15: Christian Scriptures Beyond The Gospels

1. 15: Christian Scriptures Beyond The Gospels

2. Questions In The Early Church In the past century or so, Bible scholars have raised some important questions about several beliefs within Christianity in the generation of the Apostles and the generation of those who were direct disciples of the Apostles. These questions include; Did early Christians believe that Jesus was God? Did converts to Christianity have to first convert to Judaism? Did Jesus intend to leave behind a Church? What role, if any, did the Jewish Law play in Christian life? The gospels themselves address a number of these questions but people often forget that the earliest beliefs of Christianity can be found, not in the gospels but in the letters written, mostly, by Paul. So before beginning the exploration of these questions, it might be a good idea to discuss the other documents that are found in the Christian scriptures

3. What Were the Other Books That Were Part of the Christian Scriptures? There were 23 other books found in the Christian Scriptures: • Thirteen letters (epistles) have been attributed to the Apostle Paul. These letters were probably the earliest written of all the documents that were included in the Christian scriptures. Some of them may have been written within twenty years of Jesus’ death. Many people who either knew Jesus’ and his disciples themselves or had family or friends that knew them were alive when these letters were written • Three letters were written by a man named John. Whether they were written by the Apostle John or an early Christian elder named John the Presbyter has been debated for many centuries • Two letters were written by the Apostle Peter • James, the “brother of Jesus” and Bishop of the Jerusalem church wrote a letter as did Jude, also listed a “brother of Jesus” in the gospels • There was also a letter written to “The Hebrews”. Paul was originally thought to have written this letter but, today, most people agree that its true author remains unknown • The Apostle Luke wrote The Acts of the Apostles, a sort of history of the first decades of Christianity • John, either the Apostle or the Presbyter, wrote the Apocalypse (uncovering).

4. What Were Paul’s Letters About? - Most of Paul’s letters were written to deal with specific issues developing in communities that he established. Paul expected that these letters would be shared among those communities and read as part of the public worship - There is almost universal agreement that Paul’s letters were written at least two decades before the gospels and that they represent the earliest writings to make their way into the Christian Scriptures. - When Paul wrote his letters, he believed he was writing important facts about Jesus and the Church communities he left behind. He expected those letters to be shared among all of his communities. It is not clear that Paul ever believed his writings would be included in some future book or collection of writings of other Christian witnesses to Jesus - Some scholars believe that not all of Paul’s epistles were actually written by Paul - Almost all scholars agree that seven are considered written by Paul himself (First Thessalonians, Philippians, First Corinthians, Galatians, Second Corinthians, Romans and the pastoral letter to Philemon). Of these seven, Romans stands out because it was sent to a Church that Paul did not have a hand in establishing - There remains a lot of debate about the true author of a group of three other letters (Ephesians, Colossians, Second Thessalonians) - The authorship of the Pastoral epistles (First and Second Timothy, and Titus) is also questioned by many modern scholars

5. What About Paul’s Letter to the Laodiceans? - At one point, Paul was thought to be the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Most scholars now agree that the author of Hebrews is unknown but… - There may be an additional epistle written by Paul to the Church in Laodicea. Such an epistle is mentioned by Paul in Colossians (Col. 4:16). There are several ways that this mention can be understood. - Some (starting with Hippolytus, a priest in Rome @200 CE) claim that the letter to the Laodiceans was actually the letter to the Ephesians that the Ephesian community passed on to the community at Laodicea to read. As mentioned earlier, Paul’s letters were expected to be circulated among the various communities established by Paul. - The heretic Marcion claimed to have found the letter to the Laodiceans. This letter supported Marcion’s ideas that the Hebrew Scriptures should play no role in the life of Christians. This letter was seen as a fraud from the beginning. - Some translations of the scriptures into Latin contained a very brief letter to the Laodiceans, but, since the entries were little more than a pastiche of other letters from Paul, this too was regarded as a fraud - To date, no true letter to the Laodiceans has ever been found. It is interesting to consider, however what would happen if the genuine letter to the Laodiceans ever came to be found. Would it be automatically included in the canon of the NT

6. What About the Other Epistles? (I) - Seven letters, called ‘catholic’ or universal because, unlike Paul’s epistles, they were not written to specific Churches include; Epistle of James There remains debate within Christianity as to the identity of this man named James. Some say it is the Apostle, James the Lesser, Others say it was a third James who is called “the brother of Christ”. The epistle is very Jewish in nature and stresses a faith that produces good works whereas Paul’s epistles simply stress faith Epistles of Peter Irenaeus claims that Peter the Apostle wrote these letters (1 Peter and 2 Peter). 1 Peter 5:13 says that the letter is from ‘Babylon’, an early Christian code word for Rome. It also mentions that Peter is accompanied there by Mark. Modern scholars largely accept 1 Peter as genuine. 2 Peter is much more controversial Epistles of John All three of John’s epistles were originally believed to have been written by the Apostle John. Later scholarship questions that belief. 1 John seems to hold clear Johannine language. The language of 2 and 3 John are less clearly Johannine. Some believe that John the Presbyter from Ephesus may have written them

7. What About the Other Epistles? (II) • The catholic (small c) epistles - Epistle of Jude The author is thought to be Jude, also called the “brother of Christ”. 2 Peter and the Epistle of Jude have a lot of context in common. Some critics hold that one used the other as a source but who used whom is still the subject of debate • The Epistle to the Hebrews • Clearly this epistle was not a catholic letter. It was written to a specific community. Unlike Paul’s letters, we have no idea which community sent this letter or about the person who wrote it. Both remain a mystery though there is a strong belief by many that the letter was meant for the Jerusalem community The letter is thought to have been written in Rome sometime after the death of James, the Bishop of the Jerusalem community (62 CE), but before the Roman Wars (67-70 CE). The letter stresses that Christianity is both a continuity and a fulfillment of Judaism. There are many quotes from the Hebrew Scriptures as they were written in the Septuagint. Interestingly, though, they were interpreted in a style that some scholars feel is reminiscent to Rabbinic Judaism. There is strong emphasis on the priesthood of Melchizidek who is treated almost as another David

8. How Should the Book of Revelation (Apocalypse) Be Understood? • The Revelation of John (also called The Apocalypse which means uncovering) First it should be said that a number of modern scholars continue to hold that the author of this book was the Apostle John and that the book was written while he was in exile on the island of Patmos. There are some scholars who hold that the book may have been written by the Presbyter John. This book was very controversial and there was much debate about its inclusion in the canon of the New Testament. In the end, it was accepted. Revelation is considered neither a gospel nor an epistle but rather an apocalyptic book. For that reason, the book is best understood when it is compared to the Book of Daniel in the Hebrew Scriptures. Just as the Book of Daniel was written to console and give hope to Jews suffering under foreign rule so too was Revelation written to console and give hope to Christians suffering under the persecution of Nero. There are some who consider 666 (the sign of the beast) to be referencing Nero Many references spoken about in modern literature (the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Wormwood, the Anti-Christ, the Sign of the Beast and others) derive from this book. The book focuses on dire events because Christians were enduring dire situations. The book also offers assurance that things will be well in the end

9. What Were the Criteria for Selecting Books Into the New Testament • There are usually four criteria given for the validation of the books selected for inclusion into the New Testament canon - Apostolic Origin The book/letter was either written by an Apostle or by someone close to an Apostle - Universal Acceptance The book/letter was accepted as valid by a large majority of Christian communities - Liturgical Use The book/letter was used in the readings during the weekly Christian liturgies - Consistent Message The message contained in the book/letter was compatible with the message delivered in other accepted letters or books i.e. Jesus was both fully human and fully divine In the second century CE, Irenaeus, Bishop of Lugdunum (Lyons, France), in his book “Against Heresies” quoted from all of the books of the NT with the exception of Philemon, II Peter, III John and Jude. The Diatessaron acknowledged the four gospels. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, was the first to compose a list that included all 27 books currently in the New Testament in 367 CE. Jerome’s Vulgate (a Latin bible commissioned by the Bishop of Rome) was finished in 384 CE. It also contained the current 27 books in the New Testament

10. Were There Other Important Books That Were Not Deemed to be Inspired? Several writings were considered for inclusion in the Christian Scriptures but, after much consideration, were not accepted : • The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (the Didache), an early catechism of the Christian Church written between 50 and 90 CE. Its sixteen simple chapters propose a Christian sense of morality that rings true even today. It’s treatise on Baptism shows that trinitarian beliefs were present in Christianity from very early on • The Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Church in Corinth. This letter was written by a presbyter/bishop in Rome also @ 95 CE urging the Christians of Corinth to respect the authority of their leaders and maintain order and harmony in the Church • The Letters of Ignatius of Antioch. Ignatius was the Bishop of Antioch and was arrested by the Romans and led to Rome to be executed. he wrote to local churches that he passed on his way warning them, among other things, of the heresies rising both from “the Judaizers” as well as from the Docetists (Gnostic Christians who held that Jesus only seemed to be human) • We have already mentioned the Protoevangelium of James Irenaeus wrote a major work, “Against Heresies” (@190 CE). This work is noted not so much for the books of the NT that it did recognize but for the naming of Books that were considered heretical by the early Church. These books included the Gnostic Gospels with the Gospel of Judas specifically mentioned

11. Now Let’s Look At Some of the Questions In or About The Early Church As mentioned, these questions include; • Did Jesus really die on the cross? • Did Jesus physically rise from the dead? • Did early Christians believe that Jesus was God? • Did converts to Christianity have to first convert to Judaism? • What role, if any, did the Jewish Law play in Christian life? • Did Jesus intend to leave behind a Church? • Did Jesus marry Mary Magdalene, have children and leave behind a family ? Now we can examine all the Christian Scriptures to try to find what they say on the subject. We’ll begin with the first three questions. Did the first Christians believe that Jesus was God or was it a later development as many modern scholars claim?

12. Did Jesus Really Die on the Cross? I believe so, but I don’t know so. Clearly the scriptures make it plainly clear that Jesus died on the cross. Why would such a question even be asked? You would be surprised. Gnosticism was one of the earliest Christian heresies. Hellenism could not accept even a material God let alone a God who could suffer and die. God interacted with the material world through his Logos. Gnostics took that one step further by claiming that the material world was a mistake created by YHWH, not the one God of all but merely a demi-urge, a sub-diety. Docetism was a Christian heresy that claimed that Jesus only seemed to be a man and that he only seemed to die. Islam took the next logical step in that direction. Since Islam believes Jesus (Isa) was a great prophet of God, they, too, could not accept a God who could die. In more recent times, books such as David Mirsch’s book, “The Open Tomb: What and How Jesus Faked His Death and Resurrection” claim that the whole death and resurrection thing was a hoax. Paul made all of this clear when he wrote, We proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. (1 Cor. 1:23-24) Jesus tried to use the Suffering Servant of Isaiah and the Sacrificial Lamb of Exodus to explain what his messiahship was like but, at the time, the Jewish people were looking for a Messiah of the Maccabee type. I explained above why Jesus suffering and death was foolishness to Hellenists. Paul explained: When God showed us his wisdom, the world, with all its wisdom, could still not find its way to God; and now God would use a foolish thing, our preaching, to save those who will believe in it. (1 Cor. 1:21)

13. Did Jesus Really Physically Rise From the Dead (I)? The answer to this question is more a matter of faith than a matter of fact but there are things that most everyone agrees are facts, if the NT is to be considered a valid source of information about Jesus; 1) The tomb was empty. Jesus’ body was never found 2) Many of Jesus’ followers claimed to have seen Jesus after his crucifixion. Paul indicates that many of those witnesses were still alive when Paul wrote his epistles (1 Cor. 15:6) 3) Jesus’ Apostles and closest followers, described in the gospels as fairly timid fellows at first, became so convinced that Jesus was raised from the dead that they not only risked but actually suffered torture and death rather than disavow their claims The New Testament claims that the three facts listed above are true. If the New Testament is to be believed then either Jesus was raised from the dead, Jesus was involved in a very clever plot of which the Apostles were not participants, or the Apostles and Jesus’ disciples suffered mass hysteria If the New Testament is not to be believed, then the whole question of the person of Jesus, as Paul indicates (1 Cor. 15:12-22), is moot

14. Did Jesus Really Physically Rise From the Dead (II)? This question is really a partner to the previous question “Did Jesus really die on the cross”? It is asked something like. “I can’t believe anyone can rise from the dead so if the Apostles saw Jesus after the crucifixion, he couldn’t really have died on the cross”. Once again, the gospels of Matthew, Luke and John make it clear that they believed that Jesus rose from the dead. Thomas was the last to believe but he came around. The gospels make it clear that they believed that Jesus physically rose from the dead. He appeared to them multiple times in the Upper Room. He appeared to them on the Road to Emmaus. He ate with them along the shore of the Sea of Galilee. Many scholars today try to say that the Apostles hallucinated but hallucinations do not take place for extended periods of time in multiple locations. Paul doesn’t mince words on the subject. He wrote; ..he was seen by Cephas, then by the eleven apostles, and afterwards by more than five hundred of the brethren at once, most of whom are alive at this day, though some have gone to their rest. Then he was seen by James, then by all the apostles; and last of all, I too saw him. (1 Cor 15:5-8) And Paul adds the ultimate importance for Christians of the reality of the Resurrection when he wrote; and if Christ has not risen, all your faith is a delusion; you are back in your sins. (1 Cor. 15:17).Keep in mind, Paul claimed to be a Pharisee and a student of Gamaliel. The Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead. Again, I do not know, I merely believe, that Jesus physically rose from the dead. I do not, however, understand why any scholar would doubt that the first Christians believed it as well

15. Did the First Christians Believe that Jesus is God? • Both the Apostles and the early Church tried to point to the Hebrew Scriptures to support their claim that Jesus was the promised one of God - As a descendant of David, Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of Nathan and of Jeremiah (2 Samuel 7:16) and (Jeremiah 23:5) - Jesus’ birth by a virgin fulfilled the Christian understanding of the prophecy of Isaiah (Isaiah 7:14) - Jesus was the Suffering Servant of Isaiah (Isaiah 53) - Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem fulfilled the prophecy of Micah (Michah 5:12) • All the gospels identify Jesus as a Messiah. But neither being the Promised One of God nor The Messiah is the same thing as being God. What did the Gospels have to say on the subject? • The Synoptic gospels are a little circumspect about identifying Jesus as God. Jesus is called “Son of God” and “Son of Man”. The Hebrew Scriptures, however, see all human beings as sons of God. In the Book of Daniel, the Son of Man is one who is given authority by God, but is not God Himself. Jewish history has seen a number of “Messiahs” including the Judges, the Maccabees and even the Persian King Cyrus but being a Messiah and being God are two different things • Many Biblical scholars today hold that the Synoptic gospels were passed down in the Christian communities between 70 and 85 CE. As a result, the Synoptic views of Jesus came well before John’s definitive views. They believe this was too early for Christians to begin to think about Jesus as God

16. What Do the Synoptic Gospels Actually Say About The Divinity of Jesus? While the Synoptic gospels do not make any direct claims about the divinity of Jesus, they are not completely silent on the issue. • In Chapter 2 of Mark’s gospel, Jesus is asked to heal a paralytic man. Instead, Jesus forgives the man of his sins. The response of the scribes (religious lawyers) is noteworthy. They said; • “Why does this man speak that way?He is blaspheming. Who but God alone can • forgive sins?” • In Chapter 28 of Matthew’s gospel, Jesus says, “I have been given complete authority in heaven and on earth” • Also in Chapter 28 of Matthew’s gospel, Jesus tells the Apostles, “Go, therefore,and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” In this passage, Matthew not only states Jesus’ transcendent nature but also his part in a trinitarian godhead While the Synoptic gospels may make statements that point to Jesus’ divinity, John’s gospel (next slide) leaves no doubt

17. What Does the Gospel of John Say About the Divinity of Jesus? • There is little doubt in John’s gospel concerning the divinity of Jesus. The claim is plainly made and it is made in the very first words of his Gospel intentionally imitating the very first words of the Hebrew Scriptures: - “In the beginning was the word and the Word was with God and the Word was God” (John 1:1) • Additional claims can be found throughout John’s gospel - “Before Abraham was, I AM” (John 8:58) and the reaction of the Jewish audience that heard Him which clearly understood the implication of what Jesus said (John 8:59) - I AM the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6) I AM the resurrection and the life (John 11:25) I AM the light of the world (John 8:12) - “My Lord and My God” Thomas’ reaction to Jesus’ post- resurrection appearance in the Upper Room (John 20:28) • John leaves no doubt that he believes that Jesus is the Son of God as Christians understand that term today Biblical scholars believe that it took that long (John wrote @ 95 CE) for the idea that Jesus was God to develop.

18. Did Any Other Christian Scripture Answer This Question? I have always been puzzled why Biblical scholars look to the gospels to see what the earliest Christians believed about the divinity of God. Most scholars believe that the gospels weren’t written until after 70 CE and some believe it was much after 70 CE. I don’t understand that since none of the Gospels directly mention the destruction of the Temple and Luke’s Book of Acts, which we assume was written after his gospel, doesn’t mention Paul’s death which took place @ 65-69 CE Yet one of the clearest statements about the divinity of Jesus can be found not in a gospel but in a letter written by Paul to the Philippians: Who, though he was in the form of God,did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself*, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross. (Philippians 2:6-8) * this process of self-emptying is called kenosis Almost every scholar agrees that Paul’s letters were written well before any of the gospels, likely in the early-to-mid 50s CE. As we learned earlier, Paul was writing when many people who walked and talked with Jesus were still alive. This would seem to my untrained mind that Christians believed Jesus was God fairly early on

19. Might the Talmud May Have Something to Say About This? There is another source that may (stress “may”) confirm the Christian belief that Jesus actually claimed to be God, in the famous passage found in the Babylonian Talmud. (Baraitha Bab. Sanhedrin 43a, probably second century) * “On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu [the Nazarene]. And an announcer went out in front of him for forty days, saying: 'He is going to be stoned, because he practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and plead in his behalf.' But not having found anything in his favor, they hanged him on the eve of Passover” This reference in the Talmud is the subject of much debate. First of all, many of the standard publications of the Talmud did not publish this section, possibly due to censorship by ruling governments in Christian countries or self-censorship by Jewish publishers in fear of retaliation. Secondly, many of the early manuscripts omitted the phrase “the Nazarene” so it is not completely clear if the Yeshu referred to here was Jesus. Jesus definitely did not die as a result of stoning However, if this did refer to Jesus, it’s interesting that it supports John’s version of the day of the Last Supper and Jesus’ crucifixion.

20. What Was The Jewish Reaction to Claims of Jesus’ Divinity? As mentioned earlier, the Christian New Testament often tried to quote the Hebrew Scriptures to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, the promised one of God. This was especially true in Matthew’s gospel Clearly, the notion that Christians had of the Messiah playing the role of the sacrificial lamb of the Exodus or the Suffering Servant of Isaiah were biblically supportable but not at all compatible with the Jewish concept of the Messiah that was current at the time of Jesus. The Jewish people could easily claim that Jesus’ crucifixion proved that he was, in fact, not the Messiah since his mission, by their standards, had failed All thoughts of a Messiah aside, the most difficult thing for a faithful Jew to accept about Jesus was the Christian claim, clearly stated in John and in Paul, and perhaps more obliquely in the synoptic gospels, that Jesus was divine At the time of Jesus, the Jewish nation was fierce in its monotheistic belief. It could not tolerate a belief that seemed to them to have Hellenistic origins. After suffering at the hands of the Hellenist monster Antiochus IV and also at the hands of their Roman masters who were very fond of Hellenism, they wanted no part of it. In fact, they wanted a Messiah to be a warrior-king like the Hasmoneans who would rid them of it The same was not true in parts of the Jewish Diaspora which didn’t suffer the same indignities as the inhabitants of Judah suffered. One such Jewish thinker was a man named Philo and what he wrote was interesting

21. What Did Philo of Alexandria Write? Philo was a member of the Jewish community that lived in Alexandria in Egypt and a contemporary of Jesus. Philo’s family also had ties to the Hasmoneans in Judea. Philo was not a Christian but a faithful and observant Jew,. Philo was also a Roman citizen. In fact, Philo traveled to Rome to plead with the Emperor Gaius (Caligula) to secure the rights of the Jewish community in Alexandria under Roman rule In Philo, the Greek concept of Sophia (Wisdom) had evolved into the Greek word preferred by John for a similar concept, Logos (Reason). Philo was raised in Egypt, far away from Jerusalem which was hostile to the Hellenistic culture. Egypt was far less hostile to Hellenism yet still with a long history of involvement with Judaism, even having its own Temple established by a Zadokite high priest. It is not surprising then that Philo would use a Hellenist term like Logos to explain Judaism to a Hellenist culture. This is not to imply that even Philo took this as literally as Christians did but it does show that Judaism was found interesting and was respected by other cultures Philo wrote these surprising words: For God, like a shepherd and a king, governs (as if they were a flock of sheep) the earth, and the water, and the air, and the fire, and all the plants, and living creatures that are in them, whether mortal or divine; and he regulates the nature of the heavens, and the periodical revolutions of the sun and moon, and the variations and harmonious movements of the other stars, ruling them according to law and justice; appointing, as their immediate superintendent, his own right reason (Logos), his first-born son, who is to receive the charge of this sacred company” (Philo of Alexandria. On Husbandry, XII:51)

22. Speaking of Wisdom: Consider Proverbs 8:22-31 The Lord made me his when first he went about his work, at the birth of time, before his creation began. Long, long ago, before earth was fashioned, I held my course. Already I lay in the womb, when the depths were not yet in being, when no springs of water had yet broken; when I was born, the mountains had not yet been set on their firm foundations, and there were no hills; not yet had he made the earth, or the rivers, or the solid framework of the world. I was there when he built the heavens, when he fenced in the waters with a vault inviolable, when he fixed the sky overhead, and levelled the fountain-springs of the deep. I was there when he enclosed the sea within its confines, forbidding the waters to transgress their assigned limits, when he poised the foundations of the world. I was at his side, a master-workman, my delight increasing with each day, as I made play before him all the while; made play in this world of dust, with the sons of Adam for my play-fellows. Who is being discussed here? Proverbs 8:1 tells us. It is Wisdom. The Wisdom of the Lord expressed as a person. In Greek σοφία (sophia) In Hebrew חָ֭כְמָה(hachemah)

23. Judaism and Christianity Preaching to the Greek-Speaking World The early Church, and Paul, in particular, have often been accused of hijacking a very Jewish Jesus and changing him into a figure more acceptable to a Hellenist world. Given that the first converts to Christianity were Jewish; some speaking Aramaic, some speaking Greek, there was no need to explain basic concepts of Judaism. They used those concepts to preach Jesus to their converts from Judaism Gentiles, however, were a different story. Most Gentiles knew little or nothing about Judaism. They had to have Jesus explained to them using words and ideas that were more meaningful to them. It is also important to remember that Gentiles were asking questions that Jewish converts had not considered and those questions required answers What is less known is that Judaism itself was also attracting converts in the Hellenist Diaspora. Judaism was respected as an ancient faith and many Gentiles (called God-fearers in the Christian Scriptures) were attracted to that faith. It should be no surprise then that Judaism faced many of the same issues as Christianity and faced them two or more centuries before Christianity Given this context, the Wisdom Literature of the Hebrew Scriptures and the writings of Philo, which seem so Hellenist, can be better understood. It can also be noted that the Jewish community had long been doing exactly what the Christian community had to do. What changed things radically was the destruction of the Temple

24. Aren’t All The Claims That Christians Make About Jesus Unreasonable? In one way of looking at that question, the answer is YES. The answer is yes in the sense that Christians do not come to this belief by means of reason alone. There were two heresies, Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism that claimed that human beings can come to know the full truth of Jesus by reason alone with no need for faith, Christians believe that they come to know Jesus only by the gracious prompting of the Holy Spirit and by their response of faith But, in another real sense, the answer to that question is NO. While the beliefs that Christians have about Jesus are not provable by reason, they also do not contradict reason. They may contradict the understanding that today’s scientific knowledge has about the universe and how it works, but it is not unreasonable. I will use a five minute video presented by that famous man of faith, (sarcasm intended), Carl Sagan.

25. Flatland

26. Miraculous But Not Unreasonable Consider this cylinder. As this three- dimensional shape intersects the two-dimensional plane, it appears to be a circle. Just as Jesus is fully God and fully man, the cylinder, from a two-dimensional point of view, is fully circle. But from a three-dimensional perspective is fully cylinder and can have amazing powers, at least from a two-dimensional perspective. If this cylinder were an intelligent entity, it could appear in a place seemingly from nowhere. It could “see” and “know” everything that was going on in that place in one glance. It could leave a room in the same way and rise into the heavens and disappear out of sight The same could be said for that voice heard from Heaven “This is my beloved son.”

27. Faith and Reason • There was a question raised very early on in Christianity. It was raised by a man named Tertullian, a very well-regarded catholic Christian at the time (he later left the Church to join an end-times cult called the Montanists). He asked, What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? There are many today who misread his point. • Tertullian was quite right in saying that Jesus could not be understood by reason alone. A monk named Pelagius tried to make that claim several hundred years later and he was declared a heretic. Tertullian agreed with what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 1:21 in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not know Him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. • But Tertullian also understood as shown in the next two verses of First Corinthians, that Jerusalem also failed to bring many to faith. He also understood as he defended the Christian understanding of Trinity (tres personae, una substantia in Latin). He did not come to the understanding of Trinity through reason. He came to it by grace through faith. But when he needed words to explain it to the Hellenists in the Empire, he had to explain it in a way that did not contradict reason. • Human beings were created in God’s image with an intellect that includes reason and a free will that allows a leap of faith that does not abandon reason but uses it to explore things that may seem beyond reason’s grasp. This is the metanoia (translated into English somewhat poorly as repentance, it really means thinking beyond) that Peter called for at Pentecost which was to be followed by Baptism that included a leap of faith that such a change was possible.

28. Did Jesus Intend to Establish a Church? • The Greek expression for a church building was domos kyriakos (the Lord’s House). • The Scottish word kirk and the English word church derive from the Greek word kyriakos. The Greek word ekklesia (ἐκκλήσια) was used to describe the community itself. It basically means those who are called out. It was used to translate into Greek the Jewish expression qahal which means the community assembled. Germanic languages derive their word for church from the Greek kyriakos while Latin based languages derive their word from the Greek ekklesia (e.g. French église) • Many New Testament scholars today claim that Jesus never intended to form an ekklesia. They point to the fact that the word appears only twice in the gospels and both of those uses are found in Matthew (Matt. 16:17-18 and Matt. 18:15-17). Christianity, on the other hand, cites precisely these passages as proof that Jesus did intend to establish a Church • Little more than ten years after Jesus’ death, Jesus’ intentions notwithstanding, a fully-formed Church community can be found in Jerusalem with James, the “brother of Christ” as the Bishop aided by a council of elders (presbyters). The appointment of the first deacons* for this Church is described in the Book of Acts (Acts 6:1-7) • * The word deacon (diakonos) is actually never used in the Book of Acts

29. What Was the Early Church Like? – The Acts of the Apostles • Many scholars believe that the Acts of the Apostles was meant to be a continuation of the Gospel of Luke (Luke! The Sequel) • Acts gives a somewhat historical account of the early days of what became the Christian Church • - The Book of Acts is not a history as many understand history today • - The Book may have been written to answer the question from the last slide, to show the Church was the natural and intentional continuation of the work of Jesus • The first twelve chapters describe the Church more from the viewpoint of events in and around Jerusalem. Peter seems to be the main focus of these chapters but we also learn that James was the leader (episcopos or bishop) of the local community in Jerusalem • The final chapters of Acts tell of the missionary role of the Church. They describe events which take place in various locations away from Jerusalem finally ending in Rome. Paul is clearly the main focus of these chapters • In a way, the movement of action in Acts reflects the movement of the Church; away from a community that is largely Jewish (Hellenists and Hebrews) and centered in Jerusalem to a community that is largely gentile and begins to be move away from Jerusalem, to Antioch, to the cities visited by Paul, to other cities in and beyond the Empire and to Rome itself. The fact that it does not mention Paul’s death seems to indicate it was written before 67 CE. That implies that Luke’s gospel was written even earlier

30. What Does Acts Tell Us About the Purpose of the Church? • Pentecost Sunday is called The Birthday of the Church because it was the first day of the Church in action. The Church was left to continue to preach the good news of Jesus to all generations and to offer baptism into the new life of Christ. When the Apostles were finished preaching some in the crowd asked “Brothers, What are we then to do?” Peter’s answer is simple and straightforward Μετανοήσατε καὶ βαπτισθήτω (Metanoesate kai baptistheto) “Repent and be baptized” Repentmeta (a preposition with many meanings but most commonly meaning ‘beyond’) and noeo(a verb: to think, to consider). In other words, the Greek word that is translated as “repent” actually means “think beyond yourself” or “change the way you think about things”. This understanding suggests that Christians should stop thinking selfishly and start thinking selflessly. This understanding aligns well with the Sermon on the Mount Be baptized Become born again in your new thinking by water and by the Holy Spirit in baptism so that you may receive the new life of the Holy Spirit who will guide you through these changes • The Apostles preached first in Jerusalem. Many heeded their words, repented and were baptized. As a result, a community developed in Jerusalem in a form close to what would be recognized today as an ekklesia, a Church community

31. What Were the First Christian Communities Like? The short answer is that little is known about the first communities. Here is a summary of some things that do seem to be known; • For the most part, the Apostles themselves did not act as administrative leaders of the churches they established. They appointed and trained administrative leaders in those communities, then they moved on • While many seem to look to the churches established by Paul to understand how the earliest Christian communities were organized, the Book of Acts indicates that the church in Jerusalem, was established long before Paul’s missionary journeys began. Acts describes how that community was organized. James, the “brother of Jesus” was the single leader (episcopos). He was assisted by a council of elders (presbyteroi) and a group of assistants (diakonoi). Many Christian churches today are organized in this same manner • A few decades later, letters written by Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, indicate that the Christian communities in Antioch and Smyrna developed in the same way • The communities developed by Paul seem to be organized in a different way • - Leadership seemed to be more communal (at least in the beginning) • - While local leaders were involved in most of the activities of the community, itinerant teachers were to be welcomed (so long as they didn’t stay too long) • - The communities in Jerusalem, Antioch and Smyrna had large Jewish (mostly Hellenist Jews) populations while Paul’s communities were mostly Gentile

32. Why Did the First Communities Develop Differently? (I) There are a number of possible answers to that question: 1. The Nature of the Community Since the communities in Jerusalem, Antioch and Smyrna contained a large population of Jewish Christians, their organization had the advantage of organizational patterns already developed in local Jewish communities. The assemblies of the first Jewish Christian communities may well have followed the pattern of the synagoge that existed in Jewish communities at the time of Jesus. James Tunstead Burtchaell, a former professor at Notre Dame, espoused this theory in his book “From Synagogue to Church” The community in Jerusalem led by James were mostly Hellenist and traditional Jews. They would at least recognize the references from the Hebrew Scriptures (the Christian Old Testament) that Christians used to explain who Jesus was. Paul had no such advantage in the communities that he established among the gentiles who had little knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures. In fact, Paul was doing all that he could to deflect the attempts by some from the community in Jerusalem to make Paul conform to their method of teaching about Jesus to the Gentile communities

33. Why Did the First Communities Develop Differently? (II) 2. The Size of the Community The Book of Acts tells us that thousands were converted to Christianity on the first Pentecost Sunday. This implies that, even from the start, the community in Jerusalem was sizeable. It is not difficult to imagine that, after Herod Agrippa drove Hellenist Jews out of Jerusalem and into the communities in Antioch and Smyrna, those communities also also had large numbers of converts from Judaism Paul’s communities were very likely smaller. His epistles seem to describe communities that met in multiple house churches rather than in fewer, though larger, places of assembly (that may well have changed as the community grew) This may explain why the distinction between bishop (episcopos) and elder (presbyteros*) is so blurry in Paul’s communities while they are much more clear in the communities of Jerusalem, Antioch and Smyrna Note: The fact that the Christian community at Rome, which was fairly large and seemed to have a large Jewish population, did not organize early in its development along the lines of Jerusalem and Antioch raises a question about the validity of both of the previous explanations (* the English word “priest” derives from the Greek presbyteros)

34. Why Did the First Communities Develop Differently? (III) So what then is the answer? In truth, we don’t have a lot of definitive information about how Paul’s communities organized themselves b. We do have some definitive information about the Jerusalem community around 45 CE and the communities in Antioch and Smyrna around 95 CE c. Little is known about how the Roman community organized itself around 95 CE. What is known is found in a letter from Clement who describes himself as a presbyteros of the Roman church written to the Church in Corinth @95 CE d. It is well-known that, by the middle to the end of the second century CE, almost all Christian communities were organized following the pattern of the Jerusalem Church with a single bishop under whose authority were both priests and deacons In the end, this quote from John P. Meier, a professor at Notre Dame and author of “Jesus: A Marginal Jew” as well as co-author of “Antioch and Rome”, says it best. Prof. Meier writes, “A good rule of history is that a complicated phenomenon has no one simple cause or explanation. Hence all the influences mentioned (i.e. community size and makeup) and probably a lot more we don't know (e.g., the personalities involved in individual cases) all converged to bring about the triple hierarchy. It is wise to admit the limits of our knowledge.”

35. What Role, If Any, Did the Jewish Law Play In Early Christian Communities? We will cover that answer in the next section. Stay tuned!