Paul's Passing Thoughts

So, here we are, another Easter Sunday. A “celebration” of Christ’s resurrection. Many people will attend the institutional churches today who don’t normally attend. After all, spring is in the air and colorful flowers are sprouting up from the ashes of winter’s death. This marks the beginning of the season of resurrection symbolized by the primary Western God, Jesus. Even my missionary daughter, who I am very proud of, posted a colorful placard on Facebook with the nomenclature, “He is risen.” Indeed he has, and don’t get me wrong, that truth is very dear to my soul.

Here at the Potter’s house home fellowship, I would like to think our minds function like a friend told me computers function. According to him, computers operate by a massive series of open and closed gates. He explained it as, “yes or no; yes or no; yes or no.” Perhaps this is akin to the 1 | 0 that I see at times referring to computer code. I would like to think our minds function that way. As we hear words, a yes or no is determined; if you will, truth or untruth.

Psalm 119:130 – The unfolding of your words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple.

The word “unfolding” in the Hebrew refers to an open door. We are to close the door to words that don’t lend understanding. Said the apostle Paul:

2Corinthians 10:5 – We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ,

Like the computer idiom, “trash in, trash out,” when it gets right down to it, the code we allow into our minds will determine our life. And, I wonder how well a computer would work according to the following code: 1.5 | 0.5. Perhaps a reader of PPT can illumine us according to that question.

The focus is on Easter Sunday. And, we think of the last supper as being something different. And, we think of TheLord’s Table being something different. A careful examination of the Scriptures exposes this as being an anomaly. Easter is supposedly representative of the Jewish Passover; every scholar gives at least tacit affirmation to that. But, in accordance with our lazy thinking, we don’t think about what doesn’t add up.

The last supper was Jesus’ participation in the Feast of Unleavened Bread that lasted seven days, beginning with the Passover meal—that’s the Last Supper. At the last supper, Jesus instructed His assembly to participate in The Lord’s Table. And not only is it not about resurrection at all, what does “Passover” refer to? The Exodus, right? What else does it refer to?

Mark 14:22 – And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” 23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. 24 And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 25 Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

I hate to be a party-pooper, but do you see anything there about resurrection? And why was it called “Passover”? What was passed over, and when did it happen? I have no qualms about the resurrection being spoken of during Easter, but why is the emphasis other-biblical? It is not a “celebration of resurrection,” it is a remembrance of His death:

For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

In 1 Corinthians 11:23-25, we find that Christ also instructed His assemblies to do this as often as they ate together. Historically, this was a very informal remembrance:

Contrary to today’s practice, the early church took the Lord’s table in the context of a normal meal. When Jesus instituted the supper, it was taken as part of the Passover Feast (Luke 22:15-20). In fact, the Passover was the forerunner of the Lord’s Supper.

First Corinthians 11 makes it clear that the early Christians gathered to eat the Supper as a meal. Some in the church at Corinth weren’t waiting for their brethren to show up to the meeting. The result: Those who ate were full and those who showed up late went hungry. In addition, the Corinthian Christians were getting drunk at the Supper (1Cor. 11:21-22, 33-34). Now think: Is it possible to get drunk on a thimble of grape juice and satisfy one’s hunger with a bite-sized cracker?

The New Testament word for “supper” literally means a dinner, a meal, or a banquet. And the Greek word for “table” refers to a table in which a full meal is spread (Luke 22:14; 1Cor. 10:21). To the first-century Christians, the Lord’s Supper was just that—a supper. It was a banquet—a potluck dinner that included bread and wine. It was the table communion of the saints. A family festival. A fellowship meal.

By it, the Christians who were better off monetarily showed their love and concern for their less fortunate brethren. This ran against the grain of Greco-Roman norms, where class distinctions were sharply recognized during banquets [and that culture had seeped into Judaism as well (Lk 14:12-14, 20:46)]. But not so with the Christians. In the Supper, the early believers showed their unity and oneness, ignoring social distinctions of class and race. Perhaps this is why the early church referred to the Supper as the Agape—or “love feast” (2peter 2:13; Jude 12).

Regrettably, centuries of ecclesiastical tradition have made today’s truncated version of the Supper an event that is far removed from what it was in the first century. As eminent scholar Eduard Schweizer notes, “A practice which separates the sacrament from the brotherhood meal turns the former into a strange, almost heathen rite which totally lacks its ‘bodily’ expression in the context of the whole life of its participants.

Consequently, the communal meaning of the breaking of bread has been largely lost to us. It’s no longer the “Lord’s Supper.” Today’s version would better be called the “Savior’s Sampler,” the “Nazarene Niblet,” or the “Lord’s Appetizer.” Forgive the humor, but can we really call a cracker crumb and a shot glass of grape juice a supper? (Frank Viola: Reimagining Church; chapter 3, The Lord’s Banquet).

Furthermore, Christians continued to recognize most of the Jewish customs and feasts after Christ’s resurrection (Acts 18:21,22, 1Cor 5:7, Acts 20:6, 16, 27:9). There is no reason at all why a traditional recognition of Passover shouldn’t be the norm in the contemporary assemblies.

So, how did we get here? This is where we get into our history lesson. Christians continued to recognize Passover yearly and remembered the Lord’s death whenever they broke bread together. It was a remembrance of Christ’s death, not a “celebration” in regard to His resurrection. This was the practice of the early church predominately for at least 200 years after Pentecost. I will use the following excerpt to explain the history of how we arrived at where we are today in all of this:

But how did we get from the assembly to the church? This can be tracked historically and begins with the passing of Peter and Paul who were the most formidable of the apostles. Peter was the “rock” of the church, and Paul wrote 13 of the 27 books that makeup the New Testament canon. The passing of these two apostles created a leadership vacuum.

Also left behind was no shortage of theologians, many of them products of the apostles and their disciples. The most prominent ones are known as the Church Fathers. For example, one church father, Polycarp, was a disciple of the apostle John. These men were very influential leaders of that day, and had different ideas in regard to apostolic succession. Some believed that the apostles laid the foundation of Christ’s assembly and set it in motion without the need for further apostolic oversight. Others believed that the church was doomed to chaos without doctrinal oversight. However, though the apostles certainly possessed some categories of authority, they made themselves accountable to the general populous of Christians according to Scripture as we have previously noted.

A movement developed that was strongly supported by some of the church fathers; specifically, that the church at Rome should have oversight of all of the assemblies, and the church at Rome should be overseen by a single bishop. The first bishop to be named was Linus. It was taught that Linus represented the succession of the apostles. According to one of the church fathers, Irenaeus:

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate (Irenaeus: Against Heresies 3:3.3).

Irenaeus also identified Linus as the same who was an associate of Paul mentioned in 2Tim 4:21. Irenaeus is considered to be one of the earliest church fathers known as the Apostolic Church Fathers and was an associate of Polycarp. And yes, Linus represents the beginning of the Catholic Church and its succession of first, authoritative bishops, and then followed by the popes. Irenaeus is indicative of many of the church fathers who ascribed to apostolic succession,† but the focus is on him because he is the earliest and most vocal about it:

Wherefore we must obey the priests of the Church who have succession from the Apostles, as we have shown, who, together with succession in the episcopate, have received the certain mark of truth according to the will of the Father; all others, however, are to be suspected, who separated themselves from the principal succession (Irenaeus: Adversus Haereses; Book IV, Chapter 26).

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere (Irenaeus: Adversus Haereses; Book III, Chapter 3).

The primary nemesis of the apostolic church was Gnosticism, and the Gnostics claimed secret oral knowledge that came directly from Christ. The debate concerning authentic canonicity during that time made an argument for the most reliable oral tradition valid. This fed the movement for the church at Rome, and its presiding bishop, to have authority over all of the assemblies. The church fathers argued that it was obvious that the likes of Linus and Polycarp possessed the most reliable oral tradition (The Horizon History of Christianity: American Heritage Publishing 1964; p. 73).

However, for the most part in regard to realty, it was a more “reliable” form of Gnosticism as the church fathers themselves were heavily influenced by Gnostic principles (Ibid pp. 70, 71). ††

Scripturally, we have the clear mentality of the two primary apostles who knew their departure was near. For Paul, it was a final exhortation to the Ephesian elders, warning them that after his departure wolves would come in among the eldership and attempt to ravage the flock (Acts 20:17-32). From this passage, it can be argued that Paul is commending the assembly elders to the care of God’s flock through the word and not any kind of authority. Indeed, the apostles were already working side by side with the elders on matters of doctrine (Acts 15:1-4). For Peter, it was a final exhortation to the saints as a whole to remind them of important sanctification principles that would give them assurance of salvation (2Peter 1:1-15). This is followed by instruction, to all of the saints, in regard to false teachers. If there is any succession, it is to the congregation of the saints and their elders.

Nevertheless, at this juncture in church history, the tension begins between elder leadership and bishop authority. The church at Rome may have been chosen for this authority because it was the epicenter of the world at that time. In the beginning, its “authority” had to be sold through the intimidation of the church fathers. Gnostic influence fueled the collectivist mentally and the need for orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is the parental explanation to the child. It is the gnosis repackaged in a form that can be followed, albeit not necessarily understood by the great unwashed masses. It is the creeds, confessions, and catechisms. These place the bishop between the parishioner and the word of God. These make the bishop the authority. These make the understandable word of God the gnosis. The first example of such creeds is the Didache dating back to early post apostolic times.

As the intimidation grew, many assemblies and their elders capitulated to bishop authority. Instead of a plurality of elders among the assemblies fulfilling their leadership gift, it became one bishop, one church, one city. These bishops usurped the positions of the assembly elders and were subservient to the bishop of Rome.‡ However, many of these assemblies under bishop authority still retained deep convictions in regard to the apostles doctrine and Scripture. Under the bishopric, Clement of Rome, a church father himself, this tension came to a head. Apparently, the church at Corinth which by then comprised a huge network of assemblies had responded well to Paul’s rebukes and instruction. It is also apparent that Clement was taking it upon himself to appoint bishops to the assemblies based on assumed authority propagated by most of the church fathers. Corinth responded by expelling the bishops from their assemblies. This is the subject Clement addresses in the letter of 1Clement:

1Clem 44:1 – And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop’s office.

1Clem 44:2 – For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration. Those therefore who were appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the consent of the whole Church, and have ministered unblamably to the flock of Christ in lowliness of mind, peacefully and with all modesty, and for long time have borne a good report with all these men we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their ministration.

The suggestion that these bishops ministered “peacefully” while they were in Corinth couldn’t be exactly right for in other places Clement addresses doctrinal issues (40:2-41:1). 40:2 in particular suggests that the bishops might have been hindering the informality of their meetings:

Now the offerings and ministrations He commanded to be performed with care, and not to be done rashly or in disorder, but at fixed times and seasons.

The bishops were expelled via the suggestion of a few in Corinth. Undoubtedly, these were men highly respected by the assemblies before the bishops arrived—probably assembly elders:

1Clem 47:6 – It is shameful, dearly beloved, yes, utterly shameful and unworthy of your conduct in Christ, that it should be reported that the very steadfast and ancient Church of the Corinthians, for the sake of one or two persons, maketh sedition against its presbyters.

It is also possible that these elders didn’t take Rome’s authority seriously:

1Clem 39:1 – Senseless and stupid and foolish and ignorant men jeer and mock at us, desiring that they themselves should be exalted in their imaginations.

Clement accuses these men, again, probably elders, of being jealous of bishop authority:

1Clem 57:2 – Learn to submit yourselves, laying aside the arrogant and proud stubbornness of your tongue. For it is better for you to be found little in the flock of Christ and to have your name on God’s roll, than to be had in exceeding honor and yet be cast out from the hope of Him.

Clement also threatens them with excommunication:

1Clem 57:1 – Ye therefore that laid the foundation of the sedition, submit yourselves unto the presbyters and receive chastisement unto repentance, bending the knees of your heart.

Ibid 57:2 – Learn to submit yourselves, laying aside the arrogant and proud stubbornness of your tongue. For it is better for you to be found little in the flock of Christ and to have your name on God’s roll, than to be had in exceeding honor and yet be cast out from the hope of Him.

Clement sent a delegation to Corinth to present the letter and wait on a reply. 63:3 could imply the second step of “church discipline”:

1Clem 63:2 – For ye will give us great joy and gladness, if ye render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit, and root out the unrighteous anger of your jealousy, according to the entreaty which we have made for peace and concord in this letter.

1Clem 63:3 – And we have also sent faithful and prudent men that have walked among us from youth unto old age unblamably, who shall also be witnesses between you and us.

1Clem 63:4 – And this we have done that ye might know that we have had, and still have, every solicitude that ye should be speedily at peace.

1Clem 65:1 – Now send ye back speedily unto us our messengers Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito, together with Fortunatus also, in peace and with joy, to the end that they may the more quickly report the peace and concord which is prayed for and earnestly desired by us, that we also may the more speedily rejoice over your good order.

The Day the Church Excommunicated Christ’s Assembly

As stated earlier, even though many assemblies were half pregnant with bishop authority, they would draw the line on certain convictions. This held true for more than 100 years after Clement’s letter to the Corinthians. In 193 AD, there is another major standoff between the assembly of Christ and the church. This time, it involves Victor of Rome and the Asian assemblies. One is astounded to learn through the history of this controversy that the assemblies observed the Passover for what could have been 300 years after Pentecost.

Rome’s polity could only be enforced through academic and social caste intimidation. As they sought to appease the Roman government (which was already a state religion) more and more, this meant more and more integration of Rome’s paganism into Christian nomenclature. Therefore, Victor insisted that the Asian assemblies replace Passover with Easter:

Internal dissensions during this era affected the Church at Rome. The dispute over the celebration of Easter grew more acute. The Christians at Rome, who had come from the province of Asia, were accustomed to observe Easter on the 14th day of Nisan, whatever day of the week that date might happen to fall on, just as they had done at home. This difference inevitably led to trouble when it appeared in the Christian community of Rome. Pope Victor decided, therefore, to bring about unity in the observance of the Easter festival and to persuade the Quartodecimans to join in the general practice of the Church.

He wrote, therefore, to Bishop Polycrates of Ephesus and induced the latter to call together the bishops of the province of Asia in order to discuss the matter with them. This was done; but in the letter sent by Polycrates to Pope Victor he declared that he firmly held to the Quartodeciman custom observed by so many celebrated and holy bishops of that region. Victor called a meeting of Italian bishops at Rome, which is the earliest Roman synod known. He also wrote to the leading bishops of the various districts, urging them to call together the bishops of their sections of the country and to take counsel with them on the question of the Easter festival.

Letters came from all sides: from the synod in Palestine, at which Theophilus of Caesarea and Narcissus of Jerusalem presided; from the synod of Pontus over which Palmas as the oldest presided; from the communities in Gaul whose bishop of Irenaeus of Lyons; from the bishops of the Kingdom of Osrhoene; also from individual bishops, as Bakchylus of Corinth. These letters all unanimously reported that Easter was observed on Sunday… Victor, who acted throughout the entire matter as the head of Catholic Christendom, now called upon the bishops of the province of Asia to abandon their custom and to accept the universally prevailing practice of always celebrating Easter on Sunday. In case they would not do this he declared they would be excluded from the fellowship of the Church (The Catholic Encyclopedia).

It can be assumed that there were many assemblies that separated themselves from all of the drama and lived separately from Rome and the church fathers. Perhaps they had already been excommunicated at some point. But the following is clear: all assemblies ruled by bishops who refused to exchange the observance of Passover with Easter (a pagan festival) were excommunicated:

Further, Irenaeus states that St. Polycarp, who like the other Asiatics, kept Easter on the fourteenth day of the moon, whatever day of the week that might be, following therein the tradition which he claimed to have derived from St. John the Apostle, came to Rome c. 150 about this very question, but could not be persuaded by Pope Anicetus to relinquish his Quartodeciman observance. Nevertheless he was not debarred from communion with the Roman Church, and St. Irenæus, while condemning the Quartodeciman practice, nevertheless reproaches Pope Victor (c. 189-99) with having excommunicated the Asiatics too precipitately and with not having followed the moderation of his predecessors (The Catholic Encyclopedia).

Eventually, the church at Rome succeeded in being fused with the state during the reign of Constantine. At that point, orthodoxy was enforced by the point of a sword. This is how the institutional church came about, and the Protestantism that came from it is no less institutional.

Like its Roman mother, it came forth from the womb seeking authority in its polity and orthodoxy. ‡‡ This is the difference between the assembly and church: the priesthood of believers versus bishops; gifts versus authority. To which Christ stated:

Mark 10:35 – And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came up to him and said to him, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.” 36 And he said to them, “What do you want me to do for you?” 37 And they said to him, “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.” 38 Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” 39 And they said to him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized, 40 but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.” 41 And when the ten heard it, they began to be indignant at James and John. 42 And Jesus called them to him and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 43 But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

(Paul’s Passing Thoughts blog: From Christ’s Assembly to the Institutional Church: The History and Philosophical Progression; online source – http://wp.me/pmd7S-2Kv).

In accordance with the Counsel of Nicea in 325, Constantine ordered that Easter be celebrated in lieu of Passover. Easter Sunday was a pagan holiday that was integrated into the church at Rome overseen by the bishopric:

An important historical result of the difference in reckoning the date of Easter was that the Christian churches in the East, which were closer to the birthplace of the new religion and in which old traditions were strong, observed [the Resurrection] according to the date of the Passover festival. The churches of the West, descendants of Greco-Roman civilization, celebrated Easter on a Sunday.

Constantine the Great, Roman emperor, convoked the Council of Nicaea in 325. The council unanimously ruled that the Easter festival should be celebrated throughout the Christian world on the first Sunday after the full moon following the vernal equinox; and that if the full moon should occur on a Sunday and thereby coincide with the Passover festival, Easter should be commemorated on the Sunday following. Coincidence of the feasts of Easter and Passover was thus avoided.

The name [Easter] probably comes from Eastre, the Anglo-Saxon name of a Teutonic goddess of spring and fertility, to whom was dedicated a month corresponding to April. Her festival was celebrated on the day of the vernal equinox; traditions associated with the festival survive in the Easter rabbit, a symbol of fertility, and in colored easter eggs, originally painted with bright colors to represent the sunlight of spring, and used in Easter-egg rolling contests or given as gifts… – Encarta Encyclopedia, article: Easter.

This was the culmination of a 100-year controversy in the church. It was never about mere controversy over a day, the problem that Rome had with the Jewish connection to Christianity is evident:

And truly, in the first place, it seems to everyone a most unworthy thing that we should follow the customs of the Jews in the celebration of this most holy solemnity, who, polluted wretches! having stained their hands with a nefarious crime, are justly blinded in their minds. It is fit, therefore, that rejecting the practice of this people, we should perpetuate to all future ages the celebration of this rite, in a more legitimate order, which we have kept from the first day of our Lord’s passion even to the present times. Let us then have nothing in common with the most hostile rabble of the Jews. (Constantine: Council of Nicea, pg. 52.)

 Let’s be honest, most Christians find the traditional observance of the Lord’s Table in the institutional church wanting in regard to meaning. The Protestant observance is also traditionally grounded in the belief that more of the same grace that saved us is imparted. We can assume that idea doesn’t go over well with the Lord. John Calvin cited St Augustine, the Doctor of the Catholic Church to give merit to his Protestant position that the Lord’s table imparts salvific grace (Calvin Institutes 4.14.15, 4.17.45). Augustine led the Catholic Church roughly 100 years after the counsel of Nicaea, and many of the early church fathers were his comrades. He was baptized by Ambrose, on Easter no less. By 400 AD, the contrast between the original elder led assemblies and Rome was stark and wide. Historically, the remnant of the original assemblies would be difficult to trace.

However, because of the testimony of the Scriptures, the original model can be brought back to life along with a meaningful observance of the Lord’s Table.