The dying request of a man says a lot about what he finds important. In 1930, lawyer T.M. Zink made the request that his $300,000 fortune be given to a “no women allowed” club because, as his will stated, “My intense hatred of women is … the result of my experiences with women, observations of them and study of all literatures and philosophical works.” More recently in the 1990s, German Countess Carlotta Liebenstein left a fortune of $80 million to her dog Gunther III. The dying requests of these people obviously shows us that they had some messed up priorities.
Note: This article was written before the author’s conversion to Orthodoxy.
But, believe it or not, we have some dying requests of the Apostles recorded in the Scripture. Paul in his second letter to Timothy and Peter in what we call “2 Peter” sensed their ends were near and wrote about what they found particularly important.
While some of their requests would not appear entirely important (Paul asked Timothy to bring “the cloak which I left at Troas with Carpus, and the books, especially the parchments,” 2 Tim 4:13), the requests pertaining to religious instruction are indeed relevant to us.
Why? Because with their passing we do not have Apostles to turn to anymore in order that we may know how to properly worship our God. So, the question is, where did the Apostles tell us to turn for instruction in their absence?
The Scripture. Not to the teaching authority of a Bishop in some great city or anything of the sort–rather, God’s revelation. Now, being that Christians believe that God has left us books He has actually written through holy men of old, it would seem quite strange that men would look to any other source to settle questions pertaining to religion. I mean, why go ask some guy what he thinks when I can actually go to something that tells me what God explicitly wants? However, as the existence of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy attest to, not all Christians believe that the Scripture alone is sufficient to address such matters.
What we are going to see in the following is that Peter and Paul did not leave us in a lurch. Rather, they told us exactly what they wanted others to do in their impending absences.
2 Peter 1:12-2:1
Therefore, I will always be ready to remind you of these things, even though you already know them, and have been established in the truth which is present with you. I consider it right, as long as I am in this earthly dwelling, to stir you up by way of reminder, knowing that the laying aside of my earthly dwelling is imminent, as also our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. And I will also be diligent that at any time after my departure you will be able to call these things to mind.
For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”— and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them…
So, to follow Peter’s admonition:
- Peter wants those receiving the letter to be able to “call these things to mind” after his departure. What are “these things?” The essential Christian truths taught in verses 3 to 11.
- The Scripture is “made more sure” by the fact he knows that it comes from God, just as the voice of the Father was heard during the Transfiguration. For this reason, we ought to pay attention to the Scripture.
- BUT, false teachers will introduce destructive heresies contriving ideas out of their own minds, unlike the true prophets who wrote the Scripture not by an act of human will, but by the Holy Spirit.
There is a clearly a logic underlying everything he has written. After his passing, the Church is not left without something to remind them of everything the Apostles taught. He says that this source is the Scripture and he is ever-more convinced of its authority, because the same God that he literally heard on the mount of Transfiguration can also be heard in the Bible. False teachers have their own personal interpretations of religion, unlike the Scripture, and so we must be wary of them.
It is interesting to note that Peter did not remind his readers that he will have an infallible successor they can turn to; or that all of their Bishops are successors of the Apostles and they will protect their congregations from error. No. Rather, the Scripture is what he puts on the pedestal as the safeguard against false doctrines.
We have a similar situation discussed by Paul in his final letter.
2 Tim 3:10-4:3
Now you followed my teaching, conduct, purpose, faith, patience, love, persecutions, and sufferings, such as happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium and at Lystra; what persecutions I endured, and out of them all the Lord rescued me! Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine…
What is Paul’s last admonition before stating that he is “already being poured out like a drink offering” (a euphemism for impending death, 2 Tim 4:6)?
- Timothy is reminded by Paul to always follow his teaching.
- He further reminded Timothy the source of this teaching that he has “become convinced of” (God) and where he can find it (the Sacred Writings/Scripture).
- Knowing this, Timothy is to “preach the word” of God as found in the Scripture in order to combat those with false doctrines.
Now, Paul is about to be martyred. In 2 Tim 3-4 Timothy is being warned of false teachers. How does the man of God combat false teaching according to Paul?
Remember the oral tradition of the Apostles? No. Look to the Bishops that were the successors of the Apostles? No. Ask Peter or his successor? No.
Hmmm, Paul is not sounding a lot like a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox here. What does he actually tell Timothy? Look to the Scriptures. Why? Because they actually come straight from God’s figurative mouth (2 Tim 3:16).
Conclusion. There is a lot of debate today as to what the religious authority for Christians ought to be. In the end of the day there are two camps:
- Those who believe that the Scripture is the ultimate authority, and that traditional interpretations are helpful (Protestants).
- Those who believe Scripture is an authority in addition to the oral tradition of the Apostles as preserved in later writings and pronouncements, and that the interpretations of the Church are absolutely necessary in understanding both the Scripture and oral tradition (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, etc).
As far as I know, I am encapsulating the views of these two divergent camps accurately. And, if so, something unsettling should stick out to the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox: the Apostles whose traditions they claim to preserve obviously and explicitly endorse the Sola Scriptura view, and not the (Scripture+Tradition)+Teaching Authority of the Church view.
Peter and Paul were literally confronting the question of how after their passing are we to teach true doctrine and reject false ones. They told their audiences to look to the Scripture. There is no other place in which they told us to turn.
This literally was the dying request of both men. It must have been awfully important to them as all dying requests are. Being that they said nothing about looking to some religious authority as standing in their place, I must conclude that such an idea did not weigh to heavily in their minds as being necessary for anyone to know in their absence.
Orthodox Christian Theology 
Great post! It seems to get right to the point (as people do near death). Not to refute anything here, I just wanted to call attention to another line in 2 Peter:
“So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.” (2 Pt 3:15-16)
That quote strengthens your position of the overall importance of the Scriptures, especially of the apostolic writings. But also points out that people were already misinterpreting Scripture, indicating the need for something more.
The Scripture talks about false teachers quite a bit and the warnings are not to feed, house, or even greet them. Yet, the Scripture never points us to some sort of authority or body of people who God as provided to protect us from error. This is a realization that I made only this Sunday.
What about Mt 18:17-18? I understand it could be read a number of ways, but the Lord seems to indicate a “church” as an authority (the last word) over and above “two or three persons gathered in my name.”
“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
He doesn’t say to consult the Scriptures, but says go to a church (assembly/ekklesia). Now in other spots, he will rebuke people for knowing neither the Scriptures nor the power of God, but I’d be interested if this text is at least points to an authority outside of Scripture (not above it).
Also he speaks of those who “sit on the seat of Moses”. Certainly not an authority to us now, but again an example of Christ pointing to an authority beside that of Scripture. Indeed, if you look at “Scripture” taken all together, there is plenty in the Law of the Lord that involves going to another authority. That’s why Christ sends the healed leper to the priest.
Now you spoke about “protection from error”, and while that may not necessarily apply to OT authorities, there is the language of binding and loosing in heaven, which indicates some sort of definitive character.
“What about Mt 18:17-18? I understand it could be read a number of ways, but the Lord seems to indicate a “church” as an authority (the last word) over and above “two or three persons gathered in my name.””
Obviously, that’s the local church. In my previous reply, I was speaking of an institution that by default was a necessary authority on doctrine–the Scripture only speaks of itself in that role. Pertaining to Matt 18, certainly what the local church says is binding, as Christ makes clear, where as few as 2 or 3 meet in His name He is there, hence giving authority to the judgment of that church.
“He doesn’t say to consult the Scriptures, but says go to a church …”
Because the matter here is not doctrinal, it is about a publicly recognized sin like that of 1 Cor 5. 2 Pet 1-2 and 2 Tim 3-4 are about false doctrines.
“I’d be interested if this text is at least points to an authority outside of Scripture (not above it).”
It speaks to an interpersonal disciplinary authority, but certainly not a rule on doctrine, as the Church itself would need to consult some sort of measure and not derive this from itself.
“Also he speaks of those who “sit on the seat of Moses”. Certainly not an authority to us now, but again an example of Christ pointing to an authority beside that of Scripture.”
Exactly. He spoke of a disciplinary authority. He did not endorse their doctrines or tell his followers to adhere to their false doctrines (no resurrection of the sadduccees, the Oral Torah i.e. Talmud if the Pharisees, and etc.) So, I think you are conflating disciplinary authorities, which are certainly institutional, with doctrinal authority, which is only the Scripture and before the Scripture, the voice of prophecy.
“Now you spoke about “protection from error”, and while that may not necessarily apply to OT authorities, there is the language of binding and loosing in heaven, which indicates some sort of definitive character.”
For discipline, certainly. In 1 Cor 5, Paul described kicking someone out of church as handing him over to Satan! So, discipline is certainly of a binding nature.
It’s important to distinguish doctrinal and disciplinary authority. But if one can be subject to discipline for matters of doctrine (thus discipline for heresy and related sins), then disciplinary authority seems to imply something of authority to interpret doctrine.
Also, I happened to read 2 Thess today and hit this line, “Stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” (2:15) Again, this does not point to a person or office, but some tradition beyond what is written in a letter.
If one is subject to discipline for matters of doctrine, it does not imply that the disciplinary authority is a source of interpretative authority in of itself. Rather, that legitimate authority will rely upon a firm foundation of truth when discerning such matters? What is this foundation? Clearly not themselves, previous judgments of the church, or oral traditional of the apostles, but rather, the Scripture.
In Paul’s previous letter to Timothy he wrote, ” I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15). So, the Church is not the truth in of itself, which seems to be the implications you are trying to infer. Rather, the Church supports and holds up the truth. We know from Peter and Paul’s last letters, the Church does this by turning to the Scripture to combat false doctrines.
This is much different than how Catholcism and Eastern Orthodoxy work in practice, as they turn to traditions to determine heresies. For example, it is heretical according to the RCC to deny the bodily assumption of Mary. However, we must all readily admit there is no Biblical standard for calling someone who denies such a heretic.
So, the RCC has to presuppose that they have doctrinal authority in of themselves, rather than they are entrusted to turn to THE doctrinal authority, that is according to Peter and Paul, the Scripture.
Concerning 2 Thes 2:15, I think the context makes pretty clear that he is speaking particularly of what we call now, the Scripture. Why? Read the beginning of the chapter:
“Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the [a]coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, 2 that you not be quickly shaken from your [b]composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a [c]message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the [d]apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above [e]every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. 5 Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things?”
Paul is essentially saying, don’t listen to a false letter pretending to be from me. You have a real letter from me. Heck, you should remember what I told you when I was last with you! Don’t you remember that I said…2Thes 2:6-14…So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter [s]from us.
Paul is not endorsing a vague body of oral tradition we know nothing about which includes things like the bodily assumption of Mary, the existence of the Papacy, and other extra-biblical doctrines which are important to Catholicism. Clearly, he is speaking about the topic of his letter, which then he does not fail to explain in the letter itself.
So, before the closing of the Canon, the prophecy of the prophets and the spoken word of the Apostles were integral sources of revelation to Christians. However, before their passing, they did not fail to leave enough inspired religious writings which would suffice to teach us on doctrinal matters so that we can turn to those writings in their absence. This is what both Peter and Paul wrote.
I know that many Catholics and Eastern Orthodox quote 2 Thes 2:15 as their proof-text for their view that the Apostle’s left a whole tradition outside the Scripture. But, 2 Thes 2 ironically preserves for us the oral tradition Paul was speaking about. Further, anyone who studies the Fathers has seen that the supposed extra-biblical Apostolic traditions have fell into disuse, contradict one another, or are not as extra Biblical as they seem as they often go to the Scriptures to show why certain traditions, like praying towards the East in eastern orthodoxy, exist.
Certainly a lot to think about 🙂 It’s snowing here in NY and I got to figure out my work situation. I hope you enjoyed Thursday’s article.
God bless,
Craig
What foundation? Clearly not themselves?
“On this rock, I will build…” Let it be his confession of faith, but it is his.
“And the wall of the city had 12 foundations, and on them the 12 names of the 12 apostles of the Lamb.” Rev. 21:14
Even the Scriptures: I (and you too?) wouldn’t care for them one bit unless I were convinced they came from the Apostles themselves, the foundations.
Now I don’t intend to downplay the role of Scripture–it’s key, and the Apostles bear witness to it. But the fullness of revelation is Jesus Christ himself, and it would be rash (at least) to confine this to a set of 27 (or 73 or 66) brief writings. Jn 20:30-31, 21:25. If one sees contradictions in the Fathers, then it must be conceded that they are men. If one sees contradictions in the fullness of divine revelation, then one must concede that one’s own self is a mere man. Fides quaerens intellectum.
I intend to respond to your email soon! Last final tomorrow. Good luck with the snow!
Max
“What foundation? Clearly not themselves?”
Not really. Ask yourself, what does the foundation hold up? The truth. They are two, mutually exclusive things. You are conflating them.
The Scripture has different words for “foundation.”
For example, ” For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 3:11) has one word for foundation.
http://biblehub.com/greek/themelion_2310.htm
1 Tim 3:15 uses a different word, some render it “base.”
http://biblehub.com/greek/edraio_ma_1477.htm
So, being that no man can lay an other foundation other than Christ, when the Scripture speaks of the Church or the Apostles being a base or foundation of the truth, this is only so as far as what they are supporting is the truth, which is Christ, for He is the truth, the way, and the life–there is no way to the Father except through Him.
So, when the Apostles hold up the truth, they hold up Christ. And, when Peter and Paul were about to be martyred and they weren’t going to be around anymore, they pointed us to the Scriptures to convey the truth in which they were conveying as well. They did not point to an institution, which within itself, the truth is derived.
“Even the Scriptures: I (and you too?) wouldn’t care for them one bit unless I were convinced they came from the Apostles themselves, the foundations.”
Not exactly. The Old Testament prophets were not Apostles. And, quite frankly, I am not concerned with Paul’s letter to laodicea. Rather, I am concerned with what the APostles and prophets penned that was God breathed (2 Tim 3:16).
” it would be rash (at least) to confine this to a set of 27 (or 73 or 66) brief writings.”
It would be, but we are mortals. There is only so much we can understand, need, and use. We are finite. Further, based upon the authority of Scripture, I have no other doctrinal authorities because the Scripture only endorses itself in this role. To deny this, is to deny what Peter and Paul taught.
God bless,
Craig