One of the earliest statements of trust in Jesus is beautifully captured by the author of the Fourth Gospel. In John 9, Jesus encounters a man blind from birth, and heals him. Later, the man shares his personal testimony with the Jewish religious leaders: “I was blind, and now I can see!” (v. 25).
Later still, Jesus hears that the religious leaders have harshly treated the man and seeks him out. Jesus asks, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” (v. 35).
The man replies, “Who is he, Sir, that I may believe in him?” With grace equal to the mercy he earlier showed in healing the blind man, Jesus identifies himself with the eschatological “Son of Man,” and an extraordinary change occurs. The last words we hear from the man are, “I believe, Lord,” and he worships Jesus (Jn 9:36-38).
That may be the first and shortest example of a credal statement in Scripture. Another is Peter’s confession of Jesus’s messiahship in Mark 8:29.
There was, of course, a time before creeds. There was a time when Christian belief was dynamic and diverse, when there was no apparent need to codify or control the beliefs of those who followed Jesus.
There was a time when Christians, in households and churches, recognised Jesus as Lord and made other statements of belief and trust, none of which were written down and passed on as concise, formal, public and authoritative summaries of religious belief.
But, as the New Testament witness makes clear, that time was vanishingly brief. As the first Christian churches were established, it became necessary to structure the corporate worship, initiation and discipleship in orderly ways.
It also became clear that the new faith community, spreading throughout the Mediterranean world and beyond, required more than mere acknowledgement of the lordship of Jesus if its radical message was to be effectively communicated and passed on.
Even as the New Testament documents were being written, the first churches began to recite and share short prayers, hymns and summary statements expressing elements of the great events of the life of Jesus and interpreting these in the light of salvation history. See, for example, 1 Cor 12:3; Php 2:11; Rom 10:9; 1 Jn 4:2f, 15.
At Corinth, and elsewhere, the faith community addressed issues of potential conflict by adopting and maintaining commonly agreed traditions of doctrine and godliness. Note, for example, Paul’s commendation of the Corinthian Christians, despite also addressing multiple ethical concerns, for “[holding] fast to the traditions just as I delivered them to you” (1 Cor 11:2).
Similarly, Paul calls on the Thessalonian Christians to “stand firm and hold to the traditions you were taught, whether by what we said or what we wrote” (2 Th 2:15).
In Galatians 2:11-12, Paul recalls having opposed Peter when the latter had moved beyond the boundaries of nascent Christian orthodoxy. Peter, a Jewish Christian, was rightly exercising his Christian liberty by eating socially with Gentile Christians, but then withdrew from them for fear of criticism by “the circumcision party” (a group advocating Christian adherence to certain Jewish customs).
In Acts 17:11, we learn that the new Christians at Berea heard Paul’s teaching and consulted their Old Testament manuscripts to determine whether his claims were supported by Scripture. Finally, Jude 3 indicates that, at the time of writing, a definite set of agreed beliefs existed, and that these beliefs should be protected from eclipse by false beliefs and passed on in pure form to the next generation.
Such boundary-setting and qualitative checks and balances were vital for doctrinal maturity and conflict resolution in the new Christian movement. They prepared the way for universal creeds that would permanently serve the needs of the churches.
What is the relation of such creeds to Scripture? To the degree that a creed echoes the teaching of Scripture, it may be called a “rule of faith,” although Protestants usually reserve that term for Scripture alone. Creeds are, and have always been, subservient to Scripture.
A creed’s authority is not internal, nor is it dependent on a bishop or church council. A creed’s authority derives from Scripture. Theologian Jaroslav Pelikan observes that, “as there are creeds and confessions of faith in Scripture … so in turn the [early church’s] creeds and confessions of faith refer beyond themselves to the Scripture.”[1]
At the same time, creeds remind us of the great gospel events, provide helpful summaries of essential biblical theology, and indicate the church’s consensus on the interpretation of Scripture in relation to complex biblical doctrines.
Referring principally to the Nicene Creed, Catholic biblical scholar Luke Timothy Johnson says, “The creed is remarkable for its concise rendering of the Christian story and the structure of the Christian vision of reality.” He adds, “The creed provides a measure or rule for the proper reading of Scripture.”[2]
The first Christian creeds, including those we discern in the New Testament writings, were instrumental in consolidating early Christian belief. They proved useful in the initiation of new converts into the faith community, and in the regular worship, discipleship and mission of the church.
We are not so different from those early Christians. We ignore, suppress or reject the creeds at our peril. Like the enlightened blind man of John 9, we confess, “Lord, I believe,” and we do so in unison with all the faithful in every generation.
Dr Rod Benson is Research Support Officer at Moore Theological College, Sydney. He previously pastored four Baptist churches in Queensland and NSW, and served for 12 years as an ethicist with the Tinsley Institute at Morling College. The previous column in this series on creeds is available here.
References
[1] Jaroslav Pelikan, Credo: Historical and Theological Guide to Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 136.
[2] Luke Timothy Johnson, The Creed: What Christians Believe and Why It Matters (New York: Doubleday, 2003), viii, 47.
iDigress 