Knowing Jesus in the Breaking of the Bread
Today’s ordinary Catholic mass or mainline Protestant communion service bears little resemblance to what we can glean from the New Testament about the first celebrations of Jesus’ presence in the breaking of the bread. Arguments that have divided denominations over the question of the relationship between the blessed bread and the whereabouts of Jesus would certainly have seemed strange and irrelevant to the first ekklÄ“siai. The New Testament speaks simply, both in the Gospels and in other writings, of memory and presence without theological elaboration. Because of our modern historical obsession with what one might call “left-brain” (rational) inquiries about a “right-brain” (affective) experience, we have often lost the essence of what Jesus intended and Paul understood about the Eucharist. (Wes Howard-Brook, The Church Before Christianity, New York: Orbis Books, 2004, p. 50)
Is the author correct? Would our arguments and disagreements concerning “The Lord’s Supper” or “The Eucharist” or “Communion” seem strange and irrelevant to the first churches? Are they, in fact, irrelevant today?
1 Timothy and Titus and the development of church structure
New Testament Introduction is primarily that information concerning the New Testament that deals with authorship, date of authorship, recipients, etc. But, while this information may not be primarily about interpretation, the decisions made always impact our interpretation. For example, consider a post that I wrote 2 1/2 years ago called “1 Timothy and Titus and the development of church structure.”
————————————————————
1 Timothy and Titus and the development of church structure
I have recently finished a study of the “Pastoral Epistles”. I prefer to call them “Paul’s Personal Letters”, since Paul does not indicate that these are addressed to “pastors”. As I studied 1 Timothy and Titus especially, I noticed that most commentators date these two epistles late in Paul’s life (or after Paul’s life, if they do not hold to Pauline authorship). But, I’m not sure that this is a valid date.
In his commentary The Pastoral Epistles, I.H. Marshall offers four theories for the authorship and dating of 1 Timothy and Titus [66-74].
1. The theory of a second imprisonment. According to this theory, Paul wrote 1 Timothy and Titus sometime after the events in the Book of Acts, after being released from his first imprisonment, after another missionary trip through Macedonia, and before a second imprisonment in which he was eventually executed.
2. A setting earlier in Paul’s career. According to this theory, Paul wrote 1 Timothy and Titus sometimes during the events recorded in the book of Acts, after his extended stay in Ephesus (or an unrecorded visit to Crete in the case of Titus), and before his imprisonment in Rome.
3. Theories based on fragmentary hypotheses. According to these various theories, 1 Timothy, Titus, and the other personal letters (besides Philemon) were created from various Pauline fragments, or, as Marshall explains, “[T]he PE (Pastoral Epistles) are artificial compositions incorporating fragments of actual Pauline letters.”
4. The fictitious character of the evidence. According to these various theories, 1 Timothy, Titus, and the other personal letters are pseudepigraphal – unnamed authors (not Paul) wrote the letters to unnamed recipients (not Timothy or Titus) and included fictional historical events to make them appear to be Pauline.
In this post, I only plan to discuss the first two theories. While there may be good reasons to hold to the last two theories, both theories assume that the letters themselves are a sham – either Paul did not write the letters, or he did not write them to the named recipients for the reasons stated in the letters themselves.
Almost every commentary that I’ve read supports theory number one (unless, of course, the commentator supported theory 3 or 4). I appreciate the way the Marshall approached this topic in his commentary. Consider his words here carefully:
Other attempts have been made to fit the PE into Paul’s missionary career as recorded in Acts. Lestapis 1976 argues that Tit and 1 Tim were written while Paul was at Philippi in AD 58 (Acts 20.30)… Van Bruggen 1981 in essence takes the same position. He argues that 1 Tim dates from Paul’s third missionary campaign before the events described in Acts 20… Much the same line was adopted by Reicke and Robinson… Like the theories of a second imprisonment, theories of this kind cannot be refuted by showing that the correlations do not work, since the record in Acts is sufficiently fragmentary to allow for all kinds of reconstructions. They show that the PE as they stand can be fitted into Paul’s lifetime. the great difficulty is rather that these three letters, which differ from the Hauptbriefe (i.e. Paul’s principal writings – Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians and Galatians) in linguistic and theological style but manifest a close unity among themselves, are interspersed with them over the same period of composition, and we are left wondering how and why the same writer could move so easily from one style to another. [71-72]
Because of the difference in style, and other considerations, Marshall believes that the second imprisonment theory offers “less difficulties” for the person who holds to Pauline authorship. However, the idea of an author writing to an individual in a different style with which he writes to a group does not leave me “wondering”. In fact, I would almost expect it, especially if the individual is a “dear son” as Paul describes Timothy.
But, why does this matter? That is the real question that we need to ask ourselves. Does it really matter when Paul wrote 1 Timothy and Titus? I think it does, and for a very practical reason.
Primarily, Timothy and Titus are unique for the amount of information included about “church order”, that is, elders, deacons, widows, etc. This is sometimes overstated, as Marshall explains, “Although questions of church ‘order’ are important in the PE, they are by no means central. Approximately one sixth of the letters is taken up with church order in the strict sense…” [52] It is a following phrase by Marshall and an assumption by most biblical scholars that prompts this blog post. Marshall says, “Clearly there has been some development in the organisation of the church from the period of Paul’s Hauptbriefe (i.e. Paul’s principal writings – Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians and Galatians)…”
The argument goes something like this. The church in Acts and in Paul’s earlier letters are still developing. They are not mature churches. We should not model ourselves after the churches in Acts, Romans, and Corinthians because those were early churches, and the structure of the church was still developing. How do we know that the “structure” of the church was still developing? Because Paul spent more time explaining church government in his later letters. Which later letters? Specifically, the Pastoral Epistles of 1 Timothy and Titus. How do we know these are later letters? Because the styles is different and because the church is more organized. Thus, we have circular reasoning.
What if, on the other hand, 1 Timothy and Titus were actually written earlier in Paul’s career – about the same time that he wrote Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians? This leads to a problem, because suddenly church structure and leadership takes on a completely different role. Similarly, the idea of the development of church structure and leadership falls away.
Honestly, I don’t plan to change anyone’s mind about the date that 1 Timothy and Titus were written. However, I do hope that you will think seriously about the idea of the “development” of church structures and leadership. Besides the possibility of 1 Timothy and Titus being written early, also remember that elders (Acts 14, 15), deacons (assuming Acts 6 is describing deacons), widows (Acts 6), and other leadership and structures are mentioned very early in the life of the church. This does not seem to be an idea that developed in the mind of Paul or other New Testament authors.
Thus, while Paul was writing his other letters, he was well aware of the role of elders, deacons, and other leadership in the church. However, for some reason, he never felt it necessary to instruct the leadership differently than other believers. He did not find it important to submit problems to the authority of church leadership. He did not turn sinning brothers and sisters over to church leadership. He did not tell church leadership to handle the meeting of the church. Instead, he constantly and consistently instructed all believers. In the entirety of the New Testament, there are very, very few passages that are directed specifically to church leaders (Acts 20; 1 Peter 5).
It is difficult to separate the spiritual from the secular in the first century
While discussing the current state of research into first century synagogues, Stephen Catto makes the following observation:
There would appear to be two major difficulties in addressing the area of worship practices in the first-century ‘synagogue’. The first is the lack of detail that we have on the subject, which should make us wary of overly confident assertions on practice. The second is defining what should or should not be considered worship. It is difficult to separate the spiritual from the secular in the first century, with any public act often having a religious element to it. (Catto, Stephen K. Reconstructing the First-Century Synagogue: A Critical Analysis of Current Research. New York: T&T Clark, 2007, pg. 106)
Certainly, we can do little about the detail of the evidence that we possess, however we can seriously consider that evidence. As Catto notes, in the evidence that we do have, the Jews of the first century did not make a distinction between the spiritual and the secular when it comes to worship. (Of course, the same could be said – and has been said many times – concerning other religious groups of the first century, including early Christians.)
This causes a problem for modern readers. Why? Because we DO make a distinction between the spiritual and the secular, and so we try to FIND that distinction in all historical evidence, including Scripture.
What would happen if we accepted (as those in the first century did) that there is no distinction between the spiritual and the secular, even when it comes to worship?
Schnelle on Biblical Theology and History
Since a theology of the New Testament must both (1) bring the thought world of the New Testament writings into clear focus and (2) articulate this thought world in the context of a contemporary understanding of reality, it has to work with different temporal planes. Its task is to envision the past in view of the present, to explicate it in such a way that its future relevance can be seen. New Testament theology is thus linked into the question of the lasting significance of past events. So it is always a historical discipline, and as such it must participate in theoretical debates on the nature and extent of historical knowledge. Thus the discipline of New Testament theology is involved from the start in the deliberations of the philosophy of history, how history as past reality is grasped, and which categories play a central role in this process. (Udo Schnelle. Theology of the New Testament. Trans. by M. Eugene Boring; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. pg 25)
Favorite Book of the Year 2009
Since I started blogging, each year I’ve picked my favorite book of the year (“2006,” “2007,” and “2008“). Each year, I have chosen a book about the church that I read for the first time during that year.
This year, my favorite book of the year is Joseph H. Hellerman’s When the Church was a Family: Recapturing Jesus’ Vision for Authentic Christian Community (Nashville: B&H, 2009).
I believe church’s and followers of Jesus would be radically changed if they began to think of one another as family – true family – real family – closer than blood family.
Here are the posts that I wrote about this book:
New Book about Church as Family
Introduction to When the Church was a Family
Review of When the Church was a Family – Strong Group Identity
Review of When the Church was a Family – Sharing Life Together
Review of When the Church was a Family – Decision Making and Leadership
If you’ve read this book, I’d love to know what you think. If you haven’t read it… why not? Get it and read it! (Then tell me what you think about it.)
What the young church DID have
Ernest Loosely divides his book When the Church was Young into two parts. In the first part, Loosely describes several things that the early church did not have, while in the second part (reviewed in this post) he describes three things that the early church DID have: an experience, a store of teaching from Christ, and a Gospel.
To begin with, Loosely said that the early church had an experience of living with Jesus Christ. This began with the early apostles and disciples who spent three years with Jesus:
With Him through months of success and popularity, with Him through seasons of gloom and apparent failure; with Him in city and village, in the country and by the seashore, on mountain and lake; with Him while He was teaching and working miracles, while He was meeting the arguments of hostile Pharisees, and while He was taking little children in His arms; with Him in the crowds, and afterwards in the silence and the solitude; and all the time the wealth of His soul was being outpoured into their lives. (p. 63-64)
The church continued to experience the presence of Jesus after his ascension through his indwelling presence. This presence gave them “a sense of power, of adequacy, of readiness to cope with any situation that arose.” (p. 66) They presence of Christ also gave them a sense of joy and a desire to share what had happened to them with one another and with others.
In fact, the experience of the abiding presence with Jesus was a replacement (and a better replacement) for the experience of the physical presence of Jesus. In fact, later disciples (Paul, for example) would write about knowing Christ in a way that went beyond the physical. As Loosely explains:
Paul had arrived at a sense of communion with Christ of the deepest and most intimate kind. It is a fellowship far closer than that of mere physical nearness. Far closer! (p. 66)
But, what does Loosely mean by “an experience”? He explains further when he begins to describe the young church’s possession of “a store of teaching from Christ”:
When the church was very young, it also had a store of teaching received from Christ. An “experience” might possibly be thought of as an emotional state, a transient sentiment. Had that been all the church had when it was young, it would quickly have subsided, the members in the movement left flat and spiritless. But Jesus had given to the disciples something so profound, we are thinking about it still, with a growing conviction that there is food for thought not only for their age and ours, but for all those yet to come. (p. 71)
Yes, their experience was more than emotion or sentiment. It was an encounter with the living and risen Christ, and it continued through his indwelling presence.
Simultaneously, they continued to learn from Jesus through one another. They contemplated and meditated on the teachings of Jesus. In the same way, Loosely says that the church today must preserve for ourselves and proclaim to mankind the words of Jesus.
How do we proclaim them? As gospel – “good news”! This is the third possession of the young church according to Loosely. The earliest disciples were amazed at the good news that was proclaimed to them by Jesus and that currently reshaped their lives. Everything was different!
They found that the news was so good that joy flooded all circumstances and situation, such that the good news became better than oppression or suffering.
Eventually, they found that this “good news” also affected people who lived in other cultures with different backgrounds. The gospel became even better news as it reached across cultural, economic, religious, ethnic, and all other barriers to change the lives of people.
Loosely closes this short book with this:
When the church was very young, it had a gospel; and now that the church is no longer young, but tempted to think of itself as entitled to the reliefs and relaxations of advancing years, the church has nothing better than the gospel to give to the world. (p. 78)
I don’t know about you, but this is a reminder that I needed moving into the new year.
What the young church did not have
Ernest Loosely divides his book When the Church was Young into two parts. In the first part, Loosely describes several things that the early church did not have. He says these same things often distract the modern church. The author says the young church had no buildings, no denominations, no fixed organization, no New Testament, no vocabulary of its own, no dogmatic system, and no Sabbath rest.
Before anyone jumps on Loosely for this list, we must admit that he is correct in each instance. Notice that Loosely doe not claim that it is wrong for the church to possess any of these things, but that in each case, a focus on one of these things could cause the church to lose site of something that is more valuable.
For example, concerning organization, Loosely said that the early church had “no fixed organization.” Does he mean that the early church had no organization? Not at all. Consider this:
The early Christian documents show a development which was not absolutely uniform nor identical in every place. Development was marked by local differences and modifications. This again is exactly what we might expect, if we believe that life fashions form and not that form produces life. They disposed of the idea that one form is essential or unalterable. (p. 27)
Notice what Loosely said, because it is important for his entire argument, “We believe that life fashions form and not that form produces life.” Yes, there was organization in the early church, but it was organization that flowed from the pre-existing life among the church. Organization did not come first; life came first.
I know that many of my readers are probably wondering about Loosely’s statement that the early church had “no New Testament.” How can it be distracting for us to have a New Testament today?
Loosely begins by noting, “The first impulse of the disciples was not an impulse to write, but to preach.” (p. 31) Thus, in the early days of the church, the followers of Jesus were intent on proclaiming Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah who had been crucified and had risen from the dead. This was their Gospel – their “word” or “message” or “story”.
The writings of the New Testament came about as a way of proclaiming that message and of dealing with problems related to living out that message. As Loosely explains:
The literature arose out of the situation. As the church developed, men wrote to speak to needs, needs dealing specifically with the church! Neither the gospels nor the epistles can be really understood apart from the actual circumstances of the church’s development. Simply to sit in the study and compare and analyze and dissect the documents is a very imperfect method of reaching an understanding of the New Testament or the church when it was young. The church, and her literature, are the product of a great surging spiritual movement. She must be understood in relation to that movement. (p. 32)
So, the early church did not set about to produce a literature (New Testament) that would be used to propagate the movement. Instead, as Loosely explains, the movement was propagated by the Spirit, and the literature arose secondarily in order to deal with issues that arose afterwards.
Does this mean, then, that Loosely places little importance on the New Testament? Absolutely not. In face, he states that we now have a literature that was produced “in the good providence of God… in a way that was wholly of God.” Yes, it is good that the modern church has the New Testament, but the young church did not. The young church was part of a movement of the Holy Spirit, out of which the New Testament developed.
Each chapter of this book if provocative and filled with statements that should make us all think. For example, concerning dogmatic systems, Loosely says, “To define is only too often to divide.” (p. 49)
In my next post concerning this short book, I’m going to cover that last section, in which Loosely describes what the young church did have.
When the Church was Young by Ernest Loosely
Last night, I started reading one of the books that I received as Christmas gifts: When the Church was Young by Ernest Loosely. So far, the book has been fairly interesting, primarily because it was published almost 100 years ago! (first published in 1935)
There is very little on the internet about Ernest Loosely. I skipped the publisher’s note, so I’ll probably have to read it to learn more about the author. If you know anything about him, please let us know.
One of the interesting things about this is to read that people were struggling with ecclesiastical issues like buildings and denominations and offices two generations ago. The problems that Loosely points out in his day are only more heightened today.
Perhaps, though, today people are more interested in seeing the church change.
Book Bonanza
I love getting books as gifts. Some of my family don’t like to give me books, because they think it’s boring. But, I love to get books. These are the books that I’ve received today (alphabetized by author, of course):
Deep Church: A Third Way Beyond Emerging and Traditional by Jim Belcher
When the Church was Young by Ernest Loosely
Biblical Theology: Issues, Methods, and Themes by James K. Mead
Translating the New Testament: Text, Translation, Theology by Stanley E. Porter and Mark J. Boda
Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology by Udo Schnelle
Theology of the New Testament by Udo Schnelle
Hermeneutics: An Introduction by Anthony C. Thiselton
I’m guessing that you’ll see excerpts from these books on this blog in the coming days, weeks, and months.
The inclusion of all in the ministry
James at “Idle musings of a bookseller” is publishing excerpts from a book called Company of the Committed which was written by Elton Trueblood almost 50 years ago. (I always enjoy readings James’ excerpts and his comments.) For example, see this post called “Lay Ministry.”
Notice this important statement about “clergy” and “laity”:
The only kind of lay ministry which is worth encouraging is that which makes a radical difference in the entire Christian enterprise. To be truly effective it must erase any difference in kind between the lay and the clerical Christian. The way to erase the distinction, which is almost wholly harmful, is not by the exclusion of professionals from the ministry, as anticlerical movements have tended to do, but rather by the inclusion of all in the ministry. The expanded dictum is that in the ministry of Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor free, neither male nor female, neither layman nor cleric, but all are one in Christ Jesus.†– Company of the Committed, page 62
Could this distinction between “clergy” and “laity” be one of the problems in seeing mutuality (i.e. interdependent relationships) in churches?