Lesson 12 Worship in the Early Church

In the previous lesson, we discussed the political climate from the end of the first century until the ascendancy of Constantine in A.D. 312. Now it is time to look at how these early Christians worshipped.

Documentation is much more available for the second have of this period. From about A.D. 60, where Luke’s history (The book of Acts) ends, to about A.D. 180, there is no continuous account, and what little is known must be pieced together.

By the time the picture clarifies, toward the end of the second century, it does so in a (perhaps) surprising manner. We do not find highly independent Christian communities scattered throughout the world, but something much more like a universal or catholic church, which we might as well call the Catholic Church, a loose but definite confederation of churches that, while disagreeing on certain things, nevertheless distinguished themselves from others that might claim the Christian mantle. The way in which this distinction was manifest is that they functioned as an ecumenical body with a “rule of faith” and a recognized body of scripture that served as the guideline for judging the veracity of anything that might be thought of as a question of faith or doctrine.

Charitable Works

From the earliest days, one of the commonalities among groups of Christians was the practice of charity and mutual aid. Recall that one of the first acts of the second Christian community, the church at Antioch, was to send gifts to the first community, the church at Jerusalem, to alleviate their suffering in the face of famine. In the Jerusalem church itself, wealthier members placed their property in a common pool for use by those in need. The first institution of deacons in the church was intended to distribute goods to the needy.

In later apostolic times, after Paul had founded churches throughout the Mediterranean region, we see additional efforts from a number of them to provide assistance to the poverty stricken Jerusalem church.

¹Now about the collection for God's people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. ²On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made. ³Then, when I arrive, I will give letters of introduction to the men you approve and send them with your gift to Jerusalem. ⁴If it seems advisable for me to go also, they will accompany me. (1 Cor. 16:1-4)

While these apostolic era churches were administered independently, with their own bishops and elders, it was clear they felt a sense of being part of a catholic body, as evidenced by readiness of one community to assist another.

Widows were another area in which the early church practiced charity. Widows were not only to be taken care of, but also put to work in the church, primarily in the distribution of charity to others in need. This is evident in the instructions regarding widows found, for example, in 1 Tim. 5.

The charitable and mutual aid aspect of Christianity made its way into the period’s secular literature. In the second century, and Greek satirist by the name of Lucian describes Christian practice in one of his works. The character is a charlatan named Proteus Peregrinius. Proteus is depicted as joining the Christians. When he ends up in prison, Lucian writes that the Christians “left no stone unturned” in their effort to secure his release. When they were unsuccessful, they looked after his needs in all matters with “untiring solicitude and devotion.” From the crack of dawn, widows and orphans are waiting at the prison doors, and church officers bribe the jailers so that they might spend the night and being him meals and partake of their “sacred formulas.”

The fact that Christian charity did not go unnoticed is, of course, also testimony of the fact that it was unusual. This is an important part of the explanation of how the church grew even us it suffered repeated persecutions.

Caring for children (orphans) is another mark of the Christian communities, and one which distinguishes them—for this was an era when children were exposed (instead of murdered in the womb) if unwanted by their parents. This practice of abandonment is well documented in the Greco-Roman world, and these children were often picked up by “baby farmers” to become slaves or courtesans.

An example: a letter, written in 1 B.C., from an Egyptian to his wife. Though written in a loving manner to his pregnant spouse, the writer gives these matter-of-fact instructions: “If it is a boy, keep it; if a girl, expose it.”

In addition to attending to the needs of widows and orphans, the church also distinguished itself by caring for the sick. When Alexandria was devastated by a plague in the middle of the third century, the bishop of Alexandria, Dionysius, wrote about the devotion of Christians in tending the sick, often catching the plague and dying of it themselves in consequence, whereas their pagan neighbors “thrust from them those who showed symptoms of the plague and fled from their nearest and dearest. They would throw them into the streets half dead, or cast out their corpses without burial.”

In these and other matters (e.g., slavery) Christians were not just “doing what any decent folk would do,” but were setting an entirely new standard in treating all human life with respect and kindness.

Baptism

It would be nice if a study of the nascent church demonstrated a definitive point of view when it comes to baptism, both in the question of who gets baptized (children and professing believers, or only professing believers) and in the mode of administration of the sacrament (ordinance). Alas, it does not, and many of the same debates that rage in our day were also present (although the arguments were couched differently) in the earliest days of the church.

One of earliest documents to speak on this is the Didache (~A.D. 120), which has the full title The Teaching of the Lord through the Twelve Apostles to the Gentiles. (Its neglect of Paul suggests it was at first a document of Jewish Christians, probably of Syrian origin.)

And concerning baptism, baptize this way: After reviewing all of this teaching, baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in living (running) water. But if running water is not available, then baptize into other water; and cold is preferred, but if not available in warm. But if neither is available, pour water three times upon the head in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism, let the overseer fast, and also the one being baptized, and all others who are able; Be sure to instruct the one being baptized to fast one or two days before. (Didache 7)

Notice a sort of non-dogmatic reasonableness, cold running water is preferred, but if not, warm static water is fine. Neither dunking nor sprinkling is declared as the “only” method; the meaning of baptism (whatever they took it to be) is more important than the method. Since fasting is mentioned, it is also interesting to look at what the Didache has to say about that:

Be careful not to schedule your fasts at the times when the hypocrites fast. They fast on the second (Monday) and fifth (Thursday) day of the week, therefore make your fast on the fourth (Wednesday) day and the Preparation day (Friday, the day of preparation for the Sabbath-Saturday). Likewise, don't pray as the hypocrites, but as commanded in the Gospel in this manner:

Our Father in heaven,
Sacred is Your Name.
Your kingdom comes.
Your will is accomplished,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us each day our daily bread,
and forgive us our debt
in the manner that we forgive our debtors.
And do not allow us to fall to temptation,
but deliver us from evil,
for Yours is the power and the glory forever.
Amen!

Pray in this manner three times per day. (Didache 8)

The admonition against fasting like the hypocrites brings to mind:

When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. (Matt. 6:16)

But in the Didache, fasting like the “hypocrites” is extended to avoid the very days in which they fast (second and fifth), i.e., the days when the Jews fasted!

As for the Lord’s Supper, the Didache throws a curve: it instructs the partaking of the cup first:

Now concerning the Thanksgiving meal, give thanks in this manner.

First, concerning the cup:

We thank You, our Father,
For the Holy Vine of David Your servant,
Whom You made known to us through Your Servant;
May the glory be Yours forever.

Concerning the broken bread:

We thank You, our Father,
For the life and knowledge
Which You made known to us through Your Servant;
May the glory be Yours forever.
As this broken bread was scattered over the mountains,
And was gathered together to become one,
So let Your Body of Faithful be gathered together
From the ends of the earth into Your kingdom;
for the glory and power are Yours forever.

But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving, unless they have been baptized; for concerning this is taught, "Do not give what is holy to dogs." (Didache 9)

Back to baptism. Some of the earliest evidence that infant baptism was practiced in the early church comes from those who argue against it. For example, Tertullian:

And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary--if (baptism itself) is not so necessary --that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfill their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, "Forbid them not to come unto me." Let them "come," then, while they are growing up; let them "come" while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the "remission of sins?" More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to "ask" for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given "to him that asketh." For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred--in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom--until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation. (Tertullian, On Baptism)

Tertullian is not arguing against a hypothetical, it would seem, but an actual practice in the North African church. He did not dispute the validity of infant baptism, but questioned its necessity and pointed out what, in his mind, were its risks “If people understood the obligations of baptism, they fear receiving it more than delaying it.”

Origen, on the other hand, was in favor of baptizing children, claiming and preaching that it was apostolic. He wrote:

Little ones are baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Which sins? Or at what time have they sinned? Or how can there be the slightest reason for the baptism of little children, unless it is to be found in the passage “No one is free from taint, not even he whose life upon earth lasts but a day”? Even little children are baptized. Because the taint which we have at birth is removed in the sacrament of baptism.

Cyprian (200-258), Bishop of Carthage, was another ardent supporter of infant baptism.

But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man… And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to he hindered from baptism and from the grace of God, who is merciful and kind and loving to all. Which, since it is to he observed and maintained in respect of all, we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons, who on this very account deserve more from our help and from the divine mercy, that immediately, on the very beginning of their birth, lamenting and weeping, they do nothing else but entreat. (Cyprian, Epistle LVIII)

In spite of evidence that infant baptism was practiced and that some of the great church fathers and first-generation apologists supported it, a great deal of evidence points to the widespread practice of “believers baptism” (implying also withholding baptism from children). Many church fathers, those of Christian parents, were not baptized until the end of their “student days,” e.g. Augustine.

We can also turn to Justin Martyr, and look at his teaching concerning baptism:

I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers' wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Isaiah the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: "Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if ye refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it."
And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the layer the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed. (Justin, Apol, 1, 61)

Justin appears to have an unresolved and rather odd view –he seems to teach baptismal regeneration while denying the common view of original sin.

Concerning Communion, Justin writes:

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to genoito [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.
And this food is called among us [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn. (Justin, Apol, 1, 65,66)

Concerning weekly worship, Justin instructs:

And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succors the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savoir on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration. (Justin, Apol, 1, 67)

Swearing, etc.

Regarding my book, which contains some swearing, Bob commented:

I realy don't understand your logic about reconciling faith and reality. If you think you can write profanity and describe some"college situations" in language that is of the world. Who do you think your fooling? Is this book about making money? We are to be different in all things,even evangelizing. Just another opinion that I am sure you will be able to justify in your own mind.

I find this puzzling.

Paul was willing to become all things and to compromise anything, except the gospel. (1 Cor. 9:20) Far from being “different in all things”, he would adapt his behavior based on his company. The true meaning of “different in all things” is living out one’s faith and, as with Paul, never compromising the gospel.

When I was in college, the fundamentalist evangelical types had no effect when they buttonholed me—I made fun of them. And yet a scientist, who taught of the evidence for God in physics, and who occasionally had some salt in his language, had a profound impact. If he had been different in all things (as Bob means it, if I understand correctly), including his evangelism, I would have ignored him just like I ignored the others who were different in all things.

Once I asked a colleague and former student when he became a Christian. He told me that he was greatly influenced by one of my lectures when I snuck in some Intelligent Design arguments. That is the purpose of my book: to evangelize in the same way that I was evangelized, and the same way that I have evangelized others through lectures and talks.

It is also true that any admonition that we try to apply to “do not swear” is more accurately “do not curse someone" (something like ascribing false motives to their actions, such 'as to make money') or “do not swear an oath to God.” The swearing that I use in my book, e.g.,“Yeah, I was pissed off” is not of this type. Not that is to be preferred, but you cannot convince me from the bible that such a statement, which contains not a curse, a slander, gossip, or is intended to hurt, is sinful. After all, God’s law is absolute. Whether a word like piss, used to describe a mood, is “swearing” is completely subjective. At most, you can say that if you are in a situation where it offends, then don’t use it. Beyond that, it’s in the secular realm: don’t use it for it makes you look ignorant.

My Book: Here, Eyeball This!

[Note: For those looking for the next Church History installment, a new one has been posted below.]

Longtime readers of this blog know that I am writing a novel. In fact, two fellow bloggers have read it in its earlier forms. Rachel read a very early draft, I am embarrassed to think of what I actually sent her. Josh read a much later draft. What I sent him was probably at the 80% level and it still contained roughly a mole of typos.

The story is now at the point where I cannot make it better, apart from tweaking and typo correction. Note: claiming "I can't make it better" is not the same, by a long shot, as claiming the book is good –it’s an assessment of my abilities.

I have given up the hope of traditional publishing. I cannot get an agent even to request the manuscript. (If you don’t know, you generally approach agents with a query letter and a synopsis. If you generate interest, they will request sample chapters or a manuscript.) Ironically, the only agent to request a manuscript was when I completed the first draft, which I naively though was pretty good. I now know it was awful, little more than an outline.

I explored the Christian publishing route, but my novel, while in my opinion highly evangelical (albeit in an unusual way), is “PG13.” I have had some discussion with Christian publishers. Here is a recent and typical exchange:

David: I have your package, which was sent as a result of my posting on 1st Edition. I might be interested, but I have a question. I consider my novel highly evangelical (An important theme in the story is the evidence for intelligent design), but it is rated "PG13". It's about college students. No explicit sex, some mild innuendo, some swearing (no 'F' word.) Do you handle "PG13" type novels?

Christian Publisher Acquisition Manager: Thanks for the request but we would not be interested in publishing this type of novel.

(Note: what was frustrating in this particular exchange was that they had first contacted me, obviously without doing their homework.)

So, I am considering a different route. Which is to publish it as an e-book with a legitimate e-book publisher and using a Print On Demand publisher (POD) for the dead tree version. The downsideS to POD are (a) a bruised ego (b) a million to one shot at showing up in a major book store (although it would be available through Amazon and B&N online) and (c) higher cost –probably about $13 for the paperback as opposed to $8.

For what it’s worth, here is the synopsis that is not enticing any literary agents:

Here, Eyeball This! (~100,000 words)

Synopsis

Aaron Dern begins graduate school at Carnegie Mellon University, fearful that he can’t compete with this impressive looking array of foreign students. He doesn’t realize that he is about to form the closest and strangest friendships of his life, or that he is about to discover that science and spirituality intersect.

Soon he meets Hiroshi Yoto, from Japan, who enjoys American beer and trying out new English words, often with unforeseen consequences. You’ll laugh out loud when he goes head to head with comedian Dennis Miller.

And there’s Yen, a former tank commander from Taiwan. He likes to read bathroom graffiti and the Bible. To Yen, Solomon is wise indeed, but not for the usual reasons.

From Estonia there is Timil Deeps, who has trouble mastering physics, not to mention an even harder subject: baseball.

Maya Dupree is inscrutable behind her thick lenses, Patrick O’Neill lives in a constant state of pious agitation, and Ken Dolittle does his best at alienating everyone.

Professor Mike Jacob and his wife Vivian, half Mike’s age, teach Aaron lessons far more valuable than physics, lessons about the true origin of the universe.

When Aaron detects signals from Leila, an undergraduate beauty who everyone agrees is out of his league, uncertainty rules the day. She’s a student in his class, which makes the cost of misinterpreting those signals even more severe.

Bernie Roche and Grace Chen, fellow graduate students, impact his life in unimaginable ways. Not at all what Aaron expected when he evaluated them at first glance, they have a complexity that catches him by surprise. The Roche squeeze catalyzes the friendship, and Grace Chen’s feistiness never fails to amaze.

Aaron and his friends inch their way toward the dreaded qualifier, the comprehensive eight-hour exam that will determine their fates. Only those who pass can go for the prize: a Ph.D. And yet the closer it gets, the less important it becomes for Aaron.

And then, a trashcan provides Aaron the opportunity of a lifetime. But is it one that he can accept?

The events that happen in the one and a half years covered by this story will make you laugh, make you think, and might even make you cry.

When it is published (which if I go this route may be very soon) I may pander for bloggers to review it.

Lesson 11: The Next 200 Years

[Note: The source for most of this material is The Spreading Flame, by F.F. Bruce.]

For the next two hundred years, the Christians of the Roman Empire would endure periods of persecution of varying intensity as well as brief respites of tranquility. The common thread is that the church maintained her faith (as always, imperfectly) and propagated it so successfully that her numbers always increased.

At this time, the first post-apostolic apologists appear, scholars who preferred to defend the church with pen rather than sword. The earliest known is Quadratus,

Emperor	Reign
Nerva	96-98
Trajan	98-117
Hadrian	117-138
Antoninus Pius	138-161
Marcus Aurelius	161-180
Lucius Verus	161-169
Commodus	177-192
Sepimius Severus	193-211
Alexander Severus	222-235
Philip the Arab	244-249
Decius	249-251
Valerian I	253-260
Gallienus	253-268
Aurelian	270-275
Diocletian (E)	284-305
Constantius (W)	305-306
Galerius (E)	305-311
Maximian (E)	307-308
Constantine (W)	312-337
Licinius (E)	308-324

The historian Eusebius (~260 - before 341) wrote regarding Quadratus:

After Trajan had reigned for nineteen and a half years [Hadrian] became his successor in the empire. To him Quadratus addressed a discourse containing an apology for our religion, because certain wicked men had attempted to trouble the Christians. The work is still in the hands of a great many of the brethren, as also in our own, and furnishes clear proofs of the man's understanding and of his apostolic orthodox. 2 He himself reveals the early date at which he lived in the following words: "But the works of our Savior were always present, for they were genuine:-those that were healed, and those that were raised from the dead, who were seen not only when they were healed and when they were raised, but were also always present; and not merely while the Savior was on earth, but also after his death, they were alive for quite a while, so that some of them lived even to our day." (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., IV, 3:2)

In the middle of the second century, the most notable apologist is Justin (A.D. 100-165), a Greek philosopher from Samaria who had been converted to Christianity. Ultimately he would die for his faith, and so is known to us as Justin Martyr. He defended Christianity to the Emperor Antoninus Pius and his two adopted sons.

One early anonymous apologist from the mid second century sums of the state of Christianity in the world:

For the Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity. The course of conduct which they follow has not been devised by any speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men; nor do they, like some, proclaim themselves the advocates of any merely human doctrines. But, inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life. They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a common bed. They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives. They love all men, and are persecuted by all. They are unknown and condemned; they are put to death, and restored to life. They are poor, yet make many rich; they are in lack of all things, and yet abound in all; they are dishonored, and yet in their very dishonor are glorified. They are evil spoken of, and yet are justified; they are reviled, and bless; they are insulted, and repay the insult with honor; they do good, yet are punished as evil-doers. When punished, they rejoice as if quickened into life; they are assailed by the Jews as foreigners, and are persecuted by the Greeks; yet those who hate them are unable to assign any reason for their hatred..

To sum up all in one word--what the soul is in the body, that are Christians in the world. The soul is dispersed through all the members of the body, and Christians are scattered through all the cities of the world. The soul dwells in the body, yet is not of the body; and Christians dwell in the world, yet are not of the world. The invisible soul is guarded by the visible body, and Christians are known indeed to be in the world, but their godliness remains invisible. The flesh hates the soul, and wars against it, though itself suffering no injury, because it is prevented from enjoying pleasures; the world also hates the Christians, though in nowise injured, because they abjure pleasures. The soul loves the flesh that hates it, and [loves also] the members; Christians likewise love those that hate them. The soul is imprisoned in the body, yet preserves that very body; and Christians are confined in the world as in a prison, and yet they are the preservers of the world. The immortal soul dwells in a mortal tabernacle; and Christians dwell as sojourners in corruptible [bodies], looking for an incorruptible dwelling in the heavens. The soul, when but ill-provided with food and drink, becomes better; in like manner, the Christians, though subjected day by day to punishment, increase the more in number. God has assigned them this illustrious position, which it were unlawful for them to forsake. (Epistle to Diognetus, 5-6)

Although the author is unknown, he is considered one of the most eloquent writers of the era. Indeed, its beauty is the prime reason why the epistle is not credited to Justin.

None of these apologetic writings had any effect on their intended recipients. The authorities had no interest in defenses of Christianity. If Christians wanted to prove their loyalty, then they could burn incense for the state gods, just like the pagans did.

Justin, who was bona fide Greek philosopher, was martyred under another philosopher, the Stoic emperor Marcus Aurelius. Brought with six companions to Rusticus, prefect of Rome, we have an accurate account of the dialog:

"The Prefect Rusticus says: Approach and sacrifice, all of you, to the gods. Justin says: No one in his right mind gives up piety for impiety. The Prefect Rusticus says: If you do not obey, you will be tortured without mercy. Justin replies: That is our desire, to be tortured for Our Lord, Jesus Christ, and so to be saved, for that will give us salvation and firm confidence at the more terrible universal tribunal of Our Lord and Saviour. And all the martyrs said: Do as you wish; for we are Christians, and we do not sacrifice to idols. The Prefect Rusticus read the sentence: Those who do not wish to sacrifice to the gods and to obey the emperor will be scourged and beheaded according to the laws. The holy martyrs glorifying God betook themselves to the customary place, where they were beheaded and consummated their martyrdom confessing their Savior."

Under Marcus Aurelius, it was political turmoil within the empire that intensified persecution against the church. The year A.D. 166 was a year of great calamity, when havoc was wrought by plague, flood, famine, and invasion from beyond the Danube. In those times many Romans looked around for who, Jonah-like, was bringing the wrath of the gods upon them. Often the “atheistic” Christians were just the group.

The most notorious persecution of Marcus’s regime began in Gaul in 177 the church at Lyons. The outbreak began not with an official edict but mob violence that was given a blind eye by the local magistrates. When some of Christians turned out to be Roman citizens, the Emperor’s ruling was sought. Marcus replied that those who don’t recant should be beheaded, if Roman citizens, and tortured to death otherwise. The survivors sent a poignant and detailed description of the persecution to the churches at Asia Minor. Neither age (young or old) nor gender spared one from death. The ninety year old bishop of Lyons, Ponthinus, was a victim as were children. The most memorable martyr was a slave-girl Blandina. From the Catholic Enclopedia:

Among these Christians was Blandina, a slave, who had been taken into custody along with her master, also a Christian. Her companions greatly feared that on account of her bodily frailty she might not remain steadfast under torture. But although the legate caused her to be tortured in a horrible manner, so that even the executioners became exhausted "as they did not know what more they could do to her", still she remained faithful and repeated to every question "I am a Christian and we commit no wrongdoing." Through fear of torture heathen slaves had testified against their masters that the Christians when assembled committed those scandalous acts of which they were accused by the heathen mob, and the legate desired to wring confession of this misconduct from the Christian prisoners. In his report to the emperor the legate stated that those who held to their Christian belief were to be executed and those who denied their faith were to be released; Blandina was, therefore, with a number of companions subjected to new tortures in the amphitheater at the time of the public games. She was bound to a stake and wild beasts were set on her. They did not, however touch her. After this for a number of days she was led into the arena to see the sufferings of her companions. Finally, as the last of the martyrs, she was scourged, placed on a red-hot grate, enclosed in a net and thrown before a wild steer who tossed her into the air with his horns, and at last killed with a dagger.

Up to now there was a trend: those emperors that were most brutal in their persecutions were those who, after their deaths, were denounced by their pagan subjects as well. Namely: Nero and Domitian. Here the rule is violated: Marcus Aurelius presided over heinous violence against Christians, but is known by historians as one of the “five good emperors” who ruled during the Pax Romana heyday of the empire: Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius.

Marcus’s son Commodus, who succeeded him, is known to historians as a bad emperor, a scoundrel, but Christians had a much easier time under him. That may be due to his wife Maria who may have been a Christian or at least regarded the Christians favorably.

After Commodus’s death, Rome was ruled by a succession of soldier-emperors. The first of these was Septimius Severus who was known from campaigns in Roman Britian. (He reconstructed Hadrian’s wall and died in York.) In 202, Severus issued a first-of-its-kind decree officially forbidding anyone from converting to Christianity.

At this time there was an outbreak of persecution in Egypt that was so severe that many thought it heralded the apocalypse. It was at this time that Leonidas, the father of the great Christian scholar Origen, was beheaded by command of the prefect of Egypt, Lactus. (The fifteen year old Origen wanted to join his father when he was arrested, but could not because his mother hid his clothes!)

Farther west on the African coast, at Carthage, there was another famous martyrdom, that of Perpetua and Felicitas. We have accurate account of their martyrdom, including the fact that Perpetua a free-born matron and Felicitas, her slave, entered the amphitheater hand in hand bearing witness not only to the enduring Christian faith but also attesting to its making class distinctions irrelevant.

Perpetua was about 22 years old and had recently given birth to a son. Apparently, she was a relatively new Christian, too--she was actually baptized while in prison. Felicitas, her slave girl, was like a sister to her. And she too was a new mother, giving birth shortly after her arrest.

Three times Perpetua's father was allowed in to beg her to change her mind. No decent daughter in this patriarchal society would deny her father's pleas and cause him public disgrace. The resolve of the two young women and their friends was unshakable. To deny Christ was worse than death. To follow Him was their first loyalty, no matter what the cost. Shortly before her trial, Perpetua received a series of visions from the Lord, reassuring her of his strength and presence.

When the fatal day came, Perpetua and Felicitas left the prison for the arena "joyfully as though they were on their way to heaven," as the eyewitness account puts it. Before a raging crowd, the Christians were thrown to the wild beasts. A mad heifer charged the women and tossed them, but Perpetua rose and helped Felicitas to her feet. She was ready, even eager, to die for the Lord.

"You must all stand fast in the faith and love one another," she called to the other martyrs, "and do not be weakened by what we have gone through!" When the beasts failed to kill the women, soldiers came to finish them off. But the soldier who came to Perpetua was trembling so much that she had to guide the sword to her throat, indicating that she was giving her life willingly. (http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/GLIMPSEF/Glimpses/glmps001.shtml)

The greatest of the early apologists was Tertullian (~160 – [220-240]) who lived during the suppression under Septimius Severus addressed the Roman governors. He complained about Christians being the scapegoats for everything:

The term conspiracy should not be applied to us but rather to those who plot to foment hatred against decent and worthy people, those who shout for the blood of the innocent and plead in justification of their hatred the foolish excuse that the Christians are to blame for every public disaster and every misfortune that befalls the people. If the Tiber rises to the walls, if the Nile fails to rise and flood the fields, if the sky withholds its rain, if there is an earthquake or famine or plague, straightaway the cry arises: “The Christians to the lions!” (Tertullian, Apologeticus 40, 1-2)

Tertullian also “bragged” about the rapid growth of Christianity:

We are but of yesterday, and yet we have filled all the places that belong to you—cities, islands, forts, towns, exchanges, the military camps themselves, tribes, town councils, the senate, the market place; we have left you nothing but your temples. (Tertullian, Apologeticus 37, 4ff.)

Tertullian goes into veiled threat mode, writing that it is well for the Empire that Christians do not really take up arms against it, they are numerous enough to do it effectively if they were so minded; or depopulate it by packing up and going to a distant corner of the earth. And if they were in truth the incendiaries that some alleged them to be, they could do considerable damage with torches some dark night.

Following this wave of suppression came a half century of relative peace. Some of the Emperors of that period were from the east, including Philip the Arab (244-249) of Damascus. They were more tolerant of Christianity, which had its roots in the eastern provinces. Alexander Severus (222-235) included Christ in his pantheon. And his mother was instructed by Origen.) This period of tranquility brought even more growth to the church.

In the middle part of the third century, there was more trouble for the empire. She faced a two fronted war against barbarians: Goths on north and Persians on the east. The war with Persians was especially problematic for Christians in the eastern provinces, for official Rome worried that they would have questionable loyalties: Christianity was in their minds an eastern religion and so Christians might look at Persian invaders as liberators. During this time, Decius (249-251) adopted the policy of “One Empire, one religion.” No more “merely” punishing Christians, Christianity itself had to go. In 250, an edict was issued that everyone in the empire must sacrifice to the state gods, and must get a certificate attesting to the fact that he had done so.

This sudden attack after a half century of relative peace led to turmoil within the church. A large number of Christians, those who found it easy to join in peaceful times, proved unable to endure the persecution and instead offered the sacrifices.

There was something different about this persecution. Unlike those of earlier years, the pagan populace as a whole did not go along. There was no mob uprising; the persecution was carried out by police. The hatred against Christians from “every day folk” (pagans) had largely disappeared, and slender against Christians, accusing them of horrible atrocities, had ceased. Christianity had grown so large, that everyone knew and was probably related to a Christian. In many cases, the pagans in general society tried to protect the Christians. One of the victims of this wave of persecution was Origen, who was “imprisoned and barbarously tortured, but his courage was unshaken and from his prison he wrote letters breathing the spirit of the martyrs.” (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., VI, xxxix).

A few years of peace followed the persecution under Decius. Valerian (253-260) acted favorably toward the Christians for the first few years of his reign. He changed his mind in 257, no doubt in part due to the advancing Persian army who reached Syrian Antioch. He issued an edict prohibiting Christians from holding meetings and banning access to their cemeteries. It is believed that at this time the relics of Peter and Paul were removed from the Vatican hill and the Ostian road to find temprorary security in a place called Ad Catacumbas where the church of St. Sebastian now stands on the Appian Way. From here we get the word catacombs which eventually
came to refer to all Christian cemeteries.

A further edict in 258 spelled out the penalties: The clergy would be executed upon conviction; Senators and knights were to be degraded from their rank; ladies of rank were to be punished by confiscation and exile; employees of the imperial household were to be sent to forced labor camps on the imperial estates. Xystus, bishop of Rome (Pope Sixtus II) while seated on his chair in the act of addressing his flock he was suddenly apprehended by a band of soldiers. There is some doubt whether he was beheaded forthwith, or was first brought before a tribunal to receive his sentence and then led back to the cemetery for execution. Cyprian the bishop of Carthage was also executed in accordance with this edict.

Valerian himself was taken prisoner by the Persians and died in captivity. Following his death, though the Empire was still besieged on two fronts, there came almost forty years of peace for the church. Gallienus (253-268), Valerian’s son and successor, revoked the anti-Christian edicts and restored their property. Aurelian (270-275) planned to fuse all religions into a single state religion, but fortunately his death precluded his plan from being enacted.

One interesting “first” occurred under the reign of Aurelian: the first time the state was asked to settle an ecclesiastical dispute. In 268, the Church condemned Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch, as a heretic. (Paul was accused of of acquiring great wealth by illicit means, of showing haughtiness and worldliness, of having set up for himself a lofty pulpit in the church, and of insulting those who did not applaud him and wave their handkerchiefs, and so forth. He had caused scandal by admitting women to live in his house, and had permitted the same to his clergy.) He was removed from office but refused to leave. At this time Antioch was part of the kingdom of Palmyra, whose ruler Zenobia was Paul’s patroness. In 273 Aurelian conquered Zenobia and regained Antioch. He heard the appeals of both sided, and ordered that the church property be handed over to the party recognized by the bishop of Rome.

In the peaceful closing decades of the third century, the numbers of Christians once again rose rapidly, to a point where they were at least a powerful minority in most of the empire, and a majority in certain parts.

Diocletian (284-305, whose wife and daughter were Christian) decided to reorganize the empire. He divided it into two parts, each ruled by a senior Emperor (with the title: Augustus) and a junior colleague who held the title Caesar. While this worked as long as Diocletian ruled (who was the first among equals) it effectively resulted in four wannabes vying for power after his abdication in 305.

Near the end of Diocletian’s reign, persecution suddenly reappeared in 303. It was mainly due to his son Galerius, who was Diocletian’s junior colleague in the eastern province. Galerius, it would seem, viewed the rapid growth of Christianity as ominous. He and other conservatives decided that if action wasn’t taken against Christianity, it would soon be too late. The first action in 303 was an edict ordering the destruction of church buildings and scripture. After several fires in the imperial palace were falsely blamed on Christians, a second edict was issued ordering the arrest of all clergy. In 304, an edict was issued that all Christians should sacrifice to the state gods, on pain of death. Diocletian’s Christian wife and daughter (who was Galerius’s wife) recanted. Once again the tendency among the populace was to protect their Christian neighbors. As crowds lined up to pay tribute to the gods, officials often turned a blind eye to Christians who just walked by without taking the prescribed action, such as throwing incense on the altar.

The severity of this persecution varied with local circumstances. In Gaul and Britian, which Constantius ruled as the western Caesar, there was hardle any. In Egypt and Palestine, the persecution was fierce, especially after Diocletian’s abdication in 305, when Galerius was elevated to the eastern Augustus, and his like-minded nephew Maximian became his eastern Caesar.

Although sever in certain areas, the persecution was short-lived. Galerius himself rescinded the anti-Christian measures before his death in 311. Maximian became Augustus of the east, and attempted some dimwitted propaganda against Christians, but he was quickly defeated in battle by his rival Licinius. Meanwhile, Constantine, the son of Constantius, had established supremacy over his rivals in the west, restoring church property in his part of the empire.

In 313 Constantine and Licinius held a meeting in Milan where the two victors agreed upon an official policy of tolerance for all religions in the empire.

Church History Lesson 10 (Those Crazy 60's!)

In A.D. 64, Rome burned and Nero launched his persecution of the Christians. By A.D. 68, Nero had lost complete control of the senate and was deposed. He was to be arrested and executed in a most hideous manner, but before that could happen he committed suicide. Suetonius wrote:

Finally, when his companions unanimously insisted on his trying to escape from the miserable fate threatening him, he ordered them to dig a grave at once, and then collect any pieces of marble that they could find and fetch wood and water for the disposal of the corps. As they bustled about obediently he muttered through his tears: "Dead! And so great an artist!"

A runner brought him a letter from Phaon. Nero tore it from the man's hands and read that, having been declared a public enemy by the Senate, he would be punished in 'ancient style' when arrested. He asked what 'ancient style' meant, and learned that the executioners stripped their victim naked, thrust his head into a wooden fork, and then flogged him to death with sticks. In terror he snatched up the two daggers which he brought along and tried their points; but threw them down again, protesting that the final hour had not yet come.

Then he begged Sporus to weep and mourn for him, but also begged one of the other three to set him an example by committing suicide first. He kept moaning about his cowardice, and muttering: 'How ugly and vulgar my life has become!' And then in Greek: 'This certainly is no credit to Nero, no credit at all,' and: 'Come pull yourself together, man!' By this time a troop of cavalry who had orders to take him alive were coming up the road. Nero gasped: 'Hark to the sound I hear! It is hooves of galloping horses.' Then, with the help of his scribe, Epaphroditos, he stabbed himself in the throat and was already half dead when a cavalry officer entered, pretending to have rushed to his rescue, and staunched the wound with his cloak. Nero muttered: 'Too late! But, ah, what fidelity!' He died, with his eyes glazed and bulging from their sockets, a sight which horrified everybody present.

In between the burning of Rome and suicide of Nero, the Jewish revolt against Roman rule began. The war didn’t end until after Nero's death (which in fact escalated the conflict since it emboldened the Jews)

The Destruction of Jerusalem

Today, we underestimate the magnitude and horror of the Roman response to the Jewish Revolt (A.D. 66-70). We view it as something similar in degree to the British torching of the White House (after enjoying a complementary dinner for 40 that had been prepared for Dolly Madison and friends, but abandoned as the canon neared) in the war of 1812.

Prior to its destruction, Jerusalem was a large and formidable walled city. As the Romans began responding to Jewish Revolt (A.D. 66-70) throughout the land, the population of Jerusalem swelled as many sought safety within her walls.

The historian Josephus was captured by the future Roman Emperor Vespasian who, early in the Jewish Revolt, led the assault on city of Jotapata. Josephus was the General in charge of defending Jotapata. Some accounts state that Josephus survived the ensuing slaughter (following a 45 day siege) by hiding in a deep pit. Josephus claimed that Vespasian spared him because of his incredible valor. Much of what we quote below comes from Josephus’s book The Wars of the Jews.

Jack Van Deventer lists some of the atrocities committed by the Romans in a “dateline” manner, most of the information gleaned from the writings of Josephus.

• Jerusalem (June 3, 66 A.D.)--"So the [Roman] soldiers did not only plunder the place they were sent to, but forcing themselves into every house, they slew its [Jewish] inhabitants; so the citizens fled along the narrow lanes, and the soldiers slew those that they caught, and no method of plunder was omitted; they also caught many of the quiet people, and brought them before Florus, whom he first chastised with stripes, and then crucified. Accordingly, the whole number of those that were destroyed that day, with their wives and children (for they did not spare even the infants themselves), was about 3,600."
  
  
• Cesarea (66 A.D.)--"Now the people of Cesarea had slain the Jews that were among them. . . [I]n one hour's time above 20,000 Jews were killed, and all Cesarea was emptied of its Jewish inhabitants; for Florus caught such as ran away, and sent them to the galleys."
  
  
• Scythopolis and other cities (66 A.D.)--"The people of Scythopolis watched their opportunity, and cut all [the Jews'] throats, some of them as they lay unguarded, and some as they lay asleep. The number that was slain was above 13,000, and then they plundered them of all they had." "Besides this murder at Scythopolis, the other cities rose up against the Jews that were among them: those of Askelon slew 2,500, and those of Ptolemais 2,000, and put not a few in bonds; those of Tyre also put a great number to death, but kept a greater number in prison."
  
  
• Alexandria (66 A.D.)--These [Roman] soldiers rushed violently into that part of the city which was called Delta, where the Jewish people lived together [The Jews were] destroyed unmercifully; and this their destruction was complete, some being caught in the open field (Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. (Matt. 24:40).), and others forced into their houses, which houses were first plundered of what was in them, and then set on fire by the Romans; wherein no mercy was shown to the infants, and no regard had to the aged; but they went on in the slaughter of persons of every age, till all the place was overflowed with blood, and 50,000 of them lay dead upon heaps. . . ."
  
  
• Jotapata (July, 67 A.D.)--"[T]he Romans slew all the multitude that appeared openly; but on the following days they searched the hiding places, and fell upon those that were underground, and in the caverns, and went thus through every age, excepting the infants and the women, and of these there were gathered together as captives twelve hundred; and as for those that were slain at the taking of the city, and in the former fights, they were numbered to be 40,000.

The widespread slaughter of the Jews continued for several years. Many of the Jews fled to Jerusalem for safety.

²⁴When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!" ²⁵All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!" (Matt. 27:24-25)

The Jews asked that the blood be upon their hands. And so it was. In Jerusalem alone, Josephus records that 100,000 were captured, and 1.1 million killed. This does not include the Jews killed in other cities (as described above) as the Roman Juggernaut pushed forward.

After the Roman armies reached Jerusalem a lengthy siege ensued. The Romans bombarded the city with 90 pound stones hurled as far as 1200 feet by catapult

When the food ran out, civil war broke out among three Jewish factions. Murder and starvation were rampant. Josephus wrote that civil war inside the walls of Jerusalem wrought more carnage than the conquering Romans. People who were thought to have consumed food were sometimes killed and disemboweled in search of food within their stomachs. There were many reports of cannibalism. Many tried to escape starvation by sneaking out of the city. Most were captured by the Romans, killed on the spot and disemboweled: the Romans believed that the Jews hid their valuables by swallowing them. If a father was killed searching for food, his wife and children became targets within the city.

Josephus also described a scene of horror concerning a starving mother. In the midst of the famine she suddenly withdrew her nursing infant from her breast. She killed, roasted and ate half the child, and offered the rest to astonished and horrified bystanders.

It is interesting to read Josephus’ accounts of the events leading up to the war. In addition to "rumors of wars", Josephus records that there was a rise of false Christs and prophets.

There was also another body of wicked men gotten together, not so impure in their actions, but more wicked in their intentions, which laid waste the happy state of the city no less than did these murderers. These were such men as deceived and deluded the people under pretense of Divine inspiration…. But there was an Egyptian false prophet that did the Jews more mischief than the former; for he was a cheat, and pretended to be a prophet also, and got together thirty thousand men that were deluded by him; these he led round about from the wilderness to the mount which was called the Mount of Olives…( Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, 2.13.)

Note that the Egyptian false prophet appears to be corroborated by the bible, Recall that Paul was arrested (although it was as much a rescue as an arrest) in his last trip to Jerusalem. The commander mistakes Paul for the false prophet Josephus described: "Do you speak Greek?" he replied. "Aren't you the Egyptian who started a revolt and led four thousand terrorists out into the desert some time ago?" (Acts 21:38).

Vespasian arrived to lead the Roman response in the spring of A.D. 67. Nero was emperor (he dispatched Vespasian to squelch the revolt). In A.D. 68, Nero died at his own hand. The following year was a bad one for Rome, the "year of the four emperors" viz. Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and finally stability with Vespasian. When Vespasian returned to Rome, his son Titus took over the military campaign. It was Titus who led the siege and destruction of Jerusalem. The siege began in April A.D. 70 and by the end of August the Temple was first occupied then destroyed. Josephus describes the actual attack on the temple:

WHILE the holy house was on fire, every thing was plundered that came to hand, and ten thousand of those that were caught were slain; nor was there a commiseration of any age, or any reverence of gravity, but children, and old men, and profane persons, and priests were all slain in the same manner;

AND now the Romans, upon the flight of the seditious into the city, and upon the burning of the holy house itself, and of all the buildings round about it, brought their ensigns to the temple and set them over against its eastern gate; and there did they offer sacrifices to them, and there did they make Titus imperator with the greatest acclamations of joy. And now all the soldiers had such vast quantities of the spoils which they had gotten by plunder, that in Syria a pound weight of gold was sold for half its former value.

What happened to the Christians?

According to the historian Eusebius (A.D. 260-340) Christians escaped from Jerusalem either before the siege, as the Roman armies surrounded the city, or during a lull in the fighting. The bulk of the Jewish Christians probably left Jerusalem in A.D. 66 when war broke out. For this they would later be branded as traitors by their Jewish countrymen.

By A.D. 70: James had been stoned in Jerusalem. Paul and Peter, had been martyred in Rome, by beheading and crucifixion respectively. Nero was dead. Jerusalem had been sacked, and the temple destroyed, and with its destruction came an end to Jewish temple worship. Over a million Jews died during the wars. It was, in many ways, the end of the Jewish age. We now turn to Rome as the center of the Christian world, and what happened there after Nero’s persecution.

Post-Nero Rome

Nero was identified by the early Christians as the antichrist. This is a fascinating story. It is entwined with that fact that after Nero’s suicide, many in the eastern provinces (where he was popular) did not believe he was dead. Indeed, for about twenty years there arose a series of pretender Neros. After that, the hope shifted into an expectation that Nero would return from the dead to reclaim his sovereignty. This superstition continued almost to the end of the second century. Some attribute the early church identification of Nero as the antichrist as stemming from this pagan superstition.

Who was the sixth king?

This is a provocative side-question arising from the book of Revelation

⁷When I saw her, I was greatly astonished. Then the angel said to me: "Why are you astonished? I will explain to you the mystery of the woman and of the beast she rides, which has the seven heads and ten horns. ⁸The beast, which you saw, once was, now is not, and will come up out of the Abyss and go to his destruction. The inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world will be astonished when they see the beast, because he once was, now is not, and yet will come. ⁹"This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. ¹⁰They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for a little while. ¹¹The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction.(Rev 17:7-11).

Many identify the kings as Roman emperors on the basis of the "seven hills." Only one city is known throughout history as the "City of Seven Hills:" Rome (Palatine, Aventine, Caelian, Esquiline, Viminal, Quirinal, and Capitoline). The passage indicates that at the time of writing, five emperors have fallen, the sixth presently reigns, and the seventh has not yet come, but when he does come, he will reign for just a little while.

The most natural counting scheme of Roman kings (emperors) is:

1. Julius Caesar (49-44)
   
2. Agustus (31-14)
   
3. Tiberius (14-37)
   
4. Caligula (37-41)
   
5. Claudius (41-54)
   
6. Nero (54-68)
   
7. Galba (68-69)
   
8. Otho (69-69)
   
9. Vitellius (69-69)
   
10. Vespasian (69-79)
    
11. Titus (79-81)
    
12. Domitian (81-96)
    

This enumeration is not universally accepted (the debate is whether to begin the count with Julius Caesar or Augustus, the first to oficially hold the title), but it is found in various ancient sources including Josephus, who refers to Augustus as "the second" and Tiberius as "the third." This enumeration has Nero as the sixth and "current" king from the perspective of the writer of Revelation places the writing of Revelation much earlier that is often taught, and most importantly it fixes its writing as having occurred before the destruction of Jerusalem.

Note that no enumeration results in Domitian as the sixth king (many believe the book was written during Domitian’s reign, circa A.D. 90). The most biased in that direction is to start with Augustus and skip (as inconsequential) Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. That still results in Vespasian, not Domitian as number six. That is still a much earlier date than many would like—but it is after the destruction of Jerusalem.

What does Revelation say about the destruction of Jerusalem? Nothing. Like with all the books of the New Testament, there is a deafening silence. This is the strongest internal evidence for the early date for Revelation and in fact evidence that all scripture was completed by the time of Nero’s death, If Jerusalem had already been destroyed, with well over a million Jews killed, hundreds of thousands of others in bondage, and the rest scattered, not to mention the temple in ruins, it is reasonable to expect that such a catastrophic event would warrant a mention.

Recovery from Nero’s Persecution

Nero's persecution of the Christians was horrific but not fatal. However, for the next two hundred plus years, until a Christian sat on the throne of Augustus, the story of Christianity is one of a constant struggle against Imperial Rome. It should be noted that the Gentile Christians did not seek confrontation with the Roman state, the citizens of which they desired to evangelize. That had nothing equivalent to the party of the zealots that incited the Jews to rebel. Paul, a Roman citizen, regarded the magistrates as ministers of God in place to contain crime, and Christians faithfully paid their taxes (a recurring source of tension for the Jews.) Even at this early stage, Christians saw the hand of God behind the empire and the infrastructure it provided to help in spreading the gospel. In short, Christians viewed the empire as a good thing, but it had to shake its paganism.

The respect was not mutual. At this time, Christianity was held in low esteem by Roman society. Evidence suggests that it was viewed as a combination of atheism and Judaism. Certainly it was clearly recognized as distinct from Judaism and so it ranked as an illegal cult. Any hope to win official recognition was pointless. Unlike Judaism, which was the religion of a distinct sub-nation with the empire, Christianity was not the religion of any particular nation or people, nor did it boast of any long-established customs. To many it was a vulgar innovation whose religious aspect was probably a façade hiding something worse. Recall Tacitus referred to Christians as "a class of men loathed for their vices", and Suetonius called Christianity "a novel and baneful superstition".

Christians were atheists, in the minds of many, for they worshipped no visible god. And they were haters of the human race, because Christian scruples prevented them from engaging in the normal social intercourse. Also, since the fire of A.D. 64 that launched Nero’s persecution, the imperial police took great interest in their gatherings, forcing them to meet in secret, which increased the perception that they had something to hide. And exactly what were their alleged secret activities? Stories circulated about ritualistic cannibalism and ceremonial incest.

Titus held the throne for only two years, and was succeeded by his younger brother Domitian who would rule for about fifteen years. Both Vespasian and Titus had been revered and were afforded the posthumous honor of being deified. Domitian was despised and in some sense wisely did wait for death for deification, for if he had he would not have received the honor. Instead he declared himself "Lord and God" and demanded the oath "by the genius of the emperor".

Domitian’s reign was characterized by suspicion, and for good reason –he had many enemies in the senate. His deification created a crisis for the Jews and caused embarrassment for the church as well. This only served to increase Domitian’s paranoia. He took some repressive action against the Jews, including increased penalties for proselytizing and severe taxation.

Among those who fell victim to imperial suspicion were his cousin Titus Flavius Clemens, consul in the year 95 and his wife Flavia Domitilla, the emperor’s niece. What is intriguing is that Domitilla was put on trial for this nebulous mix of Judaism and atheism, which many have taken as meaning Christianity.(Probably the real reason Domitian brought charges was to remove a perceived threat, and he used the religious accusations to find a crime the senate would recognize.) Clemens was executed, and Domitilla was exiled. This familial purge is all the more intriguing because the childless Domitian had designated Clemens and Domitilla’s sons as his heirs. Their fate is unknown.

The historian Dio Cassius writes about this period:

At this time the road leading from Sinuessa to Puteoli was paved with stone. And the same year Domitian slew, along with many others, Flavius Clemens the consul, although he was a cousin and had to wife Flavia Domitilla, who was also a relative of the emperor's. The charge brought against them both was that of atheism, a charge on which many others who drifted into Jewish ways were condemned. Some of these were put to death, and the rest were at least deprived of their property. Domitilla was merely banished to Pandateria. (Dio Cassius, History (Epitome), LXVII, 14.

Bear in mind the significance of the possibility is that just thirty years after Nero’s persecution, a Roman family of the highest social and political ranks (and at one point a heartbeat away from the throne) might have been Christians. It bears further examination of the evidence beyond the mere fact that they had suffered the same accusation that is known to have been used against believers.

More circumstantial evidence comes from the historian Suetonius who wrote of Clemens "[he is] a man despised by all for his inactive life." This so-called inactive life, once again, often indicated Christians who withdrew from societal excess.

There is also archeological evidence. One of the oldest Christian burial places in Rome is called Cemetery of Domitilla. Evidence indicates that (1) its usage began at the start of the second century and (2) the land beneath which the burial place was hollowed out belonged to Flavia Domitilla. The burial grounds contain the remains of martyrs and shows evidence of being used for a devotional place up through the fourth century. It seems unlikely that the family land would not have been used as such had Flavia Domitilla not been a Christian.

The point is that by the end of the first century, Christianity have both recovered (from Nero) and changed. It no longer was the exclusive province of the lower strata of the Roman populace.

Lesson 9: The End of the Apostolic Age

Paul spent the winter of A.D. 56-57 in Corinth (Acts 20:2). While there, he wrote a letter to the church in Rome, to prepare them for his planned visit to Rome on his way to Spain:

I planned many times to come to you, but have been prevented until now. I long to see you, so that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith. God is my witness how constantly I remember you in my prayers at all times. I thank for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world. I have seen some fruit as a result of my activity in other parts of the Gentile world, and I should also like to see some among you as well. That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel to you who are at Rome, for I am not ashamed of the gospel. Not that I desire to settle down in Rome, for that would be building on someone else's foundation –the very thing I have avoided doing. From Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ. But now that there is no more place for me to work in these regions. Now, however, I am on my way to Jerusalem in the service of the saints there. So after I have completed this I will go to Spain and visit you on the way. (Summary of Rom. 1:8-26, 15:14-29)

As we will see, Paul does make it to Rome, but not until three years had passed, and not as he planned. From Rome, we find that he did head west, but most believe that he did not make it to Spain.

Two obvious questions arise from this letter: First, there is already a significant community of believers in Rome. Where did they come from? And second, who is this other man who laid a foundation in Rome?

As he stated, Paul first set out for Jerusalem, his last visit, arriving in May of 57 along with delegates. (This is spite of being warned [Acts 21:10] by the prophet Agabus who told Paul that he would be bound (arrested) by the Jews in Jerusalem. This Agabus had credibility: you may recall that fifteen years earlier predicted the famine in Jerusalem [Acts 11:27-28]].) Together they bore gifts for the church in Jerusalem. James and the elders welcomed Paul, but there was an undercurrent of a problem. A subtle variant of the old Judiazer issue: while it had been decided by the council that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised or follow Mosaic Law, James was concerned that Paul was also teaching the Jews of the dispersion likewise, and that was not acceptable:

Then they said to Paul: "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. ²¹They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. ²²What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, ²³so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. ²⁴Take these men, join in their purification rites… (Acts 21:20-24)

Paul, always willing to compromise on all but the gospel, went along with the request to prove that he was a law abiding Jew. As we find in his letter to the Corinthians:

To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. (1 Cor. 9:20).

The Church at Rome

This is no explicit account of the formation of the church at Rome. What we know must be pieced together. We are aided by the fact that, unlike Jerusalem, there has been no breach in continuity of Rome from apostolic days.

Recall that included in the crowd at the feast of Pentecost in A.D. 30 were pilgrims from Rome (Jews, not Gentiles). Since Romans are the only Europeans listed in the account (Acts 2:10) we feel justified in assuming that some of them believed Peter’s message and carried the gospel back to the Imperial City. Regardless, all roads lead to Rome, and Paul’s missionary journeys had created churches along major arteries which must have resulted in the message being carried to Rome.

The history of Jews in Rome is fascinating. There was a Jewish colony in Rome in the second century B.C. When Pompey (who had battled the rebellious slave Spartacus) captured Palestine for Rome in 62 B.C., he returned with many more Jews who were ultimately set free. Successive Roman emperors safeguarded the rights of the Jews, and at least a handful of synagogues flourished.

Rome, however, had the habit of purging itself of “oriental” incomers, including the Jews. In A.D. 49, Claudius expelled Jews from Rome, and expulsion that included Priscilla and Aquila. Whether it was a literal or an “effective” expulsion is the subject of debate. The historian Dio Cassius (155-?) writes:

As the Jews had again increased in numbers, but could hardly be banished from the city without a tumult because of their great numbers, he [Claudius] did not actually expel them but forbade them to meet in accordance with their ancestral customs.

Another writer, the biographer Suetonius (75-160) wrote that “Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome because they were indulging in constant riots at the instigation of Chrestus.”

Chrestus was a variant spelling of Christus. Here we may extrapolate that Suetonius, writing seventy years later, mistakenly assumed that this “Chrestus” was a leader of one of the Jewish factions in Rome. In a sense he was right: the rioting was likely between Jews and "Nazarenes". It is probable that Priscilla and Aquila were already Christians when they arrived in Corinth, a theory bolstered by the fact that their conversion is not mentioned in scripture.

Another amazing reference is found a few years after the expulsion, in A.D. 52, when a writer named Thallus describes the preternatural darkness that covered Palestine on the day of Christ’s crucifixion. The darkness was attributed to a solar eclipse. That explanation is impossible, since the Passover season falls at a full moon, at which time a solar eclipse can not occur. Even if Thallus was only referring to Christian “stories” of the darkness, it still points out that details of Christ’s death were being retold in Rome by the middle of the first century.

In the same year Paul wrote to Rome, Pomponia Graecina, wife of the Roman conqueror of Britain, was charged (later acquitted) with having embraced a foreign superstition. This could not have been Judaism: for Judaism was a legally recognized religion. An embrace of Judaism would have been scandalous but not illegal. Accounts of her lifestyle, which included a withdrawal from Roman society and its idolatrous excesses, have caused many to speculate that the foreign superstition was Christianity.

More evidence of the maturity of the community of Rome comes from the end of Paul’s letter, where he sends greetings by name to various Roman believers. This includes a couple named Andronicus and Junias, “my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.” He also mentions Rufus “chosen in the Lord, and his mother, who has been a mother to me, too”. This Rufus may have been the son of Simon of Cyrene who carried Jesus’ cross (Mark 15:21). Paul also greets Priscilla and Aquila who had returned to Rome.
Paul’s Circuitous Route to Rome

Paul arrived in Rome around February of A.D. 60, in the custody of Roman "federal marshals." How did this come about? As stated, he under went a purification rite to demonstrate his “Jewishness” to the Nazarenes. However, it was the Jews who were the real problem, and his appearance led to a riot in which he was nearly lynched. Paul had been charged by the Jews in Jerusalem of violating the sanctity of the temple. In particular, he was the victim of a rumor claiming he escorted a Gentile into the inner court of the temple, a crime punishable by death. (Notices in Latin and Greek separated the inner and outer courts, announcing that Gentiles were forbidden to proceed any further, under pain of death.) So serious of a crime was the violation of this edict that Rome even authorized the execution of Roman Citizens for this offense.

"Men of Israel, help us! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against our people and our law and this place. And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple area and defiled this holy place." (Acts 21:28)

Fortunately the commotion caused by Paul was huge, so huge that his summary execution was prevented by a Roman garrison rushed in to secure order. A lengthy litigation followed. Eventually Paul, fearing that the procurator Felix might be inclined to seek favor of the Sanhedrin, exercised his right as a Roman citizen to be tried in Rome. He would spend two years awaiting trial in Rome, enjoying the company of friends such as Luke, Aristarchus, and John-Mark, with whom Paul reconciled.

How Mark arrived in Rome leads us to the question of who laid a foundation in Rome. Since the time of the rift between Paul and Barnabas, Mark (the cause of the dispute) had become attached to the apostle Peter. At some point in the fifties, Peter appears to have launched his own missionary journey, with Mark serving as his chief of staff. It appears most likely that between 55 and 60 Peter reached Rome (ahead of Paul) . When Peter left, Mark stayed behind and recorded his gospel, essentially transcribing what Peter had told the Romans. When Luke visited Roma with Paul, he probably used Mark’s writings to help him draw up his own history of Christianity.

Paul’s case probably went before prosecutors at the end of A.D. 61, just before the expiration of the statute of limitations. It is likely that Paul was released and left Rome for a period, for Clement of Rome wrote to the church in Corinth (~A.D. 95) that “Paul reached the furthest bounds of the West”, which may or may not have meant Spain. Playing phone-tag, when Paul leaves Rome, Peter returns, where he pens 1 Peter, writing from "Babylon" as he puts it, and referring to Mark as his "son" (1 Pet. 5:13). In his epistle, Peter refers to a coming "fiery trial" during which Christians would suffer, not for law-breaking but merely for being Christians. The Christians are susceptible because they can no longer protect themselves as a “sect” of Judaism—they are seen by all as a separate religion one that, unlike Judaism, is an illegal religion. The blind eye being cast by the emperor (now Nero) can open wide at his pleasure.

Adding to the peril of the Christians was that, not only was unstable Nero the emperor, the empress Poppaea was a friend of the Jews which meant an enemy (of sorts) of Christians. This information comes to us via Josephus:

But when I was in the twenty-sixth year of my age, it happened that I took a voyage to Rome... At the time when Felix was procurator of Judea there were certain priests of my acquaintance… whom on a small and trifling occasion he had put into bonds, and sent to Rome to plead their cause before Caesar. … Accordingly I came to Rome, though it were through a great number of hazards by sea; for as our ship was drowned in the Adriatic Sea, we that were in it, being about six hundred in number, swam for our lives all the night; when, upon the first appearance of the day, and upon our sight of a ship of Cyrene, I and some others, eighty in all, by God's providence, prevented the rest, and were taken up into the other ship. And when I had thus escaped… I became acquainted with Aliturius, an actor of plays, and much beloved by Nero, but a Jew by birth; and through his interest became known to Poppea, Caesar's wife, and took care, as soon as possible, to entreat her to procure that the priests might be set at liberty. And when, besides this favor, I had obtained many presents from Poppea, I returned home again. (Josephus, Life, 3).

Rome Burns

In A.D. 64, Rome was largely destroyed by fire. The fire was probably accidental, but rumors quickly spread. Nero himself as the culprit was the subject of much consideration. This is probably false, and in fact he actively worked to help those who had been devastated by the fire. Nevertheless, he had to deal with the rumors, which he did by redirecting them onto a scapegoat: the Christians. The historian Tacitus wrote:

To dispel the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits, and treated with the most extreme punishments, some people, popularly known as Christians, whose disgraceful activities were notorious. The originator of that name, Christus, had been executed when Tiberius was Emperor, by order of the procurator Pontius Pilatus. But the deadly cult, though checked for a time, was now breaking out again not only in Judea, the birthplace of this evil, but even throughout Rome, where all the nasty and disgusting ideas from all over the world pour in and find a ready following. First, then, those who confessed themselves Christians were arrested; next, on their disclosures, a vast multitude were convicted, not so much on the charge of arson as for hatred of the human race. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames. These served to illuminate the night when daylight failed. Nero had thrown open the gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or drove about in a chariot. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but glut one man's cruelty, that they were being punished."

Note that Tacitus despised the Christians, but nevertheless acknowledged their innocence in the conflagration, their punishment not stemming from guilt as arsonists but rather for “hatred of the human race.” Among the brutalities: Nero used Christians as human torches to light his gardens. When Saint Peter’s was rebuilt in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, a number of bodies wrapped in linen and placed in stone coffins were discovered. Also uncovered were stone chests filled with ashes and burnt bones—presumably the remains of those burned by Nero.

As for a Christian account, we have Clement of Rome:

But, to pass from the examples of ancient days, let us come to those champions who lived very near to our time. Let us set before us the noble examples which belong to our generation. By reason of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church were persecuted, and contended even unto death. Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles. There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one nor two but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory. By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith, having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance. Unto these men of holy lives was gathered a vast multitude of the elect, who through many indignities and tortures, being the victims of jealousy, set a brave example among ourselves. By reason of jealousy women being persecuted, after that they had suffered cruel and unholy insults as Danaids and Dircae, safely reached the goal in the race of faith, and received a noble reward, feeble though they were in body. (1 Clement 5:2-6)

The "vast multitude" of martyrs referred to by Clement is identified with the "vast multitude" described by Tacitus. Furthermore, it is a natural inference to conclude that both Peter and Paul were martyred at the same time. (Clement’s refrain of jealousy is meant as jealousy toward, not by, the apostles and believers. The dangers of jealousy forms the substance of his letter to the Corinthian church.)

Roman Catholic insistence on the continuity of the Roman church back to Peter’s preaching at Pentecost in A.D. 30 has at times caused some (Eusibus and Jerome) to favor the notion that Peter arrived in Rome as early as A.D. 42 and launched a twenty-five year episcopate lasting to A.D. 67, but this is very difficult to support. At the beginning of that period, he was known to be in Jerusalem and Antioch, and in A.D 57 when Paul wrote his Roman epistle hid did not greet Peter (so one can infer he was not there) nor does it appear that Peter was present when Paul arrived in custody in A.D. 60. Some Catholic scholars acknowledge this, for example the French scholar Jacques Zeiller writing in 1927:

How long had St. Peter lived in Rome before his martyrdom? Here we must confess an almost complete ignorance. The so-called tradition of the twenty-five years of Peter’s episcopate rests on no historic data…of Peter’s life in Rome we know for certain only the last act: His martyrdom.

No, Peter spent those twenty-five years proclaiming the gospel throughout the provinces, only to arrive in Rome after Nero’s ascension to the throne in A.D. 54. Most consistent with the facts is that when Nero became emperor he rescinded the expulsion (five years earlier) of the Jews by his predecessor Claudius and that shortly thereafter Peter arrived (with Mark) and helped reconstitute the Roman church and laying the foundation upon which Paul was hesitant to infringe upon. The bottom line is that Nero was already the emperor when Peter arrived in Rome.

A Roman presbyter by the name of Gaius wrote (~A.D. 200) that the trophies of Peter and Paul, meaning either the locations of their martyrdom or their tombs, are found on Vatican Hill and the Ostian Road respectively. This is why the emperor Constantine erected the basilica of St. Peter on the slope of Vatican Hill.

Tradition teaches that Peter was crucified and Paul was beheaded. (The tradition that Peter was crucified upside down is probably apocryphal.) The manner of their deaths is consistent: Paul, as a Roman citizen, would have been afforded the less ignominious death.

The death of James, the brother of Jesus

In A.D. 61 the procurator Festus died. In the three months before his successor Albinus arrived in Palestine, the Jewish High Priest Ananus was able to cause trouble. From Josephus:

AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. … this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: (Josephus, Antiquities, XX, 9, 1).

Thus we see that by about the mid sixties of the first century, Peter, Paul, and James had been martyred. In a few years, civil war would break out. The Jews, encouraged by the party of the Zealots, were emboldened by the news of the death of Nero in A.D. 68, only to be crushed and nearly exterminated at the hands of Titus, the son of Vespasian, the successor of Nero. The temple, no longer important to a people who had access through their High Priest Jesus Christ to the heavenly realm, was destroyed in A.D. 70, as had been prophesized by Jesus:

¹Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. ²"Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."

³⁴I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. (Matt. 24:1, 34).

From here the next stage of Christianity begins, a stage in which its ties to the temple have been severed.

Lesson 8 Paul’s Second Missionary Journey

After the Jerusalem council, Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch, along with two others, described as “prophets”, Judas and Silas.

Paul and Barnabas had a disagreement over the usefulness of Barnabas’s cousin John-Mark, with Paul arguing that John-Mark had deserted them on their first missionary Journey. The result of this rift is that for Paul’s next journey, he would have Silas as his companion.

The Second Journey

Paul and Silas traveled to Derbe and Lystra, towns in which Paul and Barnabas had previously established communities of believers. In Lystra, Paul and Silas picked up another companion, a young man named Timotheus (Timothy), a member of the Christian community. Timothy’s father was Greek, and his mother a Jew. In light of the recent council and its pronouncements, what Paul has Timothy do is surprising:

Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek (Acts 16:3)

The reason would seem to be that Paul, whose plan as always would be to first go to the synagogue, wanted Timothy to be “less” of a Gentile and more of a Jew.

From Lystra they made their way to Troas, where they picked up Luke. In the book of Acts, written by Luke, you find the subjects of travel changing from “Paul and his companions” to “we”, indicating Luke’s inclusion.

Paul intended to head toward Ephesus, an ancient Greek city and capital of the Roman province of Asia. The Holy Spirit had other plans, and He blocked their way. In Mysia, once again the Sprit blocked their planned route. Finally, the Spirit gave positive direction: Paul had a vision of a Macedonian asking for help. Paul and his three companions (Silas, Timothy, and Luke) agreed that they were being summoned to Macedonia. So the four of them crossed the north Aegean into Macedonia.

Upon landing in the port town of Neapolis, they traveled on a great Roman highway to the town of Philippi. Philippi had been a Roman colony since 42 B.C., when Antony and Octavian settled their veterans there after their victory over Brutus and Cassius, the assassins of Julius Caesar.

The missionaries did not, as they usually did, go to the synagogue. The reason is that there were not enough Jews in Philippi to warrant one. (The quorum for a synagogue was and is ten Jewish men.) Instead, the Jews and God-fearers met to pray on the bank of the river Gagites outside the city gate. One of those present was a dealer in purple cloth by the name of Lydia. She and her household were baptized, and she opened her house to Paul and his companions.

Paul and Silas proceeded to get themselves in trouble with the authorities when they exorcized a demon from a slave-girl. This particular girl had a quite interesting method of attacking Paul and Silas: she followed them around singing their praises:

¹⁷This girl followed Paul and the rest of us, shouting, "These men are servants of the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved." ¹⁸She kept this up for many days. Finally Paul became so troubled that he turned around and said to the spirit, "In the name of Jesus Christ I command you to come out of her!" At that moment the spirit left her. (Acts 16:17-18)

Her message was good and true, but she must have been delivering it in some annoying and disruptive manner.

Casting out the demon is of course a good thing, except that it left the girl unable to earn money as a fortune teller, which enraged her owners, who filed a complaint. The chief magistrates heard the complaint, handed Paul and Silas over for a beating and imprisonment. The next day, the magistrates were mortified to discover that the two were Roman citizens. Paul and Silas received an apology but were sent packing, the responsibility of protecting the two unpopular Roman citizens was too great for the local authorities. Paul, Silas, and Timothy left, while Luke remained behind.

Continuing along the highway (the Egnatian Road), the next significant stop for the three was at Thessalonica, capital of the province of Macedonia. Here the familiar pattern is mostly followed: speaking at the synagogue, proclaiming that the ancient prophecies are fulfilled by the risen Christ, establishing a new community comprised of God-fearers and some Jews, and then being run out of town, this time by a professional mob that the Jews had recruited from the market place.

However, there are some variations. This time the message, while appealing, as always, to the common classes, was also received by prominent woman, but not their husbands—who presumably were local leaders of the community.

Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women. (Acts 17:4)

Also, a new friend of Paul’s had to put up a monetary guarantee that Paul would not return and cause more commotion:

Then they made Jason [who was housing the missionaries] and the others post bond and let them [Paul and Silas] go. (Acts 17:9)

Although the community they established thrived, it is likely that the husbands of the prominent woman converts denigrated Paul and Silas—perhaps by asking what type of men would stir up trouble only to run away at the first sign of personal risk. This sense that their characters had been assaulted was evident in the letter that Paul wrote to the community at Thessalonica shortly after leaving.

¹You know, brothers, that our visit to you was not a failure. ²We had previously suffered and been insulted in Philippi, as you know, but with the help of our God we dared to tell you his gospel in spite of strong opposition. (1 Thess. 2:1-2)

Paul wanted to return to set the record straight and face his detractors. However, his hands were tied, for in doing so he would cause Jason to lose the bond he had paid to ensure that Paul would stay away. Paul saw his dilemma as being of sinister origin.

¹⁷But, brothers, when we were torn away from you for a short time (in person, not in thought), out of our intense longing we made every effort to see you. ¹⁸For we wanted to come to you--certainly I, Paul, did, again and again--but Satan stopped us. (1 Thess. 2:17-18)

From Thessalonica the three headed south to Berea. There they enjoyed one of their easiest stops in the sense that they were warmly received at the synagogue by the Berean Jews and God-Fearers, who were “nobler” than the Thessalonians and famously studious when it came to the scriptures. Here, for the first time, they might have taught in peace. No, it wasn’t to be. Once again a posse of angry Jews rolled into town, this time from Thessalonica. With Timothy and Silas staying behind in Berea, the brothers escorted Paul to Athens. Paul sent word for Timothy and Silas to join him as soon as possible.

Paul at Athens

Athens’s glory days were behind her, but she was still regarded as a center of thinking and culture. As in the days of Pericles and Demosthenes, the Athenians gathered at the Agora (marketplace) to engage in public debate.

Paul, brought up with respect for the second commandment, was disgusted by this city full of idols.

At the Agora, Paul debated with followers of at least two of the great schools of philosophy that were flourishing, the Epicureans and the Stoics. The Epicureans were borderline ascetic, championing life’s “simpler” pleasures and tranquility and freedom from fear through knowledge, friendship, and temperate living. The Epicureans are the presages of the scientific classes, and they denounced superstition and divine intervention and the afterlife. The Stoics were like Star Trek’s Mr. Spock: free of the passions of love, hate, fear, pain, and pleasure. Some translations use the word “babbler” to depict how these philosophers described Paul and his arguments, but the actual word was Athenian slang: spermologos, which was used for a sort of pseudo-intellectual charlatan who retailed scraps of learning that he picked up during his travels.

Actually, Athens was a pseudo-intellectual paradise:

(All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.) (Acts 17:21)

The two predominant terms in Paul’s discourse, Jesus and Anastasis (resurrection) were interpreted by the listeners as something along the lines of “healing” and “restoring”, and so they thought that these were two new deities (foreign gods) that Paul was commending for their worship, and so they ridiculed him.

But Paul’s teaching did intrigue enough of his listeners that he was invited to the Aeropagus. Once the city’s homicide court, by Roman times it was a sort of aristocratic court or council of religious and moral thought with control over public lectures.

For the text of Paul’s speech, he used an inscription he found on an altar in the city: Agnosto Theo, “To the unknown God.” Elsewhere it is written that once, during pestilence, the Athenians send for the Cretan wise man Epimenides (6^th century B.C), who advised them to release some sheep on a hill, and to offer sacrifices at the spot where the sheep rested. As a result, “anonymous altars” were found in the region as late as the third century A.D. It was one of these altars that Paul saw. To the assembly at the Aeropagus, Paul said “Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.” He continued, telling them of the God who revealed himself in creation, the God of whom all men are offspring. No race could claim superiority, as the Athenians did. This message would have appealed to some, for it describes God in much the same terms that Epimenides used in describing Zeus:

They carved a tomb for thee, O holy and high one!
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies!'
For thou dost not die, thou art ever alive and risen
For in thee we live and move and have our being.

Paul even quotes this quatrain in his letter to Titus:

Even one of their own prophets has said, "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons." (Titus 1:12)

The Cretans were “always liars” because they refused to retract their claim that Zeus’s tomb was on Crete.

After connecting with (at least some) of his audience with a description of God, Paul went on to a distinctly Christian message, saying that while God had overlooked their ignorance, that had now ended, for all men have been called to repent, and that God had assigned the day when all would be judged. The man through whom the judgment will occur has been appointed, and “He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.” Here, he alienated many of the philosophically oriented, for they viewed the body as a prison that, upon death, the soul was only too glad to cast aside. Immortality was acceptable (except for the Epicureans) but resurrection was utter nonsense. It was represented in their literature that the Greek god Apollo himself had said:

But when the earth has drunk up a man’s blood,
Once he is dead, there is no anastasis (resurrection)

The anastasis proclaimed by Paul was even more bizarre than they had thought—for it was the ultimate fate of all men. Some were polite and asked Paul to speak again, some scoffed at Paul’s strange views, but a few did believe, even a member of the court of the Aeropagus, Dionysius who it believed eventually became Bishop of Athens.

Paul had been in Athens for just a few days when Silas and Timothy arrived. Paul sent them back to Macedonia, for he was interested in how the churches he started were faring, and in particular he was concerned about the believers in Thessalonica.

As for Paul, he went on to Corinth where he met Aquila and Priscilla, recently arrived from Rome. When Silas and Timothy returned with a good report from Macedonia, Paul had his strongest team yet. Paul stayed in Corinth for a year and a half and built up a large community, which we discussed in Lesson 2.

“Diana” of the Ephesians

Since we have already discussed Paul’s work at Corinth, we will move on to Paul’s next stop: Ephesus. He arrived in the autumn of A.D. 52 and spent two and a half years there. To say that he left his mark on Asia Minor is an understatement. The Christianity established at Ephesus lasted until 1923 when the Greeks were expelled. While Paul spent most of this time in Ephesus, he sent his colleagues out to the cities of Asia. It is likely, for example, that the seven churches of Revelation were founded at this time. Also the “cold” church at Colossae and the “hot” church at Hierapolis (in addition to the lukewarm church at Laodicea.

It is likely that Christianity reached Ephesus ahead of Paul, but not under apostolic direction (for Paul had a policy of not building on another apostle’s foundation—rather Christianity arrived by “unofficial” word of mouth, not surprising considering the traffic that passed through Ephesus.

One evidence that Christianity had already arrived are encounters such as this:

Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples ²and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit." ³So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?" "John's baptism," they replied. ⁴Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." ⁵On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. ⁶When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. (Acts 19:1-6)

Paul’s work had an impact on a widespread practice in Ephesus: magic. So common was this practice, that the name used throughout the region for scrolls containing magic instruction was “Ephesian letters.” Luke gives us an interesting account of the fate of many of these scrolls:

¹⁸Many of those who believed now came and openly confessed their evil deeds. ¹⁹A number who had practiced sorcery brought their scrolls together and burned them publicly. When they calculated the value of the scrolls, the total came to fifty thousand drachmas. (Acts 19:18-19)

One interesting tidbit has been learned about the content of these scrolls: The ineffable name of the God of Israel was blasphemously employed in the most powerful of the magical spells. The arrival of a new name to invoke illegally is behind one of the more humorous accounts exorcism which took place in Ephesus:

¹³Some Jews who went around driving out evil spirits tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who were demon-possessed. They would say, "In the name of Jesus, whom Paul preaches, I command you to come out." ¹⁴Seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this. ¹⁵One day the evil spirit answered them, "Jesus I know, and I know about Paul, but who are you?" ¹⁶Then the man who had the evil spirit jumped on them and overpowered them all. He gave them such a beating that they ran out of the house naked and bleeding. (Acts 19:13-16)

If it had been a practice at the time, Luke would have used quotes in this passage, i.e., “Jewish chief priest”.

Mostly through his epistles, we can surmise that Paul faced many life threatening episodes while in Ephesus. Consider:

If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." (1 Cor. 15:32)

By the syntax used, many believe this does not refer to a literal occurrence where Paul faced actual lions, but a metaphorical reference to some other life-threatening danger that he faced. At another point, things were so bad that Paul despaired of life itself:

…about the hardships we suffered in the province of Asia. We were under great pressure, far beyond our ability to endure, so that we despaired even of life. ⁹Indeed, in our hearts we felt the sentence of death. But this happened that we might not rely on ourselves but on God, who raises the dead. ¹⁰He has delivered us from such a deadly peril, and he will deliver us. (2 Cor. 1:8-10)

However, of all these perils, the danger most linked with Paul’s stay in Ephesus is the riot of 55 A.D. started by the artisans who made their living supporting the widespread worship of Artemis of Ephesus.

The KJV and NKJV refer to her as Diana. The NIV and NASB refer to the goddess as Artemis. Sorry KJV only types: you are wrong in this case. Diana was the name of a Roman goddess whom they identified with the Greek goddess Artemis, and for some reason the KJV made the decision to use the Latin names of Roman counterparts when discussing Greek gods.

Artemis (who was not the Artemis of Greek mythology) was worshipped in Ephesus with a special veneration. An earlier temple had burned down. Its replacement was so magnificent as to be named one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. And the image of the goddess enshrined in her temple was not made by man, it fell from the heavens:

After quieting the crowd, the town clerk said, "Men of Ephesus, what man is there after all who does not know that the city of the Ephesians is guardian of the temple of the great Artemis and of the image which fell down from heaven? (Acts 19:35)

It was, evidently, a meteorite, and there are other instances in ancient times of meteorites becoming objects of worship.

The silversmiths of Ephesus drew the bulk of their income creating miniature Artemis shrines, some of which had survived. With the work of Paul, the supremacy of Artemis began to wane, as former devotees turned to the Way. This was bad for the shrine business. The guild held a meeting under the leadership of Demetrius, in a theater that later excavation revealed to boast of a capacity of 25,000. The demonstration was ostensibly for the goddess Artemis, in reality it was against those who did not worship her: Jews and Christians. The fact that the Jews were not responsible for their loss of business was too fine of a distinction, even though the Jews tried to disassociate themselves from the Christians. It took a clever town clerk, fearful that rioting would bring in the Roman army, to quite and disperse the mob.

This would not be the last time that Christianity was blamed for the hard times of a local business. For example, sixty years later in Bithynia (north-west Asia Minor) the business that catered to the sacrificial system (animals, fodder) would complain—because Christianity had reduced the need for commodities related to animal sacrifice.

And the end of his stay, Paul headed to Jerusalem. After that he had his dream trip on his mind: Spain and Rome.