us examples of how this happened in the early life of the Church. Let’s take a look at the very first council of the worldwide Church, held in Jerusalem in c. 49 A.D. The Acts of the Apostles describes it at length: I suggest you read Acts 15:1-31 in your own Bible now. At this council, the apostles and presbyteroi convened to make a decision on the extent to which Gentiles should be made to follow the Jewish law in order to become Christians. They could not turn to the Bible for a simple definitive ruling on this, for there was as yet no Bible other than the Jewish Scriptures, which had never overtly envisaged such a possibility. And so they discussed the issues at length (Acts 15:7), no doubt with many different views being expressed.
Four things are important to note about their final ruling: First, Scripture was fundamental to the argument (Acts 15:16-17). The apostles knew they could not come to a decision which was contrary to Scripture, i.e. to the Old Testament. The Old Testament did not give them an answer to their dilemma, but it provided some boundaries beyond which they could not step, and it provided some passages (e.g. Am. 9:11-12) which showed that they were not on the wrong track.
Second, because Scripture did not give a clear ruling concerning the question they were facing, the disciples had to go beyond Scripture. The experience of Paul, as “apostle to the Gentiles”, was highly relevant, and so was brought into the debate.
Third, a decision had to be taken. Those who appear to have contributed to the decision most were the most high-ranking apostles present: James, as episkopos of Jerusalem (Acts 15:13-21), and therefore host of the council; and Simon Peter (Acts 15:7-11). Apostolic authority was respected; it was not a free-for-all.
Fourth, there were doubtless some of the Christian elders who were deeply disappointed by the decision taken, even perhaps angry and scandalised. And they too could probably point to scriptural arguments for their point of view. But, as far as we know, they did not storm out in a huff and start a new church. They stayed, because they knew that without Church unity, their project was doomed.
So, in this example from Acts, we see the assembled episkopoi of the worldwide Church meeting to make an important doctrinal decision. They trusted that, by together seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit, both in interpreting what Jesus had already said to them, and also in moving beyond that into “all truth” (Jn. 16:13), they would not stumble. The gates of Hell would not prevail against them (Matt. 16:18). And this is how the worldwide Church has operated ever since.
Summary
Let us stop for a while and summarise what we have discovered so far about the biblical blueprint for God’s household. According to Scripture, the Church:
is the New Israel (Matt. 19:28, Rom.
9:25, Rev. 21:12-14);
is therefore God’s household (1
Tim. 3:15, Eph. 2:19, Heb. 3:6);
is a people chosen by grace (Eph.
1:3-14);
is, like the Trinity, one, but
with many faces (Jn. 17:21);
is therefore a family,
articulated by relationships of fatherhood, sonship and love
(Mk. 3:35, 1
Cor. 4:15, 1 Tim. 1:2)
both physically, through the
blood of Christ (Eph. 2:13)
and spiritually, through the
Trinity (Gal. 3:26-4:7);
is the pillar and foundation of
the truth (1 Tim. 3:15);
is therefore built on the apostles
(Eph. 2:20),
who receive authority from Christ
in the same way that He receives it from the Father
(Matt. 10:40,
Jn. 20:21),
who therefore have the authority
to forgive sins on Christ’s behalf (Jn. 20:23),
who, by divine command, receive
and pass on the faith
(1 Cor. 15:3,
2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Tim. 2:2, Tit. 1:9);
who, by divine right, appoint episkopoi as their successors
(Matt. 10:40; Acts 1:26, 14:23, 20:28;
Tit. 1:5)
who are being led by the Holy
Spirit into all truth (Jn. 14:26, 16:13) –
that Holy Spirit who reveals God’s
secret wisdom (1 Cor. 2:7-10);
so that they can, when necessary,
make important doctrinal decisions (Acts 15:1-31);
so that, even though Scripture does
not tell us all there is to know about Christ (Jn. 21:25),
we may “all reach unity in the faith
and in the knowledge of the Son of God” (Eph. 4:13).
This is the essence of
the Church. This is both her vocation and her true identity, an identity which
is real, regardless of appearances, because it is promised by God through His holy
Scriptures. This is why
The title of this book is The Church through Scripture, Scripture through the Church. The list of biblical points we have arrived at above is, in a sense, the bare bones of what that this book is about. How we interpret this list will depend to a great extent upon our mindset, i.e. our own tradition of interpreting Scripture. That is why, having briefly outlined what the Bible says about what the Church is, we now need to return to our consideration of Scripture and Tradition, and dig a bit deeper into how the Church interprets and passes on the faith (paradosis).
Most crucial for us in this discussion is dealing with the
question which we first broached two chapters ago, which is why it is that in
its interpretation of Scripture the Catholic Church seems to go “beyond the
Bible” in a manner which some Protestants hold to be unreasonable. As this is
often one of the main Protestant objections to the Catholic faith, and as so
much else hinges on this question, we need to deal with this before anything else.
And we are, I hope, now in a position to do so.
BIBLICAL SUMMARY of
Chapter Four
Scripture is flawless
and God-breathed.
Prov. 30:5, 2 Tim. 3:16
The Church is the
pillar and foundation of the truth.
1 Tim. 3:14-15
The New Covenant
depends upon the Old –
Matt. 5:17-18; Rom. 9:25, 11:17-18
twelve tribes of Israel and twelve apostles of the Lamb
Matt. 19:28, Rev. 21:10-14
Promised Land and New Jerusalem
Gen. 12:1, 17:8; Rev. 21:2
Melchizedek and Jesus
Gen. 14:18-20, Ps. 110:4, Matt.
26:26-29, Mk. 14:22-25, Lk. 22:19-20, 1 Cor. 11:23-26,
Heb. 5:6
Moses and Jesus
Deut. 18:15-20, 34:10-12; Heb.
3:2-6
Old and New Passover
Ex. 12:14-27; Num. 9:1-14,
28:16-25; Deut. 16:1-8, 1 Cor. 5:7-8
salvation from death, freedom from slavery
Ex. 12:12-27, Rom. 6-8, 1 Cor. 15
baptism in cloud and sea, water and Spirit
Ex. 14, Jn. 3:5, Acts 2:38, 1 Cor.
10:2
spiritual food, bread from Heaven
Ex. 16-17, Jn. 6:32, 1 Cor.
10:3-4
Law and Spirit
Ex. 19-23, Acts 2
The Covenant is
communal...
Gen. 17, Ex. 3, Is. 6:9, Jer. 2:4, Ezek. 7:2
... and, though it places serious obligations on the people...
Lev. 20; Deut. 26:16-17, 28:15-68
... it is a gift of grace.
Deut. 9:4-6, Is. 49:15-16, Eph.
1:3-14
The Covenant creates
a household...
Gen. 2:18-24, 9:9, 17:7, Is. 11:1, Matt. 1:1-17, Lk. 3:23-38,
Gal. 3:26-29, Eph. 2:13-20, 1 Tim. 3:15,
Heb. 3:5-6
... of many in One...
Jn. 17:21
... defined by relationships of fatherhood and sonship...
Mk. 3:35; Jn. 3:16, 5:17-23; Rom.
4:12, 1 Cor. 4:15-17, Gal. 4:4-7, 1 Tim. 1:2, 2 Tim 1:2,
1 Pet. 5:13
... which are ongoing...
Matt. 10:40, Jn. 20:21
... and which embody a participation in Christ.
Jn. 20:22-23, 1 Cor. 3:9, 2 Cor.
6:1
Succession of leaders
happens through appointment...
Ex. 18:21-26, Num. 11:24-25, Deut. 34:9
... (which is sometimes not ongoing, which means that everyone “does as
he sees fit”)...
Deut. 12:8; Judg, 2:19, 17:6, 21:25
... or through blood inheritance, which is ongoing, even “forever”.
2 Sam. 7:11-16, 1 Chr. 17:10-14
David and his line
receive the promise of being priests as well as kings.
2 Sam. 24:18-25; 1 Kgs. 8:62-64, 1 Chr. 21:18-22:1; 2 Chr. 7:1-7,
Ps. 110:4; Is. 11:1-10, 16:5;
Jer. 23:5-6, Matt. 1:1-17, Lk. 3:23-28
The New Covenant is
built on the apostles...
Eph. 2:19-20
... whose authority comes from Christ in the same way that His comes
from the Father...
Matt. 10:40, Jn. 20:21
... who therefore can forgive sins on Christ’s behalf...
Jn. 20:23
... who receive and pass on the faith...
1 Cor. 15:3, 2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Tim.
2:2, Tit. 1:9
... who continue the principle of ongoing succession...
Matt. 10:40, Acts 1:18-26
... appointing deacons, presbyters (not hiereis) and bishops to shepherd the Church.
Jn. 10:11-16; Acts 14:23, 20:28; 1
Thess. 5:12-13, 1 Tim. 3:5-13, Tit. 1:5-9, Heb. 5:5-6;
1 Pet. 2:5-9, 5:2
The Holy Spirit
guides the Church...
Matt. 16:18, Jn. 14:16-26, 16:12-14, 21:25; 1 Cor. 2:10-16
... for example, when meeting in Council...
Acts 15:1-31
... revealing God’s secret wisdom...
1 Cor. 2:7-10
... so that, even though Scripture does not tell us everything about
Christ...
Jn. 21:25
...we may “all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son
of God”.
Eph. 4:13
[1] Charles Colson, The Body: Being Light in Darkness (Word,
Dallas, 1992), p. 277
[2] e.g. 1 Chr. 13:4; Judg. 20:2, 21:5; Neh. 13:1; Job 30:28; Ps.
107:32, 149:1; Jo. 2:16
[3] See also Rom. 9:6, Gal. 6:16, Eph.
2:12
[4] N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?
(William B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1997), p. 19
[5] For much of this section, I am
indebted to Fr. Pablo Gadenz, “The Church as the Family of God”, in Catholic for a Reason: Scripture and the
Mystery of the Family of God, ed. Scott Hahn & Leon J. Suprenant Jr.
(Emmaus Road, Steubenville, 1998)
[6] Pope John Paul II, Puebla: A Pilgrimage of Faith (Daughters
of St. Paul, Boston, 1979), p. 86, quoted in Scott Hahn, “The Mystery of the
Family of God”, in Catholic for a Reason:
Scripture and the Mystery of the Family of God, ed. Scott Hahn & Leon
J. Suprenant Jr. (Emmaus Road, Steubenville, 1998), p. 7
[7] These verses (and those such as
Rom. 4:12) do not of course nullify Matt. 23:9 – but encourage us to interpret
that gospel text with subtlety and care.
[8] For the current Catholic exposition of this theme, see Lumen Gentium II.10, in Vatican II: The Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Documents, ed. Austin Flannery (Dominican, Dublin, 1992).
[9] Michael Allen & Scott R. Swain,
Reformed Catholicity: The Promise of Retrieval
for Theology and Biblical Interpretation (Baker Academic, Grand Rapids,
2015), p. 43
No comments:
Post a Comment