16-1-4 Christ-Centredness in the Early Church
Why study the early church? I want to outline what, to me, is one of the most significant reasons- that it was Christ-centred. There is what could be termed the visible church, and the invisible church. The ‘visible’ church would refer to all those who call themselves Christians, attend churches, etc. The ‘invisible church’ I use as a term referring to the true body of Christ, that group of persons who are truly in Christ and share fellowship with Him. The two ‘churches’ aren’t the same. For argument’s sake, let’s suppose that, say, only 10% of today’s ‘visible church’ are in fact also in the true church, the invisible “body of Christ”. My point is that the percentage of the earliest church who were the invisible, true church of Christ was very much higher. Whatever the figures are, only God knows, but it’s my sense that, say, 95% of the very earliest church were in fact the invisible church. There were fewer passengers, very few who got baptized simply because it was the culturally acceptable thing to do, or because those around them were doing it, or because this was the tradition of their nation or family. The high level of persecution, the social and economic difficulty of accepting Christianity, the way it was so counter-cultural, so radical, such a leap of faith to believe in the resurrection, authority and present existence of the crucified Jesus… all these and other factors made the acceptance of Christianity in the 30s and 40s of the first century something which was only for the very committed. The very early church was therefore the church as Jesus intended, what He gave birth to through His death and resurrection. It’s apparent that the ‘church’ of today, what I’m calling ‘the visible church’, is far removed from that of the earliest church. Once we’ve factored out the inevitable issues of history, changed geographical and social environments etc, there still remains a huge gap between the earliest church and that of today. It’s this gap, and the components of it, which we need to analyze and strip away, if we are to come to understand and experience the indwelling of Christ as it was in the earliest church.
That earliest church was the continuation of the band of men who followed the Lord Jesus around Galilee. It was not an institution. It was a fellowship of persons, who between them comprised the person of Jesus, the body of Christ, and as such were His witness to this world. They were the witness, their transformed lives, their words spoken to other persons. Not their websites, their books, their tracts, their church outreach programmes- they were the witness. That group of persons experienced “the fellowship of Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1:9), “the fellowship of the Holy Spirit” (2 Cor. 13:13; Phil. 2:1). They had no “it” or “thing” in common; rather their bond was their common experience of and sharing in a person, Jesus. They were truly “brothers and sisters in Christ”. The body of Christ consisted of nothing apart from persons, each with a direct vertical link and relationship with Him, resulting in their special horizontal bond with each other. This is why it’s been observed that the true church of Christ “is unintelligible from a purely sociological viewpoint” (1)- for sociology looks at the horizontal bonding between people and groups, and has no understanding of a supernatural link between those persons and the Son of God in Heaven. This is why so many sociological and statistical analyses of the growth and behaviour of the body of Christ- e.g. why some areas respond more than others to the Gospel, why some churches grow and others fold- seem never to yield any firm pattern or conclusion. For the experience we have within the true church / body of Christ is a unique meeting of the horizontal bonds with our brethren and the vertical bonding with our Heavenly Lord. This as such defies human scientific analysis.
The Self-Revelation Of Jesus Through The Ecclesia
The definition of the church / ecclesia which I’ve suggested here impinges upon the question of where the early, illiterate believers drew their knowledge of Jesus from. For the level of their commitment to Him as a person seems somehow out of proportion to the relatively small amount of factual information which would’ve been conveyed to them in teaching sessions, public addresses and the like. I suggest the answer to this lies in the fact that the body of Christ, the ecclesia, is one form of the personal self-revelation of the person of the Lord Jesus. We don’t only and solely receive His self-revelation through accepting dogma or doctrine. It comes to us also through the way He mediates His personality to us, His self-revelation, through His body. His fullness is to be found in the church, His body- He fills “all [believers / members of the church] in all” (Eph. 1:22,23). I take this to mean that the fullness of His personal character, person, spirit, truth… is to be found in His body on earth, i.e. the community of believers. Each of them manifest a different aspect of Him. Thus “you may all [not just the elders] be prophets in turn [i.e. not just one ‘pastor’ doing all the teaching] so that all may get knowledge and comfort” (1 Cor. 14:31 BBE). This is the Biblical “unity of the spirit”- whereby the body of Jesus reveals Him consistently, as a unity, thus binding together all who share that same one spirit of Christ. This is the way to unity- not enforcing intellectual assent to dogmatic propositions. A few things come out of all this in practice. All this means that we should avoid making any distinction between ‘office bearers’ in a church and the ‘flock’ (2). We’re all in the new priesthood, all ministers (1 Pet. 2:5), all involved in the body building itself up in love, every member of the body has something to contribute to the growth of the rest (Eph. 4:16). All this is why the question of who or what is the body of Christ, what defines it, is so important. In the church of my youth, our perception of who the body of Christ is was limited to a few hundred elderly believers in South East England. When I disabused myself of that view, my experience of the Lord Jesus was so much deeper and richer- because I came to see the aspects of Him which were revealed in the members of a far larger and international community. But of course we can go too far, even as far as seeing ‘Christ’ in non-Christian religions, and thus giving us a wrong picture of who He actually is. It is where two or three are gathered together in His Name, that the Lord Jesus is somehow there in the midst of them (Mt. 18:20). Perhaps this means that He is especially manifested / revealed in the gathered together groups of believers, in a special and far different way to which an isolated believer reading a Bible may know the presence of Jesus. All this must especially be true of the breaking of bread- the only other time in the New Testament we meet the three Greek words translated “I am in the midst” is in Lk. 22:27, where the Lord comments how He is in the midst of the disciples at the first breaking of bread. Of course, mere church attendance doesn’t mean we perceive Christ there, in the midst of us; we perceive Him there insofar as we perceive the spirit of Christ in our brethren.
If the self-revelation of Jesus was solely through dogma, doctrine, the correct interpretation of the Bible etc, then we could merely sit at home alone with our Bibles. And sadly, that’s a growing trend. But that is Biblicism and not Christ-based Christianity. The largely illiterate first century ecclesia didn’t have that as an option; whereas in our super-literate age, reading the Bible on our laptops, it’s a strong temptation to be Biblicists rather than Christians. The Spirit of God is in the word of God, but the spirit and the word aren’t one and the same thing. “The Kingdom of God is not in word, but in power [spirit]” (1 Cor. 4:20). The Corinthians were converted “not [so much] through words of wisdom, but through the demonstration of the spirit” (1 Cor. 2:4). The essence of all this is the same today as it was then- the revelation of the person of Jesus isn’t solely through Bible reading and getting the interpretation right; it’s through a living community, His body. It is there that we will see His Spirit / personality in action. I don’t refer to miraculous gifts- but to the spirit / mind / disposition / essence of the Lord, man and saviour Jesus. And that’s why the saying is so true, that ‘the truth is caught not taught’- the community of believers, collectively and individually, propagates the faith and cause of Jesus by who they are, by their spirit, far more effectively than by the doctrines they teach. And yet there is a growing trend to follow the path of the Roman Catholic church- to replace live fellowship of persons by an institution, and to replace the faith which works by love by a cold creed. Offices, institutions etc. are of course far easier to manage, far safer for us to relate to; but their inevitable rigidity stands as a barrier to the live movement of the spirit of Christ within a community of persons. The spirit of Christ is an alive, active force, and it leads individuals to do their own thing. If, e.g., the spirit of Christ compels a sister to initiate a project to care for HIV victims, she must be allowed to go where she’s led…. whereas creeds, offices, control structures all combine to so often “quench the spirit”. The Biblical pattern of house churches is so much more able to be in tune with the Spirit’s movement than large institutionalized congregations. The apostasy of the early church was in my view largely connected with the way the ‘church’ came to be understood as an administrative institution. This has been taken to its ultimate term in Roman Catholic circles, but every Protestant group which teaches submission to an institution rather than to our personal conscience and experience of the Lord Jesus has in essence done the same. The Roman Catholics openly state that “the church of God is administered after the manner of the state”- no longer is it a live body of persons, but an institution. And all the talk of administering Protestant groups after the model of corporate businesses seems to me to be the same. The matter has gone to such an extent that my personal preference is to refer to the ‘church’ as the ‘ecclesia’- a body of persons, not an institution.
Notes
(1) Emil Brunner, The Misunderstanding Of The Church (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953) p. 12.
(2) This is why ‘offices’ in the ecclesia are roles filled by those spiritually qualified to fill them, i.e. filled with the appropriate aspect of the spirit of Christ in order to do the job; being voted into them, educated for them or seconded to them by some committee isn’t a relevant qualification. Paul reminded the Corinthians that submission should be shown to elders who have addicted themselves to serving others (1 Cor. 16:15,16)- i.e. submission arises out of our perception of an elders’ spirituality, not from his mere holding of an office. Sadly, Corinth didn’t stay with this advice. At the end of the first century, the first letter of Clement to Corinth ordered them to accept bishops as having a perpetual right to their office, and that the church must respect that right. And not so long after that, Cyprian was telling them that “whoever has the office receives the spiritual grace requisite for its fulfilment”- the very opposite of the idea of being spiritually qualified for a job in church! ‘We give you the job, and God will give you the spiritual qualifications for it’. That was how quickly the live, dynamic early church became institutionalized; that’s how strong is our desire for structure and offices, rather than the more risky way of allowing the spirit of Christ free course. The Biblical evidence is that Corinth was comprised of a group of house churches; and it was again Clement who ordered that the breaking of bread could be conducted only in one central place (1 Clement 40,41). He quenched the spirit, sought to institutionalize and contain the boundless function of the body of Christ.
The Origin Of The Gospel Message
Reading Luke and Acts through together, it becomes apparent that the author [Luke] saw the acts of the apostles as a continuation of those of the Lord Jesus. This is why he begins Acts by talking about his “former treatise” of all that Jesus had begun to do, implying that He had continued His doings through the doings of the apostles (cp. Heb. 2:3, Jesus “began” to speak the Gospel and we continue His work). The Acts record repeatedly describes the converts as “the multitude of the disciples” (2:6; 4:32; 5:14,16; 6:2,5; 12:1,4; 15:12,30; 17:4; 19:9; 21:22), using the same word to describe the “multitude of the disciples” who followed the Lord during His ministry (Lk. 5:6; 19:37). There is no doubt that Luke intends us to see all converts as essentially continuing the witness of those men who walked around Palestine with the Lord between AD30 and AD33, stumbling and struggling through all their misunderstandings and pettiness, the ease with which they were distracted from the essential…to be workers together with Him. Luke describes the Lord and His followers as ‘passing through’ and teaching as He went (Lk. 2:15; 4:30; 5:15; 8:22; 9:6; 11:24; 17:11; 19:1,4); and employs the same word to describe the preaching of the apostles in Acts (8:4,40; 9:32,38; 10:38; 11:19,22; 12:10; 13:6,14; 14:24; 15:3,41; 16:6; 17:23; 18:23,27; 19:1,21; 20:2,25). He uses the same word translated ‘preach’ in both Luke and the Acts [although the other Gospels use it only once]. In Luke we find the word in 1:19; 2:10; 3:18; 4:18,43; 7:22; 8:1; 9:6; 16:16; 20:1; and in Acts, in 5:42; 8:4,12,25,35,40; 10:36; 11:20; 13:32; 14:7,15,21; 15:35; 16:10; 17:18. Luke clearly saw the early ecclesia as preaching the same message as Jesus and the apostles; they continued what was essentially a shared witness. This means that we too are to see in the Lord and the 12 as they walked around Galilee the basis for our witness; we are continuing their work, with just the same message and range of responses to it. Lk. 24:47 concludes the Gospel with the command to go and preach remission of sins, continuing the work of the Lord Himself, who began His ministry with the proclamation of remission (Lk. 4:18 cp. 1:77). Acts stresses that the believers did just this; they preached remission of sins [s.w.] in Jesus’ Name, whose representatives they were: Acts 2:38; 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18.
Luke describes the “amazement” at the preaching and person of Jesus (Lk. 2:47,48; 4:36; 5:26; 8:56; 24:22), and then uses the same word to describe the “amazement” at the apostles (Acts 2:7,12; 8:13; 9:21; 10:45; 12:16). This is why the early brethren appropriated prophecies of Jesus personally to themselves as they witnessed to Him (Acts 4:24-30; 13:5,40). The same Greek words are also used in Luke and Acts about the work of Jesus and those of the apostles later; and also, the same original words are used concerning the deeds of the apostles in the ministry of Jesus, and their deeds in Acts. Thus an impression is given that the ecclesia’s witness after the resurrection was and is a continuation of the witness of the 12 men who walked around Galilee with Jesus. He didn’t come to start a formalised religion; as groups of believers grew, the Holy Spirit guided them to have systems of leadership and organization, but the essence is that we too are personally following the Lamb of God as He walked around Galilee, hearing His words, seeing His ways, and following afar off to Golgotha carrying His cross. Luke concludes by recording how the Lord reminded His men that they were “witnesses” (23:48); but throughout Acts, they repeatedly describe themselves as witnesses to Him (Acts 1:8,22; 2:32; 3:15; 5:32; 10:39,41; 13:31; 22:15,20; 26:16). This is quite some emphasis. This Christ-centredness should also fill our self-perception; that we are witnesses to the Lord out of our own personal experience of Him. They were witnesses that Christ is on God’s right hand, that He really is a Saviour and source of forgiveness (5:32); because they were self-evidently results of that forgiveness and that salvation. They couldn’t be ‘witnesses’ to those things in any legal, concrete way; for apart from them and their very beings, there was no literal evidence. They hadn’t been to Heaven and seen Him; they had no document that said they were forgiven. They were the witnesses in themselves. This even went to the extent of the Acts record saying that converts were both added to the ecclesia, and also added to Christ. He was His ecclesia; they were, and we are, His body in this world.
Preaching Christ
The early believers spoke constantly in their preaching of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ (Acts 2:21,23; 3:13-15; 5:30,31). The logical objection to their preaching a risen Jesus of Nazareth was: ‘But He’s dead! We saw His body! Where is He? Show Him to us!’. And their response, as ours, was to say: ‘I am the witness, so is my brother here, and my sister there. We are the witnesses that He is alive. If you see us, you see Him risen and living through us’. In this spirit, we beseech men in Christ’s stead. Paul in Galatians 2:20 echoes this idea: " I have been crucified with Christ: the life I now live is not my life, but the life which Christ lives in me”. The spirit of the risen Christ lived out in our lives is the witness of His resurrection. We are Him to this world. The cross too was something which shone out of their lives and words. They sought to convict men of their desperation, the urgency of their position before God, the compelling nature of the cross, that they were serious sinners; that a man cannot behold the cross and be unresponsive, but rather must appropriate that work and gift to himself through baptism. The urgent appeal for repentance was quite a feature of their witness (2:38; 5:31; 7:51; 11:18; 17:30; 18:18; 20:21; 26:20; Heb. 6:1). May I suggest there needs to be a greater stress on repentance in our preaching, 20 centuries later. This is why baptism was up front in their witness, for it is for the forgiveness of sins; thus in 22:16 they appealed for repentance and baptism in the same breath. And this was the implication of the Lord’s parabolic command to His preachers in Mt. 22:9: “Go ye therefore [cp. “go ye therefore and teach all nations”] unto the partings of the highways” (RV) and invite people to the wedding feast of the Kingdom. The point from which He foresaw us making our appeal was a fork in the road. We are to appeal to men and women with the message that there is no third road; that it truly is a case of believe or perish. There is no example of apologetics in their preaching, but rather an utter confidence that they were holding out to men the words that gave eternal life. Their words, lives and body language reflected their deep sense of the peril of those outside of Christ. By preaching, they were freed from the blood of men (20:26); evidently alluding to how the watchman must die if he didn’t warn the people of their impending fate (Ez. 3:18). In line with this, “necessity is laid upon me…woe is unto me if I preach not the Gospel” (1 Cor. 9:16). Paul felt an ineffable sorrow and personal responsibility for the unbelieving Jews, to the point that after the pattern of Moses he would fain have given his salvation for theirs (Rom. 9:1). This was quite something. And it would have been noticeable in the style of his witness, and such a level of love would surely have found response. This alone would have convinced the hearers of his genuineness. Paul had a debt to preach to all men (Rom. 1:14). But a debt implies he had been given something; and it was not from “all men”, but rather from Christ. Because the Lord gave us the riches of His self-sacrifice, we thereby are indebted to Him; and yet this debt has been transmuted into a debt to preach to all humanity. Reflection upon His cross should elicit in us too an upwelling of pure gratitude towards Him, a Christ-centredness, an awkwardness as we realise that this Man loved us more than we love Him...and yet within our sense of debt to Him, of ineffable, unpayable debt, of real debt, a debt infinite and never to be forgotten, we will have the basis for personal response to Him as a person, to a knowing of Him and a loving of Him, and a serving of Him in response. If we feel and know this, we cannot but preach the cross of Christ.
This is why those who heard the message wanted baptism immediately; they had been convicted by the preacher of a Christ-centred message, not just intellectually teased (Acts 8:36; 9:18). Lydia, the Philippian jailer, Paul, the Ethiopian eunuch, the crowds at Pentecost…were all baptized immediately. The Lord added daily to the church (2:27; 16:5)- they didn’t tell candidates for baptism to wait even until the next Sunday, let alone for a few months ‘to think it over’. They understood the first principle: baptism is essential for salvation. Believe or perish. They saw the absoluteness of the issues involved in the choice to accept or reject the Son of God. “Beware, therefore…” was their warning to their hearers (Acts 13:40). They made no apologies, they didn’t wrap up the message. They taught the need for repentance more than seeking to prove that they were right and others wrong (although there is a place for this in our witness in the right contexts). They made it clear that they were out to convert others, not engage in philosophical debate or the preaching of doubtful interpretations. They spoke with a boldness and freedom (Acts 2:29; 2 Cor. 3:12). They weren’t interested in giving good advice, but rather good news. They were pressed in their spirit, that they had to appeal to men (13:43; 18:13; 26:28; 28:23; Gal. 1:10). They persuaded men, convinced and confounded the Jews, reasoned, testified and exhorted, disputed and converted (8:25; 18:13,19,28; 2:40). In short, they so spake that multitudes believed (14:1). Paul was not against using persuasion; he didn’t just ‘preach the truth’ and leave it for others to decide. Agrippa commented: “With but a little [more] persuasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian. And Paul said, I would to God, that whether with little [persuasion] or with much, not only thou but also all that hear me this day, might become such as I am” (Acts 26:28,29 RV). Paul wasn’t against using persuasion to bring men unto his Lord, and neither should we be. He realized the methodology we use with people can affect their conversion. And he knew that personal contact was by far the best. “For this cause therefore did I intreat you to see AND to speak with me” (Acts 28:20 RV). He called men to have a personal meeting with him, rather than just to hear the theory. Not just to hear him, but to see him… for we are the essential witnesses.
The Implications Of Illiteracy
An Oral Culture
We need to reflect upon the implications of the fact that the vast majority of the early Christians were illiterate. Literacy levels in first century Palestine were only 10% at the highest estimate(1). Some estimate that the literacy level in the Roman empire was a maximum of 10%, and literacy levels in Palestine were at most 3%(2). Most of the literate people in Palestine would have been either the wealthy or the Jewish scribes. And yet it was to the poor that the Gospel was preached, and even in Corinth there were not many educated or “mighty” in this world within the ecclesia. Notice how the Lord said to the Pharisees: “Have you not read?” (Mk. 2:25; Mt. 12:5; 19:4), whilst He says to those who responded to Him: “You have heard” (Mt. 5:21,27,33). His followers were largely the illiterate.
It’s hard for us in this century to understand what it would have meant to live in a largely illiterate society. We inevitably assume that written text, be it printed or electronic, is the only way in which important things can be explained, or significant words recorded and shared with others. When we want to learn about what happened in the past, we think of what we can read about that time. But the early Christians lived in an oral culture rather than a literary one. News, theories, history, was passed on by orally recounting it within a group. Some are concerned that there must have been a gap between the actual words of Jesus as He spoke them, and the day they were written down. Our belief in Biblical inspiration means that this isn’t an issue for us; but it’s worth pointing out that several societies have had their folklore analyzed, and the accuracy of transmission of the stories is amazing, over centuries. Albert Lord made his life’s work a research into the folktales and sagas handed down in communities within the former Yugoslavia. He found amazing accuracy of transmission over centuries; very little was ‘lost’ in transmission(3). The same has been found in studies in Africa(4). And yet there was a gap of at the most 50 years [probably far less] between Jesus actually speaking His words and them being written down. So there is no reason to think that somehow the Gospel writers didn’t accurately have the record of the actual words of Jesus.
The Origin Of The Gospel Records
One point that all the referenced studies make is that the stories were passed on in a collective form- it was groups of people and communities who told and re-told the stories, and this was how the transmission was so accurate(5). We can imagine what happened in the first century. The groups of people who believed in Jesus told and re-told the Gospels. It’s likely that each of the Gospel writers wrote their records for a specific group of their converts, who had been telling and re-telling to others the record which under inspiration the writers ‘wrote up’. This is why each Gospel has its own themes and characteristics, based around the same authentic words of Jesus. Hence the Gospels were initially a body of tradition and later documents which were used not only for maintaining and clarifying the beliefs of the earliest ecclesias or groups, but as a vehicle for preaching that Gospel to others. We have mentioned studies in Europe and Africa, but most significant of all is the 30 years work of Kenneth Bailey in exploring the oral culture of village groups in the Middle East(6). He likewise found very little lost in transmission over centuries; but he draws attention to the vital importance of the haflat samar, the gathering of the village at the end of the day to re-tell stories and traditions, especially stories of what had happened in the village or to the villagers in the past. It seems likely that in the same kind of gatherings in first century Palestine, those who had believed in Jesus told and re-told the Gospel records. We can imagine that this would especially have happened in the villages where the Lord Jesus had taught and healed. This was how the earliest ecclesias would’ve developed, how the Gospel would first have been preached in a systematic way, and here surely is the beginnings of the Gospel records as we have them. Lk. 1:4 mentions that the history of Jesus was something in which a new convert was “instructed” or [Gk.] catechized, as if the Gospel record was learnt by repetition. Luke as a serious historian mentions his sources, describing them as "eyewitnesses and ministers of the word". The Greek hyperetes which translates "ministers" is the Greek form of the Hebrew hazzan. The word recurrs in Lk. 4:20, about the "minister of the synagogue". The task of the minister was to look after the scrolls- "the chest with the books was brought in to the synagogue when required from an adjoining room and brought back there afterwards" (7). Luke's idea is that instead of humping a bunch of scrolls around, the 'ministers' were the eyewitnesses who recited what they had heard of Jesus. But because they would die out, there was a need for people like Luke to compose documents which recorded their testimony.
As the ecclesial world developed, Paul wrote inspired letters to the ecclesias. Those letters would have been read to the brethren and sisters. Hence the great importance of ‘teachers’ in the early churches, those who could faithfully read and transmit to others what had been written.
All this has major implications for our church today. In that oral culture, there was obviously no written statement of faith. The average Christian heard and remembered what they heard. Some could probably quote a Gospel and maybe some letters of Paul from memory. But at the point of conversion their memory would have been limited. They heard a message and believed it. But it is highly unlikely that they would have been able to answer a detailed set of say 300 questions as some give candidates for baptism today, nor would they have had detailed grasp of an intricate ‘statement of faith’. Even today in the mission field, it’s evident that illiterate people have a far simpler understanding of doctrine than those who are literate. It’s very hard for people to enter into the mindset of the illiterate, like it’s so hard for sighted people to enter into the world-views and perceptions of the blind. One thing is clear. The understanding held by an illiterate first century Christian convert was likely far simpler, less detailed and more elastic than that held by many 21st century converts to Christ. And yet the basis of the Gospel, the basis of salvation and entry into the body of Christ by valid baptism, has of course not changed. The phenomena of widespread literacy has led us to have a more detailed and even more ‘correct’ understanding of many things than they would’ve had then; but we can’t insist that therefore there is now a far higher level of knowledge required for baptism than there was then. Many of the finer points of Biblical interpretation over which our community has divided simply wouldn’t have been points of division in the first century illiterate church. And they are our example, rather than us pretending that we are their example, and seeking to rewrite our perception of their history so that they had the same level of knowledge of the Gospel as ourselves. For a start, the ‘Gospel’ which they believed was the good news of the work, teaching, demands, story, death and resurrection of Jesus- the sort of thing we find in the Gospel records.
So we can imagine our brethren hearing the Gospels and Paul’s letters, and believing what they heard. But we have to ask whether illiterate people would have understood and interpreted that oral material in the same way or to the same detailed extent as we analyze and accept the written word. Christianity in its earliest form therefore was a question of recounting, meditating and reflecting upon the basic message of the Gospel records, the actions and teachings of Jesus. The New Testament letters were to communities formed around these very things (8); but sadly at our distance from the first century, our Christianity can so easily become about so many other things apart from the essence of the Gospels.
The emphasis in the New Testament upon teachers is understandable- their duty would have been to recite accurately the teachings of Jesus as they are recorded in what we now have as the Gospel records. And there was a Holy Spirit gift available to enable the apostles to remember what Jesus had said and done. All this further explains why the Gospel records are comprised of what have been termed ‘blocks of tradition’- parables and accounts of miracles are recounted [especially in Mark] in ‘blocks’. This would’ve had its origin in how the material was recounted by those telling the story in the first place. And we can imagine how it would’ve been recounted countless evenings in the villages of Palestine, where there were people present who’d actually known Jesus or met Him. The Gospel records, therefore, were initially transcripts of preaching material.
What It Means For Us Today
The idea that the Gospels are transcripts of the early preaching of the Gospel becomes more obvious when we start to probe how the Gospels would have originated. As accounts and rumours about Jesus and His teaching began to spread around, some would have been sceptical. Those who had met Jesus would have wished to persuade their neighbours and friends that really, what they had seen and heard was really so. People who had met Jesus would share their impressions together and reflect upon the striking things He had said and done. The beginnings of the Gospels were therefore rooted in preaching the good news about Jesus(9).
The Lord speaks of us abiding in His word (Jn. 8:31) and yet also of His word abiding in us, and us abiding in Him (Jn. 15:7). I suggest this refers in the first instance to the new Christian converts reciting over and over in their minds the Gospel accounts. In all situations they were to have the ‘word of Jesus’ hovering in their minds. To abide in Christ was and is to have His words abiding in us. Paul’s evident familiarity with the Lord’s words is an example of how one of our brethren lived this out in practice. We have to ask how frequently in the daily grind the words of the Master come to mind, how close they are to the surface in our subconscious… for this is the essence of Christianity. It’s not so much a question of consciously memorizing His words, but so loving Him that quite naturally His words are never far from our consciousness, and frequently come out in our thinking and words. No wonder it seems the early church made new converts memorize the Gospels. Perhaps 1 Jn. 2:24 has this in mind, when we read that what the John’s community of converts had heard from the beginning [i.e. the words of the Gospel of John?] was to abide in them, so that they in this manner would abide in Jesus. And perhaps too 1 Jn. 3:9 has similar reference- the seed of God [the Gospel- of John- which the converts had first heard] must abide in the convert, so that he or she doesn’t [continue in] sin. The continual meditation upon the Lord’s words as we have them in the Gospels will have the same effect upon us. This is the real way to overcome sin and to achieve genuine spiritual mindedness, to know the mind of Christ; in this way the Lord Jesus abides in us by His Spirit (1 Jn. 3:24). Abiding in the word of Christ, His words abiding in us, abiding in love, abiding in the Father and Son (1 Jn. 4:16) are all parallel ideas. Jesus Himself ‘quickens’ or breathes life into us (Jn. 5:21)- but His Spirit does this, in that His words ‘are spirit’ (Jn. 6:63). Again we see how His personal presence, His life and Spirit, are breathed into us through His words being in us. In the mundane monotony of daily life, doing essentially the same job, travelling to work the same route, the alarm clock going off the same time each morning… there can be breathed into us a unique new life through having His words ever abiding within us. And this ‘quickening’ in daily life now is the foretaste of the ‘quickening’ which we will literally experience at the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:22- ‘made alive’ is the same Greek word translated ‘quicken’ in Jn. 5:21; 6:63).
If we “keep” in mind the Lord’s words, we will never “see death” (Jn. 8:51)- death itself will be perceived differently by us, if our hearts are ever with Him who conquered death, and is the resurrection and the life. If our view of death itself, the unspoken deepest personal fear of all humanity, is different… we will be radically different from our fellows. ‘Abiding’ is a major theme in John. Several times he records how the Lord Jesus ‘abode’ in houses or areas during His ministry (Jn. 1:38,39; 2:12; 4:40; 7:9; 10:40; 11:6), culminating in the Lord’s words that He was still abiding with them, but would leave them soon (Jn. 14:25). And yet the repeated teaching of the Lord is that actually, He will permanently abide in the heart of whoever believes in Him. And all the stories of Him ‘abiding’ a night here or there prepare the way for this. Those hearts become like the humble homes of Palestine where He spent odd nights- the difference being that there is now a permanent quality to that ‘abiding’, “for ever”. This is how close and real the Lord can come to us, if His words truly abide in us. So why not try to learn at least part of a Gospel? (10). But above all, to let the word of Christ dwell in us richly, affecting our very core values and every aspect of human character, perception and sensitivity.
Notes
(1) A. Millard, Reading And Writing In The Time Of Jesus (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000) pp. 223-229.
(2) See C. Hezser, Jewish Literacy In Roman Palestine (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001); W.V. Harris, Ancient Literacy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989).
(3) His work is summarized in A.B. Lord, The Singer Of Tales (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978). Note especially in our context chapter 5.
(4) See R. Finnegan, Oral Literature In Africa (Oxford: Clarendon, 1970); I. Okpewho, African Oral Literature: Backgrounds, Character and Continuity (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1992).
(5) See M. Halbwachs, On Collective Memory (Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 1992).
(6) K.E. Bailey, Poet And Peasant: A Literary-Cultural Approach (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976). In another book, Bailey makes the significant point that "Although he wrote nothing, Akiba (first and second centuries) is quoted more than 270 times in the Mishnah alone"- K.E. Bailey, Jacob And The Prodigal (Downers Grove: IVP, 2003) p. 29. This shows how verbal statements were accurately recorded and later produced in written form. It's not therefore too much to believe that the words of Jesus of Nazareth were likewise recorded.
(7) S. Safrai, 'The Synagogue', in The Jewish People in the First Century (ed. M. Stern and S. Safrai), (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976) Vol. 2, p. 915.
(8) It's worth noting the evidence that the entire New Testament was written before AD70:
- If any of the Gospels were written after AD70, their total silence as to that cataclysmic event is strange. The synoptics all record a prophecy of the events of AD70, and yet there is no reference by any of them to its fulfilment; whereas the Gospel writers aren't slow to comment on the way the Lord's words came true. Mt. 24:20 speaks of those events as being in the future- "Pray that it may not be winter when you have to make your escape". Surely there'd have been some reference to the fulfilment of the Olivet prophecy, if the records were written after AD70? Jn. 5:2 speaks as if Jerusalem and the temple area were still standing when John was written: "Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool". The record of the Jews' proud comment in Jn. 2:20 that Herod's temple had taken 46 years to build includes no hint nor even presentiment that it had now been destroyed.
- Paul on any chronology died before AD70, so his letters were all before that. We need to marvel at the evident growth in spirituality and understanding which is reflected within Paul's letters, and realize that he grew very quickly.
- Hebrews speaks of the temple and sacrifice system in the present tense, as if it were still operating (note Heb. 10:2,11,18). The 40 years of Israel's disobedience in the wilderness are held up as a warning to an Israel approaching 40 years of disobedience after the death of Jesus (Heb. 3:7- 4:11). "You have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood" (Heb. 12:4) sounds like Nero's persecution hadn't started.
- The letters of Peter warn that a huge calamity is to come upon the Jewish churches, couched in terms of the Olivet prophecy. Thus they were written before AD70. 2 Peter also speaks as if Paul is still alive at the time.
- Acts stops at the point where Paul is living in his own house in Rome quite comfortably, and spreading the Gospel (Acts 28:30). And yet we know from 2 Tim. 4 that ultimately he died in Rome, presumably after being released and doing more work for the Lord. The obvious conclusion is that Acts was written before Paul died. Acts also implies that Jews were living at peace with Rome (Acts 24:2; 25:1-5; 15:13- 26:32)- a situation which didn't apply after AD70.
- This leaves James, which is widely regarded as the earliest letter- the Christians are still meeting in a synagogue, there is no reference to any division or false teaching, and there are many allusions to Stephen's speech and martyrdom. A good case can be made that James was written as a follow up to the Council of Jerusalem- there are some marked similarities [James 1:1 = Acts 15:34; James 2:5 = Acts 15:13; James 2:7 = Acts 15:17; James 1:27 = Acts 15:29].
- A pre-AD70 date for Revelation has been well argued by J.A.T.Robinson, H.A.Whittaker and Paul Wyns. John would've been pretty old if it was indeed given in AD96 as claimed by some. The many connections between Revelation and the Olivet prophecy and 2 Peter 3 all suggest that it too is a prophecy of AD70. The historical connections are too great to ignore, and seem of little value if the book is simply alluding at a later date to what happened in AD70. Rev. 17:10 speaks of the leadership of the Roman empire, speaking of “five that are fallen”- clearly referring to:
1. Julius Caesar the first Roman Emperor (44 BC-26 BC).
2. Augustus (27 BC – AD 14).
3. Tiberius (AD 14 – 37).
4. Gaius (AD 37 – 41).
5. Claudius (AD 41 – 51)
The leader who "is" would therefore refer to Nero (AD54-68), and the context of persecution would then be that of his reign.
(9) This point is well developed in Gerd Theissen, The Shadow of the Galilean: The Quest of the Historical Jesus in Narrative Form (London: SCM, 1987).
(10) See Memorizing Scripture.
'Dr. Thomas once remarked that the elementary truths regarding redemption were few and simple and no reason could be given for them beyond “the fact that God wills them”. If a candidate for baptism revealed a sound knowledge of these simple truths and of this simple explanation of them, we should not dare to “forbid water”.'
Islip Collyer, Principles And Proverbs
