The Strife Part VI
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.
Since it’s impossible to use tables on Substack and I need tables in this post, I made them in HTML and made a video of it that I have uploaded below.
VI. THE ROMAN CHURCH.
ITS VIEW. Rome relies on the Church Fathers, and what we saw in the previous chapter is therefore applicable to Rome. The doctrine was naturally further developed over the centuries and it is known what major role for example Augustinus played in this. Every time there were Councils. Also the investigation of heresies gradually brought the doctrine to a finished whole, which, as far as the main points are concerned, could defy all attack and has proved it. There is only one weak point and that is the base of that whole building. Scripture, unless spiritualized, knows nothing of a church founded upon Peter, especially in this aion. We need not argue here about the meaning of « On this petra », etc. Do we understand that it is only in the age to come, after their resurrection, that the 12 Apostles will begin to fulfill their full task when they, seated on 12 thrones will judge the 12 tribes of Israel, then this will automatically fall for our time:
1. Peter as « chief » of the church.
2. The « Apostolic Succession ».
3. The « Apostolic Tradition ».
Also the Roman church can only exist by disbelieving God in all that He has written down in His Word. We mean, of course, not believing as He says, but only in a « spiritual » sense.
It is bound to spiritualize most of the prophecy and to substitute the « Church » for Israel. Why, then is Israel still kept by God, it tries to explain by saying that this people must now be a witness to the truth of the Scriptures and to the facts upon which Christianity rests. That people no longer has a future for them. However, they can convert and then be blessed as Christians, as belonging to the « Church ». What the prophets say about their return to the Promised Land concerns their exile in Babylonia. Some Roman Catholics believe in the second coming of Christ and the formation of a messianic kingdom.
In its struggle against the Reformation, Rome endeavors to prove that, besides the written Word, it is necessary to accept an oral tradition. On closer examination, this point of view appears quite logical, if the « Church » is made to begin with Pentecost and applied to it what was given to Israel.
Many things concerning the ritual of the Jewish feasts, sacrifices, etc., were indeed not written down. Now the Apostles kept the Ceremonies of the Law and the « Delights of the Lord » during the Acts period. So if one wants to be « Apostolic », one must imitate them and keep those forms in the same way as much as possible. Therefore, besides the Scriptures, one must accept all sorts of other things, which come by tradition from the Apostles.
Those who accept Paul's special revelations escape this difficulty. They know that the 12 Apostles are for the circumcision and Paul, when he was in prison, brought a message quite separate from Israel and the 12. So they do not take the 12 as a model, but Paul, as he walked after Acts. 28. So all the traditions of earlier dispensations do not apply to them.
We have already seen how the Christians of Asia appealed to John and the other apostles of the circumcision for the day on which the Passover was to be observed. We shall now see further how those Apostles observed that Passover feast. That is the norm for those who call themselves « Apostolic ». It then appears that the Roman and Anglican Churches probably most faithfully follow this « Apostolic Tradition ». It is thus concluded that these churches are the most logical in this matter, as soon as one assumes that the « Church » takes the place of Israel and one ignores the mystery that has been hidden in God for all aions.
The Reformation sensed that something was wrong with Rome, but could not find the fundamental flaw. She could point first to many abuses in the Roman Church and then to several points where the Roman teaching was not faithful to God's Word. Rome, by its tradition, was necessarily alienated from the teachings of Paul. So there was much to be said against the way in which she understood justification. In this it kept abreast of the « Apostolic fathers », who also knew almost nothing of Paul's teaching, and was very much in the footsteps of Israel's righteousness from the law.
The main point of Rome's error, however, could not be pinpointed by the Reformation. And no « Protestant » church can do that. Because these churches themselves commit the main mistakes. And that is why Rome is very strong. It was precisely the Reformation that purified the Roman Church, so that it emerged, in a sense, strengthened from the strive. If one examines the doctrine of this church closely (not its application and abuses), it appears to be very logical, as long as one turns away from Paul's last revelations. One is then obliged to accept the tradition and then she can very well defend her point of view.
To strike at Rome's weak spot, one must use the sword of the Spirit. One then literally believes both the prophets in what they say about Israel and Paul in what he says about the « fellow Body ». Rome does neither one nor the other. It must be shown that the 12 Apostles (thus Peter, the « rock » on which the Roman Church rests) are in favor of circumcision and will only fulfill their full mission in the coming aion, after their resurrection. The more they prove, then, that they adhere to the « Apostolic Tradition », the more they themselves demonstrate their error. All tradition then falls of itself, because after Acts there is no continuation of the conditions that then prevailed, but according to God's will a wholly new dispensation begins. This radically removes the basis of their system: both Peter and the « Apostolic Tradition ». There is only one way to save themselves from this: to appropriate to themselves what God promises to Israel, to spiritualize the Scriptures or, through « modern rites », to nullify them. And this can be blamed only by those who do not do it themselves.
ITS CEREMONIES We now wish here to examine further how easily the Roman and Anglican Churches can prove that they, and they alone, have the true « Apostolic Tradition ». We deal here only with the « Mass ». Little was written about the Mass in the early centuries, in part because it was not spoken of publicly, to the unbaptized; partly because it was not necessary if one assumes that the Apostles of the Circumcision had already determined the whole ritual. The Roman Church now points to the first « mass », which would have been instituted by the Lord Jesus Himself. On the basis of Scripture they can immediately claim that that ceremony was part of the Jewish Passover, which He doubtless observed according to Jewish custom. He added a few things, but otherwise approved the whole ritual, at least as far as the last part is concerned, by following it at such a solemn moment. When He says, « Do this, » it goes without saying that the entire ritual is meant. Or at least that part to which His special actions and words are so intimately connected. If one is not convinced, then there is the testimony of the « Apostolic Fathers » that the Apostles themselves observed the Passover faithfully. These Apostles, all from Israel, were of course fully acquainted with the Jewish ritual and were also authorized to make certain changes if necessary. They could then further communicate these forms orally or in writing to others. People know for example the « Apostolic Constitutions » of the 4th or 5th century, which describe the « mass » in all its parts. At that time it was kept almost in the same way everywhere, which points to a common source. As we shall see further on, this ritual is practically the same as that of the Jewish Passover, and if it is now taken into account that there was great enmity between the Christians and the Jews of the first centuries, it goes without saying that such a ritual was not adopted later, when everything that was Jewish was avoided, but originated from the 12 Apostles themselves. Without their example, in the time of the Acts, one would never have slavishly followed those Jewish forms.
We derive most of our data from a study « Messe und Pascha » by Dr. G. B. Bickwell, a Roman Catholic professor of Eastern philology (linguistics), who wrote in 1871 in the German Roman Catholic magazine « Katholik ». He has researched and compared the various liturgies in the ancient manuscripts.
1. On the Liturgy of the Roman Mass. Several liturgies are known in the 5th century. All agree well with each other, except for adaptations to local conditions and occasions. The « Clementine » liturgy, as specified in the « Apostolic Constitutions », is held to be the oldest. Later, certain acts, such as the « Eucharistic » prayer, were much shortened. Due to the emergence of other « Christian » festivals, which emphasized one point or another, it became unnecessary to elaborate on all kinds of things in the « Mass ». Other things were also added according to the circumstances. The pure Apostolic liturgy, however, is probably found almost entirely in this « Clementic. » That this was followed during the first centuries is also evident from some remarks from the writings of those times.
2. On the liturgy of the Jewish Passover. First of all we find the main lines in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers.
Later it could not be kept as it was the first time in Egypt, the conditions were too different for that. The Jewish teachers had to change or add a few things. The oldest source, after the Scriptures, to inform us of the manner in which it was celebrated in the time of our Lord Jesus, is the Mischna (written down in the 2nd century according to what the Rabbis of the previous 3 centuries taught). This is also found in the Tosiphta (a completion of the Mischna). Then there are also reflections of later Rabbis on these things in the two Gemaras (4th – 5th century). Further indications are also found in later writings.
It is important to point out that the Passover lamb was a true offering. It was slaughtered in the temple and its blood sprinkled on the altar by the priests. The fat was burned and the meat then eaten. After the destruction of the temple, of course, this could no longer happen. The ritual was therefore later, as in our time, adapted to the circumstances. We think it is not necessary to describe that complex ceremony in all its parts, except the last part. It will suffice here to point out that 4 cups were drunk during the Passover. The first was that of the « Kiddusch » or celebratory initiation; the second, that of the « Haggadah » or the Easter story for the children; the third, that of the table blessing; the fourth, that of the « Hallel » or praise. A long thanksgiving belonged to the 4th cup and this cup was therefore specifically (also e.g. by Paul) called the cup of thanksgiving. It is also important for understanding what the Greek Scriptures say about it, to know that between the second and third cup a common meal was held, which was not part of the ritual, and is probably the meal later called by the Christians the « Agape ». This meal was not part of the Passover, yet it was closely associated with it.
Between the pouring and drinking of the fourth cup, Psalms were sung, prayers were said, etc. The longing for the « Messianic era » and « eternal life » was also expressed. Later it was also added: « This year here, next year in the land of Israel; slaves this year, free next year. » and « Year to come in Jerusalem ». It is also known that it was the custom to use the Passover in a recumbent position. It was supported on the left side. Only the free people then ate in this attitude and it was thus expressed that they had been delivered from Egypt.
As a curiosity, we add the following, which was also pronounced at the Passover: « In every generation, let man regard himself as having come out of Egypt himself, as it is written: Because of what the Lord gave me when I came out of Egypt. Not only our fathers hath the Holy One most praised redeemed, but also us with them, as it is written, He hath brought us forth from thence, to bring us into the land which he sware to give to our fathers and to us. »
On every holiday, the Jews also had a morning prayer. This, as we shall see, is also reflected in the « pre-mass ».
Based on all this data, Dr. G. Bickwell compiled a list of all that was done and spoken at the Jewish morning prayer and the end of the Passover, and placed next to it what belongs to the « pre-mass » and « mass ». To the Jewish part he has also added the words spoken by the Lord Jesus at the Passover. Here is the translation of part of that list. (Pause video to read the text)
In the foregoing we gave side by side the ritual of the Passover, with the addition of what the Lord did and said, and that of the Roman Mass.
It must be admitted that the similarity is curious and can only be explained by assuming that the early Christians adopted all this from Israel. The ceremony of the Anglican Church also corresponds to Passover. The Roman and Anglican Churches therefore seem to be the most « Apostolic », i.e. they hold the most to the tradition of the 12 Apostles of the Circumcision. They are therefore furthest from Paul. The Reformation is inconsistent. It has something more of Paul, but also holds on to the 12. In this way it arrives at a hopeless confusion and a necessary fragmentation.
Now also pay attention to some consequences. If it is proper to imitate the 12 Apostles, then this ceremony is also a sacrifice, for the Passover had this character. The mass, then, is the representation of the Passover, instituted by the Lord Himself and completed by what He added to it. Furthermore, part of the Passover, namely, insofar as it was a sacrifice, was administered by a priest. « Aaronite blessings » were also pronounced, which could only be done by a priest.
We insist again: if the « Church » is regarded as a substitute for Israel and if they ignore the new dispensation, which will not begin at Pentecost, but begins after Acts. 28, then Rome largely makes sense and has almost all of « Christendom » of the early centuries in front of itself, including the 12 Apostles of the Circumcision. If one accepts this position, one must also accept the tradition, and that is what the Roman Catholic church with the Anglican also has most consistently. So the churches of the Reformation are hopelessly bogged down as long as they appropriate the New Covenant and the 12 Apostles. Let to Israel what belongs to Israel, then everything is clear.
Thus it is seen how the Devil (the meaning of this word, in Greek, is « jumbler ») has succeeded in mixing everything up and making all of Christendom such a mess that the only solution is: back to God's Word alone. Then one has a simple solution to most difficulties and sees the root cause of the present confusion and of the power of the Roman Church.
Many scholars have striven for a clear understanding of the early days of Christianity. Nobody succeeded. There was such a mishmash of sects back then that it is impossible to make sense of it. It is clear from the writings that many were hostile to Paul. And that those who did not show it openly, yet practically did not accept Paul's teaching or at least did not speak of it. Those who examined these writings also saw nothing of the new dispensation revealed by Paul, and many important documents may therefore now lie undiscussed in the libraries, because the scholars saw in them nothing more than the thoughts of an insignificant sect.
Some of the scholars, e.g. the School of Tubingen, took the now widespread direction of « Modern Higher Criticism ». We believe that the main cause lies in the difference between the teaching of the 12 and that of Paul, and also in the strife between the believers of the first centuries. Thus they (the higher critics) cannot assume that the Scriptures of the Apostles are inspired by God, nor do they believe in a Church established by God. It then must have had a completely different appearance from what was seen in the first centuries.
Those scholars think they find contradictions everywhere. Already in the second century Marcion found contradictions between the Old and New Testaments and he immediately concluded that these scriptures are not inspired by God. Thus Baur finds in the Gospels a part that comes from the Ebionites and another part that is supposed to come from Paul. Others already see all that speaks of miracles as added. And so everyone starts from his system and removes from Scripture what does not fit into that system. We shall further show that those who claim to adhere only to the Scriptures prefer to assume that Paul, e.g. did not walk in his calling, than that they admit a weakness in their own system.
It is seen how important it is to discern the dispensations and, as far as possible, to believe literally what God says in His written Word. Without this, one necessarily comes to criticism of Scripture, unless one is content with very superficial considerations.
Aristarkos