The Bible or the Church?
Acknowledgment: All Scriptural quotations are from The Jerusalem Bible,
published by Darton, Longman & Todd, London.
Published
and printed in India by Printland Publishers G.P.O.
Box 159, Hyderabad, 500 001, India. © Ken Camplin -1996
Preface
In recent years the writer has been involved in
discussions with Roman Catholics and has been struck by the strong views
expressed, particularly by some older members, about changes in the church's
teachings and practices during their own lifetime. Some of the discussions have
been with individuals whilst others have been in groups.
One lady was somewhat distressed when relating how she
had been terrified as a child by teachings about the devil and hell fire, and
subsequent nightmares. In looking at the lives of her teenage children she was
pleased that they did not have that experience. At the same time, she was
confused and concerned that the Church should change its teachings so markedly,
often without satisfactory explanations to the parishioners. Other points
brought up referred to matters of practice, such as not eating meat on Fridays,
the wearing of hats by ladies in church, and particularly to degrees of
abstinence during Lent.
Another lady who had recently suffered tragic
bereavement recounted how she found the priest unwilling to discuss the
whereabouts of her loved one in the weeks immediately following decease. This
priest did not want to talk about the church's teaching on Purgatory and Limbo.
Such reluctance on the part of priests to speak about this topic had not been
apparent in earlier years. However, it must be stated that there have been
occasional reports recently of some priests making references to hell fire in
their sermons.
It would seem obvious that there is a need
for a supreme and unchanging authority in order to answer questions of belief
and practice. The Bible presents an "everlasting gospel" in a
changing world.
THE BIBLE OR THE CHURCH?
The Question of Supreme Authority What is the Bible?
The Bible is a collection of books contained in two
main parts - Old Testament and New Testament, sixty-six books in all, bound in
one volume. By the time of Jesus Christ the books of the Old Testament were
generally recognised as Divine by the Jews, but the growth of the Old Testament
had begun much earlier. Over many centuries the books grew to be accepted as
Holy Scripture. The Bible was produced for ordinary common people and was
written in the language spoken by Hebrews and Greeks in their homes and public
place. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek.
Shortly before the coming of Christ the Old Testament was translated into Greek
in Alexandria. (This translation is known as the Septuagint-there were seventy
translators).
In the Fourth Century A.D. Jerome made a
Latin version, and in the original translation the Apocrypha was excluded.
Jerome's Vulgate Version was the Bible of Western Europe for over a thousand
years. The Roman Catholic Church jealously guarded this Latin version and
forbade translations into common tongues. Before the Reformation the Bible was
regarded as a book for priests only. In the Fifteenth Century, Luther and other
reformers brought about a tremendous change. The Holy Scriptures were soon
translated into many European languages. Tyndale produced the first printed New
Testament in English in the face of great hostility from the Catholic Church.
He paid with his life for his devotion to the translation and distribution of
the Bible. As he was dying at the stake, Tyndale uttered the cry: " Lord, open the King of England's eyes". After
Tyndale's death it wasn't long before King Henry VIII gave orders that every
parish church in England should have a copy of the English Bible.
Inspiration
The Scriptures assert that they were 'God-breathed' or
inspired. The Bible's claims to be God's Book are attested by the Apostle
Peter:
"It was not any cleverly invented myths that we
were repeating when we brought you the knowledge of the power and the coming of
our Lord Jesus Christ....... Because no prophecy ever came from man's initiative. When men spoke for God it was the Holy
Spirit that moved them" (2 Peter 1 :16 and 21).
The Bible is God's direct revelation to
men and women concerning His plan and purpose with His creation. The structure
of the Bible and the themes running through its pages demonstrate a unity of
purpose. The dominant and unifying theme of the Bible concerns the life and
work of the Lord Jesus Christ. This can only be explained satisfactorily in
terms of its Divine origin. The writers were inspired by God to write, but
miraculously their individuality is readily recognised. The prophet Amos was a
herdsman and it shows. Luke the gospel writer was a doctor and well educated
man, and it shows. The Spirit of God was the power and authority behind the
words, the message came from God. The writers of the books of the Old and New
Testaments were the instruments of this revelation.
The Canon
The word Canon was used to describe those
books recognised as being of Divine origin. The Canon was produced gradually,
but each book was promptly accepted as the Word of God. The distinctive
character and authority of each book ensured that it was accepted as Divinely inspired. The Apocryphal books were written after
the time of Malachi, the last of the Hebrew Prophets, and before the birth of
Christ. There is no mention of these works in the list of Hebrew Scriptures
recorded by the Jewish historian Josephus (A.D. 30 -100), and they are not to
be found in the Jewish Talmud (a commentary on the Old Testament). The Jews do
not accept these writings as part of the Hebrew Old Testament. There was
considerable debate regarding the Canon after A.D. 70. Questions were raised
about the inclusion of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and The Song of Solomon. At the
Council of Jamnia in A.D. 110, after much careful
discussion, these books were accepted. No books previously in the Canon were
expelled and those books which they declined to accept had never been seriously
considered as part of the Canon. All books ' that were included in the Old
Testament were already acknowledged to be 'God-inspired' and authoritative.
Some of the books not accepted into the original Old Testament Canon came to be
called the Apocrypha. It is significant that Jesus and the New Testament writers
do not quote from the Apocryphal books, especially in view of the fact that the
New Testament contains over two hundred direct quotations and more than three
hundred allusions to the Old Testament Scriptures. Paul quoted Greek poets, but
did not quote any words from the Apocrypha.
Contrast the books of the Old Testament
with those in the Apocrypha, and likewise contrast those in the New Testament
with the writings of the Apostolic Fathers; the distinction is clear cut -
there can be no doubt as to which are 'in' the Bible and those which are
'outside'. The Early Church Fathers rejected the inclusion of the Apocryphal
books in the Old Testament Canon. Jerome (A.D. 374 - 410) did not include these
works in his original Vulgate Translation. He regarded them 'as suitable only
for devotional reading, but not appropriate for confirming Church doctrine'. It
wasn't until the Council of Trent in 1546 that the Roman Catholic Church gave
formal canonical status to the Apocrypha. In Catholic Bibles the Apocryphal writings
are usually incorporated within the Old Testament scriptures on the basis of
their historical relevance. Luther collected Apocryphal Books together, and
presented them as a unified supplement at the end of the Old Testament.lt has been the practice of Protestants since
Luther's time to separate Apocryphal writings from those regarded as Divinely inspired, and in some non-Catholic Bibles the
Apocrypha is inserted between the Old and New Testaments.
The Authority of the Scriptures
The Canon of the Old Testament was endorsed by the
Lord Jesus Christ. He quoted extensively from all parts of the Holy Scriptures
(the Old Testament) and accepted its authority. After His resurrection he told
the disciples that everything that had happened to Him was a fulfillment of prophecies recorded in the Old Testament -
Luke 24 : 25-27, 44.
The New Testament had not yet been written, so Jesus
could not endorse it in the same way as lie attributed Divine authority to the
Old Testament books. We must remember that the Roman Catholic Church did not
exist at that time, ( nor did the New Testament as we
know it). Did the Almighty make different arrangements for the collection and
authorisation of the Books of the New Testament? No. The principles underlying
the Canon of scripture apply equally to the Old and New Testaments.
The New Testament Canon came into being hen the
earliest portions of these Divine scriptures were circulated in the early
churches during the first century. The Synod of Hippo in A.D. 393 listed the 27
books of the New Testament, but it did not confer upon them any authority which
they did not already possess. It plainly recorded the fact that their Divinity
had long been recognised.
If we accept that the Scriptures were produced by men
who were inspired by God, then it is unreasonable to suggest that there was a
process of selection and endorsement which was left entirely to humans. If men
had the last word, then it follows that there would be the real possibility of
some inspired books being left out. Some which were not inspired would be
included in the Bible. If the compilation of the Holy Bible did depend on human
judgement, then members of each generation would have the right to exercise
their own judgement. Such a foundation would be untenable.
The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments assert
their own authority. The books in the Old Testament make persistent claims to
be Divinely inspired by the use of such phrases as; "Thus says
Yahweh....". "Listen to the word of
Yahweh....". Such claims are not be found in the
apocryphal books, and some appear to disclaim divine inspiration (see the
Prologue to Ecclesiasticus, and I Maccabees 9:27, also 1 Maccabees 14:38-41).
God re ve aled Himself to men over the centuries. One of the
important principles of this revelation was that once the Divine message had
been received it was
not to be added to, and no part of it was to be
discarded. "You must add nothing to that I command you, and take nothing
from it, but keep the commandments of Yahweh your God just as I lay them down
for you, "-Deuteronomy 4:2. (See also Proverbs 30:5-6).
It should be noted that these words were written many
centuries before the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church.
Reading the Bible
Some Catholics are under the impression that it is
wrong to read the Bible themselves. This is due to historical factors. In late
mediaeval times the Catholic Church excommunicated and occasionally burned
persons who undertook to provide the Bible in a language which the laity could
read and try and understand themselves. The Council of Toulouse in 1129 decreed
that the Bible in the common language of the people was to be listed on the
Church's Index of forbidden books. Thus it was officially indicated that
ordinary people were to be prevented from reading the Bible. The New Catholic Encyclopedia refers to the Church's decision at the Council
of Trent:
"...... the Council declares that no-one, relying
on his own ingenuity, in matters of faith and morals
pertaining to the development of the Christian doctrine, should distort Sacred
Scripture to suit himself, contrary
to that sense which the Holy Mother Church has held and
continues to hold, whose place it is to judge concerning the true sense and
interpretation of Holy scriptures". (Denz 1507).
It is true that the First Vatican Council in 1870
stated that :
"The Bible is held as sacred and canonical, not
because approved by the Church's authority, but because written by the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit, having God for author, and delivered as such to
the Church herself.
This declaration asserts that God impressed His
authority on the Scriptures including the Apocryphal books. It is accepted by
Roman Catholics that the Church itself speaks authoritatively on issues of
faith and morals. The First Vatican Council decreed that when the Pope speaks
ex cathedra he is 'beyond the reach of error1, and his pronouncements have to
be accepted. In such circumstances is it not likely that any Roman Catholic
would wonder what the Church's interpretation of the Bible would be? He would
be reluctant to accept the responsibility of making up his own mind. On the
other hand the Protestant attitude is that the Bible was written for the common
people and that everyone should be able to read the Bible and seek to
understand its message for him or herself.
In the
early Church the preachers and teachers directed interested people and
believers to read the Scriptures and verify their teachings for themselves.
Cyril of Jerusalem declared: 'Do not believe me simply, unless you receive the
proof of what I say from Holy Scripture'.
The Living Voice
It is sometimes claimed that in order to really
understand the true message of the Bible there is the need for an authoritative
'Living Voice'. The Council of Trent emphasised the importance of recognising
that true Christianity is contained in the written books of the Old and New
Testaments and in the unwritten 'Tradition'. On this basis it is argued that we
cannot rely on our own judgement when reading the Bible but require the
guidance of authoritative Church leaders to determine the Truth. It is claimed
that they have acquired such authority by receiving the oral tradition handed
down by Christ and the Apostles.
This body of knowledge is in addition to the written
Word. It also finds expression in pronouncements of Church Councils and in
Ecclesiastical Decrees. This 'Tradition' takes precedence over the written word
and interprets it. In effect, 'Scripture means what the Church says it means'.
By contrast others who accept the supreme authority of the Bible regard it as
the touchstone for determining claims to the Truth, and see the Holy Scriptures
as independent of any church or system.
The Pope, regarded as God's representative on earth,
can legislate, it is claimed, on issues additional to the Bible as new
situations arise. There are very distinctive doctrines in the Roman Catholic
Church which have developed from 'Tradition'- a few are supported by quotations
from the Apocrypha, but others do not have scriptural or Apocryphal support. These
doctrines include the Mass, Worship of the Virgin Mary and the Doctrine of the
Immaculate Conception, Indulgences on the basis of the Treasury of Merits, the
Celibacy of Priests, and the Infallibility of the Pope.
Do we find confirmation of these teachings and certain
other current practices of the Catholic Church in the Bible? No. The Holy
Scriptures are silent on these matters. Has the Church the right to formulate
new teachings which are not supported by the Scriptures? How do we know whether
or not a particular church or system is setting forth true Christianity? Surely
it is only by comparing its teachings with a recognised authority- the Bible.
It is surely evident that either the Bible or the Church must be the ultimate
authority-it cannot be both. Serious warnings forbidding the adding to, or
subtraction of, words from the revelation given by God have been noted already.
It is clearly stated that the written word is
sufficient for salvation.
"... you have known the
holy scriptures - from these you can learn the wisdom that leads to salvation
through faith in Christ Jesus." (2 Timothy 3:14-17).
Consider the example of those people at Berea who were
interested in the Apostles' teachings.
"Here (Berea) the Jews were more open-minded than
those in Thessalonica, and they welcomed the word very readily; every day they
studied the scriptures to check whether it was true. Many Jews became
believers.... " (Acts 17:11-12).
Here was a situation where the Apostles were preaching
from the Old Testament scriptures with Spirit-guided authority, and yet these
ordinary people in Berea are commended by Luke for going to the trouble to
check whether what Paul and Silas were saying agreed with the written word!
These common people were acting responsibly. The Bible is to be accepted as the
only authoritative basis of faith and practice. As one writer has said:
"The voice of heaven is heard in the printed sentences of God's word in
the Scriptures, and nowhere else".
Jesus and the Bible
Jesus
quoted from all parts of the Old Testament and endorsed its authority. He
repeated emphatically that the Old Testament forecast the very details of his
life and death. Everything that happened to him was fulfilment of these
prophecies. These predictions were scattered throughout the Old Testament
scriptures - Luke 24:25-27.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus quotes extensively
from the Old Testament and emphasises the principles underlying the various
commandments - Matthew chapters 5-7.
Throughout the Gospels there is a record of Jesus acceptance
of the Jewish Scriptures. He emphatically proclaimed the infallibility of the
written word, for He stated 'scripture cannot be rejected' -John 10:35.
Jesus did not rebuke men for knowing the Scriptures,
He criticised them for not allowing the words to influence their everyday
lives.
Throughout his ministry he quoted from the Old
Testament. During the series of temptations in the wilderness Jesus answered
the tempter three times by quoting directly from the written word, prefaced by
'Scripture says.... 'Matthew 4. At the end of his Gospel the Apostle John has
these remarkable words:
"There were many other signs that Jesus worked
and the disciples saw, but they are not recorded in this book. These are
recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and
that believing this you may have life through his name". John 20:30-31.
What a testimony to the supremacy of the written Word!
It contains all the information that is necessary for salvation.
Later the Apostle John received a revelation from
Jesus Christ and noted:
"John has written down everything he saw and
swears it is the word of God guaranteed by Jesus Christ,....."
Revelation 1:2.
These words are extremely significant, for at the end
of the Revelation John records these words of Jesus:
"This is my solemn warning to all who hear the
prophecies of this book; if anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him
every plague mentioned in the book; if anyone cuts anything out of the
prophecies in this book, God will cut off his share of the tree of life and of
the holy city, which are described in the book." Revelation 22:18-19.
What is Truth?
There was a multi-racial assembly at the trial of
Jesus. Pilate asked the question - "What is truth?" It appears that
it was not just an 'off the cuff' enquiry. Pilate was cunning. He knew that
there would be a marked but contrasting response to his query from the Jews and
Greeks who were present at this trial. The Jewish people believed that
"Truth1 was revealed to men and women by the God of Israel, Who had made
Himself known by inspiring men to write down the truths which He revealed. The
Greeks, on the contrary, believed that Truth' was acquired by the development
and refinement of men's minds. The use
of reason and logic would enable men to arrive at 'The
Truth1. So when Pilate raised this question it is more than likely that bitter
disputes broke out amongst the assembly. There would be those who accepted
inspiration and revelation, and others who professed the superiority of human philosophy.
In the context of our present discussion, what is the
response today to Pilate's question? The one who believes in the authority of
the Word of God follows the fundamental Jewish idea and accepts that Truth can
only come by revelation from God Himself. The Roman Catholic position appears
to combine the Jewish and Greek ideas. There is a revelation from God the
Creator, but there is also the work of men of the church through theology and
philosophy to interpret the Bible. These works of men have been elevated by the
Roman Catholic Church and are highly regarded as 'Tradition'. We are confident
that Jesus and the Apostles of New Testament times followed the practice of the
Jewish prophets and accepted the sole authority and superiority of the Scriptures.
The Authority and Power of Jesus
In the Gospels we read of Jesus having power and
authority, but the Jewish leaders questioned the way in which Jesus was able to
perform miracles:
"Tell us" they said "what authority
have you for acting like this ? Or who is it that gave
you this authority?" - Luke 20:2-6
The phrase 'power and authority' is used in the
Scriptures in a particular way. It is employed in the sense of one having the
ability and approval to do certain things. The various miracles which Jesus did
were demonstrations of His power. These acts impressed the ordinary people, who
were also astounded by His teachings. However, it is one thing to have the
ability and power to perform particular acts, but one may not have the right to
behave in that way. (We may have the power to stop traffic by placing obstacles
on a main thoroughfare, but most of us don't have the right to cause such
havoc). Jesus had right on His side. In the Gospels it is recorded that God the
Father granted authority to Jesus to forgive sins and execute judgement.
Supreme authority was invested in the Son. Luke 5:21-25, John 5:19-23.
Consider the various aspects of authority. One may
exercise authority over another person. During his first advent Jesus did not
exercise this type of authority in any formal sense. The second
advent will be the time for Jesus to rule as King over all the earth
from Jerusalem. Secondly, profound knowledge of a specific subject by someone
may be described as 'Mr. A being an authority on butterflies or gymnastics'.
Then there are those who are authorities at certain activities, that is, they
demonstrate a practical ability.
These aspects may be completely separate. (For
example, someone who is an authority on gymnastics may be confined to a
wheelchair and unable to do any physical exercise). Jesus was a superior
authority for he was capable of demonstrating all three aspects of perfection.
God gave him authority and power over men. He was an authority on the Old
Testament scriptures. The Jewish leaders were astonished when as a twelve year
old boy he was able to talk authoritatively about the Jewish Bible. He was also
a brilliant preacher who followed the line of the Old Testament prophets, and
it is reasonable to assume that, in his earlier life, he had been a good
carpenter. At the crucifixion Pilate put a name plate above his cross - 'Jesus
the Nazarene, King of the Jews'. The 'right and authority' of Jesus as King was
acknowledged by a Roman ruler! In the future Kingdom of God on earth Jesus will
reign until he has put down all other authorities and powers- 1 Corinthians
15:24-28.
Peter's Confession
The miracle and teachings of Jesus aroused great
interest and controversy. Jesus asked his disciples, "Who do people say
the Son of Man is?" They recounted that some thought that he was John the
Baptist, others that he was Elijah or another of the Old Testament prophets.
There were various hunches and opinions which indicated that the public recognised
that he was someone greater than the humble carpenter of Nazareth. Jesus then
turned the question directly on to his disciples, "..... Who do you say I
am?" Peter immediately made the dogmatic statement.
"You are the Christ... the son of the living
God". (Mathew 16:13-20)
This confession of Peter has given rise to claims and
counter claims. However, it is beyond question that the Lord's reply is a
significant play on words.
"You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my
church".
If we inserted the Greek words we would read
- "You are Petros and
upon, this Petra I will build my church". Petros
is the name of a person and it is a masculine word. Petra means rock (i.e. a
strata or mass of rock) but it is a feminine word in Greek. (See "Young's
Analytical Concordance to the Bible"). A crude paraphrase of the statement
could read - 'You are Mr. Boulder and upon this Miss Rock I will build my
church". Seen in this way it is clear that the Lord is stating that it is
Peter's confession of faith: "You are the Christ", that is the
foundation on which the Christian Church is established.
It is significant that Mark, who was a close associate
of the Apostle Peter does not record in his Gospel account the remark about the
rock. In Mark the confession is followed by a rebuke, not a commendation. If
Peter is claimed to be 'The Prince of the Apostles' on the basis of Christ's
statement, why is he rebuked by his Lord? Peter was described by Jesus as Satan
- an adversary or stumbling block, because he denied that Jesus could die- Mark
8:27-33. Peter's judgement was not infallible.
Peter and the Keys
Jesus promised the keys of the Kingdom to Peter. Does
this indicate that he was favoured above the other disciples? If we look
closely at the account in Matthew 18, we see that when Jesus was talking to the
disciples this same privilege is conferred on them also - verses 1 and 18-20,
so how can it be said that Peter was superior to the others? And it is surely
striking that in chapter 23:2-4 and 12 we read that the Scribes and Pharisees
also had this power.
So what was this power? It was the ability and right
to announce the news of God's coming Kingdom and how men and women could be
prepared for Christ's reign on earth. The Scribes and Pharisees had the Word of
God and they knew God's plan of salvation, but they misused the sacred knowledge
- they did not turn the key to the advantage of the people. They withheld truth
from the people and in effect shut the gates to the Kingdom in the faces of men
and women. "Alas for you lawyers who have taken away the key of knowledge! You have not gone in yourselves, and have
prevented others going in who wanted to". - Luke 11:52.
When Jesus responded to Peter's confession of faith
and made his renowned remark - "You are Peter ...." and promised him
the keys, he said to Peter, and later to the other disciples, that 'things'
(not persons) were to be bound or loosed -'whatever' not whomsoever. Mathew
16:19. The keys were symbolic of authority.
Upon Peter and the other disciples was conferred the
authority to preach the Good News of the Kingdom of Heaven. The power of the
keys is very closely related to the idea of'binding
and loosing'. The Jewish Scribes loosed or bound when they declared a thing
permitted or forbidden, lawful or unlawful. Mathew 18:15-18 shows that the
power of binding and loosing included those of excommunication and
reconciliation. (N.B. By the time this gospel was written Gentiles had already
been admitted as disciples).
Apostolic Succession
Some claim that there is a clear line of descent from
the Apostle Peter to the present Pope. However, the first Apostles were
special, and could not be succeeded by others, whoever they might be. The early
Apostles saw Jesus and conversed with him. They were witnesses of our Lord's
crucifixion and resurrection - 1 Corinthians 15:1-11. The Apostles were chosen
and ordained by the Lord, and authorised by him to forgive and retain sins, and
demonstrate great power. John 20:19-23.
Therefore it is reasonable to assert that after the
ascension of Jesus no man could qualify for apostleship unless the Lord appeared
to him. The Lord appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus. In later years Paul
wrote: "You have seen done among you all the things that mark the true
apostle, unfailingly produced: the signs, the marvels, the miracles." - II Corinthians 12:12.
It is also reasonable to ask: "What evidence is
there today of the exhibition of these tremendous powers by those who claim to
be the true successors to the Apostles of the First Century?" There is no evidence in the New Testament
of Apostleship being handed on to the next generation. However, it is reasonable to recognise that
the notion of Apostolic Succession may be viewed essentially as a succession to
the original teachings and practices of the Apostles. Once there is a departure
from the original faith then succession breaks down. Originally there were
several presbyters (elders) in a local Christian Community, but later it became
the practice to have one bishop who presided over the church in an entire region. The separation of clergy from laity became
definitive - but this development did not have scriptural support.
What evidence is there to support the view that Peter
was the superior and unquestioned leader of the early Church in respect of both
doctrine and morals? It has already been noted that Peter's judgement on the
basic tenet of Christian faith - ' the sacrifice of Christ' - was fallible. In
the proceedings at the Council of Jerusalem the Apostle James takes precedence
over Peter - Acts 15. The Apostle Paul rebuked Peter over Peter's attitude to
Gentile believers - Galatians 2:11-14. Most important of all are Peter's own
words in his First Letter. In chapter 2 he declares that Jesus Christ is the
foundation stone of the Church, and in the last chapter he disclaims any unique
authority for himself, decries dictatorship, and encourages humility - 1 Peter
2:1-8, and 5:1-7.
The practice of laying on of hands is often associated
with the maintenance of a link from New Testament times. The term is used in
both the Old and New Testaments with several associations and related meanings.
In general, it is associated with the bestowal of blessings, the indwelling of
the Holy Spirit, the commissioning of disciples for special tasks, and in
healing.
The Foundation of the Early Church
The Church is often associated with the idea of being
an earthly dwelling place for the God of Heaven. In this respect many people
think of a Church as a special building dedicated to the worship of God. In the
Old Testament there is evidence of buildings being used as a meeting place for
worshippers to meet with their God. The tabernacle was a moveable tent which
was designed by God and was used by the Israelites in their journey through the
wilderness to the Promised Land. The first Temple was built by Solomon in
Jerusalem according to God's design.
In the
time of Jesus, Herod's Temple in Jerusalem was the centre for the Jewish
religion and there were numerous synagogues in Palestine and elsewhere. To
the ordinary Jew the massive and ornate Temple building would be regarded as indestructible, but Jesus said
that the Temple would be razed to the ground - Luke 21:5-6. In connection with Jesus' prophecy, we note
the words of Stephen and Paul -"... the Most High does not live in a house
that human hands have built" and " God..... does not make his home in shrines made by human hands"
(Acts 7:48; 17:24).
The important principle which operates throughout
history is that God determines how and where He will be worshipped by man. In
the time of Christ, under the apostles, and for a long period afterwards -
probably until well into the third century - the early Christians did not have
church buildings.
In the New Testament the original Greek word ecclesia
is translated church in most English versions of the Bible. It always means an
assembly of people – a fellowship, and cannot mean a building. And yet there
are several references in the New
Testament to a house and temple as God's dwelling place, but we can understand that some of these references are not meant
to be literal. Consider the Apostle
Peter's own statement about the Ecclesia. He portrays the Church as being made
up of living stones, and obviously he is referring to believers. He describes
Jesus Christ as the keystone of this building (1 Peter 2:4-8). In his letter to
early Christians at Ephesus the Apostle Paul contrasts their association with
God and Christ before and after conversion. He speaks of the privileges
accorded to Christians -
... you are citizens like all
the saints, and part of God's household. You are part of a building that has
the apostles and prophets for its foundations, and Christ Jesus himself for its
main cornerstone. As every structure is aligned on him, all grow into one holy
temple in the Lord: and you too, in him, are being built into a house where God
lives, in the spirit." (Ephesians 2:19- 22).
The church was an association of believers. How did
men and women come to believe? By the word of God. (See Isaiah 55 and Romans
10). The preaching of the apostles was a fulfilment of the teaching of the Old
Testament. It is very significant that the emphasis in the New Testament
witness is upon the authority of the scriptures rather than on Apostolic authority. The scriptures were provided by God who
employed inspired men. Note that in Revelation 1:1 the Divine message came from
God to Christ and from Christ himself to the Church via the Apostle John.
Warnings about false teachers
One of the
most important features of Jesus' ministry, which must not be overlooked, was
his scathing condemnation of the religious leaders of his day. He was very
critical of the way in which so much attention was devoted to tradition and to
the ritual aspects of religion. In New Testament times the Jews had a great
body of tradition - a vast collection of human teachings and commentaries on
the Holy Scriptures - especially on the Law of Moses. These works were highly prized by the Jewish
authorities and they gave this literature preference over the Divine
Scriptures.
"So these Pharisees and scribes asked him, 'Why
do your disciples not respect the tradition of the elders but eat their food with unclean
hands?' He answered,
'It was of you hypocrites that Isaiah so rightly prophesied in
this passage of scripture: 'This people honours me only with lip - service, while
their hearts are far from me. The
worship they offer me is worthless, the doctrines they teach are only human
regulations. You put aside the commandment of God to cling to human
traditions.' And He said to them, 'How ingeniously you get round the commandment
of God in order to preserve your own tradition!'....In this way you make God's
word null and void for the sake of your tradition which you have handed down.
And you do many other things like this' - Mark 7:5-9 and 13.
This is
not an isolated passage from the Lord's teachings. Matthew records a lengthy
and more scathing attack by our Lord on the hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders
(See Matthew chapter 23). The question which faces us today is: 'To what extent
do Jesus' words apply to situations prevalent now?' Besides these severe
comments on the religious practices current in the First Century, Jesus warned
that there would be a departure from the truth taught by him and his disciples.
There can be no doubt about the severity of these warnings and forecasts.
"Beware of false prophets who come to you disguised as sheep but
underneath are ravenous wolves" (Matthew 7:15).
The Apostle Paul was also concerned about
future problems which he knew would face the early Church. When he left Ephesus
for the last time he counselled the elders there with these words:
"Be on your guard for yourselves and
for all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you the overseers, to feed
the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. I know quite well that
when I have gone, fierce wolves will invade you and have no mercy on the flock.
Even from your own ranks there will be men coming forward with a travesty of
the truth on their lips to induce the disciples to follow them. So be on your
guard ...." (Acts 20:28-31).
This forecast made by Paul came true before very long.
In his letter to the churches in Galatia the Apostle expresses
astonishment that some of the believers there were leaving the Christian
community which he had established on his missionary journey. The preaching of
'another gospel' by some believers was causing serious confusion and
disruption. Paul is forthright in his criticism.
"..... if anyone
preaches a version of the Good News different from the one you have already
heard, he is to be condemned." - Galatians 1:9.
The Apostle Peter also warned that there would be
false teachers in the early Church, just as there were false prophets in Old
Testament times, and that these men would disrupt the Way of Truth - 2 Peter
2:1-3.
It is to be noted that in the main, these warnings
referred to the infiltration of false teaching -Christianity was to be
corrupted from within its own body!
Our
Responsibility
The Bible is the only source of authority. Its
principles are unchanging and everlasting. The scriptures provide a secure
foundation for faith. Let us emphasise that the Holy Scriptures are God's
revelation to man - they open up the way of salvation and are intended to
reveal, not conceal, the purpose of God. The Bible contains all that is
necessary for salvation.
What is our responsibility then? Men and women possess
the potential for good and evil. We have the free will to exercise choice in
this world. It is important to reinforce the point that, when Jesus and the
Apostles were preaching, they always appealed to the written authority of the
Holy Scriptures. The oral tradition was not given superior authority.
After his resurrection Jesus spoke to the disciples
about the Scriptures:
"Then, starting with Moses and going through all
the prophets, he explained to them the passages throughout the scriptures that
were about himself... 'everything written about me in
the Law of Moses, in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, has to be fulfilled'. He
then opened their minds to understand the scriptures..." Luke 24:27, 44
and 45.
When Paul was at Thessalonica he went into the
synagogue and reasoned with the congregation from the scriptures. On leaving
that city he moved on to Berea and again taught in the synagogue. Luke's
account of his experience there is very instructive - for he commended the Jews
for their diligence in comparing the Apostle's preaching with Old Testament
writings:
"Here the Jews were more open-minded than those
in Thessalonica, and they welcomed the word very readily; everyday they studied
the scriptures to check whether it was true" - Acts 17:11.
These people were following the scriptural principle
"Come now and let us talk over" - Isaiah 1:18.
The Apostle Paul made repeated appeals to the Holy
Scriptures using the phrase "Scripture says". It is obvious from the
accounts in Acts that Paul was at pains to emphasise the importance of the
written word. He wrote to Timothy:
"... ever since you were
a child, you have known the holy scriptures - from these you can learn the
wisdom that leads to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is
inspired by God and can profitably be used for teaching, for refuting error,
for guiding people's lives and teaching them to be holy. This is how the man
who is dedicated to God becomes fully equipped and ready for any good
work" (2 Timothy 3:15-17).
The
Apostle James states:
"... (God) made us his children by the message of
the truth" (James 1:18)
The Apostle Peter declares that the believer is born
by the Word of God:
"... your new birth was not from any mortal seed,
but from the everlasting word of the living and eternal God... What is this
word? It is the Good News that has been brought to you" (1 Peter 1:23-25).
In his preaching about Jesus Christ and the kingdom of
God, Paul was concerned to encourage his hearers to check what preachers said
with what was recorded in the Old Testament. (These were the only authorised
Scriptures extant at that time). This practice is endorsed by the Apostle in
several of his letters to the early believers. For example, he wrote to the
church in Corinth:
"Examine yourselves to make sure you are in the
faith; test yourselves. Do you acknowledge that Jesus Christ is really in you?
If not, you have failed the test, but we, as I hope you will come to see, have
not failed it." (2 Corinthians 13:5 and 6).
Is a considerable degree of academic ability necessary
in order to 'test all things'? No. The Bible never states that Divine knowledge
can only be acquired by clever people. The attitude of men and women in
searching for Truth is all important. Throughout the Bible there is emphasis on
the fact that God is pleased with those who are humble and contrite and who are
willing to learn from the Scriptures. The Apostle Paul told the believers at
Corinth:
"Take yourselves for instance, brothers, at the
time when you were called: how many of you were wise in the ordinary sense of
the word, how many were influential people, or came from noble families? No, it
was to shame the wise that God chose what is foolish by human reckoning, and to
shame what is strong that he chose what is weak by human reckoning; those whom
the world thinks common and contemptible are the ones that God has chosen -
those who are nothing at all to show up those who are everything." (1
Corinthians 1:26-28).
The same Apostle told the Philippians -"... work
for your salvation in fear and trembling." (Philippians 2:12).
In the light of such Biblical teaching how can anyone
defend the surrender of individual responsibility to the Church? We all have a
responsibility to examine Bible teaching and accept its message. We have seen
from the New Testament record itself, that false
teaching crept into the early
Church
from outside but, more importantly, heresies were also promoted by church
members themselves. If Jesus and his apostles were scathing in their criticisms
of false teachings which arose during the First Century, then what about the
'developments' of ideas and practices in the following centuries? We are
confident that we are observing Christian principles when we say it is essential
to follow New Testament Christianity - that which was taught by Jesus and his
apostles.
Ken Camplin March 1996
Further reading obtainable from
Christadelphians Worldwide, P.O. Box 316, Kings Norton, Birmingham,
B30 3EA, U.K.
Do
Christians need Priests? - M. J. Ashton
How Sure are the Foundations? - C. Badger
The
Miracle of the Bible - R. Carr
An Appeal
to Roman Catholics The - A.D. Norris
Reference:
The First
Century Ecclesia - J.B. Norris.
General enquiry may also be made to the above address,
or from any local address that may appear in this booklet.