Character Sketch of Paul

Within the undisputed letters of Paul one may see many different character traits of the apostle. He is no doubt passionate, faithful to Christ, and outspoken in his beliefs. Some might say that he even comes across as prideful a number of different times. In order to understand better what Paul’s character traits were, one must study the letters he wrote to his fellow believers as he served them and many others in ministry. Marion L. Soards says in “The Life and Writings of Paul”, “Since the epistles are what remain directly from Paul’s efforts as an apostle, one should examine them in terms of their organization and style to see if they offer further insight into the character of their author” (86). One must examine what Paul wrote and how he wrote it in order to better understand what different kinds of character traits may be correctly attributed to Paul. While there are many different character traits that can be attributed to Paul, four that are of particular interest are Paul’s sense of loyalty, his sense of hopefulness, his affectionate spirit, and his sense of humility.

Paul was loyal to what he knew to be true. He identified himself with Christ, and refused to accept any teaching that appeared to be contrary to what he knew about Christ. This is seen in the first chapter of Paul’s letter to the Galatians. He writes, “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all” (Gal. 1:6-7a, NIV). He says that the Galatians have gone astray by believing in a false gospel, and he rebukes them for this. He continues, “Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!” (Gal. 1:7b-8, NIV). Paul was loyal to his faith in Christ, placing Christ above all else. He even went so far as to say that if he himself were to ever preach something false about Christ, he should be “eternally condemned.” In The Anchor Bible commentary on Galatians, J. Louis Martyn says of Paul, “Contemplating at a considerable remove the possibility that he should lose his bearings and preach a different gospel, he insists that everyone, including himself, is subordinate to the gospel of Christ and subject to God’s judgment” (114). Paul says that even if he preaches a false gospel, they should not listen to him, showing his strong loyalty to the true gospel of Christ. Richard B. Hays says in Volume XI of The New Interpreter’s Bible:

“Paul certainly does not anticipate proclaiming a different gospel, but by including himself hypothetically under the threat of curse, he makes an important point. He is not asking for the Galatians’ personal allegiance to him; rather, what matters is their allegiance to the gospel message. Even if Paul should stray and begin preaching something different, the Galatians should reject him and cling to the gospel” (206).

In saying this, Paul shows his characteristic loyalty to the gospel of Christ. He also refers to the angels in this passage written to the Galatians. He says that if even an angel comes preaching something false about Christ, the church should not listen to him. In this, he is saying that one’s loyalty to Christ must outweigh one’s loyalty to anything or anyone else. He is telling the believers that they must be loyal to Christ before being loyal to any person, even if that person is as well-learned as Paul. He says that they must be loyal to Christ before all, even if someone as spiritual as an angel himself comes to them. Christ must come first, and everything that everyone else says must agree with who Christ is, or else the Galatians should not listen to them.

Paul’s deep sense of loyalty was not limited to only himself. He also held a high standard of loyalty for other believers. His firm belief in loyalty to the risen Savior Christ was something that he felt should be present among all who professed to be Christians. Paul’s deep sense of loyalty is seen in his letter to Philemon. Something of notable interest that comes across well in Paul’s letter to Philemon is the idea that not only should believers be loyal in their commitment to serve Christ but believers ought also to be loyal in their commitment to help Christ’s apostles. For Paul, loyalty to Christ means committing to help those who have been called to preach the message of Christ to the world. For Paul’s dear friend Philemon, this would also include a commitment to help Paul. In the letter to Philemon, Paul asks Philemon to be reconciled to his slave Onesimus, who had apparently fled from his master. Paul asks Philemon to receive Onesimus back as a fellow brother in Christ for both his sake and for Christ’s sake. Paul writes to Philemon, “Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, yet I appeal to you on the basis of love. I then, as Paul—an old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus—I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains” (Phi.1:8-10, NIV). Paul speaks on behalf of Philemon’s slave Onesimus, asking Philemon to receive him. Paul goes on to remind Philemon of his own position and loyalty to Christ and how he himself owes his very life to Paul because of the fact that Paul preached the gospel to him, thus leading him to find salvation in Christ. Paul says to Philemon, “So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me” (Phi. 1:17, NIV). He appeals to Philemon’s sense of loyalty to him. Paul knows that as a man who has apparently come to know Christ through the influence of Paul, Philemon will also most likely be compelled to comply with Paul’s wishes. Paul expects Philemon to act in the same kind of loyalty in which he has seen Paul act. F. F. Bruce says in The New International Commentary on the New Testament:

“If Paul does not give orders to Philemon, he at least expects ‘obedience’ from him, even if the obedience be acquiescence in a request rather than compliance with a demand. He is sure, he says, that Philemon will not only read what is written in his letter but read between the lines and see what Paul would really like him to – and do it” (222).

Philemon is in a very real sense Paul’s disciple, and Paul’s strong loyalty to Christ and those who preach Christ most likely has had considerable influence on Philemon’s loyalty to Christ and his loyalty to those who preach Christ, including Paul. This being known Paul calls on Philemon to show this loyalty that Paul has shown to him through Christ but accepting his fellow brother in Christ and lawful slave Onesimus. Paul has full confidence that Philemon will be just as loyal to the love of Christ as his teacher Paul has been in his example to him. Paul writes to Philemon, “I do wish, brother, that I may have some benefit from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ. Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask” (Phi. 1:20-21, NIV). It is interesting to note that while Paul appears to have every confidence in Philemon that he will keep his loyalty as Paul has and do the right thing he still appears to find it necessary to remind Philemon of this loyalty. In addition to all that he has said, Paul also asks Philemon to prepare a room for him so that he may have a place to stay when he visits the church of which Philemon is a part. Paul adds, “And one thing more: Prepare a guest room for me, because I hope to be restored to you in answer to your prayers” (Phi. 1:22, NIV). In this request, Paul shows that not only is Philemon loyal to him, but he is loyal to Philemon. Paul desires to be reunited with his friend and brother in Christ. Paul’s association and friendship with Philemon’s runaway slave Onesimus has not caused him to forget in friendship with Philemon. In this letter, Paul shows his loyalty to Philemon which is a result of the bond both of them share in Christ.

Paul has a hope that has been planted deep inside of him. He makes clear that this hope that he speaks of and that he has experienced came through Christ. He is hopeful of what he believes Christ will do in the future, and he has hope that eventually everything that has gone away from God will one day in some way or form be redeemed through Christ. This hopefulness is characteristic of Paul and is seen coming through in his letters to the churches. In 1^st Thessalonians, Paul writes to the church and tells them about his hope in the return of Christ that will take place in the future. He also tells the church of his hope in the resurrection of the dead through Christ. He wants the Thessalonians to share in this hope that he has. He tells them, “Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope” (1^st Thess. 4:13, NIV). He tells them this because he wants them to have the same hope that he has. They had been concerned because some of them had been dying and Jesus seemed to be taking a long time in coming back. They wanted to know what would happen to the believers who died before the return of Christ. F. F. Bruce says in The Word Biblical Commentary on 1^st and 2^nd Thessalonians, “[T]he death of their friends filled their hearts with sorrow and they needed a message of reassurance, based on a more precise statement of the Christian hope” (104). Paul recognizes their sense of hopelessness in their questioning and he responds by trying to convince them that there is hope in the resurrection. Bruce continues, “Hope was one of the chief emphases of the gospel; it was a feature of Christian existence. Believers in Christ are contrasted with ‘others who have no hope.’” (104). Paul is saying that they should take hold of this same hope that he has already taken hold of and that he is expressing in his own life and character. He says to them, “Therefore encourage each other with these words” (1^st Thess. 4:18, NIV).

In Romans, Paul also speaks of this hope that he has experienced and that has become very much a part of his own character. He lets the Roman Christians know that he is not ignorant of suffering and that he understands how hard it is for people when they have gone through suffering having gone through much suffering himself. He lets them know that may have hope in their suffering because of Christ just as he has hope in his suffering through Christ. He says that because of Christ we are able to rejoice in our sufferings. He says, “And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us” (Rom. 5:2b-5, NIV). Paul has hope in his sufferings because he knows that through Christ suffering can lead to other things which are good. He recognizes that suffering is something that changes who a person is on the inside, and he knows that through Christ this change can be a very good thing. He says that a person’s character is changed by suffering and that this very thing leads to hope. He says that hope is something that does not disappoint. In saying this, he shows that not only is he a hopeful man, but he also has hope in hope, itself. He has hope that his hope will not disappoint him. James R. Edwards speaks of this hope that is characteristic of Paul in the New International Biblical Commentary on Paul’s letter to the Romans:

“Especially important is Paul’s statement that hope does not disappoint us (v. 5). The Greek word for disappoint, kataischynein, is a cognate of the same word in 1:16, ‘I am not ashamed (epaischynein) of the gospel.’ It recalls, despite everything to the contrary, that the believer’s trust in the gospel is no empty fantasy. The Jewish Christian concept of hope dwarfs the ancient Greek idea of hope. For the Greek hope was little more than an eventuality, a possible outcome of current circumstances. But for Jews and Christians hope is anchored to the person and promises of God” (137).

Paul’s hope is solid. His hope is not the hope of the Greeks which would say that something may or may not happen. Hope for Paul is tied directly to his faith. He knows that his hope will not disappoint him because he knows that God will not disappoint him, and his faith in God is unwavering.

Paul may also be seen as one who has an affectionate spirit for his brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus. His affection for them is seen in the opening of his letter to the Philippians. He says to them, “God can testify how I long for all of you with the affection of Christ Jesus” (Phil. 1:8, NIV). Paul has such affection for his brothers and sisters in Christ that he claims to be filled with this deep since of longing to be with them. William Barclay says in The New Daily Study Bible of this verse, “The literal translation is: ‘I yearn for you all with the bowels of Jesus Christ.’ […] These, the Greeks believed to be the location of the emotions and affections (21). Paul is letting them know just how deep his affection is for them when he says this. He tells them that this is proper. He says to them, “It is right for me to feel this way about all of you, since I have you in my heart; for whether I am in chains or defending and confirming the gospel, all of you share in God's grace with me” (Phil. 1:7, NIV). Paul’s affection for these people is such that he says to them that they are in his heart. He seems to be indicating that his affection for them is caused by a deep connection that they have with each other. This connection is still present and felt even when they are separated and can no longer see one another, which shows just how deep his affection is for them.

Paul’s great affection for his fellow believers also comes through in the letter that is commonly referred to as 2^nd Corinthians. In this letter, as well as in the previous remaining letter to the Corinthians, it is clear that Paul has been disturbed by reports from the church in Corinth. He has come to find out that there are those within the church who have exchanged the truth of the gospel for lies. There are some among them who are still living in deep sin and who have not allowed themselves to be cleansed by the blood of Jesus. They still indulge in the sinful nature and remain slaves to that nature. Paul is distressed by this because of his obvious loyalty to Christ, but he is also distressed by this because he himself has deep concern and affection for the Corinthians. He says to them, “For I wrote you out of great distress and anguish of heart and with many tears, not to grieve you but to let you know the depth of my love for you” (2^nd Cor. 2:4, NIV). He recognizes that those who have been sinning have done so to their own destruction.  This pains Paul because of his love and affection for these people. Linda L. Belleville says in The IVP New Testament Commentary Series on 2nd Corinthians, “Thlipsis (distress) and synochē (anguish) are virtual synonyms for personal pain brought about by oppressive circumstances” (72). The reason Paul felt this distress and anguish was because of his deep love for the Corinthians. Belleville continues, “Here, they refer to the deep emotional turmoil that Paul experienced as he wrote this letter to the Corinthians, very much like the anxiety a parent feels when faced with the prospect of exercising discipline” (72). He refers to one brother who has sinned grievously and he says that his sin is not just something that affects him, but also those other believers who know this man. Paul writes to them, “If anyone has caused grief, he has not so much grieved me as he has grieved all of you, to some extent—not to put it too severely” (2^nd Cor. 2:5, NIV). Paul feels hurt in his heart because he knows that what this man has been doing has caused pain to occur among the other believers. Paul recognizes this and he shows that when the other believers feel pain he also feels pain because of his great affection for them. He cares for them deeply.

Within Paul’s letters one can see that while Paul is passionate and firm in his faith and in the life he now lives in Christ, he also knows humility. He recognized that he does not deserve this calling that he has received from God. He writes of how he used to be an enemy of the church, persecuting it, but that God in His mercy called him out of this life and made him to be an apostle of Christ to the Gentiles. He is humbled by God’s love and grace towards him, and by the great privilege he has to proclaim the good news of Christ to the world. He knows that he is unworthy of all he has received. He says in 1^st Corinthians, “For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect” (1^st Cor.15:9-10a, NIV). He recognizes that it is only by God’s grace that he has become an apostle of Christ. Marion L. Soards says in the New International Biblical Commentary on 1 Corinthians, “Having mentioned the encounter with the risen Jesus that constituted his call, Paul goes on to explain the significance of God’s grace as he knew it from that experience. He understood grace to be unmerited and transforming” (320). Paul saw the calling of Christ upon his life as an act of grace and he goes on to say that he has worked harder than all the other apostles, but rather than being arrogant about this he claims that it was only by the grace of God that this was even possible.

Paul’s humility is also seen in his letter to the Philippians. He describes Christ and how Christ came to earth in humility, even though He was God. Stephen L. Harris says in The New Testament: A Student’s Introduction, “Urging the Philippians to place others’ welfare before their own, Paul cites Jesus’ behavior as the supreme example of humble service to others” (364). Paul says that we all must become like Christ in humility, serving one another. Paul has applied this humility, the humility of Christ the Servant to his own life, and he calls on other believers to do the same. He points to Christ’s example of humility as an example for all believers as he recites a hymn, saying:

“Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,
      did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
      taking the very nature of a servant,
      being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
      he humbled himself
      and became obedient to death—
         even death on a cross!” (Phil. 2:5-8, NIV).

This idea of humbling oneself as Christ did is what Paul calls on all believers to do. He includes himself in this command. He is not exempt. Just as Christ did not refuse to let go of His authority and position as God, so should all who follow Christ be willing to give up their place in life for the sake of Christ, considering all others to be of greater worth than themselves. One must also be willing to give up his or her life in order to be a servant like Christ was. For Paul, this was likely true in the literal sense as well as spiritually. Paul shows his humility in his desire to be like Christ in Christ’s perfect humility when he became a man. Just as Christ “humbled himself and became obedient to death” so also it is commonly believed that Paul experienced death for the sake of Christ his Lord.

Within the undisputed letters of Paul one may see many different character traits of the apostle. While it is true that much more could be said about the many different character traits of Paul, these four character traits have plenty to say about the man Paul himself. It is clear that he was a man of God and that he eagerly desired to serve Christ who had redeemed him and to proclaim the message of the gospel to all he could. These character traits of loyalty, hope, affection, and humility come across within Paul’s letters to his fellow believers. While there are many different character traits that can be attributed to Paul, four that have been of particular interest are Paul’s sense of loyalty, his hopefulness, his affectionate spirit, and his humility.

_____________________________________________________________

Works Cited

Harris, Stephen L.  The New Testament: A Student’s Introduction.  6th ed.  New York: McGraw-Hill, 2006.

Powell, Mark Allan, ed.  The New Testament Today.  Marion L. Soards. “The Life and Writings of Paul.” Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999.

Metzger, Bruce M., ed. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 45. 1&2 Thessalonians. F. F. Bruce. Colombia: Word, Inc., 1982.

Martyn, J. Louis. The Anchor Bible. Galatians. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New York: Doubleday, 1997.

Barclay, William. The New Daily Study Bible. The Letters to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003.

Osborne, Grant. R., ed. The IVP New Testament Commentary Series. 2 Corinthians. Linda L. Belleville. Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 1996.

Gasque, W. Ward., ed. New International Biblical Commentary. Romans. James R. Edwards. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Pub., Inc., 1992.

Keck, Leander. E., ed. The New Interpreter’s Bible. Volume IX. Richard B. Hays. “The Letter to the Galatians: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections.” Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 2000.

Gasque, W. Ward., ed. New International Biblical Commentary. 1 Corinthians. Marion L. Soards. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Pub., Inc., 1999.

F.F. Bruce. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1984.

Reflections on The Great Emergence

Phyllis Tickle’s book The Great Emergence: How Christianity Is Changing and Why is a relevant book to read because it speaks of an issue that the church is currently facing. This issue is, in part, the idea of a postmodern church. While this issue is relevant, Tickle does a rather poor job executing the conversation. She brings up a lot of good points, but she does not do a good job overall. One obvious example is simply in the conversational way she presents her ideas. While this makes for an easy read, this also allowed for many grammatical errors. A conversational-style approach can be very helpful, but Tickle was not entirely successful in her attempt. Also, she claims to be a scholar, and yet she does not give any real sources in her bibliography. Most of her footnotes are simply extra comments or ideas that she had. There is little evidence of extensive research.

The emergent and the emerging church are the focus of this book, but Tickle does more than simply speak of the shape the church is taking in the present day. She also speaks of how the church has been formed and shaped since it was conceived. Tickle claims that every five hundred years or so the church has what one might call a rummage sale of sorts where the church takes into consideration where it is heading and what it thinks should be kept as far as beliefs and practices are concerned and what should be thrown out. The author states that there have been four “greats” that have coincided with this rummage sale. The first was Gregory the Great who kept the church from dividing itself completely and led the way for the next five hundred years of church history. While this first example works for Tickle’s five hundred year cycle, it could easily be argued that other events in church history were just as important, or perhaps even more important, than this example. It seems as though she decided to talk about Gregory the Great simply because he fit into her five hundred year pattern. The second period she mentions is The Great Schism in which the church split in a way because of differing theological views. The church split between the East and the West. The third was The Great Reformation in which the Protestant church was formed because of the mishandling of the church by the Catholics, which led in part to the age of enlightenment where science was exalted, but also where the Bible tended to be seen as the sole authority of Christianity. The fourth is what some are now calling The Great Emergence in which the postmodern church has clashed with the modern church. Fundamentalism is on its way out as a postmodern generation takes control of the church. While this book is very fascinating and brings up a number of different relevant issues regarding the church of today as well as the past, its author is not a trained historian and is an independent researcher. This could indicate some lack of credibility to the book. However, Tickle seems to have done at least some research and she does indeed speak words of insight and truth concerning the situation the church is facing today.

Tickle begins her book by discussing the “rummage sale” idea of how the church reconfigures itself every five hundred years or so. This reconfiguration occurs most often because of Christianity becoming established in a certain way that may not necessarily be the best way for Christianity to exist. The church becomes institutional to such an extent that the church does not know why they believe what they believe, or the beliefs of the church have come to include various ideas that are not central to the church. These beliefs can creep towards the center of the church’s core-beliefs without even being necessary to the faith at all. A number of people within the church begin to recognize that the church has come to believe in things that are not necessary to the faith, and yet many believe that these things are necessary to the faith. Those who recognize that the church has taken a hold of many unnecessary and even wrong beliefs begin to take a stand, saying what they believe to be the true and pure purpose of the church. This can cause conflicts within the church, because those who hold onto these unnecessary and even wrong beliefs truly think that these things are central to what being a Christian is all about. So the church begins to split over these certain issues.

Tickle gives examples from the past two thousand years of the different rummage sales that have taken place within the church. She shows how the most significant ones occur approximately every five hundred years and she gives the examples of Gregory the Great, The Great Schism, The Great Reformation, and then concludes that we are due for another rummage sale in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. She refers to this present rummage sale as The Great Emergence. It is interesting to note, however, that the idea of the church realigning itself every five hundred years actually goes further back than the existence of the church. Christianity emerged out of Judaism and within Judaism there is also seen this idea. The most obvious example of this would be five hundred years before Gregory the Great in the occurrence of the founding of Christianity. In this event, the Jews became split between those who were Christ-followers and those who did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah. This event concurred with the destruction of the second Jerusalem temple by the Romans. Five hundred years before these events occurred is seen the destruction of the first temple by the Babylonians which led to a new way of thinking within Judaism as portrayed in the Babylonian exile and the Second Temple period. Five hundred years before the re-alignment of thought caused by the Babylonian exile is seen the establishment of the monarchy in Israel in which Jewish theology changed in the transition from the rule of the judges to the rule of the kings. So Tickle concludes that this concept of a religious “rummage sale” is not limited to Christianity. She also points out that it was during these times before the rise of Christianity in which human thought in general began to change among other groups of people, not just those of the Judeo-Christian traditions. She uses Plato and other Greek philosophers as examples of how people across the world tend to go through five hundred year cycles where they sort through the things they believe in order to see what should be kept and what should be discarded. This transitional time period in the centuries before Christ is referred to as “The Great Transformation.” [1] Tickle’s conclusion is that all of humanity tends to readjust the way they perceive the world about every five hundred years. They examine what they believe to be true about the world, embracing that which rings true to them and throwing out whatever no longer fits. This interpretation of history, however, appears to be rather subjective in that Tickle appears to be reading her own ideas into history. Even her own theory of five hundred year cycles falls apart when she tries to apply it to humanity as a whole because when she speaks of the Greeks she acknowledges that these patterns did not follow five hundred year cycles among them.

Tickle goes on to ask the question of how The Great Emergence came into existence and concludes that the best way to go about studying The Great Emergence and how it is coming into being is by studying the last great rummage sale of the church, The Great Reformation, and how it came into existence. She then proceeds to describe how The Great Reformation came to be. She points out how during the time leading up to The Great Reformation there was a great deal of conflict already within the church. Papal authority had been split between two separate Popes – one, French and one Italian. Eventually, a third pope was added to the mix, all three warring against each other. This event and other disheartening events are what led to the reformation of the church which is most often associated with Martin Luther and his nailing of his Theses to the door of Wittenberg’s church. At this time, people were beginning to recognize that these three Popes and the church leadership as a whole were not true to the spirit of the church itself, or at least the spirit they felt the church was supposed to have. A number of people, including Martin Luther, tried to reform the church in order to bring it back to the way it was supposed to be. Enough people jumped on with this thought of reforming the church that Rome panicked and fought against them. This event is what led to the dividing split of the church between the Protestants and the Catholics. Tickle points out that something similar to this is occurring and will continue to occur within The Great Emergence of today. There are enough people today who recognize how the church is not always as it should be, and they are seeking to reform the church into the way they believe it ought to be, or the way they believe the Holy Spirit intended it to be. However, like the Catholic church of the Reformation, there are many within the church of today who believe that the church ought to continue in the way that it has the past two hundred years. These people will continue to fight and will continue to break themselves off from those others in the church who do not agree with their way of “doing church.”

One of the key battles between the Protestants and the Catholics of The Great Reformation was over authority. The Popes claimed to have ultimate authority over church beliefs and doctrine, while the Protestants established the idea of the priesthood of all believers, claiming that Scripture alone was the sole authority of the church and that all individual believers had the right to interpret Scripture personally by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Protestants also believed that the Pope was indeed capable of making errors. Not only were the Popes capable of this, but they had done so.

Social reformation also took place during the time of the Protestant Reformation. City-states began to emerge and feudalism began to be done away with. Tickle refers to these important changes, saying, “The processes which began and solidified in the decades surrounding the Great Reformation became our new common illusion, our new shared imagination as Westerners about how the world works and how the elements of human life are to be ordered.” [2] The way people looked at and perceived the world around them was changing during this time period, and this change is seen in the way people understood the function of the church. The Great Reformation and the changes it brought about are deeply connected with the other changes seen during this time. Tickle continues, “There is […] a very good reason why most general lectures about the Great Reformation today commence with the […] observation that as a hinge time, it was characterized by the rise of capitalism, of the middle class, of the nation-state, and finally of Protestantism.” 2 This list of ideals have come to be associated with the Christian way of life over the past couple of hundred years, as though these things that are a part of Western life are also foundationally Christian. It is against this way of thinking that the Emerging Church has come to speak. While the Catholics of the Reformation believed that the Pope had ultimate authority of the church and was infallible in what he spoke regarding Scripture, doctrine, and the church, the church of today has embraced such Western thoughts of capitalism, the middle-class, and the nation-state as though these were all Christian and necessary beliefs of the church. The Great Emergence is then a questioning of this positioning of these Western ideals as also Christian ideals. The Emerging Church is not necessarily opposed to these “ideals” at all times, but it is opposed to these “ideals” if they are imposed upon the greater Christian population. The church must not be associated with certain Western opinions which are not center to the Christian faith. Capitalism, the middle-class, the nation-state, and even Protestantism itself may not in fact be central to Christianity as it was intended to be lived. The Sola Scriptura concept of the Reformation may in fact be a limited perspective because authority may be found in other places as well.

With The Great Reformation, power also came to be associated more so with wealth and money. Those who were rich had the power. The balance of power has shifted again during this time of The Great Emergence. Money has become less of a factor as far as power is concerned. The new power of today’s world is that of information. Those who have knowledge, have power. Also, just as The Great Reformation was influenced by the technology of the time, so also The Great Emergence has been influenced by the technology of this time. The Great Reformation was able to come into being because of such inventions as Gutenberg’s movable-type printing press. The Great Emergence has been able to come into existence because of the invention of the internet and the World Wide Web. Both the printing press and the internet served as a means of drawing people together through the bond of shared knowledge. The difference is that in Gutenberg’s time, it was those who had money who could be heard by the masses. In this time of the internet, virtually everyone who wishes to be heard may be heard regardless of their economic status.

The time since The Great Reformation has been very modern in its approach to the way it perceives the world. Within The Great Emergence is the idea that modernism is not a necessary part of Christianity. Those who are in support of The Great Emergence or at least in the re-shaping of the way the church thinks about certain things tend to be more postmodern in their understanding of the way the world works. Some of the influences upon the way this generation views the world are in fact rooted in some of the ideas formed during the time of The Great Reformation. One of these contributing factors has been the founding of scientific thought and reasoning. It is ironic then that the advance of science was one of the main contributors to the re-thinking of Sola Scriptura. Charles Darwin’s writings on biological evolution and Sigmund Freud’s understandings of dreams and psychology helped to pave the way for new ways of understanding the world, the way the world works, and the ways in which people interact with the world in which they live. Tickle also says that one of the most important breakthroughs in scientific history which altered the course of church history came with Einstein and his “special theory of relativity.” It came to be recognized by the scientific community and eventually the general public that there were certain things about the universe and the way it worked that simply did not make sense or that went against the way people from a modernist perspective had tended to view the universe. Along with Einstein’s theory came Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle which stated that one may study the speed and position of something, but it becomes very difficult for one to study both the speed and the position of something at the same time. [3] The idea given was that the act of observing actually changes the thing being observed. When applied to everyday life and Christianity specifically, this idea sounds very postmodern. This is because it indicates that the truth of something depends upon the one observing, which would mean that truth could vary from person to person. With this specific application to Einstein’s special theory of relativity began to emerge the idea of relative truth and the uncertainty of everything. Many truths could in theory be possible.

Also through science came the uncovering of such documents as the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as the Quest for the Historical Jesus. Through the studies of ancient documents, the church found itself wanting to know from where its faith had come. Also, Pentecostalism came into being and influenced the church in another way. One of the ways it influenced the church was in its emphasis upon the Holy Spirit. It was believed by the Pentecostals that whatever the Holy Spirit personally said to an individual outweighed whatever Scripture said. Also, spirituality came to be emphasized in culture more than Christian spirituality in particular. Tickle points to Alcoholics Anonymous as an example of this, where recovery comes through the help of a “higher power,” and not necessarily the Christian God. Another key influencer which led culture to emerge from modernism into postmodernism was the “drug age” of the 1960 and 1970s. People who experimented with drugs were opening themselves up to new ways of viewing and experiencing the world. People began to believe in other or alternate realities.

Towards the end of her book, Tickle brings out a number of diagrams in order to show which groups of which the church of today is made up, and to show where these different groups within the church are heading and how they interact with each other. She uses research which supports the idea of the church as a whole being divided into four separate groups in a quadrilateral of sorts. These four separate groups are referred to as Liturgicals, Social Justice Christians, Renewalists, and Conservatives. [4] The Social Justice Christians were originally called “Mainline” Christians, and the Conservatives were originally known as “Fundamentalists,” but it was thought that these names were no longer reflective of the groups. [5] These different groups originally had distinct denominations contained within them. The liturgicals, for example, were mainly Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and a number of Lutherans. However, it has come to pass that these different categories are no longer limited to certain denominations. It is coming to be seen more and more that certain denominations are no longer limited to certain kinds of people. Liturgicals, Social Justice Christians, Renewalists, and Conservatives can be found in nearly every denomination. Many groups within the church have begun to join together even as many have split apart. The distinctions between many denominations have begun to blur because this generation is discovering that Christians as a whole have more similarities with each other than they do differences.

Near the close of her book, Tickle describes Emergents as people who are not afraid of paradox. [6]They are postmodern, and are opened to truths which appear to be outside of the realm of possibility. They are distrustful of meta-narratives because they are based upon “humanity’s human thinking and explaining.” 6 They believe in narrative though, because narrative is a reflection of the heart of humanity. She says that the future church as shaped by the Emergents will be one that has sought to go back to the way the church was intended to be. The church will be “de- Hellenized” and will most likely appear be something very Jewish in its origins since the original church was Jewish. She says, “[The Great Emergence] will rewrite Christian theology – and thereby North American culture – into something far more Jewish, more paradoxical, more narrative, and more mystical than anything the Church has had for the last seventeen or eighteen hundred years.” [7] Many of the beliefs that the church has had since the Reformation and even since the time of The Great Schism may be subject to change. This will all be done, however, in order to make the church purer than it is now. This will be done in order to bring the church back to the way it was originally intended to be, without the contamination of Western systems of belief.

---

[1] p. 31.

[2] p. 51.

[3] p. 79.

[4] p. 126.

[5] pp. 126-7.

[6] pp. 160.

[7] pp. 162.

The "Good Old Days" of the Church

It is a mistake to yearn for “the good old days” of the church as recorded in the New Testament because the church that is present today is just as good or bad as the church of that time. The church of today is not all that different from the church that existed back then. As Ecclesiastes says, “There is nothing new under the sun,” and also, “Do not say, ‘Why were the old days better than these?’ For it is not wise to ask such questions.” If one were to actually study what the New Testament records about the early church they would recognize that the early church did not always have things altogether. There were people in the church back then who were as “messed up” as some of the people in the church of today. For example, Luke records in the book Acts on the death of Ananias and Sapphira who had willingly lied to the Holy Spirit in the presence of the church. Another example in the book of Acts of how the church was not necessarily always on top of things is that of the food distribution among the Greek and the Jewish widows. While this possible discrimination was not likely a willful act on the part of the church and the church did correct this issue when it was brought to its attention, this is still an example of how the church of yesteryear is not something that the church of today should attempt to wholly replicate in every aspect. Also, within a study of the church as portrayed in the New Testament writings, one must recognize the very backwards nature of the church in Corinth to whom Paul ministered. While one must take into consideration all of these negative aspects of the church of the past, one must also admit to the numerous admirable qualities of that church. The New Testament authors write of a church in which the Spirit of Christ was present. That same Spirit is within the church of today. The New Testament records amazing miracles and healings as well as radical evangelism. It is incorrect (and very “modernist” in reasoning) to assume that simply because one does not see things like this happening in the church today that they do not in fact happen at all anymore. This is simply not the case. Miracles, signs, and wonders still accompany the church of today. This is especially seen in the continents of Africa and Asia, but the truth is that these things happen in America as well. My guess as to why many within the church of America do not witness miracles is because they do not believe in them. The church of today is just as good or as bad as the church that is pictured in the New Testament. When people put too much focus upon the style that was appropriate for the New Testament setting believing that church should be done in exactly that same way today, they begin to lose sight of the church itself and how it should exist in today’s settings.

Polycarp's View of Martyrdom

In section nine of the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, we are able to get a glimpse into the mind of Polycarp, and to a certain extent his views on martyrdom and the suffering of the saints. He calls upon the Philippians to be “obedient to the word of righteousness and to exercise all patient endurance…” (9:1). He is telling them that even when they are persecuted, they must stand firm and not deny Christ in the face of their oppressors. He calls them to continue in their commitment and their obedience to Christ not only in thought but in action. He refers to a few different individuals by name who have already suffered for Christ. The Philippians were familiar with these people that he mentions. He mentions, first of all, Ignatius, whom many would consider to be Polycarp’s own mentor in the faith. Ignatius, having been inspired by the example of the apostles Peter and Paul, wrote many letters on his way to his martyrdom in Rome. He also spent a significant amount of time with Polycarp, and likely influenced his views on martyrdom. As Ignatius was making his way to Rome, where Peter and Paul had been martyred, he stopped at Smyrna where Polycarp was Bishop. It is recorded that “Ignatius spent several days there, and enjoyed the society of Polycarp, who had been a pupil of John […] His mind was set on the idea of martyrdom, and on the two martyr-apostles, Peter and Paul, who had taken the road from Antioch to Rome before him.” [1] It is likely that this sort of preoccupation with martyrdom evidenced in the life and writings of Ignatius had strong influence over Polycarp himself.

In his letter, Polycarp also mentions two people he refers to as Zosimus and Rufus. This Rufus may be mentioned by Paul in one of his letters, but it is unknown whether this Rufus is the same Rufus that Paul mentions. This may also be the Rufus mentioned in the Gospels who was the brother of Alexander and the son of Simon of Cyrene who was called upon by the Romans to carry the cross of Jesus when it became too much for him to bear. If this is the case, then Polycarp may have been attempting to call to mind an example of someone who understood what it was like to suffer for Christ, someone who was related to someone who had witnessed the crucifixion of Christ. This, however, is all speculation. The image, though, would perhaps be one of being called to carry the cross, which is what Jesus had told his followers they must do. Polycarp also mentions other people, but not by name, saying that these individuals were known to the Philippians, having been members of their own congregation, and that they had suffered for their faith. We are inclined to believe that these people had been killed in the persecution. This letter was written at a time of crisis, in which Christians were being killed.

Also, Polycarp mentions in his list the suffering of the Apostle Paul, who is believed to have been beheaded by the Emperor Nero. He also mentions the “rest of the apostles” who had also been killed, except for perhaps John who is believed to have been exiled to the Island of Patmos. Polycarp refers to Paul and the other apostles, saying that he is “persuaded that all these ‘did not run in vain’ (9:1). Polycarp sees the martyrdom of the saints not as something that should discourage the church in its faith, but that should encourage it. In pointing to the martyrdom of the apostles, Polycarp is showing the church at Philippi that the call of Christ is something that is worth dying for. One scholar writes of Polycarp: “He urges the Philippians to follow the examples of Ignatius, Zosimus and Rufus, not to mention their own martyrs, and Paul himself and the rest of the apostles.” [2] Polycarp wishes to show the Philippians that those who have suffered and died for Christ have not suffered and died in vain, and that they are now with Christ.

The account of the martyrdom of Polycarp also gives some hints as to what the perspective of Polycarp may have been on the issue of martyrdom. While the account was written much time after the death of Polycarp, it may contain evidence as to what he thought. Since it is a later writing, a number of the elements described in the account are questionable in regard to their historicity. Many of the elements of the story of Polycarp’s death contain obvious references and parallels to the death of Christ. While some of these things, such as the event of the dove flying out from the body of Polycarp as he is being killed, seem to be symbolic, pointing to the connection between Christ and the servant of Christ in suffering, it would appear that the main events of the story are factual. The reason for the writer of this account of Polycarp’s death to include all of these extra parallel features connected to the story of Christ’s Passion would be because of the time in which the account was written. At this time, many Christians held in high regard those who had suffered and died for Christ. They even kept and cherished relics that had been left behind by these saints. One scholar writes, “With Polycarp we have the first evidence of the cult of the relics of the martyrs. On the day of the anniversary of their death, their true ‘birth,’ Christians met at their tombs.” [3] Besides holding the martyrs in high esteem, second only to Christ, the writer of this account would have wanted to show how the follower of Christ was like Christ in his death. Another scholar writes:

The first people perceived as ‘saints’ in the Church were the early martyrs. Heroic self-sacrifice for the name of Christ implied that one was one of the elect, and inspired commemoration and imitation. The contemporary account of the martyrdom of Polycarp of Smyrna, who was burned to death at a pagan festival in Asia Minor around the middle of the second century, already contains many themes that would become standard in the later devotion to saints. [4]

An example of this can be seen when the writer records Polycarp attempting to remove his shoes just before he dies so that the other Christians may keep them as relics of some sort. True martyrs for Christ were held in high esteem.

Perhaps one of the reasons for such emphasis as is placed upon the matter of what true martyrdom in Christ looks like in this account is that there had been many during the early years of the church’s history who had been, in a way, careless martyrs. They had gone out of their way to suffer for Christ, thinking that they would receive a better reward in heaven because of their actions on behalf of Christ. There is even a reference to this kind of behavior among some of the early Christians in the book of Hebrews. In chapter eleven of this letter, the writer speaks of those who had great faith and who faced persecutions because of this. The writer says, “There were others who were tortured, refusing to be released so that they might gain an even better resurrection” (Heb. 11:35b). The writer of the account of the martyrdom of Polycarp is showing his readers that Polycarp really knew how to die. In this narrative, he shows what Polycarp truly believed about dying for Christ and compares Polycarp’s martyrdom with the deaths of those who had turned themselves in so they could be put to death as martyrs for Christ. Summarizing what is written in this Martyrdom account, one writer says the following:

The Martyrdom is the story of a persecution of Christians in Smyrna in Asia Minor, some of whom have voluntarily put themselves forward for death in the arena, which reaches its height and conclusion in the hunting down and execution of the distinguished 86-year-old bishop Polycarp. The account is written in the form of a letter of the church of the Smyrnaeans to the church of Philomelium commending Polycarp's restrained 'witness according to the Gospel', as against those who willfully led others into danger by seeking out martyrdom. [5]

The account of the martyrdom states that there had been a fanatical man, likely a member of the Montanist sect, who had led a group of others to go with him to volunteer to be put to death for illegally being Christians. The account claims that when this man saw the wild beasts, he became afraid and was persuaded to deny Christ and offer the sacrifice to Caesar. The writer then goes on to say, “For this reason, therefore, brethren, we do not praise those who come forward of their own accord, since the gospel does not teach us so to do.” [6] The account also mentions a man named Germanicus who was made to fight wild beasts in the arena. The account says that “when the proconsul, wishing to persuade him, bade him have pity on his youth, he forcibly dragged the wild beast toward himself, wishing to obtain more quickly a release from their wicked and lawless life.” 6 It was because of this act of heroics that the crowd became amazed and called for the capture of Polycarp, the leader of the Christians. The writer records Polycarp as having not been afraid of this warrant issued for his arrest and that he wanted to stay in the city and carry on with his daily responsibilities. However, his friends convinced to flee to a nearby farm for protection. In this, the writer seeks to show how Polycarp is neither desirous of martyrdom nor is he afraid of it. He appears to be content with whatever happens to him. He is not a coward who will deny Christ at the threat of death, and he is not a fanatic who believes he can get God to give him a better reward by getting himself and others killed in the name of Christ.

Also, in this account of his death, three days before his capture and execution Polycarp has a dream in which the pillow on which he slept was blazing with fire. 6 From this he concluded that he was going to be burned as a martyr. The fact that this was revealed to him in a dream indicates that his death was not something that he had decided for himself. It was something that God was going to allow happen to him. This shows the difference between the view of martyrdom held by the fanatics and the view of martyrdom held by Polycarp. Polycarp believed that God would be using him in his death, rather than believing as the fanatics did that their actions would cause God to favor them over others. Another point made in the account is Polycarp’s sense of hospitality. Polycarp shows the true nature of a Christian and a martyr when the soldiers come to the farm to capture him and he offers to serve them a meal. Instead of taunting the men or behaving like a coward, Polycarp shows them kindness.

In conclusion, Polycarp’s views on martyrdom include the idea that martyrdom is an honor. The apostles before him had been martyred for their faith and they had received their reward from Christ. Martyrdom was not something to be feared. However, martyrdom was also not something to be desired. The time of ones death was up to God to decide. Most importantly, a Christian ought to glorify God in both life and death. Polycarp believed that we represented Christ in the actions of our daily living and that true martyrs represented Christ in the actions surrounding their death.




_____________________________________________

[1] Philip Carrington, Archbishop of Quebec. The First Christian Century. Volume 1 of The Early Christian Church. (Cambridge: The University Press, 1957), 449.
[2] Ibid., 460.
[3] Jean Comby. From the Beginnings to the Fifteenth Century. Vol. 1 of How to read Church History. (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1989), 41.
[4] Euan Cameron. Interpreting Christian History: The Challenge of the Churches’ Past. (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2005), 85.
[5] Sara Parvis, “The Martyrdom of Polycarp,” Expository Times 118 (2006): 105. doi: 20100825
[6] Richardson, Cyril (ed.). Early Christian Fathers. Vol. 1 of The Library of Christian Classics. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996), 150, 151.

Eschatology of the Early Church

Introduction

This paper will look at the development of the eschatology of the early church, comparing both the similar and the differing views of eschatological thought by the early church fathers and theologians, particularly the views of Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen, and Tertullian. The topic of eschatology covers a number of subcategories. Sub-topics within the overall topic of eschatology to be included in this paper will be mainly the early church fathers’ beliefs and speculations on the second coming of Jesus Christ, the resurrection of the dead, bodily resurrection, the afterlife, the final judgment, the antichrist, the manifestation of the kingdom of heaven on earth, the destruction of the world, the new creation, the millennial age, and the tribulation, among other things.

The fathers of the early church based much of their eschatological thought upon the writings of the New Testament.[1] For the most part, these early theologians had a very similar base on which they founded their eschatological theologies. While they tended to diverge on details, many held to surprisingly similar views overall. David Fergusson in his article Eschatology writes, “In the eschatologies of most of the Church Fathers a pattern emerges from New Testament sources.” [2] Fergusson goes on to say that this pattern is evident in the writings of the Church Fathers, giving a list of what most often appeared as the foundation for much of their eschatologies. He writes, “At death, all human beings enter some intermediate state, perhaps sleep or a disembodied existence. This is followed by the return of Christ (the parousia), the resurrection of all the dead, their judgment and final destiny in either heaven or hell.”[3]For the most part, this is on what the early church fathers based their beliefs on the “last things,” however, not all held to this model. Some of the ideas that were developed were in fact quite a bit different from this model, while at the same time carrying some overall similarities.

Irenaeus

The eschatology of Irenaeus is unique in that he sees the eschaton as not only the final restoration of humanity back to its original state, but also as the final state to which mankind was destined in the first place before the fall of humanity took place.[4] Irenaeus believed that original man was created to grow more and more into the likeness of God, but that sin interrupted this process. Only through the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ was man able to be restored to this path of being made into the likeness of God.[5] The incarnation of Christ shows a picture of restored humanity into the likeness of God. Through Christ, mankind is reunited with God and is able to once again move towards the final eschatological goal of being made into the image and likeness of God. Irenaeus believed that mankind was created in a sort of infant stage, and that we were to move towards adulthood.[6] The first Adam was a type of infant; the second Adam, or Christ, was adult and represented what mankind would one day become. Irenaeus did not believe that through Christ we could become God, but that rather through Christ we would be restored to the likeness of God, and not just in the infant stage of Adam, but in the adult stage to be made complete in the eschaton – that which was revealed to us in Christ’s incarnation. Irenaeus refers to the “recapitulation of Christ,” recognizing that when Christ came he restored both the original state of man as well as the potential state, the state of perfection. In his comparative study on this issue, Dai Sil Kim writes, “The Recapitulation is not only the restoration of the original creation, but also the perfection of the creation. It is ‘summing up in Himself the whole human race from the beginning to the end.’”[7] Also, when Christ redeemed mankind, he redeemed the entire creation as well. He writes that a part of this restoration process is that the Spirit of Christ himself now dwells within us, sanctifying us in sight of the final restoration. He writes, “In Christ's ‘restoration,’ humanity was not made perfect all at once, even though our perfection is decided in the restoring act of the Recapitulator, Christ. Recapitulation is ‘already,’ but it is also ‘not yet.’”[8] Irenaeus also believed that the final state of humankind was to become “sons of God,” or to become like God. He believed that through this restored process of recapitulation, mankind would surpass the angels themselves in being made into the likeness of God.[9] A strong part of his eschatology is that people were meant to become more like God, and that at the end of all things mankind will become more like God than the angels themselves. In fact, he believed that this was why the devil had rebelled against God in the first place; because he was jealous of mankind’s God-given ability to grow to become more than what they were originally, surpassing the angels who remained static.[10]

Irenaeus speaks out against the Gnostics of his time who believed that the resurrection of the dead was purely spiritual and that this was simply an act in which the spirit returned from whence it came. Irenaeus held to the belief of a bodily resurrection, recognizing that the future reward of the saints was both physical and spiritual. Christ would return to the earth to set up his kingdom, where the relationship between mankind and God would finally be completely restored upon the end of a thousand year period of time where the final judgment would take place to be followed by the consummation of time.[11] Irenaeus believed that the dead would rise to live upon this earth, and that Christ’s reign would usher in a new order of creation in which the images presented in the last few chapters of Isaiah would come to fulfillment, “‘The wolves and sheep will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, and the serpent earth like bread; and they will not injure nor disturb in my holy mountain, says the Lord.’”[12]

Irenaeus speaks of the final restoration of creation in his Against Heresies. He says that during the Last Supper Jesus spoke to his disciples, saying that he would not drink of the fruit of the vine again until he would “drink it anew” in the Father’s kingdom. Irenaeus points out that wine is for the physical body, not a spiritual one, and that kingdom of which Christ speaks in this verse is a physical kingdom that would be established upon the earth. Allister McGrath writes of this, saying, “The reference to the future drinking of wine is a sure indication that there will be a kingdom of God established upon earth before the final judgment.”[13] Irenaeus believes that the earth will be restored to what it was originally supposed to be like at the time of creation. He says that this new earthly realm will be set up when Christ returns at his second advent. He also believes that the millennial age will go into effect when Christ returns to restore the creation so that this new state to be established will last for a thousand years.[14] He says that at the end of this thousand year period of time the final judgment will take place.[15] Irenaeus states that when Jesus spoke of drinking wine anew in the Father’s kingdom, he was promising two different things: “The inheritance of the earth in which the new fruit of the vine will be drunk, and the physical resurrection of his disciples.”[16]

Hippolytus

Hippolytus appears to have taken the parable of the rich man and Lazarus as told by Jesus in the New Testament rather literally in its descriptions of the afterlife. At the end of this parable, both the rich man and Lazarus die. The rich man is taken to a place that Jesus calls “hell” where the man exists in a state of pain and agony. Lazarus, on the other hand, is taken by the angels up to “Abraham’s bosom.”[17] In this parable, Jesus describes a great chasm dividing the rich man and Lazarus so that neither go move from one place to the other. However, the rich man is still able to communicate with the patriarch Abraham. Hippolytus believed that in this parable, besides making a point about loving ones neighbor, Jesus was actually giving a detailed description of what the afterlife would look like. In his Against Plato, On the Cause of the Universe he writes that when people die they are taken to a place called “hades.” He describes hades as a sort of temporary holding-place.[18] This place is not to be confused with either heaven or hell, but may be seen as a sort of foretaste of both places. He says that there are different regions within hades, and that people go to these different regions depending upon whether they were righteous or wicked in their lives.[19] In the region of hades known as hell those who were wicked receive punishment from the angels according to their deeds. However, the punishment is not as extreme as what will take place at the final judgment when those wicked people will be removed to the lake of burning sulfur, or the second death.[20] The righteous, after death, would be taken to a place in hades known as “Abraham’s bosom,” where there would always be present the “smile” of the fathers and the righteous until the final judgment when they would be taken to heaven, or paradise.[21]

Hippolytus also believed in the physical resurrection of the body. He believed that the bodies which we had during our lives on earth would be given back to us after the resurrection.[22] He also believed that those who had rejected Christ and lived wicked lives would receive the same bodies with the same illnesses and infirmities that they had carried on earth, but that the righteous would receive back their bodies healed and restored to what they were originally supposed to be like.[23] He describes heaven as well, saying that there will be no sun or moon or seasons there because these would indicate the passing of time, and time will be of no consequence there. There will be no constellations or roaring seas, and the righteous will not reproduce to make new generations of people for everything will be complete.[24]

In Hippolytus’s commentary on the book of Daniel it is clear that he interprets the beast in Daniel’s vision to be the Antichrist of the New Testament.[25] He interprets the iron legs of the statue within the story of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar as representative of the Roman Empire, which was still in power at the time of this writing.[26] Hippolytus believed that the Roman Empire would eventually fall and be divided into ten different kingdoms or perhaps ruled by ten different kings or authorities.[27] He believed that after this the Antichrist would come and there would be a time of “tribulation” where the “saints” would be persecuted.[28] He also believed that the stone described in the vision which smashes the statue and becomes a great mountain that fills the whole earth is representative of Christ and Christ’s kingdom which will fill the entire earth. He believes that Christ will return during the time of the Antichrist and that Christ will then judge the world.[29] Hippolytus also believed that the reign of Christ would come after the earth had experienced 6,000 years of history.[30] After studying the many numbers of the Old Testament, he concluded that because God rested on the seventh day of Creation, as well as instituted the Sabbath day of rest for His people, that Christ would return 6,000 years after the creation of Adam, which he believed to have been approximately 5,500 years prior to the birth of Christ.[31] He believed that Christ would reign for a thousand years in the seventh millennium, which he considered to be a thousand year Sabbath.[32] He even attempts to prove this theory by using the construction of the ark during the time of Moses as an example, saying that measurements for the ark are evidence that Christ was born in the year 5,500.[33] He also reasons that the Roman Empire will only last for approximately five hundred years.[34] Hippolytus quotes the scriptures which say that with the Lord a thousand years are like a day and applies this to his interpretation of the book of Revelation, saying that when John says that it was the sixth hour when he received his vision this was at the middle of the day, so when John also refers to the five kings who have fallen, the one who is, and the one who has not yet come, the sixth king falls under the reign of the Roman Empire under which Jesus was born, proving that he was born in the middle of the sixth thousand year period, the 5,500th year after Adam’s creation, during which the Roman Empire was in power.[35]

Hippolytus does not interpret the three and a half years mentioned in Daniel to be limited to the time of the reign of the Antichrist, but also of the time during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes who desecrated the temple in Jerusalem, abolishing the daily the daily sacrifice. He interprets the reign of Antiochus as a fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy, yet he also believes that the future Antichrist will abolish the sacrifice during a three and a half year time period, setting up the “abomination of desolation.” He compares the two events to each other and recognizes their similarity, but he says that the first event is a more local destruction and the second event is a global desolation. Hippolytus states that after this, once the Gospel has been preached to all nations, and Elijah and Enoch appear to announce the impending desolation of the world, Christ will then appear to judge and to reign.

Throughout the writings of Hippolytus on the “end times” he says that the Antichrist who will be established in the last days will have the appearance of Christ himself. Just as Satan poses as “an angel of light” so the Antichrist will give the appearance of being the Christ, even performing miracles amazing enough to deceive the world into believing he is the One.[36] Besides believing that Daniel and Revelation speak of the same things, Hippolytus believes that throughout the Old Testament the prophets spoke of the events of the end of the world, and he tries to pull everything together to create an overall picture of what he believes the last days will look like. With the idea that the Antichrist will have the appearance of the Christ, he points to the blessings of Jacob to his sons in the book of Genesis, in which both the tribes of Judah and Dan are compared to lions.[37] Jacob says that Judah will never fail to have someone on the throne and since Christ came from the tribe of Judah, this will be the case since Christ’s kingdom will never be destroyed. When Jacob blesses the tribe of Dan, he also describes Dan as a lion. However, Dan is apparently also compared to a snake, reminiscent of the serpent who tempted Adam and Eve, and who would “strike” or “injure” the descendant of Eve.[38] Hippolytus concludes that the “lion of Judah” is in fact Christ, whereas the lion of Dan is the Antichrist. He believes then that the Antichrist will be of Jewish descent, particularly from the tribe of Dan.[39] He holds to the same position as Irenaeus on this matter and gives further evidence to this reasoning by pointing out that in the book of Revelation the tribe of Dan is not mentioned in the list of the tribes sealed.[40]

Origen

In Origen’s De Principiis he writes that he must be careful when discussing the things of the end, or the consummation of all things. He reminds the reader that in his previous writings, such as on that of the Trinity, he found it proper to give strict definitions in his layout, but that with a topic such as the consummation, he is unsure about many number of things and wants his reader to understand that his thoughts are not the final word. He says, “For we have pointed out in the preceding pages those questions which must be set forth in clear dogmatic propositions…But on the present occasion our exercise is to be conducted, as we best may, in the style of a disputation rather than of strict definition.”[41] In this writing, Origen speaks of the new heavens and the new earth to which the scriptures refer. Origin claims that the making of a new heaven and a new earth does not mean that the present heaven and earth will be completely destroyed in order to make room for something different entirely, but rather Origin holds to the idea that what is present now will made new in that it will be renewed or restored. He writes, “For if the heavens are to be changed, assuredly that which is changed does not perish, and if the fashion of the world passes away, it is by no means an annihilation or destruction of their material substance that is shown to take place, but a kind of change of quality and transformation of appearance.”[42] It will be made better. Origin points to the Old Testament prophets, particularly Isaiah, saying that they describe an earth that has been made right again rather than a different earth. Origen also points out that in the end the material will not be destroyed. He believes that people will possess physical bodies and live in a physical world, saying that only God exists as purely spirit. He writes, “And if any one imagine that at the end material, i.e., bodily, nature will be entirely destroyed, he cannot in any respect meet my view…”[43] While claiming that people will possess physical bodies, Origin also claims that these bodies will be made perfect, unlike the bodies we now have, so that “every bodily substance will be so pure and refined as to be like the æther, and of a celestial purity and clearness.”[44] While Origin claims that we will still be bodily creatures, he still seems to hold to the idea that what is physical is lesser than that which is spiritual, comparing these refined bodies to a spiritual substance.

In his writings Origen also claims that “By the command of God the body which was earthly and animal will be replaced by a spiritual body, such as may be able to dwell in heaven…”[45] While he believes that we will still have bodies after the Resurrection, he still seems to have a difficult time with the idea of these bodies being physical. McGrath says, “Origen here sets out a view of the resurrection body which is partly shaped by the writings of Paul in the New Testament, and partly by Platonic ideas of perfection.”[46] Origen claims that these spiritual bodies will not be involved in any kind of “passion.”[47] He also believes that everyone who dies will receive a spiritual body, both those who go to heaven and those who got to hell.[48]

Origen’s view that the Resurrection body would be a spiritual body was not held by all during his time.[49] Other theologians disagreed with Origen and argued against this notion that the physical was evil and that death led to the liberation of the soul. McGrath says of this Gnostic tendency, “This view was commonplace within the Hellenistic culture of the New Testament period. However, this idea was vigorously opposed by most early Christian theologians.”[50] One of them was Methodius of Olympus who argued that the human body had been corrupted by sin, and that in death the body was returning to the material from which it had been formed in order to be refashioned by the creator back into the form it was originally supposed to take.[51] He believed that God created people to be physical creatures, but that they had been warped by sin. He believed that the physical aspect of humanity was not evil, or less important that the spiritual aspect, and that at the Resurrection God would restore the physical body to the way it had been perfectly made.[52] According to McGrath, this is different than Origen’s view which stated that “human flesh was simply a prison for the eternal spirit, which was liberated at death, and would be raised again in a purely spiritual manner.”[53]

Gregory of Nyssa also holds to the same view as Methodius. He believes that the resurrected body will be restored to its original state, as it was before the Fall.[54] He refers to the Apostle Paul’s example of a seed falling and dying only to be raised up again, saying that the seed was not the original state of the plant which grows up, but rather the plant from which the seed fell.[55] He says, “Thus we learn from him not only that human nature is changed into a far nobler state, but also that we are to hope for the return of human nature to its primal condition.”[56]

According to Henry Chadwick in his article "Origen, Celsus, and the resurrection of the human body," it has long been attributed to Origen that he held to the belief that at the resurrection, those who would be raised would arise in a spherical shape. However, Chadwick believes that perhaps Origen did not actually hold to this view necessarily and that this was a corruption or a misinterpretation by later monks or scholars studying and translating his works. Chadwick points out that neither Jerome nor Methodius make mention of this spherical doctrine, and that this would indicate that Origen did not actually believe this because Jerome and Methodius would argued strongly against this idea if he had mentioned it just as they did the other ideas of his which they found to be erroneous.[57]

Origen points out that Christ is the image and glory of the Father. He says, however, that Christ came as a slave or servant into this world in order to save those who were slaves to sin, but that later Christ will come to this earth not as a slave but in the glory of God. He makes a distinction between the perfect and the imperfect, saying that those who were imperfect looked on Christ and saw nothing of beauty, only the slave, but that those who were perfect witnessed the glory of Christ.[58] Origen believes that this glory of God displayed in Christ is given to those who had received Christ. He believes this to be a present reality, and not just a future hope. However, he also affirms a future second coming of Christ in which the glory of God will be revealed and imparted to those who have believed. He writes, “But when the Word comes in such form with His own angels, He will give to each a part of His own glory and of the brightness of His own angels, according to the action of each. But we say these things not rejecting even the second coming of the Son of God understood in its simpler form.”[59] Origen speculates about the nature of the final judgment, wondering how to reconcile the scriptures which say that the sins of the righteous will be completely wiped out and the scriptures which say that every deed we have done, whether good or bad, will be brought to account. He concludes that for the one “who is perfected, and has altogether laid aside wickedness, the sins are wiped out, but that, in the case of him who has altogether revolted from piety, if anything good was formerly done by him, it is not taken into account.”[60] He says, however, that we do not occupy either of these positions, for we are neither perfect not “apostate.” We instead “occupy a middle ground,” which is why Christ must look at everything we have done, whether good or bad. He says, “…for we have not been so pure that our evil deeds are not at all imputed unto us, nor have we fallen away to such an extent that our better actions are forgotten.”[61]

Origen speaks of the Judgment Day in his commentary on Matthew’s gospel. He says that on the Judgment Day we will all stand before the judgment seat of Christ where we will be judged according to what we have done in this life. He refers to this as a “reckoning,” and says that according to Christ every idle word we speak will be judged at that time, along with every selfish act such as refusing to give a cold cup of water to someone in need.[62]

Origen also discusses how the Judgment might go about taking place. He recognizes that such a thorough judgment of the actions and thoughts of everyone who has ever lived would take a substantial amount of time. However, he concludes that God’s power is beyond the power of humans, including humanity’s limits to time, and that since God created the universe in six days at the beginning He would not need a large amount of time to judge humanity at the end.[63] He also points out that Paul says the resurrection will occur in the “twinkling of an eye,” and is convinced that God could carry out the final judgment in the same way.[64]

Origen tended to have some controversial ideas throughout much of his theology. One of these evident in his eschatology is the idea that eventually all creatures will be reunited with God. This idea would indicate that even those people who had gone to hell would eventually one day be restored to God. McGrath writes, “Origen also adopted with some enthusiasm the idea of apocatastasis, according to which every creature – including both humanity and Satan – will be saved.”[65] This is just one of many of his ideas which did not sit well with other early church theologians.

Tertullian

Tertullian affirms the advent of the second coming of Christ in several of his writings. In book three of Against Marcion he speaks of how the prophets spoke of the coming of Christ and how they said he would come in lowliness but that he would also come in glory and honor. Tertullian refutes the heretic Marcion as well as the Jews for not recognizing that the prophets not only say that the Messiah would come in glory but that he would also come in lowliness.[66] Tertullian recognizes this to mean that there would be two separate advents of Christ, one where he would come in lowliness and the other where he would come in glory. He writes, “We affirm that, as there are two conditions demonstrated by the prophets to belong to Christ, so these presignified the same number of advents; one, and that the first, was to be in lowliness…”[67] Tertullian points to how the prophets spoke of how Christ would come as a suffering servant and how he would be despised and rejected, not having any beauty. He quotes the prophet Isaiah, saying of Christ “… ‘and we beheld Him, and He was without beauty: His form was disfigured;’ ‘marred more than the sons of men; a man stricken with sorrows, and knowing how to bear our infirmity’…”[68] He says that prophecies such as these point to Christ’s first coming, but that prophecies that speak of Christ’s glorious appearing point to his second coming. Tertullian says that this rejection of Christ was fitting for his first coming, as his first coming was so that he might bear our disgrace and remove our sin. However, he also quotes from the prophets, saying that Christ will come in glory. He quotes from Daniel, saying, “Behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven […] and there was given Him dominion and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away […].”[69] Tertullian also point to the prophet Zechariah who wrote of the priest Joshua. Tertullian points out that the priest Joshua represents Jesus, whose names are the same, in that at first Joshua is dressed in old dirty clothes, but later he is given fresh clean garments, the garments of a priest. Tertullian says that the dirty clothes point to Christ’s first coming and the new garments point to his second coming.[70] When speaking of the Jews and the heretics, Tertullian seems to say that they have not recognized Christ’s first coming in looking for his second coming, and that to the believer both advents of Christ are connected. They are linked together, both having significance. To Tertullian, the first advent is just as important as the second advent, and we must not forget Christ’s first coming as we study his second.

Tertullian also speaks of the resurrection of the dead and the kingdom of heaven. He is very much against Marcion’s idea that Christ promised the Jews that they would recover their country and that after death they would lay in Hades in what is called “Abraham’s bosom.” [71] He does not like the idea that the kingdom that is promised is for this world only, and the idea that the rewards to be received are only earthly and not also heavenly. He affirms that the kingdom of heaven will be an earthly kingdom in that it will be present on earth, but he also says that it is a heavenly kingdom. He believes that the coming kingdom will be present on earth, but that its origins are in heaven, not on earth as Marcion claimed.[72] Tertullian goes on to speak of the resurrection and the Millennial Age. He says that after the resurrection of the dead, Christ will reign on earth for a thousand years. He writes, “But we do confess that a kingdom is promised to us upon the earth, although before heaven, only in another state of existence; inasmuch as it will be after the resurrection for a thousand years in the divinely-built city of Jerusalem, ‘let down from heaven.’”[73] Tertullian then says that while this heavenly Jerusalem is present on earth during this thousand year time period, the resurrection will take place.[74] He claims that some will rise from the dead sooner than others according to what they have done during their lives.[75] He writes, “We say that this city has been provided by God for receiving the saints on their resurrection, and refreshing them with the abundance of all really spiritual blessings, as a recompense for those which in the world we have either despised or lost…”[76] He then says that God sees it fitting that the saints should be rewarded in the same place that they have suffered for Him.[77] Tertullian also says that after this Millennial Period, once all have been resurrected, the destruction of the world will occur, and will be followed by the Final Judgment of Christ.[78] He says at this point the state of the saints will become like that of the angels, and they will “be removed to that kingdom in heaven.”[79] He also makes reference to Paul’s writings on how we will rise up to meet the Lord in the air.[80] Tertullian’s main issue with Marcion in this section of his writings is that Marcion does not believe in heaven.

In Tertullian’s Apologeticus, one of his earliest writings,[81] he argues that images of heaven and hell exist in other religious traditions, but that this does not mean that heaven and hell do not exist. He refers to the similarities in these other religions and philosophies as shadows or copies of the real thing in his rather platonic-sounding argument.[82] He claims that the pagans actually stole these ideas from the Hebrew Scriptures themselves. Alister McGrath says, “Tertullian implies that these pagan writings may have plagiarized Old Testament sources, a common view among Christian writers of this early period.”[83] By using this argument, Tertullian claims both the originality and the validity of heaven and hell as portrayed in the Old Testament.

Tertullian’s belief was that in the final state of things, everything would be restored to the way it was originally supposed to be. He says that the “Omega” seen in Christ is a restoration of the “Alpha.”[84] He also says that in order for this to happen, some things must be done away with entirely. He says that in order for pain to disappear, the things which cause pain must disappear. This would include physical ailments as well as the sin nature within mankind. In order for someone to truly be made well, the disease itself must be destroyed.[85] He also refers to Revelation, where the image of Satan being cast into the lake of burning sulfur is presented. He says that the devil, too, will be destroyed, since he is one of the root causes of all that is not right in the world.[86] These views line up with the biblical text and differ from the views of some of the other early theologians. Irenaeus probably would not have entirely agreed with Tertullian that the “Omega” was merely the restoration of the “Alpha,” but would have seen the end result differing from the beginning. Tertullian’s views are also different than Origen, who seemed to have believed that everything would be restored back to God in the future and redeemed, including Satan, whereas Tertullian believed that God would eventually destroy everything that was against Him. Through these and many other examples, we can see how the early church theologians did not always have the same ideas or were in agreement with each other in their eschatologies. However, overall they were all in agreement on certain things, such as the return of Christ to the earth, resurrection of the dead at some point in time, as well as the idea that God’s kingdom would come to earth in a millennial sort of way.





____________________________________________________


[1] (ed.) Colin E. Gunton. The Cambridge Companion to Christian Doctrine. David Fergusson. “Eschatology.” (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge), 1997.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Kim, Dai Sil. "Irenaeus of Lyons and Teilhard de Chardin : a comparative study of "Recapitulation" and "Omega." Journal of Ecumenical Studies 13, no. 1 (December 1, 1976): 69-93.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] (ed.) Cyril Richardson. Early Christian Fathers. Vol. 1 of The Library of Christian Classics. (Simon and Schuster: New York), 1996.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Kim.
[12] Richardson.
[13] (ed.) Alister McGrath. The Christian Theology Reader. “Irenaeus on the Final Restoration of Creation” (Blackwell Pub.: Malden, MA), 2007.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Hippolytus. Against Plato, On the Cause of the Universe. (tr.) J.H. MacMahon. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5. (ed.) Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886.) (rev., ed.) Kevin Knight. “New Advent.” <http:>.</http:>
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Ibid., Exegetical Fragments, On Daniel. (tr.) S.D.F. Salmond.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Ibid.
[35] Ibid.
[36] Ibid., On the End of the World. (tr.) J.H. MacMahon.
[37] Ibid., On Christ and Antichrist.
[38] Ibid.
[39] Ibid.
[40] Jaroslav Pelikan. The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition. Vol. 1 of The Christian Tradition. (University of Chicago Press: Chicago), 1971.
[41] Origen. De Principiis, Book I, ch. 6. (tr.) Frederick Crombie. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4. (ed.) Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.) (rev., ed.) Kevin Knight. “New Advent.” <http:>.</http:>
[42] Ibid.
[43] Ibid.
[44] Ibid.
[45] McGrath. The Christian Theology Reader. “Origen on the Resurrection Body”
[46] Ibid.
[47] Ibid.
[48] Ibid.
[49] Alister McGrath. Christianity: An Introduction. (Blackwell Pub.: Malden, MA), 2006.
[50] Ibid.
[51] McGrath. The Christian Theology Reader. “Methodius of Olympus on the Resurrection”
[52] Ibid.
[53] Ibid.
[54] Ibid., “Gregory of Nyssa on the Resurrection Body”
[55] Ibid.
[56] Ibid.
[57] Henry Chadwick. "Origen, Celsus, and the resurrection of the human body." Harvard Theological Review 41, no. 2 (April 1, 1948): 83-102.
[58] Origen. Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Book XII, ch. 30. (tr.) John Patrick. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 9. (ed.) Allan Menzies. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1896.) (rev., ed.) Kevin Knight. “New Advent.” <http:>.</http:>
[59] Ibid.
[60] Ibid.
[61] Ibid.
[62] Ibid., ch. 8.
[63] Ibid., ch. 9.
[64] Ibid.
[65] Alister E. McGrath. Christian Theology: An Introduction. (Blackwell Pub.: Malden, MA), 2007.
[66] Tertullian. Against Marcion, Book III, ch. 7. (tr.) Peter Holmes. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3. (ed.) Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.) (rev., ed.) Kevin Knight. “New Advent.” <http:>.`</http:>
[67] Ibid.
[68] Ibid.
[69] Ibid.
[70] Ibid.
[71] Ibid., ch. 24.
[72] Ibid.
[73] Ibid.
[74] Ibid.
[75] Ibid.
[76] Ibid.
[77] Ibid.
[78] Ibid.
[79] Ibid.
[80] Ibid.
[81] McGrath. The Christian Theology Reader. “Tertullian on Hell and Heaven”
[82] Ibid.
[83] Ibid.
[84] (ed.) Thomas C. Oden. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. (ed.) William C. Weinrich. Revelation. (InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, IL), 2005.
[85] Ibid.
[86] Ibid.