FINDING BIBLE TRUTH - THE EARLY CHURCH

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

Although the title, Acts of the Apostles, suggests that the aim of Acts was to give an account of the deeds of all the Apostles, the title actually was a later addition to the work (about the end of the 2nd century). Notwithstanding the title the only Apostles mentioned by name as having played any part in the spread of Christ's teaching are Peter, John and Philip. In fairness to Luke, the title was not his, nor did he claim to be writing a fully comprehensive history. Rather it is a continuation of the selective narrative of his Gospel. Acts depicts the shift from Jewish Christianity to Gentile Christianity as relatively smooth and portrays the Roman government as regarding the Christian doctrine as harmless during the period covered by the book. Probably written immediately after Luke's Gospel as a separate but companion volume, and some twenty years after the death of Paul.

Some see a problem, however, regarding authorship, in that the work (and Luke's Gospel) disagrees at times with Paul (whose theology is shown in his letters) about fundamental issues such as the Law, his apostleship, and his relationship to the Jerusalem church. Some find it hard to believe that an actual companion of Paul writing about his mission and journeys could be in so much disagreement with Paul, and that he should make no reference to the content of Paul's letters. If the book's record of the work of the Apostles is little more than a collection of stories that Luke has heard, many of them not a little dubious, the content becomes much more substantial when he turns to Paul's travels. There seems to be no real reason, in spite of concerns about theological differences, to doubt that Luke often accompanied Paul and often writes at first hand.

Here there is a new problem for those who believe that the Bible cannot err, which arises when the words of someone are being reported. In Acts 1:16-17 Peter gives an account of the death of Judas Iscariot that is wholly irreconcilable with that given by Matthew. Now is the Bible truthfully recording Peter's words, or is it truthfully recording the manner of Judas' death - in which case Matthew must be wrong.

EPISTLES.

Of the 21 letters only 7 are commonly accepted as certainly from Paul, and as having been written in the twenty or thirty years after the Crucifixion. A necessary preface to study of Paul's Epistles is to get an idea as to which of those traditionally attributed were in fact written by him.

Considered genuine: Romans, Corinthians 1 and 2, Galatians.

Generally accepted: Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon.

Doubtful: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus.

Attributed to a later follower of Paul: Colossians (some think it written by Peter), Ephesians.

Not accepted by the Western Churches: Hebrews.

Spurious: 2 Thessalonians.

Some of the letters are not presented as originally written. 1 and 2 Corinthians, for example, are collections of extracts from letters written at various times about difficulties with the Church in Corinth. Philippians is similarly thought to be a composite. As with the Gospels there has been tampering with the text - in Colossians 1:14 the words "through his blood" (in King James Version) are not considered original.

Paul's theology is best understood from his letters and the most striking fact about Paul's teaching is that he seems to have little or no detail knowledge of what Christ actually taught; attempts to show otherwise are not convincing. It will be appreciated that the letters were all written long before the present Gospels. He himself says that he had no contact with the original Apostles for three years after his conversion, and then only saw Peter and James (although accounts in Acts say that there were earlier contacts}. It was another fourteen years before he again visited Jerusalem and he denies that he changed any of his teaching as a result, claiming that his sole inspiration came directly from Christ. He is full of quotations and examples from the Old Testament, but has virtually none to offer from the life of Jesus, in fact he seems to have considered some of the stories circulating as mere legends. For him it was sufficient that Christ lived and died for us, that Christ challenged the stifling details of Mosaic Law and taught instead the essential elements of love and forgiveness, and that Christ's God was the God of all peoples and not just the God of the Jews. Only once does he directly quote Christ's words - when speaking of the Sacraments in 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. It may be significant that the formulation is precisely the same as that in the Gospel written by his companion Luke.

Elsewhere he claims that Christ said that it is more blessed to give than to receive; this cannot be found in the Gospels (which does not mean that it was not said).

He taught a very simple model for people to follow. The world would end, with a second Coming very soon, within the current generation. The Passion of Christ meant that past sins were wiped out. All that men had to do to qualify for salvation and a place in Heaven was to accept Christ by faith and live the remainder of their lives without sin. (Maybe a gross oversimplification but it is doubtful whether his more sophisticated concepts, such as salvation through Grace, were understood by his listeners any more than they are understood by today's congregations). A seductive philosophy, backed up by warnings of the fate waiting for non-believers, and it is no wonder that non-Jews abandoned the sterile religions of Rome and Greece in great numbers, and were able to suffer persecution and death for their beliefs. In Judea the task of modifying an existing strongly held faith proved too great and Christianity took no lasting hold. At the core of Paul's teaching was the belief that Christ died as a demonstration of God's love for us, and for the reconciliation of man and God.

But Paul also believed that sin and death entered the world through the sin of Adam, and that the sin of Adam was cancelled out by the gift of the life of Jesus. He sees baptism as a rebirth, freeing the individual of the stain of Adam, and compares it with the resurrection of Christ freed of his earthly body. In Romans Paul contradicts the early Christian view that all earthly authorities are controlled by Satan - it may be significant that this was probably written in the time of Nero, who has been somewhat maligned by history.

The letter to the Hebrews (author uncertain) offers a very different view of the Crucifixion, seeing it as a sacrifice in the Jewish tradition that sins could be wiped out, or atoned for, by blood sacrifice, and that Christ came to earth specifically to provide this blood sacrifice. The single sacrifice of Christ is seen conquering Sin for all time, as perfecting for ever those for whom he died. All this, and indeed much of conventional Christian doctrine in regard to the Crucifixion, presupposes a most curious restriction of God's ability to forgive.

In a number of the Epistles (1 Corinthians 10:3-9, Ephesians 5:22-24, 1 Timothy 3:12-13) the writer says that women are to be treated as second-class citizens in the Church, always subservient to their husbands, not allowed to teach or have authority over a man and so on. Can you accept this as the Word of God? Or is it just a relic of the mores of Paul's time?

Paul can be regarded as a literal mouthpiece for God, in which case the theological differences between his teaching and that of the Gospels become a severe stumbling block, or as a sincere and dedicated servant of God, spreading what he believed to be truth. You must make up your own mind on this.

For more information see the separate article Paul

* * * *

REVELATION.

The text says that the author was named John, and that it was written during the exile of this John on Patmos, however the question of which John was responsible has never been satisfactorily resolved. Study of the text has shown considerable linguistic differences between Revelation and the Gospel of John, and it is hard to see Revelation and the letters by the Apostle John as coming from the same mind.

It is evident that it was written at a time of severe persecution by Rome, which suggests the time of Nero (54-68) or Domitian (81-96). The historian Tacitus indicates that Domitian was assassinated only a few months after his persecution began (the result of denunciation of the `Nazarenes' by orthodox Jews), and that his successor Nerva restored those exiled. A number of anonymous works, credited to the Johanine school in Ephesus and probably written late in the 2nd century AD, claim that John the Apostle was taken to Rome before Domitian, survived a test by poison (in one tale he was thrown into a vessel of boiling oil), and after a number of miraculous cures persuaded Domitian to exile rather than execute him. Another records that on return to Ephesus some 15 years after Domitian's death, (111 AD - John the Apostle would then have been well over a hundred years old) he mounted a horse, chased, caught, and restored to faith the leader of a band of robbers who was a lapsed Christian. All in all the credibility of these writings is very poor and they appear to be intended to record or even create legends rather than write history.

Bishop Irenius of Lugdunum (now Lyons) declared Revelation to be authentic, and the author to be John the Apostle. However his reasoning seems to have depended on a flawed reading of Papias. He may of course have been right even though his arguments are flawed. Papias himself speaks of 'John the Elder' as distinct from John the Apostle, and this other John has to be considered a contender for the title of author. Although the Western Church accepted the judgement of Irenius it was strongly opposed by the Eastern Church. In the early fourth century Eusebius in his Church History showed that strong doubts still existed and declined to endorse the full acceptance of the book. Some scholars believe that the work was a product of a Johanine School, possibly based on a pastoral letter from John the Apostle on Patmos.

Perhaps the only conclusion that can be drawn is that Revelation must be assessed on its content, not on its authorship.

The language of Revelation is the language of Apocalypse, of which a great number were written in these times, forecasting in vivid but usually impenetrable imagery how the world was to end. Needless to say no one of these works gave any support to any other. The eschatological detail in the Gospels and the forecasts of Revelation also seem to be irreconcilable. The author has to be an educated and sophisticated man, capable of blending Jewish apocalypsy, Babylonian mythology, astrological speculation, and alien theologies into a seemingly consistent whole, writing with great power. Attribution to a vision is standard apocalyptic technique and is not to be taken literally.

At a time when persecution of Christianity was at its height, the author seeks to provide reassurance of the ultimate destruction of the persecutors. `Babylon' was used by the early Christians as a synonym for Rome (necessary when anyone speaking openly against Rome was liable to find himself in the forum, set against a pair of lions). The magic number `666' probably refers to Nero as having been the most demonic of their enemies. Another early major theme, and one that is less easy to understand is that of punishment of the earth being directed by Christ, with fearful plagues and the apparently random slaughter of a third of mankind, only twelve thousand from each of the tribes of Israel being protected. A lack of repentance by the survivors later brings even more slaughter and destruction. As one rather cynical commentator put it: "If this is the way God behaved it is no wonder that so many chose to follow Satan". After all this barbaric imagery, which brings to mind the fire and brimstone of Calvinism at its most apocalyptic rather than the image of love and forgiveness of the Gospels, the writer turns to reassure his readers of the ultimate destruction of Satan and the victory of good over evil.

First we have the battle of Armageddon in which the power of Rome and the Kings of Earth are destroyed. But what follows is wholly inexplicable in terms of any earlier Biblical prophesy or any known Christian ideas: All Satan's earthly supporters are killed, Satan himself is caught and bound for one thousand years. The earth is populated only by resurrected Christian martyrs and those who had resisted Satan. At the end of that time Satan is released, takes over again and gathers new supporters who are promptly despatched by fire from heaven. This time Satan is cast into a lake of fire and brimstone to be tormented day and night for ever and ever. Finally everyone is resurrected again and brought up for judgement. Any who fail judgement join Satan in his lake of fire. The writer assures his readers several times that this is very near. All this is swallowed whole and accepted as fact by most fundamentalist sects. But where does this curious programme come from ?

Mention has been made in Satan, Demons, and the Devil of the Zoroastrians and of their influence in this period. We have their picture as to how this world will end:

Once their third Messiah (born of a virgin of course) has done his work and the last part of mankind has been taken out of the clutches of the Devil there would be a final battle between God and his Angels and the Devil and his Demons in which the Devil is destroyed. There follows a resurrection and first judgement of mankind followed by an interregnum (which could be seen as lasting 1000 years) during which those who fail suffer punishment but have a chance to redeem themselves. At the end of the thousand years there is a second and final judgement; those who pass are cleansed by fire and restored to an earth similarly purified.

The only significant difference with the pattern of Revelation is that a logical purpose is given for the thousand year interregnum. It need not be assumed that the writer was a Zoroastrian but it must be obvious that he adapted their programme.

Finally, the view of Martin Luther in volume 35 of his 'Works' is worth repeating:

'. . . consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic . . . My spirit cannot accommodate to this book . . . Christ is neither taught nor known in it'.

* Return to HOME