The Authorship of the Gospel of Mark

 

In our discussion of the authorship of Mark, we will divide the data into two parts: external evidence and internal evidence.

External Evidence

As was the case with the Gospel of Matthew, our main report concerning the authorship of Mark's gospel comes from Papias of Hierapolis, who says the following (as cited by Eusebius):

"Mark became Peter’s interpreter [ἑρμηνευτής, hermēneutēs] and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said or done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had he followed him, but later on, as I said, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord’s oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them" (Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.15)

Earlier, Eusebius says (H.E. 3.39.4) that Papias received this information from John the Elder and another elder by the name of Aristion. 

According to Martin Hengel (The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels, pgs. 65-66), John the Elder did shortly after 100 AD. This would mean that the tradition concerning Mark that was received by Papias dates back to the last decades of the first century. This would shortly after Mark was written, since, as Raymond Brown concludes: “There is wide scholarly agreement that Mark was written in the late 60s or just after 70.” (Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, pg. 164). This increases our confidence in reliability of the testimony of Papias. 

Bearing in mind Eusebius’ chronological sequence throughout his church history, many scholars (example: R.W. Yarborough, “The Date of Papias: A Reassessment.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 26, pgs. 186-90) note the fact that Eusebius places his discussion of Papias prior to his discussion of the persecution under Trajan (ca. 110). 

We should also take into account Papias’ acquaintance with the daughters of the apostle Philip (Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.9; cf. Acts 21:8-9). This supports a late first-century to early second-century dating. 

Besides Papias, we also have the testimony of other early Christian writings:

“Mark related, who was called ‘Stumpfinger’ because for the size of the rest of his body he had fingers that were too short. He was the interpreter of Peter. After Peter’s death the same man wrote this gospel in the regions of Italy” (The Anti-Marcionite Prologue [ca. 150-180])

Justin Martyr quotes Mark 3:17 (“the sons of Zebedee, to that of Boanerges, which means ‘sons of thunder’”) and says it is found in the “memoirs of Peter.” (Dial. 106.3)

“But after their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter [ἑρμηνευτής, hermēneutēs] of Peter, himself also handed over to us, in writing, the things preached by Peter.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1)

“When Peter had publicly preached the word at Rome, and by the Spirit had proclaimed the Gospel, that those present, who were many, exhorted Mark, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been spoken, to make a record of what was said; and that he did this, and distributed the Gospel among those that asked him. And that when the matter came to Peter’s knowledge he neither strongly forbade it nor urged it forward.” (H.E. 6.14.6-7)

“That gospel which Mark edited may be affirmed to be of Peter, whose interpreter Mark was” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.5)

All of this leads Robert H. Stein and James R. Edwards to conclude the following:

“The evidence of the tradition supporting Markan authorship can be described in general as early, universal, and extensive….Thus the testimony of Papias is early (within thirty years of the writing of the Gospel of Mark) and at most only one generation removed from eyewitness tradition (the apostles—John the Elder and Aristion—Papias) and was probably written down by him in the first decade of the second century….From the above it is evident that the attribution of the authorship of the Second Gospel to John Mark is early and widespread” (Robert H. Stein, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament - Mark, pgs. 1-2, 4)

"Although this testimony was penned in the early fourth century, it comes from sources two centuries earlier and represents very reliable tradition. Eusebius derives the above tradition not only from Papias but also from the respected second-century church father Irenaeus. Eusebius includes a lengthy preface to the Papias testimony, noting that although the latter had not heard the apostles directly, he had made careful inquiry into the origins of the Gospel tradition and had received the above information through their immediate successors, a John the Elder and a certain Aristion, who were disciples of the apostle John. This dates the Papias tradition to between 90 and 100. The reliability of the Eusebius quotation is further enhanced by the fact that, in this instance, Eusebius is willing to trust the testimony of a man whom he did not automatically regard as a dependable source." (James Edwards, The Pillar New Testament Commentary - The Gospel According to Mark, pg. 4)

Internal Evidence

In the New Testament, Mark is first mentioned as "John Mark" in Acts 12:12, 25. He is also said to have been the cousin of Barnabas (Colossians 4:10). 

As for evidence that Mark was in Rome (and thus would have heard Peter), we have the testimony of 1 Peter 5:13, which says "She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings, and so does Mark, my son." Many interpreters have seen "Babylon" as a reference to the city of Rome. The fact that Peter refers to Mark as "my son" indicates that they had a close relationship, similar to that between Paul and Timothy (1 Tim. 1:2, 18-19; 2 Tim. 2:1). 

Another piece of evidence for Mark as being written with a "Roman" background (and likely a Roman audience) is the presence of various "Latinisms" within his gospel (Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross, pgs. 1043-1044). Here are a few examples:

Mark 4:21 - μόδιος from the Latin modius.

Mark 4:28 - χόρτος from herba (blade of grass)

Mark 6:37 - δηνάριον from the Latin denarius

Mark 7:4 - ξέστης from the Latin sextarius

Mark 15:16 - πραιτώριον from the Latin praetorium. 

"the unusual profusion of Latinisms in Mark favors a setting in Rome." (Robert H. Gundry, Mark, pg. 1044)

The amount of material in Mark about Peter (1:16–18, 29–31, 36; 3:16; 5:37–43; 8:29, 31–33; 9:2–8; 10:28–31; 11:21; 13:3–37; 14:27–31, 32–42, 54, 66–72; 16:7) also supports the traditional view of Mark's Petrine influence.

Some have objected that if Mark were really the "interpreter" of Peter, then we would expect more autobiographical detail on Peter's life and a first-person perspective of Peter to be present in the gospel. Two things may be said in rebuttal to this:

1) Papias says that Mark was Peter's "interpreter" (ἑρμηνευτής), not his secretary or amanuensis. 

2) This objection ignores the fact that as Peter again and again retold the stories of his life in reference to his interaction and time with Jesus, these stories would naturally become more polished and refined over time. 

"If the stories spoken by Peter in the 60s had been reported by him for over thirty years (cf. Luke 1:2; Acts 1:21–22; 2:42; 4:2, 13, 19–20; 5:29–32; 6:4; 8:25; 10:22, 33, 39–43; etc.) and he had repeated them once a month, this would mean that he had repeated the same stories over 360 times by the time Mark heard them in the 60s. If he had repeated them only once every six months, he would have repeated them over sixty times. Surely by then they would have become more “rounded” and stereotyped! In addition, if the author of the Second Gospel is the John Mark of Acts 12:12, he would have heard these traditions thirty years earlier and been involved in passing them on in his own ministry (cf. Acts 12:25–13:13; 15:36–39; Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11; Philem. 24; 1 Pet. 5:13)." (Stein, Mark, pg. 5)

Did the Church Fathers Teach the Veneration and Worship of Images?

 

#1 - Eusebius of Caesarea

“For there stands upon an elevated stone, by the gates of her house, a brazen image of a woman kneeling, with her hands stretched out, as if she were praying. Opposite this is another upright image of a man, made of the same material, clothed decently in a double cloak, and extending his hand toward the woman. At his feet, beside the statue itself, is a certain strange plant, which climbs up to the hem of the brazen cloak, and is a remedy for all kinds of diseases.They say that this statue is an image of Jesus. It has remained to our day, so that we ourselves also saw it when we were staying in the city. Nor is it strange that those of the Gentiles who, of old, were benefited by our Savior, should have done such things, since we have learned also that the likenesses of his apostles Paul and Peter, and of Christ himself, are preserved in paintings, the ancients being accustomed, as it is likely, according to a habit of the Gentiles, to pay this kind of honor indiscriminately to those regarded by them as deliverers.” (Ecclesiastical History, Book VII, Chapter 18)

I respond by noting the following things:

[1]. In this specific text, Eusebius does not necessarily give a positive or negative view of images.

[2]. In 327, Constantia (the sister of the Roman emperor) wrote a letter to Eusebius asking for a picture of Christ (link). He admonished her for this, saying that “we no longer know Christ after the flesh”. He even said this:

“To depict purely the human form of Christ before its transformation, on the other hand, is to break the commandment of God and to fall into pagan error.” (as cited in  David M. Gwynn, “From Iconoclasm to Arianism: The Construction of Christian Tradition in the Iconoclast Controversy,” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 47 (2007), pg. 227)

#2 - St. Basil of Caesarea

Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox apologists quote the following passage from a letter which is commonly attributed to St. Basil the Great:

“I acknowledge also the holy apostles, prophets, and martyrs; and I invoke them to supplication to God, that through them, that is, through their mediation, the merciful God may be propitious to me, and that a ransom may be made and given me for my sins. Wherefore also I honor and kiss the features of their images, inasmuch as they have been handed down from the holy apostles, and are not forbidden, but are in all our churches” (Letter 360).

 

However, it is likely that this letter was forged by iconophiles and was not actually written by St. Basil. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes that there were many apocryphal letters of Basil.

 

John B. Carpenter, a Reformed scholar, had personal correspondence with Istvan M. Bugar concerning whether or not “letter 360” was really written by Basil:

 

“The letter has the sound of evidence created after the fact. István M. Bugár concludes that letter 360 is ‘anachronistic’ and is so widely doubted that it ‘does not feature in most collections; of Basil’s letters.” (https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/answering-eastern-orthodox-apologists-regarding-icons/)

Testimonies from the Fathers Showing they Didn't Venerate Images, but rather Condemned Them

“Such, then, being the case, the Greeks ought by the Law and the Prophets to learn to worship one God only, the only Sovereign; then to be taught by the apostle, but to us an idol is nothing in the world, 1 Corinthians 8:4 since nothing among created things can be a likeness of God; and further, to be taught that none of those images which they worship can be similitudes: for the race of souls is not in form such as the Greeks fashion their idols.” (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book VI, Chapter 18)

“It were indeed ridiculous, as the philosophers themselves say, for man, the plaything of God, to make God, and for God to be the plaything of art; since what is made is similar and the same to that of which it is made, as that which is made of ivory is ivory, and that which is made of gold golden. Now the images and temples constructed by mechanics are made of inert matter; so that they too are inert, and material, and profane; and if you perfect the art, they partake of mechanical coarseness. Works of art cannot then be sacred and divine.” (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book VII, Chapter 5)

“Whoever, therefore, is anxious to observe the obligations to which man is liable, and to maintain a regard for his nature, let him raise himself from the ground, and, with mind lifted up, let him direct his eyes to heaven: let him not seek God under his feet, nor dig up from his footprints an object of veneration, for whatever lies beneath man must necessarily be inferior to man; but let him seek it aloft, let him seek it in the highest place: for nothing can be greater than man, except that which is above man. But God is greater than man: therefore He is above, and not below; nor is He to be sought in the lowest, but rather in the highest region. Wherefore it is undoubted that there is no religion wherever there is an image. For if religion consists of divine things, and there is nothing divine except in heavenly things; it follows that images are without religion, because there can be nothing heavenly in that which is made from the earth. And this, indeed, may be plain to a wise man from the very name. For whatever is an imitation, that must of necessity be false.” (Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, Book II, Chapter 19)

“For they have mouths, and speak not: they have eyes, and see not Psalm 113:5….But, it will be said, we also have very many instruments and vessels made of materials or metal of this description for the purpose of celebrating the Sacraments, which being consecrated by these ministrations are called holy, in honor of Him who is thus worshiped for our salvation: and what indeed are these very instruments or vessels, but the work of men's hands? But have they mouth, and yet speak not? Have they eyes, and see not? Do we pray unto them, because through them we pray to God? This is the chief cause of this insane profanity, that the figure resembling the living person, which induces men to worship it, has more influence in the minds of these miserable persons, than the evident fact that it is not living, so that it ought to be despised by the living.” (Augustine, Exposition of Psalm 113)

“Thus to fall most completely into error was the due desert of men who sought for Christ and His apostles not in the holy writings, but on painted walls” (Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels, Book I, Chapter 10)

“The first commandment, in which we are forbidden to worship any likeness of God made by human contrivance, we are to understand as referring to the Father: this prohibition being made, not because God has no image, but because no image of Him but that One which is the same with Himself, ought to be worshiped; and this One not in His stead, but along with Him” (Augustine, Letter 55 to Januarius)

“Why have I said this? Please consider carefully the chief point I’m making. We had started to deal with the apparently better educated pagans — because the less educated are the ones who do the things about which these do not wish to be taken to task — so with the better educated ones, since they say to us, “You people also have your adorers of columns, and sometimes even of pictures.” And would to God that we didn’t have them, and may the Lord grant that we don’t go on having them! But all the same, this is not what the Church teaches you. I mean, which priest of theirs ever climbed into a pulpit and from there commanded the people not to adore idols, in the way that we, in Christ, publicly preach against the adoration of columns or of the stones of buildings in holy places, or even of pictures? On the contrary indeed, it was their very priests who used to turn to the idols and offer them victims for their congregations, and would still like to do so now.” (Augustine, Sermon 198)

A Refutation of Common Arguments for Iconography

 

The first text commonly cited against us iconoclasts is the OT example of the bronze serpent made by Moses (the whole story of which is contained in the book of Numbers). They cite this to show that not all images are bad, and some are valid and are to be venerated.

I answer:

[1]. It was not the bronze serpent itself who healed the Israelites who had been bitten by the snakes. Rather, it was Christ, as represented by the serpent, who healed the Israelites (John 3:14).

[2]. In 2 Kings 18:4, King Hezekiah destroyed the bronze serpent because the Jews were offering incense to it. This shows that the bronze serpent was never meant to receive any type of religious adoration or worship.

The Romanists (as well as the Eastern Orthodox) also bring forward the fact that Scripture speaks of there being cherubim within the tabernacle.

I answer:

[1]. The controversy specifically has to do with whether or not it is okay to have images that are meant to represent God or not, and whether we ought to give religious veneration to said images. The issue is not with all images absolutely and whatsoever. The cherubim was never meant to represent God or Christ, and thus it cannot be used to suit our opponents’ purposes.

[2]. The cherubim was never meant to receive veneration or worship, especially since it was located within the Holy of Holies, where nobody but the High Priest could enter, and that only once every year, on Yom Kippur (The Day of Atonement).

The iconophiles also cite Exodus 33:10, where the Israelites worship the pillar of fire, representing God. Thus, they conclude, there are times where images are an appropriate means for worshiping God. 

I answer: the pillar of fire (and the like) were God’s means of representing Himself on His own. He can represent Himself in any way he pleases. This is different from what Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy do, in making their own images in an attempt to represent God or the saints. This is expressly forbidden and condemned in Scripture, as we will see shortly.

The common reply that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox apologists will make to answer us basically has two variations, both of which I will give here.

They say that the second commandment simply forbids the making of images or idols of pagan gods, but does not forbid the production of an image for representing the true God, Yahweh. They would also say that the commandment forbids the making of things to represent non-existent deities, but has no issue with making images to represent existing things. 

Response:

The Israelites oftentimes did make images to represent the true God, and were condemned when they did so (Exodus 32:4-8; Judges 17-18; 1 Kings 12:28). This shows that the second commandment forbids images, even if they are meant to represent the Triune God of Scripture. 

The second commandment forbids the representation by images of anything “which is in heaven or earth”, thus showing that it forbids not only images of non-existing things, but also of existing things as well, since it speaks of things “which are….”

Appendix: Images in Second Temple Judaism

Iconophiles cite the following passage from the Babylonian Talmud to show that the Jews did not have a negative attitude towards images being used in worship near the time in which the Lord Jesus would have lived:

“If it is a matter of certainty that [statues are] of kings [and hence made for worship], then all will have to concur that they are forbidden. If it is a matter of certainty [that the statues are] of local officials [and hence not for worship], then all will have to concur that they are [made merely for decoration and hence] permitted.” (Abodah Zarah 33)

I answer: the key issue in this debate is primarily around whether or not veneration of images is proper or not. This text quite clearly says that images for the use of “worship” are forbidden.

Josephus tells of a story of the Jews’ reaction to Pontius Pilate bringing in images of the emperor into Jerusalem:

“By night he brought into the city busts of the emperor that were attached to the military standards, when our law forbids the making of images. For this reason, the previous procurators used standards that had no such ornaments. The next morning, the Jews were indignant and hurried to Pilate in Caesarea, imploring him to remove the images. When he refused, deeming it an insult to the emperor, they prostrated themselves around the palace for five days and nights. On the sixth, Pilate took his seat on the tribunal in the stadium, and when the Jews again pleaded, he gave a signal. The people were suddenly surrounded with a ring of troops three deep, their swords drawn, and Pilate threatened death if they did not stop the tumult. But they bared their necks, declaring that they would rather die than transgress the law. Astounded at such religious zeal, Pilate immediately transferred the images from Jerusalem to Caesarea.” (The Jewish Wars, Book II, Chapter 9)

We also know that Jewish coins in this time period generally never had images on them:

“No ‘graven images’ ever appeared on [Jewish] coins—not even Herod the Great, who displaced the last of the Hasmoneans, stepped over that red line.” (Colin Schindler, “Pocket History: The Secrets of Ancient Coins”, The Jewish Chronicle [August 29, 2017])

The Infallibility of Church Councils - Response to Robert Bellarmine

 

In my studies as to what exactly is the Roman Catholic view concerning the nature of conciliar infallibility, Bellarmine’s work On Councils: Their Nature and Authority is the best source I could find to explore this issue. Throughout this chapter, I will view Bellarmine as the mouthpiece, if you will, of the Romanist view on this subject and I will also answer his arguments and reasonings he brings against us.

Bellarmine says that a legitimate council consists of four things, namely the end, the efficiency, the matter, and the form of the council under question.

First, concerning the end of a council, Bellarmine lists six reasons as to why councils are summoned:

[1]. The emergence of a new heresy which has not been already condemned by the Church.

[2]. Schism among the Roman Pontiffs

[3]. Resistance to a common enemy of the whole Church.

[4]. Suspicion of heresy in the Roman Pontiff.

[5]. Doubt about the election of a Roman Pontiff.

[6]. The correction or reformation of abuses and vices which have crept into the church.

Second, concerning the efficiency of a council. Bellarmine says concerning this that while general councils are very useful, they are not absolutely necessary (On Councils, Book I, Chapter 10). However, in the next chapter, he does teach that there are times when both general and particular councils are simply necessary. 

Bellarmine makes it clear in the next chapter that the Pope of Rome, rather than the Emperor, is the one who summons a general council of the Church.

Concerning the matter of councils (or who makes up a council), Bellarmine says “But the teaching of Catholics is that only greater prelates, that is Bishops, ordinarily have a right to a decisive vote in general and provincial Councils, while from privilege and also custom, even Cardinals, Abbots and the Generals of Orders, even if they are not Bishops.” (On Councils, Book I, Chapter 15).

Throughout his treatise, Bellarmine reiterates that it is possible for councils to err in matters of fact, but not in matters of faith. 

Acts 15 (in particular verse 5-7 and verse 28) is a key text cited by the Romanists against us in order to prove the infallibility of councils. 

Response: 

First, I assert that Scripture was the main backboard upon which the Council of Jerusalem was relying, rather than the apostle Peter, as is claimed by the papists. 

This can be seen in verses 15-17 where the apostle James cites a passage from the book of Amos in confirmation of Peter’s statements. But one will object that Amos says nothing about circumcision, or that the passage has nothing to do with circumcision. I would disagree; in verse 17, quoting Amos, God speaks of “heathen who are called by my name”, an obvious reference to Gentiles. No doubt the chief distinguishing mark between Jews and Gentiles was the rite of circumcision. 

Not only that, but the apostles were familiar with the many texts in the Old Testament which speak of the future ingathering of the Gentiles into the people of God. Some examples are Psalm 72:17; Isaiah 60:3-5; Romans 9:26. 

Second, it is false that Peter was the first one to speak (which many use as an argument to prove his primacy over the council), for verse 7 says “After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them….”. 

Third, the letter of the council does not fit the criteria of an ex cathedra statement from Peter, since it is addressed only to Gentile converts (Acts 15:23), who were also the main target audience of the entire council. We know from Acts 16:3 that Jewish Christians still were circumcised in some situations even after the council.

Biblical Proof that Councils can Err

Argument #1 - In 1 Kings 22, King Ahab (one of Israel’s wicked kings who disobeyed God) summoned a council of 400 prophets who erred: “So now the Lord has put a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours” (1 Kings 22:23)

Argument #2 - In John 9 and 11, the high priest Caiaphas presided over a council which condemned the Lord Jesus and everyone who supported him (cf. Mark 14:64). That this is a grave error made by a council, is quite obvious to every Christian.

Response to Bellarmine's Objections

Concerning King Ahab’s council of 400 false prophets, Bellarmine responds (On Councils, Book II, Chapter 8) by saying that it was a council of prophets rather than priests, as if that somehow solves the difficulty for him. I respond by pointing him to Jeremiah 26:8, where both priests and prophets erred: “And when Jeremiah had finished speaking all that the Lord had commanded him to speak to all the people, then the priests and the prophets and all the people laid hold of him, saying, “You shall die!” (ESV)

Concerning the Council of the Jews that condemned Christ and His followers, the Romanists give different answers to this argument. Some avoid it by saying that the council erred in a matter of fact, rather than of law. Others respond by saying that they erred in their personal opinions and never gave a definite opinion (an idea which is quite absurd).

Bellarmine responds by saying that the council erred in its manner and organization, rather than one it actually did, which is clearly absurd.

Then he gives a second counter-argument, namely that the Jews could not err before Christ came, but could err while Christ was present. This answer does not in any way solve the problem, but actually works against Bellarmine, as is self-evident.

The Testimony of St. Gregory of Nazianzus

Gregory Nazianzen (one of the Cappodocian fathers) witnesses to the fact that councils are not infallible, when he says the following in his letter to Procopius:

“For my part, if I am to write the truth, my inclination is to avoid all assemblies of bishops, because I have never seen any Council come to a good end, nor turn out to be a solution of evils. On the contrary, it usually increases them. You always find there love of contention and love of power (I hope you will not think me a bore, for writing like this), which beggar description; and, while sitting in judgment on others, a man might well be convicted of ill-doing himself long before he should put down the ill-doings of his opponents. So I retired into myself; and came to the conclusion that the only security for one's soul lies in keeping quiet. Now, moreover, this determination of mine is supported by ill-health; for I am always on the point of breathing my last, and am hardly able to employ myself to any effect. I trust, therefore, that, of your generosity, you will make allowances for me, and that you will be good enough to persuade our most religious Emperor also not to condemn me for taking things quietly, but to make allowances for my ill-health. He knows how it was on this very account that he consented to my retirement, when I petitioned for this in preference to any other mark of his favor.” (St. Gregory Nazianzen, Epistle 130, “To Procopius'')

Bellarmine responds: “Nazianzen does not deny legitimate Councils make certain faith, rather, in his time it was a question of whether no Council could be completed that was legitimate on every side. That is the truest thing. For in the age of Gregory it happened that in the time between the first and second general Council, numerous Councils were held, which, on account of the multitude of Bishops favoring heretics, had an unfortunate end, such as the Councils of Seleucia, Tyrense, Armenia, Milan, Sirmium, etc. Therefore, since he saw so many bad Councils in his time, and none good, and yet was still called by Procopius in the name of the emperor to a certain Council, he applied two excuses: 1) that he despaired of seeing a legitimate Council in that time; 2) the chief reason, that he was detained by so serious an illness that daily he thought he would die. This response is confirmed by St. Basil, who lived at the same time, i.e. after the first Council and before the second. And, writing in epist. 52 to Athanasius, he says it seemed impossible to him that in that time a legitimate Council could be held, and so it was fitting to write to the Roman Pontiff asking him to invalidate the acts of the Council of Armenia by his own authority” (On Councils, Book II, Chapter 7)

I respond by noting that the universal language that Gregory of Nazianzus uses in the beginning of this letter (the main passage under question here) rules out the idea that he was speaking only of certain types of councils within his lifetime in between Nicaea and Constantinople I, the first two ecumenical councils.

Notice the language: “all assemblies of bishops….never seen Council come to a good end”. This is worse since Gregory also lived during 381, when Constantinople I took place (he died a few years after that). 

Bellarmine's Arguments from Scripture Examined

The first text that Romanists cite in order to prove that councils cannot err is Matthew 18:20 - “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”

A simple look at the context will refute this argument:

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 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. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” (Matthew 18:15-20)

Here, the Lord Jesus is talking about church discipline, and so verse 20 is not referring to any sort of universal gathering, but rather one that is done specifically for the purpose of administering discipline to a professing believer who is living in unrepentant sin.

Also, if the reasoning of Bellarmine and other Romanists concerning this text is correct, then it would follow that a literal group of two or three bishops would be infallible. 

The next verse is John 16:13, where the Lord Jesus says “The Spirit of truth will teach you all truth.” I respond by noting that the main means that the Spirit guides us into the truth is through Scripture, not through councils.

The next text is 1 Timothy 3:15, which says “...the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”

 I respond by noting two points:

[1]. It would be hard based off of the historical context of this passage, and the book of 1 Timothy altogether, to use this verse to prove the church’s infallibility. This is because the church at Ephesus (the audience of 1 Timothy) fell later on (Revelation 2:1-5). 

[2]. It is quite possible that this verse, when quoted in whole, says that the church as represented by the early apostles, in particular Timothy, is the pillar and foundation of the truth. Many of the early fathers agree with this interpretation:

“And he made Timothy into an excellent pillar, when he made him (as he says in his own words) a pillar and ground of truth.” (St. Gregory of Nyssa, The Life of Moses, section 184)

St. Gregory of Nazianzus, speaking to Basil, said “I will call you also a God to Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1) and all the Egyptian and hostile power, and pillar and ground of the Church (1 Timothy 3:15).” (Oration 18)

Jewish literature also has a similar idea concerning the Sanhedrin:

“The Supreme Sanhedrin in Jerusalem are the essence of the Oral Law. They are the pillars of instruction from whom statutes and judgments issue forth for the entire Jewish people” (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Memarim, 1.1)

Bellarmine's Arguments from the Fathers Examined

Throughout this section, Bellarmine cites many different fathers, who quotes are in different paragraphs of the treatise (from Bellarmine). I will go through one church father at a time and examine the citations that Bellarmine brings forth from each of them.

#1 - St. Athanasius

The cardinal first appeals to Athanasius’ letter to Epictetus (letter 59). He does not provide an exact quotation, but I assume he is alluding to the part where Athanasius says “I thought that all vain talk of all heretics, many as they may be, had been stopped by the Synod which was held at Nicæa.” I would direct Bellarmine to read the very next sentence: “For the Faith there confessed by the Fathers according to the divine Scriptures is enough by itself at once to overthrow all impiety, and to establish the religious belief in Christ.” This shows that Athanasius viewed the council of Nicaea as authoritative because it followed Scripture, not because of any inherent authority in a council.

The next quotation from Athanasius that Bellarmine gives is from Athanasius’ letter to the bishops of Africa, where he says “But the word of the Lord which came through the ecumenical Synod at Nicæa, abides forever.”

Once again, context is key. Read what Athanasius in section 4 of the same letter just quoted:

"And again, if a man were to examine and compare the great synod itself [Nicaea], and those held by these people, he would discover the piety of the one and the folly of the others. They who assembled at Nicæa did so not after being deposed: and secondly, they confessed that the Son was of the Essence of the Father. But the others, after being deposed again and again, and once more at Ariminum itself, ventured to write that it ought not to be said that the Son had Essence or Subsistence. This enables us to see, brethren, that they of Nicæa breathe the spirit of Scripture,”

Here, Athanasius invites his readers to test councils (in particular, Nicaea and the Arian council of Ariminum) by the standard of Scripture, which he views as the ultimate authority. 

#2 - St. Gregory of Nazianzus

Bellarmine appeals to a passage from Gregory’s first letter to Cledonius, where he (Gregory), speaking of the Apollinarian heretics who claimed to have been received by a Western council, said “Let them show this, and we will acquiesce, the particular mark will be if they will assent to right doctrine, for the matter cannot stand otherwise if they do not act accordingly.”

I answer that Bellarmine did not pay enough attention to the part where Gregory says “...the particular mark will be if they will assent to right doctrine…”, because this shows that Gregory viewed “the great Western synod” (as he refers to in an earlier part of the same letter) as authoritative due to its orthodox doctrine of the person of Christ (as well as the hypostatic union), not simply because it was a council. Within the Reformed church, we also view councils, creeds, and confessions as authoritative, but not in an infallible sense. The other passage that Bellarmine cites is from Gregory Nazianzen’s oration on Athanasius (Oration 21), where he Gregory says “And therefore, first in the holy Synod of Nicæa, the gathering of the three hundred and eighteen chosen men, united by the Holy Ghost”. Bellarmine demonstrates a misunderstanding of the Spirit’s work. While we may grant that the Holy Spirit gathered together Christian bishops at Nicaea, this does not guarantee their infallibility, simply because the Holy Spirit was not functioning at Nicaea in the same way he functioned in inspiring the writers of the Scriptures, where their infallibility under inspiration was guaranteed.

#3 - Augustine

Bellarmine first cites letter 162 of Augustine, where he says that the judgment of the church is in a general council. I was unable to find this letter or the quotation online (the numberings on Augustine’s letters are different at times), and so I do not know whether Bellarmine is quoting Augustine out of context or not, thus I don’t really have much of anything to respond to here in this regard. 

He also cites from On Baptism (Book I, Chapter 18) where Augustine excuses Cyprian from the charge of heresy because there had not been a council yet which had defined the teachings on rebaptism. I answer that it is certainly possible that Augustine, though being a great man of God and theologian, is contradicting himself. For, elsewhere Augustine testifies against councils’ infallibility when he says that general councils can be corrected by later ones: “the Councils themselves, which are held in the several districts and provinces, must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid” (On Baptism, Book II, Chapter 3)

Bellarmine responds back by saying that Augustine is either speaking of illegitimate councils (like the Robber Council of Ephesus in 449 AD where Flavian was condemned and Eutyches protected) which are corrected by later ones that are legitimate. This is easily refuted by noting that Augustine speaks of councils “for the whole Christian world” being corrected by later councils. He also says that if Augustine is indeed speaking of legitimate councils, then this was concerning councils making errors in fact, rather than in doctrine (which Bellarmine grants on multiple occasions throughout his treatise). I answer that Bellarmine is merely making assertions without proof. He must prove that Augustine was speaking of errors in fact here, but he cannot do so. Augustine appears to speaking of errors on a general and wholistic scale.

#4 - Pope Leo the Great

The first is from Leo’s letter to the Emperor Leo, where he says that those who deny the councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon cannot be considered as Catholics (i.e. orthodox Christians). We would agree wholeheartedly with this, not because those councils are infallible, but because they declare and defend fundamental doctrines (such as the deity of Christ, and His hypostatic union) that are necessary to believe in order for a person to be saved.

Bellarmine cites Leo’s letter to the council of Chalcedon (letter 93), claiming that he there sets forth the idea that councils are infallible. I read the entire letter, and found no such idea in there. 

The next is Leo’s letter to Martianus (epistle 50), where (according to Bellarmine) he says that nothing defined in a general council should be retracted. I searched through Schaff’s set of the patristic writings and could not find the full text of this letter, and so I cannot say anything regarding this claim of Bellarmine.

Bellarmine's Arguments from "Reason" Examined

Bellarmine provides four arguments “from reason” for why councils must be infallible. We will deal with each of them here in this section of our study. 

Argument #1: “If general Councils could err, there would be no firm judgment in the Church from which controversies could be settled and unity in the Church would be preserved, for there is nothing greater than a legitimate and approved general Council.”

Response: Bellarmine here blasphemes the authority of Scripture when he so impiously says that “nothing is greater than a….general council”. 

Scripture is of greater and more certain authority than any assembly of bishops, for it speaks clearly when it comes to the fundamental and most basic teachings of the faith (a point which we have elsewhere proven), such as the Trinity and the person, deity, and humanity of Christ (the doctrines which were most discussed at the first six ecumenical councils).

Argument #2 - "if the judgment of Councils of this sort were not infallible, all condemned heresies could rightly be recalled from doubt. For Arius said the Council of Nicaea erred, Macedonius that Constantinople erred, Nestorius that Ephesus erred, Eutyches that Chalcedon erred."

Response: As we said above, Scripture is clear when it comes to fundamental doctrines. Each of the heresies (and heretics) that Bellarmine mentions were in respect to the doctrine of the person of Christ, which is clearly laid out Scripture. Scripture clearly teaches that Christ is both God and man in one person, and thus it is sufficient for condemning heresies. It thus does not follow that because councils are fallible, that all heresies would be "recalled from doubt", as Bellarmine says.

Argument #3: " there would be no certitude on many books of Sacred Scripture; for the epistle to the Hebrews, 2 Peter, 3 John, James, Jude and on the Apocalypse, which books even the Calvinists receive, at length were in doubt until the matter was declared by a Council."

Response: Bellarmine's assertion that the canonical books were in doubt or were not recognized till "the matter was declared by a Council" (I presume that Bellarmine is alluding to the council held by Pope Damasus in 382 AD) is a baffling error, especially coming from an educated man like him.

Concerning Irenaeus (writing in the late 2nd century, long before any council had given an official list of the canonical books), canon scholar Michael J. Kruger says the following:

"But it is not just the Gospels that Irenaeus affirms. He quotes other New Testament books extensively, even more than the Old Testament, and clearly regards them as Scripture. These include the entire Pauline corpus (minus Philemon), Acts, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 1 and 2 John, and Revelation—over one thousand New Testament passages in total." (Michael Kruger, The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament Debate, pg. 157)

Compare this also with Bruce Metzger's comments:

"The slowness of determining the final limits of the canon is testimony to the care and vigilance of early Christians in receiving books purporting to be apostolic. But, while the collection of the New Testament into one volume was slow, the belief in a written rule of faith was primitive and apostolic… In the most basic sense neither individuals nor councils created the canon; instead they came to perceive and acknowledge the self-authenticating quality of these writings, which imposed themselves as canonical upon the church." (Bruce Metzger, The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Content [New York: Abingdon Press, 1965], pg. 276)

However, I will take the argument further and briefly show that each of the specific books which Bellarmine mentions (Hebrews, 2 Peter, 3 John, James, Jude, and Revelation) were, for the most part, held to be authoritative by the early church.

Regarding the canonicity of Hebrews, a few things should suffice to show that the church in general accepted it and viewed it as inspired:

[1]. 1 Clement quotes Hebrews 1:3-4 directly (chapter 36) and alludes to it in other places (1 Clement 9:3–4 [cf. Heb 11:5–7]; 1 Clem.12:1–3 [cf. Heb 11:31]; 1 Clem. 17:1 [cf. Heb 11:37]; 1 Clem. 19:2 [cf. Heb 12:1]). 

[2]. Justin Martyr also clearly was aware with Hebrews and uses it in his writings (Apology 12.9 [cf. Heb 3:1]; Dialogue 13:1 [cf. Heb 9:13–14]; 19.3 [cf. Heb 11:5]; 19.4 [cf. Heb 5:6; 6:20; 7:1–2).

[3]. We have some evidence that Hebrews was recognized in the Eastern church as well. It was known to Pantaenus (ca. 180) and Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius, Church History, Book VI, Chapter 14).

William L. Lane, in his commentary on Hebrews, says the following: "In the use of Hebrews in the early centuries of the Church, its authority was recognized...The authority asserted by Hebrews very early in the life of the Church..." (William Lane, Word Biblical Commentary: Hebrews 1-8, pg. cliv)

Regarding the canonicity of 2 Peter, it must indeed be confessed that this issue is particularly difficult and complex (especially in reference to the multitude of scholars today who view it as pseudonymous). However, concerning the early church's view of it, two points may be noted:

1) Origen was the first to explicitly cite 2 Peter as Scripture. The fathers after him, such as Jerome, Athanasius, Augustine, and Gregory Nazianzen all agreed with him in viewing 2 Peter as canonical Scripture and divinely inspired.

2) Fathers prior to Origen appeared to have accepted 2 Peter as Scripture. Clement of Alexandria (the teacher of Origen) wrote a commentary on it (Eusebius, Church History, 6.14.1). Justin Martyr alludes to 2 Pet. 2:1 in the Dialogue with Trypho (82.1). 1 Clement 23 also appears to echo 2 Peter 3:4. The Shepherd of Hermas (Similtiude 8.11.1) alludes to 2 Pet. 3:9. Even second-century Gnostic documents such as The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John allude to it.

One might object that the fathers who alluded to 2 Peter (as shown above) did not name it as their source. However, they also the do the same thing which Romans and Peter (Robert E. Picirilli, "Allusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers," Journal for the Study of the New Testament 33 [1988], pg. 74), therefore this does not refute the fact that they appeared to consider 2 Peter as Scripture. 

Regarding the canonicity of James, it is partly true that it took a great deal of time for it be fully accepted in the Western church. However, even there, we find evidences of its authenticity, in 1 Clement (29:1-30:5 [cf. James 4:1-10), for example.

In the Eastern and Alexandrian church, we see better evidences of its canonicity and acceptance amongst early Christians. At one point, Origen calls James "scripture" (Hom. Lev. 2:3). Patrick J. Hartin, in his commentary on James, says "Origen's support for the letter of James shows that it must have been known and accepted either in his home city of Alexandria or in Palestine (where Origen had also been active)." (Hartin, James, pg. 8). 

Regarding 3 John, Eusebius (H.E., 6.25.10) says that most accepted it along with 2 John, though the two books were still disputed by some. Bear in mind that Eusebius was writing this decades before the council of Pope Damasus (382).

Jude is listened in the Muratorian fragment, which the earliest list of the canonical books. Clement of Rome and Polycarp appear to allude to Jude in their writings. Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian each cited Jude as inspired Scripture.

We come finally to the book of Revelation. In D.A. Carson's book An Introduction to the New Testament (written along with Leon Morris and Douglas J. Moo), he says the following concerning the adoption of Revelation into the canon of Scripture:

"Revelation may be alluded to by Ignatius (A.D. 110-117) and Barnabas (before 135) and is probably used by the author of the Shepherd of Hermas (c. 150). As we noted above in the section Author, Revelation is quoted as authoritative by (perhaps) Papias (d. 130), Justin (middle of the second century), Ireneus (180), and is found in the Muratorian Canon (end of the second century). Marcion rejected Revelation from his canon (see Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 4.5), but this is not surprising, since he rejected any New Testament book that smacked of the Old Testament or Judaism—and Revelation is filled with Old Testament allusions. Eusebius also mentions that Revelation was rejected by a Gaius, a church official in Rome at the beginning of the second century (H.E. 3.27.1-2). His reason was probably the use to which the Montanists, a Christian sect that stressed prophecy and the nearness of the eschaton, were putting Revelation. By denying canonical status to one of their most important books, Gaius could hope to discredit the movement. 68 The same reason probably lies behind the rejection of Revelation on the part of the group known as the Alogoi. In any case, these scattered rejections of Revelation in the Western church did not affect its canonicity, and from this point forward there is no hint of doubt about Revelation’s full canonical status in the West. The situation in the East was quite different. The authority accorded to Revelation by Papias and Justin was seconded by third-century scholars such as Clement of Alexandria and Origen. But the Egyptian bishop Dionysius disagreed. As we have seen, he questioned the apostolic authorship of the book in an effort to minimize its authority. His questions led other churchmen in the East to question its canonicity, among them Eusebius, who says that many in his day questioned its status (H.E. 3.25.1- 4). The Council of Laodicea (360) did not recognize it as canonical, and it is omitted from the earliest editions of the Syriac Peshitta. At first sight, these doubts about Revelation seem somewhat disturbing. But on closer examination, they can be seen to be somewhat extraneous to the issue of canonicity. As Maier has shown in great detail, the doubts about Revelation stemmed from no considered argument or historical knowledge, but were the result of distaste for the eschatology of the book. Revelation seemed to teach, and was interpreted by many in the early church to teach, a doctrine of the last things that was too earthly focused, too materialistic, for many of the Eastern fathers. We should not, then, be much influenced by them in our assessment of the canonicity of the book." (D.A. Carson, Leon Morris, Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, pgs. 480-481)

Argument #4: "If all Councils could err, it would certainly follow that they would all admit intolerable error, and hence would be worthy of no honor. For it is an intolerable error to propose something to be believed as an article of faith on which it is not certain whether it is true or false; yet particular Councils, such as Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon published a new creed of faith, or certainly new opinions, which they willed to be held as articles of faith."

Response: Bellarmine misunderstands yet again the nature and purpose of early councils. They were not creating new dogmas out of thin air, but rather explicating and declaring what was already present in Scripture. It also does not follow that because councils are fallible, that therefore they are not worthy of any honor or respect. They are still worthy of our honor primarily because they defended the orthodox Christian faith against the heretics of their day.