Tertullian and Tradition
Early Church history and the principle leaders of the Christian faith are little known to most modern Christians. Ignatius (35 -108 A.D.), Justin Martyr (100 – 165), Irenaeus (130 – 200), Tertullian (155 - 240), or Cyprian (200 – 258) are not household names. Histories written about this early period are complicated, sometimes partisan. Ancient culture influenced the perceptions of even the best of these Christians. Devotion to God and the Christian faith does not insure theological accuracy. Yet it is important to understand this history, the personalities and issues of concern. Early perceptions led over time to considerable distance between the original faith of Christians and what eventually dominated the patterns of visible faith and ritual. One very critical issue from this age is the discussion about where Christian religious authority rests. Are the apostolic scriptures an adequate foundation for Christianity or is that foundation found in a combination of scripture and Christian religious tradition? In the early centuries the use of the idea of an apostolic tradition was extremely important in the debate with Gnosticism. It was a valid supporting argument for the legitimacy of the apostolic faith and orthodoxy. But a misapplication also guided much of the course of Christian history. A valid argument, originally used to help establish the boundaries of the Christian faith, was eventually used illegitimately, in a very similar way Gnosticism used the same argument to validate false claims. Tradition was used to justify speculative and unjustifiable conclusions. Tertullian (155-240) correctly used tradition to validate orthodoxy. But it is important to note that he, like Irenaeus before him, referred to the apostolic tradition as the foundational truths of the Christian faith. In these early days, an apostolic tradition separate from the written documents of Christianity, was not equated with possible interpretations of scripture or differences of opinion that devote believers might hold, but the verbal communication of foundational issues essential for the existence of Christianity itself. Christian tradition was the gospel, the basics of the life and mission of Jesus communicated verbally. Cardinal Danielou in his History of Early Christian Doctrine, volume three, pgs. 185-86, quotes Tertullian. “we believe that there is but one God… who produced everything from nothing through his word …; that Word is his Son and … was brought down by the Spirit and power of God into the virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, … proclaimed a new law and a new promise of the kingdom, worked miracles, was crucified, on the third day rose again, was caught up into heaven and sat at the right hand of the father; that he sent in his place the Holy Spirit to guide believers” etc. Then Danielou makes a revealing comment. “This is a particularly valuable text because it provides us with the full content of the ‘rule of faith’ at the time of Tertullian. It is in fact a summary of the Christian catechetic tradition which came from the apostles and which was handed down by the churches. All that was required of the Christian was that he was to adhere to and believe in this traditional rule of faith. “ This admission speaks volumes. All that was required to be believed by Christians was the basics of the gospel. This is a far cry from the additions and complications that would be added to the basic message of Christianity over the centuries and made requirements of unquestionable faith. The move toward a focusing of religious power in a person of the regional Bishop also played a role in the institutionalizing of the speculative. Of course, Danielou, who lived and died in the twentieth century, would not have restricted the idea of an apostolic tradition to the basics, but Tertullian and Irenaeus obviously did just that. These men lived very close in time to the apostles. Their concern was the protection of the integrity of the core doctrines of the Christian faith, not the protection of incidentals or speculative theological possibilities. Early Christians leaders’ perception of a valid apostolic tradition is extremely different from what future individuals would teach, as the perceptions of fallible men became more entrenched and institutionalized. A careful study of this history indicates that much of the dogma that was to subsequently come after this time, validated by an appeal to an apostolic oral tradition, is illegitimate. A particular interpretation of Matthew 16:18f. is foundational to a position of dominance asserted by Roman Catholicism throughout its history. That perspective, even in the early centuries, was a cause of division within Christianity. How can Christian churches, especially now in a religiously pluralistic and democratic society, ever agree to the idea that Peter was given authority over his fellow apostles, that a religious hierarchy is being implied by Matthew, and that the authority of Peter was to be passed on to succeeding generations through the bishop of Rome.
In the context of controversy, most miss the point of the discussion in Matthew. The theme is the identity and role of Peter for sure. But what does that mean and what has been the consequences? One consequence is division. In Matthew sixteen, Jesus is obviously in control of the conversation. He asks, who do people say I am (v. 13)? Then Jesus asks, what about you, what do you believe about me? Peter replies, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Then Jesus transitions to Peter’s new identity. Peters role will be to open to men and women the Kingdom of God in the same way Jesus had done (v.19). Peter had been trained for this by Jesus. A new role that required maturity and stability had been implied for Peter, from Peters first contact with Jesus (Jn 1:42). But any role attributed to Peter here is also extended to all the apostles and even all disciples of Jesus (Jn. 19:21, Matt 28:16ff.). There is a new, God given, purpose in life for everyone who becomes a Christian. Individual roles in the spread of the gospel are diverse because of a diversity of methods, and the many diversities of gifts and abilities that Christians have. But neither authority nor dominance, or even priority between Peter and others is being highlighted by Jesus in this passage of scripture even though the role of Peter and its importance is emphasised. Just as Jesus ministry had been to open a door to the Kingdom, so Peter would be opening to men and women the Kingdom of God through the message of the gospel. This is extremely important, a binding or loosing by heaven itself. This is also, in varying degrees, the role of every believer. The language of Kingdom is key to understanding what Jesus was saying to Peter. Jesus says, “I will give you the keys of the Kingdom…”. This type of language is used throughout the New Testament to explain the meaning and application of the gospel. An illustration of this is in the last verse of the book of Acts. Paul, it says, remained in Rome two years and proclaimed, “the Kingdom of God … teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness and without hindrance” (ESV). Kingdom language is used, as Jesus often used it, and others in the first centuries of Christianity, to explain the gospel. It can be legitimate to want to be under authority.. But unquestioned acquiescence to authority can be a way out of personal responsibility. Religious over regulation is legalism. Legalism provides little flexibility or motivation to maintain an internal relationship with God. Legalism can then make opinion the equivalent of infallible doctrine. Approaching scripture from an authoritarian world view has engendered division. Inherent injustice will always engender objection and division. This is the story of humanity and unfortunately a narrative in Christian history as well. As Christianity developed in the first centuries, regional centres started to vie with each other for perceived levels of authority and dominance. By the fourth century a hierarchical order was beginning to be hammered out between the cities of Rome, Constantinople (after 325 A.D.), Alexandria, Antioch, and to a lesser extent, Jerusalem. The simple faith and structures of the New Testament were being replaced by the dominance of powerful central and numerically impressive large city churches. Political rivalries were also becoming part and parcel with church rivalries and church politics. By the third century Alexandria had gained religious authority over all of Egypt and north Africa. Antioch controlled most of Syria. Rome exercised some jurisdiction in its region. Constantinople (modern Istanbul), the New Rome, wanted recognition it thought due because of its growing status as the new capitol of the empire. Jerusalem, although nearly abandoned by Christians and devoid of Jews, none the less, was given honorary status. At the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. discussions began about the relative honour and dignity and authority that each should have. All seemed to agree that, because of a connection to Peter, Rome was to be given the dignity of a “first among equals.” But Rome wanted more. The word pope was used for the religious leader of Alexandria as well as Rome. But as Constantinople began to rapidly increase in population, it believed that, if there was a second to Rome it should be them. Antioch vied for a place somewhere between the others. As these churches struggled to define and defend basic issues related to the Christian faith, they also began to struggle with each other. The critical issue that caused division was disagreement about the relative authority that each had to the others. All wanted to recognise some priority for Rome. That seemed fine when there was agreement. But none wanted domination by any outside authority. None wanted to concede to an outside authority the right to completely decide regional issues. Rome, of course, did not agree. In the end, it was an authoritarian view of church life, that each had and the priority that Rome wanted, that split Christianity. And so, all these ancient churches went their own way. Alexandria now leads the Coptic Church of Egypt. Antioch, since the fifth century, has been an independent church body. The Antiochian Syrian Church reflects that history. Neither recognise ultimate authority for Rome. Constantinople, by the tenth century, had had more than enough of the posturing. But the Roman church still believes it has implicit authority over these groups and all of Christianity, because of its assumed historic connection to Peter and its interpretation of Matthew sixteen. It does not see that its own authoritarian perspective is, and continues to be, a significant reason for the divisions within historic Christianity. The Apostolic Tradition
The idea of an oral tradition is part of the history of many religions. Judaism was one. Jesus referred to this when he indicated that some Judaist religious traditions were obvious errors of judgement and had the effect of invalidating the clear commands of God (Matthew 5:1-7). But in a different biblical context the word tradition is used in a positive way. “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions you have been taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter” (I Thess. 2:13 ESV). In religious contexts authoritative tradition usually refers to oral communication, instruction passed down through select individuals but left unwritten, perhaps for a long period of time. The danger is obvious. Unsubstantiated tradition can easily move a religion away from its foundation. Considerable distance from its founding, as Jesus indicated, was the case in first century Judaism. The difference between a religious stance that places considerable authority in an oral tradition and biblical Christianity is that the oral tradition of Christianity became its written texts, even as Peter indicated (II Peter 1:16). In Christianity an oral apostolic tradition refers, as I Thessalonians 2:3 signifies, to the same information found in its written scriptures. The gospel of Christ spread orally. That gospel was recorded after its initial oral transmission by an apostle or a close associate making the content of any oral tradition verifiable. The whole process in the first centuries of establishing the text of the apostolic New Testament was to verify and stabilize the content of a gospel that had already advanced extensively verbally across the Roman empire. Any legitimate apostolic tradition is therefore easily identified. It was and is the same message about Jesus found in the New Testament. This can be confirmed by the writings of the earliest church fathers, by second and third century catechisms (religious instruction manuals), as well as the creeds of the early centuries of the Christian faith. Luke’s gospel’s introduction illustrates the process. Luke says to Theophilus that he researched and wrote in order to confirm the verbal communication about Jesus that Theophilus had already believed (Luke 1:1-4). This illustrates that the biblical record, especially the gospels, identifies the content of the original oral apostolic tradition. This subject came up very early in the writings of church fathers, especially with Irenaeus of Lyons, France, and his writings in the late second century. Gnostics were first to make the idea of an oral apostolic tradition useful. In a strategy to attract Christians, Gnostics claimed that their exclusive teaching about Christ could be traced back to the apostles via an oral tradition entrusted to a select few. Gnostics believed in an extreme duality between the physical and spiritual worlds. They taught that the physical world was created by a god who was evil and removed in distance and morality from the holiness of the eternal Father. They claimed Christ came into the world to redeem the soul of man from this evil physical world via the acceptance of ideas reserved for and passed on by a spiritual elite. It was only natural for Irenaeus to counter with his, and others, more legitimate and verifiable links to the Apostles. This legitimate historic connection was found in the orthodox churches. Irenaeus himself was just two generations removed from the apostle John and trained by a disciple of that apostle in Asia Minor, before coming to Lyons. Irenaeus also countered the universal nature and public knowledge of the Christian faith. Via the oral spread of the gospel, the true apostolic tradition asserted the uniqueness of Jesus, his incarnation, virgin birth, vicarious atonement, and his physical resurrection and ascension. These “traditions” were public knowledge that even the least educated among Christians knew, believed, and propagated. Irenaeus, referring to the orthodox churches, says, “They preserve with care the ancient tradition, believing in one God, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein, through Christ Jesus the Son of God; who in his exceeding love toward his creation submitted to be born of a virgin, thus through himself uniting man to God, and suffered under Pontius Pilot, and rose again and was received in glory, and will send into eternal fire those who distort the truth and despise his Father and His own Coming. And those who have believed this faith without the written word are, in our terminology, barbarians; but, as far as their opinions and conduct and way of life are concerned, because of faith they are exceedingly wise and pleasing to God, walking in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom.” (see A History of Early Christian Doctrine Vol 2, Danielou, pgs. 152-153) Irenaeus also said, “The Lord of all things gave his Apostles authority over the Gospel, and it is through them that we have learned the truth, that is the doctrine of the Son of God…. For we learned the economy of our salvation through those alone by whose agency the gospel came to us; which indeed they at first preached, but afterward by the will of God they handed it on … to us in the scriptures.” The “apostolic tradition” is the content of the gospel of Christ, the same information about Jesus found in the New Testament. However, the idea of an authoritative religious tradition in Christianity would eventually take on a life of its own, as it has in many religions. But Irenaeus of Lyons, early Christian teaching aids, and the decrees of early Church councils confirm, that the apostolic tradition was the essential or basic truths of the Christian faith, whether communicated in writing or orally. (ibid, Danielou, pgs. 149ff.) The Doctrine of Apostolic Succession
What is the doctrine of apostolic succession? It is the doctrine, held by a good number of Christian religious entities, that the teaching authority of the apostles is passed down in succession to regional bishops. This doctrine provides a rationale, a false one, for the consolidation of religious authority in “the bishop.” The position of “bishop” began in the second century. It would take another century before regional bishops were a common practice. The church in Rome, of all churches, was not at first led by a single individual. It is clear also in the records of church history that power was not completely concentrated in one person even as bishops first began to appear and function. Although Eusebius of Caesarea, Christianity’s first comprehensive historian, traces a succession of men who he believed were the bishops of Rome he was writing two and a half centuries after the founding of that church. He makes mistakes. Some of his information contradicts Clement of Rome who was a “bishop” in Rome and wrote around 100 A.D. In his letter to the Corinthians Clement says that the apostles appointed “bishops” (notice plural) for local church leadership. “So, preaching in both the country and in the towns they [the apostles] appointed … bishops [overseers] and deacons.” This is consistent with the New Testament record. The New Testament records that a plurality of bishops/elders were responsible to oversee local churches (see, Philippians 1:1, Acts 14:23 etc.). The Apostles did not appoint one regional bishop but provided multiple leaders who all shared local responsibility. Clement also says, “Those therefore who were appointed by them … with the consent of the whole church … and who have ministered to the flock of Christ blamelessly, humbly, peaceably, …” Notice the words “consent of the whole church.” (see, Apostles to Bishops, Sullivan, Newman Press, pgs. 94,96.) Originally, according to Clement, the apostolic appointment involved in some way the participation and acceptance of its leaders by an entire church family. However, eventually a bishop’s appointment would come via superiors as a highly autocratic and hierarchal form of church government developed. Custom and preference hardened into religious dogma. Eusebius who wrote around 325 A.D. from Caesarea in Palestine also exaggerated Peter’s connection with Christians in the city of Rome. He places Peter first in his list and allows for 25 years of service before the next “bishop" without any mention of the apostle Paul’s more evident presence in Rome that preceded Peter. Because of Eusebius enthusiastic acceptance of the emperor Constantine, historians “take with a grain of salt” many of his assertions. The New Testament indicates clearly that the church in Rome developed for some thirty years without an apostle. By the fourth century it was fashionable to link major church centers back to an apostle sometimes without evidence. It lent prestige to that church. And because Gnostics claimed links to the apostles via an oral tradition, orthodoxy countered with their more genuine history. Irenaeus of Lyon, a second century spokesman for Christianity, records his discipleship by Polycarp of Smyrna, who sat at the feet of the apostle John in Ephesus. But, now as then, zealous tendencies to defend the faith also tend to promote unfounded and unsupported conclusions. This example of links by Irenaeus back to the apostle John is credible. But other traditions that, for example, Thomas went to India, Philip to Armenia, or James to Spain have less objective support. What is thought happened to each apostle is often possible but generally unsupported. However, other claims by early “church fathers” as they wrote are so anachronistic (out of possible order) that they are not in the least credible. The linking of a regional bishop’s authority directly back to an apostle is obviously disconnected at the source. The New Testament and the earliest writings of the “church fathers" indicate that the apostles appointed a group of qualified men to oversee Christians located in a specific region or city. The Apostles did not appoint a sole regional leader. The evidence nullifies the idea of a chain of authority through Bishops. The authority to teach the Christian faith is not restricted to one man per region. God is interested in the preservation of His Church and needs no help to accomplish what He promises. It is a wonderful thing that God uses men and women to accomplish the work of establishing church families. Some like Peter had critical roles, yet it is also true that every elder is given for the “perfecting of the saints," via a teaching gift, so that all of God's people can be trained for the work of ministry (Eph. 4: 11f.) A Summary of Matthew
Matthew is the first book in the New Testament. It begins with a genealogy, tracing the human lineage of Jesus to the founder of the Jewish nation, a man named Abraham. This genealogy is important. It would verify the legitimacy of claims of sovereignty. Along with other claims, Christianity said that Jesus, was a member of the Jewish royal line. There are other elements in the beginning of Matthew that serve to identify Jesus. His miraculous conception and birth (1:18-25), his protection as a child from cruelty and death (2:1-18), and the quietness of his upbringing in obscurity. All of this, Matthew assures, is in fulfilment of words spoken by the “prophets.” Then there is a contemporary prophet, John the Baptizer (Ch.3). He is a new prophet, one calling for individual and national repentance. He is a different kind of voice, deeply respected and gaining attention. He spoke about permanent moral change, for putting aside ungodly deeds and habits of life. He admits he has no power to effect those changes but points to a God who can. It was important that one so respected as John put his stamp of approval on Jesus. This he did, as Jesus in adulthood, came, along with thousands of others who desired God, to the Jordan to be baptized. Then come tests for Jesus of his fitness to fulfill his mission (Matt. 4). The first man failed but Jesus succeeded. The words of God were real with Jesus. He passed those tests by referring to the truth of God, that “Man can not live by bread alone” (4:4), that the power of God only serves it’s intended purposes (4:7), and that God alone is to be worshipped (4:10). Now the purpose of God for Jesus begins in earnest. His first act is to choose followers to train because there will be a future without his physical presence. He chooses men that, for the most part, he can trust with that future, ones we call the Apostles (4:18-22). Now Matthew gives us an example of Jesus’ religious teaching. His message is presented in words so clear in contrast to the oppressive nature of religious dogma. This message suggests radical changes. Pointing to both the old way and even more to a degenerate religious world, Jesus said over and over, “you have heard it said, but I say to you…” His message is a message of change, of purity, of equitableness, and of liberation from the power of sin. The message is a manifesto of the need of right relationships with both God and man. Men and women will benefit from a new relationship with God. (Ch.5-7) Matthew now records miracles (Ch. 8-9). Miracles provide authority for the message. They provide evidence that centuries of ingrained religious practices should change. The message is far more important than the miracles. Unfortunately, the message was often unheard because of false perceptions of the Messiahs’ role. Miracles, real or otherwise, were accepted in that century. It meant to most that God was at work and perhaps a prophet was in their midst. But some who felt threatened irrationally claimed that demonic power was at work through Jesus. The mere thought that Jesus was even an authoritative voice from God was intolerable. Their positions of power were threatened. From this point on religious leaders plot to take his life and crowds diminish (Ch.10-15). On a northern mission near the border of the Gentile world Jesus teaches more specifically about his mission. It involves he says his own death. The time had come when it would be difficult for even the close associates to remain loyal. So, he reviews, what had they learned? Who was he? It was Peter who first responded, “You are the Christ, the son of the living God.” Jesus explains that he will give his life so that a world beyond Judea would find God. He would build a Church that would carry His name to the entire world. This Church would be the people of God, the representatives of Christ. One by one its members would be brought into a fellowship of a common faith in Jesus. This is not an exclusive entity but a universal and a spiritual entity of all who find and live by faith in the Son of God. The last part of Matthew, (Ch. 24-25), explains why the promised Kingdom was not for the present. The gospel would be taken to every part of the world. The details of the actual crucifixion of Jesus are last (26-27). His death was terrible, but his burial dignified. But then the resurrection and the ultimate reason that this message was to be taken to all the world. The world should hear about the life, the death, the burial, the resurrection and the ascension of Jesus. The Book of Matthew
The book of Matthew is the first book of the New testament. There is some indication in the writings of the early church that it was written in Aramaic, the Hebrew dialect of Jesus day. It may also have been written near Antioch of Syria. This is based on the writings of Christians a few centuries later. What is better supported is that Matthew, as well as, the other three gospel books were in circulation very early. This is known with certainty from the allusions and loose citations to these texts in the earliest post apostolic Christian era writings. Although the “cannon" of scripture had not yet solidified the process began early, long before any church council formally ratified the New Testament books we have today. Most New Testament writings were accepted as authoritative as soon as they were written. Then Christians took pains to put together in groupings what was available to them. The four gospel books quickly circulated as a unit as well as most of Paul’s letters. Indication that the books were authoritative for the Christian faith began as they were written. This is seen in the assertions of the writings themselves, as well as, how they were immediately valued and used by Christian leaders. Growing Gnostic competition in the second century only served to intensify the desire of Christians to establish with certainty an objective foundation for their faith. All the gospel accounts of Jesus life (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were evangelistic as well as discipleship tools. They were also apologetics. They were not written to be chronological histories, (although they are loosely chronological and they represent accurate history) but to convince. Those who lived with Jesus were convinced of the reality of what they saw, heard, and experienced and wanted to convince others. Human history bears witness to the success of that object. Matthew has peculiarities that indicate a Jewish audience. For example, of the four gospels, it is the only one that uses the phrase “kingdom of heaven” rather than “kingdom of God,” unless unavoidable in the context. This seems to indicate a sensitivity to the Jewish reluctance to utter the name of God. Although the Old Testament and Hebrew name used of God was Yahweh or Jehovah, the frequent substitution of the word “heaven" for God, is one of many indicators of a Jewish audience. Each gospel has a central theme. In Matthew the theme includes the opportunity represented by Jesus presence, the nature of the Kingdom of heaven as something available in the present. Its future benefits can be secured but its present reality is needed and comes with a willing reception of Jesus as Messiah and King. Centuries of ingrained perception was a challenge Jesus had to overcome. For many Jews the greatest reality was the political reality, a nation of their own. It is natural to want the self identity and expression that national self autonomy represents. The willingness to wage war for that identity is a sign of the intensity of feeling that is at the core of these human issues. Jesus saw the world differently. His mission was not focused on political power. Much of his teaching involved reorienting the thinking of the Jewish population toward the idea of a more important realm of kingdom. God wants more than anything else, our hearts to be aligned with Him. This is where, in the present, the Kingdom of God is possible. To secure that kingdom, the inner most part of a human being needs to submit to a radical change that only God can work through repentance and faith. Jesus, in Matthew, in the “Sermon on the Mount" (Matt.5-7), teaches about God's equitable justice in human relationships. He taught that this was needed in the culture. This too was in the realm of God’s kingdom. He also spent a lot of time preparing his followers for his absence using the phrase, the kingdom … is like…” It was not only like the good principles needed in human relationships, but it was also like a mustard seed that is very small but can grow into something far exceeding its original size as Christians are faithful to God (Matt. 13:31-32). What he was telling them was that given reasonable time the seeds of truth can result in something far greater than imagined. Christianity outwardly illustrates this but the kingdom within will be revealed in time to be a tree that is much better and greater than “Christianity” itself. The Twelve Apostles
To understand the reason for Apostles, misperceptions must be set aside. One is that there were only twelve. Others in the New Testament are referred to as apostles (Acts 14:14, II Cor. 8:23, Phil. 2:25). Christians have also assumed a role for the Twelve they may never have had. Their primary role was not one of a specific governmental authority over the newly formed Christian Church. The New Testament gives no indication that this type of thing occupied much of their time. And even though what they believed and wrote is still the standard that regulates the Christian faith, their specific role we know from the New Testament. Their role is defined as being special witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus (both individually and as a unit Acts 1:21-22, 4:33, 2:42, 6:2 etc.). In addition, they were an authoritative and reliable source of Christian doctrine. Of the four gospel books (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), only Matthew and John were members of the Twelve. Mark is considered the record of the apostle Peter. Luke consulted with the apostles and other direct sources. All of this means that Jesus teaching and a record of his existence and activities on earth, as known by the Apostles, is preserved for us in the first four books of the New Testament. However, the authority to “govern” the Church is something different than recording with accuracy the life of Jesus or witnessing to the resurrection. Consider for example the cooperative role the Apostles took in “governmental affairs” as recorded in Acts 15 in what is called the Jerusalem council. But the “Twelve Apostles” were, as a unit, a symbolic declaration of God’s will and approval upon this new venture (in the first century) called Christianity. The Twelve were especially a testimony to the Jewish constituency of Jesus day. Just as the Jewish nation was founded upon the twelve sons of Jacob, these twelve special representatives of Jesus symbolized God’s blessing upon Christianity’s beginning. It was a powerful symbolic gesture. In the book of Revelation, the Twelve are put on the same level as the founders of the Jewish nation. (Rev 21:14) Another part of the puzzle is, that the gospel accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), rarely refer to these twelve men as apostles. More often they are referred to simply as “the Twelve” or “the Twelve disciples” or just “his disciples.” Certainly, they were the closest of Jesus’ associates. But the word “apostle” only means “one sent to represent another.” It is like the words envoy, representative, or missionary. The twelve, in a technical sense, were still disciples in training until after the resurrection. It was then their permanent mission as apostles began as authoritative witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection (Acts 1:21-26, 4:33, 2:42). A man named Paul is also called an apostle. He refers to himself as an apostle birthed as such outside of the normal pattern (I Corinthians 15:8) but equal in giftedness and power. In God’s sovereign plan for the Church, Paul was added in a strategic way to advance the cause of Christianity. But Barnabus is also called an apostle and so are others (Acts 14:14, II Cor. 8:23, Philippians 2:25). Their roles, however, are minor in comparison. Judas, because of his betrayal, was replaced by Matthias (Acts 1:21ff.). This replacement is in the context of maintaining the symbolic unity of Twelve. In Acts, Peter’s words indicate that eleven or thirteen would not do. Twelve was the necessary number. Again, this reflects an awareness of Jewish history. The continuation of that number was testimony of God’s approval upon the newly formed Christian Church. Others, who are legitimately referred to as apostles have, except for Paul, very limited roles by comparison. Most of these did not have extraordinary gifts. This is because the word apostle itself only indicates one who is sent to fulfill a mission or duty. For example, a church might send a person to represent it in the spread of the gospel around the world (II Cor. 8:23, Phil. 2:25). This does not imply any extraordinary gifting but that these men and women are envoys, representatives, missionaries, or what is called apostles of the churches. These do not replace the dramatic ministry or symbolic intent of having Twelve leaders that represent then and now the foundation of the Christian faith. The Bishop is In
Perhaps the most far reaching change that affected the future of Christianity that came in the second century was with the development of what today is referred to by the word “bishop.” In the New Testament and in first century Christianity every local church had “bishops.” The word in the Bible translated bishop simply means “overseer” and refers to an elder or overseer in a local assembly. The elevation of one elder to a leadership role among elders was a second century post apostolic development. It would take centuries for, this originally mutually agreed upon position, to develop into a position of great prestige and authority. The justification for the existence of such a leader in the second century is not hard to find in the writings of the early church. A regional leader was considered a way to establish unity and safeguard the faith. Jerome in the fifth century said that it was because of a horrible state of disunity that in the second century elders in a region decided to select one of their own to evaluate the doctrinal beliefs of baptismal and eldership candidates. This elder was not seen as superior but an equal assigned an important job. He was chosen as a local standard bearer for the Christian faith. Jerome indicated, as well as other church leaders, that this institution had no biblical foundation but was a practical measure to help protect the apostolic faith. The struggle with an often-sited disunity in these centuries was a result of an ongoing battle with Gnosticism. Gnosticism was a significant threat to Christianity. It claimed a superior and exclusive knowledge of the Christian faith. This knowledge, they said, was superior even to the Apostles themselves. Tertullian, who lived earlier than Jerome, in the latter half of the second century, said that an elder was selected by the consensus of other elders to hold the right to baptize. In turn all elders in a region baptized new believers by virtue of their doctrinal agreement with this newly elevated individual. The existence of such a leader was considered a safeguard against the Gnostic threat. In the fight with Gnosticism, Christian leaders also argued that they, rather than the Gnostics, had a direct historic connection with Christ’s apostles. This supported their claim of knowing with greater certainty, than Gnostics, Christ’s teachings. Over the centuries the prominence and power of the Bishop would evolve into an extremely autocratic and sometimes abusive institution. In time it would also be in competition with the Roman See and its growing pursuit of supremacy. Irenaeus, a contemporary with Tertullian (late second century) stated correctly that orthodox Christianity had historic links to the apostles. Although this idea was at times exaggerated, it was true. But this linking of Christianity back through existing Christian leaders to the apostles is also used unjustifiably as support for what is called an apostolic succession of teaching authority passed down to these regional bishops and their successors. Perhaps the most significant aspect of all of this, is that most, if not all, early Christian leaders, from the time of Tertullian and Irenaeus in the second century, to Jerome in the fifth, indicated that a bishop was essentially an equal with a limited mandate. These men indicated that the practice of having a bishop was a custom and not a dogmatic part of the Christian faith. But this idea of a bishop as a separate office introduced a new concept. It should be noted that this concept is not comparable with the idea of a senior pastor in a local congregation. This was the introduction of a regional leader, who in time, came to have a position of strong authority over all regional elders and local churches. But originally this position was one by the mutual consent of other elders. His limited authority and mandate came via his peers, not from scripture or the apostles. However, once this institution was established, gradually over the coming centuries a highly autocratic form of church government came into existence, as Christianity would become broadly disseminated and extremely powerful. The Gospel of the Kingdom
It does not take long to realise, as the New Testament is read, that much of the language and message of Jesus is connected to the word kingdom. This word is found on many pages in the New Testament. The reason is the obsession of the Jewish community in the first century with it’s national history and identity. There was a burning desire in Judea and Galilee for political autonomy especially after having lost that autonomy to the Romans in 63 B.C., just a generation before Jesus time. This is background and context for the New Testament narrative. After the Babylonian captivity of the Jews in the eighth century B. C. and a return after seventy years of part of the Jewish community, and then a Greek empire’s administration of Judea (through one of Alexander the Great’s generals), Israel rebelled against Syria and established its national identity once again. For about 100 years beginning in 160 B.C. Jerusalem was the capitol of a re-established nation. But as the Roman Empire expanded it took control of the western part of the middle east. In most situations of conquest, the Roman government would put in place a governmental structure similar to the one that a nation had previously, but obviously install a political leader that would rule under Roman jurisdiction. The Roman army ensured compliance with any new arrangement. In special cases where there was a good chance that a subjected nation might try to rebel against Roman authority, this nation might be ruled directly by either the Roman senate or even the Emperor himself. Judea, Samaria, and Galilee, Jewish regions in the middle east were allowed a King named Herod. By Jesus’ time this changed. Rome, because of the inept leadership of Herod, took away this privilege, dividing the nation into smaller units, and ruled directly, allowing Herod’s sons to be figureheads only. And so, the word “Kingdom” used in the Bible was a politically charged word that reflected something very close to the heart of the Jewish people. And for Jesus it was a point of contact with first century culture. Using the word “Kingdom” as an introduction to many of his messages ensured that people would take notice. Part of Jesus message was that the longed-for Kingdom of God, as far as it relates to the present age, is primarily a spiritual identity rather than a national or political unit. The Kingdom, far more importantly, involved a committed allegiance to God that subjects the inner most part of a human being to God’s sovereign rule and way. The more important aspect of the Kingdom for any human being, as he or she lives out their lives, is what Jesus called the heart. The Greek word that is translated Kingdom can often be more accurately translated by the word “reign.” In many instances this word provides a clearer understanding of the message of the New Testament. An example that illustrates the use of the word in a non-political or geographical sense is Jesus reply to the Roman judge Pilate when tried just before his crucifixion. Jesus’ accusers had said to Pilate that Jesus was a political revolutionary bent on an uprising against Rome. Jesus reply was that his kingdom was “not of this world.” (John 18:36) As the New Testament unfolds it becomes obvious that the idea expressed by the word Kingdom is related to the reign of God within an individual. And what is called the Christian gospel is the same as the gospel of the Kingdom in principle, the message of the nearness of that Kingdom in the person of Jesus. Perhaps the most controversial use of the word Kingdom is Jesus’ words to Peter that he would give him the keys to the Kingdom (Mathew 16:18 -19). Although it is easy to assume this is an innate and exclusive power, the New Testament context, as well as human misuse of such powerful religious authority tells us otherwise. This misperception has been the cause of many, even well meaning Christian leaders, to greatly err and for some, in even the highest echelons of religious power, to abuse their powerful positions. The keys to the Kingdom for Peter or for anyone is the gospel message itself. Although the keys were communicated to Peter in this famous scripture, Matthew 16:17-18, based on Peters profession of faith, the keys were also given to all of Christ’s close associates for the same reason as Peter (Matthew 28:16,18-20, Luke 24:45-48). These keys are for all who recognise and believe, just as Peter, who it is that is asking them to follow him. Although a very cursory reading of the New Testament would verify this assertion, the words of the Apostle Paul in Romans 1:16 are significant. He said, “… I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ because it is the power of God for salvation.” |
John H. Banks B.A., MDiv.30 years in home mission efforts in Eastern Canada Archives
April 2019
Categories |
Site powered by Weebly. Managed by Netfirms