CHAPTER 4

CHAPTER 4

CHAPTER 4

The Church in the Subapostolic Age

"THE DEVELOPMENT OF

THE HIERARCHY

As we have already seen, two kinds of authority existed side by side in the subapostolic age: apostolic authority, which was based on the concept of apostolic succession and which came to be centered in the bishops, and charismatic authority, which was invested by the grassroots of the laity in certain people such as the confessors. In the second century, a movement emerged that forced the Church's hand in favoring the former type over the latter. The movement was known at the time as the "New Prophecy" but is now generally referred to as Montanism. It is named after its founder, a Phrygian named Montanus, who with his daughters claimed to be prophets speaking with the voice of the Holy Spirit.

The Montanists were an ascetic faction within the Church who practiced charismatic gifts and believed that the return of Christ was imminent. They found some influential supporters, including at least one bishop of Rome (temporarily) as well as Irenaeus and Tertullian. As we will see, Tertullian would eventually associate with the Montanists in North Africa. But their rising popularity would prove to be their downfall, since anyone who claims to have a direct connection to God and to speak with the voice of the Holy

Spirit presents a problem for the unity of the Church. How does the Church prevent a person or group who claims charismatic authority from preaching something different from the bishops— something that would divide the Church? Also, the Montanists followed Papias's interpretation of the Book of Revelation, which included a literal interpretation of the so-called millennium, and

The Church in the Subapostolic Age which the majority of the Church would reject. The result was an uncertainty about the usefulness of the Book of Revelation and, significantly, a growing suspicion of prophecy as a challenge to both the authority and the unity of the Church.

Consequently, two things happened in the subapostolic age.

First, prophecy as a gift of the Spirit was edged out of the Church.

As it turned out, preaching replaced prophecy as the proclamation and interpretation of revealed truth.' The other thing that happened was the separation of clergy from the laity (preserving the teaching authority in the clergy) and the evolution of church leadership as a vocation. These two things are, of course, interrelated.

As we look at the development of the hierarchy in the subapostolic age, we can see two distinct phases. The first phase is consistent with what we already see emerging in the New Testament as the apostles chose and commissioned their successors. In that context, the Greek terms that we translate as "bishop" and "priest" are basically synonymous. Therefore, the first phase is a four-tiered structure that we can still see in the Didache, which looks like this:

¢ Apostle/prophet—Itinerant missionaries ¢ Bishop/priest—Resident pastors ¢ Deacon—Assistant to the pastors e Laity The apostles were considered to be inspired, on the level of the Old Testament prophets (Rev 18:20), and of course we know that their writings would come to be called scripture (2 Pet 3:15-16),

Their immediate successors, called "elders," were also given a certain status and authority, and some of them are also New 'Testament authors.' The apostles were itinerant, moving around as they established and supported various local Christian groups. They had authority over those local churches and over the resident leaders there, primarily because they had appointed and commissioned these second-generation church leaders (often to be leaders over churches they themselves had founded), but for many of the apostles they also had authority because they knew Jesus—they had been his disciples.

The resident pastors are referred to in the New Testament and Didache as either episcopos (bishop, overseer) or presbyteros (priest,

= be)

Reading the Early Church Fathers elder), implying that the two words are used more or less synonymously.' In Justin Martyr, the leader is called a presider (proestos, sometimes translated "president"). These pastors preside over the church meetings, but this may be simply because the meeting is in their homes. They are also called teachers, since they are the ones who read and explain the letters from the apostles and passages from the gospels, and generally encourage the faith of the group.'

When the church in any city grew to the point where all the Christians there could no longer fit into one house, or when multiple house-churches arose in different parts of the city or among different ethnic (language) groups, the house-church presiders must have met together periodically to compare notes, share letters, and support one another.' When it became necessary to correspond with the Christians in another city, one member of the group was chosen to write the letter on behalf of the rest.' As this practice grew, at some point the word for "bishop," which literally means "overseer," came to be used exclusively for the one priest chosen to be the chair of the council. This development probably happened sooner in the larger cities like Rome; however, even there it is probably the case that at first the bishop functioned only as chair of the council and was directed in his official duties by the rest of the priests.*

By the time of Clement of Rome, in the last decade of the first century, we can see that Rome has one priest who has been designated as "bishop," who is probably still advised by the council of the rest of the priests, but has the authority to write on behalf of the Christians of Rome. As we have already seen, Clement wrote

1 Clement with an air of authority even over the Christians in Corinth, based on Rome's association with Peter. What this demonstrates is that by the time of Clement, the role of bishop is understood to be an office of the Church, and that office in Rome is already associated with the apostle Peter as the first "overseer" there. It is important to note, however, that at this point in history, even when church leadership becomes an "office," it is still not a "job." Church leaders do not make a living leading the Church, and laypeople are understood to be in ministry as much as the leaders.'

Clement of Rome is therefore a transitional figure in whom we can see the title "bishop" separated from the general priesthood and used for one priest who is chosen to represent the rest. It is proba-

The Church in the Subapostolic Age bly still the case, however, that the authority of the bishop is limited to that given him by the council.

Although it happened at different paces in different places, by the time of Ignatius of Antioch we can see the second phase in the evolution of the Church's hierarchy. Two important things have happened to move the process along. First, the apostles died. With the death of John after the turn of the century there were no more apostles left, and only a few remained who had known them personally. Even these so-called elders were not given the same status as prophets, and with the controversy over Montanism, prophecy never became a leadership position within the Church. The second thing that happened was the growth of the Church to the point where there were multiple house-churches in each city. This meant that the leaders of the individual house-churches within each city had to keep in touch, and the leadership of each city had to try to keep in touch with the leadership in other cities, in order to make sure that the Church stayed unified.

Staying unified, however, requires maintaining a unified body of teaching. If different pastors are teaching conflicting interpretations of Christ and the scriptures, the Church will split. Therefore, as Ignatius knew, it is not enough to have a council of priests; there must also be a centralized authority to resolve disputes that arise.

The office of bishop emerged as that authority. The bishop was still one of the priests, but the bishops took the place of the apostles as "overseers," in the sense of having an authority over the other priests. The primary difference between the first phase and the second phase is that in the first phase, even when there is a bishop functioning as the chair of the council, the priests tell the bishop what to do. In the second phase, the bishop tells the priests what to do." In the first phase, the bishop is a representative of the council; in the second phase, the bishop is the authority over the council.

In this second phase we still have a four-tiered hierarchy; however, now it looks like this:

¢ Bishop—Overseer/teaching authority ¢ Priest—Pastor/teacher ¢ Deacon—Assistant to the bishop e Laity

Reading the Early Church Fathers The bishop has replaced the apostle as overseer but is not itinerant; he is local to his see, which is his city and the sphere of his influence. The bishop may be one of the resident pastors (especially early on), and he is the chair of the council."' Ignatius argues for the ideal of one bishop per city,' but that is not necessarily the reality, especially in the bigger cities. In a place like Rome, it is entirely possible that when the church got large enough there could have been more than one intracity council (perhaps based on language), each with its own chair, and possibly each with its own catechetical school."

The priests were still the pastors of the individual housechurches; however, the bishops reserved the authority to preside over the sacraments, or the "mysteries" of the Church. It is unclear how one bishop could preside over the Eucharist in multiple house-churches on Sunday mornings. In some places, it is possible that individual house-churches may have met on Sunday mornings for a liturgy without the Eucharist. Then Christians from across the city would gather in a larger place in the evening for a eucharistic meal presided over by the bishop.'* It was also inevitable that in the larger cities the priests were eventually granted the authority to preside over the Eucharist in their individual meetings, as long as they were in agreement with the bishop. This seems to be the case in Rome in the middle of the second century, based on the liturgy of Justin Martyr."

Baptisms generally took place once a year at Easter, when the bishop would initiate all the candidates of the city, with the assistance of the deacons. The bishops may have also held some authority over burials; at least we know this was so by the third century.

Once the church of a city could acquire and control land for burials, the bishop or his appointee would manage the cemetery and (we assume) the bishop would conduct the burials. Marriage at this time was not a ritual of the Church but a legal contract. A tradition of going to the bishop for a blessing emerged, however, and Ignatius advised that all Christian couples should get the bishop's permission to marry."

The priests were considered the teachers of their housechurches, but now the bishops became the authority over the content of the teaching, so that they are the ones who would ultimately

The Church in the Subapostolic Age settle questions of interpretation. In other words, the priests must teach what is consistent with, and acceptable to, the bishops, since the bishops are the successors to the apostles. Based on the concept of apostolic succession, the unity of the Church is guaranteed by the consistency of its teaching, which in turn is guaranteed by the integrity of the teaching office. The responsibility for this integrity rested with the bishops.

In this second phase of the development of the hierarchy, the deacons appear to have gone from assisting the priests in general to assisting the bishops specifically, especially in the sacraments. The deacon's role was always associated with the sacraments, however, and now that the office of bishop is distinct from the rest of the priests, the sacraments are centralized in the bishop, so the deacons become the assistants to the bishops. Eventually, the deacons would distribute the eucharistic elements.'' In some places, the deacons also functioned as ushers, or "doorkeepers," with the responsibility of questioning visitors before they were allowed into the assembly where they would receive the Eucharist.' In general, the deacons represented the bishop, and part of the deacons' responsibilities included visiting the sick and keeping the bishop informed of the needs of the people in his see.'? We learn from Justin Martyr that the deacons are also charged with taking the eucharistic elements to shut-ins and prisoners." Therefore, there must be enough deacons, "in proportion to the number of the congregation of the people of the church."'! While in one sense church leadership came to be defined as the three "orders" of bishop, priest, and deacon, however, the deacons were not considered clergy since their role in liturgy was limited and they did not have the authority to preside over the sacraments."

As I have noted, the controversy over the Montanists and other factors led to a separation between clergy and laity, and though church leadership was still not a "day job," there was less and less talk of the laity having a part in ministry. In some places, laymen continued to be teachers, and there are hints of laypeople involved in ministries of healing."' Nevertheless, in some ways we have gone from seeing the Church as Christians witnessing and ministering to the world to seeing the Church as clergy ministering to the laity. In fact, it has been remarked that the clergy would us,

Reading the Early Church Fathers become like the patrons of the laity.* No doubt the persecution of the Church by the empire contributed to this inward shift of focus.

WORSHIP AND THE SACRAMENTS

Much could be said about worship in the early Church, and it should go without saying that many whole books have been written on the subject." Since we are focused on reading the documents of the early Church, we will only briefly survey worship as it relates to the early texts. For instance, there are some extant examples of early Christian hymns, such as are contained in the New Testament itself (Col 1:15-20, Phil 2:6-11, Eph 5:14, to name a few). We have already looked at the verse included in Clement of Alexandria's

Exhortation to the Greeks. In addition, there are two documents from the subapostolic age that appear to include Christian songs, or at least poems. It should be noted that the early Church did not know our modern distinction between singing, chanting, and reciting."

Hymn singing probably meant something like chanting in unison, with a melody of a limited range." There is evidence that the hymns were accompanied by the lyre, which was a sort of cross between a guitar and a harp."* The Sibylline Oracles The Sibyl was a Greco-Roman female medium. She supposedly had mystical visions inspired by the gods and pronounced oracles, or prophecies, based on those visions. These oracles were then written down and consulted later after significant events, something like the way the writings of Nostradamus are supposed to have predicted certain disasters. Jewish apologists wrote their own versions of these oracles, presenting them as older prophecies of current events. Following their lead, some Christians modified the Jewish versions, rewriting them to appear to be pre-Christian predictions of Christ. They seem to be intended to resemble the Book of Revelation, except the predictions of the life of Christ are not even subtle, let alone symbolic. While the majority of the Church did not accept these as real prophecy, they do seem to have been

The Church in the Subapostolic Age used as devotional poetry. Books 1, 6, and 8 of the Sibylline Oracles may have been used in Christian worship. Book 6 especially may be an early Christian hymn and includes a reference to the Eucharist, comparing the advent of Christ to the nourishment of bread."

The Odes of Solomon Sometimes called an early Christian hymnal, the Odes are written like a Christian version of the Psalms. They are allegorical to the point of being mystical, and they even use some surprising feminine images for God, including presenting God as a nursing mother who provides life-giving milk for her children.** The Virgin

Mary has a somewhat prominent role in Ode 33.*! We also get an interesting glimpse of prayer in the Odes, which suggests that at least on some occasions Christians prayed in a cruciform position, standing with arms outstretched to the sides, in imitation of Christ on the cross."

The Sacraments The early Church did not have a set list of seven sacraments such as the Catholic Church has now. All the rituals existed in the subapostolic age in one form or another, however, with the possible exception of marriage, although how elaborate or ritualized the bishop's blessing may have been is not known. A rite of ordination must have emerged as the hierarchy moved from phase one into phase two, and there was a need to formally consecrate new church leaders.® At first, new priests were probably chosen by the existing priests and laity; however, in phase two of the hierarchy the new priests and deacons were chosen and ordained by the bishops. The bishops were elected by the council of priests (in some places, with the ratification of the laity).** A newly elected bishop would be consecrated by other bishops from the region.* Eventually, however, the election of bishops came to be reserved for fellow bishops, as the elevation of a bishop shifted from the priests choosing one of their own to lead them to the bishops choosing one from the lower rank to join them."

Baptism and confirmation were originally one ritual. The baptism itself was the sign of the acceptance of the faith by a new

Reading the Early Church Fathers convert, while the confirmation was the Church's response to it and a consecration of the new Christian. This consecration was done by an imposition (laying on) of hands, and possibly anointing with oil.

Baptism was preceded by a time of catechesis in which the convert learned the expectations of the church community with regard to morality and behavior. Also, while theology per se was not a priority, the initiate was taught a statement of faith. The earliest examples of baptismal statements of faith are preserved in the New

Testament and could be as simple as saying, "Jesus is Lord" (1 Cor 12:13). These statements of faith were the Church's first creeds

(from the Latin word credo, meaning "I believe"). Examples of creeds in the subapostolic age can be found in Ignatius of Antioch and Aristides." At the time of baptism the new believer would show his or her sincerity of faith before the congregation, by either reciting the statement of faith or responding affirmatively to it in question-and-answer form. As infant baptism became the norm, the rites of baptism and confirmation became separated, and the affirmation of faith was postponed with the confirmation until the individual could claim the faith for himor herself.

Baptisms, originally done once a year at Easter, were preceded by fasting. Both the initiate and the presider were expected to fast.*

In fact, the original time of Lent commemorated the forty hours between Jesus' death and resurrection. Candidates fasted during that time and celebrated Jesus' resurrection with a symbolic resurrection of their own—coming up from the water of baptism." Full immersion under water was the norm, since going under the water and coming back up symbolized dying and rising with Christ. If a body of water was not available, however, pouring water over the initiate's head was acceptable."

In obedience to Christ (Matt 28:19), baptism was always done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." The baptism was described as the "seal" of eternal life.*? There seems to have been widespread agreement in the early Church, however, that baptism only washes away the sins one committed prior to the baptism."

Postbaptismal sin was a problem, and many people believed that the sins Christians committed after baptism would be held against them.* As we have already noted, it was assumed that one could lose one's salvation, especially by committing a serious sin after

The Church in the Subapostolic Age baptism.* "Serious sins" included apostasy, idolatry, murder, and adultery. Eventually, that category would be expanded to include any sin that broke one of the Ten Commandments. Some writers would talk of the possibility of forgiveness for one postbaptismal sin," especially for new converts, but the strict application of Hebrews 6:4-6 and 10:26-29 led to the very real expectation that a Christian, once baptized, was not supposed to sin. Not surprisingly, this led to the practice of postponing baptism until all wild oats were sowed. The men of the aristocracy, especially, who knew that joining the Church would conflict with their careers, often waited until retirement to join their wives as baptized members.

Eventually, the reality that human beings cannot stop sinning simply because they are baptized would contribute to the development of the sacrament of penance and reconciliation.

The Eucharist was called the "Mystery of the Church."" The word Eucharist means "thanksgiving," and from the very beginning of the Church it was seen as a ritual act of thanks for the sacrifice of Christ, based on both the Jewish Passover meal and the Last Supper of Jesus. At first it was part of an actual meal called the agape, or love feast (cf. 1 Cor 11:18-22), but by the time of Ignatius, it was already a liturgical rite, separate from the meal.* Probably in most places the Eucharist became part of the Sunday morning meeting, while the meal was a "potluck" relegated to Sunday evening."

Although the writers of the subapostolic age did not have a highly developed eucharistic theology, there was a general consensus that what happens in the Eucharist is much more than a mere symbol or a memorial." The Eucharist was seen as a reenactment of the passion of Christ (1 Cor 11:26), much like the Jewish

Passover meal, in which a past event is mystically made present.

'The Eucharist was associated with the incarnation of Christ, so that the Eucharist becomes in a way a new incarnation.' Just as the Word became flesh, the eucharistic bread and wine become the flesh and blood of Christ. Irenaeus specifically said that the eucharistic elements become the body and blood of Christ." Therefore, the Eucharist was never thought of as a symbol or memorial only, but a mystery, and the early Christians knew that whatever was happening in the ritual, it was a miracle of incarnation in which Christ was present as the Word made flesh. a7

Reading the Early Church Fathers Just as baptism included confirmation, the Eucharist included confession. Confession of (smaller) sins was expected of everyone before receiving the Eucharist, though this probably took the form of the congregational recitation of a prayer of confession. Later, those who committed serious sins would be expected to confess publicly in front of the congregation before reconciliation. As we have already seen, the table of the Eucharist was believed to be the earthly expression of the kingdom of God, and so was connected to salvation. Therefore, to be excluded from the Eucharist was to be excluded from the kingdom, and excommunication emerged very early as a form of discipline within the Church (1 Cor 5).°* Excommunication meant being excluded from communion. Reconciliation meant being readmitted to the table, but since the bishop held the authority over the sacrament, reconciliation meant returning to the bishop.* This is another reason why it became important to limit the number of bishops to one per city. When there was more than one bishop in a city, a person who was excommunicated by one bishop could try to receive the Eucharist from the other bishop. If bishops did not enforce each other's excommunication, then the unity of the Church was threatened. For most people, however, every Eucharist was also a reconciliation service in which daily sins were confessed and access to God through Christ was granted.

We have already noted the detailed order of liturgy preserved for us in Justin Martyr's 1 Apology. We can now see that the Church conducted weekly Eucharist/reconciliation services, annual baptism/confirmation services, and ordinations and burials as needed.

Marriage at this time was probably not a ritual, although the bishops would bless couples and perhaps give their permission for Christians to marry.

CHRISTOLOGY AND THEOLOGY IN

THE SUBAPOSTOLIC AGE

Clement of Alexandria was on to something when he said that true religion can be found in the middle between the extremes." As the Church read the Hebrew Scriptures and the writings of the apostles, it was inevitable that diverging interpretations would

The Church in the Subapostolic Age emerge, some of which were mutually exclusive. As it turned out, these diverging interpretations (or "heresies") can be described as two extremes, existing on the fringes of what, for lack of a better term, might be called the "mainstream" Church in the middle."

Simply put, some denied the humanity of Christ and said that he was pure spirit, while others denied the divinity of Christ as said that he was only a man. The mainstream church affirmed both the humanity and the divinity of Christ and defended the middle against the extremes.

Docetics, Marcionites, and Gnostics In the church at Corinth, the apostle Paul had had to deal with a problem of division between two groups of people, whom we will call the philosophical and the charismatic (1 Cor 1:10—4:20).*

The philosophical group was the minority in the Corinthian church. They were wealthy and prided themselves on their education and their reading of Greek philosophy. Therefore, they considered themselves wise—that is, more enlightened—than the others. They reasoned that since idols are not really gods, there is no moral problem with eating meat from an animal that had been sacrificed to an idol. Since they were wealthy and moved in aristocratic circles, they were still getting invited to the pagan feasts held by their non-Christian friends (1 Cor 8:10).

The other group was the majority, but from the lower economic classes and so probably could not even afford meat on a regular basis." Eating or not eating idol meat was not a choice they had to make very often, since they were not as likely to get invited to pagan banquets at which meat that had been sacrificed to idols would be served. They are probably the charismatics Paul addressed in 1 Corinthians 14.° They were disturbed by the fact that the wealthy among them were going to pagan banquets and would eat meat that had been part of a pagan sacrifice. This became a practical problem when the philosophical group treated the Christian fellowship meal (the agape meal) like one of their pagan banquets. Since they did not really have to work for a living, they could gather in the afternoon, eat all the best food that was brought, and help themselves to extra servings of wine. When the

Reading the Early Church Fathers working class finished their day at sundown, they would arrive at the Christian gathering to find all the best food eaten and their wealthier (and supposedly wiser) brothers and sisters drunk (1 Cor

11:17-22). In this early version of the potluck meal, those who came without a pot were out of luck. In fact, situations like this may have been the reason that the sacrament of the Lord's Supper became separated from the fellowship meal.

In any case, those who considered themselves wise thought the charismatics were superstitious and therefore foolish for worrying about whether meat had been sacrificed to an idol. Paul responded to this by turning the concepts of wisdom and foolishness upside down: human wisdom is foolishness to God and the wisdom of the cross seems like foolishness to Jews and Gentiles alike. Paul admits that those who call themselves wise have a strong faith and that in a way the faith of the others is weaker; however, he also turns this distinction on its head by saying that even he (Paul) is weak, but God has chosen the weak to shame the strong. By responding in this way, Paul was calling into question the value of philosophical wisdom or indeed of anything that would allow some

Christians to see themselves as above the others and above responsibility to others.

The important thing for our observations on Christology and theology in the subapostolic age is that the philosophical group was made up of Gentile Christians, converts from paganism, who did not feel the need to distance themselves completely from their pagan roots. They may have seen themselves as disciples of Apollos rather than Paul, and may have valued the eloquent philosophical style of speech of Apollos over the down-to-earth approach of the former Pharisee (Acts 18, 1 Cor 1:12, 3:4-6). In Greek culture, it could easily be assumed that the more eloquent the speech, the truer the content, and so Paul himself might have been looked down upon by this group.

All of this was typical of some early Christian converts from paganism, who apparently were not concerned to shed all the elements of their former religion. This included a certain philosophical concept called dualism, which, when brought into the Church, directly affected a person's understanding of Christ. Philosophical dualism goes back to the teachings of Plato and assumes that what-

The Church in the Subapostolic Age ever exists in the material world is somehow not as real as that which exists in the spiritual realm. The things of the physical realm were considered to be mere shadows of the true realities that exist in the spiritual realm. An extreme version of this assumed that whatever is of the spiritual realm is good, but whatever is of the physical world is inherently evil." If one applies this extreme dualism to Christ, one would have to conclude that Christ could not really become human, since pure spirit (the divine Logos) cannot touch evil matter (flesh). Therefore, there were some within the early Church who came to believe that Christ only seemed to be human but was really some kind of phantom, or just a vision (cf. Mt

14:26, Mk 6:49). The Greek verb dokein, meaning "to seem" or "to appear," gives us the word docetism. Docetism was the belief that spirit is "light" and flesh is "darkness," and therefore Jesus was not really flesh and blood, but only appeared to be."

Docetics reasoned that if Christ was not really human and his body was only an illusion, then the resurrection was not a real bodily resurrection but simply another vision of Christ, although perhaps without the illusion of human appearance. They further reasoned that since Christ was, in effect, always in a "resurrected" state, those who follow him are also already living the resurrection life, and therefore they denied any future resurrection. In the letters of Ignatius of Antioch we have already encountered this rea/ized eschatology, the conviction that true believers are already somehow living in a postresurrection state and have achieved the transcendence that Christ promised. Two people who taught this idea are mentioned by name in 2 Timothy 2:16-18. Therefore, since Hymenaeus and Philetus taught that "the resurrection has already taken place," they apparently denied the future resurrection based on a rejection of the flesh and so are probably the earliest

Docetics we know of by name."

Since Docetics taught a strict separation between the spiritual and the physical, many saw themselves as primarily spiritual beings untouchable by the corruption of the flesh. This made them believe they were immune to evil and therefore what they did with their bodies could not affect their spirits. This would have allowed the "wise" of Corinth to eat meat sacrificed to idols, but it also allowed some Docetics to justify all kinds of immorality based on the

Reading the Early Church Fathers assumption that their spirits were exempt from moral responsibility or accountability (cf. 1 Cor 6:12). Therefore, docetism could lead to a hedonistic lifestyle, and this may be part of what Paul was referring to when he said that they did not correctly understand the body

(1 Cor 11:29). Paul obviously believed that what one does with one's body does affect one's spirit, but even if idol meat does not directly affect the one who eats it, it does affect others who are part of the same body of Christ, the Church (1 Cor 6:12-20). Ironically, a docetic philosophy led some others to attempt to deny the flesh and live an ascetic lifestyle that punishes the body and rejects physical pleasure (1 Cor 7:1, Col 2:20-23). Not surprisingly, Paul advocates the middle way, that is, to respect the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit: do not punish it, but also do not indulge it.

Pagan converts to Christianity were also susceptible to what Paul calls superstition. Since they were used to the idea of worshiping multiple deities, it was easy for them to accept the worship of angels and other supposed heavenly "authorities and powers" as well as the practice of certain aspects of the occult, including magic and astrology. We can see Paul dealing with this in his Letter to the Colossians. Some of the Christians in Colossae were apparently being led to incorporate elements of paganism with their (docetic) version of Christianity (Col 2:8-19). This merging of elements from different religious systems is called syncretism and might be thought of as the "salad bar" approach to spirituality. It allows one to choose which parts of each system to accept based on preformed assumptions or simply on what feels most comfortable, and of course it allows the person to reject aspects of one tradition or another based on the authority of one's own preference."

Sometimes evidence of syncretism in the New Testament is called proto-gnosticism, because it is the precursor to the development of gnosticism in the second century." While we can definitely see the seeds of gnosticism in the Docetics of the New Testament, it is too early to call this real gnosticism. We can, however, understand this progression as an equation. Gnosticism is the result of the combination of docetism and syncretism; that is, docetism plus syncretism equals gnosticism.®

Docetic Christology did not have a problem with the idea of worshiping Christ. Since Docetics came from a background of

The Church in the Subapostolic Age polytheism, limiting worship to one God was not necessarily a priority for them. Therefore, they were perfectly comfortable with the concept of the divinity of Christ. Their docetism led them to deny the real humanity of Christ, however. In their way of thinking, he could not become human because he could not become flesh.

Therefore, in response to the Docetics, Paul had emphasized the true humanity of Christ and his real flesh and blood (Col 1:22). He did that by talking about the cross. Paul wrote that our sins were nailed to the cross along with Jesus' body, and so if he had no body, we are still dead in our sins (Col 2:12-14). In addition, Paul implies that since Christ is the new Adam, he must be human as Adam was human (1 Cor 15:44-49).® If Christ is to be the savior of humanity, he must be truly human. If he is to be the mediator between God and humanity, he cannot represent humanity unless he is really one of us (1 Tim 2:5-6). So Paul connects our very salvation with the humanity of Christ: if he was not human, he could not save humans. This was the basis for later arguments against docetism

(what is not assumed is not saved)."

Pauline texts that affirm the humanity of Christ are, of course, numerous; however, one stands out as a direct confrontation of docetism. In Colossians 2:9, Paul expands on a point made in the hymn quoted earlier in the letter, specifically Colossians 1:19. There it says that all the "fullness" dwelt within Christ. In Colossians 2:9,

Paul explains that it is the fullness of Deity, or divinity itself, that dwells within the person of Christ. Of course, the Docetics would not have a problem with this idea. But the other shoe drops when

Paul finishes the sentence, "All the fullness of deity dwells within him...bodily." In other words, in this one verse Paul affirms both the divinity and the humanity of Christ. He was divine, but he also had a real human body, with real flesh and blood. Therefore, his incarnation was an act of solidarity with us, and in his death he died as a representative of humanity, dying our death so that we could live his life (2 Cor 5:21).

The legacy of the Docetics of the first century emerges in the second century in the Marcionites and Gnostics."' As we saw in the New 'Testament documents (cf. 1 John 4:3) and in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, there were those who taught that Christ was human in appearance only, that he did not have real flesh and

Reading the Early Church Fathers blood." Thus they denied the reality of Jesus' human nature.

Second-century Docetics apparently argued from Romans 8:3 and Philippians 2:7-8 that Jesus only appeared in the "likeness" of flesh, not in real flesh.' They further argued from 1 Corinthians 15:50 that flesh and blood cannot be redeemed." They apparently applied to Jesus what the angel Raphael says about himself in Tobit 12:6-22:

"Even though you watched me eat and drink, I did not really do so.

You were seeing a vision" (v. 19). Therefore, their dualism led them to reject the concepts of physical incarnation and bodily resurrection in Christ. Also, since they were primarily converts from paganism, they were willing to accept the possibility of multiple deities without feeling the need to preserve the oneness of God.

The most famous Docetic was Marcion. Marcion, however, was apparently the disciple of one Cerdo (also known as Cerdon), who was later called the "founder of the Marcionite error." We know very little about Cerdo other than the fact that he was teaching in Rome in the 130s CE." According to his opponents, he taught that the God of the Old Testament was actually a different

God from the Father of Jesus revealed in the gospels." He said that the Old Testament God was a God of justice and punishment, but that the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ was a higher God, a God of love and mercy. In fact, Old Testament claims that the God of the Hebrews is the only God were presented as the prideful and ignorant boastings of a less than omniscient deity. Based on a literal interpretation of anthropomorphisms of God in the Old

'Testament, Cerdo had reasoned that the God described there could not be the true Supreme Being, but must be an inferior deity, or demiurge." 'This demiurge was the creator of the world, but that was precisely the problem. The material world was evil, or at least it included evil, which meant that this creator god was also the creator of evil (using Isaiah 45:7 as a proof text).*' It was said that Marcion embraced Cerdo's teaching because he was obsessed with the problem of evil, and Cerdo's theology provided a solution that made the God of the Old Testament responsible for evil while exonerating the "real" God whom Jesus revealed.'

Part of Marcion's motivation for rejecting the Old Testament may also have been a desire to distance himself from Judaism, following the second Jewish revolt and the fall of Jerusalem in 135 CE."

The Church in the Subapostolic Age After a time of study with Cerdo, Marcion became a teacher in his own right, gaining followers and teaching his own brand of docetism. According to early tradition Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, once met Marcion and called him to his face "the firstborn of Satan." None of Marcion's writings are extant; however, some fragments of his teaching are preserved in 'Tertullian's Against Marcion, which is our primary source for understanding his thought." Consistent with his teacher, Marcion taught that it was a mistake to associate Jesus with the messiah promised in the Old

Testament prophets. In reality (he taught), Jesus did not come as a representative of the God of the Old Testament, but came to rescue humanity from that God. The God who had created the world was keeping humanity imprisoned in the material realm (and in physical bodies) and Jesus came to free humans from this prison.

Jesus was not born as a baby nor did he grow up, but he appeared on earth as an adult shortly before his baptism.* He was not human, but was a spirit who never actually suffered on a cross.*

By about 140 CE, Marcion had published a list of the documents he thought should be included in the Christian canon.

Marcion's canon included only one gospel, the Gospel of Luke, but with significant edits. He removed all references to Jesus' birth (his version of Luke began with Luke 3:1) and also any references to Jesus' Father as Creator, or to Jesus as the fulfillment of Old

Testament prophecy. He included some portions of Paul's letters that did not make Jesus sound too human." The Old Testament itself, not surprisingly, was excluded completely. Because his canon was unacceptable to the majority of the bishops, it forced the Church to step up its efforts at coming to a consensus about which documents would be included in the Christian Bible, a topic that will be addressed in chapter 6 below.

Marcion was excommunicated from the church of Rome in 144 CE by Bishop Pius I (bishop of Rome 140-55 CE), at which point he seems to have separated from the Christian community and started a schismatic movement, in which his followers (the "Marcionites") continued his teaching until we lose track of them.*

Since Marcion's dualism led him to advocate a strict asceticism, including a requirement of celibacy for all members, their inability

Reading the Early Church Fathers to pass their beliefs on to second-generation members may have contributed to their eventual extinction.

Apparently, Marcion allowed up to three baptisms for believers, the result of a strict asceticism that was unrealistic in actual practice.

If one could not live up to the expectations of the group after the first baptism, up to two more baptisms were allowed. Also, because

Marcion's asceticism probably prohibited the drinking of wine, but more importantly because his docetism meant he did not believe

Jesus had any real blood, the Marcionites rejected the use of wine in their Eucharist. If they practiced a Eucharist at all, they used water only." Their docetism also led the Marcionites to believe that their members had transcended their sexuality (cf. Gal 3:28), so that it appears they allowed women to administer the sacraments, something that would have distinguished them from their mainstream counterparts. Finally, they seem to have followed a Platonic view of the afterlife that included reincarnation rather than resurrection."

This is, of course, consistent with the docetic rejection of the physical in favor of the spiritual. For the Marcionite, the goal of a blessed afterlife would be the freedom of the spirit from the body, like a snake shedding its skin. Whoever did not achieve this transcendence would be reincarnated into another body.

As I suggested above, docetism plus syncretism results in gnosticism; and the Gnostics created a blend of polytheism and Christianity that would take docetism even further than Marcion, eventually turning it into a whole new religion, complete with various systems of mythology and cosmology." Like earlier versions of docetism, Gnostics had no problem with the idea of multiple deities, but their dualism prevented them from believing that Christ could really be human. While all gnosticism was basically docetic, the hallmark of gnosticism (and the main difference from pre-gnostic versions of docetism) was a belief in secret knowledge (in Greek: gnosis)."

True gnosticism seems to begin with Menander (see Chart 1, The Gnostic Family Tree), who taught that salvation required learning secret knowledge, which was supposedly brought to earth by Jesus."* This knowledge included the revelation that the world was created by a lower order of deity, angelic beings known as aeons, and that the God of the Old Testament was simply one of these aeons."

The Church in the Subapostolic Age Carpocrates, who is sometimes called the "father of the Gnostics," also taught that the world was created by angels and that salvation would entail an escape from this world." Therefore, the way to realize one's potential was to despise the material world and even flaunt a disregard for its values and its taboos. In fact, the Carpocratians were said to end their meetings with orgies." They believed that the only way to end the cycle of reincarnation was to try everything that the physical world had to offer (and they did mean everything)." In this way one could disregard the material realm by "getting it out of one's system." Only when a person had had every possible earthly experience could he or she hope finally to transcend the material world.

Within gnosticism there were two main approaches to Christology. The first was a truly docetic Christology that envisioned Christ as purely spiritual, with no tangible body. Just as the Docetics of the first century had taught, the Marcionites and those

Gnostics who held this belief assumed a dualism that could not accept any real contact between the spiritual (pure good) and the material (inherently evil). Those who believed in a docetic Christ tended to advocate an ascetic lifestyle, probably because their extreme dualism led them to believe that the only valid response to the material world was to reject it completely. Gnostics who taught a docetic Christology included Menander, Saturninus, and some followers of Valentinus.

Saturninus, from Antioch in Syria, was the founder of a sect whose members were called Encratites.* The name Encratites comes from the word for "self-restraint" and referred to their ascetic lifestyle, which was influenced by Marcion." They were vegetarians and advocated celibacy for all members.'" Like the Marcionites, they only used water without wine in the Eucharist and they may have only used oil without water for baptism.'*' But unlike Marcion, they completely rejected Paul's letters as well as the Book of Acts, apparently believing that not enough in these documents was useful for promoting a docetic Christology.'" They were also called Severiani, after one of the disciples of Saturninus named Severus.'®

The other gnostic approach to Christology was, for lack of a better term, a "hybrid Christology," still based on an extreme dualism but allowing for some kind of tangible body of Jesus.

Reading the Early Church Fathers According to these Gnostics, Jesus was still not really human and his body was not really "material"; rather, it was described as an ethereal or "luminous" body. This seems to be a concession to account for elements in the gospel story that show Jesus as tangible. For some

Gnostics, this allowed them to admit that Jesus was born, grew up, and even appeared to die, though they did not all agree on whether his birth was a virginal birth or whether his death was something more than an illusion.'° Proponents of this hybrid Christology made a distinction between Jesus and "the Christ," allowing some aspects of a "bodily" existence for Jesus but not for "the Christ." In this way, they preserved "the Christ" as entirely docetic while avoiding having to explain away references to his body in the text of the gospels.

Specifically, "the Christ" was immutable and impassible, but Jesus was subject to change.'" Still, Jesus' "death" was not a passion, in the sense of a sacrifice that included real suffering, but was only meant to reveal his true, nonhuman self as he shed his body. This would have been understood as a lesson on the true nature of all humans, who were really spiritual beings trapped in material bodies.

A teacher named Cerinthus seems to have added the idea that it was the immutable Christ who descended on Jesus at his baptism but left him just before his death on the cross.' Cerinthus's

Christology would influence later Gnostics, including Basilides and Valentinus. Other Gnostics who also taught a hybrid Christology included Carpocrates and Apelles.

Basilides was from Alexandria, the ancient world's incubator of philosophy and gnosticism.'* Like the Carpocratians, Basilides taught that the only way to inner peace was by indulging all the desires of the flesh and leaving nothing unfulfilled. He seems to have expanded the early forms of gnosticism into a more complex cosmology that would in turn influence others to expand it even further. Basilides's system included the personification and deification of biblical and philosophical concepts or virtues, such as wisdom (Sophia) and mind (Nous).'" In fact, "the Christ" was understood as simply another name for the divine Nous. Basilides's followers celebrated the feast of Jesus' baptism, emphasizing this as the point at which the divine Nous, or "the Christ," descended to earth and entered into Jesus.!""

In addition to the concept that the world was created by

The Church in the Subapostolic Age angels, Basilides taught that there were 365 levels in the heavens, each one created by a different angel. The last angel was the God of the Old Testament, who created the lowest level of the universe, or the world as we know it. Salvation is an escape from the physical world (and from the prison of the body) and an ascent through the levels of the universe to the highest heaven.'" At each level of heaven, the angelic creator of that level would have to be appeased in order to pass and ascend to the next level. Basilides taught that "the Christ" (Nous) had come from the highest heaven to teach the secret knowledge (gnosis) that would allow the Gnostic to ascend past the angels and through the levels of heaven to reach the highest heaven.'" The secret knowledge was supposedly handed down from Christ through Matthias (cf. Acts 1:21-26), which was meant to explain why none of the mainstream Christian bishops knew about it.'' Their sect was organized like the mystery cults of the Roman Empire—secret societies with secret initiation rituals and protection of the essentials of the group from outsiders.'"

Basilides also taught that Christ had magically switched forms with Simon of Cyrene when Simon was conscripted to carry the cross, and that Christ stood by laughing while Simon was crucified in his place.'* This is apparently meant to protect Christ from the passion (and therefore from mutability); however, it is not entirely clear why Christ would laugh at Simon. It was probably a way of ridiculing the Pauline concept of atonement, which required a human body of Jesus on the cross. Since gnostic salvation was understood as an escape from the physical world, Gnostics rejected the concept of atonement as suffering or sacrifice. Jesus did not come to die for our sins, he came to bring the secret knowledge that would allow humanity to ascend to the highest heaven and transcend the physical realm. Unfortunately, the extant gnostic documents never actually say what the secret knowledge is, although immortality is promised to those to whom it is revealed.

Gnostic documents such as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas portray Jesus as a magician, not motivated by compassion for humanity (as in the canonical gospels) but with an arrogance and an attitude that only the illuminated elite were worthy of him. The good news is not heard as a public proclamation for all, but a secret revelation for the select few.' This elitism contributed to the even-

Reading the Early Church Fathers tual separation of the Gnostics from the mainstream Church, as they rejected and ridiculed the authority of those who led the Church (cf. 1 John 2:19)."" Gnostics in general believed that martyrdom was foolish, and the followers of Basilides would have said that this was because the martyrs were really only following in the footsteps of Simon of Cyrene and not those of Jesus.

Sethian gnosticism is the name given to a sect of Gnostics who believed that the real hero in the human story is Seth, the third son of Adam and Eve.' With some influence from Hebrew wisdom tradition, Sethian Gnostics accepted certain aspects of the Old

Testament as the story of a struggle between good and evil, with humanity caught in the middle as helpless hostages. To them the God of the Old Testament is not just inferior; he is evil and antagonistic toward his creation, including humanity. Good angels, the aeons, fight on behalf of the true Supreme Being (the God and Father of Jesus) against the demiurge's demons, or archons (cf.

"principalities," Rom 8:38). In their fall from grace in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve lost the original knowledge (gnosis). But the aeons restored this knowledge to Seth, who began the tradition of passing it down through the generations. The story of the flood is then interpreted as an attempt by the God of the Old Testament to wipe out humanity, except that a few are saved by the true Father

God and his aeons. Thus Seth is seen as the ancestor of the true Gnostics and Jesus was believed to be either a descendant or a reincarnation of Seth. Jesus' descent to earth is seen as a mission to rescue humanity from its Creator, and since the earth is the realm of evil, this descent is interpreted as a descent into Hades.'"

The most famous gnostic teacher is Valentinus. Probably from Alexandria, born around the turn of the second century (ca.

100 CE), he came to Rome in about 137 or 138. The height of his activity as a gnostic teacher was during the time that Pius I was bishop (140-55 CE).'° Valentinus taught a hybrid Christology and lived a libertine lifestyle, as did most of his followers. He seems to have left Rome for Cyprus in about 160 CE and probably died there around 175.

The followers of Valentinus did not call themselves Valentinians, they called themselves Spirituals."! Following an earlier trend, they believed that the true gyosis was meant only for a

The Church in the Subapostolic Age spiritual elite. Valentinus taught that there were three kinds of people: spiritual, soulish, and physical.'" The Spirituals believed that they were actually a higher order of being than the rest of humanity, each one a divine spark, but fallen and trapped in a body.' The gnosis, and therefore salvation, was meant for them.

The soulish were an intermediate level. There may be a lower form of salvation available to the soulish, but not the full ascent to the highest heaven, perhaps a version of reincarnation. The physical people had no hope of salvation. Their fate was to remain in the physical realm forever, probably on a never-ending cycle of reincarnation. This combination of fatalistic predestination and elitism meant that the Valentinian Gnostics saw themselves as the Spirituals, the non-gnostic Christians as the soulish, and the Jews and pagans as the purely physical people.

Valentinus expanded the gnostic cosmology to its furthest extent. He taught of a primordial heavenly realm, called the pleroma

(the "fullness"). Within this pleroma there were many aeons, one of whom was Sophia, who was the mother of the God of the Old

Testament.''* For Valentinus, the God of the Old Testament was at least incompetent and probably evil. Though there are multiple versions of the myth, the world was created either by mistake or as the result of an ill-fated attempt by Sophia to become a creator without the help of a divine male consort. The result of this premundane debacle was the creation of the physical world with all its imperfections. Another geon, also a son of Sophia, was Christ, who came down into the physical realm to unite with Jesus and pass along the secret knowledge so that the Spirituals could ascend back to the pleroma. This was based on the assumption that the Spirituals were originally sparks of the divine who had cooled and fallen from the pleroma, like cinders from a bonfire, and so salvation for them meant getting back to the highest heavenly realm from which they had come. The so-called Gospel of Truth may have been written by Valentinus himself.' This "gospel" tells us that salvation is knowledge and the only real sin is ignorance.' In fact, the true goal of the Gnostic is to know oneself (that is, that one is a divine spark), as if to say that knowledge of self is what liberates, or saves, one from ignorance.'"" The implication is that Christ is not unique in his divinity and that all Spirituals equally come from the pleroma and are des-

Reading the Early Church Fathers tined to return to it. The "good news" for them was that they are divine. Whatever relationship Jesus has with the true supreme God that he calls his Father, the Gnostic believed that he or she shared that same relationship and the same divine nature.'*

Valentinian gnosticism eventually split into two factions. The Western group (probably the majority) followed Valentinus's disciples Heracleon, Ptolemy (leader of the Ptolemaeans), and Apelles."" They remained true to Valentinus's hybrid Christology, teaching that there was a distinction to be made between "the Christ" and Jesus. Christ is pure divine spirit, impassible and intangible. Jesus had a body, though it was a "luminous" body and not truly human. Because of this, he could eat and drink but did not need to relieve himself. The Christ spirit united with Jesus at his baptism but left him before the crucifixion, so the connection between Christ and Jesus is only temporary and only for the purpose of his mission of passing on the secret knowledge."' Apelles explained that Christ had a cosmic body that was crucified, and thus he was able to show his wounds during his postresurrection appearances. However, his body dissolved back into the cosmic elements from which it was made before the ascension, since it could not ascend into heaven.'" The Eastern faction, on the other hand, followed Valentinus's disciples Theodotus, Marcus, Axionicus and Bardesanes, who moved toward a purely docetic Christology.

The two types of gnostic Christology, docetic and hybrid, led to two very different lifestyle responses. Those who taught a purely docetic Christ responded with an ascetic lifestyle. For them Christ had no real contact with the material world, and the believer's response should be to distance oneself from the physical as much as possible. Therefore, they tended to be ascetic, celibate, and even vegetarian. On the other hand, those who believed in a hybrid Christ tended to go to the opposite extreme from the ascetics and adopt a hedonistic approach to life and morality.'* They apparently believed that Jesus could have some contact with the material world and still transcend it. They further believed that they were already living a resurrected life and reasoned that since they transcended the physical realm, what they did with their bodies could not affect their souls, so they allowed themselves every indulgence.

The Church in the Subapostolic Age Following is a summary of general gnostic beliefs by the time that the Gnostics were separating from the mainstream Church:'*

¢ Belief in many deities, including various biblical and philosophical names, concepts, and virtues personified.

These deities were often expressed as male-female pairs who procreated, resulting in the creation of more deities.

Angels are also considered divine beings and are worshiped by some Gnostics.

¢ Evil is not the consequence of human sin, but is part of creation.

¢ The God of the Old Testament is not the Father that Christ preached.

¢ Salvation is not from sin, but from ignorance and from the material world.

¢ There is no atonement as the mainstream Church understood it; Christ did not come to offer forgiveness, but enlightenment.

¢ Salvation is an ascent back through the many levels of the universe to the highest heaven.

¢ Salvation is not a redemption of creation, but rescue from it.'

¢ Jesus' death (for those who believed he had "died") was not a substitution or a sacrifice, but simply a way of revealing his true, nonhuman self.

¢ Jesus' resurrection does not foreshadow the bodily resurrection of humans, but shows that the "spiritual" person, or Gnostic, is already resurrected. e A predestinarian caste system meant that only the spiritual person had a divine origin and could transcend this world and ascend to the highest heaven. o The soulish people were predestined to some lower order of salvation, the physical to eternal reincarnation. o The Spirituals are actually a divine spark (albeit fallen and embodied) and as such, they are no different in essence from Christ himself.'*°

Reading the Early Church Fathers * Gnostic Christology falls into two main types: o Docetic ¢ Christ is pure spirit, a phantom who only seemed to be human but was in no way tangible.

¢ Those who held to this type of Christology tended to follow an ascetic lifestyle. o Hybrid ¢ There is a distinction made between Jesus and "the Christ."

« "The Christ" is pure spirit, but Jesus had a "luminous," "ethereal," or "cosmic" body

(somewhat tangible, though not really human).

¢ "The Christ" united with Jesus at his baptism, but left him before his death on the cross.

¢ Those who held to this type of Christology tended to follow a hedonistic, or libertine, lifestyle.

To the outsider, perhaps the most obvious difference between mainstream Christianity and emerging gnosticism was that the Christians would tell you their good news and then invite you to join. The Gnostics would require you to join before telling you their secrets. As gnosticism separated from the Church, different gnostic groups wrote their own gospels to distinguish themselves from Christianity and to remove any mention of Jesus' humanity, or any connection with the Old Testament. In these gnostic writings Jesus does not suffer, and if he appears to die, it is all an illusion meant to teach us that our ultimate goal is to escape from this body, this world, and the one who created them. There are a wide variety of gnostic writings available today, and it is not our purpose to survey them all, but a sample of the best-known ones will suffice.

It is important to point out that these gnostic documents were never considered for inclusion in the New Testament. In spite of some popular accounts that wish to sensationalize the fringe and claim that the Catholic Church is hiding something from us, these are not "lost books of the Bible." They were written precisely because the communities that produced them were separating from the Church, so the last thing the Church would have ever done would be to include these documents in its canon. Thus it is clear

The Church in the Subapostolic Age that the ones that claim apostolic origin or authorship are pseudonymous."" Finally, when one reads these documents one has to keep in mind that often the version we have is from as late as the fourth century, and so it has gone through extensive revisions, and there is no way to know what was actually in these documents in their original versions in the subapostolic age.

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas The document is meant to supply the story of Jesus that is not in the New Testament gospels: it is the story of Jesus as a child.

This is, however, a story of a wizard child who does magic tricks to confound the adults in his life and who strikes other children dead when they do anything that bothers him. Yes, you read that right—

Jesus kills children in this story. This is a Jesus who is disrespectful of his teachers and even his parents. Some commentators charge the author(s) with anti-Semitism, since Jesus seems to have a disdain for Jewish teaching and tradition. This would be consistent with the docetic view of the Old Testament, and in fact, the Docetics and Gnostics tended to be more anti-Semitic than the mainstream writers.

There is a famous story in this document in which Jesus makes birds out of clay on the Sabbath. When he is confronted with the fact that he is doing work on the Sabbath, he tells the birds to come to life and fly away, and of course they do. On the surface, it may seem like a harmless, precious story of Jesus as a child; but the scene is part of the greater attitude of disrespect that Jesus shows toward elders in the document. Even more important, it is a picture of a docetic Jesus, who is not really human and in fact looks down on humans and treats them with disgust. It is far cry from the New 'Testament gospels that show how Jesus' miracles were motivated by compassion, and that they were all signs that taught an important lesson or pointed people to God.

The Gospel of Thomas The Gospel of Thomas is simply a list of supposed sayings of Jesus. There is no story to speak of, and not surprisingly it doesn't tell us anything about Jesus' life, especially that he was Jewish.

Reading the Early Church Fathers Since Gnostics did not believe in Jesus' humanity, the story of his life (if they thought he had one) is not important. Jesus is not presented as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, as he is in the New Testament gospels. There are some sayings similar to those we find in the New Testament, however, but often they are changed or twisted in ways that distort the meaning.

Like many Gnostics, the writer(s) of the Gospel of Thomas believed that the secret knowledge was for a select few. This only served to exacerbate the growing rift between the Gnostics and their non-gnostic coparishioners. It may be that the Gnostics separated themselves from the mainstream Church before they were asked to leave, but in any case, by the time this document was written there was already some division and rivalry between the mainstream bishops and the leaders of the gnostic factions. In fact, in the Gospel of Thomas Jesus makes a disdainful remark about "those who lead you." The apostles Peter and Matthew are presented in a negative light, but Thomas (the doubter) is held up as the apostle. In short, we can see that this is a document originally written during the time of separation from the Church.

In none of the gnostic writings are we ever actually told what the secret knowledge is. It has something to do with the realization of each person's divinity. It probably also has something to do with knowing the names of all the gods and angels in their elaborate mythology. There seems to be a sense in which the ascent to the pleroma would require appeasing the angelic gatekeepers at each of the levels of heaven. Perhaps knowing their names would function as a kind of password to get through the heavenly tollbooth. We will never know, because in the Gospel of Thomas, when the apostles ask Thomas to tell them what secrets Jesus told him, he responds with the second-century equivalent of, "I could tell you, but then

I'd have to kill you.""* The Gospel of Philip It seems that the Gnostics claimed to have their own version of apostolic succession. Just as the Gospel of Thomas was supposed to have come from the apostle Thomas, the Gospel of Philip was supposed to come from a tradition that goes back to Philip. Of course,

The Church in the Subapostolic Age the bishops of the Church knew that these documents had no connection to the apostles whatsoever, and in fact that is what sets them apart from the New Testament documents." Still, it is curious how in our own time some people have chosen to give more historical credence to the gnostic gospels than they do the canonical gospels. The Gospel of Philip is one such document that has gained popularity in recent years.

True to its gnostic agenda, the Gospel of Philip upholds four virtues: faith, hope, love, and knowledge. There is also a disturbing account of how Joseph the carpenter made the cross on which Jesus was hung. But this is all part of the gnostic attitude that the crucifixion is just a big joke. As mentioned above, in one version of the gnostic story Jesus dupes Simon of Cyrene into getting crucified in his place and stands by laughing.

The Gospel of Philip is the source of speculation about a relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. In the story it says that Jesus "kissed her on her..." and then there is a gap in the text.

How one fills in the blank will determine the extent of the relationship. Of course, even if it said something scandalous, there is no historical validity to this document.

There is one redeeming feature in the Gospel of Philip, an analogy that is used to encourage its readers to practice what they preach. The works of one's life are compared to the child of a woman who had an affair. Though she may proclaim to the world that she loves her husband, her baby will look like her lover. In the same way, we may proclaim our love for God, but if we secretly love anything other than God, our works will bear the resemblance of our true love.

Judaizers and Ebionites At the other extreme from the Docetics was a group known to us as the Judaizers. Just as the Docetics were Gentile (formerly pagan) Christians who were apparently comfortable retaining elements of paganism, the Judaizers were Jewish Christians who wanted to retain much of their Judaism. We can see them most clearly in Paul's Letter to the Galatians. The Judaizers advocated following the whole law and requiring Gentiles effectively to

Reading the Early Church Fathers become Jews in order to become Christians. They are famous for demanding circumcision of men who wanted to enter the Church.

Knowing that this would restrict his mission, Paul opposed this faction. He called them "certain men from James" (Gal 2:12). This does not imply that they had the approval of James, who was the leader of the church in Jerusalem; it only means that they came from Jerusalem. They may have been Pharisees, like Paul, who were converted to Christianity, but who did not see the law in a new light as Paul did (Acts 15:5). Paul calls them "false brothers"

(Gal 2:4) and said that they preached a different gospel, which was antithetical to the true gospel and which would not lead to salvation (Gal 1:6-9). Eventually, in about the year 50, a council was held in Jerusalem, the first council of the Church, in which it was decided that Gentile men would not be required to be circumcised in order to be baptized, nor would Christians have to follow the Jewish dietary laws (Acts 15:1-21).

While there is no direct evidence in the New Testament that the Judaizers denied Jesus' divinity or rejected the worship of Christ,' they would probably have understood Jesus as Messiah strictly in Old Testament terms. Since there is little or no hint of the divinity of Christ in the Old Testament messianic prophesies, ™! the Judaizers would have understood him as an anointed man but still a mere human, much like the judges, kings, and prophets of the Old Testament. Therefore, they would most likely have rejected the idea of a divine nature in Christ. Jesus would be seen as a messenger of God but not really the incarnation of God. Paul's response to this was to argue that believing in a Christ who was human only would be to put one's trust in the flesh, rather than in the spirit (Gal 3:1-5). In other words, the Judaizers (and possibly the Galatian Christians) were putting their trust for their salvation in the law (human effort) rather than in God's grace (divine intervention).

Paul's response to the Judaizers is similar to his response to the Docetics, in that he goes right to the cross. Paul is adamant that if one adds any requirements for salvation (such as following the law), one makes the cross insufficient and ineffective, and if that is the case then Christ died for nothing (Gal 2:21). Either the cross is enough for salvation, or it isn't. And if one needs to be circumcised,

The Church in the Subapostolic Age or follow dietary restrictions, then the cross is not enough. In fact,

Paul went further, saying that if you advocate following the whole law (circumcision), you are cutting yourself off from Christ (Gal

5:2—4, note the play on words with the concept of "cutting off').

What is most important for our purposes is that Paul emphasized the divinity of Christ against those who might diminish or deny it." We have already seen Colossians 2:9 in which we are told that the fullness of Deity dwells within him (cf. Heb 1:3-8). In addition to this, he affirms that Christ was present in the days of the Old

Testament and therefore preexisted his incarnation (1 Cor 10:4, cf.

1 Cor 8:6, John 1:1).'* This preexistence demonstrates that he is more than a mere human. His incarnation is then understood in terms of a descent from an exalted state to a state of humility (Gal

4:4, 2 Cor 8:9). Furthermore, his death was the ultimate humiliation, a sacrifice for our sin (Rom 8:3, 1 Cor 5:7-8, Phil 2:6-8).'*

However, Jesus was raised from death (restored to his rightful place, Phil 2:9-11) and in fact his resurrection will lead to our own (Rom

6:5-14, 1 Cor 15:16-28). All this strongly suggests that, at the very least, Jesus is not a mere human and that the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus were the result of divine intervention.

In the second century, the theological descendants of the Judaizers were the Ebionites.'* According to tradition, the Ebionites were born out of the Jerusalem church after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, when the Temple was destroyed and the sacrifices discontinued.'" They called themselves "Ebionites" (which means the "poor ones") to emphasize the supposed poverty of Jesus and their belief that they were following in his footsteps.'" Just as the Judaizers were Jewish Christians who wanted to maintain a strictly Jewish understanding of Jesus as prophet-messiah, the Ebionites were also predominantly Jewish Christians who emphasized the law and who saw Jesus as an anointed human whose mission it was to show the way to perfect obedience. Philosophically, the Ebionites were also concerned to safeguard the immutability of God by rejecting the divinity of Christ.'* In other words, the Ebionites could not reconcile the obvious human changes that Jesus experienced (Luke 2:40) with their assumption of divine immutability, so they reasoned that there could be no divine nature in Jesus.

Reading the Early Church Fathers The earliest teacher on record who was an Ebionite is known to us as Theodotus the Elder (also known as Theodotus the Tanner or Theodotus the Cobbler/Shoemaker).'" He was excommunicated from the church at Rome by Bishop Victor (bishop of Rome from 189 to 199 CE), on the charge that he was teaching that Christ was a mere human.'" A disciple of Theodotus the Elder was another Theodotus, called the Younger (or Theodotus the Banker),'' and his disciples called: themselves Melchizedekians, teaching that Christ was subject to a higher priest, the Melchizedek of Genesis 14 (cf. Heb 5—7).'"

In the primary sources written by their opponents, the term Ebionite eventually came to be used as a catchall for any Christology that emphasized the humanity of Christ to the exclusion of the divine nature. There were apparently two main forms of this

Christology: spirit Christology, which emphasized the role of the Holy Spirit as empowering the man Jesus, and which seems to have been the point of view of the majority of Ebionites; and angel

Christology, which speculated that it was an angel, or archangel, that indwelt Jesus.'® The Ebionites used a version of Matthew's Gospel, possibly in Hebrew or Aramaic but edited to exclude any reference to the divinity of Jesus and probably also without the story of his miraculous birth.'* Although some (angel Christology) did seem to accept a version of the virgin birth, most Ebionites believed that Jesus was born naturally from Mary and Joseph.'® They may have had their own versions of the birth narrative, but interpreted the "virgin" of Isaiah 7:14 to mean simply "young woman."'® They may also have had their own written gospels that no longer exist, but which would have presented Jesus as a prophet and emphasized following the Jewish law.'"

For the Ebionites, Jesus was an ordinary man who achieved extraordinary status through personal discipline and righteousness.'* Because he was perfectly obedient to God and fulfilled the whole law, he was rewarded with God's anointing at his baptism and with a spiritual indwelling.'" The baptism of Christ was seen as the moment of his adoption by God, probably based on the way

Jewish proselyte baptism was understood as effecting an adoption into the family of Abraham.'® When he is called God's "beloved

The Church in the Subapostolic Age son" at his baptism, that is actually the moment at which Jesus became a son of God. Therefore, to the Ebionites, Jesus is not the Son of God, but a son of God by adoption. What is more, he is not the Christ, but rather a christ, having earned the anointing and the title by perfectly obeying the law. This is another reason why most

Ebionites were not normally interested in the gospel accounts of Jesus' birth. It was not until his baptism that he arrives at his

(adopted) sonship.'' Therefore, the Ebionite view of Christ, along with successive versions in the third and fourth centuries, is generally called adoptionism.

Ebionites believed that at Jesus' adoption he received the Holy Spirit, implying that he did not have the Holy Spirit before that time.'* In general, the Ebionites envisioned a Jesus who was anointed and indwelt by a preexistent Holy Spirit (or by the Logos, of day. "the Christ,"

-er/ by fan jangelp in ;thegease sof angel Christology).'® The indwelling Spirit was understood to be a created being, however, and this indwelling was only temporary. The Spirit indwelt Jesus from-the time of his baptism (or conception, as in the case of angel Christology) until the cross, when Jesus was left alone (their interpretation of Matthew 27:46).

Since Jesus was seen as an ordinary human who earned divine adoption by achieving righteousness, the Ebionites reasoned that any human could follow his example and achieve the same status— in fact, salvation would require it.'* The mainstream critique of this Christology was that, in essence, Jesus required adoption in order to receive salvation himself, and if we want to receive salvation, we would have to follow his example and earn our adoption through perfect righteousness.'*® Rather than saying, as the Catholic Church did, that we are adopted sons and daughters of God, but that Jesus is the "natural" Son of God (the Son of God by nature), the Ebionites' claim was that Christ is not ontologically different from the rest of humanity. This places Christ on the receiving end of grace, just as created humanity. He was adopted, just as we might be, so therefore his uniqueness among humanity is only as a pioneer, not as a divine giver of grace.'" He received the Holy Spirit; he does not give the Holy Spirit. He was elevated by his indwelling; he did not descend to an incarnation. It should come as no surprise then, that the Ebionites rejected the letters of

Reading the Early Church Fathers Paul, who emphasized grace over the law against their predecessors the Judaizers.'" They preferred to hold up as the true apostles those who were considered to be Jesus' blood relatives. This was probably due to the Judaizers' connection with the Jerusalem church where James, the "brother of the Lord," was a leader. In any case, it began a tradition of speculation about the descendants of Jesus' family that sometimes continues to this day.

Because Jesus was considered. to be a mere human, the Ebionites tended to see resurrection as simply a metaphor for eternal life. Jesus was "raised" only in the sense that he transcended this earthly life after his physical death. Since the Ebionites also did not believe that the blood of Jesus held any saving significance, they

(ironically, just like the Docetics) rejected the use of wine in the Eucharist, using water only.'* This practice would come to be called aquarianism.

Apart from a few possible fragments, we have no documents that we can identify with certainty as the products of the Ebionites; however, there are some that seem to have been favored by them. These include the later Clementine Homilies and possibly The Shepherd by Hermas. There is also a group of documents called the apocryphal acts that seem to have been used by heretics on both extremes, but they fit well within the context of the Ebionites' legalism.'

Apocryphal Acts The apocryphal acts claim to be the stories of certain apostles and their missions after the ascension of Jesus. They combine traditional material about the lives of the apostles with legend and outright fiction. In reality, they tend to be documents of propaganda, promoting an agenda of extreme asceticism. Like Tatian, these authors believed that all sin ultimately comes from lust, and therefore many of the apocryphal acts advocated celibacy for all

Christians, even going to the extreme of supposing that conversion to Christianity must mean a rejection of marriage.

A common theme in the apocryphal acts is the conversion of a wealthy woman by the apostle's preaching. But the problem is that the woman is either married or engaged. In converting to Christianity she rejects her husband or fiancé, who (understand-

The Church in the Subapostolic Age ably) becomes upset. The husband or fiancé conspires with local authorities to persecute the apostle, who flees, leaving the newly converted noblewoman to endure humiliation, risking torture and even execution. Therefore, the real heroes of these stories are not the apostles, but the women. The stories were probably popular with women at the time because they were stories of women who found a way to have some personal power and reject the lordship of a man. So even though the woman in the story suffers, she is portrayed as having preserved her nobility and her integrity by rejecting the advances of men.

The apocryphal acts present the world as a battleground.

Spiritual warfare rages all around, and the pagan idols, far from being benign blocks of wood and stone, are actually demons. These demons will attack if opposed, and the only way to gain power over them is through self-control, which means a rejection of lust and the suppression of sexual desire. If one is chaste, then the sign of the cross will overcome the demons. This worldview leads the authors of the apocryphal acts to present a radical separation from society as the only valid form of Christianity. As is the case with the gnostic writings, there are many apocryphal acts; however, a few of the more well known will suffice as examples.

The Acts of Paul and Thecla The Acts of Paul and Thecla is probably the most famous of the apocryphal acts. It is originally part of a larger document called the Acts of Paul. In the story, however, the real hero is not Paul, but Thecla, a woman who is converted when Paul preaches "the word of God about self-control." This is the good news that Paul preaches, a salvation by asceticism. In the story, Paul has his own version of the Beatitudes: "Blessed are they that have wives as not having them." Therefore, baptism is only for those who are ready to be celibate, and the resurrection is only for those who can keep themselves chaste. At first, Paul does not think Thecla is ready for baptism, so when she becomes separated from Paul, she baptizes herself (though not with the correct formula).

There were apparently some in the early Church who used this document as evidence in favor of allowing women to be priests,

Reading the Early Church Fathers since Thecla performed a baptism (her own). Tertullian argued against this interpretation by discrediting the document's authorship, saying that it was written by an Eastern priest who was removed from his office for having forged the document.'" The end result was that the use of this document backfired on the proponents of female priesthood, since it would ultimately be argued that only heretics allowed women to baptize.

As the story continues, Thecla is persecuted but survives the attempts on her life. She becomes a hermit and lives out her years in a cave, and when she dies, her body is taken to Rome to be buried near Paul. In one version of the story, some men come to her cave to try to rape her, but she escapes, leaving behind her veil.

This veil then becomes a relic. There is also an interesting hint at an early expression of the belief in purgatory, when a woman who befriends Thecla asks her to pray for her dead daughter."

Devotion to Thecla as a saint grew, including pilgrimages to the supposed site of her cave. Today, some still consider her a saint.

The Acts of Thomas In this story, Thomas does not want to go to India, so the risen

Jesus appears and sells Thomas as a slave to someone who happens to be going to India. Thomas then preaches the message that Jesus has sent him to preach, which amounts to the conviction that following Jesus means leaving one's spouse. Marriage is described as "filthy intercourse" and the opposite of holiness. In one scene we find out that sexual intercourse prevents one from receiving the Eucharist, as a certain man's "lust" causes his hands to wither when he touches the consecrated bread. The man's hands were then healed with what appears to be one of the earliest references to holy water.'" The point of the story seems to be that all sex is sinful, and as such, it corrupts the Eucharist and must be kept apart from it.

This is interesting because one of the earliest justifications for a celibate clergy in the Western church was the belief that one had to abstain from sexual intercourse for twenty-four hours before receiving the Eucharist. Since a priest says Mass every day, he must be on a permanent fast from sex and therefore cannot be married.

Even within marriage, sexual intercourse is presented as unac-

The Church in the Subapostolic Age ceptable for Christians, and while the mainstream Church said that procreation was a legitimate reason to have sex, the Acts of Thomas describes children as a nuisance and not worth the trouble, as if to try to talk its readers out of wanting to have children. Perhaps in a world where infant mortality was high and death in childbirth significantly lowered the average life expectancy of women, this was meant as a justification for choosing not to have children. Still, it is not the procreation but the sexual intercourse that is the problem.

In one scene there is an interesting vision of hell, one of the earliest to include all the traditional elements, such as caverns, fire, sulfur, smoke, and stench—and yet there is a special place in hell for people who had a physical marriage.

The story includes the martyrdom of Thomas, who is taken up to a mountaintop and killed with a spear. Later, the king who had him killed goes up to the mountain to try to find Thomas's bones, hoping to use them to cure his son who is ill. Thomas appears to the king and rebukes him for not believing him while he was alive. In any case, the bones are not there; they had been taken to the West by Thomas's disciples. Today, pilgrims to the church of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme in Rome can see the relic of Thomas's finger bone, presumably the very finger that touched the wounds of Jesus.

The Acts of Peter The Acts of Peter is worth reading for one story, made famous by the classic film, Quo Vadis (1951). In this account, Peter has been talked into leaving Rome to avoid the persecution of the emperor

Nero. He is walking out of Rome along the Appian Way when he sees the risen Jesus coming toward him, heading into Rome. As Jesus approaches, Peter asks, Quo vadis, Domine? (Where are you going, Lord?). Jesus replies that he is going to Rome to be crucified again. By this, Peter knew that it was his destiny to return to Rome where he would be martyred by crucifixion. To this day, there is a small church on the Appian Way at the site where Peter's vision of Jesus is supposed to have taken place. The place where

Jesus stood is marked by marble footprints.

Reading the Early Church Fathers The Orthodox Middle Against the two extremes of Docetics and Gnostics on the one hand, and Ebionites on the other, the mainstream writers of the subapostolic age argued for both the humanity and the divinity of Christ.'" One could not emphasize one and diminish the other; one had to accept both (see Table 1, Christology and Theology in the Subapostolic Age). They believed that anything else would not be a faithful witness to the teaching of the apostles. As I have indicated, the writers of the second century, many of them philosophers, explained the person of Christ in terms of the Logos, the Word of God, and therefore their understanding of Christ is generally called

Logos Christology.

While the two natures of Christ presented something of a paradox for the Church, the apologists were convinced that both extremes of Docetic/Gnostic and Ebionite were each in their own way an unfaithful interpretation of the person of Christ. Against the Docetics and Gnostics, they emphasized the humanity of Jesus.

They argued that his real humanity was proven by his birth as a baby and especially by his suffering and death.'* And while we might expect them to claim that the resurrection of Jesus proves his divinity, they actually used it as a proof of his humanity, since he was raised with a body that could eat and be touched.'" There was an assumption, though not yet articulated well, that in order to be the savior of humanity, Christ had to be human. Clement of Alexandria called him the champion of humanity, reminiscent of the ancient practice of representative warfare, by which one person could fight for the whole army (as in the story of David and Goliath). In this case, Christ is the champion who fights for the human race. He achieves victory through death and in the end wins our salvation. Therefore, to deny the flesh (humanity) of Christ is to deny Christ.!"° Against the Ebionites, the apologists emphasized the divinity of Christ. They believed he must be divine; otherwise he could not be a savior, since salvation required divine intervention.'" They maintained that the person of Jesus is the preexistent Logos of God and the agent of creation.'* When God said, "Let there be light..." that was the Father creating by his Word. When God said, "Let us

The Church in the Subapostolic Age make humanity in ovr image," that was the Father speaking to his

Logos. '" Christ can be seen in the Old Testament, whenever God is said to be visible." The Logos was the inspiration of the prophets."*! His miraculous virgin birth also demonstrates his divinity.'"

In fact, the Son is equal in divinity to the Father.'® The apologists of the second century established the orthodoxy of the two natures of Christ, which of course was consistent with the apostolic documents that would become the New Testament. Melito of Sardis summed it up: "He was buried as a human, he rose from the dead as God."'* But the apologists did not yet have a well-defined concept of the Holy Spirit, and in fact often confused the Holy Spirit with the preincarnate Christ.''® Therefore, a fully developed doctrine of the Trinity would have to wait until the third century. In fact, there are two documents that seem to represent mainstream responses to the extremes but that demonstrate how the state of theological debate was in flux. Since these documents work so hard to refute one extreme, they waffle back and forth, sometimes making concessions to the position they argue against, sometimes leaning a bit toward the opposite extreme.

The Letter of the Apostles More often known by its Latin name, Epistula Apostolorum, this is not a letter from any of the original apostles but a secondcentury response against gnosticism. It was written some time after 135 CE but before the 180s, since in it Jesus tells the apostles he is returning in 150 years. It contains numerous historical errors, including mistaking Cephas (the Aramaic version of Peter's name) for another apostle beside Peter. Interestingly, though, the document locates the place of the Skull (Golgotha) as the place of Jesus' burial. The gospels say only that Golgotha was the place of the crucifixion, but this document corresponds with the tradition that locates Golgotha as the general area of both the crucifixion and the tomb of Christ. This location is now the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem.

The Epistula was clearly written to emphasize Jesus' humanity against gnostic docetism. Jesus is born as a baby and is raised in the flesh. After the resurrection, his feet make footprints and the

Reading the Early Church Fathers disciples touch his body. In this account, Peter, not Thomas, touches his wounds. On the other hand, at times Jesus sounds more like the Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas than the Jesus of the New

Testament gospels.

The Protevangelion of James The word protevangelion is like saying the "pregospel." This is the story before the story, and it details not only the birth of Jesus but the birth of Mary as well. It claims to be by James, the half brother of Jesus, but was probably actually written in the second century to emphasize the divinity of Jesus against the Ebionites. In the process, however, it makes Jesus' birth sound so divine that he ends up seeming almost docetic.

In this document we find a precursor to the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary. Probably to highlight Jesus' own divinity, his mother Mary is also born under miraculous circumstances. We are also told that the brothers and sisters of Jesus in the gospels are actually the children of Joseph from a previous marriage. Mary remains a virgin after the birth of Jesus, not only because she remains celibate but because Jesus' miraculous birth left her physically as though she had never been pregnant. Thus the document takes the mainstream belief in a miraculous conception of Jesus and expands it to include his actual birth.

Finally, there is another interesting connection to the tradition of Christian holy sites. To the Western mind, when we read in the New Testament that Jesus was laid in a manger because there was no room in the inn, we usually picture a freestanding wooden stable or similar structure. According to the Protevangelion, however, Jesus was born in a cave. The Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem is built over a cave, where early tradition tells us our Savior came into the world.'*

FROM APOLOGY TO THEOLOGY

With the last decades of the second century we come to the end of an era. We leave the subapostolic age and make the transition from Christian apology to Christian theology. Another way to look at it is that apologetics have shifted from an external focus (trying to con-

The Church in the Subapostolic Age vince non-Christians of the validity of Christianity) to an internal focus (warning Christians against heresy). This internal apologetic blossoms into real theology as the emergence of heresies on the fringes of the Church force the mainstream bishops and theologians to define more clearly what correct belief is. In doing so, the theologians turn away from philosophy and turn to the scriptures as the source of authority for supporting their interpretations.

In addition, persecution also forced the Church to turn inward. Throughout the second century the world became increasingly hostile to the Church, which caused it to "circle the wagons."

Three documents remain to be mentioned before we turn to the theologians. They are martyr documents that chronicle the deaths of three groups of Christians in the last decades of the second century and at the turn of the third century, and they highlight just how precarious the situation had become.

The Martyrs of Lyons and Viennes During the persecution under the reign of Marcus Aurelius, public sentiment against the Christians in Gaul (modern France) led to violence. The year was 177 CE. Polycarp had sent the priest

Irenaeus to Lyons to assist Bishop Pothinus. While Irenaeus was away in Rome speaking on behalf of the Montanists, an angry mob, fearing the loss of their religion if too many people should convert to Christianity, took up arms and killed a group of Christians, desecrating their bodies and then refusing them burial (cf. Rev

11:8-10). By this time everything from failed crops to natural disasters could be blamed on the Christians, who were now a fair target for public rage. In some places it could be dangerous for Christians even to go about in public. Church leaders were, of course, a target, and Bishop Pothinus was murdered. When

Irenaeus returned to Lyons, he found that his bishop was dead and that he had been elected the new bishop. It is possible that Irenaeus himself wrote the account of the martyrs of Lyons and Viennes. It is certain that the event must have affected him, contributing to his skepticism of Roman virtue, reason, and philosophy.

In this martyr document we meet the heroic Blandina. She is typical of many of the female martyrs in that she meets her death

Reading the Early Church Fathers with courage and dignity. She becomes the very image of Christian virtue, shaming the so-called virtue of the Romans. The interesting thing about this is that in both Greek and Latin, some words for virtue are based on the same roots as words for "strength" and "man," which betrays the Roman bias that to be truly "virtuous," one must be a man.'*' Yet in these martyr documents we see

Christian women who exhibit a strength that puts Roman men to shame.'®* It almost seems as though these women are granted a charismatic gift of "manliness" to meet death with courage; however, there is more to it than that. On one hand, the point is to hint again at the apologists' argument that Christians are more virtuous than non-Christian Romans, as if to say, "Our women are stronger than your men." On the other hand, as the apostle Paul said,

"',.there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28). Therefore, it is not that these heroic women are turned into men, but that when it comes time to face death, men and women are equal as Christians. At first glance, some of this might seem similar to the stories of heroic women in the apocryphal acts. In the more mainstream martyr documents, however, their power to face death comes not from celibacy or selfcontrol, but from their faith and, ultimately, from Christ himself.

The Scillitan Martyrs This document tells the story of the martyrdom of a group of Christians from North Africa who died in Carthage on July 17, 180

CE. This was not long after the death of Marcus Aurelius, so their deaths would still be seen as justified under his edict. For our purposes it is enough to note just how far the persecution has come, and how bold the pagan mob could be in disposing of their

Christian neighbors.

The Diary of Perpetua Carthage in North Africa would also be the scene of the famous martyrdoms of Perpetua and Felicitas, which took place on March 7, 203 CE. Vibia Perpetua was a young aristocratic woman who was in catechesis preparing for Christian baptism when she, along with her servant Felicitas (sometimes translated "Felicity")

The Church in the Subapostolic Age and other members of her catechetical class were arrested. By this time, the right of a Roman citizen to a trial in Rome was gone.

While in prison awaiting her execution, Perpetua kept a diary, which was later finished to include the account of her death and published, perhaps by Tertullian.'" The diary is a very personal and poignant account of Perpetua's faith and her own father's attempts to convince her to denounce the faith for the sake of her newborn baby.'" Like Blandina, Perpetua is given strength and courage from Christ to meet her death in the arena.

The account of Perpetua's martyrdom, which includes her dreams and her experience in the arena, is interesting for several reasons. In some ways, it uses apocalyptic imagery, much like the Book of Revelation, to reinforce the idea that martyrdom is a victory over Satan. At one point, in a vision, in order to climb the ladder to heaven, Perpetua must step on the head of a dragon (cf. Gen

3:15, Rev 12:1-6). The fact that Perpetua is a new mother symbolizes that martyrdom is both a birth, in the sense that the martyr is born to eternal life, and it is also a mother, in the sense that the Church is born through martyrdom."

We look back on Polycarp, who followed in the footsteps of Jesus himself, and of Stephen, when he prayed for the forgiveness of his killers. But when we come to the beginning of the third century, one of Perpetua's classmates will gesture to the crowd in the arena, as if to say, What you do to us, God will do to you! It is no wonder, then, that the stance of the Church shifted from Christians ministering to the world to clergy ministering to laity, and that its focus would shift from outward to inward. The Church was wounded, and it had barely even begun the task of defining its own identity.

↑ Back to top