|
The Word of God in the Early Church
-How the Church
received it;
-and the pagan
world responded
Dr Benno
Alexander Zuiddam
Introduction
Two hundred and fifty years ago, 1752 AD, one of the great
books of late English Puritanism was published. It was called “The Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul,” and was written by the Rev Dr. Philip
Doddridge, a dissenting minister. The
book concerns itself with God’s work in man’s life, from the beginning till the
very end. The last pages end with a
prayer for a dying Christian:
“Let faith perform its last office in an
honourable manner! … Be this my last song on earth, which I am going to tune in
heaven: ‘Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto Him that sitteth
on the throne and to the Lamb for ever and ever.’ Amen!”
God is in control, of the history of the
individual believer’s life, but also corporately. The Lord sits on the throne of history and Church history in
particular, a picture so adequately presented in the book of Revelation. The
same God that works towards the rise and progress of religion in the soul now,
did so in the lives of many in days gone by. For all the saints that from their
labours rest. But it is the same Lord,
using this same instrument: the Word of God.
This is what Church History is about: the corporate rise and progress of
religion in the soul, wrought by the Spirit of God.
Word and Spirit establish the connection
and make knowledge from the past relevant for our spiritual walk now. As this
Spirit is the author of the Bible, a book greatly used to this effect, it would
be proper to consider the Word of God especially as we acquaint ourselves with
the Early Church of the first Centuries.
1. How the Church received it
Just give a few brief thoughts to
your personal Bible. Perhaps you have
brought it with you. It could still be
on your bedside table, or on the shelves in the living room. An amazing book it
is! A printed version, many hundreds of
pages, 66 books or so contained in it.
The book is readily available and probably billions of copies have found
their way around the world. But it
hasn’t always been that way. Let me
take you back five or six centuries ago, before the invention of printing with
separate letters and the great publishing boom during the late Renaissance and
Reformation. If you wanted to read a
Bible, you would have to go to some church or monastery, and get permission, if
you were able to read and write at all.
Read in Latin or Greek that is, because those would be the only copies
available to you. But at least they
would be available to some extent and as a collection. Monks would sit for month or years on end
and transcribe and copy out Bible books to pass them on to other churches and
to the next generations.
But go back in history another
millennium, into the era of the Early Church and the situation would again be
different, if not worse. It would be extremely hard to find a Bible, because
there wasn’t any, only collections of Bible books. Just picture Jesus taking out the scroll of the prophet Isaiah
and reading from chapter 61 in the synagogue at Nazareth. Some collections of Old Testament books
would be complete of course. But the same could not be said of many
others. Many churches would only have
some books or limited collections of Holy Scripture. That is how they were referred to, the Scriptures.
Jesus sent out his apostles. They
tarried in Jerusalem to receive power from on high. Part of the promise was that the Spirit would take out of the
things of Jesus and proclaim these to them.
The Gospel according to John tells us that the Spirit would also bring
all proper things into remembrance.
This did not only apply to a word in due season but also in a special
way to their Gospel testimony, which was written down by themselves or
associates like Marc and Luke.
Initially these were very small
beginnings, one Gospel copy or one epistle sent out to a congregation, or perhaps
even one interested person, like Theophilus in Luke & Acts may have
been. This process, with its many
dangers, toils and snares shows the Lord’s guidance and preservation of his
Word in a remarkable way. The Lord
protected and guided from these small beginnings. A thousand things could have
gone wrong from the moment the first manuscript was sent on its way.
Carelessness, accident, rain, fire and persecution could have struck. But the
Scriptures were preserved, copied, passed on to other Christians and
congregations. This process and the
limitations copying by hand imposed, implied that not all Scriptures were
available simultaneously throughout the Roman Empire. In the light of these limitations it is amazing how many had
become widely available or at least present in very different parts of Europe,
Asia Minor and Africa as early as the second Century.
We should also be aware that the
Roman Empire was a Latin empire with Roman law, but very much with a Greek
culture. The Greeks and their culture
had been very powerful some hundreds of years earlier. You will remember Alexander the Great. His rise and fall was a bit like that of
British colonialism. Apart from the UK
the only thing that seems to be left of it, is the English language. A similar situation existed in those Roman
days. After Alexander’s death some of
his generals took over, but kingdom was divided and crumbled. Rome’s conquest started and much of what
used to be Greek, became Roman domain.
But although the Romans took over, they very much admired the Greek
language and culture. For this reason,
and large parts of the empire being used to Greek influence through occupation
or commerce, Greek was very much the lingua franca of the Roman Empire. This was especially true of the more cultured regions to the east of Rome,
both north and south of the Mediterranean.
Towards the end of the era of the
Early Church the capital would be moved from Latin Rome to Greek
Constantinople. The eastern Roman
Empire was Greek and would continue to be that way until it collapsed in the
fourteen hundreds.
As Greek was the common vehicle of
communication, it does not occur as strange that probably all of the books of
the New Testament were written in Greek as well. St. Paul addressed the Romans
in the Greek tongue and did not think much of it. From Rome and all those other place Holy Scriptures found their
way to different parts of the Empire. The amazing truth is that wherever they
arrived, they usually found recognitions with the Christian. Recognition, as
the recognised the same Spirit that had changed their lives and moved the
writers of other Holy writ they may have been familiar with. The same response to individual books is
found throughout the empire.
This is illustrated by early writings
from Syria, France and Africa. If we
have a look at Syria first, you will meet with Ignatius. He was a leader in the church of Antioch.
This was a city with ancient Christian roots, so much that the Christians got
their name in this town. The book of Acts tells us so. It had been the congregation in Antioch that
had sent Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey. Two or three generations later, early in the
second Century, we find someone else on a journey. Ignatius, overseer or bishop in Antioch is taken prisoner by
soldiers and sent to Rome, where he probably faced execution. It didn’t take much to trigger rulers into
such actions in those days. So, although we do not seem to have reliable martyr
acts concerning Ignatius, we can safely assume that the bishop suffered the
fate he envisioned in his letters. As a
matter of fact, his epistles indicate he must have been rather looking forward
to the event. One should consider such
a journey from Syria to Rome a leisurely affair. Tomorrow was just another
day. Anything could happen: bad
weather, no ship readily available, waiting for provisions to continue. No
reason to hurry now. Rome was not built
in a day, and one certainly could not walk to Rome in a day. Soldiers, special police forces separate
from the military were unknown in those days, knew this and wouldn’t stretch
themselves unnecessarily. Perhaps it
was for this reason that Ignatius, while on his way, had a considerable amount
of freedom and was able to write several letters to Christian congregations in
Asia Minor.
From these writings we learn much
about Ignatius and how he received and used Holy Scripture. Their interesting
feature is that they do not present us with an inspiration theory or tell us
how we should see the Bible according to the bishop. They do something else.
They show what impression these books made on Ignatius’ life. He doesn’t have to tell us. His use of them shows it. A profound influence it must have been
indeed. Ignatius not only quotes the
Holy Scriptures regularly. He doesn’t
cite for interest sake, but to prove, correct, encourage and rebuke. Their authority is supposed a matter of
fact, presupposed in his readers as a matter of course. He has no need to argue why the Bible is
right after all and should be honoured and obeyed.
Especially, the matter of taking
for granted that his readers spread over many congregations in Asia Minor would
feel the same way about the authority of the biblical sources, shows their
widespread acceptance in the Church.
This would not only be true of Asia and Syria.
In the South of France we are
welcomed by St. Irenaeus. He was the
bishop of Lyons and very much active in the Church of his day, probably the
second half of the second century, towards 200 AD. France was called Gaulle in those days, now famous for its
imaginary one small village that did not surrender to the Romans, featuring
Asterix, Obelix and magic potion. While these local heroes found themselves up
North, Irenaeus was down South in warmer regions, as far as we know, Latin
speaking at that. This is the reason
that if Irenaeus did not originally write in Latin himself, his writings were
almost exclusively passed on to next generations that way.
Irenaeus became famous for his
books against heresies, theories about God and men that disagreed with God’s
view on the subject. He wrote five
books against the Gnostics. This was an ancient New Age movement that was very
popular in his day. It used symbolism
and words, like “born again” that seem to connect to Christian teachings, but
were very different indeed, once a closer look was taken. Irenaeus’ five books Against the Heresies
have been preserved and are still with us.
They are an amazing shower of Bible references. Most of the books that we know as Bible are
quoted or referred to. Not once, but innumerable times. Irenaeus was very much the man of one book,
or rather one kind of books: Holy Scriptures.
He absolutely thrived on this and his enthusiasm about them is very
visible on almost every page of his writings.
Other than Ignatius, he also has
writing space to share his thought on the Holy Scriptures. What he thinks of them, how he regards and
appreciates them. Irenaeus tells us that they come from the Spirit of God, from
God himself. He is their source. God wanted to communicate with mankind in
general and his people in particular; and used prophets and apostles to do so;
also to write things down. It was all about God’s truth and God’s message. It didn’t really matter whether this was
presented verbally or in writing.
Apostolic truth could be present with or without apostolic writings: the
books were just a vehicle containing it. But this did not mean that they were
secondary. They were considered holy,
because they were a special vehicle used of God. Irenaeus tells us that the Spirit of God dictated the Scriptures,
implying that it was the Lord who identified himself with the words spoken, the
Scriptures being the desired end result of the Spirits stirrings. The bishop states that the writers of Holy
Scripture received perfect knowledge from the Holy Spirit, who enabled them to
write accurately and to convey reliable information in all respects. It was very much a concept of unity of truth,
especially refreshing in our day, when truth has been degraded to preference.
Let us move on and over to
Africa. In the second century the
Church had spread even there. In
Alexandria, more or less the capital city in Egypt at that stage, we find
Clement. We really know more about what
he wrote and taught than about his life.
A biography doesn’t survive, if it was ever written, and Clement himself
did not bother to leave us an autobiography.
But a few things we do know. He
was Christian and an influential teacher.
The historian Eusebius quotes a letter about him: “My honoured brethren, have sent this letter to you by Clement, the
blessed presbyter, a man virtuous and approved, whom ye yourselves also know
and will recognize. Being here, in the providence and oversight of the Master,
he has strengthened and built up the Church of the Lord.” As Eusebius continues to discuss some of
Clement’s works without further introduction shortly after, one may safely
assume they concern the same person. If so, he was a local minister of some
sort, residing in Alexandria long enough to be permanently associated with this
town. His writings and lasting influence would be his legacy to the Church.
Clement had an exceptionally high
view of Holy Scriptures. He was not ashamed
to tell. God used prophets and apostles to speak, not just to share their
particularly helpful theories about a Supreme Being. Clement tells us that God spoke through human mouth. The result of this was the Holy
Scriptures. We could call Clement an
educator of the Early Church. In his
writings he brings out that God also educates his people, using the Scriptures
as tool. He called them the foundation
of truth; everything contained in them was utterly reliable. Because it was God
speaking their truth was guaranteed.
The Mouth of God, the Holy Spirit spoke and Scripture was the result.
A modern reader could take
“inspired” rather as a certain quality that characterises a work and could have
been influenced by godly motives. As it
was inspired, it continues to be inspirational; that sort of thing. Very useful
and stimulating this line of reasoning may be, this is not what Clement meant.
God speaking through the Scriptures implied that the Lord spoke through
Prophets and Apostles verbatim. Clement even refers to Scripture as “holy
letters and syllables”. This is as
small as you can get. Clement accepted
the authority of the Scriptures as their contents came from God, not because he
had a sophisticated theory to establish the need of their acceptance.
As many other leaders in the Early
Church, Clement also practised what he preached. Because they were important to
him and held in such high esteem, he quoted from them. Not once, or twice, but more than three thousand
five hundred times. Nearly 1300
references to the Old Testament were covered; Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy,
Psalms, Proverbs and Isaiah among the favourites. Books from the New Testament era are cited even more: 2300
references to Scripture, especially Matthew, Luke, John, One Corinthians,
Ephesians and Hebrews.
Summarised, the Early Church
received the Scriptures as Word of God.
They felt these writings to be communications of God himself, reflecting
his truth and authority. Wherever they became available, they would usually
also be received. The same Spirit that had changed their lives was recognised.
This did not happen in one or two obscure places involving maverick
teachers. No, on the contrary it was
the mainstream of Christianity, the acknowledged leaders and office bearers in
major metropolitan centres of the Roman Empire who were this way inclined. Neither did it take place in one region
only, but throughout the empire the same thing happened. Christians recognised the voice of God and
received his Word as truth.
1.2 How the pagan world responded to the Scriptures
God spoke for educational purposes
to mankind, Clement would tell us. The reverend Ph. Doddridge already told us
that it is all about the rise and progress of religion in the soul. When God
speaks, he invites a response. People
either accept or they don’t. Sometimes they decide not to do anything with it,
which in itself is a response of some sort.
This is the great source of the so-called “sins of neglect”; the “we
have left undone the things we should” kind of thing. It is not the joyous “yes” or the sinful “no”, but a significant
reply. Neither hot nor cold. From this
perspective one can appreciate those who express a more negative but also more
sincere attitude on the subject. I will
introduce you to a few of those. This
is not too difficult a task, because the early Christians met with a vast pagan
world that responded in a totally different way to the Scriptures and their
teachings. They heartily rejected all
of it and preferred to do it their way.
A very old religion indeed: I did it my way. What usually happens is
that God’s way rebukes and unsettles my way, inviting an unfavourable
response. This happened during the
first few centuries and increasingly so as Christianity spread, its power and
influence threatening some of the pagan positions and trades. We observe this in the first century
already. St. Paul could preach his heart out in Ephesus, but got himself in
trouble as his preaching started to affect the trade of the silver smiths in
town. As truth was not on their side, all they could do was realising economic
and religious implications, threaten bigger and shout louder. But those threats were very real indeed and
Paul had to flee.
Throughout the era of the Early
Church this persecution of Christians and their teachings, got a special focus
on the Scriptures. We know about the days of the cold war. Russia tried to keep
the Bibles out. Brother Andrew and
others smuggled them in. Any religion was to be controlled. The best way to
discourage Christianity was to keep the availability of the Scriptures in
check. A few centuries earlier Roman Catholocism tried to protect its distorted
late medieval doctrines and abuses in the same way, laying hand on Bibles and
burning those who disagreed. But the vulnerability in early days was much
greater than in the days of the Reformation or Soviet Russia. The West had its printing presses, able to
publish bibles at a rate of millions.
Loosing twenty at the customs wasn’t a great disaster. But each copy of Scripture taken and
destroyed in the Early Church was a severe blow. Not many copies were available and each represented months of
labour. Taking out Scripture could be
destroying Christianity. For this
reason during times of persecution Christians were pressured to hand over their
sacred writings. Those who did became
known as “handovers”.
But persecution went further than
rounding up the books as such; especially during the second century, when
Christianity took on and its influence spread. Influence means power; and whenever it grows, there usually is a
response. As Christianity came closer
to home, some pagan philosophers felt the need to respond to this religious
movement and its sacred writings.
Sometimes it is the writers, other times their contents that are
attacked or discredited.
One of these scholars was Mr
Celsus. We know about him because
Origin, a teacher from Alexandria in Egypt, wrote against him in the third
century. His book “Against Celsus” is still preserved and contains extensive
quotes that give us a good idea what the arguments were all about. Celsus wrote a book that claimed to be the
real truth about Christianity. He tells us the virgin birth of Christ that the
Gospel claims, is nonsense. The real
explanation would be an extramarital relationship or meeting between Mary and a
Roman soldier with the name Panthera.
It was just because of psychological repression that the myth about a
virgin birth was invented, because the disciples or Mary could not face Jesus
real origins. The resurrection from the
dead was quite impossible of course. It
was the disciples, unable to come to terms with the reality of the death of their
beloved master, who had practised psychological compensation. They had given up everything and put all
their stakes on someone they thought to be the Christ and simply could not face
that all their hopes were dashed; and subsequently invented the resurrection
story to keep the myth going. But, what
about those alleged Old Testament prophesies about Christ? We needn’t take
those seriously, Celsus said, because they are so general that they could be
easily applied to dozens of other men.
Another philosopher who wrote
against the Bible was Mr Porphyry.
Through several early Christian leaders we know that he wrote some
fifteen books “Against the Christians”.
If this wasn’t the title than it most certainly was the object of his
discourse. The books are lost, perhaps burnt at some stage, or simply not
preserved as their contents were not inviting to copy and spent precious time
on. Jerome, one of the foremost scholars of the Church, who translated
Scripture in Latin, has several references to Porphyry’s thoughts on Bible
subjects. Jerome mentions him in his
commentaries on Scripture several times.
Others, like John Chrystostom from Antioch and Constantinople also knew
Porphyry’s writings. Possibly some of
his criticisms have been preserved in the works of Macarius of Magnesia. Anyhow, lets move over to what he had to
say. Porphyry was one of the first to
attack the historicity of the Old Testament books Jonah and Daniel. Jonah could not have spent a few nights or
even been in a big fish for an extensive period of time. The thought was just too absurd to be true.
Many modern Bible scholars would agree, but this just shows how closely most of
present day scholarship has aligned itself with ancient paganism. This would be
even truer about the book of Daniel.
Porphyry could not believe its prophecies. They were just too good and accurate to be true, so the book must
have been a forgery dating back from around 170 BC. In discrediting Daniel he also attacked the authority of Jesus
himself, who had placed some of the events of this book in some future time
that had yet to arrive. Peter was a
coward and Luke lied in Acts because it was Peter, who had killed Ananias and
Saffira himself because of their money. The resurrection from the dead and
future life was just an unwarranted superstition. Porphyry made a parody on someone’s body going through the food
cycle of different animals and becoming part of many other bodies. How will these bones rise again? The
teachings of the Holy Scriptures just did not make sense.
Throughout world history God has
been aiming at the rise and progress of religion in the soul of man, using the
Holy Scriptures to that end. If one receives with faith, not faith in the books
but faith in God, they are going to do you good. If you don’t receive with faith, they are bound to offend at some
stage. They will invoke a response of
rejection. The history of the Word of God in the times of the Early Church
contains both encouragement and warnings. The Church received the Scriptures.
If we receive the Word of God, it will change us and we will become part of its
progress, together with the Early Church, with all the saints. If we do not
receive it with faith, we may find ourselves to obstruct if not the rise than
certainly the progress of religion in the soul.