- HOME
- MESSIAH
- THE BODY OF MESSIAH
- ONE NEW MAN
- THE OLIVE TREE
- THE BRANCHES
- LAW AND GRACE
- UNITY
- OBEDIENCE
- KINGDOM LIVING
- UNIVERSAL CHURCH
- BIBLICAL HOLIDAYS
- MESSIANIC
-
SCRIPTURE INSIGHTS
- WISDOM
- WORSHIP
- TRUTH
- PRAYER
- THE TRINITY
- THE ANNOINTED ONE
- WHAT IS SIN?
- FORGIVENESS
- ANTICHRIST
- FAITH BUILDERS
- BRIDGE OF UNDERSTANDING
- TABERNACLE
- THINGS TO PONDER
- DISTORTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY
- ISRAEL
-
RELIGIOUS HISTORY
- FAITH THROUGH THE CENTURIES
- THE END TIMES
- RAPTURE
- OUR COMMISSION
- HEAVEN
- GLOBAL VISION
- BIBLICAL WORLD VIEW
- DEVOTIONALS
- SALVATION
- ENCOURAGEMENT
- GIVING
- BIBLE TOOLS
- RESOURCES
- ABOUT THIS SITE
- MISSION STATEMENT
- DEDICATION
- ABOUT THE AUTHOR
- GUEST BOOK
- BLOG
The Faith of the Later Church
The years between 60 and 70 mark a turning point in the life of the first-century church. The three greatest leaders were taken away, Paul, Peter, and James. Paul suffered martyrdom in Rome between 64 and 68. Peter met the same fate, according to ancient tradition, at about the same time. James, the brother of Jesus, had been put to death by the Jews just before this, despite his faithful observance of the law. The Jewish war began in 66, and in 70 the city was taken and the temple destroyed; thus the link was broken had joined the Gentile churches to the mother church at Jerusalem.
When we move past this year 70 into the second generation of the Christian Church, we find no books to guide us like the Gospels and the Acts and the letters of Paul. We have a good many New Testament writings from this period, but they do not give us history. We do not know the leaders who took the place of Paul and Peter and James. The author of the letter to the Hebrews must have been a man of learning and ability, but not even his name is preserved. The many workers mentioned by Paul all pass from our sight. We hear no more of the gifted and eloquent Apollos. On this account the treatment of this period in a New Testament history may be brief. There is a second reason for brevity. Deeply interesting though the story would be if we could read it, it could not compare in importance with that already considered. The vital history of the beginnings of Christianity is forever linked to two names. The first is its Founder, whose message and spirit and life and death were the creative fact that brought forth all that followed. The second is the great apostle, who saw the meaning of that life, who proclaimed the good news throughout the world, who set forth for all time the great truths of the faith, and who established the fellowship which we call the church.
While we have little in the way of historical events, there are other matters of interest to consider in this closing period of New Testament history. These will be taken up under three heads: the faith of the later church, the life of the later church, and its writings.
In taking up the faith of this second period, we turn first to Jewish Christianity. The great controversy within the church of the first generation was that concerning the law: Was the Christian bound to keep the Jewish law? In the second generation this question entirely disappears. One reason for this was the great and steady advance of Gentile Christianity. The other was the lessening importance of Jewish Christianity. The Jerusalem Christians left the city before its capture and so escaped destruction; by so doing they gained, however, the bitter enmity of their fellow Jews and had to suffer a great deal of persecution.
The epistle of James gives us a good picture of the faith of these Jewish Christians. It was formerly held by many scholars that this letter was an attack upon Paul and his doctrine that man was saved by faith: "Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith" (James 2:24). But there is no thought of opposition to Paul here. The writer has not really grasped Paul's great doctrine. To him religion is essentially a law according to which men are to live. True, it is a higher law; he calls it "the perfect law, the law of liberty." But Paul's great words of grace and the Spirit are wanting here. Religion is something to be done. Within these limits it is full of fine maxims and practical truth, with many echoes of the Sermon on the Mount and other gospel passages; but it is not the good news that conquered the world. In later years this idea of Christianity as a new law gained an increasing place in the whole church. At this time it seems especially characteristic of Jewish Christianity.
Turning to the Gentile churches, the first question is, Did Paul's influence last? Did the great doctrines for which he stood remain as the church's conception of Christianity? In large measure, yes. (1) Christianity remained the universal religion for which Paul fought, not a mere variety of the Jewish faith. (2) Paul established once for all the conception of Christ as being on the one hand truly nian, born of woman, and on the other the eternal Son of God and the Saviour of men. (3) Paul's doctrine of the Spirit as ethical remained. He saved Christianity from the danger of fanaticism by insisting that the Spirit was the Spirit of Christ, that it meant love and righteousness and not emotional ecstasy and physical excitement. (4) The Gentile church remained as Paul had founded it; Christianity stood, not simply for individual faith and experience, but for an ordered and organized fellowship, embracing all believers in its unity, and joined in a life of mutual love and service.
And yet the church did not keep the level of Paul's highest thought. That was Paul's answer to the question, How shall a man be saved? Paul said: (1) A man is saved by God's grace. God is the Father. He is not a master whose help men must first earn. He is not an unwilling power whom men must compel by sacrifice. He is the God of mercy, loving the world, giving his Son, forgiving the sins of men. "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself." (2) A man is saved through faith; we might say trust instead. God's part is graciously to give; man's part is with love and trust to receive. Religion is not a proud and self-satisfied doing. It is a loving, self-surrendering trust of the soul. (3) All this means a new spirit in a man. It is the man made over, the "new creation," Paul says; but not made over from without by effort or knowledge. The new spirit which makes the man is God's Spirit in him. You may also call it the spirit of Christ. That is what it is: the love and purity and obedience and kindness which were the spirit of Jesus upon earth. (4) And this spirit which is God's gift, is our task at the same time. The Christian must live it out day by day: "If we live by the Spirit, by the Spirit let us also walk." It means obedience, but not to an outer rule. The law is within us, and the life is one of freedom.
In three respects the church moved down to a lower level: (1) Faith instead of being a personal trust came to be a belief in the doctrines of the church. Faith as a personal deed gives place to "the faith," which is a sum of doctrines. First Timothy shows the beginnings of this. (2) There appear, as has been noted in James, the beginners of a new legalism. It is not a falling back into the Jewish law, but it is an overemphasis upon Christianity as a new law, and a failure to see clearly that the right doing must spring from an inner spirit. (3) The freedom of the spirit gives place more and more to the authority of the church as an external and legal institution, whose officers are to rule and govern in all things. In the period which we are studying only the beginnings of this movement are apparent. In part it was inevitable. Indeed, Paul himself helped prepare the way. The church had to move forward on these three lines: to define its faith in creeds, to emphasize rules of conduct and require obedience, and to perfect and establish its organization. Paul himself, however, was not lost from the church. Though the church fell below his standards, yet he remained as a leaven within her life, even in the Roman Catholic Church. His religion of the spirit has always been a protest against the overemphasis of creed and rules and organization, and has broken forth successfully again and again in the great reformation movements.
The New Testament contains two monuments which witness to the abiding influence of Paul in this period. The first is the writing called "The Epistle to the Hebrews." The title, which is not a part of the book itself, is hardly correct. It is a treatise rather than an epistle, and it was probably for Christians in general rather than for Jewish Christians. It was not written by Paul, but it shows his spirit and influence. Christianity is set forth as the world-religion, existing from the beginning. Judaism was simply its stage of preparation; after the prophets comes the Son. And all the ceremony of Judaism is only the symbol of the spiritual and eternal which is in the Son. Christianity is the religion of redemption, and Christ is the final sacrifice which puts an end to all others. Paul wrote merely letters; this is a literary and theological product, but it has not the freshness or life or power that Paul's letters possess.
Far greater than the letter to the Hebrews is the group of writings which includes the Gospel and the three epistles of John. These four writings belong together, and they too bear eloquent witness to Paul's influence. Ancient tradition ascribes them to the apostle John. Many scholars think that while they represent the tradition of John's teaching, the writings themselves were composed by one of his disciples, or by another John than the apostle. We know but little of John's life. One tradition states that he suffered early death as martyr like his brother James. The more common tradition holds that he spent his last years in Ephesus, beloved by all and of great influence; that he wrote the Gospel and epistles at Ephesus and the Revelation while in exile at Patmos; and that he died an aged man at the close of the century.
Why was the Gospel of John written? For twenty or thirty years the church had had three accounts of the words and deeds of Jesus, our present synoptic Gospels. Though the fourth Gospel gives us mainly incidents from Jerusalem, instead of from Galilee, it does not add enough to the knowledge of Jesus' life to have been written simply as a supplement to the other three. The author himself gives us his purpose. Out of the many wonders which Jesus wrought he has selected certain "signs"; and "these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name" (John 20:30, 31). This is the double purpose—to set forth Christ and to show the life that men have through him. As we read this Gospel carefully we see that it is quite a different work from the synoptics. It is still in the form of a story of Jesus' words and deeds; but it is far more of a sermon than a biography. Each sign or saying of Jesus is like a text from which John preaches his sermon and proclaims his faith in Christ and his conception of Christ. For that reason he does not concern himself to distinguish sharply between his own words and those of Jesus. This can be seen, for example, in the third chapter, where one cannot separate definitely the words of Jesus, of John the Baptist, and of the evangelist. The Gospel is a great confession of faith, a great sermon like one of Paul's. The words and deeds of Jesus are like a window, through which the evangelist seeks to show us his vision of the eternal. He is neither biographer nor theologian; he is a preacher. Whatever he writes he sets forth that we "may believe," and that we "may have life in his name."
The faith that is here set forth is nothing more than Paul's teaching concerning Christ, but there was special reason for its declaration at this time. Almost all the later writings of the New Testament show us that with the last years of the first century many different forms of doctrine arose which claimed to be Christian teaching, but which differed from the earlier faith of the church. There were teachers who declared that because Jesus was divine he could not have suffered and died. These men made his life a mere show, and so denied the actual humanity of our Lord. This was called docetism. There were others, on the contrary, especially among the Jewish Christians, who denied his divinity. He was to them simply a great teacher, a prophet as others before him.
Over against these two, John sets forth his great message in his epistles and Gospel. Jesus is for him the eternal Son of God who was with the Father from the beginning, and who has come to be the life and light of men. This is the message of his prologue (1:1-18). This is his theme, whether he reports the words of Jesus or tells of his deeds. Thus the deeds which he reports are "signs." They are not thought of primarily as deeds of mercy wrought to help men, but as signs of the divine power and majesty of Jesus. There are seven such deeds, finding their climax in the raising of Lazarus. Similarly, the words of Jesus which he reports do not concern themselves so much with the duties of men, as in the sermon on the mount, but are, rather, a setting forth of the same theme of Jesus' own person and its meaning. In lofty speech and beautiful figure this is proclaimed again and again: "I am the living bread"; "Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst"; "I am the light of the world"; "I am the door of the sheep"; "I am the good shepherd"; "I am the resurrection, and the life"; "I am the way, the truth, and the life"; "I am the true vine"; "I have overcome the world." At the same time John sets forth just as clearly the real humanity of Jesus. He shows him to us hungry and weary as he rests by the well, weeping by the grave of his friend, struggling in the garden, suffering and dying upon the cross. All this is but Paul's great message of the Christ "who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead" (Rom 1:3, 4). But while Paul finds his theme in the resurrection and the living Christ, John turns back to the Jesus who walked on earth, and shows us his glory in that earthly life. That was John's great service, to join together the Jesus of Nazareth whom the Gospels set forth with the divine Christ whom Paul proclaimed, and to declare that these two were one.
John's other purpose was, as he states it, to set forth Christ so that men believing might have life. As we read these pages, we feel the same spirit that speaks to us in Paul's letters: this man writes of that which is his own life, and which he wishes us to have. Chapters 14 to 17 set this truth forth especially. No passages in the New Testament have been more cherished by Christians or have had a deeper influence. That is why this Gospel has been called from early days "the spiritual Gospel." It has been the great book of personal devotion. One need only begin with the fourteenth chapter and mark the familiar passages to realize the place that this book has filled: "Let not your heart be troubled. In my Father's house are many mansions. I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one cometh unto the Father, but by me. Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do. I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, even the Spirit of truth. If a man love me, he will keep my word: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. Peace I leave with you; my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. I am the vine, ye are the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit." And in all this, the question is not whether John is giving us the literal speech of Jesus, any more than Paul in his preaching. The message of John is essentially that of Paul, and the real question is whether they are setting forth the mind and spirit of Jesus. That such a book should come from the closing years of the first century is testimony, not only to the abiding influence of Paul's teaching, but even more to the abiding power of the spirit of Christ.
Directions for Reading and Study Mention six dangers or faults against which the readers are warned in James. Here as elsewhere cite chapter and verse.
Make a list of the passages in First Timothy which refer to doctrine or teaching or the faith.
Read the prologue of the fourth Gospel, John 1:1-18, and make a list of John's various statements about Christ.
Make a list of the seven miracles, or "signs," recorded in John, beginning with the marriage feast at Cana and ending with the raising of Lazarus.
Make a list of at least eight of the sayings of Jesus concerning himself, such as "I am the living bread," as found in John.
From John 14 to 17 select ten or more individual verses or passages which set forth the ideal of the life of the disciple in relation to God or Christ.
—New Testament History
The years between 60 and 70 mark a turning point in the life of the first-century church. The three greatest leaders were taken away, Paul, Peter, and James. Paul suffered martyrdom in Rome between 64 and 68. Peter met the same fate, according to ancient tradition, at about the same time. James, the brother of Jesus, had been put to death by the Jews just before this, despite his faithful observance of the law. The Jewish war began in 66, and in 70 the city was taken and the temple destroyed; thus the link was broken had joined the Gentile churches to the mother church at Jerusalem.
When we move past this year 70 into the second generation of the Christian Church, we find no books to guide us like the Gospels and the Acts and the letters of Paul. We have a good many New Testament writings from this period, but they do not give us history. We do not know the leaders who took the place of Paul and Peter and James. The author of the letter to the Hebrews must have been a man of learning and ability, but not even his name is preserved. The many workers mentioned by Paul all pass from our sight. We hear no more of the gifted and eloquent Apollos. On this account the treatment of this period in a New Testament history may be brief. There is a second reason for brevity. Deeply interesting though the story would be if we could read it, it could not compare in importance with that already considered. The vital history of the beginnings of Christianity is forever linked to two names. The first is its Founder, whose message and spirit and life and death were the creative fact that brought forth all that followed. The second is the great apostle, who saw the meaning of that life, who proclaimed the good news throughout the world, who set forth for all time the great truths of the faith, and who established the fellowship which we call the church.
While we have little in the way of historical events, there are other matters of interest to consider in this closing period of New Testament history. These will be taken up under three heads: the faith of the later church, the life of the later church, and its writings.
In taking up the faith of this second period, we turn first to Jewish Christianity. The great controversy within the church of the first generation was that concerning the law: Was the Christian bound to keep the Jewish law? In the second generation this question entirely disappears. One reason for this was the great and steady advance of Gentile Christianity. The other was the lessening importance of Jewish Christianity. The Jerusalem Christians left the city before its capture and so escaped destruction; by so doing they gained, however, the bitter enmity of their fellow Jews and had to suffer a great deal of persecution.
The epistle of James gives us a good picture of the faith of these Jewish Christians. It was formerly held by many scholars that this letter was an attack upon Paul and his doctrine that man was saved by faith: "Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith" (James 2:24). But there is no thought of opposition to Paul here. The writer has not really grasped Paul's great doctrine. To him religion is essentially a law according to which men are to live. True, it is a higher law; he calls it "the perfect law, the law of liberty." But Paul's great words of grace and the Spirit are wanting here. Religion is something to be done. Within these limits it is full of fine maxims and practical truth, with many echoes of the Sermon on the Mount and other gospel passages; but it is not the good news that conquered the world. In later years this idea of Christianity as a new law gained an increasing place in the whole church. At this time it seems especially characteristic of Jewish Christianity.
Turning to the Gentile churches, the first question is, Did Paul's influence last? Did the great doctrines for which he stood remain as the church's conception of Christianity? In large measure, yes. (1) Christianity remained the universal religion for which Paul fought, not a mere variety of the Jewish faith. (2) Paul established once for all the conception of Christ as being on the one hand truly nian, born of woman, and on the other the eternal Son of God and the Saviour of men. (3) Paul's doctrine of the Spirit as ethical remained. He saved Christianity from the danger of fanaticism by insisting that the Spirit was the Spirit of Christ, that it meant love and righteousness and not emotional ecstasy and physical excitement. (4) The Gentile church remained as Paul had founded it; Christianity stood, not simply for individual faith and experience, but for an ordered and organized fellowship, embracing all believers in its unity, and joined in a life of mutual love and service.
And yet the church did not keep the level of Paul's highest thought. That was Paul's answer to the question, How shall a man be saved? Paul said: (1) A man is saved by God's grace. God is the Father. He is not a master whose help men must first earn. He is not an unwilling power whom men must compel by sacrifice. He is the God of mercy, loving the world, giving his Son, forgiving the sins of men. "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself." (2) A man is saved through faith; we might say trust instead. God's part is graciously to give; man's part is with love and trust to receive. Religion is not a proud and self-satisfied doing. It is a loving, self-surrendering trust of the soul. (3) All this means a new spirit in a man. It is the man made over, the "new creation," Paul says; but not made over from without by effort or knowledge. The new spirit which makes the man is God's Spirit in him. You may also call it the spirit of Christ. That is what it is: the love and purity and obedience and kindness which were the spirit of Jesus upon earth. (4) And this spirit which is God's gift, is our task at the same time. The Christian must live it out day by day: "If we live by the Spirit, by the Spirit let us also walk." It means obedience, but not to an outer rule. The law is within us, and the life is one of freedom.
In three respects the church moved down to a lower level: (1) Faith instead of being a personal trust came to be a belief in the doctrines of the church. Faith as a personal deed gives place to "the faith," which is a sum of doctrines. First Timothy shows the beginnings of this. (2) There appear, as has been noted in James, the beginners of a new legalism. It is not a falling back into the Jewish law, but it is an overemphasis upon Christianity as a new law, and a failure to see clearly that the right doing must spring from an inner spirit. (3) The freedom of the spirit gives place more and more to the authority of the church as an external and legal institution, whose officers are to rule and govern in all things. In the period which we are studying only the beginnings of this movement are apparent. In part it was inevitable. Indeed, Paul himself helped prepare the way. The church had to move forward on these three lines: to define its faith in creeds, to emphasize rules of conduct and require obedience, and to perfect and establish its organization. Paul himself, however, was not lost from the church. Though the church fell below his standards, yet he remained as a leaven within her life, even in the Roman Catholic Church. His religion of the spirit has always been a protest against the overemphasis of creed and rules and organization, and has broken forth successfully again and again in the great reformation movements.
The New Testament contains two monuments which witness to the abiding influence of Paul in this period. The first is the writing called "The Epistle to the Hebrews." The title, which is not a part of the book itself, is hardly correct. It is a treatise rather than an epistle, and it was probably for Christians in general rather than for Jewish Christians. It was not written by Paul, but it shows his spirit and influence. Christianity is set forth as the world-religion, existing from the beginning. Judaism was simply its stage of preparation; after the prophets comes the Son. And all the ceremony of Judaism is only the symbol of the spiritual and eternal which is in the Son. Christianity is the religion of redemption, and Christ is the final sacrifice which puts an end to all others. Paul wrote merely letters; this is a literary and theological product, but it has not the freshness or life or power that Paul's letters possess.
Far greater than the letter to the Hebrews is the group of writings which includes the Gospel and the three epistles of John. These four writings belong together, and they too bear eloquent witness to Paul's influence. Ancient tradition ascribes them to the apostle John. Many scholars think that while they represent the tradition of John's teaching, the writings themselves were composed by one of his disciples, or by another John than the apostle. We know but little of John's life. One tradition states that he suffered early death as martyr like his brother James. The more common tradition holds that he spent his last years in Ephesus, beloved by all and of great influence; that he wrote the Gospel and epistles at Ephesus and the Revelation while in exile at Patmos; and that he died an aged man at the close of the century.
Why was the Gospel of John written? For twenty or thirty years the church had had three accounts of the words and deeds of Jesus, our present synoptic Gospels. Though the fourth Gospel gives us mainly incidents from Jerusalem, instead of from Galilee, it does not add enough to the knowledge of Jesus' life to have been written simply as a supplement to the other three. The author himself gives us his purpose. Out of the many wonders which Jesus wrought he has selected certain "signs"; and "these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name" (John 20:30, 31). This is the double purpose—to set forth Christ and to show the life that men have through him. As we read this Gospel carefully we see that it is quite a different work from the synoptics. It is still in the form of a story of Jesus' words and deeds; but it is far more of a sermon than a biography. Each sign or saying of Jesus is like a text from which John preaches his sermon and proclaims his faith in Christ and his conception of Christ. For that reason he does not concern himself to distinguish sharply between his own words and those of Jesus. This can be seen, for example, in the third chapter, where one cannot separate definitely the words of Jesus, of John the Baptist, and of the evangelist. The Gospel is a great confession of faith, a great sermon like one of Paul's. The words and deeds of Jesus are like a window, through which the evangelist seeks to show us his vision of the eternal. He is neither biographer nor theologian; he is a preacher. Whatever he writes he sets forth that we "may believe," and that we "may have life in his name."
The faith that is here set forth is nothing more than Paul's teaching concerning Christ, but there was special reason for its declaration at this time. Almost all the later writings of the New Testament show us that with the last years of the first century many different forms of doctrine arose which claimed to be Christian teaching, but which differed from the earlier faith of the church. There were teachers who declared that because Jesus was divine he could not have suffered and died. These men made his life a mere show, and so denied the actual humanity of our Lord. This was called docetism. There were others, on the contrary, especially among the Jewish Christians, who denied his divinity. He was to them simply a great teacher, a prophet as others before him.
Over against these two, John sets forth his great message in his epistles and Gospel. Jesus is for him the eternal Son of God who was with the Father from the beginning, and who has come to be the life and light of men. This is the message of his prologue (1:1-18). This is his theme, whether he reports the words of Jesus or tells of his deeds. Thus the deeds which he reports are "signs." They are not thought of primarily as deeds of mercy wrought to help men, but as signs of the divine power and majesty of Jesus. There are seven such deeds, finding their climax in the raising of Lazarus. Similarly, the words of Jesus which he reports do not concern themselves so much with the duties of men, as in the sermon on the mount, but are, rather, a setting forth of the same theme of Jesus' own person and its meaning. In lofty speech and beautiful figure this is proclaimed again and again: "I am the living bread"; "Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst"; "I am the light of the world"; "I am the door of the sheep"; "I am the good shepherd"; "I am the resurrection, and the life"; "I am the way, the truth, and the life"; "I am the true vine"; "I have overcome the world." At the same time John sets forth just as clearly the real humanity of Jesus. He shows him to us hungry and weary as he rests by the well, weeping by the grave of his friend, struggling in the garden, suffering and dying upon the cross. All this is but Paul's great message of the Christ "who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead" (Rom 1:3, 4). But while Paul finds his theme in the resurrection and the living Christ, John turns back to the Jesus who walked on earth, and shows us his glory in that earthly life. That was John's great service, to join together the Jesus of Nazareth whom the Gospels set forth with the divine Christ whom Paul proclaimed, and to declare that these two were one.
John's other purpose was, as he states it, to set forth Christ so that men believing might have life. As we read these pages, we feel the same spirit that speaks to us in Paul's letters: this man writes of that which is his own life, and which he wishes us to have. Chapters 14 to 17 set this truth forth especially. No passages in the New Testament have been more cherished by Christians or have had a deeper influence. That is why this Gospel has been called from early days "the spiritual Gospel." It has been the great book of personal devotion. One need only begin with the fourteenth chapter and mark the familiar passages to realize the place that this book has filled: "Let not your heart be troubled. In my Father's house are many mansions. I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one cometh unto the Father, but by me. Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do. I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Comforter, even the Spirit of truth. If a man love me, he will keep my word: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. Peace I leave with you; my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. I am the vine, ye are the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit." And in all this, the question is not whether John is giving us the literal speech of Jesus, any more than Paul in his preaching. The message of John is essentially that of Paul, and the real question is whether they are setting forth the mind and spirit of Jesus. That such a book should come from the closing years of the first century is testimony, not only to the abiding influence of Paul's teaching, but even more to the abiding power of the spirit of Christ.
Directions for Reading and Study Mention six dangers or faults against which the readers are warned in James. Here as elsewhere cite chapter and verse.
Make a list of the passages in First Timothy which refer to doctrine or teaching or the faith.
Read the prologue of the fourth Gospel, John 1:1-18, and make a list of John's various statements about Christ.
Make a list of the seven miracles, or "signs," recorded in John, beginning with the marriage feast at Cana and ending with the raising of Lazarus.
Make a list of at least eight of the sayings of Jesus concerning himself, such as "I am the living bread," as found in John.
From John 14 to 17 select ten or more individual verses or passages which set forth the ideal of the life of the disciple in relation to God or Christ.
—New Testament History
We have no such writings as Paul's letters to the Corinthians to give us the picture of the life of the church in the last part of the century. Some facts we may gather from the late epistles and the book of Revelation. Aside from these we have only the writings outside the New Testament which come from the early part of the second century. Two questions call for answer: (1) What was the inner life of the church? (2) What was its place in the empire?
There are two words around which we may gather the story of these last years of the first century and opening decades of the second. They are bishops and martyrs. The first word suggests the change that took place in the inner life and organization of the church. The different steps of this change we cannot tell, but we do know the marked contrast between the church of 150 and the churches at the time of Paul's death. The churches of Paul had only the simplest organization, as we have seen. Men talked of service, not of authority. This service was of many kinds, but it was all the gift of one Spirit. The inspired prophets and teachers of the Word stood first. But the Spirit belonged to the whole church. A century later all this is changed. We find three offices in each church—bishop, elders. and deacons; but the authority is in the hands of the one man, the bishop. He is no longer the simple overseer. He has taken up within himself the various duties that at first belonged to different men or to the church as a whole. The practical affairs of the church are still in his hands, but these are of greatly increased importance. He has charge of the worship. Men are beginning to feel that the inspiration is no longer in the church as a whole, or in certain prophets and teachers, but in the bishop. The simple, unregulated worship is gone. There is no longer any chance for the irregularities that appeared at Corinth. The bishop presides at the service, which follows a regular order, and it is he that preaches. He has charge of the church discipline. The apostles and eyewitnesses are gone. He represents the tradition of what the true faith is. Instead of a group of overseers or elders, this bishop stands alone. Just what the position of the elders is we do not know. The deacons are simply the officers who carry out the bishop's directions. As yet, however, the bishop is not placed over any district or diocese; he simply directs the life of the one congregation.
All this took place very gradually. We do not know the steps, but we know some of the causes. (1) There was the decline of faith in immediate inspiration. The first outburst of enthusiasm gradually passed. There was a lessening number of prophets who felt themselves directly inspired. (2) There was found to be a need of regulating these inspired leaders. Paul had met this at Corinth. The inspiration did not always seem to be genuine or profitable to the church. All manner of things could be said and done and the claim made that they were inspired. Early writings show that some of these "prophets" made their inspiration a means of living off the church, and rules had to be adopted to guard against this. The conflict between the "officials" and the "inspired" leaders lasted through the second century, but long before the end the regularly chosen officials had taken the first place. (3) The same need of order appeared in other respects. As the church grew, its practical interests increased in importance and number. Matters of discipline, of the care of the poor, of protection in times of persecution, of representation of the local church so that it could act with other churches, and other like interest demanded responsible men in permanent position. With the second century questions of doctrine became ever more important. Over against all manner of vagaries and strange teachings these officials stood as the custodians and guarantors of the faith handed down from the apostles.
It has been suggested by some that the third epistle of John is a witness of the early stage of the controversy between the regular official, or bishop, and the inspired prophets. Diotrephes seems to have been such an official who refused to welcome the traveling prophets when they came: "Neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and them that would he forbiddeth and casteth them out of the church" (3 John 10). He is censured as a church boss, "who loveth to have the preeminence." Gaius, to whom the letter is addressed, is bidden to receive the "brethren and strangers," and to set them forward on their journey. All these changes occurred gradually, and they were in process during the last years of the first century.
In its moral life the church seems to have made steady advance. Roman critics of Christianity like Pliny admit the moral excellence of the life of its followers. The writings of this time all show the constant emphasis upon the pure and true life. The charity of the church was especially rich and beautiful. And yet there was wisdom in its exercise. The traveling brother was cared for two or three days. If he did not pass on then, he was to work; but the church was to help him find employment. The church had followed in the line of Paul's teaching: "If any will not work, neither let him eat" (2 Thess 3:10). No doubt the industry and sobriety which the church inculcated helped to make it an economic force in the empire.
The regular worship of the church was on the first day of the week. Though more and more under the direct leadership of one official, it was still a very simple service. Lessons were read from the prophets of the Old Testament. New Testament writings were not yet placed by the side of this as Sacred Scripture, but there is little doubt that in different parts of the church letters of Paul or portions of gospel story were read, the latter being called the "memoirs of the apostles." In earlier days the prophets and other inspired leaders would speak; later this fell to the officials. The church had inherited the psalms from the synagogue and used these in her service. To these she added Christian hymns. It is perhaps a portion of one of these that we have in 1 Tim 3:16:
He who was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the spirit,
Seen of angels,
Preached among the nations,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory.
The Lord's Supper was celebrated in the morning. The regular church supper, known as the love feast, or agape, had been separated from the former and was held in the evening.
From the close of this period, that is, about the middle of the second century, dates the first formal creed of the church so far as known, probably originating in Rome. It was used by the candidate for baptism. The earliest baptism was with the simple words, "in the name of Jesus." Later the baptism was "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." This trinitarian formula was now expanded into a creed which still moved about the three persons of the Trinity. "I believe in God the Father almighty; and in Christ Jesus his only begotten Son, our Lord; born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate and buried, arising on the third day from the dead, seated on the right hand of God, whence he cometh to judge the living and the dead. And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy church, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the flesh." Like everything else at this time, this creed was referred back to the apostles and so was called the Apostles' Creed.
The first day of the week was regularly used for worship, and this may have been the case from the first. Its Christian name was Lord's Day (Rev I. 10). It was never called the Sabbath day, and was never by the early Christians identified with the latter. Paul had classed the Sabbath days with other Jewish customs made obsolete by the gospel (Col 2:16, 17; Gal 4:9, 10). As Sunday was not the Sabbath day, the Christians did not refrain from labor upon it. It was first of all a day of worship and gladness. Gradually it came to be a day of rest. But it was centuries before any one thought of confounding the Christian Lord's Day with the Jewish Sabbath, or of applying the fourth commandment to the former.
The other word about which the history of this period may be centered is that of martyr. It is the time of beginning persecutions on the part of the state. The word "martyr" means simply "witness," and the martyr was one who gave witness to his faith at peril or at cost of his life. It was Nero that began this persecution. The great conflagration at Rome occurred in the year 64. Rightly or wrongly, the popular mind charged Nero with the deed. Nor were the people satisfied even when he began to reimburse those that had suffered loss and to rebuild the city in splendid manner. They wanted some one to suffer for the crime. Nero picked upon the Christians for this purpose. They were poor, they were disliked. The people were ready to see them suffer, especially as their death was made a public sport; and Nero diverted attention from himself.
This of itself was simply an episode, but it seems that what Nero began in this special manner became a more or less settled attitude of hostility to the Christians on the part of the state. We are not sure of the date of the later writings of the New Testament, but Peter, large portions of First Timothy, James, and Revelation all come within this time, and all of these refer to persecutions.
Almost exactly a century after the burning of Rome, Pliny was sent by the emperor Trajan to be governor of Bithynia and Pontus in Asia Minor. There he found that the Christian religion had spread very widely, not simply in the cities where it was always strongest, but in villages and country also. The temples were being deserted, and trades that depended upon the temple patronage were being interfered with, such as the sale of fodder for animals kept for sacrifice. Pliny writes to inquire just how he is to proceed against the Christians, and whether he has been taking the right course. He does not ask whether he should proceed against them, but simply how; and the whole correspondence, which has been preserved for us, suggests that the hostile attitude of the state toward the Christians was a recognized policy.
Why should the empire have persecuted the Christians? It was not religious intolerance, for the empire welcomed and adopted all manner of faiths from all lands. It was not the crimes of the Christians. Whenever serious investigation was made, as by Pliny, the popular charges were seen to be unfounded. The real reason was political, with popular hatred pushing on the officers of the state. The one thing upon which Rome insisted was the unity of the empire and absolute reverence for her laws and order. With these interests Christianity seemed to interfere.
And first with the principle of "unity. The first fault of the Christians was that they stood for a unity which was not that of the empire. It was the unity of their faith, their brotherhood, of the kingdom of God. The Romans wanted no other bond of unity than that of the empire. With religious societies and religious meetings there was no interference. But other associations were most carefully watched. Benefit clubs among the poor, such as those with burial funds, were about the only associations tolerated, and these were strictly controlled. It was the fear of anything like a common political association among the people which countries like Russia and Turkey show in our own day. The Christians kept the laws of the empire. They planned no insurrection. The church was no political organization. And yet the government discerned rightly that here was a force that in its final spirit was opposed to the spirit of autocracy that belonged to Rome. Nevertheless the church in the end might have saved the empire, if her help had been called upon soon enough. Rome relied upon an external and autocratic power to hold the empire. That was not enough. It was the decay of the people that caused her doom, and the church might have changed that decay into life.
Later on the refusal of the Christians to worship the emperor was a charge brought against them. But this too was looked upon as political and not religious. The worship of the emperor was simply one part of the plan to assert and secure the political unity of the empire. This emperor cult is referred to in Rev 13 as the worship of the beast.
Back of this principle of the state there lay the strong prejudice of the people which was shared by officers and emperors as well. The prejudice took many forms. (1) There was the opposition, such as Paul met at Ephesus, of tradesmen whose business suffered by the spread of Christianity with its hostility to pagan worship and to the practice of vice. Then, as now, there were large profits joined to such practices, and we need only think of the hostility shown today by those who make profit from commercialized vice in saloon and gambling den and brothel.
(2) There was no doubt personal opposition from those whose families had been divided, who saw believers separating from fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters because of the new faith. Enemies could only explain this strange power over converts by charging sorcery and magic,
(3) There were unfounded charges that were raised against the Christians for centuries. The Lord's Supper, with its wine used as symbol of blood, was made the occasion for the story that Christians killed little children and drank their blood, just as the charge of ritual murder against the Jews still persists in Russia today. Profligacy was charged because of the secret meetings at which both sexes were present. (4) More than anything else, it was the inflexible attitude of the Christians about certain matters that angered the people and brought the severe condemnation of even men like Pliny and later on the emperor Marcus Aurelius. Aside from Judaism, Christianity represented here something wholly new in religion, for which even Marcus Aurelius had no comprehension. For the Romans religion was a matter of social custom and convention. Its forms could be changed or added to at will. To add a new form or a new god might be very wise and safe. It might even be well to erect an altar to an "unknown god," lest one should have been overlooked. In any case, there was no possible harm in such conformity. For the Christians religion was a principle of conscience and a supreme loyalty to one God: "We must obey God rather than men." To others the attitude of the Christians seemed nothing short of willful perversity and wicked obstinacy. "Especially did this appear when they were brought up for trial. Often all that was asked was to pour out a little wine before a shrine of the emperor, or to deny the Name with which they were called, the name of Christ. Such refusal angered officials as well as people. To the former it seemed highly dangerous: it was the spirit of insubordination which in an individual might not be serious, but in a great and growing fellowship meant danger to the empire.
For this reason, as we learn from Pliny's letters, it was thought enough to convict a man of being a Christian, even though no special crimes were charged against him. Over against this, the Christian leaders of the second century pleaded that they might be convicted upon the proof of crime, not by the charges of prejudice. Their position is nobly voiced by a word of Justin Martyr that has come down from the middle of this century: "It is our maxim that we can suffer harm from none, unless we be convicted as doers of evil, or proved to be wicked. You may slay us, indeed, but you cannot hurt us. But, lest any should say that this is a senseless and rash assertion, I entreat that the charges against us may be examined; and if they be substantiated, let us be punished as is right." He pleads that "neither by prejudice nor desire of popularity from the superstitious, nor by any unthinking impulse of zeal, nor by that evil report which has so long kept possession of your minds, you may be urged to give a decision against yourselves."
The book of Revelation is a writing born out of this situation of persecution and danger. It may be studied either as an apocalypse of the future, giving us prediction of what is to be, or as a book of religion written to strengthen faith and give comfort. All apocalypses have this double character. They come out of times of great persecution and danger. Their purpose is to encourage the faithful lest they fall away. The method of these books is that of visions. The writers are prophets who see. They use pictures and symbols constantly. These pictures are not original with the individual writer. They are more or less the common language of such productions.
While we cannot interpret with certainty all the symbols of the book, its general meaning on the apocalyptic side is clear. It sets forth the story of the future in pictures. Rome has been persecuting the Christians. Her time is now fulfilled. She is the Babylon that is to be destroyed. The world is hopelessly evil. Salvation is to come not by the growth and spread of the Christian faith, but by a great catastrophe which is to destroy the present world. Then the New Jerusalem is to be let down out of heaven. In it the saints are to be gathered together and God is to dwell with them in the city of light.
All this apocalypticism represents something taken over from the Jewish church of which Christianity was gradually ridding itself. More and more the church saw that the world was to be changed and the kingdom was to come by gradual moral and spiritual conquest, and for this reason many opposed the reception of this book into the New Testament.
But all this must not hide from us the real message of the work. That lies in its practical purpose which is apparent all the way through. The book was probably written about 95, in the reign of Domitian, but it reflects the conditions of Nero's persecution as well. The disciples are in danger. They are facing the demand that they should worship the beast, that is, the image of the emperor, or else be put to death (Rev 13:15). The writer sets before them the end that is near at hand. He brings a message of warning: the Lord is coming as a thief in the night; let his followers cleanse themselves from all evil, for he will give to each one according to his works. But above all he writes for encouragement, that he may help believers to remain faithful.
The words of warning are found especially in the messages to the seven churches of Asia Minor to which the writing is addressed. These opening chapters give us a picture of the church life of the time. On the whole, the picture is encouraging. Three dangers are in these warnings. There was the danger of simple indifference, the loss of spiritual life: "Thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead" (3:1). "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot" (3:15). There was the danger of sinful laxness, such as appeared at Corinth, joining in the old idol feasts and pagan practices. This is probably what is meant by the reference to the Nicolaitans (2:6), to Balaam (2:14, 15), and to "the woman Jezebel" (2:20). Such faithlessness is called fornication, after the manner of the Old Testament prophets. The third danger was that of apostasy. It is significant of the higher moral life of the churches that the references are not to common immoralities.
The dominant note, however, is that of encouragement. Let the disciples be faithful, first of all, because of the sure reward. "To him that overcometh, to him will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God." "Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee the crown of life" (2:7, 10). In varied phrase there is set forth again and again the reward for "him that overcometh." The second cause for encouragement for the persecuted Christians is the coming overthrow of Rome and the powers of evil. Rome is "Babylon the Great," "the woman drunken with the blood of the saints," "the great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth" (17:5, 6, 18). But her hour is come. The kings of the earth and the merchants who shared in her wealth shall look on and mourn her destruction and her torment. Not so the saints: "Rejoice over her, thou heaven and ye saints, and ye apostles, and ye prophets; for God hath judged your judgment upon her" (18:9-20). The final cause for encouragement is the vision of the glory that awaits the saints, the new heaven and new earth that are to come when the old is destroyed. "And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of the throne saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he shall dwell with them, and they shall be his peoples, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God" (21:1-4).
The real message of the book lies not in the visions of destruction nor in other prophecies of things to come. Neither do we find it in the elaborate pictures of the new Jerusalem, with its equal length and breadth and height. Rather it is in that great faith which breathes through all Messianic and apocalyptic hope from the Old Testament prophets on: No forces of evil can stand out against the power of God. Whatever the oppression and the burden now, God and good and righteousness shall rule in the earth.
The persecution of the Christians continued intermittently long after this period. The actual number of the martyred was not so large. There were probably fewer Christians that lost their lives in any one persecution than there were Chinese Christians who suffered at the hands of the Boxers or Armenian believers at the hands of the Turks in these last years. But the danger was an always present one, though active persecution came and went; and it was held over the Christians by the all-embracing power of the great empire.
More important than the actual number slain was the effect upon the life of the church. In times of active persecution not a few fell away. The church as a whole proved steadfast, and the noble example of loyal martyrs was of the deepest influence. Men remembered such words as those of Polycarp, who suffered in 166: "Fourscore and six years have I served him, and he has done me no wrong. How, then, can I speak evil of my King, who saved me?" Through all these years Christianity spread steadily. It entered the army. From the cities it spread to village and country. It began with the lowest ranks, but it reached some of wealth and high station. There is good reason to hold that Flavius Clemens, consul and cousin of the emperor, who was executed by Domitian, suffered that fate for being a Christian, as was also his wife Flavia Domitilla. "We are but of yesterday," writes Tertullian proudly a century or so later, "and yet we already fill your cities, islands, camps, your palace, senate, and forum. We have left you only your temples."
Directions for Reading and Study
Look carefully through James, First Peter, and Heb 10 to 12, finding in each of these one or more references to persecution of the Christians. Note especially Heb 11. It is not a theological study of faith, but has a practical purpose. What is this?
Read Rev 1 to 3. Make a list of some things commended and some criticized in these churches, giving references. Make a list of the passages containing the word "overcometh," and note the different rewards promised.
Read Rev 7:9-17 and 14:1-5. Note that these passages reflect the impression made upon the church by the death of the martyrs, and offer encouragement by the picture of their reward.
Read Rev 18 as to the fall of Rome. Compare Isa 14:3-20 and the lament over the fall of Babylon.
Read Rev 21:1 to 22:5 for the description of the New Jerusalem. Note the effort that is made to picture this to the eye.
—New Testament History
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are two words around which we may gather the story of these last years of the first century and opening decades of the second. They are bishops and martyrs. The first word suggests the change that took place in the inner life and organization of the church. The different steps of this change we cannot tell, but we do know the marked contrast between the church of 150 and the churches at the time of Paul's death. The churches of Paul had only the simplest organization, as we have seen. Men talked of service, not of authority. This service was of many kinds, but it was all the gift of one Spirit. The inspired prophets and teachers of the Word stood first. But the Spirit belonged to the whole church. A century later all this is changed. We find three offices in each church—bishop, elders. and deacons; but the authority is in the hands of the one man, the bishop. He is no longer the simple overseer. He has taken up within himself the various duties that at first belonged to different men or to the church as a whole. The practical affairs of the church are still in his hands, but these are of greatly increased importance. He has charge of the worship. Men are beginning to feel that the inspiration is no longer in the church as a whole, or in certain prophets and teachers, but in the bishop. The simple, unregulated worship is gone. There is no longer any chance for the irregularities that appeared at Corinth. The bishop presides at the service, which follows a regular order, and it is he that preaches. He has charge of the church discipline. The apostles and eyewitnesses are gone. He represents the tradition of what the true faith is. Instead of a group of overseers or elders, this bishop stands alone. Just what the position of the elders is we do not know. The deacons are simply the officers who carry out the bishop's directions. As yet, however, the bishop is not placed over any district or diocese; he simply directs the life of the one congregation.
All this took place very gradually. We do not know the steps, but we know some of the causes. (1) There was the decline of faith in immediate inspiration. The first outburst of enthusiasm gradually passed. There was a lessening number of prophets who felt themselves directly inspired. (2) There was found to be a need of regulating these inspired leaders. Paul had met this at Corinth. The inspiration did not always seem to be genuine or profitable to the church. All manner of things could be said and done and the claim made that they were inspired. Early writings show that some of these "prophets" made their inspiration a means of living off the church, and rules had to be adopted to guard against this. The conflict between the "officials" and the "inspired" leaders lasted through the second century, but long before the end the regularly chosen officials had taken the first place. (3) The same need of order appeared in other respects. As the church grew, its practical interests increased in importance and number. Matters of discipline, of the care of the poor, of protection in times of persecution, of representation of the local church so that it could act with other churches, and other like interest demanded responsible men in permanent position. With the second century questions of doctrine became ever more important. Over against all manner of vagaries and strange teachings these officials stood as the custodians and guarantors of the faith handed down from the apostles.
It has been suggested by some that the third epistle of John is a witness of the early stage of the controversy between the regular official, or bishop, and the inspired prophets. Diotrephes seems to have been such an official who refused to welcome the traveling prophets when they came: "Neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and them that would he forbiddeth and casteth them out of the church" (3 John 10). He is censured as a church boss, "who loveth to have the preeminence." Gaius, to whom the letter is addressed, is bidden to receive the "brethren and strangers," and to set them forward on their journey. All these changes occurred gradually, and they were in process during the last years of the first century.
In its moral life the church seems to have made steady advance. Roman critics of Christianity like Pliny admit the moral excellence of the life of its followers. The writings of this time all show the constant emphasis upon the pure and true life. The charity of the church was especially rich and beautiful. And yet there was wisdom in its exercise. The traveling brother was cared for two or three days. If he did not pass on then, he was to work; but the church was to help him find employment. The church had followed in the line of Paul's teaching: "If any will not work, neither let him eat" (2 Thess 3:10). No doubt the industry and sobriety which the church inculcated helped to make it an economic force in the empire.
The regular worship of the church was on the first day of the week. Though more and more under the direct leadership of one official, it was still a very simple service. Lessons were read from the prophets of the Old Testament. New Testament writings were not yet placed by the side of this as Sacred Scripture, but there is little doubt that in different parts of the church letters of Paul or portions of gospel story were read, the latter being called the "memoirs of the apostles." In earlier days the prophets and other inspired leaders would speak; later this fell to the officials. The church had inherited the psalms from the synagogue and used these in her service. To these she added Christian hymns. It is perhaps a portion of one of these that we have in 1 Tim 3:16:
He who was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the spirit,
Seen of angels,
Preached among the nations,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory.
The Lord's Supper was celebrated in the morning. The regular church supper, known as the love feast, or agape, had been separated from the former and was held in the evening.
From the close of this period, that is, about the middle of the second century, dates the first formal creed of the church so far as known, probably originating in Rome. It was used by the candidate for baptism. The earliest baptism was with the simple words, "in the name of Jesus." Later the baptism was "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." This trinitarian formula was now expanded into a creed which still moved about the three persons of the Trinity. "I believe in God the Father almighty; and in Christ Jesus his only begotten Son, our Lord; born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate and buried, arising on the third day from the dead, seated on the right hand of God, whence he cometh to judge the living and the dead. And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy church, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the flesh." Like everything else at this time, this creed was referred back to the apostles and so was called the Apostles' Creed.
The first day of the week was regularly used for worship, and this may have been the case from the first. Its Christian name was Lord's Day (Rev I. 10). It was never called the Sabbath day, and was never by the early Christians identified with the latter. Paul had classed the Sabbath days with other Jewish customs made obsolete by the gospel (Col 2:16, 17; Gal 4:9, 10). As Sunday was not the Sabbath day, the Christians did not refrain from labor upon it. It was first of all a day of worship and gladness. Gradually it came to be a day of rest. But it was centuries before any one thought of confounding the Christian Lord's Day with the Jewish Sabbath, or of applying the fourth commandment to the former.
The other word about which the history of this period may be centered is that of martyr. It is the time of beginning persecutions on the part of the state. The word "martyr" means simply "witness," and the martyr was one who gave witness to his faith at peril or at cost of his life. It was Nero that began this persecution. The great conflagration at Rome occurred in the year 64. Rightly or wrongly, the popular mind charged Nero with the deed. Nor were the people satisfied even when he began to reimburse those that had suffered loss and to rebuild the city in splendid manner. They wanted some one to suffer for the crime. Nero picked upon the Christians for this purpose. They were poor, they were disliked. The people were ready to see them suffer, especially as their death was made a public sport; and Nero diverted attention from himself.
This of itself was simply an episode, but it seems that what Nero began in this special manner became a more or less settled attitude of hostility to the Christians on the part of the state. We are not sure of the date of the later writings of the New Testament, but Peter, large portions of First Timothy, James, and Revelation all come within this time, and all of these refer to persecutions.
Almost exactly a century after the burning of Rome, Pliny was sent by the emperor Trajan to be governor of Bithynia and Pontus in Asia Minor. There he found that the Christian religion had spread very widely, not simply in the cities where it was always strongest, but in villages and country also. The temples were being deserted, and trades that depended upon the temple patronage were being interfered with, such as the sale of fodder for animals kept for sacrifice. Pliny writes to inquire just how he is to proceed against the Christians, and whether he has been taking the right course. He does not ask whether he should proceed against them, but simply how; and the whole correspondence, which has been preserved for us, suggests that the hostile attitude of the state toward the Christians was a recognized policy.
Why should the empire have persecuted the Christians? It was not religious intolerance, for the empire welcomed and adopted all manner of faiths from all lands. It was not the crimes of the Christians. Whenever serious investigation was made, as by Pliny, the popular charges were seen to be unfounded. The real reason was political, with popular hatred pushing on the officers of the state. The one thing upon which Rome insisted was the unity of the empire and absolute reverence for her laws and order. With these interests Christianity seemed to interfere.
And first with the principle of "unity. The first fault of the Christians was that they stood for a unity which was not that of the empire. It was the unity of their faith, their brotherhood, of the kingdom of God. The Romans wanted no other bond of unity than that of the empire. With religious societies and religious meetings there was no interference. But other associations were most carefully watched. Benefit clubs among the poor, such as those with burial funds, were about the only associations tolerated, and these were strictly controlled. It was the fear of anything like a common political association among the people which countries like Russia and Turkey show in our own day. The Christians kept the laws of the empire. They planned no insurrection. The church was no political organization. And yet the government discerned rightly that here was a force that in its final spirit was opposed to the spirit of autocracy that belonged to Rome. Nevertheless the church in the end might have saved the empire, if her help had been called upon soon enough. Rome relied upon an external and autocratic power to hold the empire. That was not enough. It was the decay of the people that caused her doom, and the church might have changed that decay into life.
Later on the refusal of the Christians to worship the emperor was a charge brought against them. But this too was looked upon as political and not religious. The worship of the emperor was simply one part of the plan to assert and secure the political unity of the empire. This emperor cult is referred to in Rev 13 as the worship of the beast.
Back of this principle of the state there lay the strong prejudice of the people which was shared by officers and emperors as well. The prejudice took many forms. (1) There was the opposition, such as Paul met at Ephesus, of tradesmen whose business suffered by the spread of Christianity with its hostility to pagan worship and to the practice of vice. Then, as now, there were large profits joined to such practices, and we need only think of the hostility shown today by those who make profit from commercialized vice in saloon and gambling den and brothel.
(2) There was no doubt personal opposition from those whose families had been divided, who saw believers separating from fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters because of the new faith. Enemies could only explain this strange power over converts by charging sorcery and magic,
(3) There were unfounded charges that were raised against the Christians for centuries. The Lord's Supper, with its wine used as symbol of blood, was made the occasion for the story that Christians killed little children and drank their blood, just as the charge of ritual murder against the Jews still persists in Russia today. Profligacy was charged because of the secret meetings at which both sexes were present. (4) More than anything else, it was the inflexible attitude of the Christians about certain matters that angered the people and brought the severe condemnation of even men like Pliny and later on the emperor Marcus Aurelius. Aside from Judaism, Christianity represented here something wholly new in religion, for which even Marcus Aurelius had no comprehension. For the Romans religion was a matter of social custom and convention. Its forms could be changed or added to at will. To add a new form or a new god might be very wise and safe. It might even be well to erect an altar to an "unknown god," lest one should have been overlooked. In any case, there was no possible harm in such conformity. For the Christians religion was a principle of conscience and a supreme loyalty to one God: "We must obey God rather than men." To others the attitude of the Christians seemed nothing short of willful perversity and wicked obstinacy. "Especially did this appear when they were brought up for trial. Often all that was asked was to pour out a little wine before a shrine of the emperor, or to deny the Name with which they were called, the name of Christ. Such refusal angered officials as well as people. To the former it seemed highly dangerous: it was the spirit of insubordination which in an individual might not be serious, but in a great and growing fellowship meant danger to the empire.
For this reason, as we learn from Pliny's letters, it was thought enough to convict a man of being a Christian, even though no special crimes were charged against him. Over against this, the Christian leaders of the second century pleaded that they might be convicted upon the proof of crime, not by the charges of prejudice. Their position is nobly voiced by a word of Justin Martyr that has come down from the middle of this century: "It is our maxim that we can suffer harm from none, unless we be convicted as doers of evil, or proved to be wicked. You may slay us, indeed, but you cannot hurt us. But, lest any should say that this is a senseless and rash assertion, I entreat that the charges against us may be examined; and if they be substantiated, let us be punished as is right." He pleads that "neither by prejudice nor desire of popularity from the superstitious, nor by any unthinking impulse of zeal, nor by that evil report which has so long kept possession of your minds, you may be urged to give a decision against yourselves."
The book of Revelation is a writing born out of this situation of persecution and danger. It may be studied either as an apocalypse of the future, giving us prediction of what is to be, or as a book of religion written to strengthen faith and give comfort. All apocalypses have this double character. They come out of times of great persecution and danger. Their purpose is to encourage the faithful lest they fall away. The method of these books is that of visions. The writers are prophets who see. They use pictures and symbols constantly. These pictures are not original with the individual writer. They are more or less the common language of such productions.
While we cannot interpret with certainty all the symbols of the book, its general meaning on the apocalyptic side is clear. It sets forth the story of the future in pictures. Rome has been persecuting the Christians. Her time is now fulfilled. She is the Babylon that is to be destroyed. The world is hopelessly evil. Salvation is to come not by the growth and spread of the Christian faith, but by a great catastrophe which is to destroy the present world. Then the New Jerusalem is to be let down out of heaven. In it the saints are to be gathered together and God is to dwell with them in the city of light.
All this apocalypticism represents something taken over from the Jewish church of which Christianity was gradually ridding itself. More and more the church saw that the world was to be changed and the kingdom was to come by gradual moral and spiritual conquest, and for this reason many opposed the reception of this book into the New Testament.
But all this must not hide from us the real message of the work. That lies in its practical purpose which is apparent all the way through. The book was probably written about 95, in the reign of Domitian, but it reflects the conditions of Nero's persecution as well. The disciples are in danger. They are facing the demand that they should worship the beast, that is, the image of the emperor, or else be put to death (Rev 13:15). The writer sets before them the end that is near at hand. He brings a message of warning: the Lord is coming as a thief in the night; let his followers cleanse themselves from all evil, for he will give to each one according to his works. But above all he writes for encouragement, that he may help believers to remain faithful.
The words of warning are found especially in the messages to the seven churches of Asia Minor to which the writing is addressed. These opening chapters give us a picture of the church life of the time. On the whole, the picture is encouraging. Three dangers are in these warnings. There was the danger of simple indifference, the loss of spiritual life: "Thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead" (3:1). "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot" (3:15). There was the danger of sinful laxness, such as appeared at Corinth, joining in the old idol feasts and pagan practices. This is probably what is meant by the reference to the Nicolaitans (2:6), to Balaam (2:14, 15), and to "the woman Jezebel" (2:20). Such faithlessness is called fornication, after the manner of the Old Testament prophets. The third danger was that of apostasy. It is significant of the higher moral life of the churches that the references are not to common immoralities.
The dominant note, however, is that of encouragement. Let the disciples be faithful, first of all, because of the sure reward. "To him that overcometh, to him will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God." "Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee the crown of life" (2:7, 10). In varied phrase there is set forth again and again the reward for "him that overcometh." The second cause for encouragement for the persecuted Christians is the coming overthrow of Rome and the powers of evil. Rome is "Babylon the Great," "the woman drunken with the blood of the saints," "the great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth" (17:5, 6, 18). But her hour is come. The kings of the earth and the merchants who shared in her wealth shall look on and mourn her destruction and her torment. Not so the saints: "Rejoice over her, thou heaven and ye saints, and ye apostles, and ye prophets; for God hath judged your judgment upon her" (18:9-20). The final cause for encouragement is the vision of the glory that awaits the saints, the new heaven and new earth that are to come when the old is destroyed. "And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of the throne saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he shall dwell with them, and they shall be his peoples, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God" (21:1-4).
The real message of the book lies not in the visions of destruction nor in other prophecies of things to come. Neither do we find it in the elaborate pictures of the new Jerusalem, with its equal length and breadth and height. Rather it is in that great faith which breathes through all Messianic and apocalyptic hope from the Old Testament prophets on: No forces of evil can stand out against the power of God. Whatever the oppression and the burden now, God and good and righteousness shall rule in the earth.
The persecution of the Christians continued intermittently long after this period. The actual number of the martyred was not so large. There were probably fewer Christians that lost their lives in any one persecution than there were Chinese Christians who suffered at the hands of the Boxers or Armenian believers at the hands of the Turks in these last years. But the danger was an always present one, though active persecution came and went; and it was held over the Christians by the all-embracing power of the great empire.
More important than the actual number slain was the effect upon the life of the church. In times of active persecution not a few fell away. The church as a whole proved steadfast, and the noble example of loyal martyrs was of the deepest influence. Men remembered such words as those of Polycarp, who suffered in 166: "Fourscore and six years have I served him, and he has done me no wrong. How, then, can I speak evil of my King, who saved me?" Through all these years Christianity spread steadily. It entered the army. From the cities it spread to village and country. It began with the lowest ranks, but it reached some of wealth and high station. There is good reason to hold that Flavius Clemens, consul and cousin of the emperor, who was executed by Domitian, suffered that fate for being a Christian, as was also his wife Flavia Domitilla. "We are but of yesterday," writes Tertullian proudly a century or so later, "and yet we already fill your cities, islands, camps, your palace, senate, and forum. We have left you only your temples."
Directions for Reading and Study
Look carefully through James, First Peter, and Heb 10 to 12, finding in each of these one or more references to persecution of the Christians. Note especially Heb 11. It is not a theological study of faith, but has a practical purpose. What is this?
Read Rev 1 to 3. Make a list of some things commended and some criticized in these churches, giving references. Make a list of the passages containing the word "overcometh," and note the different rewards promised.
Read Rev 7:9-17 and 14:1-5. Note that these passages reflect the impression made upon the church by the death of the martyrs, and offer encouragement by the picture of their reward.
Read Rev 18 as to the fall of Rome. Compare Isa 14:3-20 and the lament over the fall of Babylon.
Read Rev 21:1 to 22:5 for the description of the New Jerusalem. Note the effort that is made to picture this to the eye.
—New Testament History
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Making of the New Testament
If the church at the time of Paul's death be compared with the church of the year 200, two great changes will be noted. The first of these has just been discussed. It is the change from the simple brotherhood to the ecclesiastical institution, from the free guidance of the Spirit and its democracy to the single bishop in each church with his supreme authority. The second change came with the making of a Christian Scripture, our own New Testament. The church of the year 50 had its gospel, but it was not a writing or a book. The church of the year 200 had its collection of sacred writings which it placed by the side of the Old Testament.
No other deed of the early church was so important as this. We cannot conceive the history of Christianity without these Christian writings. Nor can we overestimate what the treasure is that has been thus bequeathed to us. We need only think of two of its parts—the Gospels and Paul. The great fact of Christianity is Christ. It is not some doctrine about him, nor some institution developed by his followers. The great creative fact from which all else sprang is the life and spirit and teaching of Jesus. That is what the Gospels bring us. They simply set Jesus before us, and let him walk and speak and work his great deeds. Next to him stands Paul, not the creator but the matchless interpreter. No one experienced the meaning of the new faith in such fullness and depth as he; no one set it forth with such clearness and power. Every religious movement undergoes change. It develops creeds and ceremonies and institutions, and it has need of these. But often the life itself dies beneath the weight of all this, or else its spirit is radically changed. Christianity has not escaped this danger, but it has always had its New Testament, the writings that set forth the great creative source in Jesus and the first and greatest interpretation in Paul. And so it has always kept the means for its own reformation.
The gaining of the New Testament as a fixed collection of sacred writings was not without its danger as well, as history has shown. There was the danger that men should worship the letter of these writings and lose the spirit which they were meant to preserve. There was the danger of the idea of the sacredness of the letter, a theory that was taken from Judaism. There was the possibility that the book and its words might take the place of the Christ and his gospel as Paul stood for them. But the making of the New Testament, in any case, was inevitable, and we have simply to ask how it came about. Here, again, we must go beyond the apostolic age into the second century in order to understand what the first century had begun.
There are two distinct questions to be considered: First, How did these writings come to be composed? Second, How did the church come to regard these writings as sacred, to form them into a collection, and to set them by the side of the Old Testament?
It was the living word that counted in the early church and not the writing. Jesus himself neither wrote nor ordered the writing of his sayings. When he sent his disciples forth it was to preach. They were to win men by the living word. They needed no authority of book. They had simply to bear the good news to men. It was the same with Paul as with the first disciples, and it remained the same for the first century and longer. It was a practical necessity that caused men to take the pen, and the writing was distinctly secondary to the spoken word. How this came about with Paul has already been seen. The apostle could not always be present with the various churches. Sometimes he sent special messengers. Often he wrote to them to say what he would otherwise have spoken face to face.
The story of the writing of the Gospels is largely hidden from us. What Luke tells us in his opening verses is very interesting. He says that many had undertaken to write the gospel story before him. He indicates that these, like himself, were not eyewitnesses, but had to depend upon what had been handed down by those who were, and he seems to imply that he had used all these accounts as well as other material to make a complete and ordered story. What these earliest accounts were we do not know. They probably precede all of our Gospels except, possibly, Mark. We have one ancient tradition coming indirectly from a church father named Papias, and dating about a century after Jesus' death. Papias says: "Matthew composed the oracles [or sayings] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as he could." He also tells us that Mark wrote down accurately, though not in order, everything that Peter related of the things said or done by Christ. In addition to this, scholars have carefully compared the Gospels themselves to gain what light they could. They have found evidence that at least two of these Gospels, Matthew and Luke, have used earlier writings, and not simply as sources, but by incorporating their materials with very little change. One of these sources was Mark's Gospel itself. Another seems to have been a collection of the sayings of Jesus.
With these suggestions we can outline the probable story of the forming of our present gospel accounts, dividing this into three stages:
1. The oral period came first. The disciples who had known Jesus told the story of his life and death in preaching to others, and repeated his teachings for the instruction and guidance of believers. Repeated over and over again, the parables of Jesus, his pointed sayings, and stories like those of his healings, would come to have fixed forms. There was no thought of writing and for two reasons: first, because the church would naturally prefer the living voice of one who had seen and heard Jesus; and, second, because all were expecting the speedy return of Christ and so had no thought of writings to preserve his words for the future. This may have lasted for years, but the need of writings soon appeared. The church was spreading rapidly. There were not enough of these eyewitnesses to go around. As the years passed too they began to diminish by death. What was more natural than to secure in writing brief collections of the sayings of Jesus, or stories of his deeds and particularly of his death? Before this individual believers had probably written down for their own use sayings or stories heard from a Peter, a John, or another first disciple.
2. Thus we have the period of the first writings. One of these was the collection of sayings of which Papias speaks, made by Matthew or by some disciple upon the basis of Matthew's teaching. Another was the simple story of Jesus' deeds as we have it in the Gospel of Mark, written probably by John Mark, with Peter as his sponsor. Other and briefer collections of sayings and accounts of incidents were made, but we have no individual knowledge of them.
3. As a third stage we have our present completed Gospels. It should be remembered that none of these gives in itself the name of the author. The names at the head of these writings in our English Bibles are simply the tradition of the church. Here, again, we can only speak of probabilities. Mark is probably the oldest Gospel and substantially the same as the story just referred to. Matthew, comes next, bearing this name because it contains the collection of sayings which came from the apostle. The compiler, however, used not only this collection, but large portions of Mark, and other materials as well. Luke also used these two sources, the sayings and Mark. He had other sources, however, in addition, as he indicates, and from these he gets such stories as those of Dives and Lazarus, the good Samaritan, and the prodigal son, which he alone gives. These three Gospels, in the order named, were probably written in the years between 50 and 90, such a source as Matthew's collection of sayings being still earlier.
It is quite probable that the other New Testament writings all had some special occasion for their composition, just as the letters of Paul. Revelation was written to strengthen the Christians against persecutions. First John was directed against particular heresies which it attacks specifically. The fourth Gospel had a similar practical and immediate purpose.
But the story of how these writings were composed does not answer our second and main question: How did the church come to make a special collection of them, to include these and no others, and to set them on a level with the Old Testament as sacred writings? Nothing was farther than this from the minds of the writers. The early church had two authorities. The first was the Old Testament, especially the prophets, which it interpreted from the Christian point of view. The Old Testament was the Bible of the early church, and for over a hundred years it was its only Bible. This alone was read in its worship as Sacred Scripture. To it the appeal was made in argument as we see from Paul. The second authority was the words of Jesus. This too was final, and stood even above the Old Testament. Nothing shows more the complete mastery that Jesus had over his disciples than this fact. These Jews, brought up from childhood to reverence the law and the prophets as the absolute and final word of God, yet retained and accepted the word of Jesus when he set himself above this and declared, "But I say unto you." Neither Paul nor any of the evangelists thought of putting their words as final authority for the church by the side of the Old Testament or the words of Jesus.
In a sense too the word about Jesus, the gospel, or good news, was authority. This was what they believed, the faith that made the Christians one. But this authority belongs to the gospel as a living word, not to any writing as such that brings it, whether the story according to Mark or the sermon according to Paul as given in his letters. For a century and more this remains true. The early writers are very careful to quote the exact words of the Old Testament. Not so with the writings of the New Testament. Here it is the thought that counts, not the words. It is not these writings that they hold sacred, but the gospel in these writings. "I delivered unto you first of all," Paul says, "that which I received" (1 Cor 15:3). These men were anxious to hand down the message that they had received, the pure gospel, and the writings were a help to this, but they had not made a Bible of the writings.
All this does not mean that the writers did not feel that they were inspired, that they were moved by the Spirit of God. They felt this just as truly as did the teachers and prophets at Corinth of whom we have studied. That faith was universal in the early church. Nor did it cease with our writings. Clement, who writes about 95 for the Roman church to the church at Corinth, makes the same kind of claim that the writer of Revelation makes (22.18, 19). But neither of these men would have put their writings on a level with the Old Testament. Such a declaration as that of 1 Tim 3:15-16 refers plainly to the Old Testament, the sacred writings which Timothy had studied from his youth. We see the same distinction in First Corinthians. Paul feels that he has the Spirit of God, but he distinguishes carefully between the Old Testament to which he appeals, the words of Jesus, and his own judgment (1 Cor 7:10, 12, 25, 40; 9:9). Aside from the sense of inspiration, there was a special respect given to the authority of the apostles from the beginning, and this grew with the passing years. Clement of Rome feels that he is speaking by the Spirit of God, but he does not think of placing himself beside an apostle like Paul.
The use of these writings in the worship of the church was the first step that prepared the way for their valuation as Scripture. Such a use must have been very early, and came about very naturally. When one of Paul's churches received a letter from him, they were certainly not contented with reading it once. It would be read again and again as they met for worship, till it was fixed in their minds. It would be referred to later to help settle questions that arose. Thus Clement in his letter from Rome advises the Corinthians to take up again Paul's letter to them. What Paul suggests to the Colossians (4:16), that they exchange letters with the Laodiceans, must have taken place between other churches. Small collections of Paul's letters would thus be made. In the absence of Paul these would be read to the congregation. In the same manner any church might count itself fortunate to possess one of the Gospels, so that they might hear the words of Jesus or stories of his deeds.
Such use does not imply that these writings were as yet regarded as "Bible." The Old Testament was the Bible and was read as such in the service. The epistles and Gospels came in the place of the sermon. They were not the sacred text from which men preached; they were rather the message itself, the gospel which was read when no one was present to give it with living voice. It was in the second century that the change took place. It was a gradual and natural change. Read so long by the side of the Old Testament, the writings began to share the position of the former. The church, moreover, began to see that her real message, the truth which justified her, lay in these Christian books; and more and more reverence was being attached to the men of the first age who wrote them.
It was another cause that hastened this process and compelled the church to take definite action. We have noted the rise of heresies in connection with the writings of John by which they were opposed. About the middle of the second century these began to seriously threaten the church. The most notable leader was Marcion. He joined an appreciation of Paul with a strange mixture of wild speculation. He claimed, of course, to represent the true Christian tradition. The Old Testament he threw out altogether. Then he set up a Christian collection, or canon, in its stead. This included the Gospel of Luke with ten epistles of Paul, omitting the pastoral letters. Even from these he cut out the passages that did not agree with his position.
The first Christian canon was thus made by a heretic. The word "canon" originally meant a rule for measuring. As applied to the Scriptures it means the collection made according to a given rule and including the writings that are held as sacred and authoritative. The church was thus compelled to face the question which for years had really been present: What are the writings that really represent the Christian tradition and authority? It needed a definite body of Scriptures to oppose to Marcion and others like him.
The first task of the church here was not to make a collection. That was already made, for the church possessed all these writings. The real problem was that of exclusion. There were many other writings current among the churches besides those of our present New Testament. Some of these had only local currency. Others were quite widely used. The epistle of Hermas and the Gospel of the Hebrews were among the latter. On the other hand, some of the books of our New Testament were not generally accepted. Such were Revelation, Hebrews, Jude, Second Peter, and Second and Third John. Two influences seem to have shaped the decision of the church in its selections. One was the extent to which these writings had been used in the worship of the church. The other was the apostolic character of the writings. What the church wanted was to state and to guard the true tradition. Marcion had appealed to one apostle. They wished to bring forward the authority of them all. The book of Acts aided in this, as it was held to set forth the acts of all the apostles. There were, of course, writings long held in high esteem and used in the worship of the church that did not come or claim to come from the apostles. In case of Mark the authority of Peter was called upon; in case of Luke and Acts the author was vouched for by his association with Paul.
We must not picture this work as being done at one time or by unanimous consent. It was not decided by some universal church council. The discussion and differences as to the books mentioned above continued for a matter of two centuries. The main work, however, was done within a period of fifty years. By the year 200 the large part of the church accepted the canon substantially as we have it now. Two great divisions were taken in without question: the four Gospels with Acts, and the thirteen letters of Paul. Of the other writings First John and First Peter were generally received. Revelation was opposed in some quarters because of its views on the second coming. Hebrews was not generally received until it was attributed to Paul. There was thus practically no question about the great and essential parts of our New Testament.
Looking back, one cannot but say that the church was guided in this work by the same Spirit by which the early church had felt itself controlled. It is our duty, it is true, to distinguish between the various writings in the New Testament. Some of these works, like James and Revelation, were criticized by the great reformers, especially Luther. But this was because they tried to apply one fixed standard to them all. The relative value of these books is suggested by the attitude of the early church. We place first, as they did, the Gospels and Paul, and in this order. Roughly speaking, the books about whose acceptance there was some question are those which are of lesser value today. An equally important question is often asked: Were not valuable writings omitted, writings that might have equal claim to be inspired? There were other Christian writings of value, some of them preserved for us, but there is not one of these which could command the support of scholars if the canon were being formed anew today.
—New Testament History ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Making of the New Testament
If the church at the time of Paul's death be compared with the church of the year 200, two great changes will be noted. The first of these has just been discussed. It is the change from the simple brotherhood to the ecclesiastical institution, from the free guidance of the Spirit and its democracy to the single bishop in each church with his supreme authority. The second change came with the making of a Christian Scripture, our own New Testament. The church of the year 50 had its gospel, but it was not a writing or a book. The church of the year 200 had its collection of sacred writings which it placed by the side of the Old Testament.
No other deed of the early church was so important as this. We cannot conceive the history of Christianity without these Christian writings. Nor can we overestimate what the treasure is that has been thus bequeathed to us. We need only think of two of its parts—the Gospels and Paul. The great fact of Christianity is Christ. It is not some doctrine about him, nor some institution developed by his followers. The great creative fact from which all else sprang is the life and spirit and teaching of Jesus. That is what the Gospels bring us. They simply set Jesus before us, and let him walk and speak and work his great deeds. Next to him stands Paul, not the creator but the matchless interpreter. No one experienced the meaning of the new faith in such fullness and depth as he; no one set it forth with such clearness and power. Every religious movement undergoes change. It develops creeds and ceremonies and institutions, and it has need of these. But often the life itself dies beneath the weight of all this, or else its spirit is radically changed. Christianity has not escaped this danger, but it has always had its New Testament, the writings that set forth the great creative source in Jesus and the first and greatest interpretation in Paul. And so it has always kept the means for its own reformation.
The gaining of the New Testament as a fixed collection of sacred writings was not without its danger as well, as history has shown. There was the danger that men should worship the letter of these writings and lose the spirit which they were meant to preserve. There was the danger of the idea of the sacredness of the letter, a theory that was taken from Judaism. There was the possibility that the book and its words might take the place of the Christ and his gospel as Paul stood for them. But the making of the New Testament, in any case, was inevitable, and we have simply to ask how it came about. Here, again, we must go beyond the apostolic age into the second century in order to understand what the first century had begun.
There are two distinct questions to be considered: First, How did these writings come to be composed? Second, How did the church come to regard these writings as sacred, to form them into a collection, and to set them by the side of the Old Testament?
It was the living word that counted in the early church and not the writing. Jesus himself neither wrote nor ordered the writing of his sayings. When he sent his disciples forth it was to preach. They were to win men by the living word. They needed no authority of book. They had simply to bear the good news to men. It was the same with Paul as with the first disciples, and it remained the same for the first century and longer. It was a practical necessity that caused men to take the pen, and the writing was distinctly secondary to the spoken word. How this came about with Paul has already been seen. The apostle could not always be present with the various churches. Sometimes he sent special messengers. Often he wrote to them to say what he would otherwise have spoken face to face.
The story of the writing of the Gospels is largely hidden from us. What Luke tells us in his opening verses is very interesting. He says that many had undertaken to write the gospel story before him. He indicates that these, like himself, were not eyewitnesses, but had to depend upon what had been handed down by those who were, and he seems to imply that he had used all these accounts as well as other material to make a complete and ordered story. What these earliest accounts were we do not know. They probably precede all of our Gospels except, possibly, Mark. We have one ancient tradition coming indirectly from a church father named Papias, and dating about a century after Jesus' death. Papias says: "Matthew composed the oracles [or sayings] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as he could." He also tells us that Mark wrote down accurately, though not in order, everything that Peter related of the things said or done by Christ. In addition to this, scholars have carefully compared the Gospels themselves to gain what light they could. They have found evidence that at least two of these Gospels, Matthew and Luke, have used earlier writings, and not simply as sources, but by incorporating their materials with very little change. One of these sources was Mark's Gospel itself. Another seems to have been a collection of the sayings of Jesus.
With these suggestions we can outline the probable story of the forming of our present gospel accounts, dividing this into three stages:
1. The oral period came first. The disciples who had known Jesus told the story of his life and death in preaching to others, and repeated his teachings for the instruction and guidance of believers. Repeated over and over again, the parables of Jesus, his pointed sayings, and stories like those of his healings, would come to have fixed forms. There was no thought of writing and for two reasons: first, because the church would naturally prefer the living voice of one who had seen and heard Jesus; and, second, because all were expecting the speedy return of Christ and so had no thought of writings to preserve his words for the future. This may have lasted for years, but the need of writings soon appeared. The church was spreading rapidly. There were not enough of these eyewitnesses to go around. As the years passed too they began to diminish by death. What was more natural than to secure in writing brief collections of the sayings of Jesus, or stories of his deeds and particularly of his death? Before this individual believers had probably written down for their own use sayings or stories heard from a Peter, a John, or another first disciple.
2. Thus we have the period of the first writings. One of these was the collection of sayings of which Papias speaks, made by Matthew or by some disciple upon the basis of Matthew's teaching. Another was the simple story of Jesus' deeds as we have it in the Gospel of Mark, written probably by John Mark, with Peter as his sponsor. Other and briefer collections of sayings and accounts of incidents were made, but we have no individual knowledge of them.
3. As a third stage we have our present completed Gospels. It should be remembered that none of these gives in itself the name of the author. The names at the head of these writings in our English Bibles are simply the tradition of the church. Here, again, we can only speak of probabilities. Mark is probably the oldest Gospel and substantially the same as the story just referred to. Matthew, comes next, bearing this name because it contains the collection of sayings which came from the apostle. The compiler, however, used not only this collection, but large portions of Mark, and other materials as well. Luke also used these two sources, the sayings and Mark. He had other sources, however, in addition, as he indicates, and from these he gets such stories as those of Dives and Lazarus, the good Samaritan, and the prodigal son, which he alone gives. These three Gospels, in the order named, were probably written in the years between 50 and 90, such a source as Matthew's collection of sayings being still earlier.
It is quite probable that the other New Testament writings all had some special occasion for their composition, just as the letters of Paul. Revelation was written to strengthen the Christians against persecutions. First John was directed against particular heresies which it attacks specifically. The fourth Gospel had a similar practical and immediate purpose.
But the story of how these writings were composed does not answer our second and main question: How did the church come to make a special collection of them, to include these and no others, and to set them on a level with the Old Testament as sacred writings? Nothing was farther than this from the minds of the writers. The early church had two authorities. The first was the Old Testament, especially the prophets, which it interpreted from the Christian point of view. The Old Testament was the Bible of the early church, and for over a hundred years it was its only Bible. This alone was read in its worship as Sacred Scripture. To it the appeal was made in argument as we see from Paul. The second authority was the words of Jesus. This too was final, and stood even above the Old Testament. Nothing shows more the complete mastery that Jesus had over his disciples than this fact. These Jews, brought up from childhood to reverence the law and the prophets as the absolute and final word of God, yet retained and accepted the word of Jesus when he set himself above this and declared, "But I say unto you." Neither Paul nor any of the evangelists thought of putting their words as final authority for the church by the side of the Old Testament or the words of Jesus.
In a sense too the word about Jesus, the gospel, or good news, was authority. This was what they believed, the faith that made the Christians one. But this authority belongs to the gospel as a living word, not to any writing as such that brings it, whether the story according to Mark or the sermon according to Paul as given in his letters. For a century and more this remains true. The early writers are very careful to quote the exact words of the Old Testament. Not so with the writings of the New Testament. Here it is the thought that counts, not the words. It is not these writings that they hold sacred, but the gospel in these writings. "I delivered unto you first of all," Paul says, "that which I received" (1 Cor 15:3). These men were anxious to hand down the message that they had received, the pure gospel, and the writings were a help to this, but they had not made a Bible of the writings.
All this does not mean that the writers did not feel that they were inspired, that they were moved by the Spirit of God. They felt this just as truly as did the teachers and prophets at Corinth of whom we have studied. That faith was universal in the early church. Nor did it cease with our writings. Clement, who writes about 95 for the Roman church to the church at Corinth, makes the same kind of claim that the writer of Revelation makes (22.18, 19). But neither of these men would have put their writings on a level with the Old Testament. Such a declaration as that of 1 Tim 3:15-16 refers plainly to the Old Testament, the sacred writings which Timothy had studied from his youth. We see the same distinction in First Corinthians. Paul feels that he has the Spirit of God, but he distinguishes carefully between the Old Testament to which he appeals, the words of Jesus, and his own judgment (1 Cor 7:10, 12, 25, 40; 9:9). Aside from the sense of inspiration, there was a special respect given to the authority of the apostles from the beginning, and this grew with the passing years. Clement of Rome feels that he is speaking by the Spirit of God, but he does not think of placing himself beside an apostle like Paul.
The use of these writings in the worship of the church was the first step that prepared the way for their valuation as Scripture. Such a use must have been very early, and came about very naturally. When one of Paul's churches received a letter from him, they were certainly not contented with reading it once. It would be read again and again as they met for worship, till it was fixed in their minds. It would be referred to later to help settle questions that arose. Thus Clement in his letter from Rome advises the Corinthians to take up again Paul's letter to them. What Paul suggests to the Colossians (4:16), that they exchange letters with the Laodiceans, must have taken place between other churches. Small collections of Paul's letters would thus be made. In the absence of Paul these would be read to the congregation. In the same manner any church might count itself fortunate to possess one of the Gospels, so that they might hear the words of Jesus or stories of his deeds.
Such use does not imply that these writings were as yet regarded as "Bible." The Old Testament was the Bible and was read as such in the service. The epistles and Gospels came in the place of the sermon. They were not the sacred text from which men preached; they were rather the message itself, the gospel which was read when no one was present to give it with living voice. It was in the second century that the change took place. It was a gradual and natural change. Read so long by the side of the Old Testament, the writings began to share the position of the former. The church, moreover, began to see that her real message, the truth which justified her, lay in these Christian books; and more and more reverence was being attached to the men of the first age who wrote them.
It was another cause that hastened this process and compelled the church to take definite action. We have noted the rise of heresies in connection with the writings of John by which they were opposed. About the middle of the second century these began to seriously threaten the church. The most notable leader was Marcion. He joined an appreciation of Paul with a strange mixture of wild speculation. He claimed, of course, to represent the true Christian tradition. The Old Testament he threw out altogether. Then he set up a Christian collection, or canon, in its stead. This included the Gospel of Luke with ten epistles of Paul, omitting the pastoral letters. Even from these he cut out the passages that did not agree with his position.
The first Christian canon was thus made by a heretic. The word "canon" originally meant a rule for measuring. As applied to the Scriptures it means the collection made according to a given rule and including the writings that are held as sacred and authoritative. The church was thus compelled to face the question which for years had really been present: What are the writings that really represent the Christian tradition and authority? It needed a definite body of Scriptures to oppose to Marcion and others like him.
The first task of the church here was not to make a collection. That was already made, for the church possessed all these writings. The real problem was that of exclusion. There were many other writings current among the churches besides those of our present New Testament. Some of these had only local currency. Others were quite widely used. The epistle of Hermas and the Gospel of the Hebrews were among the latter. On the other hand, some of the books of our New Testament were not generally accepted. Such were Revelation, Hebrews, Jude, Second Peter, and Second and Third John. Two influences seem to have shaped the decision of the church in its selections. One was the extent to which these writings had been used in the worship of the church. The other was the apostolic character of the writings. What the church wanted was to state and to guard the true tradition. Marcion had appealed to one apostle. They wished to bring forward the authority of them all. The book of Acts aided in this, as it was held to set forth the acts of all the apostles. There were, of course, writings long held in high esteem and used in the worship of the church that did not come or claim to come from the apostles. In case of Mark the authority of Peter was called upon; in case of Luke and Acts the author was vouched for by his association with Paul.
We must not picture this work as being done at one time or by unanimous consent. It was not decided by some universal church council. The discussion and differences as to the books mentioned above continued for a matter of two centuries. The main work, however, was done within a period of fifty years. By the year 200 the large part of the church accepted the canon substantially as we have it now. Two great divisions were taken in without question: the four Gospels with Acts, and the thirteen letters of Paul. Of the other writings First John and First Peter were generally received. Revelation was opposed in some quarters because of its views on the second coming. Hebrews was not generally received until it was attributed to Paul. There was thus practically no question about the great and essential parts of our New Testament.
Looking back, one cannot but say that the church was guided in this work by the same Spirit by which the early church had felt itself controlled. It is our duty, it is true, to distinguish between the various writings in the New Testament. Some of these works, like James and Revelation, were criticized by the great reformers, especially Luther. But this was because they tried to apply one fixed standard to them all. The relative value of these books is suggested by the attitude of the early church. We place first, as they did, the Gospels and Paul, and in this order. Roughly speaking, the books about whose acceptance there was some question are those which are of lesser value today. An equally important question is often asked: Were not valuable writings omitted, writings that might have equal claim to be inspired? There were other Christian writings of value, some of them preserved for us, but there is not one of these which could command the support of scholars if the canon were being formed anew today.
—New Testament History ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why Go To Church?
A Church goer wrote a letter to the editor of a newspaper and complained that it made no sense to go to church every Sunday. "I've gone for 30 years now," he wrote, "and in that time I have heard something like 3,000 sermons. But for the life of me, I can't remember a single one of them.. So, I think I'm wasting my time and the pastors are wasting theirs by giving sermons at all."
This started a real controversy in the "Letters to the Editor" column, much to the delight of the editor. It went on for weeks until someone wrote this clincher:
"I've been married for 30 years now. In that time my wife has cooked some 32,000 meals. But, for the life of me, I cannot recall the entire menu for a single one of those meals. But I do know this.. They all nourished me and gave me the strength I needed to do my work. If my wife had not given me these meals, I would be physically dead today. Likewise, if I had not gone to church for nourishment, I would be spiritually dead today!" When you are DOWN to nothing..... God is UP to something! Faith sees the invisible, believes the incredible and receives the impossible! Thank God for our physical AND our spiritual nourishment!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A Church goer wrote a letter to the editor of a newspaper and complained that it made no sense to go to church every Sunday. "I've gone for 30 years now," he wrote, "and in that time I have heard something like 3,000 sermons. But for the life of me, I can't remember a single one of them.. So, I think I'm wasting my time and the pastors are wasting theirs by giving sermons at all."
This started a real controversy in the "Letters to the Editor" column, much to the delight of the editor. It went on for weeks until someone wrote this clincher:
"I've been married for 30 years now. In that time my wife has cooked some 32,000 meals. But, for the life of me, I cannot recall the entire menu for a single one of those meals. But I do know this.. They all nourished me and gave me the strength I needed to do my work. If my wife had not given me these meals, I would be physically dead today. Likewise, if I had not gone to church for nourishment, I would be spiritually dead today!" When you are DOWN to nothing..... God is UP to something! Faith sees the invisible, believes the incredible and receives the impossible! Thank God for our physical AND our spiritual nourishment!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE BIGGEST FAILURE OF THE CHURCH AGE
by C.I. Scofield
I believe that the failure of the Church to see that she is a separated, a called-out Body in the purposes of God, charged with a definite mission limited in its purpose and scope, and the endeavor to take from Israel her promises of earthly glory, and appropriate them over into this Church dispensation, has done more to swerve the Church from the appointed course than all other influences put together. It is not so much wealth, luxury, power, pomp, and pride that have served to deflect the Church from her appointed course, as the notion, founded upon Israelitish Old Testament promises, that the Church is of the world, and that therefore, her mission is to improve the world. Promises which were given to Israel alone are quoted as justifying what we see all about us today.
The Church, therefore, has failed to follow her appointed pathway of separation, holiness, heavenliness and testimony to an absent but coming Christ; she has turned aside from that purpose to the work of civilizing the world, building magnificent temples, and acquiring earthly power and wealth, and in this way, has ceased to follow in the footsteps of Him who had not where to lay His head. Did you ever put side by side the promises given to the Church, and to Israel, and see how absolutely in contrast they are? It is impossible to mingle them.
The Jew was promised an earthly inheritance, earthly wealth, earthly honor, earthly power. The Church is promised no such thing, but is pointed always to heaven as the place where she is to receive her rest and her reward. The promise to the Church is a promise of persecution, if faithful in this world, but a promise of a great inheritance and reward hereafter. In the meantime, she is to be a pilgrim body, passing through this scene, but abiding above.
In the New Testament we have the history of the Church down to the year 96 A.D. In the first chapter of Acts we have the birth of the Church, and oh, how beautiful she was in her first freshness of faith! It was a lovely manifestation of simplicity, unselfishness, holiness and spiritual power. Yet we pass on but a few years, and in the Epistles to the Corinthians, what do we find? Paul writes, "I hear there are divisions among you." They began then, and they have never ceased to this day. In the second and third chapters of Revelation we have the condition of the Church at that time; full of words still, but fallen from its first love.
After Ephesus, A.D. 96, comes the period of persecution. For three centuries the Church was in awful persecution. Then came a great change. The Emperor Constantine professed conversion, and Christianity became the court religion. Then the tables were turned and the Church began to persecute! And, of all things she should never have done, she became the persecutrix of the Jews! The Church, saved by faith in the Messiah who came from the Jews; having in her hand the Bible which was written by the Jews; receiving her teaching solely and only through Jewish sources, became, for one thousand years, the bitter, relentless, bloody persecutor of Judaism. With that came worldliness and priestly assumption, and the Dark Ages.
Then in the fifteenth century, came the Reformation out of which have come Protestant movements of various kinds. The Bible was put into the hands of the people, and has been translated into many tongues. With an open Bible came light and liberty again, but never union again. On the contrary, division followed division; sect followed sect. It is true that the great body of the churches believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, but they have turned aside the greater part of their resources, to the attempt to reform the world, to educate the world, and, in short, to anticipate the next dispensation in which those things belong, and to do the work that is distinctly set apart for restored and converted Israel in her Kingdom Age.
Is the Gospel then a failure? God forbid! The Gospel never failed, and can never fail. God's Word by the Gospel is accomplishing precisely the mission which was foreseen and foretold for it, that whereunto it was sent. And we must not forget, either, that the Gospel will yet bring this world to the Saviour. It is not at all a question of the ultimate triumph of the blessed Lord. The heathen may rage and the people imagine vain things, but the Father will yet set His King on His holy hill in Zion. Converted Israel, glorified saints, even a mighty angel shall yet proclaim the Gospel of the Kingdom, and "the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow into it" (Isa. 2:2). "The earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea" (Isa. 11:9). All this will surely come to pass, for the Lord hath spoken it--but not in this dispensation. This is the age of the "ecclesia"--of the called out ones.
Let me ask you, what is God doing in this age of ours? Is He not taking out of the Gentiles a people? A few Jews are being converted, for Paul tells us there is always a remnant in Israel according to the election of grace (Rom. 11:5), but the great, the altogether vast majority of the Church is taken out of the Gentiles. This we all see. To believe this is not at all a matter of faith, but of simple observation. Not, anywhere, the conversion of all, but everywhere, the taking out of some. The evangelization of the world, then, and not its conversion, is the mission committed to the Church. To do this, to preach the Gospel unto the uttermost parts of the earth, to offer salvation to every creature, is our responsibility. It is the divinely appointed means for the calling out of a people for His Name, the Church, the "Ecclesia."
Further, the purpose of the Father in this age is not the establishment of the Kingdom. The Old Testament prophets tell us in perfectly simple, unambiguous language how the Kingdom is to be brought in, who is to be its ruler, and the extent and character of that rule, and the result in the universal prevalence of peace and righteousness. Alas, nothing would suffice but the bringing of the prophets bodily over into this Church age! This is the irremediable disaster which the wild allegorizing of Origen and his school has inflicted upon exegesis. The intermingling of Church purpose with Kingdom purpose palsied evangelization for thirteen hundred years, and is today the heavy clog upon the feet of them who preach the glad tidings.
See how inevitably so. The Kingdom applies spiritual forces to the solution of material problems. How shall man live long and wisely? The Kingdom is the answer. How shall exact justice be done on earth? The Kingdom provides for it. When shall wars and human butchery cease in this blood-saturated earth? When the Kingdom is set up by the King Himself. When shall creation give up to man her potential secrets? In the Kingdom age. When shall the earth be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea? When the King and His Kingdom are here.
Of all these things the O.T. prophets are full. We turn to the New Testament and find what? The birth of the King, the heralding of the Kingdom as "at hand," the announcement in the Sermon on the Mount of the principles of the Kingdom, the utter refusal of Israel to receive her King, the passing of the Kingdom into the mixed and veiled condition set forth in the seven parables of Matthew Thirteen, its full revelation being postponed till "the harvest," which is fixed definitely "at the end of this age." And then the Kingdom being thus postponed, what is revealed as filling and occupying this age? THE CHURCH! Christians, let us leave the government of the world till the King comes; let us leave the civilizing of the world to be the incidental effect of the presence there of the Gospel of Christ, and let us give our time, our strength, our money, our days to the mission distinctively committed to the Church, namely, to make the Lord Jesus Christ known "to every creature"!
The Church, therefore, has failed to follow her appointed pathway of separation, holiness, heavenliness and testimony to an absent but coming Christ; she has turned aside from that purpose to the work of civilizing the world, building magnificent temples, and acquiring earthly power and wealth, and in this way, has ceased to follow in the footsteps of Him who had not where to lay His head. Did you ever put side by side the promises given to the Church, and to Israel, and see how absolutely in contrast they are? It is impossible to mingle them.
The Jew was promised an earthly inheritance, earthly wealth, earthly honor, earthly power. The Church is promised no such thing, but is pointed always to heaven as the place where she is to receive her rest and her reward. The promise to the Church is a promise of persecution, if faithful in this world, but a promise of a great inheritance and reward hereafter. In the meantime, she is to be a pilgrim body, passing through this scene, but abiding above.
In the New Testament we have the history of the Church down to the year 96 A.D. In the first chapter of Acts we have the birth of the Church, and oh, how beautiful she was in her first freshness of faith! It was a lovely manifestation of simplicity, unselfishness, holiness and spiritual power. Yet we pass on but a few years, and in the Epistles to the Corinthians, what do we find? Paul writes, "I hear there are divisions among you." They began then, and they have never ceased to this day. In the second and third chapters of Revelation we have the condition of the Church at that time; full of words still, but fallen from its first love.
After Ephesus, A.D. 96, comes the period of persecution. For three centuries the Church was in awful persecution. Then came a great change. The Emperor Constantine professed conversion, and Christianity became the court religion. Then the tables were turned and the Church began to persecute! And, of all things she should never have done, she became the persecutrix of the Jews! The Church, saved by faith in the Messiah who came from the Jews; having in her hand the Bible which was written by the Jews; receiving her teaching solely and only through Jewish sources, became, for one thousand years, the bitter, relentless, bloody persecutor of Judaism. With that came worldliness and priestly assumption, and the Dark Ages.
Then in the fifteenth century, came the Reformation out of which have come Protestant movements of various kinds. The Bible was put into the hands of the people, and has been translated into many tongues. With an open Bible came light and liberty again, but never union again. On the contrary, division followed division; sect followed sect. It is true that the great body of the churches believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, but they have turned aside the greater part of their resources, to the attempt to reform the world, to educate the world, and, in short, to anticipate the next dispensation in which those things belong, and to do the work that is distinctly set apart for restored and converted Israel in her Kingdom Age.
Is the Gospel then a failure? God forbid! The Gospel never failed, and can never fail. God's Word by the Gospel is accomplishing precisely the mission which was foreseen and foretold for it, that whereunto it was sent. And we must not forget, either, that the Gospel will yet bring this world to the Saviour. It is not at all a question of the ultimate triumph of the blessed Lord. The heathen may rage and the people imagine vain things, but the Father will yet set His King on His holy hill in Zion. Converted Israel, glorified saints, even a mighty angel shall yet proclaim the Gospel of the Kingdom, and "the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow into it" (Isa. 2:2). "The earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea" (Isa. 11:9). All this will surely come to pass, for the Lord hath spoken it--but not in this dispensation. This is the age of the "ecclesia"--of the called out ones.
Let me ask you, what is God doing in this age of ours? Is He not taking out of the Gentiles a people? A few Jews are being converted, for Paul tells us there is always a remnant in Israel according to the election of grace (Rom. 11:5), but the great, the altogether vast majority of the Church is taken out of the Gentiles. This we all see. To believe this is not at all a matter of faith, but of simple observation. Not, anywhere, the conversion of all, but everywhere, the taking out of some. The evangelization of the world, then, and not its conversion, is the mission committed to the Church. To do this, to preach the Gospel unto the uttermost parts of the earth, to offer salvation to every creature, is our responsibility. It is the divinely appointed means for the calling out of a people for His Name, the Church, the "Ecclesia."
Further, the purpose of the Father in this age is not the establishment of the Kingdom. The Old Testament prophets tell us in perfectly simple, unambiguous language how the Kingdom is to be brought in, who is to be its ruler, and the extent and character of that rule, and the result in the universal prevalence of peace and righteousness. Alas, nothing would suffice but the bringing of the prophets bodily over into this Church age! This is the irremediable disaster which the wild allegorizing of Origen and his school has inflicted upon exegesis. The intermingling of Church purpose with Kingdom purpose palsied evangelization for thirteen hundred years, and is today the heavy clog upon the feet of them who preach the glad tidings.
See how inevitably so. The Kingdom applies spiritual forces to the solution of material problems. How shall man live long and wisely? The Kingdom is the answer. How shall exact justice be done on earth? The Kingdom provides for it. When shall wars and human butchery cease in this blood-saturated earth? When the Kingdom is set up by the King Himself. When shall creation give up to man her potential secrets? In the Kingdom age. When shall the earth be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea? When the King and His Kingdom are here.
Of all these things the O.T. prophets are full. We turn to the New Testament and find what? The birth of the King, the heralding of the Kingdom as "at hand," the announcement in the Sermon on the Mount of the principles of the Kingdom, the utter refusal of Israel to receive her King, the passing of the Kingdom into the mixed and veiled condition set forth in the seven parables of Matthew Thirteen, its full revelation being postponed till "the harvest," which is fixed definitely "at the end of this age." And then the Kingdom being thus postponed, what is revealed as filling and occupying this age? THE CHURCH! Christians, let us leave the government of the world till the King comes; let us leave the civilizing of the world to be the incidental effect of the presence there of the Gospel of Christ, and let us give our time, our strength, our money, our days to the mission distinctively committed to the Church, namely, to make the Lord Jesus Christ known "to every creature"!
_______________________________________________________
What is going on?
http://www.familyradio.com/graphical/literature/church/churchage_index.pdf
What is going on?
http://www.familyradio.com/graphical/literature/church/churchage_index.pdf
________________________________________________________
CREEDS of the Christian Faith
The Apostle's Creed
CREEDS of the Christian Faith
The Apostle's Creed
- I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:
- And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:
- Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:
- Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:
- The third day he rose again from the dead:
- He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:
- From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:
- I believe in the Holy Ghost:
- I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints:
- The forgiveness of sins:
- The resurrection of the body:
- And the life everlasting. Amen.
The Nicene Creed
- I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
- And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.
- Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
- And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.
- And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
95 Theses
Martin Luther nailed on the church door at Wittenburg. OCTOBER 31, 1517
Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter.
In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
1. When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, "Repent" ( Matthew 4:17 ), he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.
2. This word cannot be understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, that is, confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.
3. Yet it does not mean solely inner repentance; such inner repentance is worthless unless it produces various outward mortification of the flesh.
4. The penalty of sin remains as long as the hatred of self (that is, true inner repentance), namely till our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
5. The pope neither desires nor is able to remit any penalties except those imposed by his own authority or that of the canons.
6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring and showing that it has been remitted by God; or, to be sure, by remitting guilt in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in these cases were disregarded, the guilt would certainly remain unforgiven.
7. God remits guilt to no one unless at the same time he humbles him in all things and makes him submissive to the vicar, the priest.
8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to the canons themselves, nothing should be imposed on the dying.
9. Therefore the Holy Spirit through the pope is kind to us insofar as the pope in his decrees always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.
10. Those priests act ignorantly and wickedly who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penalties for purgatory.
11. Those tares of changing the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory were evidently sown while the bishops slept ( Matthew 13:25 ).
12. In former times canonical penalties were imposed, not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.
13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties, are already dead as far as the canon laws are concerned, and have a right to be released from them.
14. Imperfect piety or love on the part of the dying person necessarily brings with it great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater the fear.
15. This fear or horror is sufficient in itself, to say nothing of other things, to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.
16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ the same as despair, fear, and assurance of salvation.
17. It seems as though for the souls in purgatory fear should necessarily decrease and love increase.
18. Furthermore, it does not seem proved, either by reason or by Scripture, that souls in purgatory are outside the state of merit, that is, unable to grow in love.
19. Nor does it seem proved that souls in purgatory, at least not all of them, are certain and assured of their own salvation, even if we ourselves may be entirely certain of it.
20. Therefore the pope, when he uses the words "plenary remission of all penalties," does not actually mean "all penalties," but only those imposed by himself.
21. Thus those indulgence preachers are in error who say that a man is absolved from every penalty and saved by papal indulgences.
22. As a matter of fact, the pope remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to canon law, they should have paid in this life.
23. If remission of all penalties whatsoever could be granted to anyone at all, certainly it would be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to very few.
24. For this reason most people are necessarily deceived by that indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of release from penalty.
25. That power which the pope has in general over purgatory corresponds to the power which any bishop or curate has in a particular way in his own diocese and parish.
26. The pope does very well when he grants remission to souls in purgatory, not by the power of the keys, which he does not have, but by way of intercession for them.
27. They preach only human doctrines who say that as soon as the money clinks into the money chest, the soul flies out of purgatory.
28. It is certain that when money clinks in the money chest, greed and avarice can be increased; but when the church intercedes, the result is in the hands of God alone.
29. Who knows whether all souls in purgatory wish to be redeemed, since we have exceptions in St. Severinus and St. Paschal, as related in a legend.
30. No one is sure of the integrity of his own contrition, much less of having received plenary remission.
31. The man who actually buys indulgences is as rare as he who is really penitent; indeed, he is exceedingly rare.
32. Those who believe that they can be certain of their salvation because they have indulgence letters will be eternally damned, together with their teachers.
33. Men must especially be on guard against those who say that the pope's pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to him.
34. For the graces of indulgences are concerned only with the penalties of sacramental satisfaction established by man.
35. They who teach that contrition is not necessary on the part of those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessional privileges preach unchristian doctrine.
36. Any truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without indulgence letters.
37. Any true Christian, whether living or dead, participates in all the blessings of Christ and the church; and this is granted him by God, even without indulgence letters.
38. Nevertheless, papal remission and blessing are by no means to be disregarded, for they are, as I have said (Thesis 6), the proclamation of the divine remission.
39. It is very difficult, even for the most learned theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the bounty of indulgences and the need of true contrition.
40. A Christian who is truly contrite seeks and loves to pay penalties for his sins; the bounty of indulgences, however, relaxes penalties and causes men to hate them -- at least it furnishes occasion for hating them.
41. Papal indulgences must be preached with caution, lest people erroneously think that they are preferable to other good works of love.
42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend that the buying of indulgences should in any way be compared with works of mercy.
43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better deed than he who buys indulgences.
44. Because love grows by works of love, man thereby becomes better. Man does not, however, become better by means of indulgences but is merely freed from penalties.
45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a needy man and passes him by, yet gives his money for indulgences, does not buy papal indulgences but God's wrath.
46. Christians are to be taught that, unless they have more than they need, they must reserve enough for their family needs and by no means squander it on indulgences.
47. Christians are to be taught that they buying of indulgences is a matter of free choice, not commanded.
48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting indulgences, needs and thus desires their devout prayer more than their money.
49. Christians are to be taught that papal indulgences are useful only if they do not put their trust in them, but very harmful if they lose their fear of God because of them.
50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the indulgence preachers, he would rather that the basilica of St. Peter were burned to ashes than built up with the skin, flesh, and bones of his sheep.
51. Christians are to be taught that the pope would and should wish to give of his own money, even though he had to sell the basilica of St. Peter, to many of those from whom certain hawkers of indulgences cajole money.
52. It is vain to trust in salvation by indulgence letters, even though the indulgence commissary, or even the pope, were to offer his soul as security.
53. They are the enemies of Christ and the pope who forbid altogether the preaching of the Word of God in some churches in order that indulgences may be preached in others.
54. Injury is done to the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or larger amount of time is devoted to indulgences than to the Word.
55. It is certainly the pope's sentiment that if indulgences, which are a very insignificant thing, are celebrated with one bell, one procession, and one ceremony, then the gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.
56. The true treasures of the church, out of which the pope distributes indulgences, are not sufficiently discussed or known among the people of Christ.
57. That indulgences are not temporal treasures is certainly clear, for many indulgence sellers do not distribute them freely but only gather them.
58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the saints, for, even without the pope, the latter always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outer man.
59. St. Lawrence said that the poor of the church were the treasures of the church, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time.
60. Without want of consideration we say that the keys of the church, given by the merits of Christ, are that treasure.
61. For it is clear that the pope's power is of itself sufficient for the remission of penalties and cases reserved by himself.
62. The true treasure of the church is the most holy gospel of the glory and grace of God.
63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last ( Matthew 20:16 ).
64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.
65. Therefore the treasures of the gospel are nets with which one formerly fished for men of wealth.
66. The treasures of indulgences are nets with which one now fishes for the wealth of men.
67. The indulgences which the demagogues acclaim as the greatest graces are actually understood to be such only insofar as they promote gain.
68. They are nevertheless in truth the most insignificant graces when compared with the grace of God and the piety of the cross.
69. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of papal indulgences with all reverence.
70. But they are much more bound to strain their eyes and ears lest these men preach their own dreams instead of what the pope has commissioned.
71. Let him who speaks against the truth concerning papal indulgences be anathema and accursed.
72. But let him who guards against the lust and license of the indulgence preachers be blessed.
73. Just as the pope justly thunders against those who by any means whatever contrive harm to the sale of indulgences.
74. Much more does he intend to thunder against those who use indulgences as a pretext to contrive harm to holy love and truth.
75. To consider papal indulgences so great that they could absolve a man even if he had done the impossible and had violated the mother of God is madness.
76. We say on the contrary that papal indulgences cannot remove the very least of venial sins as far as guilt is concerned.
77. To say that even St. Peter if he were now pope, could not grant greater graces is blasphemy against St. Peter and the pope.
78. We say on the contrary that even the present pope, or any pope whatsoever, has greater graces at his disposal, that is, the gospel,spiritual powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written, 1 Corinthians 12:28 ).
79. To say that the cross emblazoned with the papal coat of arms, and set up by the indulgence preachers is equal in worth to the cross of Christ is blasphemy.
80. The bishops, curates, and theologians who permit such talk to be spread among the people will have to answer for this.
81. This unbridled preaching of indulgences makes it difficult even for learned men to rescue the reverence which is due the pope from slander or from the shrewd questions of the laity.
82. Such as: "Why does not the pope empty purgatory for the sake of holy love and the dire need of the souls that are there if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a church? The former reason would be most just; the latter is most trivial.
83. Again, "Why are funeral and anniversary masses for the dead continued and why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the endowments founded for them, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed?"
84. Again, "What is this new piety of God and the pope that for a consideration of money they permit a man who is impious and their enemy to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God and do not rather, because of the need of that pious and beloved soul, free it for pure love's sake?"
85. Again, "Why are the penitential canons, long since abrogated and dead in actual fact and through disuse, now satisfied by the granting of indulgences as though they were still alive and in force?"
86. Again, "Why does not the pope, whose wealth is today greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build this one basilica of St. Peter with his own money rather than with the money of poor believers?"
87. Again, "What does the pope remit or grant to those who by perfect contrition already have a right to full remission and blessings?"
88. Again, "What greater blessing could come to the church than if the pope were to bestow these remissions and blessings on every believer a hundred times a day, as he now does but once?"
89. "Since the pope seeks the salvation of souls rather than money by his indulgences, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons previously granted when they have equal efficacy?"
90. To repress these very sharp arguments of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies and to make Christians unhappy.
91. If, therefore, indulgences were preached according to the spirit and intention of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved. Indeed, they would not exist.
92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Peace, peace," and there is no peace! ( Jeremiah 6:14 )
93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Cross, cross," and there is no cross!
94. Christians should be exhorted to be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, death and hell.
95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven through many tribulations rather than through the false security of peace ( Acts 14:22 ).
Martin Luther nailed on the church door at Wittenburg. OCTOBER 31, 1517
Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter.
In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
1. When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, "Repent" ( Matthew 4:17 ), he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.
2. This word cannot be understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, that is, confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.
3. Yet it does not mean solely inner repentance; such inner repentance is worthless unless it produces various outward mortification of the flesh.
4. The penalty of sin remains as long as the hatred of self (that is, true inner repentance), namely till our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
5. The pope neither desires nor is able to remit any penalties except those imposed by his own authority or that of the canons.
6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring and showing that it has been remitted by God; or, to be sure, by remitting guilt in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in these cases were disregarded, the guilt would certainly remain unforgiven.
7. God remits guilt to no one unless at the same time he humbles him in all things and makes him submissive to the vicar, the priest.
8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to the canons themselves, nothing should be imposed on the dying.
9. Therefore the Holy Spirit through the pope is kind to us insofar as the pope in his decrees always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.
10. Those priests act ignorantly and wickedly who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penalties for purgatory.
11. Those tares of changing the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory were evidently sown while the bishops slept ( Matthew 13:25 ).
12. In former times canonical penalties were imposed, not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.
13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties, are already dead as far as the canon laws are concerned, and have a right to be released from them.
14. Imperfect piety or love on the part of the dying person necessarily brings with it great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater the fear.
15. This fear or horror is sufficient in itself, to say nothing of other things, to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.
16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ the same as despair, fear, and assurance of salvation.
17. It seems as though for the souls in purgatory fear should necessarily decrease and love increase.
18. Furthermore, it does not seem proved, either by reason or by Scripture, that souls in purgatory are outside the state of merit, that is, unable to grow in love.
19. Nor does it seem proved that souls in purgatory, at least not all of them, are certain and assured of their own salvation, even if we ourselves may be entirely certain of it.
20. Therefore the pope, when he uses the words "plenary remission of all penalties," does not actually mean "all penalties," but only those imposed by himself.
21. Thus those indulgence preachers are in error who say that a man is absolved from every penalty and saved by papal indulgences.
22. As a matter of fact, the pope remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to canon law, they should have paid in this life.
23. If remission of all penalties whatsoever could be granted to anyone at all, certainly it would be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to very few.
24. For this reason most people are necessarily deceived by that indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of release from penalty.
25. That power which the pope has in general over purgatory corresponds to the power which any bishop or curate has in a particular way in his own diocese and parish.
26. The pope does very well when he grants remission to souls in purgatory, not by the power of the keys, which he does not have, but by way of intercession for them.
27. They preach only human doctrines who say that as soon as the money clinks into the money chest, the soul flies out of purgatory.
28. It is certain that when money clinks in the money chest, greed and avarice can be increased; but when the church intercedes, the result is in the hands of God alone.
29. Who knows whether all souls in purgatory wish to be redeemed, since we have exceptions in St. Severinus and St. Paschal, as related in a legend.
30. No one is sure of the integrity of his own contrition, much less of having received plenary remission.
31. The man who actually buys indulgences is as rare as he who is really penitent; indeed, he is exceedingly rare.
32. Those who believe that they can be certain of their salvation because they have indulgence letters will be eternally damned, together with their teachers.
33. Men must especially be on guard against those who say that the pope's pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to him.
34. For the graces of indulgences are concerned only with the penalties of sacramental satisfaction established by man.
35. They who teach that contrition is not necessary on the part of those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessional privileges preach unchristian doctrine.
36. Any truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without indulgence letters.
37. Any true Christian, whether living or dead, participates in all the blessings of Christ and the church; and this is granted him by God, even without indulgence letters.
38. Nevertheless, papal remission and blessing are by no means to be disregarded, for they are, as I have said (Thesis 6), the proclamation of the divine remission.
39. It is very difficult, even for the most learned theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the bounty of indulgences and the need of true contrition.
40. A Christian who is truly contrite seeks and loves to pay penalties for his sins; the bounty of indulgences, however, relaxes penalties and causes men to hate them -- at least it furnishes occasion for hating them.
41. Papal indulgences must be preached with caution, lest people erroneously think that they are preferable to other good works of love.
42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend that the buying of indulgences should in any way be compared with works of mercy.
43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better deed than he who buys indulgences.
44. Because love grows by works of love, man thereby becomes better. Man does not, however, become better by means of indulgences but is merely freed from penalties.
45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a needy man and passes him by, yet gives his money for indulgences, does not buy papal indulgences but God's wrath.
46. Christians are to be taught that, unless they have more than they need, they must reserve enough for their family needs and by no means squander it on indulgences.
47. Christians are to be taught that they buying of indulgences is a matter of free choice, not commanded.
48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting indulgences, needs and thus desires their devout prayer more than their money.
49. Christians are to be taught that papal indulgences are useful only if they do not put their trust in them, but very harmful if they lose their fear of God because of them.
50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the indulgence preachers, he would rather that the basilica of St. Peter were burned to ashes than built up with the skin, flesh, and bones of his sheep.
51. Christians are to be taught that the pope would and should wish to give of his own money, even though he had to sell the basilica of St. Peter, to many of those from whom certain hawkers of indulgences cajole money.
52. It is vain to trust in salvation by indulgence letters, even though the indulgence commissary, or even the pope, were to offer his soul as security.
53. They are the enemies of Christ and the pope who forbid altogether the preaching of the Word of God in some churches in order that indulgences may be preached in others.
54. Injury is done to the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or larger amount of time is devoted to indulgences than to the Word.
55. It is certainly the pope's sentiment that if indulgences, which are a very insignificant thing, are celebrated with one bell, one procession, and one ceremony, then the gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.
56. The true treasures of the church, out of which the pope distributes indulgences, are not sufficiently discussed or known among the people of Christ.
57. That indulgences are not temporal treasures is certainly clear, for many indulgence sellers do not distribute them freely but only gather them.
58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the saints, for, even without the pope, the latter always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outer man.
59. St. Lawrence said that the poor of the church were the treasures of the church, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time.
60. Without want of consideration we say that the keys of the church, given by the merits of Christ, are that treasure.
61. For it is clear that the pope's power is of itself sufficient for the remission of penalties and cases reserved by himself.
62. The true treasure of the church is the most holy gospel of the glory and grace of God.
63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last ( Matthew 20:16 ).
64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.
65. Therefore the treasures of the gospel are nets with which one formerly fished for men of wealth.
66. The treasures of indulgences are nets with which one now fishes for the wealth of men.
67. The indulgences which the demagogues acclaim as the greatest graces are actually understood to be such only insofar as they promote gain.
68. They are nevertheless in truth the most insignificant graces when compared with the grace of God and the piety of the cross.
69. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of papal indulgences with all reverence.
70. But they are much more bound to strain their eyes and ears lest these men preach their own dreams instead of what the pope has commissioned.
71. Let him who speaks against the truth concerning papal indulgences be anathema and accursed.
72. But let him who guards against the lust and license of the indulgence preachers be blessed.
73. Just as the pope justly thunders against those who by any means whatever contrive harm to the sale of indulgences.
74. Much more does he intend to thunder against those who use indulgences as a pretext to contrive harm to holy love and truth.
75. To consider papal indulgences so great that they could absolve a man even if he had done the impossible and had violated the mother of God is madness.
76. We say on the contrary that papal indulgences cannot remove the very least of venial sins as far as guilt is concerned.
77. To say that even St. Peter if he were now pope, could not grant greater graces is blasphemy against St. Peter and the pope.
78. We say on the contrary that even the present pope, or any pope whatsoever, has greater graces at his disposal, that is, the gospel,spiritual powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written, 1 Corinthians 12:28 ).
79. To say that the cross emblazoned with the papal coat of arms, and set up by the indulgence preachers is equal in worth to the cross of Christ is blasphemy.
80. The bishops, curates, and theologians who permit such talk to be spread among the people will have to answer for this.
81. This unbridled preaching of indulgences makes it difficult even for learned men to rescue the reverence which is due the pope from slander or from the shrewd questions of the laity.
82. Such as: "Why does not the pope empty purgatory for the sake of holy love and the dire need of the souls that are there if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a church? The former reason would be most just; the latter is most trivial.
83. Again, "Why are funeral and anniversary masses for the dead continued and why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the endowments founded for them, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed?"
84. Again, "What is this new piety of God and the pope that for a consideration of money they permit a man who is impious and their enemy to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God and do not rather, because of the need of that pious and beloved soul, free it for pure love's sake?"
85. Again, "Why are the penitential canons, long since abrogated and dead in actual fact and through disuse, now satisfied by the granting of indulgences as though they were still alive and in force?"
86. Again, "Why does not the pope, whose wealth is today greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build this one basilica of St. Peter with his own money rather than with the money of poor believers?"
87. Again, "What does the pope remit or grant to those who by perfect contrition already have a right to full remission and blessings?"
88. Again, "What greater blessing could come to the church than if the pope were to bestow these remissions and blessings on every believer a hundred times a day, as he now does but once?"
89. "Since the pope seeks the salvation of souls rather than money by his indulgences, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons previously granted when they have equal efficacy?"
90. To repress these very sharp arguments of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies and to make Christians unhappy.
91. If, therefore, indulgences were preached according to the spirit and intention of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved. Indeed, they would not exist.
92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Peace, peace," and there is no peace! ( Jeremiah 6:14 )
93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Cross, cross," and there is no cross!
94. Christians should be exhorted to be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, death and hell.
95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven through many tribulations rather than through the false security of peace ( Acts 14:22 ).
FOR FURTHER READING :
http://www.oneinmessiah.weebly.com/religoushistory