One of the things that Marcion's "unique" view of scripture force the Church to do was to come to an agreement about the accepted Christian writings.
When the early Christians spoke of "scripture," they were referring mostly to the Hebrew Scriptures, namely, the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament). In their gatherings, they also read passages from different Gospels, as well as several letters from Paul. Marcion, however, caused the Church to respond to the issue of accepted writings in a more organized way. Most people have the misconception that the canon was decided on in a very formal matter. This is not the case. The Hebrew scripture was already accepted, so it was the New Testament books that needed to be decided on. The consensus over the NT books developed gradually over a period of time, until the Church came to a general agreement about which books would be included. The four Gospels were the first books to gain popularity and acceptance. But why four and why not only one? Indeed, there are slight differences in each, so why not just avoid the problem and use only one? The early Christians were aware of this, and it is precisely why the used more than one. Many Gnostic's taught that the heavenly messenger had trusted his secret knowledge to a certain disciple, who alone became the one true interpreter of the message. For example, some Gnostics had the Gospel of Thomas and Marcion used Luke. Therefore, the Church's use of four Gospels was a direct challenge to Marcion and Gnosticism. In essence, the Church was stating that her teachings were not based on just one, single witness, or one single apostle, but upon the entire apostolic tradition and teaching. By the end of the second century, the "core" of the canon had been basically agreed upon, with the book of Acts and Paul's letters earning early recognition. The rest of the books were soon to follow, but it wasn't until the second half of the fourth century that complete consensus was achieved in regards to the New Testament (for more on the canon, you can listen to our podcast here).. The Church also responded by writing what we now call the "Apostles' Creed." There is much mystery and fiction that surrounds how this creed came about, but it was more than likely put together in Rome, around 150 A.D. The purpose of the creed was to be able to distinguish the true believers from heretics. Those who could confirm this creed proved that they were neither Marcionites nor Gnostics (a separate post on the Apostles ' Creed is forthcoming, in which I will deal with the specifics of how it refutes these heresies). Finally, the Church also responded with an appeal to Apostolic succesion. Marcion and the Gnostics argued that they had "secret" knowledge that was delivered by Jesus, the heavenly messenger. Through a sucession of secret teachers, they gained acess to this secret knowledge. The Church argued that if Jesus really had some secret knolwedge to give, he would have shared it with his disciples, but he did not. In essence, the same people that Jesus entrusted the building and founding of the Church should have been the recipients of this secret knowledge as well. Thus, they would have then turned around and taught it to others. Therefore, any secret teaching should be found among the apostles and their disciples, but it is not. All those who were alive during the second century and could claim to know the apostles personally denied that such a knowledge was taught or ever existed
0 Comments
Marcion actually grew up in a Christian home. His father was a bishop in Sinope in Pontus. So far so good. As Marcion grew, he developed a strong dislike towards Judaism and a strong affinity with Gnosticism. He then decided to to take his anti-Jewish views, his anti-materiel views, and his Christian views, and mix them together. Out came what we know today as Marcionism. As he began to spread his teachings, Marcion actually became more of a threat to the orthodox church than the gnostics. Why? Several reasons: First, like the gnostics, he reinterpreted the doctrines of creation, incarnation, and resurrection. Unlike the gnostics, he was able to organize a church with its own bishops and own scriptures (we will talk about this shortly). In 144 A.D., he went to Rome and gathered a following, However, the orthodox church there had serious issues with his teachings, and rejected him. That didn't stop Marcion. He went on to found his own church, which lasted for several centuries as a rival to the orthodox church. So successful was this movement, that even after it was long defeated, it still hung around for centuries. Now let's turn to his actually teachings. What made him such a bad guy? For starters, his gnostic leanings caused him to view the world as evil. Because of this, the creator of this world must either be evil or ignorant (this would be what philosophers call the logical fallacy of a false dilemma). For the gnostics, they solved this problem by having a long chain of emanations or spiritual beings. Marcion didn't see a need for all of that. His solution was much, much simpler. He suggested that the God and Father of Jesus is not the same as the Yahweh of the Old Testament. Yes, Yahweh, made this world, but the Father's purpose was that there only be a spiritual world. Yahweh, either through being defiant and evil, or ignorant, made this world and placed humanity in it. This has profound implications for Marcion's view of scripture. If you were to ask Marcion, "Hey M, do you believe in the inspiration of scripture?" He would have said, "Yeah bro, I do. The Old Testament was inspired by a god who was either ignorant or evil. He is arbitrary, and I can't stand all that talk about election. Yahweh choosing particular people over and above others is just mean and vindictive." This view of Yahweh lead Marcion to reject the Old Testament. To him, Yahweh was an inferior god who should be despised. His writings should not be read in churches, nor should they be used in Christian instruction. So, what was Marcion's God, the Father, like? The Father is the Father of Christians and the Father of Jesus Christ. This God is not a vindictive tyrant, but loving. The God of Marcion requires absolutely nothing from us, but gives everything freely. The Father does not seek to be obeyed, but loved. The Father has compassion on these creatures that Yahweh has made, and thus sends His Son to save us. Oh, but Jesus really wasn't born of Mary, since this flies in the face of his gnosticism, and not to mention, would put Jesus as being subject to Yahweh. So how did Jesus get here? He just appeared out of nowhere during the reign of Tiberius (like all those many sci-fi movies that I have watched where the aliens just show up), And the final judgment? There isn't one. The Supreme God, the Father is all loving and will forgive everyone no matter what (eat your heart out. Rob Bell). Since Marcion rejected the Hebrew scriptures, he needed to find something to replace them, so he compiled a little list of books that he considered to be the true Christian writings. These books included the letters of Paul (who, according to Marcion, was one of the few who really understood the message of Jesus), and the Gospel of Luke. All the other books that were considered authoritative and were written by the other apostles, were diseased with Jewish teachings and were to be rejected. But wait a minute, doesn't Paul and Luke quote from the Old Testament in their writings? Yes, and Marcion had an answer for that. These OT quotations were simply interpolations- the awful shenanigans of Judaizers who were seeking to pervert the original message. In the next post, we will look at how the early church responded to the heresies of the gnostics and Marcion. The greatest threat to Christianity in the early church was a movement called "Gnosticism." In fact, gnosticism was probably the most dangerous heresy that the early church had to fend off- and just barely. Gnosticism came very close to replacing what would later be dubbed "orthodox" Christianity. In this post, I want to briefly sketch the beliefs of this ancient cult. I know some people have a hard time engaging in any historical study whatsoever, so I have done my best to make this humorous and engaging. However, by my humor, I in no way intend to downplay the seriousness of what the early church struggled with. Before we go any further, it must be reiterated that gnosticism is difficult to define. The movement itself was never a well-defined organization, nor was their just one form of it. The cult was a movement, a very vast yet vague one at a that, which existed both inside and outside the church. The name "gnosticism" comes from the Greek word "gnosis," which means "knowledge." By their own admission, the gnostics were the ones who alone possessed a special, mystical knowledge that was only reserved for an elite group of people who had true understanding. This secret "knowledge" or "understanding" was essential in the gnostic view of salvation. For the gnostic, salvation means escaping the body and the material world in which the spirit has been "exiled." They believed that all matter is evil, or unreal. Human beings are really an eternal spirit that has somehow been imprisoned and trapped in an earthly body (this reminds me of a Smashing Pumpkins song). Since the body is made of matter, it is evil, and capable of misguiding us as to what our true nature really is. Therefore, the body is a prison in which the spirit needs to be released. This is the final goal of gnosticism; this is salvation- to escape the body. Gnosticism does indeed believe in a Supreme Being. Yet this Being had no intention of making a material world. Rather, he created all reality as spiritual. With this spiritual reality, a number of spiritual beings were generated (they differed as to the number). These spiritual beings, or "eons," were far removed from the Supreme Being. Because of this, they fell into error and thus created the material world. Because this material reality was made by spiritual beings, there is still "sparks" of spirit in it. It is these spirits (sparks) that have been imprisoned in humanity and must be released through obtaining a special knowledge. How is this freedom achieved? Well, it is kind of like the movie, The Matrix. In order to achieve this liberation, a spiritual messenger must come into this world to awaken us from our "dream" state that we have no idea that we are living in (Neo, the anomaly, helping the rest of humanity get "unplugged"). The spirit of every human being is asleep within their body, therefore someone must come from beyond the material realm to "wake us up" to who we really are, and help us struggle against the entrapments of this evil body. This spiritual messenger is the one who brings the "gnosis" that is necessary for salvation. Part of this "gnosis" includes the revealing of secret heavenly spheres which exists above us. These heavenly spheres are each ruled by an evil force or power whose main goal is to hinder our progress to the spiritual realm (this sounds like it would make an awesome video game - they are like the boss at the end of each level). The only way to get past these evil powers is to have the secret knowledge that opens up the way. Yes, it is like a spiritual password. How do you obtain these secret passwords? Only through the heavenly messenger. This is why he has been sent; to give us the secret password so that we can make it through these levels and obtain salvation. Two questions: What does this mean for Christianity? How is this practically lived out?
To answer the first question, Christ was the heavenly messenger of gnosticism. Since the body and matter are evil, the Christian gnostics rejected the full humanity of Christ. Some believed that his body was an illusion, and he just appeared to be real (docetism). Others distinguished between the heavenly Christ and the earthly Jesus. Still some said that Jesus had a "spiritual body"- whatever that means. Furthermore, most gnostics denied the birth of Jesus, since this would place him absolutely in the physical world. To answer the second question, the Gnostics gave two different answers. The majority said that since the body is the prison of the spirit, we must learn how to dominate and control our body and it's passions. Others said the since the spirit is inherently good and cannot be destroyed, we need to just leave our body to follow after it's own lusts and passions. So, some were ascetics and some were antinomians. All things considered, Gnosticism was a serious threat to the early church, especially during the second century. The Church fought hard against this movement because she saw in it a blatant denial of the crucial doctrines such as creation, incarnation, and resurrection. The term "Apostolic Fathers" refers to a series of letters and authors from the second half of the first century to the first half of the second century. They were given this name in the 17th century because of the link they provide between the Apostles and the later Church Fathers of the Patristic Period. Both these people and the writings, though not included in the New Testament, were nonetheless influential in their day. The traditional list of the Apostolic Fathers are: 1. Clement of Rome 2. Ignatius of Antioch 3. Polycarp of Smyrna 4. The Didache 5. The Epistle of Barnabas 6. The Shepherd of Hermas Clement of Rome Clement served as the Bishop of Rome at the end of the 1st century. His most famous writing was 1 Clement (95 AD), and was the first letter written outside cannon. So influential was Clement and this epistle that both the Egyptian Christians and apostolic fathers considered it scripture. Another interesting fact about Clement is that he also wrote to the Corinthians, for many of the same reasons Paul did. In his letters, he links discipleship closely to obeying leaders and living a moral life. He also appeals to the myth of the phoenix to support the resurrection. Ignatius of Antioch Ignatius was the Bishop in Antioch, and was martyred in Rome around 110 or 115. On his way to Rome to die, he wrote seven letters to Christian churches. These letters were to to Ephesus, Magnesia, Trallia, Rome, Philadelphia, Smyrna, and Polycarp. Ignatius was highly revered and respected by the early church. It is believed that he knew John personally and was influenced by him; his writings certainly reflect this. In his letters, he addressed such topics as ecclesiology the sacraments, the role of the bishops, and the Sabbath. He strongly emphasized obedience to Bishops, and some see in this the beginning of the monarchical episcopy. He believed that partaking in the eucharist constituted a major aspect of the process of salvation. He was also one of the earliest defenders of the humanity and deity of Christ. Polycarp of Smyrna Polycarp lived from around 69-165 and was the Bishop of Smyrna. Tradition links him with having sat under the teachings of the apostle John. His contribution to the early church was his letter to the Philippians. However, Polycarp is most noted for the story behind his martyrdom. Tradition has it that he was tied at the steak to be burned. When the fire was lit, the flames danced around him and refused to burn him. So angry were his persecutors that they violently stabbed him with spears. So much blood spewed from his body that it put out the flames. The Didache The Didache (Greek meaning "teaching") was an early Christian writing that dates from around 50 AD to the early second century. No one knows who wrote it, but it was a very influential writing in the early church, and seems to be written as a circular letter to the churches in Syria. If this is true, it puts the letter being written around 101 AD. The letter contains instructions for the church, and seems to have been written to boost Christian morality and instruct them in how to deal with itinerant prophets. It also gives advice on Christian living, spirituality, and worship, along dealing with such things as baptism, the eucharist and church organization and structure. The letter speaks of the two ways- life and death, and hardly mentions grace, faith ,forgiveness, and justification. The way of salvation is described as a certain lifestyle of faithfulness and obedience to God's commands and Christian leaders. One of the most beneficial things for the modern reader, is its teaching on baptism. It definitely teaches baptism by immersion, but allowed pouring when there is no running water. The congregation is encouraged to fast along with the baptismal candidates in preparation for the sacrament. It also mentions the triune formula (in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) in regards to what should be spoken over a person when they are baptized. At the onset, many considered it scripture, but this standing was eventually rejected given some of the spurious teaching found throughout. The Epistle of Barnabas The book was probably written in Alexandria, Egypt between 70 and 135. It's author is unknown, but was acquainted with one or more of the apostles (maybe even Apollos). The writing contains allegorical interpretations of the OT, and way of salvation is portrayed in primarily moralistic terms. The overall theme of the book has to do with the fact that Christians are the true heirs of God's covenant. The Shepherd of Hermas It is possible that the author could have been the brother of Pius, the Bishop of Rome around 140-145, but this is not for certain. This book had great influence on the Christians in the Roman Empire, and was the closest non-canonical work to be considered in the NT. The book contains a series of visions and explanations by an angel to Hermas. The interpretations are in parable form and are filled with various commands. The book comes across as very moralistic, if not legalistic. The book is greatly concerned about presumptuous sins, and warns that a person will only be forgiven once after baptism. The overall message of the book seems to be that God's mercy is very narrow. God will forgive, but not endlessly. Furthermore, this forgiveness is based on keeping God's commandments. Hermas also gives regulations on marriage, in which he forbids remarriage after divorce. He even says Christians should avoid sex in marriage! Despite much of its erroneous teachings, probably the main reason the book was rejected from the New Testament was because of it's Spirit Christology. Spirit Christology teaches the Jesus was the incarnation of the Holy Spirit, not the Son. In telling the story of the Bride of Christ, the best place to start is the beginning...well, near the beginning. We are going to pick up our story around the time when all of the Apostles died off. The period stretching from 100 A.D. to 451 A.D. is usually referred to as the Patristic period. The designation of "patristic" comes from both the Latin and Greek words for father (pater). The reason for this designation is that the early Christian writers are usually referred to as the Church Fathers. You may not realize this, but this era in church history is probably the most important era. It was a time of great flux, persecution, and theological development. What we consider orthodox theology (trinity, divinity of Christ, etc) were hammered out, and there were times when the only thing standing between orthodoxy, and heresy overtaking the church, was the pen of a gifted theologian. With that being said, let's look at some of the major developments during this period. First, early on, the relationship between Judaism and Christianity was finally coming to light. Christianity was now set apart as a totally different religion. Second, much of the first two centuries of the church were spent in trying to survive persecution and defending her beliefs. In essence, at the beginning of this period, the Church was mainly engaged in what we call apologetics. Thirdly, with the rise of Emperor Constantine, Christianity became the dominant religion of the empire, thus allowing true theological development to take place. Finally, during the close of this period (310-451) major theological consensus began to take place. Within every major period, there were major theologians that helped shape the story of the Christian Church. Those of the Patristic period are, but not limited to: •Justin Martyr (c.100-c.165) •Irenaeus of Lyons (c.130-c.200) •Tertullian (c.160-c.225) •Origen (c.185-c.254) •Cyprian of Carthage (d.258) •Athanasius (c.293-373) •The Cappadocian fathers –Basil the Great (c.330-79) –Gregory of Nyssa (c.330-c.395) –Gregory of Nazianzus (329-89) •Augustine of Hippo (354-430) Each of these theologians were involved in at least one or more of the theological issues of their day. In future articles, we will talk in detail about what each one of these theologians contributed, but for now, I will just give a brief overview of the major theological debates of the Patristic era. 1. The Extent of the New Testament Canon. With the rise of Gnosticism, it became important to appeal to the traditions that were handed down by the apostles. In doing so, a "canon" or fixed rule of Scripture had to be decided on. This is an often convoluted and misunderstood aspect of Church history, and something we will dive into deeper in the future. But for now, it is sufficient to know that it was during this time that the term "Scripture" began to officially apply to the books of the New Testament that we have today. Debates took place over which books to include, the arrangement of the books, and most importantly, the criteria for canonicity. All things considered, a clear acknowledgement of the 27 New Testament books is found in Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter (367 A.D.) 2. The Role of Tradition and the Gnostics. The greatest challenge to Christianity during the early Patristic period was Gnosticism. Gnosticism is really hard to define, since there were several branches, but basically it is this: Human flesh is bad. The apostles revealed secret forms of knowledge which only the "gnostics" (from Greek word gnosis- knowledge) had access to. Because human flesh is evil Jesus only appeared to be a man. This is a very simplistic explanation but we will revisit Gnosticism in the future. All you need to know at this point is that the challenge of Gnosticism forced the Church to appeal to apostolic tradition as passed down, as well as define a "rule of faith"- which lead to the development of the New Testament canon. 3. The Ecuminical Creeds. Because of all of the theological controversy, several creeds were agreed upon as authoritative for orthodox theology. Two of the most important were the Nicene Creed (agreed upon at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.) and the updated Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (an updated form of the Nicene Creed that was agreed upon at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D.). 4. The Arian Controversy. During the Patristic era, much controversy arose over the two natures of Christ. One of those controversies was Arianism. Arianism is attributed to the teachings of Arius (c 256-336), who was a priest in Alexandria. Arius taught that Christ was not of the same essence of God the Father, and was the highest of the creatures of God. He taught that there was a time when the Son was not; there was a time when God the Father existed without the Son. His teachings were the subject of the Council of Nicea (325) and Athanasius was instrumental in having Arius' views condemned. 5. The Doctrine of the Trinity. After the divinity of the Son had been decided on, this discussion gave birth to reflections on the trinity. Two lines of thoughts were developed: In the East, the Cappadocian Fathers developed one view of trinitarian theology, while in the West, Augustine developed another. What is of most importance is that during this time, modalistic heresies, such as Sabellianism, were condemned, and a clear biblical and philosophical defense of the three-in-oneness of God was developed. 6. The Donatist Controversy. During the fourth century, under the persecution of Diocletian (303-313), many Christians lapsed in their faith. After the persecution died out, they wanted to rejoin the church. These who wanted to rejoin the church were given the negative name "traditores" by the Donatists. The Donatists were a group of native African Christians who resented the growing influence of the Roman church in North Africa. They argued that the church was a body of saints, and that the sinners had no place within her. This belief led to them refusing to reinstate the "traditores" to the faith. Things came to a head when Felix of Aptunga, a "traditores", was later consecrated as a Caecilian bishop. This enraged some of the local Christians and lead them to reject the authority of the Caecilian. The hierarchy of the catholic church was tainted, and the Donatists began to gain a larger following. So strong was this movement, that eventually, they began to outnumber the catholics. By the time Augustine returned to North Africa in 388, the Donatists were well established. Augustine got involved in the debate, and eventually settled the issue. More on this in the future. 7. The Pelagian Controversy. Up until the time of Augustine, the doctrine of grace had not been an issue of significance as far as its theological development, especially in the east. But this would change, when in the second decade of the fifth century, a hot debate broke out in the west over the doctrine of grace. The debate was started by Pelagius, a British monk who was based in Rome. He was alarmed at the moral laxity that he saw in the Roman church, and insisted on the need for constant self improvement in light of the OT law and the example of Christ. In doing this, he seemed to deny both the need and place for grace. This concerned Augustine, who met him head on. The controversy is quite complex, but can be summed up under four doctrinal topics: 1. Freedom of the Will 2. Sin 3. Grace 4. Justification. In the future, we will get into the theological details of this debate, but for now, you just need to know that Pelagius was excommunicated by Pope Innocent and his views were condembed by four regional councils and one ecemunical council (Council of Ephesus 431 A.D.). In the weeks and months to come, we will be looking at both these theological developments and the Patristic theologians in a bit more depth. |
Archives
February 2014
Categories |