Scripture Interpretation

I believe that all of us—I assume I am writing primarily to Orthodox Christians—have, at least once, run into someone who has expressed the opinion that the Orthodox Church is not in harmony with the Bible.  These people typically claim to belong to a “Bible Church” and assert that they are non-denominational.  They maintain that they follow the Bible, and it is primarily the New Testament that they are referring to.  They have their own understanding and interpretation of the Scriptures and conclude that the Church contradicts the Scriptures by its way of life and therefore proclaim that they are a Bible church and we are not.  Again, I repeat that this is based on their own understanding and interpretation of the Scriptures.  Long ago, in the fourth century, a man Arius, who had a large following, denied that our Lord Jesus Christ is God; and he based his belief on the Scriptures, as well.  Today, the Jehovah Witnesses also deny that Christ is God, and they, too, claim to follow the Scriptures.  Likewise, I can offhand think of two other groups in our times which do not share a Trinitarian doctrine and who also claim to base their beliefs on the Scriptures.  I am speaking here of Christian Scientists and Unitarians. So then, who can understand and interpret the Scriptures?  Let us take one step at a time and begin by answering the question: Is the Orthodox Church a Bible church?  What is the answer?  NO!  So now, we must carry on with an explanation. 

The Apostolic preaching of the Christian Faith and the gathering together of communities of believers existed before the New Testament.  In the late fourth century St. John Chrysostom in his first homily on the Gospel of St. Matthew wrote the following:

“It were indeed meet for us not at all to require the aid of the written Word, but to exhibit a life so pure, that the grace of the Spirit should be instead of books to our souls, and that as these are inscribed with ink, even so should our hearts be with the Spirit. But, since we have utterly put away from us this grace, come, let us at any rate embrace the second-best course.

“For that the former was better, God hath made manifest, both by His words, and by His doings. Since unto Noah, and unto Abraham, and unto his offspring, and unto Job, and unto Moses too, He discoursed not by writings, but Himself by Himself, finding their mind pure. But after the whole people of the Hebrews had fallen into the very pit of wickedness, then and thereafter was a written word, and tablets, and the admonition which is given by these.

“And this one may perceive was the case, not of the saints in the Old Testament only, but also of those in the New. For neither to the apostles did God give anything in writing, but instead of written words He promised that He would give them the grace of the Spirit: for ‘He,’ saith our Lord, ‘shall bring all things to your remembrance.’(John 14:26)  And that thou mayest learn that this was far better, hear what He saith by the Prophet: ‘I will make a new covenant with you, putting my laws into their mind, and in their heart I will write them,’ and, ‘they shall be all taught of God.’ (Jer. 31:31-3) And Paul too, pointing out the same superiority, said, that they had received a law ‘not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.’ (IICor. 3:3)

“But since in process of time they made shipwreck, some with regard to doctrines, others as to life and manners, there was again need that they should be put in remembrance by the written word.”

Thus did Chrysostom assert that a diminution of grace among the believers was the cause of the need for a written word.  This may appear very speculative, but having reposed in the year 407, he was much closer to the days of the Apostles than we are and therefore had more insight into the Church as it existed in Apostolic times.   We are aware that the twenty-seven books of the New Testament were written at various times and places by separate authors who were “moved by the Holy Spirit and spoke from God” (IIPet. 1:21).  So let us approach the question: can the New Testament be the foundation of the Christian Church?

The Holy Scripture- and specifically the New Testament – can be neither the sole source of Christian faith, nor can it be single the criterion of the true Church because, very simply, the Christian faith and Christian Church preceded the New Testament.  It was men of the Church, who in a state of illumination through the grace of the Holy Spirit, produced the writings which in time came to comprise the New Testament.  The New Testament did not produce the Church.

“As is known, the New Testament, is comprised of twenty-seven books. These books were selected by the Church, from a multitude of other similar books.  It is known that in the two first Christian centuries, many “gospels” other works were circulated which were attributed to the Apostles or to their disciples. Examples of these works are the Protoevangelion of James, the Gospel According to Peter, The Gospel According to Thomas, The Gospel According to the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, the apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, the Preaching of Peter, the Epistle to Laodicaeans of the Apostle Paul, as well as others.  Among these are four familiar Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – and the epistles. Of all these books, the Church- through the holy Father’s and the sacred Synods – selected, only twenty-seven, which She considered divinely inspired….

“From Church History we ascertain that the need for defining a specific Canon for the New Testament appeared around the end of the second century, when certain heretics (such as Marcion¹) tried to define their own Canon with the books which they wanted.  For this reason, various Fathers of the Church began referring to specific books which they considered divinely inspired. This problem of the Canon of the New Testament was not solved until the second half of the fourth century, when the Church accepted the opinion of St. Athanasios the Great who, in 367 A.D., presented a complete catalogue of books which ought to be considered divinely inspired: our familiar twenty-seven books which comprise the New Testament. Thirty years later, in 397 A.D., this final catalogue was made official in the West with the Synod of Carthage.

“This final declaration was the result of many long years of conversations, doubts, and differing opinions. But even after this final declaration of the Church, questions about some of these very books (for example the Epistle to the Hebrews, some of the Catholic Epistles, and The Book of Revelations) persisted. It was only during Justinian’s reign, in the sixth century, that all disagreement had vanished, at least in the Byzantine Empire….

Consequently, the validity and trustworthiness of the New Testament depends exclusively on the witness of the Church.  It is the Church, in other words, which assures us of the divine inspiration of the New Testament and, in general of all the Holy Scripture.  If we take away this witness of the Church, no one, but no one can prove that the New Testament is divinely inspired.”²(to be continued…)

1. Marcion of Sinope.  He founded a dualistic belief system. He believed the Old Testament God was vengeful and distinct from the benevolent God revealed through our Lord Jesus Christ in the New Testament.  He rejected the Old Testament entirely and created a modified version of the New Testament, excluding Old Testament references.  
2. Excerpts from Orthodoxy and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, 2^nd Edition Improved and expanded, The Holy Metropolis of KitiosLarnaka – Cyprus 1997, Hieromonk  Sophronios G. Michailidis, pp.39-41. (This publication exists only in Greek)