The Strife Part V
How Christianity, from the first century, deviated from the Holy Scriptures by S.V.M. originally written in Dutch in 1931, translated from Dutch by Aristarkos.
V. THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS
THEIR OPINION. That in general, as before, they more or less soon expected the Lord Jesus, we may suppose to be well known. Barnabas, Clemens, Hermas, Ignatius, Polycarp, and many other Church Fathers speak of it clearly in their writings. Here we have a first clue: they held in part what the 12 Apostles of Israel and also Paul (during the first period of Acts) taught and still awaited the kingdom. We will see later that to them it was no longer a literal kingdom on earth, where the literal Israel would be God's People. In any case, they turned away from Paul's latest revelations concerning the church and seemed to conform to the former expectation of new conditions.
Let us see how the Apostolic Fathers thought about the O.T., Israel and the « Church ».
BARNABAS. He wrote at the end of the first century. He is supposed to be the Barnabas who accompanied Paul. It is known from Gal. 2:13 and Acts. 15:39, that he also deviated from Paul.
His letter is very remarkable, because he is one of the oldest writers to spiritualize the O.T. There were then two major currents:
1. The Judaizing believers, who applied the O.T. to themselves as much as possible in a literal sense.
2. The anti-Judaizers like Marcion, who rejected everything because it was against the N.T.
With Barnabas one now clearly sees a new direction: one retains the O.T., but one does not take it literally, but spiritually. According to Barnabas, the Israelites misunderstood the law and the prophets. Neither circumcision, nor the sabbath, nor the other statutes were to be taken literally. Only the spiritual meaning counted and should have been accepted by the Jews in the O.T. alone. Now for the first time people clearly saw all this!
First he points to Scriptures such as Isa. 1:11-13, Jer. 7:22, 23; Zach. 8:17; Jesus. 58:4-10 etc. which emphasize the true meaning of the sacrifices, the fasts, etc. So for him the spiritual meaning only exists and he rejects the forms. For example, he mentions b. v. Ex. 33:1-3 and adds:
Barnabas 6. « But what says knowledge? Understand. Put your hope in Him Who will soon appear before you in the flesh, Jesus... Then what does He say? To the land flowing with milk and honey. Blessed be our Lord, brethren, who gives us wisdom and understanding in His secrets. For the prophet speaks a parable concerning the Lord. ... We are then the ones He brought into the good land. What then is the milk and honey? Because the child is first kept alive by honey and then by milk. In like manner, as we are kept alive by our faith in the promise and by the word, we also shall live and be lords of the earth. »
In the sacrifices you rightly see types of the Lord Jesus, who would suffer and die for us. But then he seems to say that those sacrifices ought not really to have been made. He also talks about circumcision and for example quotes Jer. 4:4. He then presses entirely on the meaning of circumcision and denies that it had to be applied in the flesh.
Barnabas 9. « But thou shalt say, Truly this people was circumcised for a seal. No, but so is every Syrian and Arab and all the priests of the idols. Do they then all belong to their covenant? Even the Egyptians are included among the circumcised. »
The conclusion is therefore that circumcision of the flesh was never actually willed by God. Concerning eating unclean animals he says:
Barnabas 10. « It is not the commandment of God that they should not bite with their teeth, but Moses spake in the spirit... You see how wise the lawgiver Moses was. But how would they see and understand these things? But we who have a right understanding of these commandments speak them as the Lord wills. »
The Jews were therefore allowed to eat anything according to the « correct » understanding of Barnabas. Moses spoke « in the spirit »! Barnabas quotes Ezech. 47:1, 7, 12:
Ezech. 47:1, 7, 12. « Afterward he brought me again unto the door of the house; and, behold, waters issued out from under the threshold of the house eastward: for the forefront of the house stood toward the east, and the waters came down from under from the right side of the house, at the south side of the altar. Now when I had returned, behold, at the bank of the river were very many trees on the one side and on the other. And by the river upon the bank thereof, on this side and on that side, shall grow all trees for meat, whose leaf shall not fade, neither shall the fruit thereof be consumed: it shall bring forth new fruit according to his months, because their waters they issued out of the sanctuary: and the fruit thereof shall be for meat, and the leaf thereof for medicine. »
Here's how Barnabas manages to explain this:
Barnabas 11. « This says he, because we sink into the waters laden with sins and filthiness, and arise from it, bearing fruit in our hearts, resting our fears and hopes in the spirit on Jesus. »
Of course, there is no question of a literal fulfillment of those things! Too bad he doesn't explain to us what Ezek. 44:7 means with « uncircumcised in the flesh ». The New Covenant is for the believers and not for Israel. According to him, this follows from the texts that spoke of the blessings of the nations. As if it does not say that those blessings are received precisely through Israel, as far as what the prophets of the O.T. have spoken. — The Sabbath refers to the time following the 6 « days ». After quoting Isa. 1:13, it follows:
Barnabas 15. « Thou seest what his mind is; it is not our present sabbaths that are acceptable to him. »
So the Jews were also not supposed to keep their weekly Sabbath.
The things to come that the prophets spoke of should not be taken literally either! They were spoken in parables which the Jews could not understand!
From this one sees the danger of pointing too much or too exclusively to the spiritual meaning or to the types. The symbolic meaning must be balanced by the literal. Only the spiritual sense, or just the literal sense, derives from God's Word and has been the cause of the present chaos and power of Satan in this aion.
EUSEBIUS. From the « Church History » of Eusebius (Bishop of Caesarea, the « Father of Church History »), who wrote in the fourth century, we also learn what was generally thought in the first centuries about the Second Coming of Christ, about Israel and the Apostles. He speaks for example about Papias, who believed in a 1000 year reign on earth. That is too « fabulous » for Eusebius. He also mentions Nepos (in the third century), who taught something similar, but was contradicted by Dionysius. One side took things too exclusively literally (and often lowly materialistically), the other too exclusively spiritually.
As to the attitude toward Israel, Eusebius reports that Polycarp, in his well-known reply to the invitation to deny Christ, speaks of the Lord as his King.
He says of certain martyrs in the fourth century that they called each other by Jewish names to show that they were the true « Israel of God, » the real Jews.
Ezekiel's prophecy of chapter 37 about the quickening of the bones is explained by Eusebius as being the erecting of churches and the spreading of Christianity.
In the prophecy of Jer. 35:1-6 he says that these are no longer words concerning Israel, but facts: that was then the « Church » which was in full bloom under Constantine. Thus all kinds of prophecies are explained by him as being fulfilled in the « Church ».
THE FORMS OF THE FIRST CHRISTIANS. Let us first draw from some ancient writings.
The « DOCTRINE OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES » dates from the end of the first or beginning of the second century. It has been supposed to be one of the oldest writings after that of the N.T. A copy of this writing (dated 1056) was found at Constantinople in the 19th century. It has been divided into 16 short chapters.
A cursory examination already shows that the contents does not goes further than that of the Gospels (especially Matthew).
There is no trace of Paul's teaching. The writer did not know Paul's letters, or did not want to know them, which is most likely. (2 Tim. 1:15).
The greater part is occupied by ethical precepts, borrowed partly from the law of Moses, partly from the Gospel according to Matthew, etc. Many things are decidedly unscriptural.
We indicate:
1:3 « Fast for those who follow you ».
4:6 « If thou hast, thou shalt give with thine hands a ransom for thy crimes. »
6:2 « For if you can endure the full yoke of the Lord, you are perfect; but if you cannot, do what you can. »
If anyone follows this writing, except for the wrong stuff, he could be called « justified » according to the law. One who thinks he can walk in his own strength in the ways which he thinks are the Lord's. If this writing really gives a correct insight into the condition of the 1st and 2nd centuries, which is probable, then it is seen that, as far as doctrine is concerned, these believers were « little children » and that they had departed far from the fullness, given by Paul. As this writing is sometimes invoked to justify certain customs, and is called an « important » writing, we give below the translation of some of the parts most closely related to our subject:
Chapter 7.
1. But concerning baptism, baptize thus: After you have learned all these things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, in living (i.e., running) water.
2. But if you have no living water, then dip in other water, and if you cannot do it in cold, then in warm.
3. But if ye have not, then pour water three times upon the head, unto the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
4. But before baptism, let him who baptizes and him who is baptized fast, and also others who are able; but you shall bid him who is being baptized to fast one or two days beforehand.
Chapter 8.
1. But let your fast not be with the hypocrites, for they fast the 2nd and 5th day of the week, but you shall fast the 4th day and on the preparation (i.e. Friday, preparation for the sabbath. Israel fasted Monday and Thursday, that was now moved to Wednesday and Friday, as the Sabbath came from Saturday to Sunday).
2. Do not pray as the hypocrites do, but as the Lord has commanded in His Gospel. So pray: « Our Father... ».
3. Pray thus three times a day.
Chapter 9.
1. But as to "thanksgiving," (i.e., the « Supper »), give thanks in this manner.
2. Concerning the first cup, « We give thanks to Thee, our Father, for the holy vineyard of Thy child David, which Thou hast made known to us through Thy child Jesus; to you be the glory forever and ever ».
3. But concerning the broken (bread), « We give thanks to Thee, our Father, for the life and the knowledge, which Thou hast made known to us through Thy child Jesus; to you be the glory forever and ever ».
4. « As this broken (bread) was scattered on the mountains and gathered together became one, so let Your church be gathered from the ends of the earth to Your kingdom, for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever and ever. »
5. But let none eat or drink of your thanksgiving, save them that are baptized in the name of the Lord, for concerning this the Lord said, Give not that which is holy unto dogs.
Chapter 10.
1. But if you are satisfied, give thanks thus.
2. « We thank you, holy Father, for your holy name, which Thou hast made to dwell in our hearts, and for the knowledge, and faith, and immortality, which Thou hast made known to us through Thy child Jesus, to Thee be the glory forever and ever. »
3. « Thou, O almighty Lord, made all things for thy name's sake; Thou hast given men food and drink to enjoy, that they may give thanks unto Thee, but Thou blessest us with spiritual food and drink and eternal life, through Thy Child. »
4. « For everything we thank Thee, that Thou art almighty; Thine be the glory in the ages ».
5. « Remember, O Lord, Thy church, to deliver it from all evil, and to make it perfect in Thy love, and to gather it from the four winds, be they the sanctified, unto Thy kingdom, which Thou hast prepared for it; for You are the power and the glory forever and ever. »
6. « Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God of David. If anyone is holy, let him come; if anyone is not holy, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen. »
7. But let the prophets give thanks as much as they will.
Chapter 13.
Asks to give firstfruits of harvest, bread, cattle, and other possessions to the chief priests, poor, and prophets.
Chapter 14.
1. And on the Lord's own (day), come together and break bread and give thanks after confessing your crimes, that your offering may be pure.
2. Let no one that has a dispute with his friend come together with you until they are reconciled, lest your offering be defiled.
3. For this is it, which has been spoken by the Lord. « In every place and time offer Me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great King, says the Lord, and My name is wonderful among the nations. »
Chapter 16.
This ends with the expectation of the Lord and warnings about false prophets, etc.
Before examining other scriptures, we want to draw attention to a few things. One notices how to fast at baptism, that the « Our Father » had to be prayed three times a day, that there were prescribed prayers at the Lord's Supper, that « firstfruits » had to be given to high priests, the poor and prophets, that the Lord's Supper was a sacrifice, that the church be gathered unto the kingdom. In a future chapter we hope to examine a little bit about the Roman Mass and the Passover and then also have more complete information about what they called the « Eucharist » (thanksgiving). What is given here in the « Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles » about thanksgiving seems more to concern the hearers, the ordinary believers. The full ritual is not described here. Those who appeal to this writing for one thing or another, for example the weekly celebration of the Lord's Supper, must also apply everything else.
We cannot speak at length here about the « day of the Lord ». There will be an opportunity for that in another series. According to God's Word, it is the Judgment « Day » of Isa. 2:12 etc. not a 24 hour day. John was « in the spirit » in the day of the Lord (not « on ») and therefore sees all those judgments taking place. Almost all of Revelation deals with this « day ».
We mention in passing the first LETTER OF CLEMENT to the Corinthians (end of the first century), which speaks of sacrifices to be made at regular days and hours. The « law of the Lord » had to be followed, the « chief priests », the « priests » and the « Levites » each had their assignment.
IGNATIUS (end of the first, beginning of the second century), speaks of a « thanksgiving », a drinking cup, and an altar in his letter to that of Philadelphia. In his letter to the Ephesians he says:
« Let us not oppose the overseers (bishops) ». « We must regard the overseers as the Lord himself. »
To those of Smyrna he writes:
« They abstain from thanksgiving and prayer because they do not accept that thanksgiving is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ. » « Follow the overseer, as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and the Elders and Apostles; and honor the deacons, as according to the commandment of God. Let no one do anything in connection with the church without the overseer. Let only that thanksgiving be of value which is held under the overseer or one to whom he has dedicated it. » « It is not good to baptize separately from the overseer, or to have a love feast, but what he approves is acceptable to God ». « It is good to recognize God and the overseer ».
POLYKARPUS writes to the Philippians and speaks of Paul's letter to them, but what he says is wholly foreign to Paul's teaching.
Like the other writings of the time, the « SHEPHERD OF HERMAS » also shows that these writers took a « legalistic » point of view. Justice by faith seems to be no longer well known. Thus it is said here (M. 4:3): « If I sin no more, I shall be saved. »
We now also want to learn something about the ceremonies held during the first centuries from the « Church Histories » of EUSEBIUS PAMFILUS. We follow the translation of A. A. Van der Meersch (1749).
Book 2, Chapter 17. « It is also said that this Philo, at the time of Klaudius at Rome, conversed with Peter, who then preached the Gospels there, which is also not improbable, since that work of which we have just spoken , and what was written by him long afterwards, very clearly contains the ecclesiastical rules, which are still observed among us today. And in his very precise description of the way of life of the monks among us, he plainly shows that he had not only seen them, but also gave his approval, yea, that he held as divine and in great reverence those apostolic men of whom he speaks, which all seem to have originated with the Hebrews, and for that reason still clung to their old manners in the Jewish way for the most part. »
« What more need we speak of their meetings, and of their particular places of residence, both of men and of women, and their common exercises, which are still in use among us, and which we are accustomed to perform especially at the feast of the Lords suffering, at knowing with fasting and watching, and reading the scriptures; all of which in the same way, as it is still perceived from us to this day, has been accurately described by the frequently mentioned Schryver (Dutch name or the writer, Schryver means writer) in that Book. And in particular he describes all the Watches (or Pervigilia) of the great Feast, the devotional exercises therein, and the hymns which then we are accustomed to sing: how one raises the song in measure and stately, and the rest, after having listened in silence, answer him with the chant of the latter parts of the Hymns; however they lay on mattresses upon the floor, and, to use his own words, abstain wholly from Wine, and from everything that hath blood. Their drink is only water, and with their bread they use some salt with hyssop. Wider he describes the order of rank which they keep; as of those who exercise ecclesiastical service, as of those who hold the deaconship, and above all the episcopal dignity. He who is inclined to know all this more accurately can learn it from the man's reported writings. »
Now that Philo has in view in this description the first preachers of the gospel - and the ordinances handed down by the Apostles from the beginning - anyone can clearly see. »
Book 5, Chapter 23. « At the time of these Bishops there arose no little Dispute, because the Churches of all Asia, following a very ancient tradition, were of the opinion that on the fourteenth day of the month the Feast of the Savior should be observed. Passover ought to be observed (on which day the Jews were commanded to slay the Passover lamb) and that on that day, on whatever day of the week it may come, the fast should be ended. The rest of the Churches throughout the world, on the other hand, had no custom of proceeding in this way, but followed, according to Apostolic tradition, that custom which has prevailed to this time, namely, that it is not lawful to end the fast on some other day, but that of the resurrection of our Saviour. Synods and Assemblies of Bishops were held over this piece: and all the Bishops unanimously informed the Christians everywhere by letters of the Ecclesiastical Rule; that on no other day, except Sunday, should one ever celebrate the Mystery of the Lord's Resurrection from the dead, and that on that day alone we should observe an end to it. There is still such a letter available from some bishops who met in Palestine at that time... »
Book 5, Chapter 24. « On the other hand, the bishops of Asia, over whom Polycrates presided, insisted that the custom handed down to them should be carefully preserved. Polycrates himself, in his Epistle, written to Viktor and the Church at Rome, explains in this way the tradition which had come down to them. « We then celebrate the right day, without additions, without subtractions. For in Asia great lights have set, which shall arise on the day of the appearing of the Lord, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall raise up all the saints. (As there is) Fitippus, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis, and his two daughters, who have grown old in the virginal state, and his other daughter, who walked in the Holy Ghost, and rests in Ephesus: As also John, who lay on the breast of the Lord, who was a priest, who wore a forehead plate, was a martyr and a teacher. This one fell asleep in Biezen: And Polykarpus, who was bishop and martyr in Struyrna. And Thraseas, bishop and martyr in Eumenia, who rests in Smyrne. And what need be said of Sagaris, who was both bishop and martyr, and died in Laodiua: or also of blessed Papirius; or Metito the eunuch, who ruled all things in the Holy Ghost, and is buried in Sardis, expecting the coming of the Lord from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead. All these have kept the day of Easter on the fourteenth (of the month) according to the Gospels; changing nothing, but following the Rule of Faith. And, I Polycrates myself, who am the least of you all, (have always followed that custom) according to the tradition of my next of kin, some of whom I have consorted with. For I count seven bishops among my kinsmen, and I myself am the eighth; and they have always celebrated that day on which the (Jewish) People ceased to use leaven. Therefore I, Brethren, who am sixty-five years old in the Lord, who have spoken with the Brethren which are in all the world, and have read all the Scriptures, be not afraid of threats. Those who are greater than I have said that one ought to obey God rather than men. »
Then he speaks of all the bishops accordingly: « I could also mention the bishops who are with me, whom you desired that I should convene, as I have done; whose names would make a great multitude if I wrote them. Those who come to visit me, a poor man, have taken pleasure in my letter: knowing that I do not bear grayness in vain, but have always walked in the Lord Jesus.
At this, Viktor, the Bishop of Rome, so caused the Churches of all Asia, as those near there, as illegitimate, to immediately separate themselves from the vile Unity. He therefore wrote letters in which he declared all the Brethren there completely outside the Community (of the Church). This, however, did not please all the bishops at all. That is why they admonished Viktor to the contrary and advised contemplating peace, unity and love with his neighbours. There are also Letters essentially from such Bishops, which attack Viktor with rather harsh punishments. And Ireneus wrote to him, among others, on behalf of the Brethren in Gaul, over which he was Bishop. In that Letter he asserts that the Mystery of the Savior's Resurrection should be celebrated only on the Day of the Lord: but at the same time he also properly admonishes Viktor not to cut off those entire Churches of God, which preserve the tradition of an old custom. He uses this one among many other things words: Not only is there a difference as to Day, but also as to the very manner of fasting: for some think that they are one day, others that they should fast two, others that they should fast more days: others again reckon the day of their (Fasting) from forty hours in the day and night following one another. And such a difference in the observance of Fasting has not arisen recently in our time, but long before in the time of those who lived before us, and, as it is probable, having observed (the Fasting) with accuracy, have been caused, that the descendants have followed this custom, which has arisen from simplicity and ignorance. And notwithstanding this difference, they have all lived in peace, as we still live in peace with each other. Also, this Difference in Fasting confirms the unity of faith. »
This is followed by Ireneus with a story, which we will be able to place here, and thus reads. « The Elders, who before Soter ruled the Church over which you now stand, namely Anicetus, Pius, Hygtnus, Thelesforus, and Xystus, neither preserved (that custom) themselves, nor admitted to those who were with them: and yet they nevertheless, not observing (that custom) themselves, made peace with such as from other Churches, where that custom is followed, plant among them, (though the observance of it among those who observe it not was the more strife), and never has been one cast out for that way of fasting; but even those Elders who were before you, and had not that custom, sent to those who were in other Churches, and observed that custom, the Lord's Supper (Eucharist). Even if Blessed Polycarp had come to Rome at the time of Anicetus, and they differed in some other matters; so immediately they practiced peace; not quarreling with each other even on this main point. For Anicetus could not persuade Polycarp to give up this custom, since he shared it with John the disciple of the Lord, and with the rest Apostles with whom he had conversed. Nor did Polycarp persuade Anicetus to come after her, so that he said again that he ought to keep that custom which he had received from the Elders, his ancestors. And in this state of affairs they celebrated (Holy) Communion with each other. Anicetus has even left the (serving of the) Supper (Eucharist) in the Church to Polykarpus, respectfully namely; and they are parted one from another in peace, all the churches, who observed that custom, if they did not observe it, keeping peace. »
And this was what Ireneus, answering the meaning of his name (for it means Peaceful), and who was also a Peacemaker in this way, admonished and taught about the peace of the Church. He also wrote several Letters, not only to Viktor, but also to very many other Authorities of the Churches, in which he exhorted the same about the difference that had arisen.
Book 3, Chapter 23. « At that time the Apostle and Evangelist John, (the Disciple) whom Jesus loved, was yet alive, and ruled, after Domitian's death from his Exile from the Isle (Patmos), having returned, the Churches of Asia. That He was still alive at this time is fully confirmed by the testimonies of two very credible Men, both advocates of ecclesiastical orthodoxy, namely Ireneus and Klemens of Alexandria. The first, in his second book against the heretics, writes this word for word: « And all the elders who conversed with John the disciple of the Lord in Asia bear witness that John delivered it to them: for he was with them unto the times of Trajan. ». In the third book of the same work he says the same thing in these words: « But also the Church of Ephesus, founded by Paul, and which remained with John until the time of Trajan, is a true witness of this Apostolic tradition. » »
Book 3, Chapter 37. « At the time of these forementioned, Quadratus also prospered, who is said, with the Daughters of Philip, to have been marked by the gift of Prophecy. Besides these, many others were then famous who held the first rank among the successors of the Apostles. They, eminent Disciples of so great men, did not fail upon the foundations laid by the Apostles, to build up the Churches everywhere, and to carry on the Preaching in the utmost, spreading far and wide over all the earth the saving seed of The Kingdom of Heaven. »
Book 3, Chapter 39. « But Papias himself, in the Preface to his works, plainly declares that he has never been an ear- and eye-witness of any one of the Holy Apostles: for he relates that he knows the things which the Faith concerning, from such as had conversed with them, his words are these: « I shall not bore thee with my Explanations, that which I learned formerly from the Elders, and which I well have remembered, put down together, as therefore I make the truth of it immovable: for I, like most others, have never been pleased with those that said much, but only with such that taught the truth; nor in such as have strange commandments, but in them that narrate commandments, which were surely delivered from the Lord, and proceeded from the truth itself. And if anyone came along who had been acquainted with the elders, I inquired carefully what the elders said: what Andreas, what Peter, what Philip, what Thomas, what James, what John, what Matthew, or any other of our disciples Gentlemen used to say: what things Aristion and John the Elder, Disciples of the Lord, say: for I was of mind, that I could not draw so much profit from the books, but from the lively voice of the remnant. » »
One sees how much emphasis was placed everywhere on following the 12 Apostles, with how much care was taken to see what they had said and done. Paul is completely abandoned. No trace of the Great Mystery.
From chapter 39 of Eusebius it is seen how Papias mentions many, but does not mention Paul. This has already caught the attention of many, and men like Baur and Renan have understood that Paul was really forsaken and his teachings rejected. Since they themselves did not understand or did not believe Paul's last revelations, they thought that this was only a temporary phenomenon in the « church » and that Judaism then took the place of Paul's teaching. Now it is not difficult to show that this view is not confirmed by the facts, and that for example Lightfoot has done. He says, among other things, that Irenaeus would certainly have said something about this revolution in the « church » and, on the contrary, he always speaks of a progressive and developing tradition, which goes back to John through Papias, Polykarpus, etc. So there was no temporary change of mind. In our case, we understand that Papias, though turning away from Paul, need not therefore have been a Judaizing Christian. It is also clear that those who let go of Paul caused no revolution, because the whole « church » did so without interruption from John onwards. If people came back to a part of Paul's teaching later, it was mainly because of the Reformation and this was indeed a true revolution.
Further, Lightfoot, in his introduction to Paul's Letter to the Colossians, marvels that, three centuries after that letter was written, it was still necessary in the Council of Laodicea (364) to curse those who kept the Sabbath, who worshiped angels or practiced idolatry, sorcery, astrology, etc. We are not surprised, because Christendom no longer paid heed to what Paul had written.
As far as forms are concerned, we have from the writings of the first centuries a great deal of information about the connection between the Jewish Passover, the Christian Passover, the Roman Mass and the Lord's Supper. In a later chapter we will examine more specifically the relationship between Jewish Passover and Roman Mass. It appears from Eusebius and other writings that the Christians in general kept the Jewish feast days and the Passover in particular. Those of Asia most faithfully followed the Jewish ceremony and then added a resurrection feast. They ate the Passover lamb on the evening of Nisan 14, like Israel. The resurrection of the Lord was celebrated three days later. Since the 14th of Nisan could fall on any day of the week, this was also a difficulty, for it was then believed that the Lord had risen from the dead on a Sunday, although Scripture says that it is « on one of the sabbaths. » The Resurrection was thus celebrated on every day of the week, whereas, according to them, it took place on a Sunday. There was also a second difficulty. By eating on Nisan 14, they broke the fast three days before the feast of the resurrection. Most churches outside Asia had therefore moved the eating of the Passover lamb to Saturday evening, which followed Nisan 14. Thus the fast was not interrupted until the Day of Resurrection, and it was therefore always observed on a Sunday.
As we have seen, the Asians especially appeal to the example of the Apostles. They dared not deviate from it, even though they saw that something was wrong. We have here, then, a historical confirmation of the fact that the Apostles, like all Christian Israelite at the time of the Acts, kept the ceremonies of the law. We do not see how it would be possible to doubt the words of the « Apostolic Fathers ». If they assure us that they observed those forms with the Apostles, may it now be said that it is not true? Those Fathers weren't liars, were they? Of course they could be mistaken in their conceptions of God's Word, they did not necessarily have a correct understanding of spiritual things, but they did not knowingly lie.
For us, this matter is very simple. We just believe that the Apostles also had to follow the law, so also keep the Passover on the prescribed day. The difficulty begins for the Christians after Acts 28, if they still want to follow the Apostles and put themselves in the place of Israel. They then have different things that cannot agree with each other: The Passover lamb on Nisan 14, a resurrection feast three days later, but on a Sunday, eating a Passover lamb and fasting until the Resurrection Day. So one had to do one or the other. Some adhered more to the earlier tradition and ate on the 14th of Nisan, others adhered more to their Sunday and arranged things as best they could. This resulted in strife and division. And that could not be otherwise, because people no longer relied on God's Word
Later writings show how customs gradually change. The Christian Easter is losing more and more its Jewish character and is becoming more exclusively a resurrection feast. The most special part of the Passover, however, is preserved in the Roman Mass and later in the Supper of the Reformation. In 325, the Council of Nicaea decreed that all churches should celebrate Easter on Sunday. Yet there were still those who held on to the 14 Nisan. They were called « Quartodecimans ». (See Mosheim. Hist. Christ. Saec. 2, 47 § 71). 14 is in Latin « quartodecim ».
Thus it is seen how, in the absence of divine precepts, a human system gradually came into being. Now that Israel had been set aside, before God all form, all revealed « religion » had ceased. Now people had to put something together themselves. They borrowed as much as possible from Israel and the Apostles, but also added some from Paganism. All this was then adapted to the circumstances and forced upon the believers under penalty of exclusion. We will assume that the Fathers of the Church acted in good faith, but the fact that they were on unscriptural ground by not following Paul must lead them to unscriptural things. One can now try, as with the Reformation, to go back to the Scriptures, but as long as one does not do so radically and believes Paul's latest announcements, one does not come to a pure state and one remains partly influenced by all kinds of tradition.
From our examination of the writings of the first centuries, we can draw some conclusions.
1. The Apostles followed the law during Acts.
2. The Christian Easter was imitated in the first centuries of the Jewish Passover. This also proves that Christendom regarded itself as replacing Israel. The nations were expressly forbidden to eat the Passover (Ex. 12:43-48). If the believers did, it was because they considered themselves « spiritual Israel ».
3. The tradition of the 12 Apostles of Israel was followed as far as possible. It was impossible to follow them completely.
4. With perhaps a few exceptions, Paul was abandoned not only in speaking of the Church of the Mystery, but even in regard to justification by faith alone.
5. There was then an extensive church organization, established by the Church Fathers, also partly in imitation of the Apostles. The leaders, especially the « overseers », gain more and more power, are even placed next to God.
6. There is not one tradition, but there are various traditions according to place and time. Those who are still on those traditions and wanting to support them will have difficulty in determining which is the correct one and will then find that it is not possible to follow them.
All the present-day churches and sects can point back to some of the traditions or to the pre-Acts parts of Scripture. You cannot hold everything. One must emphasize one or the other and sacrifice the rest. So all those groups of believers are partly right. Of course there can be no unity. This is only possible if one believes the Scriptures literally where possible and then actually accepts (not just in words) what Paul has written about his revelations. Time and again one sees how important it is to discern the actual Church. Some call that a sideline, byways, and say it diverts from the most important! They are not only blind to the great mystery, but also to what the entire history of the Church teaches us.