bearing blog

Part five in a series.

Today I’m looking at Aristides, a.k.a. Aristides the Philosopher. 

We have a work by him called Apology, presented to the emperor in 126 or 136 AD.  So far, it is my favorite of this series, for two reasons. 

First, the structure is so crisp, you could turn it into a Power Point presentation:

Thesis:  There are three classes of men:  polytheists, Jews, and Christians.  Which are correct?

I.  Polytheists.

  A.  Chaldeans are silly. 
             1.They make idols that they have to guard for fear of them being stolen by robbers.
             2. They think the sky is a god.  It is not (cf. stars.)
             3.  They think the earth is a goddess.  It is not.
                         a. Men use it.
                         b. Burn it and it can’t grow stuff.
                         c. People walk on it and bury corpses in it.
             4.  They think water is a god.  It is not.
                           a. Men defile it.
                           b. It freezes in cold weather
                           c. We wash unclean stuff in it.
            5.  They think fire is a god.  It is not.
                            a. Men control it and carry it around.
                            b. Men roast meat and burn corpses with it.
                            c. Men can put it out.
   

etc….
 

Second, it’s full of sarcasm.  About the Greeks he says,

Along with [Zeus], too, they bring forward one Hephaistos as a god, and they say that he is lame and wields a hammer and tongs, working as a smith for his living.

Is he then badly off? But it cannot be admitted that a god should be a cripple, and besides be dependent on mankind.

Then they bring forward Hermes as a god, representing him to be lustful, and a thief, and covetous, and a magician (and maimed) and an interpreter of language. But it cannot be admitted that such an one is a god.

They also bring forward Asklepios as a god who is a doctor and prepares drugs and compounds plasters for the sake of a living. For he was badly off. And afterwards he was struck, they say, with a thunderbolt by Zeus on account of Tyndareos, son of Lacedaimon; and so was killed. Now if Asklepios in spite of his divinity could not help himself when struck by lightning, how will he come to the rescue of others?

About the polytheists in general he says,

And I wonder how they saw their gods sawn out and hacked and docked by the workmen, and besides aging with time and falling to pieces, and being cast from metal, and yet did not discern concerning them that they were not gods.

For when they have no power to see to their own safety, how will they take forethought for men?

Moving forward to the Christians, Aristides gives us a sort of definition of the word and a description of their activities. It is lovely, so I’ll post most of it here:

Now the Christians trace their origin from the Lord Jesus Christ. And He is acknowledged by the Holy Spirit to be the son of the most high God, who came down from heaven for the salvation of men.

And being born of a pure virgin, unbegotten and immaculate, He assumed flesh and revealed himself among men that He might recall them to Himself from their wander-lug after many gods. And having accomplished His wonderful dispensation, by a voluntary choice He tasted death on the cross, fulfilling an august dispensation. And after three days He came to life again and ascended into heaven.

And if you would read, O King, you may judge the glory of His presence from the holy gospel writing, as it is called among themselves. He had twelve disciples, who after His ascension to heaven went forth into the provinces of the whole world, and declared His greatness. As for instance, one of them traversed the countries about us, proclaiming the doctrine of the truth. From this it is, that they who still observe the righteousness enjoined by their preaching are called Christians.

And these are they who more than all the nations on the earth have found the truth. For they know God, the Creator and Fashioner of all things through the only-begotten Son and the Holy Spirit; and beside Him they worship no other God.

They have the commands of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself graven upon their hearts; and they observe them, looking forward to the resurrection of the dead and life in the world to come.

They do not commit adultery nor fornication, nor bear false witness, nor covet the things of others;

they honour father and mother, and love their neighbours;

they judge justly, and they never do to others what they would not wish to happen to themselves;

they appeal to those who injure them, and try to win them as friends;

they are eager to do good to their enemies;

they are gentle and easy to be entreated;

they abstain from all unlawful conversation and from all impurity;

they despise not the widow, nor oppress the orphan;

and he that has, gives ungrudgingly for the maintenance of him who has not.

If they see a stranger, they take him under their roof, and rejoice over him as over a very brother; for they call themselves brethren not after the flesh but after the spirit.

And they are ready to sacrifice their lives for the sake of Christ; for they observe His commands without swerving, and live holy and just lives, as the Lord God enjoined upon them.

And they give thanks unto Him every hour, for all meat and drink and other blessings.

Verily then, this is the way of the truth which leads those who travel therein to the everlasting kingdom promised through Christ in the life to come.

Nice work, isn’t it?  Makes Christians sound like you’d like to have them for neighbors instead of lion food.

Fourth post in a series on the early Christians. 

It might be instructive to post a timeline.  I gathered most of this information from Encyclopedia.com — not really an authoritative source, but it was nice and searchable.   All dates are, of course, A. D.  Let’s just take it up to the fourth century or so:

• Clement of Rome                                 d. 97
• Ignatius of Antioch                            d. 107
• Papias                                                      c. 130
• Aristides                                                  d. 126 or 136
• The Didache                                          written between 50 and 150
• Polycarp                                                 70-156
• The Shepherd of Hermas                 written between 139 and 155
• Justin Martyr                                       100-165
• Athenagoras                                         2nd c.
• Minucius Felix                                     2nd c.
• Tatian                                                       2nd c.
• Theophilus of Antioch                      2nd c.
• Irenaeus of Lyons                               125-202
• Clement of Alexandria                     d. 215
• Tertullian                                               160-230
• Hippolytus                                             d. 236
• Novatian                                                 c. 250
• Cornelius I                                             d. 253
• Origen                                                      185-254
• Cyprian                                                    200-258
• Dionysius of Alexandria                   190-265
• Arnobius                                                 d. 330
• Eusebius of Caesarea                          263-339

This brings us up approximately to the time of the First Ecumenical Council of the Church, held at Nicaea in 325.  Accordingly the writers listed above, except perhaps the last two, may be called the ante-Nicene Fathers.  This council, of course, is the one in which the following Creed was agreed to contain the ancient faith of the Apostles:

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible;

and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance [ek tes ousias] of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father [homoousion to patri], through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth;

who for us men and our salvation descended, was incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the dead.

And in the Holy Ghost.

Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made our of nothing (ex ouk onton); or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than the Father], or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change, [them] the Catholic Church anathematizes.

A form of the above with slightly altered language is today’s Nicene Creed. 

Some of the most famous early Christian writers, of course, flourished after this time (and are styled the post-Nicene Fathers).   Augustine, for example, the earliest Christian writer (not counting the New Testament) that I was familiar with before beginning this series, didn’t write until the 390’s.

Third in a series on the writings of the early Christians.

Today we look at Papias.  The writings of Papias survive only as material quoted by two later Christian writers:  Irenaeus of Lyons (125-202), who tells us that Papias wrote a five-volume work; and Eusebius of Caesarea (263-339).   We call this lost work The Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord.  It was in existence already by the year 130 and was lost except for the quoted fragments sometime after Eusebius wrote his Ecclesiastical History.

In today’s excerpt, Papias says he is one degree of separation removed from the Apostles.  He preferred tales told of what the Apostles themselves said to things written in books:

If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings, — what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord’s disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.

I love that phrase, "the living and abiding voice."  It reminds me of something Paul wrote.  It comes out beautifully in the King James Version: 

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle" (2 Thess 2:15). 

"Epistle:" books.  "Word:" sayings, oral stories:  the living and abiding voice.  Though Paul does advise Christians to heed both word and epistle, the oral tradition is closest to Papias’s heart.

This is Part 2 in a series on the writings of the early Christians.  Click here for the whole series.

Today I’m going to highlight an excerpt from the writings of Ignatius of Antioch.  Ignatius died around the year 107 A.D., making him one of the earliest Christians whose authenticated writings — mostly in the form of epistles, or letters, to various churches — became part of the historical record.  (Clement of Rome, about whom I wrote last time, died in 97 A.D.) 

Ignatius is thought to have personally known John the Evangelist.  He was martyred in the Roman amphitheater. 

Today’s selection is from the Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans.  It’s nice and short:  an easy read.    After the greeting, Ignatius opens with a concise creed that I like very much:

For I have observed that ye are perfected in an immoveable faith, as if ye were nailed to the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, both in the flesh and in the spirit, and are established in love through the blood of Christ, being fully persuaded with respect to our Lord, that He was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh, and the Son of God according to the will and power of God; that He was truly born of a virgin, was baptized by John, in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him; and was truly, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed [to the cross] for us in His flesh. Of this fruit we are by His divinely-blessed passion, that He might set up a standard s for all ages, through His resurrection, to all His holy and faithful [followers], whether among Jews or Gentiles, in the one body of His Church.

Now, He suffered all these things for our sakes, that we might be saved. And He suffered truly, even as also He truly raised up Himself, not, as certain unbelievers maintain, that He only seemed to suffer, as they themselves only seem to be [Christians]. And as they believe, so shall it happen unto them, when they shall be divested of their bodies, and be mere evil spirits.

For I know that after His resurrection also He was still possessed of flesh, and I believe that He is so now….

He really hits all the main points there, doesn’t he?  Jesus Christ, Son of God, born of a virgin, baptized by John, crucified, suffered, resurrected.  He leaves out "died," but it’s pretty firmly implied. 

The "unbelievers" referred to are the Docetics.  A large part of the letter is a condemnation of Docetism, a heresy which maintains that Jesus Christ did not really have a human body and did not really suffer, but only appeared to do so.

This letter contains an important piece of historical evidence regarding the doctrine of transubstantiation — that the Eucharist, i.e. the communion host and the contents of the communion cup, is truly and substantially the flesh of Christ.  A number of influential Protestant writers claim that this belief was not held by the early Christians.  A prominent example is L. Boettner’s Roman Catholicism; in this widely cited work, Boettner lists the doctrine of transubstantiation among "Catholic Inventions" and dates it to the year 1215. 

But the primary sources tell a different story.  Of the Docetics, Ignatius writes:

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.

That makes it pretty plain that Ignatius, along with the rest of the early Christians, firmly confessed that the Eucharist (holy Communion) is the real flesh of Christ.   If not, he would not have used the Docetics’ disbelief in this doctrine as an argument against them.

I hope to write more on this letter later.  Here is one tidbit that I think is neat:

Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

Ignatius of Antioch is the first writer known to have used the term "Catholic Church."  So next time you hear someone say, as I heard once in an ecumenical Bible study, Back in the early Church, there was no such thing as "Catholics" or "Protestants"  — you can tell him that he is half right. 

This is the first post in a series on the writings of the early Christians, sometimes called the Church Fathers. I’ve long regretted that I have not read very many of them, with the exception of Augustine. Here’s to hoping that writing about them encourages me to read more of their works, which are available online from many sources.

Today I’m looking at Clement of Rome. His First Epistle to the Corinthians is one of the earliest authenticated documents produced by early Christians. In fact, some considered it canonical — that is, some thought it should be included in the New Testament. Clement died around 97 AD, less than seventy years after the Crucifixion.

Among other topics in the First Epistle, Clement addresses the importance of faith and good works. Clement and his contemporaries maintain that we are justified not by our own works, but by faith; at the same time he seems to say that our works, too, somehow justify us. Take a look:

Seeing, therefore, that we are the portion of the Holy One, let us do all those things which pertain to holiness, avoiding all evil-speaking, all abominable and impure embraces, together with all drunkenness, seeking after change, all abominable lusts, detestable adultery, and execrable pride… Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words.

…For what reason was our father Abraham blessed? was it not because he wrought righteousness and truth through faith? Isaac, with perfect confidence, as if knowing what was to happen, cheerfully yielded himself as a sacrifice. Jacob, through reason of his brother, went forth with humility from his own land, and came to Laban and served him…

…All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men….

So there you go: "being justified by our works, and not our words;" and at the same time, "we… are not justified by… works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which…God has justified all men."

If nothing else we can conclude from this that the early Christians had a subtle understanding of the effectiveness of faith and of works in our justification! This is certainly more complicated than "faith" vs. "works" as it is sometimes presented.

What shall we do, then, brethren? Shall we become slothful in well-doing, and cease from the practice of love? God forbid that any such course should be followed by us! But rather let us hasten with all energy and readiness of mind to perform every good work. For the Creator and Lord of all Himself rejoices in His works….Having therefore such an example, let us without delay accede to His will, and let us work the work of righteousness with our whole strength.

Clement says that we will be judged according to our works:

The good servant receives the bread of his labour with confidence; the lazy and slothful cannot look his employer in the face. It is requisite, therefore, that we be prompt in the practice of well-doing; for of Him are all things. And thus He forewarns us: "Behold, the Lord [cometh], and His reward is before His face, to render to every man according to his work."

Clement sets forth all these as conditions for salvation:  seeking God’s will, doing God’s will, and following the way of truth.

…But how, beloved, shall this be done? If our understanding be fixed by faith rewards God; if we earnestly seek the things which are pleasing and acceptable to Him; if we do the things which are in harmony with His blameless will; and if we follow the way of truth, casting away from us all unrighteousness and iniquity, along with all covetousness, strife, evil practices, deceit, whispering, and evil-speaking, all hatred of God, pride and haughtiness, vainglory and ambition. For they that do such things are hateful to God; and not only they that do them, but also those who take pleasure in those who do them.

And yet Clement gives credit for our good works, as well as for our faith, to Christ alone.

By Him we look up to the heights of heaven. By Him we behold, as in a glass, His immaculate and most excellent visage. By Him are the eyes of our hearts opened. By Him our foolish and darkened understanding blossoms up anew towards His marvellous light. By Him the Lord has willed that we should taste of immortal knowledge…

How is this problem to be understood? The "justification by faith alone" vs. "justification by faith AND works" debate has been a stumbling block for many Christians as they try to understand each other. I think there are two ways to think about faith and works that reconcile the apparent contradictions.

The first is to use the Latin word for faith: fides. From this root we got the English word fidelity, whose synonym is faithfulness. But neither fidelity nor faithfulness is about what we might call "faith alone." It has to do with constancy in behavior as well as thought. It has to do with obedience to an inner rule. Faithfulness encompasses "faith" and "works," even if it is "faithfulness alone."

Another is to consider that we cannot take credit for the fact that we believe (have faith). No justification-by-faith Christian would deny that he believes only because of the grace of the Holy Spirit, and so his justification is ultimately a free gift of God who willed it that he should believe. Well, if we cannot claim our faith as our own, we certainly cannot claim our works as our own: we can do good works, and avoid bad ones, in the same way, only because of the Spirit which moves us.

All I’m saying is, the two are parallel. If God’s grace can give us faith, and our cooperation in believing is necessary for our justification, then it is equally possible that God’s grace gives us good works, and our cooperation in doing them is necessary, too.

Anyway, it’s nice to know that the writings about faith and works, never simple now, were not really any more simple in the first century A.D.