Grace and Mercy Revisited

Posted on 12/27/2013 by Paul Pavao

Little rant I did on Facebook. I think it’s important, very important. So here it is:

I get so frustrated with how widespread the confusion is between mercy and grace. I’m reading an article on “communities of grace.” It has terrific things to say when it’s talking practically, but it continually uses grace where the right word is mercy.

This leaves no proper understanding of grace. Grace is not the patience to put up with problems in other people. That is MERCY! Grace is the power that comes from God, and not from you, to overcome those problems.

The whole article with so much good advice, written on the topic of grace, completely robs the reader of grace.

“Let’s have mercy on each other while we struggle together to overcome our sins.” That’s the right way to say it because it leaves grace out of that sentence and available to come in and help the situation. I will have mercy on you so that you are not discouraged, and together we can flee to God for grace to overcome the problem that requires me to have mercy on you.

If I’m having grace for you, and grace is nothing but mercy, then what is left to help you?

Grace is power, my brothers and sisters, not forgiveness. Mercy is forgiveness. Grace is incredible, wonderful, saving power that transforms your life and can give you confidence that you do not have to go on sinning!

The article mentions “a strong view of sin and grace.” What does that mean if grace is mercy? What is a “strong” view of sin and mercy? Is it “go ahead and sin, I’ll keep forgiving you”?

I can tell from the article that the author would never endorse such a thing. Clearly he means something different than what I just described. However, with grace portrayed as mercy throughout, “a strong view of sin and grace” is a meaningless statement.

What it should mean is that while we live together in a merciful atmosphere (very important), we encourage, exhort, plead, pray for, rebuke, console, help, watch over and do anything else necessary to keep our siblings in Jesus believing that sin does not have power over them, and to keep them knowing that they can turn their eyes to Jesus in the midst of every temptation and wind up forgetting the temptation and not being drawn away by their own lusts and slain.

Let us bear, even for years. Let us forgive 70×7 times in one day, exercising ever-so-important mercy, but let us not lose hold of grace and the faith to believe that we are not slaves of sin, but those who are washed, who are sanctified, who are made righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

Related articles
  • Understanding Grace (michaeldhatcher.wordpress.com) [Edited note: I include this link because the blog post is good. The person brings up important truths about grace, but even in a post like that mercy has bled into grace. Mercy is never mentioned, and God separating our transgressions from us as far as the east is from the west is given as as example of grace rather than mercy.]
Posted in Holiness, Modern Doctrines | Tagged , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Are You Selling a Car or a Key?

Posted on 12/26/2013 by Paul Pavao

Yesterday a friend and I were reading through Acts together. I got to expounding on Peter’s sermon in Acts 2, and I came up with an illustration I want to tell you about.

I was about to write “… that I want to share with you,” but I’m trying to purge purely religious terminology from my speech. If I can say something in more normal, American language, I’m going to. “I want to share …” is sales language. Christians use it, and salesmen use it. I don’t tell my wife I want to share with her unless I’m talking about chocolate. If I want to tell her something, I say, “Can I tell you something?”

Can you imagine? “Hi, dear. Welcome home. While I take your jacket and hang it up, would you like to share with me about your day?”

I think I’ll keep putting my rabbit trails in italics like that in the future. That way you can skip them if you don’t like them.

So anyway …

I was pointing out that Peter had a great opportunity, between verses 23 and 24, to tell those Jews that Jesus died for their sins. He didn’t take it!

In fact, none of the apostles took the opportunity. They loved to accuse the Jews of taking him with wicked hands and killing him (3:14-15; 10:39; 13:27-29). They didn’t seem to give any thought, however, to explaining why Jesus died. Every time they mention his death, they forget to point out that his death was a sacrifice and an atonement for sin.

I first saw this back when I was realizing that Protestants don’t care any more about what the Bible says than Jehovah’s Witnesses do. I’m so sorry to have to say that. I’m not really a brave man, but I am an honest man. One reason Protestants are so divided is that they love their traditions more than they love the Word of God. It is true and widespread. If 5% of Christians are really willing to drop their traditions for the truth of Scripture, I’d be surprised.

Anyway, as a Protestant myself, I was starting to question everything. Well, no, I wasn’t. I had been questioning everything for 7 years after I was unpleasantly introduced to the fact that Christians, forced to be together, can’t get along. They will choose isolation over fellowship with Christians from other traditions.

Maybe that’s gotten better over the last 30 years. It was terrible in 1983. (I’m still a Protestant, by the way, if you define that widely as “all those who protest the dominion of the Roman Catholic Church.”)

Anyway, I was doing a radio show at the time in Sacramento, and I decided that for one radio show I would outline the Protestant Gospel and compare it to the outline of the apostolic Gospel in Acts. I assumed there would be differences, but I had no idea of what I would find.

To outline the Protestant Gospel I bought 23 tracts at a Christian bookstore. It was all the tracts they had on the subject of salvation. Prime themes included:

  • Heaven is a free gift
  • Man is a sinner
  • Entering heaven has nothing to do with works
  • We have to trust Jesus

But the number one, prime thing, that everyone (including me) would never leave out is that Jesus died for our sins! Why, one can’t be saved without knowing that!

I was stunned that day to find out that as I outlined 12 sermons to the lost in the Book of Acts that the apostles left out the atonement of Jesus’ blood in every single one of them.

My friend asked me why this is true.

That radio program was over 20 years ago. I’ve had time to think this through. An illustration came to mind, and I used it.

“Because the apostles weren’t describing the key,” I answered. “They were describing the car.”

She answered, “Huh?”

I explained. When a salesman wants to sell you a car, he talks about the car. He explains what the car is like, how comfortable or fast it is, and what kind of warranties you get on it. Once you are sold on it, only then does he give you the key.

Okay, that’s not a perfect illustration because I’m ignoring the test drive, but you get the point … I hope.

The atonement may explain how the new covenant and salvation are brought about, but it does not explain Jesus, and if a person wants to be justified before God, only Jesus can justify him. He is the Path. No one comes to the Father except through him.

So the apostles described Jesus. They focused on the car, the thing the hearer wants to know about. They didn’t waste time explaining that the key unlocks the car doors and allows a switch on the steering column to turn. Once that switch is turned, electrical energy from the battery flows to the starter, which then pushes a gear into hole, meshing with a bigger gear called a flywheel, and turns it to get the crankshaft in the engine turning, etc.

That description sounds amazing. Truly, it was a genius who came up with the combustion engine. The working of its parts is a marvel of both simplicity and engineering. What can be done with it is astounding compared to what could be done before it.

But all of it is irrelevant to buying a car. Every car has an ignition and a motor. If the functioning of the motor is all there is to it, then let’s buy the cheapest car because they’re all the same.

The apostles were the same with Jesus. If Jesus died for our sins, and a machine is set in motion that reconciles us with God, then wonderful. I’m headed to the bar, I’ll tell my buddy there about it.

But if Jesus was raised from the dead by God to prove that he is Lord and the Anointed King of God’s people; and if he can forgive sins; and if he will judge all men on the last day; now there’s something to talk about. Now there’s something to do.

And that was the reaction to the apostles’ Gospel. What must we do? The Jews said it to Peter on the day of Pentecost, and the Philippian jailer said it to Paul. Apparently, the Ethiopian eunuch had asked Philip, or been told by Philip, as well because he asked to be baptized once he heard.

The atonement is real, and it is described in the apostles’ letters repeatedly. The atonement is the most important event in history (other than creation?). It is important for Christians, if we want to learn about the faith, to understand that we were saved by the blood of Jesus. The precious blood which purchased us should motivate us to a zealous holiness, says Peter (1 Pet. 1:13-23).

Describing the atonement to the lost, however, is like a car salesman trying to sell the key rather than the car. We are describing the car, King Jesus, who can save them from their sins and from death, who is the Lord of the living and the dead, and who has the right to call all men to repentance. If he is lifted up, then he will draw all men to him.

I know by quoting that Scripture (Jn. 12:32) I am pulling it out of context. That doesn’t matter to me. Read the Gospels and the apostles’ letters. They pulled Scriptures out of context regularly. The old adage that “a text without a context is a pretext” is only true in certain situations. Try looking up the context of Isaiah’s prophecy of the virging birth (7:14).

I hope that helps. Was it clear enough? Questions about the implications of this?

Posted in Early Christianity, Gospel | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Introduction to Authorship in Hebrew Culture

Posted on 12/23/2013 by Paul Pavao

Oh, great. The one day that I accidentally post something, I get a rash of readers immediately in the morning. “Authorship in Hebrew Culture” was not supposed to go up. I set it as “draft” a couple days ago.

It’s not that I regret the post. It’s that the post needs an introduction … a long one.

Too late, though. It’s up, and it’s been read a lot. So here’s the introduction …

A few years ago, I was perusing the bookshelf of K.V. Daniel at his house in India. K.V. is a respected, mainstream, hard-working man of God who has devoted his life to preaching the Gospel, raising up missionaries, and helping widows and orphans.

On his bookshelf were reference books representing the worst forms of liberalism. Only they weren’t liberal. They were simply scholarly. Things are discussed in scholarly circles, in those colorful, cloth-covered books that sit on pastor’s shelves and look so terribly wise … things which are not always discussed among the average conservative Christian.

In fact, things which the elite are prone to hiding from the average conservative Christian.

Who wrote 2 Peter? Why is Paul’s language so much different in the pastoral epistles? Who really determined which books should be in the Bible? If Moses wrote the Pentateuch, then why are there names of cities that didn’t bear that name until much later? Is Jonah a parable rather than a real miracle?

Some of you never run into these questions. That is because you haven’t opened the books on your pastor’s bookshelf. You haven’t suddenly decided that you want to peruse commentaries, examine lexicons, and reference analytical concordances.

Did you know that Jim Elliot, the famous missionary who was martyred in Ecuador along with four others in 1956, has a journal entry in which he tries to explain the dating surrounding Abraham and his father? It’s a gallant attempt, but it had to be made because the it sure looks like the dates don’t work out.

The bulk of Christians, who sit in pews and listen to sermons and read their Bibles and nothing else–they don’t face these questions.

The day they find Do It Yourself Hebrew and Greek, though, and they find out what an analytical concordance is, and they begin to delve into the great commentators, they come face to face with things that are, well, shocking.

Who ever pays attention to the fact that in John 18:28 the Pharisees don’t go into Pontius Pilate’s hall because they were going to eat the Passover that night, and they didn’t want to defile themselves. What? I thought all the synoptic Gospels said the Passover was eaten by Jesus and his disciples the previous evening, before Jesus was brought to Pontius Pilate. Interestingly enough, John’s Gospel is the only one that doesn’t refer to that last meal as the Passover.

Some of these questions are tough questions. How nice not to be faced with them! If you don’t want to be faced with them, then dodge them. I don’t have any problem with that. Our business is to obey Jesus and to learn from the Scriptures, not to dissect them.

We have been given the freedom to explore and learn, however, and many of us have chosen to do so. When we explore and read scholarly writings, we come face to face with questions that shake us and maybe even shake our faith.

I wrote today’s earlier post for people like that. Actually, I wrote it a good two weeks ago, and I meant to go over it in January and provide an introduction like this one for it. With it, I would explore other controversial questions.

I want to give you an all-encompassing answer in this introduction.

If you  faith is in Jesus, your faith will be untouched by controversial questions. If you walk with him, experience his life and power, then your faith will be unshaken by anything. God will build it through  trials and make it stronger, and you will find him ever faithful, ever your deliverer.

If you faith, however, is in the intellectual truth of the Bible story, and you do not know Jesus, then controversial questions will tear your faith apart. Your object of worship, the Bible, is a book. It will not rush to your rescue. The person whom it declares, King Jesus the Lord of All, can rush to your rescue. (I LOVE Ps. 18!)

The Book was the Pharisees’ hope, and Jesus rebuked them for it.

He is the only hope. “And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent” (Jn. 17:3).

Related articles
Posted in Bible | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Authorship in Hebrew Culture

Posted on 12/23/2013 by Paul Pavao

This post wasn’t supposed to go up until January. By then, I intended to have written an introduction for it. Somehow. it just went up today. I was horrified, as I thought it was set to “draft,” not Dec. 23.

I wrote the introduction later, in the afternoon. It is here.

I’m curious if any of you have any feedback on this. This is from An Introduction to the Study of Isaiah, which I’m reading on a Google Books preview because the preview has the page I was looking for in a reference from a Wikipedia article.

Here’s the LONG quote (which I have to type; Google Books apparently doesn’t allow copy and paste on its previews):

To many the idea that [Isaiah] did not write the book bearing his name may come as a surprise. … While this is not the place for a full discussion of all the differences between our ideas of authorship as moderns and those of the ancient Israelites, it may help to say just a few words about this here. Clearly, the ancient Israelites, as least those responsible for Biblical literature, did not regard it as inappropriate to supplement a pre-existing work while remaining anonymous. Take for example, the passage mentioned above, Deuteronomy 34. [My note: Deut. 34 mentions Moses’ death, so he obviously did not write it.] Most scholars regard this as a later addition to Deuteronomy … Most likely the author of this passage will have regarded the legal corpus he inherited and to which he made his addition as stemming from that great figure of the past, Moses. Nevertheless, in supplementing that older corpus with Deuteronomy 34, this later hand felt no need to identify himself as author, and this despite the fact that his addition made no claim of Mosaic authorship for itself either (v. 6). …
Thus, there exists a real cultural difference as regards authorship between ancient Israel and many modern societies. The nature of authorship was simply different. It is in this light that our discussion of Isaianic authorship should be seen. But what sort of claim were the later editors and authors of the Isaianic tradition making for their work vis-à-vis the original oracles? How will they have seen their role in the formation of the book? One explanation very much born out by the evidence is that of Seitz, who says regarding the title in 1:1 that it ‘functions as a superscription for the entire book. What 1:1 states, however, is less a matter of authorship or proprietary claims made on behalf of Isaiah than it is a statement of belief, made on the part of those who shaped the Isaiah traditions, that what followed was a faithful rendering of the essence of Isaiah’s preaching as vouchsafed to him by God.” [p. 4; parentheses original, brackets mine]

This sort of discussion of authorship would apply to, say, 2 Peter, which many scholars believe was not written by Peter. The questioning of 2 Peter is not new. Eusebius the historian wrote the following in his Ecclesiastical History in AD 323:

Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. (III:25:1-4)

Earlier in his history, he wrote:

One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon;581 yet, as it has appeared profitable to many, it has been used with the other Scriptures (III:3:1)

As an aside, modern scholars often reject the authorship of Paul for the pastoral epistles, but I think they are beyond dispute. They are quoted early and often by men like Ignatius and Polycarp. Eusebius says of them, “Paul’s fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul” (III:3:5).

I’m sure many of you have heard about books like 2 Peter and the others that Eusebius mentioned (James, Jude, 2&3 John) being disputed.

I’m curious about your thoughts on these and especially about what Jake Stromber, author of the introduction to Isaiah quote above, has to say about authorship among the Hebrews.

Posted in Bible, Early Christianity, History | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Clement of Rome

Posted on 12/21/2013 by Paul Pavao

This post is part of a series of explanations of my Second Century Timeline of Christian history. Not every point well get its own post, but I am at least going to do a post on Clement of Rome and Ignatius.

Clement of Rome is famous for two things:

  • Writing 1 Clement, which is addressed from the church of Rome to the church of Corinth, the only certain first century Christian document outside of those contained in our Bible.
  • Being the third bishop of Rome after Linus and Anacletus. To the Roman Catholics, this means that he was the fourth pope, though this is an anachronism.

It is possible that Clement of Rome is the same Clement that is mentioned by Paul as a “fellow worker” in Philippians 4:3.

1 Clement

First Clement is so named because it was originally found with a 2 Clement attached to it. Scholars no longer believe that 2 Clement was written by him. It is now generally called An Early Christian Sermon. It is anonymous, and no one has any idea who the author is.

1 Clement is also anonymous, but there are several references to his authorship in the early Christian writings. No one really doubts the authorship.

The letter exhorts the church at Corinth to repent the way they did when Paul wrote them some 40 years earlier. This provides some fascinating information. The church at Corinth did repent after Paul wrote then. Clement tells us they were noted for their humility, hospitality, and holiness. Now, however, nearing the end of the first century, they had fallen back into division by fighting over the postion of overseer (bishop), which Clement still uses interchangeably with elder like Paul and Peter did (chs. 40-44; Acts 20:17,28; 1 Pet. 5:1-4).

The letter is interesting, simple, and easy to read. The church at Rome reminds Corinth of the need to avoid envy and to practice humility, citing one story after another from patriarchs, prophets, Jesus, and the apostles.

For those of us who are evangelicals, it is the first introduction to the fact that the early churches heavily exhorted one another to continue in the faith, warning of the consequences if they did not. 2 Clement (more correctly, An Early Christian Sermon) does this even more so, emphasizing the importance of continuing to the end to be saved as thoroughly as the canonical letter to the Hebrews.

Clement as Bishop of Rome

As I pointed out, Clement uses overseer (bishop) and elder interchangeably. I also mentioned that Paul and Peter did the same.

Fifty years later almost all churches distinguished the overseer from the elders, including Rome. The term for this is “monarchial bishop,” meaning that only one bishop ruled the church.

How this happened is unknown. My theory is that the apostle John instituted the monarchial bishop. Eventually, probably because it is simply the nature of group leadership that one leader always rises to the top, that practice spread to all the churches. My evidence for this will be discussed in the next post when we discuss Ignatius.

The Angels of the Churches

In the 180’s, Irenaeus wrote a book—five books, actually—against the gnostics. In it, he listed Rome’s “roll of bishops” all the way back to Linus. (It’s worth noting that he does not list Peter as the first bishop, and he attributes the founding of the Roman church to Peter and Paul, not Peter alone.)

Why did he do that if Rome had no monarchial bishop in Clement’s time?My theory is that while Rome did not have a monarchial bishop, they did have a messenger.

I have a couple reasons for that theory.

1. Jesus possibly talks about the messenger of each church in Revelation 2-3.

Our word “angel” is a transliteration (a non-translation, if you will) of the Greek word angellos. If we were to actually translate angellos, we would write “messenger” because that is what the word means. Most references to messengers in the Bible are heavenly messengers, but not all of them. For example, John’s sent men to Jesus to ask him if he was really “he that should come.” Luke calls them angelloi in his Gospel (7:24). John the Baptist is refered to as on angellos in the prophecy of his coming (Matt. 11:10; Mark 1:2). James calls the spies who went to Rahab angelloi (2:25).

It is very unlikely that Jesus was using “angel” in a symbolic way when he wrote to the “angel” of each of the seven churches. The “angels” were already symbolized by seven stars which Jesus held in his hand (Rev. 1:20). Were those stars symbolizing a symbol that symbolized something else?

I don’t think so. I think those stars symbolized the messenger of each of the seven churches.

What was the messenger, and what was his job?

You will write two books, and you will send one to Clement and the other to Grapte. Clement will send his to foreign countries for permission has been granted to him to do so. Grapte will admonish the widows and the orphans.” (Shepherd of Hermas Visions II:4)

It is very unlikely that The Shepherd of Hermas was written in Clement’s time, but it does give us a hint of the idea that the churches had a messenger in charge of receiving and sending letters for the church. This would explain why a letter addressed from the church of Rome would be known as First Clement rather than “The Epistle from the Church at Rome to the Church at Corinth.”

That would also explain why Jesus directed John to send the letters to the messengers of the churches.

That’s my theory, anyway.

If you want to know more about Clement (not to be confused with Clement of Alexandria a century later), you should read his letter because that covers most of what we know about him. Well, no, you should read his letter because …

  • This is a guy that almost certainly knew apostles!
  • The letter is interesting and informative and gives a window right into late first century Christianity. Why wouldn’t we jump on that opportunity?

Why Don’t Christians Read the Writings of the Apostolic Fathers?

Permit me, please, to say something rude here. One reason that many don’t jump on the opportunity to read Clement is the same reason they don’t jump on the opportunity read the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles. They’re lazy and have been caught up in the affairs of civilian life.

THAT WILL KILL YOU!

Don’t die. Finish reading everything you haven’t read from Jesus and the apostles, then read 1 Clement. Show a little interest in knowing the teachings of King Jesus himself. The rewards are great.

For those of you who for some reason can’t read, you also can’t be insulted by what I just said because you wouldn’t be able to read this post, either. If you have time for my posts, you better have time for the apostles’ “posts” and the posts written by those who met the apostles and were members of their churches.

Don’t you think?

Related articles
Posted in Church, History, Roman Catholic & Orthodox | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Second Century Timeline

Posted on 12/17/2013 by Paul Pavao

I was going to do a part 2 on my introduction to the Second Century Timeline. Restless Pilgrim, who has been a tireless follower of this blog, asked about quotes from Ignatius. He deserves a medal for tolerating me so long. That’s not the point of mentioning him, though. The point is he made me realize I left out some really important quotes concerning the ecclesiastical life and structure of the second century churches.

I’m going to let the introduction, part 2, go. Instead, we’ll cover those things by thoroughly covering Ignatius. Today we’ll make our timeline of events and people of the second century, and then we’ll describe those people and events in later posts.

If you’re used to thinking about history as a boring academic subject that has to be passed to get a diploma, which is almost the only thing many of us learned about history in high school, then take heart. If you are a Christian who cares what the apostles taught, these are the most exciting and influential people in all of your history. Nothing boring about them at all, and they fought and shed as much blood as any hero of any nation anywhere. Among the Christians, however, it was not just men who were mighty warriors.

Do I compare men with [your Roman heroes]? Boys and young women among us treat with contempt crosses and tortures, wild beasts, and all the bugbears of punishment with the inspired patience of suffering. (M. Felix, Octavius 37, c. AD 200)

Second century timeline

AD 95-96: 1 Clement, an anonymous letter from the Church at Rome to the Church at Corinth universally attributed to Clement of Rome. (It’s been pointed out in comments that this may have an earlier date, which is true, but 95-96 is the most accepted date.)

AD 107 or 116: Ignatius’ seven letters. If I remember correctly, his letters are given these two dates because of the timing of the emperor Trajan’s visits to Asia Minor. Either way, he wrote all seven letters while in captivity on his way to Rome to be killed by wild animals in the arena. He was very excited about it.

Note that The Ante-Nicene Fathers, which is where my links are sending you, include both the longer versions of his letters and some spurious letters. Read only the first paragraph of any Ignatius links I send you, too. The second paragraph is always from the later, amended edition of his letter.

AD 80-130:

The Didache (or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles): A very early and interesting church manual, which includes The Two Ways, a tract which is also found in the Letter of Barnabas.

Letter of Barnabas: This letter addresses the Law of Moses, then appends the “Two Ways” tract.

Letter to Diognetus: This is my favorite early Christian writing. It is poetic, beautiful, and addresses Christians in the society at large, true holiness, and the redemption accomplished by the Word of God come in the flesh.

117-138: Apology of Aristides. This is a recent discovery. I’ve read it, and I’ve forgotten most of what it says. There is a text and good introduction at EarlyChristianWritings.com. It refutes Roman paganism.

120-140: Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians. Like Ignatius, Polycarp is held by tradition to have been appointed as a bishop by apostles. The dates on this letter are my opinion. I think scholars would have to allow that it could have been written even in the 150’s.

132-135: Bar-Kokhba Rebellion: Simon Bar-Kokhba was another claimant to be the Jewish Messiah. He led a rebellion against Rome and drew many followers. It has immense importance to Jewish history, of course, as it crushed the Jews’ hopes for regaining their homeland for more than 17 centuries. For Christian history, this rebellion helps with dating. The Letter of Barnabas, for example, is believed to be before AD 130 just because it never mentions the crushing of the Jews in 135. Its focus on Jewish practices make it likely he would have at least mentioned it, had it already happened.

150’s: Justin Martyr’s writings. He has many writings. His First Apology is a thorough general description of Christianity addressed to the emperor. It contains the first description of an early Christian meeting. His Dialogue with Trypho, in my opinion, is the closest we will ever get to knowing what Jesus said to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24).

c. 155: Martyrdom of Polycarp: There is an excellent description of his martyrdom in the Ante-Nicene Fathers.

c. 160: Montanus prophesied in a church in Phrygia. His prophecy was rejected by the church. His church graciously allowed him an appeal to two others, who also rejected his prophecy. Refusing to repent, he started a sect now called the Montanists. They taught that the Holy Spirit was giving new revelation and new, stricter rules to the church now that it had grown up some. Allowances like remarrying after a spouse died, according to Montanus, were for the hardness of hearts of the Christians in their infancy. In spite of this rejection of the apostles’ inspired revelation of the Gospel, their teaching influenced even Tertullian, one of the most prolific writers of the early third century. (The Catholic Encyclopedia has an excellent summation of the chronology of Montanism.)

150-180: Here we have Tatian, Theophilus, and Athenagoras, all very different characters.

Tatian eventually left the faith for his own version of gnosticism, but before he did, he left us a few writings including a harmony of the Gospels known as the Diatessaron. Since this is a harmony of our four Gospels, it’s one more testimony (among many) that Irenaeus (see below) did not sort the Gospels from 30 down to 4, as claimed by Bart Ehrman, a noted pro-gnostic scholar. He was originally a disciple of Justin.

Theophilus was the seventh bishop of Antioch. His To Autolycus is a thorough description of the Christian faith. He has an extensive section on the Trinity, which I found very useful for In the Beginning Was the Logos. He is also one of the best references for a literal, 24-hour-day interpretation of Genesis 1 (which I don’t agree with). I have a web page that considers 6,000 years by Theophilus’ dating, which is very interesting.

Athenagoras is simply unknown. He wrote an apology called A Plea for the Christians. It has Montanist leanings, but no one knows whether he was really a Montanist or whether some of their ideas were already gaining traction in the church before Montanus was ejected from the church. For example, he refers to remarrying after a spouse dies as “a specious adultery” (adultery cloaked by being officially legal). It, too has an excellent section on the Trinity.

185: Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies about this time, a huge five-volume work against the gnostics. His thorough research on gnosticism, in order to refute them, is our best knowledge about them. The last three books, and especially the last two, cover almost everything that has to do with Christianity and Christian teaching in his day. He also wrote Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, which is a much shorter way to get his general teaching on Christianity.

190-200: Clement of Alexandria was a prolific writer. It is thought that he was the teacher of new converts in the church at Alexandria. He taught Origen in Origen’s youth, and both Clement and Origen are highly speculative teachers. Clement’s writings touch on everything. He even talks about exercise, eating gravy, how to sit in public, and much, much more. He and Justin before him quote philosophers and poets favorably on a regular basis, though they considered Christianity to be the true philosophy. Most other writers take a more negative attitude toward the “sophists.”

Posted in Early Christianity, History | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Delays and My Health

Posted on 12/14/2013 by Paul Pavao

I spent the entire day yesterday at Vanderbilt Cancer Center getting the first part of my 2-year post-transplant checkup. It took the whole day, and everything was wonderful:

  • My eyes have not had any Graft-vs-Host (attacks from my immune system) for the last six months. The wonderful, exuberant, sweet ophthalmologist, whom I will miss, told me I don’t ever need to come back. I though GVH of the eyes was a lifelong problem. Whoo hoo!
  • Still cancer free, and 2-years is coming up in a month when I’m allowed to use the word “cured,” even though nothing is 100%.
  • My triglycerides, very heightened by the steroids I have to take, come down from 460 to 180. Whoo hoo!

The albumen levels in my urine were TERRIBLE. I have no symptoms, but that’s indicative a kidney problem. Little scary. My other kidney number, creatinine level, was back down in normal range.

Basically, though, everything’s fine. In fact, they’re so fine that now they want to do all the poking and prodding that they would like to do to all healthy people. If you’re healthy, though, you can usually just dodge things like colonoscopies and prostate checks by never going to the doctor. I go to the doctor at least every two months and usually much more often than that. They are always asking if I’ve had this or that, and they want me to have everything.

Since I had cancer, I am giving in … once for each item.

Anyway, it’s made for a pretty busy couple of weeks. I will get back to blogging as soon as I can, probably next week.

I’ll give you additional news. Part of what is keeping me busy is that I am finally working regularly on Yippee! I Have Leukemia. I came up with a paragraph for my query letter and proposal (used to get a literary agent for traditional publishing) that I really like:

Why is the suffering, pain, and risk of training, preparing, and scaling a mountain an adventure to be tackled with joy, yet an equally difficult and much more risky battle with leukemia is not? I will never climb Mt. Everest, but I can find the same thrill and conquest climbing Mt. Improbable.

That pretty much sums up my attitude toward a cancer that kills about 75% of the people who get it. I figured all things work together for good for those who love God and are called for his purpose, so I’d act like that was true. The battle with leukemia was not just “my trial.” It was good.

The daughter of a friend of mine got me a T-shirt that says, “It’s all good.” I wore it a lot, and I still wear it even though it has holes in it. Thanks, Katie!

Related articles
Posted in Miscellaneous | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Second Century Timeline: Introduction

Posted on 12/08/2013 by Paul Pavao

Whoo hoo! Yeah!

This century … will … be … FUN.

You know, I try to write this blog the way I would talk in front of an audience. Outside of church, where I and most others in the church have spoken to 250 to 300 people, the biggest audiences I ever speak to, folks who for some unknown reason come out to hear me on purpose, is 40-50 people.

I do pretty well with them. I can see their faces. I can tell whether they’re really gripped by the subject. If so, I dig in and give them the facts, fast and furious. Everyone’s dazed but happy at the end. If not, we go slow, I throw in a lot of stories, a bit of my own wry humor, which people laugh at about 50% of the time, and I ask the audience questions to keep them focused. We have a good time, and hopefully they learn something, too.

On a blog, I can’t see you. I’ll find this post six months from now and think, “I started a blog with ‘Whoo hoo! Yeah!’?? How goofy is that?”

Does that ever happen to any of you who blog?

Well, today I feel pretty “whoo hoo” about digging into the second century church, so that’s how we’re starting.

We Don’t Speak Great Things, We Live Them

The second century is not about the events. Yes, the Bar-Kochba rebellion is important. Whole books could have and have been written about it. The story of Montanus is really interesting, and so is the doctrine at the root of Montanism. The era of the apologists is important and interesting. Their arguments against the Romans, the emperor, and the gnostic heretics all take surprising turns that we can learn from.

But their lives!

The Christians of the second century got to live a faith that is terrifying to us in North America. We dream of such a faith. We idolize those who have lived such a faith, but few of us really put in the effort that grows such a faith.

It exists in the world today even without a lost ingredient I will talk about throughout this history. U.S. believers who make mission trips to areas where Christians have endured mosquito-infested swamps, then swam across raging rivers pulling a large, plastic-wrapped batch of Bibles into some country where they have forbidden–U.S. believers who make trip to those areas come back profoundly changed. It’s hard to hold onto that change in the worldly, affluent, unbelieving, logical west. We are full, blind, and have all we need. A friend of mine calls the whole USA “Disneyland.”

There was a time when Christians were all like they are in persecuted countries.

Let me say now that we can be that way even in countries where “Christians” are the majority. We’ll talk more about that when we eventually wander into the third century.

Today, I just want to give you an introduction to some of the second century Christians and what they said about the way they live. (Note: in doing so, we are going to include some first century Christians who wrote after the time of the apostles.)

Corinth Repents Because of Paul’s Letter

Who ever lived among you and did not find your faith to be as fruitful of virtue as it was firmly established? Who did not admire your sobriety and the moderation of your godliness in Christ? Who did not proclaim the magnificence of your habitual hospitality? Who did not rejoice over your perfect and well-grounded knowledge? You did everything without partiality, walked in the commandments of God, being obedient to those who led you, and giving all appropriate honor to the elders among you. (1 Clement 1)

This preceded a rebuke that they had fallen into dissension and envy again, putting out a couple of their elders for what Clement (or the church of Rome) felt was no good reason. Nonetheless, this letter gives us a thorough picture of how the Corinthians heeded Paul’s admonishments to them, even if a generation later they found themselves having problems again.

The Godly Lives of Christians

You forbid, yet commit, adulteries; we are born men only for our own wives. You punish crimes when committed; with us, even to think of crimes is to sin. You are afraid of those who are aware of what you do; we are afraid even of our own consciences, without which we cannot exist. Finally, from your numbers the prisons boil over, but there is no Christian there unless he is accused on account of his religion or has deserted it. (M. Felix, The Octavius, c AD 200)

Let me be clear, though, that if we thought wealth was useful for us, we would ask God for it. We are confident that God would answer us in some measure, because he possesses everything. But we would rather despise riches than possess them. What we want is innocence, and what we pray for is patience. We prefer being good to being lavish. (ibid.)

We despise the bent brows of the philosophers, because we know them to be corrupters, adulterers, and tyrants. They have great eloquence, but they’re speaking against vices that they themselves live in. We, on the other hand, who do not carry our wisdom in our clothes, but in our minds, don’t speak great things; we live them. We boast that we have found what they have sought for with the utmost eagerness but have not been able to find. (ibid.)

We who formerly delighted in fornication now embrace chastity alone. We who formerly used magical arts dedicate ourselves to the good and unbegotten God. We who valued above all things the acquisition of wealth and possessions now bring what we have into a common stock and share with every one in need. We who hated and destroyed one another and would not live with men of a different tribe because of their different customs now, since the coming of Christ, share the same fire with them.
   We pray for our enemies and attempt to persuade those who hate us unjustly to live according to the good precepts of Christ. This is so that they may become partakers with us of the same joyful hope of a reward from God, the Ruler of all. (Justin, 1 Apology 14, c. AD 155)

We … continually remind each other of these things. The wealthy among us help the needy, and we always keep together. For all things with which we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through his Son Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit. … They who are well to do and willing give what each thinks fit, and what is collected is deposited with the president. He helps the orphans, widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in need. [He helps] those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us. In a word [he] takes care of all who are in need. (Justin, ibid. 67)

It is mainly the deeds of a love so noble that lead many to label us. “See,” they say, “How they love one another!” For themselves are animated by mutual hatred. “How they are ready even to die for one another!” For they themselves will sooner put to death. …
   No tragedy causes dissension in our brotherhood … the family possessions, which generally destroy brotherhood among you [Romans], create fraternal bonds among us. One in mind and soul, we do not hesitate to share our earthly goods with one another. All things are common among us but our wives. (Tertullian, Apology 39, c AD 210)

Persecution

Christians … love all men, and are persecuted by all. They are unknown and condemned; they are put to death, and restored to life. They are poor, yet make many rich; they are in lack of all things, and yet abound in all; they are dishonored, and yet in their very dishonor are glorified. They are evil spoken of, and yet are justified; they are reviled, and bless; they are insulted, and repay the insult with honor; they do good, yet are punished as evil-doers. When punished, they rejoice as if quickened into life. (Anonymous, Letter to Diognetus 5, c AD 100)

Don’t you see them exposed to wild beasts for the purpose of persuading them to deny the Lord, yet they are not overcome? Don’t you see that the more of them that are punished, the greater the number of the rest becomes? This does not seem to be the work of man. This is the power of God. These are the evidences of his appearance. (ibid. 7)

I’m going to throw in a comment here. We love logic here in the west, and we use it to persuade the lost, including atheists. Somehow, we think that our careful historical arguments about the resurrection or our salvos against evolution are going to convert them. I’m not saying that logic isn’t a useful tool. I know that discussions of the evidence for the resurrection have had powerful effect on many people, but that is because the resurrection is at the heart of the Gospel.

The anonymous author of the Letter to Diognetus said the best evidences for the truth of our faith are the things we do. Jesus concurred, telling us our love for one another will prove we belong to him (Jn. 13:34-35), and our unity will prove he comes from God (Jn. 17:20-23). Having seen holiness, love, and unity in small groups and a large one, I can tell you nothing softens a heart to the Gospel like saints who let the love of God and holiness come out of them together.

Now it is evident that no one can terrify or subdue us who have believed in Jesus over all the world. For it is plain that, though beheaded, crucified, thrown to wild beasts, chains, and fire, and all other kinds of torture, we do not give up our confession; instead, the more such things happen, the more others—in even larger numbers—become faithful and worshippers of God through the name of Jesus.(Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew 110, c. AD 155)

How many of our people have borne that not their right hand only, but their whole body, should be burned—burned up without any cries of pain … Do I compare men with [your Roman heroes]? Boys and young women among us treat with contempt crosses and tortures, wild beasts, and all the bugbears of punishment with the inspired patience of suffering. And do you not perceive, O wretched men, that there is nobody who either is willing without reason to undergo punishment, or is able without God to bear tortures? (M. Felix, The Octavius 37, c. AD 200)

Unity

The Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying one house, carefully preserves it. She believes these things … and she proclaims them, teaches them, and hands them down with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, I:10:2)

Is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith? No casualty distributed among many men issues in one and the same result. Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can anyone, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition? (Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics 28)

There’s a couple things I love about these last two passages …

  1. I knew the churches of the second century were united. Irenaeus ties their unity to their preservation of apostolic truth. The churches were not inventing or developing doctrine, but they were clinging to the teaching of the apostles … and they were living as described in the sections above.
  2. Before reading the books and tracts written by Irenaeus and Tertullian, I would have said I knew the Church, singular and capitalized, was united. I said churches because of Tertullian’s quote above and the rest of Prescription Against Heretics. These were churches, individually clinging to the teaching of the apostles and walking together to hold each other accountable, not one worldwide organization that decreed truth to its member churches.

Unity, love, and obedience to our King are the best evidences against unbelief (Jn. 13:34-35; 17:20-23; 1 Thess. 1:3-10). It is no wonder these impoverished, despised, fringe-of-society Christians triumphed over mighty Rome.

A Second Century Timeline

In the next post, we will go back to making a timeline. There are many more second century writers that I could have used to fill out today’s post. I’ll list them in the timeline in the next post, and give you descriptions and links for them. We’ll probably have to take at least two more days, more likely three or four, with the second century Christians. Not only do you need to be introduced to them, but we should talk about the apologists and then about the two major heresies of the second century, gnosticism and Montanism.

Posted in Early Christianity, History | Tagged , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Daily Passage on Works: Days 44-50

Posted on 12/06/2013 by Paul Pavao

Days 44-50:

I’m trying to this a week at at time now rather than every day.

1 Thessalonians 3:5 We told you earlier that you would suffer troubles, just as it came to pass, as you know. For this reason, when I couldn’t take it any longer, I sent to find out your faith, in case the tempter had tempted you and our work have been useless.

1 Thessalonians 4:1-8: We beseech you, brothers, and we exhort by the Lord Jesus that, in the way you have received from us as to how to walk and please God, you would overflow more and more. For you know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus. This is the will of God, your holiness. You should abstain from sexual immorality. Every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in holiness and honor, not in pathological lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God. Let no one take advantage of his brother in this matter because the Lord is the avenger of everyone like that, as we have warned you earlier and testified. For God has not called us to uncleanness, but to holiness. Whoever despises this does not despise man, but God, who has also given us the Holy Spirit.

1 Thessalonians 5:6-9:/strong> Let us not sleep like others, but let us watch and be serious. For those that sleep sleep in the night, and those that are drunk are drunk in the night. But let us, who are of the day, be serious, putting on the breastplate of faith and love and for a helmet, the hope of salvation. For God has not appointed us to wrath but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus the King.

1 Thessalonians 5:14-15: We exhort you, brothers, warn those who are unruly, comfort the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient to everyone. See that no one returns evil for evil to anyone, but always follow what is good, both among yourselves and all men.

1 Thessalonians 5:22 Abstain from every form of evil.

2 Thessalonians 1:4-5: We ourselves boast of you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all the persecutions which you endure, proof of the just judgment of God, so that you may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you also suffer.

2 Thessalonians 1:11-12: We always pray for you that our God would count you worthy of this calling and fulfill all his desire for goodness and the work of faith with power, so that the name of our Lord Jesus the King may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and our Lord Jesus the King.

The Purpose of This Exercise

I hope to reach 180 passages (six months worth) of verses that exhort us to good works without apology and without having to explain “remember, we’re not saved by works.” Jesus and his apostles don’t apologize for their exhortations and warnings concerning good works. They don’t add careful reminders that salvation is not by works. We’ve now seen this in 50 passages. Not verses, passages. Some of them have been 8-10 verses long. I’m sure we are well over 100 verses.

The New Testament has 7956 verses, so we’re at about 1.25% of the NT, and we have barely touched the Gospels which have half those verses.

This is a faithful saying, and I want you to affirm constantly that those who have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable to men. (Tit. 3:8)

Posted in Daily Works Verses | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Christian History Timeline: First Century

Posted on 12/05/2013 by Paul Pavao

Thanks to those who pitched in and pointed out things I missed or didn’t realize the importance of. I’m just one guy. I miss all sorts of things. I keep track, however, when corrected, so my picture of history keeps growing.

I’m going to go through the pre-Nicene era a century at a time (or less) with notes:

BC 6-4: Jesus born
AD 28-29: John the Baptist begins preaching

We know this from Luke 3:1-3. Tiberius was caesar from AD 14-29. So his fifteenth year was 28 or 29, depending on the months involved.

AD 33: Jesus crucified and risen

The year of Jesus death and resurrection has to be a year when Nisan 14 falls on Friday. The testimony to Jesus dying on Friday and rising on Sunday is unanimous in the early Christian writings. No one wrestled with “Hey, Friday evening to Sunday morning is not three days and three nights.” They never even mention that “problem.” I have to conclude that what Christian scholars claim is true. Any portion of a day or night could be considered “a day and night” in Hebrew terminology.

AD 33-60: Events of Acts and Paul’s letters

I don’t know the dates or order of Paul’s letters. No one knows them perfectly. I have heard arguments that 1 Thessalonians was Paul’s first letter and that Galatians was. The council in Jerusalem (Acts 15) is usually dated to AD 50. Events like that can be used to date other letters. It’s supposed that Galatians was written before the council, because Paul doesn’t mention its decrees directly. They would definitely have been pertinent to his letter.

The same logic helps with dating Hebrews. It has to be written before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 or the writer (Paul, Barnabas, or unknown) would have mentioned it. The Book of the Revelation is often dated before AD 70 for the same reason, but that is not agreed upon.

Anyway, I’m nowhere near an expert on the dating of the apostles writings. Gene Edwards claims that Paul persecuted the church and was converted 8 years after Jesus’ resurrection, but I have no idea why he thinks that. Honestly, I’ve had a lot of other things to study, and I’ve just never studied it. It’s been enough for me to know that everything we read in Acts happened during these 30 years.

AD 50: Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15)

Restless Pilgrim mentioned in comments that this council not only changed the course of Christianity by determining that Gentiles did not need to keep the Law of Moses or be circumcised, but it set a precedent for later councils.

It was a bit easier in AD 50 to gather the leading brothers, elders, and apostles for a council like this. The next general council of the church would be almost 300 years later at the Council of Nicea. Even then, most of the bishops were from the Roman empire, though the Gospel had already gone as far as India at least. Most of the bishops were also from the eastern Roman empire where the council was held.

Yes, the apostles were present at the Council of Jerusalem. Yes, the council is recorded in the Bible. Nonetheless, it is apparent that the church(es?) felt free to come together to make decisions on critical issues. It is a testimony to the power of the apostles preaching and to the faithfulness of the churches that we do not read about any councils in the second century, other than three churches getting together to give Montanus a hearing he did not deserve. (I commend their mercy towards him and their wisdom in giving him the boot once they heard his blasphemies.)

In the third century, we do read about area councils. New issuse that came up were …

Well, we’ll get to those in their time.

AD 64-67: Peter and Paul are martyred.

The dates of the other apostles martyrdoms are not well known. John, we are told, lived into the reign of Trajan, who began his reign in AD 98. He was not martyred, but died of natural causes.

Ignatius, who was martyred in either AD 107 or 116, was said to be appointed by “apostles” as bishop of Antioch (Paul’s home church!). Luke’s Acts of the Apostles preserved a lot of Paul and Peter’s activities for us and informs us that James, John’s brother, was put to the sword early on (12:1-2). We depend on hazy tradition for information on the rest of the apostles. I have to think that the “apostles in Asia” that appointed Ignatius may have included not only John or Peter, but also one or two of the others about whom we know less.

Thaddeus was in Edessa, for example, which was in modern Turkey and if not part of Asia Minor was certainly close to it.

AD 70: Fall of Jerusalem

The Roman general Titus destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70. Christians were prepared for this destruction because of the prophecies of Jesus, and they fled when they heard he was coming, as Jesus had commanded them to.

This ended the church in Jerusalem of course, but temporarily. When Jerusalem was rebuilt, circumcised men were not allowed in it, in an attempt by Rome to ensure no Jews returned there. The fact that there was a church in Jerusalem later is proof enough that circumcision was not practiced among Christians.

AD 70-96: End of Apostolic Era

The apostle John probably lived a couple years past this AD 96 date. I chose it, however, because that is first certain date of a Christian writing outside the New Testament. The church at Rome wrote a letter to the church at Corinth, anonymous but unanimously ascribed to Clement and called 1 Clement, mentioning persecution that sets the date of the letter at AD 95-96.

The Letter of Barnabas, The Letter to Diognetus, and The Didache (or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles) are all ascribed first century dates by some, but none of them are certain.

That’s the first century. I’m really looking more forward to doing the second century and telling you a bit about the Christians who wrote during that period.

Now I’m going to go back and make some suggested corrections and additions on the other two timelines I did earlier this week. I welcome suggestions for this one, too.

I looked up very little of what I wrote above. There may be minor mistakes. I don’t think there are any major ones. Thank you for your help in this project should you have corrections. I am not trying to write a history, and I do not want to get too detailed. I just want to outline the period and touch on some interesting things. Acts and the letters of the apostles are the best source for what first century Christianity was like. Most Christians have read them.

The second century is much less well-known, so it’s easier to be interesting .

Posted in Church, History | Tagged , | 3 Comments