More on the Anabaptists
My PhD mentor, Dave Black, has told us why he loves the Anabaptists in an essay called appropriately “Why I Love the Anabaptists“. I’ve noticed some of the items on his list as I’ve been reading some Anabaptist writings as well. I think the most important aspect of their writings to me is that they do not separate life into the secular realm and the spiritual realm. “Holiness” and “worship” are not just for church meetings for the Anabaptists. Similarly, “grace” is not just for salvation, but it represents a way of life – living in God’s grace and offering his grace to others.
Yes, I disagree with some of the Anabaptists at certain points. But, I’m encouraged by their desire to live out their faith day by day – both with other believers and among the world.
Church Meeting in Tertullian – Part 1
A few months ago, I wrote a series on “Meeting with the Early Church“. While I included the writings of several early Christians, and even some nonChristians, who included a description of the meeting of the early church, I did not include the writings of Tertullian.
Tertullian (155 – 222 AD) is an interesting character in early Christianity. To some, he was a hero who defended the true faith against heresy. To others, Tertullian was a heretic himself who left the orthodox church for Montanism. Whatever our view of Tertullian, his writings seemed to be well respected by other early Christians.
Among his writings, his Apology (Apologeticus) was one of the most polemical. He addressed this book to the Roman civic magistrates of his day in order to defend Christians and Christianity against pagans and paganism. It has been called “one of the most magnificent legacies of the ancient Church, full of enthusiasm, courage, and vigor”.
In chapter 39 (XXXIX) of his Apology, Tertullian discussed several aspects of church meetings. In this series, I’m going to use Tertullian’s words to help us understand how the church met around 200 AD, at least the church meetings with which Tertullian was familiar. Part of this chapter is very polemical, blasting the practice of pagans. I will focus on the parts that describe the Christian assemblies and leave out the parts that describe the pagan meetings and responses.
Here is the first section:
I shall at once go on, then, to exhibit the peculiarities of the Christian society, that, as I have refuted the evil charged against it, I may point out its positive good. We are a body knit together as such by a common religious profession, by unity of discipline, and by the bond of a common hope. We meet together as an assembly and congregation, that, offering up prayer to God as with united force, we may wrestle with Him in our supplications. This violence God delights in. We pray, too, for the emperors, for their ministers and for all in authority, for the welfare of the world, for the prevalence of peace, for the delay of the final consummation. We assemble to read our sacred writings, if any peculiarity of the times makes either forewarning or reminiscence needful. However it be in that respect, with the sacred words we nourish our faith, we animate our hope, we make our confidence more stedfast; and no less by inculcations of God’s precepts we confirm good habits. In the same place also exhortations are made, rebukes and sacred censures are administered. For with a great gravity is the work of judging carried on among us, as befits those who feel assured that they are in the sight of God; and you have the most notable example of judgment to come when any one has sinned so grievously as to require his severance from us in prayer, in the congregation and in all sacred intercourse. The tried men of our elders preside over us, obtaining that honour not by purchase, but by established character. There is no buying and selling of any sort in the things of God.
What does Tertullian tell us about the early church meetings in this passage? The meetings included prayer, reading, exhortation, rebuke, and even judging. Did you notice what binds believers together according to Tertullian: a common profession, a common discipline, and a common hope.
Tertullian talks about praying for emperors and other civic officials, as well as for their own “supplications”. These do not appear to be the nice prayers that we normally hear, but a type of “violence” where the believers “wrestle” with God. I’ve heard believers wrestle with God in prayers, but rarely in a public assembly like this.
Tertullian does not automatically assume that the “sacred writings” have something to say to him and the other believers with whom he gathers. Instead, they read the writings (perhaps the Scriptures?) and consider them to determine if the writings may have something to say about their times and situations. Regardless, Tertullian expects the words of the text themselves to nourish their faith, hope, and confidence.
Apparently, separate from the reading of the “sacred writings”, there were also instances of exhortations, rebukes, and censures. Given the seriousness with which “judgment” is described by Tertullian, these exhortations, rebukes, and censures would seem to go beyond the modern day sermon. These would seem to be personal and direct, dealing with the lives and concerns and problems with individuals and groups within the assembling.
Finally, Tertuallian mentions their leaders. These leaders “preside over” the believers due to their being “tried men” with “established character”. Again, this seems to be different from the modern assembly where the leaders are chosen because of their education and talents. In fact, when most “leaders” begin with a church today, most would not know them well enough to vouch for their character much less to call them “tried men”.
Within the context of these leaders, Tertullian says that they become elders “not by purchase” because “[t]here is no buying and selling of any sort in the things of God”. This seems to be too early in church history for Tertullian to be talking about people buying their way into “church offices” (this happened later in the middle ages). Perhaps Tertullian is talking about elders who serve only when they are paid.
What do you think about Tertullians description of church meetings in 200 AD? How does Tertullian’s description of church assemblies compare to church meetings (“worship services”) today? How does Tertullian’s description compare to Scripture?
—————————————————–
Series:
1. Church Meeting in Tertullian – Part 1
2. Church Meeting in Tertullian – Part 2
3. Church Meeting in Tertullian – Part 3
Luther and the non-Christian "worship service"
In his essay “The German Mass and Order of Divine Service” (January 1526) Martin Luther explains how a Sunday meeting should be carried out. Specifically, these are his instructions (I’ve removed some of the details so that it is easier to see the outline):
[a] At the beginning then we sing a spiritual song or a psalm in German, in primo tono, as follows : Ps. xxxiv.
[b] Then Kyrie eleison, to the same tone, but thrice and not nine times. . . .
[c] Then the priest reads a Collect in Effaut in unisono, as follows : ‘Almighty God,’ etc.
[d] Then the Epistle, in the eighth tone. . . . The Epistle should be sung with the face turned to the people, but the Collect with the face turned to the altar.
[e] After the Epistle is sung a German hymn, ‘Nun bitten wir den heiligen Geist,’ or some other, by the whole choir.
[f] Then is read the Gospel in the fifth tone, also with the face turned towards the people.
[g] After the Gospel the whole congregation sings the Creed in German, ‘ Wir glauben all’ an einen Gott,’ etc.
[h] Then follows the sermon…
[i] After the sermon shall follow a public paraphrase of the Lord’s Prayer, with an exhortation to those who are minded to come to the Sacrament…
[k] Then the Office and Consecration proceeds, as follows : ‘Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the same night'(i Cor. xi. 23 ff)…
[l] The elevation we desire not to abolish but to retain, for it fits in well with the Sanctus in German, and means that Christ has bidden us to think of Him…
[m] The Sanctus in German, ‘Jesaia dem Propheten das geschach,’ etc.
[n] Then follows the Collect : ‘We thank thee, Almighty Lord God,’ etc.
[o] With the Blessing : ‘The Lord bless thee and keep thee,’ etc…
This looks very familiar. In fact, besides the various portions in German and/or Latin, this “order of service” is similar to what I was accustomed to experiencing while I was growing up in Baptist churches in Alabama. Sure, we called “The Blessing” by a different name (the Benediction), and we didn’t sing or speak the various creeds to one another each week. But, overall, our Alabama Baptist liturgy was very similar to Luther’s German/Latin liturgies. After moving to Georgia and North Carolina, and visiting church meetings in other parts of the USA and the world, I’ve also found that Luther’s “order” is very similar to the order of church meetings around the world.
Here’s the funny part… if you call it funny… Luther did not think this “order” was best for the church. Instead, he intended this “order” (whether in German or in Latin) to be for unbelievers. This is a quote from the beginning of Luther’s essay – which is often overlooked:
Both these kinds of Service (German and Latin) then we must have held and publicly celebrated in church for the people in general. They are not yet believers or Christians. But the greater part stand there and gape, simply to see something new: and it is just as if we held Divine Service in an open square or field amongst Turks or heathen. So far it is no question yet of a regularly fixed assembly wherein to train Christians according to the Gospel: but rather of a public allurement to faith and Christianity.
Did you catch that? What the church today calls a “church service”, Luther says is not for the church at all – that is, not for Christians. Instead, he designed his “Mass and Order of Divine Service” for the sake of attracting those who are not Christians. In fact, he later describes what he thinks a meeting would look like for those who are already Christians (see my post “Luther and the Church“). However, without considering Luther’s purpose, we blindly follow his design. I wonder if we’re missing something…
The Gathered and the Sent
I’ve read several blog posts and comments (some on my blog and some on other blogs) recently which have encouraged me to look closer into that group of historical figures known as Anabaptists. I realize that there are many groups today who claim descent (either direct or indirect) from the Anabaptists and Radical Reformers of the early 16th century, and many even use the name “Anabaptist”, but my interest is directed primarily toward the early Anabaptists. In spite of my classes and studies in church history and even baptist history, I admit that I know very little about these men and women.
So, in order to learn more, I’ve picked up a few books. Primarily, I was looking for source material – that is, essays and books written by the Anabaptists themselves. I’ve also picked up a few books that summarize the writings and describe the lives of the early Anabaptists. What I’ve read so far has been very interesting, and has encouraged me to continue my study – if I only had more time!
First, I’ve learned that the Anabaptists did not define themselves by baptism. Instead, the name Anabaptist (“re-baptizer”) came from their Protestant opponents. The Anabaptists themselves defined themselves by their ecclesiology – a topic in which I’m very interested, of course. Consider the following quote from The Anabaptist View of the Church by Franklin Hamlin Littell:
The dominant theme in the thinking of the main-line Anabaptists was the recovery of the life and virtue of the Early Church. The ordinances which had characterized the True Church (die rechte Kirche) in that Heroic Age were to be made a program for thoroughgoing reformation. The Reformers were not willing to make so radical a break from the past, but those whose key concept was restitutio rather than reformatio were determined to erase what they considered the shame of centuries and to recapitulate the purified church life of the Golden Age of faith. (pg 79)
Thus, the Anabaptists desired to become the church as described in Scripture; they did not desire to modify existing structures – which they called the “fallen church”. According to the Anabaptists, the church is gathered together, led together, unified, controlled, ordered, and kept by the power and presence of the Holy Spirit. These were not merely ideological concepts, but instead they were practical differences that led them to live differently. Peter Ridemann (1506-1556) expressed this very clearly:
Therefore, such a people, community, assembly, or church is gathered and led together by the Holy Spirit, which from this point forward rules, controls and orders everything in them…
The children of God… become his children through the unifying Spirit. Thus, it is evident that the church is gathered together by the Holy Spirit: also that they have their existence and are kept in existence by him, and that there is no other church apart from that which the Holy Spirit builds and gathers.
But, there is another interesting aspect of Anabaptist ecclesiology. They did not consider the church to only be gathered by the Holy Spirit; they also considered the church to be sent by the Holy Spirit. In fact, many of them understood baptism as both a symbol of the entry into the church, and as “ordaining” them to life-long service and evangelism. Everyone who followed Christ in baptism became both a “full-time minister” and a “full-time missionary”. As Littell further explains:
Not only was a new historical significance given to the Great Commission, but its application was made relevant to the life of the ordinary layman. The missionary mandate was no longer the prerogative of special orders or selected professionals. The layman was no longer limited to remaining obediently in his appointed place and status. The Commission applied to the most simple believer and claimed him as an evangelist. (pg 113)
In the first few years of the Radical Reformation, this desire to obey the Great Commission led to many hundreds joining into small bands of believers (conventicles or congregations), in spite of the threat and presence of persecution and suffering at the hands of the Catholic, Protestant, and Reformed Churches.
So, what happened? Why did the evangelical fervor of those early Anabaptists lessen over time? Littell suggests two reasons: 1) They forgot that the Holy Spirit has separated them from the world, or 2) They forgot that the Holy Spirit had sent them into the world. Some groups seemed to lose their desire to follow the “life and virtue of the Early Church”, while others desired to completely isolate themselves from unbelievers and lost their “missionary mandate”.
I think it is easy for believers today to fall into one of these same extremes. How do we protect ourselves from these errors? We must remember that we are both the gathered (out of the world) and the sent (back into the world). The work of the Holy Spirit includes gathering and sending. If we do not recognize both in our lives, then we know that we are failing to follow him.
Sitzerrecht: the rights of the one seated
Last week, in a comment on my post called “Order or Disorder?“, Jonas mentioned the term Sitzerrecht and the book The Radical Reformation by George Huntston Williams. The seminary library had this book, so I checked it out and have been looking through it for information concerning Sitzerrecht. I thought some of my readers would be interested in what Williams says about this topic.
First, in definition, Sitzerrecht (German) is also called lex sedentium (Latin) and the Rule of Paul. Specifically, it has less to do with interrupting a speaker – although it is certainly related. Instead, Sitzerrecht is a hermeneutical priciple. Here is how Williams explains this topic in the context of tongues and prophecy (by the way, he lists several different understandings of “prophet” and “prophecy” held by the magisterial reformers and the radical reformers):
Freedom of prophecy, in any case, anchored in 1 Cor. 14:29-31, became in the sixteenth century the scriptural sanction for committed inquiry into the meaning of Scripture over against the magisterium of the papal Church – the right of those duly converted and seated in the expectancy of guidance from the Holy Spirit to judge the meaning of disputed texts.
Paul, in 1 Cor. 14:29-34, facing the phenomenon of the gift of tongues, declared: “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation [clarification] is made to another sitting (sedenti), let the first be silent.” Eventually the rule for speaking up in conventicle or synod in the face of opened Scripture would be called lex sedentium, in German: Sitzerrecht. Paul was, in this pericope, sorting out the rules for prophetic glossolalia and the proper order for congregational (or synodal) interpretation of the meaning of Scripture… The first to use the pericope as the basis of common prophecy (prophetia communis) or “prophesying” (the later English Puritan term) was evidently Zwingli. (518-519)
Yes, apparently the magesterial reformers as well as the radical reformers held a view of Sitzerrecht (the rights of the one seated) at first. In another part of the book, Williams explains the importance of this concept to Luther:
Pastors and teachers therefore should at all times be subject to hearers, for, citing 1 Thess. 5:21 about testing all things and holding fast to the good, Luther says that things must first be declared by teachers if they are to be tested by hearers, for Christians, unlike worldlings who command, in their mutuality are subject to each other, everyone the other’s judge (Matt. 20:26). Christian hearers not only have the power and right to judge, but they are also, he went on, under threat of forfeiting their favor with God if they do not do so. Luther cites here the warning about the false Christ, Matt. 24:4, “Take heed that no man deceive you”. Therefore, the congregation at Leisnig, and every true congregation (which is so because it has the Gospel), has the right and power, indeed bounden duty through baptism, to judge teaching, to identify the false prophet (preacher), and either flee from him or to dismiss him… [E]very Christian indeed has the obligation to confess, preach, and spread [the Word] in one of two ways: where there are no other true Christians, any Christian is bound to proclaim the good news; where, however, there are other Christians who have the same power and right, a person should not “thrust himself forward,” but should “let himself be called and drawn forth.” Luther attaches importance to a text soon to become very important among Anabaptists and other radicals (1 Cor. 11:4b), the scriptural locus for Sitzerrecht (lex sedentium), 1 Cor 14:30, “If anything be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.” In other words, let the teacher be silent and a hearer rise to make an assessment. The layman may do this, Luther says, “Even without a call, because necessity knows no law,” observing further that if such is true for an individual Christian, how much more for an entire congregation. (145-146)
So, for Luther, while Sitzerrecht (lex sedentium) has application while a teacher is speaking, the primary application of this term is in understanding and applying Scripture – hermeneutics. For Luther, and Zwingli above, and most of the Anabaptists and other radical reformers, Sitzerrecht is a principle that teaches that all believers have the ability to understand Scripture and to weigh what another says concerning Scripture, even if that “other” is a teacher or preacher.
The question is, “Who determines what Scripture means?” Certainly, all would say that God determines the final meaning, but how do we understand this meaning? During the sixteenth century, there were three answers to this question: 1) the pope through the Roman Church, 2) the religious professional, and 3) the Christian congregation. The principle of Sitzerrecht puts the burder of understanind Scripture squarely in the domain of the congregation – with the assumption that the individuals assembled are indwelled by the Holy Spirit:
[These] appealed to what they and the radicals generally thought of as they Rule of Paul or the lex sedentium (Sitzerrecht), based on 1 Cor. 14:23ff. and with some support from 2 Pet. 1:19ff., namely the right of the whole Christian congregation, the laity with the divines [religous professionals], to judge difficult passages of Scripture together, not individually or professionally. The principle of inspired corporate interpretation of the Bible was the presupposition of much of the committed conversation within Anabaptism… as well as in magisterial Protestantism, but this interesting theological formulation would be eventually routinized or abandoned. (1256-1257)
Discussing the abandonment of Sitzerrecht by the magisterial reformers, Williams quotes an article by John H. Yoder (“The Hermeneutics of the Anabaptists,” MQR 41 (1967): 291-308):
He [Yoder] contrasts them [Anabaptists and other radical reformers] here with the other Reformers, who “abandoned their initial vision of the [Reformed] visible church, the hermeneutic community, and were obliged to shift the locus of infallibility to the inspired text and the technically qualified theological expert.” (1257)
Sometime during the 1500’s the magesterial reformers abandoned the idea of Sitzerrecht – that all believers have the right and duty to test teachers and determine the meaning of Scripture together – and embraced the principle that only a “technically qualified theological expert” could properly interpret Scripture for a gathered group of believers.
The idea that only a qualified expert can exegete and explain Scripture today is embraced by most congregations – even if it is not voiced as a hermeneutical principle by those same congregations. For this reason, the “sermon” and the “pulpit” are placed in a superior position to any other type of communication between believers. Since the sermon is now in a superior position – for many a sacrosanct or even sacramental position – Paul’s instructions in 1 Cor. 14:26ff. concerning interrupting a speaker are considered to not apply to sermons.
I agree that in many of today’s churches it would be distracting and not edifying to interrupt a teacher or preacher. I do not question whether or not this is socially or culturally acceptable. I still wonder, however, why interrupting a speaker – even a preacher – would not be considered scripturally acceptable.
Is there any indication in Scripture that the sermon should be immune from Paul’s instructions in 1 Cor 14?
Why do you think the magesterial reformers abandoned the idea of Sitzerrecht – that any congregation of believers has the obligation to weigh teaching and interpret Scriptures?
Mission and the Early Church
A few days ago, Jeff at “Until All Have Heard” published a very interesting post called “What Was the Secret of the Early Church?” In this blog post, Jeff quoted several authors in relation to mission and the early church. Here are a few of my favorites:
2. “In part, it seems to have resulted from an awareness that mission was the task of ordinary Christians and of congregations acting together. Professional agents and special boards did not yet exist. Unconsciously these early Christians grasped that mission was a total activity involving preaching, teaching, baptism, personal witness and service to humanity.†James Scherer
6. “The chief agents in the expansion of Christianity appear not to have been those who made it a profession or a major part of their occupation, but men and women who earned their livelihood in some purely secular manner and spoke of their faith to those whom they met in this natural fashion.†Latourette
8. John Gager maintains that while many external and internal factors contributed to the growth of Christianity, the single overriding internal factor was “the radical sense of Christian community,†which was open to all but required absolute and exclusive loyalty and involved every aspect of a believer’s life.
There are other great quotes in Jeff’s post. The common thread that I found running through all of the posts was that in the early church every follower of Jesus found themselves compelled to witness to the greatness of God and his work through Jesus Christ in their words, their life, and their community with one another. Even if the mission boards and professionals had been available, these “ordinary” disciples could not have stopped witnessing to the good news of Jesus Christ if they wanted to. Why? Because that good news permeated and changed every aspect of their lives. For them, everything had changed.
Origen and Jerome on submitting to one another
Yesterday, I published a blog post called “Origen and Jerome on Ephesians 4:11” about Origen’s and Jerome’s views of that interesting verse. I’m getting their views from a book by Ronald E. Heine called The Commentaries of Origen and Jerome on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002). In this post, I’m going to examine their views on another interesting passage in Ephesians, a passage which is still debated today. The passage is Ephesians 5:21 –
… submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. (Ephesians 5:21 ESV)
This is what Origen says about this passage:
This completely destroys all desire to rule and be first. The following command has been given to all, ‘For although I am free from all I enslaved myself to all that I might gain all’ (1 Cor. 9:19). The command which says, ‘Be slaves to one another’ (Gal. 5:13, also prescribes this. Wherefore, the apostles ‘were slaves’ to the churches ‘because of love’ (Gal. 5:13), ministering and being servants for the salvation of humanity. Even the Saviour assumed ‘the form of a slave’ (Phil. 2:7) for no other reason than to be a slave to the disciples. Consequently, he one ‘put water in a basin’ to wash ‘the feet of the disciples’ (John 13:5). Furthermore, one who has understood this statement, ‘He who wishes to be great among you shall be the slave of all’ (Matt. 20:26-27), ‘will be subject’ to serve those whom it is necessary to serve. (pg 231-232)
Similarly, Jerome jumps into this passage with both feet – even calling names:
Let the bishops hear these words, let the presbyters hear them, let every order of teachers hear them, that they be subjected to those who are subjected to themselves and imitate the apostle who says, ‘For although I was free from all I made myself a servant to all that I might gain all’ (1 Cor. 9:19)… [Here Jerome quotes the same passages as Origen above.] This is the differences between the rulers of the Gentiles and of Christians. The former dominate their subjects, but we serve. (pg 231)
Yes, I know that these quotations do not address the questions which are asked today: “Should men submit to women?” “Should parents submit to children?” etc. However, perhaps by concentrating on these questions, we are missing the main point of this passage. When we are filled with the Holy Spirit (Eph 5:18), we will submit ourselves to one another by serving one another.
In the seminar on the Gospel of John that I’m taking, we’ve reached John chapter 13, which opens with Jesus washing the feet of the disciples. While there continues to be much discussion today concerning whether or not believers should literally wash one another’s feet, again I’m afraid that discussion is missing the main point. Whether or not we are to wash one another’s feet literally, we should all be able to agree on the fact that we are to all serve one another – with Jesus washing the feet of the disciples being at least one example of this.
But, do we serve one another? Especially those of us who are “leaders”… do we serve others? It has become popular to call leadership a new form of service, but that is not what Jesus said. Jesus did not say, “Follow your leaders because their leadership is their service to you.” No, he said that the one who serves is greater. He said for us to follow those who serve. Thus, the servants among us should be our leaders – the ones whom we follow.
We should follow someone who is not afraid to get his or her hands dirty. We should follow someone who is willing to give up his or her time for the sake of other, spending time with them and helping them in ways that benefit the other people. We should follow servants.
Look around… do you see people who are submitting themselves to one another? Follow them.
Origen and Jerome on Ephesians 4:11
A few weeks ago, Maël and Cindy gave me a book by Ronald E. Heine called The Commentaries of Origen and Jerome on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002). Apparently, knowing that I love the book of Ephesians, they tried to find a commentary by someone older than me. (Gee, thanks, Maël and Cindy!)
I thought some of my readers would enjoy some of Origen’s and Jerome’s comments on Ephesians 4:11. Here is the text:
And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers… (Ephesians 4:11 ESV)
Origen lived sometime around 185 – 254 AD. While his writings were very influential in the early church, they were later considered “anathema” by the fifth ecumenical council in 553 AD, primarily because of the excesses of those who followed him (the Origenists). Here is part of his commentary on Ephesians 4:11 from the book above:
Now if these offices [teacher, pastor, evangelist, prophet] can exist continually in the Church, perhaps apostles, too, can be found even now to whom it is given ‘to produce the signs of an apostle’ (2 Cor. 12:12).
It seems that question of the presence of apostles has been around for a long time. Origen argues that apostles still existed in his time. Apparently, others who lived at the same time as Origen disagreed. I think you’ll find the same disagreements today.
Jerome lived sometime around 347 – 420 AD. He is best known for translating Scripture from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (and probably some old Latin manuscripts) into the Latin Bible which became known as the Vulgate. Here is a comment from Jerome about Ephesians 4:11:
It is not to be supposed, however, that just as he said in the previous three that some are apostles, others prophets, others evangelists, so he also appointed different offices in pastors and in teachers. For he does not say, ‘and others pastors and others teachers’, but ‘others pastors and teachers’, so that he who is a pastor ought also be a teacher, nor ought one assume the title of pastor for oneself in the churches, however holy one might be, unless one can also teach those whom one pastors.
So, Jerome concludes that Ephesians 4:11 lists four individuals (he calls them offices), instead of four. But again, apparently Jerome wrote this passage in disagreement with those who were teaching otherwise. Therefore, there were some in Jerome’s day who believed that Ephesians 4:11 lists five individuals, much like the modern concept of the five fold ministry.
So, does Christ continue to give apostles to the church today? Does Ephesians 4:11 point to four or five different types of gifted individuals? Apparently these questions have been debated almost from the beginning. We will probably not come to a consensus on answers to questions such as these. Is it possible that we can find unity with coming to a consensus? Perhaps, if we seek unity in something or someone other than the answers to our questions.
Meeting with the Early Church – Conclusion
As we’ve looked through many early writings, we’ve seen various descriptions of early church meetings. Each author had their own reason for writing about church gatherings.
Some writers focused on the activities that occurred during the meeting: reading Scripture, singing songs, instructing and exhorting one another, collecting and distributing to those in need, eating a meal together.
Some writers focused on the reasons for believers to gather together: protection from the works of Satan, protections from sin, discussing things that lead to mutual benefit.
Many of the writers encouraged frequent meetings and harmony between brothers and sisters who come together.
Some of the writers seemed to indicate mutual service while others placed more responsibility in the hands of one or more believers (the bishop, the presbyters, or the president).
What do we make of all of these different descriptions of early church meetings? First, we should recognize that different groups of believers met in different ways. Second, we should recognize that we should return to Scripture to determine how believers should meet together. While these early writings help us understand the history of the early church, they were not and should not now be accepted as Scripture. Yes, some were thought to be Scripture early on, but they were generally accepted only by some groups of believers but not accepted universally.
So, as we continue to study church meetings, we should study this historical records, and then compare them to Scripture. What does Scripture say about activities during the meeting of the church? What does Scripture say about the purpose of the meeting of the church? Who does Scripture say is responsible for the meeting of the church?
In the next week or so I will be working on a series to discuss these questions. Since I have examined different writers concerning their view and descriptions of early church meetings, I plan to balance those views by looking at the passages of Scripture that discuss or describe the meeting of the church. We should be able to compare and contrast the scriptural view of the meeting of the church both with the views of these early church writers as well as our own views.
——————————————————–
Meeting with the Early Church Series
1. Introduction
2. Pliny’s Letter
3. The Didache
4. Ignatius’ Letters
5. Clement of Rome
6. Epistle of Barnabas
7. Justin Martyr
8. Conclusion
Meeting with the Early Church – Justin Martyr
As we continue to examine some early church writers to determine what they believed about the church meeting, we come to Justin Martyr. He lived from about 100 to about 165 AD, and wrote several apologies (defenses) and treatises. His most famous apology is called the First Apology, which was probably written in the 150’s AD. Chapter LXVII (the next to the last chapter) of the First Apology is presented below:
And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.
First, notice that Justin uses a different word to specify the normal day of the church meeting. Literally, he says they meet “on the day of the Sun”. This probably refers to the same day as “the Lord’s Day” which we’ve seen previously, but it is interesting that Justin uses the Roman day names: day of the Sun, day of Saturn, etc.
Also, Justin spends more time describing what is done when the church meets than describing the purpose of the meeting itself. Some of those activities include public reading (probably OT and NT Scriptures), instruction and exhortation, prayer, partaking of the Lord’s Supper (bread and wine and water), and contributing to and sharing with those who are in need.
Justin places alot of emphasis on an individual that he refers to as “the president”. He uses a unique term here – one that we do not find in the NT and one that we have not seen in other early church writings. If there is a connection between “the president” and the elders or deacons, Justin does not specify the connection in this passage.
The “president” is given the responsibility of instructing and exhorting people to imitate what has been read in the Scriptures. Likewise, the “president” is given the responsibility of praying over the Lord’s Supper elements, and of distributing what had been collected to those who are in need (orphans, widows, the sick, prisoners, strangers).
Finally, instead of telling his readers why the church should gather together, he tells them why they should gather on Sunday. He says that the church gathers together on Sunday because that is the day of Christ’s resurrection.
——————————————————–
Meeting with the Early Church Series
1. Introduction
2. Pliny’s Letter
3. The Didache
4. Ignatius’ Letters
5. Clement of Rome
6. Epistle of Barnabas
7. Justin Martyr
8. Conclusion