Paul Morris asks if our Christian creeds do a good job in reflecting our Jewish roots
It is an alarming but true thought that many churches have a statement of faith which ignores the Old Testament.
To which bold assertion you may well respond: ‘No, I am sure that somewhere in ours we have something about the Bible consisting of the Old and New Testaments.’ No doubt, yet for many shorter creeds that is where it ends and they fail to draw attention to the Old Testament context of what is revealed in the New. Without the Old Testament, what sense could we make of the first sentence of the New Testament: ‘The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham’? Somehow, that context ought to be expressed in our creeds.
Does anyone read creeds?
They ought to, because succinct statements of doctrine have biblical precedent, like Paul’s statement in 1 Timothy 3.16. Furthermore, all Christians should have read at least one creed when joining a church, and many will repeat them at special occasions like the Lord’s Supper. Creeds are useful to define primary doctrines and the longer ones (usually called confessions) aim at a fuller expression of biblical truths.
In the same way that what we sing will unconsciously mould our belief, what we confess will unconsciously create a doctrinal framework in our minds. My concern is not a theoretical one.
A look at the Apostles’ Creed
Many Christians know this creed, and some recite it every Sunday. Perhaps it was called the Apostles’ Creed because the authors believed it was a good summary of essential apostolic doctrine. But is it?
I would humbly suggest that something vital is missing. This can be shown by a brief look at the apostles’ own summary statements of essential doctrines, which are usually at the start or close of their epistles.
For example: ‘…which he promised before through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh’ (Romans 1.2,3).
‘God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets’ (Hebrews 1.1).
‘Now may the God of peace who brought up our Lord Jesus from the dead, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant’ (Hebrews 13.20).
What is missing? The Apostles’ Creed makes no mention of God as a covenant God, of the Messiah as the seed of David, or of the nation to whom all the promises and prophecies were given. It fails to express the Old Testament historical and covenantal context of revelation.
A more biblical creed?
How might the first few lines look if we tried to incorporate the missing truths (in italics) with minimal alteration to the original? Here is a suggestion:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, Covenant God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
I believe in Jesus the Messiah, his only Son our Lord; who came according to God’s holy promise, the mediator of the New Covenant.
He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and born of David’s seed of the virgin Mary.
Yes, but…
However, none of those truths of Old Testament context are found in some of the succinct statements of doctrine in the New Testament like 1 Timothy 3.16, or in Colossians 1.15-20 and Philippians 2.6-11. These statements seem to have a creedal feel about them.
The answer to that concern is that every statement of truth has a context, and that moulds its expression. In 1 Timothy 3.16 we read six vital truths about Christ, and the mention of the church as the pillar and ground of the truth might lead us to expect that this is a comprehensive list of fundamentals, yet there is no mention of his being Son of David. However, we need to
to the old town of Jerusalem. | photo: iStock
note that Paul is listing mysteries – truths which have only become clear due to special revelation given to the apostles and prophets (Ephesians 3.3-6). In this context, Paul is especially concerned that the church should preserve truths about Christ which have only been revealed clearly in the New Covenant period. In such a context, truths of the Old Testament do not need to be mentioned because they are already plain in its pages.
The context in Colossae was false teachers diminishing the pre-eminence and sufficiency of Christ, so Paul exalts Christ and underlines a Christian’s completeness in him. Likewise in Philippians: the context was an exhortation to brotherly humility, pointing to the example of Christ who, though fully God, made himself of no reputation. In neither of these examples is it especially relevant to mention truths from the Old Testament context and so Paul does not do so.
In clear contrast the quotations above from Romans and Hebrews are not gospel truths applied to a particular context, but they are giving the gospel itself a context, which is the Old Testament. Their perspective is much bigger – the gospel in the history of redemption. Romans and Hebrews stand out from all the epistles in giving us this larger perspective, underlining it in the way they commence and conclude. Should we not ensure that our summary statements of faith do the same?
More modern summary statement
Below is one section from a statement produced by conservative evangelicals, one which is concise, contemporary and clear. Yet, as in the Apostles’ Creed, the section fails to set the gospel in context, giving little sense of the history of redemption, so that all the apostolic expressions mentioned above are missing. How might it look if we tried to incorporate the missing truths (in italics)?
The Lord Jesus Christ: The Lord Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of a virgin of the seed of David, and lived a sinless life under the Law of Moses in obedience to the Father. He taught with authority and all his words are true. According to the Scriptures he died on the cross in the place of sinners, bearing God’s punishment for their sin, redeeming them by his blood. According to the Scriptures he rose from the dead and in his resurrection body ascended into heaven where he is exalted as Lord of all. He is the Mediator of the New Covenant and he intercedes for his people in the presence of the Father.
What some Israeli pastors say
It is interesting to take a look at a statement created by a pastors’ association in Israel. Paragraph B from the confession of faith of The National Pastors and Elders Committee (Kenes Artzi) in Israel provides an interesting contrast (my italics highlight OT context):
B. God: ‘The Lord our God, the Lord is One.’ The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the only God and Creator. There is none besides him and all his attributes are his alone. In his unique unity are Father, Son and Holy Spirit: each one eternal and divine and completely God. The Son, our Messiah, who was born without sin to the virgin Mary, is also perfect man in the full sense of the word.
What does this tell us?
Gentile Christians, who mostly wrote our creeds, tend to overlook the Old Testament context, but Jewish Christians do not. Are they just being Jewish? No, it seems to me they are being apostolic. Why do Gentile Christians tend to overlook this context? One answer is surely to be found in Paul’s exhortation to Gentile Christians in Rome (Romans 11.17-20), where he warns them not to boast over the Jews, and it is entirely possible that a forgetfulness or indifference to the Old Testament context is one expression of such boasting. It seems to this author that some rewriting needs to be done.
